Allied Atheist Alliance

Oh Hai!

2010-12-22T10:51:00.000-08:00

Hello! I haven't been writing here much lately, but I have a few good reasons for that - for one, I've gone back to school to chase my dream of being a paleoanthropologist so my time is a little on the short side. Also, I've taken on more responsibility with Ask An Atheist, a TV show -turned-radio show (What? How did that happen? If you're curious, I'll tell you. Otherwise, it's kind of a long story and it's been explained in other places.) in the greater Seattle-Tacoma area which seeks to offer representation of atheists in the public sphere. Part of my responsibilities include - you guessed it - blogging a bit for the website. So, if you want to keep reading (plus you want to support an awesome show that is having an impact across the globe) go to the Ask An Atheist website and I'll be there...ranting about juggalos and the like. :)

Thanks!

What Kind of a World is it Where Littlejohns Are Super Dicks?

2010-10-14T12:32:00.000-07:00

Historically Little Johns have been nice characters, side kicks to heroes and often are portrayed as that chubby friend you love who is the first person invited to your birthday party.

In Mississippi, like most other things found in that crazy state, Littlejohns are a little different.

From Altnernet:

On Wednesday [10/07/2010], a scene reminiscent of My Cousin Vinny -- but with core Constitutional values at stake -- played out in a Mississippi courtroom when a veteran judge threw a defense attorney in jail for refusing to recite the pledge of allegiance.
According to the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, Chancellor Talmadge Littlejohn, a veteran jurist who recently celebrated his 50^thyear in the state bar, urged 49 year-old defense attorney Danny Lampley to recite the pledge of allegiance, something the lawyer has refused to do on principle. Lampley reportedly “rose and was respectful,” but remained mum. Littlejohn found him in contempt of court and ordered him jailed. Lampley spent 5 hours in prison before being released, and was back in Littlejohn’s court later in the afternoon.

If I was that guy, I'd be spitting pissed. His response to the incident is so measured and calm, I almost want to find out his zen master secrets to staying cool so that when I get totally fucked by someone in a position of power, I can come of as even half as calm and collected. Of course, maybe the 5 hours in jail gave him some time to chill out.

“This morning, [ending up behind bars] was the last thing on my mind," Lampley told the Daily Journal. He added that he and the judge have a "different point of view" about things like loyalty oaths and the pledge of allegiance. "I don't have to say it because I'm an American," he said. But, he added, "I have a lot of respect for him …I'm just not going to back off on this.”

So, can a judge put an attorney in jail for not saying the pledge? No chance, Mac.

Radley Balko, who covers criminal justice issues for Reason, called Wednesday’s contempt charge, “just astonishingly ignorant, arrogant, and thuggish. Oh, and illegal. It’s also way illegal. Like, not even close.” David Hudson Jr., an expert at the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, told the Daily Journal that forcing Lampley to repeat the pledge was an obvious violation of his right to free-speech. "I've never heard of a judge jailing a lawyer over this," he said.

I guess my main question is - why does the guy who got wrongfully put in jail have any respect for this guy in the first place? I'm not a big proponant of judging people based on mistakes they made 30 years ago, unless the mistake was pretty big and involved a glaring amount of misconduct and misuse of power. Surely Littlejohn can't have - no wait. Yep. That's right.

In 1974, when a 21 year-old black man was gunned down by police in Byhalia, Mississippi, local activists with the Marshall County United League criticized law enforcement’s response to the killing. Members of the league distributed pamphlets criticizing Littlejohn, who was then the District Attorney. They called a hearing into the shooting a “farce,” and accused Littlejohn of “acting as defense attorney for the officers rather than as prosecutor,” according to a 1978 ruling by a federal appeals court.
In response, Littlejohn then used a grand jury to launch a legal witch-hunt against the group, investigating its finances and organizational leadership. The Marshall County United League sued, and a federal appeals court concluded that Littlejohn had acted “in bad faith for the purpose of harassing those who, in the exercise of their First Amendment rights, had criticized defendant Littlejohn.” In issuing an injunction preventing Littlejohn from pursuing his investigation further, the justices characterized the case as an “abuse of the grand jury process [that] cannot be tolerated in a free society."

What a dick.

Ask an Atheist SEASON 2!! Episode 1 - Mormonism

2010-10-05T17:58:00.000-07:00

Yay! We made it to season 2! And we decided to top the season off with...Mormonism!

With talented hosts Libbie and Sam. Dum dum dum dum dum!

AaA Episode 15 With Greta Christina! Also - SCAN Awards

2010-09-29T21:48:00.000-07:00

New Ask an Atheist with a very special guest - Greta Christina!

Also, tomorrow is the deadline to vote for Ask an Atheist for the SCAN awards! As always, thanks for your support!

Just A Funny Sign

2010-09-21T20:40:00.000-07:00

Hey.

I started school

Here's a funny sign:

OK, laterz.

SCAN Awards - Vote For Ask an Atheist! Also - AIDS walk

2010-09-19T01:03:00.000-07:00

I hate feeling like I'm spamming people with silly posts, but here are a few things I'm involved with in which I would love and appreciate your support.

First - Ask an Atheist is up for 4 awards at this year's SCAN Awards ceremony. Please go vote! I would especially love to win in the category of "Best Religious Programming" - if only because of the delicious, delectable irony. :D

Second - I'm participating in the AIDS walk with the Tacoma Atheists and could use your support. Even if you can't pledge, a comment or 'go team' would be much appreciated. :D

Thanks!

Abuse of Positions of Power - Pharmacists Gone Wild

2010-09-17T19:04:00.000-07:00

In Washington, we're dealing with a little issue concerning personal freedom versus people using their positions of influence to mandate morality. A pharmacist doesn't want to sell Plan B - the "morning after" pill - because she says it violates her morals to do so. The thing that bothers me is that she chose to be a pharmacist, her job is to fill prescriptions, not make moral decisions about the prescriptions she's being asked to fill. Ugh, look - what would the response be if a Hindu told someone that selling them their heart or diabetes medication violated their morals because the drug was tested using bovine DNA? What about small towns where there is only one pharmacist in the area? If pharmacists are allowed to pick and choose what medicines they dispense based on their personal beliefs, what is to stop religious extremists from specifically choosing that career and implementing their morality on others in an underhanded fashion? Do I sound completely paranoid? If so, I would suggest you haven't been paying attention to the kind of tactics more extreme groups have employed in the recent past to circumvent the law and underhandedly violate the constitution.

Here's hoping they make the right decision and continue to expect pharmacists to do, I don't know, their job.

KENT, Wash. -- Hundreds of women gathered in a Kent courtroom Friday afternoon over the controversial morning after pill.

The Washington State Board of Pharmacy is considering changes to the way pharmacists hand out these types of prescriptions and held a public hearing Friday for public input.

Women from all over the state filled every chair and spilled out into the hallway, eager to tell the pharmacy board their opinions.

"I would prefer on my free time to go celebrate the victory of the Storm, but this is more of an important issue for women," said Betsy Shedd.

Betsy Shedd and several other women want the Board of Pharmacy to keep the current rules in place. As it stands, pharmacists must to fill all prescriptions of medicines they have in stock.

Dr. Patricia O'Halloran says that rule is violation of her religious rights.

“I would like to see them come out of this respecting and honoring the conscious rights of pharmacies and pharmacy owners," said O’Halloran.

So would attorney Kristen Waggoner, who represents the owners of Ralph's Pharmacy in Olympia. They're suing the Board of Pharmacy. Ralph’s Pharmacy doesn't want to be forced into filling Plan B prescriptions or any other drug like it.

“We will move forward and go to trial if the pharmacy board does not the pass the rule that allows our client to refer patients and that's because referrals are a time honored practice in all health care professions," said Waggoner. “A rule change in no way would better support a patient’s health."

The board says it's listening to all sides, and in the end they don't have to change the rules.

“We may just keep the rule as it is. We may amend an existing rule or we may start a new rule," said Gary Harris, Board of Pharmacy.

One of those rules up for discussion is the facilitated referral rule. If a pharmacist does not have a medicine in stock, he or she would be required to find another pharmacy close by that carries it.

The next hearing will be held September 25th in Kent. The Board says it will review all comments from this hearing, online and written letters before making a final decision sometime before December.

Ask an Atheist Episodes 12 & 13

2010-09-15T15:04:00.000-07:00

I got my computer back from the shop today - yay! - and so I'm posting the last two weeks worth of Ask an Atheist episodes for you today. Enjoy!

Episode 12 - Viewer Calls and Emails

Episode 13 - 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - The case against controlled demolition

AaA Episode 11 - Atheists in Fiction 2

2010-08-30T20:54:00.000-07:00

Episode 11 - atheists in fiction 2 with Mike and Libby. Enjoy. :)

The Curious Case of LH

2010-08-29T12:15:00.000-07:00

I have a woman who emails me regularly, though I'm not sure if she realizes she's doing it. From what I can tell, she's kind of my antithesis. She's talked about vacations, stocks, and her home enough for me to guess she's in a higher tax bracket than me and she's mentioned some other things in her emails that has led me to think of her as an older woman, possibly someone whose use of the internet came late in life and really only deals with email and possibly recipe and craft sites, but certainly not work. I am making a few assumptions here, but I'm trying to paint a portrait of her for you without getting too personal, since like I said, I don't think she's aware that she keeps emailing me. One of the main reasons I assume she's not terribly familiar with using the internet is because she 1 - sends those awful chain emails that everyone in their right mind knows are annoying, a waste of time, and a source of aggravation for the majority of people out there and 2 - I keep telling her she's emailing me by mistake, but she never seems to understand how that might be or how to stop.

Someone in her life, presumably from what I've read her daughter, has almost the same name and email address as me except there's an 'a' instead of an 'e' in her last name. I've emailed LH as well as BL to let them both know that I keep getting emails meant for someone else, emails dripping with prayers and mentions of God and tea party politics, misinformation and snarky comments about Obama (which is especially annoying since there are plenty of legitimate reasons to be less than enchanted with our current president) and everything else one would expect from a typical middle to upper class religious American.

In one email, she perpetuated the idea that America ought to be run the way Wal Mart is run - after all, they have a ton of money and are really successful, right? In another email, she evidently agreed with the sentiments that illegal immigrants are the single worst issue in America - and that democrats would rather protect the rights of an illegal than the rights of a poor, defenseless fetus.

Riiiight. Pretty awesome stuff.

This latest email is a chain email, one of those 'send this to 12 people in 12 minutes or your tits will fall off' affairs, but instead of tits falling off, this was a chain letter to prove your love of God.

What? No! No self respecting religious person would trivialize their relationship with the Most Important Person In Existence by making Him/Her/It the focus of a lousy internet chain letter, would they? Oh you know they would.

Just 27 Words:

God our Father, walk through my house and take away all my worries and illnesses and please watch over and heal my family in Jesus name, Amen.

This prayer is so powerful. Pass this to 12 people including me. A blessing is coming to you in form of a new job, a house, marriage or financially. Do not break or ask questions.

This is a test. Does God come first in your life? If so, stop what you're doing & send it to 12 people now. Watch what he does!

My main concern through all of this is the fact that LH only sent this to 8 people. Looks like someone needs to find 4 more people to send this shit to so her god, who has evidently taken to testing people via internet memes these days, knows she puts him first in her life and she can get that sweet sweet blessing! Ching!

Also, I bet Job is pissed.

Perpetuating The Myth of Religious Intolerance

2010-08-26T14:29:00.000-07:00

Denver Archbishop Charles_J._Chaput recently gave a 12 page address to the Canon Law Association of Slovakia titled "Living within the Truth - Religious liberty and Catholic mission in the new order of the world". Basically, Chaput tries to establish the idea that Christians in the US and Europe are victims of intolerance, but I'm still not seeing it. To me it seems like a lengthy whine about not having as much political power and influence as he would like, with his only real argument for why any religious group should be involved in politics at all in the US is that the US (and Europe and presumably anywhere else that's western, proper, predominantly white and Christian) is based on Christan values and indeed owes its very success and ability to flourish to Christianity.

Right. Well, I obviously disagree.

One part of the address specifically caught my attention:

Downplaying the West’s Christian past is sometimes done with the best intentions, from a desire to promote peaceful co-existence in a pluralistic society. But more frequently it’s done to marginalize Christians and to neutralize the Church’s public witness.

The Church needs to name and fight this lie. To be a European or an American is to be heir to a profound Christian synthesis of Greek philosophy and art, Roman law, and biblical truth. This synthesis gave rise to the Christian humanism that undergirds all of Western civilization.

On this point, we might remember the German Lutheran scholar and pastor, Dietrich
Bonhoeffer. He wrote these words in the months leading up to his arrest by the Gestapo in 1943: “The unity of the West is not an idea but a historical reality, of which the sole foundation is Christ.”5

Our societies in the West are Christian by birth, and their survival depends on the
endurance of Christian values. Our core principles and political institutions are based, in large measure, on the morality of the Gospel and the Christian vision of man and
government. We are talking here not only about Christian theology or religious ideas. We are talking about the moorings of our societies -- representative government and the separation of powers; freedom of religion and conscience; and most importantly, the dignity of the human person.

This truth about the essential unity of the West has a corollary, as Bonhoeffer also
observed: Take away Christ and you remove the only reliable foundation for our values, institutions and way of life.

That means we cannot dispense with our history out of some superficial concern over
offending our non-Christian neighbors. Notwithstanding the chatter of the “new atheists,” there is no risk that Christianity will ever be forced upon people anywhere in the West. The only “confessional states” in the world today are those ruled by Islamist or atheist dictatorships -- regimes that have rejected the Christian West’s belief in individual rights and the balance of powers.

Just a few comments - though so much more can be said.

Claiming that there is no risk that Christianity will ever be forced on anyone in the West is not only a shockingly naive statement, it's blatantly untrue. The only way this statement might be valid is if you were to reduce what would be considered "forcing Christianity" enough to make any given example of Christianity being forced on people not count.

Even if you disregard the seemingly constant issues that are popping up all over the US with prayer in city council meetings and school board meetings and religious displays on government property - an obviously unconstitutional act that I personally would consider examples of low level government officials trying to force religion onto people in a subtle, non physical way - there are even more blatant examples of Christians forcing Christianity on people to be found. A recent situation that pops to mind is the Christian concert that was put on in Virginia where soldiers had the "choice" of either attending the concert or going back to their bunks and cleaning for hours. I'm curious as to how that might be considered not forcing Christianity on someone? Is it because there was technically a choice involved?

Also, are there really atheist dictators alive and kicking today, forcing godlessness on their people? Where are they? What are they doing in the name of atheism that is so terrible? Why have I not heard of this before from the literally hundreds of theists I've debated in the past few years? I'm not saying they don't exist, but it is suspicious to me that this is the first time I've heard of them and that no specific examples of these dictators were given.

Last, I find it interesting that the author feels comfortable claiming that both regions are based off of Christianity - or rather "profound Christian synthesis of Greek philosophy and art, Roman law, and biblical truth." He seems to be fine with admitting that our society is not a direct product of one influence, but rather a kind of synthesis of three different influences. Again, this seems short sighted to me. Why only go back that far? What about those influences that helped shape Rome and Greece? Seemingly the only reason that those influences are less important is because the time when Greece, Rome, and the rise of Christianity intercept one another is about how far back Chaput had to go in order to make his point, but if we're going to reach back to the ancient romans to establish what our modern societies are founded in, what's to stop anyone from going back even further than that? Can't I equally claim that US and Europe was built on a foundation that began with Hammurbi's code? Or the Code of Ur-Nammu? Citing the point in history where Christian and Roman ideologies began to intertwine as the foundation of western civilization seems more like convenient historical cherry picking in order to perpetuate an agenda than anything.

I don't mean to downplay the influence Christianity has had in western civilization, it obviously has influenced our societies quite a bit. However, at least in countries where there is some kind of provision for church/state separation, that does not in any way stand as justification for allowing religious groups - Catholic or anyone else - to politicize their religion.

It would seem Chaput's main point is that we somehow owe Christianity for a lot of good things, therefore not allowing Christianity to have a position of political influence and power is tantamount to religious intolerance.

I just don't agree with that sentiment at all.

(thanks to Religion Clause for the link)

Ask an Atheist Episode 10 - Intelligent Design

2010-08-25T14:56:00.000-07:00

Please welcome the newest host to the show - Scott! Also, ID is one of those topics I randomly know a lot about and love to talk about. They did a top notch job on this episode. Enjoy!

First It Was The Banana. Now A New Nightmare Has Emerged - Peanut Butter!

2010-08-23T21:13:00.000-07:00

I'm not seriously commenting on this because it's a joke. Possibly an unintentional, sadly misinformed joke, but a joke regardless.

Yikes. All I have to say is - evolution says nothing about the origin of life. The idea they're talking about is abiogenesis.

Keep An Eye Out For New Contributors

2010-08-20T22:51:00.000-07:00

In about a month I'll be headed back to school. I realize from last year that it's a bit annoying to have a blog go from from somewhat consistently active to almost inactive, so this year I've gone looking for additional contributors for the blog to keep this place churning out content, even when I'm personally a busy bee.

So keep an eye out!

Also, if you want to be a contributor, let me know.

I'm Tired of Mosque Talk - Let's Make Fun of Sarah Palin!

2010-08-19T12:54:00.000-07:00

Chances are, unless you've been hiding under a rock somewhere or are REALLY good at ignoring most media including magazine covers in line at the store and the ticker tape news they try to squeeze into most TV these days, you've heard about the mosque-cultural center-built-literally-on-the-ashes-of-but-in-reality-two-blocks-away-from-ground-zero mess.

Harris has weighed in.

Hitchens has commented.

PZ kind of talked about it.

Hemant has addressed it.

Obama chimed in.

Pat Condell ranted about it.

Vjack let his opinion be known.

All of that when it would seem the group responsible for funding it doesn't even have the money together to build it yet.

So frankly, I'm bored with it. My opinion is that it shouldn't even be an issue. A fully fledged mosque already exists, has existed for decades even closer to ground zero than this one. Seems pretty obvious this is being made into more of an issue than it should be for political reasons - convince people their bigotry isn't bigotry but valid concern and they really will love you for giving them the freedom to be petty and hateful.

Satire is the best remedy for boredom, so here's a nice healthy portion -

OUTRAGE OVER PLANS TO BUILD LIBRARY NEXT TO SARAH PALIN

PLANS to build a state-of-the-art library next to Republican catastrophe Sarah Palin are causing outrage across mainstream America.

Campaigners have described the project as insensitive and a deliberate act of provocation by people with brains.

The issue is forming a dividing line in advance of November's mid-term congressional elections with candidates being forced to declare whether they have ever been to a library or spoken to someone who has books in their home.

Meanwhile President Obama has caused unease within his own Democratic party by endorsing the library and claiming that not everyone who reads books is responsible for calling Mrs Palin a fuckwit nutjob nightmare of a human being.

But Bill McKay, a leading member of the right-wing Teapot movement, said: "Sarah Palin is a hallowed place for Americans who can't read.

"How is she going to feel knowing that every day there are people going inside a building to find things out for themselves and have thoughts, right in the very shadow of her amazing nipples."

He added: "Our founding fathers intended for every building in this country to be a church containing one book, written by Jesus, that would be read out in a strange voice by an orange man in a shiny suit who would also tell you who you were allowed to kill.

"Building a library next to Mrs Palin is like Pearl Harbour. Or 9/11."

And Wayne Hayes, a pig masseur from Coontree, Virginia, said: "I is so angry right now.

"It's like something is on fire right in the middle of my head. Like I've eaten a real hot chilli, but it's gone up my nose tubes rather than down my ass tubes."

He added: "Would these library lovers allow me to set up a stall next to the Smithsonian Museum and start selling DVDs of bible cartoons as long as it was in accordance with local regulations?

"Oh they would? I see. So is that why they're better than me?"

Why Must My Rights Be Violated For You To Feel Validated?

2010-08-18T19:23:00.000-07:00

Once again, Christians are a shining example of maturity and class. No, wait -

MARION-- It was standing room only at the Marion City Council Meeting Monday night. A large crowd turned out to support the Ten Commandments proposal. They were countering one man's fight against the idea.

I know, I know. Maaaaaan -another Ten Commandments issue? These are so lame. Look - don't put religious crap on public land. It's super simple, super constitutionally sound, and super easy to remember. Regardless, I actually care very little about silly religious crap in public spaces, it's always more about the bigger picture with these cases anyway.

While no action was taken at Monday night's meeting it's obvious which side the council is on.

Council member Jay Rix told the atheist "You make me sick to my stomach."
Mayor Bob Butler said, "In God's will this will be done."

Oh, it's on now bitches. Now I really do care about whether this damn thing ends up in your stupid little town. Just kidding, I don't really care any more now than I did before, but I do think those guys are assholes and it would embarrass me if they were my political representatives. Cuz they seem like jerkwads.

But even those harsh words didn't stop activist Rob Sherman of Chicago.
He's the same man who recently filed a lawsuit against the Friends of the Bald Knob Cross.

He's now threatening to make things more difficult for Marion if they do build the Ten Commandments monument.

One resident’s idea to put up a Ten Commandments monument on the Marion town square is spurring a heated debate about religious freedom.

"When private parties put religious displays on government {ground} it's like a cancer, in that if it is allowed to happen in one community it will spread to other communities," says Rob Sherman.

