The Self Taught Atheist

Liberals Are Killing America!! (Christian Persecution Complex is Back in Action!)

2012-02-14T14:00:00.000-07:00

The Story: At least, that's what some people would have you believe. Interestingly enough, this is an article that my mother posted on Facebook. She doesn't usually post things like this but I really haven't found a better article that demonstrates the Christian Persecution Complex quite like this. Let's get into it, shall we?

The Problem: Well, this is difficult, isn't it? The problem is, umm, the whole article. Although while completely ridiculous, let's just assume that this author somehow knows something we don't and go from there. The contention is that liberals are driving the national discussion and debate about the hot-button issues. So I'm going to highlight the passages I think are important and discuss the problem with them afterwards.

The irony is that few worldviews better describe the general liberal orientation to public policy and the culture war. The left often complains about the culture war as if it's a war they don't want to fight. They insist they just want to follow "sound science" or "what works" when it comes to public policy, but those crazy knuckle-dragging right-wingers constantly want to talk about gays and abortion and other hot-button issues.

Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum have all signed the National Organization for Marriage's pledge to amend the Constitution (you know, that document that Republicans treat almost as sacred as the Bible) to ban gay marriage. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul have al signed the Personhood USA's Personhood Pledge, which would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade as all people are created "in the image and likeness of God". And that's not all. Yeah, that doesn't sound like the right-wingers are pushing their morals and religious beliefs on anyone!

It's all a farce. Liberals are the aggressors in the culture war (and not always for the worse, as the civil rights movement demonstrates). What they object to isn't so much the government imposing its values on people — heck, they love that. They see nothing wrong with imposing their views about diet, exercise, sex, race and the environment on Americans. What outrages them is resistance, or even non-compliance with their agenda. "Why are you making such a scene?" progressives complain. "Just do what we want and there will be no fuss."

Let's see, what's the liberals view on... Diet? Please eat healthy or else you will end up in the hospital. Exercise? Please exercise or else you will end up in the hospital. Sex? The government shouldn't tell you who you can and can't have sex with and should treat heteros and homos equally. Race? Please treat whites, blacks, Asians, and Hispanics equally as our Constitution instructs. Environment? Please keep it clean so that we have something to pass on to the next generation.

Damn those liberals! They can't just let us eat junk food, be couch potatoes, hate gay people and black people, and wreck our environment with pollution and misuse of resources on our own! Just horrible.

Undermining Catholics

Consider President Obama's decision to require most religious institutions— including Catholic hospitals, schools, etc. — to pay for contraception, sterilizations and the "morning after" pill. When "ObamaCare" was still being debated, the White House had all but promised Catholic leaders that it would find a compromise to spare the church from the untenable position of paying for services that directly violate their faith. Now that ObamaCare is the law, the administration says the church, like everyone else, must fall in line.

Whenever you see the word "ObamaCare", it's already a sign that the author can't keep their talking points out of the article. And our author clearly missed the fact that the reason Catholic hospitals and schools were required to pay for contraception for their employees is because they hire many non-Catholic people. Even still, Obama did back down and compromise. God, it really sucks when Obama continues to do things to make himself seem rational and understanding.

Or consider the still-raging controversy over the Susan G. Komen For the Cure's entirely reasonable — albeit very poorly handled — decision to withdraw its funding of Planned Parenthood, America's largest abortion provider. The Komen foundation is singularly dedicated to raising research money for, and awareness about, breast cancer. It's the folks with those pink ribbons. The organization decided to withdraw its comparatively meager funding in part because Planned Parenthood doesn't offer mammograms. (Planned Parenthood's president, Cecile Richards, was caught misleading people on this very point last spring.)

Other factors included the fact that Planned Parenthood is under investigation by Congress and the obvious but unstated fact that the organization is wildly controversial. It's this last point that infuriates the left. Pro-choice activists and their allies believe that Planned Parenthood should not be controversial, nor should abortion be up for discussion, either. If you have a problem with either it is because you are an ideologue, an extremist or a zealot opposed to the interests of womankind. And any attempt to suggest that abortion should offend the consciences of mainstream Americans, never mind such a revered organization as Komen, is simply unacceptable.

Already discussed this here.

Resist, and you will pay

It's clearly not about the money. Komen's $600,000 in donations amount to less than .01% of Planned Parenthood's budget (as opposed to the nearly half that comes from taxpayers). It's about making it very clear: Resistance is not just futile, but dangerous.

That was evident almost immediately. Komen's website was hacked, its Wikipedia page filled with smears. Various allegedly objective news outlets rallied to Planned Parenthood's defense as if the behemoth abortion provider was a victim of the tiny little breast cancer foundation.

And yet, somehow this is made to seem like PP coordinated the entire thing. Maybe it was all of the people who support PP and were outraged at the decision to cut funding to an organization that has provided women with decades of health treatments. Maybe the rally cries against Komen were from the people who feel that political intrusion into the private sector, using cancer patients as proxies for the abortion debate, was morally and ethically wrong. Maybe it was the fact that the lead of an ultra right-wing organization and the ring-wing VP of Policy were the ones who pushed this issue into the national limelight and the outcry was a reaction to their initial decision to put ideology over practicality.

Komen apologized and seemed to offer a reversal of its policy. This "just goes to show you, when women speak out, women win," responded House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

This, of course, is ridiculous propaganda. Women are not a monolithic political bloc and were not unanimously opposed to Komen's decision. Indeed, roughly half of women are pro-life and, you can be sure, Komen will lose donations from women and men who do not want to see their donations going to abortion providers. But for a certain type of upper-class liberal woman, it simply must be asserted, if not believed, that there is only one acceptable definition of a woman's perspective when it comes to issues such as abortion.

Ignoring that Komen's donations do not go to providing abortions, Komen is going to also lose donations for seeming like a corporate pawn in the abortion culture war and were willing to sacrifice the well-being of women to further this point. And when did this article all of a sudden become about class warfare? I thought it was the right-wingers that rail against the idea of classes and class warfare, and now this author assumes that the only type of woman that is pro-choice is an "upper-class liberal" of a certain type (whatever that means). And no, there isn't just one acceptable definition, but regardless of your viewpoint, the issue is that it should be up to the individual, not the government, to have that definition.

You can understand why Komen wants to get out of the culture war crossfire. It just wants to spend its finite resources on the race for a cure. But that's not good enough. The real motive behind this backlash is to make it very clear: You must choose a side — ours. And once you choose our side, you can never change your mind without severe consequences. And what is true of liberal politics is also true of liberal public policy. As the Obama administration has made clear to the Catholic Church, there is no neutrality, no safe harbor from liberalism's moral vision. You're either with us, or against us — which means we shall be against you.

And indeed, candidates like Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and previous contenders like Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry remind us, there is no neutrality or safe harbor from their conservative Christian vision of this country.

The Solution: It's kind of funny, but re-read this article once more (I know, if you can handle it, as it drips with so much stupidity you feel like you might need a shower). When you do so, replace the word "liberal" with the word "Christian". Switch each instance of spectrum bias, such that pro-choice reads pro-life and "progressive" reads "conservative". Amazingly enough, the article reads just like a horoscope, because the entire article still makes perfect sense! It's actually a bit eerie. And that's why it's complete bullshit, just like horoscopes. Whenever you can write an article that simply blames and complains about the "other side", it's an issue that's a two way street. You can't in good faith claims that the liberals are driving a culture war where each GOP candidate has signed numerous pledges to use their governmental powers to dictate and control the personal lives of its citizens. You can't sit back and point fingers at liberals when the evangelical Christian right makes use of every opportunity to inject their beliefs into our public laws and courts. A while back I posted two videos of "The Best of Christopher Hitchens". In the one, he was talking to a Christian radio host and they had this conversation:

Radio: I readily admit that I'm a slave. I'm a slave of the Lord Jesus Christ.
CH: And glad of your chains.
Radio: Yeah, well...
CH: And that's fine for you, but you must leave me out of it. I don't want to be told that I have to obey these laws, or that my children have to be taught this in school, or that laws have to written to gratify the bizarre beliefs of a cult like yours.
Radio: Well, but...
CH: That's the thing I would need to you understand. You are quite happy to believe this, why can't you keep it to yourself?
Radio: Why can't you keep your atheism to yourself?
CH: Because the religious won't allow me to. Because every time I open the paper, there's another instance of theocratic encroachment on free society. Which I won't put up with. Up with which I will not put.

How true that rings in the face of an article like this.

The Solution: And yet, as the author admitted, liberals are have been the driving force for good in previous culture wars like the civil rights movement. And while, the evangelical Christians have vehemently denied it, the gay rights movement is our civil rights movement. It will happen. As Chris Wallace pointed out to Rick Santorum, the comments made about the gay rights movement now is identical to the ones made about racial integration in the 60s. Now that it's happened, no one thinks anything of it. The same will occur with gay rights. Just give it time.

