Archive
Atheism, Bigotry, and Politics
Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
_________________________________________________________________________
Today’s article is by SASHA member Alex Papulis.
I’d like to consider something in response to Dave’s June 14 post, where he explains that he will stop using the word “homophobia” and instead use “bigotry”.
Atheism does not entail any given political position, or any political position at all. There is nothing requiring an atheist to support either high or low taxes, strict or forgiving immigration policies, capital punishment or its abolition, or anything at all. One cannot be an atheist and support abolition of the death penalty because God says don’t murder, but one can be an atheist and support the abolition of the death penalty. According to moral nihilism, there are no positive moral facts about the world, and as moral nihilism follows from naturalistic atheism (see brief argument at end of post if you like), there is no imperative that the atheist support or oppose any particular policy.
Additionally, though, as all positive moral propositions are false, we should note that the atheist is inconsistent in claiming any political position to be wrong, bad, harmful, etc. Any such claim, that is held intolerantly in the face of opposition, is bigotry on the part of the atheist. For what reason could an atheist hold to a belief for which there is no evidence, in the face of opposition?
So, while an atheist certainly cannot consistently claim, for example, that homosexual behavior is bad or harmful, neither can he claim that anti-homosexual behavior is bad or harmful. Laws expanding the definition of marriage are not harmful, but neither are laws that restrict the definition of marriage. And it’s clear that anyone who says that such law is harmful, and is intolerant of those disagreeing, is behaving in a bigoted manner. There is no evidence for their belief, yet they obstinately hold on to it and disapprove of those who do not share their belief.
But surely, you may be thinking, there are political positions that are worse than others. Some taxes are better than none, highways are better than no highways, and firemen, policemen, ambulances, these are all good things, and policies can certainly be harmful in this regard. Surely we all agree on this. But we have to be careful. It may be the case that most of us like these things, and we don’t like things that lessen them, but that doesn’t get us what would be needed to avoid a charge of bigotry. After all, everyone can appeal to what they like, and the anti-homosexual doesn’t get off the hook because he likes restrictive marriage laws. No, in the end, stubbornly and intolerantly moralizing is bigotry.
So what’s left? For one, there are our desires. We prefer certain states of the world over others. We like what certain policies get us and dislike what others get us, even if none is better than another. And of course, atheism doesn’t entail anything about what preferences or desires one should have. It doesn’t require one be tolerant or accepting of differences, though one may like if atheists are these things.
The pro-gay, then, is fundamentally no different than the anti-gay. The bigots are those who intolerantly assert that one of the positions is good or bad. The two sides are simply two groups with different political desires, and they both try to impose those desires on the other via legislation. There is no place for moral indignation.
Moral nihilism: There are two problems with a realist view of morality for the naturalist atheist. First, moral entities (be they properties, relations, values) don’t seem to fit into the naturalist catalog. A quick way of thinking about it is by dissecting a behavior or act into its physical constituents and then considering where the moral properties might be. We can think about all the physical elements and effects of an action, yet when we try to find the “requirement” or “obligation” or “value”, we are unable. Second, even if moral entities did exist, it is unclear how we would be able to ascertain their existence or character. As moral entities don’t seem to fit into a naturalist understanding of the world, similarly it seems that our perception of them would be impossible without some faculty of perception capable of perceiving non-natural things.
After completing an economics degree at Washington University in St Louis, Alex Papulis just finished a year at Mizzou as a non-degree-seeking, non-transfer Degree-seeking Transfer student. He enjoyed it, and looks forward to starting a philosophy MA program in Milwaukee this fall.
_________________________________________________________________________
Helpful resources:
Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org
YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current, NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup
Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
“Homophobia”? No, bigotry.
Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
_________________________________________________________________________
I was just talking to Lyz Liddell of the Secular Student Alliance about this the other day. Then I saw this post on Reddit, which reminded me about it, so I decided to write a quick post.
From now on, I’m no longer using the term “homophobia” to describe bigotry against gay people. I’m simply going to call it bigotry.
Bigot: one obstinately and irrationally, often intolerantly, devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.*
I have yet to hear anything close to a rational, fact-based justification for why gay behavior or orientation is anything other than normal, natural, and harmless. Until someone can present this, obstinate, irrational, and intolerant devotion to anti-gay beliefs is simply another way of saying that someone is bigoted.
Phyllis Siegal, 76, and Connie Kopelov, 84, the first gay couple legally married under New York State’s recent marriage equality law. They have been together for 23 years.
Phobias are medical conditions where someone has an irrational *fear* of something that’s normal or otherwise harmless. For example, there’s such a thing as a healthy fear of bears (a mother sow protecting her cubs can be very dangerous), but a phobia of bears is something else entirely. There may in fact be some people who are actually, irrationally afraid of gay people, despite knowing that they are normal, natural, and harmless. But that is not what we mean when we say “homophobic.” We mean “bigoted,” and it’s time we started saying so.
People who normally get called “homophobes” don’t have an irrational fear of gay people. They have an irrational *intolerance* to the belief that gay people are sinful, etc. That’s just bigotry, plain & simple.
That’s all. Good night!
- Dave
*”bigot.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (15 Jun. 2012).
Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou studying economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday and twice monthly for the Humanist Community at Harvard. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.
Follow Dave on Google+
Follow Dave on Twitter
Helpful resources:
Godisimaginary.com – Iron Chariots Wiki – Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an – AtheismResource.com – TalkOrigins.org
YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current, NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup
Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
No such thing as atheists?
Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
_________________________________________________________________________
I read this blog post by PZ Myers about Missouri representative Emanuel Cleaver. In a TV appearance, he said that there is “no such thing” as an atheist, because “no respectable atheist would walk around with something in his pocket that said ‘In God We Trust.’”
I wrote to Cleaver on his website about this. To send him your thoughts as well, click here. Below is what I wrote.
I caught part of your interview with Candy Crowley in which you said there’s no such thing as an atheist, and your reasoning for this was that “no respectable atheist would walk around with something in his pocket that said ‘In God We Trust.’”
My name is Dave Muscato and I’m an atheist. All that means is that I don’t believe any gods are actually real, the same way you and I both don’t believe Santa Claus is actually real.
Putting aside for the moment that your reasoning is a textbook example of a “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy, you may or may not know this, but the phrase “In God We Trust” was not added to US paper currency until 1957. You read that correctly. The phrase was added to our money as a religious response to the so-called “godless communists” during the Cold War.
I would greatly prefer to carry around US money that didn’t have this 1950s addition. Perhaps, as a lawmaker, you could take a stand for separation of church & state, and advocate that this phrase be removed from our currency?
In the meantime, I’ll make do with what’s issued, just like my fellow 25-million or so atheist Americans do.
I have to say that in Matthew 19:21, Jesus said, “If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions, and give the money to the poor.”
Using your logic, shouldn’t I say that there’s no such thing as a Christian, given that no respectable Christian should walk around with any money in his pocket at all?
I would love to hear back from you about this. Looking forward to your response,
Dave Muscato
Vice President, University of Missouri Skeptics, Atheists, Secular Humanists, & Agnostics
dave@davemuscato.com
Here is the relevant part of the interview:
Tell Cleaver what you think about this, and please copy & paste what you send him in the comment section below – I’d love to see it.
Until next time,
Dave
Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou majoring in economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.
Follow Dave on Google+
Follow Dave on Twitter
Helpful resources:
Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org
YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current, NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup
Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
Oh, HELL no! I smell a lawsuit!
Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
_________________________________________________________________________
This is outrageous. A new Oklahama bill seeks to squash atheists’ First-Amendment right to practice our religion in the traditional manner!
NPR link: State Bill Outlaws Use of [Human] Fetuses in Food Industry
Freedom From Religion Foundation, ACLU, anybody, can we move on this?
(Thanks to Terry Munger for the joke!)
See you guys tomorrow at 5:30 PM for the weekly SASHA meeting (click here for the Facebook event), at Reasonfest in Lawrence, Kansas on February 11/12, and at the Reason Rally on March 24!
- Dave
mail@davemuscato.com
(573) 424-0420 cell/text
Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou majoring in economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.
Follow Dave on Google+
Follow Dave on Twitter
Helpful resources:
Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org
YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current,NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup
Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
Why I’m Not Donating to Jessica Ahlquist’s Scholarship Fund
Or, “It’s good to be generous, but don’t forget to think critically”
Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
_________________________________________________________________________
Hello all,
First off, I’m thrilled for Jessica’s victory.
I met Jess at the CFI Student Leadership conference earlier this summer, and again at the SSA Conference, where we had a good half-hour conversation about her situation and her plans in the movement. We’ve been Facebook friends since then, and I’ve chatted with her online many times. She knows I am supportive of her efforts, and I’ve even written before on this blog about that—twice—and how proud I am of her. My family even popped open a bottle of champagne when we got the news about her victory. Jess is dear to me, and in no way is this article intended as an attack on her or her family; merely some honest feedback from a fellow critical-thinking advocate, an economics student studying altruism, and a friend.
The aforementioned bottle of champagne, pre-popping.
Bloggers Hemant Mehta (the Friendly Atheist) and JT Eberhard, among many others, are promoting a scholarship fund for Jessica’s college expenses, based on the precedent example of Damon Fowler’s scholarship fund last year, which last I checked had surpassed $30,000. (NB: Neither Jess nor her family initiated the creation of this scholarship fund; they are merely the beneficiaries of it). Recently, JT suggested expanding Jessica’s fund to include selling T-shirts with the slogan, “Evil Little Thing” (as a reference to Rhode Island State Representative Peter Palumbo’s faux paus), the money from which would also go toward Jess’s scholarship fund. As of today, her fund is up to around $25,000 US (not including forthcoming T-shirt sales).
I know that supporting one of our own is very exciting and feels like the right thing to do. And it is the right thing to do—Jess deserves and indeed has earned our support.
But there are plenty of ways to support someone: financially, emotionally, morally, etc. Financially, I want to make clear, is only one way to do that.
I do not support the creation of a monetary scholarship fund for Jess, and I mean this in the best possible way, but we—as rational, skeptical, critical-thinkers—should pause for a moment and consider the priorities for our donation dollars.
Before making any donation, for ethical reasons, there are certain questions we must first ask. Among them:
1) Will this donation change someone’s life for the better?
If a donation changes no one’s life for the better above and beyond what they already had, and there are other ways to use that money that would instead, it is unethical to use resources in this way. This is true whether you’re talking about donating to an animal shelter (with the goal of changing those animals’ lives for the better), or an environmental preservation fund (allowing future generations of animals and people to enjoy that land), a scholarship fund (with the goal making college more accessible to someone), etc. Surprisingly, money is often not the “bottleneck” in achieving charitable goals. Take public schooling in the USA, for example: We spent about 3 times more tax dollars per student per year, adjusted for inflation, in the 2007-8 school year than we did in in the 1961-62 school year, yet we are falling further and further behind other countries when it comes to test scores and graduation rates. Clearly, there is something else going on besides just money.
2) To what degree will this donation improve someone’s life above and beyond current conditions?
There are many inefficient charities in the world. In fact, most charities accomplish very little. Charities that demonstrably improve people’s lives are the exception, not the rule. This is because fundraising for charity is nearly always based on emotional appeals, which is a type of informal fallacy, not on demonstrated accomplishment of their goals. This is something we, as skeptics, should recognize, and something for which we should be on the look-out, when we notice our heartstrings are being tugged.
As an analogy, take, for example, this 2-minute video, which makes me cry every time. Turn on your speakers (BC = British Columbia, Canada):
As a vegetarian, animal-welfare activist, former animal-shelter employee, and shelter volunteer, my heart breaks for these animals, and it’s not easy for me to put my emotions aside when I watch a video like this one. Makes you want to get out your wallet and pick up the phone, doesn’t it?
However, the critical-thinking side of me knows that the best thing to do, when making any economic decision, is to consider both my emotional AND rational reasoning. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, by all means let’s allow our intuition to guide our ethics, but not so much that our brains fall out.
The question we should ask ourselves when we’re considering donating money is one of efficiency. We have an ethical obligation to ensure that our donations are being used as wisely and efficiently as humanly possible.
The video above quotes a statistic of 3,000 animals saved last year, and goes on to say that for hundreds of others animals, help came too late. The implication is that our (collective) donations can save other animals like these in the future. As critical thinkers, it’s our responsibility to ask, at what cost per animal? Are you doing everything you can to keep costs down (making all possible use of volunteers, foster homes, etc)? Are hard dollars your most urgent need? If our goal is to stop animal suffering, is this organization the most efficient one at actually accomplishing that goal? Is money even your bottleneck? (It could be things like lax local breeding laws, insufficient city services as far as animal control, insufficient legal penalties for dog-fighting or animal neglect, or lots of other things besides lack of hard dollars).
By way of example, our local animal shelter here in Columbia, MO took in over 5,000 animals last year, quite a few more than the 3,000 cited in the video. How many of these were euthanized? I don’t know; the website and donor FAQ don’t even say. From my experience there, I would guess roughly 1/3, but that is entirely speculative. Why were they euthanized? Was money even the bottleneck? Vicious animals (e.g. most of those recovered from dog-fighting operations) or fatally-injured animals cannot be put up for adoption, so money would not have helped them. Is the problem that people are bringing in their animals because they are destructive to their households? Maybe we should try to persuade local dog trainers to offer discounts and work with the shelter, if the problem is lack of training, etc. Critical thinking is how we solve problems like these, and as it turns out, money is often not really the root of the problem.
If your goal is to save animals from euthanasia, the fact is that we aren’t even given enough information, by looking at this own shelter’s website and donor FAQ, how much they need to save an animal’s life. So how on Earth can we compare the efficiency of this shelter with another animal charity with similar goals, competing for our donations? We can’t.
The reason charities don’t supply information about their efficiency is that nobody ever asks for it. In most cases they don’t even collect this data at all. This is especially true of charities who primarily solicit large numbers of small-figure donors (i.e. the ones that advertise for donations), versus those who focus on small numbers of large-figure donors.
Large donors tend to be more discriminating, and someone giving away a million dollars wants some quantifiable evidence, preferably significantly so, that their donation made a real difference. But why should a charity bother spending lots of money and time putting together all that data, when you can instead make one commercial and focus on getting 100,000 people to each donate $10, just by showing them sad pictures and providing two rather useless statistics? Especially when you consider that when a charity DOES put together all that data for a big donor, they are now in the position of having to make promises to that donor about results, which they now must keep or face some very bad PR and no donations in the future. Small donors tend not to check up on how much of a difference their donation made a year later when deciding whether or not to donate again, so it makes sense to invest in appealing to them, instead.
I am not saying that charities who focus on smaller donors are malicious nor manipulative. Most of the time, they in fact have very good intentions. But as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This goes for charities as well as donors. By being MORE discriminating in where we donate our money, we can in fact do even greater good with the same amount of funds. (NB: This emphatically doesn’t mean we should donate less of our money to charity, rather, just that we should ask more questions when deciding where to donate it).
This is not to say that I don’t support my humane society’s mission in terms of moral or emotional support, but it is why I don’t donate money to them, and support them in other ways instead.
There is a calculation used in charity evaluation called “room for more funding.” In other words, we want to know, to what degree would additional donations advance the mission of the fund, over and above its current assets?
As I said above, there are many ways that we can support Jessica’s future: financially, morally, emotionally, and so on. I left out perhaps the most important one, because I want to discuss it here in more detail: Networking. This is an asset Jess has in spades, one that we can help her grow even more (for free!), and, in my opinion, the reason that her scholarship fund probably does not actually have room for more funding.
The goal of ANY scholarship fund is simple: To make a college education more accessible to its beneficiaries than it would otherwise be. That’s it.
So, the first question we need to ask ourselves is, “Is a college education indeed inaccessible to Jessica right now?” In other words, will she even need help paying for college in the first place?
I propose that the answer to this question, as I say this with all due respect and love for my friend Jess, is probably “no.” I’ve no doubt that the extra money wouldn’t hurt, but is “well, it wouldn’t hurt” really the highest & best use of the limited resource of atheists’ donations?
When Jessica is ready to apply for college, one of her (and her parents’) concerns will undoubtedly be finances. It is for nearly everyone who goes to college. It’s obviously less of a concern for some than others: I doubt the topic so much as crosses the mind of Jennifer Gates, the daughter of Bill & Melinda Gates, who is 16 years old, the same age as Jessica.
However, I submit that this isn’t for the reason you’d think: I’m willing to bet that Jennifer Gates will get scholarship offers from at least dozens of schools. The reason for this is not that they think she needs help financially affording tuition (clearly she doesn’t); it’s because many schools want to be able to tell other, future applicants, as well as alumni, that “Jennifer Gates is a student here.” These schools know Jennifer Gates can afford to go anywhere she wants, and that she will not make her decision based on cost, but rather, which school she thinks is truly the best for her.
In order to so much as stand a chance at recruiting Miss Gates, all but the very top schools in the world will have to offer her a full-ride. And even among those top schools, they must still compete with each other. They know that, whatever school she chooses, she and her family will be donating many millions of dollars there for many years to come, so it is in their best interest to attract her as a student in any way legally possible.
I think that Jess Ahlquist is actually in a better bargaining position when it comes to her choice of colleges than even Jennifer Gates. The reason for this is that Miss Gates, although I’d assume she’s a credible student, has not made a name for herself in the world yet. A quick perusal of Google doesn’t turn up anything particular newsworthy outside of the fact that she’s Bill & Melinda Gates’ daughter. The only thing I could really find about her at all personally is that she rides horses.
Jessica Ahlquist, on the other hand, has her own Wikipedia page (something even Jennifer Gates lacks). Jess has appeared on ABC News, in The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, etc. She has spoken at multiple major conferences already, done a Reddit AMA, and she will speak alongside Richard Dawkins, Dave Silverman, Lawrence Krauss, Dr. Greg Graffin (of Bad Religion), Tim Minchin, PZ Myers, James Randi, and others at the Reason Rally in March in Washington, DC. She has the explicit support of thousands and thousands of people around the country and the world. And she still has another year to go before applying to colleges!
When Jessica is ready to apply for colleges, she will have something even more valuable than $25,000. Consider her circumstance if she decides to apply to, say, Oxford: She will likely have little trouble getting an enthusiastic written reference and personal introduction & tour from none other than Professor Richard Dawkins himself. If she decides to apply to Harvard, she will have no trouble whatsoever getting a written reference and personal introduction from James Croft, or any number of others, and so on and so on. This list could go on for quite awhile!
