The Quietus - A new rock music and pop culture website

Black Sky Thinking

Having Faith In Atheism: Bad Religion And Richard Dawkins At Reason Rally
Sam Spokony , April 6th, 2012 03:54

Sam Spokony braves a biblical downpour to report back from atheist festival Reason Rally, in Washington D.C. Photographs by the author

Add your comment »

By noon on Saturday, March 24, five hours before he was scheduled to perform and give closing remarks to the Reason Rally — the largest gathering of secular advocates in American history — Greg Graffin still hadn’t quite figured out what he would say. With 33 years as the frontman and songwriter of Bad Religion (one of the most outspokenly atheistic punk bands in American history) behind him, he just felt more comfortable talking on the fly.

“But I never get up there and preach,” said Graffin, as he sat, stoic, in his trailer behind the stage. “And I won’t preach today. It’ll just be a celebration of the gathering, as any good show should be.”

Graffin (who also holds a Ph.D. in zoology from Cornell University) espouses a more tolerant worldview than many other icons of the New Atheist movement — often choosing to engage in dialogue rather than holding theists in contempt of humanity — but like the others, it’s sometimes hard to tell when he’s speaking purely out of confidence and when he’s just resting on the laurels of modern science. At that moment, though, one thing was undeniable. The crowd of 20,000 that stood waiting on Washington D.C.’s National Mall wanted to be preached to.

And, as non-believers, perhaps they had good reason for that — because to call America’s religious debates of the past year tumultuous and absurd would be less than an understatement.

Now-defunct presidential candidate Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, held a Christian prayer rally last August in order to both jumpstart his campaign and to bolster the spirit of a “nation in crisis.” Rather than reaching anything like an accord with liberals, culture warriors bent on promoting adherence to what they perceive to be biblical law have continued to fight against abortion rights and sensible legislation for female contraceptives. And given that Rick Santorum, one of the most culturally out-of-touch men to ever hold public office, actually has some small chance at the Republican primary nomination for 2012’s presidential election, it’s clear that the religious right has gained a rare level of influence over the American political sphere.

So as Maggie Ardiente, the director of development and communications for the American Humanist Association, would go on to tell me later that day, it made sense for the Reason Rally to happen now. As the war rages on, atheists aren’t just looking for social equality and political validity. Like the Christians did two millennia ago, they’ve constructed a new narrative within which to live. Whether they call themselves humanists, free thinkers or naturalists, this movement is in the process of creating its own story, with its own champions of rhetoric. That story is a very different one to be sure, founded on fundamentally different principles. But, for all its perceived exactness, the scientific method, and knowledge of the world based on the gathering of empirical data, is a way of thinking that doesn’t stand alone within the atheistic worldview. As the rally proved, this is still a movement based on faith and, to some degree, doctrine.

“I found great comfort and solace in the narrative of science,” said Graffin. “I know that scientists have this faith that they can find the truth and that they can contribute to knowledge, and they do it based on a certain process. I think that’s very unifying.

“And I hope it’s not the only unifying thing in this secular movement, because that would be kind of dull, honestly. Scientists aren’t the most interesting people. So there’s got to music, there’s got to be poetry, there’s got to be literature.”

Just, as we both acknowledged, as in any organized religion.

And both emotional appeals and light-spirited diversions were to be found in spades at the Reason Rally. From the outset, secularism was presented not just as the reasonable way to look at the world, but also very pointedly as the American way. The opening was stars and stripes forever, as Graffin sang the national anthem beside the flag and full military color guard. Retired Colonel Kirk Lamb spoke fervently to remind us that, yes, there are atheists in foxholes, and David Silverman, the president of American Atheists, told us the importance of denying the religious right the ability to continue what he called its “monopoly on patriotism.” The thousands in attendance even took the time to recite the American Pledge of Allegiance — minus, of course, the phrase “under God.”

Then there was the entertainment. And if there was anything about this rally that didn’t seem reconciled with the idea of rationality and the calculated approach of reason, it was the questionable taste of the humor presented by those onstage. Sure, I’m all for dirty jokes, but when you’re looking to simultaneously prove your philosophical correctness to adversaries and ask for the respect of your fellow citizens, is it really in your best interest to send out Andy Shernoff to sing his favorite tune, “Get on Your Knees for Jesus ‘Til He Comes”?

