j a c k *

Atheist Outing...

When I started admitting I was an atheist, I had a ton of people coming up to me and saying "Me too, but don't you dare tell anyone." a request I happily oblige, because it can be positively dangerous to be an atheist in some places in the south. Not that all such people were worried about physical violence. Most just don't want to be fired, or have to endure lots of foul looks and insulting questions.

If you've ever doubted if atheists have any real claim to discrimination, read the terrific comments in this thread on Pharyngula.  Feelings range widely, from the joy of "coming out" expressed above to the very real danger to family life and career:

Do I think I could have 'hid it' from my wife? No, probably not. But knowing the torment and pain that I've gone through (and the fact that divorce *still* may be in the relatively near term future for me, a fact that would have been inconceivable say, two years ago), I would have tried a lot harder than I did.

In my case, the truth did not set me free.

I have previously pointed out the similarity between "outing" of atheists and of homosexuals, as well as debated the values of the various terms that might be applied.  I don't think any put it quite as well as this one, however:

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what we call ourselves. But since Atheist seems to be the most emotionally potent label, that's the one I use now.

I rarely like to write posts that simply point to other posts, but there is more here than I can distill or adequately amplify.  Definitely check it out.

- jack*

Spoiled Rotten...

I'm not one of the big atheist bloggers, but I have in my own small way run into one of the situations that they face constantly.  It unfolds like this.  First some Christian fundamentalist mouthpiece says something stupid like evolution is a lie or god hates fags.  Then an atheist blogger writes about it, pointing out that religion makes people say some awfully ignorant and hateful things.  Then religious liberals attack the liberal blogger in comments asserting that "not all religious people are like that," and that the blogger should be nicer to religious people in order to avoid antagonizing potential allies.

This happens over and over -- and it's totally backward.

It starts with a grave confusion between religious criticism and religious intolerance.  Religious intolerance is the attempt to confer different rights or status to individuals based based on their religious beliefs.  Religious criticism is a thesis, comment or report attacking the content of a religious belief system.  Confusing the two results in the argument that to be tolerant we must defer to religion on issues that religious people deem sacred.  Religious tolerance is the very basis of our secular democracy; religious deference is errant nonsense that threatens to undermine it.

Even if I think your beliefs are absurd, I will defend with my life your right to hold them.  If anyone attempts to restrict your freedoms or undermine your legal rights because of your religious convictions I will be right there fighting with you, back to back, tooth and nail until your rights are restored.  Likewise, if anyone attempts to grant you or anyone else special rights or legal status based only on religious beliefs I will fight that too.  For granting special status to some necessarily restricts the freedoms of others.

And this is where religious deference is dangerous.  It is certainly better not to gratuitously offend people you want or need to get along with, like friends or co-workers, and since many theists are thin-skinned about their gods it's often best not to make fun of them.  It's also generally better to avoid saying things that might inflame religious hatred.  But this is not about tolerance -- it's about politeness.  A general code of civility does not mean that religious beliefs have a special immunity from being offended.  Such a right would lead to things like pharmacists denying to dispense desperately needed medication because of their own personal religious beliefs.  And that is genuine religious intolerance.

Liberals often bend over backward to be polite in the hope of defusing the right-wing talking point that liberals are hostile to religion.  In fact the opposite is true.  When we argue about religion, when we raise our voices and manage to gore each other scared cows, even when we ridicule and mock each others beliefs, that's when we're truly celebrating our tolerance.  We live in a country where people can embrace deeply antithetical worldviews and no one pays a cost.  Well, no civil cost -- there are still social costs.  For atheists.

But worse than the fallacious equivocation, these objections from religion defenders are utterly counterproductive.  When we point out an outrage being committed in the name of some religion or other, don't attack us for pointing it out.  Attack the people committing the outrage!  It's fundamentalists who are giving religion a bad name, not freethinking bloggers.  We're just the messenger.

Sure, not all religious people do these things.  We know that.  But some do, and they're not Branch Davidians or other cultists -- these are major Christian sects operating out in the open to subvert science, education and the Constitution.  They want nothing less than to remake America in their own intolerant image.  If you are religious and this bothers you, good.  If you don't want these nutjobs tarring your religiosity, denounce them.  Fight back.  If you love and support science, start or join a coalition of enlightened churches to defeat the forces that darken our public discourse and sow confusion in our schools.  Those that exist would sorely love to add your voice.  You want to be respected for your beliefs by atheist bloggers?  If you go after these people with the same tenacity with which you go after liberals who truly love tolerance, we'll be saying "Amen, brother."

However.  If as a so-called liberal Christian you instead continue to whine like a spoiled child when you feel that something has offended your delicate sensibilities, then I have no sympathy for you.  You say atheists need to be nicer to you and not dare to insult your cherished beliefs, for risk of losing an ally.  But you're not an ally, and precisely because you divorce yourself in your own mind from these people and take offense if anyone suggests a connection.  The connection, dear theists, is your insistence on special treatment, special deference, because of your religion.  You are not helping the situation, you are the situation.

Yes we atheists tar you theists with a wide brush; we always have and always will.  But instead of trying to get us to narrow the brush, you should work on making the brush less toxic.

- jack*

As Goes Connecticut...

He shares an ideology, a mind-set and a worldview that sets him apart from the rest of us, the reality-based community. He isn't coerced or intimated by the Republicans like some of the other Democrats. He is part of the apparatus of coercion and intimidation.

Cenk Uygur, Note to dense mainstream media — here's why we hate Lieberman

The Lieberman/Lamont primary battle makes great political theater.  I hope Lamont wins, and in a little state like Connecticut its possible he will.  What's been most perplexing, however, has been the response by media pundits and political wonks.  They seem to be somewhere between cluelessness and panic regarding Ned Lamont's dark horse candidacy, and the support that many liberal bloggers are throwing his way.

After all, they ask, Joe Lieberman's a liberal east-coast Democrat.  Why does the progressive blogosphere hate him?  Is it part of a larger ideological purge of the party?  Is it bloggers with slavish followers flexing their political muscles?  Is it all those liberals who are really closet anti-Semites?  I know -- it's revenge for the bad things Joe said about Howard Dean during the 2004 primary, isn't it?

I've actually heard all of those bizarre conspiracy theories floated by genuine so-called experts.  If you've ever felt like the mainstream media isn't listening to liberal voices on the Internet, this is the proof.  These folks are so out of touch it's breathtaking.

If they had been listening, they'd know that while most liberal bloggers support the Democratic party and endorse Democratic candidates, we are also losing patience.  There is only so long you can hold your nose and vote for the lousy Democrat over the horrible Republican.  The stench starts to get to you.  You start to wonder if these weak-kneed, capitulating opportunists -- excuse me, "centrist Democrats" -- are part of the reason your party is losing so many elections in the first place.  We'll end up voting for the official Democrat in the main election every time out of fear of the Republican, but give us someone who fights for what we believe in (and can make some hardhitting and funny commercials) and you'll have a primary contest on your hands.

And then there's Lieberman himself.  Again, if any of the media analysts had been reading the blogs they would have known that Lieberman is synonymous with DINO -- Democrat in Name Only.  He's the self-declared president of the Vichy Party, champion of willful surrender, stoolie among the inmates.  And now he's basically left the party.  Now that he finds himself with a slim chance of losing his Senate seat he has declared that instead of supporting the party's nominee he will run against them.  He's gathering signatures for an independent run, a threat that if carried out promises to split the Democratic vote and might put a Republican in office.

This is the ultimate insult.  "Joementum" would spit on the voters of his state, shred the democratic process at the cornerstone of the party, and sabotage the Democratic party's hopes for majorities in 2006.  It's all about Joe, and it's sickeningly typical.

For politicians all politics may be local, but on the Internet all politics is national.  Ultimately it's up to the Democrats of Connecticut to express their will despite Lieberman's cowardly electoral blackmail.  But my money's on (and for) Ned Lamont.

- jack*