Patterns of Prejudice

As an atheist, I stand up for this guy's right to say offensive things about atheists. Everyone is offended when they are told they are wrong, but it isn't bigotry to say that someone is wrong when you think they are.

What the article discusses is simply rhetoric, which can be, and is, used for and against every position.

Here's a rant while I'm at it: As for strawmen like Pat Robertson... I respect the fundamentalists for having integrity. Some accuse atheists of being "like fundamentalists"...we are, in that atheists and fundamentalists both believe in objective reality. Fundamentalist beliefs rest on ludicrous assumptions, but at least they're internally coherent. Religous moderates say, "I believe X because it's good for people to believe things like that," and "Yes, there's a heaven, but I wouldn't worry about it, I'm sure you'll end up there no matter what. How do I know? It just FEELS right..."

A relic of the 19th century...I'm afraid you're right. We're sliding back into a dark age. We live in a world built by science, and more of us believe in angels and ESP than evolution. We'll be back in mud huts in no time.

HI, Tonio,

Piaget's "The Moral Development of the Child" is a classic. Kohlberg and others have done further research on the subject. A non-technical introduction to Kohlberg is Duska and Whelan's "Moral Development: A Guide to Piaget and Kohlberg". I'm not a psychologist, and psychologist might make a better suggtestion., but it's been in print for years which is often a sign of competence.

Piaget's works have been criticized for various reasons, but at least the general outlines of his work seems to be standing the test of time quite well -- I mean his notions that people's moral development goes through predictable stages, that the stages cannot be skipped, and that progress is made only on condition that a child/adolescent sees that his earlier thinking is not adequate and that it must be revised to reflect reality.

And so it continues. Norrie, E Favorite, I hope you see this.

April 3, 2007, 5:25PM
Bill would require Bible classes in Texas schools

By MATT CURRY
Associated Press

DALLAS — A Texas legislator wants to require the state's nearly 1,700 public school districts to teach the Bible as a textbook, "not a worship document."

The House Public Education Committee was set late today to consider a bill by Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, mandating high schools to offer history and literacy courses on the Old and New Testaments. The courses would be elective.

The idea of teaching the Bible in school seems to be undergoing a revival nationally. Two literature classes on the Bible are included on a list of state-approved courses that Georgia public schools could choose to offer beginning next year. Some critics say it would be the first state to take an explicit stance endorsing and funding biblical teachings.

The Texas measure goes a step farther — requiring school districts to make such courses available, advocates on both sides agreed.

"We're not going to preach the Bible, we're going to teach the Bible and how it affects all of our writings, documents and the formation of our government," said Chisum. "We're taking it as a document that has historical value. It's the most widely distributed book in the world."

Ann O, thanks for your post. I wasn't familiar with either Piaget or Kohlberg. Which of their books do you recommend? It's nice to know that I'm apparently on the right track.

TONIO tells us: In my view, the difference is that the first one assumes that humans can use a certain principle (such as the Golden Rule, which isn't exclusively Christian) to decide how resolve ethical dilemmas. Reasonable people can have honest differences of opinions on ethical questions. It also assumes that humans can learn from the natural consequences of their actions.

The second one assumes that morality is decided by an outside agency, a supernatural authority figure.

ANN O. replies: Do you know the theory of moral development of the Piagetian psychologist Kohlberg? What you describe are one of the early levels and one of the last levels of moral development. Piaget says that we develop our consciences in stages, each stage builds upon a set earlier one, and there is no skipping stages. And all of the stages are dependent on the cognitive development of the person. For instance, a child needs to be able to imagine the feelings of other people and needs to understand cause and effect if it is going to develop a conscience.

What you describe above are levels which are typical of children at certain stages. Unfortunately, most people don't progress past the 4th level (out of about 8), and will not unless they are challenged to. Sadly, many people are taught that it is always wrong to view their own beliefs with a critical eye. This cuts off any sorst of adult development of belief.

Such closed mindedness is not peculiar to religious believers. Theoretically scienttists are *supposed* to hold that their beliefs are revisable, but in practice some of them have their own unshakable premises that can't be touched by counter-theories and facts. They too remain committed to this or that theory even when counter-evidence should make them less sure. Sigh

Human nature being what it is, it ain't easy to be truly open-minded. Sigh.

"there are ethiicians, perhaps most American ones, who think that the principles of ethics are ultimately founded only on feeling, e.g., we 'know' that murder is wrong because we "feel* it's wrong."

