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.

Responding to False Claims

As a teacher, I spend much of my time providing corrective feedback to students who make mistakes. This may involve something simple like helping them write a sentence so it more clearly expresses their thought, or it may involve something as complex as helping them challenge long-held but incorrect assumptions about the world. Responding to false statements with the goal of changing minds is a core part of what I must do in this role.

Since I started Atheist Revolution in 2005, one conflict that has haunted me more than any other has involved how (or if) to respond to the category of false claims that are made with the goal of manufacturing controversy or getting attention (e.g., the "war on Christmas," everything that comes out of Ann Coulter's mouth). As will be obvious to most readers, I have landed on the side of responding, sometimes with mockery when I believe it is warranted. Again and again, I have called out false claims. It would probably be accurate to say that I have written as many posts doing this here as any other type.

And yet, one thought has always been in the back of my mind as I have done so:

Am I making a mistake by calling attention to this? Am I falling for a form of troll-bait? Am I really just giving publicity to someone who does not deserve it? Instead of responding, should I be ignoring more of this stuff?

Claims Can Be Questioned

I don't have nearly as much time for reading as I would like to these days, but I was reading Michael Shermer's The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths last night and it made me realize something about my own journey to atheism that I'd like to share here.

For those who are not familiar with Shermer, he's a very interesting guy. Despite being raised in a non-religious family, he became a born-again Christian and did the evangelical thing for several years. It sounds like he took it quite seriously and sought to share his Jesus with as many people as possible. Fortunately for us, he discovered skepticism along the way to becoming an experimental psychologist. He became an atheist and has been an influential figure in the skeptical movement ever since.

Have You Been Possessed By Sexual Demons?

I may be what you'd consider an adult, but I rarely miss a new episode of South Park. My friends and I continue to talk about it and quote it to each other (and yes, we do realize how annoying that is). Well, perhaps I should note that it is only my male friends who do this. Sadly, I still have not found a woman who will admit loving South Park like I do. But that is another post.

One of my favorite things about the show is how thoroughly they mock nearly every belief system. I have to remind myself periodically while watching that there are actually people who believe the things they are mocking, even the really absurd ones.

Credibility in the Atheist Community

Given sufficient time, I think we can expect every community of any size to exhibit signs of some sort of hierarchy. Some gain reputation and status in the community, even if they are merely symbolic in nature. Leaders and followers emerge, with most of us falling leading some and following others. Few of us put much thought into this process as it happens, but that does not seem to stop it from happening.

The components of reputation and status vary from community-to-community. One's seniority might be highly advantageous in one community and perceived as a liability in another. In the atheist community, I think one important aspect of reputation and status might involve credibility. Whether you are thinking about a blogger, a speaker, or an activist, credibility is probably one of the attributes you value.

'Are You Saved?' Is a Silly Question

Time and time again, I have heard from Christians that all I have to do in order to be "saved" is accept their Jesus as my "savior." This appears to be Christianspeak for believing in Jesus. They present some version of Pascal's wager in an effort to convince me that even if I don't believe in heaven and hell, I should believe in Jesus in case I'm wrong. All I need to do to curry favor with their god and protect myself against the possibility of hell is believe in Jesus like they do. That sounds simple enough. But does belief really work like this? Can you or I simply start believing in something in which we do not believe?

When asked whether they could voluntarily accept theism, most of the atheists I have asked say "no." Believing in Jesus may sound easy for someone who already does so, but it does not strike me as something I could do even if I wanted to. I could certainly fake it, but that would be about the best I could do. The Jesus stuff lacks the evidence and the emotional resonance that could lead me to belief.

Catholic Church Defends Convicted Child Molesters

Can you imagine the uproar that would result if the public learned that a charitable organization had been paying the legal fees of repeat sex offenders who perpetrate against children? I'm not talking about criminal defendants accused of molesting children but those who had been convicted multiple times.

At a minimum, donors would be outraged, and donations would abruptly halt. Those who had previously supported such an organization would take pains to distance themselves from it, and the public image of the organization would take a beating from which it might never recover. We can be fairly confident that all of this would happen…unless the organization involved was the Catholic Church.

