Freedom from Religion Foundation wins a lawsuit appeal that I wished both it and Abbott could have lost

On appeal, per Friendly Atheist, the Fifth Circuit upholds a federal district court's ruling in favor of the Freedom of Religion Foundation in a "secular nativity" display in Austin in the Capitol. For a variety of reasons, as I blogged at the time, I was NOT a total fan of the suit. And, indeed, I mentioned the Friendly Atheist himself, Hemant Mehta, in that piece. I says I wished both sides could lose. And I'm not a total fan of FFRF in general. These same liars (yes) once claimed Lincoln was a crypto-atheist or something.

Per the first of my blog links, I linked to an old piece which gave further background on why I thought the Austin action was a stunt. I also had a bullet point in the first piece explaining what I saw as evidence the Austin action was a stunt. The second and third of the three points in all were about Abbott, as a tu quoque. As I said, I wished both sides could have lost.

Mehta, in his link at top, links to his piece about the original district ruling. He never addresses my first bullet point, about why FFRF asked for that space in the Capitol basement rather than on the lawn with all the other Nativity displays.

Mehta can be very good at times. But, while not having both feet there, he can have one foot in the Gnu Atheist world at times. This is clearly one of those times. And, Hemant, it has been from the start. Sorry, but you're a quasi-Gnu on this issue.

And there's plenty of other FFRF nuttery to go around.

Like when it sued to try to block Obama from saying "so help me god" as his add-on to the presidential oath? The real answer is that it's unconstitutional to require that, but that it's unconstitutional to block presidents from making that as a personal utterance, too.

Let's also not forget that nutter Michael Newdow was part of that suit.

Although its rhetoric is not over the top as much as is that of American Atheists, rhetoric isn't FFRF's focus. Actions are.

As in kabuki theater-type stuff. Stunts.

In short, FFRF is kind of like the PETA of Gnu Atheists.

Let's also not forget that Godless in Dixie, via a guest commenter, and other Gnu dumb fucks have supported FFRF on this blindly from the start.

#GnuAtheist outfit FFRF may sue Greg Abbott; could both lose, please?

Let's hope so, and let's hope that Abbott loses yet another lawsuit, this time as the defendant, not the plaintiff. (In reality, one and only one could win and it was FFRF, and its win has been upheld by the Fifth Circuit, which shows just how dumb Abbott is. My new blog post still wishes both Gov. Strangeabbott AND Freedom from Religion Foundation, the PETA of Gnu Atheists, could have lost.)

This is juvenile only if you don't understand the U.S. Constitution AND
only if your personal religious beliefs are afraid of challenge.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation erected a, well, a freedom from religion secular "nativity" display at the Texas Capitol.

Gov. Strangeabbott, calling it "juvenile," ordered it pulled down.

The display was a cardboard cutout of the nation's founding fathers and the Statue of Liberty looking down at the Bill of Rights in a manger. It had been set up in the Capitol's basement, hardly a high-traffic area, and didn't generate much of a public response.  

But after finding out about it, Abbott called it a "juvenile parody" in a letter asking the State Preservation Board to remove the exhibit. 

More on the background:

The Preservation Board approved the exhibit days earlier. But after receiving the letter from Abbott, the agency reconsidered. Executive Director John Sneed snapped a picture of it and texted it to Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth, who chairs the House Administration Committee. Geren said to take it down.  

"The governor wanted it down and I told John that, if I were him, I'd take it down," Geren said. "It was an inappropriate exhibit."

FFRF is "considering its legal options."

The Trib has selections from Abbott's letter, and his previous defense of an unconstitutional nativity scene.

The removal comes a week after Abbott publicly expressed his support for a Nativity scene outside the city of Orange municipal building. He argued that the city had a Constitutional right to display the religious imagery.  

In his letter Tuesday, he cited the Constitution again.  

"The Constitution does not require Texas to allow displays in its Capitol that violate general standards of decency and intentionally disrespect the beliefs and values of many of our fellow Texans," Abbott wrote.  

The display is offensive, doesn't serve a public purpose and doesn't educate anyone, he wrote.  

"Far from promoting morals and the general welfare, the exhibit deliberately mocks Christians and Christianity," said Abbott's letter, which also called it a "juvenile parody." 

That said, I'm not a blanket supporter of FFRF.

First, whether because my name is on the infamous Gnu Atheist Block Bot or whatever, I'm blocked from following them right now. I've Tweeted the account of co-president Dan Barker. We'll see if he replies, let alone takes action to have its corporate account unblock me.

Second, I did call the group Gnu Atheists, along with calling bullshit on it when it claimed that Abraham Lincoln was an atheist.

Third, while FFRF may not be as bad as American Atheists and its leader, David Silverman, I've questioned elsewhere the deliberately confrontational stance it has sometimes taken over the nativities in the public square issue.

That said, in this particular case, FFRF pulled its punches, and arguably undercut its constitutional case. It should have sought placement on the Capitol lawn next to the nativity there. That would be a stronger constitutional case rather than appearing in a space by itself. It would also be a stronger PR case, if that's what FFRF was after. Frankly, were I a federal judge, due to the misplacement, and previous interpretations of this issue all the way to SCOTUS level, I'd rule against it, should it sue.

(Update, Feb. 27, 2016: FFRF has filed suit.)

Besides, it seems kind of chickenshit to not throw sharp elbows next to the Capitol grounds nativity. It also seems chickenshit to build something that small, too. 

That's like bringing a knife to a gun fight. Seriously, that thing's smaller than Donald Trump's hair or the lifespan of his schlong comment. (It's bigger than his actual schlong, though, I'm sure.)

In other words, if you want to fight Greg Abbott on this, man up!

In light of the suit actually being filed, I stand by everything I just wrote, whether specifically in the last three paragraphs, or further up.

Fourth, once again showing its actual legal cluelessness, FFRF backed Michael Newdow in his suit over "So help me God" as part of the presidential inaugural oath. (A Gnu Atheist Internet troll popped up his head over that one, too.) Indeed, I found this stupid enough I did a second blog post about it two weeks later.

All of these are examples of intellectual dishonesty, which isn't the humanist way of doing things. But the back of hand to forehead martyrdom is the Gnu way of doing things, oftentimes.

FFRF and AA are probably swimming in the same general, smallish pool of donors. Both may have plenty of activist followers, but donors is a separate issue.

That said, the old "flies, honey and vinegar" cliché (ignoring that bullshit catches even more) comes to mind. But, FFRF and AA both seem to want to practice SJW-type back-of-hand-to-forehead "martyrdom" as much as anything. (Remember, there's just one letter's difference between SJW and JW.)

So, if Dan Barker doesn't want to unblock me, I'm OK with that, too. I'll keep calling them like I see them.

Friendly Atheist Hemant Mehta tries to make the argument for FFRF. My thoughts in response?

• First, did FFRF explicitly ask for the Capitol basement while all other displays were on the lawn? If so, further shame on FFRF. And, the State Preservation Board should have rejected the application in that case. That said, if it's not already the case, the SPB should change its application form to stipulate where on Capitol grounds such displays are or are not allowed.
• Second, the nativity scene doesn't belong on the Capitol lawn without the proper secular fig leaf. Abbott's wrong, just like about the Orange display. But, two wrongs don't make a right.
• Third, shock me that Abbott is parading a fake George Washington quote. Three wrongs don't make a right, either.

That's my hot take on his take. Well, adding that an apparent worshiper of his on Facebook called this "just a blog," to which I replied, "Well, isn't that what Hemant does?"

Also to that commenter, as I said there? Three other letters are GFY.

As for your idea that Mehta was reporting or something, rather than blogging? Wrong! And, just to not "tip jar" him, with followers like you, I put the "no follow" attribute on the link to take away pageviews. (And stopped reading your comments on Facebook.)

Speaking of this, a staff wrter at Austin Chronicle, who also wrote about the kerfuffle, is such an in-the-tank Gnu that according to him, people like me aren't really atheists; we're "fence-sitting agnostics."

Richard Whitaker? And, claiming I use "Gnu Atheist" like a smear when you do exactly that with "agnostic"? And, thinking that I think atheism is something more than a philosophical stance, when it's Gnu Atheists, not me, that think that way. Our Twitter exchange gets more bizarre the longer it gets.

Gnu Atheists: Once again proving that fundamentalism comes in many flavors. This also gives me a good reason to practice my Neo-Cynicism, and, per Harvard, my sarcasm is helping my creativity.

Why aren't "we" Mardukites or Baalists instead of Jews or Christians?

I'm none of the four, of course, but, per this post from his new blog by philosopher friend Dan Kaufman, it's a legitimate question.

Here's an edited version of my comment on there to both Dan and Peter Smith, a former secularist now Catholic, who, after his conversion has become quite ardent in his Catholicism. As you can see on this blog post, his ardency is against Protestants, as well as against atheists, all of whom he has repeatedly stereotyped on Massimo Pigliucci's Scientia Salon as New Atheists. (As a sidebar, to be honest, I question Massimo using him as an editor for book reviews, because of this and other things, but, it's Massimo's place, not mine.)

Dan asked, rhetorically, what justification was there for Christianity if one got rid of (western) Christianity's idea of original sin, and the need for a substitutory atonement for that by a "divine man."

First, the Eastern Orthodox tradition disagrees with both Catholicism and Protestantism, and doesn't believe in original sin the way either of them do, because it rejects Augustine on this issue. It does believe, though, in an idea of "ancestral sin."

That said, as I told Dan in a follow-up, one can reject original sin, and even Orthodoxy's idea of ancestral guilt, and still see the need for Jesus, if one believes in the need for sacrificial expiation. One simply believes that Temple sacrifices, or the scapegoat of Leviticus, weren't enough.

That gets to the big issue: Supersessionism. Starting with Paul in the book of Romans, then amplified more after the Bar Kochba revolt in the second century CE, and culminating after the legalization, then establishment of Christianity, the idea is that Christianity essentially replaced Judaism, a new covenant, or new testament. Some evangelicals today try to soft-pedal that, especially many who like waving the "Judeo-Christian" fig leaf in the US that Dan rightly decries, claiming Israel is our best ally, etc., all while looking for that magical red heifer.

I, as part of my journey to secularism, of course rejected original sin, even before completing that journey. I also rejected the idea that a god would be so angry that he'd kill his own son, who later Christian theologians say is part of himself, for a sacrifice for original sin, let alone just for actual original sin.

Of course, many more liberal Christians don't stop to ask Dan's (and my) rhetorical question about "Why Jesus."

That said, this is part of why I didn't stop at liberal versions of Christianity when moving away from the conservative wing of Lutheranism.

As for Peter ... even if he  and other more modern, theoretically more modern Xns, interpret Genesis that way, Paul did not. Aquinas did not. Augustine did not. So, per Dan:
A. Why is your version correct?
B. If it is correct, why is something more "liberal" than it, like Geza Vermes' Jesus as Jewish faith healer (or Crossan's Jesus as Jewish Cynic) not even more correct yet?

That said, as a former Protestant, I can wrong-foot Catholics on issues of narrow selectivity. I won't go into details, speaking of mountains of writing, but I can. (This is a bit off topic, but Peter explicitly used the phrase "narrow selectivity" for Protestants. On things like an unmarried priesthood, an all-male priesthood, and claiming that birth control kills life, no, Peter, your church has plenty of narrow selectivity.)

But, back to my header, and a rhetorical question of my own.

That said, since the B'reshit (Genesis) story itself comes from earlier myth, why Judaism, Dan?

Why aren't we all Mardukites, per Enuma Elish, or whatever term you would use? Per the Elijah cycle of stories in 1 Kings, Ba'alism might be better term yet.

Dan puts it off, saying that he is a non-proselytizer.

The reality, though, is that Judaism, via its pre-Ezra Israelitism roots, was also supersessionist. (It's only proper, academically, to use "Judaism" to talk about the religion after Judahites from the "southern kingdom" returned from their exile in Babylon, and Ezra knocked four strands of writing and tradition, plus editing, into the five books of the Torah.) Israelite religion replaced a polytheism of sorts of the Canaanites with first a henotheism (arguably Ba'alism was the same), then a monotheism, mainly in the southern kingdom of Judah. (I'm not getting into a discussion of some historical details, such as whether David and Solomon existed or not, and how much land any putative united kingdom controlled.)

As many a "good" secularist — especially of New Atheist stripe — knows, with the Amalekites, Israelitism even had its own small-h holocaust. (Should we small-h it?)

It's very arguable that Israelitism is supersessionist, and that it presented itself as such. I mean, that's the whole theme, the whole core theme, of the entire Elijah cycle, at least as edited today. Per my reply to his comment, is this exactly the same as Christian supersessionism? No. Is it entirely different? Also, no.

I'm not here to proselytize Dan out of his modern liberal secular Judaism. However, I do invite him, and others, to look at its own history of supersessionism. That plus a bit of luck against the decaying, semi-collapsing empire of Antiochus IV, i.e., Antiochus Epiphanes, still echo around the Middle East today.

Beyond that, his Judaism is too narrow. Yes, he's a professional philosopher and I'm not, but I once was on track to being a professional theologian and he wasn't.

First, Judaism of the era of Jesus can't be limited to the Tanakh. On the one hand, you have the Sadducees, who accepted only the Torah, not the whole Tanakh. On the other, you have the folks at Qumran, accepting all sorts of extrabiblical literature, a fair chunk of which at least somewhat parallels later Xn beliefs.

As for the idea that Christians "misquote," many people still assume the text of the Tanakh was more static at this time than in actuality. Fair parts of Joshua and Judges, and smaller parts of 1-IV Kingdoms (1-2 Samuel/1-2 Kings) are different in Qumran texts, or other non-Masoretic ones, by a non-insignificant degree, than in the Masoretic version. The Septuagint of Jeremiah is 1/8 shorter than the Masoretic version, and in drastically different order. (It's a different order that reflects the normal order of other prophetic books, though.) And, that too is partially reflected at Qumran. The text of other books, cited in targums at Qumran, also differs from the Masoretic text.

These last two issues get to a bigger point. Judaism of circa 0 BCE/0 CE was far more varied and dynamic than something we might call "proto-rabbinic Judaism."

Meanwhile, back to supersessionism.

Religions have long claimed to be replacing others. Arguably, Protestantism, within Christianity, has a supersessionist angle toward Catholicism. Atheism of the Gnu Atheism stripe has the same toward religion in general.

As for Peter, beyond his thinking that Catholicism's shit doesn't stink, compared to Protestantism, and that all atheists are New Atheists? He seems to think that Christianity has unique moral insights.

Well, no.

The Torah scribe cited Leviticus 19:18, "Love your neighbor as yourself," as one half of the fulfillment of the Torah. Jesus, of course, responded with the story of the Good Samaritan, which seems to have its general ideas translate today, though some details are still problematic and situational.

And?

Yahweh himself showed Jonah that Ninevites, and by extension, Assyrians in general, were his neighbors.

As for the Golden Rule? The so-called Silver Rule, that says, "Do NOT do to your neighbor what you do NOT want done to yourself," is both morally superior in that it doesn't presume to know what's best for our neighbor, and is older.

Within Judaism, Hillel uttered it a century before Jesus. Beyond Judaism, Confucius said it 400 years before Hillel.

This is nothing personal against Peter. It's just that he is a known example of an enthusiastic convert to a non-fundamentalist type of Christianity who thinks he has all the bases covered. (That said, Peter never responded to any of my comments over there. I'm not at all shocked.)

Ditto, my noting that Israelitism is supersessionist is nothing personal against Dan. Jews theologically liberal (or nonobservant), moderate, and conservative alike abound who likely have never even thought about this.

Nor is this personal against New Atheists, who are also, of course, supersessionist and often vocally so.

Richard Carrier, other Jesus denialists, meet the Obama #birthers

Richard Carrier is one of the chief water-bearers among Jesus denialists, whose general lack of credibility, and general lack of academics for most of them, I have critiqued here, easily enough on my own, without needing any "help" from the likes of Bart Ehrman (although his own critiques, in even more depth, are spot on).

Massimo Pigliucci, at Scientia Salon, has a new post, referencing an essay from a few years ago about the use of Bayesian probabilities in establishing the soundness of informal logical arguments.

Early in comments, a British Gnu Atheist nutter (nice British term) trotted out the greatness of Carrier's work. I responded with my link about him and other Jesus denialists. To which, I have responded back, with editing and expansion, per the below.

Coel, it matters not whether the 0.0008 is a low end, or a precise number in general. Per Aravis, that’s not how you do history — or any other of the humanities. Bayesian probabilities or anything else, you simply cannot be that precise with history. And, you know that.

Let’s put it this way. Carrier has a Ph.D. in ancient history. Whether I phrased as just 0.008 or per you:

“The probability that Jesus existed is somewhere between 1 in 12,500 [the 0.008%] and 1 in 3. In other words, less than 33% and most likely nearer to zero. We should conclude that Jesus probably did not exist”

But, instead, said that about, Anaximander, Pythagoras, or another of the pre-Socratics, or about Homer, he would laugh in my face, and so would you. I know Aravis or Massimo would.

But, because it’s about Jesus, Jesus denialism, and Gnu Atheism, such utter rot, to use a good old British term, is acceptable, eh?

Well, no, it’s not.

The rest of your opinion is just that — an opinion. And, it may become more “mainstream” among Gnu Atheists. That doesn’t make Carrier any more accurate than Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

The “argument from silence” is not done sensibly by Jesus deniers. Again, if I used the argument from silence on classical history the way Carrier does on Jesus, again, you and he would laugh at me. But, because it’s about Jesus, Jesus denialism, and Gnu Atheism, such utter rot, to use a good old British term, is acceptable, eh?

Well, no, it’s not.

As for the rest of your comments, again, you’re not a Biblical scholar, and neither is Carrier, and you continue to prove that with vague comments about “Paul’s letters” that I know are wrong just as easily as an Ehrman knows are wrong.

And, also per Aravis, my undergrad degree was in classical languages and history, so, yes, I know you don’t do history that way. (As I told Massimo in an email, the first writing I ever read on free will was in an independent study on Augustine, which included his tractate on free will.)

===

To complete the snark, I await Ted Cruz or somebody even worse among US “birthers” using Bayesian probabilities the way Carrier does to “prove”:

 The probability that Barack Obama was born in the United States is somewhere between 1 in 12,500 [the 0.008%] and 1 in 3. In other words, less than 33% and most likely nearer to zero. We should conclude that Obama probably was not born in the United States, but was born in Kenya.

Yep, lies, damned lies and misuse of Bayesian probabilities.

To be honest, beyond him being an easy name of a nutbar to hang the birther label on, the Havana Ham is only a birther fellow traveler, on the Obama birth BS, and, his own birth in Canada has spawned its own birther industry.

But, yes, in my mind, it's a fair analogy to compare the likes of Richard Carrier to the likes of Ted Cruz. And, people like Carrier, and their loyal touters like the commenter Coel, are yet more proof that Gnu Atheism is a variety of fundamentalism. And, in both cases, it's like shooting fish in a barrel that refuse to admit they've been shot.

Or, per the one tag on this blog post, a good example of village idiot atheism.

Or, per another commenter at Massimo's site, perhaps we should invoke Hillary Clinton instead of Ted Cruz.

==

Alex says:

Also, in what sense is Carrier not a Biblical scholar? He is said to have got a PhD in ancient history and writes about little else but Biblical scholarship and possible misinterpretations of old Aramaic words. Does it only count as Biblical scholarship if one is a believer?

First, while he may comment on misunderstanding of old Aramaic words, I see no information that he has any knowledge of Aramaic or Hebrew on his quite extensive CV, which speaks only about the Greco-Roman world in general. I would think that, if he actually knew Aramaic, as long as his CV is, he’d explicitly mention it.

Beyond that, I even did a Google search: “Does Richard Carrier know Aramaic?” And I can’t get any hits that will confirm that he does.

Assuming he does not, the fact that he would still think to comment on misunderstandings of old Aramaic words “goes to character,” your honor. And, that’s putting it politely.

But, places where he calls a Targum an “Aramaic translation of the Old Testament” show he’s no biblical scholar. 

Fuller quote, from his original blog site: “A Targum is an Aramaic translation (or paraphrase or interpretation) of the OT. So really, this is akin to a textual variant for this passage.” 

Targums, as actual scholars know, were far more than that. They were commentaries, exegesises and more.

And, click that first link. It’s clear that not only does he not know Aramaic, but that he just doesn’t know the bible that well, especially the Tanakh or Christian Old Testament, especially when he’s engaged in quote-mining and gets caught.

Carrier, as far as I can tell, also does not know Hebrew. He claims to know five languages — as best as I can tell, these are English, French, German, Latin and classical Greek. Because he doesn't know Hebrew, and probably doesn't know details of the biblical koine Greek translations of the various books of the Tanakh, this leaves him unable to comment on text-critical issues of quotes of or references to, the Tanakh or Old Testament in the New Testament.

Beyond that, Alex, this?

He … writes about little else but Biblical scholarship and possible misinterpretations of old Aramaic words.

I’m not even sure what logical fallacy that should be named, but it’s definitely a fallacy.

There are people who write about nothing other than how the Earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare. Do you call these people “Shakespearean scholars”?

And, no, I never said one had to be a believer to be a Bible scholar. One of the best today, Bart Ehrman, is an agnostic.

To extend another analogy to US politics, Gnu Atheists defending the scholarship of Richard Carrier is like Democratic muckety-mucks defending the transparency of Hillary Clinton.

Time to give PZ Myers another good swift kick

Or maybe not ... as he has avoided cranking up a petard in this case. Albeit under what seems like some version of duress, and with backhanding one of his tar babies in the process.

Update: See the bottom of this post; PZ's shown he has some ethics. Now, let's see if, in the future, he has some civility in believing that his critics may have similar ethics, at least.

The latest in PharyngulaLand, Gnu Atheist speak for la-la-land?

Well, as reported by Hement Mehta, one of Freethought Blogs other bloggers, "Avicenna," who runs A Million Gods, has been doing some serious plagiarism.

And, both he and PZ, co-owner of the whole schmeer of FTB along with Ed Brayton, have been doing a tap-dance around the truth.

Both have initially claimed that all that was being plagiarized was some hate mail.

Really?

As Mehta documents, Steve Gould, the AP, Reuters, AFP, and local newspaper reporters and editors, among others, are NOT hate mail, and not people with "burner" emails, but rather with stories posted online at actual newspaper websites.

Then, per an email exchange, Avicenna doubled down on lying through his teeth:

I have some problems with quotes markers going up and updates not going through. Also? I kind of have no reason to do this. I mean I link to even the most simple posts that I quote.

Oh and I have power cuts, the internet cuts out then and the post doesn’t update. Sometimes it reverts to older versions. Some errors may be due to that.

Yes, power in India isn't always reliable. But, for an MD making decent money, I'm sure it is. And, quote markers going up? Puhleeze. WordPress is like Blogger. All you do is highlight text that's a blockquote and click a button.

Per Mehta, here's what PZ says about any more serious allegations:

The examples cited above are seriously problematic. The executive committee at FtB is currently reviewing them. Avicenna will have an opportunity to respond, so don’t expect an instant reaction.

But, folks, don't hold your breath.

Instead, because schadenfreude's always a bitch?

Let's pile on top, because piling on top of PZ is always fun. Hey, all you far right conservatives at Minnesota-Morris? If PZ says that Avicenna's plagiarism is OK, you know what to do. Sign up for every class of his and plagiarize like hell. Then, wave PZ's blog in the face of the dean of students.

And, yes, per one commenter on Hemant's thread, somebody needs to contact the wingnuts' student newspaper at Minnesota-Morris and, if PZ defends Avicenna, invite them to plagiarize! 

So, PZ, and Ed? You're now officially "on the clock."

Because, even with some small blog, the Net caches older versions, I have struck though the grafs above, rather than deleting. 

Otherwise? Plagiarism is plagiarism; makes no matter if the "SlymePit" first started tracking it down. And, as a newspaper editor myself, I particularly don't like a bunch of this plagiarism being from newspapers. 

Finally, once more, I need to repeat this adage I created:

Atheism is no guarantor of either moral or intellectual superiority. 

Postscript:

 I'll give Ed Brayton, but not (yet?) a proper kudo now. (See, PZ, this is how it's done, even with someone you often disagree with.) Avicenna has been removed from the blogroll there.

That said, PZ — and Ed — remember that, plus my adage above. Non-Gnus, as well as Christians, even, can and do act with the same ethics on issues of plagiarism.

And, Ed still goes out of his way to backhand "SlymePit" types to some degree.

And, PZ himself has — almost as if under torture — posted as well. And, that's about what it reads like. Sorry to one of my FB friends, but, Krisjan, got to disagree with you in comments over there. I don't follow any atheist blogs, though I do look at various of them from time to time.

To the best of my knowledge, Mehta doesn't have any major anti-FtB bias. Maybe some small one; I don't know. But, I certainly don't see a major one.

Now, back to that tentative invite to the UMM student newspaper.

First, that was deliberate, knowing that PZ is Orwellian on issues of censorship and the First Amendment, and has been so with this paper.

Second, schadenfreude is the secular equivalent of karma. And, sometimes, it needs an activist push. That's no different than what SJWs would do, I think.

So, stop bitching if the shoe's on your foot and pinching. Fortunately, Pharyngulacs, this time, the guru pulled the shoe off his foot quickly enough.

What if that weren't the case? What if there is a next time? And, I guarantee you there will be. And, as with his past history with the wingnut student paper, it's usually when PZ is cranking his own petard.

There's also this.

Since that was Ed, not PZ, officially announcing Avicenna's removal, and I have no idea who if anybody besides Ed and PZ are on FtB's executive board, for all you and I know, PZ may still have opposed Avicenna's removal.

I'll take a gander at what PZ has to say himself in the next 12-24 hours.

Atheism does NOT necessarily = political liberalism

Updated November 17, 2014 to reflect more "issues" with Robert M. Price.

Christian fundamentalists, and people halfway close to them, even, have thrown around phrases like "Godless communism" for more than half a century, implying some formal link between liberal, even more left-liberal, political beliefs and religious unbelief, whether that's expressed in the form of atheism or not.

At the same time, in recent years, some Gnu Atheists like P.Z. Myers have been doing a twist of their own on that, indicated that Gnu Atheism, or true movement atheism, really is liberal, to the point that P.Z. wants to read non-liberals out of the movement (and deny that people like Sam Harris are both Gnu Atheists and neoconservatives.)

Well, proof positive that Myers is wrong comes from a leading atheist, and a leading activist atheist of sorts, to boot, at least if one counts "mythicists" (biblical scholars who believe a historic Jesus never existed) as activists.

Robert M. Price went off on Facebook with an anti-Obama screed. (Note: Price normally posts to Facebook as "public," not "friends" or "friends of friends," therefore, I am not revealing any private confidences.)

And, now, as of March 25, 2014, per the screen capture of a recent Facebook post by him, he's gone far, far beyond that. In case you can't read the print in his avatar, it says, "Never apologize for being white."

A mix of that and commenting on a Facebook site about "American White History Month" (and not even the first such site!) would indicate that, if not a full-out racist, Price is at least that genteel, pseudo-scientific creature, the racialist.

(Update: And, he teaches at a seminary named for a leader of the African-American wing of the New Thought movement. Think of a black version of Unity, and that's where he teaches. At a minimum, doubly ironic for teaching at a metaphysics-dripping seminary, and a black one to boot. At a maximum, doubly hypocritical.)

Update, March 11, 2024: I am in the middle of reading "Teaching White Supremacy," with Goodreads review coming shortly, and it, indirectly, explains more about Price's apparent racism. 

I quote, from page 22:

(Lovecraft) combines elements from racial theorists like Louis Agassiz and John H. Van Evrie and his circle with anti-immigrationist ravings and a virulent anti-Semitism that even Henry Adams could respect. While he did not live to see the full development of Nazi Germany, he had freely expressed his admiration for Adolf Hitler. Like so many American racial theorists, the misnamed f denounced miscegenation, believing that only "pain and disaster" would result from "the mingling of black and white." What lay behind his many stories is a thoroughgoing commitment to white supremacy and Black inferiority.

That pretty much says it all, eh?

Beyond that, per my original version of this post? Being selectively against democracy (Price doesn't indicate he had any problems with it when Reagan was elected) also would be an indication of some type of selective thinking.

And, given that Price believed a cock-and-bull story about an ancient statue indicates he could be a "movement atheist," an activist, even if not a Gnu, per my observation a few paragraphs above.

(Update 2: Price is an official fan/liker of Ted Cruz on Facebook, showing how far in the right-wing tank he is politically.)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Being an atheist, Gnu or otherwise, is no guarantor of critical thinking skills, or at least, no guarantor of their across-the-board application. Per that link immediately above, I've been saying that for five years or more.

Also, that last-but-one link above it, the cock-and-bull, is also an indicator that even the best-minded of mythicists (an intellectual stance I don't dismiss out of hand, but don't buy into at this moment, either) have some gaps in their intellectual rigor.

Beyond that, it shows that Price is some sort of conservative. There's plenty of libertarian atheists out there; there are also conservatives.

And, from a Redditor, where this post has gotten picked up and discussed: "PZ (Myers) is the Ann Coulter of the atheist movement. He gives both liberals and atheists a bad name." Amen to that comment. That said, per a recent post of mine, PZ is far from alone among Gnus in committing both sins.

And, speaking of, to the Redditors and others who come to this post, and poke around this blog a bit more, I'm not a conservative myself, or even close to it. I am a skeptic, a critical thinker, a secular humanist (preferred to "atheist" most the time) who is what passes for some kind of non-communist left-liberal in America of today.

But, please note that I'm a critical thinker, and one who values some type of intellectual honesty. (And for you Redditors, thank doorknob that's on an atheism group and only Gary Johnson, not Ron Paul, was mentioned. Because, in 2012 presidential campaigners, there was only one actual libertarian, and it wasn't Ron Paul, just like it won't be Rand Paul in 2016.)

PLAIN OLD CONSERVATIVE ATHEISTS

Anyway, not all non-liberal atheists are libertarians, either, contra the general tenor on the particular Reddit room, of the claims of the likes of Penn and Teller. Sam Harris, as mentioned above, is obviously a neoconservative, as Chris Hitchens, to some degree, eventually became. Robert Price is an old-fashioned paleoconservative, arguably harkening back to a pre-Reagan era of the likes of Bob Taft, before a Religious Right started its political ascent. Price's political viewpoint, though I disagree with it (and think it lacks some critical thinking) illustrates my thesis.

Another example?

George Will, perhaps. No, he's not an atheist (yet?) but he does officially identify as a "none." And, if we were to label him politically, he'd be some sort of paleoconservative.

Yet another, who I know is an atheist, and is a libertarian on at least some issues, and who is, I know, pro-life on birth issues? Nat Hentoff.

And some of us, whether atheist or not, don't fall 100 percent in the pro-choice camp, to tackle that issue head-on. I believe that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the life of a fetus when it hits a reasonable point of viability, whether that's 22 or 24 weeks. I do believe that women in most states should have easier access to abortion than they currently do before that point, and  I believe that we should restore Medicaid funding for poor women.

I also recognize that out of many conservative people's mouths, a pro-life argument only applies to unborn babies, it seems, but not others. Again, though, that's not always true, all the time. The Roman Catholic Church is the most prominent, but not the only, individual or group to be pro-life and also anti-death penalty, for example. (Of course, we have the complication of some Catholic hospitals refusing to consider fetuses as persons when there's a monetary bottom line, but that's another issue.)

And I, like many other Americans, find this a difficult issue with few "bright lines." Sloganeering by pro-lifers repells me. So, too, though, do the stances of some pro-choice people who indicate that everybody pro-life is a noob, or that pro-choice can only entail pro-choice, no exceptions, for every week of pregnancy.

Sorry, but that's not me. Basically, I'm part of the "complex, middle, conditional position" that P. Diddle mentions in this excellent post on the political science of this debate. That stance, and the percentage of people who hold to it, has probably only grown in the 40 years since Roe, grown at the expense of extremes on both ends.

Anyway, atheists don't want to be stereotyped, right? Not stereotyping others is part of that.

This has further relations to the much-lamented (by some but not all) Women in Secularism conference hosted by the Center for Inquiry. I have no doubt that women's voices are underrepresented.

I also don't doubt that conservative voices are also underrepresented. That's especially true if we ignore the neocons like Sam Harris and the libertarians like Penn and Teller. Paleocons of a Robert Price or George Will perspective are woefully underrepresented.

I say this in part because of a recent post at The Humanist by Greta Christina, one to which I will not link until whoever is moderating the Humanist's website approves my post. She was talking about Women in Secularism, and got me to start thinking about conservatives in secularism.

Also, though I'm talking specifically about atheism, and more specifically yet about Gnu Atheism, similar issues hold true for modern skepticism.

Now, I have no doubt that American-style liberalism (don't forget, Americans, that term means something else in most of the world's political lexicons outside of the US and Canada) is the majority position among both Gnu and conventional athests, as well as among skeptics, and among humanists of various metaphysical or non-metaphysical stances.

But, in all of those movements, their inner positions don't necessarily lead to those politics.

I'm using "necessary" in its logical sense. In turn, that's why I continue to say good atheists and skeptics could always stand an intro to philosophy course or two, especially one that covers the basics of logic.

I don't doubt that, the free thought and critical thinking that, theoretically, skeptics will use across the board, and that one would hope atheists, Gnu or otherwise, would, is more likely to lead to generally liberal political stances. But, again, not necessarily so.

Back to the Redditor, and the person who commented here. Sometimes, tone itself is "substance." Certain tribalist-type subgroups within atheism either don't recognize that or else refuse to accept it.