You are currently browsing the archive for the Atheism And Religion category.
Christopher Hitchens weighs in on the increasing “white minority” syndrome that plagues America:
“One crucial element of the American subconscious is about to become salient and explicit and highly volatile. It is the realization that white America is within thinkable distance of a moment when it will no longer be the majority. This awareness already exists in places like New York and Texas and California, and there have even been projections of the time(s) at which it will occur and when different nonwhite populations will collectively outnumber the former white majority. But it also exerts a strong subliminal effect in states like Alaska that have an overwhelming white 
preponderance.
Until recently, the tendency has been to think of this rather than to speak of it—or to speak of it very delicately, lest the hard-won ideal of diversity be imperiled. But nobody with any feeling for the zeitgeist can avoid noticing the symptoms of white unease and the additionally uneasy forms that its expression is beginning to take.
For example, so strong is the moral stature of the Rev. Dr Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement that even the white right prefers to pretend to emulate it. (This smarmy tactic long predates Glenn Beck, by the way: I remember Ralph Reed trying it when he ran the Christian Coalition more than 10 years ago and announced that he wanted to remodel the organization along the lines of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.) Thus, it is really quite rare to hear slurs against President Barack Obama that are based purely on the color of his skin. Even Beck himself has tried to back away from the smears of that kind that he has spread in the past. But it is increasingly common to hear allegations that Obama is either foreign-born or a Muslim. And these insinuations are perfectly emblematic of the two main fears of the old majority: that it will be submerged by an influx from beyond the borders and that it will be challenged in its traditional ways and faiths by an alien and largely Third World religion….”
Hugh Hewitt, a radio talkshow host, tried his best to make the case against Same Sex Marriage. I listened to the entire hour and here is my argument FOR Same Sex Marriage. LISTEN HERE
1) This radio program did itself a dis-service by not reading any of the text from Judge Walker’s ruling on this case before proceeding. (See references below to read the full ruling) They like to comment on what he supposedly said, without letting his words be read first. It is also interesting to note that Walker was nominated by Ronald Regan and later appointed by George Bush and almost did not make it through his vetting because he was considered to be “too conservative and a literalist in constitutional law”. He was criticized for being a member of a private club that had refused membership to blacks and women; gay rights advocates also denounced his representation, as a private lawyer, of the United States Olympic Committee in its efforts to keep another organization from calling itself the Gay Olympics.
They also did not explain the main constitutional or legal arguments from each side of the debate. Those who favor banning Same Sex Marriage say that the 10 amendment is what gives their state by state case the legal right to define marriage. The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” On the other side of the legal argument, there is the 14th Amendment, which states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In other words, the states can define marriage, so long as they don’t discriminate. For example, not too long ago, whites and blacks were not legally allowed to get married…. (see point 2)
1A) One of the commentators halfway through expresses that his main argument against SSM is that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman as taught by his christian religion. He then stated that this was not a good enough argument and that the argument against SSM tries to show how traditional marriage is best. Why fight this fight?
A. One answer given is that the judicial decision will determine what “type of community we have” and what “type of family we present to our children”. This is NOT what the ruling was about. The ruling on Prop 8 concluded that discriminating against gay and lesbian couples is unconstitutional. Opponents of interracial marriage had the same argument in the 1800 and 1900s. They could not imagine a world where blacks and whites were allowed to marry and have kids. What would happen when mixed children went to school with white children, and what type of family would that present to our children!? The bottom line is that you may disagree with other people’s lifestyle and private life, but this does not mean you can enact laws that prevent them from exercising their constitutional freedoms.
B. Another argument put forth is that if you allow same sex marriage, then what? Polygamy? The same could be said about interracial marriage. “Well, if you let blacks marry whites, then what? People will be marrying their dogs!” The problem with this argument is that it does not address the debate of civil rights at hand, yet wildly extrapolates into a scare tactic. What if we said the same thing about ending abortion? “Well, if we say that 
abortion is illegal, pretty soon you won’t be able to spay or neuter your cat!” That tactic does not address the civil right at hand. Granting civil rights to a group of consenting adults of legal age is the legal issue at hand. If it is upheld by the constitution, it should be granted. When people want to marry more than one person, that legal and constitutional issue can be addresses later and has no bearing on the constitutional rights of the group being discussed. It is ironic to note that the LDS church, the biggest spender against Prop 8, is the only religion involved in this debate that allows for polygamist marriages. Also, using the divorce rate of heterosexual couples to deny homosexual couples the right to marry is discriminatory.
C. Religious schools will have to hire or give benefits to same sex couples. This is a scare tactic. Because of the separation of church and state, the state cannot tell a religious group how to define marriage in their religious ceremonies, nor does it have the jurisdiction to tell these groups who they cannot discriminate against. According to the constitution, christian churches will be able to continue defining marriage between a man and women and will be allowed to continue discrimination on the job by sexual orientation. Heck, they can even still discriminate according to religious standing when hiring and firing.
D. One guy suggests that kids that have only one parent are more likely to end up in the prison system. He is making a conclusion without data. It is more accurate to state that children who grow up in poor neighborhoods with high crime rates are more likely to go to prison. They are also more likely to have only one parent, but the conclusion that they go to prison is not determined by their single parent status, but rather by their economic status and high crime environment. These kids are also primarily black, but we are not about to suggest that BECAUSE you are black you have a higher chance of going to prison, like this commentator suggested of single parenthood.
2) Historically, the USA has already been through a shockingly similar debate about what types of adults have the legal right to civil unions (legal marriage). For the first hundred years of our country’s history, your sex determined your right to vote. Not until 1920, was women’s suffrage granted by the 19th Amendment. Before then, you had to have a penis in order to vote. It reads: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”
Interracial marriage laws were known as “anti-miscegenation” laws. Most states, especially slave states, held on to their anti-miscegenation laws even after the slaves were freed. Christians defended these laws with various bible passages. The constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1883 case Pace v. Alabama (106 U.S. 583). The Supreme Court ruled that the Alabama anti-miscegenation statute did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. According to the court, both races were treated equally, because whites and blacks were punished in equal measure for breaking the law against interracial marriage and interracial sex. This judgment was overturned in 1967 in the Loving v. Virginia case, where the Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore unconstitutional.
The same arguments are being held now over same sex marriage. Racial discrimination of the 20th century is strikingly similar to sexual discrimination in the 21st century. Historically, citizens of the united states have shown a history of denying rights to minority groups or unpopular groups. That is why the founders of the USA set up a partial democracy. If majority vote determined who was granted rights and who wasn’t, the slaves would not have been freed, women would not have been granted the right to vote and interracial couples would not have been given equal rights. All those changes were wildly unpopular in their day, but the courts did their job in upholding the equal rights laid out in the constitution. Same sex marriage is just another example of this pattern. The radio commentators continued to say that same sex marriage “is an assault on traditional marriage”. The same argument could have been made in 1880, when interracial marriage was frowned upon by Christians as an “assault on traditional marriage” between whites and whites.
3) It is the mantra of the Republican party and staunch conservatives that the government should stay out of our business, stay out of our private lives. The government should not be putting restrictions on our personal freedoms. The only time government should enact laws is when our personal decisions directly harm the lives or property of other citizens. Gays and Lesbians are living lives of love for each other, harming no one. They are simply asking for basic civil liberties like every other citizen: the right to legally unite and receive the same legal parameters as opposite sex partners. Same sex couples face discrimination by the federal government because of their sexual makeup. This discrimination goes against everything the constitution stands to uphold and protect. The love between same sex persons does not harm others and should not be such an obsession of the christian religions.
4) Religion. The most opposed group to Civil Unions is the Christian and Mormon religious base. Where they go wrong is in trying to enact laws that enforce their own religious doctrine. The 1st Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” By enacting a law such as Prop 8, Christians and Mormons edge dangerously close to making laws establishing a religion or religious preference in the law. If the argument against Same Sex marriage is primarily “God says it is wrong”, then making such a law to reflect the religious teaching of one religious group comes dangerously close to violating the 1st Amendment.
The Mormon Church, in it’s campaign for Prop 8 spent 100 times mores than they reported on campaigning. Because churches are not taxed by gov’t, 
they are not allowed to donate money to political campaigns without filing reports and paying taxes on those contributions. There is evidence that much more was spent by the LDS church on Prop 8, as documented in the film 8: The Mormon Proposition. After they ran out of money, the LDS church petitioned the Catholic Church to help fund their Prop 8 campaign in California. The Catholic Church gave millions of dollars to the LDS church for their campaign efforts. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/21/local/la-me-prop8-trial21-2010jan21 The Christian obsession with denying gays civil liberties is disturbing at best.
In Conclusion, I must state that I am personally not in favor of marriage law, even for heterosexual couples. Many people use it, and I think they should be able to, should this be their choice. It is simply not my personal choice to use the legal package of marriage to accomplish a legal union between myself and my partner. You can read more about my views on why I think legal marriage is not the best legal option for any couple: http://liberatedmind.com/2010/02/what-could-be-better-than-marriage/
Resources:
1) Summary of California ruling by NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/us/05prop.html
2) Full text on Judge Walker’s Ruling: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/prop-8-ruling-read-the-fu_n_671050.html
3) There was a bigger case in Massachusetts where another judge ruled in favor of equal rights for Gays and Lesbians. http://www.slate.com/id/2260039 The Gill case, which was filed first by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, is unique because it challenged not the right of same-sex couples to marry, but the discrimination faced by same-sex couples who were legally married in Massachusetts but are treated differently than opposite-sex married couples by the federal government. The case points to health and retirement benefits of federal employees and their same-sex spouses or, in one case, the widow of a former federal employee. It also challenges diffential tax treatment faced by same-sex couples.
4) US Constitution
This is a compilation of the basics of evolution and a broad brush of the sources of evidence for evolution. Prompted by requests from friends and family to procure evidence for evolution, this is the summary of some of the most controversial subtopics of the evidence for evolution. It is meant to be a springboard for those who know little about evolution or have been told that evolution is just a belief like creationism.
EVOLUTION BASICS
In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. Evolution does not explain how life first began, nor is it a science of cosmology, dealing with what occurred before the beginning of the known universe. Evolution is the science of how different organisms have developed and diversified since life first appeared on earth. When a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and develop into new species. The fossil record evidence for evolution not only recorded these changes, but it is astonishing how many fossils we have been able to find when considering how circumstantial the process of fossilization is. The earth has been radio isotope dated to be about 4.5 billion years old. Humans appear in the fossil record at 2 million years ago. All that space in between has been filled with the beginnings of life evolving over billions of years.
TREE OF LIFE
The “tree of life” which scientists have constructed to show the relation between all living things, must be understood to be a tree, not a ladder. When
Charles Darwin's Tree of Life brainstorming sketch.
one species evolves from another over millions of years, the “parent species” from which the second animal evolved from may still be living and breeding amongst their population. Sometimes the second species that evolved from the parent species dies out before the parent species and sometimes the parent species dies out before the second. Some animals, like humans, apes and monkeys, share a common ancestor from which other species in each of our family trees branched off from. This common ancestor has since gone extinct while the branches of species evolving from this common ancestor have changed and continued branching over about 3.5 million years. Humans in our general anatomical form appear about 2 million years ago.
DNA
Even without the fossil record, it is possible to create a “tree of life” based solely on the DNA of every living organism. DNA is the “code” by which each organism is built. Small changes in that code are what drives evolution. We have been able to find out that the genetic difference between our cousin apes and ourselves is only a 1-2% difference. Genetically, we are slightly more distant from monkeys, about 4% difference. Since mapping the first genome in 2001, scientists have been able to map over 1000 genomes, mostly in those of bacteria and small animals like fruit flies (they have only 13 Chromosomes, making it less time consuming to decode). In the course of these studies, it has been found that there are certain types of yeast that are genetically more distant from one another than humans are from apes. Interestingly, Humans also share 80% of their DNA in common with sea sponges. Every living thing on the plant is our cousin. Some are more distant cousins and some are more closely related like primates.
When considering how life got started on earth 3 billion years ago, biologists theorized that RNA might have been the determining jump start. Made from basic elements found on earth, RNA still exists in living organisms today shuttling around information packets. In 2009, Sutherland experimented with the basic elements that comprise RNA and in a lab was able to “create” RNA strands. Read more here.
EVOLUTION IN ACTION
“Soft” creationism suggests that a creator made each living thing in a sequence that correlates to when they were found in the fossil record and generally refuses to relate any one species to another. This view does not explain how species have evolved over the short period of time that humans have been breeding livestock, dogs, plants and yeast. Humans have successfully accomplished artificial evolution through breeding. All modern variations of the Dog, for example can be genetically traced back to wolves. Intense domestication of the dog has occurred over the last 150 years, resulting in over 150 types of purebred dogs. The dog, Canis familiaris, are all descended from the wolf, Canis lupus. By mimicking nature, humans select traits and breed desired traits to get the desired result (a smaller size, a fluffier coat, a pug nose, etc). By breeding plants with choice traits, we have been able to “create” fruits with no seeds like bananas and watermelon. We have also been able to create seeds that are resistant to toxicants so we can spray these toxins on the crop and kill everything BUT the genetically modified plant. GMO crops are so drastically modified that they have been able to get patents for them.
Examples of “fast paced” evolution without human gain can be found in science labs. The E. coli long-term evolution experiment is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially nearly identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since February 24, 1988. The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations on February 14, 2010. 1 Over their 50,000 generations, the E. Coli bacteria evolved to be able to “digest” citrate, a compound that they were previously unable to digest for energy. Through natural selection, the bacteria that were able to cope with digesting even a little of the citrate were the only ones to pass on their genes, and with each generation, the trait that was able to digest citrate became more and more prominent, resulting in a population that was entirely happy digesting citrate. (Read more here)
When you go to the doctor and he prescribes you some antibiotics for a bacterial infection, what does he always say? FINISH THE WHOLE BOTTLE OF PILLS! Why? Because bacteria evolve to resist the antibiotics we throw at them. By taking the entire dose, you decrease the chance that a few “tougher” bacteria will survive your onslaught of drugs and go on to infect someone else. If that does happen and someone else gets your antibiotic resistant strain, the antibiotics will be less effective on these “super bugs”. Necrotizing fasciitis is one of many new “super bacteria” that have evolved to be resistant to antibiotics. Read more.
EMBRYOLOGY
Evolution predicts that species with common ancestors should exhibit those same traits during embryological development. When we look at the embryological development of whales and dolphins, the embryos have arm and leg buds, with the same length and positioning of tetra-pod embryos 
like humans. These legs later disappear. In fact, the first weeks of human embryonic development, the fetus is indistinguishable from the fetus of a shark, dog, whale, and even salamander. Animals that don’t have tails, have tails in embryo form that later disappear, like humans. Human embryos carry a trait from our fish ancestry in the form of gills. These gills develop later into the lower jaw and the ear slit. (To learn more see Recapitulation Theory)
UNINTELLIGENT DESIGN: EYES
It is suggested by intelligent design advocates that complex organisms or organs could only have been “designed” by a creator because they are so perfect or so complex. The human eye is a favorite example creationists use to suppose intelligent design. They state that the eye could not have been functional in any evolutionary state prior to it’s current form. They also claim the human eye is so complex and beautiful in “design” that it reflects the thoughtfulness of a creator.
