Leonard Pitts Responds to His “No Atheists in Foxholes” Comment

So if it is a familiar old saying, that is ok?

How about “Just as Christians believe in an imaginary friend…”

While I have no doubt there are many principled atheists who stick to their non-belief even in the face of great trial and danger, I also know there are those who do not.

Oh, he does, does he? And just how does he know this?

His response is really disappointing and very dismissive of people who have a genuine concern. As others have pointed out, if the “familiar old saying” had been one that was derogatory to any other group, there would have been an uproar (or, more likely, he wouldn’t have used it at all). This response (it doesn’t seem like a genuine apology to me; more like a half-baked response to placate the whiny atheists) makes it worse. I didn’t really feel compelled to write to him yesterday when I read the original article…but NOW I’m frustrated and angry.

So sad.

To me, he’s saying little more than “I’m right, and I’m sorry you were offended by what I said.”
Unless and until he recognizes why he should be apologizing, he should consider his apology not accepted.

Personally, I’m not offended. He wasn’t using the phrase, as some have, to deride non-believers, but to make a point I agree with (that ‘small government’ people change their tune when faced with the reality and benefits of living under a stable government that has the ways and means to provide if necessary).

If we’ve got to pick our battles, this one isn’t even worth considering.

My dogtags didn’t stop saying “Atheist” just because we were in dangerous waters.

How about “There is no religon in logic.”

“there is no theology when things are going well.”

“There are no believers without the threats of hell.”

“There are two kinds of people in this world, those who believe in fairy tales, and Atheists.”

maybe we DO have all the money… : )

(yes, I’m Jewish)

Disrespectfully Mr. Pitts, F#$k You!!!

No atheists change their beliefs in fox holes, some might pray, but their lack of belief is still intact.

Think of it this way, I know I can’t fly, but if I am falling from a great height I will flap my arms just in case.

He doesn’t understand why its hurtful, because he, like most people, probably adhere to the stereotype of atheists being unmoral and uncaring.

He wouldn’t go out of this way to consider unmoral and uncaring people’s feelings, now would he?

Pitts issued a real cop out of an apology. While I agree that this is not a huge issue (let’s face it: we have bigger fish to fry than Pitts’ insignificant columns), he continues to perpetuate the myth to the few readers who value what he has to say. By offering to say “there are few atheists in the fox hole” he is only paying lip service to the real issue. I’m still offended that he continues to believe that atheists beliefs can be shaken in the face of adversity. As far as I’m concerned, the opinions expressed in his columns aren’t worth the paper on which they are printed (or the bandwidth on which they are electronically transmitted, for that matter). I believe Seinfeld’s Mr. Pitt would offer a better column than this troglodyte.

I’m not offended by the statement either, arkonbey… I know it isn’t true and have empirical evidence to back it up. If it were said directly to me, I may feel insulted, and would likely rebut my own viewpoint, but using that phrase really just reveals the writer’s own willful ignorance.

I think the phrase is just stupid… especially coming from a columnist; sort of like propogating an urban legend, eg “Just as George Washington chopped down the cherry tree…”

I’m don’t use the term “offensive” casually, and I’m not easily offended anyway.

If he had agreed to change “There are no Negroes in Mensa” to “There are few Negroes in Mensa,” would anyone regard that as a big improvement?
For the record, my father, an atheist, was a combat veteran of World War II. He sure as hell was an atheist in a foxhole, and he said he knew plenty more.
I understand it’s metaphorical, but why don’t they understand it’s insulting?

What happened to the idea that nobody has a right not to be offended? I would have thought that it was better to criticise the comment, ‘There are no atheists in foxholes’ on the grounds that it is pretty stupid (and it is)rather than that it is, ‘hurtful’. I await Hemant’s apology to the legions of hurt and offended Muslims who took issue with his support for and publication of the drawing of Mohammed.

As the spouse of a former Army officer and Iraq war vet – both of us atheists – this just doesn’t cease to get me riled up. I want to send a continuous stream of F you’s!

I too got that reply. Wasn’t satisfied at all. This was the email I had sent to him:
“While I hope that you were just using this old tired cliche to make a point about Jindal, I’d like to assure you that there indeed are atheists in foxholes. My father served honorably under very hard conditions in WWII. He was never been a believer and never felt the need to pray, even in the toughest of battles. Not everyone feels the need to call to imaginary sky daddies to get them through difficult situations.”

Maybe he was offended by me?

I had to respond to his apology form letter.

Here is a copy of my respone.

Dear Mr. Pitts,

I’ve been thinking about this since I received your apology. It bothers me. It bothers me that you dismiss my service to this country so cavalierly. You state “I also know there are those who do not.” How do you know this? Do you have evidence to back this up? There are other familiar old sayings. Would you use them so quickly and without thinking. You could have just as easily used “Greedy Jew”, “Lazy black”, “Woman driver”, or “Liberal bias in journalism.” Perhaps you could have written “Just as all journalists have a liberal bias that keeps them from reporting the news accurately.” I am disappointed.

