"People critical of religion may fear it", Sort of!

In a letter to the editor "People critical of religion may fear it" may have a point, but I do not believe it is the one Joe [the letter-writer] is trying to make.  First off, a few things from his letter:

"My children were taught in public schools that their ancestors were monkeys, then perhaps they evolved all the way back to the ooze in the Nile River. "

He obviously doesn't really understand what evolution is, let alone how it's being taught in the classroom.  But that's pretty typical of theists.  They seem more afraid of something causing them to actually think about their religious beliefs than damn near anything else.  As for morality:

"Hollywood immorality seems to have crept into our society. If we are but evolved animals, any established morality is out the window. "

Is religion a viable source of morality?  I know theists like to make such claims, but when you look at not only the scores of differences between the moral beliefs of the multitude of religions in the world, but also look at many of the things done in the name of a religion!

Yes, some of the ideas of what is considered moral today and what is not may stem from one or more religious beliefs -- but it is not the belief in a particular religion that makes something moral, but societies decision of what is considered moral!  If that was true then theists wouldn't be committing any crimes let alone the most heinous!  How many religious leaders have been found to be much less moral than their own teachings?  How many children have to die from medical neglect due to someone's religious beliefs. No, as we have discussed many times, morality and religion do not go hand-in-hand, as many theists like to delude themselves.  And Joe, your information about Hitler is just plain wrong:

"By the way, Adolf Hitler, of no known religious affiliation, was an angry man who killed thousands of religious people."

Hitler's words often invoked Christianity, for example: (I underlined for emphasis)

"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality.
Today Christians stand at the head of our country. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during recent years." (Adolf Hitler from the address he gave after coming to power in Germany (from "My New Order, The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-1939", Vol. 1, pp. 871-872, Oxford University Press, London, 1942)."

As you can see, Hitler agrees with you about your Christianity being the very basis for morality, don't you feel special -- you have the same moral code as Adolf Hitler!  Yes, if you read any of Hitler's speeches, you will see Hitler invoked Christianity often!  Joe, you said:

"This country is about freedom of, not from, religion. "

Freedom 'of' includes the freedom to not believe -- or else it's not really freedom is it?  Just another form of religious control and oppression.  Joe, I have a question, supposed we did turn the US into a theocracy, which seems to be what you are preaching.  Suppose it didn't pick your particular version of Christianity.  What would you do then?  Freedom of Religion is what should be preventing that, but you aren't really about Freedom of Religion.  Your idea seems to be Freedom of religion, as long as the religion is yours.  That's not freedom!

OK, enough of his letter for the moment.  I would like to talk about fear!  I am not afraid of religion, and every non-theist I know isn't afraid of it.  If there is some deity that I will meet after I die, I will stand by my life!  Instead of trying to use a deity as an excuse, I live my life here and now!  When I make a mistake I pay for it now!  I make amends with people, I have committed no crimes, nor contemplated any, I don't even cheat on my taxes.  And I live my life without the need to beg forgiveness from anyone, let alone your version of a deity.  You, on the other hand, live in fear!

Yes, look at your religion, it's based on fear.  You try and live some aspects of your life by a set of rules handed to you by other men -- in the hopes your deity has the same set of rules.  You refuse to take responsibility for your actions because you regularly ask your deity to forgive your trespasses, instead of getting the forgiveness from the people you have hurt.  You believe because you are scared of some eternal punishment.  If you disagree, tell me how do you preach to non-believers?  Look at this article from the World News Daily, "Will scientists who reject God face greater judgment?".  While the WND isn't great source for news, I see this article as an example of the fear Christians keep trying to play upon.

"Are those who have a science degree and have rejected Christ going to be held more accountable before God based upon Romans 1:20?"

Why could this be the case, because -- according to the author:

"The holder of a science degree has had a high level of exposure to irreducible complexity, information science and special design, clearly illustrating the existence of God and His attributes."

So . . . since you have a science degree, you are more exposed to pseudoscience . . . and if you fail to recognize pseudoscience as God's work, you will be judged by God more harshly than anyone else.  Anyone else see the 'fear' at work.  It's not' believe because it's right', it's not' believe because it's good' . . . no, the message is 'believe or else'.  It's not just being judged more harshly, but your condemnation will be greater because you refuse to agree that pseudoscience is really some deity playing around..

"They spend years, if not a lifetime, being exposed to an unlimited amount of detail of special design, and many still reject it. As a result, will their condemnation be greater? I believe so."

You typically hear things along this line from theists when they mention things like 'going to hell!' . . . I have a question . . . why do they feel they have to threaten to gain adherents?  The first thing I usually hear is not all the good things done in the name of a particular religion, but that if I don't join their particular branch, I will burn for all eternity.  Fear is the marketing message!

If you read the whole WND article, don't you just love the author's analogy at the end.  Eating high cholesterol food isn't bad for you!  How can it be bad for you, it's in the Bible:

"Since her restrictions were completely contrary to what I can eat based upon Scripture, I knew it was her source of information, “man’s wisdom,” that was wrong and not mine."

Scientific evidence has supported for years that saturated fats and high level of cholesterol are bad for your arteries and your heart.  But, this guy treats the Bible as a nutritional textbook!  Even the research he hints at claiming that it's not really bad for you is misleading.  The degree is what has changed, not the unhealthy aspects of such a diet. But it doesn't matter to the author, if anything is based on man's knowledge, it gets immediately dismissed.

Back to the original article and the idea of 'fear', you are afraid to live your life, to take responsibility for your actions, to live without the crutch of an ancient belief set. And you think it's others that are afraid?

There is one thing I fear, it's the damage theists do, all in the name of their religion.  Your homophobia, your intolerance, your willingness to execute your own children through a lack of basic medical care, your efforts to destroy science education in the name of your belief set, your need to pass laws protecting your rights at the expense of the rights of others -- are just a few examples.  Disagree?  How about your own intolerance.  Let me repeat:

"This country is about freedom of, not from, religion. "

You see?  You can't even handle the idea of non-believers, whether they are atheists, agnostics, or apathists.   What you seem to be afraid of is a dissenting point of view.

What Harry said in 1948 rings true today more than ever!

Gryphen, over on the Immoral Minority blog had this terrific post "Remember, Harry Truman had the Republicans' number almost 70 years ago." reminding us of the words of Harry S. Truman in 1948. They bear repeating in these times:

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke.

They stand four-square for the American home — but not for housing.

They are strong for labor — but they are stronger for restricting labor’s rights.

They favor minimum wage — the smaller the minimum wage the better.

They endorse educational opportunity for all — but they won’t spend money for teachers or for schools.

They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine — for people who can afford them.

They consider electrical power a great blessing — but only when the private power companies get their rake-off.

They think American standard of living is a fine thing — so long as it doesn’t spread to all the people.

And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.

Now, my friends, that is the Wall Street Republican way of life. But there is another way — there is another way — the Democratic way, the way of the Democratic Party."(Source)

If Harry was giving the speech today he might have added a few things, perhaps:

• Republicans are all for Women's Rights, as long as it isn't the right to control their own bodies or the right of equal pay for equal work.
• Republicans support Civil Rights, as long at those rights aren't actually implemented in a way that might be construed as fair.
• Republicans approve of Gay Marriage, after all, marriage between a man and a woman should be happy!
• Republicans believe the climate is changing, but not that human activity could be a significant contributing factor -- because that would limit the amount of funding received from those patriotic energy companies.
• Republicans support Freedom of Religion, as long as they are free to support whichever religion means the most votes for them.

And some people wonder why I have separated myself from the Republican Party!  ("I Believe it is Time to Part Ways with the Republican Party", "I've Been Getting Some Flack Over My Issues With the Republican Party").  I am not saying the Democratic Party is perfect, but when you compare the platforms of both parties, one stands much closer what we should strive to be as Americans, and it's not the Republican Party!  Currently I am registered as an Independent, and plan to stay that way until one party stands for not just a majority of the things I support, but stands for things that make sense in the 21st century, not the 19th.

Jesus and Mo "Whatever Happened to Freedom of Religion

Timely strip from Jesus and Mo:

Remind you of anybody?  Or even a few groups!

How Can You Tell When your Religious Liberties are being Violated?

I caught this from one of my favorite blogs, Exploring Our Matrix, by James F. McGrath.  It's a topic I have been mulling over, especially this time of year when I keep hearing about this 'War on Christmas' and the constant 'War on Christians'.  Apparently many theists can't seem to grasp when their religious liberties are actually being violated, as opposed to when they CLAIM they are being violated.

So as a public service, I'm going to help them out and re-blog this bit and maybe some might actually learn the difference.  First up, the graphic, which sums it up perfectly:

The originator article, references by Dr. McGrath, is from the Huffington Post, "How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions".  They make a very telling point.  If you believe that anything from the right side of the graphic is a violation of your religious liberties, then you are most likely trying to use your religious liberties to violate the religious liberties, or even the civil rights, of other folks.

So, to be clear, what Kim Davis did last year was NOT a violation of her religious liberties.  It is a perfect example of her attempting to use her religion to violated the civil rights of other people.  No one was trying to stop her from practicing her religion, but they were trying to stop her from inflicting her religion on other people!

I posting this a while ago, but it bears repeating:

"Back in the mid-to-late 80's two young airmen assigned to Nellis AFB refused to salute the flag or to salute and obey the orders of female officers (The Spokesman-Review) claiming a religious objection.  They were held responsible for their actions."

This isn't a far-fetched example, but something that actually occurred when I was stationed there!  I was teaching Professional Military Education (PME) at the time, and the case was something we discussed in many Leadership and Management classes at the time.

Any law that will permit businesses to discriminate based on the owner's religious beliefs should never be passed or signed into law!  I know that's a false hope because politicians will pander to anyone they can for votes, but that doesn't make it right!  There are laws being considered in many states for this express purpose.  I hate to see it, but I am waiting for the first lawsuit against a business for discrimination citing religious grounds.  Don't I recall many issues claiming religion as the reason for denying African-Americans their civil rights?  For denying women the right to vote?  Go back a while and wasn't religion also used to prevent women from owning property?

Are we really heading back to those days?

Let's expand a little beyond Religious Liberties.  I have a question for you.  Is not teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design in public school science classes a violation of Free Speech?  Think about it?  And yet that was one of the defenses used by John Freshwater when he was fired by the Mount Vernon school system.  It's also one of the tactics used by the conservative religious Discovery Institute in pushing for the replacement of actual science with religious dogma.

Someone needs to tell Ken Ham that Religious Freedom is not a license to Discriminate

I guess I will try, but I doubt he's listening.  He's all about discrimination!  Didn't he once blame discrimination on Evolution?  I'll have to find the reference, but I recall kennie blogging something about witnessing discrimination in the 70's and feeling horrified, of course he never mentioned anything about it until recently when he jumped on the DI bandwagon and started blaming discrimination on Darwin.  But now we all know, religion is the cause of discrimination.

Little kennie ham just had to weigh in on the Kentucky clerk situation, what a shock.  I'm not going to link to it, mainly because do you really need to read it?  You know what he's going to say.  I haven't read it yet, but I did see the title "Another Religious Freedom Case in Kentucky".  Is this case really about religious freedom?  In a way, but I doubt in the way kennie treats it.

Historically, kennie has been trying to sell the idea that the whole world is turning against Christians and any time anyone says anything negative, it's an attack on Christianity.  I have several issues with that.  First of all, kennie and his minions [not the cute yellow ones] do not represent Christianity.  They are a small, but vocal, sect of Evangelical Christians that I prefer to call 'Hamians', mainly because they certainly do not reflect Christianity in much else but name.  Another issue is with his idea of religious freedom, and I have said this several times, in my opinion he defines religious freedom as:

"The freedom for me [kennie] to believe as I wish and the freedom to make you believe as I wish as well."

That, to me, is not religious freedom.  I have been to the Creation Museum, I have been on AiG's site for years.  I have laughed hilariously as Kentucky finally wised up to what kennie has been up to with his discriminatory hiring practices for the Ark Park.  Everything he does is designed to force the rest of the world to his viewpoint, whether we want to or not makes little difference to him.

I am sure you know about the Kentucky clerk, Kim Davis, who refused to give marriage licenses to gay couples because it was against her religion -- she refused up and just today went to jail.  She also ordered the other clerks not to do it because it was against HER religion, obviously their religion beliefs do not matter to her.  She was not jailed for her religious beliefs, but for contempt of court for her refusal to do her job as ordered.  You can find many links to this all over news sites.

You can probably guess my take on it.  She was voted into office to be the clerk, she was not voted into office to practice her religion.  It is illegal for her to use her religion as a reason to discriminate.  The clerkship is an office, not a person.  She has no right to discriminate!  She isn't issuing marriage licenses for herself, but for the county.  She should have resigned her position -- that would have made this a matter of principle -- and while I would still disagree with her and her principles, I would at least respect her.  As it is, I don't think she deserves any respect, and whoever is giving her legal advice even less.  But I bet kennie just loves her, I wonder how many times she'll be speaking at his 'museum' once she's released.

Actually kennie didn't have much to say, but he did try and sneak something in, did you catch it?  It's right in the title:  "Another . . .", what does he mean by 'another'.  What he did at the end of his little commentary was put a plug . . . oh here, you read it, I added the underlining:

"I also encourage you to learn more about a religious liberty case involving AiG and our Ark project that we have filed against the state of Kentucky."

Yes, supposedly kennie and his crack legal team are suing the State of Kentucky to get the state sales tax exemption back after Kentucky pulled it following the notice of his discriminatory hiring practices.  I've posted about it here, here, and also here.  In a nutshell, kennie had some help from Kentucky after promising to follow state hiring practices because the ark park wasn't a non-profit ministry.  Then after posting job openings that were discriminatory, blatantly discriminatory, the state pulled their support.  Little kennie is claiming the state is discriminating against him and wants his exemptions back.

You know, now that I see both issues side-by-side so to speak, I can see the parallels, no wonder kennie loves the clerk.  She discriminates and when held accountable, claims her religion as her shield.  He did exactly the same thing!  She took an oath to perform her duties, and kennie promised abide by state hiring practices.  She went to jail and kennie went . . . well . . . to a lawyers office to sue.  OK, the parallels only go so far, but it is interesting.

It will be 'fun' when he comes back from inflicting his point on view on Northern Ireland and hear what he says about her being in jail.  My only question is will he put her up for sainthood or martyrdom?  I do predict kennie will make an analogy of Jesus on the cross and the clerk in her jail cell.  Only time will tell.

Here is an interesting editorial cartoon: