Southern Baptists and Clergy Abuse

Catholics are not the only Christian denomination with problems related to the sexual abuse of children by clergy. Southern Baptists have been on the radar quite a bit too.

While the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has worked tirelessly to conceal sexual abuse by priests, sometimes transferring them, paying off victims' families, and the the like, the Baptists appear to have a different sort of problem. In addition to their tendency to deny that abuse is occurring, it appears that the manner in which the Southern Baptist church is structured may prevent accountability.

According to Tim Townsend (The Post-Dispatch, St. Louis and available through CNN), Rev. Travis Smith only has to face his own congregation after his arrest for sexual abuse and statutory rape.

Unlike members of many denominations — such as Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalian and Presbyterians — Southern Baptists don’t conform to a centralized, hierarchical structure.

Instead, authority resides at the local church level. And that’s true even amid allegations of clergy misconduct.

The Christmas Eve Church Service

One of the many holiday traditions from my childhood that I am happy to be rid of is the Christmas Eve church service. I was forced to join my family for an evening church service on Christmas Eve until I was about 16-17 and they finally agreed to stop forcing me to attend church. When I think back on it now, I realize that I disliked it for different reasons over the years, depending on my age at the time.

Prior to about age 12, I disliked the Christmas Eve service even though I was still a Christian. Church was the last thing I wanted to be thinking about on Christmas Eve. It was late, I was tired, and I was excited about Christmas the next morning. The last thing I wanted to do was get dressed up in uncomfortable clothes and listen to adults sing badly and hear the same Jesus story I'd heard so often it felt like it was seared into my young brain. I had no interest in holding a dripping candle outside the sanctuary while old ladies who smelled like they had used an entire bottle of perfume pinched me. I was a Christian, but believing this stuff did not make me want to waste the night in church.

Secular Alternatives to Christmas

One of the things I find most tiring about this time of year is the shock, dismay, and even condemnation I face every time someone assumes that I celebrate Christmas and I have to explain that I do not. Given the large numbers of Christians I encounter online insisting that atheists should not be allowed to celebrate Christmas, one might think that they would be thrilled when I inform them that I do not celebrate it in any way. Even if this information might appease a few, it seems to upset many more.

Worse still are the reactions of some atheists upon hearing that one of their own does not celebrate Christmas. I've addressed how defensive some atheists seem to be about their desire to celebrate Christmas and do not need to repeat that here. Instead, I'd like to address the suggestion I've heard several times that atheists should create alternatives to Christmas that capture everything they like about the holiday without the magic Jesus stuff.

Real Christians Do Not Have Christmas Trees

Many of us who live in the United States are told that the winter holidays are supposed to be a time for coming together and focusing on our similarities rather than our differences (i.e., the so-called "Christmas spirit"). That's not a bad idea, so I'd like to do that here by sharing one of the things I have in common with "real Christians."

You see, I do not decorate any sort of tree this time of year. I do not do so because I regard the practice as silly, wasteful, and because I have no emotional attachment to this particular holiday tradition. "Real Christians" do not do so either, as their bible frowns on this pagan practice (Jeremiah 10:1-25 NIV) that predated the time in which Jesus is alleged to have lived. You and I both know that "real Christians" read their bible as the literal word of the god in which they claim to believe. So it should not be surprising that they are fairly serious about doing what it instructs. It is hard to blame them for doing so. After all, it wouldn't make much sense to have a book one held up to others as "holy" and then disregard much of what it said.

Atheist Divide Over Christmas is Trivial

The mainstream news media in the U.S. really seems to love conflict and is not above attempting to amplify trivial disagreements to sell their conflict narrative. For the latest example, we turn to Dan Merica's post on CNN's Belief Blog, "Christmas exposes atheist divide on dealing with religion."

I realize that you and I can read Merica's post and recognize that the conflict it tries to create is little more than a a difference in preferred tactics. What worries me is that we are not his intended audience. When I try to imagine the opinion the average reader might form after reading this article, I have to imagine him or her coming away with an erroneous view of the atheist community.

To be sure, we have our share of disagreements and divides in the atheist community. There's no denying that. But the disagreement to which Merica refers, particularly as it pertains to Christmas, is about as trivial as they come. Worse still, Mercia alleges that Christmas reveals "a growing rift among American atheists when it comes to the question of how to deal with religion." This simply isn't true.

