In my last post I began responding to a piece by Frederick Meekins, titled “Have Yourself A Theistic (Not Atheistic) Little Christmas,“ in which he charged that atheists are just as dogmatic in their epistemological assumptions as the most zealous evangelical Christian. Now I would like to examine the rest of what he wrote on atheists and morality.

He begins with the usual charge:

For example, if God does not exist, who is to say whatever the individual thinks or does is right or wrong? As has been said, in some cultures they are suppose to love their neighbors and in others they eat them. To the cannibal the adage is not so much finger licking good but rather good to lick fingers.

Think about this for a moment. Mr. Meekins is painting a picture of morality in which humans are helpless little babies that cannot reason at all about matters of right or wrong and therefore require a divine hand to set us straight. The Bible itself even makes it clear that this is not the situtation - when Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Knowledge their eyes were opened, and they recognized good from evil (Gen. 3).

But let’s turn around and ask the reverse question, for I think it is far more illustrative: If God does exist, how are we to know what is right or wrong? Can we just ask Him? Does God periodically send down commandments from the top of mountains? If somebody claims to know what God thinks, or claims that God has spoken a moral command to him or her, why should we believe it? In other words, how do we know what God’s true pronouncements are?

The Christian has an answer: the Bible. It is the word of God and contains all the moral guidance humankind will ever need. Of course, we shall not simply assume that an ancient collection of literature is the actual word of God, but I digress. So, is morality reduced to following the rules laid out in the Bible? I don’t think so. Christians hardly follow all of the hundreds of archaic codes and laws “revealed” to the Jews in the Old Testament. And for good reason. Nobody in this country follows the many rules and procedures for handling slaves. But, you might interject, that was a different culture and a different time - slavery was an accepted practice back then. However, if our only source of morality comes from the Bible then from whence came this notion that slavery is immoral? It certainly didn’t come from a closer reading of the Bible!

The Bible contains many more clearly immoral pronouncements. Take, for example:

Deuteronomy 23:2
Those born of an illicit union shall not be admitted to the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord.

I would like to know if Mr. Meekins accepts God’s judgement on this matter. A child, and up to ten generations of his or her offspring, are to be damned simply because of an accident of birth that is no fault of and is not under control of the child itself.

Besides, it seems that much of the Old Testament histories is a story of the Israelites disobeying their divinely revealed laws and Yahweh getting angry. After all, what was the first thing that they did after Yahweh freed them from Egypt, led them safely to Mt. Sinai, and presented them with His ten commandments? They worshiped a golden calf. Some example!

So if the Bible cannot help steer us morally, then I believe that Mr. Meekins’ question is a valid one to ask him: Even if God exists, who is to say what is right and wrong?

You see,  it is not about what some individual thinks is right or wrong. The founding fathers of the United States recognized the danger inherent in bestowing upon a single individual all of the power to legislate morality. Humans are social animals, and morality is a social process of back and forth negociation, trial and error, and most of all rational considerations. We are collectively responsible for ourselves and what kind of a society in which we wish to live. That is not such a bad prospect.

But Meekins is not done yet. He has another punch to throw:

If anything, what atheists exhibit when they manifest goodness is remaining Judeo-Christian moral capital. These individuals professing godlessness remain largely good because they have been acculturated in a milieu largely Biblical in its underlying ethical orientation.

So, atheists are only moral because enough “Judeo-Christian” morality has rubbed off on us! We are all indebted to the work of previous generations, but I daresay, given the above discussion, what exactly is this “Judeo-Christian moral captial”? Does it include Deuteronomy 23:2?

If anything, lack of divine restraints seems to send man’s compulsion to prey (not pray) upon his fellow man into overdrive. One only need to look at the histories of regimes with an explicit antipathy towards the God of the Bible such as Soviet Russia, Red China, and Nazi Germany.

