God buys a bus ad
Oh how sweet – theists (or am I supposed to call them people of faith?) are so caring and concerned and helpful. There is this terrible atheist bus ad campaign in Fort Worth, Texas, saying that lots of Murkans are good without god – no I don’t know how such a thing could be allowed, but it was, and as much as 4 buses are carrying this horrible malicious insulting ad, and the concerned helpful Christians of FW have pitched right in and paid for a van to follow that bus around and counterdickt it. That’s good because of course as the nice woman with the giant torture device around her neck says, the bus ad is an insult to Christians.
The ad on the van is so sweet: it just says “I still love you” and signs it “God” – iddn that sweet? They could have had it say something hateful, but no, they’re bettern that, they just reach out to those poor benighted twisted bastards and say God still loves’em. They turn the other cheek, you know? The Atheists are so malicious and mean, saying it’s possible to be good without God, but the Christians don’t pay them back, they just follow them around and nag them as long as the money holds out.
He does? Really? I’ve waited so long. I think I’m gonna …………………. cry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZBUb0ElnNY
Please don’t stop. Ever.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Skeptic South Africa, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: God buys a bus ad http://dlvr.it/9x16b […]
I’d chip in to pay for a little car—to follow the Christian van—with a sign that says “[Citation needed.]”
And after that a marching band and some baton twirlers.
I just drove about 3000 miles across the go ol USA and saw at least 1000 bible thumpin billboards insult my intelligence. By the time we reached San Diego I wanted to put up a few ads of my own. These intolerant sky fairy worshippers are pathetic.
I can just see it happening – atheist with lots of spare time because they aren’t going to church get in their cars and smoothly pull in behind the bus, let the cars of fellow atheists pull in front of them with as a result a whole convoy of cars behind the bus followed eventually by the van. Then the cars following the bus pull up at the bus stop to let in fellow human beings travel for nowt as proof that atheists love their fellow man. It is merely a question of time before we see angry drivers fight to get their cars and vans into the preferred slot behind the bus, and then that the bus, or the van, or the atheist cars, get police protection.
If I was God, I would laugh to see such foolishness.
They seem genuinely not to comprehend that they had so many billboards up first and therefore see an atheist one as an unprovoked attack requiring some kind of response.
God Rage?
Is this not an example of the deep underlying conflict between religion (Christianity) and non-religion. We have to put up with evangelising Christians pushing their beliefs in our face, erecting buildings in the name of God, numerous billboards, pamphlets, books and lots of interference in areas such as politics, science, art, but a few blasphemous atheists get together and push their message, and no, that’s an insult to Christianity, that’s atheists being too strident!
My solution is: we get louder, and Christians get so damn used to our message, that, they’ll become desensitised to it. It’s not a big deal, it’s a group of atheists using their natural given right to speak.
I won’t shut up. I’m just going to get LOUDER.
This is precisely what we’re doing. And, to cross threads for a moment, it’s exactly why the accomodationist line is counter-productive, because its aim is to permit believers to go on believing that they have a right to go about their business without ever having to encounter the notion that there are normal, good and moral people out there who think religious belief is false. They’re never going to get used to us being an equal part of the marketplace of ideas if they never hear our voices saying what we think is true and false. Raising our voices is the fast track to acceptance, keeping them low is nothing but reinforcement of the unequal status quo.
Stewart@7: It’s their martyr mode. Somehow they can’t be xians unless they’re also victims. No one’s throwing them to lions these days (at least in the US), so they have to make do with imaginary victimhood. Self-awareness isn’t their strong suit.
Believe me, I take your point, I see the absurdity of the response to the bus ads, but could you please maybe ridicule these people without making fun of the way they speak?
There are intelligent southerners, and some of them are atheists. In fact, southern and bible belt atheists probably have a much harder row to hoe than those in regions of the country that aren’t so firmly in the grip of unthinking, benighted belief.
The atheists who arranged for the bus ads probably speak the same way as the Christians in the vans. Equating southern speech with the knee-jerk God squad just lays another burden on those of us who already have to deal with a world of unthinking people who assume a southern accent correlates with an empty cranium.
Mary Ellen
Well said.
Mary Ellen, who is making fun of the southern accent on this thread?
I’m not from the US but I can usually distinguish the accents and I cant see any obvious mockery of the accent going on here.
Maybe you know bettern I do, Sigmund. I wouldn’t want to counterdickt you.
