My SciBling Matthew Nisbet says no. I think he really means it, since he put the title of his post in all caps.
Matthew writes:
One of the common claims that has been amplified by the Dawkins/Hitchens PR campaign is that “atheism is a civil rights issue.” (For an example, see the comments section of this recent post.)This false spin serves as a very effective frame device for radicalizing a base of atheists into an ever more militant &dquo;us versus them” rhetoric, an interpretation that is used to justify sophomoric and polarizing attacks on religious Americans.
Indeed, “atheism is a civil rights issue” is a familiar catchphrase that comes up in the feeding frenzy of complaints and insults that typify the echo chamber of the Atheist Net Roots, including several of the sites here at Scienceblogs.com.
See the original for links.
Matthew goes on to link to this column from Free Inquiry, in which writers D.J. Grothe and Austin Dacey argue for a No answer to the question in the title of this post.
There is much to reply to here. Nisbett has a lot of nerve putting “atheism is a civil rights issue,” in quotes and then describing it as a catchphrase used by members of some ill-defined Atheist Net Roots. None of the links Nisbett provides show atheists saying any such thing.
Instead, in both Nisbett's post and the Grothe/Dacey essay, the objection seems to be to atheists comparing the struggle for social acceptance of their views to the civil rights struggles of women, blacks and homosexuals. This is a far different issue. The only argument against this comparison seems to be that the level of oppression and discrimination faced by those groups was far greater than what atheists face today.
This is true, denied by nobody, and is totally irrelevant to the point of the comparison. The question isn't whether there are groups in American society who have greater reason than atheists to feel aggrieved. The issue is simply whether atheists have anything to learn from the struggles for acceptance of those other groups. The answer, it seems to me, is an obvious yes. In each of those cases a despised minority was able, over a period of many years, to attain a position in society of far greater visibility and equality. Atheists also face a situation where open hostility towards them is considered acceptable, and in many parts of the country face outright bigotry when their views become known. Of course atheists have something to learn from the civil rights struggles in the past.
When you actually examine the tactics used by those movements, you find that they did not follow the path recommended to atheists by people like Matthew. He aims his ire at Dawkins and Hitchens for their sophomoric and polarizing criticisms of religion, and for fomenting a militant us vs. them mentality among theri supporters. In a comment to his post he writes:
On occasion, atheists are discriminated against because they have a public image problem, and the Dawkins/Hitchens' PR campaign, by radicalizing a movement of attacks and complaints, only makes this public image problem worse, generating more discrimination.Which also gets at a point I made in an earlier post this week: Instead of mobilizing a movement of sophomoric attacks and complaints that paints as black all religious Americans, atheists need to focus on offering a positive vision of what it means to live life without religion; both in the popular entertainment media but also as leaders who span divides in our communities, (instead of just generating further polarization.)
This is so foolish and poorly reasoned it's hard to know where to begin. Let us begin with the observation that “us vs. them” is, regrettably, an accurate characterization of the facts. The “them” in this case is not all religious people. It is, instead, the distressingly large percentage of religious people who are openly contemptuous of atheism, who have no problem with chipping away at the separation of church and state, who endorse balancing evolution with ID or creationism in public schools, who would have their own blinkered view of morality imposed on scientific research or on people's personal sexual habits, and who generally believe that their religious views have some relevance in setting public policy. You will not win these people over by talking about the beatuies of atheism or by being polite in your writing. And they are not some small minority you can work around by appealing to the reason and good will of people on the fence. They are people to whom you must raise your voice, to make it clear to them they will not have thigns their own way.
One of Matthew's commenters pointed out to him that it is very easy to dismiss the troubles atheists face when you live in Washington D.C. I suspect most of the religious people Matthew encounters come from the reasonable wing of theistic belief. I spent most of my formative years on the East Coast, and during that time I tended to make the same arguments Matthew makes here. But I have also lived in places like Pocatello, Idaho and Manhattan, Kansas, and my views on this matter are no longer so conciliatory.
Moving on, we should note that Dawkins and Hitchens have merely written books presenting their views, and have spoken publicly about those books. There is nothing even slightly militant about any of this. There are no calls for violence, no calls for the government to step in and do anything, and no suggestion that any weapon other than reason be employed in the fight against religion and superstition.
But this is still too much for Matthew. In his world vigorous criticism of religion only contributes to the public image problem faced by atheists. The problem with this argument is that the writings of “the New Atheists” are, as the phrase suggests, new. The state of affairs in which atheists are a despised minority, in which it is effectively impossible for a known atheist to be elected to public office, and in which open bigotry towards them is societally acceptable is the one that existed before they arrived on the scene. In other words, it was during all those years when atheists were playing nicey nice that their marginaliztion reached epidemic proportions.
Atheists don't face a public image problem because of the books of Dawkins and Hitchens. They face a public image problem because of the bigotry and ignorance of so many religious people. Not all religious people, certainly, as the strawman version of their arguments would have you believe. But a much higher percentage than people like Matthew care to admit. You do not break through such bigotry by polite discussion. You break through it by being loud and vigorous. That's one of the lessons you learn from the civil rights struggles of the past. Social progress is not made when the downtrodden ask politely for their just due. That women, blacks and gays faced greater oppression than what atheists face today does not alter that fact.
Matthew's comment that such discrimination as exists against atheists is caused in part by the writings of Dawkins and Hitchens is nothing more than plain, vanilla blaming the victim. (And it's unsubstantiated to boot). It is an old cliche that gets trotted out every time a minority group starts getting a bit too vocal. The argument conjures up preposterous images of large numbers of non-bigots going over to the dark side when the victims of discrimination start rhetorically attcking the bigots. It is to laugh.
So if Dawkins, Hitchens and the others do not hurt the cause, do they actually help? I believe they do. It is a tiny percentage of the population that will ever make direct contact either with the writing or the public presentations of these people. Instead, their ideas enter the public consciousness when other media outlets start covering the success of their books. In the last few years virtually every major magazine, newspaper and television news show has done segments discussing the resurgence of atheism. You can't tell me this publicity is a bad thing. You can't mainstream an idea by never talking about it.
Imagine a child raised in a fundamentalist community walking into a bookstore and seeing books by Dawkins or Hitchens. Or hearing atheism discussed on television. Do you think his reaction will be a sober consideration of their arguments, a finding that they are too snide, and a resolution to hate atheists all the more? Or will his reaction be an awareness that there are more opinions on these subjects than he has been led to believe? It is precisely this sort of casual exposure to non-Christian ideas that fundamentalists fear, and they are right to be afraid of it.
There is, of course, much more to say, but we'll save that for future posts. This one has gone on long enough.
Comments
Nisbet is apparently trying to be the next incarnation of The Chris Machine. Maybe he'll start talking about how we're all a bunch of whiney "white, male, middle-class ex-protestants".
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | June 28, 2007 10:23 PM
It is not only a CIVIL Rights issue. It is a HUMAN rights issue. When wil we be free to live without the oppression of religion.
I ride the ferry to work. It is full of people who hate going to work, or who are tired and coming home from work, and don't want to be bothered.
We are the target of various self-styled preachers who walk amoung us and yell at us about god and sin and salvation. Some days they are represented by a crack addict who swiftly moves around the boat talking about "christ's blood" in a low voice. He is not so bad.
The others are very annoying. Generally I start talking about how I was suprised "they" let "him" out of jail after he did "that" to that "boy" and so on.
Lately I think I should walk behind them preaching: "This man is a liar! There is no sin! You are not condemmed to suffer. You must make your own choices in life. This man is a LIAR!"
what do you think I should do?
Posted by: Kevin | June 28, 2007 11:34 PM
[...]I have also lived in places like Pocatello, Idaho[...]
Oh, I'm sorry - are you okay?
Posted by: SMC | June 29, 2007 12:09 AM
For fark sake, Kevin, man up and start acting like an adult. If you consider what you describe as being oppression you (a) have lived a very sheltered life, and (b) have no sense of history regarding human rights issues.
Posted by: John Lynch | June 29, 2007 12:10 AM
Thank you! I was hoping one the scibloggers would put something up to counterpoint Nisbet's, in my opinion, disgusting and offensive post. The idea that atheists are to blame for the bigotry against atheists is appaling. I think Nisbet's feeling come through in his responses to comments "On occasion, atheists are discriminated against because they have a public image problem." and "there is no such thing as "atheist bashing." If there were cases of such harm, one would expect to hear about them in the media and the courts, or at least in the common knowledge of unbelievers." Well, Paula Zahn had a recent CNN segment on this very issue (poorly done I admit but done nonetheless). Also, look up any prayer in school, teacher preaching to students, "under god" law suits, I think these all count as court cases. As far as PR goes, personally I find Hitchens offensive in the interview format, I do not think he is articulate or particularly impressive (although I havent read his book, which is likely much better). However, the fact that Dawkins questions religion shouldn't be an issue. He is clearly not militant, and in his book he clearly points out in the introduction that the topics may be offensive to certain people. Personally, I thought Dawkins, while critical was not demeaning or particularly offensive. I guess Nisbet and his ilk believe we should meet in secret, talk quietly amongst ourselves, and deferentially avoid eye contact whenever someone walks by with a cross around their neck. I cant help but wonder if Nisbet is looking to get some regular air time on the No Spin Zone or Hannity and Colmes.
Of course now we get "false frames" as a topic of conversation, which ties in nicely with Nisbet's and Mooney's vacuous framing science discussion. If you don't like the frame brought up, call it a false frame and discount it. Similar to the Republican use of "junk science."
Posted by: wafer | June 29, 2007 12:29 AM
Sorry I missed this earlier. Its the flip side of the original Grothe Dacey article, in the same journal albeit 2 issues later. Surprised Nisbet didnt note this in his original post.
Posted by: wafer | June 29, 2007 12:51 AM
I'm glad I wasn't the only one. Nice post Jason. I can't wait to see PZ tomorrow, his head is going to explode.
It was my comment Matt was responding to in your quote of him above. I still stare dumbfounded at it. It is so histrionic it leaps off the page. It had everything but "fundametalist atheist". "Movement of complaints"?!?! It's kinda sorta the things worth complaining about that, you know, get movements started! And never mind what it is that has them complaining in the first place. They are just those uppity nig...um...atheists.
Posted by: Science Avenger | June 29, 2007 12:55 AM
I have to strongly disagree with Jason here. Matthew Nisbet has made an important point that seem to be lost amongst all the hysterical atheistic protestations that are unfortunately so common to scienceblogs.
What is the meaning of 'civil rights' ?
Civil rights are rights for civilians.
If one lives in "one nation, under God" and yet deny Him, can one really be classed a civilian at all?
Quite clearly not. Remember, if the founding fathers hadn't believed this then they wouldn't have included it in the pledge of allegiance.
Indeed the very act of denying God can reasonably be seen as sedition against the Nation as it may have the effect of encouraging others to do the same.
Lets face it, atheism means leading ones life without the firm moral basis that believing in a higher power can bring and yet, almost unbelievably, many on this site seem to think that it is somehow acceptable to allow such people work as teachers of young impressionable children or other such posts of responsibility. Quite frankly this sort of attitude has led to the sorry state of the country today with the soaring levels of teenage pregnancy, divorce rates and murders.
Do the atheists want this country to end up like Godless Sweden? Sadly I almost suspect they do.
Just remember that someone gave his life for us two thousand years ago, I'm just glad that Matt Nisbet is standing up for him now.
;)
(OK, that was a joke but its not too far from the truth as believed by many)
Posted by: MartinC | June 29, 2007 5:26 AM
Kevin,
Give me a break. Apart from anecdotally, a resort to which any group (including Christians) can turn, atheists are not oppressed. Not even close. They are not systematically discriminated against in statutes, housing, jobs, medical benefits, etc. The fact that you have to put up with proselytizing cannot even be compared in the same breath with anyone who is truly oppressed. I get proselytized by the Mormons and the JWs--I find their admonitions just as wrong as you find an evangelical Christian's message--but it's simply (and obviously to anyone without a victimhood complex) a modest price for living in a free society.
Nobody is stopping you from doing that. That's the point.
I can understand how atheists see the need to fight a PR battle. I've heard about the polls show that the majority of Americans distrust atheists. If true, that's unfortunate, but you don't have a constitutional right to be trusted. Calling what atheists face in this country a human rights issue is an absurdity.
Jason,
Oh brother. Do you realize that you can replace "atheists" in your quote with any of {Christians, Jews, Arabs, Wiccans, homosexuals, white men, black men, ...} and find the resulting construct in the arguments of members of those groups? Open hostility toward atheists is not acceptable. Perhaps it was at one time, but it certainly isn't today.
Geeze Louise, Jason. You are a professor at a public university in a bible belt state. You routinely and publicly make great pronouncements of your atheism and often great fun of religion. Has it affected your job? Has it or will it affect your tenure decision? How much open hostility do you actually face? Is it substantive? Because I can certainly trade anecdotal instances of hostility tit-for-tat.
There is no "chipping away" of the separation of church and state. Any reasonable person would say that, at least since the 1960s, the clear trend has been a strengthening of the separation.
Posted by: David Heddle | June 29, 2007 6:40 AM
I wrote a comment to point out that Matt failed to link to Eddie Tabash's response:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/tabash_24_4.htm
I actually agree more with Grothe and Dacey (yes, there were two authors), but when I wrote about the issue I made sure I linked to and quoted both sides:
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/073451.htm
For some strange reason, my comment was never approved to appear there. I wonder why?
Posted by: Austin Cline | June 29, 2007 6:44 AM
To judge by what John Lynch and David Heddle have said here one could be forgiven for thinking that do not regard religious freedom as a right. The idea that it is ok to discriminate against someone for their religious belief, or lack thereof is not acceptable in any society that wishes to be considered civilised and enlightened. Now I do not for one minute think either David or John think such discrimination is acceptable which leaves me puzzled as to why they are saying things that suggest it is.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 29, 2007 7:22 AM
It is obvious that the separation of church and state has been widening since the 1960s. Reagan's year of the Bible, Bush's faith-based initiatives, the introduction of Creationism to public schools, all point to the widening of this constitutional chasm.
Talk about delusions of persecution. Look at all the atheist politicians that the electorate is perfectly willing to treat with an open mind. The vast majority of people are perfectly willing to elect officials based on the appeal of their relevant stances on the issues, uninfluenced by their religious affiliations, or lack thereof. If people are willing to elect people who are openly atheists as leaders, that strongly suggests Dawkins et al are wolf-cryers.
Despite the above, for purposes of argument, let's say that less than half of Americans were willing to elect well-qualified atheists, that is, say there were clear evidence of discrimination. Would that really justify making an analogy with civil rights, no matter how loose that analogy? Come on, I just don't see the connection between discrimination and civil rights.
Posted by: Eric Thomson | June 29, 2007 7:55 AM
Eric Thomson:
The link you provide points to a Gallup poll which says that 53% of those polled would not vote for an atheist. It's the worst of all the liabilities on the list.
???
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 29, 2007 8:08 AM
Nisbet:
As Jason pointed out, the "paint[ing] as black all religious Americans" part is a straw man. However, one should go farther and note that atheists have been "offering a positive vision of what it means to live life without religion." The last chapter in Victor Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis was all about it. Comparable texts have flowed from the pens of all modern nontheistic writers.
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 29, 2007 8:16 AM
I am not sure what some of those who are saying that being discriminated against for your religious view, or lack of them, are actually trying to say.
Are they saying there is no such discrimination ? Are they saying there is but it is not important ? Or that it there should not be legal protection against being denied employment, housing etc. on the basis of someone's views on religion ?
If they are saying no discrimination takes place based on a person's religious views then they would seem to be ignoring the evidence that shows people are denied employment etc because they happen to hold certain religious views.
If they are saying such discrimination takes place but is not important, or the victims of such discrimination do not deserve protection then as far as I am concerned they are as bad as the bigots doing the discriminating.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 29, 2007 8:28 AM
wafer:
Took the words right out of my keyboard.
Does everybody remember early in the framing kerfluffle when Coturnix divided the issue into short-term and long-term strategies? "Framing," he said, could be useful in the short term, while bulking up the critical thinking standards and scientific literacy of the citizen body was necessary in the long term. OK?
Now, the thing is, issues of civil liberty are inherently long-term problems. We're talking about securing rights not just for ourselves but for our posterity. Everyone who hopes for a secular America with a well-mended wall between Church and State talks in timescales of generations. So, I can't help but conclude that concerns of "framing" have at most secondary importance.
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 29, 2007 8:31 AM
Discrimination against atheists is encouraged and supported in certain mainstream social circles. And yes, these same circles were *hostile* towards me for being Jewish.
You really have never been to Oklahoma, have you?
As far as whether atheism has effected Jasons job, are you kidding? Hes in academia at a sane university. They arent going to discriminate against him for being an atheist. Im in HIV research, no one discriminates against me because the kinds of theists who would do that dont do HIV research.
We have luxuries not provided to other professions.
I certainly hope PZ doesnt respond. To the casual observer it appears Nisbet has been whoring a bit lately.Posted by: ERV | June 29, 2007 8:55 AM
Blake, re your response to Eric Thomson - check your sarcasmometer. The needle may be stuck. ;-)
Posted by: qetzal | June 29, 2007 9:05 AM
Neither my sarcasm gauge nor my irony meter work before I get caffeine. :-(
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 29, 2007 9:07 AM
MartinC said: ...if the founding fathers hadn't believed this [in "one nation, under God"] then they wouldn't have included it in the pledge of allegiance.
They didn't. Learn your history. The "under God" phrase was added in the 50's during the Mcarthy era.
...atheism means leading ones life without the firm moral basis that believing in a higher power can bring
And yet by any metric you care to use, atheists live more moral lives than believers. When was the last time a bunch of atheists hijacked planes and killed 3,000 people?
almost unbelievably, many on this site seem to think that it is somehow acceptable to allow such people work as teachers of young impressionable children or other such posts of responsibility.
Thank Martin, for proving the point that anti-atheist bigotry is alive and well.
Quite frankly this sort of attitude has led to the sorry state of the country today with the soaring levels of teenage pregnancy, divorce rates and murders.
Perhaps you missed this study showing how the evil blue states outperform the good Christian red states on all of those factors you are concerned about. The same pattern can be seen across the world: more religion makes for more sin, not less.
Posted by: Science Avenger | June 29, 2007 9:49 AM
I FEEL oppressed therefor I AM oppressed!
The christers and god-believers constantly attack rational people and get away with it. If I did stand up and shout "you're a liar!" which I have, by the way, it is I who get stared at, and it is I who is treated as insane, NOT the frothing-mouthed lunatics who spout bible quotes and tell people they are going to burn in hell.
Do not my human rights include freedom from annoyance by blathering retards?
Posted by: Kevin | June 29, 2007 10:16 AM
Science Avenger, I will pray for your soul.
Please, Lord, won't you give the gift of recognizing a joke to your poor creation Science Avenger (and to think I thought I'd given a decent clue by including the words "that was a joke" in the actual post).
;)
Posted by: MartinC | June 29, 2007 11:05 AM
Some examples of blatant discrimination that Nisbet is unaware of:
Routine discrimination against atheists in child custody cases as researched by Eugene Volokh.
The Smalkowskis, a case of "atheist bashing" in Oklahoma
Atheist family run out of Mississippi town, CNN botches panel discussion
It is very strange that Nisbet offers his own cluelessness as evidence that such discrimination is not real, or writes it off as a "public image problem." At least he posted his title in all caps, to give us some idea of how seriously he ought to be taken.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | June 29, 2007 11:35 AM
One reason there are not a huge number of law cases backing up the claims of anti-atheist discrimination is that the ACLU deliberately chooses to represent theists in separation of church and state cases - specifically to circumvent anti-atheist discrimination.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | June 29, 2007 11:39 AM
Matt Penfold said:
"Now I do not for one minute think either David or John think such discrimination is acceptable which leaves me puzzled as to why they are saying things that suggest it is."
Both were challengeing Kevin's example given above which is not about civil rights but of enduring the exercise of others' free speech.
This raises a question I have, which atheists amoung us has experienced discrimination?
I know that my son and I have experienced some level of ostracism in our community due to my objection to having a little league team pray before games, because the minister's wife thought it cute, and because it was important to stand up for one's beliefs (my son was a self selected agnotistic/atheist at the time).
Mike
Posted by: mgr | June 29, 2007 11:51 AM
MGR,
I did not see John Lynch arguing anything of the sort. His comment was about this being a rights issue and dismissing it as such.
David put forward a more cogent argument, but one that based on a false premise, namely that in the US atheist do not face discrimination. Posters here and elsewhere have provided evidence that they do so David's argument must fail before he gets started.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 29, 2007 12:07 PM
MGR,
With regards being ostracised, I am not sure the law is suitable to deal with that but I am sure you would agree that some such situations might well lead to people being denied employment or housing. When such discrimination takes place then I see a need for laws to stop it. Denying someone employment is a civil and human rights issue.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 29, 2007 12:09 PM
This is getting really frustrating. You're the only one of the SBers that has criticized Nisbett that even comes close to actually thinking about what was said, and the people ranting about how their discrimination makes his thesis wrong miss the point. He is _grasping at_ the difference between the discriminations, as well as the fact that people are specifically making Atheism _THE_ Religious Discrimination.
"There is much to reply to here. Nisbett has a lot of nerve putting “atheism is a civil rights issue,” in quotes and then describing it as a catchphrase used by members of some ill-defined Atheist Net Roots. None of the links Nisbett provides show atheists saying any such thing."
Except that now multiple people, such as Science Avenger, and PZ, have _said_ it is explicitly. One way or the other, the belief clearly exists, so your complaint about it not existing sorta falls apart. You may have a more reasoned general 'Religious freedom is a civil rights framework' idea floating around, but you are not the entirety of the movement. To a number of people, Atheism _is_ a Civil Rights movement. Which is strange, because I thought it was a belief. Much like being a woman isn't a civil rights issue, but societal and govermental discrimination against women can be.
One thing that happens _quite_ commonly with atheists, in these threads, in fact, is that they, as they do in comments to PZ's post (and PZ's post itself), and in comments to Nisbett's post, and in comments to yours, is that they make the clear point that 'Religious people = Delusional/Crazy/Wrong/Evil.' If you believe in god, you are bad/wrong/crazy. (The God Delusion, in fact, does so.) This is in contrast to, say, feminism, which specifically says, 'It is not being male that is wrong, it is the _partiarchy_ that is wrong,' _and backs that up in the majority of their actions_. That is the difference between a valid civil rights movement, even a vocal one, which fights oppression, and a culture of divisiveness and attack, which I believe Nisbett is grasping at. Although he's not doing it very well, which is a shame, because _thinking about such things is important, even though nobody fucking does it_. Argh.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | June 29, 2007 12:10 PM
Not sure if someone else mentioned it, haven't read the comments, but...
It isn't all that far in the past, when atheists were just as badly treated as women, non-whites and gays. Paine is a grand example, even though he wasn't even an atheist. He went to prison and would have rotted there, were it not for Madison, for his non-theist writings. It isn't that long ago that people could drive an atheist fromt their town, in this country and get away with it. Violence, no problem, the godless obviously deserved it.
While atheists are a lot safer now and protected from most discrimination, they still have as much of a claim to a civil rights issue, as women, non-whites and gays.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 29, 2007 12:49 PM
"Both were challengeing Kevin's example given above which is not about civil rights but of enduring the exercise of others' free speech. "
err... looking at it again I guess it does look like an example, but I really was just asking for advice.
After the comments I begain to think that maybe it WAS a right, and so my response. After consideration I withdrawn the claim and state that I did not mean the story of the preachers to be an example of denial of human rights to aetheists.
My human rights are actually violated by the very existence of churches, clergy and religious symbols. There presence is insulting to me. Why why why must I be subject to forced interactions with these myth-pushers?!
Posted by: Kevin | June 29, 2007 12:54 PM
@Mecha
So, what Nisbet was trying to say was, "atheism isn't a civil rights issue, the discrimination of atheism is a civil rights issue"? Why didn't he just say that? Every time he writes something I understand framing less, unless framing means "saying things in the stupidest way possible" or he's just plain bad at it.
...
It seems to me like there is discrimination against atheists in America. It's widespread and sadly tolerated/encouraged. While it might not be as bad as the discrimination against others, why should that matter? That seems to be a rather feeble argument. And just because some of the discrimination is not a violation of civil rights doesn't mean that there are no civil rights violations.
The way I see it is: there is a small amount of illegal discrimination against atheists. The fact that it's relatively small doesn't mean it isn't a bad thing. And what makes it worse is the vast and legal discrimination against atheists. It's entirely legal to hate them and say nasty things about them. It's entirely legal to not vote for them because of their lack of beliefs. But with this legal discrimination in place, it is very difficult to overthrow the illegal discrimination and it's possible for the illegal stuff to get worse rather than better; and people are trying to make that happen!
So one issue is that there is a PR battle that needs to be fought. (PZ specifically admitted that it's the larger battle.) Another issue is civil rights, but it's a smaller issue (except for the unfortunate people who have to fight them) and most will readily admit that. But the existence of the first one doesn't make the second one go away.
I think another big issue (touched on by Jason) is the issue of big-city atheists telling other atheists to quit whining because there's no problem. That's just mind-bogglingly stupid.
Posted by: pough | June 29, 2007 2:19 PM
Matt Penfold:
"With regards being ostracised, I am not sure the law is suitable to deal with that but I am sure you would agree that some such situations might well lead to people being denied employment or housing. When such discrimination takes place then I see a need for laws to stop it. Denying someone employment is a civil and human rights issue."
So denial of access of any other sort is not? Ostracism, in regards to secular activities, should be understood as denial of access (e.g. along lines of separate but equal)
I'm at work, and my time is limited. Let's just say that the outcome affected my son's opportunities in sports, and in academics.
Mike
Posted by: mgr | June 29, 2007 2:21 PM
Kevin,
Oh gee, people stare at you and think you are crazy! On a scale of one to being lynched, that must be at least a 9.95!
No, they don't.And, by the way, you're not telling the truth. Nobody "constantly" attacks rational people and gets away with it. Doesn't happen.
Reginald,
Do you actually believe the black-helicopter crap you just wrote? The ACLU backs Christians when (almost every case in which they've done so) a school system goes overboard. Some teacher or principal has been misinformed and tries to restrain freedom of religious speech under the rubric of separation of church and state. The ACLU comes down against theists plenty of times when it believes they are behaving coercively. To claim the ACLU has a bias for theists is simply asinine.
No doubt true, but not discrimination. I can respond to this anecdote in kind--you must know that Christian kids at public schools also face this kind of nonsense--if they pray at lunch they are often made fun of. It's part of growing up. It's not discrimination.
Matt,
What evidence? Where is the evidence that there is systematic denial of employment, promotion, housing, healthcare, etc? Where is the evidence of pervasive physical harassment? Having people not like you and call you names is not discrimination.Posted by: David Heddle | June 29, 2007 2:33 PM
MGR,
In that case you son was a victim of discrimination and that should not be tolerated.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 29, 2007 2:41 PM
David,
I suggest you read some of the other blogs (and the comments) on ScienceBlogs. You will find examples of how atheists have been discriminated against.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 29, 2007 2:44 PM
Pough: Well, the first thing you have to do is, unlike PZ, realize that 'framing' is a _communication theory_. It's not about 'giving up' or 'not talking' or any number of things. And yes, sometimes I do wonder why things he says get across so badly. But then again, so is everybody else, so I can't really hold him to a higher standard.
For one example of the frames, over in the comments of http://scienceblogs.com/bushwells/2007/06/nisbet_suggests_atheists_can_i.php I talk about part of the problem that hovers around here: The 'Atheism = Science' confusion, as well as the 'Atheism = Good, Science = Good, Religion = Insane' concept which is UNIVERSAL around here. That is different, different, DIFFERENT from saying that 'equality is good, unequality is bad', which is what _every other equality movement that has been successful does_. People may say 'But that's not what Dawkins is saying!' But it is what some people here ARE saying. And it is not just a few isolated people.
As to the discrimination being 'real', I don't disagree with that there is anti-atheist sentiment, and that it is somewhat common, especially in more rural/less urban areas. There's a lot of semantic fighting going about over there, and I can't really go into that in extreme depth.
But using loaded phrases/concepts (which people ARE saying are true, now, so don't fall back on Jason's failed argument), like 'Atheism is a Civil Rights issue', and 'Science and Atheism = Good and Sane, Religion and 'Soft Sciences' = Bad/Insane/Etc.' (see the comment I link to) are exactly the _self formed_ PR problem that he is talking about.
I do think that the article Nisbet's linking to is ESPECIALLY dismissive of discrimination, and in bad ways, and I pointed out to him that it's not really convincing. It does very much mirror (although imperfectly) the idea that feminists need to shut up because there aren't any more 'legal' discriminations (which is completely wrong) and so I disagree with it. PZ brings out the concept that Dawkins' book isn't a political statement, and maybe that's true too, in the body.
But you know? It still sets up a frame. 'The God Delusion.' Religion = insane. There is a difference between anti-atheist sentiment (and other anti-religious-tolerance sentiments of all sorts) and saying that Atheism is a civil rights issue. And though people say they understand the difference? Nobody _acts_ like they do. And actions are a thousand times louder than words.
There's also a difference between what Nisbet is saying, and 'SHUT UP ATHEISTS', which he also doesn't make clear, because anyone who knows the basis for minority movements and other such things knows this. Most feminists, even loud ones, have found a functional way of being loud, AND not calling every man insane and stupid. "It's not the people. It's the _power structure_. Patriarchy and behavior is the problem, not specific men." "Essentialism is false: Women and Men are not inherently drastically different." Compare that to, "Atheists are rational. Religious are delusional." Compare that to saying that the 'average' preacher is delivering a screed about atheism being evil every Sunday. That is language which sets up a _false conflict_. That is a frame. A frame in which only rational scientist atheists are good, and they have to be loud and mock everyone who holds religious belief as stupid and irrational, _or else they'll destroy your right to exist/control you_.
For more on framing, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences) has a start. Atheism = Good. Rational = Good. Religion = Insane. Emotion = Bad (unless it's anger towards religious/IDers/denialists.) These are the kind of associations and frames that _dominate_ on scienceblogs. And all you have to do to see that is go back and read that post where Rob Knop said that he was lightly religious, and the posts around it. Rob being allowed to be sane/rational was _DISALLOWED_ in the atheist frame. Religion and Science/Sanity could not exist. And it's not just isolated. I can only say this and reinforce it with information so many times.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | June 29, 2007 2:57 PM
Mecha,
Believing in things for which there is no evidence is NOT rational. Now that does mean that believing in god makes a person totally irrational. It some cases it will (Kent Hovind) , in other it won't (Ken Miller). But it does mean that in at least one aspect of that person's life they accept something for which they have no evidence. I know of theists who admit that their faith is not rational and that they cannot defend it using reason or evidence. I do not understand why they continue to believe as they do, but I do acknowledge their honesty.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 29, 2007 3:19 PM
Mecha,
I hope this isn't going off on too much of a tangent, but I'm unclear on one point. You seem to be saying that Religion =/= Insanity (at least intrinsically), but how, exactly, can you claim that it is even remotely rational? If it is based on faith in matters profoundly in opposition to proved reality, that is de facto irrational. Why should anyone try to pretend otherwise?
I am NOT saying that all religions, or all religious people, are evil. That could not be farther from the truth. However, it is my opinion that they ARE all deluded, and the facts line up a lot better with my opinion than with theirs. So why should atheists cut their beliefs any slack? That just feeds the delusion, as well as the ingrained societal attitude that religious faith is above and beyond criticism (which is the position you seem to be operating under, if not promoting outright). What is it about ANY irrational belief that DESERVES respect?
This is no different from the racism/sexism/homophobia discrimination issues (except in degree) because it was (and still is) downright wrong for people to claim that women and nonwhites are inferior beings (and worse), or that homosexuals are inherently evil or sick. I do not advocate calling religion "evil," but it is nothing less than simple truth to call it factually WRONG.
Following an ideology that is factually wrong, when it has been pointed out as factually wrong innumerable times, seems as good a definition of irrationality as one needs, just as it is pounced on as such when the irrationality is held against gays, women, or nonwhites. So why, again, should atheists not call them on this?
~David D.G.
Posted by: David D.G. | June 29, 2007 3:33 PM
David H:
Apart from the, admittedly rare, instances in the news where Atheists are Beat up by Christians and coerced into LEAVING THE STATE. http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/smalko1.htm
Let's take two scenarios:
One, A white family in southern Arkansas tries to talk their Daughter out of marrying a Black man.
Two, A Christian family tries to talk their daughter out of marrying an Atheist.
Either these are both discrimination, or neither one is. You can't have it both ways. And yes, one of these things happened to me, and the other didn't. And my wife and I both have the same color skin.
Posted by: Brendan S | June 29, 2007 4:12 PM
Well, not necessarily.
Posted by: Skemono | June 29, 2007 4:14 PM
People who think government supported anti-atheist discrimination and bias can be remedied without publicly and aggressively advocating atheist belief fundamentally misunderstand how deeply government non-establishment and non-discrimination violations are rooted in popular anti-atheist stereotypes. Judges won't defend civil rights for minorities when they know that elected officials will react to responding to very vocal popular opinion against such "anti-democratic" judicial rulings by passing laws or constitutional amendments to re-enact the popular civil rights violations. The New Atheists aggressive advocacy of atheism is essential to making civil rights progress. This is an omlette that requires cracking eggs and people like Nisbett who get quesy at the site of broken eggs would do better to focus on something else.
Posted by: Explicit Atheist | June 29, 2007 4:39 PM
Defenders of the status quo must either believe that they will lose privileges or they merely fear change. It couldn't be a 'dog in the manger' attitude.
What motivates all this sniping at atheists? Are these just concern trolls, or what?
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | June 29, 2007 4:42 PM
JohnnieCanuck,
Well as best as I can make out the argument seems to go something like this.
1. Atheists do not face discrimination.
2. Even if they did they should put up with it, it is not as bad as the discrimination faced by others.
3. Even when it is bad they should up otherwise they might upset the people discriminating against them.
Now I may have missed something in Nisbet's at al argument but I don't think I have.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 29, 2007 4:50 PM
Oy. In short: You can claim that religion is irrational all you want. But then Nisbet is absolutely correct. You are creating your own PR problem by choosing to treat any person who is religious as irrational, wrong, and, if you maintain atheism = civil rights, ultimately saying that theists are out to get you and keep you down. Not the power structure. Not the government. People. People that may or may not support equality, they're all against you.
I don't care, at the moment, if you want to argue that religion is irrational or not. Such an argument is essentially semantics, and relies upon the fact that around here, only someone who is 100% rational (IE: Nobody) is good. But that belief makes Nisbet right, that atheists create a PR problem of their own devising. Not based on prejudice, but on their own insistence that if you're not with them, you're bad.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | June 29, 2007 5:04 PM
David:
You know what they do to crazy deluded people in this country, right? Lock 'em up for the good of society. IF that's the conversational frame you wish to use, then you are implying that the religious need to be locked up. I do not hold that that is what you believe. But those are the words that you are using.
Try using other ones? And you're using a different frame. And if you're interested in equality, as opposed to advancing atheism, you'd likely be well served by it.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | June 29, 2007 5:06 PM
Board the ferry wearing hard-soled shoes and a cheap crucifix concealed under your shirt. When a ferry preacher starts preaching at you, pull the crucifix out from under your shirt. The preacher should hesitate, giving you time to take the crucifix off, drop it on the floor and heel-stomp it.
Make sure you have good medical insurance.
Posted by: David Canzi | June 29, 2007 5:17 PM
Brendan,
You are right, it is rare, and I hope that anyone committing such an act is punished. But even that is not discrimination--it is garden variety bigotry.
That's easy--neither is discrimination. Parents are allowed to try to talk their kids out of marrying--for whatever reason they want. I would absolutely try to talk my kids out of marrying an atheist--because of biblical admonitions against it. This isn't hard: a law preventing an atheist from marrying is discrimination. A parent saying: "I don't want you to marry him" is not. At most it can be bigotry--and bigotry is not discrimination. BTW, since you brought it up, my wife and I don't have the same color skin. For what that's worth.Posted by: David Heddle | June 29, 2007 5:21 PM
Mecha,
Since the irrationality isn't necessarily organic, but is technically treatable by means of communication and education, I prefer the route of curing religious irrationality rather than merely locking people up for it.
And of those who steadfastly cling to their beliefs, but at least are not "a danger to themselves or others" in their practice of it, I can reasonably put up with them still being allowed on the street as well.
But for those diehards whose religious delusions DO make them dangerous to themselves and/or others, frankly, I would advocate their incarceration for treatment if I thought that there could possibly be room in the asylums and hospitals for them, which there undoubtedly is not.
Even if there were room for them, however, society at present still largely treats such madness as the norm; therefore, until such time as human society matures further, we must accept that this particular type of madness will continue to be considered socially acceptable, no matter how dangerous it is.
Would I accept equality for atheists (and proper adherence to the separation of church and state) as a compromise? Absolutely. But we need to make a point of showing how weak the theistic position is, repeatedly and often, to break down some of this societal inertia that gives religion a free pass, yet leans hard on atheism. The civil rights movements for blacks and women bear this out, and the progress in achieving civil rights for gays bears it out yet again. I see no reason to think that we should be less confrontational in obtaining social parity for atheists.
~David D.G.
Posted by: David D.G. | June 29, 2007 5:29 PM
David Heddle,
I am not sure what you consider to be discrimination but the two examples you so casually dismiss strike me as both being examples of discrimination. You seem to be avoiding the issue by redefining terms to mean what you want then to mean, and not what most people would consider then to mean.
From you comments it clear why do you no want to use the regular meaning of discrimination. You comment "I would absolutely try to talk my kids out of marrying an atheist--because of biblical admonitions against it" shows where you are coming from, and shows the type of person you are. That comment alone should make sure no one pays much heed to what you have say.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 29, 2007 5:39 PM
David Heddle,
So you don't mind admitting that you're a bigot, but you deny being discriminatory? That's absurd; bigotry and discrimiation are BOTH defined as active expressions of prejudice. Your claim that you can be a nondiscriminating bigot is like admitting to being a resident of California but denying that you live in the western United States.
Bigotry IS discrimination. You don't change one into the other magically by having a particular discriminatory view backed by law; that's just institutionalized discrimination or bigotry, but it's still the same offensive phenomenon as is practiced privately. By you, among others.
~David D.G.
Posted by: David D.G. | June 29, 2007 5:41 PM
Matt, David
If your 18 year old daughter wanted to marry a sixty year old man, I won't believe you if you say you wouldn't try to talk her out of it. Is that "age discrimination?" Are you "bigoted against the elderly?" Of course not.
Posted by: David Heddle | June 29, 2007 5:57 PM
Heddle:
Ha! No, it's just your refusal to believe Matt and David. Or, more likely, it's your failure to write clearly.Yes, trying to talk one's child out of marrying a given person on the grounds that that person is sixty years old is "age discrimination." Self-evidently so. What else could it be?
Posted by: Rieux | June 29, 2007 6:30 PM
12But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Doesn't actually mean anything?
It seems pretty clear that the Bible says that if you happen to become married to an unbeliever, then you should stay married. And I'm sure you will quote me back 2Cor 6:14
14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
But in this I will ask you, do you tightly pursue all business dealings to make sure no unbelievers are involved? Where's your mortgage? Is everyone there a Christian? How about your place of work?
Posted by: Brendan S | June 29, 2007 7:24 PM
Hrm.. Got cut off. That's 1Cor 7:12-14
Posted by: Brendan S | June 29, 2007 7:25 PM
Having grown up in this country as a member of a religious minority, I believe in a secular society, but I'm not an atheist. I'm a practicing Hindu.
I'm a pro-life Democrat. I am pro-life but also believe in a complete separation of church and state. I gave $1,008 to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, while asking Rev. Barry Lynn (Executive Director) to keep the organization neutral on this divisive issue, rather than take a pro-choice stance.
I have no problem with atheism. Thomas Jefferson, the architect of American democracy, said, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others, but it does no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pockets nor breaks my legs."
Under Jeffersonian democracy, monotheism, polytheism, agnosticism, atheism and even victimless crimes are all tolerated. This conception of democracy appears to me to be closer to the Vedic conception of government, because under Vedic civilization there was tolerance of different philosophical schools of thought, differernt yoga systems, demigod worship, ancestor worship ("pitas", or forefathers, in Sanskrit), pantheism (advaita vedanta), and even atheists like Charvaka. The American Left is open to the idea of a tolerant multicultural, multireligious, multiracial and possibly even a multilingual society, whereas the right is not.
Jefferson stated that "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others." Science fiction writer Robert Heinlein in "The Notebook of Lazarus Long", also wrote that sin lies only in harming others--all other "sins" are concocted. In Vedic civilization, victimless crimes such as intoxication (rice wine was offered to goddess Kali) and even prostitution (Srimad Bhagavatam 1.11.19) were legal and regulated.
While I recognize the need for a free market economy, I also recognize the advantages of welfare-state capitalism over laissez-faire capitalism, and especially the need for government regulation of industry in areas such as occupational safety and environmental protection.
I agree that religion has no place in the secular arena and therefore oppose government instituted prayer in the public schools, but must simultaneously oppose the teaching of modern myths such as the theory of evolution in the public schools as well.
According to Vedic civilization, people fall into four different classes: educators, military, mercantile, and laborers. Only a certain class of people will have military inclinations, and a military draft forces people from the working classes to take up arms against their will. The American Left generally recognizes the immorality of a military draft.
Writer and activist Jean Blackwood, in the July 1993 issue of "Harmony: Voices for a Just Future", a "consistent-ethic" publication on the religious Left, notes:
"Many of the young people who make up the animal rights and environmental movement grew up with pro-abortion rhetoric in their ears. They can make the mental shift from banning CFCs, outlawing whaling, and abolishing clearcuts to 'a woman's right to choose' with such alacrity that one might suspect no self-contradiction was involved."
For many young people today, abortion is just another choice; just another form of birth control. Will they be more inclined to listen to a secular moral philosophy that doesn't dictate their sexual behavior or intrude upon their private life, or a set of unprovable religious beliefs that does?
There are non-traditional pro-life groups that make up "The Left Side of the March" on the March on Washington, every January 22nd, in D.C.: Vegans for Life, Democrats for Life, Feminists for Life, the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians (PLAGAL), etc. I'm not sure if Atheists for Life is included, but Rachel MacNair, a Quaker pacifist, vegan, psychology professor, and past president of Feminists For Life, once pointed out that there are pro-life atheists who argue that since there is no afterlife, life is especially precious.
This argument is also used by Reverend Andrew Linzey in his 1987 book, "Christianity and the Rights of Animals" against Christians who claim animals don't have souls: if there is no afterlife for animals and they are not to be recompensated for their sufferings in this lifetime in an afterlife, then there is no justification for the sufferings we inflict upon them.
Had Dennis Kucinich remained pro-life, I would have voted for him. Atheists and agnostics have nothing to fear: we really live in a secular society; one in which people merely pay lip service to religious ideals.
Posted by: Vasu Murti | June 29, 2007 7:27 PM
Uh, some commenters seem to have missed the point. It doesn't matter IN THE SLIGHTEST (in the context of this debate) whether or not atheism is a civil rights issue. THAT'S THE STRAW MAN HERE.
The point is that other groups have succeeded in improving their status through active publicity of their point of view. The point is that being shy and retiring has never seemed to help. Some of the best examples of this principle include *gasp* various civil rights struggles. But learning from other situations is not the same as equating them with your own.
Whether atheism is a human rights issue or not is staggeringly irrelevant, at least in the context of this debate. Whether or nor atheists are persecuted, burned at the stake, or paraded through their towns like homecoming queens - also utterly irrelevant. The argument by Nisbet et al is that vigorous activism is somehow harmful for a minority's desire for recognition. The answer is that the evidence is resoundingly to the contrary.
Discussing the merits of the straw man seems... pointless.
Posted by: SmellyTerror | June 29, 2007 8:03 PM
"When a ferry preacher starts preaching at you, pull the crucifix out from under your shirt. ... take the crucifix off, drop it on the floor and heel-stomp it. Posted by: David Canzi | June 29, 2007 05:17 PM "
I think I need something more vocal, less physical. Aside from a few intent believers, almost everyone is ignoring the person hoping that they would leave.
Maybe I should yell: "You worship a false, useless god! I spit on him!" and then wave the xerfix around and then mime spitting on it.
"IF THERE IS A GOD MAY HE STRIKE ME DEAD!" I should yell.
Posted by: Kevin | June 29, 2007 8:36 PM
A strawman from Matt Penfold:
"1. Atheists do not face discrimination.
2. Even if they did they should put up with it, it is not as bad as the discrimination faced by others.
3. Even when it is bad they should up otherwise they might upset the people discriminating against them.
"Now I may have missed something in Nisbet's at al argument but I don't think I have."
The real argument:
1. Atheists do not face problems of the same magnitude as blacks, gays, and women have.
2. Rather, they are primarily misrepresented and misunderstood--they have an image problem.
3. Therefore, they should focus on improving their image.
Now the reason atheists aren't so overtly oppressed is largely because we can hide our opinions and (in the U.S. at least) the law is on our side, especially the Constitution. That's an ugly fact. Nonetheless, that ugly fact has made comparisons to larger civil rights movements problematic.
Also, considering that the current "front man" for atheism, Richard Dawkins, has accused Eugenie Scott of being a moral coward for working with the likes of Ken Miller (Neville Chamberlain atheists, anyone?), and that one of the more popular ScienceBloggers continued on that theme (even as he claimed to disavow the words "Neville Chamberlain") and caricatured theists as "pious twits" and "little old ladies who faint at the sight of monkeys," I'd say that we do have an image problem. That's not just "being up-front and bold," as PZ would like to pretend. We need more Hemant Mehtas and Julia Sweeneys and Massimo Pigliuccis and Jason Rosenhouses, and fewer people practiced at being eloquent slanderers.
"Nisbett has a lot of nerve putting 'atheism is a civil rights issue,' in quotes and then describing it as a catchphrase used by members of some ill-defined Atheist Net Roots. None of the links Nisbett provides show atheists saying any such thing."
Errm, the link to Trinifar's "saving Pharyngula" post is all about PZ invoking a civil rights movement--namely the suffrage movement--and using it as justification for what amounts to more eloquent slander.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | June 29, 2007 8:52 PM
Kevin:
I ride the Staten Island ferry in NYC often, & get lectured from time to time by more or less deranged preachers who ramble against atheists & gays. One crazy woman who claimed the WTC deaths were god's punishment, I managed to silence for a moment with a very nasty stare. Another preacher, I managed to draw into paroxysms of ire, by telling him there is no god as I passed him by. However, I am not as courageous as a young man I met at the ferry, who was wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the word Atheist in a fine script. He told me he mostly got good responses, but being older, & with more experiences, I would be very much afraid to be an atheist publicly in NYC.
Posted by: GBruno | June 29, 2007 10:56 PM
well mr. G Bruno you know very well what I am talking about.
I am glad that that guy in the wheelchair is finally dead.
Unfortunately, some more wackos came to take his place.
Posted by: Kevin | June 29, 2007 11:27 PM
JJ: "Errm, the link to Trinifar's "saving Pharyngula" post is all about PZ invoking a civil rights movement--namely the suffrage movement--and using it as justification for what amounts to more eloquent slander."
...and, again, you've missed the point. It's not that atheism = civil rights, it's that there was another group who used in-your-face tactics and it WORKED. That similar tactics might work for the atheists. The objection that such methods merely alienate the community is demonstrated false by the experiences others.
This is not about the definition of civil rights, or claims regarding the treatment of atheists. It is about the viability of certain courses of action. A different group used a similar course of action being debated by our group. Hence, their experience is of interest.
It's like pointing to the effective use of combined arms tactics by Nazi Germany, attempting to draw lessons from that for you own military, and then getting derailed when people object to having your military compared to Nazis. This isn't about equating groups, it's about comparing strategy.
Posted by: SmellyTerror |