1. The worldwide Atheist bus ads.

Across the globe, local atheist groups slapped ads up on the sides of buses to get their message across.  Here in Vancouver, in what is maybe the most atheistic city on the continent, the ads weren’t allowed.  In fact in dozens of cities around the world the ads weren’t posted – in many cases because of reactions from the “faithful”:

Recently a Christian bus driver from Southampton refused to drive a bus that displayed the ad, saying he was shocked and horrified when he saw the slogan, and walked out of his shift in protest.

“I was just about to board and there it was staring me in the face, my first reaction was shock, horror,” driver Ron Heather told BBC radio.  “I felt that I could not drive that bus. I think it was the starkness of this advert which implied there was no God. I told my managers and they said they haven’t got another one and I thought I better go home, so I did,” he said.

An AFP report said that following the appearance of the ads on 800 buses across Britain and in London’s subway system, “angry Christians have protested to Britain’s advertising watchdog – the Advertising Standards Agency – asking for proof that the slogans are telling the truth.”  A Daily Telegraph report said that the Advertising Standards Agency is considering whether to investigate the campaign on the grounds that it is offensive or that its central claim about God’s existence cannot be substantiated.

In northern Italy, a more blatantly antagonistic slogan – “The bad news is that God does not exist. The good news is that we do not need him.” – has been rejected by a billboard agency, the IGP Decaux advertising group. The ad campaign was condemned by the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Genoa, whose Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco is president of the Italian Bishops Conference.

2. Obama’s ‘shout out’ to atheists in the Inaugural.

From the NYTimes:

Most startling, in his inaugural address he described America as “a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers.” That’s the first time I can recall an American president ever saying anything inclusive about atheists (who constitute about 8 percent of Americans, are fast-growing and much reviled; Americans say in polls that they are willing to elect almost anyone president but an atheist).

I think the most startling thing was that he was able to include atheists into the mix without anyone really caring.  Outside of 30 seconds on Fox News and a few dozen bitchy comments in the blogosphere, he was able to do this with virtually no criticism.

3. The March 29th vote in the French colony of Mayotte to become France’s 101st Department.

Why is it significant?  From leMonde:

La départementalisation de l’île devrait également entraîner des modifications culturelles importantes pour les 186 000 Mahorais – musulmans à plus de 95% – comme la suppression définitive de la polygamie, l’élévation de l’âge légal pour le mariage de 15 à 18 ans ou la diminution des attributions des juges musulmans.

By joining France, they automatically become a full member of the European Union – possibly the first Muslim majority territory to do so and what’s more they become subject to French secular law.  Until now the islands have had an informal Sharia law, and Muslim Imams had wide sway over legal affairs  Thanks to the vote, those things are gone.  The people of Mayotte knew that going into the vote – there was significant opposition from Imams, but still – they voted 95.22% in favour.  While this isn’t specifically an atheist triumph, it is a secular one – it’s the rollback of religious law in a far-away corner of Africa.

4. Darwin Day.

Darwin Day – the 200th anniversary of his birth – became a rallying point for atheists this year.  Atheists were able to meet at any one of 800 celebrations in 46 countries.  The people behind the festivities are the who’s who of the Atheist high clergy (the Centre for Inquiry, American Humanists et al*).  Here the Freedom From Religion Foundation (another of the organizers) explains why they believed that Darwin Day was important:

… “2009 from beginning to end [is] truly the Year of Darwin,” says Foundation co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor.

“And,” adds Foundation co-president Dan Barker, “the anniversaries make 2009 a blockbuster year for promoting science.” Barker left his fundamentalist ministry more than 20 year ago and is author of Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists.

“It’s an intellectual blot on our country that more than 50% of Americans reject evolution,” said Gaylor. “The Darwin bicentennial is a chance to celebrate reality, to move our nation forward, to ‘evolve beyond belief’ and return to the Enlightenment.”

5. The Irish Blasphemy law

You can’t win everything.  Atheism did pretty well around the world this year, but there were some set backs.

The Irish government plans to bring into force a new law in October that critics say is a return to medieval justice.

The legislation, aimed at providing judges with clear direction on the 1937 Constitution’s blasphemy prohibition, imposes a fine of up to $25,000 — about $39,000 — for anyone who “publishes or utters matter that is (intentionally meant to be) grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion.”

