In the past, when atheist organizations put up ads, even ones which are positive in nature and do nothing to put down religion, the ads are seen as threatening, hostile, and unacceptable; numerous Christians pressure the organization hosting the ads, usually successfully, to take down the ads. Usually that is done under the pretense of open proselytization–although many of the ads don’t actually proselytize, and Christian groups often openly proselytize on billboards themselves.

One ad was so subtle that it required a bit of thought to see the message, and made a statement that was at the same time patriotic and nothing more than plainly secular–quoting the original text of the pledge of allegiance. Not to mention text that is more inclusive, not less. And yet this rather unserstated, simple display was considered so radical as to merit national attention.

These ads usually are relatively tame; for example, a common one asks, “Don’t Believe in God? You’re Not Alone,” and prompts people to visit the “Coalition of Reason” web site. They usually do not urge people to leave the church, but instead try to attract atheists who do not know of others who feel the same way they do. And yet, such messages often prompt Christians to angrily protest, demanding the ads be removed–this one was taken down after the billboard owner got death threats. (Islamic extremists do not, it seems, have a monopoly on that particular tactic.)

One can safely assume that these are often the same people who are offended by liberals who ask people to be sensitive about what names they call other people, attacking such “PC” sensibilities as “censorship” and “violating First Amendment rights.”

The FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation) is somewhat more aggressive, posting billboards and bus ads which directly criticize religion. Quotes from famous figures like Mark Twain, Butterfly McQueen, Clarence Darrow, Emily Dickinson, and Katherine Hepburn involve messages that are clearly critical: from Twain’s snarky “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so” to McQueen’s more pointed “As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of religion.” These ads, although done tastefully, do push the boundaries somewhat; and churches hit right back, with ads quoting, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”

However, imagine if the atheists put up signs going much further–say, an ad atop taxi cabs which screamed, “CHILD ABUSE VICTIMS,” and asked, “Is your church a threat to your children?” followed by the URL, “www.LeaveChristianityNow.org”. Not just commentary, but a smear–taking a restricted, unrepresentative scandal and using it as a front to break people from their faiths.

How do you think Christians would feel about that ad?

Actually, the question is academic: I fully doubt that any business or ad agency would allow such an ad to get past the preliminary stages. And rightly so; support ads and even proselytization are one thing; ads quietly critical of religion would be considered less kosher but within limits. But ads actively, underhandedly smearing a religion so stridently are another thing entirely. Even liberals would balk at that, and one might assume that conservatives would be livid at even the idea.

Unless, of course, it’s an anti-Muslim ad.

A few days ago people started hearing about ads placed atop taxicabs in Chicago which read, “HONOR KILLING VICTIMS: Is your family threatening you?” and displays the URL “LeaveIslamSafely.com”. Were this a women’s advocacy group trying to protect people, that would be different–but the URL makes it clear that the intent is to drive people completely from their faith.

The thing is–and I may be wrong on this as I am hardly an expert on the subject–I don’t even think this is related to Islam except indirectly. My understanding is that honor killings are a cultural, not a religious practice.

The ads are cleverly cloaked in an anti-violence support guise, but the real intent behind them is made clear when you understand that the ads were placed by one Pamela Geller, a strident, extremist anti-Islam whack job who revels in seeing lurid conspiracies of anti-American jihad under every prayer mat. Honor killings are not what she’s about, she’s completely anti-Islam. This suggests that the ads are less about saving lives and are more about demonizing Islam. Not that honor killings are not a problem, but they are hardly synonymous with Islam, just as child molestation is not synonymous with Christianity.

For better or worse, the ads are being taken down. One point, however, is that had they been equivalent ads targeting Christianity, they would never have gone up in the first place.

Well, it’s official: now that Obama has spoken out in approval of the Cordoba House project [Clarification: he did not “approve it” or even “approve of it” per se; he only supported their right do so], Republicans are grabbing the issue as an election-year theme. Never mind that this should be an issue of religious liberty. Never mind that this is a clear appeal to lump together all Muslims under the terrorist label and use them as a political scapegoat.

Who cares about any of that when you can get people to vote for you?

Count me as disgusted. Not surprised, just sickened.