The bigger comedic names — Tim Minchin, Jamie Kilstein and Eddie Izzard — followed an identically aggressive path in their sets, and while raucous humor is standard procedure for these guys, I wondered: Was this really an attempt, on any level, to communicate with the theists this movement will somehow need to convert over the course of the coming generations, or was it just — as Graffin said about his own impending set — a celebration, for those already in on the joke?

A saving grace, though (if you’ll pardon the expression), was the presentation of practical steps towards a more atheist-inclusive society. Out of nowhere — for those not already in the know, at least — came Hemant Mehta, who blogs as “The Friendly Atheist,” to offer the day’s most reasonable and workable response to the growing control held by the religious right: getting politically involved at the grassroots level. In order to make the voice of this community heard (a catchphrase repeated, as one can imagine, many times by many speakers) the simple fact is that we need more atheists running for public office and doing tangible social work, not more atheists ridiculing Christianity and mocking its supporters for their ignorance. And, as Mehta went on to tell me offstage, those efforts to take back the country by way of real structural support rather than cheap verbal attacks won’t just be more effective at the political level — they’ll make the whole idea of atheism more accessible to the general public, including minority groups that may be less likely to assume they’re welcome.

“We want to show people that if they think it’s just old white guys, or angry professors, it’s not,” said Mehta (who is an Indian-American). “There are young people, women, minorities. And I think when people see that, it’s like: ‘Oh! Look, there’s another black or Indian person who’s an atheist, and it’s okay if I am too.’ I just hope people realize that they’re not alone.”

Having said that, Richard Dawkins also showed up.

“Evolution isn’t just true; it’s beautiful,” he told the crowd, beaming, after the wild applause that followed his ‘needs-no-introduction’ introduction had subsided. “It’s beautiful because it’s true.”

And, since that’s pretty much all he has to add to the struggle for atheists’ rights at this point, Dawkins simply ran off some facts, figures and poll numbers related to earth science, biology and the number of people who do or don’t believe in God — and then exhorted all in attendance to continue ridiculing theists with great contempt. The question this begged, as he walked offstage to another round of thunderous cheers, was rather simple, and one perhaps vital to everything the New Atheists stand for: What did Dawkins offer at this rally that the comedians didn’t? Not much, one must think, regardless of how technically accurate he or they may be. But when you choose to build — to use the words of 17th-century Puritan John Winthrop, when he first settled in America — a theoretical city upon a hill, and then to look upon those who yet fail to understand you with little more than smugness, mockery and scorn, what else can you hope for? Whether argued by way of scientific posturing or comic one-liners, public shaming amounts only to public shaming. But, like I said, it’s not hard to understand why America’s nonbelievers might react to the religious right with such extreme passion and so little self-control.

And to my honest surprise, I found a voice over in the designated protest area off to the side of the rally that, in some ways, made a little more sense — at least in broader terms. It came from Blake Anderson, a Christian apologetic who had showed up to represent (which serves to promote a book of the same name, subtitled, “Christian Responses to the Challenge of Atheism”). He wasn’t going to convince me of the veracity of his opinions on theology, but he did shed some light on something the New Atheists haven’t quite argued successfully yet, amid all the work they’ve done thus far.

“When they call this the Reason Rally,” Anderson told me, as we stepped away from a group of fanatically hollering, sign-waving Christians (whose tactics he claims to deplore), “we just feel it can’t be right to have it portrayed as something that says ‘Atheists have reason, and Christians don’t.’ Atheism doesn’t equal reason.”

Graffin, still lounging back in the trailer, might have responded to this by acknowledging that the intellectual path he follows draws as much or more from a new narrative — structurally similar to that of Christianity - as it does from a philosophical search for capital-T truth. Dawkins, using the rhetoric of self-assurance, certainly wouldn’t have been able to respond in any similar way that might push Anderson to challenge his own line of thought. Maybe that foreshadows the subsequent success of Graffin’s more tolerant approach over that of hard-line New Atheists, who may come to worry so much about presenting the inherently faultless logic of their views that they fail to take into account the politics of communication — the very stuff with which the religious right has maintained a cultural upper hand.

When Anderson shared with me his thoughts on Nate Phelps, the estranged son of Fred Phelps (founder of the notorious Westboro Baptist Church, which is known by its website title and general mantra, “God Hates Fags”), he actually put the whole debate in perspective.

“I’m not surprised that someone who came out of that would turn to being an atheist,” said Anderson. “Because when you do things poorly, there tends to be a reaction. I’ve heard a lot of reasons why people have become atheists, and I generally don’t think they’re good reasons, but on an emotional level I understand them, and I can sympathize.”

Just before Nate Phelps addressed the rally that afternoon, several members of the Westboro Baptist Church stood in silent protest beneath the Washington Monument, holding signs reading, among other things, “You Hate God” and “God Hates You”. These days, after all of the funerals they’ve crashed, and after alienating basically the entire spectrum of society, from staunch conservatives to free-speech liberals, the WBC folk seem more like welcome media props than real, dislikeable people. All they had to say about the son who got away was what one woman yelled at me as they stepped into a van: “He’s your schtick of the moment!”

And, though he may not be quite as heavily clichéd a person as those religious warriors who choose to remain in the WBC, Nate Phelps’ life after God is one that, perhaps unexpectedly, just goes to show further parallels between the narrative of theism and that which was on display at the Reason Rally. After running away from home upon turning 18, Phelps subsequently became an atheist — but he later realized two things: his religious past needed to be treated like an addiction, and he felt compelled to educate others about how they could escape from the clutches of religion.

“There are days when I feel like I’m right back in it,” Phelps told me immediately after stepping off the stage, where he had told the crowd his life story. “Now, I’m far enough down the road that the fear it used to invoke is gone, and those kind of successes give me the courage, when I do fall back into the hole, to say that eventually this will pass as well.” When I asked him about the work he does with a group called Recovering from Religion, which claims to help people do just that, he added: “I’ve always found in my life that talking with people with a shared past is encouraging and allows you to recognize that there’s a way out of this.”

Which is when I began to realize that the language he was using wasn’t just that of recovering addicts; it was equally that of a hallmark of the religious right: recovering homosexuals, or those who’ve, as the more common slang would put it, prayed the gay away. It was actually, if not in content then at least in context, exactly like that.

But why don’t any of the intellectual big shots want to acknowledge these similarities?

Probably for the same reasons Richard Dawkins was content to continue talking on the same intellectual level as the comedians who played sets before and after him. In the end, the only things the New Atheists have failed to remain rationally skeptical about are the correctness of their own methods and, more importantly, the ways in which they present their message to the general public. It’s a gaping hole in their movement. It isn’t even a new problem; it’s one that critics of Dawkins and his posse have been attacking for several years. And, looking at the obstinacy of both sides, we’re once again forced to face the roots of it all — the narratives. Regardless of how much more accurate the atheistic, scientifically-grounded worldview may be (or how much popular it may be in the next generation, when even more knowledge of that kind is discovered), we’re still at the point at which any theories about the existence or nonexistence of a divine power can’t be defensibly presented to the masses as anything more than a series of conflicting stories, with opposite and equal rhetorical thrusts to accompany bodies of literature and the personae of their champions.

Cue Greg Graffin.

The clouds have been relatively friendly for most of the day, but by the time Bad Religion takes the stage around 5pm it’s raining so hard that — as the less dedicated rally-goers filter out and those simply waiting to rock out edge closer — it becomes clear that Graffin hasn’t needed to work out his closing speech. He won’t have a chance to preach or choose not to, because those words, on their own, aren’t so necessary to him or his cause.

“My sense of humility doesn’t allow me to proclaim myself a leader,” Graffin had told me earlier, when I asked him about how he perceived his role within this movement. “Do I feel like a leader? I feel like I’m doing my duty. If we want a society full of enlightened people, then I feel like I’m as good an example as you can find.”

If spoken by someone like Dawkins, those words might’ve reeked of things akin to arrogance, or at least intellectual complacency, but, as Graffin lopes onto the stage with his band, they feel strangely innocent and prophetic. An academic only by title and not by temperament, he obviously doesn’t need to be Dr. Graffin here; and this is what gives him such clear (and, perhaps, unintentional) foresight and accompanying tact. Dawkins, the comedians, and even Nate Phelps all are, to some degree, confined to their doctrinal roles within this movement. Even at the greatest moments there is an inherent dryness to their words, simply because they’ve failed to fully comprehend the function of the cultural narrative. But Graffin is a thinker who puts the creation and telling of stories first, with the argumentative posturing existing only as gravy. He knows that literature doesn’t mean thick books that provide us with the conclusions to our inquiries; it means myths, it means passion within a structured framework, and it means, inescapably, religion.

So he tears through 'Generator', scowling and shaking his fist not at theists, but at their fictions and motivations. He shouts the chorus of 'New Dark Ages', imploring his followers to witness the errors of the Christian narrative and reshape it into one based on rational inquiry. He looks to the future in 'Sorrow', singing of a time “When all soldiers lay their weapons down/ Or when all kings and all queens relinquish their crowns/ Or when the only true messiah rescues us from ourselves.” He sings of his faith.

Then, Greg Graffin walks off. The Reason Rally is washed away by the rain, and the stage is disassembled to make way for the next gathering that will take place in the National Mall. As our culture chokes on all the tales of its existence, the throat of America is cleared again. It’s comforting. It is written. As we find new ways to pose life’s strangest questions, the protocols are still there to help frame our stories.

And thank God for that.

If you love our features, news and reviews, please support what we do with a one-off or regular donation. Year-on-year, our corporate advertising is down by around 90% - a figure that threatens to sink The Quietus. Hit this link to find out more and keep on Black Sky Thinking.

Apr 6, 2012 10:03am

erm, there's something here I don't quite understand, how you equate the indoctrination of religion similar to religion indoctrinating people that homosexuality is evil. I think the church's actions have led no ends of complete evil in repressing sexuality, paedophilia and all sorts of twisted fucking perversions (that they still continue to hushhush). So people attempting to think a different way about spirituality and an idea that there may be no God is completely fucking different to repressing themselves!! Like you imply there is no definitive truth, something both sides of the coin need to wake up to, not to repress! Eh!

Reply to this Admin

Apr 6, 2012 11:19am

That does seem a flawed parallel. In Uganda there have been numerous attempts at pushing through bills allowing "repeat homosexual offenders" to get the death penalty, which is very Christian of them. As it is who you are is "merely" punishable by imprisonment at the moment. In large swathes of the world, homosexuality is still illegal. Now in how many places of the world would a Christian face life imprisonment, state sanctioned execution or what may as well be sanctioned as a blind eye will be turned because, after all, they were just a Christian?

Even closer to home some (SOME) sectors of the church still try to stand in the way of advancement of LGBT rights. The Catholic church has no problem with homosexuality, to be fair, as long as one party is under age and isn't consenting. Apparently if it's a little boy, it ain't gay. You see, sexuality isn't really a choice for a lot of people. Religious belief on the other hand is. No one came to me when I was a child and forcefed me information and told me that if I wasn't gay an all powerful being would punish me forever after I died - my sexuality just evolved. In many cases, religious belief doesn't and I have nothing but respect for those people who come to their chosen faith on their own and it's a force of good in their lives, a source of comfort. But we've got to face that a lot of people are indoctrinated at an early age and their belief isn't born of their own choice but of fear and to some degree habit.

And to the best of my knowledge, religious deconversion has never been paired with "corrective rape" as in "gay conversion" and nor is it an attempt to make someone push away something as inherent and integral to them as their skin or eye colour. Religious deconversion is seldom paired with violence or threats of punishment cosmic or otherwise.

So in context they're not really all that similar.

Reply to this Admin

Apr 6, 2012 12:48pm

Such a long article simply to complain about the attitude of those who are trying to protect the public from the efforts to form a theocracy. Talk about missing the point...

