Hemant of Friendly Atheist is taking this at face value without passing judgment, but others such as Jen McCreight and PZ Myers are calling it a shame:
Jen outlines her reasons for feeling this way, and PZ cautions his readers to at least be intellectually honest:
We are, after all, supposed to be the logical ones. It would be ironic for atheists to resort to fallacy when a voice in our community converts to Christianity. But we're all human and prone to that sort of groupthink when someone defects from our group.
My two cents: I'm going to just take the news of her conversion at face value and assume that she's neither trolling nor doing this as an experiment. Given that, then I'll say what I'd say to any friend, family member, or acquaintance who decided to convert to a religion: while I don't support your conversion, I support you wholeheartedly in your freedom to do so without harassment.
We've read too many horror stories of the crap people have to take from their friends and family when they come out as atheists; none of us should aspire to be like that when one of us decides to go the other way.
I haven't talked to Leah in person or read very many of her blog posts, but she seems smart. She'll figure her beliefs out on her own. And if she decides that she needs to believe in the Christian god in order for the universe to make sense to her, then so be it. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Cranston High School West in Rhode Island lost the court battle to keep its school prayer banner on display. Not a big surprise, given the precedent that publicly funded schools have no business officially sanctioning prayer.
Secular activists are lauding the young Jessica Ahlquist for her central role in the push to remove the banner as well as having the courage to come out as an atheist to an intolerant community.
For those who haven't followed the story, here's an image of the offending banner:
At its core, the banner's message really is a good philosophy for the school's students: do your best to grow mentally, morally, and physically; be kind and helpful; be honest; be a good sport; be a good person in general. I don't think anyone should have a problem with those values.
What is a problem is that they are encapsulated in a prayer. The assertion that these virtues come from a "heavenly father" rather than within the individual implies that engaging in prayer is essential to being a good student. No public school should be saying such a thing to its student body.
In this country people are free to practice whatever religion they choose, or no religion at all; this certainly applies to students and faculty at a public school. The school itself, however, is not a person, and ought to be neutral on matters of religion.
*****
In the wake of the court's decision, the good Christians of Jessica's hometown are letting her know how they feel about her role in the lawsuit. Sweet, benign messages about how they'll "pray for her" and hope that she opens her heart to Jesus, right? At worst, a fire-and-brimstone warning about the eternal consequences of her atheism?
Wrong. Her fellow students tweeted about jumping her after school, someone posted her home address on internet forums, and one "AJ St. Angelo" mused about murdering her. Below are a few samples:
All of this venom and hatred over a banner that shouldn't have been put up in the first place. Read the rest of them on JesusFetusFajitaFishsticks, or catch up on the whole story over at Friendly Atheist.
"It was around 7:30 pm (1830 GMT)," Pastor John Jauro told AFP news agency of Thursday's attack in the city of Gombe.
"I was leading the congregation in prayers. Our eyes were closed when some gunmen stormed the church and opened fire on the congregation. Six people were killed in the attack and 10 others were wounded."
He said there was confusion as worshippers sought to flee at the Deeper Life Christian Ministry Church.
Local police spokesman Ahmed Muhammad confirmed the attack, but declined to say how many people the gunmen killed and wounded.
The attack comes after a purported spokesman for Islamist group Boko Haram on Sunday issued a three-day ultimatum for Christians living in Nigeria's mainly Muslim north to leave the region or they would be killed.
There was, however, no claim of responsibility for the attack.
Meanwhile in London, we have the ongoing murder trial of a woman and her partner, both Congolese immigrants, who tortured and drowned her teenage brother last Christmas because they believed he was a witch:
On Christmas Day 2010 the defendants, who both deny murder, allegedly forced the boy and his siblings into a bath, submerging him in water. Pathologist reports revealed he suffered 101 injuries, and died as a result of drowning and the injuries.
When Kristy was found by paramedics in the eighth-floor flat in Forest Gate, his head, face, back and arms were covered in deep cuts and bruises, and several of his teeth were missing.
Kristy and four siblings were sent by their parents, from their home in Paris, to see their sister and his partner on 16 December. A few days passed "pleasantly enough", then Bikubi said some of the children were possessed by spirits and were having an evil influence on a younger child in the house, it is claimed.
I've been more of an observer than a contributor these past several weeks. My take on a few recent items in the news and blogosphere:
The Catholic League wants to help us this Christmas!
The good folks over at the Catholic League know what a struggle it is for we atheists to keep up the charade day after day. Deep down, we all want to admit to the world that we're really Christians, imprisoned by peer pressure that keeps us from weeping tears of joy over Baby Jesus every time we see a crèche.
Well, despair no more, my fellow atheists! This season, let's all get adopted by a good Catholic who can show us the light! I know it's what all of us have secretly wanted all our lives.
For those of you who really aren't "closeted Christians" and are still tired of people saying that you "believe in nothing, stand for nothing and are good for nothing", Ellen over at Skeptic Freethought has a much better idea: tell those well-meaning Christians to adopt a puppy!
Stop oppressing Maldivian Muslims by telling them that flogging women is wrong!
“This is a very serious problem. You can’t say flogging is a form of violence against women,” he said.
Nasheed explained that Pillay’s remarks were tantamount to proclaiming in the Indian parliament that “worshiping cows is so uncivilised.”
Tearing a woman's flesh from her bones with a whip really is the same thing as giving livestock undue reverence. Why can't we just respect people's beliefs?
Atheists don't shelter their children from religion?
Apparently, scientists who don't believe in God still have a tendency to send their children to church. While sometimes it's to satisfy the religious sensibilities of a believing spouse, that's not always the case - some atheist parents actually want their kids to be exposed to religion so they can evaluate it for themselves!
One of the most interesting findings, according to Ecklund, was that some atheist scientists want to expose their children to religion due to scientific reasoning.
"We thought that these individuals might be less inclined to introduce their children to religious traditions, but we found the exact opposite to be true," Ecklund said. "They want their children to have choices, and it is more consistent with their science identity to expose their children to all sources of knowledge."
Freethinkers supporting free thought? Who'd have expected that?
For the record: my future kids will find the Bible and Qur'an on the same shelf as Greek and Norse mythology, though I might refrain from reading them certain stories from the first two until they're old enough not to be traumatized by the extreme violence.
Can we trade the current Newt for the 2006 edition?
A surprising revelation was tweeted this week, courtesy of Phil Plait: Newt Gingrich used to be pro-science! Here's an excerpt of an interview from 2006 (emphasis and Q/A notations mine):
Q: Do you view evolution as "just a theory" or as the best explanation for how we came to be?A: Evolution certainly seems to express the closest understanding we can now have. But it's changing too. The current tree of life is not anything like a 19th-century Darwinian tree. We're learning a lot about how systems evolve and don't evolve. Cockroaches became successful several hundred million years ago and just stopped evolving.
Q: Where do you come down on teaching intelligent design in schools? Do you think the ruling in the Dover, Pennsylvania, case was appropriate?A: I believe evolution should be taught as science, and intelligent design should be taught as philosophy. Francis Collins's new book, The Language of God, is a fine statement that combines a belief in God with a belief in evolution. I do not know enough about the Dover case to critique the judge's decision, but I am generally cautious about unelected judges establishing community standards—that is the duty of elected officials.
Don't we all wish that GOP candidates could get away with that kind of talk today? Unfortunately for us, they know their base and know how to pander to it. If you don't proclaim evolution to be just a silly "theory" (in the vernacular sense, not the scientific sense), you just aren't electable.
Religious folk reacted with the fury of Caps Lock when the University of Wisconsin's Secular Student Alliance affiliate sent a mass email inviting interested students to join. Though many other student groups use the very same method to get the word out that they exist, some apparently found the existence of an atheist-agnostic-freethinker group offensive.
