My Thoughts Are Free

Sex, God, Politics, and the Christian Right according to Frank Schaeffer

2012-01-17T06:11:00.000-05:00

There are times when I want to dismiss those who have held onto religion. Non-believers often look upon religious zealots as being blind, misguided, inflexible, dependent, unintelligent, lacking a sense of humor, or just plain crazy ---and well, frankly, some of them are some of these things, but I know atheists who are, too. Yet, most of my friends are religious, albeit not religious zealots. If they were zealots they would not be my friends for they would be afraid of being tainted by my apostasy.

Occasionally, I find a religious person in the public eye for whom I can have great respect because they are not afraid to tell the truth. I recently found one in Frank Schaeffer. Frank was successful as a professional evangelical Christian and it would have been easy for him to remain in that role, but eventually he couldn't stand the political climate he had a part in creating. He still believes in God and is a Christian, but not of the fundamentalist variety. Because he was on the inside of that movement for so long, he has personal knowledge of the people involved and other insider information and isn't afraid to tell all.

I picked up his best-selling book at the library: Sex, Mom, and God: How the Bible's Strange Take on Sex Led to Crazy Politics--and How I Learned to Love Women (and Jesus) Anyway.

I have not finished the book yet, so I can't give a review of the entire book, but so far, I have found Schaeffer's childhood experiences in his highly-religious family somewhat reminiscent of my own. At times, it is laugh-out-loud funny. Yet, when he discusses reconstructionist Christian politics (for it is politics more than it is religion) the author is deadly serious ---and I mean "deadly" literally because its proponents would love to make homosexuality, pre-marital sex, adultery, and abortion capital crimes.

In his book Schaeffer tells the story of his boyhood in Switzerland with his evangelical parents Edith and Francis Schaeffer. Francis is considered by many to be the person responsible for the anti-abortion movement and, ultimately, evangelical fundamentalists' shifting away from spreading the word of Christianity toward its current emphasis on right-wing politics. When asked what books he would not want to be without on a desert island, Mike Huckabee chose the Bible and one of Francis Schaeffer's books.

Yet, Frank's mother was amazingly open and forthright about sex. (My mother rarely said the word "sex" in anything above a whisper and never discussed it with her children in a way that would make us think it was a natural human act.) Frank's mother took in unwed pregnant girls instead of condemning them, did not reject gays and, instead of being subservient to her husband as all good evangelical wives should be, was in some ways the power behind Francis who, by the way, was an abusive husband and father. In addition she was enamored of "worldly" art and music.

Frank followed in his father's footsteps, eventually persuading his father to make an anti-abortion movie and publish religious books with political overtones, or perhaps political books with religious overertones. Frank openly admits his huge role in creating the "crazy politics" in the title of his book.But Frank gradually came to the conclusion that evangelical leaders were all about politics and power and had forgotten the core teachings of their much-touted religion.According to Wikipedia:

Schaeffer has written: "In the mid 1980s I left the Religious Right, after I realized just how very anti-American they are, (the theme I explore in my book Crazy For God)." He added that he was a Republican until 2000, working for Senator John McCain in that year's primaries, but that after the 2000 election he re-registered as an independent.

On NPR he admitted he voted for Obama in 2008, the first time he supported a democrat for the presidency.

In writing about the 2012 campaign a few weeks ago on his blog, when Romney and Gingrich seemed to be the only viable Republican candidates (Rick Santorum has since been endorsed by evangelical leaders) Frank wrote that evangelicals' two choices are both objectionable to most of them. Gingrich is a multiple adulterer and they believe Romney isn't a "real" Christian. Frank says:

...Here's the supreme irony: the man the evangelicals who have hijacked the Republican Party hate most -- President Obama -- is a faithful married man, good father and professing Christian who has described his born-again experience in detail.
But he's "liberal," black and perhaps "not born in America," or a "Muslim," or "communist," or "the Antichrist," or something else pretty terrible: actually Christ-like in his compassion for the poor!
This is considered a great sin by evangelicals now that most of them are actually followers of Ayn Rand, not Jesus.
So the evangelicals will be voting for either Romney or Gingrich holding their noses. This bodes badly for the Republicans.In fact some evangelicals may even be forced to sit out the election and/or just deny it's happening at all just as they already deny global warming.
Maybe they will take to a hilltop and await the Return Of Christ and/or the return of Sarah Palin, whichever comes first.

Among Amazon's descriptions of the book:

“A penetrating analysis of political extremism, with a moving and at times hilarious account of growing up in one of the Christian right’s most influential families. Few writers command Frank Schaeffer’s intimate understanding of right-wing radicalism, and even fewer are able to share their insight as entertainingly and with as much moral weight as he has in Sex, Mom, and God.”—Max Blumenthal, author of Republican Gomorrah

“Mom was a much nicer person than her God. There are many biblical regulations about everything from beard-trimming to menstruating. Mom worked diligently to recast her personal-hygiene-obsessed God in the best light.”

Alternating between laugh-out-loud scenes from his childhood and acidic ruminations on the present state of an America he and his famous fundamentalist parents helped create, bestselling author Frank Schaeffer asks what the Glenn Becks and the Rush Limbaughs and the paranoid fantasies of the “right-wing echo chamber” are really all about.

Here’s a hint: sex.

The unforgettable central character in Sex, Mom, and God is the author’s far-from-prudish evangelical mother, Edith, who sweetly but bizarrely provides startling juxtapositions of the religious and the sensual thoughout Schaeffer’s childhood. She was, says Frank Schaeffer, “the greatest illustration of the Divine beauty of Paradox I’ve encountered … a fundamentalist living a double life as a lover of beauty who broke all her own judgmental rules in favor of creativity.”

Charlotte Gordon, the award-winning author of Mistress Bradstreet, calls Sex, Mom, and God “a tour de force . . . Sarah Palin, ‘The Family,’ Anne Hutchinson, adultery, abortion, homophobia, Uganda, Ronald Reagan, B. B. King, Billy Graham, Hugh Hefner—it’s all here. This is the kind of book I did not want to end.”

Frank Schaeffer is still a Christian, but not the kind of Christian his former supporters would like him to be. He frequently distinguishes between the "God of the Bible" who he sees as vengeful, cruel, and misogynistic, and the God he wants to believe in. He sees many right-wing Christians as hypocrites for their own hatred of America as it is (not the Christian nation they want it to be) while at the same time accusing liberals of being unAmerican.

According to Frank Schaeffer:

Gingrich's "view" of the law was developed by the Reconstructionists. Nothing better illustrates the how and why of the Christian-conservative shift to the extreme Right - its sense of victimhood combined with its fearful hatred of the (Muslim, gay, or pro-choice) "Other" -- than the rise of the so-called Reconstructionist movement.

Reconstructionists seek to apply the full scope of the Biblical Law to modern America and to the world.

To put it bluntly, Reconstructionists want to replace the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights with their interpretation of the Bible. That includes executing people for being gay...

[Robert] George's brainchild: the "Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience" is the script Gingrich is following when he talks about overthrowing the rule of law in favor of religious "rights."

This was published in 2009 as an anti-Obama manifesto, and many Evangelical leaders signed on. [Robert] George may not have been following [Rousas John] Rushdoony or have ever read his work, but the Evangelicals who signed on to George's agenda would never have done so if not for the influence of Reconstructionism on American Evangelicals decades before.

The Manhattan Declaration which many evangelical leaders have signed, ultimately states they don't have to obey any laws they don't like. Let's see! Who is being unAmerican here? And anyone who signs or who agrees with this declaration cannot possibly take the presidential oath of office ---for a president has to agree to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," the foundation for all of our laws.

Frank Schaeffer says in Crazy for God:

The public image of the leaders of the religious right I met with so many times also contrasted with who they really were. In public, they maintained an image that was usually quite smooth. In private, they ranged from unreconstructed bigot reactionaries like Jerry Falwell, to Dr. Dobson, the most power-hungry and ambitious person I have ever met, to Billy Graham, a very weird man indeed who lived an oddly sheltered life in a celebrity/ministry cocoon, to Pat Robertson, who would have had a hard time finding work in any job where hearing voices is not a requirement....

What I slowly realized was that the religious-right leaders we were helping to gain power were not ‘conservatives’ at all, in the old sense of the world. They were anti-American religious revolutionaries...

I personally came to believe that a lot of the issues that were being latched onto by the Christian Right, whether it was the gay issue or abortion or other things, were actually being used for negative political purposes. They were used to structure a power base for people who then threw their weight around.

Sources:

Frank Schaeffer on Wikipedia

Who Should the Evangelicals Hate Most? by Frank Schaeffer

Newt Gingrich the Republicans and the Loony Religious Fringe by Frank Schaeffer

Suggested reading:

Fighting the Culture Wars With Hate, Violence and Even Bullets: Meet the Most Extreme of the Radical Christians

John Whitehead's interview with Frank Schaeffer

GOD DOESN'T CARE ABOUT POLITICS OR FOOTBALL

2012-01-08T01:44:00.000-05:00

For years, now, candidates in the U.S., especially Republican candidates, have been making statements that God wants them to run for political office. We have heard this in the past from the likes of Mike Huckabee and, more recently, several of the 2012 candidates for president.

And now we have a national hero in Tim Tebow, because of his open Christianity on the football field. No wonder my husband often refers sarcastically to the "Church of Football" because in my neck of the woods, some churches hold Sunday services early, or not at all, to accommodate football fans.

Football fans and members of religious sects and political parties all share something in common. They are tribal. They are tribal because they form group ties characterized not only by strong loyalty to the groups they support, but also vehement hatred of opposing groups.

Bill Press

Bill Press who is the host of a nationally syndicated radio show and author of Toxic Talk: How the Radical Right Has Poisoned America's Airwaves" wrote an great article:
GOD DOESN'T CARE ABOUT POLITICS OR FOOTBALL.

Here are a few excerpts from his 12/15/11 article:

Psssst! Don’t tell anybody, but I have a secret. I talk to God every day. And she told me herself: She doesn’t give a fig who wins the Republican primary. But you’d never know that, listening to today’s Christian political charlatans.

No less than four out of eight Republican candidates have said they’re only running for president because God told them to run. Michele Bachmann started it, insisting that God called her to run for president, just like he told her to run for Congress in 2006. Rick Perry told reporters: “God has put me in this place at this time to do his will...”

God was also speaking to Mrs. Rick Santorum, who told the Christian Broadcasting Network: “We have prayed a lot about this decision, and we believe with all our hearts that this is what God wants.” But nobody played the God card more shamefully than Herman Cain...

Now, obviously, if we are to take these candidates seriously, God is either confused, forgetful, senile, or just playing with their heads. If he really cares about who wins the Republican primary, he wouldn’t have told four different candidates to run. And, notice, he didn’t tell any of the four they’d actually win...

Today, as quarterback of the Denver Broncos, [Tim] Tebow takes religion to a new public level, dramatically dropping to one knee in prayer after every touchdown – a pose now officially known as “tebowing” – and crediting Jesus for every success on the field....

Now, if you’re one of the silly millions who still see nothing wrong with Tebow’s in-your-face brand of religion, consider this: What if Tim Tebow were a devout Muslim who bowed to Mecca after every touchdown while shouting: “Allahu Akbar!” Somehow, I don’t think we’d be celebrating him as a national hero.

To read the entire article, click HERE.

--------------
And while on the subject of religion and politics, you might also be interested in this:
Rick Santorum: Insane Christian

Penn Jillette: An Atheist's Guide to the 2012 Election

2012-01-04T05:26:00.000-05:00

I don't agree 100% with what Penn Jillette says here (I don't agree 100% with much of anything,) but he makes some good points.

What do you think about what he says?
What do you think about the 2012 election?
What is your opinion of the Republican candidates?

Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

2012-01-02T05:24:00.001-05:00

Mark Twain said, "Against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand."

Mysterious Stranger Manuscripts

Sometimes comedy shows us truths that debate, facts or argument can't touch.

Your comments are welcome.

"If There is a God, Why Did He Make Me an Atheist?"

2012-01-02T05:19:00.000-05:00

TOP 50 ATHEISTS

2011-12-24T01:45:00.001-05:00

Who's Number 1 ???

The Best Schools website had chosen the world's top atheists.

Among the 50, there are people whose names almost everyone will know and many I didn't recognize. I am listing here those with whom I am most familiar. Use the link at the bottom on this post to see the entire list.

48. Dan Barker - co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation
45. James ("the Amazing") Randi - illusionist
42. Greta Christina - writer and blogger (I just posted something about her a few weeks ago.)
37. Ayaan Hirsi Ali - her book "Infidel" presents an inside look into Islam from a
girl's/woman's point of view.
35. Woody Allen - director
34. Ian McEwan - novelist
31. Philip Roth - novelist
18. Paul Kurtz - professor, author, founder of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
13. Sam Harris - author
10. Christopher Hitchens - journalist, essayist
9. Stephen Hawking - mathematician, cosmologist
8. Steven Weinberg - Nobel Prize Winner - Physics
7. Richard Dawkins - scientist, author
5. Daniel Dennett - professor of philosophy, author

Perhaps I should be embarrassed to admit that the top four names were not familiar to me, but I will definitely be learning more about them.

For the criteria used to select those included on the list and the entire list of the top 50 atheists in the world today, click HERE.

Comments welcome on any of these questions:

Who would you add to the list and who would you drop?

What are your thoughts on the criteria used to choose those included on the list?

Who would you choose as your #1 choice or perhaps your top 5?

CHRISTIANS BEHAVING BADLY #22

2011-12-15T06:08:00.003-05:00

Rogers, 18

Schaffran, 32

In my attempt to show that religion is not a guarantee of moral behavior, this post is one in a series about the inappropriate behavior of religious people. In no way am I suggesting that most religious people behave badly. Most of the religious people I know are good, moral, and ethical. Most of the non-religious people I know are good, moral, and ethical. I am simply demonstrating that religion does not guarantee moral behavior and that, at times, it might even promote unscrupulous acts unacceptable under standard precepts of ethical behavior.

PROMOTING CHRIST THROUGH HOME INVASION AND KIDNAPPING

According to the Huff Post crime page, police investigating a home invasion in Mississippi broke up "The Savior Unit" a paramilitary group that trained its members in "hand to hand combat skills, paramilitary training and scriptures."

The Gautier Police department took a call about a home invasion and kidnapping on Dec. 6.

The group's so-called commander Michael Shaun Schaffran and its captain Cody Jacob Rogers have been accused of breaking into a residence while wearing bullet-proof vests and military clothing, dragging out three victims including a 70-year-old man, and assaulting them.

Apparently, the suspects trained a group of teens in combat skills and religion in a wooded area for the past six weeks.

An operation manual recovered by police describes the group as "a tactical search team that is faith based. Our purpose is to promote Christ. Obtain offenders who are a danger to society, do community service work for churches and halfway houses, and do security for different functions. Our training is a recon and infiltration, apprehension and retrieval. All team members are taught hand to hand combat skills, para military training and scriptures.[sic]"

Mmmmm??? "Obtain offenders who are a danger to society"??? How about "obtaining", or, er detainiing themselves!

