A "Friendly Atheist" on Ideological Discrimination
Faith and Philosophy
| July 25, 2009
| Tim
For no particular reason, I'm reading a blog called "Friendly Atheist", and notice a few things.
First, I note, he approvingly cites an action by Canada forcing a state "marriage commissioner" to perform a gay marriage, when he declined to do so. For the record, even though I'm not a gay marriage proponent, I agree: if you work for the state, and are paid by the state, you carry out the state's actions. If you want to be free not to do certain things which are part of the job, then quit.
But then I notice he closes with (seemingly relishing the thought of instilling fear in those he disagrees with — is that the "friendly" part of "Friendly Atheist"?):
Somewhere, a Christian pharmacist is shaking in his boots.
Interesting leap: where I see a huge distinction between asking a state official to fulfill the duty he's agreed to, and allowing a business to offer whatever services they wish to, he apparently doesn't: business people should be compelled, apparently, to offer whatever services he feels they should.
So anyway, the message here seems to be: Ideological discrimination is wrong, even in the private sector.
Next, I notice another post on a similar topic: A Christian web developer politely declines work on a website for "Foundation Beyond Belief", again on ideological grounds. Again, our "Friendly Atheist" thinks such behavior deserves a polite but firm "smackdown".
Message? Again: Ideological discrimination is wrong.
Round 3: The Discovery Channel is found running an ad from a group of creationists.
So, um, ideological discrimination would be wrong, again?
Heh! That's so cute! You crack me up, dear reader. No, of course not. He says the fact it happened is "disturbing", and approvingly cites a fellow atheist calling for ideological discrimination:
How can the Discovery Channel (who runs the Science Channel) accept this kind of advertising? Are they that desperate for money? .... They're the Science channel! And yet they are promoting a religious organization...
I have nothing against most atheists. But, frankly, I find many of the more aggressive "New Atheists" more than a tad disturbing. Not because of their non-beliefs, but because of their zealotry and seemingly rather flexible stances on many matters of morality and state compulsion.
You've made a really good and fair point, Tim, and the subject is interesting. You should drop a note to Hemant at The Friendly Atheist to see how he'd respond to that apparent inconsistency. He's a good guy and very likely to post his reply.
Dale McGowan
Executive Director
Foundation Beyond Belief
Dale,
You sound like a nice, stand-up kinda guy. I'm glad to hear your experience that Hemat's "a good guy", but I must admit, I was a tad freaked out by his apparently enthusiastic statement about one of the people whose belief he opposes "shaking in his boots" at the prospect of state power being used against their freedom of conscience.
I'm dead serious, it would *never* occur to me to pen such a statement (except as a counterexample); and if I ever read, as a serious statement, something along the lines of:
Somewhere, an atheist businessman is quaking in his boots.
... I pray that my first response would be to *defend* that atheist's right to live out his or her beliefs and convictions.
(Would I want the state to coerce an atheist bookstore owner, for example, into carrying the bible, or some theistic author? Never. If he wants more business, it might be a good move (or perhaps not, if he's targeting a specific niche), but that's for actors in markets to freely decide.)
So, anyway, the presence of that sentiment made it doubtful to me that there would be much use in contacting the author of the sentiment. Not because of his (no)god-related beliefs (religious groups, like Sojourners, who do something even vaguely similar (albeit much milder) give me the creeps, too), but because of his seeming glee at the use of state power against his ideological opponents.
In past experiences, such traits haven't been a marker heralding productive conversations, and (furthering that impression) I didn't notice much dialog with opponents on his blog. Not to mention some of his commenters gleefully suggesting US Christians need to be "irradiated" (meaning "eradicated", I presume) — a comment whose mirror image would never pass vigorously unopposed on this blog, by yours truly, if I noticed it.
That's not exactly the kind of thoughtful, enlightened, and principled opposition I'd prefer to attract. I'd rather stick my hand into a hornet's nest. (Ok, I exaggerate. But only a little.)
At your kind request, however, I will attempt to do so.
Sincere regards,
- Tim
This is a very minor thing, but it irritates me. The language these people try to get away with, "non-belief". This kind of thing comes out all the time from these supposed paragons of rationality. I myself wouldn't humor them by using it. I wouldn't go around proclaiming far and wide that I have a "non-belief" in unicorns, I'd tell anyone who asks that I believe they do not exist, that's my BELIEF. My guess would be that it helps them maintain their illusion that they aren't holding onto beliefs out of purely non-rational, almost religious reasons.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Wikipedia Hilariously Non-NPV on Intelligent Design and God-Related Science Issues |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Preindustrial Sleep Patterns »
|
You've made a really good and fair point, Tim, and the subject is interesting. You should drop a note to Hemant at The Friendly Atheist to see how he'd respond to that apparent inconsistency. He's a good guy and very likely to post his reply.
Dale McGowan
Executive Director
Foundation Beyond Belief
Posted by: Dale McGowan on July 27, 2009 11:13 AM