Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The religious right has reacted with a predictable freakout to the Obama administration holding a meeting with the Secular Coalition for America last week.
"It is one thing for Administration to meet with groups of varying viewpoints, but it is quite another for a senior official to sit down with activists representing some of the most hate-filled, anti-religious groups in the nation," said Council Nedd, chairman of the religious advocacy group In God We Trust.
And once again we see the religious right making a lame attempt to coopt the language of liberal causes that involve real oppression in order to strike the martyr pose and paint themselves as victims. When someone else disagrees with and criticizes their ideas, it's just like when blacks had fire hoses, police dogs and lynch mobs unleashed at them. Because both are "hateful."
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said the meeting provided a "definitive answer" about the administration's stance towards religion."People of faith, especially Christians, have good reason to wonder exactly where their interests lie with the Obama administration," Donohue said in a statement. "Now we have the definitive answer. In an unprecedented move, leaders of a presidential administration are hosting some of the biggest anti-religious zealots in the nation."
Riiiight. President Obama shows up at every prayer breakfast anyone can schedule within 1000 miles of the White House, has a team of spiritual advisers on retainer and talks incessantly about his religious faith, but he lets his underlings have one meeting with a non-religious group and it just proves how he's really anti-religious and probably a gay-loving atheist...I mean terror-loving Muslim...oh, whatever. He's obviously a terrible person now.
One has to wonder: Is there any claim so idiotic that the religious right won't make it? I have yet to find a limit to their absurdity. I doubt I ever will.
Politics
Comments
Probably not... (sigh).
Posted by: Budbear | March 1, 2010 12:29 PM
I wonder which is worse for these people. A gay loving atheist, or a terror loving Muslim? (At least they have something in common with the Muslim.)
Posted by: Owen | March 1, 2010 12:33 PM
People say that atheists need to tone down their rhetoric to avoid offending people. That they are too aggressive and put off people who would otherwise sympathize or at least not oppose them.
In Iowa, some bus ads were taken out that said, “Don’t Believe In God? You’re Not Alone.” The governor of Iowa said he was “disturbed” by this, and one bus driver refused to drive a bus with the ad on it. In Cincinnati, a billboard with that message had to be moved when the owner of the building it was on received threats.
The ads basically said, “Atheists exist” – and that was considered offensive and drew threats. What could atheists possibly even say that would be less offensive than that? Who exactly is “hate-filled” here?
Posted by: Ray Ingles | March 1, 2010 12:34 PM
Better question: Is there any claim the religious right can make that is so idiotic and repugnant that mainstream America finally stops giving it the attention and reverence it craves? One would think that this would have happened shortly after the RR's inception all those years ago, but as we've all since learned, we don't exactly inhabit a sane culture.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 1, 2010 12:36 PM
'Is there any claim so idiotic that the religious right won't make it? I have yet to find a limit to their absurdity"
Not until stupidity becomes a death penalty offense.
Posted by: History Punk | March 1, 2010 12:37 PM
Owen,
I'm pretty sure that depends on whether the gay loving atheist is white and the terror loving Muslim is non-white.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 1, 2010 12:40 PM
So it's Christians who are persecuted because the president meets with a secularist group, something our ass-kissing politicians routinely do with Christian political activists.
Christian persecution = non-believers accorded the same rights as Christians.
Posted by: Dr X | March 1, 2010 12:56 PM
As a pajama-clad blogger, you obviously don't understand how stressful it is being professionally offended. Every day, without break, they have to find something to get their back up about in order to maintain their performance appraisal. One mellow day and, BAM! they are out on the streets. And no one will miss them because for every Bill Donohue there is a Ryan Sorba waiting to take his place.
Posted by: carlsonjok | March 1, 2010 12:59 PM
but he lets his underlings have one meeting with a non-religious group
...that isn't even held in the White House, but at a building across the street to help keep them at arms distance...
Posted by: abb3w | March 1, 2010 1:22 PM
Ray Ingles:
It's pretty annoying when I hear that. The more outspoken atheists are helping to drag the Overton Window of society in the appropriate direction. They probably need some accommodationists to help fill the gap and show the variation in the group, but when the accommodationists manage to catch a break and not be seen as "the enemy" it's mostly because the outspoken atheists are seen as worse. The people who would normally rail against the accommodationists instead start wondering why the atheists who actively criticize religion can't be "nice" like those ones.
Well, atheists could say, "I haven't succeeded in accepting the lord Jesus H. Christ into my heart yet like my saved Christian brothers, but I will keep struggling with my doubt until it is fully suppressed."
The only appropriate thing for an atheist to do is to work on a spiritual path to become some kind of theist, but preferably a Christian. That bus ad shows evidence of trying to meet other atheists, which is clearly a dangerous precedent.
Posted by: Escuerd | March 1, 2010 1:35 PM
Owen:
I imagine that appending gay-loving and terror-loving would change the results quite a lot, but there were a couple of widely-publicized surveys that indicated that atheists were far less trusted than Muslims in the U.S. in general.
Posted by: Escuerd | March 1, 2010 1:37 PM
We're coming up on the two year anniversary of Monique Davis' "its dangerous for our children to even know your philosohy exists" outburst. Evidently the only thing distinguishing her from folks like Donohue is that she's too politically naive to lie about what she thinks of atheists.
Posted by: eric | March 1, 2010 1:47 PM
Is "Council Nedd" his real name?
Posted by: JusticeLeague | March 1, 2010 1:47 PM
Not that I'm griping about Obama's religion but after the God drenched inauguration and the unceasing calls to the Lord, how can anyone take seriously the claim that he's bowing to the atheists. This is such an obvious attempt to discredit him in the eyes of unbelievers everywhere. It's the easiest and cheapest way to soil him yet further.
Skip this! Let's put a real atheist in office. Like that'll ever happen! The one clear requirement for office in this country is praying to some huge imaginary friend who devastates poor countries for allege beliefs they held 200 years ago. And here I'm fresh out.
I wonder if Harvey's available for bookings.
Blessed Atheist Bible Study @ http://blessedatheist.com/
Posted by: KKBundy | March 1, 2010 1:50 PM
I am developing a repetitive stress injury in my elbow & shoulder from having to place my palm on my forehead every time I read any news about Christians, especially in government.
Seriously. This is getting out of hand. *massages elbow...somehow*
Posted by: Anodyne | March 1, 2010 1:52 PM
"It's pretty annoying when I hear that. The more outspoken atheists are helping to drag the Overton Window of society in the appropriate direction."
Dawkins and company may come off as brash at times, but people often overlook the main thing they accomplished. They put societies default position of deference to religious faith on the defensive. Suddenly the conversation switched from "we can just assume that religion is a universal good and atheist are bad" to "we have to show why religion is not a universal evil and atheists are wrong". Accomodationists look like good guys to the religious these days because the more brash atheists and secularists changed the conversation is a pretty dramatic way.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 1, 2010 1:58 PM
Blech. Sorry for all the lousy spelling and typos above. :(
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 1, 2010 2:00 PM
"..a senior official [sat] down with activists representing some of the most hate-filled, anti-religious groups in the nation..."
There, there, Mr. Nedd. We'll have a senior official meet with a hate-filled religious group to balance things out.
;)
Posted by: Chris Winter | March 1, 2010 2:08 PM
OK, how about Gay Loving Muslims who believe in evolution!
Or Terror Loving Transexuals who fart in church!
Posted by: Childog | March 1, 2010 2:40 PM
They start by saying that the Bible is true. Can it get more absurd than that?
Posted by: Nemo | March 1, 2010 3:02 PM
Sean Hannity was also busy shoveling out steaming mounds of hysterical freak-out.
Evidently rolling out the red carpet isn't what it used to be. Obama didn't even poke his head in. Yet he's often personally met with religious leaders and organizations. Michael Newdow was not in attendance, not that I'd care if he had been. I'm just pointing out that Hannity is 0 for 2 so far in accurate sentences. Also Newdow did not sue to have "under God" removed from the pledge. He sued to prevent teachers from instructing students to say it. 0 for 3.
Moving on, religious groups certainly have meet with Obama and his officials to discuss policy. In fact it's happened on many occasions. Obama even has the Faith-based Advisory Council for expressly that purpose. That's 0 for 4 on Hannity's accuracy so far.
There is no traditional National Day of Prayer service attended by the President. In fact his predecessor, President Bush, is the only one to have held them. That's hardly a tradition. 0 for 5. But it is true he did not follow Bush's example in that regard. What he did instead was sign a proclamation honoring the day. Also he did attend a Catholic Prayer Breakfast and even spoke to the gathering. It just wasn't on the day after the National Day of Prayer. Notice even when a portion of Hannity's sentence is factually accurate it's still misleading.
Hannity's last two sentences are questions. So they technically can't be wrong. But even so, they are misleading. He asks, "What's going on," as if he's just an innocent observer looking at all this for the first time. Obama has certainly not shown a pattern of hostility toward religion. He's hosted events honoring religious leaders. He's spoken repeatedly and passionately about his faith. He's given religious groups access to his staff and policy makers. And he continues to funnel money into faith-based initiatives. So now it's my turn to ask, has Hannity displayed a pattern of willful dishonesty, or is all this inaccuracy merely a coincidence?
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 1, 2010 3:19 PM
OT but Ed, are you going to post on the Uighur SCOTUS developments?
I have only one Wash Post article to go by, but it appears that SCOTUS found against the Uighurs, but also issued an order vacating the prior ruling...which is a slap down of the Executive branches' claim that courts have no power to decide this case. If I understand it correctly, the courts response is along the lines of: "we do have that power. And we just exercised it. But look on the bright side, we found in your favor."
Posted by: eric | March 1, 2010 3:34 PM
Haven't a good (?!) many christians wrapped up their opinions in the "lover the sinner, hate the sin" disguise?
I know many good, decent, honest people who I like and admire, yet at the same time I detest their religion.
Is Nedd's accusation of "most hate-filled" not pretty clear evidence of his own hatred? What's that bit about casting the first stone?
~~~~~~
from John Maquires song about R.R.'s visit to Ireland
Hey, Ronnie Reagan, I'm black and I'm pagan.
I'm gay and I'm left and I'm free.
I'm a non-fundamentalist environmentalist.
Please don't bother me.
It pretty much sums up all the criteria for being detested by the right.
Posted by: Doug | March 1, 2010 3:35 PM
"One has to wonder: Is there any claim so idiotic that the religious right won't make it?"
Some of them think My Little Pony is satanic, and the different colors have occult significance.
So, no, there is no claim so idiotic that the religious right won't make it.
Posted by: Jon H | March 1, 2010 4:03 PM
Jon H, in all fairness the My Little Pony thing is not completely without cause.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 1, 2010 5:01 PM
So, I'm a Christian who donates to Secular Coalition for America. Do I hate myself?
Posted by: Marty D | March 1, 2010 5:02 PM
Thank you for demonstrating the best way to deal with religious fundamentalists, ridicule them. And your ridiculing chops are right up there.
Posted by: Tony P | March 1, 2010 5:04 PM
Tyler, I agree that this is a laudable goal, but I'm not convinced that it is as successful as you appear to be.
For regular, non-active atheists (i.e. those who for whatever reason don't feel the need to announce their atheism or make waves about it), I think the non-accommodationists are somewhat successful at getting them to be more active. But I'd say that they aren't having much success at all in convincing anyone of even moderate religiosity what you wrote above.
In fact, on whole, I'd say it's quite the opposite... by not partnering with those moderate Christians with whom you share many common goals (like teaching evolution properly to our students) you alienate a huge swath of society that could be your best allies in convincing the fundamentalists to do so.
Even more, by being overly critical of even the most moderate of Christians, the non-accommodationists give the fundamentalists one of their biggest weapons... their agreement that Christians must choose either their religion, or science. And while from our point of view, this is an obvious choice to make, most if not all moderate Christians will be swayed in the opposite direction, because, 1)they don't understand the science enough to fully appreciate it, and 2) religion has been a part of their lives long enough for them to believe that their religion is harmless, and that it's the abuse of religious beliefs that causes all the problems (eg child abuse, terrorism, etc) that non-accommodationists often mention.
Now I'm not saying that strong non-accommodationist voices aren't required; certainly they are necessary to rally the base. But it's the average-joe atheist down the street that the moderate Christians have known all their lives as a good person -- without ever knowing their (lack of) religious beliefs until mentioned casually, innocently and/or without passing harsh judgment on the believers -- who has the best chance of "chang[ing] the conversation is a pretty dramatic way" in the way you described above.
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 1, 2010 5:04 PM
doctorgoo,
I disagree, I think that the only way to shake up the status quo is to take a non-accommodationist stance, for years atheists have accommodated moderate Xians beliefs with little or no gain. I think a big weapon that we now have is access to information, anybody with an internet connection and 5 minutes can look up factual information on just about anything, I don't think that it is necessary to accommodate a world view that is pretty clearly not based in reality anymore. After all religion's biggest enemy are facts and access to them.
Posted by: Doug Little | March 1, 2010 5:50 PM
Even more, by being overly critical of even the most moderate of Christians
When Christians bitch about how atheists are overly critical, what they're really saying is "Waaaaah! They're asking me for real evidence! We shouldn't have to do that!"
Posted by: Aquaria | March 1, 2010 6:06 PM
doctorgoo,
I'm not claiming that the non-accomodationists have convinced believers, I'm merely saying that they've managed to shift the tone of the conversation from one where deference to religion was taken for granted to one where it actually has to be defended. It's been a long time since you've had a sustained effort to assail religion in the mainstream and it's put believers on the defensive, even if what they believe hasn't changed.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 1, 2010 6:08 PM
Doug,
I'd say that both the accommodationist and non-accommodationist stances are important, perhaps equally so. I wouldn't quite phrase it as "shak[ing] up the status quo" as you did... rather as the value of the non-accommodationsist position is primarily that it encourages more atheists to speak up and be counted, while at the same time providing a community of like-minded individuals to act as a sounding board for support and ideas.
Of course, to an outsider such as a moderate Christian, this sounding board can often seem too much like an echo chamber, where only the harshest (read: funniest) voices are heard and repeated. But an atheist forum, done properly, can most certainly do more good than harm in encouraging free-thinking in the nominally religious who have the ability and willingness to question their faith, while at the same time providing a healthy community for likeminded atheists.
I like your point about the importance of education and how easily accessible it is on the internet. This is very true, and should be pointed out repeatedly to those who politically question science topics like evolution or global warming.
I strongly believe that a proper science education -- which includes the teaching of critical thinking skills... as well as how to ignore personal and pre-conceived notions and expectations to allow unbiased testing of ideas -- is the cornerstone of ANY attempt to lessen the influence and lure of religion on people.
So in my opinion, if a person's primary goal was to end religion, the promotion of a proper science education is key, even if it means that, in the interim, you point out the fact that many religious people can also be good scientists. This will lessen the fears of the moderately religious who are being told by those at both ends of the religious/areligious spectrum that they must choose religion or science. And once these fears are set aside, they are now able to critical evaluate their own religious beliefs and realize that what they were previously taught is "clearly not based in reality", as you put it.
Of course, the downside to the easy info on the internet that there is equal or greater amounts of disinformation out there as well. And this disinformation is usually easier to understand for the typical layperson... meaning that those without a basic understanding of how science works are likely going to go with the easy, non-scientific explanation, especially if they already agree with the politics behind it.
It seems strange to me that you wrote: "I don't think that it is necessary to accommodate a world view that is pretty clearly not based in reality anymore". I'd say that the accommodationists aren't accommodating a world view as much as they are acknowlegding that there are moderates on the issue of religion who agree with us more than they agree with the fundamentalists on the public issues that matter most, like proper education in schools and the abuse of religion to allow (and sometimes even encourage) evil deeds to be performed.
To expand what I wrote in my comment @28... Ed posted today about how a (supposedly) perverse fetish -- which is held by both homo- and heterosexuals -- is used to paint all homosexuals as being evil perversions of nature to bigots in Uganda. This is very similar to fundamentalists using the arguments of the non-accommodationist "meanies" as proof that a good person must choose between their god OR science, knowing that this will turn them against allowing proper science standards to be taught in school.
Furthermore, these Ugandan ministers are deliberately choosing what they perceive as the worst, most perverse aspects of homosexuality to turn people to their side. They aren't showing pics of the gay or lesbian couple who, through adoption, provide a loving, supportive home for a child from a broken or non-existent family, or otherwise dysfunctional environment. No, they know that portraying all gays in the most deviant way possible, that they are more likely to gain influence.
Taking this example back on topic... Just like it's the normal guy or gal down the street (who, only as an aside, also happens to be gay) that can more easily influence people to rethink their personal bigotry against homosexuals... it's going to be the atheist who doesn't go out of his way to publically insult the religious who is going to have an easier time getting the moderates to listen to them.
Aquaria @30: ...textbook example of what I'm talking about. Are you saying this is true for all moderate Christians? How about your friends or (possibly older) relatives, who also happen to be religious to one degree or another (I'm sure you have some, right?)... Would they consider such a statement as yours, when directed towards them, to be constructive? Would it help them to consider your atheism as a valid point of view worthy of being brought to the table?
Tyler @31: ...your point here is valid. One might question the overall effectiveness of putting the religious on the defensive in the wrong way, but certainly they are now in a position of having to defend themselves more than in previous generations. And while one might consider how much criticism, in the form of abusive name-calling (or whatever,) becomes counter-effective... I fully agree that pointed criticisms, when legitimately used to counter the absurd, are very effective rhetorical weapons for us to use to convince others that our point of view is valid.
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 1, 2010 7:14 PM
@14 I can think of three groups that still seem to be ok to discriminate against in modern day American society. Gays, Muslims, and atheists. We've elected a Catholic and a black President. Women have come very close to occupying the White House as both President and Vice President and I assume it will happen sooner rather than later. I'm not trying to take a page from the Religious Right book and say "woe is me" and take a stance of martyrdom, but clearly atheists are one of the last groups about which it's perfectly acceptable to actively discriminate against. Atheists might actually be the only group left in with which it's still perfectly fine and legitimate to express open revulsion to in mainstream American society. Plenty of people openly express hatred of other minorities both religious and ethnic, but usually in the mainstream they're viewed as offensive and hateful. No one would bat an eye at hateful reactions to atheism though, because the only people who ever come to the defense are atheists. I'd be willing to bet a gay man or woman would be elected President someday. It's a toss-up as to whether a Muslim or an atheist would be the last to cross off the list, though I bet sooner or later the hatred and fear of Muslims will subside. Atheists might truly be the last minority group in the US to receive mainstream acceptance.
Posted by: Ryan | March 1, 2010 7:41 PM
@ Ryan,
You omitted a fourth group--women.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 1, 2010 7:54 PM
doctorgoo,
Yeah point taken about the misinformation that is out there, I'll have to add in critical thinking as one of the enemies of religion as well. I understand your position but I tend to think that no common ground can be found between science and religion as they are essentially two very different things. Once religion tries to get into the reality splainin' business it gets a bit ridiculous and I don't see how any accommodation can be made in this respect. As atheists I think we do need to call bullshit no matter how harsh it my seem, without beating around the bush.
Posted by: Doug Little | March 1, 2010 8:25 PM
I thought the Atheist Bus signs were cute. And it was nice to see other Americans making their voice heard over the din of collective begging for "Luv Gifts."
Sometimes Atheists do turn me off. Comparing every person who has some spiritual or religious belief or experience to being pathologically, mentally ill--Is insulting. It doesnt feel good when Christians do it to us Non Christians. Why would it feel any better when an Athiest or militant Agnostic does it?
And sometimes Atheists express their anger in forums, where connecting might be more effective. But that being said, I understand why they get so pissed off and stay there.
Christians have been scapegoating Atheists and Secular Humanists as the *ultimate bad guys for as long as I can remember. Christians make it sound as if every social ill could be solved, if only we could launch all the Atheists and Secular Humanists into outerspace sans space suits. This is one of the defacto religious tests foisted on many would-be politicians and public figures, when it should be a non issue.
When Christians attack other religious folk, its usually about trying to demonize the opposition's spirit world. But with Atheists there is no place for them to find a foothold in this attempt at spiritual hostage taking. I believe that scares the shit right out of most militant Christians and so to overcompensate for that fear, they froth venom in the absence of even an attempt at a logical and coherent dialogue.
Posted by: seeing eye chick | March 1, 2010 8:25 PM
How about your friends or (possibly older) relatives, who also happen to be religious to one degree or another (I'm sure you have some, right?)
If you think I spare my family criticism for being stupid, then you don't know me, and my friends love me for being so outspoken and direct. Next question.
Would they consider such a statement as yours, when directed towards them, to be constructive?
You know, you act like I started this conversation. Uh uh. No way. I didn't start it, but I'm damned sure doing my part to finish it.
Before I started speaking truthfully about what I thought of these asshats and their delusions, I'd spent years having them tell me I'm a whore who deserves whatever bad things happen to me, and I'm going to burn baby burn. And for what? For saying, "No, I don't believe." That's it. Not for saying, "You're a bunch of deluded morons." Just, "No, I don't believe."
I have fucking had it with these people, and no, the moderates don't get a break. Their pusillanimity and their mewling "don't rock the boat" urgings at the atheists side while saying nothing to their raving lunatics are giving the extremists cover. The moderates are just as bad as the extremists, because they are not speaking up and they're not reining in the nuts. They're just sitting there picking their noses while atheists get reamed.
If theists want respect, the moderates need to marginalize their loonies, rather than letting the mouth-foaming marginalize atheists. Then they need to give some respect for a change--and give generously.
Would it help them to consider your atheism as a valid point of view worthy of being brought to the table?
Would you consider it helpful to consider their deluded fucktardery worthy of being brought to the table when they make it clear with their smug presumptuousness in forcing their delusion on me that they don't give a shit what I think--it doesn't matter, only what they think matters? They demonstrate it in every conceivable way, but mostly in trying to demonize us to silence us.
I'm done being nice to them. It doesn't work. Show me where it's helped us to be nice. Atheists have been scolded into doing that since Reagan, and now our country is fighting for its hold on reality. The side of reason is in big trouble now, in case you haven't noticed.
Respect is a two-way street, and I see no more use in giving respect to people who will not return it, who have not earned it, and ultimate do not deserve it.
Posted by: Aquaria | March 1, 2010 8:36 PM
My five-year-old son was on a church school bus trip to the Bahai Temple in Wilmette, IL. Someone mentioned Smurfs and his teacher told them that Smurfs were satanic because they were blue and only dead things are blue. James looked at her and said, "That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard."
After that our family would make spooky noises and laugh whenever Smurfs appeared, especially if his teacher was around.
There is nothing too stupid or too untruthful to be said by a religious nut.
Posted by: wrpd | March 1, 2010 8:50 PM
Dammit--I never remember the -ly on ultimate ly. Unless I really think about it. U l t i m a t e l y.
Adverbs and I have a tough time getting along.
Posted by: Aquaria | March 1, 2010 9:00 PM
Abby@21, brilliant analysis.
Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | March 1, 2010 9:23 PM
I don't know you hardly at all Aquaria. But reading this really reminds me about myself 16 years ago when I was a teenager, feeling trapped inside my fundamentalist extended family. I remember that intense anger and frustration I felt whenever my thoughts and opinions were summarily dismissed... being accused of being "book smart", or "too smart for my own good", as if intelligence was a bad thing that I should be ashamed of.
Sometimes I feel so lucky that I've been able to leave that small town I grew up in FAR behind. But I still have regrets. Out of my 40 or so first cousins, not to mention my nieces and nephews, there are several that I still care about and want to help. By almost all measures, I'm by far the most successful, and yet I'm still alienated by my fundamentalist relatives because I clearly (and unashamedly) reject their dogma.
But I wish I could do something to help some of them. My older brother's daughter... I wish I could have more of an influence on her future... make sure she can get a proper education, or at least knowing that she isn't 'backslidden' and hellbound if she dares to wear pants (as opposed to only long dresses) or cuts her hair shorter than her shoulders.
So for me, I don't give a rats ass about venting by pissing off religious people. I don't care about making the world a better place by ending superstitious dogma like religion. No, I'd be satisfied if I could help a few others from my family escape like I did. To do this, I can not openly dispute my fundie aunts and uncles... just the physical distance between me and my hometown means that if they wanted, they could easily influence my niece to hate me forever for not believing the things they do.
So since I'm stuck in my personal problems, caused by perhaps caring too much about family members who I can't easily influence, this is why I see things differently from you. I know that the best way I can support these extended family members of mine right now is just by being a good role model for them, while at the same time unashamedly being a non-believer.
Absolutely... being so forward and saying the kinds of things that you apparently say to your family would be extremely counterproductive to my personal goals for mine.
But hey... I hope you have a circle of friends who support you now and in the future. I personally think your anger is probably a bit unhealthy for you Aquaria...
Cheers! :)
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 1, 2010 9:25 PM
I am a graduate of Williams College - a proud alumnus who believes completely in the superiority of the education provided by, and the educational environment fostered at, that fine institution. U.S. News & World Report keeps ranking it at the top of their "Best Colleges" issue, so my beliefs have some basis in fact.
Anyone who knows Williams' history will know that in 1821 the traitorous college president, Zephaniah Swift Moore, absconded with 1/3 the senior class and most of the library to found Amherst College, a pathetic and far inferior copy of the school Moore was certain would fail.
So imagine my surprise to learn that not only has President Obama actually met with Amherst graduates, but even appointed some of them to his administration! How can this administration ignore my belief that these people are unfit for office and actually judge them based on their qualifications? How can they allow the majesty of the White House to be sullied by "those people"? Clearly Obama and his entire government are anti-Williams, and I, for one, am demanding impeachment.
There, now doesn't that sound much saner?
Posted by: CPT_Doom | March 1, 2010 10:16 PM
Wow, if said teacher saw Avatar she must've had an aneurysm.
Posted by: Gretchen | March 1, 2010 10:28 PM
Nedd said, "... to sit down with activists representing some of the most hate-filled, anti-religious groups in the nation."
Well, I must admit that Nedd is right. I do hate everything he stands for and I am completely and proudly anti-religious.
The violent reactions of mainstream religious groups to the White House daring to talk to representatives of the rational citizens of this country points out an obvious fact.
There is no reason to try to "build bridges" to these meme infected bigots. The people that attack Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others of the so called New Atheist movement for not striking a more conciliatory tone should take a good look at the remarks of Council and the repugnant Bill Donahue.
Instead we non-theists must work to ensure that the courts and legislatures of this country are compelled to uphold our rights to reject religion and to live our lives free of the illegitimate restraints that these cretins would impose upon us.
Posted by: Lance | March 1, 2010 10:35 PM
Please don't tell me that your son attends a public school on the North Shore.
Posted by: Dr X | March 1, 2010 10:36 PM
Kids like James are the ones that make me want to procreate some day (in the distant future, of course--I'm only 25).
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 1, 2010 10:41 PM
I'm gonna side with Aquaria, at least in terms of being apologetic to religious dickheads who think that they are somehow superior because of their invisible friendship.
I don't go out of my way to offend people, but when someone says I should ask for GOD's help on something, I tell them I gave up on all of that shit a long time ago, and that I am happily atheist. The intelligent among that sort of group don't push it. The world is of course populated by an amazingly large number of idiots, so words are sometimes spoken that are hurtful. My bad, fuck it.
Posted by: democommie | March 1, 2010 11:14 PM
"... some of the most hate-filled, anti-religious groups in the nation."
And here I thought Obama was meeting with godless people, not with religious groups (since the religious groups happen to be the most hate-filled anti-religious groups in the nation). Nedd's got squirrel food in his hedd.
Posted by: MadScientist | March 2, 2010 12:02 AM
What?! The Smurfs aren't Satanic. They're communist propaganda. The Smurf village is a prefect representation of the communist ideal. Each Smurf contributes according to his ability and everyone shares equally in the fruits of their labor. Why they're even named for their particular roll, defined by what they contribute to the collective.
Pray tell who is the hero of the smurfs, the one the others turned to when something really needed to be done? Why it's Handy Smurf, the laborer, the proletarian, that's who. And do you really think it's a coincidence that their leader dresses in red?
Perhaps the most telling evidence is found by looking at their enemy, Gargamel, the morally bankrupt capitalist who sought to capture the smurfs and turn them into gold. His only concern was for profit and he was willing to do anything to get it. This is a blatantly anti-American message and it shouldn't be on television.
This little rant, as best as I can recreate it, is courtesy of one of my middle school teachers. I'm still not sure if she was kidding or not.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 2, 2010 12:21 AM
James will be 33 on Friday. He is a very intelligent, funny guy. The teacher never goes to movies unless they have "Jesus" in the title.
I'm gay and my sons have always known that. Once while we were driving somewhere when James was 8 he said, "You know, Dad, most guys your age would have loved to be the Fifth Beatle but my Dad wanted to be the Fourth Supreme." I told him to stay out of my closet.
We lived north of the real North Shore.
Posted by: wrpd | March 2, 2010 1:20 AM
My roommate wishes to point out that the Smurfs are clearly Chinese communists - there's only one woman.
Posted by: Mithrandir | March 2, 2010 1:58 AM
@Owen #2:
I'm pretty certain that in many places in the US, it's still illegal for atheists to hold a position of leadership -- because the faithless are inherently amoral*.
*According to the law. Being faithless, myself, I don't agree with this position, for obvious reasons.
Posted by: Makyui | March 2, 2010 2:17 AM
Aquaria,
Your rant is consonant with your limited education. I do not expect any respect from you (nor do I desire it) since I do not grant you any respect for your vapid atheism. Just don't be surprised when you get stomped for your belligerence.
Posted by: Milesius | March 2, 2010 2:41 AM
Referring to the pseudoscientific concept of memes is a sure sign of a pretentious moron.
Dawkins is a worthless pos, as are his brain dead encomiasts.
Posted by: Milesius | March 2, 2010 2:55 AM
It's true, though: From the outside perspective, religion looks crazy. A lot crazy. Really, really a lot. Should I spare your feelings by not telling you this, or do I show you more respect by being honest with you?
But, again, it's the ideas that are crazy, not you. Most people are religious, after all, and I don't think that most people are crazy -- they just have some crazy ideas. The problem is that believers tend to see their beliefs as an identity rather than an ideology, and thus, an attack on the beliefs is seen as an attack on the person. It's not. You may not be able to change your identity, but you can always change your ideas. I did.
I was serious in #20, BTW -- if you look at your average Sarah-Palin-loving tea-partying death-panel-fearing birther, by far the craziest thing they believe in is their perfectly ordinary Christianity. Centuries of adherence to Christianity by countless millions, and of Christian dominance of mainstream thought, don't change that one bit. They only make it seem acceptable to believe in madness.
Posted by: Nemo | March 2, 2010 3:13 AM
@Nemo #55:
Pretty much.
Many religious people claim a personal relationship with the deity of their choice, with physical or mental experiences that go with it. Some will sacrifice their lives -- sometimes literally -- for this. To most people, this is considered noble and admirable; at the least, it's tolerated.
If I talked about my personal relationship with Santa Claus, however, no one except young children would take me seriously. If I martyred myself in the name of the Tooth Fairy, people would think I was crazy.
Really, the only difference between them is that the former is accepted, if not encouraged, by a good percentage of the population.
On the other hand, if I then claimed that "Santa Claus" was just the name I chose to call my god, I'd be moved right back into the "tolerable" group.
Posted by: Makyui | March 2, 2010 3:45 AM
Aquaria:
Milesius "Aquaria, Your rant is consonant with your limited education. I do not expect any respect from you (nor do I desire it) since I do not grant you any respect for your vapid atheism. Just don't be surprised when you get stomped for your belligerence."
Now, I'm not big on cursing, but Milesius your posts here have shown a consistent level of douchitude that, even on my worst days, I couldn't possibly hope to achieve. I have, as far as I'm aware, thus far held my tongue (thank God). Generally, I try to be polite. Today I make an exception. Fuck off.
If there's a drug that promotes unreligion, you're it. In handy douche form, too.
Keep up the fine work. I'm no expert in theology, but if a Christian can be identified by his "fruits of the Holy Spirit", you, sir, are no Christian.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 2, 2010 3:50 AM
Modus,
Milesius is a douche, but Aquaria pretends that being an atheists grants her/him/it special status in the world to have all others marvel at his/her/its ... uh, what? vast intellect? edgy truthiness?
When Aquarius writes:
...I agree, and will give him/her/it no more respect, because he/she/it has proven to ultimately not deserve it.
And this breaks all the irony meters:
Reason has a "side"? What kind of anthropmorphic bullshite is that? What rational person would claim that reason has a "side"?
Aquaria: How is the "side" of reason in big trouble now (or ever), because I have not noticed reason being in trouble, little or big, at all. Please enlighten us.
Posted by: 10,000li | March 2, 2010 6:00 AM
Modusoperandi:
I can't bear to think of Mildewsius as a "douche". He's more like an enema. He STILL hasn't gotten around to providing the samples of his peer reviewed "writing" that he blathered about several months ago. I thik perhaps that is because his scanner cannot do justice to the vivid colors of his crayonish manifestos.
10Kli:
I see that you are still trying to make the most inane and generally irritating remark on a thread. Too bad for you that the previously mentioned enemabag, Mildewsius, is competing for that honor AND winning easily.
Posted by: democommie | March 2, 2010 6:23 AM
democommie,
Again, you come up with these interpretations that have nothing to do with reality.
What's inane and irritating is self-styled "militant"* atheists such as Aquaria who pretend that rejecting religious myths puts them into a down-trodden caste that needs special rights, while at the same time believing they need to show the theists "who's boss" and slap them around.
Neither of those ideas has anything to do with atheism at all. One is passive-agressiveness, and the other is just dick-wagging.
*The whole "moderate vs militant" atheist thing is just so funny!
The "moderate" atheist proclaims, "I don't believe in god."
The "militant" atheist proclaims, "I REALLY don't believe in god! So there!"
Posted by: 10,000li | March 2, 2010 6:40 AM
Well, that depends on your definition for "trouble". Would reason cease to exist of no-one was left who exercised it? Would this be troublesome?
If both your answers to these questions are no, then I guess you are right in claiming that reason is not in trouble. Even if the fundies achieve final victory and all semblance of rational thought is eradicated from the face of the Earth, I guess reason, as an abstract concept, will continue to exist, even of no-one knows about it any more.
This doesn't bring me much comfort though.
Posted by: valhar2000 | March 2, 2010 7:02 AM
10,000li wrote:
What special rights are these that atheists keep claiming? I hear about them all the time, but no-one ever explains what they are!
Posted by: Valhar2000 | March 2, 2010 7:04 AM
Pity somebody didn't ask Ray Mummert to comment on this dastardly act. Wonder what pearls of wisdom he would have enlightened us with.
Posted by: wobert | March 2, 2010 7:06 AM
Someone on Dispatches actually trotted out the "special rights" mantra. That's hysterical.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 2, 2010 7:08 AM
What if the "militant atheist" says this in answer to people who claim that they really do believe in god, but are claiming not to in order to live lives of unbridled hedonism? Or that they really do have a god-shaped hole in them that they can only fill with Faith, and can never succeed in filling with drugs sex and alcohol (whether or not they do any of those things in the first place)? Would it be unreasonable to use those words to deny such an obvious falsehood?
Posted by: Valhar2000 | March 2, 2010 7:10 AM
How low will Christians sink? Well, they kicked the Orthodox out of the Communion for preferring pictures to statues, time passed notwithstanding, that should tell you how petty their "faith" can be. I mean, one graven image is as good as another, right?
When it comes down to it, religions are businesses, in so much as they win money by either convincing people that they are right and that being wrong on this issue results in an eternity of torment without reprieve, or that their faith is an integral part of a specific cultural identity. As anyone who has watched commercials for a few years can tell you, businesses will lie through their teeth to get you to buy their product if law doesn't prevent them from it; and while competitors will usually play pretty rough with each other, their real animus is saved for those who argue their product is unnecessary or dangerous. Look at how viciously the recording industry has fought against its slow but inevitable obsolescence, or how much money the auto industry has spent over the years tarring Nader, or how desperate doctors and insurers have been to convince us that state regulated or run health care is like some bad dystopian sci-fi flick for the last year. Atheists, just by existing, prove most of the more vociferous purveyors of religion, who argue that god is Obvious and Undeniable, to be the charlatans they are. One can expect their native perfidity to only increase before such a challenge.
Posted by: Julian | March 2, 2010 8:07 AM
Milesius rants,
Because that's what a True Christian™ is ultimately conditioned to do, terrorize people into conformity with the threat of physical harm. I guess like father like son holds even if the father is an imaginary construct and a bad role model to boot.
Posted by: Doug Little | March 2, 2010 9:04 AM
Why are we debating about atheists when the real issue has already been raised on this thread: The Smurfs are of Satan. It's undeniably true, as the little communists are most definitely blue, just like Duke basketball. They never go to church (I've never even seen a church in Smurfville, wherever in Belgium that might be) and as there is only one female they're all homosexuals (not that there's anything wrong with that...).
Atheists are just as religious as real Americans, only they worship Karl Marx, Darwin, and Papa Smurf. They say we're irrational when they buy up the supply of Strawberry Shortcake and My Little Pony.
Posted by: kehrsam | March 2, 2010 9:11 AM
Actually, they all have sex with her, which means they are gang-bangers. That's right! Smurfs are a covert conspiracy to introduce our children to pornography! Won't somebody please think of the children!
We will now play some clips showing gang-bangs for you, fellow church-goers, so that you may see for yourself what horrors these Smurfs are foisting upon us. Towels are available under your seats, so that you may wipe the cold sweat form your foreheads.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | March 2, 2010 9:37 AM
The Smurfs are the Klan. White pointy hats, leader in a red pointy hat, leader can do magic (A grand wizard), and their enemy is a black-clad, hook-nosed greedy guy.
Posted by: Salmo | March 2, 2010 9:59 AM
10Kli:
You arrived at this:
"democommie,
Again, you come up with these interpretations that have nothing to do with reality.
What's inane and irritating is self-styled "militant"* atheists such as Aquaria who pretend that rejecting religious myths puts them into a down-trodden caste that needs special rights, while at the same time believing they need to show the theists "who's boss" and slap them around."
based on what, exactly.
I've read Aquaria's comments and I just have to say that you're reading his mind, 'cuz his comments don't plead that he is a member of a "down-trodden caste that needs special rights". That criticism can certainly be fairly leveled at fuckbags like Bill Donahue who whines like a child deprived of his favorite toy.
Posted by: democommie | March 2, 2010 10:56 AM
Speaking of evil 80's toys, I recently stumbled upon some artwork by Tom Kyzivat. He reimagines my childhood toys in post-apocalyptic world, where Strawberry Shortcake leads a rebellion against the warlord Brainy Smurf. I think Rainbow Bright is my favorite. She’s got that mix of sexy and homicidal insanity that I just can’t resist.
...I think I just realized why my relationships never work out in the long run.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 2, 2010 11:33 AM
I'm curious: what is it that makes it pseudoscientific? The lack of a precise definition? If so, wouldn't that make "species" pseudoscientific as well, seeing as it is notoriously hard to rigorously define?
Also, I seem to recall that this Dawkins person is a respected professor of biology and the author of many well-received (by the scientific community) science books for the lay reader. What's so great about you that you can dismiss someone with such accomplishments as a "worthless pos."
I've also noticed that among Dawkins' fans -- his "encomiasts," I suppose, are many other respected professors of biology, physics, chemistry, philosophy, etc. Again, what makes you so special as to be able to immediately dismiss all these people as "worthless pos" (plural)?
Posted by: Dan L. | March 2, 2010 1:10 PM
Dan L.:
Actually, Herr DoKKKtor Professor Miniscrotum's comment about Dawkins in only reflective of his chronic Voxdayism. Like Mr. Day he suffers from an acutely enlarged ego.
Posted by: democommie | March 2, 2010 1:14 PM
Doug Little-Brain wrote:
I was not threatening physical harm, dim bulb. You must have dropped out of primary school before your class reached the unit on figurative language.
Posted by: Milesius | March 2, 2010 2:35 PM
You're right, 10,000li. Demanding to be recognized as human beings and full citizens are "special rights" that we atheists and secularists don't have, and to fight for them makes us whiny attention-seekers. Way to call it like it is.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 2, 2010 2:53 PM
democommie,
1. I don't owe you a CV.
2. You read like someone who jammed a screwdriver in his frontal lobe (and left it there) and you look like a old crackhead who just received his first shower in months. In neither case are you in a position to apprehend the contents of the papers I coauthored.
Posted by: Milesius | March 2, 2010 3:32 PM
Milesus redux-
Cheers for that enlightening post, now go away and play with your nice toys, adults want to talk now. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | March 2, 2010 3:43 PM
stamp or stomp
Posted by: Doug Little | March 2, 2010 6:30 PM
stamp or stomp
Posted by: Doug Little | March 2, 2010 6:34 PM
Like most self-described geniuses, Millipiss is long on talk and short on walk.
You can come over to my blog anytime, asshole, I always need a few more fuckheads to laugh at.
Posted by: democommie | March 2, 2010 11:29 PM
Your rant is consonant with your limited education. I do not expect any respect from you (nor do I desire it) since I do not grant you any respect for your vapid atheism. Just don't be surprised when you get stomped for your belligerence.
You have no idea what it's like to be in my shoes. You have no FUCKING idea what I've endured as an atheist.
Don't you dare presume to know a fucking thing about it, or to know me at all.
Typical; fucking Xian, making assertions without evidence.
But that's how it always is with you lot.
Posted by: Aquaria | March 3, 2010 12:06 AM
hope you have a circle of friends who support you now and in the future. I personally think your anger is probably a bit unhealthy for you Aquaria.
How condescending can you be?
You know, this is exactly the kind of bs that the fundies throw at people like me all the time. They confuse speaking forcefully with anger. When it's speaking forcefully, and nothing more. What matters isn't how something's said, anyway, but whether or not it's true or valid. That's what tone trolls just don't get.
Think of what I say in a forum like this as the kind of thing you hear in a locker room, or at a bar or around friends. I'm the passionate, intense, opinionated one. I come across strong to people who don't know me (as you so amply illustrate), because people aren't used to dealing with someone like that very often.
So please, spare me your condescending concern about the people in my life, like I couldn't possibly have family or friends. And please improve your reading comprehension, since I did say that my friends appreciate my candor. As for my family, well, I don't think they deserve any special privileges,and they'd be the first to agree with that--and apply the same to me! It's presumptuous of you to think that I'm an anomaly among them. It never occurred to you that I come from an entire family of brutally honest people, did it?
Just because some families are a bunch of hypersensitive, uptight, crybaby pearl-clutchers doesn't mean everyone's is.
Posted by: Aquaria | March 3, 2010 1:20 AM
Ever notice that the people who make the intelligence of someone an argument, rather than actually addressing his points, are the very ones who are the biggest fucking morons?
Posted by: Aquaria | March 3, 2010 1:24 AM
Doctorgoo Wrote:
Aquaria: Fuck! 2+2=4!
Doctorgoo: Hey, you swore! Therefore 2+2≠4!
Aquaria wrote:
Yes, it is the norm.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | March 3, 2010 4:16 AM
Norm!*
* Note to self: get some newer references.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 3, 2010 6:01 AM
"My five-year-old son was on a church school bus trip to the Bahai Temple in Wilmette, IL. Someone mentioned Smurfs and his teacher told them that Smurfs were satanic because they were blue and only dead things are blue. James looked at her and said, "That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard."
Bravo for James!
This may be putting too fine a point on it, but what the hell. Here are a few of the many blue living things of which that teacher should be aware: [bluebirds, blue jays, indigo buntings, the morpho adonis butterfly, and of course Blue Man Group]
Posted by: Chris Winter | March 3, 2010 5:13 PM