Reply to this Admin

Apr 6, 2012 5:22pm

The article presented, I think, in a pretty balanced way, the substance (and fluff) of this particular rally on this particular day. The larger judgements about "reason," the appropriateness of "religiosity" or "atheism," or low brow comedy in the pursuit of a secular ideology are left to the reader. I got a really substantial feeling for the message(s) of the day. The world we live in is often so torn by religious ideologies that it's interesting see a little slice of what's out there, presented, Thank God (ahem), with a little humour thrown in just for the balance of it all. Well, done, Mr. Spokony. To quote someone..."It's a mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad world!"

Reply to this Admin

Apr 6, 2012 7:04pm

Tell you what, if you grew up in England and dodged the catholic education your inevitable Irish ancestry should have lined you up for, this sort of spectacle looks so alien. Religion is all but absent from public life here, even if it does still have a presence in the school system and minority communities. I suppose your campaigning atheists put ideas out there and keep the doors open for people who otherwise get bombarded with religious propaganda like creationism. But that's about the best anyone can do as I see it. What they're saying is never going to sound charming or attractive to people who get emotional security and certainty from that religious outlook, to who presumably any threat to that culture is going to feel like an attack, or a chaotic intrusion. I don't think there is a nice way to break the news, so the messengers inevitably come off looking a bit smug and insensitive at times.

Reply to this Admin

Neil Stainer
Apr 8, 2012 2:18pm

A good, thoughtful piece. As someone who has spent several years 'recovering from religion' it's been significantly unhelpful to have people who you otherwise respect and consider rational, characterise your former beliefs (and by extension your friends and family) as stupid, ignorant and contemptible for their honestly held views. When (e.g.) Stewart Lee equates religion to mental illness, part of me knows I should be a bit more thick skinned, but another part of me thinks 'Well fuck you, I know I was never that intolerant when I was a Christian'. Basically, being right is not enough. Being nice, even magnanimous, is what transforms this whole thing from a shouting match to a discussion.

Reply to this Admin

Apr 8, 2012 11:10pm

This is the second article I've read from the Quietus that seems like nothing more than unfocused lamenting on the subject of New Atheism. Neither were really able to flush out what their grievance was or where they felt things should go. It really comes off as a passive aggressive argument for agnosticism.

Reply to this Admin

Apr 9, 2012 12:44pm

Agreed. If you object to something specific that someone has said, outline it and say why. Both Quietus pieces have started from the point, "I don't like Richard Dawkins' [or whoever's] tone of voice" and freewheeled from there without engaging with any substantial, interesting ideas.

I'm sure it's naivety, but by rounding on the diverse set of people helpfully grouped under the banner 'new atheist' by your Daily Mails, Fox News etc, these pieces align The Quietus with some seriously nasty interests.

Reply to this Admin

Apr 9, 2012 12:55pm

In reply to :

"Now in how many places of the world would a Christian face life imprisonment, state sanctioned execution or what may as well be sanctioned as a blind eye will be turned because, after all, they were just a Christian?" Er, quite a lot.

Reply to this Admin

John Doran
Apr 9, 2012 3:47pm

In reply to :

At the risk of repeating myself (again) there is no editorial line on any subject at the Quietus. Both pieces were pitched to us by different writers who don't know each other and both make totally different points. As I see it, if there's one thing they agree on, both are annoyed that Dawkins presents his brand of atheism as scientifically proven when it isn't, it's merely another assertion of belief or faith. There is literally not a shred of evidence to support the fact there is no divine creator of the universe. And to state this doesn't align you immediately with any one group in particular.

Personally speaking, I find his oft parroted statement that it takes religion to make good people do bad things to be not only wrong but wrong headed and at times racist as well (so we know believe that all Germans during WWII were evil people do we?) All the horrors of the 20th Century can be put down to orthodoxies not religions, and that Dawkins would seek to create yet another intransigent belief system with its own literature, codes of behaviour etc when we don't need one is short sighted and dangerous. I happily spent my entire life as an atheist until recently and have had to downgrade to polytheist because of this idiocy. As for the other stuff - really, fuck off eh? If you take an article that is obviously written by an atheist, agreeing with the approach of other atheists but he doesn't happen to agree with your atheist that means he's in bed with Fox News and the conservatives? Seriously... just fuck off and be disingenuous somewhere else. This is exactly the problem I have with 'New Atheism' - call it what you will, I don't give a shit - I have not given Dawkins or his odd cult of followers and internet boot boys leave to speak for me, nor will I.

Reply to this Admin

Apr 9, 2012 7:27pm

In reply to John Doran:

Wait, what the fucking hell? Dawkins does NOT present disbelief in divinity as scientifically proven. He even emphasizes that it's only a high probability. In fact, I find most that "New Atheists" get the most irritating when they're making this point. Dawkin's simply promotes science has the best tool for discovering truths in nature. He also believes that theory of evolution is simply more splendid and more interesting than any kind of creation theory.

Also, the Germans were Christians and Hitler was strongly aligned with the Catholic church. Nazi culture was awash with religious symbolism. Hittler often claimed he was fanatical believer in God and that he was doing God's work.

Reply to this Admin

Apr 9, 2012 8:33pm

In reply to Andrew:

In public speeches early in his reign, Hitler certainly paid lip-service to Christianity, but in private he always made it clear he only had contempt for Christianity. He understood (and I suspect Dawkins and his supporters will never accept this) that Christianity was one of the few things that gave some Germans the moral strength to oppose Nazism - people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Sophie Scholl. The Nazis even invented a neo-Pagan Nazi-religion, not that it ever really caught on.
BTW, I'm not a Christian, but I do think modern European Christianity deserves better than to be lumped in with Nazism.

Reply to this Admin

John Doran
Apr 9, 2012 8:53pm

In reply to Andrew:

"He even emphasizes that it's only a high probability"

Please show the 'scientific' workings of how you or he have worked out the level of probability. I'd love to see how you've come to this conclusion.

The Nazis were not a Christian movement to any useful degree. By your definitions 'New Atheism' is a Christian movement... which neatly brings us back to my problem with it.

Reply to this Admin

Apr 10, 2012 3:23am

In reply to John Doran:

"Please show the 'scientific' workings of how you or he have worked out the level of probability. I'd love to see how you've come to this conclusion."

That level of probability comes from the complete lack of evidence that there is a god. It's an acknowledgement that the existence of a god can't be scientifically disproven, since science relies on evidence and observations.

Reply to this Admin

Apr 10, 2012 9:35am

In reply to John Doran:

"Please show the 'scientific' workings of how you or he have worked out the level of probability. "

If you wish to understand Dawkins' *philosophical* arguments I recommend that you read "The God Delusion".

For starters, evolution means that if God exists, he has very little to do on a day-to-day basis.

Reply to this Admin

John Doran
Apr 10, 2012 11:10am

In reply to Rob:

Hi, I've read The God Delusion twice. I agree with a lot of what's said in it. But the idea that there definably isn't a god/creator is simply a matter of conjecture no more based in scientific fact than the idea that there isn't one.

Reply to this Admin

Apr 10, 2012 12:35pm

I read The God Delusion years ago and I vaguely remember Dawkins saying that while he's convinced there's no God based on the evidence, if evidence comes to light that disproves his theories then he'd willingly accept it. So his atheism isn't as dogmatic as some detractors accuse it of being. In fact, most of the attacks on Dawkins from people who aren't simply defending religion seem to be based on stuff they think he said, or the sort of things they think he might believe, rather than anything specific. It's weird, and seems to have more to do with the convictions of the attackers than those of Dawkins himself. And I'm not saying this as a massive fan of his - he's quite funny and he's got a way with logic, but he's not my messiah.
Anyway, as the UK is moving further and further away from being a secular state (see Cameron's "we're a Christian nation" bollocks recently) I think it's important to have attack dogs like Dawkins clearing the ground so that softer voices have room to work. We're already starting to see movements by creationists and anti-abortionists towards restricting our rights and messing with our kids' heads, best to stop that nonsense right off before it gets silly.

Reply to this Admin

Pluto Animus
Apr 10, 2012 4:57pm

Atheists cannot achieve equality by being polite; religion enjoys a protected status which it does not deserve and will not willingly surrender.

