Musician Michael Feinstein wrote an interesting op-ed in the New York Times last week titled, "Whose Christmas Is It?" In the article, he described an experience some years ago in which he was performing Christmas concerts and was told by a member of the orchestra with which he was playing that his music program was "too Jewish." Feinstein went on to note that one can find evidence for the evolution of Christmas in how holiday music has changed over the years, becoming increasingly secular.Many Christians feel that the true essence of Christmas has been lost, and I respect that opinion. It must be difficult to see religious tradition eroded in the name of commerce and further dissipated by others’ embrace of a holiday without a sense of what it truly means to the faithful.This may come as a surprise, but I can respect this particular Christian opinion too. Even though I personally welcome the continued erosion of religious tradition, I recognize that this must be both disappointing and frustrating for those who see Christmas primarily as a religious holiday.
Ever since 9/11, those of us who enjoy photography have had to think about something that never would have crossed most of our minds previously: Am I going to get in trouble for taking this photo? We have to ask this question even when we are talking about photographing public spaces. In the U.S., this strikes me as a particularly absurd question that no photographer should have to ask. This is supposed to be a "free country," and if something is out in public, I should damn well be able to photograph it! Photography is not a crime. Hearing stories like this (and there are plenty of them) really pisses me off.
One of the things I have always admired about Mojoey (Deep Thoughts) is that he actually does what I am always kicking myself for not doing - he brings his camera with him wherever he goes and actually uses it. It is rare that I remember mine and rarer still that I remember I have it when I do have it.
What does this have to do with the subject of photography not being a crime? Short of someone trespassing on private property to photograph something, the phrase "you can't take pictures here" is one that should not exist. Not in the United States.
What does it matter what I shoot with my camera? Why do people care? What is everybody afraid of? I am not going to concern myself with why people care. But the idea that someone might call the police to complain about someone taking photos and that this would require explaining oneself to them...that's just too much for me.
I have no artistic talent whatsoever, but that doesn't stop me from taking a camera in hand and trying. I may fail miserably 99% of the time, but that doesn't matter because I enjoy trying.
You've finished most of the books on my Atheism 101 reading list, and you are ready for more. You have already learned quite a bit about atheism and the dangers of religion in the modern world, but many questions remain. How is it that people come to believe all this religious nonsense in the first place? Can someone really be good without gods? In this post, I'll provide another reading list, this time to help you explore some of the excellent intermediate work in this area.
On the subject of "aggressive" vs. "friendly" atheism, Hemant Mehta (Friendly Atheist) argues that there are more similarities than differences. For example, he notes that both types of atheists "want to both increase the respectability of the atheist viewpoint while at the same time persuading others that it’s the most rational point of view." That sounds reasonable to me. But I have to part ways with Mehta in his description of "aggressive" atheists:
The difference is that the “aggressive” types don’t care who they offend. They’ll go after religion in all its forms — it doesn’t matter if they criticize the Vatican or the local church down the street or your sweet neighbor who happens to be religious.
What are your thoughts on the subject of businesses that offer discounts to Christian customers? Is this practice no different from the even more common practice of granting discounts to seniors, or is there an important enough difference that one should be permitted but not the other? Would you spend money at such a business, knowing that you were paying more than those patrons who professed Christianity?
I bring up this subject after a recent post at Mississippi Atheists in which one of my co-authors, Steve, encountered just such a business near his home in Biloxi, MS. Grains of Montana, a restaurant and bakery, proudly advertises a 10% discount to anyone who brings in a church bulletin. According to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, this practice violates the federal Civil Rights Act. In fact, they helped to resolve a similar case in North Carolina not too long ago.
Steve and a friend plan to visit the establishment and inquire about the size of the discount offered to atheist customers. I can't wait to hear how that goes. In the meantime, we are trying to get a letter-writing (and/or email) campaign going.
I think it is quite obvious that businesses like this resort to such tactics in an effort to attract the post-church crowd. Here in Mississippi, that is a massive crowd indeed. I learned long ago that Sunday was a bad time to go out to eat because of these crowds. Attracting such crowds means considerable revenue.
It is equally obvious, to me at least, that I would never support such a business if at all possible. Businesses who engage in such practices probably do so without realizing that they are violating the law. I hope that the combination of pointing this out and letting them know that they are losing customers over this may help.
Enough procrastinating! It is time for the third part of my series on atheism and Satanism. In the first part, I tried to clarify some of the more common misconceptions about Satanism, making sure we could start with a common reference point. The second part dealt with the relationship of Satanism to atheism and also to anti-theism. In this part, I'll examine the question of whether Satanism offers any lessons for atheists.
I suppose I already tipped my hand in one of the previous posts in this series by stating that I would "even make the shocking suggestion that we atheists could learn something from the Satanists." While this remains true, I am by no means suggesting that atheists should embrace Satanism.
In a way, it makes sense to think of a (LeVeyan) Satanist as an atheist who is intensely anti-theistic and has embraced the power of confrontational imagery and ritual (Note: Again, I am referring to the Church of Satan variety of Satanism in this series). The Satanist has embraced the power of symbolism, aesthetics, confrontational imagery, and ritual. While many atheists bristle at the very idea of ritual, the Satanist has recognized that many people seek the community and ritualism offered by organized religion. Rather than encouraging people to simply ignore these needs, Satanists provide an alternative. Could there be lessons here for atheists?
 |
| Photo by phi zeroth (CC BY 2.0) |
I am fortunate (but not blessed) to receive many excellent comments here at Atheist Revolution. One of my all-time favorites, left by Personal Failure a long time ago on a post about Christians "witnessing" to atheists, deserves to be shared because it makes me smile every time I read it.
The post had prompted a comment from a Christian visitor about how he could not help spreading the "good news" door-to-door. In fact, this made such an impression on me, that I asked whether others suffered from this compulsion (assuming it was a compulsion). I must admit that I had never heard a Christian claim he could not stop himself from engaging in door-to-door evangelism. Since then, I have heard this claim from a few others.
I found a real gem in a post on USAToday's website pointing to an article in the Union Leader. The brief post dealt with Eternal Earth-Bound Pets, with which I suspect you are already familiar. New Hampshire atheist, Bart Centre, co-owns this company, offering to care for the pets of fundamentalist Christians after they are raptured away. They are very clear that this is a money-making venture, that there will be no refunds when the rapture doesn't happen, etc. No harm in that. In fact, I think it is an outstanding idea. I wish I had thought of it first!
Eternal Earth-Bound Pets has set up a network of atheists in 22 states who have agreed to look after any pets "left behind" by their owners. A one-time fee of $110 entitles the Christian to something akin to a 10-year insurance policy. That is, they are covered in the event that the rapture occurs within 10 years from their policy date. That should be fine since we all know it will happen any day, right?
What does atheist activism mean to you? Greta Christina recently defined atheist activism as "trying to persuade people that atheism is correct and working to change the world into one without religion." Does that capture what you think of when you encounter the term? This isn't what I usually mean by atheist activism, at least not completely.Atheist activism refers to the process of promoting atheism through activities such as promoting a worldview free from gods, reducing the privileged status of religion in society, and promoting atheist civil rights.Use of the "such as" phrase reminds us that these are merely examples of how an atheist activist might promote atheism, none of which is a necessary condition. The essential feature would be the promotion of atheism (i.e., I cannot think of a form of atheist activism that in no way involves the promotion of atheism).
I have not written an Idiot of the Week post in a while, but that doesn't mean that there has not been plenty of idiocy. I'm back this week with another "winner" from a crowded field.
Props to Obama's inauguration speaker, Christian extremist Pastor Rick Warren, for picking up this week's honor. Pastor Warren sparked outrage from almost everyone outside his extremist circle when he refused to condemn Ugandan legislation that would make certain homosexual acts punishable by death. As if that wasn't bad enough, Warren could do worse (and soon did).
According to Think Progress, Warren recently tweeted the following in a desperate attempt to change the subject:
Clearly, Pastor Warren recognizes the difficult spot in which he now finds himself. On one hand, he risks alienating most moderate Christians by refusing to condemn Uganda's human rights abuses. On the other hand, he probably feels that he cannot do so because his Christian extremist supporters would quickly turn on him.
Doing the right thing isn't supposed to be easy, Pastor. Do you hate homosexuals so much that you cannot speak out against those who would simply kill them?
