Pope likens saving gays to saving the rainforest

Reuters:

"Pope Benedict said on Monday that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction."

Are you fucking kidding me? Look, pope, I get it: you hate gays (a lot). But you cannot seriously say that stopping two loving people (or for that manner, ANY number of people) from knocking boots is even remotely on par with stopping the destruction of the rainforests, and still expect to be taken seriously. Well, maybe that's it, he's given up on being serious. I mean, nobody really believes that communion thing REALLY is flesh & blood, right? And I don't even have the energy to make fun of that red hat, and imply that the pope (who wears fancy, frilly, lacy robes and carries a staff and hangs out with a bunch of other dudes all the time) might not be the best guy to hate on gays. Ok, other than that last sentence, I don't have the energy.

Priest Sentenced For Embezzling From Churches

Coming from my hometown, our very own priest scandal. It is just me, or is this guy getting a total pass, just because he's a priest? I mean, he nets $60 grand and only gets probation? And maybe I'm not following enough sentencing hearings, but how often do you see the defense setting up a restitution account for anyone that wants to help pay the restitution?

Priest Sentenced For Embezzling From Churches "OMAHA, Neb. -- An Omaha priest who stole more than $83,000 from an Omaha parish has received probation.

Judge Russell Bowie sentenced Rodney Adams to three to five years of probation. Adams must also pay $23,000 in restitution over the next five years. The defense has established a restitution account at Wells Fargo bank for anyone who wants to help Adams pay back the church. He also must complete 500 hours of community service."

Bad Times Draw Bigger Crowds to Churches

Bad Times Draw Bigger Crowds to Churches:

"...since September, pastors nationwide say they have seen such a burst of new interest that they find themselves contending with powerful conflicting emotions — deep empathy and quiet excitement — as they re-encounter an old piece of religious lore:

Bad times are good for evangelical churches."

Guess which emotion they feel more- "deep empathy" or not-so-"quiet excitement?" Consider these quotations from the article:

• “It’s a wonderful time, a great evangelistic opportunity for us."

• “I found it very exciting, and I called up that fellow to tell him so. We need to leverage this moment, because every Christian revival in this country’s history has come off a period of rampant greed and fear. That’s what we’re in today — the time of fear and greed."

So the message is that it's wonderful that there's massive unemployment, millions of people in foreclosure, and not enough food; it's all part of God's plan to bring people back to church. Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again- if this kind of sick and twisted god actually exists, I still would not worship him. Hunger and homelessness are up in a big way, and what god wants is your ass back in the seat? That sounds like extortion- not at all an admirable trait in a deity.

Instead of praying for better times, why not donate to a food bank, or do some other sort of charitable giving? It's like prayer because it helps you feel better, but it also has the added advantage of actually doing something to make the situation better.

George Bush bible comment shocked evangelicals

I've been debating with myself for quite some time this question: Is George Bush the dumbest person ever to have lived, or simply one of the worst people ever to have lived?

Bush Bible comment shocked evangelicals

Bush made the controversial statement during a Monday interview on ABC's Nightline. When asked whether he thinks the Bible is literally true, he replied, "Probably not. No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it."

...
Bush further stated in the interview, "I think that God created the Earth ... and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."

So, he's got that going for him. Since he's not so stupid as to believe the bible is literally true, or that evolution is "just a theory", then that makes him smarter than most fundamentalist Christians. However, that pushes him closer towards the "worst person ever to have lived" category.

Church seeks 'Santa Claus will take you to hell' sign to accompany Nativity display

Can we all agree that this sign-in-the-capitol-to-be-inclusive-for-holidays is going a little too far? Why does the Capitol need any of these displays? Maybe the Capitol should reserve displays to those that are relevant to politics- not things outside its purview, such as religion? Call me crazy...

