“Pettifogging.” Good word.
Author Archive for Andy Dufresne
Posts have been few and far between recently because I’m in the midst of starting a new, and very exciting job. There’s been a lot going on recently in the news as well as in the atheist blogosphere, and I hope to be able to comment more on these things in the coming week.
Godspeed,
Andy
Tagged: News 
The theorists will have some justification this time, I’m afraid. I admit that I do find it strange—not suspicious, just strange—that the U.S. almost immediately disposed of the body in “the traditional Muslim fashion.” No autopsy? Just letting the corpse drift out to sea? It’s almost as if they’re trying to mess with the minds of the Loose Change crowd. Of course, the U.S. says it has DNA verification that, yes, this was bin Laden. But I’m not even sure how that works out without the actual body. We’re told they have video and photos, but even that’s not going to satisfy the truly gung-ho truthers.
Tagged: bin Laden, Obama, US Foreign Policy 
Amanda Marcotte annotates the Ten Commandments for the religious right:
Eight: You shall not steal. Tell the Republicans who busted their ass to make sure the votes in Florida’s 2000 election weren’t counted.
Nine: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour. This one means that you shouldn’t claim that Iraq has WMDs and that Fox News would have to shut down. Andrew Breitbart, James O’Keefe—oh fuck the entire right wing media—would be out of work. This commandment is flouted thousands of times day. Maybe more. Yes, Obama is your neighbor and claiming he isn’t and is instead a Kenyan national is a violation of this commandment.
Ten: You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbour’s. Capitalism, the true religion of the right, would completely collapse without covetousness. The American economy is based on looking at your neighbor’s house, car, etc. and keeping up with the Joneses. As for the “neighbor’s wife” thing? Let’s just say sex sells in our economy. Republicans can’t support this commandment. This commandment is socialism.
Tagged: Marcotte, Ten Commandments 
Only moments ago, I would have thought that atheist-bashing would be frowned upon among Unitarians. Conventional wisdom says UUs don’t have a beef with anyone, right? Thanks to Rieux, I’ve been educated:
There is a contrary trend, though, in many local UU congregations and in the national UU Association (“UUA”): extremely strong religious privilege and (largely as a consequence) severe distaste for open atheism and criticism of religion. Very few UUs believe in “God” as that term is broadly understood by theists (and atheists) the word [sic] over, but lots of UUs believe in “religion,” “faith,” “prayer,” “church,” and (indeed) “God” as terms and systems that deserve support and defense. Gnu-bashing is overwhelmingly common and accepted among UUs, especially clergy and denominational administrators, as I have documented repeatedly (several selected examples here).
—From Rieux’s comment #78 at Butterflies and Wheels post “The Notion Lord Reese So Casually Endorses”
I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised that “Gnu-bashing is overwhelmingly common and accepted among UUs.” Gnubashing is, after all, one of the only remaining varieties of bigotry that is actually regarded as tolerant. (The calculus is that since gnu atheists are fundamentally intolerant, bashing them is the same as taking a stand for tolerance. The fact that the bashing is itself often profoundly intolerant is an irony that is ever lost on the gnubasher.)
Yes friends, gnubashing doesn’t end where moderate religion begins. Hell, it doesn’t even end where atheism begins, since the very finest gnubashers in the business are themselves nonreligious nontheists.
Tagged: Unitarians 
The Times on David Foster Wallace’s unfinished novel.
Tagged: David Foster Wallace, NY Times Magazine 
Update: The debate is now on YouTube:
In a must-read essay, Lawrence Krauss reflects at Pharyngula on his recent debate with William Lane Craig, and on debates in general:
I believe that if I erred at all, it was in an effort to consider the sensibilities of the 1200 smiling young faces in the audience, who earnestly came out, mostly to hear Craig, and to whom I decided to show undue respect. As I stressed at the time, I did not come to debate the existence of God, but rather to debate about evidence for the existence of God. I also wanted to demonstrate the need for nuance, to explain how these issues are far more complex than Craig, in his simplistic view of the world, makes them out to be. For this reason, as I figured I would change few minds I decided also to try and illustrate for these young minds the nature of science, with the hope that what they saw might cause them to think. Unfortunately any effort I made to show nuance and actually explain facts was systematically distorted in Craig’s continual effort to demonstrate how high school syllogisms apparently demonstrated definitive evidence for God.
The power of Krauss’ personality compels me to take him at his word there. He seems like a good-natured fellow, and so I think he really did intend to have a reasonable, rational discussion with William Don’t-I-Look-Like-David-Lee-Roth Lane Craig. So Lawrence is less cynical than I. Tis no crime.
