Archive for May, 2012

God Hates Women…

Posted in Uncategorized on May 27, 2012 by Al Stefanelli

(This is a transcript of Al Stefanelli’s “Voice Of Reason” segment on my American Heathen® Internet Radio Show) 

It does not profit a man to marry. For what is a woman but an enemy of friendship, an inescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a domestic danger, delectable mischief, a fault in nature, painted with beautiful colors – St. John Chrysostom 

I’ve written a lot lately about the issues in our media regarding the religious right’s attack on women, their reproductive systems and the misogynist comments made by religious leaders and politicians here in these United States. It’s not difficult at all to find them because misogyny is rampant in our society. Just consider the almost endless coverage of fetal personhood bills, laws restricting abortion and the plethora of other stories we read every day that make us shake our heads.

Misogyny is the sole reason why there exists gender inequality in almost every area of life, and it almost always comes back to Christianity’s doctrines that surround guilt about sex, the insistence on female subjection and the dread of female seduction. I have had many Christian men and women tell me that their religion is not misogynist, and that they revere women and that their religion fosters a respect for the female sex for a variety of reasons.

This, of course, is complete bullshit…

Misogyny is fundamental to the basic writings of Christianity and most of the Christian women that I know freely admit that they are subject to the authority of their husbands. In the bible, women are basically commanded to accept a role of inferiority and to be shameful for the simple fact that they are women.

Misogynist bible verses are so common that if one opens a bible to a random page, the odds are pretty good that you’ll find one close to wherever your finger lands. To add insult to injury, many Christian women will defend these passages with apologetics that were written by misogynist Christian men.

The most common one is that women are equal, but have different roles. This, of course, reeks with the Orwellian “some are more equal than others,” which is a common theme that many of you have read or heard me use many times before.

Wives, Submit Yourselves…

The book of Ephesians, chapter five, states,

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church. . . .”

Yes, there is the second part about men treating their wives as Christ treats the church, but it seems that part is largely ignored. I know plenty of Christian men who use this passage to justify some pretty bad behavior.

In fact, I have been privy to many conversations where Christian men joke about how they order their wives around and treat them like complete shit, refer to the above “submission” verse, and have a good ol’ laugh-fest.

Also in fact, I have found that there is a lot of conceptual accuracy to this, among Christian men. Women have always and largely continue to hold subservient positions in Christian churches. Most denominations do not allow a woman to be clergy, particularly the role of pastor. Christian men will argue that the church has made many advancements over the years, but the patriarchal church still views women as property and this is glaringly obvious with respect to the control a woman has over her own body. The bible is rife with misogyny and degrading passages about women. It relegates them as equal to slaves. It treats them as property, to be traded for a variety of things in ways that can only be described as prostitution. It is very clear that the life of a woman does not hold the equal value to men.

From The Horse’s Mouth…

The bible is filled with all kinds of other wonderful tidbits such as Revelation 14:4,

These are they which were not defiled with women

And who can forget Job 25:4,

How then can man be justified with God? Or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Tertullian, one of the early church fathers, took misogyny to new heights when he wrote,

In pain shall you bring forth children, woman, and you shall turn to your husband and he shall rule over you. And do you not know that you are Eve? God’s sentence hangs still over all your sex and His punishment weighs down upon you. You are the devil’s gateway; you are she who first violated the forbidden tree and broke the law of God. It was you who coaxed your way around him whom the devil had not the force to attack. With what ease you shattered that image of God: Man! Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die. . . . Woman, you are the gate to hell”

Christian men have a long history of treating women as chattel, and up until recently, it was still legal for a man to beat his wife, and those husbands who beat their wives were largely exempt from prosecution. We won’t even get into the five-hundred year long period of Church history that saw the unending and perfectly legal torture and murder of “witches” because Exodus 22:18 says,

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live

That, by the way, was a mistranslation. The word “poisoner” would have been a more accurate one.

God Hates Women…

I have assembled the following passages from Protestant and Catholic versions of the bible, to further illustrate my point:

“No wickedness comes anywhere near the wickedness of a woman…..Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die” (Ecclesiasticus 25:19,24).

And…

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I don’t permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner” (I Timothy 2:11-14).

And…

“The birth of a daughter is a loss” (Ecclesiasticus 22:3).

And…

“Keep a headstrong daughter under firm control, or she will abuse any indulgence she receives. Keep a strict watch on her shameless eye, do not be surprised if she disgraces you” (Ecclesiasticus 26:10-11).

And…

“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

And…

“When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening” (Lev. 15:19-23).

And…

“If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her saying, ‘I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,’ …and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of the town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.” (Deut 22:13-21)

And…

“A bad wife brings humiliation, downcast looks, and a wounded heart. Slack of hand and weak of knee is the man whose wife fails to make him happy. Woman is the origin of sin, and it is through her that we all die. Do not leave a leaky cistern to drip or allow a bad wife to say what she likes. If she does not accept your control, divorce her and send her away” (Ecc 25:25).

And…

“Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God…A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head” (I Corinthians 11:3-10).

And…

“They called out to Lot and said, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Send them out to us so we can have sex with them! Lot went out to them at the entrance and shut the door behind him. He said, “Don’t do this evil, my brothers. Look, I’ve got two daughters who haven’t had sexual relations with a man. I’ll bring them out to you, and you can do whatever you want to them. However, don’t do anything to these men, because they have come under the protection of my roof.” (Genesis 19:5-8)

Instigation…

Misogyny has been responsible for some of the most heinous crimes against women in history. As long as our society upholds the bible as a moral guide, misogyny will exist and women will continue to be disrespected by never-ending sexism, objectification and discrimination in almost every area of life.

Pastors, Preachers and Priests all across the nation continue to advise abused women to stay with their husbands and Christian children are taught misogyny to be perfectly acceptable every week in Sunday schools across the nation.

These children grow into adults who continue to perpetrate this dogma toward their wives, mothers, sisters and daughters.

The misogynist would like nothing better than to keep women at home, in the kitchen and subject to the authority of their husbands with little or no thought of pursuing a higher education and “interfering” with things that are better left to the “men folk.”

———————————————————-

(This is an exerpt from Al Stefanelli’s new book “Free Thoughts – A Collection Of Essays By An American Atheist.”)

In What Do We Trust? – The Common Good?

Posted in Religion with tags , , , , , on May 26, 2012 by RJ Evans

(Editorial Comment from  host RJ Evans on his American Heathen® radio show – Air Date 05/26/12)

Tonight we discussed whether or not atheists and believers can work together for the “common good”.  It’s a nice idea on the surface, but there are far too many layers of this onion, and a lot of tears to be shed, before anything viable can come from it. The problems associated with working together are enormous.  But, the biggest hurdle comes in the form of one word. Trust.  Believers are taught, no matter what their religion, that they are somehow special, chosen, blessed, endowed, entitled to a special form of treatment as a result of their faith. As such, they will always consider those outside of their particular dogma to be, at the least, somewhat untrustworthy, unfortunate souls.  At the worst, inhuman, evil, immoral,  and damned.

The tribalism that religion breeds is really not much different from other forms of tribalism. But, it is a more potent form because it is fed by an imaginary force that is far more powerful than anything in the universe.  With a deity at the top of the food-chain, and followers willing to abandon logic and reason at the doorstep of reality, the very idea that anyone outside of the dogma is worthy of trust is counter-intuitive, and goes against the grain of the ideology. One would expect total mistrust of anyone outside of the most fundamentalist of views. But, even moderate believers will maintain some level of suspicion of any attempt to reconcile for the “common good”.

