Atheist Revolution

Christian Bigotry in Maine

2009-11-06T15:37:00.000-06:00

Many people donated money in support of recent efforts to repeal civil rights in Maine, and they were successful in passing "Question 1." As Zack Ford points out after reviewing research by the National Institute on Money in State Politics,

Of the donations supporting the anti-gay Yes on 1 measure in Maine, 89% ($3 million) came from churches, Christian organizations, and their employees. The Catholic Church alone directly contributed $553,608.27.

Now that's some serious Christian bigotry!

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Fighting Anti-Atheist Bigotry and Discrimination

2009-10-22T05:38:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Austin Cline (About.com:Agnosticism/Atheism) has written a great how-to post about how atheist activists can oppose anti-atheist bigotry and discrimination. Wouldn't it be cool to have a comprehensive guide for atheist activists with contributions from multiple authors? So much to do, so little time!

Here are some of my thoughts on the subject of what we can do to combat anti-atheist bigotry and discrimination:

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Idiot of the Week: Dallin H. Oaks

2009-10-17T07:43:00.001-05:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Each Saturday, an example of supreme idiocy is highlighted here at Atheist Revolution's Idiot of the Week series. There were some very deserving candidates nominated at our Atheist Nexus group this week, easily beating out anyone I had in mind.

This week's award goes to LDS apostle Dallin H. Oaks. He compared the backlash his church faced after their support for California's Proposition 8 became widely known to the plight of African Americans during the civil rights movement. Oaks characterized those of us who oppose anti-gay bigotry by the Mormon Church as follows:

...they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation.

As University of Utah historian Colleen McDannell noted,

By comparing these two things, it diminishes the real violence that African-Americans experienced in the '60s, when they were struggling for equal rights. There is no equivalence between the two.

Oaks also referred to efforts to promote LGBT equality as "alleged civil rights." Best of all, he had this to say:

During my lifetime I have seen a significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion in our public life, and I believe that the vitality of religious freedom is in danger of being weakened accordingly. Atheists and others would intimidate persons with religious-based points of view from influencing or making the laws of their state or nation.

A classic blame-the-atheists move tipped the scales in his direction and earned Oaks Idiot of the Week honors.

H/T to Poodles for nominating this tool.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Miscegenation and Gay Marriage: Both Abominations?

2009-05-31T08:11:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

During the Civil Rights era, many American whites opposed miscegenation (i.e., mixing of racial groups through cohabitation, marriage, sexual relations, etc.). In fact, anti-miscegenation laws were common in many states until 1967. Today, such laws are widely acknowledged as mistaken examples of shameful bigotry. And yet, while watching African Americans protesting the Washington DC Council's recent legalization of gay marriage, I realized that precious little was learned from the Civil Rights era.

In 1967, the year of the landmark Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia, interracial marriages were illegal in 16 states. The case involved an interracial couple from Virginia (where interracial marriage was illegal) who traveled to Washington DC to be married. Upon their return to Virginia, they were arrested and informed that their marriage license was not valid in Virginia.

What was the big deal over interracial relations? Why were two consenting adults being arrested simply for loving each other? The judge who heard Loving had the following to say:

Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Sound familiar? It should. Much of the rationale used for anti-miscegenation laws mirrors that currently used to justify opposition to gay marriage. Much of the religious gibberish uttered by those bigots is now used by modern anti-gay bigots.

Those who opposed miscegenation were convinced that race mixing was an abomination in the eyes of their god. We hear the same argument today, only this time it is directed at gay marriage.

It is bad enough when the privileged white power structure engages in such stupidity. To see African Americans do it, when they themselves were so recently victims of this sort of hate, is infuriating. Is this really what was gained from the Civil Rights movement: African Americans can now join whites in spewing hate and bigotry and another group? I sure as hell hope not.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Anti-Atheist Bigotry: Still Socially Acceptable in America

2009-05-24T07:29:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

I'm not sure why I've held off in posting about Charlotte Allen's bigoted tirade against atheists in the LA Times. I started to do so several times before becoming so enraged about the latest Catholic child abuse scandal. It isn't so much that I find myself exhausted from confronting bigotry and the perils of religious belief (although I do certainly feel this way at times). I actually feel somewhat energized and ready to take on whatever comes next. In any case, I've held off long enough. Allen's piece is a clear example of anti-atheist bigotry, and I want this post to show exactly why this is the case.

A Valuable Example From Friendly Atheist

We'll review our definition of bigotry in a moment and see that the Allen piece fits it perfectly, but I'd like to start with an excellent teaching example from Friendly Atheist. He suggests that we replace the word "atheist" with the word "Jew" in Allen's article. By doing this, he produces the following:

Here’s why I can’t stand Jews.
They’re boring.
They keep complaining about being oppressed.
They keep talking about the same damn things all the time — Holocaust this and Israel that.
They always claim they’re victims.
They only constitute a small percentage of Americans — probably because they can’t win over any converts.
They still complain about how state Constitutions bar them from holding office — really, only six of them do — even though the Supreme Court has said those provisions are unenforceable.
They want affirmative action for their kind — one representative from the “pity-poor-me” school of Jews even said they need “safe spaces” at colleges!
They assume everyone who doesn’t agree with them is “beyond stupid.”
They never want to take on the serious arguments that theologians have made in favor of the Christian god.
Some Jews think Jesus never even existed. So what do they know?
They’re not rational. They’re just angry. Angry because they think the world is unfair to them. Angry that someone forced them to go to church as a child. Some Jews are so angry, they sued the government to prevent a Christian prayer from being spoken at President Obama’s inauguration. The gall!

He then points out the obvious: if Allen had written this, she would have been widely (and appropriately) condemned and likely forced to resign. He's right. A newspaper like the LA Times never would have considered publishing such an article. And yet, they deemed it perfectly acceptable for Allen to say these things about atheists.

But Does It Meet Our Definition of Bigotry?

Here was how I defined bigotry previously:

In a nutshell, bigotry involves two ingredients: falsehood and unwarranted generalization. A false statement is applied to the victim of bigotry, often involving condemnation, by the bigot solely for belonging to a particular group. The bigot generalizes from an individual case (e.g., one lazy African American) to an entire group (e.g., African Americans).

With this in mind, it is fairly obvious that Allen's article drips with anti-atheist bigotry. She repeatedly refers to "atheists" without any limiting specifiers (i.e., she is making unwarranted generalizations about all atheists), and she spews one false statement after another. Saying "I can't stand atheists...because they're crashing bores" is akin to saying "I can't stand blacks...because they're lazy." In both cases, we see false statements applied in generalized fashion to all members of the groups. In both cases, we have bigotry.

The problem we are confronting here, quite clearly, is that anti-atheist bigotry remains socially acceptable in a way that other forms of bigotry are not. If this changes, it will change because of what atheists (and our allies) do. If it does not change, our apathy and inaction are to blame.

The good news is that many atheists are indeed speaking out on this subject. I hope they will continue to do so.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Idiot of the Week: James Dobson

2009-05-16T06:08:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Idiocy this astounding deserves attention, and attention it shall receive! Right here in the weekly Idiot of the Week series. Look for a new winner to be announced right here each Saturday.

Like most weeks, there was ample idiocy to be found this week. In the end, I just had to go with James Dobson. Why? He sums up the Christian extremist position on hate crimes law so perfectly that he deserves credit. Speaking on the subject of the recent Matthew Shepard Act, Dobson attempted to strike fear into his flock with outright lies:

Those who speak out against homosexuality, including pastors, could face prosecution for "inciting" violence against gay individuals.

First, that is not what hate crimes laws do. Pastors who commit felonies while spewing bigotry might have a problem, but nobody is going to arrest them for doing it in church. Second, and I know this will sound crazy, maybe bigoted pastors should not be pastors. Remember the shit storm over Obama's Rev. Wright? If Obama demonstrated poor judgment by attending that church (and he did), surely the same can be said of those who attend the churches of these bigoted pastors.

Still not convinced that Dobson is worthy? Don't worry, it gets better

Even more concerning, the legislation could create special protection for pedophiles. Democrats voted down an amendment to the bill that would have excluded pedophilia from the definition of "sexual orientation."

There is nothing whatsoever in the Matthew Shepard Act that gives pedophiles special protection. Why did Democrats vote down the amendment mentioned? Just maybe it was because pedophilia is a mental disorder that is not part of the definition of sexual orientation.

Evidently, Dobson is upset because he is actually a fan of hate crimes.

Things are being done that will undermine the rule of law and seriously damage morality and decency in the culture.

H/T to Pam's House Blend

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Atheists Not Fully Human

2009-05-15T06:10:00.000-05:00

Image by davesandford via Flickr

The next time someone wants to instruct me in the art of fly catching (i.e., honey vs. vinegar and all that), I think I will note that it is helpful when communicating with others to have at least a modicum of respect for each others' dignity and basic human worth. Sure, we can disagree. We can even find our opponent's worldview to be somewhat contemptible. But as long as we can respect the other as an individual human being, we at least have the potential of some sort of meaningful interaction. After noting that, I will then direct the expert fly catcher to the video below.

Watch as a high-ranking Catholic official, Cardinal Cormack Murphy-O'Connor, clearly indicates that he does not consider atheists to be fully human.

Am I really to attempt meaningful dialogue with such a man? I think not. How could I possibly expect it to lead anywhere positive? I would not expect it to be any more fruitful than it would for my Jewish colleagues to attempt the same with a Nazi or my African American colleagues to try it with a Klan leader.

When one side refuses to acknowledge even the basic humanity of the other, the barrier to bloodshed is thin indeed.

H/Ts to Blue Linchpin and Evolving Thoughts

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Opposing Anti-Atheist Bigotry While Mocking the Religious

2009-05-13T05:29:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

There has long been disagreement among atheists about how best to balance our criticism of religion with our desire to end anti-atheist bigotry. On the surface, it seems like we are trying to have it both ways (i.e., we get to criticize religion but you can't insult atheism without being called a bigot). Yet, we do not have to dig far beneath the surface to expose this as a false dichotomy.

Are Atheists Trying to Have it Both Ways?

The crux of the matter was recently summarized by a commenter, Eric, on Paul Fidalgo's blog as follows:

I especially enjoy how the author cries about being persecuted for his beliefs while calling Kirk Cameron a loon out of the other side of his mouth. Listening to the Atheist community whine about how they are treated rings kind of hollow after reading internet message boards where they relentlessly attack christian beliefs. The whole thing makes me want to go back to church, but they're just saying the same stupid stuff about atheists.

Essentially, Paul was taken to task for expressing opposition to anti-atheist bigotry while criticizing Kirk Cameron's idiocy. However, Eric also raised the larger and more important question of how atheists can oppose bigotry directed at themselves while apparently engaging in the same directed at Christian beliefs.

Paul acknowledged Eric's point and took a swipe at those of us who regularly make a point out of mocking absurd beliefs, Christian or otherwise:

Point taken. Indeed, I'm pretty weary of the mock-the-Christians genre of atheist blog posts myself (not that I am totally innocent of this).

He then made an important distinction between criticizing one's beliefs and "outright persecution or dehumanization." He correctly notes that there is a world of difference between his reference to Kirk Cameron as a "loon" and what Cameron and other Christian extremists seek to accomplish.

However, Paul then loses me completely when he says,

So perhaps it's not fair to call him a loon, or (hypothetically) malicious, deceptive, or stupid.

Paul has been criticized for this post. Personally, I see pointing out the problems associated with irrational belief to be both a right and a responsibility. When Cameron introduces gibberish into the discourse, he deserves to be called on it. Paul agrees with this but says that the line should be drawn at mockery. I'd argue that if the statements warrant mockery, they should receive it.

Regardless, it seems that atheists are saying that they should be immune to mockery while the religious are fair game. But is this really what atheists are saying?

Understanding Bigotry

Remember that bigotry involves two components: falsehood and unwarranted generalization. Describing Kirk Cameron as a "loon" is not a generalization at all (I'd argue that it is also not a falsehood, but let's set that aside for now). On the other hand, statements along the lines of "All Christians are..." necessarily involve a generalization.

Take this for a test drive.

Christians are self-righteous morons.

Here we have an untrue generalization and thus bigotry.

Vjack is an arrogant imbecile who should not be allowed to blog at all.

I may not like this, but it is not a generalization of any sort and thus does not qualify as bigotry. Criticism? Sure. Personal insult? Absolutely. But not bigotry.

If we in the atheist community are saying that we should not be criticized, then we are certainly trying to have it both ways because we have been very critical of Christian beliefs. However, this is not at all what I see us doing. I see us opposing anti-atheist bigotry and discrimination. What I do not see us doing, at least not most of us, is engaging in anti-Christian bigotry or discrimination.

But Atheists Should Be Nicer

This is an entirely different statement with little actual relevance to the present discussion. I suspect that some atheists would agree with this statement. I cannot begin to tell you how many times I've been told something about flies, honey, and vinegar. Frankly, I don't care for any of these things. But seriously, this is a different discussion and not one that should be mixed up with terms such as "bigotry" or "discrimination."

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Christian Evangelist to Women: Shut Up!

2009-05-10T10:19:00.000-05:00

Image by alison.mckellar via Flickr

The Christian religion has a long and troubled history regarding the role of women. Long before the feminist movement, there were the infamous witch trials. Even today, many in the Christian right consider feminism to be a force of evil, undermining traditional family values. In fact, some Christian extremists are quite clear what they want from women - they want women to shut up. In fact, that is exactly what Christian evangelist "Dr." Phil Kidd argues in his brilliantly titled "Hey Lady Shut up!"

I'm honestly not sure how to summarize Kidd's biblically-supported misogyny, so I will simply quote my favorite part:

11 Timothy 2:9 commands the woman to dress in modest apparel. I have personally seen that in a large percentage of churches, the long tongued, rebellious, bobbed-haired, preacher-hating, pants-wearing, liberal-minded women have determined the standard of dress for the church. The cowardly preacher is afraid to cross this group. He knows if he does, these loud-mouthed women will take their weak husbands and go to another church. Sadly, most woman pull their hair, grit their teeth, and even yell back when the preacher deals with modest dress. Some will even get mad just reading this article. I say to you, SHUT UP!

To all the "long tongued, rebellious, bobbed-haired, preacher-hating, pants-wearing, liberal-minded women," you are welcome here and at countless other atheist blogs. We appreciate you.

H/T to Pam's House Blend

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

A Bigot Among Democrats: Sen. Díaz

2009-05-05T05:24:00.000-05:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

The Republican Party has been having a difficult time since...well, at least since Sen. McCain listened to those who said he should choose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. Did they hit rock bottom with calls to "teabag the White House," or can they sink even lower? I suppose time will tell. One thing is clear, however, just because the GOP is no longer viable does not mean the Democratic Party is not going to make mistakes.

It is almost as if some Democrats are jealous that the Republicans have become a sectarian party, inextricibly linked to fundamentalist Christianity. Take New York State Senator Rubén Díaz, for example, now organizing a rally to oppose marriage equality. As Pam Spaulding reminds us:

This is a perfect example of why the Democratic party needs to check itself -- just because someone has a (D) behind their name does not mean they hold Dem principles, or even engage in rational thought -- a lack of understanding of the separation of church and state should at least be a baseline for god's sake.

Díaz, also a Pentecostal minister, has called for Gov. Paterson's removal for supporting marriage equality. And yet, as Pam points out, Díaz is essentially untouchable because his party would rather have numbers than real progressives. By way of compromise, they allow him to engage in bigotry.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Bigotry and Religious Freedom

2009-04-28T05:14:00.000-05:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

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.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

The Bigotry We Don't See

2009-04-27T05:23:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

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.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Idiot of the Week: Carrie Prejean

2009-04-25T06:39:00.000-05:00

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.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Raising Awareness of Anti-Atheist Bigotry

2009-04-07T05:46:00.000-05:00

Image 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

Baptist Pastor Caught Lying, Impersonating Atheists

2009-03-20T13:14:00.000-05:00

Image by ATENCION: via Flickr

If I have anything to say about it, the story of a Baptist pastor impersonating atheists on various blogs in a desperate attempt to confirm bigoted stereotypes will sweep the atheist blogosphere and perhaps extend beyond our little niche. This is an intriguing tale that deserves to be widely read. I only wish I could take credit for writing it, but credit goes to Daniel Florien of Unreasonable Faith for breaking this one wide open.

Daniel's post, "Pastor Gets Caught Lying for Jesus," contains a number of important lessons for Christians and atheists alike. I simply cannot resist highlighting one here. Contrary to popular stereotypes, it appears that atheists are such decent people that someone trying to demonize them has to resort to lies and deceit to do so.

Pastor Chris Fox of Kendalls Baptist Church in New London, NC, was caught impersonating atheists in comments he left on Unreasonable Faith. Here is an example of one of his comments, and you can see for yourself what he was hoping to accomplish:

What’s wrong with killing babies? I see no problem with it. I have enough mouths to feed. I don’t get the argument and I am an atheist. Since I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in anything characterized as good, bad / right, wrong. So, what’s the big deal?

My guess is that Pastor Fox was hoping for one of two things here. Either someone would agree with him, confirming his stereotypes and allowing him to run back to his superstitious flock and loudly proclaim they were all true, or nobody would take the bait in which case he could still return to his flock in victory by claiming that someone other than himself had left the comments he wrote.

So Daniel and some of his readers became suspicious, and Daniel did a bit of detective work. He soon discovered that Pastor Fox had been doing this under a variety of handles, giving the impression that multiple atheists held these views.

What Pastor Fox probably did not count on was that Daniel was able to learn his identity and reveal it to all. Best of all, Pastor Fox apologized for Daniel's reaction but not for his own behavior. Well, at least he's had many excellent role models in the non-apology apology!

It seems fairly clear that Pastor Fox is confused. After he was caught lying, he insisted,

I am in no way a fundie or extremist. Like you I believe in thinking, searching, asking questions, and hearing others from outside my box. I thank you for your allowing various opinions and sides to share.

Well, Pastor, you may call yourself whatever you like, but this does not change what you tried to pull. That you do not seem to find anything particularly wrong with your behavior speaks volumes about your character. I'm not even going to say that you reflect badly on Christianity because most Christians I've had the pleasure of knowing would never dream of stooping so low. You should be ashamed.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

The Lesson of Dole's Anti-Atheist Bigotry

2009-03-07T06:51:00.001-06:00

Image via Wikipedia

Now that we know that those in Elizabeth Dole's campaign responsible for the attack ads attempting to link Kay Hagan with atheism are not even a little remorseful for their tactics, we should be ready to respond even more forcefully the next time this tactic is used. And I continue to predict that there will be a next time. The price for resorting to such bigotry in a political campaign must be made higher if it is to be abandoned. And for those still not convinced that Dole's tactics were bigoted, Bligbi's post offers a good explanation.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Revealing the Atheist Stereotype

2009-03-02T07:01:00.001-06:00

Image via Wikipedia

After Friendly Atheist's recent post in which he asked readers whether they fit "the atheist stereotype," I realized that I was not completely sure what this particular stereotype entailed. Sure, I had some ideas, but I also thought it fairly likely that I was missing some important ingredients. I posed this question to my readers and received some useful input. Some of what I heard confirmed my hunches, but there were new aspects of the stereotype as well. In this post, I'd like to present the atheist stereotype in the hopes that it will facilitate future discussions of topics such as how atheists are perceived in society, the degree to which atheists fit the stereotype, and the like.

Below I have provided what appear to be components of the atheist stereotype. Please feel free to add to the list.

Atheists:

are politically liberal (e.g., support gay rights and abortion)
hate Christianity and/or the Christian god
trample people's rights of free religious expression
are always depressed, sad, or grumpylack hope
are immoral
are moral relativists
are uncivil and do not respect others
are prideful and lack humility
are angry
are militant
are evil
are arrogant
are mean, stingy, unforgiving, and generally horrible people
are sexually promiscuous
are more interested in science than the average person
are ignorant of scripture
have faith in evolution and worship Darwin
are determined to convert everyone else to their religion of materialism and negativity (i.e., secular humanism)
worship the devil or are agents of Satan

My goal here is not to challenge the accuracy of this stereotype but merely to uncover it so that we all know what each other means when we refer to the atheist stereotype. Again, please let me know if I have omitted anything you consider particularly important.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

What is the Atheist Stereotype?

2009-02-28T11:30:00.000-06:00

Friendly Atheist recently wrote a post asking readers about whether they fit the atheist stereotype. Interesting question except that I'm not sure I know what the stereotype is. He seemed to assume that we would know what he meant because he said no more than "evil, angry, militant, immoral." What exactly is the atheist stereotype, or is this all there is to it?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Christian Extremists Support School Bullying

2009-02-04T05:22:00.000-06:00

Image via Wikipedia

It must be difficult to be a Christian extremist parent in 2009. First, those pesky public schools actually want to educate your children in science so they'll be able to compete in an increasingly complex job market. Second, some dare to teach method of sex education which have been shown to be...(gasp)...effective, instead of simply preaching "don't do it." And now, some schools have the nerve to realize that bullying detracts from the learning conducive environment they are trying to foster. What is a good Christian extremist parent to do? Oppose measures to reduce bullying, of course.

Evidently, last week's No Name-Calling Week was too much for some Christian extremist parents to swallow. Homosecular Gaytheist brings us the story of Linda Harvey from Mission America who is upset over efforts to reduce school bullying. The source of Ms. Harvey's displeasure is that reducing bullying interferes with the fundamental right of Christian children to spread anti-gay hatred and bigotry at their schools. You see, in Ms. Harvey's world, refraining from hurling homophobic insults at one's peers amounts to condoning the dreaded homosexual lifestyle.

Over at Friendly Atheist, Hemant shows us that Ms. Harvey has some company among the Christian extremist ranks. He brings us the story of Christian attorney, Brad Dacus, who echoes Ms. Harvey's fears about anti-bullying measures. In fact, Mr. Dacus is convinced that children prevented from bullying one another just might grow up tolerant. The horror!

They're promoting, all the way down to the first-grade level, children to read and be exposed to books and material that is pro-homosexual -- and it's all under the guise of opposing name-calling.

The truly mind-blowing part of this is that both Ms. Harvey and Mr. Dacus believe that by trying to reduce anti-gay bigotry, the schools are actually denigrating their religion. According to Dacus:

The alleged homosexual kids are not the only ones being bullied. There's [sic] kids of faith being called 'homophobic' and 'homophobe,' and yet those words and that name-calling is not under attack and is not being addressed by this alleged week of tolerance that's being pushed.

By labeling intolerance as intolerant, the schools are opposing Dacus and Harvey's brand of hate-based Christianity. Where is the outrage from Christians who do not want their religion equated with hatred and bigotry?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Addressing Anti-Atheist Bigotry: Emptying the Ocean With a Bucket

2009-01-24T06:42:00.000-06:00

Image via WikipediaI started to write this post in the Atheist Defense Network group at Atheist Nexus but decided to post it here instead. Do you ever feel thoroughly overwhelmed with how much work we atheists have before us with regard to anti-atheist bigotry? That's how I am feeling at the moment. I'm sure it will pass, but I cannot help feeling a bit discouraged as I think back over 2008 and even what I've seen so far in 2009.

While finishing a recent post about Tyson, the Indiana library patron who is being retaliated against simply for questioning the appropriateness of a nativity scene in his local public library, I started to think about the broader experience of atheists in America. Many images flashed before my eyes. In 2008 alone,

Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) launched a bigoted tirade against atheist activist Rob Sherman, telling him that it was dangerous for children to even know of the existence of atheism. Despite the public nature of her outburst (during the General Assembly), some media attention, and calls for her resignation, Rep. Davis faced no consequences. She merely delivered the sort of non-apologetic apology to Sherman that we have become used to seeing from bigots and resumed business as usual. Calls for a pubic apology were ignored.
Christian schools were given free reign to discriminate against students suspected of being lesbians. In fact, it was deemed acceptable for such schools to remove students at will for "immoral or scandalous behavior that contradicts Christian values."
Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina) utilized blatant anti-atheist bigotry during her campaign against opponent Kay Hagan. Although Dole was ultimately defeated, the mainstream media largely ignored the bigoted nature of her strategy of painting Hagan as an atheist. In short, the whole debacle provided other politicians with little reason not to make anti-atheist bigotry a campaign strategy.
California passed Proposition 8, rolling back previously granted civil rights to GLBT residents. They were able to do this because of a highly organized and well-funded effort by Christian extremist communities. Once again, media coverage largely ignored the religiously-motivated bigotry.

Many things did go well this year, but I am also realizing just how far we still have to go to realize atheist equality. I long for the day when bigotry directed at atheists is considered no more acceptable than that directed at women or minorities. Until that day, I will keep trying to make a difference. I will have periods of frustration and doubt, but I will persevere. I owe future generations of atheists than much.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

In Defense of Congressman Diaz-Balart

2009-01-22T05:25:00.000-06:00

Image via WikipediaI have a feeling I'll be in a very small minority with this post, but here goes. This is probably not what you were expecting from me, particularly with my known distaste for anti-atheist bigotry and past efforts opposing it. No need to worry. I have not lost my mind (although if I did, I might not realize it), and I remain steadfast in my opposition to bigotry, including anti-atheist bigotry. It is just that in the case of Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida's 2nd District, I'm not so sure that we are witnessing bigotry.

Rep. Diaz-Balart, the former Democrat who switched to the Republican Party, sparked outrage in the atheist blogosphere and has been labeled "an anti-atheist bigot" by more than one blogger. If Rep. Diaz-Balart is indeed a bigot, such outrage is well placed.

The precipitant of the outrage was the following statement from Diaz-Balart made in reference to the Divine Performing Arts show:

I was very moved by the song that talked about the damage that atheism has caused and is causing. It was very moving, but all of the performances were moving, uplifting; they teach us about the eternal nature of mankind and of how we have to be humble.

The songs carry the sense that evil will not prevail, and so the message is that the truth ultimately prevails. It is extraordinarily uplifting and I am so happy to be here.

This statement has been widely interpreted as suggesting that Rep. Diaz-Balart views atheism as "damaging" and "evil." I do not disagree with this interpretation. This appears to be precisely what he thinks. I'm still not sure he's a bigot.

Suppose I were to say the following:

Christianity has resulted in considerable damage to society and continues to cause great damage to our world.

Christianity is evil, and I hope that the truth ultimately prevails.

I have deliberately made both statements a bit more direct than what Rep. Diaz-Balart said to remove any ambiguity. The first reflects something I not only believe but have said here repeatedly. The second is not something I have said or would say without first replacing the word "evil" with something like "harmful" or "destructive." Does this make me a bigot?

Even if I loudly proclaimed both of the above statements about Christianity as reflecting my beliefs, this would not make me a bigot. Why? Because bigotry involves people and not simply their beliefs about the world.

Here are some examples of bigotry:

A politician demonizing her opponent simply for meeting with atheist constituents
Denying consenting adults the legal right to marry simply because they are of the same sex
Making untrue and disparaging remarks about an entire class of people on the basis of their membership to said class
Refusing to vote for someone, no matter how qualified, simply because the person is an atheist

Bigotry requires both a falsehood and an unwarranted generalization about people. Rep. Diaz-Balart is not even referring to people but to an -ism. To be guilty of bigotry, he'd have to say that atheists are evil for being atheists. I suppose one could infer that this was his intent, but I'd rather deal with what he said rather than what I think he might have meant by it.

Believe me when I say that defending Rep. Diaz-Balart is not something I particularly enjoy. Still, I think that we need to be very careful about what we label bigotry if we want to have any impact.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Newdow's Invocation Suit Fails

2009-01-16T15:49:00.000-06:00

No big surprise here, but it looks like Michael Newdow's suit to stop the "so help me god" garbage from being added by Justice Roberts to Obama's inauguration has come to an end on the grounds that Newdow and the other plaintiffs lack standing to bring the suit. I think we all knew the suit would ultimately be unsuccessful. Unfortunately, the presiding judge felt that a bit of anti-atheist bigotry was necessary.

I'm tired after a long and depressing day at work, so head over to Tangled Up in Blue Guy to learn what you need to know about the ruling.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Anti-Gay Terrorism

2009-01-16T05:25:00.000-06:00

Image via WikipediaHomsecular Gaytheist links to a disturbing story in The Stanger about 11 gay bars in Seattle being threatened with ricin attacks. This is some pretty scary stuff. I hope it turns out to be a hoax, but in the meantime, I am glad to see that law enforcement appears to be taking it seriously. After all, this is domestic terrorism. I don't want to speculate about the motives of whoever wrote the threatening letters. Hopefully, the police will make an arrest soon and we can learn what sort of mind was capable of this for ourselves.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

What America Needs to Know About Rick Warren

2009-01-15T05:02:00.000-06:00

Image by Getty Images via DaylifePresident-elect Barack Obama made a serious mistake in asking Christian extremist pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration ceremony. Worse still, he has refused to heed the cries of protest from many core segments of his base asking him to uninvite Warren. In this brief post, I'd like to remind you one last time why we should make sure Obama hears from us on this subject.

By inviting Rick Warren to deliver the invocation, Obama elevates his status in the eyes of many Americans who have not been adequately informed about Warren. Here is what America needs to know about Rick Warren:

Warren's much praised work on AIDS in Africa has been revealed as undermining scientifically-sound efforts to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS in favor of thoroughly discredited religiously-based methods. He opposes contraception, even when it comes to halting the spread of HIV/AIDS. This takes anti-intellectualism and religious delusion to astounding levels.
Warren opposes reproductive rights for women and stem cell research. He has criticized Obama's position on these issues and vowed to pressure him into changing his mind. This should be worrisome for anyone who values separation of church and state.
He was a strong supporter of Proposition 8, the measure which rolled back civil rights for many Californians by denying marriage to GLBT couples. This is bigotry.
Warren has equated gay marriage to incest and pedophilia. This is bigotry.
Warren has publicly stated that he would not vote for an atheist, regardless of qualifications. He thinks that no atheist could possibly be worthy of holding office. This is bigotry.
He is a creationist. Lest we dismiss this as mere stupidity, please remember that many of us are still having to fight to keep this nonsense out of our schools.

For those who continue to insist that allowing Warren to give the invocation is no big deal, I simply remind you that Obama selected Rick Warren out of a near infinite number of clergy to represent him. This sure as hell concerns me.

H/Ts to Open Left, Right Wing Watch, and Daylight Atheism

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

When You Are a Victim of Discrimination

2009-01-08T05:55:00.005-06:00

Image via WikipediaIf you are an atheist living in the United States, you have the unfortunate distinction of belonging to the most hated group in our country. Discrimination and bigotry at the hands of Christians are something you may well experience. You see, the same people who end up trying to convince the world that their religion is about love can also be terribly cruel when they think that their elevated status in society is being threatened. In this post, I have compiled some resources that may be of assistance, depending on the nature of what you have experienced.

Is the Battle Worth It?

Only you can answer this question, but you should ask it. Do not let yourself get swept away in anger and decide to do anything on impulse. With attitudes toward atheists being what they are, anything you do other than just smiling and taking the discrimination and bigotry may have consequences.

Among the consequences you should consider are:

Threats to your property, personal safety, and the safety of your family. Sadly, Christians have a proven track record of resorting to violence when they think that their delusion is being attacked. Once you read their "holy" book, you'll see why.
You identity will almost certainly be revealed. If everyone already knows you are an atheist, this is not a big deal. However, you will not be able to do much to fight back without "coming out" completely. This may affect your reputation because an atheist objecting to discrimination (or even asking others to obey the law) is nearly always perceived as the aggressor rather than the victim.

Again, this must be your decision. If you decide you'd rather go along to get along, I will not fault you for it. Assuming that you decide to stand up for your rights and fight back against the bigotry and/or discrimination, what can you do?

Use the Atheist Blogs

Getting your story to a couple of atheist blogs can help build awareness quickly and stimulate bloggers and their readers to start brainstorming solutions. Some of the larger blogs have contacts in traditional media, and the sort of buzz that can be generated in our corner of the blogosphere may get the attention of other traditional media.

Contact National Advocacy Organizations

There are a number of national organizations committed to protecting the rights of American atheists, and some may even have chapters in your state. When you have been the victim of discrimination because of your attitudes toward religion, making a report to one or more of the following organizations can be tremendously helpful.

Anti-Discrimination Support Network (ADSN), a committee of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, monitors discrimination and bigotry aimed at American atheists. They provide counseling, legal referrals, and other forms of support to assist victims. They have an online form which can be used to report incidents.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation investigates violations of separation of church and state and provides contact information on their website for reporting such violations.
For those in the military, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers provides support in many ways.
American Atheists provides legal support.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State has an online form for reporting violations of federal tax law regarding the tax exempt status of churches and religious groups. In addition, they have an online form for reporting church-state violations.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) provides support on a variety of issues and has an affiliate in every state.

Talk to an Attorney

Yes, good legal assistance can be expensive. However, many attorneys offer a free initial consultation and may be willing to draft a letter on your behalf for a surprisingly affordable amount. In this day and age, most people are interested in avoiding lawsuits, and simply knowing that you have an attorney lined up who would be willing to file a complaint might be all that is necessary.

Meet with a couple of attorneys before deciding. You want someone you feel comfortable with in the event that you do pursue legal action.

Be Cautious of Local Media

If your identity has already been revealed, you might be able to use local media effectively to pressure the bigot(s). But because individual circumstances will vary so much, I really can't recommend this route unless you have first lined up an attorney. The potential for it to backfire is too great.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution