Religion in the US

The good news is, atheists aren’t the most despised group in America anymore. The bad news is, only Scientologists beat them.

via Nisbet

Lunacy

This is as bad as Jesus Camp.

A) I don’t want a man that’s going to use the Koran to be sworn in as President instead of the Bible.”
. . .

Q) Where did you get this information that Barack Obama wanted to be sworn in on the Koran?

A) From one of our Church members that’s keeping up with what his comments are and you know he wouldn’t even do the Pledge of Allegiance. He refused.

Plenty more fundamentalist lunacy in the video. It’s too easy to forget that we’re up against people who really believe this stuff. It boggles the mind.

Imagine

This sign is causing quite an uproar in a Connecticut town.

Perhaps not the most tasteful way to make a point, but that doesn’t mean that they’re wrong.

It’s also worth noting that evangelical Christians aren’t exactly tasteful while making many of their points. Bill O’Reilly conflates atheism with mass murder, and President George H. W. Bush famously said that atheists shouldn’t be considered citizens or patriots.

Imagine there’s no countries.
It isn’t hard to do.
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too.
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace.

– John Lennon, “Imagine”

Seven Minutes of Truth

QOTD

The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence from Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum.

–Thomas Paine

QOTD

“Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

–Bertrand Russell

(In honor of adding Russell’s Teapot to my blogroll. These are some of my favorite strips).

QOTD

“A knowledge of the true age of the earth and of the fossil record makes it impossible for any balanced intellect to believe in the literal truth of every part of the Bible in the way that fundamentalists do. And if some of the Bible is manifestly wrong, why should any of the rest of it be accepted automatically?”

–Francis Crick

QOTD

“Society bends over backward to be accommodating to religious sensibilities but not to other kinds of sensibilities. If I say something offensive to religious people, I’ll be universally censured, including by many atheists. But if I say something insulting about Democrats or Republicans or the Green Party, one is allowed to get away with that. Hiding behind the smoke screen of untouchability is something religions have been allowed to get away with for too long.”

–Richard Dawkins

Fun with bible quotes

First, the amusing and disturbing:

Ezekiel 23: 21:
“(She) lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions.”

Kinky.

Isaiah 16:11
Wherefore my bowels shall sound like a harp for Moab, and mine inward parts for Kirharesh.

Flatulent.

Psalms 137:9
“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones Against the rock.”

Advocating infanticide - classy.

Jeremiah 25:27
“This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Drink, get drunk and vomit, and fall to rise no more”

God even loves the fratboys.

And then there are the verses that no one seems to remember these days:

Leviticus 20:9
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.

Well, that seems fair.

Deuteronomy 22:20-1
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.

Don’t Christians regularly condemn Muslims for this sort of thing?

Exodus 35:2
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

Shomer Shabbas!

Leviticus 11:10
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you. They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh

Clearly, god hates shrimp.

Oh, but that part about fags? That’s the literal true word of god and must be obeyed.

Secularism and Stem-cells

John Wilkins writes a post about religion and society clashing down under:
<.p>

Clerical Catholic Imam, George Pell, has done it again. Proven why secularism is a necessity, that is.

He has threatened politicians who are Catholics with exclusion from communion, which is not quite excommunication but nevertheless still pretty drastic, if they vote in favour of a secular law permitting stem cell research.

He goes on to say:

Look, I don’t give a shit if Catholics think stem cell research is genocide and leads to dancing. They have no right to impose that view on the rest of the community that think it is just a procedure that offers some benefits in medical knowledge, and so far as most of us can tell, has no downsides to anyone.

I replied thusly:

While I’m an atheist and certainly support stem cell research, I can’t fault the Catholics here. From their perspective, this is a form of murder. Is that a ridiculous position? Absolutely. But given that they’ve taken that position, they believe that they have a moral obligation to try to prevent the murder. (Say what you want about the Catholics, but at least they’re consistent)

As long as they don’t use force or violence to achieve their goal, I don’t give a shit how they campaign for it. In fact, I’m glad they’re denying communion to supporters of stem-cell research. What they’re doing here is undermining their own institution. When they start denying communion to formerly wheelchair bound patients, or to the blind who have regained sight, the PR will be atrocious. Some of those people who are at odds with their pastors on this issue will be driven away from the church and towards a more secular lifestyle.

In general, when a religion stakes out ridiculous positions like this, the reality-based movement wins. In my book, that’s a good thing.

Google-fame

Apparently, this old post of mine is the number one google hit for “Fundamentalist Propaganda”.

It’s too bad, really. I was expecting it to point here:

Stirring up Trouble

The Boy Scouts of America is a great organization, but their current leadership leaves a lot to be desired. I am an Eagle scout, and I’ve written about their discriminatory policies before. (Atheists and homosexuals need not apply).

This controversy is well documented on Wikipedia, but I noticed that the Eagle Scout page lacked any mention of the many Eagle Scouts who have returned their badges in protest. I added a sentence or two about it, and cited my sources well to prove that I wasn’t just another vandal. I’m still willing to bet that some uptight bastard will remove the text.

I hate edit wars, but I believe this is a notable piece of information that deserves to be included in the article. Here’s hoping some others agree with me.

All Part of the Plan

In response to the recent Amish school shooting one of the town’s resident’s had this to say:

“We think it was God’s plan, and we’re going to have to pick up the pieces and keep going,” he [Sam Stoltzfus, 63, an Amish woodworker] said. “A funeral to us is a much more important thing than the day of birth because we believe in the hereafter. The children are better off than their survivors.”

PZ Meyers responds:

No, no they’re not, and this old kook should know better. If his claim were true, you’d have to argue that the murderer did a good thing for those children, and that parents ought to strangle their kids as soon as they’re born.

