Vacation's Over
A UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA study shows atheists to be America’s least-liked and least-trusted minority:
American’s increasing acceptance of religious diversity doesn’t extend to those who don’t believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology.
From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.
Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher.
Oddly enough, though, we’re not the ones holding conferences to whine about how we’re under attack. From Christianity Today:
A SEPARATE STUDY, conducted by the Pew Research Center, found that both Catholics and evangelicals are more likely than “secular” Americans to justify and condone torture by the U.S. in its Endless War against an Abstract Concept (EWAC).The War On Christians And The Values Voter in 2006 Conference will be held March 27-28 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C.
...Keynote speakers at the conference include: Sen. John Cornyn, Sen. Sam Brownback, Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer, Rep. Tom DeLay, Phyllis Schlafly and Vision America President Dr. Rick Scarborough.
Yet we non-believers are the mistrusted ones. We’re supposed to be the ones without morals.
DONALD RUMSFELD says the U.S. deserves a D or D+ grade for its performance in the fabled “War of Ideas” in the Islamic world.
As far as I can see, there is only one solution to this problem: We must deploy Thomas Friedman’s mustache to the Middle East. The longer we wait to do this, the more perilous the situation will become.
SOMEONE once said something about those with a plank in their eye and those with speck in their eye, and criticism thereof. I can’t remember who said it, or the details. But anyway…
Tennessee State Rep. Debra Maggart justifies her opposition to gay adoption, saying:
We also have seen evidence that homosexual couples prey on young males and have, in some instances, adopted them in order to have unfretted (sic) access to subject them to a life of molestation and sexual abuse.On a related note, Catholic Charities in Boston recently announced it would no longer participate in adoption services because the state will not allow them to discriminate against potential adoptive parents for their sexual orientation.
Yes, this is a debate I’d like to have. Where is a child more likely to be molested? With gay adoptive parents or with the Catholic Church in Boston?
THE NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK in Times Square, lacking the requisite amount of space to hold the fourteen digits needed to display tens of trillions, is on pace to be maxed out within two years.
How convenient that it will happen in early 2008, when those responsible for such a fiscal atrocity will all be busy campaigning for the Republican nomination for President, probably on platforms of deficit reduction. Oh my, won’t that be awkward.
CASPAR WEINBERGER is dead. Thousands of Nicaraguans are still dead.
posted by Joe at 4:57 PM
5 Comments:
Welcome Back!
Atheists are not liked by the public because many, like yourself, seem to radiate an utter disdain for organized religion as a whole.
Unfortunately for you, most Americans practice some form of organized religion. So even though you are really the ones under attack, I agree, you're too small a group to play the "whine" card like the Christian-right does when you attack them.
They are able to get away with this because you do not discriminate on which organized religions you dislike- you don't like any. So even those religions that do not belong to the Christian-right feel some solidarity with them in their reciprocal dislike of atheism.
I'll give you an example: me. While I, as a Catholic, have nothing inherently against atheists, and indeed, share your complaints about the Christian-right, and your goal of a secular state, when I see my atheist friends allow this to go unnoticed in an overflow of overall contempt for organized religion in general, I start to resent it.
You lumped all of us non-atheists together right in this post- using a mis-leading configuration to imply that Ms. Maggart's reasoning for her opposition to gay adoption in Tennessee is the same reason for the Catholic Church's opposition to gay adoption in Boston.-(As you put it "On a related note")
Ms. Maggart is more than likely a Protestant evangelical, not a Catholic.
But this nuance didn't matter to you, because you proceeded to announce that "this is a debate I'd like to have," presumably with the Catholic Church, about whether gays are more likely to "subject [children] to a life of molestation and sexual abuse"- the position of Ms. Maggart.
Besides, the Catholic Church holds no obligation to provide adoption services- they ought to, but they're obviously not obligated to, even though it has come to be expected by most people,including those who don't like Catholicism.
Maybe the one good thing that comes out of this will be that liberals who fail to properly acknowledge all the good the Church does in the world will realize it now when it's gone. And perhaps they'll begin to recognize all the other areas in which the Catholic Church helps society- food, clothing, shelter- more than any other organization in the world.
The point is, for the sake of our common liberal ideals, please don't allow your views on religion to alienate people like me, many of us who are on your side....if only you'll let us be.
As I told you earlier, I knew this would probably provoke you. So let me attempt to explain myself.
I did not point out the "nuance" you mentioned because I thought it a mere a pretext for the larger issue.
Rep. Maggart's argument on why gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt is, of course, different from the Church's. Unsurprisingly, the Church does not want to make this argument.
What I meant to do was connect the two stories as a way of showing both the absurdity of her argument and that of those opposing gay adoptions in general. Because at the end of the day, both Maggart and the Church oppose gay adoption for the same reason: pure, unadulterated homophobia.
Maggart is simply blunt and upfront about her homophobia. The Church instead will spout less impolitic talking points about kids needing both a mother and a father. But that's how the politics of civil rights issues often work: Some will be open about their bigotry, but most bigots will attempt to mask it. For every George Wallace there was talking about "segregation today, segregation tomorrow...," there were numerous Barry Goldwaters who used code phrases like "states' rights" to avoid sounding openly bigoted while still gunning for the support of bigots.
Today, not many Republicans or conservative Christians will say they oppose gay rights because they simply hate and fear gay people. Instead, they'll talk about marriage and family values. So while the Church may not make the same argument as Maggart, they are in lock-step with her politically for the same reason -- bigotry.
Well I think you're wrong, and I bet you knew I would.
The Church is a theological institution, not a political entity. Their theology crosses politics, but not for political reasons. The Church is not motivated by political concepts such as "bigotry" or "homophobia," but rather by a theological script upon which the very idea of the Church is based. It's a pretty simple read on this issue. Man + Woman = procreation, procreation = marriage. Not my position, but the Church's, and not one they can deviate from if they wish to remain a CHURCH.
Ms. Maggart arrives at her conclusions through the political course, and even follows a different religion - and while her conclusion happens to be the same, she is succeptible to the labels previously listed, but the Church is clearly not.
Joe,
I was relieved to learn that this Debra Maggart isn't running unopposed for re-election. There's a normal-looking, sane-sounding veteran and family guy running against her. His name is Patrick Gardner, and his web site is at
http://www.patrickgardner.org/
He's not as far to the left as I'd wish for in a candidate running in a blue state, but he's probably a good match for his district, and he seems to have a firm grip on the difference between the Bible and the Constitution. I think I'm gonna send him a few bucks. I get so tired of reading stories like the one you profiled, and getting angry, but having nothing practical that I can do in response. Maybe if I actually *do* something this time, my blood pressure will go down.
Thanks, by the way, for your rundown on local politics in your adoptive state. Romney appears to be such a weasle, but those of us out of state haven't followed his twists and turns like you have. Appreciate the insights, bro.
Post a Comment
<< Home