KEEPING UP APPEARANCES

2011-12-04T07:29:00.003-05:00

Two more reasons to give up religion:

When I was in high school in the early 1960s, on a hot July Sunday, we were leaving for church when my mother asked me where my white gloves were.

Gloves? On a 95 degree day?

I complained that there was no way I was going to wear gloves in that heat in a church that was not air-conditioned. The church also had large clear-paned windows (not stained glass) so the morning sun made the church, well, hot as hell.

My mother finally permitted me to carry the gloves.

Why? So people wouldn't think I didn't have any.

----------

This year, the day after Thanksgiving, it was quite warm here, near 60 ---unusual for this time of year ---and as we were driving, we saw many people installing holiday displays. It reminded me of a time when it was bitter cold out and my mother had me and my sister hanging Christmas lights in below-zero weather.

My father worked for the Post Office and also was a church organist and choir director, so from Thanksgiving until Christmas we rarely saw him. He worked overtime for the Post Office and had many extra choir rehearsals for three church services (in two different locations) each Sunday or holiday. So it was up to my sister and me to hang the lights. (My mom had frequent strep throat and therefore stayed out of the bitter cold, except to to walk to church, or course, or to bark instructions to us on how to hand the holiday lights.)

We were complaining about the cold, and finally I asked why we needed to hang lights anyway.

My mom's response: "So people won't think we are Jewish."

----------

I have a theory about people in general. Most of us, even if we hate admitting it sometimes, are pretty much like our parents, but there is always something about them that drove us crazy, and therefore, we try to be unlike them, in that one respect. In my case, my mother was hell-bent on keeping up appearances and I am not. I cannot say that I don't care at all what other people think of me, but I am much more interested in comfort than wearing what is fashionable. (I'm very glad the days of white gloves are gone.) I don't care much what my neighbors think. And I certainly would not be offended if they saw my unlighted home at holiday time and assumed I were Jewish. I'd be much more offended if someone assumed I were a Christian.

JESUS FOR THE NON-RELIGIOUS - Book Review

2011-11-26T22:26:00.001-05:00

Jesus for the Non-Religious
by John Shelby Spong

Although it is always fun for me to read books about atheism or freethought ---those that I can read while nodding my head in 100% agreement, it is also good to read other points of view, perhaps to understand another philosophy or even to scoff at its ridiculous assertions. In this book, I managed to do both. Because I assumed it was written for "non-believers," I thought it was written from an atheistic point of view. However, I was wrong about that, yet found that I was in agreement with the author throughout much of the text.

The author, a former Episcopalian bishop, considers himself a Christian, but he does not believe the Bible is inerrant and he certainly rejects many of the religious practices and beliefs of various (perhaps most) Christian sects. He is writing the book for those who have rejected religion as it is taught and practiced in most churches today and for those who may still have faith but who have given up on organized religion. Note that the title is not Jesus for the Non-Believer.

In this book, Spong is apparently expanding on Dietrick Bonhoeffer's radical vision of "religiousless Christianity" written from his prison cell in Nazi Germany.

When I read the introduction, I had the impression that the author was going to try to convince readers to follow Jesus, but I'm glad I read on because the book explains the life of Jesus in a secular way, rejects Biblical miracles that defy the laws of nature, and points out numerous inconsistencies. He also acknowledges many of the negative results of religion, from hatred of other religious groups, wars, guilt and self-hatred while pointing out that Jesus's actions rejected many of the prejudices of his day.

And speaking of prejudices, Spong points out that although society has made enormous strides in ridding ourselves of prejudices, the one institution that still clings to old traditions is religion, by not allowing women full participation in church leadership, by condemning homosexuality, by demonizing other religious views, to give just a few examples. At its worst, churches blame the "liberation" of women, gays, and other such groups for the downfall of marriage, the loss of ethics and morals, and all other ills of society.

I found this book very interesting and informative. It explains the origins of many Biblical stories, how they came about, how many New Testament tales retold stories found in the Old Testament, how they were changed and exaggerated. And except for the author's frequent mentions of God and his Christianity, I see very little of the "Christian" that I grew up with.

Although I did not agree with everything in the book, Spong's views are actually refreshing in comparison to what we often hear spewing from members of the Religious Right.

In discussing racial, gender, and sexual-orientation prejudices, the author states. "Debated prejudices are always dying prejudices. The debate is actually part of the death process." He wasn't speaking specifically of the debates about the existence of God, but those debates are going on now. Perhaps such belief is slowly dying.

Spong thinks that if the church does not change, if it will not break from its tribal mentality in which it believes its own version of God is better than everyone else's, it will die out. That can't happen soon enough for me.

A few passages from the book:

From Chapter 20:

"The word 'atheist'... does not mean, as people commonly assume, one who asserts that there is no such thing as God. It means, rather, that one rejects the theistic definition of God. It is quite possible to reject theism without rejecting God."

"...The theistic definition of God has been all but destroyed by the advances in knowledge that created the modern world..."

"Modern people today function as atheists, yet they still struggle in the religious dimension of their lives to grasp tightly an artificially respirated theism. What people need to hear and to embrace is that the theistic definition of God was never about God; it was always about human beings desperately in need of a coping system that would enable them to live with the anxieties of what it means to be human."

"I am a God-intoxicated human being, but I can no longer define my God experience inside the boundaries of a theistic definition of God... So in order to get to the essence of who Jesus was... I must get beyond the traditional theistic definition of God that I now regard as both simplistic and naïve, to say nothing of being wrong."

From Chapter 21:

"The signs of the death of a theistic understanding of God are all around us. Many of us will not allow ourselves to see them, because we have no alternative and would rather live with an illusion than try to embrace reality. It will not work, however, because once an idea of God begins to die, it is like Humpty Dumpty: 'All the king's horses and all the king's men could not put Humpty Dumpty back together again.'"

"...Theism as a way of understanding God has, I believe, actually served to diminish our humanity.... theism seems to give rise to inordinate and destructive religious anger."

"A cursory look at Christian history will provide ample evidence to support the conclusion that there is a very high correlation between religion and killing anger. Religious people are loath to face this fact, but it is painfully and obviously true. One has only to listen to conversations about religion among people holding competing views to see how quickly anger surges... Religious discussions become war zones that not infrequently make street brawls look civilized."

In discussing the hostility the author has received himself, including hate mail, abusive phone calls, threats against his family and 16 credible death threats, Spong says: "The fascinating thing about this kind of abusive behavior is that the hostility typically comes from fellow Christians ---in my case, some of them well known in evangelical and catholic circles. None of my death threats came from an atheist, a Buddhist, or a Muslim. They were most often delivered by Bible-quoting Christians who defined themselves as true believers, men and women who said they were acting in the defense of or on the instructions of God."

ANGRY ATHEISTS

2011-11-23T00:30:00.000-05:00

On Greta Christina's Blog she writes:

"One of the most common criticisms lobbed at the newly-vocal atheist community is,
'Why do you have to be so angry?'"

In a long, but well-thought-out post, ATHEISTS AND ANGER Greta Christina explains:

1. Why atheists are angry;

2. Why our anger is valid, valuable, and necessary
3. Why it's completely fucked-up to try to take our anger away from us.

I am often mildly angry, but after reading this post ---and the many reasons why we should be angry --- I'm surprised flames aren't shooting from my head 24/7.

Find her Anger and Atheists post HERE.
Find her response to comments on her Atheists and Anger post HERE.

Greta Christina's Blog (new)

Greta Christina's Blog (old) ---the above post in on this older blog

THE BIBLE IS....

2011-11-21T00:01:00.000-05:00

To most Christians, the Bible is

like a software license.

Nobody actually reads it.

They just scroll to the bottom

and click "I agree."

(I have no idea where this came from. I've seen it on several websites.

If anyone can enlighten me on its source, I would be glad to add the information to this post.)

THE POSSIBILITY OF MEANING by Snowbrush

2011-11-14T03:33:00.005-05:00

Snowbrush wrote:

If I were to make a list of things that I would like for believers to know about atheists, the first one would be: “To deny god is not to deny the possibility of meaning. Kindness, patience, nobility, a passion for truth, and every other virtue are no less important to atheists than they are to theists. The difference between them is simply that the one attributes our knowledge of right and wrong to god, and the other to the social evolution of the species to which we owe our existence.”

---used with permission from Snowbrush's blog which can be found HERE.

See the post on which he wrote the above HERE.

See Snowbrush's take on Does God Exist? HERE.

WHAT AM I? ATHEIST OR AGNOSTIC?

2011-11-13T02:28:00.007-05:00

In my previous post, I reviewed the book Divinity of Doubt by Vincent Bugliosi who made his case for agnosticism by giving arguments for and against those who are certain about the existence or non-existence of god.

Although he made some good points, I found most of his book to be based on his own opinions which he calls "common sense" and that Bugliosi expressed many opinions about things he admitted he knows little about.

In other words, he is doing what he accuses both theists and atheists of doing, making arguments without irrefutable or convincing evidence.

But perhaps that is the point. Much of what everyone believes is opinion and therefore he may be correct in that agnosticism is the only way to be honest with oneself.

Bugliosi had me thinking about the labels I have given myself. I usually call myself an atheist, but also refer to myself as an agnostic, skeptic, humanist, and/or freethinker.

I do not believe in any of the gods, past or present, that I know about. There have been thousands of gods worshipped around the world throughout history. I don't know all of them, so I admit there may be one or more that would be credible to me.

I have rejected (as has almost everyone else) Isis, Thor, Zeus, Juno and other such gods. We consider these god stories to be myths and I have never found a god story that I believe any more than the stories I know about the gods of ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome or Scandinavia.

Because I was brought up in a Christian home and surrounded by (mostly) Christians everywhere I have lived, I know the most about the god that Judeo/Christians worship. I do not and cannot believe in that god. Among other attributes, that god is supposed to be all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful. I cannot justify an all-good and all-powerful god who allows thousands of people to suffer and/or die from diseases, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, and droughts and even kills 2,476,633 himself (according to Steve Wells who counted each person killed by god in the Old Testament) ---for he is neither good nor powerful if he either will not or cannot stop such suffering from happening. (Epicurus, 341-270 BCE, pointed this out over 2000 years ago and Bugliosi discusses the argument in his book, as well.)

I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus because I cannot suspend belief in the laws of nature to believe that a star led wise men to his birthplace, that his mother was a virgin, that he walked on water, fed a multitude with only a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish, made the blind see, rose from the dead or raised others from the dead, or turned water into wine.

That does not preclude the existence of another god somewhere, but certainly not the one I was taught I should worship.

In conclusion, I am an atheist because I don't believe in any god as s/he has been presented to me by any major or minor religion.

I could become a deist if I were presented with irrefutable evidence that god exists.

However, I doubt that I would ever join any organized religion for, in my studies of religious history, I have learned that nearly all organized religions, despite their claims that their particular religion teaches good morals, will do just about anything to keep their religions going, whether it be distorting the teachings of their founders, torturing or killing adherents of other religious beliefs, hiding sexual abuse, demanding members tithe or pay indulgences, demonizing non-believers, shunning or excommunicating those who have left their congregations, isolating their followers from other belief systems, trying to keep or grab political power, making outrageous claims of miraculous healings, keeping their followers dependent and/or ignorant, brainwashing children, blaming others' "sins" for the ills of the world (are you paying attention Pat Robertson?) or instilling fear and guilt in followers ---to list only a few.

I am an agnostic in that I don't know with absolute certainty if a god does or even could exist; however, I lean very strongly toward the opinion that s/he does not nor could not.

THEIST? ATHEIST? AGNOSTIC?

2011-11-12T22:09:00.011-05:00

BOOK REVIEW:

Divinity of Doubt: The God Question

by Vincent Bugliosi

Bugliosi is a lawyer and claims to approach his exploration of theism vs. atheism as a lawyer would, by seeking and weighing evidence. He comes to the conclusion that we all must, in the end, admit that we don't know if there is a god.

In making his case for agnosticism, he indicts god and organized religion while also prosecuting the intellectual poverty of atheists such as Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris.

His main objection to the writings of atheists is that they have not proven their points any better than theologians. He also points out that they are, without irrefutable evidence, as unflinchingly certain of their atheism as fundamentalists are, without irrefutable evidence of the truth of their particular brands of religion. In other words, lacking evidence, we all use faith in coming to our conclusions about the existence of god, or lack thereof.

Bugliosi claims that atheists are as absolutely certain about the lack of god(s) as the religious are about the existence of god.

I beg to differ, for I think there are many on both sides of this issue who are not as certain as he presumes. I know a few religious people who claim to have absolute certainty and know the whole truth about the existence of god and/or the divinity of Jesus. However, most of the religious people I know do have doubts and uncertainties ---some more than others, of course. And, although there are atheists who claim absolute certainty that there is no god, most of the atheists I know do not have such a strong opinion and leave open the possibility of changing their minds if presented with irrefutable evidence.

However, most of the book is an indictment of religion, especially Christianity and he spends the most time on Catholicism, probably because he was brought up in a Catholic home and knows more about Catholicism than other branches of Christianity. He is especially vehement in his criticism of a church that traditionally makes much fuss about sin, yet did little or nothing to rid itself of sexually abusive clergy.

He explains why god may or may not exist, punching holes in arguments on both sides of the question. For this, I commend him, for he is willing to take on theists and atheists knowing he will offend and be criticized by true believers in both camps.

However, he uses mostly tired old arguments we have all heard before. In addition, he admits he knows little about biology, the cosmos, or mathematics but is not shy about expressing strong opinions based on "common sense" about evolution and the origin of the universe and also plays with mathematical probabilities, even while he accuses the theists and atheists of expressing opinions, not facts, without enough evidence to suppress all reasonable doubt.

Bugliosi admits that he is opinionated. With a sarcastic, condescending tone (which may or may not be attributed to the reader on the audio book,) he exhibits his lack of regard for anyone who disagrees with him, be they respected theologians or revered scientists considered to be experts in fields in which he has no expertise himself. Since so much of the book is based on Bugliosi's opinion, his opinions aren't worth more than yours or mine, nor any better than the opinions of those he skewers in this book.

But perhaps that is the point. Much of what everyone believes is opinion and therefore he may be correct in that agnosticism is the only logical way to be honest with oneself.

What do you think?

Please see my next post: WHAT AM I? ATHEIST OR AGNOSTIC?

HINDUS BEHAVING BADLY #1: Treatment of Widows

2011-11-02T01:37:00.008-04:00

In my attempt to show that being religious
is not a guarantee of moral behavior,
this post is just one in my series of reports featuring the bad behavior of religious people, past or present....

Look for other posts showing the bad behavior
perpetrated by members of other religious groups.

This is my first post about Hindus. I was prompted to write it after viewing a movie called "Water" directed by Deepa Mehta.

Mehta received death threats while working on the film. Sets were burned and shooting disrupted by Hindu fundamentalists. George Lucas paid for a full-page ad in Variety to support Mehta in her struggle to make the film when Indian authorities shut down the production in India. It was later resumed in Sri Lanka under a different title to avoid attention.

The film takes place in the 1930s and begins when a young girl, Chuyia --age 7 ---is widowed and, by tradition, sent to live with other impoverished widows, where they wear white and have their heads shaved to "mark" them, and must beg in the streets. They are outcasts in a society with a religious tradition that believes even a widow's shadow is bad luck.

Of course, the fact that a child was married is appalling in itself, yet according to Holy Hindu Scriptures Chuyia is destined to live in a widows' ashram the rest of her life, for when a woman's husband dies, she has three options. One is to marry her husband's younger brother, if his family agrees. Or she may kill herself on his funeral pyre. Her third choice is to live a life of celibacy, discipline, and solitude among other widows and be shunned by the rest of society. But Chuyia is so young that she naively expects her parents to take her home.

She befriends a beautiful young woman, Kalyani, who is being pimped out by the head of the ashram (an older widow) to earn money to feed the residents. Yet, a man from the upper castes, Narayan, falls in love with Kalyani and wants to marry her. Although a new law is controversial, it permits widows to remarry.

When asked why widows are thrown out of both their own family's home and that of her dead husband, Narayan, gives the following explanation:
"One less mouth to feed, four less saris, and a free corner in the house. Disguised as religion, it's just about money."

There is some romance and even moments of humor in the film, but it is in no way a "feel good" movie. It is sad, appalling and maddening.

According to Roger Ebert:
"The unspoken subtext of 'Water' is that an ancient religious law has been put to the service of family economy, greed and a general feeling that women can be thrown away. The widows in this film are treated as if they have no useful lives apart from their husbands. They are given life sentences. They are not so very different from the Irish girls who, having offended someone's ideas of proper behavior, were locked up in the church-run "Magdalen laundries" for the rest of their lives. That a film like 'Water' still has the power to offend in the year 2006 inspires the question: Who is still offended, and why, and what have they to gain, and what do they fear?"

Although the film takes place in 1938, widows are still ostracized in India;

"Shunned from society, widows flock to city to die" CNN World, 07/05/2007

Read more about "Water" and watch a trailer on the Internet Movie Database.

IT'S A MIRACLE!

2011-09-17T01:45:00.002-04:00

WOULD A LOVING GOD SPEND HIS TIME CREATING IMAGES OF HIS SON ON FISH STICKS OR SAVE PEOPLE FROM NATURAL DISASTERS?

WILL THE REAL CHRISTIAN PLEASE STAND UP?

2011-09-17T01:34:00.003-04:00

A House Divided:

Sects! Sects! Sects! Is that all they think about?

THE STORY OF CREATION

2011-09-17T01:25:00.002-04:00

WHY WE BELIEVE IN GODS

2011-09-09T03:50:00.001-04:00

This video is nearly an hour long, but will be an hour well-spent to understand why people believe in gods.

I AIN'T AFRAID

2011-05-21T00:01:00.000-04:00

Several weeks ago, I went to church. It was the first time I'd been in church for decades except for weddings or funerals.

At the Unitarian-Universalist Congregation, Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) spoke about the case the FFRF had won in a Wisconsin court declaring that the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional. The case is being appealed. Dan doesn't have much hope of winning in the Chicago court in which three judges will rule on the case, and in this situation, the three judges seem to lean toward rulings which favor religion. If the FFRF does win in Chicago and it is appealed to the Supreme Court, with the present court in which the majority of the justices are highly religious, the FFRF will probably not pursue the case.

If I were forced to join a church, I probably would join the Unitarians because they don't have a dogma and openly accept members who are religious (of any belief system) or non-religious. They don't teach or preach a particular creed, but encourage members and their children to learn about different religions and make up their own minds.

However, even the Unitarian service was too much like "church" ---the church I attended in my youth ---for me. I especially disliked the parts of the service that included responsive readings. The leader read something, then everyone responded in unison from a written text.

It reminded me of my favorite part of the Monty Python movie "Life of Brian" when Brian is telling the hoards who are following him and think he is the Messiah, to leave him alone. He says that they don't need him. "You're all individuals" he declares.

In unison, they respond, "Yes, we are all individuals."

Dah!

I did enjoy several things about being there that day. It was the first time I had attended a get-together of the local Meetup group, Secular Freethinkers. So I met and enjoyed speaking to some of the members. I will be attending a party they are sponsoring on May 22, 2011 ---to celebrate that we missed the rapture predicted to happen on May 21st ---TODAY.

After hearing numerous judgment day predictions in the past 60+ years, I am 100% certain we will all still be here at the end of the day.

I admit that there are times I wish all the "good Christians" and other religious people would be raptured. I'm sure this would be a less violent and more peaceful world without them.

At the Unitarian church, the reception afterward had great food. I am a nightowl and would normally have been in bed on Sunday (or any) morning. So I was tired, a bit cranky, and hungry. The coffee, fruit, juice, baked goods, and cheese were much appreciated.

And finally, the choir sang Holly Near's "I Ain't Afraid." I have always loved the lyrics and the tune is so catchy I found myself humming it for days afterward.

For your enjoyment, I am including several versions of the song, along with the lyrics (which are a bit difficult to hear on these videos.) Note that some versions seem to include or leave out some of the lyrics.

Enjoy!

I Ain't Afraid

by Holly Near

I ain't afraid of your Yahweh
I ain't afraid of your Allah
I ain't afraid of your Jesus
I'm afraid of what you do in the name of your God

I ain't afraid of your churches
I ain't afraid of your temples
I ain't afraid of your praying
I'm afraid of what you do in the name of your God

verse
Rise up find your higher power
Free up from fear, it will devour you
Watch out for the ego of the hour
The ones who say they know it
Are the ones who will impose it on you

I ain't afraid of your Yahweh
I ain't afraid of your Allah
I ain't afraid of your Jesus
I'm afraid of what you do in the name of your God

I ain't afraid of your churches
I ain't afraid of your temples
I ain't afraid of your praying
I'm afraid of what you do in the name of your God

verse
Rise up, and see /find/ know/ hear a higher story
Free up from the gods of war and glory
Watch out for the threats of purgatory
The spirit of the wind won’t make a killing off of sin and satan

I ain't afraid of your Bible
I ain't afraid of your Torah
I ain't afraid of your Koran
Dont let the letter of the law
Obsure the spirit of the your love--it's killing us

I ain't afraid of your Yahweh
I ain't afraid of your Allah
I ain't afraid of your Jesus
I'm afraid of what you do in the name of your God

I ain't afraid of your churches
I ain't afraid of your temples
I ain't afraid of your praying
I'm afraid of what you do in the name of your God

Money
Culture
Choices
I’m afraid of what you do in the name of your God

Sunday
Spirit
Teachers
I’m afraid of what you do in the name of your God

Sabbath
Borders
Dances
I’m afraid of what you do in the name of your God double

Children
Music
Stories
I’m afraid of what you do in the name of your God

Rise up to your higher power
Free up
Rise up to your higher power
Free up
Let's try to be highly evolved
I aint afraid

WEALTHY CITIZENS AND CORPORATE FREELOADERS

2011-04-20T01:48:00.007-04:00

This has little to do with freethought or religion, but I am posting it here anyway.

My husband and I are retired and on fixed incomes. We already had some taxes automatically deducted from my pension. In addition we paid a substantial amount in estimated taxes. And just last week, I paid an additional $2500+ to the IRS.

I'm not one to complain about paying taxes. I know they go toward improving roads, education, healthcare, creating jobs and helping the unemployed and others less fortunate than I. I am glad my taxes go to fulfill my country's needs.

What I do object to is the wealthiest of American corporations and citizens who have received huge tax breaks, including many of the CEOs who are responsible for our current economic mess.

I don't mind paying taxes, I just don't want to pay an unfair share of the tax burden.

Click the image below for a larger view:

THE CHURCH OF BASEBALL

2011-03-05T00:01:00.004-05:00

I posted this a while ago, but decided to repost it.

Around this time of year when the news begins to report on Spring Training, I have to pull out my old VHS video of "Bull Durham" ---one of my all-time favorite films (despite my general disinterest in baseball or any other sport.) I also added a quote I found recently.

Enjoy!

SHELTON, RON, writer, director, producer, composer (1945- )

“I believe in the Church of Baseball. I've tried all the major religions, and most of the minor ones. I've worshipped Buddha, Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, trees, mushrooms, and Isadora Duncan. I know things. For instance, there are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I heard that, I gave Jesus a chance. But it just didn't work out between us. The Lord laid too much guilt on me. I prefer metaphysics to theology. You see, there's no guilt in baseball, and it's never boring... which makes it like sex... I've tried 'em all, I really have, and the only church that truly feeds the soul, day in, day out, is the Church of Baseball.”

(character Annie Savoy played by Susan Sarandon, “Bull Durham” 1988)

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

"A man once told me to walk with the Lord.

I'd rather walk with the bases loaded."

---Ken Singleton

(as reported in AARP Bulletin, March 2011, p.47)

OPEN LETTER TO AN ANTI-GAY CHRISTIAN

2011-02-17T03:48:00.006-05:00

I RECEIVED THIS (AND SEVERAL SIMILAR MESSAGES) VIA EMAIL AND I HAVE SEEN IT ON VARIOUS WEB SITES. I RAN ACROSS IT AGAIN TODAY. I THOUGHT MY READERS MIGHT ENJOY IT.

As Mark Twain wrote: "Humor must not professedly teach and it must not professedly preach, but it must do both if it would live forever."

Dear (Choose your favorite religious hypocrite),

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the Bible's other specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan,

(Sign name here)

I attempted to find the original writer, but this has been passed around so much, it was an impossible task.

CHRISTIANS BEHAVING BADLY #21: hiring a hitman

2010-11-26T00:01:00.002-05:00

In my attempt to show that being religious

is not a guarantee of moral behavior,

this is just one post in my series of reports featuring

the bad behavior of religious people, past or present....

A former Roman Catholic priest has been charged with plotting to kill a teenaged boy. Unfortunately for the priest, the 'hitman' he tried to hire was an undercover police officer. On 11/23/10, John Fiala, 52, was charged in Texas with one count of criminal solicitation to commit capital murder. Bail was set at $700,000.

Apparently Fiala offered a neighbor $5000 to kill the boy. The neighbor called authorities who sent an undercover agent to speak to Fiala. Their conversation was caught on audio and video tape.

The teen's lawyer said the priest met the boy in 2007 and started giving the 16-year-old gifts including a computer and a car.

The boy filed a law suit in April accusing Fiala of raping him at gunpoint later that year and also filed against the church for covering up the priest's behavior. The sexual abuse continued through 2008 during private catechism classes and in hotel rooms.

The youth reported that Fiala had threatened him with physical violence and death. He also threatened to harm the boy's girlfriend and family if he ever revealed what had happened. The threats often came via daily text messages with Fiala threatening to kill himself and telling the boy they would 'go to heaven together.'

Finally in October 2008, the boy told a school counselor who reported the abuse to authorities, however Fiala was not arrested nor indicted on counts of sexual assault on a child until September 2010, and then he was freed on bond.

After the priest's arrest in the murder-for-hire plot, the teen, his family and lawyer are relieved the man is now in jail.

In Omaha, NE, the archdiocese has revealed that in 2002 a minor reported sexual abuse by Fiala which had taken place in the mid 1980s. Apparently nothing was done, except for moving the priest to another parish, as had/has been the Catholic church's practice. Finally when the San Antonio archbishop learned of the police investigation in 2008, Fiala was removed from active ministry.

Look for other posts showing the bad behavior

perpetrated by Christians and members of other religious groups.

For more information on the above topic search for "John Fiala" online.

New Autobiography of Mark Twain, Vol. 1

2010-11-17T04:24:00.006-05:00

Mark Twain's outspoken views on religion were often suppressed by his only surviving daughter and by Twain's own biographers. Twain directed that some of his writings not be published until 100 years after his death. This year, 2010, marks the 100th anniversary of Twain's passing. Finally, the autobiography that Twain wished to be published is being published in 3 volumes. The first was made available, just this month.

Here is one of the many things Twain had to say about religion in the new version of his autobiography:

"There is one notable thing about our Christianity: bad, bloody, merciless, money-grabbing, and predatory. The invention of hell measured by our Christianity of today, bad as it is, hypocritical as it is, empty and hollow as it is, neither the deity nor his son is a Christian, nor qualified for that moderately high place. Ours is a terrible religion. The fleets of the world could swim in spacious comfort in the innocent blood it has spilled."

An excellent review of the new autobiography can be found at:

http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2011-03/MarkTwain.html

Happy 70th Birthday, John Lennon

2010-10-09T00:01:00.000-04:00

John Lennon

October 9, 1940 - December 8, 1980

Imagine no religion.....

NON-BELIEVERS GIVING AID

2010-09-29T00:05:00.005-04:00

As I mentioned in my previous post, I do not donate money to religious organizations, even though they may be doing good work. My reason is that, in many cases, the relief workers are more interested in converting people than meeting their basic needs in a time of hardship or disaster.

There are plenty of secular groups which provide relief, so I choose to donate to them.

Non-Believers Giving Aid and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science have partnered with Doctors Without Borders to help people whose lives have been shattered by natural disasters, such as those in Haiti and, more recently, Pakistan.

All donated money, every cent, is forwarded to Doctors Without Borders.

If you are interested in contributing, please click HERE.

Partners in Non-Believers Giving Aid

Atheist Alliance International

Atheists Helping the Homeless

Atheists United

Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain

Freedom From Religion Foundation

gay & lesbian humanist

James Randi Educational Foundation

Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers

New Humanist magazine

Pharyngula

Rationalist Association

Rationalist International

Reasonable New York

Secular Student Alliance

Skeptics in the Pub

The British Humanist Association

The International Humanist and Ethical Union

The Reason Project

The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science

The Skeptic Magazine

The Skeptics Society

Unreasonable Faith

WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVE

2010-09-26T21:13:00.015-04:00

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, we’ve recently heard about the growing number of Americans who believe President Obama was not born in the U.S. and is a Muslim, not a Christian.
I recently took a survey on the Association of Religions Data Archives which also brought up some disturbing statistics for me.
Some questions could be answered yes or no, but some had 5 choices from “always” to “never” or “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Thus, unless one answered “never” or “strongly disagree” the respondent believed the statement to some extent or other.

The statistics are from a 2005 Baylor Religion Survey.

By answering the survey questions on the ARDA website, one’s own results are compared to the 2005 survey. The results come up in two columns, comparing others like oneself (age, gender, and religious affiliation) and comparing oneself to the entire study group.

