Iiiiiiinteresting... We Can’t Inflate Our Way Out of the Debt Crisis. Basically, "[C]reating currency isn’t like, say, diluting shareholders in a company. You’re always rolling your debt, and the market’s response to an inflationary strategy is (not surprisingly) higher interest rates." And inflation has negative side effects, including, "reduced economic growth, increased social and political stress and added strain on the poor — whose incomes aren’t likely to keep pace with the increase in food prices and other basics. That, in turn, could increase pressure on the government to provide aid — aid which would need to keep pace with inflation."
Robert Reich on The Sham Recovery: 
Are we finally in a recovery? Who’s “we,” kemosabe? Big global companies, Wall Street, and high-income Americans who hold their savings in financial instruments are clearly doing better. As to the rest of us – small businesses along Main Streets, and middle and lower-income Americans – forget it.
"I had no need of that hypothesis."
- Pierre-Simon Laplace, explaining to Napoleon why he did not mention God in his book of astronomy.
- Pierre-Simon Laplace, explaining to Napoleon why he did not mention God in his book of astronomy.
I'm afraid I won't be doing much posting live from the Global Atheist Convention; I'm busy, I'm having fun, my dancecard is full, and whenever things slow down a little bit some new person comes up to say hello. But have no fear, I'll put up some comments afterwards, and also, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has dispatched a crack team of ace believers to cover the convention and scowl primly at us all. You can get the fun-house mirror version of the conference from those weirdos…and much amusement. I find it very funny that, for instance, that they can complain about how the GAC is unfair in not representing religious believers, and comparing us unfavorably to the Parliament of World's Religions meeting, all without noting that the PWR got buckets of money from the government here, while the GAC got doodly-squat. It's silly to demand that we respectfully engage the clownish buffoons of religion, and at the same time insist that we must use our limited resources to give a pulpit to said buffoons.
They are also a bit snooty about the fact that the opening night was a festival of comedy. How dare atheists think that the appropriate way to cope with the follies of faith is by developing a sense of humor! But then, I find this guy hilarious: catch this juxtaposition.
The night finished with Catherine Deveney and "God is Bullshit. That's the good news." In your face, yes. And no surprise to those who read her columns in The Age. Her milder lines included, "The only person who takes the Pope seriously is Tony Abbott." And: "If there is anybody out there who is not an atheist, don't worry: it's an intelligence test and you will be eventually." I met Catherine at the bar before the program started and after chatting she agreed to 'an interview' on Sunday.
My thoughts so far? As a Christian I am appalled and ashamed of the crimes, victimisation and discrimination committed in the name of Christ or by those who bear his name. To make light of them through humour is risky. And to stereotype religion in such a way is akin to taking Stalin or Pol Pot as your stereotype atheist.
I'm a little worried about Australian religion and politics now. Chris Mulherin apparently believes that making fun of the Pope and Tony Abbot is like making them the equivalent of Stalin and Pol Pot.
Nobody is making light of the horrors perpetrated in the name of religion — I do appreciate the fact that the first defensive reaction to criticism of religion is a sense of shame, at least — but the goofiness of religion is a wonderful target for humor. To whine that making a joke about one of their poorly regarded pious politicians is stereotyping them as evil tyrants suggests that their guilt and embarrassment is even deeper than I suspected.
Don't expect much favorable coverage from this lot (and by the way, it's also hypocritical to complain about the lack of religious apologists on the stage when the ABC blog doesn't include even a token atheist). They've got an agenda that is going to be disappointed, and I predict they will continue to complain in their oblivious fashion. They're out there in the audience, watching, hoping, and maybe even praying that someone will say something nice about their superstitions; their definition of a good convention is one that reassures them that we don't think their bliss-ninny belief system is an unsalvageable stew of raw sewage spiced with smug ignorance.
That despite all the terrible things we know about religion - the oppression of women, the paedophilia, the social control, the violence and cruelty perpetuated in the name of one faith or another - there's a niggling truth that millions of good, decent, hard-working people around the world are sustained, guided, and comforted by their beliefs. Instead of merely bagging religion, maybe we should be trying to understand why this is? In other words, can you have a new awakening without fully knowing what you're waking from?
Oh, yeah, there's that guilt again. Aside from the violence and oppression and child-rape and cruelty, how can we possibly consider taking away the baby's dummy? That's a fairly common argument for religion, you know — it's the old "opiate of the masses" defense. It's not much of a defense. When you're amidst a group of people who have seen how swaddling minds in ignorance leads to nightmares of stupidity, it's no defense at all.
We know that millions of good people cherish their delusions. We don't care; that a lie makes people feel good doesn't make it a truth. We also understand religion far better than a group of people immersed in it, making a living from propping it up, and desperate to deny that they're wasting their lives worshipping a phantasm.
I imagine the ABC team sitting out there in the sea of the happy godless, busily taking notes, hoping for some little morsel of acknowledgment that maybe they aren't idiots and fools for believing in a magic man in the sky who will reward their intellectual blindness with fluffy comfy chairs in a celestial paradise, or at least won't set their immortal souls on fire for eternity. They aren't going to get that validation. Which means we already know everything they're going to say about the conference.
Read the comments on this post...
Constance McMillen, a senior at Itawamba Agricultural High School, just wanted to go to the prom with her significant other. What makes Ms. McMillen's desire slightly unusual is that her significant other is also a woman. Plus, McMillen wanted to wear a tuxedo instead of the usual gown. That's nice, you might think, but what's the big deal? I agree. This shouldn't be newsworthy. Oh wait...Itawamba Agricultural High School is in rural Mississippi. Uh-oh.
Naturally, the school immediately denied McMillen's request to dress in a tux and take someone of the same sex as a date, saying it was against the rules. Then the ACLU became involved and tried informally to encourage the school administrators to rethink their position. In response, the school took the most reasonable route possible: they cancelled prom...for everyone. Their reason?
The district school board also said that their decision took "into consideration the education, safety and well-being of our students."
Of course, the school wasn't shy about who caused this decision, and now McMillen is in the uncomfortable position of being the one "responsible" for ruining that class's senior year. Now the ACLU is formally suing the school district for infringement of McMillen's free speech.
I know this is in rural Mississippi, so it's not exactly the most progressive of lands, but how does this make any sense? Sure, some parents would have definitely been outraged with the open display of "the gay" in their precious, God-fearing community, but does that mean the entire senior class has to suffer? Wouldn't it have been far easier on everyone if the school just turned a blind eye to the whole thing? The night would have passed with a few snide remarks from students and perhaps a handful of angry phone calls from parents that following Monday, but then everyone would forget about it and move on with their lives. Instead, the school has made sure no one will forget about it, and the district will now have to pay a fortune in legal fees, all in an attempt to preserve the fiction that gays don't exist.
Naturally, the school immediately denied McMillen's request to dress in a tux and take someone of the same sex as a date, saying it was against the rules. Then the ACLU became involved and tried informally to encourage the school administrators to rethink their position. In response, the school took the most reasonable route possible: they cancelled prom...for everyone. Their reason?
"Due to the distractions to the educational process caused by recent events, the Itawamba County School District has decided to not host a prom at Itawamba Agricultural High School this year."
The district school board also said that their decision took "into consideration the education, safety and well-being of our students."
Of course, the school wasn't shy about who caused this decision, and now McMillen is in the uncomfortable position of being the one "responsible" for ruining that class's senior year. Now the ACLU is formally suing the school district for infringement of McMillen's free speech.
I know this is in rural Mississippi, so it's not exactly the most progressive of lands, but how does this make any sense? Sure, some parents would have definitely been outraged with the open display of "the gay" in their precious, God-fearing community, but does that mean the entire senior class has to suffer? Wouldn't it have been far easier on everyone if the school just turned a blind eye to the whole thing? The night would have passed with a few snide remarks from students and perhaps a handful of angry phone calls from parents that following Monday, but then everyone would forget about it and move on with their lives. Instead, the school has made sure no one will forget about it, and the district will now have to pay a fortune in legal fees, all in an attempt to preserve the fiction that gays don't exist.
THIS Sunday, BBC Radio 5 is airing a disturbing programme focusing on the growing problem of Muslim gangs in British prisons.
According to the report, the Muslim prison population in England and Wales has sharply increased in recent years.
Muslims represent 12 percent (9,795) of the prison population in England and Wales, according to the latest available figures from 2008. This has risen by 50 percent over five years. In some high security prisons, the figures are well above average.
In 2008, the highest number of Muslim prisoners – 34 percent – were held in the high-security Whitemoor prison, which is among several jails at which bombs have been found.
