The following guest post has been written by my alter ego, Christina Christianphens, and should not be construed as the actual, non-satirical opinions of me, Christina Stephens:

Hello Good homosexuality-opposing Christian parents!

I know most of you are furrowing your ever-furrowed brows and pointing your ever-pointy fingers at the Boy Scouts of America, an organization who recently voted to remove the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone. We know you don’t want your children to know gay kids exist, much less be around them.

The American Family Association wrote about this resolution when they said:

In essence, the resolution doesn’t allow a gay adult to go camping with boys, but may put an “experienced” gay 17-year-old inside a tent with a 12-year-old boy on his first campout. This creates a perfect environment for sexual abuse within scouting.

Guess what: gay people (both youth and adults) have been involved in the Boy Scouts since the dawn of scouting. The only difference between then and now is that before yesterday, they had to hide it in order to remain a member. That “experienced” gay 17-year-old could end up inside a tent with a 12-year-old boy, and no one would be the wiser – that gay boy was pretending to be straight so he could stay in the scouts.

Without fear of being banned from the scouts, gay boys no longer have to hide their homosexuality to avoid getting kicked out, which means you and your sons are much more likely to know if there is another gay scout in his troop… and wouldn’t you rather know, then have a troop overrun by secretly gay youth?

Think about it. You won’t have to be worried about your son sharing a tent on an overnight camping trip with an older child in a leadership role who is secretly gay, ready to pounce upon the loins of your innocent sweet boy as soon as those completely soundproof tents are erected.

Luckily for you, sexual activity remains banned in the scouts, so your son can be totally aware of gay kids while still knowing those gay kids will get kicked out should he ever notify group leaders that one of those icky gay kids touched him.

The boy scouts are doing you a favor, fellow Christians who oppose homosexuality: now it will be easier for you and your sons to identify gay kids. That means you can keep your sons out of troops that have homosexual kids and make sure your sons don’t stay overnight in tents with them. It’s the perfect opportunity for you to share the gospel and pressure them into being straight.

Hey, maybe this decision could even open doors to Gay Scouts Conversion Therapy! Lots of parents send their kids to Scouts to teach them lessons about morality and community. The Boy Scouts reach out to troubled youth all the time. We can spread our gospel to gay kids (if we’re able to stomach being around them).

So please, good Christians who oppose homosexuality: thank the Boy Scouts!

Learn more about Christina and follow her @ziztur.

Families who attend Faith Tabernacle Congregation in North Philadelphia and First Century Gospel Church in Juniata Park have lost more than two dozen children to illness since 1971, according to non-profit Children’s Healthcare Is a Legal Duty, Inc. (CHILD, Inc.). Both churches believe in the power of prayer over modern medicine.

The most recent case was with Herbert and Catherine Schaible whose seven month-old son died of treatable illnesses.  Here’s the kicker though: four years ago their two year-old son Kent dies of pnuemonia, which also could’ve been treated.  Not even the death of a child could convince them that the teachings of their church were false.  This is the power of faith: it can cause people to believe in spite of evidence to the contrary.

NBC10’s Lu Ann Cahn spoke to one member of First Tabernacle Thursday about the church’s beliefs.

“The church believe that people get sick because they’re not doing the right thing,” the man named John said. He refused to give his last name during the interview.

“God promised us that if we do his will, that there’s no infection; all these diseases that you name, would not come to you,” the man explained. John says he believes the congregation is being persecuted for their beliefs.

Persecuted for their…WHAT THE FUCK????

It’s not like your beliefs are benign and we’re hating on you just for believing different.  You assholes hold beliefs that are killing children!  Do you not get that?  Do you not care?  You’re not being persecuted for your beliefs.  The damn shame is that most of you are not even being prosecuted for them.  Thankfully, after killing child #2, the Shiables are going on trial for homicide.  It’s a shame it took a second child dying before their kids were taken away and before they were treated like what they are: murderers of children.

If this guy and his colleagues are being persecuted for anything, that’s it: being murderers of children.  That’s something for which people should be persecuted.

