I am a little more than two weeks into the Idiot of the Week series here at Atheist Revolution, and I have a couple of quick observations to share. You may recall that the idea behind this simple series is for me to feature an idiot of the week each Saturday. I am happy to report that the series seems to be quite popular so far and that I am looking forward to continuing it. Here are just a few quick observations about reactions to the series:
First, there has been quite a bit of disagreement expressed over my first two selections: Joe the Plumber and Carrie Prejean (Miss California). This tells me that readers are having the same experience I am in finding that this is a crowded field and it is extremely difficult to pick just one idiot. I know I won't please everybody, and I am determined not to do the lazy thing and just make Michele Bachmann the permanent winner. In the future, I may experiment with ways to solicit reader input through Twitter or even a poll.
Second, some of those commenting are taking this series way too seriously. This is supposed to be fun, so have fun with it. I've been accused of "demonizing" the winners. All I'm doing is providing a showcase for their idiocy. They've done the hard work themselves. Others seem to want to debate whether a winner's level of idiocy is really sufficient for such recognition. Debate away, but remember that this is all in fun.
Finally, the comment threads for the first two posts have been outstanding. I've really enjoyed readers' thoughts on the first two winners. They've made me laugh, they've made me think. Much appreciated, so keep it up.
Evidently taking a break from idiocy during an interview on al Arabiya following the Abu Ghraib scandal, W had the following to say:
It's important for people to understand that in a democracy, there will be a full investigation. In other words, we want to know the truth. In our country, when there's an allegation of abuse ... there will be a full investigation, and justice will be delivered. ... It's very important for people and your listeners to understand that in our country, when an issue is brought to our attention on this magnitude, we act.
Too much time is being wasted in the debate over torture on the question of efficacy. The question of whether torture works (i.e., whether it produces reliable and accurate intelligence information) has been definitively answered: Torture does NOT work. We know this from former FBI interrogators, national security officials, military personnel, CIA operatives, and from history itself. This is no longer a valid point of contention and it merely obscures where the real debate must take place. Once we set aside the issue of torture's efficacy in obtaining the sort of intelligence on which we can rely, we need to debate the the application of torture for other purposes. That is, should the U.S. be permitted to use torture to punish enemy combatants or elicit false but politically useful statements?
Don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting that such questions are worthy of debate, only that they are they are relevant questions which have received little debate thus far. We now know that torture methods were authorized by the Bush administration. This is not in dispute. We now know that clearly illegal tactics were approved and applied. We also know that such methods were used, at least in part, with the goal of linking al-Qaeda and Iraq despite the fact that the intelligence community had already concluded that there was no such link.
It seems to me that this is where the current debate must take place. Is it acceptable for the U.S. to use torture for political purposes? I suspect there are few outside Washington who would seriously argue in favor of such an application.
How about simple punishment and/or revenge? Like it or not, this one is more controversial. There are people right here in America who support the death penalty, knowing full well that is has no general deterrent effect. I have heard plenty of my fellow Americans, including some atheists, say that anyone involved in 9/11 should be tortured using the most brutal methods imaginable. Perhaps this is where the debate needs to occur.
Christian extremists in the United States feel threatened by the gradual progress the GLBT community has made toward gaining equal rights. I am confident that some do indeed feel threatened by gay marriage (or even the existence of GLBT individuals), but I suspect that most are motivated by a fear of tolerance and what it might do to the intolerant beliefs they have embraced. In a way, the extremists are probably right to be worried about tolerance. After all, denying them the right to discriminate and increasing the social penalties for outright bigotry does unfortunately limit their religious freedom. The thing is, they have dug this hole by accepting a set of religious beliefs which include hatred and intolerance as central tenets (i.e., their particular brand of fundamentalist Christianity).
Many in the atheist community have been fascinated by the sight of Christians whining that they are being persecuted against by being prohibited from discriminating against others. I suspect that we are joined by at least a few progressive Christians in wondering what bigotry, hatred, and intolerance have to do with the message for which Jesus is often credited with spreading. And yet, I see so few progressive Christians speaking out that I must be cautious about overestimating their numbers.
By making anti-gay sentiment one of the central aspects of their worldview, Christian extremists have all but ensured that they will indeed lose some measure of religious freedom. To the degree that practicing their religion is synonymous with gay bashing, it should (and will) be limited.
Imagine that a growing number of public schools decide that GLBT children should be able to count on having a safe learning environment in which they will not be subject to regular bullying on the basis of their sexual orientation. This will be actively opposed by Christian extremist forces because they recognize that hatred and intolerance are a central part of what they teach their children. The smarter ones will mask this in talk of schools "promoting the gay lifestyle," but those capable of being honest with themselves know that this is not what it is about. They want to be free to practice their religion of hate.
We saw (and continue to see in some areas) similar reactions from the Christian right in response to civil rights and feminism. I have little doubt that the quest for atheist equality will be met with precisely what we now see directed at the GLBT community. Perhaps it will be even stronger since the atheist movement is likely to be perceived as an even more direct threat.
In all fairness, I should point out that it can be argued that the weave of fundamentalist Christianity and extreme right-wing politics is at least as much of a political philosophy as it is a religion. This is not an argument I am ready to make just yet, but I think it is one we may hear. For now, I am content to let the Christian extremists to keep telling me that this is about their religion.