I also have to point out that if God gets praised when good things happen, shouldn’t he also get blamed for the bad things that happen? Where’s the consistency?

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: This “God” fellow has the greatest job ever - he gets all of the credit and none of the blame.

Touché

On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis at a hearing on a proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify.

At the end of his testimony, Republican State Senator Nancy Jacobs said: “Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?”

Raskin replied: “Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.”

Perfect

As you may know, “The DaVinci Code” movie has been raising a lot of ire within the Catholic community, as it portrays certain elements in a light that isn’t flattering. Recently, the Today show interviewed the cast and the following exchange took place:

Matt Lauer: People wanted this to say ‘Fiction fiction fiction!’ How would you have all felt if there was a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie? Would it have been okay with you?”

Ian McKellen: “I’ve often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer at the front saying ‘This is fiction.’”

Zing! Too perfect.

Fundamentalist Propaganda

This article on creationism makes me want to cry. It’s about the vast network of religious organizations that spend millions of dollars to promote lies and half truths that support their fundamentalist reading of the Bible.

Hundreds of pastors will preach a different message Sunday, in honor of Charles Darwin’s 197th birthday. In a national campaign, they will tell congregations that it’s possible to be a Christian and accept evolution.

Ham considers that treason. When pastors dismiss the creation account as a fable, he says, they give their flock license to disregard the Bible’s moral teachings as well. He shows his audiences a graphic that places the theory of evolution at the root of all social ills: abortion, divorce, racism, gay marriage, store clerks who say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.”

It’s funny, because with the exception of racism, I don’t think any of those are particularly bad. Abortion and divorce certainly aren’t things that anyone likes to happen, but they’re often far better than the alternatives (loveless marriages or pre-teen pregnancy, for example). What’s even funnier is that the Bible was often used to justify racism in the past.

The worst part of this situation isn’t that these groups are coming up with millions of dollars or that they’re aggressively marketing their ideas. It’s that they’re teaching this crap to children, who don’t know any better:

“Who’s the only one who’s always been there?” Ham asked.

“God!” the boys and girls shouted.

“Who’s the only one who knows everything?”

“God!”

“So who should you always trust, God or the scientists?”

The children answered with a thundering: “God!”

One twelve year old girl described her path to believing in creationism:

“They were explaining about apes standing up, evolving to man, and I could kind of see that’s how it could happen,” she said. Ham convinced her otherwise. As her mother beamed, Emily repeated Ham’s mantra: “The Bible is the history book of the universe.”

I don’t understand how people can stare into the face of overwhelming evidence and ignore it. I don’t understand the need to cling to beliefs unflinchingly and justify them, no matter what kind of irrational explanations and leaps of faith that may entail. It is certainly the nature of religions to hold fast to their doctrines. In some sense, I can’t blame them for that. However, I can blame the people who supress their curiosity and intrinsic human desire to understand the world.

“The feeling of awed wonder that science can give us is one of the highest experiences of which the human psyche is capable. It is a deep aesthetic passion to rank with the finest that music and poetry can deliver. It is truly one of the things that make life worth living and it does so, if anything, more effectively if it convinces us that the time we have for living is quite finite.”

– Richard Dawkins

On “Miner Miracles”

I’m sure most of you have heard about the West Virginia mining tragedy. (It was mistakenly reported that 12 of the 13 trapped miners were alive, when in fact, the opposite was true.)

During the time in which most of the men were believed to be living, the Boston Herald ran a headline which read: “Miner Miracle! America’s Prayers Answered. Greg Saunders rightly takes issue with this:

Now that we know the twelve miners were killed, does this mean America’s prayers weren’t answered? Just like gambling addicts remember their big wins but not their losses, the fate of the twelve miners has transformed from a faith-inspiring act of God to another horrible tragedy in which it’s impolite to mention religion at all. Cute little sayings like “the Lord works in mysterious ways” are cop-outs for the logical conclusions that many of us draw from experiences like this. If something fantastic and improbable can be used as proof that there’s a benevolent god, doesn’t the reverse point toward the conclusion that a higher power is indifferent at best? If you believe in a god that could have saved these men’s lives (which I don’t, btw), why didn’t he? People are quick to throw around the word “miracle” when something wonderful happens, so what the hell do we call this?

Well said.

Religious Discrimination

The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) allows people to be excluded from holding office on religious grounds. An official may be “excluded from holding office” if she/he does not “acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.”

This would specifically exclude all Atheists and Agnostics from holding public office. It would also exclude:

• Most Buddhists, who do not believe in a personal deity.
• Members of the Church of Satan; they are typically agnostics.
• Some Unitarian Universalists.
• Some followers of the New Age who do not believe in the existence of a personal deity

Remember, that by excluding agnostics and atheists alone, you’re saying that roughly 10% of the United States population can’t hold office.

Legal bullshit withstanding, there’s still no way anyone but a Christian could win office in any but the bluest of blue states. Is this what freedom feels like?

Link

FSM

Too late for Christmas, but here’s a Flying Spaghetti Monster tree topper. No angels for us. We’ve been touched by his noodly appendage.

On Atheism

An excellent quotation:

I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I’ve been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn’t have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I’m a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.

-Isaac Asimov

Personally, I’ve always used a metaphor to explain why I’m an atheist and not an agnostic: If you were a vegetarian, but said that maybe someday you might consider eating meat again, would that make you less of a vegetarian? Would you be veg-nostic? No.

Right now, all the evidence leads me to believe that there is no higher power intervening in our lives. However, I hope that I never become so nearsighted, in any of my beliefs, that that I ignore obvious proof to the contrary.