Christian Bigot, Kevin Swanson Wants You To Buy Girl Scout Cookies

Right Wing Watch has posted clips of Christian Radio hosts Kevin Swanson & Dave Buehner saying some stupid shit^[1] about the Girl Scouts, "lesbianism" [sic], and singer Sara Bareilles^[2].  In the clips, Kevin Swanson begs their listeners to not buy Girl Scout cookies.

The individualism of feminism has been devastating to this country. I’d say you ought to say no the Girl Scout cookies too. I don’t want to support lesbianism, I don’t want to support Planned Parenthood and I don’t want to support abortion, and if that be the case I’m not buying Girl Scout cookies.

He hates women being equal to men (feminism), lesbians, Planned Parenthood, and women having control over their own bodies (abortion).  So he's not buying the cookies.  But I love all those things.  So I'll be buying plenty of them this year.

He's also got a problem with the Girl Scout's stated vision:

It does and I don’t want to promote a wicked organization that according to its own website doesn’t promote godly womanhood, it just doesn’t, I don’t see anything that promotes godly womanhood. The vision of the Girl Scouts of America is antithetical to a biblical vision for womanhood, it’s antithetical to it.

Let's take a look at their website to see what it says.  From their Advocacy page^[3]:

Girl Scouts of the USA's advocacy efforts help demonstrate to lawmakers that Girl Scouts is a resource and an authority on issues affecting girls. Based on almost 100 years of experience and developed from extensive research, the Girl Scout Public Policy and Advocacy Office:

• Encourages girls' healthy living through combating Relational Aggression and promoting girl-positive media images;
• Ensures girls feel emotionally and physically safe;
• Promotes girls' involvement in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM);
• Develops financial literacy skills; and
• Gives a voice to girls in underserved communities.

I wonder if it's anything from in that getting Swanson all upset.

Or maybe it's something from their page on Diversity^[4]:

Diversity has been a core value of Girl Scouts since its founding in 1912. At a time of segregation and before laws promoting civil rights were passed, our founder, Juliette Gordon Low, ensured that African-American, American Indian and Hispanic girls were able to become Girl Scouts. She led efforts to make Girl Scouting available to girls who lived in rural and urban areas, to girls who were rich, middle class and poor, and to girls who were born in this country as well as immigrants.

Since his complaint is a lack of Biblical womanhood, let's take a look at womanhood in the Bible.

1 Timothy 2:11-12^[5]

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

There's also Ephesians 5^[6], which I recently wrote about in more detail^[7].

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Kevin Swanson is a sexist who has a problem with women being independent, without a man in charge of them.  What else could he mean by "Biblical Womanhood"?^[8]  He's an asshole for that and probably many more reasons.

I hope you'll join me in buying Girl Scout Cookies this year, and then tweeting pictures of the purchase to Kevin Swanson^[9].  I want him to know just how much his hate has backfired.  I want this asshole to know he's helped the Girl Scouts, not hurt.

Personally, I'll be sending him pictures^[10] of my future Sara Bareilles purchases as well.

If you can't support any of them financially, following them on social media supports them in its way.

Girl Scouts^[11]: Twitter^[12] & Facebook^[13].

Sara Bareilles^[14]:  Twitter^[15] & Facebook^[16].

National Planned Parenthood^[17]: Twitter^[18] & Facebook^[19]

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland^[20], where I send donations directly:  Twitter^[21] & Facebook^[22]

However you choose to support any of these, please let Kevin Swanson know you've done so.  Maybe even thank him pointing you toward them to let him know how much he's helped them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.  http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/kevin-swanson-begs-you-not-buy-communist-lesbian-girl-scout-cookies
2.  href="http://www.amazon.com/Sara-Bareilles/e/B0017PAUAM/?_encoding=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&linkCode=ur2&qid=1382410558&sr=8-1&tag=omahathe-20
3.  http://www.girlscouts.org/who_we_are/advocacy/
4.  http://www.girlscouts.org/who_we_are/diversity/
5.  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+2%3A11-12&version=NIV
6.  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5&version=NIV
7.  http://aparticularblogbyaparticularatheist.blogspot.com/2013/09/gender-equality-in-bible.html
8.  http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/eccl/women.htm
9.  https://twitter.com/kevinpswanson
10.  https://twitter.com/aparticularA/status/392495018772271104
11.  http://www.girlscouts.org/
12.  https://twitter.com/girlscouts
13.  http://www.facebook.com/GirlScoutsUSA
14.  http://www.sarabmusic.com/
15.  https://twitter.com/SaraBareilles
16.  https://www.facebook.com/sarabareilles
17.  http://www.plannedparenthood.org/
18.  https://twitter.com/PPact
19.  https://www.facebook.com/PlannedParenthood
20.  http://www.plannedparenthood.org/heartland/
21.  https://twitter.com/PPHeartland
22.  https://www.facebook.com/PPHeartland

