Are Anti-Trump, New Atheist Parents Abusing their Children?

According to this article, little children are scared of President-elect Trump.

Here’s a couple of examples:

Let’s be real here, shall we?  If little children are afraid of Trump, it’s very, very likely they are afraid because their parents have taught them to be afraid.  In other words, this is the likely outcome of parents indoctrinating their children with their own political views.

Now that’s just fine with me.  Republican and Democrat parents have a right to teach their children their political views.  It happens all the time.

But according to New Atheist logic, indoctrination is child abuse.  Thus, the reason these children are afraid is because their parents have been abusing them with anti-Republican and anti-Trump political rants and sermons for some time now.

And this raises the obvious question.  If New Atheists are so opposed to religious indoctrination of children, so much so they label it child abuse, do these Gnus abuse their own children with political indoctrination?

Don’t you think it’s time for New Atheist parents to start practicing what they preach?  If you are a New Atheist parent who strongly dislikes Trump, here is what you need to do over the next four years:

  1. You need to ensure your children are raised in a completely apolitical environment. Only then can they grow up and choose their own political leanings free from the influence of your views and values.
  2. To accomplish this, you must refrain from making any anti-Trump comments around your children over the next four years.
  3. You must also make sure not to watch any television network news or talk show that is heavily biased against Trump when your children are around.
  4. You cannot read any anti-Trump webpages until your children are asleep. Then, you must be sure to turn your computer off when you go to bed.
  5. Do not put any anti-Trump bumper stickers on your car nor wear any anti-Trump clothing (hats, t-shirts, etc.)

The choice is simple for the next four years.  Commit to being completely apolitical around your children or admit you abuse your children.

Of course, we all know there is not a single anti-Trump, Gnu parent out there willing to make that commitment.   For it’s not “indoctrination” that they oppose, it’s the religion that they oppose.  The “religious indoctrination is child abuse” position is not rooted in any concern about supposedly abused children.  It’s just another expression of Gnu hate and bigotry.

This entry was posted in Donald Trump, New Atheism, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Are Anti-Trump, New Atheist Parents Abusing their Children?

  1. SteveK says:

    Bravo!

  2. Crude says:

    Sharp, Mr Gene.

  3. RegualLlegna says:

    100% Correct.

  4. Norman says:

    Is this an alt-right blog? Mainstream American culture looks favorably upon the advancements in social justice made by Martin Luther King and others, while alt-righters have a dim view of social justice and use terms like “social justice warriors” or SJWs to label their opponents. Now with the Trump thing, it looks pretty alt-right. Is it? Just wondering.

  5. Kevin says:

    Norman,

    SJW is a pejorative used to describe people like feminists who complain about “manspreading”. It has nothing to do with being opposed to equality in civil rights and everything to do with people who take victimization way, way too far.

    I don’t know Michaels political positions, but this blog is to point out the hypocrisy and bigotry of New Atheism. The point of this blog post was to wonder if New Atheists who whine about parents teaching religion to children would apply the same to politics.

  6. Vy says:

    And reality strikes again, here’s a video of crazy mum chasing away her own child because he voted Trump at school.

  7. TFBW says:

    @Norman: you seem to think that it’s a bad thing to label someone as an SJW or similar, yet you freely use the pejorative label “alt-right”. What’s up with that?

  8. Norman says:

    As far as I can tell, “social justice warrior” means “A person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views.” https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/social_justice_warrior

    Kevin, do you believe that men have a right to occupy more room in public transit spaces, and that women who object to that notion are just complaining and playing victim?

    Anyhoo, the combination of Trump + SJW-talk is correlative with alt-right. I’d be curious to know how many here are supportive of or at least sympathetic to it. I rarely encounter the combination of alt-right + anti-atheism activism, so for me it’s interesting.

  9. Michael says:

    Is this an alt-right blog?

    No. Why are you trying to change the topic?

  10. FZM says:

    Anyhoo, the combination of Trump + SJW-talk is correlative with alt-right. I’d be curious to know how many here are supportive of or at least sympathetic to it.

    There’s no mention of SJWs in Michael’s post and its not about promoting Trump so what is the relevance of this?

  11. Vy says:

    Kevin, do you believe that men have a right to occupy more room in public transit spaces, and that women who object to that notion are just complaining and playing victim?

    Wasn’t gender supposed to be a “social-construct”?

