The International House of Bacon

Meant to write a ton last night. Whoops.

* Comparing Argentina to Obama. Change we can believe in?

* RedState on Obama’s new political director, Patrick Gaspard. To say he’s a tad problematic would be an understatement.

* The reality of the inactive oil leases some Democrats in Congress are harping about. Stuff like this ultimately makes me wonder what color the sky is for some of our Congresspeople, because this is absolutely ridiculous.

* Good luck to Forvik, the small island off the coast of Ireland that declared independence this week.

* More on the Iraq journalism drain. You’ll note that violence doesn’t factor into a reason why news organizations are leaving, and the New York Times fails to note the smaller embedding expenses.

* From the Friendly Atheist, the religious landscape survey. Tons of interesting stuff here.

* A fairly surprising poll from California: a majority of Californians support expanded drilling off the coast.

* An interesting observation from Ann Althouse on Scalia and Thomas’s positions on the rights of the accused in the context of the recently-decided Indiana v. Edwards.

* Finally, from Oddee, the twelve funniest wedding announcements.

That’s all.

An interesting question was posed late last week, and it’s one I’ve encountered a few times:

Atheist readers, what if you were to suddenly find out tomorrow that the God of the Christian Evangelicals was real?

…

I’m not asking HOW it would happen (see Frank’s earlier blog on this) but IF it happened, how would you react?

I don’t know if the “what if” question for atheists is a universal one, or simply goes with the stereotypical Catholic guilt that makes me still shudder at the thought of hell, not enjoy pleasurable experiences as much, etc etc. However, it at least seems to be somewhat different where I don’t come to it from a place of anger (i.e., prayer failed me, something bad happened, etc).

At least for me, my positioning comes from a place of needing more evidence. Thus, if this evidence comes forth that I’m dead wrong about this, do I have any other choice? I wonder how many atheists would say “yes, I still have a choice here.” Not saying that there’s no extra choice to “follow” or whatever, but just on the existence angle.

The more interesting concept for me, actually, involves more of the free will aspect of the discussion - if the God in the discussion is real as we’ve been told to believe, we’ve also got the free will argument to run with, and a broader discussion about the ideologies and the way we got to that point and whatever else is created as well. While advancing the debate significantly, it also brings up a lot of other odd questions.

So yeah. It’s an interesting concept, and one that probably would require more thought if it were something that could realistically occur.

For those new or who need a refresher, this was a poll I took and these were my initial thoughts on the whole atheism angle. As with the last time, a lot of this will be stream-of-consciousness in a way, so it may come out disjointed and crazy, but given that I meant to make this post close to 6 months ago, a lot has gone through my mind about, well, everything, so yeah.

First, this kind of post was an interesting read for me recently, and this image caught my eye - for those who aren’t clicking through or can’t do images, there’s a poster about different religious takes on “The Golden Rule”, and a person’s self-made atheist counterpart, which simply states “Don’t do the dumb shit that religious people do to each other.”

One of the main problems I’m having in the whole atheism…conundrum, I suppose, is the rank arrogance associated with it. I hate it for two reasons:

1) I’m susceptible to it.

Remember my final sentence in the original post? Completely absurd and completely moronic for me to say, especially since it runs contrary to my feelings on the matter. Do I not understand the mindset of friends who don’t think like me? Absolutely - whether it be on whether they want to vote for Obama or believe in g/God(s) or enjoy Nickelback, I’m not going to get it, but I can at least respect it (even if it means giving some otherwise good-natured ribbing about the latter). I inadvertently made it sound like I think those who do have religious inclinations are somewhat dumber than myself, which was a completely improper statement to make. I’m sorry I made it, more because I honestly don’t feel that way and meant nothing close to that. I never made a public apology, so I needed to rectify that.

2) It’s amazingly ridiculous and self-serving.

At the root of any belief system, a superiority complex exists. You think you have better movie tastes than the next guy, you read better books, you eat better foods at better restaurants. Even so, many of these religions are based, at their root, in a sense of humility. It’s accepting that there’s not only something bigger than you, but it’s so big that we can’t adequately fathom it. Submission is a huge part of Islam, accepting that Jesus Christ had to sacrifice himself so that sins could be forgiven is crucial to Christianity, etc. Submission is not easy, and in what is essentially a major life situation for many, many people, having to submit in such a way to such an abstract idea is a very large step.

Atheism is interesting in the sense that there’s no significant need to submit. There’s no higher power to serve, there’s no hierarchy of priests and mullahs and rabbis, there’s no guiding book on How to Live. It just is. Combine that with the sense (a sense that may or may not be completely accurate) that people come to atheism not so much from family or events or what have you, but from a more reasoned approach involving some questioning and - I hate to use this word in this context, but it’s the best one I can think of - logical reasoning, and it almost lends itself to some self-importance.

It’s frustrating - one of the biggest problems I have at this point is that I don’t feel as if I can really talk about it without it being an affront. It’s easy in blog form - no one’s forced to read this, after all - but much more difficult in a general discussion. I can’t tell someone “yeah, I don’t believe in god” without that carrying a lot of baggage. Yes, it’s a choice I’ve made, yes, it runs contrary to what you think, and yes, I’m not convinced your way is the right one. It shouldn’t be like that. On its head, no one’s going to bat an eye if they say they’re Catholic or Jewish - beyond the fact that they’re socially normal, it’s an acceptable end point to be at. Unfortunately, “populist atheism” as I’ve heard it described, has largely poisoned that well - the rank superiority complex you see from folks, whether it be a silly Darwin Fish or something more abrasive, essentially screams out “I have a belief and it is TOTALLY BETTER THAN YOURS.” It’s different than wearing a cross around one’s neck, which is simply showing devotion to a concept in my mind. To proclaim one’s lack of faith is a statement, and, in a society where the atheists are that 10% or less minority, a fairly controversial one at that.

Why? Why do we have to do that? The answer I hear from other atheists is that it’s simply a proclamation of faith - or, in our case, a lack thereof. But we all know it isn’t, and it’s dishonest to say otherwise. And, even worse, it does nothing other than poison the well for those of us who are perfectly content to leave well enough alone, believe what they want, and move on a bit.

Atheism isn’t activist for me. I’m not sitting here at my computer desk trying to convert you, I’m not handing out “Found rationalism?” pamphlets at the supermarket. At the end of the day, my beliefs in this area are an important part of my life, but they’re an important part of my life. Outside of sharing these beliefs with the general public, your religion doesn’t really bother me, and it’s unlikely to do so unless we hit some sort of crazy theocracy, which is about as likely as an atheist becoming president. Atheism, however, is very activist in what I’d consider atheist society, and that’s problematic to me, both on an ethical level (proselytizing is not a comfortable thing for me, even though I understand its requirement in many belief systems) and on a social level - they’ve SEEN THE LIGHT and must make sure logic rules the day.

It’s like the comments I’ve seen since the election has rolled around about how people are really hyper-focused on science and how some candidates “believe in science” while our current president apparently does not. I mean, the creationism/evolution issue is kind of ridiculous both in terms of basic reality and in how it has tainted the political discourse, but the amount of people who are truly “anti-science” are few, and are not in the government. Translate it to a spirituality thing - most religious people aren’t anti-science, either. They’re not anti-science, they’re not devoid of logic, and many have come to their places through some serious thought. Yeah, you have your share of people who are Religion X because their family is Religion X, but it’s not as if you go through an eternity without as much as a question about any of it. It’s incredibly arrogant to assume that those who believe in God are mindless automatons while the small minority of us who can’t be bothered with it have somehow reached some superior mental plane, just like there’s reasonable disagreement on whether universal health care is a good idea or whether the Mets are going to suck this year. Yes, you think your position is correct, and yeah, you probably spent a good deal of time thinking about it, but that doesn’t mean that your concept is the only one.

