State of Protest

Dear Procrustes,

You are a moron, with your liberal anti-Christian views, and you’d better shut your site down, or I’m going to find you and your family and I’m going to crack your skull with a baseball bat and mutilate your family.

Signed,
Hypothetical

Yes, fortunately this is still a hypothetical situation for me, but it’s certainly real enough for a number of rational activists out there, including, fairly recently, PZ Myers, a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris, who blogs at Pharyngula.¹ On July 13, PZ Myers received an email with the subject line: “your short life.” The sender went on to state that if PZ Myers did not cease and desist his job (for the sake of his children), the PZ Myers would get his “brains beat in.”²

I’m not going to bother addressing the fact that someone who purports to follow a higher spiritual code is threatening the life of someone (and his kids) who follows a code of reason. Instead, I’d like to cite a few more examples, and then ask the readers if anyone else has had similar experiences, what have they done in those situations, and what can be done if we ever find ourselves in such a situation.

Before I jump into other examples, I’ll give some closure to the PZ Myers issue. First of all, PZ Myers made it quite clear that he reserved the right to post any emails (in full, with metadata) that contain threats of violence. What, pray tell, must have someone endured to require such a disclaimer! Word got around, and AIGBusted, from Answers in Genesis Busted, sent an email to the threatener’s employer³ (since the email threat was sent from a work address). It turns out that the threatener, Melanie Kroll, who, ironically, worked for 1-800-Flowers, was fired over the matter.⁴ Although it’s unknown how many readers possibly sent similar emails, AIGBusted appropriately feels no guilt over the firing. “I don’t feel guilty about reporting her. I think it is important for atheists to realize that large numbers of us wield a fair amount of power in these situations.”⁵

Apparently that is true. We have shown that we have the ability to do more than just sit idly by, wondering how valid a threat is. But how many of us (and by us, I mean anyone in the non-believing, rational, atheist, etc., community) are actually being threatened, how consistently, and, most importantly, how viable are these threats?

Where to begin? Of course, with the blog post that prompted Melanie Kroll’s threat.

July 12, 2008:
PZ Myers wrote, in a blog entry: “Christian Lunatics Issue Death Threats Over a Cracker… Unlike those nutty Muslims who are always taking offense over cartoons, these people have serious grievances.” And went on to describe and criticize the overreaction by the Catholics, media, and others, to Webster Cook’s forcible removal of The Body of Christ from a church.⁶ Accused of having “kidnapped” the equivalent of Jesus Christ, Cook began receiving death threats shortly after the media exploded the issue beyond repair, and PZ Myers, in turn, received a death threat for reporting about it. (Yes, I’m anxiously anticipating my day in the sniper scope.)

July 17, 2007:

Professors in Colorado Receive Death Threats for Teaching Evolution
Letters from a Christian extremist last week threatened the lives of evolution biology professors at the University of Colorado at Boulder. The letters claimed to be on behalf of a group, but newspapers and at least one blog have reported that an individual, Michael Korn, a Jew-turned-Christian extremist, is likely behind the threats (an image from his web site is at right). CU police spokesman Brad Wiesley told me they haven’t officially named a suspect but the Colorado Daily wrote that others “close to the case” named Korn.⁷

July 7, 2007:
J.K. Rowling announces the end of her beloved Harry Potter series of books, indicating that although it was a wonderful experience for her, there was a darker side to writing something Christians didn’t agree with: “Rowling says her success has been “the experience of a lifetime.” But it also has brought an intense level of pressure, scrutiny and criticism. In the United States, her book tours have attracted thousands of screaming children, but also death threats. Some Christians have called for the books to be banned, claiming they promote witchcraft.”⁸

March 28, 2008:
“Popular video site LiveLeak have been forced to remove the controversial film critical of Islam FITNA [by Geert Wilders⁹] after it received death threats from primitive, violent intolerant muslims.”¹⁰ Both Geert Wilders and some LiveLeak staff received a variety of threats of death and violence.