  12. Norman says:

    Hello, Michael. Are you a Trump supporter? That appears to be the subtext here.

  13. TFBW says:

    If unable to respond to the text, make allegations about the subtext.

  14. Dhay says:

    Norman > Hello, Michael. Are you a Trump supporter? That appears to be the subtext here

    To find out about a blog and its author’s intentions and purposes, look at the “About” page: https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/about/

    To find what’s been posted here about Donald Trump: https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/?s=donald+trump

    The subtext is that you’re obviously fishing for something; rather than endure more of what looks like a succession of insinuations, could I please ask you to be straightforward enough to reveal what kind or kinds of White / Male / [etc — insert here] Supremacist you hope to encounter here on this blog. And why.

  15. RegualLlegna says:

    A lot of atheists online are blaming white evangelicals for Trump victory.

  16. Dhay says:

    Personally, I blame voters dissatisfied with that business-as-usual which has failed them, same as with Brexit. But this will be my last “political” response — such responses as Norman’s and this derail a blog with a very different focus, and a post with a very specific focus namely that “religious indoctrination is child abuse” position so nicely lampooned.

  17. TFBW says:

    I’d go so far as to say that indoctrinating your child into being terrified of life under Trump is worse than mild sexual abuse.

  18. Dhay says:

    A sly swipe at Richard Dawkins, I hope.

  19. TFBW says:

    Indeed.

  20. Michael says:

    Hello, Michael. Are you a Trump supporter? That appears to be the subtext here.

    Hello, Norman. Why do you keep trying to change the subject? Are you afraid to address the text?

  21. Norman says:

    Michael ~ As you are surely aware, many Republicans reject Trump. Indeed there are many reasons for having very grave concerns about him which have nothing to do with political ideology, either Republican or Democrat. For instance the expectation of having a basic level of competence and moral character is not a political ideology. The premise of the blog post rests upon overlooking those concerns or rationalizing them away, and therefore some level of Trump support is required for the argument to even get off the ground.

  22. Kevin says:

    Norman,

    Are you saying that it is okay for parents to teach / expose their children to some things that cause fear (extreme political opposition to Trump), but it is child abuse to do the same with other things (divine punishment)? If so, what is the difference?

  23. Michael says:

    The premise of the blog post rests upon overlooking those concerns or rationalizing them away, and therefore some level of Trump support is required for the argument to even get off the ground.

    Not so. The argument exists independent of Trump, as the ‘children afraid of Trump’ story simply brought it to mind. Here’s how it goes:

    If indoctrinating children is a form of child abuse, parents should remain completely apolitical around their children. Their children should be completely free to make up their own minds about the political persuasion they adopt.

  24. Norman says:

    Michael/Kevin, again, there are many reasons for having very grave concerns about Trump which have nothing to do with political ideology. I understand that you’re trying to construct an abstract argument, but that can only be done by dismissing all those concerns that even Republicans raise. Only a Trump supporter (or at least sympathizer) could accept the argument. That’s why I asked if you were one.

  25. Michael says:

    Michael/Kevin, again, there are many reasons for having very grave concerns about Trump which have nothing to do with political ideology.

    Are you trying to say it’s a bunch of angry Republicans out there protesting and rioting?

    I understand that you’re trying to construct an abstract argument, but that can only be done by dismissing all those concerns that even Republicans raise. Only a Trump supporter (or at least sympathizer) could accept the argument. That’s why I asked if you were one.

    You need to get Trump out of your head. Here’s the Trump-Free version of the argument:

    If indoctrinating children is a form of child abuse, parents should remain completely apolitical around their children. Their children should be completely free to make up their own minds about the political persuasion they adopt.

    Do you think parents have a moral duty to remain totally apolitical around their children?

  26. Eric says:

    Regardless of religious belief or non-belief, to conflate fear of President elect Pussy Grabber (PPG) as somehow synonymous with New Atheism’s perspective on education or what constitutes indoctrination is ridiculous and outs the moderator as a shallow thinker.

    You give children very little credit. They are not empty vessels. They perceive danger fairly effectively. When they perceive danger they cry. There is good reason to be fearful with this turn of events and religious belief or non-belief has nothing to do with it.

    New Atheists do not have a monopoly on the the fear inspired by PPG and this fear has nothing to do with Atheist indoctrination. Any child with intact senses, educated in basic principles of christian and human decency, honesty, civic responsibility, empathy, respect for others, equality, charity, service to others is understandably and rightfully terrified of PPG. From a purely Christian perspective he is evil incarnate, he is the personification of all the sins the naked ape must wash away to allow for salvation. PPG is a sinners sinner making a living of the seven deadly sins: Pride, Envy, Wrath, Gluttony, Lust, Sloth, Greed. He lives these fully, daily, gleefully, angrily, happily to the cheers of mostly Christian and Atheist followers alike (Peter Thiel, openly gay atheist Silicon valley crypto-fascist is on PPGs transition team). I am glad to be biased on this topic. There is no room for grey in this debacle. The situation is binary. Any decent rational (emphasis on decent AND rational) human, regardless of religious belief or non-belief, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc. either feels a deep sense of dread at PPGs ascension to power or they agree with PPG and are part of a major problem for the future of individual freedoms in America. This is a binary situation. Period. PPG has shown himself publicly and on record to be a liar, a hypocrite, a bully, a creep, a predator, a racist, an enemy of freedom and and a demagogue. The children of the entire planet have seen this monstrosity being elected and those who have not been indoctrinated in hate, violence, and hypocrisy are terrified that such an obviously despicable creep will be the leader of the most highly militarized police state on earth. If children can sense this just by witnessing the creep on TV how is it you can perceive PPGs vitriol and violence as a benign? How is it that you reduce fear of PPG to Atheist indoctrination?

    PPG embodies the negation of ALL Christian values as well as the negation of ALL Humanist values. He is a nihilist. He is the judeo-christian devil incarnate. He is a trickster demon who has possessed the faithful. He is the self-serving bully dunce atheist dictator who will stop at nothing to have his way and HIS narcissistic way is whatever whim flatters his thinned skinned ego. Spend an hour reading what he has said over the past 2 years and how he has behaved all thru his adult life and I challenge you to factually and rationally argue against these statements. His words and actions all thru his life paint the real picture of the monstrosity of this individual and gives you a glimpse of the terrifying regression to which America and the planet will likely be subject when his sycophants and courtiers feast like pigs at the trough on the remnants of American freedom, decency and dignity. If the wretched white evangelical masses of America thought things were tough pre-Trump it will be painful to watch them slowly realize just how thoroughly their willful grip on ignorance ensured they were duped by this self serving hypocrite. It will be painful to watch whats left of their dignity erode into nothingness.

  27. Talon says:

    Norman, it’s very possible to have grave doubts or concerns about a political candidate without contributing to an atmosphere of fear such as the one we saw before and just now after the 2016 election. Yes, both republicans and democrats have those who dislike Trump but the protesting, rioting and calls for Trump’s assassination have been mostly done by those with a self-identified “progressive” mindset. The “progressive’s” apocalyptic thinking creates needless fear and desperation, especially in the helpless, something most parents would try to shield their children from whether it comes from the talking heads on TV/radio or the parent’s own lips. Trump’s opponents are understandably upset but a parent’s inability to deal with such an upset constructively has negative consequences, not only do they set bad examples, they can actually terrify their children into thinking Trump will come and steal their schoolmates away in the night. In uncertain times especially, children need stability, security and parents/guardians who can answer their questions and calm their fears in a rational manner and sharing panicky political sentiment with children makes that very difficult, so Michael is correct to point that out.

    Religious teachings suggest serious, perhaps eternal spiritual consequences for immoral choices, a concern which can be argued is even more important to the child’s long term well-being than a presidential election whose impact limited in duration and scope. If Christian parents are to be chided for speaking frankly of Hell, surely parents who frighten their children with unsupported, bigoted predictions of a Trump gestapo or concentration camps can be criticized for their irresponsibility and disregard for evidence.

  28. Michael says:

    Eric: Regardless of religious belief or non-belief, to conflate fear of President elect Pussy Grabber (PPG) as somehow synonymous with New Atheism’s perspective on education or what constitutes indoctrination is ridiculous and outs the moderator as a shallow thinker.

    You are missing the point.

    For many years now, atheist activists have told us that the religious indoctrination of children is wrong and parents who do this are engaged in some form of child abuse. We have been told that religious parents need to keep their religious views in the closet around their children, as children deserve the right to choose their own religious views without being “brainwashed.”

    It turns out you can make the very same argument that merely substitutes the word “religious” with the word “political.”

