Good Reason News

It ain't sympathy for the Taliban

2012-01-12T15:23:00.001-05:00

Yesterday, footage of U.S. Marines pissing on the bloodied dead bodies of people we're told were Taliban forces leaked onto the internet. Naturally, the blogsophere took this as an opportunity to display their divisiveness with the gun-humping, strict-father-model red staters sweeping their Bibles under the carpet and cheering on what the rest of the country can see is at least super disturbing.

The right can use this as an opportunity to let their jingoism fly and verbally attack anyone saying this is wrong as blaming America first or being Taliban sympathizers, but there's a serious fallacy being made there, perhaps even by some who agree that pissing on dead bodies is appalling.

It's not about respecting a dead body. A dead human body is about as valuable as a destroyed furniture. I don't entertain any illusions of the body needing respect just because it was a person. Nor am I too concerned with members of the Taliban. This isn't an issue of 'every person deserves respect,' if they were indeed Taliban, which hasn't been shown, than I think they do deserve disrespect. What I have a real problem with is: What are we doing to our men and women who join the military?

What kind of sick training do you have to endure to want to urinate on a blood stained corpse? It's gruesome. It's horrifying. Look, here's a metaphor, if my dog needs to be put down, I'm going to take him to the vet and have him humanely euthanized. I'm not going to take him to a vet who likes to stomp dogs to death. Even if I don't particularly love my dog, even if it did something horrible, like attack and kill someone, I don't want to bring it to the dog stomper. That's not who I am, I'm above that. Is there some difference in the Taliban? They're rapid dogs and they ought to be put down, for sure, but I don't really want to pay a bunch of guys who're going to piss on their dead bodies after they do it. That tells me that they delight in what they've done. I don't want my vet to enjoy killing animals, I want a vet who loves animals. In the same way, I don't want a military who loves killing people, I want a military who love people enough to want to protect them, even by killing others and putting their own lives at risk.

Peeing on dead bodies is like comic-book-villain, horror-movie-psycho-killer mentality. Is it any wonder more military veterans who served in Iraq are killing themselves than are dying in the war? We're turning these people into monsters. How does a man go home and hug his child with the image of a dead, bloodied face being pissed on and laughed at in his head?

What's been gained?

Casey Anthony and the legend of the Ten Commandments

2011-08-01T13:45:00.004-04:00

I want to make a brief point here using this well-known and over-exposed case of Casey Anthony. Lets say, for arguments sake, Casey Anthony did, as well all suspect she did, kill her child or, at the very least, participate in the murder of her child. The country's outrage is immense. We can make lots of complaint about how you rarely see a minority child's murder being treated like this (this one outraged me far more than the Anthony case)or about how the interest in this case was fueled by heartless, self-interested opportunists like Nancy Grace, but we really are outraged. There's nothing that screams injustice to us more than the slaughter of an innocent, defenseless child at the hands of the one person who was supposed to protect her. We as a society value the family quite highly.

Now, Ms. Anthony is being brought back to Orlando in relation to a check fraud case. To you and I, this is a minor legal slight, especially in contrast to the murder of a small child. However, there are many religious ideas out there stating that, to God, all sins are equal. Indeed, the people defending this idea, that all sins are equal, and it's not a majority of Christians or Muslims saying this, but those who do advocate that position have an easier time proving their case through scripture than those who say some sins are more heinous than others.

Just look at the Ten Commandments for an example. Anthony, assuming she is guilty of both crimes, is guilty of breaking two commandments: One being the sixth commandment (No Killing) and one being the eighth commandment (false witness). And I guess a case could be made for the idea that in bearing false witness, writing a bad check, she, in effect, stole, so that would be the seventh commandment broken as well.

In the second violation she broke two commandments. Why is society more upset with her for breaking one commandment in the first violation? Why are we not really concerned about a false check, at least not on a national level, the way we're concerned with a murder?

Could it be that there's an aspect of humanity that has a greater system of morality in place than the one handed up to us from unrefined ancient cultures?

Get in line

2011-06-20T16:11:00.000-04:00

Keeping church and state separate should be easy. It's simply a matter of each institution knowing their place. For instance, public schools are a state matter. It's not in a state's interest to promote a religion, but in public schools across America, particularly in one part of America, we are seeing religious forces slip their way in. Here's an example:

GALLATIN, Tenn. (AP) — Three Sumner County families claim the local public schools illegally promote Christianity.

A complaint to the school board made by American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee on the families' behalf claims the schools have shown a pattern of endorsing Christianity since at least 2006. Examples include the distribution of Bibles, a teacher who displayed a cross on a classroom wall and Christian prayers over school loudspeakers.

School board attorney Wesley Southerland told The Tennessean the board has been advised to "take all precautions necessary to make sure they are operating in a constitutional way."

The complaint to the board asks for the religious activities to cease, but it is not a lawsuit.

The ACLU of Tennessee successfully sued the Wilson County school system over similar issues in 2008.

Clearly, there's been a breach. But that ain't all, there's not one, not two but three high profile lawsuits this graduation season over the refusal of certain parties to remove prayers from their public school graduation ceremonies. Two of the students involved spoke on the non-prophets podcast.

The most frustrating aspect of this, of course, is that while praising the Constitution and pretending to be originalists, people like Governor fuckstick...I mean, Rick Perry, of Texas (the same great thinker who asked governors from around the country to come to his house and do a rain dance or something) spit on the Constitution and appoint judges more interested in promoting their theocratic views than justice to rule over cases like this. Then, he praises their decision.

I can't wait, and I seriously want to encourage any Muslim, Atheist, or Orthodox Jew to take advantage of the platform that the government is passively allowing to become a state sponsored church. I want someone to lead their class in a prayer to a non-Christian god. Some valedictorian should perform a Flying Spaghetti Monster prayer, a Muslim should make the whole room bow to Allah, an Orthodox Jew should make everyone listen to him sing in Hebrew for a while. Let's see how easily that sits with Rick Perry.

By the way, how do you feel about Fox declaring the forced prayer as a "victory?"

Texas aborts reason in anti-abortion measure

2011-03-02T00:52:00.000-05:00

The controversial abortion sonogram bill has passed the Senate by a vote of 21-10. Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, got the two-thirds vote needed to bring it to the floor, effectively ensuring it would pass.

Senators spent Wednesday in tense negotiations. The bill hinged on the two-thirds vote to suspend the rules and bring it up, because lawmakers aren't simply split along party lines: A couple of anti-abortion Democrats support it, and one Republican opposes it on civil liberties grounds. The vote in the Senate was key to this legislation, because the overwhelming Republican majority in the House makes it likely to breeze through that chamber.

For more click here

The right-wing is no longer concerned with making a solid logical argument against abortion or convincing anyone that a fetus is a person and the latest measure they're taking in Texas testifies to that. This legislation, which has now passed both the Texas House and Senate will require women seeking an abortion to view a sonogram of the fetus prior to the procedure. Be sure to acknowledge the careful language used when they say 'require.' Notice they don't use the term 'force.' However, that's exactly what's going on here. Women seeking an abortion in Texas, should this bill be made law, will be forced to view the fetus in a thinly-veiled attempt to guilt women out of going through with an abortion.

Oklahoma tried to pull this same stunt a little less than a year ago, but the governor there vetoed the bill. I can't imagine Texas Gov. Rick Perry will do the same.

The goal here is multi-layered. On the surface, it serves to humiliate and shame anyone seeking an abortion, leaving them psychologically scarred in an already very emotional hour. But it's deeper than that. This sort of legislation against reproductive rights aims to shift the conversation away from the tricky territory of individual rights, a phrase conservatives love to use, but rarely live up to.

When this story was mentioned on Good Reason News' tumblr, a liberal reader fell directly into this trap. That reader says, with an obviously sarcastic tone:

Let’s all guilt females into overpopulating the state with unwanted children that will cause crime rates to rise within 20 years.

Suddenly the discussion is where conservatives want it to be, this is the trick. This is when they've got you where they want you. Presumed consequences is a load of nonsense that allows conservatives to control the conversation.

Focus on this: Does the pregnant person deserve the right to a medical procedure or not? Everything else is a distraction, a detour designed to lead you down a path that dodges the real issue. Are we or are we not the owners of our own bodies? Is it the government's job to determine what medical procedures are necessary or not. All this talk about 'cases of rape' or 'using abortion as birth control' is just more decoys too, it's how they fool us into talking about how to best limit someone's right to an abortion.

People are autonomous creatures who deserve the right to make their own decisions in this matter, without being judged or supplying anyone with justification. I don't need to make the case to someone to get laser eye surgery and I don't need permission to get a face lift. If I break my knee, I don't need to defend my desire for treatment and nor should anyone owe anyone else an explanation on why they need an abortion.

It is, however, in the public's best interest to provide people seeking an abortion with a clean, safe, and affordable environment, not because of how the unwanted births might turn out, but because of simple economics. If we as a society either ban or make it economically unreasonable to obtain abortions we effectively open up a black-market that is guaranteed to result in horrors like the one seen in the Philadelphia office of Dr. Kermit Gosnell. Gosnell's clinic, by the way, was not a Planned Parenthood center. It was a privately run facility.

It's so easy to fall into the trap of discussing what is, essentially, a non-sequitur. It's especially easy to make this mistake when the opposition refuses to address the actual issue at hand. When discussing abortion rights, the only rational approach is to focus on the 'rights' and not on the 'abortion.' Anything else and we're appealing to pathos, how we feel, and abandoning reason.

Religion shames education and leaves us with NARTH crackpots

2011-01-16T18:17:00.001-05:00

I don’t see the world in black & white, ‘with us or against us,’ ‘which side are you on?’ terms. There are few absolutes in life and most everything is better classified through a spectrum. But some issues have been forced and now stand before the public demanding to a decision and it’s time we made up our minds. Lets look at how we talk about homosexuality in schools. Along that issue's spectrum are the parents who think kids ought not be exposed to sexuality at such ‘young ages.’ You’d be surprised what people tell me is too young. I’ve been told 10 and 11-year-olds are babies, too immature, who will be scarred for life if they hear any whisper of how human sexuality functions and the diversity of sexualities. How sad that some parents consider kids who’re right on the brink of sexual development to be so fragile. The fact is kids are a lot smarter than you think and they talk to each other, gasp, freely. This generation, more than any other ever, are surrounded, inescapably, by outside media influences from every angle. But, you know, there’s a lot of misinformation out there, some of it deliberate. It’d be nice if parents would get on board with teaching their children early on with a trustworthy voice of authority about these issues rather than delude themselves into thinking they’re successfully shielding their children from talk of sexuality. If you think your kids aren’t mature enough to learn about sexual issues because you’ve never heard them bring it up, consider that they may feel the same way about you.

What’s appalling is that even at the high school level there continue to be debates about what is acceptable to teach and make no mistake, it’s as much about what is acceptable to the culture of the community as it is about the benefit of the actual students. While some would say it’s OK to teach children the simple message of tolerance there remains those who hold stubborn that homosexuals ought to be shunned, shamed and closeted.

Remember 6 years ago when “Doctor” James Dobson of Focus on the Family accused Spongebob Squarepants of being gay, of teaching children to be gay and of supporting homosexuality? Well that scene’s playing itself out again in Michigan:

Howell High School teacher Jay McDowell on
Thursday during a peaceful "Diversity Teach-In:
Addressing Bullying In Our Schools and Community"
symposium recognized Howell Public Schools is
taking steps to combat bullying of all types.

He said the district this week brought in Dr. Marcia
McEvoy, a licensed psychologist who specializes in
violence prevention, to work with Howell High
students. McEvoy, McDowell said, will work with
teachers to promote anti-bullying, as well.

"Since the incident, students have placed silhouettes
outside the high school discussing what groups
like Muslims, gays and the obese go through in an
effort to put forth the anti-bullying message,"
McDowell told the crowd at the symposium, which
took place at The Opera House in downtown Howell.

"The district is doing everything it can to become a
model district," he added. "But we've got to do
more."

The event comes in the aftermath of an Oct. 20
incident that resulted in McDowell getting
suspended one day without pay after an argument
with a student that involved a discussion about
homosexuality. That incident has garnered
international attention and has started dialogue on
ways to prevent bullying and homophobia.

A grievance hearing on McDowell's discipline,
which he has said was unwarranted, took place Dec. 21. A decision is expected sometime this month.

I bet you can guess the culprit here. According to one man, who wrote in to the local paper:
The real story is how [a] 16-year-old Howell High School junior...stood up to McDowell and told him that he didn't support the gay lifestyle because of his Catholic beliefs, which prompted McDowell to remove [the student] and another student from the class.

Religion, eh? No kidding.

Besides the obvious evidence that religion teaches that bigotry is not only sanctioned, but encouraged, by the all-knowing creator of all existence, there's another negative outcome of keeping your kids out of this discussion.

The idea that homosexuality or anything in the LGBTQIT range is the result of a psychological disorder has been around for a long time, but

Since the 1970s, the consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions have moved to the belief that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation, while there remain those who maintain that it is a disorder.[2] In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives followed in 1975.[3] Consequently, while some still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, the current research and clinical literature now only demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, reflecting the official positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.

However, since the subject of homosexuality remains, even to this day, a classroom taboo people have come up with bad information and bad information begets bad actions and hence we have organizations like NARTH.

The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is an organization filled with fringe psychologists with little support who seek to keep alive old stereotypes about homosexuals and 'repair' gay and transgendered people. Some of their ideas include 'homosexuality is a psychological disorder,' 'gay men are gay because they had a bad relationship with their father' or 'the color of childhood toys can influence gender identity later in life.'

Hey, guess who worked as a 'scientific advisor' for NARTH before he got caught purchasing sexual favors from young men? Focus on the Family's own George Rekers. And if that's not enough to explain just who these people are, check out this short video:

The point is as long as we allow religion to silence people like Jay McDowell who try to teach acceptance and tolerance, we allow the blossoming of this sort of stubborn refusal to acknowledge diversity even in the face of demonstrated, peer reviewed and established science fact. This isn't about science, as much as these NARTH charlatans want to convince us that they're professionals. What's important to them is their mission to force their worldview. They're like terrorists. I'm sure at some point in their life they were shown that the world isn't theirs to understand and dictate easily digested social norms to, but instead of just living the best they can, they guard their illusions through these misadventures. Trying to teach people the proper way to live. I mean, maybe that's just my armchair psychology, but what they do seems so pointlessly defensive. Like anti-gay politicians or preachers just before admitting that they themselves are gay.

And those who say, the schools should just lay off the topic altogether, you're creating the atmosphere in which hate groups like Focus on the Family and NARTH can thrive. You're nurturing ignorance when you should be encouraging education. We are, after all, talking about schools. But I can see why the religious are afraid to allow public schools to address their kids on topics of homosexuality. If their background is in the church or religious education what they're used to is being told what to think and not, as is done in public school, shown how to think.

Why no one should ever accept 'never argue' as an answer

2011-01-02T20:15:00.001-05:00

Happy New Year, dear readers. I hope you've all enjoyed your time off, if you had any, and are positive for 2011.

As you may of may not be aware, we will be facing the rapture this year, so that's a good reason to start buying on credit.

I'll tell you one thing about this coming rapture: I'm certainly not going to argue with anyone who accepts it. Never ever! I mean, what's the point, right? Why should anyone ever assert an opinion? Let's all just be accommodationists to any idea, right? For instance, people who worship a false god ought to be put to death, according to some. Who am I to tell them they're wrong?

At least, that's how I'd be talking if I listened to the advice of Rev. Candace Chellew-Hodge. Chellew-Hodge is an openly homosexual UCC pastor who makes her money doling out reinterpretations of Christianity designed to make homosexuals feel welcomed in the church. More specifically, it instructs its readers how to argue in favor of staying in a church that condemns their existence. I haven't read her book, but I wouldn't be all that shocked to see an argument in favor of The United Church of Christ.

Reform churches like the UCC are but the morphine to a 'traditional' church's heroin. Its socially liberal views are designed to attract people like Rev. Chellew-Hodge, but are based in nothing but societal values. In other words, because American society today doesn't see homosexuals as lepers, these reformed churches have molded their teachings to fit what is acceptable. This of course begs the question: Do the parishioners of these churches get their morals from religion or do they organize their religion in a way that matches the values they obtained elsewhere? If it's the latter, why bother adding the religion at all? We atheist bloggers often condemn people who use their religion to justify terrible things, but the same logical flaws exist when they use their religion to justify positive things. What's being taught through these churches is that these moral decisions can't be arrived at on one's own. You need an institution to tell you that a divine power has approved the decision.

In traditional churches, the approval of decisions by a divine power is usually the conclusion of studying a religious text. But not for Rev. Chellew-Hodge. She prefers a 'make-it-up-as-you-go-along' approach. Just look at her recent article in The Huffington Post.

It's called "Why gays and lesbians should never argue scripture." Oh, really, Reverend? Never EVER!?

The article title itself perfectly describes the harm caused these reformed, liberal churches, they seek to silence dissent through pacification.

Her article begins:

"When are you going to talk about scripture that condemns homosexuality?"

The question came from a young woman who attended a workshop based on my book Bulletproof Faith: A Spiritual Survival Guide for Gay and Lesbian Christians. This particular workshop was held a couple of years ago on a college campus and attracted a cross-section of students who were both supporters and detractors of homosexuality.

This question is usually asked by a pro-gay person who wants to know how to answer challengers who quote scripture. This woman was different -- she had come for an argument and intended to challenge me with anti-gay interpretations of scripture.

"We're not going to talk about those passages specifically," I told her. "Instead, part of this workshop is on why we should never argue scripture with anyone ever again."

I'm going to jump in here: If you're not going to talk about passages specifically, what the hell are you basing your Christianity on? If you're just culling together a collection of moral opinions I'm not sure it's fair to call it "Christianity." Even if, according to her, accepting homosexuals is 'in the spirit of Christianity.' I mean, if Charles Manson said to love your parents It wouldn't really make sense for me to attribute loving your parents to 'Mansonism,' and it'd be even less fair for me to them jump ahead and assume that he also meant to love your siblings. As if I can just claim that in an effort to define morality 'in the spirit' of Charles Manson.

Here's another thing: I'm much more offended by the pastor who tells me not to argue than the one who will argue with me on twitter for an hour telling me I'm evil and going to hell. At least those who talk to me and disagree allow me the courtesy of my opinion. At least I'm allowed to express a view with someone who will tell me those views will lead me to eternal damnation. What Rev. Chellew-Hodge does is much worse. She denies me my view. She tells me before hand whatever I say doesn't matter. She seeks to marginalize anyone who thinks their moral system may, in fact, be their own. And she says so, explicitly:

There are several reasons that gays and lesbians should never argue scripture. First, it's pointless and nobody wins. Those who are anti-gay have their authorities and scriptural interpretations and so do pro-gay people. No one wins a "they said, they said" argument because no one will believe the scholars from either side no matter what argument anyone makes.

Secondly, arguing over scripture just hardens the opinions of both sides. Neither side is willing to give an inch. This is not a true dialogue, it's simply a contest of who can argue the longest, and usually the loudest. No one is convinced, and everyone leaves further entrenched in their own ideas, and usually angry. No education happens, and little, if any, compassion ever happens.

You know what, Reverend? You're just plain wrong about this. Of course someone wins a 'they said, they said argument.' If you happen to surround yourself with people so intellectually dishonest that they can't acknowledge that what they're saying doesn't make sense or is inaccurate, that's a shame, but a persons refusal to acknowledge defeat doesn't make the argument a draw.

To suggest that people only believe what they already agree with is presumptuous and condescending. It suggests people don't grow or learn or change. Well, I changed, ma'am. I went to church and I believed in Christianity and everything that went alone with it. But as I grew I started to notice that the values of compassion, of equality, freedom and justice are inconsistent with what I'd learned in the church. Arguments about scripture are what brought me there and it wasn't even arguments against scripture. More often, arguments in favor of scripture drove me to reassess with whom I ally my morals. And I'm not alone. Many atheists went through this process, including Atheist Experience host and president of the Atheist Community of Austin in Texas Matt Dillahunty often talks about his time studying to become a pastor and learning the arguments in support of the religion only to discover that they held no water.

It's not about who argues the longest or the loudest: it's about who is the most logical. Logic needs not be loud or long, in fact, it's usually pretty simple.

Her argument goes on to make a lot of assumptions about people without any basis. She doesn't even give anecdotal reasons for her armchair psychology like the one she started out with, but that's a typical slight-of-hand practiced by pastors, preachers, priests and Imams. You can't ask for evidence that people don't change, or that their morals are as malleable as reform churches suggest or that there exists any evidence of their particular god.

You just have to take everything they say on faith or else face the terrifying prospect of thinking on your own.

Prayer Deadly To Sick Children part IV

2010-12-07T12:12:00.000-05:00

Let them, the whiny ‘coexist-nicks’ and the Christian exceptionalists and the self-congratulating thought-terminators barging in like a first grader showing off his knowledge of the rules that declare upon any challenge to one’s religion that everybody has a right to their own opinion, come and ask why it is that we must be vocal about what we don’t believe. Let them invent their armchair pop-psychological diagnoses that claim that atheists have some beef with a god we secretly believe in, let them present us with that absurdity. Let them challenge our upbringings and prescribe us with their many superstitions and nonsensical ramblings, magic spells they call prayers. And when they ask why we are not silent or why we won’t lie down in the name of some flawed concept of tolerance or why we refuse to buy in to their lies and their fears, we will answer with the name of 2-year-old deceased Philadelphian Kent Schaible or 15-month-old Ava Worthington or 11-year-old Madeline 'Kara' Neumann, a diabetic whose parents refused her insulin and were subsequently sentenced to a mere six-month sentence in this murder simply by pleading religion, and the countless other children whose parents relied on a magic spell, whose authors were practically cavemen, and a ghost in the clouds. And we will ask them back how they accept that. How does one tolerate this?

I am an atheist. I don’t believe in god or Jesus or prophets or souls or afterlives. My morality has not suffered. I did not stand by and watch a child die needlessly, with real medical help only minutes away in favor of testing my magical spells. My heart is not cold. I don’t seek to steal anyone’s security blanket.

I’m an atheist and I’m proud to be one.

Islam+Government=Cruelty

2010-11-13T01:44:00.004-05:00

How much can we respect religion? I don't mean religious people, they're people and they deserve respect. But does a belief deserve respect? And what does it mean to respect a belief?

In Pakistan, a nuclear threat to the world frequently referred to as the most dangerous nation on Earth, is a violent Islamic theocracy. Like any nation controlled by dogma, the people, the actual living human beings, come second to the superstition. In America, we are free because our government doesn't (ideally) favor any religion. Of course, more than often it does favor a particular brand of Christianity, but at least the U.S. government has enough checks and balances to keep religion from directly running everything with a iron fist. It's not just that Islam is cruel or Christianity is cruel, they both are viciously cruel, but in America, the people come first. In Pakistan and Iran and Saudi Arabia and other nations where religion rules, superstition comes first. Nonsense comes first. And when something other than the people come first, any cost is justifiable.

Add that misplaced priority to this: If you believe in one religion, you reject all others. So if a Christian lives in a society where Islam rules, that Christian is an insult to the god (what's it's ridiculous name? Oh, right, allahlalalalalalalala).

So we've got a dangerous nation who puts a silly ancient story above caring for people, plus an individual which threatens the society by having a different religion; it equals this:

Asia Bibi, a 45-year-old mother-of-five, denies blasphemy and told investigators that she was being persecuted for her faith in a country where Christians face routine harassment and discrimination.

Christian groups and human rights campaigners condemned the verdict and called for the blasphemy laws to be repealed.

Her supporters say she will now appeal against the sentence handed down in a local court in the town of Sheikhupura, near Lahore, Pakistan.

