It gives me great pleasure to post this blog entry. Cathi Herod and her homophobic minions were handed a defeat in Phoenix last Tuesday. I posted a blog on the “Red Herring” tactic being employed by the Center for Arizona policy. It took a couple of days to write and I may even have lost a friend over the posting but it’s good to see that reason won out over irrational bigotry in our state capital. At issue was the passing of the amendment to Chapter 18 of the Human Relations Commission section in city code. Here is the declaration of policy as posted in the original blog entry:

It is declared to be among the civil rights of the people of the City of Phoenix, Arizona, to be free from discrimination in public accommodations and employment, and for it to be contrary to the policy of the City and unlawful to discriminate against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, genetic information, or marital status, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION, OR DISABILITY in places of public accommodation and employment and it is contrary to the policy of the City of Phoenix and is unlawful for employers doing business with the City of Phoenix that are vendors, suppliers or contractors and employ more than thirty-five persons to discriminate against any person because of sexual orientation OR GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION.

As you can see, the intention was to add to the list of folks that companies are not allowed to discriminate against in their public accommodations and employment. For some reason, the CAP believes that companies have a constitutional right to discriminate against people of different sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or disability and should be free to do so in their public accommodations and hiring.

The note I got from the CAP states that, “On Tuesday this week, approximately 500 people packed into a downtown Phoenix auditorium and witnessed injustice.”Cathi Herod also thoughtfully provided this LINK (local Phoenix news coverage of the vote). Now, Cathi is on the war path claiming that her legal concerns were not addressed by the council. She’s identifying the council members that voted for the measure and reminded her loyal subjects that “elections matter.” The most pleasing part of her note on the subject was the part where she turns her ire on many of the people protesting against the measure alongside her. She states in her note, “I must share my deep disappointment with how some who opposed the ordinance handled their statements.” She further stated that people on her side were:

“using God’s name in a mean-spirited, bigoted way to oppose the ordinance. Or perhaps you heard some oppose the ordinance in ways that I am sure were grievous to God and grievous to those sitting in the audience. A public hearing seldom is the venue in which one should stand up and speak condemnation on others from a supposed Scriptural standpoint. Regrettably, the misguided words of a few who spoke out against the ordinance greatly hurt our testimony.”

How are you supposed to come out against a provision which expands equality without appearing to be “mean-spirited” or “bigoted?” Telling an entire class of people that you’re not entitled to equality is by definition “mean-spirited.”

In any case, good job Phoenix! Way to stand up for human decency against the tyranny of religious bigotry! And Cathi, keep criticizing your supporters we can use the help.

I’ve been sitting on this submission for a little while now for a couple of reasons. Jim Wilson gave it to me after one of our Desert AIR Podcast recording sessions. He makes valid points in the article but I was reluctant to post it due to the fact that I felt it was a personal rebuke of an offhand comment I had made. We were talking about Brother Jed’s pending visit to the campus of U of A and I joked that wouldn’t it be great if we could get one of those speech jamming devices. It was a joke of course not to be taken seriously but unfortunately sometimes jokes are taken more seriously than intended. Now, Jed is gone and by his own reports he doesn’t have any complaints about how he was treated by the Atheists at the University of Arizona.

Here’s Jim Wilson’s article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Jim Wilson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Center for Arizona Policy just sent out an email urging Phoenix citizens to contact their city council and tell them to vote no on “the amendment to Chapter 18 of the Human Relations Commission section in city code.” According to the release, the pending amendment will put young children in the crosshairs of sexual predators if transsexuals are allowed to use the women’s public restrooms. Businesses will suffer and churches will be in peril. Cathi Herod hopes that you’ll be squicked out by the prospect of a transgender individual using a women’s public restroom. Aside from being a “Red Herring” argument, no one should care if the feet in the next stall are facing toward the toilet or away. The vote for the amendment will happen on the 26^th of February. You can go onto their web site and make up your own mind but I’m sure they’d rather you just to take the CAP’s word for it that it’s a bad bill and we should do everything in our power to stop it.

