Yes Chris, clearly Ms. Jacoby has written an opinion piece. This in and of itself isn’t a big deal. She has written numerous books and, as her bio says:
“Jacoby has been a contributor for more than 25 years, on topics including law, religion, medicine, aging, women's rights, political dissent in the Soviet Union, and Russian literature, to a wide range of periodicals and newspapers. Her articles and essays have appeared in The New York Times Magazine, Washington Post Book World, Los Angeles Times Book Review, Newsday, Harper's, The Nation, Vogue, The American Prospect, Mother Jones, and the AARP Magazine, among other publications. They have been reprinted in numerous anthologies of columns and magazine articles.” So, clearly she is not that limited when it comes to forums…or opinions for that matter. As to how any avowed group defines themselves and/or a perceived different and perhaps antithetical group, such exercises all too often reflect the biases and prejudices of the writer than what I’m advocating, a well thought out, documented and informative presentation. Also, what you see as a “the saving grace” of the piece, if anything (as I’ve already mentioned to Fran), I see more as a travesty. I’m all too happy to see such views and opinions printed or spoken any place at all. What I rue is her lack of clarity, awkward presentation and general hope for her readers to already believe in her while being exposed to such a large audience. It’s downright embarrassing, isn’t it? You could do better! On the other hand, you appear to directly contradict yourself when you advocate dispelling “the collective perception of there being an ‘atheist identity’ and shortly thereafter show apparent support of her wish to have atheists “create an understandable public identity, to define themselves…” etc. So, perhaps it isn’t easy to clarify what an atheist *is*. Perhaps it would be easier (as I find is true for theists) to use negative theology and merely say what an atheist is not. In either case, I don’t find her piece to be “ a step in the right direction towards clarifying the conversation” at all. If anything, I find it to be an obscuration. . . something not needed by any of us. On Feb 7, 11:14 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > You've raised some valid points. I suppose it all depends from what dynamic > you're considering what she has written. I see here making a general opinion > statement that reflects the generalized social perspective of those who > claim to be atheists, in contrast with those who claim to know what atheism > is, whilst themselves being people of faith. I see where you get the > impression of "preaching to the choir", but I think the saving grace of this > piece is its pulpit. It's one thing for bloggers at large to attempt to > dispel the collective perception of there being an "atheist identity"; it's > another thing entirely when it's a columnist in the Post, presenting to a > far wider audience the generally held ideas of a vastly diverse people. > > The title, and overwhelming theme of the piece (in my reading of it), is > that it's up to atheists everywhere to create an understandable public > identity, to define themselves, in order to be able to participate in a > meaningful conversation with the world at large, which is primarily > populated by people of various faiths. I have seen reasoned arguments shut > down with any and all of these 5 myths, and putting a wider understanding of > these positions out there provides some context to the conversation, whether > people care to read it or not. > > Is there variance in the atheistic viewpoint? Of course there is, and we've > all dealt with the atheist fundamentalist a time or two, who purports to > argue the irrational position that there is implicitly no god of any kind. > Much like Muslim terrorists shaping Islamic perspective at large (is this > the Godwin's Law of the second decade?), most atheists are lumped together > with these misguided fools, and public opinion pieces which reflect the most > common viewpoints among the faithless are a step in the right direction > towards clarifying the conversation. > > On Feb 7, 2010 1:08 PM, "ornamentalmind" <[email protected]> wrote: > > “I disagree, Orn; I have heard each of the points she mentions > > verbatim from > members of this list. For that reason alone, I thought she wrote a > robust, > albeit reactionary, article on these points.” – CJ > > What exactly do you disagree with Chris?...You agree that her piece > was reactionary. I agree that it was ‘robust’ if one uses vigorous, > rough, crude, boisterous, rich etc. as how the term is used. However, > if you mean it to mean “ strong enough to withstand intellectual > challenge”, this may be so IF one accepts anecdotal evidence as being > ‘strong enough….’. > > Returning to our original claims, perhaps you are suggesting that she > supported her beliefs somehow somewhere. Perhaps you are suggesting > that her style was not an appeal to the/her people. Perhaps you don’t > find her words to be memes that many atheists project upon the world. > Perhaps you see some sort of analytical rigor in her work. I don’t see > it in any of these ways. Thus, I find it extraordinarily lacking when > it comes doing “a good job of dispelling some of the …[myths] > regarding the faithless.” Of course, perhaps for some, doing ‘a good > job’ means preaching to the choir? Difficult to tell. > > On Feb 7, 8:47 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I disagree, Orn; I have hea... > > On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 7:17 PM, ornamentalmind <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > “I thought this was a very interesting and informative read, which did > > > a good > > > job ... > > > [email protected]<minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > . > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.-Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
