Today’s Atheist Meme of the Day:
Atheism is not arrogant. It’s no more arrogant to say, “I really think I’m right that there is no God” than to say, “I really think I’m right that there is a God.” In fact, atheism is often a humbling philosophy, one that sees humanity as a very small, brief facet in the vastness of space and time. Pass it on: if we say it enough times to enough people, it may get across.
It’s in a dive of a bar that I find Johnny Tyger. What a stupid stage name. His ridiculously long and thick digits form chords in the most awkward ways. And yet, as I watch him play, I lose sight entirely of the vivid discussion, an emerging and innovative system for rating oral sex performances, that my girlfriends are engaged in.
To read more, read the rest of the story. (Not for anyone under 18.) Enjoy!
Today’s Atheist Meme of the Day:
Persuasion is not proselytization. Trying to persuade someone that you’re right, and providing evidence for your case, is not disrespectful or intolerant. It’s the marketplace of ideas. And that’s just as true of atheism as anything else. Pass it on: if we say it enough times to enough people, it may get across.
Oh, apropos of nothing: I think I accidentally “ignored” someone’s friend request a few days ago, when I meant to accept it. If you tried to friend me and I didn’t respond, please try again!
Will an accommodationist approach help the secularist movement?
Will it help the cause of secularism, and separation of church and state, for atheists to accommodate religion? By refraining from harsh criticism of religion, for instance? Or by ceding the grounds of philosophy and meaning to religion in a Non-Overlapping Magisteria gambit? Or by allowing language about God in government, on the grounds that God doesn’t necessarily mean religion?
At the point of a sword if necessary. Or at the point of the rack, or a burning stake.
I’ve been thinking about Kirsch’s words. And it occurred to me:
This really hasn’t changed that much.
Tolerance of religious diversity is still not a guiding value of the Christian church. No, people aren’t being institutionally murdered and tortured for Christianity — as much — but tolerance of religious diversity is not a guiding value of the Christian church.
Oh, I know it is for some. There are some Christian churches for whom ecumenicalism is a core value. I’m not denying that. But they’re very much in the minority. The majority of Christian churches, around the U.S. and around the world, are either Catholic or fundamentalist. And those churches are not exactly known for their “Live and let live,” “All religions are just different paths to God” attitude towards different faiths. They are very much known for their hard-line, “my way or the highway” attitude.
So. Given that all this is true. Given that “everyone should practice religion our way” is a central theme of Christianity’s founding texts. Given that, historically speaking, a harsh and rigid enforcement of dogma has been Christianity’s dominant M.O. for two thousand years. Given that Christian evangelism and missionary work has overwhelmingly been based, not on persuasion or reason, but on fear-mongering and bribery at best, and on actual threats, intimidation, violence, and war at worst. Given that tolerant ecumenicalism has been a fairly recent development in Christianity, and a fairly minor variant to boot.
Given all that.
Why on earth would we think that accommodationism is a good idea?
Why on earth would we think that accommodationism is going to involve anything other than us rolling over and playing dead?
Now, if that weren’t true? If all or even most religions were tolerant and ecumenical and “live and let live,” about other religions and about atheism? Then the accommodationists might have a point. If all or most religions were interested in compromising back, then compromise might be a valid strategy. (Of course, if all or even most religions were tolerant and ecumenical about other religions and atheism, then most atheists wouldn’t much care about religion, and the atheist movement probably wouldn’t need to exist. Thus rendering the whole question moot.)
But most religions aren’t like that. Most religions don’t care about compromise. Most religions care, more than anything, about (a) perpetuating themselves, and (b) seeing that the will of God is done. They don’t see tolerance of other religions as an inherent value in itself. They see tolerance of other religions as a violation of God’s will.
So given that this is true… what do the accommodationists hope to accomplish? How do you accommodate someone whose only response to your efforts is to demand that you accommodate some more? And then more, and more, and more? How will accommodationism accomplish anything other than atheists turning ourselves into doormats?
But we do not need to accommodate religion by declining to criticize it. We do not need to accommodate religion by allowing it to use its language in government documents and institutions. We do not need to accommodate religion by agreeing that the spiritual world somehow governs philosophy and meaning, even though it has no discernable effect on the physical world.
And there’s no point in doing so. We cannot expect religion to be reasonable, tolerant, and eager to compromise. We have to expect the Spanish Inquisition. There is no point in accommodating people who won’t accommodate back.
Today’s Atheist Meme of the Day:
We don’t yet understand what consciousness is. But all the available evidence is that, whatever consciousness is, it’s a biological process of the brain. And there is absolutely zero good evidence suggesting that any metaphysical process is part of the picture. Pass it on: if we say it enough times to enough people, it may get across.
The excellent documentary “Outrage,” about Mike Rogers and other gay political activists who expose closeted gay politicians working against gay rights, debuted yesterday on HBO, and will be airing many times throughout the coming weeks. So this seemed like a good time to reprint my interview with Mike. This piece was originally published on the Blowfish Blog.
Why do they fight so viciously against the very sexualities they practice?
And why do people decide to expose them?
I’ve pondered this question before. But it keeps coming up — and up, and up, and up, to an almost comical degree. So I thought I’d ask one of the world’s leading experts on closeted gay politicians: Mike Rogers.
Mike Rogers wears many hats, all of them fabulous. (See bio below.) But he’s best known as “the most feared man on Capitol Hill”: a dogged investigative reporter known for outing closeted gay politicians who work and vote against LGBT rights. He’s the star of “Outrage,” the recent documentary inspired by his investigations. His most recent expose is among his most controversial: South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer, the closeted anti-gay politician who’s in line to replace the now-infamous Governor Mark Sanford. We spoke recently about how and why he outs closeted anti-gay politicians, his standards of evidence, the psychology of homophobic gay people, the difference between news and gossip, and more.
Greta: You’ve made it a big part of your life’s work to expose closeted gay politicians who work and vote against LGBT rights. Can you tell us why you decided to do that?
So from that point, I felt that everything I do in my career, I want to do to make the world better. But it was only in 2004, with the incredible frustration I felt over the use of marriage in the 2004 election — that’s when I decided, “You know what? This is bullshit. And I’m going to do something about it.”
Why do you think outing has become such a big part of your public image? Is it just because it’s lurid? Why do you think that’s how people identify you?
It’s sexy, and we’re primates, and we care about that.
Right. It’s not that people are fascinated by the sex lives of closeted politicians. It’s that people are fascinated by sex lives. This is nothing new, it’s been going on for a long time, but history has denied it. People have trouble viewing history in color. So much of our history is denied over sex.
Let me ask about your most recent outing: South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer. Why did you feel this particular story was important?
It’s a personal call. There are lots of Republicans, including some in Congress, who are closeted and gay, and I have no reason to out them. They’re not in bed with the religious right; they’re not working with a team of folks who are rabid homophobes.
Now, a lot of people object to outing on principle. Even with closeted gay politicians who vote against gay rights: they still think people have a right to sexual privacy, and to decide for themselves when and if to come out, no matter what. What’s your response to that?
First of all: Regardless of what they would like, politicians don’t get to decide what stories about their lives will be reported on. That’s not how it works. Whether it’s taking money from the treasury, bribing people, whatever it is — the guy in office doesn’t get to say, “Don’t write a story about this, but write a story about that.”
In terms of who has the right to report things? No other community is expected to harbor its own enemies.
I have no problem if these people want to be private — but then they shouldn’t be running for office. I wrote a post called No more “outing,” where I pledged to replace the word “outing” with “reporting.” To me, “outing” is the indiscriminate revealing of an individual’s sexual orientation. I don’t do that. I report on hypocrisy.
Do people feel that if a member of Congress is arguing against choice, and it’s found out that they had an abortion — is that something that should not be reported? If you find out that a member of Congress is supposedly a Christian, and is having an affair — should that be reported? For me, the answer is yes. It’s a very simple thing… because they are beating gay people up.
So what are your standards of evidence? The LGBT community is full of gossip about celebrities and politicians who are gay, and a lot of the time it’s not true. How, as a reporter, do you distinguish between garden variety celebrity gossip about who is and isn’t gay, and a credible story that’s likely to be true?
Every reporter decides how and what they’re going to report. When Sy Hersh writes for the New Yorker that there are Dick Cheney operatives in the Pentagon, and that he can’t reveal his sources, people take at value whether they believe Sy Hersh is telling the truth — that he talked to people.
So there are all these different standards. You can have folks at the Atlanta Journal Constitution who destroyed Richard Jewell’s life, or Judith Miller who sent us into war on behalf of the New York Times — without any proof, without anything other than one person.
I take it much further. I’m a reporter. I research stories. Like many reporters, the first thing that happens is a tip. Let me tell you how many “tips” I’ve gotten: “I heard So-and-so is gay, I know he’s gay, I’ve heard it forever, I just don’t have the proof.” I’ve probably gotten a hundred emails over the years that have said, “Lindsay Graham is gay, I can’t believe you’re not reporting this, you’re a horrible individual.” Well, everybody can say they know Lindsay Graham is gay — but I don’t know if Lindsay Graham is gay. I don’t know if Lindsay Graham has sex with men.
Now, in some cases, it’s easy. A tip comes in, it’s the voice mail of a U.S. Congressman looking for sex on a phone sex line. Eight different tapes.
If only they were all that easy!
The other cases come down to: What do people know, when did they know it, who said what, how did they say it. So what I do — what I did, for example, in Larry Craig’s case — I met various people who claimed to have had sex with Larry Craig. Now, when I meet a gay political guy here [in D.C.] who says, “I had sex with Larry Craig,” and he tells me specific characteristics about Larry Craig’s penis — and then I fly 3.000 miles across the country, and I meet with somebody who’s not in the political arena, who had no connection to the guy in Washington, and he tells me very similar things about Larry Craig’s penis, despite there being a five or ten or fifteen year difference? That, to me, says something else.
That’s credible. That’s not gossip. That’s multiply- confirmed, independent, first-hand stories.
We all know that it isn’t just gay people who hide their sex lives and then take political action inconsistent with those sex lives. My question, with the people who are gay: How much of this shame and denial do you think has to do with being gay… and how much of it is just about sex and sexuality? Like sex is something that’s dirty and secret, something you don’t talk about? And how much is shame about being gay specifically?
First time I got that question! It’s a good one.
There is a pathology. In some places it’s probably about the sexual part of it — that they’re so ashamed of the sex. For others, it’s probably a matter of convenience. You want to be the governor of South Carolina, and you’re the lieutenant governor, and you’ll never get elected if you tell anyone you’re gay. So — you make yourself not gay.
I think there are different people, and I’ll give you an example. David Dreier is different than Larry Craig. In fact, David Dreier is much closer to Barney Frank than he is to Larry Craig, in terms of the psychology. David Dreier is a gay man, he has a gay relationship, he has gay friends — but he has built this closet. He’s what I call a man on a journey.
I think my work nudged his journey… but even if he had voted against us, I didn’t think it was worth an outing, because I thought his journey would get him where he had to be. For Paul, and he’s talked about this, it was the strict Catholic upbringing he went through in Brainerd, Minnesota, that brought him to the closet. It was something he had to overcome.
As opposed to Larry Craig. Larry Craig was never going to overcome his closet. Ever. It’s a dry drunk syndrome.
That brings me to my last question. In your experience, what typically happens with closeted gay political figures after they’ve been exposed? It seems like some of them change their attitudes about LGBT issues, and some don’t. What do you think makes that difference: the difference between somebody who, once they’re outed or are pushed out, then they’re out and proud and start working for our causes — and the people who just get buried deeper in the closet?
What makes anybody different? What makes people be out, and then not tell their parents? Or what makes people tell their parents, and not tell their friends? What makes people live their whole lives, and then come out when they’re sixty? Each person lives their life through their experience.
When a guy is in college, and someone outs him to his family, how does the guy react? Either, “No, Ma, that’s bullshit, it’s not true,” or “Hey, I’m gay. Get over it.” That’s probably a question better asked to a psychologist than to me.
Michael Rogers is the director of the National Blogger and Citizen Journalist Initiative and a Media Fellow at the New Organizing Institute, where he develops nationwide media programs. He is a former development director of the Harvey Milk School, The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and GALA Choruses, and was director of major gifts at Greenpeace. Rogers blogs at BlogActive and is the lead subject of “Outrage,” a documentary inspired by and about the work of his site. Rogers is the executive editor of PageOneQ and director of business development for Raw Story. He resides in Washington, DC.
Today’s Atheist Meme of the Day:
The reason many atheists care what other believe is that people act on their beliefs. We care for the same reasons Democrats care what Republicans believe, and vice versa: we think religion is a mistaken idea about the world, and we think it does more harm than good. Pass it on: if we say it enough times to enough people, it may get across.
It’s titled “Straight Porn Will Make You Gay”: The Delusion of Sex-Negativity, and here’s the teaser:
What I’m finding truly fascinating is the profound futility, to the point of delusion, of the ultimate purpose behind Schwartz’s bizarre connection between straight porn and homosexuality.
Schwartz’s ultimate point wasn’t “Straight porn makes you gay.” I’m not even sure he believes that himself. (In fact, he backpedaled from it just a few sentences later in his speech, saying, “If it [porn] doesn’t turn you homosexual, it at least renders you less capable of loving your wife.”) His ultimate point wasn’t that. His ultimate point was, “Teaching ten- year- old boys that straight porn makes them gay is a great way to keep them away from porn.” His point was that ten- and eleven- year- old boys are profoundly grossed-out by homosexuality… and therefore, telling them that porn will make them gay is a nifty way to make them not want porn.
To me, that’s the money quote. Not the one about how all porn is really gay porn. To me, the money quote is, quote: “If you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he’s going to want to go out and get a copy of Playboy? I’m pretty sure he’ll lose interest. That’s the last thing he wants.”
So here’s what I want to know.
Does Michael Schwartz truly believe that you can keep pre- and early- pubescent straight boys from being interested in pictures of naked women, just by telling them it’ll make them gay?
To read more about sex-negativity and self- delusion, read the rest of the piece. (And if you’re inspired to comment here, please consider cross-posting your comment to the Blowfish Blog as well — they like comments there, too.) Enjoy!
Today’s Atheist Meme of the Day:
Countries with high rates of atheism tend to be countries with high rates of happiness and social health. This doesn’t prove that atheism causes happiness and social health (in fact, it’s probably the other way around). But it does show that atheism doesn’t lead to misery and chaos… and that people don’t need religion to be happy and good. Pass it on: if we say it enough times to enough people, it may get through.
And now, a quick poll about the Atheist Meme of the Day: Do you like having them every day? Or would you rather they came a little less often — like two or three times a week? Would you be more likely to pass them on if they came less often? Or you like having them more often, so you can pick the ones you like best to pass on?
Today’s Atheist Meme of the Day:
Intuition and emotion are valuable… but they’re of limited use in figuring out what is and isn’t true in the external world. They’re too subject to rationalization, confirmation bias, etc. And “Does God exist?” is a question about what is or isn’t true in the external world. Pass it on: if we say it enough times to enough people, it may get through.
