Pharyngula

Posted by: Cosmic Snark | June 29, 2010 9:17 AM

Oh noes! They're developing doctrine! LOL

That's what the religious nutters will say, anyway. "See, you atheists DO have a religion!"

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 29, 2010 9:20 AM

Hmmm... this statement gave me pause:

We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.

If I asked my former priest, he would assert unequivocally that his belief is based on exactly those things... although in truth, I'm not sure how better to qualify the statement to counter that argument.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | June 29, 2010 9:25 AM

That's what the religious nutters will say, anyway. "See, you atheists DO have a religion!"

If they say this on the basis of a policy statement*, they missed their opportunity by a few decades...

Insofar as the humanist manifesto's been 'round like, forever.

(*/Which yes, some of them will--as that same some of them really are that shamelessly dishonest.)

Posted by: cedgray | June 29, 2010 9:29 AM

Does it need something to protect children from the fundamentalist views of their parents? See, for example, those cases where illness has been fatally treated with prayer.

This will no doubt hinge on a reasonable definition of 'abuse', because you argue that bringing your child up to reject rationalism and science is endangering their future prospects of fully engaging in society.

Posted by: Luis Dias | June 29, 2010 9:45 AM

So you are against affirmative action, huh?

Hehe. What a crappy document. Just by skimming it I already detected a problem you will have with any afro-american. You haven't thought this through, have you? And you call yourself "progressive". You have no idea what "progressive" means after all.

Posted by: inajeep | June 29, 2010 9:58 AM

Wow, talking about some conflicting statements.

The don't want special consideration for minorities in one statement and in the next reject discrimination which will and does occur.

How exactly do you respect and criticize a religion?

Posted by: MosesZD | June 29, 2010 10:00 AM

Yesterday the Supreme Court struck down some religious intolerance here in America. Having read it, I think it's a pretty solid ruling that addresses the real issues in the case and I'm all for the ruling as expressed in the majority opinion which is, basically:

If you're going to use taxpayer resources and student fees taken from people's tuition, you've got to give them equal access to your club. Which is just common sense.

What I don't understand is this dissent:

In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, "I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that today's decision is a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country." He was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

My question is: How? Nothing is stopping these people from being homophobic bigots. Nothing. They can spew their intolerance all they want, whenever they want. Including in the club.

Well, except like most bigots, they probably don't have the balls to stand by their convictions when confronted with actual gays or those that believe in actual equal rights for all... But cowardice in expressing one's opinion is not Constitutionally protected.

The only thing they can't do is formalize discrimination and intolerance it into the charter of their organization and use that to keep people out. That's it.

And how is that a serious set-back for freedom of expression. It's not like their ruling on "Bong Hits for Jesus" which DID squelch free speech.

How do their heads not explode from the contradiction? You can't talk about smoking pot, and you say it's a good thing... Yet nobody is stopping the haters from hating, they just can't get public funding for their hate group... They can gay-bash all they want, this ruling doesn't stop that.

In fact, as far as I can see, this ruling isn't really about freedom of speech as much as it's about can the State be compelled to support hate groups with public funding.

An additional irony in this also happens to be that these people also tend to run to the wing-nut/tea-party/libertarian edge. They hate big government and will preach its evils. Even as they're going to Hastings (UCSF Law School), a publicly-supported college, and using taxpayer courts to deny equal rights to others...

It's like they have chronic tin-ears or something...

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | June 29, 2010 10:06 AM

as good as some of it is, I have the same problem with the "no special treatment for minority communities" as worded. Yes equality is great, but minority populations often need special considerations to ensure equal opportunity and treatment. Why were these statements included? What was the motivation. I suggest revision.

Posted by: Thomas Winwood | June 29, 2010 10:09 AM

I'm concerned by this statement. As has been hinted at above, this can easily be read as an attack on affirmative action, something that has nothing to do with religion and is still a necessary remedy for the deep structural effects of decades of racism.

How exactly do you respect and criticize a religion?

Posted by: MosesZD | June 29, 2010 10:15 AM

Reading Comprehension -- You're Doin' Wrong!

It's the:

Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life

That statement has everything to do with religion and NOTHING to do with Affirmative Action which is PURELY SECULAR.

And, for the record, the quote miners that butchered the statement should be absolutely fucking ashamed. Ashamed. Just ashamed.

It's clearly talking about no special treatment for religious minorities who want to subvert the secular legal processes with their own religious legal systems, hence it is written:

We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for minority communities, and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.

Seriously, you should be totally fucking ashamed. That was just incredibly self-centered and stupid. Beyond fucking belief to see CREATIONIST LEVEL QUOTE MINING based solely on a complete inability to fucking read a contextual document and interpret it correctly.

Jesus Christ on a Popsicle stick... Kent Hovind would be proud of you...

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 29, 2010 10:16 AM

Luis Diaz -

There's a difference between being necessarily critical and engaging in an honest discussion, and being a blatant confrontational asshole from the word go...

Guess which category you are falling into currently?

Posted by: Gus Snarp | June 29, 2010 10:16 AM

@charley - I think the point is that you can use belief to disqualify someone from the job of religious leader, but not from anything else. But from a legal standpoint, it should be written a bit more clearly. Fortunately, this isn't a legal document.

What are the odds of getting this thing revised? We could easily simply drop the "no special treatment" bit, and the "(other than for religious leaders)" bit could be rewritten as "(other than the use of religion in consideration of individuals for posts as religious leaders)". Note that you still can't prevent gay people from being priests with my wording. That's intentional.

@Thomas - I find it highly likely that the European context in which this document was written is the explanation for that language being included, but it is nevertheless problematic for a global document. Those words are code in the U.S. for "keep on discriminating against teh gays", and therefore should be removed.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 29, 2010 10:18 AM

Luis Dias - apologies for the mis-spelling of your nym in #21...

Posted by: Ed S | June 29, 2010 10:21 AM

It's a good document. There is some mis-reading of the intent with respect to affirmative action. Affirmative action is sometimes necessary to give minority groups equal status / opportunity in society, but it is not intended to make them separate or more special in some way. Affirmative action corrects wrongs, it doesn't create new rights. In an ideal society it would not be necessary.