Church seeks 'Santa Claus will take you to hell' sign to accompany Nativity display

The "church" that picketed gay hate crime victim Matthew Shepard's funeral and blamed Iraq war deaths on US tolerance of gays has a new message: Screw Santa.The church has asked Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire's office to put up a sign near its holiday display that says "Santa Claus will take you to hell" among other religious statements in the state capitol's hallway.

In an effort to be inclusive, the state has added signs mocking atheism, an atheist sign celebrating the winter solistice and a sign mocking religion as "myth and superstition" that enslaves minds alongside a more typical Nativity display.

"The Westboro request is under consideration by the state Department of General Administration, which also has a request for a display depicting 'The Spaghetti Monster' and 'a Christian woman in Bellevue who wants to erect a sign offering blessings on all people,'" the Daily Olympian's Brad Shannon noted Thursday. "'Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster' is a parody of the Kansas education-board decision to teach 'intelligent design' as an alternative to Darwinist evolutionary concepts in biology classes."

"Also under consideration is a request for a 'Festivus' pole," adds Sherman, "a reference to the mock holiday 'Festivus for the Rest of Us' popularized by Seinfeld in the late 1990s."

The Santa message is nothing if not outrageous, in the spirit of previous Westboro Baptist messages.

"You'd better watch out, get ready to cry, You'd better go hide, I'm telling you why 'cuz Santa Claus will take you to hell. He is your favorite idol, you worship at his feet, but when you stand before your God He won't help you take the heat," the proposed sign reads. "So get this fact straight: you're feeling God's hate, Santa's to blame for the economy's fate, Santa Claus will take you to hell."

Good Old-fashioned Christian marriage

Perhaps I was too hasty earlier as I advocated equal rights for homosexuals to marry and have long-term, loving, committed relationships. Maybe instead of pushing "equality" and "tolerance", I should have pointed out some of the common-sense rules that govern Christian marriage. Christians, please choose which forms of marriage you would like to see enacted as constitutional mandates, so we can get back to governing "God's way": (h/t DailyKos)

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

And it goes without saying that as a good Christian, you should make sure that you don't serve lobster, crab, prawns, at your wedding reception- your god hates those too!

On hatred and tolerance. And KrAzY KrIsTiAnZ!

Leonard Pitts wrote a moving Op-ed after the election that was carried by our local paper about how many of the supporters of Proposition 8 in California were black. He opined about the election that

You will recall one of the major storylines of that day was the fact that, in helping make Barack Obama the nation's first black president, African Americans struck a blow against a history that has taught us all too well how it feels to be demeaned and denied. Unfortunately, while they were striking that blow, some black folks chose to demean and deny someone else.

Last week, you see, California voters passed an initiative denying recognition to same-sex marriages. This overturned an earlier ruling from the state Supreme Court legalizing those unions. The vote was hardly a surprise; surely there is nothing in politics easier than to rouse a majority of voters against the ''threat'' of gay people being treated like people.

I thought it was a great editorial, and was somewhat surprised to see a counter-editorial pop up the next week. Thomas Martin, who apparently holds the prized O.K. Bouwsma Chair of Philosophy at the prestigious University of Nebraska at Kearney (too much sarcasm?), got it all wrong. He says "Jesus is intolerant: he does not tolerate anything wrong that a person does....When Jesus commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves, he does not ask us to tolerate our neighbors' actions." He continues, linking the biblical parable of the prostitute and the Pharisees ("let him who is without sin, cast the first stone...) and ending with the tired old "slippery slope" argument-

"So, yesterday it was fashionable for to marry and raise children. Tomorrow it may be fashionalbe to father children like a bull in a field of heifers; the next day, for men to marry men; the next day, for fathers to marry daughters and brothers to marry sisters".