Obstacles to Atheist Activism: Myopia

You can find the introduction to this series here.

Myopia refers to nearsightedness, but I am using it as sort of a metaphorical nearsightedness here. One important obstacle to atheist activism is our unwillingness to look beyond our own personal experience. This can be a problem in many other areas, but I am focusing here on atheist activism.

So how exactly does our difficulty in looking past our personal experience adversely affect atheist activism? I have written previously about how this has interfered with our ability to build a sense of community among atheists and has resulted in us attacking ideas with which we do not immediately agree.

One of the ways each of us can help the atheist community is by asking ourselves a question whenever someone brings up an idea that we don't immediately love: Do I really think that is a bad idea, or is it just that I personally wouldn't have any interest in doing that?

Extreme Weather and End Times Prophecy

According to CNN, the results of a poll released last week show that more than a third of those surveyed believe that the extreme weather we have seen in the U.S. this year is evidence that we are approaching the "end times" described in the Christian bible. The survey, conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute, found that most respondents (59%) attribute severe weather to climate change. But as CNN reported, just over a third (36%) are convinced that it is evidence of some sort of biblical prophecy.

I wonder how many of these same people have laughed at those who claim that the end of the world is happening this month in accordance with the Mayan calendar? My guess is that several have done so without realizing that what the Mayans believed is no more ridiculous than what they believe.

It is tempting to point to the 36% who link our weather to supernatural factors, call them morons, and move on. Unfortunately, widespread belief in "end times" theology is detrimental to us all. How can we reasonably expect someone who thinks that the end of the world is rapidly approaching to be future-oriented? We can't. And how can we expect such people to have our interests and the interests of future generations in mind? We can't.

Michael Shermer is Latest to Be Demonized

Michael Shermer is a prominent atheist and skeptic who has done as much as anyone to make the modern skeptic movement what it is today. A former fundamentalist Christian, Shermer outgrew his faith during graduate school. He founded the Skeptics Society, serves as Editor and Chief of Skeptic, writes a column in Scientific American, and co-hosted a television series called Exploring the Unknown.

Here are a few of the books written by Shermer currently sitting on my bookshelf (or in my Kindle):

• The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths
• Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time
• How We Believe, 2nd Edition: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God

You can tell by their titles that they are likely to be of interest to atheists who are interested in science and skepticism. Shermer has a knack for explaining difficult material so the lay reader can grasp it. His books are easy to recommend. In short, Shermer has earned a fair amount of credibility in the atheist and skeptic communities.

Atheism Might Not Be the Only Reason Some People Are Alienated

Are atheists living in the United States, where atheism entails a certain willingness to go against the grain, any more likely to be nonconformist in other aspects of their lives than Christians or other religious believers? I find this an intriguing question. It makes sense to me that this would be the case and my limited personal experience lends support to the idea, but I do not have any empirical basis for suggesting that such a claim is likely to be true. What do you think - are atheists more likely than Christians to be nonconformist in other areas of their lives (i.e., outside of religion)?

I will admit that I am interested in this question for reasons other than pure intellectual curiosity. I have been in a few situations where I have listened to atheist youth discuss their experiences with discrimination and bigotry at the hands of the Christian majority. And while I have every reason to believe that many atheists do indeed face this because of their atheism, there have been times - not many but a few - where I have wanted to ask a different sort of question.

Is it possible that at least some of what you have faced is more due to your tattoos, piercings, unusual attire, and blue hair as it is to your atheism?

Political Correctness: Shielding Religious Belief From Criticism

Back in 2005, I wrote a three-part series on political correctness and religion. I started by taking a look at how political correctness (PC) is usually defined, how it flourished in academia, and how it initially marginalized social conservatives. I noted how the PC movement would come to include religious belief as a component of culture, greatly restricting the degree to which it was permissible to criticize religious beliefs. I then considered some of the implications of this inclusion, suggesting that shielding religious belief from criticism was detrimental to our progress.

This theme - that the inclusion of religious belief as a matter of culture and the resulting opposition to criticism of religious belief by the PC movement has been disadvantageous - is one to which I have returned many times. For example, I have written about how atheists are often marginalized by the political left because we are generally not content to withhold criticism of religion. I have also repeatedly pointed out the vast difference between "I'm offended" and "That is offensive," noting that one of the real dangers of PC is the manner in which it can stifle valid and necessary criticism.