Atheists, We Are Costing People Eternal Life

Write an atheist blog, and you will receive your share of interesting email from Christians. Here is the latest:

It is my opinion that your useless propaganda is costing people eternal life in heaven with Jesus. It is my belief that NONE OF YOU HAVE ANY CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. You may not believe in God but when you die there is beyond a shadow of any doubt whatsoever that you will stand before God and be judged. Period. I dare and CHALLENGE YOU TO TAKE THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE AND PROVE. THERE IS NO GOD. I DARE YOU TO DISPROVE THE BIBLE. I DARE YOU. YOU WILL NEVER CONTACT ME BECAUSE YOU KNOW I AM RIGHT. God is real and there is nothing you can do about it. Unless you are afraid of my challenge I DARE you to email me proof that there is no God.....which you could NEVER DO AND IN RETURN I WILL SHOW YOU IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT God is indeed real and show you just how much God loves you.

Christianity and the Paths to Delusion

Of the various paths one must be willing to take in order to end up at Christianity, I find one more puzzling than the others. What do I mean by the paths one must take to arrive at Christianity? I am referring to the various "leaps of faith" one must take to reach something approximating what modern Christians claim to believe. I see three central paths, which must be traveled in order (i.e., the first is foundational to the second; the first and second are foundational to the third).

1. Some sort of god exists.
2. The sort of god that exists is personally interested and involved in the affairs of humanity at the present time.
3. Jesus lived, died, and returned from the dead, all for you.

An Obligation to Challenge Stupidity

The first time I heard this quote, I really liked it. I'm not a fan of apathy, and this quote seemed like a perfect reminder of the importance of acting to address the wrongs around us. I still like the quote, but I recognize that it could be misused as a license to be an asshole.

I agree completely with what it says about unfairness, and I would add cruelty to the list. When faced with unfairness or cruelty, we should not remain silent. We should act. What I'm not so sure about anymore is the inclusion of "stupidity" in the list. I don't know about you, but if I spoke out or took action every time I was confronted by stupidity, it would be all I'd have time to do. Like most of you, I do not have the luxury of making a living as a social critic and provocateur.

Atheists and Interfaith Dialogue

I'll be the first to admit that I don't have the most positive associations with interfaith coalitions. While I would not deny that a diverse coalition of various religious groups can accomplish some good, it seems that these coalitions often exclude atheists, humanists, and other secular groups from participating. I realize that these groups are not faith-based, but I wonder if their exclusion somewhat defeats the point of the coalition.

Moreover, I do not believe the U.S. government has any business funding or promoting interfaith work as the Obama administration has done. Doing so strikes me as an unacceptable violation of church-state separation. Our government has no business promoting any religiosity, and this includes interfaith organizations and coalitions.

Religion Dispatches posted an interesting interview with Chris Stedman about his new book, Faitheist: How an Atheist Found Common Ground with the Religious. If you have heard of Stedman, you probably know that his is one of the few atheist voices calling for atheists to be more involved in interfaith work alongside religious believers.

In explaining what led him to write the book, Stedman writes,

I wrote Faitheist because, as I started doing interfaith work, I noticed that there was a paucity of nonreligious people involved. At the same time, I started to explore the atheist movement. I noticed that my colleagues in the interfaith movement were quite connected to their own communities, and I was studying religious communities as a graduate student, so I wanted to see how atheist communities functioned. Frankly, I was a bit astonished by what I found. I noticed right away that one of the only unifying characteristics among many people in attendance at atheist meetings was that many maintained a very strong disdain for religion—one that often carried over into a strong disdain for religious believers.

Ignorance, Laziness, or Something Else?

I found this image on Facebook, and it got me thinking. For many of us, information on nearly any subject is only a few keystrokes away. This is particularly true when it comes to "how to" advice. For example, when my 3.5 year-old Android phone stopped working, I described the problem I was experiencing in Google and found an effective step-by-step solution in an Internet forum dedicated to the aging device. Problem solved. I didn't want to buy a new phone, and I didn't have to.

With the amount of information available and the ease with which it can be accessed, there does seem to be a bit of merit in the suggestion that ignorance may be a choice. Except that I'm not sure what we're really talking about is ignorance. I think it might be laziness. I'm always helping my co-workers with various computer-related problems even though doing so is not even close to being part of my job. "How do you know so much about this stuff?" I show them where I find the solution to their problem and how easy it was to find. And yet, they rarely bother to look for themselves. Is this ignorance or laziness?

Obstacles to Atheist Activism: Apathy

If you missed the introduction to this series, you might want to read it first.

In the context of atheist activism, I think you'll agree that apathy is one of the biggest challenges we face. That is, one important obstacle to successful activism by a few is the lack of interest of the many. This appears to be true of any activist effort, so I see little reason why movement atheism should be any different.

Apathy is absolutely toxic to activism in that it undermines organization, enthusiasm, and other critical components of activist efforts. It saps the energy of those in an activist movement, making them feel less and less connected to the larger community. But most of all, apathy guarantees that we will never reach our potential.

Many Americans Still Believe in Demonic Possession

This time of year, virtually everything one hears about polls inevitable concerns politics. Fortunately, this is not the only kind of polls being conducted. Public Policy Polling had an interesting one the day before Halloween in which they asked registered U.S. voters a number of questions about their plans for Halloween and their beliefs regarding various Halloween-related phenomena.

Some of the highlights from the poll included:

• 37% believe in ghosts, and 26% claim they have seen one
• 52% believe houses can be haunted
• 57% think people can be possessed by demons

The finding about demonic possession was the one I found most interesting. And by interesting, I mean absolutely terrifying that people can still believe this garbage these days. I say this not merely because we live in an age of science but because the belief in possession has caused so much suffering for so many people.

When the finding was split by respondents' political identity (of which there were apparently only two choices provided), 68% of Republicans and 49% of Democrats indicated that they believe in demonic possession. That difference was not nearly as large as I would have predicted, but it is a potent reminder that irrationality and superstition remain widespread and are not limited to those with certain political leanings.

What is the take-home message from surveys like this? Perhaps the briefest way to sum it up would be to note that it reflects a sad failure to apply skepticism. Along with continuing to facilitate the erosion of faith, I cannot help thinking that we desperately need to improve our system of public education. Critical thinking, skepticism, and the scientific method are areas of necessary improvement. These are not skills with which people are born, but they can be taught and practiced. This is more than an academic exercise; these beliefs are impacting people in unfortunate ways.

When Mississippi Christians Are Compelled to Bless Strangers

During a recent trip to the grocery store, the young male cashier who checked me out said something unusual as we completed our transaction. While nearly everyone else with whom I've interacted at this store says something like, "Thank you. Have a good day," this particular employee said, "Bless you." Given that I was at a grocery store and not in church, I found this odd. This person was a cashier and not an identifiable member of any recognized clergy. Did he really presume to have the power to bless me or to ask some sort of a god to do so?

It does not seem to matter how long I live in Mississippi; this sort of thing captures my attention each and every time it happens. I have not habituated to it or any of the other religion-infused statements often directed at me. Not only do I still notice them, but they often leave me in stunned silence wondering whether I heard the speaker correctly. In this particular area, my "culture shock" continues.

Are the Boy Scouts Trying to Emulate the Catholic Church?

Back in February, I wrote about the pressure many of us receive in our places of employment to donate to religious charities. I noted that my employer, which happens to be the state government, pushes us to donate to our local United Way chapter. The local United Way chapter then distributes the funds to local chapters of the Salvation Army, Boy Scouts, and a mission that promotes Christian bible study. Needless to say, I do not donate to this agency no matter how much pressure I face to do so. I've also managed to inform a few co-workers about how this works so that they too are refusing to donate.

Now I have yet another reason to offer besides my standard line about not being interested in supporting religiously-motivated bigotry. It appears that the Boy Scouts of America have not been much better than the Catholic Church when it comes to handling matters of child sexual abuse.

I understand that no organization is going to be eager to broadcast something that makes them look bad. At the same time, I would think that a group focused on children would want to do everything it could to show that it was taking child abuse seriously and making the protection of children its highest priority. The Boy Scouts already has an awful record when it comes to discrimination. I sincerely hope that they improve the manner in which they handle child abuse.

Watch Out for Halloween Evangelicals

There are no shortage of scary stories perfect for Halloween. You have heard all tales about people injecting drugs into the candy they distribute or passing out apples containing razor blades on Halloween. These urban legends have been popular for decades and remain great fodder for scaring parents. You have heard the ancient myths about Halloween being the night when the "world of spirits" is somehow closer to ours and "evil" is close by. This stuff is old news and probably isn't going to scare any self-respecting freethinker. But there is something else going on this year, something even spookier that just might get those hairs on the back of your neck to stand at attention.

It seems that the Campus Crusade for Christ, an evangelical fundamentalist Christian organization, wants to use Halloween as an opportunity to convert you. Yes, you read that correctly. They've decided that Halloween is the perfect opportunity to spread their preferred delusion. Better prepare yourselves, heathens! Your very sanity could be at stake this Halloween.

Selling the Supernatural

While complaining about the abundance of entertainment-oriented television shows masquerading as educational that present the supernatural as if it was based in fact, I received a much needed reminder from my readers. The supernatural sells. This is why there is so much of it on TV, and until the audience tires of it, it is here to stay. Shows on the paranormal are big year-round, but especially as we approach Halloween. They will soon be replaced by even less interesting drivel about angels and Jesus.

Don't get me wrong - it doesn't bother me that this stuff is on TV. I do not have to expend much effort at all to avoid it. What does bother me is that the very same channels that hold themselves out as having some educational value seem to be the ones pushing it so hard. They lend an undeserved credibility to the subject matter. At least, they used to before they sold their credibility.

Bigfoot, alien abductions, monsters, ghosts, angels, and so on. It is amazing how popular this stuff is today! There wasn't nearly as much of this sort of thing on the air when I was a child; however, I did usually watch it when it was on. I remember thinking that investigating these sort of paranormal phenomena was what scientists did. Fortunately, I would eventually learn that what real scientists did was far more interesting than this stuff. I'd like to think everybody was this lucky, but I know better. There are plenty of adults today who take this stuff quite seriously.

Evidence of God

Most of the atheists I've met online and in real life agree that they are atheists primarily because the evidence to support the existence of any sort of god is insufficient (as in completely absent). I'm right there with them. The lack of evidence is the reason I'm an atheist too. This is why it makes so much sense to respond to questions from a believer about why we are atheists by explaining that are do not believe in their preferred god for the same reason they do not believe in the preferred gods of others: lack of evidence.

Obstacles to Atheist Activism: Introduction

Activism, in any context, is about changing the world for the better. It involves the perception that one's present circumstances are less than ideal and the motivation to act in order to reduce the gap between what is and what could be. Activism can be hard work, although it does not always have to be.

I thought it might be interesting to pull together some thoughts on the many obstacles to successful activism by the atheist movement and see how we might be able to overcome them. My tentative plan is to write a series of posts, each examining a different obstacle and taking a look at some potential solutions. In this post, I want to note a couple important assumptions I will be making in the series and which I believe must be explained before beginning.

Too Much Television Programming Presents Supernatural as Fact

Exterior of the Edgar Allan Poe House and Museum (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Here in the United States, educational material has always been rather scarce on television. There have been a few notable exceptions for programming aimed at young children (e.g., Sesame Street) and adults (e.g., Nova), but they represent a tiny proportion of what one finds on network and cable TV. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as we could simply recognize that TV is not the best place for educational material and look elsewhere. What I think might be a bad thing, however, is that there are far too many entertainment programs masquerading as educational.

Take a look at the History Channel, Discovery, the Learning Channel, the Travel Channel, and others that offer the pretense of having some educational value (i.e., content is typically presented as being factual). I suspect that some of these channels do include some educational programming, but it is minimal compared to their entertainment-oriented content, and the distinction between one and the other is rarely made explicit to viewers.

Personal Experience vs. Science

Given the choice between one person's experience (including my own) and scientific consensus, I tend to go with science. I received an email in response to a recent post about the influenza vaccine in which a reader suggested that I was "falling for Big Pharma's shit just like the religious folks fall for the Bible's shit." The author, presumably an atheist, went on to use the argument from personal experience to dismiss my suggestion that I'd prefer to rely on science over superstition when it comes to my health. Specifically, she wrote that her two children "have never had a vaccine of any sort" and have never been sick with anything worse than a typical cold. Clearly, that proves...well...nothing.