Ehhhh, I personally dislike the volatile nature of comparing things to cancer, but I see Rob's point in that little issues like this are often used as a reference to justify further religious symbols and gestures in areas where they constitutionally don't belong,

Sherman is an atheist activist who wasn't welcomed in Marion. His anti-God message was quickly rejected.

"My problem is an atheist says he has no religion yet he demands that I forsake my religion," says Rabbi Moshe Laurie.

Wait a second - how exactly is it demanding that you forsake your religion to oppose an action which is obviously constitutionally questionable? Come on, Rabbi, your knuckles may be getting sore from all that pearl clutching.

The man who started it all is Marion resident Ken Kessler.
He says the night's meeting was a success.

"Surprised by it and encouraged by it. I think it was a grand turn out," says Kessler.

City leaders say it's not a matter of if the monument will be built, but a question of when.
That didn't stop Sherman from making threats.

He says if city leaders try to sell a portion of Tower Square to technically make it private property, he could try to out bid Kessler.

Wow, really? So they know what they want to do is unconstitutional, so they're planning to make it technically constitutional by trying to sell a portion of the town square - about the size of a Ten Commandments statue - to a private entity? Isn't that kind of a big ol' fuck you to the constitution?

"You might end up with me purchasing that segment. Then I could put up a monument that says God is make believe or there is no God," says Sherman.

Sherman suggests the monument be placed on church or private property.
Anything else, he considers atheist bigotry and discrimination that will have consequences.

"Facing the potential of a long expensive, losing legal battle," says Sherman.

But the threats don't have Kessler backing down.

"A little nauseated but not intimidated," he says.

Very Christ-like. Christ said people made him sick when he didn't get to build graven images in town squares without a fight all the time, right?

Sherman is a Chicago resident, so he doesn't have standing, which means he can't sue. However, he says if one person from Marion contacts him he will make sure the case goes to court.

I hope someone does. Not only because it's the right thing to do, but also because those people sound like a bunch of dicks.

No, I Will Not Buy You A Bible

2010-08-16T20:39:00.000-07:00

I'm one of those weirdos who actually kind of skims my junk emails before I delete them. I don't open them, but I do read the titles and the first few lines of the emails that get displayed as they're listed in my junk folder. The religious ones catch my attention specifically because every once in a while I get a bit of hate mail because of the blog. This email ended up being a pretty common scam, and it's long and very poorly written, but I enjoyed it enough to want to share. -

Greetings in Jesus name and may this letter finds you blessed in Christ. I am writing you from West Africa and it is a blessing getting to you in the other part of the world. It is my prayer that you become a friend of me and the Local church here.

By His grace I am a believer bought and washed by the blood of Jesus Christ. I am married with one child. I am a pastor of a small Local church non denominational or affiliated to anybody. The church was founded in 2005 and now has about 40 members. I gave my life to Christ in 1989 when I was in the high in at Jos. A campus fellowship student by name osahon was my room mate at school and his life of faithfulness unto Christ and his prayer and teaching me the Bible led me to Christ. This brother told me then that he sense that God was going to use me for His cause. I was never ready to hear that because my dream was never in the ministry but to finish my studies and get a nice job.

Five years after school and already working I started having the stronger urge and sensing that God was calling me but I kept on putting it off my heart because my job and life was so sweet to me and I felt I needed nothing else. One day a guest speaker was ministering in our church and he singled me out in a crowd of over one thousand and told me that God has called me to the ministry and cannot hide.

After he left I told my pastor that I have accepted and my pastor and other elders of the church prayed with me. I immediately joined and headed the evangelical team of the church and I saw many coming to Christ in the team. I let go off my job in 2004 and returned to Edo state my state. I joined a small Local church and was assisting the pastor.

In June 18 2004, a pastor of a little church of about six families in my area walked up to me telling me that he is leaving the state where the Lord had asked him to go and start the work. He said that he has been praying over a month that the Lord has asked him to tell me to take over the little church. I had not had any relationship with this pastor before now so it amazed me. He asked me to pray to ask the Lord. I did prayed and also told my pastor of this development. He prayed with me and three days later he confirmed that God has asked me to take over the church. That was how I became the Pastor of Full Gospel Church. I have been a pastor here two years ago. The church is a growing church and we meet at a temporary rented building.

Matt.5:16"Let your Light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your father which is in heaven".I am writing to appeal for assistance in the area of study Bible which will be of help to me in my research and studies as well as lesson preparation as a pastor. These Bibles are very expensive here. I need a Dakes Annotated Reference Bible or Thompson Chain reference Bible either one of the two. If you cannot get any of these please send me any study Bible which you know has study aids. I would prefer a King James Version. Bibles cost much here as they are imported not printed here.

There are many in our Local church who do not have bibles and cannot afford to buy. I want to specifically make a request for five elderly couples who cannot work and earn money to buy for themselves. They are very devoted. Please on their behalf. I request that you send them 10 bibles the very big letters or super large print would be preferable for them because of their sight. Please used bibles would be appreciated if that is what you can afford. Thank for considering this request. And as you help to meet this kingdom need the Lord will bless your finance abundantly. You can send the bibles through the post office a registered postage of EMS the bibles will get to us safely Ecclesiastes 11:1"Cast the bread upon the waters, for thou shall find it after many days".

The Lord bless you and keep you in His perfect love
In His Service
Brother J***** I*****
Nigeria

First of all, consider the bold bits - it would seem a pastor of a small church in 2004 had this guy take over his congregation - the same congregation he said was founded in 2005. Also, he became pastor in 2004 or six years ago, but has been the pastor for two years.

Also, if this guy really has a special relationship with the Christian god, why did he email me - a jerkwad atheist - who would ultimately post this email online and make fun of its inconsistency and impotency?

Lastly - Those elderly folks sound like they could use something more productive for their survival than a big print bible. This kind of use of the destitute in order to garner sympathy and ultimately donation really bothers me and religious institutions seem to have no problem whatsoever using their saddest cases to the church's benefit. And that little bit about 'And as you help to meet this kingdom need the Lord will bless your finance abundantly' - Yeah, this sounds more like one of those annoying facebook chain letters than an appeal to help out a small, isolated church somewhere in Africa.

Not somewhere - Nigeria. Why does it seem like a good chunk of stupid obvious internet scams are coming out of Nigeria?

Show Me The Ways of Secular Love

2010-08-14T10:21:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I imagine Europe as this secular paradise, though I know in many places that's largely untrue. Still, I feel the lack of outrage and indignant tone in this story is unique to overseas media. I'm convinced that if this happened here, any story reporting on it would undoubtedly focus somewhat on the people hurt and offended by what the store did.

What did they do?

Thousands of shoppers unknowingly signed their souls over to a computer-game store after failing to read the terms and conditions on their website.

GameStation added the "immortal soul clause" to online purchases earlier this month stating customers granted them the right to claim their soul.

While all shoppers during the test were given a simple tick box option to opt out, very few did this, which would have also rewarded them with a £5 voucher.

The store claims this shows 88 percent of people do not read the terms and conditions of a website before they make a purchase.

Bosses also say they will not be enforcing their rights and will now email customers nullifying any claim on their soul.

YECs Can Bite My Shiny Metal Ass

2010-08-13T12:59:00.000-07:00

Anyone who knows me knows - I don't take kindly to Young Earth Creationists (YECs). Usually I avoid conversations with these kinds of people because I am aware of my own intolerance to them and I don't want to be a big jerkwad, which is usually how I end up acting if I do find myself having a conversation with a YEC. I don't know exactly why, but people who seriously argue that Earth is 4,000 - 10,000 years old and that the bible is a literal account of the creation of both the planet and all life on the planet make me erupt with utter contempt.

That's why, in addition to it being both fascinating and exciting, news like this makes me smile -

Giving new meaning to the phrase "older than dirt," scientists have found evidence of an underground rock reservoir left over from the days when Earth was a ball of magma, a new study says.

Rocks recently found on Canada's Baffin Island erupted as lava from a deep rock reservoir that formed 4.5 billion years ago, when the solar system was new, the study says. The reservoir may hold the world's oldest rock, according to the authors.

Because Earth recycles its building blocks so thoroughly—particularly in the mantle, the layer just below the planet's relatively thin outer crust—no purely primordial material has been found before.

"We've been looking for pieces of the mantle that might have survived the chaotic mixing and churning within the deep Earth," said Boston University geochemist Matthew Jackson. "But until now we haven't seen anything that looks like the original stuff that Earth formed from," added Jackson, who co-authored the study, published today in the journal Nature.

Even better, the newly analyzed rocks—which reached the surface some 62 million years ago—suggest a whole reservoir of the primordial rock could still lie somewhere beneath the Arctic, the study says.

I know, I know - no matter what we find, without some unquestionable, undeniable proof that we understand completely, YECs will always be ready to argue that there are pieces of information missing, therefore the whole of the information is worthless. But the problem is, there are ALWAYS pieces of information missing. That's why the scientific method is such a great tool for people to use to understand the world around them - it establishes criteria for considering information in order for it to be established as evidence for or against a given hypothesis and is able to change at any time with the onset of new information.

I think the biggest problem I have with Young Earth Creationists is that they tend to argue from the position that if everything isn't known, then nothing is known. And so because they follow a religion which feels comfortable assigning arbitrary and often entirely ridiculously illogical explanations to the more difficult questions in life, such as why we're here and how life began, they seem to feel secure in their position because even though their answer seems crazy, they have an answer and that's better than nothing.

Except it isn't better than nothing. My position is that when you don't know, the best response is - I don't know. That seems far more productive, truthful, and all around better than any position where any answer - no matter how truthful - is better than admitting that there are still mysteries regarding existence. And though a YEC might feel comfortable molding their entire understanding of life solely around the wisdom of a tome written by uneducated bronze aged people 2000 years ago, I can't imagine what would make anyone think that this position is one that is strong enough to argue from.

Do these people use medical information that is 2000 years old? No! That would be crazy! So...why get other aspects of science - the same science that makes modern medicine as successful as is is today mind you - from a 2000 year old book?

So, here we go. Bring on the reasons why the dating method used in this instance is flawed, why the scientists who found the rocks have ulterior and sinister secular motives, why the geochemist is wrong and the charismatic Dr. of religious studies is right - eventually there will be enough evidence against Young Earth Creationism that it will fizzle out - then we'll just have those Flat Earthers and the Time Cube guy to worry about, right? Riiiiiight.

Greenwich Mean Time Is Not Determined By The Biggest Clock

2010-08-11T12:47:00.000-07:00

This is amazing.

For more than a century, a point on the top of a hill in south-east London has been recognised as the centre of world time and the official starting point of each new day.

But now the supremacy of Greenwich Mean Time is being challenged by a gargantuan new clock being built in Mecca, by which the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims could soon be setting their watches.

Due to start ticking on Thursday as the faithful begin fasting during the month of Ramadan, the timepiece sits atop the Royal Mecca Clock Tower which dominates Islam’s holiest city.

It is at the heart of a vast complex funded by the Saudi government that will also house hotels, shopping malls and conference halls.

Bearing a striking resemblance to both St Stephen’s Tower, which houses the bell of Big Ben, and the Empire State Building, the Saudi upstart aims to outdo its revered British rival in every way.

The clock’s four faces are 151ft in diameter and will be illuminated by 2million LED lights along with huge Arabic script reading: “In the name of Allah”. The clock will run on Arabia Standard Time which is three hours ahead of GMT.

When a glittering spire is added, topped with a crescent to symbolise Islam, the edifice will stand at nearly 2,000 ft, making it the world's second tallest building.

The clock of Big Ben, by comparison, is just 23ft in diameter, while its tower stands at a mere 316ft.

Residents of Mecca will also be reminded that it is time to pray when 21,000 green and white lights, visible at a distance of 18 miles, flash five times a day.

OK, thus far, who cares - they built a big clock to rival other big clocks in yet another silly exercise that amounts to an international game of 'my dick is bigger than yours.' The clock sounds impressive, but also like a bit of a rip off, but really who cares. Wacky people do wacky things. This is where it starts getting good.

But Islamic scholars hope the clock’s influence will stretch far further than the sands of Saudi Arabia, as part of a plan for Mecca to eclipse the Greenwich Observatory as the “true centre of the earth”.

Because, as I'm sure you all know, we determine that by the biggest clock now. Wait, what?

For the past 125 years, the international community has accepted that the start of each day should be measured from the prime meridian, representing 0 degrees longitude, which passes through the Greenwich Observatory.

A standard time by which other clocks were set was needed to organise global travel and communications, but in the Islamic world the idea that it should be centred on a part of London is seen as a colonial anachronism.

As Mohammed al-Arkubi, manager of one of the hotels in the complex, put it: "Putting Mecca time in the face of Greenwich Mean Time. This is the goal."

That sounds incredibly petty and stupid to me. GMT was established simply as a means of standardization around the world. Who cares what area 'gets' to have that time? For 125 years it's been London, for reasons other than it's London, so I don't get the point of trying to change it now. Well, I get the point, but it seems like an entirely petty endeavor and frankly, a huge waste of time and resources. Is there ANY reason we ought to change GMT to the middle east beyond the fact that some guys somewhere want it changed?

According to Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian cleric known around the Muslim world for his popular television show "Sharia and Life", Mecca has a greater claim to being the prime meridian because it is "in perfect alignment with the magnetic north."

This claim that the holy city is a "zero magnetism zone" has won support from some Arab scientists like Abdel-Baset al-Sayyed of the Egyptian National Research Centre who says that there is no magnetic force in Mecca.

"That's why if someone travels to Mecca or lives there, he lives longer, is healthier and is less affected by the earth's gravity," he said. "You get charged with energy."

Western scientists have challenged such assertions, noting that the Magnetic North Pole is in actual fact on a line of longitude that passes through Canada, the United States, Mexico and Antarctica.

Haha, so they want GMT to be changed because it's in line with the magnetic north pole, except it really isn't. Also, people in Mecca live longer, healthier lives and are less affected by gravity? Wow. I'll need to see some data, guys, somehow I feel compelled to question your assertions here.

Maybe they've also built a bigger copy of some insidious Western laboratories and therefore feel their "science" ought to be more credible by default as well.

Sit Back and Watch Them Eat Each Other

2010-08-10T13:03:00.000-07:00

This hardly seems fair, though it in no way surprises me. Christians in particular often express feelings of discrimination or persecution, which in some cases is valid, but it seems that often they're discriminating and persecuting one another.

Differences in religious belief and biblical interpretation have led a Corona Christian school to dismiss four teachers and seven other employees.

The move spurred some parents to pull their children out of the school and others to defend what they see as a move to protect their kids from spiritually harmful influences.

Most of the fired employees belong to the Catholic Church, which has key teachings that conflict with those of the conservative evangelical Crossroads Christian Schools and the adjacent Crossroads Christian Church, which with about 8,000 members is among the Inland area's largest churches.

Last year, the preschool-through-ninth-grade school -- the school is adding 10th grade this year -- came under the umbrella of the church after about a decade of autonomy. That spurred a closer evaluation of the religious beliefs of the now-dismissed employees, who had been with the school for as long as 22 years, said Beth Frobisher, superintendent of the 583-pupil school.

"How can the school be a ministry of the church if what is spoken and taught into the hearts of the children isn't consistent with what is taught in the church?" Frobisher asked.

It's clear that this guy is alluding to some issue where the kids are being taught things that go against the beliefs of the church. So, how many complaints to that end have their been?

Long [executive pastor of the church] said he had never heard of any complaints of Catholic or other non-evangelical beliefs being introduced into the classroom.

Well, if that's true, it begs the question - is this apparent religious discrimination legal? It would seem that isn't too clear either.

Experts disagree on whether the dismissals were legal. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Irvine's law school, said federal and state law prohibit religious-belief requirements in schools, even if, as at Crossroads, religion is infused throughout the entire curricula. The only exception is religious-education classes.

"They can specify they have to teach the subjects in a certain way," Chemerinsky said. "But they cannot discriminate in employment based upon religion. But Thomas Cathey, director of legal/legislative issues for the Colorado-based Association of Christian Schools International, to which Crossroads belongs, said the school falls under a religious-institution exemption in federal law and has a right to hire and fire employees whose religious beliefs aren't in sync with its own.

So I guess my next question is, why did they hire Catholics in the first place? Why is this coming up now?

When hired, employees signed a "statement of faith" that summarizes Crossroads' beliefs. Several fired employees said they saw nothing in the statement they disagreed with. But Crossroads believes that the employees "weren't living out" the statement, Booher said.

The church opened the school in 1979. About 10 years ago, the school became independent of the church. The school did not strictly enforce its rules on employees' religious beliefs and practices until the 2009-10 academic year, after it became a ministry of the church.

"We decided, 'Let's get back to what we always said we believed in,' " said the Rev. Mike Long, executive pastor of the church.

Admittedly, religious groups opting to go backwards seems to be a pretty typical theme.

Booher and Long arrived at Crossroads in 2007. Frobisher became superintendent a year later.

In summer 2009, 12 of about 140 employees were deemed to not be aligned with the statement of faith and Crossroads' teachings. Four were teachers. Others held positions such as teacher aide, after-school playground supervisor and accounting employee.

Employees were first told in August 2009 of the school's closer relationship with the church and a requirement that they attend a "Bible-believing church."

Some employees were unclear about what the new rules meant, and early this year, church and school leaders held meetings that discussed the requirements more explicitly, including a definition of a Bible-believing church as a born-again, Protestant evangelical church. Most employees were allowed to finish the school year.

Former kindergarten teacher Sue Fitzgerald, 55, said she suspected in August that church and school officials were planning to dismiss her and other Catholic employees but she hoped they would eventually change their minds because of her 14 years there. She realized at a January meeting that she would lose her job, she said.

Fitzgerald and other fired employees say they're having a tough time finding new positions. Fitzgerald said she had planned to work at Crossroads until she retired.

"I just loved the sense of family, or what I thought was family," she said.

But Ms. Fitzgerald, it looks like you might be able to get your job back yet -

One teacher who had been raised Lutheran was rehired for the new school year after she underwent a full-immersion baptism, Long said. She now attends Crossroads.

The message this school is sending seems clear - we no longer want diversity of thought. We want our brand of Christan. Considering their brand of Christan seems to be the kind that can rationalize firing a 14 years employed, 55 year old employee at a time when unemployment in incredibly high, I'd be interested to see exactly what Christ these people have decided to worship and emulate.

I'd love to ask the people who run this school how they feel being a minority religious belief. I guarantee, in that case, suddenly those Catholics would be perfectly Christian enough to count.

AaA Episode 9 - Atheism and Star Trek

2010-08-10T02:02:00.000-07:00

Woooo! We've already received criticism on this one for being too silly. But, then again, who hasn't been accused as an atheist or free thinker of being too serious? You'll never win them all...

Also, this is my directorial debut, so be kind - I had no clue what I was doing!

If you like the show and do the whole facebook thing, please feel free to "like" us there as well - we appreciate your support!

Billy Graham is a Total Dick

2010-08-07T00:51:00.000-07:00

I know, I know - obvious statement is obvious - but sometimes I forget just how big a dick he is, and then he reminds me.

Atheist may be sunny on outside, but feel empty inside

That's a promising title.

The kindest, most thoughtful person I know says she’s an atheist and doesn’t even believe in God. I always thought we needed to believe in God before we’d behave like she does, but I guess this isn’t necessarily true, is it? — S.K.

It makes me sad that someone might actually earnestly ask this question, but I could see it happening. It seems to me this person came to the logical conclusion - the non religious can be just as kind and thoughtful as the religious.

I’m convinced that when a person comes to Jesus Christ and commits his or her life to Him, they will become a better person than they ever were before. If your atheist friend comes to Christ some day, she’ll be an even better person than she is now.

Why is she such a kind and thoughtful person? I don’t know the reason; perhaps she simply has a sunny personality (as some people do), or perhaps her parents taught her to be kind and considerate when she was growing up. But I do know this: She’s not this way because she’s an atheist. In fact, she’s this way in spite of her atheism — because a true atheist has no real reason to believe in right and wrong, or to behave sacrificially toward others.

Oh Billy... I honestly don't see how this guy feels he's in a position to judge others about anything ethical when he makes a living squeezing money out of rubes and the elderly in the name of Jesus. To me, having the qualities and morals that are required to be a televangelist seems far worse than the singular lack of belief in god that makes one an atheist.

Pray for her, that God will open her eyes — not only to His existence, but also to His love for her. And ask God to help you be a witness to her of Christ’s love and transforming power. On the outside, she may seem self-sufficient and indifferent toward God — but inside she may be spiritually empty and searching for inner peace.

Send your queries to “My Answer,” c/o Billy Graham...

Or, S.K., you could not listen to the con artist whose job it is to get you to give him money in a religious fit of stupidity, and instead talk to your atheist friend more. See what makes her such a good person. After all, it seems like she's a good person for no reason besides that's who she is. Billy here is only as good as he can play on TV.

AaA Ep. 8 - Childhood Indoctrination

2010-08-02T14:32:00.000-07:00

Enjoy!

On Symbolism - Why I'm OK With The A

2010-08-01T16:00:00.000-07:00

One of the blogs I read regularly is Atheist Revolution. Vjack updates his blog consistently and has a clear way of writing which focuses on news and issues that are relevant to me most of the time. One of his recent posts about the atheist appropriation of the scarlet A as a symbol for atheism, the use of the same symbol by a movie coming out and the possible impact this might have on the atheist community got me thinking about symbols in general, especially my own aversion to them.

If you are unfamiliar with the origins of the scarlet A and atheism, I'll give a quick run down. The scarlet A was a symbol used in Nathaniel Hawthorn's book The Scarlet Letter. The heroine of the story, Hester Prynne, has a child out of wedlock and so she's forced to wear a big red A on her clothing so that others may easily identify her as a evil evil adulteress. Hester is often regarded as a tragic figure who was mistreated and judged because of choices she made in her life which really only affected herself and were made, as you find out in the book, because of what amounts to entirely understandable circumstances.

The atheist use of the A really gained popularity when it as referenced by Dawkins as a way to participate in the OUT campaign:

Stand OUT and organize activities and events in your local area. Join an existing local neighbourhood atheist organization, or start one. Put a bumper sticker on your car. Wear a T-shirt. Wear Josh's red A if you like it as much as I do, otherwise design your own or find one on a website such as http://www.cafepress.com/buy/atheist; or wear no shirt at all, but please don't carp at the very idea of standing up to be counted with other atheists. I admit, I sympathize with those sceptics on this site who fear that we are engendering a quasi-religious conformity of our own. Whether we like it or not, I'm afraid we have to swallow this small amount of pride if we are to have an influence on the real world, otherwise we'll never overcome the 'herding cats' problem.

And it makes sense as a symbol atheists would adopt. Not only is it an obvious choice in a very basic, Sesame Street kind of way (A is for Atheist - muppet dance!) but I think a lot of atheists feel sympathetic to Hester's plight of being judged and largely rejected by the Puritanical society in which she lives because of circumstances that shouldn't matter. I think it's great that atheists have an easily identified symbol that allows them to recognize one another easily, especially in places like the south where being an atheist can seriously negatively affect a person's standard of living.

Still. I don't like it.

I think it may have to do with my own personal history of growing up without religion in a family that was very anti-mindless American pride. My dad was a PTSD afflicted Vietnam vet with, shockingly, issues with the government and people who support the government unquestioningly. I was raised to believe that no symbol is sacred and to question anyone who rallies behind symbols as if they are unassailable. I was raised to believe the ultimate expression of American freedom was to burn the flag because the flag is just a thing and what's really important is what the symbol represents, not the symbol itself.

However, I don't think many atheists are doing this with the symbols floating around out there that are associated with atheism. Maybe it's because the atheist movement hasn't gained enough momentum or maybe it's because atheists tend not to be as indignantly protective of symbolism as religious people or even some of the more intense patriots. As long as atheists continue in this vein, I'll continue to support the use of the scarlet A, the asterisk, the atomic symbol, or whatever people are sporting to make their godlessness known.

So to re-cap: I get why people like it. I'm in no way against it. I'm just not into it.

The Danger of Being an Atheist

2010-07-29T12:33:00.000-07:00

I'm obviously an atheist, but I had no idea what a difficult line that is to toe. Luckily my internet pal Philosoraptor turned me on to this alarming list of facts* about me and my fellow godless brethren.

Don't be mad at the atheists. They lead a very difficult life because of their beliefs. Anyone out there who considers themselves an atheist should educate themselves to the facts. I was very sad to read this and feel that we should all do our best to help the atheists:

• Atheists have a significantly higher rate of depression than non-atheist groups.

• Teenagers who identify themselves as atheist have a higher rate of suicide than those who don't.

• The WHO says venereal diseases spread faster among atheistic populations, particularly syphilis, hepatitis and HIV.

• On average, atheists have a 60% higher chance of dying from cancer and a 54% slower recovery rate.

• Married couples where one or both spouses is an atheist experience a higher rate of divorce than those who don't.

• Atheists account for an unusually high percentage of the total number of people who died of AIDS since the 1980s.

• Atheist world leaders are responsible for more total deaths as a result of politically motivated murders and genocides than the deaths of all religious wars combined since the beginning of recorded history.

• On average, atheists earn 35% less in household income per year than non-atheists.

• Atheists have a higher college drop-out rate than non-atheists and score an average 2.03 GPA compared to 3.13 for non-atheists.

• The rate of birth defects is 14% higher among couples who identify themselves as atheists.

• While Catholics top the charts for number of abortions per year, atheists top the charts for the number of miscarriages and infanticide cases, where the mother murdered her baby after it was born.

• Atheists account for a shocking 82% of the number of serial killers in the United States and an even more shocking 90% of those arrested for human cannibalism.

• Of all the cases of treason tried in the United States, 57.6% of those convicted were self-proclaimed atheists... more than Christians, Muslims, Jews, Agnostics and all other religions combined.

• The life expectancy for atheists is 12.03 years shorter than non-atheists.

• Atheists account for a larger percentage of military dishonorable discharges than non-atheists.

• A surprising documentary on PBS public television interviewed people after they saw an actor stage a collapse in the street to try and classify who was most likely to help and who was most likely to ignore the person. They repeated the scenario several hundred times over a period of three years to get a sampling based on age, gender, race, religious affiliation and economic status. In every instance, atheists ranked at the bottom of the list in terms of their willingness to help, unless the victim appeared to be an attractive white woman. They ranked lower than any other group when the victim appeared to be homeless or affiliated with a religion, such as a Hasidic Jew or a priest/nun. The documentary's producers were stunned to find that Christians, Jews and Muslims, in spite of their religious differences, were more inclined to help each other than atheists were inclined to help anybody.

Personally, when I see someone collapse in the street, I pee on them and steal their shit. But damn it, I pee on everyone equally.

*In this case, we're using this definition of fact.

Another Stupid Lawsuit

2010-07-28T18:34:00.000-07:00

This news story is ridiculous, but it's also a great example of the expectation some religious people have in regard to their beliefs and world around them. This guy should have never taken a job in public transit if he has religious beliefs that prohibit him from performing his duties.

A Texas bus driver has filed a lawsuit against his former employer, claiming he was fired for his religious beliefs after refusing to transport a client to a Planned Parenthood office, court documents showed Wednesday.

Edwin A. Graning worked for the Capital Area Rural Transportation System (CARTS) near Austin, Texas, for less than a year before he was let go in January. At the time, he told his supervisor that, "in good conscience, he could not take someone to have an abortion," according to the lawsuit. Graning is an ordained Christian minister.

(On a side note, anyone can become an ordained minister. Online. For free.)

Planned Parenthood, a health care provider that offers a range of medical services to women, including those related to abortion, often draws the ire of anti-abortion groups in the United States, where the procedure is legal but fiercely controversial.

So it would seem he had no idea why she was going to Planned Parenthood. It could have been for an abortion, but it could have also been for a medical check-up, a counseling appointment, to pick up medication, to take a pregnancy test, or to utilize any number of other services. Planned Parenthood is a pretty busy place. It is not, as some might have you believe, an abortion factory.

He is seeking reinstatement, back pay, and compensatory damages for pain, suffering and emotional distress.

"It's only because he voiced his religions beliefs that he was canned," Edward White III, Graning's lawyer, told CNN. "Employers have a legal responsibility to at least attempt to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs. ... CARTS clearly violated Mr. Graning's religious freedom."

White, who works for a public interest law group founded by evangelical Christian leader Pat Robertson, said CARTS sent a second driver to collect the client and took her and a friend to the Planned Parenthood office.

Uhhhh, no, it is not only because he voiced his religious beliefs - that's just kind of annoying and better kept to yourself. Dude got fired because he refused to do his job. Did no one point this out to you? Oh, wait -

"While others may wish to make more of it, to CARTS this is just about our expectation that employees perform the duties they are hired for," David Marsh, general manager of CARTS, said in an e-mail message to CNN.

In addition to rides along fixed routes, CARTS offers some door-to-door service within its rural coverage area.

The lawsuit, in the U.S. District Court for western Texas, Austin Division, was filed on July 14.

I hope this guy doesn't win. I don't see how he could, really. When I worked in a deli, I was a vegetarian, but that didn't mean I had the right to refuse to slice lunch meat. The only way I would have had the right to refuse to do that aspect of my job is if I had told my boss that I was unable to perform that aspect of my position because of those beliefs and was hired anyway with the understanding that I wasn't going to cut any meat. So unless the guy told CARTS that he wasn't able to drive people in some instances because of his religious beliefs, he would have been hired under the pretense that he was able to perform his work duties regardless of what his religious views are.

Even ignoring that, it seems to me the guy didn't actually have any grounds to refuse to do his job even if his religious opposition to abortion was something that legally had to be worked around because he had no way of knowing that's what she was going to Planned Parenthood to have done.

Ask an Atheist Episode 7 - Conspiracy Theories

2010-07-26T19:56:00.000-07:00

Here it is, episode 7 of Ask An Atheist!

From the official blog: Case and Mike discuss the nature of conspiracy theories, and why most of them fail the test of evidence.

If you don't check it out, you're just playing into "The Man's" plot to destroy something you care about!!

Why Little Things Matter

2010-07-24T14:40:00.000-07:00

I was going to write about this yesterday because It's semi-local and I found it interesting, but then I got distracted by epic personal lameness, so here it is today:

PORT ANGELES -- Tim Davis, a candidate for Clallam County District Court 1 judge, stood in front of a voters-forum audience of 100 people this week and related one of those stories about an electoral opponent that makes the ears perk up.

Davis, a candidate with Pam Lindquist in the Aug. 17 primary, said incumbent Judge Rick Porter had required a potential juror in a DUI trial to pledging to truthfully answer questions about her qualifications to be a juror, "so help you God."

The judge uses the term, asking if the juror so swears, and the juror is expected to answer, "I do."

When the woman objected -- after she was impaneled -- to saying "I do" to the phrase "so help you God," Porter told her to sit in the jury box "all by herself," Davis told the audience, saying Porter's actions were unnecessary and suggesting that Porter humiliated the woman.

"That never, ever happened," Porter responded at the forum Tuesday in Port Angeles.

"This issue, as far as I know, never came up."

Gail Smith of Sequim said Thursday that's exactly that happened to her Feb. 17 as a juror during a one-day driving-under-the-influence trial that Porter presided over.

Only an option

She said she was required to take the oath twice before the trial began despite the state Administrative Office of the Courts and the state Supreme Court saying that the phrase is only an option and not required.

"I had to say it to perform my civic duty," she said.

"I felt consternation, I felt embarrassment, and I felt discriminated against. I was not given the option that the state Supreme Court has given people."

Smith said she continued fuming about having to take the oath after the trial began.

During a break, she wrote a note in the jury room expressing her anger and gave it to the bailiff to give it to Porter, she said.

In the note, she compared the oath to taking an oath that invokes the name of Santa Claus, Smith said.

Her husband was in the courtroom with other trial participants and saw Porter laugh when he read it out loud, Smith said.

Her husband said Porter told the defense attorney and prosecutor that he needed to question Smith to determine if her anger would make her biased, Smith said.

When the jurors returned from lunch, Smith was called out of the jury room by the bailiff.

"I was required to sit alone in front of the defense lawyers, the prosecutor, a deputy sheriff witness, the general public and the defendant's family member while the judge explained to me that the state Supreme Court mandates that he follow, verbatim, certain protocol including the so-help-me-God oath," Smith said.

"He asked if my being upset at having to swear to the oath would taint my ability to be a juror, and I answered no."

She said that part of the oath is in brackets in court rules set out by the state Administrative Office of the Courts, meaning it is optional.

Smith described herself as a secularist, or one who, according to www.mirrian-webster.com ascribes to secularism, or "indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations."

"I'm a secularist, not an atheist," Smith said. "I challenge church dogma of any sort. It didn't make me any less impartial."

Porter agrees about option

Porter on Thursday agreed that the "so help you God" part of the oath is optional, noting, too, the brackets.

Porter said he vaguely recalled an incident involving a woman who objected to the oath.

He asked if the incident happened two or three years ago, saying it's been a long year.

He said no one is required to say "so help you God."

"I recall there was a lady who told [District Court Administrator Keith Wills] that she was an atheist and didn't want to do that," Porter said of the oath.

"I explained that I was sorry, and it was part of the script. I don't know if it was during the trial or after the trial, I honestly don't know.

"I recall vaguely having a conversation and saying I don't mean to offend you and that's the way the script reads."

Porter said this is the only time anyone has raised an issue with the oath in District Court.

"I'm just amazed that this is that big an issue," Porter said.

As to claiming at the forum, "that never happened," Porter said Thursday he was referring to Davis' characterization of the incident.

"He said I was rude and belittling to her, and that never happened."

It seems to me that this Judge singled this woman out, was kind of a prick to her, she stood up for herself, he was even more of a prick to her, and now he's trying to distance himself from the whole thing because it's nearly election time.

The thing that really gets me about these kinds of stories are the comments. A few of the uglier ones:

Posted by Allen Frank

Criminals hate Judge Porter.
Trial Attorney's hate Judge Porter.
Atheists hate Judge Porter.

Sounds like my kind of Judge.
God Bless you Judge Porter!

Posted by Allen Frank

The latest tactic of the Atheist Progressives is to deny being Atheist; calling themselves "secularists". Sounds better I guess.

"During a break, she wrote a note in the jury room expressing her anger and gave it to the bailiff to give it to Porter, she said.

In the note, she compared the oath to taking an oath that invokes the name of Santa Claus, Smith said."

Equating God with Santa Claus??
Sounds like an Atheist to me!!

Posted by Allen Frank

I never said it wasn't ok for folks to be Atheists.
It's just hysterical that people like Ms. Smith would go out of her way to claim to be a Secularist and not an Atheist....then equate God with Santa. That's the point. We have free will to make choices and are, THANK GOD, free to exercise our Rights. Even make fun of God like Ms Smith did.
I'm pointing out her clear case of HYPOCRISY!
Seems like Ms Smith enjoys being offended so she can lash out her dogma.

Most of the negative comments on the story were posted by this guy, Allen Frank. From what he's written, he's most likely a random harmless troll.

Posted by Lauren Pratt

If someone doesn't take an oath . . . how do u determine if THEY r telling the truth? R there consequences for people who do not take the oath and later are determined to be unethical or a liar???

This is just an epic fail in regard to reading comprehension. She didn't refuse to take the oath, she refused to say the bits having to do with god, which is legally her right.

Posted by Wynn silence

Porter must be doing something right. Because he's got all the drunks and nutjobs mad at him. Oh yeah and the Devil and his crouwd too.

Davis needs to present what he will do different or better than Porter or drop out of the eletion and quit waisting the peoples time with back stabbing.

And the same Go's for Pam Linquist. Both of them sound like they should be in the school district Judge for a day program.

This is probably the most disappointing comment I read. But nothing new or surprising here either.

Look, if a judge had made someone uncomfortable about saying the god bits of an oath, people would be freaking out about the injustice and abuse of power in the situation. It's hard not to feel a little bitter when a good chunk of comments (granted, a healthy portion of those were from ranty Mr. Frank, but still) are essentially saying - well, she's an atheist so good for him.

This is a little thing and it's very tempting to want to distance oneself from this kind of story to avoid the inevitable label of being whiny or petty, but when you let the little things slide, it paves the way for the bigger issues to have just a little more credence. That's why it's important for people to speak up, even for the little things like a religious display at the capital or the words 'Under God' in our pledge and on our money, or a judge using his position of influence to make you feel singled out or your secularism.

Non-religious people, just like any other kind of people, have a right to equal representation. We don't forfeit that when we make the decision to be open about our godlessness. Unfortunately, being a minority group, we have to remind people of that right fairly often and may even have to fight for that right from time to time. That's the burden of knowing what's right and sticking by it, even when society pressures you to conform to something different.

You Gotta Fight - For Your Right - To Maaaaaaaarry Children. What?

2010-07-21T10:45:00.000-07:00

I know, I know, I live in the Seattle area, typically vote Democrat or even *gasp* third party, I was a vegetarian for a while, I'm a proponent for gay rights AND I'm against child marriage. I'm a walking progressive stereotype. Well one man is fighting the good fight so that skeevy old Muslims everywhere can marry kids in the name of their religion. Thank Mighty Atheismo there's someone out there willing to speak up for traditional religious values and traditional religious marriage.

Nigerian group slams trial of senator over child marriage

ABUJA — A Nigerian Islamic group on Tuesday challenged a suit filed by a government agency against a senator, Ahmed Sani Yerima, under fire over his marriage to a 13-year-old Egyptian girl.

The Registered Trustees of Supreme Council for Sharia in Nigeria is seeking an order of the Federal High Court to restrain any government agency from interfering with the rights of the senator.

Defendants in the suit are the government-backed National Human Rights Commission, National Agency for the Prohibition of Traffic in Persons (NAPTIP), and senate president and the speaker of the lower house of parliament.

Investigators of NAPTIP last May questioned Yerima, ex-governor of Muslim-dominated northwest Zamfara State, over the marriage.

Yerima, 49, who provided investigators with an affidavit of marriage from the Sharia Court of Appeal in Abuja, slammed the Nigerian Child Rights Act of 2003 which he said "must have been enacted in error".

The lawmaker said that he and his government had rejected the law -- which forbids marriage to anyone under 18 -- when he was governor between 1999 and 2007.

The Islamic body is seeking court declaration that Yerima's rights to privacy and practise his religion have been violated.

"We are saying that the honourable senator, as a Nigerian, fundamentally as a muslim, (that) the constitution guarantees him the right to practise his religion... the way and manner it is prescribed," the body's lawyer, Etigwe Uwa, told journalists after a court session on Tuesday.

"His religion allows him to marry four wives without restriction on age," he said.

Uwa said the section of the Child Rights Act which forbids marriage of a girl under the age of 18 contravenes the country's constitution which guarantees citizen's rights to practise his religion.

Uwa said a Muslim has the liberty to "even marry a child in the womb of her mother."

Judge Adamu Bello adjourned the case till October 21.

The Nigerian Senate has ordered a probe after the national rights watchdog.

Media reports have alleged Yerima paid a 100,000-dollar dowry before marrying the girl.

He faces 500,000 naira (3,270 dollars, 2,680 euros) fine or five years jail term, or both on conviction, NAPTIP officials said.

This freedom of religion bullshit is getting out of control. No. Your freedom of religion does not make it OK for you to marry children. Not in the womb, not when they're 13, not ever. Freedom of religion does not trump basic human rights, and I think the right for a kid to grow up before being bought and made to be some gross old man's wife is pretty fundamental. Now, before all you Jesus lovers start in on how terrible Muslims are and how this very behavior discredits their religion (but not yours) - how is this any different than the Catholic church trying to avoid legal responsibility for the child abuse scandal? I would say moving those priests around and pressuring the kids not to say anything and, oh yeah, trying to seek immunity from being held legally responsible for the abuse in the US is pretty similar to a guy wanting the religious freedom to marry a child. In fact, I'd say the Muslim has more balls because at least he's being open about it.

And that seems to be the Christians main issue with the Muslims. Their tenacity. Their transparency. They have no shame in the archaic and socially reprehensible demands of their religion. Christians are sneaky and two faced about their desire for special treatment. The fundamental ones, like the Phelps, seem to come the closest to real faith and belief and adherence to Christianity as it's written in the supposedly holy book and everyone else dislikes it because it's ugly and cruel. That's what religion is. Religion is the good and the worthless, the saved and the damned, the chosen and the cast offs. It's not hugathons and canned food drives and feeling all high on Jesus at Christmas and Easter, it's segregation, slavery, rape, torture, and simplistic caste system of the ones who are righteous and everyone else, who is essentially kindling for the endless fires of hell.

That's why we need to stop regarding freedom of religion as some greater or more sacred freedom than everything else. Freedom of religion does not mean that Christians have the right to discriminate against gays. Freedom of religion does not give adults the right to be child molesters. Religious rights do not trump other rights and it's time we rational, logical, socially responsible people stopped being afraid of the inevitable social backlash and started making some real noise in saying so.

AaA Episode 6: Spiritual is a Nonsense Word

2010-07-19T16:16:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite shows yet.

Also, I believe they're giving the Ask an Atheist blog an overhaul, so once I get wind of the completion of that, I'll pass it along as well.

I Don't Think Jesus Saves Bad Business Practices

2010-07-19T13:20:00.000-07:00

So. This wacky guy in OK has a commercial where he's hocking siding and, for good measure, Jesus.

Yeah guy, that's kind of a weird insert of highly questionable politicization in your commercial. I often wonder why people sometimes feel the need to include personal beliefs and opinions in situations where it seems generally understood that it's inappropriate to do so. Then I stumbled upon some reviews of his business. Now I understand completely. There are only two reviews that I found, but neither one of them was flattering or really surprising given the general attitude of the commercial.

Buyer Beware

The siding work provided by Terrell's was mediocre at best. Repairs were needed within two years. When I called to get the work repaired, Terrell's put me on a waiting list. I called again a couple of months later and they said I was still on the waiting list. I called back one more time and was told the same thing. Terrell's never called me back and I finally realized that the waiting list was just a ploy to deflect or put off their customers. I don't think they ever had any intention of standing behind their work.

Later, I went to another siding person and had to spend about $2,000 to have my siding put in good repair. I would not recommend Terrell's to anyone.

The second review is far more telling.

Rudest, worst service ever recieved.

We asked for a quote to enclose our patio into a sun-room, as we had from numerous other companies.

The quote we were given by the owner of the company was the most expensive and when we informed him about it, he yelled at my spouse, using profanity and had very ugly things to tell about how people of our race come into his country and take advantage of everyone, etc, and slammed down the phone.

It was very disturbing to experiance such hatred from the owner of the company, someone we would xpect would know better.

My spouse called him back to ask him id he realizes what he had just said to which the answer came back that "so what, s**(litigate) me you a*******".

May the Lord forgive him for all the hatred he carries.

So of course he's going to utilize that sweet sweet Christian privilege and appeal to his douchey tea bagging brethren - the business obviously can't stand on it's own merit.

Thanks to Unreasonable Faith and Cynical-C for the heads up.

AaA Ep. 5 - Why Do Atheists Exist?

2010-07-15T18:34:00.000-07:00

Ask An Atheist Episode 5: Why Do Atheists Exist?

A Free Plug For Roy Zimmerman

2010-07-14T14:23:00.000-07:00

The latest episode of Ask an Atheist is in the can, but it's not up yet over at askanatheist.tv, so until that gets posted, here's a taste of Roy Zimmerman. I was turned on to this guy by Dretlin over at The Happy Atheist Forum. Pretty funny.

I know, I'm probably one of the only atheists left who haven't run across this guy, but in case there are a few trailing me, here you go. =D

I Appreciate What Freedom Of Speech I Have

2010-07-10T00:08:00.000-07:00

I can easily join the rabble rabble crowd of disillusioned non-hippie liberals who wax on about our freedom of speech in this country being more infringed upon than we should allow it to be. I think Phelps is a super douche, but I don't think he should be banned from protesting (though I do go back and forth about his presence at funerals. Damn, what a dick.)

However, I know that here in America I have it better than a lot of other places in the world. Here's an example of how bad things could be -

MOSCOW — One painting depicted Jesus Christ as Mickey Mouse, another as Vladimir Lenin. The 2007 exhibit was part of an effort to fight censorship of the arts, but the Russian Orthodox Church was horrified.

Now, after a 14-month trial, the two prominent Moscow art curators who put on the show are facing the prospect of three years in prison.

Artists and rights activists have appealed to the Kremlin to put a stop to the prosecution of Yury Samodurov and Andrei Yerofeyev, warning of a return to Soviet-era cultural censorship with the rules now dictated by a conservative and politically powerful church.

Even Russia's culture minister says the two men did nothing to break the law against inciting religious hatred.

But the prosecutors refuse to back down and have demanded a three-year prison sentence when the judge makes her ruling on July 12.

The exhibit "Forbidden Art" at the Sakharov Museum, a human rights center named after celebrated dissident physicist Andrei Sakharov, featured several paintings with images of Jesus Christ.

In one, Christ appeared to his disciples as Mickey Mouse. In another, of the crucifixion, the head of Christ was replaced by the Order of Lenin medal, the highest award of the Soviet Union.

Samodurov, who was the museum's director from its founding in 1996 until he stepped down in 2008, had already once been convicted of inciting religious hatred and fined the equivalent of $3,600 for an exhibit in 2003 called "Caution: Religion!"

The exhibit was closed a few days after it opened after a group of altar boys defaced many of the contemporary paintings, which used religious allusions to express attitudes toward religion, culture and the state.

You know, people who are religious often claim that their beliefs have power and that their god is all powerful. Reactions like this are what make me think that maybe they don't actually buy into all that hype. If you know you're right, you have no reason to be so angry at those who say you're wrong. Vandalism like this seems like an indication of doubt on their part.

I'm protective of art because I think it's valuable historically to a society. The art a society enjoys and produces says a lot about what's going on at that time in a unique way. The censorship of art, to me, is like censoring part of the historical record. Which hardly ever bodes well.

A Marriage Of Two Favorite Things - Porn And Sacrilege!

2010-07-08T09:45:00.000-07:00

Hey, look, Jesus is a voyeur! Of course, given the 'God is always with you' story I've heard from many a staunch believer paired with the fact that God's son is Jesus and Jesus is his own dad, that should come as no surprise.

Jesus Christ is making an appearance in July's Portuguese version of Playboy magazine.

The magazine spread featuring Jesus is meant as an homage to Nobel winning writer Jose Saramago. Saramago, an atheist and the only Portugese author to receive a Nobel prize, died last month.

The images of Christ on the cover and within the pages of the magazine are inspired by a Saramago novel, The Gospel According to Jesus Christ, a fictional reimagining of Christ's life as a flawed human being.

Jesus is on the cover of the July Playboy, sitting on a bed, holding a scantily clad female. The title of Saramago's book is engraved into the headboard of the bed.

The other explicit images in the magazine show Jesus watching a lesbian sex scene, standing next to a street prostitute, and looking over the shoulder of a half naked woman reminiscent of a Catholic school girl.

I don't have much more to say about this beyond "giggity".

Iran Says Yay To Elvis Hair, Boo To Puppy Love

2010-07-06T09:26:00.000-07:00

Well, at least Iran is being a bit less sexist with its ridiculously controlling and restrictive rules regarding the legality of self image and self expression. I understand that banning the mullet is more for the benefit of society in general, but it seems like basically all punk hairstyles are forbidden - which I'm sure makes punks across America giggle with a special kind of punk satisfaction.

(July 6) -- Worried that Western ideas might be seeping into -- and onto -- the heads of their nation's young men, Iran's religious leaders have issued a catalog of acceptable "Islamic" male haircuts. Ponytails, spikes, mullets and Mohawks are now forbidden, but Elvis-style locks, floppy fringes and Simon Cowell-esque flattops get the ayatollahs' seal of approval. The entire selection of state-sanctioned styles will be revealed later this month at Tehran's Modesty and Veil Festival, whose organizers -- with help from Iran's Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance -- designed the hair guide. "The proposed styles are inspired by Iranians' complexion, culture, religion and Islamic law," Jaleh Khodayar, the fair's female organizer, told Agence France-Presse. "We are happy that the Islamic republic of Iran's government has backed us in designing these hairstyles."

I love how the author of this story specifies that the organizer is female as if that means anything. No one is impressed by the progressiveness of Iran having a female organizer for an event that is in part meant to forbid specific hairstyles for an entire gender.

Although Iranian authorities have long attempted to enforce a strict female dress code -- women who wear their headscarves too far back or flash some ankle risk being arrested -- this is the first time that authorities have clearly set out what is and isn't follicly allowed for men. Previously, that judgment was left up to police, who would arrest boys with hairstyles inspired by European soccer players or American pop stars, and subject them to a swift short back and sides. Barbers who offered decadent Western cuts and male eyebrow plucking also risked being raided and shut down.

First of all, eyebrow plucking for either gender is painful enough - the punishment is already built into the practice. Second, isn't it kind of a testimate to the frailty of a belief if it requires controlling the practice of metrosexuality in order to maintain it?

But well-groomed men aren't the only group facing increased scrutiny this summer. The growing number of wealthy Iranians who keep dogs -- viewed as "unclean" by the mullahs -- could also face a crackdown. Last month, a senior Shiite cleric placed a fatwa on the pets and called for such displays of hound-human companionship to be outlawed. "Friendship with dogs is a blind imitation of the West," said Grand Ayatollah Naser Makerem Shirazi, according to Reuters. "There are lots of people in the West who love their dogs more than their wives and children."

Well that is about the stupidest shit I've ever heard. The insinuation that allowing people to have certain pets will somehow negatively affect a person's relationship with their human family is steaming grade-a BS. But I can see how the Iranian Ayatollahs might find the human-puppy bond intimidating. Once people experience unconditional love, the 'love' of jealous, petty Allah might not seem so enticing...

Everyone Needs A Break Sometime

2010-07-06T00:31:00.000-07:00

You know what? There is a lot of jackassery going on out there right now, which means as I read my long list of atheist and secular bogs, I am inundated with a kind of chronic negativity. I've decided that today I'll have none of it.

This post is for anyone else who could use a break.

Here's some random happy stuff:

Vandalism Is Wrong, But You Were Asking For It

2010-07-02T16:37:00.000-07:00

There's a silly little group out there called the Institute for Creation Research (I know) who is saying very silly things about the string of vandalisms that has seemed to follow the atheist bus and billboard campaigns across the country -

While vandalism should not be condoned, these recent events shed light on what some Americans will do when they feel that their freedom of speech is threatened. An atheist spokesman in North Carolina said their message is needed to “let people know we exist and that there’s a community here.”

Yet he failed to mention the concerted effort of atheist groups to stop religious Americans from freely exercising their religion. Not content with having the freedom themselves to worship or not as they see fit, militant atheists increasingly seek to shackle the beliefs of their fellow citizens through their own distorted interpretation of “separation of church and state.”

It is perhaps not surprising that some of those fellow citizens object.

When I read this, my immediate thought was - what an idiot - but Zach Voch over at the Friendly Atheist (where I learned about this story in the first place - thanks Hemant!) summed up my response to this quote quite well with an apt revision -

While vandalism should not be condoned, these recent events shed light on what some Americans will do when they falsely feel, thanks to propagandists like me, that their freedom of speech is threatened. An atheist spokesman in North Carolina said their message is needed to “let people know we exist and that there’s a community here.”
Yet he failed to mention the concerted effort of atheist groups to stop religious Americans from institutionalizing and forcing their religion on others. Not content with having the freedom themselves to worship or not as they see fit, secularists increasingly seek to preserve the equality and religious liberty of their fellow citizens through their historical and ethical reading of “separation of church and state.”
It is perhaps not surprising that theocrats and propagandists like myself object.

Christians and other religious groups, let me be as clear as humanly possible with this - taking away your unfounded privilege is not in any way taking away your rights. You can't act like you're being persecuted when you're the ones going around trying to stop other people from having a public voice.

Also, your vandalism sucks. Unimaginative and humorless - way to perpetuate your own stereotypes.

Christopher Hitchens Has Throat Cancer

2010-07-01T02:47:00.000-07:00

Well I feel like a bit of an asshole for complaining about him cancelling his talk here in Seattle now that I know this, but Christopher Hitchens announced yesterday that he has throat cancer. I hope he makes a full recovery.

WASHINGTON (AFP) – British-born author Christopher Hitchens, known for his writings on world politics and religion, announced Wednesday he has throat cancer and will cut short his latest book tour to undergo treatment.

The television pundit and Vanity Fair contributing editor, who has tried to quit smoking in recent years, said he was suspending a tour to promote his new memoir "Hitch-22."

"I have been advised by my physician that I must undergo a course of chemotherapy on my esophagus," he said in a statement. "This advice seems persuasive to me. I regret having had to cancel so many engagements at such short notice."

The self-described atheist announced in 2008 that he had quit smoking, although he has reportedly broken his vow on numerous occasions.

Hitchens, who former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher labeled a "naughty boy" after he said she was "sexy," approached US Special Forces in 2008 in order to be subjected to waterboarding, the controversial interrogation technique the CIA has used against terror suspects.

The one-time ardent supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq emerged from the experience by declaring the technique as torture and stating his opposition to the use of waterboarding by the United States.

Sharron Angle - God Planned Your Rape

2010-06-29T16:55:00.000-07:00

This woman is a horrible human being.

It's a good thing she's not in a position of influen - dammit! This is not even funny anymore.

VJack posted about her on his blog recently, which is why I decided to listen to this audio in the first place. She's running for political office in Nevada and she seems to have at least some chance of winning, which is about 'some' too much of a chance if you ask me.

Ask An Atheist Episode 4 - Why Do Atheists Have A Show?

2010-06-29T15:03:00.000-07:00

I have been keeping myself quite busy with reorganizing my craft stuff (there's a lot) so I haven't been writing much lately. I'll be back in the saddle soon. Until then, here is the latest episode of Ask an Atheist. I was so scared the sound was going to be totally messed up since I was the sound person on this episode, but it seems to have worked out. Yay! Enjoy -

Ask An Atheist Episode 3

2010-06-21T15:13:00.000-07:00

Jesus Loves Stuff

2010-06-18T16:44:00.001-07:00

Jesus is supposed to be love. So, it stands to reason, Jesus loves stuff. Which is exactly what this website strives to illustrate. Nothing more, nothing less. And I like that.

A few of my favorites:

And of course -

Louis CK Calls The Pope A Pedophile

2010-06-17T13:17:00.000-07:00

I love me some Louis CK, and his comments about the pope are hilarious and pretty spot on. I love how he slips the comments in at the end of the interview, just got get a bit more exposure on the show.

Link to the clip.

Here's another hilarious video with Louis CK learning more about the Catholic church. Not safe for work.

Cue Bill Donohue's indignant outraged in 3...2...1...

Teacher Fired For Getting Busy

2010-06-16T12:23:00.000-07:00

This story is pretty insane, and it sounds like the employer acted out of greed and annoyance with the fact that this woman was requesting maternity leave, but his use of archaic religious ethics as a means to not only justify firing her but humiliate her as well should be just as, if not more, insulting to religious people as it is to the rest of us.

The couple sat close together with her right hand clasped in his left hand and her left arm cradling the 8-month-old daughter whose conception cost the woman her job.

The couple’s sin, according to her former employer, Southland Christian School in St. Cloud, Fla., is fornication — having sex before they got married.

Jarretta Hamilton and her husband of 16 months, Samuel Treftz, told TODAY’s Ann Curry Monday that the termination violated federal anti-discrimination laws. In addition, they allege in a pending lawsuit, the school’s principal, Jon Ennis, invaded Hamilton’s privacy by telling other teachers and the parents of her students the exact reason she was fired.

OK, so it's a religious school, she had sex before marriage, she got fired for it. Hey, they probably wanted to protect the kids from this Jezebel's influence, right? She sounds like she's probably young, someone who might make a questionable roll model for the kids an- oh. Wait. She's not a kid herself at all, but a freaking widowed mother of five.

Hamilton said her problems are all the result of her being honest. A widow with five children from her first marriage, she had gotten work as a teacher at Southland Christian School in January 2008. Meanwhile, she also met Treftz, and they planned a Feb. 20, 2009, wedding.

In April 2009, Hamilton and Treftz went together to Ennis and told him she would be taking maternity leave in the fall. She says Ennis first complained that it was difficult for the school to cover women on maternity leave.

“I was only requesting a standard six weeks maternity leave, and as the conversation progressed, he said, ‘I’m just trying to do the math here. When did you get married?’ ” Hamilton told Curry.

“I said Feb. 20,” she continued. “He said, ‘Well, did you conceive prior to marriage?’ I answered and I told him, ‘Yes.’ ”

What the hell? She goes on to explain that the only reason she even answered his question was because she was so shocked, which is a response I can personally attest to. The jackass who fired her is, of course, standing his ground on the subject - presumably because the pompous ass thinks he has a god on his side. She's suing and I honestly can't see how she might possibly lose. However, given the increase of theocratic BS I've been hearing about lately from different parts of the country, I'm honestly a bit concerned that she won't win. And that, my friends, is effing crazy.

Ask An Atheist Episode 2 Video

2010-06-15T13:41:00.000-07:00

Here is an embedded copy of Ask An Atheist episode 2 for your viewing pleasure. :D

We had some technical difficulties and lost the first 4 minutes of the program, but really all that did was slice off introductions.

Nature -1, Grotesque Displays of Worship - 0

2010-06-15T12:59:00.000-07:00

Oh man, this is good.

Evidently, nature has a wicked awesome sense of humor.

MONROE, OH (FOX19) - An iconic and massive statue of Jesus in Monroe, OH was destroyed after being struck by lightning Monday night.

The six-story statue was a well-known landmark on Interstate 75 since 2004, and was called "King of Kings" by members of Solid Rock Church, where it stood.

The lightning strike set the statue ablaze just after 11 p.m., Monroe police dispatchers said.

The 62-foot tall and 40-foot wide statue weighing 16,000 pounds quickly became engulfed in flames after the lightning strike. Fire crews were on the scene for several hours to put out the fire, but no one was injured.

The statue, also nicknamed "Touchdown Jesus" because of the way its arms were outstretched, is made out of wood and Styrofoam. The statue also had a steel frame anchored in concrete and fiberglass. The steel frame was all that remained after the fire. According to 911 calls, the lightning struck the right hand of the statue.

The fire spread to the attic of an adjacent amphitheater, but no other buildings at the church were affected. Fire chief Mark Neu says the fire caused $700,000 in damage to the statue and amphitheater. Neu says he believes the church has insurance.

The statue was scheduled to undergo a new paint job this summer after suffering some wear and tear during the harsh winter.

The pastor of Solid Rock Church says the church does plan to rebuild the statue.

Well of course the pastor is going to rebuild, that statue probably brings in quite a few worshipers who like their church like they like their trucks - over-sized and obnoxious.

My suggestion to the church is to make the next statue a progression piece - have Jesus doing a sweet end zone dance.

Thanks for the heads up, Curio. =D

Ask An Atheist Episode 2

2010-06-15T01:04:00.000-07:00

Here is the second episode of Ask An Atheist. I did the camera work on this show along with another guy, but that pretty much meant I stood around and waited in case something needed to be adjusted. :D

Blogger is having a hard time with the embedded video, so here is a link for now:

Ask An Atheist

Here are a few excerpts:

Again, I feel so lucky to be a part of this project. I'm just a volunteer, though, the real credit goes to the Ask An Atheist producers. Please show these guys some support by commenting on the videos and/or friending them on facebook.

Hope you like it!

America - Turning Into A Theocracy?

2010-06-14T16:17:00.000-07:00

Come on, Iowa conservatives, WTF?

DES MOINES, Iowa —
An influential group of religious conservatives said Monday it would sit out the fall gubernatorial election as promised after candidates it favored lost in last week's Republican primary.

The Iowa Family Policy Center's decision was a blow to Republican Terry Branstad, who had banked on support from religious conservatives in his race against Democratic Gov. Chet Culver. The group said neither major party candidate met its standards.

Danny Carroll, chairman of the Iowa Family Policy Center, said in a statement that Republican officials were pushing conservatives to support Branstad. His group had said earlier it would not support the former governor if he won the primary.

"After nearly a week of calls for blind partisan unity from Republican loyalists, the Iowa Family PAC today reaffirmed their intention to withhold support from either major party candidate for governor in 2010 unless one or both of them illustrates a fundamental transformation," Carroll said in the statement.

Despite pressure from Republicans, Carroll said, "Our commitment to Biblical principles and the constitutional rule of law is not the result of any political affiliation, nor is it something that changes depending on the names on the ballot."

Religious conservatives are important to most Republicans seeking statewide office because they make up such a large percentage of Iowa's GOP voters.

Polling conducted during the last round of presidential caucuses in 2008 showed that six out of 10 who attended Republican caucuses described themselves as evangelical Christians.

Although the Iowa Family Policy Center is withholding its support, Steve Scheffler, who heads the influential Iowa Christian Alliance, has backed Branstad.

My question is, why the hell is this group so influential in the first place? Religion seems to be creeping into American politics more and more, and with each increased amount of influence, this country is being led further and further away from what it was created to be - a place where anyone can believe anything - or nothing - and still be treated as an equal citizen with equal rights. The more we allow theocracy to seep into our political culture, the more we are at risk of destroying the very foundation of this country and what makes it so great.

I think we're past the point of incredulously wondering is these people are seriously trying to make the USA a theocracy, they obviously are and their political influence is enough to make an actual difference in some areas of the country. Now we should be focused on making sure they fail in their efforts to do so.

Your Relatives Aren't Watching Over You - Satan Is

2010-06-13T02:59:00.000-07:00

Oh those wacky Seventh Day Adventists.

We have a lot of those particular believers in this area, or at least they're the most active with their door to door proselytizing. Today a couple of upstanding youths came to the door and B-rad answered and was surprisingly polite. They kind of took him by surprise I think and they didn't stay to chat. I always delight in taking a look at the literature they without fail leave behind and once again, I am simply floored by the insanity that is being passed off as logical explanations of common phenomena.

The first hand out was pretty neutral - come to this nine day religious camp, Christian music, vegan cookie classes, blah blah blah. The smaller pamphlet that came with the hand out, however, was amazing.

The pamphlet is titled "Dead Men Don't Talk" which naturally excited me since I expected it to be largely concerning pirates. I was disappointed, however, to read that it was just about how if you think you hear your dead loved ones talking to you, it isn't really them.

Oh. OK, well, that's not as rad as pirates, but I agree - I don't think dead people can chat it up with the living. I mean, it's impossible to prove for sure an- what? Say again? So, it's not your dead relatives talking to you from beyond the grave - it's "deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons." (1 Timothy 4:1)

Silly me, and I thought we were taking the fucking logical position for a minute.

That shit is crazy. Isn't that seriously crazy? That people think that when you feel lost or afraid or tired or lonely or whatever and you hear a loved one who passed on talking to you in your head, maybe making you feel a little better, that you ought to assume it's Satan trying to invade your brain with his deceptive fallen angel army of evil.

Well of course. I mean really, why not? Once you've dedicated yourself to believing that there is for sure some god that not only created us but wants us to worship it, you might as well believe that the imagined consolation of your dead loved ones is actually Satan trying to deceive you.

And the pamphlet continues, yadda yadda yadda, give us money - the end.

Typical.

Once Again, Gay Jesus Stirs Up Trouble

2010-06-09T03:08:00.000-07:00

Personally, I like the idea that Jesus was gay. I don't know why, but make no mistake - this is not supposed to be insulting or baiting toward Christians. As a non-Christian, I think of Jesus in the same grand scope as I think of Paul Bunyan or Captain America. I might not think of Jesus as being real, but I do think of him as a kind of superhero and his compassion is a superhuman trait that he has, in the same way Spidey has his Spidey sense and Green Lantern can use his ring to make shit.

So, I kind of like the idea of Jesus and the Apostles being a band of gay Texans. I get that, you know? Well, evidently a trustee of a Michigan community college doesn't share my artistic appreciation regarding the son of the Christian god. :/

Trustee opposes funds for theater over gay Jesus

A Michigan community college trustee says he opposes funding "evil things," citing school support for a theater group that once performed play depicting Jesus and his apostles as gay Texans.

