They’re absolutely right:

It’s odd, thinking about death while being an atheist. To understand that afterward, you are simply not.

Dawkins and Hitchens both know that what is coming is permanent. There is no happy ending, with no chance of reunion or redemption in some other plane. Death will be a final parting, permanent and absolute.

In that embrace, it’s not just that Hitchens means a great deal to Dawkins. It’s knowing that soon, they’ll be separated by eternity. And yet, in infinite time and space, two motes of consciousness, against unfathomable odds, simply had the opportunity to enjoy a brief lucidity of life and touch each other in some small way before returning forever to the endless naught.

Honestly, there is absolutely nothing more important than the realization that this life, the single life we have, is all and everything that we will ever have; when it’s over, it’s over. In a way, it gives life more sanctity and meaning than any religion could dream.

Are you getting excited?

(I’ll take your silence as a resounding “Yes!”)

When Stewie makes a new friend Scotty Jennings the Griffins invite him over for a play date. But when he collapses, they rush him to the hospital where they discover he has cancer. When his parents Ben & Hope arrive, Lois finds out that they refuse regular medical care and rely on the power of faith for healing. Lois is aghast at their refusal to get competent help. When she tries to confront them about getting professional help, they still refuse. When even Joe is unable to help, Lois decides to take matters into her own hands and kidnaps Scotty.

If there are any parts we should pay special attention to, please leave the timestamps in the comments!

Several of the singles from it have atheistic themes, including the song “The Future Goes“:

An excerpt from the lyrics (at the 1:14 mark):

So when we say that we’re better than you/ essentially that//
is to say that we pay attention to facts//
So come with us. We can teach you every attack//
the pseudoscientific mindset sets in a trap//
You will never go back/ Once you’re given the awe//
it’s grander than any caricature religion could draw//
I had a vision of all/ of us in a prison of straw men//
My mission is to make sure they ain’t winning this war//
So the battle lines are drawn in the sand/ ‘cos all that I am//
is a man/ shaping his logical thoughts to a plan/ Damn//
We need clear heads to get out of this mess//
So tell religious leaders step aside; it’s probably best/ Yes//

Who needs Gospel music when there’s Godless rapping to be spread?

Buy the album and keep this sort of thing going!

The blogger at Faithless and Fulfilled tells her story:

When I arrived at college I met people of many different faiths and people with no faith at all. I met normal, moral, happy people who happened to be atheist. The contradiction between what I’d been told about non-religious people, and the actual non-religious people I met was so stark, that I was forced to actually examine some of my beliefs. I began gradually, by simply allowing myself to question what I’d been taught. It took practice. At first I was overcome by guilt anytime I would permit myself to think, “Well, what if that’s wrong?” Eventually, though, once I truly opened my mind, all of the walls came tumbling down. I felt that I’d been duped. How could I have been so stupid? Religion was a bad joke and I’d fallen for it, hook line and sinker.

Over the next year, I began really developing my own ideals, morals, and purpose, and I slowly started speaking out. I use the label atheist, because I know it is a taboo. I want people to get to know me and to realize I am a normal, moral human being, and then learn… oh by the way, I also don’t believe in god. I truly believe the only way to change the negative stereotypes surrounding being an atheist, is to show that world that there are lots of normal atheists that contribute to the good of this country every day.

If you keep reading the initial post on her blog, though, you realize it’s not so easy for her to come out to her family. They’ve basically exiled her ever since she told them she didn’t believe in a god and wanted a secular wedding.

It’s rarely an easy journey.

My parents and I barely talk about this website and it’s been part of my identity for years now. They try to change the subject if I ever mention the site or that I’m traveling to speak somewhere. It took a long while for them to not be angry about it and now they sort of accept it. I’ll take that for now…

In any case, I’m keeping tabs on this blog because I want to see how F&F’s journey pans out. Hopefully, it’ll get better for her over time. It definitely helps to be out and proud about it online

Now they need you to vote on the one you want to see go up.

These are my personal favorites, though there are plenty more to choose from:

I would love to see any of those go up, but my vote’s for the top one (by Michael Tyznik).

It’s a series of short responses to the prompt “When I came out…”

Some of them are funny. Some are frustrating. Some are heartbreaking. But in all cases, there’s a common thread: If you’re still in the closet about your sexuality, know that there are other people going through the same thing. You’re not alone. There’s a lot of support for you out there.

And it all takes place in Michele Bachmann‘s district.

You might want some tissues…

“This isn’t something you kid about, Brittany,” her mom scolded, snatching the kitchen cordless and taking it down the hall to call the Johnsons. A minute later she returned, her face a mask of shock and terror. “Honey, I’m so sorry. We’re too late,” she said tonelessly as Brittany’s knees buckled; 13-year-old Sam had climbed into the bathtub after school and shot herself in the mouth with her own hunting rifle. No one at school had seen her suicide coming.

No one saw the rest of them coming, either.

…

With the adults thus distracted by endless policy discussions, the entire district became a place of dread for students. Every time a loudspeaker crackled in class, kids braced themselves for the feared preamble, “We’ve had a tragic loss.” Students spoke in hushed tones; some wept openly in the halls. “It had that feeling of a horror movie – everyone was talking about death,” says one 16-year-old student who broke down at Anoka High School one day and was carted off to a psychiatric hospital for suicidal ideation. Over the course of the 2010-2011 school year, 700 students were evaluated for serious mental-health issues, including hospitalizations for depression and suicide attempts…

It’s a tragic story, made worse by the fact that the people who could’ve done something for these kids were forced to remain silent (or, more euphemistically, “neutral”) when it came to the issue of homosexuality.

Even if you’re an anti-gay Christian “family” group, there’s a way to respond to an article like this.

You start by saying that the losses were tragic. That your heart goes out to the families of those children who felt there was no other option. That, despite your disagreements, every life is precious. That while you firmly oppose “promoting” homosexuality, there’s a difference between a clash of ideas and actual harassment.

I’m not saying I would accept that statement even if a Christian group made it, but at least it’d show an inkling of compassion…

So how did the Illinois Family Institute — a Christian group in the same vein as the Minnesota Family Council mentioned in the article — respond to the piece?

Well, let’s just say Laurie Higgins didn’t take my advice:

These activists pretend their ultimate goal is to end bullying, but only the naïve or ignorant believe that whopper. The truth is that they are exploiting legitimate anti-bullying sentiment in order to implement their politicized anti-bullying programs, all in the service of achieving their ultimate goal: the eradication of conservative moral beliefs about homosexuality.

If they can’t achieve that doctrinaire goal, they will reluctantly settle for bullying conservatives into silence. They will accept an America in which it is politically, legally, or socially impossible for conservatives to express the moral beliefs homosexual activists can’t eradicate, leaving homosexuals and their allies free to gambol about the public square with all their First Amendment rights intact.

…

Clearly, Erdely is not concerned with ending teen suicide. Her mission, pursued with messianic fervor, is to humiliate conservatives into submission by any unethical means necessary. Christians in Minnesota and other school districts around the country must not cower in fear.

Right. Because the Christian groups are the real victims here… How *dare* those liberals try to take away our right to tell gay people how worthless they are and why they need to be fixed? Why can’t they just have more tolerance for intolerance?

Higgins also spends time rationalizing all the awful events mentioned in the article. As if everything is negated because a few details weren’t included. This one may be the most disturbing:

Not once did Erdely suggest that the bullies were Evangelicals or motivated by Evangelical beliefs about homosexuality, which, by the way, are simply orthodox Christian beliefs widely held by the finest contemporary Protestant and Catholic theologians as well virtually all theologians in the history of Christendom until the late 20th Century.

Yeah! There’s no proof Christians were the bullies! Even though the “finest” Christian theologians of our time totally agree with the bullies’ beliefs…

Incidentally, the Rolling Stone article mentions a Naperville, Illinois high school. It happens to be the one I work at… Despite the context given in the piece, I feel like we provide a safe climate for LGBTQ students. If there was ever a problem in our school like the one at Anoka High School, I have no doubt many teachers and administrators would come to the defense of the victims and not the bullies. I know I would.

Too bad the “compassionate” Christian groups can’t do the same thing.

More information on the banner is here.

As far as I know, there hasn’t been any real media coverage about the banner…

That’s one of many things he says about Jesus in his most recent (and very entertaining) video… which also covers Tom Hanks and potato chips.

Check it out!

At Cedars-Sinai hospital in Los Angeles, though, one doctor — an atheist — is determined to help JWs suffering from advanced leukemia live, even though a blood transfusion is a common way to treat the problem.

Dr. Michael Lill, head of the blood and marrow transplant program at Cedars-Sinai’s Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, is a last recourse for Jehovah’s Witnesses with advanced leukemia.

They arrive at Lill’s door out of desperation and a desire to live. Many specialists decline to treat them because of their biblically centered refusal to accept blood transfusions, a mainstay of conventional care for the cancer.

Lill thinks their refusal is risky and illogical but nevertheless has devised a way to treat them that accommodates their religious convictions.

Despite his belief that God doesn’t exist, he has become a hero to many devout believers.

…

To avoid transfusions, Lill first builds up patients’ blood counts with medications. Then he limits blood loss during a regimen of chemotherapy and stem-cell transplants.

When he draws blood from patients to check their cell counts and organ function during treatment, he uses tiny pediatric tubes. He gives women a drug to suppress their periods and prescribes a hormone to boost red blood cells.

He has trained his staff in how to treat Jehovah’s Witnesses, and “No Blood” signs are posted in their hospital rooms.

As much as I don’t really want Dr. Lill caving in to irrational demands, I think this article speaks to his ingenuity. He’s found a way to give JWs hope where none existed before — though if the JWs would just accept the blood rather than act like God doesn’t want them to receive it, none of this would really even be an issue in the first place…

Side note for anyone interested: A few years ago, I wrote about the time I spent in medical school, where some of the case studies we discussed involved hypothetical scenarios featuring JWs not wanting blood transfusions.

After Camp Quest Northwest (in Washington state) raised $10,000 in 2011 to support their inaugural camp taking place later this year, the Humanists of North Puget Sound just doubled their funds by giving them a matching donation of $10,000!

According to an email press release:

“It made perfect sense for our two groups to join resources to support the camp,” said Robert Ray, Vice President of Humanists of North Puget Sound. “Camp Quest’s goals are very much in keeping with the values that we promote, especially our hope that reason and science will one day overcome superstition and outdated traditions.”

…

According to [President of Camp Quest NorthWest Chuck] Wolber, “We are deeply grateful for this matching gift from Humanists of North Puget Sound. These funds will be incredibly helpful, especially this year as we work toward our first Camp Quest NorthWest session, August 15-21, 2012.”

