One of the most glaring weaknesses in the ID arguments is the complete lack of interest they generate in areas that should be falling all over themselves about the ability to detect design. Archaeologists and forensic scientists do exactly that all the time. Is this chipped rock a tool? Was the fire an arson? An explanatory filter would be of immeasurable use answering such questions.
Sadly, the explanatory filter and all other aspects of ID are contentless pseudoscience, which explains their lack of application in other areas. Yet missing from the debate on ID are voices from those areas debunking the ID claims.
So let's welcome Christopher O'Brien to the game, and hope he provides a new insight into these issues. Here is a taste of his entry post:
"The direct issues that we confront as federal archaeologists, especially with regard to a public that does not adequately comprehend the historical context in which we plan and implement on-the-ground projects, is intertwined with a much broader issue that affects us on multiple levels. I am talking about the war on science. If we consider our discipline a scientific endeavor and not merely a casual fulfillment of academic curiosity, then archaeology must pull its collective head out of the excavation pit and recognize when science and science education are under attack. We can no longer simply leave the war to the biologists, geologists and climatologists. Archaeology is part of the science continuum and we must engage aggressively in educating the public about archaeology specifically, but about science in general….
Snip….
Not content with attempting to purloin false archaeological credentials by nefariously claiming directorship status on volunteer archaeology projects, these charlatans of the anti-science movement have now recruited archaeology as an ally in its most current manifestation: intelligent design. [ I would point out that today the pro-intelligent design/anti-Darwin movie Expelled opens across the country and have note the irony of my presentation at this particular moment in time]. Intelligent Design, referred to by many as “creationism in a cheap tuxedo”, claims there is evidence for design among living organism and that evolutionary theory is not sufficient to account for that design. Many of you are probably familiar with the concept and I won’t bore you with the details at the moment. It will probably change in the next 20 minutes anyway as the most consistent feature of Intelligent Design is its inconsistency with respect to substance and definition. The issue here is that proponents of Intelligent Design regularly hijack archaeological method and theory to cite as a metaphor for our poor biologist cousins who can’t seem to accept the concept of design in nature. ID proponents insist that the archaeologists are all about “identifying design” in the archaeological record and seem to think there is an analogy to be drawn between an archaeologist’s recognition of intelligent design in artifacts and their own identification of intelligent design in biological systems. Nothing could be further from the truth. Design in archaeology is not “self evident”; it belies centuries of thought on archaeological method and theory, ethnographic analogy, experimentation with raw materials and an appreciation for context. A lot of hard methodological and theoretical work has gone into method and theory distinguishing the signatures of human intervention from those attributed to natural processes. More importantly, archaeologists never separate the design from the designer (something ID proponents do regularly): understanding the material culture is only a proximate goal of archaeology. Archaeology’s ultimate goal is to understand human behavior, i.e. the nature of the designer."
Welcome to the Good Fight Chris!
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
John Hawkins' Seven Uncomfortable Truths for his Strawman Liberals
Once again John Hawkins provides us with a nice summary of how conservatives see the world, particularly that bugaboo behind all conservative stories, liberals. I've heard it said recently that liberals talk about ideas, but conservatives talk about liberals, and I find little on conservative sites like Townhall to dispel that notion. The sad part is that while conservatives may talk a lot about liberals, they don't seem to understand them, and mischaracterize them frequently. Hawkins is, sadly, no exception. Toss in some typical fact-ignoring, speculation, and blatant contradictions, you get his Seven Uncomfortable Truths for Liberals
"Human beings are born selfish and badly behaved: You, me, your father, Mother Theresa, the Pope -- we were all savage, self-centered little animals when we were born and it was only through the socialization process that we became fit for other humans to live with. That's why people do need religion, rules, and social pressure to be convinced to behave."
