Looks like the Satanists won

I've been trying to figure out exactly what the Satanic Temple is, and as far as I can tell it started from left-wing atheists who donned the mantle of a fictional Satanic church to push Christian displays out of government buildings and public institutions, but its members stay in character and won't admit it is satire. To complicate it further, the organization has attracted real satanists, who were allowed to join.

Village Voice writer Anna Merlan did a great investigation on the organization. She reveals that the group started as a film project where actors pretending to be satanists gave a public demonstration in January 2013 to thank Florida Governor Rick Scott for allowing students to lead prayers in school assemblies. This idea was to make christians wince and realize it opened the door for satanic prayers as well.

This May the group unveiled a statue of a goat-headed figure it threatened to install in the Oklahoma Statehouse to accompany a Ten Commandments sculpture. Satanic Temple spokesman Doug Mesner, under the assumed name of Lucien Greaves, said they didn't really want to put it there, but if there's going to be a Christian statue than the law demands all religions be able to place their own statue there.

Get it? They are forcing Christian lawmakers to chose between having Satanic images in public, or banning all religious displays.

So enter a school district in Florida that allowed people to pass out Bible. The Satanic Temple created a coloring book to pass out in the same school district, and Mesner/Greaves spelled out their motivation clearly in a press release.

We would never seek to establish a precedent of disseminating our religious materials in public schools because we believe our constitutional values are better served by respecting a strong separation of Church and State. However, if a public school board is going to allow religious pamphlets and full Bibles to be distributed to students – as is the case in Orange County, Florida – we think the responsible thing to do is to ensure that these students are given access to a variety of differing religious opinions, as opposed to standing idly by while one religious voice dominates the discourse and delivers propaganda to our youth.

Well, the school board just caved and declared that they won't let anyone on campus to distribute religious materials. I do have to hand it to them, the Satanic Temple set it up so they win either way. If they get to install their religious statue or pass out satanic coloring books, christians who support the Ten Commandment sculpture or Bible  distribution will be exposed as hypocrites and forced to comply by a court. Their only alternative is to prevent the religious materials altogether, like the Florida school district just did.

I think their parody church is being dishonest when they deny being a farce and feign sincerity as a secular satanist group, but then again, they pretty much have to. If they revealed that they are only pretending to be Satanists, opponents could use that against them when they try to pull their next stunt and argue that they aren't espousing actual religious views.


Read more...

Take Mitch McConnell with you

Please oh please let Mike Huckabee's follow through on the threat he made on a radio station Tuesday, where he criticized the GOP for not fighting hard enough against gay marriage, and potentially giving up on the issue.

If the the Republicans want to lose guys like me and a whole bunch of still God-fearing, Bible-believing people, go ahead and just abdicate on this issue and while you're at it, go ahead and say abortion doesn't matter either. At that point, you lose me. I'll become an independent. I'll start finding people that have guts to stand.

Does he mean it? If so, not only would the Republicans lose a major social conservative leader, but he could potentially siphon off a large portion of similar party members. Imagine that, we could potentially have Republican leaders who focus on economic issues and don't get bogged down holding back science and human rights.

Who knows, some of them might even try to cut spending, instead of merely cutting taxes. 

Read more...

A real example of a religious freedom violation

Despite being a godless heathen, one of my friends is a pastor in the United Church of Christ. He passed along this link about his denomination's new lawsuit against the state of North Carolina.

Often when someone claims their religious freedoms are being violated I find it a bit of a stretch. This one is a home-run.

Under Amendment One, which passed in late 2012, it is a crime in the State of North Carolina for clergy to officiate a marriage ceremony without determining whether the couple involved has a valid marriage license. United Church of Christ ministers, interested in conducting a religious marriage ceremony for same-gender couples, could face up to 120 days of jail and/or probation and community service if found guilty, since North Carolina marriage laws define and regulate marriage as being between only a man and a woman. As lead plaintiff in this lawsuit against the State, the United Church of Christ asserts that these laws are unconstitutional and violate clergy's First Amendment rights.

Not only does the state not recognize gay marriages as a social contract, they also have made it a crime for a church to have a spiritual ceremony that doesn't claim to be legally binding? That's foul.

Good luck UCC, this is a clear case of a violation of religious freedom.

Read more...

Greg Mankiw takes on the Pope

Pope Francis's anti-capitalist remarks have received the attention of Greg Mankiw as well. He made two points that I made in my response, that it's well established that capitalism has made the world a better place, and the Pope's use of "trickle-down" was a pejorative and not the name of an actual theory.

