Hey, I Made The List!
Famous atheists. In pretty good company, too. Here's my neighborhood:
Marilyn Manson, Napoleon Bonaparte, James Watson, Hu Jintao, Jamie Hyneman, Francis Crick, Frank Zappa, Jawaharlal Nehru, James Joyce, Peter Singer, Vardis Fisher, Henry Louis, Amy Alkon, John Lennon, Walt Disney, Steve Jobs, Olof Palme, Mano Singham, Margaret Sanger, Harry Harrison, Frank Lloyd Wright, Ibn Warraq, Denis Diderot, Alfred Hitchcock, Douglas Adams, Karl Popper, Richard Burton, Irving Berlin, George Orwell, Robert A. Heinlein, Sam Harris...
There's another list I'm not on...yet:
Fatwaworthy in the BloggerspherePossible fatwaworthy sites in the Bloggersphere are many due to the array of sites that contain writings that slander Islam, therefore when I come accross particularly Islamophobic sites I bookmark them under ‘Fatwaworthy?’ Some will be well written while others will be an illogical mess, however, the common denominator between them is that they exist in part or full to spread Islamophobic opinions. Brothers and Sisters, please fell free to suggest additions to the list.
Some may ask ‘What is a Fatwa?’, while others may wonder what had made them worthy as with those deviants whom have recently linked to me in this respect. A fatwa is an Islamic religious ruling, a scholarly opinion on a matter of Islamic law. Therefore, when the Shari’ah again rules the world (inshAllah) the importance may be placed on a fatwa requiring acceptance that Islamophobic sites be peacefully shut down and no longer be permitted to exist. Untill this occurs it may be considered our duty to list such sites and even write/contact websites, media outlets and relevant officials in order to campaign for such sites be closed.
I suggest lots and lots of bloggers link to material that "offends Islam," like that it's evil to murder in the name of religion, backward to treat women worse than pets, and all the rest. In the name of freedom of speech and a show of appreciation for The Enlightment and modern western values.
Hmmm, I wonder, will the new nannyish cry for a blogger's code of conduct apply to people who wish violent ill to others on their blogs, or at the very least, a cessation of freedom of speech?
Personally, I've always been of the mind that the commenters police the commenters. And I welcome bad language, and all language, in fact. If you're racist, or ugly, or stupid, bring it on -- somebody will slap you around. And that's a good thing. Unfree speech doesn't protect anyone -- it just sends the ugly under the rug where it's sure to send you flying when you least expect it.
Interesting list, though I'm not to sure I'd want to be on the same list as the eugenicist Margaret Sanger. Oscar Wilde on his deathbed called for a priest so that he would be received back into the Church. Charles Darwin described himself as an Unitarian but in good standing with the Anglicans. George Washington thought religion was a private affair but spoke of the "...blessings of Heaven" in his Farewell Address as well as walking to church every Sunday with his wife, even continuing the trek after she died. Agnostics maybe, atheists very doubtful.
Pat Patterson at April 10, 2007 12:37 AM
Irving Berlin's on the list, the composer of "God Bless America"? Berlin, who raised his three daughters as Protestants because he was mad at the Catholic Church for not allowing his 2nd wife to marry in St. Patrick's Cathedral? Odd choices for a purported atheist. Maybe the list needs to be vetted more carefully.
Pat Patterson at April 10, 2007 12:51 AM
Aw now Pat, there are plenty of people who got no faith but got to church for practical reasons.
Congrats Amy. Zappa and Paglia are on that list.
Crid at April 10, 2007 4:16 AM
Also-
I thought the blogger's Code of Conduct thing was cute ("But then you WOULD say that, wouldn't you?!!!?!").
Didn't we go through this with Jarvis a few years ago? And that whole PJ media thing? Or was that the same event? Priggishness blends in memory.
It's an attempt to make the blogosphere as stuffy, controlled and whitebread as newspapers have become. It won't work. The internet is the arena now. You wanna slow dance, go to cotillion... We got a mosh pit to run.
It's been disheartening to see how many bloggers have become less enthusiastic about it since they've figured out they won't be the master of it, having their fantasies of career success and popular adoration fulfilled with the electronic speed of rock 'n roll speed. "Oh, so I'm not going to be Elvis Presley? Well now that you've mentioned it, fuzztone guitar IS rather uncouth..."
Crid at April 10, 2007 4:29 AM
You wanna slow dance, go to cotillion... We got a mosh pit to run.
Exactly.
My favorites are sites like the one I encountered looking up stuff on a feminist "advocacy researcher" the other day -- it only publishes feminist and feminist-friendly comments! (Reminds me of the thing, when you're a kid, where you think if you just cover your eyes, whatever you don't like or are scared of will disappear.) Silly girls.
Amy Alkon at April 10, 2007 4:38 AM
A few words about Irving Berlin.
http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2004/may/?ft=barker
Crid explains it well.
Amy Alkon at April 10, 2007 4:41 AM
Amy - what you say about that advocacy site is becoming more widespread among the left.
There's this one troll "Mona" that assaults everyone to the right of Mao, and basically says "I'm not interested in debate. Your worldview is unnacceptable to me, and my only goal is to make it go away. I'm not interested in debate".
And so the moonbats are able to present an apparent face of total unanimity to the world, thus (in their minds) increasing their credibility out of proportion to their number.
brian at April 10, 2007 5:33 AM
"...Islamophobic sites be peacefully shut down and no longer be permitted to exist."
Yeah, right. Peacefully. Wield the knife peacefully. Pull the trigger peacefully.
doombuggy at April 10, 2007 5:55 AM
If you're racist, or ugly, or stupid, bring it on -- somebody will slap you around. And that's a good thing.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.-Thomas Jefferson
Machida at April 10, 2007 6:23 AM
Friends, work with me on this one.
First, sites that allow only a certain type of comment are by definition counter-progressive. I don't actually know what "progressive" means. I'm just saying there's no way you can move forward when you decline to hear new thinking and fail to welcome new thinkers.
Secondly, never forget that the internet is built on pornography and spam. If it wasn't for the fundamental eagerness of people to look at naked women and our common love for a low-interest mortgage with no closing costs, none of the rest of this would be happening. It's not about elevated, mutually respectful conduct. It's about getting needs met...
...Just like the owners of the LA Times and the NY Times do. Or used to do.
Paglia said the word "vulgar" comes from the Latin word for "tongue." That means people, and usually means mobs from the street.
The need to look down on others is almost as common as the need for food. People who prattle about 'elevated discourse' and 'structured interchange' and so forth are just trying to make distance from the scary mob. It's not possible to become a more loving and decent person while believing in such things.
If you're trying to build any enterprise (church, website, school) that seeks to elevate while keeping out the riffraff, you're in an position that is at least ironic and at most psychotic. You need people, but only on your own terms: The ones you attract will be spineless.
Has your computer ever had a virus? Mine too. It sucks! But if the RIAA, or Disney, or maybe even Apple ever tries to take over the distribution of media and ideas, we're going to be counting on the pissed-off teenage boys who write these things to save the day.
Short version: Think carefully who your friends are. They aren't the ones who extend pinkies while sipping tea.
I got your "Call for Manners in the World of Nasty Blogs" right here, in my pants.
Crid at April 10, 2007 6:23 AM
I've been told that LGF also deletes comments and bans dissenters, as well as some other right-of-center sites. Guess neither side has a monopoly on discomfort with opposing viewpoints.
deja pseu at April 10, 2007 6:47 AM
I'm surprised to find that proof of Irving Berlin's atheism is provided by a site that promotes agnosticism. Which also claims Berlin is an agnostic. I would love to see the leading luminaries of agnosticism and atheism have a tag team wrestling match to prove the religious convictions or rather the lack of religious convictions of the toss ups on the list.
I did find out two things interesting about Berlin. He would always offer to pay Groucho Marx to not sing some of Berlin's minstrel show songs at parties and that he sued Mad magazine. I couldn't find out if Berlin's lawyers tried to subpoena Alfred E. Neuman.
Pat Patterson at April 10, 2007 6:52 AM
Well, dissent and obstructionism aren't the same thing. I don't read LGF, but these are private little enterprises, and it's not surprising that their owners want to take them in particular directions and keep things moving.
IOW, I think the destructive virus-writers should be punished.
Crid at April 10, 2007 6:52 AM
these are private little enterprises, and it's not surprising that their owners want to take them in particular directions and keep things moving.
So how is that different than what Amy and some other commenters are slagging on left-leaning and feminist sites for? (Sorry, no way to not end that one with a preposition.) Personally, I prefer open discussion as well, and think all of the pearl-clutching about the blogosphere is coming from people who either just have a problem with the word "fuck" or sense their livelihoods being threatened.
deja pseu at April 10, 2007 7:00 AM
There's a proportionate response to everything. If there were a serious, believably-threatening movement to re-enslave blacks in the United States, we'd want the blogs that advocated it to have their message boards clogged.
Crid at April 10, 2007 7:08 AM
Deja - wrong. LGF does no such thing. However, if you only get your opinion of what LGF is from Amanda Marcotte, or the stalkers at LGFWatch, then you'd believe that. Because that's what THEY do, and if there's anything a moonbat does well, it's projection.
LGF only deletes comments from obvious trolls, and the occasional disgusting rant.
brian at April 10, 2007 7:35 AM
Marcotte's Pandagon, on the other hand, deleted my comment simply because I asked whether they had the right to run a B. Kliban cartoon.
Here's the e-mail exchange I had with B. Kliban's rep:
In a message dated 3/15/07 9:58:12 AM, catinfo@eatmousies.com writes:
Hi Amy,
Thanks for your email! No, that wasn't an authorized use. With the
internet and the low resolution threshold for displaying images on
computers, it's very difficult to prevent unauthorized use of images.
Thanks for your help!
On Feb 23, 2007, at 3:07 PM, AdviceAmy@aol.com wrote:
> Hi there -- I'm a creator as well (I write a syndicated newspaper
> column distributed by Creators), and I'd like to inform you of a
> possible theft of a B. Kliban cartoon I spotted on the net. If you
> gave this site permission to use, please disrgard my message.
>
> The link is here:
>
>
> http://pandagon.net/2007/02/23/how-to-explain-things-to-libertarians/
> #more-4789
>
> I've attached a screenshot of their use.
>
> I left the following comment on the site (comments are "moderated" so
> they may choose not to post it). I'm very concerned about copyright
> violation and defend my own copyrights. Please e-mail me and let me
> know if this was permitted use or not, as I may blog it. Best, Amy
> Alkon, advicegoddess.com (syndicated by Creators to over
> 100 newspapers)
>
> COMMENT I LEFT ON PANDAGON IS BELOW:
>
> So, did you buy the right to use that B. Kliban cartoon?
>
> How do you explain private property and apparent copyright violation
> to a socialist?
>
> If you don't have permission, isn't that what's commonly known as
> THEFT?
>
> How do you justify that?
>
Amy Alkon at April 10, 2007 7:42 AM
My own blog item about the Pandagon theft is here:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2007/02/how_to_explain_1.html
Amy Alkon at April 10, 2007 7:43 AM
Congrats, Amy! I just hope your mother was OK with it.
I hope everything is getting back to normal for you. Cheers.
Hasan at April 10, 2007 8:04 AM
Well, the debate among the laity has improved over the centuries. Instead of the standard threat of going to Hell. Try the no presents for Christmas, because you are an atheist. Does anyone see the moral progression besides me?
The real crime was how passive the father was in the video.
Joe at April 10, 2007 8:26 AM
I got your "Call for Manners in the World of Nasty Blogs" right here, in my pants.
Ban this man! My delicate sensibilities are offended by his indelicate imagery.
________________________
I maintain a policy of avoiding "moonbat" and "winger" sites alike, because they're predictable and boring. A general rule of thumb is that no post that uses words like "repugs," "rethugs," "repukes," "democraps," "dummocrats," "dhimmicrats," "Bush derangement syndrome," or the like, nor the comments which follow, will contain anything approaching interesting or original thought. Political cheerleading is a dull business.
justin case at April 10, 2007 8:36 AM
"the eugenicist Margaret Sanger"
Margaret Sanger was not a eugenicist in the way the word is defined today, with racist overtones. This is slander spread by opponents of her work. Sanger primarily helped poor women gain access to birth control, not because she believed that they should not be having children, but because the rich women could afford to go to Europe for a diaphragm. The only group that she was opposed to reproducing was the mentally ill, because she felt the children would be born into a disadvantaged life.
Sorry to be so OT.
I was surprised to see many names that I had not expected on this list. Are they distinguishing between atheism and agnosticism?
Amy at April 10, 2007 8:59 AM
Deja - wrong. LGF does no such thing. However, if you only get your opinion of what LGF is from Amanda Marcotte, or the stalkers at LGFWatch, then you'd believe that. Because that's what THEY do, and if there's anything a moonbat does well, it's projection.
Uh, no. This was from someone I know IRL who during the 2004 election season disputed some dubious "fact" from a comment posted by a regular about one of the Democratic candidates. My friend's comment was not abusive or insulting; he just presented some evidence to the contrary, yet he was labeled as a "troll", his comment deleted and his IP banned. And my friend isn't a "lefty" either, he's a registered Republican who votes issues not party.
I think people can do whatever they want with their personal blogs, it's their call, but these days I tend to shy away from extreme polemics and personal insults. Who needs the aggravation?
deja pseu at April 10, 2007 9:13 AM
Five times a day, I roll out my mat at work, position myself facing Tennessee and thank Al Gore for inventing the internet.
PurplePen at April 10, 2007 11:32 AM
"Eugenics aims to arouse the enthusiasm or the interest of the people in the welfare of the world fifteen or twenty generations in the future. On the negative side it shows us that we are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human being who never should have been born at all-that the wealth of individuals and the states is being diverted from the development and the progress of human expression and civilization."
Margaret Sanger-The Pivot of Civilization
In fairness she also said, "...we explained simply(in regards to The Negro Project) what contraception was, that abortion was the wrong way-no matter how early it was performed it was taking a life..."
Margaret Sanger-An Autobiography
Pat Patterson at April 10, 2007 3:08 PM
It must be convenient to judge people from the past through an ideological purity test?
Personally, I will not judge Margaret Sanger's beliefs on eugenics, but by her actions towards birth control awareness. I will not bring up a whole list of past historical figures who favored eugenics as some kind of bonus points in a groundless debate. Some of those figures were also devout Christians.
Do you hold mainstream beliefs? How will your beliefs be viewed in the future? I recommend people to stop judging historical figures value on their personal belief systems, but by their actual contributions to the world.
People do bad things and hold weird belief systems. It’s time to grow up, kiddies.
Joe at April 10, 2007 6:34 PM
Thanks, Joe, very good points.
And as for the nasty dig at Al Gore, scroll down:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120302.shtml
Amy Alkon at April 10, 2007 7:24 PM
I knew that. I guess Gore jokes are never any good unless eating dinner with the boss.
PurplePen at April 10, 2007 8:51 PM
The reasons I posted were twofold; the first in that the list of atheists arguably not only contained many agnostics but also several believers that have become iconic atheists only because, like some Supreme Court decisions, had the penumbra of free thinking about them.
Margaret Sanger never disassociated herself from the eugenics movement nor the magazine she founded or edited until a few critical articles, charging her with racism, appeared late in her life. At no time did I say or imply that there was any racial animus in her thinking. Eugenics was rejected as claptrap in the 20's and rejected in this century as claptrap as well.
Pat Patterson at April 10, 2007 10:36 PM
What Joe said.
Crid at April 11, 2007 3:00 AM
Thank you, Joe. You said it better than I ever could.
Amy at April 11, 2007 8:36 AM
Pat,
It doesn't matter if she still believed in eugenics. Also, I would read her writings in their entirety. Eugenics has more than one definition than your narrow view.
I do not recall reading that she organized actions that would force poor minorities to get sterilized. Didn't she opened the first Planned Parenthood Clinic in Harlem, NY? A clinic with African-American doctors and nurses.
Sanger also believed masturbation was dangerous and was a dedicated socialist. Even with those views, I still regard her WORK in birth control awareness in high regard.
Yes, the list may contain agnostics and believers. So what. Everyone is an atheist to some degree. Christians are atheists towards Zeus, Horus, Moloch, Baal, 3,300 Hindu gods and goddesses and so on.
Like I've said before it must be really convenient to judge everyone under an ideological purity test.
Joe at April 11, 2007 4:22 PM
Ok, I'm criticized for seeming to judge Margaret Sanger using the current definition of eugenics without the context of what it meant in the early 20th Century. Fair enough! But the defense of an extremely sloppy listing of atheists is justified by using an almost 2,500 year old definition from the Greeks in "denying god." I'm wondering how many atheists would be happy operating under a definition that atheism can still encompass a belief in god or gods?
Pat Patterson at April 11, 2007 7:32 PM
call me synical but i wonder if he s back already if we have a better record and healthier backfield. Prob had no effect but still
Augustine Dunagan at August 7, 2011 5:13 PM
Leave a comment