So what do liberals stand for, to sum it up? Equality. The only difference between this article and the racists ones written decades ago is the group that is targeted. The bigotry is the same, the prejudice is the same, and the unwillingness to accept and understand a group of people that act or look differently is the same. How is it a bad thing that liberals want gays to be treated with kindness and respect? Or looking at it from a different angle, this is what happens with the continuation of anti-gay, Christian rhetoric. Once we can stop oppressing people in the name of God and realize we are all in this together, for better or worse, we'll be much better off.

And What Did We Learn? Bashing the opposite side just because you would rather pout in the corner than have an adult conversation about where this country is headed doesn't get you anywhere. Although there are plenty of sheep willing to buy the author's book, making him rich off of peddling stupid, divisive talking points with little substance and even less thoughtful solutions.

George Carlin on Abortion and Pro-Life

2012-02-13T18:34:00.003-07:00

A man to be missed.

Rick Santorum is Scary (and Wants to Oppress Women)

2012-02-13T14:00:00.000-07:00

The Story: In keeping with this week's abortion theme, our most ridiculous and saddening story has to come from no one than a Republican presidential candidate, the one and (thankfully) only Rick Santorum. Rick Santorum advocates an anti-abortion position, even in the cases of incest and rape. He is hardly alone with this sickeningly position. He had an interview with Piers Morgan about abortion, here's what he said.

The Problem: Well, for one, Rick Santorum is a bugnutty Christian. And that's a big problem because, as we saw from Planned Parenthood, when people put their beliefs over the lives of others, it never ends well. Rick Santorum makes the claim that his position is not "a matter of religious values." Which would be more believable if he didn't back it up by saying this:

Now, how is is possible that something is not a matter of religious values when his claim is that this pregnancy is a "gift from God". I'm sorry, but coming from an atheist, this seems like a pretty religious claim. Maybe I'm way off base here, but I would probably expect that anything that is not of matter of religious values would not invoke the name of the Christian God as defense of this position.

Not only that, this is a horrible position to take. Christopher Hitchens repeatedly argued that the only way to free the world from poverty, "which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction". Here, Rick Santorum wants to take the exact opposite position, the one of traditional Judeo-Christian male dominance, and use his state powers to command woman to conform to his ideals, regardless of what is best for them. It's a terribly regressive policy for someone living in 21st century American, and strips women of the right to decide their own fate for themselves without the shackles of their husband or male supervisor forcing them to live by someone else's decisions. So let's break down the problem with Rick Santorum's position.

Well, you can make the argument that if she doesn’t have this baby, if she kills her child, that that, too, could ruin her life. And this is not an easy choice. I understand that.

Let's be honest here. Rick Santorum does NOT understand that. How can he? He is a male and he has never been raped. He has no idea what it is like to be in that situation. This comes back to the point I made last post about the whimsical nature of a pro-"choice" stance. The idea that all choices are mostly the same in difficulty is an easy characterization but grossly inaccurate. The idea that Rick Santorum can claim that not having a rape-product "is not an easy choice" trivializes the true nature of that issue. Indeed, you could make the argument that aborting said embryo or fetus would ruin her life, but that is the woman's choice to do what is best for her, not the government's and not Rick Santorum. Each woman will react differently to that situation. Some woman will want to hold onto the child as the only good thing to come out of that. Another woman will want to be cleansed of such a traumatic event, wanting to put it past her and move on with her life. Still another will choose her path only beknownst to her. And that's the way it should be.

As horrible as the way that that son or daughter and son was created, it still is her child. And whether she has that child or doesn’t, it will always be her child. And she will always know that.

While Mr. Santorum loves to use the pro-life/anti-choice language of baby and child, the result of a rape is certainly not a child. A child does not occur until it is born. It is first an embryo and then a fetus. And this part is very important. Just because science describes the embryogenesis of a human in more "scientific" terms rather than the feel-good "it's a full-grown baby" the second after conception doesn't mean that a child is any less precious during it's development stages. But it's not the same thing. There is a difference between an embryo:

And a newborn baby:

Personally, I think this distinction matters. A lot. It's sad when an infant like this is born dead. It's a little less sad when an mass of 8 cells is spontaneously aborted without the mother's knowledge. In any case, take a look at the development stages of a human pregnancy.

And so to embrace her and to love her and to support her and get her through this very difficult time, I’ve always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you.

Let's make clear what Rick Santorum is saying in this part. He is actually saying that the Christian God, infinite in power, wisdom, and control, had the opportunity to constantly intervene in the victim's life. He holds the key to life, the gift of life, that he chooses to bestow in each and every person who gets pregnant. And yet, in his unbounded power, he actively chose to do NOTHING about the rape (or, assuming he controls everything down to fertilization, actually approved the rape). THEN, he chose to torture the victim further by forcing them to get pregnant. And yet, God forced that decision, because it was not the victim's decision to get pregnant. There was no willful decision to try and have a child at that time. And after such a traumatic event, it is surely compounded far more by the presence of the developing embryo, as either decision (abortion or birth) will surely come with daily reliving of the trauma. There is no escaping it. With an abortion, there is always the question of what would have happened had she continued with having the baby. There is always the question as to what could have been. But having the child is a daily reminder of what was taken from her that day, what that child represents, that it will share physical characteristics of her rapist, that the constant questions of "where is the father?" and the constant assumption that this was a planned and wanted pregnancy. For the victim, there is no good answer, only a less bad one. And God let this happen. He could have chosen to help the victim from being raped in the first place. He could have chosen not to let a child be born and raised without a father. He could have chosen not to torture the victim further by forcing them to now decide the fate of a potential child they never wanted in the first place. And he chose not to.

As you know, we have to, in lots of different aspects of our life. We have horrible things happen. I can’t think of anything more horrible. But, nevertheless, we have to make the best out of a bad situation.

It's hard to know whether he is speaking in generalities or specifically about the rape situation here. In which case, what is this "we" he speaks of? I can read this as "we" generally, need to make the best out of bad situations, whatever that may be, and this victim must do the same. Or I can read this as "we" as a government, must help this victim make the best of our her bad situation. But again, this is not something the government should involve themselves in. All of the Republican candidates tout their "conservative" credentials, claiming that big, bad Obama wants to make this massive government (still, somehow, yet to be realized in reality), yet they are the ones campaigning on government inference with its citizen's sex lives, marriage choice, pregnancy options, contraceptive options, and faith options. How sadly hypocritical.

The Solution: The easy solution? Don't vote for these nutbags. It's scary that this man wants such supreme control over people's lives that his biggest campaign issues are federally banning gay marriage and abortion. The harder solution is to think for yourself and realize how ridiculous it is to claim that while a loving, caring, omnipotent deity cares enough about us that he gives us the gift of life while simultaneously fucking people over in the process. How is that love? Sure, I'll give you a child but only if you get raped and beaten and tortured first. Maybe God really hasn't moved on from his animal sacrifice days. Once again, we have four options with God.

He doesn't exist.
He hates us.
He doesn't care about us.
He actually likes us but can't do anything to help us.

That's the only way to rationalize why God let's people get raped and then decides to give them a child as their party favor.

And What Did We Learn? That Rick Santorum leads the charge of a dying breed of people who still want to decide the lives of women and would do so by inflicting and subjective everyone to his religious belief system. Thus he is, quite simply, unfit to ever lead our nation or hold political office. There are other politicians like Rick Santorum, and our country (and the Republican party) will be so much better off once they stop trying to get these people elected. We might even be able to get back to running our country like our Founding Fathers envisioned.

Migrating to Wordpress and Facebook!

2012-02-13T13:10:00.001-07:00

Hi everyone! I have enjoyed and appreciated all of the support I have received on this blog over the last two years, but I want to try and expand a little bit to some newer internet technology. Thus, live right now is the new Self Taught Atheist website hosted on Wordpress! You can go to selftaughtatheist.wordpress.com to find it! I'll have to see whether I continue to update this site as well, depending on ease of posting back and forth. For the time being though, I'll keep new posts coming here as well, but feel free to check it out! Who knows, maybe I'll just keep both up and running!

Also, I started up a Self Taught Atheist Facebook Page, so make sure to look it up and like it! I believe Wordpress automatically feeds my updates into it, which is one of the bigger reasons I switched. I don't really have any plans for expanding beyond this, but I felt it was time for a little change! Hope you all enjoy and continue to follow me!

Planned Parenthood and the Susan G. Komen Fiasco

2012-02-12T18:35:00.002-07:00

The Story: If you've been reading the news lately, or at least haven't been living under a rock, you'll be aware of the Susan G. Komen funding then defunding then refunding Planned Parenthood. It was highly controversial in large part because the decision to remove funding for women's mammograms rapidly appeared to be a proxy battle over abortion.

The Problem: There's a couple of issues at play here. The reason Planned Parenthood was defunded in the first place was because they violated a new policy of the Komen foundation to not fund groups under investigation. Interestingly enough, Planned Parenthood was under investigation because of a push by a group called "Americans United for Life" for wasting taxpayer money. Now, while the Komen foundation is a private group that can decide what to do with their money, it seems to violate the "innocent until proven guilty" American ideal to defund organizations under investigation. Especially in the case of PP, the entire investigation seems like just trumped-up charges meant to remove federal funding by any means necessary for an organization that provides abortion services. There are still plenty of pro-life (or anti-choice as your bent may dictate) Congresspeople who are more than happy to take up the fight against PP. And thus you have an "investigation" which incidentally violates a policy by Komen, and whose defunding was also pushed by the VP of Policy, another anti-choicer who unsuccessfully ran for public office. The whole situation reeks of outside interference with little regard for the women who need these potentially life-saving services.

Not only that, PP does much more than provide abortions, as this chart indicates:

This is important because Komen funds breast cancer research and prevention. The money they provide to PP goes towards that, not abortions. Yet again, outside influences pushing an anti-abortion agenda want to take it to PP and use Komen as a proxy. And once again, both sides accuse the other of being the bully. Pro-choice people say Komen was bullied into defunding PP and anti-choice people say PP bullied Komen into refunding. And once again, it's still about abortion. You see how quickly this fiasco exposed the real players of the game.

So this brings me to the second point, as iterated here. This fight was never about the cancer patients. This was about abortion. And some people just can't help themselves when it comes to fighting this battle. It's really sad. Here are women with no other option than PP in many cases, and they are in danger of having their services cut off for no reason whatsoever related to their cancer.

Which is my third point - how do people control the names they have? Why is it that people who are anti-abortion get to call themselves pro-life, when many of them would rather save the fetus rather than the life of the mother? How is that pro-life? They would rather help a mass of cells (which has a 25-ish percent chance of being aborted by "God" anyways) than the woman who already has a family, friends and social connections that define human life as we know it. If that mass of cells lives on to be born, one might say they are pro-potential life, but if that mass of cells were to be miscarried, then we might have to say they are pro-death or pro-miscarriage. As I indicated before, because of this issue some people have taken to calling this group anti-choice, but that still doesn't cover it. Abortion is an extremely complex, extremely personal topic. Characterizing the decisions made for individual and personal reasons for millions of people into two words, life and choice, forgoes the complexities of this issue in favor of some catchy moniker. It's sad because it implies that everyone who is not "pro-life" is somehow pro-murder or pro-death, whereas everyone "pro-choice" is reduced to making a difficult decision down to some whimsical, flippant choice with no regard or consideration of the outcome.

And indeed, why is it that the "pro-lifers" get to call themselves that when they want to remove funding for cancer screenings? Should they not also have earned the name "pro-cancer" as that funding would have gone to save the lives of women who needed those services no longer available? If the Christian evangelicals and all their GOP brethren can get away with calling abortion providers murderers, I would think that it would be equally as appropriate to call such people who seek to remove funding for cancer screenings (regardless of what tangential beliefs and cause you support) "pro-cancer" and therefore "pro-death". What comes around goes around.

The Solution: If ever there were a solution to the abortion debate, it would behoove whoever held the answer to come forward. In the case that there is no solution, it would be best if people stopped trying to push their personal agenda and thought instead of the women's lives they would be saving with their money. It's sad when people are so staunch in their opinions and beliefs that they would rather people die than compromise. So when it comes to helping people and the funds necessary to do so, maybe it's just best if we let people do what they do without worry about outside lobbyists pushing their agenda. Don't use the lives of women as a proxy for your personal beliefs.

And What Did We Learn? Life is hard enough for people who have to deal with cancer, let's make it easier on them by supporting them and working to help them, not punish them because they choose to seek help in an organization that provides a whole host of services, some of which people are bound to disagree with.

Atheists - Do You Feel Isolated or Unwanted in Society?

2012-01-30T23:07:00.003-07:00

Depending on your own personal situation, relationship with your friends and family, and residential locale, it's never an easy thing to be in the minority. Not that I am the world's foremost expert on being a minority, but since joining a religious minority two years ago, my perspectives on many things have changed. The first is the appreciation that being a minority can be a very isolating thing. Not only are beliefs, culture, traditions, and appearance different, but the general feeling of not belonging can be a very difficult atmosphere to engage in. It takes a lot of self-confidence to hold your head high when you feel belittled, unaccepted, unwanted and disrespected. For people who lack a sufficient support structure, this can prove immensely daunting if not impossible. Being a racial minority is one the hardest because of ethnic, cultural, and practical biases and prejudices, but at the very least, at least you can tell what race someone is if you are looking for others like you. In this way, being an atheist is more difficult because you never know what someone's beliefs are until you talk with them. You can't just look at someone and know they are an atheist. And because of society's traditional scorn and distrust towards non-believers, especially in more religious areas, many atheists are not very forthcoming about their beliefs in their conversations.

This shouldn't be a surprise at all. Given the prejudice and hatred that many believers have towards atheists, many feel that it's "a battle not worth fighting" for people close to them, are reluctant to "come out" to intolerant or unaccepting family members and are afraid to provoke a negative reaction from an unsympathetic stranger. While Christians can discuss their beliefs and convictions with impunity, atheists are forced to be much more careful about who they disclose their side of the story. While recent years have lifted this oppressive curtain, what with the New York Times bestsellers God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, and Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, there are still many day-to-day interactions in which being an atheist is better left in the closet. This may be dealing with family, co-workers, or the weekend basketball teammates. It may be dealing with kids who have no filters on expounding teachings of their religious upbringing, adults who make comments about what joy and comfort their beliefs bring them, or friends who have "great news" to tell you. Religion is such a part of American life that most Christians never stop to consider that someone might not be Christian, let alone a non-believer. There is a freedom of Christianity in this country, not religion. That is changing.

For me personally, I have had the misfortune of growing up in the middle of the Midwest Bible Belt. This automatically puts me at odds with probably 90-95% of all of my friends and family with my religious beliefs. The saving grace with my family is that my parents and I have a great relationship that I knew would not be severed by coming out to them as an atheist. That isn't to say it's been easy. In fact, being an atheist is still the worst decision I could have made in their eyes. My dad's side of the family is primarily Methodist (kind of a moderate version of Christianity) whereas my entire mom's side is Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, same as us (the fundamentalist version). So I wasn't going to get much support from my extended family.

In fact, the biggest supporters of my current situation is my wife and in-laws. Having grown up in Boston in the near absence of religion, they have been unconditionally supportive of my journey and have been a stabilizing force. It's allowed me to think about some of the major issues I've dealt with in a comfortable environment, a "home away from home" so to speak. Not everyone coming out to their family is so fortunate. Once people lose the security of their family for religious belief, they have no one else to turn to. Given the difficult of societal integration, "coming out" as an atheist can be a very isolating experience. It tough when you come to such an important realization and have no one to share it with, let alone the fact that the majority of people believe something completely opposite of you. So if you've just come out to your friends, family, or even just a personal realization that you don't feel you can openly share, what can you do? Well, here are a few suggestions.

1. You are not alone.

No, seriously, you aren't. In America, between 8-20% of the population are non-religious, many of those are atheists. While many people are not as open with their anti- or a-theism, you'd be surprised at how many people just don't practice religion. And while you may know your own family well, chances are there may be a person or two who will understand you, relate to you, or at least accept you for who you are. Unless you know for sure, don't assume that because you and your cousin or sibling grew up in the same church means they still hold the same beliefs.

2. The internet!

The internet and its depth and breadth of knowledge, and its ease of access and dissemination of ideas, makes it the perfect place to explore your atheism in the comfort of your own computer until you feel ready to take on the world. There are plenty of sites to meet fellow atheists such as atheistnexus.org, thinkatheist.com, and freethoughtblogs.com. There you can post blogs, read other people's personal stories, and foster a sense of belonging, connection, and place as to where you fit in to the bigger picture. Giving and receiving encouragement for the struggles with a religious upbringing can be an immensely important mental exercise.

3. Research.

One of the other great things about the internet is the wealth of information. If you want to know something, it's there to be learned. While each person has their own methods and mentality, my fight against religion has been made vastly more gratifying by bolstering my knowledge and arguments against it. That way, when someone challenges you on evolution, the big bang, stem cell research, abuse in the church, the most recent court ruling on the separation of church and state, the intentions of the Founding Fathers, the interpretation of biblical passages, or the genetic basis of homosexuality, you can already be armed with a calm and clear rebuttal or comfortable knowing that the answer doesn't lie with religion. Whenever something can be explained in the absence of a deity, faith, or miracles, life gets a little more simpler and a little less mystical. And yet, never any less amazing. You'd be surprised at how knowing the answer (or at least a plausible explanation) to common religious arguments makes dealing with religious apologists so much easier and more entertaining!

4. Atheism in the community.

If you live in a larger metropolis area, you are already more likely to be around atheists and non-believers, but you also have more access to national atheist and humanist organizations such as the Freedom from Religion Foundation or the American Humanist Association. In smaller areas, check out meetup.com. It's a great way to find active groups in your area, many of which will meet on a regular basis. There, you can connect with other people who have similar ideas and been in an environment where you won't be judged for saying what you really think.

5. Books!

As cliche as it may sound, you might be surprised at the knowledge, stories and understanding you can get from reading books. There are books on science to help you understand the reasons behind the claims of evolution and cosmology (Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne, The Greatest Show on Earth and the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, or Full House by Stephen Jay Gould), books of philosophy to understand the origin and evolution of morality and life without God (God is Not Good by Christopher Hitchens or Cosmos by Carl Sagan), books of personal stories rejecting religion and its practices (tons on Amazon, but try Blown for Good by Marc Headley for Scientology), or books to just make you feel good about life (The Good Book by AC Grayling). Plus, you can always read up on the teachings of Confucius or the Buddha!

There are so many ways to live life, but make sure that whatever way you choose, do it without regret. You have one life to live, so make the best of it. It can be immensely difficult dealing with religion on a daily basis, with family and friends, politics and work. At the end of the day, what matters is what you believe and what you hold important in your life. No one can ever take that away from you. And the more you know about what you think, and the more you are exposed to other teachings and idea, and the more you realize just how many other people have already gone through what you have, it makes it just a little bit easier. Rise to the challenge and take the opportunity to really learn and think about life!

My Cat is an Atheist

2012-01-27T10:11:00.000-07:00

A Little Humor - How it Really Went Down on Noah's Ark

2012-01-26T08:34:00.003-07:00

For the science minded folks :)

The Worst Article of 2012!

2012-01-24T11:58:00.001-07:00

Well, congratulations are in order to FauxNews.com (or rather Fox News) for writing what will easily win in the worst article of 2012 category! What's even more impressive about this feat is that while there is an insane amount of drivel written on the internet, Fox has managed to win this prize with 11 months to spare! The writer is Dr. Keith Ablow, proclaimed "psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team". This man should be showered with praised and congratulations for winning such a coveted prize, then immediately fired. First off, I'm not sure what being part of the "Fox News Medical A-Team" entails (maybe something like this), but from the merits of this article, I wouldn't want them having anything to do with medicine. Oh, wait, this is an article about politics! While some psych analysis might be useful in politics, this "doctor" clearly has no idea what he is talking about. So let's get to the article shall we? I'll intersperse this article with my analysis of the inanity of the talking points, if only to break up what would be a mentally ruinous experience otherwise.

Former Speaker of the House and Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was attacked Thursday in an interview on ABC News by his second wife Marianne. She accused him of beginning an affair with his current wife Callista while Marianne and he were still married (which Mr. Gingrich admits). She also accused him of lobbying her for an open marriage that would allow him to continue seeing Callista without getting divorced (a claim Gingrich denies).

Well, in any case, no open marriage was in the offing, and the Speaker married his current and third wife.

As I have written before for Fox News Opinion, I don’t think voters belong in a candidate’s bedroom. But the media can’t seem to help itself from trying to castrate candidates for the prurient pleasure of the public.

Now, thank God I haven't read any of his earlier articles before, so this may be his honest and valid opinion that "voters don't belong in a candidate's bedroom." Except with Newt Gingrich running on the evangelical party line against gay marriage, it seems rather hypocritical that voters should stay out of a candidate's bedroom while candidates don't stay out of the voters' bedrooms. If Mr. Gingrich is going to tell us that gay people shouldn't have sex and get married (because that's between one man and one woman), then we have every right to question him as to why his marriages were not between one man and one woman. Besides, somehow I doubt that this author was a supporter of Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal, but that would fall under the same rationale. But remember - when in doubt, panic, uncertainty, or decoy mode, always always always blame the liberal media. Because it's the media's fault that Gingrich couldn't keep his marriage vows... twice.

I will tell you what Mr. Gingrich’s personal history actually means for those of us who want to right the economy, see our neighbors and friends go back to work, promote freedom here and abroad and defeat the growing threat posed by Iran and other evil regimes.

First, one note on what Mr. Gingrich’s married life, including his history of infidelity does not mean: It does not mean that Mr. Gingrich would be unfaithful to the United States of America or the Constitution of the United States.

Or... it could. I mean, if you are an evangelical Christian, then the one of the three most important things that happen in life is marriage, after confirmation and baptism. And if Mr. Gingrich treats those vows made "until death" in the presence of God so lightly, why should we think that his treatment towards the values of the country would be any more dedicated? If he can't take care of his own life, what makes me think he can help govern the lives of 300 million people?

You can take any moral position you like about men and women who cheat while married, but there simply is no correlation, whatsoever—from a psychological perspective—between whether they can remain true to their wedding vows and whether they can remain true to the Oath of Office.

From a psychological perspective? What does that even caveat? There's no correlation from a psychological perspective, but is there one from a non-psychological perspective? Like maybe a realistic perspective? Or maybe there really isn't. JFK was a known cheater and he seemed to do just fine. But most Christians think that marriage is a moral thing to do and cheating is amoral, as laid down by the Ten Commandments. So is this really the conclusion that we as Americans (and especially Christians) should be comfortable with? That an amoral person can just as easily run the country than a moral one? By that logic, Christians should be just as comfortable with an atheist as president because morals clearly don't matter when running the country.

And what does this "psychiatrist" really mean when he says "you can take any moral position you like"? Are Christian morals really that subjective that when someone violates one of the Ten Commandments, the Bible's most obvious laws, the "THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY" clause, that somehow it still remains an open debate as to whether that was a moral thing to do or not. The statement that "you can take any moral position you like" is nihilist, not Christian. But Newt claims to be Christian, so we are required to hold him to a Christian standard, not a nihilistic one. The Christian code is not morally relativistic, at least that's what we are told, which is why so many people are still against gay marriage. Anti-homosexuality is by far an Old Testament teaching, so if you are going to hold that up as your campaign pledge, then I am allowed to hold up your violation of the Ten Commandments as proof that you are even worse than the people you condemn, Mr. Gingrich.

I want to be coldly analytical, not moralize, here. I want to tell you what Mr. Gingrich’s behavior could mean for the country, not for the future of his current marriage. So, here’s what one interested in making America stronger can reasonably conclude—psychologically—from Mr. Gingrich’s behavior during his three marriages:

Once again, the caveat of "psychologically" added to this. And as you will see, the idea that anyone can "reasonably conclude" these following things is at best, unreasonable.

1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.

Or motivated by his power, money, and willingness to spend at Tiffany's. Money and power attracts more women than emotion and intellect. And given some of Gingrich's earlier ideas and changing moral stances, I'm not sure how good his intellect even is.

2) Two of these women felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married.

It takes a special person to turn cheating into a positive. "Good for you, Mr. Gingrich! You managed to seduce two other women despite the fact that you knew it was morally and religiously wrong to do so! Bravo!"

3 ) One of them felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married for the second time, was not exactly her equal in the looks department and had a wife (Marianne) who wanted to make his life without her as painful as possible.

So what does that say about her?

Conclusion: When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we’ll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we’ll want to let him go after one.

A third Gingrich term? Does this guy know anything about the Constitution? And is that really the conclusion we should draw from this? How about, this guy knew something was wrong, did it anyways, and then did it again. Almost sounds like Bush and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Yeah, I'm sure this will end well for our country.

4) Two women—Mr. Gingrich’s first two wives—have sat down with him while he delivered to them incredibly painful truths: that he no longer loved them as he did before, that he had fallen in love with other women and that he needed to follow his heart, despite the great price he would pay financially and the risk he would be taking with his reputation.

Is that how is happened? Just a sit down conversation?

GINGRICH: Hi honey, I need to tell you something difficult. I don't love you anymore. I fell in love with someone else.

WIFE: That is terrible! Who is she?

GINGRICH: Oh, actually, I've been boning her on the side for a few years. By the way, I'll stay married to you if you let me continue to sleep around. How does that sound?

WIFE: No! That will never happen. You have ruined my life!

GINGRICH: Your life?! Do you know how much money I'm going to lose because of this?!

I have such sympathy for his plight. Although if we are legislating marriage, why not write a Constitutional amendment that bars divorce. That way marriage will be between ONLY one man and one woman. Oh, but then Mr. Gingrich wouldn't have been able to live his life the way he wanted to but would have felt oppressed by the government.

Conclusion: I can only hope Mr. Gingrich will be as direct and unsparing with the Congress, the American people and our allies. If this nation must now move with conviction in the direction of its heart, Newt Gingrich is obviously no stranger to that journey.

He makes this sound like a good thing. Following your heart is almost never a good thing. Following your mind and reason is better. Following your heart leads you to do irrational and miscalculated things. Not something I support in a president.

5) Mr. Gingrich’s daughters from his first marriage are among his most vigorous supporters. They obviously adore him and respect him and feel grateful for the kind of father he was.

When I want to know who in a marriage (or, for that matter, a series of marriages) is the one who actually was aligned with their best interests, I never dismiss evidence of who the children gravitate toward and admire. In this case, they have judged the father who left their family, then remarried twice. And they judge him 10 out of 10. I only hope my own children love me and respect me as much when they are adults.

