In the past two months a couple of events have kept me laughing about the silliness of those who believe without really thinking about their beliefs. A religious coworker and a Jesus door to door sales lady have given me much amusement.

A few months ago I was working in an office where one coworker kept making religious references in almost every conversation. I didn't say anything but he started assuming that I was a Christian that agreed with him. How presumptuous. After a week, it was time to end that assumption.

He started saying some creationist ideas about the Earth being only a few thousand years old. I said that I did not agree with that. The evidence shows a universe and Earth that are billions of years old. He then stated that he believed that every word in his bible was true. I asked him how he knew that it was true.

His reasons were that he believed the supernatural was true and that prophecies from the old testament foretold Jesus. The boss walked in at that moment and asked what we were discussing. I found out later from my boss that my coworker had been in trouble before for bothering people about religion. I replied that my coworker was trying to convince me that the supernatural existed. The boss laughed, letting me know that he was sympathetic to my point of view.

I replied to my coworker that the old testament prophecies were useless because the writers of the new testament had those writings available to them when they wrote the new testament. That was the simplest explaination. He said that he had never thoughtful it that way and would look this up. He never came back with another explaination.

For the next couple of weeks my coworker kept making these strange passive aggressive remarks about me going to hell when I died. I finally got tired of this one day, so it was time to teach this person a lesson, the parable of the abusive husband.

After he made his little remark, about burning in hell, I said that how could that possibly describe a loving god? That this was like a man being thought of as a good husband but he tells his wife that if she does not tell him that she loves him, then he would lock her up in the basement and torture her. How can this possibly be considered "loving"?

He made a little strangled sound, but made no reply. He never made those remarks about hell again. I thought the boss was going to high-five me.

Last Friday I was expecting a couple friends to come over. The doorbell rang and I answered it. There were two ladies in their 20s, dressed up and carrying their bibles like magic talismans. One woman started by saying "God is not responsible for natural disasters." She then quoted something from John and from Timothy. Then she started with hinting that "dark forces" caused bad things. I guess she was talking about demons and the devil. Who knows? Perhaps like Voldemart, you can't say it out loud?

I asked her if God created everthing. She answered in the affirmative, that yes he created everything. I asked the obvious "If he created everything, doesn't he also create disasters as well?"

She replied somewhat uncertainly that she had never thought of it that way. I wanted to discuss this further, but she quickly stated that it looked like I was busy with my daughter and that they must be going and they must leave now. Hopefully they won't come back. I shut the door and busted out laughing when I discovered that I had forgotten that I was wearing a set of fuzzy purple antennas that my daughter had put on me earlier.

Just as I found that I have more time for blogging, one of my hard drives on my computer decides to go belly up. I will have to post using my phone. It's a rather slow way to post. The picture is not my computer, but illustrates my frustration.

"There is a tipping point, at which, at which time, because of the sin of the land, the people then have to be displaced. But while this measure of wickedness is rising, the measure of faith in the church is rising. God is preparing a people to displace the ones whose sin is rising so that then they tip over and the church goes in - one is removed and the church moves in and takes the territory. Now, that does not mean that the people are removed, because God removes them from the Kingdom of Darkness into the Kingdom of Light. They are given an opportunity to change allegiances."

Simply stated, the movement teaches that their spiritual warfare directly impacts the natural world. Whether one believes that these prayer warriors actually achieve these results or not, the NAR has reached millions with the message that elimination of certain people, practices, and beliefs will ultimately result in the eradication of the societal problems which plague humanity. The apostles clearly and repeatedly state that their spiritual warfare is not limited to the cosmic world but is about changing the physical world. Additionally, they teach that God is providing direct and extrabiblical instructions to the apostles and prophets of the movement, something that I will discuss at greater length in the next article in this series on the NAR's brand of "apostolic government of the church."

I'm sitting here finally getting a chance to do some blogging while watching Curiosity, a new show on The Science Channel. This episode is hosted by Steven Hawking pondering if there is a god while surrounded by headlines where he is declared a heretic and he states that god is a fairytale. You can see the faint hint of a smile as he observes the headlines.

The entire episode is devoted to dispelling the god of the gaps argument. I was amazed that there was such a frank and open discussion about the question "Is there a god?" I highly recommend it. I love the conclusion.