Right…but let’s not forget how far more troublesome a firm convinction in divine dictates have been, historically, than a lack of divine restraint: religious wars and persecutions, terrorism, and all the other trouble religious certainty brings. Neither Soviet Russia, Red China, or Nazi Germany suffered because their regimes were zealously devoted to too much rationality, logic, and evidence. And one only need to look at the God of the Bible itself, within the pages of the Old Testament, for a figure that is more brutal and more murderous than all of those regimes combined.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

I just had the unfortunate pleasure of reading this, dare I say, wretched article by Frederick Meekins titled “Have Yourself A Theistic (Not Atheistic) Little Christmas.” While he begins by complaining about how rabid atheists are trying to elimenate public recognition that Jesus is the Son of God - nothing unusual there - the bulk of it is a terribly misguided critique of atheist morals. I don’t want to talk about that - yet. First I would like to draw out this one little paragraph buried near the middle, squeezed between an acknowledgement that children should be exposed to, among other evils, atheism before they are shocked by it in adulthood and his moral arguments:

Secondly, lack of a belief in something is a belief about it. For too long, Christians and allied theists have played into the hands of atheists and agnostics by going along with the notion that those professing unbelief are objective and unfettered by preconceived epistemological commitments and that the believers are the ones holding onto bedrock dogmatic foundations. Many atheists are just as rabid in their assumptions as the most zealous of pulpit-pounding evangelists.

To lack a belief in X only tells you that I do not believe that X is true. It does not mean that I believe that X must be false. I have not been persuaded that it is true, but not necessarily persuaded that it is false. So, if, as an atheist, I do not believe that God exists, this is not equivalent to saying that I am certain that God does not exist or that I dogmatically deny God’s existence. That might be case, but it is not necessarily the case.

More important, however, is the charge that Frederick makes at the end of this paragraph: that atheists are just as rapid and presumably dogmatic in our assumptions as “the most zealous” evangelist.

All right. Let’s examine some of our assumptions, then?

-Christians in general, not just the most zealous, assume that there is a supernatural world that exists and that there are beings within that supernatural world that can influence the course of events here in the natural world.

-Christians assume that, not only does a God exist, but that this said God communicated to mankind through a book, and that this book contains important revelations.

-Christians assume that if you talk to this God, He will actually listen to you.

-Christians assume that our physical bodies are not our entire selves and that there is a non-natural ’self’ which can survive death and, therefore, we will be eternally ‘alive.’ 

-Christians assume that, based on the weak evidence of their special book, a man was once both a man and god and rose from the dead, and that this action remedies that actions of two people they assume to have existed in the beginning.

-Christians assume that this same man, Jesus, will return to Earth someday in the ever distant future to usher in the end of the world.

-Am I missing any?

Okay. That’s a good start. What do atheists rabidly assume?

-Atheists assume that the natural world exists (obviously) and that, as far as we know from the available evidence, this is all that exists.

Gee, I don’t know - which assumptions seem more reasonable to you?

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Cover via Amazon

The January 2009 issue of Scientific American (devoted to Evolution), contains an article called “The Latest Face of Creationism” by two of the directors of the National Center for Science Education. The article also contains a compact time line of the battle between evolution and creationism that has played out over the past 100 years in public schools and courthouses across the country. “It highlights the way creationist tactics have shifted in response to evolution’s advances in classrooms and to court rulings that have banned religious proselytizing in public schools.”

It is actually quite interesting to see how creationist or anti-evolutionist strategies have evolved over time in response to a series of defeats and setbacks. So, for your reading pleasure, here is the Scientific American time line:

Late 1910s and early 1920s:
As high school attendance rises, more American students become exposed to evolution.

1925:
Butler Act in Tennessee outlaws teaching of human evolution. Teacher John T. Scopes is prosecuted and convicted under the law, although the conviction is later overturned on a technicality.

1958:
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) is founded with funds from a federal government concerned about science education in the wake of Sputnik. BSCS’s textbooks emphasize evolution, which was largely absent from textbooks after the Scopes trial; commercial publishers follow suit.

1968:
Supreme Court rules in case of Epperson v. Arkansas that laws barring the teaching of evolution in public schools are unconstitutional. Teacher Susan Epperson is shown at the left in 1966.

1981:
Louisiana passes the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act. Also in the 1980s legislators in more than 25 states introduce bills calling for “creation science” to have equal time with evolution.

1987:
Supreme Court rules in the case of Edwards v. Aguillardthat the Louisiana Balanced Treatment Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

1989:
Of Pandas and People, the first book systematically to use the term “intelligent design” is published; it touts the notion as an alternative to evolution.

2001:
Passage of the No Child Left Behind Act cements the importance of state science standards, which have become a new battleground between creationism and evolution (because inclusion of evolution in science standards increases the likelihood that evolution will be taught).

2005:
Decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District rules that teaching intelligent design in the public schools is unconstitutional. The photograph at the right captures plaintiff Tammy Kitzmiller during a break from the trial.

