As I feared, the previous thread on Virginia Tech is rapidly escalating into partisan politics discussion. So I am asking that all posters on that thread restrict their commments to extending condolences or, if they actually knew Jamie (as friends typically called Christopher) share their recollections. In the meantime, feel free to use this space to discuss broader societal issues.
I think here’s what we can expect to see over the next months, as we move beyond shock and disbelief into anger.
1) Law suits filed by aggrieved families against Virginia Tech authorities for their failure to lock down the campus in the intervening two hours, while investigations are held to determine whether Virginia Tech authorites were to blame.
2) Considering the theme of parental abuse that reveals itself in the shooter’s unproduced play scripts, investigations into the shooter’s parents to determine if there was indeed child abuse present. If so, possible law suits on the basis that their abuse resulted in their son’s actions and therefore they bear responsibility.
3) Advocates of gun control holding this up as another example of how gun laws should be made stricter, considering that the shooter acquired his weapon legally.
4) Advocates of unrestricted gun ownership holding this up as another example of how gun laws should be abolished because if everyone in the college had been packing, they could have fought back. Because in a confined environment where there’s inevitably going to be drinking, partying, intense romances, and scads of young people lacking many aspects of maturity, that’s what you really want to have on a daily basis: Lots of firepower.
5) An upswing in incidents of students who write essays/poems/short stories themed around violence suddenly finding themselves tagged as potential shooters and being suspended or expelled.
PAD
• 
Nivek, you’d probably have a better response if you gave any indication that you’ve read the responses and thought about them.
Giving simplistic responses while ignoring some the nuanced and experienced responses gives the impressison that you’re not thinking about things. When a lot of experts in martial arts and police matters are giving answers counter to yours, perhaps it’s time to stop and figure out why.
My two cents to ANYBODY who questions why nobody pulled a Rambo, to ANYBODY who asserts that there was any question of cowardice, or people needing someone to fight for them..TRT IT!!
I worked bar security in my younger days. I’m a big boy, I’ve studied unarmed combat techniques. I’ve had pool cues, broken bottles, knives, and guns pointed at me. Skynard had it right:
“I’m tellin’ you son
It ain’t no fun
Starin’ straight down a .44″
The best advice I ever got was from a friend’s father, who was at the time a 28 year veteran Toronto police officer. “Unless you can shoot back RUN LIKE HÊLL. If you can’t run, hole up, wait for help, and if you so desire, pray.”
It takes a particular brand of ignorance to imply that anyone on the campus could have done any more than they did.
We aren’t talking Hollywood here. Steven Seagal was not going to march on the scene, squint, and take out the shooter.
Any argument in favour of some hindsight heroics is asinine. Any accusation of cowardice is cowardly. Any claim that “I would have tried to take him down” is bûllšhìŧ.
IMHO
or is it’s proximity to the VT killings just an unfortunate coincidence?
Unfortunate coincidence, as the # of actual similar shootings, whether in schools, office buildings, etc, is sadly becoming commonplace.
It’s just that the # of victims is generally only 1-3 people at most, and thus don’t get the kind of coverage this does.
If Cho had stopped after visiting the dorm where he killed two people, this would have been merely a blip on the radar.
Something just happened to me at work that made me think of this event in general and this thread in specific. I got done the first half of my job, then went into where I was going to be working for the second half of my long day. The guy that was in here isn’t very well liked around here, being a bit of an abrasive Cliff Claven wannabe. Me, being me, asked if he was going to be doing anything fun this evening. He looked at me with the nastiest expression and said he was going home to eat dinner alone, because he had no friends. I wouldn’t have given it a second thought if not for this whole situation. I could easily imagine Cho being like this guy. I’m not trying to sound preachy or holier-than-thou or anything, but maybe if we reached out to people even when they reject it, maybe people wouldn’t feel so isolated, maybe they wouldn’t need to do things like this. Just because someone’s not your friend, there’s no need to make them an enemy.
Yet another right-winger exploits the Massacre in order to attack a group of people he doesn’t like:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/19/18451/0971
Now Dinesh D’Souza uses the Virginia Tech Massacre to attack atheists. An atheist VT professor responds with a quiet, dignified refutation of D’Souza’s shamelessness, and D’Souza, for his part, just doesn’t seem to get it (See http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/20/unbelief-as-a-form-of-payback/#comments.)
I don’t know what is wrong with D’Souza. After 9/11, I read his book What’s So Great About America, where he came off as cogent, and reasoned, even in disagreeing with the positions of, IIRC, extreme liberals and extreme right-wingers.
But between the Daily Show rant in which he blamed liberals for 9/11, and now this, it seems that either he has shifted into a completely incoherent, bigoted scumbag, or that perhaps he always was that way, and I simply hadn’t been exposed to enough of his writings to get a more accurate picture of his character.
Can you believe some of the paralogia this guy spews as supposedly logical? Because Dawkins wasn’t invited to speak at VT, that means atheists have nothing to offer at memorials? Really? In what way does the school’s choice of who to invite reflect on whether the person in question has said abilities? Does D’Souza think that nonbelievers don’t have funerals, wakes, and other services of their own? And atheists “blame” and “hate” God, and their unbelief is a form of “payback”? How does he get this idea from the people posting on his blog?
It’s a shame that one of the few conservative writers that I actually thought had something intelligent to say now comes across as belligerent and mentally addled as Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, and O’Reilly.