Ashiq Masih, her husband, said he had not had the heart to break the news to two of their children.

"I haven't told two of my younger daughters about the court's decision," he said. "They asked me many times about their mother but I can't get the courage to tell them that the judge has sentenced their mother to capital punishment for a crime she never committed." Mrs Bibi has been held in prison since June last year.

The court heard she had been working as a farmhand in fields with other women, when she was asked to fetch drinking water.

Some of the other women – all Muslims – refused to drink the water as it had been brought by a Christian and was therefore "unclean", according to Mrs Bibi's evidence, sparking a row.

Not to mention, it's not just Christians that societies oppressed by Islam hate. They'd kill me too for blogging about atheism.

In the West Bank town of Qalqiliya, 26 year-old Walid Husayin was arrested for not believing in God. While the West Bank is predominantly Muslim, the Palestinian Authority which governs the region is known as being one of the most liberal in the Arab world and supports a more secular government and yet now Husayin faces life in prison and possibly the death penalty for being an atheist.

Walid Husayin is a blogger and has created a facebook account under a false name in which he wrote some critical things about Islam and Allah. He even created several facebook groups mocking the dominant religion in his town. In one group, he jokingly claimed to be God and instructed followers to smoke marijuana.

Keep this in mind the next time someone tries to suggest that government should be influenced by religion.

How far back do they want this country?

2010-11-09T18:29:00.000-05:00

It was without much surprise conservatives swept last week's midterm elections. The re-energized right, dressed in teabags and tri-corner hats, took back the house and several governorships. They even managed to pass a few wedge issues. In California, marijuana legalization was turned down. Arizona voted against health care. Arizona made affirmative action illegal. And, of course, there was Kansas who passed the right to bear arms. Ground-breaking stuff, Kansas, if only someone had thought of that 234 years ago and applied it on a federal level. For those not familiar with how a wedge issue works, I'll go over it briefly. You see, when a political party can't energize their voters about their candidate, or they feel they need a boost, they fight to get issues that traditionally rally their voters onto the ballot. It doesn't matter that the issue is often unprovoked, what matters is if you tell a conservative they have the chance to approve the 2nd Amendment, and on a state level, that's likely to get certain folks to squeeze their plus-sized pajama jeans into a voting booth and pull the lever and, while they're there, click an X next to the GOP candidate.

As discussed recently in this blog, Karl Rove did what he could in 2004 to get out the anti-gay vote and it worked. Conservative Christians pushed President Bush over the top and homophobia reigned
supreme. This election, four states ran a ballot measure on the right to hunt. To hunt! Who do you think they're appealing to there? Well, in Arizona 8 Republicans won house seats, Republican governor Jan Brewer won as did a Republican attorney general. Interestingly enough, the right to hunt did not pass there, but that doesn't mean it didn't help mobilize people, who wouldn't have otherwise bothered to vote, to pull the lever for Brewer. Arkansas has a new Republican senator and they passed the right to hunt. Of course Sen. Jim DeMint won in S. Carolina as did Tea Party-backed Nikki Haley. 89% of voters there voted for the right to hunt. Tennessee also has a new Republican governor and also passed an amendment protecting the right to hunt.

But while the right to hunt or bear arms seems kind of silly and pandering a more worrisome wedge issue passed and is causing a lot of legal trouble. In (sigh, say it with me now) Oklahoma a measure to ban Islamic or Sharia Law from being considered in a court of law. Now, I agree that Islamic Law should never be considered in a court of law in America or anywhere else. It's a ridiculous ancient, inhumane system practiced today largely by cruel, inhumane (in other words, Islamic) societies. Islamic Law has poisoned every nation it's touched and reversed progress 100% of the time. Never has a nation in the world been improved by a religion, in particular Islam, being introduced into government policy. Take a look at Sudan, where Islam perpetrates a genocide, or Iran where a burgeoning westernized nation was stamped out by Islamic Law, or Saudi Arabia, where religious police make sure people pray on time. It's sick and it's inhumane.

And so it's easy to see why people would come out and vote to block Sharia Law from being considered in America. But I have to suspect the motive, and so do you. It's not about a single court case in New Jersey that was almost instantly overturned, if it was, why would this issue be presented only in Oklahoma? No, this is another wedge issue. It must be the case that Islam polls particularly poorly in Oklahoma among likely Republican voters. Throwing this issue on the ballot is something designed to transform a likely Republican voter into a certain Republican voter. The best interest of the people of Oklahoma isn't at stake here. The illusion is that something was being voted on that needs to be voted on, just like the right to hunt. No one's threatening the right to hunt in Tennessee or bear arms in Kansas and no one's threatening to betray the First Amendment and consider Sharia Law in Oklahoma courts.

But, alas, the amendment passed and, although it's content is already covered in the 1st Amendment, it's passing, which targets a particular religion, also violates the 1st Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. 16 words that have been interpreted, explained and clarified for two hundred years, from the original authors to ministers to recent conservative presidents.

Government, as President Reagan put it, must remain neutral on religion. To single out a single religion to "remain neutral on" is a betrayal of the 1st Amendment and I'm not the only one to recognize that. The Council on American-Islamic relations also noticed it and now they're filing a lawsuit, which Oklahoma, a conservative stronghold against wasteful government spending, is going to have to dig into tax dollars to defend.

There's a lot of talk in the Tea Party movement about reclaiming the country and getting back "Constitutional principals." The problem is that a lot of what they're talking about are revisionary interpretations of the Constitution. The Lee Atwater version. the Cleon Skousen version.

It seems to me like the assault on progressive ideas like affirmative action and civil rights and the superfluous reinstatement of 2nd Amendment, (and a biased rewriting of the 1st) are all evidence that the far right are living out their revisionary fantasies. History's not on their side so they're trying to change history, by starting over in some alternate universe where freedom of religion exists only for Christians, racism is just 'the breaks,' and everyone's bootstraps are just as accessible as the next guy's.

What's amazing is that we're talking about Oklahoma here. A state that came out so strongly in favor of inserting Christianity into government that they don't even need to be subtle about it. This is the state that last year fought to keep the Ten Commandments on public grounds. The same state that elected Sally Kern, the politician who blames homosexuals for the economic crises (via a curse from god!) in an official 'proclamation.' Oklahoma loves it's religion mixing with politics, so long as it's the right religion. I think there's a chance some in Oklahoma politics see they've exposed this loophole. If you bitch about state's rights enough, if you insist upon mixing your religion and your government enough, you can eventually make it happen. But now that they've noticed Muslims exist in America, they want to do what they can to deny Muslims from taking advantage of the system the way they have. They'll do anything, except of course, stop taking advantage of the system themselves. So they set up a wall of separation between Mosque and state.

If only someone had thought of that 234 years ago, and applied it across the board, at a federal level.

Palin, Huckabee use NPR firing for deflection

2010-10-21T17:12:00.008-04:00

Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee rushed to the defense of political commentator Juan Williams on Thursday after he was fired by NPR for comments about Muslims.

Palin and Huckabee — like Williams, paid Fox News contributors — launched into the publicly funded radio network.
"NPR defends 1st Amendment Right, but will fire u if u exercise it," Palin tweeted. "Juan Williams: u got taste of Left's hypocrisy, they screwed up firing you."
Huckabee went further in his criticism, calling on Congress to pull funding from NPR.
“NPR has discredited itself as a forum for free speech and a protection of the First Amendment rights of all and has solidified itself as the purveyor of politically correct pabulum and protector of views that lean left,” Huckabee said.
“It is time for the taxpayers to start making cuts to federal spending, and I encourage the new Congress to start with NPR,” he added.
After complaining of too much political correctness in society, Williams told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly on Monday that he gets "nervous" whenever he sees people in “Muslim garb” boarding a plane. NPR fired Williams Wednesday night.
Williams is declining to comment on the firing. “I better bite my tongue at this point,” he told The Washington Post Thursday morning.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43959.html#ixzz131wClRpy

The illusion, of course, that reactionary hate-mongers like Palin want to push, is that NPR gets any significant funding from the federal government. In fact, about 3% or less of NPR's entire budget comes from the federal government. Consider that large corporate broadcasters, like Clear Channel, probably save at least that much in tax breaks and you have to ask yourself: What's Sarah Palin really trying to accomplish here? It's clearly not holding government accountable for anything, as NPR is demonstrably less invloved with government than her own employer News Corp.

As she, and Huckabee say, they're concerned over First Amendment rights. This week Palin-backed tea partier Christine O'Donnell also had a strange opinion about the First Amendment. O'Donnell suggested that since the words 'church, state seperation' themselves aren't written in the document, that this government was not intended to be a secular one. You know, it's amazing. They deride a constitutional scholar like Obama, but at the same time refuse to acknowledge the real context in which this document was composed. The writers, the intent, the history behind amendments are meaningless to people who find it more rewarding to accuse their ideological opponents of betraying it. That's why Palin thinks, seemingly in this instance only, that the First Amendment all of the sudden applies to someone other than citizens in relation to the government. While I have the right to call my governor, senator or president any rude name I can think of without going to jail for it, I don't have the same right to call my employer that same rude name without being dismissed from my job for it. That's how the First Amendment works, it's there to insure that the government doesn't have control over what people say. It's to make sure that the government works for the people, not the other way around. That's also precisely O'Donnell's confusion. Just as the First Amendment explains that it's not the government's job to tell us what words we are not to say, it also tell us that the government is neither there to tell us what to say. Government isn't there to tell us to say our prayers or follow Jesus or keep the sabbath day holy. They shouldn't even be there to tell us to trust in god, but thanks to a 1950's red scare, that exact phrase is printed on all our money.

That's all not even to consider the fact that an employer being allowed to fire an employee for unbecoming behavior, as is deemed by the employer, is already a major conservative talking point. I wonder why the freedom that Palin would support to, say, deny a Muslim woman the right to wear a headscarf at her job in Disney World, doesn't extend to the directors at NPR. Could it be, perhaps, that Disney is totally private company that doesn't ever get any tax breaks or federal subsidies? Whose employment is all contained within the United States? Oh, no? I mean, does Palin count every NPR employee as a public employee? Because that's fucking wrong. It's an independent corporation, not a wing of the FCC.

According to NPR CEO Vivian Schiller:

We are a private 501(c)3. We've had journalists call up and ask what department of the government we report to. That's laughable. Have you listened to our shows? We do apply for competitive grants from the likes of the Ford Foundation and the Knight Foundation. As a result, some money from CPB does come to us when we win grants. Depending on the year, it represents just one to three percent of our total budget.

Here's what's really going on here: It's more than Palin conveniently attacking an easily identifiable conservative target. It's the justification of the hatred and fear of Muslims. What Palin and Huckabee are saying, with the help of their employer News Corp., is that it's a valid position to be afraid of Muslims. Muslims work great as enemies on Fox, and all broadcast news sources. The images of olive-skinned, bearded men in keffiyehs has worked for years, even before 9/11, as a go-to symbol of terrorism. We've even got Fox news 'journalists' declaring all terrorists to be Muslims. At the very least, it takes the heat off of major, multi-national corporations who pollute the water you drink or Christian missionaries who rewrite the history books your children learn from or a tax-dodging, degree-forging, inexpereinced Christian extremist embarrassing what was, until her rise, a growing conservative movement.

But, as long as the right can identify their party with Christianity, and frame any non-Christians as the real problem, they can keep their support steady. And it doesn't matter how much you support Palin or Huckabee or O'Donnell on the issues, if you're being intellectually honest, you've got to admit that, at the end of the day, those people are far more interested in getting votes than they are in sharing religious beliefs. My question to the religious is: How much longer will you put up with being used?

Creeping homophobia

2010-09-29T19:51:00.013-04:00

Let me take you back, briefly, to 2004. I lived in Washington D.C. that summer and the political tensions were palpable. Perhaps our country never recovered from the divisiveness this election brought. Karl Rove unpacked his bag of political tricks, Michael Moore released a conspiracy-laden attack on the Bush administration, 527 groups came to prominence, the media and intelligence communities were still reeling from the administration's outing of an active CIA agent one year earlier. And, on top of all that, there was much focus on one of the right wing's favorite scare tactics: Boys kissing.

In a politically convenient moment, President Bush pushed forth The Marriage Protection Act, which acted to block challenges to a previous act, the Defense of Marriage Act. The Marriage Protection Act passed in the House before the election, but eventually died in the Senate. But the right-wing media forces were able to use that legislation to prop up Christian right zealots like Tony Perkins and James Dobson. They mobilized the Christian right quite successfully and it wasn't solely on the issue of gay marriage. That topic was just a launching pad to give Christian America something to rally behind. A reason to start voting the same way. Once Christians were convinced that gay marriage was a threat, it was easy for the right to present slippery slope arguments on what would happen to our country if Senator John Kerry was elected president. Christian culture, they seemed to suggest, was about to topple and crumble across America unless you vote for George W. Bush. Bush won a very narrow victory.

Homophobia works as a great scare tactic for right wing politicians. On the left, openly homosexual politicians like Barney Frank admit who they are and move on with their careers. On the right, homosexuals are encouraged to suppress any information about their sexuality. Ever wonder why that is? Well, isn't it clear? The right wing can't use homophobia as a tool anymore if it's exposed that there are a number of gay republicans in Congress. So, when outed, gay republicans are asked to step down and continue denying their sexuality.

Cut to 2010. Even though it's not a presidential election, it's a big election year. Republicans hope to see another 1994, when they took the House and the Senate (incidentally, it was that House and Senate under Republican control that would pass the original Defense of Marriage Act of 1996). You may be interested to know that Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the act was also staunchly anti-abortion, but that didn't stop him from procuring an abortion for his wife, who he would (in a show of respect to traditional marriage) soon divorce. And even Barr eventually came out against DOMA and now favors a 2009 bill that would at least provide same-sex partners to receive federal benefits. It should come as no surprise that Barr is no longer with the Republican party. He now considers himself a libertarian.

But here we are with another election on the horizon and what do we see splattered across our front pages? Gays, gays, gays. The growing Tea Party movement (which makes me shudder to admit their popularity) is running hard on the Bush/Rove model of homophobia. Of course, there's Delaware's Christine O'Donnell's well-publicized campaign to 'cure' homosexuals. Then there's the recent debacle over Don't Ask Don't Tell. Nevada's Sharron Angle is battling adoption by gay couples. However, the Tea Party's endorsement of established Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, who was all tied up in the C Street scandal last year, shows their true colors. They're not a new wave of conservative libertarians. They're the same old Republicans, just more religious and more nuts. This week DeMint defended comments he made in (say it with me) 2004 condemning both homosexuals and unmarried women as unfit to teach in a public school classroom. He now thinks he's taking the high road by standing up for his 'moral opinion' even if the media doesn't like it. You can bet that plays well to conservatives.

Here we are, six years later and the Republicans, the Tea Party who claim to be the 'new conservatives,' break out the same old bag of tricks, from the same old people. The same old, I'm just like you, my morals are straight outta the Bible, mom, football, apple pie, traditional family, gays are sinners, easily understood, thought-terminating clichés.

And it's not just me saying so: A new poll out today explains exactly who these teabaggers are: The Christian right.

'Tea party' apparently declared too stupid by 'tea party' candidates

2010-09-15T01:14:00.001-04:00

Well, it’s official. Politicians finally have so little respect for intellect they’ve framed a political ad in the most insulting way possible: As a movie…(wait for it)…of a fairy tale.

Even the stupidest among us can see what this ad wants you to see. Democrats are witches, Republicans are somewhere, over the rainbow, waiting to take you home. I mean, they still got a few attacks on Pelosi’s character and they’re really driving the tea party rhetoric home. You could play drinking games with the buzz word codes they hit on in here. And don’t call me too sensitive if I call sexism on having Dorothy say “I don’t care about political parties…”. What they’re appealing to exposes exactly what they think of women: ‘Don’t worry ya stupid broad, just cast a vote for the Republican and all your problems will go away. Don’t overwork your precious little brain on learning about who impacts your world when you could be baking me a pie.’ It’s almost as if they’re saying: No need to look behind that curtain!

P.S. What the fuck was with Hank Paulson cast as the wizard? Doesn’t that suggest that sticking with Paulson is the way to get home? It is eventually the wizard that helps them all, right? Despite the deception, he actually does get them what they want, in a way. I’m confused.

Christians demand Obama adhere to Christian law, expose their own hypocrisy

2010-09-03T18:00:00.006-04:00

There's a disconnect between the way some right-wing Christians act and the things they say. Let's look at two popular arguments the especially paranoid wing of the right have been making lately. Now, I'm not saying every Republican makes these arguments, but when nearly a third of Republicans think this, it's time to dispel some myths. First off, President Obama has made his religious beliefs clear since before his campaign for the presidency. Yet, with black skin and a weird name and a dedication to bridging cultural gaps, Obama is easily named by psychopaths as a conspirator in a secretive Muslim plot to take over America. At the same time, the Islamic community center in downtown Manhattan is being seen as a 'victory Mosque' by the right. The claim persists that Muslims are trying to impose Sharia Law (and, in particular, the Christian rights complete misunderstanding of what 'Sharia Law' means).

Now, I'm no psychologist, but it seems pretty clear to me that when one groups makes a broad claim about another group without first having any real in-depth understanding of the 1st group, that there's probably a little bit of projection going on. That is to say, Christian conservatives who certainly have no understanding of Islam or Sharia Law, who only learn about it via flawed and biased sources like Fox or Youtube or Pat Robertson, are in fact assigning attributes they themselves possess to Muslims. Do Muslims want to take over the country, the world, and impose strict Sharia Law that calls for the stoning of adulterers and rape victims? Sure, some. But that's a radical approach that few even in Islamic countries adhere to. Do they know nothing of the rebellion against Islamic law in Iran? The only people who want all people to follow one religion are those looking to use the religion for political advantage. While Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may see opportunities in creating an all-Muslim world, that it not the view of the majority of Muslims or even everyone in his own country.

And what about Christians?

Look at their reaction to Obama's speech, posted above. Although Obama states the exact opposite of their fear about Sharia Law or some one-world religion by being all-inclusive and including mentions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc, the religious right are offended that Obama refuses to legislate from the Bible. Do a twitter search for 'Obama' and 'Bible' any day and there will be a litany of uninformed conservative Christians who've had their brains melted by the likes of Fox News, complaining that Obama has mocked the Bible, that he doesn't respect Jesus, that he's not a Christian because no Christian would say these things. So, in their view, it must be reasoned, a true Christian would want to legislate out of the Bible. Sounds a lot like that religious law that they were so worried about. They're projecting their actual expectations about America onto what they see as the 'other.' Muslims. And then there's the amazing leap in logic that any presidential candidate who is Muslim must be suspected of consorting with terrorists, though it's been shown that less than 1% of Muslims have ever had any ties to terrorism.

This is America. And the only path to the religious freedom that our constitution guarantees is to be entirely neutral toward religion in government. That means that there ought be no National Day of Prayer or imposed prayer on public school students or special attention payed to a religious center. Should we know if terrorists secretly plan to use a Mosque as a U.S. base? Of course, that's why we have federal systems designed to seek this sort of information. But we must not start with that suspicion. Terrorist groups like the KKK and abortion-doctor murderers are just as likely to meet in a church and discuss their plans as an al-Qaida cell are to meet in a Mosque.

Obligatory Manhattan Mosque Post

2010-08-14T22:07:00.008-04:00

This whole NYC mosque situation has put me and like-minded people in a strange position. Sam Harris is against it, Christopher Hitchens is for it and both are very careful not to come off as supporting Islam. President Obama stands up for American values while Newt Gingrich suggests we ought to be more like Saudi Arabia and other Islamo-fascist countries (and by proxy declared the U.S. a Christian nation.) Did the whole world lose their script?

On the one hand, Islam is a cruel, reasonless, oppressive force that keeps a good deal of the world enslaved. I’m not denying that and I’m not disagreeing with Harris’ evaluation of the religion.

But, on the other hand, I insist upon freedom of religion. I always tell people, I’m not interested in shutting down churches, mosques, scientology mind-warping centers, etc. if it means I have to do it via the law (or violence). You can never outlaw an idea. It’s not just morally wrong to do so, but it won’t work. It hasn’t, in the history of the world. Despite the inquisitions there are still atheists and Jews. Despite the best efforts of armies throughout the centuries there remains, in our world, fascist, socialist, capitailist and theocratic governments. And terrorism. You can’t kill an idea, even ones as objectionable as anti-women’s rights, fascism or Islam.

All you can do is coax someone away from religion. The best you can do is expose the religion’s harm and give people the tools to free themselves. If someone has chosen to leave a religion, if the law or the government forces them out of it, or if they’re denied the freedom to practice, say, by having their place of worship shoved out of an area: They’re not free. This sort of action would only embolden their alligance to the religion and justify the fears that America has a vendetta against Islam. That’s no way to free people.

Americans in every religion and from every culture have adjusted their beliefs and their traditions to meld with American culture. When some fear-mongers try to raise the point that “Muslims want to impose Sharia Law on us all,” they’re ignoring the history of America, that is that American ideals and values always trump threats. Not to mention they’re misrepresenting Islam and religion in general. Every religion wants to dominate the world. Why wouldn’t you, if you thought you had some secret supernatural answer to salvation or etenal life or whatever your bag is? However, they realize that’s an impractical idea, except for extremists. Abortion-doctor murderers, Islamic terrorists, people seeking legal exemptions for ‘faith-healing’ they’re the ones we need to stop, because they are the ones who use religion to treat people inhumanely to the point of immediate danger.

A church, a mosque, a cultural center, that’s not a threat. That’s not a victory for al-qaida. That’s the way America expects a religion to act. Calling Islam a cruel faith isn’t enough to deny it’s eligability to build a multi-cultural center on an old Burlington Coat Factory a few blocks from where terrorists attacked. Just like a town in which a man was murdered by bible literalists for being gay isn’t grounds for denying an application to build a church in that town.

Finally, if some terrorists want to consider this a victory, I wouldn’t mind. I know that America is in the right, by not tossing our values out the window and I don’t care how someone else percieves it. Americans know what’s right and as the bright lights of education begin to cover the Mideast, which it inevitably will, it will start to become apparent that by not allowing the events of 9/11 to compromise our values, we have beaten the terrorists.

If you go down in the flood It's gonna be your own fault

2010-08-11T22:24:00.006-04:00

Well it's Ramadan and, like every year, I'm late on my shopping. ...oh, wait...

Actually, there is some shopping you could do this Ramadan that might make you feel all warm and fuzzy. You see, in the Muslim nation of Pakistan more than 13 million people have lost homes and more in violent flooding brought on by Monsoon rains. 1,500 are reported dead. So, perhaps, you think, the humane thing to do would be to send a few bucks towards international aid workers. Red Cross, UNICEF, Super Friends, etc. But, you have to keep in mind that, in accordance with Islam, if your money reaches victims in, perhaps, the form of food, it may be turned away. You see, it's Ramadan. Ramadan is a 'month' long holiday (It will last from Aug. 11th to Sept. 9th) during which Muslims are not to eat while the sun is up. So, if they receive any food in daylight hours, they'll have to turn it down or, if it's a non perishable, they may save it until the nighttime. During Ramadan, in the evening the family will gather for a feast of sorts, known as Iftar. This year is going to be especially tough on the Muslim families who lost their homes. Their homes are gone. They are trudging through floods, perhaps starving. Some may be seeking food anywhere, but their merciful god insists even in the face of dizzying hunger, that they wait until the sun sets to ingest a single morsel of your donation.

If their religion was right, they'd sooner die with a piece of bread in their hands waiting for the sun to set, than accept the generous offer from the West to save their lives. And it's not like I'm blowing out of proportion how much aid the west is giving Pakistan. For a nuclear armed Muslim country, this flood is a great diplomatic opportunity.

On CNN, they're saying:

The United States will also invest $100 million to expand access to credit for small and medium-sized businesses, and provide $50 million to support investments in innovation and technology projects, she said.

The projects will be funded by the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act that authorizes $7.5 billion in development aid to Pakistan over the next five years.

And we're not even keeping good track of it.

The United States has not accurately tracked about $6 billion it gave to help the Pakistani government fight terrorism since 2001, according to a report released Tuesday.

I mean, the truth is people are suffering, and they need help. But we're really losing a lot in the way we're doing it. Our donations aren't getting there, if they are they might be turned away (because of religion), and then there's this ugly bitch rearing it's head in this whole mess:

Pakistan floods could give Taliban time to regroup

ISLAMABAD (AP) — The floods ravaging Pakistan are generating fears that Taliban insurgents could regroup amid the chaos and destruction. The country’s already anemic economy is expected to weaken, increasing the poverty that is a factor in the militancy wracking the country.

One of the hardest hit regions is the northwest, the heartland of the Pakistan Taliban and other insurgent groups. Over the last two years, the army has carried out several offensives against militants there. The U.S. has welcomed the efforts — and launched drone strikes of its own — because of the threat the insurgents pose to Western troops across the border in Afghanistan.

Now, thousands of those Pakistani soldiers have been tasked with flood relief and will likely be crucial in rebuilding bridges and roads once the worst floods in Pakistan’s history have receded. Helicopters that once backed up troops in the tribal regions may have to be dispatched for flood relief.

“It’s too much on the plate for the army,” said Ayesha Siddiqa, a military analyst.
Chief army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said 60,000 troops nationwide have been engaged in flood-relief, including many in places insurgents have been active. He said the military could handle the floods and the fighting concurrently.

The insurgents have kept up attacks during the two-week flooding crisis, which has left 1,500 people dead and affected nearly 14 million people.

A suicide bomber killed the head of a U.S.-backed paramilitary police force, while gunmen wounded the sister of one of the northwest’s top political leaders.

Now, here's my favorite part:

On Tuesday, the Pakistani Taliban said the flooding was God’s punishment to Pakistanis for accepting secular leaders and urged Pakistanis to boycott foreign aid.

Yes, the Taliban is taking a page out of Pat Robertson's book (illustrating once again that Robertson is morally equivalent to these guys, although, he's a little less intelligent) and they're actively telling people that God is going to punish them if they accept foreign aid.

I hate to be a cynic, but if I'm going to give money to an organization that can't manage it's money properly, to give to flood victims who won't accept it and there's a roving army of fascist-Islamo terrorists trying to keep it out of victims' hands, claiming the power of God on their side: Then why am I wasting my money? Sure, I want to help, but I think it's more than likely donating money to Pakistan now will result in the funding of discarded food, and the Taliban. And I can't take that chance.

More people have been displaced by this flood than the combined total of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the 2005 Kashmir earthquake and the 2010 Haiti earthquake. Yet, religion stands between this nation and recovery.

What if there were no Islam or Christianity or if, instead of 97% of Pakistan being Muslim, only 15% were? What would the relief effort look like then? There'd be no relevant Taliban, since only a very small percentage of people would be Muslim and even smaller percent would be extremist Muslims (probably like, 6 guys). There'd be no Ramadan to stop people from nourishing their disaster torn bodies. With better education, perhaps the Pakistani people would have built sturdier, flood-ready housing, but of course, Islamic fundamentalism severely limits education and even the opportunity for any normal life for these people.

Look, I'm not making the argument against donations, if you think you've found a worthy, legit cause, than absolutely the moral thing to do is, if you can, donate to the rescue of suffering human beings. My argument is what my argument always is:

Just another 'harm of religion.'

P.S.: In retrospect, perhaps the title of this article appears to blame the victim. I assure you, I only meant it as an unrelated reference to this Bob Dylan song.

Religious institutions impose hypocrisy

2010-07-14T20:36:00.008-04:00

..snore...snore...what, What, Oh, right, my blog! Don't worry, I didn't go away. In fact, I'm more active than ever at Good Reason News — Tumblr Edition. Think of that as GRN Daily and this blogspot location as GRN, ...monthly? Bi-weekly? Well, either way, I'm advising if you're following GRN here, you check it out there as well. OK, now:

I came upon some interesting international news recently involving our old friends at the Vatican. It seems that the Vatican, embroiled in a child abuse scandal, facing declining numbers, and losing influence the world over, is taking a Karl Rove approach and shoring up their base. And who is there base? Naturally, it's people who desire oppression. The great American writer Arthur Miller once said:

"There are a lot of Americans, i think they’re a minority, but they’re very vocal, really aching for an Ayatollah. I think would love to have a department of religion. We’d go back to the early 17th century, perhaps. Have an official church. They’ve convinced a lot of people to forget this country was founded by people who were escaping governmental religion."

...and he died before Sarah Palin hit the national spotlight!

Keep that in mind as you read about the Catholic Church's latest shenanigans:

New Vatican campaign to clamp down on 'liberal opinion'

By John Cooney

Monday June 07 2010

VATICAN investigators to Ireland appointed by Pope Benedict XVI are to clamp down on liberal secular opinion in an intensive drive to re-impose traditional respect for clergy, according to informed sources in the Catholic Church.

The nine-member team led by two cardinals will be instructed by the Vatican to restore a traditional sense of reverence among ordinary Catholics for their priests, the Irish Independent has learned.

Priests will be told not to question in public official church teaching on controversial issues such as the papal ban on birth control or the admission of divorced Catholics living with new partners to the sacraments -- especially Holy Communion.

Theologians will be expected to teach traditional doctrine by constantly preaching to lay Catholics of attendance at Mass and to return to the practice of regular confession, which has been largely abandoned by adults since the 1960s.

An emphasis will be placed on an evangelisation campaign to overcome the alienation of young people scandalised by the spate of sexual abuse of children and by later cover-ups of paedophile clerics by leaders of the institutional church.

A major thrust of the Vatican investigation will be to counteract materialistic and secularist attitudes, which Pope Benedict believes have led many Irish Catholics to ignore church disciplines and become lax in following devotional practices such as going on pilgrimages and doing penance.

Bishops and priests will be instructed to preach to their congregations the unchanging central message of Jesus Christ about love, healing and repentance.

While the restoration of church discipline and pious practices such as praying to Our Lady and the saints will be welcomed by regular church-goers, the Vatican investigation is likely to face a backlash from liberal Catholics who want more accountability and democracy in church decision-making.

Visitation

Vatican officials are finalising the precise terms of the instructions for the investigators named last week by Pope Benedict, who initiated an 'Apostolic Visitation' last March in his pastoral Letter to the Catholics of Ireland.

The investigators are clearing their diaries to visit Ireland's four principal archdioceses, the national seminaries and study centres run by religious orders in the autumn.

In the wake of the shocking Murphy report into clerical child abuse, the conservative Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, will examine the study courses conducted for trainee priests at the national seminaries in St Patrick's College, Maynooth, and the Pontifical Irish College in Rome.

At a meeting held in Maynooth last month, Archbishop Dolan told a gathering of priests "to return to basics" and to ground their ministry in "prayer, humility and a rediscovery of identity".

Archbishop Dolan's address, titled "God is the only treasure people desire to find in a priest", was the high point of the Irish church's celebration of The Year of the Priest, a campaign to encourage vocations to the priesthood.

The hardline address was enthusiastically endorsed by Cardinal Sean Brady, the Primate of All Ireland and Archbishop of Armagh.

This week, as part of the Vatican's rigorous restoration policy, a widely promoted rally will be staged in Rome to cap what Pope Benedict has called "The Year of the Priest".

Thousands of priests from across the world, including from Ireland, are expected to attend the showcase event which is planned as a major spectacle trumpeting the special status of the priesthood.

- John Cooney

Irish Independent

So what are we looking at here? A group who has lost the respect of million not aiming to earn back anyone's respect, but to squeeze out those who don't simply submit to their worldview.

Even the priests within the church, most of whom are good people trying to have a positive impact on their community, are directly being told not to think, just to stay on message.

Look, the Vatican is an autocracy. It's a top down, oppressive and extremely out of date organization that stores a ridiculous amount of power, money and policy decisions way way at the top of a golden palace while the world of 2010 is building socially conscience democracies. How is this ancient sect of power-hungry villains are able to thrive in a place like America which values freedom so strongly that we endlessly harangue anyone who supports any strong leader? Look at how the right treats Obama. There's a Tu Tlux Tlan out there screaming 'dictator,' furious at the idea of a 'big government.' Why are they not furious at the idea of the big government of the Vatican?

Religion wipes your mind clear of even your own values. If you're a priest with a dissenting opinion about stem-cell research, religion cracks down on you. If you're a Catholic who doesn't want to participate in some cruel, humiliating ritual, you're to be chastised and if you're interested in freedom, transparency and accountable leaders, you're to put those feelings aside when religion comes to town. It's imposed hypocrisy and it's a harm of religious belief.

Fox questions Obama's prayer sincerity

2010-06-16T17:26:00.004-04:00

A network that never dared question the sincerity of George W. Bush's claims to pray, but still claims that it's a real, legit news organization, has asked is President Obama (you know, the BLACK president) really means it when he says he prays.

It reminds me of something Sen. Bernie Sanders told me years ago. Here, he sums it up in the documentary Outfoxed:

FOX seeks to separate Obama from the mainstream in every way they can, through 'birther claims,' every fucking conspiracy theory they can get talking-parasite Glenn Beck to regurgitate, and of course, religion.

They, at once, perpetrate the myth of the 'good christian,' which FOX viewers love because they count themselves as such, and try to remove President Obama from that group. 'Sure he says the word 'prayer,'' FOX tells us, 'but he can't be a good Christian or a REAL American, like you good folks at home!'

It's so fucking disgusting and divisive and manipulative, I can't even wrap my mind around how anyone buys it.

It's just bigoted, closed-minded, uneducated, sore losers, hearing what they want to hear and ignoring what's true. These people deserve the Christo-fascism they daily demand.

Reader mail

2010-06-09T17:21:00.002-04:00

Even I get letters once in a while and I try to read them and, if I think you'd all be interested, I post about it. It's easy to fall behind, but here's a couple of things I've been sitting on I thought you'd all be interested in. Thanks, as always, for reading. Feel free to send me something if you want my take on it, maybe I'll even post it up here.

If you just can't get enough Good Reason News, you can see daily updates at Goodreasonnews.tumblr.com

First, Simon Owens, who runs bloggasm, a journalism-focused blog I'm becoming increasingly fond of, thought my readers would be interested in his interview with Dan Gilgoff, who's heading up CNN's new Belief blog.

So you can read that exchange here.

In addition, I was contacted via Youtube by SavannahBos, who may or may not be a legit account (user seems to have a lot of car commercials on their channel, but either way, I've been sent this video of this giggling young man asking, essentially, if God created the devil, didn't God create evil? And, of course, if God created evil how is evil...evil.

He's not very articulate (I'd be impressed if you could make it all the way through this thing) but he raises a few classic points about the paradox of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent creator character, proving to me that it doesn't take a masters degree in philosophy to recognize the inherit logical failing of belief in a god.

He makes the mistake of only addressing the Christian God, but I find it a positive development that critical thinking skills are being taught in this country and that there are young people like KSicsFaces who are unafraid to apply it, even to the most sacredly held beliefs. And who are unafraid to take it right to youtube and tell the world. Looks like he's got a lot of responses too.

So, some people thought you'd all be interested in those ideas. I thank them for thinking of all of you godless heathens, curious web surfers or whoever else is reading. Thank you again.

Israel's anti-Semite card

2010-06-03T17:34:00.005-04:00

Alright, let's take a quick look at what's happened with this Israeli flotilla attack. I'm going to be honest with you all, here and admit something a lot of opinion bloggers aren't admitting. I don't know what happened. I mean, I read enough articles to know what's being said. I even found a first hand account. So I can't really talk about the actual event, but I think there's an important lesson to be learned in the media/blogger response to the articles.

Of course, everyone picked the familiar sides, the right believes Israel can do no wrong ever in any situation, even in light of an American's death. The left, on the other hand, fully accept reports that the ship in question was on a completely humanitarian mission and that the big bully of Israel just decided that they needed to stir up trouble.

Here's what I know. Some of those people defending Israel are saying that any opposition is anti-Semitic. I wish I could find you a link, but you're just gonna have to trust that I'm 'pretty sure' I heard Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu say that people on board the ship were 'chanting anti-Semitic slogans.'

And of course, in the opposite corner, there are those saying that Muslims in Gaza are in a constant state of persecution and that that is what is, in fact, behind all this.

And this calls into question what it means to make an anti-Semitic statement. It's easy to look at neo-nazi's or '5 Jew banker' conspiracy theorists and say 'anti-Semitism,' but it's a little more difficult to make the argument that a statement like 'Israel is an illegitimate nation," is anti-Semitic. To call Israel illegitimate or a threat or dangerous is definitely not support, but it's not really hostile toward Jewish people. It's not an attack on the heritage or the religion. But, there, we have the issue. Israel, as a religious state, is easily able to conflate all actions by the government or the military with religious issues. So if Jews are going to claim part of their religion is that the nation of Israel exists and we all have to respect their religion, we therefore all have to respect their country — no matter what. So, while all countries have their detractors and all governments have their protesters, only a government wrapped up in a religion can make any dissenting views seem like a religious attack, thereby rallying support from those who may not agree with the military action or the political action.

Can you see the thought-termination here? People's anger over what's being called anti-Semitic is distracting them from reaching a political conclusion.

Alternatively, if it's the case that the flotilla was secretly involved in some attempt to attack Israel the Muslim persecution card will always rally those who support who choose to side with the afflicted.

I'm not saying that if there were no religions that conflicts like this wouldn't occur, of course they would. But imagine how much more honest and productive the world's response would be if there weren't religious outrage fueling the flames.

And imagine how much worse off America would be if we did consider it a nation for one particular religion?

There's the harm right there.

Support "Trust Women" Please!

2010-05-22T18:00:00.007-04:00

Readers, you may have recently noticed on my sidebar a plea to help to Brooklyn-based filmmakers, Lana Wilson and Martha Shane, raise funds for their documentary "Trust Women," which takes a look at Dr. LeRoy Carhart and Dr. Warren Hern, two of the last physicians in the country who continue to perform late-term abortions. Whether they realize it or not, the directors are documenting the tale of two American doctors who stand up to terrorism everyday. I had the chance to interview them and I hope, if you feel as passionate about this movie getting made as I do, you'll pledge a few bucks right here.

I never ask you guys for money, I rarely advocate anything, so you know this cause has really captured my heart. I hope it captures yours too.

Hey, by the way, they only got until tomorrow, May 23rd, so jump on this now, Now, NOW! Please, please, use your money to put something good into the world, even if it's only $5 or $10, you'll be able to brag to all your friends about helping young, intelligent artists improve the world.

OK, without further begging, Lana Wilson and Martha Shane:

GRN: Tell us a little about the 'story arc' of your film, it's title, your goals and the doctors portrayed.

The working title for our film is TRUST WOMEN: THE STORY OF TWO AMERICAN ABORTION DOCTORS.

After the murder of Dr. George Tiller last June, there are only a few American doctors left who provide late abortions for women who need them. Two of these physicians—Dr. LeRoy Carhart and Dr. Warren Hern—have been threatened and harassed by the anti-choice movement for years, yet have bravely continued their work protecting a woman’s right to cho
ose. Our film will paint a vivid portrait of the lives of both of these men.

The sacrifices that these doctors, their families, and their staffs make on a day-to-day basis--whether it means installing metal detectors in their clinics, or avoiding restaurants and other public places--often go unnoticed. Similarly, the complicated medical and personal circumstances that lead many women to seek an abortion are frequently misunderstood or ignored. We hope that our film will not only make a powerful political statement about the importance of protecting abortion rights, but also function as a work of art, telling the deeply personal stories of its two main characters through their own eyes, in a lyrical and expressive style.

As for the doctors themselves, the first is Dr. LeRoy Carhart, who served in the United State Air Force for over twenty years, and has been providing abortion care since 1974. He founded the Abortion & Contraception Clinic of Nebraska (ACCON) in Bellevue, Nebraska, with his childhood sweetheart and wife of 48 years, Mary Lou Carhart, in 1992. ACCON’s mission is to provide pregnancy terminations, contraception, and routine medical care to the women of the Midwest in a compassionate, comfortable and personal environment. Dr. Carhart was a close friend of Dr. George Tiller, and after Dr. Tiller’s assassination in May 2009, decided to provide late-term abortions at his own clinic. Over the years Dr. Carhart has been subject to endless persecution from anti-choice protestors, including a suspected arson in 1991 that burned down his family’s farm, killing seventeen horses and two pets. Last month, as you may already know, restrictive new anti-choice laws were signed into law in Nebraska, set to go into effect in October.

The second doctor who will be featured in the film is Dr. Warren Hern, the Director of the Boulder Abortion Clinic in Boulder, Colorado, founded his own private practice in 1975, and since then has devoted his life to researching and developing the best and safest ways of terminating pregnancy. A trained anthropologist, he has also studied fertility and the use of contraceptives in Peru’s Shipibo Indian communities for the past forty years, and has written extensively about that research, as well as about abortion practice and women’s rights. Despite living and working in one of the most progressive communities in the country, Dr. Hern has suffered anti-choice harassment and threats for decades, including a shooting attack on his clinic. But nothing will stop Dr. Hern—at the age of 72, he still skis double-black-diamond runs, writes poetry, and takes National Geographic-published nature photographs in his spare time.

GRN: I've always felt like the mistake in the abortion debate is that the anti-abortion rights people have made it an issue of morality, of murder, of standing up for someone who can't stand up for themselves. And it has crossed my mind that those who think abortion involves killing a living thing are under the impression that some god drops a soul from heaven like an air traffic controller at the moment of conception. Have you found that most anti-abortion arguments are narrowed down to something like this? Do you feel there is any reasonable opposition to the rights to an abortion?

Some anti-abortion arguments definitely do go along the lines that you mention, and use an argument of "morality" to make their case. But the case for morality can also be made on the pro-choice side of the issue. As Dr. Carhart put it in an interview we did with him, "The only truly moral way to be is pro-choice. Women will never be forced to make a decision they don't want to if they are allowed to have a choice." As his wife, Mary Lou Carhart, pointed out in the same interview, when can it be moral to, for instance, force a 13-year-old girl to have a baby? Is that really the most morally righteous decision to make?

As you point out, anti-choicers certainly do harp on the idea that life, to them, begins before birth, in the womb. Many of them even suggest that life een begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg, even though this is not even something possible to medically detect. Dr. Hern wrote a very funny piece for THE COLORADO STATESMAN in 2007 called, "Would a fertilized egg need a passport?" Here's an excerpt from it that relates to what you're talking about (and you can read the full piece here: http://www.drhern.com/pdfs/fertilizedeggamendment.pdf):

"An egg is a person. No, an egg is a chicken. A fertilized human egg is a person. An acorn is a tree. A seed is an apple. A set
of plans is a house. A blastocyst is a “preborn baby.” An adult human being is a “pre-dead corpse.” Up is down. Black is white. War is peace. Facts are not important. Belief is what matters. And people who know the truth will tell you what to believe....The U.S. Constitution refers to “All persons born...,” not “all persons conceived...” or “all fertilized eggs…” No live birth, no person."

For us, the bottom line is that everyone is entitled to have their own opinion on abortion--whether it's right or wrong, or whether they would ever consider getting an abortion themselves. And people are welcome to have their own opinions about when life begins (even if those opinions are not backed up by medical facts). But people should not have the right to make this decision for others. No person--and certainly no state legislature or federal government--has the right to make deeply personal medical and life decisions for women. Only the woman herself can judge her situation and what will be the best decision for her.

GRN: I find that the most religious and sexually restricted areas of the United States are frequently the areas in which teen pregnancy is the highest. These are frequently also the places in which an abortion (particularly for young people) are especially hard to obtain. What do you think this says about America's variety of approaches to sexual education?

America's approach to sex education is clearly very problematic. Numerous studies have proven that countries with the most comprehensive sex education programs, and not the "abstinence-only" policy that so many American health teachers are forced to adhere to, have lower abortion and teenage pregnancy rates. There is no question about this, so it's unfortunate that American education policy is not currently doing everything it can to prevent teenagers from being in the situation where they need to get abortions. One great irony of the anti-choice movement is that ultimately, their policies actually lead to higher abortion rates.

In terms of the lack of abortion services in certain parts of the country, that is certainly a problem too. Martha actually had a letter to the editor published in THE NEW YORK TIMES last week about the unfortunate lack of access to abortion services in red states: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/opinion/l17douthat.html

GRN: Who needs to see your film? Do you think you can change minds? Do you think the anti-abortion rights people will give you a chance?

We want as many people as possible to see our film. We certainly do think that art changes minds, and that's why we're making this movie.

One of the major problems with the pro-choice movement is public perception, particularly public perception of the doctors who actually provide abortions. We think that by putting audiences directly inside of the lives of these two very inspiring doctors--letting them hear both men speak, in their own words, about why they do the work that they do, as well as sharing the stories of women who come to the clinic and why--they'll be able to better understand why protecting the right to choose is so important. It's also very important to us to really put a human face on these two doctors--to show that they're people with wonderful families and hobbies and passions just like everyone else--because we think that will help audiences sympathize and identify with them.

We don't have high expectations for the anti-choice movement giving our film a chance, but who knows--it could happen! The film is really targeted more at people who are uncertain or conflicted about the issue--which is probably most of the country--as well as people who are mostly pro-choice, but may not support late abortion rights. This is surprisingly common, thanks to widespread misinformation about why women need late abortions. So another goal of the film is simply to educate the general public about why late abortions are sometimes needed, and the importance of protecting this right as well.

GRN: The anti-abortion rights people are often portrayed as rough customers. In the process of making this film did you find any of that to be true? Did you ever feel threatened?

We are still in the process of making this film, so it's really too early to say. What we've seen so far is a wide range of anti-choice protestors--from very quiet people who pray silently outside clinics, to loud protestors who aggressively harass the women trying to get inside. We really don't feel threatened ourselves--the safety of the doctors and the clinic staffs is what's really at risk here.

GRN: Can you offer any insight on the recent law passed in Oklahoma forcing women seeking an abortion (and doctors) to undergo a vaginal ultrasound against their will (among other provisions)?s

The new Oklahoma law is a terrible blow to the rights of women in that state. It has two provisions--one in which the doctor has to show an ultrasound of the fetus to the pregnant woman, and describe its physical characteristics to her, even if she is the victim of rape or incest, and another in which doctors cannot be sued by their patients if they decide not to tell a patient that their fetus has a severe birth defect. Obviously, if a woman does not know about a birth defect in her fetus, this can have disastrous consequences for both herself and her family. And as for the other provision, we think Rachel Maddow said it best: the new plan of the anti-choice movement seems to be that "If you can't stop women from having abortions, at least make the experience as vile, invasive, and humiliating as possible." It's a shame that this law passed, but hopefully it will incite the women in that state to action.

Thanks, Lana, Martha, Dr. Hern, Dr. Carhart and all my readers especially those who are now going to click here and use a few bucks to help change the world.

Ann Coulter's free speech remains in tact

2010-05-16T22:59:00.004-04:00

Readers: I don't usually answer people's comments in a new post, but Google seems to be having some problem and I'm unable to post comments. If you're having problems, I'm sorry, feel free to email me your questions. There's a button on the left.

Anyway, this is in response to Kate who, having read my piece on the stark differences between Ann Coulter and Saudi poet Hissa Hilal, asked me for my take on the cancellation of Coulter's speech at the University of Ottawa.

Here's the article she linked me to.

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

Kate, I'm glad you asked me that because I think I have an interesting take on this.

As I understand it, Coulter was asked to speak at a college, then, after a series of protests, that invite was either revoked or Coulter's people advised her to back out. I'm not clear, but I'm sure it was either one or the other and not some third reason, like, for instance, that the government deported Coulter or something like that.

OK, so, let's put aside this regrettable nonsense from Susan Cole (who said Canada isn't interested in free speech) and Ezra Levant (who shamed Ottawa students for 'silencing her (Coulter) through intimidation.'

What happened here was that a woman was scheduled to speak, nobody wanted to hear her speak or give her a platform, so they railed against it till the speech was cancelled. Think of it as a sort of 'free-market' of speech. Coulter was free to speak, despite what Cole will have you believe. The government didn't crack down on her. No SWAT team was sent in to silence her. Nowhere was her FREEDOM to speak assaulted. However, like in a free market, if people don't want it, they react. If we found out tomorrow Wonder Bread caused cancer, there'd be a lot of protests. No one would say that those who boycotted Wonder Bread were trying to take away Wonder Bread's freedom to sell a product. Cigarette companies don't say that oncologists are anti-freedom (although, I wouldn't be surprised if those bastards did resort to that.) Coulter and her right-wing buddies are telling us her freedom has been assaulted because it's easy for people to rally behind that. You want to be on the side of freedom, but the trick she's played on you is convincing you that this is an issue of freedom at all.

Look, when we say 'free' we're talking about laws. The government. Police. Freedom isn't giving everyone equal time. That's the opposite of freedom. That's force-feeding. I don't have to listen to Ann Coulter anymore than I have to listen to the leader of the KKK. I can walk out. I can turn the radio off. What's more, if she's coming to my university, I have the right as an American (and I presume Canadians do, too) to shout and scream in the halls until the thing I want stopped is stopped. If I do it alone, I'll be taken away. Not because my 'freedom' is being taken away, but because no one is buying my speech. The 'free speech market' has shut me up. However, if I'm there with 2,000 friends saying 'we don't want this in our school,' suddenly there's demand for what I'm saying and against what Coulter's saying.

I'm not forced to host Coulter at my university politely anymore than I am forced buy Coulter's hateful books. This is why schools don't host KKK leaders or al-Qaida supporters, not to limit their free speech, but because that's speech no one's buying. There's no support for Coulter in Ottawa and whoever booked her made a mistake.

I'm not interested in the spin that suggests there were physical threats to her. I don't know what they consider a physical threat, but I know plenty of controversial speakers, at least the brave ones, don't back down in the face of threats. I know Barack Obama wouldn't. Before he was president he spoke a few blocks from my house the morning after a shooting took place on that same block. Sure, he had protection, but he was still outside, without a kevlar vest, in a dangerous Philadelphia neighborhood with hundreds of potential sharpshooter nests surrounding him. That's bravery. Coulter making an issue out of a protest that got her more headlines than if she had actually spoke, that's worse than cowardice.

That's calculated deception.

She sells a product nobody wants and then sells the outrage when the 'free-speech market' boycotts her.

Thanks for reading, Kate, I appreciate the input and thanks for the correction. I know the plural is churches, but I slip up every now and then.

Thanks again,
Billy Deaton.

Holiest Among Us

2010-05-15T23:19:00.005-04:00

A Philly film student recently sent a video collage he put together last semester and asked if I would share it with all of you. So here it is. It's disturbing, poignant, and powerful.

I, like many, can get very angry watching things like this. It reminds me that religion is everywhere and it's a major contributing factor in blinding people while a few powerful elites wield it to tear our world apart. It's our world, folks, it's not their world. The rich, the powerful, the famous, they're the few. The people who use this sort of destruction, cruelty and hate based in fairy tales, they thrive on your dependence upon them and their myths. Don't give it to them. I know, I'm starting to sound like Marx, but this isn't about Marxism, I'm not a Marxist, but it's true. Religion is the opiate of the masses. "They keep you doped with religion," said John Lennon.

But what I've got to remember and what everybody's got to remember, before our anger gets the best of us, is that the same folks we're so angry at for stirring up this nonsense are often the victims that we're trying to lift out of the dark pit that is religious belief. It's so hard for a Christian or a Muslim or whatever you got to understand that they can let go of gods. That it's easy, that it's not about turning evil, that it is, in fact, liberation.

I'm not saying all wars and violence and hate would end the day the last man puts down his religious text, but at least without religion we're forced to think about the things we're killing each other over. We're forced, once we see there's no god, to weigh decisions about what's best for humanity, how to create the world we want and whether some things are worth dying for. When the impact of what's really known about death is realized, people, I would hope, would treat life a little more preciously.

Thanks for reading everyone. I know I've been slow with the posts, but keep an eye out, I've got some important features in the works here.

In the meantime, be sure to check out www.goodreasonnews.tumblr.com where I update almost daily.

Hey, did you create something you want to share with GRN readers? There's an email button on the side, I'm happy to take a look.

What makes Oklahoma above the law?

2010-04-29T17:14:00.005-04:00

Regular readers may remember I have a particular least favorite state in this union. One that often relies on religious fear and deception and hard right-wing extremism in favor of established American values. Of course, I'm referring to Oklahoma. The government in place here has got to be the most oppressive, ignorant and downright cruel in the nation. I think I'd feel safer driving through that Mexican city in from Dusk till Dawn with all the vampires and Cheech Marin.

Well, these liberty squelching shit stains are at it again, in, perhaps, their most egregious offense. According to a new law, which the state senate had to override a gubernatorial veto to pass, a woman seeking an abortion in the state of Oklahoma must undergo a series of insulting, invasive and cruel measures including being forced to undergo an vaginally-inserted ultrasound (yes, it specifies vaginally-inserted) and be shown the pile of cells before she is treated. As if the state is saying "Look, this is the baby you're killing! Hope you're OK with that!!!" Isn't this the same political group that didn't want the government to even supply a public option for health care? Now they want to shove something up your vagina! Fuck you liberty, hello tyranny.

The new statute requires the person performing the ultrasound to describe the dimensions of the fetus, whether arms, legs and internal organs are visible and whether there is cardiac activity. It also requires the doctor to turn a screen depicting the ultrasound images toward the woman to see them.

OK, you can find out about all the disgusting other provisions yourself and of course, it's not even worth making the argument that this is anything other than state lawmakers trying to shame, guilt and, ultimately, dissuade women out of getting abortions even in cases of rape, incest, forced marriage or who-gives-a-fuck-what-the-reason-is.

But what would make people want to do this? What would make lawmakers want to rule over their people in such a cruel and humiliating manner? Let's examine a few possibilities.

It couldn't be that they're representing their constituents — if that were the case, they would have been a public vote or a ballot measure. They're clearly not interested in what their voters have to say on the matter. Although, even if they did it wouldn't matter. The majority shouldn't be able to dictate the morality of a medical procedure required by a few (especially since it's constitutionally protected).

It couldn't be that they think that this measure will save money, obviously, adding more procedures is going to require more supplies, more working hours, more costs. How's that for 'conservative.'

It couldn't be that they think it's medically beneficial. Of course, an ultrasound in no way prepares or aids either a doctor or a patient for an abortion, I'm a little embarrassed that even needs to be said.

In fact, Linda Meek, executive director of Reproductive Services of Tulsa, told the Associated Press equiring women to listen to a description can be traumatic, she said, especially for rape and incest victims and women with fetal abnormalities or whose pregnancy threatens their own life.

It’s been difficult for some of the patients,” Meek said. “We’ve had patients leave the ultrasound room in tears because of what they had to hear.”

It can't be that, as one of the suspects behind this state-sponsored mass-rape puts it, the aim is to prevent something a woman will regret.

We all know, 80% of women who get abortions don't regret the choice: But 100% of them, at least in Oklahoma, are now to be shamed and humiliated in an effort to change their minds. It's the state trying to influence you. An invasive, unnecessary, litigiously risky, potentially harmful, government mandated, undemocratically-passed piece of government legislation designed to strongly influence the free market? That's not conservative. That's not American. You know what it sounds like to me?

RELIGION

And a particular brand of Christianity. This 'law' is brought to you by the same group of yokels who say that God's displeasure with homosexuals caused the economic collapse.

But even without that anecdote, it's clear that Oklahoma is a stronghold of Christo-fascist fundamentalists. Religions teach you that they're more important than reason, than the Constitution, than human empathy. Save that the religion actually doesn't say anything about abortion, but because a certain group of people have chosen to view it that way, it has become such. Christianity is, according to Christians, against this particular medical procedure and since they believe that their god feels that way, nothing is too harsh for those opposing it. So, even if it's inhumanely cruel to sit a woman in front of a screen with a camera shoved up her vagina screaming "this is what you're killing!!" Even if it goes against everything your particular political party stands for; even if it flies in the face of the constitution and the judicial system and the majority of Americans and medical science and all the other things we actually base out lives on, it doesn't matter. Nothing matters when you're convinced that your god feels a certain way. And look what happens when you gather a bunch of Bible-beating reactionaries together, stir them up with fear of a black president and give them any degree of power.

They become above the law.

Satircal comedy vs. Islamic Exceptionalism

2010-04-22T19:38:00.007-04:00

"It is an assault on the freedom of expression" — Ayaan Hirsi Ali

The freedom to ridicule and mock a corrupt system is a vital aspect of freedom anywhere. It just is. There's no two ways about it. When those who decry the 'new atheist movement' (a title, I should add, given by people outside of the movement it describes and, as far as I know, not generally approved of by those individuals, myself included.)as being mean-spirited suggest that every religion is beautiful and deserves respect, they're tearing down that pillar of democracy. And without that pillar, the whole thing could easily collapse. As someone who appreciates his freedom, you can imagine, then that I get especially pissed off when losers who seek to be oppressed or seek to oppress others stand in the way or try to intimidate those who keep satire alive. But it keeps happening.

Look what's been going on with Comedy Central's long-running political cartoon South Park. In their second attempt to break the door down on Islam's perma-threat to anyone who depicts their child raping prophet, in good light or bad. Naturally, the media was able to find some obscure radical Islamo-fascist group willing to threaten violence over it and now Comedy Central is, of course, putting the breaks on this episode. But it's not that all of Islam is going to bomb the Comedy Central offices or stop watching South Park, as if they ever did. It's just the looming threat and the mysterious silence from the Muslim community. To be fair, lots of Muslims are responding and demanding the violence stop, but the fact that they're offended remains.

You don't have to be an extremist Muslim to want to censor your world. Look, when I was in college, I was the editor of the newspaper. After I graduated (But was still involved on campus) I was called back to deal with an issue my successor couldn't deal with. Apparently, in a story about the Jyllands-Posten Danish cartoons in 2005, the school's Muslim-student group granted the paper an interview, on the condition that we don't run the image. Well, the message got to the reporter, but not the page editor and the image ran.

Then, the student group and I had a long conversation. It was evident to me at the time, when I wasn't even calling myself an 'atheist,' although I was one, that the Muslim student group was not interested in tolerance for all religions or in cultural understanding or in sensitivity. They're interested in Islamic Exceptionalism. Even the innocent, liberal, American-Muslim student group at a college subscribes to the idea of Islamic Exceptionalism. They are the kings of a culture that lives by rules it cannot understands, explain or defend. The reason Muslims don't want Mohammed depicted is a bullshit reason, similar to the Christian ban on idol worship. Notice how quickly Christianity tossed out that commandment, been to a Catholic Church? But, of course, it's only a problem for them. For those who believe it. For Muslims. Muslims can't depict their fucking prophet, but they can't control the world. And they seek to, for sure. There can be no clearer example than this little microcosm. A TV cartoon here, a college newspaper there. It doesn't matter that in my situation no one threatened me with violence. What matters is that they try to force others to live by their rules, which themselves don't even have good reason.

So why do we give in? Why do we let them get away with this? When other groups of bigoted nutcases attack satirical comedy, there's no fear in launching a return attack (as happened here on the Daily Show this week)

Make no mistake, this is not the attitude of a certain type or color of person. This isn't 'just how they are,' doesn't Ayaan Hirsi Ali prove it? It's the religion. It's the religion combined with (as religion always is) extreme ignorance and defensiveness. Exceptionalism. And the South Park example can't be underplayed. Yes, it's just a silly cartoon, but it's the sort of freedom people die for.

Here's what Van Gogh died for, in case you've been hearing this story all week and haven't seen Submission

And, of course, the harm is it doesn't matter what the reason for rules like 'no depictions of Mohammed' or their 'if there's grass on the field, play ball,' approach to sexuality, the religion has no room for questions or reason, just obedience. Submission. Islam, like all religions, doesn't teach people to think—it forces a thought on them. Submission.

By the way, confidential to the Muslim student group from my old college:

What the Catholic Church is hiding

2010-03-31T17:16:00.006-04:00

On CNN today twitter-themed anchor Rick Sanchez had Catholic League chief Bill Donahue, a frequent guest on CNN, appear to defend the church in light of questions of hiding the pedophilia scandal coursing through the institution. Through his clearly agitated ramblings, Donahue tried to make the points that because A) most of those molested were post-pubescent and B) most of those molested were boys; The problem was, in fact, not an issue of pedophilia, but an issue of homosexuality. Not all homosexuals are pedophiles, Donahue said, but most pedophiles in the church are homosexuals.

This is where I'm going to cut off his armchair psychology and pick apart all the things that are wrong with this and what he seeks to hide.

As can be seen in the documentary Deliver Us From Evil, a fantastic and unsettling first hand account of what it's like to be a pedophile priest, pedophilia is not necessarily gender specific. That is to say, there are pedophiles out there, like Father O'Grady, who don't seek victims of a specific gender. It's a psychological disorder, not a sexuality and the sooner people realize that, the sooner people are going to stop falling for this despicable stereotype of gay molester. In fact, it's not even true that most pedophiles go after young boys. It's been demonstrated that most pedophiles seek female victims. If it's Donahue's claim that most pedophile priests take male victims, he's got to qualify that with the fact that he's only referring to reported cases. (And even that isn't backed up by any facts or numbers). But to assume that because most reported cases involve a male victim that most cases involve a male victim is like assuming that because most cases were reported after a certain year, most cases happened after that year. Now, years later, we're seeing people come out everyday and say, 'yes it was the 60's, the 50's, the 40's and I was raped by father so-and-so then.'

OK, so the misinformation put forth by this Bill Donahue character is just off the charts and seeks to put your mind in so many places that distract you from the real lesson of this scandal. That priests are not trustworthy people.

The church depends on a community that trusts it so it does everything in it's power to gain and maintain that trust. Priests, religious leaders, are often mentioned among the roll call of adults that children should be able to go to for safety, along with police officers, friends' parents, and teachers. And even these people are to be trusted with a certain dose of suspicion. Priests shouldn't be immune from the same suspicion that children are taught to apply to a friend's parent or even their own step-parents.

But the Catholic church won't ever say that. They won't ever admit that a priest is not a person qualified to babysit, to educate or to unquestioningly trust. To do so would be the most damning possible scenario for the church. They depend on family devotion. That's why sacraments are centered around family activities, stages of life, rites of passage. The church only succeeds when families allow it to be integrated into their lives So they put the focus back on an old enemy: TEH GAYZ! They're not the traditional family. It's followers for the most part don't understand them. It makes it look like an insidious evil has snuck into their precious church. Perhaps queer 'ol Satan himself. They're playing to the base. It's the Bush/Rove strategy, if you rile up those who already support you, they'll make a stronger effort to support you.

Don't ever forget it. The lesson from the pedophilia scandal in the Catholic Church is that these are not trustworthy people, they are not qualified and parents would be fools to leave their children in the care of these people. And that's what they're really hiding.

The Hutaree

2010-03-30T19:35:00.006-04:00

A tattered American flag is taped to the antenna of a van at the home of Thomas William Piatek Monday, March 29, 2010, in Whiting, Ind. Piatek is one of nine suspects tied to a Christian militia that was preparing for the Antichrist and are charged with conspiring to kill police officers, then attack a funeral using homemade bombs in the hopes of killing more law enforcement personnel, federal prosecutors said Monday. The Michigan-based group, called Hutaree, planned to use the attack on police as a catalyst for a larger uprising against the government, according to newly unsealed court papers. U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade said agents moved on the group because its members were planning a violent mission sometime in April. (AP Photo/(M. Spencer Green)

I don't know if I can put it much better than Mark Potok explains it here. People are led to believe one thing and they act in a certain way based on those beliefs. Whether it's Jesus or an anti-Christ or the New World Order or some one-world government — these fears inform people's decisions. Are the people evil? Do they seek to harm because they delight in it? Or do they act in these reprehensible ways because their minds can't properly determine the difference between reality and fear? Of course people like this, whose fear-roasted minds instinctively act defensively, are going to stock pile weapons and attempt to kill hundreds. In their imaginations, police, government, the U.N., atheists, are their oppressors. This is what happens when people are taught that faith is a virtue. When critical thinking and rationality are replaced with dogma and fear.

This group, presumably, is acting in a way that they think is logical to overthrow their oppressors, among them, perhaps, the anti-Christ. But I'm willing to bet they haven't really considered that they are the crazy ones. That the U.N. don't seek to take over the world. That there is no anti-Christ. I wouldn't be surprised if they never even wondered why it is that they believe in an anti-Christ or whether it makes sense to accept that belief.

Some have told me that religion 'just is' as if it has a natural societal origin like trade or sex. Besides this being the naturalistic fallacy, it's not even accurate that religion is natural. It's a system devised to control people and even if that original control worked to most people's benefit, it clearly leads to unreasonable thinking today. It's expired. What once over-road people's base desires to eat rotten meat and rape left and right now only overrides reason and intellect. Had these people held their beliefs about Jesus or the New World Order or whatever up to the light and really examined whether it was true, they probably wouldn't have been sure enough to set a bombing plan into motion. But since religions often consider it an offense to question the religion, these people are prevented from developing the critical thinking skills that could have led them to see they were making terrible, terrible choices.

In one of the more telling comments in this piece, Potok says the group's name is a made-up word. They're a people with no connection to anything. Just angry, looking to hitch the star of their ignorance onto an equally ignorant wagon, and imagine the surprise that Christianity won their affection. (Christianity, and of course, certain cable news conspiracy theorists.)

Poetry is to Ann Coulter as a handshake is to poke in the eye.

2010-03-24T17:45:00.005-04:00

In this scene from 'Persoplis' a young Margie tries to illegally buy western music. Just as she makes a deal to purchase some Iron Maiden, she is accosted by some nasty older ladies who disapprove of her 'punk is not dead' jacket and seek to turn her in to police. She cries and gets away, and loses the freedom to wear her jacket. The religion oppresses her, but later, in another scene, the music sets her free (even if it's only for a short time.) Art's influence on culture is so massive that is causes many Iranians to seek the freedom to experience it. Similar stories have been told about Beatles music is communist Russia. What bigots like Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck could never understand is that this is what changes people for the better, not racial slurs and violent demands.

I spend a lot of time on this blog, obviously, talking about the harm caused by religious beliefs. What I don't spend a lot of time talking about is the solution to these problems. Obviously, I haven't got all the answers, if I did I'd probably be better off. But I'm able to recognize some of the solutions. I can at least tell them apart from actions that clearly do more harm.

Several months ago, for instance, I put forth the argument that it was a poor decision for France to take steps to ban the burqa. Without getting into that whole argument, the basic premise is you can't force people to change. You have to win them over and let them come around to a better way of living.

Muslims have a lot going against them. They've got a different skin tone than most Americans/westerners, speak wildly different languages, eat different foods, have different family structures, etc... They've got all the things bigots hate: a different lifestyle. So it's easy to forget that while we are appalled by the injustices that Islam brings upon its people, we aim to save the people, or at least offer them the choice to be free.

Here's a positive way to combat Islam, or at least Islamic rule:

Protesting in verse: A Saudi woman criticizes Muslim clerics' in a TV poetry contest

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — It was a startling voice of protest at a startling venue. Covered head-to-toe in black, a Saudi woman lashed out at hard-line Muslim clerics' harsh religious edicts in verse on live TV at a popular Arabic version of "American Idol."

Well, not quite "American Idol": Contestants compete not in singing but in traditional Arabic poetry. Over the past episodes, poets sitting on an elaborate stage before a live audience have recited odes to the beauty of Bedouin life and the glories of their rulers or mourning the gap between rich and poor.

Then last week, Hissa Hilal, only her eyes visible through her black veil, delivered a blistering poem against Muslim preachers "who sit in the position of power" but are "frightening" people with their fatwas, or religious edicts, and "preying like a wolf" on those seeking peace.

Her poem got loud cheers from the audience and won her a place in the competition's finals, to be aired on Wednesday.

It also brought her death threats, posted on several Islamic militant Web sites.

Hilal shrugs off the controversy.

"My poetry has always been provocative," she told The Associated Press in an interview. "It's a way to express myself and give voice to Arab women, silenced by those who have hijacked our culture and our religion."

Her poem was seen as a response to Sheik Abdul-Rahman al-Barrak, a prominent cleric in Saudi Arabia who recently issued a fatwa saying those who call for the mingling of men and women should be considered infidels, punishable by death.

But more broadly, it was seen as addressing any of many hard-line clerics in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the region who hold a wide influence through television programs, university positions or Web sites.

That's bravery. That's courage. That's the first step toward making a better society. Art, music, comedy
, these are the weapons in the battle for change.

What's not useful is what's never useful: Ann Coulter. Well, by Ann Coulter I, of course mean, bigotry, racism and nastiness. Cruel language designed only to enrage and divide. While the rest of the world is trying to reach some sort of peaceful union, Ann Coulter is out their trying to undermine the efforts of people far more intelligent than her by blinding them with her anger and ignorance. If only there was a single name that embodied all these things. Oh, there is: Ann Coulter.

Firebrand conservative Ann Coulter's lecture at a Canadian college was cancelled Tuesday night over fears students would riot over racist remarks she made to Muslims.

Security at the University of Ottawa scrapped the right-wing darling's talk when more than 2,000 students showed up to protest her telling a Muslim student Monday to "take a camel" as an alternative to flying.

Coulter's tasteless comment came after previously she told a gathering that Muslims shouldn't be allowed on airplanes and should take "flying carpets."

The camel quip came when Muslim student Fatima Al-Dhaher challenged Coulter on the remark - and told her she didn't have a flying carpet.

"What mode of transportation?" Coulter responded. "Take a camel."

Students jeered Coulter's remarks, and showed up in mass Tuesday night let her know she was not welcome at the school.

Coulter tried to explain away her comments Tuesday as "satire."

And the problem is multi-fold. In one racist comment Coulter both sets back relations between the Muslim world and the western world (driving Muslims deeper into Islam and away from the 'hate-filled' west) and gives her fellow conservatives a bad rap. And these guys don't need it. The record of being on the right and wrong sides of history is pretty embarrassing for conservatives even without Ann Coulter's miserable and uneducated input. She may be promoting herself by talking shit, but she's also exposing herself as someone solely interested in self-promotion and not in any sort of reasonable goal for a peaceful world.

Glenn Beck also took an interesting approach to religion, recently. It was his claim that Catholic Church's in particular were promoting communism and Nazism. Are wild, unsourced conspiracy claims helpful? No, Glenn, they're just another manifestation of a hateful man's unending march against humanity. If he had talked about the real problems within the Catholic church, which there are plenty of, just read this blog, I'd at least address them, but to make these claims, is about as hateful and useless as Coulter's. You're not going to scare people out of Catholicism (or Christianity, or Islam), Glenn. They've got to be shown the true harm of religion (not just hateful rants) and shown that life without it is fine.

Look, I want people to leave their church's too, but I want them to choose to do it because they're appalled by the religion's history and actions and have seen that there's a better life without superstitions. And I don't even care if they leave their church's — I'm not interested in making people atheists. I'm much more interested in promoting a secular society, a secular government and showing religions for what they are, not some magic, untouchable topic. Religious freedom, necessarily, needs a secular government and a secular society surrounding it. This isn't want Beck and Coulter are promoting. They're only promoting themselves, and they're stepping on advances towards the liberalization and ultimately, the collapse of these institutions to do it.

The Myth of Liberal Education

2010-03-17T17:05:00.005-04:00

If the above audio doesn't work, you may listen to it here.

Myths are dangerous, religious or otherwise (although especially religious ones). Which is why the Texas School Board's recent decision (albeit only a preliminary decision) to repaint history with a Christian conservative brush is so upsetting. Both Christianity and this particular group's definition of conservatism are soaked in myth.

What we see happening today on the politically right is an extreme example of what we've always seen from the politically right — Reactionary panic. From McCarthy to Murdoch, conservatives have often relied on a familiar pattern in which they unjustifiably feel victimized, have an extreme reaction, and ruin carefully designed institutions.

They see reds around every corner and 'progress and development' as threats to their comfortable lifestyles. They idealize bygone eras and whitewash over their negative aspects - they are revisionists. And few take it to a more dangerous level than the creationist-loaded Texas School Board.

The danger is that conservatives feel victimized because change scares them, so they react to their perceived victimizers. That's how FOX 'news' came to be. Conservatives since Watergate have felt victimized by the press and the fall of a two term far-right president. But the press wasn't attacking Nixon because he was a republican, they attacked him because he was a crook. It's the credo of the journalist to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. The right sees that as a threat to them, and they respond with a media outlet that is DECIDEDLY conservative. Journalism doesn't work that way. But when you try to tell supporters of FOX's policies that, they launch into fear-based slippery slope argument about liberals wanting to limit freedom of speech and the Fairness Doctrine and yada yada. Meanwhile, irresponsible propaganda machines disguised as news outlets are the driving force behind those who support the fairness doctrine. I agree that the government shouldn't tell news agencies how to act, but I agree with that because journalism has a system and ethical standards that work. If that comes off as liberal to conservatives than that's just too fucking bad and if they think by creating, say, the Washington Times, for the direct purpose of being a right wing outlet, they've crossed the bounds of journalistic standards and provided examples for those who don't think the journalism industry can police itself.

It's the same with schools. Some conservatives believe that schools are teaching children (note: Children) liberal ideology. Then, when pressed for examples, they start talking about college professors. How can that be argued, except to point out the obvious red herring. Children don't go to college, folks. Or, often times, I find they say something along there lines:

When everybody gets a participation trophy at the end of the season, it doesn't mean anything. Americans aren't about participation trophies or we better damn stop it. We're about telling the coach, take the trophy back. That's where you need to stand. Teach your children now. My son, my daughter didn't earn the trophy. They played hard. They played well, but they didn't win. We maybe will get the real trophy next year. Don't give me this bogus trophy.

Life isn't about the trophies. It is about improving yourself. It is about accomplishment.

That was Glenn Beck, again, talking about poverty, somehow. But it exemplifies a common conservative viewpoint, that schools and the general treatment of children is too sensitive, too touchy-feely, too feminine.

First off, what the FUCK this has to do with social studies and science, I have no idea. If anything, it proves them to be hypocrites, aren't these the people who FEEL the presence of a god? Secondly, this is a pretty meager argument. I won't even address why I disagree with the content of it, because it's dodge. It's a way conservatives feel victimized, and why the Texas BOE's makeup is the way it is. With no hard evidence for bias, the right-wingers get the reactionary guard out and insert DECIDEDLY right wing propaganda into textbooks.

And history education has a credo too. It's "Those who don't learn from their pasts are doomed to repeat it." Right? We've all heard this? That's the danger in selectively creating a DECIDEDLY pro-conservative or pro-American stance. But they see it as either pro-American or anti-American. Just like the ultimatum their precious George Dubya laid out, you're either with us, or against us.

It's not true, conservatives. I'm against a pro-American history textbook, because I'm for the truth. That's not to say the truth is anti-American. You're creating a false dichotomy and you'd better get it straight soon or you and your children will be DOOMED to repeat it.

What's biting conservatives in the ass now is that a lot of those reactionary guard they elected are actually Christian activists (see McLeroy) or corporate plants (like Dick Cheney) and the conservatives aren't really getting what they wanted. They'll NEVER get what they want, because what they want is 'the way things were.' Instead of focusing on how to best move forward in society, they seek to freeze their own upbringings. How egotistical! And, by the way, these people are starting to realize that McLeroy and Cheney have screwed them. And now they're split all over between tea parties and libertarianism and Beck/McCarthyism - this is why I'm predicting the republicans are going to have a harder time than they're expecting taking back the both houses.

The kids are alright

2010-03-06T17:15:00.004-05:00

I hear a lot of talk from the conservative base about 'getting back' to some bygone era of morality. Some 1950's Leave it to Beaver fantasy world where father knows best, mothers were happy to get a feather duster as a birthday gift and a child's biggest problem was eating his vegetables. Ike ran the country smoothly, no one used swear words and certain folk stayed on their side of town. Of course, it's easy to put the lie to this fictionalized television ideal. It never existed, folks, anyone with any insight into modern-era history can attest to that. The 50's were a time of outspoken racism, hidden domestic abuse, rampant amphetamine addiction and great cultural inequalities.

The people who idealize this era are the same types who cringe when 7th grade classrooms make banner promoting tolerance. (I actually have talked to Christian Conservatives who hold the position that 'tolerance' isn't something we should teach our children. That tolerance is the "capacity to endure pain or hardship." Apparently, conservatives don't understand what 'connotations' are.)

But that's all old guard thinking. Real old. And even though there are those trying to bring that type of thinking back, like this asshat who thinks 'health care' and 'social justice' are in fact code words for REPARATIONS and THE RED MENACE!!

Conservatives are so obsessed with that era that even their fears are stale holdovers from the 50's.

By contrast, look what a great job we're doing raising this generation. Not that they're perfect, but even from a cursory glance, children today are clearly more moral creatures than those from the era of 'duck and cover.'

First off, despite the conservative claim that our public schools are 'liberal institutions' (and therefor, somehow, BAD) the fact of the matter is, studies are showing our current social education measures have positive effects. Bullying, for instance, has sharply dropped throughout the U.S.

NEW YORK — There's been a sharp drop in the percentage of America's children being bullied or beaten up by their peers, according to a new national survey by experts who believe anti-bullying programs are having an impact.

The study, funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, found that the percentage of children who reported being physically bullied over the past year had declined from nearly 22 percent in 2003 to under 15 percent in 2008. The percentage reporting they'd been assaulted by other youths, including their siblings, dropped from 45 percent to 38.4 percent.

The lead author of the study, Professor David Finkelhor, said he was "very encouraged."

"Bullying is the foundation on which a lot of subsequent aggressive behavior gets built," said Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center. "If it's going down, we will reap benefits in the future in the form of lower rates of violent crime and spousal assault."

Finkelhor noted that anti-bullying programs had proliferated and received funding boosts following the 1999 Columbine High School shootings in Colorado.

"There is evidence these programs are effective," he said. "I wouldn't be surprised if we're seeing the fruits of that."

Here we have a clear example of a culture focused more on brains than on brawn overcoming an unnecessary evil. Something that, in previous generations was accepted as a social norm, bullying, is being shrunken to the size of unacceptability. Hooray.

Unfortunately, for the small-minded Christian conservative types, that same focus on brains over brawn has other consequences.

Even though the misogynists are desperately clinging to their ancient, crumbling idea of 'masculinity,' little girls today have seen a women run for both president and vice president as well as the first woman speaker of the house. They may, tomorrow, see the first woman director win an Oscar. Although women may still earn 70 cents on the dollar, the tide is turning on this as more and more women are challenging traditional roles.

Another of the unfortunate side effects of intelligence is critical thinking. This 2009 survey projects withing 20 years, a quarter of the U.S. population will claim no religious affiliation. As it is, around 15% call into the 'nones' category.

If current trends continue, a quarter of Americans are likely to claim "no religion" in 20 years, according to a survey out today by Trinity College. Americans who identify with no religious tradition currently comprise 15 percent of the country, representing the fastest growing segment of the national religious landscape.

And even moderate conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan has harsh words for Christianity in light of these numbers.

In the end, the intellectual bankruptcy of the theocon right and Christianist movement counts. Very few people with brains are listening to these people any more. They have discredited Christianity as much as they have tarnished conservatism.

And even those who do stick with their religion, are really breaking with the old guard within the religion itself. Check out religion writer Terry Mattingly's column on Catholics who don't give a shit what the Nazi-pope says (actually, he's talking about John Paul ii, but like most atheists and ex-Catholics, and evidently some current Catholics, I can't pass up an opportunity to knock this Nazi motherfucker.)

Young Catholics wrestle with truth

In one of the defining works of his historic papacy, Pope John Paul II argued that if people — believers and nonbelievers alike — want true freedom and peace, they must accept the reality of “universal and unchanging moral norms.”

“When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no privileges or exceptions. … Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal,” wrote the pope, in his 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor (“The Splendor of Truth”).

“In the end, only a morality which acknowledges certain norms as valid always and for everyone, with no exception, can guarantee the ethical foundation of social coexistence, both on the national and international levels.”

It would be stating the matter mildly to say that young Catholic adults in America disagree with John Paul II on this issue, according to a new survey commissioned by the Knights of Columbus.

An overwhelming 82 percent of Catholic Millennials — the generation between 18-29 years of age — agreed with this statement: “Morals are relative; there is no definite right and wrong for everybody.” In comparison, 64 percent of other Millennials affirmed that statement, when questioned by researchers with the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.

So, there it is. Sea change. And, as predicted, with less reliance on religions and more reliance on critical thinking, peacefulness is able to thrive. That may be a little simplistic, but I see these kids today and I'm so proud.

Some religions aren't religions (and blog update)

2010-02-20T19:52:00.005-05:00

Blog update: Well, I'm back from my trip to Texas, where I was fortunate enough to meet up with some of my heroes, the Atheist Community of Austin, and in particular, Atheist Experience TV show hosts Tracie Harris and Jen Peeples. By the way, if you clicked that link, you'll not only see a poorly lit photo from that night, but you'll also have found my Tumblr blog. It seems like my blogging experience is turning that way. So, while this blog started off with daily essays on blogspot, I'm finding it much more fruitful to post lots of things on Tumblr and Twitter. If you're following me on Facebook, it's probably all the same to you since everything filters down to there anyway. But it looks like the new format, I know I've tried several before is going to be more like a once or twice a week blogspot essay. Sorry if that dissapoints anyone, I'm always open to your suggestions about the blog. The good news is that the various other incarnations of Good Reason News can be found on the top right. You can flip through my Tumblr, Huffpost, Current, and Twitter posts without even registering for those sites, so, please, check them out. In fact, don't be shy about clicking on anything in the margins, they're there for you.

In my recent piece about Loners and Religion I tried to make the point that sometimes the sort of dogmatic obedience we see in religion exists in institutions that are not, in fact, religions. My example then was the Columbine shooting, in which one of the shooters was a sort of cult leader without a cult. I left a lot of people confused with that, admittedly. Hey, I'm just a guy with a blog, I'm not always right. But I've been noticing another example recently of non-religious dogma surrounding us. Now, as far as I know, the quick and dirty history of the Tea Party is that Ron Paul's grassroots campaign in 2008 adopted this adorable name, even though the original Boston Tea Party was a reaction against a corporate tax break and this current Tea Party is against a 3% tax raise on anyone making over a quarter million dollars every year. But it didn't last long for the libertarian Paul crew, because before it even got off the ground, Fox News' Glenn Beck glommed his 9/12 movement onto it and they headed to Washington with misspelt signs aplenty. (As a hilarious side note, Glenn Beck doubled down on this one, in addition to hitching his star to the teabagger wagon, Beck also hitched it to 9/11, which is despicable to begin with, but even more so when you consider this speech in which he says, in no unclear language, that he HATES the families of 9/11 victims.)

Then, somebody squirted red, white, and blue glitter all over everything and Ta-Daa! It's a movement. But it's not a movement. Bill Maher finally made it clear to me why. They have no goal. They're a mess of populist outrage, made of part racism, part classism and part just following their favorite TV program. They're a religion.

Of course, it's a religion. And Bill's right: it does have it's own language

And like any religion it's got it's extremists. Look, nobody hates censorship more than me, and I'm not calling for that, but some really small minded people will see it that way. Here's the thing. When there are doomsayers like Beck's and Limbaugh's out there talking about how this current government is bringing all our values to their knees and using words like 'socialism' and 'fascism' without knowing their meaning; Equating 'Pelosi and Reid' with 'Pol Pot and Castro'their sure to inspire something awful. Look, that's a link to the suicide letter of the shithead who, this last week, flew a plane into an IRS building. I wouldn't recommend giving this terrorist his due by reading or considering his opinion, but there are some very telling quotes. Pay attention to the tone, to the phrasing, to the similarities to the folks who are literally profiting off selling hatred of a government.

Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours?

Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”.

It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn’t limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won’t continue; I have just had enough.

That's some "end times" talk right there, whether he was a conservative Christian or a left-wing atheist doesn't matter. This irresponsible 'bring down the government' rhetoric is out there and it's been encapsulated in this Tea Party "movement."

EDIT: If you check out the last episode of The Atheist Experience with guest host Darrel Ray, author of The God Virus, pay careful attention around minute 49. Ray starts talking about how, if you look at the structure of Marxism what you're really looking at is just another religion. I concur and I think it fits well into my 'Some religions are not religions' argument.

Opportunists descend on Haiti

2010-02-04T16:53:00.007-05:00

When Secular America threw rotten eggs at Pat Robertson for his cruel and inflammatory comments about Haiti, his defenders slunk out of the wood-work with only one possible defense: Hey at least he's raising money for them.

Well, now it's time to call bullshit on them and the scores of other religious opportunists.

When the tragedy struck all kinds of religious groups saw their opportunity: A captive audience. So they brought with them all the compassion they could muster. (Keep in mind as you read this that there's very limited room on the runways of the wrecked Haitian airports, so every plane that touches down should have an optimum of supplies and aid.)

Scientologists are delivering aid in a pretty compact manner, they don't even need bags. They're working with the body's natural healing electricity:

A Parisian Scientologist named Sylvie told reporters at a Haitian medical clinic that she was there to offer a special brand of healing.

"When you get a sudden shock to a part of your body the energy gets stuck, so we re-establish communication within the body by touching people through their clothes, and asking people to feel the touch," she said.

There's also this ridiculous first hand account of Scientologists wasting space (not just on this earth, but in storm-ravaged Haiti) and using up supplies.

And Scientologists are happy to also announce the opening of their first orphanage. So now, like other religions, they can indoctrinate children from the start. And where better to set up shop than in the desperate, starving island of Haiti. Who better to preach to than children who just watched their parents die? It's a young church's dream come true.

Also, be on the look out for the (nondenominational?) protestant group Faith Comes By Hearing, who aren't tempted to use their resources to send food or help rebuild houses or even to reunite families searching for each other. They're bringing the Haitian people what they clearly need most in this terrible time. Bibles. And not just any bibles. Solar Powered Bibles. See, cause if you can't read Jesus' language (English), it's OK, just hold your Solar Bible up to the magical sunlight (ya know, if you can find it through the thick haze of settling wreckage and burning decay) and the bible reads itself to you!

But don't think the young churches are the only ones profiteering here. How about the Catholics? There's some evidence they're getting in on this in their traditional way. How many words is this screenshot worth?

According to a series of comments on STFU, Conservatives Tumblr blog, this now defunct facebook group was founded by students at Bishop Eustace Preparatory School in N.J. Whether that can be trusted or not is unclear, but if it is true it sure shows the kind of compassion Catholics like to teach their children. So much compassion that they'd go out of their way to promote hatred against those in such desperate need.

Then there's the Baptists.

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — Ten Americans detained after trying to take 33 Haitian children across the border last week were charged Thursday with abduction and criminal association, according to prosecutors.

The charges, which carry prison terms of up to 15 years, were announced after a closed-door court hearing in which prosecutors questioned the Americans, most of them members of a Baptist congregation from Idaho. The case has become a flashpoint for Haiti’s fears of foreign encroachment in the aftermath of the Jan. 12 earthquake.

Ah, the baptists. Let's not say they're kidnappers. Let's just say they coerced loving parents in desperate need into surrendering their children in what seemed to be a penguinesque publicity stunt. I'm not sure if the baptists thought they'd return home looking like heroes for saving children or if they just went to Haiti with the goal in mind to nab as many children as possible, before they started makin' deals with the devil!

It's too early to say what the motivation was, but one thing is clear:

Desperate parents in this struggling village perched above Haiti’s earthquake-flattened capital said they gave their children away willingly, trusting the American missionaries who promised to take them to a better life.
The stories the villagers told The Associated Press on Wednesday contradict claims by the Baptist group’s leader that the children came from orphanages or were handed over by distant relatives. But they also attest to the misery of a nation that was the hemisphere’s poorest even before the Jan. 12 earthquake struck.

This Baptist group was willing to lie, in true Christian style to take children from their parents and place them, in their own words, with "loving Christian parents." Even if I believe the best of their intentions, I have to point out that in lieu of bringing food to the starving they attempted to force the starving into a strange country away from their families and everything they know, so that they could have food. (by the way, this isn't the only questionable ethical issue facing this particular group)

So there's just a small wrap up of how religions are using this disaster and its captive fearful audience to propagate their corpo...ahem...churches. Opportunists. Here's hoping they all kill each other.

Of Mormon and men

2010-01-21T22:26:00.014-05:00

I may not be a very humble blogger, but I like to think I only toot my own horn when it's earned a tootin'. (Please resist the urge to LOL at any pr0nographic implications there). Anyway, I've predicted the future before, and I'm happy to say I've done it again.

Way back in September I pointed to what I thought was a developing trend: Right-wing Mormonism gaining ground in America. Was I ever on the money this time!?

The above graphic comes from this story about a poll that finds Mormons the most conservative U.S. religious group (The story was from January, I said in September, but you know, whatever.)

In addition, former presidential candidate, and likely 2012 contender, Mitt Romney is being asked to mediate the conflict between homosexuals and his Mormon church. Although, Romney has pandered to, and then dashed the dreams of, homosexual rights before, some gay groups still think that he can help the church tone down the rhetoric.

Not to worry, though. These conservative Mormons are an easily divisible type. Whether one feels obligated to vote in favor of a 'Troubled Asset Relief Program' or just wants to make sure a newly elected Senator knows who's boss, (especially when the republican in question is an abortion rights advocate) the Mormon conservative subset, much like the larger Republican Party right now, is full of schisms.

...As if it needs to be pointed out, this stands as evidence that religion informs your decision making and often, as can be seen through the 'lapsed' Mormon's numbers, to the contrary of what you would naturally decide. It robs people of critical thinking and replaces it with something to follow.

Religious thinking unfair in both love & war

2010-01-21T21:10:00.007-05:00

Living in the Northeast U.S., it's easy to view the world as mostly secular. Sometimes, after hours of internet debates with theists, I start to buy into their claim that I'm unfairly targeting them, that they're a minority that deserves respect, that I'm just some angry ranting atheist who sees the harm of religion in everything because I look for it. 'Most religious people aren't these oppressive, illogical, fascists like you make them out to be,' they'll say.

Of course, it doesn't take much to step back and see how pervasive those illogical fascists really are. Just look at today's news alone.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A proponent of California’s same-sex marriage ban testified Thursday that he thinks gays are more likely to be pedophiles and that allowing them to wed would lead to efforts to lower the age at which teenagers can legally have sex with adults.
Lawyers for two couples suing to overturn the ban, known as Proposition 8, called Hak-Shing William Tam of San Francisco to testify as a hostile witness to prove that bias toward gays fueled the campaign to pass the measure.
Proposition 8 sponsors have tried to distance themselves from Tam, even though his name appeared alongside ballot arguments for the measure in voter information pamphlets during the 2008 campaign.
In federal court, attorney David Boies spent time walking Tam through a Web site for a Chinese-American evangelical Christian group that featured a headline reading “Studies Show That Homosexuality Is Linked to Pedophilia.”
Tam serves as secretary of the group, known as the American Return to God Prayer Movement.
The Web site also contained a link to another article claiming gays were 12 times more likely to molest children.
“So you supported this Web site making these kind of statements?” Boies asked.
“Uh, yes,” Tam said.
“Do you believe that homosexuals are 12 times more likely to molest children?” the lawyer continued.
“Yeah, based on the different literature that I have read,” Tam replied.
Boies pressed Tam to cite books, articles or authors he had read to substantiate the views, but Tam said he could not remember specifics.

In other words, it went like this:
Tam: Same-sex marriage is wrong cause gays molest kids, and as everybody knows, all marriages have kids and gays can't adopt kids now already.
Lawyer: O Rly?
Tam: Yup, I read it somewhere.
Lawyer: Where dat?
Tam: I don't fuckin' know, but down with queers up with Asian Jesus.

So, we've got one case where religious thinking, STINKING of red herrings, is oppressing people. A religious organization is outright battling something that has nothing to do with it. And they're not the only ones.

Check this shit out:

Documents show links between Prop. 8 campaign and church leaders [Updated]
January 20, 2010 | 3:09 pm

Documents unveiled during today's federal same-sex marriage trial revealed close links between the Proposition 8 campaign and leaders of the Catholic and Mormon churches.

Over the objections of defenders of Proposition 8, challengers presented an e-mail that said the Catholic Church played a substantial role in providing volunteers and money to get the measure qualified for the ballot.

That e-mail, sent by the executive director of the Conference of Catholic Bishops to bishops and a cardinal, also said that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints provided "financial, organizational and management contributions" to the campaign.

[Corrected at 4:08 p.m.: An earlier version of this article incorrectly said the e-mail was sent by a member of the executive committee of Protectmarriage.com.]

According to a Mormon Church document entered into evidence, the church was telling its members not to take the lead in promoting Proposition 8 but to support the measure through Protectmarriage.com.

The church document said a teleconference had been held in Salt Lake City with 159 of 161 Mormon leaders in California. The leaders were told to teach the church's beliefs about marriage and encourage members to contribute $30 each for Proposition 8, toward a projected goal of $5 million, in addition to general fundraising.

The challengers also presented a document that said Mormons were walking neighborhoods one day with 20,000 volunteers for Proposition 8, and that evangelicals organized teleconferences with as many as 3,000 pastors around the state in an effort to pass the marriage ban.

--Maura Dolan in the San Francisco federal courthouse

OK, so again, a church is outright sticking it's nose where it explicitly doesn't belong and in a very Christian manner seeking to cover it up. To LIE about it. Isn't there a commandment about that shit? Well, I guess if the Catholics are gonna lie about their criminal priests by hiding them, it's no big deal for any other church to.

Look how EASY it is for religious institutions to toss their 'values' aside in the name of preserving the institution, of keeping people in line with their views, of oppression.

Not enough? How's this rub ya? Despite the fact that Bush claimed that the war on 'terror' and the war in Iraq were not a war on Islam we see time and time again that this IS being and has been viewed as a religious war since the beginning. I miss the days when I was only cynical enough to think this war was about oil. How sad to find out it really is about religion.

Even the weaponry says so:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Michigan defense contractor will voluntarily stop stamping references to Bible verses on combat rifle sights made for the U.S. military, a major buyer of the company’s gear.
In a statement released Thursday, Trijicon of Wixom, Mich., says it is also providing to the armed forces free of charge modification kits to remove the Scripture citations from the telescoping sights already in use. Through multimillion dollar contracts, the Marine Corps and Army have bought more than 300,000 Trijicon sights.
The references to Bible passages raised concerns that the citations break a government rule that bars proselytizing by American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are predominantly Muslim countries.

...

