The freethinking community of Tucson is not a homogeneous organization. It contains at least as many opinions as there are members. Some leaders within the community refer to their job as “herding cats” but others say it’s more like “herding butterflies.” Cats are limited to two dimensions, after all. However, there does appear to be a bias toward one end of the political spectrum.

Jim Wilson ponders the question, “Why do Freethinkers tend to be so liberal?”

Nonbelievers, Skeptics, Atheists and Secular Humanists tend to hang out at the left side of American politics and many unabashedly identify as liberals, progressives, or support the Left. Other political philosophies can be found, however.  There are Free-Marketers, Ayn Rand fans, and Libertarians along with the occasional self-identified conservative. Some gravitate toward philosophies that fall outside the conventional political spectrum which indicates that it is not necessary to be left-leaning to be an Atheist or Skeptic. Apparently, Atheists, Agnostics, and Skeptics from all over the political spectrum are less visible than their left leaning compatriots. Still, many Atheists are liberals and progressives; why is that?

Perhaps the conservative movement has declared Freethinkers to be an enemy.  The Right Wing conservative media outlets and think tanks have painted Atheists, Secularists, Secular Humanists, Evolutionists, and Intellectuals as the bad guys.  They believe Freethinkers are communists and un-American. Some go as far as blaming Freethinkers for the attacks on September 11^th.  Many conservatives believe Freethinkers are responsible for many of America’s problems and they long for the times when Freethinkers were less visible and less vocal.  They align themselves with ideologues such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Rick Santorum. The Right Wing has become the home for those who want: religious monuments in government buildings, teacher led prayers in public schools, and science classes that teach the Biblical creation myth instead of science. They are antagonistic to church and state separation, and favor using government to promote religious values.  Above all, the Right Wing is most likely to affiliate itself with the type of moral guardians who vocally oppose birth control, reproductive choice, and marriage equality.

Maybe it’s within the personality of the Freethinker. We live in a very religious society and people who reject religious views tend to be the sort who question other mainstream values such as those associated with marriage, family life, sexuality, artistic expression, etc.  Reactionary elements within the Right Wing demonize and alienate this personality type while the Left embraces it.   Our politics are dominated by two catch-all political parties and Freethinkers such as Atheist, Agnostics, Skeptics, and Scientists are not welcomed by the Right Wing and by necessity identify with the Left.

While the conservative and liberal political philosophies are not ideal, Freethinkers and non-believers tend to be more sympathetic to the liberal side of the so-called “culture war.” Political issues outside the social arena such as the economy or military intervention are areas where Freethinkers and non-believers often disagree and result in interesting discussions at many of our gatherings.

FreeThought Arizona has members and guest speakers from all over the political spectrum.  Many guest speakers identify themselves as liberal or progressive but some prominent ones do not. All that is necessary is that they support science, reason, and the separation of church and state.

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!

This year, many of the Atheists are looking forward to another year of finding each other. Local and state organizations like Tucson Atheists, FreeThought Arizona, the Tucson Chapter of Recovery from Religion, and Secular Coalition for Arizona along with the national and international groups will continue to grow as closeted Atheists begin to realize that they are not alone. While it is not the mission of the organizations to create new Atheists, they stand ready to support and defend people who have mustered the courage to question the “common wisdom” of belief and have come to the conclusion that the answers to questions about our world and universe can’t be found in a church pew.

The Skeptics just came off of a big boost in credibility when the world didn’t end on the 21^st of December. Also, people are beginning to realize that we have just had the 332^nd consecutive month with and above average temperatures.  The last colder than average month was February 1985. A famous “climate skeptic” made headline news back in July when his study caused him to change his views. While Skeptics rail against UFOs, psychics, ghosts, Chupacabra, and Big Foot, their cause celibre is exposing the anti-vaccination movement headed up by notable celebrities. In 2012, news reporting turned on the anti-vaccine movement and reported the return of epidemics and death caused by their actions. As the cost of anti-vaccination efforts become more apparent, the celebrities pushing the effort will lose favor and sanity, as far as getting vaccinated, will return. Skepticism as a movement had its challenges this year but it was a symptom created by its rapid growth and will rise above petty disagreements and power plays to recapture its momentum during 2013.