Factually incorrect. Human nature is not that simple. Sure we have selfish impulses, but we also have altruistic and socialization mechanisms built into our psyche. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in trials of both humans and our ape cousins. Mothers do not risk their lives saving their children, or hermits go mad, because of socialization. Humans need rules because of objective conflicts with limited resources, not the least of which is space. Regardless of human nature, we'd still need the rule to drive on the right (or left for you Brits) side of the road, rules to determine who is served first, etc. But there is no reason these rules need be based on religion. There are plenty of societies that do just fine without that, this one being no small exception.
" It's also why projects like communism, which assume that people can be brainwashed to completely disregard their own nature and love their fellow citizens every bit as much as they love themselves, are always doomed to fail."
Here we see some dishonest rhetoric: religion, rules, and social pressure "socialize" people, while communism "brainwashes" them. The difference? Hawkins approves of the former, but not the latter. I suppose this was intended to try to hide the blatant contradiction here. Hawkins first claims we must change our savage, self-centered nature so we can live with others, now he claims we are doomed to fail if we try to change that nature.
The problem here is that Hawkins is oversimplifying. Human nature is very complex, with aspects almost completely controlled by socialization (fashion, religion) and others more or less fixed at birth (gender, genetic diseases), and everything in between. Communism failed not because it tried to change human nature, but because it tried to change the wrong aspects of it.
"Change is often a bad thing: It goes without saying that sometimes laws, traditions, and moral practices should be changed, but it shouldn't need to be said that change for its own sake is not a plus either."
It doesn't. There is no one, liberal or not, that thinks change per se is a good thing. Hawkins is weaving straw here to try to give the impression that changes he personally disagrees with are promoted without cause. In typical irony, it is he who is working from a position without cause:
Sure, we'll change the definition of marriage, legalize drugs, weaken the Christian church, allow countless numbers of illegal aliens from a neighboring country to become citizens, etc., etc., etc. -- what could go wrong? A lot, actually.
Yes, but with at least the first three, many other countries have done exactly that, with little or no serious problems. This is the kind of argument only someone with no knowledge of the world could make or be convinced by.
"People are different: This would seem to be a rather obvious point, but it's one liberals seem to have a great deal of difficulty digesting. In their mind, women and men should be treated as if they have exactly the same predilections and abilities. Different races should perform identically well, in precisely equal percentages, in every activity, and any difference between people must be explained by some sort of unfair societal constraint placed upon the less successful."
Hawkins does have a point here. As I have blogged on previously, the blank slate continues to be a bit of pseudoscience infecting thought on the American left. However, his argument would have more credibility if conservatives weren't so determined to ignore all evidence that there are a lot of societal constraints placed on various groups which effect their performance. They have a tendency to dismiss all sociological findings of bias by speculating as to what flaws there might be in the studies. For example, any study purporting to show a bias against blacks in business or academia would have to account for the large economic bias in our society by race. However, studies that do account for that still show a bias against blacks, as well as women and other groups, and conservatives tend to ignore those as well.
"Most nations are interested in what's good for them: The only thing liberals love better than big government is even bigger government. So, yes, they love using the power of the federal government, but they're even more in love with the idea of building up the United Nations or some other form of world government."
This is just another straw man, and a nonsensical one as well. No one, even tree hugging liberals, need to be told that nations have their own best interests at heart. The United Nations is an effort to deal with global problems in a way that satisfies those interests. Is it imperfect? Sure. Hawkins' alternative solution? You notice you don't see one among those meandering paragraphs.
"The federal government is by its very nature, slow, stupid, expensive, and inefficient: There are always politicians promising to 'reform government' or 'make government work,' but the federal government always has been and always will be a poor, misshapen tool compared to the free market."
This is libertarian ideology, not reality. In areas where the tragedy of the commons applies, the government does much better than the free market. The free market is superior only in those circumstances where individual interests and group interests coincide. The best example is the Federal Highway system. The free market gave us a maze of winding roads. It took government to give us straight efficient highways from one state to the next.
Every problem is not fixable: The poor? They are always going to be with us. War? It's always going to exist...However, there is also something to be said for letting sleeping dogs lie and just accepting that the government cannot and should not try to fix every problem...because the government's efforts are usually ineffective and often as not, over time, it simply ends up creating a new set of problems to be solved.
Here again we see a blatant contradiction caused by ideology. Hawkins from one side of his mouth lectures us on not changing the drug laws, and then from the other side of his mouth lectures us on how sometimes government solutions make the problem worse. Can you say "prohibition"? Hawkins misses this obvious connection because he is blinded by his ideology. In his upside down world, the war in Iraq is inevitable, but homosexuality is optional.
Sorry John, these aren't truths. They are conservative ideology dressed up as facts. The cheap tux just doesn't fit.
"Human beings are born selfish and badly behaved: You, me, your father, Mother Theresa, the Pope -- we were all savage, self-centered little animals when we were born and it was only through the socialization process that we became fit for other humans to live with. That's why people do need religion, rules, and social pressure to be convinced to behave."
Factually incorrect. Human nature is not that simple. Sure we have selfish impulses, but we also have altruistic and socialization mechanisms built into our psyche. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in trials of both humans and our ape cousins. Mothers do not risk their lives saving their children, or hermits go mad, because of socialization. Humans need rules because of objective conflicts with limited resources, not the least of which is space. Regardless of human nature, we'd still need the rule to drive on the right (or left for you Brits) side of the road, rules to determine who is served first, etc. But there is no reason these rules need be based on religion. There are plenty of societies that do just fine without that, this one being no small exception.
" It's also why projects like communism, which assume that people can be brainwashed to completely disregard their own nature and love their fellow citizens every bit as much as they love themselves, are always doomed to fail."
Here we see some dishonest rhetoric: religion, rules, and social pressure "socialize" people, while communism "brainwashes" them. The difference? Hawkins approves of the former, but not the latter. I suppose this was intended to try to hide the blatant contradiction here. Hawkins first claims we must change our savage, self-centered nature so we can live with others, now he claims we are doomed to fail if we try to change that nature.
The problem here is that Hawkins is oversimplifying. Human nature is very complex, with aspects almost completely controlled by socialization (fashion, religion) and others more or less fixed at birth (gender, genetic diseases), and everything in between. Communism failed not because it tried to change human nature, but because it tried to change the wrong aspects of it.
"Change is often a bad thing: It goes without saying that sometimes laws, traditions, and moral practices should be changed, but it shouldn't need to be said that change for its own sake is not a plus either."
It doesn't. There is no one, liberal or not, that thinks change per se is a good thing. Hawkins is weaving straw here to try to give the impression that changes he personally disagrees with are promoted without cause. In typical irony, it is he who is working from a position without cause:
Sure, we'll change the definition of marriage, legalize drugs, weaken the Christian church, allow countless numbers of illegal aliens from a neighboring country to become citizens, etc., etc., etc. -- what could go wrong? A lot, actually.
Yes, but with at least the first three, many other countries have done exactly that, with little or no serious problems. This is the kind of argument only someone with no knowledge of the world could make or be convinced by.
"People are different: This would seem to be a rather obvious point, but it's one liberals seem to have a great deal of difficulty digesting. In their mind, women and men should be treated as if they have exactly the same predilections and abilities. Different races should perform identically well, in precisely equal percentages, in every activity, and any difference between people must be explained by some sort of unfair societal constraint placed upon the less successful."
Hawkins does have a point here. As I have blogged on previously, the blank slate continues to be a bit of pseudoscience infecting thought on the American left. However, his argument would have more credibility if conservatives weren't so determined to ignore all evidence that there are a lot of societal constraints placed on various groups which effect their performance. They have a tendency to dismiss all sociological findings of bias by speculating as to what flaws there might be in the studies. For example, any study purporting to show a bias against blacks in business or academia would have to account for the large economic bias in our society by race. However, studies that do account for that still show a bias against blacks, as well as women and other groups, and conservatives tend to ignore those as well.
"Most nations are interested in what's good for them: The only thing liberals love better than big government is even bigger government. So, yes, they love using the power of the federal government, but they're even more in love with the idea of building up the United Nations or some other form of world government."
This is just another straw man, and a nonsensical one as well. No one, even tree hugging liberals, need to be told that nations have their own best interests at heart. The United Nations is an effort to deal with global problems in a way that satisfies those interests. Is it imperfect? Sure. Hawkins' alternative solution? You notice you don't see one among those meandering paragraphs.
"The federal government is by its very nature, slow, stupid, expensive, and inefficient: There are always politicians promising to 'reform government' or 'make government work,' but the federal government always has been and always will be a poor, misshapen tool compared to the free market."
This is libertarian ideology, not reality. In areas where the tragedy of the commons applies, the government does much better than the free market. The free market is superior only in those circumstances where individual interests and group interests coincide. The best example is the Federal Highway system. The free market gave us a maze of winding roads. It took government to give us straight efficient highways from one state to the next.
Every problem is not fixable: The poor? They are always going to be with us. War? It's always going to exist...However, there is also something to be said for letting sleeping dogs lie and just accepting that the government cannot and should not try to fix every problem...because the government's efforts are usually ineffective and often as not, over time, it simply ends up creating a new set of problems to be solved.
Here again we see a blatant contradiction caused by ideology. Hawkins from one side of his mouth lectures us on not changing the drug laws, and then from the other side of his mouth lectures us on how sometimes government solutions make the problem worse. Can you say "prohibition"? Hawkins misses this obvious connection because he is blinded by his ideology. In his upside down world, the war in Iraq is inevitable, but homosexuality is optional.
Sorry John, these aren't truths. They are conservative ideology dressed up as facts. The cheap tux just doesn't fit.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
The Grand Miscalculation of Expelled
The ID guys may have badly miscalculated. The Dover trial might have been a big deal to those of us who follow this issue intently, but for the average American, the sins of the IDers remained fairly invisible. But putting their dishonesty out there in a major film for all to see just might be the exposure we need them to get. It is clear from the light box office results and the near universal negative reviews, that viewers have not bought the bullshit. Even potential allies like Foxnews have panned the film.
So the disinterested middle has spoken on an issue it probably didn't give much thought before. But now more people than ever know what kind of dishonesty lies at the core of the Intelligent Design movement. Wouldn't it be delicious irony if the next time someone tried to smuggle ID into a school board meeting, they got responses like "Oh yeah, this is that stuff peddled by the liars that did that horrible Ben Stein movie. Forget it."
Whoever said any publicity is better than no publicity never met Ben Stein.
So the disinterested middle has spoken on an issue it probably didn't give much thought before. But now more people than ever know what kind of dishonesty lies at the core of the Intelligent Design movement. Wouldn't it be delicious irony if the next time someone tried to smuggle ID into a school board meeting, they got responses like "Oh yeah, this is that stuff peddled by the liars that did that horrible Ben Stein movie. Forget it."
Whoever said any publicity is better than no publicity never met Ben Stein.
Root of All Evil
You gotta love Lewis Black's new show "Root of All Evil". This week's episode, which is more evil, High School, or American Idol?
Monkey Boys will be Monkey Boys: Study Supports Strong Genetic Component to Play Behavior
One of the few areas where it seems it is the liberals that cling to ideology rather than science is on the subject of the blank slate. This is, roughly, the notion that we are born without significant genetic differences of abilities or preference, and that therefore most of what we consider a person's personality is formed by his environment.
Nowhere is this idealism clung to more fervently than in discussions of gender differences. In what seems a typical overcompensation from an era of unfair bigotry, where seemingly all differences in character between racial and gender groups were attributed to genetics, now the tendency is to dismiss any suggestion that genetics plays a role as sexism. Boys are said to prefer guns and girls barbies, not because they have a natural inclination to do so, but because of socialization that steers them in these directions.
