[Recap] Adopt-an-Atheist, flogging as a tenet of Islam, atheists sending their kids to church, and... Newt was pro-science?

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!

How dare those intolerant bigots at the U.N. offend the religious sensibilities of such a freedom-loving Muslim theocracy!

“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.

In which I lay out my political principles for the world to see

The Heathen Republican often makes informative posts about the ideological differences between progressive and conservative atheists.  He recently posted a side by side comparison of the core principles of each viewpoint, mentioning their common points of contention.  This post will in part be a response to his, and in part be a statement of my own political views.

Though political quizzes are hardly an infallible gauge of opinion on complex issues, they tend to consistently plot me just about where my sentiments lie.  I'm near the center, on the left side of the axis, and more libertarian than I am liberal/progressive.

Sort of like this.  (politicalcompass.org)

I don't even like the two-dimensional plot much, but it's the most accurate, easy-to-digest model of a person's political views I've seen yet: personal freedom vs. restriction, economic freedom vs. restriction.  I personally think that foreign policy ought to be the third axis, but that's a discussion for another day.

Weekly Recap: Tea Party vs. libertarians, atheist wedding vows, Little Kropotkin, and education fail!

I'm a bit late getting my posts completed this weekend; I've been doing a lot of running around and have not had as much computer time as usual. My obligatory 9/11 decennial post will be up tomorrow or Tuesday.

Tea Partiers are not libertarians

Skeptic libertarian author Michael Shermer tweeted a link to this video highlighting the very different views of the psuedo-libertarian Tea Party "Patriots" and actual members of the Libertarian Party.

It may get a bit strawman in some parts, but on the whole I'd say it's spot on. I'm certainly not happy about social conservatives commandeering the libertarian label (though I do not consider myself a true libertarian, I agree more with their views than I do with either major party) for their anti-liberty agenda, and I'm all for calling them out on it.

Godless Quote of the Week

Photo credit

"Each time I look to the stars while holding your hand, one fact runs through my mind. From the iron that courses through our veins, to the oxygen that fills our lungs, every piece of me, and every piece of you comes from those stars above us. How amazing it is to know that countless years ago the very atoms that make us both the individuals we are today were perhaps intertwined, interconnected, but most importantly... together."

This is an excerpt from an atheist redditor's wedding vows. I thought it was beautifully written, and I wish I'd been clever enough to pen something like this for my wedding. We had a Christian ceremony, but asked the minister to keep the preaching to a minimum and picked out cookie-cutter vows that didn't contain religious references.

Of course, the minister decided to troll me and insert the phrase "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" at the end of them; people who knew I was an agnostic at the time had a good laugh about that one.

(via Blonde Nonbeliever)

Sunday Subscription Site Suggestion

This week, I'd like my readers to take a look at The Humble Empiricist, a blog written by a Michigan atheist who goes by the name Kropotkin. It's mostly opinion articles, and she states her case in a straightforward, common sense manner. You can also see the video counterpart to her blog on her YouTube channel.

Weekly Absurdity: Buying iPads instead of hiring better teachers

The New York Times recently reported about the fact that the push for cutting-edge technology in classrooms hasn't improved students' learning in any measurable way. To make matters worse, school districts have been laying off teachers while simultaneously shelling out for this expensive technology.

It's not about how much you spend per pupil or what shiny new gadgets you have for your students to learn on. It's about the capable and driven person you have in front of the classroom leading them to skills and knowledge.

(via Secular Right)

Recap Post: pop stars for science, Straw Poll, the faaabulous Ann Coulter, femShep beauty pageant, and godless Christians!

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.

(via Culture of Science by Sheril Kirshenbaum) #science

---

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."

(via Mother 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 a f**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.

Being a centrist, or: My opinionated nonpartisan ego

According to New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, people who don't pick a side in polarized politicking are the cancer that is killing America.  He points to the media outlets which try (in vain) to maintain an air of impartiality in politics reporting, and concludes that centrists are devoted to a "cult of balance" and are "unwilling to sacrifice their treasured pose of being above the fray."

I've heard this argument from liberals before.  Angry because I show capacity for reason, criticize the other side, and yet don't support their party either, it dawns on them that I must have some inflated view of myself, that taking a stance on a contentious issue is somehow beneath me.  In their minds, I walk a tightrope of neutrality, wary of any opinion that might knock me from my lofty position and into the mudslinging match below.

