tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33812243912609543232024-03-13T15:47:28.930-07:00The Religion VirusCraig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.comBlogger620125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-4516350994973847212012-03-19T07:15:00.001-07:002017-12-04T18:20:58.886-08:00Myth Busted: Religious People are Not HappierAre religious people happier than atheists? It turns out that this statistic, while strictly true in America, is quite misleading. The deeper truth is far more interesting ... and it's a perfect case study in meme theory.<br />
<br />
Tom Rees over at <a href="http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/">Epiphenom</a> posted a <a href="http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2012/02/religion-self-esteem-and-psychological.html">fascinating new bit of data</a> that just calls out for an explanation:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Much is made of the apparent fact that religious people are happier and better adjusted than the non-religious. However, as regular readers of this blog will know, this is to a large extent an illusion. ... [If you dig deeper] you'll find that religion is only linked to happiness in countries where a lot of people are religious.<br /><br />... Although non-religious people feel uncomfortable in religious countries, religious people have no problems living in non-religious countries.</i></blockquote>
In other words, religious societies reject and shun atheists, so naturally non-religious people are unhappy in these societies. But Dr. Rees makes an even deeper point: secular societies make religious people feel welcome, so there is no converse effect. In secular societies, everyone is equally happy.<br />
<br />
The conclusion is inescapable: atheists and agnostics are unhappy in religious countries <i>because of the religious people</i>, whereas religious people do well in secular countries because they're made welcome. You can be an evangelical Christian in Sweden or Denmark, but it's hard to be an atheist in Turkey, Iran or even America.<br />
<br />
It's very satisfying to deflate this myth. Religious bloggers and ministers love to crow about the fact that atheists and agnostics are unhappier than "the faithful." Now we can turn and point to them as the cause.<br />
<br />
But while this solves one mystery, it presents us with a challenge: why is religion so hostile to atheism? A cultural factor like this that spans so many countries and cultures begs for a deeper analysis.<br />
<br />
It's easy to find some superficial reasons for the hostility that atheists and agnostics feel. Maybe Christians aren't "hostile" but rather are doing atheists a favor by saving their souls from eternal damnation. Or maybe atheists are unhappy because humans naturally yearn for God's love, and the atheists won't accept that love. Or maybe atheists actually know God exists, and their unhappiness comes from the stress of having to deny the truth (I've been accused of this by readers).<br />
<br />
I think we can dismiss these reasons out of hand. They're false and insulting.<br />
<br />
The real reason for religion's anti-atheist hostility is because it's good for religion. Religions that foster hatred and hostility toward atheists are, simply put, better than religions that don't. And we use "better" here in the Darwinian sense.<br />
<br />
One of the most fascinating facts about biology is that <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2010/01/how_do_we_know_that_most_of_th.php">99.99% of all species that ever existed are extinct today</a>. If we merely look at the successes (for example, <i>homo sapiens</i>) without considering the failures (such as neanderthals), we're not being very good scientists. It's competition and death that drive evolution forward. In order for the more fit species to survive, the less fit species has to die. And in order to understand the survivors, we have to study the failures.<br />
<br />
The same thing applies to the evolution of religions. We have to look at the ones that died along with the ones we know today. In the cultural-evolution or "memetic" way of thinking (the study of how ideas evolve and spread across society and down through history), religion isn't a set of distinct faiths, but rather is a great mass of competing ideas fighting for "survival of the fittest." At any point in history, there have been many thousands of religions around the world. Within each religion there are often hundreds of differing opinions and interpretations of the main ideas.<br />
<br />
In order to survive, a particular idea has to spread across society and down through history. But that's no trivial task: there are plenty of others competing. At each generation, only the "fittest" ideas survive to be passed along. This is the primary driving force that shapes any one religion's beliefs as time passes. And it's also true between religions: eventually, the "fitter" religions steal away all the believers from the "weaker" religions, which die out and pass into the history books.<br />
<br />
What makes one religion more "fit" than another? There are many factors indeed (that's why I wrote <a href="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/"><i>The Religion Virus</i></a>), but it brings us back to today's topic.<br />
<br />
Children are born atheists and must be indoctrinated early and thoroughly in order for their faith to stick. Atheism is a huge threat to that process. If a culture allows atheists in their midst, the children will be exposed to powerful and persuasive ideas (logic, science, rational thinking). These atheistic ideas challenge the faith-based dogma that the children have to learn. Children are much more likely to have weak faith or no faith if they are exposed to atheism. (See <a href="http://religionvirus.blogspot.com/2008/09/atheists-teach-children.html">Teach the Children</a> for more on this topic.) <br />
<br />
Thus, hostility to atheism is a "good" trait for religions to have. A religion that persecutes atheists will be more successful than one that doesn't. As generations and centuries go by, it's almost inevitable that religion will become more and more hostile to atheism.<br />
<br />
Atheists aren't really such a sorry, unhappy lot. It's religion's fault, and now we know why: it's good for religion to be hostile to atheism. Religions with a live-and-let-live attitude died out a long time ago. They're extinct, and we're left with the survivors, the "fittest" religions ... the ones that don't like atheists.<br />
<br />
<script>this_url=""</script><script src="https://www.authorcajames.com/social.js" type="text/javascript"></script>Craig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com27tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-45044029775766002062012-02-23T12:31:00.003-08:002013-11-09T12:29:45.888-08:00Where's Craig?Dear Loyal Readers,<br />
<br />
UPDATE (November 2013): As even the casual reader can see, I've actually decided to stop blogging for a year or two while I pursue other projects. Thanks to all my faithful readers. I've closed out comments, too; 95% of comments are spam now. It's time to move on.<br />
<br />
<br />
<script>this_url=""</script><script src="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/social.js" type="text/javascript"></script>Craig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-3061847860213002062012-01-13T08:01:00.000-08:002012-01-13T08:11:33.614-08:00Tim Tebow, not God, Throws the BallWhat does it take to be a quarterback for an NFL team? It starts with a kid who is willing to put in thousands of hours in high school and all through college then into the big leagues. It takes inborn athleticism combined with a fast-thinking intelligence and relentless determination.<br /><br />That's just to be on the team. To be a first-string quarterback, you have to be the best of the best.<br /><br />Tim Tebow is such a man. He worked extraordinarily hard to get where he is ... which is why Tim Tebow's religion is a real shame. Christianity has stolen Tebow's pride. Instead of taking pride in his accomplishments, he gives the credit away to God. The simple fact is that it's Tebow throwing the ball, not God.<br /><br />In less than a second or two, Tebow's mind absorbs the receiver's position, speed and direction, and on<a name='more'></a> top of that he includes the position and momentum of each opposing player. Tebow instantly calculates how the receiver can elude the opponents to arrive at an open position, then hurtles the pigskin ball down the field with incredible accuracy of direction, altitude and velocity. And it's not just that one receiver; he simultaneously has to choose between several receivers, runners, running it himself, or throwing the ball away.