What do you get when you take Digg and whittle it down to a niche promoting atheism related topics? You get The Atheist Spot. Vjack over at Atheist Revolution wrote about it and so I thought I’d check it out. It obviously doesn’t have the traffic levels that Digg enjoys, but its tight focus should help provide me with ideas on what the rest of the atheist bloggers out there are talking about.

I’ve registered an account under the handle SEB so I can participate and I’ll see if I can’t add a link to the list at the end of entries here for submitting stuff to the Atheist Spot.

SEB regular Lordklegg sends along a link to a satirical news item about an atheist who sees an image of the big bang in a piece of toast. It’s damned amusing, but my favorite bit has to be this one:

Ever since news of the discovery made national headlines, local hoteliers have been overwhelmed by an influx of atheists from all over the country who have flocked to Huddlesfield to catch a glimpse of the scientific relic. “I have always been an Atheist and to see my life choices validated on a piece of toast is truly astounding” said one guest at the Huddlesfield arms hotel.

Sounds absolutely ludicrous doesn’t it? And yet newspapers around the world are filled with similarly ridiculous stories about True Believers™ finding images of Jesus or the Virgin Mary in various random inanimate objects and ascribing all manner of improbable benefits to the discovery and it seems no one bats an eyelash. 

It seems comedian Mario Digiorgio and I are of the same mind. I’ve often wished I could afford to do this as well:

I think most atheists can relate to this cartoon by Don Addis…

Found over at The Friendly Atheist.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words:

Christian Atheism guy who stands quietly at Speaker’s Corner in London every Sunday, with signs that proclaim: CHRISTIAN ATHEISM: TO FOLLOW JESUS, REJECT GOD. Click to embiggen.

The picture was taken by Cory Doctorow and originally posted over at Boing Boing.

I was going to write a long rant about House Resolution 888, but vjack over at Atheist Revolution has done such a good job I’m just going to repost his entry here and hope he doesn’t mind:

House Resolution 888, sponsored by Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA-4th District), seeks to rewrite American history to include a number of falsehoods perpetuated by Christian extremists. This should be of grave concern to every American atheist as well as anyone who values historical accuracy.

For many specific examples of the misinformation contained in H. Res. 888, see Chris Rodda’s excellent post at Talk To Action. It is long, but it really is a must read. Rodda has done an impressive job of debunking many of the claims contained in the resolution. Plain and simple, this is revisionist history intended to promote the “Christian nation” myth through deception.

For more information about the implications of H. Res. 888, talking points you can use when discussing what is wrong with it, and even a sample letter you can send to your Representative in Congress, see Bruce Wilson’s helpful post at Talk To Action. Contacting your Representative is especially important if he or she happens to be on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. You can find the letter I sent to my Representative here.

And why exactly should you care about any of this revisionist history stuff? Here are a few reasons:

• Revisionist history in the National Junior ROTC program
• Why the Christian right distorts history and why it matters
• Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the evangelical moment in American public life
• Christian reconstructionists are trying to take dominion in America—and they have powerful friends
• Beware the dominionists
• What is Christian nationalism?

Please join me in helping to spread the word about this one.

Contact your representatives and let them know your stance on this issue. I’m working on my letters as soon as I finish this entry. And if you don’t already have vjack’s blog in your blogroll then add it in. Good stuff.

I saw this a couple of weeks ago and thought it was both amusing and illuminating, but forgot to post it at the time. So here it is:

Click to embiggen!

This is something we’ll probably see more of in the coming year. The popularity of the various atheism promoting books of late has definitely gotten the attention of the theists. They’re putting out video clips such as the following to get out the warning:

I love how they ended with the message that you’ve gotta get ‘em young if you want your kids to grow up to be True Believers™. It’s true that the kids who get the least amount of indoctrination are the most likely to question those beliefs later in life so they’ve got good reason to be worried about hooking them before they’re able to think too critically about what they’re being told is The Truth.

Video from Heathen.TV found via The Friendly Atheist.

Cartoonist Matt Bors responds with the following:

Click to embiggen!

As well as a very well written blog entry on the topic.