So, as far as I can tell, judging from the psychological data, we have only one real risk to America from his marital history if Newt Gingrich were to become president: We would need to worry that another nation, perhaps a little younger than ours, would be so taken by Mr. Gingrich that it would seduce him into marrying it and becoming its president. And I think that is exceedingly unlikely.

It's really hard to know what to do with this last paragraph. It is, far and away, the stupidest and most intellectually embarrassing collection of words I may have ever read. First, "judging from the psychological data"... ummm, what "data" are we referring to? Just a few of your earlier observations? That's hardly data worth analyzing, let alone coming to some conclusion about. But the conclusion is even more baffling. This author actually thinks that the WORST thing that can happen with a Gingrich presidency is that another country would want him as their president and coax him away from ours? Then again, if we take this proposed example for face value, then historically Mr. Gingrich WOULD in fact leave our country, which should just how committed he is to it. It's tough to know whether the "exceedingly unlikely" is the fact that Gingrich wouldn't leave in said example, or whether the seductive country itself is exceedingly unlikely, although were it to exist then we would surely be in trouble.

But as that goes, this is one of the worst pieces of logic I have come across. It's astounding to appreciate the sheer ineptitude of the writer, who begins his argument by saying that his marital issues have no bearing on his potential job as president, only to then use his marital issues as reason for why he would make a good president. Yet I can't imagine any moral person, atheist or Christian, actually looking at cheating as a positive character trait. As a Christian, he violated the most basic and holy laws given to Jews and Christians, and willingly did it twice. As I was raised, you aren't forgiven by God when you knowingly sin with the expectation that you will be forgiven. Any Christian would point out these character flaws and claim that Newt Gingrich is not a moral person, by both violating the Ten Commandments as well as the sanctity of marriage, which is a bond bestowed by God. Any atheist would point out that while no deity officially sanctions marriage, and thus why gays can and should get married, marriage itself holds a special place in our society and is build on bedrock moral values of trustworthiness both in word (the vows of marriage) and deed (staying faithful), sacrifice for the greater good, and loving and respecting your equal. So while the moral tenets may differ slightly in origin, Mr. Gingrich's actions nor Dr. Ablow's words are not worth the respect or certainly the admiration of either group of people. This is one thing all atheists and Christians can agree on.

When People Ask Why I Have a Problem With Religion…

2012-01-17T17:35:00.002-07:00

This was originally posted on www.patheos.com but I felt it necessary to repost it here. Check it out. Sometimes pictures say it better than words ever could...

From the Mouth of Rep. Bob Marshall

2012-01-16T23:01:00.001-07:00

Here's a gem of a quote from one of the fine people representing our country.

This one come from Republican representative Bob Marshall from Virginia. Just listen to the bullshit that comes out of this guy's mouth:

Western Prince William Del. Bob Marshall, R-13th, says disabled children are God’s punishment to women who have aborted their first pregnancy.

He made that statement last Thursday at a press conference to oppose state funding for Planned Parenthood.

“The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children,” said Marshall, a Republican.

“In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest.”

Marshall was among more than 20 people, mostly Christian pastors and clergy, who gathered for the press conference in the General Assembly Building ...The press conference was held by a group called Virginia Christian Action. Its members presented a petition calling on Gov. Bob McDonnell, Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to stop funding for Planned Parenthood. All three top officials are Republican.

The petition was signed by a number of prominent Christian leaders, including the Rev. Jonathan Falwell of Lynchburg and the Rev. Pat Robertson of Virginia Beach.

Christopher Hitchens once said: Religion makes morally normal people do disgusting and wicked things. No further proof needed.

Just so the record is clear, this man actually thinks that every single child with a disability is due to the fact that God is using the child as a pawn to punish the parents for having a presumed abortion at some earlier date. It's hard to know who he is offending more: pro-choice people who support individual rights, Christians who believe that God wouldn't do that, parents of children with disabilities who love and care for them as much as any child, or scientists who have spent lifetimes determining what causes these disabilities. This man is just sick.

Why Tim Tebow Fascinates and Frustrates Me

2012-01-16T11:22:00.000-07:00

I promise this is the last post on Tim Tebow. His Broncos have lost and I have a strong feeling that his newsworthiness will drastically go down next seasons, not unlike the Miami Heat. It was a weird and entertaining story, beaten to death by the media, and no one (Christian or not) will have the stomach to hear the name Tebow 24/7 like this year. And while it's always fun to jump on the news bandwagon, it can get really old really quick. So I'd like to offer a few last thoughts on the game and his legacy.

My wife asked me the other day, "Why Tim Tebow? What did he do to make everything focus on his religion?" And it's a good question. He's always been upfront about his faith, but so have many other athletes. Sure, maybe plastering Bible verses on your eye black is a little more than what most athletes do, but to each their own. So why did Tim Tebow get such intense media scrutiny for his faith? Personally, I think it began with the Super Bowl commercial he did with his mom last year.

While the commercial itself it's necessarily inflammatory, there are two factors that needs to be looked at. While most athletes are content to thank God in front of the cameras, maybe point to their Sky-Daddy when they succeed -

Thanking God for steroids.

Thanking God for anger management.

Thanking God for kidney failure.

Yes, while there are plenty of athletes that thank God for whatever they think he does, there are very few who have the audacity to star in their own commercial promoting those values and ideas. During the Super Bowl. Now, as egocentric as that is, it's even worse given that the commercial directs you to the Focus on the Family website. Focus on the Family is a borderline hate group with their extreme positions on anti-LGTBQ community, and the American Psychological Association say their positions "create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish." So it's not just that Tim Tebow is a Christian, but that his beliefs are being broadcast to millions of people during the Super Bowl by what many consider is a hate group. That is why the media picked up this story. He made the first move. And in the last Bronocs game, Focus on the Family released another commercial, this one with kids reading the Bible verse John 3:16. It is a blatant pandering to the Tebow fanbase with this commercial, with it being his favorite verse and all, as well as his prior associations with the group.

I think that many people, regardless of belief, feel sports and religion shouldn't mix. This is not on the same level that religion and politics shouldn't mix, as that is a mandated by the Constitution. But this is more practical. When people watch sports, they want to drink beer, each nachos and wings, and root their team on to win. They don't want to think about the real world, the controversial topics that abound, or having debates and arguments with friends and family outside of whose teams is better. Sports is a way to escape the real world, and commercials like this force the real world back in their lives. It's an unwelcome intrusion. This is one of those "keep it to yourself" moments. And when Tim Tebow runs a commercial that violates that unwritten rule, people don't take kindly to it.

But I also think this operates on a larger scale. I think the media infatuation with Tim Tebow isn't even about Tim Tebow at its heart. It is, as it always is, about religion. It's about the tough questions. Does God care about football? Does he care about insignificant details like that in our lives? Yet, if he is all-powerful and can do all things, why couldn't he want to help in a football game? Or are people that narcissistic to think that God cares more about them and their silly football game than genocide in Africa? When is a good forum to display your beliefs? Can you ever go too far in being a disciple for your religion? When is it too much? These are all very difficult questions, both for the believer and the non-believer. And I think that's why you see such different opinions in the national debate. You have some pundits who are sensitive to religion in politics or whatnot and they see Tim Tebow as a de facto microcosm for the religion vs. society war as a whole. That's when you get articles like that ESPN one I posted in my "Tebowing" article or this one from the WSJ. And yet they both miss the point.

People did not hate LeBron James for leaving Cleveland. They hated him for the way he did it, for the arrogant, self-righteous persona he adopted while stringing along all of this fans and choosing to win in the easiest way possible. In a similar way, people do not hate Tim Tebow for being Christian. People hate Tim Tebow because they don't like the blending for sports and religion in an "in your face and you can't avoid looking at it" way. They don't want to deal with social, or political, or religious issues when they watch their sports. They want to debate Tim Tebow's throwing motion or the routes his receivers ran or the offensive coordinators play calling. They don't want to debate what church he goes to or where he did his mission work or whether he's a virgin. In the WSJ article, the author starts off by saying "The NFL is generously stocked with forgiven felons, including millionaire wife beaters and dog killers." Overlooking the gross stereotyping of an entire league from a very small subset of people, the point is that NO ONE CARES what these people do on their own time. They just want the sport to be pure and good and fun to watch. That's why more people cared about Barry Bonds and his steroid scandal or Tim Donaghy and betting on games than Tank Johnson and his bar fights. We just want to watch the game and we will do whatever we can to preserve the game. Religion brings up a lot of difficult questions for everyone and a football game is not the time or place people want to weigh in on these issues. This is where many people will say "Just keep it to yourself." Not everything has to be a pedestal to push your beliefs on others.

Pats are crushing the Broncos

2012-01-14T20:22:00.001-07:00

Do you think Tom Brady is a better Christian than Tebow? If last week's win was proof of God, what is this game proof of? The whole idea of God being proveb or disproven by a football game is just silly. Where's God when Tebow needs him?

The Curious Case of Tim Tebow

2012-01-14T13:09:00.002-07:00

Picking up with where I left off yesterday, I wanted to offer more thoughts on Tim Tebow. Yesterday I posted an article from Salon.com which asked what it would be like if Tim Tebow were Muslim. It's a salient point and one that begs a broader consideration. A lot has been made about Tim Tebow this season, raising the idea on whether his performances prove that God exists. Why would anyone come to such a conclusion. Let's take a look at the accomplishments of Mr. Tebow this season:

Despite people suggesting that he could not play quarterback, but was merely a fullback with a marginal arm, he has led his team to the playoffs.
He had a number of late comebacks this year for several improbable wins.
In his first playoff game, he faced the Pittsburgh Steelers (they of the #1 defense) and beat them.
In this game he threw for 316 yards at 31.6 yards/catch, notable because his favorite Bible verse is John 3:16.

This may cause some people to think for a second, especially on that last point. But while most pundits did not take Mr. Tebow's talents very seriously, let's consider a few more points on the opposing side of the coin.

Pundits are, by no means, perfect when it comes to a judge of talent and translation of skills from college to the pros. Look back to Tony Mandarich, who many (including this famous SI cover) predicted would be the best lineman ever. And he wasn't.

Or on the flip side of that, look at someone like Danny Woodhead of the Patriots, David Eckstein of the Angels, or Craig Biggio of the Astros. Scouts always thought they were too small to play until they were given a chance.
And let's not forget, Tim Tebow won two national championships at Florida. He is used to playing in front of huge crowds, under immense pressure and scrutiny, and winning. If it were anyone else, that resume would be enough to warrant an assumed first pick in the draft, as well as an assumed stellar career in the NFL. In many ways, Tim Tebow's success is really only due to abysmally low expectations. He's performing where everyone thought he would fail, but it's only because everyone thought he would fail that his performance is worthy of such debate.
There are plenty of other reasons he won as well. As Tebow himself has repeated stated, his team is what is important. And he wouldn't have won if he didn't have a good supporting team.

But does Tim Tebow's success prove anything about God? Of course not. It's actually fascinating to look at the public reaction. Some Christians think that he's being God's faithful servant and spreading the word. Others think his actions are near blasphemous, going against Jesus' teachings in Matthew 6. Some feel that he's exercising his right to the freedom of religion, others think that it's just more proof of the freedom of Christianity and not of all religions. Some think he's ultra-devout, others think he un-Christian for even thinking that God would care about a football game. To presume to know what God is thinking and how he works in our world is blasphemous as well. So where does this leave us?

Personally, I think the whole ordeal only shows how pompous and arrogant Americans are, that we think everything is about us or a message to us. If Tim Tebow really is a living message from God, then God is a moron. First off, Tim Tebow is not a Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, or Drew Brees. He's not the best quarterback in the game. So picking an average to above average guy is hardly proof that God's power is transcendent. Nor is he Michael Jordan or Wayne Gretzky or Babe Ruth. While his career is still very, very young, he will never be on that level of athletes. Those guys will be remembered in the annals of sports long after Tim Tebow is gone. Second, he plays football. As in, American football. If God's really interested in saving the world, why did he pick his flag-bearer to play in the most obscure major worldwide sport there is. Soccer would have been ideal, but even baseball or basketball have larger overseas presences than football, where the only place outside the US it is popular is Canada. And they don't even play by the same rules. And lastly, like my previous post mentioned, it's insane to think that God is busy using Tim Tebow to spread his message while war, famine, poverty, genocide, disease, and destruction go on in all corners of the world.

Tim Tebow isn't any more proof of a Christian God than Muhammad Ali is proof of Allah.

A Few Articles on Religion Worth Reading

2012-01-13T17:50:00.000-07:00

A very thoughtful article from Salon.com, which poses the question, "What if Tim Tebow were Muslim?" It's unlikely he would receive the coverage, support, and admiration that he has done under the Christian banner.

In other news:

The Atlantic ran a very good story detailing the unique ruling of SCOTUS regarding "ministerial" positions in religious institutions. The case regarded a teacher who was working for a school run by the Lutheran church - Missouri Synod (yes, my alma mater of sorts) before she was fired for taking disability leave for narcolepsy. SCOTUS ruled that the Lutheran church could in fact ignore civil disability and workplace discrimination laws because they retain the right to hire and fire anyone that coincides with their beliefs, as long as they are in a "ministerial" position. Of course, they didn't define what exactly a "ministerial" position is or is not, effectively giving religious institutions license to operate in bad faith (apparently, no pun intended) with their employees.
And, surprise surprise, FOX News manages to completely skew this situation to make it sounds like the Obama administration was taking the entire religious enterprise in our country to the courts. Given the fact that the White House wasn't even involved, had nothing to do with threatening religious freedoms in this country, and the whole point about narcolepsy was generally ignored, it's amazing that this kind of garbage can make it onto a supposedly reputable news organization's website.
In more legal news, Oklahoma's attempt to ban Sharia Law from being considered in the courts was ironically struck down in the courts. Although the argument was that this was just an attempt block international law from being considered, the wording "It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law" made it fairly obvious that Islam was specifically targeted. Even more obvious in the targeting of Islam would be the simple test of replacing Sharia Law with Judeo-Christian Law, as Rick Santorum would love to have. Had the amendment contained a specific reference to Judeo-Christian Law, Christians everywhere would have condemned it immediately, as it would be further justification of their well-known Persecution Complex. Funny how it doesn't work the other way. Want to know the simple fix? Keep ALL religious law out of the courts. Problem solved.
And despite Christian attempts to keep out Islamic law from the courts and federal funds for abortion, they yet again fail to see the double-standard as a group of clergy and lawsmakers are finally pushing Obama to repeal the Bush era legislation that provides federal funding to religious institutions, even if they engage in faith-based discrimination. And despite obviousness of why this is wrong, Christian organizations are still fighting to keep it. This should be reexamined immediately, especially in light of the SCOTUS ruling detailed above.
Elsewhere around the world, Saudi Arabia executed a woman convicted a sorcery. Which is weird to think that anyone still believes in that, until you realize that what she was really doing was being a snake-oil salesperson. People paid her because they should she could cure them of their illnesses. In this country, that would be punishable by a fine, maybe a little jail, but certainly not death. Must be something about that Sharia law.

And the biggest football game of the year Patriots - Broncos is already being hailed as Good vs. Evil. But I'll have another post for you on that later. Always more words to be spilled over Tim Tebow.

The Best of Christopher Hitchens

2012-01-11T13:55:00.001-07:00

Great videos and brilliant commentary. Well worth the watch.

A New Carnivorous Plant to Join the Venus Flytrap Found in Brazil

2012-01-11T11:20:00.001-07:00

Sticky underground leaves help a Brazilian plant to capture and digest worms, a hitherto unknown way for carnivorous plants to catch victims, scientists find.

The rare plant Philcoxia minensis is found in the tropical savannas of Brazil, areas rich in biodiversity and highly in need of conservation. Although some of the plant's millimeter-wide leaves grow above ground as expected, strangely, most of its tiny, sticky leaves lie beneath the surface of the shallow white sands on which it grows.

"We usually think about leaves only as photosynthetic organs, so at first sight, it looks awkward that a plant would place its leaves underground where there is less sunlight," said researcher Rafael Silva Oliveira, a plant ecologist at the State University of Campinas in Brazil. "Why would evolution favor the persistence of this apparently unfavorable trait?"

[more after the break]

Rick Santorum - Presidential Candidate, Douchbag, and Bugnutty Christian

2012-01-10T11:58:00.001-07:00

Santorum (san-TOR-um) n. - The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.

I want to start off this post with a couple of facts that must be kept in mind at all times while reading this post.

The United States is the most powerful nation on Earth with a GDP that nearly equals the entirety of the European Union and 2.5X the next closest nation, China.
The United States spends 6X more on defense than the next closest nation, China.
The United States is the only country to have ever used an atomic weapon in war.
The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the world.
Rick Santorum is running for that position for the most powerful political party in our country and came in a statistical tie for first in the Iowa caucus.

Why do I bring this up? Because there are a number of things that scare me about Rick Santorum. Although the Republican party has long prided themselves on being fiscally responsible, Rick Santorum has built his entire campaign out of his social agenda. Even his economic ideas are a means to his social conservative end, in which he would triple the existing tax credit for having children and sink the nation further into debt. Don't conservatives already point to for the "welfare parents" who only have more kids to make more from welfare? How could tripling the tax credit make that better? And although the notoriously conservative WSJ generally gives him high marks, they completely skate around the debt issue. Cutting taxes sounds great until you realize that revenue must come from somewhere, else it is simply tacked onto the exploding deficit, which is what Santorum claims to want to avoid with balancing the budget. And given no one wants to cut expenditures, especially defense and entitlements, we will continue to find ourselves in the current mess.

But truthfully, have you even heard Rick Santorum's name mentioned with a single economic policy? Of course not. Because that's not what he's campaigning on. His issues are gay marriage, abortion, and God.

Just look at the headlines that have come out recently and his quotes towards those ends:

Santorum tangles with voters over gay marriage, health insurance

“One of the things he talked about…was the lack of fathers, and he found that even fathers in jail who had abandoned their kids were still better than no father at all to have in their childrens’ lives.” Allowing gays to marry and raise children, he said, amounts to “robbing children of something they need, they deserve, they have a right to. You may rationalize that that isn’t true, but in your own life and in your own heart, you know it’s true."

Santorum wants to impose 'Judeo-Christian Sharia'

He told a crowd at a November campaign stop in Iowa in no uncertain terms, "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law."

And as an aside, when Santorum says "God," he means "not any god (but) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."

...when asked about his opposition to gay marriage: "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change."

Rick Santorum jeered after comparing gay marriage to polygamy

"Are we saying everyone should have the right to marry? So anyone can marry anyone else?" Santorum asked, according to a video by NBC News. "So anybody can marry several people?"

And abortion?

So let's get this straight. This man wants to be the President of the United States. As a Republican, he claims to support the "as-intended" interpretation of the Constitution, economic growth, family values, states rights and individual freedoms. Yet, he proposes an economic plan that will encourage deficit growth and welfare dependence, ignores the First Amendment and the separation of church and state, wants to set up a state sponsored religion following religious law, wants to take defining marriage away from the states and into the federal constitution, favors the destruction of gay families whose marriages would be nullified with a Constitutional amendment, and wants to remove individuals rights to equal treatment under law, abortion, federally funded contraceptives, and access to pornography. And despite being Catholic, it seems he fails to agree with the Church on nearly every important point.

In short, Rick Santorum embodies everything I hate about overzealous religious ideologues, hypocritical believers, and the arrogance of their "truths". As Penn Jillette would say, "He is just a bugnutty Christian." And yet, I really am not sure whether I should be more worried about him or the fact that Iowa voters voted him in a statistical tie with Mitt Romney. That scares me just as much, because Mitt Romney (with his magical underwear), Jon Huntsman (also a Mormon, but probably doesn't wear magical underwear), and Ron Paul (possibly a racist) are the only reasonable candidates out there for the GOP. Jon Huntsman may be out after the NH vote, Ron Paul probably doesn't have a chance despite finishing a close third in Iowa, and half the GOP seem willing to vote for anyone whose name does not rhyme with Schmidt Pomney (hence Rick Santorum finishing tied for first).

The saving grace here is that Rick Santorum cannot and will not ever get elected as the President of this country. His views, while supported by many extremists in the GOP primary/caucus voter block, have no real appeal to anyone outside of those bugnuts. While exposes a real flaw in the US campaign and election system. How can a guy so out-of-step with the majority of rational, centrist Americans come in a statistical tie for first for one of our country's two major parties in the first primary? How can he finish first?!? Still, I'm sure Santorum will fade quickly once he gets into primarys of important states like New York and California, if he is even still around then. And forget about actually challenging Obama. So I can take comfort in the fact that his presidency is a long way from reality, but the fact that it is 2012, the year of our demise, and we are still considering someone like him to be a viable candidate to run our country is just sad.

So much for being positive right? :) I'll work on it. Once he is out of the race, my blood pressure will start going back down.

The Newest Religion in the World

2012-01-06T14:00:00.000-07:00

As officially recognized by the Swedish government, the religion of Kopimism and its followers, the Kopimis, are now in the annals of history. What do these people believe? That the transfer and copying of information is sacred (now, re-read the name of the followers). Yes, CTRL+C and CTRL+V are their holy actions, not unlike communion and baptism of the Christian religion.

As ridiculous as this may seem, similar to the FSM but without the facetious overtones, there actually are valid questions to be answered here. What does it take to form a new religion? What makes one religion more or less ridiculous than the next? Is it just history? Staying-power? Beliefs? As weird as worshipping your keyboard may be, it certainly can be proven to work and exist in reality, which is more than Christianity, Islam, and Scientology can claim. And in the United States, where some of the most ridiculous and illegal practices are protected under law (not paying taxes, minors drinking alcohol, beating of children, etc...), it seems that the only reason that file-sharing wouldn't become legal for members of Kopimism is for financial reasons of companies and the government, not any existential or religious basis. Then again, if it were allowed, anyone could create a religion saying "X" crime is legal and justifiable in their dogma and therefore able to be practiced. Although, technically, the Bible gives its followers justification for slavery, stoning people to death, and genocide based on religion and Christianity is protected. I guess the laws of God really aren't higher than the laws of man.

The Conclusion of Christmas

2012-01-05T22:14:00.001-07:00

Ok, I've finally gotten around to finishing up my posts on the interactions with my family over this last Christmas break. After the conversation with my father, my wife and I stayed firm and didn't go to church on Christmas Eve. It was a proud moment for me, a true break from the traditions and beliefs of my parents faced head on. Things were fine the rest of the trip but I wanted to make sure that they understood how much I appreciated how they handled the topic, so I told them as much on the last day we were there. It's still a sore issue - my mom kept repeating "just keep an open heart" and "you know in your heart what the truth is" - but at least I got a chance to tell them that I did appreciate their hands-off approach since the wedding. Of course, my parents and I are and always will be miles apart in beliefs, as both are mutually exclusive of each other, but I wanted to remind them that my love for them was most important to me. That we can exist in mutual respect of each other while acknowledging that we utterly disagree on a topic that we both hold dear.

And while my parents did make several comments that I could have responded to, this time I chose not to. As I said in my last post, there are times in which religion should be exposed, confronted, and attacked. And there are other times, especially with certain people, that the fight is more damaging to have than not to have. I've certainly pushed back against my parents beliefs and assertions but I am always conscious of the line I don't want to cross. It's difficult to maintain respect for a set of beliefs that I roundly reject and routinely criticize for its hypocrisy. Yet I respect my parents and I don't want to lose sight of that as well. They have done a lot for me in my life and given me many opportunities. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and at the end of the day, atheism/humanism is about getting along with your fellow humans, friends and family because that's all we have and we only have one life to get it right.

Ok, enough of the mushy self-reflection :) Time to get back to the crazy-ass religious people making news!

Now for a More Positive Spin on Things

2012-01-02T18:09:00.000-07:00

I really enjoy writing for this blog. I enjoy the time and thought that goes into the subject matter, as religion has always been a fascination for me, but I also enjoy the time to be self-reflective. Writing about something that has happened always gives me some new thought or perspective on the matter. Maybe it's something that I can use in a different debate or maybe it's some revelation or truth to which I had not previously considered. I always find it interesting that I can still read a story from the Bible or think about what I was taught as a child and come to some new conclusion about it. It's never quite as momentous as the entirety of my conversion, but you can still enjoy climbing a mountain even if you've already scaled Everest.

Yet one of the things that I want to do something is communicate my joy, peace, and happiness with my ideals without just complaining about religion all the time. Religion can be downright saddening or infuriating, with its tentacles in everything we do in this society, but that doesn't mean that I am always unhappy about this. It's imperative to come to peace with reality, even if the worldview espoused by the majority of other doesn't align with your own or if you feel that your right to be recognized is always an uphill battle. So I want to make more of an effort to write in a sense that conveys more positivity, a feeling that atheism is good, not just that religion is bad. Sometimes that is unavoidable. When religion causes problems, we own it to society to point out those facts. When religious ideals inspire violence, malice, and hypocrisy, humanity itself suffers unless someone is willing to stand up and hold such purveyors accountable.

And yet, it's not all bad. Atheism, freethought, and individuality has come a very long way in the past few decades. People are much more aware of the right of an individual to express themselves even when it goes against the religious majority. Atheism has gained in popularity because of the logical nature of the message, the proof of reality and our existence, and the acceptance of ourselves as we are. It's not so much about being "right" in some existential cosmic sense as it is a rejection of human contrivances and control mechanisms that give organized religion its power. This is where a-theism really holds its meaning. Atheism isn't about proving the non-existence of some purported deity, nor is it a religion unto itself. At its purest point, atheism is simply the acknowledgement that humanity really has no idea what its talking about when it comes to religion, gods, or the afterlife. And to strip all the bullshit away, to peel back the layers of human greed, hubris, and lust for immortality, we see the world as it really is. And it's cold, callous, and absolutely beautiful.

So in 2012 I want to forge a more positive path in my blog in order to focus my attention on what the world has to offer and how atheists can play their part in it. I'll still poke fun at the ridiculousness of religion and vent my frustrations with the actions of the followers, but I'll also make more of an effort to remind myself and everyone else that at the end of the day, the only thing that really matters is whether you are happy with yourself and the life you are living. And I am definitely happy.

A Little Hitch for Thought

2012-01-02T09:39:00.003-07:00

I saw this today and wanted to pass it along. Very thoughtful argument and well put. I'll finish up the story on Christmas with my parents next and then want to offer my thoughts about why people are religious. Stay tuned.

Religious Discussions with my Father

2011-12-31T13:43:00.001-07:00

As you may have gathered over the past few years, discussing religion with my parents is... uncomfortable, at best. My dad tends to get defensive and my mom gets emotional and upset, which doesn't really lead to a conducive environment for rational religious discussion and inquiry. I've tried very hard on this blog and in my life to treat religion as objectively as possible, even as many areas of religious bigotry and prejudice make it difficult to examine it completely devoid of emotion. The fact is that religion is necessarily an emotional topic; without eliciting a strong emotional response, religious belief would remain depersonalized and much easier to reject (*see Atheist, Self Taught). Religion can't stand upon logic, rationale, or reason for the entirety of its existence, else it would be long extinct. But it plays to our irrational side, the side of emotion, anxiety, fear, love, hate, and hurt. Once the roots take hold and become the basis for coping with those things, it is nearly impossible to untangle the web of intertwining philosophies and beliefs, to separate fact from fiction or personal want and desire from necessity. While it is indeed possible to live in the absence of a god or religion, most people who are religious couldn't possibly imagine it to be true, simply by virtue of the pervasiveness of their beliefs on their daily actions and choices. Thus, all of those decisions are the attributed to God, explained using God, and accepted with God for the entirety of their life. This is why you hear people thank God for giving them the strength to do "X" or the courage to do "Y". It's not that they couldn't do it themselves - they obviously did - but the mentality of their religious faith is so synonymous with their actions that it literally does not make sense to them that they did something momentous in the absence of a divine motivator.

Personally, I think Jesus was more wide-receiver material.
theamericanjesus.net

So when it comes to my parents, I have always been quite aware of how deeply emotional religion has been to them. Thus, it's difficult for me to rationally explain why their beliefs don't make logic sense while not coming off sounding like a douchebag atheist whose sole purpose is to insult to belittle everything they hold dear. It's harder than it sounds. So after I told my mother I wasn't going to church with them on Christmas Eve, my dad decided it was about time to have another talk.

I'll preface the entire story by saying that the talk went really well. My dad did not get overly defense or angry with any of my points, and listened and considered what I was saying. So that was a big step forward, especially given how my earlier conversations went with them. Turning a corner maybe? In any case, the conversation started out with my dad explaining how he couldn't understand how I went from "being baptized, going to Sunday school every week, going to youth group retreats, playing Jesus in our Good Friday/Easter pageant to going off to liberal college and now completely denying the existence of God himself." I had to resist the urge to say that it wasn't like I had a choice in any of the things I did when I was a kid, so it's not exactly apples to apples comparison. I didn't want the conversation to start on that note. So I decided to try a different tactic. I asked him about the time when he doubted his belief and doubted God. Sometimes I think that atheism isn't as far of a leap in thought as many people think, it's just that the mentalities are so different that it's hard to relate. Bringing a believer more to your plane of thought can be immensely beneficial in a conversation, just to help them understand you are just a normal person with normal thoughts and ideas, just different than theirs. In any case, we talked about that for a while, until we got to the point of what convinced him of God's existence. There were two instances in his life that did it: his reconciliation with his father a year before he died and my birth.

Now, no matter how rational of a person I am and no matter how well thought out my beliefs are, being told that my existence is the reason for someone else's belief in God is a difficult thing to handle. Of course, I already knew that my parents saw me as the miracle baby: I was born healthy despite my mom being diagnosed as infertile, my parents spending New Year's Eve in a church praying for a kid instead of being out partying, that I was born nine months later and still nearly died from complications at birth. So there's your emotional connection. But what can I say to that? Any attempt to refute God is going to directly contradict my own existence in my parents eyes. That's not a trivial issue. They literally believe that my birth is proof of God. And now I'm an atheist. Yikes.

I avoided that issue, for the most part. I want to draw attention away from the emotional side and focus on logic. Somehow we got on the topic of the book of Job. It's a fascinating book, one that everyone should read, and it's not even that hard as you can read the prologue chapter, the epilogue chapter, and assuming everything in the middle is a very long conversation between Job and his friends that culminates in God appearing to them saying, "You can't understand why I do what I do." That's Job in a sentence. Read chapters 1 and 2 and finish with chapter 42, it's not that long and you'll get a feel for what was being discussed and why. In any case, the conversation focused on Job for a long time and I was able to bring up several issues that I felt directly encapsulated many of my issues with the Bible. They are:

The story of Job proves God is not perfectly good.
The morals of Job are appalling from the perspective of Job's wife (or other family members).
The story of Job is a great illustration of the literal/figurative interpretation debate.

Job is a fascinating book because it's actually one of the few books of the Bible that directly addresses the moral issue of why bad things happen to good people. Although it still doesn't answer it satisfactorily (God saying that you just can't understand him), it's at least an attempt and we can judge the attempt on its merit. As the story starts off, Satan comes from the world to God and tells God that Job only believes in God because Job has a great life and has everything he needs. God disagrees and gives Satan free reign to "test" Job by subsequently taking away his land, animals, family members, and ultimately, his health. This then allows us to take a step back and ask the question, "Is this acceptable?" If God is perfectly good, is good that God not only allowed bad things to happen to a pious, innocent person, but that he actually approved of it! If someone were to come up to me and tell me that I should test my friend's loyalty by murdering his friends and family, neither a court of law nor public opinion would find that to be a moral or good decision and would instead rule it to be worthy of life in prison. Yet, here we have a story of a divine being, a wholly perfect God, exacting that same test on one of his devout followers. How can we possibly come away feeling like this is justifiable from a perfectly good GOD? Either God himself is evil, doesn't have the power to stop evil, or doesn't have the will to. None of those options inspire a whole lot of confidence in my belief in the perfectly good Judeo-Christian God.

On that subject, most people tend to focus on what happened to Job and why, but I can't say I've ever thought about what happened to Job's family. All of them were mercilessly slaughtered for no reason. When people say things happen for a reason, what is the justification of their deaths? Here we actually have an understanding of what happened and the motive behind it, and we can actually say that God had no purpose for their lives other than to be a pawn in a big test to challenge Job's faith - which God, being omniscient, already supposedly knows. So what was the point? He challenged Job, Job passed, and his family all died because of it. Is that really the only way Job could have been tested? Were the lives of his family members that disposable that they could be indiscriminately murdered as collateral damage? How is that good!?!

Or maybe we are looking at this all wrong. Maybe it's a figurative story. A moral lesson that should only focus on Job and about feeling good about the fact that God is still watching over you and protecting you, even if he is doing a marginal job at it. I pushed this issue and my dad did admit that although he interpreted the story as literal, there is nothing in the story that excludes it from being a figurative story. And yet, if the story of Job is figurative, then this is the same level of rigor that we apply to any story of the Bible, including creation, Jesus, and Revelation. To this, he had no comeback. This issue I have brought up on my blog many times before because interpretation of Biblical text is every bit as important as the text itself and getting my dad to admit that there is no way of knowing was a bit step. Although he tried to defend this point by saying it didn't matter because he "knew" or "felt" what the meaning was supposed to be, it's easy to see how fast that argument falls apart. If the entirety of Biblical instruction and knowledge is just based off of someone's gut feeling, then that's not exactly proof of a universal truth. It's proof only of one man's personal interpretation of a vague and malleable piece of ancient literature that is only applicable in today's world because of the work the believer and/or church has to do to fill in all the gaps.

I was told he'll get back to me on my questions...

Post-Christmas Madness - Non-attendance of the Christmas Eve Service

2011-12-30T09:13:00.001-07:00

Ahhh, there is so much to say! So much to type! I know it's been quite a while since I've had more regular updates, and I promise to rectify that immediately because there has been many new updates since I last posted. For starters, my wife and I are in the second leg of the Christmas journey, at the in-laws for pt. 2 after visiting my parents for a week. There's been lots of nice gifts exchanged, lots of good food consumed, and most importantly, lots of good conversation. That's really the reason for the season isn't it? Spending time with those you love, enjoying the company of friends and family, and generally eating more than you intend on with the goal of then working it back off come January. And giving gifts too. While some people still celebrate Jesus and the manger as the true meaning of Christmas, and a few others celebrate the Winter Solstice as the even truer meaning of the Christmas festival season, most people are really just content with being good, waiting for Santa's arrival, and watching sports on TV whilst consuming large quantities of food. And why not? Sounds like a perfect way to enjoy life to me!

RIP Christopher Hitchens

2011-12-16T13:19:00.000-07:00

Christopher Hitchens passed away from esophageal cancer yesterday. He was a brilliant writer, philosopher, critic, and contrarian. His book "God is Not Great: Why Religion Poisons Everything", helped give rise to the New Atheism movement. Even his debate skills and his willingness to question things are honored on both sides of the aisle, a rare achievement in today's misinformed, highly-polarized world. His insights and sharp wit will be missed.