Much of the evidence of increased atheist activism the article gives is anecdotal. The one systematic data point is evidence indicating that there are now many more atheist student groups than there were earlier in the decade. Unfortunately, the article also relies on the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey, which shows a major increase in the percentage of Americans who say that they that are not affiliated with any religion (up to 18% of the US population, compared to 10% in 1990). However, as I explained in this post, not affiliating with any religion is not the same thing as being an atheist. In the same ARIS survey, only 2.3% of respondents say that “there is no such thing as” God and 5.7% that they are “not sure.” Thus, it is far from clear that the NY Times article is correct in suggesting that the 18% of Americans who are unaffiliated with any religion constitute a large potential reservoir of support for atheist activism.
That is Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy.
Whether or not the 18% of non-religious American is athiest, it sounds like a good trend.
From Tyler Cowen:
I do not agree with Obama on all points but he understands economic policy better than do most professional economists, whether Democrats, Republicans, etc.
- Yet another unexploaded WWII bomb has been found in Berlin, this time near the Neues Museum.
- More than 2000 German Tamil’s protested near the Brandenburg Gate.
- ‘Berlin is partying like it’s 1989‘. I’m looking forward to being in Berlin on November 9.
- Berlin is set to vote tomorrow about allowing school children to choose between secular ethics class and relgion class.
- Berlin doctors remove 40lb tumor from woman.
- A number of artists are refusing to participate in a restoration of Berlin Wall art.
If my kids are left-handed I will disown them.
Angus over at KPC thinks he’s found some wisdom flowing from Naomi Klein’s spout.
1. Marjuana Policy
2. Cuba Policy
3. Transportation Policy
4. Bush Torture Policy
5. Economic Policy
Before the election I said I was skeptical of Obama. This all proves my point.
Jim Babka:
Is Janeane Garofalo a left-wing Ann Coulter?
Ok, so she’s short, brunette, and somewhere to the left of Chairman Mao. But if you subtract her looks from consideration, she’s the flip side of the same coin. She’s opinionated, short on facts, and heavily into character assassination.
James Hanley:
As my colleague, D. A. Ridgely, notes in his most recent post,
Curiously and disturbingly, however, Obama further determined that “nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.” and that the C.I.A. officers who were acting on the Justice Department’s legal advice would not be prosecuted.
There are two errors in Obama’s decision, one fundamental and one crucial to the future of the American system. The fundamental error is that Obama has undermined the purpose of a legal system, in a country that is supposedly founded on a government of laws, not of men. Imagine this scenario. I have kidnapped someone in my town, imprisoned them in my basement, and tortured them. Later I let them go. When arrested, my defense is, “I’m not doing it anymore, and nothing will be gained by laying blame for past actions.” Were this defense acceptable, the legal system could never achieve justice for victims. We would no longer live under the rule of law because the system always punishes perpetrators for crimes committed in the past. Obviously Obama is doing what is politically pragmatic–the public clearly is more interested in fixing the economy than in punishing Bush administration officials–but not only is that not an admirable justification, it also means Obama is adopting the Bush administration’s policy of contempt for the law.
Jonathon Rowe:
I’ve intensley debated some evangelicals on the homosexuality issue. I usually get anti-gay evangelicals to admit “unnatural” as they used the term really means the Bible forbids it (Paul says something about “natural use”); but then why even pretend like you are appealing outside the Bible with a term like “unnatural”?
Once they mention “natural design” as sort of a “secular” argument to condemn homosexuality, oral sex between heterosexuals (something practiced by like 90% of heterosexuals) becomes just as “unnatural” as anything homosexuals do. The mouth is not “designed” for genitalia.
The Aristotlean-Aquinas argument is less crude. From an observance of nature alone, the ultimate natural end of sex is for sperm to fertilize egg; so anything that helps achieve that “end” (which foreplay could) is “natural.” Another end of sex is that it must be “unitive” in a marriage (it must not treat people as means to ends which could even occur in a marriage as it did in Henry the VIII’s where he just wanted sex with his wife for an heir). Therefore, oral sex might be permitted in some circumstances but contraception (even between married couples), masturbation, and other activities that frustrate the “end” of sperm fertilizing egg are always unnatural and hence wrong, as “unnatural” and “wrong” as homosexuality.
The closest to an inconsistency that one might be able to find in natural law theory on sex is: What about two elderly married people having sex, post menopausual on the woman’s part? That is IMPOSSIBLE to produce a child. The natural law response is long as the sex is “procreative in form” it’s permitted. In other words, even for the 60 year old married couple the husband still can’t use condoms or ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina. If they follow those rules they can still have the “right” kind of sex. It is “procreative in principle.” It closes the loop and makes for a completely consistent natural law, but for those of us who haven’t “bought” the theory in whole, that particular distinction tends to strike us as quite thin, (some might say “sophistry”).
And as an observation, when I discuss this issue with conservative evangelicals, though they agree on policy matters with Thomistic natural law thinkers (the overwhelming majority of whom are Roman Catholic), the evangelicals don’t seem at all convinced by this natural law reasoning. They want to slam homosexuality as “unnatural” AND wrong according to the Bible and set policy accordingly. But a strong majority of whom I have encountered don’t seem at all interested in following the natural law theory on sex to its logical conclusions.
From the overly nice female blog The XX Factor:
I really do mean over-plucking; skinny and abruptly abbreviated eyebrows of the Jennifer Garner variety are among my perhaps, um, excessively long list of pet peeves, right up there with the misuse of “reticent” to mean “reluctant.”
Merely clicking on her first link brings you to this [emphasis added]:
- Main Entry: ret·i·cent
- Pronunciation: \-sənt\
- Function: adjective
- Etymology: Latin reticent-, reticens, present participle of reticēre to keep silent, from re- + tacēre to be silent — more at tacit
- Date: circa 1834
1 : inclined to be silent or uncommunicative in speech : reserved
2 : restrained in expression, presentation, or appearance <the room has an aspect of reticent dignity — A. N. Whitehead>
3 : reluctant
Will Wilkinson tweets:
Anybody in Toronto want to get drinks tonight? I know, it’s Wednesday. But if Twitter/Facebook can’t do this for me, what good is it?
From Andrew Sullivan’s continuing series, The Cannabis Closet:
I am a responsible parent and a homeowner. I can write some of the most complex law review articles and I can syllogistically reason with the best of attorneys. Everyone knows I am formidable in class. However, when I smoke pot, all of my skills and talents evaporate for days at-a-stretch.
If I take a little puff on a Friday, I will produce sub-par work for the rest of the weekend. If I actually get “stoned,” I notice my mental capacity is diminished for at least ten days. My answers in class become ordinary. I reason through dense material more slowly. I get that “I wish I had thought of that at the time” feeling more often because I fall into rhetorical traps of law school discourse regularly. If I smoked pot within the last seven days, I will get outwitted by people who I know I could keep up with otherwise.
Perhaps I don’t know enough potheads, but I have trouble believing this.
Though stated many times and in many ways, it’s worth repeating.
From a libertarian perspective, your generosity is reflected in what you do with your own money, not in what you do with other people’s money. If I give a lot of money to charity, then I am generous. If you give a smaller fraction of your money to charity, then you are less generous. But if you want to tax me in order to give my money to charity, that does not make you generous. [Arnold Kling]
From Slog:
The story: An abusive dad (took parenting classes after assaulting one of his children a few years ago) kills himself and his five children after learning his wife (the children’s mother), who fled several days before, is with another man.
The headline*: “Breakup Ignited Dad’s Deadly Rage”
The definition: Ignite: To set afire; to set in motion
The lesson: A man rapes a woman; the woman “is raped.” A man kills five children and blames a woman, the woman “ignites” the man’s actions. Her actions set him off; his actions were prompted, involuntary.
Or, as Shakespeare’s Sister put it, “Yep—Mom did it.”
*from the Seattle Times, where most commenters are blaming the woman for a) being a slut (”I hope you had a good time) or b) fleeing (she “obviously cared for herself only and her comforts”)
This is what happens when people look for things to complain about.
Andrew Sullivan says:
Roger Scruton wants the old humanism back:
The new humanism spends little time exalting man as an ideal. It says nothing, or next to nothing, about faith, hope, and charity; is scathing about patriotism; and is dismissive of those rearguard actions in defense of the family, public spirit, and sexual restraint that animated my parents. Instead of idealizing man, the new humanism denigrates God and attacks the belief in God as a human weakness. My parents too thought belief in God to be a weakness. But they were reluctant to deprive other human beings of a moral prop that they seemed to need.
Robert Porter says: no thanks.
Today we have millions of sexually mature teens that are told that they must continue to behave as if they were prepubescent. In addition, our culture now delays their marriages as long as possible while our education system indoctrinates them with the idea that must be sexually abstinent until they marry. So, precisely at the time where their hormonal urges are highest, our culture is telling them to delay sexual activity for another decade or more! It is no surprise that a high percentage of teens simply aren’t going along with that idea.
From a new blog I found, Classically Liberal, go read the whole, interesting, post.
Will Wilkinson’s article at The Week:
My name is Will Wilkinson. I smoke marijuana, and I like it.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Yes there is a connection.
A couple of days ago “Drew” decided to comment on a post from 5 months ago:
Any atheist who has arrived at that position through study of history or attention to current events should not only support the move to have religious and Christian references removed from public events; they should insist upon it. Robert Porter, you are part of the problem if you cannot see this. This is not a waste of time, it is one of the most useful things that can be done in reducing the harm that religion causes. Public ceremonies which legitimise god-belief are a decisive factor in keeping the undecided in the “religious” camp, and in continuing the “tabboo” against criticism which all religion cultivates. We see this from Christians here; we see it from Muslim mullahs abroad. Removing public legitimisation of religious ritual has been a key element of the decline of religious belief in free societies in the last 100 years. Only when religion loses the power of coercion does it lose the power to control people, and therefore the power to harm people. Darren R., I can see where you are coming from, but do think that honouring ones country is a noble thing - as is honouring ones family honouring ones community, and upholding the principles of freedom and democracy.
I’m afraid Drew is mistaken. Focusing on removing mentions of “God” from public events is focusing righteous anger on the wrong place. While the removal of such might be a decent long-term goal, if people like Drew think that going around and removing “God” is going to help further the cause of non-believers, he is sadly mistaken. Such a focus only serves to miltarize Christians against such things.
It is absolutely ridiculous to say that removing mentions ”is one of the most useful things that can be done in reducing the harm that religion causes.” No, I’m pretty sure that focusing on the actual harmful acts is more important. Your case that removing mentions from from public will delegitimize relgion is utopian at best. Atheists should focus on promoting rationalism, not the removal of century’s old traditions. Doing otherwise is putting the cart before the horse.
Cato scholar (and PhD historian!) Jason Kuznicki, makes a salient point in a post about circumcision (go read it!):
This isn’t an issue that can be won or lost with legislation. It goes deeper than that. It’s about attitudes and values. It could just be the ultimate issue in the great debate between rationalism and tradition. And tradition still runs strong. Legislation is probably doomed to fail, no matter where the reasoning leads us. That’s how politics works. Or rather, how it often doesn’t. Prohibiting something that 50% of American parents are already doing is a non-starter. Change minds first. Yes, it will be difficult. But reducing the amount of cruelty in the world always is.
Let me emphasize: change minds first.
As for Drew’s defence of patriotism, all I’ll say is this: there is nothing noble about lauding the abstract concept of the state. Honoring one’s family or community, is also virtually useless. Honoring worthy people is the only thing worth one’s time.
