The believers of all faiths have a public relations problem. For example, in an attempt the fix their particular situation, the Mormons have blasted the airways with a series of ads showing common and exceptional people claiming, “I’m a Mormon.” However, Brian Dalton, the writer and director of the Mr. Deity Show, has a series called “The Way of the Mister.” His latest is called, “The Way of the Mister: And I’m a Formon.” He answers the advertisements of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with his own take as a Former Mormon or as he calls himself—A Formon.

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.

Last night, a small subset of the Tucson Atheists met in the Fronimos restaurant. Tucson Atheists hosts quite a few meetups. We have a diverse membership and it makes perfect sense to have many different kinds of meetings. Last night’s meeting is called, “Caffeinated Godlessly.” It is held every other Thursday and the current venue is Fronimos, a Greek restaurant, where the food is good, reasonably priced, and they have a nice area for discussion.

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.

The icing on the layer cake of recent lunacy is the call to investigate treason for the producers of The Innocence of Muslims. The mental midget making the call has also started a petition through change.org. So far there are 15 supporters. He recognizes freedom of speech but is trying to make the case that the movie is the equivalent of shouting “FIRE” in a crowded movie theater. He makes a similar charge against the Reverend Terry Jones for his threat and ultimate act of burning the Koran. Let’s apply the “slippery slope” argument shall we? If we are to charge Rev. Jones and the producers of the controversial movie with treason, what should we do with Salman Rusdie? How should we remember Theo Van Gogh who was murdered for his movie Submission which was critical to Islam? How should we treat Ayaan Hirsi Ali? She is currently living in the U.S. in fear for her life because she is outspoken about Muslim abuses including her own personal experiences. In 2006 the United States welcomed her. If the fact that the United States is protecting her causes some Muslims to riot, is the State Department committing treason?

Freedom of expression is paramount in this country and according to Alan Dershowitz, “The best answer to bad speech is good speech.” Why should we give away the freedom of speech of our citizens because it offends Muslims to the point of rioting? This is the last option to consider and those that suggest such a thing should be shunned.

Beyond that, there is a very practical lesson about submitting to the unreasonable demands. In 1795 the United States paid close to a million dollars, ship store, and a frigate to the Dey of Algiers as ransom for 115 sailors taken by pirates. That stopped in 1801 when Thomas Jefferson refused to pay tribute to the Barbary Coast states. Our aggressive stance immediately broke the back of the Barbary Coast alliances. The demands for tribute almost stopped completely when we stopped acceding to their demands.

Before we can completely capture the high ground in this situation, however, we must step back and look at our own ability to get annoyed and derive irrational anger over what others are doing. While we’re not rioting, there are those that are outraged at the Mormon Church for virtually baptizing dead people. These baptisms are done by proxy. They’re done in private and even Atheists get incensed at the idea. Why? If the Mormons want to baptize every dead person on the planet, does it matter? If they want to go to their favorite grotto and dunk themselves in a ritual that has significance only to them, why should we care? Let’s break it down: Do the dead people care? No! They’re dead. If you didn’t know about it would you care? Of course not! If you didn’t know about it you couldn’t care. So offense only happens when one finds out that someone is doing a dumb ritual that doesn’t mean anything to you and mentioning a dead person you might know. Perhaps we should save our ire for those that leak the information. Baptizing dead people is a foolish endeavor that actually does nothing. There is another way to look at it. One more Mormon dunking themselves in the name of a dead person is one less knocking on my door.

We can stop most of these irrational responses if we stop trying to ascribe negative motivations of others. Follow the advice of the British playwright James M. Barrie, “Never ascribe to an opponent motives meaner than your own.” I’m sure that the producers of the Innocence of Muslims did not intend on creating riots just as the Mormons baptizing dead people are not trying to purposely upset the living relatives.

Gregory Chmara has noticed that hell has been in the news lately:

Hell seems to get a lot of space and recognition in the media of late from a high school girls being refused graduation because she used the word in her valedictorian speech instead of the scripted “heck,” to colorful descriptions of Tucson’s weather.

