Sunday, April 30, 2006

Atheism and Theism

I know I was supposed to refute myself next, but this issue seems to be causing a lot of unnecessary dissension. So.

Atheism is simply the belief that there is no G-d or gods or disbelief in the claim that there is one or more than one. Theism is simply the belief that there is either one G-d or the belief that there is more than one. This is how we get both monotheism and polytheism. It's highly unlikely that anyone has ever killed in the name of atheism itself or theism itself. I can hear it now: "What? Are you a deluded crackpot?" Okay, here's a roundabout way of explaining it.

Jim begins as a blank slate (with reasoning and emotional faculties intact)and is given the choice on the matter of the existence or non-existence of G-d or gods. Jim can think about things and come to one of four conclusions. (Yes, there are other choices in the real world, but not in the make-believe world I've set up for Jim.)

Jim's choices:
a.) There is no G-d or gods.
b.) I don't know and can't know.
c.) There is a G-d.
d.) There are many gods.

Depending on which choice he makes, Jim will be faced with five questions. (Again, Jim lives in an imaginary world.)

1. What does that mean for personal morality?
2. What does that mean for social morality?
3. What does that say about the nature of the universe and my place in it?
4. What does that say about the nature of humanity in general and Jim specifically?
5. What does that say about people who believe differently and my interactions with them?

Jim's answers to these questions can lead him to myriad options even in his imaginary world: militant atheism, atheistic humanism, evangelical atheism, agnosticism, nihilism, materialism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism, spirituality, Wicca, Pastafarianism, etc. ad infinitum. Jim's beliefs (depending on his choice) can be identified as liberal, progressive, moderate, centrist, conservative, ultraconservative, fundamentalist, literalist, radical, extremist, etc.

Yes, Jim's belief has gone far beyond a, b, c, or d. However, Jim's answers to 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are based on a, b, c, or d and inextricably liked to them as well.
So, no, Jim would probably not kill over a, b, c, and d but he sure as hell might kill over his answers to numbers 1 through 5.

I hope that makes sense.

Visiting the Dictionaries

There was some concern about my use of certain definitions for particular words. Some even claimed that I made them up with some ill intent in mind. So, here we'll visit a few dictionaries to see how I 'made up' the working definitions I used and what specifically I meant by others that have been misconstrued.

First, secular. Yes, I admit that my introduction of this word muddied the waters quite a bit and made it easy for some to assume that I was referring to all or most atheists. I introduced the word b/c I was hoping not to have to use the same word "atheist" over and over again like a battering ram. My desire for "interesting" rather than repetitive language led to some misunderstandings and for that I have apologized. But where did I get the idea that secular meant THAT.

Secular: Relating to or advocating secularism
(Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)

Secularism: 1) worldly views esp., a system of belief and practices that rejects any form of religious faith.
2) the belief that religion should be strictly separated from the state or government esp., from education." (Source: Webster's Dictionary of the New Age)


Now, some have interpreted the word "extremist" to refer only to action, however both action and thought can be extremist.

Extremist: (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm; "extremist political views"; "radical opinions on education"; "an ultra conservative" OR a person who holds extreme views (Source: Princeton's WordNet Search)

We also had some confusion about the words atheist and agnostic.

Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God OR a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods (Source: Princeton's WordNet Search)

It is my understanding that these two definitions represent two different types of atheism. I may be incorrect.

Agnosticism: a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence" OR the disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge (Source: Princeton's WordNet Search)

ALSO

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth values of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities—are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent, and therefore, (some agnostics may go as far to say) irrelevant to life. (Source: Wikipedia)

There also seemed to be a problem with my reference to metaphysical naturalism, which many took to mean that I was attacking the scientific method, which is methodological naturalism. Here's a brief insight into the difference.

Naturalism is, at its heart, the idea that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. It can be divided into two forms, methodological and metaphysical naturalism. It is not uncommon, however, for some to argue that this division is artificial and that there is no genuine separation between the two.
Methodological naturalism is the basis of scientific work and is the process of assuming that natural explanations can be found for natural events. When operating under methodological naturalism, we act as if metaphysical naturalism is true without also asserting that it definitely is.
Metaphysical naturalism is a stronger view which argues that nature is reality and that there is no reality beyond the physical, natural world - no supernatural beings, no supernatural powers and no supernatural events. Metaphysical naturalism is the position atypically adopted by atheists and, as such, is often a label used in a pejorative manner by people who want to accuse others of atheism.
(Source: The Glossary at Atheism.about.com)


Then, there's the word that brought accusations of "Nazism" on my part.

