Courtesy AtheistCartoons.com.
Related articles:
- SFB: 8/26/2010 Atheist Cartoon
- Now You Know – 8/31/2010 Atheist Cartoon
- The Spelling Bee – Atheist Cartoon, 8/15/2010
Search Results for 'rrs'
Over the past several weeks lots of people have been making fun of Basil Marceaux, a minor Republican candidate for governor of Tennessee. He, along with all the other candidates, was offered some free TV air time to make his case. A video of his 60 seconds quickly made its way around the internet and was an easy target for ridicule. His website is just as sad, with unclear sentiments, poor grammar and spelling, and outrageous ideas (i.e, under “What important” he writes, among other things: “See why dental is not in most plans a tooth aches hurt more than a back aches and no teeths depresses people.”) Marceaux has been running for various offices for years, including three times for governor, according to his website.
People may also remember a candidate who stirred a similar reaction last year. Glenn Moon, who was running for the city council of Livonia, MI, produced a video that contained a performance arguably more odd than Marceaux’s.
We can easily brush aside people like these who step forward to show themselves, but should we? Are they really that far removed from the candidates we don’t dismiss?
What about Tom Tancredo, a former Republican congressman from Colorado who ran for president in 2008? He has announced he’s running for governor of Colorado under the American Constitution Party ticket. The party’s platform includes “One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted,” “Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death,” and “Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers,” among other things. Tancredo’s campaign videos on “border security” are not exactly mainstream either.
What about Mike Huckabee, governor of Arkansas from 1996 – 2006 and a former presidential candidate? His defenders don’t think he’s on the fringe at all, even though his actions are certainly not mainstream, including this reasoning for getting into politics: “I didn’t get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn’t have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives … I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ.”
The list goes on. What about Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, and Lyndon LaRouche? What about the entire Tea Party? Here’s a page from Esquire.com outlining a few other candidates you might not have heard about. Here are more from a HuffingtonPost.com archived blog.
On top of all of those, what about the people in positions of power and influence who aren’t elected to any office? Michael Jackson, J. Edgar Hoover, and Howard Hughes can top the list. These three all had money and/or power and were seriously “fringe” people for major parts of their lives while they had power and influence.
Why do we laugh and dismiss some people on the fringe and let others plop themselves right into positions of power and influence? It’s a complicated question. There is no single answer, but here are a few things to consider.
1) Sometimes people are just fed up and want to do something, even if their information and training are nowhere close to being able to do the job. They’ll put themselves out there, even though there’s no chance of success. It’s Hegel’s assertion that recognition is what we are all after, even if the side-effect is to be seen in a less-than-positive light. At least we’re being recognized. It’s the same reason people have gone on The Jerry Springer Show.
2) A “bring back the past” sentiment, where we alter, shine up, and polish the past in order to make it look good and then try and re-create it today. It’s always a failure, but people still try. If someone can convince us, in simple terms, that the problems we are having are due to the progress we’ve made since some arbitrary point in the past, it’s easy for some to accept. We all have fond memories while ignoring or forgetting much of the bad stuff. That sentiment can be twisted and used to devastating consequence.
3) Blaming someone else is a time-honored way to get people to agree with you. It’s easy, it’s simple, and it’s hard to defend. Trying to prove a negative is never a good place in which to find yourself, which is what often happens. When someone is blamed, many people often then place the burden not on the accuser but the person being accused, which puts them in an impossible position. But, this puts the simple-minded accuser in a self-elevating position because the accused will inevitably fail at the task of proving the negative.
4) Simple inertia, the “go with the flow” sentiment, which keeps what’s happening now in motion, no matter what. It’s the definition of a conservative: Keep things the way they are going now (or go back to the way they were). It’s a common human failing to not push harder for improvement via positive change, even if we logically know it’s best. It’s a stronger force, unfortunately, that keeps us going in whatever direction we happen to be headed in a sociological albedo effect.
5) People with no time or desire to hash over details look for easy answers. Those who provide those easy answers, especially if they are somewhat close to what a person already feels, will be easily accepted. Things that are complicated are often dismissed simply because our mental capacity can’t handle it, so we opt for an easier way to cope.
When a good ball player “makes it look easy,” sometimes a fan will think they can repeat the feat–and often make the boast. It never happens in real life. When a person sees people in power telling them things in simple terms, the listener can mistakenly think they could just as easily be there themselves and then try.
There are many more that could be added and feel free to add your own in the comments section.
We may snicker and dismiss people like Glenn Moon and Basil Marceaux as too fringe to worry over. But we shouldn’t. They won’t get elected, but people very similar to them do. (Or they get into positions of power and influence by other means such as family connections, wealth, political appointments, etc.) We just don’t notice them because their public persona is more acceptable, and often times it’s the only thing that’s substantially different.
Related articles:
- Huckabee Pummels Romney, Palin as Conservative Presidential Pick
- In Brief: More Tea Party racism
- Pray to Heal Trig Palin of Down Syndrome?
I have a new advertiser. For the next few weeks an image ad is on some pages of the website on the right hand side for a t-shirt company. It's controversial, so I thought I'd give people a chance to lash out or comment in general. What do you think of the ad? What do you think of the shirts? Would you buy one? What would you think of someone who was wearing one? What are your thoughts?
Here it is:
John Iacoletti picks up our mail from the PO Box, on those occasions when we remember there's still such a thing as snail mail. Occasionally this means he has the most fun job of any of us.
This looks amazing:
MYTHBUSTERRRS... INNNN... SPAAAAAACE!!!
Seriously, though. I'm a huge fan of Phil Plait, and his blog at Bad Astronomy. He's been talking about a super-secret TV project he's been working on for a while now, and I'm really excited to finally find out what it is. I'll definitely be tuning in to see this!
There isn't an air date for the show yet, but I'll certainly be keeping my eye out for it. I'll let you know when I hear more.
EDIT: Apparently the original video was taken down on YouTube. Luckily, Phil Plait posted a new one that's up. You can see it here, if my new embedded one doesn't work.
MYTHBUSTERRRS... INNNN... SPAAAAAACE!!!
Seriously, though. I'm a huge fan of Phil Plait, and his blog at Bad Astronomy. He's been talking about a super-secret TV project he's been working on for a while now, and I'm really excited to finally find out what it is. I'll definitely be tuning in to see this!
There isn't an air date for the show yet, but I'll certainly be keeping my eye out for it. I'll let you know when I hear more.
EDIT: Apparently the original video was taken down on YouTube. Luckily, Phil Plait posted a new one that's up. You can see it here, if my new embedded one doesn't work.
Hemant Mehta
Hemant Mehta, author of the “Friendly Atheist” blog and a book, “I Sold My Soul on Ebay”, is well known within the nontheist community. Mehta first gained recognition by auctioning off his time, as an atheist, to attend the house of worship of the auction-winner’s choice. As part of the deal, he would attend with an open mind, participate, and not be disruptive. From this experience came the Friendly Atheist blog.
Mehta, a high school math teacher in Illinois, came to the attention of Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute. Higgins engaged in a concerted effort to “out” Mehta as an atheist to his employer, including the principal and superintendent of schools. Failing to have him discharged in this manner, Higgins then sent letters to parents in the district, questioning what sorts of things about religion Mehta might be teaching in his math class.
Not one parent asked to have a child removed from Mehta’s classes.
To paraphrase Elton John, “the [Higgins] is back”. She’s taking a new approach, accusing Mehta of recruiting teen spies.
Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, a single-issue Christian organization, is headed up by Peter LaBarbera. His latest brainchild is a “Truth Academy”, which will “train youth on how to fight the ‘gay agenda’”. Says LaBarbera:
This August 5-7, AFTAH will bring together some of the country’s leading pro-family experts on homosexuality to teach both young and old how to answer the lies and myths that so readily emanate from the “GLBT” (“gay”) camp. I am very excited about this new project’s potential to reverse years of pro-”gay” brainwashing in the schools and popular culture — corrupting the hearts and minds of our young people.
Let’s face it: much of the conservative establishment has dropped the ball on fighting the homosexual agenda (or given up entirely), so AFTAH is stepping up to train a new generations of activists to contend with the sexual sin movement that has fooled so many Americans into treating a human wrong — changeable same-sex behavior — as a “civil right.” Please help us make this future-oriented event possible with your tax-deductible donation to Americans For Truth at www.americansfortruth.com/donate. God bless you.
The closed-door event is not open to the general public; rather, attendees must have references to demonstrate that they share AFTAH’s political positions.
Among the presenters at this event? Laurie Higgins. She comments on IFI’s webpage:
As is customary for those who seek to normalize homosexuality, Mehta mischaracterizes this as a hate-promoting event. He fails to provide any evidence for such an absurd and pernicious claim, but the absence of evidence never stops homosexuality-affirming activists from making wild claims or hurling epithets. What makes his blog post about the Truth Academy even more problematic is that Mehta actively and openly solicits teenagers to engage in deceit:
Aww… isn’t this cute? Peter LaBarbera, president of the group Americans for Truth about Homosexuality – a group that spreads lies about homosexuality – is announcing a seminar for young people who want to become little homophobes like him….
I was all set to pay the registration fee and sign up myself until I read this…
Prospective attendees will need to be approved with references; this is not open to pro-homosexual activists but only to those who share AFTAH’s belief that homosexuality is immoral and that the GLBT movement is destructive to America and a direct threat to our religious freedom.
Hmph. They’re onto me.
That said… if anyone aged 14-25 wants to attend and write about the event for this site, I’ll cover your registration. We’ll find a way to take care of the references, too. I don’t want you to be disruptive. Just get the materials, listen to what they say, and share it with the rest of us (emphasis added).