June 2008:
Governor Bobby Jindal signs the Louisiana Science Education Act into law. Marketed as supporting critical thinking in classrooms, the law threatens to open the door for the teaching of creationism and for scientifically unwarranted critiques of evolution in public school science classes.

~~~~~

In brief, creationists of various stripes have moved from outlawing evolution, to demanding equal-time for “creation-science,” to pushing for “intelligent design,” to finally “teaching the controversy” or including evidence both for and against evolution in science curricula. Clearly, the tactic involved has become less and less extreme as they continue to achieve set back after set back. The latest tactic involves pushing school boards to modify science standards to subtly change the definition of science (so that it is not restricted to natural explanations) and introduce language in the biology sections that stresses that “weaknesses” to Darwin’s theory of evolution must be taught alongside its “strengths.”

These tactics, of course, have conceded a lot but at the same time not much. How far will this latest round go? Time will tell.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

The following is a guest post by OpenDiary blogger Atheist Under Ur Bed. This is part of an ongoing series that will be posted each Monday. You can read the introduction to this series by clicking here.

Welcome once again to Monday School - “The Rational Corrective To All That Nonsense You Learned Yesterday.”

The closer we examine concepts such as God, Jesus, and judgment, the faster they seem to burn away like fog under a rising sun. Today I’d like us to expose Christianity’s keystone concept of salvation to that same bright sun of examination. Will anything of substance remain when we’re done? Let’s find out!

For the sake of argument, let us assume that you’ve accepted as true what the average Christian seems to believe about God, Jesus, and judgment. Let us imagine that you have sincerely begged that Christian to tell you what you must do to win God’s favor and avoid eternal hellfire. Being a good Christian who is anxious to hasten your salvation, he or she immediately gives you his or her own personal copy of the New Testament with the words, “THIS reveals all you need to know!” Thrilled at the prospect of soon obtaining eternal life in heaven, you run home with this work and begin to read….

The first really relevant passage seems to be Matt. 6:14: “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you….” That sounds simple enough. If we forgive others, God will forgive us. Period. No exceptions are listed. No asterisk is apparent which might direct our attention to the fine print at the bottom of the page. Since it’s Jesus himself who supposedly said this, one can’t reject its truth without rejecting either the Bible or Jesus. If we forgive others, God will forgive us - and we’re in!

Somehow that doesn’t seem quite right, however. Why should our eternal salvation depend upon whether or not we forgive the guy who murdered our child, say, or the latest suicide bomber who has targeted our countrymen? Even worse: Other Christians you know have told you that other things besides forgiveness are required. You keep reading in hopes more will be said….

Matt. 12:36-37: “But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”

Hmmm. So, apparently, simple forgiveness is not enough. It’s our words that matter. What words? Well, Matt. 16:31-32 says that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost will not be forgiven - neither in this life nor the next. Not even if we forgive others? Apparently not. This seems to contradict Matt. 6:14. Better keep reading!

It is with great relief that we come to Matt. 19: 16-26. It is there that we find someone in our exact position. Lacking a New Testament that has yet to be written, a man goes to Jesus himself and asks, “Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” Our eyes eagerly read Jesus’s reply: “Keep the commandments.” Which?? “Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

Ok, now you’re really confused. Jesus hasn’t mentioned that we need to forgive anybody. He doesn’t recall that he’s already asserted that it’s what wesay that’s the key to our salvation. Now he says “Keep the commandments.” When asked which, he mentions only five of the famous Ten Commandments. Does that mean we can ignore the rest and still be saved? So it seems. But one of those commandments he has left out is “Have no other gods before me.” So, are we now free to worship other gods so long as we honor our parents and remember not to murder, steal, commit adultery, or bear false witness??

Maybe Jesus was merely citing these five as a shorthand reminder for all ten? A new problem arises: “Love thy neighbor” isn’t one of the Ten Commandments at all. It pops up in Lev. 19:18. Now what?? It seems either Jesus was saying we need to obey these six rules - and only these six - or he meant to imply we must obey everything in the OT that might conceivably be interpreted as a commandment. Including those nasty commandments to kill witches, gay men, offspring who talk back to us, etc. There are over 600 commandments, I’m told - many abhorrent to modern sensibilities, and many at odds with “Love thy neighbor.” Yikes!

