What an Evil, Evil Man

Via UnreasonableFaith.com:

------The Real Jerry Falwell.------

(Index for the Pillars of Faith series)

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"

Inigo Montoya said that to Vizzini after Vizzini's repeated (mis)use of the word "inconceivable".  I think that quote is just as appropriate for the catholic church and their use of the word "celibate" (or "celibacy").

For years we have heard of child sex abuse by catholic priests in the United States.  A priest would abuse kids.  If he was caught, or is suspicion became too great, the church would move the priest to another city/diocese.  And as the commercial goes - lather... rinse... repeat.  The church hierarchy was complicit in allowing these pedophiles to continue raping young boys.

Celibacy is "abstention from sexual relations".  Some would argue that "sexual relations" means the act of intercourse.  Common sense has a more liberal view of sex - if genitals are involved in an act of pleasure, it is sexual in nature.  (We'll ignore the non-sexual contact with genitals when one washes oneself, unless, as Stewie Griffin said to Brian: "You were clean fifteen minutes ago. Now you're just on vacation.")

Celibacy for priests should effectively ban their coming in contact with another's genitals, or others coming in contact with the priests' genitals.  Yet many priests have been accused of sexually abusing children.... Priests being celibate?  "(They) keep using that word.  I do not think it means what (they) think is means."

Did I Go Too Far?

There are a couple dozen folks I went to high school with that, after no contact for 25 years, I now communicate with via Facebook.  As mentioned in an earlier entry, most seem to have fallen in with the very christian groups.  One's comments I even had to hide due to the incessant "oh my, ain't that J a great guy" right after her husband died of cancer.

Health care reform passed the House this past Sunday, so yesterday (Monday) there were a LOT of comments on the bill passing.  Way too many were decrying America's downward spiral into socialism/nazism/communism/obamaism (choose one or all - the folks making the claims did not seem to have a clue).  Here are some:
"Everybody sing - 'Welcome to the USSA...'"
"Home of the fee and land of the caved..."
"Well, we now took a step farther towards loosing our freedom last evening. We are well on our way to a Socialist country."
"Sorry guys...my freakin husband had said it passed...going to have to go and hurt someone now..."

All but the last were from ex-classmates.  Then I read another comment.


"Okay its time to put the coffee cup away and get motivated. I am so glad that the state of our country is not my savior. Jesus is and he never changes and provides in all situation",

I responded

"Here here! Why grant 32 million people affordable health care when you can simply slap a bible down in front of them! How about alternative medicine - you know, stuff like the torah, quran, or dianetics?
I am curious - what verse do you use to cure tonsillitis, and which verse is best for appendicitis?" 

To say the resulted in a firestorm ("fire" was not the 4-letter word I was thinking) would be an understatement.  Folks I did not know were berating me for being mean and uncaring.  I even had folks say they would pray for me.

One of her friends claimed that the writer was simply stating "time to get going and do the housework", but I did not read it that way.  I did offer to apologize to the writer if, as her friend stated, her comment was that innocent.  I sent the writer's friend, whom I do respect to a certain degree, the following note:

So where did my response come from?


I read (a comment) that I interpreted as "time to get off our butts, the country is going to pot, only the big J-man can save us now". Legislation is well on its way to helping 30 million people, and the response is "the country is going to hell - let Jesus help them"? Last I checked, a bearded and robed figure was not walking around emergency rooms curing folks (at least not for a couple of millennia) - that is being done by doctors and nurses. So when I read a note that says "let Jesus do it", that had to be straightened out.


I did not write what I wrote to be mean. Straight-forward (based on how I read her note), yes. Mean? No. (Mean would have been making my last sentence "I am curious - what verse do you use to cure tonsillitis, and which verse is best for appendicitis?... know any that cure Cancer???") I am aware of the hell she and her family has gone through. It was horrible reading about it, let alone living through it. I've lost two brothers already (sitting in a hospital next to my mother, siblings, and my brother's wife and kids waiting for one's body to die), so I don't screw with people about that sort of thing.

So, the question of the day is - Did I Go Too Far?

I may be biased, but my answer is "no".  (Would have been a "yes" had I included that cancer shot.)

"Affirmative Atheism"

In my first post for this blog (In The Beginning....) I stated:

"I am not a "militant atheist" - last I checked, I had not firebombed a church, nor shot any doctors, flown any planes into any buildings, etc., nor are those actions part of any plan I have. I've never tried to convert somebody from belief in a god to atheism, nor do I think I ever will. I will debate beliefs with somebody if they bring it up, but pox on me if I ever go door to door to instruct people about the lack of god (and pox on those that do go door to door to instruct people about their god)."

Based on that statement, it's pretty clear that I can add "fundamentalist atheist" and "evangelical atheist" to the list of things I am not.  I used to joke about being a "devout atheist", but that just fed into the ignorance of those who feel atheism is simply another religion.  John Wilkins, who writes Evolving Thoughts, has come up with the label "Affirmative Atheist", which seems to fit the bill nicely.  (h/t PZ Myers)

As John Wilkins wrote:  "I have often said that I want atheism to become a normalised aspect of modern society (and of course that implies also that I want religious belief and agnosticism, but not religious exclusivism, to be normalised)."  That pretty much covers what I would like, too.  I can deal with the stupidity of folks who call atheists "satanic" (how can one be satanic when one does not believe in Satan?), but I am distressed by the ignorant view of atheists.

I like that label, Affirmative Atheist.  

More Insight from Liam Fox

Liam Fox looks into Scientology.

Expect Tom Cruise to have a tantrum and start jumping on Oprah's couch again.

Another Nice Christian Organization

By now, we are all sickeningly aware of the various sex abuse cases involving priests in the catholic church - here in the U.S., over in Ireland, and now in Germany.  Apparently, there is another nice christian organization that has a history of having officials abuse little boys while their "superiors" cover up that sexual abuse.

BSA - Boy Scouts of America.  That oh-so-holy organization that has booted out top ranking Eagle Scouts because they were gay or atheists, may have been covering up sex abuse for decades.  My only involvement with scouts was as a Webelo, although I never really belonged  - I did not submit the sign-up papers. Ironically, the one thing I remember from the handbook is that Webelo stands for "We'll Be Loyal Scouts".  (Wikipedia has a nice tidbit about the Webelo Scout badge requiring the demonstration of "religiosity"...)  I guess that loyalty only encompassed the BSA, not the boys...

I don't get it... I really don't.  Boy Scouts are supposed to be trustworthy.  Boy Scouts are supposed to be valiant.  When I grew up the BSA PR machine made it seem that Boy Scouts were the crem-de-la-crem of fine young men.  I do not doubt that most Boy Scouts, past and present, are darn fine people.  So how can these men attend these meetings, claim to be doing everything they can to make these boys better people, then rape them.  Worse yet, how can the leadership of the BSA then HIDE it, yet claim to be leading a good christian organization?

(more here)

Must Have Been the Other Brother, Daryl

Courtesy of 27b/6.

:-D

Catholicism, and My Embarrassing Connection to It

I grew up Catholic.  My father was born into a Catholic family, and my mother converted to Catholicism so that she and my father could get married in a Catholic church.  My three oldest siblings attended Catholic schools for years (they graduated from public schools), and each of us (there are 8) spent some time in some sort of religious class, either after school or during the summer.  I even remember making macaroni art on paper plates (so take that, Kyle... Jews aren't the only ones who emote artistically with pasta!).