A prison guard at HMP Whitemoor, where bombs have reportedly been found
A former inmate called Jay, 24, tells the programme:
Muslims run it. Muslims run the prisons and there’s nothing the screws can do about it. For a Muslim you’d say it’s good but for a non-Muslim, it’s very, very bad.
It is a claim which is backed by former prison officers and other inmates.
Jay has been in and out of prison for most of his life. He openly admits to helping to convert non-Muslim inmates to Islam and has meted out violence against anyone who dares to “disrespect” his religion.
It hurts as a Muslim to have someone disrespect my religion. If we deal with him one time, with violence, and show him what time it is, he will never disrespect our religion again.
He also believes prison officers have much to learn about Islam.
Islam is a very sensitive matter. And the screws don’t understand that. I respect what the screws do but they’ve got to understand our ways, where we’re coming from.
Speaking anonymously, a former prison officer, who worked at HMP Long Lartin, tells the Donal MacIntyre programme about cases where non-Muslim prisoners were seriously assaulted and intimidated for refusing to abide by unofficial rules imposed by Muslim gangs, about eating pork or listening to Western music.
She said:
Muslim gangs was something I was very concerned about – the situation changed where underworld gangsters who used to keep discipline and order were no longer in charge in the prison. The younger guys, who were being forced to convert, were doing it more for protection from a Muslim gang rather than follow the faith – most of them weren’t interested in the faith.
Colin Moses, national chairman of prison workers’ trade union, the POA, said not all Muslims in prison were in gangs, but acknowledged there was a growing problem.
People are being radicalised, forcibly radicalised by these gangs. We see it as a real danger, now and for the future of prisons.
And, he pointed out that those who were in gangs or converted to Islam often did it to carry out criminal activities.
As the Muslim population grows, the gangs are becoming more and more prevalent by the week and they fight to take control of the drug trade and the dealing of mobile phones in prison. This will make our prisons even more violent.
In a statement, a Prison Service spokesman said the allegations made about Muslim gangs were unsubstantiated. He said:
It is ridiculous to suggest that any gang ‘controls’ a prison. The Prison Service has a wealth of experience in dealing with gang activity and managing prisoners who form gangs. It is important not to conflate security issues with the prisoners’ religious identities. ‘Muslim gangs’ will be treated like other gangs in relation to security concerns.
We have a programme of work in place to respond to the risks of all forms of radicalisation and extremism in prisons (not only al-Qaeda influenced extremism). This work will continue to develop to support prisons in tackling this behaviour.
Listen to the full report on the Donal MacIntyre programme on BBC 5 live on Sunday, 14 March at 19.30 GMT. You can also download the free podcast or listen via the BBC iPlayer. You can contact the programme by emailing donal@bbc.co.uk.
It is not enough that our pastors abuse children, cheat on their wives, or even murder others. Nope, now they have to embarrassed America by shooting alley cats while stationed abroad. Pastor John Sisk of Kaohsiung City Assemblies of God Church allegedly used an airgun to shoot stray cats because they bothered his fish and birds, plus they kept him up at night. He went on to blame his neighbors for the problem because they liked to feed the cats.
A woman found the two injured six-month-old cats on the street last Wednesday and took them to a nearby vet. One cat was shot on the abdomen. The bullet penetrated its intestines and kidney. It did not survive the serious internal bleeding. The other cat was shot in the spine. It was paralyzed and will only be able crawl with its forelegs for the rest of its life.
Under full disclosure I must admit to shooting cats too. Only I use a wrist-rocket and non-lethal ammunition. The cat gets a sting on the rump at worst.
A woman found the two injured six-month-old cats on the street last Wednesday and took them to a nearby vet. One cat was shot on the abdomen. The bullet penetrated its intestines and kidney. It did not survive the serious internal bleeding. The other cat was shot in the spine. It was paralyzed and will only be able crawl with its forelegs for the rest of its life.
Under full disclosure I must admit to shooting cats too. Only I use a wrist-rocket and non-lethal ammunition. The cat gets a sting on the rump at worst.
"I may have (falsely) claimed that you are a convicted child molester. However, I did not require you to say that you are a convicted child molester, so you cannot say that you were harmed by my actions."
This form of argument can be found in the majority opinion of Newdow v. Rio Linda, where they looked at the question of whether the defendants had standing to challenge the 1954 Amendment to the Pledge that inserted the words "under God."
(See: Ninth Circuit upholds Pledge of Allegiance in public schools)
The dissent argued that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge this law, but the majority disagreed.
Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the 1954 Amendment because no federal statute requires plaintiffs to recite the Pledge. Even under the School District's Policy, children "may choose not to participate in the flag salute for personal reasons" or they can simply omit any words they find offensive.
Using this logic, Jews would have no right to complain or object to changing the Pledge of Allegiance to say, "one Nation, without Jews" so long as Jews were not forced to cite the offensive words.
Similarly, a pledge of allegiance to "one white Nation, indivisible . . ." would not give blacks any legitimate claim to have been harmed by such a law - even after showing that in the shadow of such a law 99.99% of all elected officials in the country were white, and national polls showed that, in the opinion of white Americans, blacks were the least patriotic of all social groups and considered "the group least likely to share American values."
This is not a posting on what the law says. I am not a lawyer and it is not my interest or intention to provide a judgment on what does and does not count as standing. It may well be true that black people would have no legal standing to challenge a law changing the Pledge of Allegiance to "one white nation."
This is a moral blog, and it is certainly the case that blacks would have the moral standing to condemn such an amendment and to assert that no good person would support it. Jews have a moral standing to object to a Pledge of Allegiance to "one nation without Jews" and to assert that no good person would support it. Atheists have a moral standing to object to a Pledge of Allegiance that defines atheists as unpatriotic, and to assert that no good person would support it.
Yes, it would be one level of wrong for the government to force you to state that you molest children, even though it is blatantly false. However, this wrong is not made right by the government encouraging everybody else to say that you molest children, but grants you the right to refrain from saying the offensive words. You are still going to suffer the harms that come from the attitudes that the government is putting in the minds of everyone else.
You would have solid moral grounds to accuse the government of libel and slander.
Just as atheists have the moral grounds to accuse the government of libel and slander when it decided to teach the American people, and in particular its young children, that a patriot is defined as a person who supports 'a nation under God' - and those who do not support such a proposition are not patriots.
In fact, allowing atheists to refuse to say the pledge does not make the situation better. It makes it far worse. Now, as if to emphasize the assertion that only those who support a nation under God are patriots and those who do not support such a notion are not patriots, we have a scene where those who support the notion pledge allegiance to the United States while those who do not remain seated and refuse to do so.
The government's lesson could not be more clear and forceful if it were to simply post a sign in every school and other government building, "No good American is an atheist, and no atheist can be a good American."
Via Religion Clause:
In a surprise decision yesterday, the Board defeated by a 10-5 party line vote a proposal by Democratic member Mavis Knight that government classes teach about the Establishment Clause. Her proposal called for students to examine the reasons the Founding Fathers “protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others.” Republicans on the Board said that Knight’s proposal was based on an inaccurate interpretation of the Founder’s intent and was a half-truth that would play down the importance of religion to the Founders. (Dallas Morning News.)
In other words, the government said the school can’t teach the government policy about schools not teaching religion because religious people in the government believe that the government policy doesn’t say what it says and thus it shouldn’t be taught in schools at all. Why do I sense that they’d have no problem teaching that the founding fathers were full-throated evangelical Christians (even though we know they were at best, deist, if that)?
As a friend of mine just said, “We can’t even teach the Constitution without people’s fucking religion getting in the way.”
Ridiculous.
(Hat tip to vjack for introducing me to Religion Clause.)
I don't know how I missed this one, but I did. And it's a good one.
Here's how it goes.
"A great multitude" of Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites gathered to attack the kingdom of Judah.
There cometh a great multitude against thee from beyond the sea ... the children of Ammon and Moab and mount Seir [the Edomites]. 2 Chronicles 20:2, 8
The king of Judah, Jehoshaphat, prays and prays and prays some more, asking God for help.
And Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judah ... And said, O LORD God of our fathers, art not thou God in heaven? and rulest not thou over all the kingdoms of the heathen? and in thine hand is there not power and might, so that none is able to withstand thee?
...
...
...
And now, behold, the children of Ammon and Moab and mount Seir ... invade.
...
...
O our God, wilt thou not judge them? for we have no might against this great company that cometh against us; neither know we what to do: but our eyes are upon thee. 2 Chronicles 20:5-12
Everyone in Judah heard Jehoshaphat's boring prayer.