Disavow: refuse to acknowledge; disclaim knowledge of; responsibility for, or association with (Source: Princeton's WordNet Search)

For me, this is just a public statement: "Most of us find these views to be indefensible, therefore those who ascribe to these views do not represent the majority of liberals or progressives or our movements." Yes, the vocal minority who ascribe to extremist views on the left have been used by the right to smear us all. Although the accusations are false, I feel we need to respond by clarifying for ourselves and the American people what precisely it is we stand for and against. Just saying "Liberals good. Conservatives bad." isn't going to cut it.

I do not believe we should have a putsch, purge, witchhunt or "tag and release" program for anybody. Nor should anyone be deprived of their rights of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion or freedom from religion.

Next time, I'll deconstruct my own column to make clear its weaknesses and the origins of those problems. Hopefully, I'll also be able to clarify a few of my (I believe) valid arguments. Again, please be patient as my time to write is very limited.

Saturday, April 29, 2006

Some links

Here are the links to Steven Weinberg and one example of the dangers of "unquestioning" obedienceto ANY authority can cause a LOT of trouble.

Who are these "extremists"?

Author's note: Blogger seems to be confounding me on the formatting and linking on this post. If you notice a sentence that stops out of nowhere or something, please let me know. If you notice changes from an earlier posting, that's because I accidentally deleted a large section in editing.

Many asked this question, requesting that I should name names. Others pointed out how some of the comments to my column proved my point. So, I will begin with what I believe are extremist statements culled from a couple of internet comments threads. I will get to why I thought it necessary to write about it, how I pick my topics, the "threat" that could be posed by atheist extremists in the future, the current problem, etc. in later posts. For now, I begin with a little fleshing out of the extremist position. I don't know these people personally, so perhaps they're just spouting invective for its own sake. So, while these people may not be extremist, some of the comments they've made are or at least seem to be.

Many misunderstood the concept of "extremist" to mean only those who bomb buildings, take over governments or parties, carry out inquisitions, etc. An extremist is one who's beliefs and/OR actions are extreme. As I have argued is the case with both Christian extremism and Muslim extremism, those who propagate extremist ideas provide the justification for those who ultimately move from simply "believing" in extremist ways to acting in extremist ways.

For example, someone who believes that HIS group has the absolute truth on a subjective matter and that those who disagree are inherently bad, stupid, deluded, psychotic, immoral, incapable of rational thought, bigoted, dangerous etc. holds an extremist viewpoint, one which demonizes and dehumanizes the other. This dehumanized other becomes an easy target for those unstable enough to act.

(This is what I was trying to get at with outrageous claim 1, where someone would claim in an absolutist fashion that atheism IS true and religion IS false. Believing that your beliefs are true--as opposed to an absolutist claim--is perfectly reasonable. It is in the inability to admit our own limitations and fallibility that we are given to extremism. More on that later. Sorry for the interruption.)

Frankly, I have no desire to harm those who have a psychological addiction to a mythology; I pity the harm you are doing to yourselves. Perhaps you, like any other addict, feels threatened by those who do not share your addiction. MINNIE MOUSE (From Raw Story comments thread.)

Faith is an act of mental destruction. If there is no evidence for a claim, then accepting it is irrational. Eventually, even when confronted with evidence against faith, one’s mind is so dependent on their belief that fear of one’s world view collapsing will encourage one to reject the evidence. When this happens, one acts against reality. This is an act of mental destruction. A mentally deranged state of mind defined as a psychotic individual. Psychosis: severe mental disorder in which contact with reality is lost or highly distorted. The deeper the faith, the more severe the psychosis. ADNIHILO (From Raw Story Comments thread.)




Here's a question though: Apparently only 15% of Americans consider themselves atheist or non-believers. That number may even be high. Does that mean that only 15% of us are capable of critical thought and following rational arguments to their conclusion? RAINDOG (From Raw Story Comments thread.)

She doesn't understand she isn't a liberal. Her Judaism is a religious bias she believes reasonable and not 'extremist'. Personally, I think any belief in a theology dating back more than a thousand years is 'whacko', beit jesus(christ type) muhammed, thor, even madonna. WM MALO (Raw Story Comments)

Most atheists I've met believe that people need to use their own reasoning abilities to come to atheism.
ICOULDBEWRONGBUT (Raw Story Comments)

Snark Break: You poor, lost soul, look into your heart and come to Jesus. Notice the similarities?

Freedom of religion = freedom to be stupid. (....) 2) You who believe in a god, or gods, or wicker, the pope in a magical dress, or any other such rubbish, you are all of weak mind and unsound reasoning. JM(Raw Story Comments)

Barton is a prime example illustrating religious adherents or faith-based believers as inherently intolerant. ALSO Religiously instilled Anxiety and hostility leads to its bigotry, hate, murder and genocide. Which tells us why all 3 monotheistic religions combined have and continue to be singularly the most destructive force in the history of civilization. To tolerate the intolerable monotheistic religions is tolerate this most singularly destructive force in the history of civilization. Meaning all faith-based social organizations, governments and culture are so diseased, that their total destruction is the only viable solution for its own sake, independent of any constructive plan or outcome. That I suppose is an extreme form of atheism.. Adnihilo (Pharyngula Comments)

And one prominent atheist extremist for your consideration:
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil-that takes religion." Steven Weinberg (link, so not working on blogger, can be found on Pharyngula comments thread and on next post.)

So, that's the beginning. I'll be writing more on a variety of related topics and answering your questions soon. (That's if blogger ever let's me post this correctly.) Please be patient as my full-time job and long commute seriously limit my time.

Also, please be patient with my "humanness." I may use a word with (an albeit obsecure) definition or usage with which you do not agree. Please do not assume that my use of the "wrong" word carries ill intent. Language is not something so easily used that you can avoid every possible misinterpretation. Semantics is a game too easily played when you're looking for something that's not there.

One final note, I realized in following the debate over my column that atheism is more complex than I realized. Although I used a variety of sources for this piece, textbook definitions and encyclopedic explanations don't always have a 100% correlation to how terms are used and understood in the real world. So, I'd like to provide a list of atheist resources for people who want to learn more about atheism in general and atheism in America specifically. If you have any suggestions, post them in the comments thread on THIS piece. I'll post a list later on.


Thursday, April 27, 2006

Please Be Patient

My last column sparked a lot of controversy, a lot of unwarranted attacks on my character, etc. throughout the internet. However, it also sparked a lot of reasonable criticisms, defenses, and questions about some of the ideas expressed and my reasons for writing. I will be addressing your concerns, however I beg your patience.
First, I wanted to give myself time to process all of your criticisms before responding. I have been culling them from all over the internet and am prepared to give answers that (while they will not satisfy everyone) may be able to at least bring the discussion to a reasonable level so that we can (hopefully) talk to rather than at each other.
Normally, I would be engaging in the debate on Raw's comment forum. At the beginning, this is what I had intended. Unfortunately, as I responded to a few of your very good comments, I became deluged with people who had no intention of engaging in reasonable discussion and instead attacked me for having the gall to respond at all. I was a bit overwhelmed by the response and chose to wait rather than try to fish out the reasonable debate from the ad hominem attacks on the fly.
My apology, issued with sincerity after reading many of your amazing comments on Raw and other sites, was also attacked by those who were confident I was not sincere. There is no way for any person to prove sincerity over the internet, so I won't try. However, I will be responding to many if not all of your questions soon, including a bit about how I pick my topics and why this one in particular.
Today, I'll be celebrating my 30th birthday, so I'm giving myself the evening off to breathe, relax, reflect, and have a few much-needed beers. I'm aiming for my first posting tomorrow.

Until then,
Shalom Aleichem
And may the Flying Spaghetti Monster keep you safe,
Melinda Barton

