Maya Bohnhoff
Your Faith is a Joke
That was the title of a video piece posted in an atheist forum recently by a well-known new atheist activist, who is viewed by some in the movement (if I may use that term) as a bit of a hero provocateur.
The vitriol, mockery and open scorn aimed at “believers” by this and other new atheist activists are seen as simply an “unapologetic” attitude and have become standard in their discourse, both in published articles and in public and private forums. Yet, in my interactions with unapologetic atheists, I’ve been told repeatedly “We don’t need religion in order to follow the Golden Rule or treat other human beings with respect.”
Cognitive dissonance ensued and I found myself asking (on the atheist forum on which the video was posted): “Okay, if you don’t need religion in order to treat others with respect and compassion, then what do you need?”
One of the regular commentators on the forum responded with, “I think it’s a bit more complicated.” He then invoked Immanuel Kant as giving the definitive word on “respect”, which he said, “means treating people as ends in themselves, not as means. …Respect is something persons deserve, not concepts, organizations, or books of spurious origin…” (italics mine)
He wrapped up his defense of targeted disrespect of irrational beliefs with:
“What distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom is not a special act of creation (remember, evolution), but the ability to think rationally, which makes us to ends in ourselves. Thus respect and rationality are in a close relation.To demand respect for irrationality is denying the foundation of respect. And demanding respect for one irrationality (one’s own) while denying respect for all the other ones and rationalism itself borders pathological egotism. Secondly, P-C. has about the biggest collection of hate mail, all addressed to him. If anyone knows about respectlessness (sic) towards a person, it’s him.”
Setting aside what seem to me leaps in logic (because respect is rational we must, ergo, disrespect irrationality), it disturbed me that this is the same type of argument you get if you ask the members of the Westboro Baptist church why they show their disrespect and hostility by picketing at the funerals of fallen soldiers or why the Golden Rule doesn’t apply to [“out” group here]: “It’s a bit more complicated.” There are special circumstances involved in this display of disrespect.
And therein lies the problem. Whether people are “religious” or “irreligious” they can find excuses as to why treating this or that group with scorn is a virtue in this special case, or why this or that ideology cancels out the Golden Rule.
Let’s take Immanuel Kant—the person my correspondent gave as the definitive voice on the subject of respect. His “out” group was human beings he judged to be inferior to himself and his group. He rationalized a callous treatment of other human beings based on race. He had special scorn for native Americans whom he found lacking in a variety of ways, and was accordingly scathing in his assessment of them.
Moo!
I must assume that Kant felt his prejudice and dismissal of native Americans was rational. Which begs the question: is there such a thing as a rational prejudice? It also raises the issue of what we mean by “respect”. Can one respect a person without also respecting, not their beliefs, but their feelings, about them? For example, I don’t share some Hindus’ belief in the peculiar sacredness of the cow, but I do respect their feelings about the sacredness of that animal. My respect for the feelings of the individual would prevent me from launching into series of stupid cow jokes or enthusing about barbecued brisket in their presence.
My virtual acquaintance also seemed to be suggesting that the fact that the celebrity atheist who posted “Your Faith is a Joke” receives hate mail from specific individuals entitles him to treat all members of a particular group (one he has himself defined) with scorn. This is not the Golden Rule; it’s devolved into collective retaliation—treat others as you suspect they will treat you, and do it preemptively.
Rationally, what sort of outcome might we expect if everyone followed this model? Is it conducive to enlightenment, unity or even basic understanding between individuals?
Yes, the rational faculty IS what separates us from the other life forms on the planet. There my virtual confrere and I agree, but I see it as the very thing that demonstrates the existence of that Intelligence we call God.
'Abdu'l-Baha
“And now consider this infinite universe. Is it possible that it could have been created without a Creator? Or that the Creator and cause of this infinite congeries of worlds should be without intelligence? Is the idea tenable that the Creator has no comprehension of what is manifested in creation? Man, the creature, has volition and certain virtues. Is it possible that his Creator is deprived of these?” —Abdu’l-Bahá, Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 82
In another connection, Abdu’l-Bahá speaks of humanity’s endowment with the “rational soul”:
“In this perception and in this power all men are sharers, whether they be neglectful or vigilant, believers or deniers. This human rational soul is God’s creation; it encompasses and excels other creatures; as it is more noble and distinguished, it encompasses things. The power of the rational soul can discover the realities of things, comprehend the peculiarities of beings, and penetrate the mysteries of existence. All sciences, knowledge, arts, wonders, institutions, discoveries and enterprises come from the exercised intelligence of the rational soul.” (Some Answered Questions, p 217)
I personally don’t think God endowed us with such a faculty so that we could use it to justify our mistreatment of each other. i.e. “The Golden Rule is true … except, of course, in the case of [non-believers/believers/people who are inferior to me in some way].” Yet, this seems to be what many of us do, whether we label ourselves “believers or deniers”.
So, you see, I agree with my virtual colleague that “demanding respect for one irrationality (one’s own) while denying respect for all the other ones and rationalism itself” is, if not “bordering pathological egotism,” at least a misuse of the rational faculty.
So, how do we treat those with whom we disagree—those who may disconcert us, anger us, even frighten us?
Religious texts deal with that fairly directly, whether we wish to acknowledge it or not. By way of example, using the metaphor of the Shepherd, a Bahá’í text offers this guidance:
“…should there be among these sheep ignorant ones, they must be educated; if there be children, they must be trained until they reach maturity; if there be sick ones, they must be healed. There must be no hatred and enmity, for as by a kind physician these ignorant, sick ones should be treated.” — Abdu’l-Bahá, Foundations of World Unity, p. 29
Let’s consider the implications of the metaphor: what parent or teacher would advocate teaching a child by subjecting her to scorn and verbal abuse? (Of course, there are those who do, but we consider their behavior reprehensible.)
In defense of reason, I must conclude that new atheist scorn is irrational, for it serves no useful purpose (other than making the mocker feel righteous and above the mockee). It will not convince anyone to abandon their irrational beliefs and, in fact, is more likely to cause them to entrench themselves more firmly in response to the attack.
Still, I think I understand the anger. I reacted in similar fashion to fundamentalist beliefs myself once—especially the visceral, blindly hateful, quasi-religious beliefs of groups like the KKK or the Westboro congregation. In the face of that level of irrationality, no rational response seems adequate or effective. It leaves one feeling impotent. But as cleansing and empowering as that anger seems and as good as the exercise of clever mockery feels, it does nothing to address the source of the problem. Worse, it gives the world one more group of people who see their beliefs as uniquely correct and therefore entitling them to suspend the Golden Rule at will.
18 comments
10 pings
Skip to comment form ↓
Stephen Friberg
March 30, 2011 at 1:33 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Others share your annoyance with militant atheism.
Here is what Paul Kurtz, the original secular humanist famous for annoying the religious with Madalyn Murray O’Hair back in the old days (the 70s and 80s), has to say:
“militant atheism is often truncated and narrow-minded…it is not concerned with the humanist values that ought to accompany the rejection of theism. The New Atheists, in my view, have made an important contribution to the contemporary cultural scene because they have opened religious claims to public examination…What I object to are the militant atheists who are narrow-minded about religious persons and will have nothing to do with agnostics, skeptics, or those who are indifferent to religion, dismissing them as cowardly.”
Kurtz advocates humanism as an alternative to religion, and, shockingly, moderation:
“There are various forms of religious and non-religious beliefs in the world. On the one end of the spectrum are traditional religious beliefs; on the other ‘the new atheism.’ Not enough attention is paid to humanism as an alternative …”
“This statement aims to be more inclusive by appealing to both non-religious and religious humanists and to moderate religious believers who share common goals. It seeks to foster moderation rather than divisiveness and to spark a genuine conversation about meaning and value and the common problems that confront us all as a nation and inhabitants of planet Earth.”
For more details, see “Neo-Humanist Statement of Secular Values and Principles” online at http://www.paulkurtz.us
Maya Bohnhoff
March 30, 2011 at 3:05 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I adore Paul Kurtz and have always found his work thoughtful and rational. The Skeptical Inquirer, in fact, which is an organ of the skeptical organization he founded (CSI) is my favorite magazine of all time.
What I found interesting is that as he is stepping away from the New Atheists, they are also stepping away from him. I refer readers to this blog by PZ Myers from last May.
To me, the question of tone is critical for the reasons I raised in my blog. At some point, don’t you have to ask what your goal is? If it’s to alienate believers, agnostics and gentle secular humanists who just want to get along, then fine—be shrill, be “ballsy”, be mocking. Presumably this makes the mocker feel good about himself —he’s fighting the good fight. Hurrah!
But if the point is to actually illumine the issues, perhaps persuade people that rationality is a good thing that does not consist of merely attacking someone else’s beliefs—if the goal is to change people’s hearts and minds, then clearly an acerbic, attacking tone is counterproductive.
That’s pretty simple, basic human psychology. If the goal is to persuade, mockery is irrational.
Arch
April 4, 2011 at 5:47 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
There’s a lot in this article I’d like to address, but unfortunately I’m short on time. Therefore I’d like to quickly address the final two paragraphs in your last reply message. Hopefully it will illuminate some of the other questions you’ve raised in the article.
Essentially mocking a strong believer isn’t going to get them to change their beliefs. You’re most certainly right about this. However, using well thought out, logical and polite arguments also does nothing to change their beliefs.
The aim of mocking isn’t to change the ideas of the believer, but to persuade anyone else who happens to be listening or reading. It is for the fence sitters or those who’s beliefs aren’t dogmatic.
In the case of these people mockery ellicits laughter, which any teacher worth their salt will tell you is an excellent way of teaching. A combination of humour (yes, even cruel humour) and logical arguments is a reasonable method for pushing those who are undecided to make up their minds. Not in every case obviously, but in enough that it’s worth the effort.
Stephen Friberg
April 4, 2011 at 7:44 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hi Arch:
I used to be really good at mocking people. I spent lots of time in academia and I knew all the put downs – and could wield them with razor sharp accuracy. My targets – often enough – didn’t even know I was pulling the rug out from under them, destroying their creditability and trashing them. It was wicked and fun.
But no more. I’ve seen the light. :>)
It doesn’t work – it dismisses the person and the topic and becomes a way to score points. On online discussions, you get everybody watching – cruelly – to see who can tear who apart.
I lived in Japan where mockery and bullying was rampant. My children – half and half – were sometimes targets. And I drew the line connecting mockery and bullying. And stopped.
Stephen
Arch
April 18, 2011 at 4:36 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“It doesn’t work – it dismisses the person and the topic and becomes a way to score points. On online discussions, you get everybody watching – cruelly – to see who can tear who apart.”
Well…yes. What part of that doesn’t work exactly? Obviously some people will score points merely on the humour, but that doesn’t mean they completely dismiss the logical argument within. There have been plenty of times I’ve laughed at jokes creationists have made…then go ahead and tell them why they’re wrong.
“I lived in Japan where mockery and bullying was rampant. My children – half and half – were sometimes targets.”
I’m sorry, but making fun of someone for their skin colour, and making fun of them for being willfully ignorant are two very different things. The first one is bigotry and serves no purpose but to make the abuser feel good. The latter has the potential to educate (as I said, not necessarily the one being made fun of, but those watching).
Sorry, but as valid as your points are they don’t change the fact that sometimes (*sometimes!*) mockery can be helpful.
Rick Schaut
April 18, 2011 at 9:05 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“Sorry, but as valid as your points are they don’t change the fact that sometimes (*sometimes!*) mockery can be helpful.”
Possibly. However, judging from some of your other comments, it seems to me that you’d at least agree judging when mockery can be used to positive effect is a bit tricky.
So, the question becomes, is there anything that can be accomplished through mockery that can’t be accomplished through some other rhetorical method? I’ll leave that be a rhetorical question.
Though, speaking of rhetorical questions, there’s a story about Mirza Abu’l Fadl, someone who came to be regarded as one of the most renowned scholars in the Baha’i Faith. He wasn’t always a fan of the Baha’i Faith. Indeed, he was one of its most ardent opponents in the earlier days of his life.
What changed his mind was a simple question asked by a lowly blacksmith. The question was, how do dogs get wet?
There’s one tradition in Islam that says that dogs are so impure that angels would never dare to go near one. There’s another tradition in Islam that says that every drop of rain is so pure that it carries an angel along with it.
Arch
April 18, 2011 at 11:09 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
>Possibly. However, judging from some of your other comments, it >seems to me that you’d at least agree judging when mockery can be >used to positive effect is a bit tricky.
Possibly not as hard as you might think. Certainly when beginning a discussion for the first time it’s impossible to tell, and for that reason I’d try logic. But after a while you can learn that the person will never change their mind, no matter the evidence. These are the people I lump into the ‘fanatical’ group.
When you have a true fanatic there’s no point trying to think them out of their position. No matter what you do, they’ll just end up deeper in. At that point I find little point in further discussion with the individual. But, often there are others listening that might still benefit, either from additional logical arguments, or from some humour.
I’m afraid until today I hadn’t heard of Baha’i. I’ve done a quick Google search, but unfortunately it hasn’t enlightened me as to why this question would prompt a religious conversion. Was Mirza Abu’l Fadl Islamic until he heard this question? That would certainly make sense for him to drop Islam, but why then would he pick up Baha’i?
Rick Schaut
April 19, 2011 at 10:58 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“When you have a true fanatic there’s no point trying to think them out of their position.”
I’m not sure I agree. It’s certainly not going to be possible to do so by showing how your world view contradicts theirs. The trick is to find ways in which their world view is inconsistent with itself, as that blacksmith did with Mirza Abu’l Fadl.
Granted, mockery is a heck of a lot easier to do, but I’d suggest that, if finding inconsistencies in their world view doesn’t work, then mockery has an even less likely chance of being effective.
Maya Bohnhoff
April 19, 2011 at 11:40 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
The simple question the blacksmith asked caused Abu-Fadl to have to delve back into his own beliefs and the foundations of them (the Qur’an and Islamic tradition) and rethink them. I can vouch for the fact that this creates a cascade effect—one begins to rethink a great many things.
I came from a Protestant Christian background and had collected a plethora of dogmatic beliefs that I had to walk back through and disengage from because of a series of questions a Baha’i friend asked me.
What this clearing of the decks does is enable a person to look at other possible understandings of the world. For MIrza Abu-Fadl—and for me—this resulted in an acceptance of the Baha’i Faith.
I can’t presume to speak for Mirza Abu-Fadl and would recommend you read his work. I can only speak for myself in saying that after I’d unraveled the immense yarn ball of dogma that I’d accumulated over the years, I needed to find a way of looking at life, the universe and everything that made sense rationally, having discovered that—as Abdu’l-Baha suggests in numerous places—allowing one’s beliefs to get out of true with reality only sets one up for a rude awakening.
Maya Bohnhoff
April 4, 2011 at 7:50 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Cruel to be kind? Hm. I have a problem with that because it’s essentially the same logic used by “true believers” when they mock, harass, and even do violence to people who do not believe as they do.
I created adult education materials for years and used a lot of humor in my work to enhance education. I also write for a living and use humor there. But if I were sitting on the fence in an issue and someone met a question or a sincerely expressed point of view with mockery (which I have seen done countless times), it sours me on the point of view of the person doing the mocking. I no longer trust what they have to say because they have abandoned rationality for emotional “zingers”.
Mockery, as opposed to humor, comes across as an evasive tactic no matter who uses it. It essentially cuts off dialogue (unless you just want to agree with the mocker’s POV) and I have seen it drive agnostics and even “live and let live” atheists completely off of atheist blog sites.
Most of all, it seems to belie a common refrain of atheists with whom I have had discourse—”We can be kind. loving, caring people without religion.”
Ever heard that old writer’s aphorism: Show me, don’t tell me? I think it applies here.
The mockery I’ve seen recently assumes a standard set of beliefs for all “religios” (a pet name I picked up in my travels on new atheist sites), but such a set of dogmatic beliefs does not exist for all of us. Even the most rational person does not react well to rational arguments that assume that 1) they hold a particular set of ideas to be true; and 2) whatever the basis for their beliefs, they are irrational and stupid just because they are associated with a religion (or other world view).
Rational arguments work very well when you can persuade someone to look at something in a slightly different way, to question their assumptions, and to consider alternative points of view. And you can persuade even true believers to do these things if you don’t alienate them by taking their emotional commitment to their beliefs lightly.
Arch
April 18, 2011 at 4:47 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“Cruel to be kind? Hm. I have a problem with that because it’s essentially the same logic used by “true believers” when they mock, harass, and even do violence to people who do not believe as they do.”
I draw the line at harassing and violence. But mocking, as long as it’s well thought and and actually valid, I’ve no problem with. And I’m not going to dismiss the idea simply because the ‘other side’ knows how to use it to. That doesn’t make it bad.
“it sours me on the point of view of the person doing the mocking.”
In which case you’re the type of person I wouldn’t try using this tactic on. But there are hundreds of thousands of people (people more like me) that it would work on.
Essentially, that’s what your entire post is about. How this tactic doesn’t work on you. I’m talking about a vastly bigger picture that the handful of people here. If people here struggle to detact the humour (that they may disagree with) from the fact (that they may agree with) then obviously other tactics should be employed.
“And you can persuade even true believers to do these things if you don’t alienate them by taking their emotional commitment to their beliefs lightly.”
I’m afraid there are some that you can’t. Sometimes (and I’m refering to the minority fanatics here) the minute you start a conversation you’ve insulted them. The simple fact I am an atheist insults them, because it MUST mean I think they’re wrong. At that point no amount of logical arguments can pierce their minds. It’s sad, and it is a minority. But they do exist.
Maya Bohnhoff
April 19, 2011 at 11:26 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
YOU draw the line at harassing and violence. Some people don’t. And the goal of mockery is—whatever else it proposes to do—to provoke. Anyone who’s every seen name-calling escalate suddenly into something far more venomous understands this.
My post is not about how this tactic doesn’t work on ME, it’s about how it achieves no beneficial goal. Let’s consider the “fruit” of mockery:
The Choir chuckles and tallies points for their “side.” No harm done.
The Believers who are NOT in the minority unreached by reason are hurt, angered and have their prejudices against “those obnoxious and arrogant atheists” confirmed because they have not been engaged as if they were thinking, rational beings, but as if they were dim-witted children faced with a bully who believes dogmatically in his own righteousness. Harm done. Prejudices bolstered. No rational discourse occurs.
The Believers who ARE part of that irrational minority are going to be even less convinced of the irrationality of their position by mockery than by any other stratagem. So what is the point?
The “fence sitters”—among whom are agnostics and “unchurched believers” (to use Robert Putnam’s terminology from “American Grace”)—are going to have a mixed reaction. Many will resent the emotional manipulation and withdraw from the field of battle, seeing that no discourse is actually taking place. Others will be attracted—but to what? The power to hurt other people’s feelings? How enlightened or beneficial is that? Does it make them better human beings?
What benefit is to be had by referring to the target group by derogatory names, for example? Or from mocking a set of dogmas that the believer in the dialogue may not even subscribe to?
I’ve held dialogues with fundamentalist Christians and found them capable of thinking through a proposition if you only ask the right questions about their beliefs and turn them back to their own scriptures to find the answers. I’ve watched people go from implacable hostility against me (a cultist, pagan, devil or whatever) to bemused agreement on an issue by engaging in a real dialogue instead of mocking.
Unfortunately, Arch, mockery is the only tool some people have and they brandish it like a weapon. I propose that it is neither enlightened nor rational to do so and that it immediately creates barriers between people.
My goal—and the goal of my Faith—is to build bridges.
Carabini
April 4, 2011 at 5:11 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
While the most commonly known version is Christianitys Golden Rule routinely stated as Do onto others as you would have them do onto you the concept that one should treat others with fairness and respect has been expressed many different ways Bahai Lay not on any soul a load that you would not wish to be laid upon you and desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for yourself. — Bahaullah And if thine eyes be turned towards justice choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself. — Epistle to the Son of the Wolf Buddhism Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Zander Nyrond
April 21, 2011 at 10:18 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Maya, you’re absolutely right. I apologise to Arch, but I have seen no evidence that mockery is employed against religious believers with any intention other than to hurt and to provoke, and if anyone has ever been “converted” to secularism by it I would be very surprised. “Shaming” never really works. Moreover, the arguments that accompany the mockery are frequently poorly thought out, sloppily expressed, and wouldn’t convert a concussed mandrill even if it understood English.
One of my militant atheist friends refers to “accommodationists,” apparently a new “out” group among the m/a community. These are atheists and agnostics who are willing to tolerate the existence of religious belief and try to reconcile it with scientific truth. This, it seems, is unacceptable.
The point is this. Contempt (such as is expressed by militant atheists in their mockery of religion) is inimical to communication. Communication is essential for life. Ergo, contempt is inimical to life. And it really isn’t hard to let go of it.
Maya Bohnhoff
April 21, 2011 at 11:09 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Thank you, Zander. “Shaming” was exactly the word I was looking for. I’ve posted elsewhere that we don’t educate a child effectively by shaming them. In some circles that’s considered abuse and the net result, in that context as in this, is resentment.
And I think you’re right: contempt is inimical to life in that it produces discord and disunity.
In a book I’m reading right now entitled “Promulgation of Universal Piece”, the author (Abdu’l-Baha) draws an analogy between physical life in the world and the life of human society. He notes: “Consider how clearly it is shown in creation that the cause of existence is unity and cohesion and the cause of nonexistence is separation and dissension. … Therefore, affinity and unity among even these material elements mean life in the body of man, and their discord and disagreement mean death. Throughout all creation, in all the kingdoms, this law is written: that love and affinity are the cause of life, and discord and separation are the cause of death.”
Kirk Hughey
June 19, 2012 at 4:46 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
One point to mention especially for the benefit of “new atheist activists” who I gather venerate both science and reason–contemporary biologists and ethologists have found that reason is not limited to humans alone- that old Cartesian notion is deservedly well out of date……
Marco
June 23, 2012 at 5:34 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
If mockery is intended to nudge people in a desired direction, It’s bound for failure. Fence sitters are likely pushed over the fence to the other side. Mockery is self-serving. It elevates us and squashes the object of derision.
A few years ago, I asked that the topic of a local freethnkers group be a discussion on the public perception of atheists. (this is before the study showing athiests being the most reviled group in America) I proposed that high profile atheist figures like Dawkis and Harris were actually doing us a *disservice* , that we should endeavor to be… Less… Prickly.
They did not take it well.
And another thing! :^) When anyone starts talking about “reason” in a way where “grace” could be substituted easily, I get suspicious. Reason is not some cosmic good,it’s merely a tool, and it can be used like an electron microscope or a pick-axe.
How reason is employed is informed by our values, so reason can produce a polio vaccine or “The Final Solution”
So you back the wrong horse with reason. Empathy and kindness are much better navigating tools for the religious or the irreligious
Maya Bohnhoff
June 25, 2012 at 3:28 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Marco, I think you hit upon my chief problem with mockery—it’s a means of exerting one’s alleged superiority by tearing down someone else. Which makes it uncomfortably close to bullying. And I couldn’t agree with you more: empathy and kindness are far more efficacious in removing barriers between people.
And of course, this is what the Founders of religion have been telling us for millennia. There’s a wonderful passage in the Qur’an, for just one example, in which Muhammad rebukes those who “belie religion” by elevating themselves while neglecting the poor and needy and “refuse small kindnesses”.
I also appreciate your comment about reason. It is tempting to many people to turn the tools of science and reason into belief systems. As you point out, you can back the wrong horse with reason. Which makes empathy and kindness even more necessary as an overarching principle. As the Jewish scholar Hillel put it: What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Huffington Post Draft 5 – Science, Religion, and the Baha’i Faith « Sfriberg's Blog
February 1, 2012 at 7:25 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
[...] Scientists, religious believers, and leaders of thought are already starting to look to address and reduce the conflicts, but much more needs to be done, including recognizing the historical roots of the problem and owning up to unsavory legacies of 19th century secularism. This, and other concrete steps, could go a long way towards the healing of very real antagonisms of secularism and religion we have inherited from the past. Common Ground explores some of these issues in posts like this. [...]
