Jesus Camp

A new documentary, Jesus Camp, follows several children’s experiences at "Kids on Fire", an evangelical Christian summer camp run by Pastor Becky Fischer.

"Jesus Camp," from documakers Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady ("Boys of Baraka"), may shock many viewers, especially political liberals, when it shows children speaking in tongues, their faces glowing with ecstasy and tears running down their cheeks. Liberals might also be alarmed by images of 7-year-olds in camouflage face-paint performing spiritual war dances at summer camp and little hands reaching out to bless a cardboard cut-out of President George W. Bush in the hope of cinching a pro-life Supreme Court appointment. A&E Indie Films production could rouse brisk theatrical interest before hitting TV.

(a few paragraphs down)

Fischer, who boasts she can "go into a playground of kids that don't know anything about Christianity and lead them to the Word in no time at all," is surely a formidable salesperson. Using visual aids such as little plastic fetuses to appeal to raw emotion and healthy doses of guilt to evoke religious rapture, Fischer is always focused on her mission.

- article from Variety.com

Alarming stuff, eh?

The official site is Jesus Camp and the trailer can be found at AOL movies. The film doesn't open in Ohio until October 9th, though the official release date is September 15th. If anyone sees it before I do, please let me know what you think!

Hope for Dean

Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee chairman, is famous for his loose lips and exuberant vocal chords, which may help explain the muted reaction to his recent warning about religious participation in public life. A few months ago, Mr Dean told the Christian Science Monitor that the "religious community" would have to decide "whether they want to be tax exempt or involved in politics".

-Religious voters could doom the Democrats

(applause for Dean)

... and so continues my love/disappointment relationship with Dean.


The rest of the article just explains how AWFUL Democrats are because they suppress the rights of the religious right. I thought they were wooing the religious right. (shrugs)

Lakes & and Temporary Lack of Me

I’m in Minnesota for the weekend, so my replies to emails, posts, etc. might be somewhat slow until Tuesday. My journey began somewhat forebodingly, as I managed to spend the first planned hour of driving lost in my home town while searching for a Chipotle. However, after this I did succeed in driving with relatively little trouble and look forward to viewing many, many lakes this weekend. Obviously, some higher power must have moved the Chipotle yesterday. I’m quite grateful he/she/it didn’t decide to move Minnesota as well, or I truly would have been in trouble. If he/she/it had moved Minnesota, would the lakes have still been here?

Life without theism: I wouldn't ask for more

I’m still enjoying David Gleeson’s articles about atheism at American Chronicle. In his latest article, “Spiritual Atheism and the False Comforts of Faith”, Gleeson suggests that skeptics need to better present an atheistic lifestyle as a “spiritual, meaningful existence.” He gives examples of how nature and science can be sources of awe in lieu of faith based-based awe. I agree entirely. However, I’d expand this to say that not just awe, but also meaning and depth can be found in almost all pieces of a full, atheistic life. Atheism is simply the lack of the belief in a god. If you subtract religious dogma from an otherwise full life, what’s left? Almost everything.

As mentioned by Gleeson, atheism certainly does not preclude awe. During a backpacking trip through Washington State, I stood at the very bottom of a tree, my toes to its trunk, and stared up at the impossible stretch of trunk, branches, and years of weathered bark. I have the same gasping feeling of wonder when peering out a train window at the craggy, reddish cliffs of southern France, or after wading into the ocean just far enough to see nothing but the stretch of the Pacific. On a recent whale-watching trip, I found myself involuntarily clapping my hands with glee at a breeching humpback; on a similar boat trip in the Everglades, I was left giddy at the outline of dolphins in the wake of the boat.

Other science-type pursuits leave me equally charmed. Like many skeptics, I love the dependability of logic, the reducibility of mathematics, and the repeatable nature of the scientific method. However, these more typical “tenants of skepticism” are only the foundations of my life, not the whole of it.

Atheism does not preclude leaps of imagination or walks into fantasy. When I write, not all statements roll off my fingers in the form of logical proof. Nor are my bookcases exclusively filled with non-fiction treatise on string theory or the necessity of the separation of church and state; my shelves are an almost equal blend of nonfiction with fiction, Sagan and Shermer mixed with Heinlein, Card, and Wharton. I frequently lose myself in the dizzy impossibilities of a well-crafted novel, yet I always find myself again when I close the book. My brain loves to whimsically leap from one idea to the next without necessarily evaluating whether or not these leaps are logical. However, I don’t take my whims as fact without checking the evidence and would never insist my whimsical jumps themselves are logically valid. I enjoy fiction, but I’m always careful to mentally label my fictions as fiction and facts as fact.

Atheism does not preclude savoring the full spectrum of emotions, sensations, and experiences available in life. Reality is an ample source of exhilaration. I love random chats with strangers in London parks, kisses on the beach at night, and the feeling of the foam from my soy-latte dissolving on my tongue. Without evidence for an afterlife, I’m only encouraged to enjoy this live this life more thoroughly, to sink more deeply into each moment because the sum of these moments and the impact they leave on the world are what I have to measure my life by.

Contrary to popular speculation, atheism does not preclude morality. Dostoevsky’s character Ivan Karamazov speculates that without a belief in god, there would be no basis for morality. These thoughts, of a fictional character, are often (mis)quoted by those who would argue that theism is necessary for morality. I’d counter that it’s been elegantly argued that our innate sense of morality is grounded in the long processes of human and societal evolution. Either way, religion, with its penchant for dividing humans into groups of “us” and “they”, certainly isn’t the magic antidote to hate, crime, and violence.

I personally have yet find myself peering over a precipice of atheistic immorality. I’m not good out of a fear of hell or lightening bolts. I’m good because I want to be a good person, to have the positive impacts of my life outweigh those of the silly mistakes I will inevitably make. I give time and money to the organizations I feel are helping to transform the world into a safer, nicer, more reasonable place. I vote and I rant, both essentials to a healthy democracy. I also try to be a good person on a micro-level, to be a good to my friends, family, and even strangers. I’m certainly not perfect: I can be mean, spiteful, and selfish, though rarely on purpose. I doubt I will ever lose my impulse to cry when I’ve hurt someone needlessly, and I’m glad of this.

It feels like article after article trots out atheism as angry, immoral, or unimaginative. The authors seem to condescendingly insist we are somehow missing an important truth that only theism offers, a truth that we’ve given up for atoms or evolution or logic or whatever, a truth that adds colors, vibrancy, and morality to everyday life. Please, let it rest. The only thing I’ve given up is a belief in a god- what remains is life, in its entire splendor. I wouldn’t ask for more.

Numerical Sin

The Cincinnati Enquirer
Without God, mayhem is possible
John F. Kippley

Without God, mayhem is possible. (nods)

Without God, ice cream is possible. (nods)

Without ice cream, art is possible (nods)

Without (almost any noun), (almost any noun) is possible (nods)

Possible is a pretty non-committal word, possibly?

Without logic, unwarranted conclusions are possible (double nod)

The discussion about the killings in Cincinnati does not seem to have raised the question, "What else should we expect?" That is, what is there in the education and upbringing of the murderers to cause them to think it is morally wrong to kill someone they don't like? Our public education system is one of practical atheism,

(blinks)

I'm pretty sure the schools, even with their bend toward 'practical atheism' (hah!) aren't teaching classes about the subjective nature of homicide. Perhaps I'm just not visiting the correct schools, however. I'm not above doing my duty, either way. In case any would-be murderers are reading this: it is morally wrong to kill someone you don't like (or even someone you do like). See? Now you don't have an excuse.

and as Dostoevsky had one of characters say, "If there is no God, I can do anything."

(ponders)

Really? I can't levitate.

Yes, I get it, got it, etc.... that's not what is being said. However... come on. Since I'm on a rewording kick, I shall reword the statement to read, "if I repent before I die, I can do anything."

Atheism doesn't give a free pass for immorality any more than religion automatically stops immorality. As an atheist, when I ponder whether or not to kill someone I don't like (or even someone I do like) the worry that I'll be struck by a lightening bolt (or end up in hell) doesn't even cross my mind. Yet I still don't kill the people! (I just torture small children- and only on weekdays)

This is aggravated by a widespread opinion that there is no punishment after death for unrepentant sinners. Some believe there is simply no life after death. Others believe that everyone goes to heaven no matter how many commandments he breaks or how unrepentant he is.

No matter how many? So I can break some? And it depends on my degree of repentance? I feel a function coming on!


f(x, y) where x = number of commandments broken and y = percent repentant.

f(x, y) = x - 8y + 3 while x <= 5

f(x, y) = x - 6y + 3 while 5 < x < 10

f(x, y) = No queston about it: you're going to hell! while x >= 10



If f(x, y) <= 5 you're going to heaven

If 5 < f(x, y) < 8 you're going to purgatory

If f(x,y) >= 8 you're going to hell



Let's say Johnny has broken 6 commandments and is 73% repentant. Since x (number of commandments broken) is between 5 and 10, we'll use the function f(x,y) = x - 4y + 3. The output of this function is found by starting with 6 (number of commandments broken), subtracting 6*.73 (adjustment for repentance) and adding 3 (original sin). This gives Johnny a sin function output of 4.62. Since 4.62 is less than five... he's going to heaven! (wild cheers)

Suzie on the other hand has been baaaaaad and doesn't really care. After deliberately misusing the name of god, not once, not twice, but niiiiiiine times and with a 10% repentance rating, Suzie is in trooouble. 9 - 6*.1 + 3 is a hefty score of 11.4. So, sorry Suzie, but you're going to HELL! (boo!!!)

See! Contrary to the opinion of most high school students, math IS relevant to every day life (death?). As noted here and here, however, god doesn't seem to be terribly good at math. He probably just uses the "heaven/hell" spinner Robertson gave him for Christmas a few years back. (waves hand dismissively) Oh well. I'd use a function. I'm definitely running in the next god-election.


*** *** *** ***

A quick note on the quoted article’s footnote:

John F. Kippley and his wife have spent 35 years promoting chaste natural family planning. The movement they founded and head, NFP International, is active throughout the United States and 20 other nations.

Natural family planning, eh? I've always seen natural family planning as the epitome of “traditional Catholic loop-hole"- a way to hold onto their DEEP SEATED CONVICTION that god abhors both latex and ortho-tri-cyclen and instead wants us to play Russian Roulette of the fertility variety (yet still have sex while attempting to avoid pregnancy). My oh-so-Catholic doctor is a very strong proponent of NFP. It’s not my kind of game though. Sorry, God. How about chess instead?

Peace, war, and therapy

I stumbled upon Grant Swank’s Atheist Attacks 'In God We Trust', an article that relies largely on phrases such as “on behalf of the power of darkness” and impossible transitions to make its points. Clearly, I was not his target audience.

However, potentially demonstrating a predilection towards cognitive masochism (which I shall now refer to as PtCM), I decided to check out Swank’s blog. It was pretty much what I expected; elegant illogic and superstition with a large dose of melodrama... banners denouncing the ACLU and Islam (and Google? Is Google ungodly?)... all to be expected and not really anything worth writing about. But then (drum-roll)... the quotes at the end of each of his blog posts grabbed my attention:

ALLAH: “Fight, slay Unbelievers wherever ye find them.Seize them, beleaguer them, lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war.”

Qur’an, Sura 9:5

CHRIST: For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

- from Mr. Swank’s blog

(blinks)

Yes, Islam can be a terrible, violent religion. However, we are claiming that Christianity is a peaceful, loving one? Here, let me try again, but with some other quotes from those same books:

Surely (as for) those who believe and do good deeds for them will Allah bring about love.

Qur’an, Shakir, 019.096

You must destroy all the peoples the LORD your God gives over to you. Do not look on them with pity and do not serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you.

Deuteronomy 7:16

- obviously, not from Mr. Swank’s blog

I have a good friend who likes to insist everyone from Ann Coulter to Pat Robertson to George Bush (2) aren’t “real Christians” because of their tendencies towards meanness (and stupidity), intolerance (and stupidity), and warmongering (and stupidity). Real Christians, she insists, are nice and good and kind... as she is (and indeed she is). She insists these other sorts are misinterpreting Christianity. My response is that there is enough Bible for everyone to pick and chose his or her own favorite quotes to support pretty much whatever deed or misdeed he or she wishes to promote. While I have a higher degree of social tolerance for my friend’s variety of “nice” Christianity than I do Coulter’s brand of the same faith, declaring this is the “real” Christianity is ignoring 83.245%* of the Bible.

So, according to the Bible, what sort of creature is this Christian god?

For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
- 1 Corinthians 14:33

Sounds nice. And organized. There are few things equal to a nice, organized deity.

The LORD is a warrior
- Exodus 15:3

Well, perhaps a little less peaceful, but I suppose he could be a peaceful warrior… right?

I will smash them one against the other, fathers and sons alike, declares the LORD. I will allow no pity or mercy or compassion to keep me from destroying them.'
- Jeremiah 13:14

(blinks)

Well, maybe not. That definitely does not sound peaceful.

The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.
- James 5:11

The LORD is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made.
- Psalm 145:9

(blinks again)

Wait! You said NO compassion and NO mercy above. I mean, it’s not that I want you to be violent... but aren’t you sending mixed signals here?

... you have kindled my anger, and it will burn forever.
- Jeremiah 17:4

For his anger lasts only a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime;
- Psalm 30:5

(shrugs) Well, perhaps to god, forever is only a moment.

(At this point, I stopped. I’d compile a list of all of the MULTITUDE of violent and/or contradictory quotes from the bible, but, hey, it’s already been done several times, and I’d rather spend the next few years of my life eating, sleeping, and breathing rather than constantly typing.)

Oh, whatever. So god is seemingly severely bipolar. What is this to me, an atheist who reveres the Bible less than her daily cup of coffee? Nothing, if it remains a private affair between the Christian, his or her god, and possibly god’s therapist. However, as soon as the Bible becomes the basis of any sort of law (i.e. as grounds to oppose same-sex marriage or promote public prayer in schools), I’d argue Christians need to consider all of the book they are holding up as the irrefutable word of god, rather than just the passages that make the prettiest footers on blog posts.

So, Christian majority, I respect that many (most?) of the Christians in this country practice a generally “nice” form of Christianity and are peaceful, compassionate people. I know and love many of these peaceful, compassionate Christians and have watched them do many peaceful, compassionate things. I just sometimes want to scream when you explain to me how you know your god disapproves of the “homosexual lifestyle” because of his clear stance on the issue in the Bible. This and other gems from this book are the grounds for your moral compass, while you entirely ignore so many other passages from the exact same book.

I suppose that’s your choice. You can interpret the Bible however you want and it’s really not my business. However, I still think it’s arbitrary. So, please, just don’t make me and the other “others” of this nation play by your rules. Your faith with your god becomes my issue only when you make it my issue, when edicts from this highly contradictory, often downright discriminatory book are pushed into my life in the form of public policy.

* Yes, yes, an entirely fabricated number. However, it was a lot more colorful than using the bland, half, three-quarters or whatever, right? Either way, but, 53.2% of statistics are made up on the spot. I’m just being trendy.

Conservatives wooing atheists?

After all the recent press about how Democrats need to woo evangelicals, I was amused to run across this piece about how conservatives need to woo atheists (or, at the very least, discontinue alienating them).

What is Left? What is Right?
(in the American Conservative)

by Heather Mac Donald

Upon leaving office in November 2004, Attorney General John Ashcroft thanked his staff for keeping the country safe since 9/11. But the real credit, he added, belonged to God. Ultimately, it was God’s solicitude for America that had prevented another attack on the homeland.

Many conservatives hear such statements with a soothing sense of approbation. But others—count me among them—feel bewilderment, among much else. If God deserves thanks for fending off assaults on the United States after 9/11, why is he not also responsible for allowing the 2001 hijackings to happen in the first place?