Of all the assorted religious dogma I have encountered in my life, the concept of karma has always been among the most appealing. If only it were true that one would be rewarded for good deeds and punished for bad ones. If only we had future lives to look forward to such that our status in each would be sort of a divine accounting of what we had contributed to the world in our current lives. I find that notion so much more appealing than any of the Christian garbage about salvation through Jesus, spending eternity in heaven with Christians, etc. Sadly, this is yet another case where finding something appealing doesn't make it true. Just because it would be much cooler if you had that joint doesn't mean you have it!
In a recent post, The Secular Thinker (update: link no longer active) asked the question that many of us ask again and again when pondering Christians and what they profess to believe:
If you really believe that God exists, wouldn't you do everything you possibly could to praise and please him. The Bible sure thinks so, yet so many "Christians" take it only half way. They believe what they want to believe, and they ignore what they don't. If they could only step back and see what is going on there, perhaps they would realize the paradox of their beliefs.
I cannot count the number of times I have asked the same question. While I have received many answers, none are even remotely satisfactory.
Disclaimer: I am using the article referenced in this post to demonstrate the point I am trying to make about the manner in which the sort of anti-atheist hit pieces with which we are all too familiar are written. I am not claiming that the author of this particular article was necessarily trying to write such a piece. For all I know, the author is an atheist trying to raise public awareness about the subject of his article.
I draw your attention to a recent article written by Fred Swegles for The Orange County Register. If you read the article, you will see the extremely common set up for an anti-atheist hit piece perfectly illustrated.
Swegles' story deals with a resident of his city, San Clemente, asking questions about whether a promotional banner erected by the city violates separation of church and state. The banner depicts part of the San Clemente Presbyterian Church, including a Christian cross that is part of the church.
The good news is that the city manager evidently consulted an attorney, decided that the citizen had a point, and asked the Chamber of Commerce to replace the banner.
I have repeatedly used this blog as a platform to call attention to the dangers of Christian extremism in the United States. Unfortunately, this label has still not caught on. Far too many remain content to view religious extremism as something Muslims do that doesn't apply to Christians. I used to think that the explanation was as simple as people not wanting to acknowledge that Christianity could be every bit as dangerous as Islam for fear of offending the Christian majority that controls the U.S. I'm not so sure about that anymore. Even atheists have been reluctant to apply the Christian extremist label to practitioners of this form of extremism. Let his days be few; and let another take his office.They are unhappy with President Obama and want him replaced, ideally by Sarah Palin. However, the problem with this becomes readily apparent when we examine Psalm 109. Take Paliban Daily's suggestion and look over Psalm 109:1-19. Paints a very different picture, doesn't it?
Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.These Christian extremists are praying for the death of our President. This is Christian extremism on display for all to see. As Paliban Daily notes,
They are openly praying and asking you to pray that the President of the United States be cursed by their god, that he die and his family suffer horribly in poverty and aided by none until they are all wiped out.Where is the media on this? Where is the outrage? Where are the so-called moderate Christians? Is a religion that shields this sort of thing simply to preserve it self really worth maintaining?
Why are you an atheist? When someone learns of your atheism for the first time, I think it makes sense to expect that the why question will soon follow. It is a fair question, especially for those of us who live in areas that are especially hostile to atheists. The thing is, this question can catch one off guard because providing a complete answer can be a lengthy exercise. I'll give you the extra short version of one of my more commonly used answers below, and I'd be interested to hear yours too.
Astreja asked a thought-provoking question over at ExChristian.net (update: link no longer active), "Where do we draw the line between tolerating or attacking someone else's weird ideas?" I suppose that "tolerating" in this context likely refers to remaining silent on the subject of someone's beliefs even if one does not agree with them. Thus, we might rephrase the question to be one of how we decide to speak out and criticize a belief versus keeping our thoughts to ourselves. I suspect the decision usually boils down to our estimation of the likelihood that a particular belief will be harmful, doesn't it?
When I encounter a parent telling her children about Santa Claus, I find it unfortunate that someone would lie to one's own child merely for entertainment purposes. However, I feel little need to say anything. The potential for harm here seems trivially small. Perhaps the child will learn the valuable lesson that adults cannot always be trusted. I cannot say the same for the Muslim parent instructing his son in the virtues of martyrdom or the Christian who tells her daughter that her Jewish friends will go to hell because they have not been "saved." The potential for harm seems much greater here.
I know we're still in November at Thanksgiving hasn't even happened yet, but that has not stopped Christian extremist groups such as the American Family Association from whining about the "war on Christmas." It seems that this has been such a great source of fundraising for the far right that it has become an annual tradition. Well, it also happens to be what I like most about Christmas.
I have never met an atheist who would claim that religion is the source of all evil in the world and that a post-religious world would necessarily be some sort of Utopian paradise. In the interest of full disclosure, I have encountered more than a few atheists online who say things that make me suspect they may believe this; however, I am reasonably confident that these atheists are a small minority. Many atheists long for a post-religious world, but we are realistic about what it would involve. We do not imagine that perfection would be at hand if only religion would slip into the dustbin of history. Progress, yes; perfection, no.
The far more common view among the atheists I have known and most of those I have encountered online, and the one to which I personally subscribe, is that religious belief (i.e., faith) facilitates evil in a way that few other organizations or belief systems are capable. This is an important part of what is so bad about religion.
As Steven Weinberg famously said,
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Again, the claim is not that religion is somehow the source of all evil but that it facilitates a particularly devastating form of evil.
 |
| Anti-Christian/Satanic button taken from a pair of pants. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
. This is certainly not the only school of Satanism, and not all real Satanists see eye-to-eye with the Church of Satan.
Door-to-door proselytizing by evangelical fundamentalist Christians strikes most atheists as pointless, at least in the sense that it is extremely unlikely to convert anybody. Whatever point it may have is probably more about strengthening the religious beliefs of those who do it than "saving souls." Bur regardless of why they do it, I suspect I have lots of company in preferring to see less of it. I consider it a nuisance, but I will acknowledge that some of the more extreme forms I have encountered irritate me more than that.
The combination of a "no soliciting" sign in my yard and an anti-proselytizing symbol in the window next to my front door has been very effective at deterring proselytizing Christians. I would say that it has reduced non-religious solicitation by at least 90% and Christian proselytizing by roughly 80%. What else could an atheist do to make it clear that he or she wants to be left alone by those wanting to spread the "good news" about their mind virus? A reader emailed me this picture of a welcome mat he had made, and I am quite jealous.
It is not uncommon for me to receive entertaining emails from Christians. I don't share most of them here, but every now and then, I like to do so. What follows is a verbatim email I received from a Josh Spolar, reproduced here for your amusement (and mine).
Hey man (or woman), I really hope God has mercy on you
Christian trolls? Seriously what are you like 6? Grow up and have the same amount of respect for Christians (and all religions) that you would expect from us.
You fall into the category of every typical atheist; you most likely don't have any understanding of how reliable of a source the Bible is (historically and what not), and you probably blindly accept every flawed/true new idea that the evolutionist scientists throw out.
look buddy you need to do some realizing. If religion was such a stupid, non-supported idea, then why would sooo many people still believe it?
the answer to that riddle is because no one has proved it wrong, and no one will.
Evolutionists and whatever can come out with these new "missing links" and stuff, but a lot of them end up proving the exact opposite of what they have been saying all along, so they have to completely change some of their theories. But people follow so blindly they never realize what's going on, or all the mistakes that scientists make. Like Lucy, for example, whom scientists extremely stretched the facts to make her look more human than ape. Truth is she wasn't, but almost every kid you ask nowadays will say, "oh she was that austrio-something right? a missing link?"
Your site is crude and distasteful, but to be honest it's exactly what I expected from an Atheist website. Look if everyone expects religious people to be understanding and respectful of all the liberal, secular things that pass for socially acceptable today, then you atheists and agnostics need to do the same.
But i can't expect much from people who think that they are great-great-great-great cousins of fish or monkeys who fling poop at each other
It is difficult to pick a favorite part because so many of the trite Christian absurdities shine through (e.g., one shouldn't believe in science blindly, but the Christian bible is different). I love the anti-science nonsense, but I suppose my favorite would have to be the idea that my site is "crude and distasteful," which was what he expected...before he came here anyway. Hmmmm...I wonder what that says about him?