<br /><br />That is <i>talent</i>. Tebow deserves to take pride in his skill. But instead, Tebow gives his accomplishment away. Tebow believes there's a god out there who alters the laws of physics of the universe because this god, who created the unimaginably vast universe, cares whether the NFL team called the "Denver Broncos" wins or loses. And the reason this god cares is because Tebow presumably prays more earnestly than the opposing quarterback.<br /><br />What's wrong with pride in one's accomplishments? Christians, Jews and Muslims count pride as one of the big sins. Why? Having pride in one's work is admirable. Pride makes us do our best and then lets us take pleasure in a job well done.<br /><br /><i>That</i> is what Tebow should be doing rather than thanking God.<br /><br />Several years back I <a href="http://religionvirus.blogspot.com/2008/08/why-i-hate-faith-based-healing-its-not.html">wrote a blog about this same topic</a> (except that it was about friends and family) that is still one of my favorites. I closed it with this:<blockquote><i>Religion lets people avoid personal responsibility by asking, and getting, God's forgiveness. Never mind whether the victims agree with God. I suppose that's a pretty good bargain – "Believe in me, and you're off the hook for your sins." But the flip side of the deal is that God also steals all the glory. Everything good is God's doing. Humans get all the blame, and God gets all the credit.</i></blockquote><br /><br /><script>this_url=""</script><script src="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/social.js" type="text/javascript"></script>Craig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-32270533419263435462012-01-09T08:03:00.000-08:002012-01-09T08:23:48.869-08:00God Burns Widow's House, But Saves His Own StuffThe headline says it all: <a href="http://www.wrdw.com/home/headlines/Firefighters_say_Bible_pulled_from_house_fire_is_a_miracle_136861278.html">Firefighters say Bible pulled from burned house is 'a miracle'</a>.<blockquote><i>"A family is counting their blessings tonight after an early morning fire in Dearing, GA destroyed most of their home. But one pretty special item was left unscathed ... Bernice Hunt's Bible was pulled from the ashes without a charred edge or a burnt page. The only damage at all was a little moisture from the fire hoses."</i></blockquote>So let me see if I get this. God decided to burn this woman's house to the ground. He let all of her possessions go up in smoke. She already lost her husband, has cancer, and had open-heart surgery ... presumably God was responsible for all of that too.<br /><br />So what 'miracle' does God perform for this poor, sick widow? He saves his own Holy Bible from the flames!<br /><br />I mean, after all, it is His own word, isn't it? I guess if I were<a name='more'></a> God and was going to burn down a sick widow's house, I'd want to get my stuff out first.<br /><br />The real mystery is how thoroughly this attitude about God pervades Judeo-Christian-Islamic thinking. It's automatic: some massive catastrophe comes along and causes death, destruction and grief, but somewhere there's a tiny random fluctuation in events that spares a baby or a bible, and <i>that</i> is the miracle.<br /><br />God, as usual, gets all the credit and none of the blame.<br /><br /><script>this_url=""</script><script src="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/social.js" type="text/javascript"></script>Craig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-32529572272405359312012-01-01T11:15:00.000-08:002012-01-01T12:43:25.291-08:00So Sorry Your Dad Died – Too Bad He's Burning in HellDeath is always sad, but it can bring out kind and comforting words from family and friends. These good wishes really do help us feel better. Whether it's a simple expression of sorrow, some shared tears, or an enlightening story, our friends' kind words help us accept death, cherish the memories, and get life going again.<br /><br />Now it happens that most of my relatives and close friends aren't Christian. We're a broad assortment of Deists, pantheists, paganists, agnostics and atheists. There's hardly a Christian among us.<br /><br />So what do Christians write in their condolences? "The peace of the Lord is on your father." Or, "Your mother is resting in Jesus' arms now."<br /><br />I know they mean well. But if these Christians were true to their faith, they'd say, "So sorry that your loved one is now being tortured with<a name='more'></a> indescribable pain that is perpetually searing the flesh from her bones. I'm saddened that she will be screaming in agony for the rest of eternity. She seemed like such a nice lady. Too bad she didn't believe in Jesus."<br /><br />Eternal cruel, sadistic, horrifying torture – that's true Christianity. Never mind that my loved ones are, to the last one, kind and moral people. I can't think of one family member or close friend who isn't a decent human being, and an asset to family, friends, community and humanity. They're good mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, friends and neighbors. They work hard and support themselves and their families. They vote in elections (mostly). They give back far more than they take in life.<br /><br />But none of that matters. Most of my close friends and family don't accept the two-thousand-year-old myth that a woman was impregnated by God and had a son, who was actually God himself, who then arranged to have himself tortured to death, but he didn't really die and came back to life for a few more days, and <i>then</i> he died, except that he still didn't die because God pulled his son (who was really himself) up to heaven. And if you believe this story, all your sins are forgiven, no matter how horrible, but if you don't, all your good deeds are for nothing.<br /><br />So it's pretty offensive when, in our grief over the death of a loved one, some well-meaning Christian writes about how the dearly departed is now in Jesus' arms or basking in God's glory. It's dishonest.<br /><br />Christians who are offering kind thoughts to grieving friends should stick to a secular message. "I'm so sorry for your loss" would be just fine.<br /><br /><script>this_url=""</script><script src="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/social.js" type="text/javascript"></script>Craig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-6380065642700120062011-12-24T07:16:00.000-08:002011-12-24T07:16:00.170-08:00Santa Gets It and Jesus Doesn't ...Santa has a cool live-and-let-live philosophy: my head can be full of all sorts of naughty thoughts as long as I only act on the nice thoughts. I've had plenty of nasty fantasies in my lifetime about what I'd like to do to certain people ... but I didn't carry them out and never would. I've also had lots of nice thoughts and actually done many nice things for lots of people.<br /><br />In other words, he knows when you've been bad or good. Not when you've thought bad thoughts or thought good thoughts. It's what you <i>do</i> that counts.<br /><br />So Santa Claus has always been good to me. It's our actions that make us truly moral or immoral citizens of this crazy world, and Santa rewards the people who are good.<br /><br />What about Jesus Christ? According to Amy Henry's blog, <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/whatshesaid/2011/12/the-flawed-theology-of-naughty-and-nice-lists"><span style="font-style:italic;">The Flawed Theology of Naughty and Nice Lists</span></a>, it doesn't much matter what you do. It's what you believe that matters. You can be angry, vengeful, hurtful, even murderous as long as you're truly sorry and ask Jesus for forgiveness.<br /><br />Amy believes we should beware of Santa's naughty-or-nice philosophy. She thinks it sends kids the wrong message. What really matters, according to Amy, is what's in our hearts. What you actually do is far less important than what you believe.<blockquote><i>"... thank God that He doesn’t separate us out into naughty and nice, but places us in one big category called ‘forgiven.’</i></blockquote>And Amy isn't alone in this strange theory. It's what Christianity is all about, from the Pope himself down to the meekest shepherd tending goats. Christian morality isn't about what you do, it's about what you believe. If you fail to live up to Christian standards and hurt someone else, Jesus will forgive you. (Never mind that your victim might not feel that you deserve forgiveness.) No matter how awful your sin, and how many you hurt, you can be forgiven if you're truly sorry and believe that Jesus Christ is your savior.<br /><br />In my book, <a href="http://religionvirus.blogspot.com/2010/04/hitchins-on-immorality-of-jesus.html">Christian morality is fundamentally flawed</a>. I'll take Santa Claus morality any day.<br /><br /><script>this_url=""</script><script src="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/social.js" type="text/javascript"></script>Craig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-10446225987460053102011-12-20T12:17:00.000-08:002011-12-20T12:47:39.925-08:00Newt Declares War on Judges who Favor Atheists and LiberalsNewt Gingrich is known for outrageous outbursts and wild ideas, but he's putting out some really scary stuff this week.