As much as Cathi and the Center for Arizona policy would like you to think that it’s all about who can use what restroom, the fact of the matter is that the ordinance in question is simply adding gender identity to the list of things you can’t discriminate against and expands protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It’s about tolerance and fairness and could very well help the economy of Phoenix.

Here is the Declaration of policy:

It is declared to be among the civil rights of the people of the City of Phoenix, Arizona, to be free from discrimination in public accommodations and employment, and for it to be contrary to the policy of the City and unlawful to discriminate against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, genetic information, or marital status, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION, OR DISABILITY in places of public accommodation and employment and it is contrary to the policy of the City of Phoenix and is unlawful for employers doing business with the City of Phoenix that are vendors, suppliers or contractors and employ more than thirty-five persons to discriminate against any person because of sexual orientation OR GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION

Here are the talking points expressed in the email

• Churches should not be forced to hire people who disagree with their religious beliefs. Yet under this law, city government will force Phoenix’s religious institutions to either compromise their beliefs, or face criminal prosecution. 
• The Bathroom Bill creates a “sue first and ask questions later” mentality.
• No matter your views on homosexuality, under the Bathroom Bill you will face the threat of frivolous lawsuits.
• It is irresponsible for the City Council to put every child, business owner, church, and religious organization at risk because of a political agenda from a vocal minority.
• Despite Mayor Stanton’s campaign commitment to transparency, the Bathroom Bill has been rushed through city government in order to hide the true atrocities buried in this law. 

Somehow this “bathroom bill,” as they call it, will negatively impact every Phoenix Business—regardless of their views on the issue and will put churches at risk by preventing them from following their faith.

What are restrooms like in churches these days? Is it common to have a men’s room, women’s room, and unisex “family” facility or do they have a “one holer” with a lock on the door? Does every Phoenix business have separate facilities? Of course not! Larger businesses do but the smaller ones have a single toilet. The larger bathrooms consist of sinks with individual stalls.

That’s a lot of bathroom talk for an ordinance aimed at discrimination. Equality Arizona President Rebecca Winiger contends that all the bathroom talk is bogus. “This legislation will have no effect on the bathroom that any individual – transgendered or otherwise – is currently allowed to use.”

Cathi is urging her minions to pray for the ordinance’s defeat but prayers aren’t enough. They also ask you to call politicians and express your deeply held fear of equality to protect the right to discriminate against people on basis of sexual orientation. Apparently a “family value” such as homophobia is just too valuable to trust with simply prayers to the all-powerful creator of the universe.

It has been a busy week! Brother Jed just finished his first week of evangelizing on the University Of Arizona Mall. The newly formed Secular Student Alliance at the University of Arizona had a rough start but finished well. On Monday on the way to the Alumni Plaza, a box dropped off of the hand cart that was transporting the table and supplies. The box that dropped off contained all of “Brother Jed” Bingo cards printed up for the occasion. All 850 cards disappeared out of existence along with a box of highlighters and some twirly helicopter toys but it turned out OK because the weather made the first day a very short. More cards needed to be printed up AND there was Skeptics of Tucson meeting on superstition that night. Both were accomplished and Tuesday turned out to be a better day. Wednesday, Ash Wednesday, was an even better day still and included some expected and unexpected excitement. A student group planned on taking the stage from Brother Jed and performing the Harlem Shake. Brother Jed caught word of the plan and had a counter plan. Everyone’s plans were working out when, in all the excitement, a young man dressed in a Penguin suit fell on the grassy hillside and Brother Jed fell on top of him. No one was hurt and everyone involved including Jed and the Penguin chalked it up as an accident. Some people that weren’t involved and some that weren’t there might claim otherwise, however. Some claim that the kids should be ashamed of themselves for pushing over a 70 year old man and some claim that Jed “tackled” the Penguin. Brother Jed believes that the Penguin fell first and pulled him down. In any case, the show must go on. Preaching and heckling continued throughout the rest of the day on Wednesday and on Thursday and Friday as well.

The Secular Students Alliance of the University of Arizona manned the table, passed out prizes, distributed, and collected Bingo cards all week. They plan on continuing throughout the coming week. After Brother Jed leaves, someone that played Brother Jed Bingo will receive a board game called “Blasphemy” (a $100 value). Brother Jed is a great recruiter for the Secular Student Alliance, a group that is meant to provide community for the non-religious students on campus. The FaceBook page for the new group indicates that there are now over 100 members. The founder and current president of the group announced that regular meetings will begin on Wednesdays at 7 PM on the campus at a place that has yet to be determined. She also indicated that there will be other activities including social events and community service activities. If the logistics can be worked out, her group will be hosting Roy Zimmerman on the campus for some funny songs about ignorance, war, and greed on the 10^th of March.

Tucson Atheists and FreeThought Arizona are sponsors for the SSA of the U of A.

FreeThought Arizona will be having lectures on Sunday, the 17^th at the UMC DuVal Auditorium starting at 10 AM. The first lecture by Dr. Jay Quade, a professor at the U of A, will be on, “Evolution in Honor of Darwin Day” which was on the 12^th of February. The remaining lectures will start at 1 PM. Roy Speckhardt, the Executive Director of the AHA (American Humanist Association), will speak on, “Building a Non-theist Rights Movement” followed by Maggie Ardiente, the Development Director of the AHA, will speak on “An Update from the American Humanist Association.

The Tucson Atheists will be having their monthly meeting at the Denny’s near the corner of Alvernon and 22^nd at 7 PM on Monday the 18^th. The subject of the meeting will be: Is Modern Science due to Judeo-Christian Influence?

Of course, you can still catch Brother Jed and play Brother Jed Bingo throughout the upcoming week. His last planned day at the university is Friday, the 22^nd.

This is the 500^th post of the FreeThought Arizona Blog on the Tucson Citizen.

Last night the Skeptics of Tucson met to discuss superstition. There were only twelve of us at the meeting. Normally we have a few more but with the rainy weather and the change of venue from the Denny’s we usually meet in, twelve is a good turnout. We had a lot of fun with the subject. The Super Bowl was not long ago and people that follow competitive sports often participate in superstitious rituals. However in researching the subject, I came across something so ironic that I had trouble believing it! Did you know that the Catechism of the Catholic Church makes superstition a sin?

2110 The first commandment forbids honoring gods other than the one Lord who has revealed himself to his people. It proscribes superstition and irreligion. Superstition in some sense represents a perverse excess of religion; irreligion is the vice contrary by defect to the virtue of religion.

Superstition

2111 Superstition is the deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition.

The Free Dictionary defines Catechism as 1) a book giving a brief summary of the basic principle of Christianity in question-and-answer form and 3) a body of fundamental principles or beliefs, especially when accepted uncritically. To be a good Catholic you MUST accept the Catechism uncritically but Skeptics can’t accept ANYTHING uncritically so let’s get critical!

Dictionary.com defines superstition as: 1) a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like and 4) irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, especially in connection with religion and 5) any blindly accepted belief or notion.

Here’s the mind blowing part: The Catholic Church through its Catechism which is something that Catholics must believe with no other reason or knowledge and blindly accept is telling its followers that to believe in anything with no other reason or knowledge and blindly accept—is a sin. How ironic!

By Jim Wilson.

Greetings.  It is the return of Brother Jed Smock, the colorful college minister, an inadvertent promoter of Atheism.  Jed is back in town and will be preaching on the University of Arizona campus from February 11^th through the 22^nd .  His over-the-top, cartoonish style will surely capture a sizable crowd.

Jed Smock’s Campus Ministries consist of colorful open air preaching that usually does not change much from year to year. He typically includes tales of his adventures in the American counter-culture of the sixties complete with wild stories of sex and drugs and then his conversion to a self-loathing sexually hung-up Christian.  His style is highly confrontational and he is known to say things like, “I don’t know how the whorehouses in this town stay open — all of you sorority girls are giving it away for free!” or “A masturbator today is a homosexual tomorrow.” He will freely call the people he speaks to “homos,” “fags,” “sodomites,” “drunks,” or “fornicators.”

He spends plenty of time demonizing liberals, homosexuals, fans of rock music, those who engage in premarital sex, feminists, and those who reject traditional gender roles–all of which are apparently destined for hell.  The usually young college students frequently mock him and some of his act is self-parody.  For example, during one Sex Ed with Brother Jed segment he warned the males in his audience that after they get married and finally engage in sex for the first time, to be careful not to mistake their wives anus for her vagina. One student responded with “what if I do and she likes it?”  On another occasion, he stated “you seem to have a fixation with my anus” after being called an “a##hole.”

Brother Jed is the best recruiter for the local freethinking community. If he is the poster child for Christianity the Atheist community looks better in comparison.  His presentation does everything to highlight the ridiculous, superstitious, bigoted, hateful, and reactionary baggage that other Christians sweep under the carpet.  He makes Christianity the object of ridicule it deserves to be and does so in a way that is wonderfully over the top.  He is often accused of being a parody and many of us have to question the intelligence of the church members who finance his travels around the country.

His visits often mark the year’s highest recruitment times for local Atheist and Skeptics groups. Many  milk the opportunity by hosting Brother Jed Bingo.  In these games, listeners are given bingo cards with words on it that regularly appear in his narrative and those who fill their cards out first win a prize.  My copy from last year features such phrases as “Penis,” “Squirt-squirt,” “Whiskey,” “Sexual Frenzy,” “Freaks,” “Get Laid,” and “Oral Sex.”  Ironically, he thinks it’s the young people he talks to who are supposedly obsessed with sex.

There is a dark side in all this.  He drags his teenage daughters around the country with him. They are as brainwashed as he is.  These virginal girls make sex-negative presentations as part of his ministry and open themselves up to rude questioning from the audience that no-one should have to endure.  I remember listeners asking one of his daughters if she had ever masturbated or experienced an orgasm.  As would be expected of someone raised in a sex-negative environment the answer was no.  Needless to say, it saddens me to see people that young subjected to the ridicule their father brings on himself and it saddens me more to see this man instilling these girls with his repulsive beliefs and attitudes.  The idea that young people filled with hormones should be told to feel dirty, sinful, or ashamed every time they experience perfectly normal sexual feelings is repulsive.  Frightening children with threats of hell, damnation and eternal torture is very much a form of psychological abuse.

Brother Jed’s theology is highly idiosyncratic and much of it is rejected by many self-identified Christians.  His God, for example, is not the all-powerful or all-knowing one most Christians worship but one that is largely reacting to human’s free will actions he apparently has little or no control over.  Jed’s idea of a God who is lacking in these areas and presumably not completely competent actually makes much more sense than the God most Christians worship.  He also has stated numerous times that he no longer sins at all, a notion that most Christians consider impossible.

Brother Jed is definitely a trip and it is refreshing if not disturbing to see a Christian so out and open about all the horrible things that many of them actually believe.  He is the author of the book Who Will Rise Up: A Call to Confrontational Evangelism and is the basis for the short film Battle of the Sects.  Here in Arizona he has many unconvinced followers called Jed Heads, and I consider myself one of them.

Click HERE to see him in action at the University in 2008.

Jim Wilson has a few questions:

Did God give us Free Will? No. There is no reason to think so because there is no evidence to suggest that God ever existed but the existence of free will is still in question. For all practical purposes, it seems that we have it and we must act as though it exists. On the other hand, it could be that all of our behaviors and thought processes are the result of chemical reactions that we have no way of controlling.

The existence of free will depends on the definition of the term. After all, we may have free will in the sense that we are free to make decisions ourselves but, at the same time, we may lack it in the sense that actual decision making process is dictated by immutable physical laws.

Many religious people use free will as an explanation for why the world is messy. They argue that God wants us to voluntarily choose Him. They say our failure to do this has introduced sin into the world along with tapeworms, hurricanes, and tornadoes. Of course, this argument flies in the fact of the claim that God is all-knowing, all-benevolent, and all-powerful. All-knowing assumes prescience and all-powerful assumes total control of everything that happens. If God has a plan, no human activity can effectively alter the plan.

If, however, God is lacking in the infinite knowledge depart, or the infinite powers department, then free will maybe a little more plausible. But that makes God a little less great which may be just fine for some believers. The Judeo-Christian then must ask, “What did God know and when did he know it?” Additionally, it gives rise to countless other questions, such as:

Did God not create Satan? Could God not destroy Satan at this very moment? Did God not knowingly allow Satan to introduce evil into the world? Did God not knowingly begin the chain of events that led to evil being introduced into the world? Could God not have removed evil from the world at any time if he wanted to? If so, wouldn’t that make God ultimately responsible for the existence of evil in the world? Did God know that the world would become such brutal and inhospitable place for humans as a result of Adam eating the fruit? Was this part of this God’s plan or the result of a miscalculation on God’s part? Did God intentionally set Adam and eve up for failure? Were Adam and Eve simply tools used by God to introduce sin into the world? Could God have tweaked Adam and Eve’s personalities such that they could have avoided the whole incident, but chose not to? Was the talking snake actually an agent of God’s will, or the result of some sort of error in his judgment? Why should Adam’s descendants be punished for Adam’s actions? Was it God’s intention that humans should be a permanently ignorant?

Some believers argue that the world we live in is far from the human ideal because this allows humans to be virtuous rather than acting as something akin to robots. This leads me to ask:

Was Adam’s fall necessary for humans to be virtuous? Were Adam and Eve capable of being virtuous before their fall? Given this, is it possible to be virtuous in Heaven? Is there free will or sin in heaven?

Other Christians argue that Satan, rather than God is ultimately responsible for the evil that exist in today’s world. That is too convenient.

There are ambiguities within the Judeo-Christian world-view and areas that are potentially problematic for believers. Different believers will have different answers for these questions but the Bible says, “Prove all things: hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

These are my thoughts on free will and my latest set of questions for the faithful.

Jim Wilson collected a sampling of songs that may appeal to the FreeThought community:

A few years back Steve Martin, an outspoken Atheist, wrote a song called Atheists Don’t have no Songs which lamented the lack of irreverent songs and artwork to counter the preponderance of explicitly religious material that we are often surrounded with.  I pondered this and decided to dig up some of my favorite songs with FreeThought themes.  They deal with religion, science, or Skepticism from an irreverent point of view.  I cannot guarantee that the creators are all Atheists or make any claims about the intended messages.  It may even be that some of these were not intended to be Atheistic at all.  I cannot get into the minds of the creators but I can say they all deal with themes Atheists can identify with.  Many of these musicians are Atheist and have other material that is critical of religion.  Songs include numerous genres including beat poetry and spoken word material.  One word of caution, some of these songs contains material that may not be suited for young children and NSFW (Not Safe for Work).  Enjoy!

1.   Reality Asylum by Crass

“Jesus died for his own sins, not mine!” This in-your-face spoken word piece by seminal British punk band Crass presents a nasty attack on everything Jesus stands for as a symbol rather than as a person.  The original version appeared on the group’s debut album The Feeding of the 5000 (named for the fact that, they originally intended to only produce 5000 copies).  The employees at the record plant refused to print the album, with this piece as the opening track so on many first pressings the first few minutes contain no sounds and are listed under the title The sound of Free Speech.   I have heard at least one individual compare this track to a Hitch-slap put to music.   Others just find it very unsettling.

2.  Opiate by Tool:

“If you want to get your soul to heaven, trust in me .Don’t judge or question.”  This is the title track of the LA band’s debut album which deals heavily with the evils of religion and takes its name from Karl Marx’s pronouncement that religion is the Opiate of the people.  Keep in mind that Marx was writing at a time when Opiates were the pain killer of choice making his statement more akin to saying, “religion is the Tylenol of the people.”

3.Storm By Tim Minchin:

“Throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be—not magic!”  This is Tim Minchin’s 10 minute beat poem about an encounter with a hippie named Storm.  It is widely considered his masterpiece as well a good introduction to Skeptical thinking.  Also, this piece comes with a nice animated video that goes with the words.

4.  Do the Evolution by Pearl Jam:

Nice evolution themed piece by Pearl Jam with a video that features animation from Kevin Altieri (better  known for his work with Batman The Animated Series) and Todd McFarlane (known for his work with the Spawn comic series).

5.  Born Secular by Jenny Lewis and the Watson Twins

“God goes where he wants, and who knows where he is now?  Not in me!”

This a pretty little number from a side project of Rilo Kiley front woman Jenny Lewis.  The album has several songs with lyrics that are critical of religion but this one always managed to standout for its simplicity and the point message.

6.  What God Wants part 2 by Roger Waters:

“God wants dollars. God wants cents.  God wants pounds, shillings, and pence.” The former Pink Floyd front-man attacks the greed of those in charge of organized religious institutions (or at least that’s how I interpret it).

7.  Dance Like a Monkey by the New York Dolls:

“You’re designed so intelligent!”  This is a fun rocker from one of the seminal bands of the early New York punk scene.  Their influence is incalculable to say the least.  This particular piece from one of their more recent albums,  seems to be making fun of both sides in the evolution creationism discussion and has an interesting animated video to go with it.

8.  Strawman by Lou Reed:    “Does anyone need another president or the sins of Swaggart parts 6, 7, 8, and 9?”  Aggressive piece by the former Velvet Underground front-man named for the logical fallacy where someone attacks an oversimplified version of an opponent’s argument.  This piece gives specific reference to the sex scandal of televangelist Jimmy Swaggart.

9.  Holy Smokes by Aesop Rock:
‘”Till priest’s laps are slapped with parental advisory warnings:  I’ll be auditioning gods in my office on Monday morning.” Underground rapper Aesop Rock offers this lyrically dense, critique of his own religious upbringing.

10.  Atheist Christmas Carol by Vienna Teng
How this ties in with atheism and Christmas was always unclear to me, but it’s certainly a beautiful song.

11.  Listen to my Voice by Gary Numan:
“Listen to my voice and please try and understand, the one you call messiah is lie” Gary Numan first gained international attention with his quirky electro pop song Cars in the early eighties.  In the late nineties, he chose to embrace the heaviness and dark subject matter of some of the bands he inspired.  Now he is a vocal Atheist and his writing features more prominent criticisms of religion.

12. Pope Song by Tim Minchin:
Another Tim Minchin song.  This one is the singer’s reaction to the news that the Pope may have been involved in covering up child abuse.  This song features profuse swearing and a fun animated video. (NSFW)

13.  God by John Lennon
“God is a concept by which we measure our pain.”  This song features the disillusioned former Beatle’s laundry list of things he no longer believes in including God, Jesus, and the Bible.  It seems his list of things he does believe in is much shorter.  This was a highlight of his controversial and hard edged album Plastic Ono Band.
14.  The End of Christianity by The Stooges
Hard rocking track from proto-punk pioneers:  The Stooges.  Enough said.

15.  Losing my Religion by REM
A big hit for alternative rock giants REM.  “Losing my religion” is actually a southern expression for becoming angry as in, “You better stop that right now! I’m losing my religion with you!”

16.  Thoughts of a Dying Atheist by Muse
I always dismissed Muse as a bit of a Radiohead rip-off but I felt that our readers may enjoy this one.

17.  (Don’t Need) Religion by Motorhead
“Don’t need no blind belief. Don’t need no comic relief.”  Motorhead was one of the few bands punks and metal heads could agree on.  They prided themselves as the band that would kill your grass if they moved in next to you.  Enjoy the reckless abandon of this straight-forward rocker.

18.  Wooden Jesus by Temple of the Dog  
For many members of generation X, listening to Temple of the Dog’s only album is a rite of passage.  The album captures members of Pearl Jam and Sound Garden shortly before both groups became famous.  It also was a fitting tribute to singer Andrew Wood whose tragic death took place shortly before hand.

