Prayer shaming

Rich Schapiro's article in the New York Daily News (whose front page shouted "God Isn't Fixing This!") points out that, while the Democratic presidential candidates are calling for stricter gun laws in response to recent mass shootings, Republican candidates, unable politically to do anything about gun violence, are offering prayers for the victims and their families. Democrats offer preventive solutions; Republicans offer the usual prayers, as they've done all along, do now, and presumably ever shall do, violence without end, amen, amen.

The Christian right, as usual, are claiming to be the victims here... of "prayer shaming." Yes, the religious are being picked on again.

This is another complicated issue for me as an atheist, because it's two issues all tangled up. Issue number one is that gun violence won't decrease until we summon the guts to do something about it. All the Republicans can do, since they don't favor doing anything that would go against Second Amendment absolutism, is to make loud noises to focus attention elsewhere.

The second issue involves the question of the efficacy of prayer, which I've touched on here before. The fact that prayer has absolutely no effect on the outcome of a given crisis is masked by such sayings as, "Thy will be done." "It's not part of God's plan." "Maybe my faith isn't strong enough." If a believer prays for something and doesn't get it, he has so many ways of letting God off the hook. If the believer gets what he wants, well, praise the Lord!

That's the reason, I suppose, for another old saying, "God helps those who help themselves." The gun problem won't be solved by anyone but us.

Dishonor roll of American state Governors, November 2015

If you have studied the history of the Holocaust, you have probably heard of the voyage of the St. Louis, a ship carrying Jewish refugees from Nazi persecution. The St. Louis was turned away from Cuba and the United States, and eventually had to discharge its passengers in Belgium. The luckiest of the passengers were allowed to go to Great Britain. Of those who were returned to continental Europe, about half perished when Germany conquered Western Europe.

When we look back at this story, we are struck by the shameful behavior of officials who would turn refugees away. Today, a new generation of officials is about to go down in history for their shameful announcements that Syrian refugees from ISIS are not welcome in their states. They probably don't have the power to keep the refugees out, but I am happy to shame them just the same.

History, here are the names of the governors of the states who would refuse sanctuary to the Syrians:

Robert Bentley of Alabama
Doug Ducey of Arizona
Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas
Rick Scott of Florida
Nathan Deal of Georgia
Butch Otter of Idaho
Bruce Rauner of Illinois
Mike Pence of Indiana
Terry Branstad of Iowa
Sam Brownback of Kansas
Bobby Jindal of Louisiana
Paul LePage of Maine
Larry Hogan of Maryland
Charlie Baker of Massachusetts
Rick Snyder of Michigan
Phil Bryant of Mississippi
Pete Ricketts of Nebraska
Brian Sandoval of Nevada
Chris Christie of New Jersey
Pat McCrory of North Carolina
John Kasich of Ohio
Nikki Haley of South Carolina
Bill Haslam of Tennessee
Greg Abbott of Texas
Scott Walker of Wisconsin
Matt Mead of Wyoming

And a special shout out to David Bowers, Mayor of Roanoke, VA, who has cited the internment of the Japanese in World War II as a positive precedent for barring Syrians from refuge in the United States.

Sending your kids to church when you don't go...

Here's an interesting article about parents who, although they may not be churchgoers themselves, send their kids to church. It may seem puzzling that they would do that, but they have their reasons. Says Ruth Graham, the article's author, "I want [my daughter] to know the stories and songs that I love and to have a similar moral and cultural grounding that my husband and I were raised with."

Ruth seems to be a person who, like me, had a positive experience growing up in the church, but can't believe in all the church's teachings. According to the article, and the book the article is reviewing, non-religious parents still want their children to grow up with the love and protection they felt when they were young. There's also a sprinkling of guilt about depriving their children of their cultural heritage and of "spiritual resources."

What's not prominently addressed in the article is the idea that some parents must believe that religion is a foundation of morality that their kids can't get elsewhere.

I might have been one of these parents myself, but for an accident of history.

I grew up Protestant, the mother of my children Catholic. I have not been to a church other than for weddings or funerals since I was seventeen. My wife, a product of the Catholic Church as well as a Catholic education through high school, had also lapsed. She didn't want our children raised Catholic. I don't think the two of us ever discussed whether we wanted to take the kids to church, but we never did. I think perhaps that we knew the decision to take them to church might have led to tension over which church it would be.

