Jim Wilson relates a story from his life:

Years ago, when I was a young Atheist still forced to live in a small town with my rather religious parents I befriended a couple missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were quite friendly and gave a friend and me someone to talk to about issues we generally were not able to discuss with our families. It seemed they were always willing to come back so long as you did not tell them not to. Eventually, this became a bit much and they started appearing at inopportune times and becoming more aggressive. This was at my friend’s home. Later, they started visiting me at the home where my parents and I resided. They were always easy to talk to and though I did not believe any of the things they told me or take the whole exercise seriously at all, I did not mind their visits so long as they were infrequent.

Eventually, my father became annoyed and said to stop having missionaries make appearances in his home. They were of course from what he deemed a heretical domination of Christianity and he disliked their presence. My more recent attempts to converse with LDS or Jehovah’s Witness missionaries here in Tucson have tended to be more short lived as these missionaries were more quick to dismiss me as a lost cause possibly doing the devil’s work.

In a recent phone conversation with members of my family, the topic of these Mormon missionaries and their futile conversion attempts came up. At least one family member told me that looking back they would rather that I had become a Mormon than remain an Atheist. The logic was that as a Mormon I would at least still be following the Christian God albeit a rather unconventional version of it. Apparently, in this case there is a willingness to over look their beliefs that Mormons are non-Christians heretical or whatever else. Apparently, belief in a heretical version of the Christian God is better than no belief in any God. That way, I may not be on right page but at least I would be on some page.

I have to wonder how far this logic extends. Would my family members rather me be a Jehovah’s Witness, a member of Westboro Baptist Church, or some sort of charismatic Christian who speaks in tongues and handle’s venomous snakes? Is it better to be part of any idiosyncratic brand of Christianity than being an Atheist regardless of the associated baggage? What about Judaism or Islam? At least then I would still be following some version of the God of Abraham. Does it matter that to many Christians, Islam is seen as a force of destruction and perversion of scripture? Is it still preferable to have a son who is a Muslim than an Atheist? How about Scientology? They at least believe in some sort of supernatural realm.

For me, being an Atheist is the only intellectually honest option. Until evidence for the existence of something is presented refraining from belief is the only responsible position to take. This is true for claims of God’s and Leprechauns. I would like to think my parents would prefer me an intellectually honest skeptic than believe something that is a blatantly false version of the God they worship. They are all blatantly false as best I can tell. Being an Atheist does not require tithing, devoting my life to a specific church hierarchy, engaging in activities like holding pit vipers, speaking in tongues, or promoting bigotry while picketing soldiers’ funerals. It has no baggage associated with it and leaves me free to decide things for myself without deference to any authority. I cannot see why someone would not prefer this for their children than some absurdly nonsensical faith.

I see skeptical neutrality as something to be admired rather than something that is castigated and demonized as atheism obviously is (ref: the May 21st blog entry). Doubt is not a bad thing and a little healthy skepticism is a far better thing than the gullibility that is needed to accept any of the world’s major religions. Why do believers see belief in obvious nonsense as commendable so long as it is packaged with some subset of their own beliefs?

Last weekend was very busy. Looks like this one will be a bit more laid back. The FreeThougt Arizona calendar of events can be found here.

Tonight, Friday May 18^th you can join several of our active members in Sabino Canyon. Several of us join the Tucson Hiking Meetup.com Group as they take a stroll in the night air. The group has two groups that hike the canyon. The first group starts at 6 PM and hikes the full length of the canyon. The second group starts at 7 PM and hike to the 2 mile mark before returning. Going with a large group down a paved trail is a very pleasant experience. You’ll always be able to find someone that will hike at your speed and there are a few in the group that really know about the wild life you’ll undoubtedly see. In the end, many hikers go to the nearby Risky Business on Sunrise Drive for refreshments and conversation. While this is not specifically a “freethought” event many of our members make this hike regularly. It’s a great way to relax after a busy frustrating day at work. For more information visit: http://www.meetup.com/tucsonhiking/.