There was a great article about the atheist movement in Sunday's New York Times by Laurie Goodstein. It is definitely worth a read because it actually presents what atheists are doing without all the negative baggage we have come to expect from the media.
More than ever, America's atheists are linking up and speaking out...
Much anti-atheist bigotry is easy to spot, unmistakable for anything else. But what about the less obvious forms of bigotry we might not see at all? Secular Discrimination Report highlights the case of Clark Vinson, a Texas ex-Christian who recently lost a lucrative contract with a Texas school district because "a school official was disturbed after seeing a Darwin fish on his car." Mr. Vinson only learned of this when a friend who worked for the district told him about it. Without this friend, he never would have known what happened.
Blatant, in-your-face anti-atheist bigotry may not always be easy to oppose effectively, but it is certainly easy to spot. I suspect that the covert sort of bigotry, such as that experienced by Mr. Vinson, is both more common and more damaging than we realize.
Like it or not, we live in an era where it is anti-atheist bigotry is largely considered to be socially acceptable. In fact, many of those responsible for it refuse to acknowledge that it is bigotry at all. Thus, an important part of our task involves raising awareness about anti-atheist bigotry. Attitude change will come, but it will be a gradual process that begins with awareness.
It has been less than 48 hours since my grandmother died, and I know full well that this is not enough time to give me much perspective. I write this more in the hopes that it will be cathartic and that it may provide me with something to which I can later return when I have more perspective. Coming to terms with the death of a loved one is a gradual process, and one which I am merely beginning.
Our collective inability to deal with death in industrialized Western cultures is a central component in many psychological theories and is widely considered to be one of the factors maintaining the cultural importance of religious belief. We are so uncomfortable with the reality of our mortality that we resort to a variety of mental gymnastics to keep this reality at bay. These range from subtle psychological defenses to the actual conjuration of supernatural entities on which we impose human characteristics.
I have to say that I understand the appeal of telling myself that my grandmother is "in a better place" even though I know this is false. There is no better place unless one wants to argue that nonexistence is somehow superior to existence. But if I could somehow make myself believe this falsehood, I see how it might make me feel better, at least temporarily. Of course, so would a variety of substances that I no longer ingest, so that is a pretty weak case.
I also understand how my grandmother's strong Christian faith helped to comfort her, at least initially, as she came to terms with her impending death. Wait a second, you say, aren't such beliefs supposed to bring peace right up to the moment of death? Aren't we always hearing about atheists finding (only the Christian) god on their deathbeds? Sadly, my grandmother showed me that this is just another convenient fiction manufactured by Christians as a way of avoiding the reality of death.
You see, this devout Christian woman who had been "blessed" with good health and a sharp mind well into her 90s died slowly, gasping for air as her lungs gradually filled with fluid and her heart failed. Those with her as she died told me that she was conscience, terrified, and repeatedly called on her god to help her. This went on for more than a week. Evidently her god had better things to do.
My mother was there at the bedside to witness this torturous experience. It was what she wanted, but she was clearly traumatized by the experience. It was frustrating that the doctors would give my grandmother just enough morphine to make it possible for her to breathe but not enough to do anything about the pain. As ridiculous at it sounds, they were worried it might kill her. Remind me to eat a gun well before it gets to that point.
Contrary to what our culture insists, death is not a pretty experience. Only a tiny minority die peacefully in their sleep in familiar surroundings. I had hoped that my grandmother would be one, but her destiny lay with most of the rest of us: prolonged agony.
How then, can Christians praise a god who lets this happen to so many? It must be that the comfort of the "better place" delusion outweighs the reality of the suffering. But this is only a guess on my part. In truth, I have no idea how anyone could find such a god anything but worthy of contempt and disgust.
I'll tell you one thing - since the Christian god doesn't seem to give a damn about how much suffering we humans must endure, we had better figure out how to legalize assisted suicide and make it more accessible. Nobody deserves to go out this way, and they shouldn't have to.
During a speech in Turkey on April 6, 2009, President Obama said:
I've said before that one of the great strengths of the United States is, although as I mentioned we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.
Idiocy this astounding deserves attention, and attention it shall receive! Right here in the weekly Idiot of the Week series. Look for a new champion to be crowned each Saturday.
This week's idiot is Miss California, Carrie Prejean, who said the following when asked if she supported gay marriage during the 2009 Miss USA Pageant:
I think it's great Americans are able to choose one or the other, we live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody there, but that's how I was raised, and that's how I think it should be, between a man and a woman.
No offense, she says, but she'd just as soon deprive two consenting adults the right to marry. What Ms. Prejean and countless other Christians fail to realize is that just because one was raised to believe something does not make it right. This is bigotry, and bigotry is ugly.
I finally got around to watching Religulous last night. As most of my Twitter followers predicted when I told them I'd soon watch it, I really liked it. This is one of those films that I will probably buy, not because I plan to watch it over and over but because I want to loan it out to as many people as possible so they will see it.
As I see it, there are two primary audiences for this film, each of which will experience it in very different ways. First and most obvious, there is the atheist crowd. For them, this film contains precious little in the way of new ideas. There really wasn't anything in Maher's film that I hadn't encountered previously. For us, the film is simply funny, entertaining, and reinforcing of how we already feel about religion.
I have always liked Bill Maher, but I tend to prefer him in smaller doses than what I received in this film. Politically Incorrect was generally about right; this movie was a bit much Maher for my tastes. Still, this was a relatively minor quibble.
