Crossroads

I have cut all ties with the various freethought/atheist groups I have previously participated in. Sharing a similar answer to one particular question just isn't enough anymore. I got the distinct feeling that my presence didn't matter to anyone in these groups and that nobody was really interested in me as a person. Longtime readers of this blog may recall I have suspected this for some time, but it finally got cemented for me recently.

One major problem with the main group I'd been attending was that the others never let me finish a stream of thought. I understand that some interruption is part of the necessary give-and-take of conversation, but with me it happened every single time.

The other major problem was that I was tired of being treated like my interests didn't matter. While it was OK for some to talk about their musical preferences, mine were treated scornfully. The sad part is that the scorn wasn't even accurate--the "critic" had his facts all wrong about the artist in question. There's more than a bit of irony in someone constantly talking about how he makes decisions based on facts getting it so wrong here.

My views on the supernatural haven't changed. But I'm not going to spend my time with people who clearly don't respect or value me. I don't care how many issues we agree on.

I'm not sure where I go from here. Despite my lack of belief in the supernatural, it seems pretty clear to me that I haven't had good luck with what attempts there have been at freethought-based communities. While I don't want to be one of those atheists who doesn't contribute anything to the larger community, it feels like said community isn't interested in my contribution. It's safe to say I'm debating how much I wish to continue to identify as atheist.

By contrast, I feel like the people in the Vedanta Society have my back. For instance, I told someone in the Vedanta Society that I'd been obsessively listening to the artist I mentioned earlier, and while he didn't seem familiar with them, we still had a nice conversation about music's power to affect people and just how hard it is to succeed in that field.

When I got laid off from my job last year, one of the other devotees offered to pay for my ticket to a fundraising luncheon the Society was having. I told him if it came to that, I'd pay him back as soon as I started working again. He told me not to worry about it and that if I really felt the need to do something, I could just make a donation to the Society.

Some of the big atheist blogs have mentioned this before, but I want to reiterate: people often aren't in houses of worship entirely because they intellectually support what is taught there. It's a sense of community and obligation to fellow human beings that keeps them there. People want to be treated like they matter. If you don't do that, your group will not be successful in the long term, no matter how many theological/political/whatever questions you answer correctly.

Blaming the media

Last night I went to meeting of a feminist group on campus. We watched this documentary called Mickey Mouse Monopoly. The film is very critical of Disney and the messages it puts out in its products, whether those messages are intentional or unintentional.

For some, this is not news. Those who are old enough to remember Aladdin may also remember the outcry from Arab-Americans who believed the lyrics of the opening song portrayed Arabs as barbaric. In The Lion King, several people pointed out that the villains were not only voiced by minority actors, but also seemed to emulate street thug behavior.

One problem I had with Mickey Mouse Monopoly is that the speakers seemed to imply that gender and ethnic stereotypes were the sole fault of Disney. Toward the end, they quoted an internal Disney memo from then-CEO Michael Eisner about how their sole responsibility was to make money. The film made it seem like the memo was this sinister thing, but it shouldn't surprise anyone who follows financial news. The speakers in the film talked about how they believe Disney (and, I suppose, all entertainers by extension) has a responsibility to promote less stereotypical behavior, I guess.

So far I've been pretty critical of the film, but I do want to clarify that I believe many of their concerns are legitimate. Disney movies clearly promote stereotypical behavior, and I wish they wouldn't. Anybody who gets most of their ideas about gender and ethnicity from Disney is going to have some seriously skewed ideas. But a lot of those skewed ideas are also in the source material that Disney uses. Anyone care to tell me about the bad-ass, independent heroines in the original versions of Grimm's Fairy Tales, for instance (although Ever After was an awesome retelling)?

I also want to address the idea that Disney or any other entertainers have a responsibility to the public. I have a really hard time with this because I'm not sure how you would achieve the desired outcome without some kind of censorship. And that's just not how we settle things in a free society. Also, I think that ultimate responsibility lies with the parents. If you keep feeding your kids junk food, whose fault is it when they have health problems? Actually, that's a pretty good analogy. And Mickey Mouse Monopoly can be useful for revealing Disney movies to be the cinematic junk food that they are. Just don't overdo the junk food and be sure to balance it with healthier things. It also might be helpful to talk to kids about the messages in those movies.

Ultimately, I think the best solution is to install critical thinking skills in your kids. Don't just uncritically accept everything people tell you, whether those people are Disney employees or your relatives. It's never too early or too late to work on your bullshit detectors.

Also, for examples of other sources with shady gender portrayals, check out this article from the fine folks at Feministing.