I haven't been blogging much lately or this year. I sincerely hope to change this. There have been developments on my last story about being an atheist in the ultimate foxhole (Cheyenne Mountain), evangelical Christian chaplains and America's nuclear forces. If you think this is an explosive combination, I will be posting about an even more disturbing story. This story about a few military chaplains will be waiting for others to complete some possible legal actions before I can post anything yet.

City Officials Admit Violating Prayer Policy

By: Bob Wilson

LOS ANGELES - Lancaster officials on Tuesday acknowledged in federal court that the city twice violated its policy governing the selection of persons scheduled to offer invocations at City Council meetings.

They also acknowledged the city's prayer policy was authored by Vice Mayor Ron Smith, not City Attorney David McEwen.

The acknowledgments were part of testimony elicited by Roger Jon Diamond, an attorney representing two women who have sued Lancaster over its policy on invocational prayers.

The city's policy, adopted in August 2009, asserts intent to provide equal opportunity for representatives of all faiths to say prayers calling for divine guidance for the council at the beginning of its public meetings.

A decision on whether U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer will issue an injunction barring the city from allowing such prayers or, in the alternative, will issue a declaration stating at least one of those prayers was unconstitutional is pending.

The policy was the City Council's response to an April 2009 demand by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California that Lancaster officials put a stop to prayers being routinely offered in the name of Jesus Christ.

The lawsuit's plaintiffs, Shelley Rubin of Los Angeles and Maureen Feller of Lancaster, are seeking an injunction requiring the city to end its practice of allowing ministers and other church representatives from naming specific deities such as Jesus Christ when offering prayers at the beginning of government meetings.

If they fail to obtain an injunction, the plaintiffs are asking Judge Fischer to at least issue a declaratory judgment stating that an April 2010 invocation given by Bishop Henry Hearns was in violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the California constitution.

In his prayer, Hearns closed with, "In the precious, holy and righteous and matchless name of Jesus, I pray this prayer. Amen and amen."

The bishop's recitation of the prayer was displayed on a screen in Fischer's courtroom along with other invocations offered at Lancaster meetings.

Diamond told Fischer the city's prayer policy is a smokescreen meant to obscure its efforts to promulgate Christianity.

"Basically, the city is pushing an agenda of aligning itself with Christianity," Diamond said, pointing to a January 2010 address where Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris told a group of Christian ministers, "We're growing a Christian community, and don't let anybody shy away from that."

Even if the city is not taking a pro-Christian stance intentionally, it is failing to adhere to its own policy concerning how and when people are permitted to offer such prayers, he said.

Under questioning by Diamond, City Clerk Geri Bryan acknowledged that her written declaration that the city's policy had been unerringly followed was incorrect.

Instead of selecting a person at random to give the first invocation after city voters approved a referendum in support of the council's policy, Bryan said she invited Hearns to lead the prayer at the suggestion of Paul Chappell, pastor of Lancaster Baptist Church.

Chappell was supposed to give the April 27 invocation but ultimately could not, so Chappell asked that she invite Hearns to give a prayer in his stead, Bryan testified.

When asked how a Los Angeles-based member of the Sikh religion council came to offer the first invocation after the filing of the lawsuit against the city, Bryan said she was asked by City Manager Mark Bozigian to find a Jew, Muslim or Sikh to offer the prayer.

When asked if that move was contradictory to the city's prayer policy, Bryan said, "It is."

She found the Sikh minister through a contact provided by a member of the city's Planning Commission, she said.

When called as a witness, Parris said his use of the word "We" in the phrase "We're growing a Christian community" was intended to refer to efforts by himself and the ministers present at the January 2010 address and not to efforts by himself and others at City Hall.

Parris also said the comment was made "at a private meeting with the ministerial association that I paid for."

Supporting the growth of a Christian community "is not an official city position," Parris said.

The comment was made at a time "when Muslims were threatening one of our councilwomen," the mayor said.

Arguing for the city, attorney Alison Burns said previous federal cases have determined that prayers at the beginning of government meetings are constitutional.

Burns also said that as long as persons giving the prayers neither exploit the opportunity in an attempt to convert others nor disparage the faith or beliefs of others, the city cannot impose prior restraints on the language of those praying.

"The city has and is complying with the policy," Burns said. "The policy is now being followed to the letter."

Past errors should not be used as a basis for issuing an injunction against the rule, she said.

Instead, the city should be, at most, directed by the court to follow the rule, Burns said.

"If any (past) invocation did not follow (the city's) policy, it should not form a future restriction on the city of Lancaster," she said.

The city can ask those who offer invocations to adhere to its policy, but it cannot retract the words of those who fail to do so, Burns said.

Diamond said the city's policy of allowing numerous prayer-givers the chance to possibly offend listeners of different religions was not a defense.

"This is not an isolated slip-up. They have a history of this sort of conduct over a long period of time," Diamond said. "The practice and custom in Lancaster is to violate the establishment (of religion) clause."

Diamond asked Fischer to provide the same ruling that was issued in a state-court case he won against the city of Burbank when it was allowing sectarian prayers in the name of Jesus Christ.

Fischer told Diamond she was not bound to follow decisions reached in state courts, including the one against Burbank.

"There is no (previous federal) case exactly on point" that serves as a precedent for the Lancaster lawsuit, "so we are swimming in new waters here," Diamond told Fischer. "It will be up to the court" to set the precedent, he said.

The judge agreed, noting that a precedent "would make my job easier."

"I will do the best I can," she said, noting that she had a prior matter on which to rule before turning her attention to Rubin v. Lancaster.

City Officials Admit Violating Prayer Policy

By: Bob Wilson

LOS ANGELES - Lancaster officials on Tuesday acknowledged in federal court that the city twice violated its policy governing the selection of persons scheduled to offer invocations at City Council meetings.

They also acknowledged the city's prayer policy was authored by Vice Mayor Ron Smith, not City Attorney David McEwen.

The acknowledgments were part of testimony elicited by Roger Jon Diamond, an attorney representing two women who have sued Lancaster over its policy on invocational prayers.

The city's policy, adopted in August 2009, asserts intent to provide equal opportunity for representatives of all faiths to say prayers calling for divine guidance for the council at the beginning of its public meetings.

A decision on whether U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer will issue an injunction barring the city from allowing such prayers or, in the alternative, will issue a declaration stating at least one of those prayers was unconstitutional is pending.

The policy was the City Council's response to an April 2009 demand by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California that Lancaster officials put a stop to prayers being routinely offered in the name of Jesus Christ.

The lawsuit's plaintiffs, Shelley Rubin of Los Angeles and Maureen Feller of Lancaster, are seeking an injunction requiring the city to end its practice of allowing ministers and other church representatives from naming specific deities such as Jesus Christ when offering prayers at the beginning of government meetings.

If they fail to obtain an injunction, the plaintiffs are asking Judge Fischer to at least issue a declaratory judgment stating that an April 2010 invocation given by Bishop Henry Hearns was in violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the California constitution.

In his prayer, Hearns closed with, "In the precious, holy and righteous and matchless name of Jesus, I pray this prayer. Amen and amen."

The bishop's recitation of the prayer was displayed on a screen in Fischer's courtroom along with other invocations offered at Lancaster meetings.

Diamond told Fischer the city's prayer policy is a smokescreen meant to obscure its efforts to promulgate Christianity.

"Basically, the city is pushing an agenda of aligning itself with Christianity," Diamond said, pointing to a January 2010 address where Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris told a group of Christian ministers, "We're growing a Christian community, and don't let anybody shy away from that."

Even if the city is not taking a pro-Christian stance intentionally, it is failing to adhere to its own policy concerning how and when people are permitted to offer such prayers, he said.

Under questioning by Diamond, City Clerk Geri Bryan acknowledged that her written declaration that the city's policy had been unerringly followed was incorrect.

Instead of selecting a person at random to give the first invocation after city voters approved a referendum in support of the council's policy, Bryan said she invited Hearns to lead the prayer at the suggestion of Paul Chappell, pastor of Lancaster Baptist Church.

Chappell was supposed to give the April 27 invocation but ultimately could not, so Chappell asked that she invite Hearns to give a prayer in his stead, Bryan testified.

When asked how a Los Angeles-based member of the Sikh religion council came to offer the first invocation after the filing of the lawsuit against the city, Bryan said she was asked by City Manager Mark Bozigian to find a Jew, Muslim or Sikh to offer the prayer.

When asked if that move was contradictory to the city's prayer policy, Bryan said, "It is."