I like the statement addressing the tax exempt status of religious organizations. Giving churches in my town a pass on property taxes means that my taxes are higher, so (indirectly) some portion of my tax dollars are being used to support these churches. It would probably be impossible to reverse that at this point in time, but just think what it would mean if the Catholic church, for example, had to pay taxes on the property value of the large cathedrals in city centers around the world. What that money could be used for...how the required contributions from the congregations to pay these taxes would impact their choice of whether to belong to organized religion...etc.

Posted by: Luis Dias | June 29, 2010 10:23 AM

Luis Dias - apologies for the mis-spelling of your nym in #21...

Ahah. So you call me an asshole and the apologize for a misspell. This blog is very funny.

Posted by: kaonashi.myopenid.com | June 29, 2010 10:25 AM

We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | June 29, 2010 10:27 AM

@MosesZD - Permit me to stoop to your level: What are you, a fucking idiot? WE all know what this fucking document means, but we also are smart enough to realize that if you are promulgating your ideas to the general public you have to write in such a way that the general public will understand. I'm not talking about dumbing things down, and I'm not talking about being nice to convince people, I'm talking about not unnecessarily using the code words of hate in a document that is about the exact opposite. Perhaps if you had seen protesters for constitutional amendments banning gay marriage that said "no special right" you would understand the fucking point. When you put part of the quote in bold you made my fucking point, which is this: it would be better if it just said: "We assert the principle of one law for all, with no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes." It says the same fucking thing, it's just a case of bad editing, adding some needless fluff that, unfortunately is going to put a very bad taste in some people's mouths. And if we can't raise a reasonable editing issue with the language of a document without being called stupid and self centered by someone who is excessively angry about keeping a few meaningless words in a document, then how the fuck are we supposed to make a reasonable public expression of a pretty fucking simple concept?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 29, 2010 10:28 AM

Ahah. So you call me an asshole and the apologize for a misspell. This blog is very funny.

Why? You were acting like an asshole, and I misspelled your name. Where's the problem?

Posted by: Sath | June 29, 2010 10:32 AM

Affirmative action and some public policy regarding consideration for minority citizens in the Western world, while inarguably a much needed support structure in the decades following their implementations, do perpetuate stereotypes, racism, and an inability to view your fellow man as you would yourself - in some cases.

Now obviously this is a more extreme viewpoint, and not one that I personally share, but it is one that does exist and in this recession-era economy, has managed to flourish (in my opinion).

For all the good that these considerations still provide: support for underprivileged families, inner-city funding for education and housing, equal opportunity job placement, and so forth, the caveat does exist such that these government funded supplements cannot exist without a perpetuation of racism and hatred.

Now, before you quote that section only and tear into me, just let me play devil's advocate a tad longer. The basis of these programs is founded in the proposed idea that two people of equal poverty, desperation, or hardship, are not equal before the eyes of the law. While many minorities cultures(citing America specifically here) as a whole comprise more of the population below the poverty line, it is far from a one-sided situation. Should an Irish family, who live below the same poverty line as an African American family and, for the sake of argument, feed the same number of children by working the same number of hours in the same manner of job, not be entitled to the supplementary benefits that the African American family recieves?

(Almost done devil's advocate, bear with me) Now, we can all cite the harsh oppression that persons of color have been forced to endure in the western world, specifically America, and the impact it has had on their ability to sturdy foundation in the populace, but does that take away the hatred and anger felt by the Irish family in question because of these unequal benefits? Does this do anything to curb the deeper problem perpetuating the way of thought that keeps minorities in poverty "where they belong"? Does it do anything to stop racism, or promote equality?

I submit to you, entirely serious now, that it does not. It supports a system of inequality designed to make up for the opportunities that have been deprived to all minorities in the past 100 years. We don't provide enough aid to actually help any family on the poverty line raise themselves above it, no matter what the color of their skin is. We don't provide enough support to inner city schools and after school programs to help keep the underprivileged off of drugs and out of violent crime, no matter what their last name is.

We, Americans, have become softened by the idea of affirmative action and the like. As middle and upper middle class citizens we can say that we support helping the underprivileged without actually contributing anything other than our votes. So this system that inherently perpetuates inequality, racism, and hatred amongst the members of our country who need to work together more than anyone else, becomes a system we want to cling dearly to?

Part of social reform, secular and humanist government, and an abolishment of forms of aid that are not given out of love for our fellow man, but out of guilt and weighted by the color of skin. Raise the standard of living, the quality of life and education through critical thinking and reason. Force people to take responsibility not only to themselves but to one another, don't let them cower away and casually "pray" that god will help the homeless so that they don't have to. Help build a society structured around personal accountability instead of deistic accountability, that is the best thing that any of us could do for any member of the underprivileged class - regardless of the color of their skin.

tl;dr: I agree with what they've put forth almost in its entirety.

Posted by: Luis Dias | June 29, 2010 10:34 AM

There is some mis-reading of the intent with respect to affirmative action. Affirmative action is sometimes necessary to give minority groups equal status / opportunity in society, but it is not intended to make them separate or more special in some way. Affirmative action corrects wrongs, it doesn't create new rights. In an ideal society it would not be necessary.

Fully agree except one thing. There is no "ideal" society. That stuff doesn't exist. We have to cope with differences and the inustices that ever exist in this world. You do that by positive discriminations. That's what we are always doing, everyday, by trying to make the world better.

So what this "document" pertains to do is to demand from reliigous communities that they behave *as if* this was already an ideal world and therefore they "shouldn't" discriminate anyone.

Of course, what's really happening is that atheists (what a misnomer) are demanding from priests and religious what they cannot demand from themselves.

There's a word for that (not an app).

Posted by: Sath | June 29, 2010 10:39 AM

Bleh, I kinda jumbled that last paragraph. Apologies if it is unclear.

Posted by: MarkL | June 29, 2010 10:43 AM

The statement supporting secular education for children is worth discussing.
Do we support the right to education by religious instititutions? I suppose so, although personally I think that the practice of indoctrinating children is problematic.
The issue of state control is going to be crucial for many of the fundamentalists. I strongly favor publicly funded education, which I believe is the backbone of healthy, productive society.
At a minimum, one has to agree that the state will decertify schools which teach religious mythology instead of scientific fact in the science classroom.

Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls | June 29, 2010 10:47 AM

We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.

They should have just stopped there.

or maybe just left out no special treatment for minority communities,

So it reads :

We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none. We assert the principle of one law for all, with no jurisdiction for religious courts in the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.

I make the suggestion since the issue obviously rankles more than just Luis.

Posted by: Sath | June 29, 2010 10:50 AM

@45

Without diverting too much into politics, I think that indoctrination by the religious when it comes to education is only one side of a very evil coin. Public education, while exceptional in most countries and many areas in the U.S., does tend to steer kids away from education and into vocational training in many areas.

I'm not sure how rampant the problem is, but in MA, especially where I went to high school, the middle of the road students were practically herded like cattle out of normal classes and into Voc. Tech. Is it a bad thing? No, it's a great opportunity for many people, but at the same time it is an institution more or less deciding for the child what he/she will or will not be allowed to do with their life.

I really don't approve of incidences such as above, revisionist history, or uncritical patriotic indoctrination any more than I approve of having jesus shoved down my throat.

Sorry for the curve into politics. I know that tends to get messy.

Posted by: Luis Dias | June 29, 2010 10:54 AM

Affirmative action does not conflict with anti-discrimination laws

Now you're the one trolling, PZ. No one here said that AA conflicts with anti-discrimination *laws*. I said, it conflicts with this so-called "atheist" document (I thought that atheism in itself was not about belief buck lack thereof... must I now stop calling myself one if I don't like your documents???), wich I quote:

We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for minority communities

which is *not* what the *current* laws of almost any developed progressive country states.

Posted by: windy | June 29, 2010 10:55 AM

You haven't thought this through, have you? And you call yourself "progressive". You have no idea what "progressive" means after all.

Hint: PZ didn't write it.

Posted by: Sath | June 29, 2010 11:02 AM

Mark,

I agree it can be fantastic in many cases. Keeps kids from dropping out, keeps them focused, etc. I just worry, from my own experiences, that not enough effort is being put into encouraging students to take an interest in learning and educating themselves because it is far easier to just push them down the path of least resistance.

My opinions on this, in specific, are obviously anecdotal and based on personal experience, so what you have seen or dealt with may vary greatly.

In the end, Voc. Tech. has it's advantages no matter how you look at it. It is the clearly biased American and World histories, the patriotic indoctrination, and the applied practice of the old Japanese saying, "the nail that sticks out will get hammered down" that I really disagree with. I do believe that these can cause as much damage to any child as any religiosity.

Although, again, your experiences with the system may differ greatly from mine.

Posted by: Luis Dias | June 29, 2010 11:04 AM

The thing is Luis, you are being an asshole by being dishonest.

And I can't answer in tone coz my "little avatar" would be squashed. But that's freedom of expression for you.

Clearly, if you're reading the thread, there are self-identified atheists (and why is this a misnomer exactly?

I'll tell you why it is a misnomer. Because I'm an atheist and I can't see anything in my *atheism* that would endorse almost any word in that document. Perhaps my taste for secularism, for equality, for human rights, etc.,etc. would do the trick, but *not my atheism*. That's why it is a misnomer, and it should be obvious to the people who are always shouting to the webs that atheism is not a belief, but *the lack thereof*. Why then produce a document of ahteist manifesto? It's hypocritical at its core.

Your irrational predjudices and intellectual shortcomings are showing...)

Whatever. You don't like criticism. I understand it.

who are contesting the document, defending the document, and all around working at making it better. This is not the 10 commandments. We don't believe in infallible unchanging documents.

*Hint*: an atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in a god. If you join people and create an *atheist* document that tells us how society should rule religion then *you* are the asshole. Not me. Got it?

We don't think we can have a conference and rule the world; we think we can have a conference and come up with some good ideas that maybe other people could agree with. Some of us think that the small percentage of atheists who came up with this document could have worded parts of it better. That does not invalidate the document as a whole or the ideas therein.

I called it a *misnomer*, not a *total trash*. There are stuff there that I can agree with, but then again, it's stuff that is already agreed upon in the human rights declaration. Some additions are nice. Like the state being free of religion. Some of it is baloney, like asking religious institutions to do something that the secular state *cannot do* if it wants to correct *social inequaties*.

Posted by: Luis Dias | June 29, 2010 11:09 AM

Only when that one fragment that you highlighted is taken out of its sentence can this even begin to look like a comment on affirmative action.

I'm really sorry, but for the life of me, I can't read it like you are. Read it again, and then again. It reads as TWO sentences, the *and* works like that, go check the grammar again.

It reads like this:

- We assert the principle of one law for all with:
*no special treatment for minority communities;
*and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.

Now you might say, it's badly worded. The stuff says what it wasn't supposed to say, it was *meant* to say something else. Well then, that's hardly my problem innit.

Posted by: bullofthewoods | June 29, 2010 11:12 AM

The humanist manifesto,articles seven through eleven under the heading of democratic society seem to be addressing many of these issues more clearly than the Copenhagen Declaration.It is very well written,but that is just my opinion.humanist manifesto

Posted by: svanechel | June 29, 2010 11:14 AM

We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation.

Why make an exception? I has been noted several times already by legal experts in my country that the catholic church is in violation of our anti-discrimination laws for not allowing women to become priests (and probably by extension muslims, openly gay men, etc). This has so far been ignored by every political party and the organization tasked with enforcing this law Presumably because the fallout of taking this to court would reverberate around the globe.

Posted by: Luis Dias | June 29, 2010 11:15 AM

It's based on real world observations. The atheist movement is populated by people who are overwhelmingly pro equality for every category of human being you care to mention.

I don't understand what you mean by the "atheist movement". You mean a bunch of people stating that the other bunch are loons and gullible people? That particular movement?

Because I can think of a larger group of atheists whom the last word I would use to categorize them would be "pro equality". Atheism is not a caracteristic of a good human being. Just of a very particular lack of a belief.

On the other hand, the people that misuse the phrase we're arguing about here are significantly contaminated by clear cut racists and bigots, the most obvious not-to-be-missed-target being the relentless haters of the homosexual community.

Didn't understand this part. Honest. Or is it.

Posted by: James Sweet | June 29, 2010 11:17 AM

History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.

I would shy away from this argument because of a major correlation/causation problem. In fact, more and more evidence is suggesting the causality might be pretty strong in the reverse direction, i.e. the more successful a society is, the less the citizens feel the need to "cling to their guns and their bibles".

Not that I disagree with much of anything else about the statement; I just would have left out this phrase because it's a weak argument.

Posted by: Alex the Wonderchemist | June 29, 2010 11:21 AM

I feel that parts of the document could have been worded less ambiguously:

We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation.

This appears to suggest that those employing religious leaders should be able to discriminate against race, gender, etc., as well as on the basis of religious belief. To avoid such confusion I think a better proof reader should've been employed.

Posted by: Luis Dias | June 29, 2010 11:23 AM

so your atheism has nothing to do with your secularism

Zero, in fact.

you have a problem with atheists getting together to decide what they think a reasonable policy position is

Zero, in fact. Just don't call it an "Atheist manifesto". Hint, this is a follow up from you not understanding the meaning of the word "misnomer". Apparently, you still are confused.

and for some reason that has made you VERY ANGRY

I don't like when people gather up in *my name* or pretending to, when they shouldn't. I don't like redefinitions of terms. I don't like when people confuse atheism with politics.

This is a good thing as it makes atheism a less nebulous, scary, nihilistic philosophy

HEre, again: it's not a F. philosophy, but the LACK OF BELIEF IN GODS. The absurd part of this conversation is that we are speaking within a blog that states this ON and ON. Doublespeak much?

"I AM AN ATHEIST AND THIS DOCUMENT HAS TWO PROBLEMS THEREFORE FUCK IT ALL"

Specially when one of the problems is the name of it and whom it pretends to speak for, yeah. Fuck it.

Posted by: CW | June 29, 2010 11:24 AM

need special considerations
to ensure equal opportunity and treatment

The soft bigotry of low expectations.

Posted by: Luis Dias | June 29, 2010 11:33 AM

but it quickly became clear that others here know him from previous threads as his statements descended into attacks on atheism in general

Two wrong things there. First, I hardly write in here. I don't know where PZ gets his "idea" of me, he must have a superhuman memory (I don't comment here for a year or so). Second, where's the fucking attack on atheism that I made so far?

The tribalism in here is rampant. It is BECAUSE I am an atheist that I don't LIKE the document. And "names" are not "minor things" in politics, it's like saying that constants are not important in physics.

The big problem in here is that it's an increasing trend clearly visible to anyone who cares, one of an increasing tendency of a *particular* political or ideological view of society and mankind to steal the word "atheism" for itself. This is akin to the idiocy of christians who, to be "real" christians, have to be right wingers.

Likewise, secularism and humanism and certain views of society are *NOT* bound by atheism.

Posted by: Luis Dias | June 29, 2010 11:38 AM

It isn't a manifesto, so much as an aspiration, it seems to me. It certainly isn't doctrine

Tell me again the meaning of *is*, mr Clinton. Your dishonest semantical dribble is astounding. Go check the meaning of "manifesto" again, mr Bernard, and come back to apologize.

How can you attack an atheist group for creating a manifesto when you are the only one calling it a manifesto?

Because it is one. People here need a dictionary it seems, wikipedia might be enough:

A manifesto is a public declaration of principles and intentions, often political in nature.

And they call me dishonest. I mean forreal.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | June 29, 2010 11:42 AM

@Luis Dias - I apologize, it seems that you are correct. I must have misread something because I can no longer find an attack on atheism in general. However, there is still your attack on PZ for defending affirmative action, apparently on the egotistic assumption that his comment was directed at you, when it was clearly aimed at others on this thread who have been somewhat dismissive of affirmative action, as well as your sweeping generalization of the entire document, which is mostly innocuous and reasonable, as tripe because, as far as I can tell, of a single phrase in one bullet point, and also your attempt to deride the attempt to create an atheist manifesto when no one has done so except you. Which may not make you a raving lunatic, but does raise issues with your ability to reason.

Posted by: TheBlackCat | June 29, 2010 11:44 AM

Not only is it not called a manifesto, it is not called atheist either, nor does it claim to speak for anyone outside the conference. The title is "Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life" and it claims "We, at the World Atheist Conference: “Gods and Politics”, held in Copenhagen from 18 to 20 June 2010, hereby declare as follows:" It also says "Please circulate this as widely as you can among people and groups who advocate a secular society." So where, exactly, does it claim to speak for all atheist, does the conference claim to represent all atheists, or does it in any way attempt to represent anyone who was not present at the conference in question?

Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls | June 29, 2010 11:48 AM

Joooiiinnnn usssss Luisssssss .... jooooiiiin usss .... becommmme onneeeee withhhhh the bodyyyyy Luisssssssssssssssssss.

.... and if you could sign in blood ... here ... and ...... here ... and .... here!

Big smoochers Luis, you're now one of the elite body of illuminati atheists. Babies all round?

Posted by: Gus Snarp | June 29, 2010 11:50 AM

@Luis - We are sitting here arguing about language, that by dictionary definition ought to be reasonable, based on the fact that it has a connotation beyond that definition, and the connotation makes that language inappropriate. Yet you are going to throw out the dictionary definition of a manifesto without regard to the word's connotation. The most famous manifesto in the world is the Communist Manifesto, and that has lent a powerful connotation to the word. No one calls the Declaration of Independence a manifesto, even if it is one by dictionary definition. If a manifesto is simply a declaration of principles, then what is your problem with it? The authors of the document call it: "The Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life", not the "Atheist Manifesto". Yes, they are asking other atheists to support it, but they don't have the hubris to call it the "Atheist Manifesto". That phrase is all yours, and you are attempting to tar the document and it's supporters with something of your own making.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | June 29, 2010 11:56 AM

@KG - Thank you for making my point so much more clearly and with fewer words. I should have gone and found that quote.

Posted by: Luis Dias | June 29, 2010 12:03 PM

Luis like it or hate it, there is a growing global atheist movement. This blog, the declaration being discussed, the Skeptics Guide to the Universe; all are rivers of thought streaming into a swelling atheist ocean of political will.

What an oxymoron. "atheist ocean of political will".

It's like a bunch of bald people discussing what the color of the society's hair should be like.

Thus, a political movement is coalescing around anti-theism, skepticism and the demand that evidence inform policy decisions.

All of these things are different not only in name but specially in definition. If the "anti-theist" community makes a declaration against religions, seems fair and to the point.

This is not new, but the scale and speed of this occurrence is unprecedented and probably related to the US culture wars, Iraq and the relentless "muslim on muslim" violence now prevalent in Iraq and Afghanistan. People are basically sick of this shit. The last time people were sick of this shit we got some serious hard thinking from european philosophers that culminated in the unheard of and radical separation of church and state in the US. What is happening today is similar, but planet wide, and occurring much faster.

Oh boy. I won't stop you from dreaming. I see *exactly the opposite* occurring, I'm pessimistic, IOW, but if that's what you are seeing, well then, not something I wouldn't want to occur anyway.

Nonetheless, as noted, a global political movement with particular properties is emerging onto the world stage one of those properties is a robust and public atheism. Those properties can be itemised and listed - as the declaration does - and my claims that this is broadly representative of atheism can be verified by real world interactions.

Send me the peerreviewd paper with that evidence then. I've yet to see the chinese atheists to indulge in what we think about "liberty" and "human rights", and I dare to say that they somehow outnumber us (although there are many religious chinese folks).

Who do you mean here?

No, in that part of the universe some intersailors call "Real Life", and not exclusively.

I don't think I can make it much clearer except to note that the thrust of my last post was to agree with you that perhaps the wording should be changed; not because atheists are racists or bigots, but because the terminology is used by racists and bigots and thus potentially misleading and confusing

I think it should be renamed because it's a grave misnomer and a confusion between what is personal and apolitical with what is social and political.

Posted by: KG | June 29, 2010 12:07 PM

And they call me dishonest. I mean forreal.

"They" appear to be quite right, although I think there may be something more troubling and psychopathological going on. You said: "Just don't call it an atheist manifesto". It turned out no-one but you has done so, at least here or in the document itself (or anywhere I've seen). So you now switch to the claim that it is an atheist manifesto, even though it's not called one, except by you. Don't you see how bizarrely illogical this is? First you urge people not to call the declaration "an atheist manifesto", then you excoriate them for failing to do so! It shows that your sense of your own moral and intellectual superiority completely dominates your rational faculties.

Posted by: mattheath | June 29, 2010 12:09 PM

Foggg@#90: Arguably, that still rules out legitimate affirmative action programmes. There are cases where there has been a history of discrimination against a community and the marker of that community is religion rather than skin colour. I think the specific programme to recruit catholics (and non-believers from the "Catholic community") into the Northern Irish police force was perfectly reasonable.

Posted by: Sath | June 29, 2010 12:11 PM

Theyseemetrollin.jpg

Seriously, I love the good intentions many of you have, but save the fervor for people it'll work on.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | June 29, 2010 12:11 PM

and note that nowhere does it say "all atheists should declare that:", instead it reads..." "We, at the World Atheist Conference: "Gods and Politics", held in Copenhagen from 18 to 20 June 2010, hereby declare as follows..."

If you were part of that group and feel your views were misrepresented, I feel ya... otherwise you are overstating the purpose of this document.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | June 29, 2010 12:16 PM

@Luis - Fine, you can be relativistic about what "special treatment" means and not about what a manifesto is. Ignore the deeper meaning of some words and accept it for others, whatever. But you still haven't answered the more specific charge
(which I failed to focus on as well as others, weakening my rhetoric) that you said that they shouldn't call it an atheist manifesto when they did not such thing, you did. You continue also to claim a problem with the name of the thing, which I'll point out again is NOT"The Atheist Manifesto", but rather "the Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life". Do you have a problem with the real title, or only the imaginary title you created to insult people for using when you are the only one who used it?

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | June 29, 2010 12:19 PM

Likewise, secularism and humanism and certain views of society are *NOT* bound by atheism.

True. But, if that is the case then how does this make any sense?

It is BECAUSE I am an atheist that I don't LIKE the document.

The document doesn't suppose the existance of god. What does your atheism have to do with it then?

Honestly, all you had to do was say that you don't like the document and don't support it. It takes a special kind of narcissism to suppose that this document was written by people "gather[ed] up in *my name*".

I can see nothing wrong with a group of very openly politically motivated group of atheists commenting on the state of politics with regard to religion. Clearly, and particularly in the current climate, the are very good reasons for organisations primarily defined by atheist membership to be interested in the role of religions and the state. Why not?

Tell me again the meaning of *is*, mr Clinton. Your dishonest semantical dribble is astounding. Go check the meaning of "manifesto" again, mr Bernard, and come back to apologize.

What are you ranting about?

It isn't a manifesto, so much as an aspiration, it seems to me.

Was meant to convey exactly what it says: I didn't see it simply as a call to arms, but moreso as an ideal for living. Manifesto is a clearly charged piece of political terminology. I saw this more as an opportunity to discuss the Declaration, rather than to sign up for it. I was drawing that distinction.

I was implying x, but moreso y. Instead, you seemed to infer that I was saying, not x but y. Actually, I think that there are good reasons to avoid the word manifesto, but that wasn't what I was saying.

Posted by: Luis Dias | June 29, 2010 12:22 PM

KG

You said: "Just don't call it an atheist manifesto". It turned out no-one but you has done so

If someone "grabs" the money from someone else, and someone called it "stealing" does the problem stem from the person calling it what it is, or the action itself?

Ponder about that for a moment and respond to this question: what should we name a declaration of principles and actions stemming from a group of atheists? HMM?

mikerattlesnake

Luis, it seems to me that banning any and all atheists from getting together and making a statement with the word "atheist" attached to it is more constrictive than any such document would be.

And still, the fact that they did taint me as an atheist as if I am represented by a bunch of people which whom I never elected or made a single contribution to, who are not declaring about the issue of atheism *at all*, but about the role of society viz a viz religious conduit.

I could well call myself an atheist and disagree with *everything written in there*.

and I think they avoided the word purposefully

Yes, the "Atheist Alliance International" avoided to bring up the atheism tag quite brilliantly... oh wait.

If you disagree with the very idea that atheists can group together to dicuss and come to conclusions on politics, then call your atheism "apolitical atheism" or something.

That's a pleonasm, mike, can't you see? If a bunch of atheists gather around and discuss peacocks they won't name it the "atheist alliance" and make declarations about peacocks in the name of atheists. They'll name it the peacock convention. Atheism is *not* a political movement. Secularism is. Liberalism is. Etc.

Oh, and show me an atheist who isn't inclined towards secular governments

You kidding? You know no one who doesn't believe in fairy tales but nevertheless believes that the "belief" itself is important? Belief in belief anyone?

Posted by: Luis Dias | June 29, 2010 12:27 PM

Honestly Luis, the problem here is hardly the subject matter, but your fucking confrontational attitude and your assholish behavior

I am an asshole towards anyone who is condescending.

You've assigned a meaning and relevance to this document that you invented yourself, decided it carried some weight that no-one has claimed it does, and disparaged the entire statement based solely on one statement. Basically you've acted like a complete clownshoe.

Fuck and I'm the troll. Awesome work there. Not going to be trolled by your emotional wibble there. Got any point to add?

Posted by: Ben Goren | June 29, 2010 12:35 PM

Luis Dias blathered:

I am an asshole towards anyone who is condescending.

<yawn>

Bored now.

Anybody have any specific organizations / conferences / whatever where y’all plan on taking this declaration for discussion? Or is it just going to die on the vine?

Cheers,

b&

--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''

Posted by: Gus Snarp | June 29, 2010 12:40 PM

Man, I was going to go back and defend Luis on a couple of points, mainly because he had a few good arguments at the beginning, and I though someone else started the assholish behavior, then I read Luis' first post here where he said: "what a crappy document". Come one, that's how you start the criticism? And now this:

If someone "grabs" the money from someone else, and someone called it "stealing" does the problem stem from the person calling it what it is, or the action itself?
Ponder about that for a moment and respond to this question: what should we name a declaration of principles and actions stemming from a group of atheists? HMM?

Posted by: TheBlackCat | June 29, 2010 12:47 PM

Back to the actual topic:

I would move the second sentence of point 3 to the end of point 2. In other words:

2. We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.

3. We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Since the second point deals with secularism and the third point does not, I think it goes better there.

I would also move point three to the beginning. It, to me, establishes a basic framework without which the other statements do not really make sense. It is also the least controversial of the statements.

Then I would move point 4 up one, to become the new point 3.

So point 1 establishes the basic framework, point 2 applies this to your specific subject, point 3 explains how to carry this out in practice in a general sense, then the rest of the points explain the specifics.

In this point:

We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all, subject to limitations only as prescribed in international law - laws which all governments should respect and enforce.

I don't like the comma in point 5.

I would make point 6 like this (changes in bold):

We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process and equal access to public discourse.

I would make the last sentence of point 8 like this (changes in bold):

We reject all blasphemy laws and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or any other ideas or beliefs, no matter how fervently held.

I would change point 9, as suggested by someone else:

We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for religious communities, and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.

I would change point 10:

We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste, sexual orientation, or any other trait or belief not directly relevant to exercising one's duties.

I would change point 11:

We reject any special consideration for religion in politics and public life, and oppose charitable, tax-free status and state grants for the promotion of any religion as inimical to the interests of non-believers and those of other faiths. We oppose state funding for faith schools. We support to the right of religious institutions to obtain tax-free status through normal channels, so long as they meet the same criteria and are subject to the same rules as secular organizations.

I would make several small changes to the last point (not bolded because they are scattered throughout):

We support the right to secular education, and assert the need for education in critical thinking, the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge, and the diversity of all types of beliefs. We support the spirit of free inquiry and debate and the teaching of science free from religious interference. We are opposed to indoctrination, religious or otherwise.

Posted by: KG | June 29, 2010 12:51 PM

Luis Dias,

If someone "grabs" the money from someone else, and someone called it "stealing" does the problem stem from the person calling it what it is, or the action itself?

You are the only one who has called this document a manifesto, and yet you are the one who said it shouldn't be called a manifesto. That should alert you to the fact that you really are making an outstanding ass* of yourself.

Ponder about that for a moment and respond to this question: what should we name a declaration of principles and actions stemming from a group of atheists? HMM?

How about we call it "The Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life"? HMM? Or we could just call it "A declaration agreed at an atheist conference". HMM?

You are, as others have said, attributing to this declaration a claim of status that no-one has made for it. If you really can't see how dishonest this is, I seriously advise that you seek psychiatric help.

* i.e., donkey: I'm British

Posted by: Kagehi | June 29, 2010 1:31 PM

Simple fix to the issue some people have pointed out, "save, in a positive sense, where necessary to address existing inequities." Though, I suppose, some dipshit would then argue that there is a religious inequity in the whole "secular" thing, and whine about that too, or something. But, there has got to be a way to word it, so the only thing they get to whine about is how "unfair" it is that they can't be unfair to everyone else.

Posted by: jidashdee | June 29, 2010 1:37 PM

Overall, I think it's an excellent start.

It could definitely benefit from some focus group work. Send a team into a meeting room with the single purpose of imagining themselves to be religious fundamentalists bent on finding loopholes and ways to intentionally misconstrue the language in the context of their belief systems. I think a few rounds of that would be quite helpful, not to mention fun.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 29, 2010 1:42 PM

Larry Wallberg

No, I'm not going to go through a sentence-by-sentence parsing of all the ambiguities and unsupported assertions.

OK... how's about picking just one, then, and making a case for why it's an unsupported assertion, and then offering some sort of constructive rewording or other suggestion?

Would that really take you significantly longer to do than the comment you just made at #118?

As it is, you just used a shredder where an eraser might suffice.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | June 29, 2010 2:07 PM

Luis feels like the most brilliant tone troll in history.

And that's as someone who agrees the document feels a little insensitive, albeit non-malicious (Of any sort).

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | June 29, 2010 2:10 PM

The unnumbered fifth one allows for Polygamy, which is nice, there's not enough secular polygamy out there.

Posted by: Larry Wallberg | June 29, 2010 2:21 PM

Celtic:
My comment could use some editing, too.

I should have written "... societies, the aims of which were probably ...."

Posted by: Rorschach | June 29, 2010 2:33 PM

It got a very large majority, but not unanimity, as you might expect for any atheist proposal.

I did not vote for it.
I found it hastily compiled, with plenty over-generalizations and ambiguous phrases.
I would have preferred to give it out to people out there first, like we're doing here now, and discuss and finetune it a bit more.
You try yourself at an atheist declaration, you want to get it right.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 29, 2010 2:51 PM

Larry Wallberg

Was addressing me as "Celtic Woman" intended to expose you as a misogynistic fuckstick? If so, Bravo! Well done. You'll do well here, and I'm sure your opinions will carry much weight hereafter. Oooohh... and it's in bold!

Anyone else feel the sting?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 29, 2010 2:55 PM

Larry -

If, however, addressing me as such was an honest mistake, and not intended as an insult by assigning a feminine connotation to my name, I will retract my above comment...

So, which was it?

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | June 29, 2010 3:10 PM

If my input is officially solicited, I'd be happy to lend my expertise. For an appropriate fee.

Personally I think the appropriate fee would zilch. But then, your input is unlikely to ever get officially solicited.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | June 29, 2010 3:17 PM

The Neo-Humanist statement of secular principles and values, though a bit pompous, is a more pertinent one

Oh, it's more than "a bit pompous." It castigates outspoken atheists, it misrepresents them, and it characterizes them as part of a big social problem. Nothing like shitting on and othering your allies because you don't like their tone. And because you're butt hurt that you're the King of Organized Humanism anymore.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | June 29, 2010 3:30 PM

"This declaration...paints religion(a social institution with a varied and considerable history and impact on life, after all) as the only problem we face."

Does it though? Or is it a document designed to be specifically limited in it's focus based on the particular ills it is trying to correct? I don't see anything in the document that claims that all problems will go away if these ideas are adopted.

Posted by: Tony Jolley | June 29, 2010 3:47 PM

cedgray: Does it need something to protect children from the fundamentalist views of their parents?

I think it does need something like that added. Children are not property. Maybe it would be covered under the "freedom to practice one's religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others" part?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 29, 2010 4:07 PM

methinks we have a sockpuppet...

Posted by: sandiseattle | June 29, 2010 4:14 PM

my favorite sockpuppet used to be Lamb Chop but now its the Burpy Yeast from Good Eats. :-)

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | June 29, 2010 4:17 PM

but wanted to kinda draw attention to the tone since that is my perception as a first timer in Pharyngula...

Oh, goodness, you are new.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 29, 2010 4:32 PM

You don't need to retract your comment, though, because it takes a lot more to insult me than calling me "fuckstick" -- which I kinda like. Just don't jump to paranoid conclusions in the future. If I'd intended to be sarcastic, I wouldn't have given you a straightforward answer to your question.

Comment retracted just the same... I realized after my initial response that it may in fact have been an honest mistake, which is the reason I followed it up. It's not that uncommon for some to think nothing of using misogynistic insults in the course of argument, and I'm not one to let such stupidity pass without comment. Luis had me on a bit of an itchy trigger in this thread, so again, as you've stated it was an honest mistake, I withdraw my response and apologize.

By the way, why would you have been so insulted if I had assigned a "feminine connotation" (whatever that means) to your name? If you're so hung up on gender, perhaps you ought to add "Mr." or "Ms." just for the record.

First, let me just fling a hearty "go fuck yourself"...

And second, no, and insinuating that I somehow indicated that I would will not earn you points either. You should know full well, if you frequent here at all, that misogynistic insults are not tolerated. Thus the reason for the response. I take offense to the insinuation that referring to me in a feminine manner should be perceived as an insult... but I don't feel the least bit insulted by it. Hope that's clear enough.

Posted by: Larry Wallberg | June 29, 2010 4:47 PM

Kristjan:
Personally I think the appropriate fee would zilch. But then, your input is unlikely to ever get officially solicited.

Well, that's fine with me.

PZ likened the thing to the Declaration of Independence. That analogy is laughable. Jefferson was a glorious writer, and chose every word of his draft carefully. Still, the document was then submitted to a committee, the members of which were no slouches at writing themselves. Finally, an entire Congress of highly literate men took their own turns at editing. Some of the revisions were good, others not so good. But the final product was a stirring statement.

I think if there's a desire to use the Copenhagen Declaration to reach an audience -- and maybe even influence it -- then some professional writer's input ought to be solicited. It would help if he or she were an atheist, preferably of long-standing, so that the original ideas could be clarified and better phrased by someone who supports them. That's why I suggested myself. Christopher Hitchens would be an even better choice.

But, really, anybody who knows anything about writing ought to be able to give that sloppily written "declaration" a good going-over.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | June 29, 2010 4:54 PM

No, the distinction between polygamy and polyamory is that polygamy is marriage to multiple partners, while polyamory implies no "officialization" of the relationship. Polygamy is gender-neutral; the gender specific terms are 'polygyny' (one husband/multiple wives) and 'polyandry' (one wife/multiple husbands). However, this is often confused since polyandry is very rare.

Posted by: Rorschach | June 29, 2010 5:10 PM

That's why I suggested myself. Christopher Hitchens would be an even better choice.

From what I can see even Hannah Montana would be a better choice.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | June 29, 2010 6:21 PM

For everyone saying that the bit about no special treatment for minority communities is of course only interpretable as referring to religious groups, you might want to go tell this commenter that, because he's a prime example of interpreting it in exactly the way other people on this thread said it would be.

Posted by: windy | June 29, 2010 6:47 PM

Another bit that can be problematic if it's interpreted broadly:

"We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern."

So what about seat belt laws, for example? Does that fall under "private conduct"?

Posted by: solinferius | June 29, 2010 7:35 PM

PS: polygyny is *generally* a feature of patriarchies, but it's questionable whether that's an effect (patriarchy leads to polygyny), a cause (polygyny leads to patriarchy), or a common-cause situation (the same factors tend to lead to both polygyny and patriarchy).

The facile explanation is that it occurs in patriarchies because male leaders use their power for access to more women; but this is not clearly true. Polygyny may be simple adaptation to a warlike culture (& thus large number of young-adult male deaths, therefore women outnumber men at marriageable ages).

#161: "Another bit that can be problematic if it's interpreted broadly"

It is. I'm not fond of that bit at all, as it implies a concept of privacy which I disagree with. It seems to be an attempt to rule consensual sexual matters/reproduction/etc. entirely out of the sphere of 'government concern', which is not in accord with my own political views (there is no particular reason to rule an entire sphere of activity which has strong societywide effects -- demographic, at the very least -- out of the process of a democratic government. Obviously there should be provisions to prevent *discriminatory* laws being made -- and there's precedent for that -- but ruling a whole sphere of human activity ''off limits'' to even a democratic government seems rather opposed to what a democracy should be. Also I can think of several situations in which such laws could be beneficial.)

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | June 29, 2010 8:18 PM

solinferius @163

Speaking as the resident poly person on the blog, polyamory is more accurate because it doesn't limit itself to relationships that end in or comprised of marriages.

Furthermore, it's preferred because polygamy is a diseased term. I know, we can go back and "reclaim" it later, removing the taint of some of the most patriarchal religions and cultures from its broken and battered husk.

But right now? We're abandoning it, leaving it to the wolves, because responsible consensual relationships with multiple partners has absolutely nothing to do with the creepy and destructive harems of some of the Mormon and Islamic sects.

But yeah, mainly it's better to fully encapsulate the ranges of relationships under poly, from triad "marriage in all but legal sense" to open relationships and everything in between and around.

As such polyamorous is the main used term, though we certainly do short-hand it to just poly a hell of a lot.

Posted by: solinferius | June 29, 2010 8:22 PM

>>polyamory is more accurate because it doesn't limit itself to relationships that end in or comprised of marriages.

"More inclusive", or "more accurate when used to describe the modern-Western poly community", I think you mean. There are certainly cultures which 'polygamy' is a more accurate description of. Mostly not modern Western ones (barring a few fundamentalist sects), but it isn't a deprecated word or anything -- it still means something.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | June 29, 2010 9:04 PM

solinferius @167

Yes, marriage of multiple partners, something that both excludes the range of non-mono romantic and sexual interactions and is generally only practiced by ultra-patriarchal cultures that are not based in a rule of consent and equal rights between the sexes in terms of ability to be with the partners they want to be (inside a consensual framework).

It's more accurate to the range of non-mono culture and doesn't carry deep deep baggage.

Posted by: solinferius | June 29, 2010 9:50 PM

Cerberus @169 "Yes, marriage of multiple partners, something that both excludes the range of non-mono romantic and sexual interaction"

Well, of course -- I'm not advocating that 'polygamy' be used as a general term - just that it is in fact a valid term for what it describes (marriage between more than two people).

Posted by: Kagato | June 29, 2010 11:49 PM

Not sure it's worth replying to, but way up there Luis Dias said

It's like a bunch of bald people discussing what the color of the society's hair should be like.

No it's not.

It's like a bunch of bald people discussing whether hair colour should be allowed to play a role in politics.

That doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to do.

And if that group wrote their ideas down, it wouldn't automatically become (regardless what they named it) the Baldy Manifesto, clearly intended to speak for bald people everywhere. But I think that point has been well covered already.

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | June 30, 2010 1:52 AM

This, of course, doesn't mean that we shouldn't criticize the wording, or that we shouldn't reject, or rephrase, those arts of the declaration that we find problematic or objectionable.

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | June 30, 2010 2:57 AM

There is nothing more racist than affirmative action.

Hyperbole much? Or are you really stupid enough to believe this?

Posted by: Rorschach | June 30, 2010 3:57 AM

They can nitpick all they want, but at the end of the day, this is a general set of guidelines.

No it's not any kind of guideline you dimwit, it's a completely non-binding collection of a few things people there felt should be stated as outcome of some of the discussions had at the conference.

We shouldn't have to significantly amend this in the vain hope of preventing some random jackoff from finding fault with it,

How arrogantly condescending.Certainly we don't want it amended by random jackoffs like yourself.

Posted by: grudgedk | June 30, 2010 6:17 AM

what you are arguing would only be logical in a world where the playing-field is ALREADY level.

Devaluing the value of diplomas issued to ethnic minorities, because of the (unjustified) perception that they didn't have to work as hard for it, is not helping. Having a diploma, and still having to work at McDonalds or drive a cab, does not make us even. Affirmative action does not end racism. So you got a diploma? So what when they guys who have to hire you are still racists? What good is that going to do you?

Posted by: grudgedk | June 30, 2010 9:41 AM

Yawn, racist apologists like grudgedk are so boring, and ignorant.

Would you at least mind clarifying, for those of us clearly not as smart as you, how preferential treatment is in any form a solution to the problem of preferential treatment?

Posted by: grudgedk | June 30, 2010 2:11 PM

Often, they seem obvious to the fact that they themselves benefit from the cultural preferential treatment of certain groups - this is what is often called "speaking from privilege".

since affirmative action exist in order to make up for the widespread cultural racist biases.

Now we don't even have affirmative action in Denmark, so you know for a fact that he earned his degree, on equal terms with everyone else. I honestly don't see how affirmative action in any way or form, would have increased his chances of getting a job, and likewise I honestly don't see affirmative action having any positive impact on widespread cultural racist bias. At all.

Sure. I'll concede that affirmative action could increase your chances of getting a diploma. But what good is a M.Sc. when nobody (outside Wallmart or McDonalds) wants to hire you because of widespread cultural racist bias?

Posted by: aggressivePerfector | July 1, 2010 5:09 AM

That bit about rejecting all discrimination in employment interested me.

Imagine I am hiring a scientist. Obviously I'd be interested in gauging the relevant technical skills of the candidates, but I would also be very keen to assess the candidates' general appreciation for the scientific method.

In an interview, I'd probably ask a couple of general questions about statistics, for example. If they don't know anything about the topic or worse, don't think its relevant, then I'd be justified in judging them as less suitable than somebody answering differently.

Similarly, I'd like to feel free to ask them about any strong religious beliefs they have. If they answer that they believe the world was made by an extraterrestrial fairy who must be told every day how wonderful he is, otherwise he'll get cross, then it’s clear that they are highly capable of self delusion, and may not be the best person for conducting systematic, objective investigations.

Am I too illiberal?

I'm not saying I'd never hire a religious person, but if for example I'm comparing candidates that are otherwise similar, shouldn't I be allowed ask such questions?

Posted by: aggressivePerfector | July 1, 2010 10:05 AM

Hi Kristjan,

Maybe I'm dim, but as I imlpied, the reason is not obvious to me.