Planet Atheism

Gay marriage debate and the Tories: remember slavery, says Tottenham MP

Published

on May 21, 2013

SOME sense, and a great deal of manure has emanated from the House of Commons during the acrimonious and often lunatic debate over gay marriage this week.

Biggest bouquet, though, must go to David Lammy, MP for Tottenham, who is quoted here as saying:

The Hon Member for Gainsborough [Edward Leigh, Con] should also recall that this House deliberated for 20 years – he will know the name of William Wilberforce – on the abolition of the slave trade. Conservative Members may tut, but they know that this House was split for 20 years on the issue of whether black human beings were human or chattel. There were Christians in this House who sought to suggest that black human beings were chattel, and that somehow it was a matter of conscience and we should not end the slave trade. That is why this is a noble fight.

And the biggest brickbat? That, naturally, goes to Leigh, who said after the vote:

Army and NHS chaplains who preach in favour of traditional marriage in their own churches on Sunday could find themselves in trouble for it at work on Monday. Tens of thousands of teachers are at risk of disciplinary action for expressing traditional views.

And for those of you who might have been counting the minutes to see who would be the first to blame The Gays for Oklahoma’s devastating tornado, here’s this from the Westboro Baptist Church, which claimed that God had blown off in rage because basketball player Jason Collins came out as gay in April.

Collins, who played with the NBA’s Boston Celtics and Washington Wizards this season, became the first openly gay male athlete in US professional team sports after a very high-profile coming out.

gay_marriage

John Piper’s Insensitive, Careless Tweet

Published

Hemant Mehta

on May 21, 2013

Preacher/Theologian John Piper is one of those guys who gets off on telling women that God has a special role for them: to be subservient to their husbands and never in a position of authority. He’s one of those guys atheists salivate over because every time he says something, the pendulum moves a bit closer to our side.

So when he started tweeting last night in the wake of the Oklahoma tornado that has already killed dozens of people, bloggers like Nate Pyle were ready to take screenshots. Good thing, too, because he caught a tweet that has since been deleted:

It’s that middle one that raised Nate’s eyebrow:

I’m not sure what bothers me more about this. That in the face of loss and tragedy Piper callously quotes a random scripture to make a point I cannot fathom, or that 50 (since I imported this picture I saw another that had 65!) people retweeted it.

Granted, Piper did take the quote down rather quickly. But I cannot for the life of me figure out what he was trying to communicate. Was he trying to say that this stuff happens because God ordains it to happen? Was he trying to make a cause and effect connection between people’s sin and God’s judgement as he has in the past? Or did he find a verse that reminded him of the days events and so just tweeted it out? I can’t figure it out.

It doesn’t matter. It should never have been there.

Incidentally, Job 1 tells the story of how God told Satan that Job was a faithful servant and would never curse him no matter how shitty things were in his life. Satan doubted that, so God (in an awful judgment call) gave Satan the power to make Job suffer so they could all see how Job doesn’t blame God for it. Soon, messengers are telling Job that some of his animals have been stolen, while other animals have died by fire… and then we get to the verses in question:

While [a messenger] was still speaking, yet another messenger came and said, “Your sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother’s house, when suddenly a mighty wind swept in from the desert and struck the four corners of the house. It collapsed on them and they are dead, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!”

What significance could that possible have after the tornado? Like Nate says, it doesn’t matter.

But let it be known that after dozens of people had died and untold numbers of people were trying to figure out how to make sense of a natural disaster that took away their family members, homes, and memories, Piper saw fit to quote a Bible verse depicting the death of innocent lives at the hands of a dickish, “benevolent” God.

This afternoon, Piper issued a follow-up tweet that made even less sense:

My hope and prayer for Oklahoma is that the raw realism of Job’s losses will point us all to his God “compassionate and merciful.” Jam.5:11

— John Piper (@JohnPiper) May 21, 2013

Of course, there’s nothing compassionate or merciful about a God that would kill off innocent people just to prove a point to His enemy.

You know, for all the faults of the Catholic Church, at least the Pope tweeted out something in response to the tragedy that was at least genuinely heartfelt:

I am close to the families of all who died in the Oklahoma tornado, especially those who lost young children. Join me in praying for them.

— Pope Francis (@Pontifex) May 21, 2013

I learned a lesson from all this, though: Always take screenshots of pastors who have a habit of putting their foot in the mouths. Thanks, John Piper.