Grand Rapids Community College is working to close a $3.5 million budget deficit.

At a meeting Monday, Trustee Richard Ryskamp objected to $60,000 budgeted for three groups, including $19,000 for the Actors' Theatre.

In 2003, the troupe presented Terrence McNally's play "Corpus Christi."

Ryskamp says the school should consider if groups it funds "are meeting a standard of decency."

President Steven Ender says the college doesn't censor the theater. A trustees vote on the budget is expected in June.

Expression shouldn't have to be decent. Art shouldn't be constrained by one group of people's opinion regarding the tastefulness of the content. If the trustee doesn't like the performance, he or she ought to use their own equally proportioned freedom of speech to speak out against it instead of trying to use their position of authority to force people to curb their own expression.

Also, fucking chill out on the homosexual hatred. We get it, you don't approve. Obviously you're obsessive about this shit, you're throwing a fit about a play that was put on seven years ago. Now stop throwing a fit because fewer and fewer people care what you think. You can't force society to stagnate just because you refuse to evolve.

Gay Angels Disturb Priest

2010-06-08T14:19:00.000-07:00

Yeah, I'm serious.

Priest wants church painting removed because ‘angels look gay’

A Catholic priest at a Dominican Republic resort town wants to destroy artwork in his parish because the painting shows angels with “a homosexual expression”. This confuses the faithful, he argues.The painting named "Allegory of the Virgin of Carmen," was concluded 12 years ago by Dominican artist Roberto Flores. The artwork adorns the interior of the church of “Our Lady of Carmen” in the mountain community of Jarabacoa, an agricultural and tourist center located in the Dominican Republic.
The priest Johnny Duran sparked the controversy surrounding the painting, after promoting the adoption by the Jarabacoa City Council of a resolution that revokes an earlier statement by the same council that designated the mural as municipal heritage.
Explaining his reason to revoke the previous decision and destroy the mural, the priest argues that the church congregation feels uncomfortable by the painting and that the mural does not inspire religious sentiments because the angels there depicted have a “diabolical, homosexual look” in their faces. Further, he contends that it is not clear whether the angels are male or female.

Obviously the picture I posted is not the painting from the church, unfortunately I couldn't find a picture of that painting. So I did a google image search for the term 'gay angel' and found quite a few that looked similar to the one above. To me, that's not a gay angel, that's a stereotypical hunky male angel. I guess I understand how someone might 'look gay' if they're inundated with homosexual stereotypes, but somehow I don't think that a classical painting in a church has angels with rainbow accessories who are snappy dressers with great taste in art or whatever homosexual stereotype you want to imagine.

Look, you can't look at someone and know for a fact that they're gay. A painting is even more ambiguous because art is 100% subjective. What someone sees in art says far more about them than it says about the art itself. So, if the priest looks at a painting and sees a gay angel staring at him, I don't think the real issue will be dealt with by removing the art.

In Case You Missed It - Ask An Atheist Debut Show!

2010-06-08T12:59:00.000-07:00

In case you missed it live, here is the very first of hopefully many Ask An Atheist programs.

Let me know what you think and make sure to spread the word! This is a public access show on local TV in Seattle and we need people watching, calling, and talking about it. Thanks for your support!

Ask An Atheist Debut Show!

2010-06-06T00:56:00.000-07:00

An exciting new atheist talk show is starting up in Seattle on Comcast channel 77 (public access) and streaming live from scantv.org!

It will be airing every Sunday, live at 3pm PST.

This is a project that I am personally involved in as a volunteer, and I am grateful to Mike Gillis, Casey Doran, Sam Mulvey and Jeremy Whitman for their hard work which afforded me an opportunity to be involved in something as special and exciting as this. :D

The show tomorrow will be focused on portrayals of atheists in media and fiction with hosts Mike Gillis and Libbie Mistretta. Make sure to set a reminder to watch, and maybe give the show a call if you feel like contributing to the dialog!

Tattoo - Inspired By Junko Mizuno Art and Cephalopods!

2010-06-05T23:51:00.000-07:00

I got a sweet new tattoo started today. The lines are all pretty much done. :D

Thanks a ton to my super buddy Casey for his hard work and my pal MG for giving me a ride!

*edit*

Here are some low quality cell phone pics of the full piece from multiple viewpoints. I am extremely happy with it. :D

THIS Is Why I Supported Everybody Draw Mohammad Day

2010-06-04T00:20:00.000-07:00

I knew this was going to happen. It was inevitable. As soon as I heard that ridiculous 'we should all play nice' response to Everybody Draw Mohammad Day, I knew the Christians, Jews and other religious groups were going to jump onto the offended bandwagon. Why? Because religious people react to sympathy the way sharks react to blood in the water.

Not long ago, Comedy Central censored the depiction of the Islamic prophet Mohammad from their hit show South Park because a few Muslim extremists were so offended that they “warned” the South Park created could be killed. Now several Christian groups are feeling left out.

Comedy Central recently announced their plans to develop a thirty minute comedy cartoon called “JC” which depicts Jesus as an everyman trying to escape from his father’s shadow. This depiction, which seems to have more to do with parenting than religion, has offended several Christian groups. Now, the Family Research Council, the Catholic League, Parents Television Council, The American Alliance of Jews and Christians, and Radio host and Glenn Beck wannabe Michael Medved have come together to form a group called “Citizens Against Religious Bigotry.”

On Thursday June 3rd, the group released a statement calling for advertisers to boycott Comedy Central over depictions of Jesus. Their website specifically mentions the recent controversy over the depiction of Mohammad as a catalyst for this push to censor the depiction of Jesus.

So, all you jackasses who were trying to take some imaginary high road in regard to theists and their ridiculous beliefs being imposed on others, you better not respond to this group as if you don't agree with them. You better stand proud with your 'C.A.R.B.' brotherin in protest of free speech and the ability to ridicule ideas.

Because that's all a belief is - it's an idea that people have decided is something they hold true, for whatever reason. It should be enough for the people who have a belief that they believe it, no one else should be forced to agree or even forced to stay silent about that belief, especially in instances where it is being imposed on others via threats of violence. This group is suggesting forced silence which is a form of prohibited speech and it's not even a response to a real issue, it's a response to a bigotry that doesn't exist. No one is telling these people they can't believe what they want, they're just telling these people that they can't dictate the behavior of others based on a belief they personally decide is relevant.

I don't think it's relevant. I have the right to say so just like you have the right to disagree with me. Trying to force me to respect theistic concepts and rules will only succeed in me losing what little respect I still have for religions and the religious in general.

Daniel Dennett on De-constructing Religion

2010-06-03T15:03:00.000-07:00

This lecture by Daniel Dennett is a must see. The more I hear from this lovely man, the more I find him to be, well, lovely! I know, I know, it's an hour long and the internetz hates anything longer than a minute, but he makes lots of good points about atheism, belief, and the issues that arise from the argument of the universe being designed.

I Ain't Afraid of No Possible Energy Trace

2010-06-02T22:17:00.000-07:00

VJack over at Atheist Revolution wrote a post the other day about atheists who believe in ghosts. A similar argument to one I've at times posed myself came up, namely that the phenomenon people recognize as 'ghosts' might have a natural and explainable cause, we just haven't realized it yet.

From the comments, CroWrath wrote:

Man, I just posed this question on think atheist dot com. (Fireborn over there) I am an Atheist and I do 'believe' in and I have seen a 'ghost'. Long story short, met a chick at a bar, went back to her place, saw a 'ghost' dog, a few mins later she comes in and mentions 'the dogs'. Two dogs were killed on the property about A year (? +/-) previous.

Now yes, I had had a few at the bar. I was not 'drunk'. This was the FIRST incident of many, not just with witnessing the dogs, with that house. With THAT house ONLY. I have not claimed to have seen anything else before or since that house. But there were alot of things that went on in that house that could not be just explained away.

We both moved out of that house and my occurrences stopped. I can not say about her.

In my opinion, 'ghosts' are energy (in the electrical sense), with the new theory of quantum energy, there is obviously things we do not understand about energy

.

My response was this:

Sometimes I wax on about energy and the like, because you're right - we are learning more and more about energy and it seems almost natural that living creatures might have some kind of 'energy signal' or something that we currently attribute to ghosts, simply because we don't understand it fully yet. It's fun to think about, but it's not enough, even with personal anecdotal evidence, for me to actually assert that ghosts are real.

I work at a drive-in theater and everyone in the area, plus the majority of the people who work there, contend that the place is haunted. Personally, I've heard what sounded like kids laughing up in the booth at night and I've also been looking at a wall when a paper towel dispenser seemed to violently fall off and away from the wall I was looking at. My experiences added to all of the other experiences people have claimed to have seem like a mountain of evidence. In fact, it might seem like I'm almost willfully rejecting the possibility of ghosts, given that there are accounts, at times corroborated, that date back decades.

The problem, of course, is that there is already a predetermined expectation of paranormal activity that people have about the place, so when wind blows through the 60 year old, poorly maintained building and it makes a sound, people are already listening for kids giggling. When a paper towel dispenser falls off a wall that it's fallen off of several times because it keeps getting improperly mounted, people already have that idea of it being flung off the wall by some attention seeking apparition.

Anyway, I'm not trying to say my situation is the same as yours, I guess I mostly just wanted to respond because I can see the logic behind your speculations about ghosts and energy, I just don't think it makes sense to positively say that ghosts exist because we are learning more about energy and may possibly discover something about energy in the future that could scientifically explain ghost stories.

I think one of the hardest things you have to deal with if you are not a skeptic is the fact that anecdotal evidence is not logically acceptable for anyone but the person or people who were directly involved in the event/incident/whatever. Removing anecdotal evidence, the concept of ghosts seems to be reduced significantly to the position of a possibility.

Also, it should be kept in mind that regarding ghosts as some kind of energy or other natural phenomena is not an argument in favor of the supernatural. Rather it's a possible natural explanation for something which has been generally accepted to be supernatural. If at some point there is a way to prove the existence of what would be commonly considered ghosts, the very fact that it is able to be verified makes it no longer SUPERnatural.

But, when push comes to shove, all atheism means is a lack of belief in god. A lot of atheists feel that way because, like me, they've never felt that 'presence of the lord' people often talk about when they're explaining their own religious beliefs. I can understand if someone really believes they've seen ghosts that they believe in ghosts. As long as there isn't any ghost-based initiatives passed in my government, I don't really care what people believe in.

Atheist Parenting - Science and Music

2010-06-01T19:09:00.000-07:00

Parenting while being an atheist raises some interesting issues. I avoid religiously focused activities and organizations as a general rule, and that rule is just as important in regard to my son as it is to me. Still, the fact is that I live in a somewhat religious culture and so my son sometimes comes up with the most interesting ideas about belief, god, and what he believes.

The other day he told me, "Mom, my god can fly."

"Wow, Tristan, that's cool. Is this your personal god, or is it everyone's god?"

"Anyone who wants to believe in him can I guess."

"Do you think this god is real, or is he someone you made up, like a pretend friend?"

"He's kind of a pretend friend. I don't know. I don't think he's real, but I thought him up so I could believe in god like James at school."

"Do a lot of kids talk about god at school?"

"Some people do. People at my school. James asked me and I said I don't know and he made a face like I was crazy."

"Do you think James knows for sure that there is a god?"

"No, I think he pretends like I do. I think pretend friends help you not feel lonely sometimes."

So, I feel like he's doing fine in his development in regard to god and religion in general. He's kind of interested, but at the same time he realizes that just because someone else believes something, that doesn't mean it is actually real or that he has to believe it.

One of the things I do make sure my son is exposed to is lots and lots of science. My son responds to anything in song form, so I've taken up watching They Might Be Giant podcasts and videos from their Here Comes Science CD/DVD. I can't recommend these guys enough. They're even scientifically responsible enough to have made a song which corrected an older song they released regarding why the sun shines. Now that's pretty awesome!

The Westboro Baptist Church To Protest In Portland

2010-05-31T18:23:00.001-07:00

If there's one thing almost all people regardless of religiosity agree on, it's that the Westboro Baptist Church is super duper crazy pants.

Evidently the WBC is coming to my area, though they're still too far away for me to go and protest which kind of makes me sad. I would love to emulate the recent reaction to the WBC in other areas by standing across the street with a big sign that says "God Hates Flags" shouting things at passerbys like 'I think you're doing OK!', 'I like your shirt!', and 'You look like a good cuddler!'

Evidently they are coming to the Portland area to picket schools which they feel are too progressive when it comes to treating gay people like, you know, people:

WBC plans to picket outside Grant High School in Portland on June 3, and Heritage High School in Vancouver on June 1. Apparently both schools practice a progressive, humane and tolerant attitude towards the gay and lesbian community, an attitude which the hate group finds abhorrent.

What a delightful bunch.

If you're in the area, I encourage you to go stage a counter protest, and be sure to invite the news as well. Wear a funny hat or a costume, maybe bring some recorders, bucket drums and kazoos and turn it into a party. The worst possible reaction to these people is for anyone to act as though they're being taken seriously. Rather, use it as an excuse to get together with like minded individuals and have some fun at the expense of a group that fully deserves to publicly be made fun of.

Is Atheism Also Based On Belief?

2010-05-30T10:31:00.000-07:00

Blah. You can skip this post. Why? Because if you read this, you're probably an atheist and so you've probably heard this before. Why then am I going to say what has been said to the point that I'm annoying myself by saying anything more about it? Because it keeps coming up! It's the point that will not die, the argument that has no end, the correction which is continually ignored!

To say that atheism is a lack of belief in god is not the same thing as saying that atheism is believing there is no god.

I know, I know. Sorry to waste your time, but evidently this is STILL an issue for some people:

Casey Doran of Seattle scolded me, as others did, for not defining atheism correctly. "I wonder how much you bothered to research what atheism actually is before you wrote this piece. Atheism is the rejection of the claim of a positive belief that god(s) exist, not the assertion that no god(s) exist. It's an important distinction, the default position is a response to a claim, not a claim in and of itself, and I would hope that the press (especially the print press) would work a little harder to get it right."

My exact words were: "Atheists simply believe there is no God, or no evidence to support the existence of God." Isn't "rejection of the claim" similar to a belief (claim) there is no God?

Atheists reject the positive belief there is a God. Well, I accept the positive belief there was a man called Jesus; that is my belief, but that doesn't necessarily hold true in some people's eyes.

Just because a person claims there is no God — that is their belief — doesn't necessarily make it true in some people's eyes.

Look, there is a big difference between saying 'you know, I just don't think, given what we know, that it makes sense to say for certain that a god exists.' and saying 'There is no god, no possibility, won't even consider it.' Trying to sell both versions of opinion as one in the same is not correct.

Given this, I think that the two last paragraphs about Jesus and belief amount to a strawman argument. Yes, claiming that there is no god is a statement of belief. But the majority of atheists don't claim to know for certain that there isn't a god, they state that there is insufficient evidence to believe that there is one.

Ahh, but what about those atheists who would self identify as a 7 on Dawkins scale? Though not representative of all atheists, the authors definition of atheism would apply to them. I'm not one, but I can understand their position of sure. Let's look at both sides of belief regarding god:

Some atheists feel comfortable stating that there is no god. Those atheists are stating a well supported belief based on what we know at this time to be true about the universe, the earth, etc., but a belief just the same. Theists claim that there is a god. Those theists are stating a poorly supported belief based largely on feelings, anecdotal evidence, or old books that are largely unverifiable.

I think it's incorrect for the author to try to insinuate that all beliefs are created equal when they obviously aren't.

Regardless, the initial definition of atheism that the author suggests - Atheists believe that there is no god- is incorrect. If they honestly don't understand the difference between saying something doesn't exist and saying that there is insufficient proof of something existing, that's a personal problem.

Republicans Launch Site - Internet LOLs

2010-05-29T17:17:00.000-07:00

I don't do a lot of political or non-atheist posts, but sometimes I just have to step out of the box because sometimes, the universe just makes me happy. And I want to share.

While I was consumed in something random, my fiancé decided to watch what ended up being a commercial for this truly amazing new Republican-launched and endorsed website called America Speaking Out.

Zomg, this website is amazing.

The funniest thing about the site, of course, is that the Republicans who launched it seemed to think that they were somehow crafting some new, more dignified chunk of the internet out of some barren unclaimed digital land. They seemed to really believe that because they were the ones to launch this open to anyone who registers site, that it would be mainly used by Republicans and thus, reflect Republican ideals. They seemed to think that the rest of the internet was going to - for not reason at all - respect the fact that they were looking for earnest contributions and serious behavior.

Evidently in this case, the internet is serious business.

But of course it's not! I can't believe anyone is even trying to claim that at this point. What are you, new?

The commercial my fiancé was watching seemed to convey the message of - 'Hey, we found something really cool called 'The Internet'. We made a page! Come leave a comment! Republicans are awesome!'

Please tell me how that is essentially any different than, oh, every teenage goth and and self proclaimed 'poet' who has ever started a blog or website ever? Change the word 'Republicans' to the name of a school mascot and change the 'leave a comment' to 'sign my dreambook' and you have any given Geocities site ever made. Do you remember Geocities? Yeah, that was like 1995.

Pretty innovative, guys.

If the point of this failure of an experiment was to show, without a doubt, that the current political leaders within the Republican party are pathetically out of touch with reality - bravo! The guy on the commercial (Rep. Mike Spence) If I were a Republican, I would be embarrassed by this most recent failure to stay politically relevant. Of course, if I were a Republican, I would probably be used to the feeling by now.

Here are some of my favorite posts. I seriously encourage everyone to go take a peek. It's at least as awesome as LOLcats.

Aramaic as the Official Language of the US. We do this to respect two facts: this is a Christian Nation and Jesus spoke Aramaic, therefore, that should be our language as well. Anyone who refuses to speak the language of our Lord should be deported back to where they came from. This includes the Native Americans.

Gays are horrible, horrible people, but we can't pick and choose parts of Leviticus, so let's deny equal rights to all people who fall into the following group: Men who shave, anyone who touches a menstruating woman, people who eat pork, people who eat shellfish, people who work on Sundays. They're all horrible, horrible people.

Attach an electric dog collar to Glen Beck's neck, and deliver a powerful shock every time he tries to associate health care to Fascist Germany. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SYSTEMATIC EXTERMINATION OF MILLIONS OF JEWS AND PROVIDING PEOPLE WITH AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE.

And I actually suport this last one:

We should pass a law that makes politicians replace their flag pins with the logo of their corporate sponsors.. It would make it much easier to determine who they are really representing

Terrorists, Christians, Privilege and Rights.

2010-05-28T17:25:00.001-07:00

I am a self identifying liberal, so I was super delighted when my fiancé sent me a picture he took the other day:

Oh please, buddy, call yourself a wahhhbulance and shut up. I wish I could talk to this person and just ask him/her what rights they seriously feel terrorists have that Christians don't.

I have a sneaking suspicion, though keep in mind this is all conjecture on my part, that the 'rights' this person is referring to in regard to terrorists is something we would all identify as the rights outlined in the constitution while the 'rights' this person is referring to in regard to Christians is something everyone who isn't Christian would identify as 'privilege'.

The problem with privilege is that the ones who have it aren't going to be the ones who see it. Not until those privileges start getting taken away. Some Christians, like sticker person here, have a hard time dealing with the fact that while they are taught by their religious leaders that they are persecuted, there is a mountain of evidence that exists as proof to the contrary. Sticker person here seems like the kind of Christian that will earnestly argue that because their parents were allowed to say, pray in school, that they should be allowed to do the same and in fact, not letting them do it is somehow violating their 'Christian rights.'

But there are no Christian rights. In fact, the rights we have as Americans were pretty carefully spelled out so that they would apply to everyone equally. The very notion of Christian rights is entirely un -American.

I know, somewhere in Oklahoma a fundigelical's head just exploded.

Look, in the unlikely event that a known terrorist wanted to, for example, pray in school, guess what? He or she would be told the same thing as any other person - sorry, that's illegal according to the establishment clause of the United States constitution.

If a Christian were to commit an act of terrorism (and there are plenty of examples of Christian terrorists, by the way), they would be treated the same as any other terrorist - they would be arrested and put on trial.

I know, it's just a damn sticker and it's meant to be glib and snarky and if that's all it's meant to do, then ok. Nonsensical statements can be hilarious. But it seems like there's some point trying to be made as well and if that's the case, then somebody fill the bathtub cuz we got a fail whale coming in for a landing.

Hollywood 253 - Jesus 4 Less

2010-05-27T13:20:00.000-07:00

I try to get involved in local atheist activities that I find interesting, especially undertakings which I feel are exceptionally broad in scope or are particularly challenging. Recently I was told about a movie being produced in my area, presumably by atheists though I imagine atheist friendly believers might be involved as well, and possibly just some people with senses of humor who are more interested in the project for its entertainment value than anything else. The premise of the film is as follows:

Aaron and Jeremy, two wayward twenty something atheists work at Jesus-4-Less, a downtown Tacoma Christian bookstore. They find themselves competing with Christ-Mart, their rival in the bible business, for acolytes and sales; and with each other for the affections of an irresistible and mysterious new co-worker, Michelle.

Amid protests, breasts, and homosexuality with the help of baby Jesus and a midget, the guys find themselves navigating the issues of fundamentalism, love, lust, greed, and marijuana in this dark comedy. Jesus 4 Less is sure to leave you wondering, offended, and most importantly laughing.