I’d like to see the video of Lawrence’s debate with Criag, should it ever become available. Until then, if you want to see Craig really get his 6,000 year clock cleaned, watch his debate with mild-mannered Yale professor Shelly Kagan, who calmly dismantled literally every major point Craig had to make:
Addendum: My above “6,000 year old clock” joke appears to suggest that Craig is a young-earth creationist. From what I can detect, he is not. He seems more of an old-earthy type, like Behe or Collins. He’s not a biblical literalist, rather, he’d be more what they call a “sophisticated theologian.” At least I think he is. I still don’t know what “sophisticated theology” means.
Tagged: Debates, Krauss, PZ Myers, William Lane Craig 
On Slate:
How dispiriting to see, once again, the footage of theocratic rage in Kandahar and Mazar-i-Sharif. The same old dreary formula: self-righteous frenzy married to a neurotic need to take offense; the easy resort to indiscriminate violence and cruelty; the promulgation of makeshift fatwas by mullahs on the make; those writhing mustaches framing crude slogans of piety and hatred, and yelling for death as if on first-name terms with the Almighty. The spilling of blood and the spoliation of property—all for nothing, and ostensibly “provoked” by the corny, brainless antics of a devout American nonentity, notice of whose mere existence is beneath the dignity of any thinking person.
Zing!
Tagged: Books, Christopher Hitchens, Islam, Koran 
The atheist blogosphere reacts. P.Z. Myers:
These twelve people were human beings, reduced to a statistic in a newspaper article, and dehumanized and exterminated by a mindless mob, inflamed by religious fanatics. Similarly, the hundred thousand or more killed in Iraq, the ongoing war in Afghanistan, all of these are also genuine, thinking, feeling human beings, wiped out in a cold-hearted calculus of delusion and greed. There is no justification sufficient for these acts.
Yet somehow we get lost in the wrong questions. Do we have the right to burn the Koran? Is it unreasonable to think that Afghans might have cause to be angry? Should we not defend the right of fascist politicians to live, and perhaps it is OK to grant a limited license to murder to certain people if they are of the correct political stripe or the appropriate faith? Shall we weigh the sins of a Florida preacher against those of three Afghan clerics, and come up with a number that will tell us which is the greater offender, and by how much?
Jason Rosenhouse highlights Fareed Zakaria’s column on the affair.
He’s [Jones] more like them than us. Yes, he is, that’s why I keep calling him a crackpot. But, at the same time, he’s doing something that is necessary. Like Christianity or Judaism or Wicca or Hinduism, Islam needs to be criticised, and we need to be able to criticise it freely. If we can’t, we’re really in trouble. The only way we can do this is by offending Muslims. This much is already clear. Criticism, of course, just is a form of offence to people who adhere to the beliefs being criticised, especially if they are their most cherished beliefs. And, whether or not the Organisation of the Islamic Conference has abandoned its effort to get religious offence listed as a human rights violation, this doesn’t mean that Muslims won’t simply go berserk when someone offends them. Let’s not forget that all the prominent critics of Islam, including Muslims or ex-Muslims, go about with body guards, have panic rooms in their houses, or take other precautions against the likelihood that their lives are in danger.
Pastor Jones is a religious nutcase, and I have no respect for him. He’s nearly as nuts as Islamic extremists, though I doubt that Jones will be killing anyone. But he did nothing illegal or, I think, immoral. I agree with Harris’s conclusion, which is that we need more criticism of Islam, not less. And not just Islamic extremists, either, but criticism of those Islamic “moderates” who, by refusing to speak up against the violence and insane hypersensitivity of their coreligionists, create a climate in which Islamic extremism is tolerated.
Did Pastor Jones’s burning of a Quran cross that line? Given the warnings he received from top government officials last year, he certainly would have known that burning the Quran, especially after conducting an absurd “trial” for the bad things he thinks the book is responsible for, was likely to cause violence. I can’t imagine a sense in which it wouldn’t be seen as intimidating by American Muslims and by Muslims in American-occupied countries. He surely couldn’t predict how many would die because of his actions, but it was almost inevitable that someone would die. Whether he can or should be held legally culpable for those deaths, I have no doubt that he is morally culpable for them, and should be held to account in the public sphere.
Call me unnuanced, but I think the only question here is “How should a reasonable person react to the news that some guy on the other side of the planet burned a book they really, really like?” There are many answers to that question I would accept as correct, and they all fall under the category of “non-violently.”
The body count seems to be increasing.
Tagged: Atheist Blogosphere, Islam, Terry JOnes 
Roger Ebert meditates on his slack-jawed awe of the cosmos:
But what good does it do me to think of the universe as an unthinking mechanism vast beyond comprehension? It gives me the consolation of believing I conceive it as it really is. It makes me thankful that I can conceive it at all. I could have been a pair of ragged claws, scuttling across the floors of silent seas. In this connection I find the Theory of Evolution a great consolation. It helps me understand how life came about and how I came to be. It reveals a logical principle I believe applies everywhere in the universe and at all levels: Of all the things that exist, animate and inanimate, some will be more successful than others at continuing to exist. Of those, some will evolve into greater complexity. This isn’t “progress,” it is simply the way things work. On this dot of space and in this instant of time, the human mind is a great success story, and I am fortunate to possess one. No, even that’s not true, because a goldfish isn’t unfortunate to lack one. It’s just that knowing what I know, I would rather be a human than a goldfish.
And:
My curiosity leads me to science, my admiration for logic leads me to the Theory of Evolution, my pride rejects simplistic fables to describe the facts I observe. Where do I find my consolations? There are many ways to be consoled. Everyone deserves to find their own way, and find such peace as they can. I find my greatest consolations come from Art. An artist can express my feelings as in the same way as an intelligent signal received from one of those 1,235 dots. Such a signal might translate as, “Yes, I exist, and I want to shout to you across space and time that we are not alone.”
As usual, Roger engages his commenters. It’s well worth reading.
Via HuffPo:
By Adelle M. Banks
Religion News ServiceWASHINGTON (RNS) The Army has started training chaplains on the repeal of the ban on openly gay military members, saying those who are unable to follow the forthcoming policy can seek a voluntary departure.
“The Chaplains Corps’ First Amendment freedoms and its duty to care for all will not change,” reads a slide in the PowerPoint presentation, released to Religion News Service Thursday (March 24). “Soldiers will continue to respect and serve with others who may hold different views and beliefs.”
Critics familiar with the Army presentation, however, say the military is essentially telling chaplains who are theologically conservative that they are not welcome.
“U.S. Army now warning chaplains: If you don’t like the homosexual agenda, get out!” reads a headline on the website of Mass Resistance, an anti-gay group based in Waltham, Mass.
OK, let’s be honest about what the repeal of DADT implies. Its repeal does imply that if you intend to discriminate against LGBT service members, or if you intend to target them in any way, then you’re not welcome. This is pretty straightforward, right? When the armed services were racially integrated, the message was the same: those who intend to target or discriminate on basis of color are (essentially) not welcome. (The fact that there was still substantial overt racial discrimination in the services after their integration is important to note, but it doesn’t change the reality that the message to racists was clear: your bigotry is no longer welcome.)
So is the military “telling chaplains who are theologically conservative that they are not welcome”? Yes and no. A chaplain who is theologically conservative doesn’t necessarily have to treat gay soldiers differently when he’s on the job. He doesn’t necessarily have to walk around saying gay soldiers are sick or evil. That’s hateful, antisocial behavior. And yes, that’s not welcome. Damn right.
The “homosexual agenda” might sound scary to some (and yet to others, delightful), but it’s a bogeyman here. The LGBT rights movement doesn’t want to make everyone gay. They want everyone treated equally, and treated with respect. But what do the chaplains who would make a stink over this want?
Supposedly, the chaplains want to offer “spiritual counsel” to service members. (I have a problem with religion being part of the military in this way, but that’s not directly at issue here.) Chaplains who have a problem existing in the military after DADT’s repeal are essentially saying this: I can only perform my duties as a chaplain in a military where gay people are forced to hide who they are. I am utterly unable to cope with a situation in which gay people can admit, to themselves and to all, who they really are. I just. Can’t. Cope.
Maybe they should hire some atheist chaplains to counsel these religious chaplains who are having troubling dealing with the death of DADT.
Seymour Hersh comments on the “Kill Team” photos:
Why photograph atrocities? And why pass them around to buddies back home or fellow soldiers in other units? How could the soldiers’ sense of what is unacceptable be so lost? No outsider can have a complete answer to such a question. As someone who has been writing about war crimes since My Lai, though, I have come to have a personal belief: these soldiers had come to accept the killing of civilians—recklessly, as payback, or just at random—as a facet of modern unconventional warfare. In other words, killing itself, whether in a firefight with the Taliban or in sport with innocent bystanders in a strange land with a strange language and strange customs, has become ordinary. In long, unsuccessful wars, in which the enemy—the people trying to kill you—do not wear uniforms and are seldom seen, soldiers can lose their bearings, moral and otherwise. The consequences of that lost bearing can be hideous. This is part of the toll wars take on the young people we send to fight them for us. The G.I.s in Afghanistan were responsible for their actions, of course. But it must be said that, in some cases, surely, as in Vietnam, the soldiers can also be victims.
Hersh concludes:
The Der Spiegel photographs also help to explain why the American war in Afghanistan can probably never be “won,” in my view, just as we did not win in Vietnam. Terrible things happen in war, and terrible things are happening every day in Afghanistan, as Americans continue to conduct nightly assassination raids and have escalated the number of bombing sorties. There are also reports of suspected Taliban sympathizers we turn over to Afghan police and soldiers being tortured or worse. This will be a long haul; revenge in Afghan society does not have to come immediately. We could end up not knowing who hit us, or why, a decade or two from now.
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/03/the-kill-team-photographs.html#ixzz1HwmjSxDz
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
