A.J. Papandrea has written the following piece for the Australian Brisbane Times about how atheism is continually being subtly (and perhaps not so subtly) suppressed within society. For example, A.J. points to an apparent asymmetry in the way in which atheism and religion are allowed to be treated in a critical manner in the public sphere.
What do you think? Does your experiences agree with A.J.?
Oh my God, atheists want to speak out
March 30, 2009THESE days, holding an opinion or a belief is far from frowned upon. That is unless that belief is theism, or rather a lack thereof. I find so often, being an atheist, that you must tread carefully around any topic that incorporates some form of higher power so as to avoid offending anyone, yet religious groups are free to openly advertise and to criticise science.
The suppression of atheism extends far beyond this. The churches are allowed soapboxes in the form of TV commercials, door-to-door canvassers, billboards and an Adelaide bus campaign. However, when a non-theistic organisation uses their own funds and attempts to run an ad on a bus celebrating reason, it is deemed inappropriate.
We seem to do everything we can to cater for religious organisations, and in return get nothing but childish comments that sound like school children teasing each other. Fatuous statements like “Jesus loves you”. While we are forced into taking a neutral and ambiguous stance when saying “I believe God doesn’t exist”, others have the freedom to say “God does exist”. It is considered intolerant and insensitive and offensive to come straight out with “God does not exist”.
The truth is, many of us find the relentless push for funds from some organisations like Hillsong just as offensive, let alone comments from Pastor Danny Nalliah claiming that the Victorian bushfires were the fault of the grieving families, the blocking of stem-cell research on biblical grounds, or the Westboro Baptists’ picketing of funerals – yet we are the only apparent minority without an avenue for expressing ourselves.
As a university student, I find most people I know are atheists and religious student groups are becoming increasingly diminished. Yet we are still burdened by a stigma that prevents us from airing our opinions. Religious groups, on the other hand, are free to delve into the private lives of others and declare them to be immoral and worthy of damnation.
We would like to have as much freedom of speech without a narrow-minded few finding our opinions offensive and attempting to prevent us from expressing them.
We could spend hours fighting wars over creationism and whose imaginary friend is better, but I’d rather chance my fate than surrender my right to freedom of speech.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=9bff5569-efe0-4a60-90e9-0cebb4afaa6d)
I suppose there must be, but… I can’t think of any.
Three recent stories, on the other hand, reminded me of just how irrational some of the most famous members of the GOP continue to be:
—– Newt Gingrich Finds Religion – Takes Vow Of Silence (Johanna Neuman/The Los Angeles Times; March 31)
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, known for his nimble mind and fondness for debate, converted to Catholicism over the weekend at St. Joseph’s Church in Washington. Then the former Georgia congressman and onetime Baptist went into a cone of silence, not giving interviews or even Twittering.
In his blog called God and Country, Dan Gilgoff wrote, “So far, Gingrich has been conspicuously quiet about his conversion. He didn’t mention it in an interview with me earlier this month that focused on his stepped-up efforts to organize religious conservatives and promote religious liberty issues. An enthusiastic Twitterer, the former speaker has gone tweetless since Saturday.”
The twice-divorced Gingrich, who has confessed to previous marital infidelities, converted to the faith of his third wife, Calista Bisek. And politicos are already speculating that the conversion will help shore up his position with values voters as he contemplates another race for the presidency in 2012.
Deal Hudson, who founded the Catholic magazine Crisis and advised George W. Bush’s political guru Karl Rove, argues that the Gingrich’s conversion represents a personal and political cleansing.
“From a Catholic point of view,” Hudson told the Daily Beast’s Max Blumenthal, “Newt’s sins no longer exist – they’ve been absolved. He’s made a fresh start in life. So Newt will continue to sin and confess but there aren’t going to be a lot of Catholics who will hold that against him. They understand why being a Catholic makes a difference.”
Former Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.), himself a Catholic, attended the Sunday service with his wife. The lobbyist at Clark & Weinstock quipped that the event was different from others he’d attended with Gingrich because “it was the only event with Newt where he didn’t give a speech.”
Yes, given all the wonderful qualities of the Catholic Church that have been detailed in the stories I’ve recently shared here, here, here, here, here, and here I certainly can see why someone might want to choose this moment in time to embrace it. *Snort!*
—– Palin’s Prayer Remarks Angers Former Staffers (Peter Hamby/CNN; March 27)
WASHINGTON: Some of Sarah Palin’s former campaign aides are frustrated with the Alaska governor for remarking in a lengthy, freewheeling speech that she had refused to pray with them before last October’s vice presidential debate.
Palin told the story in a speech to a GOP dinner in Alaska last Friday.
“So I’m looking around for somebody to pray with, I just need maybe a little help, maybe a little extra,” she said of the moments before the debate. “And the McCain campaign, love ‘em, you know, they’re a lot of people around me, but nobody I could find that I wanted to hold hands with and pray.“
As the audience laughed, Palin noted that she meant no disrespect to the McCain campaign and that [she?] ended up saying a prayer with her daughter Piper.
A handful of the McCain campaign staffers who traveled with the former vice presidential nominee nearly every day for two months caught wind of Palin’s remarks on Thursday morning – and they aren’t thrilled with her quip.
“We all talked this A.M.,” said one former Palin aide in an e-mail. “This set off a nerve for sure with a lot of people.”
“It’s yet another example of the few staff still loyal to Palin questioning their loyalty and ardent defense of her over the several months since the campaign,” said the aide, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about campaign colleagues.
Since election day, Palin has publicly griped about the way she was handled by the McCain team and pushed back against some of the campaign advisers who attacked her anonymously in the press.
But another former staffer said that in doing so, Palin is failing to distinguish between the strategists at McCain headquarters and the people who were at her side every day from late August through election day.
“It’s about us people who were on the plane, who showed extreme loyalty to Palin, continually getting thrown under the bus or slapped in the face by her comments, whether she means it or not,” the staffer said, adding that Palin’s remarks “cause you to question not only your loyalty but her judgment as a leader.”…
Gotta love the way Christianity promotes humility and brings people together!
—– Will Revelations About Bobby Jindal’s Weird Secret Past Destroy His Political Career? (Max Blumenthal/The Daily Beast/AlterNet.org; Feb 25)
Did you know about the exorcism? The name that came from The Brady Bunch? Those and other surprising facts about one of America’s fastest rising young politicians.