To this first notion that the eye could not have been functional in any evolutionary state: Watch this short video by David Attenborough, then come back…
The eye, in all it’s evolutionary stages is found in animals alive today. Each stage of the eye that is found in animals today logically and pragmatically leads to “advanced” eyes that humans, primates, dogs, cats etc all share. In fact, the human eye has more flaws than some other creatures…
To the second notion that the human eye is so complex and beautiful that it reflects the care of its “designer”: There are two major items wrong with this assumption. 1) The human eye is less capable than the eyes of many animals. For example, Bees can see in ultraviolet as well as color. They, and most flying insects can see more frames per second than humans, allowing them to seem to “predict” when we are going to swat at them.
Birds possess both binocular vision – when both eyes focus on a single object and monocular vision – focusing on an object through only one eye. All birds have eyelids, but they’ve gone us one better. In addition to movable upper and lower lids, birds also have a third eyelid know as the nictitating membrane or nictitan. This is a semi-transparent membrane (although in owls alone it is opaque) that can be swept closed across the eye from the direction of the beak to the ear very quickly at the bird’s will. The nictitating membrane is used to protect the eye as well as clean and lubricate it by brushing moisture secreted from the lachrymal gland across it with each blink. Just prior to striking their prey, raptors close their nictitans for protection against the possible lashing out of the captured animal. We humans have 200,000 visual cells per square millimeter in our fovea. Not bad until you consider that the small, unassuming English sparrow has 400,000 per square millimeter and the European Buzzard, the visual cell grand champ, has one million per square millimeter giving it a visual acuity of at least eight times that of a human.2 Peregrine Falcons have some of the best eyes in the animal kingdom. These amazing birds have evolved an eye beyond the human eye that has a denser lens center, allowing them to see through a sort of telescopic vision at the center of their eye. They have also solved a huge flaw in the human eye that has the veins covering the cornea. In humans, these veins cause a blind spot in the center of our vision, but in falcons, their ocular veins have moved out of the way of this critical spot. They have evolved these super eyes for diving and seeing prey at high air space.
Mantis Shrimp can see in 16 different color wavelengths, whereas human vision is skewed toward red and green. Vision can also vary in the maximum rate at which retinal cells can fire in response to light (the “flicker fusion point,” at which a blinking light no longer seems to blink). Most people can’t detect more than about sixty blinks (frames) a second. A fluorescent light, for instance, actually blinks on and off sixty times a second, but most people perceive the light as continuous. For dogs, though, the maximum detectable frame rate is closer to eighty blinks a second, and so a dog may actually see the flickering. Seeing with more frames per second is what allows animals and insects to react faster to visual stimulus. Although color-blind, the cuttlefish has two of the most highly developed eyes in the animal kingdom. It can see well in low light and can also detect polarized light, enhancing its perception of contrast. While we humans reshape our lenses in order to focus on specific objects, the cuttlefish moves its lenses by reshaping its entire eye. Also, the cuttlefish’s eyes are very large in proportion to its body and may increase image magnification upon the retina, while the distinct “W” shaped pupil helps control the intensity of light entering the eye.
2) The human eye has optical imperfections. Human eyes are imperfect because evolution is a slow process of change, not an instant “creation” of an organ. A thoughtful designer would have made such a necessary organ in humans with more care than we find in human eyes. In the human
Anatomy of the Human Eye
eye, nerve cells and blood vessels lie in front the of retina where they interfere with the eye’s ability to see images. The optic nerve itself also connects to the brain through a whole in the back of the retina, causing a blind spot in human vision. By placing the nerves and blood vessels in the way of light entering the eye, a suggested designer greatly decreased the ability of the eye. Also, the blind spot is an unnecessary flaw in the “design” of an eye. Humans have been able to design better versions of what the eye could be, had it been a thoughtful process. What we find instead, is that the eye evolved through every stage visible in animals today. It is these evolutionary stages that lead to the current anatomy of the human eye. Please take a moment to watch this video by PBS on the evolution of the human eye and the problems with it’s “design”:
RESOURCES
Evolution is such an immense topic, with many facets and disciplines, it is difficult to condense everything you need to know down into an email. I’ve tried to brush over the major areas of study. It is like trying to give you a crash course in chemistry though, and I can’t do the science justice in a few emails. I’ll give you many forms and ways to discover more about the facts of evolution on your own time.
The Basics on the Theory of Evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8
A visual museum of fossils: http://www.fossilmuseum.net/
Talk Origins Website: http://www.talkorigins.org/
Primate Evolution Tree: http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html#chart
Fossils associated with the Primate Evolution tree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
Videos can be the most helpful because you get to view fossils and visual aids.
PBS has a “portal” of videos related to evolution: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
Dawkins on the evolution of the eye: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5e2c6uliTw&feature=related
Paleoanthropology Links http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/links.html
Berkley University has a hub for articles explaining evolution. You can browse all four topics: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
The most recent book I have read on Evolution is call “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution” by Dawkins. Dawkins is a biologist who lays out the evidence for evolution in detail, going through all the varying types of evidence so far uncovered. It is the best “lay man’s” explanation in book form I have yet come across.
This is a 25 minute interview where Dawkins answers questions about his book: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUFOlyt7ErE
From Time.com
“
How do you atone for something terrible, like the Inquisition? Joseph Ratzinger attempted to do just that for the Roman Catholic Church during a grandiose display of Vatican penance — the Day of Pardon on March 12, 2000, a ritual presided over by Pope John Paul II and meant to purify two millenniums of church history. In the presence of a wooden crucifix that had survived every siege of Rome since the 15th century, high-ranking
Pope Benedict sporting his red leather shoes, a far cry from the sandals and lowly garb Jesus might have worn.
Cardinals and bishops stood up to confess to sins against indigenous peoples, women, Jews, cultural minorities and other Christians and religions. Ratzinger was the appropriate choice to represent the fearsome Holy Office of the Inquisition: the German Cardinal was, at the time, head of its historical successor, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. When his turn came, Ratzinger, the church’s premier theologian, intoned a short prayer that said “that even men of the church, in the name of faith and morals, have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospel in the solemn duty of defending the truth.”
If you detect ambivalence in those words, you are on the road to understanding the difficulty Ratzinger — now Pope Benedict XVI — faces in leading the Catholic Church to properly atone for another stain on its history: the decades of cases of child abuse by priests and cover-ups by their bishops. And while a well-placed Cardinal has publicly speculated that Benedict will deliver a mea culpa in early June, the words of that apology — if that is what it proves to be — will be severely limited by theology, history and the very person and office of the Pope. It is unlikely to satisfy the many members of Benedict’s flock who want a very modern kind of accountability, not just mealymouthed declarations buttressed by arcane religious philosophy. “Someone once told me that if the church survived the Inquisition, it can survive this,” says Olan Horne, 50, an American victim of priestly abuse. “But these are different times. And right now, the modern world is wrapping its head around the Catholic Church in a major way.”
The crisis facing the church is deeply complicated by the fact that in 1980, as Archbishop of Munich, the future Benedict XVI appears to have mismanaged the assignment of an accused pedophile priest under his charge. That revelation — and questions about Ratzinger’s subsequent oversight of cases as a top Vatican official — has been the trigger in turning a rolling series of national scandals into an epic and existential test for the universal church, its leader and its faithful alike. It has blunted Benedict’s ambitious enterprise of re-evangelizing Europe, the old Christendom. Over the past two months, the Pope has led the Holy See’s shift from silence and denial to calls to face the enemies from within the church. What is still missing, however, is any mention of the Holy Father’s alleged role in the scandal. Can the Pope, the living embodiment of the ancient Gospel and absolute spiritual leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics, publicly atone for his sins and yet preserve the theological impregnability of the papacy?
Without alluding to the crisis, Benedict told his May 26 audience in St. Peter’s Square that “not even the Pope can do what he wants. On the contrary, the Pope is the guardian of obedience to Christ, to his Word.”
Benedict now seems to understand the stakes. But Alberto Melloni, a church historian at the University of Modena, says other power brokers in the Vatican think the church can just ride out the storm. “They don’t realize the deep bitterness among the faithful, the isolation of the clergy. We can’t predict where this is going to wind up.” Speaking to TIME, a senior Vatican official foresees immense consequences for the entire church. “History comes down to certain key episodes,” he says. “We’re facing one of those moments now.”
At the Heart of the Darkness
In the end, the test is not about doctrine or dogma, not even about the wording of mea culpas and the resignation or prosecution of prelates. It is, rather, about the voices of children finally crying out, long after their childhood. Listen to Bernie McDaid’s story and you will know why St. Peter’s trembles.
“He grabbed me, tickling and wrestling like I did with my dad, and I thought at first it was fun,” McDaid, who grew up in Salem, Mass., says of a parish priest. “But then something changed … He started grabbing my genitals. I felt him rubbing against me from behind … I was so scared. I knew this was so wrong. I looked out the window. I started praying.” That would happen again and again over three years. McDaid’s devout mother was delighted whenever the priest arrived to pick up her son, just 11 when the abuse started, to join other boys on trips to the beach. But, recalls McDaid, now 54, “the last boy out of the car was the one who would get molested.” He finally spoke to his dad, who then took him to a priest from the next town to report what had happened. “We waited for months. Then there was a rotation of priests. He left, but they made it look like a natural progression. They celebrated him with cake and ice cream.” The boy was left in silence and with his secret shame. The priest, Father Joseph Birmingham, went on to abuse boys in three other parishes in the Boston area before he died in 1989.
“
Sister Margaret McBride
In November, a women 11 weeks pregnant came into a Phoenix hospital with a life threatening condition that needed immediate action to save her life. She was given the choice to abort her baby or keep it and informed about how keeping the pregnancy would endanger her life. She made her choice to live and the Nun on staff thought that saving the life of the mother followed Directive 47 in the U.S. Catholic Church’s ethical guidelines for health care providers — that allows, in some circumstance, procedures that could kill the fetus to save the mother. Upon hearing that Sister Margaret McBride allowed the abortion to save the mother’s life, Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted immediate excommunicated the nun.
It is certainly a compelling reason to abort an 11 week old fetus to save the life of the mother, especially if the fetus would not have survived had the mother died. I think the Sister McBride made the correct and humane decision. The most compelling argument in the NPR article was this part:
“In the case of priests who are credibly accused and known to be guilty of sexually abusing children, they are in a sense let off the hook,” Doyle says.
Doyle says no pedophile priests have been excommunicated. When priests have been caught, he says, their bishops have protected them, and it has taken years or decades to defrock them, if ever.
“Yet in this instance we have a sister who was trying to save the life of a woman, and what happens to her? The bishop swoops down [and] declares her excommunicated before he even looks at all the facts of the case,” Doyle says.
The church’s suggestion would be to let both the mother and the fetus die, rather than abort to save the life of the mother. It is a double standard for the church to excommunicate a nun for saving the life of this women and then take no action to excommunicate priests who rape children repeatedly, but rather move them from one parish to another.
“Heaven is constantly shifting shape because it is a history of subconscious human longings.
Show me your
heaven, and I’ll show you what’s lacking in your life. The desert-dwellers who wrote the Bible and the Koran lived in thirst – so their heavens were forever running with rivers and fountains and springs. African-American slaves believed they were headed for a heaven where “the first would be last, and the last would be first” – so they would be the free men dominating white slaves. Today’s Islamist suicide-bombers live in a society starved of sex, so their heaven is a 72-virgin gang-bang. Emily Dickinson wrote: ” ‘Heaven’ – is what I cannot Reach!/The Apple on the Tree/Provided it do hopeless – hang/That – ‘Heaven’ is – to Me!”"
CHAPTER IV. MAKING NO SENSE OF IT ALL
Ego Problem
Humility must be my plan.
Worship Jesus as much as I can.
He wants me to praise him!
(Why did Mary raise him
to be such an arrogant man?)
Lost Cause
Lord God made a pretty bad bet
sending Jesus to settle my debt.
He who died for my sins
can just do it again
‘cause I ain’t stopped committin’ ‘em yet.
Intercession
Sweet Jesus, you know I adore you,
but plenty of folks lived before you.
You came late to the scene
if you know what I mean.
Have mercy on them, I implore you.
J.C., you have always been kind.
Here’s a thought that I hope you won’t mind.
You could hold make-up classes
to save all their asses
and get yourself out of this bind.
Holy Arithmetic
I can picture the Heavenly Host -
But a Father, a Son and a Ghost?
How one dude can be three
is a mystery to me –
That’s the puzzle that puzzles me most.
Heavenly Choices
Some problems with heaven disturb me.
Won’t those stuffy Believers perturb me?
Do I get a new body?
Do I get to be naughty?
Or will God and his crew try to curb me?
Lord, you’ve promised no sorrow or woe there.
And the angels put on quite a show there.
Here’s the question complex:
Do the angels like sex?
If it’s no, then I don’t want to go there.
Fishers of Men
(Fish? Or Cut Bait?)
Christ said, Fish for men in the sea!
I’ve taken his words literally.
But I cast my net down
and I pull up a clown.
That advice isn’t workin’ for me.
The Gospel, According to Mason and Dixon
In the South there are Christians galore.
These people adore keeping score.
Being gay is a sin,
if you’re poor you can’t win,
if you’re black they subtract even more.
The Savior, who sees this as well,
thinks His lessons were clear as a bell.
These folks aren’t worth savin’
the way they’re behavin’ –
I’m sendin’ ‘em all straight to Hell.
J. C. Is O.K.
J. C. was a very cool dude –
way ahead of his time (which was crude.)
We could use him these days -
the Progressives would praise,
but Conservatives might come unglued.
But Is God A Republican?
That question is worth some debate.
Democratic ideals aren’t so great.
Jesus talked about caring
and giving and sharing
but strong folks need someone to hate.
Our wealth we must never deplete.
All these hand-outs could spell our defeat.
And when things go awry
blame some devilish guy.
That’s the sensible way to compete.
God Talks with Al Gore About Global Warming
You – and your science – are small.
You forget whose controlling it all.
I hate to defy you
but if I want to fry you
I won’t need those charts on the wall.
Diagnosing the Christian Deity
This case is exceedingly odd.
The guy’s got his shorts in a wad.
His delusions are grand
and he can’t understand
his name is not Almighty God.
Though he talks like a happy high-liver,
his tantrums can make a man quiver.
Mood swings are excessive -
he’s passive-aggressive,
makes promises he can’t deliver.
Sometimes he’s quite a cajoler –
more often a nasty controller.
Today – a cool sage.
Tomorrow – hot rage!
This God-boy is clearly bi-polar.
The Fundamental Facts
Evolution is really quite odd -
a theory we cannot applaud.
You find scholars impressive?
These fools are obsessive -
and EVIL for challenging God!
Poor Darwin did not recognize
that Truth must descend from the skies.
Let me ask once again:
Are you monkeys or men?
Good men never monkey with lies!
Riddle: Where In Hell Are We?
The heat from this place can be felt
when your brain does a gradual melt.
It’s quite large, but feels tight
when you don’t behave right.
Give up? It’s your own Bible Belt!
Another Riddle
Christians have put their own spin
on manners and morals and sin.
There’s not much they miss,
but with angels they guess
How many can dance on a pin?
Why Won’t God Reveal Himself?
I used to enjoy blind-man’s-bluff,
hide-and-seek, and other kid-stuff.
But this Hider’s still hidin’.
that’s why I’m decidin’
This game has gone on long enough.
Devilish Logic
Sometimes I express my frustration
with a world full of cruel devastation.
Then some church-going jerk
tells me: Satan’s at work!
But God is in charge of salvation!
Pastoral Counseling
If you think you’re a miserable sinner,
and your prospects for Heaven grow thinner,
Don’t despair; just BELIEVE!
God has tricks up his sleeve.
He could still declare you a winner.
Free At Last!
I have prayed, I have bowed, I have scraped.
My brain has been washed and reshaped.
Now this 3-in-1 God
is revealed as a fraud.
Thank the Lord, I have finally escaped!
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I humbly thank and dedicate this outrageous little book -
To my dear dad, who loved Limericks, and who would be sitting high in Paradise, if only it existed.
To the dedicated church and Sunday school preachers and teachers who did they best to imbue me with their versions of Truth.
To my mother, who was always mercifully silent on such subjects.
To my three deeply moral and highly irreverent sisters.
To my honest old aunty who, on my Lutheran confirmation day, looked me straight in the eyes and said, “You don’t really believe all that crap, do you?”
And to many God-fearing Christian friends who have helped me to understand how seriously I reject their view of this world and whatever lies beyond. Such faith leaves me in a state of shock and awe.
- PeachTree Grandma
The Unholy Scriptures: Summarized and Pulverized used with permission by LiberatedMind.com
CHAPTER III. GETTING THE WORD OUT
The Council of Nicaea
(Or: The Value of a Good Editor)
Boys, you’ve written a good, strong beginnin’
Now follow with plenty of sinnin’.
We need rape, we need war,
and a whole lot of gore,
and nothin’ that’s written by women.
That virginal twist was inspired.
What talented fellas I hired!
A bush that is burnin’
will keep pages turnin’
but poetry sure makes me tired.
Your description of heaven is swell.
Let’s expand on the fires of hell.
Boys, we’re nearly all done
and I do hafta run –
Do you think that this damned thing will sell?
Editing Genesis
Okay, fellas, gimme a break.
I’m a writer myself, for Christ’s sake!
That garden, I’ll buy -
and a weak-minded guy -
but you can’t keep the talking snake!
Editing the Virgin Birth
That’s an awfully bold fiction we’re shovin’
on people who understand lovin’.
But keep it! That story
leads Mary to glory,
along with the Bun in her oven.
The Easter Story (First Draft)
This chapter’s in really rough shape.
It reads like the work of an ape!
Can we leave this alone?
Empty tomb? Rolling stone?
A dead guy who makes his escape?
Nah, it won’t need a whole lot of fixin’ –
We do have one huge contradiction:
Nobody can rise
From a violent demise.
Let’s label it Creative Fiction!
The First Rejection Note
Such stories! How did you conceive ‘em?
You must have been tempted to heave ‘em!
Some tales are so wild
they would boggle a child.
Did you really believe we’d believe ‘em?
Acceptance – At Last!
I can’t say it doesn’t have flaws,
but we’ll publish this thing, just because
these words will control
the most miserable soul.
Yes, you’ve earned our respect and applause.
Human beings want to feel they are blessed.
Who wants a reality test?
Simple rulebooks are fine
to keep masses in line
but a guy in the sky is the best!
Public Relations
(Slogan: Truth or Consequences)
This Book contains God’s holy story –
a message of peace, hope and glory.
Anyone to reject it
is gonna regret it!
By God, make the consequence gory!
Things Get Ugly
Here’s my quick-and-dirty rendition
of a horror they called Inquisition.
Things got tougher and tougher -
but many must suffer
when God fortifies his position.
The Reformation
(Or: Martin Luther, the Decider)
Some say I am just splitting hairs,
but this Bible needs further repairs
so peasants can read it –
they’re the ones who will need it –
they can’t go through life unawares!
Pompous words are a problem to me.
They’re not user-friendly, you see.
Now, the miracles stay –
those are needed today –
people like magic acts, I agree.
That cannibal stuff needs revision –
I don’t care if I suffer derision.
Eat BREAD and drink WINE
or you’re no friend of mine.
That’s my answer! My final decision!
Next and last, Chapter 4 tomorrow!
The Unholy Scriptures: Summarized and Pulverized used with permission by LiberatedMind.com
Continued from Chapter I. Written by PeachTree Grandma.
CHAPTER II. THE NEW TESTAMENT
The Not-So-Immaculate Conception
Christian girls know that sex is taboo –
so many fun things they can’t do.
Mary sinned and she hid it.
She said a Ghost did it.
(Don’t know how she sold that, do you?)
Finding the Christ Child
Have you tried to follow a star?
That tactic won’t get you too far.
A star will elude
and you’ll have to conclude
that wherever you go, there you are.
Temple Elders Discuss the Boy Wonder
“My God, but this kid takes the prize.”
“I can hardly believe my own eyes!”
“I say that he’s fakin’!”
“Bets need to be taken!”
“A wise-ass? Or wonderfully wise?”
The Groupies
Twelve disciples – not one with a mate –
hanging out with The Lord until late.
I make no suggestion -
I just raise the question:
Do YOU think those cowboys were straight?
The Apostle Paul’s Conversion
(Or: A Funny Thing Happened on the Road to Damascus . . .)
There once was a tyrant named Saul.
That king wasn’t Godly at all.
God said, Presto! You’re blind!
Now maybe you’ll mind!
And that is how Saul became Paul.
Paul’s Advice Regarding Marriage
(Or: How to Douse Your Passion in a Jiffy)
After that, Paul was pretty uptight.
Hot sex really gave him a fright.
“Better marry than burn!”
That’s what he’d have us learn.
(I’m not too convinced he was right.)
Magic Trick #1: The Wedding at Cana
With the wine gone, the guests got abusive.
Jesus said, Please don’t think me intrusive.
I’ll make everything fine –
I’ll turn water to wine!
(That’s a miracle I could make use of!)
Magic Trick #2: Jesus Feeds the Multitudes
A boy with five loaves and three fishes
tried to satisfy everyone’s wishes.
Jesus looked to the sky,
shouted out MULTIPLY!
And behold! He filled hundreds of dishes!
Cheap Tricks (#3 and 4):
Jesus bragged, I don’t know if I ought-er -
but I can raise up your dead daughter.
What’s more, if you like,
I can take a wet hike.
Watch me! I am walkin’ on water!
Jesus Expels Money-Changers From the Temple
When money-men counted their loot
Our Lord had to give ‘em the boot.
Oh, what would he say
about Wall Street today?
Holy Moses! This place is a hoot!
On the Road to Emmaus
Down the road two disciples were goin’
when a spook up ahead started glowin’.
That’s our dead friend, J.C.!
He’s alive as can be!
What a sad lack of faith we’ve been showin’!
Cleanliness is Next to Godliness
His robes were as white as the snow -
quite a trick in the desert, you know.
Jesus knew how to groom
from manger to tomb –
as the Hollywood movies will show.
Jesus Is Finished
A Limerick is not the right format
for death – so I will not explore that.
God asked him to die
And he had to comply.
Oh, why was he such a damned doormat?
Next up, Chapter III!
The Unholy Scriptures: Summarized and Pulverized used with permission by LiberatedMind.com
A dear reader of mine wrote these witty limericks about the bible. She asked that her identity be anonymous and took on the pen name “PeachTree Grandma”. She tells me her grandchildren are having their brains washed and spun-dry in a fundamental Christian school every day, plus church on Sunday, which breaks her heart. These delightful writings poke fun at the ludicrous bible stories, enjoy and please comment below if you have the time. I am certain she would appreciate feedback. 
THE UNHOLY SCRIPTURES:
Summarized and Pulverized
by PEACHTREE GRANDMA
FOREWORD
This was written from utter frustration
Now I’m sending it out to the nation.
Freethinkers, unite!
We must fight for the right
To engage in some sane conversation.
CHAPTER I. THE OLD TESTAMENT
In the Beginning
Modern scholars, who claim to be bright
say the world wasn’t built overnight.
That thinking must go.
This is God’s Magic Show –
fast-moving, designed to excite.
First act was a lighting display,
Making sunshine was mere child’s play.
Then he strung up the stars,
and the ball we call ours.
(He’s holding those strings yet today.)
Wind and water were next; after that,
forms of life – tall and small, fat and flat.
He performed for six days,
then He needed some praise
so He pulled YOU and ME from his hat!
Paradise Lost
Eden was such a fine place,
but Adam and Eve fell from grace.
A forked tongue was to blame –
yes, a snake brought them shame.
God hissed, What an utter disgrace!
And God’s heart continued to harden.
He was not in the mood for a pardon.
I’ll make you aware
that your bodies are bare,
then kick your butts out of this garden!
High and Dry
It’s your duty, Noah! Don’t shrink!
Go build me a ship that won’t sink.
Bring the critters aboard!
Don’t complain to the Lord!
You’ll get used to the almighty stink.
Bring some dinosaurs too – don’t forget ‘em.
They might go extinct if we let ‘em.
Bring extras! I fear
we have meat-eaters here
and it wouldn’t be wise to upset ‘em.
Forty days, forty nights they all float.
They get off on a mountain remote.
What? You think it’s a fable?
Well, swim if you’re able!
You don’t get to ride on our boat!
Joseph and his Dandy Coat
Joseph’s dad liked him better than best -
Gave him clothes that outdid all the rest.
Said his mean, jealous brothers,
If we had our druthers,
we’d put this young buck to the test.
Let’s throw his ass down a deep well!
That’s something he won’t live to tell!
But God helped him out –
(This gets lengthy, no doubt.
Short version: It all turned out swell.)
Jonah Gets Lucky
A whale swimming deep in the sea
sucked in Jonah as slick as could be,
Spit him back – a whole man!
(Swallow that, if you can
but it sounds pretty fishy to me.)
Daniel Gets Lucky Too!
Now picture this scene: (I’m sure tryin’!)
A boy and a ravenous lion.
The kid’s in a huddle,
the beast wants to cuddle.
(Do ya’ think it’s the lion that’s lyin’?)
Shadrak, Meshak, and Abendigo
Three fellas with weird-sounding names
got a chance to go dance in the flames
They should have been torched
but they weren’t even scorched.
Why CAN’T God keep playing these games?
A Towering Truth
Some Biblical types were hardscrabble.
The worst were no better than rabble.
They hollered in tongues
at the top of their lungs.
and that’s how we got the word BABBLE.
David Slays Goliath
His slingshot was merely a toy
and David was such a small boy.
Yet he killed a giant tall
with no trouble at all.
(Now a tale that tall I enjoy!)
Biblical Hussies
A. Delilah Cuts Up
That girl is a Biblical floozy.
With partners she’s never been choosy
Sampson falls in her lair.
She cuts off his hair –
(Read the story – it’s really a doozy!)
B. Salome Cuts Down John-the-Baptist
This hussy sure knows how to swish.
King says, Darlin, what is you wish?
She says: John-Boy – DEAD! I want his fat head!
Cut it off! Bring it here on a dish!
C. Lot’s Wife Is Petrified
God declares: Soddom’s a hole!
Better leave before heads start to roll.
Straight ahead! Do not halt!
Or I’ll turn you to salt!
But that woman has no self-control
Moses Leads His People Out of Egypt
The desert would have to be crossed,
though the map and directions were tossed.
They wandered and wandered,
four decades they squandered.
Their leader was hopelessly lost.
They found moral guidance, however –
ten rules to confuse us forever:
Don’t be crude! Don’t have fun!
Worship Me, or you’re done!
All in all, quite a useless endeavor.
More About Moses and Those Blasted Commandments
Moses hiked up Mt. Sinai alone
to follow a light he’d been shown.
He and God had a talk;
God wrote rules on a rock.
(Who says nothing’s written in stone?)
Manna in the Desert
When travelers were in a bad way,
God used to throw manna, they say.
Many folks are still needy,
but God’s gotten greedy.
He’s tossin’ no biscuits today.
Moses Parts the Waters
Did you know the Red Sea can divide?
Make a passage that’s straight, dry and wide?
There isn’t much to it,
but in order to do it,
you have to have God on your side.
Once all the good guys have passed through,
here’s another cool trick you can do:
Close that ocean up tight!
It’s a rib-tickling sight
when you drown all the clowns who pursue!
Chapter II: The New Testament is up next!
The Unholy Scriptures: Summarized and Pulverized used with permission by LiberatedMind.com
Seriously? The church that commissioned this piece either had a sick sense of humor or had their heads so far up their butts they were unable to see the sexual suggestions in the “The boy who kneels before the priests.”
This reminds me of the Jesus and the children light-switch plate.
Excerpt from the examiner.com
“As the result of a 2008 lawsuit filed by a group representing the interests of atheists and agnostics (Freedom from
Religion Foundation), U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb issued a ruling yesterday, declaring the National Day Of Prayer unconstitutional. The judge spoke in support of the group’s contention that the day violated the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. According to Crabb, “…. the government may not use its authority to try to influence an individual’s decision whether and when to pray.”
CNN interview with Massachusetts Priest who thinks that anyone who helped cover up the rape of children participated in criminal acts.
Read more on the Case for Arresting the Pope
The Governor of Virginia will be appearing with this “healing prophet” today. This comes hot on the heals of McDonnell’s blunder in forgetting to mention slavery in his proclamation declaring April “Confederate History Month”.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
This article was brought to my attention last week. “Why Humanists shouldn’t join in this Catholic-Bashing” by Brenden O’Neill.
I disagree with O’Neill on a number of views:
1) O’Neill suggests that two factors need to be considered in the Church’s sex scandal “the backward cult of victimhood and the 
dominant ‘new atheist’ prejudice against any institution with strong beliefs.” I can agree with the first observation that the victims, young children would have been terribly confused as to what to do after being raped. Their parents told them to trust priests and that priests are there as representatives of Jesus, whom they have been told is someone they should worship. Does a child tell her parents, another adult, who does she trust? And when she tells someone, do they believe her? And IF they believe her, do they have the guts to questions their own pastor or religious environment enough to raise a stink?
The second suggestion that there is a prejudice against an “institution with strong beliefs” misses the point of atheism. An atheist’s stance on religion is “show me the evidence”. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Fantastical religions like the Catholic church who believe that they have to eat Jesus’ actual flesh and blood in order to live in a unproven “heaven” after they die comes with no empirical evidence. That is simply the tip of the iceberg when it comes to fantastical claims, believed strongly but completely unsupported by evidence. There is no prejudice against strong beliefs, there is simply an intolerance for fantastical beliefs with no evidence for their validity.
2) O’Neill takes issue with the manner in which the Church’s sex scandal has suddenly come out all at once. He states: “the fact is that sexual abuse by priests is a relatively rare phenomenon.” With 5% of the priesthood being reportedly involved in child molestation, this amounts to an alarmingly high number of priests with often multiple victims. Keeping in mind the “victim mentality” we can gather that there are unreported cases out there that may add to those numbers. Regardless, the point in all this is not “how many” but “how”. How did the Catholic Church handle the 5% of it’s ordained members who raped children? We are now learning, as has been long suspected, that Pope Benedict was for 20 years in charge of disciplining priests that were out of bounds. He was the head guy when it came to handling child abuse cases. He most likely knows more of the intricate details about what priests was moved where and how many children were reportedly raped than any other church official today. This is inexcusable.