Superstition and dogma will give way to more humanist concerns in 2013. More people will come to realize that there is no intelligent influence outside of time and space responsible for the current state of reality. Humanist derived answers and the fact that we’re living in a completely natural universe are what remain. This change to accept Humanism will continue to happen at a frustratingly slower pace than it should. The evidence and knowledge that leads us down this inevitable path has been overwhelming for decades, yet change has been too slow. Cosmologists and theoretical physicist doctors Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss have proposed well supported and argued hypotheses that God was not necessary in creating the universe and the sum total of the energy of the universe is exactly zero. These ideas are basic and if proven will reduce the “God of the gaps” to insignificance. Humanism will advance but not quickly enough.

Finally, science will find answers and create even more questions. It is as it has been for centuries and growth in science will continue to accelerate as the amount of knowledge and its availability increases. There will be an enormous number of answers and they will be better, more robust.

People will die but more people will be born. Famous celebrities will most certainly reach their end only to be replaced by new celebrities. Some of them will be deserving of our attention and some will not. The world will continue to warm and there will be natural and man-made disasters. Politics will remain contentious and fundamentalism will frame many of our discussions.

2012 had some highlight for us. We found out that the “nones,” those people with no religious affiliation, is the fastest growing “religious” group in America. This year the Supreme Court decided to review the “Under God” part of the Pledge of Allegiance. The arguments are now about equal rights and protection as opposed to violations of the First Amendment. In 2012, non-believers are finally recognized as a powerful voting block. This was the year of the Reason Rally in Washington, D.C. A couple of graduates from the Clergy Project came out in 2012 and have taken their place in helping the FreeThought community. Jerry DeWitt is the Executive Director of Recovering from Religion. Teresa McBain was a Methodist pastor for 10 years. She came out at the American Atheist convention and now works for that organization as a communications director. Jessica Ahlquist, a high school student, won a case that removed a banner from her school gymnasium. This year Arizona voted to have an avowed secularist sent to the House of Representatives, Kyrsten Sinema. Also this year the FFRF (Freedom from Religion Foundation) took action over the IRS’s failure to enforce electioneering restrictions. Ten Commandment monuments have been removed from public property in Pennsylvania. Prayer in public schools was fought and won in South Carolina. The fact that Pennsylvania declared 2012 the”Year of the Bible” was addressed. A long standing obvious violation of the separation of church and state was addressed in Montana where the permit for a life sized concrete statue of Jesus on public land was not renewed by the Forest Service. The FFRF is claiming over 140 legal victories in 2012 without going to court!

A scan of the Wikipedia page on science accomplishments during 2012 yields too many to list here. Off the top of my head I remember the discovery of the Higgs Boson and the amazing landing of the Martian rover Curiosity. There were of course many many more. While space science is always interesting we shouldn’t forget terrestrial advances being made by altruistic and dedicated individuals. The Guinea Worm Disease is about to become the second human disease to be completely eradicated. The first was small pox. In 2012 Stem cells were used to ease degnerative blindness in volunteers.

2012 was a year of the young activism. Jessica Ahlquist, Krystal Myers, Jeff Shott, Matthew Nielson, Maia Disbrow and Mayan and Balen Essak were all young activists that were in the news on the front lines of church and state separation. While the “nones” are on the rise generally and represent almost 20% or 1 in 5, the adults under 30 are polling at 33% or 1/3^rd of the population. We’re going into a new year and stats like that give the secularists a reason for hope for the future.

Happy Holidays!

Skeptics should think critically about everything. That is not to say that they must go purely negative and not believe in anything but everything deserves to be questioned. All of the questioning takes effort. It’s not easy to be a Skeptic. Is it worth it? Obviously, Skeptics think so. Where’s the fun? The continuing pleasure of being skeptical is knowing that what you believe has a good chance of being true. While it may not be harmful to believe in the latest urban legend, giving up scientific medical treatments for homeopathic treatments can be deadly.

