The New Atheists and womens' rights
by KrauzeLarry Moran, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Toronto, is comparing the New Atheists to the women's rights movement:
Do you realize that women used to march in the streets with placards demanding that they be allowed to vote? At the time the suffragettes were criticized for hurting the cause. Their radical stance was driving off the men who might have been sympathetic to women's right to vote if only those women had stayed in their proper place.
The comparison, of course, is ludicrous. The women's rights movement was about securing basic civil rights, such as the right to vote, to women. The New Atheists are all about taking away the rights of others, demanding that religious upbringing be made illegal and that ID-friendly students should be flunked.
Like taking a dump on a doorstep and then knocking to ask for toilet paper, the New Atheists' attempt to appropriate the respect of civil rights movements is the height of chutzpah.
Update: More at Mixing Memory.
April 22nd, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Krauze:
Now there's imagery for you.
Comment by Bilbo — April 22, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
April 22nd, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Well stated, Krauze. When people don't like it when the New Atheists compare them to child abusers and drug addicts, the New Atheists feel victimized. The New Atheists feel entitled to shit on people.
Comment by MikeGene — April 22, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
April 22nd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Moran may have started it, but PZ and his peanut gallery are all for it. I think it's hilarious that they liken the crusade for atheism to the feminists who marched and sacrificed so much to win the right to vote (though we know from Lysistrata they could have had it at any time if they'd been organized enough)…
Some of the amens from the choir are even more hilarious…
- JohnFen [27]
- Colugo [73]
[sigh] I include this last because this commenter is somewhat of a moderate in the amen choir. In so far as the "Christian Right" has reacted to 9-11, we have all been lasso'd. This has been Bush's "base," that ~25-30% who wouldn't abandon him if he were to eat a baby on live television. He and his clones pander to them because that's a significant voting block, no matter how you look at it. What is significant is that they stayed home in surprising droves in the last election. They're turning on their sockpuppets.
But what gets me here is the whine (should I call a waaaaaa-mbulance?) about how atheists can't get elected or – in some states where nobody's bothered to challenge the law – even run for office. Like that's supposed to make us feel sorry for them, as we might have felt sorry for women or blacks who couldn't vote. Like it's a civil rights thing.
When it most certainly is not, at least in states that don't require faith-professions, and that's blatantly unconstitutional on its face if the ACLU cared to take it. Where are they? Mention ID in a classroom and watch 'em line up. Prevent an atheist from running for office, and who's complaining? Not atheists, not the ACLU.
Deal is, atheists running for office have to play the same populist game as anybody else running for office – it's definitely a level playing field. Can't they deal with that? If they can't convince the constituent voters they deserve votes, they don't get elected. That's the rules for everybody. Atheists get no extra points at the starting gate just for being atheists. If they can't get elected, they've nothing of merit to offer. Abrogating the voting rights of citizens or putting a group above the field with unfair advantages isn't very Democratic or progressive. Atheists get to play the same political game as everybody else. THAT is fair.
Comment by Joy — April 22, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:17 pm
At least there are some sensible atheists.
Comment by macht — April 22, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Hi Krauze,
If Moran and Myers were actually trying to place the New Atheist movement on par with the Suffragette or Civil Rights movements, I might agree with you. However, if you go back and read what they are actually arguing, you'll see they are comparing their tactics and the arguments against using those tactics with the tactics and arguments against those tactics used by the other groups. They are discussing the efficacy of militant tactics, not the relative importance of the movements themselves.
Comment by KC — April 22, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:41 pm
There are some factors encouraging this. There is empowerment that accompanies the official recognition of victimhood in America. Legally sanctioned minority status entitles those affected to remedies that are otherwise unavailable. In addition it confers a psychological edge in that opponents to a related agenda can be accused of prejudice or worse by referencing historic abuse. The historic case is easily documented for African Americans and women. New Atheists would be challenged in this respect but it looks as if they are up to a try.
Comment by Bradford — April 22, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:44 pm
It's hard to find words to describe this. I've read some of the comments on PZ's site. What can you say? Delusional. Juvenile. Underdeveloped. Rude. Childish. Laughable. One thing is clear. These folks couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag. Their effect can be measured with negative numbers.
Comment by bj — April 22, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
April 22nd, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Joy:
Yet it is nice to see at least one atheist acknowledge the New Atheist movement is largely a reaction to 911. TT readers are ahead of the curve on this one.
Comment by MikeGene — April 22, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Hi KC,
Well, I can see the rationale for extreme tactics in the face of extreme injustice. The problem is that the New Atheists can't point to any extreme injustice. Thus, they simply come across as haters.
Of course, we should not lose sight of the bigger picture. These guys are saturated with an extremist, socio-political agenda.
Comment by MikeGene — April 22, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:17 pm
What a bunch of whiny crybabies. Don't these people have anything better to do ?
Comment by thesciphishow — April 22, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:14 pm
The link macht posted is great, and I think it's funny that Larry Moran doesn't address the fact that the New Atheists by and large fit into a demographic that really doesn't have much room to talk about discrimination, certainly not in terms of movements like the women's suffrage or civil rights movements.
And even granting that Moran is talking about tactics (i.e., that militancy has been known to have some efficacy), I still think the point is fair that the New Atheists are on a quest not for the acquisition of rights from themselves or anyone else but rather the denial of rights based along explicitly religious lines. Even if it were permissible to use militant tactics for the former, it most certainly is not for the latter (think KKK).
Comment by thechristiancynic — April 22, 2007 @ 10:14 pm
April 22nd, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Hi christiancynic,
The leader of the New Atheist movement signed and circulated a petition that would make it illegal for parents to provide a religious upbringing for their children.
Comment by MikeGene — April 22, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
April 23rd, 2007 at 12:21 am
I don't like Dawkins any more than you do, Mike – but he did say he was sorry for signing that petition…
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — April 23, 2007 @ 12:21 am
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:04 am
Why does that excuse it ? Unless the man is an idiot he knew what he was signing and his sorry seems more like the remorse of someone who got caught doing the wrong thing that the remorse of the truly repentant.
Or perhaps he is an idiot. I guess either is possible.
Comment by thesciphishow — April 23, 2007 @ 1:04 am
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:25 am
Hi KC,
There are lots of groups in history that achieved social change. Why doesn't Moran talk about the "tactics and arguments" used by the Nazis? Because he doesn't see the New Atheist movement as being on par with them.
Comment by Krauze — April 23, 2007 @ 3:25 am
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:42 am
Atheism and women's suffrage…
Telic Thoughts point out that the Suffragettes were seeking to secure basic rights, whereas the agenda of the New Atheists is to deprive their opponents of rights. There's another issue, which is that the argument is historically ignorant….
Trackback by Exiled from GROGGS — April 23, 2007 @ 4:42 am
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:32 am
Hi Krauze,
As I said earlier, in the instance you used for your original post, Moran is talking about militant tactics, and how arguments against those tactics (being rude drives off potential supporters) were similar to those used agajnst other movements. That doesn't mean Moran sees every social movement as being of equal importance, nor is it a logical extension of his argument.
Comment by KC — April 23, 2007 @ 6:32 am
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:29 am
KC, you are correct about the dispute over tactics but Moran implicitly endorses the rightousness of the suffragette cause and does the same with regard to the EA agenda in my view. But how are EAs disadvantaged? They are not denied the right to vote. There is a tactical need to remedy exactly what?
Comment by Bradford — April 23, 2007 @ 9:29 am
April 24th, 2007 at 5:26 am
It's fascinating watching this thread here, considering that ID comes from the side which has historically demanded censoring of science, and considering that in recent contretemps creationists/IDists have claimed free speech or free religious exercise rights to argue non-science against science. Not to mention the inherent demonization of anything close to free thought in the ID movement. Are you guys taking your lines from the crocodile group in "Pearls Before Swine?"