She found the Sikh minister through a contact provided by a member of the city's Planning Commission, she said.

When called as a witness, Parris said his use of the word "We" in the phrase "We're growing a Christian community" was intended to refer to efforts by himself and the ministers present at the January 2010 address and not to efforts by himself and others at City Hall.

Parris also said the comment was made "at a private meeting with the ministerial association that I paid for."

Supporting the growth of a Christian community "is not an official city position," Parris said.

The comment was made at a time "when Muslims were threatening one of our councilwomen," the mayor said.

Arguing for the city, attorney Alison Burns said previous federal cases have determined that prayers at the beginning of government meetings are constitutional.

Burns also said that as long as persons giving the prayers neither exploit the opportunity in an attempt to convert others nor disparage the faith or beliefs of others, the city cannot impose prior restraints on the language of those praying.

"The city has and is complying with the policy," Burns said. "The policy is now being followed to the letter."

Past errors should not be used as a basis for issuing an injunction against the rule, she said.

Instead, the city should be, at most, directed by the court to follow the rule, Burns said.

"If any (past) invocation did not follow (the city's) policy, it should not form a future restriction on the city of Lancaster," she said.

The city can ask those who offer invocations to adhere to its policy, but it cannot retract the words of those who fail to do so, Burns said.

Diamond said the city's policy of allowing numerous prayer-givers the chance to possibly offend listeners of different religions was not a defense.

"This is not an isolated slip-up. They have a history of this sort of conduct over a long period of time," Diamond said. "The practice and custom in Lancaster is to violate the establishment (of religion) clause."

Diamond asked Fischer to provide the same ruling that was issued in a state-court case he won against the city of Burbank when it was allowing sectarian prayers in the name of Jesus Christ.

Fischer told Diamond she was not bound to follow decisions reached in state courts, including the one against Burbank.

"There is no (previous federal) case exactly on point" that serves as a precedent for the Lancaster lawsuit, "so we are swimming in new waters here," Diamond told Fischer. "It will be up to the court" to set the precedent, he said.

The judge agreed, noting that a precedent "would make my job easier."

"I will do the best I can," she said, noting that she had a prior matter on which to rule before turning her attention to Rubin v. Lancaster.

I've decided to give this blog a makeover. I'm now using Blogger's new templates and I like the look better. I've also included the link to Mojoey's huge atheist blog list.

Social transformation can be defined as the process of large scale change for an environment where a shift occurs in the consciousness, in attitudes and values of a community or society (whether local, state, national or global). Scientific discoveries can cause social transformation as can religious movements (such as the great awakening of New England) or governmental policy (such as the end of apartheid in South Africa). Faith-Based Social Transformation is the process of positively changing an environment for the better using faith-based principles. This includes efforts to positively influence a nation’s culture by working to improve the values-based systems and ethical mindsets in its key strategic fronts, spheres or “mountains” — business, government, education, media, arts & entertainment, religion and family.

Bits of the film were almost unbearable to watch: four- and five-year-old children, terrified out of their wits during church excommunications; young children horribly scarred by the beatings and torture that are used to extract "confessions" of their Satanic allegiance; the utterly empty eyes of a five-year-old girl called Mary who had been abandoned after her mother died and she was blamed for causing the death by a local preacher. The only saving grace was the presence of Gary Foxcroft and his Nigerian colleagues, who run a local charity, Stepping Stones, to look after the traumatised victims of these poisonous superstitions. Those confronted with their cruelty are not ashamed but adamant that they have done the right thing. "I want to kill that small girl," declared a grinning man, when Gary attempted to reunite one foundling with her mother. As her neighbour waved his machete, chuckling, the little girl's features smeared into utter terror. She knew he meant it.

Located in southeastern Nigeria, Akwa Ibom State claims to have more churches per square mile than any other place on the planet.

But a dark side exists to the pious surface: A virulent strain of Christian Pentecostalism, blended with native beliefs, inspires hysteria when bad fortune or illness befalls the area, with preachers and families branding children witches.

The United Nations Children's Fund estimates that tens of thousands of innocent children have been targeted throughout Africa, including 15,000 in Akwa Ibom State alone.

