ISSA Wins SSA Affiliate of the Year!

This weekend is the annual conference for the Secular Student Alliance out in Columbus, Ohio, and when award time came around, guess who ended up winning "Affiliate of the Year"? Well, go read the title of this post if you didn't already. Yeah, that's right folks. ISSA is your 2011 SSA Affiliate of the Year! We have an incredible pool of members here at U of I and without your enthusiasm, us officers couldn't have put together half the events we did. From National Ask an Atheist Day to a standing-room-only appearance by Michael Shermer, you guys make us look good. Also deserving of thanks are the folks from the SSA themselves, for giving us the support we need to continue spreading secular values here on campus.

Congratulations to all the other award winners tonight. You make ISSA want to keep pushing to do bigger and better events every year, and a special shoutout to Zach, Harrison, and Jessica who won the high school awards. Your courage is an inspiration to us all. ISSA's officership has continued to meet over the summer, and we can't wait to come back to #SSA2012 with new ideas and new stories to tell!

Becca Wants YOU [to sign up for something real quick]!

...That joke would have been much better coming from Sam. *Sigh* Anyhow, I have a quick request for our readers/membership: Go sign up for action alerts from the Secular Coalition for America! We've just had the pleasure of listening to Amanda Knief describe her dialog with Obama this past week, and it's clear that the group is doing great things. Let's get involved! Sign up here.

More later!

-Becca

First Night of the SSA Conference and we are Fired Up!

After an eventful stopover in West Lafayette with an assortment of colorful heathens from Indiana and Minnesota, our officer crew has arrived in Columbus to catch the first array of knock-out speakers the national Secular Student Alliance lined up for this conference.

ISSA on the Road!

Tonight's series of presentations began a midst booming thunder and torrential rain as Hemant Mehta accepted The SSA "Backbone Award" for his years of dedicated support for the Atheist Movement. His request: that each and every atheist in the closet emerge and shut the door behind them, and that every atheist out in the open work actively to support the movement. His speech was nothing less than completely inspiring - surely an unforgettable beginning to the conference.

The ISSA Store is Now Open!

I'm super-excited to announce that ISSA now has a web store! Click here or look at the top of the page to find your way over there. Everything you see has been designed by us here at ISSA and all profits will go towards continuing to sponsor great speakers, activism, and other various events. We hope to continually add more products as we create them, so stay tuned!

Broadening (Losing?) Our Focus in the Skeptic Movement

There's a great post over at The Friendly Atheist's blog this morning where Hemant talks about his experience being on the "Diversity in Skepticism" panel at TAM 9. Apparently, the conversation became particularly focused on the diversity of skepticism present at meetings. The crux of the discussion was, as he put it, "If we truly advocate skepticism, and we want to apply it to all areas of life, then why do we always seem to limit our conversations to the paranormal or science? Why don’t we ever talk about the Drug War, or Gun Control, or Abortion, or the entire panoply of topics for which there’s available data and plenty of false information spread about them?" Hemant concludes that the movement has much to gain from bringing skeptics uninterested in our current focus into the fold.

Looking into the Face of Evil

Even as investigators work to piece together the tragic shooting and bombing which took place in Norway late last week, a clear picture of the perpetrator has emerged. Anders Behring Breivik, a Norwegian businessman with a paranoid fear of what he saw as a Marxist, multiculturalist takeover of the European continent he felt should stay true to its Christian heritage, left a trail of intolerant rhetoric across the Internet laying out his case for violence. Chief among these testimonials were a video and written manifesto in which he made clear the religious subtext of his motivation. As an atheist, I find myself torn on how to approach the issue. Emphasizing his Christian inspiration feels to an extent like exploiting tragedy, but ultimately the dangerous roots of this killer's ideology must be laid bare.

Your Monday Freethought Library Update!

It's been two weeks, and ISSA's Freethought Library has more than doubled in size! Sure, that means we now have nine books instead of four, but progress is progress! I'd like to thank those who've donated thus far... This is, of course, for a great cause -- arming our members with the most fundamental atheist arguments, facilitating productive discussion and promoting further inquiry. In short, we need to keep these freethinkers freethinkin'! Get it? Got it? Good.