Police with a search warrant will be able to enter private premises and use “reasonable force” to obtain incriminating evidence.

Atheists are naturally challenging this law, and hopefully next year this can be moved over to the ‘win’ column.

6. Berlin’s religious education referendum fails.

Berlin is called – I don’t know by whom – “the capital of atheism”.  So it was a shock a few years ago when the city had its first Muslim honour killing.  Part of the reaction to that was to introduce mandatory ethics classes to teach all children about what is expected of them by society.  Because these classes were mandatory and covered many of the same topics as the elective religion classes, enrollment in what the Germans call ‘Reli’ classes plummeted.

Naturally Christians couldn’t have that, so they pushed through a referendum which, if passed, would have made students choose between a mandatory ethics class or a mandatory religion class.  Those religion classes would be divided by faith, with Muslims, Catholics and Protestants each attending separate classes.

“What’s so awful about an ethics lesson in which everyone takes part?” asked Michael Müller, regional head of the Social Democrats. “Isn’t it a good thing that I learn something about my neighbour’s religion, his family and cultural background?”

It was close, but thanks to apathy, the vote lost on two counts: first, they lost in total numbers, and second they didn’t get a sufficient turnout to make the referendum binding.

7. Renewed popularity of Ayn Rand.

Her book sales are sky-rocketing, her name is on everyone’s lips - but what people never seem to remember about Ayn Rand is her relentless and militant atheism.  It’s her best feature.  Here she is discussing it with Playboy:

Playboy:

Has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?

Rand:

Qua religion, no—in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy.

This year more than a million copies of her atheistic books made it into the hands of Americans.  Hopefully countering the false perception that atheism is only for left-wingers.

8. An atheistic civil society

Here we’re talking about Dawkins’ atheist summer camps, about the boom in atheist student groups on campuses, about the great attendance at Darwin Day, even about the Out Campaign – what’s happening is that the world is seeing the birth of an atheistic civil society.  It’s obviously a long way from being able to offer the sense of community that people find in the churches, but it’s a necessary step forward.

9. Science shows religion to be hard-wired.

This year treated us to a spate of articles about how humans evolved to believe in God, or how there could even be a God gene:

… research is pointing to a new perspective on religion, one that seeks to explain why religious behavior has occurred in societies at every stage of development and in every region of the world. Religion has the hallmarks of an evolved behavior, meaning that it exists because it was favored by natural selection. It is universal because it was wired into our neural circuitry before the ancestral human population dispersed from its African homeland.  For atheists, it is not a particularly welcome thought that religion evolved because it conferred essential benefits on early human societies and their successors. If religion is a lifebelt, it is hard to portray it as useless.

This is a double-edged sword.  On the one hand it makes it sound like religion will be harder to eradicate – on the other hand, does this mean we atheists are more evolved?  Or on a weirder and more menacing note, does this mean that – as one newspaper reported – “science is just one gene away from defeating religion“?

10. The rise of debaptisms.

It’s silly.  But it’s a real thing, a coming out for many people who were forced into the church at a young age.  At the time the above report was done, 60,000 people had downloaded debaptism certificates.  As the year wore on, de-baptisms spread.  When they reached the USA, they even became more elaborate:

In a type of mock ceremony that’s now been performed in at least four states, a robed “priest” used a hairdryer marked “reason” in an apparent bid to blow away the waters of baptism once and for all. Several dozen participants then fed on a “de-sacrament” (crackers with peanut butter) and received certificates assuring they had “freely renounced a previous mistake, and accepted Reason over Superstition.”

For Gray, the lighthearted spirit of last summer’s Atheist Coming Out Party and De-Baptism Bash in suburban Westerville, Ohio, served a higher purpose than merely spoofing a Christian rite.

“It was very therapeutic,” Gray said in an interview. “It was a chance to laugh at the silly things I used to believe as a child. It helped me admit that it was OK to think the way I think and to not have any religious beliefs.”

I like how this is considered to be the ‘mock’ ceremony, while dipping babies in magic water is still robed in mystery and awe.

If you have any atheist stories I missed, please let me know in the comments.