Another minor (at least for me) criticism concerns Maher's apparent ignorance of the meaning of atheism. He is obviously an atheist but cannot quite seem to embrace the label. It seemed a bit hypocritical when he called for nonbelievers to come out of the closet and voice their doubts when he has not yet been willing to apply the dreaded atheist label to himself.
Aside from these issues, the film was funny and certainly entertaining. Many of the religious individuals Maher interviewed were certainly more articulate than what he could have found. Thus, I did not find the often heard criticism that he simply selected morons to be a valid one. In fact, I thought he used a reasonably good cross-section of the religious. Sure, it was skewed for comedic effect, but it could have been so much more so.
Who exactly is the second audience to which I referred above? I'll describe them as moderately religious people with a sense of humor. It is difficult to imagine religious fundamentalists being willing to sit through this film. However, I think that religious moderates may enjoy much of it. More importantly, I think that this is an excellent film to provoke thought and discussion among mixed groups of atheists and religious moderates.
I expect that religious moderates would encounter quite a bit of new information in Maher's film that might lead them to ask some important questions, seek out additional information, and engage in discussion. In fact, I think that this might be the primary way in which Religulous succeeds. I really wish I could have watched this with my parents when they were here recently.
Maher is one of those comedians who has a real knack for taking on political issues and using humor to engage an audience, entertaining and provoking thought at the same time. I think he accomplishes this feat quite well in Religulous. The mockery may sting a bit initially, but the religious moderate who is willing to think about what Maher is actually saying may indeed find the experience worthwhile.
The United States must investigate officials in the Bush administration who tortured detainees for possible war crimes prosecution. This is our responsibility under federal and international law, and it is not one we can shirk without seriously damaging our moral standing. I am extremely disappointed with President Obama's reluctance to enforce the law on this matter, and as I said recently, it is time to turn up the pressure.
I would like to thank some of my favorite bloggers and other news sources for their continued calls for a special prosecutor. Here are some posts and articles I'd like to highlight:
If you have written anything recently on the importance of appointing a special prosecutor to investigate possible war crimes, please send me the link. I'll add it here or use it in an upcoming post.
I am compiling a list of resources to assist American citizens in demanding that the Obama administration appoint a special prosecutor to investigate war crimes by the Bush administration. Here is what I have found so far:
When my religious beliefs begin to interfere with my ability to perform the job I was hired to perform, I should be reassigned (if possible) or fired. I join Americans United for Separation of Church and State in calling on the Department of Health and Human Services to rescind regulations enacted under the Bush administration to grant health care workers the right to refuse to perform job functions which they claim violate their religious beliefs. Patient rights are more important than catering to absurd superstitions.
"This regulation was a parting gift from President Bush to the Religious Right, and it ought to be returned to sender," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "The last thing this country needs is more Religious Right meddling in our health care."
There are certainly non-White atheists, including a couple prominent ones such as Friendly Atheist and the Infidel Guy, but the modern day atheist movement seems very White to me. I am aware of the statistics showing that religiosity tends to be more common among African Americans than U.S. Whites, but I'm less clear about how other groups compare. I also wonder if such between-groups differences are large enough to explain the under-representation of racial and ethnic minorities in the atheist movement. If there are other relevant factors, what might they be? Any ideas?
This is mere speculation on my part, but I wonder if minority group members tend to view atheism as a less important part of their identity than do White atheists. For example, I wonder if more White atheists may place "atheist" ahead of "White" in prioritizing the various components of his or her identity whereas African American atheists are more likely to place "African American" ahead of "atheist." I suppose another way to say this would be to suggest that atheism would be a more salient source of bigotry for Whites than for non-Whites for whom race might be even more salient than atheism.
Any other theories, or is my observation about the under-representation of minorities in the atheist movement simply wrong?
Many atheist bloggers write under various pseudonyms, despite frequent criticism that doing so somehow makes us less helpful to the atheist movement. I have previously shared my reasons for doing this, and I suspect they are not all that different from others' reasons for doing the same. Of course, I also recognize that nothing we do online is really anonymous. If I thought that being publicly outed and linked to this blog would completely destroy my life, I would not write it at all. Let this story about a blogger being outed by a church be a lesson to us all - anonymity is illusory.
What makes this story disturbing to me is not so much that the blogger was outed but how and why he was outed. It seems that a previously anonymous blogger brought himself unwanted attention by daring to criticize Pastor Mac Brunson of the First Baptist Church in Jacksonville, FL. This prompted an investigation by a police detective who just so happened to be a member of the pastor's security detail. Outraged yet?
This raises at least a few questions for me:
Since when is criticizing someone grounds for a police investigation?
Does this mean that member of Jacksonville's police department (state) was also providing some sort of regular security service to a local pastor (church)?
Assuming that such an investigation was somehow deemed necessary (and lawful), what right did Detective Robert Hinson have to disclose the blogger's identity to the church?
According to The Florida Times-Union, Det. Hinson obtained a subpoena forcing Google to provide the blogger's identity. The complaint alleged that the blog in question, fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com, had "possible criminal overtones." Despite finding that the blogger had broken no laws, his identity was revealed to the church. They responded by banning him and his wife from the church.