That community thing again

I've touched on the idea of community several times before in this blog, and I've basically said that religious groups tend to do a better job of providing supportive communities than secular groups do. I don't even think that's a terribly controversial statement. Typically when non-religious people discuss this issue, they might offer reasons why it's the case, but I don't think I've heard anyone dispute that it's the case. In fact, that's probably a big part of why I started attending those Vedanta Society services.

This was driven home to me in the last few days. One of my great-aunts passed away, and the outpouring of support from her church community and those of the surviving relatives was amazing. In fact, there were so many people who came to the memorial that it had to be moved to a bigger church, and nobody complained. The night before the funeral, some people cooked copious amounts of food and brought it to another relative's house.

The whole experience has helped me better articulate the issue I've hinted at repeatedly: what does freethought offer to those who are down and out? Former criminals and addicts often embrace fundamentalist forms of religion because it gives them a less destructive way to live their lives. If there is to be any such thing as a freethought movement that goes beyond the fringes, it needs to become competitive in this market, so to speak. There needs to be some way to reach people who've hit rock bottom.

Freethought groups love to cite surveys that show declining attendance at religious services, and even declining affiliation with organized religion in general. And those things are certainly true. But I don't think it can be assumed that such people are all ready to embrace purely secular ideals. What doesn't get mentioned is that while "Unaffiliated" may be the fastest-growing group, it also has one of the worst retention rates. Specifically, of those who were raised without a particular religion, slightly less than half remain that way. Of these people who went on to embrace a religion, 51% gave "spiritual needs not being met" as their top reason.

Let's assume you don't believe in anything spiritual, and therefore not in any such thing as "spiritual needs." Then what needs are not being met? Human needs, of course. If secular groups want to be taken seriously, then they need to hit religion on its own turf: offering meaningful support to society's most vulnerable.

What I'm kind of hoping will happen is that someone will read this and tell me where and how these things are already happening. I think groups like Foundation Beyond Belief have some great ideas, and I wish them success in their goals. But I'm mainly concerned with action at the local and regional levels. Could we see atheist-run soup kitchens and disaster relief organizations in the future? What other ideas do you have to improve this situation?

My 15 Minutes of Freethought Fame

The Denny's caper story also got picked up by the Friendly Atheist. To anyone who comes by from there, thanks! Let me know what you think.

I'm glad to be able to contribute a small piece to this curious story. I feel like I should thank him by proving why the square root of 2 is irrational or something. Not that he doesn't know that (being a math teacher and all), or even that it's an amazingly difficult proof (it isn't), but I can vouch for the fact that math teachers love that stuff.

We're on a Mission From...Ourselves

Previously, I'd discussed this promotion that a Denny's in Euless, TX was doing. The promotion said that if you came in with your church bulletin, you would get 10% off your meal, and the restaurant would donate the same amount to the church named in the bulletin.

When I told Jenny about this promotion, she was completely behind the idea of taking a bulletin from the North Texas Church of Freethought, and seeing if we could get the discount and the donation. So we decided we would go to the next available monthly service, which was held this morning.

Jenny had never been to one of their services. I'd been once before, and it was all right. I came in expecting not to be offended, but not to be wowed, either. Fortunately, I had a much better time at this one than at the previous one. The theme for this service was "Good and Evil," and one of the musical selections was the theme from Underdog! How cool is that? Definitely beats "The Old Rugged Cross" in my book!

Perhaps next time we'll join them at the usual after-services location for lunch, but today we had a mission to accomplish. I looked at the bulletin, and it had the required information for the promotion, which was the full name of the organization and its mailing address. Off we went!

We walked into the restaurant and didn't see any signs advertising the promotion, so they might be trying to phase it out. We did see a woman sitting at a booth with her hair in curlers, though. That was pretty funny.

When we got to our table, we asked our server about the promotion, and after asking the manager, she told us that the deal was still good. Sure enough, when it came time to pay, they did honor the deal. Although the manager who rang us up did do a bit of a double take when she saw the bulletin, which featured, among other things, the subtitle, "A Rational Approach to Religion," and a large boldfaced headline about how God is not necessary to have morality. So if NTCOF gets a check from Denny's for somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.50, um, you're welcome.

Who wants to bet the promotion ends not too long after the owners realize they're donating to a secular organization?

I Smell an Opportunity

I found this at Friendly Atheist. The gist of it is that a Denny's in Euless, TX (near Fort Worth) is offering a 10% discount and a donation of the same amount to the church of the customer's choice for bringing in a church bulletin.

How can a godless heathen take advantage of this offer?

1. They could swing by a church and swipe a bulletin. But I'm willing to bet most don't want to go that route.
2. They could bring in a bulletin from the North Texas Church of Freethought and see what happens.

I posted this idea in the comments on the Friendly Atheist post and over at Atheist Nexus. Thoughts?