Some results follow:

As reflected the in graph above, those who believe in:
God 89%
Satan 73%
Heaven 82%
Hell 71%
Purgatory 41%
Angels 80%
Demons 66%
Armageddon 55%
Rapture 49%
Ghosts 46%

Despite these high numbers of belief, when asked if they had experienced a miraculous, physical healing, only 31% said they had. Only 6% had a vision of a religious figure while awake and only 14% had heard the voice of God speaking to them.
Many people think God is slightly more involved in their own lives than in everyone else’s. While 85% think God is directly involved in world affairs, 86% think he is involved in their own affairs.
On the other hand, they think their own sins are of slightly less concern to God than other people’s sins. While 87% think God is angered by human sin, only 85% think he is angered by their own sins.
And, of course, there are those who believe that God favors the United States in world affairs (57%) and that God favors one political party in the U.S. (43%.) Gee, I wonder which party that is.
When it comes to the paranormal, 76% assume that science will discover Bigfoot & the Loch Ness Monster, 78% think places can be haunted, 65% think astrology impacts one’s life and personality, and 87% believe it is possible to influence the physical world through the mind alone.

Other questions were about abortion, sex, alcohol, pornography, stem cell research, consumer consumption, taking care of the sick and needy, and seeking social and economic justice.
I found it interesting that while 57% think it is important to convert others to their religious faith and 86% think it important to teach others their own morals, only 40% think it important to seek social and economic justice for others. These statistics are why I never donate to religious organizations, which (in my opinion) are often more interested in converting people in disaster areas (such as Haiti) than in helping the people with their basic needs. I gladly donate to non-religious relief organizations.

To take the ARDA online survey, click HERE.

* * * * * * *

Religious fundamentalists alone are a huge popular grouping in the United States, which resembles pre-industrial societies in that regard. This is a culture in which three-fourths of the population believe in religious miracles, half believe in the devil, 83 percent believe that the Bible is the "actual" or the inspired word of God, 39 percent believe in the Biblical prediction of Armageddon and "accept it with a certain fatalism," a mere 9 percent accept Darwinian evolution while 44 percent believe that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years," and so on. The "God and Country rally" that opened the national Republican convention is one remarkable illustration, which aroused no little amazement in conservative circles in Europe.

--- Noam Chomsky

speech to the Library Information Technology Association

June 1992, San Francisco
* * * * * * *

CAN CHRISTIANS AND ATHEISTS LEARN TO GET ALONG?

2010-05-17T03:00:00.001-04:00

CHRISTIANS AND ATHEISTS

(SOMETIMES) BEHAVING BADLY

I recently ran across an article from November 2007 called "10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On" by David Wong at cracked.com.

Wong seems to be able to see both sides of this issue. Brought up in a Pentecostal church, he says,""I soured on the whole religion thing in my teens, as you can probably imagine, and then came back to it later kind of on my own terms." He says his friends are about equally divided between Christians and non-believers.

He points out how these two factions infuriate each other, Christians by claiming atheists really do believe but are just rebellious and warning atheists of their futures in everlasting hell, and atheists by pointing out how irrational or stupid believers are.

Wong thinks, with a little respect for each other, we can agree on much and need to do so.

While I disagree on some minor points, I do agree in general with most of what Wong says. There are over 400 comments, some from those pointing out flaws in Wong's reasoning, while others who didn't seem to get the message still condemning each other for their beliefs of lack thereof.

I have always tried to respect the beliefs of others. Most of my friends are Christians and I don't go around telling them they are idiots for believing what seems totally irrational to me. They probably wouldn't be my friends if I did. But I have to admit that often I ask myself, "How can this intelligent person believe what makes no sense at all?" I have to remind myself that I was indoctrinated into Christianity and believed it blindly until I was about twelve. Why did I see the inconsistencies and violence in the Bible while they missed it?

Part of the answer is that I was forced to read the Bible cover to cover, several times, whereas most of my friends know few details from the Bible beyond the nice parables in the New Testament. Yet my parents and sibling read the same things I was reading. They remained devoted Christians.

The fact that I even have this blog indicates my frustration at being surrounded by Christians who judge me based on my unbelief, even though they don't know me. I am frustrated by those who think morality comes only from religion, specifically their particular brand of religion. I am frustrated by those who try to bash me over the head with religion. And I am frustrated by religious people who try to interject religion into secular political issues.

I can also see that religious people are threatened by the wave of atheist literature that has been on the best-seller list over the last decade, not only because atheists are brazenly open about their denial of gods, but also that the books are so popular. Since we know most people "preach to the choir" so to speak, most of the books are probably purchased by people who are already non-believers or by those who have serious doubts about religion. If the books are selling so well, there must be millions and millions of atheists out there. Religious people fear a moral decay if others don't have the same basic beliefs as they do.

They need not fear. Most of the people I know, be they Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, or other, have the same or similar core values. Some of the issues on which we disagree (abortion, homosexuality) seem to have been manipulated by politicians or religious leaders to attract attention or to gain or keep power. That doesn't mean there are not people who have strong beliefs on both sides of those issues, but I think our differences have been blown out of proportion by master manipulators who relish widening the gaps between us.

Whether or not you take the time to read Wong's entire article, and I strongly encourage you to do so, I would be interested in your comments --from both believers and non-believers.

(Remember my comment policy: I welcome opposing opinions as long as they are not abusive or preachy. Comments from "Anonymous" have been blocked due to numerous spam-ads received in the past.)

ALAN ALDA on RELIGION

2010-05-16T00:44:00.008-04:00

ALAN ALDA

b. 1936

actor and nonbeliever

Excerpt from "Things I Overheard While Talking to Myself"

"I sat next to a young woman on a plane once who bombarded me for five hours with how she had decided to be born again and so should I. I told her I was glad for her but I hadn't used up being born the first time. Nothing stopped her. She was married to an acquaintance of mine, and I couldn't turn her off. I left the plane with an ache in my head the size of a grapefruit. I'm certain she led a life that was meaningful to her and had just had five meaningful hours of it. But it didn't mean she was living the good life. And for five hours neither was I. Fight for what you believe in, they say. Serve a higher purpose than yourself. This will give you fulfillment. It can also turn you into the lady on the plane. Or even a terrorist. Terrorists may feel more purpose in their lives than other people do, but that doesn't mean terrorists are any better off, and neither are the rest of us.
"If I was going looking for meaning, I didn't want meaning that would betray other people, and I didn't want it to betray me. I wanted it to last.... I didn't want to wake up someday and find that what had once given meaning to my life was as stale and tasteless as yesterday's gob of gum.
"For a while in my teens, I was sure I had it. It was about getting to heaven. If heaven existed and lasted forever, then a mere lifetime spent scrupulously following orders was a small investment for an infinite payoff. One day, though, I realized I was no longer a believer, and realizing that, I couldn’t go back. Not that I lost the urge to pray. Occasionally, even after I stopped believing, I might send off a quick memo to the Master of the Universe, usually on a matter needing urgent attention, like Oh, God, don’t let us crash. These were automatic expulsions of words, brief SOS messages from the base of my brain. They were similar to the short prayers that were admired by the church in my Catholic boyhood, which they called 'ejaculations.' I always liked the idea that you could shorten your time in purgatory with each ejaculation; what boy wouldn’t find that a comforting idea? But my effort to keep the plane in the air by talking to God didn’t mean I suddenly was overcome with belief, only that I was scared. Whether I’d wake up in heaven someday or not, whatever meaning I found would have to occur first on this end of eternity."

OTHER ALAN ALDA QUOTATIONS (from other sources):

"I still don't like the word agnostic. It's too fancy. I'm simply not a believer. But, as simple as this notion is, it confuses some people. Someone wrote a Wikipedia entry about me, identifying me as an atheist because I'd said in a book I wrote that I wasn't a believer. I guess in a world uncomfortable with uncertainty, an unbeliever must be an atheist, and possibly an infidel. This gets us back to that most pressing of human questions: why do people worry so much about other people's holding beliefs other than their own?" (2008 interview for the Edge Foundation website)

"Begin challenging your own assumptions. Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in awhile, or the light won't come in."

"I used to be a Catholic. I left because I object to conversion by concussion. If you don`t agree with what they teach, you get clobbered over the head until you do. All that does is change the shape of the head." (from an interview in "Ms." magazine)

"Jean Paul Sartre says in 'No Exit' that hell is other people. Well, our task in life is to make it heaven. Or at least earth."

“Here's my Golden Rule for a tarnished age: Be fair with others, but keep after them until they're fair with you.”

"When people are laughing, they're generally not killing one another."

DOES GOD EXIST? "Snowbrush" answers the question

2010-05-13T23:53:00.005-04:00

I've been following the SNOWBRUSH blog for quite a while. Snowbrush is the screen name of a man who grew up in Bible-belt Mississippi and now lives in Oregon. He has been blogging since 2003.

There are several posts on his blog explaining his religious and non-religious background, including his post of 5/12/10, "Does God exist? Why I think the answer is no" which is a well-thought-out explanation of his reasons for being a non-believer.

Check it out and while you are there, check out some of Snowbrush's other posts, too. Snowbrush is an interesting character and has many tales to tell.

WITHOUT AN OUNCE OF INTEGRITY

2010-05-13T02:34:00.007-04:00

If I had enough time, I could publish at least a dozen posts each day filled with nothing but religious people behaving badly. My previous 2 posts were about Christian hypocrisy and now one more example has come to light.

Integrity Bank was founded on "Christian principles" in 2000 in the Atlanta area. The bank's founder Steven Skow, a Lutheran, said "We weren't selling religion. We just managed the bank on godly principles, like the golden rule."

If that is true, then those religious principles must have included conspiracy, fraud, bribery and insider trading.

A federal indictment was unsealed last week against two former bank vice presidents, Douglas Ballard and Joseph Todd Foster, along with developer Guy Mitchell.

When government regulators shut down Integrity Bank in 2008, it was assumed that it was just another lender that had overvalued the real estate market.

"But this bank was robbed from the inside," said U.S. attorney Sally Quillian Yates.

From 2004 to 2006 loans of $80 million had been made to Mitchell who made few, if any, payments on them. Meanwhile, he was living a luxurious life, even purchasing a private island with his borrowed funds. In return for lenience, Ballard was paid more than $230,000 in bribes. Ballard and Foster are also accused of insider trading, for when they realized the bank was going to fail, they dumped Integrity stock, making millions for themselves before its collapse, leaving the bank's shareholders and the FDIC holding the bag.

Skow, who left the bank in 2007 and is not implicated in the indictment, said he lost $22 million in stock.

Skow said the bank gave 10% of annual profits to churches and faith-based charities, donating $1.7 million in 2007. The bank gave free Bibles to customers. Employees prayed together at meeting.

I wonder if they were praying for their own personal gain instead of for god's help in running an ethical business. And maybe they they were just kidding when they named the bank "Integrity."

For more information:

Two Former Bank Executives... Charged with Fraud...

2 at Faith-Based Bank Are Indicted Over Bribes

CONTEMPTIBLE PATHETIC HYPOCRITES

2010-05-09T02:24:00.008-04:00

"Being gay cannot be cured.

Being a contemptible pathetic

hypocrite can be cured."

---Rachel Maddow 5/7/10

For more information on this issue, see my previous post:

Hypocrisy with 2 Capital R's (Rekers & Rentboy)

HYPOCRISY WITH 2 CAPITAL R'S

2010-05-08T19:22:00.019-04:00

HYPOCRISY WITH 2 CAPITAL R'S:
REKERS & RENTBOY

hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform

Anti-gay activist

George Rekers

outed by

Miami New Times

My husband will attest to the fact that I get emotional over stories about almost anyone's misfortune. I cry at sad movies. I blubber over news reports. I've had to pull my car off the road while listening to heart-wrenching stories on the radio because I couldn't see through my tears.

Yet, I admit that when I witness the public exposure of a hypocrite, even though it may be a personal tragedy for the sanctimonious fraud, I can't help but experience a certain perverse glee.

I have no problem with gay sex between consenting adults. What annoys me is when someone does everything in his power to condemn homosexuality and then engages in the very behavior he condemns.

George Alan Rekers is a Baptist minister and one of America’s leading anti-gay activists and a board member for the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), a prominent “ex-gay” organization that claims it can "cure" gay people. Yet Rekers hired a companion from rentboy.com to accompany him on a ten-day trip to Madrid and London.
While Rekers claims he had no idea that his companion was a prostitute when he hired him to carry his luggage, Miami New Times reports that Rekers admitted he met his escort (who the newspaper calls Lucien) at rentboy.com, a website that is transparently gay. Later he claimed that he took the boy to Europe to introduce him to Jesus.

"Rentboy.com... is the only website on which... [Lucien] advertises his services. Neither Google nor any other search engine picks up individual Rentboy.com profiles... You cannot just happen upon one.
"To arrive at Lucien’s site, Rekers must have accepted Rentboy.com’s terms of use, thereby acknowledging he was not offended by graphic sexual material. He then would have been transported to a front page covered with images of naked, tumescent men busily sodomizing each other.
"Then Rekers must have performed a search. Did he want a “rentboy,” a “sugar daddy” or a “masseur”? In what country? And what city? If Rekers searched for a rent boy in Miami, he would have found approximately 80 likely candidates. He must have scrolled down the first page, past the shirtless bears and desperate ex-models, and on to page 2. There, at last, was Lucien."

Rekers stated, "It is absolutely true that I hired... [Lucien] and he worked for me as a travel companion and not as a prostitute."

Rekers advised Lucien to avoid the press. However, the young man made statements to the Miami New Times that contradicted Rekers' statements that he hired him to help with his luggage and that he was trying to save the soul of a lost sinner.

[Lucien] "...has told Miami New Times the Baptist minister [Rekers] is a homosexual who paid him to provide body rubs once a day in the nude, during their ten-day vacation in Europe.

"Rekers allegedly named his favorite maneuver the 'long stroke' -- a complicated caress 'across his penis, thigh... and his anus over the butt cheeks,' as the escort puts it. 'Rekers liked to be rubbed down there,' he says."

As was pointed out on another atheist blog, "Hypocrisy among Christian religious extremists is as commonplace as weird facial expressions from Sarah Palin." We must remember that Rekers' probable gay sex isn't the issue. The issue is that Rekers has time and again vilified homosexuality ---and is a hypocrite as well. According to Rachel Maddow, Rekers recently was listed as a member of a group which sent a letter to all 14,800 school superintendents in the country to explain that homosexual feelings among their students can be treated with therapy. (Incidentally, the letter was produced by the American College of Pediatricians, a right-wing anti-gay group that is trying to hoodwink people into believing it is the real physicians group, the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Along with James Dobson, Rekers co-founded the Family Research Council. He is considered a leading scholar for the Christian Right and has influenced government by advising Congress, the White House, and the Department of Health and Human Services.

Rekers was paid $60,000 to be an "expert" witness against gay adoption in Florida and he testified against gay foster parents in Arkansas for another large fee. Yet, Rekers frequently takes in foster children and adopted a 16-year-old boy four years ago.

Oops! Did he perhaps testify against himself?

NARTH has been predictably silent on this situation but promises a statement soon.

Sources (which include more information):

Christian right leader George Rekers takes vacation with "rent boy"

Things Rekers Said to Lucien When Hew didn't Think We Were Listening

George Alan Rekers Denies He's Gay

George Rekers is a Homosexual, Escort Says

NARTH responds to Rekers' Eurotrip With a Non-Response (Updated)

Did He want Help With His Luggage or His Package?

