Insert Big Brother reference here.
It's almost getting old, talking about the numerous privacy violations that we've had to endure at the hands of our government, but each abuse of our liberty makes exposing them all the more important. For those of you who haven't read the story, the NSA has decided that it has the right to take possession of your laptop at the border without any suspicion of wrongdoing.
This violation of individual privacy is absolutely disgusting. I often wonder how the policy makers that created this live with themselves. I'm certain that they have some sort of rationalization of how these sort of things are for the greater good, but I can hope that they wake up one day and realize what horrible, horrible people they are and how much they've undermined the very liberties that supposedly make American so great.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
It's the ones we love that hurt us the most
Obama wants to give a $1000 rebate to American families by taxing oil companies. Let me summarize the problem:
We have a problem because oil production has peaked, while demand has not. Increasing world demand and a plateaued supply have led to drastically increasing oil prices over the last couple of years. All indicticators suggest that oil prices will continue to rise indefinitely, as there are no viable replacement technologies in the pipeline, thanks to the ineptitude and lack of foresight of the whole world over the past 50 years or so.
So, Obama wants to:
1. Tax oil companies. Shockingly, increasing taxes to oil companies will force them to increase oil prices.
2. Give it to people to spend on oil products. Shockingly, giving money to people to spend on oil will increase demand for oil, which will increase oil prices.
Obama, I love you buddy, but this is not just shooting ourself in the foot, but then cutting off our leg with a rusty hacksaw to attempt to heal it. Please stick with financial incentives to actually help us with peak oil issues, not making matters worse AND wasting tons money in the process. You are now just as guilty of supporting a hurtful manipulation of the oil market as Hillary and McCain were with their gas tax holiday earlier this year. I am hurt and shocked. You are better than this.
We have a problem because oil production has peaked, while demand has not. Increasing world demand and a plateaued supply have led to drastically increasing oil prices over the last couple of years. All indicticators suggest that oil prices will continue to rise indefinitely, as there are no viable replacement technologies in the pipeline, thanks to the ineptitude and lack of foresight of the whole world over the past 50 years or so.
So, Obama wants to:
1. Tax oil companies. Shockingly, increasing taxes to oil companies will force them to increase oil prices.
2. Give it to people to spend on oil products. Shockingly, giving money to people to spend on oil will increase demand for oil, which will increase oil prices.
Obama, I love you buddy, but this is not just shooting ourself in the foot, but then cutting off our leg with a rusty hacksaw to attempt to heal it. Please stick with financial incentives to actually help us with peak oil issues, not making matters worse AND wasting tons money in the process. You are now just as guilty of supporting a hurtful manipulation of the oil market as Hillary and McCain were with their gas tax holiday earlier this year. I am hurt and shocked. You are better than this.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Morality
Due to popular demand (using both of those words in the loosest sense possible), tonight I am going to post a little bit about morality.
Typically, morality is envisioned as our sense of right and wrong. That is all well and good, but -what- is morality? Why is there a right and a wrong? Is there an absolute right and wrong? These are all very good questions, but tonight I don't intend to answer them. That is a far more ambitious goal than I am capable of accomplishing right now. Instead I will do the next best thing and attempt to offer pieces of my thoughts, and you'll have to settle for that.
So why is there a right and a wrong? Morality is certainly not the only source of "right" and "wrong" that we deal with. I certainly know it's wrong to touch a hot stove, and that it's right to sleep 9 hours per night, but these are amoral decisions (Note: amoral, not immoral). Morality describes a specific type of right and wrong choices we can make. Decisions we describe as having moral content tend to be related to how we relate to other people. Is it okay to steal that apple from the store? Is it wrong to punch that dude that laughed when you tripped walking up the stairs? There are some exceptions to this broad guideline, but for the most part it works as a first approximation.
So why do we have a special name for right and wrong decisions for when they relate to other people? I will postulate that there two basic reasons:
1) These types of right or wrong decisions are much more difficult than other typical "Should I have hot dogs or spaghetti for supper tonight?" decisions. They can be very abstract, have multiple layers and hidden factors, and sometimes have no real answer. It makes good sense to
give something so different its own name.