However, it seems whenever good science is done on this subject the opposite is the case, and we have yet another example. This time the subjects weren't human children, but rhesus monkeys.
"... a team of scientists led by Kim Wallen of the Yerkes national Primate Research Centre in Atlanta, Georgia decided to offer typical 'male' and 'female' toys to rhesus monkeys to see if preferences aligned with sex.
Much to their surprise, they did. The 11 male monkeys headed straight for the wheeled toys, such as dump trucks, leaving the plush toys more-or-less unmolested. The 23 females were more curious, and played with both.
'They are not subject to advertising. They are not subject to parental encouragement, they are not subject to peer chastisement,' said Wallen.
The results support an earlier study at Texas A&M University, with green vervet monkeys, which also showed a distinct preference among male monkeys for 'masculine' playthings."
It is interesting to note that the toy preference was not a complete stereotypical split, with the female monkeys playing with everything. But 100% of the males going exclusively for the "male" toys, and in a completely culturally neutral, if not alien, environment? This certainly contradicts the blank slate premise, and suggests that behavior patterns are a far more complex interaction between genetics, development, and the environment than most left-wing ideologues would have us believe.
Nowhere is this idealism clung to more fervently than in discussions of gender differences. In what seems a typical overcompensation from an era of unfair bigotry, where seemingly all differences in character between racial and gender groups were attributed to genetics, now the tendency is to dismiss any suggestion that genetics plays a role as sexism. Boys are said to prefer guns and girls barbies, not because they have a natural inclination to do so, but because of socialization that steers them in these directions.
However, it seems whenever good science is done on this subject the opposite is the case, and we have yet another example. This time the subjects weren't human children, but rhesus monkeys.
"... a team of scientists led by Kim Wallen of the Yerkes national Primate Research Centre in Atlanta, Georgia decided to offer typical 'male' and 'female' toys to rhesus monkeys to see if preferences aligned with sex.
Much to their surprise, they did. The 11 male monkeys headed straight for the wheeled toys, such as dump trucks, leaving the plush toys more-or-less unmolested. The 23 females were more curious, and played with both.
'They are not subject to advertising. They are not subject to parental encouragement, they are not subject to peer chastisement,' said Wallen.
The results support an earlier study at Texas A&M University, with green vervet monkeys, which also showed a distinct preference among male monkeys for 'masculine' playthings."
It is interesting to note that the toy preference was not a complete stereotypical split, with the female monkeys playing with everything. But 100% of the males going exclusively for the "male" toys, and in a completely culturally neutral, if not alien, environment? This certainly contradicts the blank slate premise, and suggests that behavior patterns are a far more complex interaction between genetics, development, and the environment than most left-wing ideologues would have us believe.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Shocker: Expelled Flops
The ticket stubs are being counted, and looks like Expelled is a flop.
"Nathan Frankowski's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a documentary being released on more than 1,000 screens by Christian-friendly Rocky Mountain Pictures. Those who have seen it categorize it as anti-Darwinism propaganda, featuring right wing commentator Ben Stein. I’m sure that there's an audience out there somewhere for this type of doc, but there has been very little "intelligent design" involved in marketing the movie. With a Total Aware of only 19 percent and a First Choice score of just 2 percent, Expelled will manage only $1 million-$3 million this weekend, and it will have a difficult time holding on to those screens. It's doomed to $5 million domestic in its theatrical engagements (survival of the fittest?), although a fair number of DVD copies may be sold in evangelical bookstores in the future."
So much for all that great free publicity they got. Looks like the public isn't as stupid as they thought they were. And now EVERYONE knows how dishonest they are.
"Nathan Frankowski's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a documentary being released on more than 1,000 screens by Christian-friendly Rocky Mountain Pictures. Those who have seen it categorize it as anti-Darwinism propaganda, featuring right wing commentator Ben Stein. I’m sure that there's an audience out there somewhere for this type of doc, but there has been very little "intelligent design" involved in marketing the movie. With a Total Aware of only 19 percent and a First Choice score of just 2 percent, Expelled will manage only $1 million-$3 million this weekend, and it will have a difficult time holding on to those screens. It's doomed to $5 million domestic in its theatrical engagements (survival of the fittest?), although a fair number of DVD copies may be sold in evangelical bookstores in the future."
So much for all that great free publicity they got. Looks like the public isn't as stupid as they thought they were. And now EVERYONE knows how dishonest they are.
We Wouldn't Criticize Muslims like We Do Christians? Are You Kidding Me?
I've blogged often on the bad habit conservatives have of treating their speculations as facts. There is a new meme bouncing around the conservative blogosphere that illustrates this well, and Mike Gallagher's latest column is the latest example. While discussing the raid on the polygamist compound, he got off on a tangent on all the nasty things Bill Maher has said about the Catholicism and Christianity in general, and said this:
"But if he was really as tough as he wants people to think he is, he’d mock and ridicule the prophet Muhammad. It would be fascinating to watch what would happen to Bill Maher’s career if he attacked Muslims, Jews or blacks the way he bashes Christians."
Let's leave aside the absurdity of including blacks or ethnic Jews in the same category as Muslims and Christians. Ethnicity, being entirely permanent and out of our control to even pretend is different than it is without serious cosmetic surgery, is in a completely different category than opinions on religion, however strongly we may hold them.
But note the subtle implication, often made explicit in these circumstances that Maher (or any random atheist) does not, or will not, criticize Muslims, either because he is hypocritical or a coward.
Here is another example from Kristen Fyfe:
"When confronted by the Catholic League on why it continues to give Maher air time, HBO stated that Maher’s anti-Catholic remarks were a matter of 'creative freedom.' One wonders if HBO would be so sanguine if Maher’s vitriol was regularly aimed at Muslims."
This time it is HBO that is accused of hypocrisy or cowardice, take your pick, on the speculation, speculation mind you, that they would not allow Maher to criticize Muslims. She didn't bother to check the facts. Neither did Gallagher. They just assumed they already knew the answer, or worse yet, knew it and ignored it, but I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt until they force me to do otherwise.
But you see, there is a real danger in assuming you know something simply because it fits in with your ideology. You might very well be wrong, and make yourself look well, sort of incompetent, unprofessional, and not at all objective. That, and you further cement your flawed opinion in your own mind by turning what should have been a disconfirmatory, theory-changing event, into an imaginary confirmation.
So, Mike and Kristen, and anyone out there who has sympathies with what they said above, let me make it clear for you. We atheists don't lack for spicy things to say about Muslims. I've said my share. Their brand of religious irrationality is definitely worse than that which the vast majority of believing Christians in the US practice, though as recent events remind us far too often, the gap is not nearly as large as a lot of Christians would claim.
But I grant without hesitation that we American atheists criticize Christian lunatics far more proportionately than we criticize Muslim lunatics. The reason should be obvious, and its not that we're hypocrites or have an irrational hatred of Christians or fear Muslim reprisal. Who did you think it was that reproduced the Danish photos of Muhammad or linked to them like so many of us did?
No, the reason we give Christians a harder time is because the Christians are the ones trying to piss in our porridge. The Muslims might be crazier than you are, but they are over there, and you are over here. It's not Muslims screwing up American science education, or murdering abortion doctors, or obsessing over what people do with their own bodies in private and passing laws according to their religious views to limit the rights of everyone else. It's not because of Muslims that I can't buy a damned beer at 11:00 am on a Sunday before enjoying my football game.
All of that my pious people, is because of you. So you get more flack than they do. It's that simple. You screw up our lives more than the Muslims do. Gnash your teeth and wail all you like about Osama Bin Laden; Pat Robertson is far more of a threat to what I value about my life in America, so he pisses me off more.
As for Maher, he also has made his opinion of Muslims quite known, and often. My favorite, and I paraphrase from memory:
"As bad as the Christian religion is, their's is worse. Their's is worse. Promising p*ssy in the afterlife is the lowest thing ever. Ever."
He also commonly refers to the traditional covered garb of Islamic women as "beekeeper suits". Maher has been plenty hard on Muslims, but you have to actually listen to what he says to know that. Speculation is not evidence.
"But if he was really as tough as he wants people to think he is, he’d mock and ridicule the prophet Muhammad. It would be fascinating to watch what would happen to Bill Maher’s career if he attacked Muslims, Jews or blacks the way he bashes Christians."
Let's leave aside the absurdity of including blacks or ethnic Jews in the same category as Muslims and Christians. Ethnicity, being entirely permanent and out of our control to even pretend is different than it is without serious cosmetic surgery, is in a completely different category than opinions on religion, however strongly we may hold them.
But note the subtle implication, often made explicit in these circumstances that Maher (or any random atheist) does not, or will not, criticize Muslims, either because he is hypocritical or a coward.
Here is another example from Kristen Fyfe:
"When confronted by the Catholic League on why it continues to give Maher air time, HBO stated that Maher’s anti-Catholic remarks were a matter of 'creative freedom.' One wonders if HBO would be so sanguine if Maher’s vitriol was regularly aimed at Muslims."
This time it is HBO that is accused of hypocrisy or cowardice, take your pick, on the speculation, speculation mind you, that they would not allow Maher to criticize Muslims. She didn't bother to check the facts. Neither did Gallagher. They just assumed they already knew the answer, or worse yet, knew it and ignored it, but I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt until they force me to do otherwise.
But you see, there is a real danger in assuming you know something simply because it fits in with your ideology. You might very well be wrong, and make yourself look well, sort of incompetent, unprofessional, and not at all objective. That, and you further cement your flawed opinion in your own mind by turning what should have been a disconfirmatory, theory-changing event, into an imaginary confirmation.
So, Mike and Kristen, and anyone out there who has sympathies with what they said above, let me make it clear for you. We atheists don't lack for spicy things to say about Muslims. I've said my share. Their brand of religious irrationality is definitely worse than that which the vast majority of believing Christians in the US practice, though as recent events remind us far too often, the gap is not nearly as large as a lot of Christians would claim.
But I grant without hesitation that we American atheists criticize Christian lunatics far more proportionately than we criticize Muslim lunatics. The reason should be obvious, and its not that we're hypocrites or have an irrational hatred of Christians or fear Muslim reprisal. Who did you think it was that reproduced the Danish photos of Muhammad or linked to them like so many of us did?
No, the reason we give Christians a harder time is because the Christians are the ones trying to piss in our porridge. The Muslims might be crazier than you are, but they are over there, and you are over here. It's not Muslims screwing up American science education, or murdering abortion doctors, or obsessing over what people do with their own bodies in private and passing laws according to their religious views to limit the rights of everyone else. It's not because of Muslims that I can't buy a damned beer at 11:00 am on a Sunday before enjoying my football game.
All of that my pious people, is because of you. So you get more flack than they do. It's that simple. You screw up our lives more than the Muslims do. Gnash your teeth and wail all you like about Osama Bin Laden; Pat Robertson is far more of a threat to what I value about my life in America, so he pisses me off more.
As for Maher, he also has made his opinion of Muslims quite known, and often. My favorite, and I paraphrase from memory:
"As bad as the Christian religion is, their's is worse. Their's is worse. Promising p*ssy in the afterlife is the lowest thing ever. Ever."
He also commonly refers to the traditional covered garb of Islamic women as "beekeeper suits". Maher has been plenty hard on Muslims, but you have to actually listen to what he says to know that. Speculation is not evidence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