In any case, our kids had the good luck never to go to church or Sunday School (although being babysat by their grandparents exposed them to more than enough religious belief). I had not yet consciously developed the idea that raising kids with religion is actually harmful, in that untangling just what is real and what is fantasy in this world is greatly complicated by a lifelong religious education.

I'm happy about the way things turned out, and any question about whether I should have raised my children otherwise has faded with the years.

Mormon control of the afterlife

So, the religion with the name too long to bother writing out is about to declare those in same-sex marriages apostates, and will take it out on their children. Those smart enough to realize that neither Mormons nor any other religion really know what happens after death, let alone being able to do anything that might change the outcome, are truly blessed.

Mormon threats to prevent the children of same-sex parents from a happy afterlife are merely their way of controlling their congregation's behavior in this life.

The Mystery of right wing lying

As is pointed out many times, lying is rife among conservatives.  I have asserted that, since the conservatives have no facts, all that is left to them are tactics.

But perhaps one theme has bedeviled me more than any other since I began writing these little pieces in 2008:  If a person, in order to get his desired political results, finds himself lying and playing dirty tricks to pull the wool over the eyes of others, why would the person continue to believe in his own position, knowing that he has needed to lie to support it?

A few possible answers suggest themselves, different answers perhaps pertaining to different people:

A person might have so succeeded in deluding himself, that he might not recognize that he is lying.

Another person might be a pathological liar, the lying being more important than what the lies are about.

But what interests me lately is the idea that many liars know perfectly well that what they say is a lie, but tell the lie to influence public opinion to further their own self-interest.

The heavily moneyed class that we know as "the one percent" has certain members who feel that it is in their own interest to be sure that their class is preserved by any means necessary.  They say things to convince the larger populace that conservative policies are in their best interest.  The things they say are manifestly untrue, but as long as they convince enough people that they are true, the political system will continue to keep their class secure.

The question of conservative lying is always somewhere in the back of my mind, but a Salon article by Heather Cox Richardson got my attention by referring to a frank admission by William F. Buckley that lying was necessary to ensure America's survival.

In 1951, a young William F. Buckley, Jr., came up with a blueprint for destroying the American consensus.  Rational argument was a losing strategy, Buckley wrote in "God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of Academic Freedom.'"  If voters were presented with facts, said Buckley, they would choose government regulation.  So a new breed of Movement Conservative leaders must start from the premise that what Buckley called "individualism"--that is, an economy in which individual action was untouched by the state--was as sacrosanct as the Ten Commandments.

Such a tale, told by a respected intellectual, was easy to swallow for people who craved certainty from people they considered authorities.  But Buckley was selling a bill of goods, because he wanted to preserve his place at the top of the economic and social ladder.  If voters were presented with facts, they would choose government regulation.

A very fine article by Philip E. Agre of UCLA, called What is Conservatism and what is wrong with it?, explains that Conservatism is nothing more than "the domination of society by an aristocracy."  The Founding Fathers, not wanting to foster a nobility, banned titles.  But lack of titles doesn't guarantee that an aristocracy won't develop.  Our American aristocracy is in the process of separating itself from us rabble, and one of their tools is the lie.

The Atheist Taliban and me

"There is an assault on faith and an assault on religious liberty that we see across this country and it has never been as bad as it is right now," he said, claiming that "radical atheists and liberals" are "driving any acknowledgment of God out of the public square."

The "he" referred to here is Senator Ted Cruz speaking to talk radio's slavery apologist Jan Mickelson.

I have explained here before my contention that the only guarantee of religious liberty is the separation of church and state, but people like Senator Cruz don't believe my claim that such separation is a curb on government power, a power that they rail against, and yet buttress whenever it suits their purposes.

But I have to admit something here.  I am constantly trying to explain to the defenders of religion that their method of keeping their freedom is destined to fail, and yet, as an atheist, nothing would please me more than "driving any acknowledgment of God out of the public square."  There.  I have been honest about the way I feel, and yet I am nothing like the Taliban.

An atheist Taliban would ban religion, just as the Soviets did, and just as the actual Taliban seeks to ban any religion except Islam, and just as American right-wing Christians would love to establish Christianity as the official American religion.

Certainly, I think that religion is, over all, a negative force because, as I have explained, it insists on the truth of falsehoods.  But I am not, nor are any atheists I am aware of, dedicated to forbidding the practice of religion.  I can only hope that reasoned arguments against the existence of God, and the harm in religion, will be persuasive.

