Denzel Washington associates religious believers with sociopaths (and murderers)

[cleanhippie]

Denzel Washington associates atheists with sociopaths

Academy Award winning Actor Denzel Washington has a new film out. While out promoting his film “Safe House,” Washington made some pretty appalling associations linking atheists to sociopaths and murderers among others.

In the interview, Washington was asked about his character, Tobin Frost. You can watch the interview in the sidebar but here is the relevant part of his answer (0:13 mark):

“There’s a book I read called, ‘The Sociopath Next Door,’ and… a, it really became sort of the Bible for me in developing this character. I think he is a sociopath. I think he doesn’t have a conscience. I think he is an atheist and a murderer and a liar.”

Imagine the outrage if he had said Jew, Christian, or Muslim instead of atheist in his response. Why is it acceptable for such an acclaimed actor to falsely associate an entire group of people in this way? Why didn’t the interviewer follow up on that?

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-national/denzel-washington-associates-atheists-with-sociopaths#ixzz1mQVwkdtp

Now, you know that outrage you had when you clicked on this post thinking that Mr. Washington had blatantly insulted religious believers with his bigoted comments? I hope you still have that same outrage for Mr. Washington for blatantly insulting a group of non-believers with his bigoted comments.


Well? Do you?

[MADem]

1. I did not have any outrage when I clicked on the link. I found it curious, not outrageous.

The thought that ran through my mind was that I thought Mr. Washington came from a religious background, and I wondered if he did films like "The Preacher's Wife" just for the cash!

I wouldn't permit the opinions of one actor to ruin your day, if I were you.

[cleanhippie]

3. And WHOOOSH goes the point flying over your head.

Its not the opinions of an actor that ruin my day, its the fact that a person used their status to demonize a group of people, and folks like you see no problem with his words, instead choosing to counsel me to not let an actors opinion ruin my day.

[MADem]

5. No, it did not fly over my head. Ever hear the phrase "...and words will never hurt me?"

People are always going to use their "status" to put forth their point of view. Why are you shocked that an actor has done this? Brangelina do it all the time; as do Johnny Depp and George Clooney and you-name-em. They pretend to be other people in movies, so the tabloid media automatically think this gives them license to pontificate on other matters, and they take note of what they say, and they publish it. It has been ever thus, since the dawn of cinema.

Are you telling me that if you were a famous actor, you'd stay silent on all matters of interest to you? You'd never "opine" as Dildo Really liked to say?

I'm sure if you had a podium from which to spout, you'd spout too. And some people would pay attention to what you say, and some would ignore you. Some would agree with you, some wouldn't, and some would not give a particular shit about your opinion.

You truly don't have to take my counsel, you know. Why, I wonder, do you care so much about the views of others? Why are you feeling personally threatened by what others say?

Be secure in your own thoughts, and these things will cease to distress you.

[cleanhippie]

7. Again, you are missing the point.

Had Denzel, or anyone, said that christians/jews/muslims=murderer=liar=have no conscience=sociopaths then the mob would be screaming for his head.

But no, no problem, he said it was atheists=murderer=liar=have no conscience=sociopaths, so that's okay?


How can you be so obtuse?

[MADem]

13. No, I'm not missing the point.

I'm trying to remember the last time anything Denzel Washington had to say caused "outrage"--he could probably talk about anything in any context and most people would say "Pffft--method actor, whatever."

I don't think anyone would be screaming for his head if he did utter your invented comments. Fundies don't like him much, anyway. He's far too dark and liberal for their tastes. They'd probably figure that their Worst Fears had been realized, and be very self-satisfied.

Why are you getting so upset about this? And why are you getting so angry, and calling me "obtuse" simply because I fail to share your outrage?

Look at yourself. You are in a swivet over something that DID NOT HAPPEN. You invented a straw man, became infuriated over a fictional scenario, and then got angry at me because I won't play make-believe with you.

Again, be secure in yourself, and if you are, the opinions of others--foolish, absurd, or what-have-you--will not cause you distress.

Or don't. Get all worked up over something that an actor said, if it gives you some sort of perverse joy.

Makes no difference to me.

[cleanhippie]

15. Wow, the denial is stupefying.

Swivet? Spare me.

Oh, Milton Bradley called, they have a new game you should try. It's called CLUE. You should pick one up.

Have a nice, privileged day.

[MADem]

16. No, but the urge to start a mindless and pointless argument is strong with you, I see.

You have no idea what my views are on the subject of religion, atheism, and agnosticism, but you make pouting assumptions because I fail to leap aboard the rickety, poorly built bandwagon you've cobbled together. That certainly reflects on you--not me.

I'll cut you some slack, because you're coming off like a flustered stuck-in-the-eighties teen with your ancient telephone reference. Poor you.

You have one of those nice days yourself...and try to understand that in this world, YOUR opinion is not the ONLY opinion!

[cleanhippie]

18. Are you trying to convince me or yourself?

Sounds like you have given this sermon before.

[mr blur]

26. You ARE missing the point - deliberately, I suspect.

But that's par for the course.

And, of course, your behaviour help to make the point which I would guess wasn't your intention. Get over yourself.