What exactly is the “common good”?  That is a sticky question.  When one considers that religious dogma has a very checkered history of claiming to work for the “common good”, and that history is riddled with division, strife, war, bigotry, hate, racism, genocide, and fear, the “common good” for religion seems to be rather self-serving. Even if we were to abandon the sordid history of religion and start with a fresh slate, the very idea that religion has the ability to work toward a “common good” for all humankind is paradoxical to the very foundation of religion.  Religion is exclusionary. It has been, and always will be, US and THEM.  Acts of charity, while genuine from some altruistic individuals within the religious community, are not without strict qualifiers issued by religious leaders. In the end these acts of charity are merely tools used to put on the best face possible in order to propagate the dogma. In China they call them Rice Christians.  They’ll feed you as long as you’re willing to hear the gospel. But, this game isn’t just played by religion.  We can see these types of charitable acts everyday.  Violent drug dealers do it, outlaw biker gangs do it, organized crime does it, major and minor corporations do it. They all do whatever they can to refine their image in the eyes of the public, utilizing their vast resources, and a few truly caring human beings within their organizations, to pull the wool over the eyes of the general populace.  They all have something to hide, or something to sell. In the final analysis, it’s really all about image.  And image is everything.

The “common good” of religion, in my estimation, is far removed from the “common good” of the non-theist. The “common good” for religion is heavily focused on appearances, based in faith and not in reason, and is heavily tailored to facilitate internal change as opposed to external.  Fuller pews means more money.  More money means more influence.  And more influence means more power.  The “common good” for the non-theist, in my estimation, is focused on the betterment of all human beings for the sake of the species, and in opposition to the idea of influence, money, and power. So, how can these two diametrically opposing ideals be reconciled?  How can believers and non-believers work together for any “common good”?

Some folks are saying that it’s simply a matter of trust. All we have to do is learn to trust each other. But, trust is a two-way street.  Believers distrust non-believers because they have been taught to. The ignorance of a two thousand-year old doorstop contains the foundational principles of their distrust.  No matter how it is interpreted, the believer will always consider themselves to be superior to the non-believer. The very nature of religion is US and THEM. Or, in the most fundamentalist camps, US versus THEM. Either way, exclusion by lack of association with their dogma. The non-believer, on the other hand, distrusts believers because they have two thousand years of historical evidence to support their distrust of believers.  Non-believers also have two thousand years of religious hypocrisy as a gauge.

It has been suggested that “inter-faith” dialog is the best avenue to finding a way to work toward the “common good”.  Well, I’m not the first to say that the use of the word “faith” should automatically disqualify any idea that working together is possible.  Faith doesn’t require evidence.  It requires the abandonment of evidence, reason and logic, in favor of feelings and superstition.  When reason and logic are left at the door, then the “common good”, whatever that is, takes on a whole new meaning, and panders to creating more problems than solving problems. How can there be any trust if this is the case?  And in what can we trust? Those are  trillion-dollar questions.  Really…  In what can we trust when trust can’t be found?

Lady Parts and Legal Rights

Posted in Politics, Religion on May 26, 2012 by RJ Evans

(The following commentary is called “Reflections” by John MillJohn is a noted free thought advocate and broadcaster.  This series airs on my American Heathen® internet radio show.  Air Date 05/26/12)

Oh, how far we have come in these United States! From JFK, who pledged allegiance to church-state separation, to Sen. Rick Santorum, who waxed dyspeptic over church-state separation, to a Roman Catholic lawsuit against the Obama Administration, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), claiming anti-Catholic discrimination!

This is John Mill and last Monday (May 21, 2012) the University of Notre Dame (a 501(c)(3) organization under the Internal Revenue Code), along with the Archbishop of Washington, DC, and 41 other Roman Catholic institutions, filed 12 lawsuits in various jurisdictions challenging government rules on contraception under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – popularly known as “Obamacare” and introduced in 2010. These rules, they say, would force them to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. The Roman Catholic institutions claim violation of their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and their Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Establishment Clause rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Horace Cooper of NationalCenter.org hyperventilates the most, saying “The American public is witnessing a fascinating, even historic, event: the Obama Administration’s attempt to suppress basic expressions of religious faith” and calling the contraception mandate “a direct violation of the First Amendment.” Citing “… its sincerely held religious beliefs,” the University of Notre Dame and others “simply asks that the government not impose its values and policies.”

The litigants’ imposition of a religious creed on Catholic and non-Catholic employees of schools and hospitals with a demonstrably secular mission is reprehensible enough in a religiously pluralistic republic. This attempt to conflate the religious nature of their mission with the secular nature of its outcomes is in fact claiming religious discrimination under the government mandate for not being allowed to employ its own religious discrimination!

Catholic institutions and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops cannot even persuade the 85%-95% of Catholic women who use birth control not to use it, according to an April 2011 Guttmacher Institute study. A survey from the Catholic University of America showed that 95 percent of Catholic women in the United States have used birth control. Moral suasion is one thing, but meddling in the political process should be a fast track to losing 501(c)(3) status and any state or federal government subsidies! And they receive plenty: Catholic Charities received a total of nearly $2.9 billion from US taxpayers in 2010.

To quote from one plaintiff’s complaint, “As Notre Dame’s employee health plans are self-insured, Notre Dame would be paying directly for contraception and sterilization in direct conflict with its religious beliefs.” The President of the University of Notre Dame, Rev. John Jenkins, complained that religious organizations such as Notre Dame should not be required “to participate in, pay for, or provide coverage for certain services that are contrary to our religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

Yet this is precisely the problem: the Catholic litigants think they are “pay[ing] for” contraception services (and many times makes this claim) when, in fact, the services are part of a compensation package that is earned by its employees.  I’ve said this many times before, but it bears repeating: health care benefits are earned compensation. Notre Dame and other religion-supported institutions are no more being asked to pay for women’s contraception than to pay for their rent or their food.

The 43 litigants also complain that the government is denying religious freedom by dangerously determining which is a “religious institution” for purposes of exemption. As Notre Dame argues, “The religious employer exemption mandates an unconstitutionally invasive inquiry into an organization’s religious purpose, beliefs, and practices.” The plaintiffs call this role for government “dangerous” and “unprecedented” – but is it really?

The IRS has never had any problem determining which employers and organizations qualify as “religious” – indeed, that is part of IRS function or they would not be safeguarding U.S. taxpayers from a runaway self-identification of “religious” organizations who simply want to avoid paying their fair share. But not only does Notre Dame and the others make this IRS vetting seem novel, it tries to shoehorn clearly educational or medical institutions, already recognized as such under the tax code, into that religious exemption. This makes Catholic institutions secular when they want (taking government grants) and religious when they want (discriminating against women’s health care) – thereby having it both ways!

“One particularly insensitive argument came from [the] president of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities,” says Lise Rahdert of PolicyMic. “He asserts that students who do not like the contraception policies at Catholic colleges should simply attend another university.” Rahdert proposes turning this argument back on the plaintiffs: “If the rule that an institution’s insurance must cover birth control is so offensive, perhaps it is time for university administrators to explore a new industry or at least refuse to accept federal funding.”

Even Commonweal, the progressive Catholic magazine, notes that the list of plaintiffs includes thirteen dioceses and asks, “Does anyone really believe a Catholic diocese will be subject to the contraception mandate? HHS doesn’t.” So if 13 out of 43 plaintiffs are already exempt from the contraceptive mandate, and under Health and Human Services rules, what’s really going on?

This is what is at stake: If the 43 litigants prevail in their various jurisdictions, you can say goodbye church-state separation and hello to any employer and any group denying or requiring anything they choose, based on their supposed religious beliefs or moral convictions! This is already occurring with “conscience” exemptions for pharmacists dispensing contraceptives.

When did celibate men get to decide on the contents of basic health care for women, anyway? Whether or not employees of a religious organization providing a secular service use the money they earn to buy contraception, or the benefits they earn to receive contraception, it’s literally none of your fucking business!

What the elites at Notre Dame and elsewhere are suing for is the “freedom” to deny religious liberty to its students, staff and faculty. It’s not right. And no amount of bullying and bluster from the religious and the Republicans – more and more a distinction without a difference – can make it right.

Rather than forcing the church to do anything that would violate their religious tenets, the Obama administration is telling the churches that when they run a university or hospital where they accept the public as students and patients and hire lay people, they cannot impose their religious doctrines on them. Americans will not stand for it.

This is a fight that the Catholic Church in the U.S., and their sycophants in the Republican Party, will lose. It took the Catholic Church only four centuries to catch up to Galileo. Even longer to accept anesthesia for women in childbirth. “Backward Christian soldiers…” This is John Mill.

Not Man Apart

Posted in Religion, Science on May 26, 2012 by RJ Evans

(The following is a transcript of  co-host 2Buck Chuck’s (Dr. Charles A. Doswell III) segment “Leading Horses To Water” which airs on my American Heathen® radio show.  Chuck is a world-renowned scientist in the field of meteorology.  Air date of this particular segment – 05/26/12)

Ancient Greeks began the way of thinking originally known as natural philosophy but which we now call science. Science emerged as we know it during the Renaissance, in an age dominated by fear, superstition, injustice, and brutality. In other words, pretty much like the present. These musings are aimed at explaining how science works, and how science can serve even nonscientists in their efforts to make sense of the world. I can try to explain things but it’s up to you to decide whether or not you wish to drink from these waters.

Please indulge me and allow me to read a portion of the poetry of Robinson Jeffers:

“Then what is the answer?— Not to be deluded by dreams.

To know that great civilizations have broken down into violence,

and their tyrants come, many times before.

When open violence appears, to avoid it with honor or choose

the least ugly faction; these evils are essential.

To keep one’s own integrity, be merciful and uncorrupted

and not wish for evil; and not be duped

By dreams of universal justice or happiness.

These dreams will not be fulfilled.

To know this, and know that however ugly the parts appear

the whole remains beautiful. A severed hand

Is an ugly thing and man dissevered from the earth and stars

and his history… for contemplation or in fact…

Often appears atrociously ugly.

Integrity is wholeness, the greatest beauty is

Organic wholeness, the wholeness of life and things,

the divine beauty of the universe.

Love that, not man apart from that,

or else you will share man’s pitiful confusions,

or drown in despair when his days darken.”

If you’ve rejected the mythology of abrahamic religions, then you know that our pre-human distant ancestors were members of just one species among the wide spectrum of animal species sharing this world before humans arrived. Our ancestors were but one thread within a vast tapestry, connected to other living species (including plants) and to the physical world by links of which they were blissfully unaware, but nevertheless depended on those links. As our ancestors developed the enhanced brain capacity, upright stance, and opposable thumbs necessary for changing the local environment to suit themselves, they inadvertently began a process of disconnecting themselves from the natural world. As a species, in continuing that disconnection process, humans evidently acquired a colossal arrogance along the way. Humans began to see themselves not as participants within that natural world, but as the lords and masters of the world. Some humans invented an imaginary all-everything deity who created us and, as a sort of post hoc justification for deeds of environmental alteration already committed, is supposed to have given us “dominion” over the earth. Some of us believed we had been authorized to do whatever destruction we wished to the natural world, with the deity’s blessing!

With the development of agriculture and a division of labor not possible to mere hunter-gatherers, humans created spiritual leaders among themselves, empowered in our imaginations if not in fact, to intercede with the deity on the people’s behalf when things didn’t go the way someone wanted. They served as intermediaries to the mythical deity, interpreting its commands and demanding obedience to the deity’s wishes. In some cases, primitive societies sought supernatural aid during troubled times in such a fashion that they accelerated their own demise, destroying the very environment that sustained them in order to seek favor with their imaginary deities.

With the emergence of empirical science, our ideas about the processes governing the natural world could be tested against reality. This was the spark that became the flame of science that we continue to use to light the way to ever-deepening understanding of our world and our place within it. Science has been the basis for technology that has in turn accelerated the science. We’ve shaped the world to suit us, but along the way, some have forgotten or ignored the consequences of our environmental modifications. At the present time, we have exercised our “dominion” over the planet to the extent that unintended consequences are threatening our modern societies. Western technological society has insulated us so well from the natural world that many of us have abandoned science for the most part and have no clue beyond what the pseudo-pundits in the media tell them. Scientists are not widely trusted anymore and the lessons of science are being cast away in favor of old myths that have persisted like a case of herpes, resistant to any form of scientific enlightenment, always ready to emerge and wreak havoc again.

Is it possible that as our understanding of the natural world deepens to the point where we finally are beginning to acquire the wisdom that comes from comprehending the complex connections within the natural world, our societies will turn their backs on that emerging wisdom and choose consciously to descend into a new dark age? Will we allow ourselves to fall back on the false comfort of blissful ignorance and reject free thought in favor of old discredited dogma? It seems evident that that fate is precisely what some in our society are seeking for us all.

Science has made it clear to some of us that all life is interdependent in ways we are just now beginning to see, however imperfectly. And we also know that the living world is deeply interconnected with the nonliving, physical world and even the vast depths of the universe about us. Robinson Jeffers was so right – not man apart, but man a part of that universe. Do we really want to turn back the clock and re-enter the demon-haunted darkness of religious doctrine, superstition, and myth? I can only hope not.

Science is not a religion but rather a tool for those who wish to think for themselves about the natural world. Its primary characteristic is its willingness to entertain questions from those who wish to obtain believable answers.

This Week In Freethought History May 20th – 26th

Posted in Politics, Religion, Science on May 26, 2012 by RJ Evans

(The following is a transcript of a segment by John Mill. John is a noted free thought advocate and broadcaster. “This Week In Freethought” airs on my American Heathen® internet radio show. Air date of this particular segment: 05/26/12)

Here’s your Week in Freethought History: This is more than just a calendar of events or mini-biographies – it’s a reminder that, no matter how isolated and alone we may feel at times, we as freethinkers are neither unique nor alone in the world.

Last Sunday, May 20, but 206 years ago, my namesake, John Stuart Mill, “the Saint of Rationalism,” was born (1806). Mill’s philosophy was influenced by the freethinker Jeremy Bentham and, to this day, John Stuart Mill’s name is almost synonymous with the philosophy of Utilitarianism. In his 1859 essay, On Liberty, Mill masterfully details why free speech is a logical necessity and most profoundly influenced yours truly: “First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.”

Also on May 20, but 213 years ago, the prolific French writer, Honoré de Balzac was born (1799). Sometimes ironically called “the Christ of Modern Art,” his radical Rationalism pervades all Balzac’s work. Indeed, the work for which he is chiefly known, a prodigious collection of novels and short stories giving a view of French life in city and country called The Human Comedy, which he conceived in 1830, was patterned on Dante’s Divine Comedy, but with an obviously secular worldview. In an 1836 short story, “The Atheist’s Mass,” Balzac describes his main character, Dr. Desplein, as having an “atheism … like that of many scientific men… such as religious people declare to be impossible. This opinion could scarcely exist otherwise in a man who was accustomed from his youth to dissect the creature above all others … to hunt through all his organs without ever finding the individual soul, which is indispensable to religious theory. …

Monday, May 21, but 324 years ago, the English essayist, critic, satirist and poet Alexander Pope was born (1688). The son of a Catholic convert, and in spite of the anti-Catholic prejudice of the time, Pope became one of the brightest lights of the Enlightenment. By the time he published his Essay on Man (1733), Pope had abandoned Catholicism, and begun associating with skeptics. In his Essay on Man we find proof of Pope’s Deism: “Know thou thyself, presume not God to scan; / The proper study of mankind is man.” Pope was temperate in an age of heavy drinking and drug use, as well as kind and generous to friends – among whom he counted Jonathan Swift, the author of Gulliver’s Travels. Although the Catholic Encyclopedia claims him for one of the faithful, in an earlier age, a Deist of Pope’s beliefs would have been tried and either burned or hanged for impiety. Today, no longer having the power to do that, the Catholic Church lovingly takes him in his arms, so long at it can call him a Catholic poet. It was Alexander Pope who wrote, “To err is human, to forgive divine.”

Tuesday, May 22, but 199 years ago, German Romantic composer Richard Wagner was born (1813). Wagner was largely self-taught in music. He is justly criticized for his anti-Semitism, but that Adolph Hitler agreed with Wagner in this respect is not Wagner’s fault. Yet opera (Music Drama) was never the same after Wagner. His librettos, most of which he wrote himself, were chiefly based on Germanic traditions and legends, so his investment in Christian theology was slight: one critic said that Wagner was “a Christian in a large sense, but not a man of the Church,” and that he had “little taste for the otherworldly speculations of dogmatic theology.” Wagner subscribed to the Atheistic views of German philosopher Karl Feuerbach, but had a sentimental regard for Christian mythology. Therefore, Nietzsche’s attack on Wagner for reverting to Christianity was unfair: Wagner wrote his most powerful music in his Ring years, when he was an Atheist.

Wednesday, May 23, under the sign of Gemini, which places the date between 18 May and 17 June, but 747 years ago, the author of the Divine Comedy, Dante Alighieri, was born (1265). Dante is chiefly remembered for his three-part poem, the Divine Comedy, written in vernacular Italian when most writers used Latin. What is telling about the Divine Comedy is that it was the first book written in Christian Europe since Augustine’s City of God (completed in 426) which any but a professor of literature now reads – including the pagan epic Beowulf (c. 725). Think about it! In nearly 900 years of the Ages of Faith, there was nothing written, inspired by Christian civilization, that is now considered of literary merit. There is no comparable dry period of world literature, before or since. The Catholic Encyclopedia claims Dante for the Church, but it is dishonest to claim, as the Catholic Encyclopedia does, that Dante’s “theological position as an orthodox Catholic has been amply and repeatedly vindicated,” when there are numerous and important doctrinal differences in his greatest work. But Dante’s standing as a precursor of the Reformation, and as a giant of early Italian poetry, is beyond debate.

Thursday date, May 24, but 168 years ago, Samuel Morse received the message “What hath God wrought,” which inaugurated long-distance coded communication over the first telegraph line strung from Baltimore, Maryland, to an astonished Congress at the Old Supreme Court Chamber in the United States Capitol (1844). The four words are the coda to a bible verse in Numbers 23:23. “What hath God wrought” seems a peculiar reference, but considered in context, the choice of the biblical line is better understood: Samuel Morse (1791-1872) was an organizer and polemicist of the anti-immigrant and anti-Roman Catholic “Nativist” movement of the mid-19th century. Moreover, more than a decade before the American Civil War, Morse came down on the wrong side of history in defending the institution of slavery in the United States as divinely sanctioned. So “What hath God wrought” comes from the same source that propagates bigotry and oppression. Giving credit to God for a work of man may in some circles be a sign of humility, but it is better described as a characteristic of intellectual slavery. It deflects credit to praise God for what man has wrought, without any measure of help from skygods.

Friday, May 25, brings us three famous freethinkers—

English actor Sir Ian McKellen was born on this date 73 years ago (1939). In addition to his many theatrical roles, McKellen showed up in memorable film roles, such as the Middle Earth wizard Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, based on the books by J.R.R. Tokein. The films somehow dodged much of the fundamentalist Christian outrage consequent to the Harry Potter films. “[M]aybe Tolkien’s work is relatively immune from Christian attacks because of his own Catholic faith,” mused McKellen in 2002, “On the other hand, an atheist friend of mine said how refreshing it was to see a film about good and evil which doesn’t link morality to religion.” In a 1996 profile, McKellen said, “I’m an atheist. So God, if She exists, isn’t really a part of my life.”

On May 25, 77 years ago, Canadian novelist W.P. Kinsella was born (1935). A writer of baseball fiction, Kinsella’s bestselling 1982 novel, Shoeless Joe, was made into the very successful 1989 motion picture Field of Dreams. Kinsella won the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame’s Jack Graney Award for Shoeless Joe. Many of Kinsella’s novels and stories have supernatural elements. Even so, he is reported to be a member of American Atheists by the British Columbia Humanist Association. In the 1996 book Brave Souls: Writers and Artists Wrestle with God, Love, Death and the Things that Matter, by fellow Canadian Douglas Todd, W.P. Kinsella is profiled as an atheist.

On May 25, 209 years ago, American poet, essayist and moralist philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson was born (1803). After graduating Harvard in 1821, and teaching for a few years, Emerson was ordained into the Unitarian ministry. Six years later he resigned over doctrinal differences to form the group coming to be known as Transcendentalists, a company of writers and thinkers expressing an ethical idealism. The author of such well-known essays as “Self-Reliance,” “Circles,” “The Poet” and “Experience,” Emerson repudiated even the amorphous Unitarian God and believed instead in a vaguely Pantheistic “Over-Soul.” Emerson also rejected the idea of personal immortality.

Today, Saturday, May 26, but 365 years ago, the first witch was hanged in America for the crime of witchcraft (1647). Alse Young was arrested, tried for this capital offense in Windsor, Connecticut, and hanged at Meeting House Square in Hartford, on what is now the site of the Old State House. There is no further record of Young’s trial or the specifics of the charge, only that Alse Young was a woman, as 80% of those executed for witchcraft were, and that her execution anticipated the 1692 Salem witch trials by some 45 years. There is no doubt that theologians reasoned, after the line from Leviticus, that “If the All-wise God punishes his creatures with tortures infinite in cruelty and duration, why should not his ministers, as far as they can, imitate him?” Consequently, torture was a favorite method, not for finding the truth of witchcraft, because witchcraft never contained any, but for quite effectively extracting confessions, because people will say anything to get the pain to stop. Witchcraft jurisprudence itself anticipated the anti-communist purges of the 1950s in the US: To confess to witchcraft was to earn a life sentence in jail; to deny the charge often resulted in a death sentence. The crime of witchcraft was not prosecuted in Connecticut after 1715, but the stain of execution for the imaginary crime of witchcraft remains.

