Atheists respond to Charlotte Allen [UPDATED]
You couldn't say we didn't see this coming: Charlotte Allen's May 17 Op-Ed article on her dislike of outspoken atheists (think Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, pictured to the right in that order) has gone viral, sitting at No. 4 on list of most e-mailed latimes.com stories as of 2:45 p.m. today.
As expected, there has been plenty of atheist blowback in the blogosphere. The most pointed criticism comes from Hemant Mehta, proprietor of Friendly Atheist. He writes:
Here’s why I can’t stand Jews.
They’re boring.
- They keep complaining about being oppressed.
- They keep talking about the same damn things all the time -- Holocaust this and Israel that.
- They always claim they’re victims.
- They only constitute a small percentage of Americans -- probably because they can’t win over any converts.
- They still complain about how state Constitutions bar them from holding office -- really, only six of them do -- even though the Supreme Court has said those provisions are unenforceable.
- They want affirmative action for their kind -- one representative from the “pity-poor-me” school of Jews even said they need “safe spaces” at colleges!
- They assume everyone who doesn’t agree with them is “beyond stupid.”
- They never want to take on the serious arguments that theologians have made in favor of the Christian god.
- Some Jews think Jesus never even existed. So what do they know?
- They’re not rational. They’re just angry. Angry because they think the world is unfair to them. Angry that someone forced them to go to church as a child. Some Jews are so angry, they sued the government to prevent a Christian prayer from being spoken at President Obama’s inauguration. The gall!
Now… if I actually believed that, I’d be called every name in the book. And rightfully so. Those are ignorant, bigoted, hateful remarks. They’re also wildly stereotypical and extremely inaccurate.
When Charlotte Allen says the exact same things about atheists, however, she gets published in the Los Angeles Times.
Biology professor PZ Myers, whose adroit defenses of science against attacks by creationist-types have made me a somewhat regular reader of his blog Pharyngula, bore a good share of Allen's anger. Allen wrote:
Then there's P.Z. Myers, biology professor at the University of Minnesota's Morris campus, whose blog, Pharyngula, is supposedly about Myers' field, evolutionary biology, but is actually about his fanatical propensity to label religious believers as "idiots," "morons," "loony" or "imbecilic" in nearly every post. The university deactivated its link to Myers' blog in July after he posted a photo of a consecrated host from a Mass that he had pierced with a rusty nail and thrown into the garbage ("I hope Jesus' tetanus shots are up to date") in an effort to prove that Catholicism is bunk -- or something.
Myers' response, which he filed under his blog category "Kooks":
Her opening is clear. She thinks we're "crashing bores". A hint for Ms. Allen: never start an essay by declaring your subject to be boring. Either your readers will stop at that point, or they'll read on and discover that despite your claim, you seem to be concerned enough to write on at excessive length about something that is supposedly boring. ...
Then there is an incoherent middle where she just flames on about how mean atheists are (I call them all horrible names, you see), never seeming to notice that all she is doing is spouting angry vitriol about atheists. Gripe, gripe, gripe. The only time she even tries to state what the position of theists might be is in her closing paragraph, and again, she's oblivious to the problem with her position. ...
There simply isn't anything to engage in Allen's howl of outrage. I'm a little surprised that something so shallow and empty could get published in the LA Times at all, especially with Charlotte Allen's track record. My only previous encounter with her was an astonishing rant in the Washington Post, in which she flatly claimed that women were dumber than men. Seriously. While claiming there was no difference in average intelligence.
Look for more response in the form of letters to the editor and possibly a Blowback in the coming days. We're also interested in what you have to say, so feel free to join the discussion by leaving a comment below.
Updated Tuesday at 5:22 am: The original misspelled Hemant Mehta's last name and incorrectly said Myers had filed his response to Allen under the category "Gooks," not "Kooks." Thanks to readers for pointing out these errors, and apologies to Mehta and Myers.
Sam Harris photo credit: Glenn Koenig / L.A. Times
Richard Dawkins photo credit: Dirk Waem / AFP/Getty Images
"But I stand by my belief that anyone who classifies themselves as"one of the most interesting people I know" is either full of themselves or needs to meet more people or both."
a) That wasn't your original claim.
b) The statement was surely tongue-in-cheek.
c) Your belief isn't grounded in fact.
d) The only thing that keeps you from being boring is your notable intellectual dishonesty.