We read on. The guy Jesus is talking to says “All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?” Jesus has an answer. Does Jesus say, “You must be baptized”? Does he say “You must believe every word of the Bible is literally true”? Does Jesus say “You must be born again” or “You must one day soon believe I have risen from the dead” or “You must regularly confess your sins and consume holy wafers and wine”? No. What Jesus says is this: “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven…. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”

This is amazing. It takes one’s breath away. The Christian who gave you this book to read seems not to have ever read it himself! Instead of selling what he has and giving the proceeds to the poor, he has a big home, a nice car, and goes around repeatedly telling others they MUST be born again, and they MUST believe Jesus died for their sins, and they MUST ask Jesus for forgiveness - things Jesus himself had the chance to demand here and did not when asked point-blank “How do I win eternal life?” Jesus doesn’t mention anything that must be believed. He doesn’t mention faith. It’s what we do and how we treat other people that matters - period. According to Jesus himself, even atheists apparently can be perfect in this regard and entitled to eternal life in heaven.

With eyes wide open, you read on….

Matt. 19:29: “… every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.”

Say what?! Stunned, you scream at Jesus, “But you just told me I had to honor my father and mother! How can I do that AND forsake them?!?!”

No answer. None. You are left to sit in silence and recall all the other contradictory things the Bible has told you. You are left to wonder why so many of your Christian friends berate and even hate politicians who seem to contradict themselves, yet give Jesus a full and complete pardon when he does the same thing….

Glumly, you turn to Mark. Maybe Mark will clear things up….

As luck would have it, Mark pretty much repeats what Matthew has quoted Jesus as saying about salvation.

Until you get to Mark 16:16: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

Doesn’t matter if you forgive others. Doesn’t matter what you say or do. Suddenly, belief & baptism are what matter; and if this passage is to be believed, they are all that matter.

Lucky for you, Mark 16:16 is almost certainly a lie.

How can I say this?

1) This is one of the last and most important things Jesus allegedly ever said - and yet only Mark reports it. Although Jesus is supposedly talking to his 11 surviving apostles, somehow these words of his never reached the authors of Matthew, Luke, John, or Acts.

2) The Encyclopedia Britannica tells me there are no such visions of the risen Jesus in the best manuscripts of Mark we have, and that verses 16:9-20 are commonly held to be “later additions.” That’s polite academic language for “bullshit,” and it’s presence anywhere within the Gospels is enough to call into doubt virtually everything they say.

3) The verses which immediately follow Mark 16:16 contain at least one obvious lie: “And these signs shall follow them that believe… They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them….” The “eyewitness” testimony of whoever wrote these words simply cannot be trusted. At least not until I see Christians survive drinking arsenic-laced lemonade.

Against your better judgment, you decide to read Luke….

Luke 19:1-10 tells us the story of Zaccheus. He was a rich man and a recognized sinner who told Jesus that he had given half his goods to the poor. He also tells Jesus that if he’d taken anything from any man by false accusation, he’ll restore it four-fold. Jesus’s verdict? “This day is salvation come to this house.” He didn’t ask Zaccheus what he believed. He didn’t ask if he had faith or been born again. Once again, what a person does seems all that Jesus cares about.

The we come to John. The Gospel of John seems to have been written long after the others. John differs from them in many ways. And it is John that really mucks things up.

John 3:3: “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

John 3:5: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

John 3:15: “… whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.”

Matthew, Luke, and the main author of Mark seem to have been asleep at the wheel when Jesus allegedly said these things. Go figure.

One moves on to Acts 13:48. “And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” What?! Those ordained to eternal life believe rather than the other way around?? You mean it’s all fixed? God has already decided who will and won’t be saved and belief is merely a sign rather than a prerequisite???

Alas, Romans 8:28-30 seems to confirm this very troubling state of affairs: “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Ephesians 1:4-6, 1:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, and 1 Peter 1:2 all seem to agree: Salvation is predestined.

In desperation, you open up your copy of the Old Testament. What does it say?

“Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts….” - Psalm 65:4

So, you tell me: Is one saved by good works? (What works?) Right belief? (What are the right beliefs?) Blind faith? (Faith in what?) Baptism? Did God arbitrarily choose who will be saved long before we were even born, as Calvinists believe? Read the Bible all you want, from now until forever, you simply will not find definitive answers to any of these questions no matter how hard or sincerely you try. It is like trying to assemble a bike according to an instruction manual that reads “Insert A into slot B, and then B into slot A, but by no means should you ever allow A or B to come within 10 feet of each other. Consult diagram C for details (not included).”