To his credit, O’Neill does add: “Of course, one incident of child sexual abuse by a priest is one too many. ” If this were a public school instead of the Catholic Church, would you hear these same arguments? Oh, only 5% of school teachers rape children, not everyone, no big deal. Oh, they didn’t prosecute the rapists and just moved them from one school to another, no big deal. My guess is that from all groups of people you would see a completely different tone, calling for resignations, public apologies and restitution for the victims.
3) This next bit makes my stomach turn: “very, very small numbers of children in the care or teaching of the Catholic Church in 
Europe in recent decades were sexually abused, but very, very many of them actually received a decent standard of education.” Seriously? Would he like to tell that to Jonny who was raped by his kindly school priest. Well, kiddo, you were sexually assaulted at a tender age and will likely have social issues as you get older, take to drugs to get away from the painful memories and have to go through years of counseling in order to be somewhat normal again, but you did receive a great education! This argument is your classic “The end justifies the means”. We can evidently excuse the most heinous crime in our society because the same people that committed those crimes gave our children a “decent standard of education”.
4) His next move is to downplay the severity of the victim’s pain. Perhaps this author has never met an abuse victim and does not realize how overarching the damage can be. When not dealt with properly, it can ruin a persons entire life. Blaming the victims for not talking about their childhood trauma until they were older and perhaps actually then able to deal with the public aspect of their abuse is utterly shallow.
5) Next O’Neill attempts to drag Dawkins into this by quoting his statements suggesting that there are many more children who are mentally abused by priests and religious than there are children abuses physically by them. Dawkins is not suggesting that this is a worse form of abuse, but rather that is it far more prevalent and there is no concern in society for the mental abuse of children brought up to “fear” god and be threatened with eternal fire and brimstone should they disobey their elders. Blind obedience is considered a lauding trait in the religious upbringing. A child is told to do what is asked of him without question. Such a curious mind is labeled as a “doubter” or a “rebel”. Questioning the quackery of religious assumptions should be encouraged, not negated by parents or teachers.
O’Neill suggests that if we start recognizing childhood indoctrination and threats of hell as mental child abuse, we will have to require religions not to indoctrinate children and only begin teaching them until they are “at the age of reason”. Mental child abuse is wrong, no matter what the goal. If a parent were to mentally abuse their child for the purpose of turning that child into a Communist, would polite society be ok with this? Well, the parents want that of their child, so it is ok. No it is not ok! Children are not property and should certainly not be labeled as Communist, Democrat, Republican, Jewish, Catholic, Muslim… Children should be allowed to decide for themselves what they think once they reach the age of reasons. Labeling a child according to his parent’s strongest beliefs is entirely unjust.
Quotes taken from http://spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8360/
Every 10 years the media re-discovers the Catholic church’s campaign to cover up child rape that occurs in their ranks. Typically, interest in holding the church’s feet to the fire wanes and the national media forgets about them for a time. This round, however involves the top dog Pope Benedict. Prior to being elected Pope, Benedict (known as Cardinal Ratzinger) was head of a disciplinary department for wayward priests. Dealing with child rape cases was in his job description and he arguably knows more about the intricacies of the cover up than any other Cardinal or Bishop alive today.
New developments on this front come rapid fire. So here is a brief overview of the last week:
Connecticut Bishops fight sex abuse bill (April.11.2010)
Connecticut legislature is proposing a bill that would remove the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse cases. Conneticut Law currently limits sexual abuse victims 30 years past their 18th birthday to file a lawsuit. The proposed change to the law would rescind that statute of limitations, allowing child abuse victims to sue beyond their 48th birthday.
Considering that many previously quiet victims are around the age of 50, the church in conneticut has taken a very vocal stance against this proposal. Signed by the bishops of Conneticut, a letter posted on their website suggests that this new law would put “all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk.” This leads us to wonder… how many pedophiles does the Connecticut church have in the closet? Are there so many child rape victims over the age of 48 that they fear bankruptcy?
Read more: CNN.com
Writing on the Wall: Pope’s signature attached to key letters (April.9.2010)
The Pope’s correspondence in postponing the defrocking of California Priest Rev Kiesle has be discovered linking him to the 5 year wait in defrocking the priest after he was found guilty and sentenced to 3 years probation for molesting two young boys. Ratzinger wrote that the “good of the universal church” needed to be considered when defrocking a priest, putting the interest of the church before the well being of the victims and Kiesle’s parishioners.
Via the BBC: “Rev Kiesle was sentenced to three years of probation in 1978 for lewd conduct with two young boys in San Francisco. It said the Oakland diocese had recommended Kiesle’s removal in 1981 but that that did not happen until 1987.
Cardinal Ratzinger took over the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which deals with sex abuse cases, in 1981.
AP says the 1985 correspondence, written in Latin, shows Cardinal Ratzinger saying that Kiesle’s removal would need careful review.
Cardinal Ratzinger urged “as much paternal care as possible” for Kiesle.
Kiesle was sentenced to six years in prison in 2004 after admitting molesting a young girl in 1995.
Kiesle is now 63 and is on the registered sex offenders list in California.”
British Scientist Richard Dawkins threatens to arrest Pope Benedict (April.11.2010)
Outspoken Atheist and Biologist Richard Dawkins has set in motion the legal measures necessary to arrest Pope Benedict on his next visit to Britain.
Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author, have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.
The pair believe they can exploit the same legal principle used to arrest Augusto Pinochet, the late Chilean dictator, when he visited Britain in 1998.
Dawkins and Hitchens believe the Pope would be unable to claim diplomatic immunity from arrest because, although his tour is categorised as a state visit, he is not the head of a state recognised by the United Nations.
They have commissioned the barrister Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens, a solicitor, to present a justification for legal action. - timesonline.com
It is shocking how Catholics put the interest of one man, the Pope, above the interests of thousands of children who have been molested and silenced by the machine of the church. For those of us observing from outside the box, we think what their version of god must think of this scandal and cover up at the highest level. It certainly seems that Catholics value the personage of the Pope more than they value justice and moral consistency. The right thing to do in this case is to vote with your feet.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Pope Opera | ||||
|
||||
Pope Benedict this Palm Sunday dismissed the “petty gossip” of the allegations during his homily. The recent scandal rocking the Catholic Church involves a Wisconsin Priest who raped over 200 deaf boys and had his case dismissed by Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger). Could the Pope possibly minimize the grotesque nature of child rape even more? The Church
has been more concerned with covering it’s own backside than it is with solving the widespread problem of child rape in the priesthood. It is much more concerned with it’s public image than it is concerned with admitting faults and making amends with the victims.
Christopher Hitchens discusses this topic on Bill Maher’s March 26th 2010 HBO show. Video Transcript excerpt:
“It’s funny because in this society… Even in prisons, there is a hierarchy of crimes. The child molesters are the ones who even hardened criminals shun, or actually kill.” – Maher
“This is the one crime no one can think about without vomiting, that the once great, moral church wants wiggle room for” -Hitchens
“A” week has been going viral on the interwebs! Get your “A” on this week by posting this picture as your profile pic from March 29
to April 6th 2010. The campaign’s website is http://www.aweekonfacebook.com/ Where you can download the image directly and find links to the A week facebook page.
“Good without God? Imagine Facebook with ‘A’s all across the site showing the world is full of people who are ‘good without God’ and don’t need religion to influence their lives. Imagine the interest we can generate during ‘A’ Week On Facebook if 1,000s of people take part. Imagine… you can be a part of making a difference…”
Christopher Hitchen’s book The Missionary Position was published in 1995, right around the time when my 10 year old brain 
was being spoon fed Catholicism and my mother was telling me how saintly and wonderful Mother Teresa was. It is for this reason that I am now just able to read this revealing book on the hypocrisies and depravities of Mother Teresa. Having met Mother Teresa himself and tour her poor house in Calcutta, Hitchens offers a glimpse into the derisive nature of her work and her heavy hand in politics and money all over the globe.
Hitchens demonstrates how Mother Teresa became a world fad, accepting monetary donations exceeding $50 million over her career. “Mother Teresa’s global income is more than enough to outfit several first-class clinics in Bengal. [Her] decision not to do so, and indeed to run instead a haphazard institution… is a deliberate one.” (p.41) Not only did she run her “hospitals” and poor houses without basic medical supplies, pain medication or knowledgeable physicians, she left nearly all of the $50 million in “donations to the poor” in New York bank accounts, only withdrawing to help pay for elaborate altar chalices and convent building projects.
Hitchens explains why Mother Teresa, despite her inability to funnel donations where the poor needed it most, received so much attention and monetary support: “The rich world likes and wishes to believe that someone, somewhere, is doing something for the Third World. For this reason, it does not inquire too closely into the motives or practices of anyone who fulfills, however vicariously, this mandate.” (p. 49)
Mother Teresa apparently carried a similar obsession with sex, as does the rest of the Catholic celibate. She insisted that women submit to their husbands when approached for sex, as this was the way god intended. On the political front, she was extremely vocal against abortion in all circumstances (even rape). Mother Teresa would not tolerate birth control, even when the use of condoms may have prevented HIV transmission between husband and wife. Hitchens comments on her outspoken agenda against the science of reproduction: “It is often said, inside the Church and out of it, that there is something grotesque about lectures on the sexual life when delivered by those who have shunned it. Given how much this Church allows the fanatical Mother Teresa to preach, it might be added that the call to go fourth and multiply, and to take no thought for the morrow, sounds grotesque when uttered by an elderly virgin whose chief claim to reverence is that she ministers to the inevitable losers in this very lottery.” (p. 59)
Even more shocking was her financial entanglement with Mr. Keating, one of the greatest con artists of the 1980s. Mr. Keating donated a quarter million dollars to Mother Teresa at the height of his financial scheme. The money donated was money stolen
Mother Teresa with Charles Keating
from American families who thought they had invested their savings for retirement. Mother Teresa met with Keating, showered him with praise, gave him a cross that he kept with him continually and even more astonishingly, wrote a letter to the judge on Keating’s case when the man was on trial for fraud in the United States. The Deputey District Attorney wrote Mother Teresa back, asking her to return the fraudulent quarter million dollars Keating had given her in order to help rectify the lives of those whose money Keating has stolen: “You urge Judge Ito to look into his heart – as he sentences Charles Keating – and do what Jesus would do. I submit the same challenge to you. Ask yourself what Jesus would do if he were given the fruits of a crime; what Jesus would do if he were in possession of money that had been stolen; what Jesus would do if he were being exploited by a thief to ease his conscience?”(p.70) Mother Teresa never replied.
These sound bites are just a small taste of the dirt Hitchens has dug up on Mother Teresa. A brief read, this took me only 2 hours to read, but the content is something you are hard pressed to find honestly laid out anywhere else. The Missionary Position.
Ten years ago in America, the Catholic Church was hit with multiple scandals of child rape by Ordained Priests. Recently the Dutch have had the beginnings of their own version of this, followed by Brazil and the rest of Europe seems to be following fast on their heels. The New York Times broke news this week that Pope Benedict (formerly Cardinal Ratzinger) played a heavy hand in dismissing a Wisconsin case against a priest who had raped over 200 deaf boys at the religious school where he ministered.
The American priest Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy worked at a school for the deaf in Wisconsin from 1950-1974. During that time he raped and sexually mollested over 200 students. The Catholic Church was slow to consider repremand for Rev. Murphy and began proceedings to investigate Murphy only after threats of a public lawsuit from a victim hit the Vatican. Proceedings for a secret canonical trial began and Murphy was liable to be defrocked. Murphy wrote a pleading letter to Cardinal Ratzinger begging not to be dismissed saying that he was old and had repented of his “sins”. There is no record of a response from Ratzinger, but the trial was immediate suspended after Murphy wrote this letter to Ratzinger.
Instead of being disciplined, Father Murphy was quietly moved by Archbishop William E. Cousins of Milwaukee to the Diocese of Superior in northern Wisconsin in 1974, where he spent his last 24 years working freely with children in parishes, schools and, as one lawsuit charges, a juvenile detention center. He died in 1998, still a priest. – NYTimes
Ratzinger’s role in dismissing and moving around Murphy is disturbing at best. Even more shocking is the mentality that if a 
man who rapes over 200 deaf boys simply confesses his “sins” to an mythical god, this is enough to let him slip by without consequence. The Catholic Confessional stands as the proverbial slate washer that apparently dismisses ordained priests from facing the consequences of ruining so many young lives.
The Catholic Priesthood is breeding grounds for child rape. First, the priesthood attracts gay men because it is offered as the only viable vocation for a gay Catholic teenage boy. Studying in the seminary, living with other gay men does not help their situation either. Secondly, the Catholic Church requires all their followers (but especially priests and nuns) to refrain completely from masturbation.(1) This unnatural request leads to a sexual build up that is truly unhealthy when trying to live a life without the opportunity for sexual release. Sexual release through masturbation or sexual intercourse is a natural need of the human body. Wet dreams are the body’s way of satisfying this need if it is not dutifully taken care of. Thirdly, when you combine homophobia and this unhealthy view of masturbation and sex with settings where priests are in unsupervised contact with young naive children (who are not taught about sex and masturbation) you end up with a lethal cocktail of child rape.
——————————–
1. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: #2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.”137 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”
Other sources: Slate The Great Catholic Cover-up
The Pope even has an opinion about airport security… could it be because he is a lady?
| The Colbert Report | Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Tip/Wag – Joe Lieberman, the Pope & Sharks | ||||
|
||||
Letter to A Christian Nation was the first of Sam Harris‘ books that I picked up. Gathering assumptions from the title, I anticipated 
a book geared towards the religious infiltration into American politics. I found a bit of that mixed into Sam’s book, but even better I found his straightforward approach to tackling American fundamentalists brilliantly refreshing. Written in the first person, Letter to a Christian Nation bluntly points out the hypocrisies American fundamentalist Christians show in opposing Muslim fundamentalists. Before doing this, he compactly brings down every major dogma of Christianity, laying the ground work for the final punch at the end. He rightly suggests that in order to combat the religious nonsense that drives Muslim suicide attacks, American Christians need to turn that finger around and examine their own radical, exclusive belief system.
The entire read took me 2 hours. Afterward I said aloud: “Yes, I absolutely agree.” After sitting in contemplation for a moment I decided that it had been the best use of 2 hours in a long time to be enriched with the viewpoint Harris’ offered. It is one of those books you feel like handing out to a fundy in your family who thinks their religion is the end-all, be-all and everyone else can go suck it. It is almost as satisfying as knocking someone so pig-headed like that over the head with a board and shouting: “wake up you idiot! you do nothing but isolate yourself from reality!” Intellectually satisfying.
Get a Letter to a Christian Nation or read Sam Harris’ other best seller: The End of Faith.
