I'll be posting my pictures of the QED 2013 speakers in due course, but for now here are some shots from The Mixer — in the hotel bar on the Friday evening.
Peter Sean BradleyWHY,
given that (in your view) atheists must be excluded by definition from
an interfaith service, did they CHOOSE to hold an interfaith service and
therefore CHOOSE to divide the city, in a moment of healing, into
"religious" and "not religious"? - James Croft
If that is your question - as loaded, question-begging and compound as it is - here is my answer for the umpteenth time.
1.
I assume that the government felt that reaching out to the faith
communities that provide moral support for the people of Boston was a
good idea for community morale.
2. I assume that the government envisioned this as a program of "faith communities."
3.
I assume it never occurred to the government that atheists would
define themselves as a "faith community" any more than "non-stamp
collectors" define themselves as a faith community.
*Sheesh*
This
process has been fairly ridiculous, and I am offended by your ignoring
and discounting the stigmatization of Catholics by the government of San
Francisco.
Based
on your willingness to make such comments about me, I feel compelled to
say that your lack of empathy and narcissism is really rather
remarkable.
Peter Sean BradleyNow
would you like to make a calm, reasoned argument rather than making the
mistaken assumption that everyone must bow down to your "feelings"?
Terrific, with that comment, you have pretty much demonstrated why public reasoning is dead in the modern era.
1. My questions are straightforward and simple.
2.
Any dialogue involves the ability to suspend one's narcissism for the
moment it takes to hear and comprehend what the other person is saying
"for the sake of argument."
3. You have shown absolutely no ability to comprehend anything that doesn't affirm your narcissistic "feelings."
4. "Feelings" cannot be discussed as a matter of reason - the can only be affirmed, ignored or disaffirmed.
5.
You haven't been interested in dialogue during this entire thread;
rather, your interest has been in forcing everyone to affirm your
feelings.
I
know it is useless with respect to making this suggestion to you, but
for anyone else who might be interested in wisdom and good advice, I
offer this observation from Joseph Pieper:
//Docilitas,
however, is of course not the "docility" and the simple-minded
zealousness of a "good pupil." Rather, what is meant is the kind of
open-mindedness which recognizes the true variety of things and
situations to be experienced and does not cage itself in any presumption
of deceptive knowledge. What is meant is the ability to take advice,
sprung not from any vague "modesty," but simply from the desire for real
understanding (which, however, necessarily includes genuine humility.)
A closed mind and know-it-allness are fundamentally forms of resistance
to the truth of real things; both reveal the incapacity of the subject
to practice that silence which is the absolute prerequisite to all
perception of reality.//
Johno PearcePeter - this is exactly what I think happened on t'other thread. You ignore questions asked of you (by James
here) and supplant them with your own and then complain when James does
not answer them, and complain that atheists never answer your
questions! Wow.
James CroftSorry Peter
- if you want to continue this it will have to be off this wall. I'm
writing a follow-up post about this discussion on my blog - you are
welcome to comment there as well.
For the record, here are some preliminary answers to you
James CroftSorry
Peter - if you want to continue this it will have to be off this wall.
I'm writing a follow-up post about this discussion on my blog - you are
welcome to comment there as well.
For the record, here are some preliminary answers to your (irrelevant) questions:
1.
Yes, it can be unjust to treat different things differently, if the
differences used to justify treating things differently are not salient
given the action under consideration. For example, it is not legitimate
to treat Afircan Americans and Caucasians differently in terms of
allowing one group to vote and not the other, even though there are
specifiable differences between Caucasians and African Americans.
2.
Atheism is not a faith. But Humanism is construed by some adherents to
be a faith, and multiple religious versions of Humanism exist. These
include Humanistic Judaism, Humanistic Mormonism, and Ethical Culture.
3.
It has been repeatedly demonstrated that major constitutional issues
are caused if and when government officials host religious events. It
has not always been prohibited, but it has often been sanctioned. In my
reading, it is an unacceptable practice for a politician, acting in a
public capacity, to host a religious service (whether that religion is
Humanistic or otherwise, theistic or otherwise).
4.
That depends on the nature and purpose of the service. In this case, it
was indeed discriminatory to host a public ceremony (of any sort)
designed to bring a community together after terrorist attacks, and to
refuse the participation of community groups who wished to be involved
and who represent people affected.
I have no interest in going to your blog. I prefer to stay on somewhat neutral grounds.
Concerning your points.
1.
Obviously the differences have to be salient. Thanks for recognizing
that. Now you have to show that the difference between a non-faith
community and a faith community is not salient for the purpose of a
faith service.
Good luck with that.
2.
Yes, atheism is not a faith, but you were bitching about how
"atheists" were oppressed. Clearly you meant "humanists" but that would
equate "humanism" with "atheism" which is something else you haven't
shown.
I
will point out again that your singular silence on the stigmatization
of Catholics by the humanists of San Francisco vitiates any attempt on
your part to take the moral high ground.
3. A statement about "it has been shown" - passive voice and all - is a "tell" that no such thing has been shown.
Prove your point with examples and logical, neutral arguments from those examples.
4. In essence, as Tom Tozer
was arguing waaaaaay up there ^^^ your argument does come down to
"there should be no faith services" at all...since, by definition, a
non-faith is not a faith that can be expected to participate in a
program designed to express faith in the providential wisdom of a higher
power.
But
as I've demonstrated, governmental sponsorship/involvement with faith
services have long been recognized as proper and constitutional by
well-established precedent.
So,
long story short, you've been question-begging this entire time, and
you certainly haven't shown any "discrimination" and "divisiveness."
Steve HammondThanks Peter Sean Bradley.
I don't see your effort as wasted. About the time I could see this most
clearly was about the time he had to leave to write on his blog.
It bothers me that it did take such an effort on your part, though, for most people (myself
included) would not pursue the matter as doggedly as you have done. We
might simply consider the strong feelings as indication of strong
reasons and go with that.
Along
the way there were complaints about your forceful style. But I wonder
if the thread could have been kept as focused with a more conciliatory
style. After all, the hurt feelings were actually the more significant
part of James' "argument". The reasonings were cover, IMO. (And his
whole point about being "denied healing" is an appeal to other people's
sympathies more than to any reasonings.) So, I think your "style" of
giving him no sympathy and forcefully pressing a reasoned debate was
very much spot on.
Dil Marple-HorvatIt
is difficult to get past feelings being so close to recent events.
Perhaps that was why the thread was so long. But it was useful to me to
see the opening post's reference to 'exclusion' being pursued clearly
and carefully.
James CroftPeople
are writing as if some point has been conceded or something
demonstrated against my case, while all Paul has done is managed to
obfuscate the issue. None of your responses to my points are apposite -
and the reason why I am writing a blog post is
because it is necessarily more lengthy than will be easy to read here.
But I will happily post it here for those who would like to follow on my
thoughts from this strange and disturbing discussion.
On
point here, though: Peter has repeatedly and erroneously slurred me in
saying that I somehow support the demeanment of Catholics. This is an
ugly and completely untrue statement: I have twice in this thread
clearly stated that I support absolutely no blanket condemnation of any
faith group by the government. I would like a retraction of that lie
immediately.
Tom TozerI
think the readers of the thread are entitled to determine for
themselves whether anything has been demonstrated against your "case"
rather than your dictating the results to them.
2.
Over the years, I have - surprisingly - had a number of people
compliment me on my patience, which is weird because I really don't have
a lot of patience for equivocation, name-calling, fuzziness, emotional
blackmail, bad arguments and the other things that make public discourse
a dying cultural practice.
3. I am actually hoping for a "good argument" from the other side.
James Croft clearly sees a "good." In fact, I know and I see the same "good" he sees, which is the good of community solidarity.
But
I know that he doesn't see the good that I see, which is the "good" of
the diversity of voluntary organizations and the good of giving diverse
communities the freedom that allows them to bring their particular
"charism" to an issue.
I
think that James Croft's "good" runs the risk of being totalizing that
would then be an evil insofar as it undermines the good that I see. In
fact, James Croft's "totalizing good" of community solidarity is the
reason he couldn't bring himself to condemn the City of San Francisco's
stigmatization of Catholics.
I
want him to think about that truth, and articulate it in as objectively
rational a way as possible. What might happen if he does that is that
he will come to move in my direction as much as I might move in his
direction.
Thus,
in this case, I was serious about the idea that atheists should have
their own crypto-faith "services." If that kind of custom develops,
then, over time, it might be the case that atheists would learn to
cooperate in "interfaith services" as much as Christians in the earlier
part of the 20th Century in America learned to cooperate - slowly - in
interfaith services, which were unprecedented previously.