Markings on the Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight, which is standard issue to U.S. special operations forces, include “JN8:12,” a reference to John 8:12: “Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, ’I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life,”’ according to the King James version.

And, you know, since these are mostly young men out there killing and being killed apparently for someone's freedom (not mine, I know that) having Jesus on their side really helps them cope with killing civilians and the like. Cause Christians are good people right? I mean, isn't that what people say? 'He's a good Christian boy.'

Christianity in America is somehow conflated with moral. Here's a good Christian boy, also pulled from today's headlines:

Pastor who murdered wife gets 65 years

WACO, Texas (AP) — Jurors on Thursday sentenced a former Texas minister to 65 years in prison for murdering his wife and trying to cover it up as a suicide.
Jurors deliberated for about two hours before agreeing on the sentence for 38-year-old Matt Baker. He had faced from probation to life in prison for slipping his wife sleeping pills and suffocating her in 2006.
Baker showed no reaction when the sentence was announced. When the judge asked if there was any legal reason why Baker should not be formally sentenced, he said: “I truly believe in my innocence. I believe the jury made a mistake in this.”
Later, as deputies led him from the courtroom, Baker turned to his mother.
“Love you Mom,” he said. “Take care of Kensi and Grace.”
Kari’s mother Linda Dulin told Baker that the family had decided to forgive him for the sake of the two daughters.
“You took her from us, Matt; you discarded her like she was yesterday’s trash ... and you left so many other victims,” Dulin said in her victim impact statement at senvtencing.
“What you did was horrific ... and I believe you are capable of much more evil.”
Jurors declined to comment after the trial, which almost never happened.

Oh, or how about a nice Jewish boy whose bazaar prayer ritual, which couldn't wait for the plane to land, diverted a jet to land in Philadelphia instead of it's scheduled New York.

"Oh, you angry atheists, you just see religious harm everywhere cause you WANT to see it everywhere," they say.

These are the stories just from today — I can pull this everyday, I'm not looking for religious harm, I just know it when I see it and I see it every single day and I can't be quiet. I'm not going to respect a thought process that causes so much harm.

Look how many deaths are caused and how much love is prevented just using religion, Just Today

I'll leave you with this quote from last week's Atheist Experience.

"Building individuals up benefits the individual. Tearing individuals down and saying that the religion is what can save you, that's what benefits the religion"
— Matt Dillahunty

Pat Robertson wastes no time hating on Haiti

2010-01-13T17:02:00.005-05:00

It blows my mind when Christians who line up behind characters like Pat Robertson tell me that their religion is about love and forgiveness and peace, yet continue to stand behind a man who's statements are completely out of line with these values.

So let me get this straight: Coming down off an 9-year jingoistic bender, Pat Robertson, who looks as tired and close to death as ever here, is babbling incoherently (and drooling a little) about a fairy tale he made up, on the spot, which vilifies the French, blames the Haitian people for the deaths of roughly a half a million people, and includes a cameo from this 'ol guy:

Come the fuck on. It happened "A long time ago?" "We will serve you?"

So Pat Robertson, who has a very highly rated TV show is telling millions of senior citizens, and a few arguably abused children, that weather patterns and geographic positioning are meaningless and that, perhaps, some god has decided that, even though this supposed pact with the devil happened "a long time ago," he'd get around to smiting the Haitian people. As long as white, upper class, American, retirees don't feel bad or delude themselves into thinking maybe they could send a few buck from their bloated social security checks to help out, right Pat? Cause fuck these non-American, different skin-toned, economically repressed, uh, uh, DEVIL worshipers.

My issue isn't really with Pat Robertson, obviously this guy is a fucktard with no sense of broadcasting responsibility, no rational thoughts and no human compassion (and, surprisingly enough, he's RICH from it). My problem is with the legions of assholes who will just sit in front of their TV's and nod and sip their brandy and say "Praise Jesus for giving this man a TV show."

The only comfort is that Robertson and the large majority of his audience are a dying breed. And I don't even have to beg a supernatural being (or encourage any natural beings) to swoop in and kill them (ya know, cause they're so old and pathetic already).

Christianity: Famous for it's bigotry

2010-01-08T18:52:00.004-05:00

Fiction:
November, 2006

Reality (click here for audio):
August, 2009

You want to know who the biggest hypocrite in the world is? The biggest hypocrite in the world is the person who believes in the death penalty for murderers and not for homosexuals. Hypocrite. The same God who instituted the death penalty for murderers is the same God who instituted the death penalty for rapists and for homosexuals - sodomites, queers! That's what it was instituted for, okay? That's God, he hasn't changed. Oh, God doesn't feel that way in the New Testament ... God never "felt" anything about it, he commanded it and said they should be taken out and killed.

You know why God wanted the sodomites in the Old Testament to be killed? You know why every good king of Israel, the Bible says they got rid of the sodomites in the land? You know, the good kings that came after the bad kings who had allowed the sodomites to infest their land, they had infiltrated ... King Asa got the sodomites out of the land, Jehoshaphat exterminated the sodomites that were left from the days of his father, Asa. Why? Because the sodomites are infectious, that's why. Because they're not reproducers, that goes without saying, they're recruiters.

How are they multiplying? Do you not see that they're multiplying? Are you that blind? Have you noticed that there's more than there were last year and the year before, and the year before that? How are they multiplying? They're reproducing right? No, here's a biology lesson: they're not reproducers, they're recruiters! And you know who they're after? Your children. Remember you dropped off your kids last week? That's who they're after. You drop them off as some daycare, you drop them off as some school somewhere, you don't know where they're at. I'll tell you where they're at: they're being recruited by the sodomites. They're being molested by the sodomites. I can tell you so many stories about people that I know being molested and recruited by the sodomites.

They recruit through rape. They recruit through molestation. They recruit through violation. They are infecting our society. They are spreading their disease. It's not a physical disease, it's a sin disease , it's a wicked, filthy sin disease and it's spreading on a rampage. Can't you see that it's spreading on a rampage? I mean, can you not see that? Can you not see that it's just exploding in growth? Why? Because each sodomite recruits far more than one other sodomite because his whole life is about recruiting other sodomites, his whole life is about violating and hurting people and molesting 'em.

So how many sodomites is one sodomite going to produce? A lot, and that's why it's just exploding. The only way to stop it, you say "how do we stop it?" ... You want to know why sodomites are recruiting? Because they have no natural predators.
—Pastor Stephen Anderson

Brit Hume pounces on xtian bandwagon

2010-01-06T17:00:00.008-05:00

This guy got on the air to talk about a non-news story (and let's be fair, no one gives a shit if Tiger Woods cheated on his wife) and used his platform, in which he's supposed to discuss news, to prosthelytize to a 'celebrity'. I put that in quotes cause we all know what he's really doing is pandering to his 60+ white, wealthy, xtian demographic.

So, OK, it's obvious to all of us that this is extremely distant from the proper place of a news analyst to recommend a particular method of salvation to someone he doesn't even know. And if I thought that's what was going on, I'd think that we would have entered a very weird, Pat Robertson-esque era of broadcast media. But I don't believe Mr. Hume. And I think that a lot of the outrage directed toward him is not only misguided, but kind of playing right into his hands. I think Tiger Wood's religion matters about as much to Brit Hume as it matters to you or I. Ultimately, zilch. But what Hume is doing is indicative of a pattern of Fox News broadcaster 'scandals' in which they say something that is just a little too far right and all the right-wing, in a single sound seemingly, applaud his bravery and decry an imaginary left-wing outrage. It's an act of instigation against the 'politically correct' whom Fox News viewers imagine (based on little to nothing) want to censor everything they say and believe in.

For instance, I'm saying that, if I were to think Hume was sincere, that he was at least out of place. That doesn't mean I want to censor his free speech or keep religion out of public discussions or only hear my point of view. I'm equally as permitted to judge Hume as Hume is to judge Woods. The problem is that the right wing are full of fear (watching Fox, who can blame them) and people full of fear jump to conclusions. Just cause I don't like what Hume said and I think it was a poor choice to say it doesn't mean I think he shouldn't be allowed to say it. But just you watch, within 24 hours someone, probably at Fox, is going to get on the air and say liberals want to shut up anyone who loves Jesus. Then all the Fox viewers will rally around Brit and talk about what a great American he is and how Christianity is part of the American identity and it's just the same fucking culture war circling back around like a snake eating it's own tail.

Ultimately this all means more attention and higher ratings for one of Fox News' sinking ships. Behind O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity and even Van Susteren, Hume (who lost the show a year ago to a younger, better looking Bret Baier)is using the Woods scandal and Christianity to bolster his own popularity.

My question is, why are atheists more outraged by this than Christians? Maybe it's just a case of ignoring the intent in favor of hearing what you want.

Blog News Update: If anyone's interested I'm also writing for Follow The Family now, please check there if you're interested, particularly my recent piece on Jim DeMint and the Christmas Bombing

Loners + Religion = Terrorists

2009-12-29T17:19:00.009-05:00

If the above embed doesn't work, please listen to this short clip here.

When Islamic terrorists attacked America on September 11th, 2001, I knew that it was far bigger than the terror that had gripped the country two years earlier in Colorado's Columbine High School, but I had the suspicion that the two incidents had similar minds behind them. Wildly angry, fervent, driven criminals who lived for years on the edge of sanity, before finally making the tragic decision to go out with a bang. (You should really read that Columbine article I linked to, it's got some very interesting new insight and it's a quick read).

9/11 was perpetrated by angry, disillusioned, poor and enraged young men (remember most of the hijackers were in their mid-20s) following a charismatic religious leader who convinced them the world was against them and that god was on their side. In their warped minds they were doing the right thing. Good reason.

In the still unraveling case of the Columbine High School attacks we see what appears to be an angry, disillusioned, depressed Dylan Klebold operating at the behest of the charismatic Eric Harris and they both seemed to believe the world was against them. Check out this exchange, the two reportedly video taping themselves about 30 minutes before the attack.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold record their last home video. In it, they are in the family room of the Harris home. Eric is filming Dylan, who is wearing a black baseball cap backward, exposing a "B" embroidered in white - the Boston Red Sox logo. He's wearing am untucked plaid shir and black BDUs (military-style pants) tucked into military-style boots. There are several duffel bags on the floor.

Eric: "Say it now."

Dylan: "Hey mom. Gotta go. It's about a half an hour before our little judgment day. I just wanted to apologize to you guys for any crap this might instigate as far as (inaudible) or something. Just know I'm going to a better place. I didn't like life too much and I know I'll be happy wherever the fuck I go. So I'm gone. Good-bye. Reb..."

Dylan takes the camera then and begins filming Eric. Eric's also wearing a plaid shirt and he has on a white t-shirt on underneath.

Eric: "Yea... Everyone I love, I'm really sorry about all this. I know my mom and dad will be just like.. just fucking shocked beyond belief. I'm sorry, all right. I can't help it."

Dylan: (interrupts) "We did what we had to do."

Eric: "Morris, Nate, if you guys live, I want you guys to have whatever you want from my room and the computer room."

Dylan adds that they can have his things as well.

Eric: "Susan, sorry. Under different circumstances it would've been a lot different. I want you to have that fly CD."

Eric: (eventually) "That's it. Sorry. Goodbye."

Dylan: (sticks his face in the camera) "Goodbye." The tape ends with a brief glimpse of a sign on the wall of Eric's bedroom. It's the letters "CHS" along with a drawing of a bomb with a lit fuse and, written in bold black letters, the word "clue".

Last week we saw an attempt to bomb an international flight on Christmas Day. Like the Columbine and 9/11 the suspect of the failed attack fit the profile. Postings on an internet message board, evidently made by suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, portray a lonely, disillusioned, repressed young (25) man. Here's what NPR had to say.

Internet postings purportedly written by a Nigerian charged with trying to bomb a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day suggest a fervently religious and lonely young man who fantasized about becoming a Muslim holy warrior.
Throughout more than 300 posts, a user named "Farouk1986" reflects on a growing alienation from his family, his shame over sexual urges and his hopes that a "great jihad" will take place across the world.
While officials haven't verified that the postings were written by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, details from the posts match his personal history.
For example, the username also matches the alleged bomber's middle name and birth year. Farouk1986 says he is from Nigeria, the home nation of the man who allegedly tried to bring down the Detroit-bound flight. And the suspect's father says Abdulmutallab broke off ties with the family.
Those posts, beginning in 2005, show a teenager looking for a new life outside his boarding school and wealthy Nigerian family.
Most of all, they paint a portrait of someone who seems lost and needs someone to hear him.

So here's what religions do — act as a catalyst (even if your 'religion' is essentially just your friend). Take a rage-filled young loner, usually men, further isolate them from any rational influences, give them empty-purpose and you can turn an intelligent, promising person quickly into a walking bomb. Abdulmutallab abandoned his family in the pursuit of an organization that made him, the loner, the outcast, feel accepted — radical Islam. Soon he would risk his own life for that cause. And of course, there's a lot of politics behind the purpose for the attack (chiefly, it looks like the attack was a response to U.S. actions in Yemen.

But what drives a young man to throw away his future, his moral reasoning, his family, his life? What's his 'good reason.' Once again, it is the flawed and damaging logic of religion.

Ex-cult network and end of year break

2009-12-23T21:55:00.002-05:00

Blog update: I can be both lazy and busy — and these past two weeks have been that way, and by the looks of the traffic, it looks like you've all been a little busy too. That's cool. Let's say we take a few more days, enjoy the various frozen year-end celebrations and reconvene here, oh, let's say Tuesday.

Not to mention there's a few changes to look forward to in 2010, including more original reporting and some upcoming interviews with outspoken skeptics. Thanks to those who've started following GRN this past year. You've all been wonderful motivators and supporters.

In case any GRN followers are interested, there are 138 of you on twitter, 102 on Facebook 51 on Tumblr, 39 on Atheist Nexus, 13 right here on Google blogspot, 13 on Huffington Post, 5 on youtube (where I've yet to even post a video or comment, yikes) and 1 on Current.com. Not to mention about 50 daily 'walk-ins' on the blogspot.

GRN was featured in an article in Gay and Lesbian Humanist Magazine this year, as well as on a 'Sunday School' feature at Angie the Anti-Theist.

Speaking of Angie, she's got a new website that some of my readers may be interested in. It's a social networking site (one of those 'ning' style ones like Atheist Nexus is) specifically geared toward cult survivors. If you or your family were involved in cult activity or I guess if you're just really interested, you should check it out the Ex-Cult Network.

Here's a cool video I found there.

As for me, I'll probably still be on Twitter and Tumblr during the break — feel free to peek in there or as, always, send an email.

Michael Ian Black takes on Megan Phelps

2009-12-16T21:32:00.013-05:00

I think most people who read this blog are familiar with Megan Phelps, the daughter of Shirley-Roper Phelps and the granddaughter of hate-monger Fred Phelps. By the way, Fred's got 13 Children and Shirley's got 11! It's like they're raising an army. (Apologies to my Atheist Nexus friend Nate Phelps, who is an estranged child of the Westboro Baptist Church leader, by his own description).

Anyway, it looks like Megan has been baited into a sort of Twitter-war with comedian Michael Ian Black (Wet Hot American Summer, The State). Here's some screen shots, a little out of order, but they've all got times on them. Enjoy. (Clicking on the images should make them bigger. Remember, it's twitter, so each image reads from bottom up.)

And it looks like Micheal's not the only celebrity involved in this (although his particular brand of absurdly irreverent humor works great against her steadfast brain-washed nonsense). But Rainn Wilson and Kevin Smith have also taken an interest in prodding this little sideshow freak.

Update/correction on the Lodi story

2009-12-16T14:21:00.003-05:00

Readers, In October I posted a small piece on Lodi, California's local government and their practice of praying on taxpayer time. You can read that piece here, but it's recently been brought to my attention there were a few inaccuracies. Just a note to anyone out there, I'm more than happy to post corrections that are either emailed or posted in the comments. Here's the email I received from Lodi United for the Separation of Church and State, the area secularist organization fighting to keep prayer out of public meetings. You can check them out if you're interested or, if you're on the facebook, you can see them there too.

Billy,

Thanks for the blog on Lodi, CA and prayer at council meetings.

I’m the spokesperson for Lodi United, the group that tried to remove invocations from the council meetings – or at least remove the religious references and change the agenda to have a Moment of Silence instead.

While you and I are both on the same exact page for what we’re trying to do, I thought you’d appreciate a correction on three things:

· The council meeting on Oct 22 wasn’t secretive – It’s a public meeting that happens twice a month, recorded and broadcast on TV and online, and usually has about 100 attendees

· The FFRF didn’t lose a case in Lodi – There wasn’t a case (yet), just a request for them to follow the Constitution. That request was ignored, and there might be a case sometime soon, once the FFRF has a strong enough case. It might be for Lodi, Tracy, Turlock, Tehachapi, Bakersfield, or any of a number of other towns that are ignoring the law in favor of their religion.

· Typo on “churches” in the last sentence.

Anyway, I really appreciate you spreading the word and calling attention to what is happening. Asking people to fight on a local level is a fantastic cause and one I fully support. I wish things had gone differently in Lodi, but we’re not yet done.

Best wishes,

http://www.lodiunited.org/media/Logo_small.png

David Diskin, Lodi United

Sorry for the mistakes, but I'm thrilled to know that Mr. Diskin is one of our readers and that people from across the country would take the time to contribute to this blog. There's an email button on the left, folks. If you want to help clean up my act, either clicking there or leaving a comment are the best ways to do it.

Thanks again.

Anti-Americanism trumps Atheism again

2009-12-11T21:02:00.004-05:00

Somehow this bullshit, which we discussed only a few weeks ago persists. I've been made aware that more anti-Obama hate speech is being permitted, this time in Missouri, surprise surprise:

While, at the same time, a few phone calls promoted the removal of paid for atheism billboards in the city of Las Vegas, a city built on whores, gambling, and even worse, lounge singing, yeech.

Here's what the Freedom From Religion Foundation had to say:

December 10, 2009

Apparently there's no room at the inn for an irreverent billboard saying "there is no God." ClearChannel Outdoor company in Las Vegas has taken down six Freedom From Religion Foundation billboards that had a jolly Santa stating, "Yes, Virginia... There is no God," just one to two days after placing them around the city.

A kind donor paid for 10 solstice signs to adorn the city of Las Vegas this December, which, in addition to the six censored "Yes, Virginia..." signs, included two that said "Heathen's Greetings" and two with the message "Reason's Greetings."

A representative from ClearChannel Outdoor told FFRF that the Santa signs were removed due to calls of complaint received by the company.

"It's rather mind-boggling for this to happen in a town with the reputation of Las Vegas, built on gambling and call girls," said Annie Laurie Gaylor, Foundation co-president. "Who would have guessed there would be such delicate sensibilities in the city known for the saying 'What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.' "

Gaylor remarked: " 'Tis the season for censorship—we are just happy our other signs passed muster."

The censored billboards were at:

* Sahara NS 5 Ft E/O Pardee Pl F/W
* Boulder ES 475 Ft S/O Dalhart F/S
* LVBS WS 800 Ft N/O Convention Ctr F/N
* Russell NS 3100 Ft W/O I-515 F/W
* Airport Exit ES .26mi S/O Russell F/N
* Valley View WS 500 Ft N/O Viking F/S

The remaining billboards can be seen for the rest of December at:

* LVBN WS 400’ n/o Lamb SF (Reason's Greetings)
* Bruce ES 125’ n/o Charleston SF (Heathen's Greetings)
* Wyoming ES 5’ e/o Industrial EF (Reason's Greetings)
* Rancho ES 100’ s/o Cheyenne NF (Heathen's Greetings, coming soon)

The "Yes, Virginia..." reference is a play on the famous question posed by 8-year-old Virginia O'Hanlon in 1897 to the New York Sun newspaper: "Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus. Papa says, 'If you see it in THE SUN it's so.' Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?"

In an unsigned editorial, the Sun's Francis P. Church wrote his "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" line.

The Foundation, which has over 14,000 members nationwide, initially unveiled its "Yes, Virginia..." message on 100 exterior bus ads in Seattle in November of this year.

So once again hate filled vitriol against the president of the United States is protected free speech, but challenge somebody's god, and you're beyond the realm of free speech. To paraphrase the Missouri billboard, our first amendment rights are in jeopardy, but from religion.

Christianity and the new chauvinism

2009-12-08T18:42:00.007-05:00

Aren't you sick to death of seeing things from these tight-lipped, condescending, momma's little chauvinists? It seems, perhaps with the election of Barack Obama, that the religious right is pushing back with some of the worst slime in their arsenal. Like this new masculinity movement. It's easy for them, I guess, to promote such a thick-headed, fear-based issue to such a thick-headed, fear-based crowd. This sort of thinking permeates American culture.

Just look at "Good Morning America." Last week out-of-the-closet-homosexual performer Adam Lambert was scheduled to sing on the show, but due to an earlier performance in which he ::gasp:: kissed a boy on stage, ABC gave him the boot. And who did they get to replace him?

Chris Fucking Brown!

A guy who beat the living crap out of a woman and faced outrageously light charges.

The whole incident goes to show that America likes its men to be tough guys. This country would rather see a violent psycho-path forgiven for an act of unspeakable violence than see a little queer boy prancing around in make-up.

It's values, people.

And as gay marriage decisions in New Jersey approach, those values are being put to the test.

It looks good in N.J., but don't be so sure. In New York the same-sex marriage bill was defeated by every republican and 8 democrats, including the cretin in the video above Hiram Monserrate, who by the way WAS convicted of assault. With Chris Christie gubernatorial victory, N.J.'s right is re-energized and I wouldn't be surprised to see this bill either killed by those swinging right or to pass and be promptly revoked, or put to an unconstitutional vote, by the time Christie widens the doors of the statehouse.

And meanwhile, on the same issue, those pushing the Christian agenda in America have taken in a step further. The Family is behind the insidious attempt to establish a death penalty of homosexual in Uganda.

And there you have it. American chauvinism is spreading in a strange way and at a time in history when we should be more mature. All this Hatred towards homosexuals is clearly a masked fear some men have of femininity. And when their religion backs them on it, hooo boy are 'dem queer boys in fer some beatins!

I'll let Pat Robertson identify the harm of religion on this one.

EDIT: Check out this Godless Girl post, by the way, for a clip of a pastor telling us we need to stand when we pee, unlike THE PRESIDENT!

Edit 2: And what about over at Friendly Atheist, they're on the same subject, Christians = real men. It's pathetic

Denialsim and Medical Science

2009-12-04T22:59:00.005-05:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Michael Specter

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

You know, not to become reliant on the Comedy Central line-up for posts, but it's my own personal policy to brag about my blog predicting the future. So, I feel like I have to address this. First off, I want this guy's book. It's almost the book I wanted to write, except, I would probably focus more on religion. But what did I say on my controversial Atheist Nexus blog nearly two months ago?

In case you have to sign up just to read it, here it is:

Maher's medical confusion understandable

There's been a lot of discussion about Maher's winning the award, and this almost immediate vaccine comment which caused many atheists to cringe. I wrote a little about why I think he deserves the award anyway on my blog.

In addition to that, I'd like to add, while I think Maher is wrong here, is it really any wonder that so many are suspicious of an industry so fraught with needless products and tied so tightly to a profit margin? It came out recently that watermelons work about as good as that blue boner pill. How many cases of parents just itching to put their kids on ritalin have we heard about? Vioxx, Oxy Cotin, Heroin — all disasters of the medical industry. How is a laymen, like Maher and myself, to have any trust in an industry that seeks to profit off sick people when we see results in drugs like these?

Again, I'm not saying Maher is right, but I do think the atheist community isn't doing a fair job of explaining why he's wrong.

So imagine my surprise when Jon Stewart brought up the same point. But Specter had an excellent point that, despite all the well-thought out responses I got on AN—was the first that really put Stewart and I in our places.

