5.30.2015

Counterproductive Atheist Memes: Not Enough Lions

too many Christians, not enough lions
"What's wrong with the world today? Too many Christians and not enough lions." You have probably heard this or variations of this statement from various atheists online. It is one of the many anti-theistic memes which seem to circulate constantly on social media. And if you have not encountered this particular meme, you have undoubtedly seen many others about which much of what I have to say here might apply.

This particular meme about Christians and lions is not something I'd be inclined to promote. In fact, it strikes me as being counterproductive. But wait a minute! Don't those saying it have the right to do so? Absolutely, and I have no desire to take away their right to do so. When they say it, aren't they exercising their right to free expression? Yes, and they are certainly free to do this. But just because someone can say something does not mean they should say it. And just because I support the free expression of ideas does not mean that I must promote all ideas I encounter indiscriminately.

5.27.2015

Helping Atheist Teens

transition away bridge
Back when I was a teenager and struggling to come to terms with the inescapable realization that I no longer believed in gods, the world was a very different place than it is today. I wasn't sure what atheism was. I had never even heard of anyone in the U.S. openly identifying themselves as an atheist. I had no idea that there were many others out there who had similar doubts about what they had been raised to believe.

Thanks to the Internet and other changes, no teenager is going to have that experience today as they transition from religious believer to atheist. And yet, I cannot help wondering whether some of the things that would have been helpful to me might be helpful for others today.

Accurate Information About Atheism

It would have been helpful to me if I had at least heard of atheism so that I would have had some familiarity with the term. It took me way to long to get from recognizing my doubts to understanding that the atheist label might apply to me. My problem was a lack of information. While this is not a problem the kids of today are likely to encounter, they have a different one: widespread misinformation pushed by the religious. I think that having access to accurate information about the nature and meaning of atheism is likely to be helpful today.

5.26.2015

Bad Acts Motivated By Religion

Fans protest Michael Jackson's innocence in th...
Fans protest Michael Jackson's innocence in the child molestation scandal in 2004 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
If you were keeping a file in which to store all the evidence pointing to the harm caused by religion, it would have overflowed long ago. While it is true that many bad acts - even some of those committed in the name of religion - do not necessarily require religion (e.g., sexual abuse), it is difficult to deny that religious belief, religious institutions, and religious privilege often exacerbate them by leading friends, family, church congregants, and even strangers to look the other way, help conceal the crimes, and make it far easier for the perpetrators and their supporters to justify their offenses. Crimes that would not be tolerated but for religion seem to become far easier to tolerate thanks to religion. The role of religious indoctrination is difficult to miss, and far too many people around the world are left paying the price.

Your file would also contain plenty of other cases where it seems obvious that the bad acts in question would not have occurred without religion (e.g., genital mutilation, honor killings, exorcism, the murder of "witches" and others believed to have magic powers, ex-gay therapy, cartoon-related murders, faith healing). In these and many other examples, religion is not just a factor but often the primary motive. These are things that would not be happening but for religion.

5.25.2015

Bishop: The Catholic Church Will Outlive the Victims of Its Crimes

English: The Big Miner at Ballarat in Victoria...
The Big Miner at Ballarat in Victoria, Australia. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As many of you are probably aware, the Catholic church is under fire once again for...well...the usual reason. Australia is the location this time, and hearings are underway to uncover the scope of their crimes and subsequent efforts to conceal them. The Royal Commission into Institutional Response to Child Sexual Abuse has been holding public hearings to evaluate claims put forward by survivors of child sexual abuse perpetrated at Catholic institutions.

The news coming out of these hearings so far is beyond appalling, and they are far from over. Anyone still wanting to deny the conspiratorial nature of clergy sexual abuse is likely to have a difficult time doing so as more information emerges. This story is definitely one to follow.

Something in Jane Lee's recent post in The Age grabbed my attention and will likely grab yours. According to the testimony of Andrew Collins, he met with a representative of the church, Bishop Paul Bird in 2013 to request financial assistance in the modest amount of $252. According to Collins, this was just too expensive for Bishop Bird.

Bishop Bird told us that if the church had to pay that amount to every survivor, the church would go bankrupt.

Bishop Bird told us that we were intent on destroying his church. He said 'Andrew, you need to understand something, the church has endured for thousands of years and in another 40 years or so, you people will all be dead and all this will be forgotten about and the church will endure for thousands of years more'.

