Feb
19
19
We’re More Hated Than the GAYS?!! What Gives?!!
Check this out:
My peoples is oppressed! We’re officially less liked than gays, adulterers* and old people!
I had imagined that a lot of people might not be comfortable having an atheist in office, but I had no idea that it was a clear majority of American citizens. What gives? Why are we non-believers distrusted and disliked to such a large extent?
*Yeah, I know “married three times” doesn’t mean adultery per se. But I’m pretty daggone sure that the “married three times” question was aimed at gauging the public’s attitude toward one Rudy Giuliani.
localroger said,
February 19, 2007 at 15:34
Damn, and I thought The Handmaid’s Tale was supposed to be fiction.
Patkin said,
February 19, 2007 at 15:34
Because Richard Dawkins is an annoying twat.
But I wager that if they’d listed “Objectivist”, you’d beat them out! Nobody likes objectivists. Well, ‘cept libertarians, and we know they’re born losers.
owlbear1 said,
February 19, 2007 at 15:41
Why are we non-believers distrusted and disliked to such a large extent?
=========
Because they know we are right and hate us for it.
Brad Altrocket said,
February 19, 2007 at 15:48
Nobody likes objectivists.
That’s mostly because objectivists like nobody. As an atheist, I actually like a lot of people of all different faiths. I think part of the problem is that many people have never met an atheist (we’re a teensy weensy minority after all) and thus simply don’t know anything about us.
JoeBuddha said,
February 19, 2007 at 15:56
We’re More Hated Than the GAYS?
WOO-HOO! We’re number 1! We’re number 1!
Seriously, here in the NW most people are atheist, at least until you start talking religion. Seems to be a Jekyll and Hyde thing…
(BTW: You CAN be Buddhist and Atheist at the same time; I looked it up ;) )
iamcoyote said,
February 19, 2007 at 15:57
I think owlbear1 is on the right track; non-belief introduces an element of doubt into the fragile beliefs of the believers. Doubt is the god killer and must be eliminated.
Col. Klink said,
February 19, 2007 at 16:01
Another victory for Dinesh D’souza and his trusty sidekick Osama bin Laden!
Patkin said,
February 19, 2007 at 16:04
Incidently, is it just me, or does anyone find it funny that there’s still a 4% of people polled that wouldn’t vote for a Catholic?
I mean, wow, I use papist swine as an ironic slur, I didn’t think anyone in this country was still that bent out of shape over Kennedy.
steve_e said,
February 19, 2007 at 16:07
Maybe because of all the strange stories circulated about atheists.
“They worship Satan.”
“They are the work of Satan.”
“They hate God.”
“They hate humanity.”
“They hate Christians.”
“They want to kill Christians.”
“They want to ban your religion.”
“They worship themselves.”
“They worship science.”
They can be anything and everything. When a leader is trying to scare his or her followers, they can use atheists as a convenient boogeyman.
And everyone knows how crazy you’d have to be to admit to it.
Frightened nimcompoop: “You’re an atheist!? Shhhhh. Oh my God, don’t say that. People will think something is wrong with you.”
tomboy said,
February 19, 2007 at 16:16
Rudy, and Newt too.
The question is, are athiests more disliked than those who serve divorce papers to their wife in the hospital as she is having cancer treatment?
I bet they are.
Col. Klink said,
February 19, 2007 at 16:17
Ironically, 75% of Salem residents will not openly vote for a witch if she has outed herself as such before the community.
Patkin said,
February 19, 2007 at 16:18
The American people is still largely defining itself off of the USSR and communism to this day. Remember that hoopla about the pledge of allegience and how, even though the allegience was only changed in the 50s because some Congress critter wanted to prove how not a commie he was to McCarthy, we still couldn’t get rid of it? Well, this is basically backlash of the same nature. Good Americans can’t be atheists, just like they can’t be communists. It’s un-American. It’s treason, in fact!
It’s unfair. In fact, it’s highly prejudiced and stupid, but atheists have to run an uphill battle just to be recognized as citizens because of how the Cold War was framed back in the day.
At least, that’s my perspective. It’s not religious prejudice, not entirely. It’s American brainwashing from way on back coming round to kick us in the teeth. Like Catholics and Rome, Jews and Israel, Muslims and Mecca, atheists have been name-branded to Sworn Rivals and are gonna have to push against the political winds just to get to the starting line.
(Mimes! That’s another class that’d do worse than atheists in this poll, I bet.)
Col. Klink said,
February 19, 2007 at 16:18
Equally ironic is the fact that 51% of Americans will vote for an idiot for President.
Aquagirl said,
February 19, 2007 at 16:25
Brad, I agree with you up to a point that people don’t know any atheists and just hear from their pastors that without God, we’d all be raping and pillaging inside a New York minute (which honestly should make them worry about their priests, not the atheists, because obviously here we are NOT raping and pillaging). But those folks also hear that atheists are out to destroy religion. And there are plenty of atheists who are not tolerant of religion, who either think it’s actively bad or completely moronic. That’s not going to be so endearing to someone whose religion is important to them (Unitarians and Buddhists excepted).
Also, let’s see, rampant lying about electing Jews, blacks, women, and hispanics. Other than that, that poll might be accurate.
Jas said,
February 19, 2007 at 16:26
Only 49% voted for “likely an idiot” back in 2000. 51% voted for “a known idiot” in 2004. Apparently we’re getting dumber.
And while I’m sure the whole “Atheist == Communist” vibe is out there, my guess is that most wouldn’t vote for an atheist because we don’t just believe differently, we flat out don’t believe. It’s okay if you’re a Jew, because they share the same deity. Once Islam settles down and stops being so darned violent, they’ll quickly slide into the same status, I’m sure. My guess is that even Hindus have a better shot at the White House, because Americans don’t know *what* Hindus believe, but at least they believe in something…
forked tongue said,
February 19, 2007 at 16:29
I think this is attributable to the widely accepted shibboleth that an atheist, unlike a believer, has no basis upon which to act in a moral and ethical way. It can be demolished in a Philosophy 101-level debate, but since the vast majority of people neither have taken such a course nor know a self-professed atheist, it retains a lot of its sham currency.
Aquagirl said,
February 19, 2007 at 16:29
“The question is, are athiests more disliked than those who serve divorce papers to their wife in the hospital as she is having cancer treatment?”
Well, duh, atheists aren’t Christian. Irony is dead, long live irony.
Jas said,
February 19, 2007 at 16:29
Yes, Aquagirl, I forgot to mention that bit. There’s no way in hell people honestly answered this poll. They know that they *should* vote for a black person for the presidency, if he’s qualified, but everyone knows they wouldn’t. I’m sure the numbers are similarly inflated for women, hispanics and jews. But atheists, we’re still okay to publicly hate. Fun!
Doc Nebula said,
February 19, 2007 at 16:31
“Atheist” is a scare word. It has been successfully linked to all sorts of negative emotional indices. Try substituting ‘agnostic’ in the poll and see what happens to the numbers.
On the other hand, it could get worse. If the poll said ‘non-Christian’, ‘pagan’, or ‘Muslim’, you’d see there are actually things that atheists are more popular than.
Jas said,
February 19, 2007 at 16:35
The saddest thing, Doc N, is that if they’d put “Liar” on the list, it’d be at the bottom of the page with 0%, and yet…look at us now…
steve_e said,
February 19, 2007 at 16:37
Patkin, very good point.
“Atheists are commies.”
How could I forget that one? Shit, that idea is ingrained into American culture. When I was younger, a confused fundie informed me of this aspect of the red menace. I remember thinking, “Why are these red-blooded, God-fearing Americans so obsessed with the Soviet Union? That country isn’t even around anymore.” This was in the mid-90s.
The United States may be the current incarnation of the USSR (a decrepit empire combined with a failed ideology), but the American exceptionalists will never admit it.
El Cid said,
February 19, 2007 at 16:38
Every time I go into nurseries and scream at the sleeping infants that there is no God, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, or Tooth Fairy, people always get mad at me.
Patkin said,
February 19, 2007 at 16:38
I dunno Jas, I bet there’d still be 27% willing to vote for a liar. I mean, that’s how many dead-enders we’ve got now supporting our current liar, right?
iamcoyote said,
February 19, 2007 at 16:50
Patkin, I think anyone who votes for any politician knows they’re voting for a liar. So liars should be at the top of the list, shouldn’t they?
Jas said,
February 19, 2007 at 16:51
Nope. The result would be 0 (+/- a couple) because nobody would vote for a liar. The 27% that support our current liar delude themselves into thinking that he’s not lying.
That’s the problem with this poll, and all others. You never will get the honest truth without it being colored by “what I believe” and “what I think I *should* say.”
Ungod said,
February 19, 2007 at 16:51
You know, I wrote out a long, complicated rant about why people of faith don’t trust atheists. But I already know that people aren’t actually going to read it in-depth, and will simply project inaccuracies onto it. So I’ll keep it short.
People of faith in America do not trust atheists for the same reason atheists don’t trust Christians: because they’re represented by the worst of their kind.
It’s a simple fact that religious people are represented in the media by their absolute worst–the Haggards, the Falwells, the Phelpseseses–because these are the people who grab headlines. When four Baptist churches defect from the Southern Baptist Conference in protest over the SBC’s anti-gay statements, does that make news? No. But if Fred Phelps so much as farts too loud, someone gets to write a headline about him and his church. It’s all in what gets attention.
Likewise, what gets attention to atheists are the people who, I’d argue, represent their worst–Madelyn O’Hair (and her claim that her disowning her Christian son was a “post-natal abortion”) being the best of the boogeymen, but others are stepping up to compete. For a prime example, I’d look to Richard Dawkins. Leaving Dawkins’s impressive credentials aside, he will likely be remembered by theists for one thing: he stated that he believed teaching children religious beliefs was “mental child abuse”. I’m sure that there are many people here who agree with that statement, to some degree. Now, is it possible for people to understand how that sounds to someone who is religious?
Think about it–you’re a parent, and you love your children without reservation. You would die for them without a second thought. And you hear a spokesman for atheism say that you, personally, are abusing your child, because you’re taking them to church with you on Sundays. Now, this spokesman doesn’t go on to say how you should be stopped (just like, say, uber-cons opine that dissent is treason without admitting the logical conclusion of their statements), but you know enough about the legal system to know that child abuse is a persecutable offense, one that can get your children taken away from you, or get you thrown in prison. So you get scared–not because your faith might be shattered, but because you can’t help but wonder that if people who agree with this spokesman get in power, what would stop them from changing the laws? And is it really that much of a leap for that person to then, at the polls, not vote for an atheist–the same way virtually all of us here wouldn’t vote for a conservative candidate?
Silly? Yes. There’s a mile of difference between one’s personal beliefs and one’s political beliefs. (As an example, I’m a “person of faith” who is politically a strict secularist. You may now completely ignore everything I’ve said as the ignorant ravings of one of those stupid theists.) But we’re discussing fear and hatred, both of which are silly and irrational.
wapsie said,
February 19, 2007 at 17:06
I sometimes consider myself a person of faith.
But you certainly can be a moral, loving, conscientious human being and doubt the existence of a supreme being with a personality and a special concern for human beings.
Now I’d say: If you are a kind, loving, good-natured person, you have an intuition of God, a grasp of the divine, even a real love for it, but you just don’t recognize it as such.
I’d also say: The loudest exponents of religion are the farthest away from any real faith. Most atheists I know are better Christians than Christians in the things that matter, not words, but actions. Real work.
It’s an old saw I learned in Sunday School in the 70s: Love is a verb.
Noisy Christians should shut up and get to work. Or just stop pretending already; find another, less destructive fad.
steve_e said,
February 19, 2007 at 17:13
Well said, Ungod. The most offensive extreme is often the chosen representative of a political viewpoint or religion. Btw, who chooses that representative? The media?
I don’t have a negative opinion of religious people, but I sure as hell don’t like fundamentalists.
iamcoyote said,
February 19, 2007 at 17:13
But you certainly can be a moral, loving, conscientious human being and doubt the existence of a supreme being with a personality and a special concern for human beings.
Now I’d say: If you are a kind, loving, good-natured person, you have an intuition of God, a grasp of the divine, even a real love for it, but you just don’t recognize it as such.
You could say that, but you’d be projecting your belief system on someone who has none while negating your assertion that the godless can have morals, too. Which is probably why your “moral” person has “doubts” rather than non-belief.
Jas said,
February 19, 2007 at 17:17
You said it better than I was trying to, coyote. The logic of “if you’re a good person, you’re in some way influenced by ‘the divine’” negates the whole point of atheism - that you can be a good person simply because it’s the inherently right thing to do, without attribution to any outside authority.
Proteus454 said,
February 19, 2007 at 17:18
“It’s a simple fact that religious people are represented in the media by their absolute worst”
That’s debatable, actually - More to the point, that doesn’t alter the fact that in the public consciousness, that simply isn’t the case. It’s basically expected that a “moral” person must have “faith”.
“I’m sure that there are many people here who agree with that statement, to some degree. Now, is it possible for people to understand how that sounds to someone who is religious?”
Yes. It sounds like someone suggesting something they’re simply not comfortable with.
However, contrast it closely with, say, the following opinions…
- Black people just don’t WANT to work / Their excess of melanin clearly marks them out as inferior.
- Women, being excessively burdened with hormones and gushy fluids, are unsuited to the business workplace.
The point - well, one of the points - of bigotry is the unfounded, unsupported nature of the prejudices. This is most injust.
Consider, however, being judged by how TREAT your child as opposed to by your gender or complexion. If you can’t judge people by what they say and do, WELL.
And yes, from a certain point of view, indoctrinating your child into a baseless worldview that essentially short-circuits logical thinking - incidentally, MY folks spent years patiently explaining to widdle Proty that if you can’t SEE the monsters under your bed, or HEAR them, TOUCH them or SMELL them, then they probably aren’t there at all - could certainly qualify as mistreatment of some caliber.
Now, of course this topic could fairly debated to see if there’s any merit to it…but that’s never going to happen. A point of view is sacrosanct when you drag the supernatural into it - well, an “approved” version of it, anyway - no matter how wretched it may be.
In short, “They don’t like you because you hurt their precious feelings”? Not gonna cut it.
yank in london said,
February 19, 2007 at 17:22
As a y2-year old, three times married, homosexual ex-Mormon athiest I would herewith like to declare my candidacy for the Presidency.
Jas said,
February 19, 2007 at 17:29
Yes, Yank, but are you a black jew as well?
Sarcastro said,
February 19, 2007 at 17:31
Look at it this way, 72% of people would vote for someone who thinks God speaks to men through hats with rocks in them. Only 45% would vote for folks who say that’s 100% absurd.
Robert Waldmann said,
February 19, 2007 at 17:35
Brad are you really surprised ? Or are you just funning ? In fact we are moving towards being accepted. I recall seeing a poll some years (decades ?) ago where 80% said no never vote for an atheist.
By the way, looks like all the people in the USA who can stand atheists have blogs.
iamcoyote said,
February 19, 2007 at 17:40
I’d vote for you, Yank. But only if you promise to persecute religious folk.
Oh, dear, did I let slip the atheist agenda? Crap. Pretend I didn’t say anything, ‘kay?
Charles Darwin said,
February 19, 2007 at 17:41
At least now we can say with some scientific certainty that 53% of the general population hasn’t evolved much.
His Grace said,
February 19, 2007 at 17:42
I’m surprised. Wouldn’t an atheist president mean that the rapture was at hand?
But if you want a foreigner who believes in fairies’ opinion about this matter, it could be something on the order of the following:
See, Dobson and his ilk are a bunch of irrational misogynistic homophobic idiots who cannot possibly get along with an atheist. Put an atheist and a dobsonite in the same room and they may be both speaking English, but they don’t at all speak the same language. There is no room for common ground.
But to a lot of Christians, they may vehemently disagree with a lot of Dobson’s positions, but many see him on some level at least as a brother in Christ. Without religion in the mix, you might say he’s viewed as “one of the club.”
This phenomenon is not limited to religion or anything. People just tend to trust people they see as one of their own versus an outsider. And Dobson certainly does his best to paint Atheism as an outsider/satanic force bent on turning your kids gay.
And yes, most people don’t know any atheists and tend to believe the caricatures they hear about. Unfortunately I do not think there is a short term remedy for this. It is in the religious right’s interest to portray the people most likely to call them on their shit as evil, even were they not to believe it.
And trust me a lot of them do. I have a friend who’s religious beliefs are a form of, well, eclectic agnosticism is the best I can do. He flew down to Texas once and had a seemingly unending lecture that began with “Are you saved?” The thing of it is, the person who was quoting revelations to him chapter and verse earnestly thought she was doing him a favour. After all, he would be cast into the lake of fire if he didn’t listen.
RobW said,
February 19, 2007 at 17:43
Who represents atheists?
O’Hair? Who brought a lawsuit 50 years ago? Who was killed and beheaded (likely by Christians) 30 years ago?
Dawkins? Would that that were so. Naturally, 2 words taken out of context is all that the fundies are able to focus on. There’s a bit more to his argument than that. Besides, his comment isn’t particularly controversial if you’ve seen the doc film “Jesus Camp” or any of those Christian Soldier horrowshows now making the high school rounds. He called it right.
Is it ok to close a child’s mind and teach her/him to hate and fear because you believe it to be for the child’s own good? It’s ok to cause harm if the harm was intended for good and motivated by love?
Am I supposed to be bothered by somebody possibly taking offense at Dawkins’ words after a lifetime of being told that I have no morals, no ethical code, and no rights?
Think about it–you’re a parent, and you love your children without reservation. You would die for them without a second thought. And you hear a spokesman for (*insert church here*) say that you, personally, are abusing your child, because you’re NOT taking them to church with you on Sundays.
Further, imagine that you don’t hear this from some review of one scientist’s book, but every day. EVERY FREAKING DAY. Including from people in your own family.
Oh, and you think someone hears Dawkins and gets scared of some atheist gov’t official taking your kids? Name a single atheist elected official in or from your state. Read the stated objectives of the Dominionists. Consider just how well represented they are in government today, and how represented we are, when most ATHEISTS won’t even admit to the label.
Then tell atheists how scared you are of us in government, how you’re scared we’re going to persecute you.
Wonder why some of us have a problem taking you seriously.
Yes. There’s a mile of difference between one’s personal beliefs and one’s political beliefs.
Yes, but what’s your point? If one’s political beliefs motivate one to restrict my freedoms and deny my rights as a citizen, then you betcherbutt that one’s political beliefs are going to be subject to my scrutiny and criticism; sometimes that criticism will be harsh, if those beliefs are particularly threatening to me.
If one ALSO expresses (at every opportunity) how one’s political beliefs (which motivate one’s activism in the real-world political realm, influencing public opinion and government policy) are formed at their very core by one’s religious beliefs, then YES, I do have a right and duty to examine and criticize those religious beliefs if they are stated to be the origin of one’s political beliefs.
1) One’s religious beliefs are stated by one to be the core of political beliefs, and they inform everything in one’s life; politics, work, family, etc.
2) One’s politics lead one to severely curtail my freedom or otherwise interfere with my own political ends.
3) Therefore, one’s religious beliefs are subject to scrutiny and criticism. Depending on the stakes of the debate, some of that criticism may be harsh.
Since christianists (Christian theocrats, Dominionists, etc.: those who impose Christian fundamentalism onto politics) see their own souls at stake (or say they do), they often get pretty damned harsh. As in, “terrorist” harsh; comments intended to induce fear in the targeted group. I’ve been hearing that crap my whole life.
And you get the vapors over Dawkins? Puh-leaze…
steve ex-expat said,
February 19, 2007 at 17:46
I’m not an atheist, but I am so tired of hearing candidates blabber on about their faith. Give me a candidate who is focused on this world in the here and now. I would prefer and old, single, gay, atheist who admits to dropping acid in the ’60’s.
mdhatter said,
February 19, 2007 at 17:51
In college I knew a black jewish homosexual who was very proud of his trifecta.. He regularly crowed about how much more oppressed he’d be if he were also a woman. He must be dead by now.
yank in london said,
February 19, 2007 at 17:51
I’m considering it Jas. If I decide to go there I will probably have to lose an eye as well.
Patkin said,
February 19, 2007 at 17:57
RobW:
And yet, that exactly the problem. To protect poor old impolite Dawkins, it’s neccesary to paint every single person to ever hold a religious belief as the exact same person as irrational misogynistic blowhard hypocrite bastards and murderous fundamentalist nutbags.
That gets old.
That eventually becomes offensive to people who are, y’know, progressive liberal/leftist sorts who still have religious beliefs.
That becomes offensive even faster to people who are just centrist nobodies who can get hoodwinked by the media by bad press soundbites.
It’s shooting yourself in the crotch to complain about how everybody’s focusing on how Dawkins shoots you guys in the foot.
HairlessMonkeyDK said,
February 19, 2007 at 18:00
Well, this is yet another reason I’m grateful that I wasn’t born in the U.S.
I grew up without any religious persuasion, pro or con or even specific.
I was thaught the distinctions and parralels between them,
and I was told to make up my own mind.
Which, of course, lead to the sane conclusion
that:
Wether or not there is a god (or demi-urge) ,
is much less important,
than how we treat each other.
So, I am an atheist who strives to do good.
Not to save myself from a hell I don’t even believe in,
but because I know that all of us poor mortals might end up on the loosing end, and that all gods so far have had atrocious VIP rules
for getting into heaven.
And that is why I despise the fundamentalists…
These despicable morons who proclaim that FAITH is better than WORKS.
That -praying- for the poor
is better than -providing- for the poor.
That rejoicing in the destruction of New Orleans is morally
superior to rebuilding it.
- Michael.
This I Believe said,
February 19, 2007 at 18:04
I believe in rainbows and puppy dogs and fairy tales.
And I believe in the family - Mom and Dad and Grandma.. and Uncle Tom, who waves his penis.
And I believe 8 of the 10 Commandments.
And I believe in going to church every Sunday, unless there’s a game on.
And I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and natural things.. that money can buy.
And I believe it’s derogatory to refer to a woman’s breasts as “boobs”, “jugs”, “winnebagos” or “golden bozos”.. and that you should only refer to them as “hooters”.
And I believe you should put a woman on a pedestal.. high enough so you can look up her dress.
And I believe in equality, equality for everyone.. no matter how stupid they are, or how much better I am than they are.
And, people say I’m crazy for believing this, but I believe that robots are stealing my luggage.
And I believe I made a mistake when I bought a 30-story 1-bedroom apartment.
And I believe the Battle of the Network Stars should be fought with guns.
And I believe that Ronald Reagan can make this country what it once was - an arctic region covered with ice.
And, lastly, I believe that of all the evils on this earth, there is nothing worse than the music you’re listening to right now. That’s what I believe.
Jillian said,
February 19, 2007 at 18:05
People who complain about how mean Richard Dawkins is usually haven’t read him, but are just responding to cherry picked quotes of his, taken out of context in the most inflammatory way possible.
Watch this video clip again and tell me that this isn’t child abuse.
Now before anyone gets upset, I realize that not all Christian parents do this kind of crap to their kids. I think what pisses me off about the Christian community, however, is that the only people I ever really hear complaining about this crap are the militant secularists. If someone would start a “Christians who hate Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy and all they stand for even more than they hate Satan himself” club - and lots and lots of churches joined it - I’d probably have a better attitude toward Christianity in general.
As things currently stand, though, I can only see the more mainstream Christians as the enablers of the people who want to take me and my friends and stone us to death. Makes it kinda hard to be buddies, ya know?
Jas said,
February 19, 2007 at 18:08
One point you have for sure, RobW, is that Atheism is definitely the new closet. We’ve got plenty of out gay characters on television and the movies now. But no out atheists. Much as people tended not to want to admit to homosexuality, there’s not an atheist politician alive that’ll admit to the fact - at least not one that’s already in office. Sure, there are fringe, eighth-party candidates, but they have a hard time getting votes from their own family, let alone a majority.
Some Guy said,
February 19, 2007 at 18:17
I would have liked to have seen “Muslim” on that list, but oh well.
At least part of the problem is that a certain amount of the people equate “Atheism” with “Satanist”. Which is kinda funny, but mostly annoying, because that would be like thinking that people who don’t eat pork like bacon.
Plus that whole “bleeding deadly corrosive acid” and “natural impulse to molest and/or eat children.” doesn’t help.
Spirula said,
February 19, 2007 at 18:28
Well, RobW and Jillian covered the main points far better than I could, so I will simply state that atheist are the only minority where bigotry, predjudice, and hatred are not only widespread, but socially acceptable.
For example:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm
Spirula said,
February 19, 2007 at 18:30
(insert “against whom bigotry…” for “where bigotry”.
(Thank’s for losing your preview button again guys.)
prozacula said,
February 19, 2007 at 18:30
reggae junky jew.
old ween song, but I’d vote for one.
Brian Schlosser said,
February 19, 2007 at 18:30
At the risk of being flamed to death, I have to say that I feel sometimes that I am in the minority of a minority by being a bleeding heart, progressive, evolutionist, science-geek big L Liberal Democrat who also believes in God. I get flak from the rightties for my political views, and flak from lefties for having religious beliefs… Well, truth be told, I don’t get many personal attacks from fellow lefties who are atheists, because they tend to be more polite and generally respectful, but I often pick up the vibe (like in this thread) that people might think I’m a superstitious stone stupid sheep because I haven’t posted a video at The Blasphemy Challenge.
I’d like to think that I’d vote for a qualified candidate that supported my politics, despite their beliefs of lack thereof, but I’m honest enough with myself to say that that probably isn’t true. I would be wary of an atheist candidate that made his or her atheism a central factor of their campaign. But I would also be as suspicious of a fundy if they ran on that faith, even if they were in agreement with me on politics. Can you atheists say that you would honestly vote for the most qualified candidate regardless of their beliefs? If Barrack Obama was a Scientologist, would he still have your support? If Hillary Clinton was a snake handler? If Al Gore were a Rosicrucian? What if Bush were an atheist and still did the idiotic things he has done, would you like him anymore because he was an atheist?
The Constitution only mentions religion once before the Bill of Rights, and that’s to say that religious tests are not required to take office. I wish that we could, as a society, take that to heart and agree to leave religious philosophy in the home. But something tells me it isn’t going to happen. I believe in God, but I have nothing but cynicism for mankind… but there’s always hope, I guess.
(As a postscript: the irony of the poll in question is that we have surely elected atheists to the Presidency before. Jefferson? Lincoln? Probably Washington, too? I know, I know, they were “deists” but really, does anyone buy that?)
His Grace said,
February 19, 2007 at 18:31
Jillian, just so you know, my church actually signed on as an intervener for gay marriage during the debate up here (and there were also others). The national church and local congregations regularly disagree with Dobson and his ilk. Hell, in the Church my brother was married in the minister had a large poster on the wall about saying no to missile defense. Strangely he believed that such a thing was contrary to Jesus’ message of peace. The biggest problem in the states is that the religious right has basically co-opted the terms family, morals and faith and narrowly define them as their own.
Personally, I get very pissed off when thanks to Dobson, often if I mention that I am a Christian I have to spend twenty minutes explaining that I support the separation of church and state, same sex marriage, choice, evolution and that I could care less if somebody wishes me a happy holidays.
The Fucking Fury, Unleashed said,
February 19, 2007 at 18:40
And Dobson certainly does his best to paint Atheism as an outsider/satanic force bent on turning your kids gay.
So, I wonder how he would blame atheism for causing George W. Bush to fantasize about pounding Osama in the ass?
spencer said,
February 19, 2007 at 18:46
Now I’d say: If you are a kind, loving, good-natured person, you have an intuition of God, a grasp of the divine, even a real love for it, but you just don’t recognize it as such.
I don’t think you meant it this way, but this sentence really comes off as condescending and patronizing to this particular atheist.
Others might disagree, of course.
spencer said,
February 19, 2007 at 18:48
Never mind - other atheists were faster on the draw than I was.
nick said,
February 19, 2007 at 18:53
As I see it (for what it’s worth), this is the problem:
1) Whenever atheists talk freely where Christians can overhear, Christians come away thinking (probably rightly) that the atheists believe that they are stupid.
2) Whenever Christians talk freely where atheists can overhear, atheists come away thinking (probably rightly) that the Christians believe that they are incapable of telling right from wrong, good from evil, because they lack the capacity to draw moral distinctions.
In other words, it’s a difference between being stupid and being subhuman. Sorry, decent Chrisitan posters. I’m sure that you’re frustrated at being lumped in with the Dobsons and Falwells of the world, but at least you’re being lumped in with human beings. (Using the word loosely.)
And one more thing…
Can you atheists say that you would honestly vote for the most qualified candidate regardless of their beliefs?
Yes. In every election I’ve ever voted in, I have had to vote for the most qualified candidate simply because I’ve never been able to vote–as far as I know–for an atheist. Running down your list of “would you vote for”s, I see a bunch of folks who believe in different versions of The Invisible Man In The Sky (gotta love those Scientologists–they really know how to push the Invisible Man envelope), so the difference is negligible to me.
And would I have been more likely to vote for Bush if he were an atheist? No. But then, I have no trouble separating out the spiritual belief system of a candidate from his/her positions on the issues that matter to me. I’ve had a lot of practice doing that….
Jillian said,
February 19, 2007 at 18:57
I think it’s hard for people sometimes to realize that the United States is under a concerted, deliberate effort to turn us into a Christian theocratic state. It’s even harder for them to grasp that it’s working - slowly but surely, it’s working. We have a federally funded “Office of Faith-Based Initiatives”, for crying out loud. Seriously - stop and try to remove your comfort with that phrase that you’ve developed from hearing it on the nightly news so often, and try to listen to it with fresh ears.
Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.
Now, tell me that it doesn’t sound like something that got cribbed from some futuristic, dystopian graphic novel.
We had, not so long ago, the head of a state’s Supreme Court removed from office because he refused to concede that however much his personal conduct is guided by the Ten Commandments, he has no legal right to make the Ten Commandments the basis of public law. This is a country where someone so utterly pig-ignorant of how American jurisprudence functions that they cannot grasp this simple concept can rise to one of the highest judicial positions in the country.
Apparently, there is evidence out there linking Antonin Scalia to the Dominionist movement. I’ve seen a couple of credible people talking about this at this point, but haven’t gone out to dig through the records myself to see how convincing this argument is. Frankly, I think I’m too scared to do it. If this is true, it means that we have a man committed to an ideology that holds the Constitution and the rule of law in total contempt on the bench of the highest court in the land.
Here’s a nice, nonhysterical, balanced introduction to Dominionsim and its principles. Read it and tell me that it isn’t terrifying. Not terrifying in the “Oh, the muslamonazis are going to kill us all!” sense, but terrifying in the sense that people who hold these beliefs are already elected members of our government.
I suppose it might be less scary if I were a Christian, and all my friends were Christian and heterosexual. After all, when the Nazis came to power in Germany, ethnic Germans actually did pretty well at the beginning. It’s just the other groups that suffered off the bat.
The way it looks to me at the moment is that I have to make a wager on the future of this country - all Americans do, really. We all know that this is currently not an authoritarian state, that we still have rule of secular law, and that the freedoms we have recognized in the Constitution still exist. The wager is whether or not the people who are opposed to this state of affairs will win or lose in our lifetime. And we’re wagering with our lives. If we bet that they won’t win out, and we’re wrong - well, if you’re a Christian heterosexual, you’ll pretty much be fine. But I’ll be dead.
So it all comes down to how likely you think it is that the Reconstructionist movement will succeed in its goals.
Frankly, I cannot stop thinking about the fact that they’ve sent people to the Senate, they hold a number of judgeships, and they’ve got the ear of the president. They hold significant offices in a number of state governments. They’ve got their own office of the federal government, and they get lots and lots of federal funding.
And they don’t think people like me should be allowed to live in this country at all.
So it’s hard nowadays for me to have a sanguine view of Christianity. Too many people who call themselves “Christians” want me dead, and too few people who call themselves “Christians” want to stand up and tell these other yokels that they’re wrong for doing so.
spencer said,
February 19, 2007 at 19:00
people might think I’m a superstitious stone stupid sheep because I haven’t posted a video at The Blasphemy Challenge.
Eh, the Blasphemy Challenge is idiotic.
As for your beliefs, hey, believe whatever you want, as long as you don’t try to force me to live by your beliefs. Even if you believe something I find ridiculous, like Scientology. For my part, I promise not to use your beliefs as the exclusive source of my personal assessment of you as a human being. I ask only the same consideration from religious people (unfortunately, I rarely get it).
That’s how this atheist deals with his religious friends, and his religious wife. It’s generally not hard to do, though if any of the people in my life actually were Scientologists, it might be a case of easier-said-than-done.
Dorothy said,
February 19, 2007 at 19:07
Brian,
At the risk of being flamed to death, I have to say that I feel sometimes that I am in the minority of a minority by being a bleeding heart, progressive, evolutionist, science-geek big L Liberal Democrat who also believes in God. I get flak from the rightties for my political views, and flak from lefties for having religious beliefs… Well, truth be told, I don’t get many personal attacks from fellow lefties who are atheists, because they tend to be more polite and generally respectful, but I often pick up the vibe (like in this thread) that people might think I’m a superstitious stone stupid sheep because I haven’t posted a video at The Blasphemy Challenge.
If it’s any consolation, you’re actually in the majority of the big-L Liberal camp, not the minority. Religious Liberals have been so marginalized by the pundit-class that the “Democrats must address people of faith” and “Liberals are godless” themes have become “conventional wisdom”–and it’s all total bulshit.
The biggest problem as I see it is that the RWNM has sucessfully reduced Religious Values(TM) and Morals(TM) in America to “Don’t have sex (particularly if you’re an unmarried female).” This reduction allows for many authroitarian assaults on our civil liberties and human rights to disguise themselves as “free expression of religion”. Thus, when liberals (big or small “l”) try to stop the erosion of liberty, they are attacked as “anti-religious”.
Also, the erosion of Protestant Privilidge is a big issue for the RWNM, too. Most of the liberal “attacks” on religion come down to this:
– “You won’t let us force your children to participate in our prayers!”
– “You won’t let us torment and humilate the Jewish kids in our school!”
– “You won’t let me teach your child all about my religion when you are not present, and without your knowledge or consent.”
– “You won’t let me force your teenaged daughter to conform to my religion’s standards of dress and modesty!”
– “You won’t let me lie to your children about biology, geology, astronomy, and medicine!”
– “You won’t let me force your family to follow my sexual mores!”
As long as these two “movements”* control our religion-in-politics discussion, religious liberals are pretty SOL: They get directly attacked for not being religious by the Movement Fundamentalists, and they get shrapnel from attacks on the Movement Fundy’s incorrect definition of “religion.”
* Pun quotes, not scare quotes. I think we need to start associating Dobson et al with “bullshit”-based puns whenever possible.
Dorothy said,
February 19, 2007 at 19:10
(Dang, that was long–sorry about that. Preview button? Hello, Preview button?)
sensible liberal guy said,
February 19, 2007 at 19:12
Look, isn’t it a fact that all you so-called “atheists” are just a bunch of dirty fucking hippies who want to smoke weed all day and laugh at right-thinking Americans? I mean, can we all just agree on that, okay?
davis said,
February 19, 2007 at 19:13
The margin for error on this poll must be very high. I don’t believe that only 5% would refuse to vote for a black.
kingubu said,
February 19, 2007 at 19:13
Its also a matter of identity, predictability and convention that has little or nothing to do with religion at all, per se.
Sox fans and Yankees fans rail at one another ’till they are red in the face. Raiders fans and Chargers fans pound on one another with righteous indignation. But the one guy they all shun and mistrust most of all is the guy who doesn’t like sports.
His Grace said,
February 19, 2007 at 19:19
Mikey if you think I’m going to argue with you about whether being considered stupid is worse than being considered sub human, I’m even more out of my mind than usual.
But for the record, not all Christians hold the view that atheists are amoral soulless beings incapable of good action. Quite a few Christians make the mistake of equating piety with righteousness. And yes some of us stupidly lump all atheists together, treating the Dawkins of the world as Stalins.
Here’s how I look at it: I don’t care whether you believe in magic ponies or not. To me it strikes me as stupid to waste your time arguing about something that could always suffer from the absence of evidence. I honestly don’t care what personal beliefs a politician has, providing they do not interfere with his constitutional responsibilities. And if an atheist wants to think I am stupid for worshiping a two thousand year old space carpenter, that’s fine with me. I have my reasons, and while they may not do service for somebody else, they are plenty for me.
Besides, if the worst thing in the world is that you do one idiotic thing in a lifetime, you would probably be the smartest and luckiest person on the planet.
Jillian said,
February 19, 2007 at 19:32
And I know that I give off a pretty heavy-duty anti-religion vibe, so just to clear that up: one of the few beliefs I hold to *more* strongly than the belief that religion is stupid and dangerous is the belief that everybody on the planet has the right to disagree with me about anything without automatically being thought of as an idiot.
A few days ago, I had one of my students stop by my classroom during my planning period. Her teacher wasn’t letting her into the classroom because she was late and disruptive, so she was looking for a place to hang out for a bit. I invited her in to come sit down and chat, and I learned a lot about her situation from this. (Details will be changed here to guarantee this student’s anonymity, but what follows is a true story)
Her mom’s in jail on a life sentence, and her dad is wherever he happens to be on any given day when the crack wears off. She’s not sure which of the twenty or thirty relatives she’s stayed with in the last two years is actually her legal guardian. Meanwhile, she’s taking care of six of her half-siblings (her dad gets around) because if she doesn’t, they’ll be put in foster care, and she’ll lose what little family she has left. The relative she’s currently staying with refuses to do anything to help take care of the younger children, and if my student complains about this - it’s off to foster care for them. So she pays her current guardian (out of the money she makes working three different after school jobs) to babysit the little ones when she’s in school.
She’s missed a lot of school lately, and is failing most of her classes. It’s a shame, too, because she’s really bright and motivated - she’s one of the kids who’s got the potential to get out of the poverty trap that almost all of my students are caught in.
So, we chatted, and I tried to encourage her to think that maybe foster care for her siblings *wouldn’t* be the worst thing in the world - it would make it easier for her to finish high school, and once she had her high school diploma, she’d be in a much better position to care for those kids, if that’s what she wanted to do.
After a while, she told me that things had started going bad for her after she stopped going to church. There had been a really good church near where she had been living a while ago, but she’d moved far away from it and it was too hard to get there anymore. I asked her why she didn’t just try to find another church near where she was living now? If she didn’t like it, the only thing she would have lost was a few hours from her Sunday morning, but if she did like it, she could get back all the good things she was getting from her old church.
I haven’t seen her to ask if she tried it since then, but I’m hopeful that she did. She deserves to be happy, and I hope she finds happiness at a good church. Her life is hard enough as it is.
cokane said,
February 19, 2007 at 19:33
the problem is alot of people see religion as being fundamental to creating a society that is moral
as noted above the George HW Bush quote about how atheists aren’t “citizens”. More contemporary Lieberman said: “[We shouldn't] indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” In 2001
It registers with a lot of people in America.
mikey said,
February 19, 2007 at 19:35
I am an atheist. Right out of the Sam Harris school. I do believe that if you accept ridiculous fairy stories without any supporting evidence as an adult and escape the loony bin by calling it “faith”, you are not only dishonest, you are dangerous. There is no limit to what you can choose to believe. You can hate gays and atheists. You can ban books, movies and tv shows. You can tell a woman you’ve never met a thousand miles away what she is required to do with her body. You can force children to refer to a silly mythological construct every morrning in school by way of the pledge, thereby indoctrinating him into your agenda. It is about power and money. Look at organized churches all down through history. If you can tell me its about anything other than power, money and control, you are lying.
The world no longer has any need for religion. Adults do not need fairy tales. We can accurately explain the way the universe works without resorting to gods and godlets. Praying is the same as doing nothing but you get to feel good about it. Sin and taboos are control methods, as are postmortem rewards and punishments. If we were allowed to actually have a conversation about these silly, unsupported and unsupportable beliefs, they would crash and burn in the sunlight of secular rational thought. But like a porcupine, religion shields itself from that conversation. You are not allowed to question this notion of “faith” being equal to knowledge. Just as they make up convoluted explanations for why we can never see god. They know they are selling a load of nonsense, and they have created an interlocking mythology to prevent a real discussion. The only thing that perpetuates religion is indoctrinating children. Without that, there would be damn little religion in one generation…
mikey
iamcoyote said,
February 19, 2007 at 19:37
Look, isn’t it a fact that all you so-called “atheists� are just a bunch of dirty fucking hippies who want to smoke weed all day and laugh at right-thinking Americans? I mean, can we all just agree on that, okay?
Aw, shit, ya got me.
Seriously, though, I think believers in gods are directly threatened by non-believers because the gods, just like Tinkerbell, exist only if everyone’s clapping. If someone’s not clapping, their god’s existance is just a little less certain. It’s not my intention that my disbelief makes you feel stupid, it’s your lack of absolute belief that plants doubts. It’s easier to try to eliminate the doubt than it is to explore why the doubt exists.
celticgirl said,
February 19, 2007 at 19:41
45% WOULD vote for an atheist? I’d say that’s actully some pretty good progress.
Now pagans, let’s see that stat. Anyone? Bueller?
Not gonna happen. And it’s a shame, because as one commenter has already stated, many pagans have better Christian values than a lot of Christians - in deeds. In their daily lives. Their moral compass, if you will.
But if you think atheist = Satanic, you’ve got another thing coming. We pagans OWN that one baby!
WE’RE #1 W00t!!!!one111!!eleven!
celticgirl said,
February 19, 2007 at 19:42
Oh Preview Button, we hardly knew ye…
Aquagirl said,
February 19, 2007 at 19:49
Dorothy, shortness would have taken away from the excellent rantiness. Brian, I have no problem with your religious beliefs, because I believe that spiritual beliefs are important to people and whatever form they take for you is ok with me as long as they stay personal and don’t get in the way of my own. But you put my own spiritual beliefs (and yes I DO consider atheism part of my spiritual beliefs) on a par with snake handling and rosicrucians, not to mention the sect that must not be named.
Thinking about outing atheists, I wondered if Jim Moran, who goes to my UU church, would be publicly id’d as UU (not that UUs are all atheists, though some are, but it is not a Christian religion). He’s consistently described as RC.
some guy (not Some Guy) said,
February 19, 2007 at 19:49
I used to work for a very wealthy lawyer. The guy was an ass in many respects but his one redeeming quality (in my eyes, anyway) was his outspoken atheism. He reminded me a little of Darrow, who likewise was a famous courtroom lawyer and an atheist. Also, in a business that requires people to be relentlessly non-controversial, it was nice to see a lawyer refer to the Truths of Christiantiy as “fairy tales” and “brain-destroying lies.”
billy pilgrim said,
February 19, 2007 at 19:50
I think there would be more atheists if people of faith realized that you still get Christmas Presents.
Dan Someone said,
February 19, 2007 at 19:52
Can you atheists say that you would honestly vote for the most qualified candidate regardless of their beliefs? If Barrack Obama was a Scientologist, would he still have your support? If Hillary Clinton was a snake handler? If Al Gore were a Rosicrucian? What if Bush were an atheist and still did the idiotic things he has done, would you like him anymore because he was an atheist?
There are three factors I consider when evaluating a candidate: competence — whether the candidate has the skill set required to perform in the job; issues — whether the candidate’s positions match up with mine on the issues I care most about; and integrity — whether I believe that the candidate is a decent, honest, non-corrupt person. Without getting too mathy about it, as it is ultimately a subjective decision, the candidate that scores highest on those three axes combined will get my vote, no matter what religious beliefs he or she holds and/or professes. That said, I think that a candidate’s religious beliefs can have an effect on any or all of those axes, so my assessment of their “score” will be informed, but not dictated, by my experience with and understanding of their belief system.
As for the last question, George Bush’s idiotic, autocratic, unconstitutional and/or criminal acts may arise from his religious beliefs, but the salient factor is that they are idiotic, autocratic, unconstitutional and/or criminal regardless of his motivation. So if he were an atheist and did all the same things, I’d still think he was an incompetent would-be monarch. The only difference is I wouldn’t be worried he was trying to bring about the End Times on orders from God.
Stavro said,
February 19, 2007 at 19:53
We gay atheists get to smile ourselves to sleep each night knowing we haunt the nightmares of fundies world-wide.
Aquagirl said,
February 19, 2007 at 19:53
Let me slightly recant about Moran; he’s there regularly and I think he’s a member but I can’t say definitely that he’s not just dropping in on the most solid liberal bloc anywhere.
Smiling Mortician said,
February 19, 2007 at 19:55
Atheism is definitely the new closet. We’ve got plenty of out gay characters on television and the movies now. But no out atheists. Much as people tended not to want to admit to homosexuality, there’s not an atheist politician alive that’ll admit to the fact
Dunno about this. It seems to me that the only way you have an “out” atheist is if the focal point is religion. Television has “out gay characters” because the focal point of much television programming is sex; therefore sexual orientation becomes relevant to the story. From an atheist perspective, it seems to me that religion is irrelevant to discussions of public policy — just as it’s irrelevant to discussions of coffee and MRIs and whatever else is the focal point of your average TV show. In other words, why be “out” about something that really isn’t germane? It’s like being an “out” vegetarian running for office — who cares? I understand that those on the religious right in particular would take exception to my analogy because they believe religion is relevant to everything — I’m just saying that in my experience most atheists understand that religion is not relevant to everything. That’s why they aren’t “out” — not because they’re afraid or ashamed, but because it’s not the point.
Stavro said,
February 19, 2007 at 20:08
Depends on how you define ‘out’ atheists. This might seem a lame example, but pretty much all of Star Trek in its variety of shows and movies is agnostic to the point of almost being outright atheist. Same with a lot of other sci-fi. This stuff might not make it to the completely mainstream audience, but it’s all over the place anyway.
seepeesate said,
February 19, 2007 at 20:11
Brian Schlosser said “Can you atheists say that you would honestly vote for the most qualified candidate regardless of their beliefs? If Barrack Obama was a Scientologist, would he still have your support? If Hillary Clinton was a snake handler? If Al Gore were a Rosicrucian? What if Bush were an atheist and still did the idiotic things he has done, would you like him anymore because he was an atheist?”
Yes, without question.
However, there are certain belief systems that automatically put their holders inito the “unqualified for public office” category. Specifically, those whose religious beliefs require them the enshrine their religious beliefs into law. If Hillary Clinton (who won’t get my vote anyway, but for other reasons) were a snake handler, I would consider her disqualified because the snake handlers overtly strive to impose their beliefs on others through force of government. The other details of the belief system are irrelevant.
If Bush were an atheist (and you know what? I suspect he is.) it wouldn’t improve my opinion of him one iota.
Jas said,
February 19, 2007 at 20:15
Okay, let me rephrase. Yes, there are some out atheists on TV (given the Sci Fi references, but then again, the most popular Sci Fi show right now is Battlestar, and that’s an overtly religious universe they’ve created), but if you get to a situation where religion matters (whether it should or not), like politics, there’s slim to bupkis in the way of atheist representation. And it is because of fear of being “unelectable.”
Jillian said,
February 19, 2007 at 20:24
clicky
clicky
These are usually good for a few creepy laughs.
g said,
February 19, 2007 at 20:24
I am of mixed minds about this debate.
I consider myself an agnostic pretty far along towards the atheist side of the spectrum. But I’m the descendent of a very actively religious family, and was raised in a pretty liberal Protestant tradition.
My parents were both atheists — my mother fiercely so, interestingly, because she was raised a strict Catholic. But we kids were nonetheless taken to Sunday School and Sunday services, and I think for the most part my parents considered this a part of our social education - you gotta admit that church is a great method of teaching kids how to sit still and listen and partake in ritual and dress up in Sunday Best clothes.
I had my flirtation with born-again Christianity in college, but became disillusioned with its Vending Machine philosophy - you put in enough nickels (prayer) and your wishes are dispensed. I found this same Vending Machine Philosophy in what a good Buddhist friend believed, too - chant and you’ll get what you want. So I drifted away.
I enjoy the European architecture of Christianity; I admire the Good Works that religious organizations perform. Don’t lose sight of the fact that the flip side of the evil of the Dobsonites is the many wonderful things done by The Episcopal diosece in NYC; Catholic Community Services in most cities, and others.
For many years, I’ve celebrated Passover with neighbors and attended their childrens’ bar mitzvahs - am I worshiping? Am I simply marking a holiday? Who knows?
I think Jillian’s story about her student is a good one. People need support systems. Churches can be wonderful support systems. They can also be hideous, enslaving cults. But so, too, can other non-religous organizations that human beings use to bind themselves together.
That said, I don’t find the issues of aethism and faith to be a subject of passionate discussion in my day-to-day life. I work with people who belong to a variety of denominations. I don’t discuss my faith or lack thereof with anyone - why should I? Why should anyone’s faith be a matter of discussion during the work day?
If I discuss faith with friends, it’s in the same context I’d discuss any other issue where I might disagree with their opinion. Would I openly and passionately condemn my friend’s preference for mid-century modern furniture as we’re talking about houses? No, nor would she condemn my preference for Victoriana. Why? because we’re friends and we respect one another.
I don’t feel the need to pop someone’s belief bubble. Life will do that without me getting involved.
Do people really have passionate discussions about religion, outside of the context of scholarly debate and drunken ravings in their early 20’s? Do ordinary Lutherans argue about the views held by the various Synods?
I don’t see this happening.I would say that 90 % of the people who know me have no idea what I profess as to faith. Nor are they interested.
Someone said something upthread about there being no “out” athetist characters in popular culture. Are you serious? Are any characters on TV “out” as being religious or not? You can’t tell me viewers are actually assuming TV characters are religious, can you? Do we see Jack Bauer attending Bible study? Can anyone tell me what church the people in “Friends” went to? Was Seinfeld Reformed, or Conservative? How about the guys in “Entourage,” could anyone possibly assume they’re Lutheran as opposed to Presbyterian?
I think faith as depicted in the public arena is a veneer, a construct, a falsehood. It’s like professing in loving Mom and Apple Pie.
And I really don’t care what other people believe, until it oppresses someone else.
Stavro said,
February 19, 2007 at 20:38
The “Vending Machine” analogy is great. Never thought of it that way, but it fits.
Spirula said,
February 19, 2007 at 20:44
Jillian,
I deconverted from Xianity having been raised in the OPC (R. Rushdooney’s denomination). I deconverted not long after the whole Theonomy and Dominionist stuff started catching on, though my deconversion was based more on the behavior of conservative christians (you’ll never find a more divisive, bickering, gossiping, decietful, backstabbing, authoritarian worshipping group). That and some critical thinking/self-evaluation. Not to forget to mention, as a undergraduate biology major, seeing their intellectually dishonest representation of evolution, listening to their horribly inept creationist counter “arguments” (Canopy Theory…check it out if you want a hoot) pretty much sealed my fate.
But for those of you unfamiliar with these movements, they are scary, serious and gaining power (witness Jillan’s poignant example: Office of Faith-Based Initiatives). The post-war situtation in Afganistan opened the door for the Taliban to establish their theocracy. The Christian Right is trying to do the same here, but with a different door.
And here I was hoping to go through life believing “The Handmaid’s Tale” was and always would be, fiction.
iamcoyote said,
February 19, 2007 at 20:48
Christianity helped a friend of mine get off the meth; and while it’s replacing one crutch with another, at least she’s off the meth. She’s actually a walk-the-walk Christian, and I have a lot of respect for her, except that she does’t know one thing about what’s in the bible, and believes everything her pastor says and votes exactly how she’s told to vote. At least she balked when the youth group her son was in was asked to canvass for the local Republican candidate. Whatever gets you through the day, I suppose, as long as you keep it to yourself.
arouet said,
February 19, 2007 at 20:49
I waver between weak atheism and Deism. I am decidedly not religious, and I am rabidly opposed to religious fundamentalists (not ordinary believers).
But I think that we liberals need to focus MORE on religion - particularly Christianity - not less. Why? Because Jesus was one of us! Any honest follower of Jesus’ message - pacifism, equality, helping the poor - would be horrified at the Republican party today. As someone said above, the Christian right has hijacked what their religion (and morality, family, etc.) means, and instead of abandoning it to them, why not fight to reclaim it?
Jillian said,
February 19, 2007 at 20:57
See, the problem with arguments like that is that you can find a passage in the Bible to support any particular interpretation of Jesus you’d like to make. Jesus isn’t “one of us” - Jesus is a cypher upon whom believers project whatever they hold in their hearts. And because there is no clear way for figuring out what interpretations of the Bible are “correct” and what interpretations are “incorrect” - because there’s no “peer review” process - there’s no way for people who belive in Jesus the Hippie to conclusively say that those who believe in Jesus the Warrior are wrong, and vice versa.
This is why religion in general is such a quagmire. When you abandon evidentiary standards, you have nothing upon which to stand. When nothing can falsify a belief, that belief can come to stand for anything anyone wants it to.
¡El Gato Negro! said,
February 19, 2007 at 21:52
Joo theenk thees ees bad, eh?
Gatos are no even allowed to vote or run for elective offices, no matter wheech religion they hold.
?…and where are the gato-worsheepers?
?Why are they no leested right between “Mormon” and “Guiliani’s penesita, eh?
Pfui.
obscurifer said,
February 19, 2007 at 21:55
If you belong to the gaytheist or fagnostic group, do they cancel each other out?
Righteous Bubba said,
February 19, 2007 at 21:57
And because there is no clear way for figuring out what interpretations of the Bible are “correct� and what interpretations are “incorrect� - because there’s no “peer review� process - there’s no way for people who believe in Jesus the Hippie to conclusively say that those who believe in Jesus the Warrior are wrong, and vice versa.
I think too much weight is put on this. The majority of things Jesus did and said are Jesus the Hippie, and the cranky things he did or said - zapping a tree, kicking over tables, saying he was bringing a sword - are really very few and kind of shocking and clangy. Jesus the Hippie carries the day, which is why the OT is so revered by the fire-and-brimstone types.
Matt T. said,
February 19, 2007 at 21:58
Why does one have to respect religious beliefs? Isn’t respecting someone, believer or not, simply because that person is a human being enough? I really don’t understand why I’m supposed to respect any bit religious dogma anymore than I should respect astrology or Thor* or that dingaling in Japan who claims he can use good vibes to influence the shape of water crystalizing or those goofy “photonic cloud” people or any number of beliefs that cannot, cannot be justified by any means than “ya just gotta believe it”.
I understand why people choose to have religious beliefs, and I can respect that. At their very best, all religions say pretty much the same thing - “Don’t worry, it’s gonna be okay and it’s all out of your hands, anyway” - and I can dig on that desire. Everybody needs somebody to tell them it’s all right, and my own perception of a rational, materialistic, uncaring universe wherein man is but one tiny, insignificant speck comes as great comfort to me at times. Plus, knowing that I and only I am responsible for my decisions and actions is liberating, because it means I can make my own decisions based on my own ideas and the information about the universe I can take in. I’d hate like all get out to be this guy.
Another thing I don’t understand about “respecting religious beliefs”. I was raised Freewill Baptist and, as far as I can remember, it don’t matter how good you were as a person or how much good you’ve done in the world, unless you give your heart to Jesus, you’re gonna be spending an eternity in Hell. Furthermore, since we can make this decision to reject Jesus consciously, if we do reject Jesus, we deserve to be cast into the Lake Of Fire. I’ve noticed that when trying to convert non-members of the church with the soft sell, folks will dance around the whole issue of Hell a bit - it maybe simple “distance from God”, whatever the hell that means, or it may be Pinhead and his boys - but it’s definately something one should avoid. Apparently, that also extended to folks who’d never heard of Jesus, even if they were born before he came on the scene or grew up and died in some isolated part of the world that hadn’t yet received The Good Word.
I didn’t get this as a kid, either. People who did good in this world but weren’t Christians (or more specifically, Baptists) would still burn with Hitler and Cain and Judas Iscariot. It always bothered me as capricious and illogical, not to mention downright cruel and more than a bit unsettling. I imagine the fact I never could grok the idea of a Creator that was both omnipotent and all-loving, but would also cheerfully send the vast bulk of his creation to eternal damnation as anything but disturbingly contradictory probably led to my current atheism.
I’m about to make a pretty broad generalization, but I hope it encapsulates what I’m trying to get across here. Atheists think religious faith is a silly waste of time and that all the benefits of religion can and are found in secular society without all the trappings and pitfalls of organized dogma. Religious people think all unbelievers, including atheists, are destined for some sort of eternal punishment no matter how good they were on this planet**. I just don’t understand why I’m supposed to respect that. Do what you gotta do to get through the day, sure, and don’t hurt nobody, but I fail to see why religion - or more aptly, Christianity, since that’s the only religion that really matters in America - deserves any special free pass from criticism with this in mind.
* Actually, since no one talks a line of shit like Thor, I got all kinds of respect for the followers of the God Of Thunder.
** Disclaimer: just like all atheists don’t think the same, all people of religious faith hold different views of the metaphysical world. Even people of the same religious faith have been known to quarrel and quibble about certain eschatlogical questions. I know this and if you tell me I’m “missing the point of religion” just because you personally don’t think I personall am going to Hell for an eternity of torture, I will come after you with a lenghth of cardboard tubing what they wrap Christmas wrapping paper around. I’m just sayin’.
Righteous Bubba said,
February 19, 2007 at 22:05
I just don’t understand why I’m supposed to respect that.
In the case of religion “respect” means “don’t make waves” because people are very touchy about practices they can’t actually justify to themselves.
bargal20 said,
February 19, 2007 at 22:11
Yeah, everybody seems to love Saint Reagan these days, but 42% of us wouldn’t vote for his senile ass again.
Jillian said,
February 19, 2007 at 22:12
That’s just *your* opinion, Bubba.
Not that I do or do not agree with you, but the point is that there is no way for you to make a convincing argument to a Christian who disagrees with you on that point, because there is no common standard for how one evaluates a religious argument.
If I want to argue that, say, HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, there are standards by which I can be shown to be incorrect. There is a large body of research literature that can be referred to, where the standards for how you read that literature is universal.
There is no such standard for religious literature. Do you read it literally? Do you read it metaphorically? When do you do which? Who decides that? Heck, that is what the entire history of schisms in the church, going all the way back to the earliest church days in Rome, is all about.
There really is no way to respond to “God told me this is true”. There’s no argument against that. This is the whole problem with faith, right there. Someone who disagrees with you would simply say that you are taking the parts that God meant literally - Jesus’ talk of dividing families, for instance - and reading them far too metaphorically.
The Jesus of the NT is a mess, anyway - he spends half his time running around healing people and the other half threatening his disciples with all sorts of retribution if they tell anyone what he’s done. It’s like he’s in the closet himself.
Brian Schlosser said,
February 19, 2007 at 22:13
I don’t think anyone should “respect” anything that don’t believe. But they should respect other’s rights to believe it.
Isn’t that the point? I don’t respect atheism as a philosophy, because I have considered its arguments and rejected them. But if you feel the opposite, thats your decision, and I respect your right to do so.
Red and Black said,
February 19, 2007 at 22:15
Logic and mass are the main tools that the less-powerful have in their struggle against the more-powerful.
Religion is harmful because it actively undermines logic, while artificially dividing the working class and distracting them with arbitrary crap. And the “pie in the sky when you die” stuff can have the effect of helping people tolate crap in the real world.
Brian Schlosser said,
February 19, 2007 at 22:19
“There really is no way to respond to “God told me this is trueâ€?. There’s no argument against that. This is the whole problem with faith, right there”
Where you see a problem, I see a perk. I accept that my faith is irrational. I don’t try to argue for it in terms of logic and reason because that is a sucker bet. The language of logic is constructed to deny faith. And that is a good thing, it is the reason we have science, and as much as I believe in God, I believe in Science. But I really do subscribe to Gould’s non-overlapping majesteria, for the most part.
D. Sidhe said,
February 19, 2007 at 22:40
What, no vegetarians?
Righteous Bubba said,
February 19, 2007 at 22:42
That’s just *your* opinion, Bubba.
I disagree in that charitable acts by Christians are generally held to follow the example of Jesus, but it’s God who chucks you into the lake of fire. The division between the invocation of Jesus and the invocation of God is pretty distinct from Pope to Falwell.
Obviously NT Jesus has some contradictions, but it’s a pretty sedate set of contradictions. Jesus kills nobody, accepts most everyone even if he disapproves of their doings, submits to lawful authority, blah blah. The threats he delivers tend to be of the “you’ll go to hell, but here: have a nice fish!” variety. The bible as a whole, on the other hand, contains the wars and struggles that mythologically inclined authoritarian gets some punch out of.
As you note, the fact is that people do find ways to get traction out of Jesus to serve what any reasonable person would call anti-Christian goals, but it’s a hard job. Regardless of whether you read Jesus literally or metaphorically, he’s pretty safe and appropriate for kindly grannies with doily fetishes. Stack up the kindly Jesus against the cranky Jesus and there’s your objective measurement.
Similarly, people try to deny the traction of Muhammad’s life as warmonger by implying that the fuzzy-headedness of Christian confusion will be found in equal measure in Islam. Simply not so.
Matt T. said,
February 19, 2007 at 22:45
Brian Schlosser,
As I said - fairly clearly, I thought - I respect people and I respect their right to believe and I respect their need to believe. I just think some of those beliefs, including all forms of Christianity, to be silly nonsense at best and harmful tools for social control at worst. I see no reason to use language less harsh than that nor do I see the help to anyone to pretend that I have some iota of respect for a dogma that, to me, is illogical, useless and potentially extremely harmful. If a person is using his religion as a weapong against society - for example, those who wish to muddle up science with nonsense like ID or express their bigotry against gays - I see no reason to “respect” that religion or that persona. William Donahue is a bigotted dirtbag, and the fact that he’s Catholic means absolutely nothing. He’d be a dispicable dirtbag no matter his faith, and I don’t understand why I have to pay him any attention (as the corporate media does*) because of his silly, irrational, outdated beliefs.
I do think sometimes, and with some empirical evidence, that the vast majority of American Christians don’t really care what someone believes, they just don’t want theirs challenged. This extends into almost damn near any sphere of intellectual life, but it goes doubly so in matters of religion. I think the whole “War on Christmas” and school prayer stupidity is part of it.
Again, I got no problem with people needing to believe. Just don’t expect me to take, say, your preacher or the pope or whomever more seriously than someone who thinks Elvis is still alive when it comes to debates of morality or public policy. They’re just not relevent.
* And apparently, he’s a represenative of all Catholics, regardless of political ideology, according to the corporate media. Another problem I have with religion in America is how much time American Christians whine about being oppressed as opposed to how little time they spend clearing out scum like Donahue or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. They’re all Christians, too. But that’s a whole ‘nother discussion.
a different brad said,
February 19, 2007 at 22:47
First off, let’s all say a prayer of thanks for George Carlin. Thank jebus someone can say this shit in public.
As one who was spared any kind of religious education as a child, I feel safe in saying atheism is the natural state of man. We don’t inherently believe in an imaginary pissy old man in the clouds, we’re scared into it. It’s natural to look for answers to big questions, but one of the many things I like about being an atheist is it’s ok for me to say i don’t know how to answer the question. Hell, I don’t know that it’s the right question to ask.
I’m no longer young enough to be reactionary against religion in general, but fuck this talk of uppity atheists. No, it ain’t like being black, I’d never claim it. But if atheists get pissy with the religious, well, it’s just as much the fault of the religious as us. Despite the bs rhetoric from the right, we’re not the ones claiming we know the fundamental truths of all reality and trying to force conversion on those poor pitiful unbelievers.
And we’re not the ones claiming to have a monopoly on morality. Like no one thought murder was a bad idea until Moses came down the mountain. Maybe instead of blaming atheism for Hitler n Stalin n Mao n etc, as they always do when trying to claim we’re amoral, the religious should look at themselves, and their pretense that the only way to be a good person is to swallow their cult bullshit.
mikey, as always, said it well. Religion is an allergic reaction by humanity, a sign our collective immune system hasn’t adapted to something yet. Atheists are the ones with antibodies, with the courage to live in reality and uncertainty. Arrogant as it may be, I take the rage thrown at atheists as ultimately borne of jealousy. Us atheists don’t jump through all those stupid hoops many religious folk must, and yet we’re still here, unsmited, gettin laid more often. We don’t need crutches to walk, n they hate us for that.
His Grace said,
February 19, 2007 at 22:47
Look, I want to say the following things:
A) I am always right and everybody else is wrong about everything.
B) Regardless of what you believe, people tend to view themselves as if not the hero of their own stories, then definitely not the devil. So regardless of what they believe (or not), they have usually reached these conclusions through a lifetime of experiences and are fairly certain of their correctness on the matter. But since people are people, others don’t exactly see it the same way.
In my case, my religion saved me from a fate worse than death. You can call it a crutch. You can call it a means to keep me in line. You can call it divinely inspired. You could it all paranoid hallucinations and delusions brought on by the adult onset of schizophrenia. Personally, I don’t care how you index it. To me it doesn’t really matter.
Christians sometimes have difficulty understanding that an atheist sees little or no value in their rituals or beliefs. But equally atheists sometimes have a hard time seeing what they find to be superstitious nonsense has actual value to the people who practice them.
C) Can I just suggest that while rationality is in my opinion highly prized, most decisions humanity reaches on a daily basis are not driven primarily by weighing all the options, exploring all possibilities and going for what logically looks to be the best answer? Otherwise Pepsi would outsell Coke and I would be doing something else for a living.
Jillian said,
February 19, 2007 at 22:48
It’s not as hard a job as you think it is, or Pat Robertson wouldn’t be as rich as he is. The real-world evidence stands in stark contrast to your claim here.
People who argue for Warrior Jesus over Hippie Jesus are certainly not lacking for massive numbers of followers. I obviously agree with you that they’re wrong - but the point is that it’s not as hard to make the case for Warrior Jesus as you think it is.
Either that, or millions of Americans are even dumber and more gullible than you seem willing to give them credit for. Either’s possible, I suppose.
Righteous Bubba said,
February 19, 2007 at 22:53
It’s not as hard a job as you think it is, or Pat Robertson wouldn’t be as rich as he is. The real-world evidence stands in stark contrast to your claim here.
I disagree. Watch Pat Robertson: Jesus is merciful, God is not. He doesn’t make the case for Warrior Jesus, he makes the case for Judeo-Christian values, a sneaky code-phrase for “Moses kicked ass and so can we.”
I don’t think I’ve clarified myself enough here: what I’m getting at is that Jesus is ignored when convenient in favour of OT messages that sanctify bloodshed.
Jillian said,
February 19, 2007 at 22:58
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Respecting OT law is not ignoring Jesus, it’s doing what Jesus told you to.
a different brad said,
February 19, 2007 at 22:59
Sorry His Grace. I managed not to include my current less reactionary stance.
Short version; believe whatever you want so long as it places no requirements or restrictions on me, cause i won’t pay them any heed
long version; see kierkegaard on pagan christians. religious folk who pay close attention to the true content of their chosen system tend to be the ones I get along best with.
christ was an interesting guy, if he existed, albeit kind of a pussy.
steve_e said,
February 19, 2007 at 23:02
Pretty much every Internet debate on religion ends the same way. Interesting discussion. We know where we stand. We’re all individuals in this crazy world who make decisions based on life experiences. You know the rest.
Religion is good for many people. Faith is great for many people. Belief is wonderful for many people. I’m not one of those people. But my opinion does not mean some other person should feel threatened. We’re all humans who cope with life in our own way. Humans can be cruel. Humans can be kind. Individuals come up with all sorts of reasons to justify their existence.
As long as we don’t kill each other, it’s all gravy. Humans don’t agree to that idea often enough.
Brian Schlosser said,
February 19, 2007 at 23:03
Matt: I think, then, that we are then in agreement that we (personally, and maybe all Liberals?) should always respect our fellow man, even if we think that some of their philosophic views are a load of fetid dingoes kidneys? And that that is what seperates us, the good guys, from the other guys?
I mean, can you imagine a thread on LGF, for example, that had atheists and believers alike agreeing to disagree with mutual respect?
Matt T. said,
February 19, 2007 at 23:06
And you know, there’s absolutely nothing in this world wrong with considering something a “crutch” and still a good thing. Music’s my brother’s crutch. My crutch is finding out about stuff I didn’t previously know (used to be called “natural philosophy”, but now I think it’s just being a geek). My mother’s crutch is her family and home. Friends of mine use art or writing or excercise or sports or relationships or politics as their own ind