On Saturday, the Secular Organizations for Sobriety provides a successful and increasingly popular non-religious alternative to 12-Step and other religion-based or pseudo-scientific recovery programs. SOS credits the individual for achieving and maintaining his or her own sobriety, without reliance on any “Higher Power.”SOS supports healthy skepticism and encourages the use of the scientific method to understand alcoholism, drug addiction, or any other compulsive behavior. The SOS Tucson Group provides a safe meeting place for recovering addicts of all types, religious or otherwise, located in the southeastern Arizona area. Their meetings are held every Saturday from 1:30 PM–2:30 PM in the University Medical Center Cafeteria, Dining Room A. For more information, please visit the SOS Tucson website: http://sites.google.com/site/sostucsongroup/

 Sunday May 20^th a very rare solar eclipse will be visible in our area. The Tucson Amateur Astronomy Association will be on the UofA Mall to help people safely view the eclipse. For more information follow this link: http://nightsky.jpl.nasa.gov/event-view.cfm?Event_ID=36773.

Monday, May 21^st you can join the Tucson Atheists at the Denny’s on Speedway, just west of Alvernon at 7PM. This month we’ll be discussing what the United States might be like without the current religious influences. Along with that we’ll be discussing where Atheists get their morals. Finally, when things go our way who should we be thanking? http://www.meetup.com/Tucson-Atheists/

This opinion comes from Jim Wilson:

“Do you understand that this elementary point only needs to be made because of wickedness enjoined by religion. The rabbi here’s a fairly humane guy. He wouldn’t—if he didn’t think God was involved—ever consider mutilating the genitals of a child, but because it’s a covenant with God, anything can be done. Now don’t you see—you laugh, but you should be crying. I said crying! Okay, suit yourself.”

-Christopher Hitchens

“If you want to saw off the end of your penis, you’re welcome. You’re not to do it to a child who hasn’t asked for it. Same with the genitals of a little girl. If she thinks later on she’d be better off without them, let her take, or have taken to her, a sharp instrument.”-Christopher Hitchens

Years ago, a rather bold, if not tactful, college professor made it known to the class that his wife would soon be giving birth to a baby boy. He just had one concern that he wanted to share with us, and that was what to do about, what he termed “the snake-muzzle”. The class was confused until, he explained that this means circumcision and whether or not he should have a doctor remove part of his new born son’s penis. He decided that, this was an appropriate issue to put up for vote among our class (and presumable his other classes). The response from the class, was generally in favor of going through with the procedure, with one male student shouting out “Cut it!” It was only myself and a few others who contributed to the no votes, and yes, this was often a rather unorthodox classes. Needless to say, I was never informed about how other classes voted, or the fate of my professor’s son’s genitals.

I would still have voted against it to this day. There seems to be something terribly unethical about removing body parts from people without their consent especially when the individual, in question, has no way of expressing approval or disapproval. In the United States, the Circumcision of newborn males was has been above sixty or even seventy percent for much of the twentieth century, the number has dropped down over last decade and to roughly 54.7 percent in 2010.

The prevalence of circumcision of newborns, in this country, seems largely to be an exercise of thoughtless conformity, as well just another thing that medical professionals can charge for. My Google search of the “cost of circumcision” revealed that the procedure tends to cost somewhere in the ball park of $150.00 to $300.00 for newborns.  In other words the practice is very profitable for medical professionals, despite it being completely unnecessary, for any tangible health benefits in this country.

There are, of course, some medical conditions, for which a circumcision is helpful, and this is termed therapeutic circumcision. These are not particularly common and the medical associations of the developed world do not recommend infant circumcision as a preventative measure. The American Medical Association points out that: “policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns.”

The American Academy of pediatrics states: “In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.”

The American medical organizations tend to neither recommend the practice nor argue against it. The Dutch go further. The Royal Dutch Medical Association states infant circumcision, “conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity.” On the other hand, the Royal Australian College of Physicians states: “After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand.”

In other words, there is no good medical reason for doctors in the developed world to be routinely cutting the genitals of male newborns. This is especially true knowing what is lost. Namely, the child’s right to make life long decisions about his body, and some of the more sensitive tissue of his sexual organs. There is also a good deal of evidence that sexual intercourse is more enjoyable for both sexes if the male is uncircumcised. Though a lot of this tends to be anecdotal, I would not want to rob this of child without, a great deal of thought and good reason. Unfortunately thoughtfulness and good reason are things lacking in the decisions of many Americans who cut parts of the male genitals off.

Many do it, because it is simply part of our culture. Is it not the challenging of cultural norms that cause societies to evolve? Furthermore, Jews, Christians, and Muslims tend to have a religious component to their decisions to take part in this practice. One does not have to read too far into the Old Testament, to see that its God had a bizarre foreskin obsession. The very idea, that a benevolent creator would create all male children with a part that needs to be painfully cut off, is too absurd to comment on. Apparently, this God passed on his foreskin obsession to his followers. In 1st Samuel we find: “Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king’s son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.”

