persecuted Atheists
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d2239780-4d4e-11e1-8741-00144feabdc0.html Interesting article published by the Financial Times about the persecution of Atheists in the US. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d2239780-4d4e-11e1-8741-00144feabdc0.html
Interesting article published by the Financial Times about the persecution of Atheists in the US.
Alleged persecution. As usual, the story is nearly worthless in its lack of perspective and necessary qualifiers on data presented. 1. Self-proclaimed atheism creates social pariah-hood only in the South and a couple of particularly backward middle rural states, notably Oklahoma, -- i.e., the 'Bible Belt'. Notice the locations mentioned: Texas, Missouri, Kentucky, Alabama, Florida. Those are all the Bible Belt. Everywhere you would actually _want_ to live, locations where people's family trees actually fork and people can count to twenty without taking their shoes off, there's no such problem. (There is also no problem even in the better cities of Texas and Florida, such as Austin and Miami.) _Every_ example the author presents is from the aforementioned religious whack-a-doodle country. No exceptions. 2. Outside those areas, e.g., California, organised atheists characteristically piss and moan about alleged persecution and lack of acceptance that upon examination turn out to be imaginary or strictly elsewhere (i.e., the Bible Belt) or a mischaracterisation of the broader public not enjoying the company of one-note ideologues (including but not limited to crusading atheists), _but_ they nurse a persecution complex in lieu of more interesting hobbies. As a personal observation, in the USA the people who identify themselves as atheists tend statistically towards severe dickishness, which is the main reason why I refer to myself -- if the subject comes up, which it should not (a point I'll return to) as 'non-religious', so as to not be associated with them. The author's closest approach to a reasonable perspective was in this paragraph: The issue is somewhat neglected because it's not usually perceptible on the coasts and in the larger cities, but the almost complete absence of overt atheism is striking at all levels of US public life, even in cosmopolitan areas. For 'not usually perceptible', substitute 'absent'. For 'the almost complete absence of overt atheism is striking' subtitute 'In the sane majority of the republic, religion if any is regarded as a primarily private matter that only an unhinged person of some sort would obsess over. That is, the subject does not arise in normal conversation. I do not sit down at a dinner table and say 'Hi, I'm Rick Moen, a 180 cm tall Norwegian-American, and consider it important that you know I'm not religious.' That would make me sound like quite the whack-a-doodle myself. So, maybe the 'overt atheism' that Julian Baggini finds strikingly absent in US public life indicates, in the saner portions of the republic, good manners and absences of nut-jobbery. Speaking of nut-jobbery, Russell, why are you capitalising the word 'atheist'? What do you feel makes it a proper noun?
Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
>
>> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d2239780-4d4e-11e1-8741-00144feabdc0.html
>>
>> Interesting article published by the Financial Times about the
>> persecution of Atheists in the US.
> 2. Outside those areas, e.g., California, organised atheists
> characteristically piss and moan about alleged persecution and lack of
> acceptance that upon examination turn out to be imaginary or strictly
> elsewhere (i.e., the Bible Belt) or a mischaracterisation of the broader
> public not enjoying the company of one-note ideologues (including but
> not limited to crusading atheists), _but_ they nurse a persecution
> complex in lieu of more interesting hobbies.
>
> As a personal observation, in the USA the people who identify themselves
> as atheists tend statistically towards severe dickishness, which is the
> main reason why I refer to myself -- if the subject comes up, which it
> should not (a point I'll return to) as 'non-religious', so as to not be
> associated with them.
>
As a frequent attendee of such non-societies as 'the Existentialist
Society' and 'the Atheist Society' ;
(they are lecture forums having no formal membership; much to the
frustration of a small number of attendees);
I can confirm that militant atheists exist in Australia and at least one
of the attendee's (myself);
shares Rick's attitude to them. I would suspect that others from the
group of attendees which includes Buddhists;
ex-devotee's of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, a fundamentalist Christian, the
occasional Muslem;
religious and non-religious Jews as well as the expected humanists,
secularists, atheists and agnostics like myself;
also find militant atheists 'embarrassing'.