<br /><br /><a href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20111220/D9ROAGK80.html" target="myway">His latest attack</a> is on the independence of the judiciary. Any time a judge issues a ruling that Gingrich doesn't like, he wants to send U.S. Marshals out with congressional subpoenas to haul the judge in front of Congress, where the judge would be grilled by every angry member of Congress who didn't agree with the judge's ruling.<br /><br />Does that sound like a good way to ensure an independent judiciary?<br /><br />Next, Newt will simply ignore the law if he becomes president. Under his leadership, the Executive Branch of government will simply ignore the Judicial Branch whenever Newt doesn't like the law.<br /><br />Yeah, I think I'll do that too – just ignore any laws I don't like. If Newt can do it, why can't I?<br /><br />And if that isn't enough to destroy the careful <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers">balance of powers</a> enshrined in our Constitution, Gingrich wants to<a name='more'></a> simply fire judges and close down courts that consistently issue anti-religious rulings. He'd start with the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals (those well-known liberals!) and a federal judge in Texas who upheld the separation of church and state by banning school-sanctioned prayer in Texas.<br /><br />Really. He actually said that.<br /><br />And Gingrich isn't just all talk. For example, he provided $200,000 seed money for a witch hunt that ousted three of the judges who ruled that same-sex marriage is legal.<br /><br />This may just be Gingrich pandering to Iowa, where conservative Christians reign. But I don't think so. I think this man, if elected president, would embark on a massive campaign to trample civil rights for non-Christians, the LGBT community, and anyone else who he doesn't think is a proper American.<br /><br />It was bad enough when Gingrich was House Speaker, but this man could theoretically become president.<br /><br /><script>this_url=""</script><script src="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/social.js" type="text/javascript"></script>Craig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-4368144955341140712011-12-20T08:51:00.000-08:002011-12-20T08:57:27.641-08:00SNL - Tim Tebow meets JesusHey readers, life has been keeping me far too busy and I wasn't able to blog last week. To fill the gap, here's a great little drama from Saturday Night Live: what would happen if Jesus really did come down to meet Jesus?<br /><br />The funny part is that although it's actually full of truth, <a href="http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dish/201112/saturday-night-live-under-attack-thanks-tim-tebow-sketch">lots of Christians are complaining</a>, include Faux News and Pat Robertson! Their reactions are almost as funny as the skit.<br /><br />Enjoy!<br /><br /><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ul2dhNaQgxM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br /><br /><script>this_url=""</script><script src="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/social.js" type="text/javascript"></script>Craig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-25903285317290165612011-12-08T12:25:00.000-08:002011-12-09T07:36:46.788-08:00Georgia License Plates Require 'In God We Trust' - Why this is Great!Secular News Daily is reporting <a href="http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2011/11/30/georgia-bill-would-require-religious-display-on-all-license-plates/">a new Georgia law</a> that will require "In God We Trust" on all car license plates. Georgians who don't like it will have to pay <i>extra</i> to get a state-approved sticker to cover it up!<br /><br />Atheists are naturally up in arms about this glaring violation of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">First Amendment</a>. But I sort of like it. I believe this could be one of the best things that happened to secularism in America in the last ten years – if they're foolish enough to go through with it.<br /><br />Why? Because it could force the Supreme Court to take "In God We Trust" off of our money.<br /><br />Atheists have objected to "In God We Trust" on currency and as the national motto for decades, but the courts have been unsympathetic. The <a href="/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust#Controversy">Supreme Court stated</a> that<a name='more'></a> "In God We Trust" and similar slogans are "protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content."<br /><br />But having a dollar in your pocket is quite different than being required to drive around with "In God We Trust" on your car for everyone to see. Imagine what Christians would do if they had to drive around in cars that said, "Trust Reason, Because There Is No God." They would be quite within their rights to refuse.<br /><br />It's hard to imagine that the Supreme Court will be able to sidestep this one. It will reach their doorstep. And once it's there, it's hard to imagine that they would force non-religious citizens to drive around advertising religious beliefs. Maybe I'm naïve, but I don't think so.<br /><br />Now think about what happens next ... if it's unconstitutional for Georgia to force atheists to have "In God We Trust" on every car, how can you simultaneously allow the slogan on our money? Banning it on license plates while allowing it on money would require a lot of legal sleight-of-hand tricks.<br /><br />I actually hope Georgia goes through with this discriminatory plan. It will become a perfect opportunity to fight back against the erosion of our First Amendment rights.<br /><br /><script>this_url=""</script><script src="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/social.js" type="text/javascript"></script>Craig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-77139856015194754972011-12-08T07:41:00.000-08:002011-12-08T08:55:38.282-08:00Merchants of Doubt: Global Warming Deniers in bed with Tobacco Industry?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiL2QT-cv1HlXnbeSj1f28f5j74JJnn-8O3wLS6UIOZZr71fMmEBdF-PP2Lbp4wS_97eBLIw4ac9FyHwvZrPmN8kLyiiVRpMJIG1YKTNgC61cmrYyA1dYdU-KEL5HGMAkGg2MaqyV1sabw/s1600/merchants-of-doubt.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 138px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiL2QT-cv1HlXnbeSj1f28f5j74JJnn-8O3wLS6UIOZZr71fMmEBdF-PP2Lbp4wS_97eBLIw4ac9FyHwvZrPmN8kLyiiVRpMJIG1YKTNgC61cmrYyA1dYdU-KEL5HGMAkGg2MaqyV1sabw/s200/merchants-of-doubt.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5683800735476369666" /></a>The latest "scandal" in the "climategate" saga is a carefully orchestrated release of another batch of stolen emails. And once again, the conservative media are eating it up ... just like the fossil-fuel industry knew they would.<br /><br />But here's something you may not know: the key scientists who are spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) about global warming were also behind the Tobacco industry's campaign to deny that cigarettes cause cancer! Seriously.<br /><br />Not only that, but this same small group of scientists defended the use of DDT, denied the dangers of acid rain, and claimed there was no ozone depletion.<br /><br />In other words, a small group of scientists have been the main force behind <i>every major anti-science campaign</i> in the last few decades. Does that sound like whacko conspiracy theory? It's not.<br /><br />I just finished reading a truly great book, <i><a href="http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/" target="_out">Merchants of Doubt</a></i>. The subtitle says it all: <i>How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming</i>. Authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway present a<a name='more'></a> frightening story (all carefully documented) about how a very small group of scientists, most of whom were deeply conservative, have carried out a decades-long campaign to discredit legitimate science in the interest of libertarianism and anti-socialism.<br /><br />In a nutshell, these scientists were rabid believers in individual liberties and small government. They saw every attempt at government regulation as a threat to our freedom. They believed in free-market enterprise no matter what, and believed that we each were responsible for our own fate. Asking the government to regulate industry or protect us from pollution and poison was, in their view, the first step on the road to socialism and communism.<br /><br />But instead of making their case in the political forum, or contributing to honest science, they've devoted themselves to obfuscation, scientific dishonesty, outright lies, character assassination, and propaganda. In their eyes, the ends justify the means: it's OK to confuse the public as long as their political goals are achieved.