I've found that trying to convince Christians that organized prayer in public is wrong, never works. They interpret it as, "you're trying to take away my right to pray!" In recognition of this, I've formulated a better argument against it which I hope even Christians will appreciate.

In the past, I would sometimes point out Matthew 6, verse 5-6:

6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Christians tend to ignore this passage or interpret it to say that an organized prayer in a church is fine since everyone there is praying en masse so the whole church or event is a 'closet' shared by like-minded people.

However, what Christians really are neglecting is how organized prayer is really interrupting their personal relationship with Jesus and their freedom to pray whenever and however they want.

If they truly want freedom and a personal relationship with Jesus they should be demanding that they be free to say whatever prayer they want, in any way they want, inside their own minds. When a person of authority leads a prayer out loud they are infringing on how a believer can speak in a personal way to Jesus.

This now has become my argument against prayers in schools, at public events or during Town Council meetings. If time for a prayer is going to be allowed, every praying person must be free to say whatever prayer they want. It is an infringement of a person's freedom to have a directed prayer or to be coerced into saying the prayer the leader chooses.

If I step into a church and an organized prayer is going to be said, that's fine since I have opted-in to be a part of how this church conducts its rituals. However, because public places are open to everyone, no one must give up their freedom of mind or conscious so that another person or group can impose their prayer on those around them. Even Christians should be offended that someone else is telling them which prayer to say during their personal conversation with Jesus.

I don't oppose a 'moment of silence' to open a public event since I am free (and are believers) to do whatever mental ritual I want (or not) without interference. A good example is the two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day. During these two minutes, I can remember the great wars (or not) in any way I want. I choose to think about my grandfather that fought in the First World War. I'd be angry if some person or group demanded I take part in their memories.

A local public school decided to send all Grade 8 students on an outdoor educational experience at a local camp. The purpose of the trip was to enhance their learning of nature and to provide the opportunity for the students to bond with each other, their teachers and their school. It was reasonably priced and the organizing teacher had been to the facility before and was highly impressed with the staff and their dedication to the kids.

I very strongly opposed the trip, have sent a letter to the principal and have called my local Trustee to explain the gravity of my concerns. If you lived within the boundaries of my school board, I would hope you'd do the same.

You see, the camp is a Christian Camp. Here are the first two paragraphs from the Camp's Welcome page (I have omitted the camp name):

Camp 'M...' is a Christian Camp that is committed to introducing children and young people to the message of Jesus Christ from the Bible through a camping experience that incorporates practical spiritual teaching, skill development, physical activity, friendship and lots of fun.

We want each camper to feel welcome, safe and accepted for who they are. Our goal is to provide real experiences; character-building opportunities that will develop young people physically, emotionally, socially, and spiritually and allow them to stretch and flourish – to be the people God wants them to be.

The main purpose of this camp is not to provide outdoor education, it is to introduce, strengthen and indoctrinate children into the camp's specific view of Christianity. The camping experience is merely icing on a cake. I'm reminded of the story of Hansel and Gretel where they are attracted to the house by its candy covering but this is merely a ruse to get the children inside the house for an unrelated purpose.

My local trustee immediately recognized my concern. The two representatives at the school I have spoken to (a teacher and an administrator) did not. There is no requirement that they agree with me but it is disturbing that they do not even understand my objection. Instead of questioning whether the trip may violate Board policy or the Education Act they are trying to defend the trip. I understand that the trip may be a very important activity for the kids and I completely support its purpose. However, it may not happen at this camp!

Why am I so concerned? So what if a bunch of new teenagers hear a few prayers during a camping trip? Won't most of the kids simply ignore any of the religious messages? Why not just let the kids and the school have some fun?

The answers to these questions are complex but I believe it boils down to a simple, fundamental principle of public education; a grand pillar that must never be allowed to fall.

Education of children must take the form of giving them useful and substantiated skills and knowledge. The ultimate strength of the public education system is that it does not teach opinion, it teaches facts. We recognize that every human on the planet has a unique and complex combination of opinions on thousands of issues from aesthetics, politics, history to the supernatural and beyond. However because they are unique, it is impossible for there to be two or more humans holding opinions that are completely true. Either one person holds only true opinions, or no one does. If one person holds the truth, how do we find them? What tools do we use to determine that their opinions are, in fact, true?

The answer to this is the greatest strength of public education. 'Separate' or 'private' schools, by definition, tout that they are the ones with the answers. They wish to remain separate and private for the very reason that they believe they have the 'correct' opinion and they want to be able to enclose impressionable young children within a confined bubble where the only opinion they get to hear and are not allowed to question, is that of the school, its administrators and the benefactors.

The power of the public school system is not that it allows all opinions free reign in the school but that it allows only those opinions which have clear, substantiated and peer-reviewed evidence on their side. One plus one equals two is not taught because it is the opinion of some people that say it is true, it is taught because mountains of evidence demonstrate that it is. Public education teaches public knowledge that has passed the rigorous scientific method, the greatest tool that humans ever invented.

Teachers and administrators must recognize that their opinions may be flawed. They must also recognize that they are likely to not know which of their opinions are flawed. For this reason, teachers and administrators must agree to keep their opinions to themselves and never try to convince the children in their charge to adopt their specific ideas. They are bound by an understanding that it is their job to ensure that children are given only the knowledge which has been gathered by the most educated people in their field. As the saying goes, "only the facts."

But, teachers have one more important role. It's to teach kids how to think, not what to think. They need to teach children how to recognize the difference between opinion and fact. How to analyze opinions, how to distinguish between real evidence and anecdotes. Ultimately, it is not the teacher's job to make children think like they do, but to teach them how to find the flaws in the teacher's own opinions. Any teacher should feel proud when a student makes the teacher reconsider an opinion. They've done their job well.

I opposed the trip to the Christian camp because the camp will attempt to pass their opinion of their specific brand of religion onto the children under the guise of truth. They know that most children will not fall to their knees and believe during prayer before spaghetti but they are planting seeds. And, like every farmer and marketing person knows, the more seeds you plant, the greater the chance your crop will grow.

Stand up for public education! Contact your schools and convince yourself that your school is adhering to these high standards. Let's raise a generation of children that will not adopt our opinions but scrutinize and improve them.

Democracy is a great political innovation. Being able to voice your opinion and having a say in who and how a country is run is powerful and leading to far greater social reform and happiness.

However, a significant number of people freely choose not to vote. Further, many people vote along a party or historical line and attach their vote to a specific issue. In many cases, the reason for supporting (or opposing) an issue is not very clear as the voter has not spent much time understanding their view or the other.

Is it time to change the way we allow people to vote?
In Canada, once you reach 18, you are allowed to vote as long as you are a Canadian citizen. That's it. You magically become eligible to vote! Why are there no other requirements to be able to vote?

First, I don't like the 'regional representation' model of Canadian politics. Years ago, this made sense because travel and communication were limited. However, nowadays voters can easily vote on specific issues and don't necessarily need to be 'regionally' recognized. In fact, if political parties were assigned seats based on national support, minority parties would actually receive more seats since their support is usually thinly spread out and unable to gain power in any one region. Further, some voters may not vote for their preferred party recognizing that their vote will be useless if they are in a minority. Also, this would prevent 'defensive' voting (ie. voting Liberal just to make sure Conservatives don't get a lot of votes even though you support Green).

Professional Voters
I think voting on important issues requires an educated voter. The main problem with Democracy is that anyone can vote, even those who know little about the issue they are voting for! I'd like to see a system where people are required to learn about issues and then earn the right to vote on it. This class of people would become 'qualified' or even 'expert' voters.

The idea is to have a test that neutrally presents the sides of an issue. A potential voter must answer questions that show they understand the arguments being presented and then earn the privilege to vote. This does not mean that uninformed people cannot voice opinions, it simply means they don't vote.

Deciding Issues
Take the issue of Evolution in America. Should Americans 'vote' on whether it is taught in public schools? There are arguments for and against teaching evolution. However, due to the low levels of science education in America, does it make sense to have citizens, illiterate in evolution, to decide whether it's taught?

Imagine critics of evolution want to remove it from the curriculum. To gain support for their idea, they would need to educate those who agree with them not just on the anti-evolution arguments, but also the pro-evolution argument because they know the potential voter must pass a questionnaire to see if they really understand the issue. Only those who do will be allowed to vote on it!

My goal with this idea is to get public policy issues passed by those who are most qualified to decide them. This is very similar to the peer review process in science. In fact, it should ensure that future policies are decided by scientific methods and not on rhetorical arguments. Would you vote for that?

Special report to the HumanistDad Blog

The Glory of Jesus Appears In Man's Toilet

Carole Rose Andersen-Polata
Religion Writer

A man has refused to flush his toilet after seeing the image of Jesus in it. Paul Orland Oderkirk, 48, from Ontario has had a steady stream of onlookers coming by his house and asking to go into his bathroom. "It's all a bit overwhelming," says Oderkirk, a long-haul truck driver, "people keep knocking on the door and offering money to see it."

According to Oderkirk, the image appeared shortly after eating dinner. "I decided to eat some KFC after gettin' back from Idaho over the weekend with my load of corn and I suddenly had a real urge to use the bathroom. I almost didn't get my pants off!" Oderkirk says he sat down just in time and barely had a chance to grab a nearby copy of Playboy when he experienced an life-changing sense of relief. "I remember thinking, 'God that feels good' but, man, the smell started to burn my eyes! That fried chicken seems to come out greasier than it goes in."

Oderkirk said he felt a great shiver after the initial onslaught and is convinced the Holy Spirit entered him right then. "I leaned back against the tank breathed out a great gust of air and found myself wiping a handfull of 2-ply over my forehead 'cause the sweat was starting to run down my face." Feeling a bit dizzy, Oderkirk had to grab onto the towel bar to get himself off. It was when he turned to unroll some toilet paper that he saw the image in the bowl before his eyes, "It was a miracle!"

There, in the bowl, was the image of a praying Jesus. "It weren't no accident either, he even had some whole corn kernels for eyes!" Oderkirk rushed to tell his neighbour, a minister at the local Presbyterian church. "Next time," Oderkirk recalled, "I'll put me pants back on first. The Minister and his wife weren't none too pleased at first."

The Minister, who still goes by his old army name, Sgt. Harry I. Treadbottom says he refused to go with Oderkirk. "There was no way I was going to let some burly half-naked man drag me off to his bathroom to look at an unflushed toilet. I don't care what he says!"

After the police arrived, pictures were taken of the Holy feces and no charges will be brought down upon Oderkirk. However, word has spread of the Holy sighting and Oderkirk is not sure what the future will bring. "All's I can say is that I'm going to need another bathroom in me house since I can't use that one no more."

Oderkirk has not ruled out selling the Holy find on Ebay but he's not sure how to ship it.

This is a funny 'debate' between the congregants of 'The Best Church of God' and Sunsara Taylor. I've never heard of Sunsara Taylor but if she's been on The O'Reilly Factor and he didn't like her, it's probably someone worth checking out!

Best Church of God -- Debate with Sunsara Taylor

For an amateur skit, I thought they did an excellent job. I especially liked the introduction of the first man, "he owns a hardware store, a gun and a woman!"

Thanks to The Barefoot Bum for the link!

I haven't blogged in awhile (arguing with theists a lot on Facebook!) but here's an interview I found of Carl Sagan, on Charlie Rose TV, before he died:

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3

Slightly different thoughts today. I was reading about tidal and wave power and it looks like it could be a viable technology that could provide a significant (15%?) amount of power, clean power. But then I got to thinking...

One person talked about how mother nature is providing tidal power for free and we are just wasting it by not using it. But, what did they mean by that? How is tidal power being 'wasted'? In other words, if we aren't using the energy, where is it going?

If a tidal power generation operation were to take 50% of the energy from the tide, that means that 50% of the energy the tide used to provide is not being used naturally. So, if we take tidal energy, what effect does that have on nature?

Lots of questions.

My first thought is heat. Eventually, all energy is lost as heat. Therefore, current tidal energy must be being converted into heat. Is that heat warming the water? Will the removal of the tidal energy result in lower water temperatures thereby affecting life in the water? Tides also cause mechanical erosion so a reduction in tidal energy will slow erosion - that's probably a good thing but I'm not sure if erosion provides benefits to sealife in the form of releasing minerals?

I think back to when people would have looked at an untouched forest of trees and marvel at all the wood they could cut down and then eventually cut the whole forest. Or when the nearly inexhaustible supply of cod on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland let to the virtual destruction of it. By siphoning tidal power on a large scale, what effect will we have?

Opinions and links to resources would be appreciated!

AND it came to pass that God had a son, but not really, so He made Mary pregnant with His son, but had an angel do the deed instead.

AND His son came to be a man but was really a God.

BUT, there is only one God so the Son is God and God is the Son but yet the Son is a man who is on earth and God is the Father who is in Heaven but also on the earth as a Son.

IT came to pass that the Son was tortured for the sins of mankind as a sacrifice to God, who really is the Son on earth and the God in the sky. Thus God as the Son was tortured to please God, who is also the Son, to please God, the Son.

THE Son was then crucified and sacrificed to God, but God is the Son and the Son, God, so God sacrificed Himself, to Himself as penance for the sins of mankind.

THE death of the Son pleased God (who is now the dead Son) so God, who is now dead, resurrected the Son, but really resurrecting Himself even though He is really dead and couldn't have resurrected Himself if He is dead.

AND so, the Son died, but not really since the Son came back to life and now lives in Heaven with God, who is really the Son, so God and the Son now both live in Heaven even though there is only one God that is actually two Gods living in the same body as God and Son and mankind is saved.

AND if you don't believe this story you go STRAIGHT TO HELL!

I'm active in a Facebook forum that recently added the topic of Homosexuality. I edited it down to the relevant juicy bits. Here was the opening question:

A. Do you accept that it should be legal?
B. Do you accept it as moral?
C. Should gays be able to marry?
D. Should there be special hate laws for use against people beating up gays because they are gay?
E. Should political pressure be put on nations that outlaw homosexuality?

Here's one responder and my arguement with him:

He who shall not be named
A. NO
B. NO
C. NO
D. NO (people also beat up people because they are obese, etc)
E. NO

Gosh, that was easy!!

If you dont cut the tree at its roots and only trim the leaves and branches, the tree will still grow.

Why? Because homosexuals wish to pervert people with their perversion. Simple and to the point.

Me
This is evil. First, you assume homosexuals are evil and now you want to exterminate them - actually committing an act of greater evil. You are sick.

He who shall not be named
I NEVER stated that the HOMOSEXUALS are to be destroyed.

What I DID state is that the HOMOSEXUALITY should be cut right out, NOT the PEOPLE.

The HOMOSEXUAL ACT(S) IS/ARE the problem, NOT the people.

My apologies nevertheless for not clarifying my position.

Me
It's quite clear what you said. You eliminate homosexuality and jewishness* in the same way.

(*Edit: I should have said dark skin here but I left it in for authenticity)

He who shall not be named
My tree analogy was...eliminating homosexuality, NOT the people...and one major way is to educate them and their current lifestyle.

Me
Another is to educate you and your bigotry.

He who shall not be named
I would rather be a bigot, not only in your eyes, but in the entire world's eyes, than to be a bigot in God's eyes (emphasis mine) (pls note: not to be misunderstood by assuming that God is bigoted...im just making a point)

Plus, the whole world has seen the results of homosexuality.

Me
And if your god doesn't exist where does that leave you?

You just voted yourself off the island.

Goodbye.

Humanity will still be here if you ever wish to rejoin us.

I couldn't believe that this guy would take a stand against every person in the world, not for the good of humanity, but for god! How can you possibly deal with a person like this?