'Monkey Girl' and Religious Tribalism

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@Tim

I do not however think that you have presented evidence that it is “common in all sorts of hot button issues”, and particularly that it rises to the same level of severity and frequency (as religious intimidation and violence) in this wider range.

I think I have offered such evidence in my post previously, just by citing the same plot as you did:

@dga471

My main point is just that death threats and violence are regrettably common in all sorts of hot button issues, not just related to religion. And the above chart supports that (although granted, it’s talking about terrorist plots , which are probably more serious than random threats to public figures transmitted via social media or email): in 2020, for example, far left and right violence comprised over ~85% of all terrorist attacks, and only ~5% was related to religion. I regard far left and far right related violence to be political violence, not religious violence, which is what I wanted to say from the beginning.

@Tim

Tolerating this is an inescapable consequence of Free Speech. They’re free to criticise you – rightly or wrongly. You are likewise free to criticise them.

Also, why does the fact that they’ve finally reached a degree of security from personally experiencing the negative effects of Christian chauvinism, mean that they lose their right to speak out against it? Does a slave becoming an ex-slave suddenly have to be silent on the evils of slavery?

Of course they’re legally free to speak out whatever they want. But even if our speech is legally protected, we should still be careful about how and what we speak, because some kinds of speech may have a real impact on other people beyond the simple meaning of the words. For example, many of the egregious behaviors cited in your OP are protected by freedom of speech. Repeatedly quizzing a fellow board member about their religious beliefs, pronouncing them atheists, insulting reporters, being ignorant - none of these things are illegal, even if they are unethical. So, I’m not at all saying that atheists should “remain silent” about their beliefs or their past. But being in a position of power on campus and making strong statements which effectively communicate “anybody who seriously believes in religion X must be stupid” may intimidate a student who identifies with religion X, whether the professor intends it or not. I just think everyone, whether they’re religious, atheist, or otherwise, should be sensitive about the effects of their words.

@Tim

I would suggest that the proportion of atheist professors that are sufficiently bigoted as to make this a serious threat is comparatively small ( God is not Dead , would appear to be more of a caricature perpetrated by conservative Christians than a reality) – but would wish it to be even smaller. Likewise, due to self-selection bias, the proportion of devoutly religious graduate students is small.

There are not many overt racial bigots in academia, yet we still do care about unconscious racial bias affecting the environment we create for underrepresented racial minorities in academia. (And I think such a concern is eminently justifiable, because implicit bias is real, even among people who normally don’t think of themselves as “racist”.) In the same way, even if few professors are outright like Dawkins, how many harbor an implicit bias against religious students? I don’t know for sure. It’s likely that this issue of anti-religious bias in academia is understudied, compared to bias against other underrepresented groups in academia. At least one study has already found a degree of unconscious bias against students who identify as evangelical: "Are scientists biased against Christians?" - from the Brownell and Barnes group. To be clear, I don’t think it’s as serious of a problem as racial discrimination, given that someone’s race is usually far more apparent than their religion in everyday interactions.

@Tim

Unfortunately, your average atheist, moderate Christian, or believer in non-Christian religions cannot so easily ignore the impositions of conservative Christian judges and politicians.

But what does an atheist professor in a liberal coastal area like Massachusetts have to fear from Christian judges and politicians who hold power in places like Alabama and Mississippi? (Now, of course there are also atheists living in Alabama and Mississippi, so I would not disagree with your point regarding those.)

@Tim

It is somewhat amusing, if somewhat disheartening, to watch you simultaneously attempt to argue the (somewhat contradictory) points that (i) the US lag is too difficult to analyse, but (ii) cannot be attributable to slavery and religion.

I’m not going to even try to answer your points about culture, geography, diversity, history, because as someone trained primarily in science I don’t have the knowledge or expertise about American history, culture, and society to perform an intellectually responsible and informed analysis.

@Tim

And what proportion of the US actually benefits significantly from this? Yes, it will mean that the US has a disproportionate share of the world’s billionaires and Nobel prize winners, but the downside is a disproportionate share of inequality, poverty, violence and misery, given its advantages. Do you, as a follower of Jesus, think that such a trade-off is justified?

It seems that you are conflating between moral justification and practical realities. You also insinuate that I don’t care about improving the quality of life in the US, which is not what I was trying to say.