Sometimes you find assassins where you least expect them and sometimes you find those you least expect among the assassins. Atheists have come to expect character assassination by the religious right. We're used to those who would malign and demonize us simply because we do not share the same non-evidenced beliefs as the majority of society. The stain of religious bigotry applied indiscriminately with a broad brush by the Falwells and Robertsons is one we know all too well. That is why it is all the more painful when it comes from our own liberal and progressive brothers and sisters, such as was the case with Melinda Barton's recent opinion piece at Raw Story.

I will not even bother with the host of strawmen Ms. Barton clumsily tears down in her article. Nor will I bother with the usual repetition of fallacies and myths concerning atheists. Of course, that doesn't leave much to discuss of her hateful attack on lefty atheists. And that's precisely my point. Ms. Barton starts out by claiming that there exists an unnamed group of 'secularist whackjobs' (apparently maturity is not Ms. Barton's strongpoint) whom she defines thusly:

First, what is a secular whackjob? The term secular for the purposes of this article will refer to those who disbelieve all religious and spiritual claims, not to those who merely support a separation of church and state. Although all secular (by this definition) extremists are atheists, not all atheists are secular extremists.

The whackjob is a special sort of atheist, one so absolutely certain of the inerrancy of atheism and so virulently opposed to religion that he will latch on to any and all outrageous claims in defense of the former and against the latter. He will meet any criticism of atheism or positive representation of religion as a horrible attack on his way of life or as support for religious extremism and oppression. Just as the religious extremist holds that his belief in a supreme being alone makes him morally and spiritually superior, the secular extremist holds that his belief that no such being exists and virulent opposition to the reverse make him intellectually and ethically superior. Finally, he will ignore any and all reason or evidence that refutes his claims.

After ungainly wending her way through strawman attacks and ad hominem, we come to the real purpose of her article which is to claim that these very strawmen atheists, these 'secular whackjobs' she decries so loudly are a danger to the left and progressives everywhere. How? Well, devoid of any concrete arguments Ms. Barton simply erects another strawman:

Remember the laws forbidding the wearing of yarmulkes, crosses, hijabs, and the like in France. Such laws are just as much a violation of the liberal ideals of freedom of religion and conscience as laws that require religious practices.

...in a nation comprised predominantly of those who believe in some sort of supreme being, our success as a movement depends on disavowing the secular extremist as a legitimate voice of the left. Finally, our commitment to truth demands we counter the fallacies being perpetuated in our name.

Ah yes, here it is. That same familiar song we hear from the religious right so often in the U.S., the cry of the poor persecuted religious loon in a land where greater than 85% believe in roughly the same fairy tale. What? Is that offensive? Am I mischaracterizing Ms. Barton because she's not a right wing Christian but instead a left wing Jew? Well, then maybe Ms. Barton might imagine how atheists might feel upon reading her hateful screed.

Here's the deal Melinda. Atheists are easy to paint with your broad brush because we are so few (just about 1% of the population in the U.S.) and aside from not possessing a belief in any gods there's simply nothing more you can say about us. There are liberal atheists. There are conservative atheists. There are male, female, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, transvestite, meateating, vegetarian, vegan, white, black, yellow, red, and, probably somewhere, green atheists. There are even disgusting, hateful atheists.

Nowhere though will you find an atheist agenda. Like the old saw about economists, if you ask 5 atheists their opinion on any given topic you're likely to get 5 different opinions in return.

There is one thing this particular atheist will fight for to the end though, and that is for a secular state where Mr. Jefferson's wall is strong and unbreached. And should you find that extremist, should you find that offensive, should you find me to be less of a liberal for it... Well, then might I suggest you examine your own religious bigotry before casting stones at others.

--------

Upon reading Ms. Barton's article I immediately e-mailed Larisa Alexandrovna and John Byrne, Managing News and Executive Editors of Raw Story respectively, letting them know I found Ms. Barton's article to be highly offensive and that I felt Raw Story and Ms. Barton owed atheists everywhere an apology. I have not heard back from John Byrne but here is Larisa's reply:

I agree with your opinion, but it is an op-ed, which she has every right to write and the editorial side has every right to print. But I do agree with your opinion!

In other words, a non-response. Of course Barton has the right to write whatever the hell she feels like, and RawStory has the right to publish whatever the hell they want. They are also, of course, free to have no standards or integrity and to insult large swaths of the left in a highly derogatory and prejudicial manner.