Yet another right-winger exploits the Massacre in order to attack a group of people he doesn’t like:
ht tp://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/19/18451/0971
Now Dinesh D’Souza uses the Virginia Tech Massacre to attack atheists. An atheist VT professor responds with a quiet, dignified refutation of D’Souza’s shamelessness, and D’Souza, for his part, just doesn’t seem to get it (See ht tp://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/20/unbelief-as-a-form-of-payback/#comments.)
I don’t know what is wrong with D’Souza. After 9/11, I read his book What’s So Great About America, where he came off as cogent, and reasoned, even in disagreeing with the positions of, IIRC, extreme liberals and extreme right-wingers.
But between the Daily Show rant in which he blamed liberals for 9/11, and now this, it seems that either he has shifted into a completely incoherent, bigoted scumbag, or that perhaps he always was that way, and I simply hadn’t been exposed to enough of his writings to get a more accurate picture of his character.
Can you believe some of the paralogia this guy spews as supposedly logical? Because Dawkins wasn’t invited to speak at VT, that means atheists have nothing to offer at memorials? Really? In what way does the school’s choice of who to invite reflect on whether the person in question has said abilities? Does D’Souza think that nonbelievers don’t have funerals, wakes, and other services of their own? And atheists “blame” and “hate” God, and their unbelief is a form of “payback”? How does he get this idea from the people posting on his blog?
It’s a shame that one of the few conservative writers that I actually thought had something intelligent to say now comes across as belligerent and mentally addled as Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, and O’Reilly.
Actually, D’Souza has been raked over the coals lately by several conservatives over at the National Review website. And his reaction to the critisizm didn’t change any minds. It seems to have made him very very cranky.
The National Review crowd don’t seem too thrilled with this latest outburst either–Andrew Stuttaford highlights a commentator who says If anyone seeks comfort in religion in terrible times, I genuinely wish them well. It’s not my choice, but I don’t presume to know what’s better for anyone else. Just myself. People practicing religion does not offend me. But opportunistic zealots who take a national tragedy and use it to promote their own religious agenda do.
D’Souza ideas are not very original. It’s the same old nonsense you usually hear in attacks against atheism. It wouldn’t be worth mentioning if he did not try to attack that inane and unoriginal argument to the Virginia Tech tragedy. Surely he could put his animosity toward Atheism aside for a week or two.
The response is excellent.
One more thing about D’Souza’s absurd words. The fact that memorial ceremonies have had heavy religious motifs is mostly an aspect of US culture. Here is Israel we are having our annual week of rememberance, starting with the holocaust rememberance day lasy Monday and ending with the rememberance day for the soldiers next Monday. This is an unusually solemn time for us, and the ceremonies, although not devoid of religion, have many completely secular aspects to them that are no less (if not more) touching. Many of the really sad and touching songs sung during thse ceremonies were written by atheists.
D’Souza comes across as an insensitive and opportunistic ášš, but I have to confess that I find myself agreeing with the basics of his idea – atheist thought isn’t exactly a great consolation to most people, particularly in times of great personal tragedy. And I say this as a person that isn’t very religious.
But Mr. D’Souza shows us that some religious people aren’t a great consolation to us all either… because being religion means little if you’re devoid of human compassion, basic decency, and even simple common sense.
“… atheist thought isn’t exactly a great consolation to most people, particularly in times of great personal tragedy.
The idea that there is no afterlife may be disquieting to some, but statements made at a memorial service other then those referencing God or Heaven are mostly indistinguishable from a Christian’s words.
We lost a friend to cancer a few years ago. The most eloquent and moving speaker at the memorial service was an atheist. The only thing she didn’t do was mention better places and angels. She did such a good job that a pastor speaking to her later was surprised to learn of her lifelong beliefs.
I honestly doubt that most people would know the belief system of an atheist speaking about such an event unless they were told. Discussions of friends lost and the pain of that loss transcend something as, in cases like this, relatively trivial as belief systems. But that’s just my opinion on it.
I honestly doubt that most people would know the belief system of an atheist speaking about such an event unless they were told.
That is for sure. The atheist will usually not refer directly to his lack of belief in a supernatural power during the service, I daresay. Because the atheist himself knows it will be little consolation to most other people, being told their loved ones are gone for good.
I don’t say this as a criticism of atheists, I don’t say they’re wrong to (not) believe like they do. Just saying that atheism itself isn’t a great consolation to most people in trying times. Most people really want to hear their loved ones are in a better place now.
D’Souza is suffering from society’s exhaustion from his (and other rightwing pundit’s) campaign to demonize liberals as the cause of all evil. It’s B.S. and they’re losing their dominance of the discussion. So they have to scream even more absurdities just to tread water (like Ann Coulter’s entire career).
The current flame of conservativism is dying out. They brought many complaints and not a single just or viable solution to any of it. Their solution to homosexuality is denial of the word marriage. Their solution to growing gov’t (and spending) is to grow more gov’t (and spending). Fiscal responsibility means to mushroom the national debt. The solution to immigration is…well, do nothing apparently. Supporting the troops means treat them like šhìŧ. And strong national security means to weaken our military and encourage anti-Americanism throughout the world.
Is it any wonder rightwing pundits are scrambling?
FYI, another right-wing rant commented upon here.
Would it hurt these bozos to do just a LITTLE research??
Rene: atheist thought isn’t exactly a great consolation to most people, particularly in times of great personal tragedy.
Luigi Novi: Didn’t you read the VT Professor’s response? It seemed pretty nice to me. It’s easy to say that atheists cannot console during times of tragedy if you simply don’t have enough imagination to conceive of them doing so.
As an atheist, I’d like to weigh in on this particular thread drift.