Comment by edarrell — April 24, 2007 @ 5:26 am
April 24th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Oh, stop trolling, Ed.
"ID comes from the side which has historically demanded censoring of science". And darwinism comes from the same side as Nietzsche, who provided Hitler with the rationale for his "final solution". But how about we stick to the point?
Comment by Exile From Groggs — April 24, 2007 @ 10:13 am
April 25th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Hi Krauze,
Actually, it isn't. The height of chutzpah is the actual appropriation of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division by the religious right to cause it to abandon its mission of protecting the civil rights of minorities and re-directing it to protect "oppressed" christians. Its very threaty to worry about what a tiny powerless minority would like to do while ignoring worse activities of a large, politically powerful group.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 25, 2007 @ 10:02 am
April 25th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Krauze: the New Atheists' attempt to appropriate the respect of civil rights movements is the height of chutzpah.
The threatiness lies in irrational fears. Christians are not an advantaged group. The Alliance Defense Fund represents Christians who are denied First Amendment rights based on a perverted reading of the establishment clause or worse. They win a substantial number of cases.
Unfortunately, anti-Christian sentiment is alive and well as this illustrates.
Comment by Bradford — April 25, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Hi Bradford,
What alternative reality do you live in?
Comment by Aagcobb — April 25, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Bradford:
Aagcobb:
Huh. Aagcobb, in exactly what ways are Christians an "advantaged" group? I ask because this seems to be in direct contradiction to insistence by the 'New Atheists' that they're just ignorant, misguided sheep.
Are Christians more intelligent than others? Are they wealthier than others? Are they immune from laws and statutes because they're Christian? Do they eat better than you do?
From the amount of macho posturing from the New Atheist contingent about their superior intelligence, morality, social position and access to wealth, I'm also wondering how you see them as "disadvantaged."
Please expand, because this one's way over my head. Thanks!
Comment by Joy — April 25, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Hello Joy,
I am a christian, middle-aged white male, so don't assume that I'm not a christian simply because I don't wail about the "oppression" I suffer. I am fully aware of the advantages I enjoy compared to a young african-american male without a church affiliation. Noone is going to cross the street to avoid me, I have social contacts who can help me get ahead, no cop is going to pull me over for "driving white", no-one is going to spraypaint a swastika on the side of my office or plant a burning cross in my yard, and if I chose to run for political office my religious beliefs and skin color wouldn't almost automatically disqualify me from winning. To compare the burden of being a christian in the United States to what african-americans have suffered and continue to suffer is a sick joke. There has been no other country in the history of the world in which it has been easier to worship at the church of your choice.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 25, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Aagcobb:
Have you ever seen me "wail about the 'oppression' I suffer?" Gave up calling myself Christian when the title was usurped by fundamentalist wannabe mind-tyrants wishing to wield nuclear weapons and other WMDs for the purpose of forcing their God to appear and save them from their own stupidity.
Hmmm. My hubby, back when we first married, was a long-haired hippie in college in a place where hippies weren't very popular. I'm sure you recognize the relatively equivalent status of hippies and blacks in those days. Was arrested for hitch-hiking in the city limits of Tulsa while trying to get home for the birth of our daughter, had his front teeth punched out by the arresting officer while getting his mug shot taken. That pig just didn't like "his looks."
He was able to claim the preacher who had married us as probation officer, though we only met him once and he never actually played that role. Is that the "advantage" you're talking about?
I cross the street to avoid all kinds of people. I didn't know that Evangelical Atheists could tell a Christian at that distance. In cities where one side of the street is one gang's territory and the other side another's, crossing streets is life-saving behavior. That's the gangs' fault, not mine if I cross the street to get out of their way.
I had lots of social contacts, none of them ever helped me get anywhere in this world. Heck, some of 'em are millionaires and consider me their quiet 'charity' whenever I can't pay the bills. Looks to me like a lawyer would know way more about influential contacts than most Christians ever would. Though if you join the Masons or the Chamber or the Kiwanis you can get all the help you need, I've heard. Pure networking.
And I've been pulled over for "looking too young to drive," for being blonde, for driving someone else's car that didn't have tail-lights, and for hitting more than one illegal roadblock on interstate off-ramps or backwoods dirt roads (it's a regular means of earning extra income for the cops around here, an extortion racket aimed at the locals). They can always get you for something, even if they have to make it up. Why, I've had them park at the bottom of my half-mile driveway just to bust people leaving a gathering at my house (usually camping weekends)!
As for political office, you get to do it just like everybody else. If you're such a jerk nobody votes for you, it's your fault and no one else's. If the public you want to represent doesn't want you to represent them, tough titty. You're a big boy. You can deal with rejection.
Isn't that nice? I fail to see your problem with that.
Comment by Joy — April 25, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Hi Joy,
I don't have a problem with that Joy; you asked how christians were an advantaged group and I answered. I rejoice that people can freely worship as they see fit.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 25, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Compared to what African-American? Many I know are professionals who are well off and contrary to what some think, blacks do not uniformly regard themselves as disadvantaged. Church affiliation has nothing to do with anything you allude to. History does.
Comment by Bradford — April 25, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Christians are not an advantaged group.
A reality where Christians are representitive of a cross-section of America. They are overwhelmingly middle income with some poor and rich thrown into the mix. Most have more in common with their Jewish and Muslim income counterparts than with other Christians who are of diverse ethnic backgrounds. Those who think like you live in a reality of stereotypes where you allow your hatred of Bush to distort your common sense.
Comment by Bradford — April 25, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Aagcobb:
But you failed to answer my questions about how it is, exactly, that Christians are a "privileged" group. Your issue seems to be electability to office, and to weigh atheists with some sort of affirmative action on that score would be unconstitutional. This isn't Canada. Atheists don't get 2% of the representation just because they're 2% of the population. No matter how much I think that system beats ours for real representation.
There are so many denominations, sects, cults and singular offshoots of Christianity out there these days that no one of them has any particular advantage over another per the "privilege" status. Privilege is more a matter of old money, social position and networking. All privileged classes have those advantages, and it doesn't center on religious preference or those nasty Freemasons wouldn't have been so prominent in anybody's political history.
I've got my hubby's grandfather's initiation books (he was a Templar-level Mason, elected initiator). That's not Christianity, nor any subdivision thereof. You surely can't explain George Washington or Ben Franklin by religious affiliation. It simply has less to do with religion than it has to do with the captive audience of voting adults that specific congregations think they control.
About 30% of the people will consistently support wingnuts because someone told 'em to (so they can get into heaven, or defeat religion, pick your poison). It's the 40% in the middle who decide elections. If your side can't field policy positions they like, then they won't vote for you. Simple as that. The whole 'New Atheist' attack on moderates is well designed for the specific purpose of polarizing that 40%. They may end up not liking the effects of that intentional polarization.
Comment by Joy — April 25, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Hi Joy,
We'll just have to agree to disagree about your belief that christians have no advantages in the U.S. over those of other faiths and non-believers. I would hope you would at least agree that christians are not a disadvantaged group, and its a travesty that the DOJ's civil rights division has abandoned its traditional role of defending the rights of african-americans in favor of defending the rights of christians.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 25, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
I was under the impression that all Americans should have their civil rights safeguarded. Of course it is easy to make unsubstantiated allegations.
Comment by Bradford — April 25, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Aagcobb:
LOL!!! Gee, Aagcobb. I think the real problem with DOJ these days has more to do with abandoning its traditional role of enforcing the laws, in favor of Republican ideologues (to impress the fundy voting block that may no longer exist).
