A Matter of Convenience
(Editorial Comment from the American Heathen® radio show – Air Date 02/05/10)
Opposing viewpoints aren’t always welcome here. It really depends on the strength of the opposing argument. Unsubstantiated rhetoric, lack of credibility and integrity, play a large role in my decision as to whether an opposing viewpoint makes it to my blog. Religious dogma does not qualify as a valid opposing view. Otherwise, it’s the same old arguments, sometimes with a new twist, but never backed up by anything more than the Bible and someones “feelings”. Excluding dogma, I make every effort to recognize opposing views by evaluating them carefully and with an open mind. I don’t sweat publishing an opposing view on my blog if it is void of dogma. Ever.
A couple of weeks ago the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AU.org) blog page disappeared. If anyone tried to visit it, they would get a message that said the site was down due to technical difficulties. I suspected from the get go that AU.org was most likely making a change to the way the blog is used by readers. I was sure an effort to quell, or even deny the opportunity to publicly respond to AU blog posts, was in the works. Why? Well, the blog’s comments section had seen some very heated exchanges between hard-core fundamentalists and non-believers for several months. These exchanges became a one-sided insult fest initially, the fundamentalists taking charge of the ad-hom arena as usual, unable to argue on facts and evidence. But soon, even the non-believers and secular crowd jumped on the insult bandwagon. Although, to their credit, the non-believers weren’t nearly as nasty and brash as the fundamentalist crowd. Most of the non-believer retorts were benign jabs at the intelligence quotient of the fundamentalist mentality. In any event, it became apparent that AU.org was growing concerned with some of the vitriol and decided to post a disclaimer at the head of the comments section of the blog. Censorship also played a role as some words like “socialist” and “socialism” found their way into a dirt pile of other objectionable words that were apparently considered unproductive to the AU.org agenda.
The AU.org blog comments section is now gone. None of this is surprising to me. While AU.org strives to defend freedom of religion, they are doing so as an absolute matter of survival. They are, in fact, founded by the Reverend Barry Lynn, and as such are concerned with religious freedom and faith as opposed to freedom from religion. Indeed, it is this very idea of freedom of religion that is the main focus of the organization. It is about freedom to believe in a myth. While as a matter of course AU.org is compelled to defend their religious agenda, they certainly do not go out of their way to embrace the non-believer any more than they have to. They simply must support their skydaddy belief.
Comments posted to the AU.org blog by non-believers that defended Separation of Church and State, but at the same time were critical of religious belief, may have been the impetus for shutting down the comment section. I say may have been for I do not have evidence to substantiate this. Indeed, there is also reason to believe that the vitriol of the fundamentalists may have been a contributing factor as well. I choose to deduce that the decision to shut down the comments section was the result of both camps, and the politically correct way for AU.org to walk away from controversy. But is it really surprising that a political organization, designed to defend freedom of religion, runs scared when fundamentalist bullshit, and non-believer facts and evidence threaten to undermine their particular skydaddy vision? No.
Herein lies the problem with religion. Selective belief and selective exclusion. AU.org really has no choice but to defend itself and its moderate interpretation of a skydaddy. That’s also why it embraces other moderate Christian versions and other moderate religions. But, in order to further its agenda, it also has to grudgingly embrace non-belief. I say grudgingly because after several years of reading AU.org articles, the non-believer is always referred to as an afterthought. An example of this is a common statement in a large number of AU.org articles – usually in parentheses – that reads “…and those who don’t believe”. It’s kind of like having a little brother or sister. You can’t stand them, but you tolerate them because Mom and Dad (read the U.S. Constitution) says so. You have to take them in tow, or you’ll be grounded. But, once again is this really surprising?
AU.org has an agenda. And, even though they may support the Separation of Church and State, they do so because they believe in a skydaddy and MUST defend their right to do so. The only reason they defend the non-believer is because they have to, ultimately for their own benefit. Period. To expect anything otherwise is ignorant, and unrealistic. Keep in mind that skydaddy worship is a pick and choose proposition, and it comes with blinders. It can’t take criticism, and it doesn’t work through proofs of evidence. Ultimately, any support for Separation of Church and State, from any religious organization, is not concerned with reality, but with the survival of fiction.
AU.org really doesn’t care about non-belief. To them, it is a little brother or sister that must be defended out of self-preservation. While they claim to love all beliefs, they only tolerate non-belief as long as it keeps them from being grounded. As far as freedom of speech… AU.org is a private, political, non-profit religious organization. They can do whatever the hell they want. Yeah, we don’t have to like it, but that’s the way it is. Just as my blog has an agenda of facts, proofs of evidence, science, reason and logic, AU.org’s agenda is to further belief in the absence of facts, proofs of evidence, science, reason and logic. Keep that in mind. For AU.org it’s simply a matter of skydaddy convenience.