July, 2008:
Army Spc. Jeremy Hall’s “sudden lack of faith, he said, cost him his military career and put his life at risk. Hall said his life was threatened by other troops and the military assigned a full-time bodyguard to protect him out of fear for his safety.”¹¹

June, 2002:
Michael Newdow, a TIME Person of the Week, received multiple death threats for his attempt to challenge the constitutionality of the “under God” phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, which was recited every morning at his daughter’s public school. ¹² (As a side note, I met Mr. Newdow during that time period, and heard him discuss his various issues. He has also advocated for the removal of “In God We Trust” from U.S. currency,¹³ and he has won the Freethought Hero Award.¹⁴ )

October, 2006:
Robert Redeker is “a writer and high school philosophy teacher who has been under police protection and in hiding with his family since the newspaper Le Figaro published his op-ed piece about Islam on Sept.19. Entitled “Faced with Islamist intimidations, what should the free world do?”" “Redeker writes that he and his family are being forced to move every two days. “I’m a homeless person,” he complains. “I exercised a constitutional right, and I’m being punished for it right here on the territory of the Republic.” Redeker is only the latest in a lengthening list of Europeans who have been subjected to death threats from Muslims outraged by criticism of their faith and prophet.”¹⁵

1988:
Salman Rushdie had a fatwa issued against him for his publication of The Satanic Verses.¹⁶

November, 2004:
Mohammed Bouyeri shot Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film director and critic of Islam, eight times, killing him, and then nearly decapitated him by cutting his throat. Then Bouyeri stabbed van Gogh in the chest. A few weeks prior to the murder, Imam Fawaz of the as-Sunnah Mosque in The Hague gave a sermon, calling van Gogh a “criminal bastard” and beseeching Allah to inflict an incurable disease upon him. ¹⁷

These examples are frightening and real, and they can all be Googled rather easily. But are the numbers of threats against the rational much higher? Have you ever received a threat of violence, death, or other retaliatory act for something you’ve done or that you’ve believed in? Please share!

If you’ve received a threat, did you take it seriously? How did you react to it? (did you reply, post the message, contact the authorities?) Regardless of whether you’ve received a threat, do you have any advice or suggestions for those who do?

Is this a trend we should be worried about?

1. Pharyngula, “Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal.” http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ [↩]
2. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/mail_dump.php [↩]
3. Did I Get a Woman Fired? Answers in Genesis Busted. http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2008/07/did-i-get-woman-fired.html [↩]
4. http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html [↩]
5. http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2008/07/did-i-get-woman-fired.html [↩]
6. Christian Lunatics Issue Death Threats Over a Cracker, AlterNet. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/91269/ [↩]
7. Professors in Colorado Receive Death Threats for Teaching Evolution, Wired.com. http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/professors-in-c.html [↩]
8. Rowling bids her boy wizard goodbye, USATODAY.com. http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2007-07-19-rowling-potter_N.htm [↩]
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders [↩]
10. LiveLeak Remove “Fitna” After Death Threats, GBG Atheist News. http://godbegone.blogspot.com/2008/03/liveleak-remove-fitna-after-death.html [↩]
11. Atheist soldier sues Army for ‘unconstitutional’ discrimination, CNN.com. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/atheist.soldier/index.html [↩]
12. Person of the Week: Michael Newdow. http://www.time.com/time/pow/article/0,8599,266658,00.html [↩]
13. Michael Newdow’s “In God We Trust” Lawsuit Dismissed, Austin’s Atheism Blog. http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/06/13/michael-newdows-in-god-we-trust-lawsuit-dismissed.htm [↩]
14. Freethought Hero Award, Freedom From Religion Foundation. http://ffrf.org/awards/special/2004_newdow.php [↩]
15. Did a Critic of Islam Go Too Far?, TIME.com. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1541776,00.html?cnn=yes [↩]
16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie [↩]
17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29 [↩]

The father of a co-worker on a different floor died the other day, and another co-worker got a card and started a collection for flowers for the funeral. No big deal. Passed the card around. I was one of the later persons to receive the card to jot down something. We do this all the time for birthdays, and it’s fairly easy to come up with something to say for a birthday. “Happy Birthday!” “Best Wishes!” “Hope you get laid!” You know, something like that. Cheery or morose, doesn’t matter for a birthday card. “Hey, at least you still have your hair! Most of it, anyway!”

Well, for a “Your father died. I didn’t know him. I barely know you. I’m sorry he’s dead, but only in that faintly ‘we’re all humans here and share some sort of emotional bond’ sort of way” card, it’s not so easy. I was the 16th or 17th signer on the card. I glanced casually at the other notes, just to get an idea of what others were saying. And what I saw kinda shocked me, although perhaps it shouldn’t have.

Out of 16 notes, 12 used the word “prayer” or “prayers” and 1 used “God.” Yes, I know that for most people, “you’re in my prayers” really only means that “you’re in my thoughts.” Which, of course, makes the use of both redundant but perhaps more encouraging? “You’re in my thoughts and prayers.” What’s that really mean? I’m thinking of you, and, oh, by the way, I’m thinking of you. It’s worse when it even remotely means actual prayer. What, seriously, is prayer going to accomplish in that situation? What, exactly, are these people praying for? “I pray your daddy comes back from the grave so you can say your final farewells.” “I pray that you die soon so that you can see your dad in heaven.” “I pray that you understand that God really loves you and your dad, and death is just His way of showing it. Really.”