All Christians need to get this message loud and clear: prayer does not work.  It doesn’t matter how much faith you have, because these parents had all the faith in the world.  They fully believed god would save their kids.  Relying on prayer to find your keys or to feed the hungry is no more sensible than relying on prayer to heal an easily treatable disease.  Anytime you tell me you’re praying, all I hear is that you’re wasting time not doing shit.

On Thursday, the Vatican issued an “explanatory note on the meaning to ‘salvation.’”

The Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, said that people who know about the Catholic church “cannot be saved” if they “refuse to enter her or remain in her.”

If the Vatican thinks that all the kindness and compassion in the world means less than believing a fantastic story for which there is no evidence that exceeds the category of “shitty”, then they’re not prepared to speak about doing good.  If they think even the nicest, most caring person who disbelieves in Jesus because they don’t think there’s enough evidence deserves to burn for all eternity, then the Catholic Church doesn’t even know what “good” is.

The lead singer of the metal band As I Lay Dying has been arrested and charged with seeking to have his wife killed, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department said.

Authorities said Tuesday that Tim Lambesis tried to contract an undercover detective posing as a killer for hire to murder his estranged wife, who lives in Encinitas, California.

Not saying that Christianity motivates someone to kill their wife.  I am saying that it certainly doesn’t prevent it, or any other immoral action.  Faith simply doesn’t make people better.  And in the cases of discrimination against gays or their willingness to forgive a leader who aided and abetted child rapists, it seems to make people much, much worse.

John Stemberger is an Eagle Scout and president of On My Honor, a coalition of concerned parents, Scout Leaders, Scouting donors, Eagle Scouts and others affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America who are united in their support of Scouting’s timeless values and their opposition to open homosexuality in the Scouts.

Value #2: compassion.  It’s on the Scout’s own damn website.  Compassion means not discriminating (ask any racial minority).  You can have the scout’s values or you can have your discrimination against gay people, but you can’t have both.

We’re not even into the actual article and already there’s bullshit.  This must be some kind of record.

On Thursday, delegates to the Boy Scouts of America’s national conference met in Grapevine, Texas, to determine the fate of one of the most beloved organizations in this country’s history. This organization that has stood the test of time will probably be destroyed now that they have decided to admit openly gay boys as Scouts.

Yes, the Boy Scouts will be destroyed.  Just like our military was going to be destroyed when we let gay soldiers openly serve.  Remember that?  Yeah, me either.  It was the poster child for non-events that didn’t change a thing.  But I sure as hell remember people just like Stemberger swearing up and down that it would mean the end of military recruitment and unit cohesion.

But let’s imagine the Boy Scouts were destroyed.  Would it be because of letting gay youths be who they are?  Or would it be because Christians, so consumed with the harmless, normal sexual preferences of others, would sooner destroy the Boy Scouts than tolerate people who are not like them?  If it’s the latter, let’s not place the blame on gay people (and their straight allies).

Sex and politics have no place in the Boy Scouts, and allowing open homosexuality will lead to myriad bad consequences.

Expecting the Scouts to enshrine a culture of gays staying closeted for shame or fear of expulsion is keeping sex and politics in the Boy Scouts…it’s just doing it in a discriminatory and psychologically harmful fashion.  If an organization must make a policy on sexual orientation, it should be one that favors equality.

And what are these consequences?

First, the new BSA policy is logically incoherent and morally and ethically inconsistent. The BSA had never discriminated against homosexuals. The BSA membership application did not ask about sexual orientation, and there has never been a witch hunt in the BSA to find or remove its gay members.

But if it came to light that scouts were gay, the policy was to remove them.  Otherwise this is the most superfluous policy change since Congress did…anything.  If there was no discrimination for scouts being openly gay, then Stemberger shouldn’t give a shit because nothing has changed.  He gives a shit because it clearly has.

Now, however, open homosexuality will be officially consistent with the Scouting code throughout a Boy Scout’s life until the moment he turns 18, when it suddenly becomes a problem. (The Scouts maintained its ban on openly gay leaders.) How does that make any sense? Will we then discriminate against that Scout after he announces his sexuality?

Stemberger is actually right – that doesn’t make any sense.  It’s time to let scout leaders be openly gay too.