Another brilliant article by Christopher Hitchens. This one deals with the outdated and very useless 10 commandments of the Judeo Christian religions. He brings up many fabulous observations about how the bible actually has four versions of the 10 
commandments within the Old Testament and how the first 4 commandments have nothing to do with how to behave but rather demand that its followers grovel before their god. Here is an excerpt from his Vanity Fair Article:
“There is in fact a good biblical precedent for doing just that, since the giving of the divine Law by Moses appears in three or four wildly different scriptural versions. (When you hear people demanding that the Ten Commandments be displayed in courtrooms and schoolrooms, always be sure to ask which set. It works every time.) The first and most famous set comes in Exodus 20 but ends with Moses himself smashing the supposedly most sacred artifacts ever known to man: the original, God-dictated panels of Holy Writ. The second edition occurs in Exodus 34, where new but completely different tablets are presented after some heavenly re-write session and are for the first time called “the ten commandments.” In the fifth chapter of Deuteronomy, Moses once more calls his audience together and recites the original Sinai speech with one highly significant alteration (the Sabbath commandment’s justifications in each differ greatly). But plainly discontented with the effect of this, he musters the flock again 22 chapters further on, as the river Jordan is coming into view, and gives an additional set of orders—chiefly terse curses—which are also to be inscribed in stone. As with the gold plates on which Joseph Smith found the Book of Mormon in upstate New York, no trace of any of these original yet conflicting tablets survives.” – Christopher Hitchens
Sexual abuse by priests running a Dutch Catholic School was revealed. The details of how the priests sexually assulted “favorite
boys” on multiple occasions is graphic. From the NRC:
Janne Geraets, now 57, suffered repeated sexual abuse from the age of 11 at the hands of a priest at the Roman Catholic school where he was a boarder. His ordeal began in 1964, at the Don Rua monastery in the town of ‘s-Heerenberg in the east of the Netherlands. He was being trained by the Salesian Fathers of Don Bosco, in the hope of one day becoming a missionary. After a party, one of the priests lured Janne to the infirmary under the pretext of giving him medicine to ease his sore throat. “All of a sudden he was right up against me,” Geraets recalled. “He unzipped his trousers and forced my hand inside. I was in a state of utter confusion.”
After the incident, Geraets returned to bed. But the next morning he was summoned by the same priest. “I remember how my heart was pounding as I knocked on the door. He opened it and said ‘That should never have happened’. He gave me absolution; he pardoned my sin. That confused me even more.”
‘The dirty one’
Janne Geraets was called to that same room again and again. “He would lie on his couch and put me on top of him, riding back and forth. I remember a knock at the door on one occasion. I tried to scream, but no sound came out. I wanted to yell ‘this isn’t right, this isn ’t allowed’. But there was no one to turn to. You’re too afraid to say anything. You think you are the dirty one and that they’ll throw you out of school.”
At the boarding school in ’s-Heerenberg, 80 to 100 boys between the ages of 12 and 18 slept in four large dormitories. “Sometimes you knew for sure: there’s something going on between that boy and that priest,” said Geraets. It happened on a large scale. Several of the priests were involved. Some priests were more popular than others. You could tell because more boys visited them.” The priest who abused him is now 98 years old. “Everything I held sacred turned out to be a facade,” said Geraets. “It was a huge blow to my self-confidence.” Continue reading…
Comparably disturbing is the Catholic Church’s late response to this and other sexual molestations by priests. Some of the priests at this Dutch school were moved around to other parishes when students told their parents they had been sexually assaulted. Most of these priests are now in their 80s and 90s or dead. The Vatican has also showed a lack of priority in addressing the religious environment that leads up to sexual abuses by their Priests. Encouraging gay men to enter the priesthood as the only viable alternative to living a single life (gay sex and partnership not being allowed as a Catholic). The trust that Catholic parents grant to priests is also alarming, setting their children up to be alone with a priest is a dangerous proposition. Also, the taboo subject of sex and the doctrine that no person, especially not priests should masterbate fosters unhealthy sexual behaviors, desires and fantasies.
More recent news on Catholic Child Rape:
Pope Benedict’s cover up of Child Mollesters
Brazillian Priest Caught on Hidden Camera sexually assaulting an altar boy
Audio taken from a Q&A of Richard Dawkins.
Sam Harris, author of[amazon ASIN="978-0393327656"]The End of Faith[/amazon] and[amazon ASIN="978-0307278777"]Letter to a Christian Nation,[/amazon] narrates this definative documentary on how Christianity is in no way a unique religious story. “The God Who was Not There” details the inconsistancies in the Bible’s A new perspective about the Apostle Paul reveals that Paul never mentions any of the Jesus story written in the four gospels. Paul speaks of Jesus as an idea, not as an actual human being with the narrative in the Gospel writings.
Where do you think this quote comes from? “He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation” Sounds like it came from John’s gospel 
and indeed, John did say something very similar when he put these word’s into Jesus’ mouth: “Unless you eat of the flesh of the son of Man and drink his blood, you have not life in yourselves. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will live in me and I in him” The first quote is from the Mysteries of Mithra, a deity who was worshiped hundreds of years before the gospel writers. Mithra’s popularity as a deity grew alongside Christianity, with it’s high point occurring in the 3rd Century AD. Mithra’s narrative parallels that of Jesus with striking similarity.
Get information on the Documentary at TheGodMovie.com
There is a great new organization set up to support non-theistic candidates
for public office. If you are a non-theist and need assistance running for a political office, consider contacting EnlightenTheVote.com
I hope to see them promoting non-theist candidates on their site and helping the growing majority of non theists in America have a prominent political voice. Atheists are now at 15% of the total American population, more than Jews, Gays, and many other much smaller total populations with large voices in American politics. Stay informed and sign up for their email alerts.
Daniel C. Dennett frequently contributes to NewsWeek but this recent article caught my attention. Mr. Dennett, renown atheist, philospher and best selling author tackled the subject of religious taboos in American culture. The following is a quote from Dennett’s article titled ‘Religious No Longer A Protected Class’:
“Q: Is there widespread media bias against Christianity? Against evangelicals such as Brit Hume and Sarah Palin? Against public figures who speak openly and directly about their faith? Against people who believe as you do?
There is no media bias against Christianity. If it appears to some people that there is, it is probably because after decades of hyper-diplomacy and a generally accepted mutual understanding that religion was not to be criticized, we have finally begun breaking through that taboo and are beginning to see candid discussions of the varieties of religious folly in American life. Activities that would be condemned by all if they were not cloaked in the protective mantle of religion are beginning to be subjected to proper scrutiny.
There is still a lot to accomplish however. We need to change the prevailing assumptions in the same way that public opinion has been reversed on drunk driving. When I was young, drunk drivers tended to be excused because, after all, they were drunk! Today, happily, we hold them doubly culpable for any misdeeds they commit while under the influence.
I look forward to the day when violence done under the influence of religious passion is considered more dishonorable, more shameful, than crimes of avarice, and is punished accordingly, and religious leaders who incite such acts are regarded with the same contempt that we reserve for bartenders who send dangerously disabled people out onto the highways.
I also look forward to the day when pastors who abuse the authority of their pulpits by misinforming their congregations about science, about public health, about global warming, about evolution must answer to the charge of dishonesty. Telling pious lies to trusting children is a form of abuse, plain and simple. If quacks and bunko artists can be convicted of fraud for selling worthless cures, why not clergy for making their living off unsupported claims of miracle cures and the efficacy of prayer?
The double standard that exempts religious activities from almost all standards of accountability should be dismantled once and for all. I don’t see bankers or stockbrokers wringing their hands because the media is biased against them; they know that their recent activities have earned them an unwanted place in the spotlight of public attention and criticism, and they get no free pass, especially given their power. Religious leaders and apologists should accept that since their institutions are so influential in American life, we have the right to hold their every move up to the light. If they detect that the media are giving them a harder time today than in the past, that is because the bias that protected religion from scrutiny is beginning to dissolve. High time.” - Daniel C. Dennett
Sam Harris, author of [amazon ASIN="978-0393327656"]The End of 
Faith[/amazon] and[amazon ASIN="978-0307278777"]Letters to a Christian Nation[/amazon], explains how Human morality is best explained by science and not by religions. Listen to his interview on California public radio.
Today you can learn how to do just about anything by using the internet, even how to become Atheist. On WikiHow, you can DIY yourself to Atheism by challenging your superstious notions.
To introduce the topic, WikiHow provides an excellent explanation of what an Atheist is. Clarified here is the true meaning of atheism, which is a basic rejection of god-claims. Some atheists take this a step further and claim definitely that “there is no god or gods”. I fall somewhere in between. I reject the claims about gods, and given the body of evidence in nature, science and my own experiences I am more confident that there are no gods than I am that there might be gods. In the same way that I cannot disprove the claim that Leprechauns exist, I cannot disprove the claim that god exists. However, the likelihood of god existing is on par with the likelihood of Leprechauns existing. I am willing to change my position if provable, repeatable evidence was provided for a supernatural entity.
BigThink recently interviewed English comedian Steven Fry. Fry responds to questions about his opinion on religion, atheism and homosexuality.
Fry brilliantly notes that living as a humanist/naturalist, he is compelled to live a fulfilled and vibrant life. Without the promise or wish for another life after this one, the naturalist and atheist strives ernestly to do the best they can in the here and now.
Quoted from Alternet.org:
“Debates over faith often leave non-believers holding the bag: look like a jerk or leave the debate unfinished and apparently concede defeat.
The only thing that would make atheism a true article of faith
would be if atheists said, “Nothing you could possibly say, nothing I could possibly see or experience, no evidence you could possibly provide me, could ever convince me that my atheism was wrong. My belief in the non-existence of God is an a priori assumption; it is unshakable, as constant as the Northern Star.” And I have yet to encounter an atheist who says that.
Finally—and maybe most crucially of all:
When we speak out in any way about our atheism—and when we continue to organize, and to make ourselves and our ideas more visible and vocal, and to generally turn ourselves into a serious movement for social change—we are accused of being hostile, fanatical, rude, evangelical, bigoted and extremist.
But if we don’t speak out, if we don’t organize, if we don’t forge ourselves into a powerful and visible movement…then the bigotry and misinformation and discrimination against us will continue unabated.
Why this is untrue and unfair: We really can’t win on this one. Even the most mild forms of atheist activism and visibility result in believers accusing us of disrespect, intolerance and forcing our beliefs on others. If we do something as mild and unthreatening as putting up bus ads saying “You can be good without God” or “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone,” you can bet good money that plenty of believers will get worked up about how those terrible atheists are insulting Christians and other believers. The purest act of visibility—the simple act of standing up and saying out loud, “Atheists exist and are good people”—is treated as another example of the offensive, dogmatic, in-your-face extremism of the atheist movement.”
Since Haiti was hit by the earthquake I have been patiently waiting for any religious person I know to excuse god for the disaster and blame 
“mother nature”. I didn’t have to wait very long. Haiti’s misfortune brings up the blaring inconsistency in religion, especially the monotheistic religions: the problem of good and evil.
Pat Robertson, Christian TV evangelist was so disabled by this conundrum that he publicly claimed the reason Haiti suffered such great misfortune was because they had “made a pact with the devil”. For Pat, this was a sufficient explanation for the recent Tsunami, Hurricane and now Earthquake that has brought this country to its most desperate hour.
Haiti serves as a prime example of the problem of “good and evil”.
Naturalists point out that if a god who is claimed to be omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (all knowing) controls the universe, by definition such a god must take credit for EVERYTHING that happens, not just the good stuff. Such a god would know that an earthquake was about to happen and have the power to prevent it from happening. With this information about the omnipotent, omniscient god, we must conclude at least one of the following:
1. Such a god is intrinsically evil by allowing the disaster to hit
2. Such a god does not exist (omnipotent, omniscient)
A theist will disagree here and say that god does not control the evils in the world because Adam and Eve sinned and the rest of humanity must suffer because of their sin. This leads us to conclude that the omnipotent, omniscient god has no sense of what constitutes a “just” punishment for the “sin” of two humans. We must also consider that if the theist’s argument that “evils like Tsunami’s are not god’s fault” rests on the existence of two storybook characters in Genesis the argument falls apart. We begin to doubt the historical accuracy of the Adam and Eve story because it is embedded in a creation myth that sets the earth at 10,000 years old, having been fashioned in 7 days by a sky-god.
But most importantly, the counter argument to those who say “evil is the devil’s doing, not god’s” places the omni-god in a position of NOT being omnipotent. If the omni-god is not in control of nature, this by definition deems him not omnipotent. This leaves us to conclude that the omni-god is either:
1. Not actually omnipotent or
2. Unjust in dealing out his punishments and hence, if he be doing the punishing for Adam’s sin, he IS responsible for earthquakes and natural disasters (omnipotent)
This past weekend I listened to a Catholic homily by a deacon who was trying to help his congregation understand how to reconcile god with the Haiti earthquake. His best shot was to tell a little story about a mother in Haiti who dug her children out of the rubble of her home and saved their lives. All three of her children lived (after extensive medical surgury and the science of medicine). She told reporters that “now she knew that god loved her”. The deacon pointed out that good can come of such atrocities like this women who finally knew that god loved her. He failed to bring up all the other thousands who perished or the other mothers whose children were crushed and killed. Did ‘god’ love them? It was perhaps the weakest argument of the century. What a fickle god Christians daily defend.
Don’t pray or wish that Haiti be helped, do something to help. Donate to a non-theistic charity organization dedicated to helping Haiti.
This is a comprehensive list of non-religious charitable organizations that are sending aid to Haiti. Please consider helping in whatever way you can.
Brain washing has turned into Branding. PZ Myer’s, biologist and outspoken Atheist gives his parental perspective on this latest Christian branding trend:
I always hesitate to post such non-information as this because it just threatens to draw attention to something that deserves none. However, I broke down this time to show you a couple screen shots of the Conservapedia page on Charles Darwin.
The founder of Conservapedia appeared on The Colbert Show last week. Colbert played along and helped Andy Schlafty make a fool of himself as he tried to answer how information was filtered on the site.
| The Colbert Report | Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Andy Schlafly | ||||
|
||||
Conservapedia’s page on Charles Darwin reads like a 7th grade book report. The information lacking, opinionated and simplistic. The only informational topics on Darwin is “Biography”, 4+ pages of “Religion” and a bunch of opinionated titles like “Darwin’s Racism” and “Darwin’s Belief in Male Superiority”. Nothing about his life’s work or topic headings on Evolution, the Voyage of the Beagle, or Science related studies. It would be like writing an Encyclopedia page on George Washington without mentioning the Revolutionary War, his presidency or Mt Vernon and instead writing only on how he owned slaves and had children by them.
I seriously hope “conservatives” are not degrading themselves to relying on poor resources with political and religious agendas paraded front and center.
An unbiased look at the history of December festivities and traditions by the History Channel:
The history of the celebration of Christmas is not surprisingly devoid of anything Christian.
The Winter Solstice is the real ‘reason for the season’, and it belongs to everyone. When man first looked up into the sky and began to take note of the patterns of the celestial 
bodies, Winter Solstice has stood as a turning point in the seasons.
Many of the Christmas traditions that American Christians celebrate harken back to distinct pagan origins. The tradition of bringing a tree in the home and decorating it was practiced by pagans in northern European countries who celebrated the Winter Solstice or “Yuletide”. The evergreen, holly and ivy were some of the few greenery that could be found in the cold winter. They were used as part of the winter solstice celebrations. The Yule Log gets its name from the Norse god, Jul. In recognition of the return of the sun, fathers and sons would bring home large logs, which they would set on fire. Also around the time of the winter solstice, Romans observed Juvenalia, a feast honoring the children of Rome.
Winter Solstice was a month long celebration in the month of December that celebrated the turning of days from getting shorter to getting longer because of the earth’s rotation on its axis around the sun. In other words, the reason for the season is the axial tilt of the earth, to put it bluntly.
On December 25th the Romans celebrated the birthday of Mithra, the god of the unconquerable sun. Mithra, was an infant god said to have been born of a rock. However, when Christianity began to spread, the Christians simply adopted the pagan holidays and laid a Christian “reason” for the celebration over the existing celebration because they could not stop the festivities. The actual date of Jesus’ birth is never mentioned biblically and in the time when Jesus was born birthdays where not celebrated.
So athiest, humanist and non-theist, feel free to celebrate on December 25th.
Do it in thanks to the mythical gods and fairy tales if you wish: Santa and Jesus and Mithra alike, but say “Happy Solstice!” with a drink in your hand, for that is the way it all began.
What happens when you are stupid, religious, fat and poor?
From PZ Myer’s blog:
What a horrible, sad waste of a life: Tillmon Webb injured his knee, couldn’t afford to get it treated, and sat in a recliner for 8 months, praying for healing. His saintly (and I don’t mean that in a complimentary sense) wife tended to him as he rotted to death in the chair.
It would be ok if O’Reilly really was clinically insane, but downright ignorance is no excuse. Christmas was originally a pagan holiday called the Winter Solstice when people celebrated the day on which the period of time when the sun shone during the day began to increase. When the Christians began converting Pagans to their religion, they superimposed a holiday celebration of Christ’s birth over the celebration of Winter Solstice. This was done only after many failed attempts to stop the converts from celebrating in their pagan traditions. Easter is the Christian’s attempt to hijack the pagan holiday of Summer Solstice. Even O’Reilly’s blond commentators think he is crazy. Wow.
From The Rachel Maddow Show:
What does Former President Bush, “abstinence only” aids relief programs, US senators, “The Family” Catholic Mob, your tax dollars, and gay linchings have in common? Apparently quite a lot…
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Behavioral scientists have provided a window into how religion resides in the human brain. A study published in in the Nov. 30 early edition of the Proceedings of the National 
Academy of Sciences discusses how people infer their own opinions and judgments onto their “god”, using their own moral instincts to conclude that the imaginary being they worship must think similarly. From Science Daily:
The final study involved functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure the neural activity of test subjects as they reasoned about their own beliefs versus those of God or another person. The data demonstrated that reasoning about God’s beliefs activated many of the same regions that become active when people reasoned about their own beliefs.
The researchers noted that people often set their moral compasses according to what they presume to be God’s standards. “The central feature of a compass, however, is that it points north no matter what direction a person is facing,” they conclude. “This research suggests that, unlike an actual compass, inferences about God’s beliefs may instead point people further in whatever direction they are already facing.”
Read more at Science Daily
Remember how worked up Glenn Beck and the Fox News network stars like Bill O’Reilly were when the tapes of ACORN workers giving prostitution advice on hidden camera came out? And recall how angry O’Reilly gets when he interviews atheist spokesman Richard Dawkins, furious that a person could be so against organized religion. Then we have Mormon follower Glenn Beck who advocates a religious fanaticism towards “God and Country”.
These guys love juicy stories with dirt and a cover up story. Well, here’s one that seems to have slipped under their selective hearing. The Catholic Church is a mulit million dollar 
supporter of ACORN.
“While Obama has strong ties to ACORN, they were originally established through the U.S. Catholic Church, which has also funded ACORN and similar organizations to the tune of millions of dollars. This is another taboo topic for most of the media. Even conservative news organizations are afraid of raising the issue, apparently fearing being tagged with the “anti-Catholic” label.” From AIM
An interview with a Magestra from the Church of Satan reveals some parelles with Atheism, Naturalism and the Evolutionary mindset, while debunking the myths about devil worship and burnt animal offerings. An atheist interviews a Satanist Priestess… read the full interview.
“That’s where the shocker came in: the church of Satan doesn’t believe in Satan.
I delved deeper. “So if I asked about gods or the existence of Satan itself, or himself, or whatever, your response would be ‘Doesn’t even exist’?”
“Doesn’t even exist,” she agreed in her low voice. “No gods, no devils, no angels, no demons, no hobbits, no fairies – there is nothing. If there is a God, he is utterly and completely uninterested in man so he might as well not exist. The danger of all gods and the perception of them being real is it takes responsibility from the human. There’s always “the devil made me do it” or “I’ll pray to god and see if it will happen” – and it is irresponsible and we see it every day.” read more
Did someone say “separation of church and state”? Oh, right I forgot that the religious only like to bring that up when the state tries to influence and meddle in religious affairs, not visa versa. When it comes to influencing the state, the Catholic Church wears the schoolyard bully shoes with a smerk.
Today the Washington Post reported that the Catholic Church has threatened that it will 
not continue offering social service programs in DC if the state passes a same-sex marriage law. Here we go with the Catholic Church, always obsessed with SEX. They sound more obessed with SEX these days than a 12 year old boy! Abstiance only education, celebacy and the Fr. Cutie sex scandal, lying to Africans saying that condoms increase one’s risk of HIV infection, covering up the rape and sexual child abuse of 5% of their clergy, and now they are insessantly trying to intefer with what goes on in the bedrooms of homosexual men and women! Really?! Can we drop the sex obsession already, Catholic Church?
Somehow I am still on the “reply all” list for some religious acquaintances. The stuff I get is usually crazy and provides a humorous break, but this was the best of the month:
For the next 60 seconds, set aside what ever you’re doing and take this opportunity! Let’s see if satan can stop this.
THE (SCIENTIFIC) DEATH OF JESUSAt the age of 33, Jesus was condemned to the death penalty.
At the time crucifixion was the “worst” death. Only the worst criminals were condemned to be crucified. Yet it was even more dreadful for Jesus, unlike other criminals condemned to death by crucifixion Jesus was to be nailed to the cross by His hands and feet.
Each nail was 6 to 8 inches long.
The nails were driven into His wrist. Not into His palms as is commonly portrayed. There’s a tendon in the wrist that extends to the shoulder. The Roman guards knew that
when the nails were being hammered into the wrist that tendon would tare and brake, forcing Jesus to use His back muscles to support himself so that He could breath.
He died for you! It is easy to pass jokes or foolish photos by e-mail, but when it comes to God, sometimes you feel ashamed to forward to others because you are worried of what they may think about you.
Accept the reality, the truth that JESUS IS THE ONLY SALVATION FOR THE WORLD.
God has plans for you, show all your friends what He experienced to save you. Now think about this! May God bless your life!
60 seconds with God….
For the next 60 seconds, set aside what you’re doing and take this opportunity!All you have to do is:
1. Simply pray for the person who sent this message to you: Lord, you know the life of _________. I ask You to bless him/her in all things and make him/her prosperous. Take care of his/her family, his/her health, his/her work and all his/her future plans. Lead him/her not into temptation, but deliver him/her from evil. In Jesus’ name, amen.
2.Then, send this message to 10 people.
3.10 people will pray for you and you will make that many people pray to God for other people.
4. Take a moment to appreciate the power of God in your life, for doing what pleases Him.If you are not ashamed to do this, please, follow Jesus’ instructions. He said (Matthew 10:32 & 33): “Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; but whosoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven”.
If you believe, send this message… But send it only if you believe in Christ Jesus is your Lord and Savior.Yes, I love God. He is my source of life and my Saviour. He keeps me alive day and night.
Without Him, I am nothing, but with Him “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me”. Philippians 4:13.
This is the simple proof. If you love God and you are believe and trust in salvation through Christ Jesus, send this to all those you love.
I couldn’t help replying:
Interesting idea. This sounds like the dollar mail scam. “Send $1 to 10 people on the list and you will get $100 back!” #3 in the above list reads: “10 people will pray for you and you will make that many people pray to God for other people.” Make that many people pray to God for other people? Huh? Is there a score board up in mythical heaven land where the “pray for me” angel is taking tally of when Sally prayed for John and when Sam prayed for George? I hear a nagging little child’s voice saying “I’ll only pray for you if you pray for me, so ha!” Make a wish and blow out the candles. Praying is wishing. I wish this and I wish that. The only ACTION being taken in this little chain email is the clicking of the mouse when you add all your friends and family to the “reply all” box in hopes that your prayer “inbox” will soon fill up and make the prayer angels work late nights. How selfish, childish and pointless. But good for a laugh, as are all things ridiculous. Finally #4.” Take a moment to appreciate the power of God in your life, for doing what pleases Him.” Yes, incase you were wondering Jesus was the original sender of this chain email and if you don’t do as the email says you are in for a good swat on the bum! Oh, and he will permanently remove you from his “reply all” list. Darn.
I would love to hear this homeopath, Dr. Charlene Werner try to explain
physics to a physics professor. It literally sounds like she is making this stuff up as she goes! How does one justify using Einstein’s E=mc2 by “crossing out mass”? Oh, and her best example of how magic pellets work is a “patient” with a “squeaky knee” and “sugar cravings” being “cured” in 4 weeks. Really?
So if your brain doesn’t hurt from all that incorrect blabbering, listen to an actual physicist on the topics Dr. Charlene Werner just touched on.
A Fellow blogger in Arizona has subjected herself to the theatre of the Catholic Mass and wrote a blog about how the experience compares to watching a boxing arena or an army unit doing drills.
Most of the church stood in a very long line to receive the Eucharist. This is the moment where I felt a little better, because I saw that there were other people not going up to get the piece of bread. I doubt they were atheist hanging out in a Catholic Church like I was, but it was nice not being the only person that wasn’t following along with everyone else for a change. Individualism seems to be a little lost in a Catholic Church. read more
From The Colorado Independent:
This past weekend the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops instructed pastors at
parishes across the country to distribute material urging Catholics to oppose the health reform bills making their way through Congress for allowing public funding of abortions. Priests were to insert the Bishops Conference pdf leaflets and letters into parish news bulletins, distribute them at church doors or place them in pews. They were also directed to read a statement at mass to reinforce the message. Continue Reading…
In the past year I can recall 3 conversations with Catholics where a debate about religion has resulted in them saying “well, how can you be an atheist when you have miracles like the Shroud of Turin?” This happens when I succeed in asking a series of questions that blows down their reasons for believing. It usually happens after the “well I just have Faith” excuse when logic fails them.
Previously Scientists have carbon dated the Shroud to 1260-1390 A.D. Despite the unknown origin of the cloth and the scientific evidence dating it to the time period when it was “discovered”.
Italian scientist Garlaschelli successfully replicated the Shroud using materials that would have been available the middle ages. Yet Garlaschelli doubts such evidence will convince Shroud advocates that the cloth is a hoax.
“If they don’t want to believe carbon dating done by some of the world’s best laboratories they certainly won’t believe me,” he said.1
Despite the Catholic Church’s stance that the Shroud of Turin is not authentic, many followers treat it as evidence of the god Jesus.
We’ve all heard it before. The classic argument from a theist’s perspective on why a god must have created our universe. I can’t tell you how many times religious people have said to me: “well, can you think of one example where something comes from nothing in the universe?”
They are correct in noting that “something cannot be created from nothing” within our known universe, as far as we have been able to demonstrate through
Hubble Deep Field: thousands of galaxies
scientific inquiry. However, when considering the big bang and the origins of our known universe, we cannot apply the laws of physics WITHIN the known universe to that which act OUTSIDE the known universe. Before the start of our universe, it is plausible that other laws of “physics” governed and dictated how our universe singularity began and where the energy and material originated from.
There is also a notable phenomenon observed in quantum mechanics. Particles composed of quarks such as protons, neutrons, positrons, etc have been observed popping into existence from nowhere and leaving again just as fast. Such particles “appear” in a vacuum where no other matter or energy exists. At the quantum level, even empty space is not truly empty but is seething with activity; particles are constantly popping in and out of existence everywhere. In pair creation, a particle and its antimatter partner seem to “appear” (see Bosons). This is cutting edge quantum mechanics research. The Large Hadron Collider in Switzlerand was built and is just recently up and running in the search for the Higgs-Boson particle.
We cannot apply the laws of this universe to that which acted outside of the universe. The laws that hold true within the bubble of our universe may not govern outside the bounds of this universe. 
It is plausible that there are endless numbers of other universes “floating” about and our universe is just one of them. Within each of these multi-verses different laws and properties may govern the interactions within. This “Multiverse theory” is the leading theory in the scientific cosmology community, though it remains untested and still a speculation. (Though this speculation is based on other observations and evidence of how our universe operates). It is probable that the “laws” that act outside our bubble universe commonly call into existence something from nothing. We cannot say with certainty so it is irresponsible to jump to a conclusion without the ability to test or prove it to be false or true. This applies to the multi-verse theory and the theory of a god or gods.
Watch this 10 min video where Dr. Michio Kaku, a leading cosmologist explains the multiverse theory:
Comedy is funny because it pokes fun at the truth. From DisInfo.com:
“This satirical infomercial, which had been on YouTube for months, was pulled by Youtube, who deemed it “inappropriate content,” only after it skyrocketed into the top three topics on digg.com and began accumulating tens of thousands of views. Upset by the censorship and implications, several youtube users have re-uploaded or ‘mirrored’ the video in protest.”-DisInfo.com
This 17 year old kid grew up in a “Jesus Camp” type family setting. At the age of 13 he became atheist and has been living “in the closet” ever since. His parents send him to a brainwashing Jesus Camp every year for the last 15 years. He decided to record the nonsense and share it with the rest of us.
It is a 7 part video. This is only 3 of 7. Go to his channel to start from video one.
Schaeffer: “A village cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot. We have to understand we have a village idiot in this country and it is called Fundamentalist Christianity.” He goes on to say that the Republican party is the party that caters to the village idiot and the extreme subculture of Fundamentalist Christianity.
Jeff Sharlet has the balls to unearth the dirty secrets of a Christian Mafia in his book “The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.” This wealthy group was established during the great depression with the ideology that power and wealth were bestowed by the christian god and should be things to be sought after. The Family openly admires Hitler, Stalin and Mau as men who understood how to attain and wield the type of power they seek to attain. The Family acts as a lobby group (unregistered) and claims non profit status as a religious organization. They also house prominent members of government in a sort of exclusive resort house call the “C Street House” where the officials are waited on hand and foot and served meals by college girls of the local Catholic College. Some of these men who are part of The Family who have recently been in the news for extramarital affairs have been Senator John Ensign and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford,
The Family regularly pays for a select group of statesmen and government officials to travel overseas to befriend third-world dictators and oppressive regimes. It is the philosophy of The Family that these dictators have god given power and deserve to be included in the christian mafia in an attempt to unite powerful, rich men all over the world with the goal of influencing public policy on a global scale.
Sharlet’s book exposes this wicked group in an in-depth
manner that draws ties to a large number of elected government officials including President Ford, George W. Bush and Ronald Regan.
Sharlet recently interviewed on Jon Stewart’s Daily show (clip below). Even better is his interview on NPR.
LISTEN to the NPR interview HERE
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Jeff Sharlet | ||||
|
||||
I hesitated to post this for many months because it made the human race so deplorable (similarly to what Gulliver in Gulliver’s travels felt like after living with the Whinnem). But here it is. Knowledge is power. Just don’t get to down on humanity and do something uplifting after you watch it. Volunteer or donate to a charity to cheer yourself up
And take it all with a pinch of salt… use your critical thinking skills.
PZ Myers has been covering this in great detail, but here is a little video made by some skeptics as they toured Ken Ham’s Creation “Museum” in Kentucky.
I hesitated to share this because it was so blatently bias and unscientific that it made my stomach turn. At EveryStudent.com people can read about a proof for god that is highly prefaced with a disclaimer. The disclaimer starts by saying that the proof for god offered at their website will only be worth something if the reader has an open mind. Fair enough. Skeptics like myself are far from close minded, we just demand extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. The disclaimer continues:
If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks…all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.
Their use of this analogy floored me. It is almost too easy to start shredding this argument. If someone had a photograph of god, taped interview with god, pieces of god’s skin under a microscope, I would be hard pressed not to believe that evidence. However, when people say that god is real and is the biggest most powerful force in the natural world, they need to come up with some pretty amazing evidence to support that claim. Only conspirator theorists and nut jobs don’t believe that the moon landing actually happened. More recently, spacecraft flying over the moon’s surface have photographed the lunar landing site complete with footprints and spacejunk left behind.
Yeah, if someone had credible video of Santa Clause flying his reindeer through the winter’s sky, I’ll believe in him.
Treaty between the United States and Tripoli in 1796.
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
This hour long lecture discusses “intolerance” in a ironic and funny way. Oklahoma provides a great example Dawkins discusses how the human mind is obsessed with “purpose” for humans only. The banana clip is so sick! Ha! Then he shows how Ray comfort thinks the genetically modified modern banana was made for humans to “hold”. This is silly when we see what a natural banana looks like (with seeds).
Last March we heard about a Brazilian child who after being raped by her stepfather conceived twins at the age of 9 years old. 
Obviously she and her family decided to abort the babies considering her age and the danger of childbirth at such a young age, (and the circumstance of rape). Because of this decision, the Catholic church responded by excommunicating the child, her mother and the doctors who conducted the procedure.
Abortion is illegal in Brazil except in cases of rape or when the mother’s life is in danger, both of which apply in this case. (The girl’s immature hips would have made labor dangerous; the Catholic opinion was that she could have had a cesarean section.) (via Time.com)
So much for a compassionate religious group. After living through the trama of being raped by her stepfather, this religious institution expected this young girl to live through childbirth and becoming a mother at a point in her life where she has not even reached the AGE OF REASON. As a naturalist, it matters not to me whether one is “in the catholic club” or not. However, this sort of behaviour demonstrates how out of touch and desperate these magistrates and robe-wearing celibates are with the rest of the world. Now, considering that Brazil is the most Catholic nation in the world, this brash move does not come as a surprise. Recently Brazil’s population has declined from almost 100% Catholic to 74% catholic. This encouraging statistic may have church officials on edge and more willing to “pull out all the stops” when trying to make their religion appear serious and legitimate.
I say we let the catholic leaders continue to don their colorful robes, pointy hats and golden staffs. Let them throw people out of their club and offer pretend blood sacrifices like in the bronze age. Let them dig their own graves. Every superstition fads from fame. Moon worship, Sun worship, Zeus… Jezeus is next.
From New Zealand another religious parent takes offense at their child’s independent mind and shows his anger with a concrete block to her head.
A 55-year-old man who beat his daughter over the head with a lump of concrete when she refused to go to his Mormon church “does not understand what all the fuss is about”, Hastings District Court has heard.
Uluia Muliipu appeared in court after pleading guilty to one count of assault with intent to injure. via nzherald.com
Austin would like to you know as an Atheist, what religious traditions do you still retain or not retain?
| None (160) | 24% |
 |
|
I still participate in saying grace. (31) |
4% |
 |
|
I still sing religious songs with my family. (23) |
3% |
 |
|
I still celebrate some religious holidays, but without the religious aspects. (381) |
58% |
 |
|
I still go to church with my family on special holidays. (57) |
8% |
||
This series explores how fundamental Christianity is using the military as an active extention of their “mission” to make the USA a Christian nation.
The most disturbing thing I heard from this documentary was that Christian soldiers are convinced they are fighting in the middle east in the name of Christianity. Also, for active troops there is no alternative to religious gatherings. Humanist or psycological support for the emotionally depraved soldiers are not provided or funded alongside the thousands of Chaplin. So sad… they are preying on the emotionally vulnerable and the state is not providing alternatives to find support without the superstitions and myths attached.
This seemed to me like a fruition of what the movie “Jesus Camp” fosters. If you haven’t seen, go find it.
echo laughter from PZmyers:
#3 is pretty far down on the list. Which explains why they can’t spell it correctly.
A new group has sprouted up to provide support for recovering religionists. It is a sort of AA for non-theists who need support in overcoming mental abuse as a child or religious follower.
RecoveringReligionists.com offers support to those whose families might not welcome them anymore as an atheist or who might want the social aspect of an organiziation without the mythology.
Leaving religion is full of potential problems, both emotional and practical. How do you tell your elderly parents? How does it affect your marriage? How do you break the news to your religious friends and what if it disrupts the friendship? How to deal with child rearing issues? Who can I talk to about my feelings without being told, “You just need more faith.” Like you just need to be a little more gullible. Recovering from Religion talks about all these and more.
Founded by Darrel Ray, author of the “The God Virus“, RR is a grassroots type organization that is started locally by atheists who wish to meet other atheists and help newcomers transition from a supersitious life to a naturalists way of thinking. Currently there are 9 groups across the US. To start a group in your area, visit the website for further details.
This article in defense of god’s “omnipotence” was brought to my attention and I took note of how the author went through great lengths to stretch reason to the breaking point. It was too irresistible to let it go unanswered from a skeptic, as the author deems it his mission to address the many flaws in “omnipotence” that skeptics have pointed out.
He shoots himself in the foot right from the start by admitting to assuming that a god exists and then assuming he knows the characteristics of said unproven being. But we will let him get away with it, or there would be no fun to be had.
The author goes on to set up a straw man argument against omnipotence by saying that skeptics say that god cannot be omnipotent because god is unable to create a scenario where he is unable to do something. What he fails to address is some basic flaws in the definitions he offers of what his god is (both omnipotent and omniscient).
Omniscience is “all knowing” or “infinitely wise”. Omnipotence is “having unlimited power”. “If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can’t change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent.” – Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) The author of this article fails to address these irreconcilable characteristics of said god.
The author continues with an argument that the attributes of god are “simple” because he says “god is actual” and has an “unchanging nature”. Basically he is stating that god is simple because he exists and does not change. How we equate existence and static being to simplicity, is unclear. What he means when he says “simple” is also unclear and the purpose in doing so is not explained.
Continuing on, he poses another straw man argument by saying that skeptics point out that god cannot sin and therefore is not omnipotent because there is something he cannot do. This guy suggests that god CAN sin, but he chooses not to do so. Yet from there he goes on to state:
In fact, it is my belief that God’s omni-benevolence (God’s all-goodness) prevents him from sinning
He suggests here that god would probably sin if it were not for this omni- part of him that stops him from doing what might otherwise come naturally. Which seems absurd to me. Isn’t sin the act of offending god? So wouldn’t it be impossible for god to sin against himself? Self contracting reasoning here.
The author then poses this question when making his point about a god who chooses not to sin and then considers the alternative:
Could you imagine a “God” who stopped refraining from sinning and started raping, pillaging and destroying randomly? Certainly this is not the Christian God!
Well, I am glad you asked. I don’t have to imagine that god. People already worship him! Let me introduce you to the Judeo-Christian god who in the Old Testament commands his followers to pillage, commit genocide, take more than one wife, and kill each other when Moses catches them dancing around the golden bull. This god killed every first born child in Egypt and did not stop Jepthah from killing is only daughter as a sacrifice to god for his help in winning a genocide battle against a neighboring tribe. The Christian god is a murderous, two faced mafia boss whose twisted ways are well documented in the bible.
And here I will let this author contradict himself again:
a skeptic might suggest that if the above definition is true then that still means that a human can steal candy from a baby but God cannot. Does this suggest that we have the power to do something that is impossible for God? Yes, in a sense this is true. We have one power that God does not: we can sin.
Next, the author tackles the problem of evil. He presents the skeptics’ argument:
P1. Evil exists in the world
P2. God is all-good and all-powerful and all-knowing
P3. An all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God should only create a world of total goodness
C1. Yet P1 conflicts with P3 so we must conclude that an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God does not exist.
He suggests how to solve this logical argument by denying any one of the 3 premises. He admits the difficulty in denying P1 and P2. So he resorts to rejecting P3 with this justification:
God allows evil to exist so that the highest form of good can exist.
Essentially he is stating that the highest form of good is reliant upon the existence of evil. Which logically makes evil more powerful than good. Tell that to the child who was raped by his parish priest at the tender age of 9. Tell that to the starving children in third world countries. Tell that to the family of people murdered by the KKK. Go ahead and tell them that this evil is good for them in the long haul.
Next, the author states:
evil is not a tangible thing; in a way evil is not a reality like goodness
He expounds on this fallacy by saying that evil is the absence of goodness and therefore goodness is a thing and evil is a non-thing. This is a logical fallacy. “Good” and “evil” are words humans use to describe events and behaviors. Neither is a tangible thing and neither is the absense of the the other. These terms can change what they describe as a society evolves and grows. For example, slavery was a good thing in the bible and was condoned by god, but today we recognize slavery as an evil form of human repression. These terms can also be applied to the same act with varying circumstances. For example, the act of killing someone can be called both good or evil depending on the situation (aggression verses self defense). Good and evil are not tangible things, rather they are words used to describe behavior and circumstances.
In a final hurrah, he attempts to dismiss all evil as originating from another mythological being called Satan. So we have a “good creator” who is unproven who created Satan. Satan (an unproven mythological scapegoat) choose to disobey the “good creator” and hence became powerful enough in his rejection to spark a whole bunch of other evils.
…the free choice of the devil to refuse submission to the divine will lead to a corruption and a dissolution of the natural powers of Satan’s will. In a metaphysical sense, the will of Satan was corrupted by his choice to disobey God. This was the beginning and origin of all evil: for the choice of Satan lead to a corruption within the very will of Satan.
He then goes into the mythology of angels and their ranks, powers and how they cannot be forgiven like humans, which is why the devil cannot repent and go back to heaven. All unproven scapegoat ideas to excuse the problem of evil. Make up some “evil force” character who takes the blame for all the stuff that we don’t want the “good force” taking credit for.
Finally, the author pulls out the big creation myth guns and says that all humanity must suffer the evils of this world because Adam and Eve sinned big time when the talking snake convinced them to eat forbidden fruit in god’s garden right after he created the world in 7 days. Right. So babies have to die horrible deaths from crippling diseases because some bloat 6,000 years ago couldn’t find another piece of fruit to snack on?
Either god is omnipotent or not. If he is, then the bad stuff that happens is part of his knowledge/plan. So the child who died last year at the hands of her religious mother because the parents wanted to pray away her diabedes instead of seek medical help was all part of god’s plan. And the starving children who die every day are part of the plan of the omnipotent god.
This author is essentially saying “God does the good stuff and nature (and Satan) does the bad stuff”. An omnipotent god controls EVERYTHING by definition, even the evil and suffering. So next time you hear of a priest raping a young child, make sure to thank god for it (because god has a “greater good” in store for that molested child and can justify letting a priest follow through with rape).
“Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.”
ArizonaCOR (Coalition of Reason) is a new non-theist group that is the culmination of some very vibrant, active meetup groups melding together in the Phoenix area. ArizonaCOR recently put up their website through the generous support of UnitedCOR.org and the American Humanist Association and they are hitting the streets with a huge billboard campaign. .jpg)
The campaign is designed to let Arizona residents know that “coming out” as a non theist shouldn’t be scary. There are more non-theists today than every before and the number is increasing exponentially. But finding the support to “come out” as a non-theist can be difficult when a person is surrounded by religious family and friends, many who threaten connections with those who think differently.
Having moved to Phoenix last year from Minnesota, the religious climate for Arizona is not surprisingly much greater than in Minnesota. The majority of Arizona’s residence is comprised of migrants from other parts of the country with about 1/3 claiming origins in Minnesota. (Yes, the winters there really are worth leaving behind). Arizona also has a high percentage of retirees living in the warm arid state. Being a “red state” also lends Arizona to being a religious suspect. Despite the odds, I managed to find non-theist friends through meetup.com and ArizonaCOR.
Here is some local news coverage on the billboard’s debute:
Khyra, the daughter of a Muslim convert family, has died of starvation at the hand of her mother in Britain.
Khyra was unconscious when paramedics, called to the house in the early hours of last Saturday morning, discovered her and her five brothers and sisters lying on mattresses in a bedroom. Allegedly severely emaciated, she was taken to hospital but died on the way. 1
Evidently the neighbor lady noticed that three of the five children would eat the bread crumbs she spread out in her yard for the birds. Both parents have been arrested on child abuse and the investigation is looking into the religious practice of starvation as a form of exorsism.
Irish Catholic priest Fr. Gannon, a repeat child sex offender is on trial for sexually mollesting an 11 year old boy in the 1960s. Gannon alledgedly assulted the boy 3 times, once in the rectory when the child appeared for altar boy duties. 
He told the youngster that he was giving him an anatomy lesson and not to tell anyone because no one would belive the boy.
Gannon has been previously convicted of sexual assult but only served time for one conviction. Despite the many testimonies agaist him, Gannon refuses to apologize or show remorse for his destructive and offensive behavior.
And he fondled and kissed the boy in the pump room of the local swimming pool in 1969, the court heard.
Asked by police why he took the boy to the secluded bush location and touched his penis, Gannon replied he was explaining the “differences in anatomy”.
“I thought it was less formal rather than inviting him into the presbytery and that’s all,” he told police. 2
Fr. Gannon’s behavior suggests he does not fully understand the severity of his actions. The submissive behavior fostered by the Catholic church provides pedofiles like Gannon a furtile playing field to wreak havoc on the lives of youngsters who are told to trust priests and elders in their parent’s religious cult.
This article in the World Net Daily blows the big scare horn on gay marriage being legalized in America. Evidently some groups are concerned that gay marriage is a slippery slope to legalizing polygamy. Lets take a closer look.
1. Currently, polygamists do live in America and practice polygamy, a large majority of them being Mormon, a modern offshoot of Christianity. The multiple wives of these polygamy families claim single parent status on their taxes and welfare. This results in the polygamy families receiving thousands of tax payer monies to pay for their many children’s welfare on account of all but one wife being single with little or no income.
It is well known that a handful of mormon polygamy families live soley off this government money, the husband of all the wives collecting their government paychecks and acting as a stay-at-home father to all his wives and children. If the United States made polygamy legal, it would not have to pay the welfare checks of these polygamy families.
2. For the Christian readers, we have a bit of polygamy in the good old bible. You don’t have look too hard to find all the many wives of so and so and of god bestowing the plunder of wives upon a conqueror. Here is just one obvious example:
“And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8: And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things” (2 Sam. 12)
If polygamy was good enough for the heros of the bible, why should we turn our noses up at those who choose to practice polygamy in the silence of their own private lives? As an Atheist I could care less whether something is or is not in the bronze age storybook, but to some it could be difficult evidence to pass up.
3. The last thing this article tries to do is beg the question. They say, well if people can have sex with someone of the same genitalia or with more than one person, what is to stop the law from granting incest or bestiality to be constitutional?
To answer this we back up a few steps and recognize that people in the gay rights groups and pro-polygamy groups are not asking permission to have sex in the manner in which they choose. They are asking for equal rights between legal adult citizens of the USA. In the context of granting equal rights for men and women (human beings) who are members of the society of the USA, we recognize that animals are not included in this criteria of consideration for legal status. An animal is not a human being of consenting age and could therefore not be considered a valid partner in the legal status of a civil union. For two human beings to get married requires a few basic things: legal citizenship, consent, and declaration of intent. An animal cannot meet these requirements. It is not required however to show your genitalia in order to obtain a civil union, and such a requirement of showing sex or sexual preference is discrimination (as society has deemed today) and hence the reason for the gay rights movement. Incest on the other hand, is performed in this country already, mostly through rape. Consensual incest could be made legal if we again changed the criteria for marriage by not requiring consenting adults to be unrelated. This would be a decision made by society if it deemed that was something of value to the society. Which leads me to my final point:
4. Marriage and Civil Unions are not RIGHTS. They are statuses that our society has devised to provide a set of privileges to consenting adults who agree to enter these legal agreements together. For example: the speed limit for Highway XZY is 55 mph. This law was enacted by President Eisenhower during an oil shortage. It was thought that if everyone would drive slower they would conserve fuel. This law made sense at the time and society agreed to it by enforcing it and obiding by it. Since then, cars have become more efficient and often are more fuel efficient when cruising at 70mph.
We have also made them safer so as to sustain accidents at these higher speeds. The top speed limits on Highway XYZ hence are changed to 70 mph reflecting the new societial and technological circumstances. Society agrees by enforcing the new speed limit and abiding by it. Likewise when civil union was devised in the early workings of the USA, the opinion of society was that such a priviledge was between a human with a penis and a human with a vagina. Today, society disagrees with the criteria of the 1800s and votes to change the law to reflect new societal and technological circumstances. We understand now through the use of MRIs that the brains of gay men show similarities to those of heterosexual women. We also understand that the people who institutionalized marriage back in the 1700s also thought that slavery acceptable. As a society, we make the law. If society finds reason to believe that consensual incest is a benifit to the group, then it will change the critieria for the priveledge of marriage to reflect such an agreement of change. There are no absolutes. If the entire population of the world was killed off and the only remaining survivors to populate the earth were blood relatives, I’ll be damned if they don’t have some incest right then and there. Heck, if Adam and Eve really were the first and only humans on this planet, who do you suppose Cain and Able had sex with? 
Atheist nations are the most peaceful nations!? But aren’t all Atheist’s devil worshipers who love to drink human blood and destroy religion??? If you are talking to your neighborhood religious nut about atheists, you certainly might have heard such accusations. Atheists are actually peaceful creatures with no “god” or ‘righteous religion” to defend against other religions and gods. Atheists are excellent promoters of peace because they see more commonality among humans than differences. Atheists also find it more probable that the life we live here on earth is the only one we have (no afterlife) so they go about making the best of it with humanitarian efforts.
Fellow blogger at Epiphenom as an excellent compilation of data for this peacful outcome for atheist nations.
Not suprisingly, New Zealand ranked on top the 2009 Global Peace Index. New Zealand also happens to be the most non-religious country on planet earth. No wonder I have been aching to live there…
If you are the proud owner of a dog (or even a cat), you would be the first to agree that some animals seem to empathize with human emotions and certainly with each other. We hear of cross empathy between dogs and cats taking care of stray litters, of dogs able to sense when their owner is sad. Intuitively we know that animals are capable of strong emotions.
Recent studies on animal behavior shows just that, but with a slight twist. Supposedly animals follow a moral code that enables their packs or groups to better function. It is a simple tool of evolution, one that humans have also picked up on. Agreeing to not take your neighbor’s stuff and not kill your neighbor is a benefit to all when attempting to survive. An article by Telegraph interviewed Professor Marc Bekoff, an ecologist at University of Colorado, Boulder. Professor Bekoff suggests that morals are built into the social patterns of high animal brains.
He claims that these rules help to control fighting within the group and encourage co-operative behaviour.
Recent neurology work has also revealed that distantly related mammals such as whales and dolphins have the same structures in their brains that are thought to be responsible for empathy in humans.
Other findings have also suggested that some animals may even be capable of showing empathy with the suffering of other species.
Elephants, rodents, monkies, bats, dolphins, wolves: all animals that survive in packs or groups and rely on a moral code of conduct to keep the group functioning at its best. Humans are simply one step above this basic moral system in that we are able to analyze this moral conduct in ourselves and in other animals. We are also able to break such moral codes with our big brains by justifying killing with “holy war” or taking another people’s land in the name of a god we worship. In this way we have de-evolved from the system still used today by animals such as dolphins and wolves.
To conclude, here is a picture of a mother bird blocking the water in a drain pipe with her own body to protect her nest and chicks.
In the wake of the Daniel Hauser Minnesota case, news from Britain tells of a criminal convinction of parents Thomas and Manju Sam. Attempting to treat their child’s chronic eczema. The 9 month old baby died in 2002 and just recently have the court proceedings found the parents guilty of criminal negligence by continuing homeopathic treatments as their child’s condition worsened to the point of her skin weeping and pealing off when they changed her clothing. Read the full report here.
A recent article in New Scientist gave us a glimpse into the family feud between Christian Creationists and Christian Evolutionists. Not suprisingly, each side puts up a website designed to give credibility to their side of the story.
What tickles me pink is that both sides look indistinguishable from the standpoint of a scientist and atheist. Ultimately, Creationists argue that “god created the universe as it appears today out of thin air” while their friends on the other side of the mud flinging fence say that “god created the circumstances for the known universe out of thin air.” Ultimately, they are arguing for the same thing (that a magic man did it), while throwing spit balls at each other over where to place the magic man in the history of the universe. It is no different than seeing a peach on the ground underneath a tree and agreeing with your friend that Zeus made that peach fall, while arguing with your friend over whether or not Zeus put it there on the ground or whether he put the peach tree there to make the peach to fall on the ground.
Let’s be fair to the Creationists though. The reason they must defend the bible’s position that the earth is 6,000 years old and that humans are all decended from one man and one women is to defend their entire religion. If the creation story is just a myth, a story, a nice little bedtime tale as the modern Christian believes, then what is the point of Jesus? According to the bible, Adam and Eve sinned by eating an apple, thus making God upset. God then sent himself in the form of Jesus to placate himself for that little Eden upset. You may agree that even if the Eden/Creation story is true, that circular reasoning sounds like bullshit, however this is what 75% of Americans are told sounds reasonable. So, to defend their religion, the Creationists are forced to argue against evolution in order to keep intact the entire POINT of their religious following. That Jesus came to die because of what happened in the Creation/Eden story.
The Horizon Church in Maryland would like to know your opinion on how old the earth is. If you don’t know, shame on you. 
about 6000 years old
about 4.5 billion years old
I am not sure
Being a outspoken Facebooker and Blogger, I get a fair amount of email. This one shocked me because of the author’s uninformed disposition. The name has been changed to protect identity.
Kara:
I’m sorry if I’m bringing up a touchy subject with you, but a mythical deity? How can you think or say that Jesus Christ is mythical? Just look all around you at everything and everyone, even your beautiful Arizona couldn’t have just appeared. Someone had to create it; and that was God. And this is the greatest weekend in the history of the Catholic Church, when we celebrate Jesus’ life, passion, death, and resurrection! How and why did this change in religion come about? Again, sorry if this is a touchy subject, but I’m very surprised. You were raised Catholic, attend a Catholic University.
What is Astrophysics? Never heard of it! Lol! Well, I hope everything works out for you. And I will keep you in my prayers!
Chrystine:
Thanks for opening up discussion. This is by no means a touchy subject and something that I am happy to talk about with others.
Having been indoctrinated with religion, I was given a chance to think for myself upon entering college and found that religion does not stand up to the microscope of logic and reasoning.
The universe and the small planet we call earth are all a result of the “big bang” and the aftermath of that. Life began on earth in the microbial stages billions of years ago and evolution has taken life to what it is today. Through technology we have been able to find over 1 billion galaxies in our universe. Each of those galaxies has aprox. 1 billion planets within it. Therefore, there is 1 billion billion planets (at least) in our known universe. If you say that the chance of an earthlike planet being formed is a 1 in a billion chance, you still have 1 billion earthlike planets that could have formed. The odds are rather high, even for a probability equation. None of this gives evidence to a sky-god.
You say “someone had to create it; and that was God”. Why did someone have to create it? Why is that the only option? Just because we do not understand something does not give us credence to shove a god into that crack of the unknown. Religion has operated in this sense for many years. we didn’t understand lighting so Zeus must be throwing it down. we didn’t understand rain, so God must be opening flood hatches to dump water on us. we didn’t understand the sun and moon so we worshiped them. the church was convinced the earth was flat, and then that the earth was the center of our solar system. Wherever science honestly says “we don’t know the answer, but we are looking for evidence of the correct answer” religion steps in and shoves god into that gap. That is otherwise known as “God of the Gaps”. I have yet to see provable, repeatable evidence for any type of god.
Kara:
Hmm… If you couldn’t guess already, I don’t agree with you in the least. The Catholic Church is my everything and I will do my very best to defend Her. From what you’ve wrote above, you have studied this and I have studied my Catholic Faith, but you’ll have to give me a little bit to gather my thoughts! But, in reaction to the “big band” theory you believe in, (I hope this doesn’t come across as sarcastic) but saying that the world just “became” or “came into exsistence” is like saying that a dictionary is the product of an explosion in a printing factory. The Book of Genesis, says it all. It takes you through day by day of how God created the universe. Now all of the information you gave above of the billions of galaxies seem to be information from within the big bang theory and therefore, I don’t believe it. As for evolution, do you believe that we evolved from apes? Because if you do… why are there still apes on this planet? Adam, the first human being, did not just come to be. God created him from the dust of the earth. That is why on Ash Wednesday, at the beginning of Lent, we have ashes placed on our foreheads and the words “Remember you are dust and to dust you shall return” are said. God then created Eve, from Adam’s rib. From Adam and Eve came the rest of the human race. There are some things that we need to just believe and not always have an exact reason or logic for. Again, in the Bible Jesus Christ said: “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed.” The supernatural things throughout the Catholic Faith, for instance: The Eucharist, Heaven, Purgatory, Hell, Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven are things that a human cannot wrap their mind around and will go absolutely crazy trying to figure out. This is where God, Jesus Christ, and the Catholic Church come into play. Seminarians, Theologians, Priests, Deacons, Bishops, Cardinals, and Popes have studied this and questions like these for centuries and the only way any of this world can be true is if someone supernatural created it. Which brings me to the question: “Where do you believe that people go after they die?” We don’t just cease to exsist. Depending on the way we live out life, we will go to Heaven and spend eternity with Our Almighty Father, Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and all the saint and angels, or we will go to Hell and burn in fire with the devil and his followers. And yet there is hope for those who die with sin still on their soul. These people go to Purgatory and are purified from their sin and then will be taken to Heaven. Those are my thoughts and belief’s. I have many more but I don’t think Facebook has the capacity to hold them all!
Chrystine:
The bible says the earth is 6,000 years old. Science and evidence through carbon dating and zirconium dating have dated the earth to be 4.5 billion years old. Astrophysics has established that it has been 13.7 billion earth years since the big bang. all these numbers are supported by evidence, repeatable math equations, fossil records and physics. arguing against it is the modern equivalent of saying the earth is flat.
Humans did not evolve from apes. do some research on this from non religious science sources. Humans, Neanderthals and apes and chimps evolved from previous lines of now extinct ape like ancestors. That humans somehow evolved from monkeys is the uneducated reply to evolution.
You claim god created the universe. Prove it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
What is your proof that something happens to humans after death? Humans have created the allusion of eternal life because death scares us. Our brains do not know what it is like to not exist. However I did not exist for billions of years before I was born and I imagine I will be just fine not existing for billions of years after I die. There will be no “me” to be sad or concerned about it either.
How Evolution works: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpNeGuuuvTY
Kara:
Well, for my point of veiw this hasn’t really been “fun”, because I’m worried about your soul. I’m glad you enjoyed it though. Again, I must say I’m extremely shocked at your change of religious beliefs. God bless you Christine and I will pray for you. AND I will also come up with form of proof for you in the future! And then we shall continue this discussion! Talk to you later!
Chrystine:
If you can prove that I have a soul, I will let you be worried about it. Please do not pray for me, as it is a true waste of time and will amount to nothing. Instead, educate yourself and branch out from your comfort zone. It is refreshing outside the box. I look forward to your proofs, though I must warn you I haven’t found one yet that has held up to logic. Let me leave you with this little gem:
In The God Delusion, Dawkins discusses evolutionary by products. The example he chooses to use is a moth flying into a flame as a demonstration of what we see as abject stupidity. Why would a moth deliberately fly into a flame?
This is not an example of natural selection….it is an example of natural selection gone wrong. Moths evolved to fly at night by using celestial objects as guides: Keep the light source in a certain position and you can navigate, much as we do with a compass which points north. Dawkins notes that it was not until comparatively late in evolutionary history that there was anything like artificial lights to throw off the moths. We see only the moths who get distracted by the flames. We do not see millions of moths who merrily go on their way without self-immolating themselves.
So, what is the Darwinian answer to religion? Dawkins sees it this way.
“My specific hypothesis is about children. More than any other species we survive by the accumulated experience of previous generations and that experience needs to be passed on to children for their protection and well-being. Theoretically, children might learn from personal experience not to go too near a cliff-edge, not to eat untried red berries, not to swim in crocodile-infested waters. But, to say the least, there will be a selective advantage to child brains that possess the rule of thumb: believe, without question, whatever your grown-ups tell you. Obey your parents; obey the tribal elders, especially when they adopt a solemn, minatory tone. Trust your elders without question. This is a generally valuable rule for a child. But, as with the moths, it can go wrong.”
Dawkins then continues:
“Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them. Such trusting obedience is valuable for survival: the analogue of steering by the moon for a moth. But the flip side of trusting obedience is slavish gullibility. The inevitable by-produce is vulnerability to infection by mind viruses. For excellent reasons related to Darwinian survival, child brains need to trust parents and elders whom parents tell them to trust. An automatic consequence is that the truster has no way of distinguishing good advice from bad. The child cannot know that “Don’t paddle in the crocodile-infested Limpopo” is good advice but “You must sacrifice a goat at the time of the full moon, otherwise the rains will fail” is at best a waste of time and goats. Both admonitions sound equally trustworthy. Both come from a respected source and are delivered with a solemn earnestness that commands respect and demands obedience.”
The Jesuit maxim “Give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man” clearly understand the net result of this principle.