Many State of Protest readers are former Christians. Here are some questions for you. When you told someone that they were in your prayers, what did you really mean? And then what did you do? Did you ever actually pray for someone after you said you would? Did you clasp your hands together and close your eyes and start praying with that person in mind? And, if you did, what did you say? For what did you pray?

And why does it so utterly disturb me that so many of my co-workers are praying for someone who just lost a father?

If, say, a member of my immediate family were to die, would I take the assertions of prayer by others as insults or just innocent ways of expressing their attempt at shared mourning? In other words, is someone who knows that I’m atheist intentionally infringing upon my beliefs by stating that they will pray for me, for my family member?

It reminds me of a classic dead-end conversation:

Theist: “It was nice talking to you. God bless!”

Atheist: “I don’t believe in God.”

Theist: “But He believes in you, and He wants you to know that He loves you!”

Why do we dislike salespeople who knock on our doors on Saturday morning, or who pester us in stores while we’re trying to look at something? Because they won’t take “no” for an answer. They’re rude, imposing, and have absolutely no care about your feelings, your thoughts, your beliefs. Same reason we don’t like evangelicals. Now, these 13 or so co-workers who felt the need to indicate (out of piety or self-righteousness) that they were praying for the card’s recipient probably wouldn’t consider themselves evangelical. However, aren’t they?

Are prayers useful? Apparently some prominent people would like to continue to encourage that belief. Some frighteningly prominent people.

In 2000:

At the White House, President Clinton said he was “saddened by the terrible loss of life” in Georgia, and asked Americans to pray for the victims.¹

The vice president [Gore] told tornado victims they could count on the prayers and resources of the nation.²

In 2003:

I express my sincerest condolences to the victims of the tornadoes that ripped through Arkansas and Kansas and Missouri, Tennessee, Nebraska and South Dakota. Our prayers and I hope your prayers are with those who — the loved ones who lost life or those who lost their home. The federal government, the local state and local authorities need to know the federal government will be moving as quickly as we possibly can to provide help where help is needed, and where help is justified. Nature is awfully tough at times. And the best thing to do right now is to pray for those who have suffered.³

In 2007:

I bring the prayers and concerns of the people of this country to this town.⁴

Today:

US President George W. Bush on Wednesday offered prayers and disaster relief to the victims of dozens of tornadoes that killed at least 48 people and injured hundreds more in southern US states.

“Prayers can help, and so can the government,” Bush said. “I do want the people in those states that the American people are standing with them.”

Twenty-four people were killed in Tennessee, 13 in Arkansas, and seven in Kentucky, officials in the three states said.

US media reported hundreds injured, and CNN said four people were killed in Alabama. Local authorities were not immediately available to confirm that death toll.

“I’ve just called the governors of the affected states,” said Bush. “I wanted them to know that this government will help them, but more importantly I wanted them to be able to tell the people in their states that the American people hold those who suffer up in prayer.”⁵

I’m stymied. Does Bush, does anyone really, honestly think that it’s more important that victims of natural disasters are “receiving”⁶ prayers from fellow Americans than it is for the government to help?⁷ I suppose knowing how the government “helped” after Hurricane Katrina, people might be somewhat distrustful of such intervention. Also, from the look of the trend — these tornadoes aren’t stopping — it would seem, from a rational point of view, that not only do the requested and given prayers not work, but from a corollary perspective, might even be the actual cause of the perpetuation of these wretched storms. Well, it’s just as realistic as the conjecture that AIDS is God’s punishment for homosexuality.⁸

I find prayers devoid of usefulness. Ten million Americans can go home tonight after work, hold hands with their loved ones, and utter a solemn, moving prayer. They can go to church this evening, if they’re Catholic they can receive an ash cross, they can mass pray for the victims. They can close their eyes, and ask God in the most imploring inner voice they have to help the victims. All this accomplishes is the exact same thing it accomplished in 2007, 2003, 2000, and all the years between and since — absolutely nothing but the smug satisfaction of those praying that they somehow advocated on behalf of the victims. That they’ve done something useful. Heck, if the president says it’s more important, it must be.

On the other hand, ten million Americans can send a dollar each to a victims’ relief fund. Ten American entrepreneurs can send a thousand dollars each. Five American corporations can send a million dollars each. People nearby can send themselves. People at a distance can send canned food, fresh water, or organize relief donations that maximize what the victims actually receive.

I’m going to pray to President George W. Bush to explain why he thinks that prayer is more important than the myriad other ways these people and all other victims of disasters and war can be helped. I doubt, however, that such a prayer would ever be answered.

—————————–

Follow up!: Apparently “Prayer is among the increasingly creative ways that schools and the community are encouraging Central Florida students to excel on the annual FCAT….”

Perhaps the highest stakes, though, are at Evans High, where students hope to avert another failing school grade.
This week, FCAT prayers will be said at home. Next month, however, when students tackle the reading, math and science portions of the test, Kimbrough of Rising Sun Baptist plans to have church members walking, kneeling and joining hands in prayer on the sidewalks outside Evans and its ninth-grade center. The vigil is intended to last throughout test-taking.

There’s even a special FCAT prayer service March 2 at 3 p.m. at the Evans ninth-grade center that’s open to all. The faithful will pray for good grades but also that the students stay focused and confident.

“God could care less about the FCAT, but he cares about his people,” Kimbrough said. “He cares about what concerns his people.”⁹

If I were a kid failing a standardized test, would I want my parents and community to help tutor me or stand outside and pray for me? Perhaps they’re doing both. However, this is certainly violative of the First Amendment in addition to creating a form of intimidation for non-Christian students. Oh, and it’s “God couldn’t care less…” Apparently the praying hasn’t been working.

1. Death toll rises to 19 from Georgia tornadoes, CNN, February 14, 2000, http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WEATHER/02/14/storms.05/index.html [↩]
2. CNN, February 16, 2000, http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WEATHER/02/16/storms.04/ [↩]
3. Transcript of President George W. Bush, CNN, May 5, 2003, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/05/wbr.00.html [↩]
4. President George W. Bush, Bush visits Kansas town flattened by tornado, CNN, May 9, 2007, http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/09/kansas.bush/index.html [↩]
5. Bush offers prayers, government help for storm victims, Yahoo, February 6, 2008, http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080206/usa/us_weather_tornado_bush [↩]
6. What is the process by which someone receives a prayer? How would someone know a prayer has been made on that person’s behalf unless the pray-er informs the recipient? So, are prayers really just modern-day condolences, with no real supernatural affiliation? If so, why push prayer in school? [↩]
7. If I went to the site of the devastation from those tornadoes, and I walked around to each victim and asked them to choose: I would either give them $5,000 in cash for recovery or I would have 5000 affiliates pray for them, which option would the victims choose? Which would you choose? How is prayer effective again? How is it more important than government assistance? [↩]
8. 23% See AIDS as God’s Punishment for Immorality, Pew Research Center, http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=311; see also Jerry Falwell quotes, http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/jerry_falwell.html [↩]
9. Physical, emotional and spiritual support pumps up kids for FCAT, Orlando Sentinel, February 10, 2008, http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/consumer/orl-prayforgrades1008feb10,0,7753098.story [↩]

Dear Procrustes,

Much of written law is supposedly based on Christian morals. I have a problem with Christians saying that what is right and what is wrong can be found on a stone tablet written down by the finger of God. More of a problem is saying that God wrote down in our hearts what is right and what is wrong.

What is your hypothesis on how we figure out if something is immoral or moral? How can one person prove to another person that something is immoral or it is not immoral?

Sincerely,

Thor

First, thanks for your question!

The entire concept of “morality” has been twisted to fit a political agenda and ideology, and it clouds the true issue of asking what needs to be regulated. The word “moral,” in the way it is misconstrued and misinterpreted today, should not be used as justification for passing a law that potentially infringes upon the rights and freedoms of people.

Laws should be based on pragmatic, utilitarian principles, for the most part. People should not go to jail for non-violent or victimless crimes. Laws should not invade privacy, broadly interpreted to include sexual preference and many other controversial issues. How do we figure out what should be restricted versus what should be allowed? What is our “legal” compass? It’s certainly not some old book. Any old book, for that matter, other than books that tell us about our own real history and the many mistakes humans have made, is really only good for historical or comparative purposes, and is, at minimum, a potential detriment to progress.

Instead of relying on some idea of a pre-defined, absolute set of ineffable but contradictory moral-based laws, we should develop a more simple device with which to determine whether an action should be considered “against the law.” One example of such a test could go something like this:

1. Is there conflict? If yes, then 2. If no, then go have a beer.

2. If yes, then is it a case that is unique to those involved, or is it something that, as it stands or when it is solved would potentially affect a significant number of people? If unique, then 3. If “universal” then 4.

3. If the conflict is something that can be resolved between those involved in the conflict, then those involved should try to solve the conflict. If they cannot solve it on their own, a court or other arbiter may intervene to assist. (Social contract). Goto Beer.

4. If the conflict has potential widespread social implications, it should be determined to what extent the action in the conflict impacts the social structure if it were not restricted. This is based on a bit of trial and error, as well as historical support. This is similar to Kant’s universal maxim idea, whereby an act is determined either good or bad depending on whether, if it were made into a universal maxim, it would have an overall negative impact (or essentially end up killing the actor). If it’s determined that the action has no consequence, then the conflict is resolved.

(An example of this would be if someone said they were “offended” by someone displaying a certain type of flag on a piece of property. The only actual impact is that someone is offended, which is such a severely subjective and immeasurable effect, that it would be impractical to apply compensation for it or restrict actions that cause it. The counter to this, of course, is when someone argues that the person offended will react violently to the display, and that were it not for the display, the violent act would not have occurred, and thus the display should be prohibited. That is an illogical and backwards argument. If the offended person commits a violent act, then start this analysis from the violent act, and you’ll find that it’s the violent act, not the display, that should be prohibited. Anything else merely panders to the sensitivities of those with the most money and political influence.)

If the impact of the action is more than nothing, then the resolution should be proportionally responsive to the action. Impact is sometimes difficult to determine, if the action doesn’t have an immediate impact, or the impact is a perceived or a potentially foreseen future impact. In cases like that, it’s critical to analyze actual similar cases to determine what kind of impact similar actions had in the past. If the impact is immediate and tangible (calculable), then it’s significantly easier to establish a rule of law regarding the action.

Then, of course, a law prohibiting such an action may be passed, with consequences that reflect the impact and severity of the action.

Example:

Joe kills Pam.

1. Is there a conflict? Yes. Pam was alive, did not choose to die, and Joe’s actions caused Pam to die.

2. Is it unique to those involved? Yes and no. This is a conflict that, specifically, can never reoccur, because Joe can never again kill Pam. Thus, that aspect of the conflict is over. However, it has a significant potential impact on society. We’ll go to 4 to analyze that, but stop by 3 to see another added feature.

3. Can it be resolved between the parties? Yes, but only partially. Pam’s relatives, dependent on Pam for support, can sue Joe for interfering so significantly in their lives that without some compensation, they would be severely wronged.

4. If people could kill other people at their whim, without any punishment or restriction, and they did so, would that have an overall negative effect on society? Of course it would. Just imagine wholesale slaughter without any help from the government.

What’s the actual impact, though? Well, Pam is dead. We can’t reverse that. It’s a permanent thing. It’s not a personal item that is lost and that can be replaced, but it’s an irreplaceable human being. That’s about as impactful as you can get! The consequences should be dire for Joe. However, he can’t kill Pam again, so what justifies society doing something about Joe? It’s the fact that since Joe actually killed someone, he’s gone beyond the ability to kill someone (an ability we all share), and has come into the realm of actually having done it.

The probability of any one of us committing a murder is questionable. However, the fact that Joe did kill someone is now a fact, and what that means is that at least once in Joe’s life, he failed to stop himself from killing. This means, essentially, Joe has a potential propensity to kill; it could happen again. We don’t know for sure whether it will. For all we know, if we let Joe go, he could live a normal, peaceful life without ever killing anyone again (perhaps he just really hated Pam, and likes everyone else). That’s certainly a possibility, but we don’t like taking chances (especially with fellow human life), so, the logical response is to lock Joe up.

But we’re not locking Joe up solely because we think he may do it again (which is our attempt to protect society specifically from Joe). We’re also locking him up for a few other reasons. First, we want to show other people that committing certain acts will impact freedom. That’s deterrence. If we let Joe go with a slap on the wrist, other people would likely feel as if they could commit the same act without any punishment, and, though there’s no proof they will actually do so, there’s certainly no disincentive for them not to.

Additionally, some people think that Joe can be rehabilitated in jail. The effect of attempted rehabilitation is questionable. From what I know, most of the prisoners who have been interviewed regarding rehabilitation say that it doesn’t work.

So, we jail Joe for a significant period of time.

Do I believe in the death penalty, though? No. I don’t. What a government should do is the bare minimum of what is necessary to ensure that conflicts that cannot be handled by individuals are resolved with the least amount of collateral impact. Killing a killer certainly takes that killer out of society, and that killer will never kill again, but it’s an unnecessary extreme. If there are other ways to keep the killer from killing, then those should be implemented first.

As a conflict, murder is an extreme case which most people would not disagree over the resolution (minimally, jail). There are exceptions to every conflict in existence, and mitigating circumstances should all be taken into account. Ultimately, though, this basic analysis could be applied to any conflict, and a resolution will emerge, even if the resolution is to do nothing.

And none of it requires a bible.

-Procrustes