Monday, April 24, 2006

An Apology

After the publication of my take on secular extremism on Raw Story, I received quite a lot of vitriol from many atheists who felt I was condemning atheism and secularism as a whole. While I feel that I made clear that that was not the case, I must admit that if so many people came away with this conclusion, then obviously the article was not as well prepared or well written as it should have been. This is due, in part, to the fact that I have struggled for quite some time with whether I should write it at all. Also, my use of the word "whackjob" was an intentional although perhaps badly chosen play on the common pairing of that word with the word "religious." I apologize to any who felt that I was adding burdens to an already burdened minority in our country.
I'd also like to take a few moments to clarify some points here. The separation of church and state is and always has been vital to the functioning of liberal democracy. It contains both freedom of and freedom from religion and should continue to do so. I strongly support the right of all peoples to believe or disbelieve whatever they wish within the bounds of respect for human rights. In other words, if it's not hurting anyone, go for it. I would defend to my death (Yes, I'm aware it's a cliche.) your right to believe or disbelieve and am strongly opposed to prayer in schools, the use of the bible in a courtroom, laws based solely on religous precepts with no accompanying social necessity, the teaching of religious belief in public institutions, etc. Although I disagree with atheist precepts, I have respect for the logic and reasoning upon which they are based. This continues despite my acceptance of faith in my own life.
Finally, I do not believe that anyone should be silenced or purged, only that the progressive movement is not required to grant legitimacy to all leftist beliefs. I also believe that we should criticize ourselves with the same honesty with which we criticize others. I have regularly opposed religious extremism and have held it up to harsh criticism numerous times in my published work. I thought it only honest to take a look at the other side despite the fact that I consider religious extremism to be the greatest threat facing us today. If anyone came away with the impression that I consider secular extremism to be even an iota of the threat that religious extremism is, I apologize. I can only assure you that, I would hope, most of my work is better written and prepared and that I will take greater care in the future.

Shalom Aleichem,
Melinda Barton

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Does anybody care?

"When the American people finally realize what's going on...." I wonder how many times I've started a sentence like that lately. Some part of me, I guess, wants to hold onto the dream that we, the people of the United States, would rise up against any who would oppress us... just as soon as we, the people, turn away from American Idol long enough to witness the American nightmare come to life.

Sometimes, I imagine the glorious rhythm of tens of millions of American feet hitting the pavement. Sometimes, in the darker moments, I imagine red-faced mobs dragging Bush out of the White House by his boots and hanging him in front of the Capitol building. The first image is the daytime dream of a liberal activist who still holds faith in "power to the people." The second some horrific nightmare torn from my mind's most fearful ramblings. After all, isn't that how fascist and quasi-fascist regimes meet their demise?

Now, part of me thinks that the only difference between the two is the timing. How long, after all, does it take for 270 million people to waken to unpleasant truths when pleasant diversions are so much easier to grasp? How far will we travel down the road to totalitarianism before 270 million people decide they want to get off the ride? Will the shock and awe of witnessing the cold death of American democracy spur a renewed commitment to our ideals or a final rage-filled battle before we slip into that dark night? "When" the American people realize makes all the difference.

Until tonight, I have stubbornly refused to admit that "when they realize" might be "if they care" because that "if" challenges one of the few unblemished, virgin territories of a once vast optimism. "Power to the people" and "power of the people" ultimately require "the people" to actually care, to actually value their freedoms so much that they'd be willing to fight for them.

After drowning myself in an ocean of news and analysis in preparation for providing what I'd hoped would be an intelligent, reasonable response to our journey into darkness, I came away with a million contradictory answers too convoluted to figure out after a long day at work and a single question too important not to ask:

What if they don't care?

What if the people don't really care about their freedoms as long as the trains run on time and Starbucks is still serving up the lattes and macchiatos? What if we liberal denizens of the blogosphere and alternative presses are standing on our low-rent soap boxes screaming into an apathetic void? What if they'd really rather keep Chris on American Idol than get Bush and his cohorts out of power? What do we do then?

Thursday, April 13, 2006

Whackjobs: Reprise

My editor over at Raw Story, the very talented Avery Walker, asked for a few changes to my piece on secular extremism. I've chosen to post the new, revised, and hopefully superior version here. I hope it makes more sense to any who may have been confused by the earlier version. If it requires any more changes before publication, you'll have to read the final version on Raw. Sorry, commitment has its limits.
Shalom Alechem,
Melinda Barton

UPDATED AUTHOR'S NOTE: (4/29/06) Unfortunately, the existence of multiple, publicly available versions of this piece has caused quite a bit of uproar. As I noted in the above note, (posted at the time of the writing of this post) this is not the final Raw Story version. I had been experimenting with posting the different versions of pieces as a way to show the writing process and to ensure openness. (And also as a bit of habit as this is how some of the sites I write for would pull my work into their sites in the past.) However, to prevent any misunderstanding in the future, the Raw Story final version (with link) and that version only will be published and that only after at least one week had passed. I apologize for any confusion this has caused anyone who mistook this version for the Raw Story final version. To be honest, so few people read this blog before this controversy that I'd never considered the possibility that my experiment would cause any harm. Regardless of intent, all fault is mine and I apologize.

Melinda Barton


The religious nutballs on the extreme right have kept us rational lefties so busy that we've neglected an important although onerous duty -- cleaning the secular whackjobs out of our own attic, the extreme left. (Of course, extremisms of the religious or atheistic nature are only a small part of the sum total of extremism. Each form of thought has its own whackjobs of varying stripes.) Why face off with the secular whackjobs? Because extremism is extremism is extremism. No rational movement dedicated to intellectual courage and honesty should maintain a relationship with those for whom intellectual laziness, dishonesty, and cowardice are a way of life. Doing what must be done to insure the integrity of the left will require identifying our extremists, countering their mythologies, and acknowledging the dangers they pose to a truly liberal society.

First, what is a secular whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state. Although all secular extremists are atheists, not all atheists are secular extremists.

The whackjob is a special sort of atheist, one so absolutely certain of the inerrancy of atheism and so virulently opposed to religion that he will latch on to any and all outrageous claims in defense of the former and against the latter. He will meet any criticism of atheism or postive representation of religion as a horrible attack on his way of life or as support for religious extremism and oppression. Just as the religious extremist holds that his belief in a supreme being alone makes him morally and spiritually superior, the secular extremist holds that his belief that no such being exists and virulent opposition to the reverse make him intellectually and ethically superior. Finally, he will ignore any and all reason or evidence that refutes his claims.

So, what are the secular extremist's claims? They are legion, but I will stick to some of the major claims I've encountered in "respected" secularist media and in debate with atheist friends and readers.

Outrageous claim number 1: Atheism is based on evidence and reason and is philosophically provable or proven. Atheism is a matter of thought not belief. In other words, atheism is true; religion is false.

In his article "Atheism and Social Progress" found on the website of The Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Keith Cornish expresses it the claim this way, "A few years ago a member of the Committee of the Atheist Foundation of Australia proposed a new definition of 'atheism' that removes any hint of negativity and puts the onus of justification right back where it should be - that is, on Christians. His definition is 'Atheism' is the acceptance that there is no credible, scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a God, god/s or the supernatural'. This was accepted as our official definition, though personally I would prefer the removal of the word 'credible' because of its association with 'faith' and 'belief'. It could well be replaced by 'logical'." (Emphasis mine.)

Both atheism and theism contain elements of rational thought and reason. When an adherent of either position examines what the existence or nonexistence of a supreme being means for humanity and how we structure our lives and moral/ethical systems, thought is involved. Ultimately, however, the supernatural's existence or nonexistence cannot be supported by evidence or proven by reason. Both are a matter of faith and therefore belief. In the absense of verifiability, neither can claim to be absolute truth. Placing a burden of proof on either "side" in the matter would be futile as neither could rise to the challenge. Tolerance for differences of belief would be far preferable.

In the middle, as always, are the agnostics who hold that claims about the supernatural cannot be assessed as "true" or "false" because they invoke the unknown, the unknowable, and the incoherent. This is perhaps the most logically defensible stance, however, there are those who hold strong beliefs in the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities who acknowledge this logic as well, accepting the fallibility and limitation of human knowledge and the fact that their belief or disbelief cannot be supported by incontrovertible logical or evidentiary proof.

Outrageous claim number 2: Since the natural is all that we have or can scientifically observe and/or measure, it is all that exists.

This claim, one of the fundamental forms of ontological or metaphysical naturalism, is a blatant logical fallacy not to mention scientifically inaccurate. The logical fallacy is easy to refute: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The scientific part takes us into stickier territory.

Warning: Technobabble ahead! The known laws of physics and the discoveries of quantum physics show that our ability to observe the universe is limited by its and our innate properties. For instance, the impossibility of overcoming the speed of light means we see distant objects as they appeared far in the past, so some event may have happened so far in the past that we can't observe it. Although we are only able to observe three dimensions, many physicists now believe that there may be many that we can't observe and question why we're limited to three. The possibilities opened up by our examination of the universe and the acknowledgement of our own limitations has allowed scientists to consider the existence of a variety of things we neither have nor can observe, including multiple dimensions and multiple universes.

In this context, the supernatural's existence cannot be refuted solely by our inability to observe it. Maybe a supreme being's properties or our own are simply preventing direct observation. It's a logical possibility. It is simply not one for science to consider. In the end, however, it is almost certain that there are things that exist that are beyond any of our philosophies.

Outrageous claim number 3: All religion is oppressive.

According to The International Manifesto for Atheistic Humanism, for instance, "Religion is oppressive. The act of subjugating human will to "divine will" is oppressive. The practice of obeying clergy, of letting them make our decisions for us, is oppressive and irresponsible."

This one flies in the face of the evidence. Yes, it's very easy to show many instances of oppression stemming from religion. However, it is also easy to show many instances in which political and social progress were spearheaded by religious individuals based on the teachings of their particular faiths. Study the abolitionist movement or the civil rights movement and you will be hard pressed not to encounter the role of religion in these struggles for liberation. To go beyond Christianity, there is now a movement in Africa that teaches Muslim women how to read the Koran so that they can refute the false claim that that religion demands or even permits female genital mutilation.

Religion, like any system of belief, is subject to the often contradictory nature of humanity and the tides of history. It is one thing at this moment and in this place and something completely different in another time and place. Oppression or liberation (with a few exceptions) are in the application, not necessarily inherent in the system of belief itself. For instance, communism may look fine on paper, but in the hands of the Russians post-revolution, it was used to support one of the most oppressive regimes in modern history.

Outrageous claim number 4: The eradication of religion in favor of secularism will bring about utopia.

Marxists and anarchists, specifically, hold that the total eradication of religion is an essential but not sufficient step in the creation of an atheist utopia. In some interpretations of these systems of thought, false though they may be, the eradication of religion is thought to be sufficient to create utopia.

Forgive me for discussing Torah, but I think the story of Adam and Eve (interpreted as a parable) is relevant here. Adam and Eve couldn't remain in the garden because they were fully human, with the free will that that implies. The message: humanity and paradise cannot exist together. In any society, no matter how ideal, there will be discontent, antisocial behavior, criminality, anger, uncontrolled passions, greed, avarice, disobedience, and dissent. There will be, at last, the human animal. Some new system of control and punishment will arise to cope with those aspects of the humanity and free will that endanger society. No utopia can withstand that.

Outrageous claim number 5: All religious people want to force you or convince you or coerce you to believe as they do.

This is perhaps the claim I've heard most often in conversations with friends and readers of the atheist persuasion, some of whom condemn it as false. I tried to find an "official" source for this hasty generalization with no luck, but chose to include it here based on personal experience. In addition to the fact that it's a logical fallacy based on a habit of many but not all atheists to judge all religions by their negative experiences with or feelings about Christianity, this claim also flies in the face of reality.

If I may, permit me to speak for those of the religious persuasion. Yes, many religious people do want to convert you, however, some of us could really care less what you believe. Personally, I wouldn't care if you believed that a big head of lettuce were going to come down and give us all strong bones and healthy teeth. Hey, as long as you're not interfering with someone else's rights, all hail the holy radicchio and bully for you. That's your business. Of course, I'm a practitioner of Judaism, which absolutely forbids proselytizing and any attempt at coercing or forcing someone to change his beliefs. In fact, many have even been denied conversion to Judaism and those who are finally accepted face a long and arduous process. Oh, wait. Judaism is a religon!

After that brief foray into snark, we come to the dangers. In modern America, secular extremists as a group don't have the wealth, influence, numbers or power to affect the way most of us live our lives. However, we should learn from what has happened elsewhere and be prepared to meet them if or when they do. While most who believe in the separation of church and state hold that only government support of religion in the public sphere should be forbidden, the secular extremist may take it one step further to forbid the private display of religious symbols in public places. Remember the laws forbidding the wearing of yarmulkes, crosses, hijabs, and the like in France. Such laws are just as much a violation of the liberal ideals of freedom of religion and conscience as laws that require religious practices.

But that's far in the future for America if it ever comes to our shores at all; the greatest danger the secular extremist poses now is to the integrity and success of progressive movements. If we are to truly uphold the liberal ideals of freedom and liberty, we must stand against extremists of all stripes who would threaten those ideals. Secondly, in a nation comprised predominantly of those who believe in some sort of supreme being, our success as a movement depends on disavowing the secular extremist as a legitimate voice of the left. Finally, our commitment to truth demands we counter the fallacies being perpetuated in our name.

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Yeah, I believe you. Suuuuuuuuuure!