Gender Equality In The Bible

I often see silly claims made about the Bible.  We all do.  It's a silly book.  Today's silliness was on the issue of equality between men & women^[1].

@RedScareBot @Vodkaninja @Braxxet the new testament Of Christ gave woman equal right .. it just took us guys 2000 years to listen
— Tal USAF VET (@talmadgewilliam) September 29, 2013

When I asked him about it, the answer I got was Ephesians 5, specifically verse 21 to the end of the chapter^[2].  Of course, I looked up the part he referenced.  Here's what it says^[3].

Instructions for Christian Households

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

The first sentence says to submit to each other.  But that's the extent of the equality expressed.  It tells wives to submit to husbands as they would to Jesus/God.  It tells husbands to love their wives, as Jesus loves his worshipers.  Note the different words it uses when instructing each.  Women are to respect men as their superiors, and men are to love women as their inferiors.  This isn't equality, it's a hierarchy with women below men and men below Jesus.

But he thinks this is where the Bible states men & women are equal^[4].

@aparticularA @Vodkaninja @Braxxet wife as Christ loves us.. he never said our wife is our property but our equal basically
— Tal USAF VET (@talmadgewilliam) September 29, 2013

I'm not writing this to accuse him of misogyny.  He didn't say anything blatantly misogynist and did express the opinion that men & women are equals.  However, he is ignorant of what it says in the book he reveres.  But's it's not just that.

He's ignorant of what it says, even after actually reading it.  He simply doesn't see the problem with the Bible here.  Probably because he doesn't want to see any problems with the Bible at all.  And that's the problem.

Too many are unable/unwilling to view the Bible critically.  No matter how vile its contents are, it's beyond reproach.  They've given up their ability to reason when it comes to the Bible, so they end up defending it.

Fundamentalists use the book to justify their bigotry, because the bigotry matches what is in the book.  So-called moderates, while actually trying to condemn the bigotry, end up defending it by revering the book the bigotry is based on.

So, which is worse?  Those who are blatantly bigoted, giving people good reason to not trust the Bible, or the otherwise good people who defend a bigoted book because of their own ignorance?  And how do we get the latter to see what the book really says when they've already read the part they should be offended by?

Sadly, none of this is new.  Just like most other problems related to religion, it keeps coming back up.  Maybe that's why so many atheists are so frustrated when dealing with the religious.  It's aggravating to keep dealing with the same errors, that should be easily solvable, over and over again.

Skepticism isn't just about not believing in things that don't have evidence.  It's about persistence in the face of so many people who do.  Maybe it's a never ending battle to fight against belief in the unreal.  But that's certainly better than the alternative.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.  https://twitter.com/talmadgewilliam/statuses/384369306164674561
2.  https://twitter.com/talmadgewilliam/status/384390705776304128
3.  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5&version=NIV
4.  https://twitter.com/talmadgewilliam/statuses/384392259946283008

On Atheistic Sexual Ethics

I haven't given up on my conversation^[1] with Chris Attaway, the Christian author of the blog The Discerning Christian^[2].  I had had a post in mind to respond to his last one to me^[3] but work, activism, and home have required a lot of my time.  By the time I had time to write it, which still hasn't been much lately. I had forgotten the post I had written in my head.  Instead of starting over on it and continuing on that same topic too long, I'm responding to his post to Dan Fincke^[4].  Dan has started a series where he addresses theist questions on Thursdays and Chris offered one a few weeks ago.

A common tactic of Christians discussing morality with atheists is to say we're unable to be moral.  In a rare moment for such discussions, this Christian isn't doing that.