Richard Dawkins has hypothesized that humans evolved with a hard-wired sense of morality, since that aids the survival of the tribe or community. Rudimentary morality has been observed in other species, such as chimpanzees. If Dawkins is right, that might explain why murder "feels" wrong.

"I see no difference between such ultimately subjectivist ethical systems and the subjectivism of the religious beliefs of many fundamentalists."

In my view, the difference is that the first one assumes that humans can use a certain principle (such as the Golden Rule, which isn't exclusively Christian) to decide how resolve ethical dilemmas. Reasonable people can have honest differences of opinions on ethical questions. It also assumes that humans can learn from the natural consequences of their actions.

The second one assumes that morality is decided by an outside agency, a supernatural authority figure. That's not really morality. Instead, it is simply following a set of rules that comes with rewards and punishments. That assumes that humans are forever children that cannot learn from natural consequences, but instead must be manipulated with a carrot-and-stick approach. Also, there is no proof that such a supernatural authority figure has humans' best interests in mind. Instead, the figure may be designing rules for its own selfish interests. The first half of the Ten Commandments is a good example.

This is an exceptional analysis and should be kept in mind when reading any news story, whether about religion or any other subject.
By the way: Thanks, Tonio, for the enlightenment on Star Trek's religious biases.

TONIO tells us: Although the great religions teach those principles, in my view they muddy the moralistic waters when they talk about pleasing deity.

ANN O. replies: So long as the kids are taught that some people accept the principles because of their purely religious beliefs, I see no problem. And if reasons are given to all the kids for accepting the principles, it would go some way towards making them more reasonable.

However, there are ethiicians, perhaps most American ones, who think that the principles of ethics are ultimately founded only on feeling, e.g., we "know" that murder is wrong because we "feel* it's wrong. See Richard Rorty, for instance, one of the most distinguished and influential contemporary philosophers, but one who admits that the grounds for his ethical system are ultimately feelings.

I see no difference between such ultimately subjectivist ethical systems and the subjectivism of the religious beliefs of many fundamentalists.

ISTM the greatest problem with emotive ethical theories is this: whose emotions should we trust? Should we trust those white people, for instance, who feel that they are superior to non-white people? In other words, why choose between Nazis and Mother Teresa, if we're going on feelings alone?

Which brings up a practical problem: who would decide which ethical systems were taught in order to give the kids a philosophical basis for their political ethics? It might not be too hard to make little kids aware of some of the basics -- that we are all equally human and therfore we ought to treat all humans with equal respect. Such basic natural law ethics was in fact the sort of ethics Jefferson and Madison upheld. But when high school kids start asking for the *reasons why* anybody ought to be respected, we have to get into ethical foundations, and there's the rub.

Ann O.

Ann O, thanks for expanding on my point about non-religious morality. Although the great religions teach those principles, in my view they muddy the moralistic waters when they talk about pleasing deity.

Hi, Tonio,

ISTM that the morality that should be taught in the classrooms is the fundamental morality which makes any civilized country possible. I mean the very general principles of no lying, no stealing, no betraying friends, keeping your word (promises and contracts), no murder, no infliction of pain unnecessarily, no lying under oath, etc. These are mainly the general principles of fair play that are assumed by the Constitution, and even the little children can be taught the most elementary principles of fair play -- e.g., don't eat Charlie's lunch, don't hit Mary and don't call Bobbie names. These are matters of common experience, though the great religions also teach them. This would be a clear case of the overlapping of faith and reason, but the point is that none of these principles requires committment to a religous establishment, which is what the Constitution forbids.

Ann O

To Ba'al:

I've been in a classroom where dislike of Catholics was stated in terms stronger than Arroyo's (he also said he was sure there were nice atheists, which you conveniently omit). What happened to the teacher? Nothing! So you are wrong...

To Brian:

So you continue to hold to an opinion about Arroyo even though the facts prove you wrong...Isn't that the definition of a bigot?

An addendum - I have no problem with schools teaching about the various religions' creation stories in comparative religion classes. But those stories do not belong in science classes.

"But not allowing Creationism into schools by the government, is the same as this government endorsing Atheism as the one true religion."

Feydark, how does that endorse atheism?