Oh, Stemberger was actually arguing that because there’s discrimination for some that there should be discrimination for more?  Um, no.  The solution to discrimination is to have less of it.  That’s like saying people are racist as hell in Mississippi so let’s use racial slurs everywhere else.  In the metaphor it’s Mississippi that needs to be fixed, not everywhere else.  And in the BSA it’s the discrimination against scout leaders that needs a dose of anti-bigotry.

Further, the new policy forces every chartered Scouting unit, irrespective of religious convictions, to facilitate open homosexuality among boys in their program. The policy fails to respect or revere the religious beliefs, values and theology of the vast majority of Christian churches, which charter more than 70% of all Scouting units.

If the religious beliefs of others are discriminatory then they shouldn’t be revered.  Bad ideas don’t all of a sudden become great because they’re religious.

The new policy also leaves all Scouting units with no options and no legal protection if they refuse to allow open homosexuality among the boys of their units.

Hooray!  People can’t be bigots without penalty!  Yaaaaay!  Who the fuck argues that this is a bad thing?  Who wants the right to discriminate?

Oh, right.  Christians.  That’s who.

Any Scouting unit that refuses to accept or abide by the new policy will either have their charter revoked by national BSA leadership or become fully exposed to legal attacks for alleged violations of nondiscrimination ordinances. Litigation would permeate the organization.

I’m sorry, Stemberger said there would be consequences for the BSA, but it seems he’s griping about consequences for people who want to discriminate through the BSA.

His argument here seems to be “What if religious people decide to pitch a fit?”  Answer: go nuts.  You can’t threaten people into immoral behavior through threats of annoyance.

Most important, the new policy robs parents of Boy Scouts, like me, of the sole authority to raise issues of sex and sexuality with their kids.

Bullshit.  If you don’t like what an organization stands for, don’t send your kid there.  Easy.  It’s not the job of every organization to cater to the hatred you want to inject into your offspring.

There’s this thing called “the world” in which your child is eventually going to have to live.  In this place your kid will be presented with all kinds of ideas, some good, some bad.  It is your job as the parent to help them navigate the competing cultures of planet earth, not to seal them off from any experience that might convince them that daddy was full of shit.

And what’s more, what of the parents who wants their kids to learn equality?  Oh, does that infringe on your right to have your kids learn how to be little cross-wearing bigots?  Why should Stemberger’s parental preferences be given higher priority than those of other parents?

Parents should have the exclusive right to raise issues about sex and sexuality with their children in their own time and in their own way, in the privacy of their homes, not brought up by other older boys around a campfire.

The second you send your kids out to anyplace beyond your home, you actually lose the right to raise issues in your own time and your own way.  Sorry.  It’s not the world’s job to cater to you.  If you don’t want your children being influenced by the world outside your home then keep them in the home.  Don’t expect the world to kiss your oh-so-special feet.

Allowing open homosexuality injects a sensitive and highly charged political issue into the heart of the BSA, against the wishes of the vast majority of parents.

If the vast majority of parents wanted only white kids to be eligible to be scouts, the policy should still be changed.  Another one of the scout values is leadership, and good leaders are capable of doing what is right regardless of how many people are applying pressure to do otherwise.

And let’s not act like it was gay rights advocates who injected this issue into the heart of the BSA.  The moment the BSA decided to ban openly gay kids, it was the BSA who made it an issue.  To now say that we shouldn’t even bring it up because it will cause strife is a transparent and lame attempt to get people to shut up in the face of discrimination.  Well we won’t.  That would be immoral.

This is why my wife and I have decided to disengage from BSA and remove our children from its programs. We are concerned for the safety and security of our boys, as are many other parents who are considering leaving as well.

Oh fuck you.  Concerned for the safety and security of your boys?  Because gay people are dangerous?  The BSA will be better off the sooner your hateful ass is out the door.

Where are the gay people lynching straights?  When was the last time you heard of gay people performing hate crimes against Christians?  When was the last time Christian students in public school had to walk in fear of bullying or social consequences from gays?  And then for this vile excuse for a human being to write, without a hint of shame, that it’s the good straight Christians who must fear the gay people who want only equality…

Just…this guy’s a real piece of…work.