As an aside can I comment that since theists have never really found
common cause;
I am quite bemused that atheists might think they can !;
regards Rohan McLeod
/
/
<http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=bhagwan%20shree%20rajneesh&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FOsho_%28Bhagwan_Shree_Rajneesh%29&ei=x3Z7T8eNHcq1iQe_q7GMAw&usg=AFQjCNFfJmIDMb9fngiHMCxaMnBUAzEMhg&cad=rja>
Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
As a personal observation, in the USA the people who identify themselves as atheists tend statistically towards severe dickishness, which is the main reason why I refer to myself -- if the subject comes up, which it should not (a point I'll return to) as 'non-religious', so as to not be associated with them.
I usually say "naturalist", or (in the right company) "metaphysical naturalist", which more accurately describes my position than does "atheist". Someone can be an atheist while having a commitment to the existence of souls, spirits, ghosts, and any number of other such entities which are supernatural but not gods. Atheism means one is not a theist (either a monotheist or a polytheist). I am not a theist (hence an atheist), but I go beyond this by not believing in any other supernatural entities. Like Rick, I don't proclaim this view unless the context is appropriate. On the other hand, I think there is a legitimate role for naturalistic (and hence atheistic) writers to explain and defend their position. I've met atheists, but none whom I would describe as activist in this regard. Most of them have more important causes with which to concern themselves politically.
Jason White wrote:
Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
As a personal observation, in the USA the people who identify themselves as atheists tend statistically towards severe dickishness, which is the main reason why I refer to myself -- if the subject comes up, which it should not (a point I'll return to) as 'non-religious', so as to not be associated with them.
I usually say "naturalist"
That just makes me think "natural philosopher" - clearly I read too many out-of-copyright novels. Wikipedia redirects it to "natural historian".
Trent W. Buck <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
Jason White wrote:
I usually say "naturalist"
That just makes me think "natural philosopher" - clearly I read too many out-of-copyright novels. Wikipedia redirects it to "natural historian".
"Metaphysical naturalist" is really the correct term. I don't know of any other that adequately expresses the idea, but "metaphysical naturalism" is a concept known only (or mostly) by philosophers, somewhat as "modal realism", for example, isn't a term you're likely to be familiar with unless you're in contact with the right research community (i.e., people who read or know about David Lewis).
Rick Moen wrote:
1. Self-proclaimed atheism creates social pariah-hood only in the South and a couple of particularly backward middle rural states, notably Oklahoma, -- i.e., the 'Bible Belt'. Notice the locations mentioned: Texas, Missouri, Kentucky, Alabama, Florida. Those are all the Bible Belt. Everywhere you would actually _want_ to live, locations where people's family trees actually fork and people can count to twenty without taking their shoes off, there's no such problem. (There is also no problem even in the better cities of Texas and Florida, such as Austin and Miami.)
_Every_ example the author presents is from the aforementioned religious whack-a-doodle country. No exceptions.
At what point does one stop writing off the entire region as irredeemably loopy, and attempt to uplift them?
Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck@gmail.com):
At what point does one stop writing off the entire region as irredeemably loopy, and attempt to uplift them?
Things will slowly change -- and are changing -- for the better with a changing demographic and inevitable inroads of outside influences. There's a problematic set of folks in their 70s and 80s who are the core of the problem: Absent an immortality serum in the next few years, that problem solves itself. You might find sane conservative commentator David Frum's remarks on that point useful: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/03/11/david-frum-mike-huckabee-br...
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 11:21:42AM +1000, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Rick Moen wrote:
_Every_ example the author presents is from the aforementioned religious whack-a-doodle country. No exceptions.
