Atheist Revolution

Compassion for Boston Requires No God Belief

2013-04-17T05:36:00.000-05:00

2013 Boston Marathon (Photo credit: soniasu_)

It certainly did not take long for some Christians to blame the Boston bombing on atheists. I was surprised to see so many of Pat Robertson's core audience on Twitter. While some in the mainstream U.S. news media were obsessing about Al Qaeda and not bothering to consider the possibility of a domestic terrorist along the lines of Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, or Jim Adkisson, a sizable group of Christians were blaming the tragedy on atheism, secularism, and "godlessness." While some have managed to convince themselves that the perpetrator(s) must have been an atheist, others prefer the argument that the bombing was divine punishment for the rising tide of secularism.

In spite of their bigotry, I cannot help feeling just a bit sorry for the sort of Christians who would make these outlandish claims. They are scared and confused and are trying to make sense out of their world in the only way they seem to know how - by clinging to the primitive superstitions in which they have been indoctrinated. And yet, I am well aware of the damage this sort of bigotry can produce. This leads me to suggest an alternative to the desperate attempts to reconcile a senseless tragedy with a loving god: perhaps there aren't any gods looking over us.

Freed from the mental gymnastics required to reconcile something that cannot be reconciled, one can devote one's energy to real-world efforts that might make a difference. We can set aside all the god nonsense, roll up our sleeves, and try to help those who need it. Compassion requires no god belief.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Atheist Group Settles Landmark Discrimination Case

2013-02-27T05:06:00.000-06:00

The following is a press release from the Center for Inquiry:

Atheist Group Settles Landmark Discrimination Case with Michigan Country Club

Plaintiff Calls Settlement “Unqualified Vindication” for Nonbelievers’ Rights

A Michigan country club that cancelled an event by the Center for Inquiry (CFI), allegedly because of the speaker’s and attendees’ atheism, has agreed to a settlement in the case brought against it, marking perhaps the first time federal and state civil rights statutes have been successfully invoked by nonbelievers in a public accommodations lawsuit.

In April of last year, the Center for Inquiry, an organization advocating for science, reason, and secular values, brought suit against the Wyndgate Country Club of Rochester Hills, Michigan for violation of both the federal and state civil rights laws, as well as breach of contract, after it cancelled an October, 2011 CFI-Michigan event featuring famous atheist Richard Dawkins. The club tried to justify breaking its contract by stating that “the owner does not wish to associate with certain individuals and philosophies.” The club’s representative specifically cited a concern over Dawkins’ appearance on The O’Reilly Factor a few days before, in which Dawkins’ atheism was the chief topic.

“We’re very pleased with the outcome of this case, which we regard as an unqualified vindication of the rights of nonbelievers,” said Ronald A. Lindsay, president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry. “We are confident it will send a strong message that as much as this country now rejects discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, and religion, so must we reject just as strongly discrimination against those with no religion.”

As part of this settlement, the Wyndgate has agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to the Center for Inquiry.

“Of course the majority of businesses welcome the patronage of nonbelievers as much as anyone else,” added Lindsay, “but if one should choose to prejudicially exclude us because of our lack of religious belief, we have shown that there will be consequences.”

CFI was represented in this lawsuit by the Royal Oak, Michigan law firm of Pitt McGehee, Palmer, Rivers & Golden, P.C. CFI is grateful for their able assistance in this case.

* * *

The Center for Inquiry (CFI) is a nonprofit educational, advocacy, and research organization headquartered in Amherst, New York, with executive offices in Washington, D.C. It is also home to both the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism. The mission of CFI is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. CFI‘s web address is www.centerforinquiry.net.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Boy Scouts, Catholics, and Nazis

2013-02-11T07:13:00.000-06:00

"Boy Scouts of America" march (sheet music) Page 1 of 6 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I rarely go out of my way to engage Christians online, and this is especially true when it comes to Twitter. When a Christian goes out of his or her way to begin an argument with me, I rarely respond. That isn't why I'm on Twitter, and I have little interest in hearing the same tired arguments yet again. But every once in awhile, I'll take the bait and attempt to have an actual discussion. The second the name-calling begins, I'm gone. But until then, I might give it a try. I had an interesting interaction with someone claiming to be a Catholic priest (@fr_andy) recently that did manage to provoke some real thought on my part, and I'd like to tell you about it.

I had tweeted about how I thought the Boy Scouts of America should stop discriminating against gays and atheists. This man responded that gays and atheists were free to begin their own youth organizations but that they were not wanted in the Scouts (I am going to use male pronouns because that is how he identified himself to me). I replied that I had hoped we'd all learned that "separate but equal" was not really equal. He responded by arguing that discrimination was only illegal when the government did it and that private organizations like the Scouts and his church could legally do it. I replied that discrimination, legal or not, was not what I would consider morally virtuous.

It was at this point that this self-described Catholic priest decided to spring his trap.

It's can be a very positive moral value. Or do you also oppose discrimination against sex offenders and Nazis? (sic)

Even I know that a discussion has run its course when the other party brings up Nazis! Normally, I would have moved on without giving it another thought. But it occurred to me than an important point was being missed here. In spite of feeling quite constrained by Twitter's 140 character limit, I responded:

I oppose discrimination based on membership in a group (gay or atheist), as it entails bigotry. Criminal behavior is different.

I know, I know. The irony of someone who might be a Catholic priest bringing up sex offenders in this context was delicious, but I managed to resist commenting on it. I also managed not to point out how ridiculous it was that he seemed to be comparing gay and atheist youth with sex offenders and Nazis. Now that you've indulged me by reading this far, I'm ready to get to what was his final response and the part I found so thought-provoking:

It's not criminal to be a Nazi, so I guess you wouldn't support discrimination against people in that group.

This was the point at which I decided that additional responses on my part would be pointless. Still, I'd like to take up this question without the 140 character limit.

Yes, that is correct. I would not support discrimination against Nazis in this context either. The same would go for Communists, Klan members, Satanists, feminists, liberals, fans of Justin Bieber, Southern Baptists, NRA members, or any other group holding views with which some of the Boy Scouts leadership or the Catholic Church might not agree. None of these things has any relevance to being a Boy Scout, and none tells us enough about an individual to justify excluding them from consideration. Discriminating against someone because they belong to a group that hold views one finds objectionable is bigotry. Why would bigotry somehow be okay when the Scouts or the Catholic Church want to do it? It wouldn't.

The Boy Scouts of America should be able to kick people out who engage in criminal behavior. The same would be true for noncriminal behavior that is so disruptive that it prevents the group from functioning effectively. This should be true regardless of what views are held or what groups members belong to. But that isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about bigotry.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Atheism and Nonconformity

2012-12-13T06:45:00.001-06:00

Are atheists living in the U.S., where atheism entails a certain willingness to go against the grain, any more likely to be nonconformist in other aspects of their lives than Christians? I find this an intriguing question. While it makes sense to me that this would be the case and while my limited personal experience lends support, I do not have any empirical basis for suggesting that such a claim is likely to be true. What do you think - are atheists more likely than Christians to be nonconformist in other areas of their lives?

I will admit that I am interested in this question for reasons other than pure intellectual curiosity. I been in a few situations where I have listened to atheist youth discuss their experiences with discrimination and bigotry at the hands of the Christian majority. And while I have every reason to believe that many atheists do indeed face this because of their atheism, there have been times - not many but a few - where I have wanted to ask a different sort of question.

Is it possible that at least some of what you have faced is as due to your tattoos, piercings, unusual attire, and blue hair as it is to your atheism?

Based on my own experiences, the experiences other atheists have shared with me over the years, and scientific data I have reviewed on the attitudes the public holds toward atheists in the U.S., I do not question the reality of anti-atheist bigotry and discrimination. Adolescents are kicked out of their parents' homes for being atheists. Employees are fired for being atheists. People are physically assaulted for expressing atheism. This is all too real. And while I realize that nobody's nonconventional appearance or attire warrants this sort of hatred, I do wonder if some particular instances of discrimination, bigotry, harassment, and the like might be prompted by more than atheism.

I find this topic a bit of a challenge to discuss because I worry that people will misunderstand my musings and accuse me of promoting conformity. Conformity is about the last thing (after perhaps religion) that I'd want to promote. I detest it, and while I personally choose not to promote it through my appearance or attire, I've always respected those who do.

It was not terribly long ago that I was listening to a particular atheist woman with blue hair, tattoos, and piercings share how difficult it was for her to maintain friendships here in the South because her friends typically ended the relationship once they learned of her atheism. Having had exactly the same experience a few times myself, I could relate quite well. But over a few interactions, I noticed that she was loud, domineering, self-centered, and rather rude in conversations with others. She also had rather objectionable body odor (something I didn't really understand about not wanting to go along with the conventional expectations surrounding hygiene). In any case, I found myself not wanting to have anything to do with her, and I am fairly confident that it was not because of her atheism.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Skip the Salvation Army

2012-12-08T08:53:00.001-06:00

I was driving home from work yesterday, and I had the windows in my car about half-way down. It has been way too warm for this time of year, and I believe yesterday's daytime high was approximately 75 degrees F. I had the radio tuned to NPR, as I often do. As I stopped at a stoplight, I could clearly hear the unmistakable sound of a hand bell being rung. I was surprised by how loud it was, and I looked around to see where it was coming from. To my surprise, the Salvation Army bell ringer was standing in front of a drug store that had to be at least 300-400 yards from my position. That I could hear it at all with my poor hearing, engine running, surrounded by traffic, and radio on still surprises me. But there it was.

I have been in and out of that particular drug store a number of times, and I found myself wondering how easy it would be to walk past the Salvation Army kettle without feeling a little twinge of guilt. When I was a child accompanying a parent on errands, I was almost always given a few coins to put in the kettle. Of course, we did not know then what we know now about the Salvation Army. We were unaware of the Christian extremist nature of the organization. We did not know that they support proselytizing and engage in discriminatory hiring practices. And we certainly did not know their position on LGBT persons.

I decided I would not feel the slightest bit of guilt today for ignoring the bell. In fact, it would be something of a challenge not to inform people I saw putting money in the kettle what they were supporting.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Don't Buy Your Holiday Tree From the Boy Scouts

2012-12-01T06:21:00.001-06:00

Here is a very simple form of activism for those of you who buy holiday trees this time of year or know people who do: do not buy your tree from the Boy Scouts. Why? The Boy Scouts discriminates against atheist and gay youth by baring them from their organization. Why would anyone want to support bigotry?

I am happy to join with many other atheist bloggers today in calling for a boycott on Boy Scouts' holiday trees until they abolish their discriminatory practices. For those who must have such trees, there are plenty of other places to find them. It should not be terribly difficult to avoid supporting the Boy Scouts.

I suspect that many people, including many religious believers, would be reluctant to support the Boy Scouts if they knew about their bigotry. So this effort is not just about us buying trees elsewhere but about raising awareness more generally.

For more about the Boy Scouts, see:

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Christian Bigotry Straight From the Pastors

2012-11-03T07:51:00.001-05:00

When Hemant Mehta (Friendly Atheist) posted this video from FaithandEquality, I found myself thinking that it deserves to be seen by as many people as possible. Yes, it is difficult to watch because of the disgusting nature of the bigotry it contains, but it is an important testament to the nature of Christian hate. The video is a compilation of clips from Christian pastors discussing homosexuality.

As Hemant suggested, the suicide rate among LGBT youth is far too high. It is difficult to imagine that there is no connection between the hateful attitudes expressed in this video and how LGBT youth feel about themselves. In many parts of the U.S., these kids are surrounded by parents, teachers, and peers who believe this stuff, in large part because it is coming from the pulpit.

It is a good thing that the views expressed in this video are not shared by all Christians. However, I think we can agree that they are shared by far too many. And this needs to change.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

What I Learned From My Time in the Boy Scouts

2012-08-14T05:39:00.001-05:00

I was in the Boy Scouts for a couple years. It was my dad's idea, and while I was initially willing to give it a try, it did not take long for me to learn that it was not for me. Unfortunately, my dad "did not raise a quitter," and so I was not permitted to leave until a couple years later. I was 13 or 14 when I was allowed to quit, and I've never had any regrets about doing so.

By the time I left, being associated with the Boy Scouts was about the least cool thing a 13 or 14 year-old boy could do. I tried as hard as I could to keep it a secret from my peers in school, but this proved impossible.

One of the things I learned from my time in the Scouts was that I was not very good at many of the skills White men in the U.S. are supposed to posses. I was never going to be an outdoorsman. I didn't like bugs, the idea of harming innocent animals, or camping in the rain. I was not particularly good with my hands and while I did learn to tie a few knots, whittle, fish, and operate a canoe, I had already learned these things from my dad before joining the Scouts. All the Scouts really did was show me that I was never going to be very good at these things. It would be fair to say that my time in the Scouts left me absolutely certain that I was not cut out for military service. I suppose that was a valuable lesson.

Another lesson I picked up from the Scouts was that boys who were different from the majority in some way are meant to be bullied. I experienced this myself as both a victim and a passive observer who did not intervene but should have. I'd certainly seen bullying before but not in such a systematic top-down manner. I had not seen it condoned by adults before. And I do not recall previously experiencing anything like the pressure to join in I remember from the Scouts. Years later, I would look back on this experience when learning about the dangers of conformity.

When I see today that the Scouts are continuing to be intolerant of gays and atheists, it does not surprise me one bit. Atheism did not seem to be on anyone's radar all those years ago when I was in the Scouts, but I heard more homophobic slurs there than anywhere else I can recall (including high school football). Unless things have improved considerably, it is difficult for me to imagine many gay or atheist boys having a positive experience there. But until the organization changes its antiquated policies, I suppose we won't really know.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Chick-fil-A: The Taste of Bigotry

2012-07-29T07:29:00.001-05:00

Back in 2009, I wrote that I thought atheists should avoid Chick-fil-A because they were in bed with Christian extremist groups like Focus on the Family. It made little sense, I reasoned, for an atheist to spend money at a Christian establishment that made it a point to push Christianity and promote Christian extremism.

In 2011, I revisited the subject of Chick-fil-A. I noted their support for the Pennsylvania Family Institute, an anti-gay organization, and again suggested that those interested in equality should probably find an alternative source for their processed chicken habit.

Many in the news media have finally decided to cover Chick-fil-A after their corporate leadership made their anti-gay sentiments quite public, resulting in a backlash. The Jim Henson Company has severed its relationship with Chick-fil-A, and the Mayor of Boston has informed the company that his city is not interested in their bigotry.

While I agree that elected officials are treading on dangerous ground by threatening to interfere with a company's business practices, I suppose the key is whether this is viewed as a speech/freedom of religion issue or as one of discriminatory business practices. Since there does seem to be at least some evidence of discrimination, I hope we may finally see the news media do some investigative reporting to see whether Boston and other cities have a reasonable case to make.

In any case, the public message to Chick-fil-A is loud and clear: bigotry does not taste good. Let's eat elsewhere.

Photo credit: What Would Jack Do?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

How To Reduce Bigotry Against Atheists

2012-06-16T07:20:00.001-05:00

Surprisingly little psychological research has been conducted with atheists. I know this because I've looked into it. Only a handful of empirical studies have been published; however, I am optimistic that this will soon begin to change. There are too many of us to ignore for long, and there is much to gain from studying atheists and how we are perceived by others.

Gervais (2011) published a fascinating article in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin in which he addresses one important factor for reducing anti-atheist prejudice. I should mention that this is a reputable peer-reviewed journal in the social psychology area.

Here's the abstract:

Although prejudice is typically positively related to relative outgroup size, four studies found converging evidence that perceived atheist prevalence reduces anti-atheist prejudice. Study 1 demonstrated that anti-atheist prejudice among religious believers is reduced in countries in which atheists are especially prevalent. Study 2 demonstrated that perceived atheist prevalence is negatively associated with anti-atheist prejudice. Study 3 demonstrated a causal relationship: Reminders of atheist prevalence reduced explicit distrust of atheists. These results appeared distinct from intergroup contact effects. Study 4 demonstrated that prevalence information decreased implicit atheist distrust. The latter two experiments provide the first evidence that mere prevalence information can reduce prejudice against any outgroup. These findings offer insights about anti-atheist prejudice, a poorly understood phenomenon. Furthermore, they suggest both novel directions for future prejudice research and potential interventions that could reduce a variety of prejudices.

Thus, the take-home message is that one's perception of how many atheists there are is related to one's attitudes toward atheists. Moreover, Gervais found evidence that messages designed to inform people about the prevalence of atheists reduced the degree to which people distrust us. This is an important finding for understanding prejudice in general and prejudice against atheists in particular.

For those of us interested in reducing anti-atheist bigotry, it appears that one of our strategies should involve obtaining accurate estimates of our numbers and then informing people of this information. Of course, atheists have been arguing for some time that the more of us are open about our atheism, the harder it will be for the religious to maintain their prejudice. I suspect this is because the key factor is one's perception of how many of us there are. Fortunately, there is much we can do to affect such perceptions.

You can find the full paper as a .pdf file here.

H/T to The Secular Outpost

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Pastor John Hagee is a Bigot

2012-06-07T05:09:00.001-05:00

This is bigotry. It doesn't matter whether Pastor Hagee's motivation for saying what he says here is religious, political, or something else entirely. It is still bigotry. If you are not sure about that, try replacing "atheist" with "Jew" and see how it sounds.

I do not doubt Pastor Hagee's credentials as a Christian extremist, but I'm no longer sure that I can call what he says here extreme. I've heard it too often and from too many Christians. Perhaps the sentiment he's expressing here is far more mainstream than many Americans want to admit.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Atheists to Protest North Carolina Church

2012-05-05T18:57:00.001-05:00

I used to wonder whether atheists would ever organize protests of churches. Not churches in general, mind you, but certain Christian extremist churches that had been preaching a destructive message of hate. I reasoned that something like a well-organized picket of such a church might do much to call attention to our efforts and show that we would remain silent no more. I agreed with readers who suggested that picketing might be especially effective if it was aimed at specific issues (e.g., picketing the Mormon church for funding Proposition 8 in California). The subject turned out to be surprisingly provocative for atheists and required me to write more than I ever thought I'd need to on the subject.

Evidently, there is going to be a protest of such a church in Fayetteville, NC, tomorrow. I trust that you've heard about the pastor there who advocated the physical abuse of gay children. Pastor Sean Harris (Berean Baptist Church) has retracted his vile comments, or at least some of them. However, it makes since to question his sincerity when the following was part of his statement:

Those weren't planned words, but what I do stand by is that the word of God makes it clear that effeminate behavior is ungodly. I'm not going to compromise on that.

You can find details about tomorrow's protest here. I will be interested to hear how it goes, and I applaud the group's effort for calling attention to Pastor Harris and his hateful message.

H/T to Atheist Oasis

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Michigan Country Club Does Not Want to Associate With Atheists

2012-05-01T15:07:00.001-05:00

The following is a press release from the Center for Inquiry:Secular Group Charges Michigan Country Club with Religious Discrimination

Country Club Owner Did Not “Wish to Associate” with Atheists

A national secular advocacy group is bringing legal action against a Michigan country club for religious discrimination and breach of contract after it cancelled an event because of the attendees’ lack of religious beliefs.

The Center for Inquiry (CFI), a national organization advocating on behalf of science and secular values, is suing the Wyndgate Country Club in Rochester Hills, Mich., and its owner, for violation of the Civil Rights Act and for breaking its contract with CFI’s Michigan branch. The Wyndgate, denying use of its public accommodations entirely on the basis of religion, cancelled a scheduled CFI-Michigan event to be held October 12, 2011 that would have included an address from British scientist and noted atheist, Prof. Richard Dawkins.

In breaking its contract, the Wyndgate justified its actions by stating that “the owner does not wish to associate with certain individuals and philosophies,” referring to the “philosophies” of Prof. Dawkins and other nonbelievers. The cancellation notice specifically referenced Prof. Dawkins‘ October 5, 2011 appearance on The O’Reilly Factor, during which Prof. Dawkins’ atheism was central to the conversation.

“This was to be an opportunity for friends to gather, enjoy each other’s company, and hear from one of their favorite authors, an internationally renowned professor; but the Wyndgate opted to breach its contract simply because atheists would be taking part,” said Steven Fox, Legal Director for CFI. “If this kind of discrimination had been directed at any religious group there would rightfully be no end to the outrage. The fact that the victims are nonbelievers makes it just as wrong, just as unacceptable, and just as unconstitutional—and we will not let it stand.”

* * *

The Center for Inquiry (CFI) is a nonprofit educational, advocacy, and research organization based in Amherst, New York; it is also home to both the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism. The mission of CFI is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. CFI‘s web address is www.centerforinquiry.net.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Recognizing Bigotry

2012-04-13T13:18:00.003-05:00

Consider the following statement for a moment:

I would not vote for a man who was Black.

Aside from a handful of teabaggers, I suspect that most people would recognize this statement as bigotry. Why? The statement implies that all people who belong to the specified category (i.e., Black) are unfit to hold office simply because of their membership in this category. Since the category is irrelevant to this judgment, we have both a falsehood and an unwarranted generalization. This is bigotry, and most people correctly identify it as such.

Now let's examine the actual quote from the Rev. Billy Graham's daughter, Anne Graham Lotz:

I would not vote for a man who was atheist.

Once again, this is bigotry. But this time, many people refuse to see it as bigotry. In the U.S. at least, bigotry against atheists is still socially acceptable. We are working on changing that, but we've got a long road ahead.

Subscribe to 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

2012-01-27T07:15:00.003-06:00

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