Back to the subject of tonight’s meeting…what’s the harm in believing that the world is going to end in a few days? If you make decisions that you feel you won’t have to live with…you might be harmed by a doomsday belief. If you didn’t fill your medical prescriptions past December 21^st, you might be harmed by a doomsday belief. If you told your boss what you really felt about him…you might not have a job and be harmed by a doomsday belief. If you’ve ran up all your credit cards to the limit…you might be harmed by a doomsday belief.

Seriously…the meeting will end with a discussion of 20 questions received by NASA about the predicted end of the world. It’s at the Denny’s on Speedway, just west of Alvernon. It starts at 7 PM…

The subject of the meeting was, “Should Atheists be organizing politically?” The organizer is Nancy and she kicked off the discussion. Apparently, there is a new political party called the National Atheist Party. Nancy wanted to find out from those attending if it is a good idea to have an Atheist political party. Gregg, an occasional contributor to this blog, has been checking into it and was familiar with the organization. Most of us at the meeting were not very familiar with the specifics which is why the question was posed to be more general than, “What do you think of the National Atheist Party?”

After the requisite discussions about the meaning of Atheism, a frequently debated question in our group, we started kicking around the positive and negatives of organizing Atheists politically. There were some fundamental discussions such as:

• Would you vote for a poorly qualified candidate simply because he or she is an Atheist?
• What would we feel about a “National Christian Party?”
• Are we defined by our Atheism?
• Is there anything wrong with an elected representative taking governing guidance from an invisible entity?

As I mentioned earlier, we are a rather diverse group. We tend to think independently and the discussions were lively. Yet, as heated as the discussions were, everyone left the meeting with the full intention of returning in two weeks. Many of the discussions were continued in the parking lot. No one stomped off and we continued an ad hoc meeting with respect and camaraderie. Amazing!

The closest thing to a result is that most felt that the National Atheist Party may not be the best idea but we would still like to see more Atheists in office. The question of Atheism is very narrow and Atheists are all over the map politically. The difficulty becomes apparent as soon as the political party starts building a platform. Each plank that doesn’t relate specifically to the Atheist question will not be universally accepted and cause minor divisions. In some cases, people will reject the party entirely if it takes a controversial position and all positions other than the “god” question are controversial in the Atheist community.

There are existing “secular” organizations that we should support such as: The Secular Coalition for America, the Secular Coalition for Arizona, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State to name a few. There are many more. Most of us are not defined by our Atheism but it is part of who we are. Finally, there were some strong feelings about our elected representatives taking guidance from invisible (or imaginary) entities.

In the Charlton Heston’s 1959 film Ben-Hur there is a scene where a Roman citizen, Messala is encouraging his Jewish friend to be more accepting and less resistant to the Roman empire’s control of his homeland. He put it bluntly:
“It’s no accident that one small village on the Tiber was chosen to rule the world…It wasn’t just our legions…No, it was fate that chose us to civilize the world – and we have. Our roads and our ships connect every corner of the earth: Roman law, architecture, literature are the glory of the human race.”

This is a summary of how all too many Americans view their own count—as a nation destined for a divinely sanctioned, continuous reign of benevolent world dominance. This sort of nationalistic exceptionalism has appeared in nearly every culture, especially those that have come to dominate in the civilized world. The desire to think that the place one is from or the culture one grew up in is special is widespread. There is an innate desire to believe that one’s homeland is God’s gift to humanity.

Apparently, such a belief is seen as a badge of honor by much of the electorate in this country. The issue of the U.S. president’s belief (or lack thereof) in American exceptionalism received quite a bit of media attention when his opponent decided to question him it. Apparently, believing your country is anything less than God’s ordained means of advancing humanity is politically suspect.

For many, the term American exceptionalism entails the belief that our political system and economic system is an effective one. It is conducive to human development. They believe that the country’s founders were in a unique position to put such a system into place providing a good example for the rest of the world. There is no problem with this position but the term carries other baggage.

Specifically, American exceptionalism is often leads to the following beliefs:
·         The U.S. and its people are simply better than the rest of the world.
·         This country can do no wrong and that none of our overseas adventures were in error or should ever be apologized for.
·         That our country and its government are the tools of a supernatural being.
·         That the US is some sort of “City on a Hill” that the rest of the world should hold in high regard and emulate in every way.
·         That Americans are special, wonderful, and destined to be number one!
·         That our government has every right to invade or intervene in any country for the purpose of promoting democracy, opening markets, or whatever.

A more mature view of the United States would include the recognition that our country is not infallible and that it has made mistakes and may make mistakes in the future. We should strive to make sure the U.S. is on the right side of history. The American Revolution and the development of the U.S. Constitution were undoubtedly monumental events in humanity’s endless battle against tyranny. The U.S. has been a model for the rest of the world. However, we must not gloss over the dark side of US history: slavery, the witch trials, the murder of the Native Americans, and the theft of their land, the internment of Japanese-American citizens, the support of murderous foreign dictatorships and death squads during the cold war, and a continued inability to balance the budget.

Furthermore, panglossian claims of “we’re number one!” are a little ridiculous considering how far behind the rest of the developed world we’ve slipped in so many areas. We have one of the world’s largest prison populations; we waste the most money on overpriced health care; we work longer hours, for less money, have lower job security; and we take fewer vacations than much of the developed world. We have fallen behind in social mobility, literacy, math and science skills, and educational attainment in general.

While I love this country, I recognize that there are areas in which it can improve. Acknowledging this is a good thing. Superstitious beliefs about one’s country having some magical property of specialness are an insult to our intelligence and extremely arrogant. Humans of all nationalities need to move beyond such thinking and see the places they live in realistic terms.

I recently had a short conversation about Paul the octopus, who received a lot of media attention for apparently predicting the results of the 2010 World Cup. Paul accurately predicted 12 out of 14 games, which has a probability of 0.65%. Not bad, but I’m not really interested in talking about the statistics of the situation. I want to talk about octopuses. I always thought octopuses were pretty cool, but it wasn’t until I started reading more about them that I learned just how freaking weird they are. Finding an octopus who can seemingly predict the outcome of a small number of sporting events is nothing compared to the real weirdness of the octopus.

Octopuses are cephalopods and molluscs. Mollusc is the phylum, which is the same level of classification as Chordata which is where we fall so we really are quite distantly related. Like other molluscs such as clams or oysters, they have no internal or external skeleton but they differ in that they don’t make a shell for themselves and only very seldom will use discard shells or trash as shelter.

There are more than 300 species of octopus, all of which are venomous, which I didn’t realize. I knew that Blue-Ring octopuses were potentially deadly but I did not realize that all the others had venom, too. Outside of the Blue-Ring octopuses, the venom of the others are not considered dangerous to humans though the Blue-Rings venom contains among other things tetrodotoxin which is the same poison found in puffer fish and which is more than 10,000 times as potent as cyanide.

Octopuses in the wild have pretty short life expectancies ranging from six months to perhaps five years. After their mating period they seem to lose interest in feeding and die of starvation. It turns out, though, that if you remove their optic glands, this behavior changes and they eat normally and ultimately have much longer life times.

They have three hearts and pump copper-rich hemocyanin instead of iron-rich hemoglobin. Hemocyanin is less efficient at oxygen transport in warm waters but more efficient in cold water where many octopuses live. Like other cephalopods, octopuses can detect the polarization of light which our eyes cannot. They also have special sensors in the brain that help them detect the alignment of their body to horizontal. They have taste-bud like sensors on their suckers, so they taste whatever they’re touching, but they have a pretty poor proprioceptive sense.

And then there’s the mimicry. Octopuses are pretty much unparalleled when it comes to defensive mimicry. Able to change colors, body shape and size, texture and behavior, octopuses, especially the Mimic octopus, Thaumoctopus mimicus, can have you believing they’re a bit of sea weed, another bit of coral, a flounder skimming the bottom of the ocean, a lion fish or a sea snake. There is no way I’ll be able to describe how incredible these things are, but thankfully YouTube will come to my rescue. Do yourself a favor, and look up YouTube videos of the mimic octopus or the wonderpus octopus.

Jim Wilson reports on what’s going on in Lubbock, Texas and shares his opinions on the presidential race:

In a recent appeal for more money to be spent on public safety, Tom Head, a county Judge from Lubbock Texas, had the following to say:

He (President Obama) is going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the UN. Okay, what’s going to happen when that happens? I’m thinking worst case scenario here: Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe. We’re not just talking a few riots here and demonstrations. We’re talking Lexington-Concord take up arms and get rid of the guy.

Now what’s going to happen if we do that, if the public decides to do that? He’s going to send in U.N. troops — with the little blue beanies. I don’t want ‘em in Lubbock County. Okay. So I’m going to stand in front of their armored personnel carrier and say ‘you’re not coming in here’. “And the sheriff, I’ve already asked him, I said ‘you gonna back me’ he said, ‘yeah, I’ll back you.’”

The local Sheriff Kelly Rowe denies ever having any such conversations with Judge Head. I just don’t see Judge Head’s scenarios playing out. The idea that Mitt Romney is the only thing standing between us and a United Nation’s takeover of our country and possible civil war is just crazy. Head has since stated that this is only a worst case scenario but that hardly makes it sound less insane.

Of course, every U.S. president has had a hatedom—a group of people dedicated to vocally expressing their disapproval of him and his actions. Presidential hatedoms all have their pet conspiracy theories. George W. Bush for example was accused of orchestrating the September 11th attacks, while Clinton was alleged to be killing his associates. It turns out Reagan really was selling weapons to an enemy state to fund a secret war. Maybe this is just cultural near-sightedness but Obama conspiracy theories strike me as more wide- spread and crazier sounding than those assigned to other presidents. So many conservatives want to see the guy as some sort of anti-Christ and want to see themselves as living in times of cosmic struggle between good and evil, or they want to believe that Obama is some sort of global Marxist and we are on our way to civil war or the gulag.

Before Obama, I have heard American’s threaten to leave the country when candidates they disliked got elected. Now there is talk of preparations for civil war and rock musician Ted Nugent making statements like, “If Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.” I seriously do not see how Obama is different enough from his opponent to justify such and attitude.

The truth about Obama is far more mundane. Obama is a president who has kept pretty close to the country’s political establishment and in fact, represents the interests of much of the same corporate elite Romney does. Though I have mixed feelings about Ron Paul, I fully agree with his assertion that rather than being a Marxist or Socialist, Obama is a corporatist—one who favors “government officials who often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests an advantageous position to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.” In other words Obama’s administration has been a continuation of most of the policies of his recent predecessors.

As evidence, Obama has extended Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy and presided over free-trade deals that most benefit corporations to the objections of much of his base. He has called for expanded Bush’s defense spending and has increased oil exploration/drilling in the U.S. He increased the deportation of illegal immigrants and the raids on distributors of medical marijuana. He has also appointed a former Monsanto executive as his senior advisor to the FDA. His much feared health care package ended up being the scheme to force everyone to buy private insurance. It also happened to be similar to the scheme his opponent, Mitt Romney, implemented in Massachusetts.

I’m not enthusiastic about either of our major presidential candidates this year but, I figure there is much real stuff to criticize both candidates for, without making unsubstantiated, apocalyptic claims about UN invasions, fake birth certificates, global conspiracies or the coming of the anti-Christ.

[Editor’s note: Jim’s opinions should not be construed as the opinion of everyone in FreeThought Arizona. Links were added to allow the reader the ability to look into specific assertions.]

The first part of this blog was published on the 16^th, a couple of days ago. Here is the fourth part of This is a Christian Nation: What That Statement Really Means by Gregory W. Chmara.

 In part I, Gregg listed four statements:

1. “The United States was founded on Christian values and all are troubles are because we have drifted away from those.”
2.  “Christian values are founded on the rock solid principles of the Ten Commandments and they should be on display in public buildings and courts to remind us.”
3.  “All Christians believe the same things – those taught by Jesus Christ.”
4.  “I am a Christian and that settles the argument.” (Whatever the argument is.)

FOURTH STATEMENT:

“I am a Christian and that settles the argument! (Whatever the argument might be.)”

As Dana Carvey’s Church Lady might have said, “Well, isn’t that special?”

Well not really.  There are in excess of 15,000 various Christian sects for the billion professing Christians. I might add that one billion professing is a number greater than actual practicing Christians.  Each sect has its own interpretation of what Christianity is, who gains the rewards of recognizing Jesus Christ as a savior in their own special way, and what range of issues they wish to control.

A person who stops conversations with the phrase, “I’m a Christian, and Christians believe…” is avoiding any real discussion or study of a particular problem. Those problems could range from whether Mary was a virgin (totally unimportant), world hunger (important), the proper role of clergy in politics (very important), and acceptance of science and technology in solving problems of health and well being (exceptionally important). Using “my mind is made up by Christ” statement above indicates blind, willful ignorance.  It exposes the individual’s limited capacity to approach the real world in a thoughtful and understanding way.

The Amish Community openly rejects modern technology beyond that of a horse and buggy. Christians with a similar rejection of the discoveries of science should not be allowed to politically sway the rest of society. It is antithetical to everything I believe.

For example, science found that lives can be saved with blood transfusions.  However, refusal to receive whole blood is a settled issue for Jehovah’s Witnesses.  They are doctrinally enjoined from using whole blood to save their own life.  They cite ecclesiastical and Biblical references to support their views and go as far as to maintain their own health facilities (I refuse to call them hospitals) that do not offer transfusions.  I would hate to be in an accident with blood loss and be transported to a Jehovah’s Witnesses facility emergency room. It is OK for these ultra-religious people to accept that threat into their own life, if it’s a choice freely made but to push this anti-scientific faith-only doctrine as a law on everyone, or to force the belief on any other individual, including minor children or non-believing family members, is a crime against humanity. To deny that transfusions save lives more than prayer is a form of insanity — but it is a socially acceptable insanity under the U. S. Constitution, nonetheless.

This belief is similar to the no medical doctor or medicine beliefs promulgated by Christian Scientists. They, as Christians, believe that Jesus Christ was the great scientist healing with prayer, driving out spirits, demons, and defeating attitudes that caused ill health. A number of minor children with common but life threatening conditions have had to be removed from families who believed only prayer would save their disease ridden child. They imposed their irrational belief on the child often letting the child get close to death when a simple anti-biotic could quickly restore them to the state of health. (Prayer is not as effective as anti-biotics against infections.) Others have refused food to children in order to drive out demons. Recent court cases, luckily, have removed minors in danger from these fanatics and mandated life-saving treatment until the child is back to health.  Personal religious belief does not trump an individual’s right to live with the protections of our advanced secular society.

Consider the Terri Shiavo case. It is another example where the Christian dogmatic arguments conflicted with science while determining life and death. Hundreds of thousands of dollars had been expended keeping Terri’s body alive by machine. Her body had shrunk and science showed that recovery was not possible. Her parents went as far as Congress to stop her legal representative (her husband) from pulling the plug. The Christians in congress aligned with the Catholic Church to make “pulling the plug” look like murder instead of recognizing very real and very unpleasant medical facts.  Being Christian, the parents fomented a religious vote seeking congress to vote for the idea you fight for life regardless of truth, pain, medical evaluation, or cost.  They tried to create a law that would make it a Christian’s (with a capitol “C”) duty to protect life at all costs and give prayer the time to work a medical miracle. The courts finally ruled that the husband had the right to withdraw the treatments that were running her vital signs by machine. As expected by Skeptics, no miracle took place and Terri Schiavo died. Prayers of all the Christians and even Congress did not save the life of her brain dead body. Quietly, an autopsy report was issued. It showed there was no possibility for recovery. Her dysfunctional brain had shrunk to a totally non-functioning organ during the months on the machines which kept her body “alive” in its vegetative state.

These are just a couple of extreme cases but they demonstrate that the ignorant, very vocal, dogmatic Christians involved were effective in using their passion and religiosity to sway public opinion and thwart the benefits of scientific advances. They used their beliefs to suggest all good Christians must morally support their radical view or lose heaven, and maybe go to jail. While Terri Schiavo’s body lived under the type of artificial stimulation that makes a dead frog’s leg jump with a shock from a battery, the legislators wearing their Christianity on their sleeves used the moral bludgeon of guilt (we are all sinners, but we can prevent this one murderous death) to force their view into a political precedent, one that could affect everyone under law in the United States, believer or not.

This is the same technique used by the Roman Catholic church in its very political alliance with Evangelicals to outlaw abortion.  Consider this, the term “abortion” (not just for birth control) covers natural functions of a women’s body and now includes psychological guilt cast on women who suffer a natural miscarriage and may seek medical aid. Consider too, that the religious articles of faith advanced by each Christian group as to when a soul enters a human embryo or fetus to make it human are very different. The Catholic Church believes the soul’s potential begins with ejaculation and even condoms are a form of “abortion.” Conjecture, evidence, and evaluation standards other than those found in the 2,000 year old philosophies of the Bible need not apply. Evangelical doctrine agrees that abortion is a sin — but not necessarily with the Catholic prohibitions on condoms.

In Arizona the legislature, controlled by Republican religious conservatives, passed a law that makes abortion illegal past 20 weeks following the last intercourse before a woman misses her period. Where is the evidence that would support this law’s assertion? By what fiat do they make rules for all women based upon little or no medical efficacy?  Now it’s up to the courts to decide if this law is another religious travesty. What happened to the previous tacit and legal agreements that a fetus must be viable before the mother’s choice is limited by state intervention?

Then there is this: In the past few years the infallible Roman Catholic Pope declared that Limbo does not exist — but did not explain what happened to all those souls of fetuses that previously allegedly resided there — or if in-vitro baptism to save them would be restored.

It was not too long ago that the Catholic Church was sure that any aborted (or miscarried) fetus’s soul went to Limbo instead of Hell. Now, everyone (infants too) who is not baptized as a Catholic ( you know those who are supposed to hell anyway) has no way station to get to Heaven except Purgatory, a  place of punishment for sin until released to heaven, after burning to perfection.

This doctrinal change is in no way is a comfort to Catholic women who lose a fetus and have tremendous hormonally caused emotional problems of loss to deal with but most Christian’s believe “God’s ways are not man’s ways” as if that was an explanation or comfort.

Previously, not too long ago in history, the Catholic church in its wisdom required in-vitro (in the womb) baptism to save an unborn child or fetus in danger of dying before emerging from the woman’s body. This applied especially in cases of then inoperable and deadly breach birth and used enema like inserts. This would assure the unborn fetus a place in heaven, even if it risked the life of the mother and/or child.

Now, add to this the consideration that the Catholic Clergy’s mind is made-up in all matters of birth control. The Roman Catholic Church equates all birth control methods, except vaginal intercourse on the rhythm method, with abortion in the weighing sins that will get you to Hell.

If you look closely  you will discover that those particularly Catholic doctrinal views have now slowly been inveigled into state and national  health bills riding alongside arguments and legislation to remove a woman’s right to choose, (abortion) under the broad-brush that Christian views do not permit birth control.  This now influences not just abortion but all pre and post coital birth control measure in use — and if and when legislated, controls everyone of every faith or non-faith.

Many Christians who may feel that abortion is morally reprehensible and distasteful are less than thrilled with this shift in the anti-abortion movement’s goals.   They believe in family planning. These Christians do not want their newly won reproductive and sexual rights to contraception and birth control that is scientifically viable, safe and healthy, should not be broad-brushed into a Christian anti-abortion issue by those Catholics.

The dogma and doctrine of these Christians and the allied Roman Catholics hierarchy openly conflict in the real world when you move beyond the issue of abortion.

Clearly, these are secular issues, at best, based upon the health of a mother and potential child, and her mate. Religious discussion of fantasized and unsubstantiated claims of when a fetus is imbued with a soul belongs in a religious frame of the specific sect’s beliefs and rules do not belong in secular law.  They should not be imposed on those who do not subscribe to them.

And without a clear understanding of responsibilities for raising a child, when a fetus becomes viable, the potential costs to society of hundreds of thousands of dollars in care for the fetus and child, and the mental and physical health of the potential mother, legislation based upon religious dogma or doctrines should not be part of our secular government.

Now turn to this. There are some who believe that the theory of evolution is wrong-headed and un-Christian. It is supposedly capable of morally turning man into no more than an animal.  They would have us use a broad-brush to think this is a widely held Christian belief.

But the Catholic Church accepts evolution and believes the evidence for it is more than substantial, at least until it comes to the infusing of the soul of man into the human body. That infusion is the work of God.  Other sects believe that evolution and godliness ran concurrently, over unknown eons,

The broad-brush of fundamentalist, literalist, and anti-evolutionary theory Christians does not admit to the fact that science is always investigating, researching, and revising, based upon the latest information and advances, even contradictory evidence.

While us  humans do not know every last step of development from single cell creature billions of years ago to humanity, we can see and prove not only the blind alleys and pathways that nature has taken to develop life and human thought and curiosity, but we can use our brains to connect the dots. We can demonstrate a solid convoluted path to thinking humans even those using religious thought and blind belief to explain the creation of the world.

This should be clear to anyone who is rational, and more importantly in the future will be able to understand all the developments in medicine, physics, germ theory, and the sciences and technologies of human life and curiosity.

Let’s turn to global warming.  Note, more than 90 per cent of every living species that has ever been on earth is now extinct.  There is a Christian belief offered and promulgated on a broad-brush basis saying that the end of the world is near.  Broad-brush Christian preachers offer the idea that an apocalypse will occur in our lifetime, so we need not worry about the rapidity with which man (as a species) has changed (some would say spoiled)  the ecology of the planet.

Is it possible they do not understand the belief that Christ predicted that ‘the apocalypse” would happen before all the original apostles left the earth 2,000 years ago?  Then consider the Christian apocalypses of 1,000 CE, and Y2K, etc.

A change must be made in this broad-brush Christian belief.  It is too often applied to keep people in ignorance of our industrial destruction of the planet and changes that must be made, no matter how unpopular and difficult those changes may be. And changes must be made if we are to offer a living planet to future generations. These Christian people have a right to their apocalyptic opinions and speech. However I also have an opinion and a few rights under law and beliefs I feel are moral.  First, remember that law can be amended to account for modernity. I believe ignorance is not a benign state or a state of grace.  I believe that deliberately blind ignorance is at least a misdemeanor if not an intellectual crime against humanity. It is an excuse for not thinking, then not acting unless directed by a “Christian leader.” By the way,  I plead guilty of  inaction for too many years.

I firmly believe those who use the four arguments quoted at the start of this article have no right to avoid evidence, they have no right to promulgate falsehood (remember thou shalt not lie — as in bear false witness, etc.).  They have no right to force their unsubstantiated doctrinal beliefs into law or public policy to govern everyone.

No, we are not a Christian nation.  We are a human nation experimenting in self government. We do not subscribe to religious blind belief and adherence to mindless dogma or doctrine handed down from an unseen, improvable, invisible beings. We realize statements of doctrine come through men, whether they claim to be prophet, priest or king. Men, especially men in ecclesiastical power, have agendas that vary from advancing the full bloom, curiosity and development of mankind. These agendas may be couched in godly phrases, but most often do not bring liberty, thoughtfulness, and progress to all humans. Rather they benefit the select few in power or who subscribe to the dogma and doctrine advanced.

In closing, let me paraphrase the old Negro College Fund public service announcement used to raise funds during and after the Jim Crow era:

“A closed mind is a terrible thing – it is a waste of human potential.”

A nation that lets itself be run by religious totalitarianism, closed minds and willful ignorance, with laws based upon lies and misinformation that has been preached and repeated from pulpits and biased, unknowledgeable, and frightened news sources,  deserves everything it gets.  And that nation will probably, in the end, lose everything it really values as it deserves.   That’s my broad-brush statement.