On Feminism, Activism and Isms

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/09/social-justice-less-elitist/

But sometimes those same activist cultures can be unnecessarily exclusive – and worse, inaccessible and elitist. I even feel myself doing it sometimes:

 Or why I abandoned the "Feminist movement" in the'70s in spite of being a milk feminist. My first mistake was suggesting that an attack on "man/men" as generic was a mistake. That they should have promoted a gender specific noun for males corresponding to women, something like heman or heeman. Nope. We got to get rid of man in chairman, workman, "All Men are created equal." etc. Look how well that worked several decades later.  Well, it is a fact that all the chairs are no longer chairman of this or that and that all of the significant chairs still have men's butts glued to them.  It is also a fact that "All people are created equal" unless they are female, or non-Caucasian.  (At least they changed the box from Caucasian to white and then fucked that up by including "Hispanic" for all non-Caucasian whites.)

Over the years I have discovered that anything that appears to be a meeting of anything resembling believers is almost certainly not user friendly for anyone but the organizers and true believers.  I find it much more useful to let others attend and read the blogs and reports of the attendees, which are either ignorable dogma or tales of exclusion, prejudice and harassment. Even "freethinkers" like skeptics and atheists are surprisingly dogmatic.  In discussing paranormal phenomenon I have lost count of the times I have heard that "Randi's million dollar prize proves that the paranormal cannot exit." Atheists are not content to ignore God and gods in their daily lives, they must prove that gods necessarily cannot exist for anybody and that all religions are horrible abusers of believers.   .  

The excuse for all the sins of the activists is that they are raising awareness, and that in order to do so the message must be focused and consistent, that is reflect the narrow and exclusionary views of the promoters.   

But it taught me a valuable lesson: the best way to support any -ism or activist is to walk their talk. It is not surprising as we see in the article, how many of the -ists don't.  I wonder how many people or corporations who wear pink ribbons on their persons or products have ever done anything at all to help with treatment or research into breast cancer except to throw some chump change into some charity without even running a Navigator on the charity?  Have the GLBTQ activists done anything but create reaction and hate for their GLBTQ neighbors walking their talk by living working, raising children, and proving to their neighbors and churches that they are simply human?  Does posting your Black Lives Matter vid of police brutality on the web do anything but insure the Police, their captive prosecutors, and the media will insure justice denied? See: what to do with your arrest video.

Activism works, but it does not involve going to meetings and talking tactics.  Get a bunch of your friends together go to the city council meeting, the planning commission meeting, or if you have a lot of friends to Washington DC (Social media helps coordinate things but use email and secret groups on Facebook.  It won't stay secret but it is hard to disrupt.) While you are there making sure all of your friends are registered to vote, and will do so if only to vote the incumbents out. 

The other form of activism is using any position of privilege you might have to affirmatively support any challenge to injustice you know about.  If your significant others are challenging the system make sure that you use your LinkedIn network to help even at the cost of burning some of your own bridges. If you have that video of brutality or bullying on your thumb drive, don't just tell the victim it is there, tell them you will appear on their behalf.     

The Incels are Restless

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/04/1427765/-The-Shootings-are-not-Senseless?detail=email#

Today a growing segment of young adult males will not achieve the material and social success necessary to be attractive mates and form households. By way of comparison, a generation ago in his mid-20s my father had a house, a wife, two kids and a stable job things I was unable to achieve until my ’30s. ...  Today Increased economic opportunity and higher educational attainment for women has removed the economic need to be tied down to undesirable dudes. This is a good thing for almost everyone. But for those on the outside, however, it turns social awkwardness and the tail end of the achievement bell curve into a prison planet of isolation. And that generates rage.

 note: "Incel" a name they call themselves, meaning "involuntary celibate."

Perhaps the rage comes from the tail end of the curve.  The more concerning issue is that the middle of the curve for males is incel. (This may not be a new phenomenon.)  Women now have control not only of not only who they will have a baby with but who they will fuck.  Women it seems have little incentive to have sex per se, hence scriptural admonitions to "pleasure" their husband once a week. 

