My post on Golshifte Faharani is the first time I experienced nonChristian hate since living in Utah where my Mormon friend’s wife said she dreamed of me and the number 666 and wasn’t sure she could be my friend anymore (I was the first atheist she had met)–I retracted my horns, changed clothes, dulled my teeth, and smiled sweetly that I was really a nice guy and how could an atheist be the devil anyway? We got over that. It’s true once I think of it I have been told I would be damned before but maybe I am so used to knowing it by being around so many Christians that it has lost its effect. Now, it’s coming from fundamentalist Muslims.

First let’s get to Farahani’s image which has been reposted with the admonition that it is her body, she has a right to it:

Though a myopic view of Islam, Judeo-Christianity also has a twisted, nonbiblical view of nudity (there is no biblical admonition against public nudity) this is a popular expression of her rights.

In an interview in Bikyamasr she states what she wanted from her symbolic gesture about nudity and sex; the video is shown below later.

“This video clip is a symbolic gesture to remove the common taboos that exist in various societies and does not aim to promote nudity or sex,” a Facebook statement from her said. “By taking part in these photo shoots the people taking part wish to demonstrate their redemption from these taboos by the way they act and talk.

“The objective is to liberate their soul and bodies at the same time. As long as an individual has no power over her or his body and their soul does not have the command of the way they wish to think, then they do not have a true freedom.

“Although I do not think looking at the nude photo of another human may have an attraction, but it is certainly far more enjoyable than looking at the fully covered and burqa and hejab wearing body of a woman who has been wrapped and imprisoned by her man. So much for not looking at women as sex symbols as the fundamentalists want us to believe!” she added.

What’s interesting here is her assertion that looking at naked people isn’t always about lust and sex. Sometimes it’s just nudity. When one has lived in the tropics, or any hot environment, for awhile, it becomes clear that clothes are not always useful and many people don’t wear them. The Bedouin idea of flowing robes as shade is particular to that culture, and world tribe after world tribe has had no compulsion towards dressing for good reason and are still able to keep their dicks in their pants.

The sad idea that any woman with a few clothes is dressing like a whore and if she is dressing as a whore she is a whore and is to be treated as if she were a free whore is immoral and has no religious basis anywhere!

In particular the Koran as recited each Friday concludes:

“Surely God enjoins justice, kindness and the doing of good, to kith and kin; and He forbids all that is shameful, indecent, evil, rebellious and oppressive.” InnaAllah Yamuru bil adel, wal ehsane, wa itae zil qurba; wa yanha anil fuhshae, wal munkari walbaghi; yaizukhum lallakum tazakkaroon. (Quran 16:90)

The words fuhsha, munkar, baghi never refer directly to public nudity at all, in any way. No translation would refer to them as nudity.

“According to the Al-Mawrid Arabic-English dictionary of Munir Baalbaki, Fuhash is obscenity, vulgarity, indecency, shamelessness and something that is dirty, filthy and foul. Al-Mawrid’s English-Arabic dictionary translates pornographic as Fahish. The Hans Wehr Dictionary Of Modern Written Arabic adds monstrosity, abomination, vile deed and fornication to its meaning as well.

But the etymology of pornography is prostitution, from 1850, and not its well known modern use of media-based, sex voyeurism. Someone had to add the meaning to the word. It’s not originally there.

“Scholars of the Quran have included every vice which is intrinsically of a highly reprehensible character into this category whether it be fornication, nudity, public foreplay as depicted in films and photos, pornography, hurling abuses and curse words, promiscuous mixing, or dresses designed to expose the body.

How on earth can scholars claim that public nudity comes from these terms? It is obviously a base interpretation to promote their own agenda happening centuries after the Koran. It would be like saying Maimonides the Rabbinical scholar is the divine writer of the Pentateuch or that the Nicene Creed are the divine words of god!

“Al-Munkar as gross, abominable, detestable, atrocious, outrageous, flagrant.

But what this means explicitly is left blank. It could be anything a group of people dislike. It is never stated explicitly that public nudity is an abomination! If the Koran can explicitly state not to eat the meat of animals that have died of their own causes do you think it would have skipped mentioning public nudity if it were such an abomination?

“Al-Baghi means wrong, injustice, outrage, and transgression.

What the hell does this mean specifically? Injustice, wrong, and outrage are generalities and would apply to anything. Again, it is in no way a mention of public nudity. That some choose to think it means the objectification of women is a transgression of their rights how much more so if women say their right is to choose to do with their bodies what they will and the transgression is men defining what is right for them and abusively so.

“Iran’s anger at the image is not just because of Farahani’s nudity – she has also made it known that her decision to pose is in protest against restrictive Islamic codes.

“Verily those who love that indecency should spread among the believers deserve a painful chastisement in the world and in the Hereafter. Allah knows, but you do not know.” Quran 24:19

How the hell is this a reason to beat and rape and kill women who do not follow human interpretations of the Koran? Even if you follow the Koran it makes no sense. My ancestors believed in slavery. I do not. It is moral that I do not. I don’t care one iota that it was tradition or supported by the bible.

Women come out and say they choose punishment or they choose cloistering because they too feel they are a jewel that should be kept secret except when exposed to their husbands. You know why women choose to cover themselves in fundamental Islam. Because if they don’t they get outcast, beaten, or worse; all wrongly justified by sadistic interpreters of the text. Just to survive women have to show they are stronger believers than they men.

Farahani talks about how women have to have a double identity, to lie from the beginning, to be a good actor and lie perfectly, when they live in Iran. She sounds much like Ayan Hirsi Ali in the Caged Virgin and other books:

Yet, over at iranian.com:

“What immediately comes to any decent Iranian’s mind is asking her, how dare you? How dare you put your people down, only to promote yourself and open doors for yourself.

She was already Iran’s most successful actress ever. She didn’t need a trick. Is it more important to be loyal to oppression than to be truthful and against oppression? Would you welcome your abusive father with open arms or call for help?

Another commentator at this site notes:

“When a woman is born in a Muslim society like Iran afetr age of 5 or so, will live in two different world with double personalities (where she has to pretened of being some one else). She has to be one way outside the house and another inside her home. This is typical of a Muslim society and if you are some what a modern society like Iran (where modernity is in a constant conradiction with religion and backwardness) you will see the differnce even more. I am not a female but please for one minute put yourselves in shoes of Iranian women and see how they have lived in last 1400 years specially in last 30 years.

In an interveiw in 2009 with Al Jazeera she notes how well aware she is of her moral responsibilities to her country:

“Now that Farahani’s career is moving to the West, she realises that the eyes of all Iranians are on her and that this means she must be careful about the roles she chooses.

“If I fail they will fail and if I am successful it is their success too.”

“Mahdavi explains: “When you have the status of a star in a country the whole population is following you. Some actors can do what they like, they can take the role of the terrorist or they can take their clothes off in front of the camera but as Golshifteh achieved stardom she has more responsibilities.”

“I respect my people, I was seen as the daughter of the nation,” Farahani adds.

“If I want it or not I am representing Iran. But my responsibilities are to the people not to the government.”

Yet coments at even moderate sites are very mixed:

“im an iranian girl! and im not agree with her idea! it is true that we are forced to have hejab but in our culture from thoushands year(befor islam) till now no woman accepts to appears in public with no clothes like what she didwith no clothes and i think what she did is worse than what this damn government in doing with us! none of the people of iran like her picture and idea but few

And

“I can’t understand that an Iranian girl, that is surrounded by the monuments of 3000 years of Iranian history, follows the decadent West. I am sure that one day the Iranian people will enjoy freedom and peace, but not by imitating the rotten principles of Europe.

And

“This chic is out of her mind. I am not Muslim, but my brother a non-Muslim who fell in love with a Muslim girl and she wears Hijab by choice and happens to be a doctor. This kind of farcical journalism is dangerous.

Balanced against this?

“The comments show that many Iranians are willing victims of their absurd theocratic rulers.  Religion really does rot the mind it seems when taking off your clothes is somehow seen as worse than the actions of a violence backed tyrannous government.  Pathetic.

The Cesar awards, the French equivalent of the Academy Awards, posted a video of a number of actors disrobing in solidarity to female freedom.

Farahani has a Facebook page which in two weeks has grown from 4,000 likes to 516,000 likes. Hopefully millions will join her in her freedom and acknowledge that nudity is neither a sin nor an abomination. The Islamic world used to be the heart of civilization, we owe them algebra and the preservation of Greek texts after Christians burned pagan libraries, let’s hope they can find their way again!

Jim Newman, bright and well

www.brightpride.com and www.frontiersofreason.com

Via The Maddow Blog.

Indiana’s Republican-controlled Senate yesterday passed a bill that would allow for the teaching of creationism in schools. The bill’s sponsor, Republican State Senator Dennis Kruse, tells the Indianapolis Star that he knows the Supreme Court ruled that unconstitutional back in 1987, but so what? “This is a different Supreme Court,” he tells the paper. “This Supreme Court could rule differently.”

It is against the constitution and the supreme court has ruled that it is unconstitutional – well… Fuck that!  My religion is true and I want everyone to know it!

The Senate minority leader managed to amend the bill so that it mandates teaching theories from several religions, including Scientology, if a school district chooses to add creationism to the curriculum. That might make religion-as-science less attractive for school districts around the state. It’s the same kind of strategy that used by the Democratic minority in the Indiana House this week, when they managed to get drug-testing for lawmakers included in a bill to drug-test welfare recipients.

Maybe Dennis needs a drug test.

Senator Kruse is also pushing a bill to allow schools to open the day with the Lord’s Prayer. As with his creationism bill, he’s slipping religion into the classroom under the flag of choice, but that choice only goes so far. The school district gets to decide whether to “require” that creationism be taught. In an interview with the Christian Post, Kruse described the bill’s origins:

“Pastors and members of my Sunday School class encouraged me to introduce the bill this year,” said Indiana State Senator Dennis Kruse, author of SB 89, to CP.

“I have thought about introducing it over the last decade and decided not to do so until this year.”

Republicans won control of the state legislature in the 2010 elections, and this year they’re moving ahead in a hurry. Indiana, your time is now.

He made a law because his pastor wanted it.  This is why religion cannot play a role in our government.

The stupid – it burns!

Phil Phillips talks about satanic toys!  Is this from the 80′s?  70′s?

This is just the first part or 10.  They talk about and show clips from Scooby Doo!

I guess crazy christian is nothing new.

Dezeen Wire: writer Alain de Botton has announced plans to build a series of temples for atheists in the UK. The first will be a 46 metre-tall black tower designed by architects Tom Greenall and Jordan Hodgson, constructed in London to represent the idea of perspective.

Huh? Atheist temples? What next? Baldness is a hair style? Atheism is a religion? Skepticism is a faith? Nogod is godly? Am I wrong? Did I miss something?

The move follows the publication of de Botton’s latest book, Religion for Atheists, and hisLiving Architecture social enterprise to construct holiday homes by the likes of MVRDV, Peter Zumthor and NORD Architecture.

Amazon has an interview of him as follows:

Q: Is it possible to be a good person without religion?

A: The problem of the man without religion is that he forgets. We all know in theory what we should do to be good. The problem is that in practice, we forget. And we forget because the modern secular world always thinks that it is enough to tell someone something once (be good, remember the poor etc.) But all religions disagree here: they insist that if anyone is to stand a chance of remembering anything, they need reminders on a daily, perhaps even hourly basis.

Q: What do you think of the aggressive atheism we have seen in the past few years?

A: I am an atheist, but a gentle one. I don’t feel the need to mock anyone who believes. I really disagree with the hard tone of some atheists who approach religion like a silly fairy tale. I am deeply respectful of religion, but I believe none of its supernatural aspects. So my position is perhaps unusual: I am at once very respectful and completely impious.

Q: Are you nostalgic for the deeply religious past?

A: Like many people, of course I feel nostalgic. How is it possible not to feel nostalgic when you look at 15th frescoes or the rituals of an ancient carnival? However, we have to ask: how should I respond to my nostalgia? My thought is that we can use it creatively, as the basis for a rebirth, for the creation of new things, for the creation of things that later generations will feel nostalgic about… So it frustrates me when people say things like, ‘Well, they knew how to build in the 15th century, now it is impossible…’ Why! Anything is possible. We should not sigh nostalgically over religion, we should learn from them. We should steal from them.

Q: If we were to replace religion with a secular equivalent, who would be our gurus?

A: We don’t need a central structure. We are beyond the age of gurus and inspirational leaders. We are in the age of the Wiki structure. This means that it is up to all of us to look at religion and see what bits we can steal and place into the modern world. We might all contribute to the construction of new temples, not the government, but the concerned, interested individual. The salvation of the individual soul remains a serious problem–even when we dismiss the idea of God. In the 20th century, capitalism has really solved (in the rich West) the material problems of a significant portion of mankind. But the spiritual needs are still in chaos, with religion ceasing to answer the need. This is why I wrote my book, to show that there remains a new way: a way of filling the modern world with so many important lessons from religion, and yet not needing to return to any kind of occult spirituality.

Q: Don’t you think that, in order to truly appreciate religious music and art, you have to be a believer–or, at least, don’t you think that non-believers miss something important in the experience?

A: I am interested in the modern claim that we have now found a way to replace religion: with art. You often hear people say, ‘Museums are our new churches’. It’s a nice idea, but it’s not true, and it’s principally not true because of the way that museums are laid out and present art. They prevent anyone from having an emotional relationship with the works on display. They encourage an academic interest, but prevent a more didactic and therapeutic kind of contact. I recommend in my book that even if we don’t believe, we learn to use art (even secular art) as a resource for comfort, identification, guidance and edification, very much what religions do with art.

In some ways I agree with him that we need community and social centers much like Durkheim suggests in his study on social and moral foundations; where do nonbelievers go to find community? I would rather see monuments to specific aspects of our culture than to artificially make secularization a religion. By considering atheism a religion it debases secular. Rather the world is, is secular, and then some define parts of it as religious. The world, reality, is and then we begin naming it and defining it. It just so happens religion is no longer accurate in its description of reality. Again, reality in and of itself, naked, uninterpreted, is secularism.

I honestly do not know what a secular art view of the world is. I admire art, kinds of art but I do not admire art as art as I couldn’t begin to define it. I admire science as a process but I wouldn’t say it could have a monument. A monument to science would have to display science objects or science theories. A  monument to art would display art made by artists self defined as artists. In this most liberal sense he can do what he wants, calling it what he wants but to me it skews the view.

A religion can have a fantastical god personified in human form but would we personify some object as secular?

‘Why should religious people have the most beautiful buildings in the land?’ he asks. ‘It’s time atheists had their own versions of the great churches and cathedrals’.

Well, there are many beautiful museums, galleries, and even capitalist buildings. None of them are religious. In Europe this is less so since there were so many religiously themed public buildings built during the theocratic medieval ages. The new Martin Luther King monument in DC is neither religious nor atheist but inspirational to all. Mt Rushmore, Statue of Liberty, and Eiffel Tower are all secular, or better a-religious, and beautiful.

The other side of this is that it is indeed difficult to compete with the deep pockets of religious zealots that would prove they can build the most extravagant buildings in the world such as the new Dubai architecture, gothic cathedrals, pyramids, or the old missions in the New World. I wouldn’t even want to. Most of them were built on the backs of suffering. Arab architecture is built on the back of environmental pillaging and market control,

Alain de Botton has laid out his plans in a new book, Religion for Atheists, which argues that atheists should copy the major religions and put up a network of new architectural masterpieces in the form of temples.

What we need are community centers. Religion has hijacked charity and there are few places other than libraries where anyone can go. Past conservative presidents have gutted the coffers of secular charity, pushing inspirational and community culture further into church territory. Disney World is the closest American thing to a public paid community center of a global size–there’s a sad observation. Our National Parks, Wilderness Areas, and National Forests are temples in my mind .

‘As religions have always known, a beautiful building is an indispensable part of getting your message across. Books alone won’t do it.’

Absolutely agree that beautiful architecture is essential to human vitality. More money should be put into universities, schools, museums, and even state office buildings to better attract and reflect our thirst for beauty, truth, and goodness. No concrete bunkers to meet eviscerated budgets. Our government buildings should reflect pride just as the Greeks recognized. But there need be no secular twist and what would that be anyway?

De Botton argues that you definitely don’t need a god or gods to justify a temple. ‘You can build a temple to anything that’s positive and good. That could mean: a temple to love, friendship, calm or perspective.’

I suppose that is true. One can build a temple to anything by self definition but I would rather see more community centers for all. While you are at it. Make them beautiful, enticing, awe inspiring! I am proud of the American experiment let’s get inspired by it!

De Botton has begun working on the first Temple for Atheists. Designed by Tom Greenall Architects, this will be a huge black tower nestled among the office buildings in the City of London. Measuring 46 meters in all, the tower represents the age of the earth, with each centimetre equating to 1 million years and with, at the tower’s base, a tiny band of gold a mere millimetre thick standing for mankind’s time on earth. The Temple is dedicated to the idea of perspective, which is something we’re prone to lose in the midst of our busy modern lives.

This seems like a secular topic and not secularism itself. I think people lose it when they hear atheist temple. But perhaps that’s because we associate temple with superstition. When I go to the Smithsonian or any of the great buildings on the DC mall or even the Cherry trees I am inspired but never think the word secular until I get to the monument to Thomas Jefferson, which discusses church-state separation, even though they  are all secular.

De Botton suggests that atheists like Richard Dawkins won’t ever convince people that atheism is an attractive way of looking at life until they provide them with the sort of rituals, buildings, communities and works of art and architecture that religions have always used.

We absolutely need to surround ourselves with beauty, inspiration, effervescence, enthusiasm, education, and authority even, in many diverse fields. I would hesitate to consider religious math versus secular math or atheist physics versus secular physics. It’s just math and physics.

‘Even the most convinced atheists tend to speak nicely about religious buildings. They may even feel sad that nothing like them gets built nowadays. But there’s no need to feel nostalgic. Why not just learn from religions and build similarly beautiful and interesting things right now?’

That’s not true. Take postmodern architecture as an example. There are indeed many movements that are not religious and also not named secular but clearly are universal and a-religious. I do not think of secularism as something apart from religion. Secular is the house and religion the guest. All the world, reality, is naturally secular and religion is a specific take on reality.

Maybe I am just full of hooeee and we need therapeutic architecture to remind people of who and what we are? What do you think?

Jim Newman, bright and well

www.brightpride.com  www.frontiersofreason.com

Big news for the SSA!

Secular Student Alliance supporters Jeff Hawkins and Janet Strauss are excited that the SSA is growing so rapidly. Jeff and Janet know that students are an essential demographic if we want a more secular world. That’s why they helped us in 2011 as we added 110 secular campus groups, sent 303 packages of tabling supplies, held our largest annual conference ever, and organized 94 speakers’ bureau events around the country.

This is an amazing organization and they are changing the world!

But we know we can do more.

That’s why they’re challenging SSA supporters to take it to the next level. They are pledging a $250,000 matching offer – whatever you donate, they’ll match dollar-for-dollar up to a quarter of a million dollars!

If you have never given to the SSA before – Now is the time.   A $250,000 match!

Jeff Hawkins told us, “Janet and I love what the Secular Student Alliance accomplished in 2011. We are thrilled they have set their sights even higher in 2012. Building the secular student movement is an essential investment in our nation’s future. We challenge everyone who wants a more secular future to join us in contributing.”

The Secular Student Alliance exists to create a world where secular students are respected voices in public discourse and vital partners in the secular movement’s charge against irrationality and dogma. We do this by supporting high school and college groups that advance secular values. Because the student leaders we support give so much of their time and talent already, we don’t ask their groups to pay for our services. When a new group joins the SSA, it does so for free. More groups mean we’re doing very well at realizing our mission, but it does mean we need more funds to support them.

Our work relies entirely on the contributions of our supporters and a small handful of foundations. Giving every college and high school student access to a secular student group on their campus is our vision for advancing secular values, and the only thing that allows us to pursue this vision is strong financial backing from everyone who shares it.

Thank you for making it possible to take the Secular Student Alliance to the next level: Donate today to double your impact and help us reach this ambitious challenge!

Post by Jim Newman.

—————————-

In an open letter to Dr Phil, DJ Grothe, past host of Point-of-Inquiry, requests he “get real” and stop pandering to psychics.

“Instead of taking your own advice, you gave an uncritical platform to phony ‘psychics’ who abuse people’s emotions in order to fool them.

You know I have the same criticism for Oprah. While she may have given a black voice to white media, the word she spread was vicious in sparing anyone from having to do critical thinking and rah rahed emotional turmoil as she encouraged banal positive thinking instead of real solutions. Especially the horrid life denying book The Secret, the worst piece of trash along with The Purpose Driven Life.

“Self-proclaimed psychic mediums John Edward and Char Margolis have made their fortunes by using manipulative psychological tricks and other devious methods to pretend that they can communicate with people’s deceased family members.

Holy seance! Why doesn’t Dr Phil in his own psychologically, therapeutically ineffective, intimidating style tell them to buck up and get over it. Get over the death in the family and get on with your lives. No, that doesn’t sell advertisements. Cloying sentiment and self assertion over reality sells big bucks. Viewers in grief need support and permission to let their brains fall out.

“Skeptics, scientists, and professional magicians have explained over and over how phony mediums like Mr. Edward and Ms. Margolis perform their acts and take advantage of the bereaved. World-famous magician and demystifier James Randi has often been invited on such shows to help audiences understand what’s really going on in these so-called ‘psychic’ readings. Yet on your show, you excluded the voices of reason and let deceit and superstition win the day.

“The JREF has offered John Edward a prize of $1 million if he can demonstrate his claimed abilities under mutually agreed-upon scientific conditions and without cheating–but he refused.Mr. Edward has been caught cheating at his performances in the past.

“Char Margolis recently appeared on WGN Morning News and “failed miserably” in the words of one anchor, clearly revealing the generic questions these ‘psychic’ fakes use to pry information out of their victims which they later take credit for.

Michael Shermer has an excellent free guide to becoming a psychic in 10 easy lessons. I highly recommend it for several reasons. It reveals how one can fake their way through reading someone’s mind, it teaches you how to pay attention to social and personal cues, and cold reading is a useful ability in day-to-day life in the same sense that close observation made Sherlock Holmes prescient. In particular sales and marketing people practice a number of cold reading techniques except it’s called salesmanship. To some degree we are all selling ourselves in the competitive work place so learn it!

“When national media outlets give such a large platform to hucksters who make false promises and beguile the public, they are as much to blame for the public deception as the fake psychics themselves. I challenge you to provide your audience with more truthful information and advice in the future, and to start by inviting James Randi or another guest from our educational foundation onto your show to inform the public about the tricks used by fake ‘psychics’ like Mr. Edward and Ms. Margolis.

Generally, the law does not assign instigators blame. If you are provoked into a fight it is still your responsibility not to have fought. While this is a highly debatable aspect of free will and intention, the law has not caught up with neuroscience except in the big cases like Tobacco companies where information is grossly withheld or lied about. Nevertheless, it is a worthwhile argument, especially in pedophile cases and endemically condoned crime where collusion can be proven. In child abuse if you see it you must legally report it and omission becomes a crime; many of my pubcon friends see this as an infringement on their rights; go ahead screw/beat/deprive the kids, it’s private, right?

It is a moral issue though. Just because it hasn’t been codified into law doesn’t make it Ok. If you know something is bullshit and harms people and yet you allow it, to increase your own worth or merit you should, especially, if you are  Dr “get real” Phil,  pay the consequences when the house of cards falls down and some one gets hurt. There is no such thing as harmless crime.

Jim Newman, bright and well

www.brightpride.com   www.frontiersofreason.com

Saw this on reddit today.

When I left christianity it was very easy.  I thank my parents for not making it as hard as it is for many.  If you are a young adult and have doubts about religion – talk to someone.  If you can, if it is safe – tell your family.

Diana Niyad writes a nice Huff Post called Tim Tebow: Separation of Church and Sport. The part I liked is where she writes, as the last sentence:

“But when he wears a uniform, he owes that team the respect of making his faith more private expression, less public spectacle.

Lest you think we exaggerate the intensity of his proselytizing:

“When at the University of Florida, he was well-known for painting different numbers of Biblical scriptures into his eye black. You would see the number “3:16″ under his eyes, for instance, in reference to that chapter and verse of the Bible. In the end, the NCAA outlawed players displaying such public signs of personal faith.

Holy Constantine! What next? Jerseys with fish on them? No, worse, his constant discussion with god.

“When Tebow sits with the quarterback coach on the bench, when he approaches the guys in the huddle, when he runs to a wide receiver after a big play, he does say the right “football stuff.” “Come on guys, this is THE 3rd down we need. We need it NOW.” But before any syllable he utters, every single time, it is first “God is good.” “God is great.” “My God is an awesome God.” “It’s God’s will.” As he roams the sideline, mouthing, you think he’s talking to the defense on the field, urging them on. No, he’s singing, “God is my saviour. God is almighty.”

I want to know how his team mates stand it. If I mumbled philosophy crap all of the time my mates would whack me even if I were a star. There are some things that are just too much. Diana continues:

“I say take it into the locker room. What if, at the end of every session of Congress, the Christians gathered and knelt and prayed together, right there on the Congress floor? As was true at the University of Florida, doesn’t this constant Christian promotion, in a Broncos uniform, trump the other common bonds of the team? Doesn’t Tebow separate himself from his non-Christian teammates?

Well, actually that’s what some want congress to do. Have a congressional prayer at the end of every session, just like the first beginning.

They cite the very first congressional prayer as proof of a Christian nation.

September 7th, 1774
Carpenters Hall, Philadelphia

O Lord, our Heavenly Father, High and mighty King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, who dost from Thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments:

Look down in mercy we beseech Thee, on these American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of oppression, and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring henceforth to be dependent only on Thee, they have appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support which Thou alone canst give; take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their cause; and if they persist in their sanguinary purpose, O, Let the voice of Thy own enerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!

Be Thou present, O God of wisdom and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; the order, harmony and peace may be effectively restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety prevail and florish among Thy people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them, and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seeth expedient for them in this world, and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of JESUS CHRIST, THY SON, OUR SAVIOR.

While this is used as proof of a Christian nation, it is not. There was no constitution and no First Amendment. There is no doubt that many of the colonists were religious but adherence to church varied tremendously over time. Anglicanism was the law of Virginia while Maryland insisted on tolerance. Many colonists left Europe because it was too heretical. They don’t call them Puritans for nothing. Early Baptists pleaded leniency based on religious tolerance (boy did they change) as did my ancestor Henry Watkins who was fined for not being Anglican. The colonies were a mish mosh of belief.

There was intense debate on whether there should be a state religion and Patrick Henry was a big proponent of  it; Henry wanted it to be law that everyone belong to some denomination and to pay taxes to it. There was also intense debate on states rights, slavery, federal treasury, and many other issues we now take for granted exempt for those few who would rebottle history from the start.

The founding fathers in their infinite wisdom and political acumen won the battle and ensured religious pluralism by forging laws against state religion.

Fundamentalists want to act like the constitution was divinely inspired and everyone was together. Contrary, the political arena was fractious and difficult.

By fundamentalist standards we are as much a Christian nation as we are a slave nation where we may whip and chain people, a misogynist nation where women can’t vote, and an elitist nation where we impose literacy requirements for voting. Do we really want to go back to all that?

Be afraid, very, very afraid.

Jim Newman, bright and well

www.brightpride.com   www.frontiersofreason.com

I saw this on Reddit and now I must order one for myself.

My son plans on going to college in a year and a half and we are looking at all kinds of schools.  We just stumbled across this from Dordt College…..

That is why the primary mission of our engineering department is to train Christian engineers…

Whaaa?  I’m scared.  Do they teach you how to build crosses?

The Christian engineer is concerned with the impact a particular design has on communities and the environment.

Yeah!  Those atheist engineers just want to ruin things!

Dordt’s program prepares students for a life of professional service to the Lord….

I thought that was call… a…. minister?  I guess we can “cross” this school off of the list!