I did not discuss female circumcision which is a truly a morally repulsive practice. However female circumcisions are performed only in cultures where men are circumcised. While it has been shown that circumcision does reduces the risk of getting HIV in AIDS ridden Africa, here in the developed world, the medical benefits do not outweigh the cost of altering a child’s body without their consent. A cynical individual would say that continuation of the century old practice is just a way for medical professionals to make more money on a worthless service and an example of mindless conformity among thoughtless parents.

Another short excerpt from Out of God’s Closet by Dr. Stephen Uhl (with permission)

WOMEN ARE INFLUENTIAL TEACHERS

Nevertheless, it is difficult to over-estimate the power of women, especially powerful in their roles as mothers and teachers of the impressionable upcoming generation. They are one of the most powerful reasons so many people still feel they must believe or at least act religious or follow old ways. Mothers’ values and beliefs make very deep impressions on their children. A big and common problem develops when mothers are not confident as to how to best raise or teach the children. Too often, in desperation, mothers lacking in self-reliance turn to confident-sounding dogmatic spiritual leaders for guidance. (Can you perhaps still remember your mother telling you that God would punish you if you did not obey her?) I personally shudder at the authoritarian advice I gave to mothers when I was still a celibate and naive young priest. Wow! Talk about the blind leading the blind!

“The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world” more effectively than even most mothers admit. One defensive young mother sent the following note by way of her son to his new kindergarten teacher: “Dear teacher, the opinions expressed by this child are not necessarily those of his mother.” Oh? If mothers and teachers of the very young are self-confidently fact-based, their charges are likely to grow in fact-based self-confidence. If mothers and teachers of the very young are myth-based or superstitious, their charges are likely to grow in superstition-based credulity. Surely no one should feel guilty or ashamed that such lessons from prerational days are hard to unlearn. I was in my thirties when I got free of them. Patience, fearlessly free inquiry into anything factual and open discussions produce growth in understanding of reality.

The central concept of superstition as understood throughout this book is very close to the concept as defined by Webster: belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation. I am confident that modern women are far less superstitious, less credulous and more self-confident than were their grand- mothers. So this generation of mothers and teachers has better ego- strength and greater self-confidence than grandma had. I deeply appreciate observing the current rapid decrease in male chauvinism in America and the related increase in modern women’s ego- strength. In this information age, intelligent women are breaking free of their tradition-bound past in unprecedented numbers and with unprecedented influence. This process of personal growth in independence is much easier than for their mothers and grand- mothers. This is a most encouraging modern development.

A great many related influences contribute heavily to human- kind’s belief in the supernatural even in our scientific times. I have very briefly summarized above some of the more powerful contributors to the endurance of supernatural faith in our society. Whether it’s woman power, the influence of wishful thinking, the power of hypnosis with its apparently superhuman power of prayer, the influence of longitudinal or latitudinal crowds, fear and greed for a great deal on free grace, a basic human drive to always want to progress ever further and further, or whether it is from some other source of a lack of self-confidence and self- adequacy, billions of men and women still believe in God, Allah, Yahweh, Satan or some other Power Higher than themselves. It is important, therefore, that we examine in the next chapter the validity of that widely held premise that some power higher than thinking man exists.

editor’s note: The next excerpt from Dr. Stephen Uhl’s book will be published on Monday.

Some thoughts on this special day from Jim Wilson:

Happy National Day of Reason everybody!! Today, the first Thursday of May, is a day, when atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists go out, and have food drives, blood drives do charitable work, protest state sponsored religion and, of course, celebrate science, reason and critical thinking. For us secularists, National Day of Reason marks an opportunity to turn something negative into a positive. That negative thing is of course the U.S. Government’s continued yearly practice of declaring the National Day of Prayer.

The government has no business telling people to pray or giving certain religious practices its endorsement. Freedom of religion means freedom from government telling people how or when to express their faith. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was created to protect citizens from being told what to believe or how to engage in religious practices. A yearly day of government sponsored prayer is unconstitutional. The Public Law that state that, “The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals” is clearly a law respecting an establishment of religion, and is an example of government favoritism, towards certain religious practices, which runs in direct conflict with the free exercise of religion. Prayer is a sectarian practice, as not all religions or philosophies practice prayer to a higher being and prayer is purely a religious practice, with no demonstrable secular benefits.

