Print
We aim to misbehave
by PZ Myers, Pharyngula
Reposted from:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/we_aim_to_misbehave.php
Larry Moran raised an interesting comparison over at Laden's place. In response to this constant whining that loud-and-proud atheism 'hurts the cause', he brought up a historical parallel:
This prompted the usual cry of the accommodationists: but feminists weren't as rude as those atheists.
This is so blind and ahistorical, I'm embarrassed for the guy. The suffragettes were ferocious firebreathers of a most admirable sort who did not mince words and went far further than atheists have gone — yet. As one example:
Try reading the literature of the feminist pioneers. They weren't just rude, they were howling at injustice, they were breaking deep social mores, and they were abused, despised, and imprisoned for it — and they still are. Jebus. You think all women had to do to get recognition of their basic rights was to be polite? You think they got the right to vote by asking nicely? That soft voices and meekness are the answers?
I take it back. I should be embarrassed for us atheists. When I look at the history of feminism, I see a ferocity and a record of sacrifice that puts us tame godless people to shame. Maybe we need to get more outraged and outrageous.
If you read some of the great writers of the feminist movement, what you'll find is an eloquence that people like Richard Dawkins echo today. Their speeches were rousing calls to action, not paeans to passivity. These are words that people found "rude" then, and that we still see deplored by chauvinists today (have you ever heard the word "feminazi"?)
These women were treated as if they were bomb-throwing anarchists by the press, by politicians, by the wealthy elite, by every institution that had an interest in conserving the inequities of society. Even today we've got people like Phyllis Schlafly who decry "intolerant, uncivil feminists whose sport is to humiliate men" — I think everyone can see the similarity to the accusations against those intolerant, uncivil atheists.
Every social movement — and I'd add the labor movement and the struggle for civil rights as equally strong examples — that tries to break the bonds of mindless convention and tradition and that defies established privilege gets accused of being rude and worse, much worse, and there are always weak apologists for the status quo who use that pathetic etiquette excuse to try and silence the revolutionaries. Successful revolutionaries ignore the admonitions about which fork to use for their salad because they care only to grab the steak knife as they launch themselves over the table.
Atheists are calm and mild-mannered, even leaders of the New Atheists like Dawkins and Harris and Dennett — no doubt because our oppression is minor compared to that of women, racial minorities, and labor — but we're still getting these ridiculous claims that we're too "rude". They won't stop until we're completely silent, and there's no point in compromise, so these faint-hearted enablers of superstition are going to have to excuse us if we ever so politely request that they go fuck themselves, beg pardon, and please, use a rolled-up copy of the Republican party platform to do it, if you don't mind, thank you in advance.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/we_aim_to_misbehave.php
Larry Moran raised an interesting comparison over at Laden's place. In response to this constant whining that loud-and-proud atheism 'hurts the cause', he brought up a historical parallel:
Here's just one example. Do you realize that women used to march in the streets with placards demanding that they be allowed to vote? At the time the suffragettes were criticized for hurting the cause. Their radical stance was driving off the men who might have been sympathetic to women's right to vote if only those women had stayed in their proper place.
This prompted the usual cry of the accommodationists: but feminists weren't as rude as those atheists.
Were the women saying that men were stupid? Were they portraying them as rubes and simpletons? Were they falling into the trap of making themselves resemble the negative stereotypes of women at the time? IIRC, the answers are No, No, and No. Substitute "atheists" for "women" and "theists" for "men," and the answers are emphatically Yes, Yes, and Yes. It is one thing to be assertive. It is another thing to be gratuitously rude.
This is so blind and ahistorical, I'm embarrassed for the guy. The suffragettes were ferocious firebreathers of a most admirable sort who did not mince words and went far further than atheists have gone — yet. As one example:
To attain the goal of universal suffrage, the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU, known colloquially as the suffragettes) engaged in acts of protest such as the breaking of windows, arson, and the "technical assault" (without causing harm) of police officers. Many WSPU members were jailed for these offenses.
Try reading the literature of the feminist pioneers. They weren't just rude, they were howling at injustice, they were breaking deep social mores, and they were abused, despised, and imprisoned for it — and they still are. Jebus. You think all women had to do to get recognition of their basic rights was to be polite? You think they got the right to vote by asking nicely? That soft voices and meekness are the answers?
I take it back. I should be embarrassed for us atheists. When I look at the history of feminism, I see a ferocity and a record of sacrifice that puts us tame godless people to shame. Maybe we need to get more outraged and outrageous.
If you read some of the great writers of the feminist movement, what you'll find is an eloquence that people like Richard Dawkins echo today. Their speeches were rousing calls to action, not paeans to passivity. These are words that people found "rude" then, and that we still see deplored by chauvinists today (have you ever heard the word "feminazi"?)
Elizabeth Cady Stanton
"The moment we begin to fear the opinions of others and hesitate to tell the truth that is in us, and from motives of policy are silent when we should speak, the divine floods of light and life no longer flow into our souls."
"The whole tone of Church teaching in regard to women is, to the last degree, contemptuous and degrading."
Lucretia Mott
"The world has never yet seen a truly great and virtuous nation because in the degradation of woman the very fountains of life are poisoned at their source."
"I have no idea of submitting tamely to injustice inflicted either on me or on the slave. I will oppose it with all the moral powers with which I am endowed. I am no advocate of passivity."
Mother Jones
"I'm not a humanitarian, I'm a hell-raiser."
"Whatever your fight, don't be ladylike. "
Susan B. Anthony
"Men their rights and nothing more; women their rights and nothing less."
"The fact is, women are in chains, and their servitude is all the more debasing because they do not realize it."
"Cautious, careful people, always casting about to preserve their reputation and social standing, never can bring about a reform. Those who are really in earnest must be willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathy with despised and persecuted ideas and their advocates, and bear the consequences."
These women were treated as if they were bomb-throwing anarchists by the press, by politicians, by the wealthy elite, by every institution that had an interest in conserving the inequities of society. Even today we've got people like Phyllis Schlafly who decry "intolerant, uncivil feminists whose sport is to humiliate men" — I think everyone can see the similarity to the accusations against those intolerant, uncivil atheists.
Every social movement — and I'd add the labor movement and the struggle for civil rights as equally strong examples — that tries to break the bonds of mindless convention and tradition and that defies established privilege gets accused of being rude and worse, much worse, and there are always weak apologists for the status quo who use that pathetic etiquette excuse to try and silence the revolutionaries. Successful revolutionaries ignore the admonitions about which fork to use for their salad because they care only to grab the steak knife as they launch themselves over the table.
Atheists are calm and mild-mannered, even leaders of the New Atheists like Dawkins and Harris and Dennett — no doubt because our oppression is minor compared to that of women, racial minorities, and labor — but we're still getting these ridiculous claims that we're too "rude". They won't stop until we're completely silent, and there's no point in compromise, so these faint-hearted enablers of superstition are going to have to excuse us if we ever so politely request that they go fuck themselves, beg pardon, and please, use a rolled-up copy of the Republican party platform to do it, if you don't mind, thank you in advance.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, April 26, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 53 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #35029 by Luthien on April 26, 2007 at 3:30 am
I get accused of "ranting" when I speak up about the problems I see, but the only way to keep an issue in the public conciousness is to be loud, persistant, and brutally honest (no pussy footing around). Other Comments by Luthien
3. Comment #35031 by Logicel on April 26, 2007 at 3:35 am
Successful revolutionaries ignore the admonitions about which fork to use for their salad because they care only to grab the steak knife as they launch themselves over the table.________
Way to go, PZ!
Other Comments by Logicel
4. Comment #35036 by Tintern on April 26, 2007 at 3:50 am
Interesting to note the readily available comparison. The reason - one of, anyway - the battle against religion is so difficult is that they shout, scream, demand and behave unapologetically. Take a leaf from the enemy's book.Other Comments by Tintern
5. Comment #35039 by Glacian on April 26, 2007 at 4:09 am
Yes!!! It's about time someone articulated this long-standing feeling I've had. The constant irritation I feel when people accuse us of being "rude" and "offensive" and "going too far" drives me up a wall! Compared to what other minority groups have done to earn rights and recognition, we're TAME AS HELL!They view us as even a bigger threat though. Whereas women and racial minorities hardly challenged religion, but primarily challenged the status quo and cultural norms (indeed inciting strong resistance), we challenge the very beliefs people have. It's obvious Christians and other religious folk view atheists who have no interest in "converting" others as dire threats. Religions make sure the anti-atheist program is deeply imbedded into their adherents, so much so that it has become virtually a cultural norm itself; after all, how many atheists refuse to label themselves as such merely because of the stigma, and pass it off under some questionable semantic veil?
But we won't become too outrageous. I think one of the main reasons, though a common mindset of reasoned discourse we share is undoubtedly a factor, is simply that women and blacks and others who fought for their rights were denied obvious, basic rights, like the right to vote. If we were denied the right to vote or marry, you can bet your ass I'd be flipping out and marching on Washington immediately, screaming and shouting and causing such a commotion Jesus would be shakin' in his sandals.
Finally, one more thing, and a note of distinction between us and those fighting for their rights. I don't see this movement as fighting for our rights; sure, I don't want to have my kids have to pledge to God in school, much less make any pledge at all to a stupid flag, but that's essentially an unimportant issue compared with the simple fact that we are concerned primarily with the overrall state of humanity. I personally care more about expounding atheism for the benefit of others than for my own benefit. It's the evangalizing ("good news") of atheism that's such a threat to others; the notion not only that we aren't a bunch of horrible closeted demons, but insist we are as productive or possibly even more productive than religious members of society is a major threat to the way things have been for most societies in all of recorded history.
Other Comments by Glacian
6. Comment #35042 by Philip1978 on April 26, 2007 at 4:13 am
PZ, how could you use such language you foul mouthed man, how dare you use the word "Atheist"!!Great article, I love it!
Other Comments by Philip1978
7. Comment #35043 by Philip1978 on April 26, 2007 at 4:20 am
We aim to misbehave? hmm according to this article so does the Church of England http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6594439.stm Other Comments by Philip1978
8. Comment #35058 by Beave on April 26, 2007 at 5:24 am
Bravo. I've been reading PZ's blog pretty much everyday for the past 8 months and this is the best rant I've seen him post. Inspiring is the best word I can use to describe it. Other Comments by Beave
9. Comment #35061 by jonecc on April 26, 2007 at 5:34 am
I get this all the time as well. If people accuse me of "arrogance", "dogmatism" or the like, I just say "no, this is robust debate". We debate robustly in all other fields, why should religion be any different?Other Comments by jonecc
10. Comment #35066 by MIND_REBEL on April 26, 2007 at 5:49 am
Atheism is the next civil rights movement. The fact that atheists can't vote in certain states tells just how far we need to progress. Other Comments by MIND_REBEL
11. Comment #35079 by Fanusi Khiyal on April 26, 2007 at 6:38 am
*smiles thinly* Allow me to be the fly in this ointment of self-congratulation.We are not oppressed. We are in no way at the recieving end of genuine persecution. And pretending that we are, hurts us in many ways.
Let me continue with the metaphor of feminism. The phrase "feminazi" has developed, not out of bigotry, but for a damn good reason. It's describing the mob that howled out a research for proposing that there might be biological reasons for the difference in men and women's aptitude for mathematics and physics. The hypothesis is certainly debatable, but the fact that it was not debated is nothing more than a genuflection before unreason.
Furthermore, the feminists have been AWOL in a very specific fight : the disgraceful treatment of women in Islam. Feminist Phyllis Chesler has even written a book called "The Death of Feminism" in response to this. The cowardice and pusillamnity of the modern feminist movement is well known.
The point is this: The feminist movement - that started out genuinely noble, genuinely courageous - decayed into an assembly of the self-satisfied, which now is nothing more than an irritating irrelevancy. I do not want to see the new atheist movement go the same way, because I have a vested interest in it.
I am an active atheist - promoting the fall of religion wherever I can - for one simple reason: A religion, Islam, is trying to kill me. I cannot attack it without attacking its base, faith. Furthermore, if reason doesn't lead the fight against Islam, then the only force that will be able to do so is the kind of Christianity that the Enlightenment defeated - real, theocratic Christianity.
I do not wish to play another load of 'victim' or 'minority' politics. That stuff is asinine.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
12. Comment #35080 by ktillyer on April 26, 2007 at 6:42 am
MIND_REBEL, please forgive my ignorance of the US constitution (it's not taught in the UK), but are you joking about atheists not being allowed to vote in certain states? I would have automatically assumed you were joking were it not for the fact that I have heard of other equally absurd laws in the US. For example, in Arkansas a man can legally beat his wife, but not more than once a month!! Bet she's glad. And in Washington all lollipops are banned.Other Comments by ktillyer
13. Comment #35084 by Philip1978 on April 26, 2007 at 6:49 am
Mind Rebel is not joking, its actually law in some states! Funnily enough, it is still law here in England to go to your local church and demand Longbow practice! Other Comments by Philip1978
14. Comment #35089 by Steven Mading on April 26, 2007 at 7:11 am
ktillyer, There is a common practice in the US of having old laws on the books that become suppressed by higher laws and higher court rulings, but nobody ever bothers to remove them, because that takes effort and has no real immediate effect (since the law is being suppressed by a higher law anyway, getting rid of it doesn't change anything.) The laws against atheists voting in some places are that type of law. The federal government has rules that make such laws unconstitutional and unenforcable, but instead of getting rid of them the local governments just stop enforcing them, knowing that if they tried to enforce them, a court case would develop that would be expensive and eventually get them overturned anyway, so there's no point in bothering to enforce them.I don't like this practice. It leaves behind landmines in the legal system to be discovered later on that can stealthily be reactivated later when court opinion changes.
But, that's the way it's done, even though it's a bad idea. I'd much rather see the case where when a law is declared unconstitutional by a court, that this immediately revokes it entirely, such that if the constitution (or court interpretation thereof) changes later to allow it again, a new version of it would have to be re-written and re-instated from scratch if people wanted things to go back to the way they were, rather than just re-activating the old hidden landmine law.
Other Comments by Steven Mading
15. Comment #35091 by FXR on April 26, 2007 at 7:16 am
"It is not enough that I should be freed from religion so that I may walk away and abandon others to their fate. If I were to do that I could not call myself a compassionate human being"Sir William Robinson
Insidiously promoted stupidity deserves to be attacked. We cannot become rational as a species until widespread irrational ideas are dragged into the light to be exposed for what they are.
The worst oppression is not necessarily physical oppression.
Other Comments by FXR
16. Comment #35094 by Fishpeddler on April 26, 2007 at 7:26 am
Comment #35079 by Fanusi KhiyalI might as well have quoted the whole post, because I can find very little in it with which I can agree:
1. The implication that atheists are in no danger of persecution. By historical standards we have it easy, but it is naive to suggest that coming out as an atheist in our society is without serious risks. Do we really have to suffer to the degree of blacks under Jim Crow laws to justify our activism?
2. The notion that 'feminazi' became part of the misogynists' lexicon in response to the debacle around the Harvard President's remarks. That term is far older than that, and is trotted out seemingly every time a conservative doesn't like something a strong-willed woman has to say.
3. The accusation that the women's movement is just a bunch of self-satisfied has-beens. The "self-satisfied" part alone is enough for this comment to achieve the acme of inanity. Everyone I know working for women's rights today is deeply frustrated with how much progress is still to be made, against such general apathy, and frustrated with their own relative impotence. Self-satisfied they most definitely are not.
4. "A religion, Islam, is trying to kill me." "I do not wish to play another load of 'victim' or 'minority' politics." Um, you just did. Oh, I'm sorry -- you're playing potential victim politics. Close enough. Just because your attention is only aroused once you feel your life is threatened doesn't mean the rest of us should sit on our hands that long.
Other Comments by Fishpeddler
17. Comment #35098 by fonex_86 on April 26, 2007 at 7:44 am
I was going to open a can of whoop-ass to Fanusi Khiyal, when I noticed you had already made a good rebuttal, Fishpeddler.Hey Fanusi, where exactly do you live? Your statement that atheists are "in no danger of persecution" is simply bollocks. I live in a country where atheism isn't even recognized by the state. That is, if you don't believe in god -- or specifically, if you are not a believer in one of the few religions endorsed by the state -- you are NOT legally a citizen, and god help you should the authorities get a whiff of you.
That is if the Jihadists/Islam fundies don't get you first.
Damn.
Other Comments by fonex_86
18. Comment #35103 by Fishpeddler on April 26, 2007 at 8:01 am
Comment #35089 by Steven Mading "I don't like this practice. It leaves behind landmines in the legal system to be discovered later on that can stealthily be reactivated later when court opinion changes.
Worse still are the old laws that are rarely enforced, but aren't clearly overridden, either. The anti-sodomy laws are a great example, generally enforced only when someone needs a convenient excuse to harass gays. For those not familiar with them, these laws usually ban any form of oral or anal sex, so it's pretty hard not to imagine everyone (at least everyone who's having any fun) being arrested if they were fairly applied.
I went to a Democratic County caucus in the '80s in a very conservative area (the farmers all voted as Democrats no matter how socially conservative they were), and there was a group whose only mission was to make sure the ancient sodomy laws stayed on the books in Minnesota. I sure hope I can find a more noble cause to devote my own life to. Actually, just my quest to find a brand of litter that the cat doesn't track all over the house seems more noble than that.
Try to wipe the old anti-atheist laws off the books, and you can be sure there will be someone to contest you. As Metallica would growl, "Sad but true."
Other Comments by Fishpeddler
19. Comment #35104 by Veronique on April 26, 2007 at 8:08 am
Go PZ!!What a beautiful call to arms. And on this site on the back of Hitchens' article and Parris'. Go guys! Who said atheists are passionless wimps! Everyone is coming out of the woodwork! And I applaud everyone of them and back them to the hilt!
In this increasingly divided world of faith and rationalism, 'tis no place for the faint-hearted. This time, chaining oneself to the fence of Buckingham Palace will not be enough.
Those women fought for universal sufferage rights and do I thank them? Of course I do. New Zealand was the first country to grant female voting rights. I think it was New South Wales that was next (I know it was an Australian state).
This 'fight' is just beginning. And it won't be easy.
11. Comment #35079 by Fanusi Khiyal
You are experiencing oppression. Do you think that if theocracy succeeds in taking over the political agenda of otherwise non-theocratic countries that there won't be oppression for those who oppose theocracy? Of course there will.
There is no self-congratulation here. No one has time for that. Do you really think that people do not care about the oppression of women under Islam? Of course they do. But this time it is not so much about women as about freedom from religion and the freedom for women under Islam will only happen as a result of freedom from the unreason that is religion. Islamic women are starting to speak. They need support from a much wider base. And that base is a call to overthrow theocracy wherever it is found.
All 'movements' start with passion and, often, with awful consequences. Once the gains are made, vigilance still needs to monitor any backsliding.
Sure, there is a lot of irrelevance and minor carping. That doesn't brush the movement under the carpet once it has achieved its aims.
You say: We are not oppressed. We are in no way at the recieving end of genuine persecution. And pretending that we are, hurts us in many ways.Do you want us to wait until we are genuinely oppressed? And then fight for freedom in a world where we could be killed, stoned to death, shot by firing squad, imprisoned in chains: a new Inquisition?
We see the potential for genuine oppression and must forestall it. It's the potential that we have to combat. There is no self-congratulation, certainly not on my part or on the part of anyone here (forgive my inclusive phrase everyone). But my fear of the real and present threat of theocracy is strong enough to make me vociferous, mouthy and I cannot afford the luxury of keeping quiet, being pleasant and accepting of what I see as an insidious and real threat to my and everyone else's intellectual freedom.
I don't want to live under the yoke of a christian theocracy and I abhore the Islamic theocracy that binds so much of the middle east. A descent into a dark age for modern countries is an ever growing threat.
Phew! Time for bed
Cheers
V
Other Comments by Veronique
20. Comment #35105 by cybercoma on April 26, 2007 at 8:08 am
When people on this board say Atheists are not being oppressed, they obviously haven't seen this article from the Humanist Association of Canada's website:http://www.humanists.ca/news/?p=21
March 31, 2007
Atheist suffers Violent Hate Crime
Filed under: Press Releases — admin @ 9:55 pm
Toronto - In what appears to be the first violent hate crime against an atheist, Justin Trottier of Toronto was attacked earlier this week on the campus of Ryerson University.
According to Mr. Trottier he was putting up posters advertising an upcoming event titled "God: The Failed Hypothesis" when, according to Mr. Trottier, "The first individual then smacked me in the face twice with his left hand, and said 'watch your smart mouth.' I said 'don't touch me' at which point he head butted me hard in the face, causing my nose to bleed profusely." The attack was apparently provoked because the attacker did not like the title of the poster.
Toronto police are apparently treating this as a hate crime.
According to Humanist Association of Canada spokesperson Pat O'Brien, "Atheists have never been accorded the same respect as those with religious beliefs even though our position comes from a position of logic and reason, not myth and superstition. This escalation of a systemic, although till now hidden, discrimination is very troubling"
I must say, I'm happy to hear the Toronto Police Department is treating this as a hate crime. Although the idea of "hate crime" laws is debateable, I'm glad they're upholding the law as it is written and not just using it to create racial divide.
Other Comments by cybercoma
21. Comment #35121 by Gymnopedie on April 26, 2007 at 9:17 am
I always cringe when I hear an atheist compare his/her cause to the black civil rights movements or something of the like. Atheists never (or very rarely) have had to face unshackling themselves from the bonds of slavery or living in constant fear of being lynched. I do not say this to diminish the atheist cause in any way, but I just want to be realistic about our situation. The Feminist movement is the example I always use as a parallel to the atheist movement and this article truly expresses my feelings.As for atheists facing discrimination, violence, and prejudice, there is absolutely no question we do. I am the vice president of an atheist organization at Wayne State University in Detroit (called SANE: Society of Agnostics, Nonbelievers, and the Enlightened) and at our last event on campus we had a bomb threat called in to the building we were having the event at. Here is a link to the article the school Newspaper (The South End) released after the occurrence: http://thesouthend.typepad.com/tsenews/2007/03/bomb_threat_emp.html#more.
Student Organizations at Wayne State University have the chance to put up display cases in the Student Center (high traffic building on campus with many facilities). The display cases are very large glass enclosures that are visible upon entering the building. Our second display case we had was entitled "God Hates Women". It cited verses from the Bible (and Koran) that show blatant disrespect toward women and promote oppression of women. It received much attention and a newspaper article was written about it: http://thesouthend.typepad.com/tsenews/2007/03/student_center_.html. To see what kind of opposition we have - as well as what kind of support we receive - read the comments left at the bottom of each article. Despite bomb threats and numerous death threats, our organization presses on undaunted and we continue to receive massive support.
Other Comments by Gymnopedie
22. Comment #35126 by Fanusi Khiyal on April 26, 2007 at 9:42 am
I should have been clearer originally, so let me try and make it clearer now:"Do you want us to wait until we are genuinely oppressed? And then fight for freedom in a world where we could be killed, stoned to death, shot by firing squad, imprisoned in chains: a new Inquisition?"
No, of course not. And that is _exactly_ why I do not want to see atheists try and play the Victim Card and exagerrate those troubles, such as there are, and compete for another Privelidged Victimised Minority status, because that train goes nowhere, and this issue is too important.
The conflict between religion and atheism - at least, as now construed - is the most fundamental conflict that has gone on through human history: the conflict between _reason_ and _faith_.
I am all in favour of being Loud Atheists. I smile whenever I see someone whinging that Dawkins and Harris are 'polemical'. I grew up reading Nietzsche and Mencken. You think Dawkins is polemical? You have _no_ idea.
As I said, I am in favour of being Loud Atheists. I am _not_ in favour of being Whiny Atheists. I am uniterested in electability to public office (public office is like public school, public transportation, public toilet - you do _not_ want to be in it if there is an alternative). I don't care to see any the usual minority politics guff.
I _am_ interested in raising so much criticism of religion and offering so many alternatives - especially with respect to the Dar al-Islam - that religion becomes an untenable position. I am in favour of fighting tooth and nail for _reason_.
And the spread of _reason_ is in _everyones_ interest. Including the religious. If we start whinging about our rights being oppressed, rather than pointing out that the spread of religious fundamentalism is disastrous to _everyone_, the fundies themselves included, then we are toast.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
23. Comment #35142 by Aaron SF on April 26, 2007 at 10:33 am
I love this article and the analogy to womens rights.Feminazi? Yes, that's right because women are rounding up men into forced labor camps and gassing them. :P
I think hypocrite is too nice of a word for the religious right when they start telling other people not to be so zealous.
****
Fanusi. I think I understand what your saying here. But I think your concept of minorities is a bit off.
Victimizing? It sounds like you think the major argument of minority politics is "Don't hurt me! Pitty me!"
The Atheist movement or whatever you want to call it would be very lucky to be included in the same camp as the Civil Rights, Womens Lib and Gay Rights movements. All of which are about telling people to start looking at reality and stop telling yourself a fairy tale about how the world is.
Other Comments by Aaron SF
24. Comment #35150 by Fishpeddler on April 26, 2007 at 11:05 am
Comment #35142 by Aaron SF"Feminazi? Yes, that's right because women are rounding up men into forced labor camps and gassing them."
LOL. I think use of the term "Feminazi" really started to take off when historians discovered that picture of Himmler holding a "HANDS OFF MY UTERUS" placard. ;)
Other Comments by Fishpeddler
25. Comment #35152 by perkyjay on April 26, 2007 at 11:37 am
The suffragettes in England were far from dispassionate. One of Mrs.Pankhurst's cohorts threw herself in front of the King's horse in The Derby at Epsom Downs racecourse, killing herself, the horse and the jockey. The horse was owned by Edward VII or George V, and since it was slightly before my time, I'm sorry I can't remember.Other Comments by perkyjay
26. Comment #35154 by phil rimmer on April 26, 2007 at 11:44 am
Is it my imagination or is it that those, who most often accuse us of being rude, are in fact moderate religites not fundies?Is it because they can see the logic for the atheist position and also the need for urgent action against the upsurge in theocratic tendencies? (That is, only societies that actively disdain ANY theistic inputs into public life can be made secure from spurious conceptual hi-jacking.)
Do they call us rude, because they're scared, because we're right about how society has to be?
Other Comments by phil rimmer
27. Comment #35156 by dyingfaith on April 26, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Can someone please post links relating to where in the US atheists are not allowed to vote? I have never heard of this and can not find any information supporting this.Thank you.
Other Comments by dyingfaith
28. Comment #35157 by nanite1018 on April 26, 2007 at 12:04 pm
I fully agree with the author. I don't think that the New Atheists are too belligerent or too rude. Far from it. To be quite honest religious people are far more rude a large portion of the time. Now, you shouldn't walk around calling people names. But only the rabid 16 year-old atheist-because-I'm-a-rebel crowd say things like what some of the anti-abortionists or anti-gay marriage religious crowd do. Besides, it is unfair that when someone says atheists are amoral and immoral and then goes on to point out the atrocities of Stalin and Mao, atheists can't counter with Hitler, the Crusades, and the pogroms of Russia, nor can they point out the non-religious background of morality.Oh, and I love the title. Good to see Firefly/Serenity penetrating into our culture.
Other Comments by nanite1018
29. Comment #35158 by Aaron SF on April 26, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I didn't catch the Firefly/Serenity reference. Whee. Other Comments by Aaron SF
30. Comment #35160 by DrShell on April 26, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Comment #35079 by Fanusi Khiyal:Let me continue with the metaphor of feminism. The phrase "feminazi" has developed, not out of bigotry, but for a damn good reason.
Furthermore, the feminists have been AWOL in a very specific fight : the disgraceful treatment of women in Islam.
Bullshit to both.
You can't compare anything but Naziism to Naziism. Particular to this case, suggesting that people who fight for cultural change are genocidal murderers is intellectually bankrupt and ethically vile. People can debate whatever they want. Are you saying some over-reaching power of the feminine caused that man to be thrown in jail for his comments? Tortured? Murdered? He got in trouble at work because he said something that made his employer uncomfortable. It's happened to most of us; it's happened to me. That does not mean there's some cabal of militant chicks ruling the world and working to eradicate men's speech. That's dishonest rubbish.
As for feminists and Islam, we've complained about honor killings and burkas and the Taliban and the lack of education for girls in our literature for decades. The problem is that no one in power wants to hear it, in part because of the very issues we discuss on this site: If something falls under the protective umbrella of religion we all are expected to duck our heads and reserve judgment. While we'll raise hell about human rights violations when they stem from political attitudes (i.e., China) when they come from a religious place we have to "respect" differences. It's a nightmare, but not one of feminists' making.
On a happier note: Firefly/Serenity rulez.
Other Comments by DrShell
31. Comment #35161 by Fedler on April 26, 2007 at 12:26 pm
dyingfaith,I'm trying to find some sites I know were posted by another poster on another thread, but I can't find them right now. I did find a general law against blasphemy in Massachusetts:
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/02/01/atheism-is-illegal-in-massachusetts/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mass.gov%2Flegis%2Flaws%2Fmgl%2F272-36.htm&frame=true
I know it's not the same thing, but you can refer to comment #14 about the 'laws' that may be on the books, but not enforced.
I'm still looking....
Other Comments by Fedler
32. Comment #35181 by sir_russ on April 26, 2007 at 1:43 pm
I too would like to see the statutes disallowing atheist voting.I have been following separation of church and state issues for decades and have never come across actual law prohibiting atheists from voting. Lots of rumors, but not law.
I've seen the statutes from various states prohibiting atheists from serving on juries, from being witnesses or from holding public office, but not from voting. If you can find that data, please share it. I'm certain that many of us would be quite interested.
Regarding the holding of public office in the US, the Constitution spells it right out that there shall be no religious test for holding public office.
Other Comments by sir_russ
33. Comment #35190 by lpetrich on April 26, 2007 at 2:17 pm
The term "feminazi" was popularized by right-wing talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, whose "Undeniable Truths" include"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society"
He has used the word to mean someone who wants as many abortions as possible. Though he first claimed that there are less than 12 true feminazis, he has later used the word more broadly.
Other Comments by lpetrich
34. Comment #35199 by Fishpeddler on April 26, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Comment #35181 by sir_russ"I've seen the statutes from various states prohibiting atheists from serving on juries..."
That's interesting. Anyone falsely accused should want the jury to be loaded with atheists -- you know, people not impervious to evidence.
Other Comments by Fishpeddler
35. Comment #35204 by Aaron SF on April 26, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Yeah but an atourney might want the jury to be more sympathetic one way or the other.Dr. Laura uses the term Feminista. I don't know the etimology of that.
Other Comments by Aaron SF
36. Comment #35210 by perkyjay on April 26, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Re:#35204 by Aaron SF: Who is Dr.Laura ? - I don't get out much - but depending on whether she holds feminists in high or low regard it could be a compliment, or if in low regard it could refer to the condition that visitors to Mexico sometimes acquire, which is Turista, not very pleasant - just a thought !Other Comments by perkyjay
37. Comment #35211 by maton100 on April 26, 2007 at 3:18 pm
As Bill O'Lielly said: Sun go up, sun go down. Misbehave or not! Other Comments by maton100
38. Comment #35221 by MIND_REBEL on April 26, 2007 at 3:48 pm
I'm hispanic, and think that society is far more hostile to athiests than to minorities. The Paul Mirecki beating/attempted murder reminded of something out of the original civil rights movement if not worse. A man beaten into a coma by religious fundies just because he dared to disagree with evolution. Other Comments by MIND_REBEL
39. Comment #35223 by Aaron SF on April 26, 2007 at 3:50 pm
So glad you don't know who Dr. Laura is. That's actually encouraging.She's beem a North American phenomenon for the past 30 years.
I'm pretty sure she doesn't mean it as a compliment.
http://www.drlaura.com/main/
Other Comments by Aaron SF
40. Comment #35234 by hasty toweling on April 26, 2007 at 4:35 pm
These institutions have been brainwashing us for a long time now, and it is infuriating to see.However, none of our basis rights are taken away from us, so I don't know if reacting with the same rage that the womens' rights movement did is really the way to approach it.
Nevertheless, the constant bombardment of propaganda, on billboards, on t.v., on the radio, and elsewhere needs a strong reaction.
Other Comments by hasty toweling
41. Comment #35255 by atheisticism on April 26, 2007 at 6:07 pm
This damn site is turning me into more of an asshole all the time! But then, it might be that it's finally sinking in how long overdue it is for us "sanes" to drop the nice guy act. DIE EVIL GOD BELIEF DIEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!Other Comments by atheisticism
42. Comment #35261 by perkyjay on April 26, 2007 at 6:29 pm
#35223:AaronSF - Thanks for Dr.Laura's URL. I retired to a very remote part of British Columbiasome years ago and we rarely leave this village,a)
because it's very beautiful, and b) because it has almost everything anybody needs to survive. I was a city dweller until my retirement about 16 years ago, and now I'm as happy as a clam, and just about as active!
Other Comments by perkyjay
43. Comment #35392 by Sam on April 27, 2007 at 3:53 am
Great article!The whole "rudeness" argument is just another way of silencing opposition and shutting down debate. As Sam Harris has pointed out, what we really need are new rules of discourse that don't grant religious beliefs any special privileges. Once we stop treating religion as an exception to the rules that are applied in every other area of human discourse, it will be dealt a deadly blow because it really doesn't have anything else going for it. In my country it is largely considered embarrasing to be too overtly religious. This is exactly how it should be.
If you took a book like the Bible or the Quran, changed Yahweh or Allah for some hypothetical super-dictator (George Orwell's Big Brother comes to mind) and left out all the supernatural crap while leaving everything else intact, then anyone who apologized for its morals - let alone anyone who actively supported it - would be criticized mercilessly. In fact they would be dismissed as raving sociopaths. Change everything back to its original state, and that same criticizm is percieved as inappropriate and offensive. It is my firm conviction that this has to change. Everything else turns on it. Within the existing framework no real improvement can be achieved. It is not as if the non-confrontational, compromising "nice-friendly-dialogue" approach that some are advocating has not been tried. It is what we have been doing all along and it has already failed miserably.
By giving legitimacy to old rules of discourse secularist like Nisbet, Mooney, Shermer etc. keep reinforcing the very thing that prevent us from changing our situation. As i have written many times, If you are satisfied with the way things are now - if you think our way of dealing with religion in the past has been a tremendous success and want nothing more than to keep the status quo, then go ahead and listen to the appeasement-crowd, because that really is the only appoach they are willing to consider.
Other Comments by Sam
44. Comment #35495 by happinessiseasy on April 27, 2007 at 11:25 am
I read every single comment on this page. I'm a militant Atheist. I live in a ass-backwards state in the U.S. I belong to the member of the North Alabama Freethought Association and am an official member of the Freedom from Religion Foundation.However, I do see both sides to this argument. I am in no position to pay respects to any religious crap, but I feel like, unless provoked, personally, I don't have the right to start fights. I almost wish that someone would take away a right of mine so that I could have a much more valid reason for fighting it.
Certain things that I fight against are things that people find silly and petty. We have God Bless America license plates, paid for my the state. When I go to vote, my polling place is a church. I have no choice but to go there, and I hate it. Things like this bother me, but I feel like I have no right to really take up arms unless something really big is affecting me.
In other words, give me fuel, ammunition, a reason to fight and I will fight to the death.
Also, I love Susan B. Anthony's quote. I think changing the words, this should be our rallying call: "Theists their rights and nothing more; Atheists their rights and nothing less."
Other Comments by happinessiseasy
45. Comment #35607 by J. J. Ramsey on April 27, 2007 at 8:05 pm
I'm a little late in replying but here's a link:"A blockhead pontificates on feminists, MLK, and going too far"
http://anirratrat.blogspot.com/2007/04/blockhead-pontificates-on-feminists-mlk.html
And, yes, I'm the blockhead in question. Oh, well, my historical gaffe had the useful side effect of letting Myers show his true colors.
One thing I see in the whole debate over rudeness is a bait-and-switch. Examples of "rudeness" that are largely examples speaking truth bluntly are used as excuses for foaming at the mouth with nonsense about "little old ladies who faint at the sight of monkeys." Knowing what I know now, I'm sure that Myers could cite examples of the feminist rudeness that more closely resemble his own, but I'm not so sure that we'd want to knowingly follow such examples. Better to pretend that spewing a cheap insult like "faithhead" or ranting like a pro-wrestling heel is in the same league as the loftiness of the feminists that he quotes.
Other Comments by J. J. Ramsey
46. Comment #35614 by Russell Blackford on April 27, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Damn, I was hoping this would be about a more amusing form of misbehaviour than being "rude" to the occasional passing theist. The thread could surely have involved strong drink, ribald poetry, and nudity in the presence of a sheep.Other Comments by Russell Blackford
47. Comment #35620 by Mikado on April 27, 2007 at 11:47 pm
You Americans do not know how lucky you are. Here in Norway I am forced to pay the salaries of the priest-devils. Atheists are not allowed to form a full government as 50% have to be a member of the state-church. We would have to rent state-church members from Manpower to serve in our government.The state-church priests naturally feel it is their duty to meddle in politics and that it is the duty of the government to submit. I try not to be rude when discussing these questions but I sometimes find it very difficult.
Other Comments by Mikado
48. Comment #35622 by Veronique on April 28, 2007 at 12:42 am
46. Comment #35614 by Russell BlackfordWhat a delightful comment. You are quite right. We all get so serious (and I have seen you do the same). There are times when frivolity saves the day and misbehaviour shoves its irreverant head above the murk!
And now I have just seen Mikado's comment. I had no idea that Norway was constrained in a legislative way to form government in the way that you have said. That is appalling. What is Norway's state-church? I didn't know that either.
Please be rude and tell us more. I am sure that not many people posting here know what you are trying carefully to say. I am interested because I have been living under the misapprehension that you were more safe from religious-government input.
I now know you aren't but know nothing about this. I am not an American, I am Australian.
V
Other Comments by Veronique
49. Comment #35630 by Logicel on April 28, 2007 at 2:49 am
Sam, a very nice and succinct post.Reading and posting at this site now for close to 6 months has been a very positive experience for me--I have learned much information from an international community and from reading the varied articles posted here resulting in the increase of my confidence and skill in debating and challenging religious superstitions.
Religites who practice the majority religion in their geographical locations are not persecuted as they inanely insist, but instead are coddled and sheltered from opposition to the point that when their beliefs are questioned and challenged vigorously they regard such criticism as being off the deep end, angry, and indicative of an unhealthy mind. They embrace psychological defense mechanisms like second skins.
Other Comments by Logicel
50. Comment #35636 by Mikado on April 28, 2007 at 3:39 am
VeroniqueFrom our constitution:
§ 2.
Alle Indvaanere af Riget have fri Religionsøvelse.
Den evangelisk-lutherske Religion forbliver Statens offentlige Religion. De Indvaanere, der bekjende sig til den, ere forpligtede til at opdrage deres Børn i samme.
The first sentence say that all inhabitants in the realm have free religious worship.
The second sentence says that the evangelical-lutheran church is the official religion of the state. The third sentence say that all members of the state religion are obliged to raise their children as the same.
§ 4.
Kongen skal stedse bekjende sig til den evangelisk-lutherske Religion, haandhæve og beskytte denne.
This one says that the king has to belong to the evangelical-lutheran religion, practice it and protect it.
§ 12.
Kongen vælger selv et Raad af stemmeberettigede norske Borgere. Dette Raad skal bestaa af en Statsminister og i det mindste syv andre Medlemmer.
Af Statsraadets Medlemmer skulle over det halve Antal bekjende sig til Statens offentlige Religion.
Kongen fordeler Forretningerne iblandt Statsraadets Medlemmer saaledes, som han det for tjenligt eragter. Til at tage Sæde i Statsraadet kan Kongen ved overordentlige Leiligheder, foruden Statsraadets sædvanlige Medlemmer, tilkalde andre norske Borgere, kun ingen Medlemmer af Storthinget.
Ægtefæller, Forældre og Børn eller to Søskende maa ei paa samme Tid have Sæde i Statsraadet.
The second paragraph says that of the king's cabinet more than half the members have to be members of the official state religion. (The rest of this one can be an exercise in Norwegian. It is not a very modern Norwegian as our constitution is from 1814. )
At the moment we are debating the future of the state church. Of our present government, a coalition of the Labour party, the Radical Left party and the Farmers party, only the Radical Left party want to abolish the institution of a state church. They have a principal view in spite of having several state church priests as prominent members. The farmer's party is staunchly conservative and do not want any changes that do not involve higher subsidies or lower taxes for farmers. The labour party used to be supporters of an end to the state church institution. They have changed their mind and now want to keep it in order to control it and make it more progressive and modern. They want to remove the part where the state have the evangelical-lutheran religion as confessional religion and replace it with a humanist confessional. The 50% requirement for a cabinet is supposed to go.
Most people in Norway are not very religious. In Oslo, a town of about 500,000 people the state churches have no more than 5,000 regular users. The majority uses the church for ceremonies and not much else. You can have young people marrying in church with all the trimmings and when they have children they do not baptise them. If you are religious you are not a member of the state church.
Personally in spite of looking at the state church as an effective tool for dechristianizing Norway, I would want to get rid of it.
Other Comments by Mikado
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
Napoleon Bonaparte
Other Recommended Reading
Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters
Donald R. Prothero
Against All Gods
A C Grayling
The Moral Animal
Robert Wright
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #35027 by grolaw on April 26, 2007 at 3:28 am
The US employment discrimination laws have been systematically weakened by court decisions - and there are only a few thousand of us in the employment discrimination field - because it takes years and years of dedicated work and there is never a certain outcome.It matters not that the US Supreme Court has gutted the Americans with Disabilities Act, pregnancy discrimination is rampant, that the narrowed scope of comparators under the Equal Pay Act and the wholesale attack on Federal Sector workers have left more than half of the workforce mere wage slaves. What matters is that nobody has a free minute to rest, contemplate the legal and political landscape and realize that time has come for us to misbehave.
I aim to misbehave.
Other Comments by grolaw