Plan Your Own Reason Rally and Then Tell Me How It Goes

I agree with all of our points and I also agree with PZ Myers points.  For me, atheist is the movement away from one unreasoned belief.  Reason, as expressed by the  the scientific method is a agreement on the the rules of what constitutes evidence.    These ideas can have lots of overlap but are not the same thing.

I presume no one has a bad word to say about Jessica though.  Jessica’s a big damn hero.

Just to be a big’ol cunt about it I’m going to take this complaining post about complaining and I’m going to start off complaining about it. Because that will be very productive 😉 

Just a small objection that it is by no means “everyone” who complains about this or that speaker, but (from what I can tell) a minority in each case. Of course, people are often more vocal about disapproval than approval, so people disagreeing with a given speaker will be more active in the comments than people who’s entire opinion is “Cool, glad to hear it!”.

If I may be totally unprofessional and put our entire community on the couch for a minute, I think this is just a manifestation of the kinds of people who make up a movement in it’s infancy. The people who make up the “base” of a movement, people who are willing to become activists at a time when it is much less socially acceptable, are going to be people who care a lot more about principle than acceptance. They’ll also be enriched in people for whom the expression of their own ideology takes priority over stategic compromises for the advancement of said ideology. Those people are important, they are the emotional driving force of a movement, willing to go at it through thick and thin. However they are also less able to see the forest for the trees, and will thus be much less susceptible to strategic alliances or not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is not unique to our movement (ask anyone who has been in the GLBT movement for decades) and it will pass, or become less of a problem, as we grow and become more of a force in society.

I tend to lean more towards the PZ Myers ‘No Surrender’ end of the scale, and I’ve been pretty critical in the past about some of the thing’s Hemant’s been involved in (particularly the FBB giving to religious charities) but he’s absolutely 100% dead right about this, and it’s a good point well made.

Politics is all about getting things done, not setting purity tests. The Democrats have the  Blue Dogs, and the republican presidential field runs the gamut from theocratic authoritarianism to super laisez-faire libertarianism – these people don’t all agree about everything. Cultural hegemony would be lovely, but politics is about ganging up with the people you don’t hate too much so as you can take on the people you do.

This is not an Atheism Rally, it’s a Reason Rally.  True, most atheists came to their atheism through reason, but that’s not the point of the rally.  Bill Maher, who is an atheist this week*, doesn’t believe in gods.  He’s also a vaxer, which is about as anti-reason as an adult American can be.

“Everyone: Are you going to invite Bill Maher?!”

I certainly never asked this question.  If I had, I would have hoped the answer would be “Not only no but HELL NO!”  But that bit of reality doesn’t fit Hemant’s thesis so I’m a data point to be discarded.

*A few weeks ago Maher said he was an agnostic and a few weeks prior to that he said he was  a deist.

I hear your frustration and agree with you.  It is very important to remember that what we stand for is freedom of belief and freedom of speech. Of course there will be others with different beliefs! One of the goals of the rally is to show that atheists are diverse.   Can we also show that we can respect others with different beliefs?

At one time I saw info about the rally that said it was for anyone who wanted to support separation of church and state. I don’t see that now, to quote it, but I hope we can welcome ALL who want to support this cause.

 He can be an agnostic and an atheist, they aren’t mutually exclusive. However, he cannot be a deist and an atheist. I enjoy watching Maher’s show because of the discussions but his anti-vaccine nonsense should preclude him from any event celebrating reason.

Aw Hemant, you could only get human beings to come? No saints?

Thanks for saying this, Ubi. I’m Unitarian and going to the rally with my son.  Sometimes atheists look down on me  for having a church.  We intend on wearing UU shirts to identify ourselves as UUs to other UUs. With all the negativity and griping going on lately, and lack of respect for diversity within the atheist community, I’ve actually started to feel a bit concerned about that. I hate feeling like an outsider in a minority group that I have chosen to stand in solidarity with. 

Maher is known for his movie Religulous, which discusses the lack of reason in religion.  I doubt if would ever make a movie Vacinulous.  I am not sure even he believes what he says about vaccines and either way it is not a defining characteristic of his persona. 

There’s no excuse for Harkin other than that he is a politician. He’s not associated with the movement in any way, he has not been supportive, his policy decisions in government have in some instances been exceptionally unreasonable. He is not a draw, either; no one is going to the rally because oooh, Tom Harkin is really cool.

He’s what we want out of the government — yet another woomeister.

Would the rally let James Inhofe or Rick Santorum or Pat Robertson coopt it? Because that’s what’s happening here: a kook who makes bad policy decisions is pretending to be a friend to reason.

Is the Rally going to have any standards at all in who it brings aboard? It looks like the answer is no.

Notice that this never happened:

Everyone: Are you going to invite Tom Harkin?

Why? Because in addition to the fact that he is a Catholic and he is a driving force behind NCCAM, for the most part I’m pretty sure that just about every one of the 30,000 to 50,000 attendees was quite happy to spend their day on the Mall without his video blurb. I mean the lineup was so full we had to add 2 hours. Also, not sure why “…we also got Pete Stark” is made to sound like sloppy seconds all of a sudden. I get that Senators are higher in pecking order but that is what you’re making it sound like. He’s an atheist unitarian who is quite happy to speak at our events and signed on fairly early here too. He’s also sponsored resolutions that atheists are in favor of like Darwin Day. All that said, you are doing a great job overall with the rally. There will be many success stories to tell. Harkin will not be one of them however.

I’m still hoping we can go…and yeah, there are speakers with whom I have a disagreement or two…but I completely agree with Hemant here. This is the single largest gathering of nonbelievers in the U.S. in history. Our purpose isn’t to detract individuals with whom we disagree…it’s an opportunity to stand together in the face of a nation that hates us, and prove that we are NOT their imaginary stereotype.

There’s no pleasing everyone. Good for you and everyone for doing this at all.

It’s Washington DC, why not give “the enemy” a podium if they want to recognize and celebrate our right to assemble, organize, and be heard? There’s a difference between criticism and calling for removing voices. I’m unconvinced that letting him speak promotes his woo or harms our skepticism.

One thing I want out of government officials is that they start treating the secular community like human beings to be listened to, instead of like a disease to be eradicated.  If Harkin is willling set an example by talking  to us instead of talking at us, it will be a small step in the right direction.  If we can get more politicians on both sides to actually listen to us for a change, that’s a worthy goal.   I’ll believe it when I hear it, though.

And if Pat Robertson made a video for us that said “I support separation of church and state” then I’d support playing that too.  I will be a quiet day on Pharyngula before that happens, though.

The point isn’t for us to listen to Harkin’s video blurb.  The point is for his colleagues and his supporters to see him talking to us.  If we are going to reinforce the wall between church and state, we need the support of both sides, not just those people that already agree with us.  Any politician willing to stick his neck out and say “you know, these secularists aren’t so evil after all”, hell yes I support that.

THANK YOU. 

As someone who’s been working on this Rally for months, it really sucks to have everyone just saying how much everything sucks. 

Fine, you put together an event with every major organization in the movement and draw 30,000 people to it and raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to do it. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

I think the problem is that the waters have been muddied. Is the Rally to celebrate reason? Then a person’s atheism or secularism isn’t the point. The point is: do they value reason?

On the other hand if it is the largest atheist rally in history then any atheist should be welcome, but why invite theists who value reason?

It seems the Rally is a celebration of free speech and secularism.  That way it can have secularists of all stripes at the Rally.

So the problem is : awesome alliteration mildly misleads

Other alliterative names: Atheists Assemble, Several Secularists Speaking

Herding cats..brother.  But I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Also, it sounds like a lot of people need to remember that ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION!  We don’t have a supreme leader who establishes the dogma that we follow.  This controversy over speakers, in fact, proves that.  We’re a diverse group, more diverse than just about any group you can think of, because by definition (i.e. its not a religion) we only share one common belief – that there is no supernatural being.  I didn’t agree with Hitchens on everything, any more than I agree with Maher on everything, but I am certainly very appreciative of the things they have done for our cause.

As someone who lived in Iowa (and voted for Harkin), I have to say he’s better than nothing. If part of the Rally’s goals are to point out that atheists deserve to have their voice heard in politics, then having a Senator stand up and say that will be beneficial. Perhaps if he’s willing to publicly support us, he’ll be more willing to listen to us when we talk about how bad alternative woo is. 

In any case, he’s taking a public step that few politicians are willing to. It’s a step. We’re not listening to him for his other views, we’re getting a welcome from a well-known and respected politician telling us that we’re welcome in America (a view many politicians don’t share). 

I’d rather have him than Penn Jillette, to be honest.

Oh dear.

Do you really not think that in order to be considered pro-reason one ought to actually be pro-reason ?

Okay, Hemant, let me chime in and say, “Ignore the whiners, some of us are solidly in support. Carry on!”

I think a lot of people see the Reason Rally as a celebration of being us, practically a private party as a reward for being so great. But what’s the point in that? If our goal is, honestly, to instill greater emphasis on reason, rational thought, and objective weighing of alternatives regardless, then we need to welcome different viewpoints, even if only for the sake of engaging them. More importantly, however, is that we remain objective ourselves.

This is a public demonstration of how it’s supposed to work. We will convince no one without opening dialogue. Disagreement is fine, and in fact unavoidable – but that’s exactly where reason starts to be applied. This is a challenge, and if you’re not up to it and only want to hang with like-minded people, stay home and lock the door.

Except – can we avoid inviting people with such horrible choices in facial hair grooming? Penn’s terrible beardthing is just not what we’re all about.

😉

I get having Jillette, Maher, Dawkins, and a tribute to Hitchens. I don’t always agree with any one of them, but they all express some level of skepticism, particularly about religion. But Harkin I don’t get. I don’t get the desperation to have some important politician speak. I would be fine with Obama, he’s at least expressed the notion that we have a place in this country, but Harkin is just some Senator you managed to get. I don’t get why you wanted any Senator to speak so badly that you picked one who seem completely opposed to what the rally stands for. But yes, a non-zero number of people are going to criticize any choice, the question is whether you have a reasonable justification for the choice. I haven’t heard one for Harkin, other than that we need somebody in power to tell us it’s OK to be there, and that’s B.S. Last time I attended a rally on the mall we damn sure didn’t have some random Senator telling us we had a right to be there. No one begged for permission from the Senate.

So yeah, you worked hard. No, Harkin won’t ruin the event. Yes, you get to use your judgment. Yes, you can make your case and make an argument. But for pity’s sake stop whining.

Part of the problem atheist groups have is attracting women because they are often seen as hostile to women.  Inviting misogynists who routinely call women cunts is not going to help this image.  I understand your points about not being able to please everyone all the time, but this is often the reason given when asked to sit down, stop complaining, hold your nose and pretend you can’t smell the patriarchy.

I’m really unimpressed with all the people parroting the “purity” line. I’m the last one to demand atheist purity — I’ve often pointed out that atheism is extremely diverse, and that one of the difficulties (and strengths!) we have is the range of views within the movement.

But this is ridiculous.

Tom Harkin has nothing to do with atheism and reason — no connection, no point to make, no value attached to reason, empiricism, or evidence. He’s a random politician drawn suddenly out of left field with no prior history of support for this movement. His history is actually antithetical to science-based reason. I’m also deeply distrustful of the man because he loves to pretend he’s a supporter of science, while at the same time he materially contributes to quackery — I see this as a maneuver on his part to gain some cred as a reasonable man in order to prop up his bona fides as a legitimate science power broker. He wins, we lose.

As I wrote, the Reason Rally ought to have some standards. That’s not a demand for a purity test, it’s a suggestion that maybe it isn’t such a good thing for our movement that we dilute it so much that any weasel can get a speaking slot.

Yeah, I know. The only thing you care about is that he’s a goddamned SENATOR. Yay. As if that is a criterion for rationality.

 What Matt said.

While I agree completely with Hemant’s article, I think there’s a more important issue that’s being missed by P.Z. and the other complainers.  Regardless of politics, or ideological purity, the point of a “Reason Rally” I thought, is to advance the cause of reason. 

As far as I can tell, all of the speakers, whatever their flaws, support the cause of reason, or at least the right to pursue it.  Maybe they don’t succeed in implementing reason in every aspect of their lives, but who does?  To make an bit of an ironic reference, “Let he who has never taken an irrational position cast the first stone!”

This is primarily a public relations event.  How are its goals not served by asking famous supporters of reason to speak?  The last thing we need is tribalism while trying to get the word out!

Sometimes I feel like Brian:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE

Yeah. I noticed that half of Hemant’s whiny nitpickers who should obviously STFU were being critical of sexism. Wouldn’t want those feminists getting huffy and hung up on details the rest of the country doesn’t care a bit about.

 I’m wondering, what is the evidence that Harkin’s addition will do more harm to our cause than good?

I think it’s a great lineup. Senator Harkin I don’t personally care about, but I understand the importance of having a DC name besides Stark welcome us. I wish Maher would loudly recant his vaxer position, but he does make an effort to be rational, he’s just not uniformly good at it. 

The same can be said for Jillette, and probably many of the other speakers, most of whom I will be hearing for the FIRST time – and that’s no small thing. This will be educational both inside and outside the movement.

I know I couldn’t have done remotely as well to fit in that many speakers. I especially appreciate that a decent amount of time was squeezed in for Tim Minchin and Bad Religion, to do their thing! In short, good job Hemant &co.

To quote Hemant:

Based on the quotation from the spokesperson, Harkin isn’t really interested in our message. He supports our right to hold a rally and speak out, but that’s about the extent of his support.

I don’t think Harkin supports the cause at all. Is there some solid evidence to the contrary?

Part of the problem seems to be the title of the event. “Reason Rally” doesn’t specify attitudes toward religion as much as it specifies attitudes that we consider reasonable. That includes attitudes on side issues, not immediately pertaining to religion. This particular issue didn’t come up before the Godless Americans March on Washington in 2002. Some folks didn’t like that event’s name, but at that one, attitudes on side-issues weren’t relevant. The conflict over the name of that event was about some people not liking the term “Godless” because they interpret that word as an insult. 

To this day, some folks criticize the name “Godless Americans March on Washington,” even though it was a very successful event. Now this new conflict over a very similar event is fascinating, in light of how the GAMOW did so well, despite a lot of criticism. 

I think the Reason Rally will be a huge success. 

Can you at least PUBLISH the damned purity test you judge everyone by? Demanding everyone conform to a set of rules that only exist in your head is kind of a dick move.

Not that you’re anti-dick move, but at least give people the ability to know what your little set of requirements are.

Organizing is a thankless task. It might seem like everyone wants one thing, then they want the opposite — but they’re really two different groups of people.  I know when people complain after all your hard work that it makes you feel unappreciated, but when you tell people not to complain you alienate them by not treating their concerns as if they were important or giving them a practical avenue to affect change.

A more productive way to approach criticism is to thank the person for forwarding the complaint, and that you understand the gravity of the situation.   Tell them anything you are doing to address their concern,  and then tell them how they can help be part of that solution; how they can volunteer, or how they can be part of the planning for next years rally.  

This way your critics are happier because they are being heard, and you potentially gain more help from a diverse group people dedicated to making your event better-a win-win for everyone.

I’m sure if you were to ask anyone attending, speaking or not, all of them would maintain that they were rational.

I’m quite sure that getting this worked up over a phoned-in welcome is threatening to fall well outside my own definition of rational.

You have a chance to speak – that’s more than most of us have. I’m sure you will have more impact that a formality of a welcome message. But it would be nice if you used that chance to be productive, and not simply pointing out how at-odds you are with other attendees. I know I’d probably use the time to point out that everyone has opinions, but any one, or twelve, opinions do not provide a label to be applied. Our time is better spent addressing the opinions, not the bin where we slot people.

But that’s just me.

Well, I wasn’t refering specifically to Fox. Just Fox-like reactions from other people. But no, Fox would go right for the “atheism” part of the rally.

Sorry to hear about your troubles in planning, Hemant. I used to deal with stakeholders as a part of my job, and in the end you learn to ignore the loudest and only pay attention to the ones who are quietly but rationally offering criticism.

Never was I so bursting with joy when my boss, the VP of Finance, told me what I could tell the loud, annoying minority. I quote: “We apologize that we are unable to cater to your narcissistic whims at this time. We suggest you learn to live with disappointment, because you’re going to have a truckload of it coming your way.”

She had had enough of their whining too. I’m not sure what the fallout was at the VP level, but she’s still with the company and is now the CFO.

Oh please. There’s a list of words you’re NEVER ALLOWED TO USE to be “Approved for Reason/Atheist events”. That list should be posted so people know what it is. There’s a list of required views on various subjects that you must follow to the letter to be “Approved for Reason/Atheist events”. Those views should be clearly posted somewhere.

Once upon a time, being respectful of opposing views, even ones you disagreed with was considered a mark of reason. Clearly that is no longer the case.

Since there is obviously a specific list of requirements one most follow to be “pro-reason”, I think it’s only fair that such a list be publicly posted in a clear fashion, so that people know what requirements they have to meet to be approved by PZ et al.

So your advice to Mehta is that he should ignore quite valid criticism.

Let’s hope he ignores you since it is bad advice. In fact you are being rather whiny in your complaint about the complainers, which makes you something of a hypocrite.

Ah, watching the fundies try to turn the reason rally into a tea party rally with less guns and god. The Schadenfreude, it is AWESOME.

I think people are getting too caught up in the title. The website’s “About” page says:

The Reason Rally is a movement-wide event sponsored by the country’s major secular organizations. The intent is to unify, energize, and embolden secular people nationwide, while dispelling the negative opinions held by so much of American society… and having a damn good time doing it!

It will be the largest secular event in world history.

We’re talking about secularism here, so while skepticism, etc. are great values to support, that’s not what the rally is about. I see no reason to think that any of the controversial speakers would be antithetical to secularism.

PZ Myers said “Yeah, I know. The only thing you care about is that [Tom Harkin] is a goddamned SENATOR. Yay. As if that is a criterion for rationality.”

–Um…how do I put this, um…HELL YEAH! He’s a goddamned SENATOR, or to be more precise, he’s a UNITED STATES SENATOR. To refuse his appearance would be quite UNreasonable (dare I say, “stupid”). What would it say about our movement if we didn’t allow a lawmaker to speak in support of our rights and in support of our collective godless identity just because he’s Catholic. 

Since he is a U.S. Senator (or “goddamned” Senator) he’s in a great position to make a very unique point that neither you, Maher, Dawkins, or most everyone else can make! He can make his point from the perspective of a authoritative, powerful, policymaker who sees value in secular-based reason.

We should celebrate and embrace any policymaker who supports us!

 You missed the “or at least the right to pursue it” part of the post you’re replying to. Harkin supports the right of atheists to be active in American political life. That shouldn’t be a big deal, but in the current political environment, it IS.

I would agree that there’s a difference between someone who’s generally pro-reason but has some flaws, and someone who’s not generally pro-reason but might happen to coincide with some of our views. To me, Maher falls into the latter category. I’m not going to shit on the organizers (who are, after all, generally pro-reason but have some flaws!), but I think he’s the weakest choice they made for the lineup.

 I think many of the people opposed to a theist speaker are also opposed to the ‘politics’ you describe.

I understand this is how the world works, but the point is to change the world, not play along.

 While we’re at it, a list of the Approved Activities would be nice, too.
Not sure collecting phonograph records is cool. All that petroleum that went into the Vinyl, y’know…

 Secularism is not just the absence of religion from public life. It is about how public discourse is carried out, and reason must be central to that.

Wow, after reading reasons to not allow Maher and Jillette because they hold nuanced OPINIONS that others deem to be “unreasonable” and because they used gendered insults I’m starting to see why some people are turned off by liberals. I can see why some people think liberals are pretentious, self-loving, and obnoxious. And I make this observation as a very leftist, liberal person!

 Yes.  He may not get it right, but he supports it.  And that is *the* most important thing.  Pursuit of reason allows for the future correction of flawed thinking.

Precisely.

Precisely. You’d do well to reread your own point.

But public discourse – real discourse, not a series of unrelated monologues to which those of differing opinions refuse to listen – requires using points of agreement as gateways to persuading other opinions to change. Yeah, Maher may be “only” an atheist, and hold what I consider loopy views on other things; but that’s a start. He’s also bringing a large audience which may discover that they agree with some of the rest of us. The day Maher says “If you don’t agree with me, then you have no right to speak,” that’s the day I shut him out in return. The willingness to allow other viewpoints is what matters, as I suggested in mentioning Robertson, Buchanan and Santorum. If they’re willing to endorse secularists’ participation and legitimacy in public debate, great. Whether they agree with specific opinions is less important – not immaterial, but something to work on.

You haven’t established that the criticism was “quite valid.” You’re just assuming it is.

I think my assumptions are far more reasonable. People who shriek or who get all vituperative generally have injected emotion into their argument, which thus can usually be counted on as being unreasonable.

You’re kidding, right?  The entire movie religulous is an homage to how ridiculous religions looks when viewed from a rational viewpoint.

And here are some quotes:
On activism – “Rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves.”
On flawed thinking – “even scarier is why people have stopped thinking global warming is real. One major reason, pollsters say, is, “we had a very cold, snowy winter”. Which is like saying the sun might not be real because last night it got dark.”
On religion’s effect on rationality – “We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think religion stops people from thinking. I think it justifies crazies.”
On activism again – “We need more people speaking out. This country is not overrun with rebels and free thinkers. It’s overrun with sheep and conformists.”

There are thousands more.

So, does his anti-vax garbage impress me?  No. He clearly holds some irrational positions.  But he *does* publicly support rationality as a goal.

 I’m an atheist this week. About 20years ago I was Jewish, but this week I’m an atheist. 😉

Exactly.  Organizers should take their frustrations about criticism they receive from attendees to back channels, and present a positive public face.  They also should really listen to these criticisms instead of simply dismissing them as whining.  If you don’t you will eventually find yourself out of step with your audience and do actual damage to your cause.  Maybe not this event or the next hundred, but eventually.

 So that is it ? He is anti-religion so he must be pro-reason ?

Come on, you can do better than that.

Good point about the vinyl. Oooh, I bet comedians would HAVE to be vetted by the Committees. You KNOW how comedians get.

I don’t agree 100% with  how John’s said everything, but I agree with his premise.  If we are going to say that some people don’t pass a litmus test of being “pro-reason,” then we musts define “pro-reason,” otherwise attacking someone for not being qualified has no meaning.  Please, let’s hear exactly what qualifies someone as “pro-reason.”

Just one quibble from me.  Do NOT attribute the love of Jillette and Maher to *everyone* and claim that people who are complaining about them now were excited about them a few months ago.  Maher’s had issues with women and misogyny since his Politically Incorrect days, and I’ve damn well been saying it since then.  (My issues with Jillette are more toward his libertarianism)

“Reacting to criticism by criticizing the critics for voicing criticism is understandable, but it’s not very productive.”

It’s kind of productive when you’re pointing out how unreasonable your critic’s criticism is. And besides, appeasing and addressing criticism can also be very unproductive because it’s nearly impossible to please and satisfy everyone. No matter how much you sanitize an event you’re going to piss some people off because speaker X said such and such or speaker Y thinks this and speaker Z voted for that. 

PZ… I may agree with you that Harkin is inappropriate, I’m still making up my mind.  I don’t see this as a black-and-white matter.  Clearly the guy’s not an atheist or agnostic or deist or anything that would remotely qualify as a “freethinker.”  Clearly he’s also not a scientist.  He’s an American politician, which almost necessarily means that he makes bad policies, and renders his motives suspect.  …but there’s also something to be said for the fact that a politician is even willing to be associated with us, even if their intent is only to superficially pander to us or to co-opt our movement.  As I look around at all my fellow-atheists, even the ones I don’t like as people or regard as highly anti-reason, I don’t see a likelihood of them being hoodwinked by Christian politicians.  I see it as a positive thing that a Christian politician has realized that we might be a segment of the population that he needs to pander to.  We are ridiculously marginalized in the political arena because politicians are afraid to be associated with us, despite the fact that another much-maligned minority segment of the population (crazy Christian fundies) plays a HUGE role in our political process.  Do we want to say Harkin is “one of us”?  Hells no.  But we need representation and visibility.  There may be a case for having politicians like Harkin pander to us as a sort of “baby steps” entry into politics for ACTUAL ATHEISTS & SUPPORTERS OF REASON.

Who, exactly, are you suggesting claimed that vaccines cause autism? Can you provide a link to this?

Who’s dismissing discrimination against women?! I only made mention of the use of gendered insults and using gendered insults is not the same thing (NOT EVEN CLOSE) to discriminating against women. 

What the fuck is your problem with Rebecca Watson?

I think there are two very different (but equally viable) attitudes regarding what the goals of such a rally would be.  

POSITION 1:
One seems to be that this is a good way to bring us together and simultaneously draw attention to our existence, our goals, our movements, our methods, and to help gain us some clout in the political arena… even if that means letting some people we don’t necessarily agree with come along and endorse us.  People who hold that position seem to be pretty okay with the lineup.

POSITION 2:
The other position seems to be that this rally should strictly advance the sort of pure idea of reason, that the speakers should be people who are actually reasonable so as to not reflect poorly upon us, and that we should be wary of politicians attempting to co-opt or pander to us as a demographic when those politicians are not reasonable themselves.  People of this opinion seem to be the ones who have a problem with the lineup.

I think there’s a great deal of good to be said about both positions.  I think the reality is that this particular rally seems to have developed into a “POSITION 1” type of affair, which I don’t think in any way undermines “POSITION 2.”  I think a “POSITION 1” rally is something to show to the country, and a “POSITION 2” rally would be something strictly for us.  No prob.  Let’s have a second rally sometime in the future.  That’d be great, since I won’t be able to make it to this one!

Ideologies are dangerous things.  It’s easy to let the ideals stand in the way of practical real-world progress.  Reality and humanity can’t be shaped into a perfect logical order, but we can keep striving for that.  Getting bent out of shape when we can’t mold every detail of every other person’s opinions to align with our own is counter-productive.

dude, you’re arguing with someone who is insisting that only those who are “pure enough” should be allowed in, but will never, ever tell you what that consists of. Teaching pigs to sing opera would be a more achievable goal.

Oh bless your heart. You say “A reason rally ought to have some standards”. Okay PZ, stop being so vauge and tell us. Give us a clear list, somewhere that’s not just in your head of what those standards are. 

Not “Supporting reason” or any of the other bullshit you’re using to dodge this. You have a list of standards, *post them*. Tell the world what is required to be considered a “proper supporter” of reason, one that passes your damned test.

and you being unimpressed with people calling it a purity test? Well, that’s what it’s coming across as. Harkin? Not pure enough. Maher? Not pure enough. So tell us  PZ, what ARE the standards the reason rally ought to have for its speakers and attendees.

(I will note that as upset as PZ is over this, it’s not enough for him to decline his speaking opportunity. One might that this to mean that none of this has any real meaning for him, and he’s just once again, blustering for the camera.)

Thank you for that. you said it perfectly.

I see ‘reason’ as a method by which you decide what is true, what is real, what is good and so on. Someone is ‘pro-reason’ if they prefer this method over others (like faith, wishful-thinking, dogma etc).

People seem to be mistaking the method of reason with the conclusions it leads us to. If Hitchens believes that the Iraq War is a good thing, presumably he believes it after reasoning about it. We can disagree with him, as reason leads us to a different conclusion. We can argue and show how our reasons are better than his reasons. That doesn’t mean that he wasn’t using reason to get to his conclusion. That just means we disagree.

There may be occasions where we reason badly, or even not at all. This doesn’t mean we’re not ‘pro-reason’, it just means we’re fallible.

I’d say those that see ‘reason’ as a set of conclusions are the real threats to reason. Nothing is more antithetical to reason than dogma.

 Is anyone else seeing the irony in this post?

I’m a casual Bill Maher fan–I watch Real Time on HBO occasionally and I enjoyed Religulous–so I may not be as privy to all of his stances, but I would think that I would have heard that he thinks vaccinations cause autism as Matt Penfold seems to be claiming. 

I Googled Bill Maher and vaccinations and came across this article that Bill, himself, wrote and no where in it does he claim that vaccines cause autism. In fact I thought it was a rather REASONABLE piece:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/vaccination-a-conversatio_b_358578.html 

He seems to be talking specifically about whether or not we should be taking the frequent flu shots every year and he’s specifically criticizing the swine flu vaccine (this was dated Nov. 2009). 

I believe that some vaccines are absolutely worthy of skepticism. Heck, I remember when my daughter was a baby (circa 1999) our pediatrician recommended that we get this new rotavirus vaccine. My wife and I hesitated and finally said no. I’m glad we did because it was recalled a few months later because it was thought to have contributed to bowel obstruction in some infants. My daughter ended up getting rotavirus (as many infants and toddlers do) and it was messy and uncomfortable for about a week but I was thankful we didn’t get the vaccine. 

…And again, nowhere did I see Bill Maher suggest that vaccines cause autism. Is it “unreasonable” for Matt Penfold (and anyone else) to suggest otherwise?

That’s a pretty ignorant assumption. Seriously, now your utter lack of self-awareness is just sad.

As I have said elsewhere, secularism is not skepticism. Secularism is about making decisions without religious influence, but that doesn’t mean that they are always going to be decisions that revolve around reason or skepticism.

Maher also denies the Germ Theory of disease, bashes western medicine, praises ‘eastern’ medicine, and uses absolutely false views on immunology and evolution to back his anti-vaccination stance. That isn’t nuanced; its crazy.

Yes, reason is a big part of the secular movement, but it is not the only part.

To set a standard of “purity” for those associated with the secular movement as a prerequisite for having something useful to contribute is to ignore the fact that NO ONE is so reasonable as to be unimpeachable on all subjects. It is, in fact, an UNreasonable suggestion.

Valid as criticisms may be, in my opinion the criticisms as offered seem awfully thin to justify not going or not supporting the rally, if, in fact, that’s what some people are actually saying.

If the goal is to have an insular celebration of secular reason, fine. But if the goal is something else – “to unify, energize, and embolden secular people nationwide, while dispelling the negative opinions held by so much of American society”, say – then having politicians speak who carry some weight with American society is probably a smart move.

I sympathize with this argument a lot more than the arguments against Harkin and Maher for their alt-med positions, since it does address a bigger problem within the skeptical/atheist/secular movement.

 If you’re that pissed off about it, cancel your speaking engagement. Simple.

And stop lying – no one has said that being a Senator is a “criterion for rationality.”

Calling a woman a cunt is not anti-womens rights. Calling a woman a cunt is not anti-reason. The two are not necessarily related.

Assuming you are right (and I frankly don’t have the time to go do the research), my point still stands.  Whether or not Maher “gets it wrong” on some things, he still clearly means to support rationality as a goal.

I fully agree with Hemant and despite not knowing the full background I
would like to add a hunch. This is also an issue of the ways and
means. When such an event is planned for such a long time in advance
and if I am a relatively influential persona with opinions about how
this should go down the prudent thing to do is to try to get involved
in the planing early on.

What
I don’t do is to publish a blog post a week before the event
essentially complaining about what a bunch idiots the organizers are
and telling them what they should have done differently at a time
when they can’t actually change anything anymore. This is not a
problem of one specific person but a very human problem but if you
call yourself a skeptic you might try to be better.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, and ditto 🙂

100% spot on.  For all of the complainers, since when did advocates of reason become ideological purists about the speakers they will listen to, even at our own events?  Names like Maher, Jilettte, and Dawkins are exactly what a large event needs.  Is it really that hard to say, “oh yeah, i disagree with that person.”

 Oh for fucks sake, stop acting the idiot.

Maher’s stance on autism and vaccines is well known. To well known for us to be fooled by your proclaimed ignorance.

 Still showing your ignorance I see.

It seems some people here are so intent on supporting Maher’s presence at the rally that they feel the need to claim Maher is not anti-vaccine.

EROjr claims he has Googled for evidence and found none. He is either lying about that, or is incompetent. He found a Huffington Post article by Maher that he says does not support claims Maher is anti-vaccine. He is wrong, and either did not read the article or more likley failed to understand it. A key part of the article follows:

“Someone who speaks eloquently about this is Barbara Loe Fisher, founder
of the National Vaccine Information Center. I find her extremely
credible, as I do Dr. Russell Blaylock, Dr. Jay Gordon and many others,
but I shouldn’t have even mentioned them because I don’t want to be “the
Vaccine Guy”!! Look it up yourself, and stop asking me about it — I’m
already the Religion Guy, and that’s enough work!”

All three of the people mentioned by name are well known proponents of the claim that vaccines cause autism. A claim that never had any credible evidence to support it. We know also know that the first person to make the link between vaccines and autism, Andrew Wakefield,  faked the evidence and inflicted unnecessary and unethical testing on children in order to do so. The paper he wrote making the claim has been withdrawn by the publishing journal.

Maher has also claimed the ‘flu vaccince can cause Alzheimer’s. This is another claim devoid of supporting evidence.

You can read more about how “pro-reason” Maher is here:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/oh-come-on-superman-bill-maher-and-western-medicine/

The article is by David Gorski, an oncology surgeon and reasearcher who has taken an extensive look at vaccines and claims they cause autism and Alzheimers. Now he really is some one is pro-reason, and when you compare him to Maher you will maybe understand why so many people are incredulous as those here who are trying to claim Maher is really pro-reason.

 Why Whitney, don’t you know she sees it as her mission to stop men from ever having sex again ever ?

Why else would people get so upset that she suggested that it is not really very polite for a man to ask a women for sex when she is alone in a lift with him as 4am ?

 Ask yourself this.

Why do you want a secular society ? I would hope because it means that decisions get made on the basis of evidence and reason. If not, and you are going to allow woo to influence them, why bother getting rid of religious influence ? You will not end up with a better society.

Lmao. Given that I’m only ten years to the day younger than angry Grampy, “ageist” is not a label that’s gonna stick real well. But nice try, you get a small cookie.

As well, um, when you start railing about a set of “standards” to be met before one is allowed to be part of the Body, asking one to list them is reasonable.

 Sexism is not the primary focus of freethought.  To make it a focus divides rather than unites.

Is this what the world would be without religion?…all the atheists arguing among themselves.

*hug*

 No, by stating publicly and regularly that he supports rational goals Maher is supporting rational goals.  Whether or not he is himself rational is immaterial to that statement.

 This isn’t just about spreading science and atheism. This is about drawing attention to our movement. This is about getting media attention. 

This is what it sounds like when sharks jump.

Sustatined applause from this corner. 😀

LOL..   ageist.. thats something we dont hear often.  And ‘paranoid’?    double LOL
ageist, sexist, racist, misogynist..    fucking morons have thrown these words around so much.. at every small thing.. that they have lost all their meaning.  Maybe we should organize one of those mindless ‘slutwalk’-equivalents to ‘reclaim’ these words.

Let’s suppose everything you’ve stated here about Bill Maher is accurate – as a skeptic and atheist, I’d still prefer his presence at the Reason Rally over that of the divisive fundamentalist PZ Myers by a very wide margin. 

I wish my work schedule would allow me the time to attend. What a great chance to network with other likeminded folks!

And who are you to dictate what the primary focus of “freethought” is? Or that there even ought to be a *primary* focus at all? Clearly there are many individuals within the movement, such as it is, who do emphasize skepticism and rational thinking in concordance with gender issues, as that’s where they happen to understand the greatest convergence between the forces of religion and irrationality and their lives. Ignoring their perspective, and particularly ignoring their criticisms of sexism *within the atheist community* is in fact part what divides us *right now*. How many times do atheist women have to point out that this sort of cavalier attitude supports a culture and environment hostile to women?

Dial 1-900-Mix-A-Lot, and kick them nasty thoughts

Hemant is awesome. I love this rant. Yes the reason rally ought to be about promoting reason, not holding a litmus test on every thing anyone has ever said. It will be a shame if PZ Myers decides to be an asshole in his speech, but I do appreciate all the work that Hemant has put into this.

Hey PZ, if it’s such a big deal to have some speakers at the Rally who you disagree with so strongly, why don’t you actually boycott the rally? 

In fact, I hope you stay home, otherwise this all looks like pathetic attention-getting from someone who’s interested in promoting his own version of True Atheism™.

Will there be cake at the Reason Rally?

I’ve never been a fan of rallies, but I’ll totally show up if there’s cake.

No answer from anyone ? Pretty telling really.

So PZ complains that some of the Rally speakers are anti reason – and that’s completely inappropriate because everyone should be welcome to show our numbers

(for a loose value of “our”)

but if someone wants to say PZ is not welcome, that’s fine?

-sigh-

Might also be a good sign that at this point in the discussion, no one really gives a shit about what you have to say anymore…

“Secularism of course is the same thing as science, atheism or skepticism. One can be a secularist whilst being religious, although it is be hoped securlaist would be interested in science and skepticism.”

This, I cannot parse. If secularism is the same as, as you say, atheism, how can one be a secularist whilst being religious? And why would secularists be interested in science and skepticism? 

I think you are having a bit of word-definitions problem here…

I am a Christian who would like to attend the rally on the mall. If I wear a John 3:16 T-shirt and respectfully hand out tracts to anyone who might want one, will I really be placed in a “1st amendment holding pen” as David Silverman has suggested?

As long as you use a big P, yes. Yes you may.

Dial 1-900-Mix-A-Lot…

This is what it sounds like when you get a reference wrong.

“…when sharks are jumped.” A jumping shark is actually pretty awesome. A jumping shark with eye lasers is even MORE awesome.

Clearly you don’t understand GNU Atheist Thought, nor are you part of the Body with heretical talk like that. 

Tolerance. Compromise. Pfft. For Accommodationistss, those things are.

I don’t like you very much right now. Not at all.

“On the other hand, the organizers did name the event “Reason Rally” which implies that Sagan-style scientific skepticism was important to their vision of what the rally should be”

Sorry? 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason

Really ?

Why do you feel the need to lie ?

 Why is this jumping the shark?

You know i’m tired of PZ & R Watson, tired of THEIR Bullcrap. Seems obvious to me that PZ can’t handle the fact he’s being upstaged & may not be the center of everyones attention for once. If i’m right, the rally will go on without him & i bet no one notices except (Possibly) Rebecca Watson (Skepchick) (More like Sidekick) who’s own feminist agenda makes her seen somewhat less than reasonable at times at least to me. Now i know there may be some people who don’t agree with me but, i don’t care.

 Yes, exactly. Entries 1b,c and d and most especially 2a describe skepticism and it’s use of facts, logic, and rationality to comprehend the universe and to infer further things about it.Why do you think that using “Reason” in this context does not imply Sagan-style scientific skepticism?

Would anybody here deny the hypotheical appearance of, say, Buzz Aldrin or the late Gordo Cooper because one was a staunch Catholic, and the other a UFO believer? Wouldn’t their appearances be a boon to this Rally?

 Well, PZ is right that the rally doesn’t have standards.

Proof?  They invited him.

I give Grampy exactly the response his blind reactions to anything that wasn’t his idea (the real reason for all this: he wasn’t asked to approve it) deserve. He’s acting like Grampa Simpson, I’m going to refer to his behavior that way.

If that bothers you, well, I could in theory care less. But that would require more effort than you deserve.

There’s no answer because everybody else reading can tell the difference between “sponsored by” and “about”.  They didn’t want to embarrass you by pointing out this obvious error in your thinking.  Luckily, I don’t care.

“Everyone knows”? That’s what you’ve reduced your argument to?! C’mon! That’s pretty damn pathetic. 

Argumentum Ad Populum, typical fallacy: 
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html

Are you going to invite Atheist and Conservative author/FOX News pundit S. E. Cupp to the Reason Rally?

wtf do you mean “….” when you point out that famous misogynists are famous? I’ll fill in that blank for you: You are alienating women and giving a thumbs up to misogynist wankers instead of giving those slots to people who don’t crap all over 50% of the population.This is in a community that has an ongoing problem with sexism. If you have them on it needs to be addressed directly. If a white supremacist was a famous atheist you would have them on too? How about a murderer? A rapist? Tell me exactly how hateful someone has to be before you understand that it is a problem to give them more polite publicity, I am genuinely curious where the line is for you. 

⚛ Remember when Madalyn Murray O’Hair was considered bad for the image of atheists?  These days the leading lights would call her a a pussy (or probably something even more misogynist).

And my point has been proven. You also forgot to add ableist, which your use of the term “moron” illustrates perfectly.

And especially when the “atheism” in question is a stalking-horse for other agendas.

FB, not everyone who opposes religion does so for the same reasons.

Along with those of us taking a principled stand for empiricism, secularism, etc.  there are others who simply see churches as opposing bases of cultural power and loyalty which need to be neutralized or removed.

Once done, they will move on to the next (secular) target on their Enemies’ List. For these folks, being pro-science or separating church from state are pretexts; alliances of convenience.

Shorter Welch:  yeah, I’m a bigot.

Hey… what about Dr. Hal Bidlack, LtCol USAF (Ret.) who is both a professing Deist and long-time JREF activist and board member?

Are his “Reason” credentials in order? I don’t consider Deism to be
Reason-able myself and would love to talk with him about it – or out of
it, if I could.

But had I the power, I would not bar him because it’s the Reason Rally,
not the Third Vatican Council or Eighth World Congress of the
ComIntern.

And there’s the rub. Because some among us DO embrace such Us vs Them reductionist purity and would readily administer loyalty oaths to achieve it.

No matter how clumsily they seek to re-frame and rephrase the discourse, they can’t help but show their fangs because, well, that’s just how True Believers are.

For them, the Reason Rally is – or should be – a kind of ComIntern of the Anti-clerical political Left. A corporeal manifestation of their collective worldview.

Oh aren’t you just the cutest thing, using words whose meaning you don’t really understand.

Were i to be an ‘ageist/bigot’, that would imply I have issues with ALL people older than myself. That’s simply silly and untrue, (not that you’ll believe it. Me being a bigot allows you to preemptively dismiss everything I say, it’s quite the convenient ad hom, so the chances of you not believing it are effectively zero.

I don’t have problems with old people. I have problems with P.Z. throwing his little cowardly temper tantrum every time someone does anything he doesn’t like or approve of, or even worse, wasn’t consulted on. It’s not just here.

For example, when people realized that the Gelato Mio dude realized he’d been acting the right proper ass, and apologized for being said ass, and people started being cool with it, PZ had a HUGE fucking tantrum over it on his site, and any other site he had comment privileges on. I believe the better bon mots were “fuck him into the ground” and “if you’re any kind of atheist, you’ll not forgive him either”.

Truly not the work of a cranky old man who can’t understand why people won’t listen to him. 

(It’s also the work of a coward, because PZ never rails at people in person, only when he’s hundred/thousands of miles away ensconsed safely behind his keyboard. Then he transforms from ‘cute widdle teddy beaw’ into PZ MYERS, GOD OF ATHEIST HELLFIRE. PZ is the living definition of Internet Balls.)

This situation’s the same way. Because Harkin et al weren’t vetted by HIS standards, he’s having  his usual friggin’ PZ Cranky Old Man Yelling At Kids In His Yard fit, only PZ’s fit has even less legitimacy. At least when you yell at kids in your yard, it’s kids, in YOUR yard, trampling on YOUR grass. 

This isn’t even PZ’s yard or his grass. He’s yelling at kids in a yard down the street and pissed that no one’s yelling too. It’s completely foolish and stupid, so yes, I’m going to treat him as a foolish, stupid old man who should know better. 

 Hemant is the ideal in his kindness, rational thought, and lack of drama for the high school antics that others are not doing a very good job of avoiding.