But then Mankiw made a point I wish I had though of:

Third, as far as I know, the pope did not address the tax-exempt status of the church. I would be eager to hear his views on that issue. Maybe he thinks the tax benefits the church receives do some good when they trickle down.

In the Communist Manifesto Karl Marx wrote that capitalism has been an essential part of the world's progress, but that it is no longer useful. Specifically, he said:

It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.

There is a thought being passed in some parts of the modern left that capitalism has never contributed to advances in civilization, and Pope Francis appears to subscribe to that view. It's troubling to think that there are people today, serious upright breathing people, that hold views to the left of Karl Marx.

Read more...

Milton Friedman the skeptic

A few years ago I stumbled across an interesting exchange between Milton Friedman and a religious man who was concerned about Friedman's secular beliefs. Friedman nailed it, and since then I've noticed a variety of off-hand comments Friedman has made that would would excite the secular and skeptical communities if they heard them.

Today as I was listening to a lecture he gave on inequality and I saw another gem worth digging out. In his comparison between religion and concerns over inequality, Friedman said:

Like most religious beliefs - and the reason it is to be called a religious belief - this one is unexamined, and preached rather more than it is practiced.

Later in the same talk he summed it up again:

As I said at the outset, religious beliefs have the characteristic that they tend to be unexamined. 

There are many more statements like this made by Friedman. As a side project I will be transcribing them here under the tag "Milton Friedman the skeptic" so they can be compiled later.
Read more...

A myth trumpeted by atheists

It's sad to see Richard Dawkins website is the source of a recurring myth.

In June 2012 a Salvation Army PR director Major Andrew Craibe was put on the hot seat by gay activists in a radio interview. The Salvation Army is a Christian charity and their handbook lists multiple sections of the Bible that make up parts of their beliefs. Contained one of those sections in the Bible, but not spelled out in the handbook, is a verse that say gays should be put to death.

During the interview, which can be heard here, Craibe was told about this and he responded "Well, that's a part of our belief system." The interviewer spelled it out for him several times and he agreed to it each time.

The headlines screamed that the Salvation Army believes gays should be put to death, because after all, a spokesperson from the group agreed to the statement, even if  was a far-flung one from Australia. That lead to the Australian branch to issue a statement several days later. It read in part:

Salvation Army members do not believe, and would never endorse, a view that homosexual activity should result in any form of physical punishment. The Salvationist Handbook of Doctrine does not state that practising homosexuals should be put to death and, in fact, urges all Salvationists to act with acceptance, love and respect to all people. The Salvation Army teaches that every person is of infinite value, and each life a gift from God to be cherished, nurtured and preserved.

So that should be the end of it, right? Of course not.

When Christmastime came around and the Salvation Army bell ringers started collecting money for charity, atheists in America started sharing the story again, saying not that the Salvation Army wants gays put to death and leave it at that. Myth-busting pages like Snopes and other myth-busting pages tell the whole story, but not everyone got the message.

Now we're getting close to Christmas 2013 and what do I see being shared from Richard Dawkins website? A 2013 piece entitled Salvation Army says “Gays Need to Be Put to Death” that leaves out some important details.

When I was an intern at a newspaper one of my editors told me we can we can never be unbiased, but we can always be fair. Presenting Craibe's interview with no mention of Australia or the response from the Salvation Army demolishing the statement is not fair. Putting quotation remarks around "gays need to be put to death" is lying.

Shame on Richard Dawkin's website staff for perpetuating misinformation.

Read more...

The last thing we need

I saw a link this morning claiming to be five strong economics articles for beginners. Reading through the list, I was happy with each entry, but disappointed in the aggregate. There was Leonard Reed's "I, Pencil," a piece on price signals from Russ Roberts, Frederic Bastiat's famous "That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen," Mike Munger's piece against price gouging laws and the short version of Friedrich Hayek's "Road to Serfdom."

All five are great essays, but all five are essays from the free market perspective. Even though that is my view, I'm off put at attempts to introduce someone to economics and steer them to one of the two rival camps. While I am not Keynesian, I respect that view and believe someone should learn from both camps before choosing a side.

Anyone new to economics would benefit from reading one of Paul Krugman's Pop Internationalism essays, his piece Ricardo's Difficult Idea on free trade or J. Bradford DeLong's Cornucopia essay on comparing standards of living across time periods.

It was at this point I glanced to see the source of the list. No doubt it was going to be a free market educational group.

I wish it had been.

