This Firebrand Atheist Was Just Fired After Allegations Of Financial Conflicts And Sexual Assault

[yallerdawg]

Since it still seems to be a thing to report here...

Source: Buzzfeed, by Peter Aldhous

*****

On Tuesday, American Atheists placed Silverman on paid leave while it investigated a complaint from staff concerned that he had not disclosed financial and personal conflicts of interest relating to the promotion of his book, Fighting God: An Atheist Manifesto for a Religious World, and the appointment to a senior position of a woman with whom Silverman was allegedly having a sexual relationship. (That appointment has been rescinded.)

After word spread about the investigation, American Atheists received additional written complaints about two allegations of sexual misconduct involving Silverman.

Like many other communities in the #MeToo era, the atheist movement is undergoing a reckoning over the treatment of women in its ranks. In February, BuzzFeed News exposed allegations of sexual harassment against another prominent atheist, the physicist Lawrence Krauss. In the wake of that story, two women told BuzzFeed News that they were assaulted by Silverman. They each filed written complaints to American Atheists this week.

*****

Read it or not: https://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/david-silverman-atheist-fired-sexual-misconduct


David Silverman (not) preaching to the (not) faithful.

[Ferrets are Cool]

1. Hell, I've been an atheist for many years and

I never knew there was an "atheist movement". Other than the kinds that happen in the privacy of my bathroom.

[yallerdawg]

2. "So you are saying you are not now...

and have never been a member of the 'atheist movement'?"

[Ferrets are Cool]

5. Do they have membership cards to show

at the door before you can get in? Or a secret handshake?

This guy, if guilty, deserves whatever punishment is appropriate by law.

[gay texan]

102. Depends entirely on the amount of coffee I consume ;-)

[Cuthbert Allgood]

3. Glad they fired him.

This organization handled it correctly and quickly when someone in leadership did something like this. I might add this to the list of organizations I pay to join.

[yallerdawg]

4. At least NOW...

they should be good stewards of your money.

[Major Nikon]

7. And why weren't they before?

Did AA bankroll his flight to another country to avoid prosecution and provide him with a comfortable retirement?

[Eko]

65. Thanks for being consistent.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9882878
You rock.

[Major Nikon]

6. Good thing he isn't a Christian or we'd have to forgive him

Not to mention no atheist organization or their leadership pretends to be any sort of moral authority, nor is there any sort of divine trust bestowed on them from the membership. So as far as shitstains rank, this one has a few more notches to go before he's anywhere close to a "man of god" child predator.

[JNelson6563]

8. Valid point.

Well said.

[guillaumeb]

9. Harassment and misogyny are universal problems.

Kudos to the leadership of the organization for acting so quickly.

[yallerdawg]

10. Moral lapses are quite catholic.

Not just Catholic.

[Major Nikon]

11. Sure, protestants and other faiths have their share

The difference is the RCC has international moral failing networks designed to not only shield predators from justice but to help them find new victims. With a few exceptions other religious organizations must do those things domestically.

[yallerdawg]

12. The point is...

it's not just people of faith. It's just people.

No large "group" is morally or ethically superior to another.

[Major Nikon]

13. So the point is there's no difference?

Because there is.

[yallerdawg]

14. That's REALLY self-referential, isn't it?

If you are highlighting 'forgiveness' as a negative aspect of Christian faith, you sure got that wrong.

Christians give quiet comfort and companionship to death row inmates everyday. 'Forgiveness' has nothing to do with accountability for our actions - and choices.

[Major Nikon]

15. Sure, nothing at all wrong with a mulligan or two, or a few dozen

Or skirting away a child raping priest to a country with no extradition treaty, or giving them more access to child victims after they "repented". After all no person of faith is going to put "god's law" ahead of secular ones, right?

Meanwhile you conveniently ignored the rest of the point, which is the false equivalence you are trying to promote is just that. People don't drop their children off at AA for indoctrination. Nobody goes to AA for amateur hour substance abuse or marriage counseling. Nobody confesses their "sins" to the leadership of AA. There's an enormous amount of trust and responsibility that is inherently bestowed to religious leadership that just doesn't happen with secular organizations. That's why when these people betray that "faith" it's particularly egregious, and most people just know this without having to put much thought into it.

[yallerdawg]

16. Do you hold teachers in high esteem?

Just another kind of equivalence.How about public servants? Daycare workers? Babysitters?

What international class of people benefit most and organize sex trafficking rings of all kinds?

There's no "false" equivalence here. Just another kind of equivalence.

[Major Nikon]

17. More like just another kind of false equivalence

AA is none of those things either.

Meanwhile your latest false equivalence is getting even farther away from relevance. None of the secular things you mentioned receives blind trust based on a commonly held doctrine, nor are any of them placed above secular laws.

[yallerdawg]

18. Uh-huh.

Repeating something over and over and over is a technique of "arguing."

Christianity begins with "we are all sinners and here's some guidelines to help."

I don't want to shatter your illusions, but the vast majority of Christians are not "holy relics."

Would you have to be a Christian to know that?

[Major Nikon]

19. I can't think of a better response to obfuscation

Christianity begins with "we are all sinners and here's some guidelines to help."

Seems like a few hours early for Sunday school. Otherwise I have no earthly idea how this is at all relevant.

I don't want to shatter your illusions, but the vast majority of Christians are not "holy relics."

When did I ever suggest I had any such illusion? You are getting farther and farther away from anything remotely resembling an on-topic discussion.

[guillaumeb]

23. Predation is a human failing.

And predators, no matter their affiliation or claimed beliefs, are predators.

An atheist who is a predator is no better or worse than a theist who is a predator. Both share the quality of being predators.

And THAT, in my view, is the actual point of this post. The 11th Commandment apparently requires a different standard, but to the victim, the position of the predator is the same.

[Major Nikon]

24. No matter how much you polish that turd, it ain't gonna shine

Getting taken advantage of by someone in a position of trust isn't the same as someone not put in that position. Getting taken advantage of by someone who has established themselves as a moral authority isn't the same as getting taken advantage of by someone who hasn't. All false equivalencies have similarities. It's the differences which make them fallacious. While you were busy inventing an 11th commandment, you forgot where the first 10 came from.

[guillaumeb]

25. The person in question might have abused someone who trusted him.

And you have no idea how the allegedly abused person related to the alleged abuser.

[Major Nikon]

26. So now you have to invent evidence to create an equivalency?

Sure, it's possible Silverman was providing his victim with spiritual guidance on the Great Pumpkin or some other holy poltergeist and as such was placed on a divine pedestal. It's also possible Silverman had a laser inscribed tablet with 11 commandments directly from the FSM in which he was using to provide instruction in moral turpitude. You are correct in that I can't disprove any of those things, so they must be considered.

[guillaumeb]

27. No, I am simply providing a basis for making my point that abuse is abuse.

Did the American Atheist organization ignore warning signs? We do not know.

[Major Nikon]

31. We also don't know whether or not the Pope is drowning kittens in his bathtub

So by your logic we should just assume he is, because you can't offer any proof he isn't.

So feel free to speculate on what AA was or wasn't doing, but one thing is for damn sure, they weren't establishing themselves as any sort of moral authority, and nobody was placing "faith" in their divine nature. As such there's nothing that makes AA any different than any other secular organizational leader in that regard. You can't say that about religious authorities.

[guillaumeb]

32. Your initial reply is nonsensical.

The suspended President of the AA has been accused of certain things.

Predators can be found everywhere. The actual point.

[Major Nikon]

34. So why point to the one who happens to be an atheist?

[guillaumeb]

35. To make just that point.

As the original poster actually pointed out.

[Major Nikon]

36. "just that point"

So it's "just" a coincidence Silverman is an atheist, right?

[guillaumeb]

44. Are all the posts about predators who are theists also coincidental?

Of course not, but again, that was the point of the post. To point out that predation is an issue fro everyone.

[Major Nikon]

51. It's not coincidental

They aren't "theists", but rather those who are in organized religion leadership positions. Those stories are placed in the religious group because they concern organized religion.

[guillaumeb]

61. Theism as a concept is also a frequent topic.

But in each situation, we have a predator in a leadership role, with the ability to influence others.

[Major Nikon]

71. All you have to do is ignore significance and relevancy for the fallacy to work

A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

The best part is you go one step farther and pretend the differences don't even exist.

[guillaumeb]

72. To respond, it is, in fact, 3 shared traits.

1) Being in a leadership position, and
2) Apparently being accused of predation, and
3) If #2 is correct, taking advantage of that leadership position.

All of this depends, of course, on the outcome of the investigation.

Take 2 steps back.

[Major Nikon]

76. Factually speaking there's many more than 3 shared traits

4) In all cases the offenders were in fact human
5) If you add up the limbs of the offenders, they equal exactly 4
6) All of the offenders resided on the 3rd planet from the sun
7) At the time of the offense, all of the offenders were in fact sentient

I'm sure if you try hard enough you can come up with lots more. So while your efforts to obfuscate are certainly commendable, I really feel there's room for improvement.

[guillaumeb]

78. As to #5, did you mean individually or collectively?

[Major Nikon]

81. It's your fallacy, you'll have to figure that one out on your own

I've already given you a considerable amount of help.

Meanwhile if you want a much smaller challenge, why don't you try listing the ways in which they are different.

[guillaumeb]

83. 3 people and only 4 limbs?

There are a few possibilities.

[Major Nikon]

88. Obfuscation need not be boring

In fact, the best of it isn't.

[Lordquinton]

91. You are half correct

the point is not that he's better or worse, it's that American Atheists are taking direct action to remove him fro power, unlike the RCC which keeps their predators in power, and moves them around so they have access to new victims. Priests are also held up as moral bastions, and their actions get swept under the rug by communities so getting caught has, until recently, been difficult.

But the 11th commandment says we cannot have these discussions, so I can forcast what your response will be already.

[guillaumeb]

94. Priests have been removed.

But, as you say, the RCC often hides predators. And that is a horrible thing indeed.

Did my reply correspond with your forecast?

[Lordquinton]

101. Yea it did

You dodged the point in an attempt at a gotcha moment.

[Permanut]

20. But there are groups that represent themselves..

to be morally and or ethically superior. AA is not one of them.

[Mariana]

21. A lot of people insist that Christians

are morally and ethically superior to everyone else. We see this frequently whenever there is a story about some Christian who has been found out to have done or said something morally or ethically reprehensible. There will almost always be responses claiming that person isn't really a Christian, is a fake Christian, and so on. Obviously, the people who say that believe only non-Christians ever do or say anything that is morally or ethically reprehensible. We even see this often on DU, usually in General Discussion, not much in this group.

[Major Nikon]

22. Christian supremacy is alive and well

The biggest reason Trump still enjoys a 35% approval rating is because he taps into it.

[guillaumeb]

28. But some people are even more guilty.

And those people are more guilty of everything because they are who they are.

[yallerdawg]

29. It's weird to hear an argument...

of moral and ethical inferiority as some kind of distinctive superior moral and ethical position.

"We all have terrible faults, but yours are worse because you are better - except, by the way, you're not better!"

[guillaumeb]

30. Confused? Of course you are!

Some might sense an agenda here, but of course they would be wrong. People in a position of power might abuse that position. It has been happening for thousands of years, even before the Catholic Church was around.

[Major Nikon]

39. You must be really confused why child raping pastors are bigger news than other child rapists

Perhaps you just chalk it up to the 11th commandment.

[guillaumeb]

45. Thank you for bringing up the 11th Commandment.

And making my point for me. Give yourself a raise, effective immediately.

[Major Nikon]

50. The best thing about sarcasm is not everyone gets it

[guillaumeb]

60. Agreed.

[Major Nikon]

38. Uh-huh.

[yallerdawg]

40. That's much too big for your avatar!

Try this size!

[Major Nikon]

41. Wow! A clever repackaging of the tired old, I'm rubber you're glue line!

I must admit I never saw that one coming.

[Eko]

53. lol.

What happened to the concept of presumed innocence?
What happened to the concept of common sense?

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/10029936824

[guillaumeb]

62. #25 My response:

guillaumeb (22,585 posts)
25. The person in question might have abused someone who trusted him.

And you have no idea how the allegedly abused person related to the alleged abuser.

[Eko]

63. more lol

"Might"
"no idea"

What happened to the concept of presumed innocence?

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/10029936824

[guillaumeb]

64. Have you replied to post #3 yet?

If not, why not?

[Eko]

66. Just did.

You should read it.

[guillaumeb]

68. Should he not have been suspended pending investigation?

Well, considering that he works for a private entity, presumably non-unionized, he is considered an at will employee who can literally be fired at will.

So my reply was consistent with the situation, but allowed for the possibility of him being innocent.

In Franken's case, he voluntarily resigned, or bowed to pressure to resign, but there are specific procedures to cover his situation.

So no, the situations are not equal, and my different answers to both reflect that.

[Eko]

67. You still have to respond to this though.

What happened to the concept of presumed innocence?

Do you only believe in presumed innocence for someone you agree with?

[guillaumeb]

69. I did, in #68. You should read it.

If you still have questions, please feel free to pose them.

[Eko]

73. So its ok with you

For someone to be fired without due process, but its not ok for someone to resign without due process.

[guillaumeb]

75. Reread what I said.

In Franken's case, there is a process for dealing with this type of issue. That process was ignored by some, in my view, and Franken was forced by public pressure to abandon his rights to a hearing.

In the case of the AA incident, unless there is a specific appeals or hearing process, or a signed agreement providing for one, the employee is considered to be an at will employee who can be fired without cause. Unless, of course, that firing can be shown to be pretextual.

[Eko]

79. Keep twisting.

"Kudos to the leadership of the organization for acting so quickly."
It is very clear that for you presumed innocent is only for people you like.

[guillaumeb]

80. It is clear to me that you did not read what I wrote.

If you wish to debate the concept of at will employment, we can have that debate.

If you are unaware or unclear on the concept, I suggest reading about it.

Like has nothing to do with recognizing that the 2 situations are different.

[Eko]

84. I know what at will employment is.

I run a store that does almost 4 million in sales a year, so I have a concept of it.
Presumed innocent is a legal principal.
The thing is, Franken stepped down. Legality does not come into play for that at all.
When someone is fired, legality does come into play even in an at will state. If he decides to take this to court and can prove that the allegations were false and that the company did not have reason to believe they were true he can win.

[guillaumeb]

85. Which does not refute my points about 2 different situations.

And my 2 different responses.

[Eko]

87. So why did Franken deserve

presumed innocence when legality wasn't even in play?

[guillaumeb]

89. Franken was entitled to due process.

His position has that entitlement. Legal, as it relates to Franken, is that he has a legal right to the due process that is/now was part of his position.

When I represented people. I had a National Agreement and applicable labor laws to use.

[Eko]

90. And Silverman

does not have the right to due process?

[guillaumeb]

93. He has whatever rights apply to his position.

Even though at will employees can be fired at will, such firing cannot violate other laws like those related to discrimination. If, for example, he could show intent to discriminate against a protected class, he might argue that the stated reason for the firing was pre-textual and intended to hide discriminatory intent.

Not generally an easy thing to prove.

[Eko]

99. So he has due process also.

[guillaumeb]

104. I never said otherwise.

But the extent and type of that process is another matter.

[Eko]

100. the thing is you used

innocent until proven guilty with Franken not in a legal sense, since nothing had been done against him legally any more so than with Silverman, but as your opinion.

[MineralMan]

33. Good. He should have been fired.

As for the organization, it represents only a tiny minority of atheists. Good riddance to that one.

[yallerdawg]

37. "American Atheists."

Tiny, inconsequential organization?

https://www.atheists.org/

"172 local affiliates."

"392,000 members and supporters."

"Founded in 1963 by Madalyn Murray O’Hair, American Atheists has been fighting to protect the absolute separation of religion from government for over 50 years."

[Major Nikon]

42. Sounds like they fight to protect civil liberties

...or are they a religious organization because of...well reasons?

[yallerdawg]

43. They have plenty of beliefs...

as posted elsewhere. And at their website.

[guillaumeb]

46. They cannot have beliefs.

Those are reserved for theists. You must be mistaken.

[yallerdawg]

47. Their Founder's legal statement before Supreme Court:

"Your petitioners are atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy. An atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it, and enjoy it. An atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter. He believes that we are our brother's keepers and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now."

[Major Nikon]

49. I believe I'll have dinner later. I guess that makes me a believer.

[yallerdawg]

52. I can't deny that it won't happen.

Even though I have no proof or evidence, if you believe you WILL have dinner tonight, I believe you will!

[Major Nikon]

54. Kinda feels good to finally be a believer

I've finally cast off the yoke of logic and reason!

[yallerdawg]

55. You've always been a believer!

You just don't want that in common with all the rest of us.

[guillaumeb]

59. A miracle!!!

[Major Nikon]

70. The greatest thing about being a believer is I don't even have to define what I believe or don't

I can just let someone else do it for me. Why would I not want that?

[yallerdawg]

74. Welcome!

No one defines what I believe, either!

Especially not people on the internet!!!!

[Major Nikon]

77. So why do you insist on doing it for others?

Even after they have pointed out you are flat wrong? Are you some kind of special believer?

[yallerdawg]

82. I'm saying you believe and act on your faith, everyone does.

I'm not defining that - your denying that human condition in support of your "agenda."

[Major Nikon]

86. So you define what everyone does, then say you're not defining what everyone does

If only someone could post a link that explains in great detail why you don't get to define what other people believe or don't. Oh wait, someone already did!

[guillaumeb]

58. Wait a minute!!!

Now I am confused. A number of people here have insisted that belief has no place.

[Major Nikon]

92. "A number of people here" sounds like "a lot of people are saying"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-lot-of-people-are-saying-how-trump-spreads-conspiracies-and-innuendo/2016/06/13/b21e59de-317e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.7b4b05874568

[guillaumeb]

95. What are they saying?

People tell me that a lot of people are saying............................

[Major Nikon]

96. You already said what they are saying

The part you left out is who specifically is saying it. Makes the strawman a little harder to catch I suppose.

[guillaumeb]

97. This story certainly provoked a lot of comment.

Interesting.

[Major Nikon]

98. Would you mind providing proof for post#58?

Who exactly is included in this number of people you allege?

[guillaumeb]

103. #47

[Major Nikon]

105. Non-sequitur

[Major Nikon]

48. Which makes them a religious organization

...because of....well reasons.

[no_hypocrisy]

56. My deceased boss was her attorney.

She was one tough client.

[MineralMan]

57. Yes, a tiny organization.

How many atheist do you think there are in the USA?

Which of the atheist here are members?