Now that last paragraph would be a fascinating discussion to have, but we aren't even close to having that discussion.
There have been a lot of fascinating discussions that simply don't happen because of the inability to think clearly.
By
the way, here is my review of "The Poverty of Secular Discourse," which
actually discusses some of what we saw here from James Croft, such as
smuggling intrinsically empty concepts, such as "fairness," into a
discussion and then arguing in a circle from the "smuggled concept."
If my very will is disfigured by sin, then should I cease willing? As I understand
it, Christians believe that human will is disfigured by sin, that our
every action is compromised by sinfulness, and that the only remedy for
this is divine grace. If this is the case, a...
James CroftI
really must insist again that you not repeat the lie that I don't
condemn stigmatization of Catholics - I absolutely do. I have repeatedly
spoken up in public against the stigmatization of any group depending
of their identity characteristics. It is one
of my most deeply-held values and I cannot allow you to continue to
claim otherwise unchallenged. It's completely outrageous, and it speaks
to your totaly lack of integrity.
Peter Sean BradleyAlso,
notice that instead of having the vapors, I ignored that splenetic
venting ....because it is something I am totally used to hearing from
atheists.
James Croft"Were
the San Francisco government to have declared "Catholics are subverting
the traditions of San Francisco" I would absolutely protest that."
" I do not support any displays of religious prejudice on the part of elected officials"
James CroftNo,
you misunderstand my comments here. I read the resolution and do not
agree that it fits your exact description. I think it is not obviously a
case of anti-Catholic bigotry (although I could have my mind changed on
that point). The reason why I did not
take much time to address it is because it is irrelevant to the
question at hand - clearly quite unrelated to the issue we are
discussing. Suffice to say that were we to discuss that issue at length,
and were I convinced it was anti-Catholic in the way you initially
suggested, I would certainly oppose it. I hope this closes this
side-issue.
James CroftOh,
and I studied Nast at Harvard Divinity School - much of his stuff was
indeed disturbingly anti-Catholic, you're right. I don't support that
sort of thing.
Exactly, you don't "think" it's "anti-Catholic bigotry."
Quelle Surprise.
That's what I said you were doing.
Your
entire case was based on empathy and feelings, but you would deny
Catholics respect and understanding when they "feel" they are being
stigmatized.
But
all the non-non-stamp collectors were supposed to drop everything and
accept your description of the Boston faith service as "divisive" and
"discriminatory."
You have very flexible principles and an aggressive double-standard.
An amazing ability to decide when feelings matter and when they don't matter.
Which has been one of my point through this entire thread.
Peter Sean BradleyOh,
and I studied Nast at Harvard Divinity School - much of his stuff was
indeed disturbingly anti-Catholic, you're right. I don't support that
sort of thing. - James Croft
How
convenient for you to be able to condemn anti-Catholicism that happened
180 years ago, but not be able to recognize it when it is a modern
Secular Humanist city.
James CroftI
really have no idea what you're talking about again. If you want to
stick to the issue at hand and discuss that, we might be able to make
some progress. If you keep going off on weird tangents I have nothing
more to say until I compose my thoughts on my blog.
Paul JenkinsWhen I posted the OP I didn't expect the thread to become all about the Catholics. Perhaps I should have known....
I
framed the OP in terms of tolerance because I was interested to hear if
members considered that the Christian/non-Christian divide could be bridged in this forum, given the apparent reasons for creating the group in the first place.
For
this group at least, I have my answer. (As it turned out, the very
first comment foreshadowed the tenor of the subsequent discussion.)
James CroftYes.
I'm sorry Paul that your call for compassion and thoughtfulness has not
succeeded in this instance. I'm not in a great state given the impact
of these attacks on our Humanist Community here at Harvard and the last
thing I want is to be discussing this
online. I just wish people would think a little about the fact that
atheists are human beings too and deserve respect and consideration like
everybody else. This is not a time to try to score little semantic
points regarding the definition of the term "faith".
Peter Sean BradleyI
framed the OP in terms of tolerance because I was interested to hear if
members considered that the Christian/non-Christian divide could be
bridged in this forum, given the apparent reasons for creating the group
in the first place. - Paul Jenkins This comment confuses me.
Was it your intent to limit the discussion to a definition of tolerance as "being nice to atheists"?
Or
were you, perhaps, trying to open up the discussion to the
consideration of a tolerance that atheists might have to extend to other
groups and cultures?
Paul JenkinsI
was not intending to limit or steer the discussion in any way (nor
could I), which must be plain by my minimal participation in it. As I
stated, I was interested to hear which way it would go, in the context
of the Unbelievably Distilled group.
Peter Sean BradleyI
just wish people would think a little about the fact that atheists are
human beings too and deserve respect and consideration like everybody
else. - James Croft
On the other hand, the possibility that some atheists are open to the idea that some non-atheists
apparently may not be human beings and may not deserve respect and
consideration is the conclusion that I've gotten from the
double-standards, equivocations and refusal to consider anything other
than atheist complaints about their hurt feelings.
Also,
question-begging, inasmuch as it has never been shown that anyone has
not treated a non-faith group as not human and not deserving of respect
by not inviting it to participate in a faith service.
Good lord, this is the product of a Harvard education?????
Peter Sean BradleyFor
this group at least, I have my answer. (As it turned out, the very
first comment foreshadowed the tenor of the subsequent discussion.) - Paul Jenkins
Yes,
of course, Paul, the sum total of all my comments about principles and
other communities and various goods boils down to "get over yourself."
Peter Sean BradleyApparently,
if a topic veers off of total attention on atheist feelings or the way
that atheists want to frame an issue, the real message is "get over
yourself."
Helen Marple-HorvatJames
and Paul. Did you want a humanist to stand up and read Philip Larkin ?
What is it that you would have wanted. what would represent you and your
ungod?
James CroftWell
if anyone would like to do something constructive I would be very
appreciative if you would contribute to this fund to help the friends of
our community who were caught in the explosions:
Celeste and Sydney were badly injured in the blasts at the Boston Marathon on 4/15/13.
Sydney suffered severe injuries as a result of being hit with shrapnel
and Celeste has lost both her legs below her knees. There is a long
road ahead - both physically and emotionally - and we're hoping t...
Helen Marple-HorvatJames.My
heart and my emotions are with this tragedy and I feel for you in the
trauma and shock. But there is no hope for justice on atheism. This life
is all there is.
I dont believe that that is true. I think our lives are significant and that what we
do here counts for something. I believe that at the end will be an
overwhelming love into which we will be embraced. Maybe some of us will
need some more convincing and will have to spend time revisiting some
attitudes, but nothing will convince me that some kind of humanist
service will heal anyone. Coming together in a big group can be lonely
as hell.
This healing interfaith thing is actually amazing....to see jews, muslims ans christians come together is a miracle.
I think you should have gone...if you didnt. The JS Bach alone would have drawn you into a healed place.xx
James CroftJesus
Christ! This is really not the time for that sort of callous bullshit!
Cut it out until the person is found at least. I'm outta here until you
can be minimally decent.
Christopher SoulosI'm
concerned about where the writer feels safe and unsafe. Not safe on the
the streets because of the recent bombings and not safe at the healing
service. I've read current articles how Bostonians are not phased by the
terrorism and will rise above it.
As an outsider not really comprehending all the constitutional
ramifications and home political agenda, I read this whole thread and
still haven't found presented a good case against a sensitive atheist
attending a service that will already be filled by political opponents,
the faithful and nominal, other atheists and secularists. I'm not averse
to saying the first post might have hit the nail on the head. I feel
the entire article may be a somewhat unnecessarily hysterical tone
serving only to taint this valuable community service with divisive
ideological overtones since that coldly seems the writer's main aim. I'm
utterly sure as a human being not all atheists feel as threatened
attending this church service as walking down a Boston street following
the bombings, all sarcastic comments aside please.
Paul JenkinsHow would you feel if I described your faith as "...wishful thinking on your part Helen.
It is sentimental garbage"? Because, frankly, a lot of atheists
probably do think that. I for one would not come out and state it baldly
if you were in a state of grief,
or even if you weren't, especially not here, in this forum (that you
created!) which as I understand it was supposed to be a place for
building bridges.
I had an inkling of the response my OP might elicit, but I certainly wasn't expecting it from you!
Paul S. Jenkins, writer, podcaster and tech-enthusiast (and atheist and skeptic) lives and works in Hampshire, UK. Notes from an Evil Burnee is his blog about things skeptical.