tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post8357676722862155957..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Open thread on episode #684Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger111125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-70486997366435351842010-11-29T07:10:22.982-06:002010-11-29T07:10:22.982-06:00I'm going to go one step further here and say ...I'm going to go one step further here and say that I don't believe the Park51 project is even offensive one tiny bit. 9 years after, 3 blocks away, and having nothing to do with the perpetrators of 9/11 (and a completely different sect of Islam) makes this project 100% non-offensive. Even if it were only a mosque and not a community center with a prayer space in it, I don't see anything wrong with it. Not offensive, not insensitive, not rude at all.Deanna Joy Lyonshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03857512776690016865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-12249264388913721812010-11-28T19:51:47.507-06:002010-11-28T19:51:47.507-06:00Eric: You got it in your second comment. The gener...Eric: You got it in your second comment. The general assumption among opponents of Park51 is that Imam Rauf and the group building the place are all high-fiving each other and dancing to Kool and the Gang's "Celebration" over the 9/11 attacks, and that the construction is a deliberate middle finger to Manhattan for a job well done. They offer no evidence that this is so, of course, but since the goal is to stoke fear of terrorism (the same reasoning used to justify all these ball-groping TSA airport searches), evidence really isn't part of the playbook.<br /><br />Again, Lee's Phelps analogy fails because when people protest Phelps and the WBC, they are protesting things <i>those</i> people have done. To draw an accurate analogy to what the anti-Park51 crowd is doing, you'd have to picket and protest every single Christian church that sought to be built in Kansas over the actions of Phelps, whether or not those churches had any affiliation to Phelps, or even if they repudiated him. Phelps is Christian, those people are Christian, so obviously, they all think the same and share the responsibility for anything each of them does.<br /><br />Lee: <i>I'd like to hear you cover some of the violent crimes going on around the world in the name of religions other than christianity.</i><br /><br />And we have, many times, over the last 13 years we've done the show. We've energetically attacked Muslims, Scientologists, Raelians, you name it. Another false assumption you should outgrow is this idea that if you haven't seen us talk about something, we haven't talked about it. Anyone who has any background with AETV at all knows that we aren't "soft" on Islam, so any continued accusations along those lines only make you look willfully ignorant.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-16100937018073253242010-11-28T19:27:03.686-06:002010-11-28T19:27:03.686-06:00Hmm, it occurs to me that there is a significant d...Hmm, it occurs to me that there is a significant difference between the two examples above--in the Phelps case, their actions are clearly trying to cause offense; in the Park51 case, there is no direct evidence that they are (though many assume it to be the case). I'm not 100% sure if that should make a difference or not, but it might be the actual focal point of the disagreement here.Eric Pommerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09189649913327685438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-198181260440841682010-11-28T19:21:13.306-06:002010-11-28T19:21:13.306-06:00I can see some valid points on both sides here, an...I can see some valid points on both sides here, and I actually think the areas you (Martin and Lee) both agree are probably more numerous than the places you don't.<br /><br />Correct me if I'm wrong, but you both seem to:<br /><br />1. Agree that the owners of Park51 have the legal right to build a "mosque" on it.<br />2. Agree that you are (to varying degrees) not in favour of seeing it built.<br />3. Agree that the building of it may upset some people.<br /><br />The disagreement, it seems to me, comes from what someone should DO about it. One side seems to think that, given #1, nothing should be done about it. The other side seems to think, given #2/#3, something SHOULD be done about it. <br /><br />That's where Lee's analogy about Phelps has some validity, I think (even though the way he presented it on the show was not valid). All three of those things above are also true about Phelps' protests of soldier's funerals--they're legal, they offend people and we all probably would rather they didn't happen.<br /><br />The difference is, when some people decide to take action against Phelps by staging a counter-protest, they aren't generally admonished for trying to take away someone's rights. Yet that is what tends to happen to people who want to protest the building of the "mosque".<br /><br />That's the difference I think Lee is trying to point out here.<br /><br />As evidence for his overall claim that atheists are "soft on Islam", I think it's pretty weak, but on its own it is a valid point. <br /><br />Lee: "I'd like to hear you spend as much time doing critical analysis of the Qu'ran as you do the Bible. I'd like to hear you cover some of the violent crimes going on around the world in the name of religions other than christianity."<br /><br />Well, here you lose me, Lee. As an American show, I have no problem with AE and NP focusing on America's primary religion. Suggesting that they don't *already* "cover some of the violent crimes going on around the world" related to Islam is also inaccurate.Eric Pommerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09189649913327685438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-61796502503022810882010-11-28T16:05:52.672-06:002010-11-28T16:05:52.672-06:00You can't have it both ways. Oh wait, yes you ...<i>You can't have it both ways. Oh wait, yes you can. It's called a "double standard." </i><br /><br />Not even remotely. It's one standard applied to two different things.<br /><br />One is attacking the ideas posited by people who've formed/manage a religion.<br />The other is attacking the actions by individual people.<br /><br />What you're doing is asserting that anyone of a religion is guilty because they're a member of that religion, even if that individual hasn't done anything wrong.<br /><br />Of course we think the religion of the mosque-guy is stupid, and will say so. I could even agree that his actions are "rude", however, his actions are not in violation of any law.<br /><br />We defend the constitutional rights of anyone.<br /><br />It just so happens that the christians have an unending assault on the constitution in this country right now, whereas the muslims don't.<br /><br /><i>Fact is: The Politically Correct Left in this country exercises this same hypocrisy every day: making excuses for Islam in a way they would never do for Christianity.</i><br /><br />That's assuming the sheer level of non-comprehension, misrepresentation and ignorance that you've managed to achieve.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-14818031309734566562010-11-28T16:04:08.722-06:002010-11-28T16:04:08.722-06:00How about: people can condemn religion but they ca...How about: people can condemn religion but they can't impinge the rights of the religious because they are religious?<br /><br />And since we've established Park51 is legal and not triumphal, what does it have to do with being 'soft on Islam' either way?Muzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13623963325540060813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-64689603382628426232010-11-28T15:51:34.992-06:002010-11-28T15:51:34.992-06:00Which is it?
First you say that we can only conde...Which is it?<br /><br />First you say that we can only condemn individuals who commit wicked acts, and should not condemn religion as a whole, because in your words "are all religious people that way? No they aren't"<br /><br />Then you say that we can condemn religion as a whole because it "is violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children."<br /><br />You can't have it both ways. Oh wait, yes you can. It's called a "double standard." <br /><br />I'd like to hear you spend as much time doing critical analysis of the Qu'ran as you do the Bible. I'd like to hear you cover some of the violent crimes going on around the world in the name of religions other than christianity. What I hear from podcasters is hours and hours of criticism of "crazy Qu'ran burning preachers" and child-molesting priests.<br /><br />Fact is: The Politically Correct Left in this country exercises this same hypocrisy every day: making excuses for Islam in a way they would never do for Christianity.<br /><br />I simply wanted to state my opinion. I got shouted down and hung up on pretty quickly last week. I know you'll disagree and call me a liar, idiot, etc. but I'm okay with that. If I were looking for acceptance, I'd pretend to be christian and join a church.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075353534926439922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-62722582762730734502010-11-28T14:52:57.425-06:002010-11-28T14:52:57.425-06:00Oh no, he's whipped out the Hitch! I'm mel...<i>Oh no, he's whipped out the Hitch! I'm meltiiiiiinnng...!</i><br /><br />Yes, organized religion is those things. In fact, I think we've been making that very point on TV since, oh, 1997.<br /><br />Now, are <i>all religious people</i> that way? No they aren't. (Which is why, I'd argue, many are leaving the fold and becoming more secular.)<br /><br />There's a meaningful distinction there that you just don't want to make in all your hiding behind quote-shields, Lee.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-58231941676915326322010-11-28T14:49:00.430-06:002010-11-28T14:49:00.430-06:00My final comment on this issue:
"Organised r...My final comment on this issue:<br /><br />"Organised religion is violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children." - Christopher Hitchens from God is Not Great.<br /><br />Thank you Hitch.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075353534926439922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-6496156503143677472010-11-28T14:44:17.197-06:002010-11-28T14:44:17.197-06:00Lee, I have no doubt that you can find quotes from...Lee, I have no doubt that you can find quotes from books all the live long day to validate your views. None of this changes the relevant fact that not every Christian or Muslim living and breathing on the surface of the earth today is a fervent, hate-crazed intolerant fanatic enthusiastically ready to die. You're continuing to look for justifications to apply collective guilt and it isn't working.<br /><br />Indeed the false equivalency you drew earlier is an example of how dishonestly you're arguing now. You offered the line about not blaming all Christians or Muslims for the crimes of a few, then immediately switched to the emotional-button-mashing topic of Nazis (ooo, I see what you did there!), ignoring that the former are world religions that have existed for millennia while the latter was a fascistic and expressly racist political ideology that only ran its country for 12 years before being destroyed utterly. And by treating Nazis as if they were interchangable with Muslims and Christians — because who would <i>ever</i> want to be caught out saying there's such a thing as a "good" Nazi? <i>Hah! Gotcha!</i> — you end up implying that one <i>should</i> blame all Christians and Muslims for the crimes of a few. If one Christian has ever been an ultraconservative homophobic anti-abortion Glenn-Beck-loving wingnut who ever beat up a gay man, then they <i>all</i> are.<br /><br />And that, to put it politely, is fucked.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-75658563250361805192010-11-28T14:28:29.888-06:002010-11-28T14:28:29.888-06:00Not a false equivalency.
