God Trumps!

These are great. Collectible religion cards. Awesome. I have to say, though, I wish there were more in the set. The wiccans, spiritualists and Mormons all really deserve a spot.

Read Full Post

Advice for Republicans

The Republican party has some decisions to make at this point. They have to remake themselves. The infighting, on an ideological level, that occurred during this past election season, and the high profile defections of Republican intelligentsia reveal a party in crisis. The Republican party is a rather large tent. The three basic pillars of the Republican party - old guard fiscal conservatives, religious whack jobs (aka "moral majority), and warmongers (neocons) - are going to have to come to terms with one another. And it's going to have to become clear just who will take power.

For the past 8 years, the Republican party has been controlled by an alliance between the religious whack jobs and the warmongers. They have won popular appeal by embracing "populism", which to them has meant embracing the common and vehemently rejecting all things "elite", including education, intellect and success based on merit. Think about this - 8 years ago we elected the man you would want to have a beer with. He's a bumbling idiot - but for many he is the sort of person you can identify with. This time 'round, we had GI Joe and the ditsy prom queen - people you love for their story and for the way that you identify with them as real people. But here's the thing - when it comes to those people making decisions - you need the elite. You need intelligent, well-educated individuals who know what the hell they are doing.

The Republican party has been ruined by its "populism". It's been ruined by its warmongering neocons and its bigotry filled, anti-intellectual, religious whack jobs. The ruin of the Republican party is nowhere more apparent than in the selection of Sarah Palin as VP candidate. I don't care how many times you try to cover for her. I don't care how many minutes of this or that interview are on the cutting room floor (so are many minutes of many other interviews with prominent figures, and they still don't sound like 6 year olds). I don't care how much you think the recent comments about her believing Africa to be a continent and not a country are media bias (reported by FOX) or bitterness from her campaign. Just listen to the woman talk and you'll discover all you need to know. She doesn't have the slightest grasp on the English language. She doesn't seem to understand that the conjunction "also" should not be used as filler. She can't string a coherent sentence together - not even a simple one. Given that no one has indicated to me that she suffers some sort of impediment impacting her speech and not her mental prowess, I can safely assume that her inability to utilize basic speech is a signal of an empty head.

And my assumption is backed up by the fact that she didn't know what the Bush doctrine is, believes the earth is 6,000 years old and that humans walked with dinosaurs, and still doesn't know what the vice president does. This is the Republican party - power thirsty, war loving, ignorant, religious nuts. The conservative intelligentsia needs to rid themselves of this "populism". For the sake of the country, and the sake of their party, they need to abandon the religious right and the neocons and return to the party of fiscal conservatism and small government. They need to turn away from Sarah Palin and turn toward something else.

Sadly, a recent poll indicates that 64% of Republicans want Palin to run in 2012. Here is my advice for Republicans - don't let that happen. It may work. You may get Bush with lipstick in 2012, but you will damage the Republican brand, and the country, even more than you already have.

Read Full Post

Prop 8, Race, and Religion

You may have heard that Prop 8 - an amendment to California's Constitution banning gay marriage - passed. You may have also heard that its passage was at least in part due to record African American turnout - 7 in 10 blacks voted to ban gay marriage.

I normally wouldn't have anything to say about this, other than shame on you California. We all know religion was the main force behind the votes to strip rights away from gays in California. Or at least, that's what I thought. But I've been hearing a lot from blacks claiming that it's actually the gay community's fault that blacks voted to take away their rights. Jasmyne Cannick's op-ed in the LA Times is, I think, a prime example of this claim:

I don't see why the right to marry should be a priority for me or other black people. Gay marriage? Please. At a time when blacks are still more likely than whites to be pulled over for no reason, more likely to be unemployed than whites, more likely to live at or below the poverty line, I was too busy trying to get black people registered to vote, period; I wasn't about to focus my attention on what couldn't help but feel like a secondary issue. The first problem with Proposition 8 was the issue of marriage itself. The white gay community never successfully communicated to blacks why it should matter to us above everything else -- not just to me as a lesbian but to blacks generally.

The way I see it, the white gay community is banging its head against the glass ceiling of a room called equality, believing that a breakthrough on marriage will bestow on it parity with heterosexuals. But the right to marry does nothing to address the problems faced by both black gays and black straights. Does someone who is homeless or suffering from HIV but has no healthcare, or newly out of prison and unemployed, really benefit from the right to marry someone of the same sex?

Did you get that? According to Ms. Cannick, the reason blacks don't care about equality for gays is that they have their own troubles. And apparently, it's the responsibility of the gay community to make it the case that their ability to excercise their rights does something to help the black community. Let's call this what it is, without pulling any punches - absolute and utter bullshit.

I'm not denying that blacks in this country still face nasty poverty and discrimination. I live in an area of the country that is still in many ways de facto segregated, with black areas, hispanic areas, and white areas. That disgusts me to no end. And I can certainly understand why changing that would be a priority for Ms. Cannick and others. But that is no reason to deny anyone else their rights. Prop 8 didn't have to be the priority for the black community, although apparently Ms. Cannick doesn't understand the difference between pushing a button to secure the rights of others and making a life long cause of something. The gay community wasn't asking blacks to turn away from their fight to eradicate discrimination and poverty in minority communities. They were asking blacks to push the "no" button when they walked into the voting booth.