<br /><br />I highly recommend <i>Merchants of Doubt</i> to anyone interested in the politics of science. These anti-science "scientists" are doing incalculable damage to our environment, economy and to our very future. They need to be stopped, and the first defense against their propaganda is education.<br /><br /><script>this_url=""</script><script src="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/social.js" type="text/javascript"></script>Craig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-470534853345835532011-12-05T07:57:00.000-08:002011-12-05T13:34:06.189-08:00Amendment Killed that Would Have Allowed Abortion for Military Rape VictimsDid you know that government won't provide abortions for military rape victims?<br /><br />Rape is all too common in the military. Military rape victims are reluctant to come forward due to a long history of a "boys will be boys" attitude combined with an unsympathetic male-dominated hierarchy and the fact that reporting rape can be a career-ending move for a woman in the service.<br /><br />According to the Pentagon, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17/military-rape-reports-ris_n_176106.html">rapes are on the rise</a> in the military, but only 10-20% of rapes are reported to authorities. And only a small number of those actually go to court. So numbers are vague, but we can guess that roughly 0.1% to 1% of rapes in the military are actually prosecuted.<br /><br />Now add to that terrible statistic the fact that a servicewoman who becomes pregnant by her rapist can't get an abortion through the military medical system. She has to go to an outside doctor and pay for it herself. And that's assuming she's in a country where that's even possible. A woman who is serving in Iraq or Afghanistan is just out of luck, because you can bet there are no abortion clinics.<br /><br />Recently, it looked like there was a chance to change this terrible policy. Senator Jeanne Shaheen<a name='more'></a> (D-NH) <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/195593-standing-up-for-servicewomen-rape-survivors-deserve-access-to-abortion-care">introduced an amendment</a> to the National Defense Authorization Act that would lift the ban on using government funds for abortions in the military.<br /><br />But Senator Shaheen's amendment was killed on a technicality: it was <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SP01120:">ruled "non-germane" by the chair</a>.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.contactingthecongress.org"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 220px; height: 138px;" src="http://www.contactingthecongress.org/images/usamap.new.gif" border="0" alt="" /></a>It's time to end this immoral, fundi-inspired discriminatory law. And you <i>can</i> do something about it. <a href="http://www.contactingthecongress.org">ContactingTheCongress.org</a> is a wonderful web site that provides instant access to your Senators and Representatives. We timed it: in just <i>seven minutes</i> my wife wrote and sent three emails supporting Senator Shaheen's amendment to Senator Feinstein, Senator Boxer and Congressman Bilbray.<br /><br />While this battle appears to be over, the war is not. It's time to end this immoral and discriminatory law that victimizes rape victims in the military. Write to your representatives. Do it now. Why are you still reading this? And if you're one of my fellow bloggers, I hope you'll blog about this too!<br /><br />(H/T to <a href="http://religionvirus.blogspot.com/2011/06/laurels-wager.html">Laurel</a> for this story.)<br /><br />(Update: The title has been corrected from "Bill" to "Amendment.")<br /><br /><script>this_url=""</script><script src="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/social.js" type="text/javascript"></script>Craig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-36368695019199827582011-12-02T16:34:00.000-08:002011-12-02T16:36:41.917-08:00Remind me again ... why is gay marriage is so bad?Share it, spread it. It speaks for itself.<br /><br /><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yMLZO-sObzQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br /><br /><script>this_url=""</script><script src="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/social.js" type="text/javascript"></script>Craig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-4209656888930199912011-12-01T11:06:00.000-08:002011-12-01T11:12:37.936-08:00Kentucky Church Bans Interracial Marriage?Seriously, can this be real?<blockquote><i><a href="http://www.kentucky.com/2011/11/30/1977453/small-pike-county-church-votes.html">Pike church takes stand against interracial marriage</a><br /><br />"A small Pike County church has voted not to accept interracial couples as members or let them take part in some worship activities.<br /><br />The decision has caused sharp reaction and disapproval in the Eastern Kentucky county."</i></blockquote>The article points out that this is the same county where the Hatfields and McCoys had their famous feud.<br /><br />The good news? Most Kentuckians disapprove and are embarrassed by this overt racism.<blockquote><i>"It sure ain't Christian. It ain't nothing but the old devil working."<br /><br />"Most of us thought that we'd moved well beyond that."<br /><br />"It's not the spirit of the community in any way, shape or form."</i></blockquote>Amen to that!<br /><br /><script>this_url=""</script><script src="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/social.js" type="text/javascript"></script>Craig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-57392948670082352072011-11-30T08:25:00.001-08:002011-11-30T08:30:04.029-08:00Rick Perry: You have to be drunk to vote for me!Everyone is laughing at Rick Perry for his latest gaffe: He <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/rick-perry-gets-us-voting-age-wrong-in-new-hampshire/2011/11/29/gIQAlMOM9N_blog.html">told students in New Hampshire</a> that if they were over 21, they should vote for him! They're saying Perry doesn't know that the voting age in the United States is eighteen.<br /><br />I have news for you ... that's all backwards. It's the <i>drinking age</i> that matters. Perry must know that only drunks and fools will vote for him. It just slipped out in a weak moment.<br /><br />Cut him some slack, folks! He just mixed up the drinking age with the voting age.<br /><br /><script>this_url=""</script><script src="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/social.js" type="text/javascript"></script>Craig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-67259079000253022242011-11-30T07:27:00.000-08:002011-11-30T08:19:10.032-08:00Truth has a Liberal Bias!Those damned college professors! They're always teaching the facts! And everyone knows that Truth has a liberal bias. Well, these students aren't taking it lying down:<blockquote><b><i><a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/conservative-college-students-launch-website-to-battle-liberal-academia-63233">Conservative College Students Launch Website to Battle Liberal Academia</a></i></b></blockquote>What courage! Real conservatives, standing up to those liberal professors ... but wait ...<br /><br />Alas, it turns out these students aren't really concerned about conservative politics. They're Christians, and they're angry that the professors don't respect their beliefs, which probably include creationism, suppression of homosexuality, and the subjugation of women. According to Editor-in-Chief Zachary Freeman:<blockquote><i>"I think perhaps we (as a nation) have lost our faith and our understanding. The College Conservative works to indirectly promote the biblical truths."</i></blockquote>In other words, they want<a name='more'></a> the school to "respect" them by not teaching real biology, botany, physical anthropology, evolution, geology, physics, psychology, and probably even world history. They want watered-down cultural anthropology and sociology, and they probably don't want philosophy at all, unless it's from C.S. Lewis' books.<br /><br />I have some news for you, Mr. Freeman: the Bible is <a href="http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=bible+contradictions&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8">not a good source of truth</a>!<br /><br /><script>this_url=""</script><script src="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/social.js" type="text/javascript"></script>Craig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-48996557578252007692011-11-29T21:46:00.000-08:002011-11-29T22:00:37.880-08:00Is Christianity Dying -- 99 cents again!Well, folks, I've decided to go back to my original price – 99 cents for 99 blogs. How can you beat that? Check out <span style="font-style:italic;"><a href="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/buyit.php?s=blog&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com/dp/B005C20ARO">Is Christianity Dying?</a></span> on Amazon!<br /><br />Don't ask why I raised the price in the first place ... just call it a bad idea and leave it at that.<br /><br />And there's a new <a href="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/buyit.php?s=blog&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com/dp/B005C20ARO">glowing review at Amazon.com</a> ... it's one of the best reviews ever.<br /><br />I have to confess that I'm quite proud of <i>Is Christianity Dying?</i> I wrote a lot of ho-hum blogs, but every now and then I hit the nail on the head on some important topic. This collection lets you skip all the Friday-fishwrap blogs and just read the good ones. For a measley 99 cents you don't even have to dig around in my blog archive. Just buy it, OK?<br /><br />(And for those of you who don't have a Kindle, the paperback should be available any day now. The paperback publisher screwed something up and didn't get it placed on Amazon yet. I'll let you know when it's available. The price will be around $7.50)<br /><br />Enjoy!<br /><br /><script>this_url=""</script><script src="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/social.js" type="text/javascript"></script>Craig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-78584346544912135442011-11-22T08:30:00.000-08:002011-11-22T09:43:50.689-08:00Is Home Schooling a Form of Child Abuse?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbgDKkLqpdezMn8PtCoqM8TiE3ELUMFdVSwDXXQB1f0y_iA9lIziJ9uiV6SDI2N85ddenxUHIqvfR7MmpHslQQjnaEIOEl1G0AFHhrqFNXqoVI_2KAHjNxbImMNYsDOjBmSzK44RQzhCk/s1600/rescueyourchild.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 234px; height: 273px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbgDKkLqpdezMn8PtCoqM8TiE3ELUMFdVSwDXXQB1f0y_iA9lIziJ9uiV6SDI2N85ddenxUHIqvfR7MmpHslQQjnaEIOEl1G0AFHhrqFNXqoVI_2KAHjNxbImMNYsDOjBmSzK44RQzhCk/s320/rescueyourchild.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5677856001876044802" /></a>When does freedom of religion turn into child abuse? When do parents' rights to raise a child according to their religious beliefs become a violation of the child's civil rights? When does the state's need to have an educated electorate override religious parents' belief in ignorance?<br /><br />Atheists love to blog about child abuse when it's in the form of <a href="http://religionvirus.blogspot.com/2009/08/child-killer-gets-just-sixty-days-in.html">medical neglect that becomes manslaughter </a>and <a href="http://www.truth-out.org/beating-babies-name-jesus-shady-world-right-wing-discipline-guides/1320935968">Jesus-inspired whippings that kill children</a>. These are horrible and deserve our condemnation.<br /><br />But there's a much more insidious, widespread and far-reaching form of abuse going on across America: religion-fueled, anti-science, anti-homosexual, anti-truth home schooling. It's far more important than any one whipping or medical-abuse case, however horrifying, because the ignorance fostered by these home-school programs is the very foundation that allows whippings and faith-based medical neglect to continue.<br /><br />Home schooling is an old tradition in America. In some cases<a name='more'></a> home schooling is a good alternative to public schools. Kids with unusual talents can benefit from accelerated lessons. Child performers who have to travel can keep up with their public-school peers. Kids with exceptionally well-educated parents with a knack for teaching can get a better education than public schools can provide. And so on.<br /><br />And while the word "abuse" is a very strong claim, I believe it's appropriate. Abuse in the broadest sense is an action that damages the child physically or emotionally and causes them ongoing suffering. Ultra-conservative Christians are doing exactly that. If they were merely teaching their Christian beliefs as an adjunct to a well-rounded education, I would have no objection. But they are deliberately and knowingly keeping their children ignorant. They are blocking their children's access to biology, chemistry, evolution, political science, American and world history, philosophy and critical thinking skills.<br /><br />And on top of that, they are fostering paranoia. They're teaching their kids that the world is a giant conspiracy and everyone is out to get them.<br /><br />The organization that inspired today's blog is the perfect example. Their web site has so much over-the-top rhetoric that it's easy to think it's just a ludicrous joke. But it's not ... they believe this stuff, and they have a lot of followers. They start with a deceptive name: <a href="http://rescueyourchild.com">RescueYourChild.com</a>. It sounds wonderful, doesn't it? But what they're actually advocating is for parents to "rescue" their children from a modern education.<br /><br />Their web site's SHOUTED HEADLINES sound like a joke:<blockquote style="border: 1px solid #666666; padding: 0.5em; background-color: #FFFFF0;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4HYhqPBqyj7SfeQKdQsnPbgSTAWevs46Yq6KAc9zZu2qpfI7MayEZ8q0Dy9iF6SkNYYmHWMqz97P_1xoEK5IG2bmExbKQD-BqY-5mgnuArY43E7vf6_Tk0bdZ84E-sQ7CfdlTh-LAkZM/s1600/rescueyourchild2.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 269px; height: 221px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4HYhqPBqyj7SfeQKdQsnPbgSTAWevs46Yq6KAc9zZu2qpfI7MayEZ8q0Dy9iF6SkNYYmHWMqz97P_1xoEK5IG2bmExbKQD-BqY-5mgnuArY43E7vf6_Tk0bdZ84E-sQ7CfdlTh-LAkZM/s320/rescueyourchild2.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5677856721831411810" /></a>"<span style="font-weight:bold;">FACT:</span> There are now at least 8 sexual indoctrination laws impacting children ... <span style="font-weight:bold;"><a href="http://rescueyourchild.com/The_Problem.html">See these bad laws</a>, then rescue your child</span>."<br /><br />"Homosexual 'education' in classrooms ... Don't believe it's happening? CLICK TO WATCH."<br /><br />"There's a <b>BATTLE</b> for your child. Whoever <b>fights harder</b> will win."<br /><br />"Shocking dads and moms into REALITY ... Watch the IndoctriNation movie trailer."<br /><br />"Parental rights, decency out the window."<br /></blockquote>RescueYourChild.com is a perfect example of how these ultra-conservative Christians are abusing the home-schooling system and twisting our laws. They claim that parents have an absolute right to teach their children anything they want, regardless of their children's needs and rights. And they carry it out: they teach their religious dogma in place of real facts.<br /><br />Parents should have enormous latitude in raising their children. The last thing we want is the state peering over our parental shoulders and imposing some idealistic politically inspired child-raising theory on families. But children have rights too. Every child has the right to a basic education that includes accurate history, science and social studies. And the state has a right to demand that children are literate and knowledgeable so that they can be responsible voters.<br /><br />Parents have an absolute right to teach their children their own religion (or no religion). But they do <i>not</i> have a right to block all other education. Every child has a right to a good education. Ignorant children are economically, socially and politically handicapped for life. In my book, that's abusive.<br /><br /><script>this_url=""</script><script src="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/social.js" type="text/javascript"></script>Craig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-44705082394638286172011-11-16T07:41:00.000-08:002011-11-16T08:08:59.553-08:00Catholics Persecuted over Gay Adoption in Illinois? Not Even Close.Once again, the Roman Catholic Church is giving out misinformation instead of facing the truth.<br /><br />Catholic Charities, an Illinois adoption agency, had to close its doors because it lost funding from the state. <a href="http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/8318918267.html">According to attorney Peter Breen</a>, the state is breaking the plain language of the law and violating the will of the citizens:<blockquote><i>"The Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act only passed after specific assurances that the law would not impact the work of religious social service agencies. Specific protections for these agencies were written into the law, but unfortunately, Illinois officials refused to abide by those protections. This stands as a stark lesson to the rest of the nation that legislators promising 'religious protection' in same sex marriage and civil union laws may not be able to deliver on those promises."</i></blockquote>Gosh, that sounds awful, doesn't it?<br /><br />But this is nothing more than a smokescreen to hide the real truth. They lost on Constitutional principles that had <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/waymon-hudson/illinois-catholic-charities-adoption_b_1094723.html">nothing to do with the Illinois Civil Union Act</a>.<br /><br />The simple fact is that the Catholic Charities <i>can</i> continue to provide<a name='more'></a> adoption services – if they can raise funds privately. They just can't have the taxpayers' money to do it. As <a href="http://neighborhoods.redeyechicago.com/boystown/chatter/2011/06/09/catholic-charities-lawsuit-seeks-to-use-tax-dollars-to-discriminate/">Waymon Hudson at Redeye</a> put it:<blockquote><i>"At the heart of the issue is the over $30 million dollars that Catholic Charities receives from the state of Illinois for foster care and adoption services. This effectively moves them from a private faith-based organization, which does have built-in religious exemptions as the name of the civil unions law implies, to an administrator of state-funded public services. The are essentially acting as an agent of the state."</i></blockquote>The <i><a href="http://www.eqil.org/civil.html">Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act</a></i>, which they try to claim is being violated, only says that they don't have to perform marriages or adoptions for same-sex couples (or for anyone else they don't like). Nobody is going to force a Catholic priest to stand in his own church and marry two men or two women.<br /><br />The United States Constitution cuts both ways: it protects our rights to worship or not as we please, but it also says churches can't discriminate using public funds. The Catholic Church has every right to discriminate, however uncaring or cruel it might be. But they can't spend our tax dollars to do it.<br /><br />So why the smokescreen? Why can't the Catholics just admit that they lost their legal fight fair and square? Because they want to look persecuted. It's the good ol' <i><a href="http://www.thereligionvirus.com">Underdog Meme</a></i> – the idea that somehow Catholics and other Christians, who make up roughly 80% of America's population, are a persecuted minority whose rights are being trampled. It's laughable on the face of it. But sadly, people always root for the underdog, so the meme propagates.<br /><br /><script>this_url=""</script><script src="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/social.js" type="text/javascript"></script>Craig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-4440527046805948712011-11-14T07:30:00.000-08:002011-11-14T08:30:19.862-08:00Chaplains Want to Bar Atheist/Humanist ChaplainsI should be used to Christian arrogance by now, but every now and then another insensitive, arrogant Christian breaks through my indifference and makes me mad. This time it's Father Jonathan Morris, an Army Chaplain who appeared on Fox News to ridicule the idea of <a href="http://www.stripes.com/military-atheists-seeking-the-rights-and-benefits-offered-to-religious-groups-1.153105">Humanists and Atheists serving as chaplains</a> in the military.<blockquote><i>"What is a 'chaplaincy' in the first place, where does it even come from? The word, it comes from the Latin word which means a sanctuary or place of worship. And atheist ... <i>(pauses)</i> ... place of worship? Or a military chaplain, someone who is advising someone in their spirituality? ... [If an atheist] is being paid as a chaplain, then our country is saying, 'We are not willing to stand up for what we believe to be a very good thing for our soldiers, and that is the development of spirituality.' ... It's degrading the military chaplaincy saying 'You know, it doesn't matter whether you believe or not believe'..."</i></blockquote>On the face of it, an atheist chaplain does seem a bit odd. But the truth is<a name='more'></a> that chaplains provide a wide array of spiritual, emotional, philosophical, psychological and social services to our men and women in arms. The military is a place where men and women are taken from normal society, taught how to shoot guns and drop bombs, and then sent off to foreign countries to kill and injure other human beings. They're separated from parents, sisters and brothers, husbands and wives and even their own newborn babies. These soldiers, some still teenagers, are ill-equipped to handle the moral, psychological and social traumas that they'll face while serving our country.<br /><br />The Chaplains in our military are the first and best resource that these young soldiers turn to for help when faced with the awful reality of war. Yet Father Jonathan Morris seems to think that atheist and agnostic soldiers don't deserve the critical services of a chaplain.<br /><br />It's obvious what's really going on here, and it's too bad Father Morris doesn't just admit it. He wants to use the military to force religion on everyone, and to deny social, psychological, moral and philosophical support to atheists, agnostics and humanists. If a soldier is dying on the battlefield and doesn't believe in the Christian God, too bad ... no comfort from a chaplain. If an atheist soldier's spouse gets tired of waiting and has an extramarital affair, too bad. If an atheist soldier has moral qualms about killing, he can just suffer in silence. If in the heat of battle an atheist soldier kills an innocent civilian, he can just deal with it ... Father Jonathan Morris isn't interested in helping that soldier.<br /><br />Except that Father Morris probably <i>would</i> welcome the chance to comfort that soldier, because it would give him a chance to push his faith on the atheist.<br /><br />Father Jonathan Morris should be ashamed of himself. If he was truly interested in the welfare of our men and women in arms, and truly sworn to uphold the United States Constitution – all of it – then he would welcome anyone of any faith or no faith who wanted to join the chaplaincy and help serve the social, spiritual, moral and psychological needs of those who serve our country. Father Morris doesn't understand the true meaning of service.<br /><br /><iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pAHAJVaFxsQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br /><br /><script>this_url=""</script><script src="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/social.js" type="text/javascript"></script>Craig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-78643728970708784232011-11-08T07:44:00.000-08:002011-11-08T08:46:55.400-08:00Christian Apologist: Skepticism Caused by Hurt from ChurchChristian apologists just can't stand the idea that we skeptics actually have good reasons to not believe their mythology. To them, Christian theology is so obviously true that anyone who doesn't believe must have some other reason. If someone is a non-believer, then they must have been beaten by a nun, molested by a priest, shunned for homosexuality, or hurt in some other dastardly fashion by a Christian or by the church.<br /><br />It just can't be, they say, that someone actually rejects Christianity itself.<br /><br />The latest salvo of this nature comes from Christian apologist and author Dr. Alex McFarland, whose new book, <i>10 Answers for Skeptics</i>, purports to have statistics showing that <i>most</i> skeptics were driven away from their faith by bad experiences. In an interview with the <a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-apologist-most-skeptics-doubt-after-being-hurt-by-church-60492/">Christian Post</a>, McFarland said,<blockquote><i>"Through nearly a year of research and numerous personal interviews, my goal was to really get 'inside the mind of the skeptic.' The most common type of skeptics I meet are wounded skeptics. They have been hurt by church, religion, or by another Christian."</i></blockquote>The problem with Dr. McFarland's statement is that like so much of Christian apologetics, it uses flawed logic. McFarland makes the reader think that bad experiences <i>caused</i> the skepticism. More importantly, McFarland seems to think that if you can cure the hurt and heal the damage, the ex-Christian skeptics will all come flooding back to their former faith.<br /><br />McFarland is implying that skeptics are really Christians in their hearts, and it's only the hurt and their pride that have separated them from God.<br /><br />This is completely wrong.<br /><br />These ex-Christian skeptics have had their eyes opened. The hurt they suffered<a name='more'></a> gave them a wonderful opportunity to objectively question Christian dogma and mythology. At the same time, it allowed them to consider other philosophies and religions ... and even atheism. They looked at all the injustice, pain, starvation and disease around the world, and realized that the loving Christian God couldn't possibly be real. They looked afresh at the inconsistencies in the Bible, the immorality of a God who commits genocide, infanticide and many other crimes. The old adage, "God works in mysterious ways" suddenly seemed cheap and shallow. And they looked at their own lives and realized that bad stuff happens to good people all the time for no apparent reason. What sort of almighty, loving God would allow that?<br /><br />McFarland is right that hurt by a fellow Christian or the church drives people away from Christianity. The key point he's missing is that once free of Christianity's bonds, people are drawn <i>toward</i> skepticism and atheism by the forces of reason, facts and morality. And once a person's eyes are opened to the wonders of reason and science, there's no going back.<br /><br />The Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) rely on ignorance. They've even developed a pair of <a href="http://www.thereligionvirus.com">synergistic, powerful memes</a> that are a defense against inquisitiveness and thought. I call them the <i>Ignorance is Bliss</i> and <i>Anti-Rationalism</i> memes. The <a href="http://religionvirus.blogspot.com/2010/10/science-victory-supreme-court-rules.html"><span style="font-style:italic;">Ignorance is Bliss</span></a> meme tells believers that everything you need to know is in the Bible, the meek shall inherit the Earth, and that anything (like science) that contradicts the Bible is Satan's work. The <a href="http://religionvirus.blogspot.com/2010/06/anti-rationalism-meme-is-confirmed-by.html"><span style="font-style:italic;">Anti-Rationalism</span></a> meme tells believers that faith is always more powerful than reason. This is the <span style="font-style:italic;">official</span> position of the Roman Catholic Church: no matter what science and reason tell you, faith that you feel in your heart is more important.<br /><br />I've met many skeptics in my life, particularly since the publication of <a href="http://www.thereligionvirus.com"><i>The Religion Virus</i></a>, and I can tell you that McFarland is simply wrong. Yes, it's true that many skeptics are former Christians. And many are "wounded" as McFarland says. But I've never met one who was being held back from Christianity by their "wounds." To the last one, they saw the hurtful experience as an opportunity.<br /><br />They weren't driven from their faith. They were pulled by the truth of reason and science into skepticism and atheism.<br /><br />And that is what McFarland should really be worried about. He should be looking at the mythology itself. He needs to see why it's so easy to leave Christianity behind once the chains of blind faith are broken.<br /><br /><script>this_url=""</script><script src="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/social.js" type="text/javascript"></script>Craig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-55961769297020976332011-11-01T08:08:00.000-07:002011-11-01T08:33:12.812-07:00Obama: Leave God in Pledge and on Money"Under God" is going to stay in the Pledge of Allegiance for a while.<br /><br />Last month a <a href="https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/edit-pledge-allegiance-remove-phrase-under-god/v5J2fC6z?utm_source=wethepeople&utm_medium=response&utm_campaign=undergod">petition</a> to President Obama to <a href="http://religionvirus.blogspot.com/2011/09/do-it-sign-petition-to-take-under-god.html">remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance</a> was signed by over 20,000 American citizens. It's clear that this is a minority opinion in America, but protecting minorities is what the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights is all about.<br /><br />Now the White House has made the administration's position clear: God should stay in our Pledge and on our currency. I know for a fact that regardless of the President's feelings about separation of church and state, he'd be committing political suicide to endorse anything that took God out of our government. That's just politics.<br /><br />The heart of the White House response is this:<blockquote><i>"A sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters.<br /><br />That’s why President Obama supports the use of the words “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance and “In God we Trust” on our currency.</i></blockquote>So, we have to look at this petition as just one more step on a long road.<br /><br />Below is the whole text the email I received from the White House.<a name='more'></a><br /><br /><hr><br /><span style="color: #990000; font-size: 1.1em;">Religion in the Public Square</span><br /><br /><i>By Joshua DuBois, Executive Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships</i><br /><br />Thank you for signing the <a href="https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/edit-pledge-allegiance-remove-phrase-under-god/v5J2fC6z?utm_source=wethepeople&utm_medium=response&utm_campaign=undergod">petition</a> “Edit the Pledge of Allegiance to remove the phrase ‘Under God.’” We appreciate your participation in the We the People platform on <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/">WhiteHouse.gov</a>.<br /><br />The separation of church and state outlined in the <a href="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html">First Amendment to the United States Constitution</a> is an important founding principle of our nation. Our nation’s Bill of Rights guarantees not only that the government cannot establish an official religion, but also guarantees citizens’ rights to practice the religion of their choosing or no religion at all.<br /><br />Throughout our history, people of all faiths – as well as secular Americans – have played an important role in public life. And a robust dialogue about the role of religion in public life is an important part of our public discourse.<br /><br />While the President strongly supports every American’s right to religious freedom and the separation of church and state, that does not mean there’s no role for religion in the public square.<br /><br />When he was a Senator from Illinois, President Obama gave a keynote address at the Call to Renewal conference where he spoke about the important role religion plays in politics and in public life.<br /><br />A sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters.<br /><br />That’s why President Obama supports the use of the words “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance and “In God we Trust” on our currency. These phrases represent the important role religion plays in American public life, while we continue to recognize and protect the rights of secular Americans. As the President said in his <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/01/21/president-barack-obamas-inaugural-address?utm_source=wethepeople&utm_medium=response&utm_campaign=undergod">inaugural address</a>, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers.” We’re proud of that heritage, and the strength it brings to our great country.<br /><br /><script>this_url=""</script><script src="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/social.js" type="text/javascript"></script>Craig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-57244693543347479272011-10-31T07:52:00.000-07:002011-10-31T08:29:55.991-07:00Why Christianity is in Trouble: Halloween!<a href="http://religionvirus.blogspot.com/2010/12/is-christianity-dying-american.html">Christianity is in trouble</a>, with church attendance falling and faith weakening across the nation. What are they going to do to save the faith? Well, some of the more clever conservative Christians figured out a solution: Piss off kids on Halloween! Drop Bibles and religious tracts into their candy bags! Tell them they're sinners! Halloween is <a href="http://religionvirus.blogspot.com/2011/09/danger-halloween-candy-is-cursed-by.html">devil worship</a>!<br /><br />Yeah, that's sure to pull those kids into church next Sunday.<br /><br />Seriously, they're doing this. <i>USA Today</i> is reporting that the <a href="http://www.atstracts.org/">American Tract Society</a> (ATS) published <a href="http://www.atstracts.org/Halloween-Peek-A-Boo_Jesus_Loves_You.html"><i>Peek-A-Boo, Jesus Loves You!</i></a> (Yes, ATS really exists ... I always wondered where all those tracts came from.)<br /><br />But up in Calgary, they're going one better. Those<a name='more'></a> cheapskate ATS tracts are nothing compared to the <i>Holy Bible</i> that <a href="http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20111028/CGY_jesus_ween_111028/20111029/?hub=CalgaryHome">Calgary kids are going to get</a>! And by the way, it's not Halloween, it's "Jesus-ween."<br /><br />Seriously, people. Why not just take your religion out behind the barn and just bury it? It would be just as effective, and you wouldn't be annoying a bunch of innocent kids who just want to have some fun.<br /><br /><script>this_url=""</script><script src="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/social.js" type="text/javascript"></script>Craig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-77653590441121208122011-10-27T07:49:00.000-07:002011-10-27T08:48:22.279-07:00Should Gay-Bashing Teacher Lose Job?Do teachers have to give up their First-Amendment right to free speech when they take their first job? In a strange twist on free speech, the <a href="http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/">ACLU is defending</a> an ultra-conservative evangelical right-wing Christian's right to gay-bashing hate speech. The <a href="http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/10/nj_teachers_facebook_comments.html">case of high-school teacher Viki Knox</a>, the self-described "Jesus freak," reminds us that free speech is a complex issue.