Michael Nugent vs. PZ Myers

Michael Nugent (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Michael Nugent has been working tirelessly to document what he considers to be smears, hypocrisy, and other objectionable behavior on the part of PZ Myers. His collection of thoroughly sourced posts about Myers' behavior now includes the following:

• The violent rhetoric of Pope Francis and PZ Myers
• PZ Myers publicly hates and despises people, not merely their ideas or behaviour
• The hurtful and harmful smears of PZ Myers, “The Happy Atheist”
• “Do your belly dance.” “Get off my stage. I’ve got work to do.” What if PZ Myers judged others’ sexism as he judges himself?
• Chronology of misrepresentations and smears in the atheist movement by PZ Myers and others

Not surprisingly, Nugent's efforts have been praised in some circles and thoroughly condemned in others. With a figure both as popular and as polarizing as Myers, nobody should expect anything different.

Initially, it appeared that Nugent was simply seeking an apology from Myers for the claim that he was providing a haven for rapists on his blog. This struck me as a reasonable request but one with little  chance of success. I suspect that Myers offered this characterization intentionally and that it was not something he would consider to be the sort of mistake that warranted an apology. Moreover, an apology doesn't mean much unless it is accompanied by a change in behavior. Whatever you and I might think of it, Myers' behavior has been working quite well for him for some time. As I said in a comment I left on Nugent's blog:

His regular readers are not looking for fair-minded rational behavior; they are seeking something else, and providing it has been quite lucrative for PZ.

Do You Believe in Aliens?

I saw a question someone posted on Facebook yesterday: Do you believe in aliens? I guess someone else wasn't too interested in observing Christmas either. It occurred to me that I couldn't provide a response to the question unless I knew more about what the questioner was asking.

Do I believe that people exist who the U.S. government has classified as aliens because they entered the country illegally? Yes, but I'm guessing that isn't what the questioner had in mind. Do I believe that the U.S. government has been concealing the bodies and spacecraft of extra-terrestrials for decades at Area 51? No. I do not believe this because of insufficient evidence to support such an implausible theory. After all, this sort of conspiracy would require a level of competence that far exceeds the level of competence we can reasonably suspect from our government. But once again, I'm guessing that this wasn't the intent behind the question.

Getting closer to what I suspect the questioner was after, we might pose the following question:

Do I believe that sentient life forms exist somewhere in the cosmos outside of our planet?

Atheists Mocking Christmas

By Pixuk (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0]

One extremely popular form of symbolic protest involves deliberately defacing or damaging a symbol or item another group considers "sacred" or "holy." I'm not talking about vandalism where one destroys the property of another; I'm talking about cases where one procures the item at one's own expense and then uses it to provoke outrage. We see Muslims in the Middle East burning the American flag, and we see evangelical fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. burning the Quran. Some Satanists use inverted crucifixes and other imagery to enrage Catholics, some neo-Nazis deface Jewish symbols, and so on.

Some examples are considered more artistic than others (e.g., Piss Christ), but most seem to share the common goal of provoking outrage. When Iranians burn an effigy of a U.S. president in front of the TV cameras, they expect outrage. If they didn't, they would be unlikely to bother. When Fred Phelps and his merry band of Christian extremists picketed a funeral, they expected the same. They would show up and do their thing in order to rattle some cages.

There is a much gentler version of this phenomenon that seems less about serious protest and the provocation of outrage and more about mockery for its own sake, in-group signaling, or even entertainment. For example, many atheists create images or videos mocking all sorts of religious symbols, figures, traditions, and holidays. While some may be engaging in forms of protest when they do this, I suspect that many more have other motives (e.g., seeking to entertain other atheists). Outraging the religious, if it happens at all, is just a bonus.

Happy Festivus!

Many atheists celebrate their favorite secular aspects of Christmas. Others prefer to replace Christmas with one of many recently proposed secular alternatives. Still others prefer to skip Christmas and have little need to replace it with anything. I'm in this last group; however, if I decided that I really needed to celebrate a winter holiday for some reason, I think Festivus would be tough to beat. It reminds me of one of my favorite TV shows of all time and involves wonderful traditions like angrily telling those around you how much they have disappointed you. And the traditional Festivus pole is certainly easier to set up and store than a tree. What's not to like?

Trigger Warnings and Personal Victimhood in Higher Education

Photograph of front facade, Austin Hall, Harvard Law School, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) recently released a report on speech codes at U.S. colleges and universities. The report, Spotlight on Speech Codes 2015, paints a grim picture of the state of free expression at institutions of higher learning.

Of the 437 schools reviewed, FIRE gave only 4% a "green light" rating (i.e., written university policies do not threaten free expression on campus). Meanwhile, 55% received "red light" ratings, indicating the presence of "at least one policy that both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech, or that bars public access to its speech-related policies by requiring a university login and password for access." For those of us who believe that free expression, including the expression of controversial ideas, is central to the mission of higher education, this is disturbing news.

With this context in mind, I ask you to consider the recent article for The New Yorker by Professor Jeannie Suk of Harvard Law School on the toxic effects of the "trigger warnings" movement. Professor Suk writes:

Students seem more anxious about classroom discussion, and about approaching the law of sexual violence in particular, than they have ever been in my eight years as a law professor. Student organizations representing women’s interests now routinely advise students that they should not feel pressured to attend or participate in class sessions that focus on the law of sexual violence, and which might therefore be traumatic. These organizations also ask criminal-law teachers to warn their classes that the rape-law unit might “trigger” traumatic memories. Individual students often ask teachers not to include the law of rape on exams for fear that the material would cause them to perform less well. One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress.

The Historical Jesus

4th century depiction of Christ as the Good Shepherd, Museum for Epigraphy, Terme di Diocleziano, Rome (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Most of the Christians I encounter, both in my day-to-day life and on the Internet, treat the existence of a historical Jesus as fact. I have spent most of my life, including the post-Christian portion, assuming that there probably was a historical Jesus. Even though it has been a long time since I believed that this person bore any resemblance to the character described in the Christian bible, I've assumed that the stories were probably based, however loosely, on a real person.

Of course, the question of whether there was a historical Jesus and the degree to which such a person may have resembled the biblical version is not without controversy. Some argue that there likely was no historical Jesus. Others suggest that there may have been a historical person but that the biblical stories of him are exaggerations or outright fabrications. Here are just a few resources that fall into one of these camps:

1. No historical evidence of Jesus: Christianity revealed
2. Did a historical Jesus exist?
3. The myth of the historical Jesus

Are Atheists Members of a Persecuted Minority Group?

Kingdom Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Taken by BroadArrow in 2007. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As an atheist, are you a member of a persecuted minority group that regularly faces discrimination and bigotry by the religious? Could you be a member of such a group even if you have not personally experienced this sort of thing?

The Freedom of Thought Report, recently released by the International Humanist and Ethical Union, has been receiving quite a bit of attention among atheists and humanists and for good reason. The editor of the report, Bob Churchill, wrote a post for Religion News Service in which he offered three suggestions for what should happen in response to the report. I expect that two of them will be entirely uncontroversial among secular persons, so I'd like to mention the third:

3. Atheists and humanists should not be afraid of recognizing they are a persecuted minority. This language does not come easily. For some it may just sound ridiculous, because it’s such an unreality in the lives of relatively comfortable, secular, liberal countries. For other atheists, the idea of being a group is antithetical. Many came to atheism as individuals and may have left religion in part because of what we saw as the perils of groupthink. Nevertheless, we are a group in the eyes of intolerant societies. We must recognize this, even embrace it. We must show solidarity to people living in parts of the world where advocating humanism or even lobbying for secularism or liberalism can be dangerous.

I think he's correct here. Many of us do have a hard time accepting the idea that we face persecution for our beliefs, especially those living in parts of the West where secularism is fairly well tolerated. And many of us do seem to value individuality (and even a sort of isolation from others) even though it may be to our collective detriment. And yet, this notion that we need to overcome these tendencies, join together to advocate reason, and speak out against ongoing human rights violations perpetrated by against atheists strikes me as worthy of serious consideration.

Coping Tips for Atheists at Christmas

With travel, winter weather, crowds, and crass commercialism, the holiday season can be a stressful time for anyone. Many atheists face additional pressures this time of year related to being members of an often despised minority group living in countries where almost everyone else seems to be religious. Christian privilege is almost impossible to miss in the United States this time of year, and church-state violations are plentiful (even though some atheists are content to ignore them).

We may feel bombarded by superstition everywhere we go, and we may be pushed to participate in religious rituals. Christians who know we are atheists are fond of telling us that we have no business celebrating their holidays or using the occasions as opportunities to proselytize. As we gather with friends and family, we often find ourselves coming in contact with people who are unaware that we are atheists and/or relish the opportunity to express some bigotry toward atheists.

Being a Better Believer

A Raelian discussing his beliefs with a passerby in Tel Aviv, Israel. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

"Everybody has the right to believe what they want." This statement, while accurate, is practically nonsensical. It isn't like anyone can prevent another person from believing whatever he or she wants. This is a "right" that is never in any real jeopardy of being impinged upon.

When people make statements like this, they generally mean something a bit different from what they say. They may mean that all beliefs are worthy of respect (they aren't), that religious beliefs should be immune to criticism (they shouldn't), or that all beliefs not readily falsifiable are somehow equally valid (they aren't).

While we each have the right to our own beliefs, we must recognize a couple of hard truths about what we believe. First, believing something does not make it true. Many beliefs are false, and the fact that many people hold false beliefs does not make these beliefs any less false. Reality is not determined by popularity. Second, some beliefs are harmful to the believer, to others, or both. Beliefs can involve bigotry, prejudice, bias, intolerance, and even hate. Such beliefs fuel tribalism, cruelty, discrimination, violence, and other adverse outcomes. Beliefs of this sort can be toxic. The belief in demonic possession readily comes to mind as an example, but there are countless others.

Secular Organizations Should Make it Easy to Opt Out of Receiving Mail

Automatic sorters inside a major postal facility. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I have what will strike some of you as a fairly trivial complaint that applies to most of the large national secular organizations, including the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, American Atheists, and others. I am going to put it out there for three reasons: (1) I think it would be very easy to fix, (2) it has resulted in me deciding to let my memberships in these organizations expire without renewal, and (3) I believe that fixing it would be beneficial to the organizations as well as to me.

So what's the complaint? I'd like to be able to join organizations like this to support their work without receiving any mail from them whatsoever. I do not want their printed newsletters, calls to action, or renewal notices delivered to my mailbox. In fact, I don't want them to send me anything in the mail with the name of their organization printed on it.

I live in rural Mississippi, and the postal employee who delivers mail in my neighborhood appears to have a serious impairment of some sort that results in me frequently receiving my neighbors' mail and my neighbors frequently receiving my mail. I'd prefer that my neighbors not know that I am an atheist unless I choose to tell them. When they regularly receive mail from secular organizations addressed to me, this falls apart quickly.

Political Correctness and the Tyranny of Silence

I am sure you remember how enraged Muslims became violent after a Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, published cartoons they did not like in 2005. It was a big story for some time and probably one that was hard to miss. In fact, the it has been in the news periodically ever since. Here is an example from 2013.

Notice that I did not say that the cartoons caused Muslims to be violent. Some have made that claim, but it is one I reject. Seeing cartoons one does not like does not cause one to be violent; one chooses to be violent because one clings to ridiculous beliefs and unrealistically expects others to conform to them. The Muslims who resorted to violence are responsible for their behavior.

In a recent article for The New Republic, Elizabeth Winkler profiled Flemming Rose, the man who commissioned the cartoons of Mohammed to which many Muslims objected. Rose has a book out, The Tyranny of Silence, and it sounds to me like it will be worth reading for anyone who is interested in the tenuous relationship between multiculturalism and free expression in democratic societies.

What Do Atheists Want?

Atheists are a diverse bunch, and we want different things. This is true even when it comes to the subject of religion. Some atheists see themselves as working to end religion; others are perfectly content to limit themselves to secularism (i.e., governmental neutrality on matters of religion). There are many other distinctions among atheists, but I think the question of what atheists want with regard to religion is a particularly important and often misunderstood one.

Although I have heard from many Christians who think that all atheists are determined to stamp out religion, I have not known more than a handful of atheists who would say that their primary goal is the complete eradication of religion. I suspect most atheists understand that this would be an unrealistic goal. And even those who would rank the eradication of religion as high among their priorities almost never seek to do so by prohibiting the free exercise of religion in any way. Australian gamers notwithstanding, large numbers of atheists are not working to ban anybody's "holy" book, for example.

Words Can Hurt, But That Cannot Excuse Restrictions on Free Expression

The Free Speech Cafe in Moffitt Library at the University of California, Berkeley (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

"Words hurt." Yes, I suppose that is true. Words can indeed hurt one's feelings. This is especially true for children who have not yet developed the sort of coping skills we expect from most adults. It is easy to imagine a parent helping a young child realize that he or she does not need to care so much what the inconsiderate jerk on the playground thinks. This is easier said than done, of course, as this notion will initially be unfamiliar. But as the child gradually learns to cope with distress, he or she typically begins to understand that one cannot control how others behave, that one's sense of self need not be based on the opinions of others, and that some insults should be dismissed without becoming overly invested in them. These lessons do not mean that the youth never experiences hurt feelings in response to the words of others; they mean that the sting of words is lessened and that the youth is better equipped to cope with hurt feelings.

Unfortunately, these developmental tasks are not always accomplished in successful ways. Some children appear to be born with more sensitive temperaments. They experience the pain of hurt feelings more frequently and intensely than many of their peers, and this may make the process of learning effective coping skills far more difficult. Other children are subjected to levels of torment that deserve to be characterized as bullying and which would prove challenging to most children. This can also be expected to complicate the process of acquiring coping skills.

Joel Osteen on Faith

In the unlikely event that you haven't already seen the tweet above, I had to share it. Joel Osteen is an evangelical fundamentalist pastor who presides over one of the largest Protestant churches in the U.S. He and his wife, Victoria, are all over TV and the Internet. To paraphrase Ron Burgundy, he's kind of a big deal.

Pastor Osteen has been spouting nonsense on Twitter for some time, but this tweet really stands out. I wonder which of the many gods humans have worshiped throughout the centuries he's referring to here? "Choose faith in spite of the facts" seems to be the mantra of choice for far too many religious believers. Just look at the number of people who re-tweeted this bit of wisdom!

Faith is not a valid way of knowing the world around us. It is what many people use to justify the few beliefs they are determined to hold regardless of how little evidence there is to support them. It is a cop-out that amounts to insisting, "I believe something because I desperately want it to be true." And when one willingly elevates faith above facts, we all lose.

In Defense of Black Atheists Groups

Racist graffiti found in the restroom of a Borders in San Mateo, California. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Ready for what will strike some of you as an uncharacteristically pro social justice rant? You should be. As I've said repeatedly, I distinguish between social justice activism/advocacy and social justice warriorism, supporting the former while condemning the latter. And why do I condemn the latter? Because it undermines the former. Away we go!

Can we discuss issues of race and racism in a calm and reasonable manner? And if we can, should we? While I tend to disagree with those who claim that atheism has a race problem, I do believe that race is still relevant in the United States and that racism is alive and well. I don't see this as a problem with atheism per se but as a problem with the culture made up of atheists and theists alike. That is, we all have a race problem. It is a problem that trying not to talk about has not solved.

Since the topic of race and racism is so broad, I think it helps to focus on specific issues. With that in mind, I'll pick one that has come up repeatedly in conversations I have had with some conservative White atheists. It can be expressed as a specific question:

Why is it that we are far more accepting of a group calling itself Black Atheists of [insert various location here] than we would be of a group calling itself White Atheists of [insert various location here]?

Some people insist that both of these groups are inherently racist and that they are racist to an equivalent degree. This argument is often based on dictionary definitions of racism while ignoring context and denying oppression and sometimes even racism by Whites toward Blacks. It is an argument with which I strongly disagree. I acknowledge that I am far more likely to be accepting of the Black atheists group than the White atheists group, and I suggest that there are valid reasons for this difference.