Last night, on the evening of President Barack Obama’s first major speech, the Republicans put forward Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal as the face of the opposition, tapping him to deliver their response. As a 37-year-old Indian-American Rhodes Scholar, the first-term governor presented a deliberate visual counterpoint to Obama. His folksy speech last evening is meeting with mixed reviews. But with GOP politicians already jockeying for the 2012 primary, Jindal is emerging as a top contender.
“From the insiders I’m talking to, Jindal’s in the top three, right next to (Sarah) Palin and (Mitt) Romney. He’s the rock star of the Republican Party right now,” says Jeff Crouere, the former executive director of the Louisiana GOP and host of daily political talk show Ringside Politics.
But as the country gets acquainted with the Bayou’s boy wonder, the stranger details of Jindal’s religious or personal background remain largely unknown, even among the Republican grassroots. How many Americans know that Jindal boasted of participating in an exorcism that purged the spirit of Satan from a college girlfriend? So far, Jindal’s tale of “beating a demon” remains behind the subscription wall of New Oxford Review, an obscure Catholic magazine; only a few major blogs have seized on the story.
Born in Baton Rouge in 1971, Jindal rarely visited his parents’ homeland. His birth name was Piyush Jindal. When he was four years old, Piyush changed his name to “Bobby” after becoming mesmerized by an episode of The Brady Bunch. Jindal later wrote that he began considering converting to Catholicism during high school after “being touched by the love and simplicity of a Christian girl who dreamt of becoming a Supreme Court justice so she could stop her country from ‘killing unborn babies.’” After watching a short black-and-white film on the crucifixion of Christ, Jindal claimed he “realized that if the Gospel stories were true, if Christ really was the son of God, it was arrogant of me to reject Him and question the gift of salvation.”
Jindal’s Hindu parents were non-plussed. “My parents have never truly accepted my conversion and still see my faith as a negative that overshadows my accomplishments,” he wrote. “They were hurt and felt I was rejecting them by accepting Christianity I long for the day when my parents understand, respect and possibly accept my faith. For now I am satisfied that they accept me.” (In a subsequent interview with Little India, Jindal claimed his parents were “very supportive. They felt like it was important that I was embracing God.”)
During his years at Brown University, Jindal pursued his Catholic faith with unbridled zeal. Jindal became emotionally involved with a classmate named Susan who had overcome skin cancer and struggled to cope with the suicide of a close friend. Jindal reflected in an article for a Catholic magazine (called “Beating a Demon: Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare”) that “sulfuric” scents hovered over Susan everywhere she went. In the middle of a prayer meeting, Jindal claimed that Susan collapsed and began convulsing on the floor. His prayer partners gathered together on the floor, holding hands and shouting, “Satan, I command you to leave this woman!”
While under the supposed control of satanic demons, Susan lashed out at Jindal and his friends. “Whenever I concentrated long enough to begin prayer, I felt some type of physical force distracting me,” Jindal reflected. “It was as if something was pushing down on my chest, making it very hard for me to breathe I began to think that the demon would only attack me if I tried to pray or fight back; thus, I resigned myself to leaving it alone in an attempt to find peace for myself.”
Toward the conclusion of what Jindal called “the tremendous battle between the Susan we knew and loved and some strange and evil force,” Jindal and his friends forced Susan to read passages from the Bible. “She choked on certain passages and could not finish the sentence ‘Jesus is Lord.’ Over and over, she repeated “Jesus is L..L..LL,” often ending in profanities,” Jindal wrote. Finally, evil gave way to the light. “Just as suddenly as she went into the trance, Susan suddenly reappeared and claimed ‘Jesus is Lord.’ With an almost comical smile, Susan then looked up as if awakening from a deep sleep and asked, ‘Has something happened?’”
During the 2006 gubernatorial campaign, the campaign of Jindal’s Democratic opponent, incumbent Gov. Kathleen Blanco, attempted to inject his religious views into the race by running an ad promoting a website called JindalonReligion.com, which featured his essay about participating in an exorcism. However, Jindal immediately fired back, denouncing the commercial as an assault on his faith and on the deeply religious culture of Louisiana. “Jindal turned that one around and tried to play the victim before (the Democrats) could get any traction,” Crouere told me. “Then the Blanco campaign just backed off”
Though Crouere is a Republican, he harbors strong doubts about Jindal. To him, the young governor is still too green for the national stage. “I just find it odd that the GOP seems to have as its savior a guy who has been in Congress for three years and governor for one year,” Crouere said. “The same criticism that was leveled against Obama for being untested could easily be leveled against Jindal.”
Because Obama entered the presidential campaign without an extensive political track record, the video histrionics of his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright, remained unexposed until the middle of the Democratic primary. Could similar exposure of Jindal’s tales of “spiritual warfare” complicate his ascendancy as well? “The Louisiana Democrats don’t really have their act together, and weren’t able to get the word out,” Crouere remarked. “I still don’t think a lot of people are aware of the nature of Jindal’s religious background.”
According to Wikipedia, “Jindal has a 100 percent pro-life voting record according to the National Right to Life Committee. He opposes abortion with no exceptions, even if mother’s life is thought to be in danger…. He opposes embryonic stem cell research and voted against increasing federal funding to expand embryonic stem cell lines…. Jindal opposes the legalization of same-sex marriage, and has voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment to restrict marriage to a union between one man and one woman…. Jindal voted yes on making the PATRIOT Act permanent, voted in favor of the 2006 Military Commissions Act, supported a constitutional amendment banning flag burning, and voted for the Real ID Act of 2005. Jindal has an A rating from Gun Owners of America…. In 2006, Jindal sponsored the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act (H.R. 4761), a bill to eliminate the moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling over the U.S. outer continental shelf, which prompted the watchdog group Republicans for Environmental Protection to issue him “an environmental harm demerit”. Jindal’s 2006 rating from that organization was -4, among the lowest in Congress. The nonpartisan League of Conservation Voters also censured Jindal for securing passage of H.R. 4761 in the House of Representatives; the group rated his environmental performance that year at seven percent, citing anti-environment votes on 11 out of 12 critical issues. Jindal’s lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters is seven percent…. In 2007, Jindal led the Louisiana delegation in Congressional earmark funding. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, in 2007, Jindal’s earmark funding was 14th among all Congressmen…. Jindal supports the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Despite calls for a veto from groups as diverse as the ACLU, the National Review, and Jindal’s own biology professors at Brown University, Jindal signed the Louisiana Academic Freedom Act in 2008. As a direct result of this, the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology rejected New Orleans as a site for their 2010 meeting. The president of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology has also said that, while the group has already committed to their upcoming meeting in New Orleans, “No future meeting of our society will take place in Louisiana as long as that law stands.”
NOTE: Jindal is considered one of the Republican Party’s brightest new stars. John McCain mentioned him with approval as recently as two days ago on NBC’s Meet the Press….
So, is there ANYONE in the Republican Party who embraces logic and empiricism rather than theism and religious nonsense?
WHO?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=9039f031-e8e6-49f6-ac51-8df4197d1c80)
A short, three-act play in which the principle of free speech once again triumphs over the closed-minded dragons of theism in the end:
—– City Of Ottawa Quizzed Over Atheist Ad Rejection (The Calgary Herald/Canwest News Service; Feb 16)
OTTAWA: The chair of Ottawa’s transit committee will demand that city staff explain why they refused to allow atheist ads on city buses, even though ads quoting the Bible have been approved by the city and could appear on buses at any time.
Coun. Alex Cullen said Monday that council had no opportunity to discuss the decision to reject the ads from an atheist organization – which is now considering legal advice.
The atheist ads, which say, “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life,” began in Britain and have spread around the world.
In Canada they’ve been on buses in London, Calgary, and Toronto, but were rejected by city staff in Halifax and Ottawa.
Justin Trottier, president of the Freethought Association of Canada, the ads’ sponsor, said his group might ask a lawyer if their right to freedom of speech has been breached.
Cullen hopes it won’t get that far. “Presumably cooler heads will prevail.”
—– Bus Ban Is The Answer To Atheists’ Prayers (Dan Gardner/The Ottawa Citizen; Feb 20)
On behalf of atheists everywhere, I would like to extend congratulations and warmest regards to Ottawa city councillors Marianne Wilkinson, Rainer Bloess, and Doug Thompson.
On Thursday, the city’s transit committee deadlocked on a motion to overturn OC Transpo’s bizarre refusal to run bus ads bearing the bland statement: “There’s probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Only the steadfast opposition of the Sensitive Three stood between the citizens of Ottawa and the psychological shock of being exposed to an unremarkable and politely expressed idea.
The matter will now be considered by the full city council.
I urge the councillors to fight on. Stop those ads. Nothing could be better for atheism.
Just look at what the Sensitive Three have already accomplished. Ads by religious organizations are permitted on city buses, within certain guidelines, and some of those ads explicitly or implicitly assert the existence of god. By refusing to run ads that claim the opposite, the councillors have exposed the double-standard that rings religion like an electrified fence.
“I don’t think we should be demeaning people in advertising on OC Transpo,” Ms. Wilkinson argues. “I think the words are offensive to everyone who believes in God, regardless of what religion they are. To me, as a Christian, it is demeaning. It grates on me.”
Please, Ms. Wilkinson. Keep talking. You’re making the case better than I ever could.
Look at precisely what the ad says. First, god probably does not exist. Then it expresses a sentiment very close to “Have a Nice Day!”
That’s it. That’s all there is to it. Analyze it with an electron microscope if you wish, but you will not find anything in that statement that “demeans” those who believe in god. It is simply a claim followed by a platitude.
What really grates on Ms. Wilkinson and the very sensitive people she speaks for is that the ad’s claim is contrary to what she believes to be true. There’s nothing more to it because there’s nothing more to the ad.
Now, advertising routinely makes claims that some people do not accept. Pepsi tastes better than Coke. Fox News is fair and balanced. Marianne Wilkinson should be re-elected. God exists.
No reasonable person would think for a moment that these claims are demeaning to those who disagree with them, nor would they think twice before admitting them to the public forum. I, for one, disagree with all these statements and yet I feel not the slightest urge to suppress them.
But a claim that “god probably does not exist” is nothing less than a linguistic assault on those who disagree and thus must not be permitted to besmirch city buses.
“I don’t follow the logic,” David Harrison, founder of Bus Stop Bible Study, told the Citizen. “Why would they approve our (ads) and not theirs?”
Allow me to answer that.
Mr. Harrison expects people to apply one standard to all. That’s only reasonable. But far too many people believe the standards that apply to all other subjects under the sun do not apply to religion.
If I say “Stephen Harper is Canada’s greatest prime minister,” you are entitled to disagree with considerable vigour. But if I say “God exists” and you disagree with the same vigour, you are an unconscionable bigot.
This double standard is how we got to the absurd situation where city buses carry ads asserting the existence of god without the slightest controversy but ads claiming god probably does not exist are offensive and forbidden. It also explains why otherwise intelligent people can’t see just how absurd that is.
For laying bare this illogical and indefensible double-standard, we atheists thank the Sensitive Three.
But that’s not the end of the gratitude we must express. Not at all. Every person who agrees with the statement “there’s probably no god” is further indebted to three councillors and the OC Traspo officials whose blinkered stupidity got this bus rolling in the first place.
Look at the paragraph above. See the statement “there’s probably no god”?
The Freethought Association of Canada wants to pay a great deal of money to put that on the side of buses so it can be splattered with slush and ignored by people shivering at bus stops across the city. By stopping them from doing so, the Sensitive Three turned the ad into news. And now that very same statement is popping up in reports and commentaries across the country.
It makes half a dozen appearances in this very column. And the Freethought Association didn’t pay a penny. Marketers call this “earned media,” as opposed to the paid variety. They love earned media for two reasons. One, it’s free. Free is good.
Earned media also has special value because people tend to screen out ads, or at least filter them. But news is not advertising. Get your message in the news and people won’t filter it, at least not the same way they would in an ad.
The conclusion for anyone with a message to spread is, don’t fear censorship. Embrace it. Hope to hell it happens. Pray for it, if you are so inclined.
And yes, this does make Marianne Wilkinson and her colleagues the answer to atheists’ prayers. Or it would if atheists prayed.
