Open Letter to PZ Myers: The Cracker Incident
Posted by
KTK
Dear Dr. Myers:
I have long admired your blog and your many contributions to science, to science education, and to the fight against irrationalism. I share your perspective on many things, and greatly respect the ways in which you have given it expression. You are doing a great service both to the community of rational thinkers and, if they only knew it, to the superstitious and anti-intellectual as well.
I was aghast, but, sadly, not surprised at the events involving the “Eucharist” cracker at UCF. I am appalled at the hostility expressed toward the student involved and at the university’s failure to support him, still more so at the threats of violence and retaliation directed at him and at you for supporting him. You have my best wishes for your safety.
All that being said, however, I’d like to call on you to reconsider your most recent post on that matter. It is easy to laugh at the overheated antics of religious kooks, and certainly even the most mundane religious beliefs are absurd upon inspection. But, as you know all too well, I’m sure, religious people take them very seriously. It’s mind-boggling how people wrap themselves up in these ridiculous claims - “miracles”, crackers-into-flesh (but you can’t see it!), Jesus on tortillas and whatnot - but it’s not as hard to understand that, given that they do believe this nonsense, they do care about how that nonsense is treated by others.
At the point of believers’ emotional investment in their nonsensical beliefs, we are not talking about the rationality of those beliefs but about how those beliefs impinge on the believers’ values and well-being. In that way, crazy as they are, believers are no different from atheists or other rational people. That is, in caring about what they believe in, rather than their actual beliefs, they are just like us - their values (however unfounded) guide their lives, they are invested (however irrationally) in living up to those values, and they hurt (even if unnecessarily) when others gratuitously trample them.
That, I think, is where you tread in soliciting help in openly desecrating religious paraphernalia (asking for someone to steal a Eucharist cracker so you can publicly destroy it). I understand deliberately contravening religious claims to prove their falsity (calling on God to smite you, for instance); that serves a kind of scientific purpose in rationally testing the factual claims believers make. But your plan, as far as I understand it, seems to consist in mere taunting: flaunting your “sacrilege” to show up those who threatened you and the student.
Allow me to suggest, with respect, that that is beneath you. No one could deny your grievance in becoming the target of death threats and an attempt to destroy your career for your beliefs. But a malicious lashing-out in revenge is mean-spirited, even in the face of such gross provocation. If your plan was not intended as vengeance but rather some sort of counterstrike or defensive move, I have to say it still seems to consist merely in gratuitous outrage rather than any practical step toward securing the rights of non-believers. I really can’t see how it constitutes any useful “fight[ing] back against Bill Donohue”, or “countercampaign” against a witch hunt - as your blog post terms it. At the very least, it will cause real hurt to many people who have nothing to do with this incident, far more so than it will make any overt contribution to resolving it. And on those grounds - causing hurt to no purpose, or for purely personal satisfaction - it serves the same base impulse that has been aimed at you. It may not be my place to tell you how angry you have a right to be, after such unconscionable behavior was directed toward you. But I want to say that it is the part of decency to be magnanimous where possible, and it is incumbent upon rationalists to fight their battles with logic and not malice.
However misguided and often offensive, superstitious and irrational people are part of our world - indeed the majority of it. I do not for a moment suggest we should surrender any of our freedom to their constant trespasses: stamping their silly slogans on coins, currency, and government buildings; making children mouth cant and dogma upon command in the public schools; writing their phobias and perversions into discriminatory laws to oppress the many groups and subgroups they despise; resorting to violence and terrorism when they cannot oppress by other means; and all the immeasurable rest. But we owe them, as to any moral person, the minimal decency of regard for their feelings, whether or not we share those feelings or endorse their reasons for having them. We owe to their silly beliefs and rituals, not the condescension of uncritical approval, but the moral respect of tolerance.
We are entitled to, and desperately need to, defend our own rights, freedoms, and scope for belief and practice, but we should avoid going out of our way to give offense in regard of others’ beliefs, even where we reject them. And I can’t see that deliberately soliciting and committing “blasphemy” or “sacrilege” or whatever it is will serve any purpose other than angering the people who get angry about that sort of thing. Most of them don’t deserve that, however wrong they are about other things. If nothing else, it will live forever as a treasured example of atheists’ “hatred for Christians” and the “war on Christianity” - and so for our sake if not for theirs, I’d ask you not to do it. But more importantly, I’d ask you not to just because it seems mean, and, though we shouldn’t surrender what really matters, we shouldn’t be mean.
Thanks for your time and consideration. I know I can rely on your judgment.
With best wishes,
/s/ Kevin T. Keith
www.leanleft.com
www.sufficientscruples.com
UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan also condemns Myers’s proposal, while managing to work in the word “bigot” - directed at Myers. Maybe I need to rethink this . . .
Trying to figure out if I am offended by your over-the-top rhetoric and insults of anyone who holds religious beliefs or if you were just blowing off steam and didn’t recognize the contradictions in what you wrote compared to what you say you believe (i.e. tolerance and acceptance).
I read a lot on this blog about acceptance and tolerance and how it is so wrong for people to lump everyone together under one group rather than looking at people as individuals and then I read something like this which, in reality, does the exact things that supposedly open-minded people say should never be done. The following comments are what I would classify as insulting and condescending and even somewhat evidenciary of a prejudice AGAINST anyone who may claim a belief in something.
“believers’ emotional investment in their nonsensical beliefs”
“In that way, crazy as they are, believers are no different from atheists or other rational people”
“believers’ emotional investment in their nonsensical beliefs”
“even the most mundane religious beliefs are absurd upon inspection”
but then you have this comment: “but we should avoid going out of our way to give offense in regard of others’ beliefs, even where we reject them.”
So within your letter you insult degrade and criticize any and all people who hold a belief system but at the end you say you should avoid doing what you just did. I would understand if you had made it clear you were talking about the over-the-top idiots like that Baptist pastor in Kansas and the kooks that have threatened Mr. Myers life but you made it pretty clear in your letter that you were referencing everyone who holds any beliefs.
