by Jesse Galef -

It’s so easy to make someone’s day better. I’m a big fan of Improv Everywhere, who stage elaborate public displays of randomness (their most famous event is probably the annual No-Pants Subway Ride). Apart from public spectacle, they have a knack to make onlookers smile and appreciate the brief detour from the mundane, expected, daily life. But I’ve never seen them do it in a more simple fashion than in The High Five Escalator.

One of their agents stood at the top of a long escalator at a subway transfer in the morning rush-hour and gave high-fives. There were other agents with signs alerting people to the impending possibility of high-fives, but that really is all it took to make people’s day. Check out the video they took:

Everyone is generally in a pretty crappy mood when they’re making this transfer with a herd of other people at the crack of dawn. It was definitely a location in need of a bit of fun.
…
It was awesome watching the reactions of people before, during, and after the high fives. I’d say around 75% of the riders gave Rob a high five. There were some people who were both listening to music and reading a book who didn’t look up to notice what was going on. A small percentage seemed suspicious of us and elected to keep their hands to themselves. Most people smiled and high fived. Some people kept a straight face during the high five, but then privately smiled to themselves a few moments later. Watching people after they gave a high five was almost more fun. Almost everyone was left with a smile.

The setup

The reactions

Heck, that made me feel good just watching.

I think what makes it so powerful is how unexpected it is. The shock of friendliness and enthusiasm went a long way. We need more Spontaneous Acts of Good Will!

Happy Friday!

by Jesse Galef -

Yesterday I asked how you would react to someone praying for you. Your reactions spanned the gamut, as I expected.

There’s one type of response I wanted to specifically address, because I think it’s a common one: why would I possibly object to someone trying to be nice?

I was originally motivated to write yesterday’s post after Chris Stedman of the Interfaith Youth Core tweeted the question. I’ve met Chris in person a few times – we disagree on a lot of interfaith issues, but he’s a nice guy. On his NonProphet Status blog, he posted a response to me, epitomizing that common response:

It seems Jesse and I are more or less on the same page when it comes to how we internally react to prayer — he too appreciates the good intentions of those who pray — but we differ in that he also thinks it is important in such moments to assert to the individual offering prayer that it won’t work.
…
But more importantly: why does it matter [whether prayer works]? So my classmates at Loyola think that prayer works and I remain unconvinced. Why should I try to dissuade them from that belief? Seems self-important and unnecessary to me. And, more importantly, their kind intention actually means a lot to me. We have a relationship of mutual concern and care — why would I want to go and ruin that by trying to assert my so-called “intellectual authority”? I’m a lot more interested in the fact that they care enough about me and my well-being to take a moment of their day to wish me well.

Perhaps I didn’t go into enough depth in my last post, because I don’t feel like this is an accurate representation of what I would do. There’s a case to be made that direct confrontation serves a valuable role, but I don’t think it’s my role. So I’ll use my own words instead of Dennett’s in an attempt to be more clear. Why do I care about someone praying for me?

I certainly appreciate it when someone has kind thoughts or kind words for me. (Many commenters assumed that the person praying has ulterior motives, but I’m only addressing the cases in which they sincerely want to show good will.) And I’ll express my thanks for that – I think we all should! I don’t have a problem with that. But it’s not all about the words they’re saying. It’s about the whole message being sent.

If meant literally – if the well-wisher genuinely thinks prayer will do good – then the message they’re sending is not just “I hope you get better” it’s also “I believe prayer works, disregarding standards of evidence, science, and the importance of reason.” I have a problem with that message.

Even if not meant literally – if the well-wisher is merely using the phrase to express concern and care – then their message is also “morality and concern for others is connected with religion.” I have a problem with that message, too.

I care about prayer because I think it sends and reinforces memes which are detrimental to society. As a glorified bastion of irrationality, religion does unnecessary harm to ethics, scientific discovery, and politics – fields with particular potential to alleviate the world’s problems. But the prayer is wrapped around good intentions. What are we to do? It’s a complex message and deserves a complex reply. If at all possible, I want to show gratitude for the good parts while diverting focus from the religious components. For example:

• “My family will appreciate knowing that you care. It’s so important to have friends and neighbors who support each other.”
• “Thank you for the thought. I sure hope the surgery goes well, too – those doctors are impressive. We should really donate to the hospital.”

These lines subtly shifts to a humanistic frame, where what really matters is what we can do for one another here on Earth.

One thing I keep hearing is that prayer makes people feel better in the face of being helpless. But humanism can be empowering! It emphasizes what IS under our control. We can be there for each other emotionally, we can support medical research, we can volunteer our time when it’s needed. Science and reason are the best ways to combat helplessness in the long run – the more we understand about the world, the better we can react and adapt.

Let me see if I can put some of my own advice into practice: Chris, I’m completely with you that it’s important to have mutual concern and care for one another. Science, humanism, and reason are such great tools to care for each other. Wouldn’t you agree?

(photo © Adrian van Leen for openphoto.net CC:PublicDomain)

by Jesse Galef –

Yesterday, Hemant implied that we can’t know anything about the afterlife, and called out the evangelical Charisma magazine for printing an FAQ about Heaven. (Turns out we have jobs in Heaven…)

Well, I don’t read Charisma magazine, so I don’t know what it said about Hell. But I already know what it must be like. I have it on good authority: Rowan Atkinson before he starred as Mr. Bean.

It looks like we’ll be seeing the Christians down there…

by Jesse Galef -

The funniest thing about the atheist billboard campaigns is that it almost doesn’t matter what they say. The message gets bypassed and the signs turn into a lightning rod for all the religious arguments about atheism. “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone” somehow gets portrayed as “A new billboard questioning the existence of God.” Facepalm-inducing idiocy ensues.

Having followed the billboard campaigns (supported by the United Coalition of Reason) for a while, I feel like a wine connoisseur talking about them: “Ah yes, the March Detroit* had some nice vandalism with a hint of bigotry, but wasn’t as full-bodied as the February Sacramento…” or “That news segment was a delicious medley of ignorance, condescension, and misrepresentation, but could use a touch more controversy.”

But this story from North Carolina is particularly rich. It packs so many of the usual themes into just two minutes! Faux-controversy, opinion from a local religious leader, a counter billboard campaign, interviewing random people in the street…

As often happens, I want to respond to every single thing said. But instead of writing pages, let’s do it rapid-fire:

• Secular spokesperson Jennifer Lovejoy: Great inclusive message.
• Random person in the parking lot: I don’t even know what you’re trying to say. Religious groups advertise all the time.
• Second random person in the parking lot: Not everyone thinks that “God is everything.” It definitely shouldn’t be part of a patriotic activity for our secular government.
• We Still Pray Organization: Well done! Putting up your own billboards is the correct way to disagree.
• Pastor Sexton: Were the original authors of the pledge of allegiance being “disingenuous” by leaving out the words ‘under God’? Then how are we disingenuous by suggesting it?
• Third random person in the parking lot: No. Through shared convention, words have meanings. The word ‘God’ cannot simply refer to “anyone I believe in” and it cannot “stand for anything.”

But I think my favorite part is the reporter who is unwilling to actually do any, you know, reporting of his own. Talking about the words ‘Under God’, he says: “Jennifer Lovejoy says the pledge hasn’t always been like that.” You know, it’s not just her opinion… feel free to assert it as a fact for your viewers!

Since the NC billboards have already been vandalized (and the vandals praised for it) all that the story was missing is someone asking why/whether we atheists even have the right to free speech.

Still, this North Carolina vintage is quite good…

* I had mistakenly written “Dallas” instead of “Detroit” in the original posting. Sorry for the mistake!

by Jesse Galef –

Big news occurred last night. No, sports fans, I’m talking about major step toward marriage equality, not LeBron James going to the Miami Heat. In two cases yesterday, a U.S. judge in Boston ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act – the federal law against same-sex marriage – is unconstitutional.

In the case brought by Attorney General Martha Coakley, Judge Tauro found that the 1996 law, known as the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, compels Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens in order to receive federal funds for certain programs.

“This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status,” Judge Tauro wrote. “The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state.”

Wow, it’s not every day you see a states’ rights argument being used for a culturally liberal cause!

But it’s his opinion (pdf) for the second case, brought by the gay-rights group GLAD, that really caught my attention. Judge Tauro had some blunt words, going so far as to call DOMA the result of “irrational prejudice”:

And where, as here, “there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects” from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Damn straight. If there were some legitimate government interest involved, the courts would have had to weigh the government’s right to pursue that interest at the expense of citizens’ rights. But Judge Tauro was having none of it. He called congress out, saying that they “undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification, the Constitution clearly will not permit.”

There is absolutely no good secular reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry. Obama has been making some progress in granting equality to federal workers, but DOMA has stood in his way. Both cases will obviously be appealed up to the higher courts, and I’m curious to see what happens. I don’t know whether these lawsuits will hold up, but if they do, the door is open for more sweeping reform.

by Jesse Galef -

I’m usually so proud of the way atheists are willing to stand up for their views.  But watching the drama unfold around Everybody Draw Muhammad Day, I’m left wondering what changed… and I’m a little disappointed.  It’s strange to see atheists arguing and criticizing each other for promoting an important message for fear that the message might offend people.

Some Secular Student Alliance affiliates had an important idea to express: “No religious figure should be so revered as to be off limits to criticism or even portrayal. We do not believe Muhammad is holy and we should be free to draw him.” After Matt Stone and Trey Parker had their lives threatened, it became more apparent than ever that this message needed to be said.  And there is no better way to say it than with images of Muhammad.

So they decided to draw Muhammad.  They bent over backward to provide accompanying messages, blog posts, and op-eds giving the context of their free-speech message.  But they were met with social uproar from their Muslim peers, from the Interfaith Youth Core, and even from members of the atheist community.

To me, the most puzzling objection came from Greg Epstein, who at least seems to understand the students’ motivation. In a piece on CNN.com, he writes:

There is a difference between making fun of religious or other ideas on a TV show that you can turn off, and doing it out in a public square where those likely to take offense simply can’t avoid it. These chalk drawings are not a seminar on free speech; they are the atheist equivalent of the campus sidewalk preachers who used to irk me back in college.

Let’s put this in perspective of the atheist movement’s past efforts.

About a year and a half ago, the American Humanist Association bought advertisements in major newspapers and in buses asking “Why believe in a god?  Just be good for goodness’ sake!”  Since then, the United Coalition of Reason organized local groups in two dozen regions to band together and buy large billboards proudly bearing slogans like “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone” and “Are you good without God? Millions are.” The campaigns were met with outrage, repeated vandalism, and people taking offense.

The billboards and bus ads were not statements that could be turned off.  They were unavoidable for people driving down the street or riding the bus: the messages were shoved in their faces. But Epstein had no problem with the billboards and bus ads – the book tour for his New York Times bestseller Good Without God rode the campaign’s coattails, gaining attention from the excitement they stirred up.  And while there was the occasional atheist who asked why we bothered to “evangelize,” there was nowhere near as much worry over hurting people’s feelings.  Epstein and the rest of the atheist community paid no mind to the people who shouted that they were offended.

And there’s no question that people were offended by the ad campaigns.  Even high-ranking politicians were willing to condemn them.  Iowa Governor Chet Culver bashed the local bus ads which read “Don’t believe in God?  You are not alone” and insisted that – you guessed it – he was offended:

“I was disturbed, personally, by the advertisement and I can understand why other Iowans were also disturbed by the message that it sent,” Culver said.

The question will likely become a legal battle, Culver said. He deferred questions of whether the group deserves the same free speech rights as Christian organizations to advertise on the buses to the Iowa Attorney General.

Culver also declined to answer if he would also have gotten off the bus had he been a rider, but noted that he would have been offended by the ad’s message.

The Cincinnati CoR billboard was taken down and moved after the site’s owner received “multiple, significant threats.”

To drive the comparison home, look no further than what happened in Cincinnati: the billboard had to be taken down and moved because the landowner of the site received multiple threats.  Did we ask ourselves whether we should have kept quiet or found another way to make our point?  No, we realized that our statement was more important than ever.

When someone takes offense, we need to use it as a wake-up call that we’ve crossed a line in their eyes and ask ourselves whether to step back.  Sometimes we should – people get offended by swastikas, blackface, and slurs because they promote deplorable ideas.  But what lines are being crossed by the two campaigns before us?

Some religious people got offended because we were disputing a cherished belief: that religion is necessary in society.  In their eyes it crossed a line for us to question such a sacred belief.  But the entire purpose of our ad campaign was to challenge that belief, so we ignored the offense and pressed onward.

Some Muslims got offended by drawings of Muhammad because the images didn’t give their prophet as much respect as they feel he deserves.  In their eyes it crossed a line for us to give him less than that level of respect.  But again, that is exactly the line we are intending to challenge.  We want to challenge the claim that Muhammad is so holy that he’s off-limits to critique or portrayal.  So we ignored the offense and pressed onward.

I see remarkable parallels between the two campaigns.  Not all offense is worth altering course for.  We understood that when it came to our billboards and bus ads.  We need to wake up and apply the same thinking to Draw Muhammad Day.

by Jesse Galef -

I have quite a lot to say on the subject of drawing Muhammad.  At my day job as Communications Director for the Secular Student Alliance I’m watching the recent developments closely, and on a personal level I feel passionately about the issues of free speech, respect, and taboos.

But I won’t get into all of that quite yet. I just wanted to take a moment to dispute something in Eboo Patel’s OnFaith paean to religious respect.  In criticizing the SSA-affiliated groups at UIUC, UW-Madison, and Northwestern who chalked images of Muhammad, he writes:

Part of what’s disturbing about the Draw Muhammad campaign is its implicit attempt to draw a direct line between mainstream Muslims and violent fringe groups. It’s the “We have to stand up against you people” message.

You people? That line ought to make us a little uncomfortable. [emphasis in original]

My goodness, this is beyond creating a strawman! I don’t remember reading those words in anything the student groups said, so Mr. Patel must be making it up.  That’s a fair and common use of quotation marks – paraphrasing someone else’s message.

But if you do that, you can’t go on to object to the language that you yourself created.  When I read the “you people” in italics, the words seem to be dripping with disgust for those “racist fucking bastards with the audacity to draw a smiling stick figure and label it Muhammad.”

Racist fucking bastards?! How dare – Oh wait, that one was me.

by Jesse Galef -

I’ll admit to being confused and disappointed by Michael De Dora Jr.’s post on the CFI blog last week entitled “The Problems with the Atheistic Approach to the World.” I’ve met Michael a couple of times and like him a lot, and I’ve found myself both agreeing and disagreeing with him in the past. Not only is he Executive Director of CFI-NYC, he’s also a new co-blogger on Rationally Speaking with Massimo Pigliucci and my sister, Julia Galef.  Clearly, he’s in esteemed company.

But reading his recent post left me scratching my head. I wasn’t quite sure where to begin responding, and a question kept popping up in my mind: who or what, exactly, is he talking about?  Nowhere does Michael actually address the “Atheistic Approach to the World,” as the title implies he would.  His criticism spans “the radical atheists” to the very label “atheist” to Dawkins and PZ’s tone.   More often that not, his target is a strawman – such as the assertion that atheists “tend to think” religion is the only problem in the world.  As I read, I kept thinking: “Well, yes, that view would certainly be a problem – if anyone in the world held it.”

I won’t go through point by point – Jerry Coyne already did so with his characteristic fervor. Instead, I’ll try to get to one key source of disagreement: who the new/radical atheists are.  I’ve selected a couple quotes:

“However, an issue that received less focus was a more strategic one: the fact that many atheists define their entire lives around unbelief and critique of theism.”

“[A]theists tend to view religion as either the problem, or the cause of the problem, even when other problems are apparent. But while theism is a problem, it is not the problem, and while atheism might be correct, atheism is not the answer.”

I surely disagree with atheists who hold those views. But… they don’t exist. You won’t find a single person who “defines their entire [life] around unbelief and critique of theism,” or anyone who thinks religion is the only problem in the world.

If this is Michael’s view of the atheistic approach to life, no wonder he’s against it!  In his post, he portrays it as needlessly divisive, full of arrogance, and stubbornly refusing to address topics other than theism.

The atheist approach to the world is just fine – as part of the picture.  It isn’t, in itself, all there is to life.  But that’s true of any label.  What makes the ‘atheist’ label so valuable is that it serves as an underlying foundation for growth in many different directions.  There are atheists who are also skeptics, humanists, or just plain members of their community – but they’re all united in caring only for secular concerns.  That’s an important step forward.  Beyond that, every atheist brings his or her own interests and passions to the world – as it should be.

Every atheist who pushes back against dogma and theistic belief is doing it for some reason: we do it because we care about children’s mental and medical health, we care about science education, we care about research, we care about politics, we care about ending discrimination.

There’s a discussion to be had about what tone is most effective in achieving our myriad goals.  For the record, I’m a big fan of Greta Christina’s view that a movement takes all sorts – let the firebrands be firebrands and let the diplomats be diplomats.  There’s also a discussion to be had about how we should label ourselves.  But in order to include those topics, perhaps Michael’s title should have been: “The Problems with Having Only an Atheistic Approach to the World: Why We Should Do More and be More Polite When We Talk About It.”

[Update]: Michael’s response to comments on his post went up earlier today, after I’d written this.  He admits to framing his post poorly and being unclear, and tries to address some of the criticisms.  I’ll put up my thoughts tomorrow.

by Jesse Galef –

The atheist movement made a big step last Friday when the Secular Coalition for America arranged a policy briefing with White House officials.  A delegation of about 60 nontheists convened in the nation’s capital to engage with the administration. I was lucky enough to attend in my capacity as the new Communications Director for the Secular Student Alliance, one of the ten coalition members (I started the job last Wednesday, just in time!) I can’t repeat what the administration said – these meetings are held off the record – but I can say that I’ve never felt more proud and optimistic about the political status of atheists.

The topics we focused on were: protecting children from religiously-motivated medical neglect, ending the coercive religious climate in the military, and fixing the faith-based initiatives.  To discuss the issues, we met with representatives from the departments of Health and Human Services, Defense, and Justice.  My friend Paul Fidalgo, now a spokesman for the Secular Coalition for America, told reporters that we were “encouraged by the reception we got today” and said the meeting went “very, very well.” I have to agree.

While various groups have been treated to this sort of meeting before, it was the first time our community was recognized as deserving the same treatment.  That’s the key point: we’re hoping for secular Americans to be a part of the political process like all the other religious identities.  Leaders of religious communities frequently get to speak with administration officials; we want the same thing.  It seems only fair.

The Secular Student Alliance delegation inside the briefing room

I’d like to make a quick point about expectations: try to remember that we are one group among many. True, secular Americans are a sizable minority, but we don’t – and won’t – call all the shots. Some people complain to me that the administration isn’t perfect on our issues. Well, duh. We can hope for perfection and work toward it, but it’s not reasonable to expect. It is, however, reasonable to expect and demand that we be recognized as part of the process and that our voices be heard. And it’s starting to happen.

Most of the reaction in the media – and there’s a lot! – is even-handed and represents us accurately.  Story (McClatchy) after story (USA Today) after story (Washington Post) after story (ABC News) mentioned the meeting’s novelty and listed our concerns.

And then there’s the expected teeth-gnashing from religious zealots (such as good ol’ Bill Donohue.) But the real prize for crazy response goes to Hannity, whose mangling of reality is breathtaking:

HANNITY: The Obama administration earlier today rolled out the red carpet for a coalition of atheist groups. Now, among the individuals in attendance was Michael Newdow. That’s the California man who sued unsuccessfully to have the words “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. Now, religious groups, however, have not received this kind of treatment from the Obama White House. Now, last year, the President distanced himself from the National Day of Prayer, cancelling the formal service traditionally held in honor of the day and refusing to attend a Catholic prayer breakfast. So what’s going on? Has the administration demonstrated a pattern of hostility towards religion, or is this merely a coincidence?

Media Matters does a great job demonstrating that religious groups HAVE received this kind of treatment from the Obama administration. Actually, they often receive better treatment – Obama met personally with religious leaders.

The truth of the matter is that religion is starting to lose its unfair position of privilege in American government. That change appears to be scaring some people. Expect more terrified flailing in the future, because we’re gaining momentum in our campaign for equal treatment. Friday’s meeting was a big step, but we’re going to accomplish so much more.

(Image from August Brunsman)