This is very rich, considering that the war in Afghanistan was triggered by religious wackos.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This woman has no idea what she’s talking about.  Eikenberry and Holbrooke ARE morons, and nothing in the article shows McChrystal being disrespectful of the president.

In fact, the most inflammatory statements come from staffers, which he can hardly be held responsible for unless he was in the room at the time they were being made, which isn’t clear in most cases.

The worst thing McChrystal said was his joke about Biden, who he doesn’t answer to.  People forget that the Vice President in this country is all but useless unless the President is incapacitated for some reason.  He never said anything about his superiors in the chain of command (that would be Petraeus, then Gates, then Obama, for those of you keeping score).

Both the article and this lady try to pain McChrystal as some kind of cowboy.  I’ve met the man briefly on a couple of occasions, and he exhibits many of the personality quirks that Patton and MacArthur did, and you know what?  They were damn good generals with reputations for doing the impossible.  That’s something we need, considering the current victory conditions in Afghanistan are all but unachievable.

President Obama fired McChrystal because not to do so would have made him look weak.  That’s all there is to it.

Personally, I am very disappointed in the general.  He should have known better than to let Rolling Stone anywhere near him.  After all, it was a RS article that brought down ADM Fallon as head of CENTCOM just a couple of years ago.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It’s unbelievable that the Washington Post would allow this insult to atheists to get posted.  Imagine if this woman wrote “the problem with the general is that he was acting like a Jew”... or “the general’s backbiting made him practically gay”... or “the general’s trash talking amounted to functional blackness”.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This woman is a terrible writer.  It’s “atheism” but he’s a “deification”?  If he’s a god, then there still is a god.  What is “functional atheism” anyways?  Her definition is muddled and there was really no reason to bring religion into this article at all.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

yes, I agree.  I think this article was posted not for its logic but just to show that atheism can be openly disparaged in a respectable paper.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Apology from the writer solicited (see the comments below the article).

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@bananapeel
Right on.  I’m sick to death of seeing equivocation between “atheist” and “insert negative characteristic here.” People would never get away w these non-sequiturs in any of the examples you mentioned.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Jason01
I read her comment.  That was one piss-poor apology.  “I’m sorry you feel that way.”  EVERYONE knows this is not a real apology.  PLUS, she tries to unwrite what she wrote: “...not intended to be pejorative…”  WTF?!  What other conclusion is to be drawn from describing atheism as “unfortunate,” and a “malady”?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Re. 8. JS1685

You claim to have read her apology, but your sentiments would indicate you didn’t do a very good job of it. Ms. Scott did not describe atheism in the way you say she did.

The term she used was ‘functional atheism.’ Which, as she explained, is a term that was concocted by a Christian sociologist named Dr. Parker Palmer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Palmer), who defined it as ‘the belief that ultimate responsibility for everything rests with [oneself].’ After doing a little reading about it, it appears to be an attempt at describing a certain kind of supposedly hypocritical behaviour of Christians.

So, the atheism that ‘functional atheism’ refers to is not that of people who are atheists, but a hypothetical atheism that entails some sort of ego complex. It amounts to an absurd misuse of language, but it doesn’t follow that a person ignorant of the presence of their atheistic neighbours could use it with ill will toward them. Hence, her apology reads ‘I certainly did not intend to hurt anyONE by using this phrase…’

So she has been made aware of the problem, and now knows that if she uses that crappy phrase again, she will do so at the risk of further derision. With all that said, it seems to me that for one to accuse her of dishonesty would be paranoid and indecent, or, in other words, an act of functional theism.

In summary: the apology was fine.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Re. 9. Jason01

Speaking of indecency (and just in case people think I’m a bit of a softy after reading my previous post) I must confess that I didn’t look up ‘functional atheism,’ before I first commented on Scott’s article on the Washington Post website. The comment was censored, and I think it was what mainly inspired Scott’s use of the adjectives ‘personal’ and ‘venomous’ in her apology. Anyway, here it be:

“You started this Katherine Tyler Scott.
Unfortunately, a form of functional Jewness occurred - that malady that occurs when one neurotically hoards money and ignores the needs of their community out of deep selfishness.
Unfortunately, a form of functional Catholicism occurred - that malady that occurs when an adult sexually violates a child entrusted to their care on a regular basis.
Unfortunately, a form of functional negroness occurred - that malady that occurs when the unemployed use their superior athleticism to steal from the homes of their neighbours.
Unfortunately, a form of functional idiocy occurred - that malady that occurs when a numbskull journalist dips into religious apologetics halfway through an article for no good reason.
NB. If you’re pro-censorship and thinking about giving the ‘Report Offensive Comment’ link a click, then you also obligate yourself to fire off an email to the Washington Post editors concerning their disgraceful conduct, lest you harbour a rather violent inconsistency in your values.”

I regretted posting this comment, not because of its bite, but because it is (or was) likely to give the impression, as the other comments that are there do, that the main problem with the functional atheism stuff was that it was offensive in the same way that a Jew, Catholic, or black person would be offended when stereotyped; in an emotional or mental way. I think this is big mistake because it detracts focus from the fact that, more than anything else, her statement was an offense to reason. And I can’t help but feel a good response would have addressed merely that.

To adhere to this piece of discipline would be to act on Sam Harris’s recommendation that atheists ‘not call themselves anything’ and ‘go under the radar.’ Crying offense may be an effective tactic on certain occasions, but by no means should it be the go-to move of a rationalist.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Jason01
First, let me clarify that none of the abrasive language I used above was directed at you.  Only at Ms. Scott, and I should have made that more apparent.  Your subsequent comments are quite astute, and I suspect we would agree on many things.  I do disagree, however, about the meaning of the term “functional atheist,” and what its use entails.

I also looked up Dr. Palmer after reading about him in Ms. Scott’s comment, but I remain unconvinced that “functional atheism” is anything but superficially distinct from “atheism.”  It seems to me they are fundamentally the same: lack of faith or trust that a supernatural deity will step in and make things all right.  Lack of faith or trust that such a deity exists.  Sensing that we are in fact the stewards of our own affairs and cannot pass the buck to our “heavenly father.”  Daniel Dennett makes the claim that, probably, many people do not really, REALLY, believe the supernatural gobbledygook their nominal religion teaches.  It’s just taht they can’t seem to let go of the wubby quite yet.  But what they feel deep down, perhaps subconsciously, is atheism.

What does this mean in our current conversation?  Well, what a crazy thing to revile as an unfortunate malady: a sense of responsibility, and a lack of faith in divine intervention.  I understand that she very probably was using the term metaphorically in this case - that McChrystal was not trusting others in the military and government to “do anything decent.”  My issue is that she thinks such cockiness is describable by invoking the idea of atheism. 

That’s my real beef.  I like to think I have pretty thick skin - I didn’t take personal offense to it.  It’s just that she is perpetuating the meme that atheism is a bleak, self-centered, cocky worldview.  This has to be countered - it is central to many religious peoples’ arguments against atheism. 

And I agree w/ Sam’s idea about labeling - and that there shouldn’t really be such a thing as an “atheist.”  But when such misguided uses of the term come up, I feel the need to correct them.

Also, it was still a poor apology.  Regardless of all the Dr. Palmer stuff, she was still basically saying: “Sorry you feel that way.”  That’s nearly universally acknowledged as being tantamount to “get stuffed, I’m NOT sorry.”

This was written somewhat hastily.  Sorry if it doesn’t flow well.  I hope I conveyed my ideas in a way that made sense.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.