Hell, not Hades, is a relatively new construct in human belief. The two imaginary places actually are not interchangeable. Hell, hellfire and the like with demonic possession, exorcism, and the casting out of demons by fasting, prayer, and laying on of hands is seemingly re-surging in Christian religions.

I do not include Hades as an equal to hell, because as a place it is an ancient concept, from pre-Christian Egyptian, Greek, and Roman religions. Hades was most simply a place where the spirits of the dead went and did not return. Little was known about living conditions in the Hades construct, other than the Egyptian belief that you could take it with you, especially if you were a pharaoh and had it buried with you. Greeks and Romans would include coins in burial sites (usually on the corpse’s eyes) to pay Charon, the boatman who took you over the river Styx to Hades. Little is known of those who did not pay the fare but some were rumored to have returned as ghosts.

Hell has been clearly described by Dante as a place of cold, fire, suffering, pain, anguish, torture, and unpleasantness beyond description. He curiously walks his living characters through degrees and circles of hell which, unlike our modern prison system, segregated the sinners so those who have committed the same sins were all kept in one place.

Since modern prisons put pedophile priests, rapists, addicts, embezzling accountants, and errant politicians together in the same cellblocks, it would be wrong to call our modern prisons “hell.” Dante carefully segregated the sinners locations by the severity of the sin committed.

Of course, Dante’s hell faced no budget constraints like our modern prison system. It is also interesting to note that Dante included clergy, including Popes, in his hell.

The opposite of hell is supposed to be heaven, with very little in between. If you are Catholic there is a mini-hell called purgatory where minor sins can be burned or frozen away until you graduate to heaven among God’s chosen. Only grave sin (mortal sins) that have not been forgiven by a priest, those who have not accepted Christ, or have been excommunicated by the Catholic Church can go to hell. The church used to have a special place (Limbo) for unbaptized infants or those who died at birth but the place was discontinued in the last few years, and I have heard nothing that reassigns the souls of the unbaptized to other than hell.

Some Protestant theology indicates you completely avoid hell if you accept Jesus Christ (usually their brand of Christ) into your heart and profess it openly, if not loudly. Others believe that not only must you accept Christ, but must repent of your sins with actions that run from confession and restitution, to public verbal self flagellation. Yet others believe all are saved by grace, not action. It seems that to get to hell you have to avoid a Chinese menu of options and really work at it or completely ignore it as a place you might go.

Mormons do not believe in a literal Dantesque hell, but they do believe in Perdition, a complete removal from God’s presence and or grace. Outer darkness is another name. The good news is that this is reserved only for those who deny the Mormon Faith and the powers of its priesthood (all male members are now eligible if worthy) after having a sure knowledge of its pure truth. This is the same decision Lucifer and the fallen made when denying and refusing to accept the plan of Jesus Christ before the earth was formed.

The LDS church also divides “heaven” into three glorious kingdoms, the highest being in the presence of God the Father and Jesus Christ to learn and progress on your own path to your own godhood (if you are male.)

Since it is only the highest degree of glory that can progress, the other two kingdoms are glorious and wonder filled as are considered a kind of hell to Mormons, because the residents of the lower kingdoms have knowledge they could have been so much better in life. They retain the knowledge and sorrow of not making the cut for the top kingdom. They may also be servants of the kingdom above them. A mental hell, if you will.

Some Hindu and Buddhists state that they believe hell is here on earth or at very least is a test of adversity and our attitudes to adversity in accepting our Karma in this life, so as to affect our karma in the next life. Being reborn in a lowly station might be considered a hellacious karma and not being reborn but attaining a state of “nothingness” in Nirvana is considered a heavenly goal. Where being reborn into another faith which uses the paradigm of heaven and hell for life after death fits into these schemes leaves me scratching my head in wonder.

Islam translates as submission and has a hell filled with people who refused to submit and be slaves to doctrine and dogma. They are consigned to the flames of Jahannam. Here, according to Wikipedia they will be in the company of:

…disbelievers, hypocrites, polytheists, the People of the Book who reject the truth arrogant rejectors of truth, sinners and criminals, tyrants, the unjust, transgressors, concealers of God’s revelations, persecutors of believers, people who commit suicide and murderers …the arrogant, the proud and the haughty.”

I am surprised that the Koran and Hadith in their far reaching condemnations did not include the American politician, the Corporate Wealthy, a few bankers and all those who bend religious belief to their own benefit or political purpose.

And the Atheists? Since we believe there is no heaven, there is no hell. Most Atheists I know feel too much human potential, thought, and humane action has been wasted on this imaginary construct we call hell. To a primitive, uneducated and unused mind the concept of hell remains an almost useless tool as a construct of control though fear.

To the educated, thoughtful, and humanely disposed, it is a construct where we often wish intolerant, deliberately ignorant and blindly believing people would take up residency. But since hell is an imaginary construct this latter wish is in vain and a time waster.

For Immediate Release: August 23, 2012

AMERICAN ATHEISTS REMOVES RELIGIOUS BILLBOARDS FROM CHARLOTTE

Large Volume of Threats by Email, Phone Ends Campaign to Question Faith in Politics

Cranford, NJ – American Atheists announced today that the billboards the organization had placed in Charlotte, NC, ahead of the Republican and Democratic National Conventions, criticizing Christianity and Mormonism would be coming down weeks early.

“It is with regret that we tell our members and all of those who treasure free speech and the separation of religion and government that American Atheists and Adams Outdoor Advertising have mutually agreed to remove the billboards immediately,” said Amanda Knief, American Atheists’ Managing Director.

“No subject, no idea should be above scrutiny—and this includes religion in all forms,” Ms. Knief said. “We are saddened that by choosing to express our rights as Atheists through questioning the religious beliefs of the men who want to be our president that our fellow citizens have responded with vitriol, threats, and hate speech against our staff, volunteers, and Adams Outdoor Advertising.”

Teresa MacBain, American Atheists’ Public Relations Director said, “It saddens me to think that our country is not a safe place for all people to publicly question religious belief. How can we grow as a nation when such censorship exists from our own citizens?”

The billboards are scheduled to be removed by the end of day Thursday, August 23, 2012.

Greetings,

It’s been a bad week for free speech and the American Atheists. I represent the American Atheists in the state of Arizona and thought that readers of this blog should know what went on in South Carolina over the past couple of days. Many people are not aware how difficult it is to get our message out as part of a distrusted minority. It is a bad thing to have to take down our billboards due to threats to the people we contracted to erect them. American Atheists decided to pull the signs as a result of the negative impact they were having on the company that we contracted with. Had the negative reactions and threats been directed solely at American Atheists, the sign would not have been removed early. It was a decision meant to protect the billboard company personnel. After the convention, the American Atheists will leave Charlotte, but the sign company will still be there to face the wrath of irrational hatred caused by the religiosity of their neighbors. American Atheists understand that we are on the front lines fighting in a country founded on secular values but we also understand that there are those that are not involved in the fight and our actions to remove the signs before the end of the contract were made to prevent collateral damage.

In Tampa, no one would take the job and put our signs up. That is their right. Private businesses that are not places of public accommodations are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion.

The billboard war is not new and American Atheists are not the only ones involved. Around the country there have been multiple organizations posting many billboards. There is a national organization called The Coalition of Reason that has put up many signs. Locally, FreeThought Arizona put up its own sign that said, “Are you good without God? Millions are”

Many signs have been rejected. In Pennsylvania, COLTS (the County of Lackawanna Transit System) rejected a sign that simply said, “Atheists” and had some web addresses. Unlike Tampa, COLTS is not a private business and as a government entity, they ARE NOT allowed to reject business based on religion. American Atheists sent them a letter asking them to rescind their decision or face a legal challenge. In Arkansas, the Central Arkansas Transit System tried to have the Coalition of Reason pay a huge bond that others didn’t have to pay to insure against the vandalism that they thought Christians might inflict on their busses. The message was the same as ours here in Tucson, “Are you good without God? Millions are.” Apparently, it was anticipated that the Christian Arkies weren’t all that good with God.

By the way, part of my job as the Arizona State Director for American Atheists is to address individual complaints of religious discrimination. If you need to contact me, my email is AZAtheist@atheists.org.

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.

Editor’s note: In November, FreeThought Arizona will be hosting a speaker locally in Tucson, Dr. Darrel Ray, author of The God Virus and Sex and God: How Religion Distorts Sexuality. Dr. Ray is also known for his Sex and Secularism Survey; you can read his interview on that survey HERE.

 Jim sent me this in May while Rick Santorum was still seeking to be the Republican presidential candidate. I’ve been reluctant to publish it due to the subject matter. If the discussion of oral sex is uncomfortable, please stop reading now. One of the byproducts of so much religious influence in our society is that frank discussions about sexual topics are distressing to many. This is not as it should be. Here’s what Jim Wilson has to say on the subject of religion and oral sex:

 “Let the heathen spill theirs on the dusty ground. God shall make them pay for each sperm that can’t be found.” -Monty Python “Every Sperm is Sacred”

 This seems to be an on again off again issue but Christianity in its various forms has a long history of being at odds with sexual pleasure. Oral sex is an enjoyable experience for men and women of all orientations and a favorite pastime of so many Americans. Religious objections to it tend to get swept under the rug but they occasionally come out. Not long ago, Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum inspired by his “conservative” Catholicism, likely hurt his bid for the White House by coming out against oral sex and the right to privacy. Also, he probably didn’t help himself when he came out in favor of state level bans on birth control. Surveys show that even Catholics do not have a moral objection against birth control. Mitt Romney is also from a religious tradition that has a history of antagonism to towards oral sex as well.

In a 1982 letter,  the Mormon First Presidency declared oral sex to be among the “unnatural, impure, or unholy practices” that would keep one from entering the Mormon temple. Apparently this letter caused Bishops and Stake Presidents to ask about the practice in temple recommendation interviews and the Presidency felt the need to command them not to ask questions about specific sexual practices any longer, subtly backing away from the staunch anti oral sex position without actually reversing it. The Church remains anti-gay opposing same sex marriage rights while opposing sexual feelings outside of marriage. Homosexual Mormons are left option-less. It also has an ugly history of endorsing cruel and ineffective attempts to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals. Some cases resulted in suicide and lifelong mental health issues. Masturbation and impure thoughts are also taboo. The Mormon Church has imposed thought crime legislation on hormone fill teenagers. What could be crueler?

Anti-oral sex and anti-gay attitudes are frequently accompanied by claims of being unnatural and yet both oral sex and homosexual sex have been documented throughout human history as well as in many species of animals. Homophobia and anti-oral sex prejudices have only been found in one species making them seem far more unnatural.

Genesis chapter 38 and the story of Onan is the source most often cited to justify the religious anti-oral sex, anti-masturbation, and anti-contraception positions.

 “Then Judah said to Onan “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.”

 It is unclear what the Lord actually finds wicked here. Is it the mere spilling of semen or the fact that Onan did not fulfill an obligation to his brother? This piece along with instructions to be “fruitful and multiply” weakly support prohibitions against non-reproductive sexual behavior. The Catholic Church takes these two Old Testament Biblical references to justify opposition to condom use and demonizing loving homosexual couples. Ironically, millions of sperm must die for a single conception to take place. Since masturbation is more “unnatural” than rape, some Catholic theologians who studied St. Thomas Aquinas concluded masturbation is worse than rape. This not a generally held position as discussed in this ARTICLE.

Oral sex is a perfectly natural and normal expression of human sexuality and affection. The fact that religion would demonize such practices is further evidence that religion is destructive to human nature. It also is evidence that many people who claim to be Christian reject the teachings of their religion that they find unappealing in much the same way many self-identified Catholics reject their church’s teachings about birth control. In human society our sexuality is used for much more than reproduction. Religious dogma is wrong when it vilifies this fundamental aspect of our nature.

This one is from Jim Wilson:

“A scout is reverent. A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.”

-Excerpted from page 47-54 Boy Scout Handbook 11th Edition

I was a member of Boy Scouts of America during much of my youth and young adult hood. Overall it was a positive experience. Through it, I made good friends and got to do some incredible things like: caving and rock climbing in the beautiful Texas hill country, white-water rafting on the scenic Chatooga River, backpacking in the Rocky Mountains, and fishing from canoes in the serene wilderness that is the Canadian boundary waters. I was not molested hazed or harassed at any point.

Perhaps, my experience was different than other kids in that we had an exceptionally well run troop that made an effort to do unique and fun things. It seems that many kids get turned off and quit after a few months of boring meetings, nerdy uniforms, and lame camp-outs that interfere with the sporting events they would rather attend. For us it was different. We were well run. We went to awesome places and participated in activities most kids would have loved to do. Though by most standards, we we’re what you’d call good kids most of us enjoyed off colored humor hard rocking music, and smutty movies. Outside of scout events, we were overall pretty normal. Maybe we tended to be a little bit nerdier or outdoors oriented than most but you would have had trouble picking my patrol mates out of any group of kids the same age. We had many different interests and tended to be from different groups of friends which was cool because it allowed me to form friendships with guys I otherwise would not talk to.

Scouting also taught me many cool life skills. I may not remember how to tie many of the knots I learned but I am now quite comfortable in wilderness settings. I’m prepared to do first aid on anyone needing it and I experienced many outstanding leadership opportunities. It kept me out of trouble. Unlike a lot of other kids my age, I had better things to do at least a few weekends per month than smoke weed drink, bottles of cough syrup, and engage in acts of petty vandalism.

There was a stigma that surrounded it, though. I was embarrassed by the uniform and would never wear it to school. I would only talk about my scouting activities with my closest non-scout friends. It was way too conformist for the punks and artsy types. The jocks always had cooler things to do. Scouting was way too authoritarian for the hippies. It was seen as the domain for outcasts specifically outsiders with too much parental involvement. There were few hard core outsiders that could muster up the courage to wear the uniform to school.

I willingly participated but on some level I also objected to the conformist and authoritarian character of the Boy Scouts. It seemed to be about respecting traditional authorities and that turned me off. I am a knee-jerk anti-authoritarian that questions why we have speed limits, anti-drug laws, and laws forbidding prostitution. The Boy Scouts is a little heavy with the flag-waving patriotism. While I recognize the many great things about this country especially the freedoms it protects, they overdid it just a bit. Some of the Boy Scout programs appear to celebrate some of the Native American traditions but seems to forget how the country committed genocide, exterminated the buffalo (their food source), and stole their land. My adult troop leaders were primarily Reagan loving oil company employed suburban “my country right or wrong” white men.

Currently, I am part of minority that the Boy Scouts of America bans from participation. I am an Atheist. The BSA’s bylaws state:

“The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares ‘On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.’ The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members.”

Over the last decade the BSA has made a more concerted effort to make clear their position that Atheist and Agnostics are not welcome and that belief in a God/high power is a requirement for membership. We are more likely to be reminded now that the Scouting movement’s founder Lord Baden Powell said, “No man is much good unless he believes in God and obeys His laws.” That he was also a British Imperialist, racist, and possible war criminal is also worth considering.

Much of this anti-Atheist outlook is related to the fact that the BSA is sponsored heavily by religious organizations such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the Catholic Church. Perhaps this explains it’s deep seated homophobia as the BSA does not allow homosexuals to participate and has stated:

“Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought word and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting’s values and beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position.”

It is made worse by the fact that the BSA has a history of receiving public funding and favorable land access from various levels of the American government. This should not be the case for any organization that openly discriminates. Many public and private entities have given up support. Stephen Spielberg the actor that played a scout in the Indiana Jones movie The Last Crusade and a huge former supporter has stated, “It has deeply saddened me to see the Boy Scouts of America actively and publicly participating in discrimination.”

I regret to say that I and others like me have been alienated by the modern Boy Scout organization I used to admire. It would be wonderful to have an organization that provides all the opportunity for learning and adventure without all the religious bigotry and homophobic garbage. I support the mission of the advocacy group Scouting for All that wishes to make BSA more inclusive. I continue to support the Girl Scouts for their inclusion of homosexual atheistic and trans-gendered girls in their movement and enjoy buying their cookies. I would like to see an organization that does all the cool things that the BSA does and includes girls too as I question the extent to which single sex environments are a positive thing.

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/