We can look back, but the Golden Age of Freethought is now. You can find full versions of these pages in Freethought history at the links in the American Heathen blog, which take you to my blog, FreethoughtAlmanac.com.

ALL speech is special—except some is MORE special and protected!

Posted in Uncategorized on May 26, 2012 by hewhay

(The following commentary is part of a weekly series called “Yahweh Speaks” by Yahweh.  Yahweh is an assumed name to protect his identity on-line.  He is a noted  free thought advocate and Constitutional attorney.  His series airs on my American Heathen® internet radio show. Airdate 05/26/12)

Two events give rise to my comments this day.

The first (and I thank David 2 for this find):

“A church in Beaverton, Oregon is suing a woman after she posted a negative Google review calling them a “cult.” Julie Anne Smith posted (a blog comment) that Pastor Chuck O’Neal and Beaverton Grace Bible Church had sued her for $500,000 over negative reviews on (blogs)that claimed that she had been shunned for no reason. “I thought, I’m just going to post a review,” Smith said “We do it with restaurants and hotels and what not, and I thought, why not do it with this church?”  Smith said that after leaving the church a few years ago, the pastor instructed members to shun her family. “If I went to Costco or any place in town, if I ran into somebody, they would turn their heads and walk the other way,” she explained. “All we did was asked questions. We just raised concerns. There’s no sin in that.”

In their 54-page lawsuit, Beaverton Grace Bible Church claimed that Smith had defamed them by using words like ‘creepy,’ ‘cult,’ ‘control tactics’ and ‘spiritual abuse.’ ‘What we had was indoctrination… That is how cult leaders work,’ the suit alleges Smith wrote. ‘Don’t waste your precious lives and relationships being held emotionally/spiritually captive by this so-called church.’ Another message claimed that the ‘beloved pastor knew about a sex offender in the church who had access to the nursery and children on a weekly basis and did not have any safeguards in place.’ ‘This is a very destructive and disturbing ‘church.’ … The extra-Biblical legalistic teaching is wrong. The gossip/slander, disclosure of what goes on in private counseling sessions, sex offenders have free reign in children’s [sic] areas with no disclosure to parents. … This is not a safe place.’

‘DEFAMATION IS A CRIME: Pastor Chuck O’ Neal  wrote ‘After seeking counsel … and reading him several excerpts from JulieAnne’s endless defamation, he recommended that we FILE A LAWSUIT in an appeal to Caesar as the Apostle Paul did when falsely accused of crimes against God and the state.Her many lies and vicious criminal accusations will not stand in the light of day in the Washington County courthouse or in the coming courtroom before God.’ “

The lawsuit also target’s Smith’s daughter and three other commenters.Let me give some advice to those litigants. To the church: there is a Chinese proverb that says, “Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it.” There is also a legal principle in defamation actions that “Truth is an absolute defense.” So, this Church, by virtue of its lawsuit, has opened itself to full discovery by Mrs Smith’s legal counsel, and you can be assured that due diligence will likely disclose other persons willing to corroborate Mrs Smith’s claims; due diligence will likely result in deep and scorching inquiry into the day-to-day operations of the Church and its every action, and decision-making process in carrying out those actions; and all the dirty laundry that the First Amendment generally prohibits Governmental or private party inquiry into will be “fair game” in Mrs Smith attempting to prove the “truth” of her claims about the sacred bowels and mystical voodoo of this Church.

This Church will probably rue the day it chose to unleash the power of the disinfectant of diligent legal inquiry into its day-to-day operations, policies, protocols, rituals, and behaviors.

And a bit of advise to Mrs Smith and all others who may not be able to afford the  inordinate  cost and stress of such litigation: just couch your “reviews”,your comments, your criticisms, if any, in the form of “opinions”. For you see, the First Amendment gives one absolute immunity for forming thoughts, and virtually absolute immunity for articulating thoughts in the form of opinions. Several years ago I witnessed one of the most astute uses of Constitutionally protected “opinions”  when Congress required the CEOs of the major Tobacco Companies to testify under oath whether “cigarettes caused cancer”. EACH executive, properly prepared by their respective Counsel, parroted  the exact same response, “Mr Chairman, IN MY OPINION, cigarettes do not cause cancer”. And no matter what the then existing medical evidence, no matter what the then existing “Surgeon General’s Warning”, no matter what the Findings of the American Cancer Society revealed, the CEOs were immune from ANY  liability for articulating OPINIONS that differed from FACT!

My second subject is related to the first, and deals with what I see as,”American neurosis at its ‘finest’ “:Many Americans laud the actions of the Chinese Protestor,Chen Guangcheng, and welcome him to our shores.  Yet, many of these same Americans decry home-grown protestors , such as those who participate in “Occupy Wall Street”, and applaud government tactics stifling their speech.

Similarly, many people hollered “treason and traitors”, or “He’s ALL of OURS President”, when some accused George Dubya Bush of Unconstitutional acts, including war crimes, and of being Nazi-like..

Yet, many of those reactionaries now decry Barack Hussein Obama as a socialist , usurper of the Constitution and a war criminal.

It seems, that sometimes those people who INSIST upon THEIR INHERENT right to form and articulate THEIR thoughts, want to deny the same right to others, based SOLELY on the CONTENT of the others’ articulated thoughts.

Tying these two subjects together, it is clear the Church wants free rein to articulate its religious practice, dogma and opinions without Governmental interference, but just like those hypocrites in the political realm, they want to use the machinery of government, including the judicial process, to stifle,suppress, and eradicate all opposing articulated opinions.

“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

This Week In Freethought History May 13th – 19th

Posted in Politics, Religion, Science on May 19, 2012 by RJ Evans

(The following is a transcript of a segment by John Mill. John is a noted free thought advocate and broadcaster. “This Week In Freethought” airs on my American Heathen® internet radio show. Air date of this particular segment: 05/19/12)

Here’s your Week in Freethought History: This is more than just a calendar of events or mini-biographies – it’s an affirmation that we as freethinkers are neither unique nor alone in the world, no matter how isolated and alone we may feel at times.

Last Sunday, May 13, but 440 years ago, was the election of Pope Gregory XIII at age 70 (1572). The former Ugo Boncompagni was noted for his attempt to force Catholicism back onto the intransigent Protestants – indeed, he struck a gold medal commemorating the massacre of Huguenots on Saint Bartholomew’s Day, 1572. But Gregory XIII is also remembered in history for one innovation: the reform of the calendar that now bears his name. Catholic Europe, and especially the vehemently anti-Protestant Gregory, saw the Gregorian calendar as a weapon in the Counter-Reformation, a singularly stupid strategy. As a result, Protestant countries in particular, including the United States, took centuries to adopt the new calendar and enter a more astronomically accurate age.

