Sacred or senseless.

Religion, does it do more harm than good?  Is that even a question that anyone can address without letting their biases overwhelm objectivity?

Watching a program titled The Third Rail on Aljazeera America this morning did little to dispel my suspicions.  Larry Taunton, an Evangelical spokesman, asserted that not all religions are equal in that respect, but Christianity "brings benevolence to the table." Perhaps it does, but it's hard for me to accept that it brings much benevolence to the world,  as the influence, at least in the US on public life is to restrict the rights and political power of certain people while putting a holy gloss on the supercilious condemnations and malevolence.  Democracy and human rights are usually only apparent relative to the rights of the faithful but even then, the rights of women, of unbelievers and the members of antagonistic religions would be rigorously suppressed given their ability to do so. Their god does not compromise or relent and neither do they.  His evidence of course is that Evangelicals give more, or so he says, although again, that they certainly don't give more than Muslims and Jews, but with faith, with arrogance and with dishonesty all things are possible.

"For we have been saved by grace through faith and this is not your own doing it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."(Ephesians 2:8-9)

Yet boast of it they do and most fulsomely. Wars, slavery, tyranny, executions and torture: that some justify them and others do not seems to have little to do with religiosity and more to do with some independent viewpoint that often runs afoul of doctrine and dogma and ecclesiastical authority. One has to ask what there is in Christian benevolence that is absent in Humanist benevolence, Muslim benevolence, Marxist benevolence and most of all, benevolence itself. The answer of course is that religion, at least Western religion, offers exceptions to everything but obedience.

Yes, some people benefit from Christianity says Atheist Dan Dennett, but what bothers him is what bothers me:  the "systematic hypocrisy that almost obliges them to lie."  Indeed it does as we see when Taunton claims that Evangelicals give more to charity that atheists.  The problem is that atheists are not a group and have nothing in common but the lack of credulity to a certain myth. Any statement that puts Karl Marx, Ayn Rand and John Lennon in the same envelope can't be taken to be honest.  And of course that "statistic" confuses donations to institutions that spend the contribution on airplanes for ministers and invest in African gold mines using slave labor with "charity."  Faith requires dishonesty, demands fallacy and ultimately is vanity.   The only one in this conversation acknowledging legitimacy to anyone else is the atheist. If God can't compromise, how can his followers?

 Did Christianity motivate Abolition and has Christianity been at the root of  civil rights reform? Well it certainly allows Christian booster Taunton to claim so and not to be embarrassed when forced to admit that he didn't consider gay marriage to be a civil right because of his Christianity.  Many Christians of course didn't and still don't consider slaves to have civil rights and there is much in the "scriptures" to back them up. His statement is only tautological: Christians support only the rights we support as Christians and no others.  And here's where the argument fails. Christian benevolence is offered to Christians as long as they don't offend Christian authority.  A poor sort of benevolence in my mind and of Daniel Dennett's.who points out the centuries of vicious persecution of those people who see benevolence as innately human and not god given.  We want to be your sole source of morality, say the religion vendors and damn you if you roll your own or buy another brand.

Since the religiously motivated horrors of history are hard to deny (not that people don't try) I have to ask whether religion isn't like nuclear power, gunpowder and sharp objects in general, things that can help us but contain no internal protection against misuse?  Is blind faith of any kind inherently dangerous and does that danger too often outweigh any benefit that is just as inherent in safer things?  One can believe in any god you can imagine, good or ugly, merciful or monstrous, and we always have, but gods are never dangerous.  They have no power, no characteristics not assigned by their believers and being human we create gods in our image, according to our own needs for self justification.  By faith we are oppressed. It's belief that creates gods and only doubt, only disbelief, only reason and honesty can save us from ourselves.

When Religious Freedom Means Religious Intolerance

To read this hate screed, click on image to enlarge.

By (O)CT(O)PUS

The above advertisement appeared in two consecutive issues of our local newspaper.  Two years ago, a controversy disturbed the peace of this sleepy beachside community.  The mayor refused to let a member of the Ethical Humanist Society address the Town Council. Why? EHS members are scorned as atheists.  As George Orwell once said, some citizens are more equal than others, and City Hall is filled with animals.

In response to the above advertisement, I wrote an opinion letter that will be published in our local newspaper next week, as follows:

Our national debate on the role of religion in our public life has taken a troubling turn. Clerics and politicians alike have upped the ante on rhetoric by mischaracterizing opponents with inflammatory language intended to dehumanize, disenfranchise, and silence stakeholders holding opposing viewpoints.

Recently, a paid advertisement called “Religious Freedom?” appeared in the pages of this newspaper. Ostensibly a plug for a book, the advertisement blames the worst atrocities in modern times on the evils of atheism and secularism: “From 1917 to 2007 approximately 148 million people were killed by atheist run countries.” The author employs a cherry-picking fallacy that weaves selected historical events, although true, into a subjective and self-serving narrative that is decidedly untrue.

Ninety years of modern history is a false equivalence compared to a millennium of Crusades, Inquisitions, apostates burned at the stake, forced conversions under penalty of torture, ecclesiastical corruption, simony and the selling of indulgences, the Reformation culminating in the Thirty Years War – all are examples of unrelenting violence in the name of religion that ravaged Europe for a thousand years.

Appeals to prejudice are another fallacy that equates atheism and secularism with Nazism and evil. Was Adolph Hitler an atheist, as implied by the author? In fact, Hitler attended a monastery school, and his vaunted 'Wehrmacht' bore this inscription: “God is with us.”

The worst atrocities always begin with words – incendiary words that deprive people of their citizenship, their human rights, and ultimately their lives. Frankly, I am concerned when a religious leader employs the same techniques of propaganda -- used by demagogues and despots -- to advance a sectarian agenda.

Free speech is not free without the right of reply, nor is it a platform from which others must only listen. In demonizing people, the goal is to shut down democratic discourse and bully those who stand in opposition.

Constrained by a 300-word limit, there is a lot more I could have said.  I could have mentioned the anti-establishment clause in our Constitution, the one that keeps the peace between denominations and ensures religious freedom for all.

I could have mentioned this statement spoken by Pope Francis two years ago, the one that said:  All good people, including atheists, are redeemed in Christ and go to Heaven.  Apparently, the message has not yet reached these humble shores.

Needless to say, I expect flack.  Angry villagers brandishing pitchforks will write letters and demand my neck in a noose.  My next letter will be short and sweet:

Atheists are voters. Baptists are voters. Buddhists are voters. Catholics are voters. Episcopalians are voters. Ethical Humanists are voters. Evangelicals are voters. Jews are voters. Lutherans are voters. Mennonites are voters. Methodists are voters. Mormons are voters. Muslims are voters. Presbyterians are voters. Seventh Day Adventists are voters. Unitarians are voters. Have I left out anyone?

Who among you shall love your neighbors less by depriving them of their right to vote? Who among you shall revoke your neighbors’ citizenship and violate their human rights? Who among you shall vilify and persecute a neighbor on the basis of race, religion, gender, national origin, partisan affiliation, or sexual orientation? Who among you shall cast the first stone?

Damon Fowler vs. Bastrop, LA

Graduating from high school is supposed to be a joyous time in a young person's life. For Damon Fowler, however, the celebration involved being lied to and ostracized by his community, and being booed as he walked across the stage in Bastrop, LA. His parents honored the occasion by throwing Damon's possessions out on the lawn in the rain, locking the house, and going "on vacation." Prior to this, they had cut off Damon's internet access and his contact with his brother in Texas who supported him.

It started about a week ago, when Damon objected to a prayer that was scheduled during his graduation ceremony. In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled against coerced prayer in a strongly worded decision which read, in part:

"As we have observed before, there are heightened concerns with protecting freedom of conscience from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools. Our decisions in [Engel] and [Abington] recognize, among other things, that prayer exercises in public schools carry a particular risk of indirect coercion. The concern may not be limited to the context of schools, but it is most pronounced there. What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy."

Ironically, the original suit was brought by Christian parents who objected to a rabbi giving the benediction at their child's graduation. In the 18 years since this ruling, Christians have repeatedly and vociferously complained and fought against this ruling, illustrating the 'be careful what you wish for' aspect of any such effort.

When Damon went to the ACLU, the school backed down, and agreed to a moment of silence in place of the prayer. He then posted this on reddit.com, a social media site with a strong atheist community. The top-rated out of the 1,771 comments is a response from Damon's brother, who kept the community in the loop after Damon was cut off from communication by his parents. He conveyed the amazing support to his brother in conference calls through Damon's sister. Meanwhile, Damon's teacher Mitzi Quinn told the local newspaper, "[In the past, non-religious students] respected the majority of their classmates and didn’t say anything. We've never had this come up before. Never…And what’s even more sad is this is a student who really hasn't contributed anything to graduation or to their classmates." The paper reported that Quinn was given an award for her "great service." Damon received death threats, and his brother and sister feared for his safety attending the graduation.

I would dare any apologist to defend the behavior of the so-called Christians in this story. One of my dearest Facebook friends posted the graduation video with a comment that she missed the days we could openly make religious references in school, but what I saw was a student defiantly flouting the Constitution and going back on the school's promise, and the crowd cheering wildly:

But while Damon was cut off from almost every avenue of support, wonderful things were happening across the internet. A Facebook fan page now has 10,115 people who "like" it (though some apparently clicked the like button so they could say hateful things and boast about how the prayer was said anyway, that's to be expected). The FFRF had already awarded Damon a $1,000 scholarship, but an additional scholarship fund was set up on ChipIn with a goal to raise $10,000. The total donations now stand at $14,482.75, thanks to support by prominent atheist bloggers like The Friendly Atheist.

The most striking element of this story, to me, is the terrible behavior exhibited by the Christians in contrast with the outpouring of support from the atheists. I'm sure my own cognitive biases are hard at work here, but I just spent the last few hours reading through a huge amount of commentary on this subject and I have yet to find one redeeming comment from a religious individual, even among my own friends. I had intended for my first post to be more of an uplifting story, but the more I read about this, the more I despair for the prospect of coexistence. Yes, this one had a happy ending, but my mind keeps going back to the thought of one kid, alone and scared, publicly shamed and cut off from support. How an entire community, including that child's parents, could come together to do that is beyond me.