George W. Bush's Residence Greener Than Al Gore's?

Is the claim that former Vice President and global warming documentary producer Al Gore's house uses far more energy than George Bush's private ranch true? Yes, says Snopes. In fact, while Gore's home has approximately twelve times the energy consumption, at only four times the size of the average American home, George W Bush's private residence utilizes many of the latest energy saving technologies to use far less than average.

All of that is true. However, the quoted email then gets into logical fallacy territory. Though it never comes out and says it, those facts to used to imply that Mr. Gore does not care about the environment in an attempt to discredit him. This is a form of ad hominem attack. They are attacking the individual and using those attacks to try to discredit him, when they are nothing but personal attacks and have no bearing on the factualness of the arguments he makes. We can all say shame on him for not practicing what he preaches, but we can't say that what he espouses is wrong, just because he doesn't follow them.

Random Thoughts and Notes

Looks like my sudden storm of popularity has subsided for a while. I received over 300 unique visitors a day for three straight days when my post comparing the Ten Commandments and US law was linked to, first by StumbleUpon, and then by Netscape's religion portal. I'm still amazed at the popularity of that post. It was a post I had been bouncing around in my head for a while, and a combination of factors, not the least of which was the Christian Seniors Associations reaction to Pete Stark's nontheism, led to me to quickly write and post it one afternoon. It was a very cursory look at the issue, said nothing new about the subject, and, in my opinion, was some of my poorest writing since I started this blog. For some reason, none of that mattered, and it brought in a lot of new traffic. I'm not sure if anyone who found me from StumbleUpon or Netscape is still visiting, but if you are, welcome.

Since then, I've been placing a lot of focus on posting information about my beliefs and philosophies, and these are subjects I have greatly enjoyed writing about. This blog has allowed me to explore my own beliefs and worldview more thoroughly than I have ever had an opportunity to in the past. Looking back, it seems like I can come off a little confrontational and bitter. This couldn't be further from the truth, but I do get very passionate about what I view as discrimination, persecution, and bigotry against people who have done nothing other than have their own mind. I'm extremely happy in my life, and I'm just happy have a way to really make my views known, so I don't plan to change anything with my writing.

I'm planning more posts on my own views and philosophies in the future. I'm also considering widening the scope of the blog to include more posts on science and skepticism. I had originally intended for the blog to include more on these subjects, but I found so many opportunities to post on atheism that I let it takeover as the primary subject of the blog. I don't think atheism will cease to be the primary subject, but I would like to cover more related topics in from time to time.

We're All Just Figments of Your Imagination

Surprise, surprise! There's a Christian doesn't think atheists exists. I've seen articles like this before, and they always amuse me because they showcase religious thinking far better than I ever could.

It’s true! I don’t believe they exist. There is no such thing as someone who doesn’t believe in a sovereign god. I don’t care how much evidence you want to provide trying to validate their existence - I cannot believe that any person is a true atheist.

This is extremely typical of theistic thinking, especially Christian thinking. They have such a "personal" relationship with their sky-fairy of choice that they just can't image how anyone couldn't have it too. Obviously, anyone who claims that he isn't there is just pretending or is in denial. We just don't want him to be there. The use of the word sovereign here is interesting as well, as it clearly defines several things about his belief; things that put his in opposition of the very large group of non-Abrahamic faiths. If a sovereign god is required in his definition of theism, that implies a single, all-powerful entity, which counts out the very large Hindu religion, the eastern religious philosophies, and most, if not all of the native religions still practiced worldwide, as atheistic.

Atheists do not exist. They’re not real. If there were ever a true atheist, they would not invest so much energy in trying to convince themselves and others that God does not exist. The thought of God consumes them.

I'll make a deal with you: if you stop legislating your religion, and you stop trying to convert me at every turn, I will be more than happy to stop talking about your god and any other god. Read this part carefully because it is important: Nothing would make me happier than to be able to stop talking about religion once and for all.

Here, we can also see how the theistic majority will never be happy with anything we as atheists do. If we talk about the flaws and delusions of religion, they say we must believe because we are so obsessed. If we know nothing of religion or it's tenets or it's holy book (and only their religion, the others don't count), then we just have never been exposed to the word and need to be taught and converted. It's a catch-22 that we can't escape from, because nothing we do will ever satisfy the theist.

If someone claims to be an atheist, I think they’re lying. What they’re really trying to say is that God let them down, and they can’t reconcile how a good God allow such evil.

The first argument is the most tired and most debunked argument in the theists arsenal. I'm quite happy in my life. I've had no major disappointments and I'm very satisfied with where I am now, and none of it is due to, or in spite of an invisible guy in the sky.

Secondly, the argument from evil is compelling, and I think it makes a strong case against a loving god, but considering that the god of Abraham (and thus, by my assumption, the god of the poster) was anything but a loving god, I've never thought it was a very productive line of reasoning against Christianity, and it's not really a line of reasoning that I would personally pursue.

In reality, it's hard for me to imagine the existence of theists. There is nothing tenable about the god hypothesis, and not one argument for the existence of a god stands up to any scrutiny. I do know, however, that, sadly, theists do exists, and they do let themselves be deluded into these very lines of thinking.

The Double Standard of Religion

After writing down the story of my deconversion, I have been wondering more than ever about why theists, who are always ready to strike down inconsistencies in all other religions, seem fundamentally incapable of seeing the flaws within their own religion. Oftentimes, these beliefs may be extremely similar. A Christian will reject the Hindu account of creation as not only wrong, but even offensive, even though the myths both posit that a supreme godhead guided the creation of the universe and life. Where the Christian account assumes a single god and a single creation event, the Hindu account specifies three gods (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva) working in continuous cycle of creation/destruction events. A Christian will say that the Hindu account is ridiculous and wrong, but will be no better prepared to defend their own view, which is just as baseless as any other.

A major turning point in my life was my realization that believers of every religion in the world are positive that they are right, which led to an obvious line of questioning. If all religions have believers of absolute conviction, it's obvious that they can't all be right; in fact, most religions specifically say that they are the only true religion. They can, however, all be wrong, which is a truth that seems to escape the mind of the believer. The average believer works under the assumption that there must be “something else”, which turns off the questioning part of their mind. They just “know” that the religion they've always known must be right because, from birth, they've been simultaneously indoctrinated into its beliefs and insulated from its criticisms. This creates an inevitable double standard, in which the evidence against all other religions is viewed with far more credibility than the evidence against your own, and realizing that was one of the biggest steps that I took in my journey to disbelief.

Anti-Theist?

I am more than an atheist. I am an anti-theist.

Last week, I made a short post on a Sam Harris LA Times op-ed made during the aftermath of the outing of Congressman Pete Stark as a non-theist. The article related mainly to liberal and moderate theists sheltering fundamentalists and dominionists from criticism by holding to the same holy books, which is a viewpoint I agree with completely. I suppose this view makes me an anti-theist, and it is a label I will accept, with a lot of qualifications.

I think the main thing that makes me an anti-theist is that I feel that religion no longer serves any purpose. Many people may say that it should be fine if other people believe, but I feel that religion is, in fact, detrimental to our advancement as a society and as a species. We don't need it to define our morals, we don't need it to show us our place in the universe, and we no longer need it to explain our world.

Steven Jay Gould called religion and science "non-overlapping magisteria" in that they occupy different domains of teaching and therefore should never be considered in conflict. As much respect as I have for Dr Gould's work, this is one area in which I completely disagree. The ultimate goal of religion is to explain why the world is as it is. This is very centrally the same goal as science, only where science deals in empiricism, religion deals in emotion. Many great scientific findings of the past have rocked the foundations of various religions, and many lines of scientific research are difficult or impossible to pursue today, due exclusively to the influence of religion. Promising research that could ultimately save the lives of millions is prohibited based on a religious objection.

People still hold strong to many old ideas of morality that are solely religious in nature; ideas which make no sense in an age of reason. We even have a Presidential office that makes charity grant decisions based on the concept of religious faith, rather the effectiveness of the charity.

All of this must change for our society to continue its progress. I'm not calling for a banning or outlawing of religion. Atheists have a prime opportunity in the modern era for education and outreach. Already, religion is on the decline, especially amongst the young. According to the Pew Research Center, a full 19% of adult Americans born since the year 1977 profess to have no religion, and the total for the entire US population is now 12%, a 4% gain in the last 20 years. This is an encouraging trend, and one which will only improve with time. I dream of a time when someone is as cautious about declaring themselves religious as someone is today about declaring atheism; a day when religion is something that we can tell our disbelieving children, "yes, grandma really does believe in an invisible guy in the sky, but a lot of old people have crazy beliefs like that." A wind of change is blowing, and based on this latest data, this day may come faster than anyone can imagine.

So, yes, I am an anti-theist, but I think an approach of calm education is by far preferable to in-your-face evangelism.

Who Says Anti-Atheist Bigotry Doesn't Exist?

I've actually heard people doubt that bigotry against atheists exists. Tell that to Possummomma, who just posted on a fairly extreme case that she just experienced.

After she posted to a newspaper site, looking for other atheists in her area, she heard from one of her friendly neighborhood fundamentalists named Dick.

Possummomma,
This is a Christian town. If you don't like it move! I'll help you pack. Go back to where you came from.
Dick

As their exchange continues, Dick really lives up to his name by proving that he is, in fact, a gigantic dick. I invite everyone to visit the linked post and see just what religiously motivated bigotry looks like, and lend your support to Possummomma. She's a great lady with a great blog.

My Personal Deconversion Story

Nothing has really stood out at me to post today, and I realized that I haven’t really posted the story of my journey to non-belief. Like most people, it wasn’t instantaneous, but at the same time, I don’t think it was entirely typical. It’s the story of a natural atheist growing up in a fundamentalist evangelical family.

I grew up near a very small town (pop 7000) in south Alabama, with very fundamentalist parents from the Southern Baptist denomination. I was indoctrinated into the religion from birth and for a while, never thought to question it. I didn’t even know it was possible not to believe. I had never met any avowed non-believers, and even people like those pesky Jehovah’s Witnesses that came door to door believed in God, even if they didn’t worship him the right way. I fed right into the idea that the only reason to say anything bad about God is if you were a bad person and just wanted to justify doing wrong.

I’ve always been skeptically minded, even though I didn’t realize that’s what it was until recently. I can still remember the first time I had any kind of experience with doubt or absence of faith. I don’t remember exactly how old I was, but I couldn’t have been older than 7 years old. There was a tornado warning in our county and the predicted path came right toward our community. I was scared and my mother suggested that we pray for God to guide the tornado away from us. Even at that young age, three thoughts immediately went through my head: “if God didn’t want it to hurt us, then why did he make it in the first place”, “if God could stop it from hurting us, then why did he allow anyone to be hurt”, and “if God guided it away from us, then wouldn’t that just put other people in danger?” I can’t recall what I actually said, or if I said anything, but I do remember my mother telling me some anecdote about how we prayed about something when I was younger and I had faith and God came through. My thoughts about that were much the same then as they are right now, but we prayed and my memory of that situation pretty much ends there. I can’t recall ever really thinking much about it until fairly recently, when I was thinking about what brought me to where I am today.

For several more years, I still believed for all of the same reasons I had before. As I got into junior high and started taking more advanced science classes, I started seeing things that didn’t add up; things that just didn’t work under a young-earth view. At first I tried to ignore them, but eventually, when I no longer could, I finally adapted an old-earth view. As I went through high school I started discarding more and more supernatural elements. I was at a point where I wanted to believe. I think it still just didn’t occur to me that it was possible to not believe. At some point, I realized that the followers of every single world religion were just as sure that they were right as the followers of any other religion were sure that they were. Muslims were just as sure they were right as Christians were sure they were. Buddhists knew they had to do everything they could to achieve nirvana just as the Hindu knew they had to work their whole lives to please Vishnu. I knew that they couldn’t all be right, but, I wondered, what if they were all wrong? By the time I was a senior in high school, I was going to church regularly and participating in the youth group, but I knew I didn’t believe any of it, I just wouldn’t admit it to myself. Around the time I started college I had a major epiphany: it’s okay not to believe.

Looking back now, I realize one thing clearly: I never really did believe. My parents believed and when I was a child with no life experiences of my own, I was simply a parrot of my parents. As I did start gaining my own life experiences, every experience I had showed me that we didn’t need a god to explain the world. Everything we know works by predictable natural laws. Nothing I’ve ever observed violates them. So, little by little, my own personality replaced the one manufactured by my parents, and the less I needed God. I no longer needed that crutch, and realizing that was the single most liberating experience of my life.

That was about 10 years ago, and now, here I am thinking back over the whole experience with retrospective eyes and I’m proud. I’m proud I realized the things I did when I did or I may never have been able to break free. I’m proud I had the courage to explore reality. I’m proud I’m able to share this with the world, and I hope that just one believer can read this and realize that atheists aren’t animals; we’re just people who can’t bear to allow fear and superstition to rule over our lives.

For the Children!

This post is far more rantish and vulgar than most. I got really worked up over the source article and decided to just let it all come out.

---

Thanks to Brian Flemming for this find.

Bill Gray, of The Conservative Voice, has completely and totally lost it. That shouldn't be news, considering the source, but I mean really...wow.

I'm not even sure where to start on this one.

Do you believe in God? Do you believe in Jesus Christ? Do you believe in the Holy Spirit? Do you want your children, grandchildren, and all the beautiful young children in your community to believe in God? What would be your reaction if you were to see someone holding a gun to the head of one of these children?

By now you are most likely thinking that Bill Gray has lost it, gone off the deep end. Well, in a sense you are right; Bill Gray has lost it --- but, not as you might imagine. I have gotten so bothered, so upset, so angry about the new attack against Christianity that was sent to me today. Why am I so angry? Because the target of this attack is openly and blatantly --- our children. The attackers make no pretense about their intentions; they are going after our young people --- to save them from God and Christianity!

Actually, the phrase I was thinking of was "completely fucking bat-shit crazy", but I'll let "off the deep end" slide. It's close enough I guess. The real question is what could possibly have him so worked up?

My Friend, Barbara Weymouth, sent me an e-mail today telling me about this new crusade --- called The Blasphemy Challenge.

The Blasphemy Challenge is a group of atheists who are militantly seeking to lure children and young people away from God and Christianity. They broadcast an internet radio program from a hidden site in Philadelphia. And, now they have come up with this scheme using the YouTube internet web site to reach millions of young people with their anti-God, anti-Jesus, anti-Holy Spirit message. This atheist group has definitely declared war on God. They are militant, and their targets are your children and grandchildren.

A Christian pissed about the Blasphemy Challenge? Stop the presses! The first thing I want to know is how could a Christian blogger have missed the Blasphemy Challenge for this long? Just think of how many young souls could have been saved if he'd just learned about it sooner!

Why do you hold just a double-standard? Why do you think it is vital for you to indoctrinate children, not only your own, but all children you can, with superstitious fears of eternal punishment and torture, but seek to deny those with any other beliefs the same benefit? There's a big difference in the way atheists and Christians operate, Bill. You use fear. We use reason. That scares you, because you know that no amount of fear is enough to cover the well reasoned truth.

Have you noticed the irony of this statement from their web site? They deny that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit exist; so why do they quote from the Bible? They do not believe that Jesus exists --- yet, they tell you that Jesus will not forgive you. If He does not exist, how can He forgive you?

Of course Jesus cannot forgive you if he doesn't exists. That's the point you fucktard. What about this? I deny the Holy Spirit. Why do I have to say that if I don't believe it? Because so many people do. If they didn't, I wouldn't have to. I don't have to say that I deny the existence of unicorns, or leprechauns, or the celestial teapot, even though there is literature written on each. Why do we refer to the Bible? Because you can't debunk it without talking about it.

When you visit their web site, and I strongly urge that you to do ---- first click on the face of the young girl to see her video on YouTube. Her name is Jessica --- and she is someone's daughter; she is someone's granddaughter --- and, through the encouragement of this Satanic group, she happily, ignorantly, denies God.

I of course recommend everyone do the same, but instead of seeing ignorance, I suggest you see what is really there: pride. Pride in her ability to break the shackles of superstition that bind so many others. Pride in her declaration that she refuses to be bound by the delusions of her parents, her grandparents, and of society as a whole. Pride in her ability to see the world as it really is, rather than through the fog of religion.

Also, I don't think I need to remind anyone that atheists don't believe in Satan any more than we believe in Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, or the Easter Bunny.

I'm pretty much done here. From that point on, the article descends into a further series of nonsensical, chaotic ramblings. There are more mentions of Satanic elements, more mentions of the "gun to the head" analogy, and more calls for Christians to go on the offensive against the evil Godlessness that will surely damn our children to an eternity of banjo music and Coke machines with broken bill changers, or whatever they consider torture.

In closing, I only have three words which, taken together, should sum up the content of this post nicely: FUCK YOU, BILL.

The Ten Commandments and US Law

Living in Alabama, I was at ground zero of the 2003 debate over Chief Justice Roy Moore's placement of the Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court. The majority of people in the state supported the placement of the monument, with a common argument being that the laws of this country were based on "Judeo-Christian principles" and the Ten Commandments were the "moral foundation" of our laws. This claim is, of course, ludicrously absurd, as our early legal system was based on the English common law system, brought over by the first settlers, which was, in turn, based on the traditions of the early Germanic barbarian settlers to the island of Great Britain. The courts ruled this very way, stating that the monument served a purely religious purpose and must be removed under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

For this exercise, I will be using the protestant version of the Ten Commandments from the King James Version of the Bible. I will take each commandment from Exodus 20, and comparing it to United States law to prove that the Ten Commandments had no influence over the laws in the US.

The First Commandment

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

According to the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Article VI, section 3 of the United States Constitution states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Taken together, these two sentences mean that the First Commandment is incompatible with US law and is unconstitutional.

The Second, Third, and Fourth Commandments

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

These all apply directly to religious worship. The statements about the First Commandment all apply equally here.

The Fifth Commandment

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

It is no doubt a good thing to honor your parents, especially when you are young, but it is not the place of government to legislate this. No one would be able to agree on what constitutes honoring, and it would not be possible to provide the punishment/reward outlined in the commandment.

The Sixth Commandment

Thou shalt not kill.

Finally, we have our first parallel. Murder is illegal in the United States. However, the parallel is meaningless, because every nation in the world, regardless of religion, have laws against murder. It is universal across all cultures and religions, and is in no way unique to the Abrahamic religions.

The Seventh Commandment

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

While it's true that, in my opinion, adultery is morally reprehensible, it is not illegal, nor do I think it should be. It's a personal issue, and states have legal recourse in place to assist the victim of adultery in civil proceedings. Any more than this would overstep the bounds of government.

The Eighth Commandment

Thou shalt not steal.

Another hit, and just like the Sixth Commandment, the fact that stealing is illegal has nothing to do with religion. It, like murder, is a concept universal to all societies. No one likes their possessions taken, so in any society, rules have to be made. Everyone understands the pain/frustration caused by even small thefts, so it creates a moral obligation not to put anyone else through this. Laws against theft are merely a codification of this concept.

The Ninth Commandment

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

This one is probably a hit. This commandment is generally taken to refer to perjury, the act of lying during court proceedings. Just like murder and theft, perjury laws are vital to any society. A legal system cannot work if people feel free to lie during court examination. Again, this a universally understood legal concept that transcends culture and religion.

The Tenth Commandment

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

If people could be arrested or punished merely for their thoughts, we'd all be lawbreakers. This is unenforceable and unmonitorable as law.

So, in the end, there are only three of the ten that have any parallel in United States law, and it is demonstrable that none of these are US law because they are commandments.

Sam Harris on Congressman Stark

Sam Harris, author of the books The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason and Letter to a Christian Nation, wrote an op-ed piece for the LA Times. In it, he discusses not only the recent announcement from the Secular Coalition of America, but also the enabling effect that liberal and moderate Christianity has on the fundamental branches of the faith.

The problem is that wherever one stands on this continuum, one inadvertently shelters those who are more fanatical than oneself from criticism. Ordinary fundamentalist Christians, by maintaining that the Bible is the perfect word of God, inadvertently support the Dominionists — men and women who, by the millions, are quietly working to turn our country into a totalitarian theocracy reminiscent of John Calvin's Geneva. Christian moderates, by their lingering attachment to the unique divinity of Jesus, protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn. Christian liberals — who aren't sure what they believe but just love the experience of going to church occasionally — deny the moderates a proper collision with scientific rationality. And in this way centuries have come and gone without an honest word being spoken about God in our society.

This passage (emphasis mine), sums up my own views on liberal and moderate religiosity. Even though I badmouth them a lot, I actually have more respect for the fundamentalists. They at least are willing to stand up uncompromisingly for their holy book and keep their cherry-picking to a minimum. They're not easy to live around, but at least they have integrity of their beliefs.

...and So It Begins

Just like I expected, the attacks on Congressman Pete Stark have begun.

“It is sad but not surprising that the current Congress has produced this historic first – one of its members has denied God,” said CSA Executive Director James Lafferty.

Congressman Stark has been a member of Congress since 1973. He's not a new member of this Congress...he's been a member for 34 years (edit: missed my math to start with).

The liberals in Congress want to throttle any school child who bows his or her head in prayer, but they want to establish a right for liberals to bash Christians and berate God around the clock.

Funny, but I must have missed that. Any child in any public school has a right to private prayer. If you can show me where this right is being violated, I'll publicly stand up for them in the fight, and I can guarantee that other atheists all over the country would answer the call as well. As soon as that private prayer becomes a public prayer, the protection ends. Personal rights end when they infringe on the private rights of others.

It is time for religious members of Congress to push back. A simple declaration of a belief in God by members of Congress on the House floor will be greatly informative for the American people. Members who wish to expand could use the ‘special orders’ portion of the House calendar to elaborate but a simple “I believe in God” will suffice.

It's pretty standard in a political campaign to invoke god-talk. Nearly every politician in this country is already on file saying they believe, so I'm not sure what this is supposed to accomplish. It's all just more chest-beating by Christians who feel "repressed" because someone said "I don't believe".

We have long recognized that all of this hot air about ‘separation of church and state’ has been a veiled effort to intimidate and silence religious voices in public policy matters.

Where's the problem in that? Do the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" mean nothing? The meaning seems quite clear to me.

Congressman Stark’s statement is a very sad benchmark for America. It could be the moment which defines the decline of our country or it could be the spark which marks an important day. That would be the day that religious Americans stood-up to the liberal bullies who are so determined to use the power of government to silence prayer and every other religious expression of free speech.

Someone remind me when Congressman Stark made any statements supporting an end to prayer, religious expression, or free speech, because I'm having trouble finding anything. It's easy to lose sight of one simple fact: Congressman Stark did not make this an issue. He answered a questionnaire on his beliefs and allowed the answers to be published. After they were, he made a statement confirming his answers. He has not made a call to end religion. He has not made any disparaging comments about religions or believers. He has simply been content to live his life and do his job in the way he personally believes he should, and in doing so, has refused to cave to the establishment. He is not a different person today than he was last week. His personality has not changed, his performance will not change, and no one has any reason to change their opinion of him, simply because he doesn't buy into superstition.

More on Congressman Pete Stark

Our first godless congressman belongs church. He is a member of a Unitarian Universalist congregation. For anyone who doesn't know what that means, The UU church is a very liberal church that welcomes people of any belief. It tends to attract humanists, atheists, and agnostics, but a variety of other beliefs and philosophies are represented as well.

In Congressman Stark's own words:

"When the Secular Coalition asked me to complete a survey on my religious beliefs, I indicated I am a Unitarian who does not believe in a supreme being," Stark said. "Like our nation's founders, I strongly support the separation of church and state. I look forward to working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social services."

Bravo, Congressman Stark. If I lived in your district, you'd have my vote.

First Openly Nontheistic Congressperson

This morning, the Secular Coalition of America announced that Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA) is the first openly self-identifying nontheist serving in the United State Congress.

This is a huge step for non-believers. It will be interesting to see what kind of backlash comes to Congressman Stark from this announcement. More interesting will be to watch his next reelection campaign. This identification came after he was already in office. The question will be whether he remains electable after this announcement. I know one thing for sure: even though I'm not from California, I will be contributing to his next campaign.

Comparative Religion Studies in Public Schools

I've been a strong proponent of the teaching comparative studies of world religions in public high schools and junior high schools for many years. These courses, when taught properly, can be great tools in fostering religious tolerance and critical thinking skills. Unfortunately, in the United States, it is very difficult to teach these courses properly. This teacher did, and, as a result, received a verbal reprimand.

On Jan. 31, McDonald gave the class, which consisted of juniors and seniors taking it as an elective, an assignment to read an Iroquois tale of creation, "The World on the Turtle's Back," in the course textbook.

The textbook's teacher edition suggests having students compare the creation myth with other creation accounts, as well as discuss their own concepts of good and evil.

McDonald used the textbook's worksheet. On it, students were to give examples of how the Iroquois tale reflects four functions of myth - to instill awe, explain the world, support customs and guide people.

But he adapted the form, and had the class do the same for the biblical account of creation in Genesis. He provided a paraphrase of the story.

Put simply, the assignment was two compare the similarities and differences in the creation myths of two religions, with an emphasis on certain aspects that tend to be common to all myths.

After they completed that assignment, he gave them another handout, titled "The Problem With Evil."

That handout, which was not part of the textbook's materials, asked questions such as how evil could exist if God is good and all-powerful.

This assignment challenged the students to apply critical thinking skills to a specific aspect common to many world religions. Critical thinking is a vital aspect of any comparative religion study.

Junior Lanae Olsen, 17, said it all went too far.

The assignment was offensive to her Christian beliefs, and came one day after McDonald told the class he was atheist.

"I just don't think it had a lot to do with the literature," Olsen said. "You can learn about religion but not in that way, by putting it down."

She has since switched to another class taught by a different teacher.

Like I said before, logical comparisons require logical, critical thinking skills. You simply cannot make meaningful comparisons without exploring philosophical aspects of religions in general, or the particulars of the religions being studied.

The ultimate problem here was not the assignment. The problem here is that the student became offended when anyone dared suggest that there could possibly be something illogical about her belief. Never mind that she has most likely disparaged other religions herself, when it is her religion, suddenly, it's personal.

"From a constitutional perspective, schools can't teach the truth or falsity of religious belief, and atheism would fall in that parameter," said Alan Brownstein, a constitutional law expert at the University of California at Davis' School of Law.

"If this person was trying to influence children's religious beliefs in the classroom by telling them what is true or not true, that is constitutionally problematic."

McDonald said he only shared his beliefs after a student asked him about his faith. The boy had noticed that McDonald skips "under God" when reciting the pledge of allegiance.

The teacher's religion only became an issue because the students made it an issue. He never made it an issue himself, he merely followed his own personal beliefs in the way he felt he should, never with an imposition on the class. He didn't tell his class to stop using "under God", he just didn't say it himself.

Ken and Claire Olsen are proud of their daughter.

"She made a stand," Claire Olsen said. She doesn't expect public schools to teach or cater to one religion over another.

The students were never told Christianity was wrong, just like they were never told that the Iroquois myth was false. The two beliefs were treated equally by the classroom material. It was never said that the problem of evil could not be overcome, the students were only asked to think about it themselves in a logical way. The class was being taught from a purely secular perspective, not favoring one religion over any other. That was, of course, the problem. If it had favored Christianity, the Olsen family would have praised it. Instead, since Christianity was treated as simply one religion amongst many, they were offended. They demonstrated loudly and clearly why religion studies are so difficult to teach properly in a public school setting. Even when taught by the letter, there will still be those that complain because they believe their religion to be above such comparisons.