I wish I could hyperlink you to the whole editorial, it really is quite something to behold, but our local paper sadly does not make that available. In any case, I had to write a letter to the editor explaining the way thinking people feel on the issue:

The editorial from Thomas Martin (Midlands Voices, 12/1/08) in response to Leonard Pitts' opinion essay was an unfortunate example of bigotry. If Mr. Martin wishes to belong to a religion that does not recognize gay marriage, that is perfectly within his rights as an American under the first amendment to the Constitution. The first amendment also creates a separation between church and state, which means that unless there are compelling secular reasons to justify denying a group of Americans their civil rights, then we should not do so. Resorting to a two-thousand year old parable to keep a group of people from being able to have full equality under the law falls far short of the ideal of justice and equality that our government was founded upon and ought to strive for.

Mr. Martin also points out that tolerance was not a biblical requirement. It is utterly incredible that he would argue that "Jesus is intolerant"- the very parable of the prostitute and the Pharisees that Mr. Martin cites has at its core a message of inclusion and compassion for those that are scapegoated by society, not a message of intolerance and inequality as Mr. Martin has twisted it to mean.

Finally, the slippery slope argument that he raises makes no sense. Several other countries in the world afford equal rights to committed gay couples, and there has not been a single case of fathers wishing "to marry daughters and brothers to marry sisters". However, these were the same tired arguments raised to protest against allowing blacks and whites to intermarry in the last century. I thought we had moved beyond this kind of bigotry, but it appears that is sadly not the case. You may not like that gay people exist, but using religion as a tool to oppress them hardly seems Christian.

Yesterday, in my snail mail, I received a letter. I didn't recognize the return address, especially so because it was a label prominently featuring a cross. It must be a miracle that it got to me, given that there was no street address, just my name, city, state, and zip code. Anyway, without further ado, here's the letter. (click to embiggen)

So, I guess he showed me! I think he's assuming that I must be gay (I'm not), but maybe he wants all people in favor of equal rights to move out of the state as well? I think, however, that if you are not willing to abide by the Constitution's requirements, and are unable to muster the votes to change it, then you ought to be the one to move. All the KrAzY KrIsTiAnZ can move elsewhere to start their own little bigoted, hateful theocracy where they can impose their religious will on each other and leave the rest of us in peace.

Educator ripped for her book calling for Christianity in school and politics

Educator ripped for her book calling for Christianity in school and politics

A member of the State Board of Education is drawing fire from a watchdog group because of her critical views on public education in a new book she has written that advocates more Christianity in the public square.

Sometimes, it's hard to avoid that feeling where you want to bang your head into the wall because of how stupid people are. Or bang their head into a wall. Depends on how stupid they are, I guess. In this case, despite being an educator, she's pretty stupid.

She calls public education a "subtly deceptive tool of perversion." The establishment of public schools is unconstitutional and even "tyrannical," she writes in the book, because it threatens the authority of families, granted by God through Scripture, to direct the instruction of their children.

It's fine if you want to have a debate over whether public school are constitutional, I think that's really a valid question. It's NOT valid to argue that the reason they are unconstitutional is because of magic and superstition. Ooops, I meant "god" and "scripture".

Dunbar endorses a belief system requiring "any person desiring to govern have a sincere knowledge and appreciation for the Word of God in order to rightly govern."

Now, this is where the constitution really does come in, and it's very clear. Article VI, Section 3 states that

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

It's not even one of those ambiguous things. It's pretty clear, the constitution is right, and she's wrong.

"I don't think most people in the churches are aware of the venom against Christian America," she said. "So, it's more of a wake-up call to be informed, to be involved. They are fine with the body of Christ as long as we stay hidden in our four walls of the church, sitting quietly in our pews.

"But if we become civically involved or active in public policy issues, then we're going to be shot down," Dunbar said.

That's right, it's a little hang-up we have called the First Amendment. Separation of church and state: it works for everyone if you let it be. You're absolutely right, Ms. Dunbar, we are fine with you as long as you keep your religion within the walls of your church. No problems at all, we won't try to come and take it from you. But when you try to bring it to politics, we will fight you with everything we have.