For one thing, evolution is silent on the existence of deity. Some people choose to interpret the hypothesis as godless, and that's their right, but their interpretation is not the only one. Evolution contradicts a literal reading of Genesis, but that's not the same as atheism. I understand that most Christians and most Christian denominations see no conflict between evolution and their faith.

For another thing, why would not teaching the literal reading of Genesis be tantamount to endorsing atheism? Most religions have creation stories - why should schools give preference to one story over the others?

"Some kind of morality has to be taught in the schools"

I would agree if you're taking about the moral idea that it's wrong to deliberately hurt others. But your post implies that Christianity and Genesis literalism are the same thing as morality. No religion has any exclusive title to morality.

To FATPIE42:
My friend you missed the whole point of my statement please read it again and maybe you will catch on. As for the 2 basic religions, the listed religions are examples only. I could not list every religion, because some facion will pop up and say you forgot about this religion.
You can belive in God (not g-d) if you want, or you don't have to, it's YOUR CHOICE!
But I do have one question for everyone one: Name 1 civilization today that does not have some diety as their base for morals?

To TONIO:
Leaving creationism out of public schools, is trying to establish evolution as THE ONLY way life came to this planet, that's fine if everyone in this country is an athiest. But not allowing Creationism into schools by the government, is the same as this government endorsing Atheism as the one true religion.

And TONIO, do you honestly believe that the school systm as a whole is better without Creationistic views being taught?

Schools today are nothing more then battlegrounds any more. They are a place to put kids away for a few hours a day, so the parents can go out and struggle to make ends meet. Kids that want to learn can't, because the kids that cause all the problems in the school system are basically given free reign.

Some kind of morality has to be taught in the schools, cause it sure looks like a large population of parents are not doing their job of teaching their kids right from wrong, or if you do something bad, there are repercussions.

Excellent point, Stoneman and Ann O. That's why I become angry when fundamentalists want public schools to institute Christian creationism and mandatory teacher-led prayer. That amounts to an attempt to try to convert MY children to their religion. The ironic thing is that such attempts to subvert the public school mission aren't even supported by a majority of American Christians.

Hi, Stoneman,

Yes, lets' preserve the Constitution. It's goood for both the Church and the State, not to mention the consciences of everyone.

Ann O.

Let's keep things in persective. Regardless whether your an athiest like myself or a believer of whatever religious faith, we live in a country where religious freedom is law. This to me makes all of the arguing and bickering over whether god is or isn't and who's god is better rather silly . There is only one document all U.S citizens must live by regardless of their religious views. Care to guess what it is?

Respect the Faiths

MICHAEL D. tells us:

One of the most ignored passage in the bible that I'd like to see preach is never mentioned at all. The passage says: If you have ten cars and your brother has none, it is your perfect duty to give him one. Who does that? certainly not the Christians. They would rather exploit their brothers and sisters than to see them prosper.

Hi, Michael,

I knew a Christian, John F., who did just that. John worked with a man whom he actually disliked very much. The man's child became very ill and he couldn't pay for all the medical expenses. John gave him the money he had saved for a new car so the child could be treated.

ISTM that we have to be very careful about what we "believe in". (By "believe in" I mean putting our trust in someone that he or she will always do what is just and kind.) If we believe in people, that they will always be kind and just, then we will be disappointed in them, just as they ar disappointed in us. Only God, not the clergy or the pope or our neighbors or our pious family members, is worthy of belief in that sense. We will be disappointed beyond belief if we put our faith in them. But belief in God is different -- it is assuming that He always loves and will be "there for us".

Sometimes it's very hard to believe that He does. It seems impossible at times -- for instance, when we see a child who is suffering. But His own child, Jesus, suffered as none of us ever will, and Jesus confirms for us that we are loved even when it seems we aren't, when we are going through our own little private crucifixions.

The confirmation that God always loves me comes in the form of the grace to bear what is painful plus the fact that His hellp is always there. This is confirmation of my belief. This isn't the only sort of confirmation for me, but let's stick with this most basic sort.

None of thi *proves* anything, but the grace of God in my own life confirms that it is so, and apparently millions of others have also found this confirmation.

Moreover, sometimes ordinary people *are* good, even exceptionally good, the ones like John F. I live in New Orleans and since the storm I have seen such an out=pouring of kindness from people all over the country, even from all over the world. Money from the government has been slow in getting here, but help from ordinary people -- like the ones (old and young) who have come down to help gut the houses, has been simply beautiful. There have been some generous leaders too, like an Arab head-of-government came to see for himself and was generous with aid. Patriarch Bartholomew came, the Orthodox patriarch who is so interested in solving our ecological problems. And "little" people like the high-school kids from Denver who came to town last week-end to help restore our City Park. No, not all of these good people are believers, but churches of all sorts have sponsored these helpers.

Might I add that although you cannot imagine New Orleans since the storm unless you have actually seen it, the devastation is simply too awful, it is also a fact that most people here have been changed for the better in some way. In spite of the horrors or maybe because of them, we have at least learned what is *really* important == not big houses and fancy clothes and cars, etc., but things of the spirit -- friendship and sharing and putting away old prejudices.

So it is true: out of evil, great good can come, and it seems that sometimes that's the only way the good can come. But we must be willing to recognize it with our hearts, not by looking for what is good simply in physical things.

Furthermore, some people, the saints, are not just exceptionally good -- they are extraordinarily good, and they tell us that they can do what they do only with the help of God. They are another confirmation of the goodness of God. Inspired with the grace of God, they love far beyond the love of ordinary folks. (Has anybody seen the Wilberrforce movie "Amazing Grace"? I'd love to, but I can't hear. The grace that the hymn talks about is what I'm talking about in the paragraphs above, by the way.)

These, I think, are some -- just some -- of the reasons why religions persist. Certainly NOT because religious people are always good. It's because God is always generous with His help to bear the evils and to help us to do what is just and generous. And that help, that grace, is always available no matter how awful we sometimes are.

Ann O.

"There are 2 basic religions:
1. A God based: Christianity, Buddihism, Islam and Hinduism
2. A non-God based: Athiest, Anarchists"

What rubbish!

Hinduism and Islam hate each other. Christianity, Judaism and Islam all hate each other. Buddhism is not God-based. And you missed out Sikhism and Judaism despite them being clearly defined world religions with a huge membership. Muslims don't accept that God can take human form, Christians do. Jews do not believe that Jesus was the messiah, Christians do. These religions are not united, and their understanding of God is often very very different.

What Anarchism have to do with God? Why on earth can you not be a Christian anarchist? Is it because Christiantiy always supports the status quo? Surely not?

I used to be religious, but my mother who was more religious than the Pope was killed by some religious people, because of her a little business.

My wife is still religious. I respect her belief and she respects mine. We coexist very fine.

My problem with the whole "GOD" thing, simply does not explain my questions. Why would a devine and so-called perfect being create such imperfect beings?

Hitler was a Christian, Saddam believed in his Allah, Bush believes in his God. None of them did or is doing God's job on earth.

One of the most ignored passage in the bible that I'd like to see preach is never mentioned at all. The passage says: If you have ten cars and your brother has none, it is your perfect duty to give him one. Who does that? certainly not the Christians. They would rather exploit their brothers and sisters than to see them prosper.

I would like to thank all that wrote in. It was so amusing to read all these comments.
Religion as a whole, is needed to give a civilization a founding for it's morality.

There are 2 basic religions:
1. A God based: Christianity, Buddihism, Islam and Hinduism
2. A non-God based: Athiest, Anarchists

Now for each religion, you have your factions and Monty Python's "Life of Brian" is a great example of how a religion can be broken down into factions.
Religion is good, but with every religion you have extremists that bloodies that religion. There is not one religion on Earth that does not have extremists and blood on their hands.

The media today has leaders that lean more towards Anarchism (because it sells more). You can see plainly in the news broadcasts nightly. 90% of the stories they run are about murder, destruction and corruption. Our elected officials lean more towards Atheism. They are trying to rid themselves of any type of "God-related" religion (Examples: removing God from public schools, removing the word God from any governmental format).

Have I met any atheists that I like? Yes. We get along because we can agree to disagree, it's that simple.

You can do surveys 24/7 and you can get millions of different results. depending on where the survey was taken, will give the answers you want.

And the greatest gift humanity has, is not reason, but choice.

Religion is not a pox or curse, it simply is. And we have the choice to either run toward it, or run away from it.

Juan:

You just are so right, these same thoughts have occupied my mind as well. Religion has been a curse on humanity that has been inflicted upon us by the superstious nature of our very being. We are the fortunate who have been able to dispell these woebegotten notions thru one gift left us and that REASON!!!!

A pox upon all religions. Religion is a curse upon humanity. Religion has caused more misery, death, and suffering throughout history than all other causes combined. Religion is the opium of the ignorant, and the extremists of all religions display their ignorance for all to see.

I would like someone to differentiate voodoo/magic from religion, esp. Christianity. The one difference I can tell is that Christianity tops them all.

Sorry, the last post above about Mr. Meacham and Newsweek was mine.

As usual, Meacham and Quinn have asked the wrong question. Remember when they asked recently if there was still discrimination against Catholics, when everybody knows that that group is the least likely to be discriminated against? After that was pointed out they changed the question to include groups that really are discriminated against, such as Wiccans.

Here's their current question: "Does the mass media, especially television, treat religion fairly in news and entertainment programs? Explain."

The pertinent question would have been: "Does the mass media, especially television, treat hostility to religion, or anti-religious expressions, fairly in news and entertainment programs? Explain."

Now that would have been an interesting question, unlike the one that was actually proposed.

By the way Mr. Meacham, as an editor of Newsweek, are you not aware that the phrase "Does the mass media..." is incorrect English? "Media" is a plural noun, so the phrase should have been: "Do the mass media..."

Have you forgotten your high school English learning? Has Newsweek declined so much that it has reached the common level of illiteracy?

Regards.

Elohist makes the point that people like me CHOOSE to be atheists, so we deserve the metaphorical fountain of spit that characterized Professor Stevens-Arroyo's ravings of last December. Preseumably, though he and the good Professor were BORN Christians, so everything on their end is ok.

No Elohist, I repeat, if the Professor had made those remarks about Catholics in a classroom, his job would be in jeopardy.

Nazis are being misrepresented. Whenever the media refers to Nazis they always pick on a bad example like Hitler. Why can't they ever report on all the nice and pleasant Nazis? How terribly biased.

I have never met a Marxist I liked. I'm sure there is a nice Marxist out there somewhere, but I haven't met them. These dogmatic Marxists just want to destroy everything we value and they refuse to listen to reason.

At least the Marxists don't have too much power, and the conservative capitalists are in power. At least they are closer to good, pleasant, facism.

/nbc-zucker
/cbs-moonves
/fox-murdoc
/WB-meyers
/washingtonPost-graham /Newsweek-graham /newyorktimes-sulzburger /mtv-redstone /comedycentral-redstone /usnewsandworldreport-zuckerman
/miramax-weinstein /chicagotribune-zell /dreamworks-speilberg,geffen,kazenberg
/sonyamerica-stringer
/aol-miller
/paramount-grey

Honestly, the media is controled by Jewish men.

Professor,
This is one level-headed analysis.

But I have a Question-and am looking for an honest objective response based on evidence: Who Controls and/or Owns US media?

Dear John Connore:

In response to your comments:

"Trust me the person who cures aids or cancer etc. won't be a superstitous follower"

Dr. Francis S. Collins, who was the HEAD of the Human Genome Project, presently is Director of the National Genome Research Institute, discovered the genes for cystic fibrosis, Huntington's disease and a type of Leukemia among others, also invented the "Positional Cloning" approach to isolating novel genes, is an AVOWED Christian.

In his recent book, "Language of God...", he candidly talks about his conversion to the Christian faith and belief in the Bible.'

Of course, he is only one example of many prominent scientists who believe/believed in the supernatural.

Praise God for them!

c_mat

Man!!!! Jacon is everywhere! Run and hide everybody!!!

Elohist, there's no more reason to assume that atheism is "chosen" any more than Catholicism, Judaism, etc. If you plug "Catholic" or "Jew" or "Muslim" or "Hindu" in place of "atheist", suddenly Stevens-Arroyo's attitude doesn't seem so benign. I'll continue to consider him bigoted against atheists by what he has written.

Right on Yo Yo, right on. Love that show.

And to answer you back in the immortal words of Gary Coleman:

Whatcha talkin about Willis???

Sir,

I agree with all of the points in your article.
It can be extremely difficult to find a documentary on religion that is not aimed at attempting to influence the viewer, one way or another. It gets so depressing to watch these "hosts" state absurd theories as fact. But then every society will have citizens who listen to only what they want to hear. Other beliefs that mesh with their own beliefs. These robot citizens wait to be programed with other peoples ideas, and beliefs. They will not actively search out material on the subject from other independent sources. For fear that their beliefs will be proven wrong. I think that many of these people just want to tear down Jesus and religion out of sheer spitefulness.They get some kind of perverse satisfaction out of it. These half baked so called theories have a life of their own. Your example about star trek and all the spinoffs is accurate in my opinion. In my classes with adults, I use that term loosely. We have a open discussion on spirituality once a week. It never fails that some simple minded person will quote something that he or she read which is pure fantasy. Yet they believe it as fact because they heard it from a "professional host".