I wonder what Neuqua Valley High School parents, administrators, and school board members think about a teacher encouraging teens to, in effect, lie.
Again, it appears Higgins is attempting to cost Mehta his job for failure to share her beliefs.
Where could Mehta get the idea that AFTAH is a “homophobic” organization? Surely not from this:
only to those who share AFTAH’s belief that homosexuality is immoral and that the GLBT movement is destructive to America and a direct threat to our religious freedom.
Well, maybe.
A desire to maintain order and ensure that their event is not disrupted is to be expected of any group. This is often handled by announcing that disruptive individuals will be removed. However, restricting attendance to those who can prove that they share the belief that it is necessary to take away the freedom of one group to have one’s own freedom ensured presents an image of secrecy unbecoming to those who call themselves Christian. What are they hiding? What do they not want the public to see?
Related posts:
- Illinois Family Institute Attacks “Friendly Atheist” The Illinois Family Institute, offended by the fact that an...
- Atheist student organization leading in Facebook competition. Anyone can vote The atheist student organization at University of Oregon is leading...
- AFA Poll: Why is it impossible to be gay and Christian? Today, the American Family Association asks why it is impossible...
This is a Napier rest home resident Whetu Abraham, 54, a partial tetraplegic with head injuries, the result of being hit by a car in 1986. What also makes him further vulnerable is his lack of family – basically he’s a loner with obvious ‘issues’ and sadly little to no immediate support.
Over the last two years Abraham has donated his entire life saving to the Napier City ‘Oasis’ Elim Church, in the belief he was in-effect buying his way into heaven.
When she learned of what was happening the rest home manager, Lucy Dever, tried to intervene on Abrahams behalf with the churches pastor Bruce Collingwood, and make him aware that Mr Abrahams survived on a sickness benefit and was not in a position to be granting them six-figure donations, let alone his entire nest-egg, given he has no other income source.
Pastor Collingwood dismissed her protestations and banked the monies (approx NZ$20,000) telling Dever dismissively it was Abrahams choice.
I ask you what sort of person is this ‘man of god’ Pastor Bruce Collingwood?
What sort of organisation could take the last cent of a vulnerable person – a man clearly not fully in control of his facilities, down on his luck?
The Napier Oasis Church should be hit where it hurts them most i.e. in the pocket.
Their charitable status should be immediately cancelled.
PS: By the way The Oasis Church in Napier happen to have a Facebook site to vent your anger – so why not join in the fun and tell these creeps what you think? The last couple of posts on their ‘wall’ are gems and sum-up the publics anger at their despicable actions: “scum sucking mutha f*cking arrsehole!” and “complete scum”.
Over the last two years Abraham has donated his entire life saving to the Napier City ‘Oasis’ Elim Church, in the belief he was in-effect buying his way into heaven.
When she learned of what was happening the rest home manager, Lucy Dever, tried to intervene on Abrahams behalf with the churches pastor Bruce Collingwood, and make him aware that Mr Abrahams survived on a sickness benefit and was not in a position to be granting them six-figure donations, let alone his entire nest-egg, given he has no other income source.
Pastor Collingwood dismissed her protestations and banked the monies (approx NZ$20,000) telling Dever dismissively it was Abrahams choice.
I ask you what sort of person is this ‘man of god’ Pastor Bruce Collingwood?
What sort of organisation could take the last cent of a vulnerable person – a man clearly not fully in control of his facilities, down on his luck?
The Napier Oasis Church should be hit where it hurts them most i.e. in the pocket.
Their charitable status should be immediately cancelled.
PS: By the way The Oasis Church in Napier happen to have a Facebook site to vent your anger – so why not join in the fun and tell these creeps what you think? The last couple of posts on their ‘wall’ are gems and sum-up the publics anger at their despicable actions: “scum sucking mutha f*cking arrsehole!” and “complete scum”.
Footnote: Bruce Collingwood has commented on this article (comments section below) giving his side of the story. Far dues to him.
Glenn Beck’s focus has made Friedrich Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” a new top seller. Hayek’s 1944 book fought the drift from individual freedom and free-market competition to a growing dependence on centrally controlled economies. 
I’m not the greatest proponent of deliberate, out-and-out blasphemy for blasphemy’s sake, nor am I by any means an opponent of blasphemy. I simply have caveats.
For me, offence is an inevitable side effect of challenging sectarian power, not the goal itself. And therein lies the problem for me – like others in a democracy, I have the right to challenge sectarian political power by way of argument and the concept of blasphemy is a good way of stripping me of that right.
My ends may differ from the “offensive” atheists out there who are just in it for the laughs (whoever they are), but like them I don’t see “I’m offended” as a legitimate rejoinder.
So when some “high road” preacher from our side of the fence starts waiving their finger and telling us to take the high road; telling us what not to do; telling us atheists how they are embarrassed by our blasphemy, I’m not at all impressed.
Paul Kurtz, now former chair emeritus of the Center for Inquiry has been in the spotlight, or perhaps hogging the limelight, of late. Kurtz, seemingly increasingly, belongs to the take-the-highroad camp. Objecting to the Center for Inquiry’s Blasphemy Day for not reaching his (increasingly?) lofty ideals.
Similarly, Edd Doerr, former head of The American Humanist Association last December waved his finger at the proliferation of billboard campaigns. Specifically the ads claiming of all things (shock horror), that you can be good without God. Why? Because “divisive ad campaigns invite blowback and stimulate both ends of the religious spectrum to engage in fruitless bouts of name-calling and invective”.
Yes. Doerr is telling us that pointing out that ethics are a product of humanity, a view that religious humanists and godless humanists have in common, is divisive.
There was no invective at all in the Good without God billboard campaign. There was no invective stemming from the campaign. The only invective surrounding it was that directed at it.
Doerr is just taking the be-nice-to-religious-people-as-categorical-imperative to its logical conclusion; pandering to religious bigotry held dear by bigoted religious people. “How dare they say that morals are human in origin and that godless heathens can therefore be as moral as religious people!”
This is why I take more issue with this kind of thing from the Doerrs and the Kurtzs in the world of the godless than I do with the admittedly acquired taste works of the likes of PZ Myers.
Hyperbolic rhetoric at least to some degree risks inflammatory polarisation, but it doesn’t guarantee that anything bad will come of it. This is as strong an argument as the “I’m offended” or “play nice” types can make against the object of their chagrin. It’s not a necessary, nor obvious outcome that their fears, real or contrived, are realised.
On the other hand, it’s a necessary outcome of the “be better” approach that equality is devalued? How so?
There is a minimum standard for intelligent, civic conduct that one can expect from people speaking from a position of privilege. Indeed, I think there are two tiers of minimum conduct – that required to be taken seriously (the one more relevant to this discussion) and another for lawful minimum conduct (e.g. using a media pulpit to call for the assassination of a democratically elected head of state falls below this tier). (For some idea of scope, I consider Myers’ work above the first tier, while Pat Condell’s sillier posts and Thunderf00t’s recent failings I’d place below the first tier but above the second.)
In an equal, pluralistic democracy these standards are the same regardless of what race, gender or religious tradition you hail from. This is where Kurtz and Doerr run into trouble.
Their finger waiving necessarily raises the first tier (behaviour to expect) for atheists, but not for others. This is contrary to the cause of atheist equality, and contrary to the cause of equality in general.
If it weren’t a categorical imperative, if Kurtz and Doerr confined their high expectations to specific office as a matter of pragmatism, I wouldn’t be writing this. But they don’t.
Doerr painted the ‘Good without God’ billboard campaign as intrinsically at odds with secular humanist values. It was practically the secular humanist equivalent of a Papal decree.
And Kurtz takes his “be nicer than you actually are, and nicer than the norm, to get people to merely accept you as normal” schick on the road, selling it to the godless masses.
Part of this equality thing that perhaps more than anything else is supposed to be a part of our mandate, is that we all get a bit of leeway for difference in personality given our differences in nature and nurture; a bit of leeway for difference in approach given the different ways we can be received and a margin for human error – a margin the same as that given to anyone else with the same opportunities, regardless of religiosity. Jokes can fall flat. Tone can be off.
It’s not ideal to screw-up – that much is self-evident - but within reason it’s not something for people to be made to feel ashamed about – again, regardless of religiosity.
If you aren’t on board with atheists being able to screw up as much as anyone else, then you aren’t on board with equality.
The neglect of this very serious point by Kurtz and Doerr is to my mind a far worse infraction, far more substantial than any of PZ Myers’ more misjudged rhetoric. To the extent that I consider it beneath the first tier I talked about – although not beneath the second, lower tier. This error of judgement may not be as colourful, or brazen, or apparently as distasteful as the worst that Pat Condell has to offer, but to me the tiers I talk of aren’t a matter of taste.
I find Kurtz and Doerr’s take on acceptable conduct amongst the godless, to the stated aim of equality, to be as wrong and self-contradictory as Pat Condell’s arguments about women’s clothing and freedom of movement across borders is to his stated aim of freedom. They are just logically, terminally at odds with their stated civic goals.
***
Often, by those of the “mandatory high road” persuasion, much is made of the alliances the godless have, or could have, with people of moderate religions. Indeed, that’s pretty much it – “we won’t win any religious allies” (I paraphrase) – as if that was an argument in and of itself.
Religious allies aren’t necessarily wanted
Let me say that it is by no means self-evident that in a pluralistic democracy, that all persuasions are cherished equally by all people. There is no place for forced affection in a tolerant, multicultural society.
To those of a multicultural persuasion who may disagree, let me put a thought experiment by you. I’m a vegetarian. Would you take away my multicultural street-cred if I didn’t sit around in a kebab shop, eating lamb kebabs? No. There you go – a clear, if simple example. Inter-cultural affection is a multicultural ideal, but not a multicultural necessity.