There is a concept in economics, called opportunity cost, with which (I hope) everyone reading this is already familiar. The idea is simply that when you make a choice about how to spend your money (or time, or any scarce resource), the cost of that choice is not only what you pay for it, but also what you’re giving up by not spending your money (or time, etc) on your next best alternative.
There are a limited number of dollars available for donation by those supportive of separation of church & state issues. It’s important that we think critically here and ask ourselves how much help Jess really needs affording her college of choice, and if additional dollars from us is the absolute best use of our finite resources.
With Damon Fowler’s scholarship fund, his situation had some important differences: Damon’s parents were NOT supportive of his efforts, and as I understand it, he was kicked out of his parents’ house after coming out as an atheist, and had to leave the state to live with his brother. With the exception of the scholarship funds raised by his supporters (myself included), he is on his own as far as paying for college. In Jessica’s case, we don’t even know her parents’ financial situation (not that it’s any of our business), but we do know that they are supportive of her efforts (as I understand it, her father helped file the lawsuit), and as people who value critical thinking, I think it’s only appropriate that we consider whether or not her family has a true, pressing need for this money, above and beyond Damon, or the ACLU, American Atheists, the SSA, CFI, or other worthy causes to which we could donate, instead.
By donating to Jessica’s college scholarship fund, we are not donating to other organizations or young activists who may need it more. There are a lot of people, young campus leaders in the atheist movement, who cannot afford to attend the Reason Rally, or promote quality events on their own campuses.
If you want to support the future of the atheist movement in the United States, and again, I mean this in the best possible way to Jess and her family, please considering donating to the Reason Rally, American Atheists, the Secular Student Alliance, or the Center For Inquiry in honor of Jessica’s victory. The last two of these routinely help fund local events for campus skeptic groups, things like bringing in guest speakers, and setting up regional conferences to help spread awareness of atheism and introduce a younger generation to a lifetime of critical thinking and freethought. If you are interested primarily in supporting separation of church & state issues, please consider donating to the ACLU, or the Freedom From Religion Foundation, again in honor of her victory. NB: To my knowledge, donations made through all the links in this paragraph are tax-deductible; to my knowledge, donations made to Jessica’s scholarship fund are not, just FYI.
As I said above, I think that what Jess is doing is deserving of the highest praise, and of our support, but remember, support can take many forms. While it is certainly important to have nationally-renowned spokepeople for atheism like Jessica Ahlquist, it’s also very important to have well-funded local and regional leaders putting on events on their campuses, too. My only hope is that our financial support can go to where it’s not only most needed, but best used, whether you ultimately decide that is Jess’s scholarship fund itself, or another related, deserving fund.
Thank you for reading.
Dave
P.S. For an excellent series of articles on “smart giving,” I highly recommend this page: GiveWell’s “Giving 101.”
mail@davemuscato.com
(573) 424-0420 cell/text
Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou majoring in economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.
Follow Dave on Google+
Follow Dave on Twitter
Helpful resources:
Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org
YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current,NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup
Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
A comment about “Christian” bullying
Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
_________________________________________________________________________
My friend, atheist advocate & activist, and SASHA blog guest author, Damon Fowler, posted this to Jessica Ahlquist in response to the treatment she is receiving by so-called “Christians” following the recent ruling regarding the prayer banner:
I’m really sorry you have to deal with that kind of treatment. People would always tell me “You don’t want to talk to those kinds of people anyway”, which is probably true, but it didn’t make it much better. I guess the best advice I can give is keep what friends you have close, don’t act like you’re bothered by it in front of them, and keep your online support on standby. I’m sure anyone would be willing to listen if you needed someone to talk to. I’m here and I know a bit about what you’re going through. Anyway, things will get better. You did a great thing.
My response:
I’m not trying to give unsolicited advice, but I disagree that someone should act like discrimination/bullying etc doesn’t bother them, if indeed it does (as it should!). Their behavior is not only completely unacceptable morally, but it’s also illegal, and ironically, anti-Christian. I think in some cases, in the face of egregious bullying, it can be more productive to call the bullies out on it, very publicly, especially if you have the option of “low-hanging fruit”; for example, you might say…
“Jesus said, ’You have heard it said, love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I tell you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you’ (Matthew 5:44). Jesus said, ‘If someone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat as well’ (Matthew 5:40, Luke 6:29). Do you think that I am evil? Then remember what Jesus said about evildoers: ‘Do not rise up against an evil person; if someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn your other cheek to him as well’ (Matthew 5:39).
What you should really be doing, instead of getting mad at me, is asking yourself if you are really a Christian, or if you are what Jesus called the Pharisees, a hypocrite – the Greek word for an actor, someone who pretends to be righteous, but in reality, is selfish, prideful, and wicked. If you are really a Christian, you will do as Jesus commands, even when it’s difficult, ESPECIALLY when it’s difficult. If you are really a Christian, you will recognize your pride, your indignation, and stand up for what Jesus taught – tolerance, and peace with those who disagree with you, but most of all, forgiveness to those who persecute you. If you are really a Christian, you should be asking yourself, “Would would Jesus do?”
You believe that Jesus could work miracles, that he could do anything he could imagine with just a mere thought. When Jesus was being tortured by the Roman soldiers after his arrest, did he summon lightning to strike them dead? No, he prayed for them. When Jesus was hanging by nails through his feet and wrists on the cross, did he spit on his executioners, call them names, and threaten them? No, he asked God to forgive them.
In Romans 13, the Apostle Paul wrote, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.” By persecuting me, you are disrespecting the judge’s decision that the banner is unconstitutional, and by disrespecting the judge, you are disrespecting God. Christians are commanded to obey the governments that God has placed over them. When the Apostle Paul wrote that, he was writing under the Roman emperor Nero, perhaps the most tyrannical and anti-Christian government in Christian history. Under Emperor Nero, Paul – who, unlike Jesus and his other apostles, was a Roman citizen – was executed, a nearly unprecedented punishment for a citizen. The Apostle Paul had every imaginable reason to fight his government, but he steadfastly refused – in fact, he encouraged obedience, because this is what Christians are commanded to do. If Saint Paul could obey the decisions of his government, even in the face of his own execution, what makes you think you don’t have to?
You call yourself a Christian; why is it that I, an atheist, am more kind than you? Jesus wanted you, as his follower, to set an example of how to treat people, regardless of whether they are Christian or not, and ESPECIALLY if they persecute you. You call yourself a Christian; why is it that I, an atheist, am more civil, more peaceful, more gentle than you?
If you choose to persecute me, if you choose to disrespect the judge’s decision, understand that, as Paul himself said, you will bring judgment on yourself. Your words and actions are bigoted and hateful, not forgiving and peaceful, as Jesus taught. You are treating me this way out of your own selfishness, bigoted intolerance, and lack of respect, love, and generosity toward your fellow man. Further, your thoughts, words, and actions are explicitly against the instructions of both Saint Paul and Jesus himself. And if you are a Christian, you YOURSELF believe that you will face judgment for this. You think that I am going to hell because I am an atheist? I stood up for the United States Constitution, even though it was difficult, even though I knew I would face hatred from hypocrites like you. And I did it with respect, kindness, and a desire for tolerance. And what do you do in return? Directly, blatantly, and pridefully disobey Jesus himself. And as the Bible says, whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it (James 2:10). So I have news for you: If you want to call yourself a Christian, you have two choices: Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, and regardless of what you think of me personally, you must respect the judge’s decision, and you must treat me with love, tolerance, peacefulness, and forgiveness, as Jesus commanded, or you will burn in hell yourself, according to your very own rules. The choice is yours.
If there’s one thing I hate, it’s having to teach someone their own damn religion. Ugh.
A note to Jess:
I want you to know that the 550+ members of SASHA are behind you 100%. You are an an inspiration, an amazing person. These “Christian” bullies, they get defensive and angry because that is how our brains respond to cognitive dissonance – when they are demonstrated to be wrong, but they cannot cope with it. They know they are wrong, but nobody likes to be wrong, and it’s easier for them to lash out at you instead. That is not only childish, selfish, and wicked, but it’s also anti-Christian. Their own religion tells them, in no uncertain terms, to love their enemies, to forgive those who persecute them, and to obey their government. Take heart in knowing that you are right, and no amount of bullying can take that away. And frankly, in terms of love, kindness, forgiveness, and tolerance, you are showing THEM how it’s done.
Keep up the great work. We’re here for you if there’s anything at all we can do to help. I’m looking forward to hanging out with you again and hearing you speak at the Reason Rally!
Dave
P.S. You’re not old enough for this yet, but here’s what we enjoyed when we got the news that you’d won 
mail@davemuscato.com
(573) 424-0420 cell/text
Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou majoring in economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.
Follow Dave on Google+
Follow Dave on Twitter
Helpful resources:
Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org
YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current,NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup
Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
A quick update, and my response to a comment on Jessica’s victory
Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
_________________________________________________________________________
Hello everyone!
I apologize for the lack of updates lately; lots going on. I’m in Philadelphia right now for a funeral, but I will be posting much more soon. So many things to write about – forthcoming are more articles in the Facebook series about the atheist-turned-Christian video, an article about Jessica Alhquist’s recent victory, an article about the current crop of Republican candidates, an article about the Jewish funeral I attended today (this could go a couple of different directions… death rituals and meaning within Judaism, the ethics and economics of modern funerals, atheists & grief…), some articles about several other interesting Facebook threads that I’ve participated in lately (religious delusions as a justification for faith, what’s comfortable to believe versus what’s true…), responding to some comments on some of my previous articles, and more.
I have to get going, but I’m going to leave this open to an informal poll among our members & our other readers: What would you like to hear about? Please leave me a comment here or on our Facebook group’s Wall about what idea from the list above sounds interesting to you, or suggest a topic of your own. Looking forward to hearing from you!
In the meantime, here is a quick thought about the Cranston ruling:
Kevin Harris wrote:
It’s a sad day when a judge confuses the establishment clause with the [free] exercise clause. The public schools belong to the people. If the people in the community express a religious heritage in public, so be it. What you would rather do is force YOUR secular philosophy into the public schools by removing any religious or Christian expressions. There IS NO NEUTRALITY! The removal sends a message that secular philosophy is the choice of the academy and to be preferred in the public square.
My response:
I think people confuse secular with anti-theist. (Also, I think people confuse atheist with anti-theist).
“Secular” means “not overtly or specifically religious; of or relating to the state as distinguished from the church, civil; of or relating to the laity as distinguished from the clergy; not formally related to or controlled by a religious body” (source).
We have a secular government in the United States. That doesn’t mean that we have an atheist or anti-theist government; all it means is that we are not a theocracy, [nor] a monarchy (divine right of kings), etc. It means that we govern ourselves in a way that’s distinguished and separate from the church, that is, not under the control of a religious body. Our public schools, Cranston among them, are included in this.
I think that a lot of this could be resolved simply by helping people understand that their idea of what these words mean is incorrect and skewed by religious motivations.
You can bet your ass that the people who support the banner, all Christian no doubt, would NOT be so supportive of the idea if instead of opening with, “Our Heavenly Father,” it said, “Our Overlord from Hell,” even though they are equivalent statements in principle.
Let us know what you’ll like to read about next!
Take care,
Dave
mail@davemuscato.com
(573) 424-0420 cell/text
Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a vegetarian, LGBTQ ally, and human- & animal-welfare activist. A junior at Mizzou majoring in economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, Dave posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.
Follow Dave on Google+
Follow Dave on Twitter
Helpful resources:
Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org
YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current,NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup
Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
Memorial Day semantics & Turing music boxes
Welcome to the official MU SASHA blog!
Please join our group on Facebook.
Hello folks, Dave here. It’s Memorial Day, and I want to talk about semantic satiation. Today’s post isn’t for everyone; I will warn you up front that linguistic semantics & etymology are my guilty pleasures, and this entry will very likely bore the crap out of you. But, it’s a federal holiday and I have absolutely nothing else to do, so deal with it 
Semantic satiation is something you have probably experienced, even if you didn’t know the name of it – it’s quite simply when you are so familiar with a word (or string of words), via memorization and repetition, that the symbol of the word – the sound, the feel of it in your mouth as you say it – no longer triggers the recall of the relevant corresponding concept in your mind. In other words, you repeat a word or phrase to the point that it temporarily loses meaning to you, and your brain processes it as organized sounds rather than as language, as words with actual definitions. For example, most people do not actually recite the Pledge of Allegiance; they half-sing it. There is a specific timing involved – a meter, a rhythm – and there is definitely a melody. If you are “reciting” the pledge in a group, it probably sounds something like this:
If you were anything like me as a child, you more-or-less zoned out while you recited the pledge, because it was so familiar that it didn’t require any conscious effort. However, if one person in that group were to change up the melody or rhythm, even if s/he didn’t change the words, people would instantly be aware of it. It’s not just a group of people reciting the same text; it’s a chorus line, and the words are lyrics. This is not necessarily a negative thing; just something to note.
The reason this matters is that on account of the repetition, and the fact that we learn the pledge from our parents or in school far before we are old enough to understand the real, “grown-up” definitions of words like “pledge,” “allegiance,” “republic,” “indivisible,” “liberty,” and “justice,” we actually end up not really paying attention to what we’re saying later on, even after we really do know what those words mean. We recite the pledge the way we do because we were taught to do it that way: We memorized the mouth-motions necessary to form the syllables, the melody, and the rhythm, before we were old enough to understand the words themselves. We don’t need to understand the meanings of the words in order to recite the pledge “properly.” It’s comparably to teaching a non-English speaker to say, “I know that I am a sinner, and I accept Jesus as my personal lord and savior, and ask him to forgive my sins. In Jesus’ name, Amen.” That doesn’t make him a Christian any more than someone teaching me to how to say اللهم صلى على محمد makes me a Muslim.
Listen to this recording of students reciting the pledge, taken from a movie made in 1939. The Pledge of Allegiance has been modified several times since it was first written; this is the original wording:
Don’t think about this question; just answer: What caught your attention first here? What threw off your stride as you mentally sang along? Was it the “missing” words themselves – or was it that the melody was off, on account of the missing chunk?
I think that it is a mistake to teach very young children the Pledge of Allegiance, before they are old enough to understand the semantics. They end up memorizing the melody and the pledge is hollow to them their entire childhoods, possibly even into adulthood, even after they have learned the meanings of the words in other contexts. When it’s time to recite the pledge, they become robots, like Turing music boxes, singing the melody they first memorized as tots without internalizing the meanings behind the symbols. In my opinion, people recite the Pledge of Allegiance way too often. This should be something you do once, when you are old enough to understand it – say, 18 – as a rite-of-passage, maybe when you register to vote or something like that. For example, police officers and the President are sworn in only once. Understanding that oath as a one-time, important life event, gives it more weight. By reciting this pledge at the start of every day of public school, the start of every school or senate assembly, every baseball game and drag-car race, etc, it just becomes devoid of meaning: Semantic satiation. I think it’s interesting that in Islam, the 5 daily prayers aren’t compulsory until children reach the age of 10 years. That makes more sense to me than the way Christian parents tend to do it. Just do a YouTube search to see what I mean.
Let’s look at quick history of the pledge itself.
A minister named Francis Julius Bellamy (1855 – 1931) penned the pledge in 1892. The original wording was the same as the pledge in the latter video above. (Trivia buffs: The kid who sticks out his arm 9 seconds in, Nazi-style, was actually doing it correctly for the time period: Bellamy invented a special salute to accompany his pledge, called the “Bellamy Salute,” and he wrote detailed instructions on how to perform it, stretching out one’s arm toward the flag. Decades later, the Nazis independently adopted a very similar gesture (the Nazi Salute). In order to avoid confusion, President FDR and the Congress formally amended the Flag Code on December 22, 1942, changing the protocol from stretching out one’s arm to placing one’s hand over his/her heart instead, and that’s been the protocol ever since. There was initially some protest from people about amending the Flag Code like that – some saw the change as a slap in the face to tradition and a cave to foreign pressures – but they got over it. By the way, there is a famous picture of aviator Charles Lindbergh allegedly doing the Nazi Salute; he was actually doing the Bellamy Salute:
Lindberg is on the right.)
(American schoolchildren performing the Bellamy Salute.)
In 1923–’24, the words “my flag” were changed to “the flag of the United States of America,” with the idea that immigrants might be confused about whether they were pledging allegiance to their birth-country’s flag, or the US flag. The pledge retained this wording for 30 more years; the words “under God” were not part of the pledge yet at this point.
Several different groups, acting at different times, attempted to get Congress to amend the Flag Code to include the words “under God.” The idea seems to have started in 1948, but it took until 1954 to become law. Part of the reason for the delay is that President Harry “I’m not very much impressed with men who publicly parade their religious beliefs” Truman (’45–’53), who was a democrat, was not very willing to let that happen (go Truman!). Republican president Dwight D. “[I'm] one of the most deeply religious men I know” Eisenhower, though, took office on January 20, 1953, and was instrumental in making the revised wording official. The story about how “under God” made it in is actually pretty interesting, but I won’t get into it here.
So this brings us to the current wording: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.”
Because of semantic satiation, even though I know you guys are fluent in English, I want to dissect the denotata of these words. We come now to the purpose of this article: It’s important, I think, if we’re going to go to the trouble of reciting something, that we do so with full awareness of its meaning. Sometimes, context or a mental image can be helpful, so I will do my best to provide both for your reading/viewing pleasure. With any luck, the next time you decide to pledge your allegiance to the US flag and the US republic (or the next time you hear the pledge, if you elect not to recite it, or if you’re simply not an American), you’ll stop to smell the roses a bit more, so to speak.
Pledge: The word “pledge” originally meant collateral as security for repayment of a loan, from Middle English pleggen (to become surety for). In other words, when you pledge something, you are not simply making a promise, you are putting your money where your mouth is. “Pledge” is a transitive verb: It takes a direct object. You can’t simply pledge; grammatically there must be some noun that you are pledging. In this context, you are pledging your…
Allegiance: This comes from Middle English, too, specifically from liege, a vassal bound to feudal service. It also has a second definition of the lord to whom such a vassal is bound – you could use it either way. Shakespeare used it in this second sense often, as one example, Henry V, Act 1, Scene 2: “Shall we call in the ambassador, my liege?” It’s basically another way of saying “lord.” The weight of the word “liege” doesn’t really translate from Middle English to modern English; there just isn’t a modern equivalent without knowing some context of what exactly a lord’s role was in the feudal system of the High Middle Ages. It’s complicated and I don’t want to get into it here, but the point is that when you pledge allegiance to something, you are swearing an oath far beyond what any toddler could possibly understand. Allegiance means you are swearing your entire life, livelihood, and family name over to your lord, up to and including dying to protect his interests in the event of war. It’s not by any stretch a minor commitment!
Republic: One of my favorite words. This comes from the Latin RES PVBLICA, which literally means “[this] public thing” in the nominative, but the Romans used it idiomatically to mean essentially what it means in English, and the idea of the “Republic” was as important to Romans as the American Flag is to the rightest of the right-wingers today – it was more-or-less sacred. In a republic, government power resides in a citizenry entitled to vote, and is exercised by elected representatives responsible & accountable to them, who govern according to law, under a head-of-state who is not a monarch, i.e a president or consul. (Side note: Contrast this to la cosa nostra, “this thing of ours,” which is what the Italian mafia calls itself). It’s a mouthful of a definition, but it has very important features. The United States has what I think is a fascinating government structure. It sounds like a great idea on paper – everyone gets a say, and in theory, decisions are made with the best interests of the majority of people at heart; anyone can run for office, and the decision-makers are held accountable for their actions. In reality, because the decision-making process is carried out by committee, it’s extremely slow & inefficient, and decisions end up benefiting the people who have the most money to donate to campaign funds. And although technically any citizen can run for office, there are significant economic & social barriers to entry. For example, according to a 2007 Gallup poll, 55% of Americans would refuse to vote for a presidential candidate nominated by their own party, who was otherwise qualified, if s/he happened to be an atheist. What’s up with that? Anyway, I digress… The point is that when you recite the pledge and get to the word “republic,” think of ancient Rome, think of the senate and the consuls, think of voting and citizenship and the law, because that’s what it really means. When I hear the word “republic,” this is what I picture:
(There’s actually something really cool going down in this painting, but I’ll save that story for another time.)
One Nation: This is a solidarity thing. Nationalism can be dangerous; for one thing, it’s inherently divisive. In a world approaching a global economy, it can be a hindrance to identify terribly strongly with one particular country. We have one planet and we are literally all in this together. That’s just my opinion, though: The reason this is in the pledge is that, I imagine, the author wanted to emphasize the same idea represented in our national motto: E PLVRIBVS VNVM (lit. out of many, one). Similarly…
Indivisible: Bellamy was 10 years old when the War Between The States ended. He wrote the pledge 27 years later, but I’m sure that was still very much on his mind. This too is a Latin-based word; it’s the prefix “in” (not) + di(s) (apart) + videre (the verb “to see, to separate”). You might be wondering what the common thread is between “to see” and “to separate” such that the Romans used the same word for both concepts. I wonder that sometimes, myself. This is also the root of the English word, “widow.”
Liberty: This word also has its roots in Latin, from libertas/libertatis (freedom or liberty), the same root as Liberal. Liberty means a lot of things; I’m just going to pull straight from Merriam-Webster’s Third New International Unabridged here: “freedom from usually external restraint or compulsion : the power to do as one pleases,” “exemption from subjection to the will of another claiming ownership or services,” “freedom from arbitrary or despotic control,” “the power of choice.” By the way, if you’ve never read Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, you should think about it. And lastly…
Justice: Another Latin word, justus (upright, equitable) from jus, juris (right, as in the legal kind). Justice means being fair. This was an extremely important concept in ancient Rome, in fact among their pantheon, they worshipped a goddess of justice (Justitia, aka Lady Justice). The Romans “borrowed” her from the Greek goddess Themis. Justitia is usually depicted nowadays in paintings and statues wearing a blindfold and holding a scale and a double-edged sword (although the blindfold was a 15th-century addition). Her iconography is actually a conflation of two earlier Greek goddesses, Tyche (Lady Luck; Fortuna in Latin) and Nemesis (from νέμειν, the Greek verb meaning “to give what is due”).
I’m not big on pledges. I think it’s better to continually evaluate your stance on things. Just because you pledge something doesn’t mean it will always & forever be the more ethical or most prudent move to follow through with what you said. Situations change and circumstances change and it’s not a good idea to have your principles set in stone. For example, when I adopted my kittens from the Humane Society, I signed a statement agreeing to take good care of them, feed them and give them veterinary care, and to keep them happy & healthy & alive to the best of my ability. But one day, no doubt, they will get old, get sick, and be miserable, and euthanizing them will be the ethical thing I can do. It’s not something I like to think about particularly, but that’s just the way life is. I don’t have any fantasies about seeing them again in some sort of afterlife – don’t get me wrong, I would love if it they could live forever with me – but I am cognizant of the fact that that’s not going to happen in reality. You have to take things as they come, and evaluate your ethical obligations in light of the present circumstances. Just make sure you remember to include your previous obligations in your calculation.
Obligatory picture of said kittens, left to right: Hickory (12 months), Maddie (8 months), Taylor the Guitar (15 years this August).
I hope everyone has had a fantastic weekend, and that you got to spend some time outside with good people who care about you. I think it’s important for us to be grateful for what we have – life, liberty, and the opportunity to pursue happiness – and even though I’m something of a pacifist, I’m grateful for our veterans. Instead of praying for them, though, I’d much rather actually thank a veteran. So Joe, if you’re reading this, thank you.
Incidentally, Joe posted this on Facebook a few hours ago, and I thought it was fitting, so enjoy!
Thanks for reading, everyone. Please leave a comment with your thoughts this post in the space below. Until next time!
Dave Muscato is Vice President of MU SASHA. He is a junior at Mizzou majoring in economics & anthropology and minoring in philosophy & Latin, and posts updates to the SASHA blog every Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. His website is http://www.DaveMuscato.com.
Can’t we all just get along? Part I
Welcome to the official MU SASHA blog!
Please join our group on Facebook.
Hello everyone; Dave here. I was considering writing a book review of Guy P. Harrison’s “50 Reasons People Give For Believing in a God” for today’s post, but I haven’t quite finished digesting it yet, so I’m going to save that for my Saturday update. Today, I want to talk about something a little more topical: Why it’s important to advocate for separation of church & state. This is not a concern reserved for atheists, although in my experience it’s atheists & secular people who are the most vocal about this. It’s also not a concern reserved for Americans, and that’s really the purpose of my entry today.
Maggie wrote a great article earlier in the week about the Establishment Clause of the Constitution of the United States. In it, she called the Establishment Clause “the bane of the religious right’s existence.” By religious right, I’m sure she was referring to the Christian right; there are Muslim and other fundamentalists in this country, too. I’d venture a guess that fundamentalist Muslims in the USA, being so few in number (nota bene: PDF link), are probably grateful that the Establishment Clause exists, because if it didn’t, they would be persecuted just as much as atheists and other minority groups.
You may have heard about the proposed legislation in Uganda, Africa that would make homosexuality a capital crime. That’s right; statute was proposed by lawmakers that would make execution the penalty for homosexuality. It is already illegal to be homosexual in Uganda, but the death sentence is another matter entirely. I would like to point out that Uganda is about 0.9% atheist (2002 figures, the most recent available). The justification for this is ostensibly AIDS-related, but a careful reading of the bill makes it clear that public health is not the real reason: Aside for the crime of having homosexual sex if one is HIV-positive, the bill also extends the death penalty to “repeat offenders” of homosexual behavior in general (recall that homosexuality is illegal there, as it is in much of Africa; in other words, the death penalty would apply to people who have been convicted of having homosexual sex more than once, HIV-positive or not), and also to people who engage in homosexual behavior who are under 18 years old. There is also wording that extends these crimes, if you are a citizen of Uganda, to other lands – in other words, you can be extradited to Uganda if you have homosexual sex somewhere else, too, and then convicted and executed there. The motivations here are clearly not for the protection of Ugandans’ health, and I’m certain that it’s no coincidence that this is taking place in one of the most fundamentalist, religious countries in the entire world.
We, as peope, have bigger problems than consensual intercourse between healthy adults of the same sex. I do agree that it should be a crime to have sex without informing your partner of your diagnosis beforehand if you are HIV-positive, as a matter of public health (that is the law here in the USA), but it is no business of any government’s whether two consenting, healthy adults are the same biological sex or not. This doesn’t even count as a “victimless crime” – it’s truly no crime at all. If a government is worried about HIV transmission, it should focus on sex education, testing availability, etc. The only possible justification for this proposal is a religious one, and that is frankly bigoted and backward. We, as educated, compassionate people in the 21st century, should not tolerate this kind of thinking, let alone laws based on it.
Homosexuality isn’t the only reason church & state should be kept separate, but that’s all I have time for tonight. More to come!
Best regards,
Dave
Making the Establishment Clause Work for You!
The Establishment Clause is the bane of the religious right’s existence. This blog is going to explore why. It’s also going to explore how it can be used by religious folk. For the most part, I’m going to be re-posting facebook comments in an effort to lessen the burden of actually writing. Also, if I use the word “opinion” I’m probably referring to a judge’s explanation of a verdict.
The relevant portion of the 1st amendment, known as the Establishment Clause, states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” This has been interpreted by the Supreme Court and many (if not most) legal scholars to mean that the federal government cannot endorse any religion or irreligion. It must remain neutral. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Souter (quoting another opinion in support of his own), “…the ‘First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion…’” So while the words “separation of church and state” may not be in the Constitution, the basic idea of it certainly is. This is the reason why the National Day of Prayer, creationism in schools, and 10 commandments in courthouses are (usually) unconstitutional. I’ll explain why I added (usually) if there’s a demand.
Now, let’s explore how this can be misinterpreted by religious folk. I’m going to be actually quoting a Christian who responded to me.
Unnamed Christian: “@Maggie: “”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” This has been interpreted to mean that the federal government cannot endorse any religion or irreligion”
Who’s interpretation? Your interpretation? The key phrase in the first amendment is “shall make no law”. Hmmm, I wonder what that could mean. IT MEANS, no LAW shall be made that encroaches on a state’s exercise or non-exercise of religion. You intentionally reworded it to say that “the federal government SHALL NOT ENDORSE any religion…”, completely leaving out the key phrase of the amendment. How about you people put your own selfish agendas aside and start looking at the facts objectively. No law is being made here. Nothing is being encroached upon. The amendment simply takes as a given that states will exercise religion and declares that they may do so freely. Obamo, along with just about every president before him, in “endorsing” the national day of prayer is simply reaffirming this fact.”
I suppose that if someone just picked up the Constitution and read the 1st amendment, this viewpoint wouldn’t be absurd. But it is absurd. It’s as if someone argued that the 2nd amendment protected the right to display bear limbs and supported the assertion by using obnoxious caps and being inappropriately condescending (BEAR ARMS. HMMM.. wonder what that could mean!?). What is really funny about this though is that the National Day of Prayer is a law. 28 U.S.C. 119 if anyone’s interested.
The key word in the 1st amendment is not “law” but “establish” (hence the term Establishment Clause rather than Law Clause). As I said the current rule on this, given to us by the Supreme Court, is that “establish” means something along the lines of endorse. Justice Antonin Scalia is the strongest opponent of this interpretation. He’s very dishonest in his approach however. He is an originalist, so he seeks to find the founding fathers’ original intents in crafting the 1st amendment. He takes examples like Washington giving a Thanksgiving proclamation in which he thanks God as support for his position. He also thinks that the founding fathers thought it was okay for the federal government to endorse not just God, but the monotheistic God of the Abrahamic religions. His dissents fail to mention the damning pieces of evidence that contradict his position (IE: Jefferson’s letter characterizing the Establishment Clause as a “wall of separation of church and state”). Rather, Scalia just asserts the separationists were too inconsistent to be of any help.
So, moral of the story, the Establishment Clause was one of the more brilliant and fore-thinking pieces of law crafted by the founding fathers. I suggest anyone interested in protecting our civil rights wield it like a sword in fighting against the attempts at oppression and theocratic invasion.