My favorite parts of this odd tale are as follows:
Undersheriff Frank Mackesy said Hinson's role posed no conflict of interest because his duties include handling possible threats against the city's large religious institutions.
and
It was also proper for Hinson to provide First Baptist's leadership with Rich's identity despite finding no criminal evidence, Mackesy said, so it could take whatever internal action it felt necessary for its own safety.
I suppose the lesson here is that we should expect consequences from criticizing those who peddle superstition to the masses. So much for freedom of speech, eh?
They just left, allowing me return to the quiet monotony of my routine. So much missed action in the atheist blogosphere! All in all, I think I managed things fairly well and kept the frustration reasonably muted. I was right in predicting that I'd be asked about the D'Souza book. I'll fill you in on that later. Now I just want to tell you about something entirely unexpected that really made me smile.
Early in the week of my parents' visit, we stopped by a large bookstore because they were trying to find some good travel books that covered some of the area they would be seeing. Upon entering the store, we split up and each went to look for various things, meeting back up at the check-out line.
My dad walks over to me while my mom is paying for her books and out of earshot. He says (loudly enough for at least two nearby shoppers to hear), "I wanted to ask someone who works here why they don't put all the Christian books in the fiction section." I laughed out loud and didn't even mind the dirty looks from the woman in front of us. Way to go, dad!
Idiocy this astounding deserves attention, and attention it shall receive in a new Atheist Revolution series, Idiot of the Week. Look for a new champion to be crowned each Saturday.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you this week's idiot: Joe the (unlicensed) Plumber. Here is what Republican Party icon, Joe the (unlicensed) Plumber, had to say during a teabagging event in Lansing, Michigan on Wednesday:
Let me give you another extremist view, 'In God We Trust.' Say that too loud in some parts of America and you will be shot. It's terrible.
Yep, terrible. Where exactly might these parts of America be, Mr. the Plumber?
By this time, I trust you've heard about the latest torture memos authored by the Bush administration. They provide additional evidence that senior administration officials authorized torture. So far, Congressional Democrats have largely remained silent while President Obama continues to signal an unwillingness to hold anyone accountable for the war crimes committed by the previous administration. It is time to turn up the pressure and remind our leaders that inaction on such a serious matter is unacceptable.
I just signed the ACLU's petition calling for a special prosecutor to investigate the illegal torture of detainees. America's commitment to human rights is in question, and we need a thorough, nonpartisan criminal investigation.
This need not detract from Obama's focus on the economy. All he needs to do is appoint a nonpartisan special prosecutor and direct the prosecutor to investigate wrongdoing wherever it may lead. If a thorough investigation results in no criminal charges, so be it. But the investigation must take place. Enforcing the law should not be optional.
All teabagging jokes aside, I find the conservative anti-tax "tea party" protests to be absolutely fascinating. It occurs to me that any blog addressing irrational belief simply must comment on the dramatic ignorance driving these anything-but-grassroots protests. On the surface, the protests are about taxes. And yet, the protesters seem oblivious to the fact that their taxes have been cut. This raises the question about the real source of the protests and what is driving them.
On the subject of taxes, the facts are quite clear for anyone who cases about such trivialities as facts. The Obama administration is cutting taxes for at least 95% of Americans. If the protesters are unaware of this, the source of their confusion of obvious. The alternative is that they are fully aware of this fact and are protesting because they believe that people with more money than they will ever see should not pay taxes. With all the outrage we are seeing now over corporate greed and the botched bailouts, I find this alternative rather unlikely.
Perhaps the protesters have consumed so much misinformation by Fox "News" that they can no longer distinguish between propaganda and news. Or perhaps the protests really have little to do with taxes.
What then? There certainly seems to be an element of racism in the continued questions about Obama's citizenship. Some Americans remain convinced that Obama is Muslim, Arab, and/or not a U.S. citizen. Once again, right-wing media has been spinning these lies. However, the question remains why this is suddenly so attractive.
I suspect that the answer lies in lingering dissatisfaction from those who opposed Obama's election. Angered and disappointed, they seek solace in the one place which can be counted on to reinforce their beliefs: extreme right-wing media. The lies make them feel better, so much better that they soon stop caring about the truth of the information they receive. Does this remind you of anything?
And this brings us to teabagging. A bunch of angry and horribly misinformed conservatives are protesting Obama's election under the guise of a tax protest. Before we condemn them as sore losers, I'll simply offer the following: there are plenty of excellent reasons to protest some of Obama's early decisions; one does not need to manufacture false ones.
College feels like a long time ago (probably because it was), but I do not feel as out of touch as I might otherwise since I work on a university campus. One of the things I remember from my college days and see quite a bit of in my current workplace is Campus Crusade for Christ. The thing is, their tactics have changed quite a bit. As Friendly Atheist pointed out in a recent post, they are increasingly resorting to trickery and deception to promote their superstitious nonsense.
When I was in college, you could spot the Campus Crusaders a mile away. They used to wear these t-shirts depicting a bloody crucifixion of a certain mythical figure they desperately wanted to tell everyone about. I remember sitting behind one of them in class on more than one occasion and feeling queasy (although whatever I'd had to drink the night before probably had something to do with that).
They went out of their way to insult anyone who appeared to be having fun. There were a few in the hall of my dorm, and they were never content to keep to themselves. Instead, they would sit in their open door ways and ask intrusive questions about where I was going so late and wouldn't I rather play cards with them than go to a party, etc. I had no qualms about telling them to fuck off and keep that Jesus shit to themselves, but I never initiated the interactions.
From what Friendly Atheist reports and what I have seen in my workplace, the crusaders have changed their tactics a bit. I see the sort of random messages, web addresses, and the like all the time. The goal is quite clear - put out an ambiguous message to arouse curiosity and then spring the trap when people investigate. I suppose this tactic makes sense. After all, when one's message has become aversive to so many, trickery may be one's only option.
I just couldn't stand the thought of not doing any sort of Easter post, but I really didn't have time to write one since I am playing host to the family this week. What to do? I figured I'd dust off an Easter post from a previous year. What is it they used to say about reruns on TV? If you haven't read it, it is new to you! With that in mind, you'll find links to my last three Easter posts below. Happy dead Jesus hanging on a stick day! Happy zombie Jesus day! Hell, just have a good day.
Easter posts from the last three years (damn, have I really been at this that long?):
While I am somewhat bummed that I didn't have time to write an original post for this year, it really isn't a holiday that deserves much comment. Besides, something tells me that others in the atheist blogosphere will cover it thoroughly.
By the time you read this, my parents will have descended on my little atheist sanctuary for a visit. It will be good to see them (for at least a day or two of the week they will likely be here), but I do not expect to have much time for blogging. For the next few days, I may have to be content with Twitter updates. There is at least one interesting argument I am anticipating while they are here.
My mom sent me a copy of D'Souza's What's So Great About Christianity (not a damn thing) about a month ago. She knows I am an atheist but it convinced that it is just a phase I've been going through for the past 20 years that I will outgrow any day now. Denial sure is a powerful thing.
The last time they were here, my mom stared at my atheist bookshelf for an uncomfortable period of time until I asked her whether she wanted to borrow a book. You should remind me to post a picture of my atheist book collection one of these days. Anyway, I expect I'll be asked whether I've read the D'Souza book within a day or two. That should make for an interesting conversation.
Hey, here's an idea: while I'm occupied with trying to prevent my soul from being saved for the next few days or so, why don't you use the comments to share some of your experiences with your parents around the subject of religion? Could be fun.
Religion raises the stakes of human conflict much higher than tribalism, racism, or politics ever can, as it is the only form of in-group/out-group thinking that casts the differences between people in terms of eternal rewards and punishments.
I have not had the opportunity to see Religulous yet, but I hope to do so fairly soon. I did recently catch a documentary that I had missed when aired on HBO in 2007: Friends of God: A Road Trip with Alexandra Pelosi. It was indeed directed by Nancy Pelosi's daughter, but don't let that dissuade you from seeing it. Alexandra was far less annoying than her mother. I think this film is definitely worth seeing, and I'll provide a brief synopsis and review below for those who have not seen it yet.
Friends of God is both a road film and an intriguing documentary about America's evangelical Christians. Pelosi and her crew film their journey across the American bible belt and provide viewers with reasonably fair portrayal of evangelical Christians in this region. What sets this film apart from many others is that it allows evangelical Christians to discuss their beliefs without any sort of mockery or antagonism. In fact, Pelosi's stance through much of the film is that of a good reporter who genuinely wants to understand her subject matter.
The film does a commendable job of including both ordinary evangelical Americans and the famous ones often tasked with speaking for them. You'll see many of the current or former big dogs in the evangelical community, including Ron Luce (Battle Cry), Ken Ham, Jerry Falwell, and Ted Haggard. They explain what they believe and why. You'll also see how they work to mold their flocks of evangelical activists.
Comparisons with Jesus Camp are inevitable, but while there are admittedly similarities, Friends of God is not merely Jesus Camp light. I liken Jesus Camp to a kick in the nuts of the reality-based community. I feel sick just thinking about it. While it was an effective wake-up call that should be required viewing for every American, it was as much about shock than about education. As disturbing as Friends of God was (and it was indeed disturbing), I did not have the same visceral reaction. In fact, the tone was much more one of trying to understand the subject matter rather than using it for shock value. As such, it is probably a better film for the purpose of creating productive dialogue.
I was not previously familiar with Alexandra Pelosi, but it turns out that she is far from just someone with a famous mother who fell into this role. She started out covering politics in Washington, D.C. before serving as a network news producer for several years. She won an Emmy for her first film, Journeys with George (2000), and earned considerable praise from conservatives for her fair coverage of the 18 months she spent with George W. Bush during his campaign. In short, she was well suited for Friends of God and managed to pull it off exceptionally well.
Atheists and Christians alike agree that Islamic extremism is a repressive force that violates human rights and spawns an unacceptably dangerous sort of conflict in our modern world. Many atheists, especially those living in highly religious areas, recognize that Christian extremism (must-see video here) is also problematic. We find the image of rapture-ready Christians in positions of political power more than a little disconcerting. But there is another form of extremism, one often intertwined with but separable from Christian extremism, to which we have payed insufficient attention.
We can disagree about whether right-wing talk radio and certain Fox pundits are engaged in hate speech, but we must not lose sight of the fact that they represent a form of extremism. Millions of Americans tune in each day to the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, O'Reilly, Boortz, and their associates. In doing so, they are treated to Republican talking points and misinformation. But the problem is not merely one of well-orchestrated political propaganda; it is one of extremism.
