From Jim Wilson:

As a fan of rock music as well as many other genres, it is fascinating to hear various religious figures arguing that music is evil.  In the Muslim world, such anti-rock attitudes are often linked with anti-Westernism in general, but here in the West we are more likely to be told that rock music is addictive, that it is a communist conspiracy, or it comes directly from Satan.   Rock music, we are told, has beats authored by Satan in a villainous plot to the control listeners and send them to hell.  Such beliefs have given rise to wild stories.  There is the tale that all rock bands pray to Satan before recording. There is the claim that screamed vocals on rock records are created when the musicians are enjoying anal sex, and there is a rumor most rock albums have satanic messages backed masked into them. There is the claim that every year Keith Richards has all the blood drained from his body and replaced with fresh blood from young donors.

While exploring this topic I stumbled on this video . It is a video of a Christian religious leader preaching on the evils of popular music.  Beginning around 1:54 he states that God does have preferences for everything and that he expresses his preferences through his design.  He states, “God has made your ears to be able to take a certain amount of sound, and if you go beyond that level you’re going to hurt your ears.”  He continues to point out that damaged human ear cells do not heal themselves the way other body parts do making damage caused to ones ears by listening to loud music permanent.

He argues that God intentionally made our ears this way to express his distaste for rock music which admittedly, is often played loud.  That’s right! We are being told to believe that the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of all things demonstrates his preferences through design flaws.  Are we also to also assume that because God designed us to use the same opening to intake food and breathe air that he wanted us to be vulnerable to choking death?  It would have been much more useful for us to have ears that can heal themselves, and hear a wider range of the sounds of nature or to have eyes that could see more of the electromagnetic spectrum including ionizing radiation and magnetic fields.

We are forced to conclude that a supposedly benevolent creator’s designs are intentionally flawed, but the preacher’s argument has other problems. The design flaw says nothing about specific genres of music.  For example, Mozart or Bach music can be played at the same loud volume as Slayer with the same damaging effect.  Furthermore, you can listen to Slayer at low volume and receive NO ear damage.  Many older people who were lifelong rockers are not worse off than the people with ear damage from the sound of gunfire in wars or by the sounds of heavy machinery.  Is God trying to tell us through his poor ear design that he is anti-war or anti-factory?

God doesn’t exist but if he did it is unlikely that he would communicate his musical preferences by making a faulty ear design that doesn’t heal after damage. Rock and roll musicians are not always the best role models, and that is part of the genre’s appeal, but to assert that Rock ‘n’ Roll is from Satan is a load of superstitious nonsense that attempts to close off our experience of a wide range of diverse, innovative, and interesting sounds.  Besides, Rock ‘n’ Roll has also done much to bring people together. Check out Farm Aid , One World Concert, The Moscow Music Peace Festival, Live Aid, and the benefit concert that started it all The Concert for Bangladesh.

As an atheist, I’m often asked “Where do you get your morals from?” The implicit attack here is that morals can only come from religion and that, therefore either I have no morals or the morals I do have were instilled in my religious upbringing. I do not intend to write about where I get my morals, beyond simply and quickly saying that my morals stem from a desire to make the world a better place. Instead, I intend to write about where most modern Christians get their morals – and it is most definitely not the Bible. This topic is something I have been thinking about a lot lately, as it has come up over and over in the debate on gay marriage.

Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 13 has come up repeatedly. It reads as follows (as obtained from BibleGateway.com, the New International Version)

“If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

Two verses later, in Leviticus 20:15, a similar admonition against sexual relations with animals is delivered:

“If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal.”

These verses are similar to those of Leviticus 18:22-23, but the punishments for these sins are given in the above quoted verses. However, as of this writing, gay marriage is legal in 9 states, and bestiality is legal in 20 (according to www.animallaw.info). Why are there no large-scale protests about bestiality? Why are not more Christians sermonizing on bestiality and how wicked it is, how it leads to the downfall of nations? Should not both biblical statutes carry the same weight in our laws and morals?

More common sins are listed in the previous chapter. Leviticus 19:19 says (quotation marks as in original)

“‘Keep my decrees.

“‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.

“‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.

“‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

Leviticus 19:26 commands:

“‘Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.

Leviticus 19:27 and 28 continue:

“‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

“‘Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord.

These six commands, and more listed throughout the book of Leviticus, are daily violated by good, upstanding Christians without protest. How is it that these commands can be disregarded so easily, but the single command on gay marriage must be not only upheld, but written into our national legislation? Christian morality is full of hypocrisy. The argument is often made that some verses are to be interpreted literally, while others are merely figurative. How then does one determine which are which? The Bible itself cannot be a guide; it gives no direction on how to evaluate its contents beyond such pithy directives as “Keep my decrees”. Some other source must be obtained to make this decision. The lay people of a church rely on the guidance of their pastors, priests, ministers and deacons, but where do these leaders turn for their answers? There must be some source which is not the Bible for making these decisions of morality.

The act of deciding that some commands in the Bible can be safely ignored while others must be upheld literally, and in some cases, violently, can only be rationalized by two possible courses. Either the decision is made to consciously violate God’s sacred commands, thereby intentionally earning a place in the fires of hell, or the Christian has employed a set of morals independent of and superior to the biblical commands. In either case, the Christian can no longer point to the Bible as the ultimate source of their morals. It may provide a starting point, but as we no longer stone women for failing to be virgins on the day they are married to some lecherous old man who bought them, we clearly have evolved our sense of morality since the Bronze Age.

The term “meme” is used largely to describe images like this:

Usually there is an image of some character or public figure (in this case Advice God) with a statement on top introducing the topic and some sort of ironic or unexpected punch line at the bottom. They are quite common over the internet. It is possible that the 2012 presidential election may be the first ever to be influenced by the use of this type of internet meme. More examples can be found here.

“Meme” has a much broader and interesting meaning. The term was coined by Richard Dawkins, now famous for being one of the world’s most visible atheists. In his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, Dawkins, created the word with the intent of it sounding similar to gene with its roots in the Greek term “mimeme” meaning to imitate.

Dawkins used the term to describe pieces of cultural information, shared among humans, which are able to adapt and evolve in ways that furthers their transmission. They can be seen as parts of human culture that are analogous to genes. Examples include jokes, popular songs, stories, rituals, fashion styles, ideologies, and a wide range of other cultural information. Urban legends are an excellent example, since they frequently change and often grow with the telling. Often versions that hit listeners closer to home or contain more outrageous elements are repeated and in this way are able to perpetuate their existence.

Blue Star Acid is an urban legend in which it was widely believed that people where giving children LSD soaked rub-on tattoos or stickers. There was no evidence to support this scare but the story continued for decades. There were several versions and the details that were included indicated when a particular version originated. Simply put, details that make a story or a joke more likely to spread get passed on while those that don’t simply get killed off. In this way, cultural information undergoes a form of adaptive evolution though it may bear more resemblance to a Lamarckian concept of evolution than a Darwinian one. Memes are often compared to viruses, in that they cannot exist independently of a host or vector and successful ones are able to change the host’s behavior so that it further spreads the meme to new hosts. Successful memes are ones that have accumulated traits that maximize the likelihood that they will be passed on.

The concept has given rise to the field of study known as memetics which looks at how information is spread among humans and adapts to spread further. Unlike other fields, it is more interested in an idea’s successful spread rather than how truthful it is.

Some of the most influential memes are religious ones. They are often characterized by groups of smaller memes combining together to form larger “memeplexes”. For example, Judaism not only features beliefs about the existence of a god but also dietary rules and stories about its history. Christianity builds upon the previously existing Judaism memes and adds new elements like the Jesus story. When looking at the spread of Christianity from the point of view of memetics, it is striking that the Christianity meme found success after adding such suspect features as promises of eternal rewards for believers and eternal punishment for those who doubt (and will not perpetuate) the meme.

