Agnostic Universe

A homosexual student killed himself as a result of intense bullying. They introduced a bill in Michigan for an anti-bullying law named after that student. Republicans added a special exception in the law for bullies who have “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction.” If you came across that story would you view that as a reasonable addition? I came across it and thought, why would they need any kind of protection for the bullies if whatever words or actions were covered under the term of “bullying”? The bill language is now contradictory:

ALL PUPILS ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE POLICY AND BULLYING IS EQUALLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT REGARD TO ITS SUBJECT MATTER OR MOTIVATING ANIMUS…
…THIS SECTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT A STATEMENT OF A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR MORAL CONVICTION.

Now the law would have done nothing for the kid this bill was actually named after if the bullies claim they were making anti-homosexual statements based on sincerely held religious belief. I think this is disgusting and a reason why Christianity should never be tied directly to our government and the laws we create over ALL of the people. This would be a terrible country if the Bible was directly turned into law. Is the Christian god really that anti-homosexual and for what purpose or reason? I do believe people are born with different sexual preferences and their minds are wired that way just like I’m wired to be left-handed. Sure, I could be forced to write right-handed and probably could physically do it if laws and my religion forced me to be permanently right-handed, but it just doesn’t work right and is against my nature as a left-handed person. Fortunately I don’t have a religion trying to tell me what to do.

I’m curious as to what the Christian god really tells the religious about homosexuals since religious people are all over the place on this subject from supportive (the general “love thy neighbor” philosophy) to condemnation of death (Leviticus 20:13 as the literal word of their god). Apparently the Christian god supports the death penalty for homosexual acts. This is obviously the written word of some ancient homophobic human and not the divine word of a perfect creator unless he really wants people put to death for being what they were created to be.

Gretchen Whitmer, Michigan Senator, slams new bullying legislation (video)

I was at an event for work that had various speakers. One of the speakers was obviously religious since he mentioned being blessed in general and blessed by God. He always closed his remarks the many times he was on stage with the phrase “God bless you all”. It gave me an opportunity to think about this and what I normally view as an unnecessary public display of a personal religious belief. It also gave me the opportunity to think about the viewpoint that he shouldn’t be allowed to talk like that since this was a person in the government with some amount of power over some of the people in the audience. Does all religious speech cross the line into endorsement and coercion that infringes upon our freedom of religion?

As a recipient of the speeches I didn’t feel like there was any coercion or intent for me to change what I believe. There wasn’t an expectation of participating in his expression of belief or any judgement of what the audience may or may not believe. It wasn’t any different than politicians on TV saying “God bless America”. Everything he said and how he said it sounded like his personal good wishes for us from his viewpoint as a believer including other casual statements about his own beliefs. If I had said “I wish you all well” with the same feeling and inflection then it would have been an equivalent expression without the backdrop of a personal religious belief. It was simply the fact that he was a religious person that his “well wishing” included his God. In that context, I would think it would actually be less meaningful of a wish for us if he left his God out of it since that was his most sincere form of wishing well to others if you knew that was what he believed.

I don’t believe his words were an endorsement or included any type of coercion to agree with his belief. However, I still don’t think he should say those words as a matter of personal choice even though I know I’m in the minority on seeing it as a bad choice. The reason it is a bad choice is that I don’t believe as he does so his expression of belief leads me to think a certain way about his ability to use logic and judgement to make decisions based in reality. I naturally view such devout believers as potentially close-minded to anything that might conflict with their faith-based beliefs. I have less of a desire to follow such a person since they usually place faith above fact when the two conflict.

Interestingly enough, it’s these religious beliefs that makes the religious people in the audience see him as being more worthy of following since he appears to put his trust in what they think is the same faith as their own. Simply using common Christian phrasings really doesn’t tell anyone about what he really thinks about any given topic. I always hear about how clear the Bible is as a moral guide but what does “God bless you” tell you about a person’s views on issues such as abortion, civil unions, birth control, slavery, women’s roles/rights, suicide, death penalties, war, divorce, working on Sunday, etc. etc. etc. A religious person could instantly put the speaker in a better light just because they say the word God regardless of what that person really thinks or does.

The person saying “God bless you” doesn’t harm me or anyone else. It does negatively impact what nonbelievers think of that speaker. That isn’t a big impact currently since we’re in the minority. However, I also think it negatively impacts believers as well since they make positive assumptions about the speaker that are based on faith and have no relation to how that person really thinks or acts. This happens far too often when faith is viewed as more important than facts when the two are in conflict. Add this to the list of the many ways that religion and a reliance on faith does not help you in your life. Faith leads people to follow others based upon faith instead of reality. That’s a potentially dangerous reason to follow another human without question or critical thought of your own. Even if you are religious, please don’t do anything based on faith alone!

My mother forwarded yet another religious spam email. This one was titled Billy Graham’s Prayer For Our Nation and ends with a call for a return to “One Nation Under God”. According to Snopes it isn’t from Billy Graham but that doesn’t really matter much regarding the intent of the email. The general text of the email sent to me is in that Snopes article if you’re interested.

Taken on face value as simply human values what does most of these items have to do with anything written in the Bible and a supposed dictated word of God? Does that book really give an exact recipe for a Christian-only government and such things as the nuances between a government sponsored form of charity and an overly dependent welfare system that is detrimental to society? The Bible does say certain things are punishable by death (usually a stoning) so how is the killing of an abortionist contrary to the general morality of the Bible? I do believe in the wisdom and values of the forefathers of this country but they didn’t create One Nation Under God as this email implied. Kenneth Davis had a good article on CNN recently about this. One Nation is inclusive and Under God is exclusionary so this phrase never made any sense to me.

Look at this fantasy art piece I came across while searching for information about One Nation Under God. I found this to be hilarious because the artist honestly believes in Jesus as the origin of our government and the Constitution for the people even though the Constitution has zero mentions of God, Jesus, or any creator reigning over “We The People”. It is a great visual depiction of what a Christian nation would be if one existed because the Constitution would have dictated the leadership of God and Jesus over the People as central to the government with a setup for worship and fidelity to that specific structure. This contrasts to the actual setup we have of a self-governing organization of checks and balances that were an attempt to protect individual liberties and societal justice instead of defining an exact and unchanging morality dictated by a religious leadership under the direction of One Nation under One God and following the literal word of the Bible as the rule of law.

Oh well, most people get these emails and just say it sounds good and it matches with the feel-good things they think they believe. This is cotton candy for the mind that reinforces “God is good, humans are evil, and we should listen to the God-believing humans to tell us how to think and what we should do with our resources.” The same goes true for politics and I wish people wouldn’t consider themselves Republicans or Democrats even if politicians are doing it. We should actually think for ourselves without labels while expecting the same from our political leaders. If we really had One Nation Under God in practice we could have just one political party because the religious right version of the Republican Party would be the only one true party needed under God.

Instead, since we are in practice a country of E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One) then we really should have more choices and parties representing our political beliefs and all of the variations in the reality of humanity. It seems like we’ve been reduced down to a country of Out of Two, One with one side of that really pushing One Nation Under God to kick out the views of the other half of the two.

I posted this as a comment reply to The Golden Rule post but it’s long enough to elevate to an actual blog post.

I assume humanity works through our standards of good in any given situation as an imperfect society of fellowship with our laws to guide us. A “standard” is universal and applies to all situations. “Thou shall not kill” is an absolute standard of good that should prevent you from using deadly force as a police officer or defend the country as a military member, but most bible believers judge for themselves when this supposed absolute standard of good actually applies. All religions don’t have a standard of good that contradicts the rest of humanity because it is all of humanity that shares in the universal guide of the “golden rule”. It is just a guide and is not perfect in itself. If I were a twisted individual that enjoyed pain I should not follow “do unto others…” and inflict pain on other people.

It’s funny you think I said Americans are not good and even quote the word “not” as if I said it. Saying a country appears to be nicer and safer than mine doesn’t mean the United States is not also nice and safe. I just said that Japan appeared to be higher on the scale of a “good society.” There isn’t a specific standard for a good society unless you want to try to make something up with crime statistics and the amount of individual freedoms enjoyed by the people if such things can be quantified.

We are all evil? It is the saddest thing for me to read when I come across it and is definitely one big thing I find wrong with religion. I believe most people are good and you believe everyone is evil. We use our inherent good as a society to collectively determine what is good for our societies. It isn’t perfect but our tribes have managed to graduate to governments and laws that work fairly well for some of the basics of good. If someone steals from me or murders my family (we can agree on those being bad, right?) then police, courts, jail, etc. all step in and take care of this. Hopefully the police could step in and prevent murder of my family but taking care of the murderer is the action that stops that person from killing again.

What does religion do in all of this? Here is the religious standard of good and how it operates. We are all evil sinners so religion offers forgiveness for the murderer. If they can only find Jesus then the murderer should be set free to live for Christ and kill again in his next moment of weakness. It’s not his fault because God made us as pure evil. What kind of nonsense is that? I don’t think most people have evil thoughts and urges. Let’s continue down your thought process that the bible is the standard of good. The 10 commandments should become law for this country and our most severe punishments should be for violating them since this is the top 10 list. So if I have another god before your god or create false idols I should be punished more severely than being a murderer if the commandments are ranked in order of importance. I should be punished for the thought crime of coveting. All parents should be honored so I think that does away with child protective services and the crimes of child abuse. These are just some applications of your good from the top of my head.

You are good without god. We are not evil. I don’t need Christ to stop my hand from stealing from you, killing you, or any other evil deed that you think we all are compelled to do since we are evil. Simply providing “Christ” as the ultimate standard just will not cut it. Humans do disagree at many points, and we work through it situation by situation. If it were perfect then one true church would currently rule the world and we’d only need a single priest to serve as judge and jury over all evil deeds. You can ask god and the Pope how well that one works out for us all.

Atheist Revolution has a post concerning Taking Back America For Atheists which suggests that Christians have taken over America. It has a criticism of patriotism while suggesting atheists should become patriotic to “take back America.” I need to reply to a few of these ideas.

First, this isn’t a Christian nation and there’s nothing to “take back” since it still belongs to all of the people regardless of their religious belief. Even the Muslims still have freedom of religion even if there are currently some that are vocal for limiting their freedoms in this country. Religious freedom needs to continue to be protected for all, but it’s not yet time to sound the alarm of a Christian takeover. Yes, I said religious freedom needs to be protected. If I am free to think and believe what I want then everyone else should be free too. We need to live together without interferring with each other’s freedoms.

I never feel threatened or compelled to engage in religious belief because of my government. The only threatening thing I can’t opt out of that I can think of is “In God We Trust” on my money. Obviously we don’t all trust in God so that needs to change back to E Pluribus Unum as the original motto that captures the true spirit of the country. “One Nation, Under God, Indivisible” is also divisive but I’m not obligated to say it and I won’t get thrown in jail if I don’t. I can hold my head high and reflect on our freedom while everyone else bows their head in prayer at a sporting event. The religious police don’t come over and haul me away for not praying and I’ve never received any weird looks or threats for it. If most people at the event want to participate in a prayer, then why should I care as long as I’m not compelled to join in?

Yes, I think prayer has no business in an official government setting led by government officials, but if they allow all beliefs to have a turn at it then that supports freedom of religion for me. If they limit it to Christian prayer then they’re just wrong since that’s not the law of this country. We usually get that kind of thing corrected. A “take back America” for any one group as an attitude is unpatriotic to me since we should all fight for each other’s freedom to believe and act how we want. Many times I’ll see the majority doing things I don’t like or won’t participate in but as long as I’m still free to not join the majority, then we’re good.

Our very secular government serves all of the people. Until I hear of a day that the police, fire department, social services, or any other governmental function will not serve me for my lack of belief in god, then I see every reason to continue as a patriot of our country. In my time of need I know I won’t just get prayed for instead of receiving government action. There are flaws and problem areas caused by religious people, but we’re doing pretty good overall. Our government and the laws of this country are the only things a freethinker has to be thankful for on any level close to that of a deity. The country is definitely a greater power than any individual. Our society and our government allows me to live the life I have without fear of the thought police or other forms of mob rule over an individual. These are some of the reasons I think freethinkers should be a patriot and a fan of our country. This definitely isn’t Iran, North Korea, or China. Right now we have some pretty good legal protections for a lack of belief even if we don’t exactly have a utopian freedom from religion. I agree this isn’t a permanent trait of the country and it does need some improvement and protecting, but we haven’t lost America yet.

Freethinkers are the best patriots as exemplified by someone like Thomas Paine and we have every reason to continue in the footsteps of someone like him. If this country really is about liberty, freedom, and the Bill of Rights then anyone trying to remake us into a Christian nation is the most unpatriotic type of person of all. The Atheist Revolution post has it right in saying:

The Christian right has long had their version of a “take back America” movement, exemplified most recently by Fox “News” windbag, Glenn Beck. But they seek to take us back to a fictional time and place, turning us into something we’ve never been and that actually violates much of the Constitution.

My feedback on the marketing approach of saying atheists should have their own “take back America” movement is to say that America isn’t lost yet. The real movement would be to remind everyone how secular the government really is and have a patriotic movement that protects freedom, liberty, and justice for ALL, not just the “right type of Christian” that would get more and more restrictive if we ever went down that road. Marketing would say things like “True patriots defend freedom of belief” and “true patriots want liberty for all, not just one type of God believers.” We don’t need to “take back America” and we just need to protect it from “my group only” attacks since “America is freedom for ALL.”

I have a funny side note since the post mentioned Glenn Beck. I’ve seen where Glenn Beck apparently idolized Thomas Paine for Common Sense and wrote a book based on that pamphlet. I definitely recommend another work by Thomas Paine called The Age of Reason, which is a wonderful critique of religion. This is from the same person that’s hailed as the The Father of the American Revolution and considered to be one of the founding fathers of the United States. Some Christians believe the United States was built in the Christian image while leaving God and Jesus completely out of the documents that serve as the foundation for our government when in truth it was created in the minds of people like Thomas Paine.

Speaking of the Pledge of Allegiance, if you don’t believe me that it didn’t always contain the phrase “under God” then I’m sure you wouldn’t doubt Porky Pig, would you?

There’s billboards showing part of the original 1892 version of the Pledge of Allegiance before it was modified in 1954 to add in the words “under God.” Some anti-free speech Christians vandalized and defaced one of these billboards to add in the words “under God.” This funny cartoon takes it to the next step by adding in a variety of gods that it would apparently represent in a free country. Can’t we just get back to E Pluribus Unum??? Out of Many, One!

Hope is a secular emotion that trumps faith every time in my opinion. Hope can lead to action, whereas faith can let people sit back and pray for someone else to take care of things. It is good to see Obama’s message of hope. I sure hope he doesn’t lean on faith as heavily as Bush appeared to have. I also hope he doesn’t continue the government supported spread of religion through Bush’s heavy support of faith-based institutions.

The article Obama’s religion-studded inauguration joins a long history speaks of the religious aspects of Obama’ inauguration. Some atheists even sued to block “So Help Me God” from the oath of office as well as trying to remove ceremonial prayers. This really irks some nonbelievers and I actually disagree with them on this one. It’s all a matter of perspective and context in regards to our religious freedoms. For example, I do want In God We Trust removed as the national motto and E Pluribus Unum restored as a much better motto representing our freedom. These words are supposed to represent us all. I want Under God removed from the Pledge since we are all expected to say it. I myself have taken some oaths and So Help Me God was optional so I was free to personally not say it. This is also true for the President’s Oath of Office.

Obama is a Christian now. He has religious freedom and should be allowed to do certain things as a part of his inauguration. I would expect him to say So Help Me God since there is meaning to that for him to swear on a Bible. If he didn’t, I’d definitely wonder why he was unwilling to swear on the Bible as the Christian he is. Now, if an unbeliever were made President I’d be very happy for his or her freedom to not swear on a Bible and I’d believe in their affirmation that they would uphold the Constitution since that guiding document doesn’t have a Bible that could conflict with the desires of the people. When nonbelievers are forced to do things of faith, then that is when I have a problem with religious freedom in our country.

The invocations and prayers in the ceremony are there for those that believe and many faiths can and are represented. Why strip that away? I don’t have to participate and believe in what is presented. I won’t be jailed if I don’t bow my head and say Amen when that optional part is going on. I would actually urge that in any such traditional government setting that as many faiths as they can are represented so everyone becomes more aware that there are many beliefs. If you only get exposed to your own over and over you may never figure out the real truths of the universe. The government showing all of the major beliefs instead of just Christianity would be more powerful than just stripping these prayers from the public square. I want to see Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist prayers every time they do these things.

I wanted to weigh in on this topic since some unbelievers do actually attack religion in the government no matter the context. We have to keep in mind that the government is made up of people and many of them do believe in their religion. They should have certain freedoms as individuals even as a part of the business of government. We need to fight anything that goes over the line of an establishment of religion and keep mindful that optional religious practices as a part of the government don’t actually hurt us.

There is a more expanded article below concerning the Illinois representative that verbally attacked an atheist for simply being an atheist. The first two paragraphs are thought-provoking for any nontheists. How many of us actually hide because it is so easy for us to not be identifiable as nontheists? I would admit that I am one of them since it is easier to operate under the radar than to openly let people know I don’t believe in their gods.

Garden is Beautiful: Public eruption against atheism

There is no doubt that atheists in the United States form a persecuted minority. From general public opinion to specific Constitutional prohibitions, there are many barriers preventing atheists from equal recognition as American citizens, opportunities for holding public office, and the protections of civil rights legislation which defend other religious groups. However, in many ways, atheists are more fortunate than other minority groups. There are no differences in physical appearance with which they can be segregated, they have no formalized rituals or gatherings that could be used to distinguish them, and, if necessary, they can easily disguise their beliefs.

However, those who desire the right to free expression of their beliefs, which is theoretically given to everyone under the United States Constitution, must be prepared to face the consequences of a society still strongly biased against them. While it would be easy to assume that this bias is held only by a vocal but insignificant minority of the population, we were reminded last week that it is ingrained even in the highest levels of government.

Democrat Monique Davis has represented Illinois’s 27th House of Representatives district in the state’s General Assembly for over 20 years, and she has earned a reputation as one of the most influential members of the body. The rewards she has reaped during her term of services include a seat on the powerful State Government Administration Committee, and it is this position which gave her the opportunity to launch one of the most hateful tirades in modern American politics last Wednesday, a tirade which shows how far the United States has to go before atheism is given the respect as a philosophy which it is due.

The incident occurred as noted secular activist Rob Sherman was testifying before the committee on the question of a $1 million grant directed towards the Pilgrim Baptist Church. Sherman’s argument was that such an explicitly religious contribution amounts to nothing more than a state-sponsored religion, one which the First Amendment clearly prohibits. However, Rep. Davis, insistent on the grant’s passing, decided to ignore the Constitutional angle and turn the hearing into a forum on religious belief. She interrupted Sherman to comment, ” I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it’s really a tragedy – it’s tragic — when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school. I don’t see you [Sherman] fighting guns in school. You know?”

Already, Davis has set up a false pretense with which to attack Sherman; the hearing was neither about school prayer nor gun control. While it is true that Sherman has an established reputation as an opponent of prayer in public schools, this was irrelevant to the issue at hand. Furthermore, I very much doubt that Sherman has any desire to see weapons in schools either. Davis’s pointless tangent displayed a great failing in her role as a legislator; however, she was just getting started.

Rep. Davis continued, “I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.” Again, questions of what Sherman believes or even whether his personal philosophy has any validity have no bearing on the legality of the proposed grant, and again, Davis rashly assumes that Sherman’s atheism equates to a moral opposition or ambiguity to ensuring the security of children. It is interesting that she cited Abraham Lincoln to defend her point, a president known for making statements highly critical of organized religion.

Yet Davis would soon move in an even more venomous direction. “What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous” she railed, and when Sherman interrupted to ask “What’s dangerous, ma’am?” She responded “It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you’ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands.” What Davis seems to be proposing is the censorship of an entire belief system based on a wholly flawed assumption that it somehow supports violence in schools. Apparently, she is unaware of exactly how many lives have been lost in the name of Christianity and how many positive contributions to the progression of America those with atypical religious beliefs have made. The assumption is that the culpability for school violence rests on anyone who does not accept Rep. Davis’ chosen view of God, and, as someone whose beliefs clearly differ strongly from hers, I refuse to accept this. There is no room in a secular humanist worldview for the murder of children. Nothing could be more horrifying to me.

Davis finished her rant by nearly screaming, “I am fed up! Get out of that seat!” Sherman calmly responded “Thank you for sharing your perspective with me, and I’m sure that if this matter does go to court…” but Davis shouted him down, continuing, “You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.” Apparently, Sherman has no right to free speech, no right to petition the legislators he helps to elect, and no right to defend his nation’s Constitution.

Monique Davis clearly has no understanding of the legislative process, of the United States Constitution, or of the respect due to all Americans, including Rob Sherman or any other nontheist. Yet what is even more frightening is the tepid public outcry over her bigotry. If she had launched the same tirade against Christians, Jews, or even Muslims, calls for her resignation or impeachment would be immediate and forceful. However, it is now over a week since the incident occurred, and there seem to be no plans to force her removal or censure her at all. It is a sad mark of how deeply held the anti-atheist sentiment of this nation is that Rep. Davis can get away with being this hateful and ignorant while retaining a powerful governmental position; the unfortunate conclusion is that we cannot be sure our public policy is being created by individuals who have some respect for the values of tolerance upon which this nation was founded.

Are freedom of religion and freedom of speech only applicable to Americans with the majority belief and majority viewpoint? Read below to make you wonder about how free we really are when the citizens we elect to represent us think otherwise.

Representative tries to put the fear of God in atheist

Did you hear about the state legislator who last week blasted a Lutheran minister during a committee hearing for spewing dangerous religious superstitions, and then attempted to order the minister out of the witness chair on the grounds that his Christian beliefs are “destroying what this state was built upon”?

Of course you didn’t, because it didn’t happen and would never happen. Not to a Christian, not to a Jew, not to a Muslim or to anyone who subscribes to any faith.

Such an attack would rightly be considered scandalously out of bounds in contemporary society.

But you probably also didn’t hear about what actually did happen:

Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) interrupted atheist activist Rob Sherman during his testimony Wednesday afternoon before the House State Government Administration Committee in Springfield and told him, “What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous . . . it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!

“This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God,” Davis said. “Get out of that seat . . . You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.”

Apparently it’s still open season on some views of God.

Outside of Change of Subject, where I posted a transcript and the audio, Davis’ repellent, un-American outburst received no attention whatsoever.

It’s interesting that having a contrary viewpoint of a god’s existence is seen as destructive and dangerous to believers. If religion is really true, then how could nonbelief be such a threat? I don’t see too many nonbelievers acting as threatened by the lies of religion to their truth as the reverse manifests itself. In fact, many of the religious are threatened by simple questioning of belief. I think it just shows that at their core, people know they are holding on to and need to defend a universal lie instead of an ultimate answer.