Irreverent Musings

Fretting Democrats

2009-01-30T20:32:00.002-05:00

“I’m worried. I mean, everyone, absolutely everyone has put Obama on such a high pedestal and he’s bound to make a big mistake, and then everyone is going to hate him, and everything will be AWFUL.”

I hear worried speeches similar to this over and over again, generally from people who voted for Obama, but who have now decided that fret is the new hope. Optimism? I mean, that’s just so three months ago.

Based on the number of times I’ve heard this same speech, I can promise at least this to you who are worrying: you aren’t alone. In fact, if just those people who I’ve talked to about this in the past few weeks would give me your names and phone numbers, you’d probably already enough have members to wait list part of your new support group.

Yes, yes, I’m horribly biased towards presidential optimism. I was just seventeen in 2001, so this is the first time in my adult life that I’ve had a president other than Bush. It still blows my mind on a daily basis that when I hear the president has ordered this or that overturned I’m elated, not disappointed. Starting to close Gitmo? Excellent. Rescinding the gag rule? Fabulous. Reaching out a friendly hand to other countries? Amazing.

I suppose I still share some of your worries. Of course he’s going to make mistakes. Of course people will jump on those mistakes as proof that Obama is too inexperienced, too elitist, or too liberal. Yes there will be plenty of political drama. However, this new political beginning strikes me as similar to the beginning marriage. It’s good to understand there will be rough patches down the road. On the other hand, if you begin your marriage imagining your divorce, you’re probably subscribing yourself to unnecessary misery.

Oh, this isn’t to say that we shouldn’t look forward: planning for the future is essential to any relationship, president-to-supporters or otherwise. Yet, I think we can look forward while still savoring the honeymoon. There will still be plenty of time to argue over whose turn it is to do the dishes, take out the trash, or reduce the national deficit.

In the end, my sustained optimism comes down to this: when I look Obama’s plans and policies, his ideas and ideals, I see a country I want to be a part of. For me, that’s enough to keep the early glow of this relationship fresh for quite a while.

Obama calls for halt to Gitmo prosecutions

2009-01-21T13:21:00.000-05:00

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba (CNN) -- In one of his first acts in office President Obama has ordered the U.S. government to suspend prosecutions of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay for 120 days, military officials said Tuesday.

-Obama calls for halt to Gitmo prosecutions

I am thrilled. Bush, maybe not so much. From the same article:

At his final White House press conference on January 12, Bush was asked whether the military prison and harsh interrogation tactics have damaged America's standing in the world.

"I strongly disagree with the assessment that our moral standing has been damaged," he said. "It may be damaged amongst some of the elite. But people still understand America stands for freedom; that America is a country that provides such great hope."

Yes. Such great hope. Like the hope that if you were a non-citizen, you wouldn't be held in Gitmo for years and years without charge. Oh, and maybe tortured. Yes, that is a reason for hope.

Also, the word "elite" has apparently been once again redefined. Now it includes not just those who eat arugula, but also those who oppose torture. Or, maybe it's just been redefined to include any qualities that a certain prominent Democrat might possess.

No worries on my part. That elitist, arugula eating, torture ending guy is now my president. My president. Now THAT is a reason for hope.

Free Doughnuts > Abortion on Demand

2009-01-19T22:33:00.004-05:00

This week’s This American Life included a segment where cute children read cute letters to Obama. In a quest for more cute kid recordings, I randomly stumbled upon clear evidence that Krispy Kreme is pushing Obama’s EXTREME PRO-CHOICE AGENDA by, horrors of all horrors, using the word ‘choice’ in their inauguration-day free doughnut campaign. (swoons from shock)

Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) is honoring American's sense of pride and freedom of choice on Inauguration Day, by offering a free doughnut of choice to every customer on this historic day, Jan. 20. By doing so, participating Krispy Kreme stores nationwide are making an oath to tasty goodies -- just another reminder of how oh-so-sweet "free" can be.

Just an unfortunate choice of words? For the sake of our Wednesday morning doughnut runs, we hope so. The unfortunate reality of a post Roe v. Wade America is that "choice" is synonymous with abortion access and celebration of 'freedom of choice' is a tacit endorsement of abortion rights on demand.

President-elect Barack Obama promises to be the most virulently pro-abortion president in history. Millions more children will be endangered by his radical abortion agenda.

Celebrating his inauguration with "Freedom of Choice" doughnuts only two days before the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision to decriminalize abortion is not only extremely tacky, it's disrespectful and insensitive and makes a mockery of a national tragedy.

- KRISPY KREME CELEBRATES OBAMA WITH PRO-ABORTION DOUGHNUTS

So…. Choice of Free Doughnut > Pride and Freedom of Choice > Obama > Tacit Endorsement of Abortion Rights > Mockery of a National Tragedy?

Even with my occasional (okay, frequent) misuses of the transitive property in the pursuit of being ridiculous (and linguistically yoga-like), I don’t think I can stretch that far.

Regardless, while I failed to find further recordings, you can still celebrate tomorrow’s inauguration (!!!) by reading some of the letters (just imagine the cute kid voices in your head as you read), ordering the full book of letters (it’s by and for a good cause!), or listening to the This American Life episode that inspired my original search.

Or, like Krispy Kreme, you can further ruin the world with free doughnuts. Shame. Shame!

Whale Souls, Tidy Demons, and Gingerbread Rabbits: A Less than Extensive Guide to Alternative December Celebrations

2008-12-23T18:10:00.000-05:00

I’ll admit it- even as a raving (well, occasionally raving) atheist, I am a fan of most of the secular aspects of Christmas. I love the smell of cinnamon, pine, and cookies. I love Christmas lights, tinsel, and carols. I especially love Christmas trees; as a child, I used to crawl into the pine-and-dazzle space between the tree and the wall to read for hours.

Best of all: Christmas underwear. My grandmother tucks three to five pairs of new underwear into all family members’ stockings each year. I grant automatic bonus points to any holiday with such a fabulous guarantee.

However, perhaps trees and underwear are not the correct ingredients to kindle your holiday spirit. Or, perhaps you like celebrations so much that you want even more of them! Either way, in an attempt to make your life more exciting, I have compiled a less-than-extensive guide to alternative December celebrations to replace or supplement your existing festivities.

Beiwe Festival

For fun with fertility, sanity, reindeer bones, sexist animal slaughter, and butter, try Beiwie. Wikipedia describes this holiday as follows:

The Saami, indigenous people of Finland, Sweden and Norway, worship Beiwe, the sun-goddess of fertility and sanity. She travels through the sky in a structure made of reindeer bones with her daughter, Beiwe-Neia, to herald back the greenery on which the reindeer feed. On the winter solstice, her worshipers sacrifice white female animals, and with the meat, thread and sticks, bed into rings with ribbons. They also cover their doorposts with butter so Beiwe can eat it and begin her journey once again.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_solstice.

Alternative Version: Just eat sticks of butter. Mmm…. butter.

Festival For The Souls Of Dead Whales

What could be more exciting than an Inuit holiday celebrating the souls of whales who graciously* gave their lives and flesh throughout the past year? Well, perhaps a holiday that actually exists.

The souls of dead whales?," said Ronald H. Brower, Sr., director of the Inuit Heritage Center in Barrow, Alaska. "That's a new one. We do celebrate catching whales, and there are several celebrations throughout the year, but Festival for the Souls of Dead Whales? Never heard of that one."

- http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1210_021210_whalespirits.html

Oh well. Reality is overrated, eh? For more random December holidays invented by calendar makers, see the alternative versions below.

Alternative Versions: Take It In The Ear Day**, National French Fried Shrimp Day, Flashlight Day, National Whiners Day***.

* Well, somewhat graciously and post harpooning.
** ?!
**Really, there was no reason to give whiners a holiday, but they wouldn’t freaking shut up about it until they had one.

Lucia, Feast of St. Lucy

Lucia or Lussi Night happened on December 13, what was supposed to be the longest night of the year. The feast was later appropriated by the Catholic Church in the 16th century as St. Lucy's Day. It was believed in the folklore of Sweden that if people, particularly children, did not carry out their chores, the female demon, the Lussi or Lucia die dunkle would come to punish them.[21]

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_solstice.

It is possible that I just wanted to include this holiday because I have a picture of myself as a child, dressed as St. Lucia, presumably in an attempt to ward off female demons.

Alternative Version: Dress up as the demon instead of St. Lucia and threaten your loved ones with beatings until they do their chores. Or threaten to withhold the beatings unless they do their chores. Depends on their predilections, I suppose.

Secular Christian Holiday Combo Baking Day!

In the past, friends have mocked me for not being “in the Christmas spirit” because my decorations are typically something along the lines of* three small red candles placed on my counter. I may have also spent my last several Easter weekends at atheist conferences rather than dying eggs and tying ribbons on ducklings, or whatever exactly it is one is supposed to do on Easter.

However, now I have exciting holiday photos of my very own to show these mocking friends! This year I token-celebrated not just one, but two Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter, with some traditional December baking.

Because, really, what’s better for secularly celebrating the both birth and death of Jesus in one bite than a gingerbread bunny?

Alternative Version: Celebrate the Jewish version of Christmas/Easter combo! Go out for Chinese food and a movie, in manner of the traditional Jewish Christmas…. and then kill Jesus.**

*"along the lines of" should be translated as "exactly"

** It's anti-anti-semitic. Upon reading this, Mel Gibson should be offended. Certain scary anti-semitic groups should be offended. You should not be offended. So stop it.

Celestial Post-It Notes

2008-12-06T11:01:00.002-05:00

Kentucky law puts God in charge of security? Atheists appalled

As an atheist and a Kentuckian, Edwin Hensley was rather put off to learn that the God he has spent decades not believing had been put in charge of keeping the Bluegrass State safe from terrorism.

Turns out a stealthy legislative move by a Baptist preacher-turned-politician led to the passage of a 2006 bill requiring the state's Office of Homeland Security to acknowledge formally that safety and security in the state "cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon almighty God." The language in the bill only recently came to the public's attention, leading Hensley and some like-minded Kentuckians to file a lawsuit against the state.

(skip a few paragraphs)

The law in question also required the state's homeland security office feature a plaque that reads, among other things, "Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh in vain." 

- http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-081204-atheists,0,6784488.story

Apparently, god might get angry if his role as divine protector is not properly acknowledged. Or, perhaps god is simply disorganized, and the law is the equivalent of a celestial post-it note. As god is rummaging around his work desk, he runs across the note and groans, “Oh right! Kentucky! How could I have forgotten?” and poof, offers his divine protection.

Frankly, with his current track record, I’m not so sure this particular almighty god is the right one for the position. If the state of Kentucky insists on legislating a protective deity position, perhaps they should be required to solicit the resumes of other deities to ensure that they have found the best candidate for the job role. Homeland security? Frankly, I might go with Ares for maximum intimidation factor.

For Rep. Kathy Stein, who says she's the lone Jew in the Kentucky House of Representatives, the law itself, and the lawsuit she knew would follow, is a silly waste of time.

"It's a waste of taxpayer dollars, and we're in a significant budget crunch here," Stein said. "I believe the man" - and by that she means Jesus - "would rather us spend the money we used for a plaque in the homeland security office on insurance for an un-insured child."

Exactly. In all his omnipotence and stuff, I’m sure god would understand.

Prop 8- The Musical

2008-12-03T13:42:00.003-05:00

I am going to post again within the next few days (as soon as the initial bout of jet lag wears off). Until then, this video is at least twenty times as amusing as anything I could come up with in my current state of perpetual grogginess:

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Palin Passive Aggressive

2008-11-13T18:32:00.005-05:00

I won't be posting for a few weeks, but this time I have a good excuse- I'm going to South Africa!

In the meantime, I would like to coin a new phrase: Palin Passive Aggressive. This shall hence-forth be used to describe statements meant to subtly insult a Democrat, while feigning friendliness. Accompanying wink and "you betcha" are optional, but suggested.

See example below:

"I don't have fear, I have optimism," Palin said. "Barack Obama is going to surround himself with those who do have executive experience.

- http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/13/palin.obama/index.html

Post-Election Glee

2008-11-05T20:37:00.006-05:00

When I was thirteen, my stepfather told me that he hoped I’d someday be able to vote for a candidate who I truly believed would be an excellent president. When I voted for Obama, I fulfilled that vision. Even better: he won.

I am sure there are at least 1.2 billion blog posts today waxing poetic about how Obama is going reverse oh-so-many of the policies of the last eight years, recover our country’s reputation in the eyes of the world, and rescue lots of cute, fluffy rabbits from the evil dragon in the tower. And, frankly, I am twitterpated enough with Obama to dance around the room in gleeful agreement for at least the first year of his term. However, for the sake of my feet, I will try to contain my glee. A little.

Though I no longer live there, I am really, really proud of my home state of Ohio for voting for Obama. Now, when I’m backpacking around Europe and mention Ohio, Europeans will possibly no longer grimace in a manner directly translatable to, “oh, right, that’s the state that screwed up the 2004 election.” Now, I have hopes that these same Europeans will return to their pre-2004-election response of an entirely blank look, directly translatable to, “where the fuck is Ohio?” Blankness is bliss.

I was so excited about the presidential election, that I didn’t pay much attention to the three issues on Massachusetts’ ballot until right before the election. However, all three were vote-worthy:

Issue 1: I voted to continue taxing my income. Of all the various forms of taxes, I find income tax the fairest. Also, as Joe the Senator said, paying taxes is patriotic. Or, since it’s a state income tax in this case, Massachusetts-atic. Or something silly like that.

Issue 2: I voted to decriminalize being caught with an ounce or less of marijuana. I rarely smoke marijuana. In fact, I have several favorite books that I have read and reread more times than I have smoked marijuana in my entire life. Regardless, while I didn’t feel like I personally had much at stake, I’m happy that the penalty has been reduced to a $100 fine in Massachusetts. I find it pretty ridiculous that cigarettes, alcohol, and semi-automatic weapons are generally legal substances, while marijuana is thoroughly demonized.

Issue 3: I voted to end greyhound racing in Massachusetts. The way the greyhounds are treated is pretty sad stuff, and this was an easy choice for me. I also would have also voted for Proposition 2 in California but, alas, I am on the wrong coast for such.

Also in California, I am very disappointed that Proposition 8 probably passed. As a resident of a state that does allow same-sex marriage, I must admit that I enjoy the snotty feelings of progressive-latte-liberal moral superiority when I think about the rest of the country (that’s how Massachusetts liberals think, right? I’m still practicing my technique). However, I don’t enjoy these feelings nearly enough to glad that most of the country is busy putting up barrier after barrier for two people who love one another to be legally recognized as married.

At this point, every time I talk about same sex-marriage, I feel like I am mimicking one bumper sticker or another. Minority rights should not be put to popular vote. If you are opposed to same-sex marriage, than don’t YOU marry someone of the same gender. Save marriage: ban divorce! Regardless, I think Proposition 8 is utterly unfair, and I am heartily disappointed by California. And Florida. And Arizona. Not to mention the billions of other states that previously amended their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage. It’s not a particularly new phenomenon, but it’s still disheartening.

After a generally exhilarating election, I don’t want to end my post on a sour note. I’m still optimistic that same-sex marriage will be legal throughout the country within the next few decades. Oh, and Obama is going to be president (gleeful dancing). In the end, that’s almost enough for an election.

Denial

2008-11-05T20:27:00.000-05:00

In the spirit of denial, I am going to begin posting again without acknowledging the fact that it’s been almost a year since I last posted. Erm, except that I kind of just acknowledged it by denying it. Oh well.

I (don’t heart) Huckabee

2007-12-19T18:45:00.000-05:00

"Unless Moses comes down with two stone tablets from Brokeback Mountain to tell us something different, we need to keep that understanding of marriage," Huckabee said, referring to the movie about two gay cowboys.

How clever. A merged pop-culture/biblical reference. In reality, the existing ten commands don’t address homosexual behavior or marriage though they do forbid adultery, often interpreted as any sex outside of marriage.

Really, if fundamentalist Christians are oh so concerned with reducing the amount of sex by unmarried couples, perhaps they should consider supporting same-sex marriage. Currently, Massachusetts is the only state where same-sex couples even have the option to be considered a-okay by those pesky stone tablet edicts.

Huckabee also expressed his opposition to heterosexual couples living together, calling it "demeaning. . . . I reject it as an alternate lifestyle."

- Huckabee's views on gays under greater scrutiny

Unfortunately it appears that I, in my deviant heterosexual live-in relationship, will still be damning myself to hell on a regular basis. Oh well.

For those of us unsure of our degree of personal sinfulness, Huckabee appears to have created a helpful continuum of “aberrant behavior.”

As first reported yesterday by David Corn at Mother Jones, Huckabee said the following in a 1998 book he co-wrote called Kids Who Kill:

It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations—from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia.

When we asked Carter if Huckabee stood by this quote, he didn't disavow the comment. But he sought to clarify its meaning, denying our suggestion that the quote equated homosexuality and necrophilia:

"He's not equating homosexuality with necrophilia," Carter told us. "He's saying there's a range of aberrant behavior. He considers homosexuality aberrant, but that's at one end of the spectrum. Necrophilia is at the other end."
Carter added: "No way is he saying that homosexuality is like having sex with dead people. That's not it at all."
Asked how one measured what rated where on this spectrum of aberrant behavior, Carter said: "He was talking about aberrant sexual behavior. Sado masochism and necrophilia are on the further end of the spectrum."

- Huckabee Adviser Clarifies Remark About Homosexuality And Necrophilia: They're Both "Aberrant Behavior," But They're At "Opposite Ends Of The Spectrum"

I suppose this means if Huckabee becomes president, I’ll never be permitted to enter into a civil union with my handcuffs. Such a pity.

Teen Birth Rate on the Rise

2007-12-05T16:04:00.001-05:00

The nation's teen birth rate has risen for the first time in 14 years, according to a new government report.

The birth rate had been dropping since 1991. The decline had slowed in recent years, but government statisticians said Wednesday it jumped 3 percent from 2005 to 2006.

- Report: U.S. teen births rise

This, after years and years of federally funded abstinence only sex education classes?

I’m shocked. Shocked!

Since all of these teenagers must be listening carefully (as teenagers do) and abstaining consistently (as teenagers also do), the only possible explanation I can see is a rise in the rate of immaculate conception.

…and, some impending sanity from my home state of Ohio…

An Ohio school board is expanding sex education following the revelation that 13 percent of one high school's female students were pregnant last year.

- Sex Ed Changes At School With 65 Pregnant Teens

My ultimatum to myself: write, or face cardboard boxes

2007-11-28T11:01:00.000-05:00

A coworker informed me that Massachusetts is just as religious as the Midwest. Clearly, that coworker has not spent a substantial amount of time in the Midwest. After living in Ohio for 24 years, the past six months of living just a few minutes walk from Harvard University has felt practically like a different world, one in which atheism… well… doesn’t actually matter so much.

Sure, sure—there is religion in Boston. However, it feels more like the free-form Western European variety of religion where some people are religious, some not, and only a relatively small percent of the population actually wants to shove their religion down your throat. Compare this to Ohio, where atheism was such an oddity that I was included in a newspaper article about local atheists, and where, on my last day as a tutor, the mother of one of my clients spent twenty minutes explaining to me that god had asked her to witness to me because he wants to be a part of my life. (Note to god: asking a friend to ask someone out for you is soooo middle school. In the future, I’d advise both god and middle school students to try direct communication for better results.)

