April 7, 2009

Raising Awareness of Anti-Atheist Bigotry

Comments

Seal of the University of OklahomaImage via Wikipedia

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.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution


April 6, 2009

Obama Says U.S. Not a Christian Nation

Comments

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.



Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Glenn Beck's Idiocy Has Real Consequences

Comments

Glenn Beck's Christmas Road ShowImage by The Rocketeer via Flickr

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?

H/T to Library Grape

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution


April 5, 2009

Faith-Based Initiatives and War Crimes: Obama is Failing Miserably

Comments

War CriminalImage by danny.hammontree via Flickr

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.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

114th Carnival of the Godless at Deep Thoughts

Comments


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.

April 4, 2009

Freethought Organizations

Comments

Logo of the Secular Coalition for AmericaImage via Wikipedia
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.

Freethought Organizations of Which I am a Member
Other Organizations of Which I am a Member
Other Valuable Freethought Organizations
Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

April 3, 2009

American Religion in the Recession

Comments

45th Street, Manhattan, New York City from lef...Image via Wikipedia

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.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution


April 2, 2009

What is Atheism?

Comments

AtheismImage by metrognome0 via Flickr

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.

Still not clear? Allow me to draw upon another prior post:
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.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution


April 1, 2009

The Fool Says In His Heart...

Comments

TILTON, NH - DECEMBER 14:  Actor Chuck Norris ...Image by Getty Images via Daylife

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


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...