I’m English too, and fail to see any mockerydom going on, even though I have no problem with mockery, the more the merrier. We English love to mock accents, take for example the sitcom Allo! Allo! Which is a relentless tirade of mockery of all sorts of foreign and domestic accents. It’s all in good spirits.
Lets not tone troll, especially when there is no reason for it. Tone trollism only leads to “shut up you’re not nice” or otherwise censorship of any criticism, especially when it us unfounded. We’re not accommodationists are we? And we’re certainly not haters.
Also, may I add that I love southern literature. Margarett Mitchell, Harper Lee, Hamlin Garland, Carson McCullers.
postscript — Though I felt I had to stick up for southern-speakers, I also don’t want this to be a Big Deal. Ophelia, were there any angels, would be on the side of them.
Can’t get too excited about this except to chuckle a bit at the desperation.
If anything the van will bring more attention to the bus sign by people who wouldn’t have noticed.
Mary Ellen
I feel bad now, because I keep thinking you must be fed up with people saying ‘Where’s John-boy?’ to you.
I enjoyed your blog, though, but, coming as I do from southern England (hi neighbour!), would you mind not pointing out the delightful way we say ‘samwidge’ instead of ‘sandwich’ :-).
To explain the mockery comment: it is common practice in American TV and filmdom to indicate a character who is ignorant, intolerant, and shiftless by having him speak in a fake Southern accent. As a result, real Southerners must lose the drawl in order to be accepted as educated, tolerant and trustworthy.
A cowboy drawl, which is slightly different, conveys common sense born of hard-working experience.
they may turn us over to “our island correspondent”; it took me months (okay, maybe I’m a little slow) to realize that they were saying “our Ireland correspondent”.
Maybe it’s a Freudian slip, Mary Ellen.
You know, Ophelia, you’re arguments would garner more sympathy if you hadn’t made fun of the american accent and tried to imply, therefore, that those individuals paying for the god-bus were irretrievable simple and rednecked.
Do you have any idea whatsoever how ridiculous and pretentious a british accent sounds to us here in N. America? Below are some ‘mormon’ girls spoofing YOU.
http://austenacious.com/?p=1727
If a group of individuals get together and ante-up for a god-bus, what does it even matter?
By the tone of your article, you come across as being threatened, as though your faith in atheism is weak and brittle?
Finally, I think the fellow being interviewed is quite sympathetic and “humpy”. An atheist gal would do good to bag a guy like him.
If Ophelia is mocking anyone here surely it is religious people who are being mocked, not Southerners or Newfoundlanders or the denizens of Penge.
The response of religious people to atheist ads is similar to the response that atheist books have prompted. The responses are immediate, somewhat puerile, and reveal almost a sense of panic. Ignoring your opponent can be an act of strength. Mirroring your opponent is almost always an act of weakness.
Dawkins wrote The God Delusion, and prompted a series of religious polemics with ‘delusion’ in the titles, the strangest one being The Dawkins Delusion, for, whatever you might say about Dawkins, he’s not a delusion, though he may be some religious believers’ worst nightmare! But the mirroring showed just how desperate the religious were to respond to something that they perceived as very dangerous to religious faith.
To hire a van to follow buses bearing atheist slogans is clearlly an act of desperation. What else could it be? The message may be anondyne, but by promulgating it in the way that they are, it really amounts to shouting. It’s a bit like CAPITAL LETTERS IN AN EMAIL OR BLOG POST. You have to remember, every time you think about religion, that religious groups are really quite isolated. They’re ingrown, incestual almost. They only hear themselves talking — that’s why they have this idea that other beliefs are easy to defeat. They defeat them all the time when they get together. But they do it for themselves, and among themselves. But when someone comes out and says something publicly that they are in a sense forced to listen to, it’s very worrying. How worrying? Well, worrying enough that they don’t want the atheist message to stand out there all alone. When someone sees the atheist message, the next message they want them to see is the Christian one. There’s an awful lot of angst mixed up in that.
sorry about that ‘incestual’ — which should, of course, be ‘incestuous’. The proof readings of amateurs gang aft agley.
Hah, love it.
I would say Mary Ellen’s concerns are noted (although I am surrounded in the workplace here in the mitten) but for real tone trolling #21 is a pretty good example.
By the tone of your article, you come across as being threatened, as though your faith in atheism is weak and brittle?
Ayup…
Excellent point, Eric, and on the mark. And to thoughtful, uncommitted people with brains capable of independent thought, I’ll bet that the ‘angst’ you mention is quite obvious.
Do you have any idea whatsoever how ridiculous and pretentious a british accent sounds to us here in N. America? Below are some ‘mormon’ girls spoofing YOU.
Sauder, OB is American.
Us meaning, who exactly? I gather that you cannot hardly speak for all North Americans?
“but for real tone trolling #21 is a pretty good example.”
Yeah, well I’m presenty drEEnking a glAHss of WAAHTAAH
Whilst adjusting mon chapeau melon!
I’ve no problem with people pointing out A ( as in ONE) pro-christian bus, but if you want to promote secularism, then perhaps more attention should be paid to the Saudi financed pro islam ads on city buses. You know, the ones that state:”Got questions? Islam has the answers”.
From what I understand they’re being run in Chicago and New York and will soon be running in other U.S. cities as well.
And there’s a helluva lot more than just one of ’em.
But in that department, the only secularist doing any heavy lifting is comedian Pat Condell.
“Sauder, OB is American.”
I hadn’t realised that.
Americans who mock the southern drawl tend to be dyed-in-the-wool, New England Yankees.
Yup, as I suggested the other day, tone trolling, or tone trolling spoofing (I can’t tell which is which) will likely appear here and perhaps a sock puppet or ten (or sock puppet spoofing?), with the intention of disrupting Ophelia’s blog.
I think most of us know the difference between genuine criticism and bogus criticism, and so spoof or not, bogus criticism is not welcome.
Have you been following the ‘You know it’s a myth’ billboard put up by American Atheists outside Lincoln Tunnel in NJ?
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/26/atheist-billboard-christmas-is-a-myth/
A Catholic group put up a competing one (there’s got to be a picture somewhere) with a Joseph character that looks amazingly like Dave Silverman of AA. Dave then adopted the image from that billboard as his Facebook avatar..
Catholics Fire Back At Atheists In Billboard Battle – CBS New York
1 Dec 2010 … NEW YORK (CBS 2/1010 WINS) – An atheist group struck first. … The Catholic League said it came from an anonymous donor who put up the cash ….. This ad seems like a slap in the face that they had to put up the ad now! …newyork.cbslocal.com/…/catholics-fire-back-at-atheists-in-billboard-battle/ – Cached
Eric:
Right. It never even occured to me that “bettern” and “counterdickt” were intended to poke fun at Southern accents. I thought it was more like babytalk (like “prwecious widdle feewings”), a spoof on the abject childishness of the Christians and their van. I guess I wasn’t looking hard enough for something by which to be offended.
Sauder:
Except when they’re not, right? The comedian David Cross, native of Georgia and atheist, makes damn near half of his stand-up act a spoof on Southern accents. When I lived in the South, the people who made fun of Southern accents the most were other Southerners who were fed up with each other. I actually think many Southerners resent and stereotype Northerners as much if not more than “dyed-in-the-wool New England Yankees” resent and stereotype them. (The very locution “dyed-in-the-wool New England Yankee” suggests a certain Civil War-inspired resentment toward Northerners that is not at all reciprocated by people in the North: nobody in the North even thinks about the damn Civil War.) So let’s not pretend that people in the South aren’t given to the same sort of stereotyping of “yankees” (which, once again, I don’t think Ophelia was engaging in).
Mary Ellen, I take your point, but I suppose I thought I was doing it more or less in the spirit of Molly Ivins. She wasn’t above teasing Texas idiolect! But no doubt it’s more becoming in a Texan – but then how does anyone know I’m not a Texan?
I could start spelling “better” as “bedder” all the time, because that’s how I pronounce it.
@34
The issue is how do people in the South use the term now. Is it a term of affection and admiration? Or is it more like a pejorative, one tinged with a certain moral condescension?
Also – if you look in News – you’ll see I gave a shout-out to the great southern state of Louisiana yesterday, via the great citizen of Louisiana Barbara Forrest.
Just stick Ophelia’s article into the ebonics generator (http://joel.net/ebonics/translator.asp) and to hell with it! I don’t know, it has a certain poetic element to it, and of course, so malicious an’ mean:
Sauder…I’m pretty sure I’ve asked you this before, but I don’t think you’ve answered – do you seriously think I don’t do enough criticism of Islamism and Islam here? If so, have you taken any trouble to investigate? Have you plugged anything at all into the search engine?
And here I thought “counterdickt” was a reference to Phil Plait.
”Got questions? Islam has the answers”.
And we’ll behead those who attempt to verify those answers.
“Sauder…I’m pretty sure I’ve asked you this before, but I don’t think you’ve answered – do you seriously think I don’t do enough criticism of Islamism and Islam here? If so, have you taken any trouble to investigate? Have you plugged anything at all into the search engine?”
Yes I have, and I think you do a good job on that front.
However, I also think a single bus financed by people who really don’t represent much of a danger to me is not worthy of a posting.
25 years ago I would have reacted in a similar way, but nowadays there are much, much bigger theocratic fish to fry.
Unfortunately.
I’m also coming around to the view that lampooning Christianity in an effort to preserve and promote secular democracy has become a negative-sum game.
When you diminish and ‘dis’ Christainity, all you sometimes end up doing is embellishing and empowering its biggest ( and far more insidious ) rival.
So many people ( the majority probably) are cretins and will fall for just about any belief systeme, and since most of these belief systemes aren’t going to bite the dust any time soon, I think that secularists, atheists included, should concentrate on managing religion by promoting those forms of it that are the least harmful, the least misogynistic, the most compatible with democracy, etc.
To be an excellent secularist or atheist, you also have to be an excellent theologian.
Bill Hicks is another example of a southern – born in Georgia, spent most of his life in Texas – atheist comedian who had no problems riffing on southern accents and beliefs.
When? And how exactly? Mo is happy that I just dissed Jesus?
Well, let me just say this. Impotent men are chaste. It’s not a choice. Anyway, I’m all for neutering religion.
No we don’t. We simply need to know the claims put forth by theology. Doesn’t make us theologians. They accept those claims before even justifying them. We consider them before rejecting them. There’s a difference.
@jay #31
That is a very striking likeness and, given the circumstances, I find it almost impossible to believe it wasn’t intentional, i.e. those behind the Catholic poster know very well what their chief opponent looks like.
When Silverman was on Fox and mentioned the many anti-atheist billboards around, he was “reduced” (while almost literally wiping the floor with his antagonists) to merely mentioning locations. It struck me that there seems to be a gap that ought to be filled, i.e. images of as many as possible of those ought to be collected, with identifying info. including location and date, and made easily available in one place online, so that complaints about offensive atheist billboards can be answered with a single URL. One can find a few nasties via Google image search, but a proper repository seems to be lacking. Does anyone know if I’m wrong and just haven’t found it, or is this something we can try and make a reality somewhere?
Intersetingly, this is happening just up the road from the Jebus Bus:
http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/BCS_Christmas_Parade_Brings_Holiday_Delight_111364954.html
The sheer benightedness of some of the comments make me want to move out of this state immediately.
Sauder
But why don’t believers have to be excellent theologians?
Hm. Really? That’s the criterion? If it doesn’t represent much of a danger to you it’s not worthy of a posting?
Yeah thanks but I think I’ll stick to my own reasons for posting about things. This one was just because it was stupid.
Because they have faith; that obviates the need for all the other stuff.
No, they just gotta believe. No need for that thinkin’ stuff.
Same time stamp, but mine was still in ahead of yours :)
I also think a single bus financed by people who really don’t represent much of a danger to me is not worthy of a posting.
They may not represent much of a threat to you, Sauder, but they sure do; as hell doesn’t exist, put the fear of God in the Christians of FW; who have gone to a considerable stalking extent to follow the bus; in which they pitched right in and paid for themselves.
Notwithstanding -if the subject matter is not worthy of a post; why in Heaven’s name is it worthy of so many replies from you? Just wondering, Sauder – that’s all.
Ha! Stewart and jay are separated at birth!
A commenter on WEIT the other day presumed to tell Dr. Coyne to stop posting about politics. Just flat-out ordered him, (something like) “Don’t make this a political rant blog.”
I dare say that you must speak for yourself when it comes to Americans’ opinions of British accents. Every woman I know melts when she hears one (especially dear Hitchens, who has what must be the most dreamy voice!). So, the lesson here is that if you are an English bloke who isn’t having much luck with the ladies at home, come to the States. You’ll have a supermodel on your arm in no time.
As to the Southern debate, yeah, I’ve had really bright friends from the South, and they hate how their states are thought to house nothing but inbreds and racists, so let’s not be geographic snobs.
“Notwithstanding -if the subject matter is not worthy of a post; why in Heaven’s name is it worthy of so many replies from you? Just wondering, Sauder – that’s all.”
I’m just commenting in order that Ophelia adjusts her aim. In a comment above she herself called the story ‘stupid’.
So my rejoinder is thus: Why post stupid things?
“But why don’t believers have to be excellent theologians?”
Because most *believers* simply aren’t swift enough.
More intelligent people become theologians because they’re keenly aware of the contradicitons and inconsistencies that riddle religious texts. It’s that awareness, a quality most believers don’t possess, that drives them to examine these texts in far greater detail.
In any case, I,ve noticed an uptick in religious senitment over the past 15 years, or so, and I’ve come to the conclusion that those sentiments (anxieties actually) need to be addressed, soothed, managed and controlled.
The tendancy towards less religion and greater secularism that began in the 60s has drawn to a close.
Madeline Murray O’hair’s son is a fundamentalist Christian.
“Because most *believers* simply aren’t swift enough.”
And Sauder breaks it down for everyone. This is an old and unfortunately common fallacy among the most odious tone trolls that I’ve noticed. I don’t often comment on atheist blogs but I read my share and I read the comments: I just had to say something here.
I am disgusted by the atheists (and agnostics, a whole lot of agnostics) who pretend to be in possession of some magical formula that only someone of their particular bright and enigmatic minds can comprehend. I hate to disappoint you, but it doesn’t take great intelligence to be an atheist anymore than it takes stupidity to be a theist. Theists aren’t stupid or slow; they’re mistaken. They’re brainwashed. They’re wrong, sure, but they’re wrong because they buy into something that purposefully lies and confuses so people, intelligent people, will be tricked into accepting it.
Treating religious people like simpletons is the single most condescending thing I can think of. At least ophelia and PZ and Dawkins have the temerity to expect that religious people are people: normal, intelligent, hard-working, mistaken people. And they treat them like hthey are capable of understanding things. Maybe you want to dehumanize them for whatever reason, I don’t care what it is, but it’s an accomodationist trap I would urge you to re-think.
“those sentiments (anxieties actually) need to be addressed, soothed, managed and controlled.”
Yeah, I think that says it all.
It’s not as if I haven’t been following the discussion, but I didn’t find Doug (@#56) quite clear on everything. I understood what he himself was saying (of course it couldn’t be that only stupid or clever people are either atheists or believers; there are too many who go from being one to being the other for that to make any sense). Maybe my problem is more with what Sauder was saying and the way Doug was using it. I’m not asking you to rephrase the whole thing for my benefit, but maybe, as a start, Doug could clarify a bit more about accomodationist traps?
Probably should have said trappings. Mea culpa. I find that most tone trolls seem to advocate (knowingly or unknowingly) the idea that religious people just can’t handle real discussion because they’re somehow less equipped or unable to understand logic and evidence. Therefore, they have to be kowtowed to because they couldn’t possibly engage us if we treated them like adult. It’s a surprisingly easy trapping to fall into. One into which Sauder has plunged head-first. Sorry I wasn’t clear on that.
The tendancy towards less religion and greater secularism that began in the 60s has drawn to a close.
Says who? My understanding is that in the U.S., secularization was pretty stagnant in most of the late 20th century, but has accelerated considerably in the last decade or two. The current generation of young adults has far more irreligious people than previous generations.
If the U.S. follows the Western European pattern, those people mostly WON’T get a lot more religious as they get older. In the late 20th century, each generation of Western Europeans was less religious than the preceding one, and mostly stayed that way. (For a long time many people predicted that secularization wouldn’t stick, because people get more religious when they have families and raise kids of their own. Turns out that’s a lot less true than they thought; most don’t “return to the fold.”)
One of the big puzzles in the sociology of religion is why the “secularization thesis”—that religion would fade away in the face of science and secularization—turned out to be true in most first world countries, but NOT in the U.S., until recently.
Well, yes and no. Believers represent a number of different types of mindset, but I think that three types stand out in particular. There are indeed people who are very intelligent but who have been taught only certain things, and have access to very limited amounts of information: women represent the majority of such people. So these are deprived people. There are also people who have had access to a full education, and may even have developed the faculty of critical thinking, but are unable to let go of the reassurance that religious thinking provides. What would one call them? But there are also very very many people who simply don’t do much thinking at all. I am inclined towards the view that they represent the majority, if only because most of us seem to want an easy life. In fact, most of us would rather not have to think very hard about every little thing, and we would like to keep things in line with what we learnt years ago when we were children. I think that we are so constituted: we learn our “environment” and then we just get on with it. And what we learn simply looks “true”. We’re not built to deal with different ways of thinking, and easily resort to ways of resisting them which are certainly foolish when looked at dispassionately.
This is from the New York Times of two days ago:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/us/06ark.html?_r=1
“It’s our opportunity to present accurate, factual biblical information to people about a subject that they’re really interested in,” said Mike Zovath, a senior vice president of Answers in Genesis.In the interest of verisimilitude, the ark is to be built with wooden pegs and timber framing by Amish builders, Mr. Zovath said. Animals including giraffes — but only small, young giraffes — will be kept in pens on board.“We think that God would probably have sent healthy juvenile-sized animals that weren’t fully grown yet, so there would be plenty of room,” said Mr. Zovath, a retired Army lieutenant colonel heading the ark project. “We want to show how Noah would have taken care of them, taken care of waste management, taken care of water needs and food needs.”
[Sorry, #60 was the result of my pressing “Post” instead of “Preview”. Do please ignore it.]
Well, yes and no. Believers represent a number of different types of mindset, but I think that three types stand out in particular. There are indeed people who are very intelligent but who have been taught only certain things, and have access to very limited amounts of information: women represent the majority of such people. So these are deprived people. There are also people who have had access to a full education, and may even have developed the faculty of critical thinking, but are unable to let go of the reassurance that religious thinking provides. What would one call them? But there are also very very many people who simply don’t do much thinking at all. I am inclined towards the view that they represent the majority, if only because most of us seem to want an easy life. In fact, most of us would rather not have to think very hard about every little thing, and we would like to keep things in line with what we learnt years ago when we were children. I think that we are so constituted: we learn our “environment” and then we just get on with it. And what we learn simply looks “true”. We’re not built to deal with different ways of thinking, and easily resort to ways of resisting them which are certainly foolish when looked at dispassionately.
This is from the New York Times of two days ago:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/us/06ark.html?_r=1
It is things like this that make free thinkers wonder about the existence of common sense among the religious. More worryingly, we have things like this (July):http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1295012/Vatican-labels-ordination-women-grave-crime-par-sex-abuse.html
(I know it’s the Daily Mail but it’s sensibly written and from what I can find out they do seem to have got it right.)
Certainly, one can’t argue that the pope is not intelligent, except… Well, let’s just say that you are right about the buying in to lies and confusion, which no doubt explains why they are perpetuating the same. Still, an explanation is all very well, but it isn’t an excuse. For myself, all I can say is that the most charitable explanation for what appears to be utterly perverse is that these people are living in a completely different world. But it still isn’t an excuse.
I think that it is unwise to assume that non-believers want to dehumanise the religious. Of course, there are always nasty types, but you do need to allow for ordinary exasperation. When you add the extraordinary abuses against women, “blasphemers”, homosexuals, different sects, different creeds, and even atheists, you have to start wondering, don’t you?
I have to add that when I reach the “small, young giraffes” I simply curl up in helpless giggles. Can’t help it, I’m afraid. The Lieutenant Colonel’s next two sentences are purest and most delicious icing. Terry Pratchett should have written this.
I also need to add that my post was @56. Sorry about all the confusion.
Gordon,
I understand and agree that they do and believe stupid things. And I definitely never said that all non-believers want to de-humanize the religious. I was replying to a post characterizing all religious folk as stupid, and in effect dehumanizing them. I know there is a difference between “those beliefs are stupid” and “you are stupid.” And there is a marked difference between “all religious people are stupid, that’s why they’re religious” and “religious people are mistaken, and not applying skeptical thinking to their beliefs is stupid.” I’m all for calling people out on the stupid things they say and do, but I detest saying large groups people do those stupid things because they’re stupid rather than because they’re mistaken or have been lead to be mistaken. I call plenty of religious people dumb and I call all their beliefs various assortments of names. I took umbridge with one comment here that crossed the line into saying religious people are stupid and need to be catered to, managed and controlled. That really rubbed me the wrong way.
“And Sauder breaks it down for everyone”.
Let me make it really clear; “there is a sucker born every minute.”
“Treating religious people like simpletons is the single most condescending thing I can think of.”
Many religious people are highly intelligent, but they’re still simple.
There’s IQ and then there’s EQ ( Emotional Quotient ). Those with a low EQ may be scientists, scholars etc, but their inability to control and contain their anxieties undermines their intellect in ways that render them vulnerable to belief systemes that purport to allay those fears and anxieties.
IN short, those anxieties can be preyed upon by unscupulous individuals.
Tony Blair became a Roman Catholic a few years ago. Who’s to say he won’t be known as “Yosuf Blair” 5 years from now?
Mr Blair is a highly intelligent individual, but he needs an external force to order and structure his life.
In Ancient Greece such people were called “sopho-moros”; sophisitcated, yet simple.
Sauder,
I don’t think that’s ever been in doubt. But I wouldn’t claim that because most people can fall for stupid things means we shouldn’t bother calling them on it whenever they do.
Doug
Thank you. Much clearer. Yes, accomodationists who buddy-buddy with believers in that way are actually being extremely condescending to them.
Sauder –
Because some stupid things interest me. I post things that interest me. Nobody is required or forced to read them. I’m not sure what makes you an expert on how I should aim.
Sauder wrote some falsehoods and did some trolling (I feel no need to provide reasons or evidence, as neither did Sauder).
When it comes to my English accent, I’m training myself to sound like Richard Burton. I don’t think Christianity stands much of a chance against Richard Burton sounding atheists.
The aim of this criticism is, itself, a little off.
Why post on stupid things? I don’t know—to comment on them? To start a conversation? To have a laugh? All of those things would be well within the conventions of blogging. I suppose you could have your own blog in which you never, ever post on anything stupid. Of course, some of my favorite blogs often say smart things about “stupid” subjects. (E.g., several bloggers have recently posted some smart insights and commentary about the enormously stupid Creationism theme park).
Sauder actually has the nerve to try to tell Ophelia that he knows better than she in regards to what she should be blogging about?
Hey, Sauder: Ever see the acronym GYOFB? Now you have.
Egbert
When it comes to my English accent, I’m training myself to sound like Richard Burton.
The finest English accent that son of Port Talbot could muster? :-)
Sorry, missed the quotes on Egbert’s comment on that last one.
“Hey, Sauder: Ever see the acronym GYOFB? Now you have.”
( sigh) I’m unimpressed by adolescent acronyms.
I think that within 20 years women ( depending on their religion) will, at least in some west european countries like Britian, be subjected to the whip for adultery and disobedience.
I could link to videos showing women in ‘developing’ countries being whipped ( with the men in the background laughing each time the gal screams in agony), but what would be the point?
We’re sophisticated and have acronyms to protect us
Let’s pick on an innocuous bus ad and in doing so facilitate the ongoing transformation of sanctities
From the relatively enlightened, to the backward, the violent and the primitive…all in the name of progress.
That ephemeral interlude of neutral, white, theocratic noise has ended and the Booths and Ridleys, and countless others exhausted and collapsed from moral anomie, becon to us from the far side of those beguiling strawberry fields.
Sauder; you really don’t get it, do you?
GYOFB: Get Your Own Fucking Blog
I, for one, don’t give a shit about what you think the next twenty years will bring. How accurate has your crystal ball been so far? I can link to videos showing soldiers painfully decapitating a man. What’s your fucking point?
If you’re so disappointed in the subjects Ophelia chooses to blog about, and you’re terribly upset about the way she blogs about those subjects, why the fuck are you here wasting everyone’s time? As I said above, GYOFB.
Sauder is either engaging in the classic zero-sum liberal firing squad, where focus on one area of liberal progress (say, gay rights) is harmful to their favorite area(s) (maybe civil liberties, or the right to choose); OR s/he’s a right-wing troll doing the old “women are treated like crap in [insert theocratic shithole], and you uppity girls are whining about silly stuff here”, which translates to “nice freedoms you gots here… be a shame if somethin’ were to… happen… to them”. Either way, it’s bloody annoying.
Seriously, Get Your Own Flippin’ Blog, and never ever tell a blogger which subjects they should or should not blog about. Some bloggers (though not our host here AFAIK) consider it a ban-able offense, and rightfully so: it’s rude and presumptuous as hell.
Because the fact that murder exists makes theft A-OK.
Besides which, I spend a lot more time here on women being whipped for “adultery” than I do on silly responses to bus ads – so Sauder’s telling point isn’t.
Sauder – really – you don’t know what you’re talking about, so stop talking about it.