I know I should not be surprised to hear something like this from an atheist. We atheists can still accept conspiracy theories, support the type of pseudoscience in which the Huffington Post traffics, or prefer not to exercise reason at all outside of the question of gods. We can be irrational, especially when we've managed to convince ourselves that we are right and others are wrong. And I suppose we can even dismiss science when it suits us to do so. We can do all of these things because whatever else atheists are, we are still fallible humans.

Schrödinger’s Rapist

If you are a regular reader of the more feminist-oriented of the Freethought Blogs, Skepchick, or other feminist blogs, odds are good that you have heard of Schrödinger’s Rapist. Even if you actively avoid such blogs, you've likely encountered reactions to Schrödinger’s Rapist on other blogs. I have read the infamous Schrödinger’s Rapist post a few times, and I'd like to share my reactions. I suspect that they may be a bit different from what you've read elsewhere.

Background

To provide a bit of context for my comments, I want to point out that the Schrödinger’s Rapist post is highly derivative (i.e., unoriginal). I read a few very similar articles back in the 1990s when I was learning about feminist and multicultural theories in graduate school. Some dealt with women and rape in virtually the same way; others dealt with the subtle forms of racism experienced by members of many ethnic minority groups.

What these articles had in common was that they were tools designed to inform readers about privilege. When I note that Schrödinger’s Rapist is derivative, I do so not to criticize it but to place it in this broader context. Being derivative in this case is a good thing, as the post belongs to this tradition. This is why it sounded so familiar when I first read it.

Flu Vaccine vs. Superstition

I got a flu shot yesterday. It seems kind of early in the season, but this is when flu vaccine is widely available around here. I've been getting a flu shot nearly every year for at least the past 10 years. Getting the flu is no fun, and I'm exposed to it fairly often at work. Better safe than sorry.

I assume that my Southern Baptist neighbors who insist that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that evolution is a Satanic deception of some sort are not interested in flu vaccines or any other type of vaccines. If the influenza virus doesn't evolve (because "evilution" is a myth), they'd never need more than one vaccination in their lifetime anyway. But why bother to get vaccinated at all when they can simply pray away any illness that might befall them?

The strange thing is that they still seem to get sick, especially the parents with young children at home. Illness seems to sweep through their entire families on a regular basis. They regularly show symptoms I rarely seem to experience, and they end up missing work far more often than I do.

I think I'll stick with science. It has worked much better than superstition so far.

Circumcision

Should it remain legal for parents in the U.S. to have their infant sons circumcised for reasons other than medical necessity?

Should atheist parents ever consider having their sons circumcised, and if so, why?

I recognize that some in the atheist community have strong feelings about these questions. I have seen several people referring to male circumcision as "mutilation" and characterizing parents who opt for the procedure as abusive. I don't believe I've written about this controversial subject yet, for what may strike some of you as a fairly strange reason. You see, I am not sure what to think about it. I have not yet made up my mind one way or another.

Feeling Disillusioned With the Atheist Movement

For the past few months, I've gradually recognized a subtle change in my attitudes toward the atheist movement. It has happened so slowly that it kind of crept up on me, but I think it is fair to say that I've been feeling somewhat disillusioned with some aspects of the atheist movement. I'm not really sure why. I'm hoping that my thoughts may become a bit clearer as I write this post. This is one of those that I begin with no idea where it will lead me.

To set the stage, I should note that doubts and feelings of disillusionment are nothing new for me. In looking back over some old posts, I can see them emerging in late 2010. I noted the stagnation in our movement as a source of frustration. I started writing about the importance of atheists being willing and able to look beyond our own experiences. In early 2011, I noted that we had vast but unrealized potential. I point this out merely to explain that I've felt this way before and will almost certainly feel this way again. It tends to be a temporary thing where I'm bummed out for awhile and then eventually get back on track. I have no reason to think that this time will be any different.

What Religious Leaders Think of the "Nones"

While many atheists celebrate the recent poll from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life showing a record number of respondents in the U.S. report no religious affiliation, religious leaders are struggling to make sense of the numbers. Is organized religion really on the decline, and if so, why?

For such a complicated phenomenon, there are almost certainly many causes. Still, I suspect that one is more important than the rest. If I had to pick one reason I suspect we are seeing a decline in religious affiliation, it would be the culture war being waged by fundamentalist Christian organizations such as the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptists. Essentially, they are giving religion a bad name in the eyes of the younger generation. By waging war against same-sex marriage, women, and a host of other issues, these groups have made themselves far less appealing.

