God, I’m so scared this will turn out to be a forgery, but let’s hope not. I mean, it makes perfect sense that Einstein would have been an atheist, but he’s been held up by religious people as a “good” guy who said all the right things about how god is real and great and the universe is beyond comprehension, that part of me has bought into it. Maybe he issued pandering statements in public but felt differently in private?
But what really makes this letter awesome is that he doesn’t play around.
“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
“No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this,” he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper……
“For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions,” he said.
“And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people.”
Please let this be true. It’s just so awesome.
78 Responses to “And Einstein was an atheist”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Nah, I’d say that even if it’s real, he wasn’t an atheist–his well publicized religious statements don’t seem like window dressing to me. But I’m not surprised to find he doesn’t put much stock in the bible. Deists I can live with.
The existing statements from him on religion are ambiguous, but it shouldn’t be a secret that he was a cool guy: this is the article he contributed to the first issue of Monthly Review.
Deist seems to be exactly right, although Einstein never used that term for himself.
I don’t think his “well-published religious statements” prove he believed in an actual God.
There are plenty of religionists who want to say of atheists’ description of the concrete, unchangeable and often mysterious laws of the universe, “that’s just the way you’re describing God.” But it’s not.
Even if you use the word God, that doesn’t mean you think God is real. I sometimes do, and I’m an atheist. If you’re talking to non-philosophers, it makes the conversation a lot easier and less likely to devolve into a witch hunt where everything you say is questioned and scorned because you’re an atheist.
In a religio-political system in which you’re already an outsider (a Jew), you might be careful about the kinds of things you say in order not to be horned and hanged.
It seems to me that these comments are not very significantly different from what Einstein said in a lot of places elsewhere.
Don’t worry Amanda, you don’t need Einstien or anyone else reaffirm your fantasies. You can reject God all you want on your own. That is the choice God gives you. You can accept him or you can reject him.
You also have the right to call Christians fools all you want. But do you admit they have the right to call you a fool as well? Because that is just an opinion. The existence of God is not an opinion. It is either fact or fiction.
Don’t worry Amanda, you don’t need Einstien or anyone else reaffirm your fantasies. You can reject God all you want on your own. That is the choice God gives you. You can accept him or you can reject him.
You also have the right to call Christians fools all you want. But do you admit they have the right to call you a fool as well? Because that is just an opinion. The existence of God is not an opinion. It is either fact or fiction.
Einstein has stated that he unambiguously does not believe in a personal god before. The whole, see Einstein believes in God thing was drummed up by people who wilfuly misinterpreted his metaphorical statements to mean that he belived in God. This letter is just further confirmation of his stance on this issue.
Whatever you do, don’t let a Christian comment here. You wouldn’t want a different opinion then your own little followers applauding anykind of stupidity coming out of your tiny little brain.
It’s pretty clear, even without this letter, that Einstein had a “Spinozan” view of “god”, which is pretty much indistinguishable from atheism. Einstein was fond of poetic descriptions of natural laws and such, sometimes even invoking Talmudic symbolism (”the Old One”). But he was no theist by any stretch.
My god, Lee, you’ve convinced me! I’m a Christian now, praise Jesus! I can even speak in tongues and cast out demons. You can go put that in your church’s convert tally. Such a wonderful and persuasive comment you’ve left.
“You wouldn’t want a different opinion then your own little followers applauding anykind of stupidity coming out of your tiny little brain.”
Or content-free trolling/spamming. Grow up.
See, I was all ready to do a “I lurk here, so take this with a grain of salt since I’m usually too lazy to comment; I’m a theist, and I don’t feel like that makes me childish — now please don’t kill me because I’m not a concern troll” post, and then I saw Lee Richards’s post.
Fuck you, troll. Get off my side.
As for the meat of the post, it would interest me if Professor Einstein had actually written that. I’m not saying it would actually impact how I feel about the man (one of the great minds of the last century, etc etc etc) — I mean, yeah, I’m a theist myself, but there are plenty of people… say, people with the initials AM… who aren’t, and I still think they’re pretty awesome. So I really don’t have especially strong feelings about the meat of this post.
Mostly, I wanted to tell Lee to fuck off. And I got to. Yahoo.
Why should it matter? I mean, Einstein rocked. He was obviously a genius. It also seems like he was pretty cool, morally (opposed the use of nuclear technology for weapons, f’rinstance). And it’s always nice when you discover that some cool historical figure had something in common with you (I’m in the “Eleanor Roosevelt Was Bisexual” camp for similar reasons). But how does it make atheism more correct if Einstein was an atheist? If Einstein was a dyed-in-the-wool believer, would that mean that God definitely exists?
Yeah, I think it’s quite clear that Einstein was a pantheist/Spinozaist based on his writing. He rejected organized religion and the notion of a personal deity, but he wasn’t an atheist.
But again, I agree that his views don’t really make a difference. Isaac Newton’s religious point of view was pretty weird by most people’s standards, but it doesn’t make him any less of a great scientist.
I think Einstein’s beliefs do matter, simply because he’s held up as an example of a scientist who believed in God. As other people have mentioned, if his comments are taken in context he clearly didn’t believe in anything like the Christian god; the comments quoted above, though, look pretty hard to take out of context. They’ll probably just be ignored, I suppose.
Oddly, the statements held up by some people as proof of his religiosity always suggested to me that he probably was an atheist if perhaps an agnostic one (meaning he acknowledges that by definition you can’t disprove the existence of gods, but he didn’t believe in them either), and he was just trying to be polite or avoid antagonizing people, probably for good reason. It always seemed like they were kind of grasping for anything. This squares with all the other stuff he’s said, but he is quite a bit more frank about it probably because he’s not talking with a rabbi or whatever.
Anyway, have we officially claimed Mother Theresa for our side yet? I missed the newsletter on that one.
Can’t join you on this one, Amanda….
To quote Moe the Bartender, “Sorry, Homer- I was born a snake handler and I’ll die a snake handler.”
“You wouldn’t want a different opinion then your own little followers applauding anykind of stupidity coming out of your tiny little brain.”
Projecting?…
Lee Richards, would it be okay with you if a Jew or Muslim commented here? How about a polytheist, oh, like a Hindu? Animists? Pagans?
Are you only concerned that Christians are not treated “properly” at Pandagon? Or is it just the factual existence of Atheists that gets your knickers in a twist?…
Lee Richards May 13, 2008 at 6:17 pm
The existence of God is not an opinion. It is either fact or fiction.
It is a fiction. What’s so controversial about that?
For what it’s worth, the older, postwar, post-Israel Einstein may well have been a different person from the younger, groundbreaking Einstein. His thoughts on the matter could have evolved, as could his ways of expressing them.
My impression of him, as a former physicist and einstein fan, is that he might well have believed in something like an ineffable Creator, but certainly not a being that cared about eating cheeseburgers or celibacy.
Einstein or no Einstein, it’s a fact that the smarter and better educated people are, the less likely they are to believe in God. That tells me something.
Oh, and to Lee Richards: We may be fools with tiny little brains, but at least we know how to spell Einstein’s name.
“It is either fact or fiction.”
I’m going with “bloody-handed incompetent inconsistent fiction, with no place in the modern world or rational minds.” Do I win?
Lee Richards said: “Whatever you do, don’t let a Christian comment here. You wouldn’t want a different opinion then your own little followers applauding anykind of stupidity coming out of your tiny little brain.”
Oooh, I seem to recall something about throwing stones and turning the other cheek… I guess if there’s a Hell, Lee will be right there with us.
I’m glad he’s an atheist, but it’s not like this statement will increase support for atheism. It’ll just further convince holy rollers that science is evil.
Einstein was a genius, but his ex-wife Mileva would probably take issue with him being remembered as a “cool guy.” He cheated on her with his cousin and then deserted her and their two young children. And she had to give up her own academic career to raise those kids.
http://www.pbs.org/opb/einsteinswife/milevastory/index.htm
opo, it doesn’t mean a lot, but if people accepted it this would discourage the religious use of the argument from authority. (Well, from human authority.) I don’t know where some of y’all get the deism label. Assuming this letter came from him, the first bit seems to rule out deism but possibly not Spinoza-style ‘pantheism’.
It’s always seemed clear to me from his writing and his biographers that Einstein consistently used “God” metaphorically to mean the orderliness of nature or to express awe at natural phenomena. Scary that Amanda’s heard lots of attempts to persuade people otherwise.
You can respond to an innate spiritual feeling about the world if you have one and you so choose.
You don’t have to call that “God” however.
Did Dante have a level of hell for boring as hell Christian trolls? Not that Lee is boring, yet - actually, somewhat predictably entertaining for now.
I call it “snacking time urge”
Oh, derrp, you mean we have yet another apocryphal rumor that a famous man partook of the patriarchy? Shock and surprise!
Oh noes. Time to value only the works of the pure wymyns like … like … Mother Teresa?
I think the Spinoza comment upthread by Tyler DiPietro nails it.
Also its important to remember when talking about Einstein that we are talking Judaism here and not Fundy Christianity. I grew up attending a Conservative Synagogue and generally the religious talk seemed to revolve around all of the Bible being symbolic and that it was not to be taken literally.
what’s irritated me about Einstein’s “religious quotes” is that they aren’t actually religious, just poetic.
“God does not play dice with the universe” is not an affirmative deist statement of any sort, and someone with absolutely atheist convictions would have no qualms about saying it.
Our culture is fucking steeped in religion, so using religious words and images to explain something. he could just as easily be atheist, just as exclaiming “Jesus Fucking Christ” doesn’t make me a Catholic.
I say “goddamnit”, “good lord” and “for god’s sakes” all the time. Doesn’t make me any less of a screaming atheist, anymore than saying “Thursday” makes me a Norse pagan. God is merely an interjection to me.
Didn’t Richard Dawkins have a whole chapter dedicated to Einstein in The God Delusion?
Lee Whatever, nobody actually cares:
I think it’s been pretty well established that it is just an opinion. All religions are equally invalid.
Ms Kate:
It’s not an apocryphal rumor. Einstein’s second wife was in fact his cousin, and he did in fact cheat on his first wife with her.
It’s funny, though. After reading the Walter Isaacson biography of Einstein a few months ago, I actually find myself having measurably less respect for Einstein both as a person and as a scientist.
As an atheist and admirer of Einstein I’ve done a bunch of hunting around and reading on this, and much as I’d love to, I don’t think we can accurately call him an atheist per se.. he def. doesn’t seem to have believed in any sort of anthropomorphic judeo-christian god, but he did express ideas that flirt with the spiritual/religious. in an vague, ambiguous way.
From what I’ve read, I think the most honest assessment is to conclude that neither team can claim him..
Well… great. It’s good to have hobbies. I’m not really clear on why some angry atheists devote so much of the tremendous rational thought they are so lucky to possess to analyzing the statements of famous dead people to prove their atheism ex post facto (any more than I’m clear on why some hardcore childfree types devote so much of the bountiful free time and additional cash money that having no children provide them with to complain about other people’s kids) but… good for you that this makes you happy, I guess?
@Lee Richards: jeez, your childish comments here are embarrassing. Nothing you’ve said here adds a thing to the discourse.
Again, Dan, should we be surprised that a famous and decorated man has partaken of his patriarchal privileges to undo an unpleasant situation?
You mean equally invalid.
Lee’s comments above are a perfect example of the medium ruining the message: leaving a Christian message complaining about the inability of Christians to leave Christian messages here.
Of course one may have an opinion about the existence of God, as on any other topic. To claim that it is either “fact” or “fiction” means nothing: an opinion on WHETHER it is fact or fiction (or false/unproven without it being a “fiction”) is in fact an opinion. “Fiction” implies intent to create a false alternate universe; one need not accuse theists of fiction (or of repeating fiction) when disagreeing with them.
As for Einstein, I agree with the commenters who took the deist/Spinoza thesis of Einstein’s views, though there is a lot more extant material than that noted above from Einstein on religion.
I’m going with “bloody-handed incompetent inconsistent fiction, with no place in the modern world or rational minds.”
Eric, cut those long-dead authors some slack. They were writing by committe and edited by committe.
Einstein’s various quotes: God does not play dice, God’s sneaky but he ain’t mean (his own translation of “Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boschaft ist er nicht”, more traditionally rendered as “Subtle is the Lord, but he is not malicious”) simply employ “God” as shorthand for the universe. At one point someone (Eddington?) exclaimed, “Stop telling God what to do!”
Half of his god assertions were wrong. God does indeed play dice.
Einstein’s no plaster saint. He didn’t wear socks. He dumped his first wife. He was also a fairly prolific inventor. He spent a few years after graduation as a Swiss patent examiner, and thereafter wrote his own applications. He certainly didn’t need the services of a patent attorney.
He and his student Szilard sold a patent for a refrigerator with no moving parts to Electrolux (which never manufactured it). He also collected royalties for navigational devices - gyros, I think - used by Axis aircraft - I think I read that in the Scientific American.
One thing to bear in mind is that “atheist” until recently meant someone who asserted the non-existence of any god. My 1970’s era dictionary has two definitions for “atheism” but only one for “atheist”. A more recent edition permits two flavors in the latter category. Ah, finally, spicy chocolate.
an example of a scientist who believed in God.
I wasn’t aware that there was a dearth of scientists who believe in god. I’m also not clear on why it’s important to find an example of a scientist who believes in god. Very little in mainstream religious belief actually conflicts with a scientific approach, and very few intelligent people think that you’re going to find incontrovertible proof that Christianity Is The One True Way by looking through a microscope or doing a little calculus.
As other people have mentioned, if his comments are taken in context he clearly didn’t believe in anything like the Christian god
So?
Einstein was Jewish, and thus would not be expected to believe in anything resembling Christianity. He was also not Orthodox or anything like that, as far as I know, and therefore would have had a pretty wide degree of freedom to believe whatever he wanted to believe about the nature and/or existence of god (Wasn’t Spinoza himself Jewish?).
Trying to prove that Einstein didn’t believe in Christianity does not actually score points for atheism, any more than proving Gandhi didn’t believe in Christianity would.
Again, I’m fully down with Einstein as atheist (if he was, of course; claiming that some dead person shared your beliefs when they obviously did not is pretty gauche IMO). And I agree that it’s always nice when you discover something you have in common with an interesting historical figure. But beyond that, who cares?
God made Lee Richards write that. Yes, dear, omniscience implies no free will.
And Amanda, the universe is beyond comprehension. A useful gloss is not comprehension.
any more than I’m clear on why some hardcore childfree types devote so much of the bountiful free time and additional cash money that having no children provide them with to complain about other people’s kids
Wait… you have to pay for that? Like, money!? Shit, um… check’s in the mail!
BTW, I devote my rationalism to subjects such as this because I’m an historian and am interested in what historical figures actually thought, not because I’m a materialistic pantheist looking for an argument from authority to bolster my beliefs (such as they are). I, for one, would be just as fascinated if letters from Einstein supporting Scientology arose. Actually, that’d be a hell of a lot more interesting. And really, really freaky.
As someone trained in science who believes in God, I recognize that scientific means will never prove the existence or non-existence of God. For which I am glad; God would be diminished by being measured by my ruler.
As for Lee Thomas’ comments, I can only suggest a re-read of the job description set out for Christians by Jesus in the Gospels. It’s not pleasant and requires that Christians be hated, as long as they’re not greater than Jesus. And that the Christians rejoice about it.
The early Christians were murdered and mutilated, singing praise to God. Of course, their pain and suffering doesn’t compare to the suffering that a Lee Thomas or a Bill Donahue feels from the opinions stated here. But then again, the early ones weren’t greater than Jesus, were they?
LOL That just rocks. LOL
At one point someone (Eddington?) exclaimed, “Stop telling God what to do!”
That would have been Niels Bohr.
If this is true, perhaps Amanda start being equally offended by Democratic candidates who carry around bibles and campaign at black churches, and stop pretending that Republicans are the only guilty party to play the Christianity card.
If this is true, perhaps Amanda start being equally offended by Democratic candidates who carry around bibles and campaign at black churches, and stop pretending that Republicans are the only guilty party to play the Christianity card.
Amy Roffman, your comment almost seems coherent, until you reach the end and realize there’s nothing there.
I know you’re trying to make some vague comment about Obama, but I’ll be damned if I understand what you are trying to get at…
When I was studying science and engineering in college, it was considered to be a sign of dedication to one’s thirst for knowledge to have one of those Einstein posters with his quote, “I want to know God’s thoughts. The rest are details.”
It’s entirely possible he adopted a more affirmative, stronger atheism after World War II, as many people did.
derrp: I’m familiar with the basic outlines of Einstein’s personal life (I used Neffe’s biography for German reading practice). That was not such a wonderful relationship, and his later marriage to his cousin was not so great either. But I will tell you from personal experience that judging intellectuals by their personal lives is a recipe for serious disappointment, and he was certainly a very politically astute person whose opinions confound rightist science-worshipers (though he can’t quite slip responsibility for nuclear weapons on account of the famous letter to FDR). The Spinozism, which was quite a venerable tradition among left-leaning Jews, is part of that.
Thank you. I aim to please.
I am way more offended by Hillary Clinton, who attends black churches for pure political motive, and then addresses them in a fake black southern drawl, than I am by Barack Obama, who attends a black church as a black Christian parishoner. I have no problem with Obama, really. But this site often concentrates on the southern christian fundies and how they intertwine with Republican politics, when, as an equal opportunity atheist, Amanda should point out that Democrats are equally adept at using Jeebus to lure voters to the polls—-literally busing blacks to the polls on Church buses on election day.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6FlpbRFXC9E&feature=related
Amy,
Which party lets its fundamentalist supporters (which as you say they both have, although the Dems’ don’t count for the purpose of mainstream media discussion for reasons of too much blackness) push it into putting their views on say, gays or abortion, into law more often?
A. The Republicans
B. the Democrats
C. The Socialist Workers
D. The Official Monster Raving Looney Party
E. Obviously the Republicans, so anyone who doesn’t want to be Christo-fundyified not liking them shouldn’t be a huge shock.
“But this site often concentrates on the southern christian fundies and how they intertwine with Republican politics, when, as an equal opportunity atheist, Amanda should point out that Democrats are equally adept at using Jeebus to lure voters to the polls—-literally busing blacks to the polls on Church buses on election day.”
I don’t know what you mean by “equally adept”, when any poll shows way larger percentages of fundies going for Republicans.
If every single Black voter in America voted for Obama (which I reject as being a bigoted assumption), it still wouldn’t match the fundies ability to get their voters out for Republicans, so I’m not sure what the problem is.
There is also a well documented history of political promotion by fundie ministers - which should end their right to receive tax benefits - but very unequal enforcement of those regulations that seems to overlook violations on the right while emphasizing those (very few) on the Left.
This really isn’t surprising, given the politicization of virtually every aspect of government, which greatly accelerated since 2000.
So I guess I’m still left wondering what your point is. Scary Black People are going to force Obama on an unwilling America?…
With the 60th anniversary of the formation of Israel this week, I found this excerpt from the letter particularly prescient (to the point that it might make it more likely that it’s a hoax):
More than just “protected”, I would like to think that being on the wrong end of the stick for millenia (and having many holidays that reinforce that memory. Shorthand for many Jewish holidays: “They tried to kill us. We survived. Let’s eat!) would make us more aware of the abuses that can arise from posessing power. Perhaps the existence of a broad spectrum of opinion in Israel is evidence of this. I’ll continue to hold out hope.
Forgot about Mother Theresa. She seems like a standard believer with doubts.
The existence of God is not an opinion. It is either fact or fiction.
Wow, how often do you hear a godbot say something that straightforward? Most of them hedge about subjective reality and spiritual significance and similar waffly bullshit. Or maybe this one is too stupid to even try to muddle the issue to avoid conceding the point that gods are fiction.
The God Delusion does have a chapter on Einstein, including the quote, “I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
Oops. The second paragraph shouldn’t be italicized.
Ms. Kate, et al., you will note that I began my comment with:
[quote]Einstein was a genius[/quote]
Weak. Well, you know what I meant.
But? Why not ‘and’?
Opon, the reason it’s important is that theists grab onto Einstein to bully those of us who openly admit that science does in fact lay a challenge to religion’s authority.
Or, what PZ said.
I guess I don’t see why Einstein is being held up as an authority on either side.
The best rebuttal to the theistic assumption that because Important Scientist believed X about god, therefore all science-fearers should agree is that it’s not only illogical but deification at the most simplistic level. It’s on par with thinking that because Jesus was a carpenter, all carpenters automatically go to heaven. Atheists just don’t think that way, or probably shouldn’t if they want to be taken seriously.
This is similar to the anti-choice talking point that because Susan B. Anthony was against abortion, therefore all feminists should be against it. Rather than argue “no she was not!”, we try to put her beliefs in context and explain how the landscape has changed.
I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
- Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein’s question “Do you believe in God?” quoted in: Has Science Found God?, by Victor J Stenger
And I agree that it’s always nice when you discover something you have in common with an interesting historical figure. But beyond that, who cares?
this is not so much an issue for the irreligious as it is a means for dealing with the religious. Anyone who has spent any time trying to argue for their right to be atheist against someone who doesn’t think they have one will almost universally encounter 2 arguments: “Einstein believed in God, why don’t you?” and “Darwin recanted on his deathbed.” Now, from a scientific framework, the obvious reaction is “So what?” but pointing out the logical fallacy of appeal to authority involved in those doesn’t produce the desired result of taking that discussion off the table as irrelevant, certainly not the same way as “No he didn’t, shut up.” Which when dealing with the muggles is much more effective than “He also believed in a non-probabilistic model of the universe, and we know he was wrong about that.”
pointing out the logical fallacy of appeal to authority involved in those doesn’t produce the desired result of taking that discussion off the table as irrelevant, certainly not the same way as “No he didn’t, shut up.”
So you would devote energy to trying to prove Susan B. Anthony was “really” in favor of abortion being legal, rather than conserving said energy for more legitimate pursuits that actually further the cause of reproductive justice?
I mean, I know that for the most part atheism is not a political movement and doesn’t face the same concerns about where to direct limited resources. But there’s a certain point at which devoting any energy to these stupid fundy talking points turns into letting them set the terms of debate.
So how long till we get an Expelled sequel?
Special Relativity=Atheism=Nuclear bomb
Hopefully we get to see Ben Stein stare down a statue of Einstein in this one.
Skwee, do I have to spell it out?* Someone upthread called Einstein a “cool guy.” I was taking issue with that characterization while simultaneously acknowledging others’ primary characterization that Einstein was a genius. Who fucking cares if I said “but” or “and”?* It wouldn’t change the substance of my comment at all.
Why are so many people so defensive about this?* Does maltreatment of one’s family rank so low that someone who cheats on his wife and deserts the family (not to mention the fact that she was chronically ill) is still, overall, a “cool guy”?*
This is a feminist blog. It’s entirely appropriate to challenge the idea that one can mistreat women and children and still be “cool.”
* All starred questions are rhetorical, as I’m done sidetracking the thread from the intended topic.
I don’t think it’s a sidetrack at all, derrp. Recognizing that Einstein was a brilliant, amazing scientist doesn’t (or, one hopes, shouldn’t) mean rhapsodizing about how cool he was as a human being.
And the “oo if only he was an atheist!” thing is, as oponax points out, silly. It’s the kind of thing you hear from atheists who think that all religion is of the “Christian idiots I went to high school with” variety: you either have complete faith or you’re not religious.
I really have to wonder about that letter; the thing about the Jews and not having power seems far more like a swipe at Israel than some prescience on Einstein’s part.
So you would devote energy to trying to prove Susan B. Anthony was “really” in favor of abortion being legal, rather than conserving said energy for more legitimate pursuits that actually further the cause of reproductive justice?
No. But if in fact she WAS in favor of abortion being legal, I’m not going to devote energy to shooting it down on the merits of it being irrelevant to discussion, because an error of fact is much more compelling rhetorically than an argument about relevance.
It’s the same reason why when we get all naval gazey, Obama being a SEKRIT MUSLIM wouldn’t be a problem anyway, but the better means of dismissal, the one that carries more weight against those making the accusation, is that it’s not true in the first place.
This is what I am talking about.
This poster should be offensive to every American who believes in the seperation of church and state. However, if a Republican candidates picture and name was on it, Amanda would have written a 500 word post full of vitriol. How come we aren’t as offended by Obama?
http://race42008.com/2008/05/12/barack-obamas-pitch-in-kentucky/
Does maltreatment of one’s family rank so low that someone who cheats on his wife and deserts the family (not to mention the fact that she was chronically ill) is still, overall, a “cool guy”?*
I’d consider both of my parents pretty cool people, overall — both had extramarital affairs, and they are now divorced. They both did totally crappy things to each other, and to my brothers and I, in the course of their horribly unhappy marriage. And yet I still speak to them, because at the end of the day they’re both good people deserving of my respect and love.
AFAIK, the existence of divorce and the garden variety craptastic behavior of some men is not actually a feminist issue.
Not to mention, of course, that if we hold every well-respected male historical figure up against the “did they ever do anything crappy, like, EVER?” test, all of them fail.
Nice reducto ad absurdam there: did you make it yourself? I like the detailing.
The answer, of course, is that it’s possible to recognize historical figures’ worthwhile accomplishments without turning into a screaming groupie about how COOOOOL they are, or handwaving away the negative side. I really don’t get the argument that we mustn’t consider Einstein a sexist because good golly then where would be be?
Really, the counterargument to the Einstein-had-faith wackaloons is “Yes, he was Jewish. Doesn’t it say something that one of the smartest people in history rejected Christ?”
turning into a screaming groupie about how COOOOOL they are, or handwaving away the negative side.
I hardly think “Sure, Einstein was a cool guy and all, but how does that give him any religious authority at all?” is screaming groupie behavior.
Honestly, I have basically zero opinion of Einstein, at all, aside from having a generally positive opinion of his contributions to society.
Does it suck that he was a failure as a husband and not exactly parent of the year? Sure. Is that something we should necessarily bad-mouth him for? No, unless we’re willing to re-evaluate every other historical figure on the basis of that “ideal husband/wife” test from up-blog.
This “revelation” is much ado about nothing. It was already clear that he did not believe in a personal God.