I am not necessarily claiming that the assorted pundits are themselves extremists. I suspect that some are while others are simply opportunists. My concern is with their audience. We have seen too many disturbing examples of the effects of this sort of extremism at political rallies and in acts of domestic terrorism. We have witnessed the ease with which anyone who disagrees with them is accused of hating America. In short, we have seen the impact of hate media.
This sort of extremism presents a thorny problem because many of us would defend, at least up to a point, the right of these individuals to say what they say. One important question involves the precise location of the point at which free speech turns into the sort of hate speech that no longer warrants protection. Another question, and one which I see as even more important, involves what can be done about this sort of extremism other than censorship.
Remember, censorship involves governmental action to restrict free speech. That would be a mistake, even in this case. An alternative, which many people confuse with censorship, would be to make sure that the businesses buying ads on extremist TV and radio know what they are sponsoring and that their customers know too. I am not sure that this would be the best course of action either, but I am coming to believe that some sort of action will soon be necessary.
In the unlikely event that any avid consumers of right-wing extremism read this far, I would like to say a few words about your likely reaction: what about left-wing extremism. This label is probably used in reference to Olbermann and Maddow more than anyone else, and I will concede that both are more about liberal punditry, Democratic talking points, and biased opinion than news. The thing is, even at their most biased, Olbermann and Maddow rarely sound hateful. They are upset, frustrated, and even angry at times, but I can think of few examples where they crossed the line into hate, demonizing the opponent, or advocating violence. There is bias on the left, but there is also an important qualitative difference.
College student, Zac Smith, has written an excellent column in The Oklahoma Daily, the University of Oklahoma's student paper. The column, "Anti-atheist prejudice widespread in America," is an impressive step toward raising awareness among readers about what it is like to be an atheist in America today. I applaud Zac for having the courage to write this. I hope it will be widely read and inspire others.
I'd like to highlight a few excerpts that really caught my attention. Remember, this is a college student writing in his college paper under his real name.
The prevalence of this sort of stereotyping, particularly in highly conservative areas like Oklahoma, is unfortunate.
The reality is that an atheist is not someone who is morally rudderless, who wants to eradicate all religion, who is "angry at God," who worships Richard Dawkins or who is even certain of the nonexistence of a god.
Right. An atheist is someone who does not accept the theist's claim that god(s) exist. Nothing more. But the consciousness raising Zac does here is not limited to religious believers. There are plenty of atheists who would do well to heed his words too.
Nor am I incontrovertibly certain of the nonexistence of a god or gods. If evidence emerged suggesting the existence of a god, I would readily adjust the certainty of my atheism.
I have encountered nearly as many atheists who buy into this view of atheism as requiring absolute certainty that no god or gods exist as I have theists who hold this view. Both are mistaken. As Zac reminds us, we do not accept the theistic claim because there is insufficient evidence for doing so. If such evidence were to emerge, we would change our minds. That does not make us somehow agnostic; it makes us rational.
Zac also reminds his readers that atheists do not seek to ban religion. He mentions that he has never met one who would advocate a legal ban on religion, and I echo that experience here. It is not the existence of religion that bothers us.
However, it does bother me when unwarranted stereotyping is used as a justification for intolerance toward atheists.
It bothers me that coming out as an atheist would be suicide for politicians in most parts of the country.
It bothers me that my sister was mocked and harassed in high school for her own lack of belief.
It bothers me that, throughout America, people are being intimidated into silence about the very simple and unthreatening fact that they don't believe in a god.
This is precisely why increasing numbers of American atheists are beginning to "come out" and say enough is enough. We are tired of the anti-atheist bigotry, and more of us are willing to speak out against it. If this leads panicking theists to label us as hostile, then so be it. We should remember that other marginalized groups have been called this and worse when fighting for their civil rights.
Despite whatever shortcomings Obama may have, it is nice to have a president with some knowledge of history and recognition that he is tasked with representing all Americans and not just the Christian ones.
I was in a gun shop not too long ago looking to arm myself in preparation for the coming zombie apocalypse (better known as Easter). They didn't have what I was looking for, so I left empty-handed. Before doing so, however, I was treated to an earful by the guy helping me. When I commented that they didn't seem to have much of a selection, he quickly told me that their guns had been flying off the shelves since it first began to look like Obama might win the election. Not realizing what I was walking into, I stupidly asked him why he thought that was happening. He went on a rant that would have made Glenn Beck proud about how Obama was going to abolish the Second Amendment and make gun ownership a crime. He breathlessly told me that Mississippians were buying guns in record numbers while they still could. I left the store wondering whether racism had as much to do with this as fears about gun control.
Given that President Obama has shown absolutely no signs of pushing new gun control legislation, it seems odd that so many people would be convinced otherwise. Then I discovered that Glenn Beck, a Fox "News" blowhard who has made a career of sobbing like a certain Ohio Congressman with a ridiculous fake tan and a name that would make Beavis & Butthead giggle, had been pushing just such a load of crap. Americans with a tenuous grasp on reality who get take Fox punditry as news were being fooled.
Oh well, I told myself, at least gun sales would be good for the economy. And then a likely member of Beck's audience went berserk in Pittsburgh and killed three police officers. How many more of these events need to happen before we are at least willing to discuss the likely impact of right-wing hate in society?
This was a difficult post to write. I somewhat reluctantly supported Obama in the final stretch because it was clear to me that McCain simply was not a viable choice. In the end, I voted for Obama because I saw it as my best option for keeping McCain out of office. I still believe this was the right decision, but I join many other atheists and political progressives in having growing doubts about Obama. I desperately want him to succeed but am greatly troubled by what I have seen so far. In this post, I'd like to address my two main concerns I have with Obama. I suppose the good news is that it is not too late for him to do the right thing. Unfortunately, he has shown no indication of wanting to do so yet.
Elevated Role of Religion and Religious Discrimination
The initial concern many atheists had about Obama was based on his plans to expand Bush's faith-based initiatives. Although it turned out that some of the early warnings were exaggerated, two new concerns have since emerged.
First, Obama's version of the faith-based initiative gives taxpayer money to religious groups which engage in discriminatory hiring practices (e.g., refusing to hire qualified applicants because of their religious beliefs or lack thereof). I am not saying that religious groups should not be allowed to restrict their membership to persons of similar religious beliefs, but I am saying that those groups which do so should not be eligible to receive tax dollars. Fortunately, I am not alone. Most Americans oppose this sort of church-state violation, and many prominent newspapers have bashed Obama for this practice, including the Washington Post, New York Times, and Los Angeles Times. Funding such organizations violates one of Obama's campaign promises, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State suggests that we let Obama know that we are unhappy with this.
The second concern is not limited to faith-based initiatives but concerns the broader elevation of religion in Obama's administration, evidenced by the administration's practice of beginning nearly every presidential event with a prayer. According to U.S. News & World Report,
Though invocations have long been commonplace at presidential inaugurations and certain events like graduations or religious services at which presidents are guests, the practice of commissioning and vetting prayers for presidential rallies is unprecedented in modern history, according to religion and politics experts.
This is an unacceptable blurring of church and state. Not even Bush tried this, and we would have given him hell had he done so. It is similarly difficult to believe that religious people would welcome the precedent of Obama vetting prayers. Prayer had no place at a presidential inauguration, and it has no place at subsequent presidential events.
Refusal to Enforce the Rule of Law
While Obama's desire to become the "prayer president" and his willingness to break campaign promises to fund organizations which engage in discriminatory hiring practices bother me greatly, these concerns pale in comparison to his refusal to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate top Bush administration officials for war crimes. I believe that this may well be the central decision by which his administration will be judged by future generations.
I have written about this previously and will undoubtedly continue to do so until Obama does the right thing and directs his Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor. In this post, I would like to make two points I have not previously made on the subject.
First, I'd like you to remember the international goodwill that Bush had immediately following 9/11. He had strong international support and managed to squander it catastrophically by embracing "cowboy diplomacy" and invading a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. Obama now finds himself in a similar situation with regard to America's standing in the world. The international community is looking to him to see if he will do the right thing. They are looking to him to see how serious he is about change. And so far, he has signaled that his administration will do nothing to hold their predecessors accountable for war crimes. This sends a clear message.
Second, I believe that Obama's refusal to hold those who authorized torture in our name accountable for their crimes leaves him with absolutely zero moral authority. This is an extremely dangerous position for an American president, as was recently illustrated by events in North Korea. Following what appears to be a missile launch in North Korea this weekend, President Obama sharply condemned North Korea's actions. During a speech in Prague, Obama said,
Rules must be binding, violations must be punished, words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response.
Rules must be binding and violations punished, huh? I agree completely, Mr. President, but how can you reconcile that principled stance with your own refusal to hold anyone accountable for committing war crimes? You can't.
Until Obama's administration produces a special prosecutor and begins a thorough war crimes investigation, he has zero moral authority from which to issue such pronouncements. This leaves him, and those of us he claims to represent, in a dangerous situation. If his reluctance to prosecute war crimes is merely a political calculation, it is a terrible one.
Our friend Mojoey is hosting the 114th edition of Carnival of the Godless at Deep Thoughts today. Be sure to drop by for a visit and read atheistic contributions from all over the blogosphere. It looks like a good one.
Until recently, I have listed several freethought organizations on my left sidebar. I decided to move this list to its own page (this page) to reclaim sidebar space and give me more room to expand the list without the space constraints imposed by the sidebar. I'd also like to provide readers with more than a simple list by grouping the organizations in various ways and changing that grouping over time based on my familiarity and the degree to which I recommend them.
Conventional wisdom would suggest that there should be an inverse relationship between prosperity and religiosity (i.e., the more dire economic circumstances become, the greater the religiosity of the affected populace). To the degree that religion provides comfort, one would expect it to become more popular in those times where comfort is more likely to be needed. And yet, there has been little increase in religiosity in the U.S. during the last 15 months. Before we conclude that prosperity and religiosity have no relationship, there are a few more issues to consider.
True, there has not been a measurable increase in Americans' religiosity over the past 15 months, but it is difficult for something already so high to show much of an increase. This is what is often referred to as a ceiling effect. Essentially, the fact that American religiosity is already quite high makes it less likely that additional increases will occur. Imagine a sponge that is already quite wet. It probably isn't going to absorb much more water because it is already so saturated.
In addition, while it makes sense that church attendance (an extremely common measure of religiosity) might decline as people have less money to spend on transportation, the importance one attributes to religion or to one's god may be less susceptible to economic trends. Thus, the precise manner in which religiosity is measured is likely to be quite important.
Gallup notes,
It is not an unreasonable conjecture that the current recession would cause Americans to increasingly turn to religion as a surcease from their economic or personal sorrow. But that does not appear to be the case.