That’s a generous gift for a worthy cause. The presentation of the check was made over the weekend:

If you’d like to register your children for CQ NorthWest, you can do that now for an early bird rate! I’ve heard so many good things about Camp Quest in general and this is bound to be an equally wonderful experience for all the children who attend.

(Thanks to Jon for the link!)

Thankfully, he’s an excellent spokesperson, too: an activist who risks his life for our country, knowing that there’s no afterlife awaiting him:

Scheduled for 31 March, Rock Beyond Belief comes two years after another controversial concert at Fort Bragg, “Rock The Fort”.

Sponsored by the Billy Graham Evangelical Association, Rock the Fort was billed as an “evangelical event” with Christian bands, family activities, and an emphasis on spreading the gospel to the entire community.

Despite attracting criticism for hosting the event, the top brass at Fort Bragg said they would be willing do the same for an event thrown by a different religious group.

“So the next day, I raised my hand and said, ‘Fort Bragg, I’ve got an event’,” says Mr Griffith.

The concert was originally scheduled for 2011, but was postponed until his group could secure the same location as Rock The Fort: an outdoor field capable of hosting thousands of people, in view of the Main Post Chapel.

Though the Rock Beyond Belief concert is the most public of Mr Griffith’ s efforts to make the military more accepting of atheists, it is not his only one.

“We have a lot of work to do,” he says.

…

He’s also working to ensure that servicemembers can have “atheist” listed on their official military records.

“It took me a year and a half to get my records changed to atheist. When I told them I was atheist, they put ‘no religious preference’,” he says. “I told them that’s unacceptable. I do have a preference, and that’s atheism.”

I’m honored to be one of the speakers at the event. I plan to spend my time on stage screaming, “I’m not worthy! I’m nooooot wooooooorthy!”

But if there are any other messages you’d like me to pass along to the troops, please leave them in the comments.

So one local resident filed a lawsuit against the city with the help of the ACLU.

The city tried to have the lawsuit dismissed, but Judge Michael F. Urbanski has denied that dismissal. The case has merit, he says.

“Every time the plaintiff attends a board meeting and comes in direct contact with an overtly Christian prayer, she experiences a recurring First Amendment injury,” Urbanski wrote in his opinion.

The injunction is not permanent, but it does order the board to stop praying until the case is settled.

“This is an important first step,” said Kent Willis, the executive director of ACLU of Virginia. “With a very strong opinion from the judge indicating that we are legally on the right track.”

There’s just one caveat to the whole thing…

If “Jane Doe” wants to proceed with the lawsuit, she has to give up her anonymity:

According to Willis, the ACLU’s next steps are to speak with the plaintiff about how to proceed. They requested she remain anonymous because of the hostile environment over the issue and because she feared for her safety if her identity were released. “Jane Doe” is a county resident who regularly attends board meetings, Willis said.

“Given the degree of anger this lawsuit has engendered in Pittsylvania County, we are disappointed that the judge did not grant request for anonymity,” said ACLU of Virginia legal director Rebecca Glenberg in a news release. “We are consulting with our client about how to best proceed.”

The ACLU can appeal the judge’s decision denying anonymity, but if “Jane Doe” does not appeal or disclose her identity, there is no plaintiff and no case, according to Willis.

I’m sure there’s some legal reason for this — at least, I hope that’s why they’re forcing her to make herself known — but what an awful thing to make her do. In the wake of the Jessica Ahlquist ruling, we know just how tough it can be when you take on the religious establishment in a First Amendment case. By going public, Jane Doe would be opening herself up to potential harassment. She risks having her address made public by Christian bullies. And who knows if she has children in local schools who may face persecution of their own?

I don’t even know if she’s an atheist, but that doesn’t matter. Even if she’s a Christian, she’s trying to do the right thing and keep church and state separate. But God-Fearing Christians are never content with that. They love their public displays of faith and they feel justified going after anyone who wants to put a stop to it.

If Jane Doe makes herself known, though, I hope she knows that there are a lot of us out there who would watch out for her and come to her aid should anything happen. Certainly, there are many atheists in Virginia who would come to her side.

(Thanks to Tom for the link)

Mitt Romney’s religion, Mormonism, which is my former religion, having been a Mormon High Priest, like Mitt still is, is a far bigger issue than most people realize and understand. In our rush to avoid being accused of being bigoted, in America, we have a natural tendency to want to steer clear of this topic. I will be the first to agree that to be arbitrarily dismissive of a man’s candidacy for the office of President, or any office for that matter, on the basis of his religion is definitely bigoted. “Arbitrarily dismissive” is the key phrase here. In the case of Mormonism, we have a very unique situation. Questions about Mormonism for those fully informed of the very real issues are not in the least degree arbitrary. There are very real concerns that millions of former Mormons are very much aware of. This is not simply a question of subjective disagreements on points of faith that really can’t be proved or disproved anyway. In the case of the Mormon Church, I share the view with many others, including people far more scholarly and qualified in other ways than myself, that the Mormon religion is not only an insidious contemporary fraud, but has been demonstrated conclusively to be such by researchers who are alive today and competent to testify on the basis of evidence still available today. Accordingly, the questions that are most important and relevant to Mitt’s candidacy here, since he is a current High Priest of the Mormon Church, are not of religion, but very fair questions of ethics and judgment.

Sounds like a reasonable analysis of the situation. Romney doesn’t deserve to be excluded from running for the presidency based on his religious beliefs, but we deserve to know what aspects of Mormonism he adheres to because they help us understand his thought process and — let’s face it — his sanity.

So what does the Washington Post‘s Dana Milbank say about Park Romney?

Mitt Romney, [Park] claims, would be conflicted in office because “obedience to the leadership of the Mormon Church is part of the covenant of the temple ordinances to which Mitt Romney is absolutely a party.”

Were you to come across a man articulating such views on a street corner, you probably would give him a wide berth and look over your shoulder to make sure he wasn’t following you…

…

Every family has wacky relatives. The difference is, when you’re running for office and you become a famous name, your relatives’ surname becomes famous too — sometimes in unwelcome ways.

…

… the emergence of a “crazy cousin” might remind voters that Romney, a candidate who too often comes across as programmed, is just like the rest of us.

So, because someone dares to point out Mormon theology (regardless of whether or not Mitt Romney takes it seriously), he’s “wacky,” “crazy,” and accused of being “anti-Mormon” (in a bigoted way) rather than a critic of bad ideas and irrational thinking?

Park responds to the criticism here. (Admittedly, the layout of his website makes me think he’s kooky, anyway… but it’s not because of what he’s saying.)

Milbank seems to think if you critically examine religion, you’re being intolerant. He’s wrong.

People don’t understand Mormonism. That’s true. But right now, that’s only helping Mitt Romney. The moment people begin to learn what Mormon theology really consists of and how fucked up it really is, Mitt’s going to have a lot to answer to.

Side note: David Fitzgerald gave a great talk about Mormon theology at Skepticon 4 (start at the 1:00 mark):

(Thanks to Jamie for the link!)

(“But that doesn’t apply to *my* site,” said bloggers everywhere…)

The band, Bye June, conveys the message via shadow puppets and swans. The obstacle to the swans’ love? Not a surprise…

The lead singer/songwriter, Gil Kline, said this about the video:

“I wrote this song because my cousin is in 10 year relationship and he can’t marry his partner. They are so in love, and it angers me that politicians try to tell other people who to love and spend their life with”.

Damn right.

There’s a Facebook page dedicated to the Swan Pride movement and the stories on the wall (scroll down for them) are absolutely inspirational.

(Thanks to Paul for the link!)

Dave Silverman poses with 'The Village Atheist' sign - Jason Andrew/FT

I know, I know, you’ve heard all of this before. But a lot of people may not have and this article needs to come to their attention.

A couple of highlights:

The most extraordinary story I heard was from a woman in Tuscaloosa county, Alabama. She grew up in nearby Lamar county, raised in the strict Church of Christ, where there is no music with worship and you can’t dance. She says her family love her and are proud of her, but “I’m not allowed to be an atheist in Lamar County”. What is astonishing is that she can be pretty much anything else. “Being on crack, that was OK. As long as I believed in God, I was OK.” So, for example, “I’m not allowed to babysit. I have all these cousins who need babysitters but they’re afraid I’ll teach them about evolution, and I probably would.” I couldn’t quite believe this. She couldn’t babysit as an atheist, but she could when she was on crack? “Yes.” I laughed, but it is hard to think of anything less funny.

…

A report from the Pew Research Center last November showed that 53 per cent of Americans say it is necessary to believe in God to be moral. That is one reason why many are afraid of coming out, to the extent that both American Atheists and the American Humanist Association (AHA) will, on request, send mailings to members under plain covers. Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the AHA, says that even some of the committed rationalists who work in their Washington offices tell family that they work for a “humanitarian group”.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation also folds copies of their “newsletter,” Freethought Today, in such a way that the content isn’t visible unless you open the first page.

Even Playboy displays more of its cover than some atheist publications.

When I was growing up, I was the only atheist I knew. I had to get on my bike, ride to the public library and take out the one atheist book that they had in the whole library: The Case Against God by George Smith. Now any atheist can go on Facebook or Myspace and find literally millions of friends.”

That’s how much has changed in a decade. Even when I was in high school, the best resources for atheism I could find were shady AOL chatrooms or simplistic websites with more dry facts about atheism than interesting opinions.

Between books, the blogosphere, advertising campaigns, and the proliferation of local/campus atheist groups, it’s much harder to *not* find information about living without religion. Opinions criticizing Christianity are all over the place, even if they’re not always visible to the general public. The way to keep this momentum going is by encouraging others (and ourselves) to come out of the atheist closet. When the time is right, tell the people you trust that you don’t believe in god. At best, they’ll agree with you. Ideally, at worst, it’ll just be a non-issue.

(Thanks to everyone for the link!)

I dare you.

How many Christian lies begin with the words, “I know a true story…”?

(via Cynical-C)

That’s one of the seven videos selected by the Richard Dawkins Foundation as a finalist in their “Ten Point Vision of a Secular America” contest. Winner gets two plane tickets to the Reason Rally and an opportunity to meet Dawkins himself. You can vote for your favorite here!

Also, she loves the Jesus.

Reader Todd asks the same question that came to my mind as I watched the clip:

I give the young lady a great deal of credit for not falling victim to the pitfalls of becoming a fitness model by not succumbing to the pressures of taking legal steroids, but somewhere in all of this, Robin Roberts compliments Anna for wearing her faith on her sleeve and it made me think: I wonder how Robin would treat Anna were she Muslim and doing the same thing, or Buddhist or an atheist?

Anna’s faith is… a bit too Tim Tebowish for my tastes, and maybe I’m being a bit too harsh, but why is it that when people of Christian faith wear it on their sleeve, we instantly elevate their status and, in so doing, belittle the rest?

He’s right, and the implication that Christianity automatically makes you a better person is every bit as slanderous as saying there are no atheists in foxholes. It’s not true and news anchors/reporters should stop acting like it is.

When I first told my friends I was dating an actual Christian, they were all uppity about it: “Well, you have to respect someone’s religious views.” But when I mentioned he was abstaining from bedroom business for devout reasons, all of a sudden he was a total weirdo in their eyes (I’m patting myself on the back right now for being so open-minded). At first, it was a refreshing — almost romantic! — change from the norm, which usually involves the guy trying to seal that deal as soon as possible. But slowly, a feeling of insecurity started creeping over me…

…

Here’s a sliver of the type of conversation we’ve had more than once:

“Jesus used to say…” (boyfriend says)
“Please don’t quote Jesus. You know it makes me uncomfortable.” (me, all squirmy)
“I wish you would open your mind a bit more. You would be such a powerful Christian woman…” (him, being sincere)
“You’ll never convert me! I wish you would read Dawkins!” (me, in near tears)
“Jesus’s love for me is real.” (him, unwavering)
“I wish you would read Hitchens!” (me, in near tears)
“Jesus sacrificed for us. All of us.” (him, unwavering)
“You love him more than me.” (me, in tears)
“I do. I can’t help it.” (him, pious)

…

But nonetheless, here I am, wondering, should I just be a little less picky and let this one slide? Or is religion going to be a deal-breaker for me? The older I get, the fewer deal-breakers I want to have, because it’s not like it gets any easier.

Leave. Leave now. Leave now and never look back. This will not end well.

It’s not that a relationship between a religious and non-religious can’t work. But when the other person’s god becomes a higher priority than you — when anything becomes a higher priority than you — things are bound to come to a halt before long.

I didn’t always feel that way. I used to believe it was possible to date a theist as long as we shared the same values. But as I’m getting older, the way my significant other views the world rates higher and higher on the Priority List. I almost feel dirty saying it because it seems like I’m bordering on intolerance, but while I can get along just fine with religious friends and colleagues, I would probably lose some respect for the person I’m in a relationship with if she told me she was going to church, or praying during difficult times, or reading the Bible as a source for inspiration. For some reason, that same thought doesn’t apply to the other people in my life — if they’re religious, I don’t necessary lose respect for them. It just doesn’t faze me at all. But if that mutual respect isn’t there in a relationship, can you really build from there? I don’t know if I could (though I know plenty of couples who make it work).

If you are dating someone religious and it’s very serious, how do you make it work?

Incidentally, Jesse Galef once wrote about a slightly different question on this site: “Could you date someone who could date someone who is religious?”

(Thanks to Joseph for the link!)

The banner will read “Football beats church anytime – atheists.org.” The banner is scheduled to be in the air from 9:30-11:30 AM local time.

Dave Silverman, President of American Atheists, stated, “We took advantage of a unique opportunity to remind many Americans that their religion is not as important as they like to pretend it is. In many cities around the country the running joke is that football is the most popular religion.”

Mr. Silverman continued, “The banner will be seen by thousands of tailgaters, who clearly agree with American Atheists since they chose to sit on a tailgate instead of a pew. They chose to party with friends instead of praying with preachers.”

Silverman also paid for banners to fly over select cities last July.

Back then, many pilots refused to fly the banners, but there doesn’t seem to be much resistance this time around.

“We’re not two sides of the same coin, and you don’t get to put your unreason up on the same shelf with my reason. Your stuff has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus and Thor and the Kraken, with the stuff that is not evidence-based, stuff that religious people never change their mind about, no matter what happens.”

Side note: I have to be up at 5:00a tomorrow… it’s nearly 1:00a now… WHY AM I STILL AWAKE?!

Recently, Ernest Perce had Saccone on his show, “The Atheist’s Perspective on News and Events.” He also brought on FFRF’s Dan Barker

You *know* that debate was all sorts of heated… I haven’t had a chance to listen to the whole thing yet, so please leave timestamps of interesting parts in the comments! (Also, I know the audio is a little tough to listen to, but you get used to it pretty quickly.)

In other words, instead of banning such practices outright, this bill would allow a school to let students vote on whether or not a prayer could be delivered at a graduation. And since Christians are in the majority, sounds like an easy way to push your views on everyone else.

The bill passed through the Senate 31-8 on Wednesday.

Its approval came over the objections of senators who said the measure will lead to prayers at school events that students can’t get out of, including possibly in classes, and that some young students will have to listen to prayers or risk being ostracized because they come from a different religious tradition than most of their classmates.

“I implore you to protect minority students and not promote alienation,” said Sen. Eleanor Sobel, D-Hollywood. “We want our public school students to get along.”

But backers of the bill said the measure is needed to protect the religious freedom of students, some of whom now feel they aren’t allowed to offer prayers that the student body, or a large part of it can listen to – that they’re only allowed to pray to themselves or in small groups.

Wait… WHAT?! They’re offended because they can only “pray to themselves or in small groups”? They’re offending because they’re not being given a captive audience to hear their prattling?!

Meanwhile, atheists have to worry about coming out publicly with that label…

At least reader Zach and his friends found a clever way to respond on their campus:

In case you can’t bear to watch that, here’s a rough transcript, courtesy of Hoyden About Town:

Pat Robertson: Atheists don’t believe in ANYTHING. I mean, a theo means “no God,” they have no Gods, so they don’t have anything, so they don’t believe in anything. But they can protest, somebody who believes in SOMETHING. I mean, isn’t this a strange thing, that we would allow somebody who doesn’t believe in anything to restrict the freedom of those who do? I mean, it makes no sense! Sooner or later we’re going to wake up, but I think maybe we are…but our hats are off to the forest service, this is just one minor little skirmish, but these atheists, they’re just enormously creative in figuring out things they can do that give us trouble. Kristi…

Kristi Watts [interrupting]: You know what I just thought of, Pat?

Pat Robertson: What’s that?

Kristi Watts: You know you’ve got different kinds of, well, let’s call them religions…there’s one called Wicca, and they’re all about the environment, right? So, their religion that believes in the environment, and they believe that trees are their god, why are these atheists not saying that we should cut down every tree? Because it’s offensive. [holds out hand towards PR} Do you know what I mean?

Pat Robertson: Yes...

Kristi Watts: It’s the same mentality!

Pat Robertson: Oh, absolutely.

Kristi Watts: Right?

Pat Robertson: Absolutely. OK.

Kristi Watts: [dramatic shrug] Just a thought.

Yes… Wiccans like trees… and Wiccans are a religion… so let’s CUT DOWN ALL THE TREES!

Never mind that Wiccans don’t actually “worship” trees… and they aren’t going against the Constitution and trying to codify their beliefs into the law, or denying women the right to have an abortion because of their beliefs, or preventing gay people in a loving relationship from getting married…

None of that matters to Watts, though. We’re atheists so, apparently, we must protest everything people of faith do without rhyme or reason. What’s stopping us, since we don’t believe in anything?

Jason Pitzl-Waters offers a calmer, more straight-forward response to Watts’ moronic statement:

Atheists aren’t gunning to chop down all the trees us Pagan tree-huggers hug because they predominantly believe in environmental and climate science, and know that cutting down “every tree” would destroy our ecosystem, and life on earth itself…

Pat Robertson actually looks uncomfortable in that clip as Watts begins talking but he doesn’t do anything about it. A responsible person would’ve told her she’s speaking nonsense and set the record straight. But Robertson has a major problem with noticing nonsense even when it’s staring him in the face, so it’s not surprising that he would just let it slide.

(Thanks to Anh for the link!)

You can read the rest of it here

(Thanks to Dawn for the link!)

Now, some of the extended interviews with prominent black atheists have been posted online. Check them out — not just because they’re black, but because it’s sincerely heartwarming to listen to people talk so openly and comfortably about leaving their childhood faith and becoming a freethinker despite the cultural and social difficulties.

They’re all compelling, but I think Mark Hatcher‘s really hit home since I also started an atheist group at college for similar reasons.

Leighann Lord:

…

Mark Hatcher:

…

Kimberly Veal:

…

Alix Jules

(via African Americans for Humanism)

The Darwin on the Palouse events herald not only Charles Darwin’s 203rd birthday on February 12 but the 153rd anniversary of the first publication of “Origin of Species” on November 24.

…

“We have teamed up with the new Palouse Coalition of Reason to bring four of the nation’s preeminent speakers on science and philosophy to middle America,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. “We also wish to mark the 203rd birthday of Charles Darwin in a big way, celebrating his continuing contribution to humanity, science and rational thought.”

The events are free to the public!

In case you’re wondering, these aren’t the first atheistic billboards in Idaho. Previous signs can be seen here and here.

That’s the crux of the conflict in a fantastic graphic novel called Americus (First Second Books, 2011) by MK Reed with illustrations by Jonathan David Hill:

The story centers around 14-year-old Neil Barton, a shy kid living in Americus, Oklahoma. He loves the fictional fantasy series “The Chronicles of Apathea Ravenchilde.” It’s really popular, but, you know, it features witches and magical spells and talking dogs so it must be anti-everything-good-and-right-with-the-world. His best friend Danny loves the books, too, but Danny’s mom is leading the charge to get them banned:

During an argument, Danny tells his mom a secret that gets him sent off to military school and she channels her frustration into getting the city council to ban the books from a local library.

The non-essential characters don’t have a lot of depth to them and neither do most of the side-stories, but there’s enough material to flesh out these ideas in future books if the author ever wanted to do so.

There’s some criticism that the Christian mother is a “Bible-thumping caricature,” too stereotypical, too one-sided, too bats hit crazy, but I don’t buy that. Let’s face it: These people really exist. And Reed makes it clear that the mother loves her kids and wants what’s best for them… she is just completely misguided in how she goes about it. You wish her husband would get the courage to stand up to her, but he never quite gets there in the book.

The other characters include Neil’s single mother, a boy who helps Neil discover new music, girls in Shop class who have to put up with sexist shit from their male classmates (but who take a liking to Neil), and a wonderful librarian who has to deal with the book banners and tries to fight back against them:

The book is aimed at younger kids, but I still liked it. It was a quick read and a nice story focusing on a topic we (unfortunately) still have to deal with today. If enough people had the strength and courage to fight against censorship — and Neil is learning how to do just that throughout the book — maybe events like Banned Books Week would become superfluous.

(Images reprinted with permission from First Second Books)

You can see the rest of the strip here.

(via Jesus & Mo)

Suppose it’s your second child.

Suppose you tell a friend about it.

It’s going to be a boy. You already have a girl.

What’s the appropriate reaction from your friend?

Perhaps, “Congratulations! You have one of each now!”

Libby Anne comes from a Quiverfull family, though, and that reaction is far from normal in her world:

The assumption, of course, is that I’m done. I can’t tell you how often I get this. People find out I’m expecting, find out it’s a boy and that I already have a girl in preschool, and they assume I’m done. Two kids, one of each, the perfect American family. It’s not that I’m necessarily not done, it’s just that having been raised in a family influenced by the ideals of the Quiverfull movement, it’s hard to imagine actually thinking that way.

In a Quiverfull family, the second child is simply the second of many. The idea that it might be the last is laughable. That second child will be the second in a stair step line of children lined up to show off, the second in command when you leave the kids to run an errand, the second helper when new children arrive, and the second to use each homeschool textbook.

*Shudder*

At least Libby Anne is now out of the lifestyle. After the child is born, she can take all the maternity clothes and give them away, knowing this child will likely be her last. She’s broken the chain. It’s a happy ending.

The FFRF complaint said that during the month of December an assembly held by “Bible Man” included a display with baby Jesus on it and that a talk was given regarding “Jesus’s birthday,” and that “Jesus died on the the cross for our sins.”

On Monday night, the Jackson County Board of Education discussed the FFRF letter. In the audience were over 100 churchgoers — and one state senator! — who didn’t even pretend to buy into church/state separation:

Pastor Brad Bridges [said], “We’re here today to make a show, say ‘hey Christianity is in and we love it. And our nation was founded on it.’”

…

While the complaint before the board cited violations of the constitution, State Senator Shadrack McGill says he doesn’t believe in separation of church and state.

“I don’t believe you keep God out of state. Church represents the body of Christ, Christ being the head of that body. No, I don’t believe in that separation,” said Sen. McGill.

Even the Superintendent joined in, admitting that Bible Man activities took place during the school day:

“The ‘Bible Man’ was part of my school time and my children’s school time,” said [Superintendent Ken] Harding.

So what did the school board do?

They look like a fair-minded, Constitution-savvy group...

They caved in to the will of the mob:

Once the board returned from executive session and announced that “Bible Man” would not be taken out of the schools, crowd members stood up and cheered.

Members of the church and school board say the assemblies are a choice, but when an assembly takes place during the school day — at an elementary schools, no less — kids are hardly aware of any other options they have. The school board made the wrong decision and they fully deserve any lawsuit coming their way.

(Thanks to Brian for the link)

In a release, Steve Brown, executive director of the RIACLU, said the amount includes major discounts for hours of work by volunteer attorneys Lynette Labinger and Thomas Bender. He also said the amount is mindful of the school district’s budget woes in recent years.

“In terms of its complexity, the ACLU noted that the school district initially raised ten affirmative defenses when it filed its answer to the lawsuit. The amount sought by the ACLU attorneys pales in comparison to the attorneys’ fees that lawyers working with the Becket Fund, the national group that assisted the school district in defending the case, obtained in a church-state lawsuit two years ago. In that case from Colorado, dealing with a church zoning dispute, attorneys working with the Becket Fund were awarded over $1.25 million in attorneys’ fees for their work handling the case in the district court.”

…

“The Cranston School Committee was fully informed from the beginning that a decision to move forward with this case would likely result in the payment of attorney’s fees if they were not successful,” Brown said. “In fact, in an attempt to avoid the costs of litigation and spare the taxpayers, we waited eight months before filing suit in the hope that this matter could be informally resolved. Despite those efforts, the school committee voted to mount a vigorous defense of the prayer in court, leading to today’s filing.”

As a teacher, part of me feels bad that this money is being taken away from the students… but the school district brought this upon themselves. They wanted to fight to keep an illegal Christian banner in their auditorium. They wanted to push religion onto all students. They could’ve just taken down the banner right up front and put that money toward more teachers and more resources, but they chose not to.

The adminstrators in that district cared more about their public display of religion than the education of the children. They deserve to pay a penalty for that. Too bad the taxpayers have to foot the bill.

(via WWJTD)

The anger and hatred directed at Ms. Ahlquist — she was called “an evil little thing” on talk radio by a Cranston state representative — helps explain why the judge, responding to her brave lawsuit, did his duty under the Constitution and ordered immediate removal of the prayer, which begins “Our Heavenly Father” and concludes “Amen” and was visible throughout the auditorium.

…

… Recent meetings in Cranston about the prayer involved the kind of “excessive entanglement with religion” the court has warned against, with prayer backers reading from the Bible. The meetings showed why what believers consider a harmless request to respect a prayer can feel like coercion to nonbelievers.

… The kindness, friendship and other values the prayer champions are universal, but a statement of religious belief has no place in a public high school auditorium.

The fact that her story is getting such coverage on a national scale shows that this isn’t just about some local banner. It’s symbolic of how Christians love to force their views on everyone else, sometimes in illegal ways, and then cry foul when someone calls them out on it.

Jessica’s scholarship fund, by the way, has raised over $36,000 on her behalf. Some college atheist groups have told me they’re raising funds for her, some donations have been made directly to the American Humanist Association, and t-shirt sales still need to be included in the total amount. What you’re all doing for her is truly amazing.

The press release (PDF) explains the need for the campaign:

African Americans may be the most religious minority in the United States, but many feel that the churches don’t speak for them. AAH hopes that the campaign will bring attention to the presence of and increase in religious skepticism within the black community, encourage those who have doubts about religion to share their concerns and join other freethinkers in their local communities, and educate many about the history of black freethought.

…

“African Americans who question religion often feel rejected by religious family and friends, and by the greater black community,” said Debbie Goddard, director of AAH. “But there is a rich heritage of religious skepticism and humanism in black history. By featuring the historical faces as well as the modern in our ad campaign, we show people that questioning religion is not new and that there are many of us here.”

How often have we talked about the special need for outreach to minorities so that they feel welcome in our movement? This is a wonderful step toward fulfilling that promise. In the process, it may even help educate people about the abundant secularism possessed by the leaders of the Harlem Renaissance.

There will also be billboards and bus ads promoting “religious skepticism in the African American community” across the country beginning this week. Check out the ads below:

In Atlanta, Georgia:

In Chicago, Illinois:

In Dallas, Texas:

In Washington, D.C.:

In Durham, North Carolina:

In Los Angeles, California:

In New York City, New York:

AAH owes a debt of gratitude to the Stiefel Freethought Foundation, which provided “substantial creative and financial support for the campaign.”

That video, intended to promote the Day of Purity, was all over the blogosphere a couple of weeks ago. Everyone was mocking it. Even the Tosh.0 bloggers got in on the action:

Taking stuffed animals on a date is a great way to stay a virgin whether you want to or not.

But it’s especially effective if your stuffed animals sound like they drive a windowless van.

So, if you’re the über-conservative Liberty Counsel, and you support the Day of Purity, what do you do about all the attention?

You pretend everyone’s watching the video because they support abstinence:

Day of Purity Gains International Attention with Video Clip

A short video promoting sexual purity hit a quarter of a million views today. People from more than 175 different countries and regions have watched the student-produced video that was designed to spark interest and start conversations promoting sexual purity. The number of views reached over a quarter of a million in just the past 10 days. It is the goal of the Day of Purity to equip teens, youth, parents, friends, and individuals with the facts to encourage sexual purity until, and loyalty within, marriage.

…

We are thrilled that the message of waiting for marriage is reaching so many people! We are excited to spark a conversation about the physical, emotional, physiological and even financial benefits of waiting for marriage.

Umm… do they really not get it?! (I know, I know… they totally get it. They’re just trying to manipulate their gullible members.)

Here’s the truth: We’re laughing at you. We don’t support you. We’re not watching the video because we approve of your message. Abstinence is a personal decision, not an Order From Above.

I know these people deny reality on a regular basis, but c’mon, this is pushing it… don’t believe me? Just read the comments underneath the video. And if they know people are watching the video because it’s just that bad, then admit it or ignore it. Don’t spin it to suggest otherwise. Didn’t the Bible say something about liars…?

Now, it’s up and you should watch it. If nothing else, listen to the first four minutes. JT makes some great points about the Jessica Ahlquist saga.

Young activists FTW.

If you liked any particular portion of the video, please leave the timestamp in the comments!

He recently released this video promising to fight against House Joint Resolution No. 6, which would limit marriage to that between a man and woman only:

As if I needed another reason to love Rupert…

His campaign site is here, in case you’d like to bask in his awesomeness.

(Thanks to Ron for the link!)

Chris Colbourne - St. Albert Gazette

The Alberta Human Rights Commission has refused to deal with two complaints filed by parents who are fighting for a non-religious schooling option in Morinville.

Donna Hunter and Marjorie Kirsop received letters from the commission Thursday telling them to take their complaints to “another forum” such as the province’s School Act.

…

Kirsop and Hunter filed their human-rights complaints late last year, alleging their non-Catholic children were discriminated against because they have not been allowed to opt out of religious instruction in a system where Catholic doctrine permeates the school day.

Kirsop isn’t sure how to proceed anymore since she’s just going around in circles:

“I’m extremely disappointed as my complaint to the Human Rights Commission was made after many failed attempts to obtain a genuine public education in Morinville,” she said. “After our request for a secular education was denied by our school board in mid-January of 2011, we appealed to the Minister of Education. As of today, we still have not received a response from the Minister of Education in regards to our appeal. And now, we are told by the Human Rights Commission that our complaint is best dealt with by the school board — the very school board who denied our rights in the first place. It’s ironic. It seems we are just going in circles again. Should I be making another appeal to the Minister of Education?”

It’s a little hard for me to wrap my mind around what’s happening since I haven’t followed this story too closely and I’m not very clear on Canadian laws regarding education and religion. Some of the Canadian readers out there might be able to help us understand the issues a bit more — what happened in Morinville and what courses of action are left to take?

Reader Edwin adds this bit of relevant information via email:

… there was a provincial law enacted in 1905 that guarantees the reciting of the Lord’s Prayer and only recognizes the Roman Catholic and Church of England teachings in public schools… It was a condition of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan joining Canada. It actually overrides our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (our Constitution).

On a side note, there’s a nice interview with Donna Hunter here.

Several groups have tried to step up in his defense, to no avail…

The newly-formed Malaysian Atheists put out this support statement/open letter:

We declare that the continued incarceration of Alexander Aan and the threat of bringing the force of a blasphemy law upon this person for the crime of expressing a disbelief in the religion of Islam to be an unacceptable violation of his freedom of expression as well as his freedom of belief.

We hope you, as the leader/representative of Indonesia, a country that is quickly developing into one of the most successful nations in the world, will take steps leading to concrete action that will show the world that Indonesia has truly become a developed and civilised country where a person may be free to believe and disbelieve as they please as well as the freedom to express their opinion without the fear of incarceration, violence, and any other repercussions that would impede a person’s right to speak freely.

We suggest the immediate actions as follows:
1. Dismiss any and all charges of blasphemy against Alexander.
2. To charge his assailants in the court of law for violent behaviour.

Is It all a moot point if new reports are true that Aan is now converting to Islam…?

An Indonesian atheist who was detained after declaring God did not exist on Facebook was considering abandoning his lack of religious faith and embracing Islam, police said Monday.

…

‘His parents came and told us that he wanted to repent,’ Dharmasraya police chief Chairul Aziz said by telephone.

First of all, it seems obvious that Aan may have said something to that extent to get the authorities off his back. He doesn’t have to mean it. He just doesn’t have any other choice, and it’s not in his best interests to stand by his convictions.

Second, even if he repented, the charges would still proceed (blasphemy charges don’t get overturned because you suddenly, magically “found god”).

So what is there to do at this point? There’s a petition you can sign, though it may not do anything. There’s a Facebook group here and here, though those are often a dime-a-dozen. But I’m not saying that to be dismissive. Each of those things may not be helpful by themselves, but together, they raise awareness of the issue and bring Aan’s story to a wider audience.

Alonzo Fyfe offers a solution along those lines, lest the entire story be forgotten:

Has anything been done to identify, arrest, and convict those who are guilty of assault against Mr. Aan? Or is the message being spread throughout Indonesia that acts of violence against theists are acceptable and shall not be punished?

We should be demanding that action be taken of those guilty of assaulting Aan, at the very least to establish a precedent and to give a warning, for the sake of all atheists, that these forms of violent response to atheist beliefs are to be shunned.…

Finally, Atheist Alliance International has launched an appeal in Aan’s defense and they’re also collecting money to “help pay for Aan’s legal costs and to support the Aan family’s living expenses while he is in jail.”

Whatever you do, don’t ignore this story. Keep him in your thoughts and let that inspire you to take some sort of action.

When Justin Vacula recently saw “God Bless America” scrolling across the outside buses in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, he didn’t just want to complain. He wanted to respond to that message — and test the “how little does it take to offend someone?” hypothesis — by proposing the following ad:

The idea, as seen above — for the advertisement — is quite simple, effective, and interesting. In the past few years, atheist billboards — no matter how inoffensive they may seem — have been met with utter contempt from theists leading atheists to wonder, “Is the fact that we exist and want to advertise ourselves offensive to theists or is it something else?” In order to test this… I want to place a king-size… advertisement on the same buses which host the “God Bless America” messages with a blue sky/white cloud background with the word “atheists” and the URL for the organization for which I am a co-organizer, spokesperson, podcast host, and board member of: the NEPA Freethought Society.

He’s waiting for a response from the advertising company — and if they reject him, they could be facing a potential lawsuit.

If he gets the green light, this could be a really fun billboard campaign…

This new video is a perfect response

I loved the line, “Don’t look a rape-horse in the mouth.”

(via Christian Nightmares)

As easily as that, I began to identify as an ally. I went on to intern at the Family Equality Council & worked a legislative assistant on civil rights, including LGBT equality, during my time at the Religious Action Center after college. I’ve served as managing editor of Fusion, an LGBT issues magazine, marched in a pride parade, & have just generally done my best to work for equality whenever possible. I have a really difficult time respecting differences of opinion when it comes to civil rights. I do my best to be respectful of other people’s views, but it’s really hard for me to see any other side here. As I see it, it’s as basic as treating people fairly, & I just can’t see any other side to that.

When I learned this month that my hometown gym, the city-owned Natatorium, is discriminating against same-sex couples in their membership options, I quickly signed onto a petition asking them to change their policies. Then, I shot off a Facebook message to Shane, the guy behind the petition, asking how I could help. Shane attempted to get a couples pass for himself & his new husband & was turned away, told their marriage “isn’t real” despite the fact that they were legally married four months ago in Washington, D.C. His husband, Coty, is a disabled Iraq Wat veteran who uses the Natatorium for water therapy; Shane is his caretaker.

Kate got word out about the discrimination and the story began popping up on some major websites. Thousands of people signed the online petition and you should, too. Many have written messages of disappointment on the Natatorium’s Facebook page. There are also plans to call the Mayor’s Office en masse this Tuesday and 200+ people have already signed up to do that.

All this because Kate had the inspiration to do something about a troubling situation and she took advantage of the tools at her disposal to share her message with a wider audience. She also had the courage to publicly speak out on a potentially controversial subject — but she didn’t care because civil rights for all people shouldn’t be an issue.

We love praising activists. But let’s be clear: Anyone can do what they do. It takes a lot of courage and a little bit of knowledge about how to get your message out. But if you’re sure you’re doing the right thing, it’s not as hard as it seems.

This is why projects like the OUT Campaign, atheist bloggers/writers/speakers — hell, anyone who lists their religion on Facebook as “Atheist” — are so important in our movement. If you can be open and comfortable about your (non-)religious beliefs, it won’t be as hard to take the next step and speak out when a politician says we’re a “Christian nation” or there’s an injustice regarding church/state separation.

They have Joe Nickell (skeptical investigator of the paranormal), Jamila Bey (secular activist), Clint Kelly (biology professor) and Lawrence Krauss (theoretical physicist) speaking at their school, and those are just the keynotes.

What are all of you planning?

…

Incidentally, ~GeneticMishap created a publicity poster anyone can use:

To personalize it, just go here.

(via Calamities of Nature)

That the House of Representatives declare 2012 as the “Year of the Bible” in Pennsylvania in recognition of both the formative influence of the Bible on our Commonwealth and nation and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the holy scriptures.

Right… because we have a “national need” to understand Genesis, genocide, and all the other bullshit in the Bible.

Saccone doesn’t even try to take a secular route in explaining it:

“As not only Pennsylvania, but the United States, continues to face great tests and challenges, House Resolution 535 serves as a reminder that we must look to our faith in God and the Holy Scripture to provide us with the strength, wisdom and courage to conquer these great trials,” said Saccone. “All over the Pennsylvania Capitol, one can easily see the tremendous influence that Christianity and the Bible have had over our founders and predecessors. These images and quotes illustrating the beliefs and morals that have shaped our great Commonwealth must never be forgotten.”

You know, if 2012 is the Year of the Bible, what the hell was every single year before this? It’s not like 2011 was the Koran’s year. (And when do atheists get a year?! I WANT A YEAR, DAMMIT!)

The worst part isn’t that the Resolution passed. It’s that it passed 193-0. Not a single voice of dissent.

Maybe that’s why they called it a “Noncontroversial Resolution”:

The Freedom From Religion Foundation can’t believe it:

“Our constitution grants sovereignty not to a deity or a ‘holy book,’ but to ‘We, the People.’ There is no reference to God, the bible, the Ten Commandments or Jesus in the U.S. Constitution, just as there are no references to ‘consent of the governed,’ ‘civil liberties’ or ‘democracy’ in the bible. Those who have truly studied the bible realize that it is a moral quagmire, a behavioral grab bag, which has been used to justify automatic rule, tyranny, slavery, the degradation of women and gays, child abuse, war, atrocity and mayhem,” noted FFRF.

They also offer a sample letter (PDF) for Pennsylvanians to use when contacting their representatives.

If you don’t live in PA, though, you can always let Rep. Saccone know what you think directly on his Facebook page.

(Thanks to Scott for the link!)

Well, Katie Hartman of Skepticon is taking the idea one step further.

She wants to put up a cute, inoffensive billboard. All she needs are your donations and suggestions. Here’s a template of her idea:

We’ve priced billboards in the Springfield area and think it can be done for as little as $2,000 –- and if we end with more? We’ll put it on buses in St. Louis and Kansas City.

They need to figure out what image should go in the empty space and that’s where your votes could help them out. So please vote and please chip in if you find the idea entertaining

An excerpt from the lyrics:

…the other side interested in scaring
the rest of us here with a message of fear
so todays questions appear
through the lens of yesterday’s perception of fair
and the prejudice clear
whenever they’re debating on who gets to be married
always saying to protect the kids
really they’re afraid we’ll reject their myths

The entire album or just the single can be found on his site.

Atheists don’t always get positive coverage in the media, so it’s an encouraging sign, especially after everything Jessica’s been going through:

Jessica Ahlquist (Gretchen Ertl - The New York Times)

She is 16, the daughter of a firefighter and a nurse, a self-proclaimed nerd who loves Harry Potter and Facebook. But Jessica Ahlquist is also an outspoken atheist who has incensed this heavily Roman Catholic city with a successful lawsuit to get a prayer removed from the wall of her high school auditorium, where it has hung for 49 years.

…

Brittany Lanni, who graduated from Cranston West in 2009, said that no one had ever been forced to recite the prayer and called Jessica “an idiot.”

“If you don’t believe in that,” she said, “take all the money out of your pocket, because every dollar bill says, ‘In God We Trust.’ ”

Compare that ignorant soundbyte to Jessica’s pitch-perfect line at the end of the story:

Does [Jessica] empathize in any way with members of her community who want the prayer to stay?

“I’ve never been asked this before,” she said. A pause, and then: “It’s almost like making a child get a shot even though they don’t want to. It’s for their own good. I feel like they might see it as a very negative thing right now, but I’m defending their Constitution, too.”

What a great analogy.

I’ve been asked a few times over the past couple of weeks if I’m surprised at the amount of money people are donating toward her scholarship fund.

My response has been the same: I’m not surprised at all. Of course people want to chip in to her future success. Jessica embodies our movement at its best — she’s brave, she defends the separation of church and state, she’s eloquent when speaking about the lawsuit and her beliefs, and she’s not letting the religious majority in her community keep her down.

This article just reinforces everything we already knew about her.

…

***Update***: There’s some misinformation being spread about Jessica possibly transferring schools. Jessica has denied this rumor, so please stop perpetuating it:

…

(Because, as we all know, Jesus holds the plane in the air…)

Even though only first class passengers have received the cards over the past few years, no one will be seeing them much longer. As of February 1^st, Alaska Airlines is getting rid of them:

Airline spokeswoman Bobbie Egan said the airline heard from customers who preferred not to mix religion with transportation. The decision reflects respect for the diverse religious beliefs and cultural attitudes of Alaska Airlines’ customers and employees, the company said in announcing the change.

“Some customers were comforted by the cards and some didn’t feel religion was appropriate on the plane and preferred not to receive one,” she said.

…

For a long time, Alaska Airlines got more positive comments than negatives ones. But lately, opinion has shifted.

In an email to frequent flyers, AA Execs explained their reasoning this way:

… This difficult decision was not made lightly. We believe it’s the right thing to do in order to respect the diverse religious beliefs and cultural attitudes of all our customers and employees.

Some of you enjoy the cards and associate them with our service. We also know some of you consider the cards to be a tradition that reflects your own spiritual beliefs. At the same time, we’ve heard from many of you who believe religion is inappropriate on an airplane, and some are offended when we hand out the cards. Religious beliefs are deeply personal and sharing them with others is an individual choice.

It’s their decision whether to give them away or not, but it’s nice to know they’re responding to customer preferences and that customers are complaining about it.

Either that, or they’re just trying to save money wherever they can and the Christian cards are low on the list of priorities.

The comment of the day came from one Redditor:

And, in case you’ve never heard it, comedian David Cross did a bit on the Christian cards in 1999, wondering why Alaska Airlines felt the need to give him one:

“This is going to be an amazing event,” said Dale McGowan, executive director of Foundation Beyond Belief. “We’re thrilled to be involved and grateful to FFFF for naming the Foundation as the event beneficiary.”

Also fun to note: The event will be held in a nightclub called “The Church”:

More information is here and details about how the game will be run are here (PDF).

On a side note, the Providence Journal had a nice, short article about the “Evil Little Thing” t-shirts which are being sold in Jessica’s honor.

All profits from sales will be donated to her scholarship fund, which is (incredibly) at $33,000 and counting!

(***Edit***: Commenters points out that the font in question is not Comic Sans. It’s Chalkboard. This doesn’t make me feel any better.)

The message is solid: Kids don’t deserve to be indoctrinated with religious nonsense. Let them ask questions and figure things out on their own. Ditto for adults who might be questioning their own faith.

(via Greg Laden)

Here’s a preview of what you’ll see:

I don’t know anything about the bands or DJs playing, but if Christian Nightmares is a part of the show, it has to be good, right?

“God is an imaginary friend; Choose reality, it will be better for all of us.”

Somewhere, those of you who love professional design are cringing… But maybe there’s a silver lining for those of you who like seeing more blunt messages on these atheist billboards.

[Marvin] Straus said the [three] billboards cost the group $1,200 and will stay up for four weeks. The Colorado Springs billboard was scheduled to be put up on Monday…

…

Straus said the locations were chosen by group’s advertising agency as the ones with the most exposure that also fit in to the group’s “limited budget.”

“We would have billboard in every major city in the state, including Boulder, if we had more money,” he said.

…

Straus said the group’s efforts in the past have generated a lot of positive feedback, along with a fair number of “interesting” responses.

“Some actually want to dialogue, some just want to vent their spleen,” he said.

Even though I agree with the message, I wonder how effective it’ll be. One of the downsides to having an “in your face” message like this one is that it forces the spokespeople to be negative in their interviews. The reporters will ask them to explain how god is imaginary, how moderate theism hurts everyone, and how most people don’t live in reality.

A good spokesperson can get around that, of course, but atheists are on the defensive.

Compare that to a billboard that says “Millions are good without god.” It’s not as controversial, but when the reporters call — and they always call — you get to explain how morality doesn’t derive from religion, how atheists give to charity, etc. It’s a much more positive conversation.

I know there are benefits of the blunt billboards — I’m a fan of the American Atheists’ “You KNOW It’s a Myth” series — but it’s just something to consider. Not everyone is as eloquent as Dave Silverman and that can sometimes come back to bite us.

It’s a surprising video… partly because there’s an actual dialogue. No yelling or screaming or protests or fights. The conversation is very cordial, and Walsh at least gives lip service to the idea of respecting (though not agreeing with) the secular viewpoint. If you think I’m totally off on that, let me know. Then again, Walsh also calls America a country founded by “god-fearing men,” suggesting he doesn’t know the secular history of our own country…

I have to tip my hat to Jacob, though. If this is what the National Atheist Party can do — get members of Congress to answer (on record) questions regarding church/state separation and other issues important to Secular Americans and start a real discussion about these issues — more power to them.

Chelsea Link definitely wants more of this (emphasis hers):

These are the types of conversations we need to be having with all our elected officials, because these are the conversations that will actually get us somewhere. If all the NAP did was record and publicize five-minute discussions like this one with every congressperson, they would immediately advance the public discourse on religion and government far more than any other party has in years.

…

Incidentally, Walsh has a document on his campaign website listing the “28 Founding Principles of the United States” and Phil Ferguson has a nice quick takedown of it.

Katherine Stewart

Katherine was gracious enough to answer questions about her book and our exchange is below:

Hemant: The book’s subtitle is “The Christian Right’s Stealth Assault on America’s Children.” Can you explain the “stealth” part of that? What exactly is the Christian Right doing that’s somewhat secretive or sneaky?

Katherine: Many of the initiatives I looked at rely to a surprising degree on misdirection and deceit of one group or another. The Good News Club itself, for example presents itself to parent and administrators as an outside group. But it creates the false but unavoidable (and, as far as I can tell, intentional) impression in young school children that its form of religion is officially endorsed by the school. It describes itself with nonthreatening labels such as “nondenominational” and “interdenominational,” which makes people think it’s broadly Christian, when in fact it’s highly sectarian. And it pretends to offer “Bible study,” when really it’s about indoctrinating kids in a fundamentalist form of religion. Anyone who doubts that should read the Statement of Faith on their workers’ applications.

Other religious initiatives are equally sneaky. The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools curriculum courses, for instance, present themselves as nonsectarian study of the Bible as a work of literature and history. But that’s just a thin cover for sectarian proselytizing. The “pizza evangelists,” who come into the schools under the pretense of offering instruction on bullying, anti-drug awareness, or character education turn around and use the platform to create opportunities for proselytizing. I should add that many of the activists I spoke to, and whom I describe in my book, take a delight in the sneakiness of their approach.

Hemant: If parents need to give permission for their children to attend meetings of the Good News Clubs, why does the fact that these groups meet in a school setting matter? Wouldn’t these parents just teach their children the same things in their own house or at a church if the school wasn’t an option?

Katherine: With older kids, that approach makes some sense. But remember, Good News Clubs focus on very young kids, in their first years of public schooling; a centerpiece of their program is the “wordless book,” which can be used to convert children as young as four and five years old. Kids at that age simply aren’t able to distinguish what takes place in a school and what is endorsed by the school.

Remember: we’re talking about little kids here. In their minds, no institution has as much authority as the public school. For them, if it is taught in school, it must be true.

I have seen several instances, including at my own elementary school, when the Good News Clubs were offered cheaper and better space at a church immediately next door to the school, and they declined. They want to be in the school because they know that kids will think their Club is endorsed by the school. Another important factor is that by placing the Clubs in the school, it becomes easier for Good News Club instructors to persuade the children enrolled in their groups to work to recruit other children in the school.

Hemant: What was the significance of the 2001 Supreme Court decision in Good News Club v. Milford Central School? How does it come into play today?

Katherine: The Milford decision removed any serious Establishment Clause concerns in connection with Good News-style activities, and at the same time it said that to exclude such activities represented an unconstitutional violation of speech rights. The net effect has been to propose that whenever a school creates what is technically known as a “limited public forum,” which is to say, as soon as it opens its doors to outside groups of pretty much any kind, it must allow religious groups such as the Good News Club. This decision opened the way for church planting in public schools and a host of other religious initiatives in schools.

In effect it gives a trump card to religious groups, because it is only in the case of religious groups that to exclude them amounts to a violation of their speech rights. So now schools can exclude a soccer club, or martial arts, or political groups, or a theater group if they wish, but the one category they may not exclude is religious groups.

The Good News Clubs made quick use of this trump card. Their numbers in public schools went up 728 per cent in the ten years since the Milford decision. And church-planting in New York City’s public schools went from 0 to 160 over the same period.

This decision is problematic, in my view. Schools routinely exclude partisan political groups from meeting in the school building, for instance, and nobody imagines that we are discriminating against anybody’s viewpoint. But now, when religious groups are excluded, they complain that they are being discriminated against. The Milford decision also undermined the idea that peer pressure or coercion are important factors in school-related cases.

Hemant: Do all these Christian groups need to pay the schools rent for use of the space? Do they pay what other similar groups pay? And can they get away with not paying if it’s a school-sanctioned club like many other after-school groups?

Katherine: Generally they pay what other outside groups pay, which is not very much. But in many instances, you can’t call it “rent” — it is generally a use fee or a custodian’s fee. In the instance of churches planted in public schools in New York City, it amounts to a state subsidy. Instead of paying for their own buildings, buying their own furniture, paying for heat, electricity, air conditioning, renovations, and upkeep of the facility, the churches in question simply paid a custodians’ fee. That’s not “rent” by any stretch of the imagination.

Hemant: I only know of a handful of high school atheist groups and possibly only one middle school atheist group. Do any other religious groups (or atheist groups) try to form in elementary schools or is that strictly a Christian phenomenon? Either way, would that be a good idea for those of us who are not Christian?

Katherine: I don’t know of any atheist groups in elementary schools, but I think it would be a bad idea for the same reason that I think it’s a bad idea for the Christian groups to do it. However, it would be interesting to know what would happen if people were to try to set up an atheist group in a public elementary school that went after “churched” kids, the way Good News Clubs go after “unchurched” kids. If such a club were disallowed, that would highlight problems with the current policy and might potentially be used to challenge it.

Hemant: Would you rather see schools allow *all* religious groups to meet in the building (outside of class time) or should they close the doors to religious groups altogether? Are both legal options?

Katherine: Again, if we are talking about elementary schools, I would exclude religion as a category, just as we exclude politics as a category. It used to be legal to exclude religion as a category, and it is legal in a limited way in certain contexts. However, in most of the country, as a result of the Milford decision, it is no longer legal to exclude religious groups.

At the high school level, I think after-school groups in general should have maximum leeway. But bear in mind that a number of the religious groups make an effort to insert themselves in school-related activities, such as athletics. If Christian athletes want to get together after the game and after school to talk about their religion or engage in acts of worship, that seems perfectly fine. But many groups now attempt to make their religion part of the game, inevitably forcing everyone on the team to take a public stand.

We should not get overly legalistic here. Some things are legally or constitutionally permissible, but that does not mean that they are the right thing to do. If a school in a diverse community is to function well, its members need to show a certain amount of civility and respect toward one another. We are all free to practice our faith, if any, in our homes, houses of worship, and any number of other places. Do we really need to turn our public schools into religious battlefields?

Hemant: At one point in the book, Pastor Rich Lang compares the methods of the Child Evangelism Fellowship (which runs the Good News Clubs) to the Hitler Youth because of the way they target children. Is that a fair comparison?

Katherine: Some of the evangelical missionaries that I have read explicitly cite the Nazis, the Taliban, and the Bolsheviks as models of other groups that focus on children. Not every effort to preach to the young is a form of fascism, but fascism characteristically involves indoctrination of the young.

Hemant: Other than getting educated on the issues, what would you like readers to do in response to reading your book?

Katherine: They should support groups working for the separation of church and state. They should support politicians and political movements that work to bring better people to the judiciary. They should strengthen programs and policies that promote tolerance and civility in our public schools. They should inform themselves about what is taking place in their local schools, and they should educate others about this movement in our midst.

The Good News Club is available today in the four bookstores left in the country and everywhere online.

… The Rhode Island State Council of Churches will hold a news conference in support of Jessica Ahlquist, the 16-year-old atheist who challenged the Cranston prayer banner, on Tuesday at 2:30 p.m.

The news conference “in favor of tolerance and civility” will include faith leaders in Cranston and throughout Rhode Island speaking out to support Ahlquist’s right to challenge the prayer banner.

The press conference will also condemn the treatment and inappropriate language and words use to describe Ahlquist.

We usually don’t see many moderate Christians speaking up when it comes to issues like church/state separation, so this is a very welcome gesture.

The event will take place at the Edgewood Congregational Church in Cranston tomorrow.

Feel free to show some love on the group’s Facebook page.

Or, you know, send them some flowers from Glimpse of Gaia.

(Via Steel City Skeptics)

But just because something is tradition doesn’t mean it’s right. (Just ask Jessica Ahlquist.)

Image via Shutterstock

And one parent is finally pushing back:

“I’ll be held responsible for my child’s belief system, not the schools,” Michael Arsenault told the local CBC.

“I’m not against religion, any form or fashion… I just don’t like how the schools are getting involved in handing out these religious books.”

Makes sense. So what did the superintendent of the district have to say about it? He doesn’t even understand what the problem is:

Eastern School District, the board that has forged the long-standing agreement with Gideons, said L.M. Montgomery Elementary School in Charlottetown, where Mr. Arsenault sends his daughter, is not at all engaging in religious education by allowing the books to be handed out. It’s merely offering a service.

“We don’t think it’s providing religion in the school,” said Ricky Hood, superintendent of education. “It’s not talked about, there are no classes, there’s no instructional time devoted to it. No students are held captive to any of this.”

It’s just a service?! Great. Then they won’t mind if atheists send along 32984234 copies of The God Delusion to hand out to the kiddies.

Looks like that type of reaction has worked before:

But the [Waterloo Regional District School Board] rescinded its decision [to hand out Bibles only with parental permission] in June after the suggestion that a Kitchener masjid wanted to hand out free Korans through the same program caused a community uproar.

Beautiful. (Don’t you love watching Christians whine when their myths aren’t given special privileges?)

It doesn’t matter that no one has complained before. When you see how much backlash there is against anyone who complains about the Bible Giveaways, it shouldn’t be surprising that people are scared to do it. At least Mr. Arsenault has the courage to speak out against it.

(Image via Shutterstock)

Obama legally kills babies and now he can legally kill Grandmas!

Hitler did this. He killed the weak, the sick, the old, and babies and races/religions he didn’t like. Hitler also controlled the media. (Where’s the public debate between scientists on “Climate Change/Global Warming?”) Hitler had the VW bug invented as the state car. What will O’s nationalized car be? So… kill off the weak. That’s the plan. Tax the workers to death. Erase the middle class. Sounds like the evil governments we studied in high school long ago. The evil governments were : kings, oligarchies, facist, socialist, and communist. Now it’s called the Obama Administration. Sounds like candy or a rock band.

That’s what became of Victoria Jackson, who appeared on SNL from 1986 to 1992:

More recently, she appeared in a webseries called PolitiChicks. In Episode 1, they ripped on “Gays, Muslims & Gay Muslims”:

So after you hear all this, you start asking questions…

Is she really that crazy?

Is this all some sort of weird alternative comedy routine?

Is she trying to out-Colbert Stephen Colbert?

Julia Sweeney — also a former SNL cast member around the same time (she famously portrayed androgynous Pat) and an atheist who wrote a wonderful one-woman show about losing her faith — gets asked about Jackson a lot, as you might imagine.

In a post on her website today, she tries to answer those questions and reluctantly admits it’s probably not an act:

So, to answer the question that many have asked me…. Yes. She is for real. She really does believe all the things she says. To my knowledge, there will not be a day when she says: the jig is up. It was all a performance piece.

What bothers me is that she wants to have it both ways at once. She wants to get the laughs that are there for characters who are kooky and dimwitted, but then she also wants to use this persona to make real points and arguments. Points and arguments that are not ironic, they are completely naked and honest and forthright. But she’ll take the laughs…

…

She’s not Andy Kaufman (as many emailers have asked me.) The “there” you think is “there” is not “there.”

As far as I know.

If it turns out Jackson has been doing an act for this long, it may go down as one of the greatest Poes we’ve ever seen.

But if she really is as kooky as she comes across, it would just be… sad. How someone could get that brainwashed by the intertwining of conservative Christianity and politics — especially when she (presumably) knows many liberals, has worked with them, and ought to know they’re not as bad as she makes them out to be — is really stunning.

I think Gordon Maples‘ introduction of Jessica is perfect:

Some say that she’s an ‘Evil Little Thing‘… and I think that’s all I really have to say.

Duncan spoke about the group he began at his junior high school:

At some point, I assume JT‘s video will be up as well

If there are any particular moments that stand out, please leave the time stamps in the comments! (e.g. “At 8:37, Duncan talks about…”)

…

Local newspapers love to publish opinion pieces written by community members. It gives the writers a little more investment in the newspaper (“Hey, look! I got published!”) and the newspaper gets free content that tends to generate a lot of comments online.

Tim Lee is writing a series of guest columns on life after death for the Knoxville News Sentinel and his goal is to “accurately reflect the various perspectives of local residents.”

So, last week, he interviewed atheist Ralph Isler, a man who left the Methodist church when he became an atheist:

For Isler, humans are simply the result of millions of years of biological evolution. We have no souls. Cultural influences over epochs of time have caused humans to develop empathy, love and all other emotions. We are ultimately nothing more than chemical processes interacting at the microcellular level.

Therefore, when we die, those biological functions cease and we are no more. Game over.

…

Isler is content in having traded in his superstitious belief in an eternal heaven for a more rational yet temporal existence in this life only. He’s 99.5 percent certain that his journey has led him to the truth.

It’s a bit dry, but at least it’s accurate. No issues so far.

Then we get to the end of the piece:

In the end, though, Isler seems to have his own god. Isler. And Isler alone calls the shots, not some invisible celestial dictator in the sky. So Isler displaced God with Isler, as man displaces God with man.

That story sounds vaguely familiar. The name Adam come to mind?…

Umm… wait, what?! How many atheists believe they are their own gods? Did Isler really say that…?

Of course not.

So Isler wrote a letter to the paper and it was published yesterday. Unfortunately, those response letters — much like corrections — never really get the same attention as the original article. But this one is definitely worth reading:

As I started reading his article in the Jan. 15 edition of the News Sentinel, it appeared that Lee did an adequate job of expressing my views. So it was rather astonishing to come across his last few sentences where he showed, even after all our conversation, a lack of understanding the meaning of atheism while essentially characterizing me as egocentric with delusions of being a god. Apparently he means a god in the Judeo-Christian mold since he mentions Adam.

Well, I don’t really have the needs or temperament for that role. I would have to require constant adulation to pump up my fragile ego, but I’m not that insecure. I would have to support slavery, but I find it repugnant. And I would have to feel pleasure in making someone suffer eternal torment for not believing in my existence, even when I exercise all my powers to conceal it. The very thought of such psychopathic behavior should be totally repugnant to any civilized person. Atheism simply implies the view that there are no gods; it does not mean that the atheist aspires to fill that vacancy.

Excellent reply, don’t you think?

Too bad it’s hidden away in a giant collection of letters-to-the-editor.

Beyond the universe there is nothing and within the universe the supernatural does not and cannot exist. Of all deceivers who have plagued mankind, none are so deeply ruinous to human happiness as those impostors who pretend to lead by a light above nature. Science has never killed or persecuted a single person for doubting or denying its teachings, and most of these teachings have been true; but religion has murdered millions for doubting or denying her dogmas, and most of these dogmas have been false.

That’s the epitaph on the gravestone of George F. Spencer… who died in 1908.

The New Atheism really isn’t so new.

(via Futility Closet — Thanks to Aaron for the link)

Well, Richard Brum created a Banner generator so you can make your own version!

It’s almost too easy to use…

What can you do with it?

Yep. If it looks like that, then Jesus must have come back to life. Concrete proof. Obviously.

Reminds me of the time Dale McGowan saw an image like this in his daughter’s classroom:

Anyway, don’t you love how some Christians will praise science when they (wrongly) think it justifies their faith and bash it when they don’t like its conclusions?

(Thanks to Amanda for the link!)

Now, Harrison is back with a new book called 50 Popular Beliefs That People Think Are True. (Details for how you can win a copy of the book are at the bottom of this post!)

Not surprisingly, the book offers rebuttals to (among many other things) psychic powers, homeopathy, Holocaust deniers, and moon hoaxers.

And anti-vaxxers.

The excerpt below is from Harrison’s chapter on why vaccines are safe and sound and avoiding them hurts us all:

DEADLY CONSEQUENCES

Heated debates that pit science against pseudoscience — evolution versus creationism, for example — rage on and on. But few of them rack up casualties and have the potential for mayhem like the anti-vaccine controversy. This particular clash between reason and irrational belief is literally killing children right now. Vaccination rates have plunged in parts of America and the United Kingdom because of misinformation and unjustified fears. According to the United Kingdom’s Health Protection Agency, a drop in vaccination coverage levels has again made measles endemic in the UK after it had already been wiped out by vaccines decades ago.

Much of the fears were stirred up in 1998 when British doctor Andrew Wakefield published research claiming that the measles vaccine causes autism. He said the vaccine inflamed intestines, causing harmful proteins to leak out that then made their way to the brain, where they caused autism. This generated considerable coverage in the mainstream media which, of course, sent waves of fear straight into the hearts of millions of parents. Many of them made the decision not to vaccinate their children as a result. Predictably, this was followed by outbreaks of preventable diseases that killed children. Soon after Wakefield’s announcement, MMR vaccine rates dropped from nearly 90 percent to as low as 50 percent in some areas of London. Now comes the kicker: It turned out that Wakefield’s research is garbage. Other scientists could not confirm his findings. Something was wrong, very wrong. But not only has his work been deemed scientifically flawed, it has ethical problems as well. Investigative journalist Brian Deer reported that Wakefield’s study was funded by a lawyer who also was representing five of eight children used in the study for a suit against pharmaceutical companies. In 2010, the Lancet medical journal formally retracted Wakefield’s study that they had published, and the General Medical Council removed Wakefield’s name from the medical register. He can no longer practice medicine in England.

In the late 1990s, antivaccination activists set their sights on a preservative used in some vaccines called thimerosal. No studies suggested that thimerosal might cause autism, but pharmaceutical companies removed it as a precaution anyway. Now, years later, autism rates have continued to rise. “After all the research,” writes Michael Specter in his book, Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives, “thimerosal may be the only substance we might say with some certainty doesn’t cause autism; many public health officials have argued that it would make better sense to spend the energy and money searching for a more likely cause.”

Multiple studies have failed to find evidence of an autism-vaccine link. In Japan, the feared MMR “vaccine cocktail” was withdrawn and replaced by single vaccines. A study of thirty thousand children there found that autism rates continued to rise even in MMR’s absence. Other countries, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Sweden removed thimerosal from vaccines only to see autism rates continue to rise. Meanwhile, researchers in Finland looked for an autism-vaccine link by analyzing the medical records of more than two million children. They found nothing.

It seems to me that vaccines are victims of their own success. People who are fortunate enough to live in countries with strong vaccination programs have been lulled into a false sense of security. Diseases once feared are not so scary anymore. Measles, for example, does not strike fear in the heart of the typical American. But it’s not a disease we should take lightly. It causes brain swelling and high fever and is often fatal. In the past, measles killed millions in Europe and America. It still kills more than one million children per year in the developing world today. Nevertheless, many parents are being scared away from the measles vaccine by warnings with no credible science behind them. The percentage of unvaccinated children in the United States has doubled since 1991. This is as infuriating as it is absurd. We are moving backward.

Dr. Paul Offit, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases and the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, is one of the world’s leading experts on vaccines. He is also currently waging a professional war against the antivaccine movement. But it is also clearly personal for him. His frustration and concern for children are often readily apparent when he describes the irresponsible decision to deny vaccines. “The problem with waning immunization rates in the United States isn’t theoretical anymore,” he told me. “Recent outbreaks of measles, whooping cough, mumps, and bacterial meningitis show a clear breakdown in population immunity. Children are now suffering the diseases of their grandparents. It’s unconscionable.”

…

“THEY’RE NOT STUPID, JUST IGNORANT”

Nurse Shawn R. Browning is in the trenches on the frontlines of this issue. She has nearly two decades of experience in the medical field, most of it working with the US Navy. She regularly administers vaccines to military personnel and their families. She also has been involved with immunization education for many years. Irrational fears about vaccines are nothing new to her.

“I have had plenty of parents and patients that are misinformed about vaccines,” she said. “When they tell me they don’t want to get a particular vaccine, the first thing I ask them is, ‘why’? I have heard everything from the thimerosal content is bad for you, vaccines cause autism — particularly the MMR vaccine — and everything in between. By law I give them the VIS [vaccine information statements], but in addition I also educate them on the pros of receiving the vaccine versus not. What I have learned is that more times than not, people are willing to get the vaccine once it is explained to them in words they can understand and relate to. They’re not stupid, just ignorant. They have listened to their neighbors, the media, and everyone else and have formed an unjustified opinion. Drives me crazy! Many parents and patients have expressed their gratitude that someone has taken the time to explain things instead of just sticking a needle in them without any explanation. I think our particular patient population is more vaccine hesitant than antivaccine.”

Like most healthcare professionals, Browning is concerned that this reluctance to vaccinate might lead to major outbreaks of preventable diseases:

The biggest fear is that preventable diseases will rise to epidemic proportions again. Infants and children are going to die or be disabled because adults are ignorant and won’t vaccinate themselves or their children. The outbreak of pertussis [whooping cough] is the latest. People think that since they are adults, they don’t need a vaccine. Yet how many die from complications from the flu every year? [Influenza virus, the flu, kills as many as five hundred thousand people each year worldwide, according to the World Health Organization.15] It’s very scary. We also have an obligation to get vaccinated to protect those [who] can’t be vaccinated due to various reasons [such as immune system problems].

There was this mom [who] came into our clinic a little more than a year ago to get her one-year-old daughter her immunizations. The corpsman that brought them back to the room started to explain the vaccines the child would be getting and their potential side effects to the mom. The mom politely interrupted the corpsman and proceeded to explain that this child was not her first baby. She had once been “one of those moms” who didn’t believe in vaccines, and her first little girl had died when she got the measles. Just how do you respond to that? Your heart breaks.

Offit adds, “The science is largely complete. Ten epidemiological studies have shown MMR vaccine doesn’t cause autism; six have shown thimerosal [preservative once used in vaccines] doesn’t cause autism; three have shown thimerosal doesn’t cause subtle neurological problems; a growing body of evidence now points to the genes that link to autism; and despite the removal of thimerosal from vaccines in 2001, the number of children with autism continues to rise.”

In 1997, 4,138 children entered California kindergartens without being vaccinated because they had exemptions. By 2008, that number had more than doubled. Parents citing religious or philosophical objections to having their children vaccinated are putting not only their own children at risk but the lives of many others as well. Babies who are too young to be vaccinated can be infected and die. Children who have immune system problems and cannot be vaccinated have to rely on others around them to be vaccinated in order to keep the diseases at bay. When vaccination rates drop, danger to these vulnerable groups increases. According to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) expert, a parent’s decision to refuse vaccination means his or her child is thirty-five times more likely to get measles and twenty-two times more likely to come down with pertussis (whooping cough). Please don’t think for a second that this is exaggeration or fearmongering. Children are paying a price for this madness in small pockets across America now, and the potential for much greater suffering is real. In April 2011, for example, a private school in Virginia had to close because half its students were infected with pertussis. None of the children had been vaccinated. Many of the parents had obtained religious exemptions that officially sanctioned their negligence. News of several recent infant deaths in California due to pertussis either had not reached those parents or failed to impress them.

Why subject children to this unnecessary danger? To protect them from autism? Very large, thorough, and expensive scientific studies did not find any reason to conclude that vaccines cause autism. Therefore it simply makes no sense to withhold such important protection from a child.

From 50 Popular Beliefs That People Think Are True (Prometheus Books, 2012). Reprinted by permission of the publisher.

If you’d like to win a copy of the book, just leave a comment telling us about a belief you used to hold and what ultimately led you away from it! (God doesn’t count. We’ve heard that one before.) Please include the word “Bermuda” at the end of your comment if you’d like to be considered for the prize!

(via Boing Boing)

The budget makes $286 million in cuts, including a 6.4 percent cut to a higher education system that has been plagued by funding cuts and rising tuition for years.

But guess who’s getting a tax break? Ken Ham and his extension-of-the-Creation-Museum theme park:

At the same time, the $43 million tax break Kentucky approved for a Bible-themed amusement park — which will include a 500-foot by 75-foot reproduction of Noah’s Ark — goes into effect for the first time under Beshear’s budget. In addition, the budget includes $11 million to improve a highway interchange near the park. Proponents of the park, Beshear included, have claimed it will boost tourism and create jobs, but those assumptions are based on a report done by the park’s developers.

In summary, Governor Beshear has basically used $54,000,000 of taxpayer money to help the Biblical Ark Park. And he took $50,000,000 away from the education budget.

In other words, the Governor just took away $100,000,000 that could have gone toward educating people.

It’s possible the theme park could draw in customers and provide jobs for some people — but to promote something that is the antithesis of what the children should be learning in their schools is not just wasteful, it’s dangerous.

PZ adds:

… it makes perfect sense, too. It’s not as if the next generation might need a high school diploma to take advantage of the employment opportunities provided by Answers in Genesis. In fact, it’s probably a selling point to the creationists to have an especially ignorant work force already in place.

Congratulations, Kentucky. You elected this guy. (And, just FYI, he’s a Democrat.)

A few updates since then:

The Freedom From Religion Foundation let all the florists know that Jessica Ahlquist was “under the public eye” so they would need to show identification when they delivered the flowers to her door. I don’t know if that warning was necessary — did the florists really need to know who Jessica was? — but it looks like it was a red flag for some of them.

Does that change your mind about how these florists reacted?

…

Also, according to a local ABC news story, one of the florists that was initially asked to deliver flowers (Floral Express) was legitimately closed for the day:

The others still sound like bigots to me:

Owner of Twins Florist in Cranston, Marina Plowman, was one of the businesses to reject the order.

Plowman said, “It’s my freedom of speech I refuse orders when I want and I take orders when I want.”

…

[Flowers by Santilli] owner Raymond Santilli said, “we have beliefs as well as the individual that’s in the middle of all this, and we just feel that it’s better for us as a business and the city itself just to stay away from this and not to cross the lines.”

Whether their refusals actually constitute “freedom of speech” is debatable and FFRF is in the process of “filing civil complaints” (PDF) against the florists that refused their order.

…

Sean Condon, co-owner of Glimpse of Gaia, the only company that agreed to deliver flowers to Jessica Ahlquist, is a little surprised to be receiving all the positive publicity, but he comes off looking great in this segment:

One reader passed along an email he received from Sean and Steph after thanking them for delivering the flowers:

“Thank you very much for your kind words.  It is an odd experience to be congratulated and thanked for doing something so ordinary.  We’d like you to know that the response has been overwhelmingly positive and that Jessica is getting more flowers today as are several charities in our area, thanks to donors.  This is a funny little chapter in the history of a state founded on religious liberty.

Thanks again – Sean & Steph”

Adam Savage, the co-host of Mythbusters, has just been added to the lineup!

“We are thrilled to add Adam Savage to the roster of amazing speakers,” Reason Rally organizer David Silverman said. “His star power and versatile talents will translate well with the rally attendees.”

The full list of speakers is here. Are you getting excited?