5.23.2015

If You're Not Gay, Why Do You Care About Gay Rights?

Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Logo. HRC...
Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Logo. HRC is one of the largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) equal rights organizations in the United States. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I receive more questions from readers than I'll ever have time to answer, but I like to try answer those that seem to come up again and again. One that I've received fairly often is the question contained in the title of this post. It usually comes up after I've shared some pro-LGBT news or criticized anti-LGBT bigotry here or on social media. Fortunately, this is an easy one to answer.

I am not motivated solely by my own self-interest, and so I am able to care about the welfare of persons other than myself. I care about LGBT rights because I support equality and oppose religiously-motivated bigotry in all its forms. I support same-sex marriage because it is a necessary step toward equality. Same-sex couples deserve the same rights under the law as opposite-sex couples. I see it as both a church-state issue and a matter of civil rights. I do not want my secular government restricting the rights of anyone on the basis of religious dogma.

5.21.2015

No Response to My Prayers

Prayers at the entry of the Jokhang temple
Prayers at the entry of the Jokhang temple (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
After several years of regular prayer, I found myself becoming increasingly frustrated with the total lack of response. Other Christians claimed that the god in which we all believed spoke to them or at least that they felt something to convince them it was real. Not me. Not once. Why was the god in which I believed ignoring me?

When I nervously expressed these questions to members of my family and people at the church I had been forced to attend, I received vague reassurances and drivel about "mysterious ways." These were not satisfactory answers to such important questions. All they did was raise more questions and encourage me to blame myself.

In a fleeting moment of clarity, I wondered, "What if I had been praying to the wrong god all these years?" What if the Judeo-Christian tradition in which I had been indoctrinated was the wrong one? Maybe one of the other world religions was correct, and I had been mistakenly pursuing this one. But that didn't explain why so many of my fellow Christians claimed that our god had responded to them, answered their prayers, etc. The moment of clarity had passed. I had to have the right religion.

Freethought and the Opportunity to Learn From Diverse Experiences

Let the child explore and learn
Let the child explore and learn (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I have certainly had the experience of reading content that was largely consistent with my point of view and learning something from it. I would never dismiss the value of content with which I agree as a potential vehicle for learning. It can and sometimes does lead to growth.

And yet, I have found that I am far more likely to learn something from unfamiliar content that lies outside my viewpoint and with which I disagree with at least a portion. Exposing myself to content with which I disagree often helps to expand my perspective rather than merely reinforcing my preconceived opinions. I have no reason to believe I am unique in this respect; I suspect this is true for all of us.

If I were to avoid content with which I am likely to disagree, I'd be doing myself a disservice. I'd be depriving myself of the opportunity to be affected by it and surrendering what I know to be an important path to wisdom. And if I were to discourage others from exposing themselves to content with which I disagree, I'd be encouraging them to deprive themselves of the same.

5.20.2015

Can a Judge Legally Lead Prospective Jurors in Sectarian Prayer?

This is Swampyank's copy of "The Jury&quo...
This is Swampyank's copy of "The Jury" by John Morgan, painted in 1861, and now in the Bucks County Museum in England. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Many of you have been summoned for jury duty. And if so, you know that you are legally obligated to report when summoned. When the summons arrives, you cannot simply ignore it. In fact, it typically informs you of the punishment for doing so. On this basis, it seems reasonable to characterize being summoned for jury duty as at least somewhat coercive. You have to report. And once you do report you cannot just get up and leave until you are excused by the judge. Seems a touch coercive, doesn't it?

Now suppose that when you report for jury duty on the date indicated in the summons, the judge presiding over the whole affair personally leads you and all the other prospective jurors (all of whom were required to report that day and who cannot simply leave whenever they want) in a blatantly sectarian prayer with multiple references to "Jesus Christ." Nothing about this prayer exercise is presented as optional or voluntary; you are instructed to bow your head. Is this legal? Anybody have any idea? And if not, what options does one have in such a situation?

Update: After doing a bit more reading on this subject, my best guess is that it might be legal for a judge to engage in sectarian prayer in this manner thanks to Town of Greece v. Galloway. I suspect the key factor would come down to whether the context was determined to be sufficiently coercive. It seems to me that it would because a potential juror who objects to the prayer cannot get up and leave. This appears to fail Justice Kennedy's coercion test as articulated in Lee v. Weisman, although I recognize that this might not apply.

Christian Pastors Are Desperate to Make Jesus Cool

Jesus saves

Many of the Christian churches that litter the U.S. landscape undoubtedly notice when the number of empty pews in their sanctuaries seems to increase year after year. If the numbers we keep seeing reported in the news media concerning declining religiosity and church attendance among millennials are accurate, these churches have cause for concern. Their congregations are likely composed primarily of families with young children and older adults. If the data from millennials are accurate, they might expect to see a gradual decline in the number of young families.

For as long as I can remember, clergy have struggled to make Jesus more appealing to older adolescents and young adults. They recognize that there will inevitably come a day when the children who were brought to church by their parents will get to make their own decisions about whether to continue attending church. If only they could figure out how to make Jesus cool!

5.19.2015

Religious Groups Engaging in 'Competitive Philanthropy'

Nepal Patan Mangal
By Clemensmarabu, via Wikimedia Commons
Nalika Gajaweera has an interesting post up at Religion Dispatches in which she examines competition among faith-based groups doing charity work in the aftermath of the earthquake in Nepal. While she seems to have a generally positive impression of the work many of these groups are doing, she notes that they do not always cooperate as well as one might hope.
In the direct aftermath of the quake, for example, the Hindu American Foundation sent out an email encouraging individuals seeking to support relief efforts to channel their donations to Hindu charities in particular.
Gajaweera refers to the manner in which some religious groups target segments of the population they believe have been exposed to proselytizing by other religious groups as "competitive philanthropy." This strikes me as a fantastic term for it. She suggests that it is important for us to improve our understanding of the many ways that various religions can impact what happens in places like Nepal and the site of other tragedies. She notes that the interplay between various religious groups can sometimes impact direct aid between governments.

Increasing the Political Activity of Atheists

United States Presidential Primaries 2008, Dem...
United States Presidential Primaries 2008, Democratic turnout as a percentage of total turnout. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Don't let anybody ever tell you that voter apathy doesn't win elections. Voter apathy does win elections; it just wins them for the other side.

I have to confess that I found myself less bothered by the outcome of the 2014 U.S. midterm elections than I was by the discrepancy in voter turnout between White evangelical Christians and religiously unaffiliated voters. I believe it is worth our time and effort to learn about why this discrepancy exists and what we can do to reduce it. I'd like to see voter turnout among the religiously unaffiliated grow to the point where it eclipses that of the White evangelical Christians.

Christian privilege is an unfortunate reality in the United States, and threats to the separation of church and state abound. For some Christian voters, it is easy to vote to maintain the status quo because it benefits them. It should not be easy for secular voters to do so. We should be interested in change even if we won't always agree on what that change should look like. If anybody is motivated to be more politically involved, it should be us.

5.18.2015

A Bleak Future Without Freethought

Massimo Pigliucci
Massimo Pigliucci (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Those of us living in the U.S. received a bit of good news last week in the form of the 2014 U.S. Religious Landscape Study from the Pew Research Center. The number of adults identifying themselves as Christians is in decline, and the number of religiously unaffiliated persons is increasing.

So why do I find myself feeling so pessimistic about the future, especially with regard to the place of atheism and skepticism in the future? I've been doing a bit of reading lately, and I've come across three rather bleak views of where we are and what seems like an almost certain future toward which we are heading.

First up was this post from Liberal Left Behind about how messed up our priorities appear to be. Taking feminist blogger Jessica Valenti to task, the author points out how the pursuit of hits has replaced substance in many circles.
Instead of engaging in honest, open debate, she distorts all criticism to shine a light on a problem that strains the definition of the word to its breaking point. Her lack of introspection prevents her from manning a table in the marketplace of ideas. And what is an article without an idea? Nothing but worthless clickbait.

5.16.2015

Expressing Ourselves Without Trying to Silence Others

MarioSavioWhen a university decides to bring a controversial speaker to campus, the students have a right to express their disagreement with the decision. I think that everyone can agree with this. Where the agreement breaks down is (1) whether students should do this and (2) when we recognize that there are many different ways to express disagreement and that some of them involve silencing tactics (i.e., deliberate attempts to prevent the speaker from expressing himself or herself).

Students who are outraged at the prospect of a speaker they dislike coming to campus can express themselves. They can let the university know they do not agree with the choice of speaker. They can boycott the speech or gather outside the venue to show that there is opposition on campus to the speaker's views. Granted, I don't generally think that students in such a situation should do these things because they are depriving themselves of the opportunity to encounter diverse viewpoints, which is often conducive to growth. But I am more concerned with attempts to silence or disrupt the speaker or persuade the university to rescind the invitation. Just because some students object to the speaker does not mean nobody else should have the opportunity to hear the speaker.

5.15.2015

Using the #FtBullies Hashtag Unironically

For those of you who use Twitter, how would you describe the purpose of hashtags? If I'm not mistaken, the primary point of adding a hashtag to one's tweet is that doing so indicates the topic being addressed. This, in turn, makes it easier for others to find.

If I were to tweet a post in which I had written about the meaning of atheism and added #atheism to it, I'd be indicating to those who saw it that it was about atheism. Since many people use hashtags to search Twitter, this might make the post easier to find by those searching the #atheism hashtag.

If I were to tweet a link to a story another blogger wrote about a new humanist group in Oklahoma, I might tag it with both #humanism and #Oklahoma in order to make it easier for others to find it who might be searching those hashtags. The point of hashtags seems fairly clear: we use them to identify the topics we are talking about and make it easier for others to find them.

5.14.2015

Which God Are You Talking About?

Hinduism

Do you remember that hour-long documentary on atheism CNN aired a while ago? It was called Atheism: Inside the World of Non-Believers, and I believe it was broadcast in late March. I was busy when it aired, so I recorded it to the DVR and then forgot all about it. Surprisingly, I found myself in no hurry to watch it. And when I did not watch it after a few days, I forgot it was there. It took me until this week to finally get around to watching it.

I'm not going to summarize, review, or criticize the CNN documentary. It is old news by now, and many others did these things at the time. Besides, I didn't find that it sparked much of a reaction for me except for feelings of sadness I experienced in response to the part about the evangelical fundamentalist Christian parents deciding that their own son was "dead" when he came out to them as an atheist. It was such a shame to see parents throw their son away to preserve their faith. But there was one peripheral issue I haven't addressed in a while that the documentary got me thinking about again. And this is the topic I'd like to revisit in this post. If we want to erode Christian privilege, we might pay more attention to how we talk about gods.

5.13.2015

Don't Put Your Faith Over Your Child

together

I'd like to address this one to the Christian parents out there who are feeling upset because they have recently learned that their child is an atheist. If you are a Christian parent to whom this has not yet happened, you might want to save this post so you can refer to it at a later date. If current trends continue, you may find it helpful someday.

To those of you who find yourselves in this situation now, please understand that it is okay that you feel disappointed, confused, angry, or even like a bit of a failure as a parent (or as a Christian). It is only natural that you would want your child to value the same things you value and to maintain the faith traditions in which you have raised him or her. It is perfectly understandable that you'd now find yourself wondering what happened.

Recognize that this is not your fault. Your son or daughter is not an atheist because you screwed up as a parent or weren't the best Christian you could be. Your child is his or her own person with his or her own values, beliefs, priorities, and so on. I know this may tough to accept right now, but this independence is a good thing. It is what parents are supposed to aim for. Your son or daughter is a person and does not exist just to be a copy of you.

Christianity in Decline

Abandoned church at Pilgrim Hot Springs

 The Pew Research Center released their 2014 U.S. Religious Landscape Study to much fanfare this week. You have almost certainly seen the results mentioned on every atheist blog you read and all over every atheist-oriented social media account you follow. The reason the survey has been receiving so much attention is not difficult to understand when one considers the first sentence of Pew's summary of the report:
The Christian share of the U.S. population is declining, while the number of U.S. adults who do not identify with any organized religion is growing, according to an extensive new survey by the Pew Research Center.
Yep, the number of adults in the U.S. identifying themselves as Christian decreased by roughly 8% between 2007 and 2014. At the same time, those reporting no religious affiliation increased by about 6%. That sounds like more evidence of progress to me.

5.12.2015

Supporting Freedom of Expression But...