A very special welcome to the newest Warrior in the "War On Christmas"

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning!! Uber- dumbass Bill O'Reilly has been rallying the troops to defend Christmas in the imaginary "War on Christmas" for years. In fact, he's already begun this year's lobbying for Christmas. Annually, he encourages boycots of stores that say "happy holidays" or some variant thereof instead of "Merry Christmas". Now isn't it delicious when he screws up and lists his "holiday" reading list.

h/t: Think Progress

Conservative Pundit: God is what's wrong with Republicans

GOP should be 'giving up on God'

Nationally syndicated conservative columnist Kathleen Parker believes that the Republican Party's recent election woes can be summarized as "Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D."

In her latest column, "Giving Up on God", Parker cautions Republicans not to "overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit."

Writes Parker, "To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh."

After Obama's election, "like it or not, we are a diverse nation, no longer predominantly white and Christian," she continues.

"Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely comprised of white, married Christians," observes Parker. "Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting."

Continues Parker, "It isn't that culture doesn't matter. It does. But preaching to the choir produces no converts. And shifting demographics suggest that the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs."

After calling for Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin to quit the race in a September 29 column entitled "How Palin can save McCain," Parker revealed that she received hate mail from angry right-wingers.

"Only Palin can save McCain, her party and the country she loves," Parker had written. "She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first. Do it for your country."

Two days later, Parker wrote, "Allow me to introduce myself. I am a traitor and an idiot. Also, my mother should have aborted me and left me in a Dumpster, but since she didn't, I should 'off' myself. Those are just a few nuggets randomly selected from thousands of e-mails written in response to my column suggesting that Sarah Palin is out of her league and should step down. Who says public discourse hasn't deteriorated?"

Undoubtedly, Parker's e-mail box will fill up with angry invectives, threats, and, perhaps, prayers for her soul. And the same right-wing bloggers that claimed to have never heard of her before her infamous Palin column will most probably again blog ignorance.

I have a fear of heaven....

And this is why.

10 commandments vs. 7 Aphorisms- PART II

Sometimes I'm so brilliant, it scares me. Here's what I said this morning on the case:

The city is arguing that once they accepted the first monument, the city adopted it as part of it's own free speech, and therefore are under no obligation to accept competing messages. As far as I can tell though, you can't have it both ways. Either this is free speech or it's not; either it's an unconstitutional establishment of a state religion or it's a public park open to other messages. The city's kind of in an impossible situation here- they have to argue that the 10 commandments display is not an establishment of state religion while also denying competing religions the right to a similar public forum.

Here's the big issues in court today:

Though not directly at issue in the case, the establishment clause question lurked close to the surface in today's argument. Roberts said a declaration that the Pleasant Grove monument was government speech would make it harder for the city to argue that it wasn't favoring one religion over another.

``You're really just picking your poison, aren't you?'' he asked the town's lawyer, Jay Sekulow.

Justice David Souter said a high court ruling forcing the city to adopt the Ten Commandments message as its own would be fatal to the town's defense under the establishment clause.

``Isn't that what is driving this?'' he asked Summum's lawyer, Pamela Harris.

Harris said the city was trying to avoid having to formally subscribe to the particular version of the Ten Commandments on the park monument. She said the town ``wants to have it both ways.''

Face off: 10 commandments vs. 7 Aphorisms

The Raw Story | Supreme Court to hear Ten Commandments companion monument case

I heard about this story on NPR on my way into work this morning, and it made me laugh. Basically, some crazy cult was not allowed to donate a monument to the "7 Aphorisms" for placement in the city park alongside a monument of the "10 Commandments", which were allowed to be donated and placed in the park by some other crazy cult. The first group of crazy cultists sued, alleging a free-speech violation, a position that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with. Now its on the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Here are my favorite things about this story, in no particular order:

• It's coming from the state of Utah, well-known for their religious tolerance and acceptance of alternative lifestyles. LOL
• The "cult" is named "Summum" and "was founded in 1975 by Summum Bonum Amon Ra (or Corky Ra), née Claude "Corky" Nowell, after an encounter with 'Summa Individuals'." OK, two things here: 1) the guy's name is Corky and 2) all of the names of everything in their cult just sounds like somebody mumbling.
• The first cult, Summum, actually sounds pretty cool:

Summum's one-acre compound sits 33 miles north of Pleasant Grove, in an industrial section of Utah's capital, surrounded by a graffiti-strewn building and a metal scrap center.

