To the extent anyone influenced this statement, it was my colleague and friend Debbie Goddard, with whom I had a productive conversation last night. However, I remain solely responsible both for the decision to issue this statement and for its contents.

In my blog post of May 18, I complained about Ms. Rebecca Watson’s characterization of my May 17 talk. In doing so, I expressed my points in intemperate language, e.g., the comparison of her blog post to a press communication from North Korea, and for that I unqualifiedly apologize. This apology has been conveyed to Ms. Watson.

To be clear, I still firmly believe Ms. Watson’s blog post mischaracterizes my talk, specifically by characterizing my abbreviated discussion of the phrase “shut up and listen” as the “crux” of my talk.

As to my May 17 talk, I have nothing to say. The CFI board will decide whether my talk was contemptuous of women, as some have alleged, misrepresented CFI’s commitment to women’s rights, or in some way committed CFI to a course of action inconsistent with CFI’s mission.

Her distortions begin with her second paragraph, when she states that “Lindsay spends a good deal of time arguing against the idea that feminism as a movement has no significant internal disagreements.”  I expended about 200 words out of a 2,420 word text posing the question about whether there are significant divisions within feminism.  In other words, I spent 90% of the time talking about other topics.  The next time Watson asks me for a “good deal” of my drink, I will leave her an ice cube.

Second, she says she has never heard anyone take the position that there are currently no significant divisions within feminism, which I assume is fairly translated as no divisions worth debating.  Yet Watson is aware that just a short time ago, the organization Secular Woman rejected the Open Letter that was endorsed by most leaders of secular organizations, in part because it implied that there was a legitimate ongoing debate about the meaning of feminism.  The Secular Woman response to the Open Letter states, in pertinent part:

“It is confusing, therefore, that this same letter suggests that a significant problem with online communication is centered on the ‘debate’ about the ‘appropriate way to interpret feminism.’ At Secular Woman, the principle that ‘feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression’ (Hooks, 2000, p. viii) is taken as a given, and not a topic for debate.”

Next, Watson claims the “crux” of my talk was the problem I have with feminists using the concept of privilege as a justification for telling men to “shut up and listen.”  This claim is false.  No reasonable person could possibly describe the crux of my talk as dealing with this issue.  Instead, the crux of my talk dealt with the millennia-long history of the subordination of women and how CFI was committed to working toward a society in which women would have “complete social and civil equality and equal economic and political opportunity.”

But in her defense, perhaps Watson was too busy tweeting about how “strange” it was to have a “white man” open the conference to pay attention to what I was actually saying.  (I’m just glad Watson didn’t notify security: “white man loose on stage, white man loose on stage!”)

But let’s leave Watson’s distortions behind and move to the central issue presented by her criticism, and that is what model of communication we should adopt when we are conversing with someone who has had different life experiences, e.g., a conversation between a woman and a man.  As I stated quite clearly in my talk, we should listen respectfully and attentively to someone with different life experiences, especially if that person is from a group that historically has had its voice suppressed.  However, although we should listen attentively, we should not fail to engage and, where appropriate, question. This is exactly what I said:

“By the way, with respect to the ‘Shut up and listen’ meme, I hope it’s clear that it’s the ‘shut up’ part that troubles me, not the ‘listen’ part. Listening is good. People do have different life experiences, and many women have had experiences and perspectives from which men can and should learn.  But having had certain experiences does not automatically turn one into an authority to whom others must defer. Listen, listen carefully, but where appropriate, question and engage.”

By contrast, the position against which I was arguing, as articulated by PZ Myers, is as follows:

“When a member of a marginalized group tells a member of a privileged group that their efforts, no matter how well-meaning, are wrong, there is one reasonable response: Shut up and listen. You might learn something.

There is also a terrible response: arguing back. It always makes it worse.

It’s not that they are infallible and we are totally stupid. It’s that THEY are the experts and the subject of the discussion.”

Myers-Watson assume you should never question, you should never argue back, because the person from the marginalized group must have the expertise.

I do not share that assumption, and I doubt its wisdom.  Indeed, I think it is a horribly misguided, logically infirm understanding of communication.   This model of communication asks us to put our critical thinking on hold merely because the person speaking comes from a marginalized group.

No extended argument or analysis of this issue is needed, and I do not think the choice could be starker.  Either you believe reason and evidence should ultimately guide our discussions, or you think they should be held hostage to identity politics. 

But that is not what people wanted to discuss; instead, a number of people took strong exception when I expressed concern during my talk that the concept of privilege sometimes was being invoked to tell people to “shut up and listen.”  Tweets during and after my talk complained I offered no specific examples. 

Two quick responses.  First, my talk was over its allotted time limit as it was, and my concern about the misuse of privilege was not the primary focus of my talk, as already indicated.

Second, there are examples you can find on the internet through a few minutes search.  For myself, when I drafted this portion of the talk, the two examples I had in mind were a presentation on privilege that was given at the Heads meeting in January and a statement by PZ Myers.  I am not going to identify the speakers at the Heads meeting, as the meetings are supposed to be confidential, but if you ask around, other people will confirm that there was a lengthy discussion of privilege, and within that discussion there were examples of how members of  “privileged” groups should be quiet and just listen to those in the non-privileged group when the latter were discussing their experiences. 

The Myers quote is below:

“When a member of a marginalized group tells a member of a privileged group that their efforts, no matter how well-meaning, are wrong, there is one reasonable response: Shut up and listen. You might learn something.
There is also a terrible response: arguing back. It always makes it worse.
It’s not that they are infallible and we are totally stupid. It’s that THEY are the experts and the subject of the discussion.”

It can be found here.

Other examples of the “shut up and listen” trope are here and here. 

By the way, I am well aware that our communications director in his personal capacity quoted Myers approvingly.  Obviously, I disagree with him on this point.  The fact of that disagreement does not affect our working relationship.  Paul is a great communications director.  Are there limits to what CFI employees can say?  Sure, but the restrictions are fairly loose.  At CFI, we do not follow the rule “shut up and listen.”  Generally, employees can express their opinions.  There is one requirement, however.  They need to supply reasons and evidence. Invoking their racial/sexual/ethnic/class identity, whatever it might be, is not considered a substitute for argument. 

Let me begin with a reading, a reading that should be familiar to many of you, it’s from 1st Timothy chapter 2:

“Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12: I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13: For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14: and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15: Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty”

If you take out the references to Adam and Eve and salvation, similar pronouncements could have been made, almost surely were made, across the globe, from one to two to three thousand years before Paul write those words. And similar pronouncements were common at least up through about 1800 in the Christian west, and analogous pronouncements are still being made today in much of the Islamic world.

The suppression of women, their treatment as inferior, subordinate beings has a long history, encompassing virtually all human cultures. When precisely did the subordination of women begin? We can’t know with any certainty; some anthropologists speculate it began with the development of agriculture, and that a similar hierarchy did not exist in hunter-gatherer culture. Whether that’s true or not, the fact remains that the subordination of women has been a critical and common feature of human civilization for thousands of years. By contrast the slow, and very much incomplete, process of achieving equality for women has been a phenomenon of just the last couple of centuries.

The reading I just completed from the New Testament reminds us of a second point, that is, the connection between religion and the subordination of women. It is obvious that religions doctrines have often provided the rationale for treating women as inferior beings, beings who should not be allowed to speak, which of course is one reason many secular organizations regard advocacy for women’s rights as an integral part of their mission.  In working for a secular society, we are also working for a society free of oppressive doctrines. But the relationship between religion and the subordination of women is not an uncomplicated, straightforward cause-effect relationship.  It’s not as though we could say with confidence if there had been no religion there would have been no subordination of women. Seems to me the roots of the suppression of women are much deeper, and that they have affected and may continue to affect the attitudes and conduct even of nonreligious individuals. I’ll return to these points later.

One thing you may have noticed already is that I did not give you a formal welcome to Women in Secularism 2. Of course you are welcome here. We’re very happy to have you with us, but this is something you know already, and, although I don’t want to appear ungracious, why take up time to state the obvious, because the reality is we have much work to do, and presumably you came here for substance not rhetoric.

The first Women in Secularism conference was a ground breaking event, but that’s just it. It broke ground, it helped lay a foundation, but it’s not clear yet what’s going to be erected on top of that foundation. That’s in part what we need to find out over the next few days and that’s one reason CFI decided it was important to have a second conference.

The first conference raised a number of questions in my mind, and if the vigorous online debate that has occurred over the last twelve months is any indication, in the minds of many others as well.

What is the relationship between feminism and secularism? What sort of priority should secular groups give to advocacy for women’s rights? As many of you may recall, shortly after the first Women in Secularism conference, there was a call by some individuals to launch the Atheism+ movement, that is, atheism plus activism on social justice issues. This was not necessarily a bad suggestion, other than the fact that humanist groups like CFI or the AHA think that’s what they’re doing already, that is, they’re combining atheism with activism on selected social justice issues. Because CFI was already involved in social justice issues, including women’s rights issues, I was frankly lukewarm toward the Atheism+ proposal. Also, based on the rhetoric of some of its proponents, and I underscore some not all, it seemed to me to have the potential to be divisive. In fact, according to at least one proponent it was intended to be divisive. Upon further reflection, I’ve become more sanguine about the proposal. To begin, although nomenclature is not irrelevant, it’s not supremely important; at the end of the day, you cannot force someone to call themselves a humanist, so if people prefer to call themselves an Atheist-plusser, or whatever the term is, that’s fine. Moreover, it’s not intrinsically divisive to have another group or organization within the secular movement, provided the group collaborates on key matters with other secular organizations. Goodness knows, we have plenty of groups as it is and we still have found a way to collaborate on many issues.

 Still, some questions remain, for example, how should secular organizations, including any organization that styles itself as an Atheist+ group, set their priorities? You can’t do everything at once. Only the religious believe in miracles, and think that time will stand still for them. For those of us who believe in the natural world, there are three limiting dimensions to public policy advocacy, namely time, space and money. So what should atheists or humanists who are interested in social justice focus on? Women’s issues only? Presumably not. But which other social justice issues are considered critical? And who decides what’s included within the scope of social justice anyway? What is the definition of social justice?  I read a blog post by Louise Pennington the other day; she stated that although patriarchy may predate capitalism, we cannot destroy patriarchy w/o destroying capitalism. Is the destruction of capitalism considered part of a social justice program? If so, that position certainly has very significant implications.

This leads me to another set of questions. What is feminism and what are the aims of the feminist movement? There’s a definition that I’m sure many of you are familiar with, a definition supplied by bell hooks,  and that is the feminist movement is a movement that seeks to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression. In the abstract, that seems about right. But the problem with this definition is it just pushes our questions back further. What is sexism? What actions constitute sexist exploitation? I don’t think you’re going to find unanimity of opinion on the answers to those questions even within the feminist movement.

Or would you? I know that I’ve had some conversations in which the claim has been made there is no significant division among true feminists. There may be people who call themselves feminists who sharply disagree with the correct understanding of feminism, but they’re just fake feminists. Worse, some of them are sister-punishers.

Well, I’ll grant that merely calling yourself a feminist does not make you one. And it is true that some women seem to think that if you work outside the home that by itself makes you a feminist. Obviously not the case, But are there truly no significant divisions currently within the feminist movement? It would be surprising if that were the case b/c the feminist movement has had sharp divisions in the past. I just referenced a blog post from Louise Pennington in which she said capitalism had to be destroyed to eliminate patriarchy. Does everyone in this room who considers herself a feminist agree with Pennington?  If not, then you already have one very significant difference among feminists.

Also if there were no divisions among feminists, that would arguably make feminism unique among social movements; the secularist movement has significant divisions. For example, there are some secularists who think it’s a waste of effort to complain about/litigate so-called symbol cases. You know the type of case I’m talking about, there’s a cross somewhere on a piece of public property, so some of us think we need protest, maybe file a lawsuit to remove it. Others think not; why bother. People who take this position, assuming they believe strongly in a secular government and follow other secularist positions—are they not true secularists? I would think they are; I might disagree with them, but I don’t think I can mask that disagreement by the simple expedient of saying “you’re not a secularist, so I don’t have to talk to you.”
 
This brings me to the concept of privilege, a concept much in use these days. Let me emphasize at the outset that I think it’s a concept that has some validity and utility; it’s also a concept that can be misused, misused as a way to try to silence critics. In what way does it have validity? I think there is sufficient evidence to indicate that there are socially embedded advantages that men have over women, in a very general sense. These advantages manifest in various ways, such as the persistent pay gap between men and women. Also, I’m not a believer in a priori arguments, but I will say that given the thousands of years that women were subordinated to men, it would be absolutely amazing if in the space of several decades all the social advantages that men had were promptly and completely eradicated. Legislation can be very effective for securing rights, but changing deeply engrained patterns of behavior can take some time.
 
That said, I am concerned the concept of privilege may be misapplied in some instances. First, some people think it has dispositive explanatory power in all situations, so, if for example, in a particular situation there are fewer women than men in a given managerial position, and intentional discrimination is ruled out, well, then privilege must be at work. But that’s not true; there may be other explanations. The concept of privilege can do some explanatory work at a general level, but in particular, individualized situations, other factors may be more significant. To bring this point home let’s consider an example of another broad generalization which is unquestionably true, namely that people with college degrees earn more over their lifetime than those who have only high school diplomas. As I said, as a general matter, this is unquestionably true as statistics have shown this to be the case. Nonetheless in any particular case, when comparing two individuals, one with a high school degree and one with a college degree, the generalization may not hold.

But it’s the second misapplication of the concept of privilege that troubles me most. I’m talking about the situation where the concept of privilege is used to try to silence others, as a justification for saying, “shut up and listen.” Shut up, because you’re a man and you cannot possibly know what it’s like to experience x, y, and z, and anything you say is bound to be mistaken in some way, but, of course, you’re too blinded by your privilege even to realize that.

This approach doesn’t work.  It certainly doesn’t work for me. It’s the approach that the dogmatist who wants to silence critics has always taken because it beats having to engage someone in a reasoned argument. It’s the approach that’s been taken by many religions. It’s the approach taken by ideologies such as Marxism. You pull your dogma off the shelf, take out the relevant category or classification, fit it snugly over the person you want to categorize, dismiss, and silence and ... poof, you’re done. End of discussion. You’re a heretic spreading the lies of Satan, and anything you say is wrong. You’re a member of the bourgeoisie, defending your ownership of the means of production, and everything you say is just a lie to justify your power. You’re a man; you have nothing to contribute to a discussion of how to achieve equality for women.

Now don’t get me wrong. I think the concept of privilege is useful; in fact it is too useful to have it ossified and turned into a dogma.

By the way, with respect to the “Shut up and listen” meme, I hope it’s clear that it’s the “shut up” part that troubles me, not the “listen” part. Listening is good. People do have different life experiences, and many women have had experiences and perspectives from which men can and should learn. But having had certain experiences does not automatically turn one into an authority to whom others must defer. Listen, listen carefully, but where appropriate, question and engage.

I started my talk with that reading from the New Testament which unmistakably assigned women a subordinate role.  Both the symbol of that oppression and the vehicle for enforcing that oppression was silence.  Enforced silence is always and everywhere the enemy of truth and progress.  If someone is forbidden from speaking, you are obviously not going to hear what they have to say. 

But enforced silence is also a way of robbing someone of their humanity.  Part of what allows us to give meaning to our lives is the ability to exercise certain core freedoms, such as freedom of conscience, freedom of association, freedom of expression, and reproductive freedom.  We need these freedoms to take control of our own lives, to give shape and direction our own lives; otherwise, we are just going to be forced into a role that has been assigned to us.

And this is where we see a fundamental connection between advocacy for women’s rights and humanism.  Humanists are committed to the autonomy of the individual, the right of the individual to make decisions for herself, to decide which occupations, which relationships to pursue or forego.  Women will not be able to secure that autonomy until they achieve complete social and civil equality and equal economic and political opportunity, and that is why CFI is committed to working toward those objectives.  The notion that people are assigned, condemned to a certain predetermined role in life, whether by the church, the state, or society, is antithetical to the humanist point of view.  Freedom, real freedom, authentic freedom, that is what we want for everyone.  Of course, how to get there —  that is not yet determined.  But that is what we are here to figure out. 

I look forward to the conversation. 

I read The Morning Heresy. If I didn’t do that and watch the Colbert Report, I would never find out what’s happening.  So the other day, an item caught my eye: Leah Libresco announcing a new forum for Catholic-atheist dialogue. 

I am interested in dialogue.  I like to discuss ideas and beliefs, especially with people with whom I have some areas of disagreement (otherwise, it can get boring).  I also like to think I am open to changing my views —that is how I dropped Catholicism and became an atheist in the first place—so I decided to look at Libresco’s post. 

Libresco’s post indicates this new forum is called “Strange Notions” and is overseen by Brandon Vogt.  Within a few sentences, however, I was put off by Vogt’s description of his site.  According to Vogt (as quoted by Libresco) the “implicit goal [of the site] is to bring non-Catholics to faith, especially followers of the so-called New Atheism.”  Ugh. 

Strange Notions has a strange notion of dialogue.  Genuine dialogue requires the parties to it to be open to the possibility they are wrong, even wrong about foundational beliefs.  Furthermore, the overarching objective of a genuine dialogue should always be the discernment of the truth.  If you go into a dialogue with the objective of converting someone, you are not going to be talking to them.  You will be preaching to them. 

Vogt’s statement of purpose also exemplifies a common misperception among the religious about atheists: namely, that we are followers of some sort of creed.  No, we have no creed, no dogma, no sacred texts, and no popes.  Dawkins, Dennett, Jacoby and others—they are entitled only to that respect which the soundness of their arguments provides.  To the extent they err (and being human, they will) there is no felt obligation to “follow” them. 

In short, Vogt may not be pursuing a genuine dialogue.  Instead, he appears to be on a mission to convert people who he mistakenly believes are followers of another faith. 

As indicated, I welcome dialogue.  I hope Strange Notions will provide a forum for dialogue, but it does not appear to be off to a good start. 

The battle for same-sex marriage isn’t over, but the outcome is no longer in doubt.

When politicians begin stumbling over each other in a rush to tell the press that they too support same-sex marriage, I think it’s safe to say the tide has definitely turned. Oh, it’s not going to happen overnight. First, the Supreme Court, I’m pretty sure, is going to punt and will not rule that state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. But the Court’s hesitation will only delay the movement toward legalization of same-sex marriage, not end it. Legalization will come state by state. By 2016, we’ll have at least twenty states with same-sex marriage. By 2024, they’ll only be a few holdouts, like Utah.

The LGBT movement has accomplished a sea change in America attitudes in the space of about 40 years. (“Homosexuality” was considered a mental disorder by the psychiatric community until 1974.) There were a number of factors that produced this change, but I would cite three causes in particular. First, the willingness of gays and lesbians to come out publicly. It’s harder to hate a friend or colleague than an abstraction. Second, positive portrayals in the popular media. Third, a coordinated and successful political and legal strategy. With respect to the last factor, the LGBT movement generally picked their targets carefully, aiming first for criminal prohibitions on “sodomy” a/k/a same-sex sexual activity. Where feasible, they also worked to have employment discrimination based on sexual orientation made illegal. Only after they had these building blocks in place—only after they had become more accepted—did they go for same-sex marriage.

Can atheists learn anything from the success of the LGBT movement? By the way, in asking this question, I am not saying the battle for atheist acceptance and the end to religious privilege is equivalent to the battle for LGBT rights. But they do have some similarities, including the difficulty in making progress in the face of widespread animosity based on negative stereotypes.

One thing for sure: it would be good if there were a coordinated political and legal strategy, as some others have observed recently. We should focus on situations where our claims and cases have an emotional appeal to the fair-minded religious. Any situation involving discrimination should receive high priority. Even when legal action is not possible, social and political pressure may be warranted.  The Boy Scouts should be a prime target. Can’t sue them under current law, but we should try to embarrass the hell out of them, and also lobby to put an end to their receipt of public funds.

Going after “symbolic” targets—crosses, mottoes, and so forth—may not always be the best strategy. It depends on the situation, of course, because some of these cases are easy wins based on precedent and some situations are just too outrageous too ignore. But I think it is fair to say that having the words “In God We Trust” on our money does not strike many religious people as an intolerable assault on the human dignity of nonbelievers. Don’t get me wrong. I abhor that motto as much as anyone else, but we should be realistic about where we focus our efforts.

Personally, I think we should continue working on school cases, where there is some sympathy with children who are being pressured to engage in religious exercises. This includes Pledge cases. On the federal level, there’s probably nothing we can do, but lawsuits in state courts could be an option. (The pending Massachusetts case, in which CFI will be filing an amicus brief, will obviously provide an indication of how fruitful an option it might be.) But we should also think beyond the courtroom. LGBT activists effected change in many instances because they were able to mobilize people to express outrage. How often have atheist activists engaged in demonstrations, appeared at school board meetings, or even written letters to school officials to complain about this mandatory recitation of a religious oath? If we’re not bothered enough to take action, to protest, we’re not going to persuade the public to care about our cause. And if the public doesn’t care, don’t expect many politicians or judges to care.

True social and civil equality isn’t going to be handed to us. We’re going to have to earn it.

Been gone for a few weeks. Living in a cave in north Pakistan. Little known fact: Al-Zawahiri snores.

Seriously, I was on a leave of absence, so I have to catch up now. Let’s see what’s happening:

Red states passing laws restricting abortion.

More heated exchanges in blogosphere about sexism and feminism.

Controversy over some Twitter remarks by Richard Dawkins.

An anti-gay theological dinosaur is running the Catholic Church.

Hugo Chavez still drawing huge crowds.

OK, so nothing has changed. It’s like I never went away.

Well, the pope does have a new name and he is a little taller. But from remarks he made in the past and his first few comments as pope, it does not appear that Francis is going to make any changes either with respect to the Church’s stand on issues relating to human sexuality, such as same-sex marriage, or the underlying theology of the Church. Anyone who has described laws legalizing same-sex marriage as “machinations of the Father of Lies” doesn’t seem a likely candidate for leading reform of the Church’s position.

Nope, on core issues Francis is going to double-down, as suggested by the remark he made the other day that “he who doesn’t pray to God prays to the Devil.” That’s right. Pope Frank doesn’t want to leave open the possibility that people don’t pray at all, that there is a growing number of people around the world who have rejected the entire illusion of a spirit world, populated by gods, angels, demons, fairies and what not. He wants everyone to buy into his picture of the world: if you’re not on God’s side, you must be on the side of the devil.

As repugnant as I find this pope’s position, I understand its logic. The Church will not be able to continue in anything like its current form if it stops emphasizing its Bronze Age theology and actually focuses on what some use as an excuse for its existence, namely its charitable activity. The pope himself disparaged this work, saying that unless the Church preached about Jesus, it would just become a “pitiful NGO.”  Oh, you mean like Oxfam?

The Church doesn’t want to become a pitiful NGO like Oxfam because you can’t get people on their knees in slavish adoration just by appealing to their benevolence. No, you have to manipulate their emotions, create an aura of sanctity, nourish false hopes, and create in-group solidarity by condemning those who aren’t with you, the gays, those who use contraception and, of course, those devil-worshippers, the atheists. It’s a strategy the Church has long followed and this pope is committed to the same game plan.

“Liberal” believers and other interested observers of the Catholic Church often remark, “Oh, sure, the Church is going to have to change its position on [fill in the blank].” No, it doesn’t and it won’t.

The pope has made it clear how he sees the world. We humanist and atheists have a different vision. It’s largely up to us which one will prevail.

I think I’m ready to return to work.

Morality does not always provide us with a definitive answer about what’s right and what’s wrong, even when pain and suffering are involved.  This is especially true when we try to extend moral reasoning beyond its usual territory—as when we try to weigh benefits to cats against harm to birds.

Warning:  This post is on the longish side, in part because I want to talk about my cats.  Also, be aware that it contains descriptions of violence and death.  Finally, it contains remorseless anthropomorphizing, particularly with respect to attributing emotions to cats. 

For those who want the conclusion up front, it’s this: The normative claim that pet cats always should be kept indoors has no solid basis to support it. This claim assumes an ability to assess the interests of cats and determine their real interests are contrary to their apparent desires and instinctual behavior, and, to the extent it is predicated on the fact that cats kill birds and other animals when outdoors, it also assumes an ability to weigh the competing interests of several species with such precision that we can make a confident moral judgment about which species’ interests should prevail.

I am motivated to write this post because of the recent report that cats kill about 2.4 billion birds a year (also about 12.3 billion mammals, but most of the lamentations about killer cats have focused on birds).   Feral cats are responsible for most of the killing, but pet cats allowed outdoors also contribute to the avian slaughter.  There has been much finger-wagging at cat owners who don’t keep their cats inside. The New York Times article on the report states that all environmentalists and animal welfare advocates concur that “pet cats should not be allowed to prowl around the neighborhood at all,” and that cat owners who allow their cats to do so “are being irresponsible.”

Permit me to dissent.

Personal cat history

Our first cat entered our home in 1986 after my wife visited the animal shelter with my then young son and daughter, and a certain black feline, later named Mephisto, proved irresistible.  I was not consulted about this sudden expansion of our family, and I was none too happy, in part because I am a light sleeper (I knew that cats have a sleep pattern decidedly different than humans) and I thought from prior experience I might have a mild cat allergy. Sure enough, I sneezed for a month after Mephisto’s arrival and she often awakened me at 3:00 a.m., but these obstacles were eventually overcome and Mephisto was granted permanent resident status.  However, it seemed to me that Mephisto did not seem altogether happy and alternated between being skittish and bored.

At the time, we lived next to a major thoroughfare, and to protect her from being run over by cars, we kept Mephisto indoors. 

In 1990, we moved further out in the suburbs into a subdivision that has houses with medium-sized lots.  Our house is also on a cul-de-sac, so traffic is very light.  We gradually introduced Mephisto to the outdoors. There was a dramatic shift in her behavior and, to the extent to which I could detect it, in her emotional state.  She sought our company more often and did not jump at the slightest noise.  Moreover, if the frequency at which she asked to be let outside was any indication, she enjoyed immensely being able to spend time outside the house. 

She also enjoyed hunting.

Mephisto was already three when she joined us, so she was about seven when we made our move in 1990.  Not exactly on the young side for a cat.  I was not sure she retained the agility and vigor to hunt.  She did.  One morning, about a year after we moved to our new residence, I was sipping coffee and idly looking outside at Mephisto, who was sitting on her haunches in the driveway.  Suddenly, she leaped up several feet, caught a bird in her mouth, and broke its neck—all in one fluid motion.  It may have been the most graceful action I have ever witnessed.

Mephisto killed maybe a dozen birds over the years with us.  I could keep a rough count, because, as with many cats, she brought the kill home and placed it on our doorstep. Twice she was not successful in killing the bird quickly.  On one occasion I euthanized the bird; it was obviously badly hurt.  (If you must know: I used a baseball bat.)  On the other occasion, the bird flew away on its own power, apparently after being momentarily stunned. 

Mephisto lived until she was twenty, quite an old age for a cat.

Eventually, three cats succeeded her. All enjoy going outside (see photo), although only one hunts with regularity. That said, this cat (named Virginia Woolf because she demands a room of her own) is an accomplished hunter. VW kills mostly voles and chipmunks, but there is the occasional bird.

All the cats seem happy and contented, to the extent one can attribute such emotional states to cats.  Moreover, as you can imagine, with regular exercise outdoors, none of them suffers from obesity which is increasingly a problem for many companion animals. 

As one can tell from my summary, I reject the claim that I have some sort of obligation to keep my cats indoors. My cats want to go outside, and they appear to be physically and emotionally healthier as a result. Based on what reading I have done about cat conduct and psychology, my cats do not seem unusual in this regard. 

But let us examine the arguments in favor of confining cats to the indoors. 

It is safer for the cat

In some sense, sure. It is also safer for humans never to venture outside. You are much more likely to catch an infectious disease or be involved in a car accident if you leave your home. However, most of us would regard home confinement as a severe punishment, not an appropriate safety measure. We want to be with other people and experience things that cannot be found within the limits of our residence. Why would we think a cat would prefer a less risky lifestyle if the cost of reducing risk is a life of confinement and boredom?  If given the choice between living 60 years of a normal human life, with our usual interactions, and 70 years of a life in which one’s activities were severely restricted, which would you choose?

Granted, if the risks of imminent death or serious injury to the cat are high (e.g., you live next to a busy road, as I once did), prudence may require confinement.  But such a choice should be made with regret, not because it is the best lifestyle for cats.

And who gave the self-appointed authorities the moral insight to decide that confinement of cats, when risk is manageable, is in their best interests? Of course, it is a reasonable assumption that animals do not want to be in pain, but how is it we can decide for them that it is appropriate to frustrate their ingrained inclinations when the risk of pain is low?

What about the birds?

What about them?  Let us leave aside the possible situation where some bird species is threatened with extinction, as that’s a special case (and it relates more to control of feral cats). Instead, just focus on the routine killing of birds by cats. Must we prevent our pet cats from engaging in this activity? Naturally, at least in the short-term, this benefits birds (in the long-term, there could be population problem). However, it also deprives cats of an activity which appears to be of psychological, and probably physical, benefit to them. Where’s the moral scale that allows us to determine with confidence that the interest of birds in not being hunted outweighs the interest of cats in being allowed to hunt? We allow humans to hunt, and for humans this behavior appears much less instinctual or necessary for a fulfilling life than it does for cats.

I’m not saying it’s necessarily irrational to think bird interests outweigh cat interests. I’m suggesting we don’t have the ability to evaluate these competing interests in such a way that we can make a confident moral judgment about the obligation of cat owners to confine their cats.

The ethical payoff

As I have argued in some previous posts, morality is best understood as a practical enterprise. It’s a practical human enterprise. It’s a means of adjusting our behavior so we can live together in peace and in a way that facilitates cooperation and amelioration of harmful conditions. Over millennia, we have developed norms that serve these purposes, and we have also developed a corresponding sense of how to weigh, at least approximately, the interests of humans when they are in conflict.

The extent to which nonhuman animals are members of the moral community, and the nature of our obligations to them, remain a matter of controversy. One reason for this continuing controversy is the difficulty we have in evaluating the competing interests of humans and other animals.

But at least when we weigh human interests against the interests of other animals we have a fairly solid understanding of one side of the scale. When we weigh the interests of one nonhuman species against another, we are operating in the dark and engaging in moral speculation, if not straying outside the bounds of morality completely.

In this post I have referred to cats’ enjoying things and being frustrated. Can I accurately attribute such human sentiments to cats? Probably not, but it’s the best approximation I can make because I’m not a cat.

Thomas Nagel famously argued we have no idea what it’s like to be a bat. Let me suggest we also don’t have a good idea of what it is like to be a cat or a bird, let alone how to compare being a cat to being a bird, and that it’s morally arrogant to assume otherwise.

The Boy Scouts of America appears to be ready to take a small, but significant step forward by changing its national policy prohibiting gay scouts. This is good news. Unfortunately, the BSA will continue to exclude atheists, and I predict the organization will continue to do this for some time.

I applaud the BSA for reconsidering its policy barring gay scouts. A policy reversal is long overdue, but better late than never. Admittedly, the change in policy, if it is confirmed next week, will only end discrimination by the national organization. Local scout councils will retain the discretion to ban gay scouts based on the “best interests” of the local group. So the BSA change is a baby step. Still, CFI is a strong supporter of LGBT rights and we are encouraged by any movement toward social and civil equality for members of the LGBT community.

Of course, the BSA continues to demand belief in God as a condition for membership. In other words, atheists and other nontheists are excluded. Given the BSA’s willingness to reconsider its position on gay scouts, is it possible the organization will soon reverse its position on exclusion of atheist scouts?

I don’t think so. First, there is the practical matter that many local scout groups are sponsored by churches or other religious bodies. Many of these local groups have already indicated they are unlikely to admit gay scouts. They are even less likely to admit atheist scouts.

Second, the pressure felt by the national organization to change its policy came in part from the withdrawal of support by some major corporate sponsors. These corporations recognized it is bad for business to be associated with an anti-gay organization. Reality check: being known as an anti-atheist organization does not currently have the same business implications.

But there are other reasons as well. As I wrote in an essay for the Huffington Post last year, discrimination against atheists is a different beast than discrimination against members of the LGBT community. LGBT individuals have probably suffered more from the effects of discrimination than atheists in recent times, in part because it’s easier for atheists to remain closeted. However, prejudice against gays and lesbians may be easier to overcome than prejudice against atheists.

Gays are different, but they don’t send the message that heterosexuals are mistaken about their sexuality. On the other hand, not only are atheists different, but explicitly or implicitly, they are telling the faithful that they’re mistaken about a core commitment (for some the core commitment) of their lives.

Another key difference between being gay and being an atheist is that no one can persuade you to be gay. The religious, however, are susceptible to arguments that their religious beliefs have no foundation. If your straight son shares a pup tent with a gay scout, you may worry about his engaging in some “immoral” act, but unless you’re a crazy you’re not going to worry that he’s going to turn gay. But what if he comes home from the jamboree with a copy of The God Delusion in his knapsack?

Finally, understanding why the BSA excludes atheists also indicates why it will be difficult for them to admit atheists. The BSA, as is true with many individual Americans, holds that there is a necessary connection between God and morality. Atheists are excluded not so much because they have a different understanding of the universe, but because with God absent from their lives they do not have a secure moral foundation. The supposed connection between God and morality is critical for religious institutions and believers. Indeed, it’s the last card they have to play.

The intellectual arguments in favor of God’s existence are a joke, and have been ever since the argument from design was laid to rest. Fear of death motivates some believers, but increasingly less so. If believers can’t claim that God is indispensable for morality, what basis do they have for convincing people of the need for religion?

Allowing atheists to become scouts would constitute a tacit admission that we don’t need God for morality. And if we don’t need him for that, what do we need him for?

Don’t expect the BSA to change its policy on admitting atheists in the near future.