Two of my grandparents passed away when I was in my twenties, and I spoke at both memorial services. The first was held in a church (albeit Unitarian, which I’m not sure really counts :-), and the second, four years later when my grandmother passed, was a small family-only ceremony on the banks of the Charles River in Boston (where the two grandparents met; we scattered their commingled ashes in the river).
I didn’t mention my own atheism in either case, though certainly in the second ceremony everyone present knew of it anyway and probably 1/3 to 1/2 of them shared it. My atheism was not the point — saying something fitting about my grandfather or grandmother was the point, and I tailored my words accordingly. (The closest thing to an atheistic point I made was at the first memorial, saying how sad I was that I never got the chance to tell my grandfather that I’d just left grad school for a teaching career, and I think people will agree that any number of religious people could have said exactly the same thing.)
If the statement that “atheist thought isn’t exactly a great consolation to most people” refers to the specific point that “once you’re gone, you’re gone,” then I agree that that’s probably not very comforting. But that doesn’t mean that atheists themselves cannot be comforting in times of tragedy. Being religious does not automatically make one compassionate and able to console (as D’Souza’s words make all too clear), and being an atheist does not preclude one from having those traits.
Most people really want to hear their loved ones are in a better place now.
Not this person, unless the speaker had proof. But again, that doesn’t mean that I’d respond in some offensive way if someone were to say that to me in general. Going back to my grandmother’s memorial, her cousin’s husband has been a minister in Florida for decades at this point, and he officiated at both ceremonies. I disagreed with some of the substance of what he said, but not the compassionate intent. Contrary to what far too many people think by taking words out of context, the intent matters a lot to most atheists (occasional outspoken Don Quixotes like Michael Newdow excepted).
As one more example, as most of you know my mother is now in the category of “cancer survivor,” having gone through surgery for stage 3 esophageal cancer this winter. She’s an agnostic, but she was very accepting and gracious when friends told her that they were praying for her. (One of her other friends said to her once that they viewed praying as “mostly just wishing really hard,” and my mom has viewed it through that prism ever since.)
People practicing religion does not offend me. But opportunistic zealots who take a national tragedy and use it to promote their own religious agenda do.
Superbly put, and firmly agreed.
TWL
As an atheist, I’d like to weigh in on this particular thread drift. Two of my grandparents passed away when I was in my twenties, and I spoke at both memorial services.
Luigi, Tim, I’ve read what the VT Professor responded and, being mostly an agnostic myself, I don’t doubt for a second that atheists are as capable of compassion and offering consolation as anyone else.
I only meant to say that atheism itself can be very troubling for the average person when you’re forced to face situations like fear of death or the absence of departed loved ones.
D’Souza says some ridiculous things (Atheists seeking to “spite God” with their unbelief? WTF, how can you spite someone you don’t believe in?) but I find myself agreeing with him in this one specific: no one would have the chutzpah to go to a memorial service and talk about the lack of inherent meaning in the universe.
Even though far too many people wonder about the meaning of it all when a tragedy like this strikes, and doubt that there is a merciful God that would allow such things to happen…
I’ve lost my mother to cancer 3 years ago, and I went from a relaxed believer in spiritualism to someone very troubled and afraid that there is nothing supernatural out there. At least to me, my doubts and suspicions that maybe there isn’t a God out there are not consoling at all.
I come from this from a direction than D’Souza. He sounds like an obnoxious religious guy wanting to stomping those who believe differently. I’m merely someone with a personal fear that the Atheits may be right.
I come from this from a different direction than D’Souza, I meant.
(The closest thing to an atheistic point I made was at the first memorial, saying how sad I was that I never got the chance to tell my grandfather that I’d just left grad school for a teaching career, and I think people will agree that any number of religious people could have said exactly the same thing.)
Tim, I’m just curious, how is that in any way even close to an atheistic point?
And I’m glad to hear your mom is surviving the cancer. Has she been able to keep weight on? The biggest challange we had when my father in law (from my previous marriage) was living with us during his fight with esophageal cancer was in getting him to not lose weight. You wouldn’t believe what this guy ate. He could take bacon and spinage and turn it into the unhealthiest fat filled dish imaginable. (It was, however, the absolute best spinage I’ve ever had). We cooked like french chefs, adding cream to everything. I think my ex and I gained 15 pounds each while he lived with us.
Anyway, here’s to her continued health.
And now the pro-gun apples are falling from the tree:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070422/ts_alt_afp/uscrimeshootingguns_070422195959
“”This is a huge nail in the coffin of gun control,” said Philip Van Cleave, president of the gun rights group Virginia Citizens Defense League.
“They had gun control on campus and it got all those people killed, because nobody could defend themselves,” he told AFP.”
I can only shake my head at the absurdity of such a claim. Whomever it was that brought up the situation of several students all trying to play Rambo at once, and probably killing each other in the process, needs to mention it to this guy.
no one would have the chutzpah to go to a memorial service and talk about the lack of inherent meaning in the universe.
Agreed, but I’m not really sure that’s an opinion common to all atheists. Saying “there’s no god / no afterlife” doesn’t mean “the universe has no inherent meaning” — it just means there’s no supernatural element. I think you’re considering a somewhat extreme case.
I understand the reason for your own worries a little better now, though, and I’m very sorry to hear about your mother. I can see how that could lead anyone to a “fear that the atheists might be right.”
Tim, I’m just curious, how is that in any way even close to an atheistic point?