When natural man embraces atheism, you often end up with a ticking time bomb. The seething anger lies just beneath the surface for many atheists. Even for those “sophisticated atheists” who are able to put up a good front for the public, their “inner workings” are usually filled with rage against God and Christians.
In that sense, atheists unwittingly help to prove the truth of Christianity by their hatred for it. Jesus told his disciples, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.” (John 15:18) Real Christians don’t hate atheists. Real Christians love atheists. That is the supernatural grace of God at work in the life of a believer. Real atheists, on the other hand, have an inner hatred for Christ that gets directed at believers. That is the natural result of man rejecting God as His Creator.
Another choice segment:
If everyone in the world was an atheist, the population would shrink
drastically and violently. Human arrogance and anger doesn’t put up with
too much before it goes ballistic and begins to wipe out the “enemy.”
And then there's this gem:
If you are an atheist, here are 11 words you won't say from your heart
unless you choose to open your mind to be a "freethinker" for Christ:
"Lord Jesus, forgive me for my hatred toward You and others." Wow! You
would rather die than sincerely pray those words wouldn't you? That's
because a hatred for Jesus fills your heart, as it would mine without
Christ. You tell yourself it is just unbelief in Jesus. That is only the
"fruit of it." The "root of it" is hatred towards God.
Here I thought that the old "atheists hate God" argument had been beaten to death and beyond, and yet it pops up again on a major Christian news site. I have to wonder if the author, Dan Delzell, has ever met, read the writings of, or heard a speech by an atheist; his understanding of how atheists think seems to come exclusively from the Bible.
I could write a long-winded post about how wrong his assertions are, and why they're wrong; that would be a waste of my time, as this topic has been covered in depth by those who have tread before me. So I'll keep it short and sweet.
First off: atheists donotbelieve that any god exists. You can'thatewhat doesn't exist. I would hope that this isn't a difficult concept. Now let's move on.
Secondly: one look at the sheer vastness of the universe shows us how insignificant we are on the scale of the cosmos. We aren't our own "gods" - we are ephemeral chemical reactions on the surface of a speck of space dust who have managed to develop intelligence. Realizing this fact is the exact opposite of arrogance. You know what wouldbe arrogant? Believing that all of this was created just for little old young us.
Lastly, I will concede you one point: a lot of atheists do have a great deal of antipathy toward religion, especially so in the West toward Christianity. However: this isn't because we're angry at some long dead (and possibly legendary) cult leader named Yeshua; it's because we think that organized religion (and the political power it wields) is an absolute farce.
One final note on the 11-word prayer: you won't hear a sincere prayer out of me because it is not possible to sincerely lie. This argument, like the rest of the column, does not make sense.
The now-infamous Harold Camping's latest predicted date for the End of All Things is tomorrow. I'm personally looking forward to a relaxing weekend.
When the Rapture failed to occur five months ago, Camping backpedaled and said that it was obviously just a "spiritual" Rapture; the real fulfillment of the Book of Revelation wasn't due until October 21st.
It seems like the skeptic community and mainstream media alike made a bigger deal about his May 21st Armageddon prediction - granted, this is because Camping himself made a bigger deal about it. I haven't seen much advertising from Family Radio regarding tomorrow's apocalypse, but the Freedom From Religion Foundation is wasting no time in capitalizing on it:
The aim of their new billboard campaign is rather straightforward: promote skepticism of religion by drawing attention to the sheer lunacy of doomsday predictions. Is the truly absurd thing here that Camping picked a specific date? Or is it that he uses a madman's ramblings as the basis for not only his life, but his eighty million dollar business?
To borrow an analogy from Greta Christina: suppose an old man tells you that his electric hairdryer confided in him that the world is going to end on October 21st. Which is the more appropriate response?
That's silly. Nobody knows when the world is going to end!