Last Tuesday, May 15, but 143 years ago, the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) was created by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton – two famous Freethinkers (1869). The group joined with a less radical sister group and, on August 18, 1920, got the 19th Amendment ratified, giving women in the US the right to vote. There are still some countries, mostly Muslim, that don’t allow either sex to vote, but the trend is clear for the evolution of all other rights for women: they begin with a vote. Where were the Christian churches in this debate? Before the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a peasant woman in both Catholic and Protestant countries, was not a person. A husband could beat his wife, or sell her, take all her property and her children. Few occupations outside of wife and mother (or prostitute) were open to women. But when the churches realized that most of the reform was coming from atheists, agnostics and Quakers, they soon discovered God favored equality.

Last Wednesday, May 16, would have been the 100th birthday of Pulitzer Prize-winning American author “Studs” Terkel (1912). Terkel received the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 1985 for The Good War. He has also written such memorable oral histories as Hard Times (1970) and Working (1974). Born Jewish, this self-described “guerrilla journalist with a tape recorder” considered himself an atheist. In a 2001 Rolling Stone interview, Terkel said, “I think of myself as an agnostic, but an agnostic is really a cowardly atheist.”

It was also on, May 16, but 121 years ago, that Pope Leo XIII issued the encyclical Rerum novarum, on the “Condition of Labor,” about the relations of employer and employee (1891). That the churches provided any service whatsoever to working people until the 20th century, aside from relieving them under false pretenses of much of their hard-earned money, is about as phony a claim as that of faith-healers. “Let it be taken for granted,” wrote Leo, “that remuneration should be sufficient to maintain the wage-earner in reasonable and frugal comfort.” But when asked to define just what such a “living wage” should be, Leo fell mute. Worse, in 1931 Pius XI issued the encyclical Quadragesimo anno, which (¶¶ 91-94, 133) endorsed the Fascist-Corporate State. The Nazis eagerly complied, as did many other (mostly Catholic) countries. So, without God’s help, workers had to fight for and win the things we take for granted today: the eight-hour day, a five-day work week, overtime pay, workers compensation, retirement, health care and, most especially, the right to organize.

Last Thursday, May 17, was the 41st anniversary of the opening of the musical Godspell in New York (1971). Godspell ran for 2,651 performances on Broadway and features the parables and lessons of the Gospel according to Matthew, rather than the life of Jesus. The lessons in Godspell, are surprisingly secular; the parables are of the simple-minded 1970s variety: a gentle Jesus preaches virtuous behavior, adoration of God, doing good works, promoting justice and mercy, and rejecting materialism – without the inherent irony that, if you reject materialism, you pretty much guarantee you’ll never have anything material to reject! None of these things, except for loving God, requires a belief in the supernatural. However, we know that hell awaits the unbeliever because the song, “Learn Your Lessons Well,” threatens “You better pay attention, / Build your comprehension, / There’s gonna be a quiz at your ascension. / Not to mention any threat of hell, / But if you’re smart you’ll learn your lessons well!” In a bizarre twist for any Christian, Godspell ends with the crucifixion – but there is no mention of a resurrection!

Yesterday, May 18, would have been the 140th birthday of British mathematician, philosopher and Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell (1872). His chief work was the Principia Mathematica (1910-1913), a three-volume work on the foundations of mathematics, co-authored by Alfred North Whitehead. Throughout his life, Russell was an outspoken critic of religion. In Why I Am Not a Christian, he wrote, “You find as you look round the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, … every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized Churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the … Christian religion … has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.”

Today, May 19, but 476 years ago, was the date that Anne Boleyn, the second wife of Henry VIII, was executed for adultery (1536). King Henry married her, secretly, in early 1533, when she was pregnant with the future Queen Elizabeth. But for Henry, an heir was not good enough: Anne failed to produce a male heir. It is instructive to note that adultery was treated by ancient civilizations as a property crime, with punishment benefiting only an injured husband. The biblical story of Potiphar’s wife was adapted from the Egyptian “Tale of Two Brothers” to illustrate a similar condemnation in the Old Testament. Adultery is addressed by the Seventh Commandment, but, outside of fundamentalist Christian or Muslim circles, the penalties for adultery are not so drastic, if there are any at all. In fact, our modern, secular society sees adultery rarely punished in law, except as grounds for divorce. And the injury is considered equally grievous for a husband or a wife. Yet the “property crime” mentality persists, as evidenced in the 2002 film Unfaithful, in which the aggrieved husband kills his wife’s lover but not his wife. And in the case of Anne Boleyn, one might think divorce a lesser crime than execution, but that wouldn’t have been the “Christian” thing to do!

We can look back, but the Golden Age of Freethought is now. You can find full versions of these pages in Freethought history at the links in the American Heathen blog, which take you to my blog, FreethoughtAlmanac.com.

The GOP War Against Freedom And Liberty

Posted in Politics, Religion with tags , , , , , , , on May 13, 2012 by Al Stefanelli

(This is a transcript of Al Stefanelli’s “Voice Of Reason” segment on my American Heathen® Internet Radio Show)

Like many people who fight every day for freedom and liberty for all Americans, I was elated when our President publicly stated that he was in favor and support of same-sex marriages. Was there a political agenda behind it? Well, yeah, of course there was. He’s a politician and this is an election year.

Was it his only reason? No, I don’t think so. The points he made that revealed his reasoning were not unusual and common to those who had at one time struggled with this issue, but eventually came around to the right side of history.

The fact that his proclamation came right on the heels of the debacle that happened in North Carolina went a long way to assuage my anger.

Anger…

Anger? Yes. I spent seventeen years living in North Carolina. The final four of those years I was an unbeliever, but thirteen of those years were spent as a Fundamentalist Christian. Ten of those thirteen years I was a Pastor, so I really wasn’t surprised when the general public voted in favor of a constitutional ban against same-sex marriage. I was, however, incredibly disappointed and very pissed off.

Same sex unions were already illegal in North Carolina, so the passing of this Amendment was little more than a legislative bitch-slap to the LGBT community, fortifying the stance by most state citizens that they are not wanted and their right to be recognized as equal citizens will not be granted.

I wrote about this in my blog last week, and one of the things I stated was that what this has accomplished is nothing short of an expression of hatred in the name of the Judeo-Christian God. Those who voted in favor of this amendment are the lowest of the low. They are the bottom of the barrel, and don’t give a goddamn about efforts to stop the “redefinition of marriage.” All they care about is using their hateful beliefs and their equally hateful interpretation of their holy book to control anyone who does not agree with them.

But, as I said, Obama coming out in favor of same-sex marriage did calm me down a bit. But it was a short-lived calm. Very short-lived.

The Beat Goes On… 

On the same day that President Barack Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage, the House Armed Services Committee backed measures prohibiting the practice on U.S. military bases.

Missouri Republican Todd Akin and others on the Committee were obviously still pissed off at the whole DOMA repealing thing. Akin claims that the president repealed DOMA as a prop to promote his “Gay Agenda.”

The committee backed an amendment that barred same-sex marriages or “marriage-like” ceremonies on military bases, and as a further slap in the face, they also supported that the Armed Services should not just denigrate LGBT’s, but accommodate the rights of service members and Chaplains who are morally or religiously opposed to anything even remotely connected to homosexuality.