Bull hockey.  I'm as opinionated as any of them about the hot-button issues of the day; the difference is that I try to base my views on what I observe and not on party dogma.  It doesn't mean that I obsessively try to balance the scales in every debate or scramble frantically to point an equal number of fingers at both parties.

The specific issue on which he calls out centrists is regarding the looming debt ceiling crisis, and how we seem intent on giving equal blame to both Democrats and Republicans for bringing us to brink of default.  How dare we, as it's obviously totally the GOP's doing and we should support the heroic Democrats' effort to accommodate those right-wing tyrants' demands!

Not so fast, Paul.  You're right on one thing: the stubborn GOP congressmen, prodded by their Tea Party handlers, are the ones who threaten to topple our nation's economy in their stubbornness on the debt ceiling.  The GOP certainly hasn't been the party of spending cuts in the past decade, and that doesn't absolve the Democrats of their failure to control spending either, but pointing out that they're both to blame for getting us to this precipice doesn't mean that centrists don't recognize which one threatens to push us off of the ledge!

He also points out that we've already got a "centrist" President, in the form of Barack "moderate-Republican-in-disguise" Obama.  That's nice, except that politics isn't a straight line on which we can plot politicians and see who comes closest to the sacred midpoint.  I don't want a candidate who pretends to be the "average" of two extremes (they all do that when pandering for votes!); I want one who rips the good planks out of both major parties' platforms, leaves the rotten ones behind, and builds a new, stable platform that most of the country can stand on.  I know that that's just a fanciful dream, so we're just going to have to settle for him for now.

Finally, Paul, don't confuse the news reporters with the general electorate.  It's the big corporate journalists' job to pretend to be impartial and present both sides as equally as they can.  The frustrated swing voters, however, don't pick a side because they see through the glossy facade that both parties affix to their platforms and candidates.

If you don't like the fact that I view Democrats with the same skepticism I direct at Republicans, then perhaps you ought to look at why so many people feel that no one in Washington has their interests in mind.

</rant>

Sorry, all.  That column irritated me more than it should have.

An option for Americans who are sick of partisan politics?

The two-party system in this country frustrates me to no end.  Not only do I find myself unable to support the ideology of either major party (it's tough being an atheist and not being a faithful liberal in this country), but I can't even trust their candidates to be honest about what they stand for.

The result is a political climate that focuses more on who's talking than on what's being said, and many good ideas flounder and die amidst volleys of nastiness and name-calling.

I hate to admit it, but I've become so disillusioned with the state of American politics that I almost don't feel that voting in national elections is worth my time.  I just want to let the Republicrats continue their stalemate in Washington while focusing on the issues I can help change, and I end up just casting a ballot for whichever side I think is the lesser evil (and then usually find out I was wrong).

And then, whilst skimming the news, I come across this:

If this kind of idiocy by elected officials sends you into a hair-pulling rage and leaves you wishing that we had more options today than our two-party system is putting forward — for instance, a party that would have offered a grand bargain on the deficit two years ago, not on the eve of a Treasury default — not only are you not alone, but help may be on the way.

Thanks to a quiet political start-up that is now ready to show its hand, a viable, centrist, third presidential ticket, elected by an Internet convention, is going to emerge in 2012.

There's an internet-based movement called Americans Elect 2012 that seeks to smash the two-party Scylla-and-Charybdis mold we've been stuck in for generations.  In a nutshell, it's a group of Republican, Democrat, libertarian, and independent voters attempting to form a consensus and jointly put a candidate on the ballot next fall who will actually get something done.

Part of me is doing the fist-pump, shouting "woo hoo!", and wanting to crack open a few beers with like-minded friends in celebration.  Part of me is skeptical of this movement's chances of success, and thinking that I shouldn't get my hopes up. 

Still, it's nice to entertain the notion that the next election might not be a choice of the lesser evil, and that I might have a positive alternative to a write-in vote for Cthulhu.

For what it's worth, any American readers who are frustrated with the current state of politics might want to visit the site and answer some of the policy questions.

About those "I Voted" stickers here in Ohio...

