Author Archive for Jeff SatterleyPage 2 of 4

This is what education in the US looks like

Risha Mullins is an educator: an English teacher in Kentucky, who used Young Adult (YA) literature to encourage her kids to read more, which was shown effective when her students' test scores were markedly improved.  You'd think parents and administrators would be happy their kids are reading more, and doing well on their tests.  How did they respond?:

Two years ago this week. A parent whose child had chosen to read Lessons from a Dead Girl by Jo Knowles, and how that parent sent an email to the superintendent, the board members, the principals, and me saying that I taught “soft pornography.” Remembering the way my stomach hurt when I read the email, how I cried and stayed up all night drafting a nine-page rebuttal that began with, “Literature is my life, and I take my career very seriously. I have worked extremely hard to get students to read, and the school is just beginning to see the impact of that.” Remembering getting called to my principal’s office the next day and berated for sending the rebuttal to everyone the parent had sent to (I did not send it to the parent). Remembering how my curriculum coach said she had thought I'd be fired before she even made it to school that morning.

Remembering how stupid—how naïve—I was to send my rebuttal to the entire English department, thinking they needed to know that literature—our livelihood!—was under attack, thinking that we were a team and that we were supposed to support each other. Remembering the anger, the shock, that surged through me when the only two teachers in my department who bothered replying at all, did so to belittle me with how I had misrepresented “the classics” (which I had not done). Remembering what it felt like when I was asked to resign as the Literacy Committee chair--after only a month in the position--because “it just didn’t look good for the committee right now.”

After that email, my curriculum coach told me—in the principal’s office, with him present—that she had to beg the superintendent not to shut down the Moo Moo Book Club, and that she quoted him when she said, “one more problem with books and the club is gone.” I remember asking if he could do that. And I remember her laughing. Then on October 10, 2008, I received the edict—on signed letterhead: “After investigating the situation and discussing it with Ms. X, I have decided that all books in question in your classroom library and on the Moo Moo Club reading list will be pulled and reviewed…” Every book. Class and club. And yet not a single official challenge had been filed, as  board policy required for a book to be suspended. 

She goes on to describe more and more backlash to her YA literature from parents and administrators alike.  You can read her entire story here (she pulled the original page from her blog because of hostile messages being sent to her former administrators).  I highly recommend it.

I just don't get how other teachers and administrators can be so oblivious.  I know there are going to be crazy parents who don't approve of their perfect Christian children being "corrupted" by those evil books these teachers keep pushing on them.  But you'd think other educators would get behind a teacher who is encouraging reading, and learning about new things.  It's bad enough teachers are constantly assessed with incredibly flawed standardized tests.  But here, a teacher actually improves these test scores while getting kids excited about reading and learning, and there is still no support for her peers and superiors. These kids are going back to hating their English classes, reading less and less, and will be hurt in the long run.

As long as fundamentalist Christian parents are allowed to enforce their beliefs on school districts, this type of censorship will continue to happen.  When Christians get offended, school districts often listen.  My question is: where are the pro-education parents who are upset about the school kowtowing to whims of the fundamentalists?  Why don't I ever hear about a group of parents pressuring the schools to improve science education (including evolution), or adding controversial, thought-provoking literature?  I know these people exist.  Look at the comments on Ms. Mullins' blog post.  There are plenty of people who agree with her, and went through similar experiences in school.

What is the reason schools seem more likely to listen to parents who promote censorship, rather than parents who want their kids exposed to new ideas?  Is it because the second group of parents are disorganized and relatively quiet?  Or is there some other reason religious parents get more attention?


This is what education in the US looks like

Risha Mullins is an educator: an English teacher in Kentucky, who used Young Adult (YA) literature to encourage her kids to read more, which was shown effective when her students' test scores were markedly improved.  You'd think parents and administrators would be happy their kids are reading more, and doing well on their tests.  How did they respond?:

Two years ago this week. A parent whose child had chosen to read Lessons from a Dead Girl by Jo Knowles, and how that parent sent an email to the superintendent, the board members, the principals, and me saying that I taught “soft pornography.” Remembering the way my stomach hurt when I read the email, how I cried and stayed up all night drafting a nine-page rebuttal that began with, “Literature is my life, and I take my career very seriously. I have worked extremely hard to get students to read, and the school is just beginning to see the impact of that.” Remembering getting called to my principal’s office the next day and berated for sending the rebuttal to everyone the parent had sent to (I did not send it to the parent). Remembering how my curriculum coach said she had thought I'd be fired before she even made it to school that morning.

Remembering how stupid—how naïve—I was to send my rebuttal to the entire English department, thinking they needed to know that literature—our livelihood!—was under attack, thinking that we were a team and that we were supposed to support each other. Remembering the anger, the shock, that surged through me when the only two teachers in my department who bothered replying at all, did so to belittle me with how I had misrepresented “the classics” (which I had not done). Remembering what it felt like when I was asked to resign as the Literacy Committee chair--after only a month in the position--because “it just didn’t look good for the committee right now.”

After that email, my curriculum coach told me—in the principal’s office, with him present—that she had to beg the superintendent not to shut down the Moo Moo Book Club, and that she quoted him when she said, “one more problem with books and the club is gone.” I remember asking if he could do that. And I remember her laughing. Then on October 10, 2008, I received the edict—on signed letterhead: “After investigating the situation and discussing it with Ms. X, I have decided that all books in question in your classroom library and on the Moo Moo Club reading list will be pulled and reviewed…” Every book. Class and club. And yet not a single official challenge had been filed, as  board policy required for a book to be suspended. 

She goes on to describe more and more backlash to her YA literature from parents and administrators alike.  You can read her entire story here (she pulled the original page from her blog because of hostile messages being sent to her former administrators).  I highly recommend it.

I just don't get how other teachers and administrators can be so oblivious.  I know there are going to be crazy parents who don't approve of their perfect Christian children being "corrupted" by those evil books these teachers keep pushing on them.  But you'd think other educators would get behind a teacher who is encouraging reading, and learning about new things.  It's bad enough teachers are constantly assessed with incredibly flawed standardized tests.  But here, a teacher actually improves these test scores while getting kids excited about reading and learning, and there is still no support for her peers and superiors. These kids are going back to hating their English classes, reading less and less, and will be hurt in the long run.

As long as fundamentalist Christian parents are allowed to enforce their beliefs on school districts, this type of censorship will continue to happen.  When Christians get offended, school districts often listen.  My question is: where are the pro-education parents who are upset about the school kowtowing to whims of the fundamentalists?  Why don't I ever hear about a group of parents pressuring the schools to improve science education (including evolution), or adding controversial, thought-provoking literature?  I know these people exist.  Look at the comments on Ms. Mullins' blog post.  There are plenty of people who agree with her, and went through similar experiences in school.

What is the reason schools seem more likely to listen to parents who promote censorship, rather than parents who want their kids exposed to new ideas?  Is it because the second group of parents are disorganized and relatively quiet?  Or is there some other reason religious parents get more attention?


AMA With Michael Behe’s Son

I found this this morning while browsing Reddit, and thought it was quite interesting:

Michael Behe is the Intelligent Design advocate famous for his testimony at the Dover v. Kitzmiller trial, and coining the term "irreducible complexity".  His son, it turns out, turned away from his family's Catholic faith and is now an atheist.

He is currently doing an AMA on reddit, and so far it's a really interesting inside peek at both his and his father's beliefs.  (For those of you who aren't redditors: AMA stands for "Ask Me Anything."  It's basically a forum where commenters can ask questions, and the original submitter answers them.)

So if you're interested, ask him anything!


AMA With Michael Behe’s Son

I found this this morning while browsing Reddit, and thought it was quite interesting:

Michael Behe is the Intelligent Design advocate famous for his testimony at the Dover v. Kitzmiller trial, and coining the term "irreducible complexity".  His son, it turns out, turned away from his family's Catholic faith and is now an atheist.

He is currently doing an AMA on reddit, and so far it's a really interesting inside peek at both his and his father's beliefs.  (For those of you who aren't redditors: AMA stands for "Ask Me Anything."  It's basically a forum where commenters can ask questions, and the original submitter answers them.)

So if you're interested, ask him anything!


He’s not even there!

OK, this is getting ridiculous.

On Friday, the comic strip Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller was rejected by several newspapers due to it's content.  Here is the strip:


So we're now afraid that even mentioning that someone might draw Muhammad will offend?  Miller says it best himself:
“the irony of editors being afraid to run even such a tame cartoon as this that satirizes the blinding fear in media regarding anything surrounding Islam sadly speaks for itself. Indeed, the terrorists have won.”
Exactly.  I don't know why I would trust the media if they are so afraid of offending someone by such a tame political commentary.  It's quite a sad state of affairs we are currently in.


He’s not even there!

OK, this is getting ridiculous.

On Friday, the comic strip Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller was rejected by several newspapers due to it's content.  Here is the strip:


So we're now afraid that even mentioning that someone might draw Muhammad will offend?  Miller says it best himself:
“the irony of editors being afraid to run even such a tame cartoon as this that satirizes the blinding fear in media regarding anything surrounding Islam sadly speaks for itself. Indeed, the terrorists have won.”
Exactly.  I don't know why I would trust the media if they are so afraid of offending someone by such a tame political commentary.  It's quite a sad state of affairs we are currently in.


Happiness and Reason

There's a Methodist church just down the road from me, with one of those signs you often see being made fun of on the internet.  Honestly, most of the messages have been benign so far, and a few have even been pretty funny.  A couple of weeks ago it said something to the effect of: "Remember: When your life needs a reboot, Jesus saves" which I thought was quite clever, being the nerd that I am.

I passed by the sign again yesterday, and they had a new message up:

Happiness without reason is the ultimate freedom 

My first thought after reading it was: "That's idiotic.  Do people really prefer being obliviously happy to actually thinking?"  It seemed so alien of an idea to me.  But it got me thinking more about happiness and my belief system.

I don't doubt that some people who believe all kinds of nonsense truly are happy, perhaps even because of those irrational beliefs.  I'm sure some people really are blissfully happy and carefree, because they think God is taking care of them, and that everything is happening for a reason.

Furthermore, I know that being concerned with the atheist community does cause me some unhappiness.  I believe that this cause is important and worth the trouble, of course.  That's why I'm writing this blog.  But it is frustrating to have your character and morals questioned by our opponents, either directly or indirectly. I've had many more positive experiences than negative, but there's no doubt it can be tiresome at times.

Is it possible I could be happier if I weren't so concerned?  What if I was carefree?  I don't see how I could be, it would be unreasonable given the current state of affairs, particularly in America, for non-theists.  But if I were an unreasonable person, it's certainly possible I could be completely oblivious of these problems, and happier because of it.  To me, this leads to two questions:  1. Would I be happier if I wasn't so concerned with being reasonable and rational? and 2. Is being happy more or less important than thinking clearly and critically?

George Bernard Shaw's words came to mind when thinking about all of this:

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. 

But what exactly makes being sober better than being drunk?  I've drink once in a while, and have always had a good time.  What is it that makes me think being sober is somehow a better state than drunk?

I thought about this for a long time, and my conclusion stems from the commonalities between being sober and being a clear and critical thinker.  I realized that one of the reasons I was having so much trouble tackling this issue is because I was ignoring a very important part of all the questions I was asking.  These were personal questions, and every one of them contained words like "I" "me" and "myself."  These words are often thrown around and used without much thinking.  But I'm a philosopher dammit, and I'm going to be consistent!  When I use words like "I" and "myself,"  I'm not just talking about my physical body or my brain; I'm talking about my "self," the thing that makes me, me.  If you could transfer my identity from my current body to another one, my self is the thing that would need to be transferred.  Nothing else would really be required.*  Some might like to use the word "soul," but I prefer not to confuse with metaphysical language.

The point is this: I may have a good time when I have a few drinks, but there's something about being in that state that make me less "me."  In the same way, I probably could be happier if I let myself be blissfully unaware of the world around me, but that would require a fundamental change to my self.  That person wouldn't be "me," in a very real sense.  As difficult as it can be, I am a critical thinker; it's an important part of who I am, and it helps define other parts of me.  That doesn't mean I can't make changes and improvements to my self and my life, but they are going to come about via rational thought, not just wishful thinking.

In addition, thinking critically gives my self the freedom to make decisions based on reality, the same way being sober gives me more freedom to act based on my reason than being drunk.  I had forgotten about that word "freedom" in the original message on the church board, but it actually turns out to be pretty important (and completely wrong, it seems).  Those people who believe whatever makes them feel good, regardless of evidence, may be happier.  But they are not free.  They aren't free to change their minds, because they have no faculty by which to do it.  Being happy without reason is a simple loop, without any feedback from the real world.  How can you improve your self if you never get any input from the outside?

So after a lot of thought, I prefer being true to myself and thinking critically.  That doesn't mean there aren't things I can do to be happier, but it does mean it's going to take real work.  It's not enough for me to just wish all my problems and concerns away.  If it was, I wouldn't be me.  And I've gotta be me.



* Perhaps it's impossible to transfer my self without using my brain, or even my body.  But if it were possible, my current brain isn't really necessary for any essential reason.  My argument isn't really concerned with whether a self could exist inside another brain; only that if it could, that's all you'd need to transfer.  I'd recommend The Mind's I by Douglas Hofstadter and Dan Dennett for a great collection of essays on this subject.


Happiness and Reason

There's a Methodist church just down the road from me, with one of those signs you often see being made fun of on the internet.  Honestly, most of the messages have been benign so far, and a few have even been pretty funny.  A couple of weeks ago it said something to the effect of: "Remember: When your life needs a reboot, Jesus saves" which I thought was quite clever, being the nerd that I am.

I passed by the sign again yesterday, and they had a new message up:

Happiness without reason is the ultimate freedom 

My first thought after reading it was: "That's idiotic.  Do people really prefer being obliviously happy to actually thinking?"  It seemed so alien of an idea to me.  But it got me thinking more about happiness and my belief system.

I don't doubt that some people who believe all kinds of nonsense truly are happy, perhaps even because of those irrational beliefs.  I'm sure some people really are blissfully happy and carefree, because they think God is taking care of them, and that everything is happening for a reason.

Furthermore, I know that being concerned with the atheist community does cause me some unhappiness.  I believe that this cause is important and worth the trouble, of course.  That's why I'm writing this blog.  But it is frustrating to have your character and morals questioned by our opponents, either directly or indirectly. I've had many more positive experiences than negative, but there's no doubt it can be tiresome at times.

Is it possible I could be happier if I weren't so concerned?  What if I was carefree?  I don't see how I could be, it would be unreasonable given the current state of affairs, particularly in America, for non-theists.  But if I were an unreasonable person, it's certainly possible I could be completely oblivious of these problems, and happier because of it.  To me, this leads to two questions:  1. Would I be happier if I wasn't so concerned with being reasonable and rational? and 2. Is being happy more or less important than thinking clearly and critically?

George Bernard Shaw's words came to mind when thinking about all of this:

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. 

But what exactly makes being sober better than being drunk?  I've drink once in a while, and have always had a good time.  What is it that makes me think being sober is somehow a better state than drunk?

I thought about this for a long time, and my conclusion stems from the commonalities between being sober and being a clear and critical thinker.  I realized that one of the reasons I was having so much trouble tackling this issue is because I was ignoring a very important part of all the questions I was asking.  These were personal questions, and every one of them contained words like "I" "me" and "myself."  These words are often thrown around and used without much thinking.  But I'm a philosopher dammit, and I'm going to be consistent!  When I use words like "I" and "myself,"  I'm not just talking about my physical body or my brain; I'm talking about my "self," the thing that makes me, me.  If you could transfer my identity from my current body to another one, my self is the thing that would need to be transferred.  Nothing else would really be required.*  Some might like to use the word "soul," but I prefer not to confuse with metaphysical language.

The point is this: I may have a good time when I have a few drinks, but there's something about being in that state that make me less "me."  In the same way, I probably could be happier if I let myself be blissfully unaware of the world around me, but that would require a fundamental change to my self.  That person wouldn't be "me," in a very real sense.  As difficult as it can be, I am a critical thinker; it's an important part of who I am, and it helps define other parts of me.  That doesn't mean I can't make changes and improvements to my self and my life, but they are going to come about via rational thought, not just wishful thinking.

In addition, thinking critically gives my self the freedom to make decisions based on reality, the same way being sober gives me more freedom to act based on my reason than being drunk.  I had forgotten about that word "freedom" in the original message on the church board, but it actually turns out to be pretty important (and completely wrong, it seems).  Those people who believe whatever makes them feel good, regardless of evidence, may be happier.  But they are not free.  They aren't free to change their minds, because they have no faculty by which to do it.  Being happy without reason is a simple loop, without any feedback from the real world.  How can you improve your self if you never get any input from the outside?

So after a lot of thought, I prefer being true to myself and thinking critically.  That doesn't mean there aren't things I can do to be happier, but it does mean it's going to take real work.  It's not enough for me to just wish all my problems and concerns away.  If it was, I wouldn't be me.  And I've gotta be me.



* Perhaps it's impossible to transfer my self without using my brain, or even my body.  But if it were possible, my current brain isn't really necessary for any essential reason.  My argument isn't really concerned with whether a self could exist inside another brain; only that if it could, that's all you'd need to transfer.  I'd recommend The Mind's I by Douglas Hofstadter and Dan Dennett for a great collection of essays on this subject.


I’m going to Comic Con New York (i.e., WTF?)

A couple of friends and I are going to NYC this Saturday for Comic-Con.  It's a bit odd; I've never been a big comic book nerd, particularly compared to lots of other science/skeptic bloggers out there.  But what the hell, I'll go and nerd out and report back next week.  Does anyone have a Green Lantern t-shirt I can borrow?

I'm definitely going to try to get to the SMBC panel Saturday afternoon, but other than that, I have no idea what I'm planning to do.  Any suggestions?


I’m going to Comic Con New York (i.e., WTF?)

A couple of friends and I are going to NYC this Saturday for Comic-Con.  It's a bit odd; I've never been a big comic book nerd, particularly compared to lots of other science/skeptic bloggers out there.  But what the hell, I'll go and nerd out and report back next week.  Does anyone have a Green Lantern t-shirt I can borrow?

I'm definitely going to try to get to the SMBC panel Saturday afternoon, but other than that, I have no idea what I'm planning to do.  Any suggestions?


The Great Agnostic

I finally got around to reading Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism by Susan Jacoby.  It's an excellent history of the secular movement in America, from the founder's conscious decision to leave God out of the Constitution, to freethinkers' involvement in the American civil rights and feminist movements.  I've learned about many American freethinkers, atheists and agnostics of whom I had little, if any, knowledge prior to reading Jacoby's book. I was introduced to the great freethinking feminists, such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Ernestine Rose and Lucretia Mott, whom I knew very little about before.  I learned more about Thomas Paine and Abraham Lincoln's views on religion.  And most significantly to me, I learned about Robert Ingersoll.

Although I had heard his name mentioned in some books and blog posts before, I didn't really know anything about him.  After reading about him in Freethinkers, and then ripping through a number of his writings and speeches, I can see why he is such a respected American freethinker.  He's probably the reason that freethinking founders, such as Thomas Paine, are so well-known today.

The follow excerpt is from Ingersoll's speech "Gods."  It reminds me that although while we atheists and secularists are often fighting against the influence of religious fundamentalists, we also have a positive message:

Notwithstanding the fact that infidels in all ages have battled for the rights of man, and have at all times been the fearless advocates of liberty and justice, we are constantly charged by the Church with tearing down without building again...
We are not endeavoring to chain the future, but to free the present. We are not forgoing fetters for our children, but we are breaking those our fathers made for us. We are the advocates of inquiry, of investigation and thought. This of itself, is an admission that we are not perfectly satisfied with all our conclusions. Philosophy has not the egotism of faith... 
We are laying the foundations of the grand temple of the future not the temple of all the gods, but of all the people -- wherein, with appropriate rites, will be celebrated the religion of Humanity. We are doing what little we can to hasten the coming of the day when society shall cease producing millionaires and mendicants -- gorged indolence and famished industry -- truth in rags, and superstition robed and crowned. We are looking for the time when the useful shall be the honorable; and when Reason, throned upon the world's brain, shall be the King of Kings, and God of Gods. 

A transcription of the entire speech can be found here.


The Great Agnostic

I finally got around to reading Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism by Susan Jacoby.  It's an excellent history of the secular movement in America, from the founder's conscious decision to leave God out of the Constitution, to freethinkers' involvement in the American civil rights and feminist movements.  I've learned about many American freethinkers, atheists and agnostics of whom I had little, if any, knowledge prior to reading Jacoby's book. I was introduced to the great freethinking feminists, such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Ernestine Rose and Lucretia Mott, whom I knew very little about before.  I learned more about Thomas Paine and Abraham Lincoln's views on religion.  And most significantly to me, I learned about Robert Ingersoll.

Although I had heard his name mentioned in some books and blog posts before, I didn't really know anything about him.  After reading about him in Freethinkers, and then ripping through a number of his writings and speeches, I can see why he is such a respected American freethinker.  He's probably the reason that freethinking founders, such as Thomas Paine, are so well-known today.

The follow excerpt is from Ingersoll's speech "Gods."  It reminds me that although while we atheists and secularists are often fighting against the influence of religious fundamentalists, we also have a positive message:

Notwithstanding the fact that infidels in all ages have battled for the rights of man, and have at all times been the fearless advocates of liberty and justice, we are constantly charged by the Church with tearing down without building again...
We are not endeavoring to chain the future, but to free the present. We are not forgoing fetters for our children, but we are breaking those our fathers made for us. We are the advocates of inquiry, of investigation and thought. This of itself, is an admission that we are not perfectly satisfied with all our conclusions. Philosophy has not the egotism of faith... 
We are laying the foundations of the grand temple of the future not the temple of all the gods, but of all the people -- wherein, with appropriate rites, will be celebrated the religion of Humanity. We are doing what little we can to hasten the coming of the day when society shall cease producing millionaires and mendicants -- gorged indolence and famished industry -- truth in rags, and superstition robed and crowned. We are looking for the time when the useful shall be the honorable; and when Reason, throned upon the world's brain, shall be the King of Kings, and God of Gods. 

A transcription of the entire speech can be found here.


Phil Plait on Pope Benedict’s treatment of atheism

Sorry for the lack of pasting lately.  I've been job hunting pretty hard in recent weeks, and haven't had much time to sit and think, let alone write.  I had planned to write a response to Pope Benedict's recent treatment of atheism on his trip to Great Britain.  Here's part of what he said:
Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny”
As I said, I had planned to write about this, but then I read Phil Plait's response on Bad Astronomy, and I couldn't have done any better than he did.  Phil rarely writes directly about atheism on his blog, so when he does I usually take notice.  And this article does not disappoint.  It's the most even-handed and rational response I've seen to these comments, yet it still puts the pope in his place as an ignorant bigot.  I recommend you read the whole thing, but here's a short excerpt:
Now, I’m the kind of person whose first inclination is to give people the benefit of the doubt. So I read the whole transcript of the Pope’s speech, twice, and after thinking about it, I can’t see any way of interpreting the speech as a whole other than as him saying secularism and atheism = lack of virtue and morality = Nazism.


That is such a grossly flawed chain of reasoning that it strains credulity well past its limit. It’s hard to know where to even begin debunking these statements. Maybe to start with, Hitler wasn’t an atheist (though his personal beliefs were unclear; he used religion or the lack thereof to his advantage when needed, for exampleusing atheism as a bogeyman to rally the people against Russia). More importantly, The Catholic Church went way out of its way to support Hitler during WWII*.  [Update: Apparently, the Church's relationship with Hitler was more complicated than I first read. There was condemnation of Nazis, as well as some support. I think the best thing we can say here is that blanket statements about large organizations can be inaccurate, and need to be done with care. The history of this situation is complex.]


Mind you, I am not trying to condemn the entire Catholic religion, or even the Church (the Church then is not the same as the Church today). I am pointing out that what the Pope said in England is pure nonsense, and in fact widely known to be untrue — in fact, studies have shown that secular societies tend to havebetter moral behavior (lower homicide rates, lower infant mortality, lower STD rates, and so on). I would go so far as to say the Pope was being bigoted, equating Nazism and atheism in a way to specifically spur hatred of nonbelievers, or at least amplify mistrust. And given the Church’s support of Nazism at the time, condemning atheists for Nazism is galling.
I know that I would have been more emotional in my reply than Phil was.  And I do think that anger and disgust is appropriate in this case, and responses such as PZ's are fully justified and often useful.  But it's awesome to see such a thoroughly level-headed response have such an impact as Phil's writing so often does.  It's easy to get people riled up with emotion and vitriol, but to me, it's much more challenging to affect people with calm, reasonable argument.  Kudos Phil!


Phil Plait on Pope Benedict’s treatment of atheism

Sorry for the lack of pasting lately.  I've been job hunting pretty hard in recent weeks, and haven't had much time to sit and think, let alone write.  I had planned to write a response to Pope Benedict's recent treatment of atheism on his trip to Great Britain.  Here's part of what he said:
Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny”
As I said, I had planned to write about this, but then I read Phil Plait's response on Bad Astronomy, and I couldn't have done any better than he did.  Phil rarely writes directly about atheism on his blog, so when he does I usually take notice.  And this article does not disappoint.  It's the most even-handed and rational response I've seen to these comments, yet it still puts the pope in his place as an ignorant bigot.  I recommend you read the whole thing, but here's a short excerpt:
Now, I’m the kind of person whose first inclination is to give people the benefit of the doubt. So I read the whole transcript of the Pope’s speech, twice, and after thinking about it, I can’t see any way of interpreting the speech as a whole other than as him saying secularism and atheism = lack of virtue and morality = Nazism.


That is such a grossly flawed chain of reasoning that it strains credulity well past its limit. It’s hard to know where to even begin debunking these statements. Maybe to start with, Hitler wasn’t an atheist (though his personal beliefs were unclear; he used religion or the lack thereof to his advantage when needed, for exampleusing atheism as a bogeyman to rally the people against Russia). More importantly, The Catholic Church went way out of its way to support Hitler during WWII*.  [Update: Apparently, the Church's relationship with Hitler was more complicated than I first read. There was condemnation of Nazis, as well as some support. I think the best thing we can say here is that blanket statements about large organizations can be inaccurate, and need to be done with care. The history of this situation is complex.]


Mind you, I am not trying to condemn the entire Catholic religion, or even the Church (the Church then is not the same as the Church today). I am pointing out that what the Pope said in England is pure nonsense, and in fact widely known to be untrue — in fact, studies have shown that secular societies tend to havebetter moral behavior (lower homicide rates, lower infant mortality, lower STD rates, and so on). I would go so far as to say the Pope was being bigoted, equating Nazism and atheism in a way to specifically spur hatred of nonbelievers, or at least amplify mistrust. And given the Church’s support of Nazism at the time, condemning atheists for Nazism is galling.
I know that I would have been more emotional in my reply than Phil was.  And I do think that anger and disgust is appropriate in this case, and responses such as PZ's are fully justified and often useful.  But it's awesome to see such a thoroughly level-headed response have such an impact as Phil's writing so often does.  It's easy to get people riled up with emotion and vitriol, but to me, it's much more challenging to affect people with calm, reasonable argument.  Kudos Phil!


Malicious Software Warning

If you've visited here recently, it may have given you a warning that some code on the site may be malicious (especially if you're using the Google Chrome or some versions of the Mozilla Firefox browsers).  It appears to come from rpc.blogrolling.com, which is where the Atheist Blogroll is hosted.  I've removed the blogroll marquee from my sidebar for now, so this doesn't happen again.  I don't think the blogroll actually contains anything malicious, but I won't put it back until the issue is resolved.  Sorry if the warnings caused any distress, or distrust in the site.


Malicious Software Warning

If you've visited here recently, it may have given you a warning that some code on the site may be malicious (especially if you're using the Google Chrome or some versions of the Mozilla Firefox browsers).  It appears to come from rpc.blogrolling.com, which is where the Atheist Blogroll is hosted.  I've removed the blogroll marquee from my sidebar for now, so this doesn't happen again.  I don't think the blogroll actually contains anything malicious, but I won't put it back until the issue is resolved.  Sorry if the warnings caused any distress, or distrust in the site.