—– Council Reverses Decision To Ban Atheist Ads (GuelphMercury.com/Mercury News Services; March 12)
OTTAWA: City council in Ottawa has agreed to allow ads promoting atheism on OC Transpo buses. Council voted yesterday to allow the ads — which read “There’s Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life” — to be displayed after city solicitor Rick O’Connor told councillors the ban wouldn’t hold up in court. O’Connor laid out his opinion in a confidential memo sent to councillors Tuesday night, suggesting that the decision not to allow the ads might violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“This is a great day for Canadians of all faiths,” said David Barton, a member of the Humanist Association of Ottawa. It was the Freethought Association of Canada that recently applied to place the ads on OC Transpo buses but was refused because the city said they contravened a city policy. But not everyone agreed with the decision. Councillor Bob Monette said the ads are offensive and shouldn’t be allowed on public property.
Celebratory cookies are available in the lobby. Please grab a handful as you leave this entry and prepare to face whatever dragons may be stalking you today.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=147672f8-81d9-472b-b4dd-56329f469ef6)
Here’s another story that’s been ignored by the Columbus Dispatch and many other news outlets that prefer to focus on less important events:
—– Hundreds Accused Of “Witchcraft” Being Persecuted In Gambia (Amnesty International; March 18)
Up to 1,000 people in The Gambia have been taken from their villages by “witch doctors”, taken to secret detention centres and forced to drink hallucinogenic concoctions.
The liquid they are forced to drink has led many to have serious kidney problems. Two people are known to have died of kidney failure after having been subjected to the ordeal.
The incidents are part of a “witch hunting campaign” spreading terror throughout the country.
Eyewitnesses and victims told Amnesty International that the “witch doctors”, who they say are from neighbouring Guinea, are accompanied by police, army and national intelligence agents. They are also accompanied by “green boys” ‘ Gambian President Yahya Jammeh’s personal protection guards.
According to victims and their relatives, “witch doctors” have been visiting villages with armed security and taking villagers they accuse of being “witches” – many of them elderly – by force, sometimes at gunpoint. They are then taken to secret detention centres.
Some have been held for up to five days. They are forced to drink unknown substances that cause them to hallucinate and behave erratically. Many are then forced to confess to being a witch. In some cases, they are also severely beaten, almost to the point of death.
The most recent incident took place on 9 March in Sintet village in the Foni Jarrol district. Up to 300 people were forced to go to the President’s farm in Kanilai. According to one witness:
“At 5am the paramilitary police armed with guns and shovels surrounded our village and threatened the villagers that anyone who tries to escape will be buried six feet under. Fear gripped the village, children were crying and traumatised. They randomly identified over 300 men and women who were forced at gunpoint into waiting buses and ferried to the President’s hometown.
“Once there, they were stripped and forced to drink ‘dirty water’ from herbs and were also bathed with these dirty herbs. A lot of these people who were forced to drink these poisonous herbs developed instant diarrhoea and vomiting whilst they lay helpless.
“I stayed there for five days. I experienced and witnessed such abuse and humiliation. I cannot believe that this type of treatment is taking place in Gambia. It is from the dark ages.”
The incidents have taken place in the Foni Kansala district, an area near to President Jammeh’s farm in Kanilai. However, many people believe that the “witch hunting” campaign will spread throughout the rest of the country. Hundreds of Gambians have already fled to the Casamance region in Senegal after their villages were attacked.
The witch doctors were invited to The Gambia early this year, soon after the death of President Jammeh’s aunt. The President is reported to believe that witchcraft was used in her death.
Halifa Sallah, a prominent opposition figure who has written about the activities of witch doctors for the main opposition newspaper, Foroyya, was arrested at his home on 8 March. He has since been charged with sedition and spying, and is currently in Mile II, the Central Prison in the Gambia. His next court date is set for 25 March. Amnesty International is concerned that he is at risk of being tortured or ill-treated and that his trial will be unfair.
Halifa Sallah is former member of the Pan African Parliament and minority leader of the National Assembly. He is Secretary General of the People’s Democratic Organization of Independence and Socialism and coordinator of the National Alliance for Democracy and Development. He stood as a presidential candidate in the Gambia in 2006.
Amnesty International has called on The Gambian government to put an immediate stop to the witch-hunting campaign. The organization has also urged the authorities to investigate the incidents and to bring those responsible to justice.
Here’s how a French news agency has reported the story:
—– Gambians Reveals Horrors Of “Witchcraft” Purge (AFP; March 18)
MAKUMBAYA, Gambia: Victims of a purge on witchcraft in the secretive west African state of Gambia have told of horrific ordeals including rape after being force-fed potions inducing hallucinations.
According to Amnesty International and anonymous police sources in Gambia, as many as 1,000 people have been kidnapped and held by so-called witch hunters backed by armed men carrying out orders from the Gambian authorities.
There are reports that Gambian President Yahya Jammeh blames witchcraft for the death of an aunt earlier this year, and villagers have now told how the idyll of their traditional life was shattered last week.
“We were arrested on Monday in our village by armed men accompanied by so-called witch hunters and taken to Kololi,” a 63-year-old man told AFP in Makumbaya, a collection of rundown huts and houses some 50 kilometres (30 miles) from the capital Banjul.
“We were forced to drink concoctions and after drinking the liquid that night, most of us who were abducted fell down and went into trance and did not know what was happening,” added the man, who asked not to be identified.
Visibly weak, he was held for five days and later released, none the wiser as to why he was targeted.
Witnesses and victims said instructions to cure sick minds by inducing trance-like states were used as cover for rape.
“I personally saw three women who were undressed by the witch hunters and raped by them at a time when they were unconscious,” the villager told AFP.
A 34-year-old market vendor from the same village angrily recounted her own ordeal.
“I was raped during the second day of my detention by a very young man,” she said, close to tears.
“While I was in detention, this young man who was so rude asked me to take a bath and while I was taking the bath, he stood and watched me. When I went to the toilet, he would insist that he accompany me. One of these times, he wrestled me to the ground and raped me, with force,” the woman told AFP.
Gambia, the smallest country on the African mainland, has been ruled by Jammeh since he grabbed power in a bloodless coup in 1994.
In recent years it has come increasingly under fire over its poor human rights record.