Atheists seek to change the rules, making criticism of religion a more respected activity by doing it as often as possible.

Reply to this Admin

Apr 11, 2012 12:40pm

I’d just like to point out something. I’m friends with a few American ex Christians from the Apocolistic Pentecostalism movement, a fundamentalist branch of Christianity found all over America.

This is a very close knit community, in which you are considered a sinner if you’re a woman who wear trousers. I know of two people who have not spoken to their parents since they stopped attending church every Sunday, and countless more horror stories.

It’s hard to understand for British people (myself, I still think of dear old ladies handing out cheese sandwiches at Church fetes when somebody mentions ‘Christians’) but when you make the decision to become an atheist you can be ostracised from your entire community, in a very hurtful manner, by people you consider to be your friends and family.

Therefore, while I agree that it doesn’t serve to further the course of ‘New Atheism’ (whatever that is), but mocking Christians does have a therapeutic value to atheists who have spent their entire life believing they are immortal, and blessed, and are having to come to terms with the fact this is not the case without their friends or family.

I know one woman who told me her mother told her not to wear a skirt that was slightly above the knee. When she questioned this, her mother said ‘If Jesus came back to earth right now, would you want him to see you dressed immorally?’ This was meant in a literal sense. You can understand why she found solace in people like Tim Minchen mocking these ideas and how it’s liberating for her.

Reply to this Admin

John Doran
Apr 11, 2012 12:49pm

In reply to Ugeine:

Mercilessly laughing at people for perceived stupidity doesn't usually make up part of any genuine therapeutic process. Although you make a good point about the differences between the UK and the US. This is a British site and we'll only ever approach these things from a UK mindset. Re: the influence of religion in US politics - all sane Americans have my deepest sympathy in this regard.

Reply to this Admin

Apr 11, 2012 1:33pm

In reply to John Doran:

I meant to use ‘therapeutic’ in a figurative sense, apologies if it looked like I was attempting to speak from a medical or psychological perspective.

Reply to this Admin

May 3, 2012 8:04pm

Good piece.

One of the things about Dawkins is that he has been driven by his US work for some years.

Here in the UK, we see it every time an embarrassingly 'culture war' style article appears in our papers; that just doesn't work except for followers, fans and fellow travellers.

Hitchens, living in New York, for all those years, was worse.

Hardly surprising: comparing the income of the US and UK organisations, the former is several times bigger.

Reply to this Admin

May 3, 2012 8:06pm

In reply to Matt:

PS Brits? Ooops - I took the .com and interesting title to be US.

Reply to this Admin

May 3, 2012 8:20pm

In reply to :

>The Catholic church has no problem with homosexuality, to be fair, as long as one party is under age and isn't consenting.

Equating rape/paedophilia with homosexuality, Anonymous.

Ouch. Your sarcasm ran away with you.

The RC position is that homosexual orientation is natural, not homosexual practice, as I'm sure you're aware.

And, of course, that child rape is wrong and should be punished by the authorities.

Reply to this Admin

John Thomas
May 4, 2012 6:14pm

In reply to John Doran:

"I happily spent my entire life as an atheist until recently and have had to downgrade to polytheist because of this idiocy"

You changed what you understood to be the truth because you didn't like the way Richard Dawkins went about things?

Reply to this Admin

John Thomas
May 4, 2012 10:31pm

In reply to John Thomas:

Do you think this fickle, easily swayed, and shallow nature of yours is suited to reviewing music?

Reply to this Admin

May 24, 2012 12:11pm

In reply to Matt:

In which case as on many other things the RC position is in opposition to reality, as homosexuality is practised by plenty of animals other than humans - whether or not they've been taken in by the "gay agenda" the (usually American) Christian right are always on about is anyone's guess.

As for their position that it should be punished by the authorities, well, that's one held by sane people but as you'll no doubt be aware the Pope spent quite a bit of time protecting them. That doesn't mean most Catholics support this decision of course, they were as appalled by anyone by this.

Reply to this Admin

Dec 19, 2015 3:18am

Atomic Garden

Reply to this Admin