Another Anti-Gay Christian Leader Caught With Male Prostitute

(Indented statements in green are quoted from the Miami New Times website.)

ATHEIST HUMOR 2 - The Adventures of God

2010-04-20T00:03:00.002-04:00

I just happened on a post at collegehumor.com and found it hilarious, just like the Bible stories it is mocking. Check it out.

The Adventures of God

THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT GETS IT WRONG (AGAIN)

2010-04-19T00:07:00.006-04:00

When U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Crabb (Wisconsin) ruled the Congressionally-mandated National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional, leaders of the Religious Right pulled their heads from the sand and let out a huge yelp.

They said things like:

"Since the days of our Founding Fathers, the government has protected and encouraged public prayer and other expressions of dependence on the Almighty..." (Shirley Dobson of Focus on the Family)

and

"It is unfortunate that this court failed to understand that a day set aside for prayer for the country represents a time-honored tradition..." (Jay Sekulow of Pat Robertson's Center for Law and Justice)

Actually, the court decision is not attacking our heritage, but is upholding it. Anyone who has read about our Founding Fathers, their views on religion, and their reasons for leaving god out of the Constitution should know better.
James Madison, who is considered to be the Father of the Constitution, thought presidential prayer proclamations nourished the idea of a national religion. Thomas Jefferson believed the decision to pray or not should be an individual choice.

And as for the National Day of Prayer being a time-honored tradition from the early days of our country, it was enacted by Congress less than 60 years ago.
Judge Crabb said that by enacting the National Day of Prayer statute, “the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience.... Recognizing the importance of prayer to many people does not mean that the government may enact a statute in support of it, any more than the government may encourage citizens to fast during the month of Ramadan, attend a synagogue, purify themselves in a sweat lodge or practice rune magic. In fact, it is because the nature of prayer is so personal and can have such a powerful effect on a community that the government may not use its authority to try to influence an individual’s decision whether and when to pray.”

(Source: The Wall of Separation blog, 4/16/10)

REASON REJECTED - Francis Bacon

2010-04-09T05:06:00.003-04:00

Francis Bacon
1561 – 1626

1st Viscount

St Albans, KC

English philosopher,
statesman and essayist

I have mentioned here before, that recent studies have shown that it is almost impossible to change someone's mind about a long-held belief. In fact, it seems that the more facts and well-reasoned arguments one gives, the more the believer digs in his/her heels to accept that belief even more than previously.
Sir Francis Bacon knew this when he wrote the following, nearly 400 years ago (1620) ---and I'll bet he didn't use a scientific study to figure it out.

"The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects, in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.... And such is the way of all superstitions, whether in astrology, dreams, omens, divine judgments, or the like; wherein men, having a delight in such vanities, mark the events where they are fulfilled, but where they fail, although this happened much oftener, neglect and pass them by."

Today (April 9, 2010) marks the 384th anniversary of Francis Bacon's death.

As quoted in
Why People Believe Weird Things
Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time
by Michael Shermer

See this and other Michael Shermer books below.

PURE GREED

2010-04-02T05:03:00.009-04:00

The seven deadly sins are supposed to be pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed, and sloth. Although I don't believe in sin (acts that are transgressions against divine law) most of these behaviors can be harmful to oneself and a few can be harmful to others. Some are mere personal failures and some are definitely unethical behaviors.
The one I find most abhorrent is GREED. Legally, any money one earns is his/her own to do with what s/he wants, but ethically, I ask, just how much money does any one person need to live a comfortable life? And how can someone make a billion dollars and not feel some need to help those who have so much less?

I saw a news report on NBC yesterday about hedge fund managers who have turned the economic downturn into a personal boon. The 25 top earners in 2009 increased the value of their personal wealth by $25 billion, an average of $1 billion each. The top earner, gained $4 billion for himself.
When they realized the government was not going to allow banks to fail, they scooped up bank stocks at bargain prices. Since the market has gone up dramatically, these people are living like royalty. One has a 35-room mansion with an in indoor pool, an outdoor skating rink, and his own Zamboni.

I like to play with numbers to figure out what that much money would mean. Most of the people pictured in the report looked to be at least in their forties, so I figure most will live about 40 more years. If they stuffed their mattresses with their money and never earned a penny in interest, dividends or capital gains over those 40 years, they would each have $25 million (before taxes) per year or over $2.83 million each month.
According to Census Bureau figures for 2007 (couldn't find anything more recent) the median household income in the U.S. was a little over $50,000/year. A household in the median range would have to work more than 40 years to earn what these guys would have for one month.
I'm not sure if I could manage to spend $2.83 million for the rest of my life, let alone in one month.

Since the Christian population of this country hovers around 75%, we can assume that about 3/4 of these people are Christians. I'm wondering how many of them will greedily keep all the money for themselves and how many might use the money in more productive ways. Perhaps most of them think "Christian charity" is charity only to themselves. I wonder how many know that Jesus instructs those who wish to go to heaven to give all their money to the poor:

"And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? . . . Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor; and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." (Matthew 19:16-21. See also Luke 12:33.

Now, I really don't expect anyone to give away everything they own, but some charity is certainly warranted for those who are raking in billions.

If each of these top 25 earners would give away half of their 2009 gains, what could their $12.5 billion buy for those who are struggling?

250 million pair of $50 shoes or 500 million pair of $25 shoes
or
$50 worth of groceries for 250 million people worldwide
or
125,000 homes (at $100,000 each)
or
416,667 mobile homes (at $30,000) for residents of Haiti
or
pay one month's mortgage (at $1500) for 83 million families in jeopardy of loosing their homes
or
pay 833,333 small businesses $15,000 each to help pay the salary of one new employee
or
provide health care for 1.04 million families for a year

There are a zillion more things they could do with their money:

AIDs prevention campaigns in Africa
re-train laid-off workers
vaccinations
basic health services for the poor
medications for senior citizens who can't afford to pay for their own
literacy classes
build/renovate schools
environmental needs
scientific or medical research
clean water in poor villiages

The list could go on an on.

Several years ago, I found a list on CNN Money listing the richest people in America. Five members of the family that owns Walmart were numbers 17-21 on the list, each worth over $17 billion. If each of those people were responsible for, and the sole supporter of, 20 people (including themselves) for the next 80 years, each of those 100 people would have about $7800 to spend each day. And these are the people that can't afford to pay for health care for their workers.

I'm sorry, but no one is worth a billion dollars, and absolutely no one deserves their own personal Zamboni.

UPDATE: August 4th 2010

Non-believers Bill Gates and Warren Buffett announced that they had come up with the idea called "The Giving Pledge" and had convinced 40 American billionaires to pledge at least half their wealth to charity and will continue to call on the other 350 billionaires in the U.S. to take the pledge, resulting in approximately $600 billion in charitable donations.

For more information: http://news.discovery.com/human/billionaire-pledge-income.html

* * * * * * *

You might find this interesting:

250 Bible Verses about Money

Ecclesiastes 5:10
Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless.

1 Timothy 6:7-10
For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Proverbs 28:27
He who gives to the poor will never want, but he who shuts his eyes will have many curses.

Proverbs 28:20
....he who makes haste to be rich will not go unpunished.

Deuteronomy 23:19-20
You shall not charge interest to your countrymen: interest on money, food, or anything that may be loaned at interest. You may charge interest to a foreigner, but to your countrymen you shall not charge interest, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land which you are about to enter to possess.

Matthew 5:42
Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

IS RELIGION A GUARANTEE OF MORAL BEHAVIOR?

2010-03-31T23:36:00.001-04:00

(This post was originally published in February 2009.

I made some revisions and am posting it again.)

My answer to the title question is an emphatic NO!

I’m not saying all religious people are immoral. The examples I give below represent a very tiny percentage of the religious community. What I am saying is:

Being a believer is not a guarantee of moral conduct.

"Morality is not determined by the church you attend or the faith you embrace. It is determined by the quality of your character and the positive impact you have on those you meet along your journey." ---as stated on The Immoral Minority blog.

Societal health:
A study by the Journal of Religion & Society (2005) concluded: “Higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies... Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional.”
The Cambridge Companion to Atheism came up with similar findings. High levels of atheism are strongly connected with high levels of societal health: low homicide, poverty, infant mortality and illiteracy rates, high levels of educational attainment, per capita income and gender equality.
In a 1999 study, George Barna, found the percentage of people who have divorced as follows:
Jews = 30%
Born Again Christians = 27%
Mainstream Christians = 24%
Atheists/agnostics = 21%

While I don’t personally believe divorce is immoral, many religious groups think it is a sign of moral weakness.
Ron Barrier, Spokesperson for American Atheists commented: "These findings confirm what I have been saying these last five years... It stands to reason that our families would be dedicated more to each other than to some invisible monitor in the sky. With Atheism, women and men are equally responsible for a healthy marriage... Atheists reject, and rightly so, the primitive patriarchal attitudes so prevalent in many religions with respect to marriage."
James Veverka, in "The moral hypocrisy of the Bible Belt," remarked: "We hear an awful lot from conservatives in the Bible Belt and on the TV about how we all should be living. Certainly a culture that teaches the conservative religious values of the Christian right must have clean living written all over it... It doesn't. Far from it... Joining its history of Biblically correct bigotry and discrimination, it is an area with the highest divorce, murder, STD/HIV/AIDS, teen pregnancy, single parent homes, infant mortality, and obesity rates in the nation. As a region, the Bible Belt has the poorest health care systems and the lowest rates of high school graduation."

Sex and religion:
James A. Haught: “Western religions have spent millenia inflicting shame, guilt, repression and punishment upon human sexuality... The West presents... a long chronicle of religious hostility to lovers -- for no rational reason... Every censorship effort, every attempt at sexual repression, still comes from religion.” (“Sex and God: Is Religion Twisted?” Free Inquiry, Fall 1997)
Episcopal priest Raymond Lawrence wrote in a national United Methodist journal: "The churches are in danger of evolving into havens for the sexually suppressed or, worse, communities of profound hypocrisy." (Quarterly Review, summer 1985)
Dan Barker, former evangelical minister and current co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation contends that when religious zealots spend so much time thinking and preaching against sex and homosexuality, they become obsessed with it, and eventually they cannot control their sexual urges.

Annie Laurie Gaylor, another co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation) wrote Betrayal of Trust, Clergy Abuse of Children (1988), which chronicles hundreds of cases of sexual abuse by priests, ministers and rabbis in the U.S. I can't help but think that her husband Dan Barker (above) was right.
When an avalanche of accusations against priests, for sexual misconduct, hit my local area, the newspapers were filled with letters to the editor blaming the church for not allowing priests to marry. However, priests who like young boys are not interested in adult women. Others were saying that pedophiles were joining the church to have easy access to children. But one psychiatrist who had treated some of the perpetrators wrote an article that made more sense to me. He argued that men who were Catholic and knew they had a problem, chose to become priests because they thought that if they prayed enough, were pious enough, read the scriptures enough, they would be cured. We see how well that worked.
I was astounded to learn that some bishops were directing priests to deny communion or even recommend excommunication to church members who were openly pro-choice, while at the same time pedophile priests were merely slapped on the wrists and allowed to move to other parishes.

The news media have covered extensively the sexual scandals of Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, and Jimmy Swaggert, all three ministers who were either morally bankrupt or, at the least, hypocrites. Thus I will not go into the details here. However, suffice it to say they preached often about moral weakness and sin, then did exactly what they were preaching against.

Morality and politics:
I know our lawmakers cannot be perfect and I don’t expect them to be. But when they campaign on moral issues, then disappoint us, then they are hypocrites.
U.S. Representative Mark Foley (Catholic & Republican) who was known as a crusader against child abuse and exploitation, resigned following a scandal involving teenage male Congressional pages. His replacement, Tim Mahoney (United Methodist & Democrat) ran on a platform of restoring morals to Washington. What did he do? He had a two-year affair with a former staff worker. Just about the time that hit the news, it was discovered that he had been cheating on that mistress with a second mistress. Larry Craig (Methodist and Republican) who repeatedly voted Nay on gay rights issues was caught in an airport restroom, apparently soliciting men for sex.

Religion and crime:
There have been many notorious criminals who were church members. You may remember a serial killer who called himself BTK (Bind, Torture and Kill) in Kansas. David Rader, who killed at least 10 people, was a Deacon and the Congregational President of his Lutheran Church.
David Ludwig, the Pennsylvania teenager who killed his girlfriend’s parents was a home-schooled Christian. Mark Chapman who murdered John Lennon had been described by his friends as a “Jesus freak.”

One of the evilest Christians I know of is Fred Phelps, the preacher who pickets and disrupts military funerals. He physically and psychologically abused his wife and all of his children. The only reason he is not in jail is that he convinced his sons that if they told the truth and he was put on trail, that they would go to hell. Phelps is convinced homosexuals are responsible for all the evils in the world. (His son Nate's blog, A Journey to Reason, tells much of his journey from his father's home to atheism. Read his speech to the American Atheists HERE.)
In a report from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (1997) approximately 80% of the U.S. population claimed some affiliation with a religious group and 80% of the U.S. prison population stated a religious preference. Logical, right? But then why, if (at that time) 10% of the general population claimed to be atheist, only 0.2% of the prison population said they were atheists? There are many religious people who argue that prisoners choose to say they are religious because there are benefits to doing that in prison. If that is so, then our prison system is violating the church/state separation provision of the Constitution.

One of the biggest crimes of all, which senselessly kills innocent people every day, is terrorism. Many people don't want to admit that the terrorists are religious people, but that is exactly what they are. They may be of a different religion than those who are shocked by their immoral acts, but as I pointed out in a previous post, Christians killed at least 50,000 people, just as senselessly during the 1st Crusade, and did it in the name of Christ.

Steve Allen: “It is frequently argued that a return to formal religion is the solution to the problem [of corruption.] But the prescription leaves something to be desired, for one finds practically no formal humanists, agnostics, or atheists in the ranks of the corrupt. Most of the embezzlers, swindlers, con-men and thieves... are card carrying members of one religion’s denomination or another that formally pays respect to the Old and/or New Testament.” (Ripoff, a look at corruption in America, 1979)

I repeat, I’m not saying all religious people are immoral. These cases represent very few people among the religious. What I am saying is that being religious is not a guarantee of moral conduct.

William Lobdell: “To the chagrin of evangelical pollsters and leaders, Christians–for the most part–don’t act any differently than atheists. And, in fact, in some categories (divorce rates and racism) evangelicals act worst.”

I know most religious people are good, honest, ethical people. Most non-religious people I know are also good, honest and ethical, yet they aren’t that way because they fear retribution in the afterlife.

Click on this link for an article by Paula Kirby: "Morality: no gods required."

Click on this link for an article by Austin Cline: "Irreligious People Just as Ethical as Religious Churchgoers"

QUOTATONS: Random Free Thoughts

2010-03-25T01:45:00.003-04:00

• “An eye for an eye makes us all blind.” (Mohandas Gandhi)

• “In this tendency to accept what we find, to believe what we are told, is at once good and evil. It is this which makes social advance possible; it is this which makes it so slow and painful. It is thus tyranny is maintained and superstition perpetuated.” (Henry George, Social Problems)
• “No theory is too false, no fable too absurd, no superstition too degrading for acceptance when it has become imbedded in common belief. Men will submit themselves to torture and to death, mothers will immolate their children, at the bidding of beliefs they thus accept.” (Henry George, Social Problems)

• “Is it really God that created man or is it the opposite?” (Kahlil Gibran)

• “There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance.” (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)

• “We are the most Christian nation on the planet, yet we have more guns. We live in a society where most folks would react more strongly to registering their guns than registering their children.” (Dick Gregory)
• “We got churches that have a Jew on the cross that wouldn’t permit a Jew in the church.” (Dick Gregory)

• “Books won’t stay banned. They won’t burn. Ideas won’t go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas.” (Whitney Griswold, New York Times, February 14, 1959)

• "Faith is generally nothing more than the permission religious people give to one another to believe things strongly without evidence." (Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, 2006)

• “A man must not swallow more beliefs than he can digest.” (Ellis Havelock)

• “The faith in which I was brought up assured me that I was better than other people; I was saved, they were damned.... Our hymns were loaded with arrogance -- self-congratulation on how cozy we were with the Almighty and what a high opinion he had of us, what hell everybody else would catch come Judgment Day.” (Robert Heinlein quoted by Laurence J Peter, in, Peter's Quotations: Ideas for Our Time, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief)

• “All thinking men are atheists.” (Ernest Hemingway, A Farewell to Arms)
• “The most essential gift for a good writer is a built-in shock-proof shit-detector.” (Ernest Hemingway, An Interview with Ernest Hemingway by George Plimpton)

• “I am an atheist, and that’s it. I believe there’s nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for other people.” (Katharine Hepburn)
• “Our Constitution was not intended to be used by any group to foist its personal religious beliefs on the rest of us.” (Katharine Hepburn)

• “Since it is obviously inconceivable that all religions can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that thay are all wrong.” (Christopher Hitchens, The Atheist’s Bible, Joan Konner, ed. 2007)

• “Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves.” (Eric Hoffer)

• “The longing for certainty and repose is in every human mind. But certainty is generally illusion and repose is not the destiny of man.” (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.)
• “We are all tattooed in our cradles with the beliefs of our tribe; the record may seem superficial, but it is indelible. You cannot educate a man wholly out of the supersitious fears which were implanted in his imagination, no matter how utterly his reason may reject them.” (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.)

• “There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the clergyman.” (Victor Hugo)

• “Chastity: the most unnatural of the sexual perversions.” (Aldous Huxley)
• “If we must play the theological game, let us never forget that it is a game. Religion, it seems to me, can survive only as a consciously accepted system of make believe.” (Aldous Huxley)
• “You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of magic and religion. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is the price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, quite intelligent enough.” (Aldous Huxley, Texts and Pretexts, 1932)

CHRISTIANS BEHAVING BADLY #20 - proselytizing teacher

2010-03-21T00:01:00.003-04:00

This post is about a teacher in Mount Vernon, Ohio who has used his teacher's lectern as a pulpit. He is not an isolated case, but he is the perfect example of someone who is so sure he knows the whole truth, that he imposes his beliefs on public school children, and as a result, has divided a community.
Although the proselytising had started as early as 2003, it came to the forefront when Jenifer Dennis's son came home from school near the end of 2007 with his arm covered with red and swollen welts and blisters in the shape of a cross. She described it as a burn that might have come from a curling iron.
Dennis's son had been burned by John Freshwater, his 8th-grade science teacher, who admitted to using a Tesla coil on the boy, but insisted it was the letter X, not a cross.
Jenifer Dennis who is a Christian stated, "I don't think that [religion] should be the decision of a school teacher. Religion...belongs in church, a home or in a religious class. I don't think any child should feel uncomfortable at school."
Soon after this incident, other allegations came to the attention of school officials. Freshwater had been promoting fundamentalist Christianity and teaching creationism using Legos™ to demonstrate that complex structures can't build themselves. He displayed religious posters in his classes, quizzed students on their religious beliefs, and offered "healing" services.

In June 2008 the school district told Freshwater he would be fired, but had the right to a hearing which has been underway for nearly 2 years. A report to the school board should be complete within a few months.

At the hearings Freshwater denied passing out religious surveys to students but the school's attorney found more than 125 completed forms in his classroom. He denied the Lego™ lessons, too, but a tape was produced on which Freshwater bragged about such a lesson on a right-wing radio station. Handouts denying evolution were produced. Freshwater never allowed students to take them home. He claimed it wasn't to hide anything, only to save paper. Other science teachers at the school stated that Freshwater often referred to the Bible as a source of research.

Many Mount Vernon citizens think Freshwater crossed the line with his proselytizing, but predictably, he also has many supporters. The Dennis family was harassed so much they moved to another town.

Meanwhile Freshwater claimed the school district is after him for keeping a Bible on his desk, and has thus become a martyr for the Religious Right. He filed a $1 million suit against the school and counter-sued the Dennis family. The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed that case in September 2009.

In fact, school officials told him he was allowed to keep the Bible on his desk and read it during breaks. He had been told to stop promoting religion in his classes, but he did not comply.

David Millstone, the school's attorney, stated: "These kids are at an impressionable age...The superintendent wants to protect the students' right to be free from religious indoctrination in the classroom."

Source: Church & State, March 2010

(published by Americans United for

Separation of Church and State)

Update: 10/12/11, A judge upheld the firing of Freshwater. In the judge's ruling, he stated that there was clear and convincing evidence that the school board was right in dismissing Freshwater. See more HERE.

It looks like Freshwater may continue to appeal this case.

CHRISTIANS BEHAVING BADLY #19 - Antichrist protection

2010-03-18T02:37:00.009-04:00

(Click on image for a larger view.)

On 02/10/10, the Virginia House of Delegates approved a bill that some members believe will protect the state from the Antichrist.

The bill prohibits employers and insurance companies from requiring people to implant microchips ---which one delegate said might be the "Mark of the Beast" as described in the Bible. While the bill's sponsor Mark Cole (R-Fredericksburg) says that the bill's goal is to address privacy issues (which may be a reasonable concern) he told The Washington Post, "My understanding ---and I'm not a theologian ---but there's a prophecy in the Bible that says you'll have to receive a mark, or you can neither buy or sell things in end times."

[Does that remark make sense to anyone?]

Some Christian groups believe the Antichrist will force everyone to accept this "mark," which could be a microchip.

House members passed the bill by a vote of 88-9.

Mmmm! What will they ban next? Tattoos? They're marks, aren't they? What about stretch marks? Felt-tip markers? Markets? Question marks? Exclamation marks! Or how about the second book of the New Testament?

Source: Church and State, March 2010

(published by Americans United for

Separation of Church and State)

UPDATE April 2010:

The bill mentioned above has been killed in the VA Senate. Four members of a subcommittee of the Commerce and Labor Committee said that the bill was a solution in search of a problem. (April 2010 issue of State and Church.)

RELIGION - Rex Walls-style

2010-03-11T01:51:00.008-05:00

Jeannette Walls’ 2005 memoir, The Glass Castle, tells the story of her eccentric family, including her atheist father, Rex Walls. (If you want to skip the rest of the review and read about her father's unconventional behavior when accompanying his Catholic wife and children to church, scroll down to the green text at the bottom of this post.)

Jeanette's memoir, which I loved, starts with her first memory as a three-year-old (c. 1963), standing on a chair cooking hot dogs. Her dress caught fire resulting in a long hospital stay and numerous skin grafts for the precocious child who loved the hospital because it was so clean and white, where the sheets were changed even when they weren't dirty.
If you wonder why a three-year-old would be allowed to cook without supervision, that’s exactly what her nurses and doctors asked.
Before Jeannette was released from the hospital, her father gathered her up and ran from the building ---obviously without paying the bill ---in what he referred to as “Rex Walls-style."

This is a prelude to Jeannette's years of growing up with charismatic parents who taught their four children about literature, art, music, history, astronomy, geology, and mathematics, and who encouraged them to be creative, see the world from an optimistic point of view, and stand up for themselves.
At the same time, Rex went from job to job, usually as an electrician at a mining company, rarely holding onto employment for more than six months at a time. He was mostly interested in drinking, gambling, conspiracy theories and creating pie-in-the-sky schemes such as a new way to find gold. He spent years imagining and drawing blueprints for the glass castle he planned to build for the family. He could convince his children that, although other children were told lies about Santa Claus, he could give them whatever star they chose for Christmas, yet he was not above stealing the children’s hard-earned money for alcohol or poker.
Despite a teaching degree, their mother, Rose Mary, preferred painting pictures that no one ever bought rather than work outside the home or make any effort to clean their long series of run-down homes that were infested with rats, roaches, and termites. The children often had to distract employees while their mother shoplifted. During the worst of times, they had no electricity or heat. Despite their miserable existence, Rose Mary encouraged her children to see the positive in every situation.

Jeannette and her siblings searched for food in dumpsters, stole leftovers from classmates' discarded lunch bags, and collected empty bottles to earn enough money to buy something to eat. When bill collectors came after their parents, the family did the skedaddle to another town, Rex Wall-style. Each family member was allowed to choose one item to take to their next home. They lived in various western towns and eventually became the poorest family in Rex's bleak hometown in West Virginia.
The book is a chronicle of parental neglect, told by Jeannette without an ounce of self pity. Life for the Walls children was dismal, yet at times, funny.

In the end, the Walls' story is uplifting, for three of the four children, including Jeannette, used their hard-earned lessons in resourcefulness to escape to New York City to become high-achieving productive adults. The youngest daughter moved to California after spending time in a mental institution. Their parents ended up homeless in New York, by choice, refusing public assistance or help from their children.

Below are two excerpts about religion which reveal the kind of sad, yet humorous, goings-on in the Walls family when Jeannette was nine:

Church was particularly excruciating when Dad came along. Dad had been raised a Baptist, but he didn’t like religion and didn’t believe in God. He believed in science and reason, he said, not superstition and voodoo. But Mom had refused to have children unless Dad agreed to raise them as Catholics and to attend church himself on holy days of obligation.
Dad sat in the pew fuming and shifting around and trying to bite his tongue while the priest carried on about Jesus resurrecting Lazarus from the dead and the communicants filed up to eat the body and drink the blood of Christ. Finally when Dad was unable to stand it any longer, he’d shout out something to challenge the priest. He didn’t do it to be hostile. He hollered out his point in a friendly tone: “Yo, Padre!” he’d say. The priest usually ignored Dad and tried to go on with his sermon, but Dad persisted. He’d challenge the priest about the scientific impossibility of the miracles, and when the priest continued to ignore him, he’d get mad and yell out something about Pope Alexander VI’s bastard children, or Pope Leo X’s hedonism, or Pope Nicholas III’s simony, or the murders committed in the name of the church during the Spanish Inquisition. But what could you expect, he’d say, from an institution run by celibate men who wore dresses. At that point the ushers would tell us we’d have to leave.

* * * * * * * *

Mom insisted that we celebrate Christmas in the Catholic fashion, getting to the [thrift-shop] gifts only after we’d attended midnight mass. Dad, knowing that all the bars and liquor stores would be closed on Christmas, had stocked up in advance. He’d popped open the first Budweiser before breakfast, and by the time midnight mass rolled around, he was having trouble standing up.
I suggested that maybe this once, Mom should let Dad off the hook about going to mass, but she said stopping by God’s house for a quick hello was especially important at times like this, so Dad staggered and lurched into the church with us. During the sermon, the priest discussed the miracle of Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth.
“Virgin my ass!” Dad shouted. “Mary was a sweet Jewish broad who got herself knocked up!”
The service came to a dead halt. Everyone was staring. The choir had swiveled around in unison and were gaping openmouthed. Even the priest was speechless.
Dad had a satisfied grin on his face. “And Jesus H. Christ is the world's best-loved bastard!”
The ushers grimly escorted us to the street. On the way home, Dad put his arm around my shoulder for support. “Baby girl, if your boyfriend ever gets into your panties and you find yourself in a family way, swear that it was Immaculate Conception and start mouthing off about miracles,” he said. “Then just pass around the collection plate come Sunday.”

THOMAS HUXLEY on Religion

2010-03-11T00:01:00.002-05:00

THOMAS HUXLEY

English biologist

(1825-1895)

• “Agnosticism simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that for which he has no grounds for professing to believe.”(What Great Men Think of Religion, by Cardiff)

• “The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence.”

• “The dogma of the infallibility of the Bible is no more self-evident than is that of the infallibility of the popes.”(Contoverted Questions, 1892)

• “I have no faith, very little hope, and as much charity as I can afford.”(What Great Men Think of Religion, by Cardiff)

• “I neither deny or affirm the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing in it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it.”(Letter to Charles Kingsley, 1860)

• “Irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors.”(The Coming of Age of the Origin of the Species)

• “I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of ‘Agnostic.’ It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the ‘Gnostic’ of Church history who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant.”(Agnosticism. Nineteenth Century, 1889)

• “Logical consequences are the scarecrows of fools and the beacons of wise men.” (Science and Culture)

• “The only question which a wise man can ask himself is whether a doctrine is true or false. Consequences will take care of themselves.” (What Great Men Think of Religion, by Cardiff)

• “What are among the moral convictions most fondly held by barbarous and semi-barbarous people? They are the convictions that authority is the soundest basis of belief; that merit attaches to readiness to believe; that the doubting disposition is a bad one, and skepticism a sin; that when good authority has pronounced what is to be believed, and faith has accepted it, reason has no further duty.” (What Great Men Think of Religion, by Cardiff)

SKEPTICISM

2010-03-08T00:04:00.009-05:00

Carl Sagan

(1934-1996)

astonomer, astrophysicist, author

"It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas. If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything new. You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.)
"On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish useful ideas from the worthless ones. If all ideas have equal validity then you are lost, because then, it seems to me, no ideas have any validity at all."

From "The Burden of Skepticism,"

Pasadena lecture, 1987,

as quoted in Why People Believe Weird Things

by Michael Shermer, 1997

I'm sure almost every one knows someone who is, as Sagan puts it, "open to the point of gullibility." I have several friends who forward every email they receive, convinced it is true, despite my repeatedly referring them to urban myth websites. They believe in astrology, pyramid power, and believe Sylvia Brown communicates with the dead. One friend paid over $1000 for an electrical device that was supposed to eliminate arthritis pain. When she got no results, instead of deciding the product was defective or even a scam, chose to believe that it was her particular type of arthritis that was the problem.

I think we would all like to believe in miracles. Wouldn't it be nice if we could communicate with our dead parents? Wouldn't it be great if an electronic device could relieve all our pain? It would be great if we could pop a pill to cure any ailment, read our horoscopes to know the future, or feel better after rolling a few crystals in our palms? And it would be just lovely if all we had to do was pray to Jesus to resolve all our problems.

But most of us use our reason to determine what is probable or not.

On the other hand, most of us know someone who doesn't believe anything they read or hear and thinks every new idea is stupid. These nay-sayers, with their extreme pessimism, can be nearly as annoying as those who are gullible Pollyannas.

Most of us fall somewhere in between these two extremes. I would think those leaning toward the skeptical end of the spectrum have a more realistic view of the world, as long as they leave the door open far enough to let a new theory, idea, or hypotheses in the room for some rational exploration before tossing it in the trash.

BERTRAND RUSSELL #4 - Progress

2010-02-28T03:25:00.002-05:00

You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.

How the Churches Have Retarded Progress

You may think that I am going too far when I say that that is still so. I do not think that I am. Take one fact. You will bear with me if I mention it. It is not a pleasant fact, but the churches compel one to mention facts that are not pleasant. Supposing that in this world that we live in today an inexperienced girl is married to a syphilitic man; in that case the Catholic Church says, "This is an indissoluble sacrament. You must endure celibacy or stay together. And if you stay together, you must not use birth control to prevent the birth of syphilitic children." Nobody whose natural sympathies have not been warped by dogma, or whose moral nature was not absolutely dead to all sense of suffering, could maintain that it is right and proper that that state of things should continue.
That is only an example. There are a great many ways in which, at the present moment, the church, by its insistence upon what it chooses to call morality, inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary suffering. And of course, as we know, it is in its major part an opponent still of progress and improvement in all the ways that diminish suffering in the world, because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness; and when you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make for human happiness, they think that has nothing to do with the matter at all. "What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy."

(from Bertrand Russell's lecture

Why I Am Not A Christian, March 6, 1927,

later published with other essays in 1957)

Find the full text of Why I am Not a Christian HERE.

BERTRAND RUSSELL #3 - Religion and Cruelty

2010-02-24T00:01:00.005-05:00

That is the idea -- that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.

(from Bertrand Russell's lecture

Why I Am Not A Christian, March 6, 1927,

later published with other essays in 1957)

BERTRAND RUSSELL #2 - Christ and Morality

2010-02-21T00:01:00.002-05:00

The Moral Problem

Then you come to moral questions. There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching -- an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence. You do not, for instance find that attitude in Socrates. You find him quite bland and urbane toward the people who would not listen to him; and it is, to my mind, far more worthy of a sage to take that line than to take the line of indignation. You probably all remember the sorts of things that Socrates was saying when he was dying, and the sort of things that he generally did say to people who did not agree with him.
You will find that in the Gospels Christ said, "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Hell." That was said to people who did not like His preaching. It is not really to my mind quite the best tone, and there are a great many of these things about Hell. There is, of course, the familiar text about the sin against the Holy Ghost: "Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this World nor in the world to come." That text has caused an unspeakable amount of misery in the world, for all sorts of people have imagined that they have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, and thought that it would not be forgiven them either in this world or in the world to come. I really do not think that a person with a proper degree of kindliness in his nature would have put fears and terrors of that sort into the world.
Then Christ says, "The Son of Man shall send forth his His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth"; and He goes on about the wailing and gnashing of teeth. It comes in one verse after another, and it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often. Then you all, of course, remember about the sheep and the goats; how at the second coming He is going to divide the sheep from the goats, and He is going to say to the goats, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." He continues, "And these shall go away into everlasting fire." Then He says again, "If thy hand offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched." He repeats that again and again also. I must say that I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world generations of cruel torture; and the Christ of the Gospels, if you could take Him asHis chroniclers represent Him, would certainly have to be considered partly responsible for that.
There are other things of less importance. There is the instance of the Gadarene swine, where it certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put the devils into them and make them rush down the hill into the sea. You must remember that He was omnipotent, and He could have made the devils simply go away; but He chose to send them into the pigs. Then there is the curious story of the fig tree, which always rather puzzled me. You remember what happened about the fig tree. "He was hungry; and seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, He came if haply He might find anything thereon; and when He came to it He found nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it: 'No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever' . . . and Peter . . . saith unto Him: 'Master, behold the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.'" This is a very curious story, because it was not the right time of year for figs, and you really could not blame the tree. I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or in the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those respects.

(from Bertrand Russell's lecture

Why I Am Not A Christian, March 6, 1927,

later published with other essays in 1957)

BERTRAND RUSSELL #1 - Fear

2010-02-18T00:01:00.006-05:00

FEAR

the Foundation

of Religion

Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a better place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.

(from Bertrand Russell's lecture

Why I Am Not A Christian, March 6, 1927,

later published with other essays in 1957)

CHRISTIANS BEHAVING BADLY #18 -Clueless Missionaries

2010-02-13T20:42:00.011-05:00

I'm sure most of you have heard about Laura Silsby and her group of missionaries who were arrested for kidnapping on 01/29/10 in Haiti while allegedly attempting to take 33 children across the international border into the Dominican Republic without proper authorization from the Haitian government. The Dominican consul general has said he warned the group's leader, Silsby, about trying to cross the border without proper documents.

Why would Silsby ignore such a warning?

Like many religious people, she may have thought she was above the law or that god would protect her from prosecution. Or perhaps she just assumed that there was so much chaos in Haiti after the earthquake, that no one would notice.

But Ms. Silsby apparently has a history of ignoring the law.
According to the Idaho Department of Labor, she and her Boise-based company, PersonalShopper.com, have numerous claims against them for non-payment of wages, wrongful termination, and fraud. A jury trial is set for February 22.
She has a history of failing to pay debts, and the $358,000 house at which she founded her nonprofit religious group, New Life Children's Refuge, was foreclosed in December, according to a report in the Idaho Statesman. In March she is scheduled in court for non-payment for services performed by a law firm.
I have to wonder if her non-profit organization was founded, in part, so she could collect tax-free funds to support her legal problems in at least eight civil suits.

At first Silsby claimed the Haitian children were orphaned, but then she admitted her group was taking at least some of the children with their parents' consent to an uncompleted orphanage she is building in the Dominican Republic, although her web site indicated she would be taking them to the U.S. ---but without documents, I doubt that could happen. Apparently parents were shown pictures of the orphanage which does not yet exist.
How does she have the funds to build an orphanage if she can't even pay the mortgage on her group's headquarters?
However, if she does have the funds to build, staff, maintain, and run an orphanage, and if she truly wants to help the children, why not provide them and their families with food, water, and shelter, allowing the children to remain with their parents or extended families? Her group could work to help the families find the services they need. Surely building and maintaining an orphanage is far more expensive than providing such services to families. For the short term, meet their immediate needs of survival. Then, help the parents rebuild and learn marketable skills. Provide education for the children.
She promised parents she would not offer the children for adoption, but her web site says the children would be available for adoption. So, at the very least, she is incompetent or a liar.
I presume that part of Silsby's "mission" is to proselytise the children from their current religious beliefs. Nothing I have read convinces me Silsby had the children's best interests in mind.
But whatever her motives, she was breaking the law by attempting to transport children across international borders without proper authorization.

To put this in perspective, during Hurricane Katrina, how would U.S. citizens have felt if a group of (for example) Spanish missionaries came to the U.S. and tried to take 33 children, without proper authorization, across the border to Mexico to place them in a Catholic orphanage. No matter what the group's motives, most American citizens would be aghast, and those who were evangelical Christians might be outraged that the children would be indoctrinated into Catholicism. Americans would be doubly outraged if they discovered most of the children had living parents or other relatives and were not orphans at all.
Remember that during the Asian tsunami, several children were spirited away and never found. It is suspected they were taken for illicit reasons. The Haitian government has the right to be doubly cautious in such situations.

At first I thought the nine people accompanying Silsby were somewhat clueless, that they may indeed have been well-intentioned, that SIlsby had left them in the dark about the necessary paperwork after she had been warned. However, according to CNN, the group had made an earlier attempt at taking 40 other children three days earlier and were turned back without proper documents. If the "Clueless 9" were not attempting to do something illegal, they were just plain stupid.

My understanding is that a Haitian judge has decided to release the missionaries, not because they were found not-guilty, but because the Haitian government can't afford to create bad will with the U.S. which is providing most of the relief effort there.

I understand there are many religious folks who are doing a great deal of good in Haiti. As long as they are helping with issues of food, water, shelter, and medical care without taking the children out of the country illegally and not proselytising, I'm fine with that. But this group, and especially its leader, seemed especially aggressive, and even after being warned, they were willing to break the law in the name of their god.

Christians are not always right. They don't always do the right thing. They may be well-intentioned, but sometimes have ulterior motives. And sometimes their faith blinds them to reason and common sense.

Sources:

CNN.com

NBC Evening News with Brian Williams

msnbc.com

Also find many great comments on "Should the 10 American missionaries stand trial in Haiti for trying to take children out of the county?"
As of 4:30 EST 2/13/10, out of 55,219 votes, the poll results were:

69.6% Yes, it needs to be determined whether they broke the country’s laws.
24.2% No they were only trying to help kids left destitute by the earthquake.
6.2% Not sure.

Comments near the top of the page are short responses. Longer comments are near the bottom. I was unable to read all of them (to date there are 26 pages) but someone who calls her/himself NotKidding made many especially good comments from at least page 22 to 26 (although there may be more.)

FORMER CHRISTIAN APOLOGIZES

2010-01-29T03:25:00.006-05:00

(Click on image for larger view.)

In my meandering on the web, I ran across this wonderful post:

Former Christian Apologizes for Being Such a Huge Shit Head for all Those Years

It is a great post and a heartfelt apology from Rechelle, a former Christian.

Unfortunately comments are closed on the blog, so I was unable to contact the writer or ask her permission to copy the first lines of her points, but I don't think she will mind as I am directing readers to her blog. Please click on one of the links for the full text.

1. I apologize to all the homosexuals. I am sorry that I believed in a religion that condemns you......
2. I apologize to everyone on the face of the earth that has not accepted Jesus christ as their personal savior because I believed that you were all going to hell...
3. I apologize to all my former Sunday school students because I taught you that the bible was the word of god...
4. I apologize for giving money to the church...
5. I apologize for believing all sorts of mad things that are seriously messed up and incredibly hurtful to my fellow humans...
6. I apologize to my kids for being a passive aggressive christian mom...
7. Finally, I apologize for allowing my faith to numb my response to the problems of the world...

Click HERE to read the full text of the author's seven points of apology.

CHRISTIANS BEHAVING BADLY #17 The Magdalene Sisters

2010-01-23T05:45:00.003-05:00

EVIL NUNS

In Ireland during the 1800s, Magdalene homes were set up as places of refuge for prostitutes and “fallen” women. They were named after Mary Magdalene who repented before Christ. As the 20th century approached, the homes were taken over by nuns, who, instead of making the homes places of forgiveness and compassion, brought them under the strict and cruel dogma of Catholicism and turned them into institutions worse than prisons. Prisoners had rights. Magdalene inmates had none.
In 1996, the last Magdalene asylum was closed in Ireland. It is almost unimaginable that such a misogynistic and horrific institution survived for so long, and it is almost inconceivable that women had been treated so badly by other women.
Irish girls were not instructed in sex education, yet were condemend to a miserable fate if they were poor, had been raped, had a child out of wedlock, or were “too beautiful” or flirtatious and thus might be in “moral danger.” Of course, abortion was illegal and a mortal sin. Many girls were rejected by their own families and given over to the “mercy” of the Catholic Church. The women were locked up to “scrub away” their sins by working 10-hour days 6 days a week for no pay in insitutional laundries run by nuns. The church earned money from local hotels and univeristies to do their laundry with what amounted to slave labor.
For an estimated 30,000 young women, life with the Magdalene Sisters was harsh and miserable. Some victims were kept for a few years. Many stayed for the rest of their lives.
The plights of these women seemed amazingly similar to the treatment of women by the Taliban. The Magdalene Sisters perpetrated a form of religious terrorism directed at women. Perhaps their positions of power and their own fear of sexuality resulted in their depriving their charges of any freedoms.
In Ireland, the Catholic Church was so powerful that no one questioned its practices. Women who escaped or were released didn’t speak about their experiences because they were too broken, ashamed, or afraid.
Researcher Dr. Frances Finnegan received documents from one of the religious orders at a time when they thought themselves invulnerable. Much of that research resulted in the 1998 documentary “Sex in a Cold Climate” which, in turn, inspired the 2002 fictionalized version “The Magdalene Sisters” based on the lives of four women in the asylums. (The DVD of The Magdalene Sisters includes both the documentary and the fictionalized version.) Although the film is set in the 1960s, the stories on which the film is based happened in the 40s and 50s.

Critics claim the film portrays conditions much more brutally than the reality could ever have been.
Inmates watched nuns eat buttered toast and bacon while they breakfasted on porridge. As punishment, they were beaten, their hair cut off, and they were frequently subjected to humiliation. They were not allowed to speak while working and were forbidden to form friendships. They were isolated from the outside world. Their names were changed and they were denied any contact with or knowledges of the fates of their illegitimate children. Many were sexually abused by priests.

Filmmaker Peter Mulian said, "In any oppressive regime, you take away people's ability to think once you take away their ability to express themselves. The church is a pretty sophisticated organization. It simply didn't serve their purposes to educate these women. They held them with fear, guilt and shame - its oldest and vilest weapons. The methodology they applied is shared by torturers all round the world. The prisoner's self-esteem is taken away, you deny them education, you deny them access to the outside world, you deny them communication to one another, you don't allow friendships to form and you take away their identities and give them new names. It is about breaking people down.”

Writer Fiachra Gibbons writes, “Every...‘Magdalene’ I've talked to says...the reality was more brutal [than the film.]”
"It was worse in the Magdalenes, much worse than what you see. I don't like to say it, but the film is soft on the nuns," says Mary-Jo McDonagh, who spent five years in a laundry in Galway. After being molested by a neighbour, she was spirited away early one morning by a priest and told she had "brought shame on her family". McDonagh eventually escaped to England after she was farmed out as a servant to a cousin of one of the nuns.
Often children born out of wedlock were placed in orphanages. At age 17, many of the female orphans were placed in Magdalene laundries, not for any sexual misbehavior, but because the nuns didn't know what else to do with them ---or maybe just to acquire more free labor. One woman had worked beside her own daughter for more than 20 years. Knowing the mother had pined for her daughter the entire time, the sadistic nuns had not revealed their relationship. The daughter was told only after her mother had died.
It should be noted that the actions of the nuns were entirely contradictory to the tenets of the faith in whose name they claimed to act. Accounts of Jesus say that he pardoned, showed kindness to and frequently spent time with women caught in adultery, whereas the Magdalene Sisters forced such women into brutal work for their salvation and pardon.
Predictably, The Magdalene Sisters film outraged the Vatican. Victims of Magdalene Asylums have received no closure in the form of recognition, compensation, or apology, yet many ---brainwashed with an eternity in hell for even thinking of questioning church authority ---remained devout Catholics. However, some of the women highlighted in the documentary film have wisely abandoned the church.