February 7, 2010 at 10:33 am
RJ, this is where you and I will disagree. I utterly agree as to why they had to close down the comments section. It was way out of hand. I’ve long known it would be a necessary step they would have to take to survive. This is a group always under attack by the Religious Reich when they are behaving properly. Spoiled brats (and, by that I mean everyone, myself included, who contributed to the fracas) who can’t control themselves on comment sections or message boards simply can’t be tolerated. They don’t have the luxury to indulge the immaturity.
But I disagree on the attitude towards . I find they are tolerant and understanding and inclusive. Rev. Lynn has, in fact, offiated at Atheist weddings. I think they sincerely feel that we all have our right to our own opinion and that includes the nonbeliever, not just as an afterthought but as much of a citizen as any other American. And what more than that can we want? That is, certainly, all we should want. Equal status.
I treasure AU because of their diversity. And I think they fully realize that it is their diversity that makes them great. They come in second only to the Freedom From Religion Foundation with the ACLU third.
(The ACLU is third because church-state separation is my primary political interest. ACLU has done some great things for this country, admittedly great even when I haven’t liked their actions but, as an Atheist, I find freedom of religion paramount.)
I, in fact, treasure AU in preference to some Atheists only groups such as American Atheists. I find AU open-minded and accepting of differences. I do not find AA so and I’m not even talking about religious differences. I treasure FFRF because they advocate for Atheist rights and to educate against sterotypes without putting down theists. I feel AU advocates for everyone’s religious freedom and keeping the government out of religion which has the effect of protecting the nonbeliever’s or the minority faith’s freedom as much as mainstream Christianity and I think that is their aim and their purpose, not just Christianity but all of it, including skepticism. They believe in one thing and one thing only — keeping church and state firmly separate. So do I. As long as their goal is the same passion as my passion, I will unequivocally give them my support. Unequivocally.
Obviously, I passionately disbelieve. It’s rare that I admire an ordained minister but I do very much admire Rev. Lynn. I admire him because he is a fighter and he fights for what’s right. Not just in his church’s narrow view but in the view of what makes us all free to be true to ourselves. Perhaps he is influenced because his personal belief seems to be that of people must be free to choose or reject God of their own accord but, you know, that really doesn’t matter. Whatever his reasons for valuing freedom are (and you’d have to ask him, not me, that), he does so and he does so with spunk, humor and courage. He fights my battles for me with passion and energy. And my freedoms are much protected by his so doing. I cannot do other than greatly admire and appreciate him.
I know this. If he took a step like shutting down the comment section, he did it reluctantly and with a great deal of thought. The warning came months before the shutdown. It was not heeded and it was giving his enemies ammunition. Not a good thing. A thing that made the batttle of protecting all our freedom an even more uphill battle of something that was already a steep climb in this country. It shouldn’t be but it is. If Atheists who claim to deal in reality really do, they should apprecaite that.
February 7, 2010 at 10:36 am
(sorry accidentally hit return, one more small bit)
FFRF is very wise to not even offer a blog in the first place. What happened at AU demonstrates why they refrain from it and I don’t blame them.
Let’s not prejudge someone just because he has the title Reverend before his name. Let’s not condemn him for fighting our battle for us.
February 7, 2010 at 10:53 am
Hi Muggie!
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. But, I DO appreciate your comments.
RJ
February 7, 2010 at 7:16 pm
RJ, your commentary on this was excellent. Thanks. It’s really funny – searching google for AU archives turns up a whole lot less than it should. Without making allegations that I can’t support, I’ll just say I get the feeling that not only did they shut down the blog to avoid controversy, as you said, but it really is looking like they’re trying to erase their past. As you said re: freedom of speech, they are a private organization – they can allow or disallow whatever they want on their blog …BUT, what occurred, what they allowed to occur on their blog until they shut it down – would this not be public domain?
I’m feeling like they’re trying to scrub the internet.
February 8, 2010 at 12:15 am
Look here – one of AU’s top recruiters calls themselves: Godis Pretend.
http://apps.facebook.com/causes/50242?m=3124eff7&recruiter_id=6704310
February 9, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Hey, RJ, thanks. I knew I could get the low-down about the AU blog at American Heathen. I needed a break from the fight for a while (fighting some battles on the home front), but I’m sorry I wasn’t there for the end. I agree that AU defends the non-believer out of necessity – political and financial. I never expected otherwise. I’m not surprised about the blog – but I’m disappointed by the results of Alba’s and my own research regarding the former comments section. This apparent attempt to erase the past rubs at my sense of integrity.
February 9, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Jax!! I am so happy to see you. Can you be reached via Facebook?
February 10, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Hey, Alba, good to see you! I don’t really use facebook. But if you contact me at the following e-mail: jaxtemp2010@gmail.com I’ll share my permanent e-mail address with you.
February 12, 2010 at 2:46 am
Well, of course, they also had to remove the past fracas that was giving the Religious Reich stuff to quote. People use your heads.
February 12, 2010 at 11:41 am
Muggle – Are you always so negative?
February 12, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Muggle, just because someone takes a different view than you do is no reason to imply that there was no thought behind the post. It’s my opinion that AU did not have to remove the “past fracas”. The comments posted at AU reflected the views of the bloggers, not of AU. I think AU should have had the balls to stand behind that statement.
As for quotes serving as “ammunition”, many comments made by those representing the RR were hatred-laden vitriol that reflected just as poorly on them – if not more so – than comments made by pro-c/s separation bloggers did on AU.
February 13, 2010 at 12:05 pm
And Jax we know the Religious Reich conveniently aren’t going to mention those ones. I really do think they did this as a matter of survival and they did warn us to knock it off months ahead of time.
February 13, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Muggle, is there some reason you think that mention of those comments by the RR would be the end of it? Is the RR’s opinion the only one that matters? Rational and logical people interested in the issue most likely would 1) recognize that the comments were not a reflection of the views of AU and 2) make the effort to see all of the comments, not just those made by bloggers in favor of c/s separation.
If AU shut down the blog comments because it was worried about what the RR might think or do with those comments, then it deserves even less of my respect than it currently has.
February 14, 2010 at 8:25 pm
It is shameful. Some of the knowledge, the information, and shared insight on that blog is irreplaceable. Context is always everything, and most is scrubbed clean. Not every heated debate was insignificant, the majority were not, and I am bitter, still.
I have archived blogs (not AU) that were ‘chew em up spit em out.’ Debate gets dirty, indeed.
February 15, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Just wondering if there was ever a private heads-up, on AU’s part, to any of the regular commenters there. I was really disappointed with the way that they chose to just end the blog comments with no word or post, or anything, just a screen saying the blog was unavailable due to technical difficulties.
If they valued any of the regular commentors, you would think they would have had the courtesy of some sort of explanation. I had been planning a donation this year to AU but since they pulled this on even the staunchest of their supporters it shows me who their allegiances are with.
February 15, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Incognito, I had telephone correspondence with AU on three different occasions between the time the blog first went down until AU made the decision to bring the blog back with the elimination of the comments section. In each of those calls, I was told the blog would be returning, and technically, it did, but I do believe that each of the people that I spoke with was clear in their understanding what it was that I was inquiring about. Not that their understanding obliged them in any way to give me a heads-up.
When the blog returned without the comment section, I sent the following email to Americans United. My email was direct to one of the people that I had spoken with prior, and one who wrote some of the editorials that we all commented on:
“In a stunning “salute” to Free Speech advocates, Americans United removes the comment feature from their blog.
Way to go, AU.”
Approximately, one week later, after posting this statement on their FaceBook page, I received it in the way of a reply to my email:
Dear XXXXX, (my name was spelled wrong)
“Statement from AU Regarding Blog Comments
Several people have asked about comments on the redesigned AU blog.
“The Wall of Separation” blog was redesigned to incorporate various updates from the word-processing program and provide cutting-edge security. Members of the web team and other Americans United staffers had lengthy discussions about the commenting policy. In the end, we decided to remove comments from the blog.
While many who commented offered thoughtful perspectives, more often than not, the discussion quickly degenerated into a back-and-forth theological debate about questions such as the existence of God and the validity of Christian doctrine. Americans United, which consists of people of varied religious and philosophical beliefs, is a non-sectarian
organization and takes no stand on questions of theology. These irrelevant discussions, we felt, were detracting from the main goal of the blog, which is to offer updates and opinions on church-state issues in the news.
We were also dismayed with the tone of the discussion, which often featured namecalling, incivility and intemperate rhetoric – all violations of the posted commenting policy.
We hope readers will enjoy the new blog and find the information on it interesting. For our readers who want more real-time dialogue about the work of AU, we encourage you to join the conversation in our other public spaces. Follow, retweet, and mention us on Twitter; add your voice to individual posts on our Facebook page and, of course, connect
with and participate in your local AU chapter.”
Best,
XXXXX
February 18, 2010 at 6:40 pm
They speak the truth. That is exactly what that blog had become. Good on them for taking steps to remedy the situation.
It wasn’t cowardice, Jax. It was maturity.
February 18, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Muggle, I disagree. Shutting down the comments didn’t “remedy the situation”, in my opinion. AU taking action – not just issuing a warning – would have remedied the situation. Blocking bloggers who had no interest in discussing separation issues, for example, would have been a good start. Wiping the internet clean doesn’t speak well for the job they think they did.
February 19, 2010 at 4:04 pm
I agree, jax. AU’s closing of the comments section did nothing to change the tone and/or content of discussions that now occur on their Facebook page.
I also agree with you that wiping the internet clean demonstrates a complete lack of integrity.