May 15, 2012
Edwina Rogers | Greta Christina's Blog

Good post by Greta Christina on the Edwina Rogers debacle. It’s such an incredibly cynical move on the part of the SCA to choose Ms. Rogers as the new Executive Director in the first place, but Ms. Rogers has topped that cynicism with her own special brand of pandering and bull-shitting.

My only complaint about Greta Christina’s post is that she sort of disingenuously acts as if atheists as a group are overwhelmingly progressive, so of course Rogers doesn’t represent them. While there are a lot of wonderful atheists out there, it continues to be pretty obvious that the folks at the top of a lot of these organized atheist political entities are primarily Ayn Rand-worshiping white dudes whose biggest concerns are getting “In God We Trust” removed from the dollar bill and “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. It was no surprise to see someone like Edwina Rogers be chosen for the Executive Director position.

Indeed, I have a hard time buying the outrage and shock people are expressing over it. It all seems very faux.

May 11, 2012

redlightpolitics:

About Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Since yesterday, my post about her got some attention and curiosity, I thought I would share this video. In yesterday’s post I claimed that her personal story was based on lies and that her lies caused such a crisis in Dutch politics that the government fell and had to go for early elections (she was, at the time, an MP for one of the parties running the country, so when the lies came to light, it resulted in a vote of no confidence for her party, since the higher ups knew she had lied about almost everything regarding her past).

This video is from Dutch public broadcaster Vara (imagine, if you will, a local equivalent to the BBC, not some tabloid like outlet) and it exposes and dissects her lies one by one (from her claims that she was forced to marry someone to the fact that she claimed she was forced to practice an oppressive form of Islam). The documentary tackles, in depth, all the lies and half truth that led to the Dutch government asking her to leave the country (it was that, or revoking her citizenship). The documentary is in Dutch, with English subtitles, but there are significant portions in English (particularly of the research done by the documentary team in Kenia). It is in four parts (this is part one). Part two, part three and part four can be found at the links. Part two is particularly interesting because the journalist faces her with all the facts they have researched, looks at her and asks “What do you have to say about all this?” and her response was “That I lied about almost everything”.

The consequence of her lies and manipulation of the Dutch immigration system can still be felt across the country six years later. As a result of the scandal, laws for asylum seekers became even more stringent and numerous people were deported.  It also resulted in one of the most extreme immigration laws in Europe, making it very difficult for families to reunite or for people to bring their partners over.

Most people who know her from her anti Muslim activism in the US are not aware of all this, since she has conveniently swept all these facts about her earlier political career under the rug. But those of us who live here, still remember what she stands for.

May 11, 2012

I would really like to be able to like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but I can’t help but thinking that she is one of the main contributors to and enablers of anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia in movement atheism. Every time some white atheist has a super-hateful opinion about Islam or Arabs she is the person they quote or claim as “proof” that their hateful opinion is correct.

It just seems like she does a great job of whipping paranoid racists into a frenzy over the terrors of Islam and encouraging xenophobia and hate.

Am I being unfair?

May 11, 2012
On Knowing Your Enemy : Sam Harris

In which Sam Harris doubles down on being a hugely ignorant bigot and assures us that he has Muslim friends or something. Whoops, Sam Harris! You are terrible! Name-dropping Ayaan Hirsi Ali doesn’t really help your case.

However, to his credit he did feature a guest post by security expert Bruce Schneier, who thoroughly explains why Sam Harris is a huge douchebag about “security” profiling.

April 27, 2012
Neil deGrasse Tyson

Is awesome.

So why have I seen several posts on atheist blogs in the last couple of days complaining about his identifying as agnostic rather than atheist?

It just seems very identity-policing to me, and it’s starting to smack of “Oh, shit! If we can’t claim Neil deGrasse Tyson as an atheist, how will we show people how inclusive and not-racist we are?!”

Honestly, who the fuck cares? I get that there are people who want to quibble over the exact meaning of “agnostic” and so on, but can’t we just stop it? To my knowledge, Tyson isn’t particularly involved in any atheist or skeptical activism, and it really does just seem like there are a bunch of people who somehow think it’s really important that they are able to claim him for their movement.

Dudes, maybe Neil deGrasse Tyson doesn’t want to be your black friend. Fuck off.

March 22, 2012
The New Atheist Movement is destructive

Sure. If by “destructive” you mean “sometimes mean on the internet.”

I mean, while I continue to read a handful of atheist blogs (women and POC mostly), I wouldn’t touch “movement” atheism with a 10-foot pole. Because, as a rule, it’s clueless and focused on trivial bullshit and has no concept of intersectionality whatsoever.

But “destructive”? I read this whole article and still came away at the end wondering how so.

Just looks like more “good atheist, bad atheist” bickering to me, and 90% of that nonsense is all a bunch of rich white cis men arguing over tone.

(Source: liberalchristian)

4:19pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZOglYyIOq_7Y
(View comments  
Filed under: atheism 
March 20, 2012
"When you think you are better than anybody else — that you are closer to God than other people, and therefore they are inferior to you and subhuman — that leads to conflict and hatred and dissonance among people when we should be working for peace."

President Jimmy Carter

This is basically the thing that I find to be most poisonous about pretty much every evangelical religion ever. All evangelical religions teach that those who are members of their particular sect are special and everyone else is damned. I like Jimmy Carter, but I don’t see how there is really a way to get past this aspect of religion. As soon as you create that sort of in-group/out-group dynamic, I think things get dangerous.

It’s easy to vilify and dehumanize those who don’t believe the same things you do when you honestly and devoutly believe they are going to hell (or whatever other nasty place is reserved for non-believers), and even the kindest, gentlest versions of Christianity and other similar religions have this belief at their core: “We’re saved and everyone else is doomed. We’re good and everyone else is bad or, at the very least, grossly and tragically misguided.” Only universalism really moves past this, and universalism is still generally considered to be heresy—not to mention the fact that, at least in Christianity, universalism is fundamentally un-Biblical.

There just seems to me to be something essentially wrong with any belief system that sets some select group of people above the rest. I don’t see how it can be anything other than intrinsically harmful.

March 12, 2012
"The black body has always been an object of deep and abiding obsession in the American imagination. Be it cavorting in “funky” abandon on a dance floor, vaulting off a basketball court in dunk mode, suckling apple-cheeked white babies, trotted out in a police line-up, or greased down, poked, prodded and staged on a slave auction block, the black body occupies that mystical place between corporeality and supernaturalism. Recently, American Atheists, a predominantly white group with a largely white leadership, slapped up a billboard in a Harrisburg, Pennsylvania neighborhood featuring a picture of a shackled naked black slave and a bible quote that said “slaves obey your masters.” The ad was intended to protest Pennsylvania’s boneheaded declaration of 2012 as the so-called “Year of the Bible.” Much to the “astonishment” of AA reps, the billboard was reviled, defaced, and labeled a hate crime by some in the African American community. Apparently offended black folk just weren’t intelligent enough to grasp the sage lesson that American Atheists, prominent champion of anti-racist social justice, was trying to teach them. Instead, some “misconstrued” the message as racist, concluding that, in a country where white nationalists have issued a clarion call to take back the nation from the Negro savage/illegal alien in the White House, “slaves obey your masters” probably still means them."

Slaves like Us: American Atheists on the Plantation | Black Skeptics

Sikivu Hutchinson, again.

March 12, 2012
"

When it comes to the “new atheism,” the romance and Bambified innocence of not seeing is just a living. Recent debates in the blogosphere about the whiteness of atheist discourse get sidelined by accusations about the perceived “hysteria” of those making the claim. Surveys that suggest that atheist affiliation actually reflects race/gender demographics similar to say a John Birch Society confab are dismissed as being just the way it is because white boys naturally dominate science and are better writers anyway.

So it stands to reason that white folk don’t like it when it is inconveniently pointed out by ghetto interlopers that knowledge production and universal truth claims in the West have historically been marked as white. It’s cartoonishly pro forma when white folk, ignorant of these historical traditions, swaggeringly insist that atheist discourse is implicitly anti-racist, anti-sexist and anti-heterosexist because one, we say so, and, two, hierarchy is something only those knuckle-dragging supernaturalists do. It’s paint-by-the-numbers entitlement time when the so-called new atheist “movement” is resistant to the charge that racial and gender politics just might inform who achieves visibility and which issues are privileged in the broader context of skeptical discourse. It’s not PC to suggest in the science-besotted circle jerk of atheist-supernaturalist smackdowns that Hottentot-obsessed traditions of scientific racism and fire and brimstone Judeo Christian religiosity went gleefully hand in hand for much of the West’s enlightened history. It belies humanist delusions of pure objectivism to say that “science as magic bullet” boilerplate will not enlarge the conversation to include those for whom organized religion has had some cultural and historical resonance (as an albeit complicated bulwark against white supremacy and racial terrorism). It is treasonous to argue that having the luxury and privilege to proclaim one’s atheism, publish, become recognized as an unraced authority, disseminate tomes to and command a global audience and garner recognition for capsizing the sordid ship of theological tyranny is a peculiarly white enterprise precisely because of the history of Western knowledge production. And it flies in the face of the myth of meritocracy to suggest that eminent white philosophers and scientists don’t “focus” on race and gender because their identities are based on not seeing it.

"

Sikivu Hutchinson

February 27, 2012
"

​All the paganism, Tantra, meditation, sacred sex, and BDSM sex magic(k) books and workshops represent a step backward. They are very convenient ways of rationalizing sexual pleasure by letting people claim that it’s about “something more” than just making your body feel good. All the sweat and cum and juices and the delicious, confusing carnality of sex get shoved back into the closet in favor of much tidier abstractions so that we can believe that we’re not just shallow hedonists. And that takes us back to square one, where we were told by our teachers, priests, and parents that sex was good — or at least acceptable — when done for any reason other than physical pleasure.

We cannot afford for sex to be sacred. Sacred things sit on altars to be worshiped from afar, not to become part of one’s everyday life. They are not to be touched, played with, fondled, mocked, examined, or questioned. They do not come down into the dust and muck that we live in every day. The sacred stays safely behind the veil of mysticism and respect. Keeping sex behind that veil isn’t just repressive and boring, it’s fatal.

"

Why Sex Is Not Spiritual - San Francisco Arts - The Exhibitionist

Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »