A couple of days ago a Massachusetts Senate Candidate allegedly called the Boston bombings a “godless act.” He has since come out and said that he actually said “gutless” not “godless.” Perhaps he did actually say gutless even though he was quoted in at least one news report saying:

“I don’t have any doubt in my mind that they are going to identify the person or people responsible for this horrific, cowardly and godless act. I think there is going to be so much evidence available to the investigators that they will be able to put the pieces together.”

He made his clarification statement very quickly, and it doesn’t matter what he said originally. It’s good that he recognized that a big portion of his constituency is in fact “godless” and it wouldn’t pay for him to be insulting them in such an off-hand manner.

A recent survey from the Pew Forum shows that one in five U.S. Citizens has no religious preference and the number of “nones” is steadily growing. In fact, we now have a “none” in Congress from Arizona. Dave Muscato the Communications Director of the American Atheists is asking for assistance in getting the word out that Atheists object to politicians that describe heinous events like the Boston Marathon bombings as “godless.” “Godless” citizens such as Atheists don’t appreciate being excluded and shut out of the community by such slurs.

He asks that we assist by writing a short paragraph that includes the following three things:

1) Who you are and whom you represent or speak on behalf of (e.g. Matt Dillahunty is President of Atheist Community of Austin)

2) Why you’re hurt by the exclusion from the memorial and/or use of “godless” as a pejorative

3) What you would like to see happen as a solution.

He’s like us to send our replies to BostonResponse@gmail.com.

Here is mine:

My name is Donald Lacey. I’m the Arizona State Director for American Atheists, the Organizer of Tucson Atheists, a Board Member of FreeThought Arizona, the Secretary of the Secular Coalition for Arizona, the Editor of the Tucson Citizen FreeThought Blog, and Podcaster on Desert Air Podcast. I represent the freethinking community in Tucson, Arizona and, more generally, the Atheists of Arizona.

I object to the use of “godless” as a pejorative. Godless Americans are as moral as those with belief in God or gods. There are godless Atheists living good lives without the threat of eternal punishment and doing good things for people daily without the promise of heavenly rewards. Having morals and living an ethical life are not dependent on belief in God or gods. Imagine how marginalized Atheists felt just five years ago when Elizabeth Dole launched her “giant killer” attack on opponent by associating her with an Atheist group only to see the opponent, Kay Hagen, treat the implied godlessness as so offensive that it justified bringing a lawsuit. Both candidates displayed bigotry. Hopefully, we’re in a better place now but we still have a ways to go.

I’d like to see more people respond to the off-hand insults and let the politicians know that they are distancing themselves from a large portion of their constituencies. I’d like to see a growing “freethinking” community that must be considered when someone pursues political office due to the fact that the community is ready and able to respond quickly and publically to such insults with clear reasoned logic. Finally, I’d like to stop politicians from using Atheist and “godless” as insults.

Jim Wilson weighs in on some of the claims of public personalities about the recent tragedy in Connecticut.

In response to the horrific mass shooting in Newtown Connecticut, in which 20 children and 6 adults the gunman and his mother were killed, I have heard numerous people make the argument that this is what happens when you take God out of schools. Apparently, it’s not the shooter who is responsible for these tragic deaths but those of us who had the audacity to remove the Christian God from our public schools.

There is so much wrong with this argument. No one removed God from any school. If we assume for the sake of conversation that the Christian God or something like him exists, it would be impossible for mere mortals to escort him out of a school or any other building for that matter. Supposedly, his powers are infinitely greater than those of us ordinary humans and many believe him to be omnipresent. The very idea of removing an omnipresent being from any location is absurd.

What secularist did do was remove government imposed religious instruction from tax-payer funded schools. When religious conservatives say we took God out of schools, it is code for the fact that the heavy hand of Government is no longer using other people’s tax money to shove Christian religious beliefs down the throats of other people’s children. This governmental restraint is a good thing. Freedom of religion means that government doesn’t force religious instruction on the people. People are still free to teach children about their God in their homes, in religious private schools, and in their churches free from the encroachment of government and the use of other people’s tax money.

But even though public school teachers are no longer allowed to or required to push religious instruction, it still does not mean God has been taken out of schools. Children are still allowed to pray; they just cannot be instructed to do so by a school official. Children are also free to join religious clubs, read religious texts in their free time, and talk among themselves about religious topics. We live in a country where most people are religious and most school teachers and children believe in some form of God but the teachers are not allowed to use their power over the students for religious purposes. As long as public schools continue to give tests there will always be prayer in schools.

Some public figures believe that the increasing secularism of the school system has told God that he has not wanted and that he has withdrawn his “protective influence.” This is such a morally despicable notion. Are we expected to believe that God makes it possible for little children to be brutally murdered solely because adults no longer use the government to force feed kids religious teachings? Do the people who spew such rubbish from their mouths seriously believe that none of the murder victims at that Connecticut school house believed in God or sought his protection? It is highly likely that at least one of the children believed in a God and was otherwise innocent and yet, we are told that they had to die because God was not wanted at their school.

Atheists reject the notion that a God exists and can’t blame removing God from our schools for the recent violence. There is no evidence that any god or any protective influence exists. Such a thing has never been demonstrated. The occurrence and distribution of tragic events in time and space can be explained entirely by individual humans and natural events. Hurricanes, tsunamis, tornados, and killing sprees by deranged individuals hit God believers and sinners alike. Christians, Atheists, Hindus, Muslims, and Jews all die in mass shootings, bombings, acts of war, and terrorism.

The apparent disinterest of God stands in stark contrast to the shameless, manipulative behavior of some of his most fervent, politically-active followers.

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.

The first part of this blog was published on the 16^th, a couple of days ago. Here is the third 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.)

THIRD STATEMENT -

“All Christians believe in the same things.”

The official title of the Mormon Church is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”  It includes the proclamation that its members accept and follow the perceived deity of Jesus Christ. The church also maintains that Christ allegedly visited the American Continent after his crucifixion to teach true doctrine to the righteous descendants of the tribes of Israel who then inhabited the American Continents.

Mormon doctrines in other areas agree with that of many protestant sects. In construction and management the Mormons closely follows an interpretation used by the early Roman Catholic Church in centralizing how scripture and “moral” law are to be interpreted and applied.

Yet dozens, even hundreds of Christian sects, evangelicals, main stream Protestant and Catholic declare Mormons are not Christians.

Another example:

Until the election of John F. Kennedy no Catholic “papist” could be elected to the Presidency of the U.S.A. — because they would take their orders from the Pope. And were Catholics Christian? (Never mind the Constitution’s restrictions against religious tests.)

Schisms based upon both real-world problems and imagined theological discussions over the centuries have driven wedges into Christian beliefs.

To some, Baptists will go to hell, while to others all Jehovah’s Witnesses will take up residence there after death. Catholics know they are going to have to wear asbestos underwear if they wish to visit their Protestant Christian friends in Hell after death. They contend Catholics will be saved to heaven by deathbed confession and absolution by a priest even if the sinner was a cheat, liar, thief, adulterer, fornicator, and in most cases a murderer.  Mormons believe only Mormons can get to “the highest degree of Celestial Glory,” (heaven) but you can join their church by proxy after death and get there if you work at it.  They also believe only ex-Mormons can go to hell or “outer darkness” because they have known, and then denied the truth of the LDS Church and its priesthood.

Very recently the Christian designated First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs, Mississippi refused to permit their pastor to marry Charles and Te’Andrea Wilson in their facility.  The reason?  The couple is African-American (Black.)  The Church governing body (local) felt that blacks should not be married in their religious facility. Why?  Well because their Christian (with a capitol “C”) facility was for marriage of whites only.

For this nation it took a major war and constitutional amendments to give blacks their full rights after the fiasco of the 3/5 of a person and no vote compromise embodied in the original Constitution. Many of the founders knew it was inhumane, immoral, and abhorrent. It eventually led to the Civil War. Then it took another 150 years of struggle and constitutional amendments, the shame of Jim Crow laws, church bombings, lynchings, voting purges, poll taxes, segregation, and massive congressional action to drop the level of racial prejudice to its still unacceptable and inhumane simmering lower level of today.

But those who believe in the inerrancy of the Ten Commandments most often refer to their scriptures as the only correct moral guides.  This, in turn gives credence to those vocal enough to use those “moral” arguments and language. They focus unknowing voters’ attention on issues that end up being used as wedges to facilitate the broad-brush insidious agendas of totalitarian control of information, thought, and liberty. Some even believe segregated church buildings are moral and correct.

To these Christian folks, unlike the Constitution, neither the Ten Commandments nor their scriptures are open to amendment.  To them, as to rebels in the south during the Civil war – owning slaves and racial inequality, was and remains in the same inerrant category and is scripturally supported. It was, and is, to them  a matter of State’s Rights being used in protecting a religious belief and opposing national unity on the value of man.

I said in an earlier part of this essay the Ten Commandments are a distillation of 613 commandments given through Moses in what is called the Old Testament. (Even though it has been revised, condensed, and manipulated many times.)  Most Christians and their sects find the specifics of those 613 laws onerous at best. They tend pick and choose which their specific doctrines and laws they will follow.  As we see in the case of the Wilsons in Mississippi, picking and choosing the way through these ancient moral codes and laws in the Bible brings Christian in conflict with Christian, and none will brook amendments to their beliefs.

Too often the fallacious claim of unity of belief of among all Christians frightens politicians into positions that do not allow for compromise or amendment if they wish to continue to serve in elected office. Promised Christian voting blocks are meaningful in winning re-election.

In past generations, the United States population dealt with major problems and programs by coming together for common secular causes like winning wars, getting out into space, creating highways, and preserving public health through regulation of food and drug supplies.  Today those secular issues are being delayed and subjugated to discussions of matters best dealt with in ecclesiastical realms and in their member’s practices or in the areas of personal belief.

The resolution of these common sectarian issues should be happily applied to believers in the believer’s organized churches. But ecclesiastical matters and decisions have no place being forced upon non-believers.  These include subjects such as divorce, abortion, death with dignity, civil union versus religious concepts of marriage, birth control, the use of Shari’ah law, teaching evolution, and/or unsupported opposing religiously based hypotheses.

The entanglement of church and state in education funding was demonstrated recently in the Louisiana Legislature when it passed a bill to fund religious schools through a tuition transfer bill.  It was a little while before it leaked out how unhappy some legislators became when they discovered that religions other than Christian (for example: Muslims, Mormons, Scientologists and Jews) could receive those funds.

So, in this way, maybe all Christians do think alike.  My late father used to put it this way:

“Hooray for me — the rest of you — go to Hell.”

It may be possible to discuss the Aurora tragedy without getting into the mine infested trench lines of current politics. There are facts and observations that rise above the politics and can form a common basis of discussion. At least, that’s my hope. Let’s dedicate this blog entry to that effort. The idea came from a column in the Silicon Valley Mercury News: Aurora Theater shooting: Gun sales up in Colorado since tragedy. The article states that it is not unusual for gun sales to climb after a shooting tragedy and cites the reaction us Arizonans had after Gabby Giffords was shot here in Tucson. Let’s stay rational about this situation and find some agreements before running for the barricades.

I think we can all agree that buying a gun after such a tragedy isn’t an insane thing to do and it probably won’t have a negative effect on gun violence. Assume the common reaction after such an incident is to arm oneself. If I were to use myself as an example, I’d probably buy a pistol unless I was reacting to a rash of home invasions then my choice would be a 12 gauge “home protector.” Personally, I’d buy a pump because just the sound is unique, well known, and so intimidating.

So far, we’re all good with that I hope. In order to simplify the discussion and focus on the most recent situation, let’s concentrate on the tragedies outside the home like the one in Aurora. I’ll include a discussion of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting and talk about the differences first, then the similarities, and finally a common observation.

In Aurora the gunman didn’t have a specific target as far as we know, while in Tucson Jared Loughner was specifically after Representative Giffords. The suspect in Aurora, James Holmes, used multiple weapons, wore protective gear, and used gas in the attack. Jared used a single Glock pistol with an extended magazine and no protective gear. His attack was in the open, in broad daylight and direct.

There were similarities too. Both men acted alone and made preparations for the attack. They both used legally obtained weapons not commonly used for protection or hunting. Both shooters used a large capacity magazine: Jared’s Glock had a 30 round magazine while James’ had a 100 round drum magazine on his assault rifle. He also carried a pair of 40 caliber Glock handguns and a shotgun. The attacks were quick and the suspects were captured almost immediately. In both cases, many people died. Jared is responsible for 6 deaths and 13 wounded and in the Aurora tragedy 12 died and there were a total of 70 people injured.

What about the common observation that an additional gun in the theater would have saved lives? Here is a video that tries to make that point. Cute! In our own Tucson tragedy there was at least another gun on the scene and the owner of the gun came very close to using it on the person holding Jared down. He didn’t because he saw that the gun’s slide was back and empty—good eye! Things happen quickly and decisions being made by armed citizens could have deadly irreversible consequences. What is needed then are trained armed men to counter the threat but that hasn’t always worked out either. President Reagan was surrounded by the elite armed Secret Service yet Hinckly was able to shoot him in his rib cage before anyone could react. Lynette (Squeeky) Fromme got a .45 pistol within range of President Ford in 1975 and he was similarly protected. Sara Jane Moore got a shot off at President Ford 17 days later. Armed men at the scene, even well trained armed men, are not always the answer. It’s obvious, almost trivial to assume that the tragedies here in Tucson and in Aurora would not have happened if no one had been armed. Here is a COMIC that sums things up. Advocates of gun control have all but lost. Nothing changed after Gabrielle Giffords was shot and nothing will change as a result of the Aurora tragedy, except perhaps for the increase in gun sales. The issue is radioactive, and emotional to the point where there can be no meaningful discussion. I have to ask, however, could we at least consider limiting the lethality and fire power? We already do have some limits. There are already caliber limits and restrictions on owning automatic weapons. Is the slope so slippery that we can’t at least restore the restrictions on magazine capacity?

Jim Wilson tries his hand at prognosticating as he shares his opinions on Rush Limbaugh:

 “So I always believed that if we’re going to have a recession, just don’t participate.”-Rush Limbaugh

Will Rush Limbaugh vote for Obama in 2012?

Of course he will! Just like he voted for Obama in 2008. Do you really think he wanted to spend the last four years defending a McCain/Palin Administration or the next four years defending a Romney administration? I don’t think so.

By the end of George W. Bush’s second term Rush found himself defending a party that presided over the biggest deficit spending since the sixties two unpopular wars a failed response to hurricane Katrina an unpopular bank bailout and the biggest economic downturn and loss of jobs in decades. This had to be a royal chore and from his point of view if a liberal president were ever get elected there couldn’t have been a better time. So much for Karl Rove’s permanent Republican majority…why not let some seemingly liberal newcomer like Obama deal with the growing unemployment and the increasing unpopular wars in the middle east not to mention the enormous debt GW’s administration left behind? The immediate forecast was not looking good so why not let the other team dirty their hands with stimulus packages and high unemployment? Frankly, I cannot for the life of me see why any sane person would want to be president during such circumstances.

In addition, there was not much hope that a Republican administration like McCain-Palin could reverse the downward economic spiral so why not let the libs get themselves all muddy? In 2008, McCain was falling all over himself in the debates and Palin was looking like caricature of shallow opportunism and backwardness. Had they won in 08 convincingly presenting the  Republican brand of conservatism as the wave the future despite continued stimulus packages (which McCain almost certainly would have pushed) would have been an uphill battle.

Conservative talk radio is so much more interesting when the liberals are in charge anyway.

It is such a yawn to turn on the radio and hear how strong the president is and what a good job he is doing. Honestly, if I am going to turn on some political talk radio I want to hear some outrage about big government. It is so much harder to convincingly muster up the needed outrage when your team controls the government prove themselves even more interventionist than the Democrats. It is so much easier to make the case of that conservatives are being marginalized by liberal elites when said elites actually control a few levers of state power. Guys like Rush are only truly able to perfect their art while in attack mode and he is smart enough to know it.

Conservative talk radio runs entirely on fear and loathing and to generate this you need the occasional presumed Black Muslim socialist to take power once in a while. Listeners are far more likely to tune in if they think the liberal elite are just a vote away from seizing their guns, outlawing their marriages, destroying capitalism, and sending all conservatives to death panels. Is it a coincidence that we saw huge growth in militia membership and the rise of the tea party after Obama was elected when fears were drummed up by the conservative talk radio business? Remember how the gun and ammunition business made a killing encouraging everyone to stock up?

A cynical right wing radio host would have every reason to be happy about a dark horse Democrat taking power and the deal has only been sweetened by how little Obama and company have done to change the status quo. After all, it is hard to change much when you are saddled with trillions of dollars in debt from the bush administrations and wars in the middle east. Obama bailed-out the US. Banking system rather than break it up, expanded oil exploration in the US, and cracked down on illegal immigrants. He did not enact immediate withdrawal from Iraq, single payer health insurance, or stronger gun control and has been weak on keeping church and state separate. Rush once said he hoped Obama failed as a president because he did not want to see the “absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible from the banking business to the mortgage industry the automobile business to health care.” We have not seen any of these taken over by the government and conservatives really have lost little ground during Obama’s presidency.

Rush a self-interest driven cynic. He doesn’t care about abortion, war on drugs, Christianity, the sanctity of marriage, or birth control as evidence by his personal history in regard to these issues. These are simply tools to him. His chief allegiance is to the wealthy Republican establishment and the military industrial complex. I have yet to hear him criticize a war or international intervention backed by Republicans or huge deficits run up by Republicans or expansions of government by Republicans. In spite of his claim to be a conservative first and a Republican second, he is clearly a party tool filled with double standards.

Other conservative pundits are probably not voting for Obama. Only Rush strikes me as a cynical self-interested mercenary. His best successes occur when he is in attack mode and does not want to return to apologizing for a non-charismatic B-teamer like Romney. Ironically, Romney’s company, Bain Capital, acquired Rush’s employer, Clear Channel, in 2008.

This post from Jim Wilson highlights unintended consequences:

“Mama’s gonna make all of your nightmares come true. Mama’s gonna put all her fears into you.

Mama’s gonna keep you right here under her wing. She won’t let you fly but she might let you sing.

Mama’s gonna keep baby cozy and warm… Of course, mama’s gonna help build the wall.”

-Pink Floyd Mother

In 1982 a 12 year old Des Moines Iowa paperboy named Johnny Gosch disappeared. The case got enormous attention and caused quite a stir. Further interest in Gosch sprang up years later after his mother claimed to have been visited by the boy in 1999. She insists he is now living under a false identity out of fear for his life. His father questions whether this visit actually occurred at all. The case pushed the issue of child abduction into the national limelight in much the same way the Isabel Celis case here in Tucson. The Gocsh case led to the passing of The Johnny Gosch Bill which mandates immediate police response to calls about missing children in Iowa. There are similar bills in eight other states. He has been missing for over 29 years and for many people his mop-topped face will always be the face of the cause of missing children.

Though I did not live in the midwest at the time the Johnny Gosch affair gained regional and ultimately national prominence, I have many good friends who did. They will gladly testify to seeing dollar bills scribbled with “Help me! – Johnny Gosch.” They recall the overall hysteria that gripped many parents at the time. Multiple friends of mine who were young during the eighties are happy to relay stories albeit rather self-centered ones about how the Johnny Gocsh case single handedly ruined their childhood. Here is a typical response:

“Yeah my parents wouldn’t let me do anything after that little S.O.B. Johnny Gocsh disappeared. No more meeting friends after school, hanging out in public places, or doing anything at all without supervision. Staying at friends houses they would constantly call to check up on us to the point of nuisance.”

Furthermore, this over-cautiousness extended to other areas of life. Parents were less willing to let their kids do things like: ride all-terrain vehicles or play high-contact sports. The whole stranger-danger paradigm really took off at this time and it instilled an irrational fear and suspicion of all persons children did not know. Saying this ruined the kid’s childhood is over the top but it certainly did have a negative impact and it did breed resentment.

I see potential for a lot of this to happen here in the southwest with the case of Isabel Celis. The missing six year old has been gone for a little over a month now. What happened to her is tragic and horrifying and I hope the people responsible for her disappearance are caught soon and severely punished but she shouldn’t be made into a cautionary tale that today’s school children will still resent decades latter. It’s is not right to scare every young child by telling them they better be careful or they will end up like Isabel Celis. Apparently this was a common practice with Johnny Gosch. Being protective of one’s children is a good thing as is teaching them to be aware of danger and how to protect themselves. However, at some level it is over doing it.

Childhood should be a time in which children should enjoy themselves. It is one of the few times we do not have the stresses and pressures of adult life to worry about. Why ruin with over-protectiveness and parental fear-mongering? No one likes living an over-sheltered life. I know many adults that would be much more well-rounded people if they had gotten out a little more when they were younger.

We shouldn’t give up all reasonable precaution. Keep in mind that the likelihood of your child being abducted by a stranger is far less likely than your child being abducted by someone he or she knows. Maybe now is a good time to put GPS units on our kids or maybe there is some other solution. I’m sure there is also a line between what is and is not the appropriate level of protectiveness and maybe our readers can tell us what this is. Also if you have stories of parental fear-mongering feel free to share too.

This is the second installment with permission of the author, Dr. Stephen Uhl.

RELIGION’S ADDICTIVE COMBINATION OF FEAR AND GREED

I remember well responding to such messages, so I readily understand how the credulous person now becomes terrified and feels very inadequate. Sympathize with his fear and insecurity as he says to himself: “What if the preacher is right? He seems so sure of his message! Tradition and my mom support him. Maybe I am inadequate to fight my own battles and repair my own mistakes. I sure don’t want to miss out on the great eternal deal the preacher is offering!” This circular or self-reinforcing system of terror and rewards (stick and carrot) has worked for centuries. Those two strong motivators, fear and greed, figure in here so strongly as to readily establish a self-sustaining cycle.

This self-sustaining stick and carrot cycle helps me understand why most people want to hold on to God or religion. From the days of pre-rational youth, nearly everyone can find reason for distrusting self; older family members, the culture, tradition, the minister, our own stupid mistakes and other authority figures repeatedly gave us reason to distrust our own judgment. For anyone lacking in self-confidence, it is easy to reach for the offered support of redemptive religion, becoming as a little child and believing another more than oneself. Christ is quoted as having said that unless you become as little children you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. The believer feels strong and confident while depending on this superhuman strength, which can motivate him to try to find yet more strength in religion.

The psychological and practical dynamic is very simple and effective. As in classical brainwashing, the first step is to shake the self-confidence that the potential convert may have. Humble him; get him to fear that he is inadequate in himself. For the young and ill-educated, this first stage is usually quite easy. It allows the hearer to become credulous and say “yes,” believing that the trainer, novice-master, or preacher is offering a deal that is superior to what this humbled or guilty one could achieve on his own. So now he jumps at the chance to invest his lowly self to get an eternal reward.

Greed now takes over as he sees he can get a lot for a little. Greed gets stronger as it feeds on itself; the new believer now trusts the salesman’s attractive presentation so completely that he, as a caring person and as an insecure and greedy person, wants to become a salesman or pitch-man himself. This helps him to believe more securely in the promised reward that he now, as the new generation preacher, promises to others. The more believers he can influence to join the righteous, the stronger becomes his own faith. There is, indeed, strength in numbers.

Then a wonderful thing happens on the way to perfection and higher knowledge: the new convert, now a preaching, promising representative of God, experiences a new feeling of superiority and power, a much better feeling than what he experienced as a lowly wretch unworthy of grace. “I was weak, but now I am strong.” The believer’s faith grows stronger the more he preaches it, and so he preaches more enthusiastically, as I myself did. Pretty soon no one can convince him that he might be addicted to the newly found cheap power of being a representative of God with supernatural power.

When Moses couldn’t get the Jews to listen to him as a merely human leader, what did he do? He greedily grabbed a power greater than himself and claimed to have almighty God on his side. The wayward Jews could readily disobey Moses as just a human leader, but when he assumed God’s power, Moses really took charge. “When Moses went and told the people all the Lord’s words and laws, they responded with one voice, ‘Everything the LORD has said we will do.’” (Exodus 24:3) Cheap power, but very effective!

Is this use of cheap power, using greed and fear as it does, much different from the televangelist collecting money from the ignorant and poor who are truly afraid to miss out on cheap help in solving their very real problems? “Send in just $x.00 to help my poor, and I will pray to Almighty God to bless you. He will bless you infinitely (greed on both parts). And if you ignore the needs of the poor and my great, blessed, divine mission, be careful; you may be ignoring God, and if you ignore him, he may just ignore you for all eternity. Now touch your television screen, and I will send a prayer for you.”

For the believing and insecure, this is powerful stuff; fear and greed work. This team of fear and greed drives a great deal of stock market investment activity; and it powers many more millions in their spiritual investment schemes. So they believe in God in great numbers.

Part 3 on Friday will be: RELIGIONS DO A LOT OF VERY GOOD THINGS

Here’s the latest from Jim Wilson:

I saw Cee Lo Green perform John Lennon’s Imagine at Times Square this new year (not live, but on YouTube), and was not surprised that many of my fellow atheists as well as many religious people were upset at his changing of one of the lyrics. The original lyric, of course was  “Imagine… and no religion too.” That line was changed to “and all religion is true”. Here are my thoughts:

First off, I like Cee Lo and nearly all of his music and I have for years. He has a great voice, comes up with original songs and generally has a message that many people should hear, despite that it occasionally has religion mixed in with it. I liked his work as a solo artist, including a certain piece he turned into a mockery of Fox News on the Colbert Report: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/365067/november-09-2010/cee-lo-green as well as his work Gnarls Barkley and especially his work with Goodie MOB (whose name means “the Good die Mostly Over Bullsh*t). Their album Soul Food, especially, managed to combine soulfulness and a overall positive message with gangster rap in a sound that uniquely represented the streets of Atlanta Georgia. Their music documented street life rather than glorifying it, and gave a rather realistic look at poverty, crime and drugs. Many of these songs criticized things like shallow materialism, irresponsibility and using drugs instead of facing one’s own problems and bettering one’s self, though it was presented from voices that knew what they were talking about and admittedly dabbled in some of these vices themselves.

I’m happy to see Cee Lo still topping charts and appearing at high profile events like bringing in the New Years Eve ceremony. I think he brings way more to the table and has much more to say than the vast majority of pop stars. That said, I do have issue with his cover of Imagine. For one, I don’t think covering John Lennon’s solo work or the Beatles (or led Zeppelin and much of the Beach Boys work for that matter) is generally conducive to improving or even complementing the original. In short, I say if it’s not broken don’t fix it. Also, I figure if you are going to cover a song, you should do a less well known song. There are so many wonderful pieces that don’t get much play, and it is great to expose an audience to something they haven’t heard before.

I take issue with altered lyrics. Cee Lo’s message was not the message that Lennon wrote the song to convey. He said no religion, and he meant it. The change very much contradicts the spirit of the song.  The rewrite seems to be in the spirit of inclusiveness. It has the fatal flaw of proposing something impossible and horrendous. Simply put, all religions cannot be true because they make many mutually exclusive claims. Many religious groups believe that they alone are God’s chosen people or that one particular god or particular version of a god is exclusively the only one. This is why religions tend to be exclusive and divisive.

Furthermore, I don’t want all religion to be true. For example, I am very happy the hate-filled vengeful version of the Christian God promoted by the Westboro baptist church (AKA the “God Hates America” people) is not real. I am also glad that the Space Aliens of Scientology and the murderous God of the Taliban does not exist. The prospect of all these being simultaneously existing or being different incarnations of the same being is not an appealing concept the more one thinks about it.

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

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

Happy New Year!