Apparently, though, Ms. Cannick believes that there isn't any reason to support the rights of others if doing so doesn't give you any benefit. That's absolute crap. And if that reasoning held, then no rich white person would have any reason to give a damn about the plight of blacks in this country. But they do have reason - they have a reason more significant than money or fame or glory or feeling good. It's called justice. Justice is important whether or not you or your community see anything good out of it. Justice, like any other virtue, is good for its own sake. And it should be supported whether you get anything out of it or not. Justice is why all people, not just minorites, should care about making sure that minorities are not discriminated against. Justice is why people should care about poverty. Justice is why people should care about whether or not gays can marry. Gays shouldn't have to make their right to marry something that helps the black community in order for it to matter. The denial of rights should matter to each individual, whether that denial has any impact on them or not.

Of course, in addition to claiming that the black community isn't going to care about gay rights until they personally see some benefit from those rights being recognized, Ms. Cannick also claims that gays didn't actually make an effort to connect with black voters and convince them to vote no. She claims their efforts with the NAACP weren't enough and were poor strategy, given that the NAACP is "outdated". Melissa Harris-Lacewell, who I have enormous respect for, says something similar (video below). Now, it may very well be true that the NAACP is outdated, and it may well be true that other groups should have been contacted. But I think this is where the real reason that blacks voted yes on prop 8 comes out.

Which groups would you think you should contact in order to make ideological inroads into the black community? My first guess would be the churches. But guess what, the churches are the reason that blacks voted yes on prop 8. The bigotry displayed by their vote (Harris-Lacewell said it first) is a product of religion. Just go look at what some black voters had to say about their backing of prop 8. Apparently pastors were telling their congregants to go vote yes on 8. Even Cannick briefly mentions this:

But the black civil rights movement was essentially born out of and driven by the black church; social justice and religion are inextricably intertwined in the black community. To many blacks, civil rights are grounded in Christianity-- not something separate and apart from religion but synonymous with it. To the extent that the issue of gay marriage seemed to be pitted against the church, it was going to be a losing battle in my community.

Exactly, Ms. Cannick. It's not a matter of the gay community adding a few benefits to the black community to any recognition of gay rights. It's not about white gays being afraid to go into certain neighborhoods (that dig, by the way, was unwarranted, and continues the false conflation between fear of poor neighborhoods and fear of black neighborhoods). It's not because, as was mentioned in the LA Times article linked to above, "the gay community was never considered a third of a person". It's about religion. A community that has endured the most insufferable violations of rights, the most degrading treatment, and terrible blocks to advancement. A community that, sadly, still has to fight for equality and still has to endure the ignorance of racism that swims under the surface in this country has fought to take away rights from others. They didn't do it because justice isn't worth fighting for if you don't get something out of it. They didn't do it because they have endured worse treatment than gays have. They did it because a man in a pulpit told them that big sky daddy hates gays. Contrary to what Ms. Cannick thinks, social justice and religion are not intertwined in the black community. Social justice for some and religion are intertwined in the black community. And, as with religion in any community, it is also intertwined with hatred and injustice. Now, would you even bother to spend your money and time trying to convince people who believe on faith that you deserve fewer rights than others to vote in your favor? Could it be that the coalition for "No on 8" thought it would be a waste of time to fight the church in the black community?

I may be wrong. Perhaps there were inroads other than the church that the gay community could have, and should have, utilized. I'm willing to leave that an open question. But I refuse to believe Ms. Cannick's assesment of why blacks voted yes on prop 8. I refuse to believe that the black community only cares about justice when they benefit from it. Instead, it seems clear as day to me that the black community is influenced by the church, a church that teaches bigotry and hatred, a church which teaches that justice should only be given to some. The black community in California has been infected with the same poison that infects white communities in Lousianna and Indiana and hispanic communities in Arizona and Nevada - the poison of hatred spewed from the pulpit. Don't blame the gay community for the passage of prop. 8. Don't claim that it passed by attributing self-serving motives to those who have shown no sign of such shallowness. Put the blame squarely where it belongs - the church.

Princeton's Melissa Harris-Lacewell, being her usual brilliant self on the Rachel Maddow show:

Read Full Post

Bishops on Reducing Abortions

According to some Catholic Bishops, abortion rates cannot be reduced unless Roe v. Wade is overturned.

You might think that makes sense, but it's false. Guttmacher's statistics indicate that there is no correlation (much less causal relationship) between the legality of abortion and the number of abortions that occur in a country:

while it may seem paradoxical, a country's abortion rate is not closely correlated with whether abortion is legal there. For example, abortion levels are quite high in Latin American countries, where abortion is highly restricted. (In fact, 20 million of the 46 million abortions performed annually worldwide occur in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws.) At the same time, abortion rates are quite low throughout Western Europe, where the procedure is legal and widely available. Also, Eastern and Western Europe have the world's highest and lowest abortion rates, respectively, yet abortion is generally legal throughout the Continent.

In fact, if you put a little thought into it, you realize that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to prevent what causes them - unwanted pregnancies. How do you prevent unwanted pregnancies? Birth control! And the data bears this out:

Abortion levels are high in countries where the desire for small families is strong but contraceptive use is low or ineffective. For example, in most of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics, where desired family size has been small for many years, modern contraceptive methods were not generally available until recently. As a result, women relied on abortion—which was legal, safe and easily accessible—to regulate births. However, as contraceptives have become much easier to obtain in recent years, the situation has begun to change rapidly, and abortion rates in some of these countries fell by as much as 50% between 1990 and 1996.

Of course, the Bishops can't tell you that greater access to contraception will lower the abortion rate in the U.S. because they oppose contraception just as vehemently as they oppose abortion. When will these people let their conclusions be informed by the data? When will they assess the facts on the basis of evidence rather than their preconceived dogma?

Oh wait... they're bishops. Nevermind.

Read Full Post

Please Explain This To Me

The extreme right wing's justification for their opposition to gay rights has always confused me. I understand why they don't like gays. Their Bible tells them that homosexuality is "an abomination". Of course, it tells them this in the same book which also says that it is an abomination to eat shellfish or wear garments made of two types of fabrics. Putting that aside, though, it's clear what their justification is for thinking homosexuality is wrong - the bible tells them so.

They can't claim that people who do things they consider to be wrong should be denied equal rights, though. That's not how things work, so they've had to come up with anothyer justification for denying gay couples the right to marry - they claim that it is an "attack on marriage" or that they have to "defend the family". And I have to admit, I've always been very confused about that. How does allowing gay couples to marry hurt marriage or family? Seems to me it encourages marriage and family. This right wing position has always left me confused.

And now, I've got even more to be confused about, since apparently the right is now worried about more than gay marriage. Their new fear is increased penalties for hate motivated crimes against gays. Coral Ridge Ministries recently put this out:


Did you get that? Somehow, hate crimes legislation is a suppression of free speech. Last I checked, beating another human being and dragging him behind your truck isn't free speech. It's a crime. And all hate crime legislation does is give you a harsher penalty if the reason you committed the crime is hatred.

I'm not advocating the passage of hate crimes legislation (although I honestly don't see a problem with it), but I can't see any reason why such legislation would automatically lead to a "criminalization of Christianity". If hate crimes legislation passes, Fred Phelps will still be able to stand out on a corner with his hateful signs and spread his hateful message all he wants. The first amendment protects that right. And laughably, if the government did try to silence bigoted Christians, the ACLU would undoubtedly be the first to step up to defend their rights.

Hate crimes legislation is nothing more than a mandated increase in penalty for crimes that are committed out of hate. Now, honestly, is killing a gay person just because they are gay a tenet of Christianity? If it is, then it's a criminalization of Christianity. But since there are already laws against killing people, Christianity of that sort is already criminal. (Well, I guess maybe it could be a tenet of Coral Ridge's Christianity, but that's certainly not what Jesus would do.)

Can someone please explain this to me?

Oh, and incidentally, if hatred of gays is a tenet of "biblical morality", then "biblical morality" is bigoted. And it's not morality. Hate - true hate - is always immoral. This "biblical morality" that Coral Ridge Ministries is so keen on protecting is despicable. It teaches bigotry against homosexuals, women, adherents of other religions, and adherents of no religion. It condones slavery. Hell, it gives instructions for selling your own daughter into slavery. You want to believe that, well, go ahead. You want to preach that to the masses, well, go ahead. But don't expect a civilized society to cater to your bronze age world view.

Read Full Post

Pulpit political endorsements.

There have been murmurs for a while that the ADF was going to put together some pastors to risk their tax-exempt status by endorsing political candidates. Well, they've done it:




I love the guy at the end of the video who says that the pastor has the right to let them know that a candidate is not abiding by what the Bible says. I'm assuming your pastor already tells you what the Bible says, but are you really so intellectually inept that you can't find out what the candidates believe and do the comparison on your own?

I know, I know. He was talking about the pastor's right to say what he thinks. Well, the pastor does have that right - he has the right to say what he thinks about the political candidates. And he could endorse candidates all day long around your kitchen table. But a pulpit endorsement isn't a case of the pastor expressing his views as an individual. It's a case of him telling you what the church thinks. Tax exempt organizations cannot endorse political candidates. That's the law. It applies to Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and the local homeless shelter just as much as it does to churches. Now I personally don't have an opinion as to whether tax exempt organizations should be allowed to endorse political candidates or not. But I see no reason to claim an exception for churches. Either all tax exempt organizations should be able to endorse, or none should be able to.