When it comes to young boys, parents have the final say, not the gay rights activists who pressured the BSA to fall in line with their agenda and have turned Scouting into yet another cultural battleground.

Yes, keep your child locked up in the house, away from a world that is bending more and more toward equality with every generation.  If you want to turn your kids into little bigots like you, it’s important to deny them exposure to society.  Rob your children of world experiences for fear they might not turn out like you.

It’s what Jesus would do.

The delegates who voted for the new policy must therefore realize that the change guts a major percentage of human capital in the BSA and will utterly devastate the program financially, socially and legally.

If there are no organic consequences for moving toward equality, you and your Christian brethren are sure going to make some.  And then you’ll say “See!  There were consequences!”

That’ll teach them what happens when they don’t elect to treat everybody’s kids the way that you parent yours.

The BSA’s own “Voice of the Scout” surveys provide solid evidence that tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of parents, Scoutmasters and Scouts will leave the program, and internal estimates project an estimated $44 million of lost annual revenue.

You act like the problem is with equality and not with tens of thousands of people being morally lacking.  Any good person who is faced with the ultimatum of “hate the people I hate or else” will choose “or else”.  I’m glad scouts will be learning the value of not caving to the threats of bad people.

The Boy Scouts are one of the great jewels of American culture.

That jewel just had a glaring blemish polished away.  Two blemishes if you count the removal of the Stemberger family.

And the success of the Boy Scouts of America is due in no small part to their commitment to a set of ideas and principles that have guided the program for more than 100 years.

The success of the scouts was not on account of who they discriminated against.  If anything it was due to the other principles of hard work, compassion, etc.  Those principles remain in place.  It’s not like principles of integrity become meaningless if you stop jettisoning normal people based on what they find attractive.

I love the Boy Scouts and want my boys to enjoy the same great experiences as I and millions of others have had over the years. That’s why I regret that Thursday’s vote refused to keep sex and politics out of the Boy Scouts and stand firm for those timeless principles.

This guy…

What were those great experiences?  Canoeing?  Does that experience become worthless if there’s a gay kid in the canoe?

What about hiking?  Are the trees not beautiful if there’s a gay kid looking at them too?

Listen you dishonest sack of shit: don’t cite your experiences as if allowing gay kids to have those same experiences invalidates them for others.  The problem is not gay kids.  The problem is self-important people like you who love feeling better than an entire demographic far more than you loved any experience in nature.

Getting rid of bigots like John Stemberger is a “consequence” like passing a fucking kidney stone is a consequence.

Seriously, there was something wrong with literally every sentence in Stemberger’s post.  I had to rebut literally every line.  This was, without exaggeration, an entire article of fail.

Here is a method one might employ to determine whether some argument you or someone else is making seems reasonable. This is best applied when thinking about your own perspective or when talking to people who tend to scoff at more logical arguments. It’s what I call The Perspective Test, or the What-if-someone-did-that-to-you? test, but can easily be used on yourself, I.E. What-if-I-did-that-to-someone-else?

Take whatever act is happening (whether it be acts of supposed oppression, arguments, etc) and pretend someone with a religious preference/political position/etc in opposition to yours is doing the same thing, and then see if you feel the same way about the line of reasoning. Or, pretend someone is doing the act to you, rather than you doing it to someone else.  This works especially well for civil rights issues, political issues or religious disagreements. It’s also a good way to gauge how convincing your argument or statement might sound to someone who holds a view in opposition to your own. Here are ten examples of how the Perspective Test might be employed.

1. Christian teachers are being  denied their free speech rights by not being allowed to lead classrooms of children in prayer during school hours.

Apply the Perspective Test:

 If a Muslim teacher wants to lead classrooms of children in prayer during school hours, are they being denied their free speech rights when they are not allowed?

If an atheist teachers wants to lead classrooms of children in recitations of an atheist mantra with the words “There are no gods, and Christianity is a myth” during school hours, are they being denied their free speech rights when they are not allowed?

Does it Still sound reasonable?

2. We are already treated equal; neither I nor queer people can marry someone of the same sex. Same-sex marriage is a right that no one has. EQUALITY.

Apply the Perspective Test:

We are already treated equal: neither I nor Christian people can marry someone of the same religion. Same-religion marriage is a right that no one has. EQUALITY.

We are already treated equal: neither I nor interracial couples can marry someone who isn’t the same race. Interracial marriage is a right that no one has. EQUALITY.

Does it Still sound reasonable?

3. Muslims should not be allowed to build a Mosque so close to the Twin Towers.

Apply the Perspective Test:

Christians should not be allowed to build churches near areas in which a U.S. plane bombed a village in the central province of Uruzgan.

Does it Still sound reasonable?

 4. Christians are being oppressed because a Ten Commandments monument is being removed from a public U.S.  courthouse building.

Apply the Perspective Test:

Muslims are being oppressed because a monument with verses from the Koran are being removed from a public U.S. courthouse building.

Atheists are being oppressed because a monument stating, “There are no gods” is being removed from a public U.S. courthouse building.

Does it Still sound reasonable?

5. Feminists shouldn’t have blogs or message boards that dissallow men, so as to be a “safe space” for discussions.

Apply the Perspective Test:

Atheists/LGBTQ people/ex-muslims shouldn’t have blogs or message boards that dissallow Christians(or some other majority oppressive group), so as to be a “safe space” for discussions.

Does it Still sound reasonable?

6. We shouldn’t even bother to respond to bad arguments made by theists. When we do, we’re giving them too much credit.

Apply the Perspective Test:

We should’t even respond to bad arguments made by atheists. When we do, we’re giving them too much credit.

We shouldn’t even respond to bad arguments made by Men’s Rights Activists, when we do, we’re giving them too much credit.

Does it Still sound reasonable?

 7. If my son or daughter decided to leave our christian faith and become an atheist, I’ll disown them.

Apply the Perspective Test:

If my son or daughter decided to stop being an atheist and becomes a Christian, I’ll disown them.

If my son or daughter decided to leave our Buddhist faith and become an Muslim, I’ll disown them.

Does it Still sound reasonable?

 8. Religion is just a way of controlling people.

Apply the Perspective Test:

Science is just a way of controlling people.

Atheism is just a way of controlling people.

Does it Still sound reasonable?

(Update: People don’t seem to like this example and I agree; this is a bad example. If someone comes up with a suitable replacement, I’ll put it here instead. Like maybe, “Religious people are just brainwashed”?)

 9. Atheists shouldn’t be allowed to put up billboards advertising their worldview.

Apply the Perspective Test:

Christians shouldn’t be allowed to put up billboards advertising their worldview.

Republicans shouldn’t be allowed to put up billboards advertising their worldview.

Does it Still sound reasonable?

 10. People who are pro-life just want to control women and take away all of their rights.* 

Apply the Perspective Test:

People who are pro-gun control just want to control everybody and take away all of their rights.

Does it Still sound reasonable?

A good way to apply the Perspective test when talking to other people is to ask, “Would you feel the same way if X?” or “Would you think the same way if Y?” or “Would it be reasonable to say Z?”

I bet you can think of more examples. Tell me about them in the comments!

*I can see why the analogy between pro-life and pro gun-control is not totally analogous since a larger proportion of pro-life people want abortion made entirely illegal whereas only a small proportion of gun control advocates want guns made entirely illegal, but you get the idea at least. My point: “pro-life people just want to control women” doesn’t sound very convincing to a pro-life person, just like “pro-gun control people just want to control everybody” doesn’t sound convincing to a pro gun control person, but let me know what you think.

Learn more about Christina and follow her @ziztur.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A judge ruled twice that Kaitlyn, who is an honor student, was permitted to stay in school, but the school board overruled the judge and elected to expel her.

According to Kaitlyn’s mother, the parents of the younger girl blame Kaitlyn for turning their daughter gay.  In a region of Florida where Mitt Romney brought in 60% of the vote, this is unsurprising.

The police say this has nothing to do with Kaitlyn’s sexual orientation:

Indian River County Sheriff Deryl Loar said the relationship began when the victim was 14 and progressed to sexual acts after Hunt was 18, of which he said she has confessed.

Loar said the age of consent is 16 in Florida, and they have investigated and prosecuted many other similar incidents, including same-sex relationships.