I realize I may be engaging in some wishful thinking here. Perhaps I see this as the main reason for the decline because I want it to be the case. I just know that when I talk to young adults, I'm far more likely to hear support for same-sex marriage and confusion over why religious organizations continue to be on the wrong side of history than I remember from my youth.

Unitarians Seeking Those With No Religious Affiliation

I attended church regularly for the first 14-15 years of my life. In addition to attending the same church with my family, I've been to several others. Sometimes it was with my family after they were invited to try out the church their friends attended; other times it was with friends who invited me to join their family at church. I've been to Methodist churches, Presbyterian churches, Lutheran churches, Catholic churches, and at least a couple others I cannot specifically recall.

As soon as I was old enough in my parents' eyes, I stopped going to church regularly. I've still been quite a few times since then, but not without good reason. I was married in a church, have been to several church weddings, funerals, holiday services, and the like.

Reasons for Atheists to Address Islam

Atheist bloggers in the U.S. are often criticized for not focusing more on Islam. Sometimes, this criticism comes from atheist readers outside the U.S., especially those in areas where Islam is more prevalent; other times it comes from Christians who think that theirs is the only correct religion. As someone who has received his share of this criticism, I'd like to acknowledge that it is indeed valid. Many of us in the U.S. probably do not write about Islam as much as we should. I have explained why I focus primarily on Christian extremism multiple times (see "Why I Focus on Christianity"), but I do recognize that Islam warrants attention here as well.

With the latest wave of violence from Muslim extremists upset over a YouTube video, we have an excuse to address Islam again. I've argued that condemnations of this violence should be accompanied by strong defenses of religious criticism instead of condemnations of the video itself. I've also noted that some Muslims clearly believe that criticizing Islam should be a capital offense. Criticizing Islam is clearly illegal in many Muslim nations, and some Muslims believe it should be illegal everywhere. That is, they want to see blasphemy laws passed abroad to stop criticism of their religion.

Truth and Blasphemy

When we talk about blasphemy, the focus naturally goes to efforts by religious extremists to pass anti-blasphemy laws, criminalizing the criticism of their religion. It makes sense that this would be the focus since this sort of thing is antithetical to free expression and democracy.

It also makes sense that we, as atheists, would be particularly worried about the implications of such laws. We would likely be among the first targets of such laws. But as this image shows, there is a somewhat different way to think about blasphemy - as a term used by religious authorities to describe any teaching that goes against their doctrine.

The fact that our planet revolves around the sun instead of being the center of the universe was once considered blasphemy. One could be punished merely for suggesting the possibility. The fact that species evolve was once considered blasphemy (and still is throughout much of the American bible belt). From this perspective, blasphemy seems to be little more than what organized religion does not want you or I to know.

Suffrage and civil rights were once deemed blasphemous, affronts to what the church considered "sacred" and "holy." Interracial marriage was once deemed blasphemous because it was "unnatural" and "against god's will." We still see such hang-ups with same-sex marriage today by some religious extremists.

Accusations of blasphemy are about social control and the preservation of obsolete dogma. Cries of "blasphemy" and efforts to enact anti-blasphemy laws should be recognized for what they are: efforts to undermine reason and social justice.

On Blasphemy Day, Mock Away

Happy International Blasphemy Day! This is a day I used to take for granted, or rather, this is a day where I used to take my freedom to commit blasphemy for granted. After recent developments, I will not make that mistake again. Too many nations have bowed to pressure from religious extremists and enacted anti-blasphemy laws. The subject was recently raised at the UN. And even here in the U.S., there has been international pressure to consider something along these lines. While President Obama stood his ground, who knows what future administrations might do? We cannot take our rights for granted.

American Humanists' Approach to Islam

The American Humanist Association has a post titled "A sensible Humanist approach to Islam" at Secular News Daily that is worth reading. Since this topic has been on my mind quite a bit lately, I wanted to share a few brief reactions to the post.

First, I agree with their reminder that those committing acts of violence do not represent all Muslims. While it is true that we do not hear nearly enough from moderate Muslims, I suspect that is due to their understandable fear of reprisal and the refusal of our corporate media to cover anything moderate these days. I certainly do not blame all Muslims for the violent acts committed by a few.