I think that video gave me the diabetes.

I’d say #3 is edging a bit from the first group into the second group; it’s not the biggest leap to get from “they should shut up” to “we should shut them up”

After Hemant Mehta’s snarking of Rebecca Watson and his printing up of “Team Elevator Guy” shirts, I am never giving that asshat another blog hit again.

  This wouldn’t be the first time criticism and oppression/persecution were conflated with one another. Its probably inevitable for people who believe really strongly in a particular idea, that if somebody criticizes their idea than they are guilty of oppressing/persecuting holders of whatever idea is in question. Its a by-product of passionate belief.

Religious people who know they aren’t going to change their minds are being stupid when they shut me out by saying they’re going to pray for me, but they’re not oppressing me. 

Of course they are. Just like you oppress people by banning them from your blog. When you can’t get people to listen to you and agree with you, you’re being oppressed.

Seriously, this post makes a really important point about how to distinguish oppression from disagreement.

Hey, I want a “Team Elevator Guy” shirt. I’m all in favor of asking women out in ways that guarantee they’ll reject me.

Nobody in Particular—nothing like belligerently allying yourself with creepy-ass guys who could potentially be rapists to put those bitches in their place. We’re a team! What are you, one lonely woman in an elevator?

It reminds me of parents who, when their child is crying, feel that the appropriate response is to threaten them with “I’ll give you something to cry about.”

Maybe Team Elevator Guy and Team Dickwolves can hook up. And we can meet them at the door wearing Team I’ll Rip Your Fucking Balls Off And Shove Them In Your Misogynist Piehole shirts.

Offers to “pray for” atheists (or anyone who disagrees with someone’s beliefs) are something I find particularly amusing, because the way I see it, praying is doing nothing. AFAIC, they can pray all they want, long as they stay out of my way when they do it. They’re only wasting their time. The intention is obnoxious, but it’s not oppression.

I disagree with the wear whatever silly headgear comment. I think headgear arent disassociated from certain viewpoints and usually in the muslim community, headgear represents double standards and an extension of rape culture. It should be discouraged if not banned.

Bean Slap—We just had a record heatwave here. Well over half the men in town were running around shirtless. We don’t actually have any laws forbidding women from going shirtless, and yet no women were out and about without shirts. Clearly, the wearing of shirts by women is a double standard, and we should discourage it if not outright ban it. I mean, who the fuck cares if you would be uncomfortable exposing your breasts to strange men? And it’s really not our problem if the men didn’t get the memo and took the opportunity to start harassing you to the point where you didn’t want to leave the house.

We know what’s best! Shirts off, ladies! Show us your tits… for your own good!

Thanks for this post, Amanda!

I recently criticized on Facebook my Governor’s ridiculous suggestion that Oklahomans should pray for rain (while, incidentally, all of our elected representatives work against concrete responses to climate change) and got accused by an Evangelical interlocutor of “discriminating against” Christians. 

The distinction you make among the examples of the oppression and demonization of atheists in this post is exactly right: criticizing is not discrimination, at least not when the criticism is from a private individual who has no power over the person being criticized.

It should be discouraged if not banned.

If we’re going to start banning headgear we don’t like, I’ll go with trilbies.

They didnt show Beauvoir or Einstein?

I’m going to disagree here because Robertson and Malkin IMNSHO are not saying that atheist ideas should be criticized, but that atheists should be excluded and dismissed from the discussion entirely. The ideology that atheists have no place within a pluralistic society consisting of many religions and philosophies feeds directly into the explicit discrimination.

Offers to “pray for” atheists (or anyone who disagrees with someone’s beliefs) are something I find particularly amusing, because the way I see it, praying is doing nothing. AFAIC, they can pray all they want, long as they stay out of my way when they do it. They’re only wasting their time. The intention is obnoxious, but it’s not oppression.

“I’ll pray for you.”

“That’s nice, dear. [Picks up a hair from the Christian]  I’ll use a sympathetic magic spell onthis hair to dedicate your soul to my Master Satan and condemn you to hell for eternity.”

Nobody @3: that’s why I think being firm in the distinction between ideas and identity is so important.  That Hemant was wrong once about one thing isn’t going to make me dismiss him completely.

I was going to say what #14 said.

It is a point that needs to be made more often that muslim headgear for women indeed is a part of rape culture. Men cannot possibly be expected to show any restraint so women have to cover up completely.

It should also be pointed out however that this is nothing unique to islam considering how how rape victims are some times blamed for how they are dressed in the West as well.

That said, I’m not comfortable with a complete ban on muslim headgear since that would be targeting a special group.

I’m with Mighty, but will go a step further.  Since short skirts are blamed unfairly for rape, I suggest we ban anything below the knee to show our opposition to rape culture.

I’m going to disagree with @14.  By that logic, I’m claiming that Christians shouldn’t have a place in society.  I call their beliefs silly all the time, and openly state that it would be better if they didn’t hold them.  But that’s waaaaaay different than saying they shouldn’t have rights.  I’m strictly sticking to their own free will here, and in those clips, like it or not, so are Robertson and Malkin.

Man, there’s the german dude…you know, with that awful sense of head fashion?  Likes to play pipes?  Kind of kiddy fiddlery…

Anyways, I don’t know where he lives, so I can’t ask, but it sounds like you know the tune he likes to play. 

Got the paper score?  I’ll take an email attachment.  ‘Cause this does look like fun…

This is something that the right (justifiably) gets criticized for often—conflating criticism with oppression.  It’s no less attractive when atheists do it.  I am deeply committed to religious freedom, and that means that people get to believe whatever they believe so long as their actions don’t harm anyone else.  Would we all be better off if no one resorted to name-calling?  Yes.  I would prefer it is fundamentalists didn’t call atheists evil and atheists didn’t say Christians were stupid and every just stopped picking on the Jainists. (Kidding. Everyone loves Jainism.)  But name-calling is not oppression.  It’s immature, but it’s not oppression.

A really excellent post. I will add only that we should WELCOME people saying atheists are wrong, because we have actual good arguments with which to respond.

Depends on what kind of prayer they make, ex. praying for you to recover from an illness is a nice gesture not that different from saying “I’ll keep you in my thoughts”, OTOH praying that you’ll convert is obnoxious.

“I’ll pray for you” often just means “Fuck you, asshole.” And it’s obvious to everyone when it does.

Seriously, there have been plenty of very much asshole Jainists, too.  Give any ideology a bit of power and it starts taking on airs.

librarian, the solution to this is to empower muslim feminists so that the change can be made from within—if muslims see westerners imposing their values from the outside, it will just cause backlash and withdrawal, it won’t cause meaningful change.

<i>“I’ll pray for you” often just means “Fuck you, asshole.” And it’s obvious to everyone when it does.</I.

Nah, Ben’s right.  When I was sick, I had relatives say “we’re praying for you” and I took it as a nice gesture, like a get-well card or something.  But it can also be used as an obnoxious assertion of superiority.

Wait, telling someone they should dump an atheist isn’t overt oppression?  That’s no different than saying you ought to fire someone because they’re some religion, is it?

What ‘idea’ is being criticized when someone says ‘you shouldn’t date that guy’?

I think it’s a list of inspecific vs specific oppression.  Bigotry vs direct oppression.

“I’ll pray for you,” is oppressive because it is their symbol of belonging to the group in power.  It’s no different than confederate flags or christian fish stickers.  It’s conflated because it was, and should be used to mean that they are sympathetic.  But it is poisoned by this praying in public rather than in private issue - I doubt the lady on the street who yells it at me is really going into her church or closet with me in her heart and hoping I will fare well.

It’s an imprecatory prayer, and insult that their sympathy isn’t enough - you must have their religion.

Amanda, neither Robertson nor Malkin said anything about beliefs.  Robertson’s statement was “there’s no fellowship between an atheist and a believer in God.”  Malkin and her co-commentator’s objection was about a myth that atheists want to outlaw religion.

And that’s the main arguments that are used to justify harassment and discrimination against atheists. I’m almost never attacked on the basis of ontological or epistemological arguments about God. I’m attacked on the stereotype that atheism makes me a bad and abusive person. At which point, I’m reminded of the saying, “those who say it can’t be done, annoy those people who are doing it.”

In Robertson’s piece, where did he ever mention ideas?  He said the guy was nice, but there’s no common ground and you should dump a person because of their creed.  What idea did he insult?

Crissa, dating isn’t an equal opportunity environment.  Saying “this person probably isn’t a good match for you, due to your differing beliefs” is really nothing like saying “you cannot work here because you do not adhere to the same religion as the boss.” 

Now, you’re probably right that there’s bigotry involved. (I mean, we’re talking about Pat Robertson here, of course there’s bigotry involved.) Similar reasons are often given to discourage interracial dating: “oh, you two have so many cultural differences, it will never work.” It’s too often a cover for prejudice.

@22: There also, I disagree. There is plenty of evidence to support the view that negative stereotypes expressed as insults often feed directly to support of oppressive politics. Granted, I’m undecided about whether atheists are “oppressed” but that’s a conversation for another time. 

@34: Sure, and there should be no problem in pointing out that Robertson’s advice is both grounded in prejudice, and ignores that many people do make “interfaith” relationships work.

No, it’s different because they are not actually criticizing anything. For criticism to actually be valid it has to have substance and be true. For example, saying that movement atheism often excludes women is criticism. Saying that atheists are immoral isn’t criticism because it isn’t true. Saying that atheists should shut up is just mindless bigotry no matter how you slice it. Maybe if a nuanced reason was provided, “atheists should shut up” could be criticism. However, no such reason is ever offered.

In addition, any attempts to silence a minority group (examples 2 and 3) or segregate the majority from the minority (1) is part of the same fabric that allows the latter three examples to happen. These things aren’t isolated incidents.

Agreed about the tone of the video.

I’m almost never attacked on the basis of ontological or epistemological arguments about God.

Nor am I, but I was in my preteen and teen years.  I remember kids in school—some of them friends, some of them just bullies—getting nearly apoplectic about the very idea that I didn’t believe in God, heaven, hell, and Jesus.

i was not aware that there is a rule stating that maudlin is strictly relegated to those of a religious bent. when did this rule get passed, and who voted on it? please, i really, really want to know. or, is this some determination made by a self-absorbed twit, who believes they alone have the authority to catagorize these emotions?

people want to know.

Hi Amanda,

I, too, am a big fan of the ideas/identity split.  However, I wonder how you would deal with the following extension of your logic:

“I maintain strongly that [one] can criticize [feminist arguments or feminism in general] without saying [that feminists or women] are bad people or should be subject to oppression.”

That is, if someone argues against particular feminist claims (or particular feminists’ claims), can that person’s arguments be confronted—countered, ignored, undermined, or even ridiculed—without being labeled as misogynist or as part of systemic oppression of women? 

Can or should those arguments—allowing for content—be seen as against feminist ideas without being seen as against feminist or women’s identity? 

I have some possible responses, dealing with the particular content of feminist principles, but I’d rather hear yours.  Does the analogy hold?

“I’ll pray for you,” is oppressive because it is their symbol of belonging to the group in power.  It’s no different than confederate flags or christian fish stickers.  It’s conflated because it was, and should be used to mean that they are sympathetic.  But it is poisoned by this praying in public rather than in private issue - I doubt the lady on the street who yells it at me is really going into her church or closet with me in her heart and hoping I will fare well.

It’s an imprecatory prayer, and insult that their sympathy isn’t enough - you must have their religion.

The best example you have for someone praying for you is a random person harassing you on the street? There are self-righteous believers who use “I will pray for you” as an insult on the premise that just referencing to their special club is enough to establish you as an outsider which is quite the pejorative to people who are just that self-involved. But that’s different from the people who are using it as a way to offer condolences or kind words. When my folks offered to pray for my family after my grandfather died, I just put on my anthropologist hat and accepted that that is how their culture expresses sympathy and I can appreciated the sentiment even if the method seem silly.
Now this is all kind of wandering off topic because the Fox News talking head in the video is totally the first kind and I feel the same response now that I did to the FCA in high school, “Y’all have fun standing in a cold auditorium thinking about Jesus, I’m off to go smoke up and fornicate with the art kids.”

In fact, “atheists are assholes” provides a nice way for both liberal and conservative religious people to deflect attention away from ideas. The worst culprits here IMNSHO are less people like Pat Robertson and the FOX News anchor, who always believed we were closet Bolshevik homos, but “middle-ground” liberals who cultivate the illusion of reasonableness by attacking everyone else for being unreasonable.

The most likely interpretation for FOX News is less, “atheism will win in the marketplace of ideas” and more likely “atheists are assholes who want to ban Santa!” Since they cry wolf at every turn about laws banning religious faith, I see no reason to assume that they’re suddenly concerned that atheism is more reasonable.

I think I buy a split like this in (parts of) Brooklyn and Manhattan, but not necessarily a lot of other places. It’s just too easy for the criticism of atheism to shade over into ostracism and bullying, especially in small, church-oriented communities where the (closeted or otherwise) atheist doesn’t really have anywhere to go. Trying to invoke some sort of equivalence between criticism of atheism and criticism of other religious stances seems to me a lot like the arguments from privilege that wonder why black people calling white people “honkies” doesn’t have the same valence as white people calling black people n*ggers.

Also, the equivalence is inexact. Let’s try “Jews should really just shut up” for example. That would set my spidey senses tingling. And I think perhaps the line about dissing catholicism versus dissing catholics as individuals helps tease this out. Because almost no one in the atheist community disses catholicism the doctrine—transubstantiation, the immaculate conception, the numbers of the saints, it’s all so much chopped pasta. What people in the atheist community (and other communities) spend time dissing is the institution of the catholic church—the sexual predators, the sadists, the privileged extortionists, the architects of global coverups. And really there’s no similar organization of atheists—not just nothing so corrupt, but nothing so organized. Imagine the Catholic League putting out screeds against the malefactors of The Skeptical Inquirer or something.

#10 mighty ponytail,
Well first of all the reason why women were not wearing t-shirts is due to the culture that created the veil in the first place, ie, double standards and sexual objectification of females. You have a completely inadequate grip of what ‘rape culture’ means. Literally the veil was created as an extension of rape culture and blaming the woman. It isnt just a fashion item.

#12 junk science,
I love trilbys! Trilbys are dapper fedoras just thinned out! They look sexy on men and women!

Bean Slap, You can’t get my name right, you can’t read what I’m actually writing, so I’m not terribly upset that you think I have an “inadequate grip of what ‘rape culture’ means.”

#18 librarian,
Theres a difference between blaming women for rape via misunderstood cultural ideas and literally having a item of clothing made to pander to that exact idea of blaming the women. There is also the difficulties the veil engenders in communication and asserting oneself as much as the other person who isnt wearing the veil and her male comrades. The veil also asserts taboo interactions between opposite genders and makes an assumption everyone is heterosexual and traditionally abled, ie, doesnt make it easy for deaf people. Also there is no other culture out there that wears the veil anymore nonetheless as frequent as Muslims do. Its not targeting a culture so much as an unhealthy practice that has been performed by many religions throughout the world but currently is only really performed by Muslims especially on a large scale relative to other religious cultures. As much as it wouldnt be targeting a group of people if we banned FGM or foot binding it isnt wrong to ban veils.

#19 amanda,
Seriously? You dont know what rape culture is do you? Its not whats erroneously blamed for rape its an actual maifestation of the idea women are to be blamed for rape. Short skirts arent inherently sexist nor did they arise out of blaming women for rape like veils did.  Veils are also cumbersome, ie, imagine eating in public using one, playing sports and these women should not drive. It is a literal philosophy claiming women are responsible for stopping men raping them and that there is something inherent about females that causes men to rape. It also proposes the idea that rape is about sexuality, that sexuality is evil, that women are inherently sinful, ie, this is what corrupts men and that all women are heterosexual or that even if they are lesbian they have to revolve around mens sexual entitlement.

Bean Slap @#47, I think you mean long skirts, not short, or else you’ve missed Amanda’s point in #19 entirely.

Bean Slap can’t let a little thing like reading for comprehension get in the way of a good indignant rant.

#27 ponytail,
Regardless the veil should be banned. Theyre a long way from modernizing and that doesnt mean we keep it going on here. Also their radicalism/other issues in Muslims dominated countries means it will likely be a veeeeeeery long time before these things happen. Remember its not about the women so much as the men.Egypt banned women from being presidents of their own country and even some of their feminists seem rather clueless about things. I was reading an article the other day about Egyptian sexual harassment and the feminists there thought it had to do with the later marriage rates and that premarital sex was taboo. Of course this is bullshit. There is also a sect that thinks women SHOULD wear the veil. Its simply asinine. You even have some “feminists” there who think it empowering to do FGM.

Also ponytail at one time it didnt cause backlash and withdrawal. That only happens if a population is radicalized. When Susan B worked with Egyptian women to raise awareness about voting rights the women there stopped wearing their chadors/burqas.

MY NAME ISN’T FUCKING PONYTAIL.

LEARN TO READ.

Bean Slap, should the “Christian modest clothing” stuff also be banned, and if so, how on earth do you propose making that work? The motivation is certainly the same there.

#45 Mighty Hyperbole,
Yes I can read what youre writing I just misread it. Clearly this is a cop-out by you cuz I wons de argument!

Seriously though, hahahahah Mighty Ponytail!Way to focus on the big picture Mighty Ponytail! Distract yourself by the name issue and overlook the content of the posts. So sad your dissonance needs.

#53 octopod,
The items of clothing worn by christian modesty weirdos are pretty surprisingly egalitarian. Check out the fashion icon (gag) Michelle Duggar, what they cover is the same as what the men cover though its gender traditional, ie women dont wear pants. There is no veil and its not really cumbersome.  If there were some sort of Christian veil I’d be for banning it. The idea is that the veil is literally a fashion item created to embody the philosophy of rape culture. What the Christians do is philisophical rather than fashion literalism. Though in the Christian case no one has defended them and their archaic ideas but yet I hear (depressingly) from the token liberals how the burqa is about “identity” and “expression” while neither is true. Christian culture has no liberals inhibiting themselves to make progressive inroads but yet Muslims are apparently Taboo to do the same thing?

There are some very conservative christians that do wear head gear in their churches (Westboro Baptist actually does this) but they take it off when they go outside and they are a very small minority unlike Muslims women who do the overt double standards dress thing quite out in the open even when they think theyre practicing a liberaller version of it such as just using a scarf. Seriously these people make Christians seem like hippies and Amish seem like George Jetson.

There are certainly Christian women who do the hair-covering thing everyday, not just in church; I’ve seen students at the university where I work doing this.

Also, I’d like to point out that one person’s “gender traditional clothing” may very well be another’s “double standards and rape culture”. I mean, I hate to come off as a hardcore cultural relativist, but this is a set of standards that varies dramatically over place and time, and damn near every socially-enforced appearance standard is an embodiment of either sexism, classism, or tribalism in some way or another, when it comes right down to it. I’ll make an exception for “clean enough to not leave smears on things”, but basically everything else—headgear? hair? makeup? type and extent of clothing?—comes down to sexism, classism, or tribalism. Headscarves, veils, skirts, all that, they’re all basically just a requirement to make your gender known by your clothing so that you can be treated differently for it.