Huffington Post Draft 5 – Science, Religion, and the Baha’i Faith « Sfriberg's Blog
February 17, 2012 at 12:09 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
[...] Much can be done, simply by recognizing the problem, including owning up to unsavory legacies of 19th century secularism. This and other concrete steps could go a long way towards healing the festering wounds of the proxy wars between secularism and religion. Common Ground explores some of the battles of those wars in posts like this. [...]
Huffington Post Draft 6 – Science, Religion, and the Baha’i Faith « Sfriberg's Blog
February 23, 2012 at 12:30 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
[...] Much can be done, simply by recognizing the problem, including owning up to unsavory legacies of 19th century secularism. This and other concrete steps could go a long way towards healing the festering wounds of the proxy wars between secularism and religion. Common Ground explores some of the battles of those wars in posts like this. [...]
Huffington Post Draft 7 « Sfriberg's Blog
February 27, 2012 at 7:04 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
[...] Much can be done to eliminate these conflicts and the havoc they create. From the secular side, a first step would be recognizing that there is indeed a problem and it is not just bad behavior on the part of the religious. And then owning up to unsavory legacies of 19th century secularism. This—and reciprocal steps from the other side—would go a long way towards healing the festering wounds of these battles. Common Ground explores these wars in posts like this. [...]
Huff post draft « Sfriberg's Blog
March 6, 2012 at 8:17 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
[...] Much can be done to eliminate these conflicts and the havoc they create. From the secular side, a first step would be recognizing that there is indeed a problem and it is not just bad behavior on the part of the religious. And then owning up to unsavory legacies of 19th century secularism. This—and reciprocal steps from the other side—would go a long way towards healing the festering wounds of these battles. Common Ground explores these wars in posts like this. [...]
Huff post draft with edits from Matt « Sfriberg's Blog
March 23, 2012 at 7:30 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
[...] Much can be done to eliminate these conflicts and the havoc they create. From the secular side, a first step would be recognizing that there is indeed a problem and it is not just bad behavior on the part of the religious. And then owning up to unsavory legacies of 19th century secularism. This—and reciprocal steps from the other side—would go a long way towards healing the festering wounds of these battles. Common Ground explores these wars in posts like this. [...]
Huffington Post Draft 5 – Science, Religion, and the Baha’i Faith « Sfriberg's Blog
April 16, 2012 at 6:41 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
[...] Much can be done, simply by recognizing the problem, including owning up to unsavory legacies of 19th century secularism. This and other concrete steps could go a long way towards healing the festering wounds of the proxy wars between secularism and religion. Common Ground explores some of the battles of those wars in posts like this. [...]
Huff Post Draft 2012-05-29 « Sfriberg's Blog
May 29, 2012 at 7:05 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
[...] Much can be done to eliminate these conflicts and the havoc they create. From the secular side, a first step would be recognizing that there is indeed a problem and it is not just bad behavior on the part of the religious. And then owning up to unsavory legacies of 19th century secularism. This—and reciprocal steps from the other side—would go a long way towards healing the festering wounds of these battles. Common Ground explores these wars in posts like this. [...]
Science, Religion, and the Bahá’í Faith Backup « Sfriberg's Blog
May 29, 2012 at 7:34 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
[...] Much can be done to eliminate these conflicts and the havoc they create. From the secular side, a first step would be recognizing that there is indeed a problem and it is not just bad behavior on the part of the religious. And then owning up to unsavory legacies of 19th century secularism. This—and reciprocal steps from the other side—would go a long way towards healing the festering wounds of these battles. Common Ground explores these wars in posts like this. [...]
Huff post draft 2012-05-28 « Sfriberg's Blog
May 29, 2012 at 7:39 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
[...] Much can be done to eliminate these conflicts and the havoc they create. From the secular side, a first step would be recognizing that there is indeed a problem and it is not just bad behavior on the part of the religious. And then owning up to unsavory legacies of 19th century secularism. This—and reciprocal steps from the other side—would go a long way towards healing the festering wounds of these battles. Common Ground explores these wars in posts like this. [...]