Jammeh’s opponents, real and perceived, also find themselves subjected to daily rights violations including torture and unlawful arrests, human rights organisations say.
In Makumbaya, many residents did not want to speak to journalists for fear of reprisals.
“I cannot talk to you, it’s not that I don’t want to explain my ordeal to you, but because I don’t want to be arrested,” a woman in her fifties told AFP.
“The best option at the moment is to leave this country and go to Senegal, where I believe life will be better,” said a 24-year-old man. “We cannot cope with this.”
The Gambian media, which is under heavy government scrutiny, has barely mentioned the witch-hunt.
Only the opposition weekly Foroyaa reported the Makumbaya abductions.
Its political editor Halifa Sallah, who is also the leader of Gambia’s biggest opposition party, was arrested March 9 on charges of spying and seditious acts for reporting about the events in Makumbaya.
Charges against him were dropped last week.
According to the CIA World Factbook, Gambia is 90% Muslim and 8% Christian. The other 2% are said to embrace indigenous beliefs. That doesn’t leave a whole lot of room for those inclined to blame atheists and secular humanists for the evil things that are now occurring in that country.
Wikipedia provides this additional information about Gambia’s president, Yahya Jammeh: “On May 15, 2008, Jammeh announced that his government would introduce legislation that would set rules against homosexuals that would be ’stricter than those in Iran’, and that he would ‘cut off the head’ of any gay or lesbian person discovered in the country. News reports indicated his government intended to have all homosexuals in the country killed. In the speech given in Tallinding, Jammeh gave a ‘final ultimatum’ to any gays or lesbians in the Gambia to leave the country…. In January 2007, Jammeh claimed he could cure HIV/AIDS and asthma with natural herbs. Some patients are said to have improved through his treatment, but he has also been criticized for promoting unscientific treatment that could have dangerous results. The full text of his speech seems to suggest that the ‘cure’ may in fact be addressing intestinal parasites…. Fadzai Gwaradzimba, the country representative of the United Nations Development Programme in The Gambia, was told to leave the country after she expressed doubts about the claims and said the remedy might encourage risky behaviour. In August 2007, Jammeh claimed to have developed a single dose herbal infusion that could treat high blood pressure.”
To learn still more about Gambia and its people, see Theist File #878.
To learn about the many other witch hunts that are continuing to unfold around the world while the American press looks the other way, see the entry I posted on March 16.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f1dc08ee-dea6-4aff-93ec-6987205387ad)
- Image via Wikipedia
I spent all of last week in Tennessee on an archival research trip. I am working on a research project for a graduate seminar in United States history. In my project, I am investigating the relationship of evolution and education in Tennessee and North Carolina during the 1920s. As many people know, the Tennessee state legislature passed an anti-evolution law in 1925 that forbid teachers in public institutions from teaching that humans evolved from lower forms of animals (if you read the text of the law, as linked to above, it only specifically applies to human evolution).This was the law, of course, under which John Thomas Scopes was indicted that summer in Dayton, Tennessee.
What many people perhaps do not know, however, is that a very similar bill was introduced in neighboring North Carolina at roughly the same time. Unlike Tennessee, North Carolina at this time already had a nearly 5 year history of evolution controversies that were building momentum in 1924. Some of these controversies were highly public. Tennessee, however, had quietly rejected a (different) anti-evolution bill during the 1923 legislative session. To a contemporary, therefore, it might seem that North Carolina would prove to be the more likely candidate for passing the first true anti-evolution law (the previous two such cases were only partial victories as far as anti-evolutionists were concerned). As it turned out, however, Tennessee passed its law (fairly) easily while the bill died after a strong fight in North Carolina. Tennessee went on to claim the spotlight that summer while North Carolina faded into the background of history.
I want to know what went wrong in North Carolina, from an anti-evolutionist’s point of view, and what went right in Tennessee. Why did a state that seemed primed to pass such a law ultimately reject one (and again in 1927)? What made Tennessee more receptive to such a law? Part of the answer, I think, lies in the roles that the state’s two big public universities played in the matter. The president of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill played an active role in mobilizing the legislature against the anti-evolution bill that year, while the president of the University of Tennessee at Knoxville declined to publicly even take a side (despite privately thinking the law to be ‘foolish’). Why is that? How did the relationship between these emerging public institutions of higher learning and the state law making body influence these disparate outcomes?
That is what my project is going to be about. In the days ahead I plan on sharing some of what I found, including some scans of a few of the actual bills introduced into the legislature (an anti-atheist bill was also introduced but not passed in 1925 that I found especially interesting), here in this blog.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d8207684-2ae6-4f6c-b3fe-dd8c2a155f84)
—– Pope “Distorting Condom Science” (The BBC; March 27)
One of the world’s most prestigious medical journals, the Lancet, has accused Pope Benedict XVI of distorting science in his remarks on condom use.
It said the Pope’s recent comments that condoms exacerbated the problem of HIV/Aids were wildly inaccurate and could have devastating consequences.
The Pope had said the “cruel epidemic” should be tackled through abstinence and fidelity rather than condom use.
A BBC correspondent says the Lancet’s attack was unprecedentedly virulent.
Speaking during his first visit to Africa, the Pope said HIV/Aids was “a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem”.
The Pope said “the traditional teaching of the Church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids”.
The BBC’s David Willey in Rome says the Church’s view is that encouraging people to use condoms only minimises the effects of behaviour that in itself damages lives.
But the London-based Lancet said the Pope had “publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue”.
It said the male latex condom was the single most efficient way to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV/Aids.
“Whether the Pope’s error was due to ignorance or a deliberate attempt to manipulate science to support Catholic ideology is unclear,” said the journal.
But it said the comment still stood and urged the Vatican to issue a retraction.
“When any influential person, be it a religious or political figure, makes a false scientific statement that could be devastating to the health of millions of people, they should retract or correct the public record,” it said.
“Anything less from Pope Benedict would be an immense disservice to the public and health advocates, including many thousands of Catholics, who work tirelessly to try and prevent the spread of HIV/Aids worldwide.”
Our correspondent says the article shows how far the Pope’s attempts to justify the Vatican’s position on condoms have misfired.