Right now the group seems to be in the midst of fundraising, which is always a tricky task to take on and requires a lot of work that often seems thankless. I'm happy to do my part in trying to promote them and their undertaking, and I hope to be able to continue to chip in any support I can along the way.

If you're in the area, I encourage you to come down this Wednesday, June 2nd to the Comedy Underground in Seattle and support this group. It's only 5 bucks, and you might win a spot in the movie (if that's your thing) or other prizes they'll be giving away as people come. If you're not in my area, I'd like to encourage you to look for projects in your area that you have interest in supporting and get involved. It's fun and it helps shape the face of the community to be more representative of the people that make it up.

Correlation, Causation, Tap Water, and the Power of Folklore

2010-05-27T01:16:00.000-07:00

If I am brushing my teeth and my stomach begins to ache, would it be logical for me to assume that brushing one's teeth causes stomach aches? Of course not. Logically, it's important to remember that correlation does not imply causation.

Sometimes it's easy to spot when someone is confusing these two concepts, but it seems like when it comes to religion, suddenly correlation proves causation and if you don't believe it then you're just too closed-minded to see it.

This story - let's just cut to the chase and say that I'm too closed-minded to see it. :)

Hundreds of people have flocked to a remote Territory community in search of healing after news a woman had been cured by "holy" water from a miracle tap.

Hermannsburg precinct manager Heidi Williams said people had come from up to 500km away to access the tap, often loading up 44 gallon drums with water.

The water has even been taken to people who are being treated in Adelaide hospitals.

"Everyone's talking about the holy water," Ms Williams said. "The local people have just been coming here in droves, filling up bottles, all from one lady's claim of it healing her."

Healed her how you ask? They never really say, they just say she claimed to be healed after she drank from the tap on the side of a Lutheran church. The reason people believe her, or rather care very little about her personal story but are still making a big fuss about the event, all started with a Virgin Mary sighting in the area almost 29 years ago. That evidently primed the locals for the big magic spring to-do of '95, and almost a predictably 15 years later we have lady drinking off the tap and getting better from some illness no one cares to specify.

Locals believe the tap could create the same hysteria as a "holy spring" that emerged in the Catholic community of Santa Teresa about 15 years ago.

The spring appeared after an art teacher, a white woman of very strong faith, took Aboriginal women on a pilgrimage to the small village of Medjugorje, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where the Virgin Mary supposedly appeared in 1981.

The Aboriginal women returned to Santa Teresa filled with powerful belief.

Soon after, the son of one Aboriginal pilgrim was walking outside his Territory town when he saw a spring gushing from a hillside. The women declared the spring holy and a crosswas erected.

Yep. She drank some water, felt better, therefore the water made her feel better and it's a miracle.

Miracles sure seem like a bit of a dollar store item these days.

Proposed Christian Prison: F*** You, Constitution!

2010-05-26T15:14:00.000-07:00

So, there is a company that wants to create a privatized, voluntary prison run by and solely meant for Christians in Oklahoma.

A private firm proposing a prison in Wakita with all born-again Christian staff and programming does not yet have the commitments for prisoners it needs to begin construction.

Bill Robinson, the founder of Corrections Concepts Inc., a Dallas nonprofit prison ministry that is leading the proposal, said the bonding company that is financing the project will not release funds to begin construction until states or other jurisdictions have agreed to send 285 prisoners to the 624-bed facility.

"We're still working to get the adult facility done," Robinson said.

He said California has expressed an interest in sending adult inmates to Wakita, and he is in discussion with Kansas about it. Talks with Oklahoma are "in limbo."

The project has the support of city leaders in Wakita, a town near the Kansas border, and some civic leaders in the area.

"We'd be very supportive of it," said John Criner, the mayor of Enid, the largest nearby city. "We can't put any money into it, but I'd be more than happy to get him a resolution supporting the project."

Criner said Enid, which is 30 miles south of Wakita, was close enough to reap indirect economic benefit from the proposed prison.

Mayor Arden Chaffee of nearby Alva said the prison would have a positive effect on the area economy.

"It sounds like a great idea. I just don't know if they can finance something like that, which is a Christian concept, with public money," he said.

The concept of an all-Christian private prison has drawn the attention of a Washington, D.C., civil liberties group.

The group, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, sent a letter to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections asking it not to send prisoners to the proposed prison.

Alex Luchenitser, the group's senior litigation counsel, said its chief concern is that public funds would be used for religious worship and instruction. "We think this would be clearly unconstitutional," he said.

The organization also is concerned about possible civil-rights violations of prisoners, and public subsidy of an organization that hires only Christians, he said.

Robinson countered that the prison would be constitutional because inmates would go there voluntarily. He said he has legal opinions that say the prison, as a religious organization, can legally hire only people of like faith.

It seems to me that there are some obvious issues with the constitutionality of this idea, paramount being that a prison sentence is a government imposed sanction put on a person's freedoms after being found guilty of a crime. Isn't a Christian prison a violation of church and state, given that the only reason for the prison's existence is to facilitate the state imposed sanction? It seems to me that if the government is the one saying a person has to go to prison, the prison itself must adhere to the constitution, privatized or not.

Evidently, I'm not alone in feeling like this proposal is kind of, well, illegal. Especially is this proposed prison plans to take advantage of the government subsidies which most (if not all) private prisons depend on in order to shore up the financing for both building and maintaining all off the facets of a prison. If fact it would seem that, because any given state would have to give the go ahead for these religious institutions to be built in the first place, the establishment clause would be violated from the get go.

Americans United asserts it would be unconstitutional for government to support a prison that indoctrinates inmates in one faith and limits hiring based on religion.

“Taxpayers should never be forced to support religious indoctrination,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “This scheme is fraught with constitutional problems, and no state should subsidize it.”

In letters to corrections officials, AU attorneys pointed out that a federal appeals court in 2007 struck down public funding of an evangelical Christian program at an Iowa prison. The Christian prison in Oklahoma, they say, would likely meet the same fate.

“If the Department were to provide funding to Corrections Concepts’ prison, indoctrination would be the inevitable result…,” Americans United asserted. “And, just as inevitably, the funding of such indoctrination would violate the Constitution.”

One area of American society I think could use a good dose of reform is the penal system, but I also think it's kind of arrogant for this company and its supporters to assume that taking what seems to be the status quo prison environment and giving it a Christian staff and Christian veneer is somehow an innovative improvement on what we have now.

That, of course, is me giving this corporation the benefit of the doubt.

Considering the fact that privatized prisons are big money makers AND factoring in that right now in America, religion seems to be an easy way for anyone to gain support for even the most convoluted ideas (*ahemTexasboardofeducationahem*), I personally don't see it as likely that this company is working on behalf of good natured Christians looking to make things better. I think this is a potentially lucrative business deal created with a religious slant in the hopes that the well intentioned and the zealous will give it unquestioning support.

Maintaining Perspective As A Vocal Atheist

2010-05-25T22:48:00.000-07:00

I ran across what I felt was a really interesting article about something I have never really thought about - clergy who don't believe.

The article referenced a report written by Daniel Dennett and Linda LaScola of Tufts University, and thankfully provided a link. I thought this study was really interesting and I encourage every atheist out there who has little personal experience with religion to read it, to get a better idea of the reality of religiosity for a lot of people.

Here's an excerpt:

How on earth did we recruit them? By spreading the word discreetly. Eighteen people were contacted to participate between September 2008 and April 2009. Initial recruiting attempts were made via personal contacts (e.g., clergy and seminary acquaintances, non-believing clergy who had retired or left the profession). When approached, potential respondents were told that the intent was to “learn more about the issues that clergy face when their beliefs are not in synch with church teachings.” Dennett mentioned the study at conferences he attended. Ultimately, the five participants came from two sources: two from a list of clergy who had originally contacted the Center for Progressive Christianity (TCPC) for general information, and three from people who had personally contacted Dan Barker, co-director of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Barker is a former minister and author of two books about losing his religious beliefs. Jim Adams, a retired Episcopal priest, author and the founder of TCPC, provided a list of 28 names. Of those, nine were contacted and two of the nine participated in the study. Four people contacted Dan Barker directly. Of those, two agreed to participate. One contact who was a former clergyman, and therefore not eligible to participate, referred a colleague who then agreed to participate. Three women who expressed interest were not asked to participate: one because she was no longer in a pastoral role and two because their denominations were already represented in the study. Four men declined to participate: two did not follow up after showing initial interest; two others cited concerns about the term “non-believing.” Though neither of them believed in a supernatural god, both strongly self-identified as believers.

But what do they mean by this? Are they perhaps deceiving themselves? There is no way of answering, and this is no accident. The ambiguity about who is a believer and who a nonbeliever follows inexorably from the pluralism that has been assiduously fostered by many religious leaders for a century and more: God is many different things to different people, and since we can’t know if one of these conceptions is the right one, we should honor them all. This counsel of tolerance creates a gentle fog that shrouds the question of belief in God in so much indeterminacy that if asked whether they believed in God, many people could sincerely say that they don’t know what they are being asked.

This is not just agnosticism, the belief that one does not (or cannot) know whether God exists, but something prior: the belief that one cannot even know which question—if any--is being asked. Many people are utterly comfortable with this curious ignorance; it just doesn’t matter to them what the formulas mean that their churches encourage them to recite. Some churches are equally tolerant of the indeterminacy: as long as you “have faith” or are “one with Jesus” (whatever you think that means) your metaphysical convictions are your own business. But pastors can’t afford that luxury. Their role in life often requires them to articulate, from the pulpit and elsewhere, assertions about these very issues.

I find all five of the stories presented fascinating, and their responses to candid questions about hypocrisy and how they feel amongst their congregations knowing that they don't actually believe in the god they're speaking on behalf of seem honest and understandable, at least to me.

I think it's easy to take a hard nosed approach to theism in all forms when you're an atheist, and I don't think that's necessarily bad, I just feel like I personally at least need to take a step back once in a while and remember that these people I sometimes feel are my opposite, theists, are the same as me except we disagree on an idea. That's all. The degree to which we disagree and the areas that disagreement bleeds into are complicated and are not something that should be regarded as necessarily petty or unimportant by any means, but I think a regular adjustment of perspective is healthy for anyone who feels compelled to take a definite position in such a polarized and often emotional topic of debate.

Christian Congratulates A Fellow Believer For Ignoring Christ

2010-05-24T11:41:00.000-07:00

I try to read up on what non atheists are saying about atheists, and a lot of the time I find some really cool blogs and comments and the like, written by people who are at least trying to make sense of the atheist point of view. I should spend some time focused on them, but I found this crazy book review and felt like I just had to share it. The reviewer really hits the ground running with the characterization of atheists as some kind of malevolent, possibly military force coming to rape the minds of the Facebook generation!!

Thank their god they have some lady who isn't afraid to tell Jesus to grow a pair and stop turning the other cheek like a pussy.

The new atheists are on the march. They’re in bookstores. They’re on television. They’re everywhere.

Chilling! We sound super scary!

But nowhere is their effect being felt more than on college campuses and by young people. So invasive is the new atheist movement that in many ways their outlook has become the default mainstream culture.

I don't know how I feel about someone who sees a widely accepted point of view as invasive simply because it's becoming recognized by the younger generations. Isn't that pretty standard social progress? I'd say 'social evolution' but I know how scary the 'E' word is for some religious people.

For too long Christians have been a punch line for militant secularists.

The 'militant atheist' meme has been done to death, hasn't it? What constitutes militant behavior Expressing a point of view? Standing up for equal rights and representation?

It’s time somebody punched back. And Mary Eberstadt’s new book “The Loser Letters” is an unexpected roundhouse to the new atheist movement. I read it last week and urge you to pick it up. (You can click on amazon.com)

“Christians are always at a moral disadvantage because we’re told to turn the other cheek,” said Eberstadt. “So there’s been a lot of playing defense. I’m trying to go on offense.”

Yeah! Damn that Jesus wuss for his lame ass pacifist position! Why were we listening to that huggy hippie in the first place? Oh, wait...

She calls her book “apologetics for the Facebook generation.” And they need it.

The term 'apologetics' and the fact that some religious people feel completely comfortable using the term has baffled me for a while. In fact, when I was first looking into religion and ran across this term, I thought it was an insult until I noticed that it was a term religious people proudly used to label their way of explaining away the crazy and often glaringly obvious fallacies and inconsistencies in their religions. Did they 'take it back' or something?

Anyway, the book the guy is reviewing looks like a lame recycling of the same arguments we've been hearing for years, dressed up in (what must pass for clever in the religious circles) satire. I didn't really pay much attention to the rest of the review, I just thought the beginning was so ridiculous, it was worth repeating for the sake of a giggle. I did go to amazon.com and read the pages available with the 'look inside' feature, which was enough for me to both get the joke and find myself utterly unimpressed.

You go, Christian apologists. Though I hardly see how encouraging one another to proudly shuffle off your Christian values is going to help you make a case for Christianity.

Tea Bagger Dares Local Pastors to Endorse Him From the Pulpit

2010-05-23T12:24:00.000-07:00

Some Tea Bagger in South Dakota has decided to double dog dare via a press release pastors across the state to use their position of influence to endorse him for political office, an action which would rightfully jeopardize any participating church's tax exempt status since they would not be playing by the rules of the establishment clause which gives them tax exempt status in the first place.

Shockingly, one pastor of a Baptist (no so shocking) church took him up on the challenge.

One Rapid City pastor has accepted gubernatorial candidate Gordon Howie's challenge to defy federal tax law and endorsed Howie from the pulpit.

However, other local religious leaders have dismissed Howie's Pulpit Challenge initiative as legally and pastorally irresponsible.

On May 15, the Rev. H. Wayne Williams, pastor of Liberty Baptist Tabernacle in Rapid City, officially endorsed state Sen. Gordon Howie in his bid for governor during a church service.

Williams did not return a message last week when called by the Journal, but few here expect that his church will face repercussions from the Internal Revenue Service as a result of his sermon. Federal tax code prohibits all tax-exempt organizations, including charities and churches, from endorsing any candidate for public office.

It also forbids those organizations from making donations to or fundraising for a candidate and from "becoming involved in any other activities that may be beneficial or detrimental to any candidate." Those restrictions on political activity for charitable organizations stem from a 1954 amendment to the tax code that historians attribute to then-Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson's desire to punish certain tax-exempt organizations (not churches) that supported his opponent in the 1954 Texas primary.

Federal courts have upheld those tax-exempt conditions about political activity, most recently in 2000. But the Alliance Defense Fund, which promotes Christian values in the political sphere, encourages pastors such as Williams to openly challenge the IRS and risk their tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(3) organization, in hopes that it might lead to a legal challenge and a Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of the Johnson amendment.

It would seem that the current opinion is that it's OK for these institutions to break the law because 'no one is really going to do anything anyway.' Hopefully these churches will continue to push the envelope, to the point where the Christian privilege is forced into the mainstream and we as a nation are similarly forced to deal with it.

It would be disingenuous to insinuate that this moronic Baptist pastor is indicative of the general opinion of the religious leaders in the area, however. Though that seems to be exactly what Howie himself is trying to do.

Howie said Wednesday that his Pulpit Challenge was "getting great response from pastors across the state.

Not from the Rev. Jeff Otterman, pastor of St. James Lutheran Church in Belle Fourche, however. He called Howie's Pulpit Challenge irresponsible and insulting to his congregation.

"The people at St. James are very well-read, and they don't need their pastor telling them how to vote, or who to vote for," Otterman said. "To back one candidate over another seems far-reaching and could alienate a congregation rather than create opportunity for growth."

At Synagogue of the Hills, vice president Wayne Gilbert said its congregants hold divergent political opinions but all agree not to jeopardize the synagogue's tax-exempt status over political activity.

"I don't think any responsible leader of a tax-exempt religious group would be willing to risk tax-exempt status to endorse a candidate," Gilbert said.

Gilbert said the idea "that I should be instructed by a religious leader as to which candidate has the moral or religious high ground is personally insulting to me. I expect religious leaders to offer me insight and guidance into spiritual and moral matters, not secular and political ones."

Craig disagreed, saying pastors have a responsibility to educate their flock on God's laws, including which elected officials do the best job of following those laws. Pastors who don't are "not doing their jobs."

The Rev. Susan Huffman at First Congregational Church in Rapid City believes strongly in the separation of church and state, as did her religious ancestors, the Pilgrims.

"We recall that history and know the many problems that develop when politics and religion become entwined. We encourage our members to vote, but we won't tell them how to vote. We encourage our members to think, but we don't tell them what to think. We don't believe that one political party has a monopoly on the truth."

Even Howie's own pastor, Bishop Lorenzo Kelly at Faith Temple Church in Rapid City, said he has no plans to endorse his friend from the pulpit. "I have encouraged our people to be participants in the political arena and showed them the scriptures that back it up," Kelly said. "But I have not from the pulpit endorsed him. I wouldn't do that. I wouldn't put my church in jeopardy of anything."

It's nice to see that at least some of the religious leaders in the area don't feel it's their job to tell their congregations what to think outside of religion.

I'm very interested to see what comes of this. Like I said, the more churches that do this, the more obvious the Christian privilege becomes and we can all finally address it out in the open. Or, the churches that participate in political endorsements will lose their tax exempt status and very quickly churches will stop playing around in the political arena.

Scientists Can Design Bacteria, Therefore The Universe Was Designed?

2010-05-22T22:36:00.000-07:00

Hopefully everyone has heard at least a little bit by now about the first "synthetic bacterium", a copy of an existing bacteria which was created with synthetic DNA. Pretty exciting stuff. What I'm finding interesting is the negative response to the experiment, of course being led by religious institutions and ethics committees. PZ Myers was kind enough to compile a quick reference list of the most ridiculous responses here, but I wanted to write specifically about one response which I felt was exceptionally ridiculous.

Given the effort that went into the synthesis of the total M. genitalium genome, it's hard to envision how unintelligent, undirected processes could have generated life from a prebiotic soup. Though not their intention, Venter's team unwittingly provided empirical evidence that life's components, and consequently, life itself must stem from the work of an Intelligent Designer.

Yes, that popping sound was my head exploding. I hate creationist arguments, mainly because they're often so convoluted that they become difficult for me to argue against. Not because they contain even a small measure of validity, but rather it's hard for me to fathom their position enough to rouse a response. So let me break this down to it's simplest form - the bacterium was designed, which is proof that the universe is designed.

Not...really.

One thing being designed is not proof of everything being designed. I don't understand why people even believe this argument, let alone feel confident sharing the position with others, it seems so blatantly illogical. If a building is painted, is that proof that anything with color is also painted? I hesitate to believe that even my own analogy is accurate, that's how baffling this kind of logic is to me.

In a forum I frequent, someone is trying to argue the same position, only their argument isn't the the bacteria is man made, therefore the universe was also designed, their argument seems even more rudimentary and absurd - Anyone can tell just by looking at it that Stonehenge was designed, therefore the universe, being obviously far more impressive, was also designed.

Obviously, if you didn't know that Stonehenge was man made, it might occur to you that it might have been, but you would be making an assumption. There are plenty of occurrence in nature that are just as, if not far more, wondrous that are not man made. The whole argument is based on a huge, simplistic assumption - that one instance or even a million instances of design is proof of everything in the universe being designed.

This argument boils down to a kind of pleading. "Of course the universe is designed! Just LOOK at it!!" I spend a little time being sad every time I'm reminded that people who confidently argue with this kind of thinking exist. I guess that's why we have warning labels on lighters telling us they can cause burns.

Theist Vandals Take Sophomoric Aggression Out On Sign

2010-05-21T15:37:00.000-07:00

From this site - quite the petty, insecure reaction to a good deed.

From The Back Pew:
‘Atheists’ sign under siege
By Michael J. Arvizu

Across from me is Roberta Medford. We’re sitting in front of an open window at her Montrose residence.

“What is it about atheists that people just don’t like?” I ask.

“You would have to ask them that. I don’t know!” Medford says with a good-natured laugh.

I visited Medford on Monday evening to get her take on another vandalization of the Adopt-A-Highway Atheists United sign on the Glendale (2) Freeway. This time, the sign on the southbound side had been defaced. The “A” in “Atheists” had been covered in white paint, making it read “THEISTS UNITED.”

“I find it incredibly intolerant, and . . . maybe they should get a life,” Medford said of the vandal, or vandals, responsible.

I’ve driven past that sign many times. Of all the Adopt-A-Highway signs I pass in Los Angeles, that is the only one I pay attention to. That sign has been egged, tagged, and at one point someone took a saw to it, knocking it to the ground.

But it is always restored. The sign recognizes Atheists United for its work picking up trash along the freeway. It is one of many such signs along L.A.’s freeways that usually represent an organization located within a particular route. For example, Warner Bros. in Burbank has a sign posted along the 134 Freeway.

People don’t seem to mind Warner Bros., but atheists are another matter.

Atheism, broken down, means no theology. Atheists simply believe there is no God, or no evidence to support the existence of God. Furthermore, atheists also advocate strongly for the separation of church and state, as defined in the 1st Amendment.

“I looked at the world and realized [that] I don’t see a god there,” said Medford, who became an atheist at 14. “It’s an idea, a human invention. You have to admit, god is a human invention, it’s not a physical object or presence.”

It’s not a bad invention, she says; she just doesn’t share in the belief.

So why do atheists get such a bad rap?

I posed the question to atheists Sharon and Bill Weisman of Glendale. The couple are well-known in the community and involved in a variety of local projects. I hoped they might be able to shed some light on my question, but that wasn’t the case.

“We’re puzzled. We don’t understand the motive,” Sharon Weisman said. “For some reason, religious people don’t have a problem disrespecting atheists.”

Bill Weisman calls it an irony that someone would destroy something their very tax dollars are paying for.

“It’s motivated by hatred, motivated by anger,” he said. Bill also finds it ironic that such an act might be committed by a person whose religion is based on tolerance, acceptance and love.

Maybe the people involved feel that atheism is offensive to them because it goes against the very notion of their belief system — the existence of God, or some other deity. Atheism says no, there is no god, so the vandals, perhaps, say, “How dare you make such a statement. For that, I’m going to vandalize your sign tonight!”

Why is not believing there is a god any less valid than believing in God?

Following up on Medford’s suggestion, I ask those responsible for vandalizing the sign: Tell me, what is it about atheists that you dislike so much? Come forward; explain yourself. Tell me your side of the story.

Was an atheist unkind to you once? Or are you doing this simply because you think it’s funny?

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!

2010-05-20T11:57:00.000-07:00

Today is Everybody Draw Mohammad Day! I only took a few minutes with MS Paint to make my image of Mohammad, I'm hoping some others out there are a bit more creative with their drawings.

I invite everyone out there who is a fan of free speech and refuses to allow a belief structure they don't adhere to dictate their actions and freedoms even a teeny tiny bit to join me in this symbolic protest of Islamic extremists who would rather kill you than ignore the fact that you, a person who does not willingly participate in their group, draw a picture.

The National Day of Prayer

2010-05-06T17:47:00.001-07:00

Today is the National Day of Prayer. Even though government endorsement of the NDOP was recently ruled unconstitutional, it is still being observed nationwide. If you're a New Yorker, you may have seen this lovely add in the New York Times from the FFRF which explains exactly why the NDOP is unconstitutional:

Religious people who dislike the non religiousness of non religious people seem to delight in the NDOP as a kind of 'suck it, atheists' badge of honor. I had a friend call my fiancée today to antagonistically wish him a Happy Day of Prayer today and I chuckled. I'm not humorless about it and I don't feel oppressed or offended by the whole NDOP thing, to be honest. However, I do think that the NDOP is unconstitutional and if it were abolished, I think it would be better for our nation as a whole, simply because once you start making allowances for any group's beliefs to be preferred over another within a government, you're playing a dangerous game that could potentially get out of hand rather quickly.

I don't FEEL oppressed, but it is a form of oppression for a government to recognize one belief over all others. I don't FEEL offended, but I understand people who do and I'm not about to say that they're being too sensitive or asking too much to be given the same recognition by the government as those who pray. In fact, the only time I do feel negatively in regard to the NDOP is when a religious person tells me I have no reason to be annoyed by it, that I should just shut up about it and am not entitled to an opinion regarding it, or that normal people pray (otherwise it wouldn't be a nationally recognized day, after all) and I'm somehow messed up because I don't.

Barring any of that specific stupidity being tossed my way, my personal reaction to the NDOP is that I hope all you theists in the USA appreciate your privilege. I hope you can at least recognize the fact that your beliefs are being respected a bit more than mine, that our government sees your belief as just a bit more worthy of recognition, and I hope in realizing this is the case, you'll see why the NDOP might mean little to nothing to you, but it means a whole lot more to those people who still pay taxes and are citizens of this nation, but don't pray. I hope you appreciate being regarded as a little more important while holding no distinction from me besides believing in a god who listens to you when you feel inclined to thank it, beg it for something, or whatever your prayers might contain.

Anyway, I do hope everyone who is inclined prayed to their hearts content today. Now tomorrow, why not go out and actually do something productive?

Why My Son Will Never Be A Boy Scout

2010-05-03T19:35:00.000-07:00

One of the hardest aspects of being a parent is the social pressure to conform for the sake of your kid. I don't know anyone who has kids who hasn't at some point struggled with a choice or situation where the majority believes something is either acceptable or unacceptable, good or bad, and the parent disagrees. I feel like it's important to give your kid all of the experiences you possibly can, and though economic and social constrictions make those available experiences different in every case, I think that one of the hardest things for a parent to do is to separate their own opinions regarding activities from their willingness to allow their kids to experience those activities.

There is an activity that I will never be comfortable allowing my son to participate in, and it's something that for a lot of Americans is seen as a hugely valuable experience for boys especially - the Boy Scouts of America.

For a lot of people, the Boy Scouts are considered one of the best activities you could encourage your son to participate in. They will cite all of the great things about the Scouts - their focus on community and being a good Samaritan, their dedication to volunteerism and to being loyal, honest, etc. I find exceptional value in these things as well, the problem I have with the boy scouts ought to be an obvious one. Take a look at their oath -

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

It is a requirement to believe in god in order to be a Scout. Which, if my son decided he believed in god wouldn't be as big of an issue for me as something far more sinister - the fact the the Boy Scouts of America is an actively and vocally homophobic organization.

So, let's revisit the list of all those admirable things that makes the Scouts such a great experience for boys. Their focus on community (except for the gay community, which should be rejected) and being a good Samaritan (though this only extends as far as heterosexuality is concerned, as the scouts also teach discrimination), their dedication to (specifically straight) volunteerism and to being loyal (as long as your loyalty has nothing to do with homosexuals), honest, etc.

The fact is, it doesn't matter how many awesome things the Scouts do as an organization, everything they do is tainted by the fact that they actively endorse homophobia by not allowing homosexuals to be scouts or scout masters. Presumably this rule is in place because the Scouts are a religious organization.

I don't like the idea of making too many moral decisions on behalf of my son, but I refuse to support his participation in an organization that endorses homophobia regardless of what the popular position on the organization might be. There are no amount of camping trips and volunteer experiences that would be worth putting my son in a position where he has to reject an entire group of people in order to participate in these activities.

So, I guess this summer we're going camping.

No Tolerance For Theocracies

2010-04-29T11:48:00.000-07:00

I was raised to regard people different from myself with a pretty healthy dose of tolerance. There are a lot of things that other people do, a lot of beliefs that other people have, a lot of traditions that other people take part in that I think are stupid, pointless, and/or even disturbing to a degree. I don't have to like anything...but tolerance is important. Why? Because I'd like the same treatment.

Golden rule and all that.

Tolerance of another culture is just as important as tolerance of an individual in my opinion. Yeah, I really dislike the music my neighbors play during the day and I also think it's kind of weird that they see no issues with buying food from one another off of homemade hand pulled carts. It's weird to me because it isn't me. I'm not going to go out and start buying food off their cart or jamming out to their tunes, but I have no issues tolerating their culture because they tolerate mine. Tolerance, not necessarily acceptance, is key in any modern society where cultures mix so frequently.

However, I believe there is a point where tolerance of behavior is unacceptable. If a culture, for example, had a tradition where they took their youngest child and beat him or her publicly on a certain day of the year, I don't think I would be wrong to report that person to the police, even though they are engaging in a cultural tradition. Even if the culture that engaged in child beating kept the tradition within their own country, I don't think it would be intolerant to speak out against that kind of behavior. Even if some of the kids who were beaten insisted that they were completely happy with the arrangement, I would still speak out against it and I don't think that I could rationally be considered intolerant.

That's why I don't think it's intolerant to say that the more I hear about the Islamic laws and how they're being enforced in places like Iran, the more I feel like that country is fucking crazy pants.

I bring this up because Iran, the country who brought you 'female immodesty causes extramarital sex which causes earthquakes', has said that women who suntan will now be arrested in order to maintain the Islamic dress code.

Juuust let that sink in a minute.

Yeah, my head kind of exploded too. Now, from the article:

Brig Hossien Sajedinia, Tehran's police chief, said a national crackdown on opposition sympathisers would be extended to women who have been deemed to be violating the spirit of Islamic laws. He said: "The public expects us to act firmly and swiftly if we see any social misbehaviour by women, and men, who defy our Islamic values. In some areas of north Tehran we can see many suntanned women and young girls who look like walking mannequins.

"We are not going to tolerate this situation and will first warn those found in this manner and then arrest and imprison them."

Iran's Islamic leadership has in recent weeks launched a scaremongering campaign to persuade the population that vice is sweeping the streets of the capital. National law stipulates that women wear headscarves and shape shrouding cloaks but many women, particularly in the capital, spend heavily on fashions that barely adhere to the regulations.

I don't think it's intolerant to say that this is wrong. The subjugation of women is wrong, whether it's religiously motivated or not. For those Americans who continue to claim that our country is somehow a Christian nation - take a good look at what a theocracy looks like. Tits cause earthquakes and suntans are illegal. Is this really the example you want America to follow?

European Christian Stock Index Launched - Jesus Annoyed

2010-04-27T12:32:00.000-07:00

Well, this is pretty interesting...

The STOXX Europe Christian Index, which comprises 533 European companies dovetailing Christian values, was launched Monday, echoing surging demand for ethical stocks, the Financial Times reported Monday.

Available in price and net return versions, and calculated in euros and US dollars, the STOXX Europe Christian Index is a new benchmark among all stocks in the STOXX Europe 600 Index set up by STOXX, a global index provider.

"With the launch of the STOXX Europe Christian Index, STOXX acknowledges the growing number of Christian market participants who wish to invest in accordance with their religious beliefs," said Hartmut Graf, chief executive officer of STOXX Ltd, while expressing the motive behind the move.

Evidently, companies are excluded if they profit from porn, weapons, tobacco, birth control or gambling. The companies who are allowed to participate are screened by a committee that includes Vatican reps.

I guess it just seems weird to me that businesses are banding together because of their common belief in Christianity - needles and camels and all that.

In fact, wouldn't the Christian thing to do be to convince those business owners to give their wealth to the poor and disenfranchised? I'd like to know when Christians decided that Jesus may have walked among the lepers in his lifetime, but were he alive today he would certainly afford himself a big house, nice cars, an ipod, etc. etc. etc.

Though I am assuming quite a bit - if I'm wrong and all of the approved companies are run the way Jesus would run them, I'd love to know.

All You Need Is Love...And A Civil Rights Lawyer.

2010-04-19T17:41:00.000-07:00

Well, this shit is effing ridiculous.

Greene v. County of Sonoma et al.

Clay and his partner of 20 years, Harold, lived in California. Clay and Harold made diligent efforts to protect their legal rights, and had their legal paperwork in place—wills, powers of attorney, and medical directives, all naming each other. Harold was 88 years old and in frail medical condition, but still living at home with Clay, 77, who was in good health.

One evening, Harold fell down the front steps of their home and was taken to the hospital. Based on their medical directives alone, Clay should have been consulted in Harold’s care from the first moment. Tragically, county and health care workers instead refused to allow Clay to see Harold in the hospital. The county then ultimately went one step further by isolating the couple from each other, placing the men in separate nursing homes.

Ignoring Clay’s significant role in Harold’s life, the county continued to treat Harold like he had no family and went to court seeking the power to make financial decisions on his behalf. Outrageously, the county represented to the judge that Clay was merely Harold’s “roommate.” The court denied their efforts, but did grant the county limited access to one of Harold’s bank accounts to pay for his care.

What happened next is even more chilling: without authority, without determining the value of Clay and Harold’s possessions accumulated over the course of their 20 years together or making any effort to determine which items belonged to whom, the county took everything Harold and Clay owned and auctioned off all of their belongings. Adding further insult to grave injury, the county removed Clay from his home and confined him to a nursing home against his will. The county workers then terminated Clay and Harold's lease and surrendered the home they had shared for many years to the landlord.

Three months after he was hospitalized, Harold died in the nursing home. Because of the county’s actions, Clay missed the final months he should have had with his partner of 20 years. Compounding this tragedy, Clay has literally nothing left of the home he had shared with Harold or the life he was living up until the day that Harold fell, because he has been unable to recover any of his property. The only memento Clay has is a photo album that Harold painstakingly put together for Clay during the last three months of his life.
With the help of a dedicated and persistent court-appointed attorney, Anne Dennis of Santa Rosa, Clay was finally released from the nursing home. Ms. Dennis, along with Stephen O'Neill and Margaret Flynn of Tarkington, O'Neill, Barrack & Chong, now represent Clay in a lawsuit against the county, the auction company, and the nursing home, with technical assistance from NCLR. A trial date has been set for July 16, 2010 in the Superior Court for the County of Sonoma

This story isn't being covered very well (if at all?) on the news, so I think anyone with a blog should go ahead and post it too. Can you imagine what it would be like to be in either of these guy's position? If I was sick and I couldn't see B-rad, I don't know what I would do. Not to mention missing out on the last few months of my love's life, having my entire life sold out from under me, and being forced into a nursing home against my will.

This kind of substandard treatment of homosexuals needs to end. We're supposedly civilized people, we shouldn't be treating people this way because of who they love.

And, not to go off on an entirely separate tangent, but where the hell are the teabaggers when incidents like this occur? You all are supposedly all anti-government, look at what has happened to this couple! Oh, yeah, I forgot, fear of catching teh gay often trumps mindless compliance to hyped up conservative FOX-nurtured political positions.

Viva la revolucion, guys.

Mmm...Sacrilicious

2010-03-30T07:17:00.000-07:00

Ever since Homer Simpson first ate that holy waffle, exclaiming "Mmmm sacrilicious", sacrilege has been hilarious to me. I also enjoy me a simple flash game or two. Do those two sentences seem awkwardly unrelated? Not so! I want to share with you guys the games I play that are both rad and sacrilegious. Dare I say - radcrilegious?

Bible fight

Bible fight is the fighting game Joe Lieberman would have wanted to replace Mortal Kombat with if that ancient fuddy duddy had his way back in the 90s. It even follows the biblical tradition of unabashed misogyny considering Eve is the WORST CHARACTER EVER.

Jesus Dress Up!

Oh, many a wasted night in my youth was spent at my friend's fridge rearrainging George Bush's outlandish outfits on his magnetic paper doll set. This online Jesus version is just as fun, and because Jesus was most likely a fictional character, I don't get sad every once in a while as I did by having to stair at GW's stupid monkey face.

Homeless or Jesus?

This is a simple guessing game where you get a square of a picture, usually a close up of a sweet beard, and you are made to guess if it's a picture of a homeless guy or a picture of Jesus.

When A Clothing Preference = Mental Disorder

2010-03-22T10:25:00.000-07:00

Today on twitter via Queers United, I was made aware of something that I had no idea about - evidently, per Queers United blog:

...the APA considers individuals who crossdress to be suffering from "transvestic disorder".

That's right, kids! A preference in clothing = mental disorder.

You may say, "Now wait a darn minute, Pinko. We're not talking about just a preference in clothing! Stop purposefully misrepresenting the issue!"

The fact is, I'm not misrepresenting anything. I personally, like everyone else who is sane, wear clothes in which I feel comfortable. Technically, I would be considered a cross dresser given that I wear pants 99.99% of the time and I have a vagina. Joe blow misogynist might try to say that my desire to wear pants, even though I have said vagina, is indicative of some deep mental issue I have toward my own femininity. What he's really saying, however, is that he likes it when chicks wear skirts and because I'm a chick and I don't wear a skirt, there's something wrong with me. He is perpetuating his personal perception of normal as an objective measure of normality.

For men who prefer to wear woman's clothes, the issue and the judgment is far worse and honestly, nothing to laugh at.

It's people who think they are justified in assuming someone has a mental disorder if they don't conform to some imaginary, objective 'normal' standard who are misrepresenting the issue.
The APA often reflects the misinformed mainstream assumptions regarding behaviors and lifestyles as mental disorders, but luckily there are people who are actively vigilant about this and take steps to petition the APA for change. Here's a link to the petition to get this ridiculous classification for crossdressing removed from the APA. The listed arguments are irrefutable, in my opinion:

1. Crossdressing involves no inherent harm to the individual engaging in it, to other people, or to society. Its presence in a psychiatric manual (whether for reasons of diagnosis or for research) is anachronistic, trivializes the DSM, and diminishes the psychiatric profession;

2. By the 1980s, laws against crossdressing were abolished virtually everywhere in the U.S., Canada and Western Europe with almost no controversy as they were recognized to be anachronisms, unworthy of attention by law enforcement officials. The psychiatric diagnosis, however, remained in place;

3. In many other countries around the world, crossdressing is still a criminal offense, and the continued presence of this diagnosis in the DSM promotes the oppression of gender diverse persons by local authorities;

4. The mere grouping of crossdressing alongside criminal behaviors that can cause grave harm to non-consenting persons needlessly stigmatizes people who engage in harmless gender-diverse behavior;

5. The application of this diagnosis only to male persons is obvious evidence of sexism;

6. The arbitrariness of this diagnosis is compounded by its proposed extension to cover gay and bisexual men who were explicitly exempted in the past, and by the questionable reasoning given to justify the change;

7. The proposed "Transvestic Disorder" diagnosis would no longer be limited to crossdressers. It also now targets many transsexual women with the new specifier of "autogynephilia," a pejorative label implying that transsexual women transition for reasons other than harmony with their gender identity. This mischaracterization of transsexual women is already being exploited by political extremists to undermine their civil rights and human dignity.

8. The psychiatrist and former chairman of the DSM-4 Task Force, Allen Frances, M.D., recently wrote in the Psychiatric Times, "As psychiatrists, we have our hands full taking care of the suffering and distress caused by real mental disorders. There is no need for us to expand our purview to cover sexual thoughts and behaviors that are private and harmless."

9. In February 2010, the Norwegian Directorate of Health, following the earlier lead of Denmark (1995) and Sweden (2009), invalidated the diagnostic code for "Fetishistic Transvestism" in the standard Norwegian psychiatric manual. The Directorate of Health observed, "There have been no changes in these diagnoses for over 100 years... At best these diagnoses are completely superfluous. At worst they are stigmatizing minority groups in society."

So, in the spirit of labeling shit you don't like as a mental disorder and for those who think those who crossdress have a mental disorder, I feel there are other fashion choices which deserve this unflattering distinction FAR MORE than crossdressing. Feel free to add to the list as you see fit.

Wolf T-shirts. While often accompanied by rat tails and confederate flag stickers in the mid-west where the disorder is rampant, they can be found in rural areas outside the mid-west as well, usually being worn by a guy with a 'sweet' fantasy dagger collection.

Crocs. 'Nuff said.

Chicks who wear those sweatpants with a word written across the backside. Nothing says 'I'm clinically desperate for attention' like a wearing a pair of pants that force everyone around you to look at your ass.

ICP fans, aka "Juggalos". I feel this mental disorder is serious enough to warrant mandatory sterilization.

Ugly Christmas sweaters that additionally incorporate American patriotic zeal. Nothing says Christmas like a snowman with a flag. Wait, what?

Snake Oil Salesman Of The Week - Healing Cancer Naturally

2010-03-21T04:33:00.000-07:00

I've decided to try my hand at a weekly post, just to keep myself posting a bit more regularly. I wanted to choose a topic with a wealth of information and endless nominees, and so what better subject to post about weekly than one of my favorite/most despised flavor of asshole around - the snake oil salesman.

When I say 'snake oil salesman', I'm referring less to the specific peddlers of entirely worthless products - this is a specific kind of snake oil salesman, a sub-genre if you will. More generally, a snake oil salesman is anyone pushing a fallacious idea as fact for the express purpose of their own emotional or monetary gain. Religious figures, holocaust deniers, those who perpetuate the anti-vax misinformation, 1-800 psychics, weight loss supplement companies, holistic cure pushers for incurable diseases, these are all modern day snake oil salesman. The fact that so many different categories exist under this title is less a reflection of too general a definition and more a reflection of society. It kind of seems like we don't mind being lied to - we want to drink the kool aid because maybe, just maybe, chewing flax seeds and drinking goat urine WILL cure AIDS.*

For my first post, I've chosen Healing Cancer Naturally as my Snake Oil Salesman of the Week. Why? Well, if the name of the site isn't enough to keep you from asking that question in earnest, you're already in trouble.

Cancer is something that frightens just about everyone. It can strike without warning and completely changes a person's life and their perception of life, two occurrences which can lead to rough emotional and physical times for a lot of people. During my first marriage, my mother in law went through aggressive cancer treatments and yes, they were hard on her and it was hard on us to watch her go through it. You know what the upside to all of it was? She's still alive. Now, is there a slim chance that she could have skipped the chemo, radiation, and medications and still have gone into remission? Of course! Cancer is unpredictable and at times, people will go into remission randomly.

The thing is, unassisted remission is truly random. There are no magical affirmations, no secret mantras or exotic mixtures of holistic ingredients that are going to affect your cancer dramatically one way or the other. A positive attitude and improving the health content of what you eat and how you live certainly isn't going to hurt, but for treatment it's necessary to visit a reliable, well informed medical professional. If you happen to be drinking a lot of orange juice and then, at the same time, your ear begins to hurt it is NOT a logical conclusion to attribute your ear pain to drinking orange juice. The same is true in regard to holistic credos proposed as if they are proven healing methods, a term meant to imply cure without using the word 'cure', for cancer.

Luckily (actually, legally) The person who runs this website, Ulla, makes that known. In a disclaimer. After a ridiculously long block of bright pink text where she calls the validity of medical treatment into question AND heavily alludes to those evil, money grubbing soulless doctors who don't give a damn about you or your life. So what's the harm? Ulla herself claims that she's doing all this because she just wants to help people and to spread the word that she HAS DEFINITELY found the cure for cancer.

