Also, anyone notice we always seem to gain a dog during Ask An Atheist events? No baby this time, though. What a shame... I was hungry.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Pics from National Ask An Atheist Day 2012
What a gorgeous day to be out on the Quad! It's no wonder we had such a superb turnout for National Ask An Atheist Day 2012. I only wish we could have gotten pictures of everyone who stopped by -- we might have broken a record today!
Also, anyone notice we always seem to gain a dog during Ask An Atheist events? No baby this time, though. What a shame... I was hungry.
Also, anyone notice we always seem to gain a dog during Ask An Atheist events? No baby this time, though. What a shame... I was hungry.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Attack of "Attack of the Theocrats!"
Over the last week, I've been lucky enough to read through Sean Faircloth's recent book, Attack of the Theocrats! How the Religious Right Harms Us All- —and What We Can Do About It. Faircloth tackles the tightening grip of fundamentalist religion in America with sharp wit and indisputable facts from our nation's history. However, what makes this book uniquely engaging is the personal touch with which the author discusses his subject matter.
If you've never heard of Sean Faircloth, this book will offer you a real treat. He was the Executive Director of the Secular Coalition for America, the only lobbyist organization in the country explicitly devoted to protecting the rights of the nonreligious and separation of church and state. After hearing him speak, Richard Dawkins made him the opening speaker for his recent tour. As a member of Maine's state house, he quoted Susan Jacoby's Freethinkers when called upon to give a session's opening prayer. Not to mention his dogged advocacy of the Maine Discovery Museum for children! Needless to say, Sean Faircloth's secular bona fides are well in order.
Throughout Attack of the Theocrats, Faircloth utilizes examples from history and his own life as well as those across the country who have been impacted by the rise of fundamentalism to drive home point after point: This is a secular nation. That it is so was the intent of the Founders. Only in recent generations has religion achieved its bizarre privileged stranglehold over our federal government. That it has done so is destructive and detrimental to all involved. Sure, these are all points that many who would pick up the book are already familiar with, but the anecdotes included are both fascinating and sure to provide that extra persuasive oomf to your argument next time you find yourself at dinner with your crazy Baptist uncle. Sure, anyone can point to Jefferson's attacks on religion in government, but Barry freakin' Goldwater? The father of modern American conservatism? Faircloth's outrage is most palpable when reviewing the litany of abuses heaped upon children whose caretakers were safe from liability by religious exemption. It leads one to the question, exactly how many kids is it acceptable to have die as the result of inept Church-run childcare before we rethink our laws? The evidence found in this book will provide stopping power against all but the most fanatical of our nation's theocrats.
However, Faircloth knows that facts alone will not cannot win the battle for a secular America and he comes prepared. In the latter part of the book, he names names; targeting the "Fundamentalist Fifty" who legislate us towards theocracy at the federal level. Upon showing the problem at its worst, Faircloth delves into his strategy for bringing about lasting change for the better. Called "Our Secular Decade", the blueprint identifies allies, lays out tangible objectives, and calls upon the reader to take action. His plan of action was laid out in a recent Washington Post op-ed.
Attack of the Theocrats! is a fact-filled primer to the sectarian plagues of the United States, that ends with a results-driven vision for making things right again. Faircloth's work is much needed, as most of the atheist canon focuses on the intellectual arguments against belief rather than positive arguments for the power of explicitly nonreligious institutions. That is not the case here, as it becomes harder to refute the desperate need for secular governance with the turn of each page. That said, this book could not have come at a better time. The Reason Rally's phenomenal attendance has shown the willingness of secular Americans to show up when called upon. Now that Faircloth has written his manifesto, it is my hope that he will wield his new position as Director of Strategy & Policy at the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science as a tool for making this marvelous blueprint a reality.
 |
| RPG + GGG = Sean Faircloth |
Throughout Attack of the Theocrats, Faircloth utilizes examples from history and his own life as well as those across the country who have been impacted by the rise of fundamentalism to drive home point after point: This is a secular nation. That it is so was the intent of the Founders. Only in recent generations has religion achieved its bizarre privileged stranglehold over our federal government. That it has done so is destructive and detrimental to all involved. Sure, these are all points that many who would pick up the book are already familiar with, but the anecdotes included are both fascinating and sure to provide that extra persuasive oomf to your argument next time you find yourself at dinner with your crazy Baptist uncle. Sure, anyone can point to Jefferson's attacks on religion in government, but Barry freakin' Goldwater? The father of modern American conservatism? Faircloth's outrage is most palpable when reviewing the litany of abuses heaped upon children whose caretakers were safe from liability by religious exemption. It leads one to the question, exactly how many kids is it acceptable to have die as the result of inept Church-run childcare before we rethink our laws? The evidence found in this book will provide stopping power against all but the most fanatical of our nation's theocrats.