Why is it that I don't believe the State Dept. estimate that Iran can have a nuclear weapon within 16 days if it goes ahead with plans to install 50,000 centrifuges at Natanz? Hmmmmmmmmm?
Could this be preliminary propaganda to justify a future nuclear attack on Iran? Will George W. Bush become the man who destroyed nuclear non-proliferation forever, not to mention the first person ever to launch a
"preemptive" nuclear strike?
American Conservative has this to say about the possibility of an attack on Iran:
In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Emphasis Mine.)
Why would I, a liberal, quote American Conservative? So that you know that this isn't liberal propaganda or just the rantings of a Bush-hater. This is a genuine possibility. Even the flag-waving conservatives are beginning to be concerned about the insanity of this administration's plans for the world. Our president may actually launch a nuclear strike on a country that poses no threat to us, has committed no overt act of war, in a completely premeditated act of mass murder.
Depending on the timing of this attack, this may be the set up for Bush to obliterate what's left of American democracy by suspending democratic elections, placing all "undesirable elements" (read: anyone who opposes his plans) under illegal surveillance or detention, and declaring martial law nationwide. This places KBR's contract to build detention camps in America in an entirely new and woefully terrifying new light.
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has warned that we may be seeing the "beginnings" of dictatorship due to the far right's attack on the judicial system and the courts. Couple this with the attacks on the American media, the constitutional separation of powers, and the constitutional rights of Americans with the Patriot Act and the NSA spying, and you can see how far we've gone down the road to totalitarianism.
More on the degeneration of American freedom later. For now, Liberals In Exile brings you this reminder of our president's commitment to the American way of life:
Author's Note: Tonight is the first night of Passover. I would normally spend this night in observance, with writing the furthest thing from my mind. But I felt that a higher moral duty called. In the face of such horror, I could not remain silent even on this holy night. A higher moral duty calls to all of us, no matter our faith or lack thereof, to ensure that George W. Bush is denied his opportunity to become death, the destroyer of worlds. Removing Bush and Cheney from office through impeachment must become our first priority. The lives of millions of innocent people in Iran may depend on us. Failure is not an option.
Shalom Alechem,
Melinda Barton

Sunday, April 02, 2006

Whackjobs or All Hail the Holy Radicchio

UPDATED AUTHOR'S NOTE: (4/29/06) Unfortunately, the existence of multiple, publicly available versions of this piece has caused quite a bit of uproar. As I noted in the above post, this is not the final Raw Story version. I had been experimenting with posting the different versions of pieces as a way to show the writing process and to ensure openness. (And also as a bit of habit as this is how some of the sites I write for would pull my work into their sites in the past.) However, to prevent any misunderstanding in the future, the Raw Story final version (with link) and that version only will be published and that only after at least one week had passed. I apologize for any confusion this has caused anyone who mistook this version for the Raw Story final version. To be honest, so few people read this blog before this controversy that I'd never considered the possibility that my experiment would cause any harm. Regardless of intent, all fault is mine and I apologize.

Melinda Barton



The religious nutballs on the extreme right have kept us rational lefties so busy that we've neglected an important although onerous duty -- cleaning the secular whackjobs out of our own attic, the extreme left. Extremism is extremism is extremism after all. No rational movement dedicated to intellectual courage and honesty should maintain a relationship with those for whom intellectual laziness, dishonesty, and cowardice are a way of life. Doing what must be done to insure the integrity of the left will require identifying our extremists, countering their mythologies, and acknowledging the dangers they pose to a truly liberal society.

First, what is a secular whackjob? (The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state.) Although all secular extremists are atheists, not all atheists are secular extremists. The whackjob is a special sort of atheist, one so absolutely certain of the inerrancy of atheism and so virulently opposed to religion that he will latch on to any and all outrageous claims in defense of the former and against the latter. He will meet any criticism of atheism or postive representation of religion as a horrible attack on his way of life or as support for religious extremism and oppression. Just as the religious extremist holds that his belief in a supreme being alone makes him morally and spiritually superior, the secular extremist holds that his belief that no such being exists and virulent opposition to the reverse make him intellectually and ethically superior. Finally, he will ignore any and all reason or evidence that refutes his claims.

So, what are these claims? They are legion, but I will stick to some of the major claims I've encountered in "respected" secularist media and in debate with atheist friends and readers.

Outrageous claim number 1: Atheism is based on evidence and reason and is philosophically provable or proven. Atheism is a matter of thought not belief. In other words, atheism is absolute truth.

Both atheism and theism contain elements of rational thought and reason. When an adherent of either position examines what the existence or nonexistence of a supreme being means for humanity and how we structure our lives and moral/ethical systems, thought is involved. Ultimately, however, the supernatural's existence or nonexistence cannot be supported by evidence or proven by reason. Both are a matter of faith and therefore belief. In the absense of verifiability, neither can claim to be absolute truth.