Rand Paul on the “You Have to Be a Christian to Be Good” bandwagon:

I’m a Christian. We go to the Presbyterian Church. My wife’s a Deacon there and we’ve gone there ever since we came to town. I see that Christianity and values is the basis of our society. . . . 98% of us won’t murder people, won’t steal, won’t break the law and it helps a society to have that religious underpinning. You still need to have the laws but I think it helps to have a people who believe in law and order and who have a moral compass or a moral basis for their day to day life.

The clear implication is that if you’re not a Christian, then you don’t believe in law and order and you don’t have a moral compass or a moral basis for your day-to-day life.

How charming.

In Australia, primary school students apparently have “Religious Instruction” classes in public schools, and while one gets the feeling that they are usually taught by professionals, it would seem that the churches who send the teachers are giving in to Creationist pressures and are now teaching stuff like about how Noah collected Dinosaur eggs for the ark, and other fun Fundie factoids.

Here’s the end of the article:

A parent of a Year 5 student on the Sunshine Coast said his daughter was ostracised to the library after arguing with her scripture teacher about DNA.

“The scripture teacher told the class that all people were descended from Adam and Eve,” he said.

“My daughter rightly pointed out, as I had been teaching her about DNA and science, that ‘wouldn’t they all be inbred’?

”But the teacher replied that DNA wasn’t invented then.“

In the above exchange, a few things are significant. Firstly, the primary school student seemed better educated than her teacher. And second, the less funny part, is that this young girl became ostracized because she was intelligent and asked sensible questions, and now likely stands out as some kind of pariah in her school.

This is a very real problem in schools where a solid majority is religious: children raised to be freethinking often find themselves outcast, bullied and rejected, because the school itself allows religion in the door and these students don’t subscribe. Without religious instruction, they would blend in and be treated fairly; allow religion to enter, and the students become targets. In Delaware, when religion was allowed to deeply permeate school curriculum and social life, two Jewish students, a brother and sister, were first ostracized and then their whole family literally run out of town because they weren’t Christian. Or this story told by a teen atheist from a religious family in Oklahoma who was harassed and outcast at his high school for his beliefs, to the point where he was labeled psychologically unstable and was forced to drop out of school. Again, something that would not have happened had the school been secular. Especially where religion is strong, this kind of singling out and discrimination is more likely to happen.

This is not just a matter of being offended, this is a serious breach of personal rights and liberties for the sake of forced indoctrination–which is what this is really about. Prayer does not belong in the classroom, as it can be performed countless times during the day otherwise. A child can pray when he wakes up, as he gets dressed, before and after eating breakfast, and any time at home before leaving. He can pray at the bus stop, on the bus, and when he arrives at school. He can pray by himself or with other Christians either out in the yard or in the hallways or in an empty classroom. He can pray during breaks, between classes, during lunch, or other free times. He can pray after school ends, on the way home, with his family, before and after study, before and after watching TV… well, I could go on and on and on, but you get the idea. Not to mention that he can pray silently at any time.

So why does prayer need to be directed by teachers? Simple: because that makes it official. That lends governmental and educational authority to religion. That’s really the major reason for this. To proselytize, to get new people in the church and keep kids in the religion. That’s why it’s so often pushed at schools more than most other places.

The real test is to turn it around and ask if you’d be OK still. If you are a Christian, and you want your kids to be raised Christian, what would you think if the school in your neighborhood pushed Islam and your kids were bullied and outcast for being Christian? Or how about atheism? Not science and scientific findings, which are not atheism, but actual atheism–what would a Christian think if the schools had teachers saying outright that God does not exist, that religion is a sham for the weak-minded? What if they taught the history of religion as war, and that one must discard God to be a good and moral person? I seriously doubt that would not be problem for Christian families; on the contrary, it would be a huge issue. They raise holy hell over a lot less right now. So how come their brand of proselytization is A-OK?

Sorry, I know that I repeat myself a lot on this issue. But every time I see a story like the one above–admittedly on the extreme side, but more ”tame“ stories are nonetheless just as objectionable–I can’t resist getting the soapbox out.

A few days ago, I posted about the “mosque” being built “at” Ground Zero–actually, it’s a community center, and there’s a multi-faith chapel and prayer area, not a mosque, and it’s not on the WTC site, but rather two or three blocks away… but hey, when it’s an election year and you’re trying to make people mad, these things don’t matter. What’s more, as came out in the discussion, the group that wants to put up the center is one that has condemned the 9/11 attack and terrorism in general “in the most unequivocal terms,” and plans a memorial for the 9/11 victims in the center. The Imam heading the initiative, a Sufi Muslim, has worked together with Israelis to promote peace between the nations, and has jointly proclaimed with them for both Palestinians and Jews “to live with freedom, security, dignity, respect, and self-determination.” So this is no radical organization, not a group raising funds for terrorists or smearing Jews, but a progressive, peaceful organization trying to mend relations, build awareness, and bring Muslims and others to a reasonable, respectful, and peaceful place.

And yet, look at what controversy has been brought. Now, this probably would not have been such a big deal were it not for people like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich seeing a fantastic red-herring issue intended not to legitimately address grievances or to right wrongs, but instead to inflame (and defame) so as to rally political strength to their campaigns. Without the politicians using this as a prop to get media attention, there would have been a few protests from the families of the 9/11 victims, a few people from the community raising a fuss, but it would have stopped there, the protests drowned out by others pointing out that the group is far from objectionable, the project is positive and constructive by nature, and religious freedoms should be observed and no one group be unfairly maligned or hindered.

But this is a critical election year, and the temptation of making hay by distorting the facts and playing on people’s fears and indignation is just too great.

One interesting perspective is to imagine it having happened a different way: what if Obama himself had announced support for this project? As far as I can tell, he’s stayed a mile away from the issue, and for good reason: the right-wing has made the “Obama is a Muslim who wants to attack Christianity and destroy America” one of its prominent memes; Obama announcing public support for the center near Ground Zero would be like Christmas and Easter wrapped up in an orgasm for these people.

Imagine what the reaction would be if, now that Obama is president, the Pentagon started building Islamic prayer centers just like the one that they’re proposing near Ground Zero? The Pentagon, itself a victim of 9/11! Forced to build mosques!! Whoo boy! That would set off a firestorm of protest! There would be no end to the indignation, the claims that Obama is anti-Christian, the calls for impeachment, cries that anyone who would be insensitive and anti-American enough to build mosques at U.S. military installations must be a traitor of the worst stripe!!! The media would jump right on the bandwagon, “reasonably” asking questions like, “Is it really appropriate for the president to do something like this? Is he not sensitive to the feelings of the families of the victims as well as Americans everywhere? Should we be spreading Islamic fervor within the ranks of our own military?”

What if, on top of that, President Barack Hussein Obama hosted an Iftar, and Muslim celebration of Ramadan, within the White House itself? Everyone would go insane!!!

Well, if you know me, then you can probably see where I’m going with this. In 2006, five years after 9/11, The Pentagon started building Islamic prayer rooms. A few right-wing bloggers got their panties in a bunch, but no one else much minded or even noticed. And Bush hosted Iftars more than once. Bush was not branded a traitor, no brouhaha, the world didn’t end.

What this shows is that this is mostly about politics, mostly about smears and attacks and defamation and using our emotions, our fears and sensitivities against what is reasonable and for what is wrong with politics today.

One last thought: Jonathan Chait at The New Republic makes an interesting point: did you feel that it was proper to allow Salman Rushdie to publish The Satanic Verses, or for a Danish newspaper to publish a cartoon of Muhammad? You see the relation to this–freedoms of religion, action, and speech versus the sensitivities of those who may be offended.

Newt Gingrich:

You know, there are over a hundred mosques in New York City. I favor religious freedom. I’m quite happy if they’d come in and said, ‘We want to build a community center near Central Park, we’d like to build a community center near Columbia University.’ But they didn’t. They said right at the edge of a place where, let’s be clear, thousands of Americans were killed in an attack by radical Islamists.

By that logic, since the 9/11 terrorist were Middle Eastern, we should be blocking anyone of Middle East descent from (a) purchasing property, (b) running a business, or (c) taking up residence anywhere near Ground Zero. For example, any Saudi business that wants to rent offices within, say, ten city blocks should be denied permission.

Unless I misunderstand Newt–we’re talking about guilt by association, right? We’re essentially saying that since radical Islamists were responsible for 9/11, that means all Muslims are to be banned from setting up shop near Ground Zero. Since it’s not about religion, we must also take into account whatever attributes were involved–and national origin is certainly involved, at least as much as religion.

And hey, the terrorists were all men!