Instead, it was from The Institute for Faith, Work and Economics. The opening paragraph to the article I was reading said (with added emphasis by me):

IFWE’s mission is to build a framework of faith, work, and economics for the purposes of living out whole-life stewardship. Sound economics is grounded in biblical truths, and helps each of us to be better stewards.

This is exactly what I don't need. There are far too many anti-capitalist bottom feeders claiming that the invisible hand described by Adam Smith is a religious concept that requires a belief in God. People like Glenn Beck just add fuel to the fire when they declare that the free market is God's creation.

I'm repulsed by the suggestion that "Sound economics is grounded in biblical truths." The Bible declared many times that making people pay interest for loans was a sin. This led to economic stagnation through the medieval church's ban on usury.

Good economics comes from science and reason, not from religious texts.
Read more...

Beating their heads against the wall of Jericho

Last night NPR had an interview with student activist Lizzie Jekanowski, who leads the group BC Students For Sexual Health, about how their attempts to hand out condoms at Boston College were thwarted by the school.

I don't like having to defend the Catholic Church, but Jekanowski has forced me to with her undeserved optimism.

Boston College is a Catholic institution and Catholicism is one of the few religions with a formal leader and power structure and the religion is very clear that it considers it a sin to use contraception such as condoms. The reason for this position is the Genesis story where God killed Onan for purposely spilling his seed on the ground to avoid impregnating his sister in law.

While this anti-condom view is big-league bonkers, it is well understood to be set in stone in the Catholic Church. As a result, Boston College does not give out free condoms like some schools or allow others to distribute them on campus. A change in policy would have to follow a change from the Vatican.

A BC official in the NPR interview revealed they do not ban their use or possession on campus, just the distribution. BC student and likely virgin Christopher Knoth defended the policy and made it clear that there is a pharmacy next to campus where students can buy condoms.

Jekanowski is correct when she said it's also an issue that the BC clinic won't prescribe birth control to students unless they lie to their doctor, although she should have provided more details. I understand why she wanted to pass condoms out, but where she leaves the world of sensibility is her attempts to get Boston College to ignore Catholic dogma through protest.

She identified herself as a Catholic and willingly chose to go to a Catholic school, but now that she's there she thinks reason and an appeal to sensibility will get them to ignore the Vatican's orders. How could she possibly expect that to work?

If I went to an Islamic or Jewish school I would not expect the dining hall to serve pork chops and sausage and I would never waste my time protesting the campus bacon ban. It's mind-destroyingly obvious that it would never work. It's like yelling at the clerk that you don't like the chain store's policies.

I don't understand why Jekanowski even identifies herself as Catholic. Aren't they supposed to believe that the Pope is infallible when he makes his religious decrees and the Vatican policies come directly from God? This isn't like joining a political party where you compromise on some issues to help gain support for the others; this is a private and personal decision that is supposed to be about metaphysical truth. She clearly disagrees with the Catholic Church, so why doesn't she find a church that embraces progress?

Boston College's anti-condom policy is hardcore-level stupid and deserves to be mocked. Free and cheap condoms marginally decrease unwanted pregnancies and STD rates at a low cost. However, trying to get a Catholic institution to overturn or ignore 2,000 years of dogma by whispering facts into its ear is a logical meltdown.
Read more...

To err is human

At work today the TV showed live footage of the Pope on his last day in office. Most of it was unblinking footage of his white helicopter ride to Castle Gandolfo, but what was stuck in my mind was the concept of papal infallibility.

It turns out, this does not mean the Pope in incapable of making a mistake. What it does mean, however, is that it is impossible for him to make and error when he speaks in his capacity as leader of the Catholic Church on issues of doctrine, faith and morals.

Still, that means a two-legged mammal is incapable of making a mistake because of his title. This idea, even when coached in limited terms, is completely absurd and I don't understand how any human being could ever take it seriously for a moment.
Read more...

The Libya attacks were not a game changer

I have to disagree with something Hillary Clinton said in response to the violent attacks on the U.S. embassies in Libya and Egypt this week that killed an ambassador, among others.

It wasn't this statement:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

Some conservatives, including presidential candidate Mitt Romney, are falsely trying to paint President Barack Obama's administration as apologizing for the Internet video an obscure American citizen posted that inspired the attacks. Breitbart.com chopped off the final sentence, which completely changed the statement. That's bogus and I agree with the general idea of what she really said.

No, her statement I disagree with is that these events "Should shock the conscience of people of all faiths around the world.”

Who is shocked here?

I'm going to pull a CJ Cregg here and say the obvious: If some minor private citizens publicly does something insulting to Islam, we must expect crazed mobs to murder people. It's a simple cause-and-effect routine we all know very well.

As always, I have to clarify that it's the Islamic extremists who are behind all the killings, not the majority of peaceful Muslims, otherwise I will be assumed to condemn the entire religion and we all know how dangerous that is. However, it's still true that the bad ones are worse than the bad ones of any other religion.

I've been hearing for months on the BBC about the war crimes and human rights violations caused by rebel groups empowered by the Arab Spring uprising. Now some of those same protesters still wearing Guy Fawkes masks have turned their attention on U.S. embassies.

So no, I'm not shocked people were murdered because of some lame Internet video no one here ever heard of. Anyone surprised by this just wasn't paying attention.
Read more...

Why I'm excited about Atheism Plus

I just became aware of a planned movement called Atheism Plus, or Atheism+, which means secular people who push social justice goals. The advocates want to be known as standing for atheism plus feminism, or atheism plus affirmative action.

I like Jen McCreight's comparison to an atheist knitting club, where it doesn't replace atheism groups, but merely acts as a voluntary side project.

That's the beauty of this Atheism+ scheme. Instead of trying to drive out libertarians, men's rights supporters and people who don't support abortion, the far-left secular advocates like McCreight, PZ Myers and Rebecca Watson are going to pick up their ball and go home.

Please, go. Shove off, mateys, the sooner the better. You have my blessing.

I'm sure believing that my support has value violates some hidden white male privilege list, but I really want to  express my joy that they will be pushing their political agenda elsewhere.

I realize that they are making some parting shots on their way out. Atheism+ advocates are trying to say they're trying to get away from evil people. Blogger Jason Thibeault sums it up:

You’ll notice that the A+ folks are all against a certain type of person — the kind of person who would engage in concerted hate campaigns against certain members of the community merely for being pro-social-justice.

As if this was about ideas and not actions. I'm not sure what qualifies as a hate campaign, but his camp does not merely believe in social justice, it has been trying to force the rest of us to act on it.

Longtime readers will recognize a version of our old friend the feminist shell game, where opposing an extreme form of a modern idea is presented as opposing its primitive ancestor. I don't support using affirmative action when selecting speakers at a conference, so therefore I am opposed to black people. I don't support having the federal government pay for abortions with taxpayer money, therefore I am against women voting.

These kind of political parlor tricks are to be expected. I'm sure there are a lot of nice, tolerant people within the Atheism+ movement (Surly Amy comes to mind), but I see some rude ones speaking for the group and it gives me a negative impression of the entire camp. That's how bias works and we need to address it. It's the same mechanism that leads them to blurring the line between people like me and neo-nazis.

Atheism+ will end up devolving into Atheism plus worship of the democratic party, and I'm sure there will be plenty of left-wing economic views taken as scripture and smugly touted as scientific fact. Will the Marxists be welcomed in Atheism+? I expect so, and there will be an attempt to say they have captured the mantle of reason. Oh well, it's nothing new.

I've seen some people in my camp oppose the Atheism+ movement, and I wish they would reconsider. Think of it like the Civil War, where the slave-owning, backwards aristocratic confederate states wanted to leave, and we fought like Hell to keep them with us. Why not just let them go? 

I'm sure they will do some good things as a group, but I never signed up to fight for abortion rights, I just wanted a group of people to discuss secularism and skepticism with, and hopefully I will get that back.
Read more...

Secular community rationalizes their politics

This afternoon when NPR reported President Barack Obama said earlier today day that his policies are an extension of his religious faith, I had a funny feeling that today would be the day the secular community gives religion's influence on public policy a pass. I was not disappointed.

From NPR, with emphasis added for the juicy parts:

Blending politics and religion, President Barack Obama said his Christian faith is a driving force behind his economic policies, from Wall Street reform to his calls for the wealthy to pay higher taxes.

Obama's remarks Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast were his most explicit account of how his personal religious beliefs factor into his decision-making on the nation's pressing problems. The comments came amid election-year criticism from Catholic groups and some Republicans that the president is waging a war on religion following his decision to require church-affiliated institutions to cover free birth control for employees.

Speaking to more than 3,000 people at the annual breakfast, Obama said "faith and values" should play as much as role in tackling the nation's challenges as sound decision-making and smart policies.

Now these statements about letting the Bible guide his policies were only spoken that morning, but it was on the air when I turned in at 1 p.m. I figured my fellow skeptics would have been exposed to it by now.

