David Silverman – Golden man for Secularism and Feminism
I met David Silverman as be was walking towards the hotel where the Atheist Alliance 2007 conference was being hosted, while I caught some air. I had no idea who he was, or that he would become the President of American Atheists. What I did know was that rather than having his towel on him, he was wearing a Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy T-Shirt. As regular readers know Hitchhikers was the catalyst to my leaving the Jehovah’s Witnesses as a child.
I introduced myself by saying “Anyone who is a fan of Douglas Adams is a friend of mine”. We both were getting things ready for the conference. He mentioned the article he wrote, which I had read, where he interviewed Douglas.
A few reasons mentioning this. One, it is towel day this Saturday May 25 2013 where fans of Douglas will have their towels on them, and possibly a laundered dressing gown to impress people, as Trillion tells Arthur in Hitchhikers.
The other is that today on twitter, he has shown an ability as President to show genuine leadership for secularism and feminism. Better than a certain President Zaphod Beeblebrox I could mention.
The timeline for the conversation can be read here, as it stands now.
He has shown exactly what we all wanted Ronald Lindsay to have done unequivocally at Women in Secularism 2. Show backbone, and upfront leadership standing with women as allies at the trolls out there who intimidate, ridicule, and harass women in the feminist movement. Clearly he welcomes critical measured responses. Victimisation of others is unacceptable.
PZ Myers from this has decided on lifelong membership of American Atheists as a result. I am so impressed I urge my American readers to support David as best they can. He has shown himself to be, whether on Twitter or writing a dignified piece on the 9/11 cross as worthy of the position he holds.
I hope our paths cross again someday.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Rebecca is an atheist … Even during Oklahoma disaster
Often people make reference to faith at times of natural disaster, see Hemant for that. There is a predisposition also that faith gets people through a tragedy, especially when we use the same language.
I do not how else Matt Frei, who long term readers know is one of my favourite Brit journalists based in the USA, quotes and uses Rebecca mentioned in my previous blog for his article “Big weather fuels big faith in Oklahoma“
“We are so blessed”, Rebecca told me as she was clutching her two-year-old son Anders. He was shoeless and dressed in a girl’s outfit.
It happened to be in the back of her car when she decided to quit the bathtub she had chosen for shelter, get in her car and make a run for it. When she returned to her house after the storm only a concrete slab was left.
A stranger’s car she had never seen before was on top of what used to be her bed and the bath tub was crushed and filled with debris. “We would have died, for sure”, she said with a smile on her face, ” had we stayed.”
As mentioned earlier on this blog Rebecca is an atheist as reported unexpectedly on CNN when Wolf Blitzer expected she would want to give thanks to The Lord for her family’s survival. She handled herself honestly and with dignity.
Have told Matt via twitter of the error. Maybe next time you are here in the UK Matt you can buy me lunch.
Atheists Giving Aid – Oklahoma Tornado Relief
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Tornados in Oklahoma, hot air and calm
There is with natural disasters a tendency by some to flippantly blame others for somehow having the ability to influence the supernatural’s fury on us via weather events.
Fred Phelps Jr, the son of Westboro’s 83-year-old leader, tweeted: “OK Thunder’s Durant flips God by praising fag Collins. God smashed OK [Oklahoma]. You do the math. #GodH8sFags #FagsDoomNations #FearGod #GodH8sU” Pink News
I only draw your attention to the ramblings of an imbecile whose compassion is absent presumed missing, replaced by a burning righteous indignation that would allow the fires of hell to be carbon neutral – as a sharp contrast to this very short video clip kindly shared by @Wondiebee of a survivor of the Oklahoma tornados.
She was grace and tolerance personified.
Unfortunately tolerance, let alone acceptance, is not something Phelps Junior understands. My hope is he lives to one day realise that his homophobia made him the biggest asshole out there and that the Lord’s light really does not shine out of it.
All the best to those affected by the tornados in Oklahoma.
Please give what you can.
Atheists Giving Aid – Oklahoma Tornado Relief
Follow on Blog: Rebecca is an atheist during and after disaster
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
Forgive me If I don’t stand to applaud Mehdi Hasan
Mehdi Hasan has written about his youthful homophobia and how by embracing secularism he resolves the private belief that homosexuality is wrong (New Statesman).
The mood music of the piece has been applauded while I wonder if they noticed the lyrics which demand attention. Ignore them and you miss that his secularism is for those of us who as non Muslim can enjoy the gay life; just leave us alone to make a Muslim being gay potentially difficult.
Let us start with what homophobic behaviour at school is like, something which effeminate boys like myself went through. I had a whole class of male 11 year olds chanting over and over “Bend over for Jehovah!” for a full five minutes only stopping when the arts teacher decided to finally come to her lesson. Part of my bullying, which once involved me being on the floor praying to God to forgive them as the shit was kicked out of me, was the decision that I must be gay because I had the look of a pretty boy and read books. That I was studying with an anti-gay religion is one of the biggest ironies of my life and I hold my head up now that I did not try to play that card with them.
You may or may not be surprised to learn that, as a teenager, I was one of those wannabe-macho kids who crudely deployed “gay” as a mark of abuse; you will probably be shocked to discover that shamefully, even in my twenties, I was still making the odd disparaging remark about homosexuality.
Yes Hasan, that behaviour gives the cover for the very things that happen in school. You may repudiate your younger self. It took you till your 30s. This is no cause for applause. About bloody time for a man of your education. Shame on you for taking so long should be the cry, not good on you.
So let me be clear: yes, I’m a progressive who supports a secular society in which you don’t impose your faith on others – and in which the government, no matter how big or small, must always stay out of the bedroom. But I am also (to Richard Dawkins’s continuing disappointment) a believing Muslim. And, as a result, I really do struggle with this issue of homosexuality. As a supporter of secularism, I am willing to accept same-sex weddings in a state-sanctioned register office, on grounds of equity. As a believer in Islam, however, I insist that no mosque be forced to hold one against its wishes.
If you’re gay, that doesn’t mean I want to discriminate against you, belittle or bully you, abuse or offend you. Not at all. I don’t want to go back to the dark days of criminalisation and the imprisonment of gay men and women; of Section 28 and legalised discrimination. I’m disgusted by the violent repression and persecution of gay people across the Muslim-majority world.
I am pleased Hasan you will not impose your faith on those outside it, as you are a secularist. My concern is you are quite willing to allow anti-gay feelings and belief to prevent Gay Muslims marrying in a mosque. You do not even attempt in the article to suggest how to address these tendencies in the Muslim community as you wrestle with your own beliefs. Beyond saying stoning or killing gay people of whatever religious persuasion is not on. I would like to think we could take your thinking on that as a given.
You mention the problem is men lusting after other men’s procreative genitalia as something to be considered wrong (the same for women too). For equity gay people should be able to get married. But the thought of consenting same sex people having orgasims with each other, without any chance of a baby, is something you have an issue with as a believer. If not, then I wonder why Islam’s view on homosexuality is a concern for you that it clearly seems to be. Faith and state have to get out of the bedroom.
I am writing this because I want to live in a society in which all minorities – Jews, Muslims, gay people and others – are protected from violence and abuse, from demonisation and discrimination. And because I want to apologise for any hurt or offence that I may have caused to my gay brothers and lesbian sisters.
And yes, whatever our differences – straight or gay, religious or atheist, male or female – we are all brothers and sisters. As the great Muslim leader of the 7th century and son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad, Ali ibn Abi Talib, once declared: “Remember that people are of two kinds; they are either your brothers in religion or your brothers in mankind.”
It is not clear what rights and privileges Gay Muslims should enjoy with their gay non Muslim brethren in Hasan’s article. Under the belief of secularism we are to respect these differences as religious freedom not discrimination. This leaves a bad taste in my mouth. There is no detail by Hasan beyond what we know: homophobia is an issue in society. The word “rights” is not even mentioned in the article. Nor for that matter is the word “equality” by Hasan.
Does this not tell you all you need to know?
No one should get a round of applause for just saying homophobia is wrong and religious bigotry should not be imposed on non believers. That is the minimum to be taken seriously in public discourse, not grounds for a standing ovation.
If he had written not only should gay Muslims not be subjected to hatred by the community but also we should work hard to give gay Muslims the same rights and privileges that gay non Muslims have – then I would be cheering him from the rafters. Notice he never says that. Tolerance and mutual respect yes. That though empowers no one the way rights do, and the way equality enshrines as one law for all.
Speak up for gay Muslims who live in terror of being outed, where leaving the faith as an apostate to have their secular rights can be made unbearable by the community and even their own family. Do not give plaudits to someone that contains their own bigotry as a constant conflict. I know where my sympathies are.