I don’t ask this like one might ask rhetorically, “How can you be good without God?” Rather, while I find myself agreeing with many atheists more than with conservative Christians on issues of sexuality (with important distinctions), I also am unclear on the foundation of any sort of secular sexual ethic.

The basics of his inquiry come down to this question.

What are atheistic sexual ethics?

While I don't think he's suggesting it's the case, since he flat out said he wasn't doing that, I still feel the need to point out that there is no single atheist moral code.  Because atheism is the lack of a thing, rather than a thing, it can never dictate morality or anything else.  This is a common confusion, often even for atheists.  So being clear about it important to me.

Another thing I need to be clear about is the answer to this question is my own and not necessarily representative of anyone's else stance on this.  For example, I know that the intended target for the question, Dan Fincke, doesn't agree with me on morality^[5].  But rather than get distracted by going into why I think he's wrong, I'm simply going to give my answer and save the rest for a later time.

And there will have to be later times because this issue is incredibly complex and the following will certainly not be everything I could say on it.  That complexity is why morality is such a common discussion topic.

To answer his question, an atheistic sexual ethic is merely a sexual ethic that does not invoke a god.  That's the simple answer to this complicated issue.

Fundamentalist Christians, and many of the more reasonable Christians, like to say the foundation of their morals is their Bible or their god.  But, like all of us, it simply comes from within themselves.  Even Christians who claim the same source for their morality cannot agree on everything.  Even among Christians, there are serious differences.  Chris takes on the morality of other Christians regularly^[6].  There's a reason peoples' gods always agree with them.

Morality is dependent on each individual person, even for those who claim there's an objective morality.  Take a close look at the morality of anyone who claims it's from an objective source.  You'll find it being filtered through their personal morality.

We let ourselves believe the morality is objective if have things we agree on within a group.  Fundamentalist Christians hate gays, so they think their god says to restrict their rights.

Chris provided some of his own thoughts on his question, which I think partially answer his own question.

1. We do need sexual ethics

This goes without saying, but sexual ethics are obviously not just “anything goes.” Rape is obviously out of the question, as is sexual child abuse (we should distinguish this from pedophilia as an incurable attraction to children). Incest is certainly gross and cause for disdain from a bioethics standpoint. There are certainly more issues within sexual ethics, but these already demonstrate the need for such a thing to exist.

Rape & child abuse are indeed things we should not allow.  We don't need a god to know this.  We can see for ourselves that these things are bad.  They're bad for both the individual and society.  If we examine why, it comes down to the fact that these things do harm.  We can observe the tangible effects of this harm.  It largely involves the fact that victims of these things did not consent to what happened.  Which brings us to his next point.

2. Mutual consent is necessary but not sufficient

One of the primary maxims I hear in regard to sexual ethics is to strive for “mutual consent.” We certainly do not want one person having sex without the consent of the other — we call that rape; thus, mutual consent is necessary for ethical sex. But in the case of incest, we clearly demonstrate that the biological component of sex is a factor in sexual ethics. While an incestuous couple could theoretically remain childless (say, through a surgical procedure), I am fairly certain we would all still frown on such action.

In the morality of sex, consent is not merely necessary.  Consent is paramount.  Without consent, it's not sex.  It's assault.  Beyond that, as far as I'm concerned, consent is sufficient in most cases.  If two (or more) adults want to engage in a behavior, and all parties are of sound enough mind to give consent and do give that consent, it's not our place to tell them what to do with their own bodies.  To borrow a recent quote from the Pope^[7], "Who am I to judge?"

There's room for discussion on what qualifies as a "sound mind".  Things like the desire to loss a limb^[8] are something I'm unsure of my own stance on.  It's those situations where I think the discussion lies.  And that discussion is necessary because the answers aren't coming from a god or any other ultimate deciding factor.

For incest involving children, whether or not it's incest is no where near as important as the involvment of children.  Even if incest among consenting adults was accepted, it wouldn't mean allowing the involvement of children.  Children cannot really consent.

3. Children are a significant factor

The reason I would put forward for why we still frown upon incest even if the couple takes biologically responsible actions is that incest shows disrespect for sex as a procreative action, particularly if we understand its genetic implications. Her, I find myself agreeing with the spirit of the Catholic sexual ethic, though disagreeing on many, many specifics such as gay marriage and birth control, supposing that there is a telos or purpose to sex which factors into how we should treat it, and that we must respect sex as a reproductive act* as much as a pleasurable act. This would obviously discourage other more widely-accepted sexual practices (casual sex, perhaps), but I am not sure how to object to incest consistently, otherwise.

*In the case of infertile or same sex couples or couples on birth control, I only mean to suggest that sex should take place with a sense of “as if,” respecting the spirit of the sexual act as a biological act.

For incest among consenting adults, who have taken measures to prevent conceiving inbred children, people certainly would frown on such action.  But why would they?  But why should they?  Is there a good reason to disapprove of this behavior or is it an emotional, instinctual reaction no different than the emotional dislike many have for homosexuality?  There certainly isn't a Biblical reason to oppose incest^[9].

For me, sexual ethics are no different than any other morality.  The closest thing you could find to a foundation of my morality is Humanism.  But that's not the foundation of it.  I derived my morality decisions the way I do long before I ever learned of the concept of Humanism.  It's a decent general description of how my morality works, but it's not a foundation.  I don't get my morality from Humanism.  I get it from myself.  Just like everyone does.  Including Christians who say their morality comes from the Bible, but still oppose incest, eat shrimp^[10], or otherwise ignore the dictates of the book they say they follow^[11].

We use consensus to decide what we do about our shared morality.  It's easy to get consensus on things like rape & murder.  Other things, like taxes & government spying on citizens, may never see consensus.  So the morality argument continues.  As it should continue, as long as we use reason.

Arguing over morality using reason will get us to decisions better for our society, like the various freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution.  Arguing morality using religion will get us things like kids dying because their parents believed in faith healing, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, 9/11, the American invasion of Iraq, the Vatican's lies about condoms & AIDS, the systematic consequence free rape of children, genital mutilation, oppression of women, violence against homosexuals, fraud by assholes like Peter Popoff & Pat Robertson, and so so much more.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.  http://aparticularblogbyaparticularatheist.blogspot.com/search/label/Discerning%20With%20A%20Christian
2.  http://thediscerningchristian.wordpress.com/
3.  http://thediscerningchristian.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/a-response-discerning-the-bibles-stance-on-homosexuality/
4.  http://thediscerningchristian.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/what-are-atheistic-sexual-ethics/
5.  http://youtu.be/hlbKve5pjg8
6.  http://thediscerningchristian.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/why-call-it-abuse-because-mark-driscoll-is-more-dangerous-than-westboro/
7.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23489702
8.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apotemnophilia
9.  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19%3A31-36&version=NIV
10.  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+11%3A10&version=KJV
11.  http://www.11points.com/Books/11_Things_The_Bible_Bans,_But_You_Do_Anyway

Christopher Walken Reads From The Bible

The folks at Apostacon^[1] somehow managed to get 'Christopher Walken' to read select passages from the Bible^[2].

Like the man said, Early Bird pricing ends June 30^[3].

It's the funnest thing we've done for Apostacon, since the Harlem Shake^[4].  He may not be Kevin Pollak[5], but I think it's pretty good for a bunch of amateurs filming in our treasurer's basement.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.  http://www.apostacon.org/
2.  http://youtu.be/1O-HpGlU0Ck
3.  http://www.apostacon.org/registration-options/

4.  http://youtu.be/ek7FMLkgEt0
5.  http://youtu.be/TEjr3i98ga0 (Thanks to Reddit user fiendlittlewing for the link)

How Do You Discern The Bible's Stance On Homosexuality?

The following is part of a series of posts that will be a public discussion^[1] between myself and the Christian author of a blog called "The Discerning Christian"^[2].

The issue I've decided to start with is one where we appear to have a lot agreement^[3], homosexuality^[4]. Plus, it's a topic I care quite a bit about.  I've never understood the bigotry^[5] associated with it.  I understand it slightly better since growing up and learning that it is, as far as I've ever been able to find, entirely from the religious, but that just tells me that one illogical stance comes from another.

For Christians who are not anti-gay bigots, I have a few questions.

In discussing homosexuality with Christians, you will generally find that most of them agree that the Church has treated the LGBT community wrongly, and I would agree.