Disclosure time: I know Larisa personally (though we have never met face to face) and have had long coversations with her in the past. I have also contributed original research and fact checking to Raw Story. While I don't agree with Larisa on a variety of topics, I like her very much as a friend and have always found her to be enjoyable, witty and smart in conversation. However, I can not dismiss the tabloid nature that Raw Story has adopted nor will I endorse bigotry of any sort, not even for friendship. This is beyond the pale and Raw Story can no longer count on my support, financial or otherwise.

Note: There are many excellent comments in reply to Ms. Barton's opinion piece, many of which do deal with her strawmen and ad hominem attacks on atheists. I encourage you to at least read the comments which you are likely to find much more eloquent than mine.

Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

-- Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281 

Ms. Barton's article at Raw Story now contains the following forward:

[Editor's note: If you've arrived here, it wasn't through the RAW STORY main site, but rather one of several blogs that have latched onto this piece as an example of "religious intolerance." I would ask readers directed by these blogs to take careful note of how many times Ms. Barton announces that she is not talking about all atheists, as her critics have claimed.

When I read this piece, I knew that some people would infer ideas from it that simply weren't in the text. That this has happened does not surprise me; that the perpetrators seem to claim they are authorities in the field of logic, while arguing against an obvious straw man, does. I take particular exception with those posts that have changed her wording in the few quotes they provide. Whether this was intentional or simply lazy, I cannot say. I am not a mind-reader, though some of her critics seem to believe they are (apparently, she hates Jews and homosexuals--though she is a Jewish lesbian!) However they came to these misrepresentations, they are nonetheless irresponsible.

Some backstory for those who have expressed interest: I did request a second draft of this piece, as one reader has already reported on the comments forum. This is rare, as RAW STORY values free expression in its opinion columns. The author and I reached some common ground, and I chose to run the piece, knowing that it would provoke. RAW STORY has repeatedly published editorials critical of religion, so I felt it was only appropriate to allow space for an opposing viewpoint. As another RAW STORY editor wrote to me, "the point is, they're her opinions and she has a right to express them." Apparently, not everyone is as willing to hear the other side out.

There are many legitimate criticisms of this piece to be made. Sadly, they have become lost in a crowd of straw men. So, this link has been removed from the main page. It will reappear on the main page, along with two rebuttals of its content--and not what critics wish the content to be--at a later date.

I eagerly await your virtiol.

--Avery Walker]

Melinda Barton has now issued the following apology and explanation in the comments section to her opinion piece at Raw Story:

[The follow was not requested by, nor does it, or the original piece, necessarily reflect the views of Raw Story or its editors.]

After the publication on my take on secular extremism on Raw Story, I received quite a lot of vitriol from many atheists who felt I was condemning atheism as a whole. While I feel that I made clear that that was not the case, I must admit that if so many people came away with this conclusion, then obviously the article was not as well prepared or well written as it should have been. This is due, in part, to the fact that I have struggled for quite some time with whether I should write it at all. Also, my use of the word "whackjob" was an intentional although perhaps badly chosen play on the common pairing of that word with the word "religious." I apologize to any who felt that I was adding burdens to an already burdened minority in our country.

I'd also like to take a few moments to clarify some points here. The separation of church and state is and always has been vital to the functioning of liberal democracy. It contains both freedom of and freedom from religion and should continue to do so. I strongly support the right of all peoples to believe or disbelieve whatever they wish within the bounds of respect for human rights. In other words, if it's not hurting anyone, go for it. I would defend to my death (yes, I'm aware it's a cliche) your right to believe or disbelieve and am strongly opposed to prayer in schools, the use of the bible in a courtroom, laws based solely on religious precepts with no accompanying social necessity, the teaching of religious belief in public institutions, etc. Although I disagree with atheist precepts, I have respect for the logic and reasoning upon which it is based. This continues despite my acceptance of faith in my own life.

Finally, I do not believe that anyone should be silenced or purged, only that the progressive movement is not required to grant legitimacy to all leftist beliefs. I also believe that we should criticize ourselves with the same honesty with which we criticize others. I have regularly opposed religious extremism and have held it up to harsh criticism numerous times in my published work. I thought it only honest to take a look at the other side despite the fact that I consider religious extremism to be the greatest threat facing us today. If anyone came away with the impression that I consider secular extremism to be even an iota of the threat that religious extremism is, I apologize. I can only assure you that, I would hope, most of my work is better written and prepared and that I will take greater care in the future.

Shalom Aleichem,
Melinda Barton

Avery Walker has made the following long comment where basically he lies and distorts the concerns of the those who were offended by Ms. Barton's hate speech. For myself the case is now closed. This was no unintentional slight. And Raw Story is as culpable in this as is Ms. Barton.

To lloyd and the others:

I offered no apology, and you will receive none from me. This piece has flaws, but it is not an attack on all people in any one group and we will not pretend it is simply to quiet a very small and very vocal group of mistaken people. It is an attack on logical flaws, not an act of bigotry. Attempts to classify this as persecution of people of a particular belief system are purely delusional straw men, ignoring the content of the piece to place themselves in the preferred position of victim.

Is an attack on drunk drivers an attack on all drivers? No, it is on a small group of them. Surely the many self-proclaimed students of logic on this thread have heard of a vin diagram. Those who infer it to be such should argue with the machinations of their imagination in private.

As for the repeated claim that she's using nothing more than straw men, well, that's also just flatly false. She provides two written examples of arguments she refutes; she cites a well-known historical example for another; yet another is provided through anecdotal evidence (this is an opinion column, after all). The people making this claim are either incapable of comprehending the content of the piece, simply didn't read it, or are applying a flaw in one point to the entire piece--a habit often cited as common to all types of fundamentalism. Are we really to believe that an answer to documented arguments, preceded and followed by acknowledgments that this is not the thinking of the majority, is an act of bigotry? That's absurd.

Demands for an apology are just another example of the level of arrogance sadly common in this feedback thread. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean you are owed an apology. Attempts to classify Ms. Barton as an undergraduate at a "third tier school," and one reader's compulsion to define "disingenuous," (hardly a $25 word by anyone's standard,) also betray shocking levels of conceit.

What truly shocks me is that no one--not a single reader--referred to us by certain blogs has bothered to check the content of the piece against the quotes provided. They don't match, and they never did. Period. And, no, I will not provide links or name names for the same reason I pulled this version from the main page: These people will not receive the attention and advertising revenue from Raw Story's readership. If you wish to assume other motives, so be it.

As one who does not share Ms. Barton's beliefs, but who is humble enough to know that I am not capable of fully understanding how the universe came to be (beyond a single nucleus and a big bang, most generally agree,) I'm far more embarrassed by the claims and invective spewed by the atheists and agnostics in this thread than I am by any of her words. They don't represent my views, or those of any rational person, any better than this column.

Perhaps Einstein said it best: "Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." I suggest that the people here professing to understand this subject better than Einstein think twice before attempting to prove their negative in such a gleefully vicious, and patently dishonest, way.

-Avery Walker
Avery Walker | 04.24.06 - 2:47 pm

Other bloggers commenting on Ms. Barton's hate speech are:

• Science and Politics
• Pharyngula -- PZ Myers has added a new post responding to Avery Walker's editorial remarks
• Velid at Secular Front
• Austin Cline at Atheism.About.com -- Austin has updated his rebuttal to also include a rebuttal of Avery Walker's editorial remarks
• Atrios at Eschaton has named Ms. Barton 'Wanker of the Day'
• Spotted Elephant at The Bipolar View is a secular whackjob too
• A discussion thread started by Synnical at Democratic Underground in General Discussion
• DavidD posts about the obnoxious article at Raw Story in the Atheists & Agnostics group at Democratic Underground
• J.R. Kinnard at Don't Floss With Tinsel helpfully tells us You Might Be An Atheist Whackjob If...
• Melinda Barton: Whackjob
• For Future Reference
• Look Ma You're a Secular Whackjob or Atheist Theological Disputation part N
• The left's own religious whackjobs
• Rebuttal to Raw Story’s ‘Extreme Atheism’
• You go away for two days, and this is what happens?
• xenogere / strange behavior / I have a new label, 'secular whackjob'
• procrastinate later -- The FSM's own nutty wankjobs
  
• Modem Butterfly -- Why I am an atheist whackjob
• Brent Rasmussen -- Atheist Whackjobs of the World Unite!
• Feministe -- Well, *Somebody's* a Whackjob Here
• Strong Atheist at Democratic Underground -- The left's own rawstory whackjobs

Let me know if you find any others and I'll add them here. 

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | | | | | |

tng's blog | printer friendly version