Then again, I don't think that all churches should be tax-exempt anyway. Only non-profit organizations should be free from taxes, since the sole purpose of those organizations is already to put something back in the community. If you've ever seen a megachurch or read a listing of the holdings of the Vatican, you know that not all churches are non-profit. However, while I do hope that these guys lose their tax exempt status, I do feel a little bad. After all, I know the cost will be passed onto the consumer, I mean...uh...the congregation, when it comes time for that tithe. And if the congregations of these churches are so stupid that they can't figure out whether a political candidate is in line with their cherished holy book on their own, then it seems like they've already got enough problems.

Read Full Post

Sarah Palin is Insane.

Below is video of Sarah Palin speaking to graduates of the Master's Commission at her childhood church.

What's really freaky? She's praying that Iraq is a task from God, rather than, say, using her reason to discover whether it's actually the right thing. She thinks a pipeline in Alaska is god's will (but for some reason people still need to pray for it). And she thinks a police force and education are useless if people aren't "right with god".

Honestly? Education is worthless if you don't believe that there is a sky daddy who put his human creations in a garden with a tree that would give them knowledge of good and evil and told them not to eat from it (how would they know disobeying his command was wrong?); but then a walking, talking snake came along and convinced them to eat from it, and because of this all their descendents are marred with a sin that someone else committed; and to deal with this, sky-daddy impregnated a virgin with himself so he could sacrifice himself to himself as a payment, and after this sacrifice sky-daddy rose from the dead but will come back and put all those people who don't believe this cockamamie story through eternal torture.* But he's just and he loves you. Yeah. Someone's education certainly was worthless.

I know that probably appears a bit offensive to believers. But it's basically an accurate description of your garden variety fundamentalist christianity. If you're not a fundamentalist, then it shouldn't offend you, because you don't believe that. Sarah Palin does. And I'm all for people being able to believe what they want. But please don't tell me that belief in this rather extraordinary story that must be taken on faith is necessary for education to be worthwhile. Not only is that a gigantic non-sequitur, but it's insulting to anyone who has a desire to learn about the world but doesn't accept that the Christian bible is literal truth. Believe what you will. Your faith is your business. But don't insult our intelligence.



*Apologies for the run-on, but it just sounds better that way.

Read Full Post

Yeah, That'll Work

Apparently, people have taken to praying at gas stations in the hopes that God will bring down gas prices.



Now, I understand the feeling that many of these people have that there really aren't any viable options available to bring gas prices down. Then again, as someone who takes mass transit, I haven't really looked into it. At the end of the day, however, asking the big man in the sky to bring gas prices is, we know (and I think they suspect), going to be wholly ineffectual. How many of these people wasted gas getting to the gas station to pray for lower gas prices? How many of these people, who are so concerned about high gas prices, are looking into alternative means of bringing the price of gas down?

This is the problem with irrationality. It doesn't just infect thought, it blocks rational advancement. Rather than wasting time praying and gas getting there, these people would be much better served by putting their reasoning and creativity to work to try to come up with the solution that no one has hit upon yet. Even if they didn't come up with the solution, they would have exercised their minds, and potentially eliminated bad solutions - both of which are far more worthwhile than talking to imaginary friends.

Thanks to CrucieFiction for the video.

Read Full Post

Taking Tolerance Too Far

There is a great op-ed at the Arizona Republic. But while the author – Linda Valdez – is dead right about the fact that religious tolerance, something carefully pushed by the GOP, is infringing on individual rights, there is one thing that bothers me about her piece. She is adamant in her assertion that “it is time for some lines”. But this seems to indicate that we need to work on balancing our tolerance of religion with individual rights. I disagree. Rather, I think we need to scrap this idea of religious tolerance altogether.

Religion has been given a special place in our society. A prime example in current events – the successes of pharmacists who are fighting not to do their job because of religious beliefs. But why should we be tolerant of religion? Sure, tolerance in general is a good thing. But under this idea of “religious tolerance” lies the repugnant notion that religions and religious dogma cannot be challenged, cannot be questioned. Think about it. Someone tells you that they believe an embryo has a soul, as does an individual in a persistent vegetative state. You ask for their reasons. They tell you its part of their religion. This is almost always a conversation stopper, unless you are willing to “attack their religion”. And if you do that, then you are immediately open to a charge of intolerance. Why? Because religious tolerance involves deference to religious practices and, in this case, religious beliefs. Any attempt to undermine those beliefs from outside the religion in question is automatically intolerant.

Ms. Valdez is correct that religious tolerance leads to infringements on individual rights. But her desire to draw lines between tolerance and rights is misguided. Dogma does not respect the boundary of individual rights. You cannot insist that that creationism is false, and hence should not be taught to children, and still be deferent to religious origin myths. You cannot claim that women have a right over their bodies, and yet still be deferent to religious claims that they do not. You cannot claim that homosexuals should be treated like everyone else and still be deferent to religious claims that homosexuality is an act worthy of stoning. You cannot draw a line between deference to religious dogma and rights, for any line you wish to draw will immediately be seen as intolerant.

