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
Why give atheist any print?
Posted by: steve rodriguez | May 18, 2009 at 03:26 PM
@steve rodriguez: apparently you missed the whole point of the article, especially Metha's sarcasm.
Posted by: steve rodriguez is an idiot | May 18, 2009 at 03:36 PM
I guess you would call me an atheist, or at least an agnostic, and while I hardly need the vehemence of those cited God-critics to reassurance my stance, I am afraid that the massive weight of modern thought argues against his/her/its existence. Do I still have human, humane, humanity, concerns, and struggle with questions of conscience, maybe even spiritual concerns and wonders? Of course, but I calmly and quietly move on with my life as ethically and kindly as I can, based on something other than a final God who is judging me. Religion is a nice sentiment, a fragrant memory, and a reassuring tradition. But, no, I really do not believe--I really can't. I am helped in this transitional historical stance by belonging to a very wide-ranging, but traditionally organized group---the Unitarian Universalists.
Posted by: Tom | May 18, 2009 at 04:07 PM
Funny, that's the same argument she made, steve. You sound really reasonable.
Posted by: jimmy | May 18, 2009 at 04:19 PM
Wow, Charlotte Allen's education is amazingly deficient. Some examples:
1. "…if science can't prove something, it doesn't exist." Science doesn't "prove" anything; it tests things (using the scientific method); "proof" is a concept appropriate only to closed systems (e.g., see http://zenofzero.net/docs/T1_Truth_&_Knowledge.pdf ).
2. Atheists don't have a "fixation with the fine points of Christianity", atheists simply state that there's no evidence to support a belief in god – any god.
3. Atheists focus on the absence of evidence supporting the speculation that any god exist. Ms. Allen apparently holds the view that the existence of god represents a "tiny range of topics" – would that she were right!
4. The "evidence" for Harris' point that "no person… can seek public office in the U.S. without pretending to be certain that… God exists" is available in polling data – but then, apparently Ms. Allen doesn't stoop to consider evidence.
5. Ms. Allen asks "how exactly does that disprove the existence of God?", without realizing (again) that it's not in the nature of science to "prove" anything. I suppose it's too much to ask her to learn about Bayes' method (e.g., http://zenofzero.net/docs/IhHypothesesandProbabilities.pdf ), but she might be interested to know that it's also the essence of how juries make decisions based on evidence.
But I'd grant Ms. Allen one point that she made: we have a lot of pent up anger. If she would someday see the astounding harm the stupid "god idea" has done to humanity, then she, too, would probably become angry.
Posted by: nick222 | May 18, 2009 at 05:11 PM
Hmmm. Still have Obama's words about "fair-minded words" ringing in my head... I think this fair-mindedness will make us all boring...but I'm willing to give it a try. Charlotte Allen gets an F in fair-mindedness. And I WISH WISH WISH her view on evolution was the favored view of "Christians" in this country. What % of Americans believe that evolution is a valid scientific and/or religious theory? I shudder to think...
Posted by: JAMIE | May 18, 2009 at 05:11 PM
Ms Allen, I'm offended that you think we are just whiners. Whenever I engage a believer in a faith-based conversation, I ask them how much they understand their faith. I ask them to research their given religion, it's sources and it's history. Most of the Christian believers I engage have hardly even heard of the Crusades, much less know how many of them there were.
As more believers engage a debate like this, it is inevitable that the believers who become enraged with each other. (!) I see this is because the US is a pluralistic country, with each believer believing in their own personal version of their god. And the more devout the believer claims to be, they reduce themselves to childish retorts such as, "Can you even spell Ammonites?" (Clearly I can.)
I would like to remind you that if a small group of men decided not to be so open to women of faith, you wouldn't even be allowed to discuss your faith unless it's at home, with your husband out of earshot.
Posted by: Locrian | May 18, 2009 at 05:45 PM
Please! PZ Myers did not classify his comment under "Gooks." It is under "Kooks" as in Koo Koo.
And I wrote to your readers rep - Allen's quote from Dawkins is ripped out of context. Dawkins did not say that about religious believers in general, only about creationists. And Newdow did not sue to prevent Obama from adding "So Help Me God" to the oath, only to prevent the Supreme Court Justice who administered the oath from making it a part of the official oath, since it is not in fact in the Constitution.
Where are you fact checkers?!?
Posted by: Fran | May 18, 2009 at 06:14 PM
Talk about boring, I only made it halfway through Charlotte's piece before I clicked over to sports. Tantalizing title, tepid read.
Posted by: AndrewO | May 18, 2009 at 06:22 PM
@steve rodriguez: apparently you missed the whole point of the article, especially Metha's sarcasm.
--
This is the stupidest thing I have seen on the Net this week.
Way to go, Stevo.
Posted by: George Taylor | May 18, 2009 at 07:57 PM
Myer's response is filed under "Kooks" not "Gooks."
Posted by: tincture | May 18, 2009 at 08:15 PM
For a long time, there has been the mythos that Christians were the most persecuted people in the world. Yeah, right.
On the other hand, they're so fragile that they think a "gang of hoodlums" is going to make their god look even more like a 98 lb. weakling, something that they have already done to "him" themselves. They seem to think atheists are responsible for all the bad press they've been getting for the past, oh, two thousand years at the very least.
It seems to me that no one except Christians themselves can marginalize their god even more than he is, and they sure are trying, at least. The most fundamentalist ones do manage, in fact, to make "him" look like a cranky old man with the proverbial "bee in his bonnet" with a prejudice toward over half of the world's population. Gee--projecting much, anyone?
Atheists just seem to get that bad rap because we're not afraid to state the obvious, something many of "them" wish they could do with impunity, but they're too afraid of an absent god to do it.
Posted by: hyphenate | May 18, 2009 at 08:17 PM
Paul, PZ Meyers filed the entry under "KOOKS" in his blog, not "Gooks," as you put it. An unfortunate typo.
Posted by: Mitch | May 18, 2009 at 08:18 PM
Should I base all of my assumptions about Christians on what some of them post anonymously on the internet?
Posted by: ELGS | May 18, 2009 at 08:38 PM
Myers' response, which he filed under his blog category "Gooks":
Ok, that is "Kooks" not a racial epithet like "Gooks"
This mistake, along with Charlotte Allen's piece shows why subscriptions to printed newspapers are plunging.
Posted by: R.C. Moore | May 18, 2009 at 08:51 PM
You realize that there is no god, right?
It's all superstition and mythology...you know that, right?
Just making sure...
Posted by: Brian williams | May 18, 2009 at 08:53 PM
I have to wonder how you allowed Allen's piece to be printed in the first place. Had she made those uneducated, hateful remarks about any other group they wouldn't have seen the light of day in any mainstream publication. Were your editors asleep at the switch or do they just think, as Cardinal Cormack Murphy-O’Connor does, that atheists aren't fully human so it doesn't matter what people print about us?
Posted by: Buffy | May 18, 2009 at 09:05 PM
I almost did a spit-take when at the end, Allen wrote, "So atheists, how about losing the tired sarcasm and .. engaging believers seriously?"
Another irony is that Allen spends most of her article pitting one side against the other--and then briefly mentions that many Christians have reconciled evolution with faith. You mean there's a such as a thing as a MIDDLE GROUND? The irony is that a lot of people have reconciled the best parts of religious faith with the best parts of evidence-based knowledge. I believe it is possible to embrace the reality of human spiritual experience and yet recognize the importance of having evidence for what we believe.
Posted by: Mike | May 18, 2009 at 09:42 PM
Of course there was a response. How on earth did you expect any sort of calm idyll after you yield the soapbox to a bigot? And, yes, bigot is the correct term - as Hemant Mehta points out, this type of criticism against any other group would spark outrage, just as it has in the atheist community. Personally, the pooh-poohing of atheist claims of persecution strikes home with me, as I've had to listen to many a rant by my employer about how atheists (among other groups) are untrustworthy and should be excluded from society. As an atheist, this sort of talk worries me. If she wants to tell me that persecution against atheists is overblown, I'd like to see her convince my boss to retain me in my job after full disclosure about religious beliefs.
Posted by: Theophage | May 18, 2009 at 09:52 PM
His name is spelled "Hemant Mehta," the 'h' and 't' transposed from the misspelling given in the post.
Posted by: River | May 18, 2009 at 09:56 PM
Since it was impossible to comment on the original article, it's nice to have a chance to comment elsewhere.
Charlotte Allen kind of proved the point that atheists are as subject to as much bigotry as they claim they are. Why do apologists for something not realise this when they write what they do?
And then poster Steve Rodriguez proved the point above again. So, the original article, and the person supporting it here, are, to be charitable, poor. The critics are coherent, informed, and, well, correct. Why is it that every time I read a Christian apologist, it merely confirms how ignorant, how bigoted, or how morally vacuous they are? Is religion the problem, or are such people just drawn to religion?
Posted by: seathanaich | May 18, 2009 at 10:02 PM
Ms. Allen's main mistake was blaming all atheists for the actions of an outspoken and obnoxious few.
If Mr. Metha were truly a "friendly atheist" this would have been a better way to go with his response.
Mr. Myers seems more interested in making a literary critique than an actual response.
Neither of them actually addressed her accusations. Mertha deflected them to another group against whom they are false and Myers admitted to slandering people of faith, but in such a way as to belittle Allen for being offended.
Posted by: Thomas Burke | May 18, 2009 at 10:15 PM
Myers filed Allen's piece under his blog category "Kooks." He doesn't have that other category.
Seriously, can the L.A. Times be trusted to report anything about atheists accurately?
.
Posted by: Bradley Jones | May 18, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Any objective mind can see that gods or Jesus is just Santa for adults.
I don't believe in gods or magic for the same reason I don't believe unicorns control the weather - there is absolutly no logical reason to.
Posted by: Hill | May 18, 2009 at 10:42 PM
A crashing bore? I'm an atheist and I happen to be one of the most interesting people I know. I haven't whined in a long time and the last time I felt like a victim was when I had the flu. How in the world did she get page space in the LA Times? I guess if they print Jonah Goldberg, they'll print anybody.
Posted by: Michael in Altadena | May 18, 2009 at 10:48 PM
PZ put the categories as "Kooks", not "Gooks." Horrible, horrible typo to make...I highly doubt PZ has anything against those of Asian descent. Speaking of which, it's Hemant Mehta, not Metha...
Posted by: Sam | May 18, 2009 at 10:49 PM
So, you misspell Hemant Mehta's last name, and you libel PZ Myers*--PZ does not have a blog category for "gooks" (an offensive and disparaging term for Asians), but for "kooks" (a rather benign term for foolish people). This after publishing that factually inaccurate, unbelievably vile, and spectacularly idiotic rant of Charlotte Allen's**.... have you simply decided to abandon any sort of journalistic standard at the LAT, or is this really the best you can do?
* No relation
** Yes, I know it was an (uniformed) opinion piece... but would you have published Allen had she submitted in earnest something akin to the satire Mehta offered in response? Why or why not?
Posted by: J Myers | May 18, 2009 at 10:55 PM
May want to correct "Gooks" to "Kooks", Paul. That's some typo.
Posted by: Johann | May 18, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Here’s why I can’t stand Christianist crybabies.
They’re boring.
They keep complaining about being oppressed.
They keep talking about the same damn things all the time -- War on Xmas this and gay marriage that.
They always claim they’re victims.
They constitute a decreasing percentage of Americans because after listening to them, who'd want to identify as one.
Yadda, yadda, yadda ...
Posted by: Mike Tidmus | May 18, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Whats interesting is how everybody thinks all atheists are angry when in reality we are a pretty reasonable bunch.
This blowback against us is getting to be a bit much though. Seems since we are a fast growing segment of the population the theist response has been to step our attacks against "us" ( as if we have a formal membership/grouping system ).
Personally 5 years ago I couldn't care less about my atheism. However everytime Charlotte Allen or one of her theist friends write a column about how horrible I am I get a bit more energized.
If you want more angry athiests keep it up Charlotte. You keep giving us reasons to fight for what we... errr.. disbelie.... in. ;)
Posted by: Johnny | May 19, 2009 at 12:28 AM
The interesting question for me is why the editors of the Los Angeles Times thought Allen's drivel was worth publishing.
Heman Mehta's analogy has exposed Allen's and the Times' bigotry for what it is: an ugly and unjustified attack on a despised minority. Why would the Times knowingly participate in this high-tech pogrom?
Posted by: Skeptico | May 19, 2009 at 02:17 AM
The only thing atheists have in common is that they do not believe in fairy tales in which God is the main character.
So it's a bit silly to paint them all with the same brush. It is like saying that all people who were born in December have such-and-such a character. Oh wait, astrologers do that. Well, Mrs. Allen's incoherent rant is no more intelligent than the nonsense spouted by your average astrologer.
Posted by: Drosera | May 19, 2009 at 02:28 AM
That piece was just sad, and not even worth getting annoyed at. Is that what the LA Times has to do to sell newspapers these days?
Why does Evolution keep coming up? It should be non-issue, considering the mass of evidence supporting it. It doesn't even have to clash with religion in general. However, if your religion requires you to take an ancient book as the literal truth, despite the fact that its version of history is unsupported by any evidence ... well, that's just sad.
Posted by: stereoroid | May 19, 2009 at 02:35 AM
Well, linking to PZ and Hermant is a start. However:
You couldn't say we didn't see this coming
Does that mean that the LA Times intentionally placed it, in the full knowledge what the consequences would be? If so, then why did the LA Times place it at all?
Sure, it created a nice controversy and attracted a lot of attention for your paper. But as Hermant Mehta pointed out in the quote above, you likely wouldn't have placed a similar article about Jews, even if it got you all the controversy and attention that you could ever want.
Seems to me the LA Times still has some explaining to do.
Posted by: Deen | May 19, 2009 at 02:52 AM
The Holocaust happened over 60 years ago, yeah it sucked, get over it and move on!
Posted by: Enlightenment | May 19, 2009 at 03:05 AM
Imaginary Friend:
http://www.atheistempire.com/entertainment/images/imaginary_friend.gif
Posted by: Enlightenment | May 19, 2009 at 03:12 AM
The bible is evil and should have a warning label on it!
http://www.EvilBible.com
http://sciencenotes.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/holy-bible-warning.jpg
Posted by: Enlightenment | May 19, 2009 at 03:14 AM
"Thou Shall Not Worship False Idols". Most people do, and most religions do. We unwillingly turn our personal/familiar version of god into what we want/need it to be . According to most religions,the vast majority of us will be in some kind of hell looking at each other asking "who did you think it was ?" Most religions are born or evolve during times of human despair and suffering and/or an absolute lack of knowledge of any other way of understanding consciousness.
Most believers are willing to discuss the existence (or degree of involvement) of God. Most of them are smart people who have gone through a long period of deciding what they believe at their deepest core. The same can be said for most atheists.
It's sad to see that a newspaper would rather focus on these opinionated somehow relevant people's extremist points of view to take the center of this issue.
Posted by: JP | May 19, 2009 at 03:17 AM
To: Steve Rodriquez........ Why give the Religious any print.... when everything they believe in is WRONG!
Posted by: Joel Nietzsche | May 19, 2009 at 04:55 AM
So you know, PZ Myers' put his response in the "KOOKS" section, not the "Gooks" section.
Posted by: SuddenlyAtheist | May 19, 2009 at 04:58 AM
Ricky says it all imho.
http://www.moviefill.com/news/Ricky-Gervais-On-Being-An-Atheist/16895/
Posted by: Systo | May 19, 2009 at 04:58 AM
Can you at least fix the typos? It's Mehta not Metha and it's Kooks not Gooks. Sheesh....
Posted by: Boudica | May 19, 2009 at 05:14 AM
I'm always astonished by the brazen hypocrisy of articles just like this one. I'm not going to try to say that some Atheists aren't abrasive or even offensive in the way they express their beliefs, but that is a truth that can be applied to any system of faith (Or lack thereof).
However, it seems that people like Ms. Allen want to be able to express themselves with a venomous pen and still maintain an air of lofty superiority as they shamelessly display how eagerly they will discriminate. It doesn't matter -what- the minority is, discrimination is what it is.
As for her points on Atheists having a fixation with Christianity, perhaps it's not that, but the rather overwhelming Christian sentiment in this country. After all, look how many people got up in arms when President Obama claimed that this was -not- a Christian nation?
The simple truth is that bitter and angry Atheists in this country are more likely to have suffered from intolerance from indevidual Christians than members of any other group, just due to simple statistics. After all, it's hard to jump in the water without getting wet.
I'll tell you what, Ms. Allen. I'll happily apologize for the abrasive outbursts of, shall we say, fundamentalist Atheists, if you'll do the same for the intolerance perpetrated by Christian fundamentalists, starting with a retraction of, and apology for the column that you so scornfully wrote.
Posted by: Will | May 19, 2009 at 05:21 AM
Metha nailed it. Nothing else really needs to be said to know just how wrong this is. If this same piece were written about any other group, I highly doubt she would remain employed. Instead of an eight sentence article that merely introduces someone else's thoughts on the matter, how about a heartfelt apology and corrective action?
We won't see one - hence the 'atheist anger' that she doesn't seem to understand. Articles and opinions such as hers, or the cardinal who called atheists "less than human", are exactly why we are so angry.
I would continue, but I get the feeling from this article that the LA times knew full well that they were openly printing Charlotte Allen's hate speech. Their goal? To inspire the exact response they are getting. They wanted a story to go viral, to get them hits on their web page and earn them more advertising dollars. It was successful, and now they have a second page to follow the first.
No concern for printing the truth, only a concern for printing a story that will make money. Do you offer your staff any continuing training on journalistic ethics? How about a remedial course, hmmm?
Posted by: Greg | May 19, 2009 at 05:32 AM
The good news is that as the number of atheists in the population increase, there will be less need for atheist advocates. The bad news is that as the number of Christians in the population decrease, those Christians that are left will tend to become more fundamentalist and irrational. The only exception may be the "emerging church" movement.
Posted by: Jeff | May 19, 2009 at 06:29 AM
Magical, invisible friends are for idiots and small children. Which are you, Ms. Allen?
Posted by: Pluto Animus | May 19, 2009 at 06:34 AM
Charlotte Allen implicitly complains that atheists are constructing a straw-man. Believers, she says, already accept Evolution. The point out that the Pope does. So alright already, why are atheists wasting their time on such a non-issue?
You'd expect such a question from someone who is ignorant enough to not know that the majority of religious people (and therefore the general population) REJECTS Evolution (and therefore big parts of scientific fields). Such an ignorant person also failed to notice that far from being a non-issue, the teaching of Evolution has been challenged in courts many times in the last few decades, and biology texts are being altered to satisfy the naive religious.
Posted by: Kal G. | May 19, 2009 at 06:57 AM
"Neither of them actually addressed her accusations. Mertha deflected them to another group against whom they are false and Myers admitted to slandering people of faith, but in such a way as to belittle Allen for being offended."
Posted by: Thomas Burke
You fail at recognizing either point made. Mehta was making the point that if she had written an article saying the same things about ANY OTHER GROUP, the editorial wouldn't have been published. It would have been rejected as bigotted, and would have invited defamation and libel suits from organizations representing the group described. The only reason Allen got away with this vile piece of bigotry is because in the US, it's STILL accepted to persecute, defame, libel, slander, and otherwise marginalize 16+ percent of the population...so long as they are atheists.
All PZ Meyers did was point out what a bad writer she is. He is totally correct: her piece is poorly written, bigoted, and hypocritical. PZ Meyers doesn't slander people of faith; when you write something false about someone, it's libel. PZ Meyers didn't commit libel against anyone. He hasn't said anything that isn't true.
Posted by: PStryder | May 19, 2009 at 08:20 AM
I guess that Allen's article pretty much proves our point.
Shes just another christian wacko, a sort of anne coulter for jesus I guess you would say.
keep up the good work Allen, we atheists appreciate your help.
perry
Posted by: perry | May 19, 2009 at 09:00 AM
to: Michael in Altadena
Anyone who classifies themselves as "one of the most interesting people I know" IS a crashing bore.
Posted by: Thomas Burke | May 19, 2009 at 09:19 AM