Perhaps Americans are finding comfort elsewhere. Of course, these data do not suggest any sort of decline in religiosity over the last 15 months either.
To the degree that it makes sense to view religious faith as delusional, one would expect precisely the results obtained by Gallup: religiosity is somewhat immune to reality. In times of prosperity, the religious will be religious. In times of distress, the religious will be religious. The self-maintaining nature of the belief system may come from the manner in which it is relatively impervious to reality.
I have considerably more patience with the task of explaining the meaning of atheism and correcting misconceptions with religious believers than I do with other atheists. I suppose that is because I expect those calling themselves atheists to know what the term means. Needless to say, such an expectation is an error on my part. There is a serious and common misconception about the meaning of atheism, held by theists and atheists alike. I recognize that the several posts I have previously written about this have not resolved the matter and that this one is unlikely to do so either. Thus, it probably won't be the last time I address this important topic.
Defining Atheism
In looking back over some of my previous posts on this subject, I daresay I said it fairly clearly the first time:
Simply put, atheism means the absence of theistic belief. That's it. It doesn't mean anything else. Atheism is not a religion, a philosophy, a worldview, or anything similar. It is not the conviction that there are no gods, ghosts, angels, etc. Rather, it is the absence of a belief that these things are real...Atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in a god or gods.
Reasons why people become become atheists are varied and are useful for understanding atheists. Some are more common than others, but they are not particularly relevant for understanding the meaning of atheism. Again, an atheist is simply someone who responds with anything other than "yes" to the question of whether he or she believes that god(s) exist.
Atheism comes from the Greek "a - theos," and since the "a" prefix means "without" or "the absence of," we must first make sure we understand theism. Theism refers to the belief that some sort of god or gods exist. A theist is one who accepts the theistic claim (i.e., some sort of god or gods exist). An atheist is one who does not accept the theistic claim. That is, atheism means "without theism" and refers to the absence or lack of theistic belief.
Now that we know what atheism is, it is time to examine what it is not. This brings us to the common misconception to which I previously referred.
What Atheism Is Not
Atheism does not require absolute certainty that god(s) do not or cannot exist. Some atheists may indeed claim such certainty. These individuals are sometimes described as "strong atheists." Nobody disputes the existence of such atheists. The point is that certainty is not a necessary condition of atheism. One who asserts that there "probably" is no god is still an atheist. In fact, one need not assert anything to be an atheist. One need only refuse to accept the theistic belief claim.
Why Should We Care?
Let us dispense with all the obvious reasons why accuracy is preferable to inaccuracy and why dictionaries are not necessarily above reproach. We can keep this brief: defining atheism accurately reduces epistemological confusion and reminds us where the burden of proof rests.
I am willing to cut theists, particularly evangelical Christians, considerable slack in misunderstanding atheism. I know all too well what they have been taught about atheism (and atheists) and why. To my atheist colleagues, this is where we should be expected to lead. Until we can accurately define ourselves, it is folly to expect anyone else to do the same.
I have written previously that I do not find distinctions like "strong atheist," "passive atheist," "agnostic atheist," and the like to be particularly useful. This needs clarification. I believe that such distinctions may eventually be meaningful as ways of describing within-group differences. However, I maintain that they are not useful at present because too much confusion remains over the meaning of atheism itself. Within-group distinctions are premature when the group itself is as fuzzy as we have allowed atheism to be.
As Sisyphus Fragment recently noted, one of the passages from the Christian bible which Christians are fond of quoting at atheists is Psalm 14:1-3. And no, my somewhat unusual use of the word "at" in the previous sentence was not an error. When on the receiving end of this quote, as I have been many times, it indeed feels as if it is being thrown in my face (probably because it is). I expect that it will be no different today. In this post, I'd like to remind you of one simple way to respond to this projectile quote.
As a brief reminder, this is what Psalm 14:1-3 says:
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one.
Most Christians who pitch this quote in your direction are content to use only the first sentence, essentially saying that atheists are fools. I have not encountered nearly as many who go the full distance and call us "corrupt," but I am confident that they are out there.
I absolutely love how Sisyphus Fragment phrases the following:
From Chuck Norris to the average Catholic blogging soccer mom, this little bible quote has been thrown around as though excreting scripture at atheists actually has a tangible metaphysical impact. While this is as effective as a witch doctor pricking a voodoo doll of me in the hopes that I will actually be pricked...
Since the Christian hurling such a quote in your direction likely believes that his or her bible is worth at least some attention, I suggest that you offer a quote of your own. Specifically, I'd refer to Matthew 5:22, which says,
Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Interesting, isn't it? The Christian who squeals with delight while tossing Psalm at you is risking the wrath of his or her god by doing so. That being the case, I think it is probably safe to conclude that such a Christian is either completely ignorant of his or her bible or - and this is where it gets fun - doesn't give a damn because the transient pleasure of insulting you is worth eternal punishment.
Subscribe to Atheist Revolution
Subscribe to the feed version of Atheist Revolution in a feed reader.
digg
reddit
del.icio.us
. It was indeed directed by Nancy Pelosi's daughter, but don't let that dissuade you from seeing it. Alexandra was far less annoying than her mother. I think this film is definitely worth seeing, and I'll provide a brief synopsis and review below for those who have not seen it yet.
are inevitable, but while there are admittedly similarities, Friends of God is not merely Jesus Camp light. I liken Jesus Camp to 
