Atheist Revolution

The Fallacy of Atheism's Public Relations Problem

2012-01-27T07:15:00.002-06:00

I think we can all agree that atheists are an unpopular minority in the United States. We've seen countless examples of bigotry directed at us by Christians, including elected officials who are supposed to know better. And it is not just the Christians; the record is not much better for members of other mainstream religions. I suspect we can agree that there are multiple reasons for how we are perceived by many religious individuals.

A number of prominent atheist bloggers, women and men whose work I respect, seem to share the opinion that one of the most important obstacles faced by modern atheists is our lousy public image. Some even appear to suggest that this image is largely of our own making. Again and again, we are cautioned against offending the religious. We are told, "Don't be a dick," and our tactics are criticized as too rude or too assertive. We are accused of picking the wrong battles, and some of our activism is labeled as counterproductive. Many of us are now seen as part of the problem because our particular brand of atheism contributes to bad PR. That is, we are not nice enough, tame enough, or passive enough.

A Public Relations Fallacy

Does atheism have a public relations problem? We know we are perceived negatively, but is this primarily because of our actions? Some in the atheist community seem to think so. I disagree, and I'm here to call bullshit on what I am labeling atheism's public relations fallacy. Here's how I define it:

Atheism's public relations fallacy refers to the claim that certain types of atheist activism are primarily responsible for how atheists are perceived or are key to changing how atheists are perceived.

I am not denying that our behavior is relevant; I am denying that it is primarily responsible for how we are perceived and that it is key to changing these perceptions. I find it relevant but comparatively trivial.

Our presence and are willingness to speak our minds are sufficient to agitate many religious believers. Short of converting or remaining silent and scared, I do not believe that our church-state activism is the main reason we are hated. Erecting billboards with vanilla messages about how one can be good without god are perceived by many as assaults on Christianity. Speaking out is enough. Being visible is enough. Merely existing is enough. We do not have a public relations problem; we have a bigotry problem.

Welcome Diverse Tactics, But Be Strategic

To the degree that we embrace diverse tactics, the atheist movement is stronger. That does not mean we should not criticize each other - constructive criticism, disagreement, and dissent are vital to our progress. But it does mean that we should be reluctant to label each other as counterproductive simply because someone wants to try a different approach.

I'm going to welcome any nonviolent approach for which someone can articulate a coherent strategy. Want to picket fundamentalist churches? Go for it. Want to place a crucified Santa in your yard? Be my guest. I may not agree with a method, but I'm willing to give it a shot because I may be wrong. As long as we are acting strategically and not purely out of emotion, we probably aren't going to screw things up too badly. In case you haven't noticed, we're already hated to a degree that few other groups have faced throughout history. And if we try new things and pay attention, we might just learn something useful.

Reject Bigotry

If toning down our "dickishness" is not going to dramatically improve our public image and reduce the bigotry we face, what will? Here's the short version: we must confront bigotry, stand up for ourselves, and refuse to be treated as second-class citizens.

There have been many civil rights movements before ours, which while far from over, have been far more successful than we have. What has been common to the historic and current struggles of women, African Americans, and LGBT persons? They overcame the notion that how they were mistreated by other segments of society was primarily their fault. It is time for us to do the same. It is time for us to move beyond this public relations fallacy.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Do You Support Religious Businesses?

2012-01-25T05:18:00.001-06:00

None of us has as much money as we'd probably like. Even if you reject the "consumer culture" of the United States and many other Western nations, you could probably think of some genuinely good things you'd like to do if you could afford it (e.g., funding secular organizations to the point where they could be truly influential). But there are things each and every one of us can do with our money that do not require us to spend any more of it than we already do. Yes, I'm talking about using our power as consumers to influence our world.

I'm not Mittens Romney. Earning $374,000 a year, a figure he considers to be "not very much" money is more than five times the amount I will ever earn in a year. And yet, that does not mean I cannot use what I have to make a difference. I don't even have to spend more to do so.

By becoming an educated and thoughtful consumer, I can learn about the companies I am thinking of supporting. When I am considering a purchase, no matter how small, I can ask myself about what other causes I might be indirectly sponsoring. For example, I will not give Chick-fil-A a dime because the causes they support are vile.

