Here:
http://vixenstrangelymakesuncommonsense.blogspot.com/2009/05/charlotte-allens-boring-opinion.htmlWhen I saw this opinion piece linked on Friendly Atheist, I was kind of, well, not really "outraged." See, I'm one of those laid-back atheists. Sure, I consider my blog kind of an atheist blog. I ding religion every now and again. I'm down with Dawkins. I'm all about the Darwinism. I don't think I'm personally being repressed, since I'm in a good place--
But. Here's the "but". I know that there are people who associate "atheist" with "satanic". Who associate "godless" with "sinful." Who associate criticism of religion with blasphemy, and really do think that if you aren't religious, you are "not fully human." Or are a witch. Or must be up to something.
Maybe Charlotte Allen doesn't know those places on the globe--I assure her, this isn't about a third-world place. These places are small towns, hamlets. Anywhere. Even in the US or in the UK.
She's just wrong on so much. Here's a snip:
In his online "Atheist Manifesto," Harris writes that "no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that ... God exists." The evidence? Antique clauses in the constitutions of six -- count 'em -- states barring atheists from office.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled such provisions unenforceable nearly 50 years ago, but that doesn't stop atheists from bewailing that they have to hide their Godlessness from friends, relatives, employers and potential dates. One representative of the pity-poor-me school of atheism, Kathleen Goodman, writing in January for the Chronicle of Higher Education, went so far as to promote affirmative action for atheists on college campuses: specially designated, college-subsidized "safe spaces" for them to express their views.
Maybe atheists wouldn't be so unpopular if they stopped beating the drum until the hide splits on their second-favorite topic: How stupid people are who believe in God. This is a favorite Dawkins theme. In a recent interview with Trina Hoaks, the atheist blogger for the Examiner.com website, Dawkins described religious believers as follows: "They feel uneducated, which they are; often rather stupid, which they are; inferior, which they are; and paranoid about pointy-headed intellectuals from the East Coast looking down on them, which, with some justification, they do." Thanks, Richard!
While it is true that there are only "six--count'em--six" states that bar atheists from public office, she isn't taking into consideration what the cultural reaction to open godlessness would be in many parts of this country--or to why such statutes would still be on the books where they are. The idea of the Supreme Court ruling making these provisions unenforceable is kind of b.s. against public opinion that you aren't trustworthy or moral because you reject a belief in god. What is the law compared to that?
The reason any atheist might propose a safe space for our point of view is because when we speak, it is assumed we are attacking religion--and yeah, we might. Does the rejection of the divinity of Christ by Jews and Muslims "attack" Christianity? Does the rejection of the idea that Mohammad was a prophet who must be followed by Christians and Jews constitute an "attack" on Islam? And if you were to reject Christ and Mohammad, and the god of Abraham?
It's not neutral. It's seen as an "attack." Even if it's just a rejection. A simple "no."
She's totally wrong about the old drum we beat on. It isn't about calling believers "dumb". It's about calling out beliefs that lead to "dumb" and arbitrary ways of looking at and dealing with people. Take a look at what atheists often try to stand by--humanism. Human rights, civil rights, gay rights. We don't appreciate that out-moded memes still dominate and blind people so that they can't live with diversity or appreciate opposition, but have to view things in the light of apostasy and heresy and division and perversion. And we can get intemperate in our speech about believers, no doubt about it--
Just like Ms. Allen has done. Because she has collectively swept up our admittedly small demographic of non-believers, and decided we are collectively boring. (Not too boring to make an editorial of, however.) We are whiny for wishing people of other beliefs were more like us, so she goes into detail about how she wished we weren't as we are. Way to not be ironic, ma'am.
As for some of her allegations about the tribe atheistic, she supposes we spend all our time looking for loopholes in the Bible and likewise trying to prove that the main character of this particular work is fictional. Not all of our time, certainly. But just enough time to wrestle our own demons as often being people raised in faith, or who culturally come across faith issues day-to-day, and who sometimes have to argue with the faithful who literally do stake their opinion upon the rock of their belief. Social issues often rest on faith-based arguments. What are we supposed to do--ignore that?
See this:
The problem with atheists -- and what makes them such excruciating snoozes -- is that few of them are interested in making serious metaphysical or epistemological arguments against God's existence, or in taking on the serious arguments that theologians have made attempting to reconcile, say, God's omniscience with free will or God's goodness with human suffering. Atheists seem to assume that the whole idea of God is a ridiculous absurdity, the "flying spaghetti monster" of atheists' typically lame jokes. They think that lobbing a few Gaza-style rockets accusing God of failing to create a world more to their liking ("If there's a God, why aren't I rich?" "If there's a God, why didn't he give me two heads so I could sleep with one head while I get some work done with the other?") will suffice to knock down the entire edifice of belief.
Is it really being an "excruciating snooze" (way to name-call, though) to avoid metaphysics after one has decided there isn't anything really "meta" going on? Just makes sense. This would tend to exclude us from all the "angels dancing on the head of a pin" business, and rather puts us down to earth where people go to war, fuck, eat, have and fight diseases, and try to eke out a better world against what we actually view are simply earthly forces to be dealt with, and not any particular hand we have been dealt by God. We aren't whining "Why didn't He give us better?" We're arguing--"Why say there is a 'He' at all?" Let's just actually deal with things, and not try to assign a "message" or pretend there is a "punishment".
I appreciate that she is put off by our "tone" of apparent sarcasm. I get it. But to paint us with a broad brush and not really have listened to what we have to say, means she's already decided we haven't anything to say, regardless of how it has been said--and no, we aren't always snarky or uncivil.
We are, apparently, so boring and inconsequential we merited an editorial. A boring editorial, and an inconsequential one. And I feel boring for having tediously responded, just like we atheists do. We are debaters, and arguers, after all. Even sometimes on behalf of people of one faith, against the belief systems of another. Even sometimes in favor of science, to preserve knowledge against people who want to censor it. And if we defend ourselves?
But there you go. We persist. Perhaps Ms. Allen could better advise us how we might be more interesting and serious enough for her to bother with?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