And it needs to be applied to other aspects of life. When we people make decisions about where to stand on issues, too often is the case when their emotions rule their decision-making process. Isn't that how we end up with a guy like Bush for president? Because he seemed like a guy people would wanna have a beer with (that is, if they didn't know he was a recovering alcoholic)? Isn't that how we end up with hate-mongers like Pat Robertson and fat, crybaby Glenn Beck on television? They're people who appeal to emotions and use that trick to swerve around reason and fool us into feeling rather than thinking.

Global Warming deniers, Anti-vaccers, 'birthers,' are all driven by this same flaw in reasoning and it's about time someone noticed the trend and plugged their book about it on a platform that reaches millions, like The Daily Show.

Jesus: Space Ghost?

2009-12-02T14:34:00.002-05:00

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Gold, Frankincense and Mars - Guy Consolmagno

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

U.S. Speedskating

I'm sure most who visit GRN keep an eye on the Colbert Report - but take a second look at this character. Colbert's guest, in all seriousness, is putting forth an argument, as is the Vatican altogether, that essentially says that the ghost of a zombie may have been reincarnated into an alien from outer space. For real.

You know, it just goes to show, religion makes 'magical' reasoning seem rational. Believing there's a god requires an ability to ignore our standard methods of determining truth. Accepting outrageous, unsubstantiated claims lowers our standards for acceptance and look how low it can get.

A ghost of a zombie reincarnated into an outer space alien... To save the universe. Geez Louise.

Philly to Ray Comfort: yawn

2009-11-27T17:37:00.005-05:00

Some reporting on the ineffectiveness of Ray Comfort's Darwin-book handouts from Philly.

Just the other day, we were sitting on the front porch, sipping the brown liquor that this fascist state forces us to buy at its government-run stores, and thinking to ourselves: You know what this town needs? More crazy Christians.

Well, praise Jeebus, our prayers were answered! Ray Comfort — the pornstached evangelist best-known for making YouTubes with Kirk Cameron (who, according to our research, was on a TV show once) in which he talks about "perfectly designed fruits," something called a crocoduck and other bits of scientifically illiterate nonsense that suggests, to people with double-digit IQs, that the world is 6,000 years old and the fossil record is a result of Noah's flood (which actually happened!) — devised a neat little plan to convince you secularists that everything you know is wrong. He asked his minions to go to 50 college campuses — including that satanic lair known as the University of Pennsylvania — on Nov. 19 and distribute free copies of the Comfort-edited version of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. See, Darwin's work is now in the public domain, which means any jack-nozzle with a vanity press can republish it. Comfort added his own helpful introduction, which basically says that the entire book is bunk, but Genesis is literal. Science!

But future denizens of hell were not amused. All over the country, secularist groups stood ready to protest Comfort's troops. The Secular Student Alliance planned a counterattack of sorts, and even printed a bunch of pro-Darwin bookmarks to give to the students who took one of Comfort's books. Crafty! So, Comfort pulled a fast one — and moved his go-date up to Nov. 18, which totally caught the heathens unaware. Craftier! He was mighty proud of himself, too, on his blog. "Owing to our date change," he posted, "no doubt they have a lot [of bookmarks] left over." He offered to pay their printing bills, because they're going to burn for eternity anyway.

We wandered over to Penn on the 19th, not yet hipped to the fact that this thing was over and done with. But! We found a few people who were there, as the Jesus Freaks handed out their fake-Darwin books near the campus library. And no one was all that worked up about it, one way or another. Even the Christians we talked to weren't particularly fond of this Comfort guy. Says one student who runs a prayer group through Penn Students for Christ
(and who asked to remain anonymous): "I don't have any faith in Ray Comfort.

I have it on good authority that Rational Responder Brian Sapient (who can be seen above arguing with Mr. Comfort) commented for this story, although his quote was ultimately not included.

Here's what he said:

My statement to a Philly paper about Ray Comfort
Tue, 2009-11-17 00:09 — Sapient

I had a request today for a statement from the Philadelphia City Paper about the upcoming visit of WOTM to The University of Pennsylvania campus. Here is my statement:

I am not worried about the mission to distribute revised Origin of Species books from the Way of the Master team at The University of Pennsylvania. The students at UPENN are some of the brightest in our country. They surely have accumulated enough knowledge of the sciences at this point to see Ray Comforts destruction of The Origin of Species for what it is, a desperate attempt for attention by an ailing Christian movement as it slowly breathes it's last breaths. I hope the students at UPENN are familiar enough with evolution and natural selection to understand that it's verified every day by scientists across the planet in numerous fields of science.
When I was on Nightline as a counterpart to Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron I informed them on why their arguments against evolution and Darwin are dishonest and incorrect. Before that point and since that point many other people have done the same thing. Today Ray and Kirk continue to parrot the same dishonest statements about science that they've continued to make for the last 10 years or so. Even after being told by scientists and people who are much more knowledgeable about science than they are, they refuse to accept the truth. They refuse to accept the evidence of evolution, still looking for a transitional fossil, even though they've been told hundreds of times that every fossil is a transitional fossil. They are either extremely ignorant or extremely dishonest, and since I know both men first hand, I must say I believe them to be extremely dishonest. They aren't much more than liars for Christ, something many of us have seen in the past. It is people like them that entices intelligent people to leave Christianity where it belongs, in the past. I hope they decide to spend weeks at UPENN, every moment they spend in public is a moment they move us closer to a world void of irrational religious beliefs.

Anti-Americanism in Colorado

2009-11-24T16:47:00.008-05:00

In a blatant display of anti-atheism, a Colorado bigot has been permitted by the state, a licensing company, and (as evident by lack of protest or vandalism) neighbors to display a billboard asking if President Barack Obama is, in fact, a secret Jihadist.

The political conspiracy-theory billboard supposedly doubles as an advertisement for a Colorado used car dealership (shudders). Can we even list the ways in which this is offensive? Let's try!

1) Billboards in general mar our landscape and cheapen our environment.

2) Ridiculous birther theories have taken the place of outright racism in this country.

3) The billboard, which includes the phrase (in caps) "REMEMBER FORT HOOD," attempts to link the Fort Hood shootings to some jingoistic anti-Obama sentiment.

4) It opens the door for bigots with small businesses to make their thinly veiled racism part of our national identity. How embarrassing. Will we next be seeing TV commercials featuring Obamaesque characters leading secret crusades against America?

5) There is a fucking birth certificate, this is absurd. And there's no excuse. You are stupid for believing otherwise. If you really believe Obama wasn't born in the U.S. - you are stupid.

6) Atheist groups aren't permitted to put billboards up in Colorado without vandals coming and feeling like god's calling them to destroy them.

And so keeping to our highest ideals is unacceptable where a guy expressing his political nutbaggery and underhandedly calling for violence against the president of the United States is acceptable. Let's start calling this what it is. Anyone who wants religion in government is anti-American. Anyone who believes and spreads the unfounded belief that President Obama is secretly from another country or a Muslim or a spy is anti-American.

Wanna add more ways in which you're offended? Comments are wide open.

Religion interrupts education

2009-11-17T21:53:00.005-05:00

Nobody hates dress codes more than me. And what's more, nobody supports the right to protest more than me. But more important than the right to wear and say what you want, to me, is to have a reasonable approach. For instance, I realize I can't wear to work my hilarious t-shirt that makes it look like I'm a topless woman. It's fine on the beach, or during most of the 16 hours in which I'm not at work. Because an employer has a right to demand professional attire. That's where the government isn't allowed to step in. It's basically part of your job to dress right. The same is true for schools. If a school sets a restrictive dress code, it sucks and it may be something worth trying to change (perhaps through a piece in a student newspaper or a talk with an administrator), but at the end of the day, they've got the right to do it.

And I know, it seems like I'm picking a strange case for me, but I'm drawn to this because it comes so close to the boarder of acceptable, but is still unacceptable.

BRIDGETON — A Bridgeton High School (BHS) student is suing the school board in federal district court because officials did not allow her to participate in a worldwide protest against abortion during the school day last month.

The student, identified only as C.H. in the suit because she is a minor, said she had planned to hand out pro-life pamphlets, wear an armband with “Life” written on it and remain silent throughout the day unless she was called upon in class.

Oct. 20 marked the sixth year of this protest, known as the Pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity.

Religious groups and abortion foes encourage students to wear duct tape over their mouths or otherwise remain mostly silent that day to symbolize fetuses forever silenced by abortion.

The suit filed on Friday claims that school officials told C.H. “nothing ‘religious’ is allowed in public schools.”

It also says school policy banning religious expression violates the 1st and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. It names as defendants Superintendent H. Victor Gilson, the Board of Education, BHS Principal Lynn Williams and Assistant Principal Stephen Lynch.

“We have a very strict dress code, and we don’t allow students to pass out literature,” Gilson said on Tuesday. That includes political and religious pamphlets and speech.

Religious expression is not the only type banned, he added.

“We don’t allow any insignias at all unless they (promote) Bridgeton High School or Bridgeton itself,” Gilson explained.

Now here's the thing. I think that in a public school some protests might be OK, but others aren't and I'm not just labeling this one 'not OK' because it's religious or conservative.

If my high school class had staged a walkout, we'd all face punishment, but we'd have gotten our point across and that would be it. If this student wanted to wear an armband and then get suspended for a day because of it, that's her prerogative, but she's got to accept the punishment. Although I find the 'literature' a problem, I support her up until she files the lawsuit. Because she's wrong. You can't use school, a public school, as a platform for religious and political debates. Talking politics is one thing, but when you start handing out pamphlets, you've begun interrupting the learning process. For the seven or eight hours you're in school, that's the third of the day you're expected to act professionally.

Not to mention that she's flat-out wrong about this case violating the first and fourteenth amendments — because she wasn't arrested or fined. She violated a school rule and she was punished through the school. As long as she wasn't punished through the legal system the case on this has got to be closed.

But what is she doing? OF COURSE, she's clinging to her religion and trying to give it precedence over school rules. Look how much effort religion goes through to interrupt education.

'Master Manipulators' turns to religion

2009-11-13T20:27:00.004-05:00

From the L.A. Times:

Phillip Garrido, accused of kidnapping and raping Jaycee Lee Dugard, is a "master manipulator" who wants to "control" his victims, El Dorado County Dist. Atty. Vern Pierson said Friday.

Garrido wrote that Christ had helped cure him of a sexual problem.

"People all over the world are hearing testimony that through the spirit of Christ a mental process took place ending a sexual problem believed to be impossible," Garrido wrote in a letter that the station received Thursday.

From the Associated Press:

“It appears once again that Mr. Garrido seeks leniency due to claims of religious transformation and alleged personal change,” Pierson said.

In other news, Tony Alamo, who forced 8-year-olds into marriage (ya know, cause of God) was sentenced to 175 years in prison.

And while moderate Christians try to claim that these 'small' cults don't many Christians, the truth is Alamo made millions and has hundreds of followers.

Just two more examples that prove that religion is manipulation, and on a massive scale.

Separate still isn't equal: Why gays need to call it marriage

2009-11-10T21:01:00.005-05:00

Watch this at Boston.com

I've laid out my argument for gay marriage several times before, but to succinctly review what I've said, I maintain that since homosexuality is not a mental disorder, that when it takes place between two human adults, they are both in the position to provide sound consent. And that since nearly all our laws concerning sex involve sound consent (and are designed to protect those who are unable to provide it), a ban on gay marriage can not be logically defended.

It, of course, is religiously defended - to which any reasonable person would reply that religion does not and should not play a role in our government.

Now, it takes a lot of discussion to bring the Christian conservative to understand that they're logically cornered on this, but once they do, they often use the last little projectile in their pathetic arsenal — civil unions.

Today the governor of Rhode Island vetoed a bill that would allow domestic partners the right to organize each other's funerals. Now look, I understand that domestic partnerships are not civil unions. That's exactly my point. Less rights are afforded to those in domestic partnerships than are to those in civil unions just as less rights are afforded to those in civil unions than are to those married.

Conservatives ask me if I'd be happy if 'civil unions' were legally identical to marriage, if I'd be happy.

They can't, and they never will be because with the different title comes a different set of legislation. Would African-Americans in the 1940s and 50s been happy if their children's schools were segregated, but equal?

This case in Rhode Island proves that different classifications result in different treatment and eventually different institutions. Separate is never equal.

Nobody's looking to change your precious churches or force kids to try being gay, it's rights like funeral arrangements that need to be afforded these people.

Since this different classification forever puts upon the 'civilly united' the threat of unequal treatment, I couldn't really back it and so no, I wouldn't be happy with that.

By calling it something else, even if it started out exactly equal, it's leaving open the loophole that one day the country will sway right and the powers that be will bestow some benefit to one and not the other, probably in an attempt to shore up their base (just like this Rhode Island case).

That's what I mean when I say separate is not equal.

JeansTake: Religion is like panties

2009-11-09T00:31:00.003-05:00

Here's a fun Sunday feature piece. Found it when I was re-watching some trading spouses videos (you know the one) Hope this brings some smiles.

Edit: I couldn't help myself, this one's also awesome.

Hajj...Hajj...Ha-choo! Has Swine Flu made it to Mecca?

2009-11-06T17:12:00.006-05:00

This Discovery Channel piece does a pretty good job of explaining what the Hajj is and the significance of Mecca in Islam.(Although the narrator uses a few annoying absolutes and the music is embarrassingly dramatic). But it balances the day to day operations of running a Muslim theme park with the history and practices of the pilgrims. Among my favorite aspects is that they have hundreds of cameras surrounding Mecca, yet Muslims believe that it's the closet you can be to Allah. So, you know, God's there, but they're not taking any chances. Some faith.

Much like the Vatican, the Hajj has it's own government and thrives off what can be considered tourism. But there's a new danger to having thousands of people clamoring, shoulder to shoulder in the desert, all in an effort to kiss a rock. You guessed it, H1N1. Seems like the ol' swine flu is a big concern, despite the belief that Allah is protecting the pilgrims who seek his mercy and forgiveness (for what, I'm not sure). Not only that, but the Saudi government is spending a good deal of money and resources to combat this threat to their industry. I can't help but wonder, at what cost? Please listen to the All Things Considered segment below.

"They simply can't turn away" ends this story. And while I would never support the Saudis turning people away just for being sick, I can't help but notice that those making this journey don't see to care if they are sick, if they spread a disease, if they contract a disease — because while 'Allah' is there for them, the tourism industry surrounding this event is doing everything they can to protect themselves from bad press.

God makes hate, men act on it

2009-11-05T22:59:00.004-05:00

God, a 23-year-old Long Island man says, has made him hate homosexuals according to news reports.

The two victims, one of whom was dressed up in drag for Halloween, were walking on Woodfield Road near Janos Ave. when they were approached around 1:50 a.m. by a car being driven by a woman with three men inside.

The three men - including 23-year-old Robert Bellamy Jr. - apparently got out of the car and surrounded the victims, who were on their way home from a Halloween party.

Bellamy is accused of punching one of the victim's in the face and then - along with the two other suspects - punching the second victim in the head and face, knocking him to the ground and calling him a "faggot" during the assault, police said.

You know, there's this horrible machismo attitude out there, which is often wrongly associated with 'the African-American community,' that is so threatened by the concept of homosexuality and femininity, that they'll seek out any justification to cause harm.

This asshat just happened to have found the greatest justification of all. GOD! Why, how could you blame this dick-size compensator for doing what his creator wants? It says right in the bible,

13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

See, the infallible word of an all-loving god is "they must be put to death."

This little fucktard is right. God wants you to hate gay people. It's not even just that he wants you to hate them, he wants you to fucking kill them — And it's their own fault, ya know, cause the blood is on their heads. Blaming the victim.

What a despicable 'god'.

Bad reputations mar Iran, U.S. relations

2009-11-04T16:46:00.005-05:00

Political Friday (on Wednesday)

First a blog update: I know I've fallen behind on posting this week — The Phillies are in the World Series, what do you expect? That being said, I've been all over Twitter, be sure to check there. I'm trying to ignore what's happened in New Jersey last night, at least until I can get my head straight on it. In the mean time, here's a political Friday piece, on a Wednesday so that it could coincide with "Student's Day" in Iran.

There's a major problem with the way this country continues to perceive Iran. It seems to be mostly commonly viewed through the actions of Iranian President, Holocaust denier, nuclear arms-seeking madman Mamoud Amademajad. But can America help but to conflate a country with it's leader. Indeed, isn't this how the rest of the world treats us? Just look at President Obama's overseas reception as compared to President Bush's and the most definite correlation with international feelings on the U.S.

Doesn't make it right though.

Iranians are angry. At Amademajad, at the U.S., at Bush, at Obama. They're so angry that on a holiday they have to literally hate on America (today), many are spending it protesting Amademajad and nuclear weapons.

And as little as we understand the surprisingly Westernized Iran — It's nothing compared to how little they understand the U.S., who they still see us as imperialist, unilateralist, oil-grubbing, 'with us or against us,' cowboys.

Which is especially hypocritical that they're now the ones saying Obama is either 'with them or against them'

This is indeed a clash of perceptions mixed with unfortunate leadership that is building to what could be a real problem.

Obama's tough talk on Iran and about nuclear inspectors does little to impress the right and does lots to dangle the threat of another needless military conflict in front of us.

Dinesh D'Souza is a poor thinker

2009-10-30T17:41:00.007-04:00

NPR has really disappointed me today. I'm all for hearing all sides, but some people exist on such extremist fringe that I expect my news media to filter them out — in particular I expect a respectable news source like NPR to know better than to give a platform to characters who blame FDR for 9/11 and publish with the company that accused Bill Clinton of murder and involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing and marginalized the career of a brave U.S. Naval lieutenant turned U.S. senator in order to influence an election.

Truly Catholic apologist and right wing extremist Dinesh D'Souza and his publisher Regnery represent the worst aspects of American media.

Allow me to tear this creep to ribbons:

More insurgent bombings in Iraq. More Taliban strikes in Afghanistan. What's up with these people? Just Wednesday, a deadly car bomb exploded in Peshawar, Pakistan, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Islamabad. Is Islam the problem? Many atheists, and even some believers, would like us to believe that Muslim fanatics are doing this in the hope of going straight to heaven, so that they can enjoy the company of 72 virgins there. Some go as far as saying that religion itself is to blame, because it makes people susceptible to fanaticism, terrorism and violence.

What's up with that, indeed. While I appreciate having a my stance on Islamic fundimentelism, which I and the rest of America spent the last 8 years learning about and trying to understand, outrageously over-simplified — I have to point out that you've already misrepresented the majority of your opposition in your opening graph. In other words, you're committing the straw man fallacy — and it's quite irritating to be lumped in with imaginary people you haven't even bothered to identify beyond the label "Many atheists, and even some believers."

But if you want to talk about this history of "72 virgins" the fact is it's mentioned in the Sunan al-Tirmidhi, one of the Hadith collections, from which much Islamic law is developed. So it's about as serious a belief as, say, the absurd Catholic notion that God has employed St. Peter as a sort of bouncer at the gate of heaven. I'll agree with you that they're both stupid beliefs, but the point is it doesn't matter.

People who believe they are doing the work of God and that there is an afterlife in which a God is going to meet them are bound to want to please him. All a terrorist leader has to do is reinforce an uneducated man's dependence on God, instruct the poor sucker that god hates infidels and he'll put the rest together himself. 'Allah hates infidels, I'll meet him when I die, if'n I die killing infidels, I'll have pleased Allah — and then gifts maybe?'

Point is, even if the motivating factor is politics, the justification is religion. Stop pretending like there was ever an atheist argument as simple as the one you laid out.

But this accusation against religion is nonsense. Even against Islam, it's questionable.

Uh, don't look now, but your prejudice is showing.

Robert Pape's study of insurgency and suicide bombing shows that these actions have nothing to do with promises of heavenly reward. Rather, extremists are motivated by more mundane motives: they invaded our country, they stole our land, they raped my sister, and so on.

Whether or not this is true, Islamist terrorism is a special case. The original suicide bombers, the Japanese kamikazes, were not motivated by religion but rather by fanatical loyalty to the emperor.

Which A) Have no bearing on this situation about Islamic terrorists;
B) Loyalty to the emperor practically is a religion.

The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka conduct suicide attacks in a desperate struggle over land and self-determination. If religion is the problem, where are the Buddhist suicide bombers?

I suppose you picked Buddism out of a hat, but since you're pretending to be an educated man, I'll allow you the opportunity to go educate yourself on Buddism and their beliefs about death, killing and suicide so that you can realize for yourself what an ignorant fuck you are. (I'll give you a hint; Buddists have no god! Way to make an illogical comparison)

Nor has anyone been able to identify the Christian bin Laden, the Christian equivalent of al-Qaida or Hezbollah,

Oh, really? Cause I thought:

or the Christian country today run along the lines of post-Khomeini Iran.

Oh, I think I can identify it. Have you looked up in the Italy area.

Most people in the world believe in God and the afterlife, yet hardly any of them launch suicide attacks in the hope of going straight to heaven.

It's a pure argumentative fallacy to suggest that something is only true when universally accepted — especially since we're talking about a very small and particular brand of Islam. Also, you're still arguing that atheists are saying that religions are the cause — no one's saying that. The religion is the justification used by higher level terrorists to inspire suicide attackers to commit violent acts.

The atheist attack on religion fails.

Even the attack that you made up out of whole cloth doesn't fail. You can't just declare that it fails. Your argument uses spurious connections, a slew of fallacies and no actual references, numbers or sources. You are a jackass.

But even more significant, it boomerangs on the atheists. To see why, you have to understand the larger atheist critique.

Which you've already demonstrated you don't by arguing a point that no one's made.

For two centuries, atheists have said that belief in the next world detracts from the pressing task of improving this one. The afterlife, in other words, is anti-life. We see this in the subtitle of Christopher Hitchens' book, How Religion Poisons Everything. But the most famous atheist to make this accusation was Karl Marx.

Bringing up Marx is clearly a technique you're employing to conflate atheism and communism. This is an aspect of McCarthyism — so you've essentially admitted to a goal of blacklisting atheists here.

Marx famously said religion is the "opiate of the people." He meant that religion is a kind of drug that numbs us from being aware of social injustice. Marx's call to eradicate religion was taken up with a vengeance by a host of dictators: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Enver Hoxha, Fidel Castro and Kim Jong-il. These despots have collectively killed millions more than even bin Laden could ever dream of orchestrating.

This does nothing to effect the truth value of, nor the 'public good' value of religion. If you're suggesting if Kim-Jong Il or Pol Pot were only Catholics they'd never have been horrible dictators, you're sorely mistaken. Do I need to add that Hitler was a Catholic (and funded by the Vatican, mind you)? The innumerable amounts of wars throughout human history fought over gods? Crusades? Inquisitions?

Fuck, just look around this website. It's an endless parade of parents murdering children, religious figures raping young women, scam artists using religious texts to take your money. You're argument is the whole reason I started this site. The harm of religion is an unyielding barrage of horror after horror committed in the name of and directly because of an irrational belief.

How about this? Atheism is a stance on one issue, so dictators who seek to be living gods, has no bearing on what real atheism is, you knew that you just decided to obfuscate the facts to give your flimsy argument the appearance of weight. It's pathetic. You're pathetic.

Beliefs in God and life after death have proven far less dangerous to society than the attempts to establish the God-free utopia.

Who proved it? You? or no one? I think no one.

Fine, let's listen to the atheists who say we need to watch out for heaven-seeking Muslims bent on blowing up civilians and flying planes into buildings. But let's be just as vigilant against atheist fanatics who are willing to murder millions in order to establish their version of heaven on Earth.

So have we reached a compromise that murder is wrong whether it's inspired by religions or not? Because there's something we can agree on. However, I can't agree that you have the slightest clue what atheism is all about. Allow me to point to a recent billboard which you may see as offensive, but in fact says exactly what you just said in the above graph — just from another perspective.

GRN featured in Gay & Lesbian Humanist Magazine

2009-10-25T23:11:00.005-04:00

Dear Readers,

Some time ago, I was asked to submit a short piece to the U.K.-based Gay & Lesbian Humanist Magazine explaining the mission of Good Reason News. I took it a bit further and got into the difference between 'Good Reasoning' and 'Poor Reasoning' and how it applies to the issue of giving same-sex partners the right to marry. The g&lh issue with this article is now available online.

In preparation for the piece I received an email from Brother Richard, of Atheist Nexus fame advising me of the importance of the atheist/humanist/secularist communities to rally behind the gay and lesbian community in support for same sex marriage. He's right. We all share a common goal in getting all traces of unreasonable religious doctrine out of government. I've made the argument before, and I reiterate this in g&lh, that there is no logical argument against same-sex marriage, unless it's based in religion, which I'd argue starts with a faulty premise, but it doesn't matter because neither the U.K.'s nor the U.S.'s legal system is beholden to any church.

I hope you'll check out the article, which you can do by clicking here. And I hope you'll check out the humanist-focused Pink Triangle Trust blog

As always thanks for reading,
Billy Deaton

Can holy water cure the Swine Flu? Spolier Alert: No.

2009-10-23T16:58:00.006-04:00

As can be demonstrated throughout history, religions do all they canto insert themselves into aspects of people's lives in which they have no business. "Good parents" bring their children to church; How many catholic hospitals are there around the U.S.?, How many religious schools?

There was a time when medical health and "spirituality" went hand in hand. Most 'hospitals,' which at that time were places for poor people to die, were attached to monasteries.

Of course, leaps and bounds were made in the medical community once the health care started relying on science and not gods or other hocus-pocus. Sadly, there are still those who believe that religious organizations are somehow the most trustworthy source of medical aid. Take this story from the Associated Press. It seems, with all the recent panic about swine flu, several unsavory characters who see weak, frightened, panicky people as a chance at a quick buck have decided to exploit this fear right here on the ol' internet.

Among the fear-mongering scammers the AP points to is one called Secrets of Eden, and you'll never guess their angle.

Secrets of Eden sells supplements and oils with a biblical flair, said its general manager, Rick Strawcutter, a former pastor in Adrian, Mich. The staff "got a little carried away" on marketing for one product and "drew the ire of the FDA," he said.

Here's the product they were 'a little carried away' about (once the AP pointed to it as a scam, of course)

Be sure to take note of how carefully worded Pastor Strawcutter's response is. "Drew the ire of the FDA." Almost as if he's reminding people that they can't trust this government, you know the one with that different looking fellow in charge. That massive, scary government organization that swoops in and shuts down the poor little businessman just for drawing their ire is loaded with bureaucratic scientists types and who knows what they do? I mean, they're nerds anyway, right? But, on the other-hand, while we don't have a bunch of fancy-schamncy, big city, high-paid doctors and lawyers, what we have is the word "Bible" attached to our product. And, since the Bible is the infallible word of God, how could God forsake this product?

And so we arrive at yet another harm of religious belief: Attach the word bible to a worthless product, exploit people's fears of things they don't understand (like real science), sit back and watch the cash flow roll in and if you can do it on a fad health-scare like swine flu, ooo boy did the scam gods ever smile on you. Satisfaction Guaranteed.

EDIT 1: Strawcutter pedals all kinds of quick-fix solutions in all kinds of outfits. Here he is again, not dressed as a pastor or a doctor, but this time as a lawyer telling you how you can beat a traffic ticket. And he's a man of God! Truly a trustworthy source in any hat, right?

Praying your way to a secular government

2009-10-22T16:40:00.007-04:00

I don't think I'm generalizing here to say that many religious folk (and indifferent people) are blind to how absorbed in religion our government is. There's been plenty of press lately involving Jeff Sharlet's exposé on The Family and revelations about the Bush Administrations promotion of the bible , but these high-profile, national-level cases aren't the only church/state offenders, and the time to start battling these practices at a local level is now.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is doing a great job of exposing and bringing to justice local practices of prayer at public government meets. The above podcast discusses, among other things, the actions taken against the local government of Grand Junction, Colorado, a town so adamant against acknowledging their constituional betrayal, they'd sooner publish awfully illogical and distracting editorials. But the ffrf doesn't always win cases. Take, for example, Lodi, California's secretive meeting last night to allow the town to pray sectarian (what they cleverly refer to as 'uncensored' prayers):

On Wednesday night, the council approved a new prayer policy with no discussion. The council decided to broaden its policy to allow religious leaders to offer uncensored prayers, which can include references to Jesus Christ. The policy also includes opening up the invocation or "Call to Civic Responsibility" to all religious and secular groups. During the prayer at Wednesday's meeting, First Church of Christ Scientist Pastor Arlene Proctor thanked the council for its service before reading several passages from the Bible.

In addition to contacting FFRF, there is something you can do if this is happening in your town. Why not try prayer? Seriously. Try calling the bluff on their claims that they're not discriminating against non-Jesus based religions. Call for a prayer to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If the meeting takes place during the appropriate Islamic time, ask for a pause so you can bow toward Mecca and see how they feel about it. Or, proclaim one of the Christian city council members to be your god, grovel at his or her feet and say a prayer out loud. Some people need to be taught their own hypocrisy through example. You have to, effectively, force them to wear your shoes for a moment so they can see why what they're doing is unconstitutional and morally wrong.

Battling this nonsense at the local level is the first step that must be taken to keep religion away from the federal government and prevent chruches from controlling our lives.

EDIT: The above is my original post, but some corrections have been brought to my attention. In the interest of transparency, I'm leaving the original post as it is. Here's my post with the corrections to this story

Atheism without schism is dogma

2009-10-20T17:42:00.007-04:00

There has been a good deal of talk lately about a perceived schism within the atheist community and I have only one thing to say about that — good.

To begin, it seems like there may be a faction out there trying to discredit atheists for our lack of unification. Just listen to this NPR story above. (if it appears to not be working reload the page until you see the controls — still looking for a new mp3 option)

Paul Kurtz founded the Center for Inquiry three decades ago to offer a positive alternative to religion. He has built alliances with religious groups over issues such as climate change and opposing creationism in the public schools. Kurtz says he was ousted in a "palace coup" last year — and he worries the new atheists will set the movement back.

"I consider them atheist fundamentalists," he says. "They're anti-religious, and they're mean-spirited, unfortunately. Now, they're very good atheists and very dedicated people who do not believe in God. But you have this aggressive and militant phase of atheism, and that does more damage than good."

He hopes this new approach will fizzle.

I disagree Mr. Kurtz, I hope this approach never fizzles. By the way, it's only 'new' in the sense that we've gained enough freedom momentum over the years that we live in a society with freer speech than any other in U.S. history — free enough to not be required to pretend to respect institutions which abuse children, steal money and imprison women. Free enough to advertise it on the NYC subway.

See, being an atheist is about no allegiances. As Matt Dillahunty has said, atheism is a stance on one issue. We are united only as far as we don't believe in any gods. There are atheists who think society needs religion, atheists who believe in ghosts and alien abductions and 9/11 conspiracies, atheists who are conservatives, atheists who abstain from sex. We don't agree on these things, we don't need to.

If we did, we'd be slouching towards dogma. Those trying to narrow atheism into one political agenda, one social approach, one mind need to stop and reconsider who the word 'atheists' refer to.

Also, and I think Russell Glasser may have said this, those in Mr. Kurtz's position, referring to those of us inspired by Dawkins, Dennet and Myers as "new atheists" should be prepared to consider themselves, "old atheists."

If it's the case that there is a popular movement amongst some particularly vocal atheists, and that that movement is that atheists should be particularly vocal — is anyone really surprised here. The belief is that the door needs to be kicked in stonewall style. There's a part of that I agree with, but I think I'm not alone in saying the outspoken atheists are outspoken so that those who aren't outspoken don't have to be. So that those on the other side of the imagined schism are free to say "I don't believe in god, I don't teach my children to believe in god and yet I'm still an acceptable member of your majority Christian community, middle America."

Vatican denounces/acts on the advice of Sarah Silverman

2009-10-16T17:21:00.002-04:00

If you're reading this site, there's almost no doubt you've seen this video. The Catholic League, a U.S. Catholic civil rights organization “denounced Silverman and cable broadcaster HBO for her “obscene” and “filthy diatribe”.”

As if they're going for a world record on hypocrisy, the Catholic church has both agreed with and denounced Silverman's video "Sell the Vatican, feed the world." In an article in the Boston Herald a Jesuit reverend says Sarah may be onto something.

Yet the Rev. James Martin, culture editor of the Jesuit magazine America, says Silverman may be onto something. In an online article, Martin noted that Jesus himself told his followers to sell what they had and give it to the poor.

"Of course Pope Benedict XVI could not ’sell’ any of the treasures of the Vatican, the same way that your local archbishop couldn’t sell off the cathedral at a whim; they are not his, they are the church’s," Martin wrote. "And the church is not simply the hierarchy but the entire people of God."

But he added: "Still, perhaps Ms. Silverman, in her postmodern, potty-mouthed way is on to something. Like Jesus was. Sell the Vatican? Well, maybe not everything but perhaps a statue or two?"

Today is U.N. World Food Day, a worldwide event designed to increase awareness, understanding and inform year-round action to alleviate hunger. And while Silverman is starting discussions about how to feed the world, the Vatican is denying it's massive wealth, as it always has.

Of course, we know they're one of the world's biggest stock holders, real estate owners, owners of ancient relics and art and of course, they have a booming tourism industry all on top of guilting suckers worldwide into throwing 10% of their income in for 'tidings' and paying taxes to no one. And that's all before you get into conspiracy theory land about the possibility of the Vatican possessing gold and other riches stolen from jews by Nazi's during the holocaust.

And while the church claims that it provides more hospitals and food than any other organization, it's apparent to anyone that the number one motive of any institution is and always will be preservation of the institution. This holds especially true for an instituion like the Catholic church, which is so old and widespread, it takes a whole lot of money to keep the old girl afloat. Of course, for an institution founded on the principle of "it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven," it's sure full of folks not too concerned with getting into heaven.

Thanks Sarah for bringing this up.

An open letter to The Non-Prophets

2009-10-11T01:18:00.011-04:00

(the audio below is the 10/10 episode of the Non-Profits. The first 15 minutes or so should be listened to before reading this post. These divshare embeds are kinda unstable, if it appears as just a white box refresh the page until you can play it.)

Dear Non-Prophets,

Let me first say thank you for existing and for, along with Atheist Experience, being by far the best atheist podcast available.

In the spirit of good debate and, as PZ Myers put it on your show this week, live slaying, I have to take you to task concerning Bill Maher's Richard Dawkins Award.

It's clear that the show has taken a stance the decision to award Bill Maher. Allow me to make an argument I don't think you're hearing. Now, while I think Matt Dillahunty may qualify for the award himself, it's mostly his points in this case that I'm going to address. They seem to be these:

A) That Bill Maher doesn't deserve the award because he's said he's not an atheist.

B) That Maher's conspiratorial bent on medicine and vaccinations ought to disqualify him.

C) That, although Religulous was a good movie, there were those who deserved it more.

First, while Bill Maher did say, in 2002 (and again in 2008) that he was not an atheist, he has in fact expressed that he is now an atheist in 2009 (to your credit, Matt and guest PZ did point this out). And, like so many others, Maher was simply confused about the definition of atheism. That doesn't make him any less of one. It seems unfair to judge him on making the same transition many of us have made.

When people begin to declare themselves atheists they're often leaving a religion, but many are making the transition from theism to deism and finally to atheism. In this way, I think Bill Maher and I are alike. But we're also alike in another way, and this is very important because it's so often overlooked. We're both conspiratorial thinkers, trying to recover. I'm sure I am, at least, but I think that Maher is in a similar boat. Of course I can only judge from watching his show, but he seems to be at the middle stage of conspiracy thinking. I was there and it's a tough place to escape. Becoming a skeptic and critical thinker is like slowly starting to understand an algebraic formula. Maher's at the stage where he's able to get the answers right, but can't quite understand why the formula works. When he understands that, perhaps he'll apply to vaccines the thinking he applies to religion.

Of course, none of that matters. The qualification for the award reads:

The Richard Dawkins Award will be given every year to honor an outstanding atheist whose contributions raise public awareness of the nontheist life stance; who through writings, media, the arts, film, and/or the stage advocates increased scientific knowledge; who through work or by example teaches acceptance of the nontheist philosophy; and whose public posture mirrors the uncompromising nontheist life stance of Dr. Richard Dawkins.^[1]

In contributing to public awareness of atheism I can think of no better choice than Bill Maher. Name me another talk show host with a platform as big as HBO willing to give a voice to the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Jeff Shartlett and Christopher Hitchens anytime they publish. Although they pop up on other shows, The Colbert Report and Bill O'Reilly (who I think had Dawkins on merely for shock value, 'look conservatives a brit who hates your Jesus, aren't you scared? Isn't America the best?'), only on Maher's show do they really get an extended amount of air time and the license to say that religion is ruining this country and this planet. You're sure not going to hear that on Jay Leno. And Maher hammers all his guests on religion. You can rarely get through a Real Time without some mention of godlessness. Isn't it praiseworthy that he makes these politicians who obey that unwritten Washington rule of loving Jesus squirm? I don't think we'll see Conan O'Brien referring to a 'zombie jew myth' anytime soon.

Also, for some atheists, Religulous made it OK to say they were not going to stay quiet about their non-beliefs anymore. By the time they find The Atheist Experience, they're already rolling their eyes at Maher's views on medicine. But anyway, consider Maher a gateway drug to the atheist community — one whose popularity and unabashed outspokenness deserve a little recognition. In an age where a politician faces a potential scandal for not wearing a fucking U.S. flag lapel pin, the success of someone who calls religion out as often and with as much reasonable vitriol as Bill Maher should be applauded.

On a personal note, if you plan to respond to this please remember you guys and girls are my heroes — please be don't call me an asshat.

With great respect and admiration,
Billy Deaton
Good Reason News.
www.goodreasonnews.blogspot.com

P.S. If anyone's reading this blog, but not listening to Non-Prophets and Atheist Experience, you have to start listening to it. (in particular check out Tracie Harris' excellently reasearched piece on martydom.)

Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-09T16:49:00.003-04:00

Political Friday

OK, I know you've all read enough and will read even more on President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize today. So I'll make my point real short.

When Bush and Cheney won the election in 2004, by a narrow margin, they declared the victory a mandate from the American people — a thumbs up to their civil liberties killing, manipulative, inhumane and unilateral policies.

So it could be interpreted, and I don't mean to put words into the mouth of the Nobel Peace Committee, as an international mandate — A thumbs up to a tempered politician who acts with reason who has stepped up to the world platform, who has invited to the table people from all nations, from all political views. And it's true. Pastor Rick Warren was invited to speak at his inauguration, Obama has met with Hugo Chavez, hired Bush Cabinet member Robert Gates, visited Egypt, Russia and is going to China.

Bush was notorious for shutting out opposing points of view, to the point where his aides were afraid to even tell the president about the news of Hurricane Katrina

"It's a standing joke among the president's top aides: who gets to deliver the bad news? Warm and hearty in public, Bush can be cold and snappish in private, and aides sometimes cringe before the displeasure of the president of the United States," Thomas writes.

Not to mention his well-documented dismissal of Clinton-era NSA warnings about an Islamic terrorist group called al-Qaida determined to strike in the U.S.

It's that sort of Bush unilateralism that inspired so much global rage against him. And it's the death of that style of governing that may have earned President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize.

How to bake your own profit

2009-10-07T19:30:00.008-04:00

Welcome to crazy people cooking class, GRN readers. Today we're going to be making one of my favorite meals, bat-shit crazy profits. First you'll need an abusive childhood, one fraught with physical or sexual abuse. Then add a large dose of religion to insure guilt and suppression. Bake in an uneducated environment and let heat for 20-30 years.

When drug, alcohol abuse or other anti-social disorders begin to emerge remove from isolation, mix in a fresh helping of even more fundamentalist religion and combine with society and wait. Before you know it you'll have a self-styled profit ready to kidnap little girls, sacrifice virgins/animals, demand unnecessary tax breaks and of course coerce followers to obey commands.

(Add wild beard, crazy eyes, swastika scars, or poor dental hygiene to your taste)

Federal court papers show a forensic psychiatrist believes the man charged in the abduction of Elizabeth Smart suffers from disorders that include pedophilia, narcissism and malingering, a condition that suggests he may be exaggerating his illnesses to avoid prosecution.
The full findings of a 206-page report by New York City-based Dr. Michael Welner have not been made public. But details about Welner's diagnosis of Brian David Mitchell appear in a motion filed Sept. 29 by federal prosecutors who hired him as an expert in the case. Defense attorneys want to prevent Welner from testifying.
...
The papers show Welner disputes the earlier diagnoses but believes Mitchell, 55, suffers from an anti-social personality disorder, psychopathy, alcohol abuse and malingering. Court documents defined malingering as a condition characterized by the "intentional production of false or grossly exaggerated physical or psychological symptoms, motivated by external incentives such as ... evading criminal prosecution."

Religion, once again, exploits the mentally disabled by encouraging delusions.

Prayer deadly for children Part III

2009-10-06T23:02:00.006-04:00

I'm seeing the future, again! Perhaps just because it's all so fucking predictable, but the status quo on wacko cults and killing children remains. (I'm posting this whole article because it warrants it.)

WAUSAU, Wis. — A central Wisconsin couple who prayed rather than seek medical care for their 11-year-old dying daughter were sentenced Tuesday to six months in jail and 10 years probation in the girl's death.

Dale and Leilani Neumann could have received up to 25 years in prison for the March 2008 death of Madeline Neumann, who died of an undiagnosed but treatable form of diabetes. They were convicted of second-degree reckless homicide in separate trials earlier this year.

In sentencing the couple, Marathon County Circuit Court Judge Vincent Howard said the Neumanns were "very good people, raising their family who made a bad decision, a reckless decision."

"God probably works through other people," Howard told the parents, "some of them doctors."

The case was believed to be the first of its kind in Wisconsin involving faith healing in which someone died and another person was charged with a homicide.

Prosecutors contended the Neumanns recklessly killed their youngest of four children by ignoring obvious symptoms of severe illness as she became too weak to speak, eat, drink or walk. They said the couple had a legal duty to take their daughter to a doctor but relied totally on prayer for healing. The girl, known as Kara, died on the floor of the family's rural Weston home as people surrounded her and prayed. Someone finally called 911 after she stopped breathing.

"We are here today because to some, you made Kara a martyr to your faith," Howard told the parents.

In testimony at trial and in videotaped interviews with police, the parents said they believe healing comes from God and that they never expected their daughter to die.

During the sentencing hearing, Leilani Neumann, 41, told the judge her family is loving and forgiving and has wrongly been portrayed as religious zealots.

"I do not regret trusting truly in the Lord for my daughter's health," she said. "Did we know she had a fatal illness? No. Did we act to the best of our knowledge? Yes."

Dale Neumann, 47, read from the Bible and told the judge that he loved his daughter.

"I am guilty of trusting my Lord's wisdom completely. ... Guilty of asking for heavenly intervention. Guilty of following Jesus Christ when the whole world does not understand. Guilty of obeying my God," he said.

The Neumanns held each other as Howard sentenced them, a Bible on the table nearby and their three teenage children sitting behind them in the front row of the courtroom.

Prosecutors had asked for a three-year suspended prison sentence and 10 years probation. Defense attorneys had sought four years probation.

The judge ordered the couple to serve one month in jail each year for six years so the parents can "think about Kara and what God wants you to learn from this." One parent would serve the term in March and the other in September. Howard stayed the jail sentences while the couple's convictions are appealed.

As part of their probation, the parents must allow a public health nurse to examine their two underage children at least once every three months and must immediately take their children to a doctor for any serious injuries.

Assistant District Attorney LaMont Jacobson said justice was served by the sentences, but he was disappointed the parents never said they were sorry for what happened.

"They allowed Kara to die because they got themselves too caught up in the misguided belief that they were being tested by God," the prosecutor said.

Dale Neumann, who once studied to be a Pentecostal minister, told reporters the couple continues to trust in God.

"We live by faith," he said after the sentencing. "We are completely content with what the Lord has allowed to come down, but he is not done yet."

Previously, on this topic I've said that the best defense in America is telling the court you're religious. Over at Atheist Nexus, I said I'd be surprised if these scumbags go to jail for more than five years. Well, it looks like they're actually going for extremely less than that. 6 months. Religion trumps justice again. They'll be a probation for 10 years, but we all know how effective probation officers are.

And, of course, this shows questioning religious beliefs is still too taboo, even if it means the death of an 11-year-old girl. Look how fucking stubborn the quotes from these monsters are.

Do I have to go into further detail about the harm on this one?

"They allowed Kara to die."

Religion, crime and statistics

2009-10-06T21:04:00.003-04:00

This video is amazing. There's a few things in here I've touched on before, including at least one of the exact same graphics, but this guy's presentation is just fantastic.

I got this from the Atheist YouTube group on Facebook, by the way. If you're on Facebook I'd encourage you to join this group. They're not invasive or demanding like other groups. You pretty much just get linked to an interesting video every week or so in your inbox.

Conservatives aren't all racists (they're just played that way on TV)

2009-10-03T23:33:00.003-04:00

Political Friday (on Saturday)

It would seem that the worst enemy of the American conservative is the American socialist. Polar opposites, right? Of course, a little knowledge of politics in America will make it evident to anyone that socialism doesn't really exist and I'd argue that conservatives rule this country no matter who is in the House, Senate or White House. If that's the case, that the Dem majority act mostly conservative, naturally those who declare themselves conservatives must act even more so in order to rally their bases. So it would seem to some that the right's gone full KKK on us. And to be certain, this isn't an unfair evaluation. Look at their spokespeople. Rush Limbaugh has dropped the whole innocent, "I'm not a racist, even though I called Ray Nagin, mayor of New Orleans a 'Nager'" act and just gone full on overtly racist, going so far as to actively participate in race baiting his audience of dropouts, defects and just general pathetic losers.

The Limbaugh show reached a new low recently when he began a campaign around a school-bus incident in Belleville, Ill., where two black students were videotaped beating up a white kid. Police authorities first said they believed the assailants were motivated by race, but later said it was just a nasty bullying assault (for which the two little thugs are now being prosecuted).

But Limbaugh could not resist the opportunity to turn that nastiness into something much more dangerous. “It's Obama's America, is it not? Obama's America — white kids getting beat up on school buses now. I mean, you put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety, but in Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up, with the black kids cheering.” In a more reflective mood, he later asked, “Can this nation really have an African-American President?”

Yes, we can — and despite the racial poison spread by Beck and Limbaugh, most Americans are proud that at long last, we do.

Today this New York Times piece calmed some of my anger over this complete fuckhead when it confirmed something, we really all knew in our hearts. I keep forgetting to remind myself that Limbaugh and Beck and Fox are all just TV, radio, entertainment, make-believe.

Over the years, I have asked many politicians what happens when Limbaugh and his colleagues attack. The story is always the same. Hundreds of calls come in. The receptionists are miserable. But the numbers back home do not move. There is no effect on the favorability rating or the re-election prospects. In the media world, he is a giant. In the real world, he’s not.

And the same goes for this no-talent hog.

The point is though, that these two men are hurting their own cause immeasurably, while at the same time having no real impact. Their impact is herding racist kittens around Washington D.C., getting them riled up for the cameras, and making a quick buck on ignorant low lives and their anger.

It's sobering to see, though, that the majority of America see Limbaugh and Beck for what they are.