Sastra here again.
We anticipate it. Or, at least, I do. Whenever some lunatic in a not-so-happy place in his life goes into a happy place with a gun and starts to shoot at random human targets, sooner or later someone blames it on atheism. Or links it to atheism. Or compares it to atheism. Or otherwise brings up atheism, as the not very random target of ultimate explanation.
It didn’t take long for someone to use the recent tragic shootings in the Unitarian Church in Tennessee to illustrate the dangers of “militant atheism.” The Life!beliefs section of my local paper regularly features a syndicated columnist, Rev. Norris Burkes, who is “a civilian hospital chaplain and an Air Guard chaplain in northern California.” I occasionally glance through his column, which tends to focus on the pleasant, reasonable, ecumenical spirituality of good works and thoughtful counsel. He seems like a nice guy. He almost certainly is.
I didn’t much care for his recent column, though, which was titled “Turn deaf ears to whispers of hatred.”
After bemoaning the hatred that drove killer Jim Adkinson and others like him, Burkes rhetorically asks where it came from. Whence that infectious strand of ignorance, apathy, violence, and hate? Well, the killers yell what others whisper.
“In the world of religion, I’ve yet to see more infectious carriers than I’ve seen in the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. These evangelical atheists would have you believe that all our problems stem from all forms of religious faith.”
Oh NOES! Not “atheists think ALL our problems stem from religion!” Not the “atheists only see the bad side of religion” meme again! And what about STALIN and POL POT? How do you explain THAT? Yes, the ‘pygmies and dwarves’ of atheism show up, on schedule.
I’m not sure if Burkes has read any of the books himself, or if he’s only read the Nicholas Kristof op-ed which ran in the Times last December. He assures the reader that what Kristof characterized as “the increasingly assertive, often obnoxious atheist offensive” was subsequently soundly trumped and defeated by bringing up Stalin on one side, and soup kitchens on the other. Poor Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins apparently never considered, never addressed, never even thought about either totalitarian Communism, or the fact that religions do good works, too — in addition to the witch hunts, honor killings, and massacres, of course.
You know, I’ve read the books by all three gentlemen – Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins – and I have a vague sort of recollection that maybe they did deal with those issues once or twice, in passing. Like devoting several chapters to them, or setting them up as the starting point for their theme, or something like that.
But no matter. Enough of religious intolerance, on both sides. Burkes puts forth the solution: “We must allow room for the conversation.” Conversations, that is, with GOOD atheists, and not the hate-filled, militant, in-your-face kind. Rather, Christians seek and honor the brand of non-believer who is gentle, nice, and neither in-your-face nor in your bookstore nor in your television on PBS. And he specifically spells out what it takes to be the right kind of atheist:
“When I ask them what they want from the faithful, they tell me two things. First, they are tired of people making the assumption that an atheist can’t possibly be a moral, upstanding, civic-minded person and not believe in God. But mostly they tell me what I hear from nearly everyone.”I want a conversation in which you aren’t trying to make me think like you. I just need you to respect me. Respecting me will help me feel a lot better about respecting you.”
Ah, it all comes down to “respect” — and what that rather loaded and ambiguous term can mean.
It seems that in the minds of many people, respect takes the place of debate. No, it’s not the necessary prerequisite for debate. It’s the substitute. You can have one, or you can have the other. Not both. Do not MAKE other people try to think like you. Don’t force them. Don’t violate their minds. Don’t rape their viewpoints. Don’t steal their faith. Everybody leave everybody alone on religion, and talk about something else. No arguing.
Sort of like a big self-esteem support group. Which is nice. Sort of. Sometimes.
The problem with Militant Atheists apparently is that they are NOT content to leave the religious alone. Oh, they don’t go to their houses or picket their churches. But they don’t shut up, either. They go into forums intended for the free expression of ideas and niggle at them. They bring up religion-inspired violence. They criticize and critique.
Militant atheists will even bring up whether God exists or not. They make a case for naturalism and reason, and then examine the case for God. They actually ask the religious to consider the existence of God as a fact claim about the world, as a hypothesis which may be false, and they address ordinary people. Oh, those aggressive carriers of dis-ease and doubt. Damn them all. They go right out in public where everyone can see and hear to try to FORCE people to seriously consider the possibility that God does not exist.
And what bombs they drop. When religion is sensible, it stands on its own without God. But when religion doesn’t make sense, it carries its own, special, irrefutable form of dogmatism and irrationality. Belief in God can justify what can’t be justified on rational grounds, and gives it an unearned authority. Militant atheists point that out and declare that this is not a distortion of religion – it’s an inherent flaw within the system. It’s not the people. There is something wrong with faith itself.
Yes, indeed. Saying that is just like shooting up a church. Great comparison, Mr. Burkes.
Militant atheists shut off “the conversation.” How can you possibly have any sort of dialogue with people who are trying to persuade you to change your mind?
TSC says
Right on Sastra. Eschewing personal accountability is what the godbots desire most–a deflection of ethical and factual responsibility.
Lee Picton says
Interesting how these people never seem to recognize that it is THEY who are trying to get atheists to validate their worldview. I for one, have crossed the line from diffidence to confrontation. I am semi-old, semi-charismatic, semi-grumpy, and have not been an adolescent for um, a really, really long time. But I have come out, and if someone else brings the topic up, I enthusiastically engage. If that is being a “militant atheist,” well, tough shit.
Deacon Duncan says
As I’ve pointed out on my blog, the “atheism leads to violence” argument fails because it assumes that if people lack faith in God they will also fail to value the sanctity of life, whereas we have abundant instances of believers who were just as callous despite their belief. If the presence of belief does not guarantee respect for life, then the lack of belief is likewise not a factor in someone’s lack of respect for life.
BobC says
Of course religion can’t be blamed for everything. However, in general, I would blame religion for the worst problems the world has today. By worst I mean the never ending violence in the Middle East, which is the most religious area of the world. The two wars we are in right now, for a period longer than it took us to win World War II, are religious wars.
Also, the poor quality of science education in America is mostly a religious problem. Bills to suppress the teaching of evolution are always passed for religious reasons, and the only people who harass and threaten biology teachers are Christians.
Lee Brimmicombe-Wood says
Respect? They want respect? This is the thinking of street gangs and mobsters. “He didn’t show me no respect!” Which is, of course, complete justification for gunning him down. Or sticking a shiv ‘tween his ribs.
I want to hear nothing from no-one about respect. Anyone who demands respect has an agenda, and it doesn’t involve reciprocating respect. For those people who demand respect, it is strictly a one-way street.
Me? I prefer a fistfight, a donnybrook from the off. I expect no respect, I give none. See, on this fist I have tattooed L.O.V.E. and on these knuckles I have the letters H.A.T.E.
Together, they spell ‘R.E.S.P.E.C.T.’ Let me show you some respect…
me says
My mother is an atheist and attends a Unitarian Church. This chaplain can go fuck himself.
Deacon Duncan says
Here’s the link to my post on the history of evil. It’s in the TIA Tuesday category even though it isn’t strictly a commentary on Vox Day’s book. But it’s on one of Vox’s favorite themes, so I thought it was worth a post.
Moses says
BobC – Post 4. We agrees.
Steve LaBonne says
Dialogue schmialogue. I figure if we’ve gotten under their skin, we must be doing something right.
Haeron says
Good stuff. Darn those militant atheists and their promoting thought. Grr. Arg.
Don says
In the world of religion one of the worst carriers of hate and violence is Dawkins? Is this Richard Dawkins, mild-mannered and courteous academic and part-time Doctor Who performer?
Or some other Dawkins, who apparently has out-heroded Herod in his blood lust and urge to violent oppression?
Bubba Sixpack says
I knew it would happen with the UU incident. It would be blamed on atheists and Christians would be promoted as the victims. Despite the fact that UU allows atheists in its ranks, and the impetus here was hatred by a rabid right winger of gays and liberals. A rabid right winger who did not hate Christians, as evidenced by his Christian dominionism-lite books like Let Freedom Ring, by Hannity.
Pretzel logic has come to the fore yet again.
Tony Sidaway says
I wouldn’t get too worked up about this, really. Jim Adkinson’s targets were largely secular humanists and pro-gay liberals, and that was the reason why he shot them. One or two of the dimmer Christians might think “guy shoots up church” = “Richard Dawkins”, but they’re beyond hope anyway.
The MadPanda says
Behold the voice of a religious moderate!
Funny how they never think to ask why some of us left the faith in the first place, let alone notice how many of us are ‘ex-believers’. Easier to chastize us for the mote in our eyes while ignoring the log in his own…
Does he bother to have a few words about the poison of narrow world views and absolutist thinking that leads a loyal good ol’ boy to shoot up a librul church? Or would that have been too disrespectful and confrontational of him?
The MadPanda, FCD
Breakfast says
I would say there is still a sort of respect that’s necessary for any sort of real conversation to be engaged in in the first place. Not uncritical respect; just constructively critical respect.
shrimplate says
The only thing that atheists seem to be asking from religious people is that they *think.* Oh the horror.
Don says
Lee,
Of course if you were a Simpsons character, you would have LUV and HAT tattooed on yer knuckles.
Jared says
I would far prefer the religious to not try to force their silly dogmas into public policy. I think we should not allow the “religion” card for anything. It softens the legitimate concerns for things such as stem-cell research, genetic engineering, gene therapy, etc. These have real issues surrounding them, but are always being trumped by “my religion says this isn’t right!” If the individual does not think genetic modification is “moral,” then we should allow the option to not use any of the technologies developed as a result, but not hold back technological research.
Deacon Duncan says
Heck, while I’m commenting, I might as well add another 2c worth, re: #4. I’d like to suggest that religion is not strictly a cause for violence in the Middle East as it is a catalyst that takes existing “reagents” and dramatically intensifies their interaction. The actual causes would be territorialism, ethnic conflict, and of course the anti-Semitism that solved the “problem” of Jewish refugees by dumping them in somebody else’s back yard. And other causes too of course.
I’m not intending to excuse or condone the religious elements involved, but I thought it might be interesting to reconsider the role of religion in slightly different terms.
Lee Brimmicombe-Wood says
I paid extra for the vowels.
Lee Brimmicombe-Wood says
You are not wrong. This is common decency. But in my experience a demand for respect comes from someplace else entirely. Usually the need to control a situation on one’s own terms and define what is and isn’t acceptable.
Nomad says
Tony @ #14:
The reason we’re getting worked up isn’t that some guy with anger management issues shot up a church because it was too liberal for his liking.
This isn’t one or two dim Christians, it’s a military and civilian chaplain (a religious leader, a person who’s job it is to tell other people how to act) who knows darned well that the killing had more than slight religious overtones and is rushing to lay the blame somewhere else. He just chose the most illogical, idiotic place he possibly could. The one place where there is no religion.
There’s nothing a world dominationist religion likes more than when it has a scapegoat to lay the blame for the world’s problems onto. They’ve had their time persecuting the Jews, although that’s still popular amongst some, but now they’ve found a new miracle scapegoat. Atheism. They can call anyone atheist, and blame anything on it. Since it’s simply a lack of belief there’s no limit to what you can claim it represents, since there’s no positive beliefs to contradict you.
I think you could basically substitute “one or two dim Christians” with “rural America” and be a bit more on target here. Heck… I live in a suburb of Chicago, definitely not a rural location, and I’ve heard people have whispered discussions about the fact that Philip Pullman was an atheist. They really said the word atheist in a conspiratorial whisper, as if it was a dirty word.
JoJo says
People who demand respect either know or suspect that respect is not forthcoming.
I’m willing to be polite if you’re polite to me. However, trying to force your political agenda under the guise of “this is what god wants” is not polite. Demanding that I respect your superstitions because you respect them is not polite either. Finally, telling me I’m going to Hell because I don’t believe exactly the way you do is really impolite.
Amplexus says
I remember hearing that this church shooter shot up the church because of that community’s liberal views on gays and women.
Funnny, I can’t think of a single atheist that is for restoring women to a subjugated role or stoning gays.
On the other hand I can think of plenty of religious people that are FOR rights for gays, ethnic minorities, and women.
I can think of many that ARE NOT for equal rights.
Bigots are the true minority in this country.
The MadPanda says
Nomad, me ol’ wandering chum, I think you meant Tony @ #13.
(chuckle)
The MadPanda, FCD
Amplexus says
I remember hearing that this church shooter shot up the church because of that community’s liberal views on gays and women.
Funny, I can’t think of a single atheist that is for restoring women to a subjugated role or stoning gays.
On the other hand I can think of plenty of religious people that are FOR rights for gays, ethnic minorities, and women.
I can think of many religious people that ARE NOT for equal rights. If you want a laugh search youtube for Rev. Ricky.
Yes, he is NOT a parody like landover baptist. Yes, Rev.Ricky wears a toilet seat around his neck. But I Repeat he is for real
Bigots are the true minority in this country.
Steve LaBonne says
There are days when I’m tempted to think that “moderate” religion may be WORSE than fundamentalism in some ways. People raised in fundie households are simply screened off from the real world; if reality breaks through when the grow up, they can and do recover. But the mental contortions needed to keep “moderate” religion from conflicting with reality appear to cause significant and difficult-to-reverse brain damage.
Plus, of course, as has often been said the “moderates” function as the advance guard of religion, helping to screen fundamentalism from too much hostile scrutiny. Because when the chips are down, the religiously deluded all seem to stick together (only logical, since they all benefit from the same system of privilege). With honorable exceptions of course, but they’re not all that common.
Alan Chapman says
A person who asserts that morality can’t exist without gods/religion is either saying that no rational argument can be made for ethical conduct, or is incapable of producing one. A person who acts out of fear of retribution, or expectation of reward, from a god is not making a moral judgment.
Religion precipitates violence because the claims being made by adherents to religious dogma can’t be reconciled through evidence and reasoned debate.
Blake Stacey says
Wait, we went from “Burkes” to “Beale”. Typo?
Noadi says
Respect isn’t about not telling someone something because it might hurt their feelings, people don’t seem to really understand what respect means. I think that if there is someone you respect who holds a belief you disagree with and think is nonsense that NOT pointing it out and trying to show them why is the highest level of disrespect. You are showing that you don’t think they are intelligent enough to handle being contradicted.
raven says
Adkisson was clearly and obviously one of “theirs”.
He targeted the UU’s because they were too peace loving, social justice, liberal and all that other new age stuff.
It takes someone brain dead to blame the Tennessee shooting on atheists.
They did the same thing with Matthew Murray and Ted Haggard’s church in Colorado. Murray was clearly a disaffected member and clearly not an atheist.
If xians want respect, they could start by telling the simple, well known truth on occasion.
Steve LaBonne says
I meant to say, conflicting too obviously with reality since the conflict is still there no matter what.
Brian Coughlan says
My take on the Unitarian Church Shooting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6Nzv5bYKrM
BobC says
I strongly agree. This is true of every religion. The Muslim terrorists need the moderate Muslims. The Christian extremists who want to throw out the Establishment Clause need the moderate Christians.
If the moderate Muslims were really against terrorism they would throw out their violent religion. If the moderate Christians really supported science education they would throw out their death cult.
Michael X says
I often hear that a conversation can’t be had because I come from such a different “worldview”.
And thus, if I only changed my thoughts and beliefs a bit (read: closer to the person with whom I’m speaking) a conversation could be had. An implicit acknowledgement that in order to have a respectable conversation one must already be on same side.
Until then I’m just too closed-minded. The projection is astounding.
Beelzebubba says
Yeah, I’ve been waiting for the “bus rage” case in Canada to be blamed on the guy being an atheist.
Lee Brimmicombe-Wood says
Michael, you have nailed it.
trj says
No opinion or belief is automatically entitled to respect.
I don’t respect religious (or other kinds of) views that don’t make sense. Likewise, I won’t expect anyone to respect my views if they can point out any flaws in them or if they have any kind of reasonable objection to them.
The only thing that should be respected is the individual right to hold an opinion. The actual opinion must earn respect on its own.
DistendedPendulusFrenulum says
All the more bizarre since the shooter appears to be a disciple of the Liberal Bashing Industry. We know damn well where he gets his hatred.
LisaJ says
Great post Sastra. Sometimes I really wonder what the hell we’re all doing trying to educate these people. It feels like such a waste of time when it’s made clear to you that they don’t even understand the basics of ‘having a conversation’. You don’t demand respect, you earn it. These guys haven’t earned it, and they certainly don’t give it to us. In my experiences, I’m always giving more respect than I get anyways in these sorts of ‘conversations’.
Bubba Sixpack says
The great thing about the Christian Persecution Card is that it can be used anywhere, anytime. It can be twisted to fit any event imaginable, even if it has to be contorted into a Mobius strip to fit.
Amar says
“If the moderate Muslims were really against terrorism they would throw out their violent religion. If the moderate Christians really supported science education they would throw out their death cult.”
I propose a new game show for FOX; “When Beliefs get Attacked”. Put believers on the spot and force them to reconcile their ‘beliefs’ with reality.
Sastra says
I sometimes wonder what politics would look like in a world where political opinions must be “respected” in the same way as religious opinions. Candidates would get together in forums, and hard-hitting questions would be thrown at them like “what do you love best about America?” and “tell us how it feels to finally be a grandfather.”
That way, Democrats wouldn’t be trying to make Republicans “think like them,” and Republicans wouldn’t be trying to shut off the dialog by spewing out hate-filled assertions that the Democrats are “wrong.” We can all finally have a real conversation, and bring up what we have in common — instead of bickering and arguing over wars and health care plans. Libertarians and socialists would learn to just accept people the way they are, instead of forcing them to change by arguing issues.
At the end of the day, nobody wants to be “blasted” for their politics.
And then we could get started on the news. It’s so negative. Where are the happy stories?
Sili says
Please.
May I be your cabana boy?
Jeff K. says
I for one would LOVE to be a so-called “good” atheist and let the Christians believe as they like without challenging their worldviews. However, here in the real world, especially in the little slice of reality we call the USA, the Christians vote for politicians who want nothing more than to infringe upon my rights. And I sure as hell will not let it slide!
Sili says
“Thou shalt not kill”, ergo the shooter was no True Christian(tm), ergo he was an atheist.
There! Easy.
But not far removed from braindead, no.
Matt Platte says
It most definitely was a dirty word in rural Kansas in the 1960s and 70s when Madelyn Murry was Satan’s Ambassador to the USA. Fortunate indeed for an “ess” syllable in atheist that simultaneously invokes the sound of Satan and the infant “shh” command. Say it with me now, “Aaay’-the-isssssssst!
[me crosses fingers, scrapes line in dirt with toe, spits three times and disappears in a puff of carbon dust]
E.V. says
In Texas, a horrible wreck occurred when a tire blew out on a bus carrying a group of Catholics to a pilgrimage. Regrettably, eighteen people were killed. I’m wondering if and how atheists will be blamed for the tragedy, but more importantly, how the faithful will reconcile an accident due to negligence as “God’s will”.
mdh says
“They actually ask the religious to consider the existence of God as a fact claim about the world, as a hypothesis which may be false.”
+10 points for that sentence.
When I feel proselyted I say something along the lines of:
—
We could have this conversation, but know in advance that I’m quite secure in my atheistic humanism. Also, I grew up as a Unitarian, but I’m not one now, so I’ll probably wind up making you question your faith, and I don’t enjoy doing that to people. Lets just agree that Christ was a great guy, and agree to disagree on his divinity.
—
It generally works.
Eamon Knight says
On “respect” for religion, an essay by Simon Blackburn, which is well worth reading (I am still digesting it):
http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/~swb24/PAPERS/religion%20and%20respect.pdf
(Hat tip to Jim Lippard). Especially good is his coinage of “respect creep”, in which respect starts out as “mind my own business and let you get on with your hobby unmolested” but evolves into “give deference to your hobby and think it virtuous of you to practice it”.
And @#36:
Yeah, I’ve been waiting for the “bus rage” case in Canada to be blamed on the guy being an atheist.
Apparently Debbie Schlussel has tried to blame it, not on atheists, but on Muslims — on the flimsy grounds that the alleged perp is Chinese, and China has a lot of Muslims (the Uighur ethnic group). Disclaimer: I read that on someone else’s blog; it takes a lot to make me actually go and view the Schlusspool first-hand. I have not seen any hard info on the actual religious affiliations of Li, except a brief mention that he used to be janitor at a Baptist church.
Lynn David says
I wrote this to Rev Norris:
_____________________________________
You had a good thing going about the “whispers of hate” but then you really went off in left field. How do you compare the attrocity in Knoxville to atheism? Frankly, you cannot do so. For one the Unitarian church, in general, has taken on such liberal issues that it has in some corners of Christendom been likened an atheist church. It is quite possible that was in part what motivated Adkisson. So how you go from what might in Adkisson’s mind be an attack on atheism into a polemic against atheism is beyond me… logically. But then we’re talking about your faith and it is seemingly twisting your thinking around.
It was an unfair comparison, Adkisson’s Knoxville atrocities and militant atheism. Either would have made a good article separately, but to tie them together makes no sense, and unfairly demonizes atheism. You did the one thing to your friends they do not care for, that is, “I have friends and readers who are the kind of atheists who put the human in “humanist.” When I ask them what they want from the faithful, they tell me two things. First, they are tired of people making the assumption that an atheist can’t possibly be a moral, upstanding, civic-minded person and not believe in God.” By your unfair comparison you created your own “whisper of hate” that all atheists are NOT moral, upstanding or civic-minded persons.
Your essay failed miserably on that count.
_____________________________________
And got this back (cut out a bit of unnecessary/personal stuff in the middle:
_____________________________________
Your criticism has some truth to it. When I look back on it in the light of time, I think maybe I did some splicing of two ideas. I’m familiar with the Unitarians and I’ve spoken in their churches.
However, I stand by the fact that many of the current atheist writers have become the venomous people they demonize in religion. ….
By the way a really good friend of mine who is an atheist pretty much wrote two of those paragraphs in the column.
_____________________________________
Now mind you, I might be one of those people the Rev. Norris considers a good atheist, since I signed myself as a spiritual atheist, to which he said, “I really like your signature – a spiritual atheist. That’s a title I can respect.”
dsmccoy says
A “militant atheist” who wanted to shoot up a church in order to attack religion would have to be a stupid as a stump to choose a Unitarian/Universalist church for his target.
People that characterize it that way are probably totally ignorant of what UU is all about.
It’s a “church” which specifically rejects creeds and dogma.
You can believe or not believe whatever you want.
These people want to blame it all on Dawkins/Hitchens et al, when what the guy actually had on his bookshelf was Savage/O’Reilly/Hannity
commissarjs says
Jim Adkisson had a collection of right wing hate literature but somehow this is the fault of a completely different set of authors. That’s just great.
One of the chief tenets of christianity is that if you don’t accept and believe in their god you will suffer in hell for eternity. I can think of nothing more disrespectful than saying “Because you don’t believe as I do you shall be rightfully tortured forever and ever.” But we’re the disrespectful ones?
Fuck you Norris Burkes.
Beowulff says
Atheists should “make room for conversations”? Actually, my experience is that conversations between atheists and believers start up just fine, but are usually ended by the believers, not the atheists. Often, they are ended by something like “I just believe this, and I don’t need to justify it”, or simply “God says so”. That’s it, discussion closed, and you’d better not point out that these are not proper arguments.
This is also often the point where demands of “respect” for their beliefs are made, implying that any attempt to continue the discussion is “disrespectful”.
And that is why it irks me when a Christian complains that atheists need to “make room for conversations”, while playing the “respect” card at the same time.
idahovic says
I’ve been an “out of the closet” atheist for years. I’ve also been a member of the Idaho Falls UU Church for years. I’ve held several positions in the church including President of the Fellowship. I’ve also served on the Mountain Desert District Board, the regional UU board. Anyone going into a UU Church or Fellowship and opening fire will likely hit atheists or humanists as we are a large part of the UU movement.
Susan Brassfield Cogan says
“My mother is an atheist and attends a Unitarian Church. This chaplain can go fuck himself.”
I pretty much agree with this. I’m a Unitarian and I’m an atheist. If Knoxville is like most UU churches about 70-80% of the members are atheist, agnostic or deist (the rest are usually pagan). The article is totally ignorant and idiotic.
John Burt says
I think the good reverend spoke without learning all the facts. Adkisson shot up the church because of his hatred of the liberal movement and gays, and the the church’s support of them.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/28/church.shooting/
Jim David Adkisson told investigators all liberals should be killed and admitted he shot people Sunday morning at Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church, according to a search warrant affidavit obtained by CNN affiliate WBIR.
El herring says
Beowulff nailed it at #54. I think we’ve all been there.
Nerd of Redhead says
Beowulff #54 got it right. If I feel like playing, I give the JW’s who knock on my door, or who bother me when I’m working in the yard, a real lesson in using X’s golden rule with respect to unnecessarily bothering people to convert their obviously inferior, unXian religion. They don’t like that their behavior is a sin, and since I’m using a book they really haven’t read there is great confusion on their part. It usually gets rid of them.
Jams says
“I sometimes wonder what politics would look like in a world where political opinions must be “respected” in the same way as religious opinions.” – Sastra
It’s funny you should say that. Much to the consternation of my atheist friends (I have to admit, I don’t have any non-atheist friends anymore), I often opine that political opinion and religious opinion should be treated with identical respect. What I mean by that, is that I don’t recognize the distinction between religious movements and political movements. Understandably, this causes friction with those committed to the separation of church and state.
I see it this way: if religion is going to be barred from political conversation, I can’t reasonably expect that it should subject to the same scrutiny a political movement would be subject to.
Sioux Laris says
The metaphor for what this kind of “believer” wants is a handjob by an atheist “Uncle Tom.”
They pretend to demand “respect,” but they desire only flattery for the beauty of the magnificent, and costly, costume they pretend they wear. Naked in the cold of this world, they’ll plead or rage about its wonders, even while their teeth chatter and their toes turn blue.
Courtesy you can ASK for, even demand, if you are willing to offer it yourself, but respect is the product of a living relationship.
Michael X says
trj@38
You’ve touched upon a common equivocation made by lots of people, not just believers. Though they do hold a large share of this mistake.
The mistake being that they confuse having people “Respect their right to have an opinion” with “The right to have a respected opinion.” One instance respects ones right to think their own thoughts, while the other slyly tries to force us to respect the thoughts themselves.
I spend endless amounts of time combating this fundamental mistake in reason. It is not only a misuse of the word “opinion” it also confuses what a “right” is. So, before a conversation can even begin I have to instruct people on what these words mean. And often times, because of this fact, the conversation never actually gets to begin.
Though you can always tell when someone spits out “I have the right to my opinion”, that while you may be interested in what’s true, they are obviously not.
Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer says
Even if you can’t respect a persons religious or political opinions, it’s still a good thing to respect them as people.
John C. Randolph says
Seems to me that historically, incidents violence in houses of superstition are far more likely to be perpetrated by adherents of rival superstitions than by atheists.
-jcr
dsmccoy says
Michael X: They mistake being that they confuse having people “Respect their right to have an opinion” with “The right to have a respected opinion.”
Exactly the mistake most religious people make.
We should all respect their rights.
I feel no need to respect the actual beliefs.
I’m of the opinion that it actually shows more respect for a person to openly and frankly discuss his beliefs rather than to tiptoe around in an attempt to protect sensitive feelings.
Wowbagger says
Respect, as they say, is a two-way street.
I don’t ask church leaders if I can speak to their congregation about why I don’t believe in god. Likewise, they shouldn’t be forcing science teachers to include god in their classrooms or governments to enshrine religious concepts in their laws.
Pierce R. Butler says
The mental habit of taking things “on faith” – meaning on the say-so of authority figures and accordance with existing prejudices – has given America the pluralities who voted for Bush/Cheney, Reagan/Bush, and numerous other dishonest disasters.
If we upheld a tradition of demanding rational explanations for what we’re told, many if not all rivers of blood would soon run dry.
Aaron says
“Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help help, I’m bein’ repressed!”
Wowbagger says
“Bloody peasant!”
hubris hurts says
I’ve been thinking about this a quite a bit lately, the way that Christians keep whining that PZ, Dawkins, Hitchens, et al hate all Christians.
I think that we can take a page from their playbook in explaining the truth: “Hate the sin, but love the sinner.” (Well okay, maybe “love” is a bit strong.
My point though is that in my case at least, I don’t hate any Christians simply for being Christian. (Actually, I only truly *hate* two or three people total.)
However, I do hate the “sin” of believing in imaginary friends and of trying to force everyone in the world to believe in these same friends.
I hate the hypocrisy displayed by so many religious people. I hate the way they abdicate all responsibility for their actions. I hate the way they try to drag us back to the dark ages in their attempts to suppress scientific knowledge. I hate the way they want to dictate who we can love. I hate the way they pretend to believe in the Bible, yet don’t bother to read it.
There’s a lot more, but my point is, I hate all of these actions, but don’t hate the actors.
I’ll tell you what though, I surely do marvel over the fact that so many people are still held in the grip of religion and superstition in the 21st century. I really would have thought that we’d be past this by now.
Notkieran says
Nomad @#22:
Actually, labelling opponents with “atheist” is a lot older than you think. Newton rejected Laplace’s theories as “atheist”, only to have _his_ theories referred to as “atheist” about a hundred years later by people who didn’t like them.
I’m afraid that as long as there are people who judge worth by faith, “atheist” will continue as insult, scapegoat, and an ad hominem persuading people not to listen.
Notkieran says
#36:
It would be interesting to blame the bus stabbing case on atheism, since the idiot WAS A FREAKING CHURCH CUSTODIAN.
Not that little things like fact and reality seem to stop these people. Really.
genesgalore says
what don’t you understand about MY GOD IS BIGGER THAN YOUR GOD?????
Ron Brown says
Very well done!!!
Chris Tucker says
This I Believe.
I am an atheist. I do not believe in any supernatural deities.
I believe in Science, not the death cult superstitions of bronze age nomadic tribes in the Middle East. I believe in Logic and Reason, and not in vengeful gods that demand unthinking worship.
My “Bible” is the ‘CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics’ and ‘Mark’s Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers’. My “Concordance” is ‘The Pocket Ref, 3rd Edition’.
The symbol of my “faith” is not an ancient torture device, it’s a slide rule. The simple three part device that helped build the Brooklyn Bridge, Hoover Dam and the Empire State Building, as well as sending humans to the Moon and returning them to Earth.
Algebra and Calculus are my “liturgy”, and Physics is the celebration of all that exists, from the smallest subatomic particle yet to be discovered, to the Universe as a whole.
The “Saints” of my faith are legion. Galileo and Einstein, Sagan and Asimov, Eratosthenes and Fermi, Hawking and Feynman, Dawkins and Darwin, Jefferson and Franklin and Paine, and countless others who have sought and still seek to expand the knowledge of how the Universe works, for the betterment of all, to free the minds of humanity from the shackles of superstition and ignorance, and, finally & simply, “To Know.”
I worship no god, nor bend the knee to anyone, man or god.
And yet, despite my lack of fawning obeisance to the judeo/christian/islamic deity, I do not rape nor rob nor murder my fellow man or woman. I do not defraud them nor seek to enslave their bodies or their minds. I do not turn my face from them if their beliefs differ from mine, nor do I condemn them if they choose to love someone of the same sex or of a different “race”.
My friends include the gay and the straight, the atheist and the deeply faithful, Caucasian, African and Asian.
I help the less fortunate in this world as best I can, and do not seek to convert them to my way of thought by my actions, I help merely to ease their suffering.
I choose to stand in the Light of Knowledge and Reason.
I oppose the Darkness that is ignorance and superstition.
And I KNOW that, in the end, it IS Knowledge and Reason that will triumph over ignorance and superstition, and triumph over those who would use ignorance and superstition for their own evil and ego-driven ends.
THIS I believe.
defectiverobot says
It always amuses me when the “faithful” pull out their torches and pitchforks and try to run the “faithless” out of town. “You’re trying to destroy our faith,” they’ll yell, as if we didn’t already know that. What’s missing from this fearful foaming at the mouth is the simple fact that faith cannot be given or taken away: it can only be given up. If your faith is strong nothing it’s unlikely (unfortunately) that anything we say will sway you. If your faith cracks, congratulations, but it’s really not our fault–it was your weakness to begin with.
The other thing is in regard to their disbelief that atheists have morality. Um, yes, yes we do. In fact, if you really want to stand back to back, you’ll note that our morality is built upon an inherent humanism–an innate sense of right and wrong, fairness, justice, the unshakable idea that humanity will persevere and learn and grow, that education and collaboration are the tools necessary to bring about affirmative change. What it is not built upon is the fear of pissing off an imaginary cloud sitter who just might damn you to an eternity of life as a candle wick. That’s just the self-serving avoidance of pain.
Eshto says
Uh yeah, er, um…
Didn’t this guy shoot up the church because he was a right-wing nutcase, and the church was known for being very liberal and secular, standing up against racism and homophobia and such? You know, for standing up against the things traditional Christianity has been promoting for several centuries.
aratina says
Looks like we have another offended Catholic on a seemingly liberal site trying to connect PZ and us, his ‘ilk’, with the man who opened fire in the church. Frank Cocozzelli writes on Talk To Action that “professional and amateur provocateurs like Myers, Donohue and Adkinsson’s favorite talk show hosts [Savage, Hannity and O’Reilly] continue to dominate our public discourse with bogus issues, false outrage, and inflammatory rhetoric.” Again, it is just like the story by Norris Burkes, blaming atheists for the acts of murderers and thugs who kill and bully others and never stop to think critically about reality.
These bloggers (Burkes and Coccozelli) have it all wrong as far as I’m concerned; the intention has never been to force anyone to think any which way but to stop religious charlatans from forcing their thinking on others. That is a solid difference between what PZ, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris proffer compared to what Donohue, O’Reilly, Hannity, and Savage spew. The latter use force (bullying and threats), the former use persuasion (including satiric forms of persuasion).
Muzz says
As a gamer, fan of action and horror films and sometime delighter in heavy metal music and even alternative comics, I’m always glad to have the atheists take some of the heat.
Come join us on the couch of media pariahs. There’s cheetos and pizza later on.
(Yes, I’m sure the godless have been copping some stick for a long time. I thought I’d just make the comparison).
shaxanth says
Hi Sastra! Beautifully written. you’re as precise a debator as
the admirable Dr. Myers. This has always been a thorn in my side that the faitheads always use their feelings as some sort
of trump card in an argument. It’s as though their constantly saying, “let’s argue, but please, allow me to make certain ethereal claims without rebuttal. Or I’ll cry.”
The sooner the Godbots realize how full of shit they are the better the planet will be for all currently living creatures.
They truly are an ignorant blight on humanity.
Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer says
I can’t argue with hubris hurts @ #70. I will only add that to love (“agape” in coin greek) some one in the sense of the word used by Jesus basically means to show them respect by treating them the way you want to be treated.
H.H. says
Awesome post, Sastra. I really hope this leads to you writing your own blog full-time. I always enjoy reading your arguments. They’re almost always wonderfully written and impeccably argued. Kudos.
Claudia says
WONDERFULLY said, hubris hurts @ 70!!! You got a standing ovation (in my pjs in front of my computer; my husband thinks I’ve lost it)!
Danio says
So true. This was one of my first thoughts upon fully embracing my atheism. I’m not a particularly avantgard or ‘outside the box’ thinker, but once I had finally examined the mythology that had been presented to me as factual and found it severely lacking, it really took me by surprise that so many people actually still do subscribe to such patent nonsense. If a mediocre thinker like me can spot the glaring holes, why aren’t much smarter folks ditching religion in droves? I many people are just so conditioned not to question it–religion is compartmentalized at such an early age as being off limits to scrutiny. It’s easy to sort of forget the details of what’s locked in there and keep your ‘faith’ on auto-pilot.
clinteas says
Great post Sastra !
What bothers me,and where the religionists are clearly ahead,is their ability to coin phrases or terms,that get adopted by people in public discussions or the media.
They come up with terms that are misleading or create a false connotation,and we are a bit guilty of using those terms when we debate,I think we should be a bit more careful and not let the religionists get away with it.
Im talking about terms such as “militant atheist”,which creates a totally false mental image,or all the -isms that have popped up,like evolutionism,Darwinism etc.Those terms would make Goebbels proud,and we should IMO point out the fact that they are misleading,and we should not be using them.
Michael X says
I’m afraid I have to contradict both Mr. Simpson and hubris hurts. The phrase “hate the sin but love the sinner” is classic christian double think. It turns our natural, effective way of judging the characters of people on its head and makes it useless.
We judge people according to their actions. When we state whether or not we like someone it is usually supported by actions that that person did. When a judgement is not supported, or worse, is made in spite of actions that would lead other people to contrary positions, we tend to think the person speaking the judgement is a simpleton.
What the idea of “love the sinner” confuses is respect for our mutual humanity, with respect for individual humans. The very way we get respect as individuals is through our actions. We earn it. To confer respect (or love, or liking, or any other positive judgements) in spite of, or without any supporting actions, is to strip all those positive judgements of their merit. What’s more is that no one actually adheres to this silly rule in real life. But it is often trotted out in conversations where someone doesn’t like being called out for having absurd beliefs. An attack on someone’s beliefs of course does not violate their inherent humanity, which is only violated when we treat someone as if they were less than human, which is pretty a drastic and rare occurrence, so in that sense they are still being respected, even if we do not respect them as people. (So to be clear, they are respected as a human being. It just happens to be a human being that we don’t respect. Subtle but important difference here.)
So to make a long story short: People will be respected if and only if they act or speak in a manner worthy of such a positive emotion. So, implicit in that statement is the point that those who speak absurdities and those who act in a detrimental manner will not be respected. When we see this simple fact of human interaction explained clearly, we find that the idea of “hate the sin and not the sinner” is contradictory on its very face. Though, coming from christianity, we shouldn’t be too surprised. These are the people who ask you to “love thy enemy”. An insane command (and abuse of love) if ever there was one.
Claudia says
I can appreciate your argument, Michael X, but I think the point(s) you made are bordering on pedantic.
The initial feeling you have for a fellow human being should be an open and respectful one, regardless of what you might think you know about them. The old “give them enough rope to hang themselves” comes to mind… I might wholeheartedly disagree with religious beliefs, but I don’t feel a person with religious beliefs deserves my automatic scorn based soley on them. If anything, they receive my pity, which is quite condescending so maybe worse then disrespect. I know this might sound like apologetics, but it truly isn’t. A religious person is still a person with thoughts and feelings (however misguided) and I believe they have a right to be heard, acknowledged, and subsequently have their arguments dismantled bit by bit. Having respect for the person, as an individual doesn’t excuse them being made privvy to their own ignorance. If they’re ignored and written off before they open their mouths, though… Well, I reckon they’ll run back to their hidey holes proclaiming victory by default. Although, there are the Ray Comfort’s of the world who do so even in the face of defeat, so you may be onto something…
RHM says
Eamon Knight #50,
Thanks much for linking the Simon Blackburn essay. An excellent read!
Beowulff #54,
Agreed. My experiences have been similar, most notably after I stated “I’m an athiest.” The “A” word put a stop on all discussion (with me)on matters spiritual or religious, with some of my friends. Odd, considering my opinions were sought-out prior to my declaration, and my friends thought me “wise”. Now, I believe I confuse and frighten them.
It’s been interesting to see how one word can effect such a change in our interactions – I’m the same person, saying the same things, but I tagged myself with that word and now, somehow, I’m different. I’m not holding my breath in the hope they’ll ask me what athiesm means.
Escuerd says
Notkieran @ $71:
“Newton rejected Laplace’s theories as ‘atheist’, only to have _his_ theories referred to as ‘atheist’ about a hundred years later by people who didn’t like them.”
You must be confusing someone for someone else. Pierre-Simon Laplace was not yet born when Isaac Newton died.
Kel says
Got to love the way they use the word militant when it comes to atheism. It seems to mean anyone who doesn’t believe who dares to speak on the issue.
It’s amazing how easily believers are being rattled by the likes of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. All they’ve done is publish a couple of books and made a couple of programs on the subject. Yet despite the countless books, movies, television programs (both fiction and non-fiction, some quite blatant propaganda), preachers on street corner, protesters using religious imagery, politicians using religion to gain votes, etc, yet the atheists are the militant ones? Fuck!
JoJo says
Newton didn’t have to wait a hundred years to have his theories described as atheist. Some of his contemporaries, particularly Gottfried Leibniz, made the accusation.
Sir Craig says
I went to the site and read the article, and by golly it sucked. It sucked so much that I attempted to post the following to their forum:
Note I say attempted; apparently the link doesn’t work, or they got too many negative responses and shut it down. Cowards…
Notkieran says
Escuerd:
You are so right. I MEANT to type “Liebnitz”. Sometimes when I’m in a hurry I get the two names mixed up. Duh.
This is not helped (in my head) by the fact that Laplace was, in fact, the one who reworked Newton’s mechanics to the form we’re more familiar with.
Notkieran says
JoJo: That actually puts it right into perspective, with two scientists trying to persuade everyone not to use the other’s theories because they were “atheistic”.
Almost like insisting, for example, that one should adopt Lysenkoism because it’s more Communist or Creationism because it’s more American.
That would be absurd, of course.
Wait. You mean it’s raelly happening?
the strangest brew says
Sir Craig…*92
Unfortunately to be a committed Christian requires a certain amount of hyperbola to function…
The article this paragon of Christian belief delivered is aimed at reinforcing the message to the minions and clones that froth at the mouth to lap up the palpable biased and bigoted offerings from a so called man of god…it is also designed to influence the susceptible to adopt a position roughly in tune with the delusional fear of atheism that Christianity possesses…they just love company in their misery…
Maybe later the web site will accept your post…which was excellent by the way…and the dichotomy of his rant might be viewed by any interested…I would not hold breath though…
It would appear that the ‘faithful’ have come to the inevitable conclusion that their all powerful all knowing all dancing deity…is a wuss and not quite up to either defending himself or protecting his sheep from the nasty atheist who would deny his existence…so they have to attack the only thing that threatens their rose tinted world…a lack of belief in their fairy tale…
They wonder why the rapture is fading on this trait of worshipping an invisible fairy…they panic with fear and the possibility that they are the butt of a cruel little joke the secularists have set up…there is no god…and when folk fear…they attack at any opportunity…they do not like to be called or examined by logic or fact or indeed honesty…that just will not do…it might expose them to reality…and they are more afraid of that then of atheism…
Michael X says
Claudia,
I may very well be pedantic in this case. Though, when the problem in question revolves around the abuse and misunderstanding of the meaning of a minor detail (in this case a word), I think some pedantry is in order.
If respect truly means: a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements, then that common definition is at odds with one that grants respect in the absence of, or in spite of ones qualities.
Respect can also mean having due regard for ones feelings. These two definitions get interchanged as if they were the same thing far too often. One is based upon ones qualities, the other is based upon the fact that they have feelings. Or as I put it, that they are a human being.
So if the saying were “Hate the actions but remember the person still has feelings” I’d be a little more comfortable with it. Though then it would be a “yeah duh” statement. I may still be brash and rude if the person deserves it, feelings or none. Otherwise having feelings would entitle one to never having them bruised. A patently silly thought.
Now, when the phrase gets turned into “Hate the actions but treat the person with the admiration due to someone who didn’t do such things” well then we can plainly see it’s absurd.
I’d say in a best case scenario, that most christians equate respect with being treated nice and they think they have a right to be treated nice no matter what views they hold. In the end, even this best case is flat out false.
Timothy Wood says
*sigh* if only everyone believed enough in what they believed to actually engage in conversation about it with people who disagree with them.
thedeviliam says
Yup, they found books by “militant atheists” in the guy’s apartment: Bill O’Reilly, Michael Savage and Sean Hannity. And a Unitarian church!–no atheists or agnostics there. Come on, Liars for Jesus, aren’t you even trying no more?
Pathetic. This guy was a right-wing, neo-Confederate homophobe redneck. How many of those agree with Richard Dawkins on _anything_? How many of those are atheists?
Cyberguy says
@ Chris Tucker (#75):
Great post! Duly saved for later reference.
Sophia Eudemon says
How dare religious people demand respect? They don’t respect any lifestyle not dictated by their beliefs. To the point they stack the courts to promote religious values on the more intelligent.
Roger Paige says
Religion is not the root problem, but it is a great excuse. Humans do this kind of thing (what Adkisson did) all the time to each other — often (unlike Adkisson) organizing themselves into troupes, gangs, and armies to do it. Part of our nature is to fight, often to the death, with others. Adkisson apparently had some paranoid delusions, exacerbated by real conditions and events, that led him to believe that he had but one choice of action left to him, so he took it. He could as easily have shot up the food stamp office. Mr Li, on the bus in Manitoba, was experiencing something similar and we will probably find out what the conditions were that made him drop off the thin edge, too. Maybe religion, maybe voices in his head.
But even those who are not clinically paranoid schizophrenic can find really good excuses to kill and maim others, religion just happens to be a particularly satisfying one because you can be a member of a very big tribe and feel like you’re doing something to protect the group. So is nationalism, so is race, and a lot of other things. Anything, really, will do, to excuse the violence that is in us anyway.
Qwerty says
From Matt Platte, #47
“Fortunate indeed for an “ess” syllable in atheist that simultaneously invokes the sound of Satan and the infant “shh” command. Say it with me now, “Aaay’-the-isssssssst!”
This made me think of the Bible’s favorite symbol of evil, the snake. Athe-hisssssst! I can see that tongue flickering. “Girl, don’t you bite that apple!”
Of course, all you sciency types would just say he’s checking out the neighborhood.
Flonkbob says
Oddly enought I no longer care for the arguments of the non-righteous religion nuts. No, I don’t honor their silly ideas. No, I don’t respect them. No, I won’t waste any more time considering them. I gave them years of my life and belief and received ashes. No, I don’t respect people who are willfully ignorant. I look down on them. I’m biased against them. I’d prefer they all go away (as in, off this planet).
No, I don’t feel bad saying so. They have no problem consigning me to their puny ‘hell’, I have no problem saying they are less than fully human beasts of burden for the clergy.
No, I will not tolerate fools gladly.
Qwerty says
The trouble with “love the sinner, hate the sin” is that at some point someone will try to bash the sin out of you. Usually, the person bashing believes it is a sin while the person being bashed doesn’t!
Christians use “militant athiest” to express anger. You don’t believe my supernatual friend! It is Christians who are militant. Christians who evangelize, send missionaries, tell us to fight the godless, knock on our doors, pass out fliers, cajole us to join and scream when someone suggests removing “under God” from the pledge or “In God we Trust” isn’t needed on our currency. As Arthur Sullivan wrote – “Onward Christian Soldiers.”
On the “respect” issue, I agree with #5 who says mobsters want respect. The only person I’ll R.E.S.P.E.C.T. is Aretha!
Finally, I think that using the atheist as a scapegoat is a perfect way for them to protect their market share. We’re a market economy and churches/ministries need donations to survive. They can convert the doubters, the non-believers in anything, those that want an afterlife, the simple minded, etc. but they cannot convert intelligent people who are convinced there are no supernatual beings. So, don’t expect the phrase “militant atheism” or being treated as scapegoats to end anytime soon.
norris says
From the writer of this article: You have largely misinterpreted my column. Hate starts from both sides – religious and anti-religous. My argument is for tolerance.
I’m grateful to all the athiests who demonstrated a civlilized, human way of responding to this article.
By the way, an two athiests help me write that article. The didn’t agreee with everything, but at least I made an effort to bring the sides together for conversation.
norris says
From the writer of this article: You have largely misinterpreted my column. Hate starts from both sides – religious and anti-religous. My argument is for tolerance.
I’m grateful to all the athiests who demonstrated a civlilized, human way of responding to this article.
By the way, an two athiests help me write that article. The didn’t agreee with everything, but at least I made an effort to bring the sides together for conversation.