19.  Living in the moment by Mason Jennings
This is a nice live performance of Mason singing a song about living for today and not worrying about some promised after life.

20.  Heresy by Nine Inch Nails

“God is dead and no one cares.  If there is a hell, I’ll see you there”.  Heavy, abrasive, and electronic.  From that filthy nightmare of an album, The Downward Spiral.

21.  Sister Anne by MC5
“She’s gonna make it her own crusade. She’s got a heart of gold. Gonna save a bitch’s soul from goin’ down Satan’s highway.” Kick out the Jams!  This track by Detroit proto-punks, MC5, captures that overly religious friend or family member who is too good-natured for their own good.

22.  Religious Wars by the Subhumans
“In the name of God, they left you to die”.  This is a wonderful punk piece criticizing religious violence.

23.  The Poetry of Reality by Symphony of Science
“There’s real poetry in the real world.”  This is an uplifting project that puts the words of well-known scientists to music.  This piece features Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, and more.

24.  Poison by Tombstone of Da Deadman
Some great hip hop about the evils of religion.  Let’s face it, it is poison.

25.  Demystification by Zounds
“I want some demystification about what’s going on.”  Nice post-punk piece about demystifying your life.

26.  Imagine by John Lennon
And last but certainly not least…

Here’s a blog submission, from Jason Adelstein:

Regardless of what you think of his answers, scientist and author Jared Diamond poses some of the most interesting questions around. I often disagree with his answers, or find them incomplete, but he gets you to think about things that you might not otherwise think about, which is a virtue in its own right.

In this article:

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/13/jared_diamond_its_irrational_to_be_religious/

Diamond poses the question: why are religious supernatural beliefs highly pervasive, mutually incompatible, yet sharing in certain commonalities the world over?

Diamond’s answer seems to be that such irrational beliefs persist because they are overtly absurd enough and distinct enough that espousing them serves a reliable indicator of group loyalty, but they are also close enough to everyday experience to gratify human emotions.

Diamond’s on to something, but maybe missing something too.

We’ve spoken at length on this blog about how morality, while it is an indispensable component of human life, does not come from religion even for the most devout of religious believers. The Bible, for example, advocates a lot of horribly immoral things!

Moral questions are often difficult ones, and the knowledge of how to answer moral questions has been hard won by human civilization over thousands of years. Because it has built up gradually over generations, our individual moral knowledge is often in-explicit; we say that some things just “feel wrong” but can’t easily explain why.

Yet some things that seem morally horrendous to us now, like slavery, didn’t “feel wrong” to most people a few hundred years ago, or in the bronze age when The Bible was written. That’s powerful evidence that morality is a form of knowledge that can be improved over time, rather than something that’s hardwired into our genes or dictated once, infallibly, for all eternity.

The human mind is thirsty for explanations. one reason that people persist in irrational supernatural religious beliefs is to account for the moral knowledge that they have, but can’t explain otherwise. They may know what the right moral thing is, but can’t explain why it is the right moral thing other than by invoking an authoritative deity who they believe decrees it to be so. Never mind that a few hundred years ago, their religious predecessors were absolutely convinced that the same deity had quite the opposite opinion.

And at a personal level, religious believers may often know that doing the wrong moral thing will eventually catch up to a person and make their life worse. But they can’t explain how that will happen, other than by invoking some kind of deity who punishes sinners and rewards saints.

And sometimes, people also can’t muster the self control to do the things they know are right, unless they can convince themselves that a supernatural deity is always standing over them, watching and judging.

So, while morality doesn’t come from religion, our need to explain morality and muster the self discipline to abide by it can be a powerful force in perpetuating irrational religious beliefs. This has profound implications for atheists: we need to not only live moral lives ourselves, but improve our ability to explain moral truths and how to live by them to others in an objective, rational, non-supernatural way.

Please read Diamond’s article and then comment: Is there anything else you think Diamond missed about this question? What do you think of the conjecture that the need to explain our moral knowledge plays a role in the perpetuation of irrational religious beliefs?