<br /><br />Ms. Knox's school posted a display on a bulletin board recognizing LGBT history month. Ms. Knox was offended and not afraid to say so ... on Facebook. <a href="https://secure3.convio.net/hrc/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&id=1261&page=UserAction">She wrote (emphasis in original)</a>:<blockquote><i>"Homosexuality is a perverted spirit ... Why parade your unnatural immoral behaviors before the rest of us? AND YOU ARE WRONG! I/WE DO NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT ANYTHING, ANYONE. ANY BEHAVIOR OR ANY CHOICES! I DO NOT HAVE TO TOLERATE ANYTHING OTHERS WISH TO DO."</i></blockquote>I'm sure all of my readers will agree that Ms. Knox's comments are despicable, hateful, and should be an embarrassment to all civilized Americans. But ... what about free speech? Is Ms. Knox's hateful gay-bashing grounds for firing her? Don't teachers have a right to free speech?<br /><br />Ed Barocas, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, says Ms. Knox shouldn't be fired: "The ACLU believes that the response to offensive speech is not the restriction of speech, but more speech." In other words, the ACLU says Ms. Knox's hate speech should not disqualify her from teaching.<br /><br />I rarely disagree with the ACLU, but in this case I do. I can't see how<a name='more'></a> Ms. Knox can possibly treat her students fairly given her clear bias against gays and lesbian teens.<br /><br />One of the most important rights we have as Americans is the freedom to say what we want, without fear of persecution, imprisonment or death (all of which were real fears before the American revolution, and are still fears in many parts of the world). And we also know that our morals, with rare exceptions, are none of our employer's business. As long as we're at work, we do our employer's bidding and act according to our employer's rules. And when we go home, we can be bigots and jerks, and it's none of our employer's concern.<br /><br />But there are exceptions to this rule. Teachers, welfare workers, judges, law-enforcement officials and politicians have to understand that there is no brick wall between their public and private lives. It's more like a gauze curtain. Even the <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/07/news/fortune500/boeing_ceo/">President of Boeing</a> learned this the hard way.<br /><br />"But," you might argue, "Ms. Knox is really fair in the classroom. She treats all the students equally. You'd never know from her classroom behavior that she's anti-gay. Let her keep teaching!"<br /><br />Baloney. Her Facebook comments are sure to infiltrate her classroom. I'd bet a fair sum of money that news of her anti-gay diatribe spread like wildfire through the student body. Her life is only private inside the walls of her own home.<br /><br />If I were the parent of one of Viki Knox's students, I'd exercise my own right to free speech and talk to my kids and the community about LGBT issues and Ms. Knox's religion-inspired hate speech. It would be an opportunity to explain that once a kid graduates from high school, it's the real world, filled with real people ... and they'll be on their own to face bigots like Ms. Knox.<br /><br />Ms. Knox has a right to be an anti-gay bigot and to say so, or she has a right to be a teacher. But not both. She can't expect to hurl insults at the entire gay/lesbian community and then teach in a classroom that includes gays and lesbians.<br /><br /><script>this_url=""</script><script src="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/social.js" type="text/javascript"></script>Craig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-56227981067404403392011-10-24T12:57:00.000-07:002011-10-25T07:59:16.138-07:00Global Warming Science Vindicated ... AgainIt's time for everyone who <a href="http://religionvirus.blogspot.com/2009/08/devils-pact-to-deny-global-warming.html">jumped all over my previous blogs about global warming</a> to eat some crow. And it's time to celebrate another victory for good science winning over opinions, faith and dishonesty.<br /><br />U.C. Berkeley scientist Richard Muller, a climate specialist and self-described global-warming skeptic, headed a massive review of all global warming data at U.C. Berkeley. And better yet, his study was funded in part by the famous conservative billionaire brothers, Charles and David Koch.<br /><br />And guess what? Muller's team <a href="http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-10/climate-skeptic’s-new-climate-study-confirms-‘global-warming-real">confirmed that global warming is real</a>. But even better, their results show that global warming is actually <i>worse</i> than the conclusions from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change!<br /><br />Got that? A conservative-funded review by a top climate skeptic and his team said that the mainstream reports were <i>too conservative</i> and that global warming is real.<br /><br />What do you think will happen to the debate now? Probably nothing. Global warming deniers are<a name='more'></a> a mix of about 1% genuine scientific dissent by a few qualified scientists, joined by hoards of evangelical Christians, pseudo-Libertarians, conspiracy theorists and other hangers-on, fueled by an industry-sponsored disinformation campaign. It's certain that the real scientists in this group will review the Berkeley study's results thoroughly, and some of them will change their positions in the face of the evidence. A few will remain unconvinced.<br /><br />But the non-scientists and corporate schills? Their beliefs have nothing to do with science.<br /><br />The religious right will continue to deny global warming, because the Bible says God promised to protect Earth after he killed everyone and everything during Noah's flood. And the professional disinformation specialists will continue to do their jobs, fueling debate with more nonsense.<br /><br />We can only hope that this report will make a difference where it matters: with policy makers.<br /><br /><script>this_url=""</script><script src="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/social.js" type="text/javascript"></script>Craig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-77196290037383876822011-10-24T07:28:00.000-07:002011-10-24T08:23:32.637-07:00Herman Cain Happy to Usurp States on Abortion, MarriageWhat ever happened to honest conservatives? You know, the ones that believed in minimal government, states rights and individual freedom?<br /><br />It seems they're turning those tasks over to the liberals. When it comes to abortion, marriage, gay rights and religion, the Republicans are showing their true colors: the conservatives are one hundred percent in favor of taking away individual liberties and states' rights.<br /><br />CBN (the Christian Broadcasting Network) got an <a href="http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2011/10/22/herman-cain-exclusive-tells-brody-file-he-will-support-constitutional.aspx">exclusive interview</a> with Herman Cain that perfectly illustrates how Republicans are advocating a federal takeover.<blockquote><i>"Yes I feel that strongly about [a pro-life Constitutional amendment banning abortion]. If we can get the necessary support and it comes to my desk I’ll sign it. That’s all I can do. I will sign it. ... I think marriage should be protected at the federal level also. I used to believe that it could be just handled by the states but there’s a movement going on to basically take the teeth out of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act ... we do need some protection at the federal level ... I would support legislation that would say that it’s between a man and a woman.</i></blockquote>I just don't get how Republicans can talk out of both sides of their mouths with such ease. One minute<a name='more'></a> they paint the federal government as a huge, evil, corrupt beast that is sucking the country dry, interfering with free trade and taking away our guns. The next minute, they want the federal government in our bedrooms, doctors' offices and wedding ceremonies.<br /><br />But there is one good thing coming out of the Republican party this election. The candidates are eating each other alive. They're trying to out-conservative each other in order to appease the Tea <strike>Baggers</strike> Party, and in the process they are alienating moderate Americans so badly that President Obama may have a virtual cakewalk to his reelection.<br /><br /><script>this_url=""</script><script src="http://www.thereligionvirus.com/social.js" type="text/javascript"></script>Craig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.com3