Ever since that post in October, I’ve been even more hyper-aware of spirituality than ever before. I’ll be general here, even though I’ve spent multiple paragraphs decrying that - it’s really incredible how those who are writing about being religious appear to be doing so from a point of view of enrichment and positivity, while even the most moderate of atheist writings I’ve seen have the air of superiority and arrogance with a healthy dosage of mockery. No wonder religious people paint nonbelievers as missing something when we act like curmudgeons who find no joy in life besides deriding other beliefs.

Why isn’t there a “Positive Atheism” movement? I know the saying, that organizing atheists is a lot like herding cats, but why does it appear to be impossible for atheists to celebrate their beliefs without having it be a statement or without being complete jerks to those who do believe? To the 75% or so of you reading who do have religious inclinations, how can those of us without celebrate our unfaith without making it a statement? Is that well poisoned beyond repair at this point? It’s hard to say.

I think I’ve gone on long enough. I have a lot more to say - maybe I’ll refrain from waiting 6 months for a follow-up this time.

* In terms of having a speech that he had to make, I generally think he pulled it off. I haven’t seen the speech, only read it, so I’d imagine Obama’s general delivery helped things considerably. It’s not a perfect speech, and I don’t consider it any more inspiring or amazing or anything like that than any of his other speeches, but it’s really a good speech overall, and I don’t feel the need to hesitate much in saying it.

* Problem elements: it turns out that he was lying about whether he witnessed the statements first hand, which could bite him in the rear end if played properly. Rather than sticking to a universality theme, he made some hits on Ferraro and “[T]alk show hosts and conservative commentators” that I thought were more than a little inappropriate, but will likely be glossed over in the long run. The campaigning toward the end wasn’t really useful - if you’re trying to convince people that you’re not a crazy racist crank like your pastor, health care and jobs aren’t really on people’s minds. The final anecdote about Ashley felt really out of place for me, especially how it ended. I couldn’t figure out the point, except that maybe he’s trying to demonstrate how a young white girl who supports a black Presidential candidate who lives post-civil rights legislation was able to convince an elderly black man to come on board? I dunno, but it didn’t work for me.

* If racial exclusion is one of the problems, did this speech work on an inclusionary basis? Thankfully, he didn’t get too preachy about it (my number one fear going in), but the segment about Trinity, where the “services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear…” was a bit odd. I know what the point was - it was a teachable moment for Obama, and shedding some light may have been beneficiary, but it does come across as a little condescending. We’ve all seen movies, we know that the black church is not all full of stand-sit-stand-sit-kneel-stand-sit reverent obedience to the pastor, but more of a larger experience. I remember being personally jealous of that in grade school and high school. But that was never the problem, either - the energy and enthusiasm of the congregation during their time in church was never at issue as much as the energy and enthusiasm for Wright’s comments. Obama seems to recognize that to a point, but, in trying to help the majority understand what the minority experiences, he fails to understand exactly what it is about the minority experiences in this episode that makes the majority at best uncomfortable and at worst outraged.

Toward the end, he gets very empathetic about the entire thing: “a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch.” I’ll forgive him the “white privilege” meme and drill down to the broader problem - on one hand, he says “Yeah, I get it - there’s some anger on the majority side, too, and I think it can be justified,” but then turns around with how he feels those issues “affected the political landscape.” By attaching the views of the minority - in this case, those who disliked things like welfare or affirmative action because of the benefits to minorities - to those of the majority - who often had policy-based (welfare is not a good use of taxpayer money, it has questionable results) or equality-based (affirmative action fights inequality with inequality) views - it turns the entire statement into one that’s only better than Wright’s in terms of tone. I’m positive that it was an inadvertent action, without a doubt, but to spend any number of minutes on a speech trying to explain the minority position only to then try and make a different, more disturbing, minority position larger than it is may end up negating the broader message in some circles.

* Overall, though, I was surprisingly impressed. He could have gone an entirely different direction, and largely didn’t. He refrained from throwing Wright under the bus, which is fairly noble in a way even if I think he’d be better off cutting ties. He didn’t prey on some of the more negative and unfair criticisms that have been levied to this point, and he could have. He largely kept the entire speech positive and on-topic, which is hard to do when talking race these days. While I can obviously go on and on about the parts I don’t agree with, the simple fact remains that I think he pulled off the speech he had to pull off, and there’s no faulting him in that, IMO. My only hope at this point is that the bleeding kind of stops a bit - it’s apparent that he’s addressed this comptently, so let’s move back to the point that we can’t afford his agenda or something.

* What do we call Barack Obama’s $1 million earmark request for the hospital that his wife works for? All together now - Same Old Washington Politics as Usual. I’ll give Obama some credit where it’s due - he appears to be swearing off earmarks, at least temporarily, and earmarks, while annoying and wasteful, are currently completely legal. With that said, again, you cannot run as a “different” candidate who’s above all the Washington politics and is somehow better than everyone else when you’re not only requesting ridiculous earmarks, but doing so for groups you have an obvious conflict of interest with. It just doesn’t fly.

* By now, you’ve probably seen the ABC News clip of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who heads up Obama’s church and made enough of an impact on Obama where he took the name of one of his books, The Audacity of Hope, from one of his sermons. The fact of the matter is that, while Wright is especially extreme to most ears, anyone who’s a churchgoing person is probably going to be aware of somewhat uncomfortable things that their preacher says. It’s just a matter of reality when it comes to religion clashing with a diverse country. That the media is examining this is a good thing, if only to atone for the ridiculous “A Mormon!?!?” stories we had to suffer through while Romney was still in the race. With that said, let’s not take too much stock in what Wright has to say, either - unless Obama’s showing signs of wanting to hire him for his staff, I think we’ll be okay on that front. Roger Simon sees it as a bigger problem, to provide an alternative view from the right side of the aisle.

EDIT: I wrote this last night. It’s now the morning, and it turns out that, yes, Rev. Wright has a formal, albeit semi-ceremonial role in the Obama campaign, and is often consulted by Obama “before making any bold political moves.” So yes, this is problematic. Much more so than the Ferraro flap from earlier this week, and makes you wonder who else is on the committee that Wright serves on.

* Happy 100th birthday, Chuck Taylor All-Stars. You’ve kept my feet happy for years.

* I lolled.

* I love when statistics and facts back up my gut feelings. It turns out that John McCain has a great rhetorical record, but when it comes to action, he’s completely unpredictable. Need to pinpoint my discomfort with John McCain? There you have it - if I can’t trust him to be consistent on the issues that matter to me, what benefit will it give me to vote for him?

* Let’s be clear - I’m not anti-Federal Reserve. I don’t know if the current situation is optimal, but I don’t think abolishing the Fed is the right answer either. Regardless, EconLog covers a lot of the problems the Fed causes, and I think could use some adjusting.

* I mostly don’t regret my vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. Reason explains the problems inherent in the Paul campaign, and kind of sets a template up for more competent campaigns in the future, perhaps inadvertently. I don’t really disagree with any of this, but it is tonedeaf to the point that Paul likely didn’t resonate with more than 10% of voters in most places because he was ultimately the wrong vessel for the right message. If someone of Mitt Romney’s stature or Barack Obama’s charisma was carrying Paul’s message, it might have worked out better.

* I wasn’t concerned about the inevitable legal challenge to John McCain’s citizenship/Constitutional ability to become President until it got filed in the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit is so screwed up, you could present evidence that the earth rotates around the Sun, and they’d likely find a way to determine the opposite.

* Bill Gates details another reason why businesses are fleeing the United States.

* Finally, I think I’m going to avoid eating within Boston city limits. I’m sick of nannying ridiculousness.

* From Jana, a link to the latest David Brooks editorial about the campaign. It details a probable result of a Democratic Presidency in political terms, which I can’t say I disagree with. It’s just like the relative failure of the Democratic Congress, but on the executive level.

* Instead of angering people daily with the more uncomfortable aspects of the Obama campaign, just keep an eye on this blog: Is Barack Obama the Messiah? It’s a blog that collects links and news stories about the more-than-occasional deification of this author’s favorite punching bag. Joel Stein has more to say on the matter.

* On the flip side, a cool list at The Friendly Atheist showing the relative lack of differences between Christians and atheists.

* Hugo Chavez has decided that, since the United States courts have decided that ExxonMobil is entitled to some money for what his government stole from them, he’s going to threaten to hold out on oil if we freeze those assets. Bright idea, buddy - hardly anyone can refine your oil, and it’ll hurt you much, much more than it’ll hurt us. After all, we can always buy oil from the dozens of other suppliers who have better crude anyway. In the meantime, Chavez has decided to put the oil revenues in Swiss banks. Classy.

* National Review’s David Freddoso gives some context to the turnout meme. Interesting data.

* So, John McCain supports draconian controls on finances for elections, but doesn’t see the need for those limits for himself. He’s well within rights to turn down private financing, but this is an excellent example of the two-facedness of McCain on many issues.

A quickie because I missed a few last night.

* If you’re voting in the Democratic primary today, think about it for a second: Barack Obama has a record he can theoretically be proud of, so why isn’t he running on it? Why doesn’t he want you to know what he’s been up to?

I found this picture in an LJ community posting, it’s fun:

* I’ve had this sitting open on my desktop for ages now, so I may as well link to it: Can Atheists Be Parents? Time asked the question in the context of a New Jersey adoption case where a set of prospective adoptive parents were denied due to the atheism angle. The case is from 1970, but the issue still remains: Volokh notes some very recent judicial precedents regarding this sort of craziness, and it’s a little chilling. It’s interesting - this may be one of the first times where both the majority (read: believers) and the fringe minority (read: nonbelievers) can lay claim to having their beliefs persecuted and not be blowing smoke. I’ve written at length about my atheism here, and I have more to come.

* Listen, I know it toes the line of a stereotype, and I still feel like it’s a low blow to highlight it, but I have to ask - is there a way to criticize Hillary Clinton’s crying without being accused of mysogyny? I’m all for real emotional output, but something appears to be off about this whole thing. I can’t tell if I’m bothered by her crying (which only seems to come up when she’s being complemented) or bothered by the knee-jerk reactions to it at this point.

* Of course, I know that Hillary’s not going to cry for those who’s wages she plans to garnish to cover her misguided health plan. Taking a page from the John Edwards “Say you’re helping the middle class while screwing them” playbook, it would (of course) only apply to those “workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it,” thus removing the choice motive and screwing everyone in the process. This has little difference to it than the Massachusetts failure, which simply charges an absurd tax surcharge as opposed to wage garnishing (as if the victim recognizes the difference) , but hey, it’s one step closer to socialized medicine, so get on board or you hate the poor, or something.

* I like QandO’s insight into the possible general election race.

* Linked a few places, Jennifer Abel in Hartford went inside the 9/11 Truth movement a bit, and to really fascinating results. Truthers are crazy.

* Finally, a fun photoshop contest from Woot, inserting products they sell into Presidential campaigns. I, of course, love the Obama one, but they’re all worth seeing.

If anyone’s even reading at this time of day.

* Personal opinion: Patriots 38, Giants 20. I don’t see this being close.

* From The Locker Room, an article at Tech Central Station about the successes of free market reforms around the world. A pretty interesting list.

* Cato at Liberty on Ted Kennedy actually getting it regarding the role of the judiciary v. the role of the legislative branch. I suppose you can teach an old dog new tricks.

* John Tierney at the New York Times signed he and his wife up to eHarmony to see if they could get a match, and then wrote about the results. A pretty interesting insight into the whole eHarmony thing.

* FactCheck.org debunks the long-standing myth that the unemployment stats don’t count folks who aren’t recieving benefits. A piece worth reading even if you already knew that.

* I’m very glad John Edwards is gone, but The Munchkin Wrangler posted a beautiful takedown of Edwards’s campaign yesterday that’s worth linking to.

* Julia Sweeney does a one-woman show about her atheism, and lists 10 things she’s learned.

Have a good weekend.