However, Faircloth knows that facts alone will not cannot win the battle for a secular America and he comes prepared. In the latter part of the book, he names names; targeting the "Fundamentalist Fifty" who legislate us towards theocracy at the federal level. Upon showing the problem at its worst, Faircloth delves into his strategy for bringing about lasting change for the better. Called "Our Secular Decade", the blueprint identifies allies, lays out tangible objectives, and calls upon the reader to take action. His plan of action was laid out in a recent Washington Post op-ed.
Attack of the Theocrats! is a fact-filled primer to the sectarian plagues of the United States, that ends with a results-driven vision for making things right again. Faircloth's work is much needed, as most of the atheist canon focuses on the intellectual arguments against belief rather than positive arguments for the power of explicitly nonreligious institutions. That is not the case here, as it becomes harder to refute the desperate need for secular governance with the turn of each page. That said, this book could not have come at a better time. The Reason Rally's phenomenal attendance has shown the willingness of secular Americans to show up when called upon. Now that Faircloth has written his manifesto, it is my hope that he will wield his new position as Director of Strategy & Policy at the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science as a tool for making this marvelous blueprint a reality.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
An End-of-the-Semester Freethought Library Update!
It's hard to believe it's been almost two months since our last Freethought Library update. This semester has really flown by, and we're already coming up on the one year anniversary of the project!
We've had a few exciting developments since February, beginning with a little promotion from the Friendly Atheist. The Hemant Bump -- as we like to call it -- brought in several monetary donations which made possible the purchase of some key supplies. We now have protective mylar covers on our hardcover books! These ensure that dust-jackets will not be lost or damaged and generally minimize wear and tear over time.
More importantly, we've received some exciting print donations! Authors Thomas Lawson and Jen Hancock generously sent us copies of their books, as did Sean Faircloth and Pitchstone Publishing. Lawson's Letters From An Atheist Nation: Godless Voices of America in 1903 provides a fascinating historical perspective, and Hancock's humanist guides offer a delightfully simple approach to personal ethics. Faircloth's Attack of the Theocrats: How the Religious Right Harms Us All and What We Can Do About It! has been a particularly exciting addition because of it's relevance to the current political climate. The poli sci buffs among us are pretty much lined up to read it. That said, Sam got his hands on it first and will be posting a review tomorrow!
Finally, the Reason Rally last month proved to be a thrilling opportunity for networking and soliciting potential future donations. We hope this means there's much more to come...
As always, donations of used or new books and would be greatly appreciated. Simply email us at illinissa@illinois.edu for more information or click the "donate" button in the upper right hand corner of the page to offer monetary support for the project. Every little bit helps!
Here's the updated timeline graphic, complete with pictures of the mylar covers and our new books.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
The Death of Decency: A liberal church preys upon the grieving and the dead
Today I went to a funeral for a childhood friend who recently committed suicide. It was my first time revisiting the church in which I was practically raised and, while I knew it would be strange, I think I hoped my grief would offer me a different perspective. Now nonreligious, I'm quick to condemn such institutions as centers of brainwashing, fear-mongering and the like; but the truth is that I had nothing but happy memories of this place. It was founded on the basis of that more modern, friendly brand of Christianity – less god-fearing, more god-loving. It’s difficult to imagine that something as straightforward as a funeral service could have more sinister undertones in that context.
The first thing I noticed was the change in the church itself. It looked small, dimly lit... Not at all the place I remembered. I guess things just seemed brighter when a younger me was sure she felt God's presence there.
The service was, from the very beginning, more explicitly religious than most, but I didn't find that part surprising given the fact that the family has always been devout. Still, it prompted a lot of reflection on my part.
I politely bowed my head for the prayers, and found my mind wandering to my loss of faith years ago. The death of a loved one had left me distraught and questioning how such a thing could be a part of God's "plan". I think Julia Sweeney said it best in her poignant story Letting Go of God: "I realized there was this little teeny-weenie voice whispering in my head. I'm not sure how long it had been there, but it suddenly got just one decibel louder. It whispered, 'There is no God.'" Like Julia, I didn't wake up one day and choose to stop believing. I wanted desperately for there to be some cosmic purpose for the tragedy I'd encountered, and it pained me to even consider the alternative. But doubt crept in, and things were hard for a very long time until one day they weren't anymore.
That said, I don't think of myself now as a "militant atheist", though I wouldn't mind being labeled as such. I'd prefer for religion to stay the hell out of matters of public policy, but I'm a live-and-let-live sort of girl and if others somehow see something in faith, I'm not going to try to take that from them.
These and other thoughts crossed my mind as the service continued. "I guess it's not hurting anyone right now," I reflected silently during a hymn, "But what is religion actually contributing to this memorial?" Not the community, certainly – there's no doubt in my mind that just as many people would have loved and cherished the deceased in the absence of some faith to bind them. It had to be some sort of metaphysical reassurance, then, right? Peace in troubled times? A way to deal with the pain and inevitability of death? Comfort?
But the service wasn't comforting. Far from it, in fact. The pastor didn't deliver the usual "at least he's in a better place" spiel or any sort of unifying message. Instead, he offered the heavy-handed question "What does scripture have to say about the taking of one's own life?" with a horribly unpalatable answer: "God creates life, and therefore life belongs to God. In taking that life from him, we are betraying God's trust and revealing our own lack of faith."
Before this moment, the circumstances that led to my atheism had never really made me angry. But the hypocrisy here was just too much to bear in my grief. That a faith could so thoroughly devalue human life while offering reprimand (at a horrifically inappropriate time, no less) for someone who wholeheartedly buys into that message and just wants to get to heaven a little faster is disconcerting, appalling, outrageous – I can’t even find a word suitable to convey my sorrow and disgust. It's not enough to molest the minds of the living, we have to disrespect the dead as well?
I didn't think, going in, that I wanted anything from that pastor today. I can deal with death on my own, painful though it may be. But in retrospect, I did want something on behalf of the people around me: the kids I grew up with, their aging parents, and the family of the deceased. For the faithful, I wanted religion to step in and do that thing that nice moderates always tell us it's good for – give grieving people a way to deal with their loss.
But the pastor’s message was completely antithetic to that goal, and the people of the congregation shifted uncomfortably in their seats. I wanted to shout, "I know you're cherry-picking the Bible anyway! If you're going to pick and choose your principles, couldn't they at least be less punitive, more positive? What good is this institution we call faith if it can't offer some constructive or compelling insight on the trials and tribulations of our day-to-day lives?”
Never mind the fact that the pastor namedropped god/Jesus far more than he mentioned the deceased.
Never mind the fact that I'm sure the tone of the service was exactly what my friend wouldn’t have wanted.
Never mind how completely untoward it was in the first place to use the suicide of a good man as some sort of lesson for the rest of us.
The pastor was poised to offer some wisdom on the nature of suffering, and instead he was dismissive of it: "God gives us the tools to weather the storm," he insisted, "We just need to choose to use them." I know what that struggling, younger version of myself would have said to him in that moment: "Couldn't he just have, you know, not sent the storm?"
Had I somehow still been religious as of this morning, I think I would have lost my faith by the day's end. As it is, I find my atheism renewed a hundred times over. But I offer this story, I guess, as a cautionary tale. I went to that church with a somewhat open mind, and I left it feeling violated. If what I experienced today is the best that faith has to offer, I don’t want myself or anyone I love to be a part of it.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Heads up! ISSA special event this week! (new meeting time & place)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Friday, April 6, 2012
Bible Study time! Galatians 5:16-26
*NOTE: I'm not saying all Christians are like this, and I've tried to make that clear in my writing. I am also aware that this is Paul, not God, speaking. But most Christians treat the words of Paul as directly from God and therefore Truth regardless. If you disagree with this interpretation you aren't disagreeing with me- you are disagreeing with a Christian ideology that is frequently taught and practiced today.
I first learned about the idea of "Spirit nature versus sinful nature" during Bible study my Freshman year. At that time and since then I have brought it up with many religious people, and after conversing on the subject I always find myself very frustrated, if not angry. I don't use the word "hate" too often, but this concept is probably the one thing I hate most about Christianity. It is the worst combination of being a commonly held belief and having severely negative implications for the perception of non-theists around the globe.
Here's a brief summary of the idea: Before we are "born again" (accept Jesus in our hearts, become Christian, etc.) we only possess the sinful nature. Once we are born again we accept the Holy Spirit, and can then fight the sinful nature by filling ourselves with the Holy Spirit. So, if you don't want to lead a life of sin, you MUST be Christian. If you don't see why this view might be troublesome you aren't looking hard enough.
The problem only becomes compounded when we take even a short glimpse of what exactly Holy Spirit nature and sinful nature consist of. I'm taking a look at Galatians 5:16-26, for reference:
"16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever[a] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law."
Note the use of opposites here (Christianity tends to deal in absolutes, especially when compared to Eastern religions, which are much more complex in their understanding of the way the world works). On one side there is the Spirit, on the other side flesh. One is good (perfectly good, as a matter of fact) and one is bad. It is that simple. Guess which is which? Also note that last bit about being above the law when doing Holy acts. That's reassuring.
Next Paul kindly explains to us what he means when he says "acts of flesh," since, you know, if he was too vague people might interpret things the wrong way:
"19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."
Let's start with the first one. What the Bible just told us is that acting on any sort of sexual desire is sinful. Sorry biology, the God who created you doesn't want you to act on those strong impulses he gave you (by having your body create testosterone and other hormones). Oh, and, sorry, but the only way to not act on those biological impulses is to accept Christianity and fill yourself with the Holy Spirit. And did I mention that if you do act on those impulses without accepting Jesus you're going to Hell forever? That's important. Like, of all time importance.
This may be controversial to say, but I think that one of the reasons it's sometimes so difficult to truly understand the commonly held Christian worldview for the nonreligious (and why that worldview causes so many problems in the eyes of atheists) is because, to put it simply, Christians have a very different perception of what is right and wrong. For them, things that are wrong are things that are sins. This might be acceptable, if the Bible wasn't such a crappy moral compass when read thoroughly. Selling your daughter to slavery is OK in God's book (unless he changed has changed his mind on what is sinful since the Old Testament, which as far as I'm aware is not something omniscient beings do too often), while two guys in a relationship enjoying anal sex will earn themselves two free tickets to an eternity in Hell.
This does not hold true in an atheist world view for the simple reason that there is no rational justification to believe that slavery is more moral than consensual sex. And if a Christian agrees with this atheist worldview they would have to admit that not all sins in the Bible are bad (such as those that don't harm anyone involved), in addition to agreeing that the Bible is a document that contains laws that we should be actively opposing in any moral society.
Now let's take a look at the rest. The first passage specifies that without accepting Jesus and the Holy Spirit into your heart you ONLY have the sinful nature. Which means that this second passage specifically tells us that atheists are more likely to hate, be jealous, have fits of rage, selfish ambitions, and dissensions, among other great qualities (as quoted in the bible verse above). Although I think even Christians will agree that we tend to keep the witchcraft and idolatry to a minimum.
It gets even worse than that though. I have heard it argued multiple times that, without the Holy Spirit, we only do things for selfish reasons, or because of our sinful nature. So, let's say that, from my perspective, I live a good life: I had a family I loved and was loved by them, had good friends whom I was loyal to, donated a lot of money to good charities, and even donated my body to science upon my death. Again, I'd say that's pretty good, despite the fact I did it all without a belief in any sort of god. But to most Christians, every single thing I did in my life was done for sinful reasons. When it comes to how I will be judged at the pearly gates, I might as well have been a serial rapist for the past 50 years.
But seriously, you wonder why 55% of the country would never vote an atheist for President? It's because of this. This is what many Christians think we are, or at the very least are inherently more likely to be than they.
For no other reason than the fact that we have a different set of religious beliefs.
One last part here to touch on before Bible study finishes:
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
Ever hear a Christian sincerely ask something along the lines of, "If you don't believe in God, why don't you just go murder people and steal everything?" Those are usually the ones you respond to by saying, "You know, maybe it's best you stay a Christian..." It's scary that, for them, their religion is all that's keeping them from going on murderous rampages. Yet we know that isn't actually true- I doubt that before they were religious they murdered people on a whim. It was a belief they came to accept over time. And this is why they believe that. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, kindness, and goodness. To them it only makes sense that without the Holy Spirit you might as well just be murdering people.
"We Christians aren't perfect either," You may hear. "I don't judge others, that's for God," I've heard multiple times. But until you accept the Holy Spirit, in their eyes you're going to be hopeless, full of envy, full of jealousy, and full of hatred; in short a life doomed to sin.
And remember, it's not them judging you. It's just what they believe about people who are different than them.
I first learned about the idea of "Spirit nature versus sinful nature" during Bible study my Freshman year. At that time and since then I have brought it up with many religious people, and after conversing on the subject I always find myself very frustrated, if not angry. I don't use the word "hate" too often, but this concept is probably the one thing I hate most about Christianity. It is the worst combination of being a commonly held belief and having severely negative implications for the perception of non-theists around the globe.
Here's a brief summary of the idea: Before we are "born again" (accept Jesus in our hearts, become Christian, etc.) we only possess the sinful nature. Once we are born again we accept the Holy Spirit, and can then fight the sinful nature by filling ourselves with the Holy Spirit. So, if you don't want to lead a life of sin, you MUST be Christian. If you don't see why this view might be troublesome you aren't looking hard enough.
The problem only becomes compounded when we take even a short glimpse of what exactly Holy Spirit nature and sinful nature consist of. I'm taking a look at Galatians 5:16-26, for reference:
"16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever[a] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law."
Note the use of opposites here (Christianity tends to deal in absolutes, especially when compared to Eastern religions, which are much more complex in their understanding of the way the world works). On one side there is the Spirit, on the other side flesh. One is good (perfectly good, as a matter of fact) and one is bad. It is that simple. Guess which is which? Also note that last bit about being above the law when doing Holy acts. That's reassuring.
Next Paul kindly explains to us what he means when he says "acts of flesh," since, you know, if he was too vague people might interpret things the wrong way:
"19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."
Let's start with the first one. What the Bible just told us is that acting on any sort of sexual desire is sinful. Sorry biology, the God who created you doesn't want you to act on those strong impulses he gave you (by having your body create testosterone and other hormones). Oh, and, sorry, but the only way to not act on those biological impulses is to accept Christianity and fill yourself with the Holy Spirit. And did I mention that if you do act on those impulses without accepting Jesus you're going to Hell forever? That's important. Like, of all time importance.This may be controversial to say, but I think that one of the reasons it's sometimes so difficult to truly understand the commonly held Christian worldview for the nonreligious (and why that worldview causes so many problems in the eyes of atheists) is because, to put it simply, Christians have a very different perception of what is right and wrong. For them, things that are wrong are things that are sins. This might be acceptable, if the Bible wasn't such a crappy moral compass when read thoroughly. Selling your daughter to slavery is OK in God's book (unless he changed has changed his mind on what is sinful since the Old Testament, which as far as I'm aware is not something omniscient beings do too often), while two guys in a relationship enjoying anal sex will earn themselves two free tickets to an eternity in Hell.
This does not hold true in an atheist world view for the simple reason that there is no rational justification to believe that slavery is more moral than consensual sex. And if a Christian agrees with this atheist worldview they would have to admit that not all sins in the Bible are bad (such as those that don't harm anyone involved), in addition to agreeing that the Bible is a document that contains laws that we should be actively opposing in any moral society.
Now let's take a look at the rest. The first passage specifies that without accepting Jesus and the Holy Spirit into your heart you ONLY have the sinful nature. Which means that this second passage specifically tells us that atheists are more likely to hate, be jealous, have fits of rage, selfish ambitions, and dissensions, among other great qualities (as quoted in the bible verse above). Although I think even Christians will agree that we tend to keep the witchcraft and idolatry to a minimum.
| I might as well be this guy. |
But seriously, you wonder why 55% of the country would never vote an atheist for President? It's because of this. This is what many Christians think we are, or at the very least are inherently more likely to be than they.
For no other reason than the fact that we have a different set of religious beliefs.
One last part here to touch on before Bible study finishes:
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
Ever hear a Christian sincerely ask something along the lines of, "If you don't believe in God, why don't you just go murder people and steal everything?" Those are usually the ones you respond to by saying, "You know, maybe it's best you stay a Christian..." It's scary that, for them, their religion is all that's keeping them from going on murderous rampages. Yet we know that isn't actually true- I doubt that before they were religious they murdered people on a whim. It was a belief they came to accept over time. And this is why they believe that. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, kindness, and goodness. To them it only makes sense that without the Holy Spirit you might as well just be murdering people.
"We Christians aren't perfect either," You may hear. "I don't judge others, that's for God," I've heard multiple times. But until you accept the Holy Spirit, in their eyes you're going to be hopeless, full of envy, full of jealousy, and full of hatred; in short a life doomed to sin.
And remember, it's not them judging you. It's just what they believe about people who are different than them.