And all Judah stood before the LORD, with their little ones, their wives, and their children. 2 Chronicles 20:13
And then the spirit of the Lord came upon Jahaziel (the son of Zechariah, the son of Benaiah, the son of Jeiel, the son of Mattaniah, a Levite of the sons of Asaph) who told the people of Judah not to worry. God would fight for them.
Then upon Jahaziel the son of Zechariah, the son of Benaiah, the son of Jeiel, the son of Mattaniah, a Levite of the sons of Asaph, came the Spirit of the LORD in the midst of the congregation; And he said, Hearken ye, all Judah, and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem, and thou king Jehoshaphat, Thus saith the LORD unto you, Be not afraid nor dismayed by reason of this great multitude; for the battle is not yours, but God's. ... Ye shall not need to fight in this battle. 2 Chronicles 20:14-17
Then Jehoshaphat and the entire population of Judah fell on their faces.
And Jehoshaphat bowed his head with his face to the ground: and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem fell before the LORD, worshipping the LORD. 2 Chronicles 20:18
Jehoshaphat appointed singers to praise the beauty and holiness and say to the army, "Praise the Lord."
Jehoshaphat ... appointed singers unto the LORD, and that should praise the beauty of holiness, as they went out before the army, and to say, Praise the LORD. 2 Chronicles 20:20-21
And God took care of everything else.
He ambushed the opposing army, forcing the Ammonites and the Moabites to kill the Edomites, and vice versa until "every one helped to destroy another."
And when they began to sing and to praise, the LORD set ambushments against the children of Ammon, Moab, and mount Seir, which were come against Judah; and they were smitten. For the children of Ammon and Moab stood up against the inhabitants of mount Seir, utterly to slay and destroy them: and when they had made an end of the inhabitants of Seir, every one helped to destroy another. 2 Chronicles 20:22-23
And so when everyone in Judah went up to the watch tower (Is this where the Jehovah's Witnesses get "The Watchtower"?), they saw nothing but dead bodies.
And when Judah came toward the watch tower in the wilderness, they looked unto the multitude, and, behold, they were dead bodies fallen to the earth, and none escaped. 2 Chronicles 20:24
Then the people of Judah came down from the watch tower and stripped all the booty from the dead bodies. It took them three days, but they got lots of cool stuff, including precious jewels. But there was just too much for them to carry away.
And when Jehoshaphat and his people came to take away the spoil of them, they found among them in abundance both riches with the dead bodies, and precious jewels, which they stripped off for themselves, more than they could carry away: and they were three days in gathering of the spoil, it was so much. 2 Chronicles 20:25
How did I miss this one?
(I'll bet there are more fun killings out there. Search the Scriptures to help me find them all!)
Since there was "a great multitude" of Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites, I estimated 30,000, 10,000 from each tribe.
So last week, I highlighted a number of news stories that show just how rotten the Catholic Church can be when they use their beliefs to defend their discrimination. One of those stories was about a preschooler kicked out of a Catholic-run school for having lesbian parents.
The archdiocese defends these actions with the same old syllogism: 1) No sex outside marriage, 2) Marriage = man + woman, therefore 3) We hate gays. It’s not that they blatantly hate gays, they just inherently hate gays because of these other beliefs they have. Otherwise, they’re so loving!
It’s beyond me how you can use logic to defend beliefs; it doesn’t get much more oxymoronic than that. Then again, I learned how to think logically, so it’s pretty tough for me to sink back into that circular reasoning that keeps beliefs going.
At any rate, Bill O’Reilly recently had Father Jonathan Morris from West Palm Beach on to reiterate this same old bigoted nonsense. The amazing thing? O’Reilly, a Catholic himself, defended the lesbian couple! Has O’Reilly gone round the bend? Did Glenn Beck push FOX News so far right that O’Reilly popped out back on the other side? I doubt it. I’m certainly in no rush to praise O’Reilly, but I’ll give credit due when it’s due. He actually makes a pretty good argument. I’m sure his audience benefited from hearing him offer such a fresh perspective, especially when addressing such a smarmy priest. Check it out:
Dear Richard,
I recently “came out” as an atheist and it has been somewhat difficult on a number of fronts. Although I have been skeptical of religion for many years both as gut instinct that it was self-serving, and rational analysis that what they teach is nearly impossible, when I finally decided to officially tell people that I did not believe in a god rather than hiding behind “I’m spiritual not religious” things have gotten strange.