As a Catholic child, I went to church most Sundays.  I faintly remember and have heard stories of the whole family piling into the station wagon and going to church Sundays, but that kind of fell apart.  By the time I was 6 or 7 we were Good Catholics, helping create the overflow crowds in church on Easter and Christmas as a family.   Other than those two Sundays, Dad would declare "you kids need to go to church today", although he would only go infrequently.  I also remember going to the church on Sunday morning with a couple of older siblings and not going in - just hanging out in the parking lot until the masses were let go, then we would head home.  Mom and Dad must not have been fooled, because they became less insistent on our going over time.

All 8 kids went through First Communion, and the religious instruction that preceded. it.  I recall coming up with some bogus "sins" ("I fibbed to my mother", etc) when in Confession, and the yucky wafer that we had to eat for communion.  It was disgusting (and that was even without considering that I was being a cannibal by accepting it), and would paste itself onto the roof of my mouth, guaranteeing that I would be tasting it for the next half hour.  I believe my 6 oldest siblings made it through Confirmation, but my closest brother (2 years older than me - I am the youngest) and I never took that step.

Because I never was Confirmed, I guess I was never truly a member of the Catholic church.  As I understand the ritual, Confirmation is where a young adult swears fealty to Jesus and the Church.  Until Confirmed, young folks are simply attending with their family - they need to take that final step as an adult (or at least not as an infant - Confirmation seems to be around the ages of 13-14).  It seems to me that 13-14 is a bit young for somebody to be committing to something for life.  Shoot - the Wikipedia article in the above link notes that some consider the age for Confirmation to be as low as 7.  (I guess the priests wanted to ensure they only raped true Catholic alter boys...)

I really had nothing to say about any of the above.  Kids very rarely have any say about their religious upbringing.  Even so, as shown above I identify myself as having been raised a Catholic.  I have never taken the steps some folks have taken to distance themselves from the religion they grew up in, such as unbaptisms or decertification of their baptism.  I am torn about those actions.  Since I have done nothing as an adult to imply that I belong to the Catholic church, taking such an action would essentially give credence to the idea that my baptism and first communion actually mean something to me now - which they don't.  On the other hand, the symbolism of actively breaking away can't be discounted.

I will not bother with the decertification/unbaptism.  I may still write the diocese where my parents had me baptized to request they remove all records of my belonging to the church.  Since I had no decision in that membership, it is not unreasonable to correct the error my parents made.  But I am not sure.

Respect Needs to be Earned

Want some respect for your beliefs?  Then maybe you should believe something that is not so laughable...

Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 1)
Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 2)
Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 3)

For more educational and entertaining videos, check out the Thunderf00t YouTube channel.

So Much For 'Separation..."

Two troubling items from this week concerning the deterioration of the Separation of Church and State.

Number One:
In California, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional.  This is the same Circuit Court that ruled it unconstitutional in 2002.  Writing for CrooksAndLiars.com, Nichole Belle states one of the troubling aspects (for the record, I do not agree with her first statement about even saying "under god"):


The ruling itself is not so much an issue with me; I don't have a problem with saying "under God". But I do have an issue with Judge Carlos Bea's reasoning in his decision:

Bea wrote that the pledge is indeed a patriotic exercise, and the words "under God" must be viewed in that context.
"The pledge reflects many beliefs held by the founding fathers of this country -- the same men who authored the Establishment Clause -- including the belief that it is the people who should and do hold the power, not the government," Bea wrote. "They believed that the people derive their most important rights, not from the government, but from God."

At the risk of being crude - bullshit.  That is pure, unadulterated bullshit.  God granted me the rights I have in this country as much as the Trix Rabbit,  Harry Potter, and Captain Ahab granted me those rights.  PEOPLE granted me those rights - intelligent, caring people.  Some of those people worked on the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, others worked on later Amendments, and others worked through the Court system (sadly, it appears no system is infallible).  And, of course, the armed forces personnel who have fought to keep this country free.

The other aspect of this ruling is that, should the courts here in my home state of North Carolina decide to follow the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling, children in public schools will be directed to state a belief in a god every school day.  (Circuits outside of the 9th are not obligated by this ruling as nothing done in the Ninth Circuit sets a direct precedence in other Circuits, although it is not uncommon for one Circuit Court to lean on other Circuits' prior decisions.)  A few years back, the State of North Carolina passed a law that stated that the Pledge MUST be said in class every day.  Children do have the option of sitting out the Pledge, but how many 6, 7, or 8 year olds could contradict their teachers and the pressure laid on them by their peers to do this?

I have a niece that felt the U.S. was not worthy of her pledge due to the treatment of the Indians and other injustices.  In junior high decided she would not say it with her class.  Her teacher tried to force her to say it, sending her to the Principal when she continued to refuse.  The Principal was prepared to punish her for not stating the Pledge.  Fortunately, her parents were intelligent folks and were able to talk some sense into the school officials.  How many parents would go to bat with a school like that for their kids?

Basically, a state law requiring that children state a Pledge with "under god" in it grants state sanction to the existence of a god - which is clearly against Separation of Church and State.

Number Two:
Feel for the children of Texas, for they (in the words of the BadAstronomer) are DOOMED.

The Texas "Education" Board has just approved guidelines for textbooks to be used in the next 10 years.  If you were to name the five people most influential in the American Revolution and our system of government, Thomas Jefferson would HAVE to be on that list.  What did they do with Jefferson?  They removed one of the major basis of his actions - Jefferson's impact in the Enlightenment will no longer be taught.  John Calvin's religious viewpoint?  Yep - that's been added.  Jefferson and the idea of Separation of Church and State?  Nahhh.

Per a live blog during the dreadful meeting when that was decided (h/t The Loom and Carl Zimmer):

Here’s the amendment Dunbar changed: “explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present.” Here’s Dunbar’s replacement standard, which passed: “explain the impact of the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau,  Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Sir William Blackstone.” Not only does Dunbar’s amendment completely change the thrust of the standard. It also appalling drops one of the most influential political philosophers in American history — Thomas Jefferson.

A majority of that Board considers themselves religious fundamentalists.  Their ultimate guide is not the Constitution, but their bible.  Their leader is so out of touch with even his Texas constituents that he just lost his bid for reelection - but that will not keep him from taking one last shot at true liberty and the ideas that lead to it. "We are adding balance," said Dr. Don McLeroy, the leader of the conservative faction on the board, after the vote. "History has already been skewed. Academia is skewed too far to the left."  His solution to that "skew"?  "They added apologetics for the McCarthy hearings.  Yes, you read that right. They added to the standards that America was being infiltrated by Communists, and therefore McCarthy was right."  (again, courtesy of Phil Plait of BadAstronomy)

Textbook publishers tend to give more weight to desires of big states when it comes to the content of their textbooks.  Large states such as Texas (as well as California, NY and Florida) have a huge impact on textbook content, so what those states demand the other states will get.  I just have to hope that most of the other states have sense enough to force the textbook publishers to create two sets of textbooks:
For Texas - "US History - GOD and country" (with a forward by Edith Hamilton)
For the rest of us - "US History - Mythology Free Version"

Holy Bacon, Batman!

