Oprah: "Atheists don't feel awe and wonder." Niose: (facepalm)

David Niose, President of the Secular Coalition for America (and, being a MA resident himself, one of the key supporters of the Secular Coalition for Massachusetts), has written a bang-up piece explaining why Oprah's prominence multiplies the injury of her negative view of atheism:

Oprah, exalted by so many but oblivious to the fact that she is dehumanizing atheists, does more to perpetuate negative attitudes toward nonbelievers than Pat Robertson or James Dobson ever could. The general public takes comments from Robertson and Dobson with a grain of salt – but Oprah, as a media tycoon and a beloved celebrity whose opinions are taken seriously by millions, has just confirmed that atheists are "the other," outsiders who just don't belong in the in-group. (And the evidence is clear that atheists are indeed widely, and wrongly, scorned in America. With commentary such as Oprah's, we can see why.)

Read the full piece at Psychology Today. And take a moment to tweet to Oprah or to the staff at her television network, @OWNtv... ask them when we're going to hear Oprah walking-back her comments, or when she's going to invite an atheist or several on-camera, to explore the depth and breadth of the atheist's capacity to feel awe and wonder

QOTW: Atheists as waterfowl

From a March 2012 commentary in Reason by (former MTV VJ) Kennedy:

You can call atheism a belief system [...] or you can make a stronger assertion and say that atheists and theists, who have conveniently developed hate-tinged froth and vitriol for one another, are quacking and waddling in the same way in different ponds. Either way, they are ducks and atheism is a religion. At least it is in the hands of those who are so religious about their disbelief that they place the weight of the argument on the feathery shoulders of their believing brothers and sisters.

Glenn Beck: Pluralism is a competition!

According to Raw Story, Glenn Beck says that “forces of spiritual darkness” (at CNN) arranged to have Wolf Blitzer ask an atheist tornado survivor if she thanked the Lord for sparing her life. The question was just part of a plan to give atheism more airtime, you see. And of course if that's how the atheists are going to be play, well, Beck wants Christians to fight back by showing that they can out-do us in the nice department:

Beck insisted that he liked atheists, but Christians needed to prove that they were better.

“Have I done anything this week, have you done anything that would make anyone say, ‘Wow, what is it about them? I want to be like that. I want to be able to provide hope to others in dark times,’” the radio host said. “If you haven’t done anything different than what an atheist can do this week then your light is not shining very bright at all.”

(Emphasis mine.) Beck's inducement to Christians to prove they are better than atheists is ludicrous... but it sounds even more ridiculous if you trade the terms "atheists" and "Christians" for any pairing that puts mainstream Christianity in the position of underdog, and gives the place of privilege to any other worldview:

Sonja Eggerickx insists that she likes Christians, but says Humanists need to prove that they are superior.

Miroslav Gavrilović insists that he likes Christians, but says the Catholics of the Serbian Orthodox church need to prove that they are superior.

Zachary Bos insists that he likes Christians, but says the secular citizens of Massachusetts need to prove that they are superior. 

Hey, I like that last one! Let's see how much further we can take it:

“Have I done anything this week, have you done anything that would make anyone say, ‘Wow, what is it about those Atheists? I want to be like that. I want to be able to provide compassion and reason to others in dark times,’” Zachary Bos continued. “If you haven’t done anything different than what a theist can do this week then your Atheism is not shining very bright at all.”

I like this game; it is both easy and subversive. Let's keep doing it! Here's how:

1. Find a piece of sectarian writing that is blind to the privilege of its position
2. Swap the privileged identity with the underprivileged identity
3. Share with friends

What do we call this? #tradingprivilege? #POVswap? #flipthebias? 

An unfortunate scene in "Jack & Jill"

Most of the scenes in Adam Sandler's recent film "Jack & Jill" were unfortunate, I know (the critics seem to agree). But I want to hold one scene up for particular consideration, because takes a thoughtless, mean-spirited swipe at atheism:

Jack (played by Adam Sandler): Did I ever tell you that Todd is an atheist?
Todd (Jack's underling): Oh god.
Jill (played by Sandler in drag): A WHAT?
Jack: Hehe, have a great time guys.
Jill: How could there be a Grand Canyon if God doesn't exist?
Todd: (stammering) That's a very good point. I'm just saying maybe...
Jill: Maybe God wouldn't have given you a rat-face if you believed in Him!
Todd: I don't have a rat-face.
Jill: Yes you do have a rat-face, it's scary!
John McEnroe (playing himself, popping into the conversation from the crowd): Whoa whoa whoa wait a minute, this guy doesn't believe in God?
Jill: No!
Todd: (stammering) I'm, I'm, I'm just saying that there's no real proof...
McEnroe: (yelling) IDIOTS like you really make me MAD!
Crowd members: FIGHT! (chanting in unison) Fight, fight, fight...
(More people in the crowd join the chant, but as a birthday cake is wheeled in, their chanting turns into the "Happy Birthday" song.)

I don't object at all to seeing my worldview satirized -- may the nonexistent God save us from self-serious people -- but what I see in this scene doesn't pass the substitution test. By which I mean: if you replace the role of the implied majority viewpoint with that of the implied minority viewpoint (here, theism and atheism respectively), does the resulting exchange seem just as comedic, or does it reveal a darker aspect?

Jill: Maybe you wouldn't look so ugly if you didn't believe in gods!
Todd: (stammering) I'm not ugly, I'm just saying...
John McEnroe: Whoa, whoa, whoa, this guy believes in gods? IDIOTS like you really make me MAD!

This isn't comedy arising out of cultural differences; it's antagonism made presentable by silliness. Thumbs down, Happy Gilmore Productions, for mixing prejudice with scatological humor. Though perhaps I can't call this a thoughtless mistake on the part of the folks behind the movie -- maybe it was actually a savvy business decision intended to attract a pro-theistic audience. The reviewers over at MovieGuide.com (" in-depth analyses of current movies from a biblical perspective") think this anti-atheist scene "makes belief in God look cool." Because cool is whatever Adam Sandler in drag is doing... ?

In other words, I think it's unfortunate that there's this bit of anti-atheist sentiment in a movie whose main business seems to be to affirming the value of family, and in making childish audiences laugh at fart jokes. Nothing wrong with those goals; why does prejudice need to be a part of it? To the people responsible, we might say: "Idiots like you really make me mad." Prejudice and the hostility it gives fuel to, when they reveal themselves in real life, don't just go away when someone shows up with cake for everyone.

*

I actually really like atheist jokes. Such as: "Why can’t atheists solve exponential equations? Because they don’t believe in higher powers." This is from the Harmonia Philosophica blog; find more here.