I wrote previously about the "Elect Your Sticker" online poll being run by my state to choose a new design for those small, adhesive badges of honor you get for doing your democratic duty.  Two of the proposed designs prominently feature Ohio's state motto: "With God, All Things Are Possible".  I and a number of other secular Ohioans are annoyed (though judging by the wording of their headline, Fox News wants people to think we're in uproar about it) that even something as trivial as an "I Voted" sticker has to endorse the majority religion's deity.  It's as if Christian activists want to use every opportunity they can to rub our noses in the fact that we non-Christians are outsiders in their culture, even as we go to the polling stations on Election Day.

As minor an annoyance as it is, I still pop back on to the Elect Your Sticker website on occasion to cast another vote for #3 and see how the stats are.  When I did so today, I noticed something peculiar:

Last time I checked, both leading stickers had over 500 "likes", and now, suddenly, the leading secular one has dropped down into the double digits.  Seems a little odd, no?

As you can see, the most popular religious sticker is winning again, but that's to be expected when its supporters are in the majority.

The voting ends August 8, and I'm thinking this is the last time I'm going to waste blog bandwidth on the subject.  Anyone who wants to vote for the godless "I ♥ Voting" stickers making a clever visual pun of our state's cordiform silhouette can go do so as often as they want.

One Nation, Indivisible: a godless perspective on America's heritage

"We must, indeed, hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin

I had originally started this a week ago as an "atheism and patriotism" Independence Day post; as I continued writing and fleshing out ideas, it became something different.

Just over 235 years ago, a group of colonial elite first declared the U.S. as an independent entity from the British Crown. The armed insurrection had started over a year earlier, and this Declaration gave it legitimacy and a united sense of purpose. People from the various colonies had their own (sometimes conflicting) motives and their own ideas of how they should be governed, but they all agreed that monarchical British rule would not be part of their future.

The story of this country's birth is a fascinating one, albeit overly romanticized in popular culture. I know that it is irrational to have pride in something so circumstantial as being born within a country's borders, but it's an emotion I can't help but feel; chalk it up to a sentimental attachment to my homeland and the people in it. Our system may have its inherent flaws and checkered past, but it's less wrong than many of the abysmal alternatives we've seen throughout history. Reason can flourish here, even if it must occasionally struggle against ingrained ignorance for survival.

Hypocrisy about the environment?

This post by Heather Mac Donald over at Secular Right is an indictment of the pseudo-environmentalism of many liberals, and an interesting perspective coming from an avowed conservative. It paradoxically put a ruminative smirk on my face. It's precisely the sentiment that crossed my mind one evening in Ann Arbor when I noticed that Whole Foods keeps their store lit up all night with what must be a kilowatt worth of bulbs even when they're closed.

It's a thought that's crossed my mind before: even though I try to do simple things to reduce my negative environmental impact, is it hypocritical of me to expect big government or big business to make bigger proportional sacrifices than I do?

If truly “caring for the environment” required anyone to give up his core lifestyle, the response would be: “Sorry, no can do.” The lifestyle changes that people are willing to embrace—recycling; driving a cool Prius; possibly, in a few cases, taking one’s own bags to the farmer’s market—are things that we are already willing to do. If saving the planet required us to turn off our computers and wireless devices, or running the electricity just 8 hours a day, no one would do it.

I do disagree with her idea of using higher gas taxes to increase demand for fuel efficiency; that's ultimately going to harshly punish blue-collar workers who depend on trucks and other vehicles for their livelihood while being a mere inconvenience for better-off suburbanites who do more unnecessary driving. She does, however, make an excellent point about the superficiality of the "green" label and the way the cultural elite brag about their "carbon footprint" as models do their dress size.

I recycle, turn the lights out when I leave the room, try not to waste water, and so forth. I make an effort not to directly make things worse in my day-to-day life, but can I honestly condemn polluting corporations when I'm unwilling to give up luxuries they provide? Is it fair to punish a firm for acting rationally in response to demand from its consumer base?

I think that we humans need to accept that we're an invasive species in most ecosystems on this planet. We don't adapt to our environment - we adapt our environment to us. We wreak ecological havoc just by being here. If we're going to be serious about mitigating that havoc, we should be promoting individual discipline to replace our culture of reckless consumerism. The solution isn't using government regulations to strong-arm industry; it's getting the general public to realize that environmental responsibility is an act of collective self-defense against a planet that could easily go on living without us.

Abortion is a complicated issue

My state is once again making headlines: yesterday the Ohio House of Representatives approved the so-called "Heartbeat Bill" (HB 125), which would ban all abortions in the state after the first detectable fetal heartbeat (normally 6-7 weeks along, often before a woman knows that she's pregnant), except in cases where the life of the pregnant woman is in danger. This naturally has provoked the "pro-choice" camp into a defensive frenzy, stepping up the campaign to defeat the bill in the Senate.

In my opinion, the debate over abortion and the restriction thereof is the most legitimate controversy we have in our society. It's an ethical dilemma at the collision point between two rights: that of human beings not to be unlawfully deprived of life, and that of human beings to retain sovereignty over their own bodies. It's an ugly debate convoluted by tough questions and mired by personal insults thrown from both sides, and it needs to be talked about in a rational manner.

Before discussing further, I want to give a curt admonition to each of the opposing factions:

Pro-lifers: Stop disingenuously talking about an embryo with a circulatory system as if it's biologically equivalent to a live toddler. It's not.

Pro-choicers: Stop disingenuously saying that this bill "threatens women's lives" when it makes a clear exception for medical necessity. That alarmist catchphrase should be saved for cases when it truly applies; the issue in contention here is women's privacy and control over their own bodies.

*** EDIT:  As Ginx correctly points out, the bill's passage could indirectly threaten Ohio women's lives by making it more likely for them to seek out potentially risky and unsanitary "back alley" abortions; if the embryo they're carrying has a pulse, then no Ohio doctor could legally perform the procedure.  What the bill directly threatens, however, is their rights regarding their bodies. ***

No honor among thieves, no credulity among atheists?

Even setting aside the incessant hair-splitting between professed atheists and professed agnostics, nontheism is far from being anything close to a coherent ideology. To be united by unbelief is a fragile alliance at best, and many of us are as skeptical of one another as we are of religion.

Take a look at some of the other atheist blogs I link to on my sidebar - Pharyngula, Friendly Atheist, BlagHag, Secular Right, The Intersection - and you'll see that we're scattered widely across every layer of the ideological map excepting theology. We don't just differ on politics and economics, but also on how to relate to religious people and even how atheists ought to live their lives.

Those of us who feel inclined to blog tend to be opinionated and outspoken individuals. It comes as no surprise, then, that when one notorious atheist blogger makes a post disagreeing with other notorious atheist bloggers, my RSS feeds are flooded with diatribe and discord.  Here are a few examples from this year alone:

Marriage equality in NY: at last, a glimmer of hope from the Republican Party

With the aid of four reasonable Republicans, New York's legislature has officially legalized same-sex marriage in the state.

Photo credit

The law includes an exemption for religious institutions, specifying that they don't have to recognize same-sex unions as marriage.  Good for them; they're entitled to their own beliefs and can exclude anyone they want to from religious services.

I'm happy to see that at least some of them have realized that fighting culture wars is a waste of taxpayers' time and money.  Last time I checked, same-sex couples in loving and committed long term relationships weren't causing an economic crisis; shouldn't politicians focus their energy on bigger issues instead of trying to preserve archaic discrimination against this minority group?

It would be nice to see Republican legislators around the country (and on Capitol Hill) take note, but that's wishful thinking.  Fanning the flames of anti-gay sentiment is an all to easy way to distract their constituents from the fact that they aren't doing anything to trim down government spending.

At least four in New York got it right.

This should be an interesting week...

It's been an eventful Monday.

• Trump dropped out of the 2012 Presidential running, ending a joke that stopped being funny a while ago;
  
• Facebook has been peppered with reports that scientists have "cured" cancer, which would be awesome except that they didn't;
  
• Pakistan is no doubt preparing to block major social networking sites in anticipation of "Everyone Draw Muhammad Day" (post about that subject coming later this week);

• Stephen Hawking dismissed the afterlife like a boss;
• Harold Camping and his acolytes are counting down the hours until Jesus comes back nothing happens on Saturday;
  
• apparently a cult of Russian women believe that Vladimir Putin is a reincarnated apostle.

That's all for now.