Monthly Archives: June 2016

Bring Back Our Motto! (Speech at Rally in Olympia, WA)

Posted on by

This is a speech that I will give in Olympia, Washington on the capitol grounds, along with other excellent speakers as part of a Bring Back Our Motto rally on June 29 at 11 am.
Patriotism US motto In God We TrustDo we really trust God?
In God We Trust: this motto has been imposed on us, but ask yourself if it’s really true. Do we really trust God?
One might pray to God for comfort when things are bad, but who would pray instead of using evidence? Who would trust God for safe passage across a busy street rather than looking and using good judgment? Or trust God for a good grade rather than studying? Or trust God for food rather than earning money to buy it?
And when someone does actually trust God—like reject medical treatment and instead pray for their child to be made well—the state rejects that. It steps in and insists on proper medical care. No, trusting in God might sound nice, but when it comes to something important, we take the approach that works.
Like government. We the people work together to build roads, educate our children, and defend our country. It’s not perfect, but we do a pretty good job. We have a trustworthy government, which is why it’s ridiculous to have that government declare that it’s actually God that we trust. Remember the words of the Declaration of Independence: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The buck stops with us.
What’s good about “In God We Trust”?
Let’s consider this from another angle. What’s the point of this motto? How is God supposed to react? Does it make him happy? Does it tell him anything new? Does it remind him that we care, just in case he’s sad? Is it a magic charm or a spell? Are we sweet-talking God so that he does nice things for America?
Now, let me apologize if I offended anyone, because that might’ve been a bit rude, but it’s not me who’s offensive—it’s this motto and those who are behind it. Naturally, Christians take very seriously their relationship with God, but how shallow do politicians think Christians’ faith is, when they put this motto on money, on buildings? If they must steal the prestige of the U.S. government to bolster Christians’ faith?
Maybe this motto has nothing to do with heaven but is firmly grounded here on earth. I say that it’s just a gift given by politicians to their Christian supporters, the solution to an invented problem and a subversion of the First Amendment.
Ceremonial deism
To see how shallow the motivation behind this motto is, consider a similar problem, the “under God” phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance. Think about how that part of the Pledge goes: “one nation, under God … indivisible!” Right before the word “indivisible” was inserted the very divisive phrase “under God.”
In court challenges, those in favor of these religious phrases have tipped their hand. “Oh, c’mon—this isn’t an imposition of Christianity! These tired phrases have been used so much that they amount to nothing more than ‘ceremonial deism.’” That’s the retreat that advocates for these godly phrases have taken—they dismiss them as merely “ceremonial deism.” They see the problem, so they say that “In God We Trust” is just something you say, without any real meaning, like “How do you do?”
What kind of world are we living in? Those who want “In God We Trust” say that it has only a ceremonial meaning, while others must point out the very obvious Christian claim in this divisive phrase. But if this is a relatively meaningless phrase with no Christian content, then drop it!
“In God We Trust” in Clark County
Along with others here, last year I attended a public meeting in Vancouver, Washington, the county seat of Clark County. The Clark County Board of Councilors had decided that, among their many pressing matters of business, they should spend most of a day deciding if “In God We Trust” should go up on the wall in their public hearing room.
For hours, the councilors heard comments, first in favor of the slogan and then against it. Each was given applause by partisans of that viewpoint. Anyone who thought this was not a divisive issue left that meeting with no doubt.
Since I live near Seattle, you might say that it wasn’t my business to challenge the wishes of the good people of Clark County, but that’s not who was pushing for this. There was no groundswell of public demand. Instead, an organization from California is pushing local governments nationwide to put “In God We Trust” on the walls in government buildings.
Imagine attending a council meeting as a non-Christian and seeing “In God We Trust” glaring down at you. How welcome would that citizen feel? Imagine instead it was a Muslim slogan in Arabic. Or a Hindu slogan in Sanskrit. Or a Satanic slogan or 666. If “Allahu Akbar” is offensive on the wall, if it violates the First Amendment, why is “In God We Trust” appropriate?
We’ve been here before
This should sound familiar, because we see this in our annual celebration of the War on Christmas. You’ll have a city hall that puts up a manger display every year. Then a freethought group says that this is fine on private property but not city property; please take it down. So the next year, the city allows all groups to have holiday displays, and you get Festivus poles, freethought slogans, and celebrations of Roman Saturnalia or Norse Yule. Predictably, Christian groups complain, and the next year you have nothing.
Why is this always so hard? Why not admit that the government elevating Christianity over other religions is against the rules and just stay out of religion? Can elected officials not just do the right thing the first time? And, to the point at hand, why is it not obvious that with “In God We Trust,” government is unfairly benefitting Christianity?
What’s the solution?
Let me close by drawing your attention to the motto that we discarded, E Pluribus Unum, which means, “Out of Many, One.” This has been the motto on the Great Seal since 1782. America is composed of people who came from all over the world to pull in the same direction to make one great country. “Out of Many, One” was tailor-made for the United States, but we flushed it down the toilet in favor of “In God We Trust,” a baggy one-size-fits-all suit that could be worn by a hundred countries.
Politicians often seem deaf to reason, and this issue can seem like an uphill battle, but let me suggest one small bit of civil disobedience: cross out the “God” on your money. Let people see you do it. Tell them why if they ask.
“In God We Trust” is divisive, but that’s what some politicians live for. They invent problems that they can solve. “God will be annoyed unless we tell him how much we love him, so vote for me so I can support a godly motto!”
Or, we could respect the First Amendment, the friend of every citizen, Christian and non-Christian.
In this election year, we see up close the problems with divisive politics. “In God We Trust” is ceremonial and meaningless, and it’s divisive. It’s the solution to no problem.
Bring back our motto. Let’s return to E Pluribus Unum, a motto for all.

If you don’t have a seat at the table,
you are probably on the menu.
— Congressman Barney Frank

Image credit: Bob Shepard, flickr, CC

Fat Chance: Why Pigs Will Fly Before Ray Comfort Writes an Honest Critique of Atheists (3 of 4)

Posted on by

Ray Comfort Fat Chance book review We continue with my book review of Ray Comfort’s Fat Chance: Why Pigs Will Fly Before America Has an Atheist President. (Start with part 1 here.)
Ray has positioned his pig book as an evangelistic tool, a book that is supposed to convince atheists of the rightness of the Christian position. Let’s see how well Ray did toward that goal.
Christians and atheists in positions of power
Ray shares his insights into how Christian voters see atheist political candidates.

Our founders understood that people in positions of power would have opportunities to do corrupt deeds for their own benefit. But if they believe in God and in a future state of rewards and punishments, then when tempted to do wrong they won’t give in.

Is that how it works in practice? Christians don’t commit crimes? They’re immune to temptation? No Christians in prison? Are crime statistics in countries inversely proportionate to the fraction of Christians?
Not really. In fact, the very-Christian U.S. does far worse than those godless European countries on measurable social metrics.
Oblivious to what it does to his argument, Ray brags that Christians have subverted the Constitution’s prohibition of a religious requirement (Article VI) and made it impossible for an atheist to get elected to national office. But atheists have achieved political power in other countries. Polls within science show that education and prestige correlate with atheism. And I wonder how many of America’s self-made billionaires are atheists. Bill Gates is one, and his foundation, the world’s largest private foundation, is worth $44 billion. He’s using it to improve health care and reduce poverty in the developing world. I wish churches did the same.
And I have to wonder at the phrase “our founders.” Here and in other places in the book, Ray positions himself as a U.S. citizen, but his bio doesn’t say that. I can see how his being an outsider (he is from New Zealand) might weaken his standing to critique American culture, but Ray, you’re not passing as a Yank to deceive us, are you?

Because atheists have no absolute basis for good and evil, and don’t believe in an afterlife, they therefore can’t be trusted with public office. Whether this ‘bias’ would stand up to today’s Supreme Court scrutiny, it clearly shows the intent of our founders.

What an obnoxious moron. “Our founders” were very clear about the role of religion in government, and they deliberately kept them separate. The U.S. Constitution admits of no supernatural grounding backing up the government, and it begins, We the people.
Your bias would indeed fail a Supreme Court test because the intent of the founders was clear: there can be no religious test for public office.
I can’t imagine Ray has thought this through. Despite evidence to the contrary, he has assurance from his deity that non-Christians are bad people. Is that how a society should work? If, decades from now, Ray’s group became a minority, would he still want a religious test imposed by the majority? Or does this only apply when he’s got the power? If that future doesn’t sound good, Ray, maybe you’re seeing the value in the founders’ wisdom.

Atheists, like the rest of us, are not morally ‘good.’ Without an unwavering moral compass to guide him, an atheist president would be easily swayed by the winds of popular opinion and his own selfish desires—doing whatever was right in his own eyes.

Demonstrate this “unwavering moral compass.” Take a contentious social issue like abortion or same-sex marriage and show that all Christians get the same God-given response. Last time I checked, Christians were all over the map on social issues. Some churches have rainbow flags, and some have signs that say, “God hates fags.”
Ray undercuts his non-argument when he denounces the many corrupt Christian politicians:

And this from people who claim to believe in a Supreme Being who will one day hold them accountable!

So then he admits that being Christian is no guarantee of moral action. He doesn’t even attempt to show a correlation—”Christianity makes you good” is just a bold claim supported by handwaving.
Ray drops in a predictable attack on Islam. His argument is basically: Say what you will about Christianity, it’s better than Islam! Uh, okay, and say what you will about dengue fever, it’s better than smallpox … but I’d rather have neither.
He frets that atheism’s attack on Christianity will create a vacuum for Islam:

By dismantling Christianity’s influence in our nation, [atheists] are preparing the way, and making every path straight [for Islam].

You don’t fight fire with fire; you fight it with water. Similarly, you don’t fight Muslim illogic with Christian illogic; you fight it with reason.
Getting the Ray Comfort treatment
If you’ve seen Ray’s Ten Commandments challenge on his videos, he gets people to admit that they’ve stolen, lied, cursed, or lusted. You’d feel like you haven’t gotten your money’s worth if you read a Ray Comfort book and didn’t find this flabby challenge, but the pig book has it. He concludes it with this:

God sees you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. Do you still think that you are good?

Yes, pretty good, though not perfect. If not being perfect is a problem, talk to my Maker.
And Ray does nothing to untangle the problem of the incompatible versions of the Ten Commandments. Given how little he understands the issues he talks about, I’m guessing he doesn’t even know that there is more than one.
How well would Ray do on his own Ten Commandments challenge?
Atheists, how confident are you in your worldview? Prepare to have it rocked.
Using the infallible logical fallacy of the Argument from Incredulity, Ray gives an argument that he plans to stretch into his next movie, The Atheist Delusion. First, he points to a book and asks, Do you believe that this book could happen by accident? When you say no, he pounces: the content within human DNA is equal to that within a thousand ordinary books. How could DNA happened by accident?
Ray hammers home the punch line:

DNA’s complexity (for any sin-loving sinner who is honest) instantly shows the absurdity of atheism, which holds that the unspeakably amazing instruction book for life happened by chance.

Wow—where does one begin?

  1. It’s biologists who have useful opinions about the origin of DNA, not atheists.
  2. Sin isn’t relevant to any issue within biology.
  3. Neither atheism nor biology say that DNA “happened by chance.” Mutations happen by chance, but natural selection (also part of evolution) doesn’t.
  4. Evolution is the consensus of the scientists qualified to evaluate the evidence. Deal with it. I’d be an idiot to reject that consensus view based on any argument from a non-biologist like you.
  5. “Amazing” is no argument. That you’re amazed doesn’t mean that a Designer is behind it.

DNA isn’t a powerful argument against evolution or atheism. In fact, it alone is a powerful rebuttal to the Design Argument, the popular Christian argument that the apparent design we see in nature is evidence of God.
Ray keeps using his simple platitudes, like DNA happening by chance, because he’s kept the one-liners that work on people and discarded those that don’t (an example of artificial selection, by the way). He’s been corrected by the best—Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and other biologists have pointed out his errors. And yet he pops back up like a Weeble with the same stupid arguments. (This explains my subtitle of this post series, “Why Pigs Will Fly Before Ray Comfort Writes an Honest Critique of Atheists.”)
Ray, what do you call someone who makes a mistake, has it corrected by a reliable authority, and then deliberately repeats that mistake? You him a liar.
Have you thought about how you would do on your Ten Commandments challenge, Ray? Does it worry you that you lie? Or maybe you have some rationalization like it’s okay to lie for Jesus or you can lie as long as you ask for forgiveness afterwards. Or maybe you reserve the right to declare who’s an authority based on how their arguments please you. One wonders how your argument about immoral atheists being unqualified for elected office stands now that you’ve shown that even you don’t feel bound by God’s moral commandments. (h/t commenter Michael Neville.)
Ray then makes the Appeal to Authority fallacy as he points to Antony Flew, who was convinced by the DNA-is-complex argument and went from atheism to deism. (I care nothing about the musings of a non-biologist like Flew about evolution). And then it’s the Christianity of Francis Collins, who was head of the Human Genome Project. (Collins will be quick to tell you that DNA alone gives overwhelming evidence for evolution.)
I think Ray needs to select his authorities with more care.
Concluded in part 4.

To borrow from The West Wing,
“If you demand expressions of religious faith from politicians,
you are just begging to be lied to.” …
If a politician can win your vote
simply by claiming that they are part of the religious majority,
what do you imagine they will do?
— Andrew Seidel

Image credit: Peter Brantley, flickr, CC

The Mother of all Failed End Times Predictions

Posted on by

It’s been over six months since John Hagee’s four blood moons finality turned into a fiasco. The silence of his apology is deafening.
Poor John Hagee—I think I’ll send him some money to make him feel better.
And I’m still elated at the other end-times bullets we’ve dodged in recent years. The earth should be a smoking cinder by now, at least according to a couple of prophecies, but God stayed his savage hand. But don’t worry about our reality being controlled by a savage Bronze Age god. Fortunately, the evidence points to him not existing at all, and those end-times predictions are all nonsense.
The much-edited parchment above shows just some of the Christian end-times predictions that have come and gone in the last 2000 years, and it’s already out of date.
At the top, it takes us back to the mother of all failed predictions:

Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God (Mark 9:1, Matthew. 16:28, Luke 9:27).

Apologists will argue that the prediction actually did come true because seeing “the kingdom of God” turns out to be not as big a deal as you might imagine. It’s the destruction of the Temple, for example, or it’s some sort of new age. But if that prediction was fulfilled, where is the prediction of the second coming of Jesus? A single prediction can’t be both fulfilled in the first century and also unfulfilled so that the second coming sword of Damocles hangs over our heads even now.
More to the point, it’s harder to handwave away the stars falling from the sky and the other cosmic calamities (Mark 13:24–31) and the comparison of the end times with Noah’s flood, where the unworthy are swept away unexpectedly and the master “will cut [them] to pieces and assign [them] a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 24:36–51).
It’s been close to 2000 years since those “standing here” reportedly heard those words. Whoops!

Faith is just gullibility dressed up in its Sunday best.
— commenter Machintelligence

The artwork above was created by the talented Kyle Hepworth, who also did the covers of my books Cross Examined and A Modern Christmas Carol.
(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 5/27/13.)