The only bad part of the move? No inspiration. Since packing up myself and my books and transporting us to Boston, I’ve been horribly lax about writing in general and blogging specifically. I think the best solution would be for me to move back to Ohio, thus recreating the religious tension necessary for good atheist blogging. However, since I’m not actually interested in moving, my second-best solution is to just sit down at the darn computer and start typing. Regularly. We’ll see how that works. If I’m unsuccessful, please start sending new cardboard boxes for my books.

(Okay, so I have absolutely no intention of enforcing this threat to myself. I (heart) MA.)

Massachusetts Gay Marriage Referendum Is Rejected

2007-06-14T22:15:00.000-04:00

Massachusetts Gay Marriage Referendum Is Rejected

BOSTON, June 14 — Same-sex marriage will continue to be legal in Massachusetts, after proponents in both houses won a pitched months-long battle on Thursday to defeat a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

See, I knew I chose the correct state. Woohoo!

(Thanks Jack, for the heads up.)

Brazil to subsidize birth control pills

2007-05-28T21:16:00.000-04:00

SAO PAULO, Brazil - Just weeks after Pope Benedict XVI denounced government-backed contraception in a visit to Brazil, the president unveiled a program Monday to provide cheap birth control pills at 10,000 drug stores across the country.

(applauds) If this is the effect the Pope has on the countries he visits, I encourage him to tour widely and often.

"The church favors responsible parenthood, with parents using natural (birth control) methods," said Tempesta, who oversees the church in the northeastern state of Para.

- Brazil to subsidize birth control pills

As the joke goes, the Catholic Church allows women to use mathematics to prevent pregnancy, but neither physics nor chemistry. "Natural Family Planning" has always struck me as a ridiculously contrived loophole. I once heard it explained that the method leaves open the opportunity for God to "give" you a child, if he so wishes. I suppose that if I were to believe in an omnipotent deity who reputably once managed to impregnate a virgin, I'd likely trust that neither a condom nor a pill full of hormones would be likely to thwart him. Perhaps I’m over-estimating omnipotence.

(cross posted at The Atheist Mama)

Deities & Dump Trucks

2007-05-18T12:00:00.000-04:00

God threw a dump truck at me on Wednesday. Luckily, God apparently has lousy aim and the dump truck landed in the ditch beside me, leaving my little civic-hybrid and all people involved entirely uncrumpled.

Some might suggest that instead of attacking me, God saved me by sending the dump truck into the ditch instead of into my bumper. However, it doesn’t seem quite fair to always be giving God the benefit of the doubt by attributing the miracles to him while denying his involvement in misfortune. As a dirty atheist, I certainly haven’t been racking up “divine intervention” points. This was most likely an act of divine spite gone bad due to inadequate warm-up time in the bullpen.

On the bright side, I think I might have found a new angle for marketing my car. Perhaps I’ll have more luck selling the Honda Civic Hybrid with Divinely-Thrown Dump Truck Dodging Powers. Anyone want to buy a “magic” car?

Is coffee dangerous after all?

2007-05-18T11:21:00.000-04:00

After reading all of the studies about the potential health benefits and downfalls of coffee, I apparently subconsciously decided to conduct my own study this morning. My findings were this: espresso, when applied directly to the left hand, appears to have no health benefits. In fact, scalding one's skin could arguably have a negative effect on one's health. Based on this experiment, I’d suggest that espresso continue to be ingested through the mouth rather than applied to the skin. Others are welcome to repeat this experiment to assess the validity of my results, but I’d recommend that you use someone else (preferably someone you don’t like) as a test subject rather than applying the espresso to your own hand. Ouch.

Polls: Sarkozy elected French president

2007-05-06T15:32:00.000-04:00

PARIS - Energized French voters chose Nicolas Sarkozy as their new president on Sunday, giving the U.S.-friendly conservative a comfortable margin for victory and a mandate for change, result projections from four polling agencies showed. His Socialist opponent conceded minutes after polls closed.

- Polls: Sarkozy elected French president

I think my favorite line about the election (from another article) was one where Sarkozy was quoted as calling Iraq a “mistake” whereas Royal called it a “disaster.” The French idea of conservative is certainly already less far right than that of in the states*. That being said, from what little I knew of the election (mostly via Snoow), I was definitely crossing my fingers for Royal. Apparently, crossing my fingers had little effect.

* The French apparently typically refer to the US’s political parties as the right and the far right.

Serving Up Maggots as an Appetizer for Atheism

2007-04-24T13:04:00.000-04:00

If you serve up maggots anywhere during a conversation, like during a meal, it’ll be all your guests remember later.

I recently started a temporary day job as an instructional designer. On my first day, I was granted a cubicle. As someone who has spent most of her life self-employed or, for a short while, in an office*, a cubicle is a novel experience indeed.

I’m still learning the rules of cubicle life. I’ve already learned that whenever anyone in an adjacent cubicle begins a conversation, it’s commonly understood that everyone in the vicinity must drop everything he or she is doing to eavesdrop. It’s also my understanding that it is proper to later pretend that these conversations were completely inaudible to all but the intended parties. Through our mutual pretending, we maintain the illusion that we all have “real” offices and “real” privacy.

Apparently, this tenet of cubicle etiquette doesn’t always apply.

A few days ago, I was sitting in my cubicle, merrily designing instruction**, when I heard the Ira Glass-esque voice of a coworker sitting in a neighboring cubicle drawl, “you know Kelly***, there is no afterlife.” At this, my ears perked up. While I personally might try to not introduce rationalism with death, I’m always interested identifying fellow rationalists. He sounded like a good candidate. “There is no heaven, no hell, no god,” Ira-sound-alike continued. A fellow atheist too! I continued to listen, not even pretending to type anymore. “When you die, your body will rot and be eaten by maggots. Life really has no point.” Oh, I thought. He’s a maggot guy.

The conversation continued, intermixed with a lesson in Adobe Illustrator. I was less interested in listening at this point. I’m a realist. I’m okay with the fact that, were I to be buried****, my body would indeed decay, possibly with the assistance of some friendly maggots. However, I’m not so into unnecessarily dwelling on the gruesome. “Hi! I’m an atheist! Want some maggots?” is possibly not the best pick-up line ever invented.

Later that afternoon, Kelly wandered over to my cubicle and grumbled, “Oh, I’m just having a great day—Ira told me I’m going to be eaten by maggots and that there isn’t any point to life. Did you hear?” Apparently, this was a case when I was supposed to ignore cubicle tenet number two and acknowledge that I had, indeed, been eavesdropping. I nodded. “My mother raised me as a Catholic,” Kelly continued, “she’d just be so upset to hear something like that.” I nodded again. “Why would he believe something like that?” she asked.

I took a deep breath as I prepared to out myself. “Well, actually, I’m also an atheist. However, I think Ira’s being a bit of a nihilist.” I explained how the lack of an afterlife just makes life sweeter—since we only get to try once, we should do as much with our lives as possible. I explained that, while I didn’t believe there was a prescribed “meaning” of life, we make our own meaning through social compacts and personal values. “Oh,” Kelly said, blinking a few times as she absorbed this. Then she smiled, “That’s really so much nicer. I’m so glad I met you, Amanda,” and wandered off singing***** a random show-tune I’d never heard before.

Really, I don’t know the background or circumstances of Ira and Kelly’s conversation and could be grossly misrepresenting them both. Such is the danger of blogging about those you’ve only known for three days. However, either way, I shall make a suggestion for introducing atheism to others: good conversations, like good recipes, call for absolutely no maggots.

Cross posted at The Atheist Mama.

* with REAL walls!

** after all, that is what we instructional designers design

*** not her real name

**** I don’t plan on it—I might as well donate it to science and let someone get some use out of it.

**** this is not an exaggeration for literary purposes—she really does sing while wandering around the office. It’s her thing.

Sacrificing for the Relationship

2007-04-23T23:47:00.000-04:00

Many moons ago, I dated a vegetarian. Many moons ago, I was a bloodthirsty meat-eater. But, I was also a hormone-crazed young man, so whatever she wanted was fine with me. No meat? I'll deal. So I sacrificed.

These days, I'm a vegetarian. This actually makes things easier. I'm still in the minority on other things though. I'm an atheist. I have to steer clear of those catholic school girls. (also because I'm atheist). So I sacrifice. Actually, that has worked out with my wonderful current significant other. She's great. atheist, vegetarian, and sometimes, a Catholic school girl. Life is good...

I guess I wouldn't be blogging if everything was good. See, here's the deal. Sometimes, I need a pencil, detergent, some Wheaties, a bike chain, the new Economist magazine, two staples, tires for the truck, and a wireless router. Back in the old days, I would set out for the one-stop shopping paradise: Wal*Mart. I love me some Wal*Mart. Everything I ever wanted and didn't know it. Awesome.

However, apparently, my new girl is a NonWal*Martitarian. Just my luck. So now I sacrifice. Sometimes I have to go to two, three, or even four different stores to shop. It's tough, but these are the tradeoffs I have to make.

The Friendly Atheist... publishes a book!

2007-04-15T13:25:00.000-04:00

I Sold My Soul on eBay, written by Hemant Mehta of Friendlyatheist.com, will be available April 17th, 2007. Hemant is fabulous; I had the chance to hear him speak briefly as well as talk to him in more depth at meals at the recent American Atheists convention in Seattle. I’ve preordered his book on Amazon.com and hope to provide more informed recommendation (of the book, rather than just of Hemant) once I’ve had a chance to read it.

Abstinence education doesn't work, US report shows (again)

2007-04-15T13:06:00.000-04:00

Abstinence-only education programs meant to teach children to avoid sex until marriage failed to control their sexual behavior, according to a U.S. government report.

Teenagers who took part in the programs as elementary and middle school students were just as likely to have sex as those who did not take part in them, the survey found.

- by Maggie Fox

Writing Returns, Writing Privileges, & Rational Signs

2007-04-11T00:37:00.000-04:00

After attending American Atheists’ convention in Seattle last weekend, I have approximately 43.83 new topics to blog about. So, I’m officially back. While life hasn’t really calmed down since my post about overflowing cups and the like, I miss writing. I’ll be around mainly on weekends, as I seem to have acquired a day job in addition to my soon-to-be-sold business… but I shall be around, writing and blog-browsing, once again.

For those who haven’t noticed, I oh-so-benevolently granted my significant other posting privileges on the blog a few months back. Really, seeing as he granted me living-in-his-apartment-privileges about a year ago, blog-sharing seems only fair, eh? Posts signed by dday76 are by Jason. Posts signed by aviaa are by Amanda. Certainly, we could be logical and just use our actual names to sign posts, but where is the fun in that?

On a terribly exciting note, after a world-wind look at condos around Boston, we decided on one after discovering a Darwin fish on a car parked at the building next to ours. As Jason postulated, “a non-existent force of the rational universe was sending two atheists a purely physical sign that this was the place.” We’re heeding the sign and should be closing at the end of April and moving sometime in June.

Anyway… more soon! It’ll be great to catch up with everyone again!

What to do?

2007-04-10T23:14:00.000-04:00

"I don't want to be saved, I want to be spent," Fritz Perls.

So, today, the topic is about time management. We atheists have no delusions of an afterlife, we have a wonderful life to focus on. Is it ethical to waste our short lives? Is it ethical to waste our lives on non-developmental tasks? On the other hand, is it ethical to rabidly seek productive activity every second? What is the balance between personal development and recreation? How does our example to and our appeasement of others fit into our ethical up-rightness?

I recently read a book called Mastery by George Leonard. I would not recommend it as a whole, but it did have an excellent chapter on "Getting Energy" that focused on the importance of effective living. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People also has a lot of good advice on the matter.

One thing I would suggest as a minimum standard is to do an activities audit and budget. Financial planners often suggest cataloging everything we spend money on. Knowing we only have a certain amount of money in the bank, we are careful to ensure we have the money we need. Time is a commodity as well, and for many of us, it is a commodity more scarce than money.

Do you spend 4 or 5 or 20 hours a week watching TV? How about sleep? How about the 12 blogs you like reading? Then start to think about all the things you've been meaning to do and how nice it would be to finally get to do them. As much as you might enjoy "Idol," how much would you rather lose 10 or 20lbs by walking during that time? These trade-offs can be very exciting. Cut off the most frivolous 10% or so and expand the most fulfilling 10%.

I recently had the cable turned off. Not to mention the calming effect it had on my nerves, I freed up several hours each week. That was just the first step. I feel like I'm honoring my life more and extracting even more enjoyment out of the life I have.

Jason

Abject Disappointment with my 24 Hours of Theism

2007-04-08T09:16:00.000-04:00

Dear Bible ministry of prayer people,

A few days ago, I received an envelope from you containing the following objects: a paper prayer mat, a cheerfully underlined “God’s Holy Blessing” type letter, and a page of testimonies from those who followed your instructions and received either large amounts of money or other blessings (mostly large amounts of money).

This was not, however, the first time that I have been thus selected. I received my first prayer mat and associated papers in my mailbox approximately five years ago. I was quite surprised to learn God was planning on bestowing such wonders upon an atheist. However, the lure of financial gain and other holy treasures gave me pause, and I decided to give this “believing” stuff a try, at least for the 24 hour period specified in your letter. I followed your instructions and happily awaited my rewards.

I must say I was sorely disappointed for my effort, and feel that God must not, indeed, be as interested in bestowing his glory upon me as you led me to believe. I shall outline my disappointments for you, so you may fully understand the degree of God’s failure to meet my needs. First, I must call your attention to a section of page two of your letter. It reads:

Pray for my family and me for…

( ) My Soul
( ) A Closer Walk with Jesus

etc, etc… a bunch of other stuff that, as a nontheistic sort, didn’t interest me so much… but then….

( ) Confusion In My Home

!!!!!

I was terribly excited to see that I could ask the Lord for confusion in my home, something that I’m sure everyone covets (or maybe just prays for, seeing as coveting tends to be on the no no list). However, after dutifully checking the box and sending the letter back, I find that my household situation has only gotten less confusing! With the departure of a significant other (now an ex-significant other), his mistress, and his dog almost three years ago, I find myself in a significantly less confusing and generally more peaceful household. Why would God so ignore my pleas for chaos? WHY?

As for financial gain, with the said departure of ex, I find myself with $30,000 of student loan debt. Seeing as I did not have $30,000 of student loan debt three years ago, I must only conclude that either God hates me (this would really be rather harsh, as I did return the highly valuable paper prayer mat you enclosed with your last letter), or God has trouble telling the difference between positive and negative numbers. As a math tutor, I would be happy to help with the latter, but not if I would be smote for my efforts. Just how much pride cometh before fall? Does the joy that comes from possessing a more thorough knowledge of integers than God count as undue pride?

I digress. After my fruitless attempts at following your instructions, I think it’s time to resort to new methods of persuasion. Thus, I shall hold your prayer mat hostage until God does one of the following: (a) grants me my two (just two! I’m not greedy!) wishes of financial gain and household confusion (b) publicly admits that he doesn’t exist (c) signs up for math tutoring. Under the circumstances, I feel my requests are perfectly reasonable. I shall be eagerly awaiting God’s reply.

Yours truly,

Disappointed Ohio Atheist

Ethics of Common Courtesy

2007-03-26T19:07:00.000-04:00

"They" of the traditional religions claim that they hold absolute knowledge and comprehensive ethics provided by their scriptures. All knowledge is contained in the scripture and from the scripture one can find all knowledge. Ethics are also fully contained, and all secular ethics arise directly from and can not stand without the ethics of scripture... so they say.

Now it seems to me that some extremely important points of modern ethics are totally overlooked by the ancient scriptures. Any Just God would by all means take care while collecting the basis of all ethics to make such notes as, "Be quiet" and "Quiet down, you rude SOB." Unfortunately, Ye Olde All Powerful Creator was somewhat vague.

Now, as we enter spring, and the birds chirp, and the sun warms the Earth, the motorcycles, hot rods, and sound systems come out. Rev the engine and pump up the volume, then go cruise down Main St, USA pissing off all the natives. We secular types can deduce by clear logic and empathy for our fellow beings, that it is uncivilized and downright rude to make available, purchase, or use to the detriment of others such things as mega sound systems and loud exhaust pipes.

Maybe I just have a personal vendetta against those who disturb me. That having been said, I think that we can objectively say that going to the store to find something that will be heard clearly by everyone within a 100-foot radius, and annoy the crap out of them, is unethical. It requires one to actively subordinate others for small pleasures despite the opportunity to get those pleasures in less-objectionable ways.

So there you have it, new secular ethics. We look at the world and make an assessment of right and wrong. No cheat sheets, no super-cops, no postmortem trials, just an effort to live together and make the best of the short life we have.

More than Half Full

2007-02-23T21:29:00.000-05:00

My cup runneth over. I’m in the middle of running my business, selling my business, designing an e-learning space for a local nonprofit, purchasing a condo in Boston, and searching for a job in Boston. I’m having a good time; however, time itself seems to be in rather short supply at the moment. To clarify and correct my first sentence: my cup runneth over onto my counter and is making a bit of a sticky mess.

So, while I miss blogging and know I should keep with writing and all that good stuff, I’m going to continue to be mainly absent for the next month or so until things start to slow down a bit.

I hope everyone else’s cups are treating them well!

The Watchmaker’s Apprentice part 2

2007-02-10T12:10:00.000-05:00

Previously, we determined that you had been stranded on a beach, found a few watches, made a few religions on your own, and then found a tribe and religion that offered some comfort and assistance. The story was the backdrop for examining the Watchmaker argument: Given Design. Therefore Creator.

It might be interesting to take a native’s perspective as they investigate the outsider’s magical “watch.” You, now the native, see the magical moving watch of your new friend. You determine that this watch, being not alive, must have a creator like the creator of your boats and bows. Given Design. Therefore Creator.

You determine that to make such a small, yet powerful object, this creator must have amazing and magical powers. Given Design. Therefore Powerful Creator.

You ask your friend about the watch and he provides you with a book. He declares it to be the watchmakers manual and from it you can learn what you need to know. Given Writings. Therefore Divine Word.

You can not actually read the book, so your friend ‘helps’ you. He explains some of the desires of the watchmaker, such as daily winding and protection from the rain. He also explains the location of the watchmaker, a place called “China”, and that the watchmaker has the power to make this and many other items. You fiercely follow the ‘user instructions’, worried that you will miss out on gifts or suffer due to breaking the watchmakers rules. Given Paranoia. Therefore Dogma.

You tell some of your friends of the benefits and “other items” that the watchmaker can provide. You tell them of the inviolable “usage instructions” your friend has translated for you. That they may also get benefits of the watchmaker if they follow the “usage instructions.” Some of your native friends are impressed and come to see the watch. Given Promises. Therefore Followers.

After a short time, your native friends appreciate the knowledge that you are bringing. They are happy about the promise of new gifts and often come to you for advice and counsel about what the watchmaker would want. Given Followers. Therefore Clergy.

Your friend has noticed what you are doing and explains that you may have misunderstood. After some time, you think you understand. You are sorry about missing out and go to tell some of the natives that you misunderstood. The ‘user instructions’ and the watch are not really so great. They are angry and want some of what you promised. Although you try to explain, some of them refuse to believe you and hold onto the “old ways.” Given Hope. Therefore Delusion.

