My basic answer to this question is that we stay quiet for different reasons. This most often happens when someone doesn't really want the attention or is afraid of the backlash of getting the attention or is just uncomfortable. In the case of atheism, it's usually a mixture of all of the above. We all remember back in school when the teacher would write a problem on the board and ask the class if anyone knew the answer. Usually the response would be that of total silence until one to three brave souls would try to answer or an immature classmate would say something stupid. Until no one raises their hand, it almost always stays quiet, doesn't it? At this point the teacher gets frustrated, asks again, and then finally a couple of hands will go up. I do reserve an exception for those who believe it not to be safe to come out to remain closeted freethinkers until the believe it is safe enough.
If you are a part of the freethought community, you've no doubt heard by now of freethinking students around our country protesting religious displays at their public school, prayers at public school graduations and so on. These brave students (such as Damon Fowler and Jessica Ahlquist) are the couple of freethinking hands going up in a classroom that are standing up against a continuing problem in public schools today.
While attending my little brother's graduation in eastern Ky over the weekend, there was a Christian prayer opening. The person giving the invocation, a faculty member, referenced Jesus twice so there can be no question that the prayer was definitely Christian. Also, at the end of the ceremony (and another prayer to Jesus), the principal addressed the students to tell them that the last thing he wanted them to hear as students of the high school was that he wanted them to follow the bible as their only guide. Now, I know most Christians may think this was wonderful and were proud to have this blatant disregard for the US Constitution on display. Yet, most Christians aren't the parents of a Muslim, Hindu, or any other non-Christian religion (or of an atheist). Think about it, if your son/daughter is/was any of these, would you want a Christian prayer recited to them at their graduation? I hear some of you screaming "YES!" in your heads or out loud right now. (I really can't hear you, you know.) I honestly believe I was the only one in that entire gym saying to myself, "Does anyone else not know that this prayer and others like it at public school events are a violation of the Constitution? (Lee v. Weisman 1992 & Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe 2000)
Now let's flip the problem around. What if the majority of US citizens happened to be Muslim and your Christian sons/daughters were subjected to a Muslim prayer at graduation? I can most definitely predict that there would be a Christian uprising demanding that either the Muslim prayer be stopped or that a Christian prayer be included along with the Muslim prayer. That is the problem I am trying to highlight here. In our country, non-Christians are the minority and a few of them around the country are demanding that their public schools stop with the school-sponsored prayers at graduations and also take down displays of the Ten Commandments and prayer displays in their school. These students have took the lead in raising their hands and voices up for something that they they should have been taught (or was taught) in US history class: the Constitution and the Establishment Clause.
In the case of Lee v. Weisman, Justice Stephens said it better than I can: "school sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members who are nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community. 'School prayers,' whether recited, or silently but prominently displayed by the government on school property in school locations where students are required to be, violate this core First Amendment principle."
We have all felt like an outsider in school at one time or another. So, why do most people in the US want to keep the outsiders on the outside? This is a melting pot of many people of different religions and non-religious people alike. When will the Christian majority learn that the Constitution stands up for both them, as in Lee v. Weisman, and the "outsiders" they want to leave in the dust?
(Note: This post was written in haste. If I made any factual errors, please let me know. Please do not include grammatical errors. I'm sure I've made enough of them.)
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Did you hear? The world came to an end!
The past few weeks in the grander smorgasbord of news we had some pretty interesting things happen. Yet, in the background of the news at the beginning of the month, a man named Harold Camping claimed that Judgment Day would be May 21st. There were billboards, websites, radio broadcasts, and signs on buses proclaiming that we better prepare or be doomed for eternity.
Reaction to this from most rational people was that of laughing, just plain ignoring the guy, or taking a minute to say how crazy the guy is. Yet, in the back of my mind, I knew that someone, somewhere a follower of Camping would take his message to heart and do something horrible. This is one of the horrible things that was done:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20110524/sc_livescienc/faileddoomsdayhasrealdeadlyconsequences
While I am not going to say all of Harold Camping's followers are mentally ill, all it takes is one person with enough money and influence to force someone in distress to think that forcing their teenage kid and their pre-teen kid to slice their throats with box-cutters will save them from the torture of "judgment day".
Now, throughout this run up to "judgment day" and the fallout after, mainstream Christians have been distancing themselves from Harold Camping's predictions. Most do this by citing a bible verse (Mark 13:32-33) that says no one can accurately predict "judgment day". Problem solved, right? So, really what mainstream Christians are saying is that the end times are still coming but the date can't be known? So, that brings up a couple of questions:
1. Since Harold Camping's rantings are not true, how does still saying the end times are coming by mainstream Christians make the situation any better?
2. Second, if mainstream Christians are using the bible to cite where they think Harold Camping was wrong, then why is it when a non-believer cites the bible to show where God either kills people directly or sets them up to be killed (http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-does-god-kill-people-let-me-count.html) or when it is stated in the New Testament that slaves need to stay with their masters even if the master is evil (1 Peter 2:18)?
It's moving the goalposts (a basic logical fallacy) when Christians cite the bible to prove their point in one case and then in another say that "Skeptics misinterpret the bible all the time" or "the Old Testament doesn't count".
Many people these past few days have learned their lesson the hard way by believing a man who made a prediction about the end of the world. Interestingly enough, he has already shifted his goalpost and now predicts that the real "judgment day" to be October 21st. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110524/ap_on_re_us/us_apocalypse_saturday
I assume that most people will not be fooled this time.
Finally, how many more people losing their lives and possessions will it take to show that making a doomsday prediction (whether predicted to be an actual date or an unknowable date) really does actual harm?
Post your responses in the comments if you like.
Reaction to this from most rational people was that of laughing, just plain ignoring the guy, or taking a minute to say how crazy the guy is. Yet, in the back of my mind, I knew that someone, somewhere a follower of Camping would take his message to heart and do something horrible. This is one of the horrible things that was done:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20110524/sc_livescienc/faileddoomsdayhasrealdeadlyconsequences
While I am not going to say all of Harold Camping's followers are mentally ill, all it takes is one person with enough money and influence to force someone in distress to think that forcing their teenage kid and their pre-teen kid to slice their throats with box-cutters will save them from the torture of "judgment day".
Now, throughout this run up to "judgment day" and the fallout after, mainstream Christians have been distancing themselves from Harold Camping's predictions. Most do this by citing a bible verse (Mark 13:32-33) that says no one can accurately predict "judgment day". Problem solved, right? So, really what mainstream Christians are saying is that the end times are still coming but the date can't be known? So, that brings up a couple of questions:
1. Since Harold Camping's rantings are not true, how does still saying the end times are coming by mainstream Christians make the situation any better?
2. Second, if mainstream Christians are using the bible to cite where they think Harold Camping was wrong, then why is it when a non-believer cites the bible to show where God either kills people directly or sets them up to be killed (http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-does-god-kill-people-let-me-count.html) or when it is stated in the New Testament that slaves need to stay with their masters even if the master is evil (1 Peter 2:18)?
It's moving the goalposts (a basic logical fallacy) when Christians cite the bible to prove their point in one case and then in another say that "Skeptics misinterpret the bible all the time" or "the Old Testament doesn't count".
Many people these past few days have learned their lesson the hard way by believing a man who made a prediction about the end of the world. Interestingly enough, he has already shifted his goalpost and now predicts that the real "judgment day" to be October 21st. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110524/ap_on_re_us/us_apocalypse_saturday
I assume that most people will not be fooled this time.
Finally, how many more people losing their lives and possessions will it take to show that making a doomsday prediction (whether predicted to be an actual date or an unknowable date) really does actual harm?
Post your responses in the comments if you like.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
A little food for thought.
Are you the type of person who generally follows the rules? I like to consider myself someone who is not a rule-breaker by nature or nurture. Yet, almost all of us are breaking the "law" everyday, two to 6 times a day. I know you're thinking right now, "I haven't broken the law today."
Answer yes or no to the following questions:
Have you ever eaten a bacon, egg, and cheese sandwich on your way to work?
Have you ever eaten a cheeseburger?
Have you ever drank a glass of wine with your chicken florentine for dinner?
Have you eaten during the holy month of Ramadan in the daytime?
If you've answered yes to any of the above questions, then you've probably broken a religious food law (or laws) somewhere in the world.
For every religious law against homosexuality, spreading of menstrual fluids, and blasphemy, there are many more laws telling humanity what we can and cannot eat. Why is almost every religion involved in something that every human needs for survival? It has never made any sense to me. While I do understand that most vegetarians and vegans make their food choices based on health reasons (a few atheists and agnostics I know are vegetarians and vegans), a lot of religious people eat certain foods because they believe it was commanded on the human race by a deity.
To counteract this strange line of logic (which most religious logic is anyway), I posed the following question to a Catholic friend of mine a while back. Imagine you are stranded on an island where there are no major sources of food to be found. There is a steady supply fresh water but after a week of only eating a couple of edible plants and small insects you really have a craving for a substantial meal. The only major source of food is birds and fish. Do you make a fishing pole and start fishing? Or do you starve? The answer I was given was that, "In an emergency you can break the food law to survive. God wouldn't ask me to starve if I were in that kind of danger."
This poses multiple questions:
1. What constitutes an "emergency" bad enough for God to let you break his law to survive?
2. If you chose to starve to death, then wouldn't God reward you in heaven for following his "perfect" law in such a difficult circumstance?
3. If God's laws are "perfect" and he is all-knowing, to ensure your survival (to spread his message, of course) wouldn't he answer your prayers for food and then know to send you what "correct" food to eat so that the food laws aren't broken?
Overall, I believe that religious food laws are just another level of control to keep the herd in line. Any deity or deities that think humanity needs to follow rules about one of our most basic needs has some serious vanity issues. I could go on about how religious food law impacts our economy. Yet, it is getting late and I need sleep.
Post your thoughts, comments, and/or rants in the comments.
Answer yes or no to the following questions:
Have you ever eaten a bacon, egg, and cheese sandwich on your way to work?
Have you ever eaten a cheeseburger?
Have you ever drank a glass of wine with your chicken florentine for dinner?
Have you eaten during the holy month of Ramadan in the daytime?
If you've answered yes to any of the above questions, then you've probably broken a religious food law (or laws) somewhere in the world.
For every religious law against homosexuality, spreading of menstrual fluids, and blasphemy, there are many more laws telling humanity what we can and cannot eat. Why is almost every religion involved in something that every human needs for survival? It has never made any sense to me. While I do understand that most vegetarians and vegans make their food choices based on health reasons (a few atheists and agnostics I know are vegetarians and vegans), a lot of religious people eat certain foods because they believe it was commanded on the human race by a deity.
To counteract this strange line of logic (which most religious logic is anyway), I posed the following question to a Catholic friend of mine a while back. Imagine you are stranded on an island where there are no major sources of food to be found. There is a steady supply fresh water but after a week of only eating a couple of edible plants and small insects you really have a craving for a substantial meal. The only major source of food is birds and fish. Do you make a fishing pole and start fishing? Or do you starve? The answer I was given was that, "In an emergency you can break the food law to survive. God wouldn't ask me to starve if I were in that kind of danger."
This poses multiple questions:
1. What constitutes an "emergency" bad enough for God to let you break his law to survive?
2. If you chose to starve to death, then wouldn't God reward you in heaven for following his "perfect" law in such a difficult circumstance?
3. If God's laws are "perfect" and he is all-knowing, to ensure your survival (to spread his message, of course) wouldn't he answer your prayers for food and then know to send you what "correct" food to eat so that the food laws aren't broken?
Overall, I believe that religious food laws are just another level of control to keep the herd in line. Any deity or deities that think humanity needs to follow rules about one of our most basic needs has some serious vanity issues. I could go on about how religious food law impacts our economy. Yet, it is getting late and I need sleep.
Post your thoughts, comments, and/or rants in the comments.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
The garden of knowledge and my first seed of freethought.
A question atheists get asked often is, "What led you to become an atheist?" It really can't be answered in a sentence. We atheists all have a story of how we discovered (or were nurtured into) our freethinking selves. For atheists in a majority religious America, we all started with seeds of freethought. I like to think of it as a garden. Let me explain.
In every atheist's mind, there is a garden that flourishes with the flora of knowledge. This knowledge has been throughout the years nurtured (through active participation in learning), weeded out (reviewed and questioned), and strengthened (by repeated experimentation) from all kinds of different sources. At the root of this knowledge is the evidence that gives the knowledge power to rise and be seen by the world. These gardens of knowledge are the most valuable tool any atheist possesses. At the heart of each active freethinker's garden was once a seed of freethought, of questioning, of wonder, of curiosity.
I remember my first seed of freethought. I was in second grade. The teacher made the class fill up small, clear cups with water from the water fountain with our names on them. We each had to mark the level of water in the cup with a marker and lay our cups on the window sill when it was sunny outside. A couple of sunny days passed and then we had to check the water level in each of our cups. The water level was now below the line that we drew with our markers. I was astonished. Where did the water go?
At first, I thought the teacher had poured a little bit of water out of every single cup. Then she told us that the cups weren't touched the whole time. I still couldn't figure out where the water went to. It drove me crazy. It just didn't make any sense. Then the teacher explained to us that it was called evaporation. The water turned into a gas and was now part of the air. I couldn't believe it. The water just magically disappeared! I still wasn't satisfied though. Was the water gone forever? Could the water come back?
The water could come back, but only through a process my teacher called condensation. The water molecules could (if it was cold enough) collect on the cup and form droplets. Then she told us that our bodies were made up of almost entirely water. Then I heard a question I will never forget. It came from somewhere in the classroom, one of my fellow students asked, "When Jesus came back, was that because of condensation?"
The question (an completely forgivable one for a 7 year-old) didn't surprise me that much. It was the answer that did. The teacher said, "No, Jesus didn't come back through condensation. He just did."
I raised my hand, "How did he come back then?" The teacher replied, "I don't know."
The thoughts jumped into my head, "WHAT??? The teacher doesn't know??? It can't be!!! How can the teacher not know? If the teacher doesn't know, then that means that I don't know." Teachers were supposed to know everything, or so I thought. If Jesus was almost all water like me, then that could've been the only way!
It didn't make sense. I had heard two contradictory things: Jesus came back from the dead and the only way water can come back after it's disappeared is through condensation. I wrestled with that thought for days. I was determined to find the answer. I needed to know.
My first seed of freethought, of curiosity, of wonder, and of questioning had been planted. The first of many I've tended to over the years. Freethought is something I've grown to value more than anything else in my life up to this point. And I don't think there's anything more valuable than that honestly.
What was your first seed of freethought? Did it come to you naturally? Was it a friend, family member, teacher that helped you find it? If you are religious, do you have questions that bug you about your particular religious tenets? Leave your stories and thoughts in the comments. I can't wait to hear them.
Terry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)