11.29.2015

Exploiting the Planned Parenthood Shooting to Promote a Narrative

Supporters of Planned Parenthood
Supporters of Planned Parenthood (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The tendency to exploit tragedies to push our preferred political narratives seems so common these days as to be nearly universal. The political left and right both do it; political authoritarians and libertarians both do it. Activists for virtually any cause join in. Once our scripts have been activated, we mindlessly regurgitate whichever "facts" contained in the early reports advance our chosen narrative, selectively ignoring or dismissing those that do not. Amidst this rush to blame our enemies and advance our cause, we tend to lose sight of the victims and of potential solutions to the problems we face.

The immediate aftermath of the recent Planned Parenthood shootings provides a particularly vivid example of the lengths to which some will go to push their narratives. Twitter is a great way to get a sampling of not only what the people one follows are doing, but by searching hashtags, one can obtain a much larger and more diverse sample of general Twitter users. I saw a few conservatives celebrating the violence, with some saying that anyone associated with Planned Parenthood got what they deserved. Others explained that they do not condone violence against Planned Parenthood, but they also don't feel too bad for the victims because they shouldn't have been there.

Predictably, most of the outrage this time came from the left. I saw many liberals and progressives blaming Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina and many more blaming conservatives in general. This started prior to the reports that surfaced yesterday in which the alleged shooter was described by police as saying something about "No more baby parts" and intensified afterward.

11.26.2015

Thanksgiving: Tradition and Freethought

Traditional Thanksgiving
By Ben Franske, via Wikimedia Commons

One of the things that has always drawn me to freethought, starting long before I knew what the meaning of freethought, is its encouragement questioning the things others seem to take for granted. I used to drive my family crazy by doing this. As I was trying to fall asleep last night, I memory from long ago returned to me that I thought might be appropriate to share today.

By way of context, I should note that I've always had issues with food. I know that lots of people do, and mine aren't appreciably worse than anybody else's. At the same time, I must acknowledge that they seem to be fairly weird. I say that because of all the people I've met in the course of my life, I've yet to come across someone who seems to derive less pleasure from food than I do, viewing it as something of a necessary evil. Whether it is fair or not (I think it is), I blame my family for this. They had and still have some odd attitudes toward food, and I believe that the manner in which they handled the fact that I was a very picky eater as a child is a big part of why I ended up the way I ended up.

With that out of the way, I'll get back to the memory that came back to me last night. It concerns the traditional Thanksgiving meal in my childhood home. If we were at home that year and not at the home of a friend or relative, the traditional meal was exactly the same every year: turkey, stuffing, mashed potatoes and gravy, cranberry sauce, a green vegetable (e.g., green beans, asparagus, broccoli), and either pumpkin or pecan pie for dessert. This is what was prepared and served every year. I never enjoyed any of this particular meal. I didn't hate it, but none of it was terribly appealing. Had someone told me that they were going to prepare a special meal for my birthday or something, none of the items on this traditional Thanksgiving menu would have appeared on it.

11.24.2015

Racism, Nativism, and Xenophobia in the U.S.

Charles M. Russell, Water for CampRacism, nativism, and xenophobia did not start with the Trump for 2016 presidential campaign. In fact, these phenomena predate the colonization of what would eventually become the United States. They have been with us from the beginning, and they played an integral part of the development of our country. Remember that the land Columbus and others "discovered" was already inhabited.

Racism, along with Christianity, fueled manifest destiny and the campaign of genocide our ancestors waged against Native Americans. Racism, along with Christianity, justified slavery prior to its abolition and the appalling treatment of Black Americans following abolition. We see their role in how Chinese immigrants were treated as they built the railroads, the Tuskegee experiments, the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, the conditions experienced by Native Americans living on reservations, and the hatred aimed at Latino immigrants.

We have been hearing a great deal from our politicians these days about how our reluctance to accept Syrian refugees is inconsistent with our nation's history. "We are a nation of immigrants," we are told. And yet, each and every wave of immigrants to enter this country has been viewed with suspicion by nativists, xenophobes, and racists. Ellis Island is a nice image, but we must not forget how the newly arriving immigrants were treated by those who were already here or how previous waves of immigrants would treat subsequent waves. Those insisting that Americans welcomed immigrants with open arms seem to have a very short or selective memory.