In the immortal words of PeeWee Herman, this is for you Yo Yo:

I know you are but what am I?

This is amazing.

Atheists can still be committed to their beliefs but still agree that religion is bashed left and right in the mainstream media.

But no, they will cheer on intolerance as long as it attacks religion. Of course if anything in religion is critical of certain kinds of behavior they wail and moan.

I believe there is a word for that: HYPOCRISY.

Dear Baal:

The point is that atheism is NOT an ethnic or racial group, but one of voluntary choice. Were you born an atheist?

Instead of "atheist" in Arroyo's statement try anyone of the following:

Nazi, astronaut, Bush family member, Clinton family member, Communist, hippie, rapster, Dravidian, mafioso, etc.

If you CAN'T say that you dislike at least one of these folks, you live in the twilight zone of political correctness, no?

Semi-seriously,

Good piece by Mr. Arroyo who boldly go where no man has gone before here in On Faith on this topic except for that warp overdrive on Star Trek's "militant atheism." It is not so much militant atheism, but being religiously neutral in having no earth-based faiths being prefered or promoted on the TV and movie series. Mr. Spock's Vulcan mysticism don't count obviously. He's half human anyway. And no one on Star Trek laughs at or question the contradictions of an emotionally detached Vulcan who vaunted logic and reason above all else in openly practicing an illogical mysticism. Mind meld anyone on that mind melting contradictions?

Live long and prosper Mr. Arroyo.

With a very small percent of the u.s. people being atheist, compounded by very few atheist admitting to being an atheist. I'm having a little trouble sympathizing with religious rants about the poor misrepresented followers of christ etc. Get real, as an agnostic i'm tired of the poor me crap and how everyone needs to think the way christians do, to make this country a better place. This country is going to crap because religion i.e. Bush, not promoting science, creationism, stemcell research, people praying and believing instead of thinking and doing. Trust me the person who cures aids or cancer etc. won't be a superstitous follower

Oy vey,

Militant atheism in Star Trek TV series and movies?

Ah, Star Trek - The Final Frontier is a hilarious send up on blind faith leading to a faux God.

I completely miss the point of militant atheism in Star Trek, enjoying the jingoistic take that our bipedal carbon-based specie have higher values and ethics than any alien we encountered in the galactic quadrant Star Trek starships toodle around. And we humans being braver, more honourable and heroic too in our dealings with them "out there". Not more fighting and hating as Caucasians, Mongoloids, Negroids or Buddhists, Jains, Mormons, Pagans, Jews, Christians, Muslims, but as humans against all those space critters and cretins.

Nice change from religious and racial war, as in the Star Trek universe and utopia, it is us humans vs aliens and the Prime Directive (New Holy Text) to guide us too in our conquest, er, exploration of space.

Mr. Arroyo has truly gone where no man has gone before in his take on Star Trek. It is just a fun TV and movie series. I am more wary of shows like 24 Hours and Homeland Security for obvious reasons.

May the Borg assimilate Mr. Arroyo. Resistance is futile.

Yeah well, I am a shameless Trekkie.

Elohist

Take every sentence in Professor Stevens' quote from December. Replace the word atheist with, Jew, Catholic, Baptist -- you name it.

"I never met an XXXX I could like".

If he said that in a classroom in my campus -- where XXX is any ethnic or religious group -- his job would be in jeopardy.

Elohist, you make some good points. I would suggest that both of us probably know plenty of atheists who don't advertise their beliefs. I have noticed a correlation between extremism and vociferousness, that the most extreme members of any movement seem to be the most vocal ones. So in all religious belief systems, including atheism, it's only a minority that makes a habit of getting in other people's faces about its beliefs. The obnoxiousness you have noticed is not really about atheism but a need for attention. I suspect that if their lives had gone a different way, they would still be in your face but with a completely different belief system.

Dear Brian:

You ARE using the same tactic against Arroyo that you say is bigotry. I went back and looked at his whole statement from decmb.

"I never met an atheist I could like. Surely, somewhere on this planet, there is a friendly atheist, but I haven’t bumped into one yet.