Other questions for which no good answers exist: Is it a case of “once saved, always saved” or can one fall from grace and lose one’s salvation? Is a deathbed conversion after a life of evil enough to get one into heaven? Is a delirious deathbed renunciation of one’s Christianity enough to get one damned for all eternity even if one has lived a moral life? Does God add up all the minutes one has been good or believed a certain thing in one’s life and compare that sum with all the minutes one has been bad or not believed that thing? Exactly how many alms to the poor or minutes of repentance does it take to make up for the theft of a pen? The rape of a child? The machine gunning of unarmed civilians?

Rather than continue to chase after the illusory answers the Christian dreamscape only seems to provide, I humbly suggest it is time we wake up and learn to spend our time in far more productive ways.

(5 votes, average: 5 out of 5)

 Loading ...

At least that is how Mary Grabar’s article, The Atheists Who Try and Steal Christmas, begins. Google alerted me of this article this morning. The fact that it appears on Townhall.com, a conservative political website, did not give me much hope for something well reasoned and well thought out. And, indeed, it is not. There is no way I could bring myself to try and respond to every word in this, shall I say, mostly pathetic screed. I will, however, present you with some lowlights.

Here is the opening jab:

Tis the season. . .  for atheist Grinches to display their hatred of Christmas by trying to stomp out one of the most visible displays of Christianity in a country founded, and still operating on, Judeo-Christian principles.

Mary doesn’t go on to explain just which, exactly, of those Judeo-Christian principles the United States was founded upon. Indeed, the very foundations of America - democracy, liberty, natural rights - cannot be found anywhere in the Bible or more generally in the Church’s long and storied history. Render unto caesar? Rather, they were born in the Englightenment. I suppose that Mary, like many other conservative Christians, think that if they repeat this myth long enough and loud enough it will eventually be true. 

As for our alleged “hatred” of Christmas…here she is referring more specifically to the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s installation of a sign with a anti-religious message in the State of Washington’s capitol building next to a display of the nativity. Mary grossly distorts what this move was all about. It was not about hating Christmas. It was not about stomping out a very religious and very Christian display in a public building. It was about fairness and separation of Church and State. If Christians wish to put a religious display, like a manger with baby Jesus, in a government office, then neutrality demands that people of other faiths - or no faith at all - should be granted the same courtesy. Fortunately, Washington was enlightened enough to agree. Personally, I feel that no such displays should be put in government buildings. But, of course, it was Christians who insisted on putting their nativity display there in the first place. And, of course, it is Christians like Mary who can’t stand the consequences of that action. 

Let’s move one:

[Atheist's] attempt to subvert Christmas with a claim that it is simply a superstitious appropriation of the solstice resembles other attempts to diminish and ultimately wipe out Christianity.

Christmas is not “simply” a superstitious appropriation of the solstice. It IS an appropriation of the solstice. Mary doesn’t try and deny this, but she doesn’t exactly acknowledge it, either. Again, the Bible does not say on which day Jesus was born and Jesus never instructs his disciples to celebrate his birthday year in and year out. It is no coincidence that December 25th was, in the first few centuries CE, the date upon which the winter solstice fell in the Northern Hemisphere - the hemisphere in which Rome sits. And it is no coicidence that December 25th was a popular religious festival all across Rome before and after it converted to Christianity - the ‘birthday’ of the unconquerable sun. But I disgress…see my previous post on this subject.

The educationists have maligned Christianity, but even secularists, if they are intellectually honest, have to acknowledge that our form of democracy has its roots in Christianity.  Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America wrote, “there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America; and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.” 

No we do not! Mary seems to think that just because a majority of the United States population is and has been Christian that means that our democracy has its roots in Christianity. Baloney. You can read the New Testament over and over again until the pages disintegrate and you will never find Jesus, Paul, or any of the other apostles preaching the merits of a democratic government. The Papacy adopted a top-down, monarchical structure modelled after the Roman Empire, not a democracy. The Bible contains no democratic principles. The majority of early colonists that settled in America were protestants of various denominations searching for religious freedom from the Kings and Queens of Europe. The roots of democracy lie in the religious persecutions of faithful, European Christians - not in Christianity itself.

The usual suspects will complain that Tocqueville was writing about a “free nation” that hypocritically practiced slavery.  The atheists will point to the stories of rape, pillage, and murder in the Old Testament.  What about Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac at God’s command? they predictably retort.

What they forget, or don’t know (thanks, public schools), is that child-sacrifice was common among polytheistic, “pagan” religions.  (Think about that as you worship magical Nature during the solstice.)  The Old Testament story serves as illustration of God’s mercy and a foretelling of the coming of the Savior.  And, one more time, the American abolitionist movement was a fundamentally Christian movement, as are many movements today to end slavery still being practiced in non-Western countries.

Well, I guess I am not usual suspect. The Old Testament story might be, in some way, an illustration of God’s mercy, but it is most definitely also an illustration of God’s maniacal-ness. After all, if God is all-knowing, then he would have already known that Abraham would be willing to obey His every command and would have had no need to “test” his faith. The fact that God did and somehow thinks that the willingless of a father to murder his own son just because God tells him to is actually a good quality makes God a monster. Forget the emotional scars that Isaac would have endured. The real message in this disturbing little story is that if you actually believe that God is telling you to sacrifice someone else’s life then it is a  noble thing to carry out those commands. Anyone who follows the news in some depth already knows that some people actually do follow through with it. 

As for the abolitionist movement, Mary should know better. What she doesn’t mention is that the anti-abolitionist movement was also fundamentally a Christian movement - and even more so. Led by southern, white protestants, anti-abolitionists could at least plainly and honestly use the Bible to support keeping slavery around. Really, though, this is just one example of the general morality of our society progressing beyond the morality of the authors of the Bible. That some Christians were able to move beyond the immoral principles sanctioned in their own holy book means that they, as individual and progressive thinkers, deserve a gold star - not Christianity itself.

Freedom From Religion should remember that we have freedom of religion, not from religion.  The founding fathers understood the importance of religious belief, especially that which values human reason and free will.  They understood that those without a higher authority are vulnerable to earthly tyranny.  They understood the value of such displays in the public square.  

The founding fathers lived in a different time. They are not to be taken as absolute authorities on everything. Nevertheless, they did intentionally found a secular society rather than an explicitly Christian one. And for good reason. They were acutely aware of the abuses mixing church and state resulted in on the other side of the pond. Therefore, they remain a firm basis on which to understand the basic principles of this government. Would they have agreed that a freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion? While never explicitly stating it in this way, they probably would. After all, many of them were deists and rejected much in terms of traditional religion. This can all readily be learned if you take the time to do it.

If Mary is correct, however, that means we have the freedom to choose a religion but not the freedom to reject all religions. Nonsense. And so it goes with the rest of this paragraph.

The main thrust of Mary’s argument in this essay, however, is that the Freedom From Religion Foundation is only targeting Christians and not targeting other religious groups, like Muslims. For example, she cites an attempt in New York to open a publicly funded Muslim school and then claims that the FFRF is not complaining about it. I found it somewhat ironic, however, after reading the above citation, that the Thomas More Law Center was all over opposing the school. The Thomas More Law Center is a conservative Christian legal firm most famous for defending the Dover Area School District in the 2005 ‘Intelligent Design’ trial.

Now, I cannot speak for the FFRF, but I am equally opposed to publically funded Muslim schools as I am publically Christian schools. The public school in question is the Khalil Gibran International Academy. As far as I can tell from the Wikipedia entry, the school is not a sectarian Islamic school. Rather, the school focuses on teaching Arabic language, culture, and history in much the same way as our Euro-centric public schools teach English language, culture, and history. That, in principle, I have no objection with because it is not indoctrination. Mary, who holds a Ph.D according to the blurb at the bottom of her essay, should know better than to conflate ’school that emphasizes arabic language, culture, and history’ with ‘muslim religious school’.

But I suppose that would be hoping for too much…

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

If you don’t feel like celebrating the alledged birth of Jesus of Nazareth today, why not celebrate the birth of Sir Isaac Newton (December 25, 1642)?

After all, we know for sure that Newton existed and his contributions to science positively transformed the way in which we think about and study the world! And that’s more than I can say about Jesus.

So, Merry Newtonmas!

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

In my current poll I ask whether or not atheists should celebrate Christmas. As of this writing, 65% of readers answered ‘Yes’, 25% ‘No’, and the remaining 10% were undecided. I am a bit surprised that so many people agreed that atheists should celebrate Christmas, but this is not far off from my own opinion on the matter.

