And in another scene from his confirmation hearing: Sessions incredibly suggests secular people may not understand the truth as well as religious people.
Yeah.
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
More Sessions
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today...
How to Help West Virginia Flood Victims.
[Content Note: Death; exploitation] This interview with Dr. Anne Stevens, the sister of Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed at Benghazi, is so upsetting. His family has been saying for years now that he wouldn't want to be exploited this way; that he knew the risks; that they don't blame Hillary Clinton and neither would he. And the Republicans carry on, because his actual humanity isn't worth anything to them.
[CN: Homophobia] The hashtag "Heterosexual Pride Day" has been trending all day on Twitter. Here's what I have to say about that garbage:
"Heterosexual Pride Day" exemplifies the opposite of pride. It reflects a desperate, brittle insecurity about losing undeserved privilege.
— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) June 29, 2016
[CN: Carcerality; racism] Another strong argument for carceral reform/prison abolition: "Mass incarceration damages individuals and communities in ways that scholars are just starting to explore. New research that we've published with our colleague Mary Laske Bell shows that African American men who are former inmates are irrevocably harmed by time they spent behind bars. ...African Americans constitute nearly 1 million of the 2.3 million persons incarcerated and are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites. One in three African American men will experience prison." Fucking hell.
Relatedly: "President Obama's administration is making a higher education much more convenient for inmates in U.S. prisons. A new plan was introduced that will provide $30 million in pell grants for up to 12,000 inmates to take college courses. 'We all agree that crime must have consequences, but the men and women who have done their time and paid their debt deserve the opportunity to break with the past and forge new lives in their homes, workplaces, and communities,' said Education Secretary John B. King Jr., according to the Washington Post. 'This belief in second chances is fundamental to who we are as Americans.' Inmates in 27 states will be able to take advantage of the pilot program which will enroll them in a variety of online courses or classes inside of prison facilities moving forward. This plan goes directly against a controversial 1994 congressional ban on federal funds being spent on prison inmates. However, a new initiative to actually prevent prisoners from becoming repeat offenders—and data that shows education lowers the likelihood of inmates returning—have turned the tide."
[CN: Torture] Donald Trump "has repeated calls for the return of waterboarding against Islamic State militants, saying: 'I like it a lot.' His comments at a rally in Ohio came hours after suicide bombers killed 41 people at an airport in Istanbul. 'You have to fight fire with fire,' said the Republican's likely nominee... 'We have to fight so viciously and violently because we're dealing with violent people,' Mr Trump said. At one point, he asked the crowd: 'What do you think about waterboarding?' They cheered as he gave his answer: 'I like it a lot. I don't think it's tough enough.'" Breathtaking. Terrifying. Indecent.
Congratulations, Misty Snow! "Utah voters picked a historic, and largely unknown, Democratic candidate to challenge Sen. Mike Lee this November. Misty K. Snow is the first transgender nominee from a major party to run for a U.S. Senate seat and she is among the first transgender people to run for Congress. Misty Plowright, a transgender woman, claimed the Democratic nomination in Colorado's conservative 5th House District on Tuesday."
And congratulations, Misty Plowright! "Misty Plowright won in Colorado's 5th congressional district, which Politico reports is 'the most conservative in the state,' and will challenge Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.)." Misty Plowright is also transgender.
[CN: Anti-atheism] Ian Millhiser on Justice Alito's Bizarre and Offensive Attack on Atheists. Spoiler Alert! Alito thinks religion is the only way to morals and ethics. Because of course he does.
Senate Democrats had to kill a Zika bill because their Republican colleagues fucked around with it so much that it became pointless. And now funding to combat Zika will be delayed even further. For fuck's sake.
In other Senate news: "A rescue package for cash-strapped Puerto Rico is likely to clear the final hurdle this week after the bill passed a test vote in the US Senate on Wednesday, by 68 votes to 32. An official vote is likely to take place later on Wednesday or Thursday. The bill would provide emergency debt relief to Puerto Rico, which is expected to default on a $2bn debt payment on Friday. But it was strongly opposed by Bernie Sanders and several other Senate Democrats. Sanders called the bill 'disastrous' and a victory for hedge funds. ...The Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, said he would vote for the legislation, though he criticized [Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader] for not allowing amendments to the bill. The House is out of session until 5 July, so the Senate will have to pass the House bill unchanged for it to head to the president's desk for his signature before the Friday deadline."
I love this so much: "A university professor in Ivory Coast baby seats for his student [a new mum] who was taking her exams."
"This skeleton robot salamander just wiggled its way into my heart." Seconded!
And finally! "American Bulldog Who Used to Fear Men Now Has 2 Daddies Who Adore Her." BLUB FOREVERRRRRRR.
Quote of the Day
[Content Note: Christian Supremacy; homophobia.]
"Any president who doesn't begin every day on his knees isn't fit to be commander-in-chief of this country."—Republican presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz. Who, just to be clear, is talking about praying. Ahem.
Cruz made this cool statement at the National Religious Liberties Conference in Iowa last week, "an event organized by extremist right-wing pastor Kevin Swanson, who earlier in the program proclaimed that, according to the Bible, 'the sin of homosexuality...is worthy of death.'"
So, according to Cruz, atheists aren't fit to be commander-in-chief. (Presumably, Cruz believes that only Christians, and a very particular subset of Christians at that, are fit to be commander-in-chief, and just doesn't give a rat's ass that there are other religious traditions in which people quite literally start every day on their knees in prayer.) That's a pretty unsurprising assertion coming from Cruz, who is an unapologetic Christian Supremacist.
Still. Here we are, in the year of our lord Jesus Jones two thousand and fifteen, and it remains utterly uncontroversial among millions of USians for a presidential candidate to say that atheists (and other non-Christians) are unfit for the presidency.
Awesome.
In the News
Here is some stuff in the news today...
[Content Note: Anti-choice terrorism] Today in anti-choice terrorism: "An unidentified person poured gasoline on a recently laid foundation and a security guard's car early Saturday morning at the construction site of the Planned Parenthood facility in New Orleans. ...Video surveillance reportedly captured the incident and law enforcement is investigating. ...Planned Parenthood cleared an administrative hurdle last month toward the construction of the facility, the Center for Choice, which would expand access to abortion in the New Orleans area, after the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals rescinded regulations that may have prevented it from opening such a facility."
[CN: Terrorism; abduction] Goddammit: "At least seven people were killed and about 20 others were kidnapped by suspected Boko Haram militants in an overnight raid on a village near Cameroon's northern border, a senior military officer said Tuesday." In better news: "The Nigerian army has freed 178 people being held hostage by Boko Haram jihadists including more than 100 children, it said late Sunday, as it carries out a regional offensive aimed at rooting out the insurgency."
[CN: Police misconduct; misogynoir] Sandra Bland's family has filed a civil rights lawsuit against state trooper Brian Encinia, who arrested and assaulted her, "and against other officials they believe contributed to her death in a small-town Texas jail on 13 July. The suit, filed on Tuesday, claims that Bland wrongfully died. 'Her constitutional rights were violated,' Cannon Lambert, the family's attorney, said. He said that the legal action is an attempt to force more transparency from officials."
[CN: Wildfires] More than 13,000 California residents have been evacuated "as firefighters struggle to contain some 20 wildfires. Some 9,000 firefighters worked throughout Monday in steep terrain and rugged conditions, officials said. The biggest blaze—the so-called Rocky fire north of San Francisco—has already consumed more than 90 square miles (233 sq km) of land." Fuck.
[CN: Police misconduct; racist violence; racist slurs] What the everloving shit: "A police officer in Alabama proposed murdering a black resident and creating bogus evidence to suggest the killing was in self-defence, the Guardian has learned. Officer Troy Middlebrooks kept his job and continues to patrol Alexander City after authorities there paid the man $35,000 to avoid being publicly sued over the incident. ...The payment was made to the black resident, Vincent Bias, after a secret recording of Middlebrooks's remarks was played to police chiefs and the mayor. Elected city councillors said they were not consulted. A copy of the recording was obtained by the Guardian. 'This town is ridiculous,' Bias, 49, said in an interview. 'The police here feel they can do what they want, and often they do.' Alexander City police chief Willie Robinson defended Middlebrooks. 'He was just talking. He didn't really mean that,' he said in an interview."
[CN: Homophobia] Speaking of Alabama: "An Alabama state senate committee approved a bill on Monday that would get the state's probate judges out of the marriage license business. ...'Sen. Greg Albritton, the bill's sponsor, says the bill could be a solution to lingering disputes over gay marriage.'" Of course.
[CN: Animal abuse] This is good news: "A federal judge on Monday struck down an Idaho law that banned documentation of animal abuse at livestock operations, ruling that it violated freedom of speech and other constitutionally guaranteed rights. The measure, approved by the Republican-controlled state legislature and signed into law by Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter in 2014, was crafted in response to a video released by animal-rights activists showing workers at an Idaho dairy [abusing cows]. But U.S. District Judge Lynn Winmill agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho, the Animal Legal Defense Fund and other groups that sued to overturn the statute in finding that the so-called ag gag law violated protections of free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."
[CN: Religious Supremacy; child abuse] I would say this is unbelievable, but of course it's totally, rage-makingly believable: "A lawsuit recently filed against a teacher at Forest Park Elementary School in Indiana alleged that a 7-year-old student was 'banished' from sitting with other students at lunch after he revealed that he did not believe in God. ...The lawsuit is seeking damages and attorneys' fees. In a statement, the school district suggested that the teacher had been wrong to single out the child." Ya think?!
Whaaaaat: "In a world first, the US Food and Drug Administration has given the go-ahead for a 3D-printed pill to be produced. The FDA has previously approved medical devices—including prosthetics—that have been 3D printed. The new drug, dubbed Spritam, was developed by Aprecia Pharmaceuticals to control seizures brought on by epilepsy. The company said that it planned to develop other medications using its 3D platform. Printing the drugs allows layers of medication to be packaged more tightly in precise dosages." Wow.
And finally! "Watch the Best Puppy Sneeze of All Time." I can't even argue. That is definitely the best puppy sneeze of all time!
Pence to Sign "Religious Freedom" Bill
[Content Note: Christian Supremacy; homophobia; transphobia.]
Today, despite the fact that three major conventions have threatened to pull out of Indiana and corporations are balking, Republican Indiana Governor Mike Pence has promised to sign the heinous "religious freedom" bill in a private ceremony, shut away from any criticism or dissent.
There is a lot of talk in Indiana about a recall for Pence over this, but whooooooooooops Indiana has no recall provision for statewide office-holders, because of course we don't.
This bill is going to affect a lot of people—it's already tough to be a public atheist in Indiana, and it's about to get a lot tougher—but it is going to affect LGBTQIA Hoosiers most of all.
This legislation is, quite literally, a license to discriminate against queer Hoosiers.
Although the Republican-controlled state legislature, nor the Republican governor, won't say it plainly, this reprehensible bill is their fuck-you to the federal government for thwarting their efforts to continue to ban same-sex marriage in Indiana. They want the right to make LGBTQIA Hoosiers second-class citizens, and they couldn't do it by banning same-sex marriage, so they'll do it this way.
Even at the expense of much-needed income brought to the state by conventions and corporations.
It's shameful and hateful and utterly contemptible.
But, despite our government's queerphobic fuckery, plenty of Hoosiers are protesting this codified bigotry. One of my favorite local places, Valpo Velvet Ice Cream, posted this to their Facebook page:
The state might be able to tell business owners that they're allowed to legally discriminate, but they can't force business owners to discriminate. The business owners who will proudly SERVE EVERYONE will make it known, and Hoosiers who don't support discrimination will take our business there.
I am not the only Hoosier who feels very strongly that if you don't SERVE EVERYONE, you won't be serving me.
Which doesn't ameliorate the fact that LGBTQIA Hoosiers feel like second-class citizens in their own state, nor stop the feelings of alienation and pain and anger that will come with being turned away by a business and having no legal recourse for that grave indignity.
The only thing that will do that is getting rid of this detestable law. That's going to take awhile. In the meantime, the market will decide, just like Republicans always wanted.
All Dogs Do Go to Heaven
[Content Note: Anti-atheism.]
Everybody's favorite Pope, Pope Francis, has said that dogs can go to heaven:
Trying to console a distraught little boy whose dog had died, Francis told him in a recent public appearance on St. Peter's Square, "Paradise is open to all of God's creatures." While it is unclear whether the pope's remarks helped soothe the child, they were welcomed by groups like the Humane Society and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, who saw them as a repudiation of conservative Roman Catholic theology that says animals cannot go to heaven because they have no souls.Paradise is open to all creatures. Except atheists. Obviously. We're still definitely going straight to hell!
...The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and editor at large of America, the Catholic magazine, said he believed that Francis was at least asserting that "God loves and Christ redeems all of creation," even though conservative theologians have said paradise is not for animals.
"He said paradise is open to all creatures," Father Martin said. "That sounds pretty clear to me."
Sounds Legit
[Content Note: Christian Supremacy; anti-atheism; holocaust reference.]
This is a sitting Republican congressman:
Last month, Rep. Trent Franks appeared on a conference call with Virginia pastor and failed lieutenant governor candidate E.W. Jackson to discuss dangers to America's survival, where they both agreed that the separation of church and state is bringing the country down.This is a sitting Republican congressman.
Jackson asked the Arizona congressman about the "profound threat to Christianity in general and to our Christian foundations in this country," which he said comes from President Obama and the "drumbeat of atheism that attacks everything, 'get the cross down,' 'don't show a Bible,' 'don't wear a cross,' 'don't say God bless you.' It just seems like every day we're hearing some new effort to try to shut Christians up and shut us down."
"The litany that you listed there is so right, dead-on," Franks responded, before warning that IS may succeed in committing violence against Christians because "the secular left" in America is diluting the country's Christian heritage. He said that IS may rise into power just as the Nazis did even though at one point they were just "a bunch of idiots riding across France [sic] in their brownshirts."
He's definitely got a point, though. Everywhere I look there is evidence we are about to become a godless society, like: Our Christian president; our last Christian president; our Christian presidents before that; their almost exclusively Christian administrations who relentlessly pander to conservative and/or moderate Christians; the almost totally Christian Supreme Court; an almost entirely Christian Congress who start each session with a prayer; the millions and millions of other US Christians whose views are reflected in various state laws across the country (from prohibitions on same-sex marriage to not being able to buy booze on a Sunday), whose views are reflected in various federal laws (like disallowing federal money to subsidize abortions), whose holidays are also national holidays, whose holy book must be sworn on in state and federal courts, and whose churches are not required to pay taxes; guaranteed freedom of religion; money that says "In God We Trust"; a pledge of allegiance that describes us as "one nation under God"; television networks who will accept advertising from conservative religious groups but not liberal political groups; schools who are incorporating a religious belief into science classes; conscience clauses for pharmacists and healthcare providers; religion-based residential communities being built; religious museums and amusement parks springing up throughout the country; religious leaders being given diplomatic immunity; faith-based initiatives being federally funded; and our national media being constantly embroiled in a debate about in which god the president believes.
We are on the precipice, people!
*clunk*
Film Corner!
[Content Note: Christian Supremacy; racism. DoNotLink used in first paragraph to Glenn Beck's site.]
Well, it's been two minutes, so it's time for another terrific new Kirk Cameron film! His newest cinematic masterpiece is called Saving Christmas (because of course it is), which is "a scripted story about a guy named Christian White who represents the typical white Christian male and he's got a bad case of religious bah humbugs."
Christian White! The lead character is named Christian White! LOLOLOL.
Anyway. This movie is about the real meaning of Christmas—which is, naturally, getting super pissed at straw-atheists.
And while he has no idea exactly how atheists will respond to the feature film, which is slated to open November 14 in theaters across America, he predicts they likely won't be too elated with its storyline.FINALLY. The brave HERO, who has the jingle bells to speak out about the totally real and definitely not imaginary War on Christmas, that we have been waiting for has arrived! MYRRH FOR EVERYONE!
"I assume they're going to get frustrated to see some of their best arguments deflated by this movie, because we take on some of the most commonly parroted myths about the origins of Christmas," Cameron exclusively told TheBlaze Tuesday.
...Cameron continued, "It's obvious that there is a deliberate attempt to snuff out the holy root that has produced all this wonderful Christmas-time fruit. I think it's about time someone spoke out and made a movie about this."
To the trailer!
Kirk Cameron, in voiceover over his CAMFAM production logo: "Do you ever feel like Christmas has been hijacked?"
Cut to the scene of a Christmas party. In the kitchen, Kirk Cameron is talking to a blond white lady. The sound production on this scene is spectacular. Did they get a hold of an iPhone 6 for this thing?!
Kirk Cameron asks: "Hey, uh, where's Christian? How's he doing? Is he okay?"
Blond White Lady says: "Oh, he's fine, really. He's just—he's just not into Christmas this year, that's all." She walks out of the frame, leaving Kirk Cameron to linger behind, making one of his patented Confused Faces, which lets his audiences know that something ain't right.
"This calls for my finest Sherlock Jesus investigative skills!"
Cut to Christian White, a white bearded man in glasses and a winter sweater, picking his teeth, thus conveying his disinterest in Christmas. In voiceover, Kirk Cameron says (apparently continuing from his question about Christmas being hijacked): "By all the commercialism, and those who wanna replace Merry Christmas with Happy Holidays—or Season's Greetings, whatever that means!"
Oh boy. The terrorism of Happy Holidays. When we can roast that old chestnut on an open fire?
Cut to Kirk Cameron sitting in a car in the dark with Christian White. The acting in this scene is so bad that it's like Kirk Cameron and someone even less good at acting than Kirk Cameron were acting in it. "You okay?" Kirk Cameron asks. "This is not what Christmas is all about," says Christian White.
Over images of Christmas gifts and decorations, Kirk Cameron says in voiceover: "Some want to pull down every manger scene and tell us why our favorite Christmas traditions are wrong."
Cut back to the car. "Newsflash!" exclaims Christian White, gesticulating at something we can't even see. "Not in the Bible! That's a pagan idol symbol! With the Winter Solstice! Jesus was not born in December! That's exactly what the Druids did. It's like a carjacking, but, like, of our religion! And guess what? Santa got in the car, kicked Jesus out, and was like: Rollin', rollin', rollin'!"—here, he mimes what is clearly meant to be a gang member driving a low-rider—"and took it."
Throughout this incoherent, racist, and poorly edited rant, Kirk Cameron makes so many confused faces.
Cut to a creepy grinning Santa Claus in close-up, and Kirk Cameron says in voiceover: "Isn't it time that somebody spoke up?" YES. YES IT IS TIME THAT SOMEBODY SPOKE UP—and explained to me what the fuck is even going on in this movie. Are we supposed to be more mad at people who don't care about Christmas at all, or people who care about it in the wrong way? Why does 3/4 of it appear to take place in a car in the dark? And why is Christian White such a goddamned racist shitlord?!
Cut back to the car. (Great.) Kirk Cameron says, again gesturing to something we can't see: "Everything you see inside there? It's all about Christmas. It's all about...Jesus." Cue the inspiring music and cut to—I shit you not—an actual light bulb turning on. Goddammit.
Montagery. A white child looking up at something. A scene from the manger? Joseph lurking in some bushes. Mary resting her head near the baby lord.
Cut back to the car. WHAT?! GET ME OUT OF THIS FUCKING CAR! Kirk Cameron says, "I know you love Christmas, and you want it to be all about what it's all about." It feels like that's going to go somewhere, but nope! Montagery! A white child looking up at a backlit cross. Christian White running into the Christmas Party like a giddy child, while Kirk Cameron stands behind him holding up his hand like he's a wizard who just cast a dipshit spell on him.
Sassy Christmas music over images of happy Christmas party-goers. In voiceover, Kirk Cameron says: "This Christmas, dive headfirst into all of the joy, the dancing"—literally just scenes of people dancing; yanno, like CHRISTMAS—"the celebration, the feasting, the imagination, and traditions that glorify the true reason for the season."
Christian White, overwhelmed by the true Christmas spirit, slides across the floor on his belly into the room and crashes into some shit. A black man exclaims, "Woo! Work, Holy Spirit! Ha! Can I get a amen? The scales are falling off! Glory! Ah! Glory! Mm!" The crowd of people behind him cheer.
Cut, for one last time, to the car. Kirk Cameron is smiling. In voiceover, he says, "Join me, and my family, and together let's put Christ back into Christmas." Text onscreen: "Saving Christmas. In theaters November 14. Limited engagement."
Amazing. I can't wait to not see this movie!
[H/T to Deeks.]
Good Grief
[Content Note: Christian Supremacy; anti-atheism.]
Oh brother. Have y'all seen the trailer for God's Not Dead, the terrific new film starring Kevin Sorbo as a meany atheist professor who hates god? It actually came out in theaters (allegedly) earlier this year, but the trailer is running on a fucking loop on my cable provider's OnDemand service, just to make sure all of us who somehow missed its debut at the cinemaplex get a chance to see it.
Anyway, the trailer is full of great things like:
* Dean Cain, wearing a business suit, talking on the phone to his good Christian sister who tells him he should come home to see their ailing mother, to which he responds, "What's in it for me?"
* Kevin Sorbo, wearing a tweed jacket, telling his classroom full of college students that god is dead.
* One of the dudes from Duck Dynasty (???), wearing a beard and patriotic bandana, telling a reporter that being Christian is the best, or whatever.
* Kevin Sorbo, wearing a tweed jacket, shouting at his rebellious Christian student: "You think you're smarter than me?! You think there's any argument you can make that I won't have an answer for? In that classroom, there is a god: I'm him!"
* Ladies playing important supporting roles in men's lives, including creating a trenchant life lesson for them by getting cancer.
* Kevin Sorbo, wearing a tweed jacket, shouting at his rebellious Christian student, while gesturing at the rest of the classroom full of students: "You just want to ensnare them in your primitive superstitions!"
DAMN. Atheists are the worst!
Also? That was definitely exactly like my college experience, lolololololol.
Clearly, this movie already made billions at the box office, which is why we have all for sure heard of it and been converted to its perfect brand of Christianity by its compelling message, but Kevin Sorbo is nonetheless promoting its DVD release in Big Time Media, like End Times fanatic Rick Wiles' radio program, where the two gentlemen discussed why it is that atheists are so angry.
[T]he two concluded that atheists are so angry because they secretly know that God does exist and hate him for "judging how they live their life."Perfect deductive reasoning. And let's face it: They should know the imaginary reason that the angry straw-atheists they've invented are super angry all the time.
Sorbo said he doesn't understand why atheists are so "filled with just hatred and anger," saying that he feels sorry for them but also can't help but laugh at them for spending "so much time ranting and raving about something that they don't believe in."
Wiles agreed, saying that he doesn't "believe in the Tooth Fairy but I don't spend all my time from trying to stop people from believing in the Tooth Fairy."
Of course, one could just as well make the same point in response to Sorbo and Wiles, noting that while they don't believe in atheism, they sure do seem to be spending a lot of time ranting and raving about it.
In the end, both Wiles and Sorbo agreed that the real reason atheists are so angry is because, deep down, they know that God exists.
"The truth is," Wiles said, "they know he exists and they hate him. That's what it's all about."
"That is exactly what it is," Sorbo responded. "I know these guys must believe in something, otherwise they wouldn't get so angry about it and they don't like the fact that there is a higher power out there that is judging how they live their life."
"Hey, get back here, Christian scum! I need to yell at you some more!"
I know there are some angry atheists or whatever; there are lots of people who believe lots of things who are angry and yell about those beliefs. But there are a lot of atheists, like myself, who are essentially apatheists and really just don't give a shit.
And would kindly like you to shove your caricatures of atheists into the nearest bin, thankyouverymuch.
I mean, not for nothing, but if the worst complaint you can make is that some atheists are kind of aggressive about their atheism, you really need to STFU.
No Thank You
[Content Note: Christian Supremacy.]
I am an atheist.
And here is something that happens to me sometimes: When I do something that a Christian sees as "good," zie will tell me I'm not really an atheist.
(I'm sure people of other religions do this, too, but in my personal experience, it has only been done to me by Christians.)
Sometimes this is said plainly, or sometimes it's communicated via a jokey question: "Are you sure you're really an atheist?" Wink. Sometimes it's just a comment about how that's something Jesus would do, or some comment about how God doesn't care that I'm an atheist; he'll take me to heaven anyway.
No matter how it's said, what I'm being told is that "goodness" is the exclusive province of Christianity and that I am a fool.
Of course, no one intends to tell me I'm a fool. But it sure feels a hell of a lot like being called a fool when I'm told, in one of a dozen different ways, that I don't know the "goodness" within me is not my own.
It's demeaning. And it hurts to be told things I do don't belong to me, but to some deity in which I don't even believe.
Nonetheless, I'm meant to receive that shit as a compliment.
And, if I don't, I'm the bitch.
If I push back at all on the idea that I did not do something "good" because of divine intervention I can't see, but because of carefully considered choices I made, then suddenly I'm the atheist asshole who is intolerant of religion.
No, thank you.
Don't put me in that position. Don't say this sort of thing to this atheist. It is not a compliment.
[From a conversation with @SpokesGay.]
And Then This Happened
[Content Note: Privilege; harassment.]
So, a straight white male Christian minister decides to "try" atheism for a year by pretending god doesn't exist (ha ha that is not atheism!), and in a single day, movement atheists raise $19,000 for him.
I love that the justification is "people appreciate that this guy is giving atheism a shot." Sure. Terrific. Give him all the cookies. Meanwhile, definitely continue being hostile to marginalized people who are living their lives every day as atheists, and, if they deign to challenge privilege in movement atheism, harass the fuck out of them.
PERFECT.
"He learned what it's like to be an atheist real fast," said Hemant Mehta, a prominent atheist blogger and schoolteacher in Illinois.Not for nothing, but some of us who are actually atheists have lost jobs over it. It's sure neat to see Christian privilege even within movement atheism, though.
...Mehta said he admired Bell's pluck and sympathized with his plight. Though he had never spoken with the pastor, Mehta set up an online fundraiser for Bell on Tuesday. In just one day, nearly 900 people donated more than $19,000 to help "the pastor giving atheism a try."
"I think more than anything else, people appreciate that this guy is giving atheism a shot," Mehta said. "I mean, he lost three jobs in the span of a week just for saying he was exploring it."
* * *
UPDATE: Mehta has a post about this fundraiser here, in which he responds to Heina Dadabhoy at Skepchick having asked "why so many atheists have been eager to donate to the fundraiser about Ryan Bell, the pastor giving atheism a try, yet not nearly as enthusiastic to donate to the Women's Leadership Project (WLP), a 'feminist humanist mentoring and civic engagement program in South L.A. serving young women of color.'"
Mehta says: "[W]hy would people give money to Bell—a stranger they don't know—and not, say, a project run by a well-known atheist author that advances Humanism and helps young women? I wish I knew."
Yes, it's a real mystery.
Today in Atheists and Non-Christians Know Nothing and Need Guidance
by Shaker Hallelujah_Hippo
[CN: Christian Supremacy; eliminationism; racism.]
There is an absolutely joyful article over on the Huffington Post that a Facebook acquaintance of mine posted under the declaration that it is the best article ever!
And I have to agree, as an atheist lady who feels pretty good about knowing her own mind, it is pretty much perfect! I can't even quite pick out what my favorite part is, but I'm going to try to talk it out.
Maybe it's that being a converted Christian makes Angela Jamene an expert on ALL Christians and their motives; and that those motives are always about spreading joy and light and love.
Every invitation to church is an "I love you and I want this indescribable love, peace, and joy for you because I genuinely care about you."I for one have certainly never had anyone badger me about sharing their beliefs and partaking in their rituals because I would be DOOMED if I didn't. (To be fair she does issue a blanket apology in the second to last sentence for anyone who has "wounded [me] in the name of a God they obviously needed more time getting to know," so, ya know, the mean folks aren't Real Christians anyway. I guess that's settled.)
Maybe my favorite part is that, as an atheist, Angela Jamene is sure that I don't know myself and what makes me peaceful; I need the good word shared with me by folks who know better. The whole idea that atheists can't be joyful really pisses me off, especially because a lot of atheists I know (myself included) found joy, contentment, and peace by leaving religion in the first place. Just because the choices that make us happy are different than those of other folks (in this case, practitioners of Christian faith), does not make them wrong. It just makes us different people with different worldviews and having that dismissed is really fucking insulting.
When a friend or a kindly stranger, a relative or a playgroup parent, says "Hey, why don't you come to church with me on Sunday?" what they mean is "I love you so much, I cannot describe what I know you can get from this because I can't even put into words what it has done for me."Not for nothing, but we've done a lot of talking in this space about how 'my worldview is the only RIGHT one and everyone would agree with me if they were just smart enough/rational enough/taught well enough' is inherently silencing. I don't have a problem with anyone who has found joy and contentment and peace from reading a free bible and attending church services; I do have a problem with them telling me I am wrong for not finding the same value and joy in the exact same things they do (and if I 'just gave it another chance' or 'tried it this way' I would definitely agree with them; as if my disagreement is an indication of a lack of understanding on my part rather than proof of profoundly understanding the world differently.)
Maybe it's being told that someone (ALL Christians, in fact) wants to share 'infinite love and acceptance' with me
On behalf of Christians everywhere, I would like you to know that we really, just whole-heartedly, love you. And, we want to share this infinite and ultimate love and acceptance with you.But IT IS DEFINTILEY CONTINGENT on me doing the same rituals and expressing the same worldview as them; that I can only earn their love and acceptance by doing things their way. Saying 'I will love and accept you unconditionally (and I want to love and accept you!), if you agree that I am right' is not the most welcoming and accepting thing I can think of; but I've got an unenlightened atheist brain, so what do I know?
Maybe it's the way she compares being badgered into attending Christian religious services as THE EXACT SAME THING as my friend suggesting we try eating at a new (ethnic!) restaurant.
The people that invite you to church are just like that friend that insists that you try the new Puerto Rican restaurant downtown, they have experienced something amazing and they want it for you too.Because being urged to try (implied) new food choices is obviously the same as being urged to partake in religious views that say I am somewhat unworthy and joyless and unloved unless I am a part of them. (NB: I also want to point out how specifying that my hypothetical friend is trying to convince me to try Puerto Rican food pretty solidly says that the assumed audience is white folks (and definitely not Puerto Rican or other Latin@ folks) who are shy of ethnic food the same way they are shy of attending church services. Which is a pile of erasing and racist garbage.)
Maybe it's that she seems to be saying what she (and Christians collectively) want for me is more important than what I want for myself, but that I should just go along with it because they know what's best, anyway. I don't think I need to explain how exhorting me to ignore my own boundaries and wishes because someone else is convinced they know better than I do what is good for me is deeply hostile to consent and agency. It is a garbage argument when it is used in favor of anything else and it is a garbage argument when it is used in favor of joining a Christian church service.
I am honestly happy for Angela Jamene that she has found happiness and joy and community in her life. I would sincerely appreciate if she would respect the happiness that I and others have found as equally valid for us.
SCOTUS Considering Public Prayer Case
[Content Note: Religious supremacy.]
Linda Stephens, who is atheist, and Susan Galloway, who is Jewish, sued their town of Greece, New York, over the "inclusive" public prayers that open local town board meetings, virtually all of which have been led by Christians.
Today, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case: "The conservative majority appeared to have to votes to allowed the policy to continue in some form. But both sides expressed concerns about the level of judicial and government oversight over the content of prayers presented by members of a particular faith."
"We are a very religiously diverse country," said Justice Samuel Alito, worried about the town officials articulating binding guidelines on what can be said. "All should be treated equally. So I can't see how you can compose a prayer that is acceptable to all these" religions.Ha ha welp.
But Justice Sonia Sotomayor worried about the effect on local citizens who choose not to stand and bow their heads when asked during a public prayer.
"Why wouldn't they feel coerced in some way?"
The high court began its public session Wednesday as it has for decades, with the marshal invoking a traditional statement that ends, "God save the United States and this honorable Court."
The thing about these debates, such as they are, is that "inclusive" or nondenominational prayers don't exactly address the existence of atheists, who don't generally pray. Which is to say nothing of the minority of religious people whose practiced doctrine explicitly discourages public worship. There's no prayer that can be "inclusive" of people who do not pray and/or publicly worship.
Now, admittedly, I am a dirty heathen, but I really fail to see why it is necessary to incorporate prayer into public proceedings. (Aside from, you know, the obvious objective of publicly parading one's claims to virtue.) If there are indeed public officials who feel they are obliged by their god(s) to pray in a public building immediately before preceding with public business, then institute a moment of silence before any session begins, so they might quietly do whatever they need to do, and the rest of us can spend the time praying, making a mental grocery list, or begging our lord and savior Jesus Jones to give us the patience to get through another council meeting with Councilman Jeremy Jamm.
The Assembly: Atheist Churches Coming to a City Near You (Maybe. Depending on Where You Live.)
[Content Note: Abuse; religious supremacy.]
Welp:
Organized Atheism is now a franchise.Aaaaaaaand I already have a problem with your atheist church, Mr. Jones. Believing one has the market cornered on "goodness" is one of the biggest problems with organized religion. That belief abets abuse; it inherently others; it underwrites the sort of judgment that is not based on the assessment of individual actions, but on statements of religious belief.
Yesterday, The Sunday Assembly—the London-based "Atheist Church" that has, since its January launch, been stealing headlines the world over—announced a new "global missionary tour." In October and November, affiliated Sunday Assemblies will open in 22 cities: in England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, the United States and Australia. "I think this is the moment," Assembly founder Sanderson Jones told me in an email last week, "when the Sunday Assembly goes from being an interesting phenomenon to becoming a truly global movement." Structured godlessness is ready for export.
The Assembly has come a long way in eight months: from scrappy East London community venture (motto: "Live Better, Help Often and Wonder More;" method: "part atheist church, part foot-stomping good time") to the kind of organization that sends out embargoed press releases about global expansion projects. "The 3,000 percent growth rate might make this non-religious Assembly the fastest growing church in the world," organizers boast.
There's more to come: In October, the Sunday Assembly (SA) will launch a crowdfunded indiegogo campaign, with the ambitious goal of raising £500,000 (or, about $793,000). This will be followed by a second wave of openings. The effort reads as part quixotic hipster start-up, part Southern megachurch.
...As of now, Jones is still tweaking the message. But he's confident in the model: "It's a way to scale goodness."
I am an atheist, and I do not believe that atheism has the market cornered on "goodness." Not because I believe some faulty religious logic about humans needing god(s) to be decent, but because I pay attention to movement atheism. Which is not universally "good," as it turns out.
This is not the only problem I have with the Assembly:
As the atheist church becomes more church-like, however, it seems to be deliberately downplaying its atheism. Where the Assembly once stridently rejected theism (at April's Assembly, Jones poked fun at the crucifixion), it is now far more equivocal. "How atheist should our Assembly be?", Jones wrote in a recent blog post. "The short answer to that is: not very."Katie Engelhart, who wrote the quoted piece, rhetorically asks in response: "Because that's what atheism is?" Which: Yeah. An atheist church who wants me to downplay my atheism in deference to the religious supremacists who believe I can't possibly be a moral person, I can't possibly have values or faith, without god-belief? Fuck that.
"'Atheist Church' as a phrase has been good to us. It has got us publicity," Evans elaborated. "But the term 'atheist' does hold negative connotations. Atheists are often thought to be aggressive, loud and damning of all religion, where actually most atheists, in the UK anyway, are not defined by their non-belief." At a recent assembly, Jones opined: "I think atheism is boring. Why are we defining ourselves by something we don't believe in?"
I don't have to "define myself" by my atheism to believe unreservedly that it is nothing of which to be ashamed.
Then again, I'm not building a business. And churches, atheist or otherwise, might not like to think of themselves as businesses, but they're businesses all the same. And that inevitably affects the message. Which is another things churches aren't too keen to admit, even when the Pope himself will make messaging recommendations to improve the PR of his business.
Anyway. I get the urge behind the Assembly. Especially in large parts of the US, like in the small towns in which the Assembly isn't yet targeting, where social life resolves around churches, it might be nice to have some sort of equivalent if you're an atheist. (Of course, those also tend to be the most dangerous places to identify oneself as an atheist.) It might be nice to have a ready-made community of like-minded people if you move to a new town. Etc. I get the social aspect of it.
I don't imagine anyone here needs me to elaborate on my resounding desire to build beloved community.
But god-belief isn't the only problem with religious churches. And it looks to me like some of the problems of a lot of religious institutions are already being replicated. Whooooooooops.
If the Assembly Atheist Church is your thing, I am genuinely happy for you! But it is definitely not for me. No thanks!
Auditing Victims' Experiences
[Content Note: Sexual violence; rape apologia; auditing experiences]
Here is something that I should not have to say and yet apparently must be said: A disclosure that someone is a survivor of sexual violence is not an invitation for others to decide how that experience did (or did not) cause them to change. Nor is it an invitation for others to decide how that experience should (or should not) cause them to change. In short, a disclosure that someone is a survivor of sexual violence is not an invitation for others to audit their experiences for them.
When Richard Dawkins announced this week, speaking of his childhood molester (and inappropriately speculating on behalf of those of his peers who were also abused by the same man), that “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm”, atheist blogger PZ Myers chose to respond by saying this:
I can think of some lasting harm: he seems to have developed a callous indifference to the sexual abuse of children.I know of only two ways to take this statement. One is to read it as a straight-up no-kidding seriously-meant armchair-psychiatrist-diagnosis suggestion that Richard Dawkins is a rape apologist as a direct result of being molested as a child. The other is to read this as a grossly unfunny "joke" where the punchline is that Richard Dawkins is a rape apologist as a direct result of being molested as a child.
I neither know nor care whether PZ Myers meant the statement in seriousness or in jest. The suggestion, whether serious or satirical, that Richard Dawkins is engaging in rape apologism not because lots of people engage in rape apologism in order to entrench their own social privilege nor because lots of people engage in rape apologism because they were indoctrinated into rape culture from an early age nor because lots of people engage in rape apologism for the vast, wide, varied, multiplicity of reasons why lots of people engage in rape apologism, but rather that he is doing so manifestly because he is a victim of sexual abuse is a truly odious and deeply harmful suggestion to make.
It is a suggestion which harms survivors of sexual violence in order to take pot-shots at a rape apologist not because his rape apologies are rank and disgusting, but because he himself is a victim of sexual violence. It is a suggestion which is born out of, and which upholds firmly, a Rape Culture which demands that all victims of sexual violence must react in the "right" ways (or else you weren't really abused) and which suggests that all victims of sexual violence are changed -- or, to use the language of rape culture, damaged -- in the "right" ways (or else you weren't really abused), and which then deliberately uses that enforced framework as an excuse to dismiss victims of sexual violence as overly-emotional, fundamentally-damaged people who shouldn't be listened to.
Survivors of sexual violence are not a monolith. Some of us may react to our victimization with one or more emotions; some of us may not feel a strong response or an emotional reaction to our experiences with sexual violence. Some of us may have differing reactions to our victimization at different times; some of us may maintain the same unwavering reaction to our experiences for our entire life. Some of us may feel changed by our victimization; some of us may feel unchanged by our experiences with sexual violence. Some of us may label all or part of some felt change as negative or harmful; some of us may label all or part of some felt change with positive connotations. There is no right or correct or standard way to react or respond or change or not-change as a result of sexual victimization.
It is wholly and completely up to the survivor of sexual violence to decide how, if at all, hir experiences with sexual violence have affected hir. Which is one of the many, many reasons why a disclosure that someone is a survivor of sexual violence is not an invitation for others to audit their experiences for them.
Richard Dawkins is a rape apologist, but it is not our place to assume or guess or joke or psychoanalyze from afar that he is a rape apologist because he is a victim of sexual violence. And just as Richard Dawkins is wrong to assert that his peers weren't harmed (because it is their right to determine whether they were or not), it is equally wrong for others to assert that Richard Dawkins was harmed when he says he wasn't, because it is his right to decide whether he was harmed or not.
Rape Apologia Is Not a PR Problem
[CN for the post and linked pieces: rape, rape apologia, rape culture, judicial malfeasance, suicide, mental illness.]
Rape apologia is not a PR problem. Rape is not a PR problem. Sexual harassment is not a PR problem. And so on, and so forth.
It is really pretty simple. Oppression is a problem because it harms the oppressed person or people. Not because it makes an individual or group sound bad.
But apparently, this is not as self-evident as I thought. Over at Daylight Atheism, Adam Lee is appalled by Richard Dawkins' recent rape-ranking remarks (good), but then proceeds to frame his own response primarily around the harm Dawkins is doing to the reputation of atheists:
...Even if we atheists were determined to be charitable in our interpretation, we can be sure that Dawkins’ many enemies won’t be, and will use these remarks to paint both him and the larger atheist movement in a poor light, or to deflect attention from their own moral failings. As I said on Twitter, the next time a priestly pedophilia story breaks, we can be almost certain that some Catholic apologist will say, “This is no big deal, and you’re just trying to exaggerate how serious it is to embarrass the church. See, even Richard Dawkins says it’s not always so bad!”
He also has some advice for Dawkins:
When you’re under scrutiny by people who are eager for you to make a mistake, it’s vital to carefully weigh your remarks so as not to speak in ways that can easily be used against you. Dawkins doesn’t seem to understand this, and it speaks poorly of him that he keeps committing these unforced errors. I have no explanation for why he can’t see that he’s harming not just his own reputation, but the entire secular movement that, for better or for worse, he’s widely assumed to speak on behalf of.
WHAT THE EVERLASTING FUCK.
No. The fact that Dawkins "keeps "committing these unforced errors" is not what "speaks poorly of him." Perpetuating rape apologia speaks poorly of him.
It's not that I don't sympathize with members of a marginalized group cringing at a prominent member's oppressive remarks. It's shitty when the world, the media, or whomever, judges an entire group by the words or actions of one well-known asshole; that judgement is, predictably, far harsher for atheists, people of colour, LGBT*Q folk, women, and all those in groups already under the thumb of kyriarchy. But when you centre PR, you further marginalize survivors.
If you want to be an ally, encourage others to allyship, and support those in your group who are survivors, then it's simple. BE AN ALLY. Understand that being an ally is a continuous process, not a fixed state. Keep working at it, always, and understand that there will be fuckups. Don't assume you've mastered everything, don't seek cookies, and most of all, don't further the oppression you are trying to condemn.
For example, when you're writing about Dawkins' despicable rape-ranking and auditing of survivors' responses, you should probably not write shit like this:
I’d agree that not all cases of child abuse are equally harmful, and that there should be degrees of punishment depending on the circumstances. For example, consensual sex between a teenager and an adult, like a teacher, shouldn’t be punished with the same severity as the violent rape of a child.But again, like the last time, he’s managed to couch this point in probably the worst possible way....
See that? See what you did there, Adam? YOU JUST RANKED RAPES. You blew off age differences. You blew off power differentials. You blew off a million different factors that may affect the survivor. You assumed that you could make broad judgements about the degree of harm done based on a few mechanical facts about the act, rather than on the perspective of the survivor.
This is not incidental; it enables the Lolita narrative that remains a huge problem in our rape culture. Otherwise, judges wouldn't sentence 54 year old teachers to 30 days for raping a 14 year old student (a student who, in this case, committed suicide, a pretty good indicator of the tremendous harm done). The judge ranked this particular rape by saying that the student exercised "some control" in the situation and "It was not a violent, forcible, beat-the-victim rape, like you see in the movies." That's rape apologia in action. Need more to get the point? Then read this piece by Emily about the harm done to her by men who had "consensual sex" with her 13 year old self.
The problem is not how Dawkins couched his point. The problem IS his point. (If that's not clear to you, then this is a time to put some conscious work into the continuing process of allyship.) Rape-ranking harms survivors, putting their experiences through someone else's Validity Prism. It enables more rapes, by signaling that there is some objective rubric to judge the harm based solely on the mechanics of the crime, not the impact on the survivor. The fallacious assertion that other people are in the best position to judge a survivor's experience is not a bad way of making a good point. It is a bad way of making a garbage point. It is not a PR problem. It is another stone, strengthening the foundations of rape culture.
[With thanks to Liss and Ana for input.]
Richard Dawkins, Again
[Content Note: Sexual violence; rape apologia.]
The thing about movement atheist Richard Dawkins is that he is the worst. And, yesterday, he reminded us once again why he is the worst by engaging in some truly gross rape apologia, while simultaneously disclosing that he is a survivor of sexual abuse:
In a recent interview with the Times magazine, Richard Dawkins attempted to defend what he called "mild pedophilia," which, he says, he personally experienced as a young child and does not believe causes "lasting harm."There are a lot of ways to respond to surviving sexual abuse. One of them is to minimize it. That is an understandable (and common) response to sexual abuse, and I am not in the business of policing people's individual response to trauma.
Dawkins went on to say that one of his former school masters "pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts," and that to condemn this "mild touching up" as sexual abuse today would somehow be unfair.
"I am very conscious that you can't condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don't look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can't find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today," he said.
Plus, he added, though his other classmates also experienced abuse at the hands of this teacher, "I don't think he did any of us lasting harm."
So if Dawkins wants to speak, for himself, about not personally condemning someone who molested him, and say, for himself, that he experienced no lasting harm, that is his right.
But the moment he starts extrapolating that response into a universal application, we've got a problem. It is categorically not his right to audit the lived experiences of other survivors and assert what the effects of surviving abuse have been (or should have been) on their lives.
This idea that anyone who was sexually abused in "an earlier era" doesn't or shouldn't experience lasting harm is implicitly victim-blaming, suggesting that anyone who has experienced lasting harm is weak, or wrong, or lying.
Embedded within it is also an argument that it's not the actual abuse that harms, but culture's response to abuse that harms. That is, anti-rape advocates are to blame—because it's not the actual abuse that causes harm; it's the awareness around abuse that causes harm.
This is a key piece of rape apologia—the idea that it's talking about abuse which traumatizes survivors, rather than the abuse itself. Naturally, no one should be made to disclose or discuss abuse against their will. But processing abuse is a crucial survival strategy for many victims—and, in fact, being denied the opportunity to process, being silenced, is a secondary trauma for many survivors.
Another key piece of rape apologia is the auditing and ranking of survivors of rape and/or the auditing and ranking of various acts of rape itself. Whether it's Republicans trying to redefine the legal definition of rape, Whoopi Goldberg defending Roman Polanski with comments about "rape-rape," the use of minimizing terms like "grey rape," calling rape "a disagreement between two lovers," or any of the other endless examples of language which posits there is some "real, serious, harmful rape" and some other sort of "sorta, kinda, not that bad rape," the idea that certain types of sexual abuse are tolerable is about the most basic rape apologia there is. "Mild pedophilia" is just not a phrase that should even exist, no less be uttered aloud.
The thing is, Richard Dawkins is a child rape apologist. One of the first things I ever noted about Dawkins in this space was his reckoning that a child is "arguably" better off repeatedly raped than raised religious:
In the penultimate chapter of his best-selling book The God Delusion, biologist and world-renowned atheist Richard Dawkins presents his view of religious education, which he explains by way of an anecdote. Following a lecture in Dublin, he recalls, "I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place." Lest his readers misunderstand him, or dismiss this rather shocking statement as mere off-the-cuff hyperbole, Dawkins goes on to clarify his position. "I am persuaded," he explains, "that the phrase 'child abuse' is no exaggeration when used to describe what teachers and priests are doing to children whom they encourage to believe in something like the punishment of unshriven mortal sins in an eternal hell."So, he "can't condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours" when it comes to the sexual abuse of children, but he's totes cool with it when it comes to religious upbringing. Priorities. He's got 'em.
It is my personal, individual experience that a Christian upbringing made my surviving sexual abuse even more difficult than it already was. I have real concerns about how certain, ubiquitous, rarely challenged aspects of religion both abet the sexual abuse of children and shame survivors while protecting abusers. This is a subject that desperately needs more attention and public conversation. Setting up "religion" and "rape" in some kind of vile contest for Worst Thing Ever, instead of engaging the intersection at which they interact to target children, isn't a helpful part of that conversation.
But, of course, Dawkins isn't interested in being helpful. He is interested in minimizing the gravity of sexual violence.
If he wants to do that for himself, for his own survival, fine. But he needs to leave the rest of us the hell out of it. The last fucking thing I need is another survivor publicly concern-trolling me for being affected, and offering himself up as a useful tool to the predators who share his loathsome opinion that a little rape ain't so bad.
Quote of the Day
[Content Note: Religious supremacy.]
"If these people don't like it, they don't have to live here."—Fox News fuck and former George W. Bush spokesperson Dana Perino, who is "'tired' of atheists attempting to remove the phrase 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance... The co-host of Fox's 'The Five' was referring to a suit brought by the American Humanist Association in Massachusetts, where the state's Supreme Judicial Court heard a challenge to the pledge on Wednesday."
It's neat how she's "tired" of people seeking the removal of a phrase which was added in by religious supremacists years more than half a century after the Pledge was written. Whooooooooops I thought conservatives loved strict constructionism!
I would say if religious people don't like it, they don't have to live here, but I'm not a garbagefuck.
And Then This Happened
[Content Note: Misogyny; disablism.]
In my ongoing (and never-ending) series about why this female atheist (*points thumbs at self*) has no interest in movement atheism, I present this exchange, in comments at Libby Anne's place, between Lunch Meat, a self-identified religious woman, and Jack Kolinski, an atheist man who "want[s] to cure religion and [has] written an easy-and-fun-to-read book explaining how everyone can cure themselves and others of this insidious, malevolent mind disease."
Libby Anne has written extensively about that comment thread, and the dynamic of atheist men full of white knight sexism who want to save religious women from themselves, here. Go read it, because it's really great!
There are a lot (a "small but vocal minority," I'm sure) of atheist men who believe that they need to rescue religious women because they are too stupid or brainwashed or weak or some other charming underestimation to know what is best for themselves. (Protip: When your "feminist" argument is indistinguishable from anti-choice rhetoric, you have derailed from anything resembling feminism.) Obviously, this is objectionable to religious women.
But it is objectionable to me, too. Even though I am an atheist woman who has written about the specific harm I experienced being raised in a particular religious tradition. Because my experience is not universal. And because I am keenly aware of the colonialist and racist dynamics that underwrite much of this white male atheist savior bullshit. And because I am a feminist, and thus I want to give women choices, and trust them to make the best choices for themselves.
I don't have any interest in telling women what they should do, or what they should believe.
Because I don't own women. And neither does Jack Kolinski. Nor any of his oppressively chivalrous brothers.
Quote of the Day
[Content Note: Christian supremacy.]
"It is your patriotic duty to worship God in order that we may have a prosperous and flourishing economy."—Bryan Fischer, Professional Annoyfuck and Director of Issues Analysis for the American Family Association, on his garbage radio show this week.
Yes, if only we had a religious president, a religious vice-president, an almost entirely religious executive branch, an almost entirely religious Congress, and 50 almost entirely religious state legislatures. Then our economy would be flourishing. If only! It's just too bad how atheists are running everything.
Oh, what's that, Bryan Fischer? You meant it's everyone's patriotic duty to worship God in the exact way you prescribe, even though the social and economic policies you support are actually antithetical to a robust economy? Huh.
Once again I will observe that even if I were presented with definitive proof that a god did exist, and that god was exactly the petty, retributive, narcissistic revenge-monster that conservative evangelicals imagine him to be, who punishes people with poverty and neglect and abuse and suffering because they don't "believe" hard enough, or right enough, I would reject that asshole on principle.
