A pox on both your houses

Feminst commentator Anita Sarkeesian is being honored by the Harvard Humanist Community as the person of the year for 2014. A lot of my secular friends are opposed to it, but I completely endorse her nomination.

Not as a compliment to Sarkeesian, but as an insult to humanism.
Read more...

Progressivism has betrayed the secular movements

The problems with the atheism and skepticism movements are not sexism or racism, but their marriages to left-wing progressivism.

A year and a half ago I wrote about the idea of liberal cannibalism, saying, "If you lock enough liberals in a room together they will start to eat each other."

My example at the time was anti-capitalist rhetoric being lobbed at the Human Rights Campaign from the left during its fight for gay marriage, but that same problem is front and center with the ongoing civil war in the atheist and skeptical movements. The two movements have a lot of overlap so I will just refer to them as the "secular movements."

The secular movements have allowed progressive politics to flesh out a lot of their approaches, languages and choices of targets, and in my opinion this has weakened and compromised their missions. It's also set the stage for a civil war launched by social justice advocates.

But, let's be honest here: The flat-out truth is there is something very liberal about the missions of the secular movements. They want to radically change the role religion plays in modern life, and they want science to be held above faith. They also want to dethrone quacks and fools who trick people into believing things that aren't true, even when those quacks and fools have good public reputations.

Conservatives also tend to be more religious, and are very public about their religiosity. Progressives are also on the right side of history on issues like gay marriage, and the major arguments against gay marriage are religious in nature.

Coupled with overt anti-science boasts from conservatives, it makes sense that the secular movements would end up being more progressive and less conservative. However, that doesn't mean every approach and decision from secular activists must be made from a progressive mindset.

One of the greatest virtues the left has is its ability to question authority and tradition. Unfortunately, two of its greatest flaws are failing to question some of its own sacred cows and irrationally rejecting old ideas that have no worthy replacements (capitalism, hygiene, animal testing, chemical fertilizers, etc.).

Notice how much more attention climate change deniers get from the secular movements than denial over the consensus for free trade or against rent control policies, even though all three are major issues of our time marked by a high level of public ignorance, and failure to understand all three leads to poverty and death.

Prominent skeptics I like, such as Dr. David Gorski, will do a take-down on the notion that the anti-vaccination movement is left wing, but no one wants to talk about how one in four registered democrats are creationists (and not too long ago is was nearly one in three) and creationism is a lot more bipartisan than people realize. Battles are being picked and right-wing science denial isn't just a bigger target, but a more tempting target.

It's telling that "Friendly Atheist" blogger Hermant Mehta chose this example when asking people to be more skeptical of alleged false quotes used by Neil deGrasse Tyson:

If a pastor or right-wing conservative did it, we’d be calling them out on it immediately. Tyson doesn’t deserve a free pass just because his intentions are pure.

This implies that he believes his secular audience would have more zeal swarming on a right-wing conservative than a left-wing progressive public intellectual for the same act. Isn't that a problem?

At the least, it's a failure to the mission of secular movements that want to defeat ignorance from every corner.

Arnold King proposed in his three axes of politics theory that left-wing progressives tend to view issues on an oppressor-oppressed axis. The civil rights struggle in the 1960's was about whites using their political power to make life harder for blacks. Left-wingers often believe the drug war was created to keep blacks down.

That's not to say this is the wrong way to look at things. Sometimes the oppressor-oppressed axis is the only view that makes sense. I have a hard time seeing the civil right's movement any other way, but as a libertarian I see the drug war along the lines of a different axis, one of freedom and security, with well-meaning but flawed approaches. If you only use one axis for every problem, you will fatally misunderstand some issues.

That perfectly describes the ongoing, frustrating social justice civil war within the secular movements. Young, furious thin-skinned left-wing extremists have been poisoning the secular movement from within and routinely howl like coyotes. Simply put, they see racism, sexism, oppression and rape culture under every tea cup and salad fork, and they stomp and yell every time they think they've found some more.

For example, since more men are prevalent in the secular movements, they think there must be an evil force behind it like sexism. When they see a white male, even a gay white male, in a leadership position within the movement, their inner bell hooks comes pouring out. Hence the hatred for Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

They aren't willing to accept other explanations, like that there may be something about secularism movements themselves that attracts more men than women, such as telling people to their faces that their deeply-held beliefs are wrong. So, the critics turn to what they know: Oppression! Next comes the purges and the inter-movement cannibalism.

All because they limit their thoughts to that single oppressor/oppressed axis.

A lot of these critics are social misfits, perpetual victims and crybabies who exist in a perpetual state of outrage and are quick to pile on women in the secular movements who disagree with them. These kind of shenanigans would never fly in a movement that wasn't wormy with progressivism. The bomb-throwers would be laughed out and excommunicated in a heartbeat, but instead here they are presented as if they have something wise and important to tell us.

I'm not saying that atheists need to advocate for low taxes, or let up on fighting for gay rights. There's plenty of right-wing malarkey and anti-science to fight. There just needs to be a little more self-examination when progressive ideas like affirmative action are eagerly swallowed. The attempts to purge Richard Dawkins need to be recognized as a consequence of unquestioned acceptance of a leftward mindset, not of a movement full of bigots.

Don't forget, when the extremist leftist in our ranks have to choose between the secular movement and their social justice instincts, they choose social justice. Look at skepticism over sexual assault allegations or how the Yale Humanists jumped on board The Good Ship Liberal when they went sailing against Ayaan Hirsi Ali for being critical of Islam.
Read more...

Massimo Pigliucci gets a gold star

Three years ago I wrote a thank-you letter to Richard Dawkins for being a left wing atheist who made conservative/libertarian people like me feel welcome in secular circles.

Yesterday Massimo Pigliucci spoken in defense of people like me having a place at the secular table, even though he is a far leftist.

The point is: so what? What does any of the above, including abortion, fiscal conservativeness (or not), support for the military (or not), owning guns (or not), and liking or disliking Obama have to do with atheism? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

If there is a reason to criticize David Silverman, it is because he made the same mistake that a lot of progressive atheists make these days: thinking that atheism is somehow logically connected to one political position or another. It isn’t, and it can’t be, and it’s time to stop pretending it is.

Thank you Massimo, from the bottom of my godless heart.

Read more...

The superficiality of secular political cries

Why do I even bother clicking on links at Salon.com anymore?

The title of CJ Werleman's new piece Atheists can't be Republicans caught my eye and I got my hopes up, expecting a good challenge to my views. I thought it would go along the lines of what I wrote about last year piggybacking Andrew Sullivan's calls for gays to avoid the Republican party. The GOP treats both groups poorly and Sullivan argued they don't deserve their votes, even if they agree on economic issues.

Instead, what I got from Werleman was a collection of left-wing talking points and a statement that secular people should support his solutions to them. In all cases, the political points were shallow and his solutions were left unexamined. Here's a typical example:

Atheists like to talk about building a better world, one that is absent of religiosity in the public square, but where are the atheist groups on helping tackle the single biggest tear in the fabric of our society — wealth disparity? They are nowhere. Its absence on the most pressing moral issue of our time makes it difficult for the movement to establish meaningful partnerships with other moral communities.

At several points Werleman calls income equality the biggest issue of today, a dubious and myopic position. At no time does he make a strong case for why left-wing solutions are the correct answer. Instead, he preaches to the choir and insists that people like me don't care about the suffering of others.

This isn't as bad as last month's Salon piece about a 10 year old Zelda game, but this is bigger than one cranky website. As a secular conservative I'm constantly berated with these perfunctory and glib recitals of left wing views. As Jonathan Haidt put it, there's a lot of locker room talk where everyone assumes they are on the same page.

I'm not demanding that secular people change their views or drift to the right, but I don't think they realize just how pig-headed they are being when political issues come up. Maybe if they bothered to learn what people like me actually think they wouldn't considered every political issue settled and resolved.
Read more...

Milton Friedman the skeptic

A few years ago I stumbled across an interesting exchange between Milton Friedman and a religious man who was concerned about Friedman's secular beliefs. Friedman nailed it, and since then I've noticed a variety of off-hand comments Friedman has made that would would excite the secular and skeptical communities if they heard them.

Today as I was listening to a lecture he gave on inequality and I saw another gem worth digging out. In his comparison between religion and concerns over inequality, Friedman said:

Like most religious beliefs - and the reason it is to be called a religious belief - this one is unexamined, and preached rather more than it is practiced.

Later in the same talk he summed it up again:

As I said at the outset, religious beliefs have the characteristic that they tend to be unexamined. 

There are many more statements like this made by Friedman. As a side project I will be transcribing them here under the tag "Milton Friedman the skeptic" so they can be compiled later.
Read more...

A myth trumpeted by atheists

It's sad to see Richard Dawkins website is the source of a recurring myth.

In June 2012 a Salvation Army PR director Major Andrew Craibe was put on the hot seat by gay activists in a radio interview. The Salvation Army is a Christian charity and their handbook lists multiple sections of the Bible that make up parts of their beliefs. Contained one of those sections in the Bible, but not spelled out in the handbook, is a verse that say gays should be put to death.

During the interview, which can be heard here, Craibe was told about this and he responded "Well, that's a part of our belief system." The interviewer spelled it out for him several times and he agreed to it each time.

The headlines screamed that the Salvation Army believes gays should be put to death, because after all, a spokesperson from the group agreed to the statement, even if  was a far-flung one from Australia. That lead to the Australian branch to issue a statement several days later. It read in part:

Salvation Army members do not believe, and would never endorse, a view that homosexual activity should result in any form of physical punishment. The Salvationist Handbook of Doctrine does not state that practising homosexuals should be put to death and, in fact, urges all Salvationists to act with acceptance, love and respect to all people. The Salvation Army teaches that every person is of infinite value, and each life a gift from God to be cherished, nurtured and preserved.

So that should be the end of it, right? Of course not.

When Christmastime came around and the Salvation Army bell ringers started collecting money for charity, atheists in America started sharing the story again, saying not that the Salvation Army wants gays put to death and leave it at that. Myth-busting pages like Snopes and other myth-busting pages tell the whole story, but not everyone got the message.

Now we're getting close to Christmas 2013 and what do I see being shared from Richard Dawkins website? A 2013 piece entitled Salvation Army says “Gays Need to Be Put to Death” that leaves out some important details.

When I was an intern at a newspaper one of my editors told me we can we can never be unbiased, but we can always be fair. Presenting Craibe's interview with no mention of Australia or the response from the Salvation Army demolishing the statement is not fair. Putting quotation remarks around "gays need to be put to death" is lying.

Shame on Richard Dawkin's website staff for perpetuating misinformation.

Read more...

An unsatisfying victory

Last month I wrote a brief post in support of Ronald Lindsay, CEO of the Center for Inquiry, who was caught criticizing privilege-invoking discussion killers. Well, the board of the CFI met to decide if they would give in to demands to fire Lindsay. They released a statement this week declaring they did not.

Sort of.

The actual statement is reproduced below:

The mission of the Center for Inquiry is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. 

The Center for Inquiry, including its CEO, is dedicated to advancing the status of women and promoting women’s issues, and this was the motivation for its sponsorship of the two Women in Secularism conferences. The CFI Board wishes to express its unhappiness with the controversy surrounding the recent Women in Secularism Conference 2. 

CFI believes in respectful debate and dialogue. We appreciate the many insights and varied opinions communicated to us. Going forward, we will endeavor to work with all elements of the secular movement to enhance our common values and strengthen our solidarity as we struggle together for full equality and respect for women around the world.

This purposely-unspecific language is what George Orwell warned us about in his essay Politics and the English Language. It has a point to make, but it hopes to soften the blow of that point with cowardly dodges and demands that the reader navigate a maze of innuendos and hints.

Was the intention to keep the Easily Offended Community from flipping out the moment they deciphered the message? If so, that plan failed miserably. Of course. Did anyone think they wouldn't?

This statement is an example of how not to make an important announcement. Would it have killed them to add a sentence where they spell out their actual position? I can understand being diplomatic, but they did so in a way that no one can support.

Read more...

In support of Ronald A. Lindsay

Ronald A. Lindsay, president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry, gave the opening address at his organization's Women in Secularism conference this weekend. During a section of that talk he criticized people who automatically bleat "check your privilege" as a way to avoid discussions.

It's the same point I made last year, and we both included the caveat that privilege is a legitimate concept that is being abused by some feminists.

Well, surprise surprise some people freaked out and distorted what Lindsay said and are making him the witch of the week.

Lindsay is doing a great job defending himself and doesn't need my help. The one thing he could use is more support and I'm glad to lend my voice to that end. Please consider doing the same.
Read more...

Follow-up on secular poverty cures

I'm writing to make some corrections and clarifications on several details from last week's article about realistic ways secular and skeptical groups can go about fighting poverty, which included heavy criticism of a David Hoelscher piece that sought to corrupt those movements with Marxist doublespeak.

In a private message Debbie Goddard suggested that "demand" was too strong of a word to describe her attempts to include an education focus in secular activism when I wrote "I've previously criticized demands for skeptics, atheists and secular people to [fight other causes]." Fair enough. I had other people in mind when I wrote that sentence, as some people are demanding that third-wave feminism should become a central aspect those movements. I did not intend to imply Goddard was part of that group.

I stand by when I wrote that Goddard and Walker Bristol endorsed Hoelscher's piece. Goddard said she did not endorse it, but did agree with some of its points about Atheism+ falling short on its promise to fight for social justice. She referred to it as "...A provocative and substantive (i.e., worthwhile and quite long) article." I consider that an endorsement, but either way she did not specifically support the anti-capitalist sections.

Bristol wrote to clarify that my introduction mischaracterized his stance for working with churches to fight inequality. His stance is not to work like the churches do to fight poverty because it would increase prestige and win converts in the black community, but to work with the churches to fight inequality because they are effective.

In a blog comment to my piece, Hoelscher informed me that I got his stance on a Noam Chomsky quotation backwards. Rereading that area, the previous paragraph tells us that classism shows up in unexpected places so the Chomsky quotation was intended to be criticized. That was my mistake.

Of course, this didn't have anything to do with the focus of the piece. The Chomsky error was one of several examples intended to demonstrate Hoelscher's insistence that secular and skeptical activists need to fight capitalism. Two hours after he wrote his comment he posted this image on his Facebook page.

Of course, his intention with the Chomsky quotation would have been a lot clearer if he had included any actual criticism of the remark. As it stands, this is what he he would have us believe is an obvious case of classism:

Take for instance Noam Chomsky. The New Atheist message, he once told an interviewer, “is old hat, and irrelevant, at least for those whose religious affiliations are a way of finding some sort of community and mutual support in an atomized society lacking social bonds.” If “it is to be even minimally serious” he continued, “the ‘new atheism’ should focus its concerns on the virulent secular religions of state worship” such as capitalism, imperialism and militarism.

I have no idea what Hoelscher's issue is with Chomsky and he didn't try to explain it.

Hoelscher's essay is a perfect illustration of "Modern English" as described by George Orwell in Politics and the English language. The writing is snaggletoothed, meandering and pretentious and fails to convey ideas without hiding behind vagueness and impenetrable run-on sentences.

Of course, I would expect him to say his writing is clear as an icicle during a spring thaw and I lack the ability to understand him. I say the Emperor has no clothes. It's up to the reader to determine which is true.

Hoelscher also called me out for tossing a few rude words in to describe his views on economics. He right, of course, but I offer no apology. Anti-capitalism is an adolescent disease and I can give Bristol a pass because he's young but Hoelscher is a tenured professor and needs to be held to a higher standard. As I've said time and time again, there is no excuse to be a Marxist in the 21st century. These are dead-end ideas and the lessons of history are both fresh and clear. Honesty requires harshness in criticism of that position.

If he wants to be rude back, then I have no right to complain. Fair is fair.
Read more...

How should secular people fight poverty

Debbie Goddard wrote an interesting piece last week that says promoting education should be an important goal of the secular movement.

I want to see the movement do more than pay lip service to the value of education. I’ve talked about this before, but I am frustrated that we-the-movement only seem to get involved with public education when a teacher puts Bible quotes on the walls of her classroom, when a football coach leads his high school team in prayer, when a science teacher spends time promoting intelligent design, when an administration prevents a student from starting an atheist club, or when a high school graduation is scheduled to take place in a church. Then we swoop in with our science advocates and Wall of Separation to make everything right…but don’t seem to worry about the fact that the high school’s graduation rate might be less than 50% and the shared science textbooks are older than the students.

I've previously criticized demands* for skeptics, atheists and secular people to engage in mission creep, such as to shift their focus away from their central themes and towards other causes that already have support movements. There's no need to retrace those steps, and Goddard did reiterate a good point from Walker Bristol that the black church gains a lot of its power from presenting itself as a force to combat poverty* and it is in the interest of secular groups to copy that approach..

So assuming secular groups should fight poverty what approaches should they use?

Bristol's concentration was on the Why and not the How, so he didn't name any specific approaches the way Goddard spoke of funding education scholarships. Unfortunately both* of them endorsed a piece in the fringe leftist publication CounterPunch written by philosophy professor David Hoelscher about class problems in atheist circles.

To be fair, I do remember thinking when I signed up for my first TAM, the biggest conference of the skeptics movement, that the high registration fees assume that everyone is rich.

Hoelscher started his sprawling essay with a quote from Karl Marx, which should hint at the quality of the rest of the piece. He later quotes Noam Chomsky favorably* as saying "'the new atheism should focus its concerns on the virulent secular religions of state worship' such as capitalism, imperialism and militarism." Later he wrote:

As the Marxist Terry Eagleton observes, there is something egregiously amiss when “[atheist] avatars of liberal Enlightenment like Hitchens, Dawkins, Martin Amis, Salmon Rushdie, and Ian McEwan have much less to say about the evils of global capitalism as opposed to the evils of radical Islam” and “most of them hardly mention the word ‘capitalism’ at all.”

So what are we to make of this, should secular groups who want to fight poverty spend their time fighting capitalism? Instead of asking a shallow philosophy professor, why don't we hear what economist Milton Friedman had to say on the subject:

...the question is how can we as people exercise our responsibility to our fellow man most effectively? That is the problem. So far as poverty is concerned, there has never in history been a more effective machine for eliminating poverty than the free enterprise system and the free-market.

But let's not kid ourselves, secular people who don't study mainstream economics are hostile to capitalism and market-based solutions and reject Friedman. It doesn't seem to matter that economists like Cass Sunstein have convinced modern progressives like President Barack Obama to view markets as an effect tool for organizing society. For example, in last night's State of the Union Address the president advocated market-based solutions to climate change. When it comes to economics, there are far too many secular people on the fringe.

It's also true that capitalism hasn't worked as a magic panacea everywhere, such as in the former USSR and chaotic poor nations. It has, however, worked to eliminate a lot of poverty in famous cases like Hong Kong, Sweden, Estonia, Singapore and Denmark. It even worked when brutal dictators tried it while keeping the rest of the country locked down in China and Chile. Compare West Germany with East Germany or South Korea with North Korea to see the difference between capitalist and anti-capitalist approaches.

Unfortunately, there is no magic formula for eliminating poverty. If we knew of one beyond all uncertainty then academic economists would be advocating its adoption. With no sure-thing to advocate, here are some positions and actions for secular groups that I believe will reduce poverty:

* Promoting financial literacy for poor people. This could take the form of luring adults to free classes with free food, or raising money for public schools in poor districts to require a personal finance class.

*Addressing condom fatigue. I know that sex education is important for reducing unwanted pregnancies, which are a poverty-creating machine, but we can't keep looking at poor people as too stupid to understand how pregnancy works. Americans have access to cheap contraceptives and know plenty about them but many choose not to use them.

*Help increase the purchasing power of the poor through housing zoning deregulation, ending rent control laws, fighting price cartels like barber licensing and increasing access to affordable food.

*Promote international trade as a way to bring lower prices to poor consumers and increase the standard of living for poor foreign workers. For the exact same reasons, promote free and open immigration.

* Stop listening to economic know-nothings like David Hoelscher. Seriously, just close the browser window when he comes up. You have nothing to learn from him about economics except efficient ways to kill poor people.

We should never make zero-sum assumptions and think wealth in one place causes poverty in another. Poverty is the natural state of the world and it is through innovation and human cooperation that we are able to eliminate it. Some places just haven't had as much growth and have been left behind. Those of us who know about growth owe it to everyone else to share what our civilization has learned.

Adamantium Claws: I received messages from Goddard, Walker and even Hoelscher pointing out details I got wrong. I chose to preserve and asterisk them and the clarifications, responses and  admissions of errors are found here. None of these issues challenge or change my thesis in any way.
Read more...

Steve Novella takes on Atheism+

Steve Novella, who has the knowledge, experience, skills, temperament and clout to be recognized as the next leader of the scientific skepticism movement, wrote a piece this week explaining what the skepticism movement is and why he rejects the attempts to hijack it by people like PZ Myers who wish to turn it into a generic left wing movement.

I have never endeavored to tell other people what to do with their own activism. If Penn and Teller want to have a skeptical/libertarian show, that’s their right. They can do what they want. The Skepchicks combine feminism and skepticism, and PZ combines (by his own account) skepticism, atheism, and liberal politics. My view – let a thousand lights shine. At the end of the day, we are all skeptics. Let’s celebrate that, and we can still argue about our differences but let’s not pretend that any skepticism-plus is the one-true-skepticism just because it’s our own.

Novella is completely right. I run a blog that is both libertarian and skeptical, and I have never tried to say that being a skeptic means one has to be a libertarian. In fact I believe that there is logic and solid evidence behind some of the policies of libertarians, progressives and conservatives, even among those that challenge my world view. That is the nature of information.

The post was a reply to something PZ Myers wrote that included a remarks about economics and skepticism I agree with followed by some hubristic remarks about how anyone who disagrees with his personal politics is a pseudoscientific agent that should be purged:

Similarly, I can predict that skeptics will now struggle to exclude politics and economics from any debate; economics is notoriously fuzzy, and politics is wracked with extremes of opinion. But of course both fields do have hard evidence that can be addressed. Does the American political and economic system cause great hardship for many people? Does it promote stability and international cooperation? Are some of our expenditures unnecessary and others insufficient? Are there evidence-based alternative strategies that work better? Can we compare economies in different countries and assess their relative performance? 

And most importantly, should rational skeptics take a stand on these issues, discuss and debate them, and come to reasonable conclusions? I don’t think it’s true that they are unresolvable. 

PZ Myers is absolutely right that we should include economic topics in skeptical conversations - that is to say his words are absolutely right, but perhaps not his intention. I have been promoting the pseudoscientific nature of the "Buy Local" movement on this blog for three and a half years and have been trying to get it wedged in to a conference for a nearly as long.

Support of free trade and opposition to rent control are both economic policy positions backed by rock-solid scientific consensuses, so why not start with them?

However, I don't think that's what PZ Myers really meant. He assumes his crude anti-capitalist ideas are wise and expects that the science will support him. This is just another lame attempt for him to confuse his personal value judgments with metaphysical truth, and label anyone who disagrees with those value judgments as an interloper who needs to be purged.

Look what he went on to write:

Unfortunately, opening up the skeptic community to actually discussing these topics would lead to Deep Rifts that make the one over religion look insignificant. We’re riddled with wacky libertarians and their worship of the capitalist status quo (or worse, demanding a greater reduction in government and compassion). A libertarian speaker who openly espoused the opinions of a loon like Ron Paul — and there are people in this community who regard him as a saint — would pretty much guarantee a kind of noisy riot in the audience, and lead to a big chunk of organized skepticism decamping in fury. 

Which would probably be a good thing.

Novella's response to that was:

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what PZ is saying here, and if so please correct me, but this sounds an awful lot like a desire to purge the skeptical movement of those with a differing political outlook. I find it hard to see how this would be a good thing.

And PZ responded to that remark:

Yes, I apologize, I am being misunderstood. No, I’m not saying we should purge people with a particular political outlook. I am saying that the skeptical movement, just like the atheist movement, contains a largely irrational element that doesn’t really accept the principles Novella outlined.

Oh, we understood you just fine. This is not the first time he's said he wants to purge non-progressives from the secular and skeptical communities. He considers anyone who disagrees with his politics to be irrational. He just can't fathom that he could be wrong, even about something as complex as capitalism that lies outside of his area of expertise.He can't even distinguish between someone who opposes feminism and someone who opposes using skepticism limited resources to fight generic feminism battles.

The battle between Keynes and Hayek is a fight within economics by experts. It is not like the battle between evolutionary biologists and creationists where misinformed outsiders are up against united experts.

I'm glad Novella is speaking up.
Read more...

We won the War on Christmas

Every year at this time I hear the same dismissals of the "War on Christmas" that is promoted by people like Bill O'Reilly. I hear more criticism of the concept than actual examples of the War on Christmas.

Clearly, calling it a war at this time is wrong. But things were very different in 2005 when political correctness lead to major retailers like Wal-Mart and Target keeping the word Christmas out of their stores and ads and the city of Boston calling its large Christmas tree a "holiday" tree. There were tons of little tales of individual school districts changing the words in Christmas songs to be unspecific about the

A lot of this was an overreaching attempt to avoid offending people, but in a glorious display some of the people who do celebrate Christmas got offended and fought back. They used public speech and a few boycott threats to convince companies to use the term again, and it worked.

The reason Christmas in 2012 is not obscured with vague wording is the legacy of those pro-Christmas campaigns. The search to find new examples continues. There is no War on Christmas in 2012, but that's only because people opposed to public mentions of Christmas were defeated.

One red herring in this issue is the labeling of Christmas as a religious holiday. Some people celebrate it from a religious perspective, but the holiday itself can be celebrated from an entirely secular perspective and it often is. While nearly 80 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians, 95 percent of them celebrate Christmas.

While I don't support having nativity scenes on government property as they are clearly religious, the same can't be said for Santa. The holiday itself is a major and easily-recognizable part of American culture. There is no such thing as a "holiday tree" and any attempt to use that term is pure legerdemain. We can live in a secular society without hiding parts of our culture because it might offend some people who were determined to find something that will upset them anyways.
Read more...

Obama is still a Christian

There's a group of extremists who are convinced that President Barack Obama is lying when he claims to be a Christian and is instead secretly a member of highly-despised group.

They're called far-left atheists.

The idea is simplistic. President Obama is supposedly a secret atheist, but lied about it to get re-elected. During his first term he expanded faith-based initiatives and made numerous references to his faith, but now that the election is over and term limits prevent him from running again, he can finally be himself. There's even calls for him to leave the Bible home when he is sworn into office next year.

This wild conclusion comes from some people who should really know better like Richard Dawkins, and the evidence they suggest is embarrassingly weak, such as that he doesn't attend church regularly in Washington D.C. He said it's because his presence is disruptive to the service.

The conclusion clearly outpaces the evidence. I think this idea comes from some kind of emotional need fulfillment from the secular far left. Candidate Obama did a great job of presenting himself as a blank canvas people could project their own ideals upon, and a lot of atheists have fallen into a sort of trap where they think he is just like them. It's true in other realms so why not this one?

Other atheists have spoken out against this and made some strong counter-arguments, such as how he called himself religious before he entered politics, the long list of anti-secular comments and policy decisions he's made and the problems presented by embracing someone because you think they are lying about being religious.

Even if the president is a secret atheist, his actions as president have been directly in line with that of a serious Christian who believes faith has a crucial role in the government, so functionally the entire point is moot. President Obama does not, and will not, behave like a secular president.
Read more...

Why I'm excited about Atheism Plus

I just became aware of a planned movement called Atheism Plus, or Atheism+, which means secular people who push social justice goals. The advocates want to be known as standing for atheism plus feminism, or atheism plus affirmative action.

I like Jen McCreight's comparison to an atheist knitting club, where it doesn't replace atheism groups, but merely acts as a voluntary side project.

That's the beauty of this Atheism+ scheme. Instead of trying to drive out libertarians, men's rights supporters and people who don't support abortion, the far-left secular advocates like McCreight, PZ Myers and Rebecca Watson are going to pick up their ball and go home.

Please, go. Shove off, mateys, the sooner the better. You have my blessing.

I'm sure believing that my support has value violates some hidden white male privilege list, but I really want to  express my joy that they will be pushing their political agenda elsewhere.

I realize that they are making some parting shots on their way out. Atheism+ advocates are trying to say they're trying to get away from evil people. Blogger Jason Thibeault sums it up:

You’ll notice that the A+ folks are all against a certain type of person — the kind of person who would engage in concerted hate campaigns against certain members of the community merely for being pro-social-justice.

As if this was about ideas and not actions. I'm not sure what qualifies as a hate campaign, but his camp does not merely believe in social justice, it has been trying to force the rest of us to act on it.

Longtime readers will recognize a version of our old friend the feminist shell game, where opposing an extreme form of a modern idea is presented as opposing its primitive ancestor. I don't support using affirmative action when selecting speakers at a conference, so therefore I am opposed to black people. I don't support having the federal government pay for abortions with taxpayer money, therefore I am against women voting.

These kind of political parlor tricks are to be expected. I'm sure there are a lot of nice, tolerant people within the Atheism+ movement (Surly Amy comes to mind), but I see some rude ones speaking for the group and it gives me a negative impression of the entire camp. That's how bias works and we need to address it. It's the same mechanism that leads them to blurring the line between people like me and neo-nazis.

Atheism+ will end up devolving into Atheism plus worship of the democratic party, and I'm sure there will be plenty of left-wing economic views taken as scripture and smugly touted as scientific fact. Will the Marxists be welcomed in Atheism+? I expect so, and there will be an attempt to say they have captured the mantle of reason. Oh well, it's nothing new.

I've seen some people in my camp oppose the Atheism+ movement, and I wish they would reconsider. Think of it like the Civil War, where the slave-owning, backwards aristocratic confederate states wanted to leave, and we fought like Hell to keep them with us. Why not just let them go? 

I'm sure they will do some good things as a group, but I never signed up to fight for abortion rights, I just wanted a group of people to discuss secularism and skepticism with, and hopefully I will get that back.
Read more...

Secular community rationalizes their politics

This afternoon when NPR reported President Barack Obama said earlier today day that his policies are an extension of his religious faith, I had a funny feeling that today would be the day the secular community gives religion's influence on public policy a pass. I was not disappointed.

From NPR, with emphasis added for the juicy parts:

Blending politics and religion, President Barack Obama said his Christian faith is a driving force behind his economic policies, from Wall Street reform to his calls for the wealthy to pay higher taxes.

Obama's remarks Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast were his most explicit account of how his personal religious beliefs factor into his decision-making on the nation's pressing problems. The comments came amid election-year criticism from Catholic groups and some Republicans that the president is waging a war on religion following his decision to require church-affiliated institutions to cover free birth control for employees.

Speaking to more than 3,000 people at the annual breakfast, Obama said "faith and values" should play as much as role in tackling the nation's challenges as sound decision-making and smart policies.

Now these statements about letting the Bible guide his policies were only spoken that morning, but it was on the air when I turned in at 1 p.m. I figured my fellow skeptics would have been exposed to it by now.

The clock is close to midnight now and I haven't seen it referenced at all on Facebook and most of the hits on YourOpenBook.com show the only people linking it are anti-Obama conservatives who are speculating (reasonably) that the comments would have sparked outrage if spoken by George W. Bush.

I also checked out some prominent secular blogs out there, from the Friendly Atheist to Pharyngula. They have updated several times today and there's no mention of it anywhere. That may change tomorrow, but the lack of a viral spread is telling.

I see my secular and skeptical friends post news reports all the time about a Republic politician or some unknown right wing loon waving around the Bible and saying America is a Christian nation or we've fallen too much into sin. It's usually introduced by saying "This is why I could never vote Republican."

No friends, you could never vote Republican because you don't like theirs policies. This is just rationalizing, where you come up with compelling arguments to justify your beliefs.

In all these cases, the friend already would never vote for a conservative candidate. They disagree with the right's economic views and hands-off solutions to problems like poverty. Of course, they also disagree with social conservatives, but hey, so do I.

I don't think the president said anything out of the ordinary for politicians today. As the transcript shows he also included plenty of lines about tolerating other faiths.

He's just caving like everyone else and this shows that the idea that only the Republicans will exaggerate their holy devotion just to win votes needs to be taken off the cross, placed in a cave and sealed with a big rock.

Read more...

Where is this godless Democratic party I keep hearing about?

It's no secret that there's an overwhelming base of left wing politics in both scientific skepticism and secular communities. I recently wrote that skeptics should reconsider their assumption that a progressive government will select competent people who understand and respect science to run the country. I used this as a platform for them to consider becoming libertarians. This time, I want secular people to consider being anything other than Democrats.

In 2010 gay conservative Andrew Sullivan said:

Certainly gay people do not want to become a Democratic party constituency that is totally taken for granted, which is of course what has happened. When you have no leverage over a party, they don't do anything for you except take your money and invite you to cocktail parties, which is all that's happened in two years under Obama with two houses of Congress.

The secular world is extremely left wing, and everyone knows it, including the Democratic party. That's why they don't do anything for atheists. They know the heathens will never run to the GOP and making secular issues central will only scare off the religious voters they are struggling to court.

Remember how the atheist community made a big deal out of the time in early 2010 when the Secular Coalition for America got to meet with a handful of President Obama's staff? Some fools on the right tried to read too much into it, but it was just for show, like the shout-out Obama gave to non-believers during his inauguration. He's the same president who not only tolerated Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives, but actually expanded them.

I am not expecting the secular community to go to the GOP that treats secular people with contempt or switch to some hopeless fringe group like the National Atheist Party. Instead, I'd like my fellow godless heathens to consider leaving the Democrats and joining the Green Party or registering as independents for a little while until they win you back with some real change.

My friends, the Democrats aren't doing anything for the secular community. They don't think you'll ever leave. Make them set down the Bible and earn your vote.

Read more...