8.26.2010

More Thoughts on Secular Community Resource Centers

Community
Community (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The thing about ideas is that it is almost always easier to shoot down those of others down than to offer one's own. Yes, secular community resource centers are idealistic, would require resources most of us lack, and may face unique challenges in the locations where they are most needed (e.g., the U.S. bible belt). But it seems to me that we are making a mistake by giving up simply because it sounds difficult. If we imagine a secular community resource center as an eventual goal and agree that there are many small but influential steps we could accomplish along the way, it might look a bit more feasible.

8.24.2010

Why Some Atheists Are Offended By Prayer

Dan Gilgoff, Co-Editor of CNN's Belief Blog, does not appear to have a high opinion of atheists. In a recent post, he complains that "hordes of atheists" have been leaving comments on a post from a Catholic priest suggesting that Christians should pray for Christopher Hitchens.

Far from being touched by the priest's gesture, the atheists are mostly offended.
Mr. Gilgoff really doesn't get it, does he? Let me see if I can explain what is happening here to anyone else who might be as confused as Mr. Gilgoff seems to be. I'll start with a brief explanation of reactions to the "pray for Hitchens" thing and then expand to consider the broader subject of why some atheists might take offense at prayer.

8.21.2010

Idiot of the Week: Dr. Laura Schlessinger

DrLauraSchlessingerByPhilKonstantinThis may come as a bit of a surprise, but I am not "honoring" Dr. Laura Schlessinger for saying "nigger" 11 times on her radio show. Sure, that wasn't a bright move on her part, but like others have documented, Schlessinger has a reputation for bigotry. That she might have some issues with race is not all that shocking. It probably isn't even all that unusual.

No, I find her deserving of our tongue-in-cheek Idiot of the Week status for statements she made on Larry King following her resignation. She said that her First Amendment rights were being violated because people were criticizing her for what she said. If Schlessinger wants to hide behind the First Amendment, doesn't she at least need to understand it?

At no place in the First Amendment do we find that people are protected from criticism for what they say. If Schlessinger wants to argue that she has the right to say "nigger" on her radio show, great. She can make that argument. But to suggest that nobody gets to criticize her for doing so suggests that she misses the point entirely. The First Amendment is not just for her; it covers our speech too. And that means that it gives us the right to criticize her.

8.09.2010

Never Forget Where the Burden of Proof Lies

mormons

Addressing the always fascinating subject of Mormonism, Craig James (The Religion Virus) reminds us that the central issue whenever matters of religious belief are involved is the burden of proof. We atheists have absolutely zero burden of proof. We are not the ones making claims about the nature of reality. The burden of proof lies with the religious believer who insists that some sort of god or gods exist, created the universe, are intimately involved in the affairs of humans (so much so that they evidently care a great deal about what we do in the privacy of our own bedrooms), desire certain things from us, and so on.

As you have probably already figured out, what James says of Mormons is true for all proponents of religion:

Mormonism makes a staggering number of amazing claims that defy both common sense and the historical and archaeological records. It is up to the Mormons to prove that there is a reasonable, plausible explanation for every one of them.

8.01.2010

Islamic Center at Ground Zero

IslamUntil now, I haven't addressed the controversy over the proposal by the Cordoba Initiative to build an Islamic center near Ground Zero. Initially, I did not have particularly strong feelings either way. I understood why many of the families of 9/11 victims would object and why some would consider it insensitive. I also found the bitterness of the right-wing pundits and Christian extremists who opposed the proposal to be quite interesting for what it revealed about them. I was also fairly certain that much of what I had heard about the center was inaccurate. Before sounding off, I thought it would be reasonable to wait until I knew something about the real issues (imagine that).

I have since learned that the proposed center is not a Mosque, that it would be located two blocks from Ground Zero, and that it is designed to serve more than just Muslims. I should point out that those who get their information primarily from Fox "News" are unlikely to know any of this.

I agree with John L. Esposito when he wrote the following:
Why should Muslims who are building a center be any more suspect than Jews who build a synagogue or center or Christians who build a church or conference center?