(Thanks to Ward for the link)

Westboro Baptist Church: Oklahoma Tornado is the Result of Kevin Durant Affirming Jason Collins’ Homosexuality

Published

Hemant Mehta

on May 21, 2013

Last month, NBA player Jason Collins came out as gay.

NBA superstar Kevin Durant (of the Oklahoma City Thunder), when asked for comment, said this:

“If the guy’s happy, whatever he does, that’s cool with me,” Thunder star Kevin Durant said at Monday’s shootaround. “Jason Collins, playing against him, seems like a great guy. Never got the chance to know him. But if he’s happy, that’s cool. Nobody has any right to judge. He’s his own man. Makes his own decisions. As NBA players, it’s like a big group of guys, kind of like a brotherhood. I know I support him. Like I said, I don’t really know him, so whatever decision he makes is something he really thought was good for him. Nothing nobody else can say about him. As long as he’s happy, it’s cool.”

So obviously — obviously — that’s why a tornado just hit Moore, Oklahoma… according to Westboro Baptist Church’s Fred Phelps, Jr. (son of the church’s founder):

OK Thunder’s Durant flips God by praising fag Collins.God smashes OK. You do the math.#GodH8sFags #FagsDoomNations #FearGod #GodH8sU

— Fred Phelps, Jr. (@WBCFredJr) May 21, 2013

All of you who had picked Pat Robertson in your first-religious-person-to-say-something-stupid-after-the-awful-tragedy poll owe me $5.

Yes, Phelps is crazy. No, he doesn’t represent mainstream (and even most fringe) Christians. But I promise you it won’t just be outliers like Phelps who rationalize “God’s will” by saying He’s upset about whatever issue they happen to complain about.

(via Huffington Post)

Legal recognition of humanist marriages blocked in Commons

Published

bha-andrew

on May 21, 2013

A proposal in the House of Commons to give legal recognition to humanist marriages in England and Wales has been halted through the last minute intervention of the Attorney General. The proposal had the support of MPs from all three parties and was publicly opposed only by the Church of England and Conservatives in government. In spite of this, the Government threatened to make a declaration that the Marriage Bill was incompatible with human rights if the proposal passed as an amendment. This effectively made it impossible for MPs supporting the Bill to vote for the amendment and so it was withdrawn.

Many MPs speaking in the debate expressed their bewilderment at the eleventh-hour intervention of the Attorney General, which was not backed up by any written evidence and contained arguments that had never been made before. This was in spite of an amendment to recognise humanist marriages being first tabled in February, being extensively discussed at previous stages of the Bill, and being the subject of extensive meetings with the Government held by Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs and representatives of the British Humanist Association (BHA) where a large number of Government concerns were discussed and addressed.

The Government has now promised Labour and the Liberal Democrats – both of which now have formal positions in favour of legal recognition for humanist marriages – that they will publish in a comprehensive format the legal objections they have. The proposal for legal recognition for humanist marriages will return in the House of Lords in a revised version that will take these concerns into account.

Andrew Copson, BHA Chief Executive commented, ‘We believe there was a majority in the House of Commons today for the legal recognition of humanist marriages and so we are naturally disappointed that a vote did not occur and the democratic processes that would have approved this popular proposal did not run their course. Nonetheless, we understand that – in the face of the extraordinary intervention by the Attorney General – MPs supporting same-sex marriage were left with very little choice.

‘The arguments that we heard from both the Government and the representative of the Church of England in the House of Commons have all been refuted and it was particularly shocking that the Government raised today issues that had never been raised before during a long process of engagement. We are sure that all the arguments which the Government has now committed to publish can be addressed before the amendment is brought back in the Lords.

‘In the context of current marriage law, giving legal recognition to humanist marriages is not controversial, would meet a genuine public desire, and would have a negative effect on absolutely no one in society. It would only go on to improve the married lives and happiness of thousands of couples who wish to have a humanist marriage.

‘It’s completely baffling to us that the Government wants to avoid an increase in the number of couples getting married in England and Wales and that it is willing to continue to stand in the way of non-religious couples who only want the same choice that non-religious couples already have in Scotland and which religious couples have – a civil ceremony or a ceremony that reflects their deepest beliefs, conducted by a person who shares those beliefs. We also have absolutely no idea why the Church of England is opposing this change, and would ask them to respect the wishes of humanists in this important area of life just as the law respects the wishes of their members.’

Notes

For further comment or information contact Pavan Dhaliwal, Head of Public Affairs at pavan@humanism.org.uk or on 0773 843 5059.

