Gavin Sullivan

The Rybak Gap

2014-10-13T11:12:00.001-07:00

Right-thinking Minnesotans are much exercised concerning an issue euphemistically named the achievement gap. Minneapolis' previous Mayor R.T.

Rybak recently became head of Generation Next, a partnership of education, community, government and business leaders aimed at closing the achievement gap between white and minority students.

Were, ceteris paribus, the test scores of white students to descend, the gap would be diminished. That would be a Bad Thing. 'The gap' is not the problem.

On my desk sits the October 10 Star Tribune with Mpls. schools fires group hired to fix the academic gap below the fold. (Sometime after my paper was printed, the Strib decided to re-title the article Minneapolis schools cut ties with achievement gap group.)

Quite clearly the achievement gap attracts worthless rent-seekers alongside the upright do-gooders.

I hope R.T. Rybak has success in improving the academic achievement of underperforming minorities, though from the vantage point of cold-blooded prognostication I am somewhat pessimistic. Public discourse about the problem suggests it is caused by present-day white people.

To raise the academic performance of any group of low-scoring students would require enthusiastic ownership, buy-in and responsibility-assuming by the minority community itself. To a significant extent minority leaders and guilt-stricken white liberals insinuate the achievement gap is something current-day racist whites inflict upon good-willed striving minorities--an implicit statement, intelligible to all, that improving the academic achievement of underperforming minorities does not require minority ownership of the problem.

Frank discussion of the achievement gap is virtually impossible, given present-day ideological strictures pertaining to issues of color. The most obvious question--What is causing the 'widening achievement gap between white students and students of color and lower-income households'?--is deemed so insensitive as to be beyond the pale, not mentioned in Generation Next's faq.

It seems unlikely to me that a problem so ill-defined, ideology-swamped and un-owned can be successfully reversed satisfactorily soon.

Against Government Unions

2014-09-26T11:56:00.000-07:00

Replying to this Bloggingheads diavlog, your mostly-dormant blogger just commented:

Conor supports the right of police officers to collectively bargain. I don't think government workers should be encouraged to form unions. We should strive for all our fellow citizens to enjoy equal access to political representatives. If a government-run organization is functioning poorly, write your congressional or state representative, whether or not you are employed by it. Government workers shouldn't enjoy any elevated access to politicians--their employers' designated representatives.

Replying to Sonja

2014-09-11T15:45:00.000-07:00

Sonja recently commented:

I can tell you exactly why teachers need tenure. Without this protection, they will fear honestly and accurately evaluating their students. If teachers have no tenure, students and their parents can pressure schools to fire "underperforming" teachers -- defined as those who give Cs and Ds.

Parents want false, flattering grades on their children's report cards--goes the meme--and are capable of placing enormous pressure upon educators to get such grades. The only means of responding to this challenge is to grant tenure to teachers.

Next to go is the academic curriculum, in favor of flavor-of-the-month job training and test prep, for the vast majority. Only a small elite will be offered a real education.

I don't see any evidence to suggest that consumers demand an end to real education.

No teacher who can be fired for supporting unpopular views or taking unpopular positions will bother to do so -- and these include the view that you need pure algebra, foreign language study, and great novels, as well as the view that you should work hard for an A. In the end, teachers will become cynics, making whatever noises they need to make to stay on their bosses' good side.

I also wonder why you believe that those who want to preserve tenure should have the burden of proof. Anyone can ridicule the reasons that are offered and imagine they have made their argument. It seems to me that if you desire to do away with tenure, you need to make an affirmative showing that it should be ended. How do you imagine that ending it would be beneficial? There is some reason that highly competent people with a gift for teaching are reluctant to enter the profession, and many wonder whether teaching is still a profession at all. Aren't you concerned about why that has been happening, for decades now? Aren't you concerned that you are proposing to make teaching even less attractive to the best candidates?

Applying similar logic to my own current job: Mail handlers will forever be tempted to provide faster delivery to packages mailed by their friends. Postal carriers will be tempted to drive circuitously, tempted by bribes offered by petrol sellers; the only solution to such endemic problems is to grant postal workers tenure, making it very difficult to fire them.

Are you finding Sonja's logic persuasive, gentle reader?

Policies that cost money should have the burden of proof, Sonja. When an employer removes 'firing' from her motivational quiver--in exchange for nothing--that costs money. You have been asked to provide some good reason in defense of this costly, incompetence-protecting policy and you have failed.

Update

2014-09-10T09:37:00.001-07:00

Hats off to PrayTell--they published my recent comment. A previous post commended praying for James Foley's beheader; I pushed back. Beseeching God on behalf of Saddam Hussein is indeed praiseworthy in the eyes of progressive Twin Cities Catholics--and so I'm proud I've been able to vocally reject the unjustifiable demands of the One True Church. Would the right-thinking go so far as to request God smile upon their own child's torturer? Should it be possible to dedicate a Mass to Hitler? I'm not getting any response. A life without any exercise of moral passion is not desirable--I wish I could get the faux masochists to accept. Whenever a 'morally serious' Catholic intellectual praises the judgment-free life, call bullshit.

Something weird I learned today:

Manitoulin Island--in Lake Huron--is the largest freshwater lake island in the world. It is so big it has several large lakes within it, some of which themselves contain islands--the largest of which is 82 acres.

Judgment and Justice

2014-09-09T15:40:00.000-07:00

Dr. Shawn Carruth, OSB published Judgment and Justice in Give Us This Day--crossposted onto PrayTell, which comes out of the College of St. Benedict and St. John's University. Responding to Sr. Carruth, I submitted:

The God of the Bible is by no means uniformly forgiving and merciful: At times His judgment is indeed brutal and he commands his followers to be similarly severe. (Citations available if needed.) Separately, the aspiration that all judging and condemning should stop is a call for the abolition of adulthood. The upright moralist is one who does not set unattainable and/or dubious goals; the upright Christian moralist does not get to rewrite the Good Book any way she pleases, in the interest of jettisoning her God's many repulsive qualities.

PrayTell doesn't seem to allow comments from skeptics: I submitted a separate comment a week ago and was rejected. So, here.

Jenifer Loon Does Not Deserve Your Vote

2014-08-08T10:01:00.002-07:00

Most of Eden Prairie is represented by Jenifer Loon in the state house. Loon is a conservative anti-abortion Republican with stellar ratings from the right wing. She is a presentable if boring presence on the local public stage in 55347, where I used to live.

Loon was heavily lobbied by the families of prominent gay constituents and after what she describes as lengthy wrenching personal agony came to the conclusion that--while she herself may continue to view true marriage as solely between one man and one woman--she ever-so-slightly feels that perhaps homosexuals should also be afforded admittance, possibly.

Loon is being challenged in the Republican primary by the viper-tongued rightist Sheila Kihne [ˈkēn:ē].

Michael Brodkorb and TwoPutt ascribe ill will to Kihne's candidacy.

Some Eden Prairie liberals think sensible people should vote in the Republican primary, supporting Loon over the still-further-reactionary Kihne.

TwoPutt correctly exposes the weirdness of Kihne's refusal to call for a repeal of Minnesota's new marriage equality law. Kihne and Loon both pretend that the Issue isn't gay marriage.

Long ago, Kihne and I were sparring partners among Eden Prairie bloggers. Her blog was horrible and reflected her semi-literate McCarthyism--she voiced contempt for liberals and banished lefties from her site's comments section. While severely limiting critics' ability to put questions to her, she openly attacked others for behaving as she herself does.

Democrats should not vote in the Republican primary--as Loon simply hasn't fulfilled her part of the bargain--by intelligently explaining her change of heart concerning gay marriage and by unapologetically defending her new position.

A person who opposes gay rights is being challenged by a cowardly incumbent who is ashamed to publicly admit she changed her mind and now supports gay rights. That simply does not constitute a morally important distinction.

I Don't Admire Greta Cristina

2014-07-28T21:23:00.002-07:00

A prominent representative of Atheism+, Greta Cristina is--as most are--horrible. And I could be wrong. To assess my thesis, I would like to consider several of her writings:

Cristina often admits to having severe depression, the inability to experience joy, to having kinky sexual tastes and more. Cristina requests we embrace her as an anti-McCarthyite hero, but I don't think this is a worthwhile bargain. Cristina certainly owes no one any apology for having depression, gourmet sexual tastes, et al. The implicit bargain, unattractively, demands we suspend critical commentary due to the blogger's ostensibly blinding moral courage. I don't quite see it.

To take Cristina's writing seriously is to straightforwardly ask whether her claimed exemplary moral purity deserves the accolades she requests. Is it in fact beneficial for mentally ill individuals 'to come clean' with their ailments, within public fora? I am skeptical as to the value of such publication (I don't at all find it overflowing with truthfulness)--and communicate studious neutrality to Cristina on the topic. I emphatically refrain from congratulating her on her statements pertaining to her own mental illness: I don't think they do her much credit; I acknowledge the failed effort.

Today I cringe noting Richard Dawkins has been browbeaten into issuing a PRC-style Joint statement by Ophelia Benson and Richard Dawkins on threats, bullying, bigotry, and harassment. How silly; how sad.

To Richard Dawkins: Maria Callas never performed at Howard Johnson's (a phrase I believe we owe to Camille Paglia)--and you have no business issuing any joint public statement with Ophelia Benson. I am embarrassed to have to chide you so.

Completely unsurprisingly, the Dawkins grovelling in no way satisfies the Atheism+ expert: '...And I hope this will get Dawkins himself to speak more carefully about these issues, and to be more careful about whose work he praises and promotes.' She interprets Dawkins' apology as her own enthronement, as Just Judge. To the dustbin!

Ultimately Cristina asks that we assess the legitimacy of her exalted social stature as public intellectual. I flinch not: She is mostly wrong and merits quite minimal exaltation. I am interested in considering any contrary viewpoint.

The Worst Atheist

2014-07-01T10:36:00.002-07:00

Taking Greta Christina forward from the 11:00 mark:

She has a habit of piling on: Christina is 'enraged by Catholic priests who rape children and then tell them that it's God's will.' Had the priests merely kept their mouths shut after raping the children at least they wouldn't compound the crime with hypocrisy.

Christina is angry that after 911 people of Middle Eastern descent were attacked and their businesses were vandalized. A reasonable concern, I accept--though its relation to religious belief is at considerable remove.

Christina is of course a key champion of Atheism+--a non-dead tendency which dissidents correctly view as morally imperialistic and naive.

Christina is angry about female genital mutilation, though in her political correctness she misleadingly asserts that it is not exclusively a Muslim problem. FGM today is in fact overwhelmingly associated with Muslim communities. Wikipedia:

Outside Islam, FGM has been practised by the Christian Copts in Egypt and Sudan, and by the Beta Israel of Ethiopia, the only Jewish group known to have practised it. Judaism requires male circumcision, but does not allow FGM.

A bit of frankness on Islam would be pleasant, Greta Christina: Why not simply say the obvious--that Islam in its present manifestation is more menacing than the average religion, even as anti-Muslim prejudice is a serious problem?

Photo: Marlo Gayle

Christina is angry that 'when a 9 year old girl in Brazil was raped, the doctors who performed an abortion on her--and the family who approved the abortion were excommunicated by the Catholic Church. And I'm angry there was no excommunication for the man who raped her.' [Check quote--sounds clunky /Ed]

I am essentially indifferent on the question of excommunication. (An open atheist and an enrolled, listed member at my local Catholic church, I have informed my priest that I won't grumble if I'm excommunicated though I insist the decree arrive on letterhead suitable for framing.)

The chortling, upward-directed Christina visage [18:45], open-mouthed...absorbs the mob's adulation.

Christina criticizes right-wing anti-atheist religious leaders for neglecting study of the object of their disdain. To learn more about the splendors of atheism, Christina wishes they'd read major atheist bloggers such as herself. If there is an atheist capable of engaging good-willed believers in meaningful dialog, it cannot be she can it, can it?

At 23:00 Christina descends to her cheapest riff, reading out her worst anonymous-troll comments. It is sad atheist feminists appear immune to disregarding troll comments; I don't think they get nearly the mileage out of them that they so clearly believe they do.

At 29:30 Christina refers to 'the horrors committed in the last Bush administration' in its promotion of democracy and freedom. The great bulk of the suffering incurred by our Iraq fiasco had less to do with Bush administration errors of commission than with Iraqi fanaticism and despotism. 90% of the actual post-2003 suffering experienced by the Iraqi public is at the hands of Iraqi lunatics.

At 30:00 Christina asserts that politics and religion are different in an important respect: Claims put forward by politicians get put to the test by experience, but religious leaders are not similarly tested. Christina is incorrect on this point: The ability of the general public to rationally assess political leaders' economic policies is not very good. Politicians routinely propose economic policies which the economics profession overwhelmingly views as sub-optimal or even destructive, at no apparent political cost.

At 36:00 Christina enters an ideological claim praised by Fr. Tarte: Anger has benefitted previous social-change movements and thus merits our admiration and embrace. Anger has benefited gays so we should adopt their strategy and get angry, goes the meme. Not at all persuasive to me, though I require a pretty strong argument before I'll wear my strategic grimace.

By this point I think I'm done, though I promise I'll finish watching the vid, to give Christina her due.

Considering Greta Christina

2014-06-30T03:38:00.000-07:00

Let me whisper in your ear, gentle reader: I don't like Greta Christina. Maybe I should, but I don't. Today let us examine some recent evidence--and explore whether my misgivings have rational basis.

Yesterday on social media an ex-priest 'friend' had posted congratulating GC on congratulating herself on this video's 200,000th view. Viewing just its first 11 minutes, I can conclude my distaste for Christina merits no apology:

To the extent that 'the atheist movement has moved into overdrive,' I am ambivalent. Atheists should emit wide-ranging skepticism--and nowhere more than upon our own chest-thumping impulse.

The atheist movement does not merit uncritical embrace. Recent discord within the grouping reveals considerable disunity, we ought to frankly admit. Smart people seem to disagree on very central aspects of what our objectives ought to be. Adopting the voice of ambassador to the poorly informed promises to be non-controversial, she unconvincingly demands.

A non-triumphalist approach to being a decent atheist involves acknowledging that there are good and bad aspects to living at the present moment. A grave problem persists if we think our group--both metaphorically and in the specific instance mentioned--ought reasonably seek to police beverage offers among adults in elevators. The fact that the preponderance of vocal atheist opinion exalts the accuser in the Hibernian lift demonstrates how non-triumphalist we non-fanatics ought to now feel.

When people approach insisting you ought to feel overjoyed about this or that, can one help but perceive a certain aggression in the professed good will?

Next the arm-waving Christina says that peaceful coexistence between atheism and religion is unlikely and we-the-hip are actively trying to urge people out of it.

Makes no sense, does it? I often try to persuade people of the benefits of non-superstitious thinking, though to do so is not to suggest that peaceful coexistence cannot continue indefinitely.

By 3:56 we note Christina--for the second time thus far--describes a binary and then flappingly points to herself as an example from the second category. 'Some atheists are angry about religion,' she flaps to the cognoscenti. Weird.

"A lot of people are asking today, 'Why are you atheists so angry?!?'" she orates. Untrue: Almost no one approaches me asking that question. Occasionally I encounter believing co-workers open to exchanging reasons for and against religion, but that 'Why are you atheists so angry' thing is media-specific and does not illustrate actual popular communication, I assert. We're now at 5:40.

Christina claims she's not trying to speak for the entire atheist community, her opinions are hers alone. Certainly the most self-deluded claim I have yet heard her utter.

Now she's going through the list of outrages justifying atheists' anger. In Fr. T's comments section, I noted Christina's second item--she's angry it wasn't until 1961 that open atheists were allowed to serve on juries--is dumb. I've been aware for a long time that atheists have long been mistreated in society: I've known it so long I simply accept such prejudice was quite recently part of the fabric of American life.

When instances of prejudice occur today, I can sometimes perceive a mild jolt of anger; atheists' exclusion from jury duty 53 years ago does not similarly exercise me--call me hard hearted.

...Christina's faux-hectoring tone of pretend complaint...she is absolutely correct when she insincerely claims not to speak for atheists generally.

Judges deny custody of kids to atheists--today in America--explicitly because they are atheists, Christina broils. Can someone provide an example of such? Certainly not in Minnesota. My own ex complained to a judge some years back of my 'aggressive atheism' and he told her in court his jurisdiction did not extend to theological positions--and that was the end of the issue. If any judge in America is denying custody to anyone based solely on their atheism, that is wrong, though I doubt it happens much.

The exaggerated wide eye-opening, as Christina condemns Catholicism's objection to birth control, seems a bit much; the audience laps it up.

The trip around the world next moves to Mormonism, where--within some dissenting minuscule sub-sect--child marriage persists. (In Nigeria--a country of 174 million--'20 percent of girls were married by age 15, and 40 percent were married by age 18.') If you're concerned about the problem of child brides, schismatic-Mormon America constitutes a minute portion of the problem indeed. Christina's gesture to internationalist neutrality doesn't remotely work.

That gets us to the 11:00 mark.

Highly Competent Women

2014-06-23T19:56:00.000-07:00

I recently listened to my first Slate Money podcast--and will today issue several comments on statements made by Cathy O'Neil--scroll to 31:45, toward the end of the episode.

Are people who favor reducing the importance of tenure in paying public school teachers necessarily ill-willed? To hold that they are putting forward a red herring is to say as much. To favor jettisoning tenure, one needn't defend the claim that doing so will end the achievement gap. To effectively advance the goal of removing tenure from consideration does not require--that non-fictional red herring--'the vilification of teachers.' Cathy O'Neil also says that removing power from teachers' unions is a bad idea. The democratic public errs in failing to elect leaders who are willing to increase teachers' pay and unions help correct for the voters' stupidity--goes the meme. 'Historically teachers have been under-appreciated and underpaid because its been one of the only jobs open to highly-competent women,' O'Neil states. Low teacher pay, a living legacy of gender apartheid, demands the energetic moral condemnation of everybody, not simply the Amazon-boycotting and Uber-denouncing, goes the drumbeat.

Pshaw!

2014-06-17T16:47:00.000-07:00

The default unionist co-worker identifies within a peer community that shares his bromides such as, 'The problem here lies entirely within Bad Management!'

I work the night shift as a mail handler for usps, a pleasant job in many ways that pays $14.03/hr. It's the first time I've worked for the government. Most workers in my position are members a public employees union, the NPMHU.

For decades I'd been conditioned to view unions positively, having participated lengthily in the DFL. One benefit I inadvertently had: For my first seven months on the job, I was working as a peon in a position not accessible to union membership.

While working as a 'Casual Mail Handler' I observed the lordly bearing of the entrenched, and I happened to meet a Sarah Palin-adoring weirdo old-timer. Craig brought to my awareness that one isn't required to join the union, which mixed with my gut instinct that such unions are an inessential drag on the US economy.

I should preface my comments by acknowledging that this isn't the most important of issues confronting policy leaders--it's a lower-tier issue on which I've devoted a certain amount of bandwidth. If it's not your cup of tea, fine, good day. I'm pretty sure I've said this thing before, in any case.

When co-workers have politely pressured me to join the union, I inform them of my lifelong position: We should view public policy questions from their disparate effects upon a wide assortment of individuals, not privileging tiny minorities such as employees. 'How much should a postal employee be paid?' should mainly be appreciated from the mindset of the person paying the employee--the vast public--not from the viewpoint of employees, who number over 600,000.

The typical shop-floor employee supports the NPMHU in its cheesy anti-management jeremiad--folk economics at its worst. The economics profession does not endorse the general social benefit of public employee unions--and I share that skepticism.

The excessive emphasis on workplace democracy costs the public more than it benefits the tiny minority of workers over whom it holds sway.

Viewed from the perspective of the average citizen, the priority is in minimizing costs. When labor rates are not pegged to performance, mischief ensues--as most of my co-workers profess.

One of the fundamental idiocies constantly limiting efficiency improvements at USPS is the fanatical devotion to seniority. When you hire 600,000 people and pay them more and more, depending on how long they've punched the clock, you're asking for resource waste--it's that simple.

If you're a member of the union, you are contributing about $400 annually to an organization implacably opposed to the most basic principle of sound factory management--that employees be rewarded for exemplary performance and that bad employees be canned.

The American public does not owe me above-market wages in exchange for sorting mail. If the American public is willing to pay me above-market wages I will accept--but I will not devote a penny to any collective action designed to perpetuate said hoodwinking.

So I've told curious co-workers that if I were offered union membership without having to pay dues, I would still not join--as I strongly oppose the entire concept of public employee unions. And I think many co-workers agree--but people who joined our organization without having first adopted a rigorously independent-minded cultural stance are easily shanghaied into the union, sadly. The large Ethiopian contingent issued an essentially collectivist (if non-religious) fatwa in favor of joining the union, so all of them signed on the line.

Leaving the union is only allowed during one week per year, and requires what amounts to an activist anti-union action--putting an extremely heavy burden upon average-Joe civilians not accustomed to machete-ing their way through the ideological jungle, as any blogger worth his salt learns to do.

Violating India

2014-06-17T00:30:00.001-07:00

A horrible thing happened to me. Even worse crap happens around the world. Therefore, upright people must do X.

A letter in yesterday morning's paper caught my eye.

Rape is--gentlepeople agree--a detestable crime. The FBI reports the nation's 'forcible rape rate' to be in pronounced long term decline--down more than one-third in several decades. If we live in a rape culture it is a pleasantly moribund one.

An American interested in accelerating rape's ongoing nosedive ought to have some theory on what has caused our recent success in reducing rape--and what action we might take to bring America's rape rate further downward, at minimal cost.

Too often, the statistical trend analysis gets little or no attention--and the call to action has more to do with flattering feminists than making headway against a social scourge. The letter-writer concludes:

Rape is common in India and other countries that have little or no respect for females, especially those in poverty. Besides the anger around the world for the treatment of women and girls, what will we do to make it a safer life for these vulnerable human beings? It’s up to all of us. Raise your voice in protest.

The writer appears to be on solid ground in claiming 'rape is common in India,' where '20% of men admit to forcing their wives or partners to have sex.' Though the writer errs in claiming India is a country that has 'little or no respect for females.' That is a slur--and an irrational one at that. Indians have feelings, values and opinions; India is an abstraction.

Will 'raising your voice in protest' against rape genuinely move the needle? Is 'public clamor' what's been central to our society's recent success in reducing rape?

Reducing rape in India is a problem best left to Indians.

A Tipping Point

2014-06-16T01:21:00.001-07:00

Submitted via webform:

The other day I took my kids out for dinner at the local Champps. Our waiter was friendly and helpful--and pointed out a pricing special currently available, which we took advantage of. We were satisfied with both the food and the service. At the end our our meal, however, something a bit unusual occurred: Our waiter provided us with two checks--one our actual bill [$54] and one displaying what we would have been charged [$72] had we not taken advantage of the pricing special. Our actual bill included calculations of various possible tips--calculated as percentages of the notional 'full price' [$72] check. This struck me as weird: I think my tip should be calculated in relationship to the actual check--and not in relation to any fictional document. I'm writing to you today to ask how you feel about this question. Who's right?

[Proud cheapskates please note: I tipped her 15% of $54, or $8.10.]

***

The next day I received a telephone call from Champps' regional manager for Minnesota--who politely replied, 'You are correct--and your waiter should not have presented you with two checks.' And in response to my next question, the fellow assured me our waiter would suffer no punishment related to my comment.

***

How much should I tip, in a Minnesota restaurant?

The moralistic arguments in favor of tipping are quite weak, though those based on the social advantages which accrue to the convention observing have purchase. Your average daily restaurant tipping practice should merely seek to place you at the fifty percentile--so that staff view you as a perfectly welcome, unremarkable guest. Finding reliable data on actual tipping practice is difficult; this site claims the average Minnesota restaurant patron's tip doesn't quite reach 14%. Thus, I suggest tipping 15% in all cases, unless service is exceptionally bad.

The standard middle class narratives defending tipping in fact equate to passive aggressive demands for purchased flattery: I voluntarily throw money at a peasant in exchange for the serf's apparent deep admiration for me. In reality a lot of people earn little--if is your life mission to overrule employers' wage-rate decisions, you ought to begin by tipping at Wal-Mart.

Selflessness

2014-05-05T00:29:00.002-07:00

In reply to this:

I never embraced Jim Oberstar as a personal friend or fantasy mentor: He was northeastern Minnesota's Congressman-for-Life until he was unseated because some constituents didn't believe he was really the anti-abortion fanatic he succeeded in convincing me he was.

Oberstar had an old pol polish with a tendency to drone on. Very powerful, he defended the stoutest salable federal role in infrastructure spending, in part to reward his blue-collar union base. I don't know whether that policy passion made economic sense, so I'm agnostic as to whether Oberstar's central prescription advanced our well-being.

He represented a fading generation whose loss we regret, while we acknowledge he dedicated himself to some silly causes and values.

A miner's son and an apparently sincere culturally conservative practicing Catholic, Oberstar inastutely allowed himself to be photographed in pretty-boy Lycra bicycling gear. This was presented as a wholesome passion for saving energy and physical fitness, the reporters implied, though it's hard not to imagine some blue collar constituents perceiving such garb to express a boozhie allegiance.

The photos granted non-privileged Iron Rangers permission to weigh dumping him, I psychoanalyze--an idea theretofore deemed verboten.

“When other people were running to TV cameras and doing other important work, he was already working on legislation to get that done right away,” said Sertich...

The notion that the American national interest would be in a far better state were members of the United States House of Representatives generally more similar to Representative Oberstar is the kind of statement one knows one is about to encounter, diving into such an obituary. That said, we have little reason to feel confidence in the soundness of Mr. Sertich's assertion, given that Oberstar's critics are at present required to hold their fire.

Did Oberstar genuinely lack an ego? I somewhat doubt it, though I'm no expert. If he was a paragon of unselfishness, great, though we still ought to evaluate him upon the good sense of the positions he defended. And sometimes both the substance and the atmospherics were unattractive.

Oberstar personally encouraged an underling to pursue political office: Whoopdidoo. Sertich presents an unverifiable anecdote which could itself constitute political brick-laying. The mere fact that Oberstar encouraged some present-day politicians to ponder the second oldest profession cannot itself be considered admirable. (The mere existence of political proteges we cannot deem in any manner unusual, given Oberstar's tenure and stature.)

No politician's death can be allowed to pass without this, of course:

He embodied the words ‘public servant’ more than anybody I know,” Sertich said.

Note it is simply a re-wording of the previous claim--of Oberstar's ostensible 'pristine selflessness.' I doubt Oberstar was quite the Bodhisattva about whom we're being told, in the highly formulaic, eulogistic phrases.

It must be a bit embarrassing to Oberstar's admirers that he stayed in DC after his humiliation--dying there. What further confirmation could any Cravaack voter require, to confirm their pre-downfall sense Oberstar was only pretending to be one of them?

“Sometimes when people lose their seat, they’re never the same,” said U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. “He never wallowed on losing that election. He just moved on with his life.”

So Klobuchar seeks to pedal an evidence-free personalistic evaluation, in her trademark pseudo-folksiness. 'Alienate yourself in my dogmatic personal assessments,' goes our senior Senator's lullaby.

I wonder if the article's writers, Baird Helgeson and Kelly Smith, have much experience participating within any Catholic church in Minnesota? This is weird:

Oberstar’s commitment to his Catholic faith did not lapse, even during the rigors of the campaign season. When Oberstar traveled through his district, he would make sure to attend mass at a local parish.

Often, the local priest would notice the congressman and ask him to give the homily. Each time, Oberstar would oblige.

So Oberstar's Mass attendance can only be the expression of sincere piety? Is it indeed impossible for us to conjure any mercenary reason a politician might want to draw attention to his religious devotion?

In my many decades of Catholic Mass attendance, I don't recall ever observing a politician being allowed to deliver a homily: I'm quite sure both liberal and conservative Minnesota Catholics would consider any such thing extremely distasteful. (See '66'.)

The Dee-Loubet Divide

2014-04-28T13:08:00.000-07:00

The Atheist Community of Austin produces The Atheist Experience--a popular call-in 'TV show.' I put that in quotation marks as most of the show's viewers take it in via YouTube or as a podcast.

The Atheist Experience is clumsily produced, painfully underedited and opens with the excruciating Listen to Reason--but still manages to attract a large audience. It's huge in the atheism hobby--I can't miss it.

The group also produces The Non Prophets podcast--and today I comment here on the most recent episode. At 23:00 Jeff Dee reads a viewer email asking the panel to explain what they mean by compatibilism.

Dee states, 'The only reason the question Do we have free will? comes up is because people want to know Is it fair to hold people responsible for their actions?'

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 'Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism.'

Free will is variously defined and no productive discussion can happen without some definition.

The mic-wielders utter some confusing claims and we learn the matter is delicate as two panelists--Jeff Dee and Dennis Loubet--hold conflicting positions on free will. (Dee believes free will exists while Loubet rejects it, I think.)

It is only legitimate for society to hold an individual responsible if the person was capable of refraining from committing the crime, goes the meme. When an animal kills a person we do not hold a trial--as non-human animals are incapable of engaging in moral reasoning or weighing possible legal consequences.

When a small child or an insane adult gains access to a firearm and kills someone with it, we hold them free of the punishment which we would mete out upon a competent adult.

For atheists the topic calls to mind Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris.

Even 'competent' adults who commit serious crimes might--upon examination--be found to be the victims of bad parenting, bad situations and bad luck.

The panelists speculate on the origin of societal punishment--with Dee suggesting that prehistoric punishment was designed to maximize the survival prospects for the tribe.

Dee believes punishment cannot be justified in the absence of free will. I don't think that makes sense: We punish criminals to deter non-criminals from committing crimes. Many unlucky people with bad parents are capable of taking action to avoid social stigma and incarceration. And the whole thing depends on how you're defining free will.

When you ask someone, 'What were your reasons for taking action X?' you often learn little from their response. People often aren't very good at reflecting upon their own biographies and motivations, and society elevates those who accept elite approved moral reasoning--so folks have propagandistic and social-status maximizing reasons for misconceptualizing and misrepresenting their motivations.

Further complicating matters, an individual by no means possesses only one set of motivations: The individual itself comprises a committee of often competing interests. Consciousness does not provide us much access to its component parts.

We punish criminals to imperialize our collective moral universe, to deter potential offenders from committing more crimes, to provide satisfaction to those legitimately enraged by injustices and to prevent dangerous people from re-offending. Am I forgetting anything?

Funerary Reflection

2014-04-21T20:48:00.000-07:00

In the past few years I've attended the funerals of three successful aged suburban patriarchs. A Congregational and two Catholic churches. Our post today engages in no comment whatever upon the worth of the deceased. I simply draw attention to a weird aspect of our contemporary suburban culture: Officiants at all three events publicly affirmed the deceaseds' already-accomplished entrance into heaven. Isn't that odd?

Having been raised Catholic and educated at a formerly Congregational private college, I'd generally assumed The One True Church harbored the zanier set of theological lunacies. So it was interesting to observe the approval with which the preacher's maximalist claim was greeted.

Perhaps it's a bidding war--were the officiant to assert the unknowableness of God's ultimate will he might lose customers. It's a dying way of life that has become brutally competitive--goes the chillingly plausible meme.

Alternatively we might apportion blame (for the corrupt state of our clerical profession) to the natural status-aggrandizement to which nearly everyone is party. By claiming to speak on behalf of the veiled Will of God I assuage my fear I am a professional huckster/fraud. By according social prestige to those sporting dog collars, we invite it.

I am an atheist and so I am only interested in believing true things. To the atheist the 'heaven' wish is incoherent and repellent--and crowds out serious grappling with an individual's loss.

Again: My comment in no way pertains to the moral stature of any of the deceased. I simply mark as suspicious the 'universal acceptance' that certain fancy-uniformed professionals embody moral expertise.
The honest atheist feels the need to agitate a bit, within anonymized boundaries and ellipsis.

Atheism Nonplussed

2014-04-08T13:58:00.002-07:00

As noted, I am a member of Minnesota Atheists and--in a general sense--appreciate the efforts of my fellow non-believers who publicly stand up for the respectability of our philosophical position.

Some months ago I got sick of the online atheist community and mostly have avoided perusing their sites. I wish we could overthrow most of our current leadership, essentially.

I feel an activist duty to make a monthly foray into the semi-public conversation, sometimes simply politely pushing back when a 'friend' makes a profession of religious belief within social media, or--equally importantly--pushing back against bullshit promulgated by high-status atheists.

And so in that spirit of duty I today comment on a recent Non Prophets podcast.

Caveat: If you're not interested in atheism, you may costlessly elect to skip today's blogpost--as its point is likely tediously obvious. The episode upon which I am here commenting does not constitute good art and is, frankly, not worth your time. But within the aggressive atheist club I suspect listening to it all the way through, once started, is difficult to avoid.

Within today's comment I expressly avoid discussion of my glee at Jeff Dee's recent demotion from hosting The Atheist Experience and his mindbendingly horrible attempts at comedy. (By the final fifth of the podcast, the collective psychic groan emanating from all other participants--at Dee's antics--approaches the overwhelming, while remaining entirely inaudible to Dee.)

My first comment pertains to 16:30 within the podcast. A person has written in to the show asking for the panelists' general reactions to the Atheism+ innovation.

After 16:30 Jeff Dee mockingly reads the emailer's question, signalling to the ostensible cognoscenti that anyone expressing the most minor deviation from Atheism+ must be received as a rube from the sticks. It's important to Dee to communicate to you how stupid this person must be, to suggest Atheism+ might be in any way problematic.

At 17:10 Russell Glasser attempts to dispel the discomfort in the air: When people write in to us (I paraphrase) on this topic--he says--they invariably mis-predict our stance pertaining to Atheism+.

Upon hearing this I start: Glasser's group is part of the Freethought Blogs media empire; any hip American atheist could only assume his invariant profession of devotion to Atheism+. But Glasser says he's going to surprise us. On to 17:10.

Dee says the writer has put [Atheist+] Movement 'in scare quotes.' Perhaps Dee is unaware there are multiple reasons a writer might put any specific phase within quotation marks; scaring readers is by no means the only motivation which might be satisfied by their employ.

Dee's opening tone of ridicule presages a slew of cheap shots. Those unenthused by the claims of Atheism+ are wrong to care--Dee notifies listeners--since the movement so clearly has no moral imperialism at its core.

For a person to claim agnosticism toward those who perceive themselves morally-improved versions of oneself is of course unusual. Dee's central hunch is nonsensical--but he doesn't care since he's sure his side holds the political might.

Dee insists the atheist who detests some of Atheism+'s particularities should confine himself to refraining from joining Atheism+'s principle organs. Any more vocal opposition to Atheism+ would constitute--for Dee--'getting upon one's high horse.' In other words, Dee demands we accord Atheism+ a pristine innocence, holding the tendency above our otherwise omnidirectional skepticism.

At 18:45 Dee doesn't get these people who freak out about Atheism+. Who?--I wonder. I myself frankly question Atheism+--though I have at no point freaked out against it, nor has any known person suggested that I have.

At 18:45 Dee defends the Atheism+ clique for maintaining a members-only web sub-community. Dee has not in fact proposed a defensible reason for such separatism. At 19:15 Denis Loubet--though he eventually cowers--offers some momentary gentle push-back.

At 20:00 Dee insists opponents of Atheism+ are obtuse for not categorizing it precisely as they would The Atheist House of Pancakes. Those who perceive Atheism+ as having political ambitions are--to Dee--daft. Dee will not seek out the most thoughtful critics of Atheism+--he chooses instead the simpler task of caricaturing unnamed critics and then ridiculing his stick-figures.

At 21:00 Dee issues his infamous 'Get off your fucking high horse.' Dee is extremely offended so many thinking people disagree with him, surely they must be sanctimonious twits.

At 22:00 the group bonds over the dogmatic assertion that rank-and-file atheists who express any opinion or concern about any self-identified sub-group constitutes neuroticism. Any such expression should simply be assumed out-of-bounds.

At 22:40 Glasser asserts all his teammates support feminism. Feminism of course has many meanings; in my own metropolitan area it constitutes a McCarthyite pseudo-progressive pressure group [having long succeeded in casting myself outside Internet polite society for the most dubious of reasons]. When the Austin Atheists embrace feminism their rank-and-file simply understands it to equate to the desire to treat people fairly without regard to their gender.

To such mainstream naive moderates a commitment to 'feminism' in no way requires one to condemn the USA for opposing Japan in WW2, for example. One hundred miles from where I live feminists must certainly be sane, goes the widely accepted meme.

At 24:00 Glasser launches into a defense of Atheism+'s 'mission creep,' based on the organizational needs of atheist groups--they often find they have stubborn reactionaries among their dues-payers, people requiring moral improvement from people such as Glasser.

Pretty soon (Glasser assures us) you have a guy showing up to meetings who loudly proclaims he uses hypnotism to get chicks to do whatever he wants--and then goes on to hitting on women at every meeting. Honorable men have to take a more aggressive position reining in the swarming dues-paying blackguards, e.g. The moment atheist leaders ease up on the boot the rank-and-file will immediately start voicing such reactionary desires, goes the meme. Without the progressive Glass-Dee finger on the scale, atheism-curious women will be effectively turned away by the slob masses, we are instructed.

So at 25:00 Glasser is effectively pushing back against Dee's hands-off approach: In fact, aggressive affirmative action is called for. So now our discussion is within the frame of organizational politics: 'How can we make the greatest number of people feel comfortable,' etc. On the contrary, an important reason I accord respectability to an atheist organization is for its courage in disregarding incentives to adopt popularity-expanding public positions.

When we encounter other upright atheists, one reason we have a tendency to bond with each other is due our awareness of our mutual acceptance of the importance of defending several unpopular positions. We correctly resist arguments focusing upon the maximization of public popularity.

Moving on from 26:30, Glasser suggests those who question Atheism+ must be sexists and/or racists. Such people must be unconcerned about moral imperatives such as 'broadening the pool of speakers' at atheist conferences. Failing to care deeply about which egos get stroked at national atheist conferences--to Glasser--indicates moral impurity in anyone calling himself an atheist activist.

At 27:30 Glasser suggests 'Atheism+' has been vilified in the same manner Atheism itself has been vilified.

At 28:15 Glasser announces progressives should unite with anyone as unfairly verbally assaulted as Jen McCreight. To be honest I have not seriously looked at Ms. McCreight's writing, beyond her initial Atheism+ effort, by which I was not impressed.

At 29:00 Glasser ridiculously suggests those opposed to Atheism+ must think 'I don't believe in God and that's where the whole thing ends.'

At 29:30 Glasser makes clear support for Atheism+ is needed for the practical reason of organizational self-promotion. To do otherwise would constitute--the white man shares with his all-white panelists--'becoming an old white guys' club.' That would be really bad.

At 31:30 Dee professes belief that if the values of Atheism+ prove attractive we will naturally observe the sub-group's overtaking of the overall movement, over time. Atheism+, Dee and Glasser agree, has a right to exist--as if anyone suggests otherwise.

At 33:00 Dee states (to unanimous agreement) atheists must take a hands-off approach to any atheist sub-group that simultaneously advocates on behalf of some other set of values.

Then Dee equates criticism of Atheism+ to the boring obsession some people supposedly have, for taking down the work of some specific film director. To criticize the thing Dee strongly supports is to be a fanatic in other words. 'It's not terribly helpful,' Dee laments--as if he can safely assume our primary goal in life is to be helpful to his ideological preferences.

At 34:00 Loubet makes clear his uncritical support for Atheism+: Criticizing Atheism+ from the standpoint of being an atheist is precisely the same as criticizing gay marriage from the perspective of a married heterosexual person. Again--in other words--Dee, Loubet and Glasser insist all atheists must presuppose the ideological neutrality of Atheism+, despite rampant evidence to the contrary.

At 34:30 Dee argues that those opposed to Atheism+ must be knee-jerk opponents of gay marriage. We who oppose Atheism+ must be represented by some individual who wrote an email to the Non Prophets, we learn. And Dee will have us know: He doesn't agree with our [undefined] 'prejudice.'

By 35:30 we've descended to Loubet trying, 'If gays can get married then people who see me get married might assume I'm gay.' I doubt--even in Texas--one can fairly assume all who question Atheism+ can fairly be assumed to be opponents of gay marriage.

At 36:00 the hosts bond over their shared condemnation of an email writer's hope that Atheism+ supporters will 'relent.' People who question Atheism+ must oppose racial harmony and gender neutrality, freelances Dee. If you disagree with Dee 'you're a dick.' At 36:40 Glasser repulsively amplifies, 'If atheism doesn't welcome bigots then our market is smaller.'

Blue Hotel

2014-01-23T10:47:00.001-08:00

The second error: We're informed that Minnesota Atheists will be lobbying legislators on behalf of 'allowing the sale of alcohol on Sundays.'

We're informed this is a Blue Law and therefore--ostensibly--a self-evident priority for our opposition.

I disagree: Simply because a social practice has some religious origin doesn't require us to expunge it forthwith. The names of the days of the week, we are aware, refer to ancient gods, yet everyone appears happy to maintain their use. Ending the ban on Sunday sales does not strike this atheist as an important moral priority.

It is much more urgent for us to reach out to religious believers in the community and try to get them to defend their faiths' weird tenets, always respecting the preferences of those who refuse interaction.

At the atheist event a fellow resident of Eden Prairie mentioned that our suburb's Catholic church--Pax Christi--has a sign out front announcing 'All Are Welcome.' Several major, popular priests at Pax Christi have been universally-acknowledged ultralibs. That sign employs code language that neither of Edina's two Catholic churches would display, pre-Francis at least.

The third judgmental error which I observed at MN Atheists monthly meeting:

A board member informs us Rebecca Watson has agreed to speak at the next Minnesota Atheists annual powwow. I have criticized Watson occasionally, here.

Rebecca Watson is not more admirable than the average individual. If you believe otherwise, I will be happy to take on any challenge.

The Tie that Binds

2014-01-21T08:38:00.001-08:00

I attended Minnesota Atheists monthly meeting the other day at Southdale Library. I've been a member for most of the past year but haven't participated much. A 'non-profit, educational organization that seeks to promote the positive contributions of atheism to society and to maintain separation of state and church' would appear non-controversial.

MA has fewer than 250 dues-paying members; were it an Eden Prairie church it might well not rank in the top ten. Fewer than 25 people attend the meeting on Sunday.

During the enjoyable session I learn of three things Minnesota Atheists is in the midst of doing, all wrong, each deserving its own blogpost. Today we will consider the meeting's central topic:

A friendly and esteemed MA leader gives a laser assisted PowerPoint presentation informing attendees of the organization's legislative activism to change Minnesota law on marriage celebrants. MA has come out in favor of changing the state statutes to add 'atheist organizations' to the religious ones already empowered to confer legitimacy upon marriage celebrants.

Minnesota Atheists' involvement in monogamy promotion comes just after the organization's energetic support for same-sex marriage; that's why we're now discussing this.

Several non-believing marriage celebrants attend the meeting; three atheist couples are interviewed briefly in front of the group.

Technically, a marriage celebrant makes sure two individuals meet the legal requirements for getting married and have been observed entering the matrimonial estate voluntarily. Non-technically, the marriage celebrant confers legitimacy, gravitas and permanence upon a sexually exclusive romantic relationship. A marriage celebrant magically unites a couple publicly in a celebratory manner, with some flowery words.

'If my wedding is officiated by a Minnesota Atheists approved celebrant,' I inquire, 'Will I be correct in saying that Minnesota Atheists looks favorably upon my union?'

From the dues-payer's perspective, that seems problematic: Receiving Minnesota Atheists' imprimatur might be valuable to a wide variety of folks: Why limit it to couples getting married?

At the post-meeting dinner at Q.Cumbers, the presenter responds: The MA-credentialed celebrant is simply wishing the best for the couple, on the organization's behalf. She is merely ensuring that the couple meets the statutory requirements for marriage. The MA-credentialed celebrant need not admire PZ Myers, he assures me.

'But isn't the celebrant effectively speaking in the name of Minnesota Atheists, announcing our approval of two individuals?' He acknowledges for example, that such a celebrant might refuse to unite a couple that includes an openly sexist man.

He makes my point, in other words: This is a bad idea. There are other ways than this of fixing the statute's error. We ought not deputize any individual to confer organizational approval solely upon monogamous unions.

Even now being married enhances one's social acceptance. One pays a non-negligible social cost for being divorced--and that cost compounds with multiple divorces. Maybe Minnesotans need to support marriage's exalted status, in part by collectively imposing social costs upon those whose marriages have failed. I'm skeptical.

Union

2014-01-14T14:18:00.001-08:00

In 2012 one endured a lengthy period of somewhat paralytic unemployment, leaving a dozen years of largely thespian 'commitment' to a NASDAQ-listed corporate entity.

Not an unpleasant experience; it's difficult to find people willing to pay one to surf the internet six hours each day. Our imaginary individual had achieved an exalted state of apathy toward the notion of 'work,' eventually losing the ability to disguise it.

Under the capitalist wolf one needed some paycheck, however humble--and eventually found the nighttime government factory-ish job in which he now toils in esprit de corps with his couple-dozen workmates, many of whom are recent immigrants from a half-dozen African countries and the Middle East, and with working class whites.

Amid sentimental pleasures, let us note a serious moral / political entrant: One is asked to join the union. (One is not required to join the union; reports vary as to whether significant social pressure gets applied, to those unwilling to sign up, though I have experienced quite little.)

The cost of joining the public employees' union amounts to less than two hours of overtime per month--or about $400 annually.

Were the question put to me: A once yearly fee of $400 is by no means unnoticeable; the cost is not negligible. But even if it were negligible, I feel I'd have to refuse to join the union, on principle.

When the government needs to purchase stuff, the emphasis should be placed on finding the lowest price available. As a political liberal it's important to me that the government minimize waste; activist government will only be embraced by the public if we can get it to deliver public goods efficiently.

In the private marketplace a person might think he has no means of negotiating 'fairly' with a rich capitalist--and so he might need a labor union to try to even the playing field, so as to get workers more of the profits they help create. But the owner of a publicly-owned service provider--USPS, say--is the American people, through whose democratically-elected representatives his employer is managed.

If an employee of a public, federal entity feels she is being treated unfairly, she is free to take her case to her political representatives--or to the streets.

When such workers negotiate collectively--to restrict entry and achieve above-market wages, e.g.--their gains are at the expense of the public. Such inefficiencies constitute a drag on the economy, impeding growth--and so I am a somewhat unusual liberal in thinking that public employee unions aren't a good idea.

That said, one notes most co-workers do seem to be willing to join the union. It is a topic I try to avoid bringing up as one doesn't generally seek to invite moral examination. When they make the decision, they aren't giving any consideration to the best interests of service consumers, or to the impact unionization might have on economic growth--your blogger asserts.

They're thinking that when they milk the system for a little gimme, it will be such a small thing that it will have scarcely any effect. They're wrong.

Ludicrous Ways

2013-12-25T16:25:00.003-08:00

A friend from a long-passed decade of my life--now sadly residing a third of a globe distant--has taken unexpected, sometimes odd-seeming ideological turns during our subsequent dispersal. (It would be inconceivable anyone might fire such a salvo at me, I hear you.)

He has morphed these years into one with stridently islamoskeptic positions--e.g. that liberals in the west are willfully idiotic in their enthusiasm to capitulate to every Muslim whim, etc.

I reply mentioning I live in a community with a noticeable Muslim minority and toil closely alongside Muslim co-workers--and don't much get the feeling that these people have it in for western liberalism to the extent you seem to fear, if my audience will allow me to indulge in the second person.

A rational, reasonable atheist, I know not all religions are equally menacing; the historical claims made by mainstream Muslims are dubious in the extreme; to base one's morality upon a text so clogged with known errors is a move I implore Islamic friends and neighbors to ponder, within the context of mutual politeness and respect.

With a friendly Muslim co-worker I get across that my criticism of Christianity is also--in its gentlemanly way--blunt. The degree of female subordination within local Muslim social life cannot help but shock the conscience--but we join hands in our shared awareness of many of suburban Christianity's absurdities.

I speak as one who believes ludicrous ways of thinking and behaving are daily paid obeisance, within his very own local Catholic parish.

Somewhat dispiritingly I see you expose your vulnerability to that most vapid and discredited criticism of moi--that there is something prurient, wrong or unhinged expressed, in my membership at a local Catholic parish, despite my atheism.

Over the years I have articulated a large number of sound reasons in favor of attending religious services, irrespective of one's affinity for magic-based thinking. If you would like me to briefly review some of the strongest of these, just say so--otherwise I will assume we all know my position exceedingly clear and unwavering.

I mind-read: A person prone to the above-noted ideological error harbors this riposte: But there are strong reasons against atheists attending Catholic Mass!

To which I have a standing offer: Give me one good reason. Not a taker yet.

You end with this ejaculation:

...we the HP people have proudly and truculently opposed gender segregation in universities, hate preachers from Muslim backwaters visiting the UK on lecture tours, university authorities chastising atheist societies for ‘offending’ religious [i.e. Muslim] students. For all this we were attacked by a Muslim group [Loonwatch] in the US, accused by them of being obscurantist neocon Zionists.

In fact I don't know Harry's Place at all well and don't now have time to perform an assessment of it. That said, you very avoidably err when you pretend to perceive mainstream liberalism as having hitched its saddle to Loonwatch. There has in fact been no mainstream liberal embrace of Loonwatch; please correct me if you are aware of evidence to the contrary.

The energetically progressive, strongly liberal, high-traffic blog Daily Kos denounces Loonwatch as a fundamentally illiberal splinter fringe front. Loonwatch does not have mainstream liberalism's esteem.

SECOND NOTICE – PLEASE REPLY

2013-11-15T10:49:00.001-08:00

Eden Prairie, Minnesota

November 15, 2013

Fr. Tim Rudolphi

Church of St. Patrick

6820 St. Patrick's Lane

Edina, MN 55439

Hello Fr. Rudolphi,

The other day I received your letter, the envelope stamped ‘SECOND NOTICE – PLEASE REPLY.’ And so I’m replying now. You’ve asked me to fill out a pledge card, committing myself to some giving level.

I’m somewhat reluctant to do so, as I remain a bit unclear as to whether I’m welcome as a member at St. Patrick’s. As you’re aware, I’m a polite atheist: I don’t proselytize within the church, try not to bother anyone, etc.—but I do generally bring a book or newspaper to Mass, to have something productive to do during the boring parts...but I try to be quiet.

I occasionally get involved in conversations with other parishioners—and I’ve noticed that people at the church are sometimes surprised to learn that an atheist is enrolled a member, among them.

If asked, I tell them that years ago I learned that some synagogue-participating Jews are simultaneously unapologetic atheists. They enjoy participating within their religious institutions for a variety of reasons and are generally welcome there.

It occurred to me that theirs was a good idea: There are aspects of church membership I enjoy. Since I had already been a member at St. Patrick’s for decades (while still ‘believing’ in Catholicism, to the extent one can), the church seemed the logical choice—and so I re-joined in 2007 or so. I try to attend Mass when I’ve got the time, at least once monthly, sometimes more.

When I talk openly with other parishioners, I sometimes encounter hostility. So I wish I had a better idea of what the church professes, with regard to the non-believer in its midst. Are we welcome or not?

The church sometimes takes stands I don’t approve of—and under your leadership St. Patrick’s makes it quite difficult for parishioners to complain or take action to change ill-considered policies. Parishioners are discouraged from meeting with each other to discuss your sermons or Church teachings, for example—and the church library bears a strong resemblance to its North Korean counterpart.

That said, I enjoy attending St. Patrick’s—and I believe the atheist has a constructive role to play, within our parish, since he approaches superstitious claims without bias and is willing to change his views when confronted with persuasive evidence to the contrary (thus far, nil, if you’re curious).

As always, Fr. Rudolphi, I welcome your feedback and always acknowledge your right to believe what you want, without any scintilla of coercion or bullying from me. I appeal to you solely ‘from one gentleman to another.’

All the best,

Gavin Sullivan

Adieu October

2013-11-14T10:23:00.000-08:00

More than six months ago I joined Minnesota Atheists, so I've been receiving The Minnesota Atheist--the organization's newsletter--for awhile now. The new one just arrived today, but before opening it I wanted to comment a bit on the October 2013 issue.

On page 4 a volunteer writes up PZ Myers' September address to Minnesota Atheists at the Roseville Library. PZ Myers--a Lifetime Member--is Minnesota's central celeb atheist and certainly among our state's most widely read bloggers.

Within and without the atheist community, Myers is a lightning rod: He's the keystone proponent of Atheism+--the movement to tie atheism to a set of ultralib shibboleths, key among them Rebecca Watson-style feminism.

In The Minnesota Atheist of some months ago, an influential member stated that a Minnesota Atheist in good standing might either endorse or not endorse Atheism+. (Might one actively oppose A+, I asked?--and was stonewalled.)

That said, MN Atheists includes a number of heavy hitters in A+. The September Roseville event--and Ms. Ehni's coverage of it--incorporate a polite avoidance of the elephant in the room, never acknowledging Dr. Myers' leadership in one beloved and behated faction of the larger movement.

While there are a number of atheist organizations in the state, I've enjoyed being a member of Minnesota Atheists--and even the A+ supporters I've encountered have been friendly. The organization has 215 regular members (those paying $35 or so annually) and 34 Life members (who kick in a one-time payment of $600).

Done and Dusted

2013-10-16T09:46:00.002-07:00

'Why do you so single out a/the Catholic church for criticism?' I was recently asked.

I was raised Catholic and maintain an active membership at St. Patrick's, the church in which I grew up and served as an altar boy under two different priests.

I don't seek to change St. Patrick's and strongly defend the religious freedom and human dignity of all. I have spoken often to ministers of other congregations, though it is fair to say I pay extra attention to my family's 'faith tradition.'

I don't assume other religions are better or worse than Catholicism; one can encounter lunacy within many houses of worship. When 'believing true things' gets relegated to fourth tier, madness is wont to reign.

Herd thinking can easily prevail within a Catholic church, where the independent-minded are hoodwinked to think: 'I cannot remain a member of this parish, since I believe scarcely any of the religion's demanded enthusiasms.'

Or: 'Since I don't believe a load of nutty things, therefore it is immoral for me to be accorded 'gentleperson-in-good-standing' status at this church. I am obligated to sever my tie with this place.'

I've urged readers to consider a more robust response to the widespread lapsing-Catholic mental predilection just described.

On the contrary, self: You needn't apologize for being politely honest. You never confront any person at church. No one is required to read Eden Prairie's only non-execrable blog.

You acknowledge the importance of treating every person politely and with respect.

It is reasonable to ask decent religious adherents to become aware that coherent non-believers cannot but evince clumsy inadequacy, when they employ body language suggesting submission to a fictional character.

It is offensive to suggest my disinclination to publicly grovel signifies unfriendliness on my part. Nonsense.

I defend churchgoers' right to embrace and spread tax-subsidized falsehood. At the same time, I am required to try not to participate such conduct, since I consider it bad.

The folks who attend my (suburban, white, Catholic) church feel empowered to despise the unapologetic atheist.

I frequently try to reach out to religious believers, for I deem civil discussion possible.

In my previous post I described a parishioner who told me that if I attend Catholic Mass at St. Patrick's, I may only read a religious publication. Is that your rule or the church's, I asked...Can you please point out the sign? Reading Carrie or How to Make Love Like a Pornstar makes one an axe murderer, goes the prevailing meme.

I might have added, 'If you disagree with me--and believe it essential I imbibe some religious literature--by all means please apprise me of it. I will be happy to engage in polite discussion with you, once you produce any suggested passage or text.'

The church goes to extraordinary lengths to prevent the individual churchman from learning how diverse the thinking is, out in the pews--and how dramatically church-approved thinking has changed with the passing decades, in the real world.

On the rare, warmly appreciated moments when a fellow parishioner puts a question to me, I am then released from my tongue-biting obligation. I am allowed to briefly remove the duct tape and say:

I'm not the only person here who picks and chooses what he decides to believe. Every Catholic is a cafeteria Catholic.

It has by no means been demonstrated that I am not one of dozens of parishioners whose views diverge wildly from the party line.

People believe all kinds of heretical and non-Vatican-approved stuff, and no one bothers them.

The thing that distinguishes my religious views is their clarity--not their degree of heresy.

If I am wrong on any point, I welcome correction, as always.

That's All It Took

2013-10-13T18:35:00.001-07:00

I attended Mass yesterday at St. Patrick's and while there read a bit of Robert Kurzban's Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite.

An older woman rises to the lectern and delivers the first reading--2 Kgs 5:14-17. Readers at St. Patrick's project their stentorian voice-from-on-high tone, as the quarter-full pews snooze. Second Kings orders us to worship the favored god and reject others; St. Patrick's requests we imbibe this as 'wisdom.'

The second reading is 2 Timothy 2:8-13, which warns Jesus will 'disown us if we are faithless.' Successful religions invariably include similar threats. Vague thought-crimes will have severe penalties, the self-satisfied grandmother obediently informs us.

Conventional wisdom asks us to disregard the religious practices of others, though the statements thus far exalted merit rebuke, I'm thinking.

Moreso, even: The holding of certain ancient texts as 'above criticism' is a very bad idea. Non-believers should object to the extent that they politely can. I do so, sitting in the back row, by silently reading a library book. Sometimes I get disapproving glances.

Can non-believers attend Catholic Mass? The unofficial consensus appears to be nearly unanimous: Yes, we can.

The readings culminate in 'the gospel'--when the robed priest reads Lk 17:11-19 wherein Jesus heals ten men (women and children take note) of leprosy, but only one returns to give thanks.

The gospel reading segues to the priest's sermon, in which you might expect Fr. Tim to discuss: If a person was able to magically heal those suffering from a devastating illness, would he not seem morally obligated to heal as many as he might? Would healed individuals owe him sustained subservience? And what does 'faith' have to do with it? (And what is faith?)

Instead, Fr. Tim talks about an old widower now dying in a nearby hospital. The geezer has authorized Fr. Tim to inform us the terminally ill urge us to embrace faith. Why, what, how--one wants to ask--and how could any truth-seeking process be successful if it outlawed critical questioning, as the one on offer most certainly does?

People are exiting as I continue reading, trying to finish a page. The church has mostly thinned out and a man approaches me--and asks if I am aware there are libraries for reading. (I must be incredibly stupid, the man witlessly insinuates.) Some months ago a woman expressed milder umbrage, but I'm actually having a conversation with this guy. I let him know I am interested in hearing his point of view.

I tell him that non-believers are welcome to attend Mass. He says that's true, but you're not allowed to read non-religious materials. I ask him where I might verify such a rule--and he has no clue. He says that people are here to give thanks to the creator of the universe and that it is extremely disrespectful of me 'to read a novel' [sic] while sitting in their midst.

I explain to him this non-believer doesn't think participants in the Mass merit shoulder-patting--and that I should not feel obligated to pretend to share in their superstition and groveling.

He goes on for awhile; he's pissed at me, and not for the reasons he's claiming. When people bootlick they don't appreciate observers.

Parishioners at St. Patrick's--and Catholics generally--are wordlessly instructed to view the unapologetic non-believer with contempt. It makes sense for non-believers to calmly reply to such ill-thought hatred:

Once weekly, sit among them, extend the hand of friendship, be quiet and read a book.