Posted by: Marcel Kincaid | October 29, 2009 at 01:31 PM
Isn't it strange that the people that espouse morality and godliness are also the same people who favor the most morally corrupt industrialization and destruction of our planet? (See Charlotte's tirade against sustainability yesterday in the LA Times)
Her comments wouldn't have a slightly political slant by any chance, would they? Was Jesus a politician? Would Jesus support the ever more pointless collecting of material wealth? I think we should all live by the teachings of Jesus, but I'm afraid people like Charlotte Allen are in a heap of trouble if God does indeed exist and they ever have to answer to him. Good luck with that Charlotte...
Posted by: What would Jesus do? | September 01, 2009 at 08:11 AM
Michael in Altadena - Unicorns do in fact control the weather. The Invisible Pink Unicorn controls all, blessed be her holy hooves.
Ms. Allen seems to think that atheists need to disprove the existence of god. Others have properly pointed out that is not how science works. But I challenge her to disprove the existence of my deity, the Invisible Pink Unicorn. She lives outside of the orbit of Saturn. But don't bother looking for her with a telescope, cause she is invisible.
Anyone wanting to believe in sky beings or magic can do so, and no, we cannot disprove the existence of your silly claims, anymore than you can disprove there is an orbiting magical horse-like creature controlling my world. The claims of any major religion are just as wacked-out as belieiving in a pink unicorn.
Posted by: Dave in Canada | August 12, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Atheists out there: an honest question; please give me your opinion
Several years ago I realized that atheists were right when they do not accept the God of the Bible; I do not believe in that “god” either. However, in order to come to a reasonable explanation of what is, I came to the conclusion that God isn’t other than the Existence itself, “All-That-Is;” and, if something is there, that is God. I wrote an essay on this subject, and I ask you if this makes sense for you? (Please click here.) It was written for Christians, so please disregard the religious connotation. The essay was published in the book “Christianity Reformed From ist Roots - A life centered in God.”
Jairo Mejia, M. Psych., University of Santa Clara
Episcopal Priest, Retired
Carmel Valley, California US
If you’d like you might see Christian views of the book at:
http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Grudzen.htm and http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Churcher.htm
Posted by: Jairo Mejia | July 29, 2009 at 07:16 PM
I take issue I with Ms Allen’s snarky anti atheist article “No God, no reason, just whining”. Does she really think atheists are just whining? Tell that to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who endured genital mutilation in her native Somalia and now requires twenty four hour body guard protection because she made a film, “Submission” criticizing Islam.
Unlike religious fanatics, atheists merely use words to make our points known. If you don’t think atheists engage believers seriously, check out the many debates recorded on YouTube. All the atheist authors she mentioned have debated various religious believers in serious and respectful ways. Let the debate continue! Let the better argument win. And if you think we’re boring, that’s a reflection on you, not us.
Posted by: randal stepp | May 25, 2009 at 08:53 PM
Quite an extreme case of pot calling the kettle black by Ms. Allen!
So she generalizes that we're obsessed? Or really? Seems she's equally guilty and I'm not the one writing a long public rant about a group that I can't ever really have a clue about because I'm not in their freaking shoes. What an immature bigot.
Gotta love how she clearly sees herself and her "kind" as superior, and writes as if we wouldn't even be reading it.
Too bad we aren't living a few hundred years go. A "witch" hunt might be fun...
Posted by: Stephanie H. | May 25, 2009 at 04:45 PM
You think we atheists are boring? How about church services which focus on one book and go over it with a fine toothed comb for years upon years.
Do you have any idea how boring you religious folks are ranting on about what the bible says and how important it is?/
And there is the stupid going to hell lecture.
Do you really think you can scare us with that nonsense?
If we don't think there is a god,why would we think there is an afterlife?
The truth of the matter is,Mrs. Angry pants,the only reason you are a xtain is cause you were drug to church and indoctrinated before the age of reason.
I agree with others here,if you had the gonads to say the same about blacks,jews,xtains, oor the disabled,people would be on you like flies on a cow pie.
But it's ok to put us atheists down cause we are apparently a lower life forum in your holier-than-thou eyes.
Well, I think you need to go to a few anger management classes and get off your high horse.
And if I was your boss,you would have been fired so fast for that atheist hate piece you would not know what hit you.
Posted by: Daci Sky | May 25, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Can you imagine?...
"Superstar blacks are motivated by anger -- and
I can't stand blacks...