Feed a man a fish, and he eats for a day.  Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.  Teach a man to fry bacon, and JESUS CHRIST!!!

Jeeze - Do You Think???

I was watching ABC News tonight, and up popped a story on the gay-hatred that is going on in Uganda now.  This is all being led by assorted religious leaders, who claim (similar to Christianist Lauren Ashley) that homosexuality is evil and subject to death per their bible.  One of the questions Diane Sawyer posed prior to doing a lead-in to Nightline (which also carried the story) was "could visits by conservative American christian leaders recently have encouraged the Ugandan hatred of gays?"  As the title states... jeeze - do you think that might have had an effect?!?

An American christian leader writes a book stating homosexuals will rape children, turn those children into homosexuals, and destroy society  That same leader then visits Uganda with other christian leaders and speaks with many Ugandan religious and government leaders.  Shortly after they leave, bills are being passed stating that gays can be put to death for being gay, jailed for being gay, and their family and friends jailed for not narcing on them.  Yeah - our own American Taliban / christianists helped push their hatred into Uganda, leading to the terrorism of an entire group of people there.

I just hope Nightline gives credit where credit is due, and does not let the American religious leaders who spurred the Ugandans to action off easy.

Here's to Liam Fox

I have a growing respect for Liam Fox, whose writings can be found at his own site as well as Paliban Daily.  His latest post on intolerance is very, very well thought out and written.

These are the Fools Andrew Sullivan Refers to as "Christianists"

Courtesy of Pharyngula, a scary description of some folks who take themselves way too seriously.  Why are they scary instead of just funny?  They are armed, and believe they truly are an army of their god.

The Dangers of Superstition

I remember back when I was in grade school the teacher showed a short film on superstitions.  This film showed "bad things" that can happen when people take foolish actions based on those superstitions.  The one "bad thing" I remember (there were quite a few, but this is dredging up a 40 year old memory) concerned a middle-aged guy avoiding cracks in the sidewalk.  He could not "step on a crack or he'd break his momma's back", so he was not watching where HE was going, only where his feet were stepping.  Two workers carrying a 2x4 across the sidewalk clotheslined the guy, much to the comic delight of the children watching.

Other superstitions growing up were the traditional ones:  The number 13 is bad, and Friday the 13th is REALLY bad (well, I guess if you are a Templar knight, it is really bad);  If you spill salt, toss some over your left (right?) shoulder or you will get bad luck;  You must give somebody who sneezes good wishes so that their soul will not leave their body with the sneeze (or to prevent the devil from entering the body);  Cross your fingers to bring on good luck!

Think about those superstitions...
13:  It is 1 greater than 12 and a baker's dozen is better than a regular dozen.
Friday the 13th:  Some folks think that since one bad event happened on a Friday the 13th over 700 years ago, all subsequent Fridays the 13th should be feared.  In 700 years there have been approximately 1,200 Fridays that fell on the 13th.  Many of them have been perfectly fine days, and can even mean MONEY!  (When I was paid weekly or biweekly on Friday, the date did not matter - I got paid.  Now I get paid semi-monthly, on the 15th and 30th/31st.  If the 15th is a Sunday, I get my money on Friday the 13th.).
Spilled Salt:  I think throwing away more of an item you just spilled and wasted is just silly, regardless of which shoulder you toss it over.
Sneezing:  Your soul leaves your body when you sneeze?  If it does that, then can you imagine what it does when you fart?  But nobody ever says "gesundheit" when you fart.
Step on a crack...:  Sorry, mom - I've never paid this one much attention.  Of course, you've never had back problems, either.

Superstitions are created when we give individual events or small sequences of events too much weight.  It's part of being human to find patterns wherever we look, so if we wore our red t-shirt while watching our football team beat the hated rival, then we will find a connection, a pattern.  A superstitious person will wear that same red shirt during the next game.  This will continue until: the wearer finds something with MORE connection to 22 men playing in a stadium 1,200 miles away; or the t-shirt falls apart; or the wearer realizes that nothing he does in his living room can affect the success or failure of 22 men playing in that stadium 1,200 miles away.

I was listening to the BBC Newshour on the way to work the other day.  One of the reports they aired concerned children, I believe in Africa, being beaten and threatened for being witches.  Witches.  Yeah, let's beat the children because they might just be witches.  What is the thought process behind these beatings?  Well, when something happens, there has to be a reason.  When a farmer's animal dies, there has to be a reason for that death.  If one of the local kids happened to be hanging around near the animals the day before, doing something the farmer could not see.... WITCH!

So these folks accuse kids (and each other, I imagine) of being witches.  When the accusation is made, others in the village gather around to beat the witch into submission.  What evidence do they have?  Sadly, the question becomes "what evidence do they need?"  Even more sad, that answer is "none".  One of the people interviewed stated that the government officially does not recognize the existence of witchcraft, but that a friend of his, a lawyer and official in that same government, has accused his own children of witchcraft.

But what is superstition except faith in something that has no basis in reality?  I've known folks from all walks of life laughing at other's superstitious acts, such as crossing fingers, wearing hats inside out (rally caps), or the wearing of that red t-shirt.  But those same folks have no problems making crossing themselves when walking by a cemetery, or wearing a piece of jewelry in the shape of a cross, or stopping the constructive activity they were involved in 5 times a day to kneel towards a place across the globe.  Religions are simply organized groupings of superstitions.  Watch a superstitious person with OCD for a while ("Monk"), then watch a "holy person" perform his or her duties.  Then tell me what the difference is.

Atheist Eve

The only problem with Atheist Eve is that it only comes out once a month.  So, enjoy today's (well, March's) comic, and spend the next 30 days reading the archives (conveniently linked to on each page).

Sunday Funny - Robertson on Chile

The Desperate Blogger nails it.

Ohhhh, He's Goin' To Hades for that Fib!

Faux News piece of crap talking head Sean Hannity apparently forgot that wonderful 9th (8th if you're Catholic - I guess they were too busy with the alter boys to learn to count correctly) Commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."  Friendly Atheist (Hermant Mehta) has a clip of Hannity spewing falsehoods about the recent meeting of White House officials and the Secular Coalition for America, claiming religious folks don't get such nice treatment (I guess they do even better...) and attendance of a person who was not there.

You'd think a nice Irish Catholic boy like SH would know better than to lie.

Spare the Rod - Use the Quarter Inch Plumbing Supply Line Instead

I wish I could say this is very curious coming from a religion that supposedly follows "the Prince of Peace".  I really wish I could.  Sadly, for all the good words they attribute to Jesus, and all the praising and glorification of the son of god whose birth and death was to usher in a new image of god, some believers have not yet caught on.  Maybe they will in another 2,000 years.

Found on Salon is a story of parents who have murdered their 7-year old adopted child, and put another adopted child, this one 11 years old, into the hospital in critical condition.  Why did they do this?  The little girl mispronounced a word in her home-schooling lesson.  That may seem a bit harsh, but the parents subscribe to a brutal, sadistic, (and in my opinion) evil method of child rearing.  It is referred to as "child training" (as if you were training a dog to jump through a ring of fire, or as a proponent of the method wrote: "the same principles the Amish use to train their stubborn mules, the same technique God uses to train his children"), and it has too, too many followers (see also).

I am not a parent, so I cannot comprehend the intentional, scheduled, beating of a child.  I do have a temper, so I can understand (not condone, but understand) folks who get into trouble for hitting their kids.  But to actively pursue a plan of beating a child proactively to make sure the child behaves?  Only a monster would do that, and only monsters would preach it.

"Funny - You Don't Look Like an Atheist!" (part 2)

Part 1 of "Funny - you don't look like an atheist" described some of the erroneous preconceptions believers have about the physical properties of an atheist.  Those preconceptions can be somewhat humorous, expecting atheists to basically look like lowlifes, or criminals, or satanists.  I mean, Jimmy Bakker was as low as they got, the finest criminals go to confession, and if atheists don't believe in a god, how in the hell (pun intended) are they supposed to worship a non-existent devil?

Part 2 gets a little more serious, and by "serious" I mean in part "depressing", in part tremendously frustrating.  This part focuses on that vile preconception of good vs evil, and whether atheists can determine one from the other.  Sometimes I am able to ignore fools who proclaim you cannot know goodness without a belief in their flavor of a higher being.  Their ignorant statements may be frustrating, but they whither away.  The depressing part is when somebody you know, whom you've been friends with for years, makes the declaration that "you can't be an atheist - you're too good."  How do you respond to something like that?

I heard it from a neighbor, a friend.  I knew she and her husband were hardcore believers, but they were the good kind of believers - they believed what they believed, but did not try to force it on anybody else.  They did say a quick prayer before eating, but never tried to get me to pray with them, or do anything related to their faith.  But one day we were talking and she described a visit she recently was paid by a couple of Mormon missionaries.  She had a good chuckle at some of the things they said and her response to them ("they mentioned only 250,000 are allowed into the inner sanctum of heaven, and asked if I would like to be one of them.  I told them 'sure - but which one of you will be pushed out because I was let in?'").  A couple more minutes of conversation about religion led her to ask if I have ever believed in (her) god.  The topic had been discussed in the past, and I told her that, no, I had never felt there was any sort of deity, or higher being(s) of any sort, and repeated that I was an atheist.  That's when she said "you can't be an atheist - you're too good."...

At first blush I was depressed by that statement - that somebody that I thought knew me pretty well would completely disregard a declaration that I was dead serious about with such ease.  But then, I started getting angry.  Not green "Hulk smash" angry, but as angry and frustrated as I had ever gotten with her.  She made another statement, this one about "you can't know good without knowing (her) god".... At that, I told her straight out how arrogant, how condescending, and petty those statements were.  "What you are saying is that, unless I believe EXACTLY WHAT YOU BELIEVE, that I cannot be on your level.  Without believing in your god, nothing means anything.  My parents taught me what is right, and what is wrong, but without a mysterious all-powerful ghost looking over my shoulder, they wasted their time.  Do you realize how arrogant that is?"

"Well, I didn't mean it like that" she said.
"But that is exactly what that means - unless I am exactly like you, I mean NOTHING.  What my parents taught me - nothing.  My experiences of 40+ years - nothing.  Philosophical debates within myself about existence, and the results of those debates - NOTHING.  That...is...arrogance."

The conversation dropped rather quickly - she is not one who enjoys direct confrontation like that, and I believe she sensed she had offended me.  Every once in a while, though, the subject of religion comes up, and I still get the question "you really don't believe there is a god?" in a somewhat astounded manner, as if it was inconceivable that somebody would NOT believe...   It was almost like somebody who loved peanut butter, and could not understand why anybody would not love peanut butter - even those with allergies to peanuts.

"Funny - You Don't Look Like an Atheist!" (part 1)

I have heard that statement numerous times in my life.  It seems that I have spent the better part of my adult life trying to dispel erroneous preconceptions of atheists that are held by believers of all sorts.  The "looks" issue is one of the least of them.

I am not shy about announcing my religious (non)belief, and discussions about belief systems have popped up occasionally at the various places I have worked.  And, it seems that there is one person at each employer that makes that statement.... "Gee, you don't look like an atheist."  If I was quick-witted enough, my automatic response would be "well, I do take the time to file down my horns daily."  (I have always had a very high forehead - the spots where horns would grow has never seen hair...)

So it appears that erroneous preconception #1 is that we must look like, well, something other than "normal" (whatever that is).  Trust me, I am as white-bread as they come.  I guess the folks telling me I don't look like an atheist were expecting, oh, a hardcore biker dude, or punker, or a tattoo canvas - something that is definitely not me.  Funny thing, though - I have known hardcore biker dudes and dudettes, punkers, and heavily tattooed folks who were believers in a god (most the same god as the folks who made the statement). On the flip side, some of those who were viewed as having the appearance of being most holy ended up being anything but (see Jimmy Bakker, Pat Robertson, the current Pope...).  I worked with a lady who was as sweet to you to your face as anybody you'd ever meet, but behind your back, you were mud to her and anybody she could tell.  She tried to get people fired, rumor was she worked to bankrupt an ex-business partner of her husbands... quite the conniver.  So much for looks and appearances.

God's Early Warning System Needs to be Tweaked

Courtesy of Unreasonable Faith, we find out that a woman who raped was actually warned by her god that it was going to happen.  Why did she allow the rape to happen, then?  Well, it seems that SHE WAS ALREADY TIED UP WHEN HE TOLD HER, alone with an attacker.  Great timing, g.  What is your next trick - You going to tell us that Booth is going to shoot Lincoln?
(Although there are more gory (not graphic) details about it  here, Unreasonable Faith has a good rundown on the foolishness (fallacy?) of prophesy when it is too late to do anything about the prophesied event.)

This led me to think about other sources of prophesy.  Bizarre things like "The Bible Code", NospheratuNostradamus, tea leaves, tarot cards, astronomy, etc.  These "prophesies" fall into one or more of the following categories:

1)  Ambiguous - Astronomy, tea leaves, and tarot card readings (among others) - "Get together with friends today," "stay focused," "You're possibilities for success in your field of endeavor look very good in the days ahead" (all of these were culled out of this morning's paper).  They either describe a normal day's activity, or in the example "success in your field of endeavor", is so wide-open as to be true if you happen to not trip over your own shoelace.

2)  Hindsight is 20/20 - Nostradamus, Bible Code (and many, many more) - After a (major) event, folks scour over these sources of "prophesy" to find a quatrain to misinterpret, or biblical verse that "foretold" the event.  Humans have been writing for thousands of years, and the human imagination is vast.  Some time in the past, somebody thought of something that sounded like the event that just occurred.  Here - let me try one.... "A sphere will drop, a flame will appear, a red river will flow."  There - I can say I foretold the next war!

3)  A Room Full of Monkeys - Bible Code, others - If you take a big enough book, break it down into blocks of various sizes, "read" the book going forward, backward, and diagonally like you would a word jumble, you will find "hidden words".  These hidden words are then manipulated/combined in a haphazard way to create "prophesies".  Sadly, they are usually combined *afterwards* (hindsight being 20/20, after all) to "prove" the event was "foreseen".  Why don't they make these claims ahead of time?  Probably because, with nothing to guide them in putting the words together, they'd end up with something as meaningful as "mended as well as their bruises, their tempers and their hopes. Their plans were improved with the best advice. So the time came to mid summer eve, Elrond knew all about runes of every kind".  (That was taken from a spam email.)

I saw a documentary a couple of years back about prophesies, and one section centered on 9/11.  Of course, proponents of the Bible Code and Nostradamus all rushed forth AFTERWARDS to declare that their source FORETOLD that horrible event.  Penn Jillette had a line that was something like "If you have the ability to foresee these events, or you have information of them before they happen, AND YOU DO NOTHING ABOUT IT, YOU ARE EVIL, and should be prosecuted!" (I'll try to find the exact quote).  He nails it.

Whether your prophesies are bible related, or come from some other form of witchcraft, unless you come forward ahead of time, the just STFU.

What Do They Have Against Gays?

What is it with the religious right and their absolute hatred of gays?  Not only do they push their hatred here in the U.S., but they also export it?

The fiasco of Uganda's recent "we can execute you if you are gay" bill, which was put together with the assistance of notable US pastors has been big news over the past few weeks.  That bill would allow anybody who is gay to be jailed and anybody who has AIDS to be executed..  But you know what - even straights are subject to execution - if they know one of those dreaded gays!


Seriously - if a person (regardless of sexuality) does NOT turn in a person whom they know is gay, they can go to jail.  If they know two gays, and are caught not turning in the 2nd, they are subject to execution!


Those whackos need to go read their good book again...

Tim Tebow, his god, and the NCAA

Tim Tebow is headed for the NFL.  He may consider it truly the "No Fun League" (or maybe even the "No Fundamentalist League") since they will not allow him to wear his biblical verse reference under his eyes like the NCAA was happy to.  I had no problem with his noting those passages in his eye-black.  As long as the NCAA didn't restrict any other player from displaying similar items, all is fine.  Shoot - Tebow was just making a small statement of his belief.  He did not preach, from all I have heard he never put somebody down because they did not believe his flavor of god... it was just him making his own statement.

Of course, can you imagine the NCAA allowing John Smith, a reserver tight-end from Podunk U., to write "Satan Rules" in his eye-black?  Of course you can't - you'd need be be on a nasty 60's LSD flashback to picture that scenario happening.

So what can the NCAA do to prevent that from happening?  Well, they could bar all players from any eye-black message, but that would seem hypocritical since they allowed their golden-boy to do it for years - and the NCAA would NEVER allow themselves to be hypocrites....

HA!!!  Barring all eye-black messages is exactly what they JUST DID.  Now that their christ-boy has left the manger, time to make sure nobody sullies their eye-black with something that may offend another (at least another christian).  As long as they were confident that the message would be coming from a good, christian boy, they were fine with it.  Heaven forbid somebody declare "allh akbar" in white on black...  or even (dare I say) "No god".

Friendly Atheist has a slightly different outlook on "The Tebow Rule" you may want to read.

Do We Really Need a Religious Bill of Rights?

That is the question the Dr. Phil Plait, the author of the Bad Astronomy blog, asks here.

Individuals should be able to express themselves in a non-disruptive manner, and a t-shirt that states "Jesus is Lord" is not disruptive (unless the school discriminates against "Allah is Great" or "Satan is my God").  But to let students who are supposed to be learning about the real world (physics, biology, geology) answer with biblical or other religious platitudes is appalling.  And to require that a teacher get away with not teaching, and to do so without any penalty, is atrocious.

I hope that Colorado saves itself from the idiocy that is this foolish act (pdf).

-----------------------
Update - It appears they saved themselves.... Courtesy (again) of Dr. Phil (the one who does astronomy, not Oprah's sad-eyed puppy).

Sunday Funny - Passionate Beliefs

Calamities of Nature

Coexist? It would be nice.

Paliban Daily has a tremendous article on the idea of religions coexisting.  It delves into that nice idea of religions coexisting, then gets into the nitty-gritty of how their tenets may prevent that from happening.

Sadly depressing in its honesty, but sometimes the truth is depressing.

What A Father! (part 2)

I was thinking about the logic (?) behind an ex-classmate thanking a god for putting her husband through months of a painful, debilitating illness before killing him in his 40's.  Since the bible is fond of parables and allegories, maybe I should try one....

-------------------------
A 2-year old child, Joanie, is abducted by a kindly, graying man.  This child is taken to the man's house, where there are many other residents, some of whom were also abducted, others joined the household willingly.  As time goes on, the Joanie comes to accept this man as Father.  Father provides as well as he can for all in the household, making the effort that all have enough to eat.  He does not succeed all the time, but the family members all thank Father whenever they get anything.

As this 2-year old grows up, other youngsters are brought into the family.  All are instructed to worship Father, just like Joanie was.  One day, seemingly for no reason, Father comes along and takes one of the young girl's "sisters" by the hand, stating that they are going for a walk out back.  Neither little girl questions why Father is carrying a shotgun and a shovel.  The little sister walks away with Father.  A short while later, a bang is heard, and Father comes back alone.  When one of Joanie's little "brothers" asks Mary why Father took their "sister" away, never to be seen again, all Joanie can answer is "nobody can know what is behind Father's great plan."

-------------------------

As I think about Joanie in the story above, some words come to mind.... "brainwashed", "insane", maybe even "confused".  When I think of Father, "INSANE", "megalomaniac", "murderer" come to mind.  How is that different from the god my ex-classmate worships?

What A Father! (part 1)

A few years ago, courtesy of Facebook, I was reconnected with quite a few high school classmates.  I grew up in an area in the North that, many years ago, had been a hotbed of new fanatical churches.  Interesting - if the focus of those churches had been something besides Jesus, they would have been considered cults, but because the big-J was involved, the phrase fundamental (or fanatical) church was used.  The small town I grew up in had the usual selection of religious flavors - Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.

When checking out the religious affiliations listed on Facebook for my ex-classmates, I saw one atheist (me), and the rest Christian of one sort or another.  But their affiliation was generally not simply listed as Christian, or Catholic/Methodist/etc.  No, what I saw was a ton of "Friend of Christ", or "Christian - I love Jesus and believe in miracles", or "Jesus is the only Way!!!"....  While in school, though, I only knew of one evangelical.  Kids just did not preach to you, or spew quotes from the bible.

Now it is different.  On Facebook, there are daily missives from multiple ex-classmates.  Some are biblical quotes, while others are other assorted praises of their personal gods.  I read some, I skip others.  One person, though, I just had to "hide".  Hers were soooo bad, so (if I may say) godawful, that I could not take them anymore.

I joined Facebook right around the time that her husband was dying of a horrible, debilitating disease.  I don't know how long it took him to die - my guess is it was over 3-12 months, none of them comfortable.  And what was her reaction to her life-partner and children's father's death?  "Praise god, for he is good and my love is now at his side...", ".... Jesus is great and kind..", "I pray hourly to my loving god...".  Her love, her husband, her kids' father has just been ripped from her by her god, and she praises him?!?  She praises the omniscient and all-powerful being who could have healed her soulmate for the inaction her god has taken in saving her man?  Daily, she still praises that beast, that mythical being who was so heartless that he would send his own son to earth, just to have that son brutally tortured and murdered, all in a public relations move.  That is just insane.

Forget Dirty Dancing... That's Dirty Pool.

Yet another example of somebody who reads a book, maybe hears somebody discuss that book, and decides that HIS interpretation of the words in that book trump everything else in a civilized society.

Courtesy of Dvorak Uncensored, we hear of a religious fanatic who decided that people should not touch while dancing.  Now, if this guy decided that it was a sin to do that, and he chose to not touch his dancing partner, that would be cool.  A personal decision made by an individual - happens all the time.  BUT NOOOOOOO (sorry, Mr. Belushi), he decides that not only would it be a sin for him, but for EVERYBODY.

So, he grabs a stun gun, picks up a freaking sledge hammer (what it the world do you think he needed a sledge hammer for?), makes an appointment with a dance instructor, and zaps the crap out of the instructor.  According to the Wisconsin State Journal, the whack-job went to the instructor's home and zapped him to "scare the instructor 'and tell him to leave the women alone.'"  Nothing about the instructor dancing (or touching!) his wife, nor any of his fellow congregation members.  The instructor just did something the radical religious fanatic did not approve of ("his church does not condone touching while dancing,"), so he took the law into his own hands.

Sick MoFo

And those that claim they are righteous say that OTHERS are evil???

Pastor prayed for Murtha's death.

A Good Landscaper

A while ago I wrote of bible literalists and how I have a better grasp of where they are coming from, courtesy of a discussion with a literalist (he proclaimed "God was able to create the cosmos, the Earth, and man... Don't you think He could find a good publisher?").


Today, while reading Unreasonable Faith, a reference to fossil records (and how they conflict with creationism) was made.  Rather than think about how fossil records might debunk the idea of the earth being 6,000-8,500 years old, some declare a bogeyman is the source of the conflict: "some Christians do this with the fossil record (”Satan put the fossils there to confuse us!”)"

It occurred to me as I read that sentence - if "a good publisher" is all that is needed to create a literal bible, shouldn't that same all-powerful god be able to find a good landscaper to take care of those pesky fossils?

Divine Intervention ?!?

So, at the recent Teabagger convention, priestess Sarah Palin stated "It would be wise of us to start seeking some divine intervention in this country again..."  Sorry, ma'am... the "Hairspray" star died in 1988, so won't be able to come to your aid.

But seriously - haven't we had enough "divine intervention" over the past 10 years already?  We had fanatics working towards their interpretation of their god's wishes fly four jets into three buildings and the ground in 2001.  We had a number of doctors murdered because some fools interpreted their divine inspiration as meaning "get a high-powered rifle with a good scope and fire at will (even if it means taking out a husband in front of his wife in their kitchen)".  We've had a decider in chief follow his insipid divine inspiration to intervene in the Middle East, starting a war in Iraq.

How many bombings and acts of retribution can be attributable to divine intervention in Israel and Lebanon?  Is Salman Rushdie still under a fatwa courtesy of fanatics intervening into literary affairs, inspired by their flavor of a divinity?  And those same Teabaggers - how many of them feel President Obama is their version of satan, and will any be evil enough to intervene via violence based on their delusional beliefs of divinity's words?

Ex-governor Palin - we do not need any more "divine intervention", and your call-out to your fanatical base was, if I may say, an astoundingly retarded act.

Kidnapping By Any Other Name is Still Kidnapping

So the christianists in Haiti who had the 33 kids in their possession are being charged with kidnapping.  From everything I have read, these folks felt they had the children's best interest at thought.  I feel, though, that they were severely twisted in their "thoughts".

First, check out chattahbox.com for some background on the church and folks involved.  (h/t crooksandliars.com for that link and other references)

Then, consider this hypothetical scenario:  You are raising your kid the best you can.  Sure, you might not have all the niceties in the world, like a 72" TV, a luxury SUV to drive them to soccer practice, or a nanny, but you are doing the best you can.  The problem is - you are raising them as christians.  Why is that a problem?  Because I believe, deep in my heart, that raising children as christians is deeply harmful to them.  Because I believe that you are harming your kids, I am justified in taking them from you - because I believe it is the only way for them to be saved!

What is the difference between christians kidnapping kids to raise them in christian orphanages, and my taking your kids?  Yeah, the kids in Haiti had gone through a hellish situation, but these fanatics ripping them from their parents (some were not orphans) to raise them as the kidnappers saw fit is no different than my coming to your house (the house with the cross hanging on the wall) and stripping them from you.

Please remember - mine is a hypothetical situation.  I do not feel it is right to interfere with the religious upbringing of a child (baring true abuse such as prevention of needed medical attention or sexual or other physical abuse).  These fanatics have no such restraint.

Oppression, Suppression, Whatever.... Either Way it is Wrong

Again we have a "man of god" - the leader, in fact, of a billion believers - abusing his god's influence to oppress those who are not like him...

'A celibate man in a dress and a beanie pontificates about how a law granting equal employment rights to homosexuals in the UK is "against the natural law."'  (skepdic.com)

This man, as a leader of a billion people, could do a lot of good in helping make people's lives better.  Instead, he tells his subjects "those others are not like you, so they deserve to be treated as less than human!"

But then, what else would you expect from the leader of the group that defended the catholic church during the sex abuse scandal, covering up for the church for 20 years.

He's a helluva guy.

The Tim Tebow Disappointment

No, I am not jumping on the bandwagon to decry "he'll never be an NFL QB!"  I think he will find a productive place in the NFL.

I am not disappointed in Mr. Tebow for his declared faith, nor his putting biblical verses on his face during games.  There's nothing to be disappointed in with those actions - they are simply a man who has beliefs expressing them.

{sigh}

The disappointment stems from his most recent associations, and the lack of compassion those associations show.  Tim Tebow has been held up as a shining light as "One of the Really Good Guys", the kind of person you would be happy to know or even meet.  Always helping others, always trying harder to improve himself and the lives of those around him... But then he goes and associates with a known hate group, Focus on the Family.  FotF claims to be a Christian organization, but in reality they are bigoted bible thumpers who believe they and their kind are the only people entitled to full rights, want the United States to accept the Bible as part of the government - abolishing the separation of church and state.  According to FotF - if you are gay, you are sick and perverted; if you do not believe in their particular flavor of Christianity, you are a heathen/sub-human;  if you question their actions, you are "anti-christian" (as opposed to being pro-Constitution).  FotF falls squarely into the realm of scary, scary fundamentalists. 

So Tim Tebow has decided to thrown his hat into the ring with christian bigots.  The same folks who spun off the Family Research Council, who just stated that gays should be jailed just for being what they are.  And he is willing to be a part of wasting $3 MILLION that could be used otherwise.  ({sigh} again)

Damn shame - I always thought he was such a nice young man.

What Did I Say About "Repression of Others"?

In the first post on NoYourGod (In The Beginning) I stated a pretty simple idea - people should be free to believe and practice whatever they wish to... as long is it does not promote repression of others.  A pretty simple idea, really.  I mean, if you want to believe a magical man with a beard snapped his fingers over 7 days to create all we see, then fine!  If your neighbor wants to believe that the world was created by a Jolly Green Giant sneeze (which would explain all the green in the world...), fine for him/her, too!  As long as you do not wish to repress those who do not share your beliefs, nor those who are not like you, by all means enjoy your beliefs and your life.

However.... HOWEVER...  if you have the gall to cross that line and declare that those who are not like you should be PUNISHED, your beliefs have morphed from religious to hate group.

Case in point:  Peter Sprigg, representing the Family Research Council (FRC on Wikipedia), stated very clearly that "we should outlaw gay behavior".  If outlawing consensual acts between two adults, acts that Mr. Sprigg could perform with his wife, is not oppression, I don't know what it.

See Andrew Sullivan's blog (Daily Dish) and FireDogLake (FDL) for more details, and the troubling video of that bigot.

The amazing thing about this?  If a governmental entity placing a Christian nativity scene on public property while disallowing any other display, and anyone DARES question that display on Constitutional grounds, Christians are lightning fast to declare "OPPRESSION!!!".  But jailing a man who grabs another's genitalia, or a woman kisses another woman's genitalia, that is justice to those hypocrites.

Blogs of Interest

I read a fair number of blogs courtesy of Google's Reader.  Some have to do with general news, other fall more into the political realm, quite a few comics, and a number of blogs related to religion.  Some of those religious blogs are also concerned with basic science issues, while others discuss the social ramifications of religious and non-religious beliefs.

The religious and atheist blogs/sites I find most interesting are:
Friendly Atheist (http://friendlyatheist.com/) - Takes a "can't we all get along" view of religious beliefs, but is very very critical of those of any sect (and the sectless) who try to impose their will on others.  In addition, Friendly Atheist answers the tough questions from readers about how to handle "coming out" in a religious family.

STFU, Believers (http://stfubelievers.tumblr.com/) - As subtle as a Mack truck, just as the name implies, and very straightforward in his criticism.  Can be very fun and funny to read.

Pharyngula (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/) - Dr. PZ Myers' brilliant science and anti-religion blog.  STFU, Believers may make statements that offend, but PZ takes action.  Did I mention his brilliance, yet?

BadAstronomy (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/) - Another brilliant person, Dr. Phil Plait, who has worked for NASA, written some very interesting books (check out "Death from the Skies"), and has been blogging for many years.  His blog has less to do with religion than science, and was started to offset poor/bad examples and uses of science in TV, movies, and the news.  Dr. Plait touches on religious issues mainly when they center around extreme stupidity, such as faith healing, and parents letting their young children die because they thought their god would magically save the child.

Richard Dawkins (http://richarddawkins.net/) - Dr. Richard Dawkins may be the most notable atheist around. Besides his impressive scientific work, he has taken on religious fanatics harder than anybody I've ever heard of.  My one regret concerning Dr. Dawkins?  I've not yet finished reading "The God Delusion" (time to put down the latest Dune book, and finish TGD).

Unreasonable Faith (http://unreasonablefaith.com/) - This is another blog that tends to not be outrageously confrontational, but will become confrontational if the situation requires it (I did enjoy his shots at Pat Robertson's take on Haiti).  Great posts, and great posts with links to other sites.

Paliban Daily (http://www.palibandaily.com/) - This site takes on the folks Andrew Sullivan refers to as "christianists" - or those that would use Christianity as a weapon just as the islamists use Islam.  A good place to keep up on lurking dangers.

Jesus and Mo (http://www.jesusandmo.net/) - A comic that is guaranteed to offend Christians, Muslims, and occasionally Jews (Moses joins J&M occasionally).  J&M discuss situations from their own little cocoon, with only their wise bartender to try to keep them centered in reality.

Atheist Eve (http://www.atheist-community.org/atheisteve/) - A monthly comic that pokes fun at foolish religious thought.

Reading any of the above will get you a "oooohhh, yer goin' ter hell for that one!"

"Jews: Just as Wacky as Christians"

http://www.cynical-c.com/?p=16259

That alternate headline is a winner....

Apparently, a bunch of rabbis believe their god will rain down destruction on us if the U.S. military gets rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) and allows gays and lesbians to join (without fear of reprisal).  Funny - Israel DOES allow gays and lesbians into their military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Israel#Military_service), and yet Israel is still "The Chosen Land".

If your good book says "thou shalt not be gay", and you choose to follow that book, then by all means take the opportunity for yourself to not do those things that your book says to not do.  But if your good book says "thou shalt not be gay, and don't let anybody else be, either", then it is hardly a good book at all.

Oh, Those Whacky, Whacky Village Elders!

As if rape is not damaging enough to the victim...

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2010/02/02/rape-victim-receives-101-lashes-for-becoming-pregnant/

How DARE that woman have a vagina!  She MUST have deserved to be raped, be punished by receiving 101 lashes, and her family threatened with being outcasts.

Playing Hide-and-Go-Seek

Courtesy of FriendlyAtheist.com, all sorts of Christians are playing hide-and-go-seek with other people's kids.

Round 1 - Mennonites

Round 2 - Baptists

"Ohhhh, yer goin' ter hell fer that one!"

====================
Hammer-vs-Nail
====================

Politics

You may notice when reading this blog that there are more criticisms of Republican/Conservative politicians and supporters than Democrats/Liberals.  Although my personal political beliefs definitely skew towards liberal, with significant touches of hardcore capitalism (I have a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics and Political Science) and a dash of libertarian for flavoring, this blog is not intended to be a political blog.  Far from it - with the exception of this sentence, you will never read "Obama is not a citizen" nor "GW is the Anti-christ", even if I believed either of those ridiculous statements (President Obama was born in Hawaii, and Ex-President Bush cannot be the Anti-christ, just as he cannot be Zaphod Beeblebrox or Harry Potter).

I think the reason for seeing more comments relating to the Far Right is due to the marriage/collusion of the GOP and the Religious Right starting with Ronald Reagan and the (COUGH) Moral Majority, and continuing through today.  For example, a GOP candidate for governor in Alabama recently caught a lot of flak for daring to state that some of the Bible may be allegory.  To save his candidacy, he had to change his tune on bible literalism (see
http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/01/12/gubernatorial-candidate-bradley-byrne-believes-in-the-bible-really/ and http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/running-for-governor-in-alabama.html).  Would I be less critical of a Democratic candidate who made the same statements as Bradley Byrne?  Absolutely not.  Both would need to go back to school to learn a little history and science (but not in Texas... http://rawstory.com/2010/01/conservatives-texas-education/).

Funny thing, though.  Had any candidate made the statement that "Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland) was the literal truth, they'd have been laughed out of the political arena.

Why Fundamentalists are Scary, Scary People...

So we find out today that Scott Roeder was convicted of 1st degree murder in the killing of a doctor who performed legal medicinal procedures that Roeder objected to. He was also found guilty of two counts of aggravated assault (which we will get to a bit later).

Why did he commit the murder of a man sitting in church? Roeder's god told him that his beliefs trumped all others' beliefs. His beliefs were of more importance than a fellow church-goer, more important than the patients of his victim, more important than the laws of the country that supported him his whole life.

He had options outside of cold-blooded murder to handle those conflicts. He could have talked with the patients, talked with the doctor, worked with lawmakers to change the laws. Roeder even had the option to LEAVE, to move someplace where his beliefs did not have those same conflicts. Based on what I have read, he actually did try to talk to those patients and the doctor, and may have even spoken with his representatives to discuss the laws he objected to.

But you know what? Those patients, that doctor, and those lawmakers had options, too. Options such as not speaking to somebody who tries to discuss legal medical procedures with them, or if they do agree to those discussions, not having their opinions of those procedures changed. Options such as continuing to perform those procedures. Options such as deciding that the laws either did not need to be changed, or feeling that the changes requested would be unconstitutional.