Because if there’s an afterlife, I could “rest easy” in the knowledge that he’d find out anyway. I seem to recall having one relative say something to me to that effect (w/o the “if”) later that day.
And I’m glad to hear your mom is surviving the cancer. Has she been able to keep weight on?
So far, yes. She’s thinner than she’d like to be (as she says, “boy is THAT a switch”), but her weight has stabilized. We’ll see how it works long-term, but it seems to be okay for the nonce. Thanks for the good thoughts.
TWL
Because if there’s an afterlife, I could “rest easy” in the knowledge that he’d find out anyway. I seem to recall having one relative say something to me to that effect (w/o the “if”) later that day.
Ah, yeah, I could see that. Of course, even believers are often left with regrets about what was or wasn’t said during a person’s life. Whatever may come after death, I don’t think it will be much like what we have now and if we want to share ourselves with others now is the time to do it. I suspect the afterlife, if it exists, is as different to this reality as birth would seem to a fetus.
She’s thinner than she’d like to be (as she says, “boy is THAT a switch”)
So she should shortly run into the Well Meaning Idiot who will say something to the effect of “Boy, I wish I could get cancer too!” medical issues somehow really bring out the inner moron in a lot of people.
Tim, it is good to hear your mother is doing well.
Rene, I’m sorry about your mother.
———–
“no one would have the chutzpah to go to a memorial service and talk about the lack of inherent meaning in the universe.
Agreed, but I’m not really sure that’s an opinion common to all atheists. Saying “there’s no god / no afterlife” doesn’t mean “the universe has no inherent meaning” — it just means there’s no supernatural element. I think you’re considering a somewhat extreme case.”
I don’t agree with Rene’s statement completely. Atheists wouldn’t or shouldn’t go to a funeral waving their beliefs because it is not polite, not because it is incompatible with memorial services. Talking about the afterlife is typical and expected of ceremonies in some cultures, and it is therefore not polite to go to funerals looking for a fight over this issue. But I suppose that if someone went to funeral where the majority of the people were atheists and started talking about god having a plan and afterlife, that would be chutzpah too. It depends on what you expect. Where I live memorials and funerals are mostly focused on the living remebering the dead and the continuation of life, not afterlife. I don’t know if it is as consoling as belief in an afterlife, but it is a form of consolation for others.
“Agreed, but I’m not really sure that’s an opinion common to all atheists. Saying “there’s no god / no afterlife” doesn’t mean “the universe has no inherent meaning” — it just means there’s no supernatural element. I think you’re considering a somewhat extreme case.”
True. The kind of atheism that bemoans the lack of meaning everywhere is morre a reflection of the psychological attitude of the speaker. I think a moderate version of atheism would say that there is no inherent meaning to the natural world or outside that world, but there’s an abundance of meaning in the human world we live in. Hence the focus on how the dead are remembered, and what they have left behind, rather than their possible supernatural fate.
Ah, yeah, I could see that. Of course, even believers are often left with regrets about what was or wasn’t said during a person’s life.
Absolutely, which is why I mentioned earlier that I thought lots of believers could have said exactly the same thing I did.
So she should shortly run into the Well Meaning Idiot who will say something to the effect of “Boy, I wish I could get cancer too!”
So far, she’s managed to escape that … at least so far as I know. Of course, since a lot of her friends are also therapists, one would hope that there’d be a lesser probability of that particular idiocy…
Micha — well said.
TWL
D’Souza’s attitude is fairly common, not among the majority of religious people, but among peopel that I would categorize as actively anti-atheist. Because it is inconceivable for people like him to even imagine not believing in God, he can’t imagine anyone else not believing in the existance of God. Therefore, in his mind, the only explanation for proclaiming nonbelief is “spite”.
Atheists wouldn’t or shouldn’t go to a funeral waving their beliefs because it is not polite, not because it is incompatible with memorial services.
I must have missed the huge waive of atheists waving their beliefs at a funeral that inspired D’Souza’s rant, although I agree it would be disrespectful. The only people that I ever see waving their beliefs uninvited at a funeral are the Fred Phelps Cult. I won’t even give them the dignity of calling them a “church”.
I pondered Nivek’s statements over the weekend. Despite his denials, he was actively pìššìņg on the graves of the shooting victims. What still bugs me is that he felt the need to reply to a statement by me that didn’t even match up to his pìššìņg.
The best I can guess about his motives is this is his way of coping with the tragedy. He has to convince himself and others that he could never be a victim so he overcompensates.
Tim, I’m glad to hear your mother is responding well. My thoughts still go out to her.
“D’Souza’s attitude is fairly common, not among the majority of religious people, but among peopel that I would categorize as actively anti-atheist. Because it is inconceivable for people like him to even imagine not believing in God, he can’t imagine anyone else not believing in the existance of God. Therefore, in his mind, the only explanation for proclaiming nonbelief is “spite”.”
The impression from American TV’s portrayal of atheists is that atheism is viewed as a sort of deficiency, as if something is lacking or not damaged in that person. I don’t know if this reflects attitudes among americans in general or just TV creators.
“The best I can guess about his motives is this is his way of coping with the tragedy. He has to convince himself and others that he could never be a victim so he overcompensates.”
This is a charitable way of looking at Nivek’s post, and it is most likely true. People sometimes resent victims of tragedy because they challenge our own sense of security. We want to regain control.
In a sense, this can explain many different reactions to tragedies. The discussion about gun laws or campus security (although justified) are also an attempt to find what went wrong and restore security.
In a very disturbed way, even the murder itself was an (completely unjustified) attempt by a madman to regain control by taking a very decisive action.