It's a tranquil spot, with fruit trees and peacocks. Dominating the site is a 27-foot-tall, 40-foot wide copper-shelled pyramid. An automatic door opens to a central space where members meditate.

Scattered about are preserved animals encased in bronze, Egyptian symbols, sofas, candles and bright murals adorning the walls. Off to the side is a large, stainless-steel fermentation tank, where sacramental "nectars" or "liquid knowledge" are produced for meditation sessions.

Oh yeah, those "sacramental nectars"? They're wine.

The city is arguing that once they accepted the first monument, the city adopted it as part of it's own free speech, and therefore are under no obligation to accept competing messages. As far as I can tell though, you can't have it both ways. Either this is free speech or it's not; either it's an unconstitutional establishment of a state religion or it's a public park open to other messages. The city's kind of in an impossible situation here- they have to argue that the 10 commandments display is not an establishment of state religion while also denying competing religions the right to a similar public forum.

They might have had a chance if they would have chosen to argue it based on the idea that it was part of the history of the area, and not part of government speech at all. Those types of arguments have been viewed sympathetically by the court, but I don't see how the city can win the case based on these arguments. Discussing a Texas case a few years ago

"No exact formula can dictate a resolution in fact-intensive cases such as this," Rehnquist read. "The determinative factor here, however, is that 40 years passed in which the monument's presence, legally speaking, went unchallenged.

"And the public visiting the capitol grounds is more likely to have considered the religious aspect of the tablets' message as part of what is a broader moral and historical message."

In a dissenting opinion, Souter wrote, "If neutrality in religion means something, any citizen should be able to visit [the capitol grounds] without having to confront religious expressions clearly meant to convey an official religious position."

So clearly, the court could be persuaded that the history of the monument should be taken into account, and the city may have won based on that argument. However, once the city began arguing that the 10 commandments were part of it's own free speech, then they are forced to admit that it is an establishment clause violation.

Palin: The right thing for America will be done on Nov. 4

Sarah Palin: “And it also strengthens my faith because I know at the end of the day putting this in God’s hands, the right thing for America will be done, at the end of the day on Nov. 4.”

LOL!!! Where's your God now????? HAHAHAHAHA

h/t: Project for the Old American Century

Obama Aides Diss Atheists!

NoGodBlog.com - Obama Aids Diss Atheists! [sic]

Carl Silverman describes attending a "Presidential Forum" at the Christian Life Academy. Full text of the email is below, but there are a few things that I want to highlight.

Don Miller of the Obama campaign responds to a question directed to the McCain campaign,

"Senator Obama has a policy director and an advisor for many different faiths. He has nothing on atheists or agnostics. There's not this grand effort for the Democrats to reach out to a group of pagans to try to get them to vote for Senator Obama."

I guess admitting that Obama's all set to ignore atheists didn't go far enough for D. Paul Moneiro, Obama's National Deputy Director for Religious Affairs. Side note: why is it that campaigns need "Directors for Religious Affairs", and are the Directors really so overwhelmed with Religious Affairs that they require Deputies????? Anyway, Monteiro continues (referring to Obama), "This is not some crazy wacko atheist trying to make sure that your children grow up to marry trees."

That's good to know! Nothing gets under my skin more than those damned atheists and their persistent attempts to get children to marry trees! Not just American trees either, they actually want children to marry DUTCH ELMS or JAPANESE MAPLES!! *gasp* These foreigner trees have been luring our young people away for far too long. If you elect me as president, I vow to keep American children marrying American trees!