Roeder instead chose another option - blowing away a doctor while the doctor was in his house of worship. Roeder KNEW his particular flavor of god granted him the right to take the life of a fellow man. His belief was so strong that it trumped all activity seen in a polite society.

Another instance of this fundamentalist "I know what is right and all others are wrong" fallacy involves our ex-President. A story about GW Bush (as told to Terry Gross by a guest on her NPR show) concerned GW's belief in heaven. GW and his mother, Barbara, were discussing heaven, and who could get into heaven. Barbara believed that anybody who was good and lived a good life could enter heaven. GW stated that ONLY those who accepted his personal savior would make it. Even those little babies who never had a chance to hear of his particular flavor of god were damned. He was so adamant about this, even to his mother, that she had to resort to calling family friend Billy Graham to talk to GW about it.

Oh, and those two counts of aggravated assault Roeder was convicted of? They display his outright hypocrisy... You see, Roeder murdered the doctor, then ran. Rather than living by his convictions and accepting the penalties of his actions, he ran. He didn't run like a little girl who ran from a scary spider - no, he ran like a scared, guilty child who realized that he had done something wrong. How else do you explain his pointing a loaded weapon at two innocent parishioners who tried to stop him? They had never performed medical procedures Roeder's flavor of god objected to. He KNEW that he had done wrong, and he KNEW that he was in trouble, so he ran.

Some folks accuse atheists of being fundamentalists. There is a major difference between fundamentalists such as Roeder, and an atheist such as myself. His belief DEMANDED that others live by that belief, and if they did not, he could do what he wanted to the unbelievers. Me? Well, you will probably never convince me of the existence of a god... but I will never force anybody else become an atheist or die. I will never take one of my guns and put a bullet into the head of a believer simply because that person was a believer in a god. I may feel that belief is a silly one, and that sometimes those silly beliefs lead to unwise actions, but I will not take a gun, point it at somebody's head, and kill them in cold blood.

Self-flagellation?

I was always told that self-flagellation would make me go blind and grow hair on my palms. Pope JP-II must have had a great barber - you never saw a hairy palm when he was waving to the crowd. On top of that, he always seemed to be looking right at you.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/27/pope.flagellate/index.html

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/pope-john-paul-iis-theology-of-the-body.html

The DaVinci Code

I love hearing about how The DaVinci Code was all sacrilegious, and full of falsehoods, and blahhh blahhh blahhh....

I grew up Catholic. I grew up learning from my Priest that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute who was saved by JC. Let's talk about falsehoods. MM being a whore is one, and the official Catholic story on her was, therefore, a falsehood. Even well after the Catholic Church declared that, well, maybe MM being a prostitute was just a biiiiiiiiiiiit of a fib in 1969, the local Priest spewed that nonsense.

Funny thing is - The DaVinci Code is fiction. It is ALLOWED to state things that are not true. It is called storytelling. But the Catholic Church is not supposed to be that way. Truth before the lord, and all that stuff.

But, bah, why does it matter. The Bible... The DaVinci Code... Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone... All fiction. All written by men or women to put forth an entertaining story. Only one has led to wars though.

Why did god smite 100k+ Haitians?

Along that same line, why did god smite 100k+ SE Asians around xmas-time a few years back? And why did god steer a hurricane into New Orleans, knowing that the city was so susceptible to flooding?

If I understand correctly, god (at least the Abrahamic version) would command that entire cities be wiped out due to the perception of evil, or perception of lack of respect, or because it was Tuesday (OK - I made that last one up, but it's god we're talking about here... what reason does god need?). However (and again with the Abrahamic version), I thought that after The Great Flood, god declares that it will not happen again. Well, it's god we are talking about again... and if god can place his son's picture in a grilled cheese sandwich (http://cheese-wire.com/index.html/2009/04/23/jesus-seen-in-cheese-sandwich/), I guess he can change his mind on smiting massive populations of innocent folks.

But we have still not answered WHY god would smite those groups. Of course, we are talking about god here.... The guy sent his own son down to earth to be brutally beaten, stoned, and killed AS A FREAKING PUBLIC RELATIONS MOVE! I don't know if trying to understand or figure out "why" is possible, if even desirable. Maybe if I watch more "Mad Men" I'll get a better grasp of the thought process behind "do whatever you want for PR."

The Book of Eli

Saw "The Book of Eli" the other day. It was an interesting movie, and entertaining. Without giving any spoilers, let me just say that it is not as action-packed as the previews suggest, but the "lack" of action is hardly a drawback. Some nice twists and turns.

In other words, a nice piece of fiction.

Unreasonable Faith strikes again

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2010/01/25/religious-imperialism/

Read through to the end. It may be long, but the statements on how one religion interprets another ring true.

The last 30 seconds are precious (NSFW)

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3231704/road_runner_funny_clip/

NSFW - naughty naughty language. But worth watching, anyways.

It's a start

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4975

Apparently a church has been found to be spending too much time politicizing rather than proselytizing. Political animals have to pay taxes.

Next up - the Mormon Church:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/the-prop-8-trial-document-dump.html

and

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/the-mormon-hierarchys-plausible-deniability-ctd.html

Pump millions into a political activity and you're a political group, not a church eligible for tax-exempt status.

Bible Literalists

You know, I used to think that Bible literalists were absolutely insane. How in the world could somebody possibly believe that every word in a book published my many men (and maybe a woman or two) over the past few thousand years was 100% fact - including the stories of Adam and Eve, Noah and the flood, etc?

But then I spoke at length with somebody who is a Bible literalist. His simple words: "God was able to create the cosmos, the Earth, and man... Don't you think He could find a good publisher?"

Of course, that is still going under the assumption that a god of some sort created the universe. I still think they are wrong, and that the Bible is simply docudrama and a collection of allegories as factual as Aesop's Fables, but at least the phrase "bats**t insane" no longer comes into play.

In The Beginning....

I am an atheist. I have been for pretty much all my life. And though I do not believe there is a god, I believe very strongly in religious freedom. All of you who believe in a god my be wrong, but you have the right to be wrong in your own way. I will even fight for your right to be wrong*. Of course, I expect the same from you, too (your fighting for my right to be wrong).

I am not a "militant atheist" - last I checked, I had not firebombed a church, nor shot any doctors, flown any planes into any buildings, etc., nor are those actions part of any plan I have. I've never tried to convert somebody from belief in a god to atheism, nor do I think I ever will. I will debate beliefs with somebody if they bring it up, but pox on me if I ever go door to door to instruct people about the lack of god (and pox on those that do go door to door to instruct people about their god).

As an American, I grew up with the idea of the separation of church and state. The US government, as well as all the state and local governments, are in the business of governing, not proselytizing. I'm not a fan of "In God We Trust" being on our money, but it has been there for a hundred years, so that falls into tradition. I do want to see "under god" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance - it was placed there as an overreaction to "them godless commies". Besides, schoolkids recite The Pledge daily (at least here in North Carolina they do - it's the law), so it essentially becomes government-sponsored indoctrination of the existence of a god.

Religious fundamentalists/evangelicals worry me, and they should worry you, too. Anybody who feels they MUST push their beliefs on you and that you MUST believe the way you do lacks respect for others. And that is just wrong.


*However, if your belief system involved suppression of women, or others who may not be like you, or if it involved sex with kids, you are not believers, you are vile scum who should be prosecuted to the extent of the law.