Directed by Mags Gavan and Joost van der Valk and narrated by Sophie Okonedo (“Hotel Rwanda”), Saving Africa's Witch Children exposes the grimly appalling treatment of children deemed witches, and chronicles the work of two men who have devoted their lives to helping those ostracized by their communities.

To the superstitious in Africa, no event has a natural, causal or scientific reason. Any tragedy – disease, miscarriage, unemployment or death in the family – is considered the work of witches.

And defenseless children, sometimes as young as three months, can be scapegoated and subjected to horrifying punishments. The lucky are merely ostracized by their families and left to fend for their own, while others are tortured through a myriad of methods, from being set afire to having nails driven into their skulls, or simply murdered.

Says Foxcroft, “It is an absolute scandal. Any Christian would be absolutely outraged that they are taking the teachings of Christ to exploit and abuse innocent children.” The documentary includes footage of children from Foxcroft’s shelter being threatened by angry locals. He adds, “It’s really difficult not to lose your temper when you’re just in the face of pure bloody hatred, and then they say, ‘Oh, I’m a Christian.’ ”

Gavan and van der Valk expose the work of “Bishop” Sunday Ulup-Aya, who charges families up to a year’s salary – in Nigeria, many survive on just a dollar a day – to “exorcise” children suspected of witchcraft, feeding them a toxin he calls a “poison destroyer,” which consists of alcohol, African mercury and his own blood. If families cannot pay his fee, he holds their children captive.

Saving Africa's Witch Children also reveals the disturbing activities of one of Nigeria’s wealthiest evangelical priestesses, Helen Ukpabio of Liberty Church, who has created books and films decrying witchcraft.

Social transformation can be defined as the process of large scale change for an environment where a shift occurs in the consciousness, in attitudes and values of a community or society (whether local, state, national or global). Scientific discoveries can cause social transformation as can religious movements (such as the great awakening of New England) or governmental policy (such as the end of apartheid in South Africa). Faith-Based Social Transformation is the process of positively changing an environment for the better using faith-based principles. This includes efforts to positively influence a nation’s culture by working to improve the values-based systems and ethical mindsets in its key strategic fronts, spheres or “mountains” — business, government, education, media, arts & entertainment, religion and family.

Bits of the film were almost unbearable to watch: four- and five-year-old children, terrified out of their wits during church excommunications; young children horribly scarred by the beatings and torture that are used to extract "confessions" of their Satanic allegiance; the utterly empty eyes of a five-year-old girl called Mary who had been abandoned after her mother died and she was blamed for causing the death by a local preacher. The only saving grace was the presence of Gary Foxcroft and his Nigerian colleagues, who run a local charity, Stepping Stones, to look after the traumatised victims of these poisonous superstitions. Those confronted with their cruelty are not ashamed but adamant that they have done the right thing. "I want to kill that small girl," declared a grinning man, when Gary attempted to reunite one foundling with her mother. As her neighbour waved his machete, chuckling, the little girl's features smeared into utter terror. She knew he meant it.

Located in southeastern Nigeria, Akwa Ibom State claims to have more churches per square mile than any other place on the planet.

But a dark side exists to the pious surface: A virulent strain of Christian Pentecostalism, blended with native beliefs, inspires hysteria when bad fortune or illness befalls the area, with preachers and families branding children witches.

The United Nations Children's Fund estimates that tens of thousands of innocent children have been targeted throughout Africa, including 15,000 in Akwa Ibom State alone.

Directed by Mags Gavan and Joost van der Valk and narrated by Sophie Okonedo (“Hotel Rwanda”), Saving Africa's Witch Children exposes the grimly appalling treatment of children deemed witches, and chronicles the work of two men who have devoted their lives to helping those ostracized by their communities.

To the superstitious in Africa, no event has a natural, causal or scientific reason. Any tragedy – disease, miscarriage, unemployment or death in the family – is considered the work of witches.

And defenseless children, sometimes as young as three months, can be scapegoated and subjected to horrifying punishments. The lucky are merely ostracized by their families and left to fend for their own, while others are tortured through a myriad of methods, from being set afire to having nails driven into their skulls, or simply murdered.

Says Foxcroft, “It is an absolute scandal. Any Christian would be absolutely outraged that they are taking the teachings of Christ to exploit and abuse innocent children.” The documentary includes footage of children from Foxcroft’s shelter being threatened by angry locals. He adds, “It’s really difficult not to lose your temper when you’re just in the face of pure bloody hatred, and then they say, ‘Oh, I’m a Christian.’ ”

Gavan and van der Valk expose the work of “Bishop” Sunday Ulup-Aya, who charges families up to a year’s salary – in Nigeria, many survive on just a dollar a day – to “exorcise” children suspected of witchcraft, feeding them a toxin he calls a “poison destroyer,” which consists of alcohol, African mercury and his own blood. If families cannot pay his fee, he holds their children captive.

Saving Africa's Witch Children also reveals the disturbing activities of one of Nigeria’s wealthiest evangelical priestesses, Helen Ukpabio of Liberty Church, who has created books and films decrying witchcraft.

Anna,
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Below are my answers to your questions. Thank you again.
Chaplain (LTC) Robert Nay

1) What was your working relationship with Rabbi Goldman? Very professional. We both were Captains in a Corps Support Group.

2) What was your impression of the working environment of non-Christian chaplains at Ft Stewart? Commanders and Chaplains were very sensitive to non-Christian chaplains and provided for the free exercise of all faith groups.

3) Rabbi Lapp is quoted in the article that he was aware of anti-Semitic remarks directed towards Rabbi Goldman by yourself and others. These allegations were supported by the Army's own investigation. What happened? I never saw the army investigation and I am not aware of any anti-Semitic comments made at Fort Stewart.

4) What happened at the mandatory interfaith prayer breakfast in 2001 where the Nazi uniforms and swastikas were displayed? It was reported that inappropriate jokes were made and no one made any attempt to stop it.
First, the interfaith prayer breakfast was not mandatory. Second, there were not any Nazi uniforms or swastikas at the prayer breakfast. There were historical U.S. uniforms. I did not hear any inappropriate jokes at the prayer breakfast.

5) What has been the reaction of people that know you to the story?
At the time, it was very embarrassing that a Chaplain went AWOL at a time of war.

6) What are you doing now? Other than the letter to the Jewish Voice, what are you doing to explain what happened? And why after 3 years did you contact me to explain your version on the events that happened? Have you offered you version of events to Mr. Leopold? He writes that you hung up on him when he called you for comment. Several years ago, the head of Public Affairs for the U.S. Army told us that we have a right to correct falsehoods in the media and in blogs. Since that time I approached those who ran the article from Truthout.org. News agencies such as Salon have removed Jason’s articles in the past because of his questionable sources. Jason has every right to conduct his research and provide the facts and his analysis. I respect those news agencies that have provided my unedited comments or have removed his false article. The reason why I contacted you, is that your blog is being used by spam to bring an old false article to the top of the search engine. Jason’s article brings a very embarrassing moment for Rabbi Goldman, but also a very painful moment for me and this is why. My life has been devoted to remembering the victims of the Holocaust.

7) Do you think the Public Affairs office at Ft Stewart did you a favor by declining to comment on the matter? Do you think it hurt or helped matters by not talking to Jason Leopold? I cannot comment what Fort Stewart did or didn’t do. I can tell you that Jason never called me. My question to Jason and others who initially ran with the story is where is the law suit you said was in the works? The fact that it has been almost ten years since Rabbi Goldman went AWOL, and over three years since Jason’s article there is no law suit because there is no case. Rabbi Goldman went AWOL because he ran from the new Hamon. Proof that he didn’t care about the victims of the Holocaust and when it came to defending them again, he ran.

8) I will be checking out your story with others who are familiar with it. I will also have their comments as well in the story, but I will place your answers as they are in my post. Will this make you uncomfortable? I will also give you a chance to rebut anyone as well. Thank you for posting my answers.

Hi Bob

Sorry to be so late getting back to you, but to be honest, your last email has me a bit perplexed. I would be happy to take up your invitation should I be in the Fort Lee area.

"Personally I believe that the chaplaincy is perhaps a very visible representation of the freedom and toleration we have in our country. We have many different faith groups working along side one another, respecting the differences yet not forcing no one to compromise.

I agree with the above completely, but your next paragraph is somewhat confusing.

"In contrast to this, I believe that our current enemy with the war on terror who believes in only one faith with no toleration of others, or those who do not allow any faith but the faith of secular humanism, both of these enemies, foreign and domestic do not believe in freedom and toleration."

You seem to be equating non-religious humanists with murderous Islamic bomber cultists. Why? Is it because the secular humanists are non-religious or is it because they are humanists?

I would think that as a chaplain that you would remember that many religious groups have a basis in humanism. In Christianity, this is reflected in such denominations such as the Quakers and other such groups that are works based. This is also reflected in the sermon on the mount and the story of the loaves and the fishes in the Bible.

Humanism is simply the position that people are more important than dogma or ideology.

Or are you claiming that simply being non-religious makes someone an enemy of the state? Or is it the label "secular"? Because remember, someone can also be for a secular government and be religious as well. The founding fathers are an excellent example of a group of men ranging from the nearly non-religious like Jefferson to highly religious men getting together to create a secular government (i.e. a government not run or controlled by a religion).

And what about other groups that are explicitly "secular humanist" like Humanistic Judaism? When some of my relatives go to temple at a Humanistic Jewish Synagogue are they enemies of the state as well? And what about the 10 percent of the US population and 21 percent of the Armed Forces that identifies as non-religious, are they enemies as well?

You sound like a nice guy, but I sincerely hope that you don't get seduced by the easy answers and scapegoating that is found in conspiracy theories. My husband watched a friend get involved with a sovereign citizen group, stopped paying his taxes, go to prison, get out of prison, and ended up alone in a run down house surrounded by books and magazines all espousing conspiracy thinking. It seems once you succumb to that sort of thinking, all conspiracies seem believable.

Sincerely,

Anna

Hi Bob

I plan to update my blog this weekend. What do you mean that "secular humanist have taken over the public square"? The public square usually means public property (owned by the taxpayers), not private property open to the public. Government owned property should always be neutral towards religion and it should not promote one belief system over another.

If one religion can place their message in the public square, then all other beliefs and opinions can as well. In other words, if a courthouse posts the 10 commandments (which version?), then competing ideas can be posted as well. Perhaps it would be better for religious ideas to remain in the private square rather than being endorsed by the government in the public square.

Are you aware that the term "secular humanism" simply means a philosophy of humanism motivated by care for others instead of religious values or motivations? Someone can be considered a secular humanist and be religious as well. Now there are organizations such as The Council for Secular Humanism that advocate a moral non-religious stance. You say that you have endured persecution at the hands of secular humanists. Who has done this? What organization has done this?

Telling me that some secular humanist has somehow persecuted you sounds very improbable to me. You are in an organization where you are a member of the majority gender, majority race, and majority religion. You are in a position of authority within that organization as well. What happened? We in the non-religious community are fairly serious about calling out those members who are acting like jerks.

Now, MRFF has received many complaints about military superiors trying to coerce their subordinates into adopting the superior's beliefs. 96% of those complaints come from Christians. These complaints allege that the complainants (mostly mainline Christians) are having problems with other Christians, mainly from evangelical and charismatic denominations, not from the non-Christians. They are being told and judged as not being the right sort of Christian.

While I have had someone at a previous job place religious pamphlets on my desk and threaten to shoot me if I did not become a Christian. Luckily my boss stood up for me and the guy was transferred. I did not want him fired and later showing up at my door for revenge. This is not persecution but the actions of a bully and a bigot.

When I went through Air Force Officer Training school, we had a system of merits and demerits which could cancel each other out. You needed 5 merits to get off base privileges. I found out that if you went to Christian religious services, you could earn those merits. Non-Christian services did not count. There was not even an option of attending Unitarian services.

I went to a Methodist service with my roommate and mentioned this when I was there. There was also the chance of earning more merits for attending bible study, which I did. Needless to say, the chaplain ended up being a bit irritated by my questions. These questions were chosen because they would cause more questions and because they could not be answered easily. The chaplain asked why I was there and I answered that I was there because I both love to discuss theology and because of the merits. He told me he would give me the merits without church attendance. He seemed like an okay guy. I think he was uncomfortable with the whole merits for church attendance thing.

But I don't consider my self persecuted. I can work and carry on with my life without fear of getting put in prison or killed. My husband and myself are giving a friend of a former foster child of our a home until she graduates from high school. She was nearly killed by her brother because she is gay. He is a highly religious conservative evangelical christian who attempted to hurt his younger sister by running her over with his truck. It has taken her nearly a year to get over the trauma. She doesn't consider herself persecuted either. We have simply run into jerks and bigots.

As far as MRFF claiming conspiracy theories, I don't really think so. MRFF is simply trying to get the Armed Services to follow their own rules regarding religious coercion. The problems seem to be coming from senior officers and chaplains from a couple of endorsing agencies.

These agencies such as The Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches do not have college educated chaplains and they seem to regard military units as mission fields. These chaplains come from heavily charismatic denominations affiliated with the New Apostolic Reformation movement. Far from being some secretive conspiracy, this is a large religious movement with about 500 million adherents worldwide. Most members of this movement would probably be appalled with the behavior of some of their leaders such as Jim Ammerman. He leads The Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches and preaches hate and anti-government conspiracy theories. Check him out and you will see full on crazy.

Sorry for the long letter, but wanted you to see where I am coming from and some background information.

Thanks,

Anna

"Belief in God is a foundational factor. Once you do away with God as a given truth, all other things are immediately affected by that. For instance, once God does not exist you suddenly have no reference to greatness outside of yourself, and no 'revelation' outside of yourself. The greatest thing in life suddenly becomes something or someone else, like yourself perhaps. ..."

"Only my goodness can help me contribute to the betterment of my unit or team. When I realize that sin is an agent, I can more quickly identify my own tendency to corrupt a group and bring havoc to what needs cohesion and team confidence. My sin can also make my agenda more important than my unit's agenda and thus lead to unit failure."

Fight the Real Fight. Sin is irrelevant in today's world, but it still makes its impression on each of us.

The age old problem of sin is undertaken in a way to enable the reader to understand it without defining sin for each person. Ultimately, there is no list of sins any greater than another list. We all have issues specific issues with regard to our sin both personally and judicially before God. We should realize that sin is normal and is the reason we are entitled to God's grace so freely. Without sin, we'd be perfect. It is part of our makeup and we must understand it to live better.

What types of sexual activities turn you on?
Giving Oral Sex, Threesomes, Mutual Masturbation, Voyeurism

Have you ever had cybersex?
I've done it so many times that I've forgotten how to type with two hands.

Phil Plait - Don't Be A Dick from JREF on Vimeo.

Some people are claiming I was saying we need to be milquetoasts. That’s ridiculous. I was very clear that anger has its place, that we need to be firm, and that we need to continue the fight.

Some were claiming they have a right to be dicks — I’m bemused by this, as of course you have that right. But that doesn’t mean it’s most effective, or that you should be one.

Others took issue with my initial question, asking how many people were "converted" to skepticism by having a skeptic yelling at them and insulting them. In fact, at least one person said that method does work and worked on them. That’s good for them, but given what we know about the way people argue and change their views on issues, the majority of people will become further entrenched when confronted in that way.

In other words, being a dick not only usually doesn’t work, it almost always works against the bigger goal of swaying the most people we can.

Perhaps I should have been more clear on what I mean by being a dick. I thought I had been clear, but a lot of people seem to think that I meant anyone who gets upset, or angry, or argues with emotion. I wouldn’t include satire in that category, or comedic work, or even necessarily using insults; tone and attitude count here. Think of it this way: when someone argues that way do you think to yourself, "What a dick"? I don’t; at least not necessarily. I think that way when the person belittles their opponent, uses obviously inflammatory language, or overly aggressively gets in their face.

Y’know. Being a dick.

Again, to be clear, I did not say we should back down when confronted. I did not say we should be weak against ignorance. I did not say we shouldn’t be angry. I did not say we should be passionless. In fact, I argued the exact opposite.

We need our anger, or strength, and our passion.

First of all, who is Phil talking about? This seems a bit quixotic and exaggerated to me. Where are these people who scream in your face on behalf of skepticism? Where are these people whose primary tactic is to yell at someone and call them a retard? Since Phil didn't provide any examples to support the claim, we can only guess.

Secondly, this is a prime example of a straw man argument - setting up an issue that is easily toppled instead of the actual issue. Not only has he not provided specific examples, or demonstrated that this is a significant problem, he seems to be engaging in an extremely flawed informal poll (read: emotional appeal) to get his point across. The first question is a fair skeptical inquiry (have you changed your mind about something?). The second question is about as far from it as one can possibly stray.