 

The dizzying circles of Republican reasoning

For years, Republicans have complained about the Supreme Court's supposed judicial activism.  They have blamed the court for for legislating from the bench.  The Republican position has always been that they revere the Constitution and that it must be interpreted in a very precise way.  The Founding Fathers' intentions must be followed exactly.

Lately, the Supreme Court has ruled against Republican positions in several high-profile cases, so Republicans have taken to asserting that the Supreme Court doesn't have the last word on the Constitutionality of laws (Rick Santorum), or that they are somehow out of control and need reining in.

To that end, Senator Ted Cruz is holding hearings on how to overcome the troublesome court's rulings.  All the methods discussed--holding elections to oust unpopular justices, for one example--involve very big changes to the Constitution, the very document the Republicans claim to want to protect.  The Constitution is sacred until it becomes inconvenient.  Then it needs a major overhaul.

Call to action for Democrats

Yeah, I know it's early to beg my fellow Democrats to vote in the 2016 election, but the behavior of the Republican Party during the Obama Administration has been so absolutely childish, I must plead with my cohort to get off their asses and vote, in 2016, and in the off-year election in 2018.

The candidacy of buffoon Donald Trump makes me a little crazy, not because he's such a fool, but because, at least in the short run, some people are impressed.

Trump's candidacy seems to have Jebya a little worried.  He recently said the following:

"There are people that prey on peoples' fears and angst as well," Bush said in a video posted online by his campaign.

"Whether it’s Donald Trump or Barack Obama, their rhetoric of divisiveness is wrong. A Republican will never win by striking fear in people’s hearts,” Bush added.

The attempt to put Donald Trump and Barack Obama in the same sentence is laughable enough, but claiming that Republicans can't win by peddling fear is a jaw-dropper.  Spreading fear is what Republicans do, and they often get elected when the fearful turn out to vote.

At this time in our history, the Democrats are the adults getting important work done in the big world.  The Republicans continue to bang their rattles on the sides of their cribs for attention.  We need to elect every reasonable Democrat, whether from the "Warren wing" or the "Clinton wing" of the party, to continue to repair Republican damage and to put the country back on the road to sanity.

Fox and the Republican Party are completely divorced from reality.

So, a white guy sporting symbols of Rhodesian and South African apartheid regimes kills nine black people in a church in South Carolina, and Fox News plays the story as an attack on Christian Faith.

Keep in mind that the murderer said he was there "to shoot black people" because "You rape our women and you're taking over our country, and you have to go."

Senator Lindsey Graham said, "There are people out there looking for Christians to kill them."

The continued state of denial of the American right and their daily abuse of logic... there is no satisfying way to finish this sentence.

Family secrets

Even coming from the most benign and loving of religious upbringings, I've had so much to unlearn.  Imagine growing up in an authoritarian,  patriarchal household that avoids outside influences.  Such households don't have to be religious, but the religion is another layer of oppressive authority that an escapee has to throw off.

Suppose you're a girl living in the strictest of environments, and say that environment is otherwise dysfunctional.  The family is suspicious of outside interference, and tries to handle its problems alone.  That's the Duggar family.

I read an article in Daily Kos today by a woman who grew up in a Duggar-like family, and who was similarly abused by her stepfather.  Fear of rocking the boat, and fear of the father's authority, keeps such families frozen in their miserable situation.  Add on the layer of a religious community that supports the status quo, and where can the victim go for help?

When this woman, on several occasions throughout the years, tried to expose her stepfather's abuses, she was first told to forgive him; her resultant psychological problems were blamed within her family and community on her inability to forgive.  And in the end, because she told the truth, she, the innocent party, suffered more shame and punishment than her abuser.  She is shunned by her family and former friends.

Religion, necessarily authoritarian in nature, tends to abet the authoritarian abuser.  Then, once the escapee understands the truth of her former situation, how long will it take for her to throw off the further burden of the judgment of a tyrannical God?

Joy and misery

I've heard people ask whether atheism isn't just another "belief system," just like religion.  My reply is that the atheist has nothing to worship.  That's it in a nutshell.

There are, admittedly, similarities in the emotions a religious and an atheist can feel.  The individual believer can feel joy in religious practice.  An atheist, although lacking the comfort that a believer in eternal life may have, can feel the joy of shedding a fear of Hell, a worry over God's judgment, and a suspicion that Heaven might turn out to be other than advertised.  And then, there's the joy that every day of life brings to the person who knows that nothing follows.  Soaking as much experience and beauty from this Earthly life as possible becomes the aging atheist's quest.

I have noticed, however, that theocracies are characterized by the misery of their citizens.  There is only one religion in a theocracy, and, therefore no choice.  No joy.  And we have also noted, throughout the era of Communism, that government edicts that there is no God also lead to misery in the population.

A government that dictates one religion, or which forbids all religions, is the problem, more than the beliefs themselves.

The reader may think that an atheist who, like me, thinks we'd be better off without religion, would be in favor of attempts to stamp it out forcibly.  But I prefer happiness.

Hucka B.S.

"If the courts rule that people have a civil right to have a homosexual marriage, then a homosexual couple coming to a pastor who believes in biblical marriage who says 'I can’t perform that wedding' will now be breaking the law.”  - Mike Huckabee

Anybody out there actually believe this bullshit?  Stop and think a second.  As far as I am aware, no pastor anywhere is obliged to marry anyone he or she thinks is unfit for marriage.  No pastor is breaking the law now, and no pastor will ever be breaking the law for refusing to marry anyone.

Religious Freedom Restoration Acts

Jeffrey Taylor, in Salon, has written the most delicious attack on religion and the danger of letting it ooze into our legal code.  His article is better than anything I ever write, and I think you'll find it enjoyable if you're of an unbelieving cast of mind.

As I was reading the article, a couple of things occurred to me:  Anyone who would unquestioningly use the advice of a thousands-of-years-old "magic book" (Taylor's characterization of sacred writings) to tell him how to live his life has a crippling phobia of figuring things out for himself.  And:  The authority vested in the magic books is the number one justification to very bad people to do very bad things.

[God]'s pronouncements are regarded as binding on all humans.  Hence, if the fictitious tyrant says, for instance, that gay sex is an abomination, it just is, and gays have to be abominated, like it or not.  Nothing personal--it's just what the magic book says.

In any case, I would like to offer an alternative to the Ten Commandments, as well as the myriad other rules and proscriptions one finds in religious books.  We're always talking about good and evil.  Just what do we consider to be evil?  It seems to me that evil boils down to intentionally causing suffering in other people or animals.

So, instead of the Ten Commandments, may I offer the Two Suggestions?  Or, perhaps, One Suggestion, parts A and B.

A.  Try to get a good idea of what causes others to suffer, and try to avoid doing any of those things.

B.  When you see others suffering, do what you can to alleviate their suffering.

I didn't receive these suggestions from God and bring them down to you from a mountaintop.  I just took a look around and worked it out for myself.  You can do it, too.  Anyone can, who is not blinded by received "wisdom" or by a desire to persecute others.

Stop and think. Try to remember when you "chose" heterosexuality.

“That lifestyle is something they choose. I choose to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat over the head to go along with something they choose?” says Kevin O'Connor."

Think back now, Mr. O'Connor, to the time you made the choice to be heterosexual.  You don't remember?  I think that that's because you never had to make a choice.  For as long as you can remember, you've been attracted to girls and not boys.  Your current day-to-day "choice" to act as a heterosexual is a perfectly easy one--you don't even have to think about it, because heterosexual is what you are.  You've never had to make a choice.  You've never had a choice.

It's the same with gays, pal.  They have as much choice in the matter as you or I do, which is none.  It's not a matter of sinning, it's a matter of being who they are, and not waging a hopeless war against how they were made.

If Ted Cruz is so smart, why is he always wrong?

I've been hearing that Ted Cruz's college acquaintances, though most of them didn't like him, found him to be very smart.  But his sneakiness is very transparent.

In the March 16 Space News, article, "Senators, Bolden Clash over 'Core Mission' of NASA," Senator Cruz wonders whether NASA has lost its way lately.

Since the end of the last administration, we have seen a disproportionate increase in the amount of federal funds that have been allocated to the Earth science program, at the expense of, and in comparison to, exploration and space operations, planetary science, heliophysics, and astrophysics.

In my judgment, this does not represent a fair or appropriate allocation of resources.  It is shifting resources away from the core functions of NASA.