The poll wasn’t about atheists per se, but rather about public opinion about Mormons. Still it includes us as a group and we’re still in last place on the list. If you’re planning a career in politics you’d best not be an atheist or do everything you can not to discuss your lack of faith.

Though Mormonism is viewed as far less of a liability for a presidential candidate than not believing in God or being a Muslim, more people do express reservations about voting for a Mormon (25%) than about supporting a candidate who is an evangelical Christian (16%), a Jew (11%) or a Catholic (7%).

Furthermore, the group of Americans most likely to say they value religiosity in a president – white evangelical Protestants – is also the group most apt to be bothered by his religion.

More than one-in-three evangelical Republicans (36%) expressed reservations about voting for a Mormon, a level of opposition much higher than that seen among the electorate overall.

These worries are directly linked to how Americans view Romney. The August Pew poll found that Romney’s favorability rating was much lower (54%) among those who say they would be less likely to vote for a Mormon than among those without such reservations (81%).

Overall, a slim majority of the public (53%) expresses a favorable view of Mormons, while 27% view Mormons unfavorably. By this measure, the public views Mormons more favorably than Muslims (43% favorable) and atheists (35%), but more negatively compared with evangelical Christians (60% favorable), Catholics or Jews (76% favorable for each group).

It still bugs me that Muslims politicians stand a better chance of being elected than atheists what with all the violent nonsense their radicals get into. When was the last time a group of radical atheists torched several city blocks and a couple of embassies over a cartoon? “Sure a few of their radicals might suddenly decide to go on a rampage, but at least they still believe in God!”

So have you seen the trailer yet for The Golden Compass? If not then here it is below:

Until I saw the trailer I’d never heard of the books the movie is based on — a trilogy called His Dark Materials — and the first time I saw the trailer I wrote it off as a Chronicles of Narnia wannabe. The only reason I might have had for seeing it in theaters is that Courtney was very excited about the movie. As it turns out, though, I may have to go see it out of my own curiosity now that I’ve learned that the books have a somewhat anti-organized religion tone to them and are written by an avowed atheist.

It seems the movie has been a cause of concern for our good friend and Catholic League president, Bill Donohue, prompting him to put out a press release advising parents not to take their kids to see the film:

“New Line Cinema and Scholastic Entertainment have paired to produce ‘The Golden Compass,’ a children’s fantasy that is based on the first book of a trilogy by militant English atheist Philip Pullman. The trilogy, His Dark Materials, was written to promote atheism and denigrate Christianity, especially Roman Catholicism. The target audience is children and adolescents. Each book becomes progressively more aggressive in its denigration of Christianity and promotion of atheism: The Subtle Knife is more provocative than The Golden Compass and The Amber Spyglass is the most in-your-face assault on Christian sensibilities of the three volumes.

“Atheism for kids. That is what Philip Pullman sells. It is his hope that ‘The Golden Compass,’ which stars Nicole Kidman and opens December 7, will entice parents to buy his trilogy as a Christmas gift. It is our hope that the film fails to meet box office expectations and that his books attract few buyers. We are doing much more than hoping—we are conducting a nationwide two-month protest of Pullman’s work and the film. To that end, we have prepared a booklet, ‘The Golden Compass: Agenda Unmasked,’ that tears the mask off the movie.

“It is not our position that the movie will strike Christian parents as troubling. Then why the protest? Even though the film is based on the least offensive of the three books, and even though it is clear that the producers are watering down the most despicable elements—so as to make money and not anger Christians—the fact remains that the movie is bait for the books. To be specific, if unsuspecting Christian parents take their children to see the movie, they may very well find it engaging and then buy Pullman’s books for Christmas. That’s the problem.

“We are fighting a deceitful stealth campaign on the part of the film’s producers. Our goal is to educate Christians so that they know exactly what the film’s pernicious agenda really is.”

Wow, anything that gets Bill’s panties in a bunch like that might be worth seeing, but as it turns out he’s quite right that the filmmakers have toned down the anti-religious aspects of the story somewhat. According to some folks it’s been watered down a bit too much:

Northern Lights, the book which first introduced readers to Pullman’s 12-year-old heroine, Lyra, is as dear to its many fans as JRR Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings and JK Rowling’s Harry Potter saga, so tampering with the philosophical content is not likely to be welcomed when the film is released before Christmas.

While Pullman himself has said he believes ‘the outline of the story is faithful to what I wrote, given my knowledge of what they have done’, the National Secular Society - of which the author is an honorary associate - has now spoken out against the changes.

‘It was clear right from the start that the makers of this film intended to take out the anti-religious elements of Pullman’s book,’ said Terry Sanderson, president of the society. ‘In doing that they are taking the heart out of it, losing the point of it, castrating it. It seems that religion has now completely conquered America’s cultural life and it is much the poorer for it. What a shame that we have to endure such censorship here too.’

Kidman has said the critical stance of the film ‘has been watered down a little ... I was raised Catholic, the Catholic Church is part of my essence,’ she told film journalists in Australia in the summer. ‘I wouldn’t be able to do this film if I thought it were at all anti-Catholic.’
...
At a preview of footage staged at the Cannes Film Festival in the spring, director Chris Weitz, best known for directing About A Boy, said the film would be a fair retelling of Pullman’s tale.

‘In the books the Magisterium is a version of the Catholic church gone wildly astray from its roots. If that’s what you want in the film, you’ll be disappointed,’ he admitted, but added: ‘We have expanded the range of meanings of what the Magisterium represents. Philip Pullman is against any kind of organised dogma whether it is church hierarchy or, say, a Soviet hierarchy.’

That’s disappointing to say the least, but as Bill Donahue points out there’s always a chance some kids will be inclined to pick up the books after seeing the movies. I’ll have to make a point of picking them up myself as well. The film is still causing enough concern among the Religious Right that several emails have been circulating around warning about its anti-Christian message. The email is cropping up often enough that the folks at Snopes.com already have an entry on them on their site. If nothing else it’s nice to see the other side get a little representation every so often.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock you’ve probably at one point in time driven past a billboard with a message on it that was supposedly written by God. You know the ones I’m talking about? All black with white letters saying something witty like “What part of YOU SHALL NOT don’t you understand?” or something along those lines. Have you ever wished there was someone out there putting up something to counter those annoying non-ads? Well, now there is:

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, which is the nation’s largest association of atheists and agnostics, is unveiling what is believed to be one of the first nontheistic billboards erected in Madison, Wis.

The whimsical full-color 48-foot billboard mimics a stained-glass window and warns, “Beware of Dogma.”

“We are launching a campaign to place freethought billboards up around the country, wherever an irreverent billboard is needed--which is practically everywhere!” says Annie Laurie Gaylor, Foundation spokeswoman.

“We don’t go to Mass, but we can go to the masses,” adds Dan Barker, Foundation co-president. “We think it is time for the rest of us to use the mass media to counter the ubiquity of religious messages on roadsides everywhere!”

Not that I think a bunch of billboards is likely to change anyone’s mind anymore so than the God ones have changed mine, but it’s still somewhat neat to see our point of view being put out there as a counterbalance to all the theological messages thrown at us every day.

Hat tip to Atheist Revolution for the story link.

Because, you know, that’s what Jesus would do, right? A snippet from Kazim’s Korner on the incident:

So I rang the bell and greeted them in as friendly a manner as possible, all smiles. I reintroduced myself to the woman and asked if she perhaps knew anything about the chopped plant. Despite giving me a fairly frosty reception, she invited me in and called her husband down. I had a seat on their couch, they took positions opposite me, and the husband had his arms folded the whole time and a very sullen scowl on his face.

Yes, he cut down the agave. I received a lecture on how dangerous it is to the neighborhood kids, and all sorts of gruesome scenarios about eyes being poked out. But what struck Ginny and me as weird later was when we realized that they hadn’t cut any of the spines facing the sidewalk—only the side on the street. (Again, see the picture.)

They then went on to lecture me about the general awful nature of our yard. Now, our yard may not be the most beautiful and well-kept in the neighborhood, but it is mowed regularly and there are quite a few houses that look worse than ours. I’m not a gardener myself, and I’m really busy with school, but I think Ginny does a reasonable job with it.

I took all this politely and said I understood their concerns, and is there anything else? Then we got into the bumper stickers. The wife said several times that they “make her sick” and she is very angry that we disrespect her religion. That she could never be friends with someone who doesn’t “share her values.” That she is firmly set in her beliefs and would never change them.

I said I don’t want or expect her to change her beliefs, I have never asked her to. I don’t proselytize to people who haven’t approached me about the subject. And while I sympathized with her feelings, the very fact that she is willing to announce that the bumper stickers sicken her is unfortunately one of the chief reasons why we feel the need to express ourselves in this way. That Christians—not you, I stated—feel that it’s acceptable to go door-to-door inviting people to their religion, and that we are expected to keep quiet about our opinions because they are supposedly offensive. We are sad that you view our bumper stickers that way, but we see it as a small but legitimate exercise of our free speech.

His wife has her take on the story as well:

t wasn’t an act of kindness or neighborly caring that drove this man to mutilate my poor agave, it was an act of a bigot who holds nothing but disdain for us because we believe differently from him. He is a Christian(the kind that gives Christianity a bad name) and we are atheists. In his mind he has all the justification he needs to break the law by not only trespassing, but to vandalize as well, because we don’t matter as far as he is concerned. He views us as the lowest of the low and we don’t deserve to be treated with respect.

For the record the cops were called, but they decided not to press charges against the neighbors or even have the cop give them a warning. While it’s commendable that they decided to turn the other cheek, so to speak, I can’t help but wonder if the fact that they weren’t at least reproached by the officer will be taken as a sign that they are free to vandalize again in the future. I suppose the police at least have it on record now in case the neighbors decide to practice their particular variation of Christian morality again in the future.

Links found via The Friendly Atheist.

Hank Fox sent me an email that made me feel a little better today as it revealed that while it is difficult for an openly atheist person to get elected to office it’s not entirely impossible:

There is only one member of Congress who is on record as not holding a god-belief.

Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), a member of Congress since 1973, acknowledged his nontheism in response to an inquiry by the Secular Coalition for America (http://www.secular.org ). Rep. Stark is a senior member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee and is Chair of the Health Subcommittee.
...
In October, 2006 the Secular Coalition for America, a national lobby representing the interests of atheists, humanists, freethinkers, and other nontheists, announced a contest. At the time, few if any elected officials, even at the lowest level, would self-identify as a nontheist. So the Coalition offered $1,000 to the person who could identify the highest level atheist, agnostic, humanist or any other kind of nontheist currently holding elected public office in the United States.

In addition to Rep. Stark only three other elected officials agreed to do so: Terry S. Doran, president of the School Board in Berkeley, Calif.; Nancy Glista on the School Committee in Franklin, Maine; and Michael Cerone, a Town Meeting Member from Arlington, Mass.

Surveys vary in the percentage of atheists, humanists, freethinkers and other nontheists in the U.S, with about 10% (30 million people) a fair middle point. “If the number of nontheists in Congress reflected the percentage of nontheists in the population,” Lori Lipman Brown, director of the Secular Coalition, observes, “there would be 53-54 nontheistic Congress members instead of one.”

Until today I’d never heard of him despite his being very anti-war and a progressive liberal so I checked out his Wikipedia entry and I have to admit I like what I see.

Today, Stark has been in office 33 years and reelected until 2009. Within the House, he has been a ranking member of the Banking and Currency Committee and powerful Ways and Means Committee. His voting record is generally liberal/progressive (having been voted the most liberal member of Congress for two consecutive years) as indicated in the ratings section below. As such he is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

He is known to have a longstanding interest in health care issues and has been critical of the fate of the uninsured under the current administration.[3] In addition, Stark was one of the most vocal Congresspersons who spoke out against the war in Iraq. In fact, he said (in a tongue-in-cheek manner) that if the United States goes to war, then it should not be without a draft. This was to prove the point that many young lives will be lost in a new war. In October 2004, Stark was one of only two members of Congress to vote in favor of HR 163, a bill proposing to reinstate the draft. Lastly he is known to “shoot from the hip,” as remarked by his less than cordial comments.

Of course he was elected 30 years ago, but at least there’s one acknowledge atheist in amongst all the rest.