There’s been some debate back and forth on several atheists blogs recently* about whether or not atheists should have rites, rituals, and chaplains. The argument for it, led by the likes of Harvard Humanist Chaplain Greg Epstein and Hemant Mehta, is that some people need structure, ritual, and designated leaders so there’s no problem with atheist/humanist communities adopting some possibly good things from religion. The argument against, led by the likes of PZ Myers, is that atheists do not need priests and the mere thought of adding a special class of people to the community is wrong. Please note that this is a separate debate than whether or not there should be humanist chaplains in the Military.
My biggest objection to the whole debate is that it’s too late. The amount of clout and privilege that a special class of atheists, the bloggers, authors, and professional activists who are the stock names to speak at conferences have is already a defacto atheist clergy. It’s a lose arrangement, but it’s a clergy-like arrangement nonetheless. If you’re on the approved list for CFI or the SSA then you very well may get lots of invitations to speak at conferences, campuses, local groups, and podcasts, if your not then you’re far more likely to just be one in the audience.
If PZ Myers, Hemant Mehta, Rebecca Watson, or Jen McCreight, for example, say something on a blog or at a conference then odds are pretty good that they will all be talking about it and so will a lot of other people. If one of the commoners says something, then few will notice. You’ll also see blog posts from one of them (more than just the four examples) talking about an upcoming conference that “everyone” will be at, when everyone refers to everyone they share the stage with at every conference.
The early Adventist church was also anti-organization. However, they still had “leading ministers” who had the power to ordain and certify traveling preachers and if you had that sign off you’d have a place to speak every weekend, but without it you were just another regular member in the congregation. If anything, the atheist movement is already more organized than that.
What separates the clergy from the laity is not necessarily one group being paid while the other group pays their salary, it’s that one group has clout and a large audience while the other group is the audience. The more those groups become distinctive, the more established of a clergy you have. The “clergy” can argue semantics all they want, but they at least shouldn’t be blind to what they already are.
***EDIT- I do want to make it clear that these people have earned their audiences, have valuable things to say, and are often quite entertaining and thought provoking.***
*The debate was going on all week but I was too busy to notice.