Almost everyone I know is either religious in the traditional sense or some adherent of New Age spiritual/universalist beliefs. Most have been OK with it on the surface, although some have seemed condescending and amused as though this is somehow a “phase.” One or two have been somewhat hostile. In deference to their feelings I purposely have not engaged in debate with them. An old high school acquaintance who is now a conservative minister has been a bit hostile and accused me of not wanting to “defend” my beliefs to him as though I were required to give an accounting of myself!
I am also gay. Surprisingly, much of the religiosity I am bumping up against is within the LGBT community where it seems people are falling all over themselves to be super-religious in response to the religious right. By actually admitting I am an atheist some of them seem to think I am playing into the hands of our enemies (I am a frequent speaker at LGBT events.)
In addition, I find myself avoiding religious people whenever possible. Part of this is that it simply has begun to trouble me how much reliance is put on these superstitions. I purposely avoid people whom I know will respond to every illness, problem, or world event with prayer or “sending energy and healing.” I studiously avoid New Age friends who babble on about 2012, energy healing, cleansing rituals, and other nonsense. These are all well meaning folks, but their beliefs just rub me raw at the moment and I often find myself responding poorly to their barrage of superstitious beliefs.
How do I integrate my atheism in a world where I am surrounded by people extolling the virtues of their personal superstition or delusion without constantly blowing my stack or being forced to debate belief and non-belief? I really don’t want to become a recluse only speaking to others who have given up these things!
Thanks for your help.
Becoming a Loner
Dear Becoming,
You didn’t mention having any atheist friends. You said you don’t want to become a recluse who only talks to non-believers, but you don’t seem to even have that outlet. Without any relief from all the people talking about their favorite invisible entities or intangible energies, of course you’re getting fed up and starting to become unsocial.
You’re suffering from overexposure to secondary woo.
Yes, you will probably always be surrounded by a majority of people who believe inane things, and they will get to you sometimes. But you can be more relaxed and tolerant while in their midst if you can detoxify from the secondary woo on a regular basis.
Socializing with rationalists could be like stepping outside of a crowded, stuffy room full of woo smokers for several minutes of fresh air. After you’ve recharged your bloodstream with oxygen, you can go back into the room and work comfortably with the others for quite a while without feeling like you’re suffocating.
So firstly, find a group of atheists and rationalists, and meet with them frequently and regularly to relax, swap stories, laugh and be encouraged. You need mental oxygen.
Secondly, begin to develop a sense of calmness and confidence within yourself. Think about how fortunate you are. You have, against high odds, freed yourself from superstitious chains that hobble the minds of most people. Yes, what they believe is nonsense to you, but think of yourself not as being better than them, just luckier. That will help you to avoid being smug or condescending, like those religious and New Age acquaintances you mentioned. The whole mentality of thinking in terms of being superior or inferior to others is a trap. If you see yourself either way, you won’t be happy being with others, and so you’ll likely start isolating.
I have to wonder if some of the hostility that you’re sensing in others is their reaction to the hostility they’re sensing in you. You can help to defuse the situation by removing your resentment.
When other people refer to their reliance on undetectable beings and powers that are outside of themselves, just notice it, and apply your rational mind to your own emotional response. Ask yourself if you really need to spend time and energy being upset about their peculiar thoughts that you don’t share. They’re doing what they have to do, and it’s just not what you have to do. If you spend no time or energy making any heavy judgmental evaluations about them, you won’t feel frustrated or angry that you have to work with them.
And it’s important for you to be able to work with them, because you have important work to do, and you can’t do it alone.
I assume that you’re working for the benefit of the entire LGBT community, not just the rational ones. In order for all of you to succeed in gaining justice and equality, you must all overlook your differences and focus on your common goals. Respond with that idea whenever any of your LGBT associates express some problem they have with your atheism. United you stand, divided you fall.
If you’re a frequent speaker at LGBT events, that means your powers of persuasion are appreciated. You can continue to use that ability to further the LGBT cause, but also, perhaps more subtly, you can further the cause of reason as well. Discreetly plant seeds of rational thinking in every one of your speeches. Keep them small and understated so they are accepted easily. Be the patient gardener instead of the frustrated rebel.
Finally, you may have to divest yourself of the more seriously negative acquaintances in your life. After you relax your own tension and resentment about others, several may gradually respond favorably, but a few might not. No matter how calm or self confident you get, there are a few folks who are simply toxic. If, after a reasonable amount of time some remain hostile, then you should quietly drift away from them. You have more important things to do with your time and talent than to waste them on futile debates or on avoiding futile debates with people who will not even consider letting go of their antagonism, or listening with open minds.
Becoming, you can treat these interactions with believers as opportunities to grow and mature within yourself, to see beyond your differences and to achieve aspirations that you and they share. Perhaps you will change your name from Becoming a Loner to Becoming a Leader.
Richard
You may send your questions for Richard to 
. Please keep your letters concise. All will eventually be answered, but not all can be published. There is a large number of requests; please be patient.
Belief in the supernatural reflects a failure of the imagination.
—Edward Abbey (1927-1989), as quoted in The Quotable Atheist, p. 3.
I just came across the I Am Not Ashamed project, by who else but Answers in Genesis. The goal is to create a video bible out of YouTube videos. Basically, you submit yourself reading your favorite passage from the Bible, and they all get collected on their website. Here's a short intro video:
For example, take a look at this guy reading Genesis 1:1-4:
Hey, it's Ken Ham! No wonder he can read that passage with a straight face. Actually, a lot of the videos on their site appear to be shot at the Creation Museum.
Of course, suggesting that people recite their favorite bible verse, along with the name "I Am Not Ashamed" itself, might cause some problems. I'm sure there are plenty of people willing to post John 3:16 or their favorite Psalm or Proverb. But whose favorite passage is, for example, 2 Kings 2:23-25?
Well, besides me, of course :-). Maybe I should submit it!
And who can read passages like these with a straight face?
Not to mention the droves of gratuitous violence condoned by God and his prophets throughout the bible. Thousands upon thousands of people are killed off in the Old Testament because God gave their land to the Jews, or because they broke some ridiculous law about working on the sabbath or properly observing the myriad of rules for burnt, animal sacrifices.
People who can read this stuff and remain unashamed scare me a little bit...
For example, take a look at this guy reading Genesis 1:1-4:
Hey, it's Ken Ham! No wonder he can read that passage with a straight face. Actually, a lot of the videos on their site appear to be shot at the Creation Museum.
Of course, suggesting that people recite their favorite bible verse, along with the name "I Am Not Ashamed" itself, might cause some problems. I'm sure there are plenty of people willing to post John 3:16 or their favorite Psalm or Proverb. But whose favorite passage is, for example, 2 Kings 2:23-25?
[23] He went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!"
[24] And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.
[25] From there he went on to Mount Carmel, and thence he returned to Sama'ria.
Well, besides me, of course :-). Maybe I should submit it!
And who can read passages like these with a straight face?
There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. (Ezekiel 23:20)
In the morning, as he was returning to the city, he was hungry. And seeing a fig tree by the wayside he went to it, and found nothing on it but leaves only. And he said to it, "May no fruit ever come from you again!" And the fig tree withered at once. (Matthew 21:18-19, and the story is also recounted in Mark 11:12-14)
Not to mention the droves of gratuitous violence condoned by God and his prophets throughout the bible. Thousands upon thousands of people are killed off in the Old Testament because God gave their land to the Jews, or because they broke some ridiculous law about working on the sabbath or properly observing the myriad of rules for burnt, animal sacrifices.
People who can read this stuff and remain unashamed scare me a little bit...
The AHA stepped forward today and offered to plan and fund a prom for the Itawamba County Agricultural High School in Mississippi.
KURIER.AT – Gegenüber den Straftätern dürfe es keine Toleranz geben. Die bestehende Verjährungsfrist müsse zumindest verlängert werden.
Die Freiheitlichen haben nach Bekanntwerden zahlreicher Missbrauchsfälle ihre Forderung nach massiven Verschärfungen im Strafrecht bekräftigt. So soll etwa eine “medizinische Kastration” (gemeint ist laut einem FPÖ-Sprecher die “chemische Kastration”, Anm.) bei schwerem sexuellen Missbrauch oder Rückfallstätern eingeführt werden. Die [...]
Even in jail this former Baptist Pastor and convicted murderer continues to creep me out. This time he has been disciplined for flashing obscene hand gestures at female inmates. The story has dropped from the Waco Tribune for some reason but Don't Even Get Me Started posted some of the story.
Wait - I found it.
Wait - I found it.
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