    So the question then becomes whether the atheist activists, who have preached against “religious indoctrination,” are willing to practice what they preach when it comes to “political indoctrination.” Are those atheist activists doing their best to ensure their children are raised in apolitical households? If not, their whole “religious indoctrination” posture goes down in flames.

    The Trump angle exists only because the news story existed and it was the news story that triggered the connection in my mind.

    Do you now understand how nonsensical the “religious indoctrination is child abuse” argument is?

  29. TFBW says:

    @Michael:

    If not, their whole “religious indoctrination” posture goes down in flames.

    It depends how honest they’re being about their position. If they’re openly and unashamedly anti-theistic, and oppose “religious indoctrination” (e.g. a normal Christian upbringing) precisely because it’s theistic, then there’s no inconsistency in tolerating political indoctrination.

    Having said that, it’s not at all clear that someone like Dawkins comes out of it clean. His infamous quip about teaching children the doctrine of Hell being worse than “mild sexual abuse” was based on the distress the belief causes to the child. That being so, instilling any sufficiently distressing belief should qualify, and those parents who are telling their kids that Trump is about to bring about a kind of Hell on Earth are surely acting abusively by his measure.

    And where’s Dawkins in all this? On the anti-Trump hyperbole bandwagon, of course, suggesting that New Zealand should offer itself as a place of refuge from the insanity of Trump and Brexit for the scientific elite. You couldn’t make it up.

  30. Michael says:

    Eric:

    There is no room for grey in this debacle. The situation is binary. Any decent rational (emphasis on decent AND rational) human, regardless of religious belief or non-belief, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc. either feels a deep sense of dread at PPGs ascension to power or they agree with PPG and are part of a major problem for the future of individual freedoms in America. This is a binary situation. Period. PPG has shown himself publicly and on record to be a liar, a hypocrite, a bully, a creep, a predator, a racist, an enemy of freedom and and a demagogue. The children of the entire planet have seen this monstrosity being elected and those who have not been indoctrinated in hate, violence, and hypocrisy are terrified that such an obviously despicable creep will be the leader of the most highly militarized police state on earth. If children can sense this just by witnessing the creep on TV how is it you can perceive PPGs vitriol and violence as a benign? How is it that you reduce fear of PPG to Atheist indoctrination?

    How is it that you think I reduced fear of Trump to Atheist indoctrination? I simply noted that many of the children that are afraid of Trump are probably afraid because their parents are afraid of Trump. Since a large portion of this dynamic exists because of parents indoctrinating their children in their political views, I then connected this to the common New Atheist argument about religious indoctrination being child abuse.

    As for this situation being so crystal clear binary, I don’t agree. I was not a Trump supporter. Do I sound like one here? But I do value critical thinking. I am concerned about the future, but I don’t feel a a “deep sense of dread” because I don’t think Trump is “the judeo-christian devil incarnate.” Nor do I think we are “the most highly militarized police state on earth.” Nor do I think children are afraid simply because they watched a Donald Trump speech.

    I reject the notion that I am supposed to participate in the red-faced Anti-Trump Fever or I am not a decent rational human.

  31. RegualLlegna says:

    You can connect New Atheist logic about “religious indoctrination” by change the word religous for others words like “culture”.

  32. Norman says:

    Michael ~ It has everything to do with Trump. People aren’t concerned about the same old Republican agendas such as lowering taxes on the rich. That’s not what children fear. However when a presidential candidate announces a horrific plan to assemble a “deportation force” to forcibly remove 11 million undocumented immigrants from their families, and then that candidate actually gets elected, that is something to be concerned about. That is something children have a right to fear. That’s not a Republican plan. That’s not based upon Republican ideology. That’s Trump. And that’s just one example of many. Your reasoning could only make sense if were somehow able to brush off all these problems, that is, if you were a Trump supporter. Are you?

  33. Michael says:

    Sheesh. No, Norman, I am not a Trump supporter. I would think anyone who values critical thinking would be highly skeptical that Trump would be able to “forcibly remove 11 million undocumented immigrants from their families.” He got elected President, not Dictator.

    But you keep missing the point. It doesn’t have “everything to do with Trump” since the point still stands without consideration of Trump. The point has everything to do with the fact that millions of politically motivated parents indoctrinate their children in their political views.

    From here:

    Political socialization affects young children through the primary influence of their parents and often results in children inheriting their parents’ views and party affiliations. Parents are the predominant socializing factors in a young child’s development, and political orientation is one of the strongest socially-inherited traits acquired by children. Political kinships and animosities are often developed in young children long before they are capable of understanding the underlying concepts behind the political systems that they are expressing allegiance to.