Some of your native friends never give up about the watchmaker. Your and your outside friend and many of the others wonder at how they could still be confused, but they seem happy and so you leave them alone. After a time, you and your outsider friend pass on, but the promises of the watchmaker do not. A future expedition finds the remote island. There are standard divine statues, but they seem to have watches carved into their arms. The natives perform a daily prayer ritual called “winding” and tell of a great messiah who will one day return to take them all to salvation in China. Given Time. Therefore Legend.

One of the members of the expedition explains that you can go to a place called heaven if you put water on your head and just believe really hard, but the natives weren’t nearly gullible enough to believe that.

[Although I wrote this from scratch, I was quickly shown a passage in Dawkins’ book The God Delusion. This passage talks about a phenomenon called “Cargo Cults” in which natives deify sailors and the possessions they bring on cargo ships. In case you thought this was implausible, well apparently it does happen.]

The Watchmaker's Apprentice part 1

2007-02-01T18:14:00.000-05:00

Let us assume for a moment that you, the reader, are stranded on a desert island. You see design in the world and theorize that, yes, there must indeed be a higher power responsible for this design. You have determined in fact that there is a higher being, although you are still a little unclear about the details. Given Design. Therefore Creator. You have extrapolated this principle from watch to universe. Let us return to the details and theorize about what practical conclusions one might draw, and how curious these conclusions might seem.

You are stranded on a beach and see a watch, concluding that there must be other intelligent life. You come closer only to find that the watch is actually a shiny rock on some kelp that gave the appearance of a rock. Your expectations and prior knowledge led you to jump to a conclusion prior to verifying evidence. Given Nothing. Therefore Creator.

Later, you have been without food and are in dire straights. You find another watch, concluding again that there must be civilization. Later, after continuing your search, you find food, eat, and regain your wits. You find the ‘watch’ was actually just a rock. Given Dire Straits. Therefore Creator.

Later, your newly-found food supply dwindles and you again find yourself in dire straights. In your state, you determine that it must have been the fake watch that led you to your initial success in finding food. You return to the ‘watch’, pick it up, and carry it with you believing that this watch will assist you. Given Coincidence. Therefore Personal Creator.

You later find food and a native tribe. They are tentative, but you move closer to their leader. They see on your arm a real watch. They see its hands moving for no apparent reason and determine you to be a magical being. Given Unknown. Therefore Powerful Creator.

As they bow and show deference, you unfortunately trip and fall on your face, showing your lack of divinity. They immediately drag you to their Gods, one of which is a body with a large eye, and the other of which is a body with a head. With their spears, they indicate clearly that you should worship. Given Threats. Therefore Worship. And Given Outsiders. Therefore Assimilation.

You defer, and, given no other alternative, you live with the tribe rather happily for a period of time. You adopt their customs, including worship. The comfort provided by their society gives you ample incentive to allow them the superstitions you know are wrong. Given Habit. Therefore Religion And Given Comfort. Therefore Compliance.

How many times has this played out in the past? Combinations of assumed magic, the unknown, coincidence, and assimilation all leading towards a pattern of organized religion. Independents wandered through difficult surroundings with little understanding of the world and happy for any opportunity to band together with others for protection.

Next, we'll examine the Watchmaker argument from the native’s perspective.

Atheism as Arrogance: Part II

2007-01-28T16:37:00.000-05:00

The only people I fear
are those who never have doubts
Save us all from arrogant men,
and all the causes they're for
I won't be righteous again
I'm not that sure anymore

- “Shades Of Grey”, Billy Joel

Like Billy Joel (an atheist, by the way), people who never doubt their own belief systems concern me. I once stopped seeing a cute, lawyer-type* because he was annoyingly certain that he knew exactly how the world functioned and where he and everyone else fit into that world. It goes without saying that I could never have dated Ayn Rand.

Atheism is often pushed aside as the more obnoxious half-sibling of polite, well-behaved agnosticism. After all, since we are merely human and therefore not all knowing, isn’t it only reasonable to admit we might not know the “truth” of reality? Isn’t it possible there IS a god and we just don’t know it? Aren’t we being awwwwfully arrogant by declaring ourselves atheists instead of agnostics?

Sure, I’ll admit it: I’m not absolutely certain of anything. While I find it improbable, I suppose I could be a brain in a vat somewhere and only think I’m really living in this reality. Or, this reality could exist, but very, very smart aliens (or mice) might be staging my life as some sort of grand experiment. Or, maybe my life is as the “personal god” folks describe, and I live in a universe where god** has at least some degree control over my life and/or thoughts and just finds it a grand joke to not give me some sort of sign that he exists. (shrugs) Any of the above could be the case, I suppose.

However, to me, none of these maybes are relevant to the way I live. Frankly, the only “stuff” I have to evaluate this world is the result of my senses and thought processes, and the conclusions I can draw from such. I have no need to add a god into the equation, and so I don’t, just as I don’t decide I’m a brain in a vat just because it is a possibility. With a bit of imagination, I could conjure up no end of “reasons why I am here”, but which would I chose and where would I stop? It seems easier and far more logical to thoroughly explore what lies in front of me than to invent unnecessary “whys”. I exist. I’ll just go from there.

Sure, we natural-world minded rationalists change our minds about many things many, many times. Newton was right and then he wasn’t. We accept that as we learn more, ideas change. We constantly find new ways of evaluating the world and accept that sometimes our old evaluations were incorrect. This doesn’t shatter the idea of science nor does it make living a life based on our knowledge of the rational world arrogant. Through the processes of repetition and peer review, science constantly sets itself up to be proven wrong again and again and again. That’s okay. We’re satisfied with the movement towards correctness rather than correctness as a position.

All this flux doesn’t justify agnosticism. My atheism isn’t an elaborate construction involving multitudes of facts and assumptions—it’s an acceptance of the evidence gathered from the physical, sensory reality in which I reside. I don’t see evidence for Zeus or Allah or Jehovah or whoever. I didn’t see evidence for any of these gods yesterday or the day before or the day before. I highly doubt that such evidence will present itself tomorrow. I suppose I could be wrong. However, as described above, I could be wrong about a lot of things. I don’t wander around remaining agnostic about whether I might gain the power to levitate tomorrow or whether I’ll discover I’m really a Russian princess (or philosopher). Sure, I could be wrong about a lot, including whether or not there is a god. However, it’s just so darn improbable, it doesn’t seem worth the energy. Within the scope of what I find reasonable and likely, I’m happy to declare myself an atheist.

* I suppose, to be entirely honest, I should also disclose that he was a Republican. I’m ridiculously socially liberal and not so far behind in the economic areas either… but I’d like to at least pretend that I wouldn’t stop dating someone just because he was a Republican.

** Obviously, I could also never date god. How much more arrogant can one get than claims of omnipotence and omniscience?

Random Randomness

2007-01-28T14:44:00.000-05:00

Mr. KA over at biblioblography tagged me for this meme quite a while ago. I’ve been playing hooky (again), but I’ve finally forced myself to sit down at the computer and write.

I become ridiculously excited by grocery shopping, cooking, and just looking through recipes. I learned to cook largely because I spent eight years as a vegan (I’m still vegetarian) and found it terribly difficult find good vegan food.

I once backed into an SUV because it wasn’t a goat. I used to have pet goats who would just run around my house nibbling on my lawn, part of which was an alfalfa field. Before backing out of my garage, I would always glance into my rear-view mirror to be sure there wasn’t a goat in my driveway. One morning, I glanced back, saw no goats, put my car into reverse, and listened to the trunk of my car crumple against the SUV that I had seen but that my brain had entirely ignored because it wasn’t, indeed, a goat. The SUV was fine. So were the goats. My little Honda hybrid spent two weeks in the shop.

My favorite local club is a leather bar, complete with a whipping wall. What can I say- the people there just act so much more “normal” than those at more traditional clubs and bars.

Rick Finch, one of the founders of K.C. and the Sunshine Band, is sleeping in my bed. Okay, to be more accurate, he is sleeping in a bed that I bought and have not sold or given away, but that is located in a house that I no longer occupy. I do not sleep in the bed with Rick Finch; however, it sounds much more risqué when worded in the first fashion.

I’m moving to Boston in June! I once spent a summer in Boston and absolutely loved it. It’ll be lovely to be back. Now, I just have to find a job…

As for tagging new people to complete the meme…. It seems most everyone I know has already been tagged (that’s what I get for waiting so long). So, my excuse is that I took virtual antibiotics and always virtually coughed into my virtual elbow and thus successfully avoided passing along the meme. Anyone who wants to catch the meme is welcome to have a lick of the lollypop that I carefully contaminated while I was sick, just in case.

Oh Zeus!

2007-01-20T16:47:00.000-05:00

ATHENS, Greece - After all these centuries, Zeus may have a few thunderbolts left. A tiny group of worshippers plans a rare ceremony Sunday to honor the ancient Greek gods, at Athens' 1,800-year-old Temple of Olympian Zeus. Greece's Culture Ministry has declared the central Athens site off-limits, but worshippers say they will defy the decision.

"These are our temples and they should be used by followers of our religion," said Doreta Peppa, head of the Athens-based Ellinais, a group campaigning to revive the ancient religion.

(skip a few paragraphs)

Greece's archaic religion is believed to have several hundred official followers, mainly middle-aged and elderly academics, lawyers and other professionals. They typically share a keen interest in ancient history and a dislike for the Greek Orthodox Church.

(skip a few paragraphs)

Peppa's group, dedicated to reviving worship of the 12 ancient gods, was founded last year and won a court battle for official state recognition of the ancient Greek religion.

Those who seek to revive the ancient Greek religion are split into rival organizations which trade insults over the Internet. Peppa's group is at odds with ultra-nationalists who view a revival as a way to protect Greek identity from foreign influences.

They can't even agree on a name for the religion: One camp calls it Ancient-Religion, another Hellenic Religion.

- Zeus worshippers demand access to temple

Administrative Note

2007-01-10T15:14:00.000-05:00

I’ve changed the “official” domain of this blog to www.irreverentmusings.com. The old address, aviaana.blogspot.com, will continue to forward here, but I’d appreciate it if those with links could update them to the new address.

Many thanks!

Leading Evidence the Universe Wasn’t Intelligently Designed

2007-01-10T14:55:00.000-05:00

1. Pi isn’t three. If the universe were intelligently designed, not only would certain bible verses imply that pi is three, but it actually WOULD be three, rather than a student-baffling irrational number.

2. Atheists exist. As one of those with less “god gene” than others, I often marvel at the fact that if there were an intelligent designer, he did a darn poor job of designing me (and many others) as good little believers. Want people to acknowledge your divine presence? Design them in a way that encourages such! If I had a marquee on my index finger that constantly explained to me the wonders of the divine world, I’d be far more convinced.

3. London, England is realllllly far away from Columbus, Ohio. Pfff. Why would this be? A god with sense would realize that those from the Midwest clearly need regular excursions to London, and thus would have placed them in closer proximately. Same with Antarctica and the Caribbean. Clearly, these are compliments to one another and should be within walking distance so when one gets sick of one climate, one can visit the other.

4. Women don’t come with a mute button. (blinks) Wait. Not only did I definitely NOT come up with that last one, but the creator of that last sentence will certainly be sleeping on the couch for at least a month. Let me replace it with: if there were an intelligent designer, men with a predilection towards making comments such as the one above would have mechanical devices in their heads that would allow their significant others to shock them when they said such. (nods) Much better.

5. Men have no vibrating genitals. None. How ridiculous and poorly designed is that? Clearly, if we were designed, the designer either wasn’t omnipotent or wasn’t benevolent. Either way--- a ridiculous oversight!

Okay, so, title not withstanding, these might not be the leading reasons why the universe couldn’t possibly be intelligently designed. Want to explore some other reasons? Check out Wikipedia’s Argument from poor design. It’s very remotely possible that their reasons are a bit more scientific than mine. Remotely.

Atheism as Arrogance: Part I

2007-01-06T23:28:00.000-05:00

First, a few notes:

Monotheists don’t call the belief that they have correctly identified the one true god out of the thousands possible arrogance. They call it faith.

Even those who like to point out, “well, you can’t prove there isn’t a god,” tend to not call those who have a lack of a belief in, say, unicorns arrogant. They call it realistic.

Atheism, however, seems to be oh-so-often equated with arrogance. With the release of a new book from each, Dawkins and Harris have been getting a lot of press as the new, in-your-face variety of “atheist evangelicals.” I’ve been recently making my way through Dawkins’ newest book. With the title The God Delusion, it’s clearly not intended for a theistic audience. However, I could imagine a wavering agnostic, or even a certain sort of “spiritual but not religious” appreciating and benefiting from reading it. Is it arrogant, though?

ar•ro•gance
Offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.

- Dictionary.com

The key word in the definition above is “offensive.” None of us have 20-20 vision when it comes to perceiving the world around us; we all wear glasses of some variety, tinted by a mesh of factors drawn from our genetics and experiences. The statements and positions I might characterize as offensive are entirely different from those another person might categorize as such.

Even with my atheist-tinted lenses, I suppose I still see phrases such as “an act of intellectual high treason” (Dawkins pg 19) as possible hyperbole, even if not precisely arrogant. Even when prefaced by “in my opinion” (as the above statement is in his book), phrases like this need to be read with a strong British accent to avoid sounding overdramatic.

According to Dawkins, “God, in the sense defined, is a delusion.” Dawkins also writes that he won’t go out of his “way to offend, but nor shall I don kid gloves to handle religion any more gently than I would handle anything else.” (pg 27) I find this fair and think he is correct in insisting that religion not be treated as an unchallengeable subject (as it often is). However, when you compare god to garden fairies (as he does), you do run the risk of offending those who don’t believe their religion is the same as children’s fantasy.

Dawkins, to some, might be considered offensive. What about atheism itself—is the entire concept offensive? Well, that seems to depend entirely on the potential offend-ee. Atheism might offend people by indicating that they are, in fact, not correct. However, most religions (and all monotheistic ones) by default do the same. Atheism certainly isn’t the only spoil-sport of religious belief--- clashing religions manage to “offend” each other in this way quite well on their own.

So, what about the rest of the definition? Is atheism a position of superiority? Believing you hold a correct answer to a question is not in itself posturing superiority. If this is all it takes to be classified as arrogant, all true believers of whatever faith are certainly at least as arrogant as atheists. We claim that there is no proof. They claim that faith should be enough. (shrugs)

How about self-importance? Well, it seems to me that believing you are personally blessed by a doting god might reek of self-importance a bit more than the quiet satisfaction of knowing you are working yourself to shape a better existence for yourself and others.

Finally, does atheism involve undue pride? (shrugs) Though I was the one who asked it, the question itself baffles me. Pride in what in particular? It’s a lack of a belief. Pride in that?

Though it might be fashionable to say otherwise, I don’t know many people who really think all atheists are superior, self-important beings with a sense of overbearing pride. Most acknowledge that some are, while some aren’t... just like theistic folks. However, it’s still so terribly trendy (especially in the news) at the moment to latch onto particular atheists, declare them arrogant, and often extend the label to entire group in one dramatic sweep. Oh well. At least this gives me a good excuse to cut in front of my inferiors in grocery lines without guilt and prattle on about my many talents without shame. After all, I’m an atheist--- I must be arrogant.

Thoughts the “tenability” of atheism versus agnosticism to follow soon…

2007-01-02T22:03:00.000-05:00

"Above all, this is a question of conscience. Using the initiative process to give a minority fewer freedoms than the majority, and to inject the state into fundamentally private affairs, is a dangerous precedent, and an unworthy one for this Commonwealth. Never in the long history of our model Constitution have we used the initiative petition to restrict freedom. We ought not start now."

"We have work to do over the next year to turn this around. I am heartened by the fact that the overwhelming majority of the members of the Legislature - a margin of over 2 to 1 - voted to move on. I pledge to do what I can to build on that momentum, so that our Constitution will continue to stand for liberty and freedom, and not discrimination."

- Deval Patrick, Massachusetts Governor-elect on the Massachusetts Legislature's decision to vote on a measure to advance a gay marriage ban to the ballot. Patrick is pro same-sex marriage.

Separation of Church and State, No Excuses!

2007-01-01T11:06:00.000-05:00

(While this post is technically by dday76, I couldn’t quite keep my fingers out of it. Aviaa-ian inserts are marked with italics. BTW- this post is almost entirely facetious.)

I was in Rome the other day and thought I would pop over to the Vatican to make sure there was no mischief. I walked into the courtyard, saw the people, a big fountain, and some enormous, really expensive looking buildings they built after solving world hunger... and, oh, what's this? A nativity scene? This is government-owned land! How dare they! This huge display flies in the face of Church-State Separation. Angrily shaking my fist, I vowed to follow up with a stern letter to the local magistrate.

Yes, I’m sure the Pope will be very interested in hearing such concerns. Heaven forbid the Vatican promote religion or religious displays! Perhaps he just wasn’t aware such clear conflict of interest was occurring on the property?

By the way, if you haven’t followed the link to look at the picture, you absolutely should. Facetious or not, we were really there…

On the other hand, if these were pious people, maybe I could also benefit from their blessings. I went over to the fountain, tossed a coin in, and wished really, really hard for world peace and just a few small things for myself, Amen.

Clearly, your time at the Vatican was better spent than mine. I just wandered around pondering the items one would include on a Rome/Vatican purity test:

__ had sex on an ancient monument? (3 pts)
__ had sex in a cathedral? (5 pts) with a nun/priest? (10 pts) with the Pope? (50 pts)

… and so forth.

When talking with a local resident later, I found this wasn't the correct way to do one's wishing, or as they call it "praying" at the Vatican. They said something about kneeling and clasping one's hands together, so I noted that for the next time. I'm not sure how well it works though. I came across a young girl literally in the shadow of the Vatican, on her knees, hands clasped, head bowed, just praying her little heart out. But her plastic cup barely had one Euro in it. Almost an hour later, she was still on the same sidewalk and her god's grace hadn't made much headway in filling the plastic cup. Hmm... she perhaps should have been wearing only one sandal or offering up a gourd or such.

God works in myssstttteeerious ways. It makes perfect sense that all present-day miracles are indistinguishable from chance and coincidence, while reports of past miracles of floods, plagues, and the like were so much more… well… miraculous! Helping beggars at the Vatican? Clearly too obvious a miracle for the new, “subtle” version of god.

Happy New Year!

2007-01-01T09:45:00.000-05:00

I hope everyone had a fun-filled evening of amusement and mild debauchery yesterday... or, like me, thrilled themselves even more by lying in bed with the flu, sipping Gatorade. Either way, Happy New Year. I’m back from flitting around Europe and shall be posting more regularly once again, barring the effects of natural disaster and distracting hobbies.

As of today, my significant other/concubine/domestic partner type will be occasionally posting and co-blogging as dday76. I promise his posts will be witty, clever, and generally amusing. Or, if for some reason they aren’t such, I promise to withhold sex as punishment. What can I say- quality control is my passion.

Anyway, promised new posts shall be appearing over the next few days!

Away, away, away

2006-12-17T18:43:00.000-05:00

I've been rather lax about posting lately and shall continue being such for a while at least... I'm in Europe for a few weeks. I'll be up and about in the online world again after the 29th of December.

Cheers! (from England)

Workplace expression

2006-12-10T12:53:00.000-05:00

The growth of diversity in the workplace, along with the influence of religion in America, has brought faith -- once as taboo in the office as talk of sex and politics -- to the job, experts say.

"Work is invading people's personal lives, so people are bringing more of their personal lives to the workplace," said Paula Brantner, director of Workplace Fairness, a Washington, D.C.-based group that promotes employee rights.

Religious expression at work may take the form of affinity groups or faith networks, prayers at business meetings or the citation of Biblical verse in office memos.

If people are going to be permitted to pray religion during business meetings, I certainly think I should be permitted to have sex on the conference tables during business meetings. I’d only be bringing my personal life to the workplace because work is invading my personal life… my personal life just involves less praying and more ‘laying.’

"We have an increase in the number of employers and employees who are choosing not to hide their faith," said Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute in Sacramento, California, which provides legal defense for religious freedoms.

- Religion finds firm footing in some offices

There is a difference between praying during business meetings and not “hiding” your faith. There are many things that I don’t hide that I wouldn’t do at business meetings (having sex on conference tables apparently isn’t one of these things). Being openly Christian is one thing; posting your Christianity at the top of business memos is another. You’re Christian. You like to pray. You like the Bible. We got it.

I don’t think any of this is a direct violation of Title 7 unless it affects hiring and promotions. However, I’d be much less likely to work for a company that had say, Bible study on its premises. Being a non-Christian minority in setting where openly Christian practices are acceptable makes it more difficult to navigate networking and promotions—somewhat like being a woman navigating the “old boys club” of some larger corporations. It’s not that religion itself makes me uncomfortable. I live in the Midwest of the United States. Religion, frankly, is all around. However, it would be lovely to keep theism entirely unlinked to my wages.

Values In Action (sans god)

2006-12-09T16:22:00.000-05:00

My sig. other, Jason, recently found the VIA Inventory of Strengths, a fairly comprehensive self-reported assessment of “character strengths.” As he noted in an email to the site owners, spirituality, sense of purpose, and faith are merrily lumped together as one strength:

You have strong and coherent beliefs about the higher purpose and meaning of the universe. You know where you fit in the larger scheme. Your beliefs shape your actions and are a source of comfort to you.

If the phrase “the higher purpose and meaning of” were deleted, I’d label the above as a strength of mine. I don’t believe that there is “inherent purpose and meaning” in the universe, but I’m entirely fine with the idea that humans create meaning, and I have no trouble being a “good” person even without adding a touch of divinity to my perception of reality. My beliefs about the world and its inhabitants DO shape my actions and ARE a source of comfort to me. However, this strength was still in my bottom five out of 24 possible strengths, likely due to the following included questions:

20. I am a spiritual person.
44. I practice my religion.
68. My faith never deserts me in hard time.
140. My faith makes me who I am.
164. I believe that each person has a purpose in life.
236. I have a calling in life.
66. At least once a day, I stop to count my blessings.
162. I feel thankful for what I have received in life.
234. I have been richly blessed in life.
188. I believe in a universal power, a god.

The person who responded to Jason’s email explained that “VIA's approach to purpose and meaning is simple and does not require a bleif in God...it simply states that we find purpose when we set our signature strengths in play for a purpose greateer than our own self-interest. That could be for others or it could be for a higher power.” (shrugs) I suppose I still think that a sense of purpose shouldn’t be squashed between spirituality and faith. When I took the assessment, I actually tried to see where I could substitute some of my humanist principles for their more theistically worded ones, but it was still one of my lowest rank strengths. I suppose just couldn’t interpret religion, faith, faith, purpose, calling, blessings, received, blessed, universal power, and god liberally enough.

Then again, out of 24 potential strengths, “spirituality, sense of purpose, and faith” was actually only 20. What are the other strengths that I’m apparently even more lousy* at exercising?

21. Caution, prudence, and discretion

Yes… prudent would not be a word to use to describe me. For a rationalist, I’m awfully prone to living my own life as a series of leaps and whims. (shrugs)

22. Modesty and humility

Oh, come on… I’m definitely the most modest person I know! My friends tell me how modest I am all the time! It’s my definitely one of my many best qualities! ;)

Actually, another post I have in the works addresses “atheist arrogance.” It shall be up soon.

23. Citizenship, teamwork, and loyalty

Citizenship and loyalty definitely pulled my scored down on this one. I’m generally okay as a team player (though sometimes grumpy to be on a team in the first place), but I’m bad with the “special status” often given to the people and things honored with citizenship and loyalty.

24. Forgiveness and mercy

(coughs)

So don’t freakin’ mess with me. ;) Apparently, I hold grudges.

* I suppose I could have instead talked about the things that I’m good at but where is the fun in that? Anyway, I have to make strong efforts to raise my modesty score. Didn’t I do an excellent job?? (preens)

Back-Room Bones

2006-12-04T16:46:00.000-05:00

Famed paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey is giving no quarter to powerful evangelical church leaders who are pressing Kenya's national museum to relegate to a back room its world-famous collection of hominid fossils showing the evolution of humans' early ancestors.

(skip a few paragraphs)

The museum's collections include the most complete skeleton yet found of Homo erectus, the 1.7-million-year-old Turkana Boy unearthed by Leakey's team in 1984 near Lake Turkana in northern Kenya.

The museum also holds bones from several specimens of Australopithecus anamensis, believed to be the first hominid to walk upright, four million years ago. Together the artifacts amount to the clearest record yet discovered of the origins of Homo sapiens.

Leaders of Kenya's Pentecostal congregation, with six million adherents, want the human fossils de-emphasized.

"The Christian community here is very uncomfortable that Leakey and his group want their theories presented as fact," said Bishop Bonifes Adoyo, head of the largest Pentecostal church in Kenya, the Christ is the Answer Ministries.

- Scientist Fights Church Effort to Hide Museum's Pre-Human Fossils

Well, Martin Luther is on your side at least: "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spritual things, but--more frequently than not --struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God." Definitely... hiding the evidence in a back room is the way to go. (nods) Wouldn't want anyone to use that nasty reason stuff.

Buy Nothing Day

2006-11-26T11:25:00.000-05:00

A group of Santa Clauses were on strike on one of Vienna's main shopping avenues in honor of "Buy Nothing Day," an international initiative to counter consumerist attitudes ahead of the Christmas season.

"Today is Buy Nothing Day, allow yourself a break," ten Santas, in full garb with red felt jackets and fake beards, told shoppers on Vienna's Mariahilferstrasse.

(skip a few paragraphs)

Instead of the usual presents, the "striking" Santa Clauses doled out advice about environmentally safe washing products and energy-saving lamps, and encouraged people to spend time with their families rather than just buy expensive gifts.

- Santa Clauses on strike in Vienna on "Buy Nothing Day"

Petition

2006-11-22T16:56:00.000-05:00

We, the undersigned, call upon elected and appointed officials to join us in reaffirming America's religious freedom by demonstrating a commitment to the following:

Every American should have the right to make personal decisions -- about family life, reproductive health, end of life care and other matters of personal conscience.
American tax dollars should not go to charities that discriminate in hiring based on religious belief or that promote a particular religious faith as a requirement for receiving services.
Political candidates should not be endorsed or opposed by houses of worship.
Public schools should teach with academic integrity and without the promotion of religious preference or belief.
Decisions about scientific and health policies should be based on the best available scientific data, not on religious doctrine.

We join together, as the most diverse nation in the world, to commit ourselves to defending and preserving this freedom.

First Freedom First’s above petition is just shy of the 50,000 signatures they hope to gather by the end of the week. Haven’t signed yet and want to? Visit their web site http://www.firstfreedomfirst.org/.

Mmmm... Worms...

2006-11-21T00:00:00.000-05:00

Did you know that every day 150,000 people die? People just like you and me. Every 24 hours 150,000 people pass from time into eternity. Do you ever think about that? Isn’t there something within you that says, ‘I don’t want to die?’ That’s your god given will to live.

So says one of the floating, talking men of The Way of the Master.

I tried their 10-commandments quiz and am thrilled announce that I’m actually not doing as badly as one might imagine! First, the negatives:

I certainly take the name of god in vain, though generally only in bed.

I sometimes work seven-day weeks, thus violating whichever Sabbath you might chose to declare holy.

I may have dishonored my parents on several occasions as a teenager.

I have committed adultery. Well, only if you count the sex-before-marriage sort. However, this seems to be a popular sort to count.

I have lied on occasion (“Yes Suzie, I loooooove your new haircut”).

I have coveted, among other things, a bagel one of my students was eating in front of me at work last Sunday. What can I say- I was hungry.

So, I’m not entirely biblically pure. However, it’s really not all bad news.

I can honestly state that I haven’t put any other gods before “god.” I don’t believe in any of ‘em, so there is no need for deity prioritizing.

I haven’t committed idolatry. This is another benefit of atheism.

I haven’t stolen.

I haven’t murdered…. though if thoughts could kill, I might be answering this one a bit differently.

In summary, I have only violated 6 of the 10 commandments, leaving me 40% biblically pure. That’s probably the most chaste I’ve scored on an Internet purity test yet.

Also on this site is a video describing how to convert an atheist. The cool floaty men (though in this video they are sitting rather than floating) oh-so-pretentiously describe their method as “bait and hook.” The bait draws the atheist into the conversation by framing the debate in rational terms. Apparently, logic is to atheists as worms are to fish. Then, once the atheist is happily munching on his or her juicy worm, BOOM, comes the hook, the emotional draw of GUILT in the form of the Ten Commandments. It’s something like this: logic, designer, cars, Ten Commandments, stealing, lying, YOU’RE BAD, guilt, fear, DEATH.

Unfortunately, even the possibly pretend atheists in the video didn’t really seem to reel in perfectly nicely, though they were significantly less eloquent than most real atheists I know (note: a lapsed Christian is not the same as an atheist). Apparently, atheists (even pretend ones) are adept at picking the worms off the hook before swallowing ‘em. Or perhaps they’re just getting their worms from other sources. (shrugs) Something like that. Either way, definitely go check out the videos at The Way of the Master. Just watch for those pesky hooks!

(cross posted at The Atheist Mama)

Save (Same-Sex) Marriage

2006-11-19T23:51:00.000-05:00

Romney said he would file a legal action this week asking a justice of the Supreme Judicial Court to direct the secretary of state to place the question on the ballot if lawmakers don't vote directly on the question Jan. 2, the final day of the session.

Romney, an opponent of gay marriage who decided not to seek re-election as he considers running for president, made his announcement to the cheers of hundreds of gay marriage opponents at a rally on the Statehouse steps.

I’m constantly amazed at the gaggle of “gay marriage opponents” that rally oh-so often. Don’t they have something, anything better to worry about?

"One of the tenets of the Constitution is that you do not put the rights of a minority up for a popularity contest," said Mark Solomon, campaign director of Mass Equality, a pro-gay marriage group. "It is one of the very principles this country was founded upon."

- Mass. governor wants gay wedding vote

Indeed.

Since change is allllwwwaaaayssss bad, I think it clearly falls on the conservatives to protest Romney’s radial decision to redefine the current definition of marriage in the state of Massachusetts.

Impending Floods in Africa

2006-11-16T00:09:00.000-05:00

Africans cheer, condemn S.Africa gay marriage bill

By Phumza Macanda Wed Nov 15, 10:25 AM ET

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - Africans reacted with a mix of horror and delight at news South Africa had passed a bill to legalize gay marriage, making it the first to do so on a continent where homosexuality is still largely taboo.

South Africa passes a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. We, on the other hand, have our panties in such a twist about same-sex marriage that 27 out of 50 states have amended their constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

This isn't to say that everyone in Africa approves of such:

"This is a foreign action imposed on Africa," Islamist leader Sheikh Sharif Ahmed told Reuters in Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, where powerful Islamists control the south of the country.

"This is not something that is indigenous to Africa, it is something that has come from abroad."

and

Gay rights groups applauded the decision as a step forward for Africa. But some in deeply religious Africa lambasted the decision as "un-African" and immoral.

Not to mention that Africa certainly has its own Pat-Robertson-type-thinkers:

Taxi driver Nicklaus Mwanaseri in the Tanzanian capital of Dar es Salam said the decision to allow gays to wed was so immoral that it signified the world was coming to an end.

"I see a big flood coming soon because of going against God's teaching," he said.

Atheism with a Smile

2006-11-10T23:00:00.000-05:00

I spent part of last Saturday working a shift at my local humanist group’s booth at the Columbus International Festival. I expected to enjoy it, but I was surprised by just how extremely happy I was to be sitting underneath a humanist banner, smiling at visitors, and stamping their festival “passports.” I really love situations where I can be openly non-theistic, especially without feeling as if I’m directly pushing on someone else’s belief system. I love the chance to portray atheism with a just smile rather than an argument.

There are valuable fights in the political sphere; there are lawsuits to be filed and debates to be won. I’m all for aggressively protecting our right to not be governed by others’ superstitions, of whatever variety. However, this sometimes feels like fighting symptoms rather than a root cause.

I think in the end we’ll come closer to winning the larger battle against superstition when a lack of theism becomes… well… normal in the eyes of the general population. It’s not always viable to be “out” in all spheres of life and I admire those who are more open about being atheist than I am. While I never pretend to be Christian, I’m also not interested in antagonizing myself out of my income and certainly wouldn’t consider myself “out” in the community where I run my small business. However, I think the more we can each do to expand the number of spheres where we feel comfortable expressing our lack of theism, the better off we’ll be as a whole.

The more often we drop the phrases atheist, non-theist, humanist, separation of church and state, and freedom from religion into everyday conversation, the more listeners become conditioned to hearing them. Those who know individual atheists are less likely to be nervous by us as a group. The more people who see us smile, laugh, work, raise children, vote, volunteer, eat pudding, and simply live, the more atheism becomes a non-threatening, viable, visible alternative to theism.

(cross posted at The Atheist Mama)

Deer, Oh Dear

2006-11-06T15:30:00.000-05:00

On my way from work to tango yesterday, I managed to hit a deer. For over four years, I lived in the middle of the woods where deer and other various critters abound, yet managed to never hit one. Really. I even dodged toads in rainy weather. Then, on the edge of the city I now live in, BOOM, a deer! On my car! Ek!

Okay, I’m done whining. However, I see this as a serious drain on my “getting what is coming to me” fund and thus require a Democratic sweep at tomorrow’s election to make up for the physical (well, to my car and the deer) and emotional (ahhh!) trauma of last night. (nods) All interested higher powers should take note and act accordingly. If Democrats do win both the House and the Senate, it shall be known throughout the land that sacrificing a deer (and an insurance record) is the proper way to metaphysically rig an election.

Smmmmear

2006-11-04T18:55:00.000-05:00

Millions spent on negative political ads
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - So far this campaign, the political parties have exposed voters to nearly $160 million in ads attacking congressional candidates. How much spent painting a positive image? About $17 million.

And how much spent on actually informing voters of your actual views on actual issues? I’d imagine that amount could be labeled as proportionally infinitesimal.

Negative ads are the coin of the realm in politics. With one week left in the campaign, voters will continue to be bombarded on television, in the mail and over the phone as political strategists make their closing arguments to a shrinking pool of those who haven't made up their minds.

I don’t really watch TV and thus don’t have to subject myself to such on a regular basis. For the few shows I do watch, my significant other has purchased some sort of magical fast-forward feature that allows me to not watch commercials. Ever. It’s an advertiser’s nightmare, but certainly keeps me significantly saner.

Anyway, even taking into account my extreme inexperience with the gamut of television ad techniques, I can still see a clear difference between:

The NRCC tried to place an ad in New York against Democrat Michael Arcuri, the district attorney in Oneida County, accusing him of calling a sex hotline while on county business. But records show that the call to the 800 number lasted only seconds and that the number has the same last seven digits as the phone number for the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. The Arcuri campaign said a colleague of Arcuri's mistakenly placed the call.

and

One ad airing in Pennsylvania cites October as the bloodiest month in Iraq and accuses Republican incumbent Rep. Jim Gerlach of blindly following Bush.

- Millions spent on negative political ads

Come on now. A misdialed number? We can get over this, yes? Please?
As for the negative ads linking Republicans and Bush… well… erm… you are pretty linked, eh? If you don’t wished to be linked with Bush's policies, you may wish to not support his policies that you don’t wish to be linked to. This brings me to my second point: critiquing policy decisions is not in itself smear. It's an essential part of democracy. Building strawmen out policy decisions (or random phone calls), on the other hand, is indeed smear.

***

On a more positive note, I love Project Vote Smart’s NPAT, which allows voters to view the self-report positions on a wide variety of issues, from abortion to election funding to health care to the war on drugs. Unfortunately, many politicians refuse to complete the survey (let the voters know how we actually feel about actual issues? Heaven forbid!). However, with continued pressure from voters I have confidence that this can continue to be a value tool to assess what candidates actually belief… rather than just how they feel about their oppenent's alleged phone calls.

Update: Don’t Throw Away Your Holy Water Yet!

2006-11-04T18:52:00.000-05:00

Below is Anton’s analysis of why Costas Efthimiou’s mathematical proof (a few posts down) of the impossibility of vampires is terribly flawed. It was just too amusing to waste away as a simple comment.

Fine, fine, let's play along.

What could be holding down vampiric reproduction? A lower percentage of victims becoming vampires, certainly--maybe most just die, or recover after looking pale and consumptive for a few days. But that would only decrease the natural reproductive rate, and the population would still increase exponentially...we need density-dependent effects.

Perhaps the per-vampire vampirization rate decreases as the number of vampires increases. For one thing, it makes it more likely that several vampires would happen to bite the same person each month (assuming the bites aren't individually fatal), thus only producing one new vampire instead of several. Also, any vampire-resistance alleles are going to be selected for in the local human population, so that over time more and more people are born with an uncontrollable love of garlic, cross-shaped stigmata, etc., making them unsuitable prey.

But an increased vampire mortality (er, re-mortality) rate is probably the biggest culprit. We all know that when you put two vampires in a room for long enough, they'll probably try to kill each other. This is observable in Anne Rice novels, American movies and comic books and Japanese ones, hence must be true. Beyond casualties of direct conflict, the necessary lightless areas for daytime snoozing (warehouses, catacombs and so forth) will become overcrowded, forcing the weaker vampires to cobble together back-alley sunshades from cardboard and newspapers, only to spontaneously combust when a gust of wind or plummeting pigeon corpse lets in a few sunbeams.

Finally, exceptional levels of bloodsuckery can't fail to alert the more observant humans, and in the end warrior priests, Belmont family members, renegade half-vampires, superpowered cheerleaders and so forth will converge on the area. They'll return vampire populations to their normal levels in an orgy of violence that just barely misses the NC-13 rating (because, although people's brains are pulled out of their eye sockets in slow motion, no one is shown in the shower.)

There! I disproved his silly claim the long and rigorous way. Needless to say, with a name like "Costas Efthimiou," he's obviously just trying to cover up the existence of his fellow stalkers of the night.

(nods) I knew I was right to buy the extra-large bottle of minced garlic.

Abstinence-Only Reasoning

2006-10-31T18:27:00.000-05:00

Abstinence message goes beyond teens

By Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY
The federal government's "no sex without marriage" message isn't just for kids anymore.

Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.

(blinks)

(blinks)

(blinks)

(blinks)

(blinks)

So, essentially, to prevent 20 to 29 year olds from having children, we are going to spend money on NOT telling them how to prevent having children. What a brilliant plan!

"The message is 'It's better to wait until you're married to bear or father children,' " Horn said. "The only 100% effective way of getting there is abstinence."

Yes, and the only 100% effective way of preventing car accidents is to not drive. Life is about calculated risks. My calculated risks include various sorts of birth control. Thus far, I've had better luck with preventing pregnancy than preventing car accidents.

For last year's state grants, Congress appropriated $50 million. A similar amount is expected for 2007, but the money has not yet been allocated, according to the Administration for Children and Families. - Abstinence message goes beyond teens

(sighs)

This just raises the idoicy of abstitence only sex-education by a few more points.

****

On a more positive note:

New Jersey announced last week that it will not accept $800,000 in federal funds to teach abstinence-only sex education. Sex education programs in states that receive the federal funds are not allowed to teach students about contraception, must describe sex before marriage as “potentially mentally and physically damaging,” and must teach that “sex within marriage is ‘the expected standard of sexual activity’,” the Associated Press and Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy report. According to the Associated Press, New Jersey officials wrote in a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt that the requirements tied to the federal money violate the state’s sex education and AIDS education programs.

- NJ Says No to Abstinence-Only Sex Ed

Mercy Me!

2006-10-30T15:12:00.000-05:00

He said that it was his belief that God first intervened to spare his life in 1973, amid rioting in Belfast, when he found himself stranded with two of his men in a Loyalist paramilitary area.

A hail of gunfire cut down the other soldiers, fatally injuring one, while Sir Richard emerged unscathed.

The second incident took place during a mine-clearing operation in South Armagh in 1975, when an explosion killed his company commander, Major Peter Willis. Sir Richard had been walking alongside him moments before but had stopped to study an aerial photograph.

The general's third brush with death came a few months later in Germany when he fell asleep at the wheel of a car but was fortunate to veer off into a field rather than into a steep bank and wood which bordered the route 200 yards further on.

"On three occasions, God had shown me his love and his protection and had challenged me to make a complete commitment to him, but on each occasion I had failed to make the response that he wanted from me," said Sir Richard, who is vice-president of the Officers' Christian Union.

- God saved me from death three times, says Army chief

Goodness. Apparently, god wasn't so fond of the two who were killed in his presence.

The thing about near-death experiences is that the ones who live to tell about it... are... well... the ones who live to tell about it. It's much harder for the dead to lament god's lack of mercy.

Another panel this Friday

2006-10-30T15:10:00.000-05:00

Any and all Aviaa groupies (okay, I don’t have groupies--- I just pretend I do) are invited to come see me participate in (a third) “Godless by Choice” panel at First Unitarian Universalist Church in Columbus this Friday at 7:30 pm. Seeing as the first two panels were conducted for freethought groups, a UU Church might actually qualify as a comparatively hostile audience! Okay, probably not hostile (even comparatively). However, I am looking forward to fielding questions from a wider variety of perspectives.

Another reason to love math…

2006-10-25T19:23:00.000-04:00

A researcher has come up with some simple math that sucks the life out of the vampire myth, proving that these highly popular creatures can't exist.

University of Central Florida physics professor Costas Efthimiou's work debunks pseudoscientific ideas, such as vampires and zombies, in an attempt to enhance public literacy. Not only does the public believe in such topics, but the percentages are at dangerously high level, Efthimiou told LiveScience.

Legend has it that vampires feed on human blood and once bitten a person turns into a vampire and starts feasting on the blood of others.

Efthimiou's debunking logic: On Jan 1, 1600, the human population was 536,870,911. If the first vampire came into existence that day and bit one person a month, there would have been two vampires by Feb. 1, 1600. A month later there would have been four, and so on. In just two-and-a-half years the original human population would all have become vampires with nobody left to feed on.

- Vampires a Mathematical Impossibility, Scientist Says

Note the awwwwwful pun in the first sentence of the article. I fully approve. ;)

Mis-Representation

2006-10-24T12:30:00.000-04:00

I recently moved and thus switched congressional representatives. Seeing as my former representative was Bob Ney of the recent Abramoff scandals, I really didn’t see much potential for going anywhere but up. Then, over the weekend, I received the following letter:

Dear Mrs. Warner:

Thank you for contracting me in support of H.R. 2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA). It was good to hear from you.

On September 26, 2006, the House of Representatives passed, with my support, the Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005. Introduced by Congressman John Hostettler (R-IN), H.R. 2679 ensures local officials and communities do not face financial ruin to defend their rights to free speech under the Constitution. The legislation provides that when state or local officials are sued over public expressions of religion, no monetary damages, costs, or attorney’s fees may be awarded. This bill is now pending in the United States Senate. As such, I would encourage you to contact our Senators, Mike DeWine and George Voinovich, to express your support.

Again, thank you for being in touch. Please continue to let me know when I can be of assistance.

Sincerely,

David L. Hobson
Member of Congress

(blinks)

(blinks)

(blinks)

I wrote to Mr. Hobson about PERA, but I sure as hell didn’t write to him expressing my SUPPORT of the bill. It’s not that I’m angry that he voted for the measure (though it frustrates me). I’m angry because it in no way appears that he (or some random staff member) actually read the contents of my letter.

I’m going to have to carefully consider which representative I prefer: openly corrupt Mr. Ney, who would personally speak to me on the phone yet generally make, in my opinion, poor voting decisions or Mr. Hobson who apparently doesn’t actually read my letters but instead just assumes that if I’m writing about PERA, I must be supporting it. (sighs)

PS. It’s Ms. Warner not Mrs. Warner. Whatever. We'll take this one step at a time: first you start reading the content of my letters, then we'll talk prefixes.

Knock-knock!

2006-10-23T21:35:00.000-04:00

An elderly lady was well-known for her faith and for her boldness in talking about it. She would stand on her front porch and shout "PRAISE THE LORD!"

Next door to her lived an atheist who would get so angry at her proclamations he would shout, "There ain`t no Lord!!"

Hard times set in on the elderly lady, and she prayed for GOD to send her some assistance. She stood on her porch and shouted "PRAISE THE LORD. GOD I NEED FOOD!! I AM HAVING A HARD TIME. PLEASE LORD, SEND ME SOME GROCERIES!!"

The next morning the lady went out on her porch and noted a large bag of groceries and shouted, "PRAISE THE LORD."

The neighbor jumped from behind a bush and said, "Aha! I told you there was no Lord. I bought those groceries, God didn`t."

The lady started jumping up and down and clapping her hands and said, "PRAISE THE LORD. He not only sent me groceries, but He made the devil pay for them. PRAISE THE LORD!"

In my last post, I promised to start this post with a knock-knock joke. As you have likely realized, the above joke is not of the knock-knock variety. There is a knock-knock joke in the post... but not until the very end. The above joke was included to tide you over and prevent unnecessary incidences of bad-joke withdrawal.

(clears throat)

Regardless, speaking of believing what we want to believe:

The Rev. Ron Carlson, a popular author and lecturer, sometimes presents his audience with two stories and asks them whether it matters which one is true.

In the secular account, "You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach 3 1/2 billion years ago. You are a mere grab bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance. You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. You came from nothing and are going nowhere."

In the Christian view, by contrast, "You are the special creation of a good and all-powerful God. You are the climax of His creation. Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique among your kind. Your Creator loves you so much and so intensely desires your companionship and affection that He gave the life of His only son that you might spend eternity with him."

First of all… STRAW MAN and FALSE DICHOTOMY!

(blinks and readjusts self to former state of calm dignity)

Truth isn’t a popularity contest. Sure, it sounds pretty to live in a world where meaning and goodness are predefined by a wrinkled man with a beard. However, wanting to believe something (i.e. your pet bunny Foo Foo will never die) doesn’t make it an accurate representation of reality (rabbits have a life-span of approximately eight years and, to date, there has never been a recorded instance of an immortal rabbit).

I have no problem with the concept of making meaning. It’s like the life-review equivalent of good writing techniques; you sort through the mess of details of an event to identify, define, and present the essentials. However, when we decide try to randomly ascribe cause to our selected sentences, we’ve crossed the line from good technique to bad logic.

The article quoted above then moves to the ever-popular hobby of atheist bashing:

Across the globe, religious faith is thriving and religious people are having more children. By contrast, atheist conventions only draw a handful of embittered souls, and the atheist lifestyle seems to produce listless tribes that cannot even reproduce themselves.

Have you ever been to an atheist convention? I have, and between the engaging speakers, dinners with crowds of participants, and dancing at a three level club, there wasn’t time to be embittered. Sure, sure, atheists should continue to work to improve their general PR. However, the false idea of atheists being uniformly dour and boring is perpetuated mainly by articles and misrepresentations like this.

Lacking the strong Christian identity that produced its greatness, atheist Europe seems to be a civilization on its way out. We have met Nietzsche's "last man" and his name is Sven.

(blinks) Was the greatness you were referring to simple imperialism or to the tendency of the Christian Europeans of the past to murder and enslave the “heathen” natives they would encounter?

Based on my experiences, I’m pretty sure the more secular version of European civilization isn’t on its way out. We’ve already established that you’ve likely not attended an atheist convention. Have you been to Europe?

The real difference is that in the past, children were valued as gifts from God, and now they are viewed by many people as instruments of self-gratification. The old principle was, "Be fruitful and multiply." The new one is, "Have as many children as enhance your lifestyle."

Or, “we have access to birth control and careers and thus have other options to pursue if we wish.” Not to mention, “seeing as the world population continues to grow and we have limited resources, it doesn’t seem like such a tragedy if some people chose to have one or even (heaven forbid) no children.”

The prophets of the disappearance of religion seem to have proven themselves to be false prophets. Even though the world is becoming richer, religion seems to be getting stronger. The United States is the richest and most technologically advanced society in the world, and religion shows no signs of disappearing on these shores.

Richest?? Well, perhaps if you ignore Luxemborg and Norway. Then again, they are part of that silly, declining Europe, so we can just ignore them anyway.

My conclusion is that it is not religion but atheism that requires a Darwinian explanation. It seems perplexing why nature would breed a group of people who see no purpose to life or the universe, indeed whose only moral drive seems to be sneering at their fellow human beings who do have a sense of purpose.

No darling, I just sneer at people who write poorly researched articles accusing atheists of having no moral purpose.

Here is where the biological expertise of Dawkins and his friends could prove illuminating. Maybe they can turn their Darwinian lens on themselves and help us understand how atheism, like the human tailbone and the panda's thumb, somehow survived as an evolutionary leftover of our primitive past.

- God knows why faith is thriving by Dinesh D'Souza.

Yes, logic is clearly a vestigial trait.

***

Oh, and...

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

(silence)

(silence)

(silence)

(peers outside at the friendly darkness)

(shrugs)

Who's there? Well, nothing supernatural as far as I can see, but is that really so scary?

(shrugs)

I'm okay with getting my meaning from humanity and my groceries from my neighbor.

(cross posted at The Atheist Mama)

Dust in the Wind

2006-10-22T22:29:00.000-04:00

(I realize this is a decidedly uncheerful topic. I promise to not only make the next post more cheerful, but also to start it with a knock-knock joke as a bit of compensation.)

During a terminally ill patient’s less lucid moments, he’d reach his arms up to the ceiling, ignoring everyone around him, the nurse at the head of the table explained. Eventually, when he was awake, he informed his family that he was reaching up to god and that they shouldn’t disturb him during these moments. Everyone around the table nodded approvingly. The nurse recounted another story, where a staff member’s grandfather, “a very bad man”, started yelling that his feet were burning as he lay dying in his hospital bed. Everyone around the table gasped and looked properly horrified. We all had ours stories to tell, of inspiring or scary end of life experiences, and everyone was able to happily file away the information as further evidence of the afterlife planned by a Christian god.

Well, everyone except me.

I’m five weeks into a seven week training program for a local non-profit Hospice and, as the only atheist (actually, as the only non-Christian), periodically find myself squirming in my seat in the unable-to-identify-yet-unwilling-to-dissent sort of uncomfortable that comes from being part of an often distrusted minority. My New Year’s resolution of this year was to be more outspoken, and one of the ways I’ve attempted to do so is by being more open about my lack-of-theism. However, sitting around that table, I was entirely uncomfortable with the idea of expressing my own interpretations of those stories and I instead just squirmed silently.

I can’t think of a moment where atheism is more of a challenge to a Christian belief system than when it comes to death and the concept of an afterlife. When considering heaven and hell, Christians can’t brush us off as just a misinterpretation, as they might other varieties of Christianity, Judaism, or even less related religions, such as Islam or Hinduism. Atheism isn’t just another version of theism, but instead a direct rejection of the biblical idea of the afterlife. This is a touchy subject when it comes to loved ones who people desperately want to believe “live on.”

I’m not scared of death. Certainly, I’m in favor of living. However, the thought of slipping into an unknown doesn’t terrify me; it just gives me incentive to live more deeply and savor the time I do have. I’m okay with not knowing what might come after death, even if, as I think is likely, it’s nothing at all. It’s a question that I’m willing to leave unanswered, for the moment at least. Deciding whether to be vocal when others come up with answers that I find implausible? Now, that’s more of an immediate challenge.

I think that after I move past the training and into the volunteering itself, it should be less complicated. My goal is to be a Hospice volunteer specifically for nonreligious families, because I think the end of life concerns and questions are a bit different. It would perhaps be a bit easier for a terminally-ill freethinker to talk about this with a fellow freethinker rather than even a well-intentioned believer.

My questions to you: as atheists, what are your views towards death and dying? Do you feel the end of life issues and inquiries are different for an atheist than for a believer? How can we provide support to terminally-ill atheists? Finally, have you had situations where you’ve discussed dying with theists? How have you handled these discussions? I’d appreciate any input.

(cross posted at The Atheist Mama)

Guest Blogging & Vincent Van Goat

2006-10-18T16:40:00.000-04:00

I’m going to be one of fiver guest bloggers at www.theatheistmama.com while Cassandra is off vacationing and meeting with Richard Dawkins on his God Delusion tour. Seeing as the closest I will get to Richard Dawkins is his appearance on the Colbert Report I recorded last night, I had the urge to be terribly jealous. I believe I have quelled said urge.

Cassandra is a member of my local humanist group and THE Atheist Mama. She’s a stay at home mom with two boys and is quite active in the online atheist community. See, I said all nice things, so I must have quelled my jealousy. Or perhaps Cassandra is just too nifty to not write nifty things about and I’m still horribly jealous. One or the other.

Anyway, as an atheist who is entirely childless, I’ve decided my main qualification to contribute to a blog entitled “The Atheist Mama” is that I formerly owned two lovely pet goats, Vincent and Thyme. Parenting “kids” of the goat variety from an atheist standpoint is, indeed, a challenge. I’m proud to say I worked hard to ensure both knew of my feelings towards religious law, and I believe they took my explanations to heart. A heartening tale: one afternoon, as I was waving around a Gideon’s while lecturing Vincent on the dangers of mixing church and state, he reached over and took a bite straight out of Leviticus! Take that vultures- and- mildew- and- the- many- sorts- of- people- you- aren’t- supposed- to- have- sex- with- related passages!

(Okay, so, the story in the above paragraph is indeed fabricated. Well, except for the part about having goats. I did have pet goats who would frequently consume paper products.)

I am no longer a “goat parent”, as they began eating my house and I was forced to give them away. I believe that giving away your kids for such reasons is generally considered poor parenting, but we all have our limits, eh? I shall still draw from my extensive goat parenting knowledge when guest blogging. Or something like that.

Above silliness aside, I’ll be posting at www.theatheistmama.com periodically from October 20th to the 29th. Please stop by!

Shocking News: Manipulating Statistics Leads to Largely Irrelevant Claims

2006-10-18T13:50:00.000-04:00

Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis, according to a new study.
"Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture," wrote Steve Baldwin in, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement," soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review.
Baldwin is the executive director of the Council for National Policy in Washington, D.C.

Oh! Oh! Shocking! Homosexuals! Evil! Dire consequences for culture! Save the children! (swoons)

Well, except:

Jay Heavener, spokesman for PFLAG – Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, counters that federal crime data refute claims that homosexuals molest children at higher rates than heterosexuals.

(skip a few paragraphs)

In terms of sheer numbers, that may be true. But in terms of numbers of children abused per offender, homosexuals abuse with far greater frequency; and boys, research shows, are the much-preferred target.

Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays', Research purports to reveal 'dark side' of homosexual culture

(blinks)

That’s not the same. Per capita per OFFENDER? Come on. Your opening sentence just said per capita. Misleading much?

I’m also confused as to what I’m supposed to do with this information. Perhaps what you are trying to say is that homosexuals as a group (NOT just homosexual offenders as a group) have a per capita rate of molesting children that is higher than the same heterosexual rate. Except you don’t say such, which leads me to believe that you don’t have the numbers to back up that claim.

I’m going to begin conducting random statistical studies of my own. For example, after doing a brief survey of those living in this apartment, I’ve found that the average American is an atheist vegetarian. The number of football games watched per individual is extremely high, but only if you consider only those who actually watch football (other members of the household just fall asleep beside the football watching individuals as they are watching games). Those with a higher rate of football watching are also far more likely to eat potato chips on the way home rather than waiting for dinner than those with a lower rate. There is obviously a clear link between potato chip consumption and football watching. Goodness, statistics is fun!

Pedophilia is the attraction to prepubescent children. Homosexuality is the attraction to people of the same gender. If we want to prevent child molestation, let’s work to prevent child molestation. Trying so hard to make tenuous links between your target age and target gender that you create misleading topic sentences and quote irrelevant statistics is a bit pitiful, eh?

Yes, yes, I realize that I should learn and just cease to read articles from worldnetdaily.com--- but what can I say? Clearly, not watching football leads to the masochistic tendency to read ridiculous news stories... and thus has dire consequences for our culture. I apologize for not doing my part.

Organized Atheists?!? ;)

2006-10-17T09:02:00.000-04:00

Horrified by escalating religious violence and alarmed by the Bush administration's "faith-based initiatives," which make government money available to religious organizations, atheists are coming out of the closet -- and organizing.

"Local groups are springing up all over the place," said Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists. Active groups have grown by about 90 percent over the past six years, she said.

- Atheist groups are on the rise

Camp Quest: It’s Beyond Belief!

2006-10-16T11:04:00.000-04:00

Any assistance in distributing the letter and article below would be much appreciated. My “target market” is local atheist/humanist newsletters, but I’d welcome any distribution method that would be likely to place information about the camp in front of freethinking eyes.

Many thanks!

***
Greetings!

I’m the chair of promotions for Camp Quest, a summer camp specifically designed for the children of atheists, freethinkers, humanists, and others that reject a supernatural worldview. Camp Quest Classic just celebrated its 11th year of operation.

Though camp is over for this season, we’ve been brainstorming ideas to raise awareness of the six Camp Quests that operate throughout the country. One area we’d like to focus on in the coming months is reaching the members of the many free-thought organizations throughout the country.

As a starting point, one of our former campers and current staff members wrote a human interest-type piece about her camp experiences. If your organization has a regular newsletter and this piece would fit well within its format, we’d very much appreciate the article’s inclusion. Additionally, if you have ideas for reaching memberships similar to yours, we’d greatly appreciate the suggestions.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

www.camp-quest.org

***

Camp Quest: It’s Beyond Belief

By Livia Edwords, 22, biology major, former camper, and current staff member

I spent a week of my summer at the greatest camp on earth. Camp Quest this year was fantastic, and I'm so disappointed it's over already. This was my third year as a staff member, but I've been going to the camp as a camper since I was about 12, so I’ve been at camp for nine years total!

For those of you who aren't familiar with the program, "Camp Quest is the first residential summer camp in the history of the United States for the children of Atheists, Freethinkers, Humanists, Brights, or whatever other terms might be applied to those who hold to a naturalistic, not supernatural world view". In a country where most of the people are religious, it’s often difficult for children of secular families to express their beliefs, out of fear of being ostracized. Camp Quest is a safe haven for these kids, where they can discuss their thoughts without being called a "devil worshipper".

Campers learn about famous atheists and freethinkers in history, such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, as well as more modern figures like Yoko Ono and John Lennon, Ted Turner, Lance Armstrong, and Christopher Reeve. These are just a few of the people that my dad, Fred Edwords, tells the kids about during mealtimes, all to emphasize the fact that good, moral people that are freethinkers can do great things, and our kids are not alone in their views.

Of course, we do normal camp stuff too. This year, the entire camp spent a day canoeing through gorgeous scenery down the Little Miami River. We also went horseback riding, my personal favorite. Campers have the opportunity to rock climb, try archery, and hike. We also go swimming every day. It was especially fun this year because the shower area was refurbished to look like a water park. Fountains, sprinklers, and colorful buckets that dump water on you do a lot to take your mind off of how cold that first dive in the pool will be!

If you can’t tell, I love it there. This year I was a counselor in the cabin for 13-17 year old campers. I also hosted our annual Talent Night, and during activity time I teach drama to the kids. Activities are a time when campers can get to know staff members that aren’t necessarily their cabin counselors. They can tie die or create other arts and crafts to mold their artistic side. They can learn about the weather, and practice their future job as a TV weatherperson by doing a forecast for the next day. They can play sports, learn about biology, or have a grand battle with foam swords!

There are way too many activities at Camp Quest to possibly name here, and even if I tried, I still wouldn’t do it justice. At camp, so many of us feel connected to a community that doesn’t seem to exist where we live, and I believe this is why so many of us return year after year. We feel safe here, we have friends here, and you only need try us out to become a part of our family!

***

Camp Quest Classic is held annually in southwestern Ohio. Other Camp Quests are located around the country in Tennessee, California, Minnesota, Ontario, and Michigan.

Want more information about Camp Quest? Visit our web site at www.camp-quest.org to request more information or view camp pictures.

***

If You Give a Mouse a Cookie

2006-10-14T01:16:00.000-04:00

If you give a mouse a cookie, he’s going to ask for a glass of milk. When you give him the milk, he’ll probably ask you for a straw. When he’s finished, he’ll ask for a napkin. Then…

- If you Give a Mouse a Cookie, by Laura Joffe Numeroff

To sum up the entire plot (yes, I’m using the word “plot” loosely) of the children’s book quoted above, a boy gives a mouse of cookie, who then demands milk, then a straw, then a napkin, then a mirror, then nail scissors…. etc, etc. etc, etc. etc. Our sweet hardworking protagonist is left exhausted and messy-housed as the mouse demands more and more. The moral of the story: woe to he who gives the mouse a cookie, for who knows what awful things the mouse might put you through as a result.

This is a classic slippery slope and a common fear; if we give in on one matter, are we setting off a long chain of doom and disaster. After all, we don’t want to give up our milk or nail scissors, but how do we stop once we’ve offered the cookie?

My answer is that we just do. Feet are remarkably good at planting themselves in one spot.

For a review of the slippery slope argument, visit here. Note that you’ll only fall down the slippery slope if there is actual independent justification that one event will necessarily lead to another. Giving away cookies doesn’t necessitate giving away milk.

Of Mice and Men (Marrying Other Men)

One of the most common arguments I hear against same-sex marriage is that, if we allow it, we’ll also have to accommodate those who wish to practice polygamy or marry their cat, Fluffy. However, it’s already been shown that it’s entirely possible to grant the first without either of the second two. Want examples? I have five of them: The Netherlands, Belgium, Massachusetts, Canada, and Spain. All of these countries granted same-sex couples the right to marry between the years of 2001 and 2005.

As another note, these were the some of the same arguments used against interracial marriage years ago. As of 1997, polls have found a majority of Americans have apparently conceded that interracial marriages are acceptable (yes, not until 1997- I was shocked as well). Even with this expansion of social tolerance, Fluffy the cat is still spouseless.

In the end, a cookie can just be a cookie.

Of Mice and Minneapolis

A minor issue at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) has potentially major implications for the future of Islam in the United States.

Some Muslim taxi drivers serving the airport declared, starting about a decade ago, that they would not transport passengers visibly carrying alcohol, for example, in transparent duty-free shopping bags. This stance stemmed from their understanding of the Quran's ban on alcohol. A driver named Fuad Omar explained: "This is our religion. We could be punished in the afterlife if we agree to (transport alcohol.) This is a Quran issue. This came from heaven." Another driver, Muhamed Mursal, echoed his words: "It is forbidden in Islam to carry alcohol."

For the record, I think their refusal to carry alcohol is silly. However, also for the record, I see all religious superstition as silly. I don’t find it any more ridiculous that someone would fear god’s retribution for transporting alcohol than I do that someone else would fear the same for working on Sunday or using his name in vain or whatever other random religious law you want to invoke at that moment. Any Christians who find this particular interpretation of Islamic law particularly silly may want to consider that their own religious traditions were instrumental in creating blue laws, including those that still prohibit alcohol from being sold at certain times (or at all) on Sundays in some states.

The issue emerged publicly in 2000. On one occasion, 16 drivers in a row refused a passenger with bottles of alcohol. This left the passenger, who had done nothing legally and morally wrong, feeling like a criminal. For their part, the 16 cabbies lost income.

(skip a few paragraphs)

"Travelers often feel surprised and insulted," Hogan added.

Yes, this wouldn’t be particularly pleasant. However, the taxi drivers are discriminating against the alcohol rather than the person. At the Minneapolis airport at least, drivers have not refused to carry passengers who drink or even those who are currently drunk—just those who are currently carrying alcohol. Silly, yes. Hateful towards a particular group of individuals? No.

With this in mind, MAC proposed a pragmatic solution: drivers unwilling to carry alcohol could get a special color light on their car roofs, signaling their views to taxi starters and customers alike. From the airport's point of view, this scheme offers a sensible and efficient mechanism to resolve a minor irritant, leaving no passenger insulted and no driver losing business. "Airport authorities are not in the business of interpreting sacred texts or dictating anyone's religious choices," Hogan points out. "Our goal is simply to ensure travelers at (the airport) are well served." Awaiting approval only from the airport's taxi advisory committee, the two-light proposal will likely be in operation by the end of 2006.

(shrugs) This all seems quite reasonable to me. As asserted above, I think it’s somewhat ridiculous to believe that your status in the afterlife will be in jeopardy if a passenger is carrying a bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon in your vehicle. However, I do think it’s even more ridiculous to mock someone else’s superstitious traditions when you hold on to superstitious traditions of your own, as most of those in this country do.

The bottom line: the taxi drivers are currently refusing to carry passengers with alcohol, resulting in some passengers having to tote their duty free bag from taxi to taxi. This is annoying and inefficient. MAC developed a solution to allow their staff to direct passengers with alcohol to taxis who will carry them with their alcohol. This seems as if it would save everyone time and effort, eh?

But on a societal level, the proposed solution has massive and worrisome implications. Among them: The two-light plan intrudes the Shariah, or Islamic law, with state sanction, into a mundane commercial transaction in Minnesota. A government authority sanctions a signal as to who does or does not follow Islamic law.

What of taxi drivers beyond those at MSP? Other Muslim hacks in Minneapolis-St. Paul and across the country could well demand the same privilege. Bus conductors might follow suit. The whole transport system could be divided between those Islamically observant and those not so.

(glances at feet to see if she’s being shoved down the slippery slope yet)

Why stop with alcohol? Muslim taxi drivers in several countries already balk at allowing seeing-eye dogs in their cars. Future demands could include not transporting women with exposed arms or hair, homosexuals and unmarried couples. For that matter, they could ban men wearing kippas, as well as Hindus, atheists, bartenders, croupiers, astrologers, bankers and quarterbacks.

(yes, definitely being shoved down the slope!)

MAC is trying to solve a specific, pre-existing problem with a specific solution. The above is a different issue. Independent taxi drivers already have the right to refuse passengers with alcohol; this isn’t some special privilege MAC is granting them. Taxi and bus companies who don’t wish to confront this problem can make transporting passengers with alcohol part of the job duty. Poof! No necessary slide down that slope.

(re-secures feet)

MAC has consulted on the taxi issue with the Minnesota chapter of the Muslim American Society, an organization the Chicago Tribune has established is devoted to turning the United States into a country run by Islamic law. The wife of a former head of the organization, for example, has explained that its goal is "to educate everyone about Islam and to follow the teachings of Islam with the hope of establishing an Islamic state."

It is precisely the innocuous nature of the two-light taxi solution that makes it so insidious, and why the Metropolitan Airports Commission should reconsider its wrong-headed decision. Readers who wish to make their views known to the MAC can write it at publicaffairs@mspmac.org.

- All quotes are from Don't Bring That Booze Into My Taxi

Insidious? Goodness. (swoons) Why is it that whenever anyone starts talking about how the Muslim population is trying to take over this country that I feel like I’ve entered a broadcast of Fox News? Perhaps I just don’t scare easily enough to buy that refusing to transport my alcohol is the first step towards an Islamic state. Or perhaps that it just seems like I’m always fighting with the Christian right, rather than any Muslim group, for reasonable legislation in this country.

By the way, though I’ve included the email in the quote above, there is no need to add to the many letters MAC already received; they’ve announced that they will not be implementing the program due to upset letters from around the world. Back to the drawing board, I suppose. Just watch for those “bright” ideas… apparently, the public doesn’t approve.

In the end, a cookie can just be a cookie, even if it has a crescent on it instead of a cross.

Christopher Columbus, Protests, & Patriotism

2006-10-10T12:03:00.000-04:00

Christopher Columbus. The Vikings. Someone else. Whatever. Personally, I don’t really care who “discovered” a continent already the home of 40 to 50 million people. I’m sure it’s all very exciting for some to argue who deserves the title of "first European", and that’s terribly lovely for them, but to me it all feels like an antiquated pissing contest (my ship is bigger than yours!). It’s a title, a moment. I don’t care.

Potential title conflicts not withstanding, Columbus did indeed land in the Caribbean, not so very far from here, in 1492 (though, notably, he did not land in the US though we are the ones who so enthusiastically celebrate Columbus Day). His actions from that point on, and not those of the Vikings, did indeed help shaped the dynamics of the entire continent. However, the textbooks somehow forget to mention the details of his actions after landing.

On his first voyage, Columbus kidnapped some ten to twenty-five Indians and took them back with him to Spain. (pg 60)

When an Indian committed even a minor offense, the Spanish cut off his ears or nose. (pg 61)

Pedro de Cordoba wrote in a letter to King Ferdinand in 1517, “As a result of the sufferings and hard labor they endured, the Indians choose and have chosen suicide. Occasionally a hundred have committed mass suicide. The women, exhausted by labor, have shunned conception and childbirth… Many, when pregnant, have taken something to abort and have aborted. Others after delivery have killed their children with their own hands, so as not to leave them in such oppressive slavery.” (pg 63)

As soon as the 1493 expedition got to the Caribbean, before it even reached Haiti, Columbus was rewarding his lieutenants with native women to rape. On Haiti, sex slaves were one more perquisite that the Spaniards enjoyed. Columbus wrote a friend in 1500, “A hundred castollanoes are easily obtained for a woman as for a farm, and it is very general and there are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten are now in demand.” (pg 65)

I’m not arguing European Americans of today should personally feel responsible for these atrocities. They were committed long ago, by different people with different values, blah, blah, blah… I get it. We’ve “moved past” this, right?

Glorifying Columbus with a national holiday isn’t just moving past something, it’s grossly redefining history. The Columbus of textbooks is a highly abbreviated fiction. I like fiction. However, I like my fictions labeled as fiction and my facts labeled as fact.

If all we’re looking for in a hero worthy of celebration by national holiday is a man who was willing to exploit others in the pursuit of wealth, there are plenty of other explorers we could similarly glorify. To me, heroes must have some other credit to their name than just the bravery to hunt for new sources of gold.

In the end, there are lessons to be learned from this section of our past and Mr. Columbus specifically, but only if we retell the whole story rather than just the pretty parts.

When Columbus was selling Queen Isabella on the wonders of the Americas, the Indians were “well built” and “of quick intelligence.” “They have every good customs,” he wrote, “and the king maintains a very marvelous state, of a style so orderly that it is a pleasure to see it, and they have good memories and they wish to see everything and ask what it is and for what it is used.” Later, when Columbus was justifying his wars and his enslavement of the Indians, they became “cruel” and “stupid,” “a people warlike and numerous, whose customs and religion are very different from ours.”

It is always useful to think badly about people one has exploited or plans to exploit. Modifying one’s opinions to bring them into line with one’s actions or planned actions is the most common outcome of the process known as “cognitive dissonance,” according to the social psychologist Leon Festinger. No one likes to think of himself or herself as a bad person. To treat badly another person whom we consider a reasonable human being creates a tension between act at attitude that demands resolution. We cannot erase what we have done, and to later our future behavior may not be in our interested. To change our attitude is easier.

- James Loewen in Lies My Teacher Told Me, pg 68

More valuable than reenactments of shouts of “Tierra!” and glorifications of the voyage itself, are the lessons in the ways humans justify exploiting other humans. When we understand how we’ve justified atrocities in the past, it makes it easier to pinpoint slides towards this sort of “cognitive dissonance” in the future.

We all “split” to some degree. Our ability to see “us” and “they” is what makes watching football fun (okay, fun for some people- I still don’t get it) and allows us to like our children even though they are arguably just as bratty as the neighbors’ hellions.
However, when we actually begin to view others as less human, less deserving of basic dignity than whatever ‘us’ we might belong to, we’ve moved into a dangerous territory. In this realm, our actions are no longer bounded by the ethical sense of right and wrong we’d apply to others within our group. This is how we justify mass murder, mass rape, mass enslavement. This is how we justify stripping others of rights that we’d demand for ourselves and our families. This is how we justify insularity in the name of loyalty.

***

We label those who can’t swallow these high school fictions as somehow less patriotic than those waving flags at the parade. To me, patriotism isn’t about glossing over the details and offering blind acceptance of either the past or the present. I believe the true patriots include those who yell, point, and promote change in the name of truth and fairness. I believe patriotism certainly includes wanting your country to be better. I have no problem with the concept of “loving ones country.” However, I’m maintaining the right to not like it on occasion.

***

Other Columbus Day articles and posts I enjoyed can be found at Biblioblogography and here. Lies my Teacher Told Me by James Loewen (the source of all quotes in this post) is an excellent book about the ways American history has been revised and rewritten.

The Importance of Soup

2006-10-06T14:03:00.000-04:00

I was going to complete electronic-type things today such as post, respond to comments, and compose replies to long-ago-sent emails, but I think I shall instead spend my day eating soup and reading. Many apologies to all of those I owe correspondence... I’ll return soon.

Ahmadinejad and the Pope Agree. How Quaint.

2006-10-02T14:03:00.000-04:00

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here on Friday that the big powers' atheism is the rootcause of man's problems today.

- Ahmadinejad: Atheism of big powers is rootcause of man's plight

Ahmadinejad, dear, you're being cliche. The pope said essentially the same thing a few weeks back.

(glances around self) Big powers? Where are these atheistic big powers? How is it that we are the scary demon of two major religions when we are an unorganized minority?

I personally feel I should strike fear only in the hearts of tricky standardized test questions and leafy green vegetables. I make it a practice to conquer and destroy both on a regular basis. Otherwise, I’m pretty un-scary. (shrugs)

I (heart) Ira Glass

2006-10-02T13:52:00.000-04:00

His presentation at the Memorial Theater in Cincinnati on Sunday was incredible. Want to swoon along with me? This American Life archives are available online.

Two more reasons to NOT vote for a Republican Congress

2006-09-28T23:59:00.002-04:00

Reason One:

WASHINGTON - The Senate on Thursday endorsed President Bush's plans to prosecute and interrogate terror suspects, all but sealing congressional approval for legislation that Republicans intend to use on the campaign trail to assert their toughness on terrorism.

(skip a few paragraphs)

The detainee bill would create military commissions to prosecute terrorism suspects. It also would prohibit some of the worst abuses of detainees like mutilation and rape, but it would grant the president leeway to decide which other interrogation techniques are permissible.

- Senate OKs detainee interrogation bill

Reason Two:

WASHINGTON - The House approved a bill Thursday that would grant legal status to President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program with new restrictions.

Republicans called it a test before the election of whether Democrats want to fight or coddle terrorists.

"The Democrats' irrational opposition to strong national security policies that help keep our nation secure should be of great concern to the American people," Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement after the bill passed 232-191.

"To always have reasons why you just can't vote 'yes,' I think speaks volumes when it comes to which party is better able and more willing to take on the terrorists and defeat them," Boehner said.

Democrats shot back that the war on terrorism shouldn't be fought at the expense of civil and human rights. The bill approved by the House, they argued, gives the president too much power and leaves the law vulnerable to being overturned by a court.

"It is ceding the president's argument that Congress doesn't matter in this area," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (news, bio, voting record), D-Md.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., that give legal status under certain conditions to Bush's warrantless wiretapping of calls and e-mails between people on U.S. soil making calls or sending e-mails and those in other countries.

- House approves warrantless wiretap law

PERA-noia, PERA-noia, the ACLU is coming to get me…

2006-09-27T19:34:00.000-04:00

Please excuse my awful pun of a title. It’s a pera-dy (see that was a worse pun! I bet you didn’t think it could get worse than the title!) of the first line of Harvey Danger’s Flag Pole Sitta. Their version was a bit more sing-able than mine.

WASHINGTON (ABP) -- After impassioned debate on the separation of church and state Sept. 26, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would make it harder to sue the government for violations of church-state separation.

House members voted 244-173 in favor of H.R. 2679, called by supporters the "Public Expression of Religion Act." In cases involving the First Amendment's establishment clause, the proposal would prevent federal courts from requiring government entities to reimburse the legal costs of the individual or group that sued the government agency -- even though the agency was found in violation of the constitution.

The establishment clause bars the government from endorsing or inhibiting religious groups or doctrines. Currently, federal judges routinely require the government entity to pay the legal expenses of a plaintiff who successfully asserts an establishment-clause violation.

Supporters contended that the bill would keep special-interest groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union from "abusing the system" when filing challenges to government actions that may endorse religion.

The ACLU is not abusing the system. The government, when it violates the establishment clause, is abusing the system. The House, when passing this bill, just abused the system. The ACLU helps police the system. See the difference?

"Too often today, overzealous courts have infringed an individual's right to worship," Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), a supporter of the measure, said on the House floor. "These attacks on our religious heritage are frivolous."

No. The courts have maintained our right to not have our noses shoved in your religious whatever. They aren’t frivolous lawsuits. They’re lawsuits to defend the rights of religious and nonreligious minorities.

But opponents said it would have a chilling effect on the ability of religious minorities to defend their freedoms.

"Mr. Speaker, let's be clear -- there's nothing benign about this bill. This bill makes it more difficult to enforce the First Amendment to the Constitution and the very words thereof designed to protect the religious freedom of every American," said Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas).

Without such reimbursements, many church-state separationist groups and other civil-rights groups could not afford to file such lawsuits in the first place.

Yes.

The bill's chief sponsor, Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.), said some such groups file lawsuits and use the threat of hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to pressure municipalities and states into settling before the case reaches court.

"Without that ability for the ACLU and others to go into these closed-door sessions and say to the mayor…we're going to sue, we're going to win, and you're going to have to pay our attorneys' fees, these cases will go to court," Hostettler said, referring to the American Civil Liberties Union.

(rolls eyes) Yes, yes, let’s drag the ACLU into it. Everyone likes to bash the ACLU! A note: you only have to reimburse the legal fees if they show you’ve violated the establishment clause. Don’t violate it, and you’ll be fine.

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) asked the bill's supporters if they would feel the same way about limiting attorneys' fees in such cases if government agencies were being sued for advancing other religions.

"Let's assume in some town Sunni Muslims became a majority. And let's assume that everyone in that town…was forced to recite 'There is but one God, and Allah is his name,'" he said, quoting Islam's most common affirmation of faith.

"They think that only the majority religion is ever going to be in the position to dominate the local government or any government. Maybe so, but the whole reason we have the First Amendment is because you can't be sure."

(nods) Yes. However, I don’t think that’s the main issue. The main issue (for me at least) is that it’s not fair to squish the rights of minorities even if you have the power to do so.

Although a companion bill has been introduced in the Senate, that body is virtually certain not to address it before Congress ends its current term.
- House passes measure to chill establishment-clause lawsuits

I hope not, as I still have hope that Dem’s might gain a Senate majority for the next term. Either way, write to your Senators!

***

On the same topic, but from slightly less sane sources:

… all of our veterans cemeteries and memorials on public property are at risk – unless PERA passes.

Oh! Oh! Veterans cemeteries! Veterans cemeteries! Emotional, non-touchable patriotism-related issue!!!!! ACLU! BAD! ANTI-AMERICAN! ANTI-AMERICAN! DESTROYING OUR SOCIETY!!!!!!!! ALCU! BAD!!!

AHHHHHHH!!!!!

What a great choice of issue to exploit to scare people into supporting this bill. ACLU ATTACKING FALLEN VETERNS! It’s ridiculous propaganda.

As a clarification, I’m certainly not bashing veterans. I support our former troops… especially in bed. As a clarification of my clarification, I suppose I only actually support one of them in this manner. However, this seems like a contribution at least on par with buying a few plastic flags or patriotic bumper stickers or the like, yes? ;)

(shrugs) Anyway, let’s continue. So, why do these lovely people believe veterans cemeteries are under attack?

The ACLU has claimed nationally that gravestones have been “deemed” constitutional because families, not the government, choose the religious symbols. However, the truth is no court of precedent has ever “deemed” that it is constitutional for the government to allow and pay for gravestones bearing religious symbols at veteran cemeteries, on the basis that families, rather than the government, chose the symbol. The ACLU has cited no such decision; and none has been found to exist.

So, seeing as the ACLU feels these displays are constitutional, it has just declared that it doesn’t feel the need for litigation, correct?

Second, the ACLU has never taken that position in litigation; rather, it insists that religious symbols are unconstitutional if on public property.

The ACLU defined why it felt this was a different issue: family choice of personal expression of personal religion on a personal gravestone.

Third, the ACLU has not stated it will not sue the freestanding memorials bearing religious symbols or expressions that exist at veterans cemeteries.

I can see a clear difference between freestanding memorials bearing religious symbols and gravestones bearing religious symbols. While it isn’t an issue of utmost concern to me, I think the random, non-person-or-people-specific religious memorials should probably be removed from public grounds if they are causing upset. The cemeteries would still be there.

Fourth, there are thousands of grave markers, including 9,000 at the American Cemetery at Normandy Beach, which the government decided upon, not families.

Erm, the American Cemetery at Normandy Beach in France? Somehow, I can’t picture the ACLU suing over this.

Fifth, the ACLU is hardly the only entity representing a threat of such lawsuits. Nothing in the law currently prevents others, including Islamist fanatics, from filing Establishment Clause lawsuits against veterans cemeteries, and then demanding court-awarded, taxpayer-paid attorney fees.

- ACLU’s Disinformation On Public Expression Of Religion Act Exposed

Yes, because clearly this is how Islamist fanatics spread their message. Many congratulations for managing to raise your propaganda level at least a few points with the inclusion of the phrase, “Islamist fanatics.” Your target audience is now at least 32.452% more likely to write a letter to his or her congressman.

To see the ACLU’s response to the House passing PERA, read their press release. And write to your Senators!

Expanding Values (yeah right)

2006-09-24T22:45:00.000-04:00

Determined to break the links binding partisan politics and faith, growing numbers of religious moderates are uniting and organizing in an unprecedented bid to challenge the Christian right and broaden the values agenda beyond the issues of abortion and gay marriage.

(skip a paragraph)

This new coalition of moderate and progressive Christians underscored its intentions with a flurry of activity last week, as prominent conservative Christian leaders and politicians converged on Washington for the Family Research Council's first annual Values Voter Summit, which ends today.
- Moderates finding a voice

So, if these lovely, moderate people expanded the conversation beyond abortion and gay marriage, what did they talk about? Well, apparently gay marriage and abortion (see how different it is if you switch the order?):

The gathering, which concludes today, featured Republican presidential candidates and members of Congress, and seeks to mobilize evangelical voters this fall by focusing on issues such as gay marriage and abortion. Focus on the Family has started voter registration drives in eight states, according to its Web site.
- Baylor study debunks the ‘religious conservative’ and ‘secular liberal’ stereotypes

Bipartisan, huh? This all sounds like an awfully red shade of purple to me. “Oh, we’re bipartisan… there must be at least one Democrat here! Democrat? Where are you? Oh well, he must have wandered off for a moment.”

Speaking of “bipartisan”, at this same summit:

"I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate," Falwell said, according to the recording. "She has $300 million so far. But I hope she's the candidate. Because nothing will energize my [constituency] like Hillary Clinton."
Cheers and laughter filled the room as Falwell continued: "If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't."

(skip a few paragraphs)

"He was calling Hillary Clinton a demonic figure and openly arguing that God is a Republican," said the Rev. Barry Lynn, director of the advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "It's hard to know whether people thought he was joking or serious, but once you start using religious imagery and invoking a politician in this way, it's not funny."

An aide to Falwell said Saturday the Lucifer reference was an "off the cuff" comment and Falwell "had no intentions of demonizing her." In the past, Falwell has described Islam's prophet Muhammad as a terrorist and said abortionists, feminists, gays and lesbians were to blame for the Sept. 11 attacks.

Falwell's remarks about Clinton were part of a 40-minute address at a private breakfast that included assurances that God would preserve a Republican majority in Congress and that moderates such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani cannot be allowed to win the GOP presidential nomination.

- Hillary Clinton could outdraw the devil, Falwell says

I must concede that Falwell is almost as much fun as Robertson. Then again, until Falwell claims to bench-press 2000 pounds, he’s still a second-rate crazy in my book. If the Democrats do obtain a Congressional majority in the November elections (as I hope they do), then did Falwell’s oh-so-Republican god fail?

At another recent “values” rally, in Pittsburg:

All the speakers said they wouldn't tell people how to vote.

But if a politician shares his principles on issues from judges to marriage "and is committed to the God of the universe, and from my perspective, Jesus Christ his only begotten son ... it would be a sin not to go to the polls and vote for him or her," Dobson said.

A sin! But we are not, of course, telling you how to vote.

Attendees were encouraged to "pray, prepare and participate" by, among other things, taking bulk packages of voter guides prepared by the conservative Pennsylvania Family Institute to distribute at their churches and asking pastors to hold voter-registration drives.

(skip a few paragraphs)

Gay-marriage bans are on the ballot in eight states this year, including three with close Senate races: Arizona, Virginia and Tennessee.

"When you have a marriage amendment on the ballot, it makes it that much easier" to motivate conservative Christian voters, said John Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "And on balance, they'll vote for the Republican candidates in those states."
-
"Disappointed" activists pushing values buttons

Aww… how sweet. Let’s lure ‘em in with the discriminatory legislation and keep ‘em around to vote for the Republicans. Erm, the bipartisan Republicans, of course.

Dirty Words

2006-09-21T13:57:00.000-04:00

Believers say atheism no longer a 'dirty word'

Well first, if they did say such, I suppose that’s very nice of them. In this spirit of random benevolence, I shall declare that cow, sheep, and ice cream are no longer dirty words either.

Second, I can’t find anywhere in the article where believers do say such. I see a quote where Ellen Johnson (clearly an atheist) discusses how atheism used to be a dirty word... but no believers absolving the word from its apparent former state of filthiness.

Further De-Closeting

2006-09-19T23:11:00.000-04:00

As a follow-up to the newspaper article of a few weeks ago, I’m going to be part of a panel for presentations on Thursday and Friday of this week. Cassandra, of the newspaper article and the official "atheist-mama”, will participate as will four other members of my local humanist group.

Readers from central Ohio should certainly come to listen and cheer. Or interrogate us mercilessly. Or, if you are so inclined, I suppose you could come just to throw fruit at me… however, I’d request the fruit be relatively fresh and preferably of the berry variety. Blackberries, maybe? Other berries would be acceptable as well. Please hold the fruit until after the presentation itself, as I wouldn’t want any innocent panelists to be attacked by berries clearly meant for me.

Details (about the presentations, not the fruit) are available at the web sites of Students for Freethought (for Thursday) and the Humanist Community of Central Ohio (for Friday).

Multiple-Choice God

2006-09-19T12:45:00.001-04:00

… the study went further by asking respondents what sort of God they believed in. The results put the perennial debate over the role of religion in public life in a new light.

The survey identifies four conceptions of God, which it labels A, B, C and D.

A is the Authoritarian God, worshiped by 31.4% of respondents. This deity is highly involved, responsible for Earthly events such as tsunamis or economic upturns and "capable of meting out punishment to those who are unfaithful or ungodly."

B is the Benevolent God, the choice of 23% of respondents. He also is involved in human affairs but isn't in the smiting business. This God is "mainly a force of positive influence in the world and is less willing to condemn or punish individuals."

C is the Critical God, who "really does not interact with the world." But believers in this God — 16% of the sample — still watch their Ps and Qs because God C "views the current state of the world unfavorably" and will punish evildoers "in another life."

Last but not least is D, the Distant God. Twenty-four percent of respondents endorsed — "embraced" is probably too strong a word — this version of the deity, "a cosmic force which set the laws of nature in motion" but has no interest in human activities.

This puts the SAT in a new light. At least that’s just an unfair test to determine who gets into college. Multiple choice tests for eternal salvation, eh? I’d imagine there’s a guessing penalty.

Finally, there are the atheists, who accounted for 5.2% of respondents. (They aren't dignified with an abbreviation. F for faithless?

How about just E, none of the above?

All quotes are from Multiple-Choice God.

We don’t need metaphysics to mess with our minds; math works efficiently enough.

2006-09-18T12:40:00.000-04:00

Ghost Whisperer Crystal Ball

Go play with the crystal ball and see if you can find the trick before you read any further...

Are you sure you want to know? It’s going to spoil the illusion…

… and illusions are fun!

The Spoiler:

If you add together any two digit number and subtract the results from the original number, you will always get a multiple of nine that is 81 or less. Always. Notice that 81, 72, 63, 54, 45, 36, 27, 18, and 9 are always the same symbol.

Cool stuff, eh?

On the down side, the game isn’t fun anymore after you find the trick. Such is the way with a variety of illusions. Oh well. I’d still rather have math than illusions.

Futher further "friendly" fire

2006-09-16T22:03:00.000-04:00

**An addition to my post from this morning.... 'cause I just can't get enough of the pope.**

Or, from Pope stops short of apology to Muslims:

"We swear to God to send you people who adore death as much as you adore life," said the message posted in the name of the Mujahedeen Army on a Web site frequently used by militant groups. The message's authenticity could not be independently verified. The statement was addressed to "you dog of Rome" and threatens to "shake your thrones and break your crosses in your home."

(coughs) Once again, we’re not violent! We just adore death!

As I’m continually mocking, I shall point out I do get that these messages/firebombs/etc. are being sent out by select groups of Muslims. I find the garden-variety Muslim no more irrational than the garden-variety Christian. The Muslim extremists just tend to be a lot noisier in today’s world.

He noted that earlier during his German trip, Benedict warned "secularized Western culture" against holding contempt for any religion or believers.

(skip a few paragraphs)

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan insisted the pope apologize to the Muslim world, saying he had spoken "not like a man of religion but like a usual politician."

Exactly like a politician! We’ll pander to various religious groups, but why bother worrying about whether or not we step on secular toes? Oh, and I’m not contemptuous of believers. I’m just contemptuous of many of their beliefs.

"We have to show the determination and care not to hurt one another and avoid situations where we may hurt each others' beliefs," the Istanbul-based Patriarchate said.

(rolls eyes) As already suggested, the pope is perhaps not the most convincing figure when it comes to pointing fingers at violent religions. However, I’m all for pointing at fundamentalism/ridiculousness and calling it by name. You can’t expect me to smile sweetly and accept whatever you want to believe when laws and actions based on these beliefs restrict the rights of others. Believe whatever you like, just keep it out of the lives of others. If you don’t, expect to be pointed at.

Further "Friendly" Fire

2006-09-16T14:10:00.000-04:00

Further clarification on the pope’s remarks about atheists and Islam in Pope said to be upset Muslims offended:

"Indeed it was he who, before the religious fervor of Muslim believers, warned secularized Western culture to guard against 'the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom,'" Bertone said, citing words from another speech that Benedict gave during the German trip.

Pfff! What would I do with my spare time if I had to guard against cynicism and mockery of the sacred? Secularism is more dangerous than religious fervor? Pffff! A note: I don’t have contempt for god (as I don't believe in him/her/it), but my contempt for the thoughts of the pope certainly continues to grow.

Two churches in the West Bank were hit by firebombs Saturday, and a group claiming responsibility said it was protesting Benedict's words.

Right. Secularism is a LOT more dangerous than religious fervor. Those were friendly firebombs!

Glass Houses & Charred Popes

2006-09-15T17:03:00.000-04:00

Some updates on my thoughts about the pope’s recent speeches: apparently, I skipped right over the part that’s making the news. When quoting Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, the pope referred to Islam as a violent religion.

First, as was pointed out to me in an email this morning (thanks J!), it’s rather hard to claim you aren’t violent when your response to being called violent is to burn the pope in effigy. (shrugs) Perhaps it was a non-violent form of burning-in-effigy. The burning of the Danish embassy a while back? Done in the least violent way possible!

However, the pope may also not wish to throw stones while standing in his own glass house. Islam certainly isn’t the only violent religion out there... come on now, he was quoting from the era of the crusades. You can find many, many violent, awful quotes in both holy books. The level of violence among the followers depends largely on who’s doing the interpreting and in what socio-political conditions.

As for the anti-atheist and anti-science remarks for which I originally grumbled at the pope, I see absolutely no atheists rioting. Perhaps this is because atheism is not a religion and we thus manage to skip much of this irrational mob action each time someone pokes a stick at us? Oh sure, atheism doesn’t prevent people from being silly, mean, bigoted, angry, or even violent. However, there is no banner, symbol, or holy book of atheism we feel compelled to protect. We grumble. We type. Sometimes, we even throw a minor fit. However, in the end, our fits tend to be significantly easier to clean up after than those of offended religious groups.

Money & Politics (but not together)

2006-09-15T00:46:00.000-04:00

Time Magazine’s cover story this week is “Does God Want You to be Rich?” It seems to be a toss up, with various preachers and biblical passages supporting various views. As has been covered many a times before- you can find support for pretty much anything in the Bible, as long as you’re willing to ignore similar passages that contradict the one you chose.

Blah, blah, blah. The Bible is confusing. Got it.

***

On a more amusing note, the following multiple choice question appeared on page 88.

Which of the following did not happen last week?
A) President Bush revealed plans to appoint Clay Aiken to his Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities
B) Former House majority leader Tom DeLay asked supporters to vote for country singer Sara Evans on Dancing with the Stars
C) Three Senators nominated Jerry Lewis to receive the Congressional Gold Medal
D) Congress pass an immigration bill

The correct answer is D.

This unfortunately underlines the major reason I shall never be able to run for any political office: I just don’t know enough (really, anything) about pop culture.

Mr. FTP god and his blatant misuse of ropes

2006-09-14T15:37:00.000-04:00

I was at my friend K’s apartment last night when she mentioned that she’d been left an exciting, fun-to-mock religious pamphlet on her car windshield at work on Monday. My car is never papered with such pamphlets, likely because I work in a small, well-to-do town where we shoot pamphleteers on site. Okay, perhaps not. But we’d probably at least give them a hefty ticket and force them to plant flowers on Main St as punishment. Regardless, K had accidentally thrown away the pamphlet. Possibly due to my having consumed alcohol on an empty stomach, or possibly simply an indication of my innate lunacy, I suggested we go dig it out of her dumpster. We did and found it was defiled only by the tiniest piece of (holy?) mold.

The tract is entitled

“What If You Had Been Here?
September 11, 2001
A Day That Began
Like Any Other Day”

and features a picture of the world trade center with various computer added (I’m guessing- it looks fairly unrealistic) mounds of smoke.

Do I even have to add that I think it’s total crap to exploit the fear of terrorist attack for religious (or, for that matter political) purposes?

Regardless, without further ado, I bring to you the words of the Fellowship Tract League (FTP):

WHAT IF YOU had been in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001? What would have happened to YOU? YOU could have died, and YOU would have had to face God.

ME? Not only me, but in CAPITALS? Oh my… this FTP god is one serious critter.

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment. Hebrews 9:27

That actually makes more sense this morning, sans vodka. However, I’m still not sure that I’d qualify it as good writing. Lots of people, even nonreligious ones, like to point to the Bible as “great literature”. I’ve read the Bible. Parts of it are quite lovely and might qualify as “great literature”. However, other parts just make the writing-tutor in me want to cringe and yell, “keep it short and to the point! Short and to the point!”

Sin is breaking God’s law. It is doing something God said not to do, or not doing something God said to do.

(blinks)

I suppose that makes sense. However, if I take this literally, I fear I shall have to take up arms against opposing tribes or something of that nature. It’s been a couple of years since I’ve used a sword. I’m not sure I’m up for it.

Sin is an offense against God.

Well then, perhaps Mr. FTP god just needs to get over it. I find people using adjectives as adverbs terribly offensive. However, I have yet to suggest that all people who do so be stoned to death. (the population of Ohio would dwindle to nothing, I fear)

Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is as much God as if He had never become man and as much man as if He had never been God.

(blinks)

Well, it’s beyond my comprehension, so it must be true, right?

A gift is free. Eternal life is not anything we can earn, it is something we accept. Romans 6:23 gives us two choices. We can pay for our sin ourselves by dying and going to Hell, or we can accept God’s gift of eternal life and go to Heaven when we die.

Apparently the FTL god has bad management skills. Let’s say you have a group of workers making widgets. I’d imagine the best way to motivate them would be to say, well, you can work as hard as you’d like to make as many widgets as you'd like… however, the only factor used to determine if you’ll get paid is whether or not you ask for your check. I’m sure absolutely everyone will jump at the chance to make widgets, even though it as no effect whatsoever on whether or not they are paid.

Frankly, if there must be religion, I’d rather people feel compelled to do nice things in exchange for salvation.

For whosever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Does calling "upon the name of the Lord" in bed count? I might be saved and not even know it!

Anytime you start telling people, all you have to do is this one religious whatever, and you’ll go to heaven, you open the door to awful interpretations of what that one thing might be. Well, in my version, god wants me to run planes into buildings or well, in my version, god wants me to go kill infidels and take their land.

To be saved, a person must be saved from something. If you were drowning, and someone threw you a rope, you would say that he had saved you from drowning.

(tilts head to the side and stares at the strange analogy)

Sure. So, since there isn’t so much in the way of reasons to believe in hell, I’m not drowning and that rope could obviously be put to better uses.

Thanks K!

Compromises

2006-09-14T02:12:00.000-04:00

An update on my Four Witnesses post of last week:

PLANS to reform controversial Islamic laws dealing with rape and adultery, which have attracted condemnation in the West, have been watered down by Pakistan’s Government in a compromise with fundamentalist mullahs.

(a few paragraphs down)

Supporters of the compromise say that when the law is passed rape victims will be able to choose between prosecuting suspects under the four-witness rule or under Pakistan’s civil penal code. “If a woman has four witnesses she can file a case under the Hudood law, or if she does not have witnesses she can file a case under the penal code,” said Mr Zafar.

Under another change made after pressure from the Islamic parties, a man and a woman would be charged with lewdness if they indulge in wilful sex, an offence punishable with five years imprisonment.

The Muttehida Qaumi Movement, a secular party, had threatened to quit the ruling coalition if the Government presented the amended Bill. “We cannot support an anti-women Bill,” said Farooq Sattar, one of its leaders.

- Musharraf retreats on rape law

So, Musharraf compromised. Where’s the harm in that? After all, compromise is such a pretty word, alluding to give and take, to sharing and love. Compromise is fair. Compromise is good. Compromise makes everyone happy, yes?

(shrugs)

Compromising when choosing a restaurant to dine at with your best friend? A brilliant idea. Compromising when amending ridiculous rape laws? Well, perhaps not so much so.

The fairest possible outcome isn’t always the median of all possible positions, and it’s certainly not necessarily best to settle on the muddled middle between right and wrong. Sometimes, the fairest outcome has nothing to do with compromise, but instead with evaluating the situation and possibly just choosing what makes the most sense.

In this particular case, if the women have a choice in the matter, why should I be making such a fuss? Certainly, all women will choose to be evaluated in the matter fairest to them, correct? I’m not so sure about that. If religious law is a government sponsored choice, I’d imagine women will continue to experience pressure from their families and communities to submit to it rather than the secular law. Even if not, offering this as a choice is, at the very least, an implied government sanction of discriminatory absurdity.

Giving the same weight to Islamic law as secular penal law isn’t a compromise, it’s just crap. In this case, it’s also coercion. Antiquated, discriminatory religious law has absolutely no place within governmental law. It doesn’t belong as a choice. It doesn’t belong at all.

Public Expression of Religion Act

2006-09-13T12:31:00.000-04:00

The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed its dismay as the House Judiciary Committee approved H.R. 2679, the "Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005" (PERA). The bill would bar the recovery of attorneys' fees to those who win lawsuits asserting their fundamental constitutional and civil rights in cases brought under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

"If PERA were to pass, Congress would isolate and discourage enforcement of a specific piece of our Bill of Rights," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "PERA advocates are seriously misguided in their claim of defending religious freedom. This legislation would in fact weaken the very freedom they claim to be protecting. We are deeply disappointed in the committee's decision to allow PERA to come to a vote."

- ACLU Condemns House Panel's Passage of "Public Expression of Religion Act," Calls Bill A Direct Attack on Freedom of Religion

Comments/reactions later.

My Mixed Feelings about the Pope

2006-09-12T13:24:00.000-04:00

I have mixed feelings about the pope. I disagree with so very much of what he says and does. His books make me cringe. His speeches leave me shaking my head. On the other hand, his religion has sent me many delightful varieties of disillusioned Catholics to date*. Somehow, Protestantism just doesn’t seem to promote disillusionment quite as effectively as Catholicism. What would my sex life have been like without the pope?

Regardless, Mr. Head-Disillusionment-Causing himself spoke recently on the topics of algebra, atheists, and humanitarian aid. Okay, so he switches the "responsibly" phrase to mean conversion rather than aid at the end of his paragraph-- but they're the same thing, right? Anyway, without further speculation (well, at least not for another 5 lines)... the pope and his concerns with secularism!

....something is missing from the equation! When God is subtracted, something doesn’t add up for man, the world, the whole vast universe.”

Math!

So, a + v + m + g = u?

One important note: if g equals 0, as I believe it does, then subtracting it from the left will have no effect on the equation.

The pope did not make direct reference to the age-old controversy between evolution and creation but noted that “we end up with two alternatives. What came first? Creative Reason, the Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, yet somehow brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason. The latter, however, would then be nothing more than a chance result of evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless.

FALSE DICHOTOMY AND STRAW MAN!

(I’ve always wanted to just type fallacies in capital letters and leave it at that. It’s never seemed very nice in actual discussions. However, I highly doubt the pope is reading this, so I feel no guilt.)

Today, when we have learned to recognize the pathologies and the life-threatening diseases associated with religion and reason...

I wanted to make some statement about how, with scientific knowledge, we no longer need a “god of the gaps” in areas such as “where did this plague come from?”. However, the pope's entire statement baffles me and I’m not sure I would be answering what he is saying. Are these pathologies and life-threatening diseases infecting religion and reason? Or, since they are merely associated, do they just see each other periodically among mutual acquaintances?

Only this can free us from being afraid of God - which is ultimately at the root of modern atheism. Only this God saves us from being afraid of the world and from anxiety before the emptiness of life.”

(SIGH)

I’m not scared of god. I just don’t believe in god. Atheism isn’t a tree we hide behind to avoid a father-figure coming after us with a lightening bolt. It’s more like standing in the middle of a field and stating calmly, “there isn't a deity to be afraid of.” As of yet, no lightening bolts have hit me while I’m standing in my field. (Then again, I go inside when it’s storming. I’m atheist, not a-lighting-bolt-hit-able.)

We are not meant to waste our lives, misuse them, or spend them selfishly. In the face of injustice we must not remain indifferent and thus end up as silent collaborators or outright accomplices. We need to recognize our mission in history and to strive to carry it out. What is needed is not fear, but responsibility - responsibility and concern for our own salvation, and for the salvation of the whole world.

Oooooh... you were doing so well! If you’d just take off that last appositive phrase, “responsibility and concern for our own salvation, and for the salvation of the whole world”, you’d have such a dandy, quotable paragraph.

At least in part, science has vainly sought to make God unnecessary in the universe and hence to man himself.

So, science makes god unnecessary, huh? Even though the rest of the speech seems rather silly to me, based on that one statement I fear I’m going to have to reconsider my previously supportive view of science. If science manages to make god unnecessary, will I eventually run out of disillusioned Catholics to prey (not pray) upon? The horror!

All of the above quotes are cherry picked from the Pope’s recent address explaining how science seeks vainly to make God unnecessary in the universe and our lives. If you want to be fair, you could go read the entire thing. However, it’s not that exciting, I promise.

* though, I most note, of all the types of dissilusioned Catholics I've encountered, my current variety of atheist-disillusioned-Catholic is certainly the best

Book Musings

2006-09-09T23:54:00.000-04:00

Alternative titles for this post include:
- Poor Aviaa, Forced to Write About Books
- I’m Trite!
- A Careful Analysis of the Danger Posed by English Majors
- Aviaa’s Grand Rebellion!

Mr. Apostate over at Bibliography tagged me for this post. So, I reluctantly wrote about books. Poor, poor me. All of those who feel just awful that I was so targeted for such a terrible task can send donations of food, blankets, checks, and quirc... wait, I already tried that a few posts back. Never mind.

So, books!

I’m ignoring the singular implications of “a” and “one” in some answers. Ha!

1. A book that changed your life
All books change my life in one small way or another. Wasn’t that cute and trite? I’m actually not sure quite what to add to that to make it un-trite, however. It’s true. I’m trite. How annoying.

2. A book you’ve read more than once
Many of ‘em, though I “reread” more when I was in school than I do now, likely because I had more time to read back then. I read The True Confessions of Charlette Doyle more than twenty times before I left middle school (this was potentially a bit ridiculous). I’ve also reread all of Austin’s books and several of Montgomery and Wharton’s. I’m currently rereading, Lies my Teacher Told Me… I read it in high school, lost my old copy, and bought a new copy when I went to hear Loewn speak a few months back. I was properly outraged the first time I read it, but I think I’m getting more out of it this time around.

3. One book you’d want on a desert island
The Art of Pastry Making? Wait, desert, not dessert.

(ponders)

Actually, I’m going to forgo the oh-so-popular “survival guide” and say that I’d want a longish, well-written book that I could read over and over without getting terribly sick of it too soon. Anna Karenina, perhaps? It’s the only Tolstoy I’ve read, and I loved the compilation of various overlapping stories and lives. Not to mention that it certainly qualifies as longish.

When one has good literature, one doesn’t need food or shelter or any of that crap! (she types as she eats a burrito in her climate controlled office)

4. One book that made you giddy

Most recently, On Beauty by Zadie Smith. The book was layers of well-crafted metaphor combined with exquisite detail. I found myself wanting to swoon with readerly lust at several points during the book. Good political writing also frequently leaves me giddy. Actually, almost anything well-written makes me giddy. What can I say? I’m just that easy.

This is one of the reasons I can never date an English major... he or she could walk away with my money (not much), books (loads), and other random items (lots of those too) and I’d be left dazed and dazzled with only memories of onomatopoeic witty quips.

5. One book you wish that had been written

I don’t think I’ve ever come across a topic for a book that wasn’t written that I desperately wanted to read. There are so many books out there already! Or, perhaps I’m just being unoriginal again. (sighs despondently)

6. One book that made you sob

I don’t think a book has ever made me cry, though many have left me quite sad.

7. One book you wish had never been written

(shrugs) Whatever I put down here, I’d likely feel bad about writing it later. I'm not sure that the books are the problem. Don’t misuse ‘em, and I won’t feel the urge to wish them out of existence.

8. One book you’re currently reading

Lies My Teacher Told Me (for the second time), Global Ethics 101 (a compilation of interviews from guest lecturers at the Harvard class of that name– I’d highly recommend it!), and Apartment Therapy (bad non-fiction is my bad-TV substitute). I seem to be reading no fiction books currently, which is odd, as I’m usually in the middle of one.

9. One book you’ve been meaning to read

(coughs) Soooo many. I haven’t read about half of my collection (It’s not an insignificant collection, either. My books are lined in book-case fashion around my office where the floor meets the wall- they cover about 3/5 of the total perimeter. As you can tell by my highly creative method of describing my book quantity, I’m feeling a bit too lazy to count them), yet I continue to acquire more. Snoow and a tango-friend also both gave me lists of recommended books I still want to work though. Ah! So many books! Such awful pressure!

My next read is How We Believe by Michael Shermer.

****

I’m tagging snoow and Jess, two people with whom I love to discuss books. On the downside, snoow’s blog is written in French, so I can’t actually read it. On the bright side, his English writing skills are better than many native speakers’, so perhaps he’ll tell me what it all means. I’m tagging Ben and mesoforte as part of grand scheme to encourage/force them to update their blogs. I’m also going to tag... hey, where does it say we have to tag five? Everyone is tagging five! I’m going to be terribly unconventional and only tag four. So ha! (sticks out her tongue in a grand, highly-significant act of rebellion)

Four Witnesses

2006-09-06T15:07:00.001-04:00

Under the current law, approved by a former military dictator in 1979, prosecuting a rape case requires testimony from four witnesses, making punishment almost impossible because such attacks are rarely public.

A woman who claims she was raped but fails to prove her case can be convicted of adultery, punishable by death.

Maulana Fazalur Rahman, a leader of the Islamic coalition, said Tuesday that lawmakers in his group would vacate their seats in the National Assembly if the government tries to get the assembly's approval to change the law.
"We will render every sacrifice for the protection of the Shariah (traditional Islamic) laws," he said at a news conference.

However, the ruling Pakistan Muslim Party — which has a majority in the assembly — has praised Musharraf for taking steps to amend the law and end the four-witness requirement.
- Rape law rankles some Pakistan lawmakers

Victim: Would you mind dragging me out in front of at least four witnesses before you rape me?
Rapist: Oh, certainly. After all, I wouldn’t want you to be stoned to death for adultery should you become impregnated due to my act of violence against you.

Yeah right. Four witnesses. (shakes head)

Kudos to President Musharraf's party for challenging this ridiculous law.

(hums to self about the importance of the separation of religious law and government... not to mention Amnesty International, an organization that has been working for years to prevent stoning-women-because-they-were-raped-without-witness situations)

De-Closeting

2006-09-06T00:04:00.000-04:00

I’m coming a bit further out of my non-theistic closet this Friday.

I was interviewed for an article about local atheists in the Faith and Values section of this Friday’s paper, along with four other members of my humanist group. At first, I was somewhat hesitant to be interviewed because I own and run a tutoring center. Had I a regular job, I’d merrily sue for wrongful termination should my funds for food, blankets and other necessary items cease to find their way into my bank account. It’s a bit harder to sue your clients when they stop handing you checks. However, I’m betting on the fact that both I and my clients can and shall handle the entire de-closeting situation with grace. I’m also betting a bit on the fact that many of my clients won’t even see the paper as it’s being released my “living area” local paper rather than my “working area” local paper.

The main reason I wanted to be a part of the article is this: too many people are scared of atheists. I’d speculate that this fear stems from a lack of knowledge; people don’t know atheists or, more likely, they don’t know that they know atheists. Like monsters under the bed, climbs to the top of really tall mountains, and family reunions, the unknown is often more scary than the reality of dust bunnies and spectacular views (I take back the speculations on family reunions- they are often really that scary and might remain best unknown). The more atheists who become living, breathing, normal (well, relatively normal) people in the minds of the general public, rather than just parts of a blob of unknown, the less we will be feared as a group.

I’m an okay specimen of a “normal” atheist. I’m clean-cut and college educated. I like dogs and children (though I’m entirely finished with dating men who act like dogs or children). I tip well and smile frequently. Several people actually like me! One or two like me especially particularly a lot. I’m normal… well… relatively normal (maybe). Either way, I certainly have the appearance of normalcy and that’s truly what matters, eh? Regardless, I consider myself more of a dust bunny than a family reunion; I might cause a sneeze or two at times, but I’m generally not feared and avoided once you’ve gotten to know me.

All the above is true. However, in the end, it wasn’t all some grand altruistic action. Had I not been interviewed, I’m sure there were plenty of others from the group who would have been willing to take my place. Part of my decision was quite self-motivated. I recently resolved to be less apologetic about my beliefs, choices, and self in general. So, partially, I wanted to be interviewed for me, so I can continue down a path where I’m okay with being myself and not afraid to share that self with others. Sounds pretty, eh? We’ll see how pretty it sounds to me in a few days.

Post interview and simply waiting for the article, I’m a bit nervous. I’d estimate that 12.32% of my family know I’m atheist. The rest finding out? Actually, not really a big deal. However, I’d also estimate that 0.00% of my clients know I’m atheist. The rest finding out? Potentially more of a big deal. However, it may be fairer to trust people to accept me as myself than it is to just assume that they won’t and that I should thus keep my beliefs hidden. So, I’m trusting because I already made the choice to trust and at this point all I can do is wait… and write nervous blog entries.

If all this backfires, I shall be accepting donations of food, blankets, checks, and quirky sex-toys (oh come on- I’ll need something to keep me busy when my business fails and I’m without work) at my home address.

!!!

2006-09-04T23:43:00.001-04:00

For Americans, the issue is key: A survey released last month by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that more than 40 percent of respondents believe religion's influence on government is increasing - and most view that as a bad thing.

- Religion, legislation often hard to separate

Jesus Camp

2006-08-31T11:20:00.000-04:00

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

2006-08-29T23:51:00.000-04:00

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

2006-08-25T23:27:00.000-04:00

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

2006-08-25T23:25:00.000-04:00

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

2006-08-22T00:43:00.000-04:00

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

2006-08-18T21:45:00.000-04:00

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?

2006-08-16T10:49:00.000-04:00

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

2006-08-12T23:50:00.000-04:00

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

2006-08-11T14:27:00.000-04:00

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?

2006-08-11T14:01:00.000-04:00

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

2006-08-09T00:22:00.000-04:00

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

2006-08-04T18:12:00.000-04:00

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…

2006-08-02T18:06:00.000-04:00

... 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?

Rider Bills (or, why I don't need a Hummer)

2006-07-28T17:54:00.000-04:00

Republican leaders are willing to allow the first minimum wage increase in a decade but only if it's coupled with a cut in inheritance taxes on multimillion-dollar estates, congressional aides said Friday.

- GOP makes conditions on wage increase

Perhaps the members of the GOP who wish to couple these two issues should more carefully consider the differences in needs between someone who lives on a salary of $10,712 per year (5.15 * 40 * 52) versus someone who has a multimillion-dollar estate. Or, perhaps said representatives should be required to give back the more than $30,000 “cost of living increases” on their salaries since the last time minimum wage was increased. Or, perhaps said representatives could just come right out and say, “we are trying to kill this bill for political reasons by making it unpalatable to everyone except those with multi-million dollar estates who also work at a minimum wage job.”

Even if we put the particulars of this situation aside, rider bills remain one of the most ridiculous concepts I’ve ever heard of. It’s essentially the same as if I want to buy a pencil, because I need one to write the next Great American Novel. However, before I can purchase my pencil, a strange man informs me that I can only buy said pencil if I also purchase a small pet penguin. I don’t really like this idea… but hey, really, what’s the extra cost of a penguin to me. Anyway, I really need the pencil to write my novel, so though I don’t want the penguin for any other reason, I’ll buy it as well just so I can get my pencil.

This isn’t the end of it, though. As I walk to the check-out with my pencil in one hand and my small pet penguin in the other, another man walks up to me and informs me that in order to complete my purchase, I’ll also have to buy furry green shoes, a taco stand in Alaska, and a bright red Hummer (which, not being a male with impotence issues, I don’t really need). Additionally, after making my purchase, I’ll have to steal candy from a homeless blind child. At this point, I have two options. I can steal the candy and spend obscene amounts of money to purchase a bunch of stuff that I don’t want, just so that I can get the one useful item out of the bunch. Or, I can give up, and leave the store sans pencil, as I don’t have the money or the moral stomach to complete the purchase.

I’d probably just abandon the entire venture (as I’m assuming that those who supported the original bill will also do). After all, I don’t want a small pet penguin, furry green shoes, a taco stand in Alaska, a bright red Hummer, and a clearly un-nice task... I just want my darn pencil!

Doesn’t it seem logical to vote on just one pencil at a time?

Save Yourself...

2006-07-27T13:31:00.000-04:00

... By Becoming an Atheist

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11875