Skeptics Find Comfort in a "Cocoon of Doubt"

My father graduated Luther Seminary with a Master in Divinity this past weekend. Jeannette and I attended the commencement ceremony with a sermon provided by Rev. Craig Koester. Rather than providing a sermon full of optimism about making the world a better place through promoting peace and equality, self empowerment and freedom of all people, he seemed to be making one last ditch effort to convince graduating seminary students that they didn't waste their time and that convincing other people that the Resurrection of Jesus really happened matters.

He even went so far as to bring up doubt in the scripture he quoted:

Matthew 28:16-20
"Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.""

See? Even Jesus' disciples doubted Jesus was Jesus, even though they saw him. So, that means that God needs "faithful doubters."

Also during the sermon, he touched on the problems Christianity faces, namely Catholics, Pentecostals and Evangelicals and their scandals. "You also might overhear at the coffee shop as people crowd around their laptops and iPods, people questioning whether organized religion really matters." Skeptics find comfort in their doubt, never having to be certain about anything, he continued. Going so far as to describe skeptics as living in a "Cocoon of doubt."

Skepticism is not a negative position. It's also not a position taken for comfort. Rev. Koester mentioned that doubt is the default human reaction. It's only natural to doubt, though somehow skepticism is something to attack. I would argue that if doubt is the natural position people start with, then it takes very little convincing for most people. For example, if we take the passage from Matthew, all Jesus had to do to convince the disciples was to say God gave him all authority, the equivalent of "because I said so."

More and more people are identifying with no religion. Rev. Koester wants to blame Catholics and skeptics, rather than trying to face the reality that arcane ritual and an insistence on a resurrection are not sustainable in a modern world. That doesn't mean that the world is becoming skeptical, atheistic, or even less religious, but it does mean that Lutheranism has to compete with non-denominational Christianity, generalized spirituality and other non-traditional religions. Christians even feel more free to throw away pieces of dogma they no longer find useful, such as the threat of Hell, literal interpretations of the Bible, condemnation of homosexuals, or even the divinity of Jesus and the concept of three gods in one.

Skepticism is not nihilism. It's also not easy to simply doubt. Skeptics have no problem accepting evidence and taking a position on whether something is true or not, though skeptics are free to change his or her mind, based on new evidence. These seminary students may be presented with new evidence, but will have enormous pressure to continue to believe something they may not trust. There are few jobs available to pastors who have lost their faith, which is a shame.

Rev. Koester would have been wiser to inspire graduates to inspire congregations to make the world a better place through promotion of peace and promoting social and economic equality rather than making a last ditch effort to keep students from realizing how messy the business of organized religion is and loosing their faith. It makes me think of a graduating class of physics students being reminded that gravity is real and though you may doubt gravity is real, you just need to remember that I said it was so, and that is good enough.

Atheist smart Car: An Aftermath

In October 2009, I bought a used smart car because I've always thought they were neat. I also got a good deal on a trade in and the cost of the car was well below its Kelly Blue Book value. Also in October, I stepped down as president of Minnesota Atheists after only serving for 8 months. I did so for a number of different reasons and I still think it was the best decision for myself and for the organization.

In the spring, I decided to commission Dan Norte of Dark Dan's Window Tinting in Owatonna to cut and apply Out Campaign decals on the smart car. Since I had a Ford Focus, I've had decals on my cars. The first time I had a Pac Man decal on my hood to cover a paint chip from road debris. I figured it was cheaper than repainting and the decal would protect the metal. What I found out, was that cars with nerdy decals get a lot of attention and that was cool. It was so cool, I did it again with a new car.

August Berkshire, long-time organizer of Minnesota Atheists, owns the vanity plate, "Atheist," for the state of Minnesota. When deciding how I wanted to participate in breaking down stereotypes of atheists, I thought something similar to a license plate would be a good, non-invasive option.

Over the last 10 or so months, my car has been blazoned with giant red "A's," the website for the Out Campaign, a plug for Camp Quest of Minnesota, and a slogan, "Don't Believe in God? You are not alone." The result? A handful of conversations at gas stations and parking lots and a few thumbs up on the highway. I'm sure most of the people I work with have no doubt how I view the God issue, but no one has brought it up. My goal for having the decals was to gain awareness, just as the Out Campaign is supposed to do. I think to some degree, that happened.

So, is it dangerous to have atheist decals stuck all over your car? For me, it wasn't. Though, I'm a sample of one. It you feel compelled to wear your atheism on your sleeve, seek out your local sign maker, get a decal cut, and slap it on! Of course, anytime you wear your religious views on your sleeve, you risk being "that guy." How would you feel if someone felt so compelled to put giant Ichthys fish on their car? Even if to some people I was, "That Guy," I still think it has been a positive experience. The smart car will likely be retired in the next week for a new car.

Flu Vaccinations: A Short Lesson on Critical Thinking.

A friend recently asked me to critically review the following article on the influenza vaccine. Rather than spam my original facebook post I thought I would write my review here.

When you read an article like this it is always important to look at who is promoting or publishing the article. This is true of all scientific studies, but something I am more assiduous with in regards to vaccine literature. The study itself was done by The Cochrane Collaboration, which I don't know much about but seems pretty legit. It is basically a non-profit organization that reviews health care. I didn't do that much research on it so of course I could be wrong, but the reports produced by them seem to be evidence based with no particular bias.

However, it all depends on how the study is interpreted. You can always slant a review to meet your needs. In this case, the website featuring this article is far from unbiased. Gaia Health is very anti-pharmaceutical company and it looks like they don't care for mainstream medicine at all. The comments alone made it pretty evident that the people who regularly read this site would likely belong to the Wakefield fan club. So right of the bat I was alert for anti-vaccine sentiments.

The article isn't so much about the harm the influenza vaccine can cause, which is usually the case of people with this mindset, but with the ineffectiveness. If you are a healthy adult it may seem like the flu vaccine doesn't really have an effect at all, which this particular study proves. I don't doubt that. Healthy adults may not personally benefit from the influenza vaccine. So why bother?

We bother because it isn't the healthy people we should be concerned with. This article does little to report on the unhealthy people. Normally I would refer to the herd immunity defense, but surprisingly the article actually addresses that. It claims when given parenterally the vaccine does little to prevent viral infection and doesn't do much to prevent complications.

I believe the outcome to a degree. Do what you will with that information. However I always resort to third party resources. I am a huge fan of the Center for Disease Control. They bring up an important point. They state that the more non-specific the outcome being measured the lower the estimates of vaccine effectiveness. Also not addressed are the different population in which the vaccine is effect as it can widely vary.

With all vaccines it is important to weigh the risks vs benefits. This article did little to address the harmful side effects of the flu vaccine. If it turns out the vaccine itself was risky to the general population (there are always those that are more prone to adverse effects) and there were no real proven benefits I would say don't vaccinate. If the risks are small what is the harm of getting the shot either way. If it works it works, if it doesn't at least you tried. For me the jury is out, simply because based on this article alone there simply is not enough information. If you can take away any lesson from this, it should be to never resort to one source and to research your sources before you draw conclusions.

Asher Brown and Why I Refuse to Ridicule

This past month the world lost another child to suicide. Asher Brown, a 13 year old student, shot himself with a pistol in his home in Texas. He was bullied relentlessly for his religion and being gay. Asher wasn’t the first to end his hell. He followed in the footsteps of Seth Walsh and Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover.

I once knew a girl who everyone teased for being too “churchy”. She carried a bible, went to church every other night and quoted verses during class. The torment she received was cruel and relentless. I learned that she started cutting. When that didn’t work she resorted to drinking and drugs. The last I heard she was homeless. I don’t even know if she is still alive.

When I was 13 I was the ugly girl. I had bad hair and bad skin. I was cornered and had things thrown at me and I couldn’t walk with my head up. At 14 I was considering suicide. I consider my experience as getting of easy.

Why does bullying happen? Because one person feels superior to another, and feels justified in putting the other down. In my case my classmates felt justified in making me feel worthless because I didn’t look like them. In Brown, Walsh and Walker-Hoover’s case their classmates apparently disagreed with homosexuality. Since they believed it to be wrong, they tormented them. Maybe they hoped to literally scare them straight. Maybe they just felt it was what god wanted them to do.

Brown was also ridiculed for his religion, as with the girl I knew, and probably didn’t do enough to help. People felt their beliefs were so absurd the only reasonable action was to poke fun at their beliefs. Obviously if it were pointed out to them that that their lifestyle was ridiculous they could change to be just like everyone else.

I look at these tormentors and I used to attribute it to the immaturity of adolescence. I thought it would go away in my adult life. However, more and more, in what I used to consider my own community, I hear the same argument. Religious people believe in silly and irrational things so they deserve to be ridiculed. When I hear this argument I think of the people I mentioned above and become physically ill. What people did to them was a disgrace to humanity. No human being should ever treat another in that way. Why should I turn around and do the same to people whose beliefs I disagree with?

I could probably predict the counter arguments. These are just kids. But those kids were bullied because their religion taught them to hate gays. Some beliefs are dangerous and they need to stop. I wouldn’t disagree with these statements. I disagree with the method of solving the problems.

I’ve come under fire for disagreeing with ridicule. I’ve been told I can’t tell other people how to be an atheist (an extremely hypocritical statement). I’ve been criticized for not understanding the other side. I’ve been told I’m isolating my allies. Are these people really my allies though? I’ve begun to believe I’m striving for an entirely different goal. The argument for ridicule is to force these people to face their “crazy and dangerous beliefs”. I just want people to be ethical human beings.

I’m not out to make atheists. When I started questioning my beliefs and ultimately lost my belief I became extremely depressed. I felt I had nothing to live for, but at the same time was terrified of death. I started drinking on the sly more than I should have been and could have easily self destructed had I not found a passion(which I will discuss later). Unfortunately I didn’t have a welcoming community. All around me I found myself witnessing the same behaviour I experienced as a teenager, the same behavior that almost led me to end my life. You can’t predict how someone will react to your ridicule. I know many adults who still take harsh words to heart and can’t deal with reality. I’ve had to many people in my life commit suicide due to outside influence. Granted they were already emotionally unstable, but that doesn’t change the outcome. Not everyone is going to react the same way. Some people may have their beliefs ridiculed and become lose their religion and gain freedom. Others may not be able to cope. I can’t risk having blood on my hands.

I want to make it abundantly clear that my choice to not ridicule doesn’t mean that I’m not as aggressive or brave as the “new atheists”. It takes a lot of courage to be a lone voice in a crowd. It took a lot out of me to fight for a cause, only to have people turn their backs on me for daring to disagree and challenge them. I am 100% open about my atheism and hide nothing. I also want to make it clear that I don’t “pussyfoot” or let religious people walk all over me. If I see injustices I fight to end them. My tools(grassroots organizations and community action) may be different than blogs and snarky comments, but I am still on the front lines.

I mentioned before that I have a passion that has helped get me through. That passion is Camp Quest of Minnesota. Not only do I have the privilege to work with some dedicated adults and amazing children, but the outcome helps me validate my life. I feel less guilty about the things I could have done in my past and focus on the things these kids will do. We teach kids to respect those that differ in beliefs than them and to be good people. So far, the kids are getting it better than most adults I know.

I want to end by saying that I don’t expect anyone to change their mind. I only want to share my story and perspective so people will know I’m more than a bleeding heart who can’t stand up for herself. It is up to us atheists to make up our own ethical system as we don’t have a book to tell us how to act (though that is open for debate). Ridicule does not play a part in mine.

Christians are:

The Friendly Atheist asked a question, "If Christians would listen, what would you say to them?" In the comments, I noticed there were a number of statements about Christians. From reading all the comments, it looks like many of them are directed at fundamentalist Christians and others are more general. I plucked out the statements I noticed.

Christians:

are hypocritical.
think atheists aren't human.
try to convert people.
only talk about Christianity.
need a spiritual being to cling to.
believe everyone needs his/her specific beliefs in his/her life.
hold modern beliefs which aren't Christ-like.
think that philosophy, science, postmodernism, movies, etc. are out to get them.
tell others how to live their lives.
are judgmental.
have insider/outsider thinking.
are narrow-minded.
follow the golden-rule over empathy.
reject reality.
believe that God created the heavens and Earth in 6 days.
think they are horrible and unworthy.
have been brainwashed into believing something that makes them intolerant and hateful.
are trapped in a religion that takes advantage of good intentions.
limit their understanding of the whole wide universe to the Bible.
manipulate family members to isolate and reject atheists.
think that moral behavior is impossible without belief in God.
don't think before they speak.
have been told what to think by their Church.
don't realize its hurtful to be judged.
force people around them to obey parts of their behavioral code that comes solely from the Bible.
think that atheists are ignorant, angry or abused.
condemn others.
do good things to build a magical castle in the sky for when they die.
believe in a magical place of fire where some people go when they die.
don't practice tolerance.
think shellfish are ok, but homosexuals are not.
are arrogant.
believe they can behave in whatever manner they want.
think atheists haven't been introduced to religion.
think atheists are mad at God or at believers in God.
have not read the Bible.
don't use evidence based in reality.
have not researched science.
fear atheists.
come to beliefs through reflection of what they believe about the world.
think they are right.
believe that they are going to an imaginary Nice Room and atheists go to an imaginary Naughty Room.
use evangelism to score more members for their cult.
live their life in the service of their master, real or imaginary.
think asking questions and searching for answers is a bad thing.
are being spoon fed.
hate people that are different.
are in an abusive relationship with god.
play the victim.
force personal beliefs on others.
are raised to be judgmental.
act as though Jews and Muslims are so different even though all three religions worship the same deity.
indoctrinate their children.
take the Bible seriously, but disregard other holy texts.
don't condemn religious actions that are extreme, illegal, or in violation of the separation of church and state.
actions and inactions are contributing to many of the major ills the world currently faces.
think that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
push an ideology on people based on undemonstratable propositions.
do not have a scientific mindset.
hold nonsensical beliefs.
promotes ignorance and stifles a child's natural curiosity about the world around them.
use words, actions and votes to express disrespect for another's sexual orientation.
constantly attempt to convert atheists.
are on the wrong side of big issues like slavery, segregation, discrimination against blacks, discrimination against women, discrimination against gays.
made war, tortured others, fueled the Inquisition, destroyed cultures with missionary work.
close their eyes to progress and scientific evidence.
wreck families and ruin lives.
are unwilling to change their opinion on whether god exists or not.
don't read the Bible critically.
don't try to see where other people are coming from.
use the Bible to justify already present hate an d bigotry.
afraid of logic.
know that the truth will prove them wrong.
have a church whose negative judgmental behavior is responsible for a lot of pain and mental problems in young teenagers.
demonstrate bigotry and homophobic behaviors.
choose to act based on morality handed down from an authority and/or to avoid punishment or receive a reward.
think the Bible is the absolute truth.
know that the atheist argument is more rational but choose to believe because its what they want to do.
actively try to conform the rest of the country's beliefs and laws to theirs just so they can feel safe.
hold onto beliefs which are verifiably false.
think they hold a monopoly on feelings of awe or compassion or happiness.
would run riot in the streets without a belief in a god.
think that atheists are immoral.
don't apply empathy to their worldview.
actively work to keep gays second-class citizens.
can't see the beauty of the world for what it is.
have not read the Bible with an open mind.
assert they have the moral high ground.
support other Christians who are impolite or bigoted by not asking them to stop.
judge people based on actions and don't value people alone.
are blind to the simple truth that Jesus loved hanging out with "outsiders."
expect atheists to do more volunteer work than anyone else or else atheists are amoral and selfish.
believe that the Bible would condemn a Christ-like individual because they did not profess a belief in Jesus.
think that their religion is true because it is how they were raised.
believe that since atheists don't believe in God then they believe in Satan.
believe that humans are God's most prized creations.
get defensive when you ask them why they think what they think.
don't think they would believe in another deity if they had been born in another part of the world.
won't listen to atheists.
can't have a discussion with atheists without trying to convert them.
think life is meaningless without a belief in God.
think Christians are oppressed in America.
are offended that atheists exist and question Christian views.
think that atheists are ignorant.
think that God favors some of the human race over others.
attend political rallies which are the very intersection of bigotry, hatred and willful ignorance.
have pastors who are human, hateful, spiteful and manipulative humans who use their power to spread agendas of intolerance and bigotry.
should worship their God in private.
only believe because they want to believe.
think that they are nothing without God.
think that atheists deserve eternal torment for not believing in God.
think their religion is the one true religion.
spew vitriol and hate.
think that atheists want to take away their beliefs.
believe in a middle-ages God.
worship a big mean man in the sky to avoid being responsible for his or her own actions.
try to create laws which mirror rules in the Bible.
think everyone should be subject to the rules of God, whether you believe in God or not.
insist on forcing others to listen to their prayers in public.
who run for public office are the ones who hate other groups and make Christians look like lunatics.
struggle with difficult things in the Bible.
don't follow the teachings of Christ.
don't allow themselves to doubt.
are subjected to group think.
think similar things, express similar views, ask similar questions, give similar answers in one congregation and everything is different in another.
treat everyone like they too believe in God.
treat non Christians like they live a wild, party lifestyle.
think they have the upper hand regarding morality.
have not studied other religions.
hold beliefs which cannot be proven objectively.
can't see people beyond his or her religious identity.
think they are guarded by a supernatural protector.
are not perfect. No one is.
deny medical care to children.
violate Jesus' instructions every time they pray in public.
worship idols if they attend a church which has an American flag in it.
abuse children by threatening them with hell.
think atheists hate Christians.

Free Speech and the Bible Humpers

This weekend saw hundreds of thousands of people coming out in support of GLBT rights by attending Twin Cities Pride in Minneapolis. Non-heterosexual lifestyles are seen as offensive to certain people. There are different reasons for this. Some express that non-heterosexual lifestyles are "against Nature," others will cite religious scripture for justification of the opinion that any other form of sexuality other than heterosexuality is immoral and will result in those individuals facing an eternity in torment in the afterlife.

Twin Cities Pride rents out a large public park in downtown Minneapolis for two days at some considerable cost. To absorb this cost, they solicit donations, sell sponsorships, and sell tent space to vendors and organizations. Because Twin Cities Pride rents the whole park, they establish certain rules within the park which vendors must follow. Vendors are allowed to hand out materials, but only at the location they have rented and the organization is allowed to choose who is allowed to pay for a table and who can not.

Why is this an issue? Brian Johnson, a Christian known for protesting Pride festivals was allowed by the Minneapolis Park Board to preach and hand out Bibles at the festival in Loring Park. Twin Cities Pride attempted to prevent him from doing so by issuing an injunction against the decision by the Park Board, which was rejected. The judge's reason? What Brian Johnson was attempting to do is exercise his right to free speech, so long as he isn't disruptive. I agree with the decision. If a protester can be refused free speech at this event, what about a gay rights supporter at a Christian festival?

Brian Johnson wasn't the only protester we saw this year. John Chisham was there as well. We have seen him over the past few years at the Duluth GLBTQAI Festival. He carries a large sign with Bible quotes and preaches at will about sin. He has assistants who will stand and read from the Bible and always includes someone who video tapes his interactions with attendees at the festivals. What would you see from one of these videos? Gay rights supporters shouting, telling him HE is going to Hell, yelling other vile things and even spitting on him. This kind of video encourages Christians to give to his cause. The people who support gay rights are clearly a violent group who are anti-Christian and need to be preached to.

I should mention that I held up a "Hug an Atheist" sign next to his sign at GLBTQAI Duluth last year. What was interesting, is how upset people were getting over him just being there. Some people responded to my sign with great enthusiasm, simply because of his presence. Still others in the audience ignored both of us. Ultimately, both of us should have been ignored and eventually, we were. This is the lesson that the people at GLBTQAI Duluth have learned. Don't give him an audience. Don't yell at him and get upset.

Minneapolis wasn't used to seeing John. A crowd formed around him, of about 50 to 60 people in the afternoon on Saturday. People stood in front of him and listened to him preach while shouting back. Others held up a sign which read "Bible Humper." He had an assistant with a video camera and the audience was providing all the footage he would need. Someone shoved him, was detained and released without a ticket. If he had been ignored, he wouldn't have received the press he was seeking.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that I also saw someone holding up a copy of Christoper Hitchens' "God is Not Great" while he shouted at John, as if "God is Not Great," is some sort of anti-Bible scripture.

This brings up the point of having so many religious groups at Twin Cities Pride. "Standing on the Side of Love" is a campaign from the Unitarian Universalists to "harness love's power to stop oppression." Since the annual meeting of the Unitarian Universalists was only blocks away, their shirts and signs flooded the event. At some of the stages, religious benedictions were offered from religious leaders and spiritual hymns were sung. These people support gay rights and equality, but I don't think it is because of their religion. I don't support equality because I'm an atheist. I don't think someone should have to justify equality with a religious or non religious belief. I think it's great that other organizations support equality, but I do wish that we could do it together.

I had the feeling last year that the religious and political groups were trying to gain converts at gays were their market. I wouldn't wear a "Would Jesus Discriminate?" sticker because I was wearing an atheist shirt and I was irritated at the notion of using Jesus as a modern day pawn to sway people to support equality. I was less irritated this year, because I'm pleased that there are more people supporting equality and it bothers me less that people are able to find support from a familiar religious framework. I rationalized this by assuming that it would be easier for someone who is already experiencing a difficult time with a life choice to find support which is familiar than trying to tear down religious beliefs. I would rather that more Christians supported equality than inequality and discrimination. Equality as an ethic is more important to me than views on theology.

Challenging Assumptions and Seeking the Different

Over the last month, I've been reflecting on how I've felt about being part of the atheist community. I've expressed my frustration with Minnesota Atheists because of the use of ridicule in articles in their newsletter which artificially create an isolationist community which is enforced by an undercurrent of anti-religious sentiment. My hope for the community is to move beyond that. I am tired of atheists pulling quotes out of the Bible to show Christians how ridiculous their scripture is. I know the intention is to wake Christians up, to get them to realize how foolish their beliefs are and to get them to leave their faith, but maybe that isn't even the intention. Maybe it is out of frustration, or a sense that because since leaving religion, an atheist will usually feel more free and atheists want that same feeling for others. Others may want to convince religious people to become atheists because they see harm in participating in a religion which accepts magical thinking and if anything is possible through Christ Jesus, Christians won't worry about planning for the future, educating their children, seeking treatment from doctors, etc. I think I have held all of these intentions at one time or another.

I am frustrated because I hold the assumption that most Americans believe that this country was founded as a Christian Nation. When I've spoken with Christians who hold this view, their assumption is that atheists want to remove religion from the public square, which is offensive to them because they see that act as limiting their freedom of expression, even if that freedom of expression is forced on others. I'm frustrated because I would like more people to realize that the separation of church and state is good for both sides, but the way the issue is framed, is that it is used for atheists to suppress Christians.

I am also frustrated when I read stories about parents who, for religious or cultural reasons, refuse to treat a child's diabetes or other easily treatable ailment. An organization like Children's Healthcare is a Legal Duty should not be unnecessary. I've frustrated over this situation as well, because on one hand, child neglect appears to be rare in this country, although one death is too many, and on another is the desire to allow for religious expression and practice. Can a 14 year old child refuse medical care because they would rather receive herbal treatment for cancer because this is what his religion tells him to do? An 18 year old? Should our society force medical care on others and is that even practical? Wouldn't people just keep their children in hiding and do they already? Do people support religious exemptions for vaccines also support federal funding for Christian Science prayer rooms? I think my frustration comes from my perspective. I don't think that a Christian would listen to me if I tried to convince him or her that seeing a physician is better than prayer, if that Christian were refusing medical treatment, simply because I am an atheist. I would think that the better approach would be to have people from the Christian community respond. I might be too optimistic about this effort because it would be easy for an adherent to dismiss anyone who doesn't think the same way they do.

I attended at event sponsored by the Saint Paul Interfaith Network which focused on designing successful dialogue between people who have very different opinions. During the presentation, which was made by Bob Stains of the Public Conversations Network. One of the things which stuck out, was a presentation on how a community becomes fractured and the kind of behavior people on each side exhibit. In this presentation, a slide went up with the kinds of behavior and language people on split sides of an issue use, which resonated with me more, because I felt like this showcased my frustration with the unwillingness of atheists to have meaningful dialogue with religious people. We = good, right, wise, virtuous, victims, similar, has the facts, are straightforward. They = bad, wrong, foolish, evil, persecutors, are all alike, use emotion, are sneaky.

I know my opinions will change, but my assumption now, is that trying to foster reasoned dialogue, especially among people who disagree, is a better means of gaining support for issues like the separation of church and state and how to protect an individuals freedom of expression without violating any one elses freedoms.

Even within the atheist community, there are sides which are become isolated and splinter. I think this is true in many communities, but I assumed that atheists would be better at being able to use reasoned dialogue amongst each other, even in cases where there is disagreement. If I criticize the actions of atheists, people have an assumption that I am not an atheist. If I write about my experience in the atheist community, it is written off as being too isolated of a community and not representative of the whole. If I express frustration with people who obviously want to make atheists a more respected group of people in the community but are acting in a way which is counter to their goals, whether they state their goals or not, I am seen as a censor. The assumption people make, is that I don't want atheists to speak up when a religious person does something harmful, or when the leadership of a religious organization supports a discriminatory policy because I don't think its useful to make a list of excuses Christians give for the "horrible behavior of their God," or attempting to engage in theodicy arguments.

There are plenty of atheists who are anti-religion who have reasons to disagree with my opinions. My frusturation comes from people who want to build a community of atheists who are seen as positive contributors to society and fail to see the consequences of events like a Debaptism, a $6.66 spaghetti dinner, a presentation which made the case that religious thinking has led scientists astray and public presentations about atheism which make the case that it is foolish to believe in a God. I'm frusturated because the people who run the organization seem ignorant to these consequences. "I should be able to express myself without worrying about who I'm going to offend," is a sentiment I've heard if I raise concern over the use to ridicule in particular. I have little concern whether someone is offended or not, but I am concerned if someone is offended by an offence because he or she isn't willing to understand what he or she did to cause offence in the first place. I also don't like it when people act how they would like to act, then are surprised when someone thinks what they did was wrong. Then there is a shaming of the shaming, or the apperant censoring of the censoree. No one is free from criticism and not all people who don't have a beleif in a god are the same. Don't pretend that you can't possibly understand why someone would find your action offensive and react by isolating yourself. Have a greater understanding of your motives for acting. If the reaction to your actions was unintentional, try to find out why. Should I censor myself around people who are religious? I wouldn't call it censorship, but I try to consider what outcome I would like to see before I act. When I haven't done this, things haven't ended well.