    Much of the political orientation of a young child is developed indirectly and unintentionally. The child often wishes to imitate the characteristics and attitudes of the family-unit adults who are liked, supportive or respected. Because the earliest interactions in a young child’s life are with the family, which represents the most important influencing agent during the formative years, inherited political orientations can persist past the point of understanding the differences between opposing and varying systems.

    New Atheists have long argued that religious indoctrination of children is wrong. We now see that posturing has been dishonest.

    Your attempts to sidestep this point could only make sense if you were sympathetic to the New Atheist argument about childhood religious indoctrination, that is, if you were a New Atheist. Are you?

  34. Eric says:

    Michael: I agree atheist extremism like religious zealotry is nonsense. I agree atheist claims of religious teachings being child abuse are nonsense. It is assumed in a free society that as kids grow up they eventually have the opportunity to chose their own path. Whether this is the case in America today is debatable but generally assumed. Discussions of PPG have no place in a discussion of this topic because his election will likely erode and impoverish the very freedoms of that allow American citizens and otehrs to chose how they wish to live. I know debunking new atheist BS is your intent, I am fully in agreement that shutting down SJW dogma is critical to maintaining an open society. But invoking fear of PPG to counter New Atheist nonsense about indoctrination is the wrong way to do it.

  35. Norman says:

    Michael ~ Alright, so you’ve rationalized away an insane Hilterish idea from the president-elect on the grounds that he wouldn’t be able to accomplish his stated goal. We can try to reassure children that it’s going to be OK, but that won’t magically erase their fears. But your argument is that children shouldn’t be afraid in the first place, and that their fear is somehow the fault of indoctrination with ideology, and somehow connected to New Atheists. This may be the most unreasonable argument I have encountered on the Internet in a long time.

    And by the way, you know what executive orders are, right? They don’t require congress. Trump is expected to remove the executive orders on immigrants and may well implement a scaled-down version of his original plan. This is a real possibility, not something to be laughed off. Or the original plan—who knows with this loon.

    Your basic stance is that Trump is essentially OK and that all these fears are to be dismissed, as you just did with the deportation force. Since I’m a sucker for watching the incredible, I’d like to see you dismiss another of the non-partisan, non-ideological concerns about Trump. Our president-elect has, on record, bragged about sexually assaulting women. Many women have come forward stating that Trump assaulted them in the very manner that Trump bragged about, with corroborating details. Children understand more than we realize—they understand danger and they can sense dangerous people. We have words to describe such people: abusers, narcissists, predators, and so forth. And even though a child may not be able to express it in those terms, they do feel fear. This has absolutely nothing to do with political ideology or indoctrination. Absolutely nothing.

    I await your next rationalization, this time of sexual assault. Tell us about how it’s OK having sexual predator as president, after all. Let’s hear it.

  36. Kevin says:

    “But your argument is that children shouldn’t be afraid in the first place, and that their fear is somehow the fault of indoctrination with ideology, and somehow connected to New Atheists. This may be the most unreasonable argument I have encountered on the Internet in a long time.”

    Your reading comprehension is the worst I’ve seen on the Internet in a long time. Your objection here is no better than Michael saying “If we should ban guns to save children, why don’t we also ban swimming pools?” and then you demanding to know if he works at Leisure Pools. Nothing in this blog post indicates support for Trump, let alone that New Atheists are connected beyond the point he is making that you have now missed at least four times.

    “I await your next rationalization, this time of sexual assault. Tell us about how it’s OK having sexual predator as president, after all. Let’s hear it.”

    Bill Clinton is still a hero to many and is considered a great president. Wonder why these people aren’t overly concerned about sexual predators until the political ideology no longer aligns?

    Regardless, beyond baseless accusations of alt right activity, you have yet to address the central point directly and not surrounded by Trump garbage. This reminds me of the time I mentioned Obama in a hypothetical analogy, and I got dog piled by a bunch of people accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist on Benghazi, hating blacks and gay people, being against women’s rights…even though in context I only mentioned Obama in passing, as a hypothetical analogy, on the question of executive orders, but suddenly I’m the worst the right has to offer just from invoking Obama’s name on something that hadn’t even happened. I guess some people really don’t like analogies or hypotheticals, do they Norman?

    Do you believe that it is child abuse for parents to raise their children in a religious household?

  37. TFBW says:

    I don’t believe it’s a reading comprehension problem, Kevin. It’s clear that Norman is so thoroughly triggered by Trump that he can’t think rationally about any situation which uses Trump as an example. It’s just going to degenerate into a “Trump is the devil incarnate” rant no matter what the actual subject is.

  38. MP says:

    Since there have been some misunderstandings, maybe the argument should be made more explicit:
    1. Parents do not have a duty to avoid anything that gives their children an idea that election of Trump is scary. (premise, the post tries to get the reader to agree with it explicitly by challenging him to disagree – and to see that he cannot)
    2. Therefore, showing that children get scared is not a sufficient reason to avoid doing something. (from 1)
    3. At least some New Atheists claim that parents must not teach their children about hell, because that gets them scared. (premise)
    4. Therefore, this New Atheist argument does not work. (from 2, 3)

  39. Jeffrey S. says:

    This is a great post.

    Eric and Norman seem to be deliberately obtuse and refuse to accept the OP’s basic logic (which was quite simple and made perfect sense to most of us commenting here.)

    Let me just say as someone who did not support Trump and who tries to live a life as a devout Catholic, it is kind of silly (insane is the first word that came to mind) to say most of the things you say about the future Trump administration. We all have no idea exactly what it will look like and how Trump will behave as President.

    I could debate you all day with respect to some of the stuff you say, but for now, as someone who thinks the rule of law is important and that too much low-skilled immigration has been bad for this country, I welcome the deportation of lots of illegals on day one of a Trump Administration. Just because some Catholic Bishops have position X on illegal immigration, doesn’t mean that I as a layperson have to agree with their practical reasoning on this matter of public policy. I think there are many good moral arguments for enforcing our immigration laws and reducing our population of illegal immigrants. Get off your high horse and engage with those of us who have thought through these issues and are willing to engage in debate not slogans.

  40. Michael says:

    Alright, so you’ve rationalized away an insane Hilterish idea from the president-elect on the grounds that he wouldn’t be able to accomplish his stated goal.

    It’s not rationalization. It’s plain ol’ skepticism. Are you telling me you actually believe Trump is going to “assemble a “deportation force” to forcibly remove 11 million undocumented immigrants from their families?”

    But your argument is that children shouldn’t be afraid in the first place, and that their fear is somehow the fault of indoctrination with ideology, and somehow connected to New Atheists. This may be the most unreasonable argument I have encountered on the Internet in a long time.

    And your evasion of my argument is the most unreasonable evasion I have encountered in some time now. Here is what I wrote:

    “Let’s be real here, shall we? If little children are afraid of Trump, it’s very, very likely they are afraid because their parents have taught them to be afraid. In other words, this is the likely outcome of parents indoctrinating their children with their own political views.

    Now that’s just fine with me. Republican and Democrat parents have a right to teach their children their political views. It happens all the time.

    But according to New Atheist logic, indoctrination is child abuse. Thus, the reason these children are afraid is because their parents have been abusing them with anti-Republican and anti-Trump political rants and sermons for some time now.”

    Instead of evading my argument, who should a) agree the whole “religious indoctrination of children is child abuse” argument is nonsense or b) defend the notion it is okay to politically indoctrinate children, but not religiously indoctrinate them. My guess is that you don’t agree with a), but can’t defend b). So you evade.

    Your basic stance is that Trump is essentially OK and that all these fears are to be dismissed, as you just did with the deportation force.

    Did Reagan start WWIII in an attempt to bring about Armageddon? Did Bush set up a Theocracy and refuse to hand over power? My basic stance is one of skepticism. A skepticism born of having seen this movie before.

    Since I’m a sucker for watching the incredible, I’d like to see you dismiss another of the non-partisan, non-ideological concerns about Trump. Our president-elect has, on record, bragged about sexually assaulting women. Many women have come forward stating that Trump assaulted them in the very manner that Trump bragged about, with corroborating details. Children understand more than we realize—they understand danger and they can sense dangerous people. We have words to describe such people: abusers, narcissists, predators, and so forth. And even though a child may not be able to express it in those terms, they do feel fear. This has absolutely nothing to do with political ideology or indoctrination. Absolutely nothing.

    Rational people can reassure their children Donald Trump will not sneak into their bedroom at night and sexually assault them. You can even point out that we once had a sexual predator as president before and no children were harmed.


    I await your next rationalization, this time of sexual assault. Tell us about how it’s OK having sexual predator as president, after all. Let’s hear it.

    So not only is Trump going to forcibly remove 11 million undocumented immigrants from their families, he’s going to sexually assault children around the nation? Is that your belief?

  41. Norman says:

    Part of the alt-right involves what’s called a culture of trolling. It consists of saying outrageous things in order to provoke a reaction and then laughing when the reaction is elicited. I honestly can’t tell if you’re trolling or not. Maybe you’re just stupendously incompetent and can’t understand the implications of what you are saying. Maybe you’re so focused on this “New Atheism” stuff that you’re unable to process other information. Maybe you’re just trolling. In any case Eric was right when he identified you as a shallow thinker.

  42. Kevin says:

    So if someone says something to me, and I not only completely miss the point of what they said, but then use my own ignorance/incompetence as a justification to insult the other person, then that says…what, exactly? Is that the definition of trolling now?

  43. Dhay says:

    Apparently even the anti-war marches veteran Liberal Jerry Coyne is getting this kind of shit from what he terms “butthurt liberals”; his current latest post shrugs off an attack by a ‘David’ and gives him advice:

    … I’m sorry, but reader David is like a wounded bull in a corrida who wants to gore the nearest available human. People like this need to stop trying to find someone to blame for Hillary’s loss. … … And here’s the podcast referenced by Ray in his capacity as a clinical psychologist. A quote that David should take to heart.

    “Many people are expressing deep and strong, even debilitating emotions as a result of the election. In this special episode I wish to give listeners some techniques they can use to reduce their distress, while preparing to move forward in the future.”

    http://www.spreaker.com/user/drdray/077-how-to-deal-with-election-emotions

    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/11/16/in-which-i-get-blamed-for-trumps-victory/

    Hopefully the advice can be of use to Norman, too.

  44. Dhay says:

    Here’s a contemporary description of Madalyn Murray O’Hair:

    “To simply label Madalyn an atheist, racist, homophobe, anti-Semite, etc., would be a tremendous misnomer. To her dubious credit, Madalyn Mays Murray O’Hair is an equal opportunity bigot, whose loathing of humanity is evenly dispensed without partiality.”

    https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/the-forgotten-gnu/

    Looks like atheists can be alt-right, too. A famous atheist certainly has been, and Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Christopher Hitchins and Peter Boghossian have not escaped criticism for alt-right characteristics either.

  45. Dhay says:

    In the interview by Religion Dispatches of the two Atheos App managers Christine Vigeant and Sarah Paquette, both former students of Peter Boghossian and now evidently acting as spokespeople, Vigeant justifies targeting moderate Christians by telling readers:

    “A lot of times people who are moderate give cover to violent beliefs because they are using the same kind of reasoning. Moderate religious beliefs transfer over into the public sphere,” argued Vigeant, using the example of restricted reproductive rights as such a spillover effect.

    http://religiondispatches.org/atheos-review/

    I see Jerry Coyne has quoted, approvingly, the words of an ex-Muslim named Eiynah (blogs as “Nice Mangos“):

    Anyhow.. I thought it was amazing how Nick persistently challenged Gad … I’m not sure where you land on this immigration stuff but I’ve noticed a further and further right-leaning trend in the “atheist” community ..where it’s become almost normalized to single out Muslim immigrants, a trend that may have helped give rise to the alt right/white nationalist movement.

    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/nick-cohen-on-gad-saads-podcast/

    Note that Eiynah doesn’t single out the New Atheists, or any individual New Atheists such as Sam Harris, he’s noticed a further and further right-leaning trend in the “atheist” community.

    With those words of Eiynah in mind, let’s change Vigeant’s quote slightly:

    “A lot of times people who are moderate give cover to violent beliefs because they are using the same kind of reasoning. Moderate [atheist] beliefs transfer over into the public sphere,” argued Vigeant, using the example of [alt-right nationalism] as such a spillover effect.

    That is, applying Vigeant’s standard of rationality to Eiynah words, approved of by Coyne, we can conclude that the moderates in the “atheist” community are enabling alt-right nationalism.

    Of course, one might not accept Vigeant’s standard of rationality — Sam Harris has demonstrated the same moderates-enable-extremists thinking in his The End of Faith, and with Vigeant being Boghossian’s mouthpiece, presumably Boghossian shares this mentality — but it’s interesting either way.

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