Atheist Fundamentalism?

I'm a little disappointed in Andrew Sullivan. 

He pulled a quote from a blog post which pulled the quote from The Guardian which makes what I think is an erroneous claim.  

I think his goal was mainly to point out the danger of letting the dialogue get out of control, and public policy with it.  Here's the "money quote" that bothers me: 

"We are witnessing a social phenomenon that is about fundamentalism," says Colin Slee, the Dean of Southwark. "Atheists like the Richard Dawkins of this world are just as fundamentalist as the people setting off bombs on the tube, the hardline settlers on the West Bank and the anti-gay bigots of the Church of England. Most of them would regard each other as destined to fry in hell.

"You have a triangle with fundamentalist secularists in one corner, fundamentalist faith people in another, and then the intelligent, thinking liberals of Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, baptism, methodism, other faiths - and, indeed, thinking atheists - in the other corner. " says Slee. Why does he think the other two groups are so vociferous? "When there was a cold war, we knew who the enemy was. Now it could be anybody. From this feeling of vulnerability comes hysteria."

First, let's visit the meaning of "fundamentalist" because, to quote Inigo Montoya from the Princess Bride, "I do not think it means what you think it means."

According to Merriam-Webster:

One entry found for fundamentalism.

Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism
Pronunciation: -t&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>

Atheism is defined by it's lack of any belief system at all, given that fact, I don't see how an atheist has any "fundamental beliefs" to return or adhere to. 

The real objection the author of the Guardian piece seems to have with atheists in general and Richard Dawkins in particular, is their rather aggressive, rude or "disrespectful" dismissal of religious belief.  The comparison of Dawkins' verbal pyrotechnics to bombing public transport fails to make a case.  This hyperbole has the unpleasant whiff of hysteria.

It is interesting to me that in recent polling the people who are least trusted in U.S society are atheists.  It's also interesting that the people who arguably have the least respect or trust for atheists are the religious.  Or, as the Guardian article seems to allude, is this really about fear and hatred of "the other"...

From The Guardian:

Another reason for secularist rage at people of faith, one might think, is exasperation on the part of militant atheists that religion has not died out as they hoped. "It has taken centuries and centuries to wrestle away from the churches the levers of power," says Grayling.

I think it is the frustration of the non-faith community at being ignored and forced into acceptance of religion in their daily lives that thy find so maddening.

Does anyone really think there is such a thing as atheist fundamentalists?

Got Faith?

I've never liked organized religion.  Raised as a Catholic, I saw first hand how the dogma trampled people's live. 

I've been reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and I find the arguments he makes credible and persuasive.  Absent childhood indoctrination, I've never believed in the idea of a supernatural god anyway.    

I know I'm not a theist. I've thought of myself as agnostic for many years.  Now I'm questioning whether I'm agnostic or simply an atheist. 

I understand why Dawkins takes an aggressive stance against theism and deism in "The God Delusion" but his vehemence does become tiring after a few chapters.  Yet it's clear that advocating against the idea of a supernatural god can't be done half-heartedly given it's pervasiveness and power in our world.

I'm thinking about home*

*It's always a toss-up when an expatriate uses the word home.  It applies equally to our home where we are and our home in another country.

I'm thinking about people, places, events and food that I miss.  

• I miss sitting in a cafe reading and daydreaming. 
• I miss really great Asian food. 
• I miss the music.
• I miss art galleries in walking distance.
• I miss fresh seafood. 
• I miss running into friends.
• I miss those amazing and spontaneous lunches and dinners.
• I miss real French patisseries.
• I miss having a great independent bookstore in walking distance.
• I miss laksa. 
• I miss lying on the grass on a sunny spring day.
• I miss open air markets.
• I miss taking the ferry across to the city.
• I miss going to the greengrocer.
• I miss the architecture and character.
• I miss looking at the harbour.

Home is a more elastic concept than we think.

"That's so gay"

It's coming up a lot recently.  "That's so gay" used as a way of saying something is stupid, weird, or just not normal. 

I heard from a colleague who wanted someone to talk to about a situation that came up at a workplace event where partners were invited.  My colleague is part of a same sex couple that attended the event and during the evening people at the event kept making the statement "That's so gay". 

Now, there are times when saying "That's so gay" is entirely accurate and appropriate, for example when a gay man is describing hand making curtains with silk fabric and trim.  This wasn't that kind of situation.  This was Gay used as a synonym for weird.

One of the couple calmly made the point that using the phrase "That's so gay" in that way was insulting and homophobic.  This led to a round of straight people looking bewildered and using the "We don't mean it in a bad way" defense.  It was clear from what my colleague related that all the other attendees at the event didn't think there was a problem.

What a pack of gits.

I'd expect this kind of behavior from children, but not from adults.  Well, not from sober adults, at any rate.

After our conversation I did some research on the usage of "That’s so gay” and a few things are abundantly clear:

• It is never okay to say “That’s so gay” to mean anything negative (strange, weird, unpopular, distasteful, etc.)
• Using “That’s so gay” in this way doesn’t necessarily make someone a homophobe, but the comment is definitely homophobic.  It is always derogatory towards LGBT people and it contributes to a hostile work and learning environment.
• “That’s so gay” is a lightening rod in schools and universities and many have a zero tolerance policy towards its use.

From one of the Teachers resources I found…

Ten things you can say or do when you hear "That's so gay!"

1. Ask, “How would you feel if your name/identity was inserted instead of ‘gay’?” i.e.: “That’s so Bryce/ Gurvir / Aisha! etc.” and it was used repetitively.
2. Ask, “What does that mean?” or say, “That’s so what?” Typical student response, “It’s stupid/weird, etc.” Teacher response: “That’s the same as saying, ‘Gay people are stupid/weird,’ and I find that offensive.”
3. Ask, “How can a book/idea/song have a sexual orientation?” if they are referring to an inanimate object when using this slur.
4. Say, “You might be surprised to know that what you just said could hurt someone’s feelings.”
5. Say, “This is a homophobia-free zone. Homophobic slurs like that are not tolerated here.”
6. Ask, “What does gay mean?” Use this opportunity to discuss the language of oppression.
7. Show one of the NFB videos: Sticks and Stones, One of Them, or In Other Words.
8. Download classroom posters on this topic from the GALE-BC web site: www.galebc.org
9. Say, “Gay is OK.”
10. Make links between homophobic slurs and other forms of discrimination. Use analogies between racism, sexism, ableism, ethnocentrism, etc.

USE A STRATEGY THAT REFLECTS YOUR PERSONAL TEACHING STYLE AND IS APPROPRIATE TO THE SITUATION AT HAND.

“Homophobia is like Racism and Anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry, in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity, and personhood… I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brother and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."
- Coretta Scott-King

If you end up having a debate about whether "That's so gay" is offensive, or you want to get a flavor of how people are thinking, here's a cross section of the links from my own research.  I like the discussions or lines of thought in the bolded links best:

• Sevitzdotcom
• Savage Love in the Stranger
• Miami University
• Dailycal
• Gay.com
• The Record
• Salon.com
• Joystiq
• ePeak
• Tolerance.org
• Sake of argument
• Hitops
• electrolicious
• the sinner
• the GYC
• xtra west
• Desmoines Register
• Oasis Mag
• Gay and Lesbian Educators of BC
• Advocates for youth
• State News

What do you think of the cute guy in the "That's so gay" t-shirt?   

Naturalization Countdown

According to the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, I'll be eligible to apply for naturalization as a U.S. Citizen in November this year.  Essentially you need to have held Permanent Resident status for 5 years before you can apply for naturalization.  

There is a faster track to Citizenship - the Permanent Residence period is only 3 years when you are married to a U.S. Citizen. E, a U.S. Citizen, and I have been together for almost 9 years but, since we cannot be married, our time together which qualifies in all other respects, just doesn't count towards my immigration status.

It is maddening that I've been prevented from the rights of citizenship, including voting in the last election, by these discriminatory laws. 

I deplore the demonizing of illegal immigrants for political purposes with it's drumbeat of fear aimed at middle America.  However, the talk of amnesty for recent illegal immigrants seems grossly unfair to those of us who have been waiting in line for a decade and diligently playing by the INS rules.  This is the incentive we get for playing "by the book"?

It is acceptable to lodge your N-400 "Application for Naturalization" up to 90 days in advance of satisfying the 5 year Permanent Resident requirement.  That means I can lodge sometime in August.

The form has been completed and ready to send in for the last two weeks, but I won't be able to submit it for another 6 months.

Are we there yet?

Australian Politics Test

The Oz Politics Blog has a test that takes a stab at determining where you are on the Australian Political spectrum and which political party aligns best with your views.   It's an interesting tool and my results surprised me a little.

• Political Outlook -42.8% (Centre Left)
• Economic Policy 0.7% (Centre)
• Social Policy -43.5% (Left)
• Traditional values -76.6% (Far Left)

 Where did you come out?

Obama to Howard: "Put up or shut up"

I shouldn't be enjoying this so much.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard is being taken to the woodshed by a growing list of  people after his comments about the U.S. Presidential election and the recently declared candidacy of Barak Obama in particular.   The response from Senator Obama's spokesman, Robert Gibbs, is worth reading a couple of times:

"The United States has sacrificed more than 3,000 brave young men and women and $400 billion, only to find ourselves mired in the middle of a sectarian civil war," he said. "Even Republicans ... know that more of the same is only going to attract more terrorists to Iraq and make our country less safe."

"If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says, perhaps his country should find its way to contribute more than just 1,400 troops so some American troops can come home," he said. "It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices."

Here's a sample of the mainstream news reaction:

• Howard sets off fight with US Democrats
• PM slammed on Obama attack
• PM Howard bizarre, says US Democrats
• Obama Blasts Aussie Prime Minister for Iraq Policy Criticism
• Australian PM: A win for Obama is a victory for terrorism
• Howard slams Obama on Iraq policy
• PM 'right to criticise Obama'
• Rudd attacks PM over Obama bashing

The words used to describe little Johnny include "bizarre and irrelevant".  It's interesting to see the difference in style as Opposition leader Kevin Rudd weighs in:

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd yesterday demanded Mr Howard withdraw his statements.

"Mr Howard must not allow his personal relationship with President Bush to impact on Australia's long-term alliance relationship with the United States," Mr Rudd said.

"I disagreed with the coalition's decision to invade Iraq ... But I have seen it as my role to discuss the future of Australian foreign policy on Iraq, not lecture United States citizens on how they should vote in the up coming presidential election.

Yes, I think that strikes the right tone.  I shouldn't be enjoying this so much.

No, I really, really shouldn't be enjoying this so much.

Howard weighs in on Obama

There is an interesting thread over on Americablog about our own "Little Johnny" Howard talking about how the bad guys can hardly wait for an Obama and Democrat victory in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Elections.  Here is what our illustrious Prime Minister opined:

"I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilize and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory," Howard said on Nine Network television.

"If I were running al-Qaida in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."

Blatant political theatre, certainly.  Interestingly it's being interpreted as coming from Howard's underlying racism and prejudice rather than the desperate need to keep the Australian Electorate afraid.  Here's my response to the comments thread with citations included:

I'm another disenfranchised Australian voter who has been living in the US for over 11 years.

Howard's statement is more a calculated move as part of the politics of fear, rather than a simple and outright example of racism. In the latest opinion polls, the Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd, is at 48% to Howard’s 43% as “Preferred PM”. Rudd received a “Personal Approval” score of 65% to Howard’s 49%, the highest approval number for an Opposition leader in the last 35 years. Of course it’s time for the Australian Prime Minister to crank up the Al-Qaeda terrorist rhetoric and pretend an understanding in, and prescience of, International and U.S. politics that is clearly beyond his ken. As it is in the U.S., the way to win elections in Australia is to make people afraid of something and making it clear that you’re the only person or party that can protect them from it.

It is hard to deny Howard’s discrimination with his political coming of age in the era of the “White Australia Policy” and his solid political record opposing both non-white (Read: Asian) Immigration and the imposition of economic sanctions on South Africa in the Apartheid era. It should be mentioned that the “White Australia Policy” came to an end when the Whitlam Labor government, which was ultimately ousted with the well documented but commonly overlooked involvement of U.S. Intelligence agents in 1975, passed a series of amendments to immigration laws starting in 1973 and culminating in the 1975 Racial Discrimination Act. But Howard’s prejudice isn’t just a matter for dusty history books.

He continues to use immigration and race as a wedge issue in domestic politics. But, as in the U.S., Howard takes any opportunity to create an “Other” for the electorate to fear – in this case gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender citizens who are reasonably seeking equal rights, legal protection, and simple human recognition of their relationships. Howard has championed anti-LGBT legislation including, but not limited to, the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill, disallowing the Australian Capital Territories’ Civil Unions Act in June 2006 and the Civil Partnership Act in 2007. The Howard Government has moved to block Australians living overseas from entering into entirely legal civil unions or civil marriages on the basis that these are not legal in Australia, and has announced new legislation which would block gay and lesbian couples from adopting foreign children. All this is occurring during the ongoing and largely ignored Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s investigation into the inequalities faced by same-sex couples in Australia.

No American can feel superior to any Australian given the striking similarity of subject and tone in our respective national debates and elections.

I’m one of the 5% of Australian Citizens who live outside Australia and one of the many hundreds of thousands of Gay Australians that are learning what it is like to live under Howard’s emerging “Straight Australia Policy”.

In November this year I'll be eligible to become a U.S. citizen and vote in U.S. elections. But unless and until I move back to Australia I'm not able to vote against "Little Johnny" Howard and his government.

I have to hope the appearance of a viable Opposition leader means that Australia has a good chance of exiting the Howard led Liberal Coalition (Conservative) era.

~GC

Is Howard's pronouncement racist?  Certainly.  Is he demonstrably a bigot?  Without doubt.  Is this about hate or fear or both?  Over to you...