Now, in claiming that we should scrap the idea of religious tolerance, I'm not advocating any sort of legally forced belief systems. Nor am I advocating discrimination against those who hold these religious beliefs. We should be tolerant of other people. But tolerance of people who happen to religious is not the same as tolerance of religion. Our tolerance of religion has not been just a tolerance of the people who adhere to religion. That is as it should be. Rather, our tolerance of religion has extended itself to encompass a different sort of tolerance entirely - a tolerance of belief without evidence, one that requires that we not challenge this special class of religious beliefs the same way we would challenge other sorts of belief. If we are to protect our rights, that sort of tolerance has to stop.

Read Full Post

I'm In Love!

Okay, okay, it’s just intellectual infatuation… with a youtuber named ProfMTH. If his videos are any indication, this guy gives great lecture. A taste of the sort of video he puts out below the fold, but I would suggest checking out his channel page and watching some more. The videos are so good I can even ignore the fact that he supports Obama!

Read Full Post

Why do atheists care about religion?

So, while I was meandering around YouTube (rather than doing the grading I ought to be doing... I'll go back to it in a sec. Promise) I discovered this great video explaining why atheists care about religion (with Pantera playing in the background. Nice!) I thought I would share it. You can find it below the fold.

I often get asked why, as an atheist, I care about religion, or why I spend so much time talking about god. Well, I care about religion for much the same reasons the youtuber who made the video cares. Religion has a detrimental impact on my life and the lives of others. And I spend so much time talking about whether god exists or not because almost all religions (particularly the most harmful ones) are based around a deity. Do away with the deity, do away with the religion.

The number one reason that I spend so much time and effort talking about religion and god, though, is that religious belief and theism are based on the same thing - faith. Faith is a bad epistemic method. And continuing to accept it in our society is damaging in more ways than one. Not only does it breed religious belief, but it also leads people to accept spurious claims - to rely on woo, waste time searching for ghosts, and to reject the opponents of faith. Opponents that have brought us so much good (and, yes, in the wrong hands, some bad - but way more good). I talk about religion and god because I support reason and evidence. Because I support science, and because I see the foundation of religion and theism -faith - as antithetical to these pursuits.

Read Full Post

Oh, Atheist, Your Life Must Be So Empty and Depressing

I hear this all the time from theists and “spiritual” people alike. And I get really sick of it. Apparently, PZ Myers doesn’t like hearing it either. Well, theistic or “spiritual” people, my life is not empty or depressing. A lack of theistic belief does not take any beauty out of the world, or any meaning from my life. In fact, one of the most liberating aspects of recognizing that there is no god is the realization that the world is so incredible, that it is all here as the result of a slow and painful process of development out of itself. That is incredible. That is awesome. I don’t need to add a conscious superbeing to nature to make it beautiful or incredible. It’s that way already. I don’t need to think of certain beautiful places as sources of “healing energy” or “power” in order to see them as beautiful. I can have a phenomenological experience that changes my understanding of myself or the world without thinking something supernatural made it happen.

Another of the liberating aspects of abandoning theism is the realization that I am not dependent on something wholly external to myself for the “meaning” of my life. I give meaning to my life, and I am responsible for my life. I strive to be the ubermensch – to “give style to my live”. And this allows me to feel much more powerful, meaningful, and alive. I know what the meaning of my life is because I am the one who determines it. And I would think not knowing what meaning or purpose your life has, along with knowing that you have no control over the purpose of your own life, would be very depressing.

Read Full Post

Let's Go Be Lazy in Wisconsin

So, anti-choice pharmacists in Wisconsin don't want to do their jobs. I've given my take on this before. If you can't perform the tasks of your profession, get another job. Don't ask the state to give you an exception. But the anti-choice, anti-birth control pharmacists of Wisconsin are in an uproar about more than just the prospect of dispensing what the doctor prescribes. They're ticked off about the Birth Control Protection Act, which not only protects the rights of patients by forcing pharmacists to do their job, but also defines 'abortion' so as to exclude the effects of contraceptives.

According to ChristianNewsWire, this is beyond the pale, since

It is a medical fact that the morning-after pill (a high dosage of the birth control pill) and most, if not all, birth control drugs and devices including the intrauterine device (IUD), Depo Provera, Norplant, the Patch, and the Pill can act to terminate a pregnancy by chemically altering the lining of the uterus (endometrium) so that a newly conceived child is unable to implant in the womb, thus starving and dying.

Well, no, actually, it's not a medical fact. If you define pregnancy as beginning at fertilization, then yes, IUDs do result in the termination of a pregnancy. And hormonal methods may have the same result, albeit very rarely, since their primary function is to prevent ovulation and thicken the mucus lining the cervix to prevent sperm from penetrating. And usually, if they don't succeed in that, the result is not an embryo being flushed from the woman's system, but implantation. But not only is it not a "medical fact" that pregnancy begins at fertilization, it's silly to even think of defining it as such. If that's the case, then many sexually active women have been pregnant numerous times and had miscarriages. Of course, they can't inform their doctors of this, since they don't know. Additionally, imagine attempting to expand this definition out, given the advances in reproductive technologies. When a doctor fertilizes a woman's egg with her partner's sperm in a pitre dish, is she pregnant? If a store of her fertilized eggs is preserved in deep freeze, does she remain pregnant until her blastocysts die? If she dies while those blastocysts are still being preserved, does that mean that a dead woman can be pregnant? If a couple enlists the aid of a surrogate mother, who is pregnant? It's obviously not the biological mother. But then the woman who has preserved blastocysts can't be pregnant either. If pregnancy begins at fertilization, then someone has got to be pregnant, though. The egg is fertilized, after all. Is the tank pregnant?