The cost of sex historically has been disproportionally high for women.  Instinctively, killing a baby is not an option, and abortion was never socially acceptable and the cost both physically and monetarily was high.  So perhaps the sin of Eve was discovering the "apple" method of contraception:  Place an apple between your thighs and hold it there.  That is a woman can choose not to have sex.  This apparently worked fine in Eden, that is a stable agricultural or hunter gatherer society.  Women could choose successful men to father their children, and space them naturally using the apple method until the child was weaned and productive.  Much of this is speculative as stable agricultural and hunter gatherer societies by definition balance consumption and production, with not much left over for kings, priests, and exploitation.  Thus they are easily victimized by kings, priests, and despots with plenty of warriors. Therefore few remain to study and all we have is oral history.  

The invention of exploitive societies demanded a ready supply of warriors.  That is incels who substitute male bonding, possibly with voluntary or involuntary homosexual sex, and killing for sex.  Men get used up rapidly in traditional warfare. In order to produce the required warrior/incels it was necessary exploit women as baby factories.  Women became the property of successful men that is those who were not used up in war or those powerful enough to not have to go to war. Women's choice in such a society was to breed or starve. Encouraged both by social and religious pressure.    
In the west exploitive societies seem to have been invented by Abram's tribe, or perhaps his invention of God as the underlying justification for exploitation was the most successful.  It has certainly been successful and threatens to take over the entire globe.  However it has run out of people and things to exploit, and revolts by those exploited have begun to be successful.  

The most successful revolt has been enabled by contraception, which allows a woman to choose between being a breeder of incels/warriors for a successful man or pursue some other path to social success which may or may not include reproduction. Note that prior to reliable female contraception career paths for women involved avoiding sex as they did not pay enough to support a family: Teaching, nannying, and other service occupations.  

WWII used up enough men that women were introduced to "real" work to produce the war machinery, famously by Rosie the Riveter.  Their success enabled different aspirations for some girls, who could prepare for careers other than the traditional service occupations and many chose to do so.  Boys were still being conditioned for warrior/unskilled labor and generally discouraged from pursuing the "college track" except as athletes.  Which leads us back to the incels perhaps as a majority in most of the west.  The demand for warriors has dropped significantly recently, and unskilled labor no longer supports a family even the current norm of one or two children so the support for sex trade-off no longer works for a large segment of the male population.   

Confessions of an Eugenicist

As a staunch evolutionist I am becoming a bit concerned that the human race is breeding itself into mediocrity and that it may not survive the coming human caused changes to the planet that we live on.  The challenges we face will take all of the brain power of the most creative, intelligent and savvy of our children and grandchildren, and it may be that as humans we have given up on breeding them.

I admit to being dismayed that a large portion of the best and brightest in the US have bought into the false dichotomy promoted by the religious right and some feminists that women must either choose the stay at home mom track or a life style without children.  

This observation does not preclude that the stay at home mom may not have valuable genetics, many "successful" men chose accomplished women as their "homemaker" but their accomplishments outside the home are expected to end with the first child. Nonetheless early marriages for women seem to indicate selection criteria other than creativity, intelligence and savvy.  Or perhaps I should say that creativity, intelligence and savvy are incidental to the main selection criteria and society encourages keeping these traits in the closet for the main breeding population.  

The excluded middle is a life style with one or more partners sharing the parenting either as a shared parenting partner or as a stay at home dad. I have seen many scenarios where women have figured out the problem of support for the children that will pass on her superior genes to the race.  From Heinlein: You don't own your genes, they belong to the race.  At one extreme was a talented dedicated woman who said to her husband "If you want kids that is fine, I will have them if you will stay home and take care of them."  Another I know of was a lesbian couple who chose gay men for fathers, and shared parenting among the four of them. The "traditionalists" are women dedicated to their careers and their children, who upfront select men who agree that shared parenting is the way to select superior genes from both and get the kids off to a good start.    

In the shared parenting scenario some of the mom tasks can be contracted, the housework, day care, etc. although in many cases traditional homemaker standards fall by the wayside.  A glance into the bedroom of a shared parenting household will appall traditionalists.  The clean laundry may or may not be folded, but is on a table not in a closet or armoire, the bed is unmade, and if the floor is relatively clean it is because the contracted housekeeper has been there recently.  

Shared parenting is not a lifestyle conducive to material excess, advancement to management in either career, as parenting is a full time second job for both parents.  A recent article suggests that the dearth of women in management positions is that they refuse advancement to keep balance in their lives. Accepting management positions for either men or women frequently means sacrificing both achievement in their chosen field of excellence, and balance outside of the office.  A hidden cost of shared parenting for men is that management is not an option both for social reasons in the paternalistic culture of many businesses and the time constraints of parenting even for older children.  

I know a lot about shared parenting from personal experience and the fact that support comes from other shared parenting couples who seek each other out.  Three times I had to use white male MBA privilege to change careers. Once because I lacked a "Corporate wife" at an important promotional social function, once because management meant a change of locale to corporate HQ and moving was not an option for the family, and once for trying to achieve balance between personal and business life.  I find I am not unique even on the male side.  Most men who co-parent jump off the corporate hamster wheel early to find more rewarding use of their skills and abilities.  

There is some evidence that in some parts of the world, Northern Europe in particular that later parenting and spouse choice based on good genetics is encouraged, but in the US and much of the rest of the world intentional breeding for mediocracy is the social standard.  I know little about the big population centers in South Asia, but anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that women are in charge of breeding, which is a good sign.  So maybe there is hope after all for the eugenicists.  Women are naturally eugenicists when given some choice, and contraception gives them that choice.  

Is the Social Contract of Niceness Winning

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-community-and-civilization/

So let’s talk about how beneficial game-theoretic equilibria can come to exist even in the absence of centralized enforcers. I know of two main ways: reciprocal communitarianism, and divine grace.

Reciprocal communitarianism is probably how altruism evolved. Some mammal started running TIT-FOR-TAT, the program where you cooperate with anyone whom you expect to cooperate with you. Gradually you form a successful community of cooperators. The defectors either join your community and agree to play by your rules or get outcompeted.

Tit-for-tat fails when the community hires enforcers for the tats.  Either vuvuzelas in fancy dresses in over decorated balconies who administer divine grace or community enforcers who inevitably fall victim to the Stanford Prison Experiment guard syndrome.  One would hope that the vuvuzelas would be immune to the guard syndrome, but the evidence is not hopeful. 

The most useful strategy for a community seems to be a variety of tit-for-two-tats.  Some forgiveness for transgressions but recognition of the fact that consecutive transgressions are socially dysfunctional.  This is particularly useful in social situations where communication is possible between the “players” and the first transgression can be identified as such and some sort of counselling available as to community standards.

Tit-for-two-tats is inherent in the UU First Principle of Radical respect.  The first transgression is attributed to ignorance of social standards and not malice.  The second transgression especially after the reciprocal “tit” even without counseling can be attributed to malice and appropriate action taken.    

A Wall of Separation Between Creators and their Creation.

I have always argued that there should be a rigid wall of separation between a creative work and the creator.  Not that the creator of a popular work should be exempt from responsibility for herm own behavior, but that the work itself stands on its own.  

The Huxtable family as portrayed on TV is a creative work that stands alone and apart from any of the foibles or felonies of its creators and actors involved.  Performers, creators, and artists are human.  If they can transcend their personal beliefs and weaknesses to create something of worth more power to them.  It might be argued that the work may be a personal expiation of shame. 

Toxic Masculinity

https://t.co/DddqnZtP67

Toxic masculinity teaches that men cannot assert their own manhood absent sex with a woman that they alone possess

Being brought up male in a few tweets.  Storified by miniver.

An Atheist Feminist Shouts Bullshit.

beliefnet

Atheists like most arbitrary groups tend to reflect the dominant mores of the society in which they are embedded.  I suspect that male feminists are as unusual in atheist groups as in any other that doesn't have misogyny as a central group tenet. 

Atheists generally have weak belief systems, and therefore might be influenced more by advocacy groups with a useful message.  Many won't listen, even weak belief systems are hard to counter, but I suspect that feminism will generally find fertile ground in the rapidly growing atheist and secular part of the overall society. 

And you're basing this on survey and polling data, right? Not just on anectdote and making shit up?   Fematheist

False dichotomy.  In any event survey and polling data finds whatever the constructor of the survey or poll wants to find.  See any partisan political poll.  Did you ever hear of or write a "push poll?"  If not why not?  You claim to be a social scientist, you must have been taught about them in something like Surveys 101.

Unbiased observation of convention activity, social functions, and comments of members of a study group are much more reliable than any poll or survey unless you have access to the actual questions asked in the poll, the demographic of the polling subjects, and the bias of the poll constructor.  Got any?  Or are all your observations and data biased by feminist activism?

I am sorry, are you suggesting that because some companies polls do push calling that gives you the right to just make bullshit up on these boards and pass it off as reality? Is that SERIOUSLY what your argument is?  Attacking bad polling instead of defending or evening acknowleding the bullshit you just MADE UP?

I would call that a fundy evasion tactic there, JC.Fematheist

You can call it anything you like from your social science ivory tower.  I am not talking about company or think tank push polls, I am talking about the biased polls and surveys from proper respected academic departments in economics and social science, two areas of interest for me.  I do read past the popular articles in the news to the published data and read the protocols and the questions themselves.  Some good, some garbage. 

In any event I have been living atheism and feminism for many more decades than you have been alive and I am not a convert to either.  Before you sling your projection of fundy on me you should at least identify the fundamentalism I allegedly identify with.  What is it? A convert's fundamentalist anti-theist beliefs?  A feminist activist's fundamentalism that all men are pricks?

I am a trained scientist and scholar although not working in either field I am able to observe behavior from a scientific POV generally without bias or belief based conceptual blocks.  It is a fact that I am a feminist man living in a male dominated world, and an atheist in a Christian dominated culture, but I do observe without bias how both of those positions of privilege affect me and the others around me. 

Shouting about making bullshit up does not make the assertion true. One must in academia or in the real world, take the bullshit apart and demonstrate that it is wrong.  So far you have done neither.  

To be fair to Fematheist she is promoting a feminist atheist channel on YouTube (Search Kristi Winters) that is well worth subscribing to if you are into Video.  I skip to the references to see whether the transcript is worth reading. 

Fair Use and What is Right

As an intellectual property radical, I unfortunately, agree with the lawyers that nit-pick over how many words or bars can be used without permission.  I know too many people who have devoted countless hours to composing, reworking, rehearsing, and playing to empty houses before finally getting a composition into the public eye to allow anybody to use it without proper permission and compensation if asked. 
 
"Fair use" is simply a lawyer created license to steal.  If something is in the public domain even a rework or reedit becomes the property of the editor.  One might argue how much of the use is from public domain, but if you used the modern version at all you are on shaky ethical if not legal grounds.  

As an example many creators use the Creative Commons license categories for their work.  If they just want to get the meme out there free use is selected, others want attribution only, others restrict modification and reuse, some prohibit any use without permission and compensation. 

You shall not covet take (from the Hebrew) your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.    — Exodus 20:17

  If hesh created it, it belongs to your neighbor.

 When our first book came out on Amazon, it was less than 48 hours later that you could buy a photocopied copy of it at half off - of which we recieved not one penny. Duo

And music appears on YouTube just as fast.  Bands depend on merchandise sales rather than royalties these days.  And/or crowd funding for the album which will be ripped as soon as it appears.  "But think of the exposure!" doesn't pay the bills. 

UU Outreach

Many UU and UCC congregations have aggressive outreach to minorities, especially children.  I know of one UU church that started an alternative scouting program for essentially abandoned areas.  They first started a Boy Scout program from a welfare hotel and expanded it into the south Bronx.  The participants and their parents are invited to be full participants in the congregation including age appropriate RE.  (One "graduate" has even written a child level book Birds, Bees, and Babies.)

Is Internet Porn Ruining Our Next Generation? Is Censorship the Answer?

beliefnet

Thanks for considering the children.

Nice social conscience.IamGreatest

Most computers, smart phones and even home routers have controls to exclude unwanted internet content.  Parents who think porn is bad can filter it.  Social controls (your conscience) is not the answer. 

But if you really want to consider the children teach them early and often "About your Sexuality" or its successor "Our Whole Lives" curriculum from UU and UCC which treats sexuality as a natural part of the human existence.  If you don't teach them they will learn it from advertisements and TV reality shows.  Or their porn loving friends. 

Education always works.  Censorship never does.  

I read a study a few months ago about young boys and the effects of viewing porn (as a mom of two boys, I was curious) and it focused on the fact that porn skews a person's view of sex and of 'normalcy.' In the study, the boys interviewed thought all girls looked like the girls in porn and if they didn't then that was weird (i.e., all girls were fully shaved, etc). It also discussed how the sex in porn is not even realistic and so it causes young men (and young girls that view it) to have unrealistic expectations. IMO, porn is not harmless and it's not something that should be viewed by children.christiangirl

If young boys and girls don't know what normal is, of course porn will skew their view of sex and 'normalcy.'  If they are kept in the dark of "we don't talk about that" and the only light is porn, guess what, light is normal. I was given a sex education book as soon as I learned to read, about 4 or 5.  '40s. It was as might be expected poorly written and obscure but my parents encouraged me to ask them or my older sisters about anything I didn't understand. Needless to say I was a trouble maker in grade school as other kids knew I had answers to questions their parents wouldn't talk about.  

Mammals have sex at puberty and are interested in it far before that.  Humans are mammals.  They will figure it out one way or the other. 

And, yet, grown men have their views on sex skewed by porn. It's not just about whether or not a kid is taught about 'normal' sex prior to their viewing porn. ...watching too much porn desensitizes us to 'normal' sex. Studies back me up...christiangirl

I suspect that none of those studies included grown men that didn't learn about sex from the church (sex is sin, and the missionary position while still sinful is excusable for procreation.) Or in the military: FFF&F. 

I know and have followed many children both boys and girls that were taught properly about sexuality pre-puberty and most of them find kinky porn to be a stupid waste of time. Most had good relationships with the opposite sex through early puberty and later in life.  None of them had unwanted children. This is confirmed by follow up studies on children that were exposed to the About Your Sexuality and Our Whole Lives curriculums both by UU and UCC research.

Are you actually suggesting that parents take an active roll in raising their own kids? You're asking way too much.mountain_humanist

Liberals think it is the governments job, i.e. "it takes a village."Seraphim

Since religious parents and many others have shown they can't do the job of teaching sexuality and defusing porn, perhaps the village stepping in is not a bad idea.

 In subjects like sexual mores that have such an important impact on peoples "village" I think the government and schools should stay entirely out of the picture. Government and schools will fall to the lowest common denominator usually "Just say no" as unrealistic as that is for sex or anything else. 
First and most important are the parents, supported either by their church or secular resources, eg, charitable organizations providing information and contraceptives for those choosing that route, or the many "Sex Ed" books available at the library, some written at the child's level of development.  Amazon has a whole section in children's books>Growing Up and Facts of Life.  As noted earlier put a few on the child's bookshelf and encourage questions.  When the child needs them hesh will find them. 

Perhaps surprisingly I think the child's church should be the choice for parents who do not choose to be involved.  Make sure your church school has a sexuality resource center no matter what the doctrine is.  The child will have to live with the consequences of that doctrine so they had best know what it is.  Note that child is pre-pubescent.  If they learn before the hormones kick in they are more likely to make better choices. 

The worst choice for parents who don't want to be involved actively is unfortunately porn.  Make sure the door is open to talk about it.  They will see it.  Banned or not.  If they can't talk to parents and mentors, they will learn from peers and porn stars.  

Still,  education simply cannot satiate curiosity,  it won't.  Your 12 year old is still going to want to see what he can see on the internet.   After all I have seen and even done I still have curiosity myself from time to time.

That is where things can get weird,  even with eduation kids are still forming impressions and still forming connections and can get things sadly wrong with some of the stuff they can see online.

I almost ( I said almost, not quite)  think you should do some porny web surfing with kids to be there to correct where things are wrong and where it is not realistic.   But I also believe in strong boundaries and can't imagine doing something like that myself. Funderey

There is a difference between education and indoctrination.  Education is open inquiry where questions and issues are invited and welcome.  When a 12 year old surfs some disturbing porn, either they will hide it if indoctrinated and get things wrong, or if educated ask a trusted mentor what the hell is this?  But they have to know what "Normal sexuality" is in their culture before they can ask about "Abnormal sex"   

I still find you wildly unrealistic and out of touch here.   NO, your average run of the mill - NON indoctrinated, not even religious 12 year old is not going to be totally up front and honest about the porn he or she surfed. They will talk to their friends if it is particularly weird. funderey

One of the early activities in a sexuality education curriculum is defusing taboos.  A bunch of taboo words are written on a sheet of butcher paper, and the kids are asked to write synonyms under them and cross out any wrong synonyms.  Then the fun begins.  "What is wrong with that crossed out word?" asks the facilitator. The kids begin to argue and all sorts of taboos see the light of day.  But the kids learn that they can discuss anything at all, and they do.  One thing they usually argue about is whether a word is nice or not, and the facilitator smiles.  Sexuality education has just sprung up unannounced.

I may be out of touch with the real world, but I have been asked questions by pre-pubescent kids that I had to research to answer.  And I told the kid just that.  Not that it was wrong, just that I didn't know. 
 

Randomness, Selection, Evolution and the Bible.

beliefnet

Having said that, I agree that the suggestion that four billion years of random mutations produced an organism as refined and sophisticated as a human being, is an absurd idea.  The ease w/which an ecological system can be destroyed evinces fine tuning, IMO.  The analogy of the likelihood of an explosion in a printing factory creating the largest edition of the Oxford English Dictionary seems apropos to describe the idea of a strict non-supernatural directed evolution of the universe. EOCjlb

If a bunch of people picked over the explosion debris in the printing factory and selected the parts that came from the OED and reassembled them it is not absurd at all.  It might take them four billion years, but that is a lot of time for selection to work. 

Evolutionary selection is not kind to random mutations that do not help the organism.  The organism is lunch for an organism that has more beneficial random mutations. If the printing factory also printed Lewis Carrol all the nonsense would be eliminated from the debris.  Scripture evolved in the same way.  Pieces of debris from destroyed myths were picked over and reassembled into the various versions of Sacred Texts we have now.  You may believe that God helps the sorters in all cases, but it is really not necessary for the sorting out to take place. 

As for humans, there were many failures along the line to the present iteration of humanity that may be a failure as we speak due to a mutation that encourages belief in the idea that humans "dominate the earth" which may be making the earth habitable only for cockroaches and perhaps dinosaurs whose genes are conserved in birds.  

Thuggish Mediocracy

http://popehat.com/2015/09/16/willful-paranoia-the-classic-excuse-for-willful-paranoia-istandwithahmed/

American lives are controlled by the thuggishly mediocre. The best measure of their control is this: when called out on their mediocre thuggery, they can comfortably double down.

Being non-white or having a foreign sounding names helps them get away with the persecution of the "different" read able to think and act for themselves, but the point of the article was that difference is bad. You must be mediocre like us or you are dangerous. 

 
The fact is that we are dangerous and always have been, regardless of color or name. As a child in the 50's, white, common name, I was dangerous. I read books, I read Steinbeck, I sang radical folk songs. I was frequently in trouble with the authorities petty and powerful. Which is why you have never seen my real name in print. And why I have always chosen my friends with care. Even on Facebook when I am too old to matter anymore.

Jefferson and Native Americans.

http://westgatehouse.com/art263.html

The only thing Indians needed, Jefferson insisted, was the civilizing influence of agriculture. (Like English theorists since John Locke, Jefferson willfully ignored extensive and highly productive Native farming which did not use European implements.) By abandoning hunting and adopting farming, he counseled, Indians would rise from "savagery" to "civilization" and eventually be absorbed into American society. As president, he extolled the virtues of agriculture in meetings with Native leaders, in correspondence and in speeches. "In leading [Indians] to agriculture," he told Congress in 1803, "I trust and believe that we are acting for their greatest good."
Mark Hirsch is an historian in the Research Unit of the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C. He has a Ph.D. in American history from Harvard University.
National Museum of the American Indian, Summer 2009, pages 54-58
© 2009, Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of the American Indian

Another relatively "Fair and Balanced" attack on Jefferson for creating the slippery slope to Native American removal from the Colonial America and the Manifest Destiny.  

Assimilation was the British Colonial paradigm and eventually even the Colonials got restless.  But none could escape the "White man's Burden" of bringing "Civilization" to the differently civilized.  

Culturally Jefferson was a gentleman farmer in a slave economy.  More importantly he was skilled politician determined to bring his vision of an enlightenment society to America. Politics involves compromise even of ones own philosophical principles, to gather the consensus to make a nation.  That the native tribes and the atheists were victims of those compromises is not surprising.  I still like the way he snuck "Their Creator" into the Declaration of Independence, and "Freedom of Religion" into the Constitution.  What the rest of the bigoted Americans have done with it is not really his fault.