No "under God" in Porkys Pledge of Allegiance

Prior to 1954 the words "under God" were not in the pledge of allegiance. They were added under pressure from Christian leaders in a time of heightened nationalism and Communist fear in America. This period in American history was heavily authoritarian and ripe with the automaton conformity of it's citizens. Today, only 3/4 of Americans believe in the Christian god mentioned in the pledge. Therefore, tens of millions of US citizens are left out.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Federal court approves 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance - The Christian Science Monitor (reasonweekly.com)
• The Perplexed Observer : "Under God" and the Pledge of Allegiance (theperplexedobserver.blogspot.com)
• The Pledge and the Purpose of 'Under God' (atheistethicist.blogspot.com)
• San Diego Christian lawyers Lose Bids To Be Judges On Superior Court (huffingtonpost.com)
• A Federal Court declared today: The words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are an appeal to patriotism, not religion, and do not violate the separation of church and state. WTF? (reddit.com)
• A Reversal on the Pledge (unreasonablefaith.com)

Have You Been Discriminated Against Because of Your Atheism?

 

The Secular Coalition for America is one of many groups fighting against things like Faith-Based Initiatives that allow religious groups to receive federal funding while at the same time letting them fire people who don’t adhere to their faith. It’s not right in so many ways.

To fight this, it would be helpful to cite personal stories of people who have been discriminated against because of their atheism (even if you wish to remain anonymous).

The following types of stories would be ideal to know about:

1. I was fired from my job working for an organization that receives government grants because I am either a) not of the same religion as the organization that I work for, b) not religious or c) a nontheist.
2. I volunteered with an organization that receives government grants for their work in my community and witnessed people who sought help at the faith-based community center being proselytized to and harassed while they were trying to obtain services (ex: A homeless person who wanted a bed in a church-run homeless shelter in my town was forced to pray before bedtime; I know for a fact that this center receives federal and state grants for their work).
3. I went to a religious organization to receive social services and was proselytized to. I know that this religious organization receives government money for the work they do (ex: I am a recovering alcoholic and was court-ordered to receive group therapy for my alcoholism. The only place in my town that provided this service was a religious organization. They received government money to run this alcohol-treatment center but I found that I was constantly proselytized to while going there but I had no other option that to remain in the facility.)
4. I do not believe in a god and I have been teased, harassed, or humiliated because I refuse to say “under God” in the pledge and/or I know someone who has been teased/harassed/humiliated for this reason.
5. I am a nontheist who attended a public school that only taught abstinence-only-sex-education. As a result, I received false or misleading medical information or religiously based information that resulted in…
6. I know of a religious childcare facilities in my state where children appear to be mistreated and/or endangered due to the unhealthy and unsafe environment of the facility.
7. As a nontheist in the military, I was harassed and discriminated against because of my beliefs (or lack thereof).

If any of these things have happened to you or anyone you know, please send an email to stories@secular.org.

You can help us reach out to politicians who may be unaware of these issues.

 

(VIA Friendly Atheist)
Hemant Mehta
Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:00:06 GMT

Related articles by Zemanta

• Abstinence-Only Sex Education No Longer Federally Funded (friendlyatheist.com)
• 'Friendly Atheist' and pro-family group wage public conflict (christianpost.com)

Reflections on Thunderf00t Ray Comfort discussion

Yup too much stammer. However I had to cover a wide range of topics, while all Ray had to say was 'I know God dun it'.

Anyways, yes, I was far too stuttery, stammering.
Having said that I kept my side of the deal and uploaded the lot... warts and all.

Im actually uploading this from within sight of the Hooker telescope (Im in the observation gallery)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 9a)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 9)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 8)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 7)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 6)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 5)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 4)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 3)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 2)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion (Part 1)

The Thunderf00t - Ray Comfort discussion

(Over the next few posts I will put up the videos)

Discussion between Thunderf00t (Physical Evidence and Reasoned Logic supporter (Pearlist)) and Ray Comfort (Creationist Christian).

Journal entry 22nd July 2009. (relevant bit, whole entry is too long for rest see beautyintheuniverse)

Up with dawnpeckish so found mcdonalds for breakfast. Back to Rays place where I had about 4 hrs to kill before our meeting at 11ish. Started adding placemarkers to the bible at the interesting bits I had found. By the time I had finished there was a lot of blue post it notes sticking out the bible. It has now also become clear to me that while my preferred modus opperandi has been in the defense of science, I have now read enough of the bible that I could utterly shred this shepherds myth. Its an interesting question should I set all the time I have spent going through the bible in detail to naught and just let Christianity have its peace, or should I actively engage in its demise. When the ministry opened at 9ish I went and introduced myself, and they gave me a rather officious line about not doing anything till the appointed time. No big deal for me, I put some effort into ordering the car and mending some bust electronics (resoldering wires etc). Stuff that had been put on the back burner for expediency on the road, but a more ordered man would have taken care of he went along. Saw Ray arrive by car, which raised an eyebrow as the 60 minutes thing said he cycled to work. Probably just he didnt want to cycle if he was going to be on camera. As a cyclist myself something I could empathize with. Ray is a small man, but chirpy and polite. Surprisingly Ray now informed me that there was no problem in me filming. Hmmm wtf?, but my only care at the time was the original deal was being honored. Shortly after he invited me in it was a little intro and pretty much straight down to business. The consequence of which was I only had a few minutes to brief him on points I wanted to raise. A point which I was keen on doing as I wanted the point I was making to survive robust scrutiny, and not to survive simply as they were bought up in real time (catching someone on the hop). The moments that raised an eyebrow for me was how quickly ray picked up on me lying to him, as an example of how religions are created an propagated. (by mechanism of the almighty Tod!) I am a poor liar. Its amazing though, how well even folk like ray can pick up on the bodylanguage. On watching the video you can see it all. How he gets uncomfortable and starts shuffling. I cant remember too much of the details (it was too much of a manic day) but I do remember seeing Ray being troubled by some of the points I was making. I could see the doubt of a man challenged with a concept altogether new to him. I could see it in his bodylanguage of his eyes. After that we went to lunch ray was buying. We took the camera man too who is obviously a hovind fan. Systematically I went through his points one by one and in the most mild of demeanors academically shredded them. The shame being that noone else at the table, other than myself would have been able to assess the academic veracity of my arguments. Ray offered to help me out by putting me up in a motel for a night (after a fashion). The offer was sincere and I think somewhat precipitated by rays sympathy for what he perceived as my hardship. I graciously thanked him for the offer but turned it down in that I like rough life in the wide open space. After lunch ray gave me a tour of the ministry. The place clearly oozes with money. Rays artifacts are very coy (a skeleton for the cupboard etc) He also has a collection of fake hominids not something to inspire someone with confidence about ones academic footing.

Then had a long chat with the camera man about the history of the earth (using the correlated history of earth poster). One by one I cut down the hovind arguments, and eventually all he had left was to simply say there are both sides of the argument.

Its amazing testament to the feedback mechanisms of the mind, that even after the foundations of his belief had been systematically and academically removed till none remained that he was still sure that there was two sides to the argument. Then had another chat with ray, which I wish I had recorded.. mostly about the bible. The things I really remember was that Ray believes in witches, wizards, demons and sorcerers. Hmmm thats usually a end of conversation type moment. He also thinks that the holocaust was gods way of punishing the jews. I told him very clearly that that was not going to make him very popular if he voiced such opinions in public.

Ray left and I spent an hour talking with his graphic design man. He clearly wasnt greatly interested in talking about points of contest, and we got on very well. He was a model maker and pilot. We talked teccie for an hour or so. A good guy!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Billy Graham attempts apologetics (bisforbarnstorming.blogspot.com)
• (Almost) Daily Dose Of Comfort - The Birdlike Reptile (atheistblogger.com)
• Does Atheism Make Life Meaningless? (theatheistmind.info)
• Yes, I repeat, we should ignore Ray (atheistexperience.blogspot.com)
• Oh, no! Monkeys are smarter than me...and Ray Comfort! (theatheistmind.info)
• Debate with Thunderfoot (raycomfortfood.blogspot.com)
• Ray Comfort Is Still A Coward... (atheistblogger.com)
• Thunderf00t vs. Ray Comfort (atheistblogger.com)

Derren Brown - Documentary — Messiah

Derren Brown - Documentary — Messiah
This documentary-styled one-hour film sees Derren in America attempting to raise questions about the validity of certain religious and spiritual belief systems; belief systems that people are encouraged to base their lives upon - such as new-age faiths and mainstream Christianity. Can he get certain authority figures to endorse him as the real thing?
Website:
http://www.derrenbrown.co.uk/news/?messiah

Ancient Science in the Bible? Really?

(Via Dr Jim's Thinking Shop & Tea Room)

Ed Babinski, who contributes to Debunking Christianity and has scribed a chapter or two for the book, The Christian Delusion, reported on in an earlier post, emailed me the other day to tell me about an essay posted on BeliefNet in its weekly guest essay section.

Image linked from Beliefnet

In “Ancient Science in the Bible” Denis O. Lamoureux discusses the biblical view of a rather flat earth. I have no quibbles with his depiction of Biblical cosmology. On the other hand, he concludes:

So what’s the bottom line? Don’t go to the Bible to find scientific facts; go to Scripture to meet Jesus. In the same way that the Lord personally meets each of us wherever we happen to be, the Holy Spirit came down to the level of the ancient biblical writers and employed their understanding of the physical world in order to communicate as effectively as possible life-changing spiritual truths. By using an ancient science in the Bible, God revealed the inerrant Message of Faith that He created the world, not how He created it.

And that kind of bugs me.

Lamoureux is an assistant professor at St. Joseph’s College in Edmonton AB, a Catholic school attached to the secular University of Alberta. He is “assistant professor of science and religion” and has published two books through Wipf and Stock. Here are parts of the blurbs:

Evolutionary Creation

In this provocative book, evolutionist and evangelical Christian Denis O. Lamoureux proposes an approach to origins that moves beyond the “evolution-versus-creation” debate. Arguing for an intimate relationship between the Book of God’s Words and the Book of God’s Works, he presents evolutionary creation—a position that asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit created the universe and life through an ordained and sustained evolutionary process. This view of origins affirms intelligent design and the belief that beauty, complexity, and functionality in nature reflect the mind of God. Lamoureux also challenges the popular Christian assumption that the Holy Spirit revealed scientific and historical facts in the opening chapters of the Bible. He contends that Scripture features an ancient understanding of origins that functions as a vessel to deliver inerrant and infallible messages of faith.

~~~~~~~~~

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution.

In this thought-provoking book, born-again Christian Denis O. Lamoureux argues that the God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolution—an ordained, sustained, and design-reflecting natural process. In other words, evolution is not the result of blind chance and our creation is not a mistake. Lamoureux challenges the popular assumption that God disclosed scientific facts in the opening chapters of Scripture thousands of years before their discovery by modern science. He contends that in the same way the Lord meets us wherever we happen to be in our lives, the Holy Spirit came down to the level of the inspired biblical writers and used their ancient understanding of origins in order to reveal inerrant, life-changing Messages of Faith. Lamoureux also shares his personal story and struggle in coming to terms with evolution and Christianity.

Lamoureux’s work has been poo-pooed by some in the completely anti-intellectual wing of Evangelical Christianity here in Alberta, and presumably beyond.

Both the Big Valley Creation Science Museum and the Red Deer based Creation Truth Ministry have on their websites a big black and yellow image of dangerous looking waste barrels with a label promising a debunking of “Dangerous Theology in Alberta”. The link goes to a now defunct website, www.emperorswithoutclothes.com, where apparently once resided an “expose” of Lamoureux by a certain Mike Biehler. Alas, a very quick google could not find a new home for the piece.

(Also, see my posts on these two “museums” BVCSM and CTM.)

As far as I’m concerned, it is nice that Lamoureux is convinced of the overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution, and anything he can do to minimize the damage to education in Alberta at the hands of the creationist fringe, the better. On the other hand, he hardly seems a champion of academics in general, and his program to convince evangelical Christians of the reality of evolution and an old earth should not be taken as too much of a victory for those interested in comprehensive educational standards.

I’ve gotten used to the idea that the University of Alberta (where I graduated in 1993 from Religious Studies a BA and did post-doctoral and sessional work from 1998-2002) has affiliated Christian colleges. I don’t like it, but what is one going to do? At least their courses are not transferable to a degree in Religious Studies (well, they weren’t when I attended). When I finished my BA, however, the university was facing massive budget cuts. There was some talk of farming parts of Religious Studies off to the Christian colleges. Fortunately, nothing came of this and although the dept. of Religious Studies eventually disappeared, the program of R. S. retained its academic integrity.

What really bugs me about Lamoureux’s article is the way the biblical cosmology is called a “science”.

In fact, Holy Scripture features an ancient science of the structure, operation, and origin of the universe and life. The diagram presents the world as conceived by ancient Near Eastern peoples, including God’s chosen people, the Hebrews. It may come as a surprise to most Bible-reading Christians, but a 3-tier universe is found in the Word of God.

I really don’t think that term “science” is at all applicable to ancient cosmologies, biblical or otherwise. It seems to be an effort to cash in on the prestige “science” has in the modern world (at least among most folk). He seems to say that even though the Bible is to remain relevant without being a science book, it can still be a kind of science all the same. The Bible’s cosmological passages (along with a whole lot more) are myth. Why not call them that?

The Bible has virtually no “science” or “engineering” in it. Christian scripture has no astronomical treatise. There is no detailed taxonomy of different kinds of animals, insects or plants. No discussion of metallurgy, animal breeding, or the appropriate soils for each kind of crop. There is nothing on designing an irrigation system. Not a thing.

Lamoureux is right, the Bible is a book of religion. But rather than analyze the ancient religion from which the diverse biblical texts derived in its own right, he reads his own religion into it. None of the writers of any of the creation accounts in the Old Testament had a clue about the doctrine of the trinity let alone the myth of Christian salvation. They were not Christians. His is a deliberately anachronistic view of the Bible routed in Evangelical doctrine. God has to work behind the scenes, leading ancient scribes to write what they could not understand.

For Lamoureux, the ancient cosmology might be seen as a product of its own time, but the religion behind it must be Christianity. Folks concerned with the incursion of creationism in schools might be encouraged in some respects by Lamoureux’s writings, but if his books are reflective of his professional work, then he is really as far away from academic work on religion as creationism is from real science.

Ancient Science in the Bible? Really?
Dr. Jim
Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:17:00 GMT

Related articles by Zemanta

• A few good questions for my Pastor: The Reply. (reddit.com)
• An Atheist's Alpha Weekend (thedamned.iansbrain.com)
• The power of prayer (guardian.co.uk)
• A question for Christians.... The latest estimate is there are 38,000 forms of Christianity. What makes you so sure you engage in the "right" version? (reddit.com)

When to Stone Your Whole Family

OK, I admit it. I stole the title from the Brick Testament.

But the Brick Testament pretty much stole it from the Bible, so I guess it all works out OK.

Deuteronomy 13 gets my vote for the worst chapter in the Bible. But before we get into it, let's look at its context.

The last verse of chapter 12 says this.

What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. Deuteronomy 12:32

The person who is supposedly talking here is God, and he says to do whatever he says, exactly as he says, no more and no less.

And what does he say to do immediately after this verse? Three things.

1. Kill any prophet or dreamer of dreams. Even if they have cool signs and wonders.

   If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder ... that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death. Deuteronomy 13:1-5

2. Kill your family if they have religious beliefs that differ from your own.

   If thy brother ... or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods ... Thou shalt not consent unto him ... neither shall thine eye pity him ... But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

3. Kill everyone in every city that has citizens that believe differently than you.

   If thou shalt hear ... men ... saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known ... Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. Deuteronomy 13:12-17

But I'd like to focus on God's second command in Deuteronomy 13: When to Stone Your Whole Family.

If thy brother ... or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods ... Thou shalt not consent unto him ... neither shall thine eye pity him. Deuteronomy 13:6-8

But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death. Deuteronomy 13:8-9

and afterwards the hand of all the people. Deuteronomy 13:9

So God commands us all to stone to death, without pity, our wife, husband, son, daughter, brother, sister, or friend, if they have religious beliefs that are different from our own. (Our own beliefs are the correct beliefs, of course.)

And God said immediately before these verses that "what thing soever I command you, observe to do it."

Is there a believer that follows God's command in Deuteronomy 13:6-10?

Is there a believer who is not deeply ashamed that this is in the Bible?

If so, I'd love to hear about it.

When to Stone Your Whole Family
Steve Wells
Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:58:00 GMT

Related articles by Zemanta

• The great winepress of the wrath of God (How many will Jesus kill with his sickle?) (dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com)
• God's 13th Killing: God burns Aaron's sons to death for offering him "strange fire" (dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com)
• Does this make sense to you? It makes sense to Christians! (exchristian.net)
• The Christian Proselytizer Questionnaire (theatheistmind.info)

Atheist Satire

Atheist Satire

Atheist Satire
(author unknown)
Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:25:56 GMT

Related articles by Zemanta

• Hey /r/atheism - Can someone point me to examples of atheists going door to door? (reddit.com)
• The mind plays weird games with us (atheistnexus.org)
• How to Convert Atheists (commonsenseatheism.com)
• Atheism is not a belief system, ok? Got that? Why must we repeat ourselves? (endhereditaryreligion.com)
• Should I point out the BS that my teachers spout? (reddit.com)

Religion Goes Green for Government Money

Wouldn’t it be fabulous if our tax dollars went to pay for new air conditioning units and windows in churches?

No?

Last week, the US House of Representatives passed a measure that will “provide subsidies to ‘faith-based’ organizations and other non-profits to cover of up to 50 percent of the cost of retrofitting their energy systems.” Americans United explains the problem:

Aiding the environment always sounds great, but here’s the problem: the First Amendment prohibits the government from constructing or repairing buildings used for worship. Those funds must come from private donations. It’s not the job of the state to make religious institutions green.

The provision for faith-based institutions was pushed by Diament and a coalition of religious groups that included the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Council of Churches and United Jewish Communities, as well as the Rev. Joel Hunter, senior pastor of Florida-based mega-church Northland; the Rev. Jim Ball, head of the Evangelical Environmental Network; and Jim Wallis, head of Sojourners.

Luckily, the Senate version of the climate-change bill makes no mention of similar subsidies for religion. Americans United is supportive of the Senate approach, and here’s hoping that perspective prevails in the long run.

I’m with the AU here. The government should not be taking money out of our pockets and putting it into the hands of churches to get better A/C’s or windows. These organizations have a tremendous amount of money — just consider that to be a member of a church you usually commit to “tithing” at least 10% of your income.

No folks, churches ain’t poor. They don’t need government handouts — let them improve their buildings and purchase more efficient air conditioning themselves.

Religion Goes Green for Government Money
Daniel Florien
Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:00:23 GMT

Related articles by Zemanta

• Religion Goes Green for Government Money (unreasonablefaith.com)
• Should churches receive government funding? [Poll] (reddit.com)
• Atheist Revolution (rwandanatheist.blogspot.com)
• Organizing Atheists: Advancing the Atheist Movement (theatheistmind.info)
• Federal Court To Hear Arguments In Case Challenging City-Sponsored Prayer In Greece, N.Y. (au.org)
• Texas Appoints Christian Fundamentalists to Rewrite Statewide Social Studies Curriculum: 2nd Largest School District in the Country sets national standards for textbooks. Americans United for Separation of Church and State is concerned; so am I. (reddit.com)

Why Bring in an Unnecessary Middleman?

 

Father Jonathan Morris appeared on FOXNews again…

He was there to speak partly about Kara Neumann’s parents, the people who let her die because they wanted to heal her sickness through prayer instead of modern medicine.

His goal was to defend God, while at the same time saying what the parents did was wrong. His argument is essentially that God gave us doctors, so let’s use them — something I imagine a lot of Christians who hear this story are saying to themselves.

Here’s my favorite line, though:

Well, I would say faith does heal. God heals. And our faith in God certainly brings forth that power from God. But, sometimes God chooses to heal us through doctors. And we have to take advantage of that. When we say we don’t want doctors to get involved, what we’re saying is “God can only do it one way,” and I don’t believe that…

One problem, though, is that religious people (like the Neumanns) may not know when a doctor is needed. I think anyone with some common sense would’ve known that Kara’s predicament was one of those times when you get a doctor involved.

Also, there’s plenty of obvious evidence that doctors heal quite often. Sometimes, medicine does the trick. Sometimes, you body just fixes itself via evolutionary developments.

There’s no need to put a god into that mix.

(via Atheist Media)

Why Bring in an Unnecessary Middleman? Hemant Mehta Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:00:24 GMT