Perpetuating The Myth of Religious Intolerance

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)

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

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.

Sit Back and Watch Them Eat Each Other

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.

Another Stupid Lawsuit

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.

Vandalism Is Wrong, But You Were Asking For It

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.

Your Relatives Aren't Watching Over You - Satan Is

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.

Gay Angels Disturb Priest

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.

Terrorists, Christians, Privilege and Rights.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

The National Day of Prayer

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?

European Christian Stock Index Launched - Jesus Annoyed

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.

Declaring Religion Isn't Taboo But Responding Sure Is

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

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!

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.

Elton's Jesus is a Jesus I Could Hang With

In a recent interview certain to cause upset to many a pearl clutching Christian, Elton John had some interesting things to say about Jesus.

Sir Elton John has dubbed Jesus a 'super-intelligent gay man' in a controversial new interview.

The singer made the throw-away comment while talking about lesbians trying to survive in the Middle East.

'I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems,' he told American magazine Parade in an interview due to be published on Sunday.

'On the cross, he forgave the people who crucified him. Jesus wanted us to be loving and forgiving.

'I don’t know what makes people so cruel. Try being a gay woman in the Middle East – you’re as good as dead.'

That's awesome.

Of course Elton's Jesus isn't the biblical Jesus by any stretch, but neither is the Jesus that a lot of Christians worship. If you're going to stray from the literal concept of Jesus, you may as well make him anything you want. A compassionate, super-intelligent gay Jesus sounds fine by me.

WWJD? Kill Sick Gay People, Evidently.

A Ugandan lawmaker wants to pass a bill that calls for the execution of HIV+ homosexuals. Wow.

The Washington Post:KAMPALA, UGANDA -- A Ugandan lawmaker refused Friday to withdraw proposed legislation that would impose the death penalty for some gay men and lesbians despite international condemnation and presidential opposition to a measure that some critics said could scare off foreign investors.

Lawmaker David Bahati said he will not heed a call late Thursday from the government to drop the proposed bill, which has provoked criticism from gay rights groups and protests in London, New York and Washington.

"We have our children in schools to protect against being recruited into" homosexuality, Bahati said. "The process of legislating a law to protect our children against homosexuality and defending our family values must go on." The country's parliament is expected to debate the measure in late February or early March.

Although President Yoweri Museveni has told colleagues that he believes the bill is too harsh and has encouraged his ruling National Resistance Movement Party to overturn the death sentence provision, Information Minister Kabakumba Matsiko said the parliament will act independently.

Several lawmakers and officials from the ruling party said this week that they will push to remove the death penalty statute. They have proposed instead that gays receive counseling to convert them to heterosexuality.

Lawmakers outlawed gay marriage in 2005. The proposed legislation is being promoted as an update to Uganda's statutes against homosexuality, which date from the 1950s and do not address homosexuality by name, only by what the law terms as "unnatural offenses" and "gross indecency." The draft bill says anyone convicted of a homosexual act could face life imprisonment.

Current legislation imposes seven years in prison. Under the new law, the death sentence could apply to sexually active gays living with HIV or in cases of same-sex rape. The law would also include Ugandans living abroad, who could be extradited and punished.

http://tinyurl.com/yzonqw9

The quote in bold could just as easily come from Palin or Bachmann or any number of US politicians or pundits currently in a position of power and influence.

Uganda is a country whose majority (84%) is Christian, and this atrocious legislature is and example of what I fear about religion having government power. This is why I feel religion is dangerous and why I am vocal in my support of the establishment clause of the US constitution.

Christian Anti-Porn Add-On FTW!

The Christian Anti-porn add-on! Is this old news? I just found this today via a post on Think Atheist and installed it on my Firefox to test it out. It's pretty amazing.

The description for the add-on says it all -

Flee sexual immorality (1Co 6:18). Christian Anti-Porn will filter links and alert the user if any porn websites are clicked. This will not block but warn every Christian that he is going to crucify Jesus Christ again if he proceeds to such websites.

When you go to a site that this add-on deems unholy, a wonderful image above pops up.


I can already tell this add-on is pretty terribly made. I went to IMDB and looked up the movie 'Red Dawn' and my screen was an epileptic seizure of crucifixion. Which is unfortunate because I would gleefully keep this add-on if it wasn't so easily triggered - it's effng hilarious. As it is, the add-on is way too intrusive. I haven't visited a single porn site since I installed it and I've already been warned about killing Jesus over a dozen times.

And no, the humor of that is not lost on me. :D