Christmas day is tomorrow. For many atheists and unbelievers, especially those that live in the United States as I do, this time of the year can often present some challenges. Christmas is undoubtedly a Christian holiday - the word ‘Christmas’ being a derivative of the old English Cristes Maesse, or the Mass of Christ - but it also has many elements that are not only appealing but don’t seem to have anything to do with Christianity at all. And that is mainly why I think that it is okay for atheists to celebrate Christmas if they so choose. Many of the traditions associated with this holiday are either pagan or secular in origin. In other words, as oxymoronic as it may sound, there are many ways for non-believers to celebrate a non-Christian version of Christmas. The decorations, many of the songs and carols, the gifts, the food, etc.

In fact, as far as I can tell, most of what we associate with Christmas is not Christian in origin at all! Christmas trees? The Bible itself speaks against cutting down trees and decorating them (as a form of idolatry):

(Jeremiah 10:1-4)
Hear the word that the Lord speaks to you, O house of Israel. Thus says the Lord: Do not learn the way of the nations, or be dismayed at the signs of the heavens; for the nations are dismayed at them.  For the customs of the peoples are false: a tree from the forest is cut down, and worked with an axe by the hands of an artisan; people deck it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so that it cannot move.

Shocking, I know. Perhaps somebody ought to remind Bill O’Reily of that passage. For more origins of Christmas traditions, check out this webpage or this blog post by a Christian.

The Bible also doesn’t specify when Jesus was born - and it is hard to believe that shepherds would be out with their flock in the dead of winter. In Rome, during the first few centuries CE (or ‘AD’), Romans celebrated the birthday of the unconquerble sun (sol invictus) on December 25th - which involved worshipping a number of solar deities. December 25th was chosen because it was, at that time, the winter solstice, or the time of the year in the northern hemisphere when the days start to become longer. In the 4th century, December 25th was chosen for the celebration of the birth of Jesus to replace the pagan holiday with something more Christian. Now, the birthday of the unconquerable sun became the birthday of the unconquerable son. Cute, I know, but a mid-third century mosaic found in the necropolis under St. Peter’s Basillica actually depicts Jesus as a sort of sun-god:

So, if you are an atheist and are thinking about celebrating certain aspects of Christmas (even if you do not call it that) - don’t feel bad! After all, Christians hardly have a monopoly on this time of year.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

While millions of Christians in the United States will be celebrating the birth of Jesus, non-believers perhaps can take some comfort knowing that our friends on the other side of the pond are growing increasingly skeptical of the nativity story:

Most ‘do not believe in nativity’: The majority of Britons do not believe the Biblical story of the birth of Jesus, a survey has suggested.

Of 1,000 people questioned, 70% doubted the account, according to the British Market Research Bureau. Almost a quarter of people who described themselves as Christians shared their scepticism. St Helen’s Church in Bishopsgate, London, which commissioned the survey, has produced a film of “sound evidence” supporting the Bible’s account. More than a fifth of Christians who answered said they did not believe Jesus was both God and Man - another central tenet of Christianity. Young people were particularly sceptical.

BBC religious affairs correspondent Robert Piggott said the findings suggested a fading influence for the Church’s teaching in a secular age.

Nostalgia

“They also reinforce evidence that believers are increasingly willing to pick and choose which elements of the Bible’s story they accept,” he added. Simon Gathercole, a new testament scholar at Cambridge University, said people were sceptical because they were not aware the origins of Christianity were anchored in real history.

“Jesus was born while Augustus was emperor of Rome just before Herod died… we’re talking about events that are anchored in real history not in ancient Greek myths.”

He also said some people think of Christmas as being religiously significant for purely nostalgic reasons. ”There’s something in us that misses that connection with God that we sometimes feel our historical forebears had,” he said.

Actually, we really should be talking about nativity stories, not the nativity story - because the Bible gives two inconsistent versions. One by Matthew, the other by Luke. Yet the esteemed Cambridge professor is under the impression that this is all anchored in real history and that Jesus was definitely born just before Herod died in 4 BC (yes, that is four years ‘Before Christ’). Well, that seems to be the case if you consult Matthew. If you consult Luke, however, you find that Jesus was born during a census ordered “while Quirinius was governor of Syria” (Luke 2). Quirinius did order a census while governor of Syria, but that did not occur until 6-7 AD, or some 10 years after Herod died!

Britons should not believe in the biblical stories of the birth of Jesus, and neither should you.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

The following is a guest post by