—– Portuguese Bishop Contradicts Pope (The Age/AFP; March 29)
A Portuguese bishop has openly contradicted Pope Benedict XVI’s controversial stance on condoms, saying people with AIDS are “morally obliged” to use them if they have sex.
A person with AIDS “who cannot avoid having sexual relations is morally obliged to avoid passing on the disease by using a condom”, Monsignor Ilidio Leandro wrote in a message published on the website of the Viseu diocese in central Portugal on Saturday.
Benedict drew criticism last week for saying that condom use could be aggravating the AIDS crisis, in comments he made to reporters while on his way to Africa.
Thousands of people are infected with the HIV virus in Africa every day, according to the United Nations agency UNAIDS.
—– Facebook Users Wage Condom Campaign Against Pope (Faith Karimi/CNN; March 28)
Critics took to the social networking site Facebook to voice their fury over Pope Benedict’s remark that condoms do not prevent HIV.
Thousands have pledged to send the pontiff millions of condoms to protest the controversial comment he made to journalists as he flew to Cameroon last week.
“You can’t resolve it with the distribution of condoms,” the pope told reporters. “On the contrary, it increases the problem.”
Pope Benedict XVI has made it clear he intends to uphold the traditional Catholic teaching on artificial contraception. The Vatican has long opposed the use of condoms and other forms of birth control and encourages sexual abstinence to fight the spread of the disease.
About a dozen Facebook groups have sprang up, mostly from European countries, criticizing the pontiff.
“The clergy aren’t supposed to have sex at all, but they are free to tell people how to conduct themselves? That’s like a girl who wears no make-up as the CEO of CoverGirl,” one member posted on the page, Condoms for Pope Benedict XVI.
“It frightens me that a man who has devoted his life to moral guidance … and is undeniably a learned, intelligent man can be at the same time so narrow-minded, bigoted and irresponsible,” posted another person on a different page.
The online campaign added another voice to a deluge of criticism, which includes the governments of France, Germany and Belgium. Aid agencies and other health organizations have also chimed in….
And a reminder of the negative impact a few words from the pope can have:
—– Calgary Teachers Pull Support For AIDS Fundraiser (CTV.ca; March 27)
The Calgary Catholic Teachers’ Association will not be raising money for Steven Lewis’ AIDS charity this year because the foundation supports condom for preventing HIV/AIDS.
The decision came after Pope Benedict XVI’s said that condom use was actually exacerbating the problems of AIDS in Africa.
“The traditional teaching of the Church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids,” the Pope said. “AIDS/HIV cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem”.
The Pope’s comments, which came on his first official trip to Africa, sparked a flurry of criticism from scientists, AIDS workers, and the general public.
“It’s been a difficult issue for us to deal with because it’s been very divisive,” said David Cracknell, president of the Calgary Catholic Teachers Association, referring to the Church’s stance on birth control.
Calgary Bishop Frederick Henry spoke to the teachers and he suggested that they rethink their charity of choice considering the Pope’s comments.
For the past four years, the teacher’s orgnaization has raised money during Lent for the Stephen Lewis Foundation and its charity work in Africa.
“Teachers tend to go about their work very quietly and it was only because we were starting to become more and more successful that people were aware of it,” Cracknell said.
The Lewis foundation has always supported the use of condoms and that does not seem to have been an issue for the teacher’s association until this year.
“The main concern with the Stephen Lewis Foundation has been Stephen Lewis’ position on birth control, which is contrary to what the Pope and the bishop have been teaching,” Cracknell said.
Lewis spoke to CTV and was angry — but at the bishop, not the teachers.
“This edict from the bishop really seems difficult to comprehend, that he has allowed doctrinal dogma to overshadow humanitarian efforts,” Lewis said. “He’s harming orphans, he’s harming grandmothers, he’s harming women living with AIDS.”
The foundation says it hopes that Calgary Catholic teachers continue to donate privately….
These are important stories involving a major world religion and the way one of its dogmas is having a very real impact on people around the world – yet they are not being covered by The Columbus Dispatch (which seems to have plenty of room for many less important stories). American news outlets in general don’t seem to be doing much better. The Pope’s original comments condemning condoms, in sharp contrast, seem to have been disseminated much more widely.
Why should the public health opinions of an aged theologian be so much better reported than the conclusions of one of the world’s most respected medical journals?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=e9bdd198-db5d-4147-be8e-d1327d438f0c)
In my last entry I alluded to the way that Christians often seem to pursue the logical implications of an argument only as far as it serves their own sectarian interests. Once that point has been reached, they either suddenly stop or they switch to another argument entirely – one that might not even mesh very well with their earlier one.
The example I gave in my last entry focused on those who seem to be all for having religion in public schools on “freedom of religion” grounds so long as they’re the ones in the majority and it’s their religion that’s trumping secularism and the principle of church-state separation. When they happen to be in the minority and it’s some other religion that would benefit more, all of a sudden church-state separation looks like a great idea.
Here’s a recent story that brought the point home to me yet again:
—– Church Group Asks People To Vote For Secular Parties (NewKerala.com/The Indo-Asian News Service; Feb 27)
NEW DELHI: The Catholic Bishop’s Conference of India (CBCI), a prominent church group in the country, Friday asked the people to vote for secular parties and candidates in the upcoming general elections.
“Be true to the letter and spirit of the preamble and the provisions of the constitution of India without any sectarian or party persuasion,” a CBCI release here said….
See how it works? Where Christians are far outnumbered by Hindus and Muslims, Christians defend the secular constitution. Where Catholics are the biggest denomination (like the US), a rather different path is taken – one that often involves taking slaps at secularism and those candidates who defend it.
I talked to a Christian lawyer about this once. He was trying to defend the idea that the US is a Christian country and that our government and our schools ought to reflect that. So I pointed out that by saying what he was saying and by embracing the principle of “The majority rules on matters of religion,” he was throwing away his right to claim equal rights for Christians in China today – or for Christians in ancient Rome. “Oh, I’m just talking about the US!” he lamely replied – pretty much making my point for me.
This far – but NO farther!
Here’s another recent example:
—– If You Want To Know God, Go To Church (Lisa Warren/Letter To The Editor/The Columbus Dispatch; March 26)
Columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. raises valid concern over the decline of organized religion (“Is it really any wonder that religion is in decline?” Forum column, March 16). But by emphasizing the negative minority, he misses the big picture.
All in all, people who worship within a community of faith are healthier, have stronger families and make better citizens than those who are uncommitted to a church, mosque or synagogue. Time magazine recently (Feb. 23) did a cover story on the biology of faith, revealing that regular church attendance adds two to three extra years of life.
Belief in a higher power provides incentive to compel the individual to behave above her own selfish interests.
Perhaps part of the problem lies in what Pitts states, “If all I knew of God was what I had seen in the headlines, I would not be eager to make his acquaintance.”
Attending services usually gives a more accurate picture of God than the secular press. Despite what George Burns says in the amusing film Oh God, God does go to church, and he wants us there, too.
Setting aside the many things I could say about the complex cause-and-effect relationship between church-going and health, and the way a comparison of religious and non-religious states and nations actually reveals a negative correlation between religion and health, and the inadequacies of the Time article, and the problems involved in defining “better citizen” let alone isolating the factors that might result in such a creature, etc., etc., let me say this instead….
Let us for the sake of argument grant Lisa her claim that regular church attendance produces wonderful things, including two to three extra years of life. Why stop there?
Going to a Mormon church might well correlate with better health and behavior and more years of life than going to a Baptist or a Catholic one. Why doesn’t Lisa follow her argument to its logical conclusion and say that Baptist and Catholics ought to become Mormons?
And if it turns out that the best behaved and longest-lived people on the planet are Tibetan Buddhists or secular Jews, how might Lisa avoid saying that we all ought to become Buddhists or secular Jews?
As I pointed out in the entry I posted on Jan 14, 2003, the residents of Okinawa seem to be about four times as likely to live to be 100 as the residents of the US. And Okinawa just happens to be one of the least Christian places on earth. If people like Lisa really wanted to discover the truth rather than simply defend and promote their own religious preconceptions, they would know this. And if they truly believed in the power of logic to lead us to the right conclusion, they would apply their premises consistently and follow logic all the way to the end and say, “Hey, guess what guys? If we want to live longer, we need to abandon Christianity and live like they do on Okinawa!” But they don’t. It’s another case of so far – but no farther. (Taiwan is another good example to look at if you don’t like Okinawa for some reason.)
Perhaps the best historical example of this that I can think of at the moment involves gays and AIDS. I bet we’ve all heard the claim of some Christians that gOd sent AIDS to punish gays for disobeying his Biblical order not to engage in gay sex. Now, how many of us have ever heard a Christian say, “Hey, it turns out that lesbians are among the people least likely to get or die from AIDS. In fact, they’re the least likely to get any kind of STD! Clearly gOd thinks lesbian sex is the best of all!” I seem to have missed that particular sermon.
Again, the operating principle seems to be “This far – but no farther!”
One final example and then I’ll stop:
When Katrina slammed into New Orleans, there were those Christians who said it was gOd’s wrathful judgment on an evil city. When a tornado wipes out a very Christian town or floods devastate some of the most Christian parts of my own state of Ohio, however, there’s… silence. Suddenly Christians become deaf, mute, and forgetful. Or references to a wrathful gOd get replaced with references to a fickle Mother Nature. How convenient.
This far – but no farther?
“Head I win/Tails you lose”?
It’s time we exposed this sort of thing for what it is: A big stinking ball of crap.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=dbe9c44d-6fb9-4e43-bf52-f8d90e503bb4)
The Columbus Dispatch published its 27th story about the John Freshwater case last Saturday.
It’s mainly about how one student told investigators one thing last year and then told a much different story this week while under oath. Given that his story changed in ways that were beneficial to Freshwater, I wonder to what extent community pressure may have been a factor.
IMHO, this student’s testimony really doesn’t matter much one way or the other. The well-documented acts and comments of Freshwater himself and his supporters as reported in the entry I posted on June 22, 2008 and elsewhere seem to me to be enough to remove him from the classroom.
You can learn more about the dangers of leaving him in the classroom from an excellent essay that Rob Boston posted last May 8.
Bottom Line: Religion tends to be *extremely* provocative and inflammatory. It has set people at each other’s throats for centuries. When a teacher openly brings his or her personal religious views into a public school classroom, it’s like striking a match while filling a car at a gas station. It’s not only not necessary for the process you’re there for – it’s dangerous in ways that Freshwater and his supporters seem terribly ignorant of.
The fact that this silly little story from a small Ohio town has received so much attention over so many months is just one indication of the outsized emotions religion tends to generate. It reminds me of the long and overheated debate over Ohio’s motto (“With God All Things Are Possible”) that immediately preceded the start of this diary. The Freshwater case and the motto debate – like so many of the debates associated with religion – seem to me to be gratuitous and divisive things that distract us from far more important issues.
Getting lots of people all worked up over extremely minor issues is perhaps one of the least commented upon negative consequences of religion, yet it might be one of the worst and most widespread when you consider all the time and energy they waste and all the unnecessary conflict and hatred they spread….
It wouldn’t have to be this way. We could as a society recognize that religion is a hot topic on par with sex and can only be brought into our schools in carefully controlled ways. Religion could be objectively dealt with in comparative religion classes the same way sex is objectively dealt with in health classes. Math and science teachers who attempt to seduce students into embracing their religious views would be treated like math and science teachers who attempt to seduce students sexually. Endless debates over whether or not a specific teacher was right or wrong to attempt to seduce a student theologically would be as rare as endless debates over whether or not a specific teacher was right or wrong to attempt to get a student to go to bed with him or her.
But of course that’s not the kind of society we have, is it?
If it were, I don’t think math and science teachers would be vehemently defending their right to display a Bible on their desks any more than they would be defending their right to display The Joy of Sex on their desks. Neither is appropriate.
Personally, I’d find The Joy of Sex much less offensive. After all, it doesn’t defend slavery, advocate genocide, distort history and science in wildly absurd ways, or inspire nightmares about Doomsday or eternal hellfire. And as far as I know, it hasn’t inspired a single war, hate crime, or witch burning. Yet I bet many of the good Christian citizens of Mount Vernon would be outraged if they discovered that Mr. Freshwater had shared a single anatomically correct drawing from it with his students.
I also have to wonder how quickly they would have jumped to his defense had he displayed a Koran on his desk or a Satanic Bible (let alone a holy penis representation of the Hindu gOd, Shiva).