Outrageous claim number 2: Since the natural is all that we have or can scientifically observe and/or measure, it is all that exists.

This is a blatant logical fallacy not to mention scientifically inaccurate. (Warning: Technobabble ahead.) The known laws of physics and the discoveries of quantum physics show that our ability to observe the universe is limited by its and our innate properties. For instance, the impossibility of overcoming the speed of light means we see distant objects as they appeared far in the past, so some event may have happened so far in the past that we can't observe it. Although we are only able to observe three dimensions, many physicists now believe that there may be many that we can't observe and question why we're limited to three. The possibilities opened up by our examination of the universe and the acknowledgement of our own limitations has allowed scientists to consider the existence of a variety of things we neither have nor can observe, including multiple dimensions and multiple universes.

In this context, the supernatural's existence cannot be refuted solely by our inability to observe it. Maybe a supreme being's properties or our own are simply preventing direct observation. It's a logical possibility. It is simply not one for science to consider. In the end, however, it is almost certain that there are things that exist that are beyond any of our philosophies.

Outrageous claim number 3: All religion is oppressive.

This one flies in the face of the evidence. Yes, it's very easy to show many instances of oppression stemming from religion. However, it is also easy to show many instances in which political and social progress were spearheaded by religious individuals based on the teachings of their particular faiths. Study the abolitionist movement or the civil rights movement and you will be hard pressed not to encounter the role of religion in these struggles for liberation. To go beyond Christianity, there is now a movement in Africa that teaches Muslim women how to read the Koran so that they can refute the false claim that that religion demands or even permits female genital mutilation.

Religion, like any system of belief, is subject to the often contradictory nature of humanity and the tides of history. It is one thing at this moment and in this place and something completely different in another time and place. Oppression or liberation (with a few exceptions) are in the application, not necessarily inherent in the system of belief itself. For instance, communism may look fine on paper, but in the hands of the Russians post-revolution, it was used to support one of the most oppressive regimes in modern history.

Outrageous claim number 4: The eradication of religion in favor of secularism will bring about utopia.

Forgive me for discussing Torah, but I think the story of Adam and Eve (interpreted as a parable) is relevant here. Adam and Eve couldn't remain in the garden because they were fully human, with the free will that that implies. The message: humanity and paradise cannot exist together. In any society, no matter how ideal, there will be discontent, antisocial behavior, criminality, anger, uncontrolled passions, greed, avarice, disobedience, and dissent. There will be, at last, the human animal. Some new system of control and punishment will arise to cope with those aspects of the humanity and free will that endanger society. No utopia can withstand that.

Outrageous claim number 5: All religious people want to force you to believe as they do.

Some of us could really care less what you believe. Personally, I wouldn't care if you believed that a big head of lettuce were going to come down and give us all strong bones and healthy teeth. Hey, as long as you're not interfering with someone else's rights, all hail the holy radicchio and bully for you. That's your business. Of course, I'm a practitioner of Judaism, which absolutely forbids proselytizing and any attempt at coercing or forcing someone to change his beliefs. In fact, many have even been denied conversion to Judaism and those who are finally accepted face a long and arduous process. Oh, wait. Judaism is a religon!

After that brief foray into snark, we come to the dangers. In modern America, secular extremists as a group don't have the wealth, influence, numbers or power to affect the way most of us live our lives. However, we should learn from what has happened elsewhere and be prepared to meet them if or when they do. While most who believe in the separation of church and state hold that only government support of religion in the public sphere should be forbidden, the secular extremist may take it one step further to forbid the private display of religious symbols in public places. Remember the laws forbidding the wearing of yarmulkes, crosses, hijabs, and the like in France. Such laws are just as much a violation of the liberal ideals of freedom of religion and conscience as laws that require religious practices.

But that's far in the future for America if it ever comes to our shores at all; the greatest danger the secular extremist poses now is to the integrity and success of progressive movements. If we are to truly uphold the liberal ideals of freedom and liberty, we must stand against extremists of all stripes who would threaten those ideals. Secondly, in a nation comprised predominantly of those who believe in some sort of supreme being, our success as a movement depends on disavowing the secular extremist as a legitimate voice of the left. Finally, our commitment to truth demands we counter the fallacies being perpetuated in our name.