It should be noted that memes are not conscious entities that intentionally spread themselves but rather pieces of information with no self-awareness engaged in an unconscious process of adaptive selection. The notion of memes as viruses of the mind makes a lot of sense. People heavily influenced by power memes such as religions like Islam or Christianity or political philosophies like Nazism or Marxism will do things to help aid the spread of their meme that people uninfected by these memes will view as horrific and morally despicable. More thoughts on the idea of Christianity as a meme can be found here.

Skepticism and critical thinking are essential to immunize us from harmful and destructive memes that are all too common in this world.

 Jim Wilson can’t believe Russell Crow’s Supposed UFO Sighting!

Recently Russell Crowe shared this video with his Twitter followers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W63K–xUg6o&feature=player_embedded

The star of Gladiator and Les Miserables stated, “UFO? Time Lapse Photos THESE ARE REAL! A friend and I set camera to capture fruit bats rising from Botanic Gardens, this was a big surprise.”

In the time exposure video, a flat white object moves across the upper portion of the screen. A red beam of light appears to radiate down from it.  The video is from Crowe’s office in Sydney on Woolloomooloo Bay.  His office sits on the pier directly across from the botanical gardens.  There are many explanations for the images including glare from the camera lens or photoshopping but Russell Crowe insists that he did not photoshop them.

The explanation offered in this video is most compelling:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjlK7kjgphU

This largely explains the strange images that were captured. Had he captured fruit bats, what would they have looked like in the timed exposure?

The Catholic Church has been faced with devastating public relations for some time. The last Pope—Benedict XVI—formerly Cardinal Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger, had a troublesome past that didn’t play well in the popular media. In spite of the fact that he was an unwilling conscript in the Hitler Youth in 1941, his association with the Nazis was a damaging media trope. Of minor significance is the fact that his names were easily lampooned. Look how long it took to call him “Ex Benedict” after his retirement. The sexual abuse of minors came to light while Cardinal Ratzinger was high up in the Church’s bureaucracy and he was accused of being part of the cover-up. The truth may have been that he was one of the more aggressive prosecutors. While much of his media problems were inherited, some were well-earned. He rejected the use of condoms as a way of combating AIDS in Africa and in a world that has come to accept a wider view human sexuality; he continued to give interviews that were considered by many homophobic.

The Papal Conclave of 2013 has made its selection and announced it through the ritualistic release of white smoke from a chimney on top of the Vatican. His name is Jorge Mario Bergoglio and has taken on the name Francis I. It’s hard to believe that in the history of 266 popes, there hasn’t been a “Francis” in the bunch. Have you tweeted about this yet?  Francis I did! ““HABEMUS PAPAM FRANCISCUM” or “We haz Pope.” The first thing he needs to know is that it’s very impolite to type tweets with the caps lock on. If we’ve learned anything from history, we know that rituals do occasionally change (you should really check out this one!) Do you suppose the white smoke announcement will be replaced with the official Vatican Tweet anytime soon?

What does it matter to an Atheist? There are a lot of former Catholics within our ranks and people are regularly leaving the Church for Atheism. The FreeThinking Community of Tucson which includes FreeThought Arizona, Tucson Atheists, Skeptics of Tucson, and the Secular Student Alliance at the U of A don’t make Atheists. We provide social support and a place where FreeThinkers can come together and participate in rational discussions without fearing retribution from religious family members and coworkers.

This year FreeThought Arizona will be at the book fair. Thanks to the dedicated work of the members, we’ll have booths 351 and 352 right in front of the library. The bestselling author Chris Mooney will join with our own local celebrities to sign books. We have freebies to hand out and plenty of literature that visitors can take away. Books, magazines, and pamphlets will be at the booth. Members of FreeThought Arizona will be there to answer questions and engage in conversation and there will be information on the FreeThought Arizona, Tucson Atheists, Skeptics of Tucson, The Secular Student Alliance at the U of A, and American Atheists—all part of the Tucson FreeThinking Community.