The most puzzling part, though, would have to be the last part about how "everyone expects religious people to be understanding and respectful..." Who expects this? The only people I've encountered who expect this from religious people are other religious people. I certainly don't expect it! To the contrary, I expect religious people to be quite hostile to anyone who believes other than they do (kind of like Josh).
Image via WikipediaI'd like to be very clear about two things. First, I acknowledge the existence of atheist Republicans and Libertarians. Second, I am neither a Republican nor a Libertarian. You see, I've been taking some heat lately from a handful of readers who are evidently disgruntled with my liberal political bent and the fact that I express it from time-to-time here. The criticism does not bother me, but I do find it somewhat puzzling.
I have never made any secret of my liberal political orientation. In fact, I mention it in the About section prominently featured underneath the banner at the top of this page. It is part of who I am, and I am uninterested in hiding it. I do not consider "liberal" to be a dirty word.
What I find puzzling about this sort of criticism is that it almost appears as if the critics think I should be politically neutral. But I make no pretense of being neutral about what I do. Atheist Revolution is not some sort of objective news site; it is a blog. In fact, it is an atheist blog dedicated to breaking free from irrational belief and opposing Christian extremism. The fact that the modern Republican Party has thoroughly embraced Christian conservatism places me in direct opposition to them (at least to those of them who embrace the current leadership).
Although I discontinued the Idiot of the Week series long ago and deleted most of the posts associated with it, there are a handful I chose to keep around as reminders of a simpler time or...just because I find them especially entertaining. This is one of them.
Each Saturday right here at Atheist Revolution, a new idiot receives the prestigious idiot of the week title. And boy, have we had some deserving winners! It is again time for another installment in the Idiot of the Week series, so let's get to it.
This week's idiot is none other than Ray "the banana man" Comfort. Special thanks to Dispatches From the Culture Wars (update: blog no longer active) for reporting on Comfort's latest bit of insanity from WorldNutDaily so I didn't have to contribute to their traffic. So what did Comfort do now?
At WorldNutDaily under the headline "Finally exposed: The scientific impossibility of evolution," Comfort dropped this gem:
All you have to do is push them into a corner and say, 'So, you're an atheist?' 'Yep.' 'So you believe that nothing created everything, a scientific impossibility?' And they'll say, 'Well, no.' 'So you believe something created everything?' And they say, 'Well, yeah. Something did, obviously.' 'So you're not an atheist?' 'OK, I'm not an atheist.'
'This something you believe created everything, do you think it was intelligent? I mean, could you create a bird or a flower or a tree or a blade of grass from nothing?' And they'll say, 'No, I can't do that.' 'Well, is this something you believe created everything intelligent?' And they'll say, 'Obviously.' And I'll say, 'Congratulations, you've just become an anti-science, knuckle-dragger in the eyes of our learning institutions, because you believe in intelligent design.'
Ladies and gentleman, Ray Comfort has clearly disproved evolution! Then again, maybe he's just distinguished himself as our latest idiot of the week.
Image via Wikipedia
Image by Loz Flowers via FlickrBack in 2007, everybody suddenly became curious about agnosticism after Zac Efron, the star of High School Musical 2, revealed that he was raised agnostic in an interview with Rolling Stone and that he remains agnostic as reported by The Jewish Daily Forward. What does being agnostic say about him? What does it mean to be agnostic, and how is this different from being an atheist?
I have found that one of the more frequent points of confusion for those first beginning to explore the subject of atheism is the relationship of atheism to agnosticism. It is often thought that these represent two distinct positions on the question of god(s) and that people who do not believe in gods must be either agnostics or atheists. Among atheists, people who identify themselves as "agnostic" are sometimes even derided as people who don't have the guts to admit that they are atheists. So what is going on here, and what do these terms mean anyway?
This is the second post in a series on deconstructing the atheist movement. You can find the first post here.
Back in 2005, I began an initial deconstruction of Christian extremism. It was helpful in figuring out exactly what Christian extremism is, how to identify it, and how it differs from Christian fundamentalism. It was a reasonable starting point.
Image via Wikipedia
How can we take the atheist movement to the next level, improving our organization to better utilize our numbers, without erecting the sort of centralized hierarchy which so many atheists oppose? I think the trick is that we need not one atheist organization but several, each with a different but complementary mission. And for this to be maximally effective, we need to limit the amount of redundancy. For example, we need at least a few active atheist think tanks, but I am not sure we need 20 or 30 of them. We need a network for informing and mobilizing activists, but we do not need several (at least not if we want to begin to effectively utilize our numbers).
In response to the inevitable question about why we should even consider improving our organization, I'll offer the following:
The atheist movement has so many important tasks to accomplish that some level of organization is essential. We need to better utilize our numbers and reduce redundant effort, much of which may be wasted.
Many atheists fear that improving our organization means a loss of freedom, but this is not necessarily so. The goal is not - and should not be - the development of a single organization to "govern" all atheists. The American Atheists model is not what we need. Rather, I envision a system laid out something like a wheel. Each spoke represents an organization (or small coalition of organizations) working toward a common goal. The hub of the wheel is merely a point of coordination among all the spokes.
I realize that some are so determined to interpret any form of organization as a threat to their autonomy. I find this unfortunate because it severely limits what the atheist movement can accomplish. We are far stronger when we come together than when we refuse to affiliate.
Some of the necessary spokes are already in place and functioning quite well. For example, the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Americans United for Separation of Church and State do an impressive job of working to protect the separation of church and state. We probably don't need additional groups focused on this task as much as we need to strengthen those that already do it so well.
We also have some great options in terms of community-building and social networking in the form of Atheist Nexus, Think Atheist, and others. We do not need more of these as much as we need to strengthen those already functioning well.
Other necessary spokes are virtually absent and represent opportunities for creative individuals or groups to make a significant impact. Atheist think tanks come to mind as something we need but do not currently have, at least not to the level we need. Another example might be a system for disseminating information about instances of anti-atheist bigotry and facilitating rapid responses from the atheist community. I am sure you cant think of a few others.
What about the state and local atheist groups? How do they fit in? They are perhaps the most vital of all because they reflect the true grassroots. They are a critical part of the wheel too. But like the other parts, they would benefit from increased communication and coordination.
Imagine a local atheist group in Nevada doing some wonderful things. Unless their story is picked up and accurately portrayed in the right form of media, atheists in Montana may never hear of it. Moreover, some of what has been so successful in Nevada may be just what the Montana atheists are seeking.
Imagine how much more effective state and local efforts might be if there was improved communication among the many groups. Groups would remain autonomous but could at least hear what is working or not working elsewhere.
I suggested that we create an atheist organization to inform and mobilize ourselves modeled after MoveOn.org. Such an organization would be merely another spoke in the wheel. It would serve a vital function which is now being shared by a number of groups that are spread too thin as a function of their much broader missions. By giving our atheist version of MoveOn.org a comparatively narrow focus, we would be able to devote all our work to a smaller set of goals.
8/20/09 Update: Since writing this post, I have rediscovered the Secular Coalition for America and realized that they are already serving at least some of the MoveOn-like function I previously described. Perhaps it would make more sense to strengthen them instead of creating yet another group.
 |
| Christians and Pagans, a painting by Sergei Ivanov (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
One often hears that it is not religious belief itself that is problematic but religious extremism. This sounds appealing until one realizes that the presence of religious believers, including religious moderates, is what often shields religious extremists from criticism. That is, the presence of religious moderates seems to provide a context in which religious extremism doesn't seem nearly as irrational and dangerous as it probably should. Moderate believers make it more difficult to question even the most extreme religious beliefs.
But isn't it a bit of an exaggeration to say that religious extremism is actually dangerous? Maybe some Islamic extremists are dangerous, but surely there is nothing wrong with their Christian counterparts in the U.S.! I mean, isn't their "holy" book mostly about how they should be nice to others (e.g., love thy neighbor and all that)? Even if many seem to ignore these parts and treat others with anything but kindness, doesn't their instruction book at least convey that positive message?
I had heard of the secretive Christian extremist organization known as "the Family" before the latest high-profile Republican sex scandals hit the news. However, I did not know much about the group. In fact, all I had really heard was that they were a well-connected Christian dominionist organization in the Washington D.C. area. I still do not know very much about them, but I have to say that what I've been learning in the aftermath of the Ensign, Sanford, and Pickering scandals has been more than a little concerning. I hope that more information about the group emerges, so much information that they are essentially neutered. After all, it strikes me as nearly impossible to view this group as anything less than a serious threat to democracy.
 |
| Mosaic cross ~Lobby of New West Catholic gym (Photo credit: laudu) |
The records could reveal details on how retired New York Cardinal Edward Egan handled the allegations when he was Bridgeport bishop from 1988 to 2000. Egan's deposition should be in the file, according to an attorney for the newspapers seeking the documents.Jonathan Albano, an attorney representing various American newspapers and seeking disclosure of the records was quoted as saying,
It's somewhat disappointing that the diocese continues to approach the litigation in a way that delays the public's right to see these documents.Disappointing is an understatement. This is appalling and should get the attention of anyone opposed to the sexual abuse of children. I agree completely with David Clohessy, director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests when he says,
We're disappointed that the complicity of top Catholic officials continues to remain hidden. This is not what Connecticut Catholics or citizens deserve. It's one more painful reminder that bishops will do everything possible to protect themselves and their colleagues instead of children.H/T to Deep Thoughts
I am sure you remember the recent atheist billboard that went up in Fort Lauderdale, FL. I suspect you've also heard about the subsequent Christian protests of the billboard and the local media's description of it as "controversial." Many atheist bloggers have already sounded off about the situation, so I merely want to echo some of the great points that have already been made.
Opponents of the billboard seem to have two main objections:
Many people do not like to admit that they care what celebrities think about much of anything (until we elect them president), but it is fairly clear that this is not the case. People are interested in celebrities, and it should come as little surprise that many celebrities end up using their massive platforms to share their thoughts on a variety of subjects. While there are many cases where we wish they would shut up and stick to doing whatever made them famous, most of us can think of at least a few situations in which we are glad to hear from them.
Daniel Radcliffe, the actor who has player Harry Potter in the films of that name, confirmed in an Esquire interview that he is an atheist. As reported in The Telegraph, Radcliffe not only identified himself as an atheist in this interview but expressed his respect for Richard Dawkins. I suppose Christian extremists have yet another reason to boycott the Harry Potter films, which they were already doing.
Image by BL1961 via FlickrThroughout small town America today, one will see flags, fireworks, and junk food on display. A common sentiment you'll encounter is pride, and many will find it necessary to express their pride in being Americans today. I'd like to make two small contributions to this conversation, neither of which are original and one of which will be presented in video form. Yes, I am that lazy.
First, you are going to hear many people claiming that the United States is #1. Those making this claim do not usually specify what they mean, so one is left assuming that they must mean we are the best in every way imaginable. When you hear this claim, please consider the following from "10 Things Every Adult Should Know" (update: link no longer active) written by f*cking c*nts:
America is not #1. Well, not unless you count military spending and handgun related deaths. We’re shit at public education. Our health care system is both the most expensive and the least effective in the developed world. Literacy, infant mortality, per capita living below the poverty line and/or without any health insurance … etc., etc. We’re kind of horrible at a whole lot of things, if you want to be honest about it. We’re also, on average, fat as fuck.
There is nothing wrong with being proud of what we are doing right, and the progress we have made in some areas should be acknowledged. But none of this should be allowed to mask our screw-ups so much that we become blind to them. We still have a very long way to go.
Second, consider the absurdity of being proud over something that one did not do and had no control over (i.e., being born in America). But don't take my word for it. Instead, see what George Carlin had to say on the subject:
Have a good day, stay safe, and enjoy spending time with family and friends. Take pride in what you have accomplished (e.g., managing to break free from religious delusion), but don't get sucked into the mire of blind patriotism. I'll try to do the same.
H/T to toomanytribbles
 |
| Detail from Albrecht Dürer (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
 |
| Michael Jackson at the Cannes film festival. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
From what I have seen on CNN lately, the death of Michael Jackson appears to be the story of the year. I watched with a sense of building disgust as they rolled out some "singer-songwriter" I didn't recognize and asked her about Jackson's message. In what just has to be a new low point for CNN, she replied, "Well, I did not know him personally, but..." and then proceeded to offer up some drivel about his message to the world. That was when I turned off the TV, picked up The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements
Those of us who remember the birth of MTV remember what Jackson did for the network and for popular music itself. Along with everyone I knew at the time, I had a copy of Thriller and listened to it constantly. I tuned in to see Jackson during his various appearances at award shows, his videos, etc. He was so damn cool.
Image via WikipediaIt was almost a year ago that I unveiled my health care plan. Now that the Obama administration is moving ahead on their own plan for reforming American health care, I have a good excuse to revisit it. Instead of merely rehashing it, I'd like to use it to inquire into whether most Christians really believe what they often claim to believe.
One of the things that has always bugged me about Christians is that there often seems to be a massive discrepancy between what they claim to believe and how they behave. Health care offers an excellent example of what I am talking about. For the Christians who claim to believe that they have a personal relationship with Jesus and are cared for by a benevolent god, why do they need health insurance? Why avail themselves of modern medicine at all? Shouldn't prayer be sufficient?
Questions about morality always seem to be among the most common sort of questions atheists receive from Christians. I suppose that's not a bad thing. Morality is important, after all. There are many variations of these questions, but the common element would have to be the notion that some sort of gods (and often the Christian god in particular) are required for moral behavior. It is almost as if these Christians cannot comprehend how someone could be good without gods.
As many times as the claim that gods are necessary for morality has been debunked, it continues to surface. The version I most often hear asks what incentive one who rejects any sort of afterlife could possibly have for moral behavior in this life. "If you don't believe in an afterlife, why would you be moral at all?" No matter how many times I hear it, this still strikes me as an odd question.
Here is an example from a comment on another post made by Vance:
Dear sirs you have a lot of knowledge my question is if we die and there is nothing after death why not just be the evilest you can be.To me it does not make sense to help my so-called fellow man and have a temporary life and love people if in the end it means nothing. I want it all and all the evil I could do and try to get away with it without the authorities catching me. What do I care about anything or anyone if in the end it does not matter what I do in this temporary life if in the end I am nothingness it does not make sense to be good and it makes a lot more sense to be evil, no consequences when death comes. Isn't that the bottom line in atheism nothing really matters we die and that is it. What are your comments and thank you.
The crux of the question is quite clear: If I do not believe in an afterlife where I will be rewarded or punished for my behavior, why should I behave myself in this life?
 |
| 46 is the earliest (nearly) complete manuscript of the Epistles written by Paul in the new testament. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Have you ever discussed the bible in which many Christians claim to believe with a Christian? If so, the odds are good that you may have asked the Christian about some of what you found in the Old Testament. When you did this, you were almost certainly told that whichever part you asked about is no longer valid (although depending on who you are talking to, some parts of Leviticus may still apply). Somehow, the good parts of this book are still perfectly valid but the bad or embarrassing ones are not. Interesting how that seems to work, isn't it?
Jesus, the Christian might insist, did away with the various bad parts you point out. Of course, the Christian will not be able to show you anything in their bible that makes it clear that this was the case. The Christian just knows it somehow, and you are expected to believe it too.
A reader - I'll call him Jason - e-mailed me a great question recently. It is one I have received several times. In fact, it is one I have asked several times! I am going to post it here, take a stab at answering it and then invite you to chime in. I readily admit that my answer is tentative, as I am really not sure about the most effective way to respond. Let's get to the question.
One of the most pervasive myths about atheism is that atheists are immoral because gods are somehow required for good behavior. Of course, the person making such an accusation tends to have a particular god in mind and is willing to disqualify all other gods without providing any justification for doing so. I think I'll steer clear of that tangent for now. Instead, I'd like to stick with the idea that a particular god - or at least belief in a particular god - is the only thing standing between a person and bad behavior. This appears to be a core tenet of the sort of Christian "morality" practiced by fundamentalists and extremists.
When a Christian makes the claim that atheists are necessarily immoral because of our lack of belief in the Christian's preferred god, the atheist typically retorts by asking if god-belief is the only thing preventing the Christian from running wild in the streets. Some Christians will answer in the affirmative, and I'd recommend steering clear of such Christians. Others will recognize the worrisome implications of this and activate their reality-distortion field and engage in a variety of mental gymnastics (i.e., apologetics) in a desperate attempt to escape the question.