So based on your first paragraph I would have to come to the conclusion that you see me as irrational, supersticious and anti-intellectual. Which in reality would reflect more on your prejudices than it does on what is true. I think that as much as I may go around on issues with people such as yourself, Ted and tgirsch, I would like to think that on several issues I present as rational and interested in intellectual improvement as well as being open to changing my thinking. However, unless you misworded your comments, you could not believe that to be possible as it would be in direct opposition to what you stated.
So in the end, I guess I am not really offended, though I have every right to be. In the end I simply view this as evidence of a significant level of intolerance towards and bias against anyone who professes to believe in a God or who has a belief system based on anything spiritual. That way of thinking will clearly affect your ability to engage in productive conversations and will obviously color the way you view anyone who holds such beliefs.
Comment 7/11/2008
Regarding the actual issue, I think the church has over-reacted significantly and Mr. Myers was completely out of line to so callously and carelessly disregard what some people take very seriously.
Another case of ignorance facing ignorance and both sides losing.
Comment 7/11/2008
Big U, good comment. I agree with you.
Comment 7/11/2008
I would add that KTK uses the word “cracker” as a subtle insult as well.
Comment 7/11/2008
Big U,
I respect your point, but I think it should be taken into consideration that this was written directed at Myers with the intent to persuade him (despite the fact that he also posted it publicly). It’s foremost goal is to elicit a desired response from its intended recipient, and hence he’s going to tailor it to be most palatable to that target.
Not to say, that you can’t throw that allegation at KTK, just that, ironically, this may be one of his posts in which it is the least applicable.
Also, remember there are three writers on this blog, each with their own style and beliefs, so no need to say “this blog” if you just mean KTK.
KTK,
I understand your points. But, isn’t this just “political theater? Are such action subject to the same risk/benefit analysis as more traditional tools of influence? I’d argue, no. Also, while legally religion is protected, that doesn’t mean morally Myers must feel that it should be. If he accepts the legal standing of his actions, I don’t see why he should be dissuaded from his proposed actions, provided he doesn’t intend to hurt anybody. Not all people believe all opinion need be respected equally. Usually, I consider you one of those people. But, then again, you’re not really objecting on that basis as much as on the pragmatic, it won’t help as much as it’ll hurt, basis. Somehow, I presume that if you thought it was a good idea, practically speaking, you’d quickly get over the disrespecting those who believe in imaginary sky men part.
Comment 7/11/2008
digglahhh > I can see where you are coming from but I would disagree that consideration needs to be taken regarding who the letter was intended for. If it had been written strictly to Mr. Myers, I could agree with your argument. However, once KTK posted it on this blog with the phrase “open letter” it is no longer intended just for the party being addressed but is then clearly intended to be read by anyone who visits this blog.
In regards to Mr. Myers, he could easily have obtained an unblessed Eucharist to show his friend so I have a difficult time believing that he is as innocent a person as he claims. Having been raised Lutheran, he would be very well aware of the reaction he would receive in doing what he did. So realistically, the action to me seems to be very much more about baiting than it does anything else. There is no reason or logical explanation for why he would seek communion in the church of a religious group that he not only detests but states clearly he disagrees with other than the possiblity he was hoping to get the reaction he did in order to prove a point he planned on making.
Comment 7/11/2008
Big U:
say you believe (i.e. tolerance and acceptance). I read a lot on this blog about acceptance and tolerance . . .
You keep using those words.
I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
The following comments are what I would classify as insulting and condescending and even somewhat evidenciary of a prejudice AGAINST anyone who may claim a belief in something.
“believers’ emotional investment in their nonsensical beliefs”
“In that way [regarding emotions], crazy as they are, believers are no different from atheists or other rational people”
“even the most mundane religious beliefs are absurd upon inspection”
Well, you may not like hearing any of that, but none of it is intentionally insulting. Those are merely factual descriptions of the thoughts and thinking of people who take supernatural religious claims seriously. OK - “crazy” is an unflattering term, but it was meant in the colloquial sense - the way you would say it about ballplayers who don’t change their underwear during a hitting streak, or people who rant about how flouridated water is a Communist plot. You’re entitled to think or (within limits) do what you want without interference, but you’re not entitled to make everyone refrain from noting that it doesn’t make sense.
within your letter you insult degrade and criticize any and all people who hold a belief system
Surely not.
As I note, some of my remarks may be unflattering, but they are true (and in which case you are free to change your beliefs to ones about which people’s true remarks are not unflattering). None of them are intended as deliberate insults, however; they just express the way things are. And I don’t see how it “degrades” anyone to have their beliefs or actions truthfully evaluated; as I say, the results may turn out to be unflattering, but that is a reason to change the beliefs, not ban the evaluations. As for criticism, actually there is little direct criticism here, though there is clear disapproveal. Either way, you’re not guaranteed a pass against either one.
Here: if it helps, I’ve appended a comprehensive, anotated list of all the remarks in my letter evaluating or indicating an opinion of religious beliefs or believers:
Some of those are unflattering, most are merely statements of fact. Only a few express personal opinion, and I will stand by those opinions.
I would understand if you had made it clear you were talking about the over-the-top idiots like that Baptist pastor in Kansas and the kooks that have threatened Mr. Myers life
Those people are simply violent vermin and terrorists. That has nothing to do with what I was saying above. I would hope it goes without saying that disturbing family funerals merely to get press attention for your bigotry, or making death threats, are beyond any justification. But it’s not their irrational beliefs - which most religious people share, in a general sense - that make these creeps do these things; that’s just the motivation or the focusing point. They engage in harassment and terrorism because they’re creeps, which most religious people are not. Being religous and being violent or malicious are separate issues.
You are commenting here on morally bad people. I was commenting on irrational people. Some in the former category are also in the latter, but the two are by no means coextensive. And I was not claiming that irrational people are morally bad, or even that it always leads to bad actions or policies. I said we should tolerate irrational beliefs and (within reasonable and fairly narrow bounds) even irrational actions - and that we are obliged to care about the well-being of irrational people the same way we care about that of ourselves and others. But none of that implies refusing to notice, or sometimes to state out loud, that they are irrational.
you made it pretty clear in your letter that you were referencing everyone who holds any beliefs
I assume you mean “any more or less mainstream religious beliefs” - and yes, that’s right. But see my comments just above.
you see me as irrational, supersticious and anti-intellectual
Well, that’s up to you. I don’t really know anything about your beliefs. But if they include belief in supernatural events contrary to scientific principle, on no evidence and in spite of contrary evidence, then they’re irrational. And if you believe your life is controlled or influenced by supernatural beings or forces, again contrary to evidence, and that you have to behave in particular ways to placate those beings or forces, then you’re superstitious. But you can choose not to be that way. It’s up to you.