As well as hundreds of marriages, the BHA conducts many thousands of funerals every year. All the ceremonies are conducted by trained and accredited celebrants subject to strict quality assurance processes and 97% of clients give these ceremonies feedback of 5/5.

The proposal was made as an amendment to the Bill by the Labour MPs Kate Green, Chris Bryant, and Kelvin Hopkins, the Liberal Democrat MPs Stephen Gilbert, Dr Julian Huppert, and Stephen Williams, and the Conservative Mike Weatherley MP.

The British Humanist Association is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people who seek to live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. It promotes a secular state and equal treatment in law and policy of everyone, regardless of religion or belief.

The post Legal recognition of humanist marriages blocked in Commons appeared first on British Humanist Association.

An opportunity to help

Published

PZ Myers

on May 21, 2013

As mentioned in this post, I was waiting for Foundation Beyond Belief to put up a crisis response page. If you were thinking of making an aid donation, go here to help victims of the Oklahoma tornado.

I’ve seen some reluctance to donate because Oklahoma’s senators, Coburn and Inhofe, are fucking selfish scumbags. Don’t let that hold you back — the children who were killed or hurt or made homeless didn’t vote for them, so just think of them when you dig into your pockets.

(Also, apparently my very general link from last night led to about $3000 in donations — you can do better now that you’ve got a specific focus!)

A Review of The Complete Heretic’s Guide to Western Religion Book One: The Mormons

Published

Hemant Mehta

on May 21, 2013

This is a guest post by Rich Wilson.

***

I recently started reading The Book of Mormon and have found it a very tough slog, even compared to the KJV Bible. So you can imagine my relief when I took a break from that book and starting reading David Fitzgerald’s The Complete Heretic’s Guide to Western Religion Book One: The Mormons.

It is, to say the least, a much easier read.

The book is aimed at two audiences — and devout Mormons aren’t one of them. David acknowledges that if one is already “in,” this book probably won’t pull you out, nor is it intended to. Rather, The Mormons is aimed at most of the readers of this sort of blog as well as ex-Mormons (or perhaps Mormons who are having serious doubts). David expresses respect for the Mormons he’s known — and that’s why he’s compelled to point out where their beliefs fall short of being true. I share that sentiment, too. One of the smartest people I’ve ever known is a devout Mormon, and while I like to pretend he doesn’t really believe all that stuff, I know he does.

Full disclosure: Even though I’ve known Mormons personally, my background on Mormonism comes mostly from one South Park episode (which was hilarious, but way too short) and the PBS two-part documentary The Mormons (which was more extensive, but shied away from pointing out the crazy).

David starts with a thorough history of Joseph Smith‘s discovery and “translation” of the Book of Mormon, and writes about how the story evolved over time. There are numerous conflicting versions of Joseph Smith’s “First Vision,” and the way the story changes is fascinating. It’s also interesting to watch the various power struggles of the early days, and coming to understand how many of the players had to be “in” on the hoax.

The story documents some fascinating financial shenanigans as the church moves to Ohio and begins a bank called the Kirtland Safety Society Bank Company, later changed to the “anti-Banking Company to avoid following state regulations (you know, because putting “anti-Banking” on all your bank notes makes you totally not a bank, subject to any state rules). Chased out of Ohio, they landed in Missouri, where Joseph revealed that God had promised all the land to the Mormons — to take by force if necessary. (And they wondered why they weren’t popular in Missouri.) Unfortunately, the result would not be the last bloody story in Mormon history. Not by a long shot. The chronological history takes us through to the death of Joseph Smith, including what Fitzgerald says may have been the “most decent thing” Joseph Smith ever did: return home at the request of his wife Emma, even though he was ready to flee west. In his own words, “I am going like a lamb to the slaughter.”

After Smith’s death, there were, of course, a number of people who claimed that Smith himself had appointed them leaders of the church. One in particular, James Strang, had his own book of ancient golden plates and received word (from angels!) that the new prophet would be able to translate the book of one King Rajah Manchou of Vorito. What more proof could one need?!

With the death of Joseph Smith and subsequent power struggles, Fitzgerald moves from generally chronological history to covering some of the major highlights — or lowlights — of the Mormons, including the many splinter churches. Polygamy receives the first crack, deservedly, since it has probably had the greatest impact on the church and the various directions and schisms it has taken. And while it’s amusing to read about characters such as Nancy Rigdon who rejected Smith loudly no matter how much he threatened her with God’s word, it’s also chilling to read about the reality of sexual abuse in groups living out Joseph Smith’s doctrine to this very day.

A close second to the embarrassment of polygamy is the no-less-sinister racial history of the church. Not much needs to be said, other than the fact that, to this day, there isn’t any good theological explanation for why 19th century bigotry still found a place in 20th century Mormonism, bigotry that (among other things) did not allow black people to become priests in the church. The apologetics are amusing, until you remember what they’re trying to explain away.

Oh, wait, did I forget to mention the different kinds of heaven, and the “sealing” and baptism of the dead, and the magic underwear, and the planet Kolob? (Or is it a star? Joseph Smith didn’t seem to know the difference.) Yeah, that’s all in there, too. As well as Joseph’s assured view that certain ancient documents were Reformed Egyptian dictionaries… only to be told that they were the Greek versions of Psalms.

And so it came to pass that David Fitzgerald did also write upon numerous problems with The Book of Mormon itself. Including its apparent reliance on other fictional sources, such as Shakespeare’s works, Pilgrim’s Progress, and the King James Bible. Interestingly, this “perfect book” dictated by God to an Angel contains the same errors that the 1769 edition of the KJV Bible (available to Smith at the time) had.

As if the obvious fan-fiction nature of the book wasn’t enough, we also take a quick tour of the problems of having no archaeological record of anything mentioned in the Book of Mormon anywhere in the Americas, including chariots, advanced metallurgy, horses, elephants, many crops, or cities with millions of people.

Of course, the Church has had to do some backpedaling over the years to cover things up and we get some great coverage of that as well. The Book of Mormon has undergone many edits, and a great many documents have disappeared for decades, only to show up and require new twisted apologetics to explain. Interestingly, many of the problems with the Book of Mormon, the church history, and general canon have been brought to light by the church’s own members… most of whom have since been either excommunicated or left on their own. And it’s in this chapter that we inevitably deal with what, perhaps even more than polygamy, the church wishes would just go away: the Mountain Meadows massacre. I’ve read (and Fitzgerald repeats it) that the massacre was the worst civilian atrocity in American history up until the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. (The Rosewood massacre might contend, but in any case, they’re all horrific.)

We end by looking to the future, including Humanist Mormons, gay Mormons, and the effect of the Internet and open dialogue on Mormonism. David Fitzgerald contends the Internet is having the same effect on Mormonism that it’s having on all other religions: marking their end.

Well, not quite the end. David has some sage advice for anyone wanting to dialogue with Mormons. Briefly, you need to understand the way their religion is part of every facet of their lives. It’s not just a set of beliefs and something they do on Sundays, and simply pointing out that their prophet was a huckster probably isn’t going to go very far.

The book is a fascinating read on the whole, and I have no doubt that anyone, even ex-Mormons, will learn something new. There were only two sections that dragged slightly for me — one about famous people I didn’t know had connections to Mormonism and one about the Mormon basis for Battlestar Galactica. These are minor quibbles to be sure, and I wholeheartedly recommend the book whether you plan to invite in the next missionaries to ring your doorbell or you just want a little more insight into what Mormons actually believe.

***

Rich Wilson concluded that he was wrong about Santa when he was four and has been trying to challenge his own beliefs ever since, with varying degrees of success. His biggest hope is that his son will be better than he is at figuring out what isn’t true.

The gang that terrorizes the internet

Published

PZ Myers

on May 21, 2013

Adam Lee has a nice summary of the Women in Secularism conference. However, he does reveal that we Ftbullied him into talking the picture below, which is a no-no. You were told not to tattle, Adam Lee. The next time we meet, expect a pantsing, or even a swirlie. Also, put your lunch money in an envelope and mail it to me right now.

Oh, and look — even more ftbullying! We’re all holding signs abusing the theocratic governments that jail atheist bloggers.

Lyle Shelton is my new Bestie

Published

Martin

on May 21, 2013

Well, or freak of the week, bigot of the decade, asshole of the century, you take your pick. Isn’t Australia a funny country. The atheist Prime Minister is a staunch denier of equality for same-sex partners, while the hardcore Christian … Continue reading →

SCA’s Morning Read for 5/21/13

Published

Lauren Anderson Youngblood

on May 21, 2013

SCA in the News
Secular Coalition: Daily Caller editor sent ‘Here’s a Dick pic’ email to spokeswoman (Raw Story)
The Secular Coalition for America on Monday dubbed Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller “the most unethical news publication,” after receiving what it described as “discriminatory and unethical emails” from an employee. The emails in question were sent by Christopher Bedford, a conservative columnist at the publication who also serves as an editor.

Tucker Carlson’s Staff Member Sends Dickish E-Mails To Secular Organization (News Hounds)
Not only is Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, as described by Jon Stewart, a “dick;” but one of his Daily Caller employees seems to be a chip off the old block.

The Wise Old Goat in a Flock of Sheep (CFI’s Morning Heresy)
Wowie-wow-wow-WOW. The already-loathsome Daily Caller outdoes itself by harassing and insulting one of our own. Read about the saga of SCA’s Lauren Anderson Youngblood and the “Dick pic” email from Christopher Bedford. You rock on, Lauren. <communications directors’ secret high-five-handshake>

Atheist group says The Daily Caller is the ‘most unethical news publication’ (Daily Caller)
The Secular Coalition for America announced Monday that they had named The Daily Caller the as “most unethical news publication” after receiving what they described as “numerous discriminatory and unethical emails” from Christopher Bedford, an associate editor at the publication.

Press Release: SCA Names The Daily Caller “Most Unethical News Publication”
The Coalition decided to issue the award as a lighthearted way of drawing attention to media bias against nontheists. The issue of media bias impacts the nontheistic community, but it is one area that is often ignored in discussions of discrimination against nontheists. The Freethought Society keeps a list of instances of media-related discrimination against nontheists, including stereotyping by the media.

http://secular.org/news/sca-names-daily-caller-most-unethical-news-publication

National
Supreme Court to hear case on prayer at government meetings (RNS and Scotus Blog)
The Supreme Court agreed Monday (May 20) to consider whether prayers can be offered at government meetings — a practice that’s been common in Congress and throughout the states for more than two centuries.

Movement Charity
Join the humanist response to the Oklahoma tornado
The Humanist Crisis Response program of Foundation Beyond Belief has opened a donation drive in response to the devastating tornado that swept through the Oklahoma City suburb of Moore and surrounding areas, flattening homes and two schools. Scores of severe injuries and deaths have been reported, and intense work is under way to find and rescue those trapped in the rubble.

Religion & Science
Can grief be a mental illness? With new diagnostic changes, maybe (RNS)
Some of those rely on faith to help them through their grief. Others look to psychiatrists, who offer therapy or prescribe antidepressants to help ease their patients’ pain. On Saturday (May 18), in a move that could add to the tension between religion and science, the American Psychiatric Association changed a controversial diagnosis regarding how grief relates to mental health.

World
A distressing map of religious freedom around the world (Washington Post)
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has issued a report highlighting those it calls the worst violators of religious freedom in the world. Among them are many Asian and Middle Eastern governments, although some Western European countries are also included.

If a City Council’s Invocation Prayers Are Almost All Christian, Is It Illegal? The Supreme Court Will Soon Decide

Published

Hemant Mehta

on May 21, 2013

Just over a year ago, I was celebrating a major court victory that put a stop to virtually non-stop Christian prayers at the city council meetings in Greece, New York. Now, that decision is back up in the air.

Here’s the story (pretty much as I wrote it then): The town of Greece, New York had opened board meetings with prayers since 1999 thanks to Town Supervisor John Auberger. While the invocations could be delivered by representatives of many different faiths, virtually all of the representatives were Christian. They still are (PDF):

In 2008, two residents of the town, Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens, spoke out against this practice. It worked! Non-Christians delivered the invocation at four out of the next twelve meetings. Then, assuming the women were satisfied, the City Council went back to almost-entirely Christian prayers.

Between 1999 and 2010, there were approximately 130 invocations and it appeared that all but four had been delivered by Christians.

Initially, a district court dismissed Galloway and Stephens’ case, saying that the fact that representatives from different denominations were invited to deliver the prayers meant that the town wasn’t pushing Christianity on its citizens.

But last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed that ruling (PDF). Victory!

In practice, Christian clergy members have delivered nearly all of the prayers relevant to this litigation, and have done so at the town’s invitation. From 1999 through 2007, every prayer-giver who gave the invocation met this description. In 2008, after Galloway and Stephens had begun complaining to the town about its prayer practice, nonChristians delivered the prayer at four of the twelve Town Board meetings. A Wiccan priestess and the chairman of the local Baha’i congregation each delivered one of these prayers, and a lay Jewish man delivered the remaining two. The town invited the Wiccan priestess and the lay Jewish man after they inquired about delivering prayers; it appears that the town invited the Baha’i chairman without receiving such an inquiry. However, between January 2009 and June 2010, when the record closed, all the prayer-givers were once again invited Christian clergy.

…

We conclude, on the record before us, that the town’s prayer practice must be viewed as an endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint. This conclusion is supported by several considerations, including the prayer-giver selection process, the content of the prayers, and the contextual actions (and inactions) of prayer-givers and town officials. We emphasize that, in reaching this conclusion, we do not rely on any single aspect of the town’s prayer practice, but rather on the totality of the circumstances present in this case.

The town’s process for selecting prayer-givers virtually ensured a Christian viewpoint. Christian clergy delivered each and every one of the prayers for the first nine years of the town’s prayer practice, and nearly all of the prayers thereafter. In the town’s view, the preponderance of Christian clergy was the result of a random selection process.

So that’s where we stood last May. It was obvious that the town of Greece was promoting Christianity at their meetings. It was illegal. It should have been the end of the story. Of course, the (Christian) Alliance Defense Fund was going to appeal the ruling, but that had a snowball’s chance in hell of happening, right?

As we found out yesterday, snowballs exist in hell.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari (PDF) to the case, meaning they will hear the arguments and decide whether to accept the Court of Appeals’ ruling or overturn it:

As the SCOTUS Blog notes, the issue at hand here is:

Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a legislative prayer practice violates the Establishment Clause notwithstanding the absence of discrimination in the selection of prayer-givers or forbidden exploitation of the prayer opportunity.

Or, in other words, even though there wasn’t outright discrimination at work here — it’s not like they said only Christians could deliver the invocations — did the City Council still violate the Constitution?

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the City Council, Christian prayers are going to be heard at city councils around the country. One of the reasons they don’t happen everywhere now is precisely because the local governments don’t want to open the door to atheists and Muslims and Wiccans and other non-Christians.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State is, of course, urging the court to uphold the Court of Appeals’ ruling (they defended Galloway and Stephens):

“A town council meeting isn’t a church service, and it shouldn’t seem like one,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Government can’t serve everyone in the community when it endorses one faith over others. That sends the clear message that some are second-class citizens based on what they believe about religion.”

Not in question here is whether the invocations should be allowed in the first place. In general, the courts have ruled that non-sectarian invocations are permissible (see Marsh v. Chambers). But non-sectarian means not just Christian, and the town of Greece has clearly violated that ideal. I would hope Christian groups join our side, too. Not that it matters how many groups are on our side, but it would make very clear that this is not a case of Atheists versus Christians. This is a case between those of us who think the government ought to stay neutral with respect to religion versus those who think the Christian majority should be able to get special privileges because of their faith.

It seems likely that the conservative bloc (Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia) will support the Christian prayers. But which way will swing justice Anthony Kennedy vote? Think Progress took a stab at that one:

Kennedy has held that “government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise,” but it is not clear that he would forbid much else under the Constitution’s ban on government establishment of religion. By the end of the next Supreme Court term, however, it is very likely that his views will carry the day.

So… they don’t really know either. The Establishment Clause is up in the air and we have no idea where it’ll land. That should freak all of us out.

Here’s the upside to all of this: This is one of those cases that unites our community without exception — virtually all of the atheist and church/state separation groups will submit amicus briefs when the time comes; a few may sit out, but no one will oppose this. None of the groups want to see a government that promotes atheism. We want the government to leave decisions about faith to private citizens and we don’t want local city councils deciding that their official religion is Christianity, even in practice if not in policy.

How To Tangibly and Efficiently Help The Tornado Victims…

Published

Daniel Fincke

on May 21, 2013

Foundation Beyond Belief has done careful emergency research in order to identify the charities they think will most tangibly and efficiently help those whose lives are right now overturned by tornados in Oklahoma. Your donations through them not only have the likelihood of being maximally effective. They will send the message that atheists care and can mobilize disaster relief, dispelling a common slanderous assumption.

Catholic Church takes on reproductive rights in Philippines, risks further alienation

Published

Richard Dawkins Foundation

on May 21, 2013

Activists supporting the Reproductive Health Law hold a protest in Manila on March 19, 2013. The Philippines' highest court suspended a birth control law that had met fierce opposition from the powerful Catholic Church. (Noel Celis/AFP/Getty Images)

Upset over a new law that provides poor Filipinos with easier access to birth control methods, Catholic Church leaders threw their weight around ahead of the May 13 midterm elections — but they miscalculated their heft.

Update on Helping the People Affected by the Oklahoma Tornado

Published

Hemant Mehta

on May 21, 2013

Yesterday, I posted about what the Foundation Beyond Belief is doing to help the people in Oklahoma and I wanted to give you more of a detailed update.

Foundation Beyond Belief will be distributing 100% of the funds raised to Operation USA and the Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma with more beneficaries added as the nature of the immediate need evolves. The money will be sent to these groups every 1-2 days for the first week.

These organizations were chosen for their long records of outstanding work, their high ratings and transparency, and their current direct work in the disaster zone addressing the primary needs of food, shelter, and medical aid.

You can donate by going here.

In addition, We Are Atheism is also raising funds that will be directly distributed to the people affected:

How can we guarantee this will go directly to people that need assistance? Well, for the first time since we started this charity, we plan to hand deliver aid to people in that town once the rescue workers leave and people try to rebuild their lives. We have local contacts that will assist us in finding those in need. We will physically spend up to a week there (if need be) to help give money and help to those that need it but haven’t gotten it.

You have options. Now, it’s time to take action.

Bad arguments about agnosticism

Published

Paul Wright

on May 21, 2013

“It’s arrogant to claim to be an atheist, since you can’t know that God (or gods) does not exist. It’s much more intellectually respectable to be an agnostic.”

I’ve come across that sort of claim in a couple of places on the net recently. What could it mean? Time for another post in the series on bad arguments.

Bad argument: Atheists must show beyond all doubt that ChristianGod or MuslimGod doesn’t exist

Perhaps the speaker is some sort of conventional believer, like a Christian or a Muslim or whatever. They think that it’s up to someone calling themselves an “atheist” to demonstrate with that the Christian (or Muslim) God doesn’t exist, and do it so convincingly that there’s no possibility that the atheist could be mistaken. It seems the theist is either saying the atheist has got something wrong, or saying that nobody should call themselves an atheist.

Say that an atheist thinks that the Christian God probably doesn’t exist. The theist might claim that the atheist has reasoned wrongly in ignoring Christianity’s claims on them, because this is only “probably”, not “certainly”. But the theist’s claim relies double standard, since nobody else is held to that standard of certainty before they’re allowed to act on a belief (the conventional theist certainly isn’t). Possibly what’s going on here is that the theist thinks the atheist should be more like them: it looks like there are believers who argue the mere possibility that their belief is true justifies their continued faith. I’ve talked about the “virtue” of faith and discussed whether God might be fond of soft cheese before, so I won’t go into that again here.

(The famous atheists who are often called arrogant don’t claim certainty, of course.)

Perhaps the theist doesn’t think the atheist has been unreasonable (given the atheist thinks it’s unlikely that God exists, it’s fair enough that they don’t go to church or whatever), but thinks that people who haven’t attained certainty shouldn’t be defined as “atheists”. Luckily, the theist doesn’t get to define atheism.

Bad argument: An atheist must deny the existence of anything that anyone has ever called a god

“Well, I’ll say it simple: a god is someone with enough power to say ‘I am a god’ and make other people agree. Mortal wizard, lich, emperor, dragon, giant, leftover bit of chaos… it doesn’t really matter what it is underneath. What matters is that it has the strength to enforce its claims.”
- Rebel Theology, from Tales of MU (Tales of MU is basically “50 Shades of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons”, so be advised that some parts of the book are sexually explicit, although the linked chapter isn’t)

If The Man’s definition of a god is the one we’re using, it’s much more likely that there are gods (pretty certain, in fact, since people have probably convinced other people of their godhood at various points in history).

There are people who identify gods with love or the feeling they get from looking out into the night sky or with the quantum vacuum (trigger warning for physicists: linked post contains quantum woo-woo). In these cases it seems fine for the self-described atheist to say “that isn’t what I meant” or “I don’t dispute that those things might/do exist, but it seems silly to call them gods”.

Some statements which look as if they’re claims about the existence of gods end up saying nothing more than an atheist might say, with some god-talk tacked on purely as decoration. As Simon Blackburn’s lovely (and short) piece on Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion has it:

Philo the sceptic says that we cannot understand or know anything about a transcendent reality that explains or sustains the ongoing order of nature, while the theists like Demea say that we cannot understand or know anything about the transcendent reality, which is God, that explains or sustains the ongoing order of nature. Since the inserted clause does not help us in the least, the difference between them is merely verbal.

Cleanthes, the intelligent design theorist in the book, says that complete mystics are “atheists without knowing it”. Since some sophisticated theologians, like Hume’s Demea, call themselves theists, perhaps Cleanthes is a bit presumptuous. You can see his point, though: it’s odd that someone might be called a theist though they only differ from an atheist in calling some mysterious thingy “God”. Perhaps we should be a bit more resistant to the idea that anyone can “identify as” anything: that way lies Tumblr.

But we perhaps we shouldn’t assume that even people who go to church and say the Creed are assenting to a set of propositions (previously) or that their expectations of what will actually happen differ from those of an atheist (previouslier). If we still call those people theists, why not Demea?

Anyhoo: Philo and Demea are both agnostics (“we cannot … know”) about something, but just because Demea has called it “god”, it’s not clear that Philo couldn’t justly claim to be an atheist (though in the book, he doesn’t, of course).

Good argument: you can’t know what’s out there

Philip Pullman said:

Can I elucidate my own position as far as atheism is concerned? I don’t know whether I’m an atheist or an agnostic. I’m both, depending on where the standpoint is.

The totality of what I know is no more than the tiniest pinprick of light in an enormous encircling darkness of all the things I don’t know – which includes the number of atoms in the Atlantic Ocean, the thoughts going through the mind of my next-door neighbour at this moment and what is happening two miles above the surface of the planet Mars. In this illimitable darkness there may be God and I don’t know, because I don’t know.

But if we look at this pinprick of light and come closer to it, like a camera zooming in, so that it gradually expands until here we are, sitting in this room, surrounded by all the things we do know – such as what the time is and how to drive to London and all the other things that we know, what we’ve read about history and what we can find out about science – nowhere in this knowledge that’s available to me do I see the slightest evidence for God.

So, within this tiny circle of light I’m a convinced atheist; but when I step back I can see that the totality of what I know is very small compared to the totality of what I don’t know. So, that’s my position.

This seems fair enough. But often criticism of atheists is phrased like this:

Bad argument: you can’t know that there isn’t an X out there

where “an X” is some particular thing which would be hard to detect, like an immaterial being who made stuff but then doesn’t intervene, say. The problem with this is that the speaker hasn’t got enough evidence to even suggest X. Sure, we can’t rule out X, but what about Y or Z or a vast number of other possibilities? Why mention X as something special to be agnostic about? Often it’s because X looks like a god from a conventional religion, tweaked to be even less detectable. But that’s no reason to think that X is especially likely to exist. The error here is called privileging the hypothesis.

To anticipate a possible objection: a lot of people saying “I believe in X” may provide evidence to differentiate it from Y and Z. But we need to be careful about what X is here, as the range of things that people refer to as “god(s)” is pretty wide. Some gods (the conventional theist ones) have a whole lot of believers but have good arguments against their existence, so claims that an atheist who accepts those arguments should call themselves agnostic about those gods seem to be you must prove it beyond doubt arguments. “I believe in gods which are invisible gremlins in the quantum foam: you can’t show that those don’t exist” is privileging the hypothesis.

Originally posted at Name and Nature. You can comment there. There are currently comments.

So…that’s rape culture, all right

Published

PZ Myers

on May 21, 2013

The normalization of rape continues apace.

Three teenagers face sex assault charges after they raped a 12-year-old girl at gunpoint and posted a video of the December attacks on Facebook, prosecutors said.

Scandale Fritz, 16, Kenneth Brown, 15, and Justin Applewhite, 16, were all ordered held in lieu of $900,000 bail in a hearing today before Criminal Court Judge James Brown, said Cook County state’s attorney spokeswoman Tandra Simonton. The three were charged as adults.

That’s not just dumb, it’s a problem of attitude: now raping a 12 year old girl is something so amusing, something to be proud of, to the point where rapists are sharing videos of their criminal attacks on facebook.

I’m curious to know if they were surprised when police officers showed up at their door, and I’d love to know what kind of excuses they offered.

From ocean to land: The fishy origins of our hips

Published

Richard Dawkins Foundation

on May 21, 2013

Beryx decadactylus skeleton by Albert C. L. G. Günther (Wikimedia Commons)

New research has revealed that the evolution of the complex, weight-bearing hips of walking animals from the basic hips of fish was a much simpler process than previously thought.