Thomas Jefferson’s coined the “wall of separation” between church and state. It was a term he used when explaining the purpose of the establishment clause and free exercise clause in the newly-framed constitution. The position of non-believers is that they do not want to see their tax dollars, used to promote fallacious ideas. Even believers should recognize that spiritual matters are best left between the individual, his or her religious community, and whatever beings he or she believes in. There is no need for government involvement. Government mixing with religion corrupts both. The government is wrong in imposing it’s version of Christianity. How could government possibly be trusted in matters of faith anyway? Note, there are countless versions Christianity to choose from, not to mention other religions and I cannot imagine anyone who would want the government to impose someone else’s religion on them. Evangelicals should keep this in mind as we see a Mormon running for president. Eroding the separation of church and state may appeal to people, while their guy is in office, but it won’t when someone whose faith they disagree with takes over.

Studies on the power of prayer have shown it to be largely ineffective and its results are indistinguishable from random chance. Some say, “Nothing fails like prayer.” I like that the Day of Reason encourages activism in the community. Hands that actually help are much better than lips that pray. Prayer as what you do when, you want to feel like you are helping, without actually having to do anything at all. This is not the type of thing the government should be endorsing.

Like many government intrusions into the personal beliefs of the American people, the annual recognition of a National Day of Prayer, came about in the fearful atmosphere of the 1950′s Cold War. This is also true of “In God we Trust” appearing on all currency and “Under God” being added to the Pledge of Allegiance. They were added as part of an effort to contrast the American cause with the godlessness of Soviet Russia. In addition, many loyal, hard working, tax-paying American non-believers were branded as communists and un-American. While it does have roots in a one-time mandate from George Washington, its yearly observance and formalization into law, has its roots in the McCarthy era.

Today, the National Day of Prayer Task Force headed by Shirley Dobson, wife of Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, works to coordinate prayer events around the country, which included the White House events, under George W. Bush’s administration. The group is explicit about its desire to use the National day of prayer to promote Christian conservatism, and has been widely accused of making the national prayer day, more sectarian in nature.

Please support the Freedom from Religion Foundation’s work to get this law recognized as unconstitutional. In the great scheme of things, there are may be more important issues than people getting together to plead to an imaginary friend, but when the government endorses it, or uses our tax dollars to support it, it should not be tolerated. Secularists should not wait for large scale violations of church and state separation to speak up. Minor violations lead to an atmosphere that is conducive to major ones. We need to be vocal.

I hope everyone enjoys the day of reason and uses the opportunity to let a little more reason into their lives. Please feel free to share your opinions on the national day of reason/prayer, in the comments as well as write to our state, local, and national governments to express disapproval of their support for this intrusion of government into the spiritual lives of the people.

Editor’s note: The Tucson Atheists will be meeting tonight at Espresso Art Cafe, at 944 E University Blvd, to discuss this and other important secular issues–upstairs, 7 PM

Another short excerpt from Out of God’s Closet by Dr. Stephen Uhl (with permission)

WHY WOMEN BELIEVE IN GOD

Seeing the gross male chauvinism that has stood out in most historic religions, I have asked myself many times, why do more women believe in God and attend church than men? The answer is complex and has a great deal to do with pre-twenty-first century women’s self-confidence and self-esteem.

Traditional male chauvinism in the Bible, Koran and Book of Mormon, following earlier pagan traditions, all assumed God to be male. Some religions have even worshiped God’s phallus. Male priesthoods gave the cushy and powerful religious jobs to men, while women were left to serve in secondary roles if at all. Since the male priests represented a male God, chauvinism became institutionalized by history’s longitudinal crowd. Scripture repeatedly tells women to be silent in church and to be subject to their husbands. The result in the past has been for women, officially and traditionally treated as inferiors, to consider themselves as inferior. If any fallacy is repeated often enough, it is eventually believed by many! With low self-esteem resulting from abusive male chauvinism, it is harder for women to be self-confident and self-reliant. So, if chauvinistic society is abusive, dependent women can find strength by escaping into the supernatural. I can understand how a female victim of male chauvinism would readily resort to wishful thinking and tell herself: “There just has to be more fairness in the totality of life than this; I deserve better. I feel safer in the arms of Jesus; God will strengthen and reward me.” (The deep religious faith of the abused black slaves in American history was another graphic demonstration of this escapist dynamic of wishful thinking. Though these poor slaves may not have been allowed to read, they were allowed their religion for the consolation, hope and strength they drew from it.) Women’s lack of self-reliance based in male chauvinistic abuse has kept many of them seeking the strength and consolation of a Higher Power with promises of better things to come.

Thankfully, modern American women are shaking off much of the tyranny born of traditional chauvinism. Women are not currently typed “the weaker sex” in America nearly as readily as historically or as in more theocratic parts of the world. Evidence of growing female ego-strength continues to grow rapidly in this early part of the twenty-first century. However, if you go to church or study the pictures of Christian religious crowds, count the heads, yes, even in America, and you will see there is still quite a way to go. Certainly in religious circles, the equality of the sexes is not yet!

Here is the latest from Jim Wilson:

My beef with Ron Paul: The We the People Act

Ron Paul’s ship sailed a long time ago but many of his rabid supporters still see a chance of him winning the presidency, perhaps in an unlikely successful massive write-in campaign. Ron Paul supporters, attach unbelievable messianic praise to him. They express apocalyptic horrors when you bring up his lack of success in the primaries. His rabid followers have built a personality cult around this champion of small government. Many a dictator would be jealous of his devoted followers. More realistic Paul supporters are just thankful for his swaying of public opinion, and hope that it will influence a new crop of government minimalist in the coming decades.

I appreciate what Ron Paul has brought to the presidential debates and political discourse in both the 2008 and 2012 presidential cycles. His sincere anti-war stances and genuine opposition to an expansive federal government were in many ways refreshing, especially in the context of the hypocrites he shared the stage with. It largely explains why the passion his supporters expressed was much louder and more enthusiastic than that of the more numerous primary participants who ended up going with Romney and Santorum. I would be very happy to see the libertarian wing of the Republican Party become the dominant one and displace the current bunch of big government moral guardians, war profiteers, fiscal maniacs, and crony capitalists. Unfortunately, there is so much nasty baggage accompanying Ron Paul, that prevents me from getting behind him, and that should be red flags for any of my secularist friends and readers as well. For example:

 We the people Act

Ron Paul originally introduced, the horrendous We the People Act in 2004 and 2009. It failed to pass both times, but had it passed it would have limited the ability of federal courts to hear “any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any state or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion.” The same also goes for issues concerning: sexual practices, orientation or reproduction, or right to marry. It also would have permitted the President or Congress to impeach any judges who hear cases on these matters.

This is essentially free license for state and local level religious and sexual tyranny. Under this act, the states would be able to explicitly endorse any religion, promote it with public schools and do so with tax payer money. This may sound good to some Christians, but if a different sect of Christianity, like Mormonism or, better yet, a group of Muslims, got elected to state or local positions of authority, they would be singing a different tune. Your religion should be between you and whatever it is you worship. The fact that so many Christians want to bring the federal or state governments in is disgusting and offends personal freedom. It is clear that Ron Paul’s vision for America is compatible with large tyrannical state governments and a national government too weak to prevent this.

“States rights” rhetoric is mind blowing especially when it comes from people who bad mouth “the state” as in the central government. They seem to excuse state level violations of constitutional rights, like freedom from government imposed religion or sex laws. The states get the power from the national government and it is completely appropriate for the national government to prevent them from violating constitutional rights. The states rights advocates, are the people who consistently come out on the side of limiting personal freedom as in supporting slavery and state based racial segregation. There are some exceptions like, state level support for legalizing marijuana.

Most of Ron Paul’s career has been spent pandering to some of the most reactionary and nastiest elements of the conservative movement including the disenfranchised white men angry about the civil rights act which he opposes. He has a following of conspiracy theorists. He’s also against the rise of feminism and Gay rights as revealed by his controversial newsletters. One of his newsletters states, “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” Also a newsletter refers to Martin Luther King Jr. day as “Hate Whitey Day.” In June 1990, one of the newsletters said, “I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous.”

Some claim that Ron Paul didn’t write the newsletters but he had to know what was being written in his name, and his fundraising letters were apparently even worse. Bad mouthing blacks and gays was a deliberate strategy by Paul and his associate Lew Rockwell, who wanted to “reach out to rednecks” who disliked the free love, joint smoking, libertarian movement, and were put off by cultural changes-since the sixties. His rhetoric has always tacitly promoted the notion of states as the rightful imposers of social conservatism on the population.

Fortunately, Ron Paul has dropped his focus on appealing to angry white males, but he still holds onto some of the baggage of that era, as the We the People Act shows. This is not to mention his equally atrocious Sanctity of Life Act which grants person-hood to zygotes and grants states the right to completely outlaw abortions and forbids federal courts from hearing related cases.

Note, none of this is consistent with small government or any real kind of libertarianism, and as such, the libertarian movement needs to find a hero without all the social conservatism, racist and theocratic baggage.

Here’s a question from our friend Jim Wilson:

Most people of faith will tell you their God exists, period!  That leaves me highly skeptical of any of their many claims of absolute certainty.  It seems to me our knowledge is limited by the best available evidence, and it is always changing.  As such, I find ‘absolute certainty’ a useless concept for all practical purposes.

Religious people tend not to accept this, and hold claims of absolute certainty in very high regard even when their claims are based on flimsy evidence. Often vague feelings, intuitions and completely subjective experiences are apparently more than enough to know beyond any reasonable doubt their God exists. Any claim based on a subjective experience is irrational. This phenomena has been reinforced over and over again, by childhood indoctrination and tradition. It is the basis for understanding ‘meme’s.

I have heard similar stories from Christians, Muslims and Hindus about vague experiences that a God is communicating with them; often calling them to engage in some sort of behavior or lifestyle change.  The stories are almost interchangeable, but you will never see a Christian or Hindu accept a Muslim’s story of God’s subtle communication with the Muslim as true, and vice versa. When Christians tell me they have experienced God’s presence, I tell them about a Hindu friend who says the same thing about the Elephant headed God Ganesha and I ask why I should consider the Hindu’s experience any more or less reliable than theirs? It seems stories one would dismiss in other religions are perfectly reasonable to believe when they come from your own.

The hardest thing for me is when religious people invoke faith to justify their claims of absolute certainty of God. Faith is not necessary to know something is true. Faith is what you adduce when you want to believe something but cannot justify it or back it up with facts.  It’s a ‘feeling’ often followed with “I can’t explain it, I just know”. It is the one way to rule out ever discovering that you are in error. It disgusts me when faith is seen as virtue in today’s scientific and technologically advanced society. I am in favor of doing the opposite. I am and others should be willing to admit we might be wrong about any of our most cherished beliefs. I challenge all of our readers to go out and find the most well written piece you can that argues against a position you hold important. If you cannot respond to its arguments perhaps you should withhold your belief.

So my question for believers is:

What evidence would need to be presented for you to acknowledge that you have been mistaken about all or some of your religious beliefs? What would it take to bring you to a position of uncertainty?

For some it might be proof of evolution, or evidence that the world is an too unjust a place to be governed by the omni-benevolent being.  For others it may be pointing to inaccurate statements or contradictions in one’s holy book or pointing out places where the God in your holy book does highly immoral things like condone mass-murder or slavery. I’ll ask again; what would it take for you to take the high road and say, “I could be wrong”?

As an election year, 2012 is going to challenge our critical thinking skills in politics as well as everyday life. Let’s rise to the challenge. Resolved:

1. Do not forget our nation’s heritage of a strong separation between church and state. If you need a reminder of our history, here’s a good resource: http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html. Politicians who promise or suggest that their religious beliefs will determine their decisions in office are not only spitting on the graves of our founding fathers, they’re extremely dangerous.
2. Do not be taken in by any hoaxes, scams, pseudo-science, or mysticism. Question everything. Criticize ruthlessly. Follow your own conclusions regardless of what “everyone else” seems to think. Also: the world isn’t likely to end, literally or figuratively, in 2012.
3. Create something unique, original, and valuable. Distribute it as widely as you can. You don’t have to make money from it, but if you do that’s even better.
4. Discuss controversial subjects like politics, religion, and economics with the smartest people you can find who disagree with you. Don’t waste your time with idiots, and if you agree with someone about everything or nearly everything then one of you is redundant to the discussion. Try to get information from as many diverse sources as you can.
5. Do not be fooled by public professions of piety and insinuations that a candidate’s political opponents are infidels. President Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim nor much as I might wish, an Atheist. All of Obama’s major Republican challengers are…Christians. All of the third party candidates you are likely to hear about are…Christians. Regardless of the wisdom of doing so, in the 2012 presidential election there will be little opportunity to vote based on a candidate’s major religious beliefs because they’re all Christians. This is true for most of the other races as well. Some semblance of Christian belief is practially and unfortunately a requirement to win election to high office in this country.
6. Learn and practice something that is both useful and new. Age is no excuse to stop growing your knowledge base.
7. Establish a set of core values and principles that you can live your own life by and also judge candidates by. As a start I suggest:
   * Critical thinking informed by logic and evidence rather than mystical and wishful thinking.
   * Integrity, responsibility, and accountability rather than endlessly kicking the can down the road.
   * Respect for all human rights, including: freedom of and from religion, privacy, due process, equal treatment,  speech, property, and self-defense.
8. Do not cast your vote based on a candidate’s promises or statements - such statements are usually composed of far more lies than truth. Instead, vote based on the candidate’s actual track record, the effect of their party affiliation on wider political outcomes, and who their campaign funding comes from — since that’s who they are most likely to listen to once in office. This requires a little more research than listening to whatever sound bites happen to be playing on Fox News or CNN. Either do the research, or stop calling yourself an informed voter.
9. It is possible that no candidate in a particular election race will measure up to earning your vote. If none do, then there is no shame in withholding your vote in that race. Voting is neither a legal nor a moral imperative and non-voters have just as much right to criticize government policy as voters do.
10. Treat your body and your mind with the respect they deserve. Accept neither the hedonism of short-term thinkers nor the asceticism of mystics. Lean on your own understanding, and run…don’t walk…from anyone who counsels you to have faith.

Happy New Year!

By Jim Wilson:

“Moloch demands fresh blood to maintain the appetite of his mechanical heart. Would you sacrifice your first born as Abraham would his Isaac?” -Clutch, Shiny Mr. Cadillacness

In the 22nd Chapter of Genesis Abraham, a man in his hundreds, has his faith and dedication tested by God. He is asked to sacrifice his 12 year old son Isaac in a burnt offering to God and is shown to be ready and willing to do this. Abraham builds an altar, binds his son to it, and has taken his knife in hand about to take his son’s life. At this moment an angelic voice calls from heaven and orders Abraham to cease, instructing him that he has passed this test of faith. A sacrificial ram is provided to replace Isaac and Abraham is consequently told that because of his obedience, his descendants will be numerous, conquer the cities of their enemies and bring about a blessing of the world.

Abraham’s willingness to slit his child’s throat is revered by Christians, Muslims, and Jews, who view his obedience as something to be celebrated. To me this is a most horrific tale. Any being that would ask someone to murder a child, especially their own child, is a complete monster. I can only imagine how going through an experience like this would traumatize the individuals involved. Also, I cannot help but be disgusted by this God’s lust for human and animal sacrifices as shown throughout the bible.

The fact that the Monotheisms have warped people’s minds to think that an act like this is moral and good is positively disgusting and disturbing. This is especially true since the book states Abraham was at least partially motivated by fear. Murdering your child out of fear is horrifying, and intimidating someone into being willing to do this is completely immoral.

It does little to soften the issue that God takes back his request at the last minute. Putting anyone through such an experience is extraordinarily cruel, and the cold way the author/authors report this illustrates the complete disregard for human life that they must have had. I cannot help but see the irony of so many people in our culture viewing the book this story is found in as the basis for human morality. Apparently this includes many people who have spent little actual time reading it.

Interestingly, some proponents of the documentary hypothesis point out that there are reasons to believe that part of the story where Abraham and Isaac climb the top of the mountain and prepare the altar is written by a different author than the part where Abraham is told not sacrifice his son. This implies that in the original version of the story, Isaac may have actually been sacrificed. It is also interesting to note that this chapter, 22, refers to Isaac as Abraham’s only son, despite his other son, Ishmael being born in chapter 16.

So here is my question for all of our God-fearing readers out there… If the God you believe in made it known to you that he wanted you to engage in some horrific act like killing your first born child, would you do it?

Penn Jillette once posed a similar question and came to the conclusion, that if you say yes, you are danger to yourself and those around you (after all, all you need is to hear a convincing voice in your head before you are willing to take a life) and if you say no, you should reconsider how strongly you believe in this God, and where you do get morality from.  Saying no implies you have some moral values above and beyond your God’s dictates.  I personally agree with this conclusion.