This Week’s Topic
This is a topic that should have been covered more by us and by local human rights organizations. I only found out about it through Equality Indiana, a statewide advocacy group.

Local councilperson Karen Goldner introduced an ordinance at Tuesday’s city council meeting  which would add “Gender Identity/Expression” to our local human rights ordinance as a protected class, putting it in there with “Race” and “Religion”. As Indiana Equality says, “This proposal will help ensure that Transgender individuals have equal access to the opportunity to make a living and to support themselves; providing protections against discrimination in employment, education, public accommodations and housing.”

One of our favorite local conservative columnists, Kevin Leininger of the News-Sentinel (you may remember him from our post about his positing that the Nazis were atheists) picked up on this. He did the careful little dance that conservatives do when faced with issues relating to sexual and gender identity discrimination — not outright condemning them, but still showing their disdain. He mostly did this through the words of Tom Smith, a councilperson who opposes the ordinance. The first part of the column, emphasis mine:

“I’ve been on City Council 10 years, and we’ve never received more letters against something, either in number or disparity,” Tom Smith said, referring to an ordinance that would ban discrimination based on “gender identity.”

But even though e-mails to Council’s research office were running 287-38 against Karen Goldner’s proposal as of Wednesday morning, hours after Council refused even to consider it, Americans’ fundamental rights should not be subject to public opinion.

On the other hand, neither should those rights be dictated by the equally fickle winds of political correctness. The fact that some people think or act unconventionally does not necessarily obligate everybody else to support or accommodate that behavior.

[Link — check it out, it's worth the read.]

His main argument is that this is a largely unenforceable bill, so rather than try to get this to be passed, we should first be holding discussions — educating ourselves and others in the community about gender identity and transgenderism, and how that is different from homosexuality or cross-dressing. Although I am skeptical Leininger knows much about that himself, I appreciate him making the distinction.

But ordinances like this are largely unenforceable. I think that’s to be expected. What it does do is lend support of the government and of the law to those who do identify with a different gender than the one they were born with. It’s a statement of affirmation toward groups who suffer the tyranny of the majority, and yeah, it gives them some legal protection if they’re profiled or discriminated against.

And that’s where the problem is. As could be expected, it sounds like the council discussion spiralled downward, with the question being raised “Well, does that mean there are boys using the girls’ room?”, and Goldner having to give Smith and the others a Gender Studies 101 lesson.

This is an open forum, so I better pose a question to you, shouldn’t I?

Lets go back to the phrase I bolded in the pullquote from Leininger’s column. “The fact that some people think or act unconventionally does not necessarily obligate everybody else to support or accommodate that behavior.”

My question to start off the discussion: Doesn’t it? If we’re going to let people of different races, backgrounds, physical, mental or cognitive disabilities, ages, religions integrate into society, why can’t someone with a gender not their own? Or is that too radical for us? Does it all boil down to, “OMG, there’s a boy in the girls room!”

Please sound off below, and if you don’t agree with me or other commenters, don’t let that stop you from commenting.

1. Anything goes, as long as you do not become verbally abusive, or start trolling. Getting off topic is one thing, but doing so to provoke an irrational or emotional response is another.
2. We’ll provide a topic to begin with, but if you have something else to say, please say it. We’re all ears.
3. Theists and Non-theists alike are welcome.
4. If you’re trying to reply to someone, use the ol’ Twitter standard, and start your comment with an “@” in front of their username. If you are addressing the general public, no need.

I was going to talk about atheism and skepticism, and if one requires another, but I think I’ll wait until next week. It is a good topic, and I want to cite a few more articles before I open it to the floor. This week’s topic is one we’ve discussed before, but is definitely worthy of being discussed again. We started the conversation at Wednesday’s meeting, and now want our internet constituents to chime in.

Where do you see Freethought Fort Wayne in three years? What do you want out of the group? What can we provide for you that is not being met? What are we providing already that you like? Do you think we should align ourselves to eventually become a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, or stay an unofficial group like we are now? Should we primarily focus on providing support, haven, and community for freethinkers, skeptics, non-theists, etc, or should we focus on outreach, lobbying, activism, etc?

Please take some time to let us know what you want to see from this group. We’ve had amazing momentum and success in the past two years, and especially in the last year after gaining some structure (with officers, a constitution, etc.).

And thank you!

1. Anything goes, as long as you do not become verbally abusive, or start trolling. Getting off topic is one thing, but doing so to provoke an irrational or emotional response is another.
2. We’ll provide a topic to begin with, but if you have something else to say, please say it. We’re all ears.
3. Theists and Non-theists alike are welcome.
4. If you’re trying to reply to someone, use the ol’ Twitter standard, and start your comment with an “@” in front of their username. If you are addressing the general public, no need.
5. This blog is not a democracy. Please observe the comments policy when posting. I (and other FFW Admins) reserve the right to disemvowel and ban those who we deem are trolling.

So, uh, what do you want to talk about?

