-
kirk robbins 02/27/2009 3:08:00 AM
Homophobia isn't caused by religions, but they are the ONLY source of respectability left to it. Racism was once justified by science and religion -- when both turned against racism, it withered into its current disreputable (and comparatively mild) form. Until religions evolve into a non-homophobic, or even anti-homophobia, our only refuge will be in secular places like Seattle.
-
Carla 02/12/2009 3:12:00 PM
I'm an atheistic agnostic (don't believe in any deity, yet acknowledge that I could be wrong about that)
My motto is "I don't know, and neither do you"
I really don't see a reason to fear religion in this society. I recognize that is a privilege of not living in someplace like Saudi Arabia, where I could be killed for my heresy.
I think our Constitution, and those who uphold it, pretty much guarantee that I won't be tossed out of my home or forced out of a job due to my atheism.
I've attended several atheist/humanist/skeptic lunches, dinners and meetings, hoping for some connection. Unfortunately, the vocal majority of those in attendance have no more "brains" than the religious folk they love to bash. So I've given up on that.
That said, I still feel resentful when expected to bow my head in prayer during public gatherings and family functions. I am annoyed when people assume I'm Christian. I'm careful not to get snippy when someone tries to proselytize to me or my kids (don't like the "La Rouche-ies" either). The thing that ticks me off the most is the assumption that nonbeliever must (q.e.d) have no moral code or values.
I was thrilled to get that "nonbelievers' shout-out in the inaugural speech. (Ha, then I thought, hey what about my Pagan friends? They are people too!)
-
Penny Teal 02/09/2009 8:04:00 AM
There's always need for a pariah, isn't there? I turn to Seattle Weekly for a dose of that
accepted-community-member feeling, having just read a book in which my type - the nonreligious type - is
labelled a hate-filled loser... and there's the same sweeping generalization in Mark Fefer's
column, the same bigotry, the denigration of several million people based on the actions
of one numerically insignificant group (In Fefer's case, the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Guess from the name whether this group has an agenda beyond discussing secular humanism among themselves....). Granted, Fefer didn't call me. along with all other atheists, a "sick soul", or claim I have a proclivity for heavy
drinking, public nudity, or foul language, so he was kinder than the book's author in
many ways. Still, I can't imagine him singling out any other group for such blatant
stereotyping. It just happens that it's still safe, even in PC circles, to bash atheists.
Nonetheless, despite those who would cavalierly pigeonhole us, the only thing all
atheists have in common is a lack of belief in a deity. Otherwise we cover the full
spectrum of worldviews, personality types, attitudes, etcetera. I, for example, am a
moderate drinker and rather shy about revealing what Monty Python would call the
naughty bits. The atheists I've known don't hate religious people any more than
independent voters hate party-affiliated voters. To assume that millions of individuals
with one common trait can be fairly characterized based on the actions of a small
sampling of them is the essence of bigotry. Not only that, it's daft - like assuming that
everyone who owns a bicycle must take steroids, because those riders in the Tour de
France do. Or that Richard Dawkins represents all atheists (does Pat Buchanan represent
all religious folk?)
When society's champions of tolerance and fair-mindedness can indulge in atheist-
bashing the beleauguered non-believer might as well slink into a cave and be done with
human folly. But I have two wonderfully, inveterately atheistic children who deserve
better from this world. As the song says, "C'mon, people, now." Don't pat yourself on
the back for your tolerance with one hand while with the other you're pointing a finger
at the scapegoat .
-
s eber 02/07/2009 3:09:00 AM
Re: Religion at the inauguration
"Wait, what? Could we possibly still be doing this?" If you were in middle school, this would be an ignorant sentence. It's really hard to believe you are a newspaper editor. If you need help raising the bar...please ask me. Don't embarrass yourself.
s
-
Steve Wu 02/06/2009 5:58:00 PM
Wrong. All wrong.
The more athiests confront the stupidity and danger of these myths, the more the movement grows. Which is why religious folks are getting increasingly nervous. Like slavery, or gay rights, their days are numbered. The whole idea that atheists embrace and respect blind obedience to dogma - which continues to give us wars, pseudo-science, bigotry against woman and gays, and dangerous presidents like George Bush - is what slows the movement, which is why many prominent atheists are calling for their own to become more vocal and less reverent towards those still clinging to these antiquated notions - especially educated urban poeple who should know better, like the writer of this article.
-
JC Harris 02/04/2009 3:43:00 AM
Great article. I couldn't agree more. I travel around the country a lot and I'm struck by how similar is the attitude of many Seattle-ites as 'red state' America... just on the opposite end of the spectrum. Both sides can be -very- intolerant while being completely -clueless- about that intolerance. Everyone is so convinced that -their- POV is 'good' they want to force it down everybody else's throat.
-
Pam 01/31/2009 9:56:00 AM
In regards to the sentence "The trouble is that the only people speaking up loudly for separation of church and state are people who hate the church part."
Not so. The Christian Seventh-day Adventist Church strongly supports separation of church and state and has for over 100 years.
Liberty is a magazine published by the Seventh-day Adventist Church that covers issues involving separation of church and state, and current events in politics. It has a circulation of over 200,000.
Liberty is one of three religious freedom outreaches sponsored by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the other two being the North American Religious Liberty Association and the International Religious Liberty Association.
Liberty was first published in 1906 under the title American Sentinel and then Sentinel of Liberty before being shortened to its current name. It is dedicated to the preservation of the separation of church and state with an emphasis on the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the US Constitution. An online version is available at http://www.libertymagazine.org/
-
Dick 01/29/2009 10:47:00 PM
Another example of the intrusion of religion into secular affairs will occur Sunday, Super Bowl Sunday. As occurs at almost every athletic venue, some spoiled, pampered, privileged child will proclaim their allegiance to god as responsible for all of his/her success. One of the worst examples is the Arizona quarterback who loudly proclaims his fundamentalist beliefs at every opportunity to national adudiences. Religious praise infests every sport from running to bull riding. The usual claim is they owe every success to god, but can't explain why god only helps them and not their opponent if god is responsible for helping everyone.
The athletic profession spends an inordinate amount of time prosyletizing for christianity especially since the advent of television. From elementary school onward, the coaches push the prayer mantra to early influence the athletes. They praise god when they win, but blame themselves when they lose. God somehow abandons them in losses. The Arizona quarterback is the worst of the lot although an inordinate number of black athletes insist on prosyletizing at every chance. A few years of success followed by many years of absolute failure proves the lie of the god dependency for success. Now that he is again in the Super Bowl, god is responsible for it all. Combined with producing 6 children to overpopulate the world with his genes, the quarterback will now have a worldwide stage in which to proclaim his divinity; that is, only if he wins.
-
Martin H 01/29/2009 5:57:00 PM
Atheism is a notion invented by those who think there is a god. It was not created by those who think there isn't. If you don't have people with beliefs in gods, you don't have atheist. So although you think you've got a handle on an institution of some sort, you haven't. There is nothing to organize. You have secularists groups to promote the separation of religion and politics, members of which are more likely to reject the notion of a god, and you have individuals who are actually challenging the idea of a god.
This combination is the best way forward. The secularist groups are pushing religion aside for better political ideals, and individuals are tearing into bizarre, illogical, religious belief and its worst excesses.
There is no other way. You can't have religious-sized atheistic institutions promoting non-belief because it will be discounted as belief in the same fashion. You can't have replacement symbols to your god because it will be perceived as just as devotional. You can't hang "nothings" on the wall in place of crosses. From an atheist's point of view the only alternative to the whole religious edifice is nothing.
Judging by the slight irritation in your article something is being done right. A religionist complaining about atheists brings joy to my heart.
-
Lynn 01/29/2009 5:28:00 PM
"But religion is no different from sports, music, or any other part of our culture." Of course it is different! Unlike the Pope or Rick Warren, Tiger Woods and Yo Yo Ma have never tried to influence public policy to reflect their own particular views, because they believe that a certain supernatural deity exists and they know what this god wants us to do with out lives.
There is no logical basis for religious belief and wanting non-believers to sugar-coat this so as not to 'offend' believers' fragile sensibilities is like asking vegetarians to eat hamburgers at a BBQ so as not to upset the meat-eaters among them. Simply stating that "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds" conveys the atheists' point of view in the same way that �Meat is Murder� encapsulated the vegetarians'; you may not agree with either statement but both should be debated and discussed not censored from public discourse because they 'offend' their opponents' belief systems.
-
Christopher Bingham 01/29/2009 5:32:00 AM
Religion is not like sports. It makes the extrordinary claim that it's adherents have the right to decide law based the rantings of someone's imgainary friend.
The moderates validate the extremists because stoning sassy kids is ok since it's merely a doctrinal disagreement, but the BASIS of the religion is somehow real.
Religion DOES harden hearts and enslave minds. A good person will be good with or without relgion, but if you want to do something really AWFUL, "god" says it's right is the easy default reason.
Atheists are NOT as bigoted and doctrinaire as fundies. Show us the data that your imaginary friend exists and you'll convince the lot of us. 40,000 years since the first cave paintings and we're still waiting.
There is such a thing as objective reality. Next time you need an anti-biotic, ask "god" to fix the infection first - but don't wait too long for results, if you like living.
If we don't do things like sue for Establishment clause violations, we end up in the circular argument that the courts have used in the past. Prayer can somehow be made into a "secular tradition" that somehow isn't prayer because no one has tried to stop it for so long.
Respect is earned. Atheists are asked to respect the beliefs of people that are plainly stupid and harmful to everyone. If we're going to get along for the long term, what we need to respect is each other's RIGHT to believe any damn fool thing you want to believe - and say anything you want about the validity or the value of an idea.
If we can get beyond god, we might just end up with a free country.
-
Christopher Bingham 01/29/2009 5:27:00 AM
Religion is not like sports. It makes the extrordinary claim that it's adherents have the right to decide law based the rantings of someone's imgainary friend.
The moderates validate the extremists because stoning sassy kids is ok since it's merely a doctrinal disagreement, but the BASIS of the religion is somehow real.
Religion DOES harden hearts and enslave minds. A good person will be good with or without relgion, but if you want to do something really AWFUL, "god" says it's right is the easy default reason.
Atheists are NOT as bigoted and doctrinaire as fundies. Show us the data that your imaginary friend exists and you'll convince the lot of us. 40,000 years since the first cave paintings and we're still waiting.
There is such a thing as objective reality. Next time you need an anti-biotic, ask "god" to fix the infection first - but don't wait too long for results, if you like living.
If we don't do things like sue for Establishment clause violations, we end up in the circular argument that the courts have used in the past. Prayer can somehow be made into a "secular tradition" that somehow isn't prayer because no one has tried to stop it for so long.
Respect is earned. Atheists are asked to respect the beliefs of people that are plainly stupid and harmful to everyone. If we're going to get along for the long term, what we need to respect is each other's RIGHT to believe any damn fool thing you want to believe - and say anything you want about the validity or the value of an idea.
If we can get beyond god, we might just end up with a free country.
-
Mark Hughes 01/29/2009 1:44:00 AM
The problem isn't all religions. It's with specific ones, in our country primarily Christianity. The Christian Bible declares support for an array of terrible practices that any sane person repudiates: slavery, polygamy, execution of homosexuals, adulterers, "witches", and idolators and blasphemers (hey, that's me!). Some of those even the Christians have given up on. Others, not so much.
The first step to getting the elephant out of the room is to acknowledge that the elephant is IN the room. Going along politely and refusing to state the truth, that there are no gods and that the Christian religion encourages evil, just allows them to continue.
If enough of us atheists are uppity in public for long enough, the Christians will stop freaking out at the mere mention of our lack of belief. Barack Obama mentioning non-believers in his inauguration speech was a giant step forward, but it's not the end.
-
Jim 01/29/2009 12:28:00 AM
Mark Fefer attacks atheists as being �doctrinaire� but has no problem using a column title (The M.F. Truth) that suggests that he has all the answers. It�s too bad he didn�t stick with the essential argument in his piece -- that there�s no place for religion in government -- rather than get all screwed up about those mean-spirited atheists who dared to place a sign in Olympia stating the negative effects of religion or to sponsor a billboard asking people to think about life without religion as John Lennon did in a very inspirational way many years ago. Scientific facts make it very difficult to argue effectively for any kind of special creation or supernatural being or human afterlife. Yet the majority of Americans apparently believe those myths, and non-believers are now the most despised and discriminated subgroup in this country (try to win a political election as an avowed atheist). So I wish to extend a big �thank you� to atheists and others who are willing to speak their truth in spite of the crap they are certain to take for it. And contrary to one of Fefer�s other claims, there are plenty of organizations (ACLU, People for the American Way and many religious organizations, for example) which do not �hate the church� yet speak out loudly for church-state separation.
-
bobxxxx 01/28/2009 9:34:00 PM
"Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds" is a correct statement. A lot worse things could be said about religions. They make people stupid. They make some people dangerous. Every single religious belief ever invented, and every single magic god fairy ever invented, is childish nonsense.
Mark Fefer, who wants atheists to shut up, is part of the problem. People like Mark Fefer who suck up to religious insanity are just as bad as the worst religious extremists.
-
Zachary Bos 01/28/2009 8:40:00 PM
In the middle of our public culture is a dark region, from which moral pronouncements of made, but into which no critical inquiry may venture. Unlike sports teams and musicians, religious leaders claim to have unique access to truths about the nature of existence. These doctrines determine the moral and often the political decisions of their adherents. Considering that most religious doctrine is revelatory, and that revelation isn't a reliable source for political, moral, or physical truths, it is remarkable that the common attitude towards religion is to decline to investigate the truth of such claims.