“That has nothing to do with it,” Loar said at a news conference earlier this week. “If this was an 18-year-old male and that was a 14-year-old girl, it would have been prosecuted the same way.”

State attorney Bruce Colton said the arrest has nothing to do with Hunt’s sexual preference. He said the law is designed to protect younger children from people who are older and can be more aggressive in forming a relationship.

If the law is designed to protect children from older people who could coerce them into a relationship, then to prosecute here is clearly not in the spirit of the law as this is clearly not a child-predator relationship.  These were two student in a high school relationship that was entirely consensual.  Didn’t we all go to high school?  Didn’t we all see seniors dating freshmen?  How many of them faced felony charges that could mean 15 years in prison and being forced to register as a sex offender for it?

The ACLU is also calling bullshit:

“This is a life sentence for behavior by teenagers that is all too common, whether they are male or female, gay or straight,” the statement said. “High-school relationships may be fleeting, but felony convictions are not.”

It is for situations like this that Romeo-Juliet laws (in this case, Juliet-Juliet laws) were established in the first place.  There is even such a law in place in Florida that could save Kaitlyn from having to register as a sex offender since the two were less than four years apart in age.

The internet activist group Anonymous has also gotten involved:

In the letter released by Anonymous, the group claims the Indian River County State Attorney’s Office has “lost perspective” and vows to put together a petition with 200,000 signatures on it calling for the resignation of the officials involved.

“The truth is, Kaitlyn Hunt is a bright young girl who was involved in a consensual, same-sex relationship while both she and her partner were minors. She has a big future ahead of her and there are people, thousands of people in fact, that have no intention of allowing you to ruin it with your rotten selective enforcement.”

Even the sheriff admitted he would not have arrested Kaitlyn had the parents of the 15 year old not filed a complaint.  However, the state attorney had this to say:

Hunt has until Friday to accept a plea deal offered by prosecutors that would allow her to avoid registering as a sex offender if she pleads guilty to lesser charges of child abuse. State Attorney Bruce Colton said he would recommend two years of house arrest followed by one year probation if she takes the deal.

If she is found guilty, it’s also possible that Hunt could apply to not have to register as a sex offender under a “Romeo and Juliet” law because the girls were no more than four years apart in age, Colton said.

Colton said the victim’s family is not pushing for prison but wants Kaitlyn Hunt to be held responsible in some way. However, the Hunt family said they would accept a plea deal only if the charges are dropped to a misdemeanor.

The younger girl’s parents want her held responsible in some way…and that way is apparently the full destruction of Kaitlyn’s future.  Being expelled from school after three years of being an honor student apparently wasn’t enough.  “Held responsible” sure makes the efforts to crush a young woman’s life sound a lot less overt and malicious though.

Look, I’m glad anti-child predator laws exist.  But anybody who thinks that’s what’s going on here is too stupid to fart.  And anybody who thinks that similar relationships, high school seniors dating freshmen, are either uncommon or regularly prosecuted is equally off base.  What’s more, in the rare cases where students in those relationships have been prosecuted, as I understand it there is always a plea bargain down to a misdemeanor…you know, so a high school relationship doesn’t wind up destroying an adult life.  This situation reeks of increased penalty and selective prosecution.  What’s more, if you think that Kaitlyn deserves to be shackled with the same chains as child predators (unless those child predators wear a frock, then they get shielded from prosecution and likely never see a day in court), then you clearly have a perverted sense of justice, if you even have a sense of justice at all.

The whole point here is to teach gay people a lesson, which is far more hideous than two high school students being physical with one another.

A felony conviction for this would ruin Kaitlyn’s life.  The parents of the younger girl do not seem to care.  Why should they?  They were the one’s who sought out this result.  Religion, primarily Christianity, has given society in this country overwhelming and irrational hatred of gay people, regardless of whether or not they’re honor students with no history of bad behavior (like Kaitlyn).  If you were to ask what could convince two adults to so loathe homosexuality that they were willing to destroy a promising young girl’s life over it, I’ll bet I could tell you the answer.  I’ll bet I could tell you precisely what could make two adults so vindictive.

Even though there has been no mention in the press of what religion the younger girl’s parents hold, I’d happily bet every dollar and every possession I have that it’s Christianity – and that their disdain for gay people is plucked straight from scripture.

Think of what a better world it would be if, in the place of passages condemning homosexuals, there were instead passages extolling the virtue of compassion.  How different Christians might be if that were the case.

The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.

First, the phrase “even the atheists” rubs me the wrong way.  It’s as if the Catholic church, an organization that recently protected and enabled child rapists, is lowering itself in order to speak to us.  The fancy clothes don’t actually make you better than anybody – actions do that, and the actions of the Catholic Church have taken them into the ravine beside the moral high ground.  The Catholic Church has a long climb before it finds itself on the same level as non-believers like me who, given knowledge about a man raping children (much less hordes of such men), would immediately call the police.

If we are to meet on the common ground of our goodness, that’s very difficult in the light of the Church’s recent (and historic) transgressions.  However, if the pope means he wants to meet on our mutual desire to do good then, to an extent, I can acquiesce.

However, were I sitting face-to-face with the pope, I’d ask him to clarify what he meant by the word “good”.  Does he mean that we must do what creates the most happiness in the world and also what alleviates the most suffering?  Or does he mean goodness as doing whatever the Catholic Church commands?  The former I’m on board with.  However, since the latter often contradicts the former, I must say that if “good” means abiding by the decrees of the Catholic Church, even when they foster misery and inequality, then I am most certainly not on board.

The Church’s position on condoms, for instance, is a decree that causes death and strife the world over.  The Church’s pronouncements on equality for gays (including Bergoglio’s personal comments) are wicked and I oppose them with every breath.  The Church doesn’t even attempt to hide the fact that it seeks to control children still young enough to believe in the Easter Bunny with fear of eternal torture if they do not give the appropriate reverence and obedience to this particular group of men claiming to speak for god.

I realize that many Catholics are attempting to do good with these values and just not thinking it through.  It is for such people that the phrase “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” was coined.  Even the parents who neglect their sick children unto death by praying for them rather than taking them to the doctor are attempting to do good, but I would never acknowledge that they were good people.  Failing to act reasonably when actual suffering is taking place is not a sin that is washed clean by good intentions.  That is why I can give a nod to the Catholic Church with regard to our mutual desire to do good.  However, if the Catholic Church wants me to concede that it is actually doing good on the whole, then we are at an impasse.  I don’t believe it.  I’m unwilling to lie in order to build inroads and I simply won’t begin here.

I will not be granting surreptitious endorsement to the actions of the Catholic Church by acting in a way that lends credibility to their goodness.  However, if they’d like to discuss how to use their influence in better ways, ways that augment human happiness rather than infringing upon it, I’m happy to contribute to the conversation.

Republican Rep. Steve Smith on Wednesday said the prayer offered by Democratic Rep. Juan Mendez of Tempe at the beginning of the previous day’s floor session wasn’t a prayer at all. So he asked other members to join him in a second daily prayer in “repentance,” and about half the 60-member body did so. Both the Arizona House and Senate begin their sessions with a prayer and a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

It’s kind of like how they look at marriage equality: people don’t want to get married the way *I* want to get married and that just won’t do.  Except now it’s that the atheist didn’t pray the way Steve Smith would pray, and so we need a do over.

“When there’s a time set aside to pray and to pledge, if you are a non-believer, don’t ask for time to pray,” said Smith, of Maricopa. “If you don’t love this nation and want to pledge to it, don’t say I want to lead this body in the pledge, and stand up there and say, `you know what, instead of pledging, I love England’ and (sit) down.

Sorry chum, it’s not the obligation of every member of the legislature to pledge allegiance to god.  They signed up to serve America, not an invisible guy who can’t be bothered to show up, so spare us the comparison suggesting that someone’s allegiance isn’t to the United States if they don’t verbally kiss god’s feet to your satisfaction.  If you want prayer time, it must be available to everybody (see the first amendment of the document you’re sworn to uphold).  If you don’t like that people who don’t think like you are allowed to use that time then introduce a measure getting rid of prayer during legislative sessions altogether.

Thankfully, one of the Republicans actually got it right.