Ladies and gentlemen please remain in your seats.
Related blog: Oh for the wings of a horse … Dawkins and Hasan
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
A Journey into Apostasy – a brave new world
The journey picks up where we left off, on my becoming an apostate. The first part of the journey – studying with the Jehovah’s Witnesses and leaving can be read here.
Above: My companions while taught at home
Even now twenty years on I can trace the route of my father’s tears of joy as I told him the news we had left the study of Jehovah’s Witnesses, on one of his weekly visits to see me. For years he had not let on his true feelings: regarding my being taught at home or being so close to baptism, and demanding a blood transfusion if needed. He feared not being allowed to see me or my brother had his displeasure been realised. His amateur dramatics in local Gilbert and Sullivan productions had paid off in his once a week performance as Dad. Shows like Princess Ida which no one could stop me seeing now. It was roughly a year or so after the divorce that mum had accepted the bible study. Timing is, as they say, everything as to what happens in your life. It felt like six years of mine had been wasted.
The biggest loss was a religious community, even though it had enforced every facet of belief on my child self. Our lodger was tolerated by the elders of the congregation because he did not “practise” his homosexuality at our home and used the back door to enter his part of the house. Word play is something he taught me, together with an appreciation for Douglas Adams, which I shall always be grateful for. There was no one else, besides him and my father outside the faith because “bad associations spoil useful habits.” Satan and his minions were considered able to use people outside the faith to get you to leave. Apostates are willing agents of the evil one by this reckoning.
There was no one to talk too about losing my religion. My mother had been concerned I would be the one still committed. However we reacted very differently on leaving. She still believed Jehovah existed, but the Society had failed to represent him. My own view was initially a deist but I had my work cut out learning about other faiths and whether science had answers that scripture did not know, before I could be sure of anything. Our views drifted further in time and my future atheism would distress her. She still read the Society publications, whilst I did not even want them on the book shelf. I had realised how easy it was to believe passionately in something that was not worthy of such devotion.
Playing as a war god to be worshipped on a new planet – definite NO
The congregation did shun, literally not talking or meeting with us, save for contact three months later by a ministerial servant (one down from an elder) seeing how we all were. With glee I happened to be playing the strategy god war game Mega-lo-mania on my newly acquired Mega Drive and thought – here is one game you are not burning. Note that playing card games or chess were not allowed because of the tarot origins of cards and the military aspect of chess. Naturally I bought books to learn card games and taught myself to play chess to fill in the spare time I now had by not attending or preparing for eight hours worth of meetings each week.
Being taught at home meant I had no other children to talk too accept at the Kingdom Hall and study meetings. What was now available to openly explore in the world had exponentially increased while the known population had dramatically declined. This was made harsher because I had no childhood friends to call on having existed mainly in a world of suited men and well dressed women old enough to adopt me. Those people from my childhood no longer existed.
Like the elder who led our local weekly study group who I called Uncle (his idea not mine) who grilled me on my bible knowledge; a challenge I revelled in showing off on. The other elder old enough to be my grandfather who used to take me weekly for swimming and diving – his dives from the top board were legendary in the swimming baths. My mother as a single parent with a younger disabled son could not provide such social outlets. To avoid being lonely I read books – but I was now alone.
My private study on evolution reading Richard Dawkins, and desire to go back to school to obtain qualifications, destroyed the relationship with my mother. With the TV aerial back on the roof (absent for two years because of “evil TV”) she shouted at David Attenborough whenever he said “evolution” on his wildlife documentaries. I was no longer turning to her for advice or counsel, nor able to help with the care of my brother when at secondary school as I had when taught at home. I was hitting the library as somewhere to do homework without the distractions of family life. Plus I finally discovered why Ford Prefect liked parties as I socialised. There was resentment too on my part that she had been so gullible to believe what the Jehovah’s Witnesses said. I mourned a childhood of no celebration and no friends to speak of. My adolescent self was being reborn in a brave new world.
Even chess was off limits with the military undertones – yet I could read Old Testament
Going back to secondary school seven months after leaving the faith helped in so many ways beyond obtaining qualifications. There was bullying to start with as the new kid (though I had been there for two terms four years previous). Being in the school play changed everything – there was a camaraderie and sense of belonging with my own peer group. Plus it helped me to understand why my father had the acting bug. I also became the chess captain when chess had a brief resurgence as Britain’s Nigel Short took on the Russian Thinking Machine that is Gary Kasparov.
Without that lifeline provided by teachers who really did look out for my education and gaining life experiences – I honestly do not know what story I would be writing now. My mind was made up that I would achieve something that nobody in my family had done before – attend university. Something which is a low priority when you think the end of the world is soon to be upon you.
It took me five years to get over instincts that constant mind training at meetings had installed on an impressionable young mind. In adult life I have twice on the off chance met people like myself who grew up in the faith only to leave. They had not met someone else like themselves, and the ability to talk about these things with someone who knew first hand was one I wish my adolescent self had access to.
Social media via the Internet makes talking to such people possible now. I hope people take advantage of it. That is why the apostasy project is so important. However, when you are brought up to consider apostates as capable of being a shining light while working for the dark evil one, none of us should take for granted how difficult it is for someone with doubts to reach out.
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
CFI Women in Secularism opening remarks controversy
My twitter timeline shows a divide on whether Rebecca Watson (Skepchick) or Ronald Lindsay (President and CEO Center for Inquiry) are in the right regarding his speech. I was not there, but this may give you background to what people are saying. Of course the published responses may lead to a different view if we had been there.
In Washington DC The Center For Inquiry (CFI) has just hosted Women In Secularism 2 which finishes today. My twitter feed suggests great speakers, and panels on topics worth discussing for the $250 ticket cost of attendance. However, the opening remarks by CFI Ronald Lindsey left a bitter after taste at the event that kept some delegates chatting in PZ Myers room till the early hours. PZ explains:
the head of CFI, Ron Lindsay, chose to use the opening talk of the conference to basically chastise the attendees and instruct them in how to behave, and I’ve had more than one person tell me that they were irate that their introduction to an event that they paid a considerable sum of money was to be greeted by a talk that pandered to people who hated the event, and were volubly complaining on the internet throughout the day about it. The impression they had was that the organization was unhappy to be sponsoring this conference.
Rebecca Watson wrote her thoughts about the “shut up and listen” attitude where sometimes it is important to listen to the experience and expertise someone can give you than sound off your own gut feeling. You can read them here – it is a measured critique that does not go into ad hominem about Lindsey’s opening remark talk.
By contrast Ronald Lindsay response does not deal with those issues in feminism, like how transsexuals are treated in the movement, which Watson makes clear together with how feminist activists have been victimised into silence. He instead writes not on those substantive issues but his feelings:
But in her defense, perhaps Watson was too busy tweeting about how “strange” it was to have a “white man” open the conference to pay attention to what I was actually saying. (I’m just glad Watson didn’t notify security: “white man loose on stage, white man loose on stage!”)
The picture he paints of Rebecca is as a North Korean propagandist against white males talking about feminism, perhaps using twitter to get the feminist police onto him. Her article deserved not just more tact, but a recognition of the problems the feminist movement faces. Lindsay links to it in his article but makes no reference in his rebuke of her.
This is the extract from Lindsay’s talk on privilege and shut up and listen:
This brings me to the concept of privilege, a concept much in use these days. Let me emphasize at the outset that I think it’s a concept that has some validity and utility; it’s also a concept that can be misused, misused as a way to try to silence critics. In what way does it have validity? I think there is sufficient evidence to indicate that there are socially embedded advantages that men have over women, in a very general sense. These advantages manifest in various ways, such as the persistent pay gap between men and women. Also, I’m not a believer in a priori arguments, but I will say that given the thousands of years that women were subordinated to men, it would be absolutely amazing if in the space of several decades all the social advantages that men had were promptly and completely eradicated. Legislation can be very effective for securing rights, but changing deeply engrained patterns of behavior can take some time.
That said, I am concerned the concept of privilege may be misapplied in some instances. First, some people think it has dispositive explanatory power in all situations, so, if for example, in a particular situation there are fewer women than men in a given managerial position, and intentional discrimination is ruled out, well, then privilege must be at work. But that’s not true; there may be other explanations. The concept of privilege can do some explanatory work at a general level, but in particular, individualized situations, other factors may be more significant. To bring this point home let’s consider an example of another broad generalization which is unquestionably true, namely that people with college degrees earn more over their lifetime than those who have only high school diplomas. As I said, as a general matter, this is unquestionably true as statistics have shown this to be the case. Nonetheless in any particular case, when comparing two individuals, one with a high school degree and one with a college degree, the generalization may not hold.
But it’s the second misapplication of the concept of privilege that troubles me most. I’m talking about the situation where the concept of privilege is used to try to silence others, as a justification for saying, “shut up and listen.” Shut up, because you’re a man and you cannot possibly know what it’s like to experience x, y, and z, and anything you say is bound to be mistaken in some way, but, of course, you’re too blinded by your privilege even to realize that.
This approach doesn’t work. It certainly doesn’t work for me. It’s the approach that the dogmatist who wants to silence critics has always taken because it beats having to engage someone in a reasoned argument. It’s the approach that’s been taken by many religions. It’s the approach taken by ideologies such as Marxism. You pull your dogma off the shelf, take out the relevant category or classification, fit it snugly over the person you want to categorize, dismiss, and silence and … poof, you’re done. End of discussion. You’re a heretic spreading the lies of Satan, and anything you say is wrong. You’re a member of the bourgeoisie, defending your ownership of the means of production, and everything you say is just a lie to justify your power. You’re a man; you have nothing to contribute to a discussion of how to achieve equality for women.
Now don’t get me wrong. I think the concept of privilege is useful; in fact it is too useful to have it ossified and turned into a dogma.
By the way, with respect to the “Shut up and listen” meme, I hope it’s clear that it’s the “shut up” part that troubles me, not the “listen” part. Listening is good. People do have different life experiences, and many women have had experiences and perspectives from which men can and should learn. But having had certain experiences does not automatically turn one into an authority to whom others must defer. Listen, listen carefully, but where appropriate, question and engage.
By my reckoning assuming 15 words a line the above is over 600 odd words on the subject of privilege and how it relates to debate within feminism. Rebecca means both those things and not just those 200 words Ronald thinks. To quote Rebecca:
To summarize, Lindsay spends a good deal of time arguing against the idea that feminism as a movement has no significant internal disagreements, an absurd idea I have never actually heard expressed by any feminists, but I suppose Lindsay and I travel in different circles. Lindsay doesn’t mention who exactly has argued this point so I can’t check to see why on Earth they’d think something so obviously contradictory to reality. It seems impossible to me that a person could be involved in modern day feminism in any way without noticing the lively and occasionally contentious debates among feminists about topics like intersectionality, particularly with regards to the fringe radical feminists who hold openly transphobic beliefs.
How should a CEO have responded? An article saying he wants to get to know the problems feminists have experienced with transgender issues and how secular organisations can stop the victimisation of women in the public sphere when debating. Then actually you say this but I meant that.
But no, he responded with scorn and anger publicly.
He is going to need a thicker skin in the job, and I am unimpressed with how he has handled himself in print given the serious points Watson raised. Rather than offer a private talk he wrote an enflaming response and now is trying to douse the flames he caused in the first place because of a critique.
UPDATE: 22/5/2013 I fully support the Secular Woman statement
Related Blog: The Critical Thinker Gives No One A Free Ride
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
The Eurovision Delusion
Eurovision is the biggest music competition in the world. A party for those watching, a chance to make fun of contestants’ clothes and looks, while enjoying the occasion as Europe sings to each other.
In the United Kingdom we blame the politics for us doing so badly in recent years. Every single year we blame the attitude towards us, and cosines of other countries to each other. That border geography is the thing that plays a part too.
Yet every single year I listen to the songs and chose my top 3 and one of them wins. Based on what I heard not what punters say. Denmark, with a feisty Shakira clone produced a song which was fun, flamboyant and upbeat.
By contrast we managed 23 points – less than a tenth of Denmark’s. Comparing the entries that was about right.
Frankly what I said to Phillip Schofield counts. We delude ourselves. Until those that chose our entry with outdated ballads and past their career best singers get how to take a music competition seriously – as a contest that you play to win, we just will not be in the top half of the table.
Nor frankly will we deserve to be. It is only a music competition but if they have the audacity to play it this way give us back the choice of who represents us and with which song. We gave Denmark, the winners, a maximum 12 points after all.
I think we can do better.
UPDATE:
BBC pundit Dr Eurovision explodes the “it’s all political” nonsense in detail
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Follow @JPSargeant78