The clock is close to midnight now and I haven't seen it referenced at all on Facebook and most of the hits on YourOpenBook.com show the only people linking it are anti-Obama conservatives who are speculating (reasonably) that the comments would have sparked outrage if spoken by George W. Bush.

I also checked out some prominent secular blogs out there, from the Friendly Atheist to Pharyngula. They have updated several times today and there's no mention of it anywhere. That may change tomorrow, but the lack of a viral spread is telling.

I see my secular and skeptical friends post news reports all the time about a Republic politician or some unknown right wing loon waving around the Bible and saying America is a Christian nation or we've fallen too much into sin. It's usually introduced by saying "This is why I could never vote Republican."

No friends, you could never vote Republican because you don't like theirs policies. This is just rationalizing, where you come up with compelling arguments to justify your beliefs.

In all these cases, the friend already would never vote for a conservative candidate. They disagree with the right's economic views and hands-off solutions to problems like poverty. Of course, they also disagree with social conservatives, but hey, so do I.

I don't think the president said anything out of the ordinary for politicians today. As the transcript shows he also included plenty of lines about tolerating other faiths.

He's just caving like everyone else and this shows that the idea that only the Republicans will exaggerate their holy devotion just to win votes needs to be taken off the cross, placed in a cave and sealed with a big rock.

Read more...

Where is this godless Democratic party I keep hearing about?

It's no secret that there's an overwhelming base of left wing politics in both scientific skepticism and secular communities. I recently wrote that skeptics should reconsider their assumption that a progressive government will select competent people who understand and respect science to run the country. I used this as a platform for them to consider becoming libertarians. This time, I want secular people to consider being anything other than Democrats.

In 2010 gay conservative Andrew Sullivan said:

Certainly gay people do not want to become a Democratic party constituency that is totally taken for granted, which is of course what has happened. When you have no leverage over a party, they don't do anything for you except take your money and invite you to cocktail parties, which is all that's happened in two years under Obama with two houses of Congress.

The secular world is extremely left wing, and everyone knows it, including the Democratic party. That's why they don't do anything for atheists. They know the heathens will never run to the GOP and making secular issues central will only scare off the religious voters they are struggling to court.

Remember how the atheist community made a big deal out of the time in early 2010 when the Secular Coalition for America got to meet with a handful of President Obama's staff? Some fools on the right tried to read too much into it, but it was just for show, like the shout-out Obama gave to non-believers during his inauguration. He's the same president who not only tolerated Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives, but actually expanded them.

I am not expecting the secular community to go to the GOP that treats secular people with contempt or switch to some hopeless fringe group like the National Atheist Party. Instead, I'd like my fellow godless heathens to consider leaving the Democrats and joining the Green Party or registering as independents for a little while until they win you back with some real change.

My friends, the Democrats aren't doing anything for the secular community. They don't think you'll ever leave. Make them set down the Bible and earn your vote.

Read more...

Wait, ALL of them? At the same time?

There's a stir today because last night at the overhyped NBC New Year's Eve show singer Cee-Lo Green covered "Imagine" by John Lennon and reversed one of the lyrics.

Instead of telling people to imagine "Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too" he requested people picture "Nothing to kill or die for, And all religion's true."

Honestly, I think the secular community's anger over this incident is short-sighted. I understand that that song is sacred to them, as it created a myth that Lennon was an atheist, something he denied shortly before his death:

People always got the image I was an anti-Christ or antireligion. I'm not. I'm a most religious fellow. I was brought up a Christian and I only now understand some of the things that Christ was saying in those parables. Because people got hooked on the teacher and missed the message.

But what's important here is that Cee-Lo did the secular community a favor.

Take a moment and imagine that every religion is true. All of them. It's a mess.

You've got Muhammad and Quetzalcoatl fighting the Titans in Valhalla while Vishnu commands the Taurus bull. The Galatic Overlord Xenu is dodging djinns and Anubis to tempt Jesus in the desert before he breeds with giant Aryan women to bring them down to size. Who's in charge here, Ra, Jehovah, Zeus or Taiyang Shen? Can the light side of the force prevent Cthulhu from bringing Ragnarök to the world, which is made from the dead dragon Tiamat, or will the ancestral spirits and great mother turtle have to create a new one. Do faeries have chakras?

All religions being true would be like a Marvel-DC crossover, only with more unnecessary violence and less plausibility. What could be a better recruiting drive for atheism than for people to start 2012 by imagining a series of mutually-exclusive mythologies and folk tales competing for space in the same realm?
Read more...