Juxtaposition

The next time some religious person tries to say that there is some secular conspiracy around religious holidays and that the common secular symbols, such as the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, etc. are taking away from the significance of their holiday, remind them that their religion is primarily responsible. Easter is a perfect example. Most of the supposed "secular" symbols were actually Pagan symbols that were co-opted by early christians in an attempt to make their religion more palatable to the Pagans and make it easier to convert them.

The Pagan origins of the Easter Bunny talks about how Eggs, the word Easter, and the Bunny were Pagan symbols from Vernal celebrations co-opted by christians.

The Pagan origins of Easter conflicts somewhat with the aforementioned site but still shows how many of the symbols existed long before Jesus supposedly came on the scene.

More important is to remember how many of the core symbols of the christian Easter story were actually co-opted from previous religions, including Pagan. The crucifixion, resurrection, drinking blood and eating his body, etc. are all symbols from Pagans. Most of them are parallels to the Egyptian god Horus.

The Religious Tolerance website has tons and tons of other quotes, discussions, references about bible and religious teachings that are very interesting.

Posted by at 12:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This is so rich. A group is trying an argument from absurdity tactic to show how ridiculous the claim that Washington State's Andersen v. King County decision is that declared a "legitimate state interest" for the state to restrict same-sex couples from legal marriage.

Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance

If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would:

* add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
* require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
* require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
* establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
* make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

Posted by at 7:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was bummed that he didn't come to Seattle on his tour, but I'll enjoy listening to the mp3 of his appearance in Silicon Valley.

Who Has Time For This?: Silicon Valley Loves Richard Dawkins

Posted by at 6:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There is only one question and the answer is not 42.

The Official God FAQ

Posted by at 10:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Financial and ecological consequences by delaying the inevitable though.

Think Progress » GLOBAL WARMING REPORT: Right-Wing Fiction vs. Economic Reality

Posted by at 7:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Debunking Christianity: My Debate With David Wood on the Problem of Evil

October 7th but in Virginia. Transcript and video will be available afterward. I'll be watching it...

Posted by at 4:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The struggle to find the downside ended in failure at Pandagon

There are laws that prevent some businesses from being open on Sundays??? I thought it was "christian" pandering by businesses. It is really annoying that so many businesses are closed Sundays and if the government is the reason why, then that is appalling.

I like the quote about "God doesn't do well in the free market."

Posted by at 6:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

" href="http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2006/07/2-2-jesus-rode-dinosaur-new-from-apple.html">2 + 2 = Jesus rode a dinosaur

This made me wonder if the bible mentions anything about dinosaurs. If it doesn't, does that mean they never existed (for those inclined to believe that everything about the world can be derived from the bible)?

Posted by at 5:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Seattle Times: Nation & World: God is warning of big storms, Robertson says

This must be true because Robertson obviously is Higher-powered (as reported by my colleauge Pete):

I don't know about you, but I almost missed this. Pat Robertson's amazing age-defying protein shakes have helped him to leg press 2,000 pounds! http://www.cbn.com/communitypublic/shake.asp If that doesn't sound impressive to you, note that it tops the all-time Florida State University leg press record by 665 lbs, set by a guy whose eye capillaries burst during the effort. http://www.sportsline.com/spin/story/9454343

Posted by at 2:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Several articles on the topic of the government pushing religion.

Drum-beating about the 9th circuit decision about "Under God" in the pledge:

AMERICAN ATHEISTS LEGAL UPDATE

Public prayer fanatics borrow page from enemy's script

The Bush administration has been dealt a setback in its campaign to allow prayer in our public schools. The full 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has voted 15-9 to back the 2-1 vote by its earlier panel finding the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because of the words ''under God.''

How did your senator vote on the pledge legislation (" S. Res. 71 As Amended; A resolution expressing the support for the Pledge of Allegiance.")?
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

The Sacramento Bee -- sacbee.com -- Diana Griego Erwin: Pledge debate recalls another tradition, another controversy The best quote is, "the Constitution wasn't written to uphold majority opinion." It was written to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

The 9th Circuit seems to agree. Our Constitution protects the freedom of us all, Jew, Christian, atheist, Muslim, Buddhist or agnostic to pray or keep silent, worship or not, believe or disbelieve. Standing outside the classroom door to avoid participating is exclusionary, especially for children.

At my school in the 1960s, one student couldn't pledge allegiance to the flag because her family was Jehovah's Witness. Being children, we thought she was weird. She even seemed less American. She was just a little girl.

And finally, an article debunking the religious nut talking point that we are a "Christian nation". The Nation | Article | Our Godless Constitution | Brooke Allen

Posted by at 2:26 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Daily Kos: McCain Embraces Falwell In All His Wingnut Glory

I thought that McCain was one of the good guys but when he can't even be true to his own assertion that Falwell is one of the "agents of intolerance", what kind of integrity does he really have? Disappointing. I'm glad that John Stewart pushed him about this on The Daily Show. The "real" news media certainly did not point this out.

Posted by at 10:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Carpetbagger Report: Blog Archive: The last taboo

I do not equate "not professing a particular affirmative belief" with "professing a non-affirmative belief" in god nor do I care enough to claim myself an "atheist" but I don't think that the religious segment of this country makes any distinction between the various kinds of non-theists so it does not matter. They don't care what you believe unless it isn't what they believe. [I consider myself part of the general "non-theist" category and most aligned with Humanism]

The general distaste of atheists is not very surprising given the amount of so-called "christian" religions that make belief in Jesus a prerequisite for avoiding eternal damnation (not doing good deeds or anything--just simply being coerced into believing in Jesus is all you need).

This reminds me of the exchange in Carl Sagan's excellent book Contact where Jodi Foster's character, who was a scientist and a nontheist, was demonized by the religious segment as not being able to represent this country's values. All the more troubling when nontheists often have less contradictory and more consistent and humanistic values than the religious stalwarts. Just because those values are not rooted in a belief in the supernatural they are cast aside as having less worth.

People still make brash generalizations about people through superficial categorizations rather than fully try to understand others. Not much different from any other prejudice. Ignorance reigns supreme.

Posted by at 12:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Daily Kos: "Incompetent Design" theory

Take that and this Creationists and foes of science:

Evolution of 'irreducible complexity' explained

Posted by at 9:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Boing Boing: Prayer won't heal ya

A new scientific study shows that prayer didn't seem to help patients who underwent bypass surgery. In fact, some of the people who were prayed for did worse. The results of the study of more than 1,800 patients were published in the American Heart Journal.

So all the sports teams should think twice about relying on prayer to get to the championship. And think twice about god miraculously saving you. Evidence that things may just "happen" without divine intervention.

Posted by at 9:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Jerry Falwell issues correction, Jews ARE all going to hell

It must be nice to be in a religion where you can be a callous, holier-than-thou prick and still get into heaven. It also must be nice that all you have to do to get into heaven and avoid eternal damnation is to believe in some shit. The world is such an amazing place where you have free will, but if you process information about that world incorrectly and decide to not believe in Jesus as your saviour, you can suffer for all eternity. Nice. And they get out of having to be Jesus-like in this life in order to get into heaven. Do-gooders need not apply to heaven! Sounds more like the lazy, judgemental person's religion.

Posted by at 8:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Web exclusive: 'How should we study religion?' by Daniel Dennett | Prospect Magazine March 2006 issue 120

Daniel Dennett was just in Seattle, but I missed him. But my colleague saw him and filled me in. His fundamental point is that we need to remove the stigma attached to scientifically studying religion, which I agree with. He also has a different take on the role and origin of religion as a "natural phenomena" rather than what I have typically seen as more of a "tribal tendency" theory in terms of evolutionary advantage of religion. An interesting claim that is often made by religious people is that without religion, there an be no morality. So, Dan suggests that we should empirically study questions like these--put them to the test. I hardly believe that in the overall scheme of life that religion generally makes people more "moral" than nontheists. There are a lot of atrocities done in the name of religion that will deduct from that tally.

Favorite quotes from the debate:

Presumably this same foresighted creator anticipated the amusement the unbelievers would feel when contemplating the recent declarations by Pat Robertson to the effect that Ariel Sharon's ill health was God intervening to punish him for ceding Gaza. I'm sure you'll tell me that our expectations about what a good creator would want, and do, don't extend to such particulars as these, but why are your expectations any better grounded than mine? You haven't told us what the rules of this game are.

You find it improbable that there would be a multiverse of all physically possible universes, including ours. Is it less improbable than that there would be an omnipotent, benevolent universe-creator? I don't think so, and here Bayesian probability theory gives no leverage, so far as I can see. Both are mind-boggling prospects—but that doesn't give yours the edge.

I see no reason to go along with your hypothesis that we're just what to expect from a perfect and omnipotent creator.

Posted by at 4:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Salon.com News | How the secular humanist grinch didn't steal Christmas

A great article in Salon with actual _facts_ instead of anecdotes. Remember kids, anecdotes is not the plural form of the word data.

one can in fact offer Christmas greetings without legal counsel. Christmas trees are permitted in public schools. (They're considered secular symbols.) Nativity scenes are allowed on public property, although if the government erects one, it has to be part of a larger display that also includes other, secular signs of the holiday season, or displays referring to other religions. (The operative Supreme Court precedent is 1984's Lynch v. Donnelly, where the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a city-sponsored Christmas display including a cr�che, reindeer, a Christmas tree, candy-striped poles and a banner that read "Seasons Greetings" was permissible. "The display is sponsored by the city to celebrate the Holiday and to depict the origins of that Holiday," the majority wrote. "These are legitimate secular purposes.") Students are allowed to distribute religious holiday cards and literature in school. If the administration tries to stop them, the ACLU will step in to defend the students' free-speech rights, as they did in 2003 when teenagers in Massachusetts were suspended for passing out candy canes with Christian messages.

In fact, there is no war on Christmas. What there is, rather, is a burgeoning myth of a war on Christmas, assembled out of old reactionary tropes, urban legends, exaggerated anecdotes and increasingly organized hostility to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Posted by at 10:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Evolution in the bible, says Vatican - The Other Side - Breaking News 24/7 - NEWS.com.au

The vatican taking a modern position? Wow. This doesn't make up for their handling of the sex abuse scandals but it's a positive sign.

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally. Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.

Posted by at 10:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

NPR : There Is No God

Just in time for the holidays, a piece on what people believe that is not necessarily in the mainstream. A good reminder that not everyone believes the same as you do, especially among the "christian" religions.

Penn Jillette wrote an excellent piece for NPR's "This I Believe" series on why he is "beyond Atheism". Many religious people don't understand or simply don't believe that you can have morals without god but I think that Penn has a very simple model that explains how there are even possible advantages to the atheist moral world view:

Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.

He also discusses many other advantages to a godless world that are well worth reading, especially if you are religious; not because it should convince you to not be religious but because it can help you understand that it is just as legitimate a position as your religious position. And hopefully soften some of the anti-atheist views held by most of America.

Posted by at 10:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Pandagon: 'Tis the season to 'persecute' Christians

A couple more years of this hysteria and the use of "Merry Christmas" as shorthand for, "I hate you and everything you stand for because you didn't pass my Christian sniff test, hellbound motherfucker,"

Now that sounds consistent with the loving Christian attitude fostered by Pat Robertson.

CNN.com - Robertson warns Pennsylvania�voters of God's wrath - Nov 10, 2005

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

Don't you just enjoy how much love and inclusiveness there is at the Holidays? Sheesh.

Posted by at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

O'Reilly opens new front in "war" on Christmas ... [Media Matters]

O'Reilly is ridiculous and a hypocrite. He is trying to create a controversy where one does not exist and then beat that dead horse senseless. And his issue? "Season's Greetings" and "Happy Holidays" used by businesses around this time of year "absolutely does [offend Christians]. And I know that for a fact."

Here's how he is a hypocrite (one of many ways). It's okay for him to be offended when the Christian aspect is _not_ specifically mentioned, but non-Christians do not get this same right. But this is okay because O'Reilly says, "I don't believe most people who aren't Christian are offended by the words "Merry Christmas." Nevermind this is a baseless position to take. And the possibility that non-Christians could be just as incensed as he is is not only discounted, but he resorts to ad-hominim attacks against those non-Christians, "I think those people are nuts. I think you're crazy if you're offended by the words "Merry Christmas."

To summarize:

Christians: Have a right to be offended when Christian-specific language is _not_ used at the holidays and can be offended when inclusive language is used, such as "Happy Holidays".

non-Christians: If they are offended by exclusive language such as "Merry Christmas", they are "nuts" or "nutty customers". Further, businesses should ask, "why do you want them [as customers] anyway?" Not only should exclusive _language_ be used, but business should actually think hard about _actually excluding_ them from the customer base.

He wants to see businesses only address the Christian aspect of the holiday season specifically.

But he then contradicts himself when he says, "the smart way to do it is "Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Season's Greetings, Happy Kwanzaa." So it's okay to say "Season's Greetings" now or isn't it? Clear as mud, but what do you expect?

Posted by at 9:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

AMERICAblog: Religious right bigots upset that a US Senator called them on their religious bigotry

Yet another reason to love Vermont Senator Pat Leahy.

Posted by at 10:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In a 6-4 vote, the Kansas school board voted in favor of teaching Intelligent Design in Schools.

Two words: F*cking idiots.

There is some good news in the realm of the New New Creationism though:

Intelligent Design Candidates Voted Out in Penn. Hooray! To show how huge htis was, 8 out of the 9 members who voted in favor of ID as an "alternative" to evolution were up for election; all 8 were voted out.

Science & Theology News also has a list of the ID players

Posted by at 7:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4847626&ft=1&f=1001

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Just take the freaking words "under God" out of the pledge that weren't there to begin with and the problem goes away!

Posted by at 9:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

First Ann Coulter on the cover of Time, now a so-called-news story on religion vs. science (which is a false dichotomy IMHO)

"Welcome to Jesusland" Part Deux...

The United States of Almighty-God

Ugh.

Posted by at 4:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Close to adopting "intelligent design" in Kansas. They're joining Pennsylvania. FYI, there was an update on NPR from Oct 21 about the Pennsylvania case. It may be good that this is not a jury trial. The defense is now bringing on their witnesses about the merits of the "theory" of intelligent design. At least the science teachers at the schools in question had refused to read the ridiculous statement about intelligent design being another "theory" that is out there.

Also good news: 8 of the 9 school board members are up for reelection. More reason to vote in PA so you can vote these people out who pushed ID BS into schools.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4795205&sourceCode=RSS

A move to adopt guidelines encouraging Kansas schools to teach an alternative to the theory of evolution -- intelligent design -- gains momentum. The Kansas Board of Education has approved a draft of new science standards proposed by supporters of intelligent design. Approval is expected in October.

Posted by at 4:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Several notes on this Intelligent Design crap driving us toward another Scopes trial.

Evolution Lawsuit Opens in Pennsylvania

US President Jimmy Carter, and an evangelical Christian:

"As a Christian, a trained engineer and scientist, and a professor at Emory University, I am embarrassed by Superintendent Kathy Cox's [Georgia Public Schools] attempt to censor and distort the education of Georgia's students. The existing and long-standing use of the word 'evolution' in our state's textbooks has not adversely affected Georgians' belief in the omnipotence of God as creator of the universe."

The President continues, with my favorite part of his statements. This is exactly what doesn't make sense about the ID and creationist nuts. There is no incompatibility between science and the general faith tenets. Perhaps there are some issues raised with the strict Biblical account, but add them to a huge list already out there that still does not shake most people's faith as they often pick and choose what to take at face value, what to interpret, what to believe, what is an allegory, etc. anyhow. If you believe that the natural world was created by God for you, then why would you go to great lengths to distort our experience and understanding of the natural world, which the only tool we have for this is the lens of science?

"There can be no incompatibility between Christian faith and proven facts concerning geology, biology, and astronomy. There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend our religious faith."

"They're blinding you with NOT science" - Lewis Black on Intelligent Design

I just finished reading Science Friction (ISBN 0-8050-7708-1) which has several essays discussing the interplay between Religion and Science. Chapters 8 and 11 dive into a lot of the fray and Chapter 11 provides "ten arguments and ten answers" against ID which point out the absolute ridiculousness of their position(s). Oh, and the "What type of creationist are you?" is a great one if you run into any proclaimed creationists. There are at least 10 different positions on a continuum so the answer is not binary as many creationists would have you believe and probably believe themselves.

Posted by at 11:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD

My new greeting will have to be: "May you be forever touched by His Noodly Appendage"

Since a judge in washington today just ruled that it is okay to post the 10 commandments on government property in some cases without posing a "threat to the religious freedoms of the citizens", this would be a great time to get some of the Flying Spaghetti Monster commandments on public land. Fair is fair, right?

One of my new favorite words is Pastafarian

Posted by at 6:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Catholic Apologetics International is challenging people to provide proof that the earth revolves around the sun.

CAI will write a check for $1,000 to the first person who can prove that the earth revolves around the sun. (If you lose, then we ask that you make a donation to the apostolate of CAI). Obviously, we at CAI don't think anyone CAN prove it, and thus we can offer such a generous reward. In fact, we may up the ante in the near future.

Why are they doing this, well one reason:

if it can be proven that, after the Church clung so tenaciously to the view that the sun revolves around the earth, but that now the Church finally has to admit she was wrong about one of its more authoritative teachings in the seventeenth century, this does not bode well for convincing modern man to abide by the Church's official teaching on ANY issue.

Posted by at 9:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

SANTORUM ALSO BLAMES THE VICTIMS OF CLERGY SEXUAL ABUSE - Santorum Exposed: The Blog

This is an utterly disgusting rationalization.

Posted by at 5:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Eschaton:
Sybil the Soothsayer

Good Grief.

So, where's your God now? Perhaps where the WMDs are?

I wonder if he still believes that his God is omniscient?

Posted by at 5:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Daily Kos: State of the Nation

I was just talking last week about the rise of the American Taliban and how hypocritical some brands of "christian" are about who gets to have freedom of religion in this country. This article is very apropos.

Funny how the wingers try to claim American liberals are in league with crazy fundamentalist Muslims.

Reality is, we hate everything Islamic fundamentalism stands for. On the other hand, the Dobson's of the Republican Party -- you know, the people running the show -- have far more in common with the enemy than they'd ever like to admit.

Posted by at 12:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Meant to post this earlier, but I'm backlogged. Originally sent to him 11/23/2004:

I hope that this message may get you to think twice from displaying your vile, anti-christian vitriol such as calling, "Americans United for Separation of Church and State" an "anti-Christ" group. Secularizing _government_ should not be ignorantly equated with secularizing _society_, although that appears to be the way you spin it. There are very pragmatic reasons to not have our country be a theocracy, and many of those reasons date back to America's desire for independence from the religious tyranny of England at the dawn of our independence. Of course, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it and you seem to be leading the charge in that regard.

You might want to take heed of the concerns of the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State that they believe even undermine the very religion that you seek to bolster with your apparent pro church+state stance: "Government should refrain from endorsing religion even in a supposedly neutral manner. The state�s use of religion for ceremonial purposes often has the effect of draining religion of its meaning and power. This is not a healthy development for religion."

Your freedom to freely express your own brand of religion is threatened by the notion of a government that is not religion-neutral. You should reflect clearly on that.

What if the government were advocating Judaism? Or Islam? Would that be okay? If it is only okay because it is a Christian brand of religion, why would that make it okay? Do you think that the Islamic states in the Middle East are healthier and that the world is healthier for them being Islamic states? It is not just the brand of religion that makes the arrangement dangerous.

Regards,

-Jason

Posted by at 7:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Pat Robertson's contradictory theology: God won ... [Media Matters for America]

So, God doesn't control the natural world around us--that just works on its own volition, according to Pat Robertson. But, "in terms of human affairs, I do think he answers prayer". Specifically, Pat was saying that those evangelicals who are praying for bigoted, religious zealots to be placed in the supreme court could have their prayers answered and a Godly intervention, but in cases, such as the Tsunami, where God could have protected tens of thousands of human lives, God won't get involved. Apparently human life is not a "human affair"?

God doesn't "change the magma" or "wind currents" but he does change human minds on issues regarding the selection of US supreme court justices. Talk about a micro-manager...

Posted by at 6:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Um. Yeah.

Contra Costa Times | 03/15/2003 | Skeptics can carp, but a New York fish is the talk of the town

Posted by at 10:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)