Sincerely,

Gabriel Brawley

Whooooaaaa. Ok no one is threatening his free speech or his life. But it’s well within our rights to comment on his apparent prejudice.

I don’t know if this is “the” phrase to get offended, and go to war, over – but just as I was thinking “who cares”? – I remembered how I’m also not offended by lots of things feminists or gays fought for. But I acknowledge that if it weren’t for my predecessors in the equality struggle, I might find many more occasions to find offense. I’m glad that someone else is writing emails/fighting over words about these things. By the time I bother getting worked up, it’d be too late. 🙂

I sent him an e-mail and wrote a letter to the editor.

Recently, Leonard Pitts wrote about Jindal embracing big government when it was convenient. In doing so, he casually threw out the old canard that there are “no atheists in foxholes.” When contacted by atheists, who explained that that was both untrue and offensive, he offered a non-apology saying he was just using an old saying and that wasn’t even the point of the article.

Saying that there are no atheists in foxholes is no better than saying that all black people like fried chicken and watermelon, jews are greedy, or muslims are all terrorists. I don’t understand how he can fail to see how offensive that is. Not only does he insult the thousands of men and woman who have in fact been atheists in foxholes, serving in the military and dying for this country, he’s also insulting people’s whole approach to life by flippantly charging them with being either wishy-washy or cowardly.

It’s exactly the same as if he’d said “Jindal loves other people’s money but hates spending his own, just like a Jew.” Oh sure, the point isn’t about the Jews, but does relying on a terrible stereotype to make his point do anything but undermine his legitimacy? That he can’t even see the bigotry in the statement and refuses to apologize or correct it makes it so much worse.

Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!

Chris Hayes of The Nation just said it on Olberman’s show.

He used it as an analogy to all the big government haters calling for government action on the BP oil spill to “No Atheists in a fox hole”.

That is two in one week. We are under assault by progressive media.

All I can say is “there are no journalists in the media doing research”.

“How about “Just as Christians believe in an imaginary friend…””

Or how about “As there are no theists at funerals, it turns out there are no small-government disciples in massive oil spills.”

Wow Mr. Pitts. Thanks a bunch for your pathetic non-apology regarding your previous use of a stereotypical and inaccurate idiom. That makes me feel so much better. /sarcasm

The phrase “there are no atheists in foxholes” is as offensive to atheists as any other comment towards other minority groups. Such as when people call something “gay” when they think it’s stupid.

@ jon

I await Hemant’s apology to the legions of hurt and offended Muslims who took issue with his support for and publication of the drawing of Mohammed.

Thank you jon for pointing out the obvious. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this?? Now I’m sure that there will be a flood of posts defending Hemant (couched in grandiose language, of course) explaining how different these two situations are.

To that I would agree, they are different. Pitts did not mean to offend anyone and subsequently issued an apology. Hemant WENT OUT OF HIS WAY to offend Muslims, and to my knowledge has not issued an apology.

“Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this?”

No because it is not the same at all. Muslims have invented rules that go out of their way to generate offense. If Hermant had said, “There are no Muslims in foxholes” then that would be the same.

If Nazis got all bent out of shape over any criticism of Hitler do you think we should respect that? If they insisted you only speak about his great oratory & painting skills, his anti-vivisection, his ability to make trains run on time, his organization skills, etc. then do you think they are justified in silencing you on other aspects of his personality, and “achievements”?

You can sort of understand them getting all insulted when you point out the facts about a guy they adore because it says something about them. It says that either they are evil or they are dupes. Nazis would get upset, just as Muslims would if you point out the glaringly obvious evil aspects of Mohammad.

However Hermant wasn’t even doing that. He pointed out no disturbing facts about Mohammad.

Muslims go further even than these hypothetical hypersensitive Nazis and require that no one even make a stick figure of Mohammad. This is far more intrusive, and is tantamount to forced reverence for their religious figure. Well, here’s a hint, not only don’t I worship your false prophet but I realize he was one of the most evil men in history.

Hermant was only promoting the violation of this rights violating ban that Muslims have unilaterally made.

What would be hypocritical would be if Hermant started worshiping me and insisted that nobody draw stick figures labeled “Brian”.

Now do you understand? Herman’s behavior is in no way analogous to what these hypersensitive Muslims are doing.

I’ve found one of the very best ways to piss of a Muslim is to take one of the many bigoted and intolerant quotations from the Qur’an and reverse names. Replace Jew with Muslim, or Idolator with Muslim. Or another great one is to replace Jew with Black. It really irritates them because then it is quite clear how bigoted their text really is. They are the true hypocrites.

Qur’an (5:51) – “O you who believe! do not take the Muslims for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely God does not guide the unjust people.”

Qur’an (109.001-006) “The Niggers”
Say, “Oh ye that reject white supremacy.
I have not skin color that you have.
Nor you skin color that I have.
And I will not have skin color that you have.
Nor will you have skin color that I have.
To you yours and to me mine”

The above passage is often quoted to show that Islam is a tolerant religion. However the title of the chapter “The Disbelievers” is used through out the Qur’an as a derogatory term. Disbelievers are referred to a liars, cheats, evil in endless repetition throughout the Qur’an. This is the context one must take the passage in. It’s not a peon to religious tolerance but in fact the opposite, a segregationist rant.

Muslims have quite a bit of nerve to go around being hypersensitive to insult when they believe the claim that an infallible deity has stated in writing that everyone else is a bunch of demented criminals.

So stop carrying water for them. You’re looking like a fool … with your pants on the ground.

I wrote this under the Chris Hayes entry, I thought I should post it here as well.

To everyone on Friendly Atheist, I would like to apologize for my previous comments. I’m sorry, I wish hadn’t written those comments in the first place, and I am ashamed of the tone and the content. I let my emotions get the best of me, and I really wish I could take those comments back. I have asked Hemant to remove them, hopefully he will.

Once again I apologize to all of you, I know what I said was offensive, and I hope that you can forgive me.

Sincerely,
Mike

hopefully that was a better apology than Pitt’s 🙂

Once again, sorry guys…

plllleeeeeeeeeease get over this.

This is the sort of pissiness that religionists use to upset people.

I exchanged a couple more emails with his assistant myself, after my initial email. She humorously yet seriously relates that she’s unhappy that we were encouraged to inundate her with emails.

All I can say to that is that Pitts should field his own damn emails. Why should she have to do it?

I’m confused why people are promoting the “Get over it” mentality. As if individuals are going on national television to complain, sending death threats, or forming a protest. A few people have sent some emails complaining and are talking about it on a blog. THAT is overreacting to some of you??

If you don’t think it’s a big deal, then you don’t think it’s a big deal. But I really have a problem when people tell others what they should and shouldn’t find offensive and what they should and shouldn’t bother responding to. If you don’t see the point, then don’t do it. But please don’t lecture others who actually DO feel offended and want to express to Mr. Pitts why they feel what he said was offensive (intentional or not) and tell them to “Get over it”.

That is beyond immature.

I got that reply email so here’s my response:

Dear Mr. Pitts and Miss Smith,

This response is worse than the initial use of the cliche.
When called out on calling all atheists insincere, you responded by saying “most atheists are insincere”. I wouldn’t say all journalists are bigots. I wouldn’t even say most journalists are bigots. But I will admit there are bigoted journalists.

How about saying there are no Protestants in foxholes? Would then saying there are few Protestants in foxholes make the situation any better?

Here’s a suggestion. If someone points out that you are using a very old cliche that insults a minority, apologize. Just say sorry, I’ll try not to use inaccurate and offensive cliches in the future. For one thing it will also make you a better writer.

Vincent Lyon

Just to clarify: I wasn’t criticising Hemant over the drawing of Mohammed. I supported that and sent one in to him. It was the demanding of an apology due to how hurtful the foxhole phrase is that I was questionning. The analagy I was trying to make was not do do with any Muslims who were seeking to prevent any drawing of their prophet (and certainly not those who issued threats of violence) but rather those who would complain after the fact about the offensiveness and hutfulness of the action and demand an apology. I’m not saying Hemant should apologise for supporting and publishing the Mohammed drawings but that our hurt feelings as atheists (if we really feel the need to be offended rather than just point out that actually there are plenty of atheists in fox holes)are not somehow more precious than anyone else’s hurt feelings. I’m with Philip Pullman on the principle that nobody has the right not ever to be offended.

In my humble but brazenly irreverent opinion please minimize the “sensitivity” of this vestige of religiosity in the brain. It is like using the cliché, “having a nervous breakdown” remember how people would say that in such mystifying fashion and sort of leave at that, which really was just trash gossip. I can assure the school of psychiatry or it’s patients, never took such offense. Managing crisis in any endeavor reveals character and the means by which we persevere or dwindle. This “foxhole” rhetoric and cliché is presented as a “coup de grace” of religious rationale. Remember this is actually not a process of reasoning and the reference to “logic” is contained within a finite set of dynamics; Alpha=Omega. There is no brooking a defense of such position unless he is trying to appease a hot Jewess because of his other remark but it is not altogether offensive as much as it a tell. If there is anything, anywhere near extraordinary in the universe it is likely yet another healthy skeptical mind using a rigorous reproducible process will be the one to bring it to “light!” What may very well happen while looking up from a trench, while in a state of war, is simply an opportunity to muster courage!”