The impression from American TV’s portrayal of atheists is that atheism is viewed as a sort of deficiency, as if something is lacking or not damaged in that person. I don’t know if this reflects attitudes among americans in general or just TV creators.
I’m curious, Micha — where have you seen American TV portray atheists at all? I rarely do — admittedly, I’m not watching much these days that isn’t geared towards toddlers, and it’s not likely to come up there.
I don’t know if that would reflect attitudes among most Americans, though I’d hope not. It certainly reflects the attitude of our current president’s father, however — he said back in 1987 (I think) that he didn’t consider atheists citizens. To be specific, he said:
“No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”
He’s stood by that statement multiple times, so it’s not like he can claim he’s been taken out of context or misquoted.
Thanks, George. Right back at’cha.
TWL
The impression from American TV’s portrayal of atheists is that atheism is viewed as a sort of deficiency, as if something is lacking or not damaged in that person. I don’t know if this reflects attitudes among Americans in general or just TV creators.
Most TV shows barely touch on religious matters at all–what were the spiritual beliefs of the cast of Friends? (OK, I know Ross dressed up as the Chanukah Armadillo and Phoebe was into reincarnation but spirituality was pretty much an occasional plot point.). Compared to the actual population, the TV world is much more secular.
This is a charitable way of looking at Nivek’s post, and it is most likely true. People sometimes resent victims of tragedy because they challenge our own sense of security. We want to regain control.
It also explains some of the far out wacky conspiracy theories that people so desperately want to believe. Better to think that the government set charges to blow up the Twin Towers than face the reality that it was accomplished by a few fanatics. How safe can anyone feel if a nobody like Oswald can take out a JFK. In a strange way, the Big Secret Plan is more comforting.
Posted by: bill mulligan at April 23, 2007 03:29 PM
Most TV shows barely touch on religious matters at all…
Who can blame them? Religion is such a contentious issue, and people are always looking for excuses to be offended.
By the way, I want it on record that I was very offended by my prior post.
Your offensive use of offensiveness is an offense to those truly offended by the offensive.
Bill, aren’t you being just a bit defensive?
Anyone else hearing dialogue from “The Black Hole” all of a sudden? Which Bill is Roddy MacDowell?
TWL
Actually, I was getting flashes of a Bloom County Sunday strip. But now that you mention it…
One Bill is the robot from the Black Hole, one is the Cornelius from Planet of the Apes. Of course, if you wanna substitute Brent Spiner notable roles, one is B4 and one is Southern Bob from Night Court.
“Never saw the sun…wanna bite outta our demo?”
“I’m curious, Micha — where have you seen American TV portray atheists at all? I rarely do — admittedly, I’m not watching much these days that isn’t geared towards toddlers, and it’s not likely to come up there.”
I have to admit this is a vague impression based on years of watching way to much TV. So it should be taken in that spirit. I remember two cases vaguely. One was the Croatian doctor in ER who begame an atheist as a result of the death of his family until he regained it later on. The second was a character in teen show Dawson Creek (yes, I admit it, I’ve watched that show for a while, how embarassing), who, I am told, recanted in the final chapter after a life of misery. I remember being surpried that they even had an atheist character.
I’m not sure if there is a connection between the attitude toward atheism on TV and Bush.
In any case, my sister sent me the a link to a list of fictional atheists from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fictional_atheists
She also sent me an essay about acceptable targets for ridicule (WASPs rednecks, etc.) which you may find interesting in relation to previous discussions on this board. Although I don’t think I completely agree with it.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AcceptableTargets : “Explicit atheists. On the other hand, it’s hard to find a happy, well-adjusted, or optimistic individual on television who is an openly avowed atheist. Not appearing to practice or even mention religion at all is fine for everyone, but it’s generally only characters with a fair degree of cynicism and bitterness (sometimes due to a Dead Little Sister or similar tragedy) who can state outright that they don’t believe there is a God, or even that they severely doubt God exists. Such characters often reverse or at least reexamine these views, after a Very Special Episode or a Do They Know Its Christmas Time. See, for example, House on House, Mal on Firefly, or the film Signs.
Science Fiction series are often exceptions, since many were written by atheists, and may go so far as to posit a future where mankind “no longer needs gods”.
For instance, in Star Trek The Next Generation, an accident with a cultural observer duckblind and the Enterprise’s response inadvertently gets a native from the planet’s Vulcan like, but primitive, (and thus under Prime Directive restrictions) culture thinking that they are gods. This misapprehension plants the seed for the revival of religion on the planet and Capt. Picard is determined to nip that development in the bud.”
The last link is to an interview about a group of militant atheists (a view I do not support), but it also touches on my point.
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2006/12/15/01
————-
Posted by: bill mulligan at April 23, 2007 03:29 PM:
Most TV shows barely touch on religious matters at all–what were the spiritual beliefs of the cast of Friends? (OK, I know Ross dressed up as the Chanukah Armadillo and Phoebe was into reincarnation but spirituality was pretty much an occasional plot point.). Compared to the actual population, the TV world is much more secular.”
Friends is not a good example. Comedies in general are probably not good examples, with the exception of Ally MacBeal. But dramas like West Wing, ER, 6 Feet Under, Boston Legal, the Practice, etc. do touch on spiritual and religious issues every once in a while. At the very least at the obligatory Christmas Chapter. It is true that TV characters are usually not devoutly religious, but they always seem to be just spiritual enough, in an ecumenical kind of way.
This is not a condemnation. I’m not the kind of atheist who resents religion. Just an observation.