Go Easy…

There are those who say I should let up off Republicans because not all of them are like that. Yes, they are right in the fact that they are not. I know my fair share of progressive-minded Republicans. The broad brush that I paint is not on the canvas of the Republican constituency. It is on the Party, itself.

I am totally, completely and unequivocally right in using my broad brush, because it is not my opinion, but written literally into the GOP Party Platform, which starts out with these words:

“Our platform is presented with enthusiasm and confidence in a vision for the future, but also with genuine humility before God.”

As if that was not bad enough, the GOP claims that this vision and humility toward the Christian God is not just for them, but for all Americans. I find this highly arrogant. Don’t believe me? Their own words say:

“Yet we stand united today because we are the one party that speaks to all Americans conservatives, moderates, libertarians, independents, and even liberals.” 

How’s that for a big, huge, stinking pile of bullshit? Another part of their Party platform is very clear that their official position is, and I quote,

“Republicans across the nation and ever grateful to Almighty God for the political, religious, and civil liberties we enjoy.” 

Remember, this is the same God that is credited with allowing the slavery, sexism, racism, homophobia, mutilations, intolerance and the oppression of millions of minorities.

Dissonance…

The GOP is a Party of contradictions. This you can be sure of. In fact, and quite laughably, their platform also states that their core values are – and I quote again,

“…liberty, equality, meritocracy, and respect for human dignity and the rights of women.” 

If someone claims to be a Republican and does not adhere to their own Party Platform, they are hypocrites. Especially when the rights of the LGBT community is concerned, as well as toward women and their rights to have a say about what they do with their own bodies. I cite the official Party Platform again, which states,

“We lament that judges have denied the people their right to set abortion policies in the states and are undermining traditional marriage laws from coast to coast.” 

Want more tidbits taken directly from their official Platform? Here’s one that speaks to medical professionals:

“No health care professional doctor, nurse, or pharmacist or organization should ever be required to perform, provide for, or refer for a health care service against their conscience for any reason.” 

I am sure you recall the stories of pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions, or denying women the purchase of over the counter emergency contraceptives. Or physicians refusing to treat patients for a variety of reasons that are directly connected to their religious beliefs. How about this one that obviously speaks to Planned Parenthood and comprehensive sex education:

“We renew our call for replacing “family planning” programs for teens with increased funding for abstinence education, which teaches abstinence until marriage as the responsible and expected standard of behavior. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for abortion and contraception” 

In fact, the GOP supports a human life amendment to the Constitution that has been interpreted to be much like those that have been coming out of states that seek to redefine an embryo as a full citizen with all the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment – completely abrogating the rights of the mother and quite possibly putting her at risk for being arrested for murder if she chooses to terminate her pregnancy at any stage of development.

For a party that preaches less government, they sure as hell don’t have a problem regulating the freedom and liberty of all of us. Even to the point of supporting a law that prohibits Internet gambling. Wait, what? Yeah, that’s in their platform, too. In fact, it literally says,

“We support the law prohibiting gambling over the Internet.” 

Total Control… 

Their intrusion into the private lives of American Citizens would be total and complete, and women and LGBT’s are their primary targets. Both demographics are treated horribly and with arrogance and condescension. Same sex marriage takes a direct hit in their official Party Platform, which states, and I quote again,

“Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman. Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married.

Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems.”

Using this logic, homes where the father has died or is away from home for very long stretches of time – as is with many of our servicemen – also produce these horrible and cretinous children. I won’t even get into their obvious re-interpretation of the First Amendment beyond their statement that the public display of the Ten Commandments does not violate the U.S. Constitution and accurately reflects the Judeo-Christian heritage of our country. Looks like they got help from David Barton with this part of their platform.

Final Thoughts…

The GOP’s efforts against the civil rights of the LGBT community and women is shameful and only solidifies the fact that religion is more harmful than it is worth. It has been used to justify an unending progression of horrific blights on our society. It is extremely apparent that the Republican Party, as a whole, is rabidly anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-church-state-separation and has put these policies at the center of their platform.

As I stated earlier, we have religion to thank for slavery, sexism, racism, homophobia, mutilations, intolerance and the oppression of millions of minorities. It is an irresponsible ideology that comes at a steep price and a totally unacceptable cost to the human species. Fundamentalist religion breeds bigoted, hate-filled, narrow-minded, intolerant and self-righteous fools that are a stain on humanity. When combined with National Pride, the results are not only theocratic, but also extremely dangerous.

On that note, I will leave you with this statement, which was taken directly from the most recent newsletter put out by the Greene County, Virginia, Republican Party:

“The ultimate task for the people is to remain vigilant and aware – that the government, their government is out of control, and this moment, this opportunity, must not be forsaken, must not escape us, for we shall not have any coarse (sic) but armed revolution should we fail with the power of the vote in November. This Republic cannot survive for 4 more years underneath this political socialist ideologue.”

Put that in your pipe and smoke it…

What Are You Really Fighting For?

Posted in Politics, Religion on May 12, 2012 by RJ Evans

(Editorial Comment from  host RJ Evans on his American Heathen® radio show – Air Date 05/12/12)

I’m asked quite frequently whether I’m scared, afraid of being so open and honest about my Atheism and my opinions. I always answer with a confident and stern “No!”. I’m also asked why I use my real name, and why I don’t hide my identity or my location. My answer is this, “Why runaway from a fight that could mean the difference between freedom and liberty for all, or bondage and tyranny?”

As most of you know, I’m not much on oaths. But, there is one oath I took when I joined the Marine Corps back in early 1979 that I adhere stringently to, “I, Randall J Evans, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same”. That oath is NOT a declaration of commitment to any religion, political party, or an illogical, irrational, unreasoned ideology. It isn’t a prayer or pleading for imperialistic self-serving exceptional-ism. It is an oath that bares the weight of responsibility to all of humanity. To me, it is worth fighting for.

What do you fight for? I’m asking you! What do you fight for Atheist? Do you fight for the rights of christians, muslims, jews? Do you fight for Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents? Who do you fight for? Do you call yourself a patriot? If so, what is your definition of patriot? What do you fight for? I’m asking you! What do you fight for Christian? Do you fight for the rights of Atheists, muslims, jews? Do you fight for Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents? Who do you fight for? Do you call yourself a patriot? If so, what is your definition of patriot?

I say a patriot is someone who fights for ALL, no matter their religion or non-religion. I say a patriot is someone who fights for the minority and the majority and everyone in between. I say a patriot fights for the richest to the poorest, demanding fairness from both and for both. I say a patriot fights for the rights of humanity, enjoining all to embrace the human condition as good, and condemning indentured servitude to the recesses of an ignorant past. I say a patriot fights against exceptional-ism, greed, and self-righteousness, and instead elevates unity, fairness, and humility. I say a patriot declares their love of freedom and liberty for ALL, living by example and speaking through knowledge and experience. I say someone is a patriot when the color they see isn’t distorted by fear, but instead made beautiful and vivid through the lens of understanding. I say someone is a patriot when the love they witness between others isn’t perverted by lies cultivated in myth, but made characteristically human by knowing the evolution of our condition.

Are you a patriot? I’m asking you Atheist! Are you truly a patriot? Some of you are not. Are you a patriot? I’m asking you christian? Are you truly a patriot? Some of you are not. Some of you are cowards, afraid of your own shadows. Your bigotry, born of unbridled fear, pollutes the air. You coward. You gulp fear. You puke fear. Fear of yourself. Fear of the unknown. But, most certainly fear of being human at the mercy of the reality of death. You are not a patriot. You are a coward, a helpless child who hides under your covers waiting for the monster to appear from under your bed. The only monster is you. And you created it.

I fight for everyone. I do not fear. I don’t care what you believe christian. Go ahead and think I am an abomination, immoral… satan himself. I care not what you think. I only care for your freedom and liberty to think. I’m a patriot. I fight for all. I don’t care what you don’t believe Atheist. Go ahead and think I’m too loud, obnoxious, and illiterate. I only care for your freedom and liberty to learn humility. I’m a patriot. I fight for all.

Someone once told me I was crazy… crazy for being so open. They wondered if I had lost my mind by declaring my fearlessness in the face of the realities of sectarian and political violence in today’s world. I told them that I’m keenly aware of the potential dangers associated with speaking out. I know exactly what I’m doing. I’m an actor in this film called life, just like everyone else. So, it’s very important that I get my lines right. I’m only on the screen for a few thousand frames at best. What’s more, if I blow my lines, I blow the scene, and that makes it very difficult for all the other actors in the scene with me, and others who will follow. In fact, some actors and lines won’t make the final cut of this film. Someone might decide to re-write our parts, or kill us off. Yeah, I might end up with fewer frames, a limited amount of screen time… I could even be killed off. But, if I am killed off, here’s how I hope the scene plays out:

I’m confronted by an adversary. They’re demeanor drips with bigotry and hate. I know I will be murdered for my patriotism, so I address my murderer with a final statement of defiance. It will be my most proud moment. I stand tall, face my executioner with a big grin and say with confidence, “Go ahead. Make my day. I don’t remember being born. I’m not going to remember dying. And I won’t remember you. But, you know what? You’re part in this film will go on. And, you will be forced to remember me. Oh yes, you will be forced to remember me. You will remember me, and you will remember that I fought for you. Hopefully you will remember that, and me,  for a very, very long time as you pay the price and surrender your freedom for what you are about to do. So, go ahead… Do what you think you must. But, before you do, you need to ask yourself two questions… Are you a coward or a patriot? What are you really fighting for?”

Bad Atheists

Posted in Religion on May 12, 2012 by RJ Evans

(Editorial Comment from  host RJ Evans on his American Heathen® radio show – Air Date 05/12/12)

Last week we talked a little about bad Atheists. I wanted to shed a little more light on the subject from my perspective tonight. Recently I posted a link to the “Ass Scratch Fever!” video on the reddit.com Atheist board. I also posted the link to some other categories… anything-goes politics, politics and anything-goes videos. I’m new to reddit. Well, I was. My baptismal, dismal experience there, and on other boards in the past, gave me pause to consider the idea that there are Atheists who are outright, totally ignorant, and utterly clueless assholes. But, you know what? That really shouldn’t come as a surprise to any of us. Atheism isn’t unaffected or removed from the human idiot quotient. Some Atheists can be just as bad as some religious folks. No one is immune to the holier than thou, “I know everything”, “I hate everyone who doesn’t agree with me”, “Fuck you. I’m special” mentality. In fact, both camps have malcontents who are miserable human beings. Anyway, immediately following my post on the reddit.com Atheist board, the first comment that appeared came from a person that went by the moniker IESVS. It read “More atheism bloggers spamming via YouTube videos. You’re so edgy and original. Yawn.” I don’t care if someone likes or doesn’t like what I do. Everyone has their opinions. But, some opinions are valid, based on evidence, and others are worth less than the bits and bytes than they take to write. In this case, the comment gave me nothing of value. But, it did accuse me of spamming. I made one post. One! And, now I’m a spammer? I really didn’t care if the person didn’t like the video. That didn’t matter. But, to call me a spammer? That got under my skin a bit. I hate spamming. And, to me, spamming means repeated posting of information or promotions that have nothing to do with the subject matter being discussed. It can also mean promotion of products and services for monetary gain. I posted ONE link to a video. Hmmmm…

Anyway… The verbal jousting began. I countered with a simple, “Thanks for the comment. Nice to know you actually cared enough to tell me you think I suck. Go back to sleep. Don’t forget your pacifier.” I was done. As far as I was concerned, he or she said their peace and I responded in kind. Unfortunately, IESVS had to have the last word. He wrote: “And baby references! Comedy gold. Needs more anger though. It doesn’t quite fit with the gimmick.” Alrighty then!  Now I’m a gimmick? I quartered my anger and wrote, “Quite the keyboard warrior! I’m impressed.” I felt sure that was the end. Unfortunately, it wasn’t. 30 comments later I finally decided that the jackass wasn’t worth it. What’s more, I had to ask myself why I was even responding. And, that’s what prompted tonight’s short editorial.

Bad Atheists are a dime a dozen. They can be found everywhere on the net. But, what is it that makes them bad? Well, first off, a disclaimer… they’re human just like me. We are slaves to biology. Now, I don’t demonize bad Atheists. I don’t demonize christians either. Both groups are flesh and blood, walking and talking, eating, drinking and breathing biological organisms just like me. And, as such, they are entitled to human respect. But, what is it in their character that needs to manifest itself in self-centered, self-righteous arrogance? I don’t know. What I do know is that bad Atheists and bad christians suffer from the same delusion from two different perspectives. For bad Atheists, the delusion is one of superiority and self-deification that assumes that the .0001 percent of the knowledge they think they have entitles them to the Executive Suite at the Hotel Ivory Tower. For bad christians the delusion is one of superiority and self-righteousness that assumes that their lack of knowledge entitles them to the Executive Suite at the Hotel Heaven. Bad Atheists also think that intelligence is measured by how many 10 and 15 letter words they can use in a single sentence, and love punctuation storm trooper tactics yearning to gas everyone’s poor use of their colons. Bad Atheists also have a sense of humor that most resembles that of a Yak. They are quick to aggressively defend their immature humorlos positions, but caught in a rut, they generally avoid humor and will rapidly flee for great distances if it approaches.

One characteristic of bad Atheists is the ability to rationalize being insurmountably rude and obnoxious before someone actually has time to hit the “join the conversation” button. These keyboard weasels have a nasty habit of delivering a beat-down even before their quarry has even thought about typing the word “Hello”. Pissing, moaning, bitching, complaining, griping, spitting, spewing, blasting, pissing, shitting… All of it flooding the arena leaving a toxic wasteland of total negativity and destruction in its wake. And, they say it’s all because they are right, and because they said so. Argument from self-deluded authority. All perfectly rationalized by the word they claim to love so much. Atheist. To them, the word doesn’t mean a lack of belief in gods or goddesses, fairy-tales, myths, legends and anything supernatural. They have turned the word into a dogma. A Dogma of self-importance, ego-maniacal relevance, and hatred of anyone who’s IQ is perceived to be less than their own inflated number.

In the end, the bad Atheist is no different from the bad christian. Both are deluded into thinking they are something they are not. The bad christian thinks they have all the answers. The bad Atheist thinks they have all they answers. The bad christian serves a myth in an effort to justify their selfishness. The bad Atheist serves himself in an effort to serve himself. But, after all is said and done, one thing rings true. Neither is serving up reality. The reality of being human.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 155 other followers

%d bloggers like this: