Atheists Giving Aid is still raising money to help cover the costs of the funerals and counseling for the victims of the Newtown massacre and their families. They’ve raised $18,000 so far, but they’re hoping to get to $50,000:
Yesterday, NPR covered their efforts in a very encouraging piece. Have a listen below:
(Thanks to Andrew for the link!)
Our Daily Train | By Jeremy Styron
While I’m on the topic of poetry and original sin, here are two videos that imagine what the world would have been like had Adam and Eve actually obeyed God in the Garden.
The first is a poem (via Daithidublin):
And here is a cartoon inspired by the poem (via DarkMatter2525):
All of this is assuming that the Genesis story is basically true, of course, but DarkMatter raises the excellent point that the Genesis account actually reads as if God intended from the start to have man eat of the Tree of Knowledge, thus introducing the concept of original sin. That’s quite plausible since, as I have mentioned before, God definitely knew that man would sin before he created them. He also knew, as the cartoon points out, that a world in which people could never die, Earth would eventually become too crowded.
As DarkMatter puts it:
What if original sin had never occurred? I think you’ll find that the fantasy concept known as “sin” is actually quite integral to our physical structure and success as a species. So, whether you take Genesis literally or not — if you believe we were designed by God — who is truly to blame for our “nature”?
I’m a fortunate fellow. I’m spending Christmas in Madison with my wife and kids, at my daughter’s house (so I’m even luckier — she’s doing all the work!) It’s going to be a good calm pleasant Christmas, with calls back to the family in Seattle as well…and we all accept and love each other.
It does, however, make me sad that not everyone gets the full and desired consolation of family.
California’s new law banning LGBT “conversion therapy” for youth was all set to go into effect on January 1st. But, as of Friday, the law was put on hold.
SB 1172 would have barred mental health professionals from practicing conversion therapy, also known as “reparative” or “ex-gay” therapy, on minors. The controversial therapy, which essentially attempts to turn gay people straight, is neither safe nor effective and has been widely criticized by the American Psychological Association and other national health organizations since at least 2000.
But no matter.
On Friday, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals voted to block SB 1172 until a decision can be made about the law’s constitutionality.
Religious groups, especially, played a significant role in blocking the law:
“This is a very good sign for our clients,” said Mathew Staver, found of Liberty Counsel, a religious liberties group that sued to block the law, arguing that it violates free speech rights. “To get an injunction pending appeal is a very difficult thing to do.”
Staver’s group was much more blunt on its own website:
Without this emergency injunction, the State of California would essentially barge into the private therapy rooms of victimized young people and tell them that their confusion caused by the likes of a Jerry Sandusky abuser is normal and they should pursue their unwanted same-sex sexual attractions and behavior.
Thank the Lord that this astounding overreach by the government into the realm of counseling has been blocked.
As the Los Angeles Times also noted, the law has lower courts divided in terms of its constitutionality:
The federal judge in Sacramento who refused to block the law was appointed by President Obama. She concluded that it did not violate the 1st Amendment. Her colleague on the same bench, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, concluded that it was likely that the law infringed on free speech protections.
Perhaps most disturbing is that some advocates for reparative therapy — primarily the therapists themselves — are people who once underwent this attempted conversion, whether as youth or more recently. Notably absent are the voices of LGBT minors currently enduring reparative therapy. Perhaps we should ask them what they think about all this.
Yesterday, on MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry (guest hosted by Joy Reid), one of the guests was friend-of-the-blog Chris Stedman to talk about the importance of including atheists in “interfaith” efforts as well as the problem of religious figures blaming the tragedy on the notion of church/state separation (“You kicked God out of school! No wonder he’s not protecting us!”)…
Chris begins speaking around the 6:30 mark in the first video and 2:11 in the second video:
For all the shit Chris gets from the atheist community, he does one hell of a good job here (in a very tough situation, I might add, talking about something so emotional) explaining how atheists cope with tragedy and what his own community at Harvard is doing to help students affected by the shootings (Answer: The same things churches are offering, minus the Jesus nonsense).
He handled himself incredibly well without being aggressive or combative — in short, I suspect religious people watching the show would have a very hard time disagreeing with anything he said. Not an easy task for any atheist on television.
(Via NonProphet Status — Thanks to @VladChituc for the link!)
In periods following great tragedy, like we saw at Newtown, churches provide a lot of comfort to survivors and the community at large, albeit with their wishful statements that “the victims are in a better place” or that “this was all part of God’s plan.”
Atheists don’t have the luxury of false hope. But that does make it tougher to cope with loss. It’s even harder when you’re trying to explain death to children without invoking the supernatural.
The Washington Post‘s Michelle Boorstein explores that very issue:
Julie Drizin (left) with her family (Marvin Joseph – The Washington Post)
So when [Julie Drizin] pulled her 9- and 13-year-olds together this week in their Takoma Park home to tell them about the slaughter of 20 elementary school students in Newtown, Conn., her words were plain: Something horrible happened, and we feel sad about it, and you are safe.
And that was it.
“I’ve explained to them [in the past] that some people believe God is waiting for them, but I don’t believe that. I believe when you die, it’s over and you live on in the memory of people you love and who love you,” she said this week. “I can’t offer them the comfort of a better place. Despite all the evils and problems in the world, this is the heaven — we’re living in the heaven and it’s the one we work to make. It’s not a paradise.”
This is what facing death and suffering looks like in an atheist home.
Through a variety of examples, what you see are atheists refusing to lie to their children, choosing instead to frame the discussion in ways their kids might be able to comprehend. Nothing about Heaven or Jesus or God or the afterlife or that you’ll be “reunited” one day.
None of that makes it any easier to accept death, but really, what does?
One thing Boorstein doesn’t talk about in the piece is how atheists (and their children) grieve, and if you’re in a position where you’ve lost someone but can’t bear to be consoled by religious friends and relatives whose words of comfort all revolve around faith, Grief Beyond Belief is a group on Facebook that I know has helped a lot of readers of this site. This essay (PDF) by Rev. Dr. Kendyl Gibbons is also worthwhile reading.
(Thanks to Ubi Dubium for the link)
It’s been about two months since John Figdor was announced as Chaplain of the new Humanist Community at Stanford:
This weekend, he’s getting some positive attention from the San Francisco Chronicle:
Figdor, 28, is one of a growing number of faith-free chaplains at universities, in the military and in the community who believe that nonbelievers can benefit from just about everything religion offers except God.
…
“A lot of people go back to religious organizations when they start having children,” whether or not they believe in God, because religion offers community, Figdor said. “What I really want to do is create a vibrant, humanist community here in Silicon Valley, where people can find babysitters for their kids and young people can meet each other.”
Once you get past his title (which a bunch of you are stubbornly unable to do), you realize what he’s doing at Stanford will make a huge difference in the lives of Humanists on campus. Just having someone whose full-time job (!) it is to do things like set up events for non-religious students, bring them together for service projects, and provide counseling when they need it is incredible.
How many of us would have benefitted from having someone like that at college? Even the best atheist student groups have to reinvent the wheel every year or two when new leadership comes in, but having a staffer whose job it is to look out for your best interests is a game-changer for atheists. Just ask religious students who visit Hillel House or the Newman Center what that permanent presence does for their well-being and you’ll get a glimpse of what non-theistic students at Stanford have in store for them if they choose to take advantage of it.
John is offering them all the things religion does well… without ever asking students to leave their brains at the door. We would all be better off with more people in positions like his.
Chris Hayes wishes you a Merry Christmas or a Happy War on Christmas, whichever you celebrate.
Senseless “controversies” break out constantly in Washington, D.C. Political media habitually magnify the most inane, insider-y machinations and petty divisions, which most of the time can be safely ignored. But the ongoing dispute over Chuck Hagel is worth paying attention to, if only because it has provided such useful insight into the nature of modern D.C. governing norms.
Chuck Hagel (via Politico)
Hagel is a former Republican senator from Nebraska known for his nonconformity and expertise in foreign policy issues. A Vietnam War veteran, he was highly-revered by members of both parties during his twelve years in office. Though Hagel voted in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq, he quickly became one of George W. Bush‘s most trenchant critics on war policy, gaining bipartisan credibility by virtue of pointing out a fellow Republican’s catastrophic blunders. Years later, Hagel has been largely vindicated on this score.
Barack Obama reportedly desires to nominate Chuck Hagel as the next Secretary of Defense. In recent history, such appointments are not subject to the sort of political gamesmanship that, say, nominees to the Supreme Court must navigate; the president is normally given a fair amount of leeway to install his preferred National Security personnel. One might have further assumed that Hagel’s confirmation process would be especially smooth, given his experience and high stature.
Instead, a smear campaign — shocking even by D.C. standards — was unleashed to destroy Hagel’s hopes. The very same crew of hyper-aggressive neoconservative elites who brought us the failed Iraq War and the failed Romney campaign are once again asserting their dominance over the Washington “conversation,” and amazingly, it seems possible that Hagel will be forced to withdraw from consideration as a consequence.
Hagel is no radical, but in the past has suggested that capriciously attacking foreign nations and imposing “crippling sanctions” could be damaging to U.S. interests abroad. Among powerful D.C. foreign policy circles, this is simply unconscionable.
Astonishingly, Hagel also stands accused of being an anti-Semite. Bill Kristol‘s arch-interventionist Weekly Standard magazine ran a story in which an anonymous “top Republican Senate aide” was quoted as declaring, “Send us Hagel and we will make sure every American knows he is an anti-Semite.” By the lights of this anonymous aide, who may as well not even exist (some journalistic standards!) Hagel is an anti-Semite because he said in 2008, “The political reality is that… the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here.”
Here’s a good primer on past usage of “Jewish lobby” as a term of endearment by the likes of former Jerusalem Post Washington correspondent and current CNN figurehead Wolf Blitzer.
M.J. Rosenberg observes:
In short, Hagel is an anti-Semite because he stated that the “Jewish lobby” both exists and “intimidates”…
It is true that it is impolitic to use the term “Jewish lobby” rather than “Israel lobby” [...] In any case, the term Jewish lobby is accurate when one refers to organizations like the American Jewish Committee or the Anti-Defamation League, etc. They are Jewish organizations and not AIPAC, the registered Israel lobby.
In D.C., making a basic statement of fact — Jewish lobbying interests exert pressure on legislators like every other lobbying group — is portrayed as tantamount to harboring hatred for Jews. And we wonder why political discourse in this country, especially with respect to Israel, is so constricted. If even Chuck Hagel, a decorated former Marine and straight-talking Nebraskan Republican, can’t question Israel’s clearly outsized influence on American policymaking without being subject to such vile allegations, who can?
One of the leading anti-Hagel crusaders is Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post. Over the course of the 2012 election cycle, Rubin dispensed with all pretense of journalistic impartiality and became a full-fledged Romney surrogate. After election day, she admitted to repeatedly deceiving her readership over the course of the campaign, praising Romney at various points when in reality she was disconcerted by his ineptitude. But rather than suffer any professional consequences for her admitted deceptions, Rubin’s influence has apparently only grown.
Likewise, Rubin’s former boss, John Podhoretz of Commentary magazine, has lent his efforts to the assault against Hagel. Podhoretz’s punditry throughout the 2012 election cycle was proven wildly wrong, but similarly to Rubin, his platform is bigger than ever. If Rubin and Podhoretz are not discredited yet, they never will be.
Consider the destructive incentives at work here: advocate for disastrous foreign policy misadventures that kill hundreds of thousands of people and destabilize an entire region, lie brazenly on behalf of a failed candidate, publish wholly unsubstantiated charges of “anti-Semitism” — and what do you receive in return? Even greater power.
If Hagel’s nomination is derailed by these noxious slurs, it will set an awful precedent. The corrosive culture of Washington, which appears to be worsening by the day, never ceases to amaze. You can sign a White House petition in his defense and/or call your U.S. senators. With enemies like these, Hagel must be doing something right.
The Catholic University of America, located in Washington, D.C. and home to some 7,000 undergraduates and graduate students, formally rejected a proposal for a university-sanctioned LGBT student group earlier this month.
The official reason given by university administrators to supporters of the club -– which included 20 of the 23 members of the school’s Student Association and representatives from multiple other campus student groups –- for the rejection was that administrators fear such a group would become an advocacy organization.
Ryan Fecteau, speaker of the Student Association and a former director of the yet-unrecognized CUAllies group for LGBT and allied students, says the group had been trying to convince administrators for nine months that “the organization would not actively promote causes that might be in conflict with Catholic Church with regard to homosexuality.”
Ryan Fecteau
Furthermore:
The school’s decision was especially galling to supporters in light of the fact that Catholic University previously had an officially recognized gay and lesbian student organization, from 1988 to 2002…
The decision comes at an interesting time since Catholic stances on homosexuality are changing ever-so-slightly. Consider, at the very least, what’s happening at fellow Catholic school Notre Dame:
Catholic University’s decision contrasts with its fellow Catholic institution, the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, which announced in early December that the school planned to expand support for the campus LGBT community by, among other things, finally recognizing an official LGBT student organization. That Notre Dame request dates at least back to 1986.
What says Catholic University about all this? In response to inquiries from the Metro Weekly, associate vice president for public affairs Victor Nakas issued the following statement:
“In declining the request for official university recognition of CUAllies, the administrators indicated their belief that, in spite of the group’s stated intent to uphold Catholic Church teachings, it would be extremely difficult for that pledge to be honored over time,” Nakas wrote. “They pointed out that there is a fine line, easily crossed, between a group dedicated to education and support of individuals who identify themselves as homosexuals and one that engages in advocacy on behalf of a homosexual lifestyle.”
According to Fecteau, CUAllies will continue to host events and offer resources geared toward LGBT Catholics, and students may push for a school-wide referendum to have the group formally recognized. Keep on keepin’ on.
I’m guessing that most of our readers will be familiar with at least a few of the fairly brain numbing rules that Christianity dictates for its adherents, and I’m pretty sure we all know that all Christians are at best selective about which rules they follow and which they don’t. Leviticus’ instructions on making burnt offerings spring to mind as the obvious example. The Abrahamic religions all seem to have these little aberrations, so I set myself the task of finding the most bizarre set of religious rules I could.
Now, at this point I want to invite contributions in the comments section (please don’t use circumcision as an example, it’s too obvious), but before you do that I’d like you all to wrap your minds around this: Ladies and gentlemen, the rules laid down by Islam, concerning male ejaculation during periods of fasting!
” SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
Sexual intercourse invalidates the fast, even if the penetration is as little as the tip of the male organ, and even if there has been no ejaculation.
If the penetration is less than the tip of the male organ, so that it cannot be said that intercourse has taken place, also if no ejaculation takes place, the fast does not become invalid. This applies to both, circumcised and uncircumcised men.
If a person commits sexual intercourse intentionally and then doubts whether penetration was upto the point of circumcision or not his fast, as an obligatory precaution, becomes invalid, and it is necessary for him to observe its qadha. It is not, however, obligatory on him to give Kaffarah.
If a person forgets that he is observing fast and commits sexual intercourse or he is compelled to have sexual intercourse in a manner that makes him helpless, his fast does not become void. However, if he remembers (that he is observing fast) or ceases to be helpless during sexual intercourse, he should withdraw from the sexual intercourse at once, and if he does not, his fast becomes void.
MASTURBATION
If a person, who is observing fast, performs masturbation (Istimna), his fast becomes void (The explanation of istimna has been given in rule 1581/iii).
If semen is discharged from the body of a person involuntarily, his fast does not become void.
Even if a person observing fast knows that if he sleeps during the day time he will become Mohtalim (i.e. semen will be discharged from his body during sleep) it is permissible for him to sleep, even if he may not be inconvenienced by not sleeping. And if he becomes Mohtalim, his fast does not become void.
If a person who is observing fast, wakes up from sleep while ejaculation is taking place, it is not obligatory on him to stop it.
A fasting person who has become Mohtalim can urinate even if he knows that by urinating the remaining semen will flow from his body.
If a fasting person who has become Mohtalim, knows that some semen has remained in his body and if he does not urinate before taking Ghusl, it will come out after Ghusl, he should on the basis of recommended precaution, urinate before taking Ghusl.
A person who indulges in courtship with an intention to allow semen to be discharged, will complete his fast and also observe its qadha, even if semen is not discharged.
If a fasting person indulges in courtship without the intention of allowing the semen to be discharged, and also, if he is sure that semen will not be discharged, his fast is in order, even if semen may be discharged unexpectedly. However, if he is not sure about the discharge and it takes place, then his fast is void. ” Source
Glossary of terms:
“Istimna” – Cuffing one off.
“Mohtalim” – Having a wet dream.
“Ghusl” – Taking a bath. Only it’s a ritual bath.
I know it’s childish, but I did giggle about this one! So come on (no pun intended), readers: Find me some weirder religious rules. Bonus points if they’re rules that are actually observed.
Most religious beliefs aren’t matters of life and death. You might waste your time praying to a god. You might have to eat a tasteless communion wafer sometimes. Even accepting Creationism just prevents you from understanding the beauty of science. But that’s usually the worst of it.
Jehovah’s Witnesses, on the other hand, hold a belief that makes no sense and has led to multiple deaths: They refuse to undergo blood transfusions even if it means saving their own lives, a belief that stems from irresponsible interpretations of the Bible. It’s especially disgusting when the children of JW parents are the ones who are suffering and their parents would rather see their kids die than have the life-saving procedure done.
In some cases, even when JWs have said no to the transfusions, doctors have ignored their wishes in order to save a life. Unless the patient is an adult JW saying “I don’t want a blood transfusion,” it’s exactly what the doctors should be doing. Children don’t deserve to die because their parents are deluded by religion.
What boggles my mind is that JWs still hold this ridiculous belief despite all the unnecessary deaths that have occurred as a result of it.
That’s why I’m feeling a bit of relief at this article in the National Post that suggests JWs are trying to avoid “messy legal confrontations” by just letting the transfusions happen:
As institutions show more respect toward parents’ faith and try harder not to use blood, Witnesses often seem eager to avoid involving child-welfare authorities to facilitate transfusions, and more accepting that Canadian case law is firmly on the doctors’ side, some hospital officials say.
“They get it that we’re going to transfuse where it’s medically necessary. They’ve lost that battle; they understand that,” said Andrea Frolic, a bioethicist at McMaster Children’s Hospital in Hamilton, Ont. “But it’s kind of an affront to their community to involve child-welfare services where there aren’t concerns about neglect, there aren’t concerns about abuse. … Part of the thing was ‘Just go on and do it. Why do we need to involve CAS [Children’s Aid Services]? It makes us feel like bad parents.’”
Witnesses are essentially doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. They’re willing to accept the transfusions, but only because they don’t want to deal with judges who will inevitably rule against them, anyway.
What’s even more interesting is that some JWs are now willing to get a transfusion for themselves or their family members, but their biggest worry isn’t that they’re violating some religious belief. It’s that other JWs will find out about it:
… evidence suggests that the number of cases that end up before a judge has dropped significantly. The Canlii website, which catalogues many Canadian court decisions, includes nine separate child blood-transfusion rulings from 2000 to 2007, but just three in the five years since then.
…
All the ethicists stress, as well, that some Jehovah’s Witnesses do not agree with the blood ban, but are anxious that their green light to transfusion be kept confidential.
“Some families are really more concerned about other Jehovah’s Witnesses finding out they consented to the blood transfusion,” said Ms. Seller.
Peer pressure: The most powerful tool at religion’s disposal.
Still, good news overall. If the Jehovah’s Witnesses can soften their stance, it might not be long before Christian Scientists stop the faith-healing nonsense and start seeing doctors in medical emergencies. We can dream, right?
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