That's silly. Hairdryers can't talk!
Perhaps as more doomsday prophecies propagate in the public consciousness and are summarily and mercilessly debunked for the world to see, more people will start to question the belief systems that generated these prophecies in the first place.
UK atheist blogger Rosa Rubicondior posted a humorous comparison between the sales pitches of religious proselytizers and mafia thugs.
I can't say the thought hasn't crossed my mind before - it's really the core argument behind Pascal's wager. If you don't accept our offer, we can't guarantee that your kneecaps won't get broken with a baseball bat. You wouldn't wanna take that chance, would ya?
Two offers you can't refuse.
I'll hear Christians swear up and down that the god they believe in loves us all as his children, and yet believe that this same being created a devil to tempt us to sin and a hell to eternally torture us in if we do not submit to his will. He offers us a "free gift" of salvation in his extended right hand, and the flame of infinite suffering in the left behind his back.
If this being existed, the rational, self-preserving choice would be to show him the utmost respect; the righteous and moral choice, however, would be to resist this tyrant in the face of his eternal wrath.
I'm wondering if the reason some professed Christians struggle to keep the faith is the same reason people in mafia-controlled neighborhoods don't talk to the police.
I was recently alerted to this video's existence via a Facebook post by a conservative Christian associate of mine. It was created by CitizenLink, a Focus on the Family affiliate.
It's more of the same message we often see from social conservative "pro-family" organizations: that "parents" (read: heterosexual Christian parents) should be "concerned" (read: alarmed) about "homosexual indoctrination" (read: teaching kids that they shouldn't regard gay people as horrible, immoral monsters) in schools.
For what it's worth, I know that there are at least a handful of gay activists out there who do have a disdain for heterosexuals and do want special treatment for their orientation. With a little bit of dressing up, this fringe element serves as a handy strawman for anti-gay activists to reference in videos like this. Don't be fooled. The vast majority of homosexuals just want to be who they are without being treated like freaks. That's your real "gay agenda".
If you don't want to sit through the whole thing, skip to 6:48 for the part that really made my blood boil.
". . . it is clear that these kids are struggling."
Around the 7-minute mark the show's host plays a clip from a "tolerance" video promoted by a gay advocacy group. In the clip we see teenagers giving their candid perceptions of their own gender identities, followed by the host and her guest reacting with thinly veiled disgust. They no doubt picked this clip thinking that it represents the worst of the gay indoctrination that students face, and I personally saw nothing wrong with what that clip depicted. What exactly is wrong with boys not acting masculine? Girls admitting that they're not 100% feminine? More importantly, what evidence is there that these kids are "struggling" any more than any other teenager struggles with life?
Of course, that's a rhetorical question. I know that the people who are alarmed by the blurring of boundaries between gendered behaviors feel that way because it demolishes two immutable categories that they've constructed in their minds. "Men and women are fundamentally different, even without counting the genitals and physiological differences, and should always behave as such, and you'll never convince me otherwise!" says my social conservative strawman.
What's really damaging is the idea that there can't be middle ground in gender issues, that you're either a manly man, a womanly woman, a girly gay boy, or a butch lesbian. No room for bisexuals, or even heterosexuals who exhibit personality traits of both genders, exists in this mindset (let alone trans- or intersexuals!).
An admonition for conservatives who aren't anti-gay
I understand that there are plenty of economic conservatives out there who don't have a problem with anyone's sexual orientation or gender identity so long as they're productive citizens. I understand your sentiment that gay advocacy is intruding on public school curriculum with programs like those described in the video, and likewise that lawsuits for the same cause are frivolous and that government intervention on it is excessive. I don't completely agree with that sentiment, but I understand where it comes from.
What secular conservatives should understand is that much of the left-wing sentiment backing this type of aggressive advocacy was forged by the backlash from social conservatives against those homosexuals who have "come out" over the past few decades. Gay rights activists built up this momentum while fighting a culture war for their right to exist in society. Tell the religious zealots who have hijacked the Republican Party to stop fighting culture wars and focus on the economy, and you won't have to listen to this senseless debate any longer.