Skeptical conservatives—one of the Right’s less celebrated subcultures—are conservatives because of their skepticism, not in spite of it. They ground their ideas in rational thinking and (nonreligious) moral argument. And the conservative movement is crippling itself by leaning too heavily on religion to the exclusion of these temperamentally compatible allies.

Regardless of my own non-Republican tendencies, I did like the above three paragraphs and think both political parties could certainly improve in this area. To me at least, it seems politics should be about rational thinking and good arguments rather than carefully crafted messages designed to appeal to a specific voter base (i.e. the religious right, who everyone seems to want to be in bed with as of late).

There were several other very good points throughout the article denying the necessity of coupling of religion and morality. Once again, these seem like good thoughts for both the Republicans and Democrats to consider.

My only real point of contention:

Conservative atheists and agnostics support traditional American values. They believe in personal responsibility, self-reliance, and deferred gratification as the bedrock virtues of a prosperous society. They view marriage between a man and a woman as the surest way to raise stable, law-abiding children. They deplore the encroachments of the welfare state on matters best left to private effort.

Perhaps. I’m especially unsure of the viewing “marriage between a man and a woman” statement. I have yet to hear a good secular argument against same-sex marriage, and while I’m sure some conservative atheists would oppose it, I’d postulate that most wouldn’t. Perhaps I'm just projecting my liberal atheist views on conservative atheists, though. Any thoughts?

Praying is not planning

Each weekday on my drive home from work, I pass a billboard for an insurance company featuring the very valid phrase, hoping is not planning. I’d like to encourage the adoption of another version of that phrase: praying is not planning. The validity of that last statement stands even if you hold a conference to ask for divine intervention.

A five-day conference to call for divine intervention in the HIV/Aids pandemic in South Africa will be held next week, the Institute for Christian Leadership Development said on Friday.

"We are going to pray and extract biblical principles on how to counsel the society when dealing with the HIV/Aids pandemic," institute spokesperson Timothy Olusegun told the South African Press Association.

"As Christians, we cannot keep quiet as thousands of South Africans, young and old continue to die, ... as we see the suffering in our nation, week after week.

- Call for God's intervention in Aids crisis

The god of the Christian faith seems quite adamant in regard to his omniscience. Thus, shouldn’t he have already noticed the AIDS crisis in South Africa rather the relying on a five-day prayer-a-thon to jolt him out of his ignorance? Hell, even I know there’s an AIDS crisis in South Africa, and my omniscience is a bit short in the omni-department. Has god no access to google news?

Either way, the idea of “prayer leading to intervention” strikes me as inherently unfair. Hypothetically, let’s say rich, spoiled, twelve-year-old Johnny Smith, fond of harassing his elderly neighbors and strangling cute kittens, is in a car wreck. One day, while running away after shop-lifting from a local convenience store, Johnny is hit by a car and falls into a coma. However, he has many relatives who all pray for his recovery. In fact, his very, very rich father even sponsors a five-day conference to encourage others to pray for his recovery. In the face of all of this prayer, god notices (oops! Look! A sick boy!) and heals him.

Nearby, homeless, orphaned twelve-year-old Joseph Snarkles who is always polite to both the elderly and felines, is walking home when he is similarly struck by a car. Joseph, sadly, has no one to pray for him and therefore god either doesn’t notice or doesn’t care (take your pick) and Joseph dies.

I’m sure some will argue that I’m taking this too far to the extreme, and that god will only listen to prayers for the righteous. Fine. So, hypothetically, Joey Johnson and John Jetty lead identical, well-behaved lives, both are in car accidents, and end up in the hospital on the verge of death. Joey is rendered unconscious near his home and his relatives thus know of his injury and decide to pray for him (10 points for Joey!). John, on other hand, is hit away from his family, who don’t know of the danger he faces, and thus doesn’t pray for him (0 points for John). God notices Joey and heals him while god doesn’t notice John and he dies.

Is this still not close enough to reality?

How about, hypothetically*, there’s an AIDs crisis in Africa, leading to the death of around 6,000 people per day. God either doesn’t notice or doesn’t care (take your pick) until the Christian Leadership Development holds a five-day conference. Suddenly god notices/cares and cures AIDs (using another of his supposed omni-type powers). This sucks for the 6,000 people per day who died before the conference. However, the people after the conference feel pretty darn lucky. Apparently, to receive the benefits of god’s will, one just has to poke him in the side (via prayer) for a bit.

If a god did exist, and these were the rules he played by, I’d tell him to screw off. Prayers leading to any sort of influence of god’s actions to me feels like an antiquated popularity context, similar to paying the local priest for indulgences. It seems like the idealized version of divine influence (similar to the idealized version of politics) should be based on merit and need rather than prayer (or bribes).

Holding conferences to acquire divine influence is a waste of resources. It’s a waste of time. It’s a lack of planning. Praying, like hoping, is not planning. Teaching about safer sex is planning. Distributing condoms is planning. Funding medical research is planning. Praying is not planning; planning is planning.



* There is no HTML tag for sarcasm, so I had to resort to bold and italic

Shameless Promotion

Are you looking for humorous atheist-themed bags, T-shirts, mugs, buttons, bumper stickers, and even postage stamps? Check out the "Atheists & Friends" section of Dday Designs at Café Press.

**I should point out that there is absolutely no connection between myself and the designer of this apparel. Well, other than that I live with him, sleep with him, and know both his favorite color (blue) and best qualities in bed (I’m not telling- you might try to steal him away!). I also may have played a tiny part in offering suggestions for some of the themes. Other than these insignificant points, I consider myself a completely unbiased promoter of these products. I also promise to promote the nifty, atheist-themed products of anyone else who will tell me his or her favorite color.**

So.. what IS atheism?

After Zeiger’s article describing atheism as a religion (as noted, it’s not), I was thrilled to find an excellent article just a few days later refuting many of the common (incorrect) claims about atheism.

Common Misconceptions About Atheists and Atheism

David Gleeson
August 10, 2006

(skip a few paragraphs)

Atheists, therefore, do not positively assert that gods do not exist. Atheists simply withhold belief in said gods because the evidence is not sufficient to warrant the belief. This is not to say that there isn't sufficient reason to believe that certain gods do not exist. There is. But to categorically deny the existence of all gods would require a leap of faith that is anathema to a true atheist. Atheism requires no such leap.

(skip a few paragraphs)

Atheism, as noted above, is nothing but withheld belief. It does not take faith to have a non-belief. If I don't believe that Elvis is still alive, I am not practicing an anti-Elvis faith. If I withhold belief in Santa Claus, I am not a member of a Santa-less church. When an atheist says, "I don't believe in the Christian God", she is merely saying that the evidence for belief is insufficient. It is the same type of withheld belief that a Christian practices with regard to the beliefs of Muslims, Jews and other non-Christians.

This article isn’t really new stuff to most atheists; we have experience arguing that atheism is not a religion and explaining how a-theism isn’t equivalent to a-morality*. However, I was impressed by the well-worded, non-combative nature of Gleeson’s article and enjoyed reading it for its style and logic.

Gleeson also writes:

Some atheists may have had such [bad childhood] experiences, but I can assure you this is not the case in most situations. For me and for most atheists, the journey from belief to non-belief is simply a gradual process of discovery that eventually leads to God/gods becoming unnecessary.

This is very true. My “journey from belief to non-belief” was as simple as realizing atheism is an option. I was raised a Methodist and rarely saw or heard about people who didn’t believe in a god until high school. Believing in god wasn't a question; it was the standard. Years later, I find it far less “traumatizing” to be atheistic than theistic; I seem to have been born “aweless” (possibly without ”the god gene"**), and a world without a god feels comfortable and realistic.

Gleeson also has a blog that I haven’t had a chance to read yet. However, he appears to mock Ann Coulter in one of his recent posts, so I’d imagine it has to be decent.




* I really want a button that says, “A-Theism (not equal to sign) A-Morality”

** The paragraph at the bottom of the Wikipedia page I linked to reads:

Hamer responded that the existence of such a gene would not be incompatible with the existence of a personal God: "Religious believers can point to the existence of god genes as one more sign of the creator's ingenuity—a clever way to help humans acknowledge and embrace a divine presence."