Lest anyone think Senator Cruz is gaga over space exploration and cosmology, what is really bothering him is NASA's contribution to climate science.  This point was not lost on NASA's Administrator, Charles Bolden, who got right to the point.

We can't go anywhere if the Kennedy Space Center goes underwater and we don't know it.

Senator Cruz's discomfort with NASA's climate science activities makes it interesting that he also recently said things that would seem to belie that discomfort.

And in particular, satellite data demonstrate for the last 17 years, there's been zero warming.  None whatsoever.

Now, it seems to me that a person so happy with the data satellites are giving him would be happy to spend money for more of the same.  Or perhaps Senator Cruz just says what is convenient at a given moment.

You may recognize the "no warming since 1998" argument.  One trick of the climate change deniers is to pick a short space of time during which temperatures went down and point to that as proof.  The year 1998 was a very hot one, but the years 2005, 2010, and 2014 were hotter.  The rate of increase since 1998 has been lower that that before 1998, but it is still getting warmer.

When temperatures rise and fall, they don't do it in a straight line.  If 1998, for example, was hotter than the years 1999 through 2004, it doesn't mean the long term trend is downward.

A simple illustration of this concept follows.  Here in the Washington DC area, the high temperature for Thursday, March 26, is predicted to be 72.  The high for Saturday, March 28, is predicted to be 39.  Nobody would be silly enough to say that that proves that summer won't come this year.

 

 

 

I remember when expertise was respected

People go to school and spend many years gaining expertise in their various fields.  Seems like they should know more about what they do than the ideologues who are trying to tell them how to do their jobs.

How about we let the scientists do science?  How about we listen to them and learn a thing or two?

How about we let the teachers teach?  How about we listen to what they say about educational methods?

How about we let the doctors practice medicine?  How about we listen when they tell us that, rather than Eastern vs. Western medicine, or "mainstream" vs. "alternative" medicine, there's just medicine and not medicine?

Self-delusion

Remember when North Carolina passed the law dictating how the change in sea level was to be calculated?  Calculating something dishonestly might fool the voters, but it doesn't make sea level rise any slower.

Now we hear that Florida's governor, Rick Scott, has forbidden government officials responsible for studying the effects of climate change to use the words "climate change" and "global warming" in any of their communications.  I guess they have to call it something like "you know what."

States' rights

States' rights always seem to be invoked whenever a state wants to mistreat someone.

Be not afraid, Sarah Palin. Separation of Church and State is good for you.

"But [atheists] frequently just intimidate and harass and annoy people into caving to their atrocious, ridiculous, nonsensical demands by spreading a false understanding of what the separation of church and state means." - Sarah Palin (emphasis mine)

Sarah Palin and many of her followers are afraid that freedom of religion (Christianity in particular) is being threatened.  They fear that atheists are trying to take it away.  They fear that Muslims will impose Sharia and ban Christianity.

I can sum up my understanding of freedom of religion in one sentence:

The only guarantee of freedom of religion is the separation of church and state.

I will repeat that with emphasis:

The only guarantee of freedom of religion is the separation of church and state.

Look around the world and ask yourself a question.  In many countries of the world, religions are taking up arms against each other.  In Britain and Northern Ireland, Catholics fought Protestants.  In Iraq, Sunni Muslims fight Shia Muslims.  During the Lebanese Civil War, Christian militias fought Druze and Muslim militias.  In India, Sikhs and Muslims kill each other.

It is tempting to blame all the killing on religious differences.  But wait.  Here in the United States, there are the same innumerable sects of Christians, Jews, and Muslims that are found all over the world.  All of these sects have the same disagreements as they have anywhere else in the world.  Yet we agree to disagree, live and let live.  Our various religions don't take up arms against each other.

Why should this be so?  Hold that thought.

American children are brought up learning about the first American colonists, some of whom came to America to escape religious persecution.  Many of these colonists were what we would call dissenters; that is, they were members of minority religions who were not free to worship in the manner they felt was right.  In Britain, anyone who didn't belong to the Church of England risked punishment.  In other European countries, it did not pay to profess a faith other than Roman Catholicism.  The thing that these countries had in common was that they had an official state religion.  The problem was not simply religious differences.  The problem was that one religion wielded all the power and was jealous of that power.

The American Founding Fathers knew the history of England and Europe, and they knew what the problem was.  The answer to why the various religions are not at war with each other in the United States is that the United States government, by design, is prohibited from establishing an official state religion.

People who don't understand that their religious freedom is directly attributable to the lack of an official religion worry when prayer is taken out of public schools and when government buildings are not allowed to display religious decorations at Christmas.  They see these prohibitions as attacks on religious liberty.  In fact, the prohibitions they complain about are curbs on government power to force citizens to worship a particular god in a particular way.

You will notice, by the way, that the prohibition of prayer in public schools does not lead to the prohibition of prayer in church, in the home, or in any religious gatherings.  In the same way, the prohibition of religious displays in government buildings is not accompanied by prohibitions of those displays in front of your church or in front of your home.  The individual and the religious organization are perfectly free to display their religious symbols as they choose, without fear that the police will arrest them or make them take their decorations down.  Only the government is prohibited from religious display.

The fact that all religions in the United States are permitted to worship week after week, unmolested by the government is the direct result of the separation of church and state.  All religions are equal under the law.

A thought experiment:  What would happen if the United States declared itself a Christian nation?  The first question that would have to be asked is, what kind of Christians are we?  According to Wikipedia, there are about 41,000 different Christian denominations around the world.  We know from the statements of certain religious leaders that certain denominations do not believe that certain other denominations are really Christians.  How do we decide who is in and who is out?  Is a Mormon a Christian?  A Christian Scientist?  A Catholic?  A Jehovah's Witness?  A Seventh Day Adventist?  Are all Baptists created equal?

You see the problem.  As soon as there's an official religion, all other religions are in danger, including certain Christian denominations, maybe your own.  In their insecurity, they all begin to jockey for position.  Could we expect shootouts between Southern Baptists and American Baptists?  Might Delaware secede and become a Methodist Republic?  It all sounds ludicrous to Americans because we have managed for so long to avoid killing each other over religion.  But it could be a serious situation.  Religion, in and of itself, does not cause the persecution of other religions.  It's Religion plus political power that is the danger.

Sarah Palin, you can thank the separation of church and state for your freedom to worship where and how you choose.

Don't talk to me about leadership.

There is a deluded fringe of people who think that vaccines cause autism.  Their actions have brought the measles back into our lives.  The one scientific paper that connected autism with the MMR vaccine was later disavowed by the publication in which it appeared, but once misinformation gets out, it's hard to clean up.

President Obama said recently on NBC,

You should get your kids vaccinated.  I understand there are families that, in some cases, are concerned about the effect of vaccinations.  The science is, you know, pretty indisputable.  We've looked at this again and again.  There is every reason to get vaccinated, but there aren't reasons to not.

I do wish that President Obama had not said "pretty indisputable," but I applaud his doing the right thing in the service of public health.

Meanwhile, one of our presidential nomination hopefuls, Governor Chris Christie, sought, perhaps, to distance himself from the president by disagreeing on vaccination.

[T]here has to be a balance and it depends on what the vaccine is, what the disease type is, and all the rest.  Not every vaccine is created equal and not every disease type is as great a public health threat as others.

No specific disease type or vaccine was specified.  I wonder what he would say if pressed for examples of diseases that are lesser public health threats.

Many politicians today, as in all periods, I suppose, tread altogether too carefully in their statements on important matters in fear of losing votes.  The Republican Party is paralyzed by fear of its extreme elements.  Governor Christie would appear to be afraid of losing the anti-vaxxer vote, minuscule as it is.

I really do get tired of Republicans claiming that President Obama is lacking in the leadership department when they are afraid of their own shadows.

 

Ridicule

I'm a polite sort of person, believe it or not.  I don't like to jeer at religious people for their beliefs.  I have mentioned before that I grew up in a religious family, and attended a church full of kind, sincere believers, many of whom spent considerable time studying the Bible and trying to reconcile it with modern knowledge.  Participating in such attempts was my first glimmer that they were exercises in self-deception.

But, as I say, I don't like to hurt believers' feelings.  Many of my leftist friends are Christians, and they claim to have no problem believing in both modern science and religion.  More on that later.

The recent murder of French satirical cartoonists has emboldened columnists to confront the elephant in the room:  Why do most of us continue to defer politely to religious believers in society when we inwardly have no respect at all for their beliefs?  This question is made more urgent by the fact that Muslim extremists and Christian politicians seek to force their beliefs into our governments.

