Tragedy in Brooklyn
So it’s 2005 and this is the academic question that has driven the Daily News and the right-wing New York Sun into apoplectic fits, and caused heartburn all over CUNY: Should Tim Shortell, an atheist, be allowed to assume the chair of the sociology department of Brooklyn College? You know, an atheist–someone who doesn’t believe in God. An anticleric. A disrespecter of religion. A mocker of Christianity.
This is what I’m saying. This is why atheists sometimes use noneuphemistic language. It’s because atheism is viewed and treated and spoken of as a crime and an outrage and something that ought not to be allowed. And that’s why the habit of just bashfully not mentioning the fact that theism is about truth claims that are not true, gets a little tiresome. There is a real problem here. I’ve said it before (so those who are tired of hearing it should leave now and go get an ice-cream soda or something), but I’ll just restate it again. There’s a real problem when the people who don’t say there are invisible supernatural entities (or entity) operating the cosmos are considered reprehensible, while people who do, are considered virtuous. That’s backwards. It’s the wrong way around. It reverses the terms. One might as well give prizes to bullies and sadists and throw kind helpful people in prison (which is exactly what happens in some places, and let’s not go live there).
You might as well say no Southern Baptist should be chair, since someone who believes that women should be subject to their husbands, homosexuality is evil and Jews are doomed to hell won’t be fair to female, gay or Jewish job candidates. Or no Orthodox Jew or Muslim should be chair because religious restrictions on contact with the opposite sex would privilege some job candidates over others. But nobody ever does say that. As long as a believer ascribes his views to his faith, he can say anything he wants and if you don’t like it, you’re the bigot.
Sad to say, she’s right. I’ve been seeing a certain well-known atheist (and self-proclaimed anti-theist) called a ‘bigot’ lately myself. The benefit of the doubt is always with the people of ‘faith’ (despicable word) and always against the people of reason. Well, enough of that. (Though I’m still not going to start calling myself a Bright. There are limits.)
Is Shortell a bigot? If the quotations in the linked article are accurate and not ripped out of context in such a way as to mislead, I would say yes, he is. The word-substitution test is helpful though maybe not always conclusive. Apply it in this case. I would certainly suspect anyone who wrote “Jews are moral retards” of being an antisemite; or “Africans are an ugly, violent lot” of being a racist; or “Muslims claim that theirs is a faith based on love, but they’ll just as soon kill you” of being an Islamophobe. The only reasons why I hesitate to apply a similar test to the offensive remark which Hitchens made are (a) he was speaking, not writing; (b) he may have had a drink or three and (c) Norm Geras suggests he didn’t quite mean it.
Of course plenty of great scientists have unpleasant attitudes, but that does not disqualify them academically. Even if a closer study of Shortell’s writings confirms the suspicion of bigotry, that leaves open the question of whether he is a good sociologist. If he is qualified for the post and he really cares about fighting the cause of secularism he should not have withdrawn his name from the competition. He could do a lot more good by fighting his corner that by publishing “self-satisfied adolescent twaddle” (Politt’s description).
Those are bad analogies. Theism is a set of ideas or beliefs, and a matter of decision and choice; being African is not.
Which is not to say that Shortell’s writings on the obscure website are not silly drivel; they may well be; but the fuss is even sillier.
Any religion is a set of ideas or beliefs. I cannot think of any statement of the form “[members of religious denomination] are moral retards” that I would not regard as an expression of bigotry, other than where the members of the sect in question were obliged to do heinous things like rob and strangle travellers. Obviously the Assassins of Alamut really were moral retards, to say the least. But except in such extreme cases it seems fair to describe people who write the sort of thing Shortell wrote as bigots, not merely purveyors of silly drivel.
Well then Kevin it’s equally safe to say Catholics, protestants and such are bigots towards those they typecaste and disparage i.e. homosexuals.
To take religious beliefs seriously and as equitable to race is rather bizarre. To call those beliefs silly and the practicers retarded may be insulting but it is not bigotry.
Uber, it’s not clear to me what you mean by “equitable” to race. Perhaps you mean equivalent. If so, rest assured that I understand the difference between being an Indian and being a Hindu. As to Christians, some are homophobes and some are not. If you think I am using the term “bigot” improperly, perhaps you can explain how you use it. It has always been my custom to refer to people who believe, e.g., that Protestants are dishonest or that Atheists have no morals, as religious bigots.
Kevin, I see your point, I may have misread you to a degree.
I suppose any blanket statement about a group could be considered bigoted.
However I see a distinct difference in stating that a religious belief is stupid and belittling the belief to disparaging the group as a whole.
The belief must be able to stand up to scrutiny.