2) More importantly, these moral decisions are important because they are necessary to satisfy basic human needs. As social creatures, how we relate to other human beings is essential to our success and happiness. Our social needs cannot be replaced with other things. If I'm feeling lonely, no number of gummi worms I eat will make me feel less lonely. It is therefore terribly important that we internalize a number of rules for how best to achieve a satisfying social life.
The major consequence of not behaving by a group's moral code is being ostracized by the group. Much like our rules about "Things we should eat" is our interalized list of rules to correctly satisfy our hunger, a moral code can be thought of as a sort of internalized list of rules to correctly satisfy our social needs.
So what is the origin of morality? A common claim is faith/religion/God/god/gods, but this sort of claim is patently false. What is considered moral behavior has changed greatly through the years. To claim to have the universally correct sense of morality is arrogant in the extreme. The argument can be made that each civilization's sense of morality has bits and pieces of the correct universal moral code, but that the remainder may be corrupted. This is suspicious in the extreme, and reeks of ad hoc reasoning.
The truth is that most of the basic rules of morality stay the same between civilizations: "Don't kill people" (the definition of people is always important, of course), "Don't steal from people", etc. The remainder of the rules tend to be highly specific to the culture, "Don't walk on top of the Great Sacred Symbol in the entrance of the Holy Gathering Spot", "Don't blaspheme", rules about manners, etc.
The "basic rules" of morality tend to be similiar because they are based on my favorite moral axiom, the golden rule. "Treat others as you would like to be treated". Such a basic concept, but the vast majority of basic morals we hold can be boiled down to this. As a lover of mathematics and physics (and sometimes computer science), any sort of large complex system that can be expressed in a small compact form is very appealing.
I live by and believe in the golden rule. The majority of the rest I just don't buy. Societal rules about proper sexual conduct, rules about proper topics of discussion, any sort of rule that attempts to control independent thought and restrict personal freedom for no reason are rules that I cannot justify. Some of the more harmless ones I choose to obey for convenience's sake(Profanity is bad, mmkay), but there are many I refuse to obey.
This is how I developed my own set of morals. It would be naive to say it was completely objectively determined, but my set of morals are certainly not the ones I was raised with and I certainly have put a lot of effort in them. I would like to remain optimistic that by careful examination it is possible to discover flaws in your own sense of right and wrong and correct them. I do remain pessimistic that the vast majority of people do not take the time and effort to do this, instead accepting the hodge-podge of moral values they have been exposed to and automatically internalized without question.
I apologize for the rambling direction this post ended up taking, but I can't bear to remove any of the points because I think they are all important. So enjoy it as-is, no refunds.
Typically, morality is envisioned as our sense of right and wrong. That is all well and good, but -what- is morality? Why is there a right and a wrong? Is there an absolute right and wrong? These are all very good questions, but tonight I don't intend to answer them. That is a far more ambitious goal than I am capable of accomplishing right now. Instead I will do the next best thing and attempt to offer pieces of my thoughts, and you'll have to settle for that.
So why is there a right and a wrong? Morality is certainly not the only source of "right" and "wrong" that we deal with. I certainly know it's wrong to touch a hot stove, and that it's right to sleep 9 hours per night, but these are amoral decisions (Note: amoral, not immoral). Morality describes a specific type of right and wrong choices we can make. Decisions we describe as having moral content tend to be related to how we relate to other people. Is it okay to steal that apple from the store? Is it wrong to punch that dude that laughed when you tripped walking up the stairs? There are some exceptions to this broad guideline, but for the most part it works as a first approximation.
So why do we have a special name for right and wrong decisions for when they relate to other people? I will postulate that there two basic reasons:
1) These types of right or wrong decisions are much more difficult than other typical "Should I have hot dogs or spaghetti for supper tonight?" decisions. They can be very abstract, have multiple layers and hidden factors, and sometimes have no real answer. It makes good sense to
give something so different its own name.
2) More importantly, these moral decisions are important because they are necessary to satisfy basic human needs. As social creatures, how we relate to other human beings is essential to our success and happiness. Our social needs cannot be replaced with other things. If I'm feeling lonely, no number of gummi worms I eat will make me feel less lonely. It is therefore terribly important that we internalize a number of rules for how best to achieve a satisfying social life.
The major consequence of not behaving by a group's moral code is being ostracized by the group. Much like our rules about "Things we should eat" is our interalized list of rules to correctly satisfy our hunger, a moral code can be thought of as a sort of internalized list of rules to correctly satisfy our social needs.
So what is the origin of morality? A common claim is faith/religion/God/god/gods, but this sort of claim is patently false. What is considered moral behavior has changed greatly through the years. To claim to have the universally correct sense of morality is arrogant in the extreme. The argument can be made that each civilization's sense of morality has bits and pieces of the correct universal moral code, but that the remainder may be corrupted. This is suspicious in the extreme, and reeks of ad hoc reasoning.
The truth is that most of the basic rules of morality stay the same between civilizations: "Don't kill people" (the definition of people is always important, of course), "Don't steal from people", etc. The remainder of the rules tend to be highly specific to the culture, "Don't walk on top of the Great Sacred Symbol in the entrance of the Holy Gathering Spot", "Don't blaspheme", rules about manners, etc.
The "basic rules" of morality tend to be similiar because they are based on my favorite moral axiom, the golden rule. "Treat others as you would like to be treated". Such a basic concept, but the vast majority of basic morals we hold can be boiled down to this. As a lover of mathematics and physics (and sometimes computer science), any sort of large complex system that can be expressed in a small compact form is very appealing.
I live by and believe in the golden rule. The majority of the rest I just don't buy. Societal rules about proper sexual conduct, rules about proper topics of discussion, any sort of rule that attempts to control independent thought and restrict personal freedom for no reason are rules that I cannot justify. Some of the more harmless ones I choose to obey for convenience's sake(Profanity is bad, mmkay), but there are many I refuse to obey.
This is how I developed my own set of morals. It would be naive to say it was completely objectively determined, but my set of morals are certainly not the ones I was raised with and I certainly have put a lot of effort in them. I would like to remain optimistic that by careful examination it is possible to discover flaws in your own sense of right and wrong and correct them. I do remain pessimistic that the vast majority of people do not take the time and effort to do this, instead accepting the hodge-podge of moral values they have been exposed to and automatically internalized without question.
I apologize for the rambling direction this post ended up taking, but I can't bear to remove any of the points because I think they are all important. So enjoy it as-is, no refunds.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Morality Stumper
One of the claims of slavery proponents was that the African race was inherently inferior to the white man, giving them a sort of moral obligation to give them good work and happy living. This argument, of course, holds no water, in part because the underlying assumption, that the African race is inherently inferior, does not stand up to scrutiny. But what if it did?
So my question to ponder is this: What if there was a missing link species (or a closely related dead end branch species, like the Neanderthals) that was still in existence with a significant population? Suppose this species almost never surpassed the intellectual ability of a 10 year old homo sapien, but could develop basic speech abilities. They also have similiar physical capabilities as a homo sapien. Would we be morally obligated to help them survive? Would it be moral to employ them to do menial tasks for less pay? What would be the role in modern society of these people? Would they vote? Would it be acceptable to give them a fractional vote? And as a side note, how might have historical events proceeded given this population?
Just something to ponder, I don't have good answers, yet.
So my question to ponder is this: What if there was a missing link species (or a closely related dead end branch species, like the Neanderthals) that was still in existence with a significant population? Suppose this species almost never surpassed the intellectual ability of a 10 year old homo sapien, but could develop basic speech abilities. They also have similiar physical capabilities as a homo sapien. Would we be morally obligated to help them survive? Would it be moral to employ them to do menial tasks for less pay? What would be the role in modern society of these people? Would they vote? Would it be acceptable to give them a fractional vote? And as a side note, how might have historical events proceeded given this population?
Just something to ponder, I don't have good answers, yet.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
We are at war with Oceana
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Deconversion
(Disclaimer: This post describes in depth my experiences with religion and my thoughts on the matter. In addition, it is by far my most intensely personal blog post, containing many thoughts which I have never shared with another human being. Elly does not count.)
But seriously guys, I'm an atheist. If you hadn't figured that out by my previous blog post, then you can now rest assured that I do not believe in any God or gods. Also, in my previous post I made a brief mention of the difficulties I had while struggling to accept this about myself. I want to use this post to expand on that further and speak a little about my history with theism and in some depth on what kind of emotions I went through while discovering my atheism. I also want to make it clear that this post isn't about explaining my rationale for "converting" to atheism, but instead describe how realizing my lack of faith impacted my life.
I think the term "deconversion" isn't entirely accurate, as it implies that at some time I was converted, or that I had faith. This isn't entirely true, because as far back as I can remember, my "faith" was more a matter of puppeting what I had been told by authorities rather than faith in the dictionary sense. The only time I can recall really praying for divine intervention was when I was very young, and I prayed for Santa Claus to bring me a SNES (True story, you can't make this kind of stuff up). Although it is impossible to recall with perfect clarity, I'd say that it's safe to say that my belief in the big SC and the big JC disappeared at about the same time, even if I didn't realize it as such.
Despite not actually believing in the stories I heard in church and at CCD, I would still parrot back lines from it, and thanks to my rather good memory, I was quite good at it. In addition, my natural personality greatly aided in presenting me as a quiet, pious young man.
CCD itself was always a complete bore. The only thing that made it remotely enjoyable was a growing friendship with TC. With the exception of TC, all of the other kids seemed to pay some lip service to the ideals expressed by the church and our instructors, but did not even attempt to live up to these ideals.
In addition, the instructors in CCD seemed, to find a way to put this politely, mentally slow (I think the same might be said of the students. I used to joke to TC that they would always have us 2 do the readings for masses because we were the only ones that could read). The answer to every other question seemed to be some variant of "Jesus loves me". So this weekly exercise in monotony offered me nothing in terms of mental stimulation, and without the belief in God to give it some sort of additional meaning, it became something I would dread more and more (No offense to TC, but somehow they didn't seem interested in letting us talk about RA the whole time)
So that's a basic summary of my religious life until coming to college. I think it would be cliche but I am unable to stop myself from noting that college is typically viewed as a coming of age thing where one finally becomes somewhat independent and finds out who one really is. I was no exception to this, my realization of my faith being but one example of a quite remarkable four year journey.
I think it is important to note here that when I speak of this time in college, I refer to it as "realizing my faith". I use this phrasing to make it clear that while I was in name a Catholic, my internal belief system in no way reflected a theistic point of view. Despite this belief system containing no God or gods, it wasn't until college that I truly realized it and accepted it, which is why I describe the event as I do.
So I go to college and I begin to live own my own (With TC, of course). There is something about changing your entire life that causes your brain to start to move in entirely different directions. TC once showed me a news article that recommended that you brush your teeth with your left hand every once in a while to keep your brain on its toes, and I'd say that it rings true in a way.
At some point I became aware of the Dover trial. For those of you not intimately familiar with Creationism propaganda, that is where a schoolboard tried to sneak repackaged Creationism into the science curriculum. I can't explain how shocking it was to me. Even then I had a well developed sense of science and not-science (and not so well developed sense of human nature), and it was completely shocking to me that there was still a minority of people that believed the earth was less than 10,000 years old. Even more shocking was that they had the audacity to ignore the majority science opinion to sneakily instate it in a science classroom. Even more shocking was that they had enough political power to make a serious attempt to do so.
Looking back, I am amazed that somehow going through CCD, I don't recall having ever encountered this propaganda. Being much more well informed now, I realize that young earth belief is disturbingly prevalent in American culture, especially midwestern culture (one of the increasing number of things that make me ashamed of my midwestern heritage). But somehow I never picked that up from CCD, so it was either never mentioned or I wasn't paying attention at the time.
Anyway, enough sidetracking. It was about this point that I began seriously reevaluating my belief system. I realized that I didn't actually believe in God. I mean, come on. I never prayed, I never read the bible except for scholarly reasons, I had no desire to go to church, except out of duty to my parents when I was home for the weekend. How could someone truly believe that there was only this one book that held all of the answers to getting into the good eternal afterlife, and never read it? I know that if I really believed that I'd be combing through it every night. The only reason why I identified myself as "Catholic" was twofold. A) I am a Catholic because I am a Catholic. Circular, but a great example of how crappy our thinking can be when we don't think about it. B) Out of duty to my parents.
So, after a ton of reflection, I was ready to self identify myself as an "atheist". I first came out of the closet to bennytee. It wasn't difficult, because he comes from a nontraditional religious background as well, so he could relate to that at least.
Sometime around then there was a public debate held "Evolution vs Intelligent Design". I didn't go, partially because there is a good reason why structured debate to a popular audience isn't how real science is argued. It is a crappy method to determining the truth of a matter. Just ask any good lawyer if the merits of a case alone are what determines who wins. But after this I saw that the AAS (Atheists and Agnostics Society) was holding a meeting to discuss it. I wanted to go to that at least, because, well, I had never met another atheist before, and I was curious.
The meeting was full of people, mostly guys, that sat around and used big words and described philosophical concepts that I had never heard of (Now, of course, I am much more knowledgeable). It was very intimidating, and I didn't contribute anything, just watched and listened. The people there seemed like normal people, and they brought up many of the ideas that I had been wrestling with (Is morality connected to religion? in addition to other sorts of things that I had discovered on my own). Although I wasn't able to add anything, I did get one important lesson from the meeting - atheism isn't bad, atheists aren't bad people.
I bring up the religion-morality connection quite often because it was at the forefront of my mind at the time. Throughout my life I had been instructed that religious belief was the source of human morality. That God has passed morality down to people and that it was independent of our human nature. I accepted this assertion without evidence as complete fact, and it took a couple of years before I was able to really convince myself otherwise. That is one struggle that taught me the great power of the assertions that our environment forces us to believe and the great power of our mind to keep us believing in these things that may or may not have a basis in reality.
So before I went to the AAS meeting, TC asked me where I was going and I told him I was going to this atheism meeting. I think it was a great shock to him and I don't think he really knew what to say. I think it was the next day at lunch sitting with TC and another person or two that he came out and asked "So, do you believe in God?". And I could finally say "No."
But seriously guys, I'm an atheist. If you hadn't figured that out by my previous blog post, then you can now rest assured that I do not believe in any God or gods. Also, in my previous post I made a brief mention of the difficulties I had while struggling to accept this about myself. I want to use this post to expand on that further and speak a little about my history with theism and in some depth on what kind of emotions I went through while discovering my atheism. I also want to make it clear that this post isn't about explaining my rationale for "converting" to atheism, but instead describe how realizing my lack of faith impacted my life.
I think the term "deconversion" isn't entirely accurate, as it implies that at some time I was converted, or that I had faith. This isn't entirely true, because as far back as I can remember, my "faith" was more a matter of puppeting what I had been told by authorities rather than faith in the dictionary sense. The only time I can recall really praying for divine intervention was when I was very young, and I prayed for Santa Claus to bring me a SNES (True story, you can't make this kind of stuff up). Although it is impossible to recall with perfect clarity, I'd say that it's safe to say that my belief in the big SC and the big JC disappeared at about the same time, even if I didn't realize it as such.
Despite not actually believing in the stories I heard in church and at CCD, I would still parrot back lines from it, and thanks to my rather good memory, I was quite good at it. In addition, my natural personality greatly aided in presenting me as a quiet, pious young man.
CCD itself was always a complete bore. The only thing that made it remotely enjoyable was a growing friendship with TC. With the exception of TC, all of the other kids seemed to pay some lip service to the ideals expressed by the church and our instructors, but did not even attempt to live up to these ideals.
In addition, the instructors in CCD seemed, to find a way to put this politely, mentally slow (I think the same might be said of the students. I used to joke to TC that they would always have us 2 do the readings for masses because we were the only ones that could read). The answer to every other question seemed to be some variant of "Jesus loves me". So this weekly exercise in monotony offered me nothing in terms of mental stimulation, and without the belief in God to give it some sort of additional meaning, it became something I would dread more and more (No offense to TC, but somehow they didn't seem interested in letting us talk about RA the whole time)
So that's a basic summary of my religious life until coming to college. I think it would be cliche but I am unable to stop myself from noting that college is typically viewed as a coming of age thing where one finally becomes somewhat independent and finds out who one really is. I was no exception to this, my realization of my faith being but one example of a quite remarkable four year journey.
I think it is important to note here that when I speak of this time in college, I refer to it as "realizing my faith". I use this phrasing to make it clear that while I was in name a Catholic, my internal belief system in no way reflected a theistic point of view. Despite this belief system containing no God or gods, it wasn't until college that I truly realized it and accepted it, which is why I describe the event as I do.
So I go to college and I begin to live own my own (With TC, of course). There is something about changing your entire life that causes your brain to start to move in entirely different directions. TC once showed me a news article that recommended that you brush your teeth with your left hand every once in a while to keep your brain on its toes, and I'd say that it rings true in a way.
At some point I became aware of the Dover trial. For those of you not intimately familiar with Creationism propaganda, that is where a schoolboard tried to sneak repackaged Creationism into the science curriculum. I can't explain how shocking it was to me. Even then I had a well developed sense of science and not-science (and not so well developed sense of human nature), and it was completely shocking to me that there was still a minority of people that believed the earth was less than 10,000 years old. Even more shocking was that they had the audacity to ignore the majority science opinion to sneakily instate it in a science classroom. Even more shocking was that they had enough political power to make a serious attempt to do so.
Looking back, I am amazed that somehow going through CCD, I don't recall having ever encountered this propaganda. Being much more well informed now, I realize that young earth belief is disturbingly prevalent in American culture, especially midwestern culture (one of the increasing number of things that make me ashamed of my midwestern heritage). But somehow I never picked that up from CCD, so it was either never mentioned or I wasn't paying attention at the time.
Anyway, enough sidetracking. It was about this point that I began seriously reevaluating my belief system. I realized that I didn't actually believe in God. I mean, come on. I never prayed, I never read the bible except for scholarly reasons, I had no desire to go to church, except out of duty to my parents when I was home for the weekend. How could someone truly believe that there was only this one book that held all of the answers to getting into the good eternal afterlife, and never read it? I know that if I really believed that I'd be combing through it every night. The only reason why I identified myself as "Catholic" was twofold. A) I am a Catholic because I am a Catholic. Circular, but a great example of how crappy our thinking can be when we don't think about it. B) Out of duty to my parents.
So, after a ton of reflection, I was ready to self identify myself as an "atheist". I first came out of the closet to bennytee. It wasn't difficult, because he comes from a nontraditional religious background as well, so he could relate to that at least.
Sometime around then there was a public debate held "Evolution vs Intelligent Design". I didn't go, partially because there is a good reason why structured debate to a popular audience isn't how real science is argued. It is a crappy method to determining the truth of a matter. Just ask any good lawyer if the merits of a case alone are what determines who wins. But after this I saw that the AAS (Atheists and Agnostics Society) was holding a meeting to discuss it. I wanted to go to that at least, because, well, I had never met another atheist before, and I was curious.
The meeting was full of people, mostly guys, that sat around and used big words and described philosophical concepts that I had never heard of (Now, of course, I am much more knowledgeable). It was very intimidating, and I didn't contribute anything, just watched and listened. The people there seemed like normal people, and they brought up many of the ideas that I had been wrestling with (Is morality connected to religion? in addition to other sorts of things that I had discovered on my own). Although I wasn't able to add anything, I did get one important lesson from the meeting - atheism isn't bad, atheists aren't bad people.
I bring up the religion-morality connection quite often because it was at the forefront of my mind at the time. Throughout my life I had been instructed that religious belief was the source of human morality. That God has passed morality down to people and that it was independent of our human nature. I accepted this assertion without evidence as complete fact, and it took a couple of years before I was able to really convince myself otherwise. That is one struggle that taught me the great power of the assertions that our environment forces us to believe and the great power of our mind to keep us believing in these things that may or may not have a basis in reality.
So before I went to the AAS meeting, TC asked me where I was going and I told him I was going to this atheism meeting. I think it was a great shock to him and I don't think he really knew what to say. I think it was the next day at lunch sitting with TC and another person or two that he came out and asked "So, do you believe in God?". And I could finally say "No."
What I think about Christians
What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous . . . it's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!
-----------------------------------
Now I want you to think about your feelings after reading the above. I'd guess you are angry. You are offended. You probably feel that statement is inappropriately inflammatory, even for an internet blog which has warned about offensive statements.
I have to confess to two sins. First, I have deceived you. Those words are not actually what I think about Christians. In fact, this blog post isn't about my thoughts on Christians and Christianity at all. And second, and perhaps more importantly, I am guilty of plagiarism because the words prefacing this post aren't mine at all. They are part of a story that made me feel physically ill when I read it.
The story can be summed up as follows:
An activist (who happened to be an atheist) Rob Sherman was testifying at a state legislature committee meeting of some sort. The topic was related to a million dollars of state money possibly going to a Baptist church. Rep. Monique Davis was asking him questions when she went into a bizarre hateful rant. Here's a transcript of it:
It's hard to put yourself into someone's shoes emotionally, so I hope that your reaction to the first statement helps you understand my reaction to this story from not only a rational viewpoint, but my emotional one as well.
This woman of fairly significant political power feels that this guy doesn't deserve to have any say in the legislative process because of his religious beliefs! And yet you don't see this story headlining national news. Imagine the public outcry if Sherman was a member of another branch of Christianity or a Muslim or even a Buddhist. In addition, if you listen to the mp3 of the event. you can hear people shouting agreement to Davis' hateful speech in the background. This is not just one irrational person. This is about a large influential group of irrational people.
Unfortunately there is a unspoken (although not always so unspoken, as we've seen) hatred of atheism in America. I remember dealing with this in great detail when I was beginning to come to terms with my own atheism. I'm not speaking of just the idea that the public dislikes it, but the fact that pieces of me were already biased against atheism, not for any rational reason, but just because that's part of the subtle indoctrination of our society, that atheism and atheists are terrible things and people.
The thing is that this is not some random wacko, this is part of a much, much larger cultural problem. I would bet money that more than one of my readers thinks that atheism is incompatible with "good" morality. Or that an atheist is automatically unqualified to be president. And this is after their hard views on atheism have been watered down by years of interacting with a "known" atheist.
I'm hesistant to use a word as powerful as discrimination to describe this phenomenon, but I think it's appropriate. Davis attacked Sherman not on the basis of his argument in the committee, but on his religious beliefs. That sounds like discrimination to me.
Of course, it would be a poor argument if I just pointed to this one situation and claimed discrimination, but unfortunately this is just one of many stories that I have read.
Some states have statements in their constitutions that specifically require a belief in a higher power to hold office. These statements no longer hold the power of law after a supreme court ruling, but the fact that they remain and have not been removed says something about how politically disadventageous it is to even suggest that atheists have full rights as citizens, despite the fact that this should be obvious to anyone with passing knowledge of our US constitution.
Did you know that people would be more willing to elect a homosexual to the presidency than an atheist? Gallup says so I've seen similar polls that place atheists below Muslims, as well. Note I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with being a Muslim or homosexual, just pointing out that even with the blatant hatred that a large number of Americans show towards homosexuals and muslims, that atheism is apparently even more despised. It just isn't talked about. At least in polite society (which it's a good thing I'm not a member of)
"Okay, so some woman of marginal political power that I've never heard of doesn't like atheists. Who cares?" you may be saying. Well, what about a man of considerable political power. George Bush Sr. had this to say about atheists, strangely enough, to the same guy (Apparently he is or was a reporter for the American Atheist news journal).
So, apparently a former president thinks that I shouldn't be considered a citizen of the US because of my religious beliefs. If you aren't truly repulsed by that statement, then you should seriously consider what you mean when you talk about America as the land of the free.
This is the tip of the iceberg. The more you become aware of these issues, the more you can see them pop up everywhere. Often the hatred is passive and relatively harmless, but again and again it bubbles to the surface. It certainly doesn't make me feel welcome here. And that is one of the several reasons why I am not certain I want to live in America when I enter the real world.
-----------------------------------
Now I want you to think about your feelings after reading the above. I'd guess you are angry. You are offended. You probably feel that statement is inappropriately inflammatory, even for an internet blog which has warned about offensive statements.
I have to confess to two sins. First, I have deceived you. Those words are not actually what I think about Christians. In fact, this blog post isn't about my thoughts on Christians and Christianity at all. And second, and perhaps more importantly, I am guilty of plagiarism because the words prefacing this post aren't mine at all. They are part of a story that made me feel physically ill when I read it.
The story can be summed up as follows:
An activist (who happened to be an atheist) Rob Sherman was testifying at a state legislature committee meeting of some sort. The topic was related to a million dollars of state money possibly going to a Baptist church. Rep. Monique Davis was asking him questions when she went into a bizarre hateful rant. Here's a transcript of it:
Davis: I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it’s really a tragedy -- it’s tragic -- when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school.
I don’t see you (Sherman) fighting guns in school. You know?
I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous--
Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?
Davis: It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you’ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!
Sherman: Thank you for sharing your perspective with me, and I’m sure that if this matter does go to court---
Davis: You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.
It's hard to put yourself into someone's shoes emotionally, so I hope that your reaction to the first statement helps you understand my reaction to this story from not only a rational viewpoint, but my emotional one as well.
This woman of fairly significant political power feels that this guy doesn't deserve to have any say in the legislative process because of his religious beliefs! And yet you don't see this story headlining national news. Imagine the public outcry if Sherman was a member of another branch of Christianity or a Muslim or even a Buddhist. In addition, if you listen to the mp3 of the event. you can hear people shouting agreement to Davis' hateful speech in the background. This is not just one irrational person. This is about a large influential group of irrational people.
Unfortunately there is a unspoken (although not always so unspoken, as we've seen) hatred of atheism in America. I remember dealing with this in great detail when I was beginning to come to terms with my own atheism. I'm not speaking of just the idea that the public dislikes it, but the fact that pieces of me were already biased against atheism, not for any rational reason, but just because that's part of the subtle indoctrination of our society, that atheism and atheists are terrible things and people.
The thing is that this is not some random wacko, this is part of a much, much larger cultural problem. I would bet money that more than one of my readers thinks that atheism is incompatible with "good" morality. Or that an atheist is automatically unqualified to be president. And this is after their hard views on atheism have been watered down by years of interacting with a "known" atheist.
I'm hesistant to use a word as powerful as discrimination to describe this phenomenon, but I think it's appropriate. Davis attacked Sherman not on the basis of his argument in the committee, but on his religious beliefs. That sounds like discrimination to me.
Of course, it would be a poor argument if I just pointed to this one situation and claimed discrimination, but unfortunately this is just one of many stories that I have read.
Some states have statements in their constitutions that specifically require a belief in a higher power to hold office. These statements no longer hold the power of law after a supreme court ruling, but the fact that they remain and have not been removed says something about how politically disadventageous it is to even suggest that atheists have full rights as citizens, despite the fact that this should be obvious to anyone with passing knowledge of our US constitution.
Did you know that people would be more willing to elect a homosexual to the presidency than an atheist? Gallup says so I've seen similar polls that place atheists below Muslims, as well. Note I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with being a Muslim or homosexual, just pointing out that even with the blatant hatred that a large number of Americans show towards homosexuals and muslims, that atheism is apparently even more despised. It just isn't talked about. At least in polite society (which it's a good thing I'm not a member of)
"Okay, so some woman of marginal political power that I've never heard of doesn't like atheists. Who cares?" you may be saying. Well, what about a man of considerable political power. George Bush Sr. had this to say about atheists, strangely enough, to the same guy (Apparently he is or was a reporter for the American Atheist news journal).
Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.
So, apparently a former president thinks that I shouldn't be considered a citizen of the US because of my religious beliefs. If you aren't truly repulsed by that statement, then you should seriously consider what you mean when you talk about America as the land of the free.
This is the tip of the iceberg. The more you become aware of these issues, the more you can see them pop up everywhere. Often the hatred is passive and relatively harmless, but again and again it bubbles to the surface. It certainly doesn't make me feel welcome here. And that is one of the several reasons why I am not certain I want to live in America when I enter the real world.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)