Next week: TWO stacks! ...Or so I'm hoping.

Copay-Free Contraception: The Rational Solution, the Right Solution

The gradual implementation of President Obama's Affordable Care Act has included time for studies to be conducted regarding what should be a part of its sweeping changes. A recent report from the Institute of Medicine recommends "the full range of Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods" be covered by insurers without requiring a copay from the women receiving care. Though I can already hear the high-pitched whine of the right-wing talking points machine starting up to claim this as a moral failing on the part of our government, I encourage everyone to take a breath and recognize that this recommendation benefits everyone.

Carbo Diem

I'm not generally much of a Pastafarian, but it's Hump Day evening and His Noodly Appendage is looking pretty tasty right now. That being said, I just had to share this photo of a totally rockin' FSM shrine, courtesy of r/atheism. WANT.

Garbage In, Garbage Out

How American Christianity Neglects the Environment

An impending crisis looms large over the planet, even as it has yet to be identified as a serious threat by those forces who claim absolute knowledge and morality. Dwindling energy reserves, pollution, deforestation, and climate change all threaten to culminate in a dramatic shift in Earth’s environment, yet the political capital of Christianity remains largely squandered on issues which pale in comparison to the potential loss of a hospitable home planet.

It's Time to Launch ISSA's Freethought Library!

When Ed, Franklin and I attended the 2011 CFI Student Leadership Conference last month, we had an opportunity to learn what sorts of things other campus groups from all over the U.S. and Canada do. Several mentioned having assembled miniature libraries of pertinent texts for their members. The idea resonated with me, slowly taking form in my mind over the course of the weekend. While I was lucky enough to have enrolled in a college philosophy class at 16 that turned me on to Dawkins and Harris -- and, by proxy, other heralds of freethought -- I am concerned how few of my peers have read some of the most basic literature on the subject. I want ISSA's members armed with the fundamental arguments for and against god, intelligent design, etc, in order to facilitate productive discussion and further inquire. To this end, I am founding ISSA's Freethought Library.

Social Networking Update

Hey guys, in case you haven't heard, ISSA is working on creating a stronger presence on the web. To that end, we're switching from our old Facebook group page to a shiny new fan page which you should go like right now! This new page will help keep in touch with our members and allies in a more efficient way, which is going to be really important this semester because we have so many cool events that we've come up with over break! You can also follow us on Twitter if you're into that sort of thing.

This is just the start of our plans. Over the coming weeks we'll be rolling out an online store as well as a Youtube channel to document the events that we organize, so be sure to check back for more updates!

Sweet Zombie Jesus! Is Religion the Death of Funny?

Poe's Law disclosure: this is satire

God ain't funny. Neither are his fans. This is a tad on the peculiar side, isn't it? Almighty creator of the cosmos, the alpha and omega, perfect in all ways, but can't get a giggle. There are no puns in the Bible, no limericks in the Qur'an.  There are no knock-knock jokes in the Bhagavad Gītā's 700 verses, even though doors are at least as old.

Won't Somebody Think of the Children?

While privileged, outspoken members of the secular community insist on waging a self-destructive war against each other in the name of personal vendetta, a serious issue affecting the youngest and most defenseless in our ranks remains unaddressed. By virtue of the rise of the internet and the visibility of New Atheists, more and more young people are questioning the superstitions passed down from their parents and embracing freethought. Sadly, their parents are not always embracing them in return. Rather, in keeping with the words of the Bible, some parents have put faith before familial obligations to the intellectual growth of their offspring.

The Moth: Torn Between Two Religions

Greetings from your favorite NPR junkie! I was making my weekly podcast rounds and came across this little gem. The Moth is a truly wonderful NY-based nonprofit organization devoted to live storytelling events and, though the stories told span a wide range of topics, spiritual transformation -- particularly loss of faith -- is a common theme. Jen Lee's "Saving Souls" reveals the brass tacks of omnipresent "religious" dogma in a novel, eye-opening format... I just had to share!

Why We Don't Need This Kind of Feminism (no mention of coffee)

This is about Rebecca Watson, but I promise, it isn't about elevator propositions.

I'm a feminist. My mother, who I greatly admire, has been a social worker all her life. I think she's had every imaginable job in that field, from substance abuse counselor to women's shelter case worker, to the department of child and protective services. So I grew up hearing stories about taking screaming children away from the parents who beat them. I heard the true stories about her investigations of women who seemed to "run into doors" or "fall down stairs" a lot. I remember when she lost a client and a friend at the shelter, because her husband found her and killed her.

My mother did these (often) dangerous jobs for low pay because of her enduring need to help people who can't help themselves. She did them while raising myself and my two brothers, and while putting herself through college (she now has a Masters in Social Work). It's because of my mother and her career that I've seen the best and worst of men and women. If I had no other reason to be a feminist, then I would be simply because my mother has struggled so hard, so long, doing a job no one cares about for people, mostly women, society doesn't care about. So those are my credentials, and the "feminism theory" I subscribe to, is that all that makes me sick.

Many of you feel likewise. Maybe that's why we get so very invested in the cause- the cause of feminism. We get angry when it is threatened, or when we think it is. We defend its champions. Maybe our good intentions help us to miss the difference between the ideal and the institution. The ideal is always pristine and valuable. The institution, however, sometimes needs an overhaul. We needn't lose the former to improve the latter. Quite the contrary.. the only way self-respecting women and men can honestly lay claim to any ideal, is to privilege it over any specific movement or people.

Rebecca Watson's brand of feminism may have it's place, but it is not essential to feminism in the secular movement. In short, we do not need it.We can keep the movement where we strive for social and political equality for all people without cowing to people who exploit it. In fact, that is part of how we keep it. The ideal of feminism must not be tarnished by any one person or group, no matter how famous or influential. Now I'm going to tell you why.

1. She's lowering the bar of discourse. She seems to believe that anonymous internet comments prove something about society, or worse, about the secular community on the basis that some commenters are atheists. In the comments section of a video by Rose St. Clair criticizing Watson, someone named NeilGDickson called Watson's stance "hyperbolic". Watson replied with "I wish it was a hyperbolic straw man. Go ahead and read through some of these comments, or head over to my video and see the comments they're leaving there".

Anonymous internet comments are the graffiti of our time. Akin to scribbles on bathroom stalls. No doubt they signify interesting psychological facts about the handful of individuals that make them, but they say nothing about groups because they come from a self-selected group largely unstable and keen on "trolling" people. Not only does Watson believe that anonymous comments from random weirdos are evidence of what you think (because after all, you're both atheists!) but she spent ten minutes reading scatological riffs from them to an audience, at the otherwise highly respectable Center for Inquiry Leadership Conference. Perhaps next Gallup should stop phone polling about the president's approval rating, and just read whatever is spray-painted on overpasses and report that.

2. She has little respect for her host or audience. For someone beating the drum of awareness and sensitivity to circumstance, she certainly displayed little at CFI. She was invited to speak about a topic, but then spent fifteen minutes reading unrelated YouTube comments before settling the hash of attendee Stef McGraw, who had no means to respond as this was not a debate or panel. She did not think to ask for permission to do this. She did not think to ask for a few minutes more time so that others she was criticising could properly respond. She did not think to answer Stef in the medium in which Stef had addressed her, making the terms equal.

I was an invited (student) speaker. I spoke about interfaith. Since this is a highly charged issue, CFI made sure a panel discussion followed my talk. They, sagely, wanted to make sure different viewpoints were represented. Watson selfishly subverted this impulse to fair exchange, upsetting the audience and placing CFI in a very bad position.

3. Self-righteous aggression. Before, during, and after the incident at CFI, Watson has been steadfastly confrontational and venomous. Rather than explaining to Stef how her words could be detrimental, she simply called them "parroting words of misogynists". Why was this polarizing insult necessary? In her blog post after the controversy erupted, Watson called Stef's thinking "anti-feminist". Let's say Stef's position on the issue was 100% wrong. Isn't it possible for a person to be mistaken, without being opposed to an ideal? Isn't it unkind to describe someone who disagrees with you as disagreeing with a goal in principle? If I think affirmative action can't achieve political equality for minorities, are you then entitled to call my reasoning "anti-black"?  Watson does. This leads to my next point..