Fat Chance: Why Pigs Will Fly Before Ray Comfort Writes an Honest Critique of Atheists (Part 2)

Posted on by

Ray Comfort Fat Chance book review This is part 2 of my book review of Ray Comfort’s new book, Fat Chance: Why Pigs Will Fly Before America Has an Atheist President. In Part 1, we reviewed the poll results showing that Americans won’t vote for atheists (unfortunate but true), explored the reasons why (Christian bias, if Ray’s sources are to be believed), and reviewed some of the church/state separation lawsuits by which Ray thinks atheists cross the line (but are justified pushback against Christian excesses).
I emailed Ray with a link to my critique but got no reply. That’s odd—he’s usually so responsive …
Keep in mind that Ray has positioned his pig book as an evangelistic tool, a book that is supposed to convince atheists of the rightness of the Christian position. Let’s push forward to see how well Ray meets his goal.
Ray Comfort, mind reader
Ray acts as psychiatrist and psychic as he tells us what makes atheists tick:

The hatred that many atheists have for Christianity is very real. In part, this is because the idea of a God to whom we are accountable threatens every sinful sexual pleasure for which most atheist males live.

So it’s all about the hedonism? It couldn’t be about there not being a God?
With no God, the idea of sin goes away, but the idea of harm doesn’t. Sexual pleasure is a problem when it hurts someone. If the only person hurt is a nonexistent God, then it hurts no one.
Ray sees Christianity as the Big Answer to life’s problems, but there have been many civilizations besides the predominantly Christian West, including many that came before and did just fine without Christianity—Egypt, Mesopotamia, Indus Valley, China. If you point out that those civilizations were imperfect, that’s true, but remember that Christian Europe had issues as well (more here and here).

Atheism gives them license to feast on porn, indulge in fornication, engage in homosexuality, and commit adultery without any sense of guilt. It means that they can lie to meet an end, love money, blaspheme God’s holy name, and steal if they think they can justify it. They believe there’s no absolute right or wrong, so if something makes them happy, then it’s fair game.

That’s a lot of different things lumped into a single confused list. Some things can be fine when done consensually and without harm, such as premarital or homosexual sex. Some can be fine but can also become unhealthy obsessions—porn or money. Some hurt people, such as adultery and stealing. And some only hurt a thin-skinned god that Ray hasn’t bothered to show exists like blaspheming “God’s holy name.”
Ray is right that I see no evidence for absolute right and wrong (more here and here), but obviously it doesn’t follow from that that my pleasure is all I care about.

Atheism removes any sense of guilt. For a sin-loving sinner it’s a delirious dream come true, so he will say anything to defend those pleasures, including deny that which is as obvious as the nose on his face: the existence of God. We all have enough light to see that He exists.

Ray cites Romans 1:18–20 (“people are without excuse”) as his proof. He’s citing a book that he hasn’t bothered to show is either correct or inspired by a god, a book that non-Christians think is a manmade book just like all the rest.
The pig book hits this hedonism thing a number of times. Reading so much about sinful pleasures makes me wonder if Ray’s working out some frustrations or wrestling with temptations. It was like hearing someone talk too much about their own personal sexual interests, like I want to wash my hands afterwards. Consider therapy, Ray.
Stop being mean to Ray
Ray complains about the “disgusting lies” spread about him, but don’t feel too bad for him. He cites Matthew 5:11–12 to argue that this verifies that he’s on the right path. And to show that he’s truly a good Christian, he turns the other cheek and insults atheists back. (Oh, wait—that’s not what “turn the other cheek” means. Unless I’m confused and it’s not cheeks on the face that he’s thinking of.)

[Atheists] are proud, untrustworthy “haters of God.”
Atheists hate Christians for the same reason criminals hate the police…. The policeman stands for what is right, while the criminal loves to do what is wrong. Atheists, like criminals, are similar to creatures of the night that scatter when light shines.
[An atheist] is someone who has willfully turned off the inner light that God has given to every man.… [That] is a fearful state in which to be, because it leads to a “reprobate mind,” where God gives us over to darkness. This is what we often see in contemporary society. Women are viciously raped and murdered and the perpetrators have no remorse. Teenagers kill their parents, gunmen shoot down schoolchildren …

Now that he’s charmed us with his flattery, Ray points out the one-star reviews of previous projects, a book You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can’t Make Him Think and movie Audacity. Must’ve been atheists just being mean—those bad reviews couldn’t have been deserved.
But I was inspired by Ray’s example to leave a one-star review of this book. And—what a privilege!—I was the first one. So here was Ray’s pig book after I left my review:
Book reviewSorry, Ray—I felt this is what it deserved.
Continue with part 3.

In the course of my life, I’ve had sixteen death threats,
but never by an atheist.
— Bishop John Shelby Spong,
AHA Conference 2016

Image credit: Paul Sableman, flickr, CC

Fat Chance: Why Pigs Will Fly Before Ray Comfort Writes an Honest Critique of Atheists

Posted on by

Ray Comfort Fat Chance book reviewThe evening before the Reason Rally on June 4, I attended a Christian event at which several Christian apologists coached about a hundred Christian evangelists to spread the gospel to atheists (supposedly) hungry for the Word®. Attendees were given a copy of Ray Comfort’s new book, Fat Chance: Why Pigs Will Fly Before America Has an Atheist President. I stood in line to have Ray sign mine—it was the highlight of my life.
At about 15,000 words, it’s a modest little book with much to be modest about. Since it’s positioned as an “evangelistic” book, let’s take a look to see if it provides convincing arguments. Fasten your seat belts, atheists.
Surveys show atheists are unelectable
(Ray quotes a number of sources to make his argument. I’ll be careful to identify which quotes are Ray and which come from articles.)
He leads off with studies that show that many Americans won’t vote for atheists.

A Pew Research survey conducted in May [2014] found that Americans consider atheism the least attractive trait for a candidate to possess, with voters more likely to back a candidate who smokes marijuana, has never held office, or has had an extramarital affair than a self-professed atheist. (Source)

So Americans rank the adulterer higher than the atheist, concerned that atheists might be “untrustworthy, insensitive and morally rootless” (source), despite the fact that the adulterer has proven that they have poor morals? Clearly just because a voter has an opinion doesn’t make it logical.
Thankfully, we have Ray to unpack things for us. Here’s the Christian’s logic: “While the words ‘God-fearing’ are often maligned, we know that if a man truly fears God he won’t lie to you, steal from you, or kill you.”
Suppose you offered the counterexample of a bad Christian—the majority of inmates in U.S. prisons, for example. Ray would doubtless respond with the No True Scotsman fallacy: Ah, but that person wasn’t a true Christian! But then what good is someone who claims to be God fearing?
Different Christians define “God fearing” differently. In the happy world where Ray was king, he could impose his Christian beliefs, and his claim might then be true. Unfortunately, Christianity now has 45,000 denominations, a number expected to grow to 70,000 by 2050, and a single Christian definition of “moral” isn’t possible.
And this only argues that Christianity is useful, not that it’s true. Let’s figure out that one first.
Ray undercuts his argument
He gives evidence (that we’re all familiar with) that atheists are scorned, but is this phobia based on anything? Ray gives this quote:

Surveys find that most Americans refuse or are reluctant to marry or vote for nontheists; in other words, nonbelievers are one minority still commonly denied in practical terms the right to assume office despite the constitutional ban on religious tests.

One wonders if Ray reads his own authorities. That’s right: the only statement in the original Constitution about religion is to limit it. There can be no official religious test for public office. Christians can vote however they want—they can flip a coin to decide—but Christians reluctance to vote for atheists seems like nothing more than xenophobia, fear of the Other.
Ray then paraphrases sociologist Phil Zuckerman: “[Zuckerman] surmises that atheists are disliked by so many Americans because of prejudice—since we equate atheism with ‘being un-American and/or unpatriotic’—and because believers are basically insecure and nonbelief threatens their ‘shaky’ faith.”
Right again, Ray. Christians’ snubbing of atheists certainly sounds like simple bigotry.
Atheists slap Christians’ hands when they cross the line—must we apologize for that?
Ray moves on to argue that atheists are mean and like to rain on the Christian parade. He lists sixty lawsuits filed by atheist groups. Most sound like important corrections to Christian excesses—no God in presidential inauguration, encouraging the IRS to sanction churches who flout nonprofit rules, Christian symbols on government property, and so on. These Christian excesses outrage me, so I’m not sure why Ray listed them. If his audience is atheists, does he not know that they will also want them corrected?
Admittedly, a few of the lawsuits make the atheists sound like spoilsports. For example, “School cancels toy drive for the poor after atheists threaten to sue.” A public school had an annual project to encourage students to provide shoe boxes with toys for poor children.
The facts behind the project are a little darker. The parent organization is Samaritan’s Purse, Franklin Graham’s evangelical Christian organization. From the AHA, the organization that threatened the lawsuit:

Because the purpose and effect of Operation Christmas Child is to induce impoverished children to convert to Christianity, the school’s promotion of this program violates the Constitution….
It is a clear constitutional violation for administrators of a public school to push students to participate in a proselytizing religious program….
The boxes of toys are essentially a bribe, expressly used to pressure desperately poor children living in developing countries to convert to Christianity and are delivered with prayers, sermons, evangelical tracts and pressure to convert.

Here’s another: “Atheists sue every retail store in mall over ‘Happy Holidays.’” This time, it looks like Ray got fooled by a fake article. The bad guy here is the Foundation for Equality, Atheism & Resistance (FEAR), a nonexistent organization whose spokesperson is Merda di Pollo (Italian for “chicken shit”). The article says that atheists are furious over the use of the greeting “Happy Holidays.” According to the spokesperson, “Hearing ‘Happy Holidays’ is painful for us since we don’t have any holidays coming up, no parties to look forward to, nothing to celebrate. It’s discriminatory.”
Be a bit more skeptical next time, Ray. I haven’t looked in detail at all of them, but it sure looks like this is an excellent list of atheist good works (or a rogues’ gallery of Christian privilege).
Ray summarizes the big picture problem: “Atheists are suing their fellow Americans for things they hold dear, and it’s all done under the guise of loving the Constitution.”
Atheists’ legal actions are done under the guise of loving the Constitution? What a dick. What does he suppose the real reason is—that our hearts are two sizes too small? Yes, Ray, we really do it to protect the Constitution, predominantly the First Amendment. God knows you won’t.
Taking a broader look at the legal landscape, remember also that the ACLU’s religious lawsuits are predominantly in defense of Christians (more), despite what many Christians want to believe.
Here’s a helpful way to evaluate these lawsuits. Change the Christianity in each of these to Islam. Now the lawsuits are focused on removing Allah from the presidential inauguration, removing Muslim symbols from government property, stopping public schools from supporting Muslim evangelistic charities, and so on. Are these still a problem, Ray? Or do you have a little more appreciation for the principle of the separation of church and state now?
Continue with part 2.

Ethiopians say that their gods are flat-nosed and dark,
and Thracians that theirs are blue-eyed and red-haired.
If oxen and horses and lions had hands …
each would make the gods’ bodies
the same shape as they themselves had.
— attributed to Xenophanes

 

Checking Back on Dire Predictions About the Boy Scouts Allowing Homosexuals

Posted on by

The Boy Scouts of America first allowed openly gay scouts in January, 2014 and openly leaders and employees in July, 2015. Let’s look back on an article written in protest, immediately after the national council voted to allow gay scouts: “Why my family is quitting the Boy Scouts.”
It begins with an introduction of the author.

John Stemberger is an Eagle Scout and president of On My Honor, a coalition … united in their support of Scouting’s timeless values and their opposition to open homosexuality in the Scouts.

I was also an Eagle Scout. Patrol Leader. Order of the Arrow. Philmont. Scouting was a big part in my life and, more importantly, a big part of my father’s life. My grandfather died when my father was three, and to a young man growing up fatherless in New York City, Scouting was fundamental in shaping who my father became. I’m an Eagle Scout because he was, too. I understand how important Scouting can be to someone.
Mr. Stemberger doesn’t pull any punches in his critique of the policy.

This organization that has stood the test of time will probably be destroyed now that they have decided to admit openly gay boys as Scouts.

Why? Was marriage destroyed when they let black folks and white folks marry each other?
Membership in Boy Scouts is declining, but it’s been declining for decades (2.4 million now from a high of 6.5 million in 1972). Society changes, and apparently Boy Scouts has become valuable for fewer boys. Almost three years after that prediction, there’s no evidence that their policies have “destroyed” the organization.
Stemberger is now the chairman of the board of Trail Life, a Christian alternative to the Boy Scouts that unsurprisingly forbids homosexual boys and leaders. He apparently sees homosexuality as something that society can keep in the closet. He’s taken the divisive approach, going home to start his own club. In his mind, he’s standing for moral principles. However, in the judgment of history, I suspect that he’s backed the wrong horse, and his principled stand will be seen like George Wallace’s principled stand for racial segregation.
Stemberger seems to imagine Boy Scouts as an immutable organization, built perfect a century ago with no need to change today. But it has evolved as society has evolved. For example, its rule on race in the early days was that local scouting organizations should follow the local school district’s policies, which meant that troops were racially segregated if the local school system was segregated.
But that rule was changed. Sometimes change is good.

The policy fails to respect or revere the religious beliefs, values and theology of the vast majority of Christian churches, which charter more than 70% of all Scouting units.

What if a church had a racist policy for leadership—should that be respected when picking a scoutmaster? What if a church rejected conventional medicine in favor of prayer—should that be respected when a boy is injured on a hike?
Religion isn’t a trump card in a society governed by a secular constitution. “However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country” (1890 Supreme Court case Davis v. Beason).

The new policy also leaves all Scouting units with no options and no legal protection if they refuse to allow open homosexuality among the boys of their units.

Troops would also be without legal protection if they wanted to discriminate based on race. Does that trouble you as well?

Most important, the new policy robs parents of Boy Scouts, like me, of the sole authority to raise issues of sex and sexuality with their kids.

I hate to tell you, but the issues of sex and sexuality will be raised among teenage kids whether you like it or not.
You do know that these open homosexuals are attending public school with other kids, right? Of course parents have the right to steer their boys on the path that they think is best, but unless your kids are in solitary confinement, don’t imagine that they won’t be exposed to—and even seek out—information on sex from other teens. If you’re concerned about misinformation, talk to your kids early, often, and honestly about sex.
And what do you fear will now be discussed around the campfire? Sex? It can’t be news to you that sex has always been a topic of interest with teenage boys.

[My wife and I] are concerned for the safety and security of our boys, as are many other parents who are considering leaving as well.

Safety? Is homosexual rape what this is all about? I’m pretty sure that the new policy doesn’t condone that. Why think that rape would be any worse after the new policy, when gays can be out, than before the policy, when gays were closeted? Surely there have always been gay boys in scouting.

I love the Boy Scouts and want my boys to enjoy the same great experiences as I and millions of others have had over the years. That’s why I regret that Thursday’s vote refused to keep sex and politics out of the Boy Scouts and stand firm for those timeless principles.

What timeless principles?
Slavery used to be legal, polygamy used to be legal, racial discrimination used to be legal. Now, not so much. Society changes. Don’t you applaud at least some of society’s changes?
The Scout Law says that a Scout is brave. The oath from which your organization takes its name includes this obligation: “To help other people at all times.” How about showing a little of that bravery and commitment to doing the right thing?
Maybe instead of digging in your heels, you could see how our future leaders could learn from this. We can’t go back to the fifties and fight to end to Jim Crow laws, but we’re right in the middle of another civil rights issue. We have a small opportunity to nudge society in a better direction. Why shield your boys from that? How about instead give them front-row seats to social change, a change that surely won’t be society’s last?

The truth of the matter is that 
you always know the right thing to do. 
The hard part is doing it. 
— General H. Norman Schwarzkopf

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 5/24/13.)
Photo credit: Wikimedia