Gratuitous Common Sense

Just in case you were wondering how far the bible belt actually stretched in America, I have provided an illustration.

A Bible Belt is an area [in] which Christian Evangelical Protestantism is a pervasive or dominant part of the culture. In particular, in the United States, it is the region where the Southern Baptist Convention denomination is strongest. It includes the southern states of the Midwest and the entirety of the South. Bible belts can also be found in other countries, including Canada and some parts of Europe. The name is derived from the (perceived) overriding importance of the Christian Bible among Evangelical Christian thought and practice.

In the U.S., the stronghold of the Bible Belt is typically seen as the South, due to the colonial foundations of Protestantism in the culture of the region. The major forms were of Tidewater Anglicanism after the Church of England and Appalachia Presbyterianism after the Church of Scotland.

If you were really wanting to be accurate, you might shade Utah and parts of Idaho and Wyoming too, but Colorado is in the way. My goal is to, one day, live outside the shaded area. I had the pleasure for a brief period of time, but it was too damn cold. Oh what a glorious time that was.

Share This

“If there is a God, it is reasonably certain that he made the world, but it is by no means certain that he is the author of the Bible. Why then should we not place greater confidence in Nature than in a book? And even if this God made not only the world but the book besides, it does not follow that the book is the best part of creation, and the only part that we will be eternally punished for denying. It seems to me that it is quite as important to know something of the solar system, something of the physical history of this globe, as it is to know the adventures of Jonah or the diet of Ezekiel.

For my part, I would infinitely prefer to know all the results of scientific investigation, than to be inspired as Moses was. Supposing the Bible to be true; why is it any worse or more wicked for Freethinkers to deny it, than for priests to deny the doctrine of evolution, or the dynamic theory of heat? Why should we be damned for laughing at Samson and his foxes, while others, holding the Nebular Hypothesis in utter contempt, go straight to heaven? It seems to me that a belief in the great truths of science are fully as essential to salvation, as the creed of any church. We are taught that a man may be perfectly acceptable to God even if he denies the rotundity of the earth, the Copernican system, the three laws of Kepler, the indestructibility of matter and the attraction of gravitation. And we are also taught that a man may be right upon all these questions, and yet, for failing to believe in the “scheme of salvation,” be eternally lost.”

- Robert Green Ingersoll

Share This

Anything that has Christians all up in a tizzy in this country is bound to catch my eye. According to CNSNews.com, on May 4th PBS is going to begin airing a three part series on Atheism called A Brief History of Disbelief. Here’s the (very brief) preview…

Produced and narrated by Jonathan Miller, “this series is about the disappearance of something: religious faith.” It originally aired on the BBC in 2005, and an IPF page has been set up for the US airing.

Of course, the CNS News article includes all the standard fallacy-laden Christian attacks. One would think that if they truly believed that they had the absolute truth correct, then they wouldn’t be so insecure about opposing views. For example, I wonder what kind of fervor would be heard from the scientists if PBS aired a documentary that claimed Earth doesn’t exist. This absolute truth thing seems to be lost on these Christians. Hmmm, fodder for another post…

Check your local listings for times.

Share This

This week I was confronted with a new situation - The Religious Office Card - and I wasn’t quite sure how to act. In our office (of 9 employees), we had a coworker, whose sister lost her husband the weekend before. Another person in the office thought it would be a nice gesture if we got a card to sign and send to the sister.

I’m not a particularly emotional person, so this seemed a little odd to me. Seeing as how nobody in the office was even so much as an acquaintance to the sister, it almost seemed a little patronizing.

When the card was first handed to me, I was debating whether or not to sign it at all, since I had never even heard of this person before her husband died. It just didn’t seem like I was in any position to be offering sincere sympathy to this woman. But then, I read the card. The text of the card read like this…

Outside:

God Grant You Peace

In This Time Of Sorrow

Inside:

May you find comfort in warm memories of the beautiful life that has passed. May you find peace in the assurance that an even more beautiful life has begun for your loved one.

With Deepest Sympathy

Well that complicated things a bit. Not only do I feel conflicted about writing in the card to this woman I’ve never met, regarding a subject so painful as the death of a spouse, but now I’m at odds with the message of the card, which is little more than utilitarian religious rhetoric.

Should I add my piece, which would be devoid of religious connotations? If so, what would I say? And how do I say it without coming across too strongly as against the idea of finding comfort in god/prayer/a more beautiful life after this one? Will saying something explicitly opposite of the card’s symbolism effectively out me to my coworkers? Is that a bad thing?

All these thoughts ran through my head in a matter of seconds. And to help answer some of my questions, I tried to get a feel for what my coworkers thought. Being the newest addition to this office, it’s possible that they knew more about her through our coworker than I did. So I read the messages they had written. These are the comments of the coworkers who had written in the card before it landed on my desk:

You are in my thoughts and prayers at this difficult time.

My prayer[s] are with you and your family.

May the Lord Bless and guide you though this difficult time. You are in our prayers.

I am so sorry for your loss. Please know that I am thinking of you & praying for you!

Oh great! Not a single one that doesn’t fall in lockstep with the card’s religious overtones.

I put the card aside and continued to work for a little bit while thinking about what I would say if I wrote anything. I had decided that if I couldn’t come up with anything good to say, then I would simply pass the card onto the next person.

I eventually arrived at the point where I wanted to write in the card… partly because, as an atheist, I felt challenged by those who had essentially called us out in the wake of the Virginia Tech terrorist massacre by saying atheism had nothing offer… and partly because, as a human being, I felt some level of empathy for this woman, and knew I had something to offer no matter how small or how devoid of religious expression. The difference a few words can make may be profound, no matter how insignificant they seem at the time they are written.

So I tried to think of something that would remind her of the influence of her husband’s life, and call on the strength that she had within herself without looking to someone else’s myth for comfort, while acknowledging the hole that his untimely death certainly left behind. After thinking on it for a few minutes, I began to write in the card. And this was my addition:

Samantha,

I cannot offer personal comfort or platitudes of prayer. As a stranger to you, I can only sincerely hope that your husband has left you with a positive indelible impression upon your life and who you are today, an impression for which you are eternally grateful, endowing you with the strength to go on through his life, and leaving you with little to regret through his death. My best regards!

I was left wishing that I could know her reaction, for I hope it was a positive one. I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge my own hope that my words, which required true thoughtfulness and originality, garnered a deeper and more sentient response than the expected and canned promises of prayers left by others.

What would you have done? Would you have written in the card? What would you have said?

Share This

“You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say we are the ones that need help?”

- Mark Twain

Share This

Inspired by Stephen Colbert’s interview with Congressman Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, I thought I should post the ten commandments so that Christians around the nation could at least brush up before they argue that church and state separation is unwritten and unnecessary. It’s all in the interest of fairness, of course. So here you go:

1. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth : Thou shalt not bow down thyself before them, nor serve them: For I the Lord thy god am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother
6. Thou shalt not kill
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery
8. Thou shalt not steal
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.

Many Christians in this country are all for blurring the line between church and state insofar that they may be able to post the ten commandments in our houses of government, our halls of justice, and even our schools. And it’s not just to be there as a reminder of the past, or a historical artifact; they want them there as a guide or set of rules by which we should govern our practices today… yes, in the 21st century.

However, that sort of advocacy begs the question… which ten commandments should we use?

I mean, it plainly states in the bible that Moses smashed the first set of the ten commandments (listed above) out of anger at the Isrealites (Exodus 32:19). And his holiness said not to worry, just bring two new stones up the mountain, and he will write on these tables “the words that were on the first” (Exodus 34:1). Now far be it from me to judge his holiness, but reading “his word”, it seems that the words on the second ten commandments do not match the words on the first ten commandments. As laid out in the second ten commandments, they read like this:

1. Thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and done call thee, and thou feat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
4. All the first-born are mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male. But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty
5. Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year’s end. Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord GOD, the God of Israel. For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year
7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread
8. The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning
9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk

Hmmmm, interesting. I know he’s all-knowing and all-powerful and everything, but inconsistency seems to haunt even the most improbable of suspects here. But let’s give the big guy the benefit of the doubt. That first set that Moses cast out of his hands, we’ll just call that the rough draft. So that would make this second set the final version. I mean, since he’s omnipotent, he certainly could have recreated the ten commandments verbatim from the first set, if he wanted to. Therefore, he must have considered the second version far superior, right? So is this the ten commandments that we should be posting in our courthouses and classrooms?

If we are to use this second version, what guidance does it offer for our justice system and lawmakers and teachers? Are we supposed to leave it up to our elected leaders and those crazy activist judges to weed out our first born? When was the last time you seethed your child in his mother’s milk? Did you avoid this activity simply because the Lord forbade it, or because it sounds like something that might land you in a mental institution?

Oh the fun we can have with the Lord’s words and inconsistencies. But let’s ignore all that. Let’s go with the first version because that’s what most Christians seem to be referring to when they cry for the ten commandments to be planted firmly on the White House lawn. Since it includes a few (a couple, one each, but who’s counting, really?) rules about stealing and killing, it seems the logical fit for what they are talking about when they talk about it as a guide for our lawmakers, justices, and teachers.

But if we are to use God’s word as a guide for making these laws then it seems logical, if not extremely necessary, that we also prescribe the same punishments that this god did for breaking some of those ten commandments. ‘What are those punishments?’, you ask. Well it just so happens that this handy dandy little bible tells us what those are too.

1. He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. (Exodus 21:15)
2. He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:17)
3. Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 22:19)
4. He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed. (Exodus 22:20)
5. Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. (Exodus 31:15 and 35:2)
6. And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)
7. If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. (Leviticus 20:13)
8. And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death. (Leviticus 24:16)
9. And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. If you will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart to give glory to my name, … behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces. (Malachi 2:1-4)
10. He that believeth not, shall be damned. (Mark 16:16)

Hmmmm, interesting. Capital punishment seems to be the avenue of choice here. And the Christians have a lot of catching up to do, especially with their own kind. It gets even worse when you consider the consequences of divorce (at a rate of 60% for Christians in this country) in the context of the ten commandments. Add that to the number of people that do any kind of “work” on Sunday in this country (that includes, most notably, Christian poster boy - Bush), and by all accounts, we should have a much smaller population than we currently do.

Either this god fellow should be taking care of all of the killing or we should be doing it for him. The instructions are kinda vague on who should actually be doing the putting-to-death thing for working on Sunday, or any other broken commandment. I can only assume it must be our responsibility since that god, with his ability to smite without question, seems to have left those people alive after breaking the commandments. One way or the other though, most of the world and well over half the United States should undoubtedly be dead.

Now that’s Justice!

So, all you Christians out there… stop half-assing it! If you’re gonna advocate that the ten commandments be posted and taught as a guide to be followed by our lawmakers and teachers and judges, then you must also advocate the posting and adherence to the punishments as well, for they are directly connected to each other and both are meted out by the same facets of our society that you wish to use the ten commandments to influence. Lest you forget that you are only human, and you are not allowed to cherry-pick which rules to follow, for all of it is the word of your god.

Share This

I’ve been browsing the links in my Atheist Blogroll on the right side of this page, and I’ve noticed numerous posts for the “Blog Against Theocracy” movement going on April 6-8. But Why? Why should we blog against theocracy?

I mean, I know the reasons why a theocracy is inherently bad. The oppression is blatantly obvious is some of the political rhetoric that gets thrown around by the Christians in this country that want the US to be a Christian theocracy. The oppression is blatantly obvious in current Muslim theocracies that treat women like second class citizens. The inherent authoritarianism is something everyone can agree on, and it is diametrically opposed, in every aspect, to the liberty and freedom that America was founded upon, and prides itself for having.

However, a blog against theocracies will only reach those who are already aware of, and understand these DNA-like codings in the bowels of theocratic nation states. Much like the televangelism that goes on here, it’s preaching to the choir. Those who really need to “get” it, won’t, because their particular religion tells them that what they are doing is a good thing as long as they do it in the name of their particular god. And there’s no concept of “too much of a good thing…”

It is the nature of exclusive religions like Christianity and Judaism and Islam to think that they are right, they have the Truth and have been shown the Truth by their god, and everyone else is just flat out wrong. So it doesn’t matter to Christians in this country that their ideal theocracy would share in the same political underpinnings and all out assault on civil liberties as the Muslim theocracies in Iran or Afghanistan (during the Taliban rule). It only matters that their god is right, and Allah is wrong. Those stupid Muslims are wrapped up in a false religion and that’s why their theocracies are so bad for freedom and liberty and human rights.

And it doesn’t matter that Muslims have the same exact hearsay and “evidence” and baseless claims for the righteousness of their god as the Christians have for theirs. One still thinks the other is worshiping false gods, practicing a false religion, and doomed to burn in hell for eternity. They don’t see the interchangeability of their own proclamations.

This kind of thought process will not be swayed by pointing out the childlike, oppressive, and anti-freedom nature of theocratic nations. I believe Barack Obama once referred to it as Messianic Certainty, and it’s the reason that convincing the people that need to be convinced is an exercise in futility.

In my humble opinion, the only way to really blog against theocracy is to continue to do what most participants in the campaign have been doing all along. Point out the hypocrisy, sheer idiocy, inconsistency, and flat out lies of the people who support that kind of nation. Tear apart their arguments, point out the fallacies in their talking points, and continue to show, through example, why their ideas are complete crap.

In short, I don’t think anyone needs to make a special post to tell people why a theocracy is a bad idea. I remember a poignant lesson that I learned from my 9th grade English teacher: “show them, don’t tell them”. Use your words and posts to show them why it’s a bad idea instead of simply telling them. And I think that’s what you’re already doing every single day. Keep up the good work!

Note: This is a rather under-developed argument that I punched out rather quickly to get it out on the first day of this Blog against Theocracy weekend (as I will be on hiatus for the weekend, family still does the Easter thing). I took no time to refine or explain some of the points in the post, but if any comments are made that address those points, then I will certainly take the time to explain further.

Share This

…apparently.

I happened across a post by one Frank Walton on his blog, Atheism Sucks. I found the link to his blog on the Passionate Atheist. The post, entitled “TXAtheist won’t share the burden of proof”, by Frank is an email exchange between himself and an atheist, in which Frank tries to argue that a god exists based on “the impossibility of the contrary”. And tries to get the atheist to make the same kind of argument for his opposing position.

As any of you intelligent beings might recognize, such an argument is a fallacy of ignorance. I was interested in how Frank would reconcile this problem within his argument against the atheist, so I read on.

I ended up responding to his post by leaving a comment, under the username ccannizz11. I don’t want to link to his blog, but feel free to get there through the Passionate Atheist link on his sidebar. The exchange is currently posted in the comments section, however, all my comments must be approved by the owner, so I’ll be tracking the exchange in a separate post and will make it known if Frank doesn’t follow through.

Also, I would encourage you to respond, if you have the time.

UPDATE:
Awww, maaan, Frank quitted.

I’m going to post his final comments here, so everyone may witness the idiocy without going to his blog. My responses to his previous arguments are in bold, while his responses are blockquoted, and I have added a few comments in italics. The rest of the exchange is available on his blog. Not riveting stuff, but enjoy…
Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

This is a public service announcement, brought to you by Gratuitous Common Sense. I am giving you this bible warning, and unlike the things I am warning you about, I will openly admit that it is aimed at children, because they are the most vulnerable.

This is your bible warning…

Please Click to read the fine print. This Bible Warning is imperative.

Share This

Religion is based primarily and mainly upon fear. The fear of the unknown and the fear of ambiguity are at the very foundation of religion, especially monotheism. Built on top of that is the fear of death, the fear of defeat, the fear of “evil”, the fear of change, and the fear of anything different.

I will explain these in detail, but first, let’s briefly address what some others might say is at the foundation of religion - Love, Compassion, and Forgiveness or some closely related and/or direct subset of these categories. Some might say “truth”, but that can’t really be the foundation if that’s what they are all searching for, or in some cases think they have found or been shown by a god.

In short, things like love, compassion, or forgiveness may be values that are practiced by some religious people, but the fact that others can follow these religions without incorporating such values shows that, while deeply ingrained for some, they are certainly not the foundation on which the religion was built. The foundation is something that all adherents share, or have in common, regardless of their particular sect or which deity they choose to follow.

Some might point out that there are those who might express their individuality through their religion. In other words, they generally do not care if others live by their beliefs and values. Their religion is an individual choice and is important to only themselves. These people are building on a different foundation than that of organized religion. And I am not referring to these people when I speak in general about whatever religion they may identify closely with.

This is a commentary on organized religion itself and the dogma it preaches as worthy of submission, worship, and belief by all humans. The foundation, in some semblance, incorporates the following…

The Fear of Death
This is a particularly odd fear, considering what most believers think will happen to them after they die. It’s a very rosy picture, and more often than not, better than the “hell” that is their current material life. Ask any theist and odds are they will tell that they are - eventually - going to heaven after they die, or they will tell you that they are coming back in the next life as a more fortunate and more enlightened being, depending on which kind of theist you ask.

So why is there a fear of death? Is it just human nature to not want to die? It’s an interesting question when posed to a theist. I would contend that it is human nature to avoid death, but the picture of the afterlife that most theists have in mind for themselves serves to combat that most basic of human instincts. But they still fear death. Why?
Read the rest of this entry »

Share This