Similarly, while I would never advocate tearing down a Jeffersonian wall (indeed like Christopher Hitchens, I say “build up that wall”) to tell Christians not to wear their crosses in public and so on. This is me being tolerant, but it doesn’t require that I have a relationship with a single religious person – as it happens I do have relationships with religious people, but in as far as a tolerant pluralism is concerned, this is incidental.
So let me just say that in and of itself, losing potential religious contacts isn’t a deal breaker because it is not self-evident that we want to have relationships with religious people.
But it’s worse, the line that we have to behave like angels to keep our religious friends. Worse because it plays to concepts both naive and sinister about “having the numbers”.
Religious allies aren’t necessarily needed
I always get a kick when Chris Mooney calls people politically naive for not trying to brook alliances with religious progressives. Really, I do. It’s so… Naive.
The trade union movement in Australia used to, and to some extent has a fixation on “having the numbers”. Indeed, this is where the cynical end to an obsession with head counting comes in – branch stacking (oh how that’s killed truly intelligent debate in the Labor party).
But naivety – if you’re a young intern unionist in Australia, you’ll probably be lucky enough to come across some emerging political wisdom in union education that’s being taught these days. Aside from a recognition of where an obsession about “having the numbers” can lead you, it’s being realised that “having the numbers” isn’t as necessary to political success as common wisdom may have you believe.
The battle in South Australia (pre-WorkChoices) to have the right for casual workers to transition to permanent part-time contracts after sufficient periods of employment, amongst other examples, showed how a union movement without the numbers and without help from government, could still effect change.
Ask yourself – why does the Christian Right punch so much above its weight in both terms of money* and head-count?
Treating the existence of religious allies as self-evidently necessary to political success is naive.
Religious allies aren’t necessarily going to be attracted by a softly-softly approach
You know how the null hypothesis works when you are testing for difference between two groups of data? That without evidence to the contrary, no difference is assumed?
Take two groups – success in bringing religious people on board by method – high risk straight talking versus used car sales-man.
Until people telling me that one approach is better than the other present some actual hard data, guess what I’m going to assume?
Yes. Being straight talking can risk provoking the resolution of cognitive dissonance through the dismissal of data – “that mean atheist was rude to me! I don’t have to consider what they said!”
Why is it so hard to consider that other approaches may result in similar dismissal – “that friendly atheist is being sneaky! I don’t have to consider what they said!”
Please, don’t tell me you aren’t aware of poisoning of the well of both stripes. Please don’t tell me that there aren’t manifold means of ego defence. It’s not self-evident that one approach is inherently better than the other.
And for pity’s sake, even when cognitive dissonance isn’t an issue, I’ve more respect for my religious friends than to try to crawl up their arse in the first place.
Potential religious allies aren’t necessarily in line with our stated interests
Let’s take a relatively non-contentious issue amongst humanists – freedom of expression is a universal human right.
Consider some of our prospective religious allies.
Certainly not the Christian right – they’re unlikely to touch us with a barge-pole even if what we are proposing is ultimately in their own best interests.
Broadly, we’re left with religious moderates and the evangelical left.
Whittle that down further – who of the moderate and evangelical left are we most likely to attract by shunning blasphemy – the Pythonesque “I reserve the right to…”, but not actually be able to carry through with the act?
I reserve the right to blaspheme, even though… – It’s “pure Monty Python!”
Sure, amongst those you can attract, you’ll still attract those who take freedom of expression seriously, but perhaps this is using a magnet when a sieve is the appropriate tool.
It may be the case that you don’t want people on board who are on board with anti-blasphemy laws. Otherwise you could be inviting internecine spats like that seen above in The Life of Brian.
Please don’t tell me that you’re unaware of religious moderates who support the banning of blasphemy as a hate-crime. Indeed, with reference to the mentioned tiers of acceptable engagement, I view anti-blasphemy laws as below the second, lower tier – I consider anti-blasphemy laws a crime against humanity, and those who enact them as human rights violators – as criminals, if not in law then in principle.
It’s not necessarily the case that religious allies attracted by a given tact are going to be assets to the cause.
Even when in discreet cases religious allies are wanted, and are needed, it doesn’t necessarily fall to the godless to court them
Maybe if you were an ex-Soviet or Maoist atheist looking to reconcile with Russian Orthodox or Chinese Christians, you’d have your work set out for you. But…
How many of the godless people in humanist or even (ahem) “New Atheist” organisations today, have or have had membership in an organisation that is responsible for building the rift that exists between the religious and the non-religious?
I’ll be blunt. The Roman Catholic Church has a responsibility to build a bridge with atheists. The Church of England has a responsibility to build a bridge with atheists. I don’t have a responsibility to bridge the gap, nor do many, many, many other godless people.
And for pity’s sake, the churches most likely to be responsible actually have more of the material means to do the job! Why the hell am I being hit up for my labour?
You want an alliance to fight for environmental policy? Fine. Tell the CoE and the Roman Catholic church to overcome the obstacles they’ve engineered to make it happen! Stop this pretentious, false mea culpa that it’s the godless who are getting in the way of things.
For the many, many people like me, expecting us to make the effort to meet with the very churches with a history of creating the division in the first place is an imposture. It’s a yoke. Keep the damn thing – and don’t you dare call me divisive and expect me to treat you like a rational, honest, fair human being, just because I don’t don that yoke. I do associate with religious people of my own choosing, and if I don a yoke to do so, it’s because I’ve put it on myself.
And here’s the political risk. It may seem politically expedient to make an effort to woo religious people – there may very well be utility in any given circumstance to doing this. You may very win a political battle that you otherwise wouldn’t have. But to expect that this is where the consequences end is incredibly short-sighted.
There’s already a pervasive attitude that atheists are responsible for divisiveness, despite that the whopping great trench that’s been dug between us and the religious has been there for years and that we did little to dig it. This state of affairs is there, waiting to be inherited. It’s not our burden to inherit.
As with the more attractive trappings of religious tradition – the architecture, the private art collections, the ceremony – the division is the heritage of people who choose to affiliate with the organisations that caused it.
Expecting the godless to just shoulder more than our share of the burden, without acknowledging that it’s not actually our burden to bear, is to my mind setting up an incredibly dangerous political precedent. If we are to do this at all, it should not be before it is widely acknowledged by the leaders of the very churches that dug the stinking great trench, that the participation of the godless (or at least the innocent majority) is an act of grace.
Indeed, so huge is such a political loss, that I think it quite clear that there are numerous political goals that are worth sacrificing in order not to lose just this one. And this is even before considering that publicly telling atheists that they need to be nicer plays to the impression that atheists are less nice than other people – which is hardly an established fact.
Hence, even if religious allies can be useful for some other political goal, I don’t think it necessarily worth while going to the effort to bring them on board. Depending on the consequences of any given tactic, it could very well cost far too much.
***
A few last words
Keep in mind – I’m not some kind of atheist separatist. I’m simply criticising a number of the unspoken and seemingly unexamined assumptions naively propagated each time we atheists are told that playing nice won’t win religious friends. I’m criticising the notion that this is the way that atheists in general, not atheists in specific roles, should conduct themselves.
I’m not averse to being nice to people. I’m not averse to tone. I’m not averse to political timing. I’m certainly not averse to religious people.
I’m not averse to the idea that at least where relevant circumstances permit (China perhaps – perhaps even more-so in dealing with atheists of certain dispositions?), religious people may very well reasonably share all the same concerns I’ve expressed above in as far as their conduct towards the godless is concerned.
I’m not blaming anyone for the state of affairs – it was like this before any of us could have an effect on the situation. The situation is inherited – what parts of the situation being inherited determined by which in-group benefits (and out-group penalties) we opt for or otherwise inherit.
I’m not averse to acknowledging the many contributions that Kurtz and Doerr (and others) have made to humanism, skepticism and the cause of the godless over the length of their careers. I have no ill will (nor indeed much in the way of a crystallised opinion) about Kurtz and Doerr as people themselves – although I’ll admit that Doerr’s frankly misleading own-goal about the ‘Good without God’ billboards has sent my opinion of him in a downward trajectory.
I’m not averse to subjecting the arguments of those on “the other side” to the same scrutiny I’m subjecting those of the likes of Kurtz and Doerr to – I think my treatment of Draw Muhammad Day over the past month bares this out.
What I am averse to is being told along with others that we shouldn’t call a spade a spade, or a dickhead a dickhead, on the grounds that it will cost us religious allies thus necessarily leading to political failure – all with little more justification than that. It is by no means well-known that this is the case – it is by no means obvious – whatever happened to a bit of epistemological humility amongst skeptics?
I may choose to use tact in order to get a point across, but I will not contort my logic merely because my views may be unwelcome. I will not put an issue on the back burner merely because a group of prospective allies don’t want to deal with it – one needs to argue their political method a lot better than that to win me over. Prospective leaders of any ilk need to argue their case a lot better if they expect me to in any way support them.
I find the “play nice” argument unconvincing, and the paternalistic manner in which it is usually conveyed as supposedly obvious truth to be entirely unhelpful.
~ Bruce
* Do you really see corporate money being behind creationism, or RU486 bans? Where’s the profit?
The state of Illinois, which is refusing to give public schools the hundreds of millions of dollars they are owed, had no problem giving $20,000 to Friends of the Cross “for the purchase and installation of new exterior panels for the cross to replace existing panels that are missing, worn or rusted.”
This is the cross they wanted to fix, located in southwestern Illinois:
More money was given to them later, too.
Atheist Rob Sherman is trying to do something about it.
He attended a meeting of the Christian group last night and asked that they return the money.