*** Update 9/1/11: Pastor Mike has now made his blog private. It's a shame that we won't be able to read the good news from him anymore. Also, apparently I am bad about checking dates.***
Oh, wait. We are! Pastor Mike just made a little slip-up when he scheduled his post to publish a year later than he meant to. Now he's wondering why his suggestion for a National Atheist Registry is just now getting attention - it's because it only appeared to the public this past Sunday!
Pastor Mike is also apparently upset that people have the audacity to comment on his public blog criticizing him for promoting harassing proselytization of atheists and boycotting atheist-owned businesses. He apparently doesn't see the irony in this. As he so eloquently points out in his latest rant,
"They'll hide behind the security blanket of their keyboards , boasting how "proud" they are of being atheists in their PUBLIC blogs , yet , let someone like me mention putting their names on a PUBLIC registry , and they whine like little school girls and begin having their juvenile emotional outbursts."
It goes both ways, Pastor Mike. When you post something on your public blog and make your email address public, don't be surprised when you get a large quantity of email from people who disagree with you.
Now, it's fun to snicker at the ignorance of people like Pastor Mike, but I don't support any trolling of his blog or harassing him by email. That won't solve anything and will only serve to fulfill his confirmation bias and convince him and his followers that they're right to fear and despise us. I know that scalawags like Ginx are just going to do it anyway, though, so maybe I shouldn't bother with the disclaimer.
While I'm brainstorming, kicking around, and shooting down ideas for future posts, here's a weekend fluff digest post to tide you loyal readers over. Some highlights of the past week or so: "Science is rock and roll."Black Eyed Peas frontman Will.i.am is doing something that lifts my hopes for this country (my opinion of his music aside). He's teaming up with other popular musicians in a video campaign to promote scientific curiosity and encourage improvements to science education, leading up to a one-hour TV special to air on Sunday evening. I'm willing to let slide the obvious fallacy induced by celebrity endorsement because science needs positive publicity in America.
The Heathen Republican didn't quite have the budget of Michele Bachmann's campaign, but still made an effort to garner votes at the Straw Poll, complete with deep-fried hors d'oeuvres. Unfortunately he didn't have quite the turnout that other candidates enjoyed; I wonder why? "For ethical reasons, I instructed my campaign not to pay for any of the attendee’s tickets, so we only had a few people show up. I didn’t realize conservative votes could be purchased for as little as $30."
#atheism, #politics
Ann Coulter is a gay icon, at least as far as right-wing gay lobbyist group GOProud is concerned. It shouldn't be surprising that she's the best they could dig up: "The organization, though branding itself as a gay rights group, generally views gay marriage as a states' rights affair—a stance famous for working out awesomely for interracial couples in Alabama before the mid-'60s."
(viaMother Jones) #politics, #lgbt
Canadian game developer Bioware held an online poll to decide the appearance of the female version of Commander Shepard to be used in ads for Mass Effect 3. Flamewars and fanboy rage ensued over matters of hair, eye, and skin color.
Finally a feminist gamer chimed in and asked why it was even happening. "BioWare took one of the small handful of non-sexualized female heroes in gaming and put her on stage for the world to judge on appearances alone, aka af**king beauty pageant. . . No male hero has ever been or ever would be dragged into the limelight and forced to defend himself like this."
(via my brother Josh, and Penny Arcade) #gaming, #feminism
It appears that a few reverends in the Netherlands are rethinking the God Question but still keeping the faith nonetheless. "'God is not a being at all... it's a word for experience, or human experience,'" proclaims one reverend. According to the BBC article, "[his] book Believing in a Non-Existent God led to calls from more traditionalist Christians for him to be removed. However, a special church meeting decided his views were too widely shared among church thinkers for him to be singled out."
