Atheist Revolution

Coming Out Atheist: Is Losing Your Relationship Worth It?

2009-11-03T05:40:00.001-06:00

You are in an intimate relationship, and you'd just as soon remain that way. The problem is, s/he is religious while you have come to doubt your faith. After some deep reflection, you have come to the conclusion that you just don't believe all this god stuff anymore. But you are worried that telling your partner about this may irreparably damage your relationship. What do you do? I can't decide what is right for you in such a case, but I will offer my thoughts on the matter for you to consider.

I'll start by saying that I think the situation I have described, difficult as it is, tends to be far easier than a similar scenario involving one's family. After all, most people will have many more intimate partners during the course of their lives than they will have families.

The central question I would want to ask myself in such a predicament is as follows:

How important is it that my partner loves me for being me rather than for being something that want me to be that I am not?

If I do not believe in gods, I would not want to pretend that I did. I would have a hard time remaining in a relationship with someone around whom I did not feel like I could be myself. I would want to give my partner an opportunity to know the real me.

It is fairly common for people in a relationship to be as attracted to the potential of someone rather than to the actual person. And yet, it has been my experience that such relationships are often doomed if they do not quickly progress beyond this point. If I am in love with what I want someone to be rather than what they really are, I'm resigning myself to being perpetually disappointed and unhappy. One could reasonably argue that this wouldn't be a relationship at all but merely a form of narcissism. It is difficult to imagine it working in the long run.

Of course, one may decide that maintaining this particular relationship is worthwhile, even if it means concealing one's true self. This wouldn't be my choice, but it is not my place to fault you if it is yours. Being an atheist can be lonely, and there is little point in denying that.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Health Care: Right or Privilege?

2009-10-23T07:10:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

At present, health care is a privilege in the U.S. and not a right. Those who believe that health care should be a universal human right have an uphill battle. The number of homeless people throughout our nation suggests that we do not consider basic shelter to be a right either. The fact that some people still do not get enough to eat suggests that food too is often seen as a privilege. It becomes harder to argue that health care is a basic human right, when we do not seem to feel the same way about food or shelter.

Why is it that healthier food tends to be more expensive in our grocery stores? Is good nutrition also a privilege? Why is it still possible to buy new automobile without side-curtain air bags or anti-lock brakes? Is vehicular safety also a privilege?

Health care is part of a system. As long as nutritional food, adequate shelter, automobile safety, and similar benefits are considered to be optional luxuries, we will end up paying the price in the form of increased health care costs.

Increasing access to quality, affordable health care is an important step in the right direction. Still, it is only one step.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

The Ken Burns Series on America's National Parks

2009-10-19T05:13:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

I've been watching The National Parks: America's Best Idea on PBS when I can remember to catch it, and I must confess being a bit surprised by all the emotion it has brought up. I have experienced pride and awe mixed with longing, regret, and anger. Primarily, it makes me long for the long gone days of my childhood when my family and I visited many of the Western parks, as well as countless state parks. It was disheartening to realize that I have done an incredibly poor job of continuing to explore America's many natural treasures in my adult years. Sure, it is easy to blame work for getting in the way, but that only means that it hasn't been much of a priority. For that, I am ashamed.

The series has also made me feel proud to be part of a country that fought so hard to establish these parks and open them to the public. I have not visited all the national parks, but I have made it to many of them. The sense of awe and grandeur one experiences in such places of beauty is all the more appreciated when one realizes what our ancestors had to go through in order to establish and maintain the parks system. Again and again, I found myself realizing how important it is that current generations protect these parks for future generations to enjoy. They are, after all, an essential part of what it means to be an American.

I have also been forced to recognize that most of the opposition to the parks, historically and today, has come from those who are convinced that all lands should be privatized (i.e., conservatives). Much as they now wish to prevent impoverished Americans from accessing affordable health care, they would just as soon fence of these parks and charge exorbitant entry fees or simply turn them into parking lots and high-rises. Their selfishness is repugnant.

Politics aside, it is clear that our national parks do not receive the same attention they once did. Visitors abound, but budgets have been cut deeply. Litter has become a ubiquitous sight at the parks, as large numbers of people now view the world as their personal garbage can. Visiting a park today, especially during their peak season, can be as much about observing human nature as it is about taking in the natural beauty.

Our national parks are such a vital part of the American experience that I hope this series stimulates renewed interest in and willingness to support the parks. If you have not yet had the opportunity to visit these parks, find the one nearest to you and start there. As for me, well, I think my to-do list just got a bit longer.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Celebrating the Win Does Not Always Mean Deriding the Loser

2009-09-20T09:05:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

State of Protest had an interesting post a couple days ago with a title that caught my attention: Do Atheists Get Happy When "Bad Things" Happen to Christians? My first thought when seeing the title was that this atheist certainly does not. My second thought was that I'd better read the post to see what it was talking about. I'm glad I did. It is a good one that asks us to consider some challenging questions.

In the post, Procrustes asks whether atheists experience feelings of joy upon learning about Christians losing church-state separation cases. Well, that's different, isn't it? I absolutely do feel happy upon encountering such news. I tend to interpret it as a victory for the law rather than a defeat for Christians, but I'm sure the Christians involved in the court case don't see it that way. It makes perfect sense that a Christian on the losing end of a constitutional battle would perceive my reaction as anti-Christian, even if I don't see it that way.

Procrustes also asks whether we ever laugh at a Christian who fails miserably in a debate. Guilty. And yes, here I must acknowledge that it is more than me wanting to cheer on the forces of reason, truth, and logic. I admit that I take a certain delight in seeing some holier-than-thou sort fall on his or her ass. I can't say I'm proud of it, but I freely confess it.

Procrustes asks:

Is it right for atheists to revel in victory? Is is honorable, rational, or productive to laugh in the face of a fallen opponent? Have centuries of oppression and fear caused us to suffer from nervous laughter syndrome, whereby our repressed emotions and need to express ourselves manifest derision and ridicule at even the slightest slip by our oppressors? Is it healthy or beneficial for us to perpetuate such reactions? Do we threaten the already tenuous relations between believers and non-believers?

I do sometimes laugh when Christians fail, and I sometimes do so for fairly petty reasons. This is not especially productive, but I believe it is human. Yes, I think it is human to deride what we know to be absurdly false. Does it threaten our relations with religious believers? Probably, but I'm not here to accommodate dangerous irrationality. I'm not here to profess tolerance to what history reveals as one of the most potent forces of intolerance ever conceived. I'm all for positive relations, but not at any price.

Setting all that aside, however, I do want to be clear about one thing. My positive emotional reactions usually have more to do with seeing reason triumph rather than seeing delusion fail. Most of the times that I smile, laugh, or celebrate such an outcome, I am focused on the law or human reason working the way it is supposed to work. Most of the time, it really isn't about the theist at all (as hard as that seems for some of them to believe).

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

"Real Americans" vs. Academics

2009-09-07T06:30:00.001-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

According to Ed Brayton (Dispatches From the Culture Wars), the letters from readers at WorldNutDaily reveal "a constant struggle for dominance between stupidity and insanity." He provides a few good examples of what he's talking about, and I have to agree with his selection of his favorite:

You know, the lawyers and academics that just happen to be running our country ought to think about whom they are messing with. Football fans, NASCAR types, deer hunters, rednecks, honkey tonk bar associations (thanks Garth Brooks) and just common Constitution-loving Americans outnumber them about 150,000 to one. In my opinion, it would be a wise thing for them to get "religion" quickly, or just resign, before these people get really ticked!

Maybe I especially like this one because I am an academic. It does not matter that I am also a football fan, that I grew up in and continue to prefer to live in small towns, or that I love the Constitution too (especially the Establishment Clause). Nor does it matter that you'll never catch me at a play, an art gallery, or a fancy restaurant but might find me wandering in the woods from time to time. It makes no difference that I own a gun or that I think Johnny Cash had one of the greatest voices in all of music. I am still an academic, and so I am going to be despised by these people no matter what else we might have in common.

I often wonder why I represent such a threat to these self-proclaimed "real Americans." I don't run much of anything, much less the country. Happy Labor Day, "real Americans."

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Telling Your Family That You Are An Atheist

2009-08-10T05:18:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Disclosing one's atheism to one's family is often one of the most dreaded experiences many atheists will face. While it is certainly safer to reveal one's atheism as an adult, it is not necessarily any easier. In fact, it is quite normal to be fearful of making such a disclosure even as a young adult. The way in which many faith communities shield members from outsiders in order to prevent exposure to contrary ideas, one escaping from such a community often risks more than the disapproval of the immediate family.

As Richard Collins writes at End Hereditary Religion,

Depending upon how insular their faith community was, leaving can be a wrenching, depressing experience that they face alone. The church and the people they have known all their lives are often the newly converted apostate’s only friends. Since leaving is seen as disloyal and a betrayal, their friends often abandon them. Millions of people leave a faith community every year and the pain they suffer is one of the dark shameful secrets that goes unrevealed in the major media and that is systematically covered up by the churches.

For more on this important subject, see the following:

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Personal Displays of Religious Symbols: A Double-Standard

2009-08-06T05:54:00.001-05:00

Image by nick see via Flickr

In commenting on a recent post at Deep Thoughts on the subject of the pervasive nature of religious symbols in the U.S., I found myself conflicted. On the one hand, I agree with most of the others leaving comments in that it is not the personal religious symbols that bother me but the government-sponsored ones. After all, the many freedoms we enjoy in the U.S. include freedom of expression and religious freedom. Government-sponsored displays of religion, however, are unconstitutional, exclusionary, and reflect extremely poor judgment. And yet, I have to admit that something bothers me about even the personal displays of religion.

To be perfectly clear, I love the fact that I live in a country where a Christian extremist can proudly wear a cross around her neck while wearing a Campus Crusade for Christ t-shirt and driving a car covered with Jesus propaganda. Seriously. I believe that our right to free expression is one of the things that gives the U.S. so much promise. If anything, I'd like to see this right expanded rather than curtailed. Regardless of how I might feel about the content of such a message, I am serious about preserving the right to display it.

So what bothers me about personal displays of religion? It bothers me that my right to express a different perspective is so fragile in comparison. Sure, I could adorn myself and by car with pro-atheist or even pro-science messages. I am free to do so in that arrest and imprisonment would be an unlikely outcome. However, I would also be far more likely to face discrimination, social ostracization, and assault for doing so (at least here in Mississippi) than would the Christian.

This difference is what bothers me. If I am expected to tolerate the near constant presence of pro-Christian imagery in my daily life (and I do not argue with such an expectation), then others should be expected to tolerate a pro-atheist or even anti-Christianity message that I might wish to broadcast without resorting to discrimination, vandalism, or violence. Unfortunately, many Christians are not exactly known for their tolerance of contrary viewpoints.

As Autarkis reminds us in a recent post on this subject at Some Steps Ahead,

You are just as valuable as any believer.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Worse Than Death

2009-07-10T07:12:00.000-05:00

Image by polandeze via Flickr

Is anything worse than death, and if so what? To answer this question, I suggest that we consider to categories. First, we can ask ourselves whether any crimes should carry a stiffer punishment than murder (i.e., from the perspective of what we consider to be appropriate punishments, are any crimes worse than murder?). Second, we can focus on the subject experience of the victim (i.e., from the perspective of the victim, is anything worse than being killed?).

Punishment

In the American criminal justice system, first-degree murder does carry among the steepest sentences. However, there are various aggravating factors which can lead to sentencing enhancements. For example, a murder in which the victim has been tortured will often result in a more severe sentence than one in which this was not the case.

From the criminal justice framework, we ask ourselves whether various punishments fit various crimes. In so doing, we consider the nature of the crime. At the same time, we are constrained by sentencing guidelines and constraints imposed on judges by politicians more interested in looking tough on crime than achieving justice.

For these reasons, some crimes that many of us consider as bad if not worse than murder (e.g., certain sadistic rape/torture scenarios) almost never carry sentences as severe as homicide. Thus, the way our criminal justice system currently works, nothing is really worse than homicide but some homicides are worse than others.

Victim Experience

As muddled as things seem on the punishment side of things, they are refreshingly clear when we focus on the experience of the victim. Putting ourselves in the shoes of the victim, we see that there are many things far worse than death.

It is quite easy to concoct scenarios where the victim begs for the relief of death to escape pain inflicted by the sadistic offender. For most of us, prolonged torture fits this bill nicely.

We can also consider the case of severe child sexual abuse. I suspect most of us would agree that it certainly could be worse than death. Frankly, this is one of the reasons that the Vatican's claim that abortion is worse than child rape disgusts me. From what I know of the long-term consequences of severe child sexual abuse, the idea that never having been born in the first place is worse than this truly boggles the mind.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

My First Abortion

2009-07-05T07:52:00.000-05:00

Image by willem velthoven via Flickr

This is one of those posts that I am writing without having much confidence that I'll actually ever post it. After watching an episode of The Daily Show in which Jon Stewart interviewed Mike Huckabee on the subject of abortion, I found myself thinking about how my life could have been very different if not for having the option of legal abortion.

I was 15 and living in a lower-middle class family on the West Coast. We were comfortable enough, and although I was still aware of living in a smaller and older home than nearly all of my friends, our lack of material success did not bother me as much as it had during junior high.

My first year of high school had been rough for a variety of reasons I won't go into here. I did not fit in very well, have a lot of friends, or do much to endear myself to the "cool kids." But that was about to change dramatically as I turned 15 and begin my second year.

This was the year I finally started to fill out a bit and develop some muscle (I was fairly tall and had been way too thin up to this point). This was the year I would make many new friends, discover alcohol, and lose my virginity.

From the perspective of any reasonable adult, including my parents, I was a terror by 15. Aside from doing well in school, I rebelled in every way imaginable. My friends were any parent's worst nightmare, and our weekend activities were a blur of hard liquor, loud music, fast cars, and girls. This would get far worse as I turned 16 and then 17, but that isn't relevant for the subject of this post aside from demonstrating that this was not merely a brief episode of bad judgment.

Against this backdrop, I somehow managed to lose my virginity. I was 15 at the time, and she was 14. She ended up getting pregnant and had an abortion without telling me about either. Although we were still together throughout this time, I did not find out that she had been pregnant or had aborted it until a few months afterward. She had told a good friend of mine in confidence. He managed to keep her secret too long but did eventually tell me.

At the time, I remember being very upset that she hadn't told me. It isn't that I would have tried to talk her out of it - I wouldn't have. No, I was upset because I would have tried to be there for her. I hated the thought that she had to go through that alone. Of course, I suppose that there is no telling how I would have actually behaved at that time had I known what was going on.

I think about this sometimes. I could have had a kid at 15. I can't imagine what that would have been like at the time. I was not one of those people who might have been able to grow up quickly and get his shit together at that age. You hear about some young parents being able to do that. I wouldn't have been one of them. I might have been able to pull it off by 18 or 19, but even that is highly doubtful. But at 15, I would have been a thorough disaster.

And the girl? There was no way her mother was going to allow her to have a child at 14 even if she had wanted to (which she didn't). Had she been 16 or 17, I suspect adoption would have been considered. But at 14, there is no way her mother would have put her through that.

In the debate over reproductive rights, I think we do not stop to consider situations like this thoroughly enough. It is one thing to say that abortion should not be used as a means of birth control among college students or adults. In the abstract, some of us might even be tempted to agree with that. But when one stops to think about one's 13 or 14 year-old daughter getting pregnant...well, I have a very difficult time understanding those who seek to make this a crime.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Proud to be an American?

2009-07-04T11:30:00.000-05:00

Image by BL1961 via Flickr

Throughout small town America today, one will see flags, fireworks, and junk food on display. A common sentiment you'll encounter is pride, and many find it necessary to express their pride in being Americans. I'd like to make two small additions to this conversation, neither of which are original and one of which is presented in video form.

First, please consider the following from "10 Things Every Adult Should Know" written by f*cking c*nts:

America is not #1. Well, not unless you count military spending and handgun related deaths. We’re shit at public education. Our health care system is both the most expensive and the least effective in the developed world. Literacy, infant mortality, per capita living below the poverty line and/or without any health insurance … etc., etc. We’re kind of horrible at a whole lot of things, if you want to be honest about it. We’re also, on average, fat as fuck.

Second, consider the absurdity of being proud over something that one did not do and had no control over (i.e., being born in America). But don't take my word for it. Instead, see what George Carlin had to say on the subject:

Have a good day, stay safe, and enjoy spending time with family and friends. Take pride in what you have accomplished (e.g., managing to break free from religious delusion), but don't get sucked into the mire of blind patriotism. I'll try to do the same.

H/T to toomanytribbles

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

What Michael Jackson Can Teach Us About the Catholic Church

2009-06-30T07:18:00.000-05:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

From what I have seen on CNN lately, the death of Michael Jackson appears to be the story of the year. I watched with a sense of building disgust as they rolled out some "singer-songwriter" I didn't recognize and asked her about Jackson's message. In what just has to be a new low point for CNN, she replied, "Well, I did not know him personally, but..." and then proceeded to offer up some drivel about his message to the world. That was when I turned off the TV, picked up The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, and went to bed to read until I fell asleep. I now believe that there is at least one lesson we should take from Jackson's life, and it involves the Catholic Church.

Those of us who remember the birth of MTV remember what Jackson did for the network and for popular music itself. Along with everyone I knew at the time, I had a copy of Thriller and listened to it constantly. I tuned in to see Jackson during his various appearances at award shows, his videos, etc. He was so damn cool.

I had absolutely no interest in post-Thriller Jackson. As I grew older, my tastes in music changed. None of his newer stuff seemed as good, and I recognized that it would never compare. I came to regard him as someone with amazing dance moves whose music I didn't particularly care for.

And then came the cosmetic surgery, the sham marriage, the oddity of Neverland, and eventually the allegations of child sexual abuse. Jackson was widely regarded as a freak by everyone I knew long before reports of sexually inappropriate behavior surfaced. I mean, he changed his skin color and transformed from a good-looking guy all the girls liked to a monster. He was the butt of endless jokes.

When the allegations of child molestation surfaced, Jackson did himself no favors by insisting that there was nothing wrong with him sleeping with young boys. Everyone I knew assumed that he was guilty but predicted that he would buy his way out of it. I agreed.

Jackson and the Catholic Church

Jackson offers us a simple but important lesson about the Catholic Church. Remember the media's coverage of Jackson's trial on sexual abuse charges? Remember how strange it seemed that there were hordes of fans out there supporting him? He hadn't had a decent album in years and was widely ridiculed, but there they were.

I vividly remember street interviews with these fans. It was clear that they were simply not willing to believe that Jackson could have messed with little boys. Even if he had been convicted, they would have continued to support him. What was wrong with these people?

When one looks at this chapter of Jackson's life, the unavoidable question is why any self-respecting parent would have allowed his or her young son to have contact with Jackson. Sure, some suspected that he was essentially renting the boys. But I'm not sure he would have had to. I think he was placed on such a pedestal by some of these fans that they would have done anything for him.

When we look at the widespread abuse scandals plaguing the Catholic Church, it feels familiar. It feels like Jackson all over again. These priests are on pedestals as well, surrounded by a different sort of fan but still one who believes that their priest would never do such a thing.

There is nothing wrong with admiration or respect, but the sort of hero worship we saw with Jackson and continue to see among Catholics and their clergy is disconcerting. When we give in to such feelings, we lower our defenses and become increasingly vulnerable to exploitation.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tags: CNN, Michael Jackson, Catholic Church, Catholic, MTV, Thriller, child abuse, sexual abuse

Coming Out as an Atheist to Your Christian Family

2009-06-10T05:30:00.000-05:00

Image by The Library of Congress via Flickr

The challenge of telling one's Christian family that one is an atheist for the first time is not something that anyone should take lightly. This is an anxiety-provoking subject, and while many people report that it went better than they anticipated, there is some real risk involved. The outcome is not always positive, and particularly for teenagers still living at home, the consequences can be devastating. What I've tried to do in this post is offer some tips on how to prepare for the process.

Initial Considerations

For big and possibly scary decisions like this, it is often helpful to consider the pros and cons of making such a disclosure. The idea is that if the benefits clearly outweigh the risks, one feels more confident in making the disclosure. Unfortunately, this is a situation where it is not always easy to assess the risks accurately.

If you are trying to decide if and how best to disclose your atheism to your family, I recommend that you start by asking and answering the following questions for yourself:

How old are you, and if you are living in your parents' home, how many more years do you expect to live there?
If you imagine your family's Christian beliefs ranging on a continuum from progressive to extremist, where would you place them?
If you imagine yourself remaining silent and not disclosing your atheism for another year, how tolerable vs. intolerable does doing so seem? That is, how critical is it that you make the disclosure now as opposed to a year from now?
What is your motive for disclosing your atheism?

As we look through these and examine your answers, the picture may become a bit clearer. For those under the age of 18, I am generally comfortable with saying that the younger you are the more likely I would be to advise you to postpone your disclosure. For those over 18, the situation changes dramatically (see For the Adult Atheist below).

Considered individually, however, these initial considerations are unlikely to be particularly helpful. Instead, you want to consider their interaction. For example, if you are 14 and expect to be in your parents' home for at least another 4 years, you may want to give yourself a couple more years before disclosing your atheism if you rated your family in the fundamentalist to extremist range of the belief continuum, especially if you also perceive your current situation as fairly tolerable. On the other hand, a 14 year-old in a fairly progressive family who cannot imagine remaining silent any longer may decide to speak out sooner.

For the Adult Atheist

If you are over 18 and not residing with your parents or planning to move out soon, your situation becomes much simpler because your level of risk tends to be considerably lower. Consideration #1 and #3 become irrelevant, leaving you to focus on #2 and #4. Even then, #2 is relevant only with regard to how you might make your disclosure.

Since there has been a tremendous amount written about coming out by LGBT authors, this is a great place to start. Watch the video below and see how easily one could adapt these suggestions to the disclosure of atheism.

For the adult atheist, the power dynamics are vastly different, the risk is lower, and one has far more control over how to navigate the aftermath.

In future posts, we'll look at how to make the disclosure and consider how to cope with the aftermath.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Keeping Your Cool When Confronted by Christian Crazy

2009-06-08T05:17:00.002-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Friendly Atheist recently had a post in which Hemant shared a report he had received from an atheist woman about how a complete stranger had approached her in Wal-Mart and began praying over her 15-week-old child. He asked readers how they would respond if something like this happened to them as well as a few related questions. I found myself thinking that how I would like to respond is probably quite a bit different from how I would actually respond.

I thought that the first comment on Friendly Atheist's thread, contributed by SkepGeek, was so perfect that it should be shared:

I would treat this the same way as when the mentally handicapped guy waves vigorously at me and says hi when I get on the bus.

What a great lesson for us all to remember! Sure, we could get angry and yell. It might even make us feel better temporarily. But when one is not dealing with a rational adult, SkepGeek's reframe seems so much better.

I spent a year living in an apartment next to a family with an moderately retarded adult child. He was extremely friendly but could sometimes be a bit intimidating due to his size, the loud volume with which he spoke, and his quick and unpredictable movements. One never quite new what to expect from him, and I recall that my female guests, which he would never miss greeting, often said that he made them feel uncomfortable.