1. Anything goes, as long as you do not become verbally abusive, or start trolling. Getting off topic is one thing, but doing so to provoke an irrational or emotional response is another.
2. We’ll provide a topic to begin with, but if you have something else to say, please say it. We’re all ears.
3. Theists and Non-theists alike are welcome.
4. If you’re trying to reply to someone, use the ol’ Twitter standard, and start your comment with an “@” in front of their username. If you are addressing the general public, no need.
5. This blog is not a democracy. Please observe the comments policy when posting. I (and other FFW Admins) reserve the right to disemvowel and ban those who we deem are trolling.

“If the city requires this, we can’t do it,” Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. “The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that’s really a problem.” (Link)

We can say this for the Catholics — they don’t hide the fact that they have an agenda. Should they be applauded for sticking by their guns? Or is it just a rotten, extortive thing to do? I’m pretty sure I know what everyone’s answer will be, but think about this —do you think they will really follow through? Catholic Charities recieves over $8 million a year in city contracts, and they serve 68,000 of DC’s population. Would the Catholics just pull the plug all of a sudden?

Weigh in below!

1. Anything goes, as long as you do not become verbally abusive, or start trolling. Getting off topic is one thing, but doing so to provoke an irrational or emotional response is another.
2. We’ll provide a topic to begin with, but if you have something else to say, please say it. We’re all ears.
3. Theists and Non-theists alike are welcome.
4. If you’re trying to reply to someone, use the ol’ Twitter standard, and start your comment with an “@” in front of their username. If you are addressing the general public, no need.
5. This blog is not a democracy. Please observe the comments policy when posting. I (and other FFW Admins) reserve the right to disemvowel and ban those who we deem are trolling.

(Written by Jake!)

Welcome to the next edition of our popular and sometimes controversial series Open Forum Friday.

This week we continue the trend by asking for your thoughts about The Fort Hood, Texas military base killings purportedly committed by Major Nidal Malik Hasan, US Army.

This horrific event raises lots of questions.  We’ve yet to hear all of the story, as Major Hasan has yet to talk.  But President Obama was quick to point out that the United States military is a bubbling cauldron of cultural, religious and ethnic diversity- or in his words “They are Americans of every race, faith and station”.

I suppose since it happened in Texas, that pretty much guarantees the death penalty.

Then there is concern about anti-Muslim back-lash.  You have to wonder what has been going through Major Hasan’s head; especially after he was said to be unhappy about a possible deployment to Afghanistan.  It’s sounds like he has been torn in a few different directions.

So, what are your thoughts on religion and the military?  Is our military as diverse as President Obama says it is?  Is our military healthy?  I mean, Christian proselytization in our military was already a concern.  This could be just as rough on a soldier in a minority religion as it could be on an atheist in a foxhole.

And finally, was Major Hasan’s religious beliefs here primarily to blame?  And if so, should American-Muslim soldiers be scrutinized or treated differently?  This makes me think of all of the arguments for and against racial and religious profiling in airports we’ve had since 9-11.  I think I have an idea of what most of you would say to that.  For the record, I still side with the rights of the soldier- regardless of their beliefs.  Like I’ve already alluded to, it is obvious this is a multi-faceted story, and we should know more details as it all unfolds.  I would like to see a psych report on him before I make up my mind.  I don’t recall another case like this before.

Has a soldier ever cracked like this before?  Hopefully this is a unique incident.  What do you think?

1. Anything goes, as long as you do not become verbally abusive, or start trolling. Getting off topic is one thing, but doing so to provoke an irrational or emotional response is another.
2. We’ll provide a topic to begin with, but if you have something else to say, please say it. We’re all ears.
3. Theists and Non-theists alike are welcome.
4. If you’re trying to reply to someone, use the ol’ Twitter standard, and start your comment with an “@” in front of their username. If you are addressing the general public, no need.
5. This blog is not a democracy. Please observe the comments policy when posting. I (and other FFW Admins) reserve the right to disemvowel and ban those who we deem are trolling.

Rather than the usual topic for debate, like “will theists and atheists ever get along?” or “Star Trek or Star Wars?” today I’m going to offer a different sort of question:

What sort of blog features do you want to see on FreeThought Fort Wayne, or what sort of events do you want to see us host?

As a organization that would like to one day achieve non-profit status, we might as well get a head start on furthering our mission and serving the public. The first step in that process is community feedback. Please, sound off about what you’d like to see from this group.

And, as this is an Open Forum Friday, if you want to put forth a topic for debate, that’s up to you — as long as you play by the rules below, we don’t have a problem with it.

1. Anything goes, as long as you do not become verbally abusive, or start trolling. Getting off topic is one thing, but doing so to provoke an irrational or emotional response is another.
2. We’ll provide a topic to begin with, but if you have something else to say, please say it. We’re all ears.
3. Theists and Non-theists alike are welcome.
4. If you’re trying to reply to someone, use the ol’ Twitter standard, and start your comment with an “@” in front of their username. If you are addressing the general public, no need.
5. This blog is not a democracy. Please observe the comments policy when posting. I (and other FFW Admins) reserve the right to disemvowel and ban those who we deem are trolling.

This new breed of atheists, who don’t seem that much different from an earlier breed of atheists to me, are called loud, shrill, and ignorant of theology. They tear down grotesque charactictures of what most religious people really believe; taking extreme fundamentalist, literal interpretations as the norm. Those damn New Atheists alienate and frighten religious moderates into supporting more conservative agendas, so accomodationists argue. Instead, we should be nicer and try to understand the rich intellectual history of religious belief and try to understand what benefit people derive from their religious belief.

So it goes.

Anyone who has been around politics for a while though recognizes the debate. It’s not an uncommon one and basically boils down to the proper role of extremist rhetoric in political discourse. Moderates are afraid that extremists will sabotage collective efforts toward progress and extremists are afraid that moderates won’t push the agenda forward enough to make any meaningful difference. What many fail to realize though is that both camps have their role to play and can’t exist without the other.

That’s where the Overton Window comes in. The Overton Window is a conceptual device first created by Joe Overton, former Vice President of the free-market loving think tank Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Overton believed that public opinion on any given topic laid within a window ranging from what was current policy to the unthinkable. Toward the middle was the sensible and what was just beyond sensible but still acceptable. The trick was in crafting extremist rhetoric that was beyond the current outer fringe, while excluding the status quo. That makes positions, once considered extreme on their own, actually seem acceptable. Keep shifting that window and pretty soon you’ve remade the political landscape into something unrecognizable from what it was just a few years ago.

Do you recognize the tactic? You should. It’s what the right wing has used to tremendous success, especially since the early 1990s. If you have Rush Limbaugh and other right wing clowns saying outrageous things daily then pretty soon things that may have sounded extreme in the past, say, things like torture or curtailing civil liberties, become the new norm.

So when people like Madeline Bunting or Greg Epstein worry themselves over the New Atheists and bandy about nonsensical terms like “atheist fundamentalist” I have a tendency to just shake my head and roll my eyes. While people like PZ or Dawkins may occasionally say things that cause me to cringe in anticipation of the negative reaction they’ll provoke, they’re playing their part. They’re advancing the Overton Window, and instead of kvetching so much the role of the moderate should be to make sure that what we really want is played up as the sane and sensible solution while excluding the old status quo.

But does it always work? No. It’s only a model after all, and not reality. Obviously for the right wing their extremist rhetoric had become so divorced from reality, so at odds with what people were actually experiencing, that it backfired on them in the 2006 and 2008 elections. That’s one way the Overton Window can fail as a tactic.

There’s another, less talked about, way it can fail though. Remember, for the Overton Window to be successful, you have to both redefine the previously unthinkable as acceptable while excluding the status quo. If you aren’t successful in either casting the status quo as unacceptable or, better yet, eliminating talk of it from public discourse altogether, then the Window essentially gets jammed and no progress is made.

And that’s what Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins and others have been accusing groups such as the NCSE of doing lately. While I encourage you to read what everyone is saying for yourself, the gist of it is that Eugenie Scott and the NCSE have been criticized for not taking a positive stance on the incompatibility of religion and science (particularly evolution since the NCSE’s purpose is to defend the teaching of evolution). However, lately, so Coyne et. al. argue, the NCSE has been going beyond that position of neutrality and has been actively publishing and selling materials that show how science can be reconciled with religion. And it’s not just the NCSE either. The National Academy of Sciences is doing it too.

Are groups like the NCSE being too nice to theists? Are they now jamming up the Overton Window and preventing progress (which I think has to be defined as public acceptance of science)? Or are they merely making the previously unacceptable acceptable by playing it as the reasonable alternative to the “scientific extremists” who believe there can be no reconciliation between science and religion?

For my own part, I think both accomodationists and nonaccomodationists are playing their respective roles in advancing the Overton Window just fine. As an atheist, and metaphysical naturalist who doesn’t see science and religion as reconcilable I am a little discomforted by the language the NCSE is employing here, but then I’m not their audience. The moderate religious believer is, and anything they can do to get religious believers to accept science then I’m all for it. Just don’t expect me to be happy about it.

So what do you think? Are the accomodationists dragging us down?

1. Anything goes, as long as you do not become verbally abusive, or start trolling. Getting off topic is one thing, but doing so to provoke an irrational or emotional response is another.
2. We’ll provide a topic to begin with, but if you have something else to say, please say it. We’re all ears.
3. Theists and Non-theists alike are welcome.
4. If you’re trying to reply to someone, use the ol’ Twitter standard, and start your comment with an “@” in front of their username. If you are addressing the general public, no need.
5. This blog is not a democracy. Please observe the comments policy when posting. I (and other FFW Admins) reserve the right to disemvowel and ban those who we deem are trolling.