|
Most of modern
religious/conservative argumentation is posed as red herrings. I would
venture to declare that, without them, regressivist theism would be
doomed. Let me explain why.
For the
uninitiated, red herrings are a form of argument named after an old method
of luring hounds away from a trail. A related term, straw man, gets its
name from a similar device used to mislead and distract. An actual straw
man, called a 'scare crow', causes crows to fail to get what they are
really after by posing a distractive-but-meaningless threat, and serves to
inform us as to why we should learn to become aware of all the versions of
this trick devious humans use in arguments. Modern usage of them as forms
of argument are particularly vicious in their reliance on slanderous and
Orwellian statements against someone posed as an "enemy to the theistic or
right-wing cause" in order to create propaganda.
Because we know
we don't deserve them, secular
people generally get caught off guard by such attacks against our
character and lifestyle, and against our place in history. That includes
misrepresentation of ourselves in the present as well as the past, while
they claim credit for good works, good government and good prosperity for
which we are responsible, and condemn our practices even while they revel
in the results. They avoid lawsuits, for the most part, by condemning us
as a group rather than as particular individuals (except those that have
been long dead, or whose performance is historical, who cannot be present
to defend themselves).
They condemn us
by a repugnant practice whereby a false statement is made about what they
propose to be our beliefs, our intentions, or practices, and then set up
to argue about the evils inherent to that. To say it in plainer language,
they lie about us, and then lie about the lies while we stand in shock
trying to figure out where that came from.
To make their
case against us, if they use references at all, it will be of things said
or written out of context, or of what another one of them claimed based on
no facts at all, that gets carried forward into new arguments. They may
also do it by inserting their religious beliefs into the fray, such as the
ridiculously odious claim that their god is punishing innocent Americans
for what some other Americans do, did, believe, practice, are claimed to
practice, or that the arguers feels like they would practice if they were
that kind of person.
All of such
arguments are set up by posing red herrings and strawmen against otherwise
innocent targets to make them defend themselves, or others defend them,
against charges that are patently untrue and ruin their credibility before
the actual matters of interest can be dealt with. Cunning application of
this practice enables those whose position is weak (or, entirely wrong) to
overwhelm their opposition while never having to work hard in their own
defense. They can lie; we can't, while they seem to have no one to answer
to.
Conservatives
have been using this approach for quite a while, and have found it useful
against anyone from the opposite team whom they suspect might be
considering making a run against them for a governmental post. Slander
seems to come out of nowhere against such opponents, the intent being to
ruin their images in spite of their innocence.
As moralists who
operate at high levels of secrecy, conservatives do not find it hard to
dig up red herrings to throw at open and above-board secularists. Not a
party to shame, secularists feel little need for secrecy, especially for
acts they might deem inconsequential to the society around them (and which
may, in fact, be common among members of that society) but which
moralizing conservatives can build into overshadowing mountains to become
the only trait by which their opponents will be known, be they only a
fraction as guilty as the best of they who operate in secret. The attacks
against past president Clinton might serve for a telling example, as well
as the current attacks against his wife, Hillary.
While they claim
morality to be their forte, the regressivists do not hesitate to rewrite
history into another form of red herring. While their victims busy
themselves at promulgating corrections, they are themselves busy making
hay by publicizing their revisions in every medium at their disposal
(which seems to be most of them, they being the owners). Pat Robertson,
for example, proclaims himself to be walking in the footsteps of the very
secular deist, Thomas Jefferson, even while every aspect of Robertson's
existence represents what Jefferson publicly abhorred. George W.
(Whoppers) Bush proclaimed atheism unconstitutional during his original
campaign, as did his father before him. Our founding fathers are supposed
to be dedicated Christians in this new revision of history.
The reason this
works is twofold: Theirs is a realm inhabited by believers, while ours is
not. They proudly proclaim themselves to be sheep and members of a herd in
a commonly united flock who will follow those self-proclaimed
representatives of their "shepherd". We proclaim ourselves to be
individualists, people for whom the rituals and parasitism of religion has
been banished from our concerns. That works against us. How so?
To start with,
because those who listen to them are accustomed to taking the word of
authority figures as truth, anything that can be rationalized will be
accepted as true. Those issuing adversarial statements are their
authority figures, on their side of the issue and protecting them
by acting as watchdogs for their camp. Expressions of doubt being
treachery to their causes, believing their god watches over
them so no one would dare tell them a lie, they commonly swallow wholesale
what they get fed. No chewing allowed!
Open the page to
the second fold, and you find us: We know liars live in both camps so we
trust no one. Upon first hearing of a doubtful claim against one of our
own, we rush to the lure to investigate and defend, always alert that just
often enough to cause embarrassment some claims from the other camp prove
true. So, we take the false bait and run with it, oblivious that all kinds
of mischief goes on while we stay so sedulously distracted.
Also naive in
our own way about the evil intentions of others, we atheists seldom
discover exactly what methodology gets used against us. Some of it comes
from natural ignorance, and shows up in arguments we pose against each
other because we are so oblivious to the way red herrings and strawmen
work.
A common ploy,
used in all innocence but nevertheless effective, is to introduce
additional materials into an argument as though it belonged there in the
first place. Atheists sometimes try to decipher exactly what is the nature
of atheism, for example: "What is atheism? What does it mean when we say
it?"
An atheist will,
perhaps, and quite accurately, offer that it is nothing more than the
absence of a belief in any gods. "But, how can you know no gods
exist?" is a strawman retort you can almost depend upon in response to
that, and the discussion then follows the lure down a path away from the
original topic, which then never gets settled, until the attacker gets to
feel satisfied he has "won". We need to make ourselves very aware of that,
and hone our eyes to delicate sharpness to catch every incident of it, and
then point it out when it happens. We will never get anywhere as a group
or a cause, until we can discover how to prevent this disastrous mistake
from occurring, whether it is the self-declared enemy at their games
wherein we become the toys, or among ourselves against each other. It is
not necessary, it is counterproductive, it is harmful, and is perhaps even
immoral to perpetuate when done on purpose.
Opportunists on
the regressivist, belligerently anti-secularist side, always aware of the
power of big money to buy promotion for their agenda, find ways to line
their pockets in every calamity to provide finances for their campaigns
and buy favors from their supporters, even in something so monstrous as a
war or a hurricane.
Divided as we
are, untrusting as we are, disarrayed as we are by our own distraction
with technicalities as much as at the hands of those who are our
self-proclaimed tormentors, we interrupt and derail our own need to
communicate this kind of awareness to each other, and discover how we
could be more effective at what, if only we were half as evil as we get
proclaimed to be (or a tiny smidgeon as evil as those pointing their
fingers hard at us), we should be the best at doing.
What would we
have to do in order to be like them?
We would have to
start rumors of doubtful veracity: "George W. Bus and Condi Rice have been
lovers for years;" or "George and Barbara Bush adopted a monkey and raised
it as their own child."
We would make up
lies about science: "Behe, Robertson and Dembski have abandoned Creative
Design in favor of an idea promoting Counter Evolution in what they say is
an effort to seek real balance in education. Counter Evolution proposes
that apes and monkeys evolved from humans, an idea that originates in our
water-animal-like lack of body hair. It has been suggested we started out
as copies of the gods, and the lower forms of life were created to use for
punishing us."
We could make up
lies about religious figures, except that the truth is more astounding.
Let's take up a
collection and buy our own TV network. I think it sounds like fun.
|