[MADem]

27. You are wrong. I won't go into snarky "par for the course" remarks--that's your schtick.

You might take your own advice. It would make for a refreshing change.

[Warpy]

17. Uh, you ARE missing the point.

He's just called 15% of the population subhuman and you have no problem with that.

That is the point.

[MADem]

19. Try reading what I wrote. nt

[laconicsax]

21. Why do you always seem to assume that someone who disagrees with you didn't read what you wrote?

Is the possibility that you may not be right or that someone may simply see something differently so far removed from reality that you won't even consider it?

[MADem]

23. Because you plainly didn't read it--I never approached the subject from a position of being "right."

If you'd read what I wrote, you'd see that.

I have not discussed my religious-or lack of same-views on this thread.

Have a nice evening.

[cleanhippie]

57. One last attempt.

Kindly read Rob H.'s post. Maybe it will make things click for you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12189698#post55

[laconicsax]

68. Because *I* plainly didn't read it?

Do you even keep track of who you're replying to?

[MADem]

70. I was replying to you, and your assertion. So yes, I do keep track. nt

[laconicsax]

71. Since when does a question constitute an assertion?

I asked two questions of you.

Questions aren't assertions.

[MADem]

75. Your "questions" (rhetorical demands) were based on your wrong assumption that

I had some sort of need to be "right."

If you would read what I wrote, you'd see I don't particularly care about the "right" or "wrong" of this dramatic straw man argument postulated at the start of this thread.

The point I make, and that I will continue to make, is that people who let the words of film actors ruin their day could take a different view, and not let "names" hurt them.

Not a hard concept to grasp, surely.

[laconicsax]

82. I accept your apology.

BTW: I was interested in an answer to both of my questions, so they certainly weren't rhetorical demands. You lose again.

[MADem]

85. You really didn't read what I wrote!

I don't lose, because I don't play stupid games. I'll leave that to you.

[Dorian Gray]

32. That point

wasn't lost on me.

As a practicing Christian, though, I wasn't outraged when the headline made it seem like he was disparaging the religious.

Outrage takes too much effort.

(Now, on a objective level, his words are stupid.)

I just think that you projecting that Christians would be outraged if he said what your headline implied is incorrect. The vast majority of people would just think: "Who cares what he thinks?"

[Goblinmonger]

39. I don't think that is the case here on DU

Maybe the majority, but the vocal theists would not let something like that slip if an atheist in R/T made that comment about Christians. I would venture to guess that posting would be hidden by a jury.

And perhaps the majority of believers would think "Who cares" because the enjoy the privilege of the atheist having no power over them with those thoughts.

[Dorian Gray]

44. Maybe

and maybe I'm projecting my own feelings onto others. Maybe I feel that way because growing up Roman Catholic in the Northeast, people haven't really shown prejudice against me and I'm comfortable with myself.

But when faced with the assumption that any christian reading that Denzel (or any actor) would disparage Christians, I've got to point out that there are many of us who really woudn't care much one way or the other.

I know that these threads often go to the jury, and there has been an unfair bias toward atheists at times. It sucks. But that doesn't change that cleanhippie's original post might not elicit the emotions he thought that they would. At least not in me.

[Scootaloo]

25. No, words will never hurt me

But lynch mobs inspired by propaganda just might.

[MADem]

28. Ah, the hyperbole over a straw man is strong, here! nt

[Scootaloo]

49. Just making a point

Denzel is very plainly lumping all these things together. It kind of reminds me of that Hedley Lamarr quote from Blazing Saddles:

"I want rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers, and Methodists!"

except Blazing Saddles is an intentionally raunchy satire and comedy, while Mr. Washington is playing it straight.

If you don't believe people can be incited to violence by this sort of rhetoric, might I remind you of a doctor named George Tiller?

[MADem]

60. Well, there's a difference of opinion about that on this thread.

Every single "quote" from the man provided here has a few key ellipses that could well conceal exculpatory information. Nothing is "plain" at all.

I simply do not care enough about the topic to research it. If you do, why, knock yourself out.

Your Tiller example is both hyperbolic and does not hold water, as you well know. It wasn't "rhetoric" that caused that man to be murdered, it was Tiller's specific actions and the behavior of a crazy man who didn't appreciate them.

[Rob H.]

64. "Every single "quote" from the man provided here

has a few key ellipses that could well conceal exculpatory information. Nothing is "plain" at all."

Wrong. Watch the video at the link in the OP. The ellipsis in the quote is used to denote a pause in his speech, not something that was removed from the original. And what about this?

“There‘s a book I read called ’The Sociopath Next Door.’ And — I read something from it every day before I would go on the set. It really became my guide. When you think of a sociopath…you think of someone violent. The overwhelming majority of sociopaths aren’t violent. They just have a desire to win. They just don’t have a conscience — they don’t have it. The majority of them are atheists as well. So that was the book that was sort of my Bible if you will…in preparation for this part.”

Still think people are exaggerating or somehow misinterpreting what he meant?

(Emphasis added by me.)

[Scootaloo]

67. Actually, it's very plain

Here's a video:

It's the interview the article talks about.
It's linked from the article. Which mentions the video.
The "ellipses" is where Denzel trails off for a second. It should be a comma; blame an editor who follows colloquial rather than proper grammar, if you want.

Denzel is clearly equating the following things:
Sociopathy
Lack of conscience
Murder
Lying
Bitterness
Narcissism
Greed
Loneliness
and... atheism.

I think atheists are well within their rights to take offense to this.

As for Dr. Tiller... Remember the appellation he got from FOX? "Tiller the Baby Killer"? This 'cute' phrase was used frequently, and the man was attacked and insulted and denigrated, called a murderer on the air, and audiences were told "someone ought to do something." So... Someone did. Would Dr. Tiller be dead without a constant stream of propaganda against him as a person? Dunno.

Point is, words can easily incite people to violent action, MADem. Maybe you could set aside your apparent apathy and poke your nose into a bit of history, huh?

[MADem]

72. Well, Denzel had best watch his step then, is that what you're saying?

I'm sorry, I just cannot get exorcised over the supposed comments of an actor about a character he is playing. I think the construct of this thread is designed to ask for--no, demand-- outrage, and I am not feeling it.

I understand history quite clearly, and it was Tiller's actions that lit the fire under a few idiots, one of whom took it to murderous consequences. When you pull the string, that's what you come back with--actions. Behaviors. Conduct. The words followed them. The violence followed that. Not the same kettle of fish at all. Denzel may (or may not) have an opinion, but that is all it is.

But whatever. Continue with the drama, if it makes you happy.

[darkstar3]

73. Tiller's actions? REALLY?

Did you perhaps miss the fact that Tiller's actions were entirely legal and in many cases necessary?

More importantly, did you happen to miss the fact that Roeder drove halfway across the state to kill Tiller? If it weren't for the hateful message, how in the hell would Roeder have come up with the idea to drive that far and kill that doctor?

"Tiller's actions" my ass.

[MADem]

76. Stop struggling to be poutraged--of course his actions were legal. Do I need to say "Duh?"

And certainly they were necessary, probably in most if not all cases, and most assuredly from the perspective of the patient, certainly.

You do realize a nutcase--not an ordinary chap--killed the guy, don't you? Tiller's actions motivated that nutcase--not his words, his actions. His perfectly legal actions. He didn't kill Tiller because he was a grower of geraniums, after all.

Stop with the drama. You're trying to deliberately misconstrue, for reasons known only to you, and doing a very poor job of it.

Life is short. Arguing over horseshit on the internet is a waste of your time--I know it's a waste of mine.

[darkstar3]

78. There it is.

By completely ignoring what I said about the hateful message, you admit that you're wrong and desperately twisting words in order to make it appear that you are not so. When you accuse others repeatedly in a single post of things like "poutrage", "drama", etc., all you're doing is throwing up a smokescreen.

And BTW, you've mentioned in this thread several times that this is apparently a waste of time. So why are you still here?

[MADem]

80. What part of "Don't let the opinions of actors ruin your day" is unclear to you?

That's my message here. That's it. Nothing more.

Apparently, for some, who delight in a fight over nothing, that's not enough. I'm being accused of all sorts of nefarious thoughts and beliefs on this thread, without evidence or justification, put forth solely in an effort to provoke, and nothing more.

Thanks for the reminder to stop wasting my time--it's appreciated.

[Scootaloo]

83. No, I'm saying Denzel said something offensive

I'm not "outraged" - part of the joy of being an atheist is not worrying too hard about some dumb motherfucker "blaspheming" - but it is offensive to be categorized with, well, all that other stuff.

And are you really peddling excuses for Scott Roeder? Wow. You must be another one of those "My post counts lets me pull freeper bullshit" folks.

[MADem]

84. I am not "peddling excuses" for anyone. Jeez. RIF. nt

[Goblinmonger]

87. That's the most ironically rich thing I've read in days

That you are oblivious (or are pretending to be) to what you are doing ruins, completely, your credibility here. Why can't you just admit that Washington said bigoted things and those that the bigoted comments were aimed at have a right to be offended?

[MADem]

89. Yeah, sure, whatever floats your little boat. Have one of those nice days. nt

[Goblinmonger]

90. Nice passive-aggressive response. "little boat" Nice.

I'm sure I will never see you respond that something that is said in R/T or in the "real world" is offensive to Christians. I have a long memory, so should be interesting to see how long you go.

[Silent3]

50. Are you at least breaking a sweat with all of that ducking and dodging?

Or does it come to you so naturally you don't even notice it?

How a person copes with someone's bad behavior, and how bad that behavior is are TWO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS. You seem eager to avoid the latter issue.

All of your unwanted stick-and-stones advice is totally missing the point. Deciding not to let yourself get "worked up" over the prejudiced things a person says doesn't mean not having an opinion about how prejudiced those things were to say.

Whether you personally are equally blasé or equally concerned about Denzel Washington's bigoted remarks (which I rather doubt, given the suspect nature of trotting out the stick-and-stones dodge ONLY HERE), if you don't acknowledge that American society as a whole is happier to let bigotry against atheists slip by than bigotry against believers, then you're living in denial.

[MADem]

59. Don't ascribe motives to me--you'd be quite wrong, as you are.

Flinging "ducking and dodging" poop is an immature way of making a point, you know. I am not "eager" for anything--you apparently are, though.

Take what I say at face value, and stop trying to falsely interpret. You'll be happier if you do. You'll also be a bit more accurate.

You'd do well to not get "worked up" yourself. This is the internet. Not everyone shares your level of outrage over things that popular strangers might have to say (or might be selectively interpreted to produce a strawman of poutrage for the masses). That's life.

You are the one living in denial if you continue to demand that everyone be like you. Hectoring never works. Nor do sly insults or clumsy demands of "acknowledgements" -- try the "live and let live" technique, instead--you'll be happier.

Or maybe you won't.

Whatever.

[Silent3]

61. I may not be able to completely determine your motives...

...but basically, I don't buy your denials.

If Washington had said, "I think he is a sociopath. I think he doesn’t have a conscience. I think he is a Jew and a murderer and a liar.", I sincerely doubt your reaction to a Jew who took exception to those words would be, "Hey, don't get your panties in a twist! Why let it bother you? What, are you going out of your way to find things to feel insulted about or something?"

That, however, is your reaction so far to an atheist reacting to the original "atheist" wording.

This leaves two unsavory major possibilities:

(1) You would be just as insensitive to a Jew reacting to anti-Semitic remarks.
(2) You reserve that insensitivity for atheists.

If there is any way that this works out in a manner that sheds a good light on your replies in this thread, there's nothing so far in your hand-waving attitude that makes me inclined to work very hard at discovering that positive viewpoint.

[MADem]

74. I am not asking you to "buy" anything. Sheesh. Get over yourself.

And do stop trying to tell me what I think. You've lost the focus and the argument entirely if you have to resort to an "unsavory" accusation that involves dragging out "the Jews" and then hiding behind them as a shield to quite desperately try to make a point, and then whining that I am mean about atheists because I don't leap aboard the poutrage train.

I mean, really. Try just sticking to what I said in the first place.

It's a smart practice to not let the musings of film actors ruin your day. Give it a shot, why don't you? You may discover that things aren't as dire as you want to make them.

[Silent3]

79. It's also a smart practice to realize how...

...transparent you are. This hasn't the slightest thing to do with anyone "getting over themselves", not me nor anyone else here who isn't buying your bigoted song and dance.

And what the hell does this even have to do with film actors or anyone's day being ruined? Such desperate repeated diversions to totally miss-the-point subject matter. Barely the slightest ripple went through my day from reading the OP beyond "ah, there's that bigotry I've learned to expect again", and, what you're so perfectly demonstrating, how many people just like you who are out there who'll don't give a damn and give that crap a pass.

[MADem]

81. You have a nice day. Find someone else to play with. nt

[Dorian Gray]

31. I had a similar reaction

I wasn't outraged in reading the headline. I was curious.

Then I read his actual quote.

Same reaction. Curious.

[MADem]

77. +1 nt

[MrSlayer]

2. I don't see him doing any such thing.

I see him describing characteristics of the person he's portraying. He doesn't say that he's a sociopath because he's an atheist. He describes the character as a sociopathic atheist, murderer and thief.

[cleanhippie]

4. Sorry, you have it wrong.

While he is describing his character, he is equivocating all those traits (atheist=murderer=liar=no conscience=sociopath)


It's plainly evident.

[MrSlayer]

14. I think you are reading it the way you want.

And seem to be looking for a reason to be angry. I'm reading it as separate characteristics being described.

That is not to say that I can't see how you might think that is what occurring in this interview. I just don't agree.

As an aside, I once sold an eightball to Denzel when he was here filming "Philadelphia".

[MADem]

20. And to add fuel to the fire, it's "The Examiner" which means some bozo wrote it the way they wanted.

Designed for umbrage, as most of those "articles" are, written by non-reporters with an axe to grind.

[xocet]

22. The interview does not support your claim....

He is just describing the nature of the character that he plays in the movie. You are reading quite a lot into his words.

Also, equivocate is not a transitive verb: the verb you seem to be looking for is equate.

[Goblinmonger]

40. Oh, come on. Why does he list it there if it isn't important to the rest.

Does this make sense?

I think he is a sociopath. I think he doesn’t have a conscience. I think he is a blonde and a murderer and a liar.”

Of course not. He listed things that he thinks are all linked together. He IS equating them.

[xocet]

106. Well....

I am going to town to buy some bread, cheese, eggs, grapes, insecticide and milk.

I suppose that (by your ambiguous application of logic) I have to be intending to consume the insecticide. After all, these items are all in the same list, and they must be equivalent in some way.

Indeed, they are equivalent in some way but that is open to interpretation. My claim is that it is not that they are all consumable groceries, but that they are all going to be purchased.

If you go to see the film, you will see that Washington's character has lost belief in many things. So, unless you have further evidence to support your claim, the interpretation would need to be left open.

[Goblinmonger]

107. No, it would be your incorrect application of logic there.

From your list, I can assume that those are all connected because they are all things you are going to buy. For you to be saying what others are saying on here about Washington's list is that you aren't actually buying the insecticide.

The things in your list are all connected by something just like all the things in Washington's list are connected.

And you can't tell me seriously that if an atheist actor said the exact same list about a character and said Christian in the list, that people wouldn't think it was just another militant atheist broadbrushing Christians. Because they would. And they would be right.

[muriel_volestrangler]

108. See other interviews linked in #51 and #55/#58

Washington calls sociopaths 'usually atheist', and says 'the majority of them are atheists'. So we have unambiguous evidence that he thinks most sociopaths are atheists. He, of course, has no evidence for this at all.

[humblebum]

6. I have no more rage with his comments than I do when you belittle and

condemn Christians.

[cleanhippie]

9. Ah, humblebum. If we could only be as pious as you.

[Goblinmonger]

41. You are one of those that has claimed you would call out bigotry

regardless of whom it was against. Why aren't you here?

[humblebum]

42. Really? So what did I express in #6? nt

[Goblinmonger]

43. Passive-Aggressivity?

My wife tells me that if I say "I'm sorry, but..." it isn't really an apology. I think that kind of applies here.

[humblebum]

45. You seem to be attempting to either read things into or to twist words.

I simply said I have "no more rage than ...." So do I ever challenge others who display anti-Christian or anti-religious rhetoric? Answer: YES.

I couldn't care less about what you say I said, because I know exactly what I said. And since the vast majority of commentary in this group is critical or condemning of religion, that should serve to put the words into perspective.

[Goblinmonger]

46. Yes, you're right

Saying "no more rage than..." is EXACTLY the same the normal "organized atheism is a threat to all that is good and just in the world and look at how they attack the religious" that we usually get from you. My apologies.

[humblebum]

47. Not much different than saying

Religion is a threat to all that is good and just in the world and look at how they attack others, now is it? A very common sentiment in this group, and from organized atheists.

[rocktivity]

8. If Denzel is saying that conscience cannot exist without piety, he needs to do a LOT more reading.

Last edited Fri Dec 7, 2018, 06:40 PM - Edit history (11)

And I suggest that he start with a book about the Jonestown Massacre.

I don't think he would make the argument that Reverend Jim Jones should NOT be considered a psychopath because his actions were rooted in his religious beliefs.




rocktivity

[cleanhippie]

10. No, he is saying that a conscience cannot exist without piety.

[rocktivity]

12. I mis-wrote -- was editing while you were responding. n/t

Last edited Sat Aug 26, 2017, 02:37 PM - Edit history (5)

Thanks.


rocktivity

[saras]

11. Substitute "believer in string theory" for atheist. Still think it's not biased?

Not knowing who Denzel Washington is, I thought the headline quite reasonable, and didn't think of anything offensive at all, just wondered what particular set of offenses he would be talking about.

When I hear "atheist" I tend to think "ethicist". When I hear "religious" I tend to think "nutcase..."
Most willfully bad people I've ever encountered were religious. They believe in God and the Devil, and they serve the Devil, or they believe you have to serve them both fifty-fifty.

Like this...

[pennylane100]

24. I am still trying to make sense of your post.

I am wondering what kind of outrage you would like us to manufacture when an actor describes a book that he used to develop the character he was playing in a movie. The character in the book was apparently an atheist, a murderer, a sociopath and a liar. I did not read the whole article but I got the feeling from your outrage that somehow he alluded to the fact that these were qualities that would somehow be in keeping with his views about atheists.

If it upsets you so much that atheists (I like to think I am one) are being slandered by Washington, you should at least mention the remarks he made that upset you. If the best you have is reference to a book he read, you really need to get a life.

[MADem]

29. +1 nt

[skepticscott]

30. You and others are STILL missing the point

which is not that atheists need to be scared of what he said, or that what he said about atheists was that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. It's that if he had said the SAME things (which you claim are innocuous when applied to atheists) about Jews, Muslims or Christians, there would have been a firestorm of outrage. That outrage might have been equally unreasonable and overblown (for the same innocuous statements), but it would have happened nonetheless, and telling outraged Christians to "get a life" in that case probably would get you more of the same.

It's the double standard that's the point, not that this is deeply wounding to atheists.

[pennylane100]

48. again my question to you is

what is so offensive about describing A CHARACTER IN A BOOK who happens to be a very bad person and an atheist.

You keep saying that myself and a few other posters are missing the point. Have you considered that it is not that we are missing it, it is just that we do not agree with it. You refuse to acknowledge that he made these remarks about a fictional character and yet you want us to take them seriously.

You can go into any bookstore or library and find books about Jews, Christians, Muslims and just about any belief system (with the possible exception of Quakers, who always seem so nice) and there will be characters in those books that would have all the characteristics of the person in the book Washington read, except of course their religion, and it would be perfectly acceptable for an actor to explain it. I do not know or care what type of person Washington is, I just think you need a better
reason to play "the outraged atheist" than the one you are using.

[Silent3]

86. Denzel Washington's wording does not imply a mere "happens to be"...

Last edited Thu Feb 16, 2012, 04:52 PM - Edit history (1)

...relationship between atheism and sociopathy, the wording strongly implies a causal relationship -- that the character's atheism is either a symptom or cause of being a sociopath.

Did Washington say flat out that he thinks atheists lack morals and tend toward sociopathic behavior? No, not flat out. The whole point of the OP inviting people to consider those same words that Washington used, but with "Jew", "Christian", or "Muslim" substituted, is that if one of those words had been substituted for "atheist" far fewer people would be insisting that Washington's bigotry had to be unambiguously crystal clear in order to be called out as bigotry.

If my reaction to the OP had been to say not merely "Denzel Washington is stupid", but "Denzel Washington is a stupid black man" how eager would you be to leap in and defend me, to make excuses that I never said that all blacks are stupid, that I'd "merely" said that Washington is stupid and happens to be black?

[Goblinmonger]

33. The replies to this thread are hilarious.

For all the talk in the forum I see about how believers would stand up to bigotry against atheists, those people are markedly absent in this discussion and those believers that are replying and just trying to dismiss what was said and imply that atheists are just overreacting to what Washington said.

If I said what Denzel said and substituted "Christian" for "atheist," my post would be hidden. I have no doubt.

But you all just keep telling yourself differently. Whatever gets you through the night, I guess.

[cleanhippie]

34. It is amazing how they are noticably absent. For all of their handwringing and bloviating...

they are nowhere to be found when the opportunity to "practice what you preach" is presented.


And they wonder why we have such difficulty distinguishing them from the Phelps' and Robertsons of the world. Maybe its because when you get right down to it, there IS no distinguishing them.

[Humanist_Activist]

62. Frankly I believe its because they agree with Denzel, its not prejudice if its true...

in their minds anyways. Given how believers here and IRL behave, I'm sure they are cheering the arrest of the Indonesian atheist, and probably think the death penalty should apply as well. Secretly of course, wouldn't want to go too far in expressing their sincerely held religious beliefs.

[Leontius]

93. So your response to the bigoted statement of Denzel Washington

is to give one of your own. I guess two wrongs make a right in your world.

[Humanist_Activist]

98. I'm just making an observation on behavior, considering how...

the behavior of religious people are excused on this board and elsewhere, up to an including threats of assault, actual assault, etc. I don't see any reason to believe that any "true believers" even want to be, at the very least, tolerant of atheists, much less want to coexist with them.

[Leontius]

101. Well then I guess the only thing I can do is apologize

to Denzel Washington since his statements aren't bigoted because evidently it's his observation that most scoipaths are atheists.

[Humanist_Activist]

102. Considering your own posting history on separation of church and state...

and excusing the actions of religious people, I really don't care what you think, why should I care what a theocrat thinks?

[Leontius]

103. Distortion and outright falsehoods are not good traits to display in public.

[Humanist_Activist]

104. Sorry, got you confused with Kurmudgeon...

you might not be an outright theocrat, jury is still out on that one.

[Leontius]

105. No problem

I understand how it can be hard to tell believers apart since we must all be the same according to some here. You do understand what a real theocracy is, I hope and if you are still confused about where I stand on it just ask for clarity.

[darkstar3]

66. Par for the course.

If there's one thing I've come to expect more than anything else, it's the double standard.

[soleft]

35. Denzel is an asshole

A gifted actor maybe, but an asshole. I make this judgement because I have a friend who wrote a movie he was in, and when they met on set, Denzel treated him like dirt because he was the star and my friend was just the lowly writer. So the fact that bullshit would spew from his mouth does not surprise me.

[Sal316]

36. Hope you didn't hurt yourself making that leap....

If he had said that atheists are sociopaths without conscience, I'd totally agree with you.


...but he's talking about an imaginary person, a character, a celluloid creation.


Do you get this outraged when movie characters with overwhelming piety written into them (ie Silas from The Davinci Code) are portrayed as sociopaths and murderers without conscience?

[cleanhippie]

38. Its not a leap, sal. Its as plain as day.

He equated atheists=murderers=liars=have no conscience.


You don't get the point, I understand. Others do, and that's good enough.

Have a nice day.

[Sal316]

91. Actually, I do get your point.

...and have measured it and found it to be lacking.

But hey, if you want to get pissed off about an actor talking about a character he's playing, go right ahead.

[cleanhippie]

94. No, you don't get it at all.

It has nothing at all to do with the character he is playing.

[muriel_volestrangler]

100. No, it's not about the character; look at the other quotes

Reply #51: "The traits of a sociopath: No conscience, no sense of remorse, usually atheist, just always want to win, dominate"
Reply #55 (link at #58): "The overwhelming majority of sociopaths aren’t violent. They just have a desire to win. They just don’t have a conscience — they don’t have it. The majority of them are atheists as well"

He has said, twice, that he thinks most sociopaths, in real life, are atheists.

[Jester Messiah]

37. As an atheist, I say "Fuck you, Denzel." [nt]

[Jim__]

51. "The traits of a sociopath: No conscience, no sense of remorse, usually atheist ..."

From the interview with Matt Lauer (5 minute video at the site):

"I read this book called 'The Sociopath Next Door,' and that was like my Bible, that I related to," he told TODAY's Matt Lauer. "The traits of a sociopath: No conscience, no sense of remorse, usually atheist, just always want to win, dominate.... He's about to get waterboarded and he's telling the guy he brought the wrong towels. He's still trying to win."

Did anyone read the book? Is that where the idea comes from? Is it based on research - not meaning that atheists are usually sociopaths, but sociopaths are usually atheist? My understanding of sociopath is that it is pathological. So, if most sociopaths are atheist, does that have any significance for atheists in general? I wouldn't think so. If most sociopaths are religious, does that have any significance for the religious in general? I wouldn't think so.

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. Since the book characterises 4% of Americans as sociopaths

http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/0767915828

then to say they are 'usually' atheist would be to claim at least 2% of American are sociopathic atheists.

1.6% of Americans call themselves atheists: http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

So Washington would be claiming that more or less every atheist is a sociopath. If it were true, it would be highly significant for the atheist population. I can find no reviews of the book, by a professor, that say it singles out atheists; I find it hard to believe a professor would get it so wrong. I think it's Washington who has slurred atheists.

On edit: The Amazon 'search inside' feature turns up just one use of the word 'atheist', which can be seen in context here. Having talked about theological ideas of morality, it moves on to discuss "the theories of physician/scientist (and atheist) Sigmund Freud". (No results for 'atheists' or 'atheism').

I think this all comes from Washington, and he is a bigot.

[Jim__]

53. wikipedia: ... the number of people in the US who don't believe in a god to be about 9%.

From wikipedia:

A 2004 BBC poll showed the number of people in the US who don't believe in a god to be about 9%.[10] A 2008 Gallup poll showed that a smaller 6% of the US population believed that no god or universal spirit exists.[31] The most recent ARIS report, released March 9, 2009, found in 2008, 34.2 million Americans (15.0%) claim no religion, of which 1.6% explicitly describes itself as atheist (0.7%) or agnostic (0.9%), nearly double the previous 2001 ARIS survey figure of 0.9%.[32] The highest occurrence of "nones", according to the 2008 ARIS report, reside in Vermont, with 34% surveyed.[33]

This estimate changes all the time. Just based on Washington's quote - not knowing much about either him or the book - I'd have to guess he took that from the book (his Bible on sociopathy).

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. Even to claim 22% of those who do not believe in god are sociopaths

would be either a major finding, or a horrible slur. I updated my post above, by the way; there's nothing in the book about atheists being sociopaths. It looks like it's all made up by Washington, so I'll call him an idiotic bigot.

[Jim__]

56. Did you scan the book for the word "God"?

How about "religion", "spirituality", "faith"? I find it difficult to limit the possible interpretations of a book based on scanning for a word. I did, however, scan for the word "God". It's there, a number of times. An excerpt from page 212 - 213:

...

Though less conspicuously, a belief in oneness is part of the Judeo-Christian tradition as well. In 1939, as yet another shattering attempt at world domination rumbled in Europe, Jewish theologian and philosopher Martin Buber address the National Conference of Palestinian Teachers in Tel-Aviv. He concluded his address by saying, "Nothing remains but what rises above the abyss of today's monstrous problems, as above every abyss of every time: the wing-beat of the spirit and the creative word. But he who can see and hear out of unity will also behold and discern again what can be beheld and discerned eternally. The educator who helps to bring man back to his own unity will help to put him again face to face with God."

In whatever tradition they occur, spiritual practices focused on an awareness of interbeing tend to have the intriguing psychological side effect of bringing significant earthly happiness to their most devoted practitioners, almost regardless of external circumstances. In a book that is a collaboration between psychologist Daniel Goleman and His Holiness the Dalai Lama, entitled Destructive Emotions: A Scientific Dialogue with the Dalai Lama, Goleman writes, "The very act of concern for others' well-being, it seems, creates a greater state of well-being within oneself" In recent years, increasing numbers of scientists have echoed this impression. At a 2002 conference on science and the mind attended by the Dalai Lama, distinguished Australian neurobiologist Jack Pettigrew remarked, "If you go to Dharamsala [Indian home of the Tibetan community in exile], you go up through the fog in mid-winter and you come out in the bright sunshine, it's like going to heaven. What strikes you immediately is the happy smiling faces of the Tibetans, who don't have much, have been terribly deprived, and yet they are happy. Well, why are they happy?"

The Dalai Lama himself is interested in answering this question scientifically and finding a secular way to creat the compassionate sense of interbeing that is achieved by devour practitioners of Tibetan Bhuddist meditation. To this end, he has launched an international series of dialoques between scientists and Bhuddist scholars, the most recent of which, in 2003, was cosponsored by the Mind and Life Institute in Colorado and the McGovern Institute of the Massachussetts Institute of Technology. He intends these dialogues to yield practical solutions to the destructive states of mind that both the Bhuddists and the scientists view as the root of human confilct and suffering.

As a psychologist, I am particularly taken with the Dalai Lama's description of those whom I might refer to as sociopaths, or as people devoid of an intervening sense of obligation based in connectedness to others. He refers to such people as "people who don't have well developed human lives." More specifically, the Dalai Lama said of the World Trade Center attacks, "Technology is a good thing but the use of technology in the hands of people who don't have well developed human lives can be disastrous."

...

Now, do I think this chapter says that sociopaths are usually atheists? No. Do I think that Denzel Washington, looking back at the book and after having played his character as a sociopath and atheist could remember it that way? Yes. I've done enough checking of my recollections to know that they are not exact. I've read that is normal for human memory. Denzel plays the character, apparently a character under threat of immediate death as an atheist. Do I think the character's atheism is important to how Denzel plays him? Yes. IOW, I think this is much ado about nothing.

After all, I could start a thread that claims Denzel Washington associates winners with sociopaths - but, that would be silly.

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. I scanned it for 'god', and also read the 'spirituality' section, after looking at the index

and, as you say, it doesn't say sociopaths are atheists. What it says is that psychology and religion agree that being altruistic makes for a well-balanced, happy person.

"Do I think that Denzel Washington, looking back at the book and after having played his character as a sociopath and atheist could
remember it that way? Yes."

I think you're giving a bigot far too much benefit of the doubt. The book's message is nothing like that. There is yet another interview out there, in which he says ""The majority of them (sociopaths) are atheists as well." (link goes to Beck's The Blaze, but I'm afraid that's where it's been quoted). Washington really is convinced that most sociopaths are atheists. And there's nothing in the book that we can see, or in any reviews, that imply anything remotely like that. If he thought that was the message to take from the book, it proves his prejudice - he must have had that as a suspicion before, and completely misinterpreted it.

[Leontius]

63. I think he just makes these connections , religious= predominatly moral , atheist= predominatly

amoral , sociopaths=amoral, so most sociopaths must be atheist and that is bigoted. I am curious to know how many actually saw the other quotes before they formed their opinions.

[Rob H.]

55. Here's what he said in another interview, and it's unambiguous

Emphasis added by me:

“There‘s a book I read called ’The Sociopath Next Door.’ And — I read something from it every day before I would go on the set. It really became my guide. When you think of a sociopath…you think of someone violent. The overwhelming majority of sociopaths aren’t violent. They just have a desire to win. They just don’t have a conscience — they don’t have it. The majority of them are atheists as well. So that was the book that was sort of my Bible if you will…in preparation for this part.”

Now, I did a little poking around and haven't been able to find any mention of lack of religious affiliation being one of the characteristics of a sociopath, so I'm thinking he didn't read the book as closely as he claims, he didn't fully understand it, or he's just pulling this straight out of his ass. Even the summaries and reviews I've found of the book to which he's referring don't mention it.

Edited to add one of the lists I found:

Traits of a sociopath:
1. Glib and superficial charm
2. Grandiose self-worth
3. Need for stimulation or proneness to boredom
4. Pathological lying
5. Conning and manipulativeness
6. Lack of remorse or guilt
7. Shallow affect
8. Callousness and lack of empathy
9. Parasitic lifestyle
10. Poor behavioral controls
11. Promiscuous sexual behavior
12. Early behavior problems
13. Lack of realistic, long-term goals
14. Impulsivity
15. Irresponsibility
16. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
17. Many short-term marital relationships
18. Juvenile delinquency
19. Revocation of condition release
20. Criminal versatility

[mia]

65. There are atheists and then there are atheists .

Last edited Thu Feb 16, 2012, 09:20 PM - Edit history (2)

Some do good because it is right. Some use Theism to pretend they do good.
Others simply don't care.

[Goblinmonger]

88. You know you're spelling that wrong.

Or am I missing some sarcasm here on a Thursday morning?

[mia]

97. Thanks

for the spelling tip.

[Evoman]

92. Ha...the funny thing is, I was about to come on here and defend religious people.

I thought that what Denzel said was really unfair, and I was going to call him an asshole. It makes me feel a little sad that religious DUers haven't said anything but "big deal".

Even if his words don't hurt me...I don't really give a shit what Denzel says..it doesn't mean that what he said isn't wrong. It is wrong. It's a very asshole thing to say. And if you aren't prepared to denounce it, then you aren't any fucking friend of mine, that's for sure.

[Silent3]

95. Apparently the only problem is you

You know, your inability to "get over yourself", your caring too much about what actors say, that sort of thing.

[cleanhippie]

96. Did you reply to the wrong post?

[Silent3]

99. No, I was just being sarcastic...

...repeating the same kind of nonsensical, non sequitur BS that had be flung at me and others.

[ButterflyBlood]

109. "an atheist, a murderer and liar" != "a murderer and a liar because he is an atheist"

Quite the leap there.

Not to mention that he's describing a fictional character. If this is offensive than portraying any villain in a film as being an atheist would be.

I found the statement odd though because I've seen the movie and at the risk of giving away spoilers that's not how I saw the character AT ALL. Plenty of other characters in it no question, but not the one Denzel plays.