The atheists who have crossed my path are obnoxious. They create the world in their own image and likeness, where only they are right or reasonable, and everyone else is either a fool or fanatic. (Any atheist who doubts him/herself enough to benefit someone else’s opinion is not a dogmatic atheist, but an agnostic: see below).

You can’t have a dialogue with dogmatic atheists. Because they are so sure they know everything, they never listen to intelligent people."

It is clear that he is making a lot of distinctions that bigots never do and relating his own experience to the issue. If you, for instance, "listen to intelligent people" as an atheist, he isn't talking about you.

I get tired of bloggers whose attention span is too short to go beyond a single sentence. Tell me one thing in the quote above that is bigotry.

"The one thing that we atheists/agnostics notice about religious people is that they denigrate other religions as magic."

Good point, Ba'al. In considering claims about the supernatural, why would one religion's claims be more valid than another religion's? In one of the End of the World threads, I asked why religions would even need supernatural claims in the first place.

Eloist, I do not "egregiously insult believers"; I happen to be married to one. I DO call bigots on their bigoted statements, like Stevens-Arroyo's current and past statements about atheists.

Notice I've only made statements about HIS bigotry -- I haven't disparaged all believers due to his poor example. He, on the other hand, has insulted atheists as a class on more than one occasion.

If I went around saying "You can't trust Jews, they hate goyim", I could hardly use angry responses by Jews to prove my point. Stevens-Arroyo is doing the same thing, and you're using the responses to his bigoted statement to claim his bigoted statements about atheists are accurate.

I agree with some of Professor Stevens-Arroyo's points this time, especially the ones about unrepresentative spokesmen and the falsification of history (although I think we disagree mightily on how the history is falsified).

The idea, though, that talking about "spirituality" somehow denigrates religion makes me laugh. The one thing that we atheists/agnostics notice about religious people is that they denigrate other religions as magic. C'mon Professor, those priestly incantations in a dead language that your crowd calls "sacrements", and the "miracle of transubstantiation", how are those different from magic?

Deara Brian Westley:

Atheists like you egregiously insult believers. So if Arroya is unfair, so are you. Are you upset that he doesn't believe in God rather than political correctness?

Stevens-Arroyo's fifth point is unclear to me. True, human communities require some boundaries for peaceful existence. But the first half of the Ten Commandments have nothing to do with interaction between humans. They are simply about placating deity. "Spirituality" is not about denigrating religion. Instead, it is about the freedom of the individual to create meaning for his or her own life. Society's interest should be in individual behavior, not individual belief.

"The shows of the first TV series and many from the first couple of seasons of the spin-off ,Next Generation frequently mouthed the premises of militant atheism. "

I blame that on Gene Roddenberry, who was known for using both shows to push his personal views. Describing him as a militant atheist is too simplistic. Harlan Ellison, writer of the "City on the Edge of Forever" episode, once described Roddenberry's basic plot as this (approximate wording): the Enterprise meets God and God turns out to be insane, a child, a computer, or a combination of the three. That's not true atheism, that is simply sublimated anger. Stevens-Arroyo may not be surprised to learn that others took charge of Next Generation after the first couple of seasons, with Roddenberry as a figurehead. Sorry for the geek diversion.

He doesn't appear to have "overcome his personal feelings" at all. He egregiously insults atheists while protesting how some in the media treat others - he's a hypocrite.

The atheists among us are upset that StevensArroya doesn't like them. They don't like him. The more they pile on, the more they make him right.

As I see it, his critics haven't laid a glove on him. Seems to me if you can't stand the heat in the kitchen, you should leave.

I think he's right about the media being prejudiced against atheists. So is Jackoby. Seems to me he is a mighty fair guy to overcome his personal feelings and tell things like it is.

However, I think he is more than a bit Clintonian by putting what others say about atheism there and not making it his words.

This is a comprehensive and objective view point on meida bias.

The media, like Dan Brown, only uses/covers religion to make money and stir controversy.

The only religion of our media corporations is the all mighty dollar!

Religion is a vast collection of disparate flavors. But atheism is monolithic "fragile relic of 19th century Positivism". Don't call me stupid, stupid.

Hollow words from someone who wrotes just weeks earlier "I never met an atheist I could like", and who, while supposedly decrying media bias against "militant atheists", makes sure to describe them as either pathologically angry or envious. A bigot writing about prejudice with a huge log in one eye.