Luxembourg supports Charlie Hebdo

Like many of you, I have been thinking lately about Charlie Hebdo, Garland, and the many other incidents involving Muslims using violence to punish those who dare to depict Muhammad. And like many of you, I've become increasingly frustrated with the chorus on the left saying, "I'm all for freedom of expression, but..." Anyone who wants to draw Muhammad should be free to do so. Anyone who advocates violence to intimidate or punish those who do is to be condemned. It really is that simple. Offending someone's religious sensibilities does not warrant murder.

So why is it that some on the left seem to be unwilling to discuss incidents in which Muslims respond violently to those who draw Muhammad without placing at least some of the blame on the cartoonists? Why is it that some on the left, many of the very same people who are quick to decry "victim blaming" in other contexts, are so willing to blame the victims for having provoked the wrath of Muslims? I'm not entirely sure, but I'd like to speculate about a few possible explanations in this post.

5.10.2015

Is #BlackLivesMatter the Next Civil Rights Movement?

English: Dr. Martin Luther King giving his &qu...
Dr. Martin Luther King giving his "I Have a Dream" speech during the March on Washington in Washington, D.C., on 28 August 1963. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I need to begin this post with a disclaimer in order to help the reader put what I am about to say in context. I was not involved in any of the bus boycotts, lunch counter protests, or desegregation drives throughout the South. I was not a freedom rider, and I was not in Washington DC for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech. I did not march from Selma to Montgomery, and I did not celebrate the passage of the Voting Rights Act. I did not do any of these things because I had not yet been born. I mention this because my knowledge of these events comes only from history and includes whatever gaps and distortions that might entail.

With that out of the way, one of the things that has always stood out to me about the American civil rights movement of the 1960s was how well organized the activist efforts were in the early days. Activists were not just random people who showed up to a protest; they were trained in nonviolent resistance. They were prepared for what they were likely to face and coached in how to respond. It wasn't that they were all professional activists; it was that they were informed and their actions were well coordinated. And I daresay that this is a big part of why they were so effective.

I try to imagine what would have happened with some of the early protests if nobody had been trained or had bothered to alert the local media. I suspect more of the protestors would have been killed and much of what they accomplished would have taken much longer to happen. But they were trained, informed, and coordinated by effective leaders. I think it seems reasonable to assume that this had something to do with their success.

5.05.2015

Christians: We Are Not Bigots!

Westboro Baptist Church at Brown University, May 2009
By Brendan Hickey, via Wikimedia Commons
As I'm sure you have noticed, many evangelical fundamentalist Christians have been struggling to face up to their bigoted attitudes toward LGBT persons. It is almost as if they are beginning to recognize that they are going to be on the wrong side of history yet again. The common refrain I've started to notice is something like, "I'm not bigot; I just believe what the bible says."

If we are going to understand this, we might as well take a look at what the bible many Christians regard as "holy" has to say about homosexuality?
  • It is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22).
  • It should be punished with death (Leviticus 20:13) or exile (1 Kings 15:11-14 and 1 Kings 42:42-46).
So a "bible-believing" Christian living in the U.S. today certainly could believe that LGBT persons deserve death for engaging in homosexual behavior. Such a Christian could point to his or her bible as providing justification for this belief. Such a Christian might even interpret these passages as justifying the murder of homosexuals. Of course, one might expect that the sort of Christian who would point to his or her bible for such justification might take the rest of it seriously too.

5.03.2015

Not Sure Whether You Believe in God(s)?

Atheist Bus - Toronto

Do you believe in god(s)? What's that? You're not sure you believe in god(s)? It sounds like you might be an atheist. Are you surprised to hear that? You shouldn't be, but I can understand why you might be. If you aren't sure you believe in god(s), it sounds like you might be an agnostic atheist like me. Wait a second! How can you be an atheist if you aren't sure about god(s)? Isn't an atheist someone who is 100% positive that no gods exist? Actually, atheism does not require certainty on the question of god(s).

A theist is someone who believes in god(s). When you say you aren't sure whether you believe, you sound like more of an atheist than a theist. An atheist is someone who lacks god belief. For some atheists (i.e., gnostic atheists), this means that they do not believe and feel confident that there are no gods. Other atheists (i.e., agnostic atheists) do not believe in gods but make no claim about knowing with certainty. Some may even go so far as to say that they aren't terribly concerned with trying to know because it is not relevant to them.