As for “anti-intellectual”, however, that’s another matter. There is a hugely, grossly anti-intellectual streak in American religion, and fundamentalist religion of many kinds. (Three words: “George Bush”, “creationism”. QED) But not all religious people are anti-intellectual, even if, by definition, they fall down intellectually in certain specific areas. And, paradoxically, there is a long tradition of deep and searching scholarly, intellectual engagement with the world - grounded on the most fantastic gullibility, of course - within the Catholic church in particular (notably, but by no means uniquely, the Jesuits) and in many other traditions. (There’s a not dissimilar offshoot of Protestant scholarship. And Islam was essentially the seat of Western/Near Eastern scholarship from about 700 - 1300 CE, and not only made major strides in math, astronomy, and music, but preserved and extended a vast body of ancient Western knowledge that the Catholic church sought to destroy. Chinese scholarship, centered in Confucianism, made its own discoveries. And Hindus invented more sex positions than the rest of the world combined. It’s all good!) But modern conservative Christianity and Islam, in particular, seem to be marked by a thoroughgoing fear of science and hatred for any studies or persons that demand rigorous rational defensibility for factual claims, often even ones not directly touching on religious beliefs.
But that does not mean that religion, or even conservative religion, is synonymous with anti-intellectualism, or that all religious people are anti-intellectual. Being irrational is not the same as being anti-intellectual. The one is a failure to employ reasoning in an appropriate area; the other is holding a personal stance against doing so, or attempting to prevent its being done for fear of the consequences of having one’s beliefs thought carefully about. Irrational people just bumble along, holding to and making important decisions on the basis of beliefs that can’t be justified; anti-intellectual people actively try to prevent others from learning things they don’t approve of, and are suspicious of people who take knowledge and rationality seriously.
Whether any particular person is anti-intellectual is, again, up to them. I can identify many right-wing public figures who are, but I have no opinion about the average private person in that respect.
on several issues I present as rational and interested in intellectual improvement as well as being open to changing my thinking
I have thought so, so far. And most religious people are rational in many ways. Curiously, it seems possible to be irrational in one aspect of life and not in others. (In fact, there are many religious believers who are scientists or engineers. Some of them try to finesse the issue with a “watchmaker God” or some such thing, but others seem to simply go along, never following the implications of their two conflicting sets of beliefs or asking themselves why they demand empirical demonstration for every ordinary fact and principle they accept in most areas of thought and then completely waive those requirements for their utterly incredible beliefs in another area.) Somehow, that’s the way people go about things.
So, if this helps, in referring to “irrational people” above, it has to be understood that I mean “people who are irrational in one highly significant way, and likely base their decisions in life or politics on unfounded or superstitious beliefs that are impervious to rational evaluation”, but not necessarily “people who are batshit loony and . . .”.*
[*OK - here I’ve got a problem. I kept trying to complete that sentence by filling in an example of a behavior that would obviously demarcate totally crazy people from ordinary religious believers. But every example I could think of - “talk to themselves”, “hear voices in their heads”, “talk to trees”, “see nonexistent things”, “think they can fly” - is actually central dogma of at least one well-known religion. It really is hard to specify a set of diagnostic criteria that will consistently distinguish religious belief from severe insanity. As with irrationality, about the only aspect of delusionality that seems different between religious believers and total whackos is that the former do it only in some cases, and the latter do it in all cases. But that’s not really true either.]
unless you misworded your comments, you could not believe that to be possible as it would be in direct opposition to what you stated
Well, no. See the comments just above. It’s possible to be religious and (generally) rational, even if you’re not rational about religion.
Anyway, you don’t need my opinion on any of this. It’s not a matter of opinion whether you are rational, anyway. You either are or are not. Take this simple test:
I am not really offended, though I have every right to be.
I don’t see why.
I simply view this as evidence of a significant level of intolerance towards and bias against anyone who professes to believe in a God
You keep using that word . . .
“Tolerance” doesn’t mean “the refusal to hold any critical opinions”, still less does it mean “the approval in every way” or “the sharing in crackpot delusions”. It means . . . tolerating - allowing to be, accepting, co-existing with. Of course rational people should tolerate religious believers (it’s not like we have a choice anyway). But that in no way means we have to pretend their beliefs are rational when they’re not. And there are times - like in a discussion of religion arising from a highly public event - when it’s appropriate to say so out loud.
My point to Myers was only that there’s a line between opposing inappropriate religiously-based public policies or debating religious topics in a relevant forum, on one hand, and being gratuitously offensive on the other. I couldn’t see a reason for him to go out of his way to commit sacrilege just to make a point, even in response to harassment and death threats. But that doesn’t imply that no one can make any factual evaluation of religious claims of truth (Crackers turn to Jesus in your stomach: FALSE!), or even express opinions about the truth or rationality of religious beliefs, under any circumstances.
I don’t think I was being hypocritical in making that distinction. But if I was, I suppose I would have to correct it by endorsing Myers’s plans for sacrilege. There’s absolutely no way I’m endorsing a religious claim of immunity from the constraints of rational thought as well as a guarantee never to have that claim publicly named for what it is.
Comment 7/11/2008
1. Do you believe in supernatural events, “miracles”, or other phenomena that are not merely unexplained by science but, to your knowledge, actively contravene important and well-tested scientific principles? [Y/N]
To this I would be forced to say yes as I have personally witnessed (based on available scientific testing) the complete disappearance of cancer from a person’s body when over several months tests and surgeries showed significant degradation of their body due to the cancer. Medical professionals were unable to find any explanation as to why the inoperable and terminal cancer disappeared within 24 hours allowing the person to live a completely cancer free life to this date. This would fit your definition of a miracle unexplained by science and in contrast to any known well-tested scientific principles (or at least any that I know of).
Do you believe there is some power, force, or supernatural entity, acting independently of the scientifically-describable substance of the universe, that influences, directs, or “has a plan for” your life? [Y/N]
This is not something I have spent a great deal of time dwelling on but since I can’t say no immediately I would guess my answer would have to be yes. That being said, there are so many things that are unexplainable that I am unwilling to close off any possibilities completely.
Do you think that your factual beliefs regarding the truth about events or phenomena in the world - i.e., what the world is like and how you can know that - do not require empirical substantiation, but can be justifiably arrived at without confirmable evidence or logical deduction from available evidence? [Y/N]
Tough question. Simply because even in evolution there are things which are believed to be true that have yet to be proven empirically. Some evolutionary ideas even defy logic but may fit the theory the best. I would say I tend to lean towards facts but also acknowledge that our intelligence and wisdom is significantly enough limited that there are many possibilities that we can not comprehend or understand.
Do you believe that how you act in your life is or should be guided by the demands of a supernatural entity whose commands, desires, or precepts are not justified by reference to a logically-defensible argument? [Y/N]
I’d need this question explained more clearly but I will answer it the way I think it is being asked. My actions in life are in large part influenced by what is written in the Bible. I do not pick a verse here or there and use it to my advantage but rather take a larger view of the overall concept. Two good books that lay out my thought process would be “A Case for Faith” and “A Case for Christ”. While not the be all and end all of where my thought processes are at, they explain things fairly clearly.
Do you think you can or do engage in conversations with immaterial, supernatural entities - i.e, they talk to you and you hear them, and/or you talk to them and they hear you? [Y/N]
Do I talk to God? Yes. I have a faith that there is something greater than mankind and that God takes an interest in mankind. I have experienced enough empirically in my life to make my faith very real to me but it is a personal thing.
So I guess I sit somewhere between irrational and nuts based on your scale. So be it. I will continue to be a nutcase who feels people have the right to their beliefs whether I agree with them or not. And I will continue to express my opinions.
Comment 7/11/2008
KTK: “none of it is intentionally insulting.”
Yeah, right.
Comment 7/11/2008
Since no one seems to have noticed, I’ll be the one to point out that KTK liked to the wrong post. This is the one he meant:
It’s a Goddamned Cracker
(Actually, it’s a wafer, but never mind.)
Religion is one of those areas where the majority, simply by virtue of being the majority, establishes unbalanced rules of debate.
By the rules of debate about religion (as established by the theistic majority), it’s acceptable to criticize the idea of non-theism as foolish, ignorant, blind, selfish, and amoral - all of which I have been called by others upon learning of my atheism. Meanwhile, it’s not acceptable to criticize the idea of theism; doing so is deemed biased, intolerant, and offensive. So it has been here.
But religious belief is irrational. Faith, after all, has been called “the evidence of things unseen” and it by definition relies on conviction rather than evidence. All the “logical proofs” of religion fail as such because they are based on reaching a pre-determined conclusion, they are answers in search of a question and a type of circular reasoning.
(I know it’s true because the Bible tells me so. How do you know the Bible is true? Because it’s the divinely-inspired word of God. How do you know that? Because it says it is. It’s - huh?)
That does not mean religion, faith, can play no constructive role in a society. As I wrote to a friend some years ago,
For that reason, while I fully agree with those such as PZ Myers who insist that whatever good religion may offer can be more than fully replaced by a scientific worldview that embraces the joy of learning and discovery and finds wonder in the workings of nature and the universe, I part company with him and those others who do not simply reject religion but assault its very existence, whose sneering mockery is directed not just against the mad fanatics but against the merely faithful.
So while he most certainly he should not be threatened and his position should in no way be at risk, and I will drop a quick note of support, as he requested, I can’t avoid feeling that the fact that he asked for that support indicates he’s feeling a little chagrined, perhaps feeling that maybe this time, as justified as his fury at the mouth-breathing pseudo-Christian buffoons responsible for the original situation was, he went a little too far in his attempt to be deliberately offensive, an attempt that swept in many more than the original targets. And I also can’t avoid feeling that maybe that’s a good thing.
Comment 7/12/2008
As long as I’m here, let’s see if I’m rational.
1. I don’t believe in miracles. I do believe there can be (and indeed have been) phenomena which “actively contravene … well-tested scientific principles.” That would say to me that those principles need to be reexamined, not that some supernatural power intervened.
2. I do not believe there is any power, etc., that “has a plan for” my life. However, I would note that there are some religions which would say the same.
3. Given that there is an external world, factual assertions about its functioning require at minimum logical conclusions drawn from observations. The problem with the question is that “empirical” includes “drawn from direct experience.” I expect if I say that my thumb hurts when I hit it with a hammer, that would be accepted as a legitimate factual assertion about a phenomenon, based on empirical evidence, even though it could not be confirmed independently. So what then do we say to someone who says they have directly experienced spiritual contact with God?
4. Since I do not believe in a deity, I obviously do not believe my life should be guided by the rules of a non-existent being. However, the reference to “a logically-defensible argument” is fraught with risk: Developing purely logical justifications for morality has challenged philosophers for ages.
5. I do not talk to supernatural beings in the normally-understood meanings of “talk” and “supernatural.” On the other hand, thanks to the internet I have contact with a number of beings who I have never met, never seen, whose voices I have never heard, whose handwriting I have never read, beings of whose locations, age, physical descriptions, sometimes even gender, I am entirely unaware. They are literally nothing beyond words on a computer screen. That’s pretty immaterial.
Comment 7/12/2008
Great post, Larry!
Re: the explanations of rationaly, nonsense, etc.
I can only say that rational and irrational are loaded words, IMO; they far from objective. What is and what is not rational is based upon one’s beliefs and values. Plenty of actions that are considered irrational by hegemonic interpretation are not considered such by me. Being “rational” as it commonly used, with its multiple layers of meaning, is not something that exists in a scientific or cost/benefit vacuum. I’d argue that in consideration of the understood rules of the universe, almost our entire collective cultural behavior is irrational!
When I advocate a radical position taken by, say, Ward Churchill, I’m commonly called irrational. My response is usually, “Good, the complete refutation of my principles by the system which I believe to cruel, rigged, and untruthful, considers my beliefs irrational. It is supposed to, that is simply confirmation of my beliefs.” I’d venture that this is similar - the devoutly religious don’t seek confirmation of their principles from the atheist interpretation of rationality any more than I seek confirmation of the rationality of my political views from the MSM.
I’m in your camp, KTK, (and I think you do tolerate religion, you don’t infringe on anybody’s right to believe, and I agree, I think Big U is sort of stretching the meaning of “tolerance” and “acceptance”). But, all the talk about “nonsense” and scientific rationality in the face of the beliefs of the religious simply don’t resonate. Again, not that I, personally, don’t think such a belief system is crazy.
Also, they kinda acknowledge the gap by trusting in “faith.” Science trusts in the faith of its own principles too, though it has a much more intensive and frequent review process for those principles. (I’ll forgo the science is just another form of religion diatribe that fails to get any love here). I’m starting to ramble, but the point is your classification of a devoutly religious persons belief probably doesn’t mean jack shit to them, and according to their beliefs - it absolutely shouldn’t!
Comment 7/12/2008
Here is the definition of irrational according to the Merriam Webster online dictionary:
not rational: as a (1): not endowed with reason or understanding (2): lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b: not governed by or according to reason
I would say that the way I approach my faith certainly fits with number 1 and 2 of part a. And depending on what is meant by “reason” I could even argue that it fits part b. Using the word irrational in correspondence with a religious faith can be accurate when discussing certain sects or even certain aspects of some religions. But to use a broad stroke to completely write off all faiths as irrational is simply not valid or rational.
“Religion is one of those areas where the majority, simply by virtue of being the majority, establishes unbalanced rules of debate.”
And as Chrisitanity wanes in the US and Canada as a strong force, the rules of debate are changing. It is now very easy to attack Christian beliefs and Christian thoughts and any effort to defend those beliefs is often met with ridicule and scorn.
LarryE says “it’s acceptable to criticize the idea of non-theism as foolish, ignorant, blind, selfish, and amoral - all of which I have been called by others upon learning of my atheism.” I have had the same things said to me in regards to my faith.
Comment 7/12/2008
Digg -
First, thanks. But I think my point about “irrational” stands. I tried to be (and thought I was) at least reasonably clear about my meaning in the rest of that same paragraph. Big U actually covers it well when he notes the meaning of “irrational” includes “not governed by or according to reason.”
Or, as I put it in a somewhat different debate (over science versus religion):
Faith, needless of evidence, believes what it will. Science, because of evidence, believes what it must.
One other thing; you said
I’ll forgo the science is just another form of religion diatribe that fails to get any love here
With good reason, I’d say.
Big U -
It is now very easy to attack Christian beliefs and Christian thoughts … I have had the same things said to me in regards to my faith.
The idea that it’s “easy” to attack Christianity depends entirely on the meaning of “easy.” Do you mean there are good bases for criticism? Do you mean it takes little physical effort? In those cases, yes, it’s easy.
But if you mean, as I expect you do, that it’s popular and approved, that it can be done without negative reaction, that’s simply nonsense - just ask PZ Myers.
As for your personal experience, I have no reason to doubt it. The question is, is that generally considered socially acceptable? The answer to that is no.
In February 2007, a USA Today/Gallup poll asked Americans the question “If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be [fill in the blank with one of 10 different characteristics], would you vote for that person?”
The category with the smallest portion of “no”s, just 4%, was “Catholic.”
There was one category, just one of the 10, where a majority of Americans polled were prepared to tell a pollster that they would not vote for an otherwise qualified person who had that characteristic. That characteristic was being an atheist.
So you’ll have to excuse me if the “oppressed majority” routine cuts no ice with me.
Comment 7/12/2008
And LarryE, don’t forget the 13 or so states that still have in their constitutions that no atheist can testify in a court of law or hold public office! How many states say that about Catholics?
Comment 7/12/2008
There was at one time considerable discrimination against Catholics - mostly indirect, but very real. That was a major reason for the institution of immigration quotas for Irish and Italians in the early 20th century, and for general prejudice against those groups (”No Irish need apply”). It was also a reason for the founding of all those Catholic schools and colleges - there were plenty of religious schools, and mandatory prayer and other religious instruction in public schools, throughout American history, but it was not only Protestant but often explicitly anti-Catholic, thus causing Catholics to form their own education system. Public prejudice against Catholics remained until well into the 20th century - remember Al Smith’s disastrous run for the presidency in 1928, and Kennedy’s speech pledging not to let the Vatican dictate his policies in 1960.
But there was never significant anti-Christian prejudice. The anti-Catholic prejudice was entirely on the part of other good Christians - the Protestants. They weren’t against Christianity (obviously) - they were just against people who were Christian in ways they didn’t agree with. Now, of course, that has declined to a negligible level, at least in its overt manifestations. And both groups remain united by their one common point of faith: prejudice against non-Christians.
Comment 7/12/2008
LarryE - “But if you mean, as I expect you do, that it’s popular and approved, that it can be done without negative reaction, that’s simply nonsense - just ask PZ Myers.”
I will leave this to the differences between Canada and the US. Here in Canada if a Christian writes a letter to the editor stating critical remarks about anyone or anything, they can be dragged before a human rights commission. However, if someone attacks a Christian, the human rights commissions are not accessible. I realize this is much different from the US but it is the reality within which I live.
Here is a link to give you an example of what I am talking about. You may need to check out some links within the article to get the details on the initial article in question:
http://ezralevant.com/2008/06/what-could-mark-steyns-punishm.html
Comment 7/12/2008
Big U -
Thanks for the link, although I find it hard to accept Ezra Levant as anything even vaguely approaching an impartial source. Still, it does serve to show the dangers of abuse that lie within hate crimes laws.
However, questions remain:
if a Christian writes a letter to the editor stating critical remarks
Are you saying that prohibition applies only to Christians?
if someone attacks a Christian, the human rights commissions are not accessible
Really? Canada’s hate crimes law, as amended in 1996, says the law can be applied in the face of
evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor.
Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in effect since 1985, says
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Clearly, Christians who are the targets of discrimination or hatred are included in the protections. So how can the Human Right Commissions not be accessible?
Or do you mean simply that they are “not accessible” from a practical rather than a legal standpoint? If so, could it be that Christians, as a still-dominant force in Canada (77% of the population), don’t get as much attention from the Commissions because they simply do not suffer from discrimination as much other groups but instead are trying to equate verbal insult with actual injury and actual threat?
Like I said before, references to an “oppressed majority” really don’t cut any ice with me.
Comment 7/13/2008
LarryE, you clearly did not read the decision by the human rights commission where it stated that the pastor has to publicly deny a segment of his religious beliefs, apologize for them and refrain from ever speaking them again. Ever. And in Canada, rulings are often based on precedents meaning that this ruling can be looked at by anyone else making a complaint and used as a template.
As far as Ezra Levant not being impartial, I told you to go look at the actual ruling which was linked to. Surely you would find the actual ruling to be impartial and then draw your own conclusion.
This was but a single situation where religious freedom was thrown out or ignored. I could find several more precedent setting situations but it appears that you do not have much interest in what is truly happening as much as you prefer to live within your viewpoint.
You use the words “oppressed majority” and I find that phrasing to be comical and politically expedient. What is really being said is as long as the attack is against the majority, they have no right to complain. That mindset in itself is fraught with danger. Either equality is for all or it is for none. Either unjust persecution is unacceptable for all or it is acceptable for all.
Now if you are open-minded in any way, here is another more thorough link:
http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com/2008/03/interim-magazine-human-rights-tribunals.html
Comment 7/13/2008
KTK,
Great post. I’m a believing Catholic, and it is good to know that at least some atheists do not approve of what PZ Meyers is doing.
Comment 7/13/2008
Quote: “Either equality is for all or it is for none.”
What a radical point of view!
Comment 7/13/2008
BU,
It is very clear that Canada has very different laws than does the US with respect to civil rights. (Heck, the last time we discussed something like this, I discovered that you guys have laws that grant civil powers to your clergy, just by dint of being clergy! From an US perspective, that’s just crazy. So, a lot of our analysis is going to not make sense to each other.) So, I can’t speak to whether there are larger trends of religious civil rights being superceded by other civil rights.
However, looking at just the issue you point at through Ezra Levant, I think you’re making an error, one captured by the equivocation of Levant. Levant cites paragraph 357 and then claims that it supercedes a right to freedom of speech by a “right not to be offended”. Of course, that’s not what the paragraph says: “[E]xposure of homosexuals to hatred and contempt trumps the freedom of
speech afforded in the Charter.” It’s not about the feelings of the gays who are vilified; it’s about the effect that vilification has on the community, which tends to cause later mistreatment of those gays.
This is not a “situation where religious freedom was thrown out or ignored“, as you put it, because freedom of religious really doesn’t enter into it. This is a matter of freedom of speech, and speech has always been curtailed when it manifestly results in harm.
If you can tell us honestly that in Canada, speech against gays is roundly dismissed as fringe kookery, then you have a point. But I don’t think that’s true.
Comment 7/13/2008
Dan,
When a pastor is told that he can no longer ever again speak about certain passages in the Bible and must publicly deny his beliefs, how is that not an infringement on freedom of religion??
Comment 7/13/2008
Big U -
I did read the post and I did scan the decision, one which I noted “show[s] the dangers of abuse that lie within hate crimes laws.”
You, however, did not answer the questions. Are you saying that only Christians are constrained by the human rights laws? Are you saying that Christians are barred from bringing human rights complaints - or merely indirectly acknowledging that the discrimination and threats they face are dwarfed by those faced by other groups?
Your response, which is just an expansion on your previous comment, is a non sequitur.
As for your false rephrasing of my remark about the “oppressed majority,” what is really “comical and expedient” is the claims by a handful of fanatics claiming to speak for a 77% majority presenting themselves as an oppressed people in need of the protection of civil rights laws - especially since, as I already demonstrated and you ignored, they are covered by those laws.
And what of the Bishop of Calgary’s demand that religious-based bigotry essentially be exempt from the provisions of civil rights laws? What of the fact that, typically, one silly decision which is being appealed and most expect will be overturned as too broad and the terms too vague, is being ginned up by the right wing as a means to attack the entire idea of the Human Rights Commissions?
I also can’t say your new link is all that impressive, declaring as it does its bias in its very subtitle.
The article quoted, among other things, drags out the trite, stale crap of railing against “politically correct pieties [that] must never be questioned,” charges that the Commissions are out to “trample down and stamp out” certain conservative “opinions,” repeatedly refers to same-sex marriages with quotation marks (i.e., it’s not marriage, it’s “marriage” - even though same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005), and declares Canada to be “well down the road to totalitarianism” as Commissions “run roughshod over Christians and conservatives who have not toed the line on complete acceptance of the gay agenda.”
The latter is supposedly proved by a total of eight described-to-sound-silly cases over the last 11 years. Of those eight, one was classic discrimination, another is on appeal, a third appears to have had no impact on the accused, and a fourth was dropped before a ruling was issued. Pretty thin gruel for feeding a theme that there is some gigantic pro-gay, anti-God conspiracy.
The part that really got me referred to the case of one Ron Gray, head of a group that republished an article making the patently false claim that pedophilia is more common among gays (with the last word in quotation marks) and who referred to homosexuality as “perversion.” The article immediately goes on to declare that “Gray … does not hate homosexuals” but is merely debating the definition of “marriage.”
Uh-huh. Well, I’m afraid I’m not “open-minded” enough to take that seriously.
Comment 7/13/2008
Sweating Through Fog -
Just to be precise, I think it should be said that “at least some atheists do not approve of what PZ Meyers is doing in this case.”
That is, furious at the fanatical response to Cook, he went over the top in his own response. That is not a generalized criticism of “what PZ Meyers is doing” overall.
Comment 7/13/2008
LarryE > be careful with the vagaries of statistics. While you say 77% of Canadians are Christians, you would be sorely mistaken. That may be the number of Canadians that can identify as being connected to a certain faith but it may have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they are Christians.
Only 20% actually practice their faith and over 40% of adults stated they had not attended a service in over a year. (2001 stats). I personally know several people who, if asked, will state they are part of some denomination but have never seen a church or followed the tenets of their supposed faith for years.
Now, I have never stated there is a huge pro-gay, anti-Christian conspiracy in Canada. Those were your words. Possibly used to discredit anything I say or simply a reflection of how you view anyone stating that Christianity is a fair and easy target in society right now. I don’t know and I won’t make a guess.
And at this point in time, the HRC will not hear cases regarding Christians claiming discrimination. Not sure why, but that is the situation. Any claims that have been brought have been rejected. I do not know what the reasons were for the rejection have been.
Comment 7/13/2008
Big U-
Only 20% actually practice their faith
So what then, the rest aren’t really Christians?
I have never stated there is a huge pro-gay, anti-Christian conspiracy in Canada. Those were your words.
Words that were clearly referring to the arguments that immediately preceded them, arguments made in the article to which you sent me, an article that specifically claimed the Commissions are “running roughshod over Christians and conservatives” for the purpose of enforcing “complete acceptance of the gay agenda.” I don’t see how anyone could seriously argue that that amounts to anything other than an assertion of a “pro-gay, anti-God conspiracy” between gay rights activists and the government.
That would have been obvious to anyone not looking to cherry-pick phrases in order to justify intimations of venal motives or bias against Christians on my part. (And don’t bother to claim I have done the same; my quotes accurately reflected the content and meaning of the source I was quoting. Your assertions about my words did not.)
And please, drop the cheap device of “maybe it’s this bad thing or maybe it’s this bad thing, I can’t say,” which is an underhanded way of making accusations while trying to have no responsibility for them. (”Is Barack Obama a secret Muslim with connections to terrorists? Is Big U a right-wing fanatic trying to conceal his hatred of gays and women? I really can’t say.” See how that works?) It’s tawdry, it’s dishonest, and it’s beneath you.
Finally,
I do not know what the reasons were for the rejection have been.
So by your own admission, you don’t know that the HRCs are “not accessible” to Christians, you only know they haven’t been presented with any cases they think require investigation.
Bottom line: IF Christians are actually barred from pursuing claims through the HRC, that is wrong and should be changed - in fact, I don’t see how it could stand considering that “religion” is a protected category under both civil rights law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
But I still have seen nothing to make me believe that Canadian Christians are some oppressed group whose employment, physical safety, and even lives are at risk because of who they are. I’m sorry - actually I’m not - but being offended is not the same as being threatened and calling a belief “superstition” is simply not on the same level with labeling the way someone lives their life as “perversion.”
And with that, I’m done with this. If you wish, have the last word.
Comment 7/13/2008
Well, since you gave me the opportunity to have the last word, then I will use it.
Anyone who says they are a Christian but does not follow any tenets of their faith or show any interest in their faith realistically has no right to claim they are a Christian. So the truth is a lot of people who identify with Protestant or Catholic or some other “Christian” group are in fact not Christians. A Christian is a Christ-follower and if you aren’t following Christ, you aren’t one. Pretty simple logic really.
It would be akin to a person saying they are Republican based solely on the fact they came from a family that voted Republican 40 years ago even though they themselves have never voted, campaigned or otherwise followed or pushed Republican ideals. No one would accept the idea that they are actually a Republican (although for polling purposes, they would count as one thus raising the statistics for Republicans).
And there you go again with the overblown “oppressed group” mantra. I notice this is often used by people who want to ridicule someone bringing up an issue in which the supposed majority is facing issues. I never said anything about being oppressed or about Christians being oppressed. What I said (or at least thought I said) is that Christians are an open target right now. An example?:
Take a close look at television for an example. Show me some examples of Christians being portrayed as normal or even positive role models. More often than not they are portrayed as psychos, idiots, zealots, etc. No other group is allowed to be portrayed in the same negative light as Christians other than perhaps Muslims. Not a matter of oppression, just a simple fact.
Now, again I say, I am not oppressed nor am I suggesting that Christians are an oppressed group. But I stand by my assertion that based on what I have seen, Christians are facing more and more persecution for their beliefs and being given less and less options to exercise their religious freedoms.
And having supposedly open-minded people call ALL Christians kooks, non-sensical, crazy, ridiculous, absurd, or misguided without anyone saying those comments are inappropriate would indicate to me that attacking Christians and their beliefs is acceptable to many people.
Comment 7/13/2008
Take a close look at television for an example. Show me some examples of Christians being portrayed as normal or even positive role models. More often than not they are portrayed as psychos, idiots, zealots, etc. No other group is allowed to be portrayed in the same negative light as Christians
Ah, but here’s the thing - all those normal, stable, positive characters portrayed on television whose religions are not stated or implied, are, de facto, assumed to be Christian. This is kinda like the, how come there’s not White History Month question - because any month not explicitly labeled as Black History Month is White History Month. Sidebar: It’s funny how many people object to that analogy, but when I do the same thing but sub Mother’s/Father’s Day and “kids’ day,” I get no complaints…
Larry E.,
My post about rational/irrational was basically a response to KTK’s itemized defenses of his assertions (that Big U perceived as insults) as objective and fair criticism.
Oh, and I maintain that much of the reluctance to accept my science/religion argument is due to my inability to communicate the argument in the precise way I believe it. Not that I need external confirmation of my rationality…:)
Comment 7/15/2008
Big U:
But I stand by my assertion that based on what I have seen, Christians are facing more and more persecution for their beliefs and being given less and less options to exercise their religious freedoms.
Sorry, but that’s hyperbole at it’s worst. I mean, persecution? Seriously?!?
And as far as I can tell, the only “religious freedoms” that are going away are those that involve the “freedom” to have a preferred place in society, or the “freedom” to cram your religious beliefs down everyone else’s throat (generalized “your”, not specific “your”).
Comment 7/15/2008
BU:
The case you cite isn’t any of that. Nobody has to deny their beliefs, nor can they not talk about their beliefs. They just can’t promulgate as true those beliefs that have already been recognized as harmful to others. It’s okay for a priest to think human sacrifice is pleasing to Nyarlathotep; he’s just not allowed to advocate using only the followers of Shub-Niggurath for that sacrifice, at least not in any place where it’s got any chance of actually getting a Shubbite killed — or, say, turned away from the local country club.
Any resemlence a particular religious doctrine has to human sacrifice is that religion’s problem, not the problem of the secular society that’s against murder and oppression.
Comment 7/15/2008
The order says he can not make disparaging remarks in a public speech. A sermon is a public speech.
dis·par·ag·ing
that disparages; tending to belittle or bring reproach upon: disparaging remarks.
That means he can not mention certain verses in the Bible even when he preaches to his own congregation because they are critical of homosexuality which makes them disparaging.
He is being told to publicly apologize for his comments. Apologizing means an admission of wrong. He is not required to apologize for the harm he did or could have done. He is to apologize for the actual article. To me, that amounts to a public statement that his beliefs are wrong.
Comment 7/15/2008
Well, sometimes life’s a bitch. Just because the bigotry was recorded long ago doesn’t change the fact that it is bigotry. I doubt the pastor extensively quotes the bible’s passages on slavery.
Comment 7/16/2008
Thank you, Ted, for saying that nicely. I tried to reply, but realized that I was about to say something very offensive. And while I think Christianity is a plague on the world and its history, I don’t think BU bears the blame for it.
Comment 7/17/2008
Dan M. “while I think Christianity is a plague on the world and its history”
You are entitled to your opinion on that. I will agree that a great deal of horrible things have been done under the guise of Christianity but it is very easy as well to say that a great deal of horrible things have been done in the complete absense of Christianity as well.
And a great deal more positive things have been done by Christians and Christian organizations than people such as yourself seem willing to ever acknowledge which shows a significant bias.
And be careful because your comment in #34 would make you a bigot when it comes to Christians and Christianity.
Comment 7/17/2008
Quote: “And be careful because your comment in #34 would make you a bigot when it comes to Christians and Christianity.”
Haven’t you heard? Atheists and other liberals can never be bigots or biased. They are too enlightened. Only those who disagree with them about anything can rightly be called bigots, racists, biased, or intolerant. They alone have the power to decide what is right and wrong (That is, if they believe there is such a thing as right and wrong.)
Comment 7/17/2008
OK, no more bets are being accepted. The pool is officially closed. The winner is whoever predicted Fred/Morris would be able to contain himself until the 17th, at which time he would trot out one of his three stock comments.
Comment 7/17/2008
Note: the pool for when he will contribute a meaningful comment is still open.
Comment 7/17/2008
“the pool for when he will contribute a meaningful comment is still open.”
“Ted writes:
Well, sometimes life’s a bitch. Just because the bigotry was recorded long ago doesn’t change the fact that it is bigotry. I doubt the pastor extensively quotes the bible’s passages on slavery.”
Yes, maybe one day I can make a comment as deep and meaningful as the one above. How do you come up with such brilliant commentary?
Comment 7/18/2008
Fred, I’m not asking that all your comments be meaningful. I’d like to see just one. In other words, carry your weight intellectually. You continue to subvert the measures taken to keep you off this site. The reason those actions were taken is not because of your views, but because of your lack of substance. Note that Big U takes the non-LL side in most of his comments, but nobody objects to him. Why? Because he expresses his opinion well and does not rely on generalizations and personal attacks.
If you have been reading along, you will notice that in your absence, the level of discourse here was substantially higher than when you were participating. So it is pretty obvious what the cause was. It was you.
Why not try an adult approach. See if you can contribute to the dialog rather than be a constant distraction. Who knows, You might not get banned this time.
Comment 7/18/2008
I think everyone should openly express doubt and ridicule for the sorts of pervasive belief systems, such as Catholicism and its accompanying dogmas, that threaten our national policies, our health, and the safety of our children.
This cracker incident is just one evidence of religion’s total irrationality, and to take the middle-of-the-road approach that you do comes off seeming gutless and safe-playing.
Meyers isn’t telling people to, for instance, burn down anything. He’s just saying, in reaction to something totally ridiculous, Give me your wafers, your wine, your chewed-on Christ-flesh yearning to break free.
Why not just be bold and support those who are willing to point out the follies of religion as what they are?
Comment 7/20/2008
I suppose if your leading statement were true, then the rest would logically follow. However as, in general, it is not demonstrably true, and recalling that in this country we seek the freedom to engage in the “pursuit of happiness,” I think you should reconsider your position.
Live and let live. It’s not just for the other guy.
Comment 7/20/2008
Mike:
to take the middle-of-the-road approach that you do comes off seeming gutless and safe-playing
I’d agree, but I don’t think that’s what I’m doing.
I’m not at all interested in a “middle-of-the-road” position on substantive issues related to religion. The basic factual claims characteristic of the main religions are not just false but absurd, and that needs to be pointed out. Many of the moral principles espoused by the most conservative strains of organized religion are not just indefensible but frankly immoral. That also should be pointed out, as a matter of ethics and public policy. It’s a terrible mistake to imagine that religious beliefs can’t be criticized on factual or moral grounds.
Further, the claim religious believers make to dictate laws to everyone else based on their interpretation of their religion is likewise harmful and offensive. Those laws should be banned outright, as far as they are religiously motivated, and strongly opposed where they are snuck in disingenuously under some other guise.
The claim that the corollary to religious freedom is that you can’t criticize or oppose religion is false, stupid, and generally disingenuous. It is also grossly one-sided. Being free to practice religion does not mean being free to impose it on others; being free to promote religion does not mean everyone else has to listen.
All those points hold good, and should be vigorously defended.
But there is also the value of equality, which is not the same thing as middle-of-the-roadism. Everyone has an equal right to religious liberty - to practice their own religion without interfering with others, and to be free from others’ interference arising from their practice of religion. Likewise, everyone has an equal expectation of not being gratuitously insulted.
Myers has done magnificent work calling out the falsehoods, offenses, and impositions of religious believers on others (both atheists and believers alike). But now he has gone beyond that to striking back at religious persecuters - upon unconscionable provocation - by deliberately committing “blasphemy” and defiling one of their religious icons. That serves no useful purpose, and it is not a form of defense of liberty. It’s just a mean-spirited attempt to anger the people who have been threatening him. It’s easy to be sympathetic - no one should face what he has faced. But it’s still vengeful, unmagnanimous, and gratuitously offensive to no overt purpose.
I don’t think asking freethinkers not to be that way constitutes any form of surrender to the superstitious over-reachers, or any kind of middle-of-the-roadism.
Comment 7/20/2008