Every time religion comes up, Bean Slap, you go on a rant about Muslims. Why are you so obsessed with the veil? It’s certainly problematic under some circumstances (ie, if its coerced), but women in Western countries wear it for a variety of reasons: as a symbol of their cultural heritage, a political protest, a fashion statement, etc. I’ve taken many classes with young women who wear hijab and they are no less outspoken or intelligent than any of the other women in my classes. I occasionally find myself wishing I could wear a pretty scarf on bad hair days. As long as it’s not a forced choice, I don’t see it as any more problematic than conforming to Western standards of beauty. For example, bikinis are a problem when women are pressured to wear them for the sake of serving as visual sex objects for men, but not really a big deal if the woman wears it because she likes the way it makes her feel. Women shouldn’t be coerced into covering up their bodies OR displaying their bodies, but they shouldn’t be forbidden from choosing either types of dress if it’s what they feel most comfortable in.

Also, what octopod said.

Amanda, thanks for pointing that the condemnation we saw in the first three cases is praising with severest damning.  That’s much better than being damned with the faintest praise

The eviction and exclusions in the second three cases are real harm. I experienced real harm when I was raised religiously pluralist by atheist parents. Announced that I didn;t believe in god to my peers and the beatdown began. Literally! Had my jaw broken in in second grade with a twirling baton while three other kids held me down and my homeroom teacher looked on and never intervened. Was sent to the Special Education gulag for a few weeks, but tested out and was put back into mainstream classes. I’m just glad they didn’t sic CPS on us.

This is what fundies want: They want the power to crush all dissent. They probably jack off or rub their clits to the last three examples in this video. That’s if the women even know they have a clitoris. With all this abstainance only sex education, who knows? Good Christian women just got a magic baby-making hole they know almost nothing about

There is no solution to the fundie problem than to gain popular support and political power that would allow us to crush them if we were as immoral as they are.. Many of them do not believe in right and wrong as we secularists do. They believe in the Divine Command theory, that things are right or wrong based on God’s will, and that God’s authority comes from the fact that God created us and can kick our asses forever in eternal hellfire. These are not moral people we are dealing with. At some point, we can no longer reason with them .There is no solution but power. 

The problem with fundies is that they have suppressed their normal human sympathies and interest in moral issues with an imaginary man in the sky who has authority by asskicking. In their deepest hearts they’re probably OK, but fundiness turns them into amoral monsters who mostly just understand power and fear. So the power to create fear is the only way to control them.

Does this sound harsh? Fundies have excluded themselves from rational discussion about factual matters. “God Said Y in a magical book” is their approach to science. “Magic Man in the Sky commanded X” and “Magic Man in the Sky is against X and he can kick our asses” is the limit of their morality. There is no place for reason here.

So, I guess I’m banned now. Been nice knowing y’all.

everything else aside, ignoring the irritating music in the video, there is one thing that really struck me:  the picture of stephen hawking.  not in his iconic wheelchair, but standing with his wife.

i honestly can never think i have ever seen any other time, even in his own books and videos, that hawking was depicted just as a person.

of course, the import of the symbolism is that you can’t know who hawking is without knowing that he’s an incredibly intelligent individual who suffers from a horrible disease.

Bear Slap, are you trying to get atheists to agree that it’s OK to control what religious groups wear if we disagree with their ideas (in other words, oppress them) on a thread about what the definition of oppression is?

Regardless the veil should be banned.

Dear Beanie,

If a woman doesn’t wanna wear it, I’m not going to tell her to do so. If a woman does want to wear it, I’m not going to tell her NOT to do so.  This is because I think women (and any other adult member of the human race) should be free to do whatever they want provided it doesn’t affect others (*).

You obviously disagree.

I don’t call myself a feminist, but I think my opinion in this matter is in line with feminism.  What do you call yourself?

(*)  I might make an irrational exception for lime-green stretch pants on anyone who doesn’t have the body of a supermodel, male or female.  Ban them!

...I guess now it’s one vote for simple oppression and one vote for crushing theists and ruling them with an iron fist, I hadn’t read Bacopa’s post.

Bean Slap,

Let’s say I agree with you. Let’s say that every woman wearing the veil or hijab or burkhas are coerced into it, and that the very wearing of these items feeds into and encourages rape culture in a way that is somehow supercharged compared to all of the other things in the world that do so.

How are you going to enact your proposed ban? What will be the penalties for violating it?

Are you going to arrest women who wear the veil? Ban them from public places? Public schools? Government buildings?

If you do any of these things, I have two follow-up questions: 1) How is it remotely feminist to punish women for something that you argue is coercive and harmful to them? 2) How are these women supposed to gain the education, the resources, the access to the courts that they need to escape the coercion to wear the veil, if they are not allowed to be in public?

Should they just stay home if their fathers/brothers/husbands won’t let them leave the house unveiled? Should they strike out bravely unveiled, risking whatever retribution will fall on them for failing to wear a veil? Should they run away and live on the streets, as long as they’re sufficiently uncovered to quiet your discomfort? What would you like them to do?

And, of course, if you think no women are coerced into veiling, the question becomes how it is remotely feminist to police what women are wearing by choice?

OT, but delicious - this.

I know it’s not going to happen, because the Great Beige Hope has continually turned out to accomodate Republican wingnuttiness, but wouldn’t it be great if the Republicans in Congress were shown to stampede America over a cliff - and Obama steps in after they’re shown to be complete morons and solves the wholly artificial crisis in five minutes?

Not gonna happen of course, but pleasant to dream about.

# 27 Mighty Ponygirl.

Yes, I agree. I hope I didn’t give the impression that I wanted to impose anything. Critisize, yes. Impose, no.

Believing in a god : believing in no god :: the side with Lincoln’s profile : the side with the Lincoln Memorial. I like Bacopa’s comment, though. Brings the sectarian conflict out real clear: “We must crush them.” You don’t often see that kind of honesty on this side of the argument.

It also brings to mind the whole “United States of Canada vs. Jesusland” image that tends to float to the top at times like this. Y’all are the ones whose ancestors were just so damn adamant that “Jesusland” had to stay in the union, so why piss and moan about it now?

Excellent post Amanda.  Its always a good reminder that there is a world of difference in criticizing an idea or an ideology and oppressing a person. 

I’d go as far as saying that the Pat Roberson bit is actually fairly good advice given to a someone who has comparable religious views with Robertson.  I would have a hard time imagining a marriage work between someone who is a fundamentalist christian with an atheist. 

Among other things would the couple be able to come to an agreement on whether to have the children go to church.  Would one person make the attempt to convert someone else etc?  If there is a christian who believes that non Christians are going to hell, out of charity they wouldn’t want to see his or her spouse and children face eternal damnation.  It would get old very quickly to the atheist if they were being prodded into going to church or believing in the trinity.  If an atheist becomes snarky and smug about the Flying Spaghetti Monster,  that would be deeply insulting to someone who is religious.

It can work with a more liberal christian and an atheist but not for the real committed.

My Aunt is regular church going Catholic who is quite liberal, feminist, and tolerant. She goes to church and does a fair amount of volunteering at the church.  Her husband is an agnostic Jew who is really a de facto atheist. I don’t think he has been inside a synagogue outside of a wedding or funeral in 60 years. Their marriage works because my aunt certainly doesn’t seek to convert him and he is respectful that her time in church is important to her. 

However if either of them were dogmatic the marriage wouldn’t work.

Bean Slap - There are sects of Christians who do wear head coverings out and about due to their religious beliefs.  Jewish women, as well, except some also count wigs as a head covering, so that they don’t stand out as much as the Christian or Muslim women do.  Your ban on religious head coverings would affect many women - I mean, would the wigs count in your ban?  And if they do, can’t someone just say they’re wearing it for fashion reasons?  Or would there suddenly be a ban on all wigs due to the potential for it be used as a religious head covering?  I’m not religious and I like to wear wigs, I’d be rather steamed at that.  Also, there are Muslim women who do remove their scarfs every once in a while.  By your logic, that’s okay, and it shouldn’t be banned, because Christian women do that.

On Topic - I do think criticism is fair but yeah, if someone has extremely hostile beliefs to atheism there will be people who will act with hostility to atheists.  Like with abortion, it’s one thing to be against it, it’s another thing to viciously physically attack women for having abortions or trying to curtail their rights.  Sometimes the two go together.  I think, though, that type of people who would run atheists out of town would be the same people who would run any other “other” (Jews, Muslims, gays, etc.) out of town as well.  Why only be morally superior to one group, when you can be morally superior to all?  If Pastafarianism were to say “obey authority and you’ll get to be morally superior to everyone else”, these people would be converting to it in droves.

librarian, definitely. The only person basically advocating the forced stripping of muslim women in Bean Slap.

I have severe issues with certain types of Muslim headgear, but I have no idea how a ban would function in a way that doesn’t handicap the women involved yet more.

Dear Beanie,

If a woman doesn’t wanna wear it, I’m not going to tell her to do so. If a woman does want to wear it, I’m not going to tell her NOT to do so.  This is because I think women (and any other adult member of the human race) should be free to do whatever they want provided it doesn’t affect others (*).

I don’t know if this is where Bean Slap is going (and don’t care), but there is a problem you are not considering, PIATOR.

In Turkey, women wearing a veil is (was?) banned.  A western liberal will often argue that this is a bad thing - an infringement of the state on religious freedom.  And, of course, the ban IS an infringement on religious freedom.  But, there is a good reason for it.

The problem is, especially if you step outside of Istanbul or Ankara, that the formal freedom to wear or not wear a veil is just that - a meaningless, empty formal freedom.  The cultural pressure and very real threat of violence will force women to wear a veil despite their legal right not to do so.

The ban gives women an out - you can’t blame me for not wearing a veil in public because it is against the law.  In short, the ban in Turkey gives Turkish women the very real freedom not to wear a veil even though it does violence to religious freedom.

I know you, PIATOR, are not going to tell a woman to put on a veil.  The problem is the other hundred jackasses who will and will back their words with the threat of violence.  And while I appreciate this sentiment:

This is because I think women (and any other adult member of the human race) should be free to do whatever they want provided it doesn’t affect others.

in many places, this freedom will be reduced to a mere formalism.  And yes, their are Muslim communities in the US - think Shrewsbury, MA, Dearborn, MI, NYC, and even Binghamton, NY - where a woman has the formal right to not wear a veil or hijab but if she dares to go without it is made quite clear that she will be brought “back into line” in an unpleasant manner.

And its not just Muslim communities where this is a problem, there just the ones that rightwingers shriek about the loudest.  There are, for example, still parts of the South where having a Rosary or wearing a Yarmulke (or otherwise acting non-evangelical protestant) will earn you a swift ass kicking despite your formal religious freedom.

I’m not sure how to thread this needle to be quite honest, and I don’t think banning hats it the US is the answer.  But it is important to consider that banning some headgear (as is the case in Turkey) can be more about preserving religious freedom than about stifling it.

Richard—it was banned. And only in public buildings—like colleges, etc. The ban was overturned several years ago because muslim women who wanted to wear a hijab were being denied their education.

The state needs to step in and preserve the rights of women to not wear the headgear in these cases. The needle is not threaded by forcing women who have been raised to feel that their hair is a private part of their body to bare themselves in front of strangers (and I don’t think you’re advocating that). The needle is threaded by the state making the men (and yes, the women too) understand that if they threaten or commit violence against a woman who chooses not to wear religious headwear, that they will be introduced to the lovely Turkish penal system and all of its accoutrements.

The men need to learn this lesson first before women can feel comfortable walking around without a headscarf.

Oh, and FTR, I’ve been all over Turkey. I’ve been in the pro-western larger cities, the tourist-friendly southern cities, and the definitely-more-conservative eastern mountains. The ONLY place I was harassed was Istanbul, where I groped. But I’ve been in after-hours pool halls drinking whiskey with the locals and apricot farms where Kurdish migrant families worked in 110F heat. When I was in eastern Turkey, I did try to dress a little more “conservatively” (long skirt and long sleeves, and I wore a bandana around my hair, which really didn’t cover a whole lot but was at least me trying to respect their customs). And the men I was with had to cover their arms and legs as well, because the sight of a naked male arm was enough to cause impure thoughts in women.

I realize that as a Westerner, I was afforded a lot more leeway than a local, but I had many interesting and informative discussions with muslim women about their faith. I’m convinced that they are imminently more capable of addressing “the veil problem” than I am.

But it is important to consider that banning some headgear (as is the case in Turkey) can be more about preserving religious freedom than about stifling it.

Except it isn’t really giving women more freedom—it’s dictating how they should express themselves.  The freedom to wear or not wear a scarf is certainly empty in some places, and some women probably do feel freer if it is illegal to wear one.  But it’s no more true freedom than the cultural pressure they deal with when it is legal.

We all know that the choice to wear the headscarf is not made in a vacuum, but it is still a choice, and it is not our place to try and ‘fix’ other cultures. A ban just trades one set of issues for another without fixing the underlying problem.

The ban was overturned several years ago because muslim women who wanted to wear a hijab were being denied their education.

I thought it had been, but could not remember.

The needle is threaded by the state making the men (and yes, the women too) understand that if they threaten or commit violence against a woman who chooses not to wear religious headwear, that they will be introduced to the lovely Turkish penal system and all of its accoutrements.

That is part of the solution, along with making sure the authorities take it seriously (still a problem even in the good ol’ USA too).  But there is more at stake than just physical violence.  There is ostracism, hiring practices, and a whole host of other social costs for defying the norm.  The Turkish ban was ham-handed in many ways, but did give women space to go without headgear.

The ban also did much to normalize the idea of women going without headgear.  The ban was originally imposed by Attaturk way back in the day.  Your experiences in Turkey reflected the legacy of the ban.  I doubt that had you visited pre-Attaturk Turkey that your experience would have been the same.

I’m convinced that they are imminently more capable of addressing “the veil problem” than I am.

Indeed they are, and the sentiment applies to my capacity to address the issue as well.  I’m not Turkish, so I would be of little help in even beginning to try to help with a solution in the Turkish context.  But I think my response to PIATOR - illuminating a different perspective - stands.

By “threading the needle” I was thinking more broadly about the question of balancing freedom to practice religion with freedom from discrimination.  Banning hats and headgear does not fit into the US context.

Nonetheless, there are conservative communities in the US (Muslim, Christian, and all the rest) where extralegal pressure is brought to bear for wearing or failing to wear certain items of clothing.  Creating the space where people can be openly religious or not religious without significant consequence is more complicated, IMHO, than declaring that people (especially women) are free to do as they want without addressing the myriad of consequences that may result.

There are, for example, still parts of the South where having a Rosary or wearing a Yarmulke (or otherwise acting non-evangelical protestant) will earn you a swift ass kicking despite your formal religious freedom.

Really? Which parts are those?

Attaturk imposed the ban for both genders—the idea was that women couldn’t wear hijab but that men couldn’t wear the Fez. As I’m sure you’re aware the decision was more pragmatic to keep Turkey from being absorbed into western empires by appearing “western enough to govern themselves” on the fall of the Ottoman Empire. He had to unite the Turks under a nationalistic banner at the expense of the religious banner, but now that the threat is gone, I think there is an argument inside of Turkey about whether or not they want to stay a secular country or do away with those rules in order to have a government that more accurately reflects the will of the people.

How would I even know if my neighbors knew if I was atheist?  I have a statue of the Buddha on my front steps, a crucifix from my father, and am planning on building a Japanese Kitsune style gate (it’s woo for financial success) although I’ve chosen these things for their aesthetic values and their focus on peace and balance (and remembering my father) rather than their spiritual value.

But how would anyone know?

Well, Crissa, if you do enough shit-stirring on the subject, you have to figure everybody’ll know.

Give the Quiverfull movement their dues, all three dozen or so of them: when they find that the prevailing political environment of the public school system isn’t suited to their own philosophies and principles, what do they do? They haul their kids out of the public school system entirely, and teach them at home instead. I see no reason why political atheists, if their convictions meant as much to them as they claim, can’t do the same.

And speaking of shit-stirring, I’m still waiting to see some examples of Catholics or Jews getting mistreated for their Catholicism or Judaism in the modern South. “Everybody knows it happens” only satisfies a bigot, y’all./

Aaron, Top Gear gives you a taste.

I see no reason why political atheists, if their convictions meant as much to them as they claim, can’t do the same.

Do you have, like, evidence to show that they don’t? I’m assuming (perhaps wrongly) that by “political” atheist you mean something more akin to “professional” atheist.

Otherwise, if you just mean, “people who sincerely hold an atheist standpoint,” then comparing *most* atheists to the—as you say—3 dozen Quiverfull is not a real compelling illustration. Maybe if the Lutherans were pulling their kids out of school en masse?

in many places, this freedom will be reduced to a mere formalism.  And yes, their are Muslim communities in the US - think Shrewsbury, MA, Dearborn, MI, NYC, and even Binghamton, NY - where a woman has the formal right to not wear a veil or hijab but if she dares to go without it is made quite clear that she will be brought “back into line” in an unpleasant manner.

Do you have a cite for this on Dearborn? I live on the other side of the state, but I’ve never heard of any case of Muslims there harrassing anyone there for not wearing a veil. Southeast Michigan has a pretty big Arab population, but a pretty big percentage of that are Christians who get called Chaldeans. A google for Dearborn veil harrassment didn’t get any results.

Mighty Ponygirl, I’m at work right now and can’t be watching videos, but I’ll check it out when I get home in a few hours, and I’ll have an answer for you then.

Well, what?, by “political atheist” I suppose I mean people who not only are sincere in their atheism (something with which I’ve got no problem, though I do question how a religious stance comports with claims of non-religiousness) but who find it meet to argue not merely that they and their families should be excepted without consequence from public religious activities, but that such activities should not be permitted to exist at all.

Those are the people who I’d think would be homeschooling—not least because, if they’re going to try to carry out a multigenerational plan to subvert and then overwhelm resistance to the massive cultural change they desire to bring about, they should damn well have the sense to keep it under their hats.

@ Aaron:

Really? Which parts are those?

Crockett, Texas for one.  Buna, TX will also work if you hang out too long.  Frostproof, FL is no great shakes either.  For the bonus round, “lookin’ queer”* lets you win the ass whuppin’ lottery in Van, TX.

* Note: in Van, TX “lookin’ queer” at the local Dairy Queen consists minimally of wearing an electric blue silk shirt with pants that actually fit and a haircut that looks like it was done by a professional.

I think there is an argument inside of Turkey about whether or not they want to stay a secular country or do away with those rules in order to have a government that more accurately reflects the will of the people.

I don’t think getting rid of the secular democracy is the issue (at least yet).  I think its more about Turkish identity becoming too “Europeanized.”  And the fact that Turkey has not been brought into the EU does not help. 

I could be wrong however since all of the Turks I know are educated urban types.  Turkey may have a fundamentalist problem similar to the one we have here that falls along an urban/rural divide with all of the same resentments.

There definitely is a fundamentalist issue—the country nearly had a military coup a couple of years back because the populace elected an Islamic party and the military, which sees itself as “the guardians of secular Turkey” began to bridle at this and it was pretty tense for a while there. You don’t get a lot of Fundies in Istanbul, Izmir, and the coastal touristy cities, but inland, (and especially eastward), you see far more Chadors and signs of a more conservative environment.

I was really disappointed that Turkey wasn’t let into the EU, and I definitely agree that the turn towards Islamic government is probably in no small part due to what they see as a rejection by the western nations they’ve worked so hard at modeling themselves after (at what might be considered a “serious sacrifice of identity”)

*Oh, and the further east you go in Turkey, the more you run into Kurdish populations, which are generally VERY conservative.

Looking like money, in other words, Richard Goblin? Money from out of town, too, I’m betting. For the rednecks who apparently kicked your ass to admit that’s why they were doing it would make it clear in everyone’s eyes that the real reason was resentment, and that that resentment was born out of rural small-town shithole misery of the sort that knows it doesn’t have any prospects anywhere else, and that the best it’ll ever be able to hope for is to make a halfway decent living. Call it simple outright gay-bashing if you like, but those are my people if anyone anywhere is, and I’m willing to bet I understand the shorthand a little better than you do—and don’t try to argue that getting your ass kicked by ‘em gives you some special insight, because a) it doesn’t and b) I grew up in Mississippi with a shiftless damnyankee father and a lesbian mother, so believe me when I say I know from getting my ass beat for no good reason.

What do the other towns have to do with your contention that people get beat for being Catholic or Jewish? You cite them, but don’t give any details.

Mighty Ponygirl, if I painted FUCK YOU AND EVERYTHING YOU CARE ABOUT on the side of a car and went driving around, say, Boston or San Francisco—or, for that matter, Philadelphia or Newark—you don’t think I’d catch any shit for it? I find myself unaccountably bereft of such sunny optimism.

Oh, for God’s sake, Mighty Ponygirl—people who go looking for trouble shouldn’t be surprised when it finds them!

(And that’s not victim-blaming, either. That’s inflammatory statements producing inflammation, which strikes me as only to be expected.)

Shorter Aaron:

You were asking for it by looking like you were from out of town, Richard Goblin.

Now you’re misrepresenting me; nowhere do I excuse the dumbshit rednecks who kicked Richard Goblin’s ass, and I defy anyone to prove otherwise.

The point I’m making about that particular ass-kicking is that I don’t think it happened for the stated reason, which I believe was a convenient excuse. Again, and obviously, that doesn’t make it Richard Goblin’s fault they kicked his ass. But I’ve known enough non-straight people who had no particular trouble making their way in the South that I’m willing to argue the high likelihood that they kicked his ass not because they seriously thought he was gay, not even because they resented him because they thought he thought he was better than them—but because he is actually better than them, and they know it. No, it doesn’t make it okay, but in light of my own experience it makes a lot more sense than the facile explanation.

And the larger point I’m making is that Richard Goblin said there are places where you get your ass kicked for being Catholic or Jewish, and I’m still waiting for even a link to a news story to show that’s actually, y’know, happening anywhere.

Aaron

The Top Gear Guys painted a bunch of obnoxious slogans on the side of their car. They were making a public declaration, rhetorically. At no point was the guy driving the Man Love car hitting on another man. At no point was the guy saying “Country Western Music is Rubbish” actually trying to stop other people from listening to country western music.

But even to those public declarations, a person has every right to respond.

Rhetorically.

You do NOT have a right, no matter how obnoxious the statement (God hates fags comes to mind) to physically harm someone because you disagree with their public statement. The woman yelling at the guys that they were in a hick town and the were assholes is perfectly within her right to do so.

When she had “the boys” come over to kick the asses of the guys, that’s when it crossed a line.

When “the boys” started throwing rocks at the camera crew, it crossed a line.

If you can’t see that, then you’re probably not far off from a felony and I hope you have a damn good lawyer.

#58 octopod42,
Yes but there aren’t that many Christians doing it. Your average Christian would look at these Christian women who wear scarves weird if they saw them in public. The Christians that wear the scarves also don’t compliment it with even more archaic outfits such as the burqa. Usually the Christians wear a sort of a drab dress they wear along with the scarf. It’s not as cumbersome as the burqa. Also I’m for banning the veil not necessarily the hijab but I do think that social inroads should be made to get them to stop wearing it along with stopping them from having the philosophy behind it. In my original post I merely gave an overview of my perspective but didn’t detail it. If they don’t want their religion to be seen as sexist then they can take off the archaic outfit. They often mislabel reactions to them as Islamophobia (let’s face it that term is B.S. just like Christianphobia) when people just don’t like their archaism. It’s like when Christians don’t like homosexuals and liberals don’t like them, it’s not because of them being Christian so much as being Christians to them means they have to be a bigot. Others of course don’t care about the sexism they usually are just Christian territorialists. I’m sure down the road the Right-wing would realize they have a lot in common with the Muslims like they do at the U.N. and work together to stop liberal initiatives.

#59 octopod,
Seriously you cultural relativism is so archaic I don’t know where to begin. No, it’s not true that to one person its “oppression” and to the other it’s not. There is an objective reality that can be sorted from that. You take the persons perspective who has been saturated in an unhealthy culture. It’s the equivalent of taking the word of the domestic abuse victim that they are cared for or that they want to stay in the relationship. Otherwise then surely you’re not against FGM, right? Cultural relativism is for idiots who can’t think for themselves.

#60 reverie,
Rant? Where was my rant? The only person who is ranting is you. Amanda brought the issue up in her post and I discussed it. Many others brought up different issues with her post, are they “ranting” too? I am bringing up the idea that not every liberal is against them banning veils.  I am also not drinking the koolaid and thinking it is a mere expression of their religion. I mean, who cares, the expression still represents something unhealthy about their outlook in life and if it so truly gender neutral how come I don’t see their men wearing it? If it was a mere expression of their faith then I’d see the men wearing it too but their claim that it’s an expression isn’t accurate. It’s also the most archaic religious outfit in existence in the modern world today that’s worn on such a large scale. The problem I have is no liberal is even trying to address this issue. Why aren’t any strategies being made to make inroads in these conservative Muslim communities? You focus so much on Christianity but never touch Islam when Islam is more conservative. I’m fair. I focus on both as they are the two world’s largest religions and the worst. But oh yeah, we’ll get another post about how bad high heels are and something about the Christians.

#62 Bacopa,
Like your perspective.

#63 cj,
Hawking is depicted just as a person? Why would a wheelchair discredit that?

#65 phoenician,
Well the veil DOES affect others. Its perpetuates rape culture, dehumanizes the woman and makes normal communication difficult and makes communication with deaf people nearly impossible without a translator. It also doesn’t build trust between people when one can’t see their face and the veil comes with a philosophy of gender segregation that goes with it such as when they ask that they only take their veil off to female officers. I also don’t think it’s fair that I have to take off head gear when going into a 7/11 but they don’t because they can use the “religion” excuse. They also shouldn’t be driving as this is dangerous. It’s also quite troubling to see a woman wearing it and know she can’t have the same physical expression as a non-veil wearing one (playing sports, eating in public). It’s troubling to see how limited her life is and it’s all a sacrifice to double standards/rape culture.  It’s also not required by their religion just like FGM. I also think you severely oversimplify the “choice” aspect of the veil. Clearly this isn’t an autonomous choice but more like “choosing” to chop your lady bits off. It comes from her culture and is a sad reflection of the unhealthy world at which she has breathed her whole life and reflects some serious oppression/suppression Also it’s incredibly naïve to think that actions don’t affect others; every action affects others. I also don’t see you taking this exact stance with Quiverfulls. The problem I think is also that these women are being made by their culture to project the pressures by their men onto the non-Muslim world rather than direct it back at the men for putting so much tribalist pressure on them. They have to do something archaic in order to show that they are Muslim. Many times patriarchal cultures put more emphasis on what affects men rather than women so religion and race will be more focused on than women’s issues. The burqa/veil also isn’t Islamic. Pre-Roman ancient Athens women had to wear burqas. Such a tokenist phoenician.

You know whats interesting I’ve found all sorts of articles on Christian extremism and criticisms of heels but none on the burqa/veil or Muslim extremism here. It seems alot of people have token goggles on. As an atheist I criticise on principle and treat them the same as if the Christians were doing it, apparently I’m an anamoly. Such hypocrites. I’ve found people who were better allies of feminism and wouldnt allow religious superficial alignments get in their way of modern principles who were conservative and atheist than many who identify as “liberal” here. Really youre just extensions of the ultra-conservative Muslims and you dont even realize it. Extension of Saudi lobbyists. An embarrassment to liberalism and perpetuators of the “bleeding heart” stereotype.

#64 nimravid,
Well using your reasoning then we shouldn’t ban FGM, trokoski or polygamy. Not to mention but how is keeping someone from wearing something that is oppressive, oppressive? Aggggh, there’s blood all over the floor, must be from your bleeding heart. It’s amazing I doubt I’d hear this kind of vehement opposition if they wanted to interfere in the ways that Quiverfull’s rear their daughters by governmental intervention. There are LIMITS to religious belief. You’re such a conservative.

#72 sporky,
I was referring to the veil which should be banned. Also did you not read my #57 comment? Christians nor the Jews wear the veil and if they did, who cares, it should still be banned. So no, I am not basing it around following Christians. I also like how the conservative Jews make an effort to look more integrated by wearing wigs. That’s real admirable of them. I think the other aspects of conservative dress that the Muslims exhibit should have social in-roads while the veil should be outright banned. Even orthodox Jewish girls arent put in as much restraining outfits as what Muslims do with their daughters. Try playing softball in that. The boys dont have to wear the same thing, they can run around and do what they want. Personally I think they should label child chadors abuse but I dont know how far that would go. To teach a girl that young that she is a sex object and that there is some sort of sin regarding her sexuality certaintly isnt healthy. It’s made even unhealthier when it limits her mobility, physical development and quality of life.

#73 Mighty Ponytail,

Forced stripping? Where did I write that I wanted people to strip off Muslims clothes and force them to be naked? Surely youre not that prone to hyperbole crap that you think not having a woman wear an incredibly sexist, archaic, and inhibiting fashion item that isnt even required by her religion is “forced stripping,” right? Someone get this woman on the Limbaugh Show you can be his side-kick! Am I “forcibly stripped” when they make me take off any head gear when I go into a 7/11? Hyperventilative politics.

Goblin, newell,
Thanks for the support. I’m happy at least there are some people that are aware of these realities and arent wearing token goggles. Damn, I mean, is it really that hard for a feminist to oppose the veil/burqa and chador? Its not hard to get them to dislike the Quiverfulls/heels/, ect. So pathetic. Theyre the worlds second largest religion. They arent off-hands.

#97 aaron,
There was a story where they showed in the south how Jews received alot of hate and their kids that attended a public school were made to write essays about their love for Jesus. Also its quite shallow of you to only base it all around whether or not you can “find a link (I also dont think youre working that hard to do so anyways or looking at other sources/also Jews are a minroity so you’d hear less about it than larger more represented religious denominations).” It certaintly wouldnt be unheard of in a fundie christian part of the world and talking about it when youre such a religious minority would possibly threatens ones life. I know the fundies think of Catholicism as some sort of Hindu Christianity because they pray to the saints.

Rant? Where was my rant?

If you cannot tell where it was before, see comments 99-108.  I am worried about you.  Are you OK?

Mighty Ponygirl: Nobody got hurt and nobody was going to. It takes at least two or three minutes to jump-start a car, and when you consider the fragility of the human skull, that’s more than time enough to seriously injure or kill somebody with thrown rocks if you’ve really got a mind to. Similarly, just wiping some of the paint off the sides of the vehicles wouldn’t be enough to deter a really determined pack of bushwhackers; on the one hand, at least one of the cars was pretty distinctive, and on the other, they didn’t even bother to get all the paint off. If “the boys” had intended to do more than just make a point, they had every opportunity to do so.

I don’t have any particular sympathy for the Top Gear guys; they started something they couldn’t finish, and they got run out of East Nowheresville, Alabama because of it. Good for them; they got the provincial-Americans-how-awful-they-are sneer-porn they were looking to take home and put on TV. As for the rest, not every place in the United States is nice, and acting like an asshole tends to get people acting like assholes right back, and like as not trying to top you just to prove who the bigger asshole really is, and none of this should be any kind of surprise to anyone even vaguely sensible. So I’m left in mind of someone who picks up a big heavy stick and uses it to whack a hornets’ nest clear out of its tree: what were they expecting?

Ten comments in a row = FAIL.

Holy shit, Bean Slap, have you somehow mixed up the American South and the Islamic Republic of Iran or something? Or has a hole in time opened up and spit you out from 1952? I mean, you make it sound like the whole damn place is nothing but a Klansman’s wet dream, and you can believe in that just as hard as you like and it still won’t come true.

(Want to talk about the Klan? They had one rally in my hometown in sixteen years I lived there, and it broke up halfway through when the spectators escalated from hurling invective to hurling bags of dogshit—probably more than that, in fact; dogshit doesn’t hurt enough when it hits to make people yell like some of those bedsheet bastards did, though I didn’t see anyone throw a rock with my own eyes. Funny, actually; neither did any of the cops who’d been detailed to keep all of us from eating the Klansmen alive; they acted to stop people climbing the highway barrier they’d put up between us and the rally route, but as far as personal abuse and projectiles went, they just didn’t seem to notice a thing. Of course you don’t believe a word of what I’m saying, but y’know what? I was there to see it happen, and as far as I’m concerned, you can believe or disbelieve whatever you damn well please and be just as wrong as you like in the bargain.)

Seriously, though, for just about anyone who’s ever actually lived in the South—including, for that matter, all the Southern Jews, Catholics, and Mormons I’ve ever had the opportunity to know—Richard Goblin’s contention is pretty damn extreme, and that’s why I’m looking for at the very least something a little more convincing than name-dropping a few random towns out in BFE, without any elaboration, as an argument that this is actually going on. Call me shallow if you like, but I’ve been poking around the SPLC’s website for a little while now, looking for something resembling evidence of the violent Jew- and Catholic-hatred y’all are telling me exists; I’ve never known the SPLC to go particularly easy on anyone, and they’ve always been very much down on anti-Semitism, but the closest thing I could find to what you’re saying was this (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2006/summer/into-the-mainstream), which doesn’t exactly do a hell of a lot to support your point, considering that the guy’s a libertarian and an atheist. Elsewhere, there’s Jewish Magazine, which does indeed talk (http://www.jewishmag.com/110mag/civilwar/civilwar.htm) about Jewish families being forced out of Southern homes and driven out of Southern towns. That happened during the Civil War, and it was Grant and Sherman who did it—again, not exactly a ringing endorsement of your point, but I think it’s pretty goddam hilarious considering that the only attorney general the Confederacy ever had was a Jew.

In googling for “anti-semitism <state>”, there’s a bit more to be found, sure. Examples: a governor who accidentally insulted Jews and who immediately and publicly apologized when called on the carpet for it, a pocket-size “convention” of white supremacists in Virginia getting no more traction with decent human beings there than they do anywhere else, a couple of email chain letters, a congressional candidate who made a vaguely anti-Semitic remark and failed of re-election—in other words, a relatively small number of people who’ve insulted Jews in some way and who’ve largely paid for it, and a great big howling silence when it comes to reports of people actually getting beat on, as in subjected to physical violence, for any of this. Anti-Catholicism is the same only more so. (Links on request; I don’t want this comment to hit a spam filter. And again, no, I’m not going to buy “where there’s smoke there’s fire” or other such nonsense. You’d think if this shit was anywhere near as common as you seem to believe then there’d be something you could point to for proof.)

As for “talking about it when youre such a religious minority would possibly threatens ones life”, oh, come on. I assume you’ve heard of the Internet, since you appear to be using it; it may surprise you to know that the South has it, too, and surely you aren’t about to suggest some kind of conspiracy between the telecom companies and the roving packs of Klan enforcers you seem to imagine in every neighborhood to make sure the truth never gets out. Or is it just that all the Jews and Catholics are getting beat to death before they can tell the world what’s happening to them? Or is it just that you have no actual idea what you’re talking about, but believe it so fervently that that doesn’t bother you?

The point I’m making about that particular ass-kicking is that I don’t think it happened for the stated reason, which I believe was a convenient excuse.

Easy to say since you weren’t there to witness it, isn’t it?

Is that all you have to argue with? Of course I wasn’t there to witness it, so what I’ve got to go on is Richard Goblin’s comments and my own domain knowledge, which I maintain is both broader and more acute than his—not least because it’s included both a sufficiency of ass-kickings at the hands of dumbshit rednecks, and a fair number of gay people who’ve carried on their lives and their relationships without any hint of trouble.

On that subject, yes, it’s true that the South mostly doesn’t reward being out, proud, and in-your-face, with regard to being gay or to being anything else particularly—such as atheist. I don’t pretend that’s good or honorable, but I also don’t pretend it is a static situation; as with everywhere else in the country, every new generation is less prejudiced than the one that came before it, and as more and more people of every generation learn that gay people are just people, the situation improves still further. Sure, some of ‘em won’t learn, but those people are already a minority and increasingly so.

Given in particular all the incrementalist harangues we’re hearing lately around here about Obama’s failures, betrayals, about-faces, and his repeated outright refusal to fight for the things he said he would—and given especially that the left everywhere else in the country has turned its face away from my people for at least fifty years, and then has the incredible temerity to be surprised when this engenders resentment—you’ll have to excuse me if I can’t muster much respect for it when the very same people demand the South turn into San Francisco by this time next Wednesday.

To get back to the point, no, I wasn’t there to see, with my own eyes, a bunch of resentful rednecks kick Richard Goblin’s ass in effigy. To argue on that basis that, whatever my own experience, I’m completely unable to perform any meaningful reasoning on the subject strikes me as interesting, facile, but ultimately unsupportable. Try again.

(And if you want to be intellectually honest, try to remember that other people’s experiences don’t fail to count when they fail to satisfy your own prejudices.)

Try playing softball in that.

Softball? Why not do something more hard core in a hijab?

Of course I wasn’t there to witness it, so what I’ve got to go on is Richard Goblin’s comments and my own domain knowledge, which I maintain is both broader and more acute than his—not least because it’s included both a sufficiency of ass-kickings at the hands of dumbshit rednecks, and a fair number of gay people who’ve carried on their lives and their relationships without any hint of trouble.

So, you know more than he does, and you therefore can discount his experience because of your greater knowledge.

And if you want to be intellectually honest, try to remember that other people’s experiences don’t fail to count when they fail to satisfy your own prejudices.

As in your case.

I’m completely unable to perform any meaningful reasoning on the subject strikes me as interesting, facile, but ultimately unsupportable.

You minimize and explain his experience in a way that supports your POV, even though you weren’t there to see what happened.

Aaron, please be careful at zebra crossings in the future.

You don’t see the distinction between “ignore” and “interpret differently” and you’re telling me I have problems with logic. That’s a good one. C’mon back if you want to make an actual argument at any point.

C’mon back if you want to make an actual argument at any point.

You’re the expert on ass-kicking around here, there’s no doubt about that.

nimravid,

You were responding to my # 9 comment which was only three lines long which you hyperbolically described as a “rant.”

Also apparently nimrod replying to people who wrote to me is “ranting?” So let me get this straight, when they discuss things that AGREE with you it’s not “ranting” when someone says something in response to someone else that just so happens to disagrees with you it IS? So full of shit nimrod.

tyro,
First of all they lost, second of all theres even a picture showing how their uniforms interferred and lastly they werent wearing veils, burqas or chadors but a manteau.

Find me someone playing in one of these and winning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chador

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abaya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niqab

Show me a team playing and winning in this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Burqa_in_England_2007.jpg

Seriously Aaron whtf? You are such a hyperbolist! I watched that Top Gear episode and it pissed me off. What a bunch of dipshits! That woman should be sued!I mean they had a fucking camera! The drivers werent saying or doing anything wrong and then the others tried to terrorize people into their line of thought after pelting them and enacting physical intimidation. You would probably blame an abuse victim. If anything this proves Goblins point. However it did give me an idea for $-making. Okay heres my plan, we drive cars with stupid shit on them like “nascar sucks,” videotape the dumbfucks and then sue their brains out!If the police department doesnt do anything or lies we sue the entire department as well!We also use that to make the rest of America aware of how degenerate the South is giving them a PR struggle and I also see a reality tv show from this, ie, “Harrassing the Yokels.”

http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/jewish.htm

Also it doesnt matter that people heckle KKK that doesnt mean they arent racists/bigots. Christians heckle the Westboro Baptist Church as well but it doesnt mean they dont have the same views as they do, it just means their views are less sugar-coated and Christians dont want to be associated with it. Also where in the world did I claim that the south was like the Islamic Republic to the Jews. Gawd, quit with the hyperbole. Though the south is more the equivalent of Americas Afghanistan after I watched that Top Gear video and this documentary http://www.amazon.com/Small-Town-Gay-Bar-Bishop/dp/B002SAMMLK/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1312058628&sr=1-1

Bean Slap, do you want America to ban the veil or the burka. Because you are really getting yourself into deeper and deeper trouble here.

The US government isn’t the fashion police. If someone wants to go out wearing a “little house on the praire” dress, or a head covering, or a chador, or a burka, they can. You might not like it, but that’s what it is.

And, as you can see from the example of Iran, of all places, norms of Islamic dress are adapted to sports-playing.

For Bean Slap: http://guyism.com/humor/video-the-iranian-female-police-force-have-crazy-training-sessions.html

tyro,
First tyro you do the job of reading my posts and you will see what I detailed concerning what should be banned and what should have inroads socially. Tyro, again this isnt about “fashion,” the veil isnt even demanded by Islam and it crosses a religious line of rediculousness much like polygamy (which is allowed in Islam, much like FGM). There are clear tangible legal issues behind it. I also like how you defend this horrible garb. Not to mention but I said show one with the woman wearing the veil/burqa combo. The women featured in tapetums video werent wearing veils. Also I said in sport which means they have to be competing with people who arent wearing it and it should be noted that the Iranian womens police go after females. It’s also from an older video. Try playing and running in one of those and you will get more wind resistence and it will be more unsafe than for a woman NOT playing in it. It puts religious double standards first and womens sports performance secondary. You could also use your argument for FGM, after all sex is still possible so why ban it? Why ban foot binding, getting around is still possible? Why not wear corsets in sports, running around is still possible? Or is it not okay for us, but okay for them, the Other? You havent disproven my point. It’s also rather creepy how you defend these things and much like the Iranian government go out of your way to try and project how ultra-conservative, sexually demeaning, inferiorizing garb can be “integrated” in with garb that isnt conservative and in activities where wearing these things puts women at risk. Perhaps you would like all female U.S. officers to run around in corsets and petticoats for “modesty?”

Also tyro I told you A. they werent in chadors and B. they lost. There is even a picture showing how it worked AGAINST them. But you just want to rah-rah sports double standards/sexual double standards/archaic fashion not applied to men in sports dont you?

Also tyro what the fuck do you mean getting myself in deeper and deeper trouble here? Youre the one advocating mixing inhibitive garb that represents sexual double standards against women that men dont have to abide by with sports at the expense of their own performance.

Bean Slap,

Take a walk and get some fresh air.

And welcome to America, where people are free to engage in/retain whatever traditions they choose. If this were 150 years ago, you’d be railing against “Papists” whose followers are forced to abstain from meat during Lent and have to listen to their masses in Latin.

tyro,
Why would I be railing against Papists in regards to meat? Was that sexist? Was it homophobic? Was it demeaning to womens own abilities to assert herself in public? Trying to compare Papists to a double standard outfit put on Muslim women is not the same to not eating meat Tyro. Clearly it is you who needs to go take a walk and take off your token goggles. I bet youre a guy too huh? You also assume erroneously that I’m a Christian so sorry I’m an atheist. Your unsubstantiated paranoia is not confirmed. I would also seriously like to see you make a case that not eating meat is the same thing as wearing a burqa/veil in regards to gender/double standards.

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/08/26/sports-and-corsetry/

BTW:“She may only earn 3/4 of what a man earns, but she damn well has the empower to look sexy doing it in her cheapcrap push-up bra from Victoria’s Secret. She has the empower to demand pink products from manufacturers. She has the empower to cry out ‘I did it for me!’ when she gets her boob job; maybe she even has the empower to believe it.” (I guess tyro she autonomously “chooses” it, right?)

“Nike, in an apparent bid to position itself as outfitter to the tragically empowerful, has come up with a thing called a ’sport corset.’ It’s sort of a pink sports bra, but—no joke—it has boning and laces” (you see no problem after all she can still run in it, right?)

Get over yourself tyro and quit supporting sexual double standards and inhibition of womens potential.

.....also its interesting that when I “rail” against the sexism in Christianity you dont say that if it was the early 20th century I’d be railing against the Papists not eating meat. (cough) tokenist.

When I see this video, and others that make the claim that atheists are the most oppressed minority, and the last minority where it is acceptable to bash them, all I can think is that a bunch of middle-to-upper class straight white guys finally found a situation where society is giving them a raw deal, and suddenly they think it’s the most important problem EVAR. They point to the study that features in this video, and conveniently forget to mention all the other minority groups that were not asked about.

I’m an atheist, but that’s not the part of my identity I’m afraid will cause problems. It’s being transgendered that could get me harassed, fired, or killed.

Oh and tapetum I raise you this from the same site (from a different source). Good to know you support the soldier!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyTDWVMHdkk

#134 troubleentendre,
Damn dude you are so full of shit. You’ll support a homophobic, misogynistic,terror associated, anti-secular, worlds largest/second largest religion that has MORE approval over athiesm? You clearly arent for the little guy.You do know also that atheism has many FEMALE members, right? You do also know that majority of homosexuals are white and middle class too? There are also more gay men than lesbians. How come you dont give them (by the way I’m bi) the same fucked up treatment you do atheists? You are a sorry excuse for a liberal. I mean, fuck switch the word atheist for homosexual or Muslim and you’d be calling that discrimination. Athiests do receive discrimination and perhaps you’d best go to their sites and read and look up their experiences to understand. There is nothing sicker than a smarmy faux liberal who much like an evangelical Christian talks about love and helping the little guy only to write the sick rant you just did and exhibit the exact oppposite behavior.

Also many atheists are liberal and supporters of womens rights so I dont know why you have to be such a dick torwards them/us. What a douche.

Also WTF what do you mean by the other minority groups that werent asked about? Its about atheist discrimination, why the fuck would they mention others? If theres a video about homophobia do they talk about Jewish discrimination too? Also it MAY be your atheism that can get you fired. Gawd, how over-sheltered.

Also Amanda WTF? I liked that video. You substitute the word atheist in there for Jews, women, Muslims or homosexuals and it would all be seen as bad and discrimination but atheism is instead and its not? By what fucking logic? Amanda Marcotte: That dog dont hunt.

Bean Slap, you’re a blithering moron who isn’t worth the time of a real response. If you can pull your head out of your ass long enough to start making absurd and unwarranted assumptions and statements, maybe we can talk.

...to *STOP* making absurd assumptions.

Damn you, lack-of-edit-button-combined-with-sleep-deprivation. You made me look foolish in front of the troll. I shake my fist at you.

Troubleentendre,
No what you mean is YOU are a blithering moron who doesnt know how to write for shit and cant make a counter-argument because THERE IS NONE!

Also due to your zealous hate of atheists (while falsily claiming to be one) YOU are the troll.

And we’re back! I had shit to do last night, but let’s just jump right in, shall we?

Bean Slap, I really dig you calling me a hyperbolist. I mean, it’s fair enough, I guess, since I did make the claim that there’s a conspiracy of terror underway in the South to keep Jews and Catholics from communicating to the wider world any hint of the systematized oppression which dispossesses and disenfranchises them when it’s not actively taking their lives, and calling an argument like that “hyperbolic” is actually kind of doing it a favor.

Oh, wait, right, it wasn’t me who was saying that at all, was it?

We now have one bona fide example of religious bigotry against Jewish people in a rural Alabama public school district, and I acknowledge that. I also note that it’s fifteen years old and ended with a settlement in court prohibiting that school district from engaging in, or permitting students to engage in, such bigotry. The Willis family seems satisfied with that result, at least as of 1999; I haven’t been able to find a more recent reference.

Alabama has also generally been a particular problem as regards separation of church and state. If you remember the nonsense a decade or so ago about somebody either wanting to put the Decalogue up in the state supreme court building, or not wanting them taken down? Alabama. Also, the governor I mentioned in a previous post, who accidentally insulted Jews and then when called on it publicly apologized to the satisfaction of the people raising the complaint? Current governor of Alabama.

But you know what? Even in Alabama, this shit changes. Maybe not quickly and maybe not evenly, but it does change. The Pike County school district was forbidden to engage in or permit discrimination, and two years later, Mrs. Willis was satisfied they were abiding by that ruling. Governor Bentley apologized, and the spokesman for the group of rabbis who’d brought the complaint was satisfied that he’d meant it. Roy Moore lost his job over the Ten Commandments monument, and the monument was removed—granted that one took a federal court ruling, but on the other hand, that’s exactly the sort of thing we have a federal court system for.

I’ve just ordered a copy of Small Town Gay Bar, because I’m interested to see it. I would like to point out, though, that regardless of what’s bouncing around in your head on the subject, I haven’t said no one ever got gay-bashed in the South, and I haven’t said that every gay person in the South has it easy. What I have said is that my experience includes at least a half-dozen gay people who’ve made lives for themselves in the South and haven’t come to harm because of their sexual orientation.

I’d also note that I grew up in Northern Mississippi, about forty-five minutes west of one of the gay bars featured in Small Town Gay Bar, and that I’ll put my own experience and those of people I’ve known up against a Kevin Smith documentary any day of the week. Especially when he implies that Mississippians are at fault for a murder which took place in Alabama—that fuckin’ state again! but no, it’s not the whole South—and which just as easily could’ve occurred in Wyoming, assuming your memory goes back as far as Matthew Shepard.

My memory certainly does, not least because his murder took place a little under a week before a speaker from an anti-gay organization came to my high school. “Oh,”, you’re thinkin’, “here we go, now he’s admitting I’m right!” Well, no, see, because I was far, far from the only one in my class who was horrified and disgusted by Matthew Shepard’s murder; the speaker only got about a third of the way into her spiel before she gave up her intended remarks entirely and turned to trying to answer the arguments my classmates were throwing at her, and it took, what, maybe another ten or fifteen minutes before they’d run her out of the classroom entirely.

That was a major factor in my decision to come out as queer to my classmates; I wouldn’t have seriously considered it before, but after they’d made me that proud and done so thoroughly right by me, how could I not? And they did right by me once I’d come out, too. A lot of people asked me a lot of questions, the answers to which they were interested to hear, and the head of the cheerleading squad stopped me in the hallway between classes to tell me what a brave thing she thought I’d done, and other than a couple of remarks hollered from a safely deniable distance away, nobody ever gave me shit for it or beat me up for it or what-have-you between then and graduation a year and a half later. This is one of the major reasons I’m comfortable saying that, as with anywhere else, change in the South is a generational process, and it is happening—I’ve seen it happen.

Of course you’re going to say I’m full of shit, disregard everything I’ve said, and go on with your comfortable little idea of the American South as an invariable nightmare for anybody who isn’t a straight white fundamentalist asshole, but y’know what, Bean Slap? I don’t particularly give a fuck, because like I said before, as far as I’m concerned you can be just as wrong as you damn well please and it’s no skin off my nose. At this point, honestly, I’m just having fun.

Speaking of which: Top Gear! If I see somebody walk up to somebody else and say “Hey, fuck you and everything you care about, you provincial piece of shit,” and the second person responds by slapping the first, I really don’t see a problem there, you know? If the second person responds by pulling out a gun and shooting the first in the face, well, that’s overdoing it by a large amount, and I do have a problem there. But—guess what?—and I know this is going to piss off anyone who’s got a lot of investment in progressive dogma—contrary to popular belief, a little physical violence is not the interpersonal equivalent of a fucking hydrogen bomb, and getting run out of town, but not injured, when you’ve gone to great effort to antagonize everyone there—and, I’ll add, to attack the identity of everyone there, even if you personally, Bean Slap, don’t feel that identity deserves the same kind of consideration as, say, a gay Portlander’s does—is neither an unforeseeable nor a particularly unjust outcome.

Especially when you won’t even try to stand up for yourself once you’re called on your bullshit. That in particular did a lot to prompt the reaction they got; by refusing even to begin to argue for the shit they’d painted on the cars, they made it brilliantly clear that all they were interested in doing was starting some shit. The gas-station owner and her boys just gave them what they wanted—what, in the beginning of the clip, they themselves acknowledged they wanted—the whole time. In light of all that, your reaction to the clip moves me not at all.

Oh, and—

You would probably blame an abuse victim.

Fuck you too. And if you want me to think about granting your Afghanistan argument, then you’ll need to find me at least one poppy field, y’know?

Tell you what, though, maybe we’ll talk again once you quit taking Twisty fucking Faster at her every word and spend a little time paying attention to what the world is actually like, yeah? In the meantime, have fun, assuming that’s something you’re still capable of.

(TroubleEntendre, I’m not really arguing with Bean Slap; how much ground could I possibly expect to make with someone who doesn’t even show the minimal respect involved in spelling my fuckin’ name right? This is all for the benefit of third parties to the conversation, as far as I’m concerned; I want my perspective to be available to them as they form their opinions of the subjects under what I’ll be polite and call discussion.)

#144 aaron,
Its not about what the courts did or didnt do, they were made to write an essay on ‘why they love Jesus’ in a public school. They also said they were harrassed by people for even bringing it up. Just because they also changed laws in regards to segregation doesnt mean socially it has changed. Youre making the presumption that just because a court case was had that that means there isnt stuff like this still going on or that it doesnt affect people socially. The fact that you still have politicians making offensive comments about jews says alot regardless of whether or not he was made to apologize. Also change happens in the south at a glacial speed its not a point to mention that every 1000 years they make a slight improvement.

The only people who would ever give me shit about being an atheist are people I would never want to hang out with anyway, even if I believed in their religion.

Anyway, I don’t get why so many religious people have a big bug up their butts about atheists. It makes more sense to me when they slag on other religions, because that’s direct competition.

aaron: “What I have said is that my experience includes at least half a dozen gay people whove made lives for themselves in the South and havent come to any harm”

Seriously THAT’s your standard?  And describe “harm,” is it not being able to kiss in the open, is your city more tolerant and metropolitan, do you mean physical and not harrassment, legal harm such as marriage bans?  The filmmaker notes how an atmosphere of intolerance created these deaths and gay-bashings. Do you really not think Mississippi is homophobic? A big Xristian state like that? Theyre pointing out common precedences with these religious states and also how these low-income homosexual people cant really move. Regarding Matthew Sheppard (also that was the nerdiest part of your post where you presumed to be knowing what I was thinking-seriously it was Nerdy) so what? The state still hasnt passed any hate crimes bills and still is homophobic. Clearly your high school didnt represent the majority of Wyoming and perhaps they didnt have any issue so much with the speakers perspective but the way they delivered it. Westboro Baptist gets Christian protesters who just dont like that Westboro is a less sugar-coated version of what they think about homosexuals. You have to see the big picture aaron, not the little one. You make way too many presumptions based off of hyperbole which is a red-neck Southern characteristic.

Secondly aaron your perverted rant about how people cannot express themselves on their cars because the majority disagree (to you it wouldnt have been a problem if they had painted NASCAR rules. Perhaps you’d support them throwing rocks at them if they painted a support homosexual marriage sign on their car too? I mean whats the difference between a vote Hillary campaign sign on their lawn and painting it on your car? Are you for people throwing rocks at people who have those signs on their lawn?) and can respond with violence demonstrates that you are entirely wrong and a sad mutant redneck from the south. Apparently even the homosexuals there are knuckle-dragging regressive idiots? This explains why you dont see the error in all your stupid perspectives and literally pile your degenerate views with alot of hyperbole. Soooo redneck of you. Seriously the South is a shit pile and it can fuck itself and all the little losers in it. You if anything have only reinforced my view that the South is Americas Big Embarrassment and will always be the equivalent of Americas third world or religious zealotry reminiscent of a diluted version of Afghanistan.BTW spelling your name with two a’s in it sounds like some sort of product of incest reminiscent of where you most likely came from, Deliverance Georgia. Its a Jim Bob name. Its not a name worth spelling right as it doesnt earn respect. Also your argument that not spelling your name right (which clearly is an issue with my keyboard-which you’d know if your family didnt play the extras on the set of Deliverance) somehow lessens my argument is incredible hyperbole. One pays attention to the content of ones post and merely missing one letter as the result of an old keyboard which doesnt work consistently does not lessen the argument or the structure, coherency and 99% of the rest of the correctly spelled words from my post. You have to be a severe coward to use that an an excuse to avoid my argument most likely as a method for compensating and avoding awareness concerning your severe error in your perspective.

Bitter scribe,
There have been instances where people have learned that a worker was an atheist and fired them basing it around other reasons, police intimidation, not hiring workers due to this belief, ect. Its interesting to read about though I dont know if you’ll find much about it online.

Bean: Oh sure, I don’t doubt that such things happen. I just meant I was fortunate enough to not have them happen to me. I live in the urban North and work in a field where overt religiosity is rare.

I will say the one thing I hate most about anti-atheist sentiment is that atheists are virtually guaranteed never to be President or hold most major elected offices. Every time someone gets close to the Oval Office, he or she has to explain his or her Godly habits. It’s annoying at best.

Agreed. I’ve heard from some atheists of some really freaky shit thats happened to them and wish there were more data and documentation. Where I live (in CO) the xristians kvetched until a sign that said ‘atheists, youre not alone’ was taken down. They said it “was discrininatory against Christians.”

Please, everyone note that in my prior comment I did note that most fundies have normal human sympathies deep in their hearts and that their Divine Command amorality comes from their religious practice. They are not completely degenerate, though a few are.

Furthermore, when I speak of gaining the power to crush the fundies, I think this power can be obtained by gaining sheer numbers of those who identify as atheists, influencing popular culture, and gaining power through democratic means within the limits of our Constitution and customs.

I will cite as an instance my local gay rights movement. Houston got a gay friendly mayor in the early 80’s. Cop pressure let up. No later mayor dared let the pressure start again and when there was the gay bashing Broussard murder the Houston police started a sting operation with bash bait. State power was used to put fear into bashers. I am sure that most of the readers here agree that this exercise of coercive force was justified.

Likewise, atheists need to gain influence over the tools of coercive state power. This will be difficult. But we must understand that the moral reasoning of our opponents is impaired. Nothing short of control over coercion will protect us. We need to become so strong that the people who posted this crap:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/07/30/more-death-threats-from-religious-folks/

Get a knock on the door.

Power and fear are all the fundie qua fundie understands. We have to have the power to make them fear us. Just like my local gay community got the power to make bashers fear them.

BTW spelling your name with two a’s in it sounds like some sort of product of incest reminiscent of where you most likely came from, Deliverance Georgia. Its a Jim Bob name.

It’s a Jewish name, but hey, who’s counting?

Oh, Bacopa, don’t you ever change.

thank you for posting it. it is useful for me

Thanks for your sharing .