In my experience, Christians tend to defend freedom of religion only as long as they’re debating secularists and atheists. When their bullying tactics win them that debate and only theists are left on the field, the issue suddenly becomes a matter of defending believers in the one true gOd against those who believe in false gOds. And when *that* debate drives minority Hindus and Muslims and Jews from the field, the fight transforms into one between the TRUE lovers and interpreters of Jesus and those evil agents and dupes of Satan who call themselves Catholics, Lutherans, Mormons, or whatever the favored scapegoat of the moment happens to be. We find enough of this sort of thing occurring in the world at large; we can go a long way to keeping it out of our schools by insisting that teachers keep their religious views completely to themselves.
And yes, I would apply the same standard to atheist teachers. Dawkins’s The God Delusion and Sam Harris’s The End of Faith have no more business being on the desk of a science teacher than the Bible does.
And as I’ve said before, I’d apply the same standards to other areas of life that have nothing to do with religion but also have no business in the classroom. If Freshwater had been an ardent Obama supporter who had decided to put a “Yes We Can” poster on the front of his desk, I’d want to see him told to remove that, too. Same thing if he used classroom time or space to promote his brother’s Chevy dealership. The professional standards I’m advocating apply across the board.
Science teachers are hired to teach science – not save souls, or elect presidents, or sell cars. If they can’t or won’t perform the tasks they promised to perform when they signed their contract with a school district, they need to find themselves another job.
Why is this so hard for so many defenders of “absolute morality” to understand?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=6abefdcd-49b3-4cf5-a8b1-54a7385b0adb)
- Image via Wikipedia
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.
Yep, you guess it. It’s Monday! Time yet again for Monday School – which even my cat now recognizes as “The Rational Corrective For All That Nonsense They Tried To Teach You Yesterday!”
Today’s Lesson: Are There Any Genuinely Good Characters In The New Testament?
Several recent Monday School classes have been spent searching without success for genuinely good people in the pages of the Old Testament. It is with great relief that I now leave the many reprehensible killers of the OT behind and hurry forward to the New Testament in a desperate attempt to find at least one truly moral person in the Bible.
Are any to be found?
Let’s start with the likeliest candidate: Jesus.
Perhaps no character in all of history has been more often presented as the epitome of morality than Jesus. Is there any evidence to support this designation? Not that I can see. Instead, I find these less than praiseworthy characteristics:
—– Jesus promotes hate “If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26
).
—– Jesus promotes war and division “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34). “I am come to send fire on the earth” (Luke 12:49). “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division” (Luke 12:51). “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one” (Luke 22:36).
—– Jesus purposely deceived people just so forgiveness could be denied them “Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables; That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them” (Mark 4:11-12). (See also Luke 8:10)
—– Jesus repeatedly lied about one of the few things we can check him on “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, until all be fulfilled” (Luke 21:32). (See also Matt. 24:34; Mark 13:30) “Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power” (Mark 9:1). (See also Matt. 16:28, Luke 9:27) “Behold, I come quickly” (Rev. 3:11; 22:7; 22:12; 22:20).
—– Jesus urged others to act dishonestly for their own gain See the Parable of the Steward, Luke 16:1-9
—– Jesus repeatedly threatens people with hellfire in order to get them to submit to his will while rarely, if ever, using facts and logic to construct a case for his views the way a moral, rational person would “The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 13:41-42). “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire…” (Matt. 25:41). “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28). (See also Luke 12:5; Matt. 11:20-24)
—– Jesus often resorted to name-calling and personal attacks on people instead of supporting his claims with facts and logic “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” (Matt. 23:33). Others are referred to as “dogs” and “swine” (Matt. 7:6; 15:26; Mark 7:27). Jews who rejected him were angrily dismissed as the spawn of Satan (John 8:44).
—– Jesus repeatedly chastised those who quite reasonably base their beliefs on evidence and proof “And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? Verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation” (Mark 8:12). (See also Matt. 13:39; 16:4; Luke 11:29. Given the number of miracles Jesus allegedly performed and the many signs he says will accompany his followers in Mark 16, these passages also constitute contradictions/lies). “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed” (John 20:29). This idea that believing something without evidence is better than believing something because of evidence is perhaps the most dangerous, immoral idea Jesus and the Bible ever spread.
There are numerous other sins one might charge Jesus with (e.g., disrespecting his mother, stealing crops, working on the Sabbath, being the “dreamer of dreams” condemned by Deuteronomy 13:1-5, and apparently wasting decades of his life doing nothing very notable when he allegedly had it in his power to do much) but the 8 charges listed above seem to me to be the most significant and compelling.
What might one say in his defense? That Jesus preached “Love thy neighbor” and “Turn the other cheek“? Given the passages quoted above which clearly indicate the limited nature of his love and pacifism, that preaching seems merely to add hypocrisy to his list of sins….
The failings of Jesus become even starker when we compare his words and ways with those of other moral teachers. Indeed, once you’ve studied the rationalism and compassion of someone like Buddha, the seething diatribes, fear-mongering, and double-talk of Jesus just might make you want to throw up.
But Jesus is just one character is the New Testament, of course. Maybe one of the others will prove to be genuinely good and moral? A Big Gold Star to whoever can find one prior to our next class!
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d589cbd5-50d9-4bdd-abbd-465948436cb4)
—– Pilot Who Paused To Pray In Crash-Landing Sentenced To 10 Years In Jail (The Telegraph; March 24)
A Tunisian pilot who paused to pray instead of taking emergency measures before crash-landing his plane, killing 16 people, has been sentenced to 10 years in jail by an Italian court along with his co-pilot.
The 2005 crash at sea off Sicily left survivors swimming for their lives, some clinging to a piece of the fuselage that remained floating after the ATR turbo-prop aircraft splintered upon impact.
A fuel-gauge malfunction was partly to blame but prosecutors said the pilot had succumbed to panic, praying out loud instead of following emergency procedures and then opting to crash-land the plane instead trying to reach a nearby airport….
Which of course stands in sharp contrast to the rational, prayer-free, and successful actions of the pilot and crew of the US Airways jet described here.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ac9ba1c8-fdcb-4207-8151-5fc455a8ff9b)
http://www.anatheist.net