A religious influence can be found in many companies. This does not necessarily mean that atheists should avoid every one of them. Not every company on this list is equal. It is far easier for me to imagine buying a Timberland product than shopping at Hobby Lobby. However, I do think that the degree to which religious belief is part of a company may be a relevant consideration for many atheists when trying to decide which companies to support.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Sexism in the Atheist Community: Sexism and Misogyny

2012-01-24T05:14:00.001-06:00

Sexism and misogyny are loaded terms in that nobody wants to be accused of either of them. But what do they mean? I have seen many prominent atheist bloggers using these terms interchangeably. This was a surprise, as I've always understood them to be related but distinct concepts. I think it may be helpful to define these terms and determine whether they mean the same thing or not.

Misogyny

I'll start with misogyny because I think it is easier to define in some ways. I've always understood misogyny as referring to the strong dislike or hatred of women. In the social sciences, it is generally viewed as an attitude where an entire class of people (i.e., women) are hated because of their gender. It can be expressed in many ways, ranging from mild forms like jokes or insults to extreme forms like rape. When women are targeted for a particular type of brutal treatment, we look to misogyny and generally find it present in that culture or subculture (e.g., witch-related scares).

Sexism

Like misogyny, sexism is primarily an attitude. However, the sexist attitude is not rooted in hatred but involves a variety of discriminatory attitudes. In essence, differences between women and men, real or imagined, are amplified and enforced. Expressions of sexism tend to involve efforts at social control rather than hatred. In fact, it has been suggested that much of what we label as sexist today may have evolutionary roots in control tactics.

Sexism vs. Misogyny

As I understand it, sexism and misogyny are distinct. They reflect different attitudes; however, they may be impossible to distinguish based solely on their behavioral expressions. That is, the same behavior could be sexist or misogynist depending on the attitude driving it. We would need more information about the underlying attitudes and intent of the speaker.

Take some of the insults Rebecca Watson has received as an example. I have seen some that look blatantly misogynist in that they almost certainly reflect hatred of women. Others seem more likely to be sexist but not misogynistic, and still others could be sexist or misogynistic. We really cannot tell without more information. In these cases, perhaps labeling the behavior "sexist/misogynistic" makes the most sense.

Some have argued that all casual sexism is driven by misogyny. I have trouble accepting this claim. Having worked with male perpetrators of domestic violence, I believe that true misogyny is distinct from sexism. The degree to which many of these men hated women was qualitatively different from most of the sexist attitudes I've encountered. Some of them genuinely hated women. I realize this is extremely vague, but this sort of misogyny always seemed to have a very different feel to it.

It seems to me that sexism and misogyny are distinct, but I acknowledge that these constructs have fuzzy boundaries. Many examples could belong to both categories simultaneously, and we may be unable to classify behaviors correctly without insight into someone's motives or intent.

Implications

I find misogyny to be a more serious problem than sexism, one rooted in hatred as opposed to ignorance or culture. My suggestion, then, is that we reserve the misogynist label for the clear-cut instances. I do not believe that most instances of sexism are motivated by misogynistic attitudes. In essence, calling everyone who engages in sexist behavior a misogynist dilutes the meaning of misogyny to the point where it is no longer useful.

The distinction may also have utility as we consider remedial approaches. In my experience, sexism can often be addressed through education. Many people hold sexist attitudes because they've never thought through the issues and just accepted cultural messages. It is not that different from religious belief in this way. Raising awareness and other educational approaches are often helpful. Misogyny, on the other hand, tends to require some more than education. These attitudes are much harder to change and something closer to therapy may be needed.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

FFRF Files Complaint in Rhode Island

2012-01-23T05:29:00.001-06:00

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed a complaint with the State of Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights after area florists refused to deliver an order to Jessica Ahlquist. The complaint alleges "illegal discrimination based on religion." Under Rhode Island law, a business cannot deny services to someone on the basis of that person's religion.

My guess is that the florists will suggest that the FFRF lacks standing to bring the complaint on Ahlquist's behalf. I that fails, they'll most likely claim that their refusal was not based on Ahlquist's religion (or lack thereof) but on their reluctance to take part in a controversy.

In any case, it will be interesting to see how this one turns out.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Remember Christian Extremism on the 39th Anniversary of Roe

2012-01-22T10:50:00.001-06:00

Today is the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized a woman's legal right to abort a pregnancy. As we celebrate this important case and its promotion of reproductive freedom, we must not forget to acknowledge a very real problem Roe has exposed.

In the years since Roe, we have seen a constant push from evangelical fundamentalist Christians to overturn it. We have also witnessed an organized campaign of harassment, intimidation, and violence directed at doctors who perform the procedure, one which many terrorist groups would be proud to claim. This campaign of terror has largely been waged by Christian extremists, providing evidence that they are a clear and present danger right here in the U.S.

I do not mean to suggest that only Christians oppose Roe. That is not the case. There are even some atheists who oppose abortion and/or would prefer to see it prohibited by the law. But I do believe that religion makes it nearly impossible to have a meaningful discussion about abortion and that nearly all of the violence directed at abortion providers has been religiously-motivated.

For me, banning abortion represents a fundamental assault on women. Women should be free to make health care decisions without government interference. I suppose in this way, I'm far more of a "small government" advocate than liberation darling Ron Paul. I also believe that reality-based sex education and affordable access to effective contraception are critical in minimizing the number of abortions needed. You see, I am pro-choice not pro-abortion. I want to keep abortion legal and available while simultaneously making it less necessary.

For these reasons, I will continue to support reproductive rights for women, oppose efforts to curtail these rights, and call attention to examples of Christian terrorism. As you celebrate Roe today, do not forget that this is one freedom under constant assault from Christian extremists. We must remain vigilant to the threat they pose and be prepared to counter their influence as necessary.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Congratulations, Newt

2012-01-22T07:57:00.002-06:00

He's an ethically challenged hypocrite who relies on time-tested racist tactics to influence the Republican electorate. He's Newt Gingrich, and he won yesterday's South Carolina primary. As many in the corporate news media try to boost their ratings by suggesting that Willard "Mittens" Romney is in trouble and that this is an important story, it may be helpful to pause for a moment to recall a bit of political history.

In the 1996 Republican primary, Pat Buchanan won New Hampshire, Alaska, Missouri, and Louisiana before being defeated by the establishment candidate (Bob Dole). Much of the criticism now aimed at Mittens mirrors that directed against Dole, and many of what are now being heralded as Gingrich's advantages were then said about Buchanan.

Gingrich should enjoy his momentum while it lasts, but I'm quite comfortable predicting that Mittens will be the nominee.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Idiot of the Week: Gov. Steve Beshear (D-KY)

2012-01-21T13:22:00.001-06:00

I live in a country where a state governor, a Democratic one at that, believes it is appropriate to cut his state's education budget while giving $43 million in tax breaks to a bible-themed amusement park. Keep in mind that this governor, Steve Beshear (D-KY) presides over a state where education is already reeling from previous cuts. Even so, he's proposed a budget that cuts $50 million more while offering a $43 million tax break to the so-called "Ark Park."

I tweeted this story several hours ago when I first saw it. It certainly caught my attention, but I wasn't planning to do an Idiot of the Week post today. I was in a positive, optimistic mood and wanted to keep it for a bit. Ever feel that way? I didn't want to have to think about stupidity because I knew it would bring me down. But I guess I couldn't stay away after being reminded by PZ at Pharyngula.

When people ask why the U.S. has fallen behind economically and why our once impressive system of public education has deteriorated, I'll think of Gov. Beshear and his priorities.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

FFRF to Support Brave Atheists in Need

2012-01-21T06:45:00.001-06:00

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) offers a few different scholarships and awards for deserving students and others who contribute to the atheist community. These include essay competitions, student activist awards, and awards for activism and achievement given at their conventions. They have just announced the creation of a new fund, which will be dedicated to granting scholarships and other assistance to "persons who exhibit bravery in furthering the cause and experience hardship because of that stand." The new Atheist in Foxholes Support Fund sounds like a wonderful idea to me.

According to FFRF co-president Dan Barker:

With the help of its membership, FFRF will create and replenish the Fund to increase its support, especially for young persons who take a stand in support of freethought or state/church separation, and are punished for that stand.

Obviously, receiving a bit of money from the FFRF cannot exactly make up for the fear one may experience in the face of religious hatred. But this kind of support can help the recipient move on with their life and may ease some of the financial hardship that can come from standing up against a popular violation of the law.

The FFRF has announced that Jessica Ahlquist will be the first recipient of an award from this fund. I think she's an excellent choice, and I'm happy to see her receiving support.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Republican Voters Reject Perry

2012-01-20T14:22:00.001-06:00

I don't often get to reflect on how proud I am of the American people. And it is even more rare that I get to experience strong positive feelings toward Republican voters in particular. And yet, the news that Rick Perry finally dropped out of the Republican primary does indeed leave me feeling good about Republican voters.

Yes, I realize that Perry was not any worse than most of those still in the race in terms of policy. And yes, I do realize that Santorum might be even more of a theocrat than Perry. But Perry was a moron in the way the others simply couldn't accomplish. In the debates, he made Bachmann and Santorum look good. I didn't think that was possible, but he managed to pull it off.

I know some Republican voters still like Perry, but at least they decided that they could not support his candidacy. I like to think this was at least in part because they recognized that he was a moron. I know, I know. George W. Bush was a moron, and they elected him. But Perry managed to make Bush look like a scholar, and I think Republican voters might have recognized this.

So for this brief moment in time, I am going to be proud of Republican voters. They got one right. Now I just feel bad for Texas.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Religious Thuggery

2012-01-20T07:54:00.001-06:00

Religious thuggery (i.e., attempts to impose religiously derived preferences on others through violence) is nothing new. We have encountered many examples of upset Christians using it to intimidate those with whom they disagree or to punish those who were successful in protecting the separation of church and state. But religious thuggery is certainly not unique to Christians. In some ways, Islam seems to have perfected it.

Adam Lee (Daylight Atheism) wrote an informative post in which he reviews many recent examples where Muslims have attempted to suppress any criticism of their religion. And yes, there has been some thuggery involved. Many Muslims seem to have little tolerance for free expression when it involves criticism of their religious beliefs by non-Muslims. In case after case, we see offended Muslims seek to silence criticism through intimidation. And when non-violent approaches fail, blatant thuggery is quick to emerge.

As Lee points out,

Let's be clear about this: The religious rule that Muhammad should never be depicted in artwork is a rule for Muslims…They can abide by that rule if they choose to, but they have no right to demand that everyone who doesn't believe in their religion do the same. They frame this as a matter of "respect", but what it really is is a naked demand to control the behavior of others.

If Muslims want to refrain from depicting Muhammad, that is their choice (i.e., religious freedom). And if Muslims want to request that non-Muslims also refrain from depicting Muhammad, they have this right as well (i.e., free speech). What they do not have is the right to enforce their preferences through bullying and intimidation that involves actual or threatened violence.

In dealing with religious thuggery, it is important that we stand our ground a refuse to give in. When school administrators cave into this sort of pressure, they make it more likely that such tactics will continue to be used. It is also important that we call attention to such abuses so that everyone will see what is happening. And finally, we must remember to point out that respect and obedience are not the same thing.

The atheist community faces many obstacles. Some undoubtedly come from within, but I believe that one of the most important external obstacles may involve misguided attempts to appease those who engage in religious thuggery in the name of "respecting" religious diversity.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

The Purpose of Prayer

2012-01-19T05:11:00.001-06:00

This simple chart provides a fairly accurate description of why prayer serves no real purpose. Assuming that the god at which religious believers are directing their prayers has some sort of plan for them, as most Christians insist, prayer is either redundant or futile. If one's prayer happens to coincide with the will one one's preferred god, it ends up being redundant. On the other hand, if one's prayer conflicts with the will of one's preferred god, it ends up being futile. In either case, prayer serves no purpose.

I should note one important omission from the chart. Prayer, even if it has no purpose in the sense described by the chart might temporarily make a believer feel better. For this reason, one could argue that temporary self-soothing is the only purpose that could be served by prayer.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Church-State Heroes Face Threats of Violence from Christians

2012-01-16T11:22:00.001-06:00

We've seen it happen countless times. An American citizen has the courage to stand up for the First Amendment of our Constitution and subsequently faces a barrage of insults, including threats of physical harm or even death, from Christians. Why it happens is no mystery. Significant numbers of Christians are hateful and feel justified in behaving this way when their privilege is threatened. It does not matter to them whether the subject of the original complaint was illegal; all that matters is that they perceive a threat to their Christian privilege and believe it is acceptable to react by threatening the brave individual who requested that the law be enforced.

In the United States, when you stand up for separation of church and state, you must be prepared to deal with Christian hate. Your name is going to be dragged through the mud, you will be accused of all manner of nonsense, and your home address may be published. In short, you are going to be the victim of a campaign of terror. You had better be comfortable working with your local law enforcement officials or protecting yourself through other means because it may be necessary to do so.

Is it any wonder that more of us lack the courage to stand up for church-state separation in our communities? This is precisely what some Christians are counting on. Even if they would not personally threaten us, they know that others will. Some may even publicly condemn those who make the threats while feeling satisfied to see us getting what "we deserve."

I see three important steps for us to take here. First, more of us need to come forward in defense of separation of church and state. As difficult as it is, there is real strength in numbers. To the degree that such cases become more common, it will be increasingly difficult for Christians to get away with threats of violence. Second, we need to be ready and willing to call out Christian hate and bigotry whenever it appears. By calling attention to it and labeling it for what it is, we reduce its potency and educate others that it is unacceptable. Third, we need to support those who are coming forward. It has been very encouraging to see the support Jessica Ahlquist is receiving from the atheist community. By providing as much support as we can, we provide a sort of counter-weight to the vile things coming from some Christians.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

MLK on Privilege

2012-01-16T06:50:00.001-06:00

Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

-- Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter From a Birmingham Jail, April 1963.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Rick Santorum: The Christian Extremists' Choice

2012-01-15T13:27:00.002-06:00

As you have almost certainly heard by now, a large and influential group of Christian extremists met in Texas yesterday with the goal of choosing a Republican presidential candidate behind which to unify in order to prevent Willard "Mittens" Romney from receiving the nomination. They worry that he's not conservative enough and that he's the wrong kind of Christian (i.e., Mormon). And which candidate did this who's who of Christian hate decide to endorse? Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum, a man so anti-gay he'd probably be happier in Uganda.

Although most of my readers are located in the U.S. (according to Google Analytics), there are a sizable group in other countries. It often occurs to me that they must look at U.S. politics with quite a bit of puzzlement. Take the current crop of Republican presidential candidates as an example. While I wouldn't expect many outside the U.S. to follow our politics all that closely, they have to wonder what is wrong with us when they hear about some of these candidates.

The good news is that I do not think anyone who follows U.S. politics thinks Santorum has a legitimate chance of winning the Republican nomination. Barring a colossal blunder, Romney has that locked up. And even if Santorum did somehow manage to surprise us all, there is no way he wins a general election against President Obama. So yeah, I know it is scary to hear someone like this discussed as if he was a viable candidate, but he really isn't.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Sexism in the Atheist Community: Initial Objections

2012-01-15T07:49:00.001-06:00

I have only written two posts so far in this series on sexism in the atheist community, an introduction to the series and an explanation of why I believe that sexism is a problem in our community, and I have already received quite a few objections. A few have come in the form of comments; many more have come via email, Twitter, etc. Some have raised important issues that map on well to future posts I have planned for the series, and it makes sense to address them at that time. Others have raised the possibility that a series like this is just a bad idea and that I am hopelessly deluded for even attempting it. It is this latter group that I'd like to address here.

1. There is no "atheist community" at all and saying otherwise may itself be a form of bias.

I have tried to explain what I mean by atheist community. I'm using this as an umbrella term to characterize many different atheist communities, and it is certainly true that there will be differences across these smaller communities. I disagree that my references to a broad atheist community imply that all atheists are the same. I have gone out of my way to make it clear that this is not even remotely what I think. Atheists are indeed a diverse group; I am trying to examine the issue of sexism in the broad atheist community. I am confident I can do so without suggesting that all atheists are exactly the same.

2. Sexism is not unique to atheism. Don't make it sound like the problem is only with atheists.

Sexism is certainly not unique to atheism. In fact, there is ample evidence that the broader culture of many countries is sexist. I have no desire to pretend that atheists are the only one with a problem. However, I do feel that it is important to address sexism as a relevant issue in the community I call home. The existence of sexism among religious believers does not absolve us from the need to look at what is happening in our community. That is what I am trying to do.

3. Atheists are not nearly as sexist or misogynistic as the religious.

Sexism and misogyny are widespread, especially on the Internet. I don't have any evidence that atheists are worse, better, or the same as religious believers when it comes to these attitudes and behaviors. I suspect that misogyny may be at least somewhat less common in the atheist community than many others; however, it is still a problem. In my opinion, calling out sexism and misogyny among religious believers while refusing to address it when has been brought to our attention right here in our own community would be a bit hypocritical. And so, I'm attempting to address it here.

4. Anything that appeals more to one gender is going to be biased toward that gender and will include more members of that gender. Of course atheism is male-dominated!

I'm not convinced that atheism or many of the common goals shared by most atheists do appeal to men more than women. This may be true for some small groups, but I suspect plenty of women are interested in atheism. The challenge for small, male-dominated groups is how to be more appealing to women. And even if a group does appeal more to one gender, I'm not sure that must translate into bias. The group could make an effort to be more welcoming of the other gender. At a minimum, members of the group could refrain from sexism.

5. Gender discrimination is a two-way street. Men can be victims too.

I agree. But this does not detract from the fact that women are coming forward to share accounts of sexism and misogyny in our community.

I've heard many men claim that they are not sexist and that they are proponents of equality, and I've heard some of them become extremely defensive the moment a woman attempts to discuss sexism. What I have not seen, despite hearing quite a bit about it from a few men, is evidence of women claiming that all men are sexist monsters who cannot be trusted and are destroying society. Nobody is claiming this. A man who accuses women of misandry simply because they are attempting to raise awareness of sexism is trying to shut down a valuable endeavor and is contributing to the problem.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Idiot of the Week: Richard Floyd

2012-01-14T12:30:00.001-06:00

A state representative in Tennessee, Richard Floyd (R-Chattanooga), sponsored a bill that has been dubbed the "Bathroom Harassment Act" (HB 2279). The bill is designed to punish transgendered persons for not using the dressing rooms or restrooms that Rep. Floyd thinks they should use. He has somehow managed to convince himself that this is a serious threat to his state.

As bad is that is, this legislation is not why I'm calling Rep. Floyd this week's idiot (although it didn't help). No, Floyd earned that designation for claiming that he would become violent if he ever encountered a transgendered person in a dressing room. Yep, an elected state representative is on the record as saying that he would "stomp" a transgendered person for having the nerve to use a dressing room where his wife or daughter trying on clothes.

I believe if I was standing at a dressing room and my wife or one of my daughters was in the dressing room and a man tried to go in there — I don’t care if he thinks he’s a woman and tries on clothes with them in there — I’d just try to stomp a mudhole in him and then stomp him dry.

Don’t ask me to adjust to their perverted way of thinking and put my family at risk. We cannot continue to let these people dominate how society acts and reacts. Now if somebody thinks he’s a woman and he’s a man and wants to try on women’s clothes, let him take them into the men’s bathroom or dressing room.

Rep. Floyd is an elected official of the state of Tennessee. He should know better. He has just endangered transgendered people in his state. Let's hope the people of Tennessee can convince him to find a different career.

H/T to Think Progress

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Turn or Burn: A Case of Hate Speech in the U.K.

2012-01-14T06:34:00.001-06:00

Five Muslim men are on trial in the U.K. under a hate crimes law for distributing anti-gay leaflets that depicted gay men being executed for the "crime" of being gay. The purpose of the literature appeared to be one of encouraging hatred and even violence against homosexuals. One actually called for the death penalty for homosexual behavior. According to The Telegraph, this case is the first prosecution of an anti-gay hate crime since the law was changed in 2010 to include sexual orientation.

Although it sounds like there were at least four different leaflet designs, the one that formed the basis of the prosecution called for the death of homosexuals.

The leaflet which formed the basis of the charges, entitled “The Death Penalty?”, featured a hanged mannequin and claimed that "Allah permits the destruction" of those who allow homosexuality and those who practise it.

The leaflet added that "the death sentence" had "already been passed on every homosexual" and that "the only question is how it should be carried out". Methods suggested included execution, burning, hanging or stoning.

This seems like a fairly clear example of efforts to incite violence, doesn't it? And yet, I find this prosecution somewhat troubling. I can understand the rationale involved when an offender receives a longer sentence because there was a hate crime component of another crime (e.g., someone assaults a man because he believes the man is gay). What we have in this case looks more like the speech itself is the crime.

I suppose one could argue that the underlying crime is inciting violence and the hate crime component is attached because of how it is directed. But I am not sure that this is what is being argued in this case. The five men were charged with "distributing threatening written material intending to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation contrary to Section 29c (1) of the Public Order Act 1986."

I understand and appreciate the desire to promote civility. I'm not so sure about measures that appear to criminalize speech unless the issue is one of inciting violence. What do you think? Should these men be facing prosecution?

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Ahlquist Stands Up for Separation of Church and State and Wins

2012-01-13T07:56:00.002-06:00

When I was in high school, I am fairly certain that I would not have been brave enough to stand up to the entire school and out myself as an atheist. Jessica Ahlquist did this and more. After the school ignored her complaints about a school prayer banner (photo here) hanging in Cranston West High School in Rhode Island, Ahlquist sued. In spite of the harassment and death threats, she persevered and won. U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Lagueux, a Reagan appointee, has ordered that the banner come down.

According to Cranston.Patch.com, Ahlquist said:

Even if lots of kids in school hate you, even if there's nasty comments on the Internet, it's important to stand up for something you believe in.

And there is no doubt that there's a great deal of hate coming Jessica's way. She's a true inspiration.

You can find Judge Lagueux's 40-page ruling here as a .pdf.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

The Danger of Freethought

2012-01-12T11:10:00.001-06:00

Atheists are commonly viewed as potential threats by religious individuals. This is often justified by their concerns about our morality, as many doubt that we can be good without their preferred god(s). I think it is also fair to speculate that we may be viewed in this manner because our presence reminds religious believers that the might be wrong. However, I've been wondering lately about whether an even more important reason for perceiving us as a threat might be our tendency to question the status quo, particularly the religious privilege that is a central part of it.

As the quote above suggests, freethinkers may be dangerous to those who seek to maintain the status quo. I certainly think this applies to government. Why do we have only two political parties, and why do both of them seem to be determined to keep implementing failed policies? Why are we willing to trade so many of what used to be regarded as basic civil rights away for the illusion of safety? Why do we tolerate a corporate-owned media that rarely confronts politicians with even the most blatant lies?

Besides the perceived danger to government, religious beliefs and institutions are also relevant. We examine the many absurd things religions ask their adherents to believe, seeking evidence and finding none. We raise questions about the societal benefits of antiquated religious institutions and point out the disparities between what some religions have evolved into and the scriptures they still try to claim.

I can see why we may be seen as something of a threat by those desperately trying to hold onto power, whether it is governmental power or religious power.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Sexism in the Atheist Community: We Have a Problem

2012-01-11T05:00:00.002-06:00

What type of atheist community do we want? I want an atheist community that is diverse and that goes far beyond merely tolerating diversity. I want an atheist community that celebrates diversity and that strives to be welcoming to all atheists.

This is not the sort of atheist community we currently have. How do I know? First and most importantly, I have heard the accounts of many atheist women. Many have not experienced our community as particularly welcoming. It is great that some have, but many have not. In fact, many have felt marginalized and have described the atheist community as a "boys' club." A few examples:

Some women report that their contributions and those of other women are not taken as seriously during meetings or group interactions as the contributions of men.
Prominent female atheists are often overlooked at conferences or various lists of influential atheists.
There is a tendency for women to be sexualized, even in contexts that have nothing to do with sex.

What makes me think that the atheist community has a problem with sexism? Many women have said so. Isn't that enough? It is for me, but there are two other factors I'd like to mention even though they are somewhat extraneous.

Second, I've seen evidence of sexism for myself (and not just on r/atheism). Women are frequently sexualized in ways that men do not experience. Their appearance becomes a point of discussion in ways it rarely is for men. It is not enough for some to express their agreement with these women; they need to tell us what they would do to them in bed. I have seen the defensive reactions from some men when someone tries to discuss sexism in our community. And I think we've all seen the gender-specific insults hurled at women who dare to point out our sexism.

Third, a compelling case can be made that those of us in the atheist community who have turned a blind eye to sexism, minimized its relevance, or attacked those who raise it as a concern are an important part of the problem. Collectively, we have made sexism more permissible in our community than it should be. Even if the overt sexism is coming from a tiny minority within our community, the rest of us are not freed from responsibility. Many of us have engaged in subtle forms of sexism; many more have simply gone along with it.

We have a problem. We have a problem because many women are telling us that they do not feel welcome in our community. We have a problem because the evidence of sexism (and even misogyny) is there for all to see. We have a problem because our inaction has fostered a climate where sexism can persist. We can do better.

Photo credit

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Sharia Ban Unconstitutional

2012-01-10T13:30:00.001-06:00

Think Progress is reporting that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals just struck down Oklahoma's bizarre ban on Sharia law. This had to be one of the stranger laws approved by voters in recent years, since the danger of Oklahoma being taken over by Islamic law was probably less likely than an outspoken atheist being elected President of the United States.

The court recognized the law as violating the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and noted that the law appears unnecessary. From the ruling:

Appellants do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed, they admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses had resulted in concrete problems in Oklahoma. See Awad, 754 F. Supp. 2d at 1308; Aplt. App. Vol. 1 at 67-68.

This case is a serious blow to right-wing Islamophobia in the U.S.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

California University of Pennsylvania Discriminates Against Atheists

2012-01-10T06:11:00.001-06:00

I have never heard of California University of Pennsylvania, one of the universities in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. But they are making news after deciding to offer fans with church affiliation a discount on university basketball games. Even more problematic, this public university offered the discount during a "Faith and Family Night."

How did the discount work? It sounds like anyone showing up to buy a ticket just needed to claim church affiliation. University officials said that any "faith-based organization" would qualify. They also claimed that the discount would be granted to other groups (e.g., first responders, veterans, etc.), and this appears to be the core of their argument that it was okay for a public university to give the religiously affiliated a discount.

The Pennsylvania ACLU didn't buy this claim.

"They can't say that people of faith are going to get a discount, just as they can't say white people are going to get a discount," said Witold Walczak, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania.

Walczak also called the school out for discriminating against atheists. I think he was right to do so.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Mississippi Seeks to Establish Legislative Prayer and Ministry Caucus to Promote Biblical Worldview

2012-01-08T13:06:00.001-06:00

I want to share a bit about what we're going to have to deal with here in Mississippi. Senate Concurrent Resolution 505 seeks to establish a "legislative prayer and ministry caucus." Here is how the proposed legislation describes the goal of the caucus:

…to encourage, train and support legislative leaders in every field who believe in the power of prayer and ministry, and to highlight the vital role that prayer and Judeo-Christian principles have played in the history of our Nation and our state in strengthening the fabric of our society, at all times consistent with the progress of our state...

Doesn't seem like it could possibly be constitutional, does it? For the first time since Reconstruction, the Republican party controls all branches of government in Mississippi. This appears to be the sort of thing they have in store for us.

I note that this resolution makes specific mention both to "Judeo-Christian principles" and explains that one of the goals of the caucus will be "to provide educational material needed to form and live life according to a Biblical world view." Unless I'm missing something, this appears to be a blatant violation of church-state separation.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Sexism in the Atheist Community: Introduction

2012-01-08T08:21:00.002-06:00

"Oh, come on! Not another blog writing about sexism in the atheist community!" Yep. I have been thinking about this subject a great deal lately. This is certainly not a new problem, but a growing number of atheist women I respect have come forward and explained that many women do not feel welcome in the atheist community. They have shared more than enough evidence to erase any skepticism I might have had. I've been asking myself how I have contributed to this problem. I've been asking myself what I have done to be part of the solution. Needless to say, I was not satisfied with the answers.

I approach the subject of sexism in the atheist community with some trepidation because the stakes are high. I know that some men bristle at the very mention of sexism, immediately feeling defensive and attempting to dismiss the entire discussion. I have also encountered a very small number of women do not think that a man could possibly offer anything of value on the subject of sexism. And of course, I certainly know that I may say something stupid that will be interpreted by my audience as sexist (toward women or men), misinformed, or simply moronic. At the same time, the issue of sexism in the atheist community is important enough to me and to our community that I have concluded that ignoring it is the least desirable option.

I am writing this post to open what I intend to be a series on sexism in the atheist community. I have not written any of the other posts in the series yet, so I am not sure how many there will be or what form they will take. What I am sure of is that this is a subject that needs to be addressed if we want a healthy community in which atheists feel welcome.

Update: Here is the next post in the series.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Atheist Community

2012-01-07T08:45:00.001-06:00

Is there an atheist community? Should there be an atheist community? What do we even mean by community in this context?

At the micro level, it makes no sense to talk about "an atheist community" but several atheist communities. Think about the small meet up groups where a handful of atheists get together for various social and activist-oriented events. These are the sort of atheist communities where one can easily get to know everyone else and have the sense of working together in a tangible way.

At the macro level, "the atheist community" refers to an aspect of the broad atheist movement. At this level, we can probably use the terms "community" and "movement" in a nearly interchangeable way. The only real distinction, at least for me, is that I generally prefer "movement" when I am imagining a long temporal dimension. That is, I see the atheist movement as a reflection of not just the current atheist community but as the collective progress from communities over time.

In this sense, I think that there is an atheist community and that it is the broad collection of atheists who are working on the goals we share. I do not believe that one must be an active member of national atheist organizations and attend national atheist conferences in order to be part of the atheist community. And while I am aware of objections to the merits of having an atheist community, I am convinced that the benefits of such a community far exceed the costs.

So yes, I regard atheist community as a good thing. We need an atheist community as well as a larger secular community. We need communities like this to consolidate political power and provide support for atheists in need. I've previously suggested some steps in developing and promoting an atheist community, and I continue to think that this is in our interest.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution