Expand My Focus?

For over four years, I have focused on the New Atheist movement.  But as I have mentioned many times before, it sure looks like this movement is on the decline.   The final straw was the Reason Rally.  When the Reason Rally itself shuns the New Atheists and their message, it’s time to recognize the dwindling influence of this movement.

So I think I will expand the focus of this blog and begin using the tools of critical thinking to analyze  the “social justice” branch of the atheist movement.  This segment of atheist activism seems to be on the rise, as its message seems to receive more traction in the mainstream media and academia.  They also seem to be more media savvy and appear to have a more widely distributed team of grass roots activists to push their agenda.

So while I will keep an eye on the New Atheists and their movement, I think this other group of atheist activists deserve some attention.

Again, I should remind readers that this is not a Christian apologetics blog and I truly don’t have problems with people who are mere atheists.  I think my problem is with the activist version of radical atheism, whether it be the conventional New Atheist strain or the “social justice” strain.

So what do y’all think?  Should I just stick to New Atheism or would you be interested in seeing more discussions of the “social justice” strain of atheist activism?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in atheism, Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Expand My Focus?

  1. Kevin says:

    Ten years ago, the New Atheist movement seemed to be gaining steam and represented a potential threat. These days, the biggest threat they represent is a troll comment on a YouTube video.

    I don’t believe Atheism Plus in of itself is very potent yet, but I do know that in general the social progressive movement represents a very potent threat, not just to Christians directly but to free speech, freedom of thought, freedom of association, the traditional family, moral order…all of which do affect Christians, of course. Atheism Plus does represent a bigger threat to Christians than New Atheism simply because of the larger social progressive momentum, and they will direct it specifically at Christians.

    So for maximum positive impact, it might indeed be more beneficial to swing toward Atheism Plus, if not the entire progressive movement.

  2. Bilbo says:

    You’ve got me curious, Mike. What do you mean by the “social justice activist atheists.”

  3. TFBW says:

    The New Atheists are just a special case of super-arrogance which can stand being taken down a peg or two on a regular basis. I don’t expect that SJW Atheism will prove to be much different in that regard, particularly if they talk Diversity, Inclusion, and Empathy while enacting Censorship, Exclusion, and Hatred. Heck, anyone who thinks they can run a “Reason Rally” is fair game, atheist or not, unless they happen to be genuine exemplars of reason. And let’s not kid ourselves here: nobody has ever rallied for “reason” itself; rather, they rallied for their political ideology, which they deemed the only reasonable choice. If atheist activists can promote their “secular values” without resort to anti-religious propaganda, then let them be; if not (which is status quo), then expose them.

    Let the theme of the blog be, “shining a light on the hypocrisy, inconsistency, and propaganda of anti-theistic activists.” Call them all out on their lies, misrepresentations, and other failings, to the extent that they make them, regardless of their particular angle (Gnu, A+, whatever).

  4. Talon says:

    Bilbo, as suggested by Kevin and TFBW, I think Mike is referring to the SJW-flavored and unpopular Atheism+ movement promoted by PZ Myers and co. a few years ago. It created a bit of a schism, caused a small exodus from FreethoughtBlogs. I believe it was prompted by sexist antics like the infamous Elevatorgate and sexual harassment allegations against professional skeptic Michael Shermer.

  5. Michael says:

    You’ve got me curious, Mike. What do you mean by the “social justice activist atheists.”

    I mean something like this:

    http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/06/microaggressions-against-secular-people/

  6. TFBW says:

    Ugh. That site promotes itself as having articles on “LGBTQIA Rights”. I’m having difficulty keeping up with the extra initials that keep getting added to that term. They should just cut to the chase and start calling it EBS Rights.

    (That’s “Everything But Straight”, for those who didn’t find it immediately obvious.)

  7. Alison says:

    Since you don’t like activist atheists, naturally you also don’t like activist theists such as Christians that proselytize, right?

  8. Michael says:

    Since you don’t like activist atheists, naturally you also don’t like activist theists such as Christians that proselytize, right?

    Right. Are you someone who doesn’t like activist theists, but cheers activist atheists?

  9. Michael says:

    It’s going to be tricky navigating this terrain. First, I need a new descriptor. I’ve used the term New Atheist and Gnu in the past out of respect for the many atheists/agnostics who are not Gnus. I’m thinking of just using SJA for social justice atheists. Second, I think many SJA overlap with New Atheism. When Dawkins or Harris go off on one of their anti-Christian tirades, I suspect many SJA cheer (even if silently). It some regards, there might even be more intellectual integrity among the Gnus. For the Gnus make a somewhat better effort at being “anti-religious.” The SJAs seem to be more anti-Christian while trying to posture as if they are not so parochial.

  10. Jeff says:

    Critical thinking around social justice sounds dangerous and will probably upset some people. Go for it!

  11. Alison says:

    Have you made any posts complaining about activist theists? Christian evangelizing, for instance, is quite popular in America and around the world, so there’s no dearth of material there. Or were you being sarcastic when you said “Right”?

    My answer to your question is that I don’t care what beliefs and hobbies people choose to engage in, as long as they don’t seek to use the government to push their beliefs on others.

  12. Michael says:

    Have you made any posts complaining about activist theists?

    Of course not. Let me guess. You are going to try to make the point that I am hypocritical, right? Give it your best shot.

    Christian evangelizing, for instance, is quite popular in America and around the world, so there’s no dearth of material there. Or were you being sarcastic when you said “Right”?

    Evangelism is not the same as activism. If atheists want to evangelize, I say go for it. It just makes for a humorous illustration when it comes to time to atheists getting mad about people perceiving them as religious.

    My answer to your question is that I don’t care what beliefs and hobbies people choose to engage in, as long as they don’t seek to use the government to push their beliefs on others.

    That’s a deflection, not an answer. Look, I think we both know why you evaded my question – you don’t like theist activists, but cheer atheist activists. Perhaps you even consider yourself a proud, atheist activist. Whatever the case, it appears you have come to this blog to accuse me of hypocrisy, yet apparently your own hypocrisy is privileged. Nevertheless, from a position of hypocrisy, you accuse me of hypocrisy. I think that is called hypocrisy-squared.

  13. TFBW says:

    Alison said:

    I don’t care what beliefs and hobbies people choose to engage in, as long as they don’t seek to use the government to push their beliefs on others.

    So you’re against political activism in general? Because “activism” is all about people pushing their beliefs on society at large via legislation and any other available means, right?

  14. Crude says:

    Mike,

    I think expanding your focus may work out. New Atheism really does seem to have crashed and burned. But if you do start to talk about Atheism+, I have one suggestion.

    Emphasize to the irreligious the failures of New Atheism. A lot of atheists despise the SJW atheists, Atheism+, etc. But they were heavily responsible for those phenomenons. If you emphasize that, I wonder if you may not be able to do better than highlight their failures, but actually give them a reason to reject New Atheism and anti-theism in a way that may actually change their minds.

  15. John says:

    Wait, does this mean you may actually respond to arguments for same-sex marriage that try to label those who disagree with them as homophobic bigots as well?

    If so, that would be very nice, or even needed for some lesser experienced people out there who deal with such accusations of bigot/hater/homophobe and whatnot.

    But I’m also curious whether or not you are going to voice your opinion on the entire same-sex marriage debate as well.I know you don’t want to turn this blog into an apologetics site, but I’m still wondering.

    I’m also wondering about your opinions on the elections which you stated you might blog about.

    If so, then I think that the elections might not ensure the final death of New Atheism yet, as Donald Trump seems to have a bigger chance of winning rather than Hillary (who’s the most likely candidate rather than Sanders)

    Unless, of course, Donald Trump’s opinions and ideas are such that New Atheists cannot easily find a way to view them as purely religious or motivated by religious ideas (Mehta seems to admit Trump isn’t really useful as a common enemy of sorts because his bad ideas aren’t bad because of religion) and thus use him as a common enemy to prolong the shelf-life of New Atheism for a bit longer.

  16. Alison says:

    Michael, sorry but I still cannot tell if you are being sarcastic. You don’t like activist theists such as Christians that proselytize, right? You said “Right” earlier. Did you mean it?

  17. Michael says:

    Michael, sorry but I still cannot tell if you are being sarcastic. You don’t like activist theists such as Christians that proselytize, right? You said “Right” earlier.

    My original answer was focused on your assertion (activist theists) and not your example (such as…). To make it crystal clear, I don’t like theist activists, but do recognize that activism is not the same as proselytizing.

    Did you mean it?

    See above. Now, you claimed to have answered my question when you did not. That was dishonest. Are you typically dishonest?

  18. Alison says:

    You’re saying that a Christian who goes out proselytizing is not an example of an activist theist? This is an idiosyncratic understanding of the meaning of words that few if any individuals would agree with.

    To make my previous answer to your previous question crystal clear, I have nothing against atheist activists or theist activists as long as they don’t try to get the government to take their side. They’re welcome to have a ball with whatever they’re doing, but they can’t infringe on my liberty.

  19. Bilbo says:

    Mike, I read the article that you linked to. What do you find objectionable in it?

  20. Michael says:

    You’re saying that a Christian who goes out proselytizing is not an example of an activist theist?

    Yep. The Christian, out of a sense of religious duty, is preaching the Gospel in the hope of “saving souls.” They are focused on individuals as the end – someone else receiving the salvation offered through Christ. The activist, out of a sense of political duty, tries to manipulate the environment to further their cultural/political agenda. They view individuals as a means to an end – something to be manipulated in order to further their culture war. Look at it this way. When a Christian proselytizes, they aren’t constantly looking for the media camera in the hope of getting good publicity for their efforts. The activist, on the other hand, contantly yearns for good press as they try to advance their narrative.

    This is an idiosyncratic understanding of the meaning of words that few if any individuals would agree with.

    That’s your opinion. While you may personally believe proselytizing and activism are the same thing, you ought not pretend to be speaking for anyone other than yourself.

    To make my previous answer to your previous question crystal clear, I have nothing against atheist activists or theist activists as long as they don’t try to get the government to take their side. They’re welcome to have a ball with whatever they’re doing, but they can’t infringe on my liberty.

    Interesting. So you have problems with the recent Reason Rally, not only where leaders of the FFRF (who constantly try to get their government to take their side) spoke and promoted themselves, but one of the agendas of the rally was to organize atheists to help them to get the government to take their side.

  21. Michael says:

    Mike, I read the article that you linked to. What do you find objectionable in it?

    Sounds like a post for Monday.

  22. Doug says:

    Michael, I’ll grant all the reasons for the “expansion of focus”, but (not that it matters) I expect that I will not pay much attention to any attempts to address the SJA phenomenon. Why? Well, at least it was entertaining to watch the purportedly-rational Gnus discover that their entire schtick was paper-thin, rationally. The SJA crew make no pretence about being rational. For them it is all about feeling. And rhetoric. And insult. And shaming. You can attempt to engage them if you like, but you shouldn’t expect much rational discourse, and you should expect considerable nastiness.

  23. Michael says:

    Crude,

    Emphasize to the irreligious the failures of New Atheism. A lot of atheists despise the SJW atheists, Atheism+, etc. But they were heavily responsible for those phenomenons. If you emphasize that, I wonder if you may not be able to do better than highlight their failures, but actually give them a reason to reject New Atheism and anti-theism in a way that may actually change their minds.

    I doubt any minds will be changed (you’d have to be dealing with an open one for that to occur). But yes, it is interesting to note that A+ atheism is simply a strain or offshoot of New Atheism, thus most of the critiques of New Atheism will apply to the A+ strain. Prior to elevatorgate, the A+ crowd was quite thrilled to hate on Christians. The SCA appear to be upset with the Gnus because the latter won’t keep the hate focus on Christians. All of it sounds like fascinating material to explore.

  24. Michael says:

    John,

    Wait, does this mean you may actually respond to arguments for same-sex marriage that try to label those who disagree with them as homophobic bigots as well?

    I’m not interested in arguing social issues, as that would too greatly blur the focus of this blog. But we could look at that issue from the angle of atheist activism – for example, how does it advance the atheist activist narrative to demonize and hate on Christians?

    If so, that would be very nice, or even needed for some lesser experienced people out there who deal with such accusations of bigot/hater/homophobe and whatnot.

    I’m no expert. I would simply note that such accusations are intended to manipulate and control. And if you are a Christian, sooner or later you will be demonized as a bigot regardless of your views on SSM. After all, isn’t the latest litmus test for “bigotry” one’s views about who should use the woman’s public bathroom? The way to deal with the finger-pointing and accusations is to step back and use critical thinking to analyze what’s happening.

    I’m also wondering about your opinions on the elections which you stated you might blog about.

    I’ll try to get to that. The election results, either way, spell more problems for the New Atheist movement. But I think what will truly trigger the “final death of New Atheism” is the passing away of Richard Dawkins. When that happens, what’s left of the New Atheist movement? The only “horseman” still making noise is Sam Harris, and I predict his next book will promote some aspect of animal rights.

  25. Michael says:

    Doug,

    Michael, I’ll grant all the reasons for the “expansion of focus”, but (not that it matters) I expect that I will not pay much attention to any attempts to address the SJA phenomenon. Why? Well, at least it was entertaining to watch the purportedly-rational Gnus discover that their entire schtick was paper-thin, rationally. The SJA crew make no pretence about being rational.

    From what I can tell, they do. At least when it comes to their atheism. That is, they use the same “show me the evidence” posture to prop up their sense of intellectual superiority. But what should make them even more entertaining is not only do they posture with a sense of intellectual superiority, but add to that a sense of self-righteous, moral superiority. From what I can tell thus far, that schtick is no less paper thin.

    Keep in mind I am not switching focus. I will still blog about the Gnus; I’m just expanding the focus. The problem is that with the Gnus, I focused on their “big guns” – Dawkins, Harris, Coyne, Krauss, etc. With the SJAs, I don’t see any “big guns.”

    For them it is all about feeling. And rhetoric. And insult. And shaming. You can attempt to engage them if you like, but you shouldn’t expect much rational discourse, and you should expect considerable nastiness.

    I make no plans on engaging them. I will simply blog. Of course, some might show up to engage me. And I will treat them the same as many Gnus over the years – allow them plenty of opportunity to air their complaints and arguments. But if they continue to ignore the points I raise, ignore my questions, and try to reframe my views in straw man terms, then I will ban them. Being willing to walk the extra mile does not mean being willing to forever turn a blind eye to disrespectful dishonesty.

  26. TFBW says:

    Alison said:

    You’re saying that a Christian who goes out proselytizing is not an example of an activist theist? This is an idiosyncratic understanding of the meaning of words that few if any individuals would agree with.

    Do you really view Christian proselytising as political activism? Do you really think that it’s primary intention is to bring about political or social change? If so, you are viewing the world through distinctly politically-tinted glasses. Or perhaps through atheist-tinted glasses, since atheists can have no other reason to proselytise, except perhaps self-validation. I’ve never encountered a church which viewed evangelism as a political thing, even if the church also engaged in some kind of political activism. The purpose of sharing the gospel with people is not to effect change in society, but to fulfil the Great Commission, continuing Christ’s work of finding lost people and saving them.

    If a Christian is proselytising for politically-motivated reasons, they’re doing it wrong.

  27. Crude says:

    Michael,

    I doubt any minds will be changed (you’d have to be dealing with an open one for that to occur). But yes, it is interesting to note that A+ atheism is simply a strain or offshoot of New Atheism, thus most of the critiques of New Atheism will apply to the A+ strain.

    Actually, I think you may be surprised. There’s still a lot of ragey New Atheists, but I wonder if the fact that New Atheism was taken over and supplanted by a pretty fierce bunch of blasphemy-stompers (the SJWs) won’t give many of them pause about whether their attitudes about a religion-free world were well-rooted.

  28. TFBW says:

    Such reflection is highly uncharacteristic of New Atheists, Crude. In fact, any New Atheist who manages to reflect upon the matter with that perspective has practically left the Cult of Gnu just by doing so.

  29. Alison says:

    The word “political” in front of “activist” was not part of the original post. It was only introduced later. Proselytizing is a kind of activism, but not (usually) political activism. Sure, I can accept the distinction between the public sphere of political activism and the private sphere of proselytizing. No problem.

    I had assumed that you are an American and would recognize my reference to the Establishment Clause of the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This covers the entirety of my point. Theist activists may be prone to violate the first part of the Establishment Clause; atheist activists the second.

    Over the years there have been a number of cases which were found to be violations of the Establishment Clause by theist activists, for instance the Dover trial. Are there any atheist activists that seek to prohibit the free exercise of religion? I’m not aware of any, not at the “Reason Rally” or anywhere else. Are you?

  30. Kevin says:

    http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/05/24/atheist-loses-lawsuit-church-can-never-sue/

    This one just hit the news recently so it was fresh in my mind. By your definitions, Alison, every time a court upholds that the Establishment Clause was violated, it is because of theist activists. Thus, we can conclude that every time a complaint regarding the Establishment Clause is tossed, that it is atheist activists overstepping their bounds. Correct?

    Or is this another case of holding different groups to different standards?

  31. TFBW says:

    Alison said:

    The word “political” in front of “activist” was not part of the original post.

    Try dictionary.com, which says the following.

    the doctrine or practice of vigorous action or involvement as a means of achieving political or other goals, sometimes by demonstrations, protests, etc.

    I think you’re confusing “activism” with mere “activity”. If you have a problem with theists engaging in activity, then I have nothing to say to you. Actually, since you’ve gone all “establishment clause” on us, I think it’s about time to write you off as a crank, for my part at least. Maybe someone else wants to deal with that stale old chestnut.

  32. Dhay says:

    Alison > Are there any atheist activists that seek to prohibit the free exercise of religion? I’m not aware of any, not at the “Reason Rally” or anywhere else. Are you?

    Richard Dawkins (who was a speaker to the Reason Rally) Peter Boghossian and Susan Blackmore have each called religion a mind virus, and Boghossian would like religiosity included as a delusion in the DSM diagnostic criteria.

    There’s discrimination against openly religious students by elite universities, ie don’t freely exercise your religion or we won’t educate you. Check the responses of atheist activists KIA and Larry Olsen, who agree this is fully justified.

    https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/do-elite-universities-discriminate-against-christians/

    Jerry Coyne and Sam Harris (and others) have campaigned for discrimination against Francis Collins being appointed as head of the NIH.

    That you should be unaware of atheist activists railing against children being brought up in a religion astonishes me; some say children should be removed from religious parents; atheist activist AtheistMax recently told Michael that “Your parents should be arrested for indoctrinating such fear in you.” (Not that I have detected any fear in Michael myself, so AtheistMax was surely projecting that; nor had AtheistMax been given any idea whether Michael’s parents had raised him religious, or were religious themselves.)

    https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/4-dawkins-admits-nothing-can-persuade-him-god-exists/#comment-10669

    To me (British, note) this looks very much like atheist activists seeking to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

  33. Crude says:

    TFBW,

    Such reflection is highly uncharacteristic of New Atheists, Crude. In fact, any New Atheist who manages to reflect upon the matter with that perspective has practically left the Cult of Gnu just by doing so.

    I agree. I’m airing the possibility that the current situation may make some of them leave it. Some do exactly that at times – I remember Jerry Coyne had a certain favorite atheist philosopher/theologian who ended up leaving the whole thing behind. Atheist+ atheists basically left the core New Atheist claim out.

    I suspect New Atheists are a little shaken up by how events have turned out. Sweden went from ‘atheist utopia’ to ‘SJW Hellhole’ in some of their minds, but they’re reluctant to make the connection. The rise of the SJWs has coincided with the fall of New Atheism, and those SJWs are very often explicitly Atheism+ atheists. Add in the fact that the loudest voices fighting those SJWs are often Christians, and I think you have something that New Atheists will be forced to grapple with.

    This isn’t about making theists out of them, but making a New Atheist see why New Atheism fails is a whole other ballgame.

    Either way, just my suggestion. I trust Mike to choose what he will, he’s absurdly skillful.

  34. Alison says:

    Well I meant to ask if there is any organized effort by atheists to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Certainly it is easy to find a handful of kooks in the world that are doing weird stuff, from the guy who wants to marry his laptop to the guy who thinks building a cross violates his rights. Obviously the latter wouldn’t get support from the FFRF, the ACLU, or any such organization.

    Contrast this with Dover, where substantial resources by well-funded organizations went into supporting the blatant Establishment violation of teaching creationism in high school. Here activist theists were using government, the Dover school board, to push their religious agenda. One of the board members had even been encouraging others to “take a stand” for Jesus.

    Apart from the guy who got smacked down by a judge for wrongly thinking that building a cross violates his rights, the peanut gallery here doesn’t appear to offer an example of atheists using the government to prohibit the free exercise of religion. What I do see are examples of people holding opinions. I have no problem with people holding opinions that differ from mine, do you? I only care about them using the government to push them on others, as cdesign proponentsists in Dover did with “breathtaking inanity”.

  35. Ryan says:

    Bilbo,
    [i]Mike, I read the article that you linked to. What do you find objectionable in it?[/i]

    The problem to me is that “micro” aggressions are treated with “macro” attention. It’s like if someone were to explicitly describe something as a “molehill” and then proceed to treat it as a “mountain”. If they are truly “micro” as the name implies, then why spend so much time and energy on them?

  36. Ryan says:

    I forgot how to do italics.

  37. Kevin says:

    Alison,

    Given that the vast majority of schools are already not allowed to teach religion or religious material, exactly what form do you think these atheist activists – who represent far too small of a population to effectively influence laws – would take?

    Now imagine if the people Michael quoted – the leaders of New Atheism – had substantial voting power. Do you honestly believe that it would be good for Christians to have laws written by anti- Christian bigots?

    If we don’t see numerous examples of atheist activists suppressing religion, it’s because of their tiny numbers, not because of their good intentions.

  38. Bilbo says:

    Ryan,

    Try “”.

  39. Bilbo says:

    Whoops. Okay, try “>” and “<", only in reverse.

  40. Michael says:

    Alison: The word “political” in front of “activist” was not part of the original post. It was only introduced later.

    I didn’t do this. I simply explained: “The activist, out of a sense of political duty, tries to manipulate the environment to further their cultural/political agenda.” As I see it, an activist is inherently political. For they are closely related to politicians and lobbyists. Hopefully you can now understand that by not liking activists, I am not in anyway obligated to feel the same about religious evangelists.

    The whole issue of “atheist activists” is actually quite an interesting one to consider. When you consider the common rhetoric of atheists about such things as “evidence” and “faith,” and were to take it seriously, the whole idea of an “atheist activist” should be a contradiction. But more on that another time.

    Proselytizing is a kind of activism, but not (usually) political activism.

    That’s how you view it. I don’t agree.

    Sure, I can accept the distinction between the public sphere of political activism and the private sphere of proselytizing. No problem.

    Good. So then you acknowledge there is no problem with anything I wrote?

    I had assumed that you are an American and would recognize my reference to the Establishment Clause of the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This covers the entirety of my point. Theist activists may be prone to violate the first part of the Establishment Clause; atheist activists the second.

    Over the years there have been a number of cases which were found to be violations of the Establishment Clause by theist activists, for instance the Dover trial. Are there any atheist activists that seek to prohibit the free exercise of religion? I’m not aware of any, not at the “Reason Rally” or anywhere else. Are you?

    I was responding to your attempt to clarify things:

    To make my previous answer to your previous question crystal clear, I have nothing against atheist activists or theist activists as long as they don’t try to get the government to take their side. They’re welcome to have a ball with whatever they’re doing, but they can’t infringe on my liberty.

    So you are now saying atheists should try to get the government to take their side because atheists best understand how to interpret the First Amendment?

    As for atheist activists that seek to prohibit the free exercise of religion, I never claimed they were. They don’t have the numbers for such a move yet. They are more focused on a) expanding their ranks while b) demonizing/mocking Christians. Any effort to curtail religious freedom would have to come down the road. But it would seem the groundwork is slowly being laid. A common talking point among atheist activists is that churches should be taxed. Do you agree? Also, several atheist activists have likened a religious upbringing to child abuse. Activist Jerry Coyne has said, ” it should be illegal to indoctrinate children with religious belief.” Do you agree?

  41. TFBW says:

    Sense of proportion alert: the Dover Trial (caveat lector: assume tremendous anti-creationist bias in Wikipedia), over which Alison is having such a conniption, happened in 2005 (i.e. more than a decade ago). It resulted in the school board’s actions being overthrown, all members of that board resigning (some resigned in protest over the issue in the first place), and none of them being re-elected. The judgement itself contained questionable elements of judicial over-reach (not beyond accusations of anti-creationist activism on the part of the judge, which would be a far more serious violation of the establishment clause if true), but basically the system worked as designed, and was settled at the lowest level of the courts.

    Does this reek of clear and present “Imminent Theocracy” danger to anyone except the most hair-trigger theophobe for whom Darwinism is the ultimate sacred cow?

  42. stcordova says:

    I’d like to see a little more about the social justice strain and feminist angle of atheism!

    Here is an example that is disturbing as it now is starting to pollute even the harder sciences:
    http://senr.osu.edu/about-us/events/glaciers-gender-and-science-toward-feminist-glaciology

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s