I can’t resist pointing out that this means god must not want me as a believer, as he/she/it apparently decided to not include “the god gene” in my DNA. Another button I really, really want is, “I can’t help being an atheist… that’s just how god made me!” I apparently need a button maker.

Ah yes, the old “atheism as a religion” argument… again

Michael Newdow's Religion

by Hans Zeiger

Every man has a god. Michael Newdow is his own god and that is a matter of his free choice. He is, to himself, the highest thing there is. I have in recent days been carrying on a correspondence with Mr. Newdow, who achieved notoriety for attempting to incite judicial tyranny against "under God" in the pledge of Allegiance.

I have contended to him that to dismantle the principle of "one nation under God" is to prepare our nation for the most cruel and violent of despotisms. If atheism were not a religion, it would not have a tyrannical effect. But Mr. Newdow concedes that it is a religion.

Mr. Newdow's belief system may be summarized in his own words: "I adhere to a religion. My religion denies the existence of any god ... My religious worldview is atheism." What conclusions can we draw from this profession of faith?

First, atheism is a religion. Most atheists deny this; Mr. Newdow freely admits that his "general view of the universe and man's relation to it" constitutes a religion.

I won't even pretend to know in what context Newdow made those comments and whether or not he might have been speaking metaphorically. Even if he wasn't... just because Newdow decides he wishes to call atheism a religion does not, indeed, mean that it is a religion. If I decided to call my dish washing machine a car, I would still have difficulty riding it into work (or church, as it may be). For further elucidation of the subject, I consulted dictionary.com.

god

1: the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions [syn: God, Supreme Being]
2: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force [syn: deity, divinity, immortal]
3: a man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people; "he was a god among men"
4: a material effigy that is worshipped as a god; "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"; "money was his god" [syn: idol, graven image]

- Dictionary.com

1: the supernatural (beep!) Supernatural! Not atheistic! Next please…
2: any supernatural (beep!) Supernatural! Not atheistic! Next please…
3: a man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people; "he was a god among men" While I have met many men who have claimed to have such superior qualities, I have yet to meet one that I’d call “deity-like” (no matter how much he begged). Next please…
4: a material effigy that is worshipped as a god; "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"; "money was his god" [syn: idol, graven image] While many people in general seem to have adopted the TV has such an object, I know from personal experience that this is not universal, among atheists or otherwise. Next please…

… wait, there aren’t anymore. Let’s take a look at religion:

religion

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
4. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
5. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

- Dictionary.com

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural> (beep!) Supernatural! Not atheistic! Next please…
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. Refers to 1. Still not relevant to atheism. Oh well. Next please…
3. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. (shrugs) We have yet to establish that atheists belong to a religious order. Next please…
4. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual (beeeepppp!) You’re getting sick of the beeps by now, right?
5. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. (cough) I can think of quite a few activities that I certainly pursue with both zeal and devotion that would certainly not qualify as religious, some of which would make Pat Robertson’s toes curl. Come now… zeal and devotion aren’t quite enough to constitute religion… (if they are, want to come worship with me?)


I'd also like to point out that dismantling "the principle of 'one nation under God'" doesn't seem likely to throw us into "the most cruel and violent of despotisms" (points for melodrama AND a big word though!). After all, we managed just fine before such phrases were merrily plastered all over our money (1837/1956) and inserted in the pledge (1954).

Back to the article…

Second, every man has a god, whether he accepts it or not. Mr. Newdow, like most atheists, would deny that he attributes divinity to anything at all. But there is something high above all else in our lives, whether it is our self or our wealth or our Maker.

(raises eyebrows) Really? Because I feel pretty balanced. Perhaps mockery of ridiculous statements is that "something high above all else" in my life. How am I supposed to resist it though when you make it so eaaaasy. You’re tempting me into false devotion! (grumbles at Hans Zeiger)

It is the first element of self-government that men have a relationship with their god. This cannot be written into our national constitution - as Mr. Newdow has reminded me it is not - because it is already inscribed in the constitution of our souls. If we exist, we are sure to serve our god, be it the Living God or something else.

