Image from http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/13909

The Alliance Defense Fund, which is known for trying to tear down the wall of separation between church and state, is now claiming that churches in one town do not have to pay a new tax because of church-state separation.

According to the Huffington Post, Mission, Kansas has instituted a new “transportation utility fee” which taxes properties based on the amount of traffic they get.

“It was just a fair way to spread the cost among those who are generating the traffic,” said Mission Mayor Laura McConwell, “to help pay for the roads that you need to bring people in either for your business or for the churches or to people’s homes.”

But some churches are apparently none to happy about the tax and have asked the Alliance Defense Fund, known for fighting for religious symbols on public property and defending convocations at public schools and government meetings, to help them on 1st Amendment grounds, arguing that the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from taxing churches. Again from the Post

“It makes no sense to tax churches and to limit their ability to provide their services, and it does damage to the constitutional separation between church and state,” argues Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund [...] He acknowledges that church-state separation is generally not an argument made by his conservative Christian law firm; but in this instance, he says “there should be a separation here.”

So apparently the 1st amendment somehow prohibits the government from taxing churches? We could play the Christian Right’s game and bring up the fact that the exact words “separation of church and state” appear nowhere in the Constitution, nor does it explicitly say “The government will not apply transportation utility taxes on churches.” But that would be somewhat disingenuous since the exact wording is not what matters, but the idea behind the words. And no matter how you twist it, the 1st amendment does not even come close to saying churches should pay no taxes. It is ridiculous that churches are exempt from most taxes to begin with. And in this specific case, the transportation fee has absolutely nothing to do with establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Hey, maybe that’s their plan: they’re going to claim that “free” in the Constitution doesn’t mean “unrestricted”, but rather “without cost.” If religion should be “free”, then they shouldn’t pay taxes!

The sad thing is, if the Alliance Defense Fund can suddenly become church-state defenders when it suits them, I wouldn’t put it past them to try to twist the word “free” in the Constitution. I’m glad to see the Religious Right finally recognizes the idea of Church-State separation; it’s too bad it’s only when taxes are concerned.

]]> http://IAMTHEBLOG.COM/wordpress2/2011/01/23/churches-fight-transportation-fee-on-1st-amendment-grounds/feed/ 0 http://IAMTHEBLOG.COM/wordpress2/2010/12/31/war-on-christmas-meets-war-on-terror/ http://IAMTHEBLOG.COM/wordpress2/2010/12/31/war-on-christmas-meets-war-on-terror/#comments Fri, 31 Dec 2010 23:57:26 +0000 admin http://IAMTHEBLOG.COM/wordpress2/?p=1424 Before the end of 2010, one last story on the craziness involved with the so-called “War on Christmas,” which has apparently now started to overlap with the “War on Terror.”

From AlterNet comes an article by the Nashville City Paper describing how a letter sent by the Tennessee branch of the ACLU was placed on a Homeland Security map as “terrorism events and other suspicious activity.”

The ACLU had the audacity to remind schools that during the end of the year, public schools should not be celebrating Christmas to the exclusion of other religious observances because the First Amendment prohibits the government from endorsing religion. Tennessee Homeland Security’s website’s explanation for why it was placed in that category was exactly that: “ACLU cautions Tennessee schools about observing ‘one religious holiday’.”

So the ACLU reminding schools about what the Supreme Court has found in terms of state-church separation apparently puts them with Bin Laden and the shoe bomber. Browning, a spokesperson for Tennessee’s Department of Homeland Security, said it was a “mistake” to label the ACLU letter as a “suspicious activity”. When contacted about it, the spokesperson claimed that it had been reclassified into their website’s “general information category.”

The story doesn’t end there. The Nashville City Paper checked up on this though and found out the ACLU’s letter had now been classified as “general terrorism news.” The Homeland Security spokesperson explained that “That’s the general news category. It doesn’t have anything to do with terrorism.” (Why not just take the darn thing off the website, then?!)

So at first the ACLU sending out a letter about schools respecting the First Amendment was first described on Tennessee’s Homeland Security site as “terrorism events and other suspicious activity” and is now described as “general terrorism news.” Scary times we live in, especially since being associated with terrorist activity can get you on no-fly lists, among other things.

Hopefully 2011 will be a better year for freethought, atheism, and just all-around. Happy New Year!!

Jackson, MS is the among latest cities in the news that are having illegal Christmas displays challenged. FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation) has put one of their plaques in the Capitol building next to a nativity scene placed there by the Mississippi 9/11 Remembrance Association, according to WLBT.

Why would a 9/11 organization put up a nativity scene? The connection between 9/11 and this nativity scene is perhaps that both were organized by religious zealots… The comparison is a little unfair, perhaps. Obviously a nativity scene is not an act of terrorism, but it’s scary that religious people feel like they can do whatever they want just because it’s honoring their god.

There shouldn’t be Christmas displays or atheistic plaques in government buildings. I will admit that, although I support the FFRF, I am concerned that the expansion of the plaques into more cities might mean that it will become the norm or accepted to have Christmas displays, they will just be accompanied by “token” displays that include secular or non-Christian themes.

I think the plaques were originally meant to represent atheists but also as a deterrent (the language in it is strong and some might prefer there  to get rid of both the Christmas decorations and the plaque). I’m not sure it’s working, though. I do not object to the plaque’s message itself, although it isn’t the most positive of fronts to present to theists. But I vacillate on whether I think it is an effective strategy. If the plaque + Christmas scene precedent gets established, Christians will (mostly) get their way of having Christmas in state buildings around the country because they can then argue, “well, the atheists get their sign, too, so what’s the problem?” I want less religion in public places, not religion and atheism mixed.

Why can’t people just celebrate holidays on their own instead of forcing it on everyone in official areas? That pesky First Amendment again always trying to protect the rights of the minority where government is involved… Christmas is alive and well, in case Christians haven’t noticed. Aren’t the gazillion Christmas displays up in stores and private residences this time of year (bad) enough?!?! Hopefully eventually people will realize that religion is a private matter, but it doesn’t look like this will happen any time soon.

Images from WLBT.

For anyone still actually reading this blog after my prolonged absence, here’s some news showing that while hard-core creationism has gone down slightly, the majority of Americans think that evolution didn’t happen or that God is the one guiding evolution.

From Gallup, Via The Atheist Spot

Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago. Thirty-eight percent believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms [...] What no doubt continues to surprise many scientists is that 4 out of 10 Americans believe in the first of these explanations.

What frustrates me is how basic this one is. All you have to do is read the first two chapters of Genesis to see that something’s up: there are two different creation accounts. I guess most people just accept one or the other and leave it at that, instead of throwing the whole thing into question.

If you even ignore the Bible, does no one know about dog breeding? I think some people just think that there are minor changes that occur, and don’t think about the big picture that if little changes are occurring in a small amount of time, then big changes occur over large amount of time. But I guess thousands of fossil specimens and logic don’t go very far these days.

At least a growing percentage of Americans, 16%, believe that humans evolved without a god’s involvement. Maybe by the year 3000 we can get that up to 50%!

A quick follow-up to my post on Prop 8. As pointed out by in a comment by a member of Atheist Nexus, the Bible is far from supporting only what Prop 8 proponents think of as “traditional” marriage. According to the site Religious Tolerance, there are at least 8 types of marriage the Bible specifically condoned by God in the Bible.

If Christians are going to only go to bat for god-friendly weddings, they’ll have to either endorse forced marriage of unwed, unbetrothed rape victims to their attackers or else explain why they are not campaigning for what the Bible clearly outlines as a required form of marriage. Do they really want to make their god angry by not allowing polygany (a man marrying multiple women) or thousands of concubines?

If we’re going to pick and choose what parts of the Bible to follow or legislate, I guess then that means that men “lying” with men (and women with women) should be fair game, too.

Image from http://www.slapupsidethehead.com/2008/11/proposition-8-is-discriminatory-nonsense

Famous author Anne Rice has said she’s leaving Christianity, specifically the Catholic religion she converted to 12 years go after recovering from a coma. This Freethinker article discusses the decision more in detail. She was raised Catholic, abandoned it for atheism, converted back to Catholicism, and is once again renouncing her ties with the church. She apparently has not given up on god or on Christ himself, but on organized Christianity. A few quotes from Anne Rice:

I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life.

I’ve come to the conclusion from my experience with organized religion that I have to leave, that I have to, in the name of Christ, step away from this.

I’ve also found that I can’t find a basis in Scripture for a lot of the positions that churches and denominations take today, and I can’t find any basis at all for an anointed, hierarchical priesthood.

She makes it clear that she’s not anti-Christ, just anti-church. Is this for PR (not wanting to alienating likely the majority of her readers who are Christians) or does she actually like the Bible and not like what churches have done with it?

I’ve heard some people say this and can sympathize to some extent, but if she’s looked at Scripture in detail though, doesn’t she see that not all, but a lot of what she is criticizing does in fact come from Scripture. To take feminism just as an example: 1 Corinthians 14, for example tells women it is “disgraceful” for them to speak in church. She might consider reading the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible’s section on women, for more insight on this…

In any case, I applaud people who reject Christianity’s hate-filled teachings, whether they do so by rejecting the religion outright, or by picking and choosing the occasional nuggets and insights — just so long as they don’t pretend that the Bible (including the New Testament) isn’t backwards, hateful, violent, contradictory, and just plain wrong a large portion of the time.

UPDATE: According to an LA Times article, Rice answers how she envisions being devoted to Christ without being Christian.

It’s talking to God, putting things in the hands of God, trusting that you’re living in God’s world and praying for God’s guidance. And being absolutely faithful to the core principles of Jesus’ teachings.

It would be interesting to know what exactly she thinks the “core principles of Jesus’ teachings” are, since the interpretations of his teachings have helped lead to thousands of denominations, religious wars…As an author herself, you’d think she would find fault with the Bible’s lack of clarity!

Since Christianity is all about love, they are throwing their full support towards gay marriage, right? (Did you detect a note of sarcasm there?)

Here is a link to an article by Christianity Today (which I saw posted in a few freethought-friendly places) which provides some reactions from the Christian community. To be fair, there are some quotes that are fairly neutral or even supportive of LGBT community, but here are a few gems to give you an idea of the other side of the coin.

Majorities are unstable, and while traditional marriage has the upper hand now, it may not in 20 years. [What is going to happen, LGBT people will suddenly become a majority in the next 20 years? Now that's what I call evolution! Or will they just corrupt the rest of God-fearing people by then?]

Because gay marriage is less than God’s best for relationship, we need to equip ourselves to minister to those who will choose it and later realize it might not have been the best decision. [Will they also equip themselves to minister to those who will choose and later realize it was the best decision of their life?]

At stake in the debate is the very nature of marriage itself. Thinking biblically does not allow us to regard marriage as merely prudential or preferential (I like strawberry, you like pistachio), but as a covenantal union of one man and one woman established by God for a purpose that transcends itself. [Comparing the love and devotion of two adults committing to spend the rest of their lives together...to liking pistachios. It'd be hard to make a more ignorant or belittling comparison. Although  "my cute little strawberry" does sound like a nice pet name.]

The Bible makes clear that marriage is God’s idea rather than a social contract that we are free to renegotiate based on changing social trends. [So if we have to follow God's ideas on marriage, does this mean we're sticking with the whole you-must-marry-your-rapist thing dictated in the Bible, then? (Deuteronomy 22:28). If we mustn't follow social trends when it comes to marriage, should we also wear BC-era wedding attire?]

The gospel is deeply serious while Judge Walker’s decision is a jumbled mess of sloppy thinking [...] [That's funny; I would have said the exact opposite.]

Hopefully this ruling will lead society towards understanding of those who are not in the mainstream, instead of the continuing legacy of bigotry towards the “Other” that religions too often help perpetuate.

An Iranian woman, after already being lashed 99 times for adultery, has now been sentenced to be stoned to death. It’s hard to believe such barbaric punishment can occur in the 21st century, but Sakineh Mohammadie Ashtiani, who is a 42-year-old mother, has exhausted all her legal options and could be put to death any day for her alleged crime.

According to CNN

Ashtiani, 42, will be buried up to her chest, according to an Amnesty International report citing the Iranian penal code. The stones that will be hurled at her will be large enough to cause pain but not so large as to kill her immediately.

People continued to be cruelly tortured and killed like this because of religious dogma. Some Muslim apologists claim that since stoning for adultery isn’t in the Koran, that it’s not an Islamic but rather a cultural practice. While it’s true that the Koran doesn’t condone stoning for adultery, it is condoned in hadith writings which are meant to interpret and give guidance to Muslims about the Koran. While interpretation and application of hadiths can vary (notably between sunnis and shiites), the fact remains that this practice stems from Islamic tradition.