This is the problem.  The beliefs are false, and certain believers want to force the rest of us to live by those beliefs.  If religious belief boiled down to "Be nice!" that would be one thing.  But each religious sect has its own set of "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" that are based nothing very rational.

When my religious friends say they have no problem believing in both science and religion, it really means that they do not care to examine either religion or science closely enough to realize that the two cannot be reconciled.  To really examine their religious beliefs in the light of science would force them to make uncomfortable life changes.  It's easier to leave the question alone.

As a person who is familiar with the beliefs of Christianity and Judaism, I can make up a quick list of things that believers can ask themselves whether it really makes sense to believe.

Elijah went straight to heaven without dying. 

The sun and the moon stopped at midday to allow Joshua to defeat an enemy. 

Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on water, calmed the seas, turned water into wine, fed the five thousand on five loaves of bread and two fishes, cast out demons, healed several sick people, raised Lazarus from the dead, rose from the dead himself after his crucifixion, and ascended into heaven. 

Communion wafers and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ when you eat them. 

Prayer is effective.

I don't know what foolishness Muslims believe, but it is not their right to murder people over it, or to force anyone to live by Mohammed's teachings.

Jeffrey Tayler, writing for Salon, puts his finger on the problem:

Faced with this uncomfortable but persistently deadly reality, what should we and our politicians (and pundits) do?  For starters, we need to cease granting religion -- and not just Islam -- an exemption from criticism.  If we do not believe the fables foisted on us (without evidence) by the faithful, we need to say so, day in and day out, in mixed company, and especially in front of children (to thwart their later indoctrination.)  We must stop according religion unconditional respect, stop deferring to men (and mostly they are men) who happen to preface their names with the titles of reverend or rabbi or imam, and de-sanctify the sacred, in word and deed.  Laughable absurdities -- be they virgin births, parting seas, spontaneously burning bushes -- do not deserve oblique pardons ("We don't have to take everything in the Bible literally"), but outspoken ridicule; courses in "religious studies" in campuses across the country might better be referred to as "lessons in harmful superstition, dangerous delusion, and volitional insanity."

In 2006, after cartoons posted in Jyllands-Posten were met with Muslim violence, Christopher Hitchens pointed out the following:

Islam makes very large claims for itself.  In its art, there is a prejudice against representing the human form at all.  The prohibition on picturing the prophet -- who was only another male mammal -- is apparently absolute.  So is the prohibition on pork or alcohol or, in some Muslim societies, music or dancing.  Very well, then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these.  But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent.  This current uneasy coexistence is only an interlude, he seems to say.  For the moment, all I can do is claim to possess absolute truth and demand absolute immunity from criticism.  But in the future, you will do what I say and you will do it on pain of death.

And, finally, Mr. Hitchens again:

I am not asking for the right to slaughter a pig in a synagogue or mosque or to relieve myself on a "holy" book.  But I will not be told I can't eat pork, and I will not respect those who burn books on a regular basis.  I, too, have strong convictions and beliefs and value the Enlightenment above any priesthood or any sacred fetish-object.  It is revolting for me to breathe the same air as wafts from the exhalations of the madrasahs, or the reeking fumes of the suicide-murderers, or the sermons of Billy Graham and Joseph Ratzinger.  But these same principles of mine also prevent me from wreaking random violence on the nearest church, or kidnapping a Muslim at random and holding him hostage, or violating diplomatic immunity by attacking the embassy or the envoys of even the most despotic Islamic state, or making a moronic spectacle of myself threatening blood and fire to faraway individuals who may have hurt my feelings.  The babyish rumor-fueled tantrums that erupt all the time, especially in the Islamic world, show yet again that faith belongs to the spoiled and selfish childhood of our species.

 

 

 

Oh, that silly Pat Robertson!

Recently, Pat Robertson claimed that gay people will die out because they don't reproduce.

Well, in spite of this being such an easy target, I suppose there are people who believe it.  So, here are a few questions.

Leviticus calls men lying with other men an abomination.  Leviticus was written down 9,000 years ago, at the very least.  How long is it supposed to take for gays to die out?

If God created Adam and Eve, and we all come from them, where did the first homosexual come from?

Have you not noticed that heterosexual couples give birth to gays all the time?

Now, of course, Pat Robertson believes that homosexuality is a choice.  But doesn't his statement about its eventual disappearance argue that it's hereditary after all?

Pat's just a little mixed up, is all.