That has not been my experience.  I suspect that it would not be the experience of my gay friends if they were asked. My experience with Christians and homosexuality tends to be more like the rest of that paragraph.

But unless you’re in a church community which actually accepts homosexuality, you will find that everyone has their own pet caveats for why it’s not okay, even though the Church is not treating homosexuals as it should. You will hear comparisons of homosexuality to addiction to pornography or alcohol. You will hear slippery slope arguments, like how will we say no to one night stands or even bestiality if we can’t say no to homosexuality.

Your post is an admirable defense of homosexuality, something that shouldn't even need defended.  But how do you reconcile your reasonable approach to homosexuality with what the Bible says about it?

Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. - Leviticus 18:22^[6]

 If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. - Leviticus 20:13[7]

Do you think you being a Christian, who I presume quotes & reveres the same Bible as Westboro Baptist Church and the countless hate groups whose names contain the word "family", lends credibility to them and others^[8] who use the Bible to justify their anti-gay stances^[9]?

The ancient people were not stupid, but they did not have the knowledge we have and would have written the Bible in accordance with the way they understood things to be.

Do you think the Bible is the inspired word of your god?  If you can say that the Bible was written by men who were limited by the time they lived in, how do you justify following it?  You clearly think parts of the Bible should be disregarded.  How do you go about deciding which parts to follow and which parts to throw out?

I argue that homosexual Christians should learn to order their desires in the same manner as all other Christians, that they express love and commitment alongside any sort of eroticism. That is the Christian ideal for all sexual desire. That is my hope for homosexual Christians, that they are able to live lives where they can express their homosexuality in a healthy manner and in a way which glorifies God.

You certainly could take a worse approach to it, for instance something like the majority of Christian views on the issue that I encounter.  But I still have a different take on it.  My hope for homosexual Christians is for them to leave the religion that follows a book which says they should be put to death.  My hope for homosexual Christians is for them to abandon the religion that is the driving force behind their status as second class citizens^[10].

This probably comes off as harsh, but I don't really know how else to write about this issue.  And it is something about Christianity I've long wondered.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.  http://aparticularblogbyaparticularatheist.blogspot.com/search/label/Discerning%20With%20A%20Christian
2.  http://thediscerningchristian.wordpress.com/
3.  http://thediscerningchristian.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/a-christian-defense-of-homosexuality/
4.  http://aparticularblogbyaparticularatheist.blogspot.com/search/label/LGBT
5.  http://aparticularblogbyaparticularatheist.blogspot.com/search/label/Homophobia
6.  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2018:22&version=NIV
7.  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:13&version=NIV
8.  http://carm.org/bible-homosexuality
9.  http://www.bible.ca/s-homo=sin.htm
10.  http://www.redstate.com/srachui/2013/04/08/why-christians-cannot-support-same-sex-marriage/

Why I Am An Atheist

Patheos challenged its bloggers to write 200 words or less on why they are the religious view they are.
Hemant Mehta shared his^[1][2] and a couple others^[3][4].  Hemant asked if anyone else had one to share, and I thought it would be worth trying.  So, here's mine.

I am atheist because I've never known how to be anything else.

I have never needed a god to know right from wrong; and I reject the notion that a god, who condones slavery, can be an arbiter of morality.

Faith is not something I am capable of.  I cannot believe something for which there is no evidence. A comforting lie is no comfort and is still a lie.

I am an atheist because I know no other way to be.

I am an atheist because it’s all I am, all I’ve ever been, and all I ever can be.^[5]

It's not perfect, but it's mine^[6].  What's yours?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.  http://twitter.com/hemantmehta/status/315877503623368704
2.  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/03/24/why-i-am-an-atheist/
3.  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2013/03/a-bottom-up-universe/
4.  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2013/03/why-i-am-an-atheist-my-response-to-a-patheos-challenge/
5.  Yes, I ripped off Sagan.  Deal with it.  http://youtu.be/3lqsG9_ughU
6.  And Minchin.  http://youtu.be/dg3PberzvXo

Saturday Morning Shares - 03-23-2013

Here's the links & tweets to share from the last week.  Most were also shared on this Facebook page or retweeted.  Please add any fun or informative stories I missed in the comments.

Random Stuff:

(via George Takei)

Science!:

There Are Whales Alive Today Who Were Born Before Moby Dick Was Written (via Sarah)

Two ships passing in the night: neuroscience and social media (via @Alyssa_Milano)

Shorter-winged swallows evolve around highways (via Mark)

Secular Coalition of America's Weekly Update:

National Secular Movement Update Call (03/21/2013)

Religion Stuff:

The High School Performing a Play About ‘Adam and Steve’ Isn’t Being Anti-Christian (via @hemantmehta)

(via Atheism)

Cardinal asserts that child raping priests shouldn’t be punished. (via @jteberhard)

Frans de Waal's Bottom-Up Morality: We're Not Good Because Of God (via Omaha Coalition of Reason)

(via @tsh1118)

An Increasing Number of Atheist and Agnostic Alcoholics Anonymous Groups Are Altering the Twelve Steps (via @hemantmehta)

Digital Bible Reaches 100 Million Listeners (via @mashable)

Atheist Student Questioned By Police For Being an Atheist (via Kansas City Atheist Coalition (KCAC))

Expert: Gay Rights Opponents Misrepresenting Religious Liberty

(via @jteberhard)

ACT NOW:  Tell your Senators not to use your taxpayer money to fund religious schools! (via @OmahaCoR)

Pope Stuff:

Geography of the Conclave: Where Do the Cardinals Come From? (via @ZacharyNelson)

(via Rational Hub)

Asshole Of The Week:

Saturday Morning Shares - 03-16-2013

Here's the links & tweets to share from the last week.  Please add any fun or informative stories I missed in the comments.

Not At All About Religion:

Meet the woman with the world’s strongest VAGINA (via Todd N Tyler Radio Empire)

designed-for-life: Invisible Farm (via @ZacharyNelson)

Seals Yelling Like Goats Yelling Like Humans (via @mashable)

R2-D2 Papercraft  (via @MattersofGrey)

(via @thinkgeek)

Don't Be Offended. Seriously, Don't. (via @SethMacFarlane)

Secular Coalition of America's Weekly Update:

National Secular Movement Update Call (03/14/2013)

About Religion:

Young, Sick and Invisible: A Skeptic's Journey With Chronic Illness (via @jteberhard)

Humanist Essay Contest (via @Teresamacbain)

(Thanks to Kevin, fellow fan of Atheist Experience & Non-Prophets)

(via @hemantmehta)

My father, the hate preacher: Nate Phelps on escaping Westboro Baptist Church (via @OuRR_World)

Petition Interdiction: Tenn. Legislator Seeks To Make It A Crime To Protest Church-State Violations

CIA Director takes his oath of office the right way. (via @jteberhard)

Last Year, Atheists Raised $430,000 for Cancer Research; Let’s Do Even Better This Year (via @hemantmehta)

Next Week Is ‘A’ Week (via Omaha Atheists)

Pope Stuff:

Who Is Pope Francis? (via @hemantmehta)

New Pope, Same Old Homophobia (via @hemantmehta)

Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires Rages Against Abortion “Death Sentence” (via @hemantmehta)

All Of These Pope Twitter And Facebook Accounts Are Fake  (via @Alyssa_Milano)

What a New Pope Means for Atheists (via @hemantmehta)

Pope Francis in 92 Seconds (via @mashable)

(via Satan, thanks to Sarah for sharing)

Asshole Of The Week:

Christians Defending The Bible Tend To Fail

I like Penn Jillette, but I do often find myself disagreeing with him.  Particularly when he's espousing especially libertarian views or defending Glenn Beck^[1] When I saw the title of this article, "Atheist Penn Jillette Defends the Pope and Catholic Orthodoxy"^[2], I was expecting to disagree with him once again.

Disagreement with Jillette is far from what I found, because defense for the Pope isn't really what he was doing.  He took one of my favorite stances in regards to the bad behavior of Christians.  By pointing out that such reprehensible behavior is actually in line with the Bible, it puts Christians in the awkward position of choosing between defending the despicable and admitting that the Bible is flawed.

Either way, the opposition to Christianity wins.  That's the funny thing about defending an incorrect position.  It's quite difficult to do without looking like a fool and hurting the very thing you were attempting to protect.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.

2.  http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/03/07/atheist-penn-jillette-defends-the-pope-and-catholic-orthodoxy/

Evangelical Vehicles

On the way out of HyVee tonight, I saw this.  

 

There's nothing particularly controversial about it, as it's the most commonly quoted Bible verse, and there's nothing about his god hating anyone.  Sure the owner of this truck holds delusional beliefs and seems to think this will convince others to share those delusions (so much so that he put up the sunscreen at night), but he's as free to hold those delusional beliefs as I am to point out that those beliefs are delusional.

The only thing more bullshit than his delusions about Jesus are the delusions many Christians have about supposedly being victimized by secularism.  What would happen to a vehicle that had the atheist equivalent.  If I put "Jesus is pretend" and a sunscreen with one of the many great atheist quotes?  How long would it last before it got vandalized?

Because I think we all know it would happen.  And the worst thing that'll happen to that guy is some atheist taking a picture of his truck and having a small rant on his blog.

Christian Gives Other Christian Due Criticism, Misses Point

As should be no surprise to anyone, after the Sandy Hook shooting, numerous religious leaders said offensive things in response. Among them were James Dobson and Mike Huckabee, who were then criticized by another Christian, Rev. Susan Russell.

Well, I don't have a radio show. But I have a blog. And I have news for Dr. Dobson: that God isn't irrelevant to me -- He is anathema to me. That God has nothing whatsoever to do with the God of love, justice and compassion who "came down at Christmas" incarnate in the Prince of Peace who became one of us in order to show us how to love one another.<

And if we let Dobson -- or Huckabee or Buchanan or any of the other followers of that hateful, hurtful, homophobic, judgmental God with an anger management problem -- speak for Christianity, then we fail to counter the toxic theology masquerading as the Good News of God in Christ and we fail to stand up, stand up for Jesus.

And we can do better than that. So let's do it. Seriously.

I'm torn here. One one hand, this is a case of a Christian actually advocating for good and criticizing the hateful Christians like Dobson & Huckabee. But on the other, it's Russell who has their religion wrong. Dobson and Huckabee are closer to the god of the Bible than she is.

Even while criticizing their hate, she still enables it by professing to believe in the god of the same book.  I'm all for calling out bigots for their bigotry. But to claim they're the ones misinterpreting the Bible is to be ignorant of what the book says.

This is why I prefer to criticize belief in that book overall, instead of pretending that it has any redeeming value.  Don't just make their god anathema.  Make their book anathema, as that's what they use to justify the hate.  The little good that is in that book can be achieved without the book.  Then, you get to take the good and not stone your children to death for being unruly.

Credit: @HuffPostRelig

Please Do Not Put Money In The Bucket

I am pretty careful about where my donations to charity go.  This is because of a combination of me not having a lot to give and me caring about how that money is used.  It's mostly the latter, because even if I were a millionaire, I would still not give to certain charities and would still be opposed to my donations being misused.

At the top of that list is The Salvation Army.  I think their immoral practices are well known enough by now, I needn't bother detailing them too much.  Among they're many flaws, is their anti-gay policy.  Like most bigots, they attempt to disguise it as adherence to their religion, as if that makes bigotry suddenly okay instead of pointing out the obvious flaws in their religion.

They site many Bible verses to justify their bigotry, but there's a particular one that sticks out like a beacon of  ignorance and hate.  Leviticus 18:22, 23

I'll be quoting the NIV Bible, as that's the one they say is theirs.

Leviticus 18:22:

Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Okay.  It's bigoted, but that certainly is what their religion's book says about the gays.  They also included   Leviticus 18:23:

Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

That's right.  The Salvation Army is citing their Bible's words about beastiality on their page dedicated to their stance on homosexuality.  They are comparing homosexuality to beastiality.  I wonder if Dan Savage is aware of this.

This is what you're supporting if you put money into their buckets, or otherwise give to this organization.  If you would like to send them a message, there is this:

It's meant to be put into the buckets in place of cash.  Atheism Resource has been nice enough to put up a .pdf of these for easy printing.  Whether you use these vouchers or not, I have a couple of requests of you.

Please do not berate the bell ringers.  They probably do not understand how immoral Salvation Army is, and being rude will not do anything to convince them to change their minds.  Talk to them calmly if you must, but do so civilly, back it up with facts, and know when it's time to walk away.

If you're able, please be sure to donate to good organizations.  Last year, The Examiner published a list of worthy, secular charities and linked to a longer list.

The non-profits I've donated to this year were:

Secular Student Alliance

Recovering From Religion

Kiva

Wounded Warrior Project

Please feel free to share your favorite non-profits in the comments.

(Found via a friend linking to Atheism Resource and New York City Atheists)

(2012-11-25) EDIT:  There was some understandable dislike of the term "voucher".  One of the people who disliked it took the initiative to create an alternate version of it.

I like this one better and it's the one I'll be using.  Click here to download a pdf for printing.

So-Called Moderate Christians Do Not Get It

We've all heard moderate Christians chastising Fundamentalists for not being "true Christians".  They say their god is about love, not hate.

Writer Rachel Evans recently "A Year of Biblical Womanhood", in order to defend people having faith:

And though Evans says that she did the experiment playfully, it was meant to bring attention to a larger point — that there are more ways to be a woman of faith than what some evangelicals have selected from the Bible.

"I hate that the Bible has been used as ammunition [against women]," said Evans, "It blows my mind."

In writing about dealing with religious bullies, Jennifer Hancock wrote about the Bible's stance on pride:

No one knows what God’s will is or if He or She even has a will. NO ONE! Anyone who claims to know is either lying or deluded. If people are trying to gain social status because of their perceived piousness, they are guilty of the sin of pride because they have made it clear by their actions that they care more for their social status than they do about God’s teachings. The Bible is very clear on this. God doesn’t like pride. He loves the humble.

They're saying it's the Fundamentalists who are wrong, but they're also admitting those Fundamentalists are getting their hate directly from the Bible both Fundies & moderates believe is divinely inspired.  So, who is getting the religion right?  The Fundies who take their holy book at its word, or the moderates who ignore most of it?

An Open Letter To Leah Libresco

The following is an open letter in response to the recent conversion from atheism to Catholicism by atheist blogger Leah Libresco.

I had never heard of you until your recent conversion went viral within the religion vs atheist community online.  I do not mean that as an attack.  I haven't heard of a lot of people and a lot more have not heard of me.  I only say so to be more clear about where I'm coming from.

Your conversion has left me with some questions.  You owe me nothing, obviously, but I need to ask these things anyway.  I'm aware that I'm only one of many currently asking you questions, and you'll likely never even see this, let alone respond, but I would feel negligent in my devotion to truth if I left this unwritten.  I've been able to do some reading on this, including some of what you've written in response to other inquiries, but I have been unable to find satisfactory answers to some issues.

While I do not personally experience confusion about morality such as you described, I do get that many do.  The confusion I have is how that can lead one to believe a deity exists.  Did you witness some sort of evidence for this deity?  Or was this revelation entirely internal within your own mind?

More specifically, how did your experience lead you to believe the Catholic god is the right one?  Other than your issues with the source of morality, what did you consider when choosing Catholicism over all the other religions?  Was the Vatican's tacit approval of child rape a factor?  How about their misinformation campaign in Africa regarding the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV?

You mentioned uneasiness regarding their stance on homosexuality.  Was this a factor in your decision or was it not considered until afterward?  Are you okay with supporting a Church with such discriminatory stances?

Do you believe the Christian Bible is the word of God?  Do you have issues with any other parts of that book?  Are you okay with getting your morality from a god that supports/commits genocide, rape, child abuse, & slavery?  Are you okay with saying your morality comes from an institution that protects pedophiles & lies to millions about the effectiveness of condoms?  Did you have any morality issues with the Vatican while you were still atheist?  If so, how have those issues changed with the conversion?

Do you pray now?  If so, have any of prayers been answered?

Is the Pope infallible?

And finally, when the priest blesses the wafer & wine, do they become literal flesh & blood of Jesus Christ?

These questions of mine are related to things I wonder about Christians & Catholics in general.  Seeing someone, confident enough in their atheism to write a blog about it, become a Catholic makes me wonder even more about you.  I look forward to reading more about your rationalization for your new-found faith, because for me, it is incredibly mind boggling.