At what point does one stop writing off the entire region as irredeemably loopy, and attempt to uplift them?
some fiction has it that you can uplift dogs and dolphins and apes. some smart alien beasties too. i'm not sure if it's possible with americans. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d2239780-4d4e-11e1-8741-00144feabdc0.html
Interesting article published by the Financial Times about the persecution of Atheists in the US.
Alleged persecution.
As usual, the story is nearly worthless in its lack of perspective and necessary qualifiers on data presented.
1. Self-proclaimed atheism creates social pariah-hood only in the South and a couple of particularly backward middle rural states, notably Oklahoma, -- i.e., the 'Bible Belt'. Notice the locations mentioned: Texas, Missouri, Kentucky, Alabama, Florida. Those are all the Bible Belt. Everywhere you would actually _want_ to live, locations where people's family trees actually fork and people can count to twenty without taking their shoes off, there's no such problem. (There is also no problem even in the better cities of Texas and Florida, such as Austin and Miami.)
_Every_ example the author presents is from the aforementioned religious whack-a-doodle country. No exceptions.
You list 5 states out of 50 (5 out of the 48 contiguous states), that's a good portion of the US. How many first-world countries have such a large area being "whack a doodle"? We don't have even a single state or territory in Australia that's like that. You would probably have to go through the historical records of Queensland under Joh Bjekle-Peterson to find something that even compares.
2. Outside those areas, e.g., California, organised atheists characteristically piss and moan about alleged persecution and lack of acceptance that upon examination turn out to be imaginary or strictly elsewhere (i.e., the Bible Belt) or a mischaracterisation of the broader public not enjoying the company of one-note ideologues (including but not limited to crusading atheists), _but_ they nurse a persecution complex in lieu of more interesting hobbies.
http://www.care2.com/causes/whos-praying-for-their-enemies-to-get-breast- cancer.html Of course there's also some pretty extreme stuff going on.
As a personal observation, in the USA the people who identify themselves as atheists tend statistically towards severe dickishness, which is the main reason why I refer to myself -- if the subject comes up, which it should not (a point I'll return to) as 'non-religious', so as to not be associated with them.
I think that part of the problem in the US is voluntary voting. This means that political parties need to go extreme to get everyone who agrees with them to go to the effort of voting. In Australia as almost everyone votes (about 90% of the population cast valid votes) the politicians need to convince moderate people who are going to vote anyway that their position is slightly more reasonable than the other party. It seems to me that this top down method of enforcing some degree of reasonable action spreads to other parts of the political process. This is why Fred Nile was never any remote contender for PM, unlike Sarah Palin and Michelle Backman.
The author's closest approach to a reasonable perspective was in this paragraph:
The issue is somewhat neglected because it's not usually perceptible on the coasts and in the larger cities, but the almost complete absence of overt atheism is striking at all levels of US public life, even in cosmopolitan areas.
For 'not usually perceptible', substitute 'absent'. For 'the almost complete absence of overt atheism is striking' subtitute 'In the sane majority of the republic, religion if any is regarded as a primarily private matter that only an unhinged person of some sort would obsess over.
Except of course when the abortion wars start up. We have a few nut-jobs who protest outside abortion clinics in Australia. But it's been ages since a right-to-life terrorist has killed anyone here and they have little political support. The US Republican party seems to be persuing their anti-women agenda all over the US.
That is, the subject does not arise in normal conversation. I do not sit down at a dinner table and say 'Hi, I'm Rick Moen, a 180 cm tall Norwegian-American, and consider it important that you know I'm not religious.' That would make me sound like quite the whack-a-doodle myself.
The paragraph after the "overt atheism" paragraph mentioned Barack Obama speaking at a prayer meeting. Our PM is an atheist and because religion isn't such an issue here most people didn't even realise it until she'd been PM for a while - could you imagine a US president getting elected without people being bothered about whether they were religious? The same paragraph also says that there's only been one "avowed atheist" in the history of congress, and he was in the closet about it for 34 years! I don't think that keeping something secret for 34 years equates to some sort of strident advocacy for a position.
Speaking of nut-jobbery, Russell, why are you capitalising the word 'atheist'? What do you feel makes it a proper noun?
It seemed like a good idea at the time. I'll use lower case if it makes you happy. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
You list 5 states out of 50 (5 out of the 48 contiguous states), that's a good portion of the US.
Indeed, that's the Bible Belt. It exists. I don't live there, for quite a number of reasons. (Please note that I am not an apologist for any country, including either the country in which I was raised, which was the UK, or the country of my birth and citizenship, the USA. Particularly in international discussions, I find that Americans who bray loudly about the merits of their country are a severe pain in the ass, and take extreme pains not to be one.) When I have had occasion to visit Dallas, Texas for a number of weeks after I was graduated from college, and again a decade or so later when I stayed with friends in the suburbs north of Atlanta, Georgia, I was curious to find out whether anyone inquired even indirectly about my religion or lack thereof. Nobody ever did. That is, to be sure, only one data point (well, two), but accords with my sense of the matter, which is that inquiring into people's religion or lack thereof is regarded as rude and deranged, and is therefore Not Done. Which in turn makes one wonder, quite a bit, about the vast majority of the militant atheists who claim to have been 'persecuted'. Clue: Ideologues who claim to have been 'persecuted' very often turn out to have practically begged their opposite numbers to fight with them. Now, that is mostly just a hunch based on a lifetime of having to reassess goofball assertions from ideologues with chips on their shoulders going about figuratively voicing their variant on the Pythonesque 'Observe the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed.' I do not live in the Bible Belt (nor wish to) and cannot claim any form of expertise about that place.
How many first-world countries have such a large area being "whack a doodle"?
Off the top of my head, France and Belgium do from my personal experience. Also, Quebec outside of Montreal and Quebec City is pretty vehemently Catholic. If you want to further finance my international travels, I would be delighted to collect more data.
We don't have even a single state or territory in Australia that's like that. No, it appears that you (plural 'you') do not -- though I would personally prefer to visit and inspect the several states and territories I haven't yet visited, I will be glad to accept your cheque.
2. Outside those areas, e.g., California, organised atheists characteristically piss and moan about alleged persecution and lack of acceptance that upon examination turn out to be imaginary or strictly elsewhere (i.e., the Bible Belt) or a mischaracterisation of the broader public not enjoying the company of one-note ideologues (including but not limited to crusading atheists), _but_ they nurse a persecution complex in lieu of more interesting hobbies.
http://www.care2.com/causes/whos-praying-for-their-enemies-to-get-breast- cancer.html
Of course there's also some pretty extreme stuff going on.
Wow, an uncredited and unsourced bit of text from an unknown person on the Internet, that then gets trumpeted all over freethoughtblobs.com and the rest of the persecution-complex-ridden militant atheist echo chambers on the Internet. Gosh, _that's_ never happened before! I'll put a note on my calendar, Russell. What a bunch of idiocy. Really? Next, are you going to hit me with the one about the atheist who's going to be prevented from taking office in Asheville, Buncombe County, North Carolina -- and that the lawsuit to prevent this atheist citizen taking office is going to be filed Any Day Now by a 'Black Confederate activist' named H.K. Edgerton? I like that yarn that was spread around by Ed Brayton, by Hermant 'friendlyatheist.com' Mehta, by the freethoughtblogs.com circle, and by the rest of that lot -- credulously -- for months and months without the least semblance of fact-checking. That one never got old.
This is why Fred Nile was never any remote contender for PM, unlike Sarah Palin and Michelle Backman.
Kiddo, Bachmann was never a serious contender, which is why like Rick Perry she was completely abandoned by the professional political operatives who at first were willing to take her money when they discovered that she wasn't even filing in the primary contests and had no local organisation. In other words, Perry and Bachmann were solely pretending to be candidates in order to gain publicity and donations, and literally banked on it. Palin was a brief publicity stunt that backfired on the McCain campaign very badly. If you can get ahold of the HBO movie 'Game Change', you can see the behind-the-scenes facts about that, thinly fictionalised. The usual Faux News (Fox News) talking heads attempted to assert that it was a smear job, and were immediately contradicted by McCain's closes campaign advisors, one of whom said watching the movies was a 'deja vu experience', and is basically spot-on. She's not even pretending to run this time because the facts finally got out. It was pretty scary that she had a chance of riding into the VP office on McCain's coat-tails, but she can barely get elected in Wasila, any more.
The author's closest approach to a reasonable perspective was in this paragraph:
The issue is somewhat neglected because it's not usually perceptible on the coasts and in the larger cities, but the almost complete absence of overt atheism is striking at all levels of US public life, even in cosmopolitan areas.
For 'not usually perceptible', substitute 'absent'. For 'the almost complete absence of overt atheism is striking' subtitute 'In the sane majority of the republic, religion if any is regarded as a primarily private matter that only an unhinged person of some sort would obsess over.
Except of course when the abortion wars start up.
Since 1973, lawful in all 50 states, DC, and various territories. (Previously, lawful in many but not all.) Interesting coincidence: The last time an Australian tried to troll me about abortion was just a few days ago on a different mailing list. Quoting Tony Mills:
The US obsession with abortion.
I believe you mean a small-ish but crazed political faction of whack-a-doodles who do block voting and have strong political strength in backward parts of the country but not others, and who have a few violent and indeed murderous auxiliary members. The current _legal_ status is that abortion is lawful in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and various territories, but that local authorities sometimes attempt to restrict or regulate abortion rights, particularly in the last trimester -- which regulation may or may not eventually get upheld in court if litigated, depending on various facts of the cases and reception in court, tra la. The _pragmatic_ status is that actual availability of abortion services is spotty/difficult in some backward parts of the country but not others (e.g., few clinics in those areas having ever provided services, and then a firebombing or two, and there are fewer or none). Pragmatically, a woman in one of those areas might need to take a many-hour bus ride to another state and stay a few days while being seen. For very impoverished women, that is obviously a serious obstacle.
So why are state legislatures,Republican candidates, and the nutcase right so obsessed with this issue?
Emotional wedge issue used to manipulate swing voters. 'Defence of marriage' is another one, and on and on. Do I need to describe the utility of manipulable swing voters within first-past-the-post electoral systems?
US Exceptionalism
Oh, and by the way: You didn't drag out an example of claimed -exceptionalism- at all. A local political quirk does not constitute 'exceptionalism'. Exceptionalism refers to assertions of special national moral status or historical destiny (made by various past idiots and maniacs). So, maybe giving the tired rhetoric a rest might be good. Quoting Tony Mills:
My bad, I guess I should preface all trans-national comparisons of the US with "In comparable advanced, populous, industrial economies". If you trawl the third world, unsurprisingly, you can find a nation or two worse off.
Well, aren't _you_ the optimist? Check how many of the twelve countries in South America make it lawful for a woman to have an abortion without special reasons (rape, saving the woman's life, etc.). Exactly one, Guiana, first trimestre only. Africa's about the same story, and about half of Asia might as well be Vatican City.
We have a few nut-jobs who protest outside abortion clinics in Australia.
I donate to Planned Parenthood, and particularly lavishly on one occasion when a clinic was being picketed in San Francisco. I wrote my cheque a few metres away and held it up as I walked through the pickets.
The US Republican party seems to be persuing their anti-women agenda all over the US.
Indeed. And I'm looking forward to the landslide defeat.
The paragraph after the "overt atheism" paragraph mentioned Barack Obama speaking at a prayer meeting.
Yes, he speaks anywhere people gather who might vote for him. As an ideologue, you're bothered by that, I gather.
The same paragraph also says that there's only been one "avowed atheist" in the history of congress, and he was in the closet about it for 34 years!
Poor Pete Stark. I actually know the guy. A bunch of loon atheists sent him a questionnaire that he was unwise enough to fill out forthrightly, and now they won't leave him alone. No wonder congressmen who are non-religious just let people assume they're some sort of inoffensive Protestant. I would, too.
It seemed like a good idea at the time. I'll use lower case if it makes you happy.
No, feel free to indulge typical ideologue practices.
On 28/04/2012, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
When I have had occasion to visit Dallas, Texas for a number of weeks after I was graduated from college, and again a decade or so later when I stayed with friends in the suburbs north of Atlanta, Georgia, I was curious to find out whether anyone inquired even indirectly about my religion or lack thereof. Nobody ever did.
That is, to be sure, only one data point (well, two), but accords with my sense of the matter, which is that inquiring into people's religion or lack thereof is regarded as rude and deranged, and is therefore Not Done. Which in turn makes one wonder, quite a bit, about the vast majority of the militant atheists who claim to have been 'persecuted'.
Another data point: In 2007 I visited a relative in Tulsa, OK. The house was in a gated few streets with a shared swimming pool. It was summer and I went up alone for a dip and briefly small-talked with some strangers in the pool. After I explained my accent and where I was from and who I was staying with, it was the first thing they asked me. "So, what church are you with". Honestly, patricarchal sky-fairies are pretty much the last thing on my agenda, and not wanting to be rude, and not yet having discovered pastafarianism, I was gobsmacked. Can't recall exactly what I said, but it possibly included the word "atheist". Obviously did not compute, and conversation went nowhere pretty fast after that. Probably should have pretended to be drowning, or something more acceptable. I wasn't persecuted, though, as far as I know.
Quoting David (bouncingcats@gmail.com):
Another data point: In 2007 I visited a relative in Tulsa, OK. The house was in a gated few streets with a shared swimming pool. It was summer and I went up alone for a dip and briefly small-talked with some strangers in the pool. After I explained my accent and where I was from and who I was staying with, it was the first thing they asked me. "So, what church are you with".
Weird, but I certainly believe you. Tulsa and the entire state of Oklahoma are a centre for backward badness of almost legendary proportions. The Oklahoma 'panhandle' area is said to be particularly hopeless. I mean, can you imagine even _caring_ about what church if any a stranger belongs to, let alone asking, uninvited? Seems unspeakably rude and quite wacky, to me -- but, as my father always said, 'Life is anthropology.'
Russell Coker wrote:
_Every_ example the author presents is from the aforementioned religious whack-a-doodle country. No exceptions.
You list 5 states out of 50 (5 out of the 48 contiguous states), that's a good portion of the US.
How many first-world countries have such a large area being "whack a doodle"?
We don't have even a single state or territory in Australia that's like that.
IME Perth is pretty bucolic and casually racist. Nobody asks what your religion is, but I think it's just assumed that if you're a middle-class white boy, you OBVIOUSLY must be a non-practicing abrahamist of one flavour or another. I can't comment on that in relation to the .us bible belt, because I've never been there, nor (if I have any say) will that change.
Why can't people be moderate regardless of their ideology? Whether they be religious or irreligious. Or whether others have the same religious / political views. What is need IMHO is a willingness to live and let live live (and not indulge in system justification). Then the world would be a happier place. I am a Christian but I don't let it trouble me if other people have different views. I am not a bigot and I consciously try not to be even when it leads to being unpopular. Christians get persecuted as well as doing a lot of persecution. Especially if they don't like your flavour of Christianity. This persecution is prejudice against those that are different based on fear and ignorance and "I am better that you", "your beliefs are rubbish" and even "your beliefs should be outlawed". John Wilson
participants (8)
-
Craig Sanders -
David -
Jason White -
John Wilson -
Rick Moen -
Rohan McLeod -
Russell Coker -
Trent W. Buck