(blinks)

(glances at soul)

(sees no writing)

(blinks again)

(shrugs and goes back to reading)

Third, the atheist attitude that denies a god in the loosest sense of the word leaves open the door for the worst kind of god in the strictest sense of the word. An atheist who refuses to admit that he serves a master will impose his secret master upon his fellow men. He will tell us that there is no god, only to thrust the god upon us under some other guise. We need only witness the determination with which the secular fundamentalists move within our midst these days to understand that there is a deep religious cause there.

(blinks again)

Please reference definition of religion above.

The rest of the article can be found at The Reality Check. I spent a lot of time blinking as I read it. I suppose it might be worth the effort to go blink at it for yourself.

Mexico... Maybe

I’m visiting LA and was planning to stay in Mexico this weekend. However, I seem to have left all proofs of citizenship (my passport, birth certificate, etc.) at home in Ohio. Apparently, my driver’s license, social security card, mono-lingualism, and pale, extremely sunburn prone skin don't cut it as “proof” (the second to last should certainly prove that I must be a US citizen... the last just proves that, had I been born in Mexico, I would have died of severe sun poisoning long, long ago).

I will likely still go to Mexico, if the border-guard-type people think there is a good chance of my being let back in. If I disappear, I was detained at the border. ;)

One of my atheist email correspondents and I once determined there must be a god of road trips, as there seems to be a god of pretty much everything else. This seems like an ideal time to ask others to make offerings to him/her/it... so, if you wouldn’t mind, burn gasoline, tires, or even entire cars (OSU fans and French rioters take note- you don’t have to wait for the next football game or country-wide riot!) to appease this deity enough that I’ll be allowed back into the US.


(A quick note: really, please don't actually burn anything other than mixed cds for your signficant other and possibly the love letters of your former significant other. Burning the car of your former significant other is not advised, albeit quite tempting at times.)

If life were like The Sims…

... I’d sell you these exciting, new, traditional-religious expansion packs:

(A quick note and semi-apology: yes, I was feeling particularly naughty and, yes, I agree that some of these are possibly outdated and certainly stereotypical things to write. Oh well. I do apologize. But I'm still going to post it.)


Catholic Version:
- New character: the Pope! (outfit options include a Nazi uniform)
- Birth control disabled
- A guilt meter! Keep your character’s guilt meter high enough or he’ll die!
- Historical feature: torture devices and large fires. Recreate your own Spanish Inquisition or declare your neighbors witches, burn them at the stake, and take their houses!
- Install this expansion pack with some Protestant expansion packs and your computer will crash

Protestant-Fundamentalist Version
- New character: Pat Robertson (specializes in wandering around the game, monitoring other characters’ sex lives and bragging about how many pounds he can bench press)
- Comes with a liquor store and a strip club, but characters have to ignore one another when they meet in either one
- Historical feature: gallows, used in a similar fashion as bonfires in Catholic version

Shaker Version:
- Sex disabled
- No one wants to play with you, due to feature one
- Only one character in the entire game, also due to feature one

Mormon Version:
- New character: Joseph Smith!
- Multiple wives feature, but only if you marry ‘em when they are 14 and don’t let them out of the house
- Historical feature: your characters will be regularly forced to flee whichever neighborhood they chose to inhabit

Zen Buddhist Version:
- Ships as an empty box. Don’t be alarmed or ask for your money back. Nothingness is the path to nirvana!

Jewish Version:
- Sports capabilities disabled
- All male characters must live with their mothers. Forever.
- Install this expansion with the Muslim expansion pack, and your computer will crash (Oy vey!)

Hindu Version:
- More gods than characters
- New object: a cow for every house
- Install this expansion with the Muslim expansion pack, and your computer will crash

Muslim Version:
- New Character: Mohamed (however, to avoid riots among other characters, this character is just a censored blob)
- Only one outfit/career option for women
- Install this expansion with the Hindu or Jewish expansion packs, and your computer will crash

Unitarian Universalist Version:
- Can’t decide which expansion pack to purchase? Buy all of the other expansion packs and be automatically upgraded to the UU version! We aim to please (everyone)!


Did I miss any?