Even worse are the facts that

• there is no conclusive proof that the woman actually committed the crime she has been sentenced to death for.
• she has already been punished for her alleged crime (99 lashes), and

According to the Guardian:

Sakineh already endured a sentence of 99 lashes, but her case was re-opened when a court in Tabriz suspected her of murdering her husband. She was acquitted, but the adultery charge was reviewed and a death penalty handed down on the basis of “judge’s knowledge” – a loophole that allows for subjective judicial rulings where no conclusive evidence is present.

Amnesty International has a campaign trying to get Iran to abolish stoning, but there appears to be little chance it will work in time to save Sakineh Mohammadie Ashtiani or at least 10 other people who as of 2010 are awaiting stoning.

Debating whether or not there is a god may be an interesting intellectual enterprise, but in the meantime the horrible crimes committed in the name of supernatural beings goes on. Governments, no matter whether they claim to be Islamic, Christian, or secular, should not be punishing people based on religion.

Photo source: Amnesty International

Big Butter Jesus, aka Touchdown Jesus, a giant Jesus monument in southern Ohio made famous in part by comedian-songwriter Heywood Banks, just burned to the ground after being hit by lightning Monday night. Some were saddened by the fire, while others were amused that God would send a lightning bolt to consume a monument to his Son in fire. (God did allegedly send the real thing down to die a torturous death and burn in hell for 3 days, so I think setting the Jesus statue ablaze is nothing in comparison.)

This is big news; it made the mainstream newswires, which is how I found out about it. Fortunately no one was hurt, but it sounds like tons of people stopped by on the highway to see the giant fireball burn.

To look at the thing, in photos at least, you just kind of assumed if it wasn’t made out of butter, it had to be made out of something solid. Certainly somebody must have realized that making a huge flammable statue with a metal frame was not a good idea. I guess not. According to Yahoo News/AP, “it was made of plastic foam and fiberglass over a steel frame.” The steel frame is all that is left now of the $300,000 statue officially called “King of Kings”. But never fear: the church says “”It will be back, but this time we are going to try for something fireproof.” (that’s an actual quote, by the way, from co-pastor Darlene Bishop.)

I found out about the monument thanks to a friend who showed me Heywood’s song a few years back. I thought it was hilarious. My wife, who’s a Christian as I’ve mentioned before, thought the song was hilarious, too. The song is often in my head when reading about various Christian wackiness. Here’s a link to the lyrics; it’s funnier if you just listen to it before reading the lyrics, in my opinion.

Heywood Banks was asked about the fire, and according to Daytona Daily News he said he has concocted new lyrics to the song in light of it burning down (“extra crispy Jesus!”). No YouTube or audio of this version seems available yet, but when it comes out I’ll be sure to post it here.

Image sources: http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Lightning-strikes-Jesus-statue-Ohio/ss/events/us/061510lightningjesus#photoViewer=/100615/480/urn_publicid_ap_org4d3393dbfb36415fbb259184b3a8d6e2 ; http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Dayton-Daily-News-lightning-King-of-King-thunderstorm/photo//100615/480/urn_publicid_ap_org_b8bd107213aa4e03a8cbb7d90584d889//s:/ap/us_lightning_strikes_jesus_statue;_ylt=Anli0fY6DBOdEojribnAFmJH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTE5bGZwZGlsBHBvcwMxBHNlYwN5bl9yX3RvcF9waG90bwRzbGsDZmxhbWVzc2hvb3R1

It is against both Tennessee and U.S. law to lead public school students in prayer. But some people just won’t stop breaking the law and trying to find ways around it. Should students have to opt-out in order to be spared from teacher-led prayers?

According to WLBT news, “A Franklin County High School teacher was fired on Tuesday for leading her students in prayer in the classroom,” At first this sounds like good news, because the school board did not renew her contract because of her illegally leading prayer in school. But the news is not entirely good.

Apparently, teacher Alice Hawley had been fired “over 15 years ago”…for doing the same thing: leading prayers in class. “A few years later” she was asked back. So at least 15 years ago, she was let go because she was leading students in prayer. Then she was asked back, let’s say 10 years ago as a conservative estimate since we’re not given exact figures. That means she very well may have been leading class prayers for the past 10 years until a student or parent complained, or someone outside the school found out.

The principal was allegedly aware of what the teacher was doing, at least according to one student. “And sometimes our principle [sic: principal] comes and he’ll bow his head and he’ll pray with us.” If the principal was coming in and praying, he obviously was aware of the practice at some point before the teacher was let go; and since he actively participated in the prayers he may very well also be breaking the law, depending on the circumstances.

But in addition to subjecting some students who may be of different religious faiths or no faith at all to the teacher’s prayers, it’s the teacher’s defense that particularly irks me. One of her students said her policy was that if a student objected to the teacher praying:

“She said you can leave a letter an anonymous email, or just tell her raise your hand in class,”

So apparently, if the student is presenting the situation accurately, this teacher thinks that it’s okay if she imposes religious prayer upon her students, who are minors, so long as she tells them they can raise their hand to complain or leave an anonymous letter if they object. What she apparently doesn’t get is that she is in a position of authority, and that as a public school teacher, she is also acting as a representative of the government. She is not allowed to advocate religion. For her to say that the default is prayer and that you have to complain to stop it, when most or all of your other classmates support the prayer, is clearly a violation and an undue burden to put on a minor.

The video shows several students with shirts or writing on their arms saying “I broke the rule, I prayed in school” in support of their now-fired teacher and her prayers. What happens if a kid does not wear such a shirt, or does not actively support their teacher? Will they be singled out overtly or subtly and treated differently?

Teachers and other people hired by the state or federal government should not be forcing religion on anyone, especially not children. Children should not be forced to protest in order for the law to be upheld; the adults should be doing this on their own. I am glad the teacher got fired, but appalled that she was rehired in the first place, that this was the second time she had to be fired for the same thing, that the principal appears to have known about such prayers and even participated in them, and that her leaving has now further brought students into the fray. Hopefully whoever is hired to replace Hawley will start off their tenure by setting a good example for their students: respect for both students’ rights and the law by not leading classes in prayer.

I could not believe this headline when I saw it.

Irish cardinal to stay on despite abuse concerns (AP via Yahoo News)

The leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland, Cardinal Sean Brady, is refusing calls to step down even though he is involved in the cover-up of sexual abuse (assault and/or rape) cases.

Can you imagine the head of any other organization—the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, a prime minister of a country, even the den master of a cub scout troop—refusing to step down when he admits having knowledge not only of the sexual abuse of minors, but also of efforts to coerce victims into not reporting the abuse, yet he did not come public with this knowledge while other kids were being abused?

According to the article:

In the 1970s [...] he was at meetings where children had to sign oaths of silence about allegations of abuse against a Nobertine priest, Brendan Smyth, who was later convicted and died in prison.

Who else in this world, besides a so-called man of the cloth, would be allowed to continue leading an organization (with thousands if not millions of kids as members in that country, mind you) after he witnessed and kept silent about such a thing? And with 200 new allegations of abuse being brought to light between April 2009 and March 2010, who would have the audacity to declare he is going to stay on in his position?

Pope Benedict XVI sent a letter to Irish Catholics apologizing for the abuse in these and other cases, but

Victims of abuse said they were deeply disappointed by the letter as it failed to address the role of senior church leaders in the scandal.

But this news deeply disturbed me on the face level of sexual abuse, and the man’s unwillingness to take responsibility for his complicity in the matter, but on several other levels as well.

• The AP article starts out by saying the cardinal was involved in “a cover-up of a sexual abuse case decades ago”. It isn’t until later that we read that “a sexual abuse case” (singular) involves “children” (plural). I find the use of the singular in the lead paragraph to be misleading.

• Since the article doesn’t deem it worthy to mention the details of the case, I looked it up and found several sites (including a BBC News article from March) that state that it was two teenage boys, aged between 10 and 14 (is a 10-year-old a “teenager”?), who were abused. I don’t say “allegedly” because of the facts that the offender was found guilty and the Cardinal does not appear to be disputing the facts.

• The BBC News article states that at the time Brady was a “relatively junior cleric it was not his responsibility to report Smyth to the police and that he passed all relevant information to his superiors. Smyth’s child abusing continued for many years after 1975.” The fact that he did not report the abuse and cover-up to authorities meant that other children were abused, for years.

• The media are largely playing down the viciousness of the abuse that happened in these pedophile priest sex cases. As has been pointed out in many venues, the euphemism “abuse” in the media particularly irks me when referring to despicable rape and sexual assault of minors. “Abuse” sounds like maybe a priest touched or fondled children, which would be a serious, life-damaging event in and of itself. But Brendan Smyth was later accused of “rape”, according to a number of sites (including an article by Ireland’s public service station RTE).

• I could not find information as to the nature of the abuse in the specific cases of the two children who were forced to sign the oath of silence, but if later children were allegedly raped, one can imagine the abuse might have gone beyond inappropriate touching. The article should have mentioned that the priest was later accused of rape. I have yet to see an American article that says a priest has been accused of rape, as Smyth was in later cases at least. For other accused rapists, and people who help cover up their tracks, do the media talk about “abuse”? Priests deserve no special treatment when it comes to reports of crime.

• Not only do religious people not deserve a pass when it comes to reporting, they also should be equal under the law. I don’t know enough details about Cardinal Brady, but in other cases of accused rapists and abusers law enforcement and government officials have looked the other way, or given unfair and unjust treatment to accused pedophiles. I recently watched the film Deliver Us From Evil which describes an American priest (O’Grady) who abused numerous children over decades. Complaints to the police didn’t help: the church promised to keep him in a monastery away from children (which didn’t happen). If any other organization promised to keep a child abuser and raper away from children, would the law enforcement just let him go scott free, or would they be tried in the courts? He eventually was jailed, but is now free again. My understanding is that this is not an isolated set of incidents, but that some police and public officials have been knowingly letting the destruction of children’s lives go on for decades just because the accused are priests, clerics, and other religious people.

• Lastly, when is public outcry going to be loud enough that police, government officials, and churches no longer protect rapists, abusers, and the people who cover up what they have done? It’s obvious they won’t protect children when left to their own devices, so people need to demand justice. I think some people still think the abuse is minor or not widespread, but slowly but surely the word seems to be getting out that these are not isolated incidents, but systematic cover-up allegedly going as high as the current pope (London Times, The Guardian).

The rape and sexual abuse of children is sickening and horrendous, and so is the cozy treatment the accused and their cohorts have been getting for years. The Catholic Church needs to be disabused of the notion that it is above the law and that their priests and cardinals are more important than the victims they leave behind. It is time for secular justice to get to the bottom of this and punish these criminals, not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (since that apparently isn’t enough to set them straight), but in the name of justice.

Image source: Wikipedia

Darrel Ray, author of the book “The God Virus”, will be speaking in the Memphis, TN area this Sunday, March 7 at 1 p.m. The event will take place at Neshoba Unitarian Universalist Church: 7350 Raleigh LaGrange Road, Cordova, TN. The event is sponsored by the Memphis Freethought Alliance.

I haven’t read “The God Virus”, but back in October I listened to his interview on Point of Inquiry and I’ve seen a few videos of Ray and I think it should be an interesting talk and hope to be able to attend. Ray’s website is http://www.thegodvirus.net, and his YouTube video channel is http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=damon132.

The video about is from YouTube, with Ray talking about one part of religion that I still have trouble getting over even now, the drumbeat of guilt that’s beat into many believers from a young age.

It’s similar to the comments by President Obama saying of the horrible earthquakes and its aftermatch, that “there but for the Grace of God” would the United States be. These comments were covered by the mainstream press, including CBS of course. Even if he or CBS News are not overtly thinking of religion with these sorts of comments (which I happen to think they are), much of their audience will construe it as such. There are at least two things wrong with this type of thinking.

*It implies that the people who died, and did not get saved by an alleged “miracle”, deserved to die. Why else would God not save them as well? Why does God like the United States more than Haiti for us to be spared? Obviously these people in Haiti and elsewhere that God miraculously saved from this disaster must be God’s chosen, which means the ones who died certainly must have been less chosen, right? I don’t think anyone deserves to die in an earthquake, but I guess God does not agree.

*It minimizes the efforst of millions of people who have donated their time or money to help save as many people as possible from the ruins. There are actual doctors, paramedics, crane operators, civil servants, and other volunteers who searched through the rubble, often at personal risk, to try to help save people. If God is to get credit for saving these people, why isn’t he there in person (he can take human form when he wants, cf. Jesus) risking his own behind, working night and day sifting through dirt, broken concrete, and the dead remains of those who didn’t live?

It is not a miracle that these people are being saved, it is thanks to the work of many wonderful people who are working hard to save them because God will not. Obama, the media, and even some Haitians themselves may have “faith” that God is with them. What they fail to see is their worldview would mean that their God allowed the earthquake to happen (or some like Pat Robertson say he even caused it), and it’s humanity picking up the pieces afterwards from an indifferent or vengeful God.

Or maybe, just maybe, there is no God to thank for the few who are saved, or for the hundreds of thousands who perished. There’s just people who will pull together after this devastating tragedy, other people who will give aid and support to these survivors, and a world of people who will pull together to help rebuild Haiti. Isn’t that a much better way to view life?

Individuals are free to pray as they want. But should elected officials be telling people they should pray for the success of a company?

According to Reuters, here are the comments of Kentucky state representative Charlie Hoffman.

“They are our great corporate citizen. We’ve got to pray for Toyota.”

It bears mentioning that, according to the same article by Reuters, “Toyota has invested over $5 billion in Kentucky. Some 6,600 people work full time at its Georgetown factory, the firm’s largest outside Japan and its first in the United States.” I’m sure economic concerns have nothing to do with the representative’s desire to pray for Toyota. After all, as Georgetown’s mayor, Karen Tingle-Sames, says, plant workers

“are not just employees of Toyota — they are our friends and family members. The people we go to church with and the people we shop at Wal-Mart with”

So as long as you go to church and Wal-Mart with someone, they are deserving of God’s grace, it would seem. If they didn’t go to church, I supposed the workers could just go to Hell (figuratively, of course)?

It is this sort of intrusion of religion into the state that seems the most common: elected representatives acting as if everyone can and should believe in God. Whether it’s telling people to pray, or emblazing “In God We Trust” in the U.S. Capitol entrance, it is illegal religious intrusion into our secular government.

Things seems to be looking up, though. And this afternoon I finally had a little time to breathe, and was able to finish writing a song parody I got the idea for about a week ago. I’m pretty happy with it, and I plan on doing like I had done with my Baby Lord parody on my previous blog: posting a version of it online here with the lyrics. So please stay tuned!

I have to get going, but in the meantime, for those who may not have seen this yet (or heard about it on Dogma Free America), there’s been news about a US Defense Department weapons contractor who’s been sneaking Bible verses….onto guns. Not only is it illegal for the government to be providing weapons to soldiers that advertise Christianity, but there are obvious problems with using these “spiritually transformed firearm[s] of Jesus Christ” (as some have called them) while waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan…

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-military-weapons-inscribed-secret-jesus-bible-codes/story?id=9575794

Robert Wayne Cooper, a Republican member of the Missouri House of Representatives, has proposed a bill that would require school administrators to “assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies.”

What scientific controversies, you may ask? According to the bill, this would include “the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution.”

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE), an organization promoting the teaching of evolution in schools, reports on this bill in an article which also gives some background into previous attempts to attack evolution in Missouri. The frustrating thing is that lawmakers are getting craftier in wording such bills. On the surface, the current bill doesn’t sound that bad. According to the proposed legislation,

Teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution.

Helping students to apply critical thinking in their learning is normally a laudable goal. But what purpose could Rep. Cooper have in mind by singling out evolution in his bill besides a veiled attempt to support the teaching of intelligent design / biblical creationism as an alternative to evolution? Especially in light of his previous efforts to legistlate in the matter, including a 2004 bill which would have mandated “equal time” for evolution and intelligent design, according to the NCSE article. That bill also stipulated that:

Willful neglect of any elementary or secondary school superintendent, principal, or teacher to observe and carry out the requirements of this section shall be cause for termination of his or her contract.

I’m not the first to point out the irony that attempts to slip creationism into the classroom have been “evolving”, but it is both frustrating and worrisome that some government officials are still trying to sneak religion into our classrooms.

Then I see something like this letter to the editor, and I remember why I blog.

This letter to the editor is why I write my blog. I saw this posted on the site of fellow atheist blogger Jason Mosler. Sure, it’d be easy to laugh this letter off as just the rantings of some religious nut. But reading it a second time, it disturbed me on a number of levels.

This is a real person, Alice, writing to a real small-town newspaper in Alaska just a few years ago (January 2007). Alice honestly thinks that:

• People who don’t believe in God should be “kicked [out] of the country“.
• The United States is based on the principle that you “must believe” in God.
• You can believe in God “any way you want“, but Alice only cites mainstream Christian denominations as examples of acceptable beliefs
• Atheists practice “evil“, although it is not explained what this means
• Atheists are responsible for the “ruin” of America and for crime being “rampant“, even “if they have never committed a crime“.

People like Alice are the reason I write this blog. Her religion has closed her mind so much that I’m sure she doesn’t even realize how hate-filled and out-of-touch with reality her letter is. For all we know, Alice is like many Christians: a kind-hearted, generous person in her day-to-day life who truly wants to do what’s right. But because her religion has taught her that people who don’t believe in her god are “evil”, all critical thought stops. She says and thinks the most horrible things because she knows she is right. Crime is up, atheists are in America, my faith says atheists are bad, so atheists are to blame and must be kicked out of society.

If Alice is like most people, she did not choose her religion growing up, but was brought up in a community that is largely if not exclusively Christian. She may never have met an open atheist in her life, but her faith has her so convinced that atheists are the cause of society’s ills that everything she sees (from currency to crime reports) serves to prove it to her. It would likely be difficult if not impossible to convince her otherwise.

We should feel sorry for Alice, for her head being filled with such hateful nonsense based on a book of fairy tales written thousands of years ago. But at the same time, I think we should also have a healthy dose of fear. We live in a society where it is still perfectly acceptable in many circles to openly hate and wish harm on people who don’t believe in God. And that is scary. There are unfortunately still people who think that Jews or Blacks, for example, should be kicked out of the country, but would a letter to the editor blaming Jews for America’s problems saying they should all be sent to Israel be published in a newspaper? Thankfully, there is very little chance of that happening. It’s no longer acceptable to openly say such things in society about most minority groups. But for some reason, it’s still okay to say just about anything you want about atheists, no matter how bigoted or unsupported it is. Many readers I’m sure said or thought “Amen” upon reading Alice’s letter.

Anti-atheist sentiment is what is “rampant” in our country these days. As long as there are people who believe that non-believers are evil and don’t deserve to be citizens, then my blog has a purpose. People need to know that religion is brainwashing good people into believing nonsense and spreading hate. There are people who strongly believe that atheists don’t deserve the same rights as everyone else, some of whom are actively trying to push their bigoted beliefs onto the country as a whole.

If even one believer sees this post and thinks about their belief, or one non-believer realizes how important it is to help change minds about atheists, then writing this blog is definitely worth it.

Who is responsible for new laws in the US, elected members of Congress or God? Apparently, some Congressmen and women think that it’s God, and not them, who is the highest authority on things such as health care reform. This video shows to what extent some politicans are either deluded, willing to pander to the Religious Right’s base, or both.

I try to stay as much out of politics as possible when it comes to this blog, and I am not saying whether I am for or against health care reform, but I find it very alarming that elected official would participate in the sort of insane religious prayers featured in the above clip on the Rachel Maddow Show. I don’t watch her show, but more and more often I’m coming across clips from her show that I think are important for freethinkers (such as a recent report on the Psalms 109-ers who are praying for Obama’s death). These are scary times indeed.

Thanks to Brother Richard’s Life Without Faith and Steve Wells’ Dwindling In Unbelief for originally featuring these videos.

Here is Part 2 of my roundup on Dan Barker’s visit on December 3 in Memphis. In this part, I’ll mention a few more highlights as well as my personal reaction and thoughts. For Part I, click here. For an excellent recap of the Dan Barker event, read Oliver’s post (oliver_poe on Twitter) on the Mississippi Atheists website.

I’ve already mentioned in my first post much of his talk about state-church separation, so I will focus on other aspects here. Perhaps the most notable thing about Dan Barker’s talk was the fact that it was a fair-minded plea for state-church separation, filled with anecdotes, examples, and humor that could appeal to both believers and non-believers. While Barker does also talk on things such as Biblical errancy, his goal in this talk was not to promote an atheist agenda but speak on state-church issues.

A nice example of this were Dan’s arguments defending religious believers. (No, that is not a typo.) Unlike the exaggerated image of angry, close-minded atheists held by some believers (and too often painted in the media), Dan Barker made it very clear at several points that religious people do a lot of good in the world.

One believer argued during the Q & A that humans by nature are not altruistic, that we are selfish and introverted by nature. Barker countered that humans are actually very social animals, and that being empathetic and altruistic comes naturally to people. Barker said that Christians, believers of different faiths, as well as nonbelievers, are just as good and kind at heart. Because of this, he argued the human qualities of kindness and generosity “transcend” religion. Instead of just attacking religion, Barker was trying to find common ground among believers and non-believers.

Dan Barker also made it clear that he does not think that the government should go on the offensive against religion, just keep religion out of government. He cited the example of the much-mediatized solstace plaques that have been placed in a few state capitals (including Olympia, Washington; Springfield, Illinois; Madison, Wisconsin). The plaques, which state among other things that “There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell” are only placed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation in response to Christmas displays in state capitals.

In response to a questioner about the goal of such plaques, Barker made it clear that they are actually pleased when governments choose to ban all displays during the holiday season, which is what happened in Olympia after the FFRF’s plaque spurred a number of groups to post displays in addition to the Christmas one. Barker argued that banning these diplays was a victory since there shouldn’t be “religion OR irreligion” (emphasis his) in government buildings, including religious prayers.

He argued that non-believers deserve just as much protection as belivers both in Memphis and nationally. Using national statitics, he argued that few politicans would openly come out with policies that would discriminate against Jews, who represent a little over 1% of the population, while many politicians openly oppose atheists and agnostics, who represent between 9-10% of the population. The Memphis City Council, like all government bodies, should represent and support the rights of all citizens, not just believers. Instead of having Christian or other religious prayers at its meetings, the Council should neither support nor attack any religion. (As an atheist, he likened the situation of seeing councilmembers praying to seeing an airline pilot pray. A pilot should be confident in his flying skills, not asking for outside help to fly the plane. Barker joked that if he saw a pilot praying before take-off, he’d get right off the plane.)

Barker also mentioned the Founding Fathers, at a number of junctures: something that believers often do while trying to defend religious incursions into government. Barker mentioned the Jefferson Bible, for which Jefferson literally cut out with a pair of scissors all of the superstitious (miracles, etc.) parts of the New Testament. He said that while some founders were Christians, most were Deists who wanted religion separate from government. He said that as a believer, he used to think of the Pilgrims and Founders as being related to each other, when in reality they were separated by over 100 years and religious beliefs.

In order to address the fact that the Founders didn’t put the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” in the Constitution (Jefferson wrote this in a letter), Barker said that the concept is there even if the phrase isn’t. He gave other examples of phrases that aren’t in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that have become commonplace descriptions of the ideas found there: the words “Bill of Rights“, “interstate commerce“, “separation of powers“, and “checks and balances” also are not in the constitution either, but you don’t hear religious people criticizing those who talk about the Bill of Rights saying there is not such thing.

Barker did not completely spare religious teachings in his talk, however. There were a few critiques about religion, the majority of which were in direct response to questions attacking church-state separation or atheism. Dan Barker poked fun at the creation story in the Bible, which includes a talking snake (Barker, who is part Native American, mentioned that his tribe also had a snake myth). He also mentioned that Jesus clearly supports slavery in the New Testament, using it as an example in his parables (saying you should beat some slaves less than others) instead of speaking out against it.

Barker mentioned that Jefferson famously said that finding good in the Bible was like trying to find “diamonds in a dunghill.” Barker also defended his right in the public sphere to say that he finds the teachings of Christianity, and the Christian god, to be morally offensive, in particular the idea that humans are by nature unclean and sinful. He said that real life debunks this notion, that we see headlines of criminals in the paper (of which religious leaders aren’t exempt, he pointed out) because they are exceptions to the norm. If that’s how everyone was, then it wouldn’t be news. He also cited studies have shown that countries that are generally areligious, such as Nordic countries, often rank as the happiest and least plagued by crime and other social problems.

There is more I could comment on, but I think that sums up the main points of interest about the talk that weren’t covered in my first post or Oliver’s post.

I have a personal confession to make: I am somewhat of an admirer of Dan Barker. I was very religious when I was younger, and can identify with Dan Barker’s journey from belief to unbelief. My grandmother thought I would be good pastor material, and I seriously considered becoming a pastor. So when I first heard about Dan Barker, a minister-turned-atheist, his story really hit home with me. I’ve read his book godless, am a faithful (or faithless) listener of Freethought Radio, and have listened to and viewed many of his talks and debates online. So I was very much looking forward to seeing what he had to say about the Memphis situation, and state-church separation in general.

After the talk, I waited in line to meet Dan Barker. He talked to me briefly and was very personable both to me and the people who were in line ahead of me (he even gave out a free copy of his book to someone!). I asked him to sign my copy of his book, and I mentioned to him that I am a member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. I had a bookmark “Imagine No Religion“, which FFRF had sent me for free when I ordered his book from them. I showed it to him and the person next to me said she thought at first I was trying to give him a religious tract!

Since I am not “out” as an atheist, except to my wife, standing in line in a public venue to meet Dan Barker and have him sign a book entitled “godless” for me was a big, and somewhat frightening, step for me. While I did not come out and say “I am an atheist”, it was the closest I’ve ever come to be open about my atheism in person. I told him my name for him to sign it, but I don’t think anyone there knew or recognized me, so I guess I am still officially in the closet for now. Dan Barker was wearing an “A” pin, part of the Richard Dawkins coming out campaign for atheists. Maybe someday soon I will feel comfortable enough with friends and family, and secure enough in my job, to be an open atheist, too.

I’m hoping to have time in the next day or two to post more on Dan Barker’s visit. In the meantime, here’s an interesting article from AU: Americans United (for the Separation of Church and State) about the so-called “War on Christmas” that the Religious Right bemoans around this time of year.

AU is not an atheist/freethought group, but they do actively support having a secular government, following the principle that church and state should be separate. (Fancy that!)

http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2009/12/how-the-religious-right-stole.html

Since 1923, it has been illegal in Oregon for teachers to wear religious clothing in the classroom. This ban may be eliminated in February, paving the way for teachers to show their religious affiliation to their students, according to a recent article in The Oregonian (via The Focus).

As with the issue of burqas in France (or even burqini swimsuits in England), this is a tricky one. Currently, teachers in Oregon are not allowed to wear anything identifiably religious, such as “turbans, yarmulkes, crosses and headscarves” according to the Oregonian. Dave Hunt, speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives, says the law dates back to anti-immigrant hatred against Catholics. The legislature is expected to vote on removing this ban, after a similar law for allowing religious symbols at private-sector jobs was recently passed in the state.

Currently, the law is applied unevenly, according to Hunt.

“Teachers in some school districts are allowed to wear yarmulkes or crosses, while in other areas, they are forbidden. He has found no examples of a public school teacher being permitted to wear a Sikh turban or a Muslim headscarf”

But is lifting the ban the right solution? I don’t think that teachers should try to proselytize among their students, that much is clear. But a ban on overt religious symbols would tend to disfavor people of certain religions over others.

Most Christian teachers, for example, could simply not wear their cross, or wear it under their shirts out of sight. A Muslim woman who believes she must cover her head, however, can be precluded from teaching at all unless she gives up her headscarf, which many believe are a required part of their religion.

At the same time, I think required headscarves are sexist and should not be endorsed by the government. If a kid sees their teacher wearing a headscarf, that makes it seem like it’s okay to do. I don’t think children should be taught that women should be subjugated to men. Plus, you can bet that once the ban is lifted, there will be teachers who will wear crosses as well, promoting their religion to students as well, as well as teachers wearing clothes or accessories from other religious traditions. So it’s a sticky situation: possible exclusion of Muslims or others if the ban is in place, possible endorsement of religion(s) if the ban is lifted.

It will be interesting to see what will happen in this case. The issue of the burqa, to my knowledge, has not flamed up here in the US anywhere near like it has in many European countries. Hopefully this situation will not be the start of a slippery slope towards more Muslim American women demeaning themselves for their religion, with the government’s blessing. Young, impressionable eyes will be watching.

As posted on Unreasonable Faith, here are some excerpts of A Humanist Thanksgiving Proclamation by famed freethinker Robert G. Ingersoll. I know there is no spirit in the sky to give thanks to, but this passage really reinforced my gut feeling about why it’s still okay to feel thankful on Thanksgiving.

When I became convinced that the universe is natural — that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. [...]

For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought — no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings; no claims for my limbs; no lashes for my back; no fires for my flesh; no following another’s steps; no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds.

And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love: To all the heroes, the thinkers, who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain For the freedom of labor and thought. [...] To all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons and daughters of men and women. And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love.

On that note, Happy Thanksgiving to all!

It’s good to have some positive news about schools for a change. According to an article in The Washington Times, atheist groups on universities campuses are flourishing in the US. Groups affiliated with the Secular Student Alliance alone have skyrocketed from 80 in 2007 to 174 in 2009.

What’s also good news, in my opinion, is that there are a wide variety of groups doing a number of different activities. I think some people still think of atheists as those people who are grinchly killjoys who are out to take away people’s religion. While I personally would be very happy if we lived in a world without religion, and I think it is important to work against some of religions’ evils, it’s important to have something positive to participate in as well, even if it’s as simple as getting together to have fun. That’s what has been lacking in the past, and it sounds like a lot of atheist/freethought/secular groups are now doing.

The articles mentions a number of activities from atheist groups around the country. Here are a few examples:

• movie and board-game nights
• back-to-school barbecue
• HumanLight, a sort of secular Christmas
• sleeping outside in cardboard boxes to raise money for homeless youths
• protesting against anti-abortion groups

They vary from the mundane but fun social gatherings that some miss when they leave their church, to new secular holiday traditions, to community and political outreach. One oft-heard criticism is that atheists don’t do any charity work. This isn’t true of course, but it is probably safe to say that there aren’t as many atheists who publicly do good deeds in the name of atheism (unlike churches, who oftem make it very clear that they are doing things in the name of their chosen god).

Now that the stigma attached to non-belief is becoming less severe, atheist groups may become more visible in the community. And with the number of groups at universities increasing so quickly, it means a new generation will be open to the idea that not having a religion is perfectly okay.

Thanks to Chad for originally posting this article on Facebook.

Indianapolis public schools, in a clear breach of church-state separation, are banning students from viewing the websites of only certain religions, as well as atheist and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) sites.

According to a Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) press release, Indianapolis public schools are illegally discriminating against certain religious views, banning students from seeing sites containing what they term as “mysticism“, which apparently includes atheism. Here are some key quotes from a pdf copy provided by FFRF of the offending (and offensive) guidelines. “Blocked” categories include:

“Sites that promote and provide information on religions such as Wicca, Witchcraft or Satanism.  Occult Practices, atheistic views, voodoo rituals or other forms of mysticism, [...] the use of spells, incantations, curses, and magic powers. This category includes sites which discuss or deal with paranormal or unexplained events.”

Notably absent is reference to Abrahamic religions (Judeo-Christian, Muslim), of course. Not content with just banning information on non-mainstream religious views, Indianapolis public schools have also deemed LGBT sites as off-limits as well.

The people setting up these guidelines don’t realize just how ironic they are, however. The policy also details what types of sites are to be blocked, and their site arguably fails their own test. Under Violence/Hate/Racism (p. 3 of the pdf provided by FFRF), it says that included in sites that should be blocked are

“sites that advocate, depict hostility or aggression toward, or denigrate an individual or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, nationality, ethnic origin, or other involuntary characteristics.”

Wouldn’t a site advocating (and implementing) the banning only resources related to certain religions be “hostility or aggression” or “denigrating” towards those religions?!? Never fear, though. Perhaps they realized this contradiction, since the section on exceptions to the blocked sites includes ones “that are sponsored by schools, educational facilities”. So they are allowed to denigrate other religious viewpoints through their policy as much as they want.

The ban of LGBT sites also says that sites can’t “cater to one’s one’s sexual orientation or gender identity including, but not limited to, lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender sites“. Since it’s not limited to those for, it would logicially including heterosexuality as well. Any sites promoting heterosexual marriage would have to be banned according to the word here. So this document would end up banning a whole lot more than they bargained for.

In fact, I just realized that the site actually does address the Abrahamic religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, and Islam. Looking again at the requirements for sites that are blocked, it says:

“This category includes sites which discuss or deal with paranormal or unexplained events.”

Wouldn’t Moses’ parting of the Red Sea in the Torah be considered an “unexplain event”? Jesus’ resurrection in the Bible? God turning the skin of Native Americans dark in the Book of Mormon? An angel appearing to Muhammad in the Koran? These all sound pretty unexplained to me. Maybe they have unwittingly banned students from viewing any religious content.

In spite of these possible loopholes and logical extensions of their hate-filled bans, I am still against the closing of students’ minds on religion, atheism, and sexual orientation and identity. Schools should not promote a religion or sexual orientation, but they also shouldn’t single out sites as worthy of being banned just because they mention viewpoints or orientations that aren’t in the mainstream.

Believers in faith healing could be exempted from mandates, and faith healers could be paid with federal funds, if health care reform provisions under consideration are adopted by Congress. A petition has been launched to ask Congress not to sneak this public funding and endorsement of religion into the final health care package.

I’ve read several articles about this, but this one from the St. Petersburg Times brings up several important issues.

• Some versions of the health care reform bill would allow believers to opt out of insurance mandates for religious reasons. You can be for or against mandated insurance (it’s hard to tell which Obama is!), but allowing people to say that they don’t want coverage because of their religious beliefs seems like an unfair exception. So you can opt out, as long as you say you believe in a God who’s against modern medicine? There would be exceptions for people below a certain income level as well, but both believers and non-believers can be poor. If you’re a non-believer and not poor enough, I guess you’re stuck in the system. Maybe it’s a ploy to get more people to reconsider becoming religious!
• Parents who opt out of health care could also opt their children out of life-saving health care procedures, too. The government would be in effect sanctioning parents from withholding health care on religious grounds. This would likely lead to even more deaths of children whose parents refuse to get them proper medical treatment and just want to pray over them instead.
• Providers of faith healing, including Christian Scientists, could now be reimbursed for not providing medical services and instead praying to God to heal people. American Atheists spokespeson David Silverman is quoted in the article as saying “Faith healers are not practicing real medicine [...] The health care crisis is a very real problem, and we do not need the federal government coming in and saying that witch doctors or prayer is a real solution to a medical problem”

With so many options still under consideration, it’s hard to know what will make it into the final reform, if any reform even passes. But it is alarming that people elected to Congress think it is not only legal, but a good idea for the government to promote people shunning medecine for faith healthers, to consider paying religious organizations for trying to pray away an illness, and to exempt people from requirements everyone else has to follow just for religious reasons.

If you don’t want Congress to support faith healing, you may want to consider signing this petition or contacting your Congressmen and women so they know that not everyone thinks that faith healing is the solution to America’s health care ills.

Thanks to Johnny from Think Atheist for mentioning the petition.

As of 9:25 am Central Time, “No God” has gone from 8th or 9th to 2nd on the Trending Topics. **UPDATE** As of 9:40 am, it is now the top trending topic. Some people are voting for Know Peace = No God / No God = Know Peace, while others are voting for No God = No Peace. Check it out and make your voice heard!

Even if it’s not an in-depth discussion of religion, it’s apparently getting people thinking about the topic, which I think is a good thing.

“Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things — that takes religion.” — Steven Weinberg.

**ANOTHER UPDATE (Wed, Oct. 21)** Here are posts on Daily Atheist and The Examiner which attempt to track down the beginning of the “No God” blitz on Twitter yesterday. It appears that the start of it may have been @RevRunWisdom trying to get “Know God Know Peace, No God No Peace” to spread on Twitter, only to have it backfire.

Memphis, TN is the latest city to come under scrutiny for invocations “in Jesus’ name” at City Council sessions. The Memphis City Council joins a growing list of institutions which the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) has sent complaints to due to their unconstitutional endorsement of religion during official government business.

It is fairly common practice for city councils in the United States to open their sessions with an “invocation”. The Supreme Court has held that such invocations must non-denominational in nature. In other words, a government institution is not supposed to pray to Jesus or Mohammad, or favor one congregation or another, since this would appear to be supporting one religion over another and promoting belief over unbelief.

In practice, invocations at government meetings all too often turn into openly Christian prayers. Such practices clearly go against the Establishment Clause of the Constitution (which Thomas Jefferson described as “a wall of separation between Church and State”). As a resident of the Mid-South, I am sad to say that Memphis is unfortunately no exception.

Here are some examples of objectionable quotes and occurrences at Memphis City Council meetings this year which clearly seem to show the city choosing sides in religion. From FFRF’s News Release and letter of complaint ,

• The Memphis City Council, at each of its general meetings, names an official “Chaplain of the Day”, giving them a certificate and a “goody bag” of gifts that includes cuff links.
• Repeated references to praying “Jesus’ name” during and at the end of invocations, clearly showing a preference for Christianity.
• A call by one Chaplain of the Day on June 2nd saying that “These legislative leaders you have allowed to sit at the table of decision now acknowledge the inability within themselves to fix these ills of society and they now recognize and depend on your sufficiency,” followed later by the Lord’s Prayer.
• A quote from Psalms saying that “The Lord knows the ways of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish,” ending the invocation by saying “in the name of Jesus Christ we pray”.

These examples, among many others like them, clearly show that the Memphis City Council is not only preferring religion over non-religion, but Christianity over other faiths. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that invocational prayers at government meetings cannot be “exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith, or belief” (Marsh v. Chambers , as quoted by FFRF). Under this ruling, the invocations cited by FFRF clearly seem to violate the Constitution.

I also have looked into this somewhat (audio archives of all Memphis City Council meetings can be found at http://memphis.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2 ), and it’s clear that city council members are not only aware of these unconstitutional appeals to Christianity made by the Chaplains of the Day (who the City Council officially names), but council members sometimes even praise the Chaplains after making such statements.

The message is clear: as far as the council is concerned, Memphis is a Christian city. I’m sure I’m not alone in thinking that Memphis, or any other city, should not be pushing anyone’s religion on city time and on the city’s dime. Just as churchgoers would not want council members to go into churches to make sermons about city ordinances, why should civic-minded Jews, Buddhists, or atheists be subjected to Christian dogma at city council meetings?

Memphis City Council joins the list of other government bodies (The Wisconsin Assembly and the city councils of Toledo, OH and Lodi, CA , among others) caught mixing religion with official business. It will be interesting to see what Memphis’ response to these clear violations will be. I’ll be sure to post any updates to this story as I find out about them.

Larry Carter Center wrote a comment alerting me to the fact that Des Moines eventually reinstated the atheist bus signs it took off.

An an Associated Press article posted on Belief.Net, the bus company, DART, claims the reason was because the word "God" was never allowed on a bus sign before. In light of the controversy, they decided to allow the signs back on and to allow God on bus ads.

DART did not mention this alleged ban on "God" when they pulled the signs, as I reported on earlier. From what Larry Carter Center says in his comment, after an initial negative reaction by some riders, public opinion appeared to be for free speech and against pulling the ads. And suddenly, DART found irreligion and put the bus signs back up. Although it would have been better if the ads were not taken down to begin with, the controversy may have given the Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers more publicity that they ever imagined for their group, as well as for atheism.

According to several sources, a prayer station was recently set up on a public beach on Cape Cod. The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) is asking that the permit for the prayer station, which was approved 4-0 in a town hall meeting on August 3, not be renewed in the future.

The prayer station was located at Old Silver Beach, a public beach in Falmouth, Massachussetts. The prayer station’s permit ended this past Friday, but a resident is applying to have the prayer station return.

Rebecca Kratz, FFRF staff attorney, said:

This definitely seems like it was crossing the line of separation of church and state and it seems like an endorsement of religion.

The above video gives some quotes from people on both sides of the issue. One woman sums up my feelings:

“I think it is a little out of place to be honest with you. If people want to pray they will go to church or wherever they go to pray,” said Brockton resident Darcy Britton.

While another one does bring up a valid point:

“It does surprise me. This is a place of free speech and free religion, you’d think it could take place out in open air,” said East Longmeadow resident Olga Demoracski. “I don’t understand why some people would have a problem with it.”

The problem, in my opinion, is that this is an event approved by the city as a public event. While people generally have the right to freedom of speech, the fact that this was a government-approved event on public land does tend to give the impression that the town approved of the church (United Life Church) that applied for it. This is different from someone speaking on their own in the public square or a protest, it’s government-sanctioned speech. If Satanists applied to have a booth at the beach, would it have been approved? I doubt it.

Do people really need a prayer station at a public beach of all places?!? Maybe they should also come up with a new drink called "Genuflects on the beach". But seriously, religious fervor is getting way out of hand here in the U.S. when people want to set up prayer stations on beaches.

Thanks to the following sources: FFRF ‘s "In The News" email, Cape Cod Times , and My Fox Boston

This weekend, my wife and I made a trip to see a seminar entitled “Truth About Human Origins” given at the Church of Christ in Collierville, TN. Given the titles of some of the talks ( “Atheism’s Attack on America”, “ Scientific Accuracy of the Bible “, etc.) we pretty much knew what we were getting into. My wife is still a believer (but not a fundamentalist), and I’d never been to a talk like this before, so we both thought it’d be interesting to see what the speaker would say.

The speaker, Dr. Brad Harrub , has an “earned” PhD in Anatomy and Neurobiology, so I figured he would try to harmonize the Bible with carefully selected scientific facts, or try to disprove scientific claims that don’t agree with the Bible. I was right on both fronts. We were only able to attend two back-to-back sessions: “Is Genesis a Myth?” and “The Dinosaur Dilemma”, but I think it was enough to get a good idea of Dr. Harrub’s arguments, which even my wife as a believer strongly objected to!

After a prayer (during which I bowed my head, kept my eyes open and kept quiet), the talks began: back-to-back talks with a 10-minute break in-between, followed by 10-15 minutes of Q & A. I didn’t take notes, but here were a few highlights of the talks. Please note that I am summarizing the information he presented, not advocating it!

Is Genesis a Myth?

* There are three options: the universe always existed, the universe created itself, or something else created the universe.
* We know the universe is expanding, so this proves that it didn’t always exist.
* The Big Bang is unsatisfactory: where did the matter for it come from? Something had to create that matter.
* God is eternal, outside of the universe: he’s the only one who could create without having to be created.
* Creation happened in 6 literal days (comparison with other verses to prove “day” is not a metaphor for millions of years, etc.).
* Evolutionists want us to believe humans started out stupid — but Genesis says Adam was smart enough for God to ask him to name all the animals
* There are no gaps in the lineage in the Bible, it says who was born when up until Jesus, so we can calculate the age of the Earth.
* Archeological evidence supports historical claims in Genesis and the Bible.

The Dinosaur Dilemma

* Dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time, and were created on the same day (5th day).
* The Bible mentions dinosaurs (but not by name since the word “dinosaur” wasn’t invented until the 1800s) after the flood.
* Dinosaur-like creatures mentioned after the Flood (in Job), so they must have been on Noah’s Ark.
* The way dinosaurs could have fit on Noah’s Ark was as unhatched eggs or small children. No, I am not kidding. (I would say this is the part where he seemed the proudest of what he was saying, like he was single-handedly defeating the infeasibility of the Ark and any objections skeptics would raise.)
* There’s proof for a worldwide flood since every continent has fossils from so-called “localized” floods, and fossils can be found at the top of the highest mountains in the world.
* Carbon-dating of fossils is not proven and is unreliable. Scientists have dated dinosaur bones to as recent as 9000 years ago (much closer to truth than the millions of years normally claimed by evolutionists
* Dinosaur artwork, in the form of carvings and figurines, can allegedly be found in a number of ancient artifacts from around the world, showing that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.
* A mammal fossil was found eaten inside the stomach of a dinosaur fossil, which should be chronologically impossible if science is right about evolution.
* What was thought to be a prehistoric ancestor to fish was found to still exist today, proving scientists can’t date bones correctly.
* Important to tell kids early the truth about dinosaurs, creation, and the Bible, before books, TV, and school tell them lies.

I believe those were all the main points he made. Dr. Harrub had a very convincing, authoritative way of speaking and presenting his information. Although I found some of his ideas laughably funny (baby dinosaurs on the Ark!), I can see why people would want him to speak, and why people would be duped into his pseudo-science if they have been taught to believe that they should have faith in what the Bible says. The Bible says it, this guy with a PhD says it, so it must be true!

For most people, some of the claims should be obviously false at face value. Others would take a little more to debunk, and I don’t know if I’ll have time to research every one. Here are two that I did look up since I hadn’t heard about them before: the dinosaur figurines and Ica stones depicting humans and dinosaurs.

Dinosaur Figurines in Mexico: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_2.html
Ica stones in South America: http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Ica_stones

To my dismay, there were only two people who were clearly atheists or freethinkers who were asking questions in the Q and A afterwards. They were allowed to ask several questions each, which I thought was very fair of the speaker and congregation to allow. It’s interesting that at least some creationists, as one questioner pointed out, have changed their ways in the past few decades from denying dinosaurs existed, to saying of course they existed, it’s in the Bible! Scientists just have the dates wrong about when dinosaurs lived, according to Dr. Harrub. So now that we know baby dinosaurs were actually on the Ark, it’s okay for kids to be exposed to the “sugar candy” (his expression) of dinosaurs, which evolutionists try to give kids to lure into believing in evolution.

There were 3 or 4 other people who spoke, all supporting the Bible and the points Dr. Harrub had made. I wondered how many people were in the audience who were atheists or skeptics/skeptical but didn’t want to speak up. I know my wife afterwards said that she wanted to ask questions and make a point, but that she was too nervous to do so and didn’t know if he questions would sound stupid. Believe me, they were intelligent questions, and even if she tried they couldn’t have been any stupider than the nearly 2 hours of crap we had just heard!

I have to say I am frustrated that this man apparently goes around the country presenting himself as a scientist and appearing to present “proof” of his claims, when he is clearly trying to promote the Bible more than he is trying to promote science. Worst of all, Dr. Harrub said a number of times how important it was for parents to teach their children about the Bible and to tell them not to believe what science says about evolution. There were a number of small kids (pre-teens) in the audience, so I felt very sad that they were being exposed to / brainwashed by this information. He also told people to be ready to answer questions from teenagers when they come back from science classes they may have to take at college which might confuse them or raise doubts about their beliefs.

The message was pretty clear: scientists and atheists are lying to you and your children. Don’t listen to what they say; just believe what the Bible says. I’ll talk more about my wife and my reactions to the talk in a future post.

EDIT: Here is a link to audio from a previous seminar given by Dr. Harrub, so you can get an idea of what his talks are like.

An update on the Burqa controversy brewing in France.

American Freethought reports that a woman was thrown out of a swimming pool in France because of the swimsuit she was wearing. She was wearing a full-bodied "burqini", which is swimwear meant to comply with Islam’s rules on women dressing in public. Here is a link to a French article about the incident.

As you may recall, French president Nicolas Sarkozy created controversy when he said that burqas "are not welcome" in France. The pool claims that they did not eject the woman from the pool because it was a form of burqa, but because of sanitation rules. The woman, identified only as Carole, calls it a case of "segregation", according to the Le Monde article.

Here’s a quote from the mayor of Emerainville, the town where the incident occurred. (Translation mine)

All this has nothing to do with Islam, because pool regulations don’t allow people to swim while dressed for reasons of public health, as is [also] the case for boxer shorts.

There are three questions I have about the issue:

• Was she wearing this outfit before coming to the pool? If so, then there is a possible argument for this since there may be germs from outside that would be brought into the pool, just like if one was wearing underwear, socks, etc. that one had on before. If she put it on at the pool, I think they have a harder time trying to defend kicking her out.

• What material is the burqini made of? According to Wikipedia’s entry on the burqini , it is generally made of the same material as wetsuits are. If this is the case, then there is less of an argument about refusing her since even though the shape of the swimsuit is different, it’s the same material as many swimsuits worn in pools.

• Is it her choice to wear the burqini, or does she do it because her husband or mosque tells her she has to? If it’s truly her choice, I have less of a problem with it. The article has a comment by a representative in the French parliament saying she thinks it’s surprising that someone would call the press immediately after leaving a pool, implying that the incident may have been planned. If it was a planned way of protesting and the woman was okay with it, then I have no problem with that.

If the burqini is the same material, shows her face, she’s choosing herself to wear it, and she isn’t causing a health problem, I think it would be difficult to justify prohibiting them from the pool. As much as I dislike the sexist, anti-feminist ways of promoted by the Quran and many who follow Islam. There are also full-body swimsuits worn by non-Muslims, so unless you ban those I don’t see how you can ban the burini unfortunately.

My parody of an INRI cross I found on fotosearch.com

Well, it’s official — furniture has surpassed Christianity as the most important religion in the world. Specifically, according to a number of sources (Business Week , mental_floss , Wikipedia etc.), there are more IKEA catalogues printed every year than there are bibles. So I guess IKEA is in and INRI (the initials seen on many crucifixes) is out.

This apparently isn’t exactly news, as it’s been the case since at least 2006, but I hadn’t heard about it until now. (Thanks to Twitter users amiable84 and mental_floss for pointing this out.) The Bible still holds the all-time record apparently, and it would take IKEA some time to catch up considering the Bible’s over 500 year head start .

Based on the Business Week article, IKEA seems to have been the one to have publicized their achievement originally, but I can’t find this information on their site now. Maybe they remembered what happened what happened to John Lennon when he said the Beatles were more popular than Jesus was.

I have mixed feelings on this. While I’m glad that the Bible is no longer the most printed book in the world, couldn’t something else besides a catalogue have surpassed it? We’ve gone from worshiping God to worshiping furniture. I guess it’s a step up, since furniture actually exists.

I might have preferred something else overtake the Bible in number of copies printed: a science book, a freethought book, a work promoting peace, or pretty much any (other) work of fiction besides the Bible (since the Bible is, of course, largely fictional). Maybe in another 500 years?

From The Freethinker comes the story of a man who battled in court for the right to practice his religion. Normally, I am for freedom of religion (as well as freedom "from" religion , of course), but there are stories that come up sometimes bring questions as to how free should people be in religious practices.

There have been numerous stories of children suffering or dying because their parents did not think God wanted their child in the hospital (here’s one tragic case recently that American Freethought reported on; a number of others can be found on whatstheharm.net ). Cases like these are all too common, and have been fairly widely reported on. Although I haven’t come across a poll confirming this, my general feeling is that most Americans would think it’s wrong to withhold critical care from children on religious grounds, even if some states have not caught up with the times.

But here’s another, stranger issue. There’s this case from Texas of a man suing for the right to sacrifice goats. According to the British magazine The Freethinker —

In May 2006, [José] Merced and ten church members were preparing for religious ceremony that included an animal sacrifice when Euless police raided his home [...] Subsequently, the city declined to issue a permit for Merced to conduct future ceremonies, citing rules against cruelty to animals, keeping livestock and disposing of animal waste.

In 2007, officials offered Merced a compromise: He could sacrifice chickens, which the city ordinance allows, but not goats, as he wanted.

Initially, a district court sided with the city in its refusal to allow the goat sacrifices. But a circuit court has just overturned the decision, which means Merced may be able to sacrifice goats again despite human health issues and animal cruelty laws, just because his religion (called Santería ) says he should sacrifice the goats.

Believe it or not, The U.S. Supreme Court has apparently already ruled on a similar case having to do with the Santería, finding that laws specifically targeting Santería animal sacrifices were unconstitutional. The difference here is that there appears to have been no law specifically passed to stop Merced or other followers from sacrificing goats; such sacrifices are just against laws already on the books.

As I said, I generally believe that people should be able to practice whatever religion they want. But what if the religion clearly negatively impacts the welfare of other humans and/or animals? If someone says their religion tells them to sacrifice goats, should they be allowed to do so even if it’s against the law? Who decides what animals should be sacrificed? I don’t see why religiously sacrificing a chicken is any better than sacrificing a goat in terms of animal cruelty, for example.

But then, if you disallow some religious practices, where do you stop? Should parents have the right to decide whether or not to vaccinate their kids if they think it’s against their religion? Can kids decide not to attend science class if they find it conflicts with their religion? Some issues would be more clear-cut than others, in my opinion.

I’m not sure what the line should be, but making an exception to laws for religious purposes seems like dangerous territory to me. I feel in general that laws should apply to everyone equally.

As promised, here is an update on the "In God We Trust" vote . In the Senate, the proposal was accepted by voice vote, so we don’t have a record of  who did or didn’t support engraving In God We Trust and The Pledge of Allegiance in the Capitol Visitor Center. Here on the House’s site is the list of Yeas, Nays, Presents, and No Votes for the House vote.

The 8 who voted against it are:

Conyers (Michigan)
Edwards (Maryland)
Hirono (Hawaii)
Honda (California)
McDermott (Washington)
Paul (Texas)
Scott (Virgina)
Stark (California)

Pete Stark (CA) is the only one who is openly atheist. He "came out" on a 2006 questionnaire sent by the Secular Coalition for America . According to the LA Times , 22 representatives reported not having a belief in God to the SCA, but asked not to be publicly identified (likely because of the political fallout that might occur among some of their constituents).

Here are the two who voted present (e.g. I’m here, but am not going to vote either way):

Farr (California)
Moran (VA)

Then there were 12 people who were absent from the vote:

Buyer (Indiana)
DeLauro (Connecticut)
Fudge (Ohio)
Granger (Texas)
Kaptur (Ohio)
Larson (Connecticut)
Linder (Georgia)
McHenry (North Carolina)
Murphy (New York)
Murtha (Pennsylvania)
Sherman (California)
Stupak (Michigan)

Besides Stark, I’m unaware of the professed religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of the others. If I find out, I will update this post. Voting against the In God We Trust / Pledge engravings does not necessarily indicate atheism or freethought; they may simply not want to waste additional tax dollars on the overbudget Visitor Center, for example.

Voting present may mean any number of things, from supporting a bill in general but objecting to some issue in it, to being against it and not wanting to be on the record as voting against it. The Secular Coalition for America counts "present" votes as voting the "incorrect" way on bills and resolutions they identify as important. I think that’s a little unfair, so I’ll have to look into their ratings a little more. The non-voting members either simply weren’t there, didn’t feel it was important enough to vote on, or stayed away on purpose. Unless they state why, there’s no way to know.

One Rep who Wikipedia identifies, along with Stark, as being a Unitarian Universalist (Congressman Walter Minnick of Idaho) voted FOR the bill, which goes to show again that UUs, atheists, and others can’t all be lumped together, as some like to do.

The reasons for voting against the bill or not going on the record either way are varied, and I haven’t found any statements explaining why from the Representatives who fall in those categories. With increased religious diversity in the Congress, and a number of congresspeople not believing in a higher power, maybe a day will come where it’s not taboo to speak out against forcing religious on others in the Capitol.

Pat Condell ‘s latest video "Apologists for Evil" takes people to task, especially politically-correct liberals, who defend the sexism of Islam (including in the recent burqa debate ) because they are either too afraid to speak out against it or because they say that it is "racism" to criticize Islam and Muslims.

I agree with Pat Condell: standing up for women’s rights against a religion or a culture that wants to subjugate women is nothing to be ashamed of. It’s not racist to support equal rights for women. It’s crazy that people would even suggest this, since Islam isn’t even a race! But it’s not the first time I’ve heard criticism of Islam wrongly linked to racism.

Expecting women to cover their faces or to obey men (among a myriad of other sexist things supported by the Quran, the Bible, or many of their followers) are misogynistic cultural and religious practices which are against values laid out by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and those held by most people in Western societies. It has absolutely nothing to do with race, since people of any race can be Muslims and people of any race can, unfortunately, discriminate against women.

A person should be able to support a woman’s right to equality and dignity without being labeled a racist. Atheists and others should not be afraid to speak out when religions, and their proponents, support things which are clearly dehumanizing or discriminatory.

Former US president Jimmy Carter published an op-ed piece in the Observer (UK) earlier this week about the relationship between women and religion. In it, Carter calls on religious leaders to promote the "dignity and equality" of women. Cartner does not, however, come out against the major religions or their holy books as misogynistic. Instead, he just claims that some leaders are just taking "carefully selected" verses to promote an agenda.

I did not know this, but Carter left the Southern Baptists about 10 years ago because they refused to recognize the equality of women. So it seems like this is a very important issue to him. I found a piece in Salon.com entitled "Jimmy Carter: How religion subjugates women", but I think this headline is a little misleading. It’s not an anti-religion piece, but it does bring up some important points that religious leaders will hopefully consider.

Here are some quotes from the article, and my thoughts. Carter says in the Observer

My decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention’s leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands [...] This was in conflict with my belief – confirmed in the holy scriptures – that we are all equal in the eyes of God.

I admire the fact that Carter doesn’t believe women should be subjugated to men, and it’s true that some parts of the Bible say women should be equal, including the Galatians 3:28 quote he includes at the beginning of his op-ed (along with a quote from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , attempting to show it and the Bible go hand-in-hand I assume). However, as The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible points out many other parts of the Bible where women are denigrated, including verses where women are subjugated to men, such as Genesis 3:16 ("he shall rule over thee", King James Version).

Additionally, the first creation account, in Genesis 1, does tend to indicate equality, but the second starting in Genesis 2 does not. Carter is right that Christian leaders sometimes use "carefully selected verses" to further repressing women, but you also have to carefully select your verses to find ones that promote equality. That’s why I feel his statement is somewhat misleading (although not inaccurate), making it sound like the anti-feminist verses in the Bible are hard to find, when they’re not. I’m sure he feels he’s justified in doing this sleight of hand though saying which verses he believes personally (meaning he must not believe the Bible is inerrant) to try to stop religious people from oppressing women.

I understand, however, why many political leaders can be reluctant about stepping into this minefield. Religion, and tradition, are powerful and sensitive area to challenge.

Very true, but as leaders they are supposed to "lead", right? Sometimes you have to pick your battles, but I think ensuring equality for women is not a battle you pick if you’re in power, it’s a battle you have to fight for the majority of your constituents. Women are half or more than half of the population in nearly every country.

The Elders have decided to draw particular attention to the responsibility of religious and traditional leaders in ensuring equality and human rights. We have recently published a statement that declares: "The justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a Higher Authority, is unacceptable."

I think this is an excellent statement. It’s something that both theists and non-theists can get behind.

I understand that the carefully selected verses found in the holy scriptures to justify the superiority of men owe more to time and place – and the determination of male leaders to hold onto their influence – than eternal truths. [...] During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn’t until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted holy scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.

Again, his heart may be in the right place, but he’s not being completely truthful here. While I’ve read that there are indications that the Bible was tampered with (including the end of Luke I posted about earlier), there’s nothing I’ve read that indicates 4th century leaders rewrote Genesis to make it sound like Eve caused original sin, that she should be subjugated, and a host of other verses that indicate that God (or the leaders writing about him at the time) clearly discriminated against women.

The pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world [...] is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions – all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God.

I’m not going to refute all of these, but as you may suspect, all of these figures also have times where they do not treat "all the children of God" equally. Moses kills entire races of people under God’s command, Paul tells women to be silent in church, etc. Some anti-feminist verses may be later manipulations, but they can’t all be, can they?

If there are widespread additions, deletions, or changes throughout the Bible on what would seem to be a fundamental issue like whether or not women should be equal to mean, then how can you tell what God wants in the Bible at all? The Bible would seem to be so untrustworthy as to be useless. A better explanation is that the Bible, and other holy books, are not divinely inspired, they were written by men (regardless of the century) who generally wanted to oppress women, with a few dissenters who squeaked in there.

So while Jimmy Carter should be applauded for actively supporting women’s rights and trying to engage the religious community in this pursuit, I disagree with him making it seem like he is fully supported in this by the Bible, The Quran, etc. It is he who is carefully picking and choosing from the same overwhelmingly misogynistic religions that largely served to oppress women in the first place.

Robert Wright , who I mentioned in a recent post is the author of The Evolution of God , has now gone on the offensive to attack in an opinion piece in the Huffington Post what he calls "new atheism."

His book, reviewed in episode 58 of the podcast American Freethought , gives a history of the evolution of the Abrahamic God (of the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian faiths). Wright reportedly gives an account of the historical reasons behind the development of these religions, leading up to the modern day. While not taking an openly theistic stance in the book, he does include some enigmatic references to notions such as a "greater purpose".

In American Freethought, Wright criticized some of the so-called atheist leaders (Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Dawkins, etc.), while co-host John Snider made it clear that atheism is not a unified movement and these people do not speak for all atheists. In the Huffington Post piece, however, Wright again depicts atheism (or at least "new atheism") as one voice. In the Huffington Post , Wright says:

When it comes to foreign policy, a right-wing bias afflicts not just Hitchens’s world view, but the whole ideology of "new atheism" [...]

Atheism has little intrinsic ideological bent. (Karl Marx. Ayn Rand. I rest my case.) But things change when you add the key ingredient of the new atheism: the idea that religion is not just mistaken, but evil — that it "poisons everything," as Hitchens has put it with characteristic nuance.

This does not represent all atheists, and not even all the prominent he mentions. Richard Dawkins specifically counters such a notion in The God Delusion . In response to the title of a television program(me) on BBC 4 that was entitled "The root of all evil?" (the title of which he had reportedly fought against), Dawkins said on the very first page of the Preface:

From the start, I didn’t like the title. Religion is not the root of all evil, for no one thing is the root of all anything.

The Wright article is filled with mischaracterizations and overgeneralizations about both atheism and historical events. Does he truly think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is "basically" unrelated to religion? Does he know for a fact that most atheists agree with Hitchens’ right-wing views on the war on terror? Where is the proof that new atheists think religion is completely evil? It makes me wonder what his agenda is, but it does seem like he is more openly criticizing atheism when before he seemed to be straddling the fence. The fact that he would still present atheism as some organized mass conspiracy, with no proof of this, is disheartening.

For a more in-depth critique of the article, see John Snider’s post on the American Freethought website.

Ireland is reinforcing a part of their constitution which says blasphemy is illegal by clarifying what is meant by blasphemy and imposing a hefty fine and possible house raids for anyone suspected of blaspheming.

It sounds unbelievable, but numerous sources confirm this bill was under consideration: The Guardian ,  Dogma Free America , UTV , MediaWatch UK . According to examiner.com and ProudAtheists [and apparently the Irish Times: see update at the end], the law has passed. The Examiner says:

One of the aspects of this bill would make it illegal to criticize religion… any religion under penalty of fines up to 25,000 Euros. That is the equivalent to nearly $35,000.

Here are some excerpts of the Guardian article, which includes Atheist Ireland’s co-founder Michael Nugent thoughts.

Dermot Ahern, Ireland’s justice minister, has proposed the legislation, which will outlaw anything seen as "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion , thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion". [...]

[Michael] Nugent said blasphemy was not the only anomaly in the constitution. "You cannot become president of Ireland or be appointed a judge in the republic unless you take a religious oath asking God to direct and sustain you in your work. [...]

"We should be amending our constitution to remove these theistic references, not creating new crimes to enforce provisions that were written in the 1930s," he added.

Here’s a direct quote from the proposed bill, which is apparently now law in Ireland.

(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 36, the court may issue a warrant (a) authorising any member of the Garda Siochana [Irish police] to enter (if necessary by the use of reasonable force) at all reasonable times any premises (including a dwelling) at which he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that copies of the statement to which the offence related are to be found, and to search those premises and seize and remove all copies of the statement found therein, (b) directing the seizure and removal by any member of the Garda Siochana of all copies of the statement to which the offence related [...]

It’s scandalous that a country, in this day and age, is not only upholding previous law protecting religion against open debate and criticism, but is actually trying to strengthen these laws with fines and threats of raids against offenders. I’ll post any updates to this that I find.

UPDATE: It appears that the bill has passed the entire Oireachtas (Legislature), according to the Irish Times (as well as this opinion piece by Atheists Ireland published in the Irish Times). I’ve seen conflicting reports on this, but I will take the Irish Times’ word since they are an Irish newpaper and presumably know how the government works. Apparently the law will become official once the Irish president signs it. According to Wikipedia :

In most circumstances, the President is in effect obliged to sign all laws approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas, although he or she has the power to refer most bills to the Supreme Court for a ruling on constitutionality.

So it would appear that unless the President challenges the law on constitutionality (which seems unlikely since blasphemy was already illegal under the constitution), the bill will become a law. Atheists Ireland plan to challenge the new law by publishing a blasphemous statement soon.

UPDATE: It was pointed out by "droth", a poster on Cynical-C Blog , that there is a provision in the new law that states "It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates." While this is some consolation, it still puts the onus on the person making the allegedly blasphemous statement to prove it has "value".

It’s unfair to protect religion in this way. For example it’s apparently fine to say "Atheism is evil and Richard Dawkins is morally bankrupt", but I can’t say "Catholicism is evil and the Pope is morally bankrupt" unless I can prove my comments have a "literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value." Speech about religion, whether praising or criticizing it, should be protected.

]]> http://IAMTHEBLOG.COM/wordpress2/2009/07/13/ireland-passes-blasphemy-legislation/feed/ 0 http://IAMTHEBLOG.COM/wordpress2/2009/07/13/proposed-game-show-should-be-called-who-wants-to-be-an-atheist/ http://IAMTHEBLOG.COM/wordpress2/2009/07/13/proposed-game-show-should-be-called-who-wants-to-be-an-atheist/#comments Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:55:33 +0000 admin http://IAMTHEBLOG.COM/wordpress2/?p=317
Mecca. Photograph: Bazuki Muhammad/Reuters

There’s a new game show which is causing controversy in Turkey. The basic premise of the game, "Penitents Compete", is trying to convert an atheists by offering them a prize to the holy site of whatever religion they are converted to. It sounds like a joke, but it’s not. From Yahoo! News:

Turkish television station Kanal T hopes the answer is a ratings success as it prepares to launch a gameshow where spiritual guides from the four faiths [Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism] will seek to convert a group of non-believers. [...]

But religious authorities in Muslim but secular Turkey are not amused by the twist on the popular reality game show format and the Religious Affairs Directorate is refusing to provide an imam for the show.

"Doing something like this for the sake of ratings is disrespectful to all religions. Religion should not be a subject for entertainment programs," High Board of Religious Affairs Chairman Hamza Aktan told state news agency Anatolian [...]

"We are giving the biggest prize in the world, the gift of belief in God," Kanal T chief executive Seyhan Soylu told Reuters.

"We don’t approve of anyone being an atheist. God is great and it doesn’t matter which religion you believe in. The important thing is to believe," Soylu said.

My guess would be that the last quote by Soylu is the problem: Turkey is officially Islamic, and this show would appear to put Islam as on equal footing with 3 other religions. I guess this goes to show that people from different religions, who fight over just about everything, can agree on one thing: atheists are bad and need to be converted. Even converting them to a religion you don’t believe in is apparently better than them just not believing in any God. If I find any updates on this, I’ll keep you posted.

UPDATE: Here from the Guardian’s website is an audio discussion of the new show. In it, it is claimed that 3 out of 4 Turks say they would not want to live next to an atheist. Sounds like similar polls I’ve read in the US (such as this one from Gallup ) where people would be willing to elect pretty much anyone over an atheist to public office.

I’m not a huge Harry Potter fan, but I know several people who are. This news may be shocking to many fans, but according to the UK newspaper The Telegraph , actor Daniel Radcliffe has admitted in an interview that he’s an atheist. I saw this on American Freethought and it doesn’t appear to have hit the main headlines in the US as of writing.

In an interview with Esquire magazine, Radcliffe risked the US box office prospects of the new Harry Potter film by declaring himself to be an atheist. [...]

Radcliffe has been reticent on the subject of religion in the past, but in an interview to promote the latest instalment in the film franchise, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, released on July 15, he said: "I’m an atheist, but I’m very relaxed about it. I don’t preach my atheism, but I have a huge amount of respect for people like Richard Dawkins who do. Anything he does on television, I will watch."

He joked: "There we go, Dan, that’s half of America that’s not going to see the next Harry Potter film on the back of that comment."

There is no way that a comment like this from the actor who plays Harry Potter, a book and film series which has been strongly criticized by some on the Religious Right (for witchcraft, of course), will not have some effect on ticket sales right before the latest installment of the series is about to hit theatres! Not to mention future DVD and book sales in the US. It’s admirable that he is being open about his atheism, but I’m sure the studios and publishers must be furious and/or scared out of their seats right now.

Maybe his announcing he’s an atheist will help some Harry Potter fans consider religion in a light they may not have already. Especially since studies have shown that the younger generation is the least likely to find religion to be important and that the trend in the US is away from organized religion (the only group to gain in the recent ARIS survey was non-religious, who are now at 15% of the US), having a very-well known celebrity like Daniel Radcliffe openly declaring he’s an atheist could really open up some minds.

I think the more celebrities and scientists who "come out" as atheists, the more it will be an acceptable viewpoint, and the more people will examine their own beliefs. A debate of ideas is a good thing. Assuming the news does hit the radar in the US, I just hope that any protests by Christians or other believers are peaceful.

A protester being carried away by Israeli police — Getty Images: Darren Whiteside

Basically, ABC Middle East correspondent Anne Barker took a wrong turn while covering a protest by (ultra) Orthodox Jews over a city parking lot being open on the Sabbath. And this is how she was treated. From the ABC Australia article by Anne Barker:

As a journalist I’ve covered more than my share of protests. [...] I’ve been at violent rallies in East Timor. I’ve had rocks and metal darts thrown my way. [...] But I have to admit no protest – indeed no story in my career – has distressed me in the way I was distressed at a protest in Jerusalem on Saturday[...]

Orthodox Jews are angry at the local council’s decision to open a municipal carpark on Saturdays – or Shabbat, the day of rest for Jews. [...] I was mindful I would need to dress conservatively and keep out of harm’s way. But I made my mistake when I parked the car and started walking towards the protest, not fully sure which street was which. [...]

Suddenly the crowd turned on me, screaming in my face. Dozens of angry men began spitting on me. I found myself herded against a brick wall as they kept on spitting – on my face, my hair, my clothes, my arms. It was like rain, coming at me from all directions [...] Somewhere behind me – I didn’t see him – a man on a stairway either kicked me in the head or knocked something heavy against me. wasn’t even sure why the mob was angry with me. [...]

In fact, I was later told, it was because using a tape-recorder is itself a desecration of the Shabbat even though I’m not Jewish and don’t observe the Sabbath.

Because they believe Yahweh doesn’t want anyone to break the Sabbath (after recently rereading Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, I know this is supposed to apply to both Jewish people and strangers), they think they are justified in repeatedly assaulting a reporter just because she has a tape recorder running.

Religion can be dangerous when it says it applies to not only people who follow it, but to everyone around you. I guess considering how God acts in the Old Testament, if you believe it literally I can understand why they’d want to make it clear to God that they were not condoning her breaking of the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2-3 (KJV) says

Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.

Since they were specifically upset about the tape recorder, my guess is that was because of the electricity ("fire") it uses. Dogma Free America recently reported on a claim by an Orthodox Jew couple that it is a "human right" not to have motion-sensor lights, since they believe they must stay out of the hallway so as not to trip the "fire" of the lights on the Sabbath.

The big question for me is this: the Bible is clear in a number of places that if you break the Sabbath,  you should be put to death. But they left her alive. Why would they think that they still need to keep the Sabbath, but not apply the punishment? I guess it’s some small consolation at least that they didn’t decide to kill her.

I know that not all people who believe in Judaism or religion in general are like this, but it shows what can happen when people take dogma too literally. It’s sad when people hold ridiculous beliefs like this, but an outrage when they attack other people for not holding the same beliefs.

I doubt they let anyone just wander the halls without going through security first, which means someone must have decided it was okay for him to bring in oil to perform a religious ceremony in the Senate.

Will they be letting other religions perform ceremonies on this room? Will atheists get a right to speak and film outside this door? I would doubt it, but I’ll post any updates I find on this. So much for no establishment of religion.

The Telegraph has posted an article announcing the online publication of the Codex Sinaiticus (thanks to Cynical-C Blog for the link). This is a version of the Bible which is estimated to have been written in the 4th century A.D. It is missing most of the first part of the Bible (up to 1 Chronicles), but contains all of the rest of the Bible except occasional fragments missing here and there.

I will have to investigate this more, but one notable difference between modern Bibles and the Codex is the lack of the resurrection story in Mark. According to the Telegraph:

It offers different versions of the Scriptures from later editions of the Bible, notably in St Mark’s Gospel which ends 12 verses before later versions, omitting the appearance of the resurrected Jesus Christ.

It is also noteworthy I think that a number of articles I came across from American sources (such as the San Francisco Gate , Houston Chronicle , etc.) picked up the story, but are leaving out the part about missing and changed verses that the Telegraph article and Wikipedia mention. Here is the translation from the website of the Codex Sinaiticus (it may take a while to load; unchecking "Images" in the display options may help.

16:1 And when the sabbath had passed, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint him.

2 And very early on the first of the week they came to the sepulcher, the sun having risen.

3 And they said among themselves: Who shall roll away for us the stone from the door of the sepulcher?

4 And looking up they see that the stone had been rolled away; for it was very great.

5 And they entered the sepulcher and saw a young man, sitting at the right side, clothed in a white robe; and they were amazed.

6 But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified; he has risen, he is not here: see the place where they laid him.

7 But go, tell his disciples, especially Peter, that he goes before you into Galilee: there you shall see him, as he said to you.

8 And going out they fled from the sepulcher; for trembling and astonishment had seized them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.

So here, we only have it on the authority of some guy in a white robe sitting in an empty tomb that Jesus is "risen", with no report of anyone actually seeing him again. Not very convincing proof. In fact, it says that the two Marys and Salome just ran away amazed and scared and "said nothing to any one."

Most other versions of the Bible since then have contained additional verses which claim that Jesus came back a week later, exorcised Mary Magdalene, appeared to his disciples telling them they’ll baptize, heal the sick, drink poison without getting hurt, speak in tongues etc. Then Jesus goes back to heaven. Here’s the King James Version, for example:

⁹ Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

¹⁰ And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

¹¹ And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

¹² After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

¹³ And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

¹⁴ Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

¹⁵ And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

¹⁶ He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

¹⁷ And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

¹⁸ They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

¹⁹ So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

²⁰ And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

This is a very different ending. Jesus comes back, exorcises Mary Magdalene, appears to the incredulous disciples and tells them to baptize everyone, or else they’ll be damned to hell. Plus, they get to do magic tricks like heal the dead, drink poison, and speak in tongues. Very different endings than the oldest version of the text we have, which doesn’t even mention Jesus coming back. And yet, the mainstream American press apparently doesn’t find this worthy enough to mention.

I’ve read and heard about the final verses in Mark before (see a discussion of the resurrection discrepancies between gospels by Dan Barker here ), but it’s mostly scholars who know about this. No wonder some believers are still believers: their church, their pastor, their media, and their Bibles either leave out or gloss quickly over important details like known inconsistencies in Bible versions, and what implications this might have on the text. [Update: please see comments, some churches or Bibles may be more open about this than I had thought, but the jury is out as to how widespread this is.]

Jesus appearing or not appearing are two very different endings to Mark, wouldn’t you say? We don’t know for sure why those verses were added later, or by whom, but we do know they don’t belong there. Something tells me the significance of this will not be a topic of [most] sermons on Sunday…

I think it’s very good that more resources are being made freely available for people to inform themselves. As I said before, I will have to look more into the Codex project and the differences between the Codex and other versions. But at this point, I think it’s wonderful that it’s online for all to view and read freely, with translations in 4 languages (including English). Who would have thought 20 years ago that you could consult the actual manuscripts from the oldest Bible found in the world from the comfort of your own home? Hopefully it will lead people to consider the progress we’ve made as a race and consider whether some of the content in the Bible still deserves be taken literally in the modern world.

As with many church marquees, I assume it’s meant to be a clever reference to both God and a topical issue, in this case Independence Day / The 4th of July in the US and being Jesus freeing us from sin, or something similar I would guess.

But is being a Christian really about celebrating freedom? If you actually read the Bible, it talks a lot about slavery, going as far as to say that we should serve God as a slave!

Ephesians 6:6 — Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Scripture quotation taken from the New American Standard Bible, NASB . )

This is the New Testament we’re talking about here, not the endless rules about what you can and can’t due to slaves in the Old Testament. We are to be "slaves of Christ ", according to the Bible.

The King James Version would have you believe it’s "servant", but if you check nearly all more modern versions, you will see "slave" as the translation. It seems clear to me from this and other contexts that it means "slave." You’re not just supposed to serve God, you’re are a slave unto the Lord. You must serve him! "Down on your knees! ", as proclaims the song "O Holy Night."

Can one find "true freedom" in being a slave?? Slavery is freedom apparently, according to this church; sounds Orwellian to me.

To me, freedom means making up your own mind about what you believe or don’t believe, what religion if any you will choose, who you love or don’t love, who you marry or don’t marry (and whether or not you can get divorced if the need arises), without the threat of eternal punishment looming over you.

Some more liberal Christians would argue that God is love and grants us all these things because he loves us; and some may say that hell doesn’t even exist, or is only for truly evil people (even some non-believers and pets can come along). But that’s the thing: the United States doesn’t have freedom of religion (and from it ) because some god gave it to us.

We, just like many other nations around the world, created our own government. We are only truly free when we take our lives into our own hands and decide for ourselves what our destiny will be. For me, that means breaking away from the chains of religious dogma and being a freethinker.

On the 4th of July I will celebrate true freedom: the freedom to not be a slave to any god or government, the freedom to think and say what I believe. Now that’s something worth celebrating this 4th of July.

I see the Pat Condell has recently posted a video on this as well. If you’re stateside or just haven’t read much about it, you may have a few questions: what the heck does a burka look like, and why would the French President seemingly attack women who are just practicing their religion?

Well, here’s a photo montage from the French daily newspaper Le Monde showing different types of veils often associated with Islam. People in the West have a tendency to call them all veils or burkas, but there are differences.

In a nutshell, the hijab in the 1st picture s the headdress that is described in the Quran, although according to Le Monde what exactly it is supposed to cover is "subject to interpretation".

The niqab (photo 2) has two veils, one to cover the hair, and the other to cover everything but the eyes. Le Monde says it’s "mainly worn in Persian Gulf countries."

The burka itself (photo 3)  is the one that has a "grill" on it, basically netting with small holes so that you can’t even see the woman’s eyes. Le Monde says they are normally worn in Afghanistan and some regions of Pakistan.

The last photo shows the chador , worn in Iran says Le Monde, which shows the entire fact but has no place for one’s hands.

So Sarkozy specifically singled out burkas apparently because they, according to him, "deprived women of identity" and are a "sign of subservience" (translations by BBC News ; the full video and part of the original text in French is here; note that the speech dealt with many issues, not just the burka).

Sounds like an attack on Islam, right? Well, as hinted at earlier in the descriptions of the different veils, an attack on burkas is not necessarily an attack on religion. Burkas aren’t mentioned in the Quran. So Nicolas Sarkozy emphasized this non-religious aspect, saying:

C’est un problème de liberté, de dignité de la femme. Ce n’est pas un signe religieux, c’est un signe d’asservissement, c’est un signe d’abaissement. ["It's a question of a woman's freedom, of her dignity. It's not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience; it's a sign of humiliation." Translation mine, "abaissement" can also mean "degradation/being degraded".]

A distinction is apparently being made by Sarkozy between the hijab, which shows the face and is mentioned in the Quran, and the burka, which hides it and is not. The burka, as stated in Wikipedia and elsewhere, comes from a cultural tradition that predates Islam and is not observed everywhere Islam is practiced.

Since it’s not seen as a religious practice but as a tradition, there will  be a parliamentary commission to investigate whether burkas should be outlawed in France. They already controversially outlaw veils in schools (as well as other overt religious symbols, in theory at least).

I agree that it is degrading to women to be completely covered and faceless to the world when men don’t have to. Despite the lack of mention in the Quran (absence of a doctrine in one’s Holy Book often doesn’t stop zealots from any religion), some women are coerced or forced to do so by their husbands or their mosques. This is clearly against individual freedoms guaranteed in most Western societies. But some women actually choose to wear burkas, as crazy as it may seem. What about those who say they willingly wear a burka or other garment which covers their face?

The issue of security comes up (you can hide stuff under burkas and since no one can see your face, apprehension and prosecution of law-breakers would be difficult. But then, one could say the same thing for Mardi Gras and Halloween costumes and masks in France. Are those to be outlawed, too?

It’s a growing issue in Europe, where more and more immigrants and 2nd- and 3rd- generation followers of Islam want to show their religious and cultural heritage. How much should people be allowed to follow the customs, rights, and laws of the country they’re in, and how much should they follow those of their religion or ancestors’ culture?

The issue in my mind is less with security and more this: if a woman says she is okay with degrading herself by becoming faceless because she thinks her God wants it, should society let her?

I really don’t know. I believe people have the right to choose their beliefs, but many of these women are coerced or forced into this degrading practice. I used to be more of a "let it be" type of atheist like Jon Stewart appears to be .  I just wish that these women wearing or wanting to wear a burka would realize that a God or anyone who tells you you have to hide your face in public does not give you the dignity or  respect that you deserve, and is not one that you should love and respect.

EDIT: Here’s a YouTube video of a British show discussing the issue, which Quit Your Apathy posted.

One thing I’ve liked about The Colbert Report (remember not to pronounce the t’s in your head!) The Daily Show and is that they fairly often bring up religion, nearly always poking fun at it. When I was still not-a-Christian-but-still-not-a-full-blown-atheist-yet, "This Week in God " (here’s another one that I hadn’t seen) in particularly made me feel like it was okay to make fun of religion — that it wasn’t off-limits to criticize the stranger parts of religions and the actions of their adherents.

So I’ve often wondered, what do Stewart and Colbert really think about religion? Not what they think will be a good punchline for a joke, but their actual beliefs? Are they trying to get people to question religion, or at least the more dogmatic aspects of it? I used to think they were atheists or agnostics but just didn’t want to come out and say so (and risk offending certain segments of their audience). But through the years, more clues have surfaced.

I no longer watch each show "religiously" as I used to (I used to participate in Colbert Nation’s forums on a daily basis), but still catch them from time to time. And one show I caught was when Jon Stewart interviewed former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor .

In terms of this post, the key part of what Stewart says takes up from a line that Sandra Day O’Connor had mentioned earlier in the interview. Jon Stewart says

As a secular, godless humanist, I think, myself [...] I’m an activist host [...]

I think the second part is meant as a joke, but the first part doesn’t seem like it to me.

On the blog Unreasonable Faith was a post about a just-published interview with Jon Stewart in the religious magazine Sojourners (free registration required to view article) in which Stewart talks about his views on religion. A few quotes:

It may be true that the Hebrew prophets used humor [...] to create social change, but it was also used by Borscht Belt social directors. We’ve got a lot more in common with them than the prophets. [...] Because we’re in the public eye, maybe people project onto us their desires for that type of activism coming from us, but just knowing the process here as I do, our show is maybe the antithesis of activism, and that is a relatively selfish pursuit.  [...] People have always said to us, “You want it both ways; you want to be taken seriously but then not.” And I always say, “When do we want to be taken seriously? We’re just doing our show.”

So I think that answers part of my question: at least as Stewart is concerned, he’s not trying to get on a soapbox (although in some episodes, it seems he might on politics at least) but just saying what they think about current events, in a (hopefully) funny and interesting way obviously.

About religion specifically, Stewart said:

I have trouble with dogma more than I have trouble with religion. I think the best thing religion does is give people a sense of place, purpose, and compassion. My quibble with it is when it’s described as the only way to have those things instilled. You can be moral and not be religious, you can be compassionate, you can be empathetic—you can have all those wonderful qualities. When it begins to be judged as purely based on religion, then you’re suggesting a world where Star Jones goes to heaven but Gandhi doesn’t. [...] When people say things like, “I found God and that helped me stop drinking,” I say, “Great! More power to you. Just know that some people stop drinking without it.”

So to me, it sounds like Stewart is personally agnostic or an atheist, but it’s not something that he wants to get on a soapbox about. If religion works for you, fine, but it’s not the only choice out there. To a large extent, I agree with this sentiment. But, at the same time, there are a lot of people who believe their Holy Book (Bible, Quran, or whatever) is 100% God’s truth and must be followed.

Most people who’d be likely to view The Daily Show probably already aren’t die-hard fundamenalists/orthodox followers of their religion, but maybe it does have an effect on the people who are less religious and don’t normally think about such things. But whether they’re trying to do so or not, Stewart’s show does a good job I think at showing people that religion has some crazy, and sometimes harmful, ideas in it.  It’s something you don’t come across very often in the mainstream media, and it’s definitely refreshing.

Colbert is a more complex situation, and this post is already plenty long. I’ll revisit him sometime soon (spoiler alert: "word" has it he’s a Sunday School teacher!).

He cites a quote by J.B.S. Haldane which I think makes sense.

"My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world."

So after reading PZ Myers’ blog and this quote, here’s what I take out of it:

• Scientists have to assume a natural world to find truth.
• Scientists, in their role as scientists, can’t be religious by definition.
• Believers in religion assume a supernatural world to find truth.
• Since we live in a natural world, believers either must deny proofs in the natural world (such as fossils, etc.) to hold onto their religious beliefs, or else try to use science to confirm parts of their religious beliefs.
• If a scientist is a believer, they basically have to hang up their science hat to believe in the supernatural.

So if some scientists go out and try to claim religion and science are compatible, they are not being completely forthcoming, or at least aren’t being honest with themselves.

At best, you can say they are both valid but completely separate things (as Steven Jay Gould did). PZ Myers says for example that science doesn’t cover morality, although he says and I agree that religion doesn’t do that good of a job a this as well. You can be a scientist as a profession, but personally or morally a Christian. But you can’t use religion as a scientist, you can only use science as a religionist. You could argue that when you use science as a religionist, you actually are hanging up your religion hat. You are looking away from your religion and looking at the natural natural world to confirm it, which is what science is about.

Towards the end of his post, PZ Myers says:

"Accommodationists are a problem not because accommodation is bad, but because they are pushing for the wrong kind of accommodation. Science doesn’t need to conform, religion does. Religion demands a special kind of privilege in these discussions because if we actually get down to assessing views fairly and objectively, on the basis of what works, it fails."

Some interesting things to consider.

"Religion is a far bigger part of the lives of older adults. About two-thirds of people 65 and older said religion is very important to them, compared with just over half of those 30 to 49 and 44 percent of people 18 to 29. In addition, among adults 65 and older, one-third said religion has grown more important to them over the course of their lives, while 4 percent said it has become less important and 60 percent said it has stayed the same."

Here’s the report from the Pew Research Center, which covers other things such as technology as well. The younger you are, the less religion is important to you, according to the chart from the report. Less than half of 18-29 year olds say that religion is "very important," which is a promising sign for the Freethought movement I think.

What would be interesting is to see in 5 or 10 years, how the chart stacks up. Whether people just generally get more religious as they get older, or if it’s a new trend that will hold up as people get older (or perhaps somewhere in-between).

Palin’s religion