Post by E.M. Pamu

—————————

Many atheists, especially those who are the most outspoken about their disbelief (usually labeled “militant”), have often encountered many a theist who suggest and often blatantly demand that we stop being so intolerant of their religion and/or religion in general. Some expound on this request by pointing that religion has given millions of people hope and peace and had helped foster compassion, honesty, and moral values within the individuals whom subscribe to a certain set of religious beliefs.
While I do acknowledge that, when interpreted in a matter of kindness and empathy, religion can help foster morality, it is unquestionably true that the overwhelming majority of religions, most notably those of monotheism, also condone and (within their scripture) even promote and encourage reprehensible acts of immorality, violence, and cruelty. While moderates would take those pieces of the Bible that correlate with their morality and throw away that which makes them uncomfortable, the fact remains that although they may not support homophobia, xenophobia, murder, rape, slavery and incest, they are following a religion, reading scripture and supporting a dogma that IS in full support of these and other cancers upon humanity.
One question I always have for moderates whom want to pick and chose, Christians who toss aside the Old Testament, is this: Is it any better to love a God who USED to be okay with encouraging and causing human suffering? Is scripture truly inspired by God if so many things therein are unquestionably horrific and nothing that the average “flawed, sinful” human being would do?
To fellow atheists reading this: There is nothing wrong with not tolerating bigotry, exclusion, lies and distortion. There is nothing wrong with exposing how religion has and continues to destroy lives. There is nothing wrong with challenging religious views that poison people against one another and actually order people to love an imaginary being more than their fellow man and even take lives (sometimes their own) in praise of a “loving” being. There is nothing wrong with exercising our rights to freedom of speech, especially when we are speaking the truth. Tolerating intolerance is condoning and promoting the marginalization of all humanity.

The Nicene Screed, I mean Creed, Is the god affirming rant, that god is one and three, coeternal, and damn it, uhhh, you, if you don’t know the difference. It is also other canon law that mostly supports the whole jealous god thing that your only chance for salvation is through him and his minions. It firmly places deism as heretical and worthy of anathema. Now you know when a deist is claimed to be Christian it is total BS, damnation.

I most recently experienced the screed at the funeral of an in-law though the screed, creed, is also done on Sundays which I choose not to attend except under duress. Which is as it should be as I find nothing pleasant about it and worry that my children will catch a bad meme.

I really don’t understand why any family would expect a person of different faith to attend an event that requires a swearing of opposing fidelity. I understand that weddings, funerals, and occasional church are appropriate places for belief but in a community of varying faiths it would be gracious and right to not insist of someone to commit perjury merely to make the ceremony inclusive.

Shortly after this funeral, where I was banned from accompanying my partner in future church attendance because I commented, there was a family wedding where I foolishly thought I could mediate the disgust and participate because there was so much good will present already. It is important to attend these things even if one is retching their way through in some sort of Sartrean nausea. It’s not the bastards on the walls in the patriarchal paintings that objectivize you here but your fellow worshippers, happy sheep, and closet seculars feigning comfort, and demanding desired demeanor.

At the end, in an outside ceremony, the members weave their way through each other, hug, or shake, and say “peace be with you.” Oy my goodness, no one told me this was going to be part of it. Such sweet nonsense and yet I knew not what to do. I clumsily made my way and attempted to be sincere during at least this somewhat generous part of their spiritual retinue.

It really was very sincere, I loved the couple, and I marveled at the contradiction of exclaiming peace, yea, only to those of the group, after swearing fidelity to a three-part godhead, and achieving ascendance to heaven by vowing fidelity to Jesus, god, logos, whomever.

I had an awkward moment with the bride and groom who know I am secular and though I thought we’d hug, any excuse to hug, transcend the event, wink at the lie, finger to the nose, we sort of shuffled by in awkwardness. Boy, this religion thing sure is a comfort!

I wondered why they drink and smoke so much. Oh, we still do though health or lack of it caught up to me. That’s why they call themselves Whiskeypaliens. And indeed, afterwards, some retreated to Bloody Mary’s and some retreated to the back for something more vivid.

I  muse at screed. The Nicene Creed is like a screed used to level fresh poured concrete, or as a leveling guide when plastering. How many church members have openly praised their screed as the moral leveling of fresh young minds?

The Nicene Creed as most commonly recited by Episcopalians, as set forth in the 1975 Book of Common Prayer, goes like this:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

Amen

It’s not too long but long enough to be interminably long for those enduring it terminally. My apologist bro-in-law thinks believers are righteous for their dislike of secularists because we wish to stop foolish faith but acquiesces to my eternal exclusion from absolute bliss by not saying a word or even a wink during these dreadful, enforced, solipsistic silences.

read more »

Via Americans United.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today criticized the House of Representatives for approving two bills promoting the use of religious symbols and prayers at governmental monuments and war memorials.

The House voted to approve H.R. 290, the “War Memorial Protection Act” and H.R. 2070, the “World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2011.” Both bills are designed to add religious language to monuments or allow sectarian symbols to be used to honor the nation’s war dead.

“These bills dishonor the memory of our country’s brave veterans by drafting them as fodder in yet another divisive ‘culture war,’” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director.

“The House ought to be ashamed of itself. At a time when the nation faces serious economic and public policy problems, I am appalled that House members would waste time on this kind of distraction.”

H.R. 290, introduced by U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) would allow the use of religious symbols in war memorials. Since no law bars such displays in certain settings, critics believe Hunter is trying to find a way to protect the constitutionally problematic display of Christian symbols on government property.

Lawsuits have focused on the Mt. Soledad cross in La Jolla, Calif., and a cross in the Mojave National Preserve. Defenders of the sectarian symbols say they memorialize service personnel of all faiths, but opponents contend that a Christian cross cannot honor those of other religious perspectives.

H.R. 2070 would order federal officials to add a prayer recited by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on D-Day to the World War II Memorial on the National Mall. The Bureau of Land Management opposes the move, noting that the memorial is complete and should not be tinkered with.

Lynn urged the Senate to ignore the bills.

“Brave men and women of many faiths and none have given their lives for our country,” Lynn said. “We honor them by respecting America’s great tradition of religious diversity, not by allowing Congress to hijack the language and symbols of one faith and impose them on all.”

via Stuff.

A Polish court slapped a fine on a popular singer who bad-mouthed the Bible – the latest episode in which authorities grapple with religious defamation in a traditionally Catholic country that is growing increasingly secular.

Their religion is so weak that it cannot withstand a pop star’s critique.

Dorota Rabczewska, a singer who uses the stage name Doda, said in a 2009 interview that she doubted the Bible “because it’s hard to believe in something that was written by someone drunk on wine and smoking some herbs.”

Way to go – Doda!

A Warsaw court ordered her Monday to pay a fine of 5000 zlotys (NZ$1827) for offending religious feelings.

Post by Jim Newman

—————————————–

Sam Harris has written a speech for Mitt Romney exhibiting how Mitt could gain wider Republican and Conservative support by showing how his god is their god. Please Sam, I love you like a brother, but don’t do this to yourself. Is this a Machiavellian subterfuge to get pubs and cons to vote for a man against which Obama could win? Is it the converse that you would like to add some shred of dignity to their race by promoting the man who has the charisma and rugged good looks to win the popularity pageant?

Did I miss something and you really don’t want Obama to win and rather than working behind the scenes like the thug Karl Christian Rove you are just putting it out there? Finally, Sam, was this an exercise in how all of them actually believe in the same god period by fitting into the white-boy, cosmic club Judeo Christian? Would you say this if he had been a Buddhist or Hindi?

Did you wake up early, Ananka still sleeping, and impatient you decided to get up anyway and were flushed with a morning thought, a logic exercise: hey, I bet Mitt could win if he showed Mormonism is about their God too, hmm, what would that take?

Wouldn’t the more brave action full of wondrous integrity been to support the constitution that disallows a religious test for holding office? Wouldn’t it be a fine assertion of this great country’s founding fathers to review Article VI, paragraph 3 of our sacred and secular constitution?

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Wouldn’t it have been more honest to insist that every politician running for any office should be able to recite this from memory?

On this grand weekend celebrating Martin Luther King, founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Coalition, you could have called up how this celebrated preacher fought for civil rights without imposing one iota of his religion! How Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Atheists, Agnostics, and People of All Creeds and Colors were moved by his gospel spirit and were willing to commit civil disobedience to ensure the righteous protection of the laws of equality of the constitution!

“I endorse it. I think it was correct,” King said. “Contrary to what many have said, it sought to outlaw neither prayer nor belief in God. In a pluralistic society such as ours, who is to determine what prayer shall be spoken, and by whom? Legally, constitutionally or otherwise, the state certainly has no such right. I am strongly opposed to the efforts that have been made to nullify the decision. They have been motivated, I think, by little more than the wish to embarrass the Supreme Court.”

Furthermore:

“The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state,” King wrote in Strength to Love, a sermon collection. “It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.”

Would not this be a good moment to echo John Kennedy the Catholic president who had to defend his Catholicism against the fearful exclusions of White Anglo Saxon Protestantism with these fine words?

“But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.”

“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.”

President Kennedy’s words accurately echo the constitution and its philosophy one hundred percent.

Could you not have reminded those forgetful of the words of religious presidents, who consciously and presumably religiously supported the constitution?

Andrew Jackson:

“I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this county in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government.”

Ulysses S Grant:

“Let us labor for the security of free thought, free speech, pure morals, unfettered religious sentiments, and equal rights and privileges for all men, irrespective of nationality, color, or religion;…. leave the matter of religious teaching to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contribution. Keep church and state forever separate.”

Theodore Roosevelt:

“I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be non-sectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools.”

John Tyler:

“Let it be henceforth proclaimed to the world that man’s conscience was created free; that he is no longer accountable to his fellow man for his religious opinions, being responsible therefore only to his God.

Jimmy Carter:

“It’s contrary to my beliefs to try to exalt Christianity as having some sort of preferential status in the United States. That violates the Constitution. I’m not in favor of mandatory prayer in school or of using public funds to finance religious education.”

And finally from the lips of the most well known, most beloved, most considered president of all time George Washington:

“Every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.”

That these presidents, all religious in their own way, displayed support of the constitution. They unyieldingly insisted only liberty of faith, any faith, could preserve the plurality of religion and free thinking. Not one standing president has sought to contradict the constitution and demand that one be a church member in good standing to run for president or any other public office.

Sam would not this be a good teaching moment to discuss the oft quoted US motto “in God We Trust” and how the Supreme Court upheld its use stating?

“Ceremonial deism is not religious in nature.”

This theologically primitive scenario has absolutely nothing to do with a personal relationship with god or of any religion, sect, or cult embracing a personification of god.

I know these are dark times for country and constitution, that people are fearful for their jobs, that there is renewed and fervored interest in personal political spirituality. But rather than pandering to a base and illegal temptation stand up for the constitution! Rise up and sing to the goodness and purity of its liberty! Leash your conciliatory thoughts of making Mitt Romney palatable and insist on a level playing field for all candidates irregardless of their relationship to a deity or not!

Jim Newman, bright and well

www.brightpride.com

Via CNN.

Fox Latin America has pulled and apologized for an online poll that asked who was responsible for Jesus’ death and included Jews as a possible response.

WOW!  a good way to get people upset.  Just about everyone gets but hurt with a question like this.

“We sincerely apologize for the publication of a poll on our website that might have unintentionally given place to interpretations, opinions or expressions of intolerance that might affect the Jewish community,” Fox Latin America’s vice president for corporate communications and PR said in a statement.

I have to admit… I never understood all the fuss that christians make about this.  According to their own fairytale, it was gods plan!  So, god killed jesus – it was his idea and his plan.  If you want to blame someone blame god.  Remember god’s magic would only work if he cloned himself by knocking up so poor virgin and then having himself killed.

The other thought I had…. Is jesus even dead?  I mean he now has all kinds of magic powers and he is one with god.  Where is the loss.  He’s in heaven partying.  There is no loss and no sacrifice.

tip to Friendly Atheist.

Original lyrics…. (emphasis added)

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too

What Cee Lo sang… (emphasis added)

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And all religion’s true

It makes me ill.

This song talks about freedom and living without religion.  The whole point is that the world would be a better place without religion.  The lyrical genius and author of the song “Fuck You” decided to change a few words and now the song that says – all religion is true.  The opposite of what was intended.  I am offended.

Here is the correct version.

Make sure you put it in full screen mode.

The Aurora from TSO Photography on Vimeo.

I have been an atheist since I was 13 but shortly after having kids I spent 5 years pretending to be a christian – a fundamentalist christian.  The kids were going to church and Sunday school every week, sometimes more than once a week.  I was a methodist as a kid and was not worried.  I thought that it would be nice for them to know about religion and never thought that it would take over their minds.  Everyone told them that the crazy was true and I kept silent.  I was an atheist raising fundamentalist kids.  Just a few short years after I stopped pretending they have both come out as atheists.

I have since met several people that have not had the same results.  A good friend of mine is an atheist and his spouse took the kids to church 2-3 times a week.  He wanted to show respect for religion and did not want to cause any trouble.  When he thought that the kids were “old enough” (around 13 and 15).  He decided to talk to the kids about religion.  The kids said that they had been warned about this and refused to listen to him.  My friend was shut down and cut off.  It was too late.

I am so glad that things went better with me and I have been thinking about what was different between my friend’s family and mine.  There were many things I did while the kids were young and I think it helped.

The big question for you is:

Do you think the world would be a better place if more people were non religious?

If you do – what are you doing about it?  It is great to have meetings and share drinks in a bar but, you need to get out there and save people.  You must do something about it.  It can take years to save a 40 or 50 year old from religion but with a kid you may only need a spark.

Yes!  I am suggesting that we free the minds of kids.  Religion has been indoctrinating kids for a very long time and their system of lies is very powerful.  We need to fight back, we need to do a better job, we need to get to the kids!   Use the ideas below to help your kids, grandkids, younger siblings, nieces, nephews, your kid’s friends or your friend’s kids.  If you are afraid to fight religion then you need to recognize it still has a effect on you.  All people deserve respect – bad ideas do not!

Keep in mind your relationship with the kids and / or their families.  Do as much as you can and push the limits but, don’t over do it.  You don’t want the fundies to take away the only sane voice the child may here.

11 ideas to save kids and break the cycle of religion.

5) Listen to “Letting Go of god” by Julia Sweeney.  This two hour monologue is funny yet sensitive.  It is very entertaining and explaining why religion is so silly.  You can get the CD or audio download for about $10.  You can also watch her perform on DVD.  The beauty of this performance is that most christians will laugh along while she makes fun of their religion.  I played this for my kids several years ago.  It just happened to be in the car when we had a 2 hour drive.

4) Magic tricks.  Teach them that things are not always what they appear to be.  When faced with an amazing claim later in life the will be more likely to look for the real explanation.  The first time we were in a magic store, my daughter saw a trick that she thought was amazing.  When she found out how it worked it did not seem like magic anymore.  Once you know the magic, it is just a trick.  A very practical lesson.

They may also like this video that shows how hard it is to pay attention to little details.

There are also many books about optical illusions.  Just like some of the other points above they will have fun while learning that they can be tricked.