The Condescending Nature of Proselytizing

VCU Proselytizing (Photo credit: Gamma Man)

When it comes to things that annoy atheists, at least those that annoy this atheist, religious proselytizing ranks toward the top. And yet, I've had a difficult time putting my finger on exactly what it is about proselytizing that I find so annoying. I do not like anybody knocking on my door in the first place, but opening the door to find someone selling something is not quite as bad as finding someone who wants to rot my mind with their religious delusion. That seems insulting in a way that trying to sell me tangible garbage I don't need can't quite match.

I've long thought that the reason I'm so annoyed by religious proselytizing is that it amounts to peddling delusion, but another atheist blogger recently helped me realize that there is a bit more to it than that.

Credibility and Popularity in the Atheist Community

I started taking a look at the subject of credibility in the atheist community recently, and I'd like to continue that topic here by considering the relationship between credibility and popularity. A few readers commented, correctly I believe, that my last post presented an unrealistic and overly idealized view of credibility in our niche. I was writing about earned credibility without making this sufficiently clear.

Credibility, Popularity, and Logic

What started me thinking about credibility and popularity was a recent post at another blog. In discussing some of the more common logical fallacies, Reason Being (update: blog no longer active) described one of my least favorite, argumentum ad populum, as follows:

Argumentum ad Populum—this is the fallacy that states something must be true because most people believe it to be true. It is absurd and a common tactic by U.S. Christians on Twitter.

I suspect every atheist living in a heavily religious country recognizes this one and has had considerable experience being on the receiving end of it. Just think of how many times you have heard the various counters. We typically take the position that we would rather pursue truth than popularity. We are not going to go along with something false just because many people believe it.

All of You are Blinded By a Demonic Spirit

Comments left on this blog that are 100% Christianspeak do not typically last long because they violate the comment policy. They are likely to be flagged as spam and end up in my moderation queue, where they will eventually be deleted. But once in awhile, one of them is so good that I feel it should be shared with the widest possible audience. In such cases, simply allowing the comment to go through is not good enough. These rare comments demand to be turned into posts so they can be appreciated by all readers.

Here is the latest example of a comment that deserves to be seen, reproduced in its entirety without edits:

When Paul was on his way to Damascus to persecute the Christians there, he was interrupted by Jesus who said to him "Saul Saul, why are you persecuting me. After that encounter Paul's life was changed forever and he no longer was a persecutor of the brethren of Christ but a follower and a determined one. I think that people are atheist because people don't want change. God changes that sinful nature and makes you serve him. Paul explained in the 1st book of Timothy that it is God's desire that all men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. But you have free will to choose your destiny. But with that being said the bottom line is this. We all have a right to choose, but simply because you don't believe in God does not change the scientific and natural fact that God does exist. Again JUST BECAUSE YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT HE IS WHO HE SAY'S HE IS. IT JUST MAKES YOU A LIAR.

The bible clearly states that one day EVERY KNEE WILL BOW AND EVERY TONGUE WILL CONFESS THAT JESUS CHRIST IS LORD, now whether or not you believe that is also without relevance that too will indeed in fact happen. My joy is that God loves you with all His heart in spite of the fact that right now all of you are blinded by a Demonic Spirit that has blinded you to the truth. The bible say's even the demon know and tremble at the name of Jesus.

With the Love and God

Beachbum1221

Based on the liberal use of all caps and the outrageous claims, I was reminded of an email I shared here last month about how we are costing people eternal life. The email addresses were different, but I realize that does not necessarily rule out a common author.

Distinguishing Between Criticism and Attacks

In his post explaining why he has decided to resign as the Director of Outreach for American Atheists (update: link no longer active), Blair Scott wrote:

As I enact this transitional phase in my life I ask that all of you take a close look at your contributions to the in-fighting and ask yourself, “Is this thing I am about to attack another atheist for really worth it? Is this thing really that big of a deal that I can’t let it go even though I agree with this fellow atheist on almost everything else? Does attacking this fellow atheist help or harm the overall movement or contribute anything positive to the movement?”

With one important caveat, I think this is reasonably good advice. In fact, the only aspect of Scott's statement with which I disagree concerns the manner in which I continue to see many people in our community equating criticism and disagreement with attacks. So I can agree with what Scott advises as long as we define "attack" as something quite different from criticism and disagreement.