If members do not, Sherman said he will file a lawsuit to force the return of the money.
The cross is operated by a group that makes being a Christian a requirement for membership on its board of directors, Sherman noted. And the Illinois Constitution bars the legislature from granting money “for any sectarian purpose,” he said.
“If this isn’t unconstitutional, I don’t know what is,” he said.
And what was the group’s response?
The Friends intend to listen politely to Sherman but refuse to return the money, said the Rev. Bill Vandergraph, pastor of the Full Gospel Pentecostal Church in Alto Pass.
A repaired cross will be a big tourist draw and that justifies the use of state funds, Vandergraph said.
“This guy is a noted atheist, and he has no concerns about church and state,” he said. “He is just against anything religious.”
To paraphrase: Sherman is completely right, so we’ll just try to attack his character by calling him an atheist.
Governor Pat Quinn won’t do anything about this. He has already allowed $2,300,000,000 to go to religious groups (and Sherman has filed a lawsuit against that, too).
The more exposure Sherman gets for his potential lawsuit, the better. The Christian group is just hoping this is far enough below the radar so that no one will notice the illegality of all of this.
The regular reader of this blog already knows that I’m a huge fan of Tim Minchin. So for some pure, unadultered, politically-incorrect fun, enjoy the following music video (probably not recommended for little ears):
If You Really Loved Me by Tim Minchin
Hat tip to PodBlack Cat.
by Lorette C. Luzajic
Part 23 of Pillars of Faith
Everyone loves a good conspiracy theory, and the Freemasons have provided fodder for countless blockbusters.
“Christian” writer Texe Marrs is sleazy showbiz. Does he believe his own hype? In his world, a demon lurks around every corner, a dangerous throwback to the kind of medieval thinking that fueled the Burning Times and Puritan society. The kind of thinking that fuels the ruthless domination of women in the fundamentalist Islamic world, where execution exists routinely for adulteresses, queers, and apostates.
Power of Prophecy is Marrs’ “end-times ministry, called by God to exalt Jesus Christ and to expose darkness in these last days.” Exalting Christ means rabid anti-Semitism. Exposing darkness warning us of demonic hand signals that prove everyone from Oprah to Kramer to Janet Jackson are devil worshippers. By their hands ye shall know them.
Beelzebub’s brethren have a special sign language. Satanic signals include making fists, interlaced fingers, hands cupped, hands flat, and the ubiquitous El Diablo, a fave in rock’n’roll. El Diablo’s gesture is the same as the deaf sign for “I love you.” And that’s all the proof Texe needs to say Hellen Keller was demon possessed.
It Came From Outer Space
Texe was an aerospace studies and psych prof before he hit the big time with Dark Secrets of the New Age. But the Jews were more of a concern than crystals: “How Jewish Avengers Took Over Hitler’s Concentration Camps and Used Them to Brutally Torture and Mass Murder Thousands of Helpless Germans.”
Texe also endorses and sells a book by A. Hitchcock: Synagogue of Satan: the Secret History of Jewish World Domination.
He’s not fond of queers either, and called one churchgoer “a big homosexual faggot.”
Who could Texe hate more than Jews or fags? Jewish fags of course! He says the Columbine shootings were part of the gay Jew agenda.
Texe says he loves Jews. “If we hated the Jews, we wouldn’t want to see them in Heaven with us, would we? We’d want to see them go to Hell,” he said in Thunder Over Zion. He also said, “No Christian can be an anti-Semite. I cry tears for the Jewish … sacrificed on the altar of Mammon.”
The Great Barbie Conspiracy
Texe warns us that Hilary Clinton has — gasp — strong feminist ties… and that the NIV translation of the Bible is a tool of New Age feminism. But brother evangels are evil, too: “Billy Graham’s sad, downward spiral into the mire and slime of biblical apostasy continues unabated,” he says. I’m no fan of John Hagee myself, but Texe thinks, “He may be possessed by Satan.”
My personal favourite is the Mattel conspiracy. Not because I just can’t get my boobs to go up so high without plastic surgery, but because Barbie is the actual whore of Babylon. “Even our children are being stealthily indoctrinated into the new faith… The Mattel Toy Co. has introduced its new ‘Goddess of the Sun’ Barbie doll. Is this the Whore of Babylon spirit, alive and with us today?”
It may be a stretch to consider Texe a pillar of faith, since his extremism is too extreme even for extremists. But I argue that it’s important to see how far radical fundamentalism can take us. There are many who believe Texe is a lone warrior standing up for the truth. And history is full of absurd fairy tales that justified war, slaughter, racism, and the complete subjugation of women. It’s human nature to want someone to blame, and blaming it on the devil is nothing new.
It was, in fact, insane zealots like Marrs who stoked the fires and wrote the Malleus Maleficarum. In Uganda today, the hysterical right has won their push for family values, and laws to execute queers are swinging into motion. Millions have been executed for working for the devil. It’s not far fetched to think it can happen again.
I finally had a chance to sit down and read some more of the Qur'an this weekend, so here's my synopsis of Juz' 3. This section contains the rest of the second sura (The Heifer), and the first half of the third sura (The Family of Imran).
Now that blogger added a stand-alone page editor, I've also created a sort of hub page for all of my writing on the Qur'an, for easy reference. If you haven't read my earlier posts, you can find the two earlier Juz' I've written about, and the introductory stuff, describing what I'm doing.
Now, back to sura #2:
Near the end, we learn about the rules for holding debts. I agree with verse 280:
So to wrap up this sura, it is mostly a rehashing of the laws given to the Jews by God (obey God, be charitable, be fair to your debtors, etc.). It also points out that true men of God, such as the prophets, submitted to God, and thus were Muslims (ones who submit to God). Abraham was a Muslim, for example, because he submitted himself to all of God's commands. However, they also point out that the Jewish people in general were idolaters, who worshiped foreign gods and golden calves.
Chapter 3: Al-'Imran (The Family of 'Imran):
We made it, the third sura! I thought that second one would never end.
OK, so this sura, like the previous one, was revealed in Medina. The Family of 'Imran refers to the lineage of both Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist. According to M. Asad, this sura emphasizes that while Jesus was a man of God, he was not a God himself, and the interpretation of Jesus' message by Christians is arbitrary and misguided. So let's get to it.
It begins like the second sura: believe in God, unbelievers will suffer, and verse 6 contains more bad science:
The sura continues by predicting the Day of Jugment (verse 9), and what awaits those who reject faith (I'll give you a hint, it's worse than heck). And verse 13 describes more proof of the assertions made:
In addition, if this verse is referring to the act that history seems to show that smaller armies often beat bigger ones, that's likely due to the fact that the underdog stories are more interesting, and thus told and passed along, whereas the story about a large army beating a smaller one isn't interesting, surprising or inspiring.
Through the next few verses, we hear more about punishments for unbelievers (verse 16: save us from the agony of the Fire; verse 21: announce to them a grievous penalty). Verse 17 contains some mostly good advice (other than the worship part, so far I'm not convinced that's important to act righteously):
Verse 24 is also personally annoying:
Next, we learn about the family of 'Imran, which includes Mary (and thus Jesus), and Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist.
This whole section plays on the things Jesus said about God as an external agent to himself in the Bible. This is not surprise, since Muslims reject that Jesus was God; they believe he was a prophet and a man of God, but not a God himself. Asad describes But they completely gloss over the parts where Jesus does claim to be God (see this site as a small collection of evidence that Jesus claimed to be God). It's no surprise that Muhammad was quote mining the Bible, everyone else does too. It's just too inconsistent to be the basis of anything without picking and choosing what you like.
But there seems to be a mistake here. Verse 45 refers to "Christ Jesus," where "Christ" means Messiah. Why would God say that Christ is the Messiah, if he is not?
The rest of the Juz' (except for the last verse) talks more about non-believers and People of the Book who distort God's message.
So although this Juz' ends on a good note, it was filled with punishments for those who reject God, regardless of their deeds. I'm not sure why God is so hung up on being believed in and worshiped. If people are doing good on earth, why exactly does it matter? Nonbelievers can make sacrifices, be charitable, help one another. This reinforces what I talked about in my previous post, that most religions view any dissidents as being completely incapable of morality.
After reading the last two Juz', I'm struck by how much the Qur'an has, so far, focused on reiterating again and again, what happens to unbelievers. Unfortunately, it's pretty skim on why I should become a believer, other than fear of punishment. Perhaps these first few sura are meant to get unbelievers listening, and the good stuff comes later on. So far, I'm not convinced the Qur'an has anything unique to offer. I've already been told I'm in trouble by the Bible. I hope this gets more interesting in the future suras.
Next up, I'll move onto the fourth Juz', where I'll finish this third sura, and move on to the fourth. So stay tuned!
Now that blogger added a stand-alone page editor, I've also created a sort of hub page for all of my writing on the Qur'an, for easy reference. If you haven't read my earlier posts, you can find the two earlier Juz' I've written about, and the introductory stuff, describing what I'm doing.
Now, back to sura #2:
253. Those apostles We endowed with gifts, some above others: To one of them Allah spoke; others He raised to degrees (of honour); to Jesus the son of Mary We gave clear (Signs), and strengthened him with the holy spirit. If Allah had so willed, succeeding generations would not have fought among each other, after clear (Signs) had come to them, but they (chose) to wrangle, some believing and others rejecting. If Allah had so willed, they would not have fought each other; but Allah Fulfilleth His plan.This Juz' begins with this problem that I had with the previous one: contradictory statements about the free will of humans. If God could have willed something that denies humans full control, then free will is a useless concept. You can give human free will, but God "freer" will. A commenter, kat (whose been very helpful; I'm glad to have another point of view on the Qur'an), said this about free will:
Free-Will----look at verse 6 and 7 in the previous Juz [#1]. verse 6 says "as to those who reject faith/trust.... then verse 7 says God has set a seal....Therefore---one has to first choose of ones own free-will before any Divine action is taken. And---as another Quran verse will explain, We will always have the choice to repent our decision and go back to Guidance. God is compassionate and merciful.So if you choose to reject faith, then God puts a seal on your heart. But you still can repent and accept faith later (being forgiven isn't really relevant, the fact that you can change your mind is all that matters to me in this case). Then what exactly is the seal on your heart doing? It just seems that if humans have free will, then God cannot plan the things he is purported to in the Qur'an.
254. O ye who believe! Spend out of (the bounties) We have provided for you, before the Day comes when no bargaining (Will avail), nor friendship nor intercession. Those who reject Faith they are the wrong-doers.A doomsday verse, along with the claim that those who lack faith must be wrong-doers. Just like other religious texts, the premise is that regardless of your deeds, its what you think that matters. No matter how many people you help, you're still in the wrong because you didn't do it to please a magical sky-man. It's probably one of my least favorite assertions that religions make, that without god, we couldn't possibly be moral people (hence my previous post).
256. Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.According to M. Asad, the beginning of this verse refers to the fact that forced conversion is not valid. Although this entails some measure of free will (which I've already discussed), it is good to condemn forced conversions. However, there's also nothing about how we should treat those who choose not to believe here. And the next verse, along with many others, are pretty clear about non-believers being evil:
257. Allah is the Protector of those who have faith: from the depths of darkness He will lead them forth into light. Of those who reject faith the patrons are the evil ones: from light they will lead them forth into the depths of darkness. They will be companions of the fire, to dwell therein (For ever).
More bad science in verse 258, nothing surprising if we assume the Qur'an is not inspired by a god.
258. Hast thou not Turned thy vision to one who disputed with Abraham About his Lord, because Allah had granted him power? Abraham said: "My Lord is He Who Giveth life and death." He said: "I give life and death". Said Abraham: "But it is Allah that causeth the sun to rise from the east: Do thou then cause him to rise from the West." Thus was he confounded who (in arrogance) rejected faith. Nor doth Allah Give guidance to a people unjust.
261. The parable of those who spend their substance in the way of Allah is that of a grain of corn: it groweth seven ears, and each ear Hath a hundred grains. Allah giveth manifold increase to whom He pleaseth: And Allah careth for all and He knoweth all things.Verses 261-273 promote charity once again, mostly good stuff. However, verse 264 does include the idea that those who don't have faith aren't charitable. Also, verse 263 contains the phrase "Allah is free of all wants," which is odd. God makes plenty of demands throughout all of his holy books, it seems that he wants us to act a certain way and think certain things. I just talked about God's plan earlier, suggesting he has desires. I suppose they mean to say that God has no petty wants, like wanting money or material possession, but that should be obvious (what use would he have for any of that?). Asad's translation says "God is self-sufficient," which again seems either false (he requires a lot from people), or obviously true (in the sense that God doesn't need anything because he can do whatever he needs himself). Verse 267 says something similar.
262. Those who spend their substance in the cause of Allah, and follow not up their gifts with reminders of their generosity or with injury,-for them their reward is with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
263. Kind words and the covering of faults are better than charity followed by injury. Allah is free of all wants, and He is Most-Forbearing.
264. O ye who believe! cancel not your charity by reminders of your generosity or by injury,- like those who spend their substance to be seen of men, but believe neither in Allah nor in the Last Day. They are in parable like a hard, barren rock, on which is a little soil: on it falls heavy rain, which leaves it (Just) a bare stone. They will be able to do nothing with aught they have earned. And Allah guideth not those who reject faith.
265. And the likeness of those who spend their substance, seeking to please Allah and to strengthen their souls, is as a garden, high and fertile: heavy rain falls on it but makes it yield a double increase of harvest, and if it receives not Heavy rain, light moisture sufficeth it. Allah seeth well whatever ye do.
267. O ye who believe! Give of the good things which ye have (honourably) earned, and of the fruits of the earth which We have produced for you, and do not even aim at getting anything which is bad, in order that out of it ye may give away something, when ye yourselves would not receive it except with closed eyes. And know that Allah is Free of all wants, and worthy of all praise.This verse also contains another ideal (the first bold section), which leaves me somewhat torn. I think the main sentiment here is that when we give to charity, we shouldn't just give junk we don't want, that's not a sacrifice. We should give the poor some of the things we value. While I agree that we should sacrifice what we can, it's also the case the the poor will appreciate things that we may not value ourselves. I'm probably overthinking this particular line, but I think the sentiment should be a bit more nuanced.
271. If ye disclose (acts of) charity, even so it is well, but if ye conceal them, and make them reach those (really) in need, that is best for you: It will remove from you some of your (stains of) evil. And Allah is well acquainted with what ye do.Verse 271 reminds me of the saying: "Character is how we act when no one is watching." While most people are willing and able to perform under supervision, it takes discipline to do what's right when no one is watching you. Of course the idea of an ever-present god seems to cheapen this, since no matter what, you're always watched by someone. In fact, you're always watched by the most important watcher there is; the only one that matters.
273. (Charity is) for those in need, who, in Allah's cause are restricted (from travel), and cannot move about in the land, seeking (For trade or work): the ignorant man thinks, because of their modesty, that they are free from want. Thou shalt know them by their (Unfailing) mark: They beg not importunately from all the sundry. And whatever of good ye give, be assured Allah knoweth it well.Nothing new here, but I still don't understand why modest believers would require charity, if God is really looking out for them. The whole "God is testing us" argument doesn't fly with me. It's been beaten to death, so I'm not going to do it here.
277. Those who believe, and do deeds of righteousness, and establish regular prayers and regular charity, will have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.This verse seems to give a quick rundown of what's been presented throughout the rest of this sura, which a Muslim must do. I agree with righteousness and charity, not so much with believing and praying. Again, deeds just seem more important to me than beliefs.
Near the end, we learn about the rules for holding debts. I agree with verse 280:
280. If the debtor is in a difficulty, grant him time Till it is easy for him to repay. But if ye remit it by way of charity, that is best for you if ye only knew.Be flexible, and don't demand payment from someone who can't afford to pay you right away. I can get behind that. The problem I have in this section, though, it with part of verse 282:
282. O ye who believe! When ye deal with each other, in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties: let not the scribe refuse to write: as Allah Has taught him, so let him write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate, but let him fear His Lord Allah, and not diminish aught of what he owes. If they party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable Himself to dictate, Let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her...Yes, because those women can't remember anything, with their periods and their emotions. Again, no surprise given the time this book was written, but not something we should aspire to.
285. The Messenger believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in Allah, His angels, His books, and His apostles. "We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His apostles." And they say: "We hear, and we obey: (We seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys."The penultimate verse of this sura remind us again that all of his messengers (Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc.), were all inspired by God. The last verse presents the old proverb, that God does not place burdens on people greater than they can bear. That's quite a statement. People are quite resilient, often surprisingly so in dire situations, but I don't believe that a just and loving God would allow what has happened in places like Haiti, New Orleans, Sudan, etc.
286. On no soul doth Allah Place a burden greater than it can bear. It gets every good that it earns, and it suffers every ill that it earns. (Pray:) "Our Lord! Condemn us not if we forget or fall into error; our Lord! Lay not on us a burden Like that which Thou didst lay on those before us; Our Lord! Lay not on us a burden greater than we have strength to bear. Blot out our sins, and grant us forgiveness. Have mercy on us. Thou art our Protector; Help us against those who stand against faith."
So to wrap up this sura, it is mostly a rehashing of the laws given to the Jews by God (obey God, be charitable, be fair to your debtors, etc.). It also points out that true men of God, such as the prophets, submitted to God, and thus were Muslims (ones who submit to God). Abraham was a Muslim, for example, because he submitted himself to all of God's commands. However, they also point out that the Jewish people in general were idolaters, who worshiped foreign gods and golden calves.
Chapter 3: Al-'Imran (The Family of 'Imran):
We made it, the third sura! I thought that second one would never end.
OK, so this sura, like the previous one, was revealed in Medina. The Family of 'Imran refers to the lineage of both Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist. According to M. Asad, this sura emphasizes that while Jesus was a man of God, he was not a God himself, and the interpretation of Jesus' message by Christians is arbitrary and misguided. So let's get to it.
It begins like the second sura: believe in God, unbelievers will suffer, and verse 6 contains more bad science:
6. He it is Who shapes you in the wombs as He pleases. There is no god but He, the Exalted in Might, the Wise.Unfortunately, genetics says otherwise. When God produces someone with genes that could not have come from their mother or father, I'll reconsider this.
7. He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.Verse 7 was quite surprising to me. It's basically saying "don't take everything so seriously" in these holy books. (Perhaps literally is a better word than seriously.) Of course, the problem here is that if only Allah knows the hidden meaning, and which verses are allegorical, then how are we supposed to figure it out and conduct ourselves according to God's wishes? Of course this suggests to me there will be others who explain which verses are allegorical, and what the meaning are. And M. Asad suggests this is true, referring to Tabari's method for identifying ayat muhkamat ("messages that are clear in and by themselves"). But if he's right, then it's not true that only Allah knows its hidden meaning.
The sura continues by predicting the Day of Jugment (verse 9), and what awaits those who reject faith (I'll give you a hint, it's worse than heck). And verse 13 describes more proof of the assertions made:
13. "There has already been for you a Sign in the two armies that met (in combat): One was fighting in the cause of Allah, the other resisting Allah. these saw with their own eyes Twice their number. But Allah doth support with His aid whom He pleaseth. In this is a warning for such as have eyes to see."Asad suggests a couple of things this verse could possibly allude to, either specifically to the battle of Badr, or more generally to the fact that these types of victories are seen often throughout history. If course this isn't very good prove. As I already said when talking about the David & Goliath story in the last Juz', sometimes the smaller army wins, for a multitude of reasons (Brain over brawn, advantage over the environment, just plan luck, etc.)
In addition, if this verse is referring to the act that history seems to show that smaller armies often beat bigger ones, that's likely due to the fact that the underdog stories are more interesting, and thus told and passed along, whereas the story about a large army beating a smaller one isn't interesting, surprising or inspiring.
Through the next few verses, we hear more about punishments for unbelievers (verse 16: save us from the agony of the Fire; verse 21: announce to them a grievous penalty). Verse 17 contains some mostly good advice (other than the worship part, so far I'm not convinced that's important to act righteously):
17. Those who show patience, Firmness and self-control; who are true (in word and deed); who worship devoutly; who spend (in the way of Allah.; and who pray for forgiveness in the early hours of the morning.And again, we hear about the problems with the "People of the Book" in verse 19:
19. The Religion before Allah is Islam (submission to His Will): Nor did the People of the Book dissent there from except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny the Signs of Allah, Allah is swift in calling to account.The meaning of this verse, acording to Asad:
all these communities at first subscribed to the doctrine of God's oneness and held that man's self-surrender to Him (Islam in its original connotation) is the essence of all true religion. Their subsequent divergencies were an outcome of sectarian pride and mutual exclusiveness.That's interesting, given the sectarian sentiments we've already seen in the Qur'an, and what has happened to the religion since then. One can say that Islam is about self-surrender to God, but there's always the caveat that it has to be done in a certain way; our way. What if I don't pray 5 times everyday, or I don't fast during Ramadan? I try my best to be patient, compassionate, and make the world a better place, with what little I can do. Why must I also believe the unbelievable and, in my mind, waste time reciting repetitious prayers?
Verse 24 is also personally annoying:
24. This because they say: "The Fire shall not touch us but for a few numbered days": For their forgeries deceive them as to their own religion.It seems to suggest that those who reject faith are unaware of what awaits, according to said faith. We know what hell is purported to be like. It wouldn't have to be so painful if your belief system were more likely to be true. Fear is not a good reason to hold a belief. It's a bullying move, because there is no other reason for us to believe what you tell us.
28. Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah. except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.So Muslims shouldn't even be friends with me, or help me at all. More insular, intolerant, in group/out group stuff.
32. Say: "Obey Allah and His Messenger.: But if they turn back, Allah loveth not those who reject Faith.How compassionate...
Next, we learn about the family of 'Imran, which includes Mary (and thus Jesus), and Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist.
33. Allah did choose Adam and Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of 'Imran above all people,-I don't recall this story from the Bible. I'm curious where this comes from.
34. Offspring, one of the other: And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
35. Behold! a woman of 'Imran said: "O my Lord! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service: So accept this of me: For Thou hearest and knowest all things."
36. When she was delivered, she said: "O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!"- and Allah knew best what she brought forth- "And no wise is the male Like the female. I have named her Mary, and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from the Evil One, the Rejected."
I do remember these verses (37-41) from the Bible (in Luke, I think, possibly in other gospels as well), though I'm not sure what this story adds here. Next we have Jesus' birth and life in verses 45-59
37. Right graciously did her Lord accept her: He made her grow in purity and beauty: To the care of Zakariya was she assigned. Every time that he entered (Her) chamber to see her, He found her supplied with sustenance. He said: "O Mary! Whence (comes) this to you?" She said: "From Allah. for Allah Provides sustenance to whom He pleases without measure."
38. There did Zakariya pray to his Lord, saying: "O my Lord! Grant unto me from Thee a progeny that is pure: for Thou art He that heareth prayer!
39. While he was standing in prayer in the chamber, the angels called unto him: "(Allah) doth give thee glad tidings of Yahya, witnessing the truth of a Word from Allah, and (be besides) noble, chaste, and a prophet,- of the (goodly) company of the righteous."
40. He said: "O my lord! How shall I have a son seeing I am very old and my wife is barren?" "Thus" was the answer "doth Allah accomplish whatt He willeth."
41. He said: "O my Lord! Give me a Sign!" "Thy Sign," was the answer, "Shall be that thou shalt speak to no man for three days but with signals. Then celebrate the praises of thy Lord again and again, and glorify Him in the evening and in the morning."
45. Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah.Jesus' childhood is not mentioned in the Bible, although I know some of the non-canonical gospels do describe his childhood, so perhaps verse 46 refers to that.
46. "He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous."
47. She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!So it's the standard Jesus story from the Bible. Next, the Qur'an plays up unbelief again:
48. "And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel,
49. "And (appoint him) an apostle to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by Allah's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe;
50. "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.
51. "'It is Allah Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight.'"
52. When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah." Said the disciples: "We are Allah's helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.Finally, verse 59 compares Jesus to the creation of Adam.
53. "Our Lord! we believe in what Thou hast revealed, and we follow the Messenger. then write us down among those who bear witness."
54. And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah.
55. Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
56. "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
57. "As to those who believe and work righteousness, Allah will pay them (in full) their reward; but Allah loveth not those who do wrong."
58. "This is what we rehearse unto thee of the Signs and the Message of Wisdom."
59. The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.
This whole section plays on the things Jesus said about God as an external agent to himself in the Bible. This is not surprise, since Muslims reject that Jesus was God; they believe he was a prophet and a man of God, but not a God himself. Asad describes But they completely gloss over the parts where Jesus does claim to be God (see this site as a small collection of evidence that Jesus claimed to be God). It's no surprise that Muhammad was quote mining the Bible, everyone else does too. It's just too inconsistent to be the basis of anything without picking and choosing what you like.
But there seems to be a mistake here. Verse 45 refers to "Christ Jesus," where "Christ" means Messiah. Why would God say that Christ is the Messiah, if he is not?
60. The Truth (comes) from Allah alone; so be not of those who doubt.Truth doesn't come from someone, it's what is in the world. If I say that 2 + 2 = 4, it doesn't matter if God says so or not, it's true by definition. Not to mention we've already seen all kinds of bad or incomplete information in the Qur'an, including the bad science I've mentioned. My experience has shown that the truth comes from doubt and skepticism, not blind faith. Blind faith means we must believe certain propositions without question, limiting your ability to examine evidence for each proposition. Whereas skepticism allows us to examine any belief with an open-mind.
61. If any one disputes in this matter with thee, now after (full) knowledge Hath come to thee, say: "Come! let us gather together,- our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves: Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curse of Allah on those who lie!"Damn, I should have kept my mouth shut. Now Muslims are going to have to put a curse on me. Very nice...
64. Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah. that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will).So they're asking Christians here to reject Christ as God (no partners, etc.). It almost sounds like Muhammad is trying to sound as if they're making compromises ("common terms"), when of course he's asking others to completely reject a main tenet of their faith.
Of course I agree that Abraham could not have been a Christian, because Jesus didn't exist yet. But he was part of God's chosen people, in fact he is the patriarch of all of them, so I would suggest he was a Jew. The Qur'an says that because the law didn't exist yet (it was given to Moses), he could not have been Jewish. But of course Islamic law didn't exist either. That's not the proper criteria here. Neither sets of laws existed, so if its possible for him to be a Muslim, its also possible for him to be a Jew. I suppose he could be both, being both one of God's chosen people, and completely submitting to God (which is the definition of Islam), but that gets even more confusing. I'm no theologian, but this appears to simply be a semantic ploy to convince people that even before the Qur'an existed, the major prophets were Muslims.
65. Ye People of the Book! Why dispute ye about Abraham, when the Law and the Gospel Were not revealed Till after him? Have ye no understanding?
66. Ah! Ye are those who fell to disputing (Even) in matters of which ye had some knowledge! but why dispute ye in matters of which ye have no knowledge? It is Allah Who knows, and ye who know not!
67. Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian; but he was true in Faith, and bowed his will to Allah's (Which is Islam), and he joined not gods with Allah.
69. It is the wish of a section of the People of the Book to lead you astray. But they shall lead astray (Not you), but themselves, and they do not perceive!
70. Ye People of the Book! Why reject ye the Signs of Allah, of which ye are (Yourselves) witnesses?
71. Ye People of the Book! Why do ye clothe Truth with falsehood, and conceal the Truth, while ye have knowledge?
72. A section of the People of the Book say: "Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers, but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) Turn back;
73. "And believe no one unless he follows your religion." Say: "True guidance is the Guidance of Allah. (Fear ye) Lest a revelation be sent to someone (else) Like unto that which was sent unto you? or that those (Receiving such revelation) should engage you in argument before your Lord?" Say: "All bounties are in the hand of Allah. He granteth them to whom He pleaseth: And Allah careth for all, and He knoweth all things."More problems with Jews and Christians here, as people who will distract you from the truth. I actually agree that those religions are distractions, although I don't think Muslims are any better. I also find the phrase in verse 73 problematic: "Allah careth for all," because verse 32 already contradicted that for those who reject faith. (Asad's translation says that God is infinite and all-Knowing, nothing about caring for all things. Perhaps this is a bad translation by Yusuf Ali.)
74. For His Mercy He specially chooseth whom He pleaseth; for Allah is the Lord of bounties unbounded.A God would allow anyone (and I mean anyone) to burn in Hell for eternity is not merciful, by any reasonable definition of the word. I understand punishment for bad behavior and suffering, but an eternity is not merciful. It can't be, its the worst possible punishment. If merciful has any definition, it cannot be given someone the worst possible punishment imaginable.
76. Nay.- Those that keep their plighted faith and act aright,-verily Allah loves those who act aright.Again, this isn't true, unless we're including beliefs as actions. They've already made it clear that happens to non-believers, regardless of their actions.
The rest of the Juz' (except for the last verse) talks more about non-believers and People of the Book who distort God's message.
77. As for those who sell the faith they owe to Allah and their own plighted word for a small price, they shall have no portion in the Hereafter: Nor will Allah (Deign to) speak to them or look at them on the Day of Judgment, nor will He cleans them (of sin): They shall have a grievous penalty.So here in verse 79, they're making it impossible for anyone to claim that God does not exist, or that something else deserves our respect or worship. It's a version of the classic (non)argument: If someone disagrees with our dogma, they must be against God/with the devil. It makes it impossible to question anything, and is common among most religions.
78. There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah. It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!
79. It is not (possible) that a man, to whom is given the Book, and Wisdom, and the prophetic office, should say to people: "Be ye my worshippers rather than Allah's": on the contrary (He would say) "Be ye worshippers of Him Who is truly the Cherisher of all: For ye have taught the Book and ye have studied it earnestly."
84. Say: "We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam)."Verse 85 is very clear, one must submit to Allah if you want to make it to a good Hereafter. There is not valid religion other than Islam.
85. If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah., never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).
86. How shall Allah Guide those who reject Faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Messenger was true and that Clear Signs had come unto them? but Allah guides not a people unjust.Verse 90 is confusing. Allah forgives those who repent (that's been said many times earlier, including verse 89, the previous verse). But not someone who adds defiance of faith. I'm not sure what that means. Asad's translation is similar:
87. Of such the reward is that on them (rests) the curse of Allah, of His angels, and of all mankind;-
88. In that will they dwell; nor will their penalty be lightened, nor respite be (their lot);-
89. Except for those that repent (Even) after that, and make amends; for verily Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
90. But those who reject Faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of Faith,- never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray.
Verily, as for those who are bent on denying the truth after having attained to faith, and then grow [ever more stubborn] in their refusal to acknowledge the truth, their repentance [of other sins] shall not be accepted: for it is they who have truly gone astray.What exactly does "growing more stubborn" mean, and how stubborn do I have to get before my repentance will never be accepted, no matter what?
91. As to those who reject Faith, and die rejecting,- never would be accepted from any such as much gold as the earth contains, though they should offer it for ransom. For such is (in store) a penalty grievous, and they will find no helpers.So why should we offer our money if our penalty is for not believing? How does offering money fix that?
92. By no means shall ye attain righteousness unless ye give (freely) of that which ye love; and whatever ye give, of a truth Allah knoweth it well.This Juz' finishes up with again a promotion of charity and generousity, which is good. It's saying, once again, that you should give things that have value to you, not just junk that you don't want. Sacrifice is good, it dissaudes people from greed and promotes being happy with what you have (materially).
So although this Juz' ends on a good note, it was filled with punishments for those who reject God, regardless of their deeds. I'm not sure why God is so hung up on being believed in and worshiped. If people are doing good on earth, why exactly does it matter? Nonbelievers can make sacrifices, be charitable, help one another. This reinforces what I talked about in my previous post, that most religions view any dissidents as being completely incapable of morality.
After reading the last two Juz', I'm struck by how much the Qur'an has, so far, focused on reiterating again and again, what happens to unbelievers. Unfortunately, it's pretty skim on why I should become a believer, other than fear of punishment. Perhaps these first few sura are meant to get unbelievers listening, and the good stuff comes later on. So far, I'm not convinced the Qur'an has anything unique to offer. I've already been told I'm in trouble by the Bible. I hope this gets more interesting in the future suras.
Next up, I'll move onto the fourth Juz', where I'll finish this third sura, and move on to the fourth. So stay tuned!
My 361st favorite band is Fever Ray, the solo project of Knife’s Karin Dreijer-Andersson, which, like Knife, offers creepy, atmospheric electronic songs like this one:
Your Thoughts?
Posted in Indie Music, Music, Music Videos, Videos Tagged: "When I Grow Up", Electronic Music, Fever Ray, Karin Dreijer-Anderrson, Knife, Swedish Music, Women Singers
Mark Twain has always been one of my favorite authors; The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn were among my favorite books when I was a child. Tonight, I want to share some snippets from a work that I read just a couple of months ago, Letters From the Earth.
Satan, who was overheard making fun of the Creator and his projects, has been banished to Earth for a period of time. During his exile, he writes a series of letters to his angelic friends in which he describes his observations of humankind and the atrocious beliefs that they have concocted about God, life, heaven and hell. Twain wrote this book in 1909, but it was not published until 1962. The reason for the delay was Twain’s daughter concern that the book’s iconoclastic nature would damage her father’s reputation. What follows will give you just a small taste of the delightful treat in store if you choose to read the entire book (it’s quite short and can easily be read in one sitting).
This is a strange place, an extraordinary place, and interesting. There is nothing resembling it at home. The people are all insane, the other animals are all insane, the earth is insane, Nature itself is insane. Man is a marvelous curiosity. When he is at his very, very best he is a sort of low grade nickel-plated angel; at his worst he is unspeakable, unimaginable; and first and last and all the time he is a sarcasm. Yet he blandly and in all sincerity calls himself the “noblest work of God.” This is the truth I am telling you. And this is not a new idea with him, he has talked it through all the ages, and believed it. Believed it, and found nobody among all his race to laugh at it.
Moreover — if I may put another strain upon you — he thinks he is the Creator’s pet. He believes the Creator is proud of him; he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes, and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to Him, and thinks He listens. Isn’t it a quaint idea? Fills his prayers with crude and bald and florid flatteries of Him, and thinks He sits and purrs over these extravagancies and enjoys them. He prays for help, and favor, and protection, every day; and does it with hopefulness and confidence, too, although no prayer of his has ever been answered. The daily affront, the daily defeat, do not discourage him, he goes on praying just the same….
One of his principle religions is called the Christian. A sketch of it will interest you. It sets forth in detail in a book containing two million words, called the Old and New Testaments. Also it has another name — The Word of God….
It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
This Bible is built mainly out of the fragments of older Bibles that had their day and crumbled to ruin. So it noticeably lacks in originality, necessarily. Its three or four most imposing and impressive events all happened in earlier Bibles; all its best precepts and rules of conduct came also from those Bibles….
That innocent Bible tells about the Creation. Of what — the universe? Yes, the universe. In six days!
God did it. He did not call it the universe — that name is modern. His whole attention was upon this world. He constructed it in five days — and then? It took him only one day to make twenty million suns and eighty million planets!
What were they for — according to this idea? To furnish light for this little toy-world. That was his whole purpose; he had no other….
The best minds will tell you that when a man has begotten a child he is morally bound to tenderly care for it, protect it from hurt, shield it from disease, clothe it, feed it, bear with its waywardness, lay no hand upon it save in kindness and for its own good, and never in any case inflict upon it a wanton cruelty. God’s treatment of his earthly children, every day and every night, is the exact opposite of all that, yet those best minds warmly justify these crimes, condone them, excuse them, and indignantly refuse to regard them as crimes at all, when he commits them….
God banished Adam and Eve from the Garden, and eventually assassinated them. All for disobeying a command which he had no right to utter. But he did not stop there, as you will see. He has one code of morals for himself, and quite another for his children. He requires his children to deal justly — and gently — with offenders, and forgive them seventy-and-seven times; whereas he deals neither justly nor gently with anyone, and he did not forgive the ignorant and thoughtless first pair of juveniles even their first small offense and say, “You may go free this time, and I will give you another chance.”
On the contrary! He elected to punish their children, all through the ages to the end of time, for a trifling offense committed by others before they were born. He is punishing them yet….
The rest of the book continues with Twain’s scathing indictment of Christianity and its god. He discusses the Noah’s Ark fable, the biblical basis for misogyny, the Old and New Testament gods (as Twain tells it, the OT god was cruel, but it was the NT’s gentle Jesus, meek and mild who really developed the idea of hell) and various other wonders of Christian belief. If you enjoy religious criticism that hits sharply, and frequently hits the funny bone, you’ll love Letters From the Earth.
– the chaplain
Posted in atheism, atheist inspiration, humor, literature
Retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney:
I can’t put my own view any better than David Brooks and Glenn Greenwald already have.
The Constitution is grounded in the premise that there are other values and priorities more important than mere Safety. Even though they knew that doing so would help murderers and other dangerous and vile criminals evade capture, the Framers banned the Government from searching homes without probable cause, prohibited compelled self-incrimination, double jeopardy and convictions based on hearsay, and outlawed cruel and unusual punishment. That’s because certain values — privacy, due process, limiting the potential for abuse of government power — were more important than mere survival and safety. A central calculation of the Constitution was that we insist upon privacy, liberty and restraints on government power even when doing so means we live with less safety and a heightened risk of danger and death. And, of course, the Revolutionary War against the then-greatest empire on earth was waged by people who risked their lives and their fortunes in pursuit of liberty, precisely because there are other values that outweigh mere survival and safety.
These are the calculations that are now virtually impossible to find in our political discourse. It is fear, and only fear, that predominates. No other competing values are recognized. We have Chris Matthews running around shrieking that he’s scared of kung-fu-wielding Terrorists. Michael Chertoff is demanding that we stop listening to “privacy ideologues” – i.e., that there should be no limits on Government’s power to invade and monitor and scrutinize. Republican leaders have spent the decade preaching that only Government-provided Safety, not the Constitution, matters. All in response to this week’s single failed terrorist attack, there are — as always — hysterical calls that we start more wars, initiate racial profiling, imprison innocent people indefinitely, and torture even more indiscriminately. These are the by-products of the weakness and panic and paralyzing fear that Americans have been fed in the name of Terrorism, continuously for a full decade now.
Reducing the citizenry to a frightened puddle of passivity, hysteria and a child-like expectation of Absolute Safety is irrevocable and far more consequential than any specific new laws. Fear is always the enabling force of authoritarianism: the desire to vest unlimited power in political authority in exchange for promises of protection.
During the middle third of the 20th century, Americans had impressive faith in their own institutions. It was not because these institutions always worked well. The Congress and the Federal Reserve exacerbated the Great Depression. The military made horrific mistakes during World War II, which led to American planes bombing American troops and American torpedoes sinking ships with American prisoners of war.But there was a realistic sense that human institutions are necessarily flawed. History is not knowable or controllable. People should be grateful for whatever assistance that government can provide and had better do what they can to be responsible for their own fates.
That mature attitude seems to have largely vanished. Now we seem to expect perfection from government and then throw temper tantrums when it is not achieved. We seem to be in the position of young adolescents — who believe mommy and daddy can take care of everything, and then grow angry and cynical when it becomes clear they can’t.
Your Thoughts?
Posted in Authoritarianism, Civil Liberties, Islam, Law, Law & Politics, Politics, Religious Rights Tagged: David Brooks, FOX News, Glenn Greenwald, Julie Banderas, Lieutenant General Thomas McInterney, Terrorism
ME: As a woman atheist, I find it a little disturbing that your google ads
feature a busty white woman in a tiny cop suit as a means of getting
attention. How is the objectification of women okay for the fight against
irrationality? This cheap means of advertising also excludes women and
non-white atheists from rational discourse, since its target audience is
clearly young white men. There must be another way to get your message out
there.
RRS: I run about 15 different ads. The one you're objecting to is clicked 10 times more frequently, this includes clicks from women. We pay per impression, not clicks, so the most rational thing to do is run the ad you object to more often. If we had the budget of the Vatican things would be different.
ME: Simply because women are included in the people who click the ad doesn't mean it's not sexist. The ends don't justify the means, and as a black woman atheist, I'm offended.
RRS: Be offended at humanity, as I am. Don't misdirect your frustration, you do so by directing your frustration at us.
ME: My anger does indeed also rest with the ills of humanity, but I have a very good reason to be frustrated with your organization and organizations like yours who would propagate the ills of humanity to suit your own ends. I think doing so does your organization a disservice. Sexism is a huge problem with many of the world's major religions, and to shrug off sexism as a necessity in the fight against irrationality seems to be counterproductive. I suppose you also misdirect your frustrations with Christian apologists and Intelligent Design proponents when you attack them and their followers for misrepresenting science and their own doctrines in order to suit their own ends? I suppose the best thing to do would be to shut down the Rational Response Squad and say, "What the hell--we can't possibly win the fight against irrationality, and that's that."
But you won't do that. You won't shrug off the hurtful mythology of some religions, because their ideas can be dangerous for scientific discovery, politics, public education, and people's lives. Your fight is important--you recognize that. But then you would denigrate or downplay the fights of others for the sake of convenience. I find this irresponsible.
RRS: Honestly I find it disgusting that one would assume that an ad is sexist simply because it portrays an attractive woman. Such thinking to me is irrational, illogical, and downright stupid. I thought you should know.
At what point in fighting for women to be accepted or being treated equally did you despise attractive women being models?
Your argument needs to be taken up with any man that would derive a lower opinion of women as a result of the ads, not the people running the ads.
This conversation will not go anywhere from here. We've had this argument dozens of times. We've ended up feeling that people arguing cases like yours are just as irrational as the religious people we seek to save from their beliefs.
So be offended... we are of you.
1. The action or an act of objectifying something; a material thing which embodies or expresses an abstract idea, principle, etc.
2. spec. The demotion or degrading of a person or class of people (esp. women) to the status of a mere object (see OBJECTIFY v. 2); reification; (also) behaviour or an attitude characterized by this.
sexual objectification: the regarding of a person or class of people (esp. women) only as a sex object.
Hello? Is this not what they are doing when their most prominent ad is one of a woman with her boobs hanging out and her skirt hiked up? Not to mention, they didn't even try to counter my points on the exclusion of non-whites. Go ahead. Go to their site. Check out all of their banners and ads. All of the ads that feature people--are of white people. These people would presume to be the saviors of rationality? While they become irrationally angry with me for pointing out something that I think is pretty damn obvious?
One of their ads features a woman in camouflage holding up a badge, and looking straight into the camera--fully clothed. This woman is presumably also attractive, so why not show that ad a bunch of times all over the internet?
Did I attack any of them personally? No. I expressed frustration at their tactics, while also telling them that I realize their cause is important. Rationality is extremely important, but one must also have principles.
feature a busty white woman in a tiny cop suit as a means of getting
attention. How is the objectification of women okay for the fight against
irrationality? This cheap means of advertising also excludes women and
non-white atheists from rational discourse, since its target audience is
clearly young white men. There must be another way to get your message out
there.
RRS: I run about 15 different ads. The one you're objecting to is clicked 10 times more frequently, this includes clicks from women. We pay per impression, not clicks, so the most rational thing to do is run the ad you object to more often. If we had the budget of the Vatican things would be different.
ME: Simply because women are included in the people who click the ad doesn't mean it's not sexist. The ends don't justify the means, and as a black woman atheist, I'm offended.
RRS: Be offended at humanity, as I am. Don't misdirect your frustration, you do so by directing your frustration at us.
ME: My anger does indeed also rest with the ills of humanity, but I have a very good reason to be frustrated with your organization and organizations like yours who would propagate the ills of humanity to suit your own ends. I think doing so does your organization a disservice. Sexism is a huge problem with many of the world's major religions, and to shrug off sexism as a necessity in the fight against irrationality seems to be counterproductive. I suppose you also misdirect your frustrations with Christian apologists and Intelligent Design proponents when you attack them and their followers for misrepresenting science and their own doctrines in order to suit their own ends? I suppose the best thing to do would be to shut down the Rational Response Squad and say, "What the hell--we can't possibly win the fight against irrationality, and that's that."
But you won't do that. You won't shrug off the hurtful mythology of some religions, because their ideas can be dangerous for scientific discovery, politics, public education, and people's lives. Your fight is important--you recognize that. But then you would denigrate or downplay the fights of others for the sake of convenience. I find this irresponsible.
RRS: Honestly I find it disgusting that one would assume that an ad is sexist simply because it portrays an attractive woman. Such thinking to me is irrational, illogical, and downright stupid. I thought you should know.
At what point in fighting for women to be accepted or being treated equally did you despise attractive women being models?
Your argument needs to be taken up with any man that would derive a lower opinion of women as a result of the ads, not the people running the ads.
This conversation will not go anywhere from here. We've had this argument dozens of times. We've ended up feeling that people arguing cases like yours are just as irrational as the religious people we seek to save from their beliefs.
So be offended... we are of you.
________________________________________________________________
After that I didn't respond. I didn't see the point. I thought I was being decently civil in demonstrating my points, but apparently I'm an idiot because I'm attempting to point out their hypocrisy. This is why I can't bring myself to join certain organizations or align myself with any official groups--I'm way too hesitant to label myself.
I never said the ad was offensive because it had an attractive woman in it. Because first of all, the woman isn't attractive. I'm no supermodel, but I have no reason to feel threatened by some anonymous figure in an ad. I'm confident enough in myself and I don't feel guilty for it. The only reason I decided to e-mail the Rational Response Squad in the first place is because I frequent a number of atheist blogs that run Google Ads on their sites and that ridiculous ad with the busty white woman in the cop suit was getting on my nerves. How can one make claims to progressivism while making ads that explicitly exclude non-white atheists and women who do not approve of objectifying other women? This kind of nearsightedness is what causes people like me to reject organizations like the Rational Response Squad even though I believe in many of the same things they do.
Did I ask them to pull the ad? No. Obviously, they can advertise any way they see fit. But that doesn't mean that I have to automatically align myself with an organization simply because they are atheists. Is it so much to ask to be included in popular discourse? Is it so much to ask that my opinions and perspectives be given respect?
Did I ask them to pull the ad? No. Obviously, they can advertise any way they see fit. But that doesn't mean that I have to automatically align myself with an organization simply because they are atheists. Is it so much to ask to be included in popular discourse? Is it so much to ask that my opinions and perspectives be given respect?
The Oxford English Dictionary, defines objectification as such:
1. The action or an act of objectifying something; a material thing which embodies or expresses an abstract idea, principle, etc.
2. spec. The demotion or degrading of a person or class of people (esp. women) to the status of a mere object (see OBJECTIFY v. 2); reification; (also) behaviour or an attitude characterized by this.
sexual objectification: the regarding of a person or class of people (esp. women) only as a sex object.
Hello? Is this not what they are doing when their most prominent ad is one of a woman with her boobs hanging out and her skirt hiked up? Not to mention, they didn't even try to counter my points on the exclusion of non-whites. Go ahead. Go to their site. Check out all of their banners and ads. All of the ads that feature people--are of white people. These people would presume to be the saviors of rationality? While they become irrationally angry with me for pointing out something that I think is pretty damn obvious?
One of their ads features a woman in camouflage holding up a badge, and looking straight into the camera--fully clothed. This woman is presumably also attractive, so why not show that ad a bunch of times all over the internet?
Did I attack any of them personally? No. I expressed frustration at their tactics, while also telling them that I realize their cause is important. Rationality is extremely important, but one must also have principles.
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