ChristianNewsWire's nutty statements of "medical fact" aside, what really caught my attention was this:

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to freely exercise one's religious convictions. The Wisconsin Constitution expressly protects the rights of conscience. Under Article 1, Section 18, of our state constitution, "any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience" shall not be permitted.

Now, obviously ChristianNewsWire and the anti-birth control pharmacists who are pushing this line against the Birth Control Protection Act are thinking that they are going to stop this legislation by claiming it violates their religious freedom through their rights of conscience. Here's the problem. Not every one who is anti-choice is religious, or is anti-choice because of their religious convictions. Are these Wisconsin pharmacists suggesting that it's okay to force someone who is anti-choice, but has no religious affiliation, to dispense birth control? I doubt it. But if this really is about conscience, and not about religion, then the Wisconsin constitution would seem to protect the rights of conscience of vegetarians who work at McDonalds and don't want to serve meat, or vegans who work at Mervyns but refuse to sell wool or leather, or school nurses, or doctors, who believe that vaccines are evil and refuse to distribute them to kids. Or heck, some renegade pastafarians who refuse to serve spaghetti, but insist on working at Italian restaurants. It's their right of conscience, after all. I guess anyone who has scruples against doing something required by a profession can work in that profession and yet not do their job in Wisconsin. My new set of principles - never prostituting my labor out for pay. I think I'll go get a job in Wisconsin.

Read Full Post

Why Non-Believers Need to Question the Reliability of Church Leaders

As we already know, religious believers are not likely to be skeptical of what they are told by church leaders. This is part of what sustains religious belief and the church as an organization, and it is part of what makes the church so dangerous. In many cases, the idea that the church leaders know what's going on - that their wisdom is the way to heaven, and should be heeded - is constantly reinforced, albeit subtly, by the church. Bible study and sermons are periods of instruction given by church leaders to the congregation. As the de facto head of the church, they are, as Jesus supposedly was, shepards of their respective flocks. Priests and Pastors (where did that title derive from, I wonder?), we are told, are people that we should go to when we have problems. They are tauted as confessors, counselors and teachers. The are often viewed as the wise men in the community, especially when it comes to religious doctrine. Have a question about religion? It's much more likely that you'll ask your pastor then that you'll try looking it up for yourself. And for many believers, the case is the same with regard to questions about morality, or difficult life issues. This is especially true in the Catholic Church. So when church leaders make a statement, the religious tend to listen, and they act accordingly. This can be dangerous, as not only does it compound the problem with faith - that of not thinking, reasoning and checking - but it can also lead a large group of people to think, speak, act, and vote as they are told to by a small minority of individuals.

The freethinking community needs to deal with this. The attack on faith is certainly a crucial step, but I think another step must be taken first. Before you can attack an individual's reasons (or lack thereof) for believing in something, you have to make sure that they are actually thinking and believing for themselves. If they are following their church leaders, your attack on their faith will be useless.

Think of it another way. I trust (as a result of past evidence) the leaders of the scientific community when it comes to science. I've also done some reading on my own about natural selection and evolution. I've looked at some of the evidence for common descent on my own (I didn't gather it, mind you, but I've looked at it). On the basis of this, I believe that evolutionary theory is true. Now, if you try to attack my reasons for believing evolutionary theory to be correct outright, you won't get very far. Why? Because I still have trust in scientists. I trust that they have gathered their evidence correctly, that they have tested and retested, and that they wouldn't hold evolution to be the basis of biology if they didn't have good reasons. So you might get me so far as to say, "okay, well my readings don't really give me sufficient evidence, but it's still there - the leading scientists have it". In order to get me to question my belief in evolutionary theory, then, you'll first have to put the ball entirely in my court. You'll have to destroy my confidence in the leading scientists of the day. That, of course, would be a difficult task, but it is what would have to be done.

The case is similar with religious belief. An attack on an individual's faith in god or religious doctrines is useless if their belief system is partially supported by an appeal to authority. The difference, of course, is that I have good reasons for trusting the statements of leading scientists, which is something that can not necessarily be said with respect to the believer's trust in religious leaders.

Read Full Post

Surprise! The More Religious the Society, The Higher the Abortion Rate.

Given that many religious ideologies involve the condemnation of comprehensive sex-ed, or something like it, and various birth control methods, this actually isn't surprising at all. If you're really interested in reducing the number of abortions, taking a more liberal attitude toward human sexuality is definitely the way to go. Oh, and if that's the case, then John McCain is not your man.

Read Full Post

Vote Pro-Choice and Sit With Satan

Joe Feuerherd is wondering whether voting for a pro-choice democrat will endanger his immortal soul. I've posted on this issue before, but I think it's important to continue dialogue about it. Feuerherd is pro-life, but takes other issues facing the country to be more important. As a result, he plans on voting for a democrat despite the fact that church leaders (in this case, the Vatican) have said that doing so may result in eternal damnation. Now, I certainly do laud Feuerherd's bravery and integrity. He's willing to risk it, presumably because he thinks that, on this issue, the church is wrong. But how many others will be frightened away from voting their conscience by the warnings of church leaders that if they vote for anyone who supports abortion rights they will have to spend eternity at Satan's place? Can we really expect a large portion of the "flock" to go their own way, under the threat of hellfire? I don't think so. And that's scary. This is one of those points where the organization of religion is more dangerous than religious belief itself (although, it is, of course, sustained by religious belief).

Religious leaders should be ashamed of themselves. Not only is there no real theological or biblical foundation for the idea that abortion is a sin, but even if there were, it is sheer arrogance on their part to assume that they know which issue is more important in any given election. And it is even worse for them to try to frighten people into voting one way rather than another. Religion may be motivated by fear, but that doesn't mean voting should be.

Read Full Post

To Moderate Christians - Come Out of Hiding!

If only more Christians were of the same mind as John C. Danforth. The episcopal minister and former Missouri Senator has an op-ed piece at the New York Times calling on moderate Christians to speak up against the radical right.

According to Danforth, for moderates

...the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. We struggle to follow that commandment as we face the realities of everyday living, and we do not agree that our responsibility to live as Christians can be codified by legislators.

When, on television, we see a person in a persistent vegetative state, one who will never recover, we believe that allowing the natural and merciful end to her ordeal is more loving than imposing government power to keep her hooked up to a feeding tube.

When we see an opportunity to save our neighbors' lives through stem cell research, we believe that it is our duty to pursue that research, and to oppose legislation that would impede us from doing so.

We think that efforts to haul references of God into the public square, into schools and courthouses, are far more apt to divide Americans than to advance faith.

Following a Lord who reached out in compassion to all human beings, we oppose amending the Constitution in a way that would humiliate homosexuals.

For us, living the Love Commandment may be at odds with efforts to encapsulate Christianity in a political agenda. We strongly support the separation of church and state, both because that principle is essential to holding together a diverse country, and because the policies of the state always fall short of the demands of faith.

I'm often told that the arguments of many of the new atheists are fallacious in that they attack a strawman. Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and their ilk are attacking the radical views of a few wackos, the argument goes, but most religious people don't believe those things. They are moderates.

Now, I have to admit that even when it comes to so-called moderate religion, I'm still troubled, for even the most moderate Christianity involves believe in a personal god for which there is no evidence. And the same goes for more "eastern" or "new age", "spiritual" belief systems, that lack a personal god, but include weird talk of spirits and energies for which there is no evidence. I sincerely believe, however, that if moderates exist, the discourse between such people of faith and unbelievers could be much more civil, and hence much more productive.

The problem is that I can't seem to find them. Sure, I'll encounter someone who refers to himself or herself as "spiritual", which usually amounts to their being an atheist but not wanting to accept the label, or viewing "atheism" as involving commitments which it does not. The religous people I encounter, though, and the religious people that I see in the media, or in online forums, are not moderates. They are fundamentalists. They are people who think that it's an attack on their faith to demand that their belief system not be given special treatment. They are people who think that they know god's will and they have a duty to enforce it on others. I'm coming to realize that there is no reasoning with these people, and that is because, when it comes to anything attached to their religious beliefs, there is no reason there. It is impossible to defeat dogma via reason and evidence. That's what makes it dogma.

So, where are you, moderates? Danforth has come out, and, while I may disagree with some of his beliefs, it seems much more likely that unbelievers and people who have faith in the way that he does would be able to work together. I'm on board with Danforth - the rest of you moderates need to come out of hiding. You need to make your voices heard. You need to come together with your unbelieving and "spiritual" brethren to work against the radicals in this country. Because they aren't stopping. They don't believe you are "true Christians". And if you really are out there, and as numerous as we've heard, then it is really only with your help that we'll be able to stop the crazy fundamentalists. If you don't come out and stand up against the well funded and very powerful religious right, your moderate stance may eventually put you in the position of atheists in this country. And believe me, you don't want that.

Read Full Post

Pharmacists and Plan B

Another idiotic ruling with regard to pharmacists and Plan-B has been handed down. At the core of this dispute is, to my mind, the special treatment given to religion in our society. If a vegetarian got a job at McDonalds and then refused to serve meat products because he believed their consumption to be grossly immoral, do you really think a judge would claim that he has a right to keep his job but not fulfill all the obligations that come along with it? Of course not. I have a personal hatred of guns. It's part of the core of my belief system, but I'm pretty sure that if I started working for Walmart and refused to sell the guns they keep in stock, no judge would say that I should have an exception. But because these pharmacists are objecting on religious grounds, they can get away with not doing their job and denying women much needed services. What a load of BS.

Read Full Post

Meta-Atheism - A New Tool for Unbelievers?

Christopher Hitchens has an op-ed piece posted on the Council for Secular Humanism website that caught my attention. Most of it is Hitchens slamming Mother Teresa in his usual biting and brilliant prose. But there is one bit, I think, that brings up a subject that should really be explored in more depth by the freethinking community. With regard to the priests who molested children, Hitchens says,

Their foul crime is not one of hypocrisy. No priest who sincerely believed even for ten seconds in divine judgment could conceivably endanger his immortal soul in this way, and those in the hierarchy who helped protect such men from punishment in this world are equally and obviously guilty of a hardened and obscene cynicism.

Upon reading this statement, I was immediately reminded of an article written by the ever insightful UMD Philosophy Professor Georges Rey on what he calls Meta-Atheism. You can find the full article here and a nice summary here. The basic idea, though, is that many of those who profess religious belief do not actually believe, and that their unbelief is demonstrated in their actions. If one truly believes that upon death a true Christian rises to heaven to rest in the arms of god, then funerals shouldn't be so somber, and Christians should not fear death, but rather welcome it. But this is not the case. And it seems to me that if this is right, freethinkers should use it to their advantage.

If Rey's thesis (and that expressed by Hitchens) is true, this may serve as an inroad for those who wish to see the light of reason illuminate the darkness that faith has brought to the minds of so many. It would be one more argument to use against the religious believer, one more contradiction to force the theist to face. We should continue to point out the evils that religious has wraught, and the irrationality inherent in belief systems based on faith, rather than evidence, but we should include in our arsenal the reminder that with regard to much of what the religious claim to believe, it is not just that they fail to practice what they preach, but they fail to behave as though their beliefs were true.

In addition, making it clear to people that they do not behave as though they really believe might make it a bit easier for them to accept unbelief. They are, if Rey and Hitchens are right, halfway there already.

Read Full Post

The Problem With Mixing Faith and Politics

Ira Chernus has an article over at AlterNet about how having faith in politics is damaging to our democracy. While I couldn't agree more with his thesis, I have to disagree with his reasoning.

When faith and politics are allowed to mix the result is disasterous. Anyone who disagrees with this statement needs look no further than the theocratic states across the sea to see violent and repressive counterexamples to his view. But what is it about this blending that is dangerous? According to Chernus, it is the certainty that comes with religious belief systems:

When religious language enters the political arena in this way, as an end in itself, it always sends the same symbolic message: Yes, Virginia (or Iowa or New Hampshire or South Carolina) there are absolute values, universal truths that can never change. You are not adrift in a sea of moral chaos. Elect me and you're sure to have a fixed mooring to hold you and your community fast forever.

This notion of absolute truth, Chernus tell us, is antithetical to democracy:

The essence of our system is that we, the people, get to choose our values. We don't discover them inscribed in the cosmos. So everything must be open to question, to debate, and therefore to change. In a democracy, there should be no fixed truth except that everyone has the right to offer a new view -- and to change his or her mind. It's a process whose outcome should never be predictable, a process without end. A claim to absolute truth -- any absolute truth -- stops that process.

This sort of anti-realism, embedded within the relativism that Chernus takes to be central to democracy, is the result of the postmodernist view point that has infected both the academy and, now, the general consciousness. But the postmodernist's core thesis of relativism is at best false and at worst completely meaningless gibberish. The core of our democracy is not that there is no absolute truth "written in the cosmos". If there weren't, science would be a futile enterprise, and our debates over policy would be completely pointless. If there is no truth to be found, then there is no reason for us to argue over what it is, and the search for it that is the foundation of science is nothing more than a quest for an illusion.

The core of our democracy is not relativism. Rather, it the notion that the people have the right to govern themselves. In order for this to work, however, we must be allowed to debate the proper way to govern ourselves. We must be allowed to reason together to determine the best course of governance. But inherent in the idea that there is a best course of governance is the notion that there is a fact of the matter. Either a certain policy is the best or it is not. The free market place of ideas, without which democracy would be a sham, is how we go about trying to figure out what the best policy is. The problem with bringing faith into the mix is not its claim that there are absolute truths, but rather its claim that it has access to these absolute truths without any evidence.

Public debate, the cornerstone of a free society in which the governed are also the governors, succeeds only when those who are involved defend their claims using reason and empirical data. Any faith based belief system violates this. Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence. The faithful make their claims without justification. Faith, then, does not play by the rules of the game. Rather than bringing a sound argument, or good empirical data, to the marketplace, faith brings only itself. And this is why faith is detrimental to our democracy. Rather than adding to the discourse, faith provides only a distraction - an easy way out. Faith erodes our democracy by giving people an easy way to avoid moving the discussion forward. It erodes our democracy by allowing people to make quick policy decisions without having to think about them. The problem is not that the faithful claim that there is an absolute truth; it is that by putting their faith into the sphere, they prevent us from discovering what that truth really is.

Read Full Post