"All mass movements...Not a false equivalency.<br /><br />"All mass movements generate in their adherents a readiness to die and a proclivity for united action; all of them, irrespective of doctrine they preach and the program they project, breed fanaticism, enthusiasm, fervent hope, hatred and intolerance; all of them are capable of releasing a powerful flow of activity in certain departments of life; all of them demand blind faith and a singlehearted allegiance."<br />- Eric Hoffer, from The True Believer, on the Nature of Mass MovementsUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075353534926439922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-64269489398519866752010-11-28T14:14:11.271-06:002010-11-28T14:14:11.271-06:00JT: The godwinning is taking advantage of an emoti...JT: <i>The godwinning is taking advantage of an emotional knee-jerk reaction our culture has to anything nazi. There were probably innocent nazis.</i><br /><br />Indeed there were a number of anti-Hitler Nazis who were convinced der Fuehrer was leading the nation to rack and ruin. The 40+ assassination attempts on his life by his own officers testify to that.<br /><br />Naziism's racial purity ideology was beyond abominable, as are the anti-Semitic writings of Martin Luther that inspired them. One can legitimately condemn an ideology without making the mistake of thinking that everyone born under that ideology had the choice of adopting it willingly, or agreed with it in principle, let alone actively participated in its dissemination. Children are born into Catholic and Lutheran families every day. Do they merit the label "anti-Semite" right out of the womb?Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-76904258619900432832010-11-28T14:00:26.456-06:002010-11-28T14:00:26.456-06:00@JT
Question about rights.
The courts have decided...@JT<br />Question about rights.<br />The courts have decided that "In God We Trust" on currency is legal. <br />No one's rights are being violated. Are they?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075353534926439922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-50875100905596119492010-11-28T13:59:55.938-06:002010-11-28T13:59:55.938-06:00The Nazis were not a religion. False equivalency. ...<i>The Nazis were not a religion. False equivalency. Also, -5 for Godwinning.</i><br /><br />It's more than that, even. <br /><br />1) The godwinning is taking advantage of an emotional knee-jerk reaction our culture has to anything nazi. There were probably innocent nazis. If a nazi has not committed a crime, that nazi shouldn't be incarcerated by association alone.<br /><br />2) The guilt-by-association also <i>dilutes</i>.<br /><br />A fairly small number of soldiers (~17Million) fought for Germany in WWII, many of which were lied to, and defending their homeland. A fraction of that were involved with the holocaust. An even smaller fraction of that were responsible for managing the holocaust.<br /><br />Should we condemn all Germans because they're German, just like the nazis? Maybe we should condemn all Europeans because Germany was part of Europe too.<br /><br />What what magical line does the guilt-by-association stop?<br /><br />Both Christianity and Islam have <i>billions</i> of people who haven't done anything wrong.<br /><br />While the books they "subscribe to" have vile commands within, most of these people (thankfully) rationalize away why they don't follow those. You <i>cannot</i> determine who is going to do what, simply due to the label they use. <i>The more broad that label, the more difficult it is.</i>JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-16353876711670000372010-11-28T13:44:37.936-06:002010-11-28T13:44:37.936-06:00Why does it matter if I'm insulted? I'm co...Why does it matter if I'm insulted? I'm constantly offended by these people. <br /><br />What matters is whether rights are being violated, harm is done to others, etc. When they are, we sure as hell call them out on it.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-12741389857857616332010-11-28T13:33:42.914-06:002010-11-28T13:33:42.914-06:00The Nazis were not a religion. False equivalency. ...The Nazis were not a religion. False equivalency. Also, -5 for Godwinning.<br /><br />And you missed the part where I said you cannot use "people will be offended." Being offended is no grounds to demand that a group voluntarily surrender their constitutional rights.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-49658543479611679422010-11-28T13:09:15.745-06:002010-11-28T13:09:15.745-06:00I think Christopher Hitchens and Pat Condell said ...I think Christopher Hitchens and Pat Condell said it much better than I could. It does seem that political correctness has rendered many people, even atheists, incapable of recognizing when they are being insulted.<br /><br />Then there is the issue of "collective guilt."<br />1. We shouldn't condemn all Muslims for the bad actions of a few.<br />2. We shouldn't condemn all Christians for the bad actions of a few.<br />3. We shouldn't condemn all Nazis for the bad actions of a few.<br />If you're going to say that Nazis are an exception, I'd like to know the basis for the double standard. Once you declare your allegiance to an ideology, it does come with some baggage.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075353534926439922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-59221188714313750212010-11-28T11:52:58.058-06:002010-11-28T11:52:58.058-06:00Okay, so what's the problem?
Tip: You don'...Okay, so what's the problem?<br /><br />Tip: You don't get to use "people will be offended." Because that's irrelevant. You can't say Muslims shouldn't build a (facility that includes a) mosque because it would offend people any more than you can say atheists shouldn't have TV shows or billboards or podcasts because they would offend people.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-84698890200953794052010-11-28T11:43:48.277-06:002010-11-28T11:43:48.277-06:00There is no mosque closer to WTC than Cordoba Hous...There is no mosque closer to WTC than Cordoba House. A mosque is a place dedicated exclusively to Muslim prayer. Cordoba House will contain a mosque.<br /><br />Mosques near WTC site <br />Much has been made of a proposed mosque at ground zero, but the Islamic center would be established at 45-51 Park Place, just over two blocks from the northern edge of the sprawling, 16-acre World Trade Center site. Its location is roughly half a dozen normal Lower Manhattan blocks from the site of the North Tower, the nearest of the two destroyed in the attacks. <br />The center's location, in a former Burlington Coat Factory store, is already used by the cleric for worship, drawing a spillover from the imam's former main place for prayers, the al-Farah mosque. That mosque, at 245 West Broadway, is about a dozen blocks north of the World Trade Center grounds. <br />Another, the Manhattan Mosque, stands five blocks from the northeast corner of the World Trade Center site. <br />- from MSNBC 8/18/2010Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075353534926439922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-17259012504838098792010-11-28T11:22:09.583-06:002010-11-28T11:22:09.583-06:00I hope you will have the integrity to admit that t...I hope you will have the integrity to admit that the reason you were being shouted down was that you were lying out your ass, accusing us of "tiptoeing around Islam" for acknowledging the same constitutional rights you are now acknowledging. You made the false claim that Rauf had threatened violence if Park51 was not built. You made a false analogy to Fred Phelps. You never gave a coherent answer as to why you had no objection to the two mosques that already exist in the Ground Zero area.<br /><br />That is what we do on AETV: Call out people who make false claims. We do it to atheists as well as theists.<br /><br />Neither Matt nor I have accused you of advocating legal action against Park51 (which, incidentally, isn't a mosque). What you <i>have</i> done is use the same collective-guilt argument against Park51's construction that the right wingers are using.<br /><br />Your double standard lies not in your criticisms of Rauf and Phelps, but in attacking us for holding views you also admit to holding.<br /><br />See, I can play the "integrity" game all day.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-8281827883476230052010-11-28T10:59:06.313-06:002010-11-28T10:59:06.313-06:00@Martin
I hope you'll have the integrity to ad...@Martin<br />I hope you'll have the integrity to admit that you were too busy shouting me down last week to acknowledge that I NEVER advocated taking legal action against the Ground Zero Mosque.<br /><br />I do acknowledge their constitutional rights. I also acknowledge when religious groups use their constitutional rights to be rude and insensitive, i.e. Imam Rauf and Fred Phelps. <br /><br />That isn't a double standard... I'm being completely consistent. I criticize both.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075353534926439922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-11046712349121685292010-11-28T10:50:42.126-06:002010-11-28T10:50:42.126-06:00@Lee
Yes, I have heard the theory that atheists s...@Lee<br /><br /><i>Yes, I have heard the theory that atheists should side with Islam to oppose Christian tyranny ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend").</i><br /><br />The only peoples' side I'm on are the ones who are within their constitutional rights, versus those who aren't. <br /><br />If the roles were switched, I'd be backing the christians over the muslims.<br /><br />It's fine to be wary of these people, and to keep on guard. If you want to try to persuade them to do something else, that's fine too. Once they decide to invoke their rights, the discussion is over - unless you want to open a new discussion about what rights we <i>should</i> have, in general.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-5937790388142874042010-11-28T10:18:35.346-06:002010-11-28T10:18:35.346-06:00It's the podcasters (American Freethought, Fre...<i>It's the podcasters (American Freethought, Freethought Radio, and the Non Prophets) who seem to be taking an accomodationist position.</i><br /><br />Then you're continuing to misrepresent us deliberately. It is neither accommodation nor surrender to acknowledge the Constitutional rights of religious groups — even ones we don't like, which would pretty much be all of them — to build whatever they please when they please. Indeed, you did it yourself just now. Somehow you've decided that when we do it, it's different.<br /><br />One of these days you'll quit lying and throwing around double standards, Lee, and then you might be worth talking to.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-42492260725912797842010-11-28T10:08:08.312-06:002010-11-28T10:08:08.312-06:00"If you want to get christians on the side of..."If you want to get christians on the side of secularism, the lightning-fast approach is to have another religion flex its muscles. Then they have that divine revelation as to why we have a secular nation"<br /><br />Yes, I have heard the theory that atheists should side with Islam to oppose Christian tyranny ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend"). But encouraging any religion to "flex its muscles" is inherently dangerous. Remember, Islam has little love for atheists, there is the chance they'll "flex their muscles" on us. Also, there's no guarantee that Christians will ever get on the side of secularists, it might simply make them more militant.<br /><br />Again:<br />It should be perfectly legal to build a mosque anywhere. I've never argued differently. <br />It should be perfectly legal to protest funerals. I've never argued differently.<br />Yes, this is America. It is perfectly legal to do an "in your face" to the families of murder victims. It is perfectly legal to be a dick (hopefully I'm safe using one of Matt's favorite terms).<br />I do admire Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Pat Condell for having the courage to speak out against Imam Rauf and the Ground Zero Mosque. It's the podcasters (American Freethought, Freethought Radio, and the Non Prophets) who seem to be taking an accomodationist position. (Or as Ayaan Hirsi Ali calls it, "surrender on the installment plan").<br /><br />I also stand by my original position: Religion is based on irrational thought, religious leaders exist to promote irrational thought. Therefore, I have a basic distrust of all religious leaders.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075353534926439922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-68578273689784956912010-11-28T08:26:03.145-06:002010-11-28T08:26:03.145-06:00@AtheistVa
I mostly agree with your points, howev...@AtheistVa<br /><br />I mostly agree with your points, however, my stand on the issue is slightly different.<br /><br />I think they should build 10 mosques around ground-zero - not so much to "back off" islam, but rather to make a point to the rest of the country, about the civil liberties and constitution that we have.<br /><br />If you want to get christians on the side of secularism, the lightning-fast approach is to have another religion flex its muscles. <b>Then</b> they have that divine revelation as to why we have a secular nation.<br /><br />I'm not "backing off" this issue, because I'm applying my stance equally. Follow the law and constitution. I just don't see that legally buying a building <b>near</b> ground-zero, and building a <b>community center</b> is a problem beyond the average christian church being plopped down somewhere else in the nation.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.com