A friend of mine is getting married next weekend and she wants to have the ceremony in a labyrinth. Knowing that I’ve researched and visited labyrinths around the world—as well as written about them in Skeptical Inquirer magazine and on this very blog—she asked me to write a short piece about “love labyrinths” to be read during the ceremony for her guests who are unfamiliar with them. (My mother was married in a labyrinth years ago, as well.)

I’ve also agreed to be one of her bridesmaids, for reasons I’ve forgotten but it sounded like a fun way to bash gender stereotypes. Anyway, here’s the piece:

The labyrinth is an ancient symbol, and though its origins are murky, early versions have been found in Crete, Italy, and Egypt. Labyrinths are designed in grass fields, inlaid in beautiful floors, carved in hedges, and painted on giant canvas sheets. While most people are content to simply walk the labyrinth, some dance or sing. The walking itself is simple, following the same path in and back out. Unlike a maze, which has different paths and choices, one cannot get lost in a labyrinth. The way forward is simple and clear, leading to the center, a place of happiness and contemplation, called the rosette.

There are many types of labyrinths, but perhaps the most special is a love labyrinth, which symbolizes the joining of two spirits in one journey. There are many paths in the world, but a marriage-like a labyrinth-provides one path forward together through life’s journeys, its joys and trials.

Some couples enter the love labyrinth together, one entering first and the second following a few steps behind. They follow their individual paths but soon meet at the center where they spend a few moments in contemplation and appreciation for the life partner they have found there. Then, after a kiss or the exchange of a token of their love, they leave the labyrinth returning to the outside world, walking closer together and with renewed purpose and comfort. On the way back out, the couple focus on any revelations, healings, experiences, or answers that may have come to them on their journey, knowing that their path forward together has already begun.

The Morning Heresy is your daily digest of news and links relevant to the secular and skeptic communities.  

The anti-blasphemy machine rolls on: Turkish writer Sevan Nişanyan is sentenced to 58 weeks in prison for “insulting the religious beliefs held by a section of the society.” 

GOP Lt. Governor nominee E.W. Jackson of Virginia (Democrats are a “coalition of the godless”) says that anyone who criticizes his hard-right positions “is attacking every church-going person, every family that’s living a traditional family life, everybody who believes that we all deserve the right to live.” Chaser: 

I would just say people should not paint me as one-dimensional.

You’re making that hard, dude. 

Indiana Public Media looks at the upcoming Supreme Court case on prayer at government functions, and gets insight from CFI-Indiana’s Reba Boyd Wooden. 

Stephen Prothero says that the Court isn’t really going to be taking up the question of whether any prayer is okay, but what sort: sectarian or inclusive? 

Arizona State Rep. Juan Mendez (a secular humanist! In Arizona!) opens a House session not with a prayer, but with Sagan:

For small creatures such as we, the vastness is bearable only through love. 

Oh, this is going to be good: Carrie Poppy visits an oxygen bar.  

Ross Douthat: Suicide rates are up because religion and marriage are down. Nate Cohn: Nuh-uh.

NJ Priest who violated a court-mandated ban on his interacting with children gets his hearing. Says Bob Hoatson, a former priest, now head of Road to Recovery:

I’m here to see a 10-year attempt to hold [Rev.] Fugee and the archdiocese accountable after they have been coddling him and moving him from place to place, and then arrogantly proclaiming he’s an innocent man. The review board that returned him to ministry should be disbanded, and we need a broom to sweep the archdiocese clean. 

Did Pope Francis once perform an exorcism...by accident? 

Gwynn Guilford at Quartz: Rhino horns are fetching hundreds of thousands of dollars from rich Vietnamese who consider the horns to have magical “cancer-zapping” properties.  

Jamsheed K. Choksy on the U.S.‘s position toward countries with bad religious freedom records:

What needs to happen is that the government of the United States needs to take these reports and make them central aspects of American policy and foreign relations. 

Alasdair at Skepchick on being an atheist teacher at a time of horror or tragedy like that of the Sandy Hook massacre:

An atheist teacher is, I’d argue, even better placed to help young people to deal with events like these than someone with a deeply religious worldview. We see the world the way it is. We know that there’s nothing out there guiding us, that terrible event like these are not part of some grand “plan”. We know that the only comfort we have is each other and that it’s our responsibility alone to look after those more vulnerable than ourselves. The stark and unfeeling picture that some people paint of atheists could not be further from the truth. 

50,000 (!!) children are accused of sorcery in Congo. I don’t know what to say about that.

Tornado truthers. Yep. Thanks, Obama! 

Islamist leader held in Bangladesh allegedly cops to an extremist plot to oust the current government. 

At RNS, Tom Ehrich says Christianity is in the midst of a new “revolution,” in which it suffers a “collapse from the inside.” 

78-year-old anti-gay rights activist commits suicide at Notre Dame cathedral in Paris.  

Sally Steenland at Center for American Progress makes the religious Americans’ case for keeping prayer out of public schools. 

PZ showers our own Michael De Dora with love. I’m glad that Michael is no longer seen as a witless wanker. He is NOT witless! 

Quote of the Day 

This one is easy. You’ve already seen it, probably. Wolf Blitzer asks tornado survivor Rebecca Vitsmun if she “thanks the lord,” to which she replies, smilingly:

I’m actually an atheist. 

* * *  

Linking to a story or webpage does not imply endorsement by Paul or CFI. Not every use of quotation marks is ironic or sarcastic, but it often is. 

Follow CFI on Twitter: @center4inquiry 

Got a tip for the Heresy? Send it to press(at)centerforinquiry.net! 

The Morning Heresy: “I actually read it.” - Hemant Mehta

The film biography Renoir (directed by Gilles Bourdos) focuses on the artist in his old age (played by Michel Bouquet). Set in 1915, it tells about his earlier robust life—not with flashbacks, but by comments from himself and members of his household. The narrative opens just after the death of his wife with the arrival of a new model, Andrée Heuschling (Christa Théret), who charms “the boss” with her naked beauty and joie de vivre. She also charms his middle son Jean (Vincent Rottiers) who is convalescing from a war wound. A much younger son (Thomas Doret), lurks about the estate and skulks throughout the story.

The selection of this slice of Renoir’s life is a wise one—both for its focus on the painter’s late work and for its poignancy. Although horribly crippled by rheumatoid arthritis and trapped in a wheelchair, he not only retained his love of beautiful scenes rendered in luminous hues, but he showed in his work even greater vitality, freedom, and originality than before.

Several times we are treated to convincing closeups of his deformed hand—taped so he could hold his brush—painting with masterful dabs. (Impressionists forsook traditional painting with continuous brush strokes, instead breaking light into its component colors and using these, intermingled in separate dabs of paint, to create vibrancy.) “I refuse to paint the world black,” the old artist declares revealingly. “A painting should be something pleasant and cheerful. There are enough disagreeable things in life. I don’t need to paint more.”

We do not know whether Renoir would have been satisfied with the movie’s recreation of himself and his world, but he would have loved the cinematography. Beautifully done by Taiwanese photographer Mark Ping Bing Lee, it does with film what Impressionism did with canvas. Not entirely coincidentally, the movie has brief depictions of Jean’s early cinematic interests. (Jean Renoir [1894–1979] went on in life to become one of the world’s great filmmakers, and until they parted in 1931, Andrée—as “Catherine Hessling”—was his wife and frequent leading lady.)

As to Renoir’s working canvases in the film, they were rendered by a famous art forger named Guy Ribes—and are among the many brilliant efforts that went into the making of Renoir. Although a somewhat sedate film to modern taste, it will appeal to thoughtful people who care to understand and appreciate the work of masters like Renoir.

Rating: Three wooden nickels (out of four)

The Morning Heresy is your daily digest of news and links relevant to the secular and skeptic communities.  

Obviously, most Americans’ hearts and minds are concentrated on the victims of the tornadoes in Oklahoma and across the Midwest. We’ll have a formal statement soon, and in the mean time please consider donating to help those affected.

Wowie-wow-wow-WOW. The already-loathsome Daily Caller outdoes itself by harassing and insulting one of our own. Read about the saga of SCA’s Lauren Anderson Youngblood and the “Dick pic” email from Christopher Bedford. You rock on, Lauren. <communications directors’ secret high-five-handshake>

Ryan Koronowski dismantles the gee-that’s-really-wrong WaPo op-ed on climate change by House science chair Lamar Smith.  

Maggie Koerth-Baker at NYT looks at why the otherwise-sane buy into insane conspiracy theories:

“If you know the truth and others don’t, that’s one way you can reassert feelings of having agency,” [University of Westminster’s Viren] Swami says. It can be comforting to do your own research even if that research is flawed. It feels good to be the wise old goat in a flock of sheep. 

GOP Lieutenant Governor candidate in Virginia calls the Democratic Party the “coalition of the godless.” If only!i

National Geographic lists six woman scientists who have been dissed by history or their profession, with their crucial contributions largely ignored.

A new group of priests and nuns known as Catholic Whistleblowers forms to shine a light on the crisis of sexual abuse within the Church. 

Presbyterian Church of Scotland’s general assembly votes to allow gay ministers.

Yes, they’re giving acupuncture to turtles. 

Pope Francis calls for less worry over theology, and more concern for the poor. 

Saudi newspaper that slobbers praise on King Abdullah is accused of blasphemy for overdoing it. 

David Cameron faces revolt from fellow Tories over gay marriage. 

The Catholic World Magazine reports that “evolutionists” like PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne are up in arms over Ball State University’s teaching of intelligent design. 

I’m embarrassed to see that there is a “Paranormal Corner” section in a South Jersey paper, and this edition clears up the difference between “intelligent” and “residual” hauntings.  

Ooh-ee-ooh-ah-ah, here’s $210,000 to make her love me. 

Forum 18 updates on the status of religious dissidents in Kazakhstan, including two jailed Christians and an atheist kept in a psychiatric facility. 

I’m kind of like this: The agnostic pessimist, by Toothpaste for Dinner. 

Bob Blaskiewicz is the guest on Strange Frequencies Radio, talkin’ Burzynski and conspiracies.

Quote of the Day 

The U.S. State Department releases its 2012 International Religious Freedom Report, and Secretary John Kerry has this to say about the “troubling trend . . . of laws governing blasphemy and apostasy”: 

These laws are frequently used to repress dissent, to harass political opponents, and to settle personal vendettas. Laws such as these violate fundamental freedoms of expression and religion, and we believe they ought to be repealed. And because we defend others’ rights of expression, we are also ensuring that we can express our own views and practice our own faith without fearing for our own safety or our own lives. That is why, as I travel the world, I do press leaders to do more to safeguard freedom of belief and to promote religious tolerance. And that is why I urge all countries, especially those identified in this report, to take action now to safeguard this fundamental freedom.

* * *  

Linking to a story or webpage does not imply endorsement by Paul or CFI. Not every use of quotation marks is ironic or sarcastic, but it often is. 

Follow CFI on Twitter: @center4inquiry 

Got a tip for the Heresy? Send it to press(at)centerforinquiry.net! 

The Morning Heresy: “I actually read it.” - Hemant Mehta

The Morning Heresy is your daily digest of news and links relevant to the secular and skeptic communities.  

The conference was great. It had a high bar to meet with last year’s huge success, but it was easily cleared. Talk to talk, panel to panel, and the amazing freaking voice of Shelley Segal, it was a real and substantive pleasure to be at Women in Secularism 2. 

We, of course, had our controversies. CFI chief Ron Lindsay has posted the prepared text of his opening remarks that caused an enormous amount of debate and very strong feelings, reactions to which can be found all about the interwebs. 

I know, many, many folks are itching for video of the conference talks. While you wait for us to crank up the movie machine, sate your desire with videos from last year’s conference. 

Amanda Greene at RNS looks at the rise of humanist weddings, noting CFI’s own Secular Celebrant program. (And there’s another piece on the topic at Rochester, MN’s Post Bulletin.)

HuffPo: Persecuted Bangladeshi bloggers, even though two are out on bail, are under constant threat over their atheism. 

The Surpeme Court will hear a case about prayers at city council meetings. 

Gage Pulliam, the high school student whistleblower over a Ten Commandments display, scores an activist award from FFRF. 

Sharon Hill at HuffPo tries to unobfuscate some lexicographical bewilderment about skeptic terminology with some etymological pedantry. 

Right wing Christian groups cry foul, claiming they were inappropriately targeted by the IRS, because Obama. SCA says the IRS is not doing enough.

Pew looks at the religious makeup of U.S. immigrants, including results that show “nones” holding steady after an uptick in 2004. 

Michelle Boorstein at WaPo: Seminary graduates don’t always become priests, but use their education to spread the Good Word in all manner of professions. 

Ben Radford did a quick guest stint on Big Picture Science, talking about those folks who think they can nourish themselves merely by breathing.

At LiveScience, Ben looks at the practice of dowsing and notices— hey!—it’s not working! 

97% of climate scientists are on board with the truth of global warming! That should settle everything. 

Massachusetts psychic takes advantage of the vulnerable with free readings to parents who have lost a child. Classy way to get folks hooked.

Harvard Humanists Greg Epstein and James Croft will co-author a book on atheist/humanist “churching,” The Godless Congregation. 

Governor of Georgia (the state) lets the Bibles in state park cabins stay because they were “donated,” and says anyone cam submit literature. Cue American Atheists.

In Georgia (the country) gay rights activists are set upon by a mob led by priests. 

At rates that are faster than previously thought, Christianity is on the way down in the UK, and Islam is on the way up. 

Religious members of Afghanistan’s parliament manage to defeat a law banning violence against women. 

Alexandria Lakes Area Tea Party aims to convert George Soros. 

China says: No sex for Buddha, please. 

Sikivu Hutchinson, a speaker at last year’s WiS, discusses her new book Godless Americana with Religion Dispatches:

[H]umanism can be culturally relevant to communities of color. Traditional mainstream white-dominated freethought/atheist/humanist models don’t offer an adequate basis for social justice. They don’t address the intersection of women’s rights, civil rights, anti-racism, heterosexism, the racial wealth gap, and educational apartheid. 

On polygamy, fundamentalist Mormon Claud Cawley looks to dispel what he says is the “misconception that men among the [fundamentalist] community look to plural marriage as a means to satisfy their lust and exploit and degrade women.” 

Leon Seltzer at Psychology Today distinguishes between what he sees as dogmatic and non-dogmatic atheists:

[I]f scientists in general—and physicists in particular—can’t ever be absolutely certain about Absolutes, how much more difficult must it be for metaphysicists to attain such certitude? To answer my own question: very difficult, indeed! 

Hawker of fake cancer cures Christine Daniel gets 14 years in prison. 

KCEN in Texas notes with surprise that atheism may not be all that scary. 

Former Microsoftian is scared of WiFi death beams. 

Apparently, famous people love them some Chopra. 

Okay, best for last: Slate compares the speeds of various sci-fi spacecraft! It’s so cool! But I have to say, I’m iffy on his Millennium Falcon boosterism. And where’s Enterprise-D???  

Quote of the Day 

Herb Silverman is troubled by the two tracks to Catholic sainthood:

No matter how good a life you led, even by Catholic standards, you would still have to perform two miracles after death if you didn’t die as a martyr. If you threw yourself in front a train to stop it from killing a hundred children, two miracles would still be needed. In other words, you would not be as worthy as one who led a morally corrupt life but died while refusing to convert. 

Linking to a story or webpage does not imply endorsement by Paul or CFI. Not every use of quotation marks is ironic or sarcastic, but it often is. 

Follow CFI on Twitter: @center4inquiry 

Got a tip for the Heresy? Send it to press(at)centerforinquiry.net! 

The Morning Heresy: “I actually read it.” - Hemant Mehta

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. 

It is therefore through that lens that I watched 42—the story of Jackie Robinson becoming the first to integrate major league baseball. On April 15, 1947, he took the field as no. 42 with the Brooklyn Dodgers (against the Philadelphia Phillies) and changed American history. So the film’s harrowing scenes of racial hatred did not come to me as re-creations of a different time, as they necessarily must for young viewers, but instead recalled my own later experiences in situations not so far removed.

I attribute much of the film’s success to the direction of Brian Helgeland who effectively mixed historical background material (such as scenes involving “white” and “colored” restrooms), marvelous baseball action, sidelights on Robinson’s personal life, various behind-the-scenes business considerations (including racist personnel), and much more, shaping it into an artistic whole—if even with a dollop of what some critics have labeled outright sentimentality. The result is a convincing American biography and a genuinely inspiring film.

Robinson, as one of civil rights’ noblest heroes, is brought to life with some skill by Chadwick Boseman. He is joined by other effective actors, notably Harrison Ford, who plays the Dodgers’ boss—a visionary and homespun American character named Branch Rickey. Rickey, too, is something of a hero, and at times, not surprisingly, manages to upstage Robinson.

At one point in 42, there is a brief vignette of Rickey idly holding a baseball with the thumb-and-two-fingered grip that bespeaks his own nostalgia for playing the game. It sets up for me a metaphor for the story: Rickey tosses the ball to Robinson, and Robinson knocks it out of the park.

Rating: Three and a half wooden nickels (out of four)

The Morning Heresy is your daily digest of news and links relevant to the secular and skeptic communities.  

Women in Secularism 2 kicks off today! To judge by the tweets of attendees, there is an enthusiasm for this conference that I’ve not seen for an event at least since the Reason Rally. And not for nothin’, but the WiFi in the hotel lobby is great, and the hotel Starbucks employees are really nice, so things are already looking up. For live updates, images, and bad jokes, watch the Twitter hashtag #wiscfi (knowing that it will also have its share of detractors in the stream) and the official CFI Twitter account @center4inquiry...which is me!

Matthew Brown at Deseret News (who does a lot of great church-state coverage) looks at the “softening” of the White House faith-based initiative, as emphasis moves from money to the sharing of information and being generally helpful.

Lawrence Krauss joined CFI’s Office of Public Policy in sending a letter to Rep. Lamar Smith, chair of the House Science Committee, asking him to scrap his ill-advised proposal to hamper NSF funding:

These requirements represent a serious misunderstanding of the nature of scientific inquiry and discovery and, if approved, would not facilitate, but instead obstruct productive scientific research. 

Just posted, particularly for those who are conference-starved, but unable to get to WiS, we have the video of Brian Leiter from his talk at CFI’s “Why Tolerate Religion?” symposium last month. 

At Discovery News, Ben Radford on the phenomenon of folks witnessing people getting up from their graves, because:

. . . especially in Third World countries where modern medical treatment is rare, and confirming death may sometimes be little more than guesswork.  

And at Yahoo News, Ben looks at the claim that a British girl in India was killed for her organs. Fun stuff, Ben! 

Ideas Roadshow has video of a conversation with CSI fellow Jill Tarter on her work with SETI.  

WiS speaker Vyckie Garrison is in a BBC report on the Quiverfull phenomenon.

World Council of Churches expresses concern about the situation in Bangladesh:

It is very disheartening to hear about this development of communal hatred in Bangladesh, once known for its tolerance and now grappling with religious intolerance and politicization of religion. The systematic violation of human rights is most unfortunate and needs to end. As you know, the WCC is committed to supporting all persecuted minorities, irrespective of their religions, as the human rights and dignity of every person should be upheld. 

You won’t BELIEVE how this Bigfoot shooting in Pennsylvania turned out! Oh wait, yes you will.  

When Harry Potter gets to that ripe old age when thoughts of his mortality come into view, he may want to join the Order of the Good Death:

. . . a collective of death professionals, artists, and academics who promote real talk about death and dying. While its name has an occult quality, the Order’s mission is actually quite public: to encourage people to be “death positive,” or open to exploring their thoughts, feelings, and fears about mortality. 

New study confirms what we can see: Exposure to Christian concepts and images predisposes one to seeing things in black-or-white terms. According to Pacific Standard:

As the researchers write, this attitude no doubt gives people structure in their lives and contributes to their well-being. But it’s also a plausible route to prejudice and general close-mindedness. 

Skepto-atheists are kickstarting all over! Aubrey Adrianson is looking for funders for her next book, A Secular Parent’s Guide to Teaching Religion.

Okay, so we have a new social media intern for Point of Inquiry, and he’s doing a bang-up job. Check out his handy work in the latest “weekly wrap-up” at the POI blog. 

Ed Buckner finds Bibles in a Georgia state park cabin, and the governor gets them sent back. Huh.  

Georgia atheist activist Mike Smith will run for mayor of LaGrange after a not-so-successful run for the state House. Keep at it, Mike, say I. This is how we do it, one election at a time. 

Anti-Shariah law in Oklahoma gets fuzzier to not accidentally trample on Christianity or business.  

According to the Saudi religious police, if a man uses Twitter or other social network, he “has lost this world and his afterlife.” 

At Vice, Adnan Khan posits that atheist prime minister of Australia Julia Gillard still opposes gay marriage because of straight-up electoral math. 

A new organization looks to do for a broad range of folks what the Clergy Project does for clergy: The Apostasy Project. 

Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph settles a lawsuit over its employment of Rev. Shawn Ratigan, who took pornographic photos of a 2-year-old.

“I look back on it now and think, ‘How could I have been so stupid?” says the beleaguered victim of a fraud psychic, bilked of over $73,000.

In honor of Women in Secularism, I present the reason many of us are here today, in an attitude voiced by the not-really-all-that-relevant Pat Robertson:

Here’s the secret. Stop talking (about) the cheating. He cheated on you, well, he’s a man. . . . What you want to do is make a home so wonderful that he doesn’t want to wander. 

Quote of the Day 

William MacAskill at Quartz calls Homeopaths Without Borders “one of the worst charities in the world”:

Besides minor ailments, HWB also treats malaria, typhoid, cholera, dengue fever, advanced diabetes, and educates about the “beneficial effects” of these treatments. Laugh or cry? I can’t decide. There’s something really wrong with a company that deludes the barely educated global poor with the false hope of a malaria treatment–when they could have been seeking assistance that might actually save their life. It’s even more wrong that it can get the tax exemption status known as 501(c)3 in the US. 

Linking to a story or webpage does not imply endorsement by Paul or CFI. Not every use of quotation marks is ironic or sarcastic, but it often is. 

Follow CFI on Twitter: @center4inquiry 

Got a tip for the Heresy? Send it to press(at)centerforinquiry.net! 

The Morning Heresy: “I actually read it.” - Hemant Mehta