On Sunday at 7 PM after the book fair, the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tucson along with the Tucson FreeThinking community is sponsoring a concert by Roy Zimmerman. Tickets, which can be purchased at the door, are $15 for general admission and only $10 for students. He’s calling his tour the Wake Up Call and is sure to appeal to progressive thinkers with folk style songs in the same vein as Joni Mitchell and Tom Lehrer. In fact, Joni Mitchel says, “Roy’s lyrics move beyond poetry and achieve perfection” and Tom Lehrer himself says, “I congratulate Roy Zimmerman on reintroducing literacy to comedy songs. And the rhymes actually rhyme; they don’t just ‘rhyne.’” Progressive comedy and satire available here in Tucson without a two drink minimum, how can you miss that?

Finally, on Monday, the Skeptics of Tucson Meetup Group returns its meetings to the Denny’s on Speedway just west of Alvernon. This month we’ll have discussion on articles posted on the Doubtful News webpage. The meeting begins at 7 PM and ends at 9 but people show up early for light conversation prior to the meeting.

Here is a summary of the important links contained in this blog entry:

FreeThought Arizona (associated Meetup Group)

Roy Zimmerman

Skeptics of Tucson Meetup Group

For decades one of the few places a public figure can openly challenge religious belief is the wonderful world of stand-up comedy.  Here nothing is taboo and almost anything goes.  Humor and mockery are among the best ways to challenge the commonly held values and assumptions in society.  Comics are often some of our greatest exercisers of free speech in addition to being merely entertaining.I would like to present our readers this collection of some of my favorite irreverent stand-up bits about religion.  (Warning, these are not intended for children or the easily offended and some are NSFW).

1. Bill Hicks’ perfect response to an angry Christian: The end of this clip always makes me happy. I’m pleased to say I’ve used this response to a few believers myself.
2. Sarah Silverman says: Sell the Vatican Feed the World. Though it is technically not part of her standup show, this short by Sarah Silverman makes an excellent proposal for feeding the world, at the Pope’s expense, and provides some nice commentary on papal decadence.
3. Ricky Gervais on Noah’s Ark The former star of The Office, Extras, The Invention of Lying and many other projects, discusses the absurdity of Noah’s Ark.
4. Eddie Izzard: Jesus and the Dinosaurs. This takes on much of the Christian worldview.  My favorite part is when God asks Jesus about what he told his followers about wine.
5. Jamie Kilstein on Gay Marriage A wonderful rant on marriage equality and religious bigotry, also hilarious.  Nothing more needs to be said.
6. Julia Sweeney on the book of Revelation The former Saturday Night Live actress gives her thoughts on the rather psychedelic implications of the last book of the Bible.  This comes from her wonderful film Letting Go of God.
7. Bo Burnham’s Rant During his comedy central special, Bo Burnam breaks into this musical number.
8. Jim Jeffries: God Loves the Stupid Australian comic Jim Jeffries delivers a foul mouth dose of religion bashing, and explains the lack of Kangaroos in the Noah’s ark story.
9. David Cross: Heaven & Squagels The former Arrested Development and Mister Show star, discusses heaven and, as an added bonus, something called Squagels.
10. George Carlin: Religion is BS George Carlin at his best!

I hope you enjoy watching these as much as I have.

Roy has been performing satirical folk music since the early eighties, as both a solo artist and a member of the Fore (a group who had the distinction of playing the national conventions of both major parties in 1996).  Roy’s music focuses on political and social issues, and his songs about religious topics have made him quite popular in the FreeThought Community.  Here are a few examples:

1.  Jerry Falwell’s God
2.  I want a Marriage like they had in the Bible
3.  Creation Science 101

Zimmerman’s lyrics often come from an admittedly liberal or progressive point of view and may alienate some more conservative listeners. However, Roy’s performances are fun, enjoyable and often hilarious. The Tucson FreeThought Community is proud to sponsor this fine entertainer along with other entertainers and speakers from a wide variety of view points.

Come and join us for this fun night of song with Roy Zimmer on March 10^th at the Unitarian Universalist Church.  Hope to see you there!

Here’s Jim Wilson’s article:

Years ago I worked in a call center environment doing some of the most monotonous work the white collar service sector had to offer. I often found that most irritating calls were not those from people who were angry with the company but those of people whose phones caused me to hear an echo of my own voice while working with them.  The echo would quickly derail my train of thought and leave me fumbling for words.   Recently in Japan, scientists have taken experiences such as mine and turned them into a marketable device.  It’s a speech-jamming gun that causes unsuspecting loudmouths to hear an echo of their own words, delayed at .02 seconds.  The echo completely throws their brain for a loop, silencing their speech (More information on this device can be found here:  http://phys.org/news/2012-03-speechjammer-gun-quash-human-utterances.html).

Most of us have had times when we wished we had such a device to point at some obnoxious individual in our vicinity.  Maybe it’s someone who won’t stop chatting in a movie theater or family member who won’t stop going on about the playoffs.  Then again maybe it’s some full-time professional or semi-professional nuisance, like the professional conspiracy theorist, the lying politician, the dishonest salesman, or the racist bigots holding a rally down the street that you would like to point this device at.  Some people are simply jerks and morons who say horrible mean-spirited things.  Some may do it just for the attention, while others may truly be trying to promote their own nasty world view.  The Phelps family, which is famous for protesting the funerals of fallen American soldiers, think that “God hates America” for its tolerance of homosexuality is an excellent example.

The temptation to stifle their speech with a speech-jamming device or even government action, is very strong but it is the wrong approach.  We need to allow people to say whatever hate-filled, bigoted, and crazy moronic things they wish.  Silencing people only legitimizes their cause.  Many of the most hate-filled people out there fancy themselves as victims of persecution.  Doing anything to validate their claims will only make them stronger.  For example, I recently heard it argued that the Bible must be an accurate depiction of reality because it is banned in multiple countries.   This argument makes absolutely no sense but it is a great example of how silencing someone allows them to play the victim card.  In another example, countless people flocked to show support for the bigoted management of Chic-Fil-A after some cities threatened to forbid the restaurant chain from operating within their limits.  In short, silencing people turns them into martyrs to rally around.

It can also lead to the individuals or points of view that one is attempting to silence getting even more attention than they otherwise would.  Attempts to ban the Phelps from protesting in various locations inevitably results in the group getting free publicity and more of the attention they so desperately wanted in the first place.  This greatly parallels the phenomenon known as the “Streisand Effect” in which an individual or group’s attempt to suppress information leads to that information gaining greater circulation and publicity.  The phenomenon is named for Barbara Streisand who tried to prevent pictures of her home from circulating which ultimately led to a greater circulation of the photos.  More information on this can be found here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect.

Silencing ideas also makes these ideas more interesting to those who are unfamiliar with them.  As children many of us were fascinated with R-rated movies or gangster rap music because our parents forbade it.  Some developed an interest in doing illegal drugs largely because they are forbidden.  Removing the mystique that surrounds the forbidden makes it more mundane.  It also opens it up to criticism.  When racists and neo-Nazis are allowed to publicly share what they believe it allows the rest of us to respond by pointing out just how stupid and harmful such ideas really are.

Sometimes the jerks may actually have a point or two or contribute to the conversation.  I know a few people today who years ago would like to have silenced the speech of Atheists and yet they are now Atheists themselves.  Allowing one’s beliefs to be scrutinized by people who disagree makes it possible for one to purge incorrect ideas and to form a more accurate and mature worldview.  Sometimes the most irritating people do have a valid point or two which often makes them even more irritating.  Even the most despicable people may bring some useful insight to the conversation or at the very least they may serve as a useful example of what is wrong with their way of thinking.  Either way, the market place of ideas is enriched when more a diverse array of people participate in it.

Free speech is meaningless when we only apply it to those we agree with. That is why all ideas should be allowed to compete without the threat of being silenced or without government support or favoritism.   I support free speech at all levels of society. That is why I will resist the temptation to buy the Japanese speech jamming device.

Spoiler Alert! The entry discusses in detail some important story elements of Joseph Heller’s acclaimed novel Catch-22.  Those who wish to read the book for themselves should tread no further!

Joseph Heller’s 1961 novel Catch-22 details the trials and tribulations of Captain John Yossarian, a U.S. Army bombardier stationed in Italy towards the end of World War Two.  The somewhat satirical book is widely regarded as being simultaneously funny and disturbing. It documents Yossarian’s numerous attempts to prolong his life by evading his duty to go on additional bombing missions.  He comes to regard the war as essentially already won and resents his commanding officer’s practice of putting the lives of  the 256th squadron in danger solely to advance reputation and ambition.  Heller himself was bombardier stationed in Italy during World War II who flew 60 missions.  He stated that the odds for his survival were not in his favor.  Much of the book was drawn from his own experiences, though he says he never had a bad officer and much of the book’s cynicism came from the Korean War and the Red Scare rather than World War II.

Catch-22 is the obscure military rule that obstructs Yossarian from getting out of flying the increasingly growing number of required missions. Catch-22 is now widely used to describe a no win situation. It stipulates that, “a concern for one’s safety in the face of dangers that are real and immediate is the process of a rational mind” and those who possess a rational mind are not crazy and must fly their missions.  Only the insane were excused from service and since asking to be relieved was a sign of sanity, this made it impossible to be relieved from duty;  ” If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to.”

Of course, no such rule officially ever existed, but because Yossarian’s commanding officer acted as though such a rule did exist, it became very real in practice.  Colonel Cathcart, Yossarian’s commanding officer,  throughout the book continues raising the number of missions each individual is expected to fly before they can go home.  He led his men to believe that each increase would be the last but it was always followed by another.  Yossarian believed the colonel’s dishonesty and willingness to put lives at unnecessary risk, not to mention the residents of the cities being bombed, was driven by personal ambitions and had little to do with advancing the war effort.  Indeed, Yossarian tells another member of his squadron:

“The enemy is anybody who’s going to get you killed, no matter which side he’s on, and that includes Colonel Cathcart. And don’t you forget that, because the longer you remember it, the longer you might live.”

Eventually, Yossarian publicly refuses to fly more missions and captures the attention of Cathcart himself.  Cathcart vehemently hates Yossarian and would very much like to have Yossarian court marshaled but realizes that  Yossarian would get exactly what he wants–to be relieved of flying missions.  Eventually Cathcart and his sidekick, Colonel Korn, decide to make Yossarian an offer.  He can get out of flying more missions on one condition. Colonel Korn’s one condition is, “Like us”. Korn further elaborates the terms of the deal:

“Like us. Join us.  Be our pal. Say nice things about us here and back in the States.  Become one of the boys. Now that isn’t asking too much is it?”

All Yossarian has to do to get out of his missions is publicly speak in favor of Cathcart and Korn. Korn points out that after Yossarian does this it will be much easier for them to coerce the rest of Yossarian’s friends into flying more missions and states that they may even use him as an example. Everything about the idea repulses Yossarian but he considers doing it anyway.  In exchange for this agreement, Yossarian is promised not only freedom from his military duties but a comfortable life as “one of the boys” in Cathcart’s well connected circle of military cronies.

There is a similar Catch-22 found in the Christian faith.   Cathcart and Korn’s offer to free Yossarian from clear and present danger in exchange for compulsory praise is very much like what the Christians think their God offers us non-believers.  We are happy that there is no evidence that the God of the Bible exists. God is depicted in both Testaments of the Bible as a petty, murderous, sexist, capricious, bigoted, genocidal monster. My lack of belief means that he is also not able to put me in the Catch-22 where I am forced to like (no, love) him or be subjected forever to eternal torture.  Any being that would arrange for us to be subjected to complete and utter torment forever unless we submit to ourselves to his complete authority and talk ourselves into liking it, is undeserving of admiration or respect.  Furthermore, such an offer would be a far worse Catch-22 than anything described in Heller’s book.