The thing is, I never would have yelled at him, struck him, or even found myself becoming more than mildly annoyed with him. Yes, he was loud and often disruptive. His parents seemed to cope by leaving him out in the apartment complex's parking lot, often with no supervision. Having him in my face every time I went in or out did get old. At the same time, I recognized that he did not know any better. He wasn't doing this to annoy me; it was just who he was.

In many respects, the crazed Christian who abruptly begin praying over a stranger's child is the same way. I suspect that she would not have done what she did if she had stopped to consider how the child's parents would feel. In the grips of her Christian delusion, she might have even thought that she was doing something nice for the child.

Still not buying it? Still think my comparison falls flat? Fair enough. How about another one. I've worked in a couple of different psychiatric hospitals where I had the opportunity to interact with quite a few seriously delusional individuals. The majority had religious themes to their delusions, although there were certainly plenty that involved other themes.

I remember being insulted in all sorts of ways by some of these patients. I never took it personally, and once I had taken precautions to protect my safety, I was not one to shy away from interacting with them. The reason I was able not to take it personally and not to get defensive was that I recognized that these patients were impaired. They were suffering from serious mental illness.

The woman at Wal-Mart may not have been mentally ill, but her judgment was clearly impaired by a delusional worldview. Would she be diagnosed with a mental disorder? Probably not unless this behavior was part of a pattern that caused her distress or impaired her ability to function.

Regardless, this post really isn't about the Christian woman in Wal-Mart. It is about us and how we deal with expressions of religious delusion in our day-to-day lives. The next time I hear "god bless" after sneezing, "I'll pray for you" after sharing bad news, and the like, I am going to try to remember what SkepGeek said.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

On Gay Marriage, Just Think of the Children

2009-06-02T12:53:00.000-05:00

Progressive states around the U.S. are demonstrating their commitment to the civil rights of all Americans, and Maine is one of the latest. Now Maine's Bishop Malone issued a statement of opposition to his state's recent decision to grant equal rights to same sex couples.

Same-sex marriage is a dangerous sociological experiment that I believe will have negative consequences for society as a whole. Children will be taught in schools that same-sex marriage and traditional marriage are simply different expressions of the same thing, and that the logical and consistent understanding that marriage and reproduction are intrinsically linked is no longer valid. These are profound changes that will reverberate throughout society with tragic consequences.

Dangerous, huh? Dangerous because Maine's children might be taught to be tolerant of human differences? Or perhaps the good bishop thinks it would be dangerous because children might be confused about the conflicting messages they would receive from adults (i.e., marriage is about reproduction vs. marriage is about love). Yeah, I suppose that might be a bit confusing for some. After all, the conflict between rigidly held dogma and reality is a common source of confusion.

You know what else might be confusing (or worse) for Maine's children? Victimization at the hands of pedophile priests and a church who prefers to conceal their offenses by moving the perpetrators around their system.

What Bishop Malone might want to consider is that his link between marriage and reproduction is horribly dated and simply no longer relevant. His religion can evolve (e.g., the Catholic position on limbo), crumble, or remain a force for ignorance and oppression.

H/T to Pam's House Blend

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Idiot of the Week: Kevin Wirth

2009-05-30T09:15:00.001-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Idiocy this astounding deserves attention, and that is exactly what it will get here in the weekly Idiot of the Week series. A new winner will be announced each Saturday.

Admittedly, I am cheating a bit with this week's winner because the qualifying statements were made on Friday of last week. Still, I I would be remiss in my responsibilities to simply let it go. Therefore, I am happy to crown Kevin Wirth, Director of Product Development and Media Relations for Access Research Network, as Idiot of the Week.

And what, you ask, did Mr. Wirth say to qualify him for such a high honor?

Well, there currently exists under Obama's watch perhaps one of the most onerous abuses of our freedoms and Civil Rights that one could imagine. I'm speaking about Americans, not Islamic terrorists. Many of the freedoms guaranteed to all Americans are currently and have been under attack, but these actions are usually referred to as discrimination. I'm beginning to wonder if these actions shouldn't be classified as a form of terrorism. Who is under attack? The dissidents in our culture.

Wow! So American dissidents are currently under attack by a new form of domestic terrorism. That doesn't sound good at all. Dissidents are often a strength. We couldn't have had any social change movements (e.g., suffrage, civil rights, etc.) without them. Just who are these dissidents now under attack?

These are the folks who challenge the conventional views held within our scientific, philosophical, and academic communities. But they are often made to pay a huge price for speaking their mind. Many freedoms have been stripped from dissident educators, students, and scientists who disagree with conventional wisdom on issues considered settled by many experts. They are often dismissed as kooks, pseudoscientists, and charlatans who we should either ignore or consider as serious threats to the survival of our society -- depending on who you talk to.

Dissidents who are routinely dismissed as pseudoscientists? Hmmm...that's odd. Now you see where Wirth is heading, don't you?

The history of abuse by intellectual terrorists and Darwin fascists has just begun to be documented and is irrefutable. And, it presents Obama and Co. with a clear example of violations he says he will not tolerate. Terrorism of any kind that threatens the freedoms of any Americans should neither be excused or ignored.

And there you have it! Wirth is actually claiming that those who accept the foundation of modern biology and prefer to teach actual science as opposed to superstitious nonsense are...terrorists.

H/T to Bay of Fundie

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

Idiot of the Week: Joe the Plumber

2009-04-18T14:16:00.000-05:00

Image by ronnie44052 via Flickr

Idiocy this astounding deserves attention, and attention it shall receive in a new Atheist Revolution series, Idiot of the Week. Look for a new champion to be crowned each Saturday.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you this week's idiot: Joe the (unlicensed) Plumber. Here is what Republican Party icon, Joe the (unlicensed) Plumber, had to say during a teabagging event in Lansing, Michigan on Wednesday:

Let me give you another extremist view, 'In God We Trust.' Say that too loud in some parts of America and you will be shot. It's terrible.

Yep, terrible. Where exactly might these parts of America be, Mr. the Plumber?

H/T to Dispatches From the Culture Wars

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Another Form of Extremism

2009-04-08T05:35:00.002-05:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Atheists and Christians alike agree that Islamic extremism is a repressive force that violates human rights and spawns an unacceptably dangerous sort of conflict in our modern world. Many atheists, especially those living in highly religious areas, recognize that Christian extremism (must-see video here) is also problematic. We find the image of rapture-ready Christians in positions of political power more than a little disconcerting. But there is another form of extremism, one often intertwined with but separable from Christian extremism, to which we have payed insufficient attention.

We can disagree about whether right-wing talk radio and certain Fox pundits are engaged in hate speech, but we must not lose sight of the fact that they represent a form of extremism. Millions of Americans tune in each day to the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, O'Reilly, Boortz, and their associates. In doing so, they are treated to Republican talking points and misinformation. But the problem is not merely one of well-orchestrated political propaganda; it is one of extremism.

I am not necessarily claiming that the assorted pundits are themselves extremists. I suspect that some are while others are simply opportunists. My concern is with their audience. We have seen too many disturbing examples of the effects of this sort of extremism at political rallies and in acts of domestic terrorism. We have witnessed the ease with which anyone who disagrees with them is accused of hating America. In short, we have seen the impact of hate media.

This sort of extremism presents a thorny problem because many of us would defend, at least up to a point, the right of these individuals to say what they say. One important question involves the precise location of the point at which free speech turns into the sort of hate speech that no longer warrants protection. Another question, and one which I see as even more important, involves what can be done about this sort of extremism other than censorship.

Remember, censorship involves governmental action to restrict free speech. That would be a mistake, even in this case. An alternative, which many people confuse with censorship, would be to make sure that the businesses buying ads on extremist TV and radio know what they are sponsoring and that their customers know too. I am not sure that this would be the best course of action either, but I am coming to believe that some sort of action will soon be necessary.

In the unlikely event that any avid consumers of right-wing extremism read this far, I would like to say a few words about your likely reaction: what about left-wing extremism. This label is probably used in reference to Olbermann and Maddow more than anyone else, and I will concede that both are more about liberal punditry, Democratic talking points, and biased opinion than news. The thing is, even at their most biased, Olbermann and Maddow rarely sound hateful. They are upset, frustrated, and even angry at times, but I can think of few examples where they crossed the line into hate, demonizing the opponent, or advocating violence. There is bias on the left, but there is also an important qualitative difference.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Christian Book Expo "A Major Disappointment"

2009-03-28T12:28:00.001-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

According to Publishers Weekly, the Christian Book Expo, held earlier this month in Dallas, attracted only 1,500 of the 15,000-20,000 attendees organizers had expected.

Stacks of unsold books and glum publishers stood for three days inside the cavernous Dallas Convention Center this past weekend at the Christian Book Expo, a first-of-its-kind event designed to connect publishers and authors directly with readers in the evangelical Christian market. Only problem was there were few readers to connect with, despite the show’s location in Dallas, the buckle of the Bible Belt and a top market for Christian publishers.

After two years in the planning, the event, designed to promote awareness of Christian authors, bombed badly. Of course, the economy may have something to do with this, but it is tempting to speculate that Dallas religious leaders expected to promote the event may not have the same influence they once enjoyed.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

The Two Americas

2009-03-05T05:11:00.000-06:00

Image via Wikipedia

We have been hearing about the American "culture war" for several years now. The U.S. media loves to talk of "red states" and "blue states," but just how divided is our nation? Is it more accurate to characterize the U.S. as one nation, largely united but with frequently differing opinions, or should we be talking about two Americas? I tend to think that we are far more divided than most Americans realize, but I recognize that the nature of our divide is also far more complex than the media would have us believe.

The American cultural divide is something about which I have frequently posted. I have addressed the implications of the divide for atheists, and I have repeatedly emphasized the media's role in widening the divide. My position has not changed much, although I do find more reason to be optimistic today than I did previously.

Reality Sucks!

A college friend and his wife recently told me about their visit to a science museum in honor of Darwin Day. It was not a formal Darwin Day celebration or anything - just a bunch of people who thought it would be fun to go to the museum to commemorate Darwin's birthday. What my friend did not expect were the angry protesters. While they were waiting in line with others to enter the museum, they were subjected to insults from a group of Christian extremist protesters.

My friend's wife wrote a brief post on her Facebook page about this, noting how surprised she was to encounter this (they live in Seattle, WA). Not unlike something you might find here, she referred to the anti-evolution protesters as "morons." This led one of her friends with whom I am unfamiliar to comment on her post that she was being intolerant, etc. Apparently, it is now intolerant not to want a bunch of creationists hurling insults at you on your way to a museum.

It is 2009, but we actually have people protesting against science. I do not think it is just for show. I think that many of them genuinely believe that science is a threat to their worldview and feel pressed to defend themselves.

Nobama

I was disappointed when Gore lost to Bush, but I was horrified when Bush beat Kerry. It wasn't that I liked John Kerry (I didn't). What really got under my skin was that Bush had shown himself to be an unfit leader during his first term. I could not comprehend how anyone could possibly vote for him that second time.

I mention this because I can empathize with how those opposed to Obama feel now. Sure, some were die-hard McCain supporters because they believed in McCain. But others simply did not like what they saw from Obama. And now they feel like I did after Kerry's loss.

The difference, and I think it is a big one, is that I do not ever recall wishing that Bush would fail. I realized that a failure on his part would be bad for America. I hoped he would prove me wrong even though I saw this as extremely unlikely. I can completely relate to how the Nobama crowd feels, but I cannot relate to how they hope Obama falls on his face and hurts our country.

Media as Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

The media's need to oversimplify the information they disseminate is understandable. After all, the U.S. education system is in shambles and our entertainment culture has left us with short attention spans. But the oversimplification also contributes to the broader dumbing-down. Why bother to push ourselves when we can count on being fed what we are supposed to think?

