Atheist Revolution

Delegitimizing Atheists in the Media

2012-02-04T07:50:00.001-06:00

Staks over at Dangerous Talk recently brought up a great point about how people - especially those in the media - delegitimize atheism in subtle ways. He notes that atheists who are interviewed on TV or for print media are often referred to as "a self-professed atheist" and that this sort of prefix is never affixed to religious people. I have certainly seen "self-professed" and many similar examples like the following:

…a self-described atheist...

...identifies himself as an atheist

…who says he's an atheist

…who claims to be an atheist

Can you imagine what would happen if some of these qualifiers were applied to Christians?

Ms. Roberts, who claims she's a Christian, said that the city needs to invest more money in repairing potholes near Main St.

There would considerable outrage, and for good reason. But that isn't going to happen because we do not see these qualifiers applied to Christians. We're generally content to take someone at their word that they are a Christian. We let them decide how to identify and label themselves.

Like most people, I've grown so accustomed to some of these qualifiers applied to atheists that I don't always notice them. But Staks is right. When we do notice them, we should point them out in order to expose the bigotry and Christian privilege they reflect.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

The Fallacy of Atheism's Public Relations Problem

2012-01-27T07:15:00.002-06:00

I think we can all agree that atheists are an unpopular minority in the United States. We've seen countless examples of bigotry directed at us by Christians, including elected officials who are supposed to know better. And it is not just the Christians; the record is not much better for members of other mainstream religions. I suspect we can agree that there are multiple reasons for how we are perceived by many religious individuals.

A number of prominent atheist bloggers, women and men whose work I respect, seem to share the opinion that one of the most important obstacles faced by modern atheists is our lousy public image. Some even appear to suggest that this image is largely of our own making. Again and again, we are cautioned against offending the religious. We are told, "Don't be a dick," and our tactics are criticized as too rude or too assertive. We are accused of picking the wrong battles, and some of our activism is labeled as counterproductive. Many of us are now seen as part of the problem because our particular brand of atheism contributes to bad PR. That is, we are not nice enough, tame enough, or passive enough.

A Public Relations Fallacy

Does atheism have a public relations problem? We know we are perceived negatively, but is this primarily because of our actions? Some in the atheist community seem to think so. I disagree, and I'm here to call bullshit on what I am labeling atheism's public relations fallacy. Here's how I define it:

Atheism's public relations fallacy refers to the claim that certain types of atheist activism are primarily responsible for how atheists are perceived or are key to changing how atheists are perceived.

I am not denying that our behavior is relevant; I am denying that it is primarily responsible for how we are perceived and that it is key to changing these perceptions. I find it relevant but comparatively trivial.

Our presence and are willingness to speak our minds are sufficient to agitate many religious believers. Short of converting or remaining silent and scared, I do not believe that our church-state activism is the main reason we are hated. Erecting billboards with vanilla messages about how one can be good without god are perceived by many as assaults on Christianity. Speaking out is enough. Being visible is enough. Merely existing is enough. We do not have a public relations problem; we have a bigotry problem.

Welcome Diverse Tactics, But Be Strategic

To the degree that we embrace diverse tactics, the atheist movement is stronger. That does not mean we should not criticize each other - constructive criticism, disagreement, and dissent are vital to our progress. But it does mean that we should be reluctant to label each other as counterproductive simply because someone wants to try a different approach.

I'm going to welcome any nonviolent approach for which someone can articulate a coherent strategy. Want to picket fundamentalist churches? Go for it. Want to place a crucified Santa in your yard? Be my guest. I may not agree with a method, but I'm willing to give it a shot because I may be wrong. As long as we are acting strategically and not purely out of emotion, we probably aren't going to screw things up too badly. In case you haven't noticed, we're already hated to a degree that few other groups have faced throughout history. And if we try new things and pay attention, we might just learn something useful.

Reject Bigotry

If toning down our "dickishness" is not going to dramatically improve our public image and reduce the bigotry we face, what will? Here's the short version: we must confront bigotry, stand up for ourselves, and refuse to be treated as second-class citizens.

There have been many civil rights movements before ours, which while far from over, have been far more successful than we have. What has been common to the historic and current struggles of women, African Americans, and LGBT persons? They overcame the notion that how they were mistreated by other segments of society was primarily their fault. It is time for us to do the same. It is time for us to move beyond this public relations fallacy.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

FFRF Files Complaint in Rhode Island

2012-01-23T05:29:00.001-06:00

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed a complaint with the State of Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights after area florists refused to deliver an order to Jessica Ahlquist. The complaint alleges "illegal discrimination based on religion." Under Rhode Island law, a business cannot deny services to someone on the basis of that person's religion.

My guess is that the florists will suggest that the FFRF lacks standing to bring the complaint on Ahlquist's behalf. I that fails, they'll most likely claim that their refusal was not based on Ahlquist's religion (or lack thereof) but on their reluctance to take part in a controversy.

In any case, it will be interesting to see how this one turns out.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Idiot of the Week: Richard Floyd

2012-01-14T12:30:00.001-06:00

A state representative in Tennessee, Richard Floyd (R-Chattanooga), sponsored a bill that has been dubbed the "Bathroom Harassment Act" (HB 2279). The bill is designed to punish transgendered persons for not using the dressing rooms or restrooms that Rep. Floyd thinks they should use. He has somehow managed to convince himself that this is a serious threat to his state.

As bad is that is, this legislation is not why I'm calling Rep. Floyd this week's idiot (although it didn't help). No, Floyd earned that designation for claiming that he would become violent if he ever encountered a transgendered person in a dressing room. Yep, an elected state representative is on the record as saying that he would "stomp" a transgendered person for having the nerve to use a dressing room where his wife or daughter trying on clothes.

I believe if I was standing at a dressing room and my wife or one of my daughters was in the dressing room and a man tried to go in there — I don’t care if he thinks he’s a woman and tries on clothes with them in there — I’d just try to stomp a mudhole in him and then stomp him dry.

Don’t ask me to adjust to their perverted way of thinking and put my family at risk. We cannot continue to let these people dominate how society acts and reacts. Now if somebody thinks he’s a woman and he’s a man and wants to try on women’s clothes, let him take them into the men’s bathroom or dressing room.

Rep. Floyd is an elected official of the state of Tennessee. He should know better. He has just endangered transgendered people in his state. Let's hope the people of Tennessee can convince him to find a different career.

H/T to Think Progress

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Turn or Burn: A Case of Hate Speech in the U.K.

2012-01-14T06:34:00.001-06:00

Five Muslim men are on trial in the U.K. under a hate crimes law for distributing anti-gay leaflets that depicted gay men being executed for the "crime" of being gay. The purpose of the literature appeared to be one of encouraging hatred and even violence against homosexuals. One actually called for the death penalty for homosexual behavior. According to The Telegraph, this case is the first prosecution of an anti-gay hate crime since the law was changed in 2010 to include sexual orientation.

Although it sounds like there were at least four different leaflet designs, the one that formed the basis of the prosecution called for the death of homosexuals.

The leaflet which formed the basis of the charges, entitled “The Death Penalty?”, featured a hanged mannequin and claimed that "Allah permits the destruction" of those who allow homosexuality and those who practise it.

The leaflet added that "the death sentence" had "already been passed on every homosexual" and that "the only question is how it should be carried out". Methods suggested included execution, burning, hanging or stoning.

This seems like a fairly clear example of efforts to incite violence, doesn't it? And yet, I find this prosecution somewhat troubling. I can understand the rationale involved when an offender receives a longer sentence because there was a hate crime component of another crime (e.g., someone assaults a man because he believes the man is gay). What we have in this case looks more like the speech itself is the crime.

I suppose one could argue that the underlying crime is inciting violence and the hate crime component is attached because of how it is directed. But I am not sure that this is what is being argued in this case. The five men were charged with "distributing threatening written material intending to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation contrary to Section 29c (1) of the Public Order Act 1986."

I understand and appreciate the desire to promote civility. I'm not so sure about measures that appear to criminalize speech unless the issue is one of inciting violence. What do you think? Should these men be facing prosecution?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

My Take on Lowe's Pulling Their Ads

2011-12-18T07:08:00.001-06:00

I've been asked what I think about the recent decision by Lowe's to pull their ads from the All-American Muslim show in response to pressure by a Christian extremist group in Florida. I believe there are two issues here that can be addressed separately. First, there is the question of whether Lowe's was right or wrong to pull their ads. This is the easiest of the two questions, and the one on which nearly everything I've seen has focused. The second question concerns the degree to which atheists should get involved in this fight and how best to do so. This one is a bit more complicated and has not been adequately addressed.

Lowe's Was Wrong

I believe that Lowe's was wrong to cave to pressure from a Christian extremist group. They have the right to advertise where they wish, but pulling ads in response to pressure from what amounts to a hate group was not the right decision. It makes them look bigoted, even though I expect profit was closer to their actual motive. They thought pulling the ads would be good for business, and they were wrong. The backlash will hurt them more than pulling the ads possibly helped them.

Atheist Involvement in this Fight

I believe that atheists should indeed be involved in this fight because it has implications for religious freedom and involves religiously-based bigotry. As frequent victims of this sort of bigotry, we should be ready to oppose it. It happens to be directed at Muslims in this case, but it is often directed at us, at the LGBT community, and at all sorts of other groups. Opposing bigotry is the right thing to do.

There is one thing that troubles me about atheist involvement in this situation, however. Christian extremists successfully pressured a major corporation to pull their support for a show about Muslims. While it makes sense to me that atheists would oppose this, I find myself wondering whether we would receive any support from Muslims if this had been a show about atheists. My guess is that we would not. While this does indeed give me pause, I still say opposing this sort of bigotry is the right thing for us to do. It isn't about whether we should support Islam; it is about whether we should oppose Christian extremist bigotry.

How should we get involved in this fight? By doing the things many of us are already doing: calling attention to why Lowe's was wrong, shopping elsewhere, contributing to the public pressure against them, etc. But most of all, we can and should be a strong voice of reason in defense of religious freedom. Of course, we should also remind our audience that there can be no freedom of religion without freedom from religion.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

The Roots of Hatred and Bigotry Against Atheists

2011-11-28T05:35:00.002-06:00

Austin Cline (About.com Agnosticism/Atheism) recently asked about the origins of the hatred and bigotry directed at atheists in the U.S. He notes,

The extreme hostility towards atheists in America can probably be traced to two related factors: America's view of itself as a religious nation entrusted with a special mission from God and America's fight against communism in the Cold War.

I think he's right to mention these historical factors, as they are certainly relevant. However, I think that there are deeper psychological processes going on. Austin mentions scapegoating and refers indirectly to others like fear of modernity and loss of privilege. These bring us closer to what is likely happening.

For the most part, I'm not so sure that hatred and bigotry against atheists is so different from any other case where an out-group has been demonization and dehumanized. I suspect that the heart of the matter is that atheists have been despised because we are different. We have always been perceived as failing to conform with a standard that has been equated with morality (i.e., religious belief).

To the degree that the hatred and bigotry we face differs from that experienced by other minority groups, this is likely a result of our very existence being viewed as a threat. The only way we can be tolerated is if we remain silent and invisible. As soon as we open our mouths, we pose a danger to an increasingly indefensible belief system.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Bigotry Against Atheists is Even Naughtier

2011-11-24T11:50:00.001-06:00

As much as I like the American Humanist Association's new ad campaign (and I do like it), I'd make one small change. I'd replace "bias" with "bigotry." And no, I don't think I'm being too picky here.

I think that bigotry is what we are really trying to call out. I also suspect that "bias" is sufficiently vague that many theists won't get the message. They won't recognize their own bias as such, and they won't be sure what "bias against atheists" would look like.

In contrast, "bigotry" has a much stronger emotional impact. People are much more likely to recognize it, and such a message would do more to prompt some self-reflection.

I still like the ads as they are, but I think they'd be more effective with this small change. After all, we're all biased in some way or another; bigotry is another matter.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Community Service is Not the Answer in Combating Prejudice Against Atheists

2011-11-21T05:17:00.002-06:00

In recent post summarizing some of the findings from an article about anti-atheist prejudice published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Hemant Mehta (Friendly Atheist) wrote that there are two ways atheists should work to counter our negative image:

First, we have to continue doing community service — serving at food banks, donating to charity, giving blood, etc. Show people that we can be good without god.

Second, we have to let people we trust know that we’re atheists. People think poorly of atheists because they don’t think they know any. It’s a shock to their system when they find out someone close to them doesn’t believe in a god… so shock them! Let them know that someone they already trust is an atheist.

The scientist in me wants to point out that this is an empirical question. That is, either or both of these two strategies might work and should be framed as hypotheses until they can be adequately tested. Setting that aside, I'd like to explain why I think Hemant may be right about his second recommendation and wrong about the first.

Come Out If You Can

Hemant's second suggestion rings true for those of us living in regions dominated by religious extremism. I have encountered enough religious believers, especially here in Mississippi, who have claimed they have never met an atheist that I suspect Hemant is on to something here. Psychological research suggests that it is easier for people to demonize those with whom they have had little direct contact. Because of the massive stigma around atheism in some areas, atheists remain closeted. In some ways, this serves to maintain the bigotry directed at atheists. I think Hemant is right to suggest that those of us who can "come out" should do so and that this is likely to help reduce prejudice over time.

"Coming out" atheist is not going to be safe for everyone. The point is that those of us for whom it is relatively safe - or who are so fed up with hiding that we're willing to take the risk - can help our fellow atheists by doing so.

Find Other Reasons to do Community Service

On the other hand, I am quite skeptical about the efficacy of Hemant's first suggestion in reducing prejudice. I seen no evidence that Southern Baptist prejudice against Catholics is reduced by the latter's involvement in charitable activities or community service. On the contrary, I have heard many Southern Baptists suggest that the Catholics must be "up to something." It seems to me that once prejudice of this nature takes hold, information contrary to the prejudiced view ends up being filtered through the prejudice, undermining whatever effect it might have.

When I think about how the LGBT community has worked to combat prejudice and bigotry, I cannot think of examples where increased involvement in community service was a core part of the strategy. In fact, I have a difficult imagining telling members of that community that they should increase their charitable involvement in order to reduce prejudice.

Atheists have been doing community service for quite some time, and I have seen little evidence that it impacts prejudice. Instead, I hear Christians say things like, "That's nice of them to help, but I still don't trust them" or even, "What a waste of time! You're going to hell anyway."

Do community service if you want to. Do it because it is consistent with your values or because you are committed to helping others. There are plenty of excellent reasons to get involved in your community, but I do not expect community service to accomplish what Hemant suggests it will accomplish.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Idiot of the Week: Newt Gingrich

2011-10-22T08:16:00.001-05:00

And you thought it was going to be Harold Camping! Admittedly, it was a tough call. But I'm always going to give the edge to bigotry over mere stupidity, especially when it comes from someone who seeks power over us.

Here's Newt Gingrich during the most recent Republican debate:

Now, I happen to think that none of us should rush in judgment of others in the way in which they approach God. And I think that all of us up here, I believe, would agree. But I think all of us would also agree that there's a very central part of your faith in how you approach public life. And I, frankly, would be really worried if somebody assured me that nothing in their faith would affect their judgments because then I'd wonder, where's your judgment -- how can you have judgment if you have no faith? And how can I trust you with power if you don't pray?

Who you pray to, how you pray, how you come close to God is between you and God. But the notion that you're endowed by your creator sets a certain boundary on what we mean by America.

This sounds like a clear admission that Gingrich wants a leader who would use his or her religious faith to guide their decisions, even when these decisions would affect millions of us who do not share this faith. Of course, he's also perpetuating the popular myth that those who do not share his god belief are somehow less American.

The real tragedy here isn't so much that Gingrich expressed these opinions; it is that everyone else on stage seemed to agree with him. It is that the crowd cheered. It is that the corporate media does not even bother to question it.

H/T to The Secular Outpost

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Romney May Be Victim of Bigotry, But He's Also a Bigot

2011-10-20T05:02:00.001-05:00

Before I leave the subject of Willard "Mitt" Romney and his Mormon religion behind, I want to return to something that happened during his 2008 campaign with special relevance to atheists. We're all familiar with the phenomenon where someone who was the victim of bigotry gains a little bit of status and then ends up engaging in bigotry toward others. A commonly cited example involves African Americans who are vehemently anti-immigrant or anti-gay. A less commonly cited examples concerns Romney and we atheists.

In the run up to Romney's 2008 campaign, he realized that his Mormon faith was going to hurt him in the Republican primaries. The Republican Party has been targeting evangelical fundamentalist Christians so blatantly that any candidate who doesn't fit that rigid mold is going to struggle. Romney knew this and attempted to play down his Mormon religion. Nevertheless, he faced considerable criticism for his religious beliefs.

As the 2008 election neared, Romney gave a memorable speech during which he tried to ease concerns about his Mormon beliefs but ended up sounding like something of a theocrat. Romney's strategic gamble, which came through loud and clear in this speech, involved pandering to the same Christian extremists who had been attacking his religion. And it so doing, he revealed himself as a bigot by attacking secularism. Sadly, this sort of bigotry has been deemed acceptable by many in the mainstream media and did not prompt the widespread condemnation it deserved.

Romney's attempt to appease the Christian extremists failed. As more information emerged about what exactly Mormons believe, including the secret oath they swear around the age of 19, it became almost impossible for anybody to trust Romney when he claimed that his church would not govern through him. For once, the Christian right and the atheist community found something on which they could agree: Romney was unacceptable.

I think that things may be different this time around. The hatred of Obama is so intense on the right that it would not surprise me to see the Christian extremists eventually decide to get behind Romney. They aren't going to be happy about it, but I suspect that many will do it.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

We Are Atheists, We Are Everywhere

2011-09-04T09:41:00.001-05:00

I trust you've heard about the Florida pastor who called for atheists to be placed on a national registry and compared us to "convicted sex offenders, ex-convicts, terrorist cells, hate groups like the KKK, skinheads, radical Islamists, etc." I don't have anything to say about this Christian extremist bigot that hasn't already been said. Instead, I'd just like to join Friendly Atheist in highlighting this excellent response from the Thinking Atheist:

We are atheists, we are everywhere. And you know what? Our numbers are on the rise. The time when Christian extremists and bigots could count on our silence is over.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Dealing With Bigotry

2011-07-14T05:40:00.001-05:00

I received a thought-provoking email from a reader in the Southern U.S. about her struggle around coming out as an atheist/agnostic and her understandable fears about how others will respond. I do not have any easy answers for her, but I want to share portions of her struggle and offer what little I can. I'll call her Rachel to help conceal her identity.

Rachel identifies herself as Hispanic and says that she was raised in one of those traditional Catholic families where questioning faith is simply not done. She describes herself as agnostic, but like most people who claim to be agnostic, I suspect that she is actually an agnostic atheist (see Understanding Atheism and Agnosticism).

Atheists Continue to Face Bigotry in the United States

It is clear that Rachel feels oppressed by the religious majority, and I suspect many of us can relate.

It seems that so many of us, even including myself depending on who the audience is, will not proudly admit our non-theistic beliefs. I see so many Christians posting bible quotes and praising their Lord all day, every day on facebook. However, I feel that we do not have the same luxury. Do you know how much backlash I would get if I publicly endorsed the genius documentary, Religulous, by Bill Maher?

This double-standard where Christians can flaunt their religion without fear of consequences while atheists must worry about everything from ostracization to physical assault for expressing ourselves is part of Christian privilege, and it is a very real problem. Most Christians are blind to it, and yet, most of us experience it daily.

Maybe it’s because I’m in Texas, or maybe it’s because I need to stop caring about what people think. Nonetheless, I’d like to examine why we are the most untrusted minority and why we don’t also have the same rights that are given to racial minorities, the GLBT community, and so forth. Where is our freedom of speech? Where are our billboards and commercials?

When I look at the Civil Rights movement and the LGBT movement, one of the things that stands out to me is that nobody gave these minorities rights until they demanded them and made it clear that they were not going to take no for an answer. Atheists have not done that yet. Another important lesson is that these struggles took considerable time. Unbelievably, it is still illegal in most states for same-sex couples to marry. Bigotry is ugly, and it has a way of sticking around.

Reason for Optimism

The good news is that things are beginning to change. Membership in national groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation is on the increase, and we have a solid presence on the Internet. The mainstream media has taken notice of atheism in a way that we haven't seen since Madalyn Murray O'Hair. We have books, billboards, and we will hopefully soon have a major Hollywood film. I know it isn't nearly enough, but it is a start.

As more of us realize what is at stake and refuse to remain silent in the face of Christian privilege and religiously-motivated bigotry, we are beginning to find our voice. The more of us who begin to speak out, the harder it will be for anyone to silence us. Bigotry becomes much harder to maintain when it is exposed for what it is.

I know it often seems like we must make a choice between hiding ourselves to avoid retaliation and being completely open about our atheism and risking it all. But there are points between these two extremes. The challenge for Rachel, and many of us, is how to strike the sort of balance with which we can live.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

I Support Marriage Equality: Here's Why

2011-07-02T09:42:00.007-05:00

I support marriage equality. Two consenting adults should have the right to marry if they so choose. Nothing about this has ever struck me as being particularly controversial, even though I have known quite a few people during the course of my life who seemed to have a problem with it. When asked if I support same-sex marriage, my response is usually something like, "Of course! Why wouldn't I?" I thought it might be interesting to see if I can articulate why.

I suppose the short version would be that I support marriage equality because I support equality itself. I see no reason why two people should be denied basic human rights simply because they are of the same sex. And yes, I admit that I find it puzzling how anyone could think otherwise.

I have heard all the same arguments against same-sex marriage that you have. Most are religiously-based, and none have been even mildly persuasive. Opposition to gay marriage is no more defensible than opposition to interracial marriage. Simply put, it is bigotry.

The good news for those of us interested in promoting equality is that the recent advances made by the LGBT community are exposing considerable bigotry to the light of day. Most people are disgusted by it when it is revealed to them, and this should make it more difficult to sustain. This is especially true when we see that the dire predictions many Christians make about the effects of same-sex marriage will not materialize.

As an atheist, I recognize the debt of gratitude I owe to the LGBT community. Their efforts have not only paved the way for us, but they have modeled so many effective strategies for advancing equality in the face of Christian extremism. Even as it saddens me that some will oppose atheist equality, I recognize how we have been aided by their progress.

H/T to Unreasonable Faith
Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Following the Money to Learn About Christian Priorities

2011-06-21T06:15:00.002-05:00

How much money do you suppose has been spent over the last 5 years in opposition to same-sex marriage? No, I don't have any numbers handy. But if you recall California's Proposition 8 fiasco alone, you'll get a sense that we're talking about some serious cash being spent to prevent same-sex couples from marrying.

Now, how much money do you suppose has been spent in the last 5 years to prevent people from cooking with yeast, wearing blended fabrics, or eating shellfish? Again, I don't have numbers, but I'd be willing to bet that the answer is "not much." These things are condemned in the Christian bible in the same book that many Christians point to as providing their rationale for condemning homosexuality.

So why is it okay to ignore some of what one's god supposedly condemns while spending large sums of money to oppose others?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Idiot of the Week: Tracy Morgan

2011-06-11T06:07:00.006-05:00

I haven't felt the need to do an Idiot of the Week post in awhile. Maybe I've just been a bit burned out on the whole thing. Because it has been awhile, I'm going to be a bit liberal with the timeline on this one. The incident that earned Tracy Morgan Idiot of the Week recognition actually occurred last week but did not come to my attention until this week.

During a recent performance in Nashville, TN, Morgan delivered a bigoted tirade against homosexuals. Some of the highlights:

God don’t make no mistakes; all this gay stuff is bullshit.

There is no way a woman could love and have sexual desire for another woman, that’s just a woman pretending because she hates a fucking man.

If my son were gay he better come home and talk to me like a man and not [like a homosexual] or I’d pull out a knife and stab that little N***** to death.

I appreciated the reference to the god in which Morgan apparently believes; that statement tells us about the source of his bigotry. Of course, joking about stabbing his own son for being homosexual suggests that Morgan is thoroughly out of touch with what LGBT youth continue to face.

As ThinkProgress LGBT points out, Morgan has a history of making homophobic comments. That he continues to do so is probably not accidental.

Morgan has since apologized via a brief statement in which he says that he "clearly went too far" and recognizes that his comments were "not funny in any context." The Human Rights Campaign has refused to accept Morgan's apology, saying that it is not enough. I tend to agree.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

California Bigotry

2011-06-09T05:30:00.001-05:00

Like many atheist groups across the U.S., the Orange County Coalition for Reason erected a billboard. In doing so, they selected one of the mildest messages of all.

Think about that message for a moment. What does it mean? It seeks to normalize the experience of atheists by reminding us that there are others like us. We are not nearly as alone as we often feel. It is difficult to imagine a more positive message.

And yet, that is not how some Christians perceive it. According to the Orange County Register, Orange County Mayor Margie Rice had this to say about the billboard:

That billboard is going to turn my stomach every time I drive by. But there is not much I can do about it. I guess it's fine to make a statement, but if I could help it, I would not allow it.

How could such a positive message possibly be that objectionable to anyone? Bigotry. Mayor Rice is sickened by the very existence of atheists because she is a bigot. And she's not alone.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

When the Message Starts With "You People," You Know It Will Be Good

2011-06-05T07:25:00.001-05:00

I received the following email recently from someone calling himself Alfred:

You people have no purpose. Just because you don't believe in anything doesn't mean you should try to drag everyone down with you. Normally I have no problem with Atheists, but you people are the kind who feel like they have to prove everyone else wrong. You disgust me and I hope that eventually you'll see why the way you present your point makes you bad people.

What I enjoyed about it was that it perfectly captures some of the most common complaints we hear:

We atheists don't believe in anything. Really? I believe in plenty.
We are trying to "drag everyone down" with us. Is encouraging people to accept reality dragging them down in some way?
We feel like we must prove everyone else wrong. I don't know about other atheists, but I have little need to prove anyone wrong. I'm generally content to let reality do that. What I may offer, from time to time, is a reminder about reality.
We "disgust" him and are "bad people" because of how we present our arguments. I'm guessing that this means we should be nicer, more respectful of religious belief, maybe even know our place. I've known more than a few atheists who would probably agree with this, but I'm not one of them.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Former Atheist Warns About Dangers of Atheist Pride

2011-03-30T05:22:00.001-05:00

This isn't an Idiot of the Week post, but it certainly could be. Jennifer Fulwiler, self-described atheist turned Catholic, wrote a piece in the National Catholic Register that manages to get so many things wrong that it is difficult to know where to start.

Her article initially appears to be a criticism of "A Week," but rapidly reveals itself to be little more than the sort of anti-atheist hit piece to which we've become accustomed. Fulwiler announces that atheists publicly proclaiming their atheism is "unhealthy." Her rationale, and I use the term loosely, relies primarily on the claim that atheists did not used to do this.

Back in my day, atheists didn’t walk around with signs that said “I am an atheist.” They didn’t put atheist pride stickers on their two-pound cell phones or replace their grainy yearbook photos with a red “A.”

Anticipating the obvious response to this, Fulwiler attempts to cut it off without providing any evidence to support her claim.

And, contrary to the modern atheist pride message, I doubt that the relative silence of history’s average nonbeliever was primarily motivated by fear of persecution.

Not motivated by fear of persecution, huh? I think she should speak with some atheists before claiming such a thing. Why does she think so many atheists have such a difficult time revealing their atheism to friends and family?

She goes on to say that the atheists she remembers from her youth were mostly ambivalent about identifying themselves as atheists. Of course they were! They had been taught to equate atheism with evil, with Communism, and with everything anti-American. And who do you suppose taught them that? Is it possible that Fulwiler has never heard of internalized homophobia? Is it possible that she really cannot comprehend how members of an oppressed and thoroughly demonized minority might be reluctant to embrace this part of their identity?

Instead, Fulwiler prefers to believe that we avoided calling ourselves atheists because we recognized that "defining yourself by what you are against isn’t psychologically healthy." How so?

By directing your energy toward overarching values to which you willingly submit, it acts as a check against the natural human urge to turn yourself into a god.

Submission to fictional entities keeps you from giving in to your base desires. Like many Christians, Fulwiler seems to have an extremely negative view of human nature. And this is especially true of atheists. We are selfish, determined to turn ourselves into gods, and committing the "sin" of pride.

But at least there is room in Fulwiler's worldview for some atheists. She is willing to accept those of us who know our place (i.e., those of us who are willing to keep our atheism to ourselves) and are willing to be "humble" about who we are. Of course, she's also willing to be up front about what she'd really like:

And so, to the folks participating in A Week, I would say one thing: Become Catholic.

It pains me to see someone like Ms. Fulwiler telling us that there is something not "psychologically healthy" about embracing atheism as part of who we are. As I psychologist, I find it thoroughly absurd. As a human, I find it morally repugnant. And as an atheist living in the United States, I find it not surprising in the least.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Idiot of the Week: Gov. Robert Bentley

2011-01-23T07:35:00.001-06:00

I did not realize that yesterday was Saturday until the day was half over and I'd already posted something. Yeah, it was that kind of week. I am not going to be able to do an Idiot of the Week post each week, but I do plan to try to continue to highlight the worst examples. And we've got ourselves one hell of an idiot this week.

Alabama's Republican Gov. Robert Bentley easily beat out other contenders to win Idiot of the Week honors this week. While speaking at a Baptist church, Bentley told his audience:

There may be some people here today who do not have living within them the Holy Spirit...But if you have been adopted in God's family like I have, and like you have if you're a Christian and if you're saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister.

He went on to say:

Now I will have to say that, if we don't have the same daddy, we're not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother.

So basically, he does not consider anyone who does not share his particular brand of evangelical fundamentalist Christianity his brother or sister. This is not an appropriate sentiment for an elected official to express. But the governor's statement conveys something else: bigotry.

And as if all this wasn't plenty bad, Gov. Bentley made it worse by issuing one of the non-apology apologies which are so popular today because the media continues to accept them. Here's Bentley's "apology:"

If anyone from other religions felt disenfranchised by the language, I want to say I am sorry. I am sorry if I offended anyone in any way.

Two problems here:

This is NOT an apology. Saying you are sorry if someone was offended by what you said is NOT an apology, and you or I would never be able to get away with something like this. Try it the next time you screw up, and see how it is received.
He directs his statement to "anyone from other religions," excluding atheists from consideration.

How can atheists in Alabama possibly feel that this governor has any interest in representing them? They can't. He does not appear to consider them his equals.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

When Hate Fails

2010-09-05T07:51:00.001-05:00

I was intently reading a recent post at Friendly Atheist about how atheist students at Penn State responded to a recent visit by assorted campus preachers. As I have said previously, I think that public idiocy should be met with public mockery, and so I always love to hear about it happening. The Penn State Atheist Agnostic Association handled this situation beautifully and should be commended for their tactics.

But one line in Hemant's post really clicked for me.

They [the campus preachers] just came to preach the hate and then acted shocked when they realized it wasn’t working:

That is such a perfect description. They came to preach hate, and it did not work. I like to think that the atheists who were so effectively countering their message gave others a space to reject the preachers' message without feeling guilty about doing so.

Once again we see how effective mockery can be when used strategically to counter hatred and bigotry.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Is Michael Stopa a Bigot?

2010-08-31T05:20:00.001-05:00

Thanks to Atheist Ethicist for bringing this one to my attention.

According to The Sun Chronicle, Michael Stopa, a Republican running for the 3rd district of Massachusetts who also happens to be a physicist employed by Harvard, has managed to convince himself that President Obama is an atheist. But that really isn't the story. The story is that Stopa was quoted as saying:

I have no specific evidence, but I think he's sympathetic to anybody who is opposed to America and American values.

As Alonzo Fyfe points out, this makes it sound an awful lot like Stopa is claiming that all atheists are anti-American. If only the interviewer had asked this obvious follow-up question, we would know if this is indeed what he was saying. And if it turns out that Stopa was indeed claiming that all atheists are opposed to America, then he should be exposed as a bigot.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Idiot of the Week: South Carolina Gas Station Owner

2010-08-28T06:14:00.001-05:00

Technically, this may not count as an idiot of the week because it has apparently been happening for the past year and not simply this week. But I found out about it this week, so there you go.

The owner of a South Carolina gas station has set his pumps so that the following message appears whenever people use them:

One nation under god and if you don't like it. Leave!

What a great American! Believe like I do, or get the hell out. The video below will explain how much all the customers like this message, agree with this message, and see absolutely nothing wrong with this message.

Christian bigotry: Good for business in South Carolina.

H/T to Stupid Evil Bastard

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Idiot of the Week Twofor: Billy Graham and Pat Robertson

2010-08-14T13:22:00.001-05:00

Time for Idiot of the Week. I have many weeks where I have a difficult time deciding who to "honor" in this series, but I had such a tie this week that I decided to pick both. Yep, you're getting two for one here.

Pat Robertson

We'll start with Pat Robertson, a real Christian who is no stranger to idiocy (this is at least the third time he has been recognized for it here). Pat was recently contacted by a Christian seeking advice about her atheist boyfriend. I don't know about you, but I always turn to the 700 Club when I need advice about my personal life (or lack thereof)! Anyway, Pat was all too happy to share some of the bigotry for which he is famous. After all, nobody does it quite like Pat.

There is no fellowship between an atheist and somebody who is a believe in God.

Come on Pat, some of us have a difficult time deciphering Christianspeak. What exactly are you suggesting this woman do?

I hate to tell you, but you've got to go find somebody else.

Oh, okay. No self-respecting Christian should be in a relationship with an atheist, huh? It sounds like same-sex marriage is not the only abomination.

He's going to be serving the Devil.

Wow! Now that's some real bigotry, Pat. Spreading the evil atheist stereotype never gets old, does it? Believe exactly as Pat Robertson does, or you are pure evil. It is that simple. Pat, are you unaware that some "interfaith" couples get along just fine?

There is no middle ground. There is no peace in that situation.

Got it. Time to move on.

Billy Graham

Dating is one thing. Christian extremists have long been notorious for wanting to nose into the behavior of consenting adults. Whether it is interracial marriage or same-sex marriage, they want to condemn and then prohibit it.

Billy Graham, however, is willing to go the extra mile for idiocy. He does not even think that Christians should be friends with atheists. Like Robertson, Graham has convinced himself that we are an evil lot, morally depraved and sure to be a negative influence on innocent Christians who might be fooled by our ability to conceal our true selves for awhile.

Responding to a reader's praise for her atheist friend, Graham writes:

Why is she such a kind and thoughtful person? I don’t know the reason...But I do know this: She’s not this way because she’s an atheist. In fact, she’s this way despite her atheism — because a true atheist has no real reason to believe in right and wrong or to behave sacrificially toward others.

Okay, who forgot to tell me that this was National Bash Atheists Week? The blatant bigotry on display here from these prominent Christians is really something to behold.

Technorati Tags: atheism, atheist, bigotry, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Idiot of the Week: Jim Garlow

2010-08-07T06:44:00.002-05:00

While those of us who believe that equality it an important American value were celebrating the district court ruling against Proposition 8, the forces of Christian extremism were spewing all manner of idiocy. This week's idiot is California pastor Jim Garlow, one of the organizers of the ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8 campaign. Here is Garlow's analysis of the recent ruling in which Proposition 8 was determined to be unconstitutional:

The next court case could conceivably say that if three people wanted to marry or four people or five people or if someone wanted to marry their dog or their horse, they have a right to that because no longer do we have a right to ‘discriminate' based on equal protection.

Bringing up bestiality may indeed make Rick Santorum proud, but this line of argument is pure idiocy.

H/T to Liberaland
Subscribe to Atheist Revolution