Street Epistemology is Inspiring

I have not yet read Peter Boghossian's book, A Manual for Creating Atheists, but it is on my list of books to read. In the meantime, I have been watching Anthony Magnabosco's excellent street epistemology videos on YouTube and enjoying them very much (here's a link to his channel). He starts with a brief video of his interaction (e.g., 5 min Street Epistemology: Paul | Faith is Everything to Me) and follows it with a longer "breakdown" video in which he analyzes the interaction, highlights his mistakes, and offers helpful suggestions for anyone wanting to use the methods (e.g., Street Epistemology Breakdown: Paul | SE Tutorial 1). I think he makes some excellent points about the nature of belief and provides many useful ideas about how to engage others in these tutorial videos. I have watched the first three of his tutorial videos so far and look forward to seeing more.

I must confess that I initially had a hard time getting into the first video. When I saw that he was set up on a college campus with his camera and a sign, I was instantly reminded of what I have seen evangelical Christians do on college campuses far too many times. Fortunately, I stuck with the videos and soon realized that my initial impressions were wrong. I'm glad I pushed through because this would have been a great example of missing out on something positive due to a hasty judgment that turned out to be wrong.

Magnabosco goes out of his way to explain that street epistemology is not about proselytizing. While I would not personally stand in a public area with a sign or try to engage strangers in discussions of their beliefs, I still found much to like in these videos. Moreover, I agree with his suggestion that the methods he models could just as easily be used with friends, family members, or acquaintances during conversations. And I have a much easier time imagining myself having similar discussions in those contexts. So while I'll never be a street epistemologist, I consider this to be an excellent model of how to discuss belief with others where the goal is facilitating deeper understanding.

When Their Religion Restricts Our Rights

I'm not a Republican, a libertarian, or a fiscal conservative. I have no issue with progressive taxes (e.g., capital gains, income, or property), although I do despise extremely regressive taxes such as Mississippi's sales tax on groceries. I'm not inclined to believe that all economic problems can be solved with free market capitalism, and I recognize that government regulations are often necessary. But when it comes to restrictions on individual liberties, I believe that the bar should be high for those seeking to implement the restrictions. Restrictions on our personal freedom, when necessary, should at least be evidence-based.

Many of us in the United States live in areas where we are prohibited from purchasing alcohol at certain times of day, on certain days of the week, or in certain locations. Maintaining these so-called "blue laws" is detrimental to our economy. Why do we allow such restrictions on our freedom? We seem to do so primarily due to the political influence of our Christian neighbors. We allow them to restrict our rights for what often amounts to religious reasons.

Most of us are still prohibited from buying, growing, or using marijuana. Why? Are these prohibitions based on solid science about the effects of marijuana or obsolete business decisions (e.g., not wanting hemp to provide a cheap alternative to paper) and fear-mongering? Why do we continue to elect religious officials who will restrict our freedom for questionable reasons?

When Shaming and Outrage Drive Away Potential Allies

Warning sign for police brutality. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We live in a world that often seems to be characterized by rampant unfairness. The supply of things that should upset us seems endless. Church-state violations, sexism, efforts to restrict free expression, legal discrimination against LGBT persons, Christian privilege, racism, massive corporations that refuse to provide employees a living wage, police brutality, animal cruelty, and so on. There are plenty of things over which outrage is a perfectly valid reaction.

Unfortunately, none of us can devote equal time, attention, and effort to everything that outrages us. As a result, we have to prioritize. If we cannot prioritize, we burn out and give up. And what happens when we prioritize? The upside is that we become more effective as we focus on our priorities. The downside is that we are inevitably attacked for not having the right priorities.

If I had to select the one thing that most irks me about those I encounter on the Internet who earn the social justice warrior label, it would be their refusal to accept the fact that having different priorities does not make someone a bad person and their willingness to shame and even demonize those who have somewhat different priorities than they do. This behavior serves to undermine social justice, leading people to disengage and stop listening. This is the paradoxical effect of outrage culture - it damages the very agenda the outraged claim to have.

Symbiotic Relationships and Political Activism

McDonald's arches + U.S flag. Synonymous, symbiotic, patriotic, neurotic. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

From a biological perspective, a symbiotic relationship is one in which organisms of different species living in close proximity can, but does not necessarily, benefit one another. Some forms of symbiosis benefit both species involved (mutualism); others benefit one species while the other is harmed (parasitism) or unaffected (commensalism). Still others confer no clear benefit or adverse impact to either species (i.e., neutralism).

From a sociological perspective, we usually think of symbiosis in simpler terms as involving a high degree of interdependence among individuals or groups of people. For example, I think we could probably say that secular activists have a symbiotic relationship with religious groups that often threaten the separation of church and state. Secular activism would cease to exist without religious overreach. It can largely be understood as a reaction to religious overreach and would be unnecessary without it.

One of the things about symbiotic relationships I have always found fascinating is the manner in which two groups who appear to stand in adamant opposition to one another often seem to derive great benefit from their continued mutual antagonism. The two large political parties in the U.S. come to mind, as do many of the institutions that have emerged around them (e.g., Fox News and MSNBC). But mostly, I am thinking of the countless special interest groups that advocate for particular issues on either side of the political divide.

If God Is Everywhere...

Going to Sunday school at the Baptist Church. Lejunior, Harlan County, Kentucky. - NARA - 541344 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In Sunday school, I was told countless times that some sort of god is "everywhere." It was in and around all of us. Sort of like what Star Wars called "the force," I wondered aloud? No, of course not! Star Wars was fictional; this god is real.

I remember having at least two questions about this idea of god being in and around all of us:

1. If this god is in me, it would know my every thought. Why I am still told to pray?
2. If this god is present everywhere, what is the point of building so many churches and spending so much time in them?

Although I never found satisfactory answers to either of these questions, I was able to ignore #1 for the most part. I concluded that the act of prayer was more important for me than it was for any god, and I tried not to think much more about it. I prayed because I was afraid of what might happen if I didn't. Prayer helped to soothe me.

Go to Church...or Else

"Go to church..." by The Pug Father - Flickr: Go to church.... Licensed under CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

I love this picture, as it captures something important about how children are indoctrinated into evangelical fundamentalist Christianity in the United States. The message is clear: do something you probably won't enjoy or you will be punished.

According to Wikipedia, the picture was taken in Alabama. That sounds about right, but I think it could be at home throughout much of the U.S. I would not be surprised to see it here in Mississippi, but I also wouldn't be surprised to see it in many of the states I've lived in that are far outside the Bible Belt.

I imagine that the simple message of this billboard is not just for children and that it could be effective for plenty of Christian adults. Many of those driving past it will undoubtedly feel a smug sense of self-satisfaction that they are "saved" while we heathens are headed for the hell they imagine. Others will feel a twinge of guilt as they realize that it has been awhile since they wasted a perfectly good Sunday morning in church.

Ancient Aliens: A Secular God of the Gaps

Moai at Rano Raraku, Easter Island (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One of the most concise ways to think about the "god of the gaps" (or argument from ignorance) concept would be something like the following (via Iron Chariots):

1. I don't understand how X could have happened.
2. Anything I don't understand is caused by God.
3. Therefore, God caused X.

We have all encountered this flawed line of argument many times from religious believers seeking to promote their preferred gods. Most of us have a reasonably clear idea of the many problems associated with it. We recognize, for example, that premise #1 makes the mistake of assuming that just because I don't understand something nobody else understands it either. And we certainly recognize premise #2 as being thoroughly absurd. As a result, we find the entire "god of the gaps" notion far from persuasive.

A variation of this argument is not as uncommon among non-religious persons as we might think. I have heard variations of it from atheists who believe in ghosts, hauntings, souls, and ancient aliens visiting early human civilizations.

364 Days Until JesusWeen

I'm Not Going Back Outside Till November! (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

November 1 is always such a sad day, as the realization that we must wait a whole year for the return of JesusWeen sets in. You'd think I would have it out of my system by now, but that never seems to happen.

In the chaotic run-up to JesusWeen this year (deciding which white outfit I would wear and where I could grab a bag of cheap bibles), I missed Maxwell Grant's post at Religion Dispatches, "Trick or...Bible: Christians Coping with Halloween." I'm not familiar with Grant, but he is identified as a United Church of Christ pastor in Connecticut.

In his post, he describes evangelical Christians' long-running fear and dislike for Halloween and reviews some of the ways they have attempted to deal with the holiday. To my delight, these included JesusWeen.

The idea is simple: instead of wearing a costume, wear white (the color of righteousness); when someone greets you with “Trick or treat,” respond with “Jesus Loves You”; and if you want to drop candy in the bag, feel free, but drop a small Bible in that bag while you’re at it.

So, it is okay to hand out candy with the bibles? Damn! I wish I had known that before last night. Just giving out bibles did not go over so well.

Why I Am So Fond of Halloween

Costumers in bar, Halloween in New Orleans. Jesus! (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

October has been my favorite month for as long as I can remember, and I always look forward to Halloween even though I haven't really celebrated it since college. I recognize that the appeal of Halloween for me today comes mostly from a combination of nostalgia, the long-awaited change in the Mississippi heat, and the many horror films one can find on TV. The terror some Christians experience in response to Halloween is just an added perk.

What I most remember about Halloween from my childhood is the palpable sense of excitement that was always in the air. Sure, some of this happened around Christmas too but nothing to the extent of Halloween. First, there was the planning that went into one's costume. What will I be this year? What are my friends planning to dress as? These seemed like such important decisions at the time.

Next, there was the anticipation building up to the day itself. In elementary school, we'd be permitted to wear our costumes to school on Halloween or the last school day before Halloween. Our teachers would be in costume, and the school would be decorated so much that the whole thing felt more like a carnival than school. Granted, this didn't last long, but it was sure fun while it did. I don't think anybody learned much of anything that day, but we all needed a break from the grind.

Ouija Boards and the Demonic

Original ouija board (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Have you seen the previews for the new horror movie that just opened called Ouija? It looks quite silly, but the previews were enough to bring back memories of something I'd long forgotten: the sheer terror with which some evangelical fundamentalist Christians regard the Ouija board. And with Jesus Ween right around the corner, I thought this would be an appropriate time to share some thoughts on this subject.

Before the age of 14, I'd never heard of Ouija boards. That would change when a friend showed up to a party with one. I believe his goal was to see if he could freak anyone out with it, and he certainly succeeded. But everyone present that night was freaked out in a fun way. Nobody was upset; fun was had by all.