11.19.2015

Activism When Others Are Part of the Problem

English: Raging Apathy
Raging Apathy (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I don't recall when I first heard someone accuse someone else of being "part of the problem," but my best guess is that occurred in the context of sexism or racism. It is an accusation I have witnessed many times since, mostly from those on the political left and most often around various forms of activism. I have had it aimed at me several times, and I am ashamed to admit that I have directed it at others on occasion. I think it is understandable why we might label others as "part of the problem," but that does not necessarily mean that our use of the phrase is productive or that we do not pay a price for using it.

There are many different scenarios where we label others as "part of the problem" (e.g., the atheist who tarnishes the public image of atheism, the atheist who holds socio-political views with which we disagree, people who are overly inclusive in the manner in which they value human life). It seems to me that two of the most common involve the admission of apathy in response to some form of activism and inaction from a bystander. By examining each of these, it should not be difficult to understand the temptation of labeling others as being part of the problem. We might also be able to spot some of the potential dangers of doing so.

11.16.2015

Atheism Seeming Somewhat Less Important

think
Whenever I take time away from blogging, as I did recently, I step away not just from writing blog posts but from reading others' blogs and most other online activities. This recent break was a good example. Aside from quickly checking Twitter periodically for breaking news, I didn't spend much time online. Whenever I do this, something rather predictable seems to happen: it takes me a few days to stop thinking about atheism and closely related subjects. And after a few days, I hardly even notice the change.

When I'm actively blogging, my mind seems to be preoccupied with these topics when it is not focused on anything else. It is not at all uncommon, for example, for me to find myself composing a blog post in my head while showering, driving home from work, or fighting insomnia. But after just a few days of stepping away from the atheist blogosphere, this no longer happens. My thoughts turn to all sorts of other things, and I'm jolted back to atheism and related topics only when I encounter an expression of bigotry, a church-state violation, a proselytizing Christian, or something similar.

I've written about this previously, and I continue to find it interesting; however, my interpretation has changed a bit. I still think I'd rarely consider atheism if it wasn't for the frequent over-reaching of religious extremists, but I also think I need to take more breaks from the whole online atheist world and spend less time immersed in it. For the first few days I'm away, I miss it. I wonder what is going on and what great stuff others are doing that I might be missing out on. After that, I find myself focused on other things. I think that my being more focused on other things is healthy. I'm not sure that my being overly focused on atheism is something I can or want to sustain. I know I'd miss writing if I stayed away from that long enough; I'm less sure that I'd miss writing about atheism if I stayed away from that long enough.

11.15.2015

Advocating Against Regressive Beliefs

Kaaba at night
By Medineli from Wikimedia Commons

I don't know about you, but I sometimes find it difficult to put how I am feeling into words until someone else expresses it. It is almost like I need to hear someone else say it, feel it resonate, and then I can just sort of point to them and say, "That's it! That's how I feel too." With that in mind, I'm pointing to this post from the Thinker (Atheism and the City) and saying, "Yep, me too!"

My feelings about the horrible attacks in Paris have been anything but clear or easy to express. I am aware of sadness, anger, and even an intermittent sense of hopelessness. But this post has helped me recognize what some of this is about and see a possible way forward.

Ridiculous #PrayForParis hashtag all over the place as if there was anything answering prayers or any hint of divine intervention in this world? Check. Alternative reality-based solution to prayer offered? Absolutely.
When dealing with these kinds of tragedies, rather than praying, we should resist that urge however powerful and instinctive it may feel, and instead apply a more rational and practical response. We should donate money, food, and supplies, whenever possible.

11.12.2015

Starbucks: Laughing All the Way to the Bank

Starbucks holiday cups are here. It's the small things thy can make me happy.Most businesses advertise, especially when they are trying to grow or fend off competition. Advertising is not cheap, particularly the sort of advertising large companies find necessary to make an impact. Thus, it is easy to imagine that most companies would love the idea of a viral ad that wildly outperformed what could be expected based on the money they paid for it. Now imagine how fortunate a company would be if they were able to obtain more publicity than even a viral ad could produce without spending a dime.

If a large company could manage to get a group of people, preferably a small group that claimed to represent a much larger group but did not actually do so, to boycott them for a reason most people would find incredibly silly, they just might be able to pull this off. Case and point: Starbucks and their red holiday cups.

The number of people who are genuinely outraged by the red cups and actually willing to boycott Starbucks because of them is almost certainly minuscule. And yet, they suggest that they are representing Christians, a vast and extremely powerful group in the U.S. Of course, they aren't. Most Christians find this outrage quite silly.

11.08.2015

When Atheists Come to Town

Memphis Skyline
By Hellohowareyoudoing from Wikimedia Commons
Memphis, Salt Lake City, Des Moines, Washington DC, Denver, New York City, and Austin. What do all of these U.S. cities have in common? They have all been devastated by brief explosions of violent crime, confined to a couple days, as bad as anything we've ever witnessed. Hundreds of victims, mass arrests, riots, total destruction. Okay, not really, but they should have been devastated by brief outbursts of violent crime. You see, what these U.S. cities all have in common is that they have hosted American Atheists' national conventions. And given that atheists are godless by definition, the influx of atheists coming to town for these conventions should have produced massive spikes in crime.

Many evangelical fundamentalist Christians are fond of claiming that morality is tied to their preferred god. Without their particular god, nobody would behave morally. In fact, some of these evangelical fundamentalist Christians routinely claim that they themselves would run wild in the streets but for their fear of their god and its hell. Fear of their god is the only thing standing between them and rape or murder.

If this is the case, atheists should be far less moral than evangelical fundamentalist Christians. In fact, what I just said would have to be a massive understatement. Atheists are, by definition, people who do not believe in any gods. As such, atheists are assumed to have no moral foundation and no reason to behave in a moral manner. If these evangelical fundamentalist Christians are correct, atheists should be running wild in the streets, raping, murdering, and pillaging at will. Our prisons should be filled with atheists, as this would be the only way we as a society could be expected to control such vile people.

11.05.2015

Religious Believers and Homosexuality: Two Choices

Portal of the Church of Pilgrims, in Washingto...
Portal of the Church of Pilgrims, in Washington, DC, with a LGBT banner. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
If the particular strain of Christianity, Islam, or whatever other religion you prefer places you in opposition to LGBT persons, same-sex marriage, or to homosexuality in some abstract sense, it seems to me that you have two choices. First, you can choose to fight, tooth and nail, against the trend of growing acceptance of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and LGBT persons in our culture. You can aim to roll back what most of the rest of us consider progress in this area, returning society to a time when bigoted attitudes were more common. There is certainly precedent for this choice. Many Christians in the U.S. made this choice when confronted with suffrage, civil rights, interracial marriage, reproductive rights, and so on.

Second, you can choose to allow your religious beliefs to evolve. You can re-interpret your "holy" texts as you have done countless times before, changing how you relate to them in order to bring this relationship in line with modern morality. Your "holy" books are quite clear in condoning slavery; however, almost none of you interpret them that way today in order to advocate for a return to that barbaric practice. As clear as the words in these books are, you have chosen to ignore or re-interpret them. You can do the same thing when it comes to homosexuality if you so desire. As I am sure you realize, some Christians and Muslims are already doing so.

11.03.2015

Freethought as the Rejection of Tribalism

Cables in Virtual Light.jpg
"Cables in Virtual Light" by Jeffrey Horvath - Flickr. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

Freethought is a broad term that is bound to mean somewhat different things to different people. The definition that has always resonated with me is the one that emphasizes the role of reason and evidence as bases of belief over faith, tradition, authority, and/or dogma (Wikipedia). The scope of freethought extends well beyond matters of religion. It describes an approach to the pursuit of knowledge in all matters. I see a freethinker as someone willing to follow evidence and reason where it leads while simultaneously working to guard against all the various biases known to pollute decision making. Nobody is a freethinker by accident; it requires a sustained commitment.

I find that one of the most important implications of freethought is that it rejects the sort of tribalism that would lead one to accept some ideas and reject others on the basis of their source. Political ideologies might provide the most striking example of this. Someone who swallows the entire ideology of one political party without question and rejects the entire ideology of another party is not functioning as a freethinker. The freethinker critically examines individual ideas and accepts those that are reasonable and supported by evidence, regardless of which party might advocate them. This sometimes results in the freethinker appearing to be a moderate; however, what is really happening is that the freethinker is taking the good ideas and discarding the bad, without blind political allegiances or tribalism.