OK then, I have a question: is Obama some kind of KrAzY KrIsTiAn that is trying to get your children to grow up to hate gays? Does he want your children to grow up to hate science? Is Obama at least willing to accept godless money? I bet he is! Once again, it proves that atheists are one of the few groups that it's still considered permissible to slander. For shame.

Friends,

First let me say that, despite what you are about to read, I still encourage everyone to vote for
Obama. As we all know, we must focus on the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless.....

My wife and I went to the "Presidential Forum" http://www.christian-life.com/calendar/forum.html
last night (Wednesday 10/29/08) at the Christian Life Academy, a megachurch here in Camp Hill, PA,
expecting to be offended by the McCain-Palin surrogates. The event was being recorded/televised,
probably for podcasting on the Christian Life website, but I'm not sure. I have listed the
participants at bottom of this page.

I submitted a question, specifically for the McCain-Palin people. Here's the question, as asked by the moderator, who only slightly rephrased it from the original:

"With at least 8% of Pennsylvanians being atheists, agnostics, and humanists, what are the McCain-Palin campaign going to say tonight to attract any undecided voters from that group of Pennsylvanians?"

McCain's National Evangelical Director, Marlys Pompa, said that McCain was going to be a president
of all the people, people "of all faiths and no faiths." She mentioned the "wonderful melting
pot" of America, and generally emphasized the inclusiveness and unity of a McCain presidency. She, of course, did not mention Palin.

The moderator then proceeded to ask another question, this time directed to the Obama campaign, but the Obama representatives insisted on responding to my question first.

Don Miller, an author and social conservative who delivered a prayer at the Democratic convention, said, "Senator Obama has a policy director and an advisor for many different faiths. He has nothing on atheists or agnostics. There's not this grand effort for the Democrats to reach out to a group of pagans to try to get them to vote for Senator Obama."

D. Paul Monteiro, Obama's National Deputy Director for Religious Affairs, then said, "Senator Obama has a twenty-year history, a twenty-year testimony" and described Obama's support for Bush's "faith-based partnership program" and how Obama said "no" to those who distributed flyers at the Democratic National Convention urging him, on the basis of church-state separation, to oppose public funding of faith-based initiatives.

Then, referring to Sen. Obama, Monteiro proclaimed, "This is not some crazy wacko atheist trying to make sure that your children grow up to marry trees."

Yes, Obama's aides not only gloated that they were not actively seeking the votes of atheists, agnostics, and pagans, but delivered a slur of such an egregious nature that, if targeted against Christians or Jews, would have likely been fatal to Obama's campaign. I can't imagine Barack himself making such a grossly insulting statement.

In addition, there was a dispute over whether Obama supported or opposed discriminatory hiring by publicly funded faith-based programs. David Barton, founder of the WallBuilders organization, claimed that Obama opposed discriminatory hiring, but Obama's National Evangelical Coordinator Shaun Casey claimed that was untrue. To my recollection, based on Obama's past statements, Barton was correct and Casey was wrong.

In the future, I think atheists and other rationalists should create their own political party, not in the hopes of winning in this "Christian nation," but at least to act as a spoiler against any candidate who does not treat us with the same respect to which believers feel they are entitled.

Again, please vote for Barack, if only because Palin must be stopped.

Feel free to forward or publish this message, but only IN ITS ENTIRETY.

Carl H. Silverman
Camp Hill, PA

[apologies if this email is poorly formatted]

Copyright 2008, Carl H. Silverman. All rights reserved, except permission is granted to forward
(or publish) this message in its entirety.

religionexplained.jpg (JPEG Image, 578x554 pixels)

I stumbled to the following image:
religionexplained.jpg (JPEG Image, 578x554 pixels)




Sometimes atheists are accused of being shrill, arrogant, blasphemous and rude when we criticize religion in terms like depicted above. That doesn't mean we're wrong, but it may turn some away from our message. However, I think it wins far more arguments and converts than it loses.

Hyperbole can be a useful tool in debates, especially when categorizing your opponent's arguments. Hyperbole has a way of simplifying the debate instantly. Once we refuse to respect conventions about blasphemy, "God" becomes a god, and then a target of ridicule.

But, it's more than that. Extreme characterization of the Christian beliefs like the one above can force Christians to examine their beliefs more closely. The reader who is shocked by the mockery implicit in the "imaginary man" reference to their god is forced to ask themselves, "in what way is that characterization wrong?" "In what ways do my beliefs differ from this idea of a capricious, malicious god?" The cumulative effect of these internal questions, even if subconsciously, can have a powerful effect, I believe. Even forcing them to ask themselves why atheists would believe this way about "God" can cause them to put themselves into our shoes and manufacture reasons for our disbelief.

This will never produce instantaneous results (other than offending the unsuspecting Christian), but I believe that it will have an effect. And always remember, "blasphemy is a victimless crime".

Thumbs up for hands-only CPR :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Health News

Thumbs up for hands-only CPR :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Health News

In a major change aimed at getting more bystanders to do CPR, the American Heart Association now says it's OK to skip the mouth-to-mouth resuscitation when performing CPR on adults having a heart attack.

New guidelines issued by the organization Monday encourage non-medical professionals to use hands-only CPR -- doing hard, fast chest compressions -- instead of a combination of chest thrusts and rescue breathing, as long recommended.

By making CPR less complicated, the aim is to get more people to try doing it in an emergency.

"Many times, people nearby don't help because they're afraid that they will hurt the victim and aren't confident in what they're doing," said Dr. Michael Sayre, lead author of the new recommendation. "We want people to know that they can help many victims just by calling 911 and doing chest compressions. Don't be afraid to try it."

The shift is supported by evidence from three large studies done last year that found survival rates weren't hurt when mouth-to-mouth wasn't used, the heart association said.

However, important to note, prayer remains a non-viable alternative. If someone around you is choking, please DO NOT pray for them, please DO SOMETHING instead.

Murder vs. faith-healing (or doing nothing)

The FFRF has a new press release with their perspective of the death of Madeline Kara Neumann from diabetic ketoacidosis while her parents did nothing while praying for her. I fully agree with their strongly-worded press release, and the authors seem to be putting up with the same sort of fractal wrongness that I talked about last week. These parents, their supporters, and frankly the Wisconsin Legislature, are wrong at such a fundamental level that they can't even understand why brights are so saddened and enraged by this.

What's even more appalling is the ambivalent reaction: "Ethicists say case unclear," reports the Wausau Daily Herald. The Herald quoted bioethicist Dr. Norman Fost of the University of Wisconsin Medical school warning that it's important not to be moralistic or pass judgment on parents who think they can heal a child through prayer: "They believe they're helping their child; they love their child, and they believe prayer has an effect."

However deluded the parents may be, the rest of us need not countenance or indulge that dangerous delusion.

Dean Zuleger, the administrator of the Village of Weston, was quoted by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel saying, "There is a general sense of grief and sadness. Because I know the family a bit, there is a great deal of concern for their well-being." The parents' well-being?

"Death draws out difficult issues" read a headline in the Journal Sentinel. While Madeline's drawn-out death, involving nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, weight loss and weakness, is very difficult to read about, there is nothing difficult at all about deciding where the blame lies. "The prayer of faith will heal the sick," according to James 5:15. The fault lies in society's laudatory attitude toward a "holy book" which teaches superstition and faith-healing, whose passages are latched onto by bible literalists, and whose obedience to such injunctions has been given a pass in the criminal statutes of many states.

Hattip to Friendly Atheist for the update

Certifying Parents - WSJ.com

Certifying Parents - WSJ.com

Apparently Nebraska isn't the only state grappling with what sorts of regulation is needed for homeschooling. The Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece last week responding to a California judge's ruling that requires a teaching credential to teach children, even if they are your own and even if they are homeschooled.

This case is different from the Nebraska one in that Nebraska's issue was raised by the legislature, not the judiciary. Not that it makes a difference to the legions of homeschoolers who have been gnashing their teeth over this infringement of their rights. Or at least if you listen to all the hyperbole. For some reason, any attempt to regulate or quantify results of homeschooled kids is met with large-scale opposition.

As I've mentioned before, I don't believe that there's a "bright-line" between who's right and wrong on these issues. Of course parents should have the right to raise their children as they see fit, barring any sort of abuse. I'm just not sure what ought to count as abuse. Is it young-earth creationism? In any case, this issue is a useful one to tease out whatever particular biases your news source has. For example, the Wall Street Journal opines:

That so many families turn to home schooling is a market solution to a market failure -- namely the dismal performance of the local education monopoly. According to the Home School Legal Defense Association, the majority of states have low to moderate levels of regulation for home schools, an environment that has allowed the option to flourish, especially in the South and Western U.S. Between 1999 and 2003, the rate of home-schooling increased by 29%.

For some parents, the motive for home schooling is religious; others want to protect their kids from gangs and drugs. But the most-cited reason is to ensure a good education. Home-schooled students are routinely high performers on standardized academic tests, beating their public school peers on average by as much as 30 percentile points, regardless of subject. They perform well on tests like the SAT -- and colleges actively recruit them both for their high scores and the diversity they bring to campus.

In 1994, a federal attempt to require certification of parent-teachers went down in flames as hundreds of thousands of calls lit up phone banks on Capitol Hill. The movement has since only grown larger and better organized, now conservatively estimated at well over a million nationwide. But what they can't accomplish legislatively, unions are now trying to achieve by diktat from the courts.

So, to them, homeschooling is both an issue of free markets and inappropriate judicial activism. The homepage for the "Homeschool Legal Defense Association" showcases this perspective:

So clearly to them, it's both a religious and a constitutional issue. Although in the rhetoric about various homeschooling issues, the HSLDA invariable asserts that homeschooling is a "fundamental" right, apparently their website argues that it is a right that requires constitutional protection. I'm terrified what constitutional changes they are seeking, especially if Dr. Dobson is on board. Here's the text of the proposed constitutional amendment:

DRAFT PARENTAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT
FOR THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

SECTION 1
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

SECTION 2
Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

SECTION 3
No treaty nor any source of international law may be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

What do you think? It appears to be ambiguous, over-reaching, and completely unneccessary to me.

Psychological problems and religion: the de-conversion process

See, this is what I've been saying. Religion is a cult. It's just a very popular cult, and your family may be part of the cult, and you may be the only person you know that the cult hasn't brainwashed. Valerie Tarico writes on the Huffington Post:

Most religions implant psychological safeguards against apostasy, little emotional bombs of fear, guilt, shame and self-loathing that get triggered by the mere act of questioning. In religious orthodoxy, doubt is the domain of fools. It is the consequence of having hardened your heart like Pharaoh or resenting God's power like Lucifer. Oh ye of little faith!

I know that fear of their reaction is at least a part of my reluctance to identify myself as an atheist to my family. Accountant by Day had a post recently about this very issue, and it turns out that the initial aftermath wasn't as bad as she expected. Anyway, the only way to find out what the fallout will be is to go forward with it. It's the brave thing to do, but it's one of those things where the timing never really seems right. I'm sure that's my psychological reluctance to do so subtly expressing itself, but it doesn't make it any easier.

Even among my professional peers, psychologists, far too few understand the depth of harm that can be done to the psyche by fundamentalist religion -- religion that subsumes the individual self to a cult self. The irony is that few mental health professionals are sympathetic to the claims of moral dogma. The practicing therapist is exposed daily to life's caprice: biochemical malfunctions, developmental vagaries, and rotten life circumstances. In contrast to a religious perspective, psychology seeks to understand material and historical roots of symptoms rather than making moral judgments. So the problem is not that the professional world view aligns with a dogmatic world view. It is just that, in the absence of dramatic evidence to the contrary, we are all taught to think of religion as harmless.

It's time to give up the illusion.

True.