I was already something of a skeptic at this point in my life, and I certainly did not believe that we were actually communicating with "spirits" or anything of the sort. But I seemed to be in the minority here. Most of the others who either participated or observed took the idea of disembodied beings communicating with us at least somewhat seriously. Some really seemed to believe it wholeheartedly; others were probably just going along out of curiosity. I suppose the poor "souls" with whom we were communicating had little to do besides creep out drunk kids while they awaited their final destination.

Mormons: Our Underwear is Not Magic

Temple garments, underwear worn by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS; Mormons). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

According to Kate Seamons' recent article for Newser, the LDS Church recently put out a video to clear up misconceptions about their infamous "temple garment." What they want to address, specifically, is the suggestion that there is something "magic" about these garments.

Good for them! For entirely too long, they have attempted to cloak much of their temple ceremony in secrecy, fueling all sorts of rumors and wild speculation about what happens there. More transparency probably would help their image considerably. It is baffling that it took them as long as it did to comment on something as widely discussed as their underwear. I have to think this is a good move on their part.

Not magic underwear. Got it. And yet, the title of the video is "Sacred Temple Clothing." So, "sacred" but not "magic." What's the difference? We're told that "sacred" is about one's connection to gods, and I suppose this wouldn't be true all varieties of magic. It does not seem like a terribly clear distinction, but I suppose we'll have to take it since it is all we're likely to get.



In the video, we learn that "magic underwear" is "offensive" and that "church members ask for the same degree of respect and sensitivity that would be afforded to any other faith by people of good will." I'm not sure why any degree of respect should be afforded to a set of beliefs that has not sufficiently demonstrated its veracity and value. I'll gladly extend respect to people who believe strange things and to their right to believe strange things; however, I stop short of respecting the strange things they believe merely because someone labels them as faith.

I'm also quite wary of the notion that any of us should change the content of our speech simply because someone decides to claim offense. That seems like a recipe for silencing dissent and criticism. Then again, "sacred" garments do not strike me as any less absurd as "magic underwear," so maybe the terminology is irrelevant.

Some of the Atheists Who Mock Christians Believe in Ghosts

This image was selected as a picture of the week on the Malay Wikipedia for the 29th week, 2010. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I have encountered quite a few Christians during the course of my life who report that they believe in angels. This isn't exactly a shocker, is it? The existence of angels is part of mainstream Christian dogma. Even Pope Francis recently weighed in on the subject of angels, reaffirming his belief in their existence.

Many atheists are fond of mocking Christians for their belief in angels, and I can't say I blame them. The existence of angels seems every bit as absurd as the existence of gods. But there's at least one problem with mocking Christians for believing in angels: some of the atheists doing this share another silly belief with the Christians they are mocking: they believe in ghosts.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in gods, and this leaves atheists free to believe in all sorts of other supernatural nonsense, including souls, ghosts, haunted houses, and other things we tend to hear about during the month of October. I suspect that the majority of atheists do not believe in these things, but some certainly do. There is nothing inherent in atheism that precludes such beliefs.

Join the #AtheistVoter Campaign

The #NormalizeAtheism campaign used Twitter to bring attention to the important goal of normalizing atheism, and now American Atheists has brought us a new one. On October 21, American Atheists announced a two-week #AtheistVoter campaign. This one is a bit different than just encouraging use of a hashtag. You see, American Atheists is encouraging all of us in the U.S. to contact our elected officials (especially those running in the midterm elections), let them know that we are atheist voters, and tell them about the issues that matter to us.

I just posted about this over at Mississippi Atheists because I think our state is in desperate need of this sort of thing, but I wanted to mention it here too. I imagine that many of you have elected officials who tend to forget that the represent many atheist, humanist, and other non-religious persons.

Here is a step-by-step description of how you can help:

1. Visit AtheistVoter.org and look up the social media accounts of your elected officials (scroll down the page and enter your zip code into the "Locate your Senators and Representative" search box).
2. Contact them on Twitter using the #AtheistVoter hashtag and tell them about what matters to you.

And that's it. Pretty damn simple, isn't it? To see many great examples of the sort of thing others are tweeting, check out the #AtheistVoter hashtag.

H/Ts to Friendly Atheist and What Would JT Do?

Religious Atrocities in the Age of Transparency

Daniel Dennett at the 17. Göttinger Literaturherbst, October 19th, 2008, in Göttingen, Germany. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Sooner or later, every atheist blogger writes about religious atrocities (e.g., clergy sexual abuse). Howls of protest sound from religious readers as they insist that the behavior in question would have happened without religion and that it is unfair to characterize it as religious in nature. And while we acknowledge that it is true that something like sexual abuse certainly takes place outside of religious organizations, we also point out that it is the religious who continue to insist that they are morally superior to the rest of us. We may also address how clergy are put on pedestals and children are taught to trust and respect them in ways that we rarely see elsewhere. Sure, the teacher or Scout leader occupies a position of respect, but few can threaten one with hell for failing to keep a secret quite as convincingly as a priest.

Cepheus (Bitchspot) has been writing his Horror Show Sunday series for some time. In today's post (update: link no longer active), one about a Christian pastor's arrest on allegations that he sexually assaulted a 16 year-old girl during a private prayer session, he asks an important question:

So what do we do about this? I don’t know that there’s anything we can do, mostly because the people we need to convince not to trust these preachers are exactly the people who fall most heavily under their sway. If the flood of sex abuse cases in the media isn’t enough to keep parents from leaving their children with religious workers, I have no idea what is.

I suspect that this is one of those questions that almost every atheist blogger has asked. It screams out for a satisfactory answer.

I left a comment on Cephus' post in which I said,

The question of what we do about this is a great one. For now, I think that posts like this are an important part of the answer. We need to keep informing people that this crap continues to happen and that it happens more frequently than many realize. I consider spreading the word about this sort of thing to be an important public service.

I had something in mind when I wrote that: a YouTube video of Daniel Dennett's presentation from TAM 2014, "Can Churches Survive the New Transparency" (I've included the video below).

Daily Show Mocks Exorcism

I love The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, and this clip is an example of why. The clip reminds viewers that the Catholic Church is still performing exorcisms. I know you knew that; I'm not sure the entire audience did, and so I think that was an important contribution all by itself. The part where the traditional exorcist is trying to explain what is wrong with Skype exorcisms is fantastic, and so is the part where the guy doing Skype exorcisms agrees that doing exorcisms via Twitter would be "ridiculous." Love it!

My hope is that clips like this - even if they are entirely staged and neither of the priests featured take what they said seriously - will help more people recognize that one form of exorcism is as silly as the next and that the underlying belief in demons that guides these archaic rituals is absurd too.

To be sure, some will try to dismiss this as anti-Catholic. But this seems like an unfair allegation given that clips like this are merely holding up a mirror to reflect Catholic beliefs and practices. Accurately communicating what a group believes is hardly a form of bias.

Sadly, the belief in demonic possession and the practice of exorcism are not something we can afford to dismiss as mere jokes. Exorcism is a barbaric practice that causes real harm. I hope that mocking it and continuing to highlight its absurdity will help to hasten its demise. In the meantime, we also need to do more to protect people from those who would use it against them.

The Atheist Community is Dead; Long Live the Atheist Communities

Flags of Coalition of the Radical Left supporters in a coalition rally in 2007 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If is is true, as I believe it is, that atheism begins and ends with the lack of god belief, I suppose it makes sense that most atheists who write blogs will eventually address topics other than atheism. After all, how many times can one explain that one does not share the god belief of the majority? How many times can one criticize religious belief or promote atheism without repeating oneself? Sure, many of us could devote more time to supporting other atheists in various ways, but it seems almost inevitable that we will branch out to other topics (e.g., church-state separation, humanism, science education, skepticism, the importance of free expression in democratic societies). And as we do so, we are likely to experience the pull to comment on the behavior of other atheists as they do the same. Perhaps the narrowness of atheism assures that we will end up encountering and then dealing with atheists whose opinions differ from our own on a number of topics and whose tactics for addressing the issues they value will be quite different from our own.

Free Speech on Campus

US Secretary of State, Ms. Condoleezza Rice, speaking on climate change in Washington DC. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

My views on the importance of free expression and what threatens it have evolved over time. I do not have to go back more than a couple years to find posts I wrote on this topic with which I now disagree. This is one of the strengths of freethought - we can (and do) change our minds as a result of new experiences, knowledge, and the like. Not being attached to any particular dogma makes this much easier to do.

I've recognized that some of the more serious threats today come not from the political right but from the political left. I've discovered that some atheists are not just willing but eager to silence those who disagree with them on certain socio-political issues or do not share their priorities by resorting to public shaming, shunning, and intimidation (e.g., campaigns to get people fired for saying things they don't like). And I've seen massive changes taking place at institutions of higher learning that have been toxic to free expression (e.g., the idea that protecting students from hurt feelings is a vital part of the university mission).

In an editorial addressing the recent trend of public figures turning down requests to deliver commencement addresses at universities over concerns that students would protest their appearance, the Los Angeles Times' Editorial Board acknowledged that students have the right to protest the selection of graduation speakers, adding:

Still, the cascade of canceled speeches is worrying for several reasons. First, there is the uncompromising nature of the opposition: the demand that a speaker agree 100% with the protesters. This insistence on doctrinal purity is antithetical to the notion that a university ought to be an environment in which students, far from being protected from opposing views, are challenged to engage with them.

The "Real Christian" Phenomenon

Christian IV's Brewhouse at Christians Brygge in Copenhagen, Denmark (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I have written about the "real Christian" phenomenon here more times than I can count (here's a particularly sarcastic example). I think that must be because I find it to be one of the more infuriating examples of how many Christians distort reality to maintain their faith. But as crazy as it may drive us when we see it, I can't help finding it fascinating at the same time.

What is the "real Christian" phenomenon? It is the habit many Christians have of denying that a Christian who does or says something they don't like is "a real Christian" or "a true Christian." Here's how it works:

1. Christian A and Christian B both identify as Christian.
2. Christian A does or says something that Christian B finds difficult to reconcile with his or her own view of Christianity.
3. Christian B decides that Christian A is not a "real Christian" because "real Christians" would not depart so significantly from Christian B's personal preferences.
4. This allows Christian B to ignore Christian A's behavior without having to confront any difficult questions about the inherent goodness of Christians.

The key thing to understand here is that Christian B has no unique claim to Christianity and no more right to call himself or herself a Christian than anybody else. The only "crime" committed by Christian A was that he or she departed a bit too much from Christian B's view of Christianity. It is an extremely primitive way of distorting reality to protect one's personal faith.

The Atheists Who Would Silence You

Freethought (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In continuing on with a recent theme, let's talk about the people who want to shut you up. Who are these people who not only do not like what you have to say but want to stop you from saying it? Many of them are religious believers so we can start with them.

The religious extremists want to make it a crime to say what you say: blasphemy. They are willing to punish you for insulting their sacred cows. Depending on the country in which you live, the sort of punishment they have in mind could involve taking your life. It may be an exercise of state power, or it may take the form of mob violence.