I don’t think it’s true, but I do enjoy how offensive it is:

Last week, a new study confirmed something essential about women, something that refuses to budge, even though many say it’s long past time. Professors at Trinity College in Connecticut analyzed the numbers of Americans unaffiliated to any religion. While the number of male nonbelievers was rocketing, the overall totals were slowed by women hitching themselves to the anchor of faith: “Gender difference is a brake on the growth of the No Religion population,” says the study, which found that 19 percent of men were no longer denizens of a religious America, while only 12 percent of women live outside the faithful fold. In the past, one could say that women tended the hearth, and men participated in the marketplace. But today?

… It’s hard not to compare women sticking with faith to wives confined to bad marriages: They’re so committed to the institution that they’ll willingly shrink under mistreatment just to maintain their own status quo.

Just back from Tariq Ramadan’s speech in Vancouver this evening.  It was his crowd, an overflow audience of appreciative supporters.

The topic of the lecture was reform in Islam – it was interesting to see exactly what he means by it.  Boiled down, and maybe inadvertently misrepresented, he says that the problem in Islam is a misunderstanding of Islam’s history, caused by an insecure and passive populace.  He said that they misunderstand the origins of Koranic law – that they don’t understand that Islamic law was drafted in a context.  With the decline in the Islamic world, the faith became divorced from the wider society – the context – and became frozen, centuries out of place.

In order for Islam to reconcile itself with the modern world, those “passive” Muslims need to ask their Imam’s harder and more challenging questions, and force Islamic “Science” to work with modern, or real science to put the faith in a more modern context.  Islam, he said, should also strive to change its objectives to encompass democratization, and environmentalism.

What I hadn’t heard before, was his idea of where reform should take place.  First off, the problem of Islam are the passive believers.  The reform of Islam should not have anything to do with them though – other than urging them to ask harder questions.  Reform needs to happen at an elite level between Islamic scholars.

So that was the speech – a few quotes which stuck out for me – written in mostly accurate shorthand:

The problem [of Islam] is not in the source but in the minds of believers

To westerners – the starting point of respect is the remember that Islam is as complex as Christianity

A Muslim which is not evolving is not being faithful to Islamic teachings

To forgive is jihad, isn’t it?

Protecting the collective is a goal of Islam – by definition a nation or society should be independent

Don’t say ‘I’m a good Muslim, a moderate’

Do you think of the Muslims in this society as a richness, an asset to the country, or a problem to be solved?

Following the speech he took 4 questions.  The first was from an Iranian woman who described herself as secular and asked what her place was in a debate between conservatives and reformers.  He responded with some talk about civil society, and then by saying that some ‘religious liberals are politically scary’ as scary as Iran’s theocrats.

The next question was from a Bosniak woman who asked him for his support in calling for Islamic prayers to be given in local languages and not just Arabic.  He didn’t give this support, and went in to a lengthy explanation of why the prayers must be in Arabic, and how she and her fellow Bosniaks are too “passive” and should make more of an effort to learn god’s chosen tongue.

Question three, I’ll come to in a minute.  The last question was about 9-11 and Muslim reaction to it.  He said that he met a Muslim in America in 2003 who wore a button that said ‘proud to be Muslim’ – which he thought was wrong-headed and, frankly pathetic.

Now Question three.  The questioner here asked for his views on apostasy.  He gave the right answer as you can see on the video (sorry for the sloppy camera work):

One thing I want to pull out of there though.  In the video, he brings up an article in Newsweek’s “On Faith” website, by the Egyptian Grand Mufti Ali Goma’a.  Ramadan says that the Mufti unequivocally condemned the death penalty for apostasy.  Ramadan went on to explain that the death penalty was only originally imposed on army deserters – people who converted to Islam to steal military secrets from the Muslims – then repented and went over to the enemy.  It was really a punishment for high treason.

Makes sense, no?

Here’s what Ali Goma’a actually said:

All religions have doctrinal points that define what it is to be an adherent of that religion. These are divine injunctions that form the basis of every religion, but they are not a means for imposing a certain system of belief on others by force. According to Islam, it is not permitted for Muslims to reject their faith, so if a Muslim were to leave Islam and adopt another religion, they would thereby be committing a sin in the eyes of Islam. Religious belief and practice is a personal matter, and society only intervenes when that personal matter becomes public and threatens the well-being of its members.

In some cases, this sin of the individual may also represent a greater break with the commonly held values of a society in an attempt to undermine its foundations or even attack its citizenry. Depending on the circumstances, this may reach the level of a crime of sedition against one’s society. Penalizing this sedition may be at odds with some conceptions of freedom that would go so far as to ensure people the freedom to destroy the society in which they live. This is a freedom that we do not allow since preservation of the society takes precedence over personal freedoms.

That’s not quite as progressive sounding to a Western audience – and maybe good that he didn’t explain the context, lest he lose the crowd.

Sedition, and undermining society are more broadly defined in Egypt than in a place like, say, Iowa or France.  A recent example – Egyptian blogger Kareem Amer:

On November 6, 2006, Amer was again arrested by Egyptian state security officers for posts on his blog that were considered by authorities to be of an irreligious nature … During the hearing, a lawyer in the court room introduced himself as Mohamed Dawoud, and immediately submitted a claim against Kareem for his “incitement to hatred of Islam”. The new claim was added as a new case that Kareem will be held accountable for, even if he were to be acquitted from all the current charges made against him.

The trial was adjourned to February 1, 2007.   Prosecution arguments in the February 1, 2007 session were given by a team of Islamist lawyers who volunteered to serve as the ‘representatives of the people,’ an arrangement allowed under Egyptian law. The government’s state prosecutors, who drew up the legal case against Nabil, were not present.

In a heated exchange during the court session, prosecution lawyers accused Kareem of being an ‘apostate’ and called on judge Ayman al-Akazi to hand Kareem the maximum punishment. As a result, a heated exchange occurred between the prosecution and defence until the judge demanded order.

Kareem defended himself by saying:

“I don’t see what I have done,” he said from the defendant’s cage. “I expressed my opinion…the intention was not anything like these [charges].”

Defence lawyers argued that crimes related to the Internet were new in Egypt and that the penal code did not cover them.

Prosecution lawyer Mohamed Dawoud told The Associated Press:

“I want him [Nabil] to get the toughest punishment,” Dawoud told . “I am on a jihad here … If we leave the likes of him without punishment, it will be like a fire that consumes everything.”

The trial was adjourned to February 22, 2007 where the judge said Nabil was guilty and would serve three years for insulting Islam and inciting sedition, and one year for insulting Mr Mubarak.

To go from gallows to the gulag is certainly better than nothing – but it’s disingenuous to say that’s progress in any western sense of the word.

I’m not going to tell you what to think, but I’d recomment looking at the rest of his speech – at the parables he used to illustrate his Islamic environmentalism, his Islamic economics, his Islamic “science”.  I suspect that behind each of those as well, you will find something equally ugly and anti-modern.

FYI: There’s a lot of background to this that you need to read about to see exactly what I’m getting at – if you do want to do that, I’d recommend starting here.

FYI 2: TP from the Covenant Zone blog was also at the lecture.  He has a post up with a more considered take on the lecture here.

Cathy and I were out for a walk the other day, up on Kingsway in Vancouver.  Nearly every shop we passed – like for a full kilometre – was Vietnamese.  I’m from here – Cathy’s been here for a decade.  Thing is, we don’t know a single Vietnamese person.  There have to be a lot of them around, what with all the shops, but I can’t say that I’ve ever known one.

Same kind of thing came up a few days later.  I can’t remember exactly what we were doing … I think I was ranting – but somehow I realized that I don’t know a single person who believes in the Christian God.  The Sikh God – one of two – the Christian God?  Nope.

Which got me thinking: who else don’t I know?

1. I don’t know a single person who doesn’t want to legalize pot.  And don’t go round thinking I know a lot of chronics – outside of my mother and my former employer – I know very few people who smoke anything.
2. I don’t know any vegans – thank god.
3. I don’t know any Filipinos.  They make up one of the top 5 groups in Vancouver, I don’t know any of them.
4. Outside of myself – I don’t have in my circle anyone who supports the war in Iraq (a lot support the Afghan war though).
5. I don’t know anyone who believes in homeopathy.
6. I don’t know anyone who skis.  That’s saying something for Vancouver.  Most of the people I know only go up the mountains hiking.  A few people snowboard, but no one skis.
7. I don’t know any of the working class.  That surprised me.  The only person I know who works with their hands, is my brother – and set builder for Battlestar Galactica isn’t real blue collar.  I know managers, teachers, journalists, entrepreneurs, web programmers, “buyers”, animators, chefs, politicians – but no mechanics, plumbers, janitors, food counter attendants etc…
8. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t think guns are awesome.  My brother has a gun license, my best friend has a gun license, Cathy’s been shooting, a bunch of other people have been in the reserves – who doesn’t love guns?  Guns kick ass.
9. I don’t know anyone who supports the death penalty.  You always read that people love them some death penalty – but then you talk to people, and no one is cool with it.
10. I don’t know anyone who speaks fluent French.  I speak pretty ok French, I’ve got some friends who are a bit better, but none of us are good enough at it to hold a job in the federal public service.
11. I don’t know anyone who refuses to call terrorists – “terrorists”.  That’s something for Vancouver.
12. I don’t know anyone who supports the Human Rights Commissions.  I’ve ranted it up with probably everyone by now, and first off – no one has heard of section 13.1.  Second – once they do hear of it, they hate it.
13. I don’t know anyone who supports the carbon tax.  Everyone I know pays it – familiarity with it absolutely breeds contempt.  Everyone hates it.
14. I don’t know any Sunni or Shia Muslims.  Ismailis – sure, but they’re a tiny minority in Islam.

You know that Sesame Street song – “These are the people in your neighbourhood”?  I swear to dog if they did that for this neighbourhood, I wouldn’t know, like 9/10 of them.    Am I alone in being this insular?  Think about it – how broad is your circle of friends?

Via the BC Muslims’ Website:

Tariq Ramadan: The Scope and Limits of Reforming Islam
Mon. Feb. 23, 2009
Event Category: Lecture
Community: All Muslims

Time: 7:00pm

An internationally recognized scholar of Islam, Tariq Ramadan was named by TIME magazine as one of the 21st century’s top 100 innovators for his infl uential eff orts toward the establishment of a modern and independent European Islam.

Prof. Ramadan’s lecture will draw from his most recent book, A Radical Reform: Islamic Ethics and Liberation, in which he calls for a dramatic transformation of Muslim spiritual, ethical, legal and social traditions as a necessary response to contemporary global challenges.

“[Ramadan's proposal] is bound to provoke controversy and spark debate among Muslims and non-Muslims alike.” – Oxford University Press

This lecture is free and open to the public. Reservations are recommended.

RSVP: Please call 778-782-5100 or email cs_hc@sfu.ca

Venue
SFU Segal Graduate School of Business
500 Granville St.
Vancouver
BC

The debate that Ramadan provokes among non-Muslims is mostly about his so-called ‘forked-tongue’ – i.e. his apparent habit of saying one thing to western listeners, and another to Muslims.  Here Christopher Hitchens discusses Ramadan and some of his other provocative acts:

He possesses a command of postmodern and sociological jargon (of the sort that you may easily recognize by its repetitive use of the terms space and discourse to delineate the arena of thinkable debate), and he has a smooth way with euphemism.

Thus, he tells Egyptian television that the destruction of the Israeli state is for the moment “impossible” and in Mantua described the idea of stoning adulterous women as “unimplementable.” This is something less than a full condemnation, but he is quick to say that simple condemnation of such things would reduce his own “credibility” in the eyes of a Muslim audience that, or so he claims, he wants to modernize by stealth.

His day-to-day politics have the same surreptitious air to them. The donations he made to Hamas (donations that led to difficulties receiving a visa to teach at the University of Notre Dame, a position he eventually resigned) were small gifts directed to Hamas’ “humanitarian” and “relief” wing.

I don’t know what he’s doing in our little atheist backwater*.   But you should take the time to see him, he is as they say, ‘Islamist royalty’.  Be sure to book early, it’s a tiny venue.

FYI: You can find a lengthy indictment of him here.

I was looking around the web for the full text of Jean Messlier’s book: Superstition in all ages.  There is precisely one web link to it’s full English text on-line.  That’s a shame.  His book was one of my inspirations.  Up there with the first 600 or so pages of Atlas Shrugged.

Here’s Meslier from Wikipedia:

Jean Meslier was born January 15, 1664, in Mazerny in the Ardennes. He began learning Latin from a neighborhood priest in 1678 and eventually joined the seminary; he later claimed, in the Author’s Preface to his Testament, this was done to please his parents. At the end of his studies, he took Holy Orders and, on January 7, 1689, became priest at Étrépigny, in Champagne. One public disagreement with a local nobleman aside, Meslier was to all appearances generally unremarkable, and he performed his office without complaint or problem for 40 years.

When Meslier died, there were found in his house three copies of a 633-page octavo manuscript in which the village curate denounces religion as “but a castle in the air”, and theology as “but ignorance of natural causes reduced to a system”.

I’ve decided to post his book, his final testament, on the blog and hopefully get it better known.  One bit at a time.  Here’s part one of the atheist bible.

SUPERSTITION IN ALL AGES: A DYING CONFESSION

BY JEAN MESLIER

A Roman Catholic Priest, who at his death left as his “Last Will and Testament” this now famous manuscript as contained herein, entitled COMMON SENSE

WHEN we wish to examine in a cool, calm way the opinions of men, we are very much surprised to find that in those which we consider the most essential, nothing is more rare than to find them using common sense; that is to say, the portion of judgment sufficient to know the most simple truths, to reject the most striking absurdities, and to be shocked by palpable contradictions. We have an example of this in Theology, a science revered in all times, in all countries, by the greatest number of mortals; an object considered the most important, the most useful, and the most indispensable to the happiness of society. If they would but take the trouble to sound the principles upon which this pretended science rests itself, they would be compelled to admit that the principles which were considered incontestable, are but hazardous suppositions, conceived in ignorance, propagated by enthusiasm or bad intention, adopted by timid credulity, preserved by habit, which never reasons, and revered solely because it is not comprehended. Some, says Montaigne, make the world believe that which they do not themselves believe, a greater number of others make themselves believe, not comprehending what is to believe. In a word, whoever will consult common sense upon religious opinions, and will carry into the examination the attention given to objects of ordinary interest, will easily perceive that the opinions have no solid foundation ; that all religion is but a castle in the air ; that Theology is but ignorance of natural causes reduced to a system ; that it is but a long tissue of chimeras and contradictions; that it presents to all the different nations of the earth only romances devoid of probability, of which the hero himself is made up of qualities impossible to reconcile, his name having the power to excite in all hearts respect and fear, is found to be but a vague word, which men continually utter, being able to attach to it only such ideas or qualities as are belied by the facts, or which evidently contradict each other. The notion of this imaginary being, or rather the word by which we designate him, would be of no consequence did it not cause ravages without number upon the earth. Born into the opinion that this phantom is for them a very interesting reality, men, instead of wisely concluding from its incomprehensibility that they are exempt from thinking of it, on the contrary, conclude that they can not occupy themselves enough about it, that they must meditate upon it without ceasing, reason without end, and never lost sight of it. The invincible ignorance in which they are kept in this respect, far from discouraging them, does but excite their curiosity ; instead of putting them on guard against their imagination, this ignorance makes them positive, dogmatic, imperious, and causes them to quarrel with all those who oppose doubts to the reveries which their brains have brought forth. What perplexity, when we attempt to solve an unsolvable problem! Anxious meditations upon an object impossible to grasp, and which, however, is supposed to be very important to him, can but put a man into bad humor, and produce in his brain dangerous transports. When interest, vanity, and ambition are joined to such a morose disposition, society necessarily becomes troubled. This is why so many nations have often become the theaters of extravagances caused by nonsensical visionists, who, publishing their shallow speculations for the eternal truth, have kindled the enthusiasm of princes and of people, and have prepared them for opinions which they represented as essential to the glory of divinity and to the happiness of empires. We have seen, a thousand times, in all parts of our globe, infuriated fanatics slaughtering each other, lighting the funeral piles, committing without scruple, as a matter of duty, the greatest crimes. Why? To maintain or to propagate the impertinent conjectures of enthusiasts, or to sanction the knaveries of impostors on account of a being who exists only in their imagination, and who is known only by the ravages, the disputes, and the follies which he has caused upon the earth.

Originally, savage nations, ferocious, perpetually at war, adored, under various names, some God con-formed to their ideas; that is to say, cruel, carnivorous, selfish, greedy of blood. We find in all the religions of the earth a God of armies, a jealous God, an avenging God, an exterminating God, a God who enjoys carnage and whose worshipers make it a duty to serve him to his taste. Lambs, bulls, children, men, heretics, infidels, kings, whole nations, are sacrificed to him. The zealous servants of this barbarous God go so far as to believe that they are obliged to offer themselves as a sacrifice to him. Everywhere we see zealots who, after having sadly meditated upon their terrible God, imagine that, in order to please him, they must do themselves all the harm possible, and inflict upon themselves, in his honor, all imaginable torments. In a word, everywhere the baneful ideas of Divinity, far from consoling men for misfortunes incident to their existence, have filled the heart with trouble, and given birth to follies destructive to them. How could the human mind, filled with frightful phantoms and guided by men interested in perpetuating its ignorance and its fear, make progress ? Man was compelled to vegetate in his primitive stupidity; he was preserved only by invisible powers, upon whom his fate was supposed to depend. Solely occupied with his alarms and his unintelligible reveries, he was always at the mercy of his priests, who reserved for themselves the right of thinking for him and of regulating his conduct. Thus man was, and always remained, a child without experience, a slave without courage, a loggerhead who feared to reason, and who could never escape from the labyrinth into which his ancestors had misled him ; he felt compelled to groan under the yoke of his Gods, of whom he knew nothing except the fabulous accounts of their ministers. These, after having fettered him by the ties of opinion, have remained his masters or delivered him up defenseless to the absolute power of tyrants, no less terrible than the Gods, of whom they were the representatives upon the earth. Oppressed by the double yoke of spiritual and temporal power, it was impossible for the people to instruct themselves and to work for their own welfare. Thus, religion, politics, and morals became sanctuaries, into which the profane were not permitted to enter. Men had no other morality than that which their legislators and their priests claimed as descended from unknown empyrean regions. The human mind, perplexed by these theological opinions, misunderstood itself, doubted its own powers, mistrusted experience, feared truth, disdained its reason, and left it to blindly follow authority. Man was a pure machine in the hands of his tyrants and his priests, who alone had the right to regulate his movements. Always treated as a slave, he had at all times and in all places the vices and dispositions of a slave.

These are the true sources of the corruption of habits, to which religion never opposes anything but ideal and ineffectual obstacles; ignorance and servitude have a tendency to make men wicked and unhappy. Science, reason, liberty, alone can reform them and render them more happy; but everything conspires to blind them and to conform them in their blindness. The priests deceive them, ty- rants corrupt them in order to subjugate them more easily. Tyranny has been, and will always be, the chief source of the depraved morals and habitual calamities of the people. These, almost always fascinated by their religious notions or by metaphysical fictions, instead of looking upon the natural and visible causes of their miseries, attribute their vices to the imperfections of their nature, and their misfortunes to the anger of their Gods ; they offer to Heaven vows, sacrifices, and presents, in order to put an end to their misfortunes, which are really due only to the negligence, the ignorance, and to the perversity of their guides, to the folly of their institutions, to their foolish customs, to their false opinions, to their unreasonable laws, and especially to their want of enlightenment. Let the mind be filled early with true ideas; let man’s reason be cultivated; let justice govern him; and there will be no need of opposing to his passions the powerless barrier of the fear of Gods. Men will be good when they are well taught, well governed, chastised or censured for the evil, and justly rewarded for the good which they have done to their fellow-citizens. It is idle to pretend to cure mortals of their vices if we do not begin by curing them of their prejudices. It is only by showing them the truth that they can know their best interests and the real motives which will lead them to happiness. Long enough have the instructors of the people fixed their eyes on heaven ; let them at last bring them back to the earth. Tired of an incomprehensible theology, of ridiculous fables, of impenetrable mysteries, of puerile ceremonies, let the hu- man mind occupy itself with natural things, intelligible objects, sensible truths, and useful knowledge. Let the vain chimeras which beset the people be dissipated, and very soon rational opinions will fill the minds of those who were believed fated to be always in error. To annihilate religious prejudices it would be sufficient to show that what is inconceivable to man can not be of any use to him. Does it need, then, anything but simple common sense to perceive that a being most clearly irreconcilable with the notions of mankind, that a cause continually opposed to the effects attributed to him ; that a being of whom not a word can be said without falling into contradictions; that a being who, far from explaining the mysteries of the universe, only renders them more inexplicable ; that a being to whom for so many centuries men ad- dressed themselves so vainly to obtain their happiness and deliverance from their sufferings; does it need, I say, more than simple common sense to understand that the idea of such a being is an idea without model, and that he is himself evidently not a reasonable being? Does it require more than common sense to feel that there is at least delirium and frenzy in hating and tormenting each other for unintelligible opinions of a being of this kind? Finally, does it not all prove that morality and virtue are totally incompatible with the idea of a God, whose ministers and interpreters have painted him in all countries as the most fantastic, the most unjust, and the most cruel of tyrants, whose pre- tended wishes are to serve as rules and laws for the inhabitants of the earth? To discover the true principles of morality, men have no need of theology, of revelation, or of Gods; they need but common sense ; they have only to look within themselves, to reflect upon their own nature, to consult their obvious interests, to consider the object of society and of each of the members who compose it, and they will easily understand that virtue is an advantage, and that vice is an injury to beings of their species. Let us teach men to be just, benevolent, moderate, and sociable, not because their Gods exact it, but to please men; let us tell them to abstain from vice and from crime, not because they will be punished in another world, but because they will suffer in the present world. There are, says Montesquieu, means to prevent crime, they are sufferings; to change the manners, these are good examples. Truth is simple, error is complicated, uncertain in its gait, full of byways; the voice of nature is intelligible, that of falsehood is ambiguous, enigmatical, and mysterious ; the road of truth is straight, that of imposture is oblique and dark ; this truth, always necessary to man, is felt by all just minds ; the lessons of reason are followed by all honest souls ; men are unhappy only because they are ignorant; they are ignorant only because everything conspires to prevent them from being enlightened, and they are wicked only because their reason is not sufficiently developed.

COMMON SENSE

Detexit quo dolose Vaticinandi furore sacerdotes mysteria, illis saepe ignota, audactur publicant. PETRON. SATYR.

I. APOLOGUE.

THERE is a vast empire governed by a monarch, whose conduct does but confound the minds of his subjects. He desires to be known, loved, respected, and obeyed, but he never shows himself; everything tends to make uncertain the notions which we are able to form about him. The people subjected to his power have only such ideas of the character and the laws of their invisible sovereign as his ministers give them ; these suit, however, because they themselves have no idea of their master, for his ways are impenetrable, and his views and his qualities are totally incomprehensible; moreover, his ministers disagree among themselves in regard to the orders which they pretend emanated from the sovereign whose organs they claim to be; they announce them diversely in each province of the empire; they discredit and treat each other as impostors and liars ; the decrees and ordinances which they promulgate are obscure ; they are enigmas, made not to be understood or divined by the subjects for whose instruction they were intended. The laws of the invisible monarch need interpreters, but those who explain them are always quarreling among themselves about the true way of understanding them; more than this, they do not agree among themselves; all which they relate of their hidden prince is but a tissue of contradictions, scarcely a single word that is not contradicted at once. He is called supremely good, nevertheless not a person but complains of his decrees. He is supposed to be infinitely wise, and in his administration everything seems contrary to reason and good sense. They boast of his justice, and the best of his subjects are generally the least favored. We are assured that he sees everything, yet his presence remedies nothing. It is said that he is the friend of order, and everything in his universe is in a state of confusion and disorder ; all is created by him, yet events rarely happen according to his projects. He foresees everything, but his foresight prevents nothing. He is impatient if any offend him; at the same time he puts every one in the way of offending him. His knowledge is admired in the perfection of his works, but his works are full of imperfections, and of little permanence. He is continually occupied in creating and destroying, then repairing what he has done, never appearing to be satisfied with his work. In all his enterprises he seeks but his own glory, but he does not succeed in being glorified. He works but for the good of his subjects, and most of them lack the necessities of life. Those whom he seems to favor, are generally those who are the least satisfied with their fate; we see them all continually revolting against a master whose greatness they admire, whose wisdom they extol, whose goodness they worship, and whose justice they fear, revering orders which they never follow. This empire is the world; its monarch is God ; His ministers are the priests ; their subjects are men.

To my fellow atheists: here are a few quotes by or about the 4 major party leaders and their faith.  Take a look through, which one of these people really scares you? Stephane Dion – Liberal After the show, Dion asked about the denominational breakdown of those of our viewers who are Christian. “You see, the Catholics [...]