Start with a fundamental lack of understanding that many of the same services on which one relies are paid for by the same taxes one hates having to pay. Add a deep but highly selective mistrust for government (i.e., it really only applies to Democratic officials). Toss in a pinch of racism and a sprinkle of serious delusion (e.g., birthers, deathers, czarists, etc.). Heat to a rolling boil over the fires of misinformation and extremist propaganda provided by Fox "News" and right-wing talk radio. Now add several measures of Christian extremism. Congratulations, you have cooked up a tasty Bachmann protest that would make Sarah Palin proud!
As atheists in the U.S. watch this debacle, one of the primary sources of intrigue is the role which Christian extremism is taking. If a recent article in The New Republic is to be believed, it is an expanding role.Well, this time, the Tea Partiers brought their Bibles with them. “It’s a bailout for the abortion industry!” one speaker on the steps of the Capitol cried. And before Bachmann took the stage, a preacher from Maryland led an opening prayer that praised the Almighty for “the torch of liberty lit in this land,” followed by a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. “One nation, UNDER GOD, indivisible…” the protesters chanted, yelling out the phrase that deserved special emphasis.
This is precisely the sort of observation of which atheists should sit up and take note. If you are like me, you are growing somewhat weary of the whole anti-health care spectacle. It is stressful to be reminded day after day that one is surrounded on all sides by idiots. One needs to turn off the news every so often and escape. And yet, if this article is correct, we may be seeing the early stages of something that should be cause for great concern.
As Christian extremists, led by those opposed to reproductive rights, enter the already volatile mix, we are forced to wonder how much worse things may get before they begin to improve. In the last week, I have found myself starting to ponder what I believe may soon become inevitable questions. What happens if the U.S. continues to become increasingly divided along political lines? Is there a point of no return beyond which there will be no clear way forward?
Subscribe to Atheist Revolution
Tags: Bachmann, Palin, Christian extremism
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Teabagging for Jesus
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
When Tolerance is Not Viable
When I encounter a parent telling her children about Santa Claus, I may find it unfortunate that someone would lie to one's own child merely for entertainment purposes. However, I feel little need to say anything. The potential for harm here seems trivially small. I cannot say the same for the Muslim parent instructing his son in the virtues of martyrdom or the Christian who tells her daughter that her Jewish friends will go to hell because they have not been "saved."
These beliefs (i.e., those that are both false and have a reasonably high potential to cause harm) must not be tolerated. No, they must be challenged, criticized, and eventually modified.
Subscribe to Atheist RevolutionTuesday, November 17, 2009
"Support Our Troops" vs. Homeless Veterans
Technorati Tags: military, war, Gulf War, 9/11, Afghanistan, veterans
I am not a pacifist any more, but I do find the U.S. to be unacceptably pro-war. Although I did not support the first Gulf War, I did understand the need to intervene in order to help an ally (i.e., Kuwait). My primary objection to that war was that I found myself doubting that we would have been so quick to help an ally without oil. But I could at least swallow the concept of helping an ally who had been invaded. Similarly, I understood the need to go into Afghanistan following 9/11. This seemed like defensible move, even if it is not clear to me why we are still there and now appear to be on the verge of committing even more troops.
The second invasion of Iraq was absolutely unjustified, and never should have been permitted. As much as I detest W, I place the majority of the blame for this war on the shoulders of Congressional Democrats. They had multiple opportunities to stop it, including those that came well after they knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, and yet they lacked the political will. They let our country down in a massive way and deserve to lose their offices as a result. This does not mean that I hold W blameless, only that I do not accept the Democratic claims that this was solely his war. Besides, we are still there.
When I was in college, I had great difficulty understanding why some of my friends had joined the military to go fight a war in which they did not believe. Again and again, I wondered if the real power to change U.S. foreign policy rest with those who were considering joining the military. If they just said "no," there would not be enough troops to fight unnecessary wars. Bring back the draft and see how long it would take the flag-waving morons who mindlessly chant "USA USA" at every sporting event to change their tunes.
Perhaps this was naive of me. I felt like the cost of war was being hidden and that the majority of the population was so disconnected from the true cost that supporting a war became little different from supporting a sports team. Win or lose, it doesn't really affect them. Meanwhile, the military families must bear the burden with precious little assistance. It doesn't seem fair at all.
I am well aware that criticizing those who make the decision to send our young men and women into combat inevitably brings accusations of failing to "support our troops." These same accusations should be flipped and applied to those who refuse to fund the Veterans Administration, those who deny the existence of atheists in the military, and who object to providing those who served their country with the best possible care.
There should be no homeless veterans in the U.S. One is too many. If even a tiny proportion of those who affix "support our troops" stickers to their vehicles and feel self-righteous about doing so would contribute some money, to provide shelter to those they claim to support so much, this problem would evaporate before our eyes.
Subscribe to Atheist Revolution
Monday, November 16, 2009
Atheists Face Discrimination in the U.S.
Atheists are one of the most despised minorities in the U.S., and anti-atheist bigotry is both widespread and socially acceptable in many areas. When we consider the fact that many religious believers have convinced themselves that our refusal to share their beliefs makes us inherently immoral, it is not surprising that they condemn us. Some go so far as to claim that we are less than fully human, reducing the prohibitions against inflicting harm on us that might normally be in place.
One response I have routinely encountered from Christians, and even a few atheists, is that negative attitudes aside, atheists are not actually discriminated against. Ah denial, is there nothing you can't do?
What is Discrimination?
Discrimination is not the same thing as being treated unfairly. In the legal context in which discrimination is most relevant, it can be defined broadly as unequal treatment for a reason other than ability or legal rights. More precise definitions and tests of discrimination are dependent on the context. Thus, employment discrimination may work a bit differently than discrimination involving educational opportunity. Still, we can abstract some general principles from U.S. law. Federal (and state) laws prohibit discrimination in areas such as employment, housing, voting rights, educational opportunity, and civil rights on the basis of race, age, sex, nationality, disability, and religion.
Both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion and the other factors noted above. That is, it is unlawful to discriminate against someone (i.e., to treat them unequally in certain specified matters) on the basis of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof).
Examples of Discrimination Against Atheists
What follows is by no means intended to be an exhaustive list. I intend only to provide a handful of notable examples which can be used to educate those arguing that there atheists in the U.S. do not face any sort of discrimination on the basis of their atheism.
A survey of atheist and other freethought groups completed by Margaret Downey in 2000 reveled that the overwhelming majority of instances of discrimination against atheists are never reported. Why? According to Downey,
...the fear of suffering further discrimination as a “whistleblower” was widespread. Some victims told me that they did not want to go public lest still more hatred come their way. This is the trauma of discrimination, just the sort of intimidation that discourages discrimination reports and makes it difficult to find plaintiffs for needed litigation.
We can all find examples of discrimination against atheists on their basis of their lack of god-belief. We should also be able to understand why there are not many more examples in the public record.
For more on this important topic, see:
Subscribe to Atheist Revolution
Sunday, November 15, 2009
What I Like Most About Christmas
Technorati Tags:
I know we're still in November at Thanksgiving hasn't even happened yet, but that has not stopped Christian extremist groups such as the American Family Association from whining about the "war on Christmas." It seems that this has been such a great source of fundraising for the far right that it has become an annual tradition. Well, it also happens to be what I like most about Christmas.
You and I both know that there is no war on Christmas. This is nothing more than a marketing ploy. But you know what? It is also a showcase for Christian extremist idiocy, and I happen to find it quite entertaining. Why? Because one does not have to venture far into the manufactured controversy before discovering that the "war on Christmas" shines a very bright light on the subject of Christian privilege.
Take the recent example of Gap, Inc., effectively described by Zack Ford Blogs. The company, which owns the Gap, Old Navy, and Banana Republic, has decided to promote inclusivity this holiday. As a result, they are now being boycotted by the American Family Association (AFA).
The AFA's core objection is quite simple - Christmas should be exclusively about their particular gods and nobody else's. It should be their holiday and nobody else's. What they are trying to do here is maintain Christian privilege.
As Zack Ford notes,All these arguments about Christian symbols are about inclusivity. It’s not about attacking Christianity; it’s about deprivileging Christianity—in other words, taking it down from its pedestal and making sure it doesn’t have an unfair dominance over our culture.
That is exactly it. Companies that seek to be inclusive are accused of attacking Christianity because their efforts do undermine Christian privilege. Subscribe to Atheist Revolution
Christmas, Christian extremist, Christian privilege, American Family Association