Sources:

In God’s Name by Fiachra Gibbons

The Magdalene Sisters

Wikipedia

The DVD (including Sex in a Cold Climate and The Magdalene Sisters) is available from Netflix. Read more about these films on the Internet Movie Database

CHRISTIANS BEHAVING BADLY #16 Pat Robertson Part 2

2010-01-20T00:01:00.002-05:00

In my attempt to show that being religious

is not a guarantee of moral behavior,

this post is part of a series of reports featuring

the bad behavior of religious people, past or present....

Look for other posts showing the bad behavior

perpetrated by members of other religious groups.

"God told me......"

According to CBS News and Wikipedia, on many occasions, Pat Robertson has announced that god told him truths or informed him of events that would happen in the near future. "I have a relatively good track record," he said. "Sometimes I miss."
Wait a minute! If god tells Pat truths, how can he possibly miss? And, you will notice below, that if Robertson does get it wrong, he just claims that enough Christians prayed so god changed his mind.

1982: In late 1976, Robertson predicted that the end of the world was coming in November or October 1982. In a May 1980 broadcast of The 700 Club he stated, "I guarantee you by the end of 1982 there is going to be a judgment on the world."

2006: In May 2006, Robertson said, "If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms." On May 17, 2006, he elaborated, "There well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest." His declaration was generally received with mild amusement by the Pacific Northwest media. The History Channel's initial airing of its new series, Mega Disasters: West Coast Tsunami, was broadcast the first week of May. Robertson repeated his claim at least 4 times on the 700 Club.

2007: On the January 2, 2007, broadcast of The 700 Club, Robertson said that God spoke to him and told him that "mass killings" were to come during 2007, due to a terrorist attack on the United States. He added, "The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that." When a terrorist attack failed to happen in 2007, Robertson said, in January 2008, "All I can think is that somehow the people of God prayed and God in his mercy spared us."

2008: On the January 2, 2008, Pat Robertson predicted that 2008 would be a year of worldwide violence. He also predicted that a recession would occur in the United States that would be followed by a stock market crash by 2010.

2008: In October 2008 Robertson posted a press release on the Georgian Conflict speculating that the conflict is a Russian ploy to enter the Middle East, and that instability caused by a predicted pre-emptive strike by Israel on Iran would result in Syria's and Iran's launching nuclear strikes on other targets. He also said that if the United States were to oppose Russia's expansion, nuclear strikes on American soil are also pending. "We will suffer grave economic damage, but will not engage in military action to stop the conflict. However, we may not be spared nuclear strikes against coastal cities. In conclusion, it is my opinion that we have between 75 and 120 days before the Middle East starts spinning out of control."

2010: At the start of 2010, the Associated Baptist Press said Robertson shared God's predictions for the year and said he wouldn't bless America because of abortion, homosexuality and prayer. "Fifty million babies slaughtered," God allegedly complained to him. "You can't have legislation that is anti-God. You can't foster in your midst things that I call an abomination… If you do, sooner or later judgment's going to come."

You can bet that sometimes Pat misses, like maybe he is missing a few marbles.

CHRISTIANS BEHAVING BADLY #15 Pat Robertson

2010-01-19T04:13:00.009-05:00

THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS COMMENTS OF PAT ROBERTSON

According to Wikipedia, Marion Gordon Robertson (born March 22, 1930) is the founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), the Christian Coalition, Regent University and other organizations and corporations. He is the host of The 700 Club, a Christian TV program airing on channels throughout the United States and on CBN affiliates worldwide. His media and financial resources make him a recognized, influential, and controversial public voice for conservative Christianity in the United States.

Oh, I forgot to mention, he's a raving nut case.

He claims that some Protestant denominations harbor the spirit of the Antichrist, claims he has the power to deflect hurricanes through prayer, has denounced Hinduism as "demonic" and Islam as "satanic," and has so many objections to feminism, homosexuality, abortion, and liberal politics that it would be impossible to list them all. He had financial ties to presidents Charles Taylor (Liberia) and Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire), both human rights violators. He claims that every natural occurrence ---be it weather-related or illness of someone he dislikes ---is an act of god in retribution for some sin or other.

The following outrageous statements were found on the CBS News website:

1992: "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

Gee, I consider myself a feminist, but I seem to have gone about it all wrong. I’m not a socialist. I guess I ought to sign up. I did leave my first husband after he committed adultery. (He was the "sinner," Pat, not me.) But my second husband and I have been married 25 years, so I will file divorce papers right away. I can’t kill my children because I never had any, so I guess I have to off the neighbors' children. (They're rather annoying anyway.) After I file those divorce papers, I'll search for a lesbian lover and start practicing witchcraft.

2001: Two days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, Robertson agreed with Jerry Falwell who said that God allowed the attacks because of moral decay - specifically the ACLU, abortionists, feminists and gays.

2005: If Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez "thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don’t think any oil shipments will stop… We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."

2005: After Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, Robertson said, "I was reading… a book that was very interesting about what God has to say in the Old Testament about those [abortionists] who shed innocent blood… Have we found we are unable somehow to defend ourselves against some of the attacks that are coming against us, either by terrorists or now by natural disaster? Could they be connected?"

2006: Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was given a debilitating stroke because he was trying to make peace with the Palestinians and give them land. "He was dividing God's land and I would say woe unto any Prime Minister of Israel who takes a similar course…God says 'this land belongs to me. You'd better leave it alone.'"

2010: After the earthquake that devastated Haiti, Robertson said Haitians had made a "pact with the devil" and have been "cursed" ever since. "They were under the heel of the French, you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said 'we will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.'…so the devil said, 'ok it’s a deal.' And they kicked the French out. But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after another."

-----------

In my attempt to show that being religious

is not a guarantee of moral behavior,

this post is part of a series of reports featuring

the bad behavior of religious people, past or present....

Look for other posts showing the bad behavior

perpetrated by members of other religious groups.

-----------

Robertson likes to make predictions that he believes have come directly from god. Read about them in my next post.

Help Earthquake Victims in Haiti

2010-01-14T17:10:00.007-05:00

The news and photos from Haiti and the Dominican Republic are almost too terrible to imagine. Those of us who are atheists know that there is no god who is going to provide relief for those who are suffering there. Prayer will do no good. We must act to help those in need.
According to moveon.com, "Three million people have been affected by Tuesday's earthquake, and the Red Cross estimates as many as 50,000 may be dead. Survivors are digging through the rubble with their hands in a desperate attempt to rescue those who are trapped. With water and medical supplies in short supply, and the Haitian government paralyzed, international aid efforts in the next few days will be critical to prevent more human suffering."
According to screencrave.com, MTV is working with George Clooney to host a telethon to raise funds for the victims of the earthquake. The event, which has a tentative air date of January 22nd, will air on all MTV affiliated networks including BET and VH1.

As usual, beware of individuals and unsolicited emails claiming to be collecting funds for the relief efforts. You can find an article HERE about disaster relief scams.

The American Institute of Philanthropy, a charity-watchdog group, has a list of top-rated Haiti relief organizations HERE. This organization gives charities grades of A+ to F and recommends donating to those that receive an A or B grade based on the portion of their budget actually going to the program and other factors.

I have listed below those non-religious charities recommended by the American Institute of Philanthropy with A grades. (I didn't have time to research them all, but these seem to be non-religious. Please let me know if I am wrong.) We know that many religious charities do a great deal of good, but many of them come with religious "baggage."

Action Against Hunger (A)

American Red Cross (A-)
American Refugee Committee (A)
AmeriCares (A)
CARE (A)
Doctors Without Borders (A)
International Medical Corps (A+)
International Rescue Committee (A+)
Mercy Corps (A-)
Operation USA (A)
Oxfam America (A-)
Project Concern International (A)
Save the Children (A)

Skip the prayers. Make a donation.

JESUS IS MY CO-PILOT !!!!

2010-01-05T04:16:00.008-05:00

I know you are wondering why an atheist would title a post, "Jesus is my co-pilot."

Bear with me. You will see.

My husband and I needed a new car, but since my husband can fix anything on a car, we normally buy used. So we looked in the paper, Auto Trader, eBay, & Craigs list. We found two in good to excellent condition, within 15 miles of us, in the price range for which we could pay cash, but they were both 8-9 years old and had more than 90,000 miles on each. Anything newer or with fewer miles was more expensive and most older cars had body problems. Plus, we haven't had much luck with the last few used cars we had --transmission problems, a/c not working. Each one has cost us major bucks within 2 or 3 years and would have cost much more if my husband hadn't done the repairs himself.
I happened to see an ad in the Sunday (1/3/10) paper to lease a new car for three years, no down payment, 0% interest, a maintenance pkg. that covers everything including annual state inspections, the dealership paying for our plate and registration and the first month's fee. The total cost (including taxes) was about $1240 more over 3 years than we would pay for a 8-9 year old car. But, when we figured what we would save on gas mileage, not having to rent a car while my husband works on our older one, the interest we would earn on the cash we would have paid in full for a used car instead of withdrawing the monthly payments, and the cost of general maintenance (oil, filters, etc.) we would actually pay $500 less over 3 years for the lease rather than a used car. Plus we would have a reliable, worry-free car covered by a manufacturer's warranty.
We've never leased before, but we had to decide immediately if we wanted to do that because the deal ended Monday. We checked Consumer Reports which rated that 2010 model very highly.
So first thing Monday, I called the dealership from the ad and talked to Bob. The deal sounded good, but it was a long drive in frigid, snowy weather to that place. So I called a dealer 7 miles from home and talked to a salesman from Puerto Rico. His deal was nearly identical. He pronounced his name Hay-zeus. I was not quite awake yet, so it took me a second to realize that he would spell his name Jesús.

My husband nearly choked on his coffee when I told him I had just spoken to Jesus.

We chose the color of car we wanted, a dark green with a bluish tinge and took a test drive. Jesús took his time to explain everything. He was not a wheeler-dealer trying to get us to take something more expensive, and actually gave us some hints on saving a few bucks. We signed the papers. While a credit check was done and the car prepped, we looked through the manuals. Jesús gave us his card and told us if we have any problems that we should call him directly and he would intercede for us.
Then he said, "Well, it's sort of like.... Are you Catholic?"
We answered, "No."
"Are you Christian?"
"No."
"Are you religious at all?"
We shook our heads.
"Do you know anything about religion?"
I answered, "We've both been indoctrinated. It just didn't take,"
"Well, you know how people pray to Mary or Jesus to intercede for them with god?" We nodded. "Well, that is what I will do for you, intercede with the right department, if you have any problems with the car."
I just couldnt' help myself. I said, "Well, in a way, Jesus will be interceding for us ---won't you?"
Jesús laughed. He had a great smile.
When the car was prepped, including a full tank of gas, we were ready to roll. Meanwhile, it was nearly 9 pm, closing time, and it had started to snow again.

While my husband scraped snow and ice off our old rust bucket of a car, I got in the driver's seat and Jesús got into the passenger seat of the new car and he explained to me what every single thing on the dashboard did and even programmed the radio to our favorite stations. I kept thinking of the bumper stickers I have seen that say, "Jesus is my co-pilot."
We had received a good deal on a new car. It was the first time since I was 12 that I can say I really liked Jesus. He seemed like a great guy.

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

Update 1/14/10: Today we received a hand-written postcard in the mail from Jesús. He signed his name with beautiful penmanship. I asked my husband if he thought we could offer Jesus's signature on eBay? I figure it is just as valuable as a piece of toast featuring the image of the Virgin Mary.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE BIBLE, REWRITE IT

2010-01-01T07:30:00.003-05:00

(click on image for larger view)

What do Conservative Christians really want?
On the one hand, they say the Bible is the absolute literal truth. Yet, Conservatives are rewriting the Bible from a conservative perspective.

The Conservative Bible Project's website claims that, "Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations."
"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing," is, according to Conservapedia, a favorite Biblical passage of Liberals and should not appear in the Bible, along with many of Jesus' other teachings including "turn the other cheek" and his condemnation of profiteering.
They think Jesus corrupted the Bible????? I thought Jesus was perfect in their eyes ---and the reason for their religion.

They want to make the Bible less wordy without dumbing it down. (Current Bbiles are written at about a 7th grade level.) They want to change words such as "enroll" (for the census) to "register" to reflect modern political terms and re-explain economic parables with their "free-market" meaning.
The group claims that "Socialistic terminology permeates the English translations of the Bible, without justification." The web site rawstory.com reminds us that most English versions of the Bible date to the 16th century or earlier, while the concept of socialism didn't surface until the 18th century.
"The insane hubris of this really staggers the mind," writes Rod Dreher at Beliefnet. "These right-wing ideologues know better than the early church councils that canonized Scripture? They really think it's wise to force the word of God to conform to a 21st-century American idea of what constitutes conservatism? These jokers don't worship God. They worship ideology."

More information:
Conservative Bible Project
Conservatizing the Bible
Conservative group aims to delete "liberal bias" from Bible

RELIGION IS "OUT OF DATE"

2009-12-31T02:36:00.002-05:00

A Gallup poll released on Christmas Eve seems to agree with studies done by the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) and reported in previous posts:

Secularism Rising, Religion Declining

and

Godless Numbers Rise

Gallup reports increases since 2000 in those who have no religious preference (from 8 to 13%), that religion is not important in people's lives (from 10 to 19%), and that religion is out of date (from 20 to 29%).

When given the choice of Protestant (or Other non-Catholic Christian), Catholic, None, or Other, approximately 22% describe their religious preference as "Other" or "None." In 1948, that figure was only 2%.

About 78% of Americans still describe themselves as Christian, down from 91% in 1948.

In the late 1990s approximately 68% of Americans thought religion had answers to the world's problems. That has decreased to 57%. More people are seeing religion in a negative light.

You can find more information, along with graphs HERE.

Gallup concludes:
The United States remains a dominantly Christian nation. Almost 8 out of 10 Americans identify with a Christian religion. And the vast majority of those who identify with any religion identify with one that is Christian.
Yet, the percentage of Americans who in theory could celebrate Christmas this week as a specific component of their religious faith is down significantly from where it was 50 or 60 years ago. The most important reason for this shift is straightforward: there has been an increasing percentage of Americans who say they have no specific religious identity.
The fact that fewer Americans say they have a religious identity does not necessarily mean there has been a decrease in overall religiosity in America. It is possible that some proportion of those who don't identify with a specific religion are still personally or spiritually religious.
Although a little more than one out of five Americans do not identify with a Christian faith, the Christmas season has ramifications for a broader segment of society. A Gallup survey conducted last year showed that 93% of all American adults said they celebrated Christmas.

SMART ASSES ESCAPE CHRISTMAS

2009-12-26T20:12:00.005-05:00

Near Vail, Colorado the Eagle River Presbyterian Church has an annual tradition of creating a live nativity scene, but two smart donkeys ran off before they were set to play their roles. The borrowed donkeys had been placed in a pen on Wednesday night, but the animals escaped.

Footprints in the snow led a church member and a sheriff's deputy to an area near railroad tracks where the donkeys were found to be fine.

I wonder if those donkeys planned to hop a train to escape their fate of standing in a cold hut for hours, being stared at by strangers, and pretending to worship the son of an imaginary god.

(Source: Vail Daily http://www.vaildaily.com)