Comment by Joy — April 25, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Hi Bradford,
I guess you didn't read the link I provided. Since 2001, the DOJ has brought precisely one case on behalf of an african-american for racial discrimination or a voting rights violation.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 25, 2007 @ 10:06 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Aagcobb, you have a habit of not addressing the full issue. Your claim was not simply that DOJ action on behalf of African-Americans was inadaquate but rather that this occured due to a trade off that favored Christians. This is untrue. Do you make arguments like this in court? Anyone can trace the trail of comments.
Comment by Bradford — April 25, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Bradford, did you ever get around to reading the link I provided? It said in part:
Now you are claiming that this is false. Can you provide me a citation which supports your allegation that this claim is false?
Comment by Aagcobb — April 25, 2007 @ 11:16 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Aagcobb, are you claiming that any action on behalf of one not classified as African-American inhibits justice for African Americans? If not then what is the relevance of this? If you have evidence that a denial of the right to vote was not pursued make it. If the claim is that the "Christian" case is a distortion of justice make that. Or you can simply acknowledge that there is a dislike of Bible readers and try to conflate this as anti-African American. There is no real connection between the two except among those motivated by spin.
Comment by Bradford — April 25, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Incidentally, do you have stats on African Americans who file complaints alleging that they were not allowed to vote?
Comment by Bradford — April 25, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
April 26th, 2007 at 1:20 am
Hi Aagcobb,
"Its very threaty to worry about what a tiny powerless minority would like to do"
I'm not worried; I've long been on record as doubting that there's much chance of Dawkins et al.'s dreams coming true. I'm simply pointing out the disconnect betweeen the New Atheists perception of their own movement and reality.
As for whether blacks or Christians are disadvantaged, that's a discussion you'll all have to take elsewhere.
Comment by Krauze — April 26, 2007 @ 1:20 am
April 26th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
I agree that discussion should be taken elsewhere, but since Bradford asked about it, he could start here:
http://www.whatreallyhappened....
Comment by Bilbo — April 26, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
April 27th, 2007 at 12:41 am
its odd because ive often thought that raising a child "american" is akin to child abuse. pledge the flag, etc, etc. dogma and propaganda. how much violence has been done by american fundmentalists that the american moderates have shielded. and i mean seriously, what sort of evidence can these nuts give for their hardfast belief in "america", other than a certain kind of faith: the trust that the future will be good, that our way is best even though most these people have never studied, let alone lived under another form of govt and society. its amazing that sam harris would, after "seeking the truth", would find their way so good. 80% of americans who believe america is great, were raised american. the other 20% just wish we didnt have all the money, but are smart enough to know where to get it, and where to mail it after they get it. in fact, and speaking of which, while we are at it, we shouldnt teach our children english either. i mean think of about it: how much totally stupid shit has been done in the name of the english language? how many totally stupid things have been said in english? you english speaking moderates with your ok statements are shielding the stupidity of english speaking fundementalists by saying that we should tolerate them.
Comment by dantedanti — April 27, 2007 @ 12:41 am
April 28th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Hi WFO,
You wrote, "I don't like Dawkins any more than you do, Mike – but he did say he was sorry for signing that petition"¦"
Actually, he didn't. He claimed he didn't notice the coercive language in the petition, was misunderstood, and was out of his depth. He then simply had his named erased from it and quietly took it off his web page.
Anyway, I am a "forgive and forget" type of person. But in this case, we are dealing with a high profile political activist who was engaged in political advocacy. Given the blatant political nature of the whole thing, I'm not sure we should rewrite history.
Comment by MikeGene — April 28, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
April 28th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
LOL. How many stupid things are said in other languages? Arbeit macht frei. Maybe Americans should take a tip from their European cousins and start mass producing ovens for those fundies you love to hate.
Comment by Bradford — April 28, 2007 @ 7:44 pm