The problem is that oversimplification combined with the ratings-driven system yields high conflict punditry masquerading as news. The "news" of today is delivered by yelling windbags who will not hesitate to cut the mic of someone with whom they disagree. Opinions are so frequently interspersed with political talking points that even the intelligent among us can be fooled.

The media has done an excellent job of creating the very sort of simplistic conflict in which they delight. Unfortunately, this has become the new reality in which we live.

Two Americas

There are two Americas today, but the fault line is not always easy to identify. It is not just about religion, for their are many religious people on both sides of the divide. While appealing in its simplicity, the model of red and blue states falls apart when we realize that next-door neighbors all over our country may occupy the different Americas.

I believe that the complex line dividing our two Americas largely boils down to where residents of each America get what they regard as information. Sure, one America watches Fox "News" and listens to Rush Limbaugh, but it is more than that. This America also reads conservative publications, attends socially conservative churches, and spends more time with like-minded individuals. And the other America is doing the same thing in the opposite direction.

It is human nature to prefer the company of like-minded people. We tend to gravitate toward friends who are like us. We also share a well-known cognitive bias for seeking out information which confirms and validates our pre-existing worldviews. The liberal watches Olbermann while the conservative watches O'Reilly.

Welcome to the two Americas.

Epilogue

What about the optimism I mentioned earlier? Regardless of what one thinks of Obama, I think we can all agree that a large part of his campaign centered on setting aside bitter partisan politics and embracing a new sort of politics. My point is not that this was necessarily genuine but that it likely helped him to get elected. This tells me that many Americans are fed up with the divide and interested in exploring an alternative, even one that remains poorly defined. This gives me at least some optimism.

I do not think we can afford to become much more divided than we are now. The future is bleak if we do not find a way out. And yet, I am encouraged to see more people recognizing the problem and at least beginning to talk about it.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Time to Reject the Non-Apology Apology

2009-02-26T05:07:00.000-06:00

"I'm sorry." Why is that such a difficult thing to say? It used to be that "I'm sorry" meant that the speaker was remorseful, that he or she regretted something. An apology used to involve taking responsibility for something one had done or said. Granted, we have always questioned the sincerity of many high-profile public apologies, but having to question whether what we heard was actually an apology is a recent phenomenon. As far as this author is concerned, it is also a phenomenon which needs to end.

I see no need to pick on Rupert Murdoch right now. I already have a very low opinion of the man, and the saga of the New York Post cartoon does little to make it any worse. Besides, Murdoch is not the only one do give the non-apology apology; he's simply the latest in a long list of public figures.

Remember, Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago), the anti-atheist bigot who berated activist Rob Sherman on the floor of the Illinois legislature? She too gave a non-apology apology. The media, and even Mr. Sherman, allowed her to get away with it.

Saying that one is sorry if someone was offended is not an apology. It externalizes responsibility for one's behavior and places it on the audience. The person making such an apology is essentially saying, "It is too bad that you are upset." This may be a nice sentiment, but it is not an apology.

As long as we allow public figures to get away with the non-apology apology, they will continue to do so. This is why I hope we do not let Murdoch get away with it.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Right-Wing Hate

2009-02-14T09:35:00.001-06:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Lest there be any doubt regarding what motivated Jim Adkisson to shoot up the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church last year, that doubt can now be erased. You may recall that police found hate literature by Savage, Hannity and O'Reilly in Adkisson's home. Now Adkisson, serving a life sentence, has provided a manifesto in which he not only indicated that he was motivated to kill liberals but also called for a violent right-wing revolution.

From Adkisson's manifesto:

Know this if nothing else: This was a hate crime. I hate the damn left-wing liberals. There is a vast left-wing conspiracy in this country & these liberals are working together to attack every decent & honorable institution in the nation, trying to turn this country into a communist state. Shame on them....

These are the views expressed by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and other right-wing media celebrities. Millons of Americans rely on these sources as their only source of news and political commentary. Be afraid.

H/T to Pam's House Blend

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Darwinism is Not a Religion

2009-02-12T15:48:00.000-06:00

Image by Colin Purrington via Flickr

Why is it that people even refer to "Darwinism" in the first place? Nobody calls those of us who believe in gravity "Newtonians," or...well, you get the point. The word "Darwinism" is nothing more than a weak attempt by creationists or those who have been misled by creationists to disparage evolution. They know that opposing the foundation of modern biology is likely to raise questions about their grasp on reality, so they manufacture controversy and pretend that evolutionary theory, which they equate with Darwin, is somehow controversial. It does not bother them that evolution is not controversial in the scientific community. They are quite content to ignore facts that get in the way of their religious beliefs. And their worst accusation of all...that we who accept the reality of evolution are just like them (i.e., religious).

Darwin was tremendously influential, and his fingerprints remain all over modern biology. Along with his predecessors, he gave us concepts without which contemporary biological sciences could not exist (e.g., natural selection). His lasting contributions deserve respect and admiration. In fact, if I may be so bold as to suggest it, they deserve to be taught in science classrooms across the world.

But if there is one thing Darwin was not, it is divine. There is nothing magic, sacred, or holy about his theory. It is firmly grounded in reality and has the full strength of science behind it. Darwin provided us with a scientific theory, not a religion.

Those who accept the reality of evolution go by many names - "scientists," "informed consumers of science," "educated people," etc. Calling them "Darwinists" does little more than shine a spotlight on the idiocy of the speaker.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Super Bowl 43: Faith on Display in NFL

2009-01-31T11:56:00.000-06:00

Image via Wikipedia

I am not a sports nut by any means, but I do watch quite a bit of American football and consider myself a fan of the sport. I have always been fascinated by the common practice of football teams praying for victory, mostly because it means that they are asking their god for the defeat of another team who is simultaneously asking the same god for victory. Thus, I was happy that a reader sent me a timely story from The Kansas City Star addressing the role of Christian faith in the NFL. I have previously commented on the absurdity of sports teams praying for victory over their opponents, and it is good to have an excuse to revisit the subject.

In the article, Arizona Cardinals quarterback, Curt Warner, is described as "the NFL's most outspoken Christian." I haven't followed Warner's career or even the NFL in general enough to be able to evaluate such a statement. However, Warner comes across sounding like enough of a moron in the article that I'll go along with the claim.

Unfortunately, Warner is hardly alone in needing to share his religious delusion with others.

As players increasingly use the field and priceless TV time as platforms to extol their faith, fans either roll their eyes or feel inspired to jump behind teams they’d otherwise ignore.

You can count me among the eye rollers. I tend to watch more college football than professional, and the announcers constant fawning over Tim Tebow's Christian faith was a frequent source of annoyance, sufficient to get me to turn off the BCS championship before it was over.

What's even worse is that one cannot simply hope the Steelers beat the Cardinals because Steeler quarterback Ben Roethlisberger sounds like another Jesus freak. Whichever team wins the game, zombie Jesus wins.

Both teams will grovel before zombie Jesus, begging for a win (and the loss of the other team). The wining team will give thanks to zombie Jesus for assisting them. The loser will blame themselves and bittery resent any suggestion that zombie Jesus let them down. After all, "god works in mysterious ways" and "it is all part of god's plan."

Meanwhile, millions of Americans will not find anything troubling about this whatsoever. And that really is the kicker, isn't it?

So what is anyone who is disgusted with all the public displays of faith to do? I suppose we can always turn off the TV. Of course, then we would miss the inevitable Super Bowl miracle.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

The Psychology of Christmas Wars

2008-12-24T06:31:00.000-06:00

Image via WikipediaA reader by the name of Frozen Summers left a comment on a recent post that really got me thinking:

As a former Evangelical and Campus Crusade for Christ worker I remember when I too saw anything that was even remotely not pro-jesus as an attack. This included all the Santa stuff and secular carols, as well as the blatant commercialism, and the obvious stuff like the displays by ffrf.

I wish I knew enough psychology to explain why, but I think its partly due to the whole persecution complex that the Bible fosters....

Why haven't I been wrestling with this excellent question here? What is it precisely that drives someone to perceive the absence of pro-Jesus material in December as an attack of some sort? Time to put on the psychologist hat and struggle with this one a bit.

In order to make any sense out of this one, I think we must examine three components: (1) the importance of religion to personal identity, (2) threatened egotism, and (3) Christian privilege.

Religion and Identity

We have to start by understanding that religion, broadly construed, is an important part of personal identity for many Christians. For our analysis, I am going to lump church attendance, beliefs about the supernatural, the conviction that one has a "personal relationship" with some sort of mythical zombie, and the many traditions and practices surrounding all of this under the heading of religion. As such, religion is an important aspect of culture.

Psychological research has demonstrated repeatedly that many Christians rank their identity as a Christian rather high among their various roles. A typical study might ask respondents to write down the 10 most important components of their identities (e.g., father, husband, son, teacher, Christian, etc.). Respondents might then be instructed to list these various components in order of importance to them. "Christian" is often ranked at or near the top. In fact, there are plenty of people among us who indicate that it is more important than their marriage, their children, etc.

Why is it so important? I don't want to deviate on this tangent any more than necessary, so I'll simply suggest that it is so important largely because many people have been taught that it should be so important. Some have been indoctrinated into various religious traditions, read the Christian bible, or been persuaded by clergy. Part of what they have learned involves what Frozen mentioned with regard to persecution. The persecution complex is indeed a vital tactic used by the religious to maintain their religion and build group solidarity.

Threatened Egotism

Psychological studies on human anger and aggression show that attacks on one's identity, including perceived attacks, often provoke the most intense responses. In fact, perceived attacks elicit every bit as potent a response as real ones. It is the individual's perception that matters. Unfortunately, highly aggressive individuals have been shown to have seriously skewed perceptions, interpreting neutral events as insults or threats.

If I am convinced that others are likely to attack me, constantly scan my environment for threats, and then perceive such threats in emotionally neutral situations, it is only natural that I would strike first. Convinced that I have deciphered others' motives and can predict their hostility toward me, I strike first to protect myself.

Christian Privilege

The feminist literature is replete with references to male privilege, and the multicultural literature has explored white privilege in the U.S. extensively. In a nutshell, privilege results from a group's status in the culture being so elevated for so long that it comes to define the norms of the culture. Members of the privileged class do not experience themselves as privileged in any way because they are basing their sense of "normal" on their experience as a member of the privileged class to which they belong. My white privilege, while invisible to me, is obvious to members of racial minority groups.

Christian privilege is an undeniable fact of modern American society. The assumption is that everyone shares Christian beliefs, participates in Christian traditions, and affords Christians a higher moral status. Those who deviate are clearly outside this norm and often regarded as aberrant.

It is because of Christian privilege that good, well-mannered, tolerant people wish strangers "Merry Christmas" without stopping to consider that the stranger might be Jewish, atheist, etc. It is because of Christian privilege that many people expect to see Christmas trees in government buildings, don't understand how anyone could object to "under god" in the pledge, and wish those damn atheists would just leave well enough alone. It is because of Christian privilege that we are perceived as undermining cherished traditions and trying to change "normal."

Synthesis

Perceived attacks on one's religious beliefs provoke such an intense response precisely because the beliefs are normative for the believer's culture (i.e., Christian privilege) and so central to the believer's identity. Throwing the persecution complex into the mix makes it more likely that Christians will expect that they will indeed face persecution. We now have a recipe for hypervigilance and overreaction. We have effectively reduced the threshold for taking offense.

For such a Christian, anyone speaking out against what they regard as normal is a threat. However, when the subject is religion, the nature of the threat takes on a whole new dimension. Now the threat is not only personal but aimed at a core aspect of identity. As the believer experiences the threat as being against his or her very self, we see more intense reactions.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution