I think the first thing I thought about after hearing nonbelievers get name-checked was what PZ at pharyngula would say about it.

I’m almost hesitant to hope, for fear it will break the spell, but please let it be so.

I was watching the speech with friends and when that “and non-believers” phrase came by I did a “Yes!” in the middle of silence from those watching.  Everyone laughed, but oh man, we got acknowledged, and that feels so nice.

I was bracing for the wingnut rage at that line, too, but don’t worry, it looks like they’re going to flip out over Lowery’s benediction instead.  This might be a useful technique for the Obama Administration over the next four years for dealing with conservative media:  Just Distract Them With Something Shiny.

Well, I’m not an atheist, but I support non-believers 100% and I’m thrilled that Obama included you in his speech. And gay people. And disabled people. And every other people that we can. Here’s to four years (at least!) of inclusiveness!!

I was stunned by the non-believers line.  It was like we’re actually citizens, members of the nation, for once.

What’s to flip out over about Lowery’s speech?

Conservative bloggers (Malkin, NRO, etc) are flipping out of the “White will embrace what’s right” line.

What’s to flip out over about Lowery’s speech?

That it was more inclusive than Warren’s?  That Lowery didn’t babble about Jesus?  That Lowery isn’t a Real True Christian (i.e. megachurch member) in the first place?

Perhaps even the most hardened wingnuts will realize that Obama included non-believers in the spirit of inclusiveness

From Wingnut Daily—in a big H1 headline:

Obama: U.S. also country of Muslims, nonbelievers:
Echoes past remarks in which he said America ‘no longer a Christian nation’

So while I wish your sentiment was true, we should always remember that wingnuts will never change. Afterall, change is the antithesis of conservationism…

Obama’s included nonbelievers in similar lists before, though he’s not perfectly consistent about doing so. Still, whatever Obama’s done before this was probably the first time a President has done so (and almost certainly the first time in the modern, post-McCarthy era). So I’m pretty chuffed about it.
Someplace (TAPPED?) there was a cute line about Atheists reacting to the line by saying “Thank God!”

As a “non-believer”, I was stoked when I heard Obama say that. The jesus heads though, make no mistake, will freak the fuck out over it. Guaranteed.

Big change from the last president saying we weren’t americans.

Loved the mention of us godless people (well, us godless people willing to admit it.)  Loved the mention of sacrifice, though of course the devil will be in the details.  But if there’s anything I’m going to quibble about, it would be that damn poetry recitation that followed President Barack Hussein Obama (that’s the first time I got to write that, and it feels so good I’ll do it again: President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama.)

That poem lost its emotional impact when it was translated from the original Vulcan.  Although it was clear that the speaker was familiar with their emotionless culture and stentorian vocalizing of precise. syllables. delivered. with. great. pre. ci. sion, it needed something extra.  Maybe if the poet had worn her Starfleet uniform to deliver it.  Maybe if she had at least given a Vulcan salute and given a “Live Long and Prosper” shout out.  Or maybe I was just grumpy because I missed the beginning of President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama not George W. Bush’s address.  But whatever it was, it was a serious letdown.  I’d even go so far as to say it sucked.

Rev. Lowery made me forget it for a bit, made me think about how great it is to have President Barack Hussein Obama, and just made me damn happy to see that some progress has certainly been made.  Congratulations to all those who fought and died to help make this possible.  I thank you.

Dana,

I don’t feel excluded by the fact that President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama is a man of faith and exercises it in his life while keeping those of us without his or any faith in mind.  I am bothered by people of faith who consider atheists and those of other faiths to be less than equal because we don’t share their belief in a sky fairy.  Those people are assholes.

I watched the inauguration speech with a host of coworkers, otherwise I would have done an endzone victory dance when President Obama acknowledged “non-believers” and pledged to restore science to its rightful place in policy. When he pronounced “data” correctly (with a long A) I almost had a spontaneous nerdgasm.

Dana, I don’t feel excluded by personal expressions of faith. I feel excluded by NATIONAL expressions of faith, as I am not a Christian. Furthermore, I believe national expressions of a national faith are clearly unconstitutional, such as having Rick Warren recite the Our Father.

Dana, I’m not nuts about all the spiritual pomp and circumstance in these state ceremonies, but to directly answer your question: No, I don’t feel excluded when my president publicly practices his faith. He doesn’t have to be Exactly Like I Am In Every Way in order for me to trust him and identify with him. Atheists aren’t getting our panties twisted because we want to feel superficially included and invited to the sky fairy party. What gets us riled up is when we’re actively and deliberately excluded to remind us that we’re a minority, or when religion is shoved in our faces in state-sponsored spheres (like the Pledge of Allegiance in a public school, or the Ten Commandments in a courthouse).

Obama’s shout out today did exactly what “scary” atheists like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers have been asking for: awareness-raising. Let people know that there’s an alternative.

The shout-out to godless atheists is pretty much where I went all weepy and adoring fangirl on President Obama. I’m sure he’ll piss me off down the road, hell, he already has, but that was just awesome.

Nail + Head = Sarah TX’s comment

While I recognize that in the current political climate, “God Bless America” and similar evocations are pretty much required, I can honestly say it annoys me. Excluded? Not so much. I do feel excluded when I have to sit through a prayer in order to see my president get inaugurated. I would prefer that prayers before a meal focus more on thankfulness (which I am totally on board with) and less with God. But I deal.

Still…
...the only fair solution to the issue of religious diversity is to keep religion private and make government spaces secular.

Amanda pretty much sums up my attitude, but let’s face it, it will take more time, more effort and more visibility of non-believers in order for it to actually happen. In the meantime, I don’t hold “god speechifying” against the politicians that I support. But I am thrilled to pieces to have one of those politicians acknowledge that I exist!

Lymis: Lowery committed the unspeakable crime of saying “white” while black

He also said “black”, “brown” and “yellow”, so he is the real racist. And he didn’t address gays, so he’s the real homophobe too. And how rude of him to be so cocky and all in our faces with his blackness and principles. You cannot make this shit up

I was stunned, in a good way.  I hadn’t really understood how excluded I had felt.

I’m still convinced we will have a Latino, Asian American, female, openly gay or lesbian, or transgender president before an atheist president.

My girlfriend and I were very moved by Obama including non-believers.  We’re not atheists—we’re Wiccan, but I never feel comfortable when politicians talk about “people of faith” (although I have faith) or God (we prefer Gods) because they are *never* talking about us.  When I heard non-believers I thought about how my beliefs are often castigated by Judeo-Christians as not real, and how wrong they are.  And while he didn’t specifically include my denomination, I feel more included by this then anything the Rethuglicans have ever said about faith.

Shut the fuck up, <strike>Donny</strike> Dana.

Still, whatever Obama’s done before this was probably the first time a President has done so (and almost certainly the first time in the modern, post-McCarthy era).

That’s what stunned me: Obama not only intends to work in opposition to 8 years of unchecked neoConservatism, not only to 25+ years of Reaganism, not only to 40+ years of the vestiges of Jim Crow and the Southern Strategy, but also to the last 50 years of politicians semi-formally making acknowledgement of the Invisible Bearded Sky Man™ a pre-requisite for citizenship.

Nice to have someone who agrees with Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, and JFK (not to mention the Establisment Clause) in the White House. [links via Metafilter]

Combine this attitude with universal heathcare, and the U.S. will be one step closer to growing up and following the advice of the new ads posted on the sides of 800 London buses: “<ahref=“http://www.boingboing.net/2009/01/06/atheist-bus-ads-roll.html”>There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.</a>”

Dana, if you actually studied non-biblical history (particularly the history of the Pledge of Allegiance), you’d understand the logic of atheists like Sarah TX clearly, even regarding a generic invisible sky fairy.

If it makes Dana feel any better (not that I give a crap), I didn’t think much of it.  I’m still pissed off at the odious dominist Ricky Warren and I don’t think much of Obama’s lip service to godless heathens.  If Obama wants to curry my favor, he can start by taxing the Church.

Here’s the deal.  I’m a nice person.  I’m a good person.  I pay my taxes, I give to charity, I help out my friends when they need it.  I care about my community and I want to help make it better.  I try to treat everyone with respect and courtesy insofar as such a thing is possible.  I try to think about my choices and how they affect others around me.  I believe that the Declaration of Independence is a beautiful piece of writing. 

So it’s nice to hear the president acknowledging that hey, people like me are out there, it’s my country too, and we all—all of us—have work to do.

The blessings and such at the inauguration don’t really bother me.  If I were getting inaugurated, I’d be bothered by it, but I’m not, so whatever.  Barack Obama wants to go to church on Sunday?  Great.  I’ll be sleeping in.  Doesn’t bother me at all.  What I have a problem with is when churchgoing folk think that they get to make my personal decisions for me based on their beliefs.  Then we have an issue.

I’m still convinced we will have a Latino, Asian American, female, openly gay or lesbian, and transgender president before an atheist president.

Fixed.

I feel like a dog who’s been thrown an honest-to-God beef bone, from a real dead cow, instead of a rubber squeaky bone.

Obama really messed up the parallelism, though.  Here’s the actual quote: “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers.”  For the sake of the rhythm, the final phrase should have been “Satanists and non-believers”.

Yes, I want Obama to use the bully-pulpit of the Presidency to troll right-wing blogs.  Is that so wrong?

I was standing in the auditorium of my work (a Jewish Community Center) surrounded by parents and even board members (feasting on bagels with lox cream cheese!). When he said this gasped an audible, “Fuck, yes! Oh my god.” I couldn’t even deal with the shock of it and all I could think of was Pandagon.

When he mentioned restoring science to its proper place the 80 attendees broke out into applause.

God, I love where I live.

What do you all think about the proclamation?

What do you all think about the proclamation?

About abandoning Bush’s Lysenkoist approach to science? About putting real scientists in policy positions (and adding and restoring those positions) instead of more corporate cronies and Xtian fantasists? About the extraordinary proposition of making empiricism a priority over fairy tales in science classrooms again?

[applause]

A very good day.

Would that he had said the Pater Nostre, but he added that last line, beginning with “For Thine is the Kingdom,” that Protestants added.

Wait, no, the protestants didn’t add it: it appeared in early 6th century papyri and then found its way into the Textus Receptus.

In any case, Dana, take a look at your prayer book: is there a section where it says, “Service for the Inauguration of the President of the United States” ? No? Then why the heck are these things (even the “We Are One” concert!) opening and closing with a benediction? Look, I’m actually pretty cool with countries that have a state church. Coronation for the English Monarch? Go crazy! Have the Archbishop of Canterbury out there in full regalia leading the service! Sweden has a new Prime Minister? Have the Lutheran hierarch come in and bless the ceremony! I think this is all wonderful.

But in America we don’t have a state church. If the President wants to have his own personal pastor bless him or what have you, I think that’s fine. If there’s some pastor who the president feels would give a great insightful sermon on such a special day, I think that’s cool, too. But we’re turning everyday government events into religious ceremonies with their blessings and invocations and ceremonies, and it’s starting to seem awkward and out of place and doesn’t make a whole heckuva lot of sense.

“I’m still convinced we will have a Latino, Asian American, female, openly gay or lesbian, or transgender president before an atheist president. “

We can only hope.

From the Senate’s own website comes the following:

Throughout the years, the United States Senate has honored the historic separation of Church and State, but not the separation of God and State.

OK, dipshit, that’s from the Senate chaplain’s website. Not the actual Senate website itself, as you take great pain to claim.

An objective observer just might come to the conclusion that you’re being intentionally misleading.

This, I think, is where your logic fails. The First Amendment prohibits the setting up of an official state church, and the Constitution forbids the imposition of any legal religious test to hold public office. But there is no prohibition in elected officials, whether in the formal performance of their duties or otherwise, from expressing religious beliefs.

Once again, Dana, you’ve missed the point by such a long way that the light from the point will take ten thousand years to reach your location.

You know, what I find so interesting about your mercilessly incessant comments here, Dana, is that even after as long as you’ve been commenting here, I still can’t decide if you’re pathologically dishonest or just profoundly stupid.

Yeah, that was a sweet surprise in a <s>sermon</s>, I mean an inaugural speech otherwise peppered with religious references.

Remember, Dan, this is a both/and blog.

We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers.

Yea, I heard that too. It is nice to be acknowledged and to be recognized as valued members of this society.

Thank you Mr. President!

Jon, people who use the phrase “sky fairy” are also assholes.

The existence and acknowledgment of people like me was nice.  I have to say, though, it made his references to God all that more grating.  Not necessarily quoting the Bible—there is some good stuff in there—but just throw away lines something like “and with God’s grace we’ll…” 

Sure, we got a bone, and it’s nice after the last 8 years, but then it’s back to the same old bow and scrape before the Christians, specifically the loud-mouthed, closed-minded, theocracy-bent variety.  It will be nice, in another couple millennium, if a government-sponsored event could not include prayers, invocations, benedictions, or all that other stuff that’s state-sponsored religion just fuzzed up and “inclusive,” if one happens to believe in a “Judeo-Christian” type of religion.

I am glad I can rant about it here.  I’ll be talking about the inauguration with my folks tomorrow, and it’s one area where we never will see quite eye-to-eye.

And back to the “Oh you can’t serve on a jury! Atheists don’t have any sense of right and wrong!” It’s nice to get a mention, but.

Hmm. Does that mean the M’Naghten rules apply? C’mere, I got some knives I wanna introduce you to…

That was great for President Obama to declare atheists (like me) as people to be included instead of an enemy to be overcome.  I think Amanda is right to say that this is due to atheists speaking out.  Recognition isn’t gained by quietly accepting the status quo.

Kurt Warner already done used up all the Jesus, there’s none left for the rest of us.

Jon, people who use the phrase “sky fairy” are also assholes.

That’s right Jon, you’re excluding Earth Nymphists.

SarahS

as a fellow paga (even if of a slightly different flavor - think of me as perhaps the Russian Orthodox to your Roman Catholic) i agree! i can’t even count the number of times i have been told that my faith isn’t real, or that i am just saying that i am pagan to be cool, or that i am devil-worshipper, or etc. i am positive you know the list as well as i do.

maybe next century we can be explicitly included!

Amanda: You REALLY need to read up on the Kennedy Assassination.

Am I an asshole because I don’t capitalized “sky fairy” too?  I think an all-powerful imaginary pixie can handle those issues.  Of course, he might send goblins to take my children and replace them with changelings if I’m not careful.  Or get pissed off if I don’t leave him some milk.  Then he might even cause my lawn to wither and die.  If that happens, I should throw my children into a volcano or cut them up like sheep.  And I doubt they’d make the good smells, since I didn’t sprinkle them with magic liquid or cut off the ends of their penises, in which case I might get told their smell is unpleasing.  But at that time, I’d probably be arrested for wearing a loincloth of kid leather and be declared insane even by the people who believe in this kind of crap.

Sky faerie people: fuck off!

I was actually gratified when Obama said that. I guess it really does feel good to have one’s existence publicly acknowledged in that way. As far as blowback from religious conservatives goes, it will be interesting to see whether that materializes, and if so what form it may take.

So you’re just going to pretend like nobody busted you for trying to pass off the Senate Chaplain’s website as the Official Senate Website, Dana?

Ah, never mind - I see you posted your (inadequate) response while I was typing my question.

Dana, you really do put forth that website as proof that the Senate’s chaplain gets to decide the Constitutional question of the separation of church and state?  Really?

Not only are you a tool, but you make the rubber mallets look sharp.

Also, Dana, it was Andrew who implied that I was an asshole.  Your reading comprehension skills have already been noted.  I second the suggestion that you improve them.

Thanks for clarifying, Dana.  You’ve definitely proved something.  Not what you wanted to prove, but something.

I’d say that they were there because President Obama wanted them there.

Hm. I find it difficult to believe that close to 43 different people wanted almost the exact same thing almost 56 times in a row. More likely, there’s some kind of tradition no one has really bothered to explain to us or justify and one that is starting to seem progressively more awkward as time goes on as presidents try more and more to shoehorn their preferences into a pattern that no longer fits.

Your sophistry not withstanding, Dana, you knew that already.

“Hey, I can’t be the only person who had a “holy shit” moment when Obama recognized non-believers in his inaugural speech.”

I was shocked.  Absolutely shocked. In a sublime and wonderful way. 

+++

“people who use the phrase “sky fairy” are also assholes. “

  Your beliefs are not sacred. your brand of mythology is not off limits, not above criticism and not untouchable.  Deal.  We won’t be silent.

What’s the name of the really sad solo violin music that plays whenever an orphan girl is left out in the rain during a silent movie? Because I just heard it in my head after reading the last few comments.

More Dana “logic” for y’all: the Senate dining room (another amenity, just like limos, the gym, etc) serves Bean Soup every day; therefore the government implicity allows American restaurants to insist that Bean Soup be served and paid for with every meal.

Not Gypsy, the one before her.

“Yet it sometimes seems as though those who preach tolerance and diversity are the least tolerant of all”

See, e.g., evangelical megachurches, the Catholic Church hierarchy, etc, etc, etc. Once they and you stop trying to push your obvious hatred of gays and feminists we’ll take your self pity more seriously.

“Hey, most of you voted for Barack Obama, knowing full well that he claimed to be a Christian.  Why are you so offended when it turns out that he really might be one? “

Where did anyone say they were offended by his being religious? 

Do you need picture diagrams to get dressed in the morning?

I’m reminded of an old Bloom County strip. Hodge-Podge the Rabbit has just given the Meadow Party invocation, explicitly only blessing “the long-eared folk.” Portnoy, the groundhog, complains because he has short ears. Opus breaks in with “Excuse me, I don’t have any ears at all.” They both point out and tell Opus, “You wait in the hall.”

That said, it wouldn’t have killed him to keep the parallel running: “Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, those of other faiths and non-believers.” Because there are many of us who have faith and are not of the Abrahamic stripe nor Hindu.

As for the sky-fairy bickering…I just smile and think of Frey, taking it very literally. (His priests were cross-dressers who had receptive sex with men.)

I really wasn’t expecting Obama to do the ceremony in a strictly secular manner. What made me feel good was that he explicitly mentioned the “non-believers” as an important group. If he had said, “the godless” that would have been teh roxxor, but ya can’t have everything.

“if you don’t particularly bel;ieve in God, you want to enforce on everyone absolute silence on their possible belief in God.  That is what you wish the government to enforce here. “

*lol*  Ahhh, the “poor persecuted Christians” fallacy.  I love it.  There’s no better proof of your entirely empty arsenal.

My girlfriend and I were very moved by Obama including non-believers.  We’re not atheists—we’re Wiccan, but I never feel comfortable when politicians talk about “people of faith” (although I have faith) or God (we prefer Gods) because they are *never* talking about us.  When I heard non-believers I thought about how my beliefs are often castigated by Judeo-Christians as not real, and how wrong they are.  And while he didn’t specifically include my denomination, I feel more included by this then anything the Rethuglicans have ever said about faith.

Quoted for truth.

if you don’t particularly bel;ieve in God, you want to enforce on everyone absolute silence on their possible belief in God.

Dana

I don’t think that’s really what factcheck is advocating. I think the goal is not an enforced silence on expressions of belief in God, as if that would even fly in the USA. I think the goal is a stronger separation between church and state. Silence about God from the government, in other words.

“Silence about God from the government, in other words. “

Anyone with basic reading comprehension skills knows this.  Dana, otoh . . .

Meh. Too the extent that such things mean anything, it’s a nice gesture, but hearing about it doesn’t really give me a warm feeling inside. (I’m more moved by thrown shoes and jeered Bushes) If I cared what the president thought of me, I probably wouldn’t be an atheist.

To all those who are offended by the phrase “sky fairy”:

This is why you should work toward tolerance and respect for members of every religion* instead of just getting butthurt when someone says something unflattering about your own. If people who literally believe in fairies as part of their religion (e.g., many Pagans) were accorded the same automatic acknowledgement and respect that Christians feel entitled to in our society, then phrases like “sky fairy” would lose their power to ridicule. But as SarahS points out, Christians more often treat their Pagan neighbors as fringe wackos, non-serious about their religion, or even outright evil.

*Barring those that do demonstrable harm, such as the FLDS.

Dana, you’re not going to convince me that these supposed necessities of invocations and benedictions at non-religious ceremonies is anything other than awkward. I don’t understand it at graduations at non-religious universities, either. It just seems out of place, regardless of whether you’re a believer or not. I’m not even sure who the constituency favoring them is.

To all those who are offended by the phrase “sky fairy”: [etc]

1) Phrases like “sky fairy” strike me as just lashing out.
2) I don’t buy the idea that offense is in the eye of the beholder and that religious folks should just get over it, any more than I buy the idea that it’s OK to use racial/sexual slurs and insist that people should just get over it.
3) It’s offensive because it’s a comparison of something people believe is true and accurate to something that nobody believes is true and accurate (fairy tales). I doubt a phrase like “the 20th-century Zeus” would have the same sting. It’s also meta-offensive because the intent of someone who uses a phrase like this is to hurt and provoke (and then insist ).
4) I can’t think of any cases where provoking people with verbal slurs advanced human compassion and dignity or any other social good that I’d ascribe to as a liberal.
5) As a non-believer I’m offended by sky-fairy for the same reason I’m offended by, say, an sp-word that rhymes with trick. It’s a slur, it’s intended to be a slur, and it’s directed at people that in some sense you feel ought not to exist.

I just set that image as my new desktop background.

If people who literally believe in fairies as part of their religion (e.g., many Pagans)

I’d meant to mention that referring to goddesses as sky fairies probably isn’t especially kind to pagans either.

Hellboy II was a documentary, and it was filmed in real-time.

Actually, I think Dana had at least one point… Obama can make his ceremony as religious or nonreligious as he wants, really.

Dana,

I’m forced to agree with Amanda and the others that reading comprehension and parsing of subtle ideas isn’t your strength. Either that or you’re being willfully dense. Incompetence or malice: the eternal question asked about modern conservatives.

Let me make it easier and give you the direct parallel of your “logic”, which I was mocking:

The Senate chaplain (another amenity, just like limos, the gym, etc) serves up a prayer at the start of every session; therefore the government implicitly allows certain American public schools to insist that a mandatory prayer be served up at the beginning of every school day.

No one cares if you believe in God. Tyro exclude, many of us don’t even care about archaic ceremonial traditions like the Senate chaplain. We do care when religious fanatics like yourself use those ceremonial traditions to justify undermining the constitutional separation between church and state.

Well, scratch that statement.

What I meant was, it doesn’t surprise me that Obama used religion in the ceremony as he is always trying to include as many people as possible in his coalition.  I dunno… realpolitik

Why is it that you (plural) think that Christians and other religious people shouldn’t be offended by the existence of non-believers—and I’m not offended by that at all—but that you (plural) should take offense at the acknowledgement that people of faith exist?

I’m not offended by the acknowledgment that people of faith exist.  I’m not even offended by Obama’s speech, though I did find his constant references to God to be jarring, after such explicit recognition that not everyone believes in the same god(s) or believes at all.

I am offended that at an ostensibly secular, government event, every damn thing was bracketed by prayers, benedictions, invocations, and other religious trappings.  Government events, whether public high school graduations or Senate sessions or inaugurations, should be secular.  If individuals want to pray, fine.  If individuals make a point of their personal beliefs in speeches, whatever (though I’ll admit, I’ll probably squirm or roll my eyes).  But the government should not be in the business of sort-of officially endorsing religion by inviting people to give specifically religious talks/prayers/etc. at government events.

This is why I use the term “Invisible Bearded Sky Man™”—he comes in a variety of Abrahamic flavours, but it’s basically some childish variation on wrathful and capricious Zeus. I also like “Invisible Giant Sky Daddy” and “Supernatural Bronze Age Psychopath.” Mix ‘n match as you like—as long as you emphasise “imaginary” and “patriarchal” and “arbitrarily bullying,” you get the essence of the object of Xtian fantasists’ (and Jewish fantasists’, and Islamic fantasists’) worship. The blonde-haired, blue-eyed, money-loving, arse-kicking Jeebus of the evangelicals also falls nicely into this category.

And yeah, literal belief in all this tribal-age superstition would be harmless and not worthy of comment or mockery, except for the various Talibans’ classification of GLBT people, women and atheists as deserving of second-class citizenship. Which is why Americans on this site get pushy about preserving the Establishment Clause against constant onslaughts from theocrats and Dominionists.

And yet, you are still of no consequence, Amanda.

“This is why I use the term ‘Invisible Bearded Sky Man™’”

“This” being “because I, Gracchus, am a pretentious f’ing moron.” Yes, I concur. Have you become head movie usher yet? (If so, can you put in a good word for Amanda?)

dds, I am Neopagan myself. Although as an agnostic I don’t actively “believe” in gods, goddesses, or fairies, many Pagans do believe in all three. Thus if Paganism were accorded respect equal to that accorded to Christianity, belief in fairies would be considered just as respectable as belief in God, and the snarky atheists would have to come up with a new phrase with which to mock all the religious together. I am not defending the use of “sky fairy” to mock Christians (I think it’s pointlessly rude, and probably counterproductive), but pointing out to Christians that it’s in their interest to embrace and support Pagans rather than shunting them to the lunatic fringe. It’s an aspect of the American interfaith clusterfuck that isn’t often pointed out.

“To all those who are offended by the phrase ‘sky fairy’”

I am not offended because use of it is a sure sign of a noxious mediocrity and I am not offended by noxious mediocrities. Amanda, who popularized the phrase (here, at least), is a dimbulb hillbilly, and it shows. Without a full, frontal lobotomy, I could never join in her “thinking,” so I leave it to her and those who are similarly low rent, trifling, and lacking in native intelligence.

“I am not defending the use of “sky fairy” to mock Christians (I think it’s pointlessly rude, and probably counterproductive), but pointing out to Christians that it’s in their interest to embrace and support Pagans rather than shunting them to the lunatic fringe.”

I have seen Quakers and UCC congregationalists working alongside pagans, Wiccans, and atheists on progressive community causes, discussing their beliefs or non-beliefs in positive ways. There are devout Christians who see that embracing others is in their interest, but you’re not going to find them in the evangelical Protestant sects or the conservative Roman Catholic Church. Those “Christians” are more about exclusion, the Patriarchy, and their own angry version of identity politics than they are about the gospel of peace.

O-T, is someone farting up a storm in here or what?

DDS, comparing racial slurs with insults directed towards people who believe fairy tales are not comparable.  The color of your skin or your sexual orientation or your gender or sex are things that you ARE, that you cannot and should not change about yourself that are perfectly, fundamentally non-harmful descriptions of yourself.

Believing in mythology is an active, clear-cut choice made by unethical, immoral people who need threats and promises to convince them to not to hurt a select group of people while leaving other groups of people to the violence and hate that their brand of mythology advocates for.  I’m going to insult these people in the exact same way I insult every other type of idiot who refuses to read a book and think for themselves and figure out their own sense of right and wrong.  Believing in a god is nothing to be proud of and is certainly not worthy of any kind of respect from people who have grown up beyond such fanciful stories.

Rachel II, in this country, we consider the personal religious beliefs of others to be as worthy of protection from prejudice and slurs as someone’s race, ethnic background, and sexual orientation. Yes, you can argue vehemently that, “They’re Not The Same!” but a brief look at 16th-19th century Europe has shown us that such attitudes as yours, no matter how justified you think they are, tend to be as much or more destructive than prejudices which you happen to disapprove of.

Rachel II,

Wow, you are powerful dumb! Are you trying to wrest the laurel wreath of stupidity away from Amanda?

Which low tier institution did you attend and what worthless degree did you earn from it?

“comparing racial slurs with insults directed towards people who believe fairy tales are not comparable.  The color of your skin or your sexual orientation or your gender or sex are things that you ARE, that you cannot and should not change about yourself that are perfectly, fundamentally non-harmful descriptions of yourself. “

THANK YOU.

Personally, i couldn’t care less what someone believes in, inasmuch as they don’t try to legislate it or use it for harm.  However, frankly, “sky fairy” pales in comparison to the shit theists say about us and believe about us.  Not to mention the fact that, in far too many conversations between atheists and believers the most common theme is “atheists shut-up!”.

Those “Christians” are more about exclusion, the Patriarchy, and their own angry version of identity politics than they are about the gospel of peace.

Those Christians are also the most likely to suffer from fits of apoplexy when someone calls their deity a “sky fairy.” I’ve no issue at all with the other sort.

Oh, and Rachel II? You could stand to pick up a book yourself and learn more about the breadth of religious beliefs and practices before you go tarring all non-atheists with the same fundamentalist brush. Plenty of religious people do think for themselves and do have their own sense of right and wrong. These people typically join a religious community that sits well with their conscience, rather than twisting their conscience to match a dodgy community. The Quakers and UCCs mentioned by Factcheck are an excellent case in point.

More on-topic: I thought it was both classy and realistic of Obama to include non-believers in his speech. But what I really look forward to is a speech where no one’s religion has to be specifically mentioned at all, because we all take for granted that it doesn’t matter what anyone believes as long as we all work together without prejudice to build a country worth having.

“Not to mention the fact that, in far too many conversations between atheists and believers the most common theme is ‘atheists shut-up!’.”

That’s for your benefit. People who are lacking in native intelligence, as is clearly the case with you and the other atheists here, should remain silent.

“ut a brief look at 16th-19th century Europe has shown us that such attitudes as yours, no matter how justified you think they are, tend to be as much or more destructive than prejudices which you happen to disapprove of. “

Feminists should know this fallacy well.

“Oh, and Rachel II? You could stand to pick up a book yourself…”

There is only one (non-coloring) book on her shelf, i.e., Dawkins’ God Delusion[sic].

“Plenty of religious people do think for themselves and do have their own sense of right and wrong.”

With ya there - regardless of what one’s personal feelings may be about religion, it’s not fair to summarily dismiss all people in that category.  Neither would I want to be lumped in the same category as that Hitchens loser.

Gallo-Roman, you’re the one who needs to shut up. Atheists are not stupid—in fact, I’m willing to bet they skew more intelligent than the general population, simply because they are in the minority, and thus most of them will have come to the atheist position as a result of independent thought rather than simply following their family. If you take issue with something an atheist person says about religion or religious people, address it on its own merits rather than just defaulting to “Nyah! You’re stupid!”, which makes you look worse than the person you are arguing with.

“Gallo-Roman, you’re the one who needs to shut up. Atheists are not stupid…”

The atheists here are. Others may or may not be.

Folks, ignore it.

“Folks, ignore it.”

Yeah. Pretend I am, say, a sociologist instead of a real scientist-scholar. That should make it easier.

Sorry, MAJeff. I was worried that it might bite someone and was trying to see if I could scare it away.

Rachel II,

Like you, I’m not a believer in magic and the supernatural. But you’ll find many ethical and moral people do use a framework of myth and religion to support and channel their goodwill. Not recognizing that fact, and Tyro’s comment too, is as foolish and self defeating as letting an angry and attention starved little man bait you into a pissing contest (to use a random example).

Karalora -  he’s a troll, desperate for Amanda’s attention any way he can get it.  He’ll say any useless, vapid thing to get attention.

“and Tyro’s comment too,”

As I said, feminists should know the “shut up or you’re worse than your enemies” thing pretty well.  The criticism against painting all theists with the same brush is a sound one.  Tyro’s comment, not so much. I don’t think playing the “who’s got more blood on their hands” game benefits anyone.

As I said, feminists should know the “shut up or you’re worse than your enemies” thing pretty well.

I was trying to figure out what you were saying.

What I was pointing out was that religious prejudice pretty much has awful consequences, and that’s why it’s not acceptable and that’s why we regard religious belief as having the same protection as race, sexual orientation, and ethnic identity (and even ethnic identity is, in many ways, chosen).

Oh for sure, there are people who believe in mythology who are still “good” people and shouldn’t be called immoral just as there are “bad” atheists who insist on saying that women are second-class citizens.  I usually consider those people bad christians, though, since they do end up having a better sense for right and wrong than most of their peers.

Plus, that doesn’t change the fact that Quakers and Unitarians and whatever else still believe that myths are fact* and that believing such a thing is flat out incorrect and should not be coddled, exactly like atheists who want to outlaw abortion should not be coddled.

*Maybe?  I’ll be honest, I really don’t give a shit about any brand of Christer, including Quakers/Unitarians so maybe they’ve evolved beyond Jesus tales and simply use the stories as learning tools, but whatever.

“I was trying to figure out what you were saying.”

My fault.  Apologies.

“What I was pointing out was that religious prejudice pretty much has awful consequences, and that’s why it’s not acceptable and that’s why we regard religious belief as having the same protection as race, sexual orientation, and ethnic identity (and even ethnic identity is, in many ways, chosen).”

Just so I’m clear, I’m not suggesting there should be laws (or whatever) against religion.  I’m not saying the religious should be persecuted.  I’m saying they don’t have the right to silence others. And all too often, that’s what they are demanding.  Don’t questions faith, don’t criticism faith, etc.  For me, reading your comment immediately brought to mind all the times feminists have been told to play nice, be quiet.  While there can be no denying that a phrase like “sky fairy” is offensive to some, it’s accurate to the way an atheist views deities.  What is an “acceptable” way to say that, that isn’t going to offend?  I doubt there is one.  So, we’re back to “atheists, shut up!”.

Thanks for the excellent post. I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised that President Obama had enough courage to acknowledge the obvious, that there are millions of atheists and agnostics who are patriotic Americans who raise their families, go to work, and obey the law. Perhaps it is because it is difficult to begin a movement focused on what people do NOT believe. I think the fact that many of us have “come out” in recent years is directly related to the “in your face” style of Christianity practiced by the Falwells, Robertsons and Dobsons of the world. Of course, the fact that we had a president who thought God talked to him for the past eight years, may have served to bring some Americans to the conclusion that if God was talking to Bush, He certainly isn’t all-merciful or all-powerful.

Gypsy Lee, it’s not appropriate for me to run around telling Mormons that Joseph Smith is a fraud or the Mohammed didn’t really get the Koran dictated to him by an angel and make stupid statements like mocking Allah as their “moon god” (which is a stupid thing to say for any number of other reasons, anyway).

I wasn’t telling atheists to “shut up,” only that anti-religious prejudice is, in our culture, regarded as just as offensive as racism. I’m not sure some 17th-century “if those Catholics/Protestants didn’t want to get killed/lose their land/lose their job, they shouldn’t have chosen that religion!” is a particularly acceptable line of reasoning.

For me, reading your comment immediately brought to mind all the times feminists have been told to play nice, be quiet.

Well, that wasn’t what I was getting at. Atheists don’t have to play quiet. They just have to adhere to a value system which finds racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious prejudice to be unacceptable.

Gypsy, you’re right—for a great many theists (Christians are the most noxious about it in my personal experience, but only because they’re the most common where I live) the fact that atheists exist is inherently offensive.  We’re supposed to stay quiet about our lack of belief to avoid offending them, but they accord us no such courtesy themselves.  Like the nurse the other day who could not utter a sentence without mentioning her close personal relationship with Jesus Christ.  It was a truly staggering display of privilege.

Like the nurse the other day who could not utter a sentence without mentioning her close personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

These people are guilted by their churches into believing that they’re not “real Christians” and not “practicing their faith” unless they’re “witnessing” to everyone else, constantly. My reaction is more pity than offense. They have to deal with all of their religious leaders not asking, “Are you being a good nurse and a good healer?” but, “Are you using your job as a nurse to tell people about Christianity?”

“it’s not appropriate for me to run around telling “

I’m sure it’s not so hard to tell the crop circle/elvis is alive/martians impregnated my sister people it’s all garbage.  But if you think that religion is nonsense - shut up! It’s special and untouchable.

“I wasn’t telling atheists to “shut up,”

Its implicit.  if speaking our mind about religion is tantamount to religious persecution (i.e. your Catholics/Protestants” example) and makes us just as bad as bigots, what else could it mean?

“only that anti-religious prejudice is, in our culture, regarded as just as offensive as racism.”

And this is what I have trouble understanding, to a degree.  If someone says something anti-crop circle is that prejudice too?

“They just have to adhere to a value system which finds racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious prejudice to be unacceptable.”

Out of curiosity,do theists “have” to adhere to a value system that finds anti-atheist prejudice unacceptable, when their very holy books, holy men, etc. say otherwise? This sounds like special pleading to me.

Rachel II,

You’ve already demonstrated your limited cognitive ability; there is no need to continue beating a busted piñata.

“Believing in mythology[sic] is an active, clear-cut choice made by unethical, immoral people…”

“Oh for sure, there are people who believe in mythology[sic] who are still ‘good’ people and shouldn’t be called immoral…”

You are fundamentally stupid and mediocre. Please post a pic so I can confirm my suspicion that you are also fugly.

And this is what I have trouble understanding, to a degree.

It’s a civil pact that we, as a western government have decided to make with ourselves. It is an Enlightenment-era value system based on the bad experience in history we have with the consequences of religious prejudices.

do theists “have” to adhere to a value system that finds anti-atheist prejudice unacceptable

Not as a theist, no, but as an American, I do.

“the fact that atheists exist is inherently offensive.”

Which is why I asked the question (that wasn’t answered).  is there a way for atheists to speak about religion and their lack of belief in it that doesn’t offend the religious?

nope.  So it always, always, always comes back to “atheists, shut up!”. 

And, you’re right.  If we don’t remain silent, apparently, we’re like the Catholics that displaced and murdered Protestants.  We’re just that powerful, I guess.

Atheists don’t have to be quiet, but they—like everyone else—do have to play nice. Granted, many of the religious aren’t playing nice, but that doesn’t make it cool to take it out on those of us who are.

Gypsy, just because you really do think the Christian God is a sky-fairy and Christians are delusional doesn’t mean that it’s okay to say so in so many words. Why? Because it’s rude. It shuts down communication. Once you have ridiculed a person and/or their beliefs up front, there’s no way to have an honest dialogue. It will automatically be tinged with hostility. Conservative religious people aren’t generally interested in an honest dialogue anyway, but liberal religious people very often are…until we discover that no matter how reasonable and cooperative we are, the atheists we are trying to engage with will consider us stupid and deluded until and unless we agree with them.

kaninchen mentions Christians who are offended by the very existence of atheists; Rachel II seems to be the sort of atheist who is offended by the very existence of religious people. From the point of view of an agnostic who appreciates the beauty and poetic metaphor of Pagan myth and ritual, there is very little difference between the two.

“Not as a theist, no, but as an American, I do. “

How very convenient.  *I* have to be careful not to be prejudicial to the religious, but it’s not a two way street.  Sounds completely logical and fair.

For those that aren’t American?

Gypsy, if you can’t think of a way to avow your disbelief without using blatantly insulting language, I’m not sure there’s anything I can do to help you. I’ve been taught since I was small how to disagree politely with people, even when they were trying to pick a fight.

“but that doesn’t make it cool to take it out on those of us who are. “

This confuses me. how am I taking it out on you?

“just because you really do think the Christian God is a sky-fairy and Christians are delusional doesn’t mean that it’s okay to say so in so many words. Why? Because it’s rude.”

For the record, I never said the religious are delusional. 

And, it’s rude to subject everyone to three months of all that truly terrible xmas music.  but, that’s okay.  The religious are special first class citizens. 

“but liberal religious people very often are…until we discover that no matter how reasonable and cooperative we are, the atheists we are trying to engage with will consider us stupid and deluded until and unless we agree with them”

No, they’re really not.  They’re fine with us as long as we don’t say what we think.  not the same thing.

Like I said, feminists have heard this “play nice” thing millions of times before.  When has being nice and silent worked?

“if you can’t think of a way to avow your disbelief without using blatantly insulting language, I’m not sure there’s anything I can do to help you.”

That’s a nice twisting of what I said.  Blame it all on me.  It’s all my fault.

Well, we do obviously control all of popular culture.  Otherwise it wouldn’t be so terribly offensive.  The thing about thanking god at award ceremonies and after sporting events?  Smokescreen.  It’s all a massively succesful conspiracy.

Karalora, I have had people tell me to my face that I am evil for not believing as they do.  Not mistaken, but evil.  That there is scant difference between my disbelief and roasting and eating infants for breakfast.  I find that rather offensive.  Your suggestion that I should play nice does not exactly fall on sympathetic ears.

Gypsy Lee, perhaps my statement wasn’t clear: religious tolerance and a disdain for prejudice based on religion is not necessarily based on my or anyone else’s religious beliefs. It is an obligation I have as an American who adheres to a western value system.

For those who aren’t Americans and reject the enlightenment-era values which we have all agreed upon in order to get along with each other? Well, I think our methods of ensuring religious freedom and rejecting prejudice on the basis of religion is a great way to live one’s civic life, but if another country/culture adheres to some other value system that preserves the human rights and opportunities of those whichever religious belief (or non-belief) system they choose, then I’m not one to shove ours down their throat.

I’ve heard plenty of people argue that the Enlightenment-era attitude towards the freedom of people to keep whichever religious beliefs they want and than anti-religion (or anti-non-religion) attitudes are as offensive as racism and racial prejudice is wrong, and some people might not like that system, but it’s our system.

You may as well argue that it’s acceptable to be prejudiced against families that choose to speak another language (like, say, German) at home. Because, hey, those people are choosing to do that instead of speaking English, right? But this is another form of ethnic prejudice which is as distasteful as religious prejudice.

What “dialogue” are we expected to have with believers?  I fundamentally don’t give a shit what you guys believe.  I don’t care why you believe it, I don’t care what good it does you to believe it, it’s about as boring to me as listening to someone talk about how great of a tv show Lost is.  I do not care.  That you apparently do says more about your disturbing need to witness than it does about me judging you for being silly-brained.

Sure, it’s one thing to have a discussion with a friend over beer, but so what?  Those discussions usually only happen if you already like each other for different reasons.

“Your suggestion that I should play nice does not exactly fall on sympathetic ears. “

There still hasn’t been an honest answer on how we *can* play nice, when, no matter what we say, we’re prejudiced meanies.

So, all together now - atheists, shut up!

There still hasn’t been an honest answer on how we *can* play nice

You know how you don’t go around ranting about how awful it is regarding the language and habits and beliefs that other ethnic groups and races have, but are nevertheless able to appreciate such people you encounter and respect them for who they are and not consider them an ethnic/racial rival/threat? Like that. Welcome to western democracy.

I like “sky fairy”.  It’s concise.

If I were trying to convince a theist that there is no god, and thus had a persuasive goal for the conversation, my rhetoric would be more nuanced and sensitive.  I probably wouldn’t use the term. 

But I don’t generally spend my time trying to convince theists that they’re delusional.

I’m much more concerned with piping up that I, an atheist, am out there, that I vote, and that I care so much about separation of church and state that I will criticize even elected leaders whom I greatly respect, for using legislation (non-binding or otherwise) to pander to the religious.

Political theater (i.e. speeches) are less important to me, because they have no force of law.  It’s just grandstanding, though I also had a five second WOW! moment.  But at the end of the day, Obama can say “non-believers” in 100 out of 100 speeches; if he still supports an office of faith based initiatives, I’ll lump him in with the other crazy liberal religio-nuts who think giving millions of dollars almost exclusively to established Christian churches and hoping they spend it well probably doesn’t make for good public policy.

I’m actually kind of confused by Dana’s point.  Atheists live in a world where theism is the *norm*.  We acknowledge theists and theism every day.  Just by self-identifying as an atheist, you’re acknowledging that belief in deities is the human paradigm.  Sam Harris actually talks about this.  Recall the “we don’t have a word for non-hairdressers or non-astrologers . . . ” line of argument. 

I’m not offended by belief in a god or gods; I just think it’s ridiculous.  What I’m offended by are the things people do and say in the name of their god(s) when those words and actions are meant to curttail the rights of people who do NOT believe as they do.

“What “dialogue” are we expected to have with believers?”

None is what they seem to prefer.

++

Tyro - again, just so I’m clear.  i’m not arguing against Enlightenment era attitudes. I just find it tremendously hypocritical that they apply to atheists but not the religious, unless they happen to be left-leaning.

Gypsy Lee, it does make sense that atheists need to just not talk in order to be polite/nice. 

A Catholic and a Protestant can have a politte conversation about whether or not the Pope can be infallible and the proof is because god meant x or y when he really said z.  They are still agreeing about the z part.  A Catholic inherently can’t have the conversation with the atheist because the atheist says that z was never said.  The atheist is more or less telling the Catholic that arguing over what z means is worth as much intellectual energy as discussing whether or not Santa’s suit gets dirty when he falls down chimneys.

I mostly go through life not saying a word when people mention god or whatever else.  If someone asks me what I think the true meaning about z is, I’ll be politely honest, but dragging me into a conversation means talking to someone who places them at a lower intellectual rung.

“Like that.”

*taps mic* Is this thing on?

The mere existence of atheists is offensive.  Every time we open our mouths, the religious are offended.  No matter 8what* we say or *how* we say it.  There is no way around it.  The rules are set up against us, and you’re (collectively) blaming us for it.

I’ll answer the question for you - THERE IS NO WAY.  So, we’ve come full circle an 8 millionth time.  Atheists, shut up!

When people get offended by the fact that atheists criticize religion, they’re ignoring the power dynamic that goes on. As atheists, we can’t hurt you in any meaningful way. Sure, we can hurt your fee-fees. But so what? Cry me a fucking river. As Christians in America, you can hurt us in any number of meaningful ways. You can fire us. You can beat the shit out of us. You can drive us out of town. Christians have done a lot of really terrible things to atheists. I’m not going to pretend that it’s in any way comparable to the shit that happens to other minority groups, but it does happen. And you’re complaining that we use words that hurt your feelings? Shut the fuck up.

Gypsy Lee:

“This confuses me. how am I taking it out on you?”

You’re not. That was directed more at people like Rachel II.

“For the record, I never said the religious are delusional.”

See above. And I just realized I’m coming close to doing the same thing wrong, lumping people together who don’t all behave the same way. Please forgive me.

“And, it’s rude to subject everyone to three months of all that truly terrible xmas music.  but, that’s okay.  The religious are special first class citizens.”

I’m pretty sure that has more to do with commercialism than religion. IMO, most of the truly godawful (pun intended) Christmas music is secular, not religious. But anything starts to sound terrible with too much repetition, and I think all intelligent people can agree that too much repetition is exactly what we are all subjected to from October through December.

“No, they’re really not.  They’re fine with us as long as we don’t say what we think.  not the same thing.”

I’ve never met a liberal theist who was uncomfortable with the very existence of atheists. Uncomfortable with the vitriolic language some of them use to avow their atheism, yes.

“Like I said, feminists have heard this “play nice” thing millions of times before.  When has being nice and silent worked?”

All I ask for is politeness and decency from all participants. And I’m not trying to define these words in such a way that makes me and my practices untouchable.

“That’s a nice twisting of what I said.  Blame it all on me.  It’s all my fault.”

That wasn’t what I meant, and I’m sorry if it came across that way. I guess I’ll just have to use the phrasing that’s been used on this blog many a time, and say: if you don’t recognize yourself in what I’m saying, then it’s not about you, and you can relax. If you don’t call religious people deluded, terrific, I’m sure you and I could have a lovely time talking about religion, philosophy, ethics, or any of a number of other things.

kaninchen:

“Karalora, I have had people tell me to my face that I am evil for not believing as they do.  Not mistaken, but evil.  That there is scant difference between my disbelief and roasting and eating infants for breakfast.  I find that rather offensive.  Your suggestion that I should play nice does not exactly fall on sympathetic ears.”

If it makes you feel any better, those people would probably say the exact same thing about me. And they, not we, have historically been the more powerful in our society. We really have no cause to quarrel with each other, which is why we should endeavor to relate to one another as we are, instead of mistaking one another for someone less reasonable.

I just find it tremendously hypocritical that they apply to atheists but not the religious, unless they happen to be left-leaning.

Gypsy Lee, really, you’ve lost me. Seriously, I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve tried to be as clear as I possibly can, but not only are you misunderstanding me, I can even understand the misunderstanding you’re having. It’s like whatever I write, you respond with what always appears, to me, to be a complete non-sequitur.

“it does make sense that atheists need to just not talk in order to be polite/nice. “

Given the amount of time spent on justifying telling us to shut up, I’d say you’re right.

“I mostly go through life not saying a word when people mention god or whatever else.”

Me too, of course.  That’s the only way to get through a mythology-soaked world.

“You know how you don’t go around ranting about how awful it is regarding the language and habits and beliefs that other ethnic groups and races have…”

Tyro, again, language and race are inherently, be definition, NOT OFFENSIVE.  Religions HURT PEOPLE.  That’s the fundamental reason religions exists for most people.  To give you an excuse to oppress women, to enslave other races, to invade countries, to rape children, etc, etc.  A small, small percentage of people reject that, sure, but that’s their cross to bear, literally.

“It’s like whatever I write, you respond with what always appears, to me, to be a complete non-sequitur.”

*lol*  that’s exactly the problem I’m having with your posts. I understand the words and the concepts,but not how it relates to what I’m saying.  hey, there’s some common ground after all.  

In an effort to make myself clear, I was responding to the idea in this: “Not as a theist, no, but as an American, I do.”

Which suggests a double standard.

Religions HURT PEOPLE.  That’s the fundamental reason religions exists for most people.

Actually, we have made a fundamental agreement, as a society, to reject such thinking as yours. Lots of people thought that “religion X” hurt people in order to justify their prejudices against that religion. heck, plenty of people believe that “race Y” or “ethnic group Z” has as its mission to justify the oppression and rape of others, too, in order to justify their own personal prejudices. However, the nature of creating a western, pluralistic society is such that we reject those claims. It’s one of the first principles of our society.

hey, there’s some common ground after all.

heh!

In an effort to make myself clear, I was responding to the idea in this: “Not as a theist, no, but as an American, I do.” Which suggests a double standard.

I was explaining that I do have an obligation not to engage in prejudice against atheists or those of other religions. That doesn’t come from any teachings of the religion I believe in (though I can’t say it explicitly contradicts that idea, either), but rather because this is the value system I have agreed to accept in the pluralistic society I live in. I have to live up to the same standards as everyone else does not because my religion is special, but because, as an American, I’m bound by the same public values as everyone else.

Tyro, there’s a difference between making shit up about how Jews eat babies in order to justify slaughtering them wholesale and acknowledging that discriminatory laws against gays and women are religiously motivated.

Tyro - I’m with you on legal protections for creeds (i.e. it’s wrong to deny a Muslim U.S. citizenship *because* the person is Muslim, or that it’s wrong to prevent displays of pentagrams on military graves, etc.) but let’s not conflate legal discrimination with personal opinion/verbal spats.

I fervently believe Catholics should have access to the same legal protections with the same zeal granted Protestants in our local, state and federal government, but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to laugh my ass off when someone tells me they’ve seen the face of the Virgin Mary embossed on a frito.  Respecting believers’ equal agency within and access to governmental institutions is not the same thing as respecting believers, their belief systems or the hierarchy of their overarching religious organization.

“You’re not. That was directed more at people like Rachel II.”

Gotcha. No probs.

” IMO, most of the truly godawful (pun intended) Christmas music is secular”

how can there be secular *christmas* music?  If you mean frosty, rudolph, etc. its still xmas music. It might not say the word Jesus, but it’s still about a christian holiday, christian themes, etc. Of course there’s very little about the christmas holiday that has anything to actually do with christianity, but they still claim all of it.

“I’ve never met a liberal theist who was uncomfortable with the very existence of atheists. Uncomfortable with the vitriolic language some of them use to avow their atheism, yes.”

Well that’s what I just said.  They’re fine with until we speak.  Every thing an atheist says is “vitrolic”.

“All I ask for is politeness and decency from all participants. And I’m not trying to define these words in such a way that makes me and my practices untouchable.”

And yet, it does make it untouchable.  For I can say something I feel is innocuous and it will be horribly offensive to a theist.  As I said, the rules are set up against us.

“if you don’t recognize yourself in what I’m saying, then it’s not about you, and you can relax.”

Right back atcha.

If it makes you feel any better, those people would probably say the exact same thing about me. And they, not we, have historically been the more powerful in our society. We really have no cause to quarrel with each other, which is why we should endeavor to relate to one another as we are, instead of mistaking one another for someone less reasonable.

I’m still not sure how to have that conversation reasonably.  I didn’t say anything to that nurse I mentioned earlier—I’m sure she’d have been deeply offended if I suggested that she not talk about Jesus quite so much.  She made me afraid; she was supposed to care for my wife, who is very sick.  Jesus is not going to be performing vascular surgery on her, or administering pain meds, or any of the other things that I hope will her better.  People do all those things, and they deserve credit or blame depending on how well they do them.  If she dies, does that mean Jesus killed her?  If I say something, will my wife get poorer care because of it?

A question you might be able to answer: The world is not a safe place for atheists.  This blog is supposed to be.  Why should I have to avoid offending these peoples’ delicate sensibilities here?

Tyro,

Again.  On its face, eliminating all essential humanity from the equation, all personality, race and ethnicity are NOT moral issues.  It’s the difference between a poodle with black fur and poodle with white fur.  It doesn’t make a difference to whether the poodle is a good dog.  We all agree that someone who says a person is a de facto better/worse than other because of nothing but their skin is wrong.  People who say that ethnic group A needs to be eliminiated from existence are inherently wrong.  We all agree. 

Religion was created due to humanity as an excuse for why other groups of people should be oppressed.  They created z and they interpret z and because of z, people get hurt.  People use their z to say that black people should be slaves because of their skin color, that wives can’t be raped because z says their husbands are entitled to sex, etc. 

I wager to say (not having done my research and not particularly giving enough of a shit to actually do it) that most of the time, when a group of people is being oppressed because of their skin, it’s because of religion.  The whites were able to defend enslaving black people because the bible condoned it.  The Holocaust was enabled by people claiming to be pissed that Jesus died.

I watched the inauguration speech with a host of coworkers, otherwise I would have done an endzone victory dance when President Obama acknowledged “non-believers”

And there we have exactly why Obama’s reference is so important.

If you don’t find that chilling, you don’t have the vaguest clue.

“A question you might be able to answer: The world is not a safe place for atheists.  This blog is supposed to be.  Why should I have to avoid offending these peoples’ delicate sensibilities here?”

Will the blog no longer be safe for you if you, of your own free will as a decent person, abide by some minimum standard for politeness? The world is not a safe place for Neopagans either, and this blog by and large is, but I don’t feel the need to come here and lambaste Christians for their beliefs, even the ones I disagree with or think are illogical.

As you and Gypsy and several others have pointed out, some religious people are going to be offended no matter what you say. Your very existence offends them. But doesn’t that make it more important to avoid pushing away those that would otherwise be your political allies? I respect you as a mature adult; I trust that you can tell the difference between merely being blunt, and calculating to offend. It is the latter that I have a problem with, and that I see in terms like “sky fairy” that seem to indicate a desire to be divisive rather than inclusive.

“But doesn’t that make it more important to avoid pushing away those that would otherwise be your political allies?”

Is this what you’re getting at?  Lordy, this is why people think Christers are simple-minded folks.  You are not my political ally.  I have never met you, I have never volunteered with you, I have never marched with you. 

I don’t live in a bubble.  I ended up on my local Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice mailing list and I go in to help them stuff envelopes and whatnot when necessary.  I don’t agree with how they came to be pro-choice but I certainly understand what that means and I am not going to refuse them help just because the letters I stuff refer to god instead of the importance of pro-choice laws.*  I’m fairly certain I’ve never discussed religion/belief with the other volunteers, outside of people knowing that me and another woman are both atheists and both of us being thanked for coming anyway. 

You and I are not talking about politics right now.  We are talking about the existence/dominance of religious people over non-religious people.  It’s a good philosophical discussion, it sharpens the ol’ wit, but it does not make you my political ally.  You are words on a blog that I debate and discuss things with.  In the future, we may have a great discussion about activism, I may learn a new argument from you defend abortions rights with, you might learn a nuanced argument against marriage from me.  Who knows, I’ve always learned a lot from religious people and a large reason why is because I don’t read the same books or listen to sermons or share the same social circle.  It’s a new philosophy that I don’t care enough to learn about on my own.

But please.  You and the RCRC are NOT the religious majority.  I WANT to offend religious people with my dismissals of the sky fairy because that is the only power I have over them.  To hurt their little feelings.  It sucks that you are under the same umbrella as those who have hurt everyone else, but as I said before, that became your cross to bear when you decided to believe in this shit.

Karalora, the overwhelming majority of the time I do play real nice and never say anything mean about people who use their religious beliefs to justify taking away my rights.  Theism is so pervasive that we wind up talking about having the government defend the ‘sanctity’ of marriage (by keeping most of us out of it) and ‘desecrating’ the flag without any acknowledgement that these terms are religious in origin.  Why are you so insistent that I should keep doing so here?  What is it that bothers you about what some of us say about a god you don’t even believe in?

*Oh, for the sake honesty, I’ve actually never read a fundraising letter so I can’t say for sure if they refer to god or if secular letters only refer to laws.  They’re too boring to read.

What’s interesting is that most of the religious pomp surrounding the inauguration started in 1933 and it seems that more keeps getting added on (to have more ‘diversity’). As an aside, LBJ said:

‘Justice requires us to remember that when any citizen denies his fellow, saying, “His color is not mine,” or “His beliefs are strange and different,” in that moment he betrays America, though his forebears created this Nation.’

which certainly seems to say atheism is ok.

Will the blog no longer be safe for you if you, of your own free will as a decent person, abide by some minimum standard for politeness?

Amanda is the resident blogmistress and puts in her .02 on atheism moreso than Pam and Jesse, so it makes sense to use her tone as the example - the floor, if you will - for atheist discourse.

She uses “sky fairy” all the time.  I think it’s hysterical.  Why would anyone post here expecting commenters *not* use it?  Why would you hold them to a higher standard of polite discourse than the person whose post thread you’re commenting in?

I just thought of something else regarding the use of sky fairy.  When I started rejecting what I’d been taught, I was pretty damned terrified of being wrong.  Reading essays by people being disrespectful to the idea of god helped me a lot.  If they could be happy, fulfilled people and still say that god’s pretty mean if he actually exists, that means that maybe this tiny germ of thought in my brain won’t cause god to punish me.  If I can help someone in the same situation by saying “hey!  Sky fairy!  You’re a jerk if you exist,” then that makes me happy.

If someone gets *offended* by that, I really couldn’t care less.  Your gentle feelings will heal eventually.  You aren’t being terrified of looking over your shoulder waiting for a punishment because you started questioning the whole racket.  Sure, that makes me mean but such is the glory of the anonymity of the internet.  It’s the one time I have a level playing field and I use it to corrupt young minds and to offend those who are on the side of people who oppress others.

let’s not conflate legal discrimination with personal opinion/verbal spats.

Fine. You know what? People who aren’t willing to support segregation but still hate black people are still racists.

Rachel II has explained why she thinks that our public support for racial and cultural (you can choose your culture, you know) harmony and tolerance “aren’t the same” as tolerance for people’s religion (or non religion). I’m sure that reasoning sounds pretty cool to her. But it’s not the deal we’ve made. You want to support anti-religion (or anti-non-religion) hostility, we’re back to the same mess that modern western society tried to put a stop to.

Jesus christ.

White racists who do nothing but say racist things are people who are insulting a powerless, oppressed group in society.

Atheists who use the phrase “sky fairy” are insulting the beliefs a group of people so powerful that they can outlaw the sale of sex toys and use atheist tax money to teach atheist kids in secular schools to avoid sex until marriage. 

You seriously think those two comparisions are valid?  That’s the whole bullshit reverse racism/sexism argument again.  When a group is powerless enough, the only power you end up with is words and you getting your feelings hurt doesn’t count as oppression. 

Saying “sky fairy” doesn’t even insult the actual people who believe it.  I might be the only person who has actually insulted believers themselves by saying I think they’re dumb and immoral.

“and use atheist tax money to teach atheist kids in secular schools to avoid sex until marriage.”

And they teach creationism as if its fact.

Apparently Rachel II also finds blog comments too boring to read, or she would know that I am not a Christian, or indeed a “believer” as such. If she is interested in correcting her error, she has only to scroll up to my earlier comments. But I doubt she cares, since by her own admission she considers almost all non-atheists to be oppressors by nature, and the remainder too small to be worth her drawing any distinctions.

Me, I don’t care what anyone believes. I care what they do, how they vote, and to a lesser extent what they say. I find it frankly depressing that calls for civil words among political allies—for I remain convinced, despite the claims of the aforesaid Biblical-name-plus-Roman-numeral, that that’s what most of us here are—are met with so much disdain.

“I WANT to offend religious people with my dismissals of the sky fairy[sic] because that is the only power I have over them. “

You’re truly pathetic.

People who aren’t willing to support segregation but still hate black people are still racists.

Right.  So if I hate my neighbor Steve because he’s a man or because he’s gay, that would be analogous to your point.  These are immutable characteristics.  Religious identity is *chosen*.  To fervently disagree with and mock religious people or just express contempt for a specific religion or religion generally doesn’t make you a bigot.  There’s nothing unreasonable or irrational about pointing out the grand hypocrisies of religious texts or of the behaviors of religious people, just as there’s nothing wrong in doing so for Republicans or fascists or any other group of people who self-identify with a particular belief system. 

If I were to deny you access to a voting booth because of your religious identity, that would be wrong.  Same thing if I worked in voter registration and “accidentally” lost a bunch of Republicans’ voter forms.  But to criticize a religious person’s belief system isn’t wrong.  That’s sensible.  It’s scary to think where western society would be without intellectual criticism of beliefs - especially unsubstantiated ones, like those that assert deities exist.

To get where we are now in western dialogue and social liberties, lots of people have had to offend lots of other people.  Sometimes this was done intentionally, but I imagine most of it was incidental.  Really, I think people should be happy some atheists are willing to be so over-the-top in their dialogue.  We take many more hits from religious conservatives than religious liberals do.  Really, “out” atheists are the vanguard of the public forum for intellectual criticism of belief systems.  If I were a religious liberal, I’d think knowing there are people out there pushing the boundaries of public discourse was worth toughening my skin to the “sky fairy” commentary.

“...and use atheist tax money to teach atheist kids in secular schools to avoid sex until marriage.”

There are far more theists than atheists and a huge slice of the tax pie comes from the former. What makes you think I want to pay to school atheistic brats? (Unlike most of you losers, some of us actually pay property taxes.)

Incidentally, if you haven’t reproduced yet, then do the world a favor and don’t. (Assuming you could find someone to reproduce with; I would put a nonzero prior on the event only due to the existence of loser atheistic guys.)

Unlike most of you losers, some of us actually pay property taxes

If you own a home in this economy, buddy boy, I’d say that makes YOU the loser. Fiscally speaking only, of course.

The imaginary sky fairy doesn’t scare me, but his followers are fucking nuts.

Remember to ban all people responding to the troll, as well at the troll itself.

I was psyched to hear the “non-believers” line, mostly because I kind of thought he wouldn’t bother recognizing us (not out of bigotry; out of that deep-seated Democratic impulse to kick your own contituency in the crotch), but credit where it’s due, George W. Bush always treated atheists with respect in his speeches.

Seriously, check out any speech that involves a line about people of different faiths; he always capped it off with something about non-believers. Wait, no—-you should probably just take my word for it, since the alternative is to actually read or listen to a Bush speech.

Barring some earth-shattering revelation, it’s the only thing I like about the guy. Well, that and he’s not a racist, but that’s more about how low Republicans set the bar.

My metaphysics can beat up your metaphysics.

My metaphysics can beat up your metaphysics.

Three guesses what your “tell” is.

Count me as one of the “tired of Dawkins” types. One can be an atheist without being clueless about the history, sociology, and psychology of religious belief. One can be an atheist without bragging that atheists are smart and believers are dumb (the “Bright” syndrome). Too many “public atheists” are both simplistic and smug, irritating both the ordinary atheists/agnostics and the believers willing to respect atheists.

BTW, Gypsy Lee, popular Christmas music is dreadful. Classical Christmas music has much to offer the vocal / choral enthusiast. Bach, Handel, Elgar, Britten, a variety of lesser-known 19th and 20th century church composers, and a variety of medieval to modern “traditional” carols and arrangements (not all the tunes are schlock).

If you’re going to bash Dawkins, at least know what it is your talking about.  The term Bright, as stupid as it is, has nothing to do with intelligence.

As far as being smug, it depends on where you live.  If you live in diverse, progressive community, being smug is the same as being a jerk.  If you live in Baptistland, it’s a way of maintaining your sanity.  I have long since given up being nice to people who look forward to my eternal torment.

“Your comparison doesn’t even come as close as apples and oranges, which are at least both fruits.  It’s more like apples and unwashed socks. Try again.”

Don’t get upset, Dana. That wasn’t “my” comparison, that was me satirizing the crazy “logic” and apples to oranges comparative leaps that those who would mix church and state regularly use. At least you recognize the emptiness of your side’s arguments.

Again, Dana, as I and others have noted, your reading comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired. Whether that comes from an inadequate education or malice is a question that remains to be answered, but getting in the last word doesn’t change the fact that you regularly miss the point.

“Yet, unless President Obama has fooled us completely, he actually believes in God, and is a Christian.  He certainly made more references to God and to faith than was necessary.  That being the case, would not the shout-out to “non-believers” have been the real pandering?”

Nope. Obama is both a real Christian and a Constitutional scholar, as well as being President. As a real Christian, he’s not wrapped up in passive agressive religious identity politics, and genuinely embraces all people of goodwill, whether they believe in magic and mythology or not (unlike you). As a Constitutional scholar, he understands that believers and non-believers alike are due the same rights (unlike you). As President, he takes the time to acknowledge both those facts clearly in his public statements (unlike you).

You get the last word here: “misunderstand” away but don’t think you’re fooling anyone.

One can be an atheist without being clueless about the history, sociology, and psychology of religious belief.

Citations, please. What specifically is Dawkins “clueless” about? Dawkins asserts that theology has not actually provided an intellectually satisfying proof of the existence of the putative object of its study: God.

What is he ignorant about, specific to that point? It’s all very well and good to say “Dawkins hasn’t read Aquinas on forgiveness” (as one critic said) but do Aquinas’ writings on forgiveness contain a proof of the existence of God? If not, what is their relevance? Why should Dawkins have read them?

It’s not necessary to have a degree in textiles in order to conclude the emperor has no clothes, Todd.

What the hell did I do?

My only beef with Dawkins is he’s too nice.

A lot of the atheists in this thread really seem determined to martyr themselves.

To quote Bart Simpson: The ironing is delicious.

Chet, the really interesting thing is that theologians aren’t trying to prove the existence of yahweh.  It’s taken as a given.  Modern theology programs are equal parts social work and religious history courses.  At least the moderately respectable ones that aren’t at fundie pseudo-universities.

That revelation really threw me for a loop.

To Rachel II:

Applause!!!!  Brava dear, well said!

It seems anti-spam measures prohibit posts with links, so let me just urge you all to go to Youtube and do a search for Tim Minchin virgins (without quotes). I recommend the third result from the top. Minchin really sums up my attitude to the debate above - that’s what I tried to say in the post that got swallowed.

“If you’re going to bash Dawkins, at least know what it is your talking about. “

Oh c’mon Todd. *Everyone* knows he’s just a meanie to theists.  *everyone* knows he’s just angry, with a chip on his shoulder. 

*everyone* of course being the smugly privileged theistic majority, who don’t nee evidence to believe something.  It just has to “feel” like its true, to be true.

Yes, the new atheists are coldhearted, nasty creatures.  They should be more warm and cuddly.  Like Madalyn Murray O’Hair.

Karalora, when I am among political allies, I cater to the delicate feelings of the religious majority just like every other decent person in society. 

Commenting on a blog?  Not political activism. 
Asking me to be “civil” towards religious people when I have repeatedly indicated that I have, in fact, been civil to people in real life to the point of volunteering for RCRC?  Exactly what me and Gypsy Lee are talking about. 

Sure, believers online are probably getting their feelings hurt because I tell them what I’m thinking about them when I’m smiling and politely asking questions as they tell me about their church services in real life.  But online, the only other option is to just stay completely silent, as I do in real life, in a thread about athiesm.  As Gypsy Lee keeps saying, atheist, shut up.

Gypsy, I’ve read The God Delusion. I don’t think Dawkins is “a big meanie,” as you put it. I do think he is angry about religion, not without justification. But he is out of his league trying to “prove” how stupid and dangerous and awful religion supposedly is. The fact that he re-labels those forms of religion that are not guilty of what he accuses religion of as “tarted-up atheism” tells me that he doesn’t really have an argument that applies as widely as he would like it to, and therefore has to define himself as right by toying with the meaning of the words. And he doesn’t get to do that. He doesn’t get to claim me and the Dalai Lama as atheists just so that he can be right.

If he really wants to turn people away from religion, he should offer them more science to fill in the space that would be left. Mere griping, even if justified, is not usually convincing.

Obama is both a real Christian and a Constitutional scholar, as well as being President. As a real Christian, he’s not wrapped up in passive agressive religious identity politics, and genuinely embraces all people of goodwill, whether they believe in magic and mythology or not (unlike you).

This is one of the things that sort of drives me crazy.  Sure, Obama is a real Christian. So is Rick Warren. So is Joseph Lowery. So is Bernard Cardinal Law.  So is Jim Wallis.  So is John Hagee. And so is Amy Sullivan.

There’s this attempt, so often, among these sects to proclaim that some other Christian isn’t a “real Christian.” Lefty religious folks want to call the right-wingers “faux Christians” because they somehow don’t follow an example of being open and inclusive.  Righties accuse the lefties of not being Christian because they don’t accept literal readings of the Bible.  They’re all Christians, though. All worshiping an idea they claim is an actually existing thing.

The character Jesus, as written in the novels called the gospels, had some good ideas. That whole “least of these” stuff was pretty decent.  The lake of fire and gnashing of teeth for not accepting him as the path to truth isn’t so hot, though.

A son of a man? sure.  Son of God?  blah blah blah

“I don’t think Dawkins is “a big meanie,” as you put it.”

Well, just for the record, that wasn’t directed at your or the others I’ve been talking to about this.  That was directed at one drive-by post that made absolutely no sense.

” But he is out of his league trying to “prove” how stupid and dangerous and awful religion supposedly is. “

Supposedly is? I can’t understand how anyone could suggest it’s “supposedly” dangerous. 

“He doesn’t get to claim me and the Dalai Lama as atheists just so that he can be right.”

I am not well-read enough with Dawkins’ books, theories, et al, vis a vis atheism (So far, I’ve focused on his evolution books), so I can’t respond to that.  However, I can say this is the first time I’ve heard anything like this.

“If he really wants to turn people away from religion, he should offer them more science to fill in the space that would be left. Mere griping, even if justified, is not usually convincing.”

He offers plenty of science, but for a good deal of theists that won’t make any difference.  Faith requires no evidence, so they seek none.  Or rather, none that doesn’t support what they want to believe.

God wasn’t ever mentioned until Lincoln’s second inaugural address.  That is a fact.  Spin it any way you please.

“Supposedly is? I can’t understand how anyone could suggest it’s “supposedly” dangerous.”

Religion is dangerous in the same way that a hammer is dangerous. A hammer can be used to build a house, or to break a skull. A person who is dead-set on breaking skulls but has no hammer can easily find a substitute that will work just as well, but it’s pretty damn difficult to build a house without a hammer. At least for the time being, most members of our species need religion, or something like it, to fulfill certain psychological needs. That some or even many people also use it for evil says more about those people than it says about religion as a phenomenon.

“He offers plenty of science, but for a good deal of theists that won’t make any difference.  Faith requires no evidence, so they seek none.  Or rather, none that doesn’t support what they want to believe.”

That’s just it. The people who might be convinced by the arguments in The God Delusion are not the ones he should be worried about convincing, because they are not certain enough in their faith to use it as a bludgeon anyway. If he wants to convince them regardless, I think he would make a better case with positive science than with negative philosophy. There is a great deal of beauty and profundity in his evo-bio books; The Ancestor’s Tale literally brought me to tears because of the magnificence of the simple truth that all life on Earth is interrelated through a series of expanding circles. But that brings me back to the beginning of this paragraph—if I can accept and even find wonderment in real, hard science, and still practice my religion, and there is no conflict between the two, then why would anyone feel the need to get their knickers in a bunch over the religion part?