...My problem with blacks is their tiresome -- and way old -- insistence that they are being oppressed and their fixation..."
or let us try;
"Superstar gays are motivated by anger -- and
I can't stand gays...
...My problem with gays is..."
You'd have the world at your doorstep, and a retraction would have happened near instantly.
That this would be published at all is simply reprehensible. It is some of the most hateful, bigoted tripe I've read in some time. How very unfortunate this was deemed 'acceptable' by those in charge. Shame on you.
Posted by: Brad | May 23, 2009 at 04:04 AM
Witches really do exist!
You can get one to confess their witchcraft by repeatedly holding them under water until they almost pass out.
That proves it!
Doesn't it?
Posted by: William | May 22, 2009 at 12:06 PM
I would agree that the contents of this article are absurd, bad journalism, and irrational. Even if one ignores the fact that the possibility of a large group containing a lot of very different people is ignored by the article, it is worth note that this sort of stuff could not be published as an attack against any other minority, with the exception of criminals. There is also the matter of the hypocrisy of complaining about other people complaining while insulting them for it. Thankfully, most of the reaction towards the piece has been reasonable, although there are still those willing to cherry pick individuals, and individual comments from a large group of people and larger group of comments so as to label an entire group as if any one representative of it is identical to all those within the group.
Posted by: Anyonymous | May 21, 2009 at 08:20 PM
I appreciate the LA Times at least adding a user comments and a few anti Charlotte quotes, but i think the discussion needs to be expanded. The opinions in question listed all the horrible things about atheists. Well, I think it high times all the horrible things about Christians in this country got some national ink too. First a simple history lesson, Jesus isn't a real person, all the so called facts you preach about them were clearly made up beginning 70 years after his supposed existence and things like the Virgin Birth weren't added in until 100s of years later. Don't feel bad, any man who claims to know a god is lying to you for money, the Christian religion is just a comical farce in that it is pure plagiarism of lies that came before it. Thus... if anything you believe relies on God or Jesus opinion then it too is fiction. What does matter is morality and freedom. See we live in a free country with a separation of church and state, once again you jesus people have neglected your history, we are not nor ever have been a christian nation. Almost every founding father states this and every single member of congress signed the Treaty of Tripoli which states we are not a christian nation. Further more tax free status has gone way beyond alms for the poor, these tax cheats publish books, have concerts, and profit from it all and then use the money to affect public policy. Guys like Ted Haggard and Rick Warren make millions selling flat out lies to our undereducated public. They then use this money to breed hate like fighting gays, or oppressing women, you know the same crap the church has stood for during their entire existence. It's not that they are wrong, they can be as dumb as they like, well within their rights... but we need to start taxing these churches and preventing them from making fraudulent claims or committing crimes (tax evasion, child molestation to name a few). Without funding these criminals will simply find someone else to prey on. So as much as history and fact may bore Ms. Allen, I for one am done with letting mythology guide our great nation, if the Christians want a country it won't be ours! (They should move into the middle east with the rest of the zealots and then they can fight it out everyday and let us intelligent folks live in peace!)
Posted by: capo689 | May 21, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Great summary of religion, Paul. But it also needs to be pointed out that religions that come into contact with more advanced ones are killed off - not because the more advanced one is true, but because it is socially adapted to the more advanced society which is the one exterminating or absorbing the less advanced society.
This is why the dead religions of the Greeks, Romans, Germans, Norse, Celts, Aztec, Maya, Inca, Polynesians, etc were all killed off by the conquering monotheisms, the ethnically specific Hinduism/Sikhism, or the spiritual Buddhism.
Yahweh no longer has a beard and lives on a cloud (a la Michalangelo's painting) because this sort of god was proven as non-beleivable to the majority centuries ago. Yahweh evolved into "God" because in the face of scientific knowledge only an amorphous, deistic, "The Force" style of creator can co-exist with evolutionary biolgogy, space flight, germ-theory based medicine, etc.
Posted by: seathanaich | May 21, 2009 at 12:04 PM
The Evolution of Religious Mythology
A Scenario
In caves from birth to age three
We were sheltered, abundantly fed, provided visual, aural and tactual stimulus to elicit the smiles of happiness, emotional security and dependency, language, control (terrible twos), sense of cause and effect (associative memory) and the many emotions and behaviors from our genetic endowment and environmental conditioning.
There is little or no conscious memory of these early first three years of life.
After age three
Into a terrifying world of lighting and thunder, raging fires, freezing winters, floods, famine, sickness and disease, poisonous insects, plants, dangerous animals and hostile people.
And a warm and sunny world in a tribal community of sociable people.
Mythology
Our innate cause and effect thought process, the use of hallucinogenic drugs produced the mystical gods of lighting, thunder and fire. Gods for the floods, famine, disease, stars at night, the seasons.
The mysterious reproduction of plants, animals and themselves. Gods for every thing, event and thought in the world of primitive people.
Religion
Evolution paradigm:
From the simple to the complex, by replication, mutation and natural selection.
All religions evolved from primitive mythologies to Christian Hindu Muslim Jewish and other mythologies of today.
A powerful placebo for the emotional security and dependency of our early childhood.
“A religious experience brings a new zest for life, assurance of safety and a temper of peace, and in relation to others, a preponderance of loving affection, ranging from mild institutions to wild hallucinations normally called insane.”
William James - 1842/1910 “The Varieties of Religious Experience” - 1902
Posted by: Paul A. Putz | May 21, 2009 at 11:11 AM
@Jon Healey,
I started my first post by saying all atheists should not be blamed for the actions of an outspoken and obnoxious few.
But I stand by my belief that anyone who classifies themselves as"one of the most interesting people I know" is
either full of themselves or needs to meet more people or both.
Posted by: Thomas Burke | May 21, 2009 at 11:00 AM
The world conveniently overlooks the atrocities committed throughout the ages in the name of their god, against Atheist, who are free to think the absence of gods. Their hypocritical piety demonstrates their ignorance.
Posted by: James Tribble | May 20, 2009 at 04:51 PM
Ms. Anne's op-ed is hateful and misleading, but expected based on her previous published work. What upsets me more is how this was published as a shameless ploy to get more subscribers. Have some real journalistic integrity LAT.
Posted by: enigma | May 20, 2009 at 04:23 PM
Thank you, LA Times for finally pushing me over the edge. A thoughtful presentation of differing opinions and ideas is a benefit to us all, but name calling and vitriol benefit no one. Shame on you.
I am canceling my subscription.
Posted by: Bob Dobbs | May 20, 2009 at 09:04 AM
Indeed, it is sad to see the demise of newspapers in this way, especially since I come from the "old school" family of journalists. I guarantee I will not be reading or buying the L.A. Times in the future, if this is the sort of yellow journalism we can come to expect from them. As an atheist, I really feel this woman overstepped her bounds, and shame on her editors for the above mentioned yellow journalism tactics.
Consider my subscription cancelled.
Posted by: Calvin | May 20, 2009 at 07:44 AM
Allen sees that the number (which she tries to minimize) of nonbelievers is growing while the number of churchgoers is shrinking. How to get them back? Accuse atheists of being boring, a mortal sin to those with short attention spans. I'm not whining, I'm optimistic. Evolution will take hold, humanity will advance, religion will disappear. She knows it. She's trying to label the well-known atheists and their arguments as boring. I say, go check them out for yourselves and think for yourselves. Go attend a sermon or two and read some apologetics. Then decide what's rational and what's boring.
Posted by: Bill | May 19, 2009 at 11:20 PM
One can only wonder how a vitriolic airhead like Charlotte Allen, whose essay could have been reduced to three words without loss (“I hate atheists.”), can command so much space in the Los Angeles Times while a well reasoned piece by an atheist will scarcely see the light of day. When will mainstream papers allow us to expose the numerous lies attached to atheism? Don’t hold your breath. That’s not how the game is played.
Not wishing to bore you, let me pick out just a couple of the many stupid statements by Charlotte Allen in her May 17 essay “No God, no reason, just whining.” Ms Allen states: “Myers’ blog exemplifies atheists’ frenzied fascination with Christianity and the Bible.” Gee Whiz! I was under the impression--apparently not shared by Ms Allen--that one should be knowledgeable about those subjects one criticizes. Knowing Bible and religion better than the Christians, themselves, is essential for someone criticizing those subjects. Wow! That was a toughie, wasn’t it?
“And then there’s the question of why atheists are so intent on trying to prove that God not only doesn’t exist but is evil to boot. … If there is no God … why does it matter whether he‘s good or evil?” --Ms Allen. Atheists are simply saying that intelligent minds have good reasons for rejecting God-belief, quite understandable given more than two thousand years of vicious slander. The purists among us may simply be interested in seeing truth prevail with respect to so privileged a dogma. By pointing out that a “literal” reading of the Bible gives us a morally challenged God, in direct contradiction to the moral perfection that Bible-believing Christians say God must have, we have an excellent argument against the existence of their version of god--the version that usually gets shoved our throats. Wow! That was another tough question. I’m just breaking all out in sweat!
I don’t know where Ms Allen graduated, but if I were her I’d get a refund.
Posted by: Dave Matson | May 19, 2009 at 08:00 PM
I suppose you atheists must have your laughs at those who understand the truth of Allah. Its true we can't explain it. We know there is no proof. We accept its illogical nature. However, we know God/Allah will someday give us the ability to express ourselves intellectually as you do.
Posted by: john in Trion | May 19, 2009 at 07:02 PM
Time and time again ignorant bigots are allowed to spew their innermost hatred upon the pages of major publications and literature without any type of major backlash from society as a whole. Mehta was right, you write these kind of things about any other group or organization and leaders from those respective groups will be on CNN the next day demanding an apology, AND they will get it.
Next time Allen writes, I would hope she would ponder WHY atheists are so angry, instead of just stating her observation. There is validity behind the outrage of many atheists. Minnesota University recently released the results of a study showing atheists at the top of the list for "This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society... " at 39.6% out of surveyed Americans and at the top for, "I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group...." at 47.6% of surveyed Americans. The next closest would be Muslims, in the wake of 9/11, at 33.5%. The numbers don't lie, and articles like Allen's perpetuate this bigotry and hatred of a group, who like many people, are searching for the truth. The majority of atheists are peaceful humanists, who have no problem with what any theist does in their home or church. When there is a movement to remove the word God from institutions, it isn't to spite Christians, Muslims, Jewish, Buddhists, etc...it is to keep our government secular and ensure the freedom of/from religion, which the constitution guarantees.
@ Allen personally,
Atheist's beliefs are not an attack against religion, in fact just the opposite. As a theist, if your faith is strong, and beliefs are self validated, you should feel stronger after a conversation or a debate with an atheist. God tested you, and you passed. High-five! If you feel threatened, perhaps your convictions weren't as strong as you thought, and what you have been raised to believe doesn't sound as qualified as you thought. Maybe you are thinking about releasing your faith, and begin to question your existence, that would be great too. Of course there is also the possibility that you are just a closed minded person who feels the need to play a victim while accusing others of what you are projecting. I think the latter may be true, but I have no PROOF, so for now I will remain open-minded to all options, including the supernatural. In the meantime, you pray for me, I'll think for you.
Posted by: Alto | May 19, 2009 at 04:41 PM
Wow. Charlotte Allen, the living argument against intelligent design. Atheists are angry. Anyone read any of Allen's other columns. Here is a women in a state of constant anger. Regardlaess, Allen is entitled to her opinion and should be allowed to continue to write abut those opinions. She should be institutionalized because she believes the Son of some God was roaming the earth at some point even though we do not have any physical proof he existed, just the work of some 'apostles' . Then again how many people today are institutionalized because they were talking to God or God told them to take an action?
Posted by: jsc1 | May 19, 2009 at 04:08 PM
...Charlotte Allen, like so many others, sees atheists as an "ok" group to express bigotry towards.
Why?
...Simple: Atheism is a VERY unpopular idea. SO unpopular, that hatred towards it receives a stamp of "acceptable" by the VAST majority of Americans.
...And if hatred is fully endorsed...then it becomes "Ok", or even "Good" to express.
Try being an Atheist in this country today...you absolutely MUST hide it from your employers, dates, aquaintences, customers, police, etc.
If you fail to do so...it's a swift trip to trouble - simply because (as stated above), it's "Ok" to publicly decry or express hate towards them.
What's terrifying is that no one wishes to see this as a bad thing....much like any group hating upon any other innocentt group in history has done in the past.
Posted by: DrSebby | May 19, 2009 at 04:06 PM
Thanks a lot, LATimes. What a a shallow attempt to garner more publicity for your paper. Take a pathetic, bigoted, clueless excuse of an op-ed writer and use her rant against a minority group (at least in the United States) to sell, sell, sell - et voilà! Congratulations. You all must be very proud of yourselves. Here's hoping it backfires.
Posted by: Natasha | May 19, 2009 at 04:03 PM