By the way, the chapter with Ross and Chanuka was interesting to me because it supposedly reflected on Jewish life in the US, of which I’m only vaguely familiar (I have many relatives in the US, but not close).
one is the Cornelius from Planet of the Apes
I rather thought that would have to be Jerry, given some of the self-descriptions he’s posted here in the last several weeks…
TWL
“I’m curious, Micha — where have you seen American TV portray atheists at all? I rarely do — admittedly, I’m not watching much these days that isn’t geared towards toddlers, and it’s not likely to come up there.”
I have to admit this is a vague impression based on years of watching way to much TV. So it should be taken in that spirit. I remember two cases vaguely. One was the Croatian doctor in ER who begame an atheist as a result of the death of his family until he regained it later on. The second was a character in teen show Dawson Creek (yes, I admit it, I’ve watched that show for a while, how embarassing), who, I am told, recanted in the final chapter after a life of misery. I remember being surpried that they even had an atheist character.
I’m not sure if there is a connection between the attitude toward atheism on TV and Bush.
My sister sent me a link to wikipedia’s list of fictional atheists, but it got blocked when I posted it before. I’m not sure if it’s going to reappear, hopefully not seven times. So I’m posting a shorter version without the links.
My sister also sent me a link to something called TV Tropes Wikim which has an article about acceptable targets of ridicule on TV, which also mentions atheists. I’m not sure how much I agree with this article, but it’s interesting. This article is also relevant to the previous discussion about Imus, I suppose. Again, it got stuck. So you’ll have to google it yourself.
“Political correctness is usually stringently observed on television; crossing the wrong minority group can result in anything up to cancellation. But while a show will be very cautious not to offend women, homosexuals, the differently abled or members of any particular race, creed, or color, there are some groups which have no such protection.”
“Explicit atheists. On the other hand, it’s hard to find a happy, well-adjusted, or optimistic individual on television who is an openly avowed atheist. Not appearing to practice or even mention religion at all is fine for everyone, but it’s generally only characters with a fair degree of cynicism and bitterness (sometimes due to a Dead Little Sister or similar tragedy) who can state outright that they don’t believe there is a God, or even that they severely doubt God exists. Such characters often reverse or at least reexamine these views, after a Very Special Episode or a Do They Know Its Christmas Time. See, for example, House on House, Mal on Firefly, or the film Signs.
Science Fiction series are often exceptions, since many were written by atheists, and may go so far as to posit a future where mankind “no longer needs gods”.
For instance, in Star Trek The Next Generation, an accident with a cultural observer duckblind and the Enterprise’s response inadvertently gets a native from the planet’s Vulcan like, but primitive, (and thus under Prime Directive restrictions) culture thinking that they are gods. This misapprehension plants the seed for the revival of religion on the planet and Capt. Picard is determined to nip that development in the bud.”
————-
Posted by: bill mulligan at April 23, 2007 03:29 PM:
Most TV shows barely touch on religious matters at all–what were the spiritual beliefs of the cast of Friends? (OK, I know Ross dressed up as the Chanukah Armadillo and Phoebe was into reincarnation but spirituality was pretty much an occasional plot point.). Compared to the actual population, the TV world is much more secular.”
Friends is not a good example. Comedies in general are probably not good examples, with the exception of Ally MacBeal. But dramas like West Wing, ER, 6 Feet Under, Boston Legal, the Practice, etc. do touch on spiritual and religious issues every once in a while. At the very least at the obligatory Christmas Chapter. It is true that TV characters are usually not devoutly religious, but they always seem to be just spiritual enough, in an ecumenical kind of way.
This is not a condemnation. I’m not the kind of atheist who resents religion. Just an observation.
By the way, the chapter with Ross and Chanuka was interesting to me because it supposedly reflected on Jewish life in the US, of which I’m only vaguely familiar (I have many relatives in the US, but I’ve met and talked with them only once or twice).
I understand the reason for your own worries a little better now, though, and I’m very sorry to hear about your mother. I can see how that could lead anyone to a “fear that the atheists might be right.”
Thanks, Tim. And I hope your mother will get better.
I acknowledge the point you’ve made, and others have made, that atheists still see meaning in life, because there is always the meaning we humans give to our own lives, by simply being human. But I have to say, it’s not enough for me.
It calls to my mind a raging blizzard, uncaring and lethal, and we poor humans will huddle together for a little warmth, to make it a little better. The lack of a supernatural basis for life, the inexistence of an immortal soul, at least to me means that all consolation we get from one another is fleeting and unsatisfatory. It’s still touching and necessary, of course, but painful in it’s lack of long-term consequence.
(Okay, I’m officially a depressing fella, I know)
I need religion, I really do, and at the same time I’m too doubting and skeptical of the major religions we have. That is my problem.
But I suppose that if someone went to funeral where the majority of the people were atheists and started talking about god having a plan and afterlife, that would be chutzpah too.
Kinda, Micha. I don’t think the reciprocal is true. I suppose that, to most atheists, if someone in a funeral of their loved ones started talking about the pleasant afterlife their departed ones are in, the atheist would, at worst, just be annoyed, and at best, he would just ignore it.
But yeah, I agree that it is not polite to talk about your beliefs in such situations when the people grieving around you believe otherwise. But I always thought atheists and agnostics wouldn’t be particularly bothered by it (except if the religious person started saying their loved ones are in hëll for their lack of belief, or something equally crazy and insensitive, of course).
“I need religion, I really do.”
I can understand and respect that. It is a personal need and choice.
“That is my problem.”
The problem with atheism is that it talks about what isn’t. But you should probably turn your attentio to what is: humanity, family, life, reation, friends etc.
“I’m officially a depressing fella.”
Who isn’t?
“It calls to my mind a raging blizzard, uncaring and lethal, and we poor humans will huddle together for a little warmth, to make it a little better.”
I was in Brazil only for a few weeks and only saw Rio and very briefly the Iguasu Falls. But I suggest you open your window and look out. There should be an advantage to living in a beautiful tropical country. Not that many blizzards.
“The lack of a supernatural basis for life, the inexistence of an immortal soul, at least to me means that all consolation we get from one another is fleeting and unsatisfatory. It’s still touching and necessary, of course, but painful in it’s lack of long-term consequence.”
After you’ve appreciated the beauty of the natural world, even without the supernatural component, let’s talk about the long-term consequences of human life. Human civilization has existed for thousands of years. Thousands of years of families, loves, caring. The long term consequences of that are all around us it a great variety of human creation — music, poetry, literature, architecture, painting, movies, encompasing every aspect of human life. Many of them were created by religious purposes for religious reasons, but yet they are human creation, from the pyramids and the bible, to Shakespeare, to the next blockbuster movie. The Taj Mahal was built as a monument of the love of a man to a woman.
So, the world, even without the supernatural andafterlife, is very rich and enduring.
There’s a book called The Rock of Sysiphus by Alber Camus, which you may have read, that deals with the question of finding meaning in aworld without god by using the metaphor of sysiphus as a person who is doing a meaningless task imposed on him by indifferent gods. Although, I remeber his answer is a little different than the one I gave here.
————
On the issue of consolation:
I have been fortunate enough not to suffer any major losses in my life as of yet. I don’t know if seculr life can really offer enough consolation. I went to talk to my mother and ask her about it. I also believe that when someone suffers a loss his psychological state, his ability to find consolation, goes beyond religion or secularism, and is wholly personal.
I know that for secular people in the society I live in the focus is on remembering. My grandmother published some songs my grandfather wrote or translated after he died.
Yesterday was the memorial day in Israel for the soldiers killed (today is Independence Day), so the issue of lives lost and consolation is all around me and stil lon my mind. And it seems to me the focus is also on remebering and actively commemorating and on just being really sad in a cathartic sort of way. People write songs, people associate songs with somebody they knew, people take songs written by the lost ones and add music for them, they take videos, they tell stories, they make movies, they attend the official ceremonies in which really sad songs are sung, with lines like ‘we’re all part of the same human fabric’, ‘each person has a name,’ ‘we will always remember them,’ ‘man is like a tree,’ and so on. Some have references to angels or afterlife, but only in a metaphorical sense, as a way to think about the ones lost. I suppose that those who actually believe in angels and afterlife probably find a similar consolation in their belief. But my point is that even without actually believing, but only using imagery that conjures the memories of the ones lost, people find consolation. This day is one of the most secular but most profound in our calendar.
(OK, that’s my bid for most depressing post).
——————
“Kinda, Micha. I don’t think the reciprocal is true. I suppose that, to most atheists, if someone in a funeral of their loved ones started talking about the pleasant afterlife their departed ones are in, the atheist would, at worst, just be annoyed, and at best, he would just ignore it.
But yeah, I agree that it is not polite to talk about your beliefs in such situations when the people grieving around you believe otherwise. But I always thought atheists and agnostics wouldn’t be particularly bothered by it (except if the religious person started saying their loved ones are in hëll for their lack of belief, or something equally crazy and insensitive, of course).”
I personaly am the kind of atheist who takes no offense from religion and has no hostility toward religion. But I live in a society in which there is strife between the extremely secular and the extremely religious, the deeply devout and those who just one or two generations ago rejected religion out of ideological motives. I’m afraid there are atheists out there who strongly resent religion, and would especially resent a religious intrusion into their personal grief.
Kevin Tillman, Pat Tillman’s brother, has blasted the government’s efforts to turn his brother’s death into a rah rah event, instead of the example of battlefield chaos it probably represents.
But I think the true events of Tillman’s death go beyond the hypothetical what-ifs regarding a generally armed society, and the liklihood of accidental or wrongful shootings taking place. Here we have military personel…some of the best-trained combatants we can produce…making the mistake of where fire is coming from, resulting in friendly fire deaths. And this with people trained to not fire unless their targets are confirmed.
How many more such incidents would occur if everyone carried a firearm?
Kevin Tillman, Pat Tillman’s brother, has blasted the government’s efforts to turn his brother’s death into a rah rah event, instead of the example of battlefield chaos it probably represents.
That’s because this administration has never missed an opportunity to exploit the military personnel for their own benefits, either as “human shields” to silence criticism or as backdrops for their press events for the latest declaration of victory. Of course, you can’t really blame Bush for appearing before crowds that are specifically orderd not to boo him.
And yet, there are still people who buy into their bûllšhìŧ and think he’s some kind of hero, like, for example, this moron.
“We feel like emotional wounds and scars are as hard to carry as physical wounds,”
O M G…the president needs a medal because his widdle feelings have been hurt.
Howabout this, instead…if your skin is so thin that namecalling makes you cry…just skip the political arena. I’ve been called lots of bad names, and I’ve never felt like I needed a medal.
Den, I may disagree with Bill Thomas’ affection for President Bush, but I believe calling him a “moron” is a bit too harsh. For one thing, he is a veteran who was injured during combat while serving his country. He earned that Purple Heart and it’s his to do with as he pleases.
Please note, I’m NOT saying he is above criticism. I’m just uncomfortable with the idea of calling a veteran names just because you disagree with his politics.
Bobb, the story did say that it was Thomas’ idea to give Bush the medal, not the other way around. I know that most of us who post here are predisposed to think ill of Bush, myself included. But what should Bush have done? Refused it? That probably would’ve broken Thomas’ heart (no pun intended). Gracious receiving can be as important as gracious giving, and as a public figure Bush may have felt a need to allow Thomas’ to give this gift.
I don’t like Bush at all. Think he’s the worst president we’ve had in my lifetime. But that doesn’t mean we should impute ill motives for every last thing he does.
For one thing, he is a veteran who was injured during combat while serving his country. He earned that Purple Heart and it’s his to do with as he pleases.
And he deserves respect for that. But anything afterwards is fair game and if he does something moronic, then he’s a moron.
Bush could have graciously turned it down since he’s done nothing to earn it.
I seem to recall the RNC belittling another veteran’s purple hearts, even handing out purple bandaids and saying his wounds weren’t serious enough to deserve them. What was his name again?
Now we have people giving Bush a medal because his poor widdle feelings have been hurt.
I wonder who’s going to give medals to all of the people who have been attacked by the Bush/Rove slander machine (Kerry, Murtha, Cleland, McCain, etc.) to help them get over the emotional scars?
Bill, I agree that it puts Bush in a potentially awkward situation. And Mr.Thomas is free to do with his medal as he sees fit. However, that doesn’t make him free from criticism for his actions. As Den reminds us, another purple heart recipient decided to do something with his medal…and it arguably cost him the White House.
I actually don’t fault Bush for this at all. It wasn’t his idea, although making a big deal by meeting with Mr. Thomas and turning it into a publicity event is his fault. But it not only opens the doors to showcase the hypocrisy of some of the conservative mindset…granted, the Bush administration publicly distanced itself from the SBVs, and certainly not every Bush supported endorses the view of that group. But it does somewhat lesson the importance of true veterans that have earned the Purple Heart through the very real sacrifice of blood. Giving this military commendation to a civlian for suffering what amounts to name calling belittles the sacrifice of true soldiers.
Posted by: Den at April 24, 2007 02:00 PM
And he deserves respect for that. But anything afterwards is fair game and if he does something moronic, then he’s a moron.
True. But I can’t see how giving his Purple Heart to a president he likes and admires makes him “moronic.” I agree with you that Bush is neither likable nor admirable, but I see no reason to label others “moronic” merely for disagreeing.
Posted by: Den at April 24, 2007 02:00 PM
Bush could have graciously turned it down since he’s done nothing to earn it.
Perhaps. And he probably would’ve crushed one man’s dream in so doing.
Posted by: Den at April 24, 2007 02:00 PM
I seem to recall the RNC belittling another veteran’s purple hearts, even handing out purple bandaids and saying his wounds weren’t serious enough to deserve them. What was his name again?
And that’s reprehensible. But it’s also a separate issue.
Posted by: Den at April 24, 2007 02:00 PM
Now we have people giving Bush a medal because his poor widdle feelings have been hurt.
I saw nothing in the article to indicate Bush said his feelings were hurt. This was Thomas’ idea.
Posted by: Den at April 24, 2007 02:00 PM
I wonder who’s going to give medals to all of the people who have been attacked by the Bush/Rove slander machine (Kerry, Murtha, Cleland, McCain, etc.) to help them get over the emotional scars?
Dunno. Just as I don’t know who will give Purple Hearts to any politician who has been smeared by another. Bush didn’t invent the practice, and while he is quite good at it — a dubious honor to be sure — he is not the only one. It happens on both sides of the aisle.
I think Bush is a truly awful president, but nevertheless I think we should maintain some perspective. “Crying wolf” serves no purpose. And, y’know, Bush has done more than enough stuff for which he deserves to be roundly criticized, without having to resort to condemning him for harmless stuff like this.
Den, I have to agree–one of the things that has helped Bush immensely is the fact that many of his critics have gotten to the point where ANY action he takes is portrayed as evil and craven. Take too long to get to the site of a tragedy–insenstive to the feelings of people. Get there the day it it happens–trying to score political points by exploiting the suffering of others. Accept a medal–evil. Not accept the medal–snubbing a wounded vet. And so on and so on. After a while it gets easy to just roll one’s eyes and ignore the constant sniping, which risks letting some genuine and legitimate complaints to slip by.
Accept a medal–evil. Not accept the medal–snubbing a wounded vet.
While I think it would have been better if he had met with the guy and graciously declined it, I think both of you Bills are misunderstanding my point here. I’m not actually criticising Bush for once. I’m criticising Thomas for thinking Bush deserved a medal for taking harsh, if IMHO warranted, criticism from people.
How far should be go on this? Does Brittney Spears deserve a medal for enduring all the jokes about her lack of underwear and head shaving incidents? I’m being facetious here, obviously, but that’s why this is so stupid.
I realize it’s his medal and he can do whatever he wants with it, but that fact alone doesn’t make him immune to criticism. If he truly believes that Bush has suffered emotional scars that are equal to the wounds a combat veteran has received, then he is a moron. I can’t think of any other term to describe him.
And if I really wanted to be cynical, I’d speculate that this was another Rovian fake photo op like that guy who drove his trailer all the way from NOLA to the White House just to tell Bush he was doing a heckuva job.
So it’s a good think I’m not that cynical.