When, sadly, my best friend’s mother developed cancer, my particular focus turned to the healing of cancer, something I have long believed and meanwhile come to KNOW to be absolutely accomplishable, as proven for many years and on a daily basis by tens of thousands of courageous and determined men and women all over the globe.- Ulla, www.healingcancernaturally.com

Wow, Ulla. So, what is your secret? Surely it's something mindbogglingly awesome that we've never - oh, no wait. It's not.

Healing Cancer Naturally is based on three fundamental “credos” and commitments:

1 The human body is designed to be self-healing and will beautifully do its assigned task if we properly support and/or don’t hinder it in the performance of this basic function. This is why the overwhelming majority of Healing Cancer Naturally’s pages is devoted to diet, detoxification, and mental, energetic and spiritual factors in healing and health.

2 Information and help should be made available to anyone afflicted with cancer or other illness, regardless of the size of their pocketbook. This is why Healing Cancer Naturally provides all its potentially life-saving information for free rather than selling part of it in book form, and asks for donations and other support instead. That is also the reason why simple and inexpensive “DIY” ways people have used to heal from cancer get top priority while expensive “alternatives” to conventional treatment (and there are some very expensive ones indeed) will either be ignored or mentioned only on the side.

3. Healing Cancer Naturally believes that any challenge, be it in the area of health, relationships and/or finances, can (and optimally perhaps should) be used as a personal growth experience, allowing the person undergoing and eventually victoriously overcoming the challenge to arise from it not only healthier but also wiser and a better person than ever before. - Ulla, www.healingcancernaturally.com

*facepalm*

Oh Ulla, Ulla Ulla...

So, in the first paragraph basically you're saying that your cure to cancer is diet, exercise, vitamins, and positive affirmations. Oh and don't forget those ridiculously vague and pointlessly obtuse "spiritual factors." One would think, Ulla, that you are somewhat crafting your own loophole for failure in this very credo statement. Of course, I'm just one of those 'blind science followers', I'm sure I don't, no - CAN'T understand. The second and third paragraph are just emotional pleas meant to make our new friend Ulla seem genuine and trustworthy - Ulla cares about poor people, Ulla just wants everyone to be the best they can be and learn from life! This is meant to distract us from the fact that Ulla's main concern seems to be pimping specific items for her woefully misunderstood following to purchase with the hope and sad expectation that their 25$ vitamin purchase will somehow be just as effective as legitimate medical treatment. The disclaimer of her website is the only bit of it I could actually stomach without some admission of disgust because it seemed to be the only bit of the site that was factually correct and not intended solely for the purpose of building a superficial repertoire with a desperate audience in order to suggestively guide their purchases toward specific products or people.

All material provided on www.healingcancernaturally.com is based upon the sole opinions of the maker of this website or those quoted by her and is for informational purposes only. Any information contained herein does not take the place of professional advice from your health care provider nor is intended as medical advice or to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional. Information is a compiled report of existing data and/or research and intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of www.healingcancernaturally.com. Approaches described herein are not offered as cures, prescriptions, or diagnoses. The authors/webmaster assume no responsibility in the use of this information. I encourage you to make your own health care decisions based upon your own research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. Consult your doctor before using any presented information as a form of treatment. - Ulla, www.healingcancernaturally.com.

Finally, Ulla, you're making some sense! I suppose I'll just ignore the completely contradictory message this disclaimer provides when compared to everything written everywhere else on your site and just be thankful you legally have to be honest in a tiny section of text buried under walls of bright pink jibberish that seems to be pushing me to the cusp of both physical illness and epilepsy. I better take a vitamin and visualize my happy place right away!

Bonus features for this site:
Gratuitous/questionable/confusing use of quotations. (see: any random page of the site.)
"Unsolicited visitor's comment"
Cancer Healing & Spirituality

*Chewing flax seeds and drinking goat urine will NOT cure AIDS

Why Argue Against Something You Don't Believe Exists?

2010-03-12T17:34:00.000-08:00

An interesting question was posed to me, one that I feel every atheist should consider and take the time to respond to -

If God is nothing more than a human fabrication then what is there to disprove? Why do atheists spend time arguing about something they don't believe exists?

My personal response is as follows, and though I know for a fact that my response isn't the same as the response others might put forth, I felt it was beneficial to myself to be reminded exactly why I concern myself with what other people believe.

I don't think of myself as wanting to disprove god, I think of myself as wanting to communicate with people of faith to the point where they have to accept that my position has validity. I don't want to change anyone's mind because I honestly don't care - pray to a popple and worship cinnamon toast crunch, it's all the same to me. The issue I see is that there are people in positions of power and influence who use religion to convince the masses of certain ideas which then are put forth as laws with lots of support from said masses. I don't have a lot of money so beyond making phone calls and voting, I can't take an active stand against the people of power, so I do what I can and reach out to people who follow the people of power and try to explain to them why it's wrong to legislate their religion.

I would love to not feel the compulsion to do this and to simply live my happy atheist life, but I can't do that unless other people wake up and realize that belief, even in mass numbers, does not equal a free license to start dictating how others live. I don't go out of my way looking for confrontations or arguments, but I don't back down if I come across them and I rarely ignore them - even if the argument is about something as stupid as whether or not Jesus was a historical figure or if God definitely exists or not. These discussions are less about the subject for me and more about being continually active as yet another voice of atheism. I think, this is stupid to argue about, but maybe if I make enough good points, it'll add to all the other good points this person has heard and they will at least THINK about why they're supporting what they're supporting. Maybe if enough people say they disagree, religious people might stop blindly following that random religious person in a position of influence and start thinking for themselves a little more, and things will get better.

Another reason I willingly engage in conversations and arguments with theists is because I feel like science needs a voice in the everyday world. I am by no means a scientist and I don't have a degree in a scientific field. Most of what I know about science is self taught, and that self taught knowledge is constantly changing with every bit of new evidence which I come into contact with. My point in making this distinction about myself is that I feel like I'm on a level playing field with any random person who is approaching scientific data. I'm not trained in how to read studies and I have trouble at times understanding complex scientific ideas, but the awesome thing about science is that you don't have to be an expert in a field of study to learn more about a particular subject. You do, however, have to learn to tell science from pseudoscience and I feel like that is an area where a lot of people go astray. It would seem that there is a stigma about science that a lot of my fellow laymen fall into where they feel that if someone has a PhD or a degree in a certain subject that they must know what they're talking about. However, from my experience, it doesn't take an academically trained scientist to distinguish good science from bad. It does take a little bit of effort and skepticism toward what you are reading, especially if you're exposed to an idea which you would like to be true, even though it has been proven false by countless other sources. The argument of whether evolution is real is just as ridiculous to me as the argument of whether god is real, but I still participate in these arguments because though I know the argument against evolution has little to no scientific validity, there are still those people in positions of power and influence telling their supportive masses that evolution is a lie and that preposterous pseudoscientific ideas such as Intelligent Design should not only be taught in schools, but should be taught as science.

This might seem like a huge deviation from the initial question, but it's not. One thing most theists agree on is that for them, god is important in every aspect of their lives. It was, and sometimes still is difficult for me to understand the scope of this kind of thinking as I was never personally religious and didn't grow up with religious parents, but once I understood how truly intrinsic the concept of god is to people, I realized how equally important it was for someone like me, someone who doesn't believe in god, to have their voice be heard.

Misinformation in the name of god is still misinformation, and I feel a personal responsibility to speak out against it wherever it's found. Maybe it's a naive waste of time or delusions of grandeur on my part, I don't know, but at least I'm doing SOMETHING to help spread the word that atheists exist, we're rational people who deserve the same rights as everyone else, and even though people may not agree with us that doesn't give anyone the right to treat us like we count less or don't count at all.

Declaring Religion Isn't Taboo But Responding Sure Is

2010-03-08T02:11:00.000-08:00

My dad told me once that it's generally known that it's impolite to talk about politics or religion with people you don't know very well. When I asked why, he told me that people have strong opinions about those subjects, so it's better to not talk about them at all to avoid an argument.

The internet has changed a lot of social rules, and politics has become a pretty open topic of conversation. People root for politicians the way people root for sports teams and you'll see the full range of opinions, emotions, and passions attached to those declarations of support. I hardly ever hear anyone complaining, online or off, about someone being 'too political' or bringing up politics as if it's a taboo subject.

Religion, however...

Well, it's gotten a bit better but it's still considered an inappropriate topic to talk about.

Let me clarify - it's inappropriate for ME to talk about. Because I'm an atheist.

Religious people feel comfortable plastering their worship/praise/general ass-kissery of god all over the place - on facebook status messages, in chain emails, in forums, wherever. The religious are becoming more and more free with their expression, but it seems when an atheist friend or associate responds to such a declaration, they're still seen as being invasive and rude.

So it's OK to post "God is so awesome! I feel bad for anyone who closes their heart to feeling how loved I feel!" - that is no longer taboo.

However, if you were to respond and say, for instance "That's crazy, because I think living without god is awesome and I wish you could feel how it feels to be free of religion!" - YOU ARE A TOTAL ASSHOLE.

...Ok, maybe that's a tad dramatic, but my point remains.

Making ANY subject taboo to talk about creates problems for people and communication between different groups. A chunk of religious people have a ton of misconceptions, sometimes bazaar and sometimes pretty insulting, about non religious folks and to a degree non religious folks tend to guess the possible 'believer category' that the person their dealing with falls into, at times incorrectly assuming things about the person that aren't exactly true when discussing religious topics. This leads to a hell of a lot of bullshit fights that would be reduced by quite a bit if we could all just drop the whole 'not supposed to talk about it' attitude.

So this is my new vow - if I run across someone who is saying anything about religion and I feel like commenting, I am going to. Not to be rude, not to be obnoxious, but because if they're going to talk about it, I'm going to talk about it too. I figure if someone feels compelled to email me a story about Noah's Ark, they're showing that they are rejecting the taboo of not talking about religion and are open for a conversation.

Best case scenario - we both learn something more about what the other person believes. Worst case - they quit bothering me and I no longer have to delete annoying mass emails filled with Family Circus and Love Is... comics and clip art from Windows 95.

Atheist Ads and Consistent Negative Religious Response

2010-03-04T04:31:00.000-08:00

I ran across this story online and, like many of you I'm sure, I was like "yeah, atheist bus ad, cool, whatever." I mean honestly, is this news anymore? There are so many ads going up everywhere, and I appreciate the fact that there are so many cities with ad campaigns that the individual occurrences are becoming less surprising, but they are losing their interest for me as individual occurances. Then I continued reading the article and realized it IS news. It's news because the reaction from the religious communities in whatever area these ads are being displayed is always fascinating and often pretty irrational.

Bus Messages Try To Connect Atheists

The Detroit News - Atheists are taking their message to the streets.
More than a dozen SMART buses for the rest of the month will carry the message "Don't believe in God? You aren't alone" as part of a national campaign to raise the spirits of atheists. The nationally based United Coalition of Reason will pick up the $5,600 tab.
"We are not trying to insult anyone or to proselytize," said Detroit Area Coalition of Reason coordinator Ruthe Milan.

"This is a message from the heart to reach out to the atheist community; we want them to connect with like-minded thinkers. We have no interest in converting anyone to our way of thinking."
The SMART buses will travel as far north as Pontiac and Auburn Hills, as far west as Walled Lake, as far east as Troy and as far south as downtown Detroit, according to DetroitCoR.
The idea is not to destroy the faith of believers, but to let atheists know that they aren't alone, said Milan, who said the Bible-like term "you aren't alone" was purely unintentional.

This is a side note, but what the hell? The Christians have designated the term "you aren't alone" as theirs now too? Can't we somehow regulate the number of things Christianity claims as its own so they at least have to put some thought into what they decide to assimilate into their religion?

To date, similar ads have appeared in numerous U.S. cities, including San Diego, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Boston, New York and Baltimore.
While atheists don't believe in God, the Rev. Dr. Stanley Scott doesn't entirely believe in their ads.
"Their bottom line is that they want to engage more people to learn more about being an atheist," said Scott, of the Salvation Temple Church in Detroit.
"My first thought when I heard about this was that 'Wow, I sure am glad that there are more with us than with them.' "
Scott is a firm believer in free speech, "but my point and concern is that certainly the church should have the same opportunity to express itself; then from there we'll see which side wins."

OK. So..."Don't Believe In God? You Are Not Alone = come be an atheist? The phrase on the atheist ad makes you feel threatened? It's a factual and obvious statement. I don't understand this trend with religious people where a statement as vanilla and inoffensive as this inspires a defensive reaction.

When I read reactions like this, I imagine people who lack confidence in their convictions/beliefs/opinions/whatever. It's not a game of risk. We're not not trying to amass an army to fight you. Calm down.

As for having the same opportunity for expression, how are these ads keeping him from doing anything? Take out some of your own bus ads or get involved with a religious organization that can help you do so.

Of course, this isn't the only reaction that religious people have to these ads, and there are voices of reason that make me feel more at ease with my religious brothers and sisters. Like this guy:

Detroit Archdiocese spokesman Joe Kohn downplayed the advertisements.
"These kinds of advertisements speak more to the people who take them out than to us, the ministry and the church," Kohn said.
"They speak to their beliefs, not to ours."
According to DetroitCoR, the advertisements will be on the outside of the buses with the words "Don't believe in God? You aren't alone" superimposed over fluffy clouds in a blue sky.

I don't think he's downplaying them, I think he's reacting the exact same way I would react to an advertisement that said "Believe in God? You Are Not Alone" - he's unconcerned with the advert because it obviously doesn't pertain to him.

Christian Cries Separation of Church and State!

2010-03-02T23:45:00.000-08:00

Guthrie Center, Ia. - A high school senior's desire to build a Wiccan altar in shop class has forced a community debate about free expression.

Dale Halferty, who has taught industrial arts at Guthrie Center High School for three years, was placed on paid leave Monday after he acknowledged to district officials that he told the student he could not build the altar in class.

"This is not a beef that I have with the district. It's not me against them," said Halferty, who has been an educator for much of the past 20 years. "But this kid was practicing his religion during class time, and I don't agree."

Halferty said he previously told another student he could not build a cross in shop class because he believes in the separation of church and state. "I don't want any religious symbols in the shop," he said.

So far this all sounds good. Yeah! If no one is allowed to do religiousy things at the school then he can't either! Eff that Wiccan! But wait...oh, that's right. This guy doesn't care about separation of anything, he's just a retarded pearl clutching Christian trying to use the establishment clause as justification for his personal bias.

His viewpoint: "We as Christians don't get to have our say during school time, so why should he?" School officials say Christians actually do get to express themselves in the same way.

More than one school policy, as well as state and federal law, prohibit discrimination against students who express religious beliefs through school assignments.

Superintendent Steve Smith and Principal Garold Thomas said they placed Halferty on leave while they conferred with the school's attorney to decide what to do.

Both Smith and Thomas said the incident has become emotional for the high school's 185 students: Almost 70 signed a petition late last week saying they didn't want witchcraft practiced at the school. "I think it's fear based on some of the old ideas people had about witchcraft," Smith said. "It's fear and a lack of knowledge about the unknown."

Neither Smith nor school officials identified the student at the center of the controversy, and the boy's father declined a request made through Thomas to be interviewed.

Smith acknowledged that some people have expressed fears about satanism or sacrifices.

He said they too could use some educating: Though Wicca is often subject to such myths, it is nonviolent and based on a shared reverence for the Earth and all living things. Halferty was sent home for the first time Friday and told to think about what he was doing.

He said he had no beef with the student or his project - until the student told him he was a practicing witch.

"I said, 'Ah, you're kidding, right?'"

When the student said he wasn't, Halferty told him he could work on his project - a table that would become the altar - provided he kept religious materials at home.

However, he said, the student kept returning to class with a book of witchcraft. Halferty said he thought about it, and decided allowing the student to make the altar "was wrong on every level."

"It scares me. I'm a Christian," he said. "This witchcraft stuff - it's terrible for our kids. It takes kids away from what they know, and leads them to a dark and violent life. We spend millions of tax dollars trying to save kids from that."

But Smith said school policies prohibit teachers from denying students access to varying points of view without just cause, and prohibit employees from denying students participation in activities on the grounds of race or religion. The U.S. Department of Education has written guidelines for public school districts to ensure students' First Amendment rights are protected.

Ben Stone, executive director of the Iowa Civil Liberties Union, said the clash appears to be a simple case of religious discrimination. All students, he said, have the right to religious freedom and to be treated equally in school.

Stone said: "The teacher may have good intentions. It's a learning process. But he needs to respect that students can exercise their religious viewpoints within the context of an assignment."

***

I think it's interesting how this guy is trying to make this a separation of church and state issue when in reality, he's obviously just an uneducated Christian who seems intimidated by Wicca. Intimidated by Wicca? Oh man, I could make so many jokes about that...

A public school teacher leading a prayer is a separation of church and state violation because that teacher is a representative of the state and by leading a prayer, they're showing bias to one religion over all others and forcing that bias onto others. A kid making a lame-o alter in class is no different from a kid writing about a religious experience in English class or someone singing a hymn to fulfill an assignment in music. If the teacher said, 'sing whatever you want' and the person sings a hymn, that's their right. It fulfills the requirement of the assignment. If the teacher uses his position of influence to stop a kid from expressing his religion in an appropriate context as was the case here, the teacher once again has violated the separation of church and state.

Good try, super Christian shop class guy, but the law just won't work along with your inflated sense of religious privilege.

The Closest I've Come To Believing in God

2010-02-22T01:51:00.000-08:00

A forum I participate on, The Happy Atheist Forum, had a post which quotes Trent Reznor as saying:

I just don't understand how people can blindly believe a bunch of the shit they're fed, to believe it so that they don't think too hard about other issues. 'Be a good boy and you'll go to heaven.' If it works for you, fine, but it doesn't work for me and that pisses me off because I kind of wish it did.

They then asked if we had ever felt a similar desire to be religious.

I'm going to skip all the usual snarky 'sure, I'd love to happily live in ignorance' shiz and share a story about the only time I ever felt a longing for god to be real.

It was after my dad died. My mother had called me in hysterics and told me my dad was dead, had died in his sleep. I went to his house and it was true. He looked like he was sleeping, but his lips were a frosty blue and his face was the color of dusty miller. I remember not feeling anything at first and then having intense waves of grief and fear and sadness break over me, over and over again.

I went outside and shouted, then threw up. My dad had been sick for so long, I stopped being afraid of him dying. I was so used to him being sick it hadn't worried me when he told me a few days before that he was having problems breathing in the mornings. He was dying for over a decade and the decline was so slow that his death was a complete shock.

I remember being outside and for the first time in my life and the last time since, I looked up and I really wanted to feel something. I wanted to feel that god feeling people talked about, and I wanted to feel it right then. I stood there long enough to end up surrounded by my family and I didn't feel a damn thing.

I realized later that I wasn't really expecting god to bestow me with his lovey glow, I just felt really scared about the end of my father's life and I wanted there to be a god because a god meant an afterlife than an afterlife meant my dad wasn't gone forever. Hangin' on clouds in heaven or fact checking the internet in hell, I would see him again, talk to him again, hug him again.

That's pretty much the closest I've ever come in my life to believing in god. A fleeting moment, brought on by extreme sadness and loss.

Bruise-Gate 2010!

2010-02-19T05:55:00.000-08:00

Ash Wednesday is serious business.

On Wednesday, VP Biden was seen on TV with some shit sacred Jesus ash on his forehead. The newscaster, Kay Burley (I have no idea who this lady is, but now I know a lot of people in the UK seem to hate her), mistook the mark for a bruise and commented on it as such. As soon as it was pointed out to her that it was Ash Wednesday, she laughed and apologized, saying 'I've said three Hail Marys, everything is going to be fine.'

Haha, case closed right?

Nooooooooo way in hell. It would seem some religious people can't pass up a pearl clutching moment of righteous indignation. I wanted to share a few comments I found while reading about this story online:

***

What rock did she crawl out from under? She obviously does not practice any type of religion. She sounds like an idiot that did not do her research. I find it amazing she is a presenter. She needs to back to school and learn a few things.

***

If this deeply insulting ignorance had involved more sensitive religions this presenter would have been in far more trouble. Dismissing religion as a bit of a joke ('I've said my Hail Marys'!) is unacceptable.....

***

Why should Christians have to put up with this constant belittling of our faith? You know if it had been a Muslim there would have been an outcry.

***

I Don't Biden should even get the ashes. HE IS PRO ABORTION makes Him A Two Face XXXXXXguxxkxlcdccvkclgc

***

This insensitive and ignorant so called news media person, should be fired on the spot. Her ignorance and contempt for Mr Bidens religion, is indicative of a person with limited knowledge and ability to be a news media person.

Is this the kind of individual "Sky New" wants on their payroll?

***

Let's not forget that the "catholic" Mr. Biden believes in killing innocent babies and allowing homosexuals to marry. It's an embarassment to good catholics to have him and other "cafetera catholics" lumped together in the public's mind. Yes, all men are sinners but those who publicly disavow strict teachings of their church should not be shown any sympathy.

***

It is sad to hear someone who calls herself a Catholic, said such disrespectful comment, made a joke about someone's accidental death. Anyhow, we are sinners ourselves; we can not judge her, only God can.

***

Ahhh yes. I believe the smudging ashes on the face practice is way more common in the US than in the UK, so it makes sense the newscaster wouldn't see a mark on a guy's face and think - That looks like a bruise, but I wonder if that's actually some kind of religious symbolism?