4. Distracting from the real issues. This has been noted elsewhere, but I have to say it. Even if Watson is 100% right about everything.. about Stef's criticism, about her own right to ridicule anyone at any time/place/ or venue.. has she succeeded in educating on feminism? On this there can be no argument, the answer is no. Those who might have learned things from Watson were turned off. Those who disagree have faced the vitriol of her and her legion of fans, further backing them into their contrary position and reducing the chances for productive discourse. How many people even remember what the thesis of her titled talk was about? The blogosphere has lit up with "rawr we hate you! you're a misogynist!" rants from both sides, totally obscuring any point that might have been made about actual women's issues.

In running blog comments Watson has shown tremendous energy, quickly refuting arguments and challenging claims. She has the countenance of a person desperate to be right and to quell all argument, as harshly as necessary, never backing off an inch.

Watson has failed miserably to understand her audience and to reach them. The result of that is the storm of fury now battering the internets.

At the same conference, the great Lauren Becker implored the student leaders not to always concern themselves with being right, with the winning of arguments. She said we must reach understanding and sway attitudes if we are to prevail. We must make people feel like they are respected peers (because they are) while we disagree with them, so that conversation can happen in earnest. Lauren is the very embodiment of grace and guts. Women like her bring me to my fifth and final point:

5. No Shortage of Great Feminists. I don't know if these people that I admire all adorn themselves with the label. I just know they speak powerfully to the issues. They inspire, rather than divide. They're sincere where Watson seems petty. They understand their audience because they want to. In a movement that has Greta Christina, Lauren Becker, Debbie Goddard, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Margaret Downey, Annie Laurie Gaylor, and many others, why must we settle for a Watson? These don't even include consideration of up and coming voices which are getting more numerous as the movement expands.

Rebecca Watson has done some great work. Her talk, the main body of it, at CFI was reportedly compelling and important. That's why it's too bad she needlessly shut the ears of half the audience right before. That's why Watson, and her brand of vituperative, self-centered feminism needs to go. Secularism will lose nothing in the bargain.

On Arguing From Within

Note: This is a long post, and I apologize. But I guess that's kind of the point.

If there's one thing I like about the atheist community, it's that we always argue. Last year ISSA had meeting where we went into small groups with members of the Navigators to talk about whatever we wanted, and in my group the topic of free will came up. After a short period of time I noticed that an argument had started, although it was between the atheists in the group, with the Christian just sitting back watching, kind of surprised with a smile on his face. Over time I've gotten the impression that arguing isn't as frequent among the religious communities, and it's something I applaud atheists for always doing, although of course I don't find too surprising. Atheists love to argue.

The problem, though, that people are bad at arguing. And atheists are no exception. Obviously the more complex the situation the more difficult it is to argue, and this is exactly what we're seeing with the Rebecca Watson situation. This is especially clear if you read PZ's take and spend ten or so minutes reading the comments. It's a situation that both sides are very passionate about- which is not only not a bad thing, but a good thing. But because of this we have to make sure that we are very clear on what the issues are when we are arguing and not mistakenly lump them together or be unclear. If this occurs we often argue about things we don't want to, and eve things we probably agree upon. I'm going to use the Rebecca Watson situation as an example of this, for two reasons: 1) Because it is an excellent example of this, and 2) Because it's timing is relevant. And, let's add a third reason as well: 3) Because I was there in the audience, so I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of the issues at play.

First, and most important thing to consider: What are the broader issues going on here? When we look at the situation, there are two questions that need to be discussed, in the broadest sense:

1. Was Rebecca Watson's view on the implications of her elevator situation under the lens of feminism correct?

That's not to say that this, in and of itself, isn't a ridiculously complicated subject. Other questions that may stem from this include:

- Were the man's actions appropriate within the context of which they occurred? People disagree on this. It's a great discussion, and we should talk about it. Discussion stemming from this may raise such questions as:

- Do the man's actions demonstrate sexual objectification? This is an interesting topic as well, and can lead to another question:

- Is sexual objectification inherently wrong? If yes,

- How can men proposition women in a way that doesn't make them feel sexually objectified?

- Where's the line between being anti-woman and just being creepy and awkward? Or drunk and stupid?

- If you agree that the actions of the man were not only stupid but also an example of misogyny, is this a problem within the atheist community or a problem with our culture in general?

In addition, it often helps creating analogous situations that has similar issues going on, so the issues can be talked about in a more impartial manner. Here is a specific example which I did not come up with but I have heard been used multiple times from different people in independent situations:

- Would this situation be any different if it was a gay man propositioning another gay man? Or a woman propositioning a man? Maybe you don't think this is analogous to Watson's situation. If you don't, you would need to justify and explain how we need to treat men propositioning women in this situation different than other gender combinations. Valid arguments can be brought up.

So, that's the first issue going on (Whew!). Here's the second:

2. Was it appropriate for Watson to call out Stef in the manner in which she did?

Here we have a question that many people disagree upon. Many of the students think yes, this is inappropriate, but many individuals, including PZ Myers, disagree. The most important thing here to note is that this question, the way it is set up, has nothing to do with feminism. Your opinions on the first issue have nothing to do with this one. Let me repeat that for clarification: Your opinions on the first issue have nothing to do with this one. You can bring feminism into the argument, but only if you answer this question:

- Does the fact that Watson is discussing a feminist issue help justify her actions? If so, why?

Other important questions:

- Is it appropriate for a relatively famous individual within the community to criticize/call out a student leader without as much of a voice within said community? This should be one of the first issues discussed. Get the opposing side's view on this in general (you may agree with each other!) before getting more specific:

-How is the previous question affected by the medium in which the criticism/calling out is done? (Keynote speaker on podium versus member of the audience who was not aware of the situation in advance).

Here's an example of an analogous situation that can be given. I use Chris Steadman only because I think he is at a similar level of visibility as Watson and has demonstrated that he does not agree with the actions of people who participated in DMD, not because he actually said or did any of these things. So please don't get caught up in the fact that I'm using his name. This event is entirely fictional, and I don't have any reason to believe that he would engage in this behavior:

Chris Steadman has a talk at a conference on the importance of working with religious groups. He starts the presentation by bringing up Draw Muhammad day, and quotes different youtube comments showing blatant Islamophobia and probably racism. Quotes might include, "All Muslims should get out of the US," "All Muslims are terrorists," and suggestions that all Muslims were responsible for 9/11. Very poor use of grammar and foul language is rampant within these quotes. He then specifies that even atheists are saying these things, and bring up a couple more quotes from popular atheist blogs saying similar things in a similar tone.

Then he says, "And the worst part about this is that these kinds of racist and Islamophobic comments are said by people here at this very conference!" and brings up a quote by a student in the audience on why he or she thinks Draw Muhammad day was justified, if not necessary, given the context of the situation.

Then he spends the next hour talking about why we should work with religious groups before taking Q and A.

Here we have a similar situation: There are two questions going on: 1) Was it appropriate for Steadman to call out the student in the manner in which he did? and 2) Was DMD an appropriate course of action to protest the South Park death threats? In order to discuss the second issue current prejudices Muslims are already facing in the US will be brought up, and it will be discussed how that affects the situation. But these are two separate issues, that need to be discussed separately.

Our minds are very good at thinking; we already have opinions on all of these issues, and many more I didn't mention, and used them to come to our own conclusions on the Watson situation as a whole. We don't even think about how all these issues tie into our final verdict, but they do. And they did for your opponent as well. So if you want to argue with someone about something like this, you have to understand their views on these issues first. Figure out exactly what you disagree on before you start arguing about it. Will this consume a lot of time? Yes. Is it necessary to have a useful argument? Unfortunately, yes. This is the reality of how our minds work and how we come to conclusions on these sorts of complex issues.

By the end of the argument there might still not be a final consensus about the issue, but at the very least you will have a better understanding on precisely what elements of the situation you agree and disagree, which is a Hell of a lot better than what we're doing now. Although the fact that I don't think this kind of careful discussion is possible over the medium of comments on a blog post doesn't help the situation. There's a reason discussions never get anywhere when arguing on the Internet.

And if you disagree, I'd be more than happy to argue about it :)