Arizona House Speaker Andy Tobin and Senate President Andy Biggs filed a legal brief agreeing with the town’s position.

On Wednesday, Tobin said he had no problem with Mendez’s prayer.

“From my perspective I didn’t see an issue with Mr. Mendez yesterday,” said Tobin, R-Paulden. “I can appreciate what Mr. Smith was saying, but I think all members are responsible for their own prayerful lives and I think the demonstration that we take moments for prayer we all do collectively and in our own hearts.”

Bingo!  That’s the freedom of religion.  It’s not up to Steve Smith to say that the state should not approve of how someone else elects to pray.  I really wish that tomorrow Mendez would get up and say “I’m sorry, yesterday’s do-over prayer placed far too much responsibility on god and not enough praise on humanity, so I’m going to do a do-over today.”  The Christians would see it as an affront, but would likely not connect the dots.

We will also investigate physical reality and the boundaries of science for any hidden wisdom within this reality which may illuminate the central questions of the purpose of our existence and the meaning of life. This course is designed to allow students to take a more in-depth look at the beauty and complexity of the universe and life and to give food for thought about deeper questions which remain central to human existence.

Because “I’m going to either say, or strongly imply, that science points to the conclusion that god exists, even though this is represented nowhere in scientific peer-reviewed literature” would have been rejected out of hand.  So in order to worm your evangelism into the classroom you have to be sneaky.  And, since Christianity doesn’t make anybody better, you were willing to be sneaky.

Anne already pointed out the fact that science doesn’t tackle the issues of purpose of our existence or the meaning of life.  The mere introduction of those questions reveals that this is not a course that will be based on science – which is bullshit because, as of right now, the credits fulfill a science requirement for students.  What caught me was the idea that students may be treated to “hidden wisdom”.  Is there a more obvious synonym for “shit we have no reason to believe” than “hidden wisdom”?  First: college courses at the undergrad level teach what we know.  If the wisdom is “hidden” then we don’t know it.  You simply cannot teach what isn’t known – it’s an absurd concept.  I suspect that “hidden wisdom” in this case is a euphemism for “pretensions to evidence for god’s existence that have long been shot down in peer-review or elsewhere”.

Second, I’m all for encouraging students to take a more in-depth look at the beauty and complexity of the universe.  But, as Anne pointed out, the teacher of this course is a Christian who likes to interject religion into his teaching, and this course is clearly an attempt to give him free reign to do just that.  Once you accept science as the best method to knowledge available to us, you quickly realize that someone rising from the dead or walking on water is not, and never was, part of the beauty and complexity of the universe.  You must choose between biology/physics or stories of someone rising from the dead/walking on water.  If one is true, the other must be false.  Might I suggest that the way to take a more in-depth look at the complexity of the universe is by learning and relying upon all the scientific principles that make up the universe, and that a teacher who muddles the two perhaps shouldn’t be trusted to teach reliable science in this class?

I’m also all for students learning how science and religion have interacted over the years.  They should start by learning that everything we’ve ever explained has been found to be the product of natural forces acting upon inanimate objects.  Literally every single time.  Many of these discoveries were quite embarrassing to religions, particularly Christianity, which were telling people different stories.  Turns out sickness isn’t the result of demonic possession.  Who knew?  Not god, obviously.

Students should also learn that acquiring knowledge if a very different, and much more arduous road than simply claiming to have (hidden/revealed) knowledge (that, wouldn’t you know, is not subject to scientific inquiry).  The former is the path of the scientist, and the latter is the path of the faithful.  If human history has shown us anything, it’s that looking at something we don’t understand and claiming god must have done it is as sure a method as the laws of physics allow to reach a swift, but gravely unreliable conclusion. If you want knowledge that actually affects the world, if you want to make airplanes fly and if you want to make telephones that work, the quick and easy path is not for you.  Seeking knowledge is a journey of hard work and actual deep thought, where “I don’t know” is the placeholder until we figure it out instead of “god did it”.  That’s what students should be taught in science classes.  To search for wisdom, beauty, and complexity in the same vein that gave us every conclusion that science later fixed (and validates those conclusions even in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary) is like taking an in-depth look at the complexities of the ocean by looking at a fucking puddle.