I think that this story raises an intriguing question: are people like this being intellectually dishonest by identifying with a faith while not believing its theology, or are they facilitating the evolution of Christianity into a philosophy that will survive in the increasingly secular future?
(via fellow humanist Derrick S.) #Christianity #atheism
That's all for now. A post about the WTC "cross", a potential political rant, and a potential blogging-related announcement coming soonish.
And so it came to pass that the bombing and massacre in Norway were carried out by a homegrown, lone-wolf terrorist with anti-Muslim sentiment, contrary to conjecture about al-Qaʿida or other Islamist groups masterminding this horror. I have to admit that Islamist terrorism was the first thing that popped into my head when I first heard that there was a bombing, but I wasn't so reckless as to make public declarations about it before I knew the details. I would have hoped that professional journalists would hold themselves to an even higher standard than an ordinary citizen, but who am I kidding?
Left-wing commentators have been coming down hard with criticism toward anyone who incorrectly speculated that Islamic terrorists were behind the attack, solidifying their view that Christian extremists are just as bad. But is Anders Behring Breivik really a Christian extremist? Anders Behring Breivik thinks so.
How sincere are his religious convictions? From what I've gathered by skimming his manifesto, he was just an all-around deranged madman who admittedly hedged his bets on Pascal's wager before what he thought would be a suicide mission in the name of "cultural Christians" against the threat of multiculturalism. Regardless of how much of a True Believer™ Breivik was, attempts to associate or dissociate him with Christianity are pointless; Jon Stewart did a great job pointing out how ridiculous it has become:
Right-wing pundits were quick to suggest that Breivik was right about the Islamic threat in Europe, though bombing government buildings and massacring children isn't a very effective way of fighting that threat. If he believed that his country was under siege by Muslim invaders, why didn't he take the "fight" to his perceived enemy? What did he think he was accomplishing by murdering all those people?
For what it's worth, I can somewhat understand the concern about multiculturalism - the "live and let live" attitude many Western governments have toward immigrants with no pressure to assimilate can lead to de facto segregated communities in which custom may supersede local law. I've heard reports of troubling inicidents in majority Muslim communities in other countries such as the UK before, though I'm not sure how factual they are; similar reports coming from Dearborn, Michigan are mostly sourced from a Christian group with its own agenda. Concern is one thing; paranoia is another.
Here's hoping that this atrocity is an isolated incident and not the start of a wider right-wing terror campaign. The last thing any secular society needs right now is the additional threat of self-styled Crusaders attacking civilians.
This post is the first in what I hope will be a series. I intend to examine a few of the major religious faiths that often ensnare the minds of the world. I'm not trying to attack people for their faith, but rather to understand why these belief systems appeal to people in the first place. Many people (often otherwise rational thinkers) embrace religions without being brought up in them or being coerced into them; what would make people want to convince themselves that such beliefs are true?
Ideally, I would like to have a discussion with a devout member of each religion before writing about it in this series.
Conversation with a Protestant
I recently (by which I mean a few months ago) had a discussion with a devout Christian who is by most measures quite intelligent, evidenced by his profession (computer programming) and by his skills as a conversationalist. He's studied his faith, studied other faiths, and come to the conclusion that his faith must be the true one.
To be honest, I'm not sure how our conversation turned to religion, but I was very interested in what he had to say once he got started on the topic. I didn't bring up the fact that I'm an atheist, and I'm not sure if my reputation preceded me or not, as he didn't bring it up either.
I'm sure that from his point of view, his statements revolved around reasons why his religion is true; from mine, they revolved around reasons why people should want it to be true.
This afternoon, courtesy of Martin S. Pribble, my Google Reader feed was graced by this alarming little nugget of religious nutballery. I'd like to share:
So there you have it, folks. The global movement to reduce pollution and use our planet's resources more responsibly is really a master scheme by the Devil to establish his New World Order. And how dare those environmentalist scientists suggest that our planet can't accommodate an infinite number of humans!
I personally found it hilarious when they talked about children being targeted because they are susceptible to deception, and accused environmentalists of using bad science, exaggeration, myth, and outright lies to push their worldview. Hmm, who else does that sound like? 0=)
Mr. Pribble didn't want to have a live link to these loons' website giving them hits from his blog. I personally don't care if they track hits back to me. You're welcome, guys! I'll bet you won't link to any of your critics, because that would give your followers the opportunity to think for themselves.
In all seriousness, I will admit that I am skeptical of some environmentalists' claims. I think that some of them do exaggerate the gravity of problems such as global warming to drum up support for solutions (and I'll have to see remarkable evidence of imminent danger before I support anything as rash as geoengineering measures). That's not to say that I'm not even more skeptical (cynical?) of their opponents who pretend that our activities never negatively affect the biosphere.
Legitimate criticisms of the more extreme elements of the environmentalist movement are one thing; blind religious denial that we're doing anything wrong is another. The belief that an all-powerful father figure wants our species to consume the planet into ruin is going to encourage a lot of people to behave irresponsibly, and its spread among American Christians will further divorce the faith's adherents from reality. As if this country's Religious Right wasn't doing enough in its war on science...
Damon Fowler's fight against school-imposed graduation prayer sparked a firestorm of controversy, and it's understandable that other high schools with similar traditions might be rethinking them now.
Another high school decided to play it safe and censor its valedictorian's speech because the student wanted to talk about his Christian faith.
I have mixed feelings about the school principal's decision and the discussion surrounding it.
It really infuriates me that people in this country can't find a happy medium between hateful traditionalist chauvinism and spineless PC-obsessive expurgation. Having an exclusionary Christian prayer as part of the graduation ceremony in a public school is a violation of the non-Christian students' rights; forbidding a student speaker to mention the effect his religion has had on his life is a violation of his rights.
Graduation was last week at my (high school) alma mater. It apparently used to be a tradition for the A Capella choir to sing "Beautiful Savior" as part of the commencement ceremony; that stopped in 2002 (the year before I graduated).
This pro-Christian tradition ended because Kate, a Jewish student who was both a choir member and a graduating senior that year, objected to having to sing it at her graduation and fought to have it removed from the ceremony.
I don't recall it being sung at my commencement, but back then I was an apathetic agnostic. I tended to shrug off the school's occasional sanctimonious pandering to the Christian majority.
Nine years later now, Kate left a comment on our hometown's Patch blog asking if that change had stuck. I noticed the comment last Wednesday and wondered if it was going to spark controversy. Remember all the venom being spewed at Damon Fowler and Jessica Ahlquist for standing up against school-mandated prayer?
Then again, surely no one in my hometown would stoop to such spiteful ad-hominem over something so minor, especially nine years after the fact; I was sure that her question would probably be answered by someone in the know and otherwise ignored.
A few items of interest as we end this non-Rapture weekend:
Razib "David Hume" Khan has a unique hypothesis about Harold Camping's bible studies.
Atheist high school student Jessica Ahlquist, who kicked the metaphorical hornets' nest when she asked her school to take down its prayer banner (pictured), has started a blog. She seems to have a lot to say, and has the writing skills with which to say it.
I would like to think that the Rapture story has been beaten to the point it's no longer recognizable as a dead horse, but it's just a matter of time until the next crazy doomsday prediction. As for all the high school atheists out there, keep standing up and speaking out! Public school officials shouldn't be endorsing any religion, period. Hold them accountable to the law, because you can bet that other Christians aren't going to.
I'm guessing that an absence of reports from the eastern hemisphere of Christians spontaneously ascending into the sky or vanishing outright means that Harold Camping's prediction of the Rapture failed. It's possible that we just might not have noticed because there are so few True Believers in the world. We can't truly say they were wrong until the world doesn't end in October.
It's not like this is the first time, after all.
Of course, the mainstream Christians out there are rolling their eyes and quoting Chapter 24, Line 36 of my biblical namesake. Obviously we'll never know when Christians are going to spontaneously ascend into the sky or vanish outright until the day it happens. It definitely wasn't supposed to have happened already (hint: don't read the two lines immediately preceding line 36), which means it's going to happen any day now.
Out of the desire to be more open-minded and worldly during my college years, I conditioned myself to give the benefit of the doubt to Muslims, members of eastern religions, and neo-pagans while liberally criticizing Christians. Such was the norm among college students.
It took me years to realize the irrationality and hypocrisy of this air of immunity my mind had placed around non-Christian religions. After all, you can disparage a religion as a whole without condoning discrimination or violence against its adherents; why should certain religions get a free pass while others are legitimate targets for condemnation? Furthermore, why should any religion at all be exempt from the same scrutiny we afford political and economic ideologies?
Muslims selectively interpret Quranic verses to suit their own attitudes, and the moderate Muslims liberally use No True Scotsman to distance themselves from extremists and terrorists. Even Hindus are just as prone to irrationality as their Abrahamic counterparts, forming lynch mobs to attack and kill Muslims and Christians in India, and starting an international clamor over an Australian swimsuit bearing the image of one of their deities. Do the particulars of theology make a difference in human behavior, or are reactions like these inherent in our nature?
I cringe at the credulity I once gave neo-pagans and their "choose your own reality" worldview, which like other religions is at best a delusional fantasy and at worst a deliberate deception of others.
We've all seen the actions of officially atheistic China in its crackdowns on Christians as well as its brutal campaign against Tibetan Buddhists, the same heavy-handed tactics one would expect from an oppressive theocracy. To me, this seems like evidence that even the absence of religious belief doesn't strip away this aspect of human nature; we will regardless cling irrationally to ideologies and turn against anyone who challenges them.
I think it makes sense to file all permutations of religion under the same category as other in the annals of human irrationality. It doesn't matter that some faiths have yielded beautiful artwork and music and contributed greatly to many modern cultures. All claims are subject to test by the cold, hard facts of reality, and we are right to dismiss any that fail that test regardless of emotional value to the claim maker.
Tomorrow, many members of our nation's Christian majority will "observe" their National Day of Prayer (status as a government holiday in dispute) by doing something their Bible says they should also be doing the other 364 days of the year: dropping to their knees, clasping their hands, and talking to the god they believe is listening. The NDoP Task Force has even been gracious enough to invite members of all religions to do the same (they do have to pander to the religious left, of course), though their instructions are specifically tailored for praying to Jesus.
Good for them. Their praying does me no injury, and I would strongly oppose any measure to restrict it. What I do oppose is having a legislative mandate for the President to lead it. Obama can lead it if he wants to - that's his right as an American, and he can say whatever he wants to the country when he has a microphone in front of him. It should be his choice, just as it's his choice to acknowledge other religious holidays throughout the year.
While the judicial battle over this event's status as a government-recognized holiday carries on, many atheist and secular humanist groups throughout the country are organizing "National Day of Reason" events in protest. Many are dedicating the day to volunteer projects to show that two hands working are worth a hundred million clasped in prayer. Atheists in New York City are organizing to donate blood, which I would have arranged to do tomorrow had I not just done so last week.
I'll be spending the day on the job, so volunteer work is probably out of the question. I'll make an effort to use my brain to solve a difficult problem, though that's something I try to do every day. To be honest, I don't think reason needs a special day, and it shouldn't have to be seen as an antithesis to a federal law. Here's hoping that the courts rule to privatize prayer and take this silly mandate out of our law books for good.
I really am at a loss for words about this. I would think that even the most credulous religious Americans, even those who donate their life savings to con-artist televangelists, would kick their pastor's teeth in if they witnessed him doing this to a member of the congregation.