The religious liberals and moderates also want to silence you, but they have a different approach for doing so. Instead of resorting to violence, their preferred form of punishment involves inflicting damage (or threatening to inflict damage) on your reputation, status, relationships, or standing in the community. Relying on the long tradition of religious privilege, they use public shaming and social disapproval to keep you in line. Speaking out against their sacred cows is impolite, improper, and brings a variety of social sanctions. If you do not conform, you will be demonized. Think you are immune to social disapproval? Maybe you are one of the lucky few. In that case, they may work to get you fired, chase your customers away, turn your neighbors against you, spread rumors about your family members, and so on. There is plenty they can do to make your life more difficult even if you do not happen to care what they think of you.

Having Different Priorities Does Not Make Someone a Bad Person

Rank FR (Photo credit: Spaces and Places)

We all have particular socio-political issues that are important to us (e.g., reproductive rights, the environment, animal rights, separation of church and state, poverty, civil liberties, LGBT rights). If we were each asked to list the ten that were most important to us, we'd be able to do so. If we then compared lists, we'd find considerable variation. There would be some overlap, but many differences would emerge too. You'd have some things on your list that were not on mine and vice-versa. This is not good or bad; it is merely a fact.

When pushed to do so, most of could rank-order our lists by priority. We could place our ten issues in order from most important to us to least important to us. I'm not saying we would find this to be an easy task, but we could do it. If we were all to do this, we'd undoubtedly find more differences. Even if two of us had the same ten items on our lists, we'd probably find that we had them arranged in a different order of priority. We don't all have exactly the same priorities. Again, this is neither good nor bad; it is just a fact.

Content to Ignore Gamergate

I have been asked a few times why I have had nothing to say about the gamergate controversy currently raging on social media. I have explained that I don't know enough about it to have much to say.

To unpack that a bit more since it seems to be of great interest, I have steered clear of gamergate for at least three reasons:

1. I do not consider myself a gamer.
2. Much of the controversy sounds so familiar to what we have been hearing from social justice warriors about atheists and skeptics that I'd prefer to address these issues in the context of atheism and skepticism.
3. I have outrage fatigue.

Not a gamer

With a few brief exceptions over a decade ago, I never really got into PC gaming. I enjoyed a few titles for a while but had neither the interest nor the money to build the sort of gaming systems that were required to keep up with the latest and greatest. I have minimal experience playing with others online. I guess doing so never held much interest for me.

At the present time, my gaming activity consists of occasionally playing obsolete sports games on an equally console. If it died tomorrow, I wouldn't bother to replace it. So no, I don't see myself as much of a gamer at all.

What I will say is that sexism and misogyny were certainly evident the couple of times I dabbled with online gaming years ago. Same with racism, homophobia, and all sorts of other unpleasant utterances. This didn't surprise me in the least. I assumed that most of the people I encountered in these online gaming communities were teenage boys. Having once been a teenage boy, I figured that this stuff probably comes with the territory. This doesn't make it acceptable; it makes it typical.

On the question of whether sexism and misogyny are serious problems among gamers, I'll gladly defer to the avid gamers. They are in a much better position to evaluate this than I am.

Liberals Giving Islam a Pass Are Mistaken

Bill Maher attending a ceremony to receive a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What is it called when we routinely criticize one group of people for objectionable behavior while virtually ignoring the same behavior when committed by another group? Perhaps there is a more precise name for this sort of thing, but the one that most readily springs to mind for me is hypocrisy.

Yes, we usually think of hypocrisy as condemning someone else for doing what we ourselves are doing (e.g., "It's okay when we do it!"). But condemning the behavior of one group while giving another a pass for doing the same thing - or even worse things - certainly strikes me as hypocritical. At the very least, it is the sort of thing we should seek to avoid.

Bill Maher (HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher) recently scolded liberals for giving Islam a pass on all sorts of human rights violations. I think he's right that this is a problem, and it is one of a handful of things that has come to irk me about my fellow liberals. Yes, I am still a liberal. And no, that does not mean I have found it necessary to drink the kool-aid that prevents me from thinking critically about liberalism and its more problematic aspects. I suppose one could say that I'm a freethinker before I'm a liberal.

Biblical Immorality

Titlepage of the New Testament section of a German Luther Bible, printed in 1769. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When atheists criticize the sort of morality found in both the Old Testament and New Testament of the book Christians call "holy," we tend to select a few choice examples that highlight the sharp contrast between what the Judeo-Christian god allegedly did and modern values. We might pick slavery or rape, for example, and point out how the god Christians claim to worship advocated these things which we now recognize as abhorrent. Many of our criticisms are fairly specific in this way, but it is also possible to step back and draw on larger examples of the sort that might be described as themes which permeate much of the bible.

Imagine that a parent raised a child to think and behave in a certain way. The child, who trusts the parent, conforms to the parent's wishes. If the child is young enough, we might conclude that the child does not have much choice in the matter and is effectively being molded by the parent. Now suppose that this same parent brutally punishes the child for thinking and behaving in the very ways he or she has instructed the child to think and behave. Perhaps the scope of the punishment even includes murder. It wouldn't make much sense, would it? We would be fairly quick to agree that such a parent was doing a rather poor job of parenting (to say the least). And yet, it is perfectly acceptable for the Judeo-Christian god to do this throughout the bible. Mysterious ways and all.