Menace, or Literary Criticism? Nah, just menace*

There is a gender riot in skepticism. You've noticed, right? OK, well, I'll just give you the keywords instead of a synopsis, and move on to some clarification for those who are having a problem coming to grips with this: Rebecca Watson, elevator, 4 A.M., Richard Dawkins. That should be enough for you to catch up if you haven't noticed this situation yet.

It strikes me that this whole long conversation (argument? Sure) rolls right out of the same cognitive malfunction that creates so many of the problems that drive skepticism. People have to interpret the actions and behaviors of others, and that is difficult. Rebecca was put in an uncomfortable situation, and had to evaluate the other person present. Does this mean the man in the elevator did anything morally wrong, comparable with genital mutilation? Of course not. The wrong here isn't a moral wrong against an entire gender; it was a socially incorrect move that should have been avoided.

Fellow men, let me explain. This is subtle.

Context and behavior matter. When you interact with another person, say in what we will politely call a courtship interaction, you, Generic Man, will not be told in small, simple words exactly what your social partner thinks or desires. You must interpret her (his, whatever, I'm sticking with her because that's where we're running into trouble) words and behaviors in context. The context is huge. It includes your location, your other company in the area, the social history between you, your mood, her mood, your previous experience in life...I could go on.

Here's the subtle meta-game you should be playing: you should consider the possible ways she is interpreting your behavior through context. This man’s specific behavior and choice of environment were pretty much the worst context he could have created, and while he may not have been a real threat, it was his failure to see how it could look potentially threatening that caused this.

It may not even be the case that Rebecca seriously thought, "Oh crap, he might rape me." It is enough that he simply gave the impression that he did not understand how to properly interact socially in that context. If he's incorrect enough about how one should behave that he thought this was a good way to present himself, there is no good way for one to evaluate his potential next move.

Rebecca was being cautious and that behavior was legitimately creepy. It would be irresponsible for her not to turn him down as gently as she could and get out of there. Then, she asked people to consider the way that a person at the other end of their advances will interpret their behavior. That’s all, and she was right. Not everything you do is a potential assault, but you should consider whether it might look that way, say for instance at 4 in the morning, drunk, in a confined place.

*This is an expansion of a comment left on Phil Plait's blog.

Indivisible: An Open Letter to Defensive Christian Americans

When I criticize I do so because I care. If I voice the faults of my country on its nominal birthday, it is not out of hatred or anti-American sentiment, but rather in celebration and pride. I have pride in the country, even if I am ashamed of the actions of some of its citizens, and unfortunately this distinction is lost on those who most need to understand it. I am proud of the ideals that form the foundation of America, and for love of those we should be willing to endure censure when we fail to live up to those ideals of freedom.

When I say freedom, I am not just flag-waving and spouting an empty word, though freedom is one of those words that slip out easily for just that purpose. We often speak of freedom in a vague blanket sense, instead of some of the specific freedoms we have, and so those freedoms blur together (I am as guilty of this as are more casual flag-wavers, I'm sure). Freedom of religion and freedom of speech seem to clash in the most unintelligible ways.

Every year, I see some form of the same misguided campaign spill over the internet, usually in the sort of CAPS LOCK THAT MAKES IT TEMPTING TO IGNORE. However, the sentiment should not be ignored, no matter how tacky its presentation. The call goes out to post or forward the Pledge of Allegiance proudly for everyone to see. On its face, this seems fine, if a little insecure, but the rest of the message is the real point and motivation. The stated motivation isn't merely to post this out of national pride, but to do so specifically because you are not afraid of offending people.

The problem here is a confusion between offense and censorship, and between religious and national pride. Many of these posts and forwarded emails save their unnecessary caps lock exclusively for the words "UNDER GOD." The campaign is not one to declare patriotism for the USA, but to attack non-Christians. To be fair, from the perspective of those spreading this message, the motivation is to defend America against the attack of atheists. Unfortunately for this view, we are not attacking America. If I am offended, my offense is not an attack on you.

I am offended by the Pledge of Allegiance, because it violates my freedom. If I place my hand over my heart and take the pledge in its modern formulation, I am swearing an oath not to my country, but rather to both my country and your God. You have the freedom to hold any faith you wish, but must I pledge myself to it as well? Do I not have the same freedom you enjoy? It is not an attack on your faith when I refuse to bow to it. I am not offended that you believe in God, but I am offended that you insist that I must. If this is difficult for you, imagine your own feelings of revulsion and offense if instead the pledge read, "one nation where there is no God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Now here is the part that you may not expect: I would be just as offended by that pledge as I am by the real one. Why? Because it is no better for your freedom to be violated than mine. I don't want the current "under God" phrase replaced with some other substitute. I want it gone. I don't want to remove God from your life; I just want you to keep it out of mine. You may not have recognized this before, but you are the one attacking, not I. Perhaps not on purpose, but nonetheless when you post the pledge without concern for my offense, it is not patriotic. It is in fact a violation of the very pledge you are posting. Just look at the next word after "under God" and you will understand.

Indivisible. The pledge claims that we are one nation, under God, indivisible. Do you not see the contradiction in that list, and even worse, in your insistence that one should post and email the pledge without concern for offense? If we are truly indivisible, then why must you so proudly exclude me? It is not only the exclusion, but the zeal and glee with which you display it that offends and disgusts me.

Think of early Christian martyrs in the Roman empire. Many of the Christian purges were motivated by specific incidents that are closely analogous to our Pledge of Allegiance. Citizens were periodically asked to make sacrifices to the official state gods for the safety of the city or the empire. It was dressed in religion, but the rituals were political, and when principled Christians refused to make the sacrifices, the charges were treason, not heresy. These Christians were not asked to give up their religion, only to make a token sacrifice. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your insistence that I recite even a token "under God" when your religious forebears were willing to die for the same principle?

My desire to see this phrase dropped from our Pledge is not an attack on you or your faith, but its presence is an attack on me. I want to be able to take an oath to a country whose ideals and freedoms are consistently given to all. I want to be part of this one nation, and I want it to truly be indivisible. I am not under your God. You are free to be "under God" if you choose. You are not free to tell me that I must be so.