Or how about Timothy McVeigh being a registered Republican; should we have banned the GOP from setting up any party offices within a mile of the Oklahoma City National Memorial? You paint with a broad brush, you cover a lot of territory.

This whole thing is idiotic and bigoted, an appeal to the lowest common denominator for the most base and shameful of reasons. Now, if radical Islamists, maybe some Shariah Law school run by people of the exact same stripe of the terrorists, or a mosque dedicated to the terrorists–you know, someone actually in any way associated or identifying with the terrorists–if they wanted to set up business nearby, then maybe Newt’s got a point.

Now, if someone wanted to take the community center to task on specific grounds, such as objections to the Imam responsible for the project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, that’s different; you can cite specific reasons and call specific sensitivities into question. For example, Rauf said things after 9/11 such as, “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” Or, “… we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.” Now, he also said other things like “Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam,” and “I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy.” These are items we could debate on their merits. We could have a conversation about whether it is agreeable to allow or not allow an organization run by a person like this to set up shop near Ground Zero–either in terms of sensitivity or whether it is even legal to stop it. We could discuss the ins and outs, the conflicts and the perceptions, and so forth.

But to say, “Hey, these guys are Muslims, the terrorists were Muslims, all Muslims banned from the area” is pretty much the definitive example of sweeping religious stereotyping and discrimination.

But then again, this is an election year.

Stay classy, Newt.

Imagine one of your children brings home their 4th grade science textbook. You decide to have a look at it, and on page 40, you read this:

Electricity is a mystery. No one has ever observed it or heard it or felt it. We can see and feel and hear only what electricity does. We know that it makes light bulbs shine and irons heat up and telephones ring. But we cannot say what electricity itself is like.

We cannot even say where electricity comes from. Some scientists say that the sun may be the source of most electricity. Other think that the movement of the Earth produces some of it. All anyone knows is that electricity seems to be everywhere and that there are many ways to bring it forth.

Now, what exactly would you think of that text? Me, I’d immediately contact the school and ask what the hell they’re teaching my kids. Of course, if that were the text that was used, it would mean that the religious fundamentalists had gotten control over the school system and were using textbooks published by Bob Jones University. The textbook in question–“Science 4: Students Text”–is home-schooling fare, or, in other words, texts for parents so extremist that they go to radical lengths to prevent their kids from getting exposed to the secular wickedness served up at public schools, and there are no private religious schools nearby with a fanatical-enough curriculum to satisfy them.

The passage above (seen scanned here) has been raising a lot of attention since PZ Myers featured it a few days ago on Pharyngula. You gotta know that it has led to a lot of attention because BJU Press has yanked the “Look Inside” feature for that one book’s class set off their web site, one would assume to avoid more embarrassment.

However, it doesn’t take much searching of their site and leafing through sample chapters of other texts to find stuff that’s interesting, though nothing quite as spectacularly buffoonish as that 4th-grade passage on electricity. Certainly the text is, to say the least, suspect as “Science.” Take this page from a 6th-grade text on goelogy:

Places where the plates meet are called plate boundaries. Scientists think that currents in the molten rock of the earth’s mantle may move the plates a few centimeters each year. This movement may cause the plates to separate, to collide, or to slide along their plate boundaries.

Some scientists believe that at one time the earth could have been a single large landmass that they call Pangaea (pan JEE uh). Because there was no recorded observation, we cannot be sure that such a landmass existed. We also cannot know how the landmass may have broken into pieces. However, the Bible tells us in the book of Genesis that God sent at great flood to destroy the wickedness on the earth. Genesis 7:11 states that “the fountains of the great deep [were] broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.”

Many Creation scientists think that the earth’s surface went through catastrophic changes during the Noahic Flood. These deluges could have caused the great landmass to break and separate. The plates may have moved with such tremendous force that landforms such as mountains could have been formed as plates collided.

Some scientists claim that landforms took millions of years to form, but it is likely that they formed in a much shorter period of time.

Note the determined dissembling and introduction of doubt when it comes to facts not embraced by the church. “Because there was no recorded observation,” and “we cannot know,” in addition to the insertion of biblical events to explain the form of the Earth. Not to mention the cute capper at the end, “it is likely that they formed in a much shorter period of time.” Yeeess, that is “likely.” Not that we’re making any claims here! We report, and you, the student, decide!

If nothing else, it is an interesting look at how the fundie crowd teaches “science” to their kids–with enough of the subject matter intact to make them aware of all the basics other kids know, but with just the right amount of fundie flavor to keep them out of hellfire.

Also note the repeated use of “some scientists think,” “some scientists believe,” and “some scientists claim” liberally applied to almost every statement of scientific fact, no matter how established or non-controversial. (Note, however, that when creation scientists are mentioned, it’s “many,” not “some.”) The intent is, naturally, to create a sense of doubt concerning anything that mainstream scientists say, as if everything is the field of science is just speculation, nothing more than theories and opinions, and therefore one can take creation science or other fundamentalist biblical interpretations just as, if not more seriously.

Or, I should say, some bloggers think that it is likely that these texts are full of it.

Of course, I am sure that these home-schooled kids will be set straight when they eventually attend Glenn Beck University (accreditation pending).

A man in Fargo, North Dakota, applied for a vanity plate which reads “ISNOGOD.” The NDDOT (North Dakota Department of Transportation) rejected his application. Not because it was taken, but because they didn’t like the message–it “might offend people,” they said. They had already approved religious plates, such as “ILOVGOD,” and so apparently they only care about offending religious people, not non-religious people. This was the first vanity plate turned down in the state in three years.

Now the NDDOT has reversed its decision, but does not seem to be doing so willingly. Instead of apologizing for what amounts to blatant discrimination, they simply noted that their attorneys have “advised” them that “under the law” the man is “entitled” to the plate has asked for. The reversal was only “due a broader legal review.” In short, they would have liked to tell the guy that his religious views won’t be tolerated, but their lawyer informed them that their bias didn’t have a legal leg to stand on and a court would rule against them in an embarrassing and perhaps expensive manner.

No doubt the guy will have his car keyed or something after getting the plates.

Wow. You gotta be amazed at how someone passing himself off as a journalist can (a) get so many facts wrong, and (b) pack his interview with so much bias. And usually, these things are allowed to pass without remedy, but this time, the interviewee was someone who knew the actual facts and was willing to stop the conversation and make the corrections (if not point out the bias). Here’s Fox second-stringer Dave Briggs getting his fanny gently handed to him by Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation:

Note the usual Fox captions, including “Preying on Prayer,” and the suspicious ID of the judge, with photo–which, to Fox viewers, is a message saying “harass this person.”

But the vapid, error-filled arguments, really nothing more than right-wing talking points, are what really catch one’s attention. Briggs got pretty much everything wrong. He claimed that no one had complained, when so many had; he claimed that the central issue was that no one is forced to pray, when the issue was separation of church and state; he claimed that the Constitution made mentions of god, when he was quoting the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legal document. He even brought Christmas into it, rather lamely, suggesting that the guest would want to ban that next.

Barker replied well, and even brought up the Treaty of Tripoli, a legal document signed by John Adams himself, ratified by that early Congress, and published publicly without scandal or outcry, which stated unequivovally that the United States is not “in any sense” founded on Christianity. If anything, Barker was kind and gentle to this guy. Me, I detest “journalists” who don’t pay attention to facts, and would have called him out rather ungently. Barker’s approach was better, of course–but you can bet any amount and be safe to win that the vast majority of Fox viewers heard only what the interviewer said and didn’t believe anything said by Barker.

When will these numbskulls get the fact that separation of church and state is there to protect all beliefs, especially the right to religious belief? That this separation, in fact, was originally designed to safeguard the freedom of religion, and that if these evangelicals and wingnuts get their way, it will be the death knell of that religious freedom in this country?

Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, considered to be the “deputy pope”:

Many psychologists and psychiatrists have shown that there is no link between celibacy and pedophilia but many others have shown, I have recently been told, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. That is true. That is the problem.

Um, nope. There is no demonstrable relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. The few studies that make such a claim are so flawed as to be meaningless. Pedophiles, in fact, are considered to have no adult sexual orientation at all–being a pedophile is their orientation. The whole thing about blaming gays for pedophilia is either a bigoted, homophobic lie intended to deflect criticism onto a persecuted minority, or sheer ignorance and a blind dependency on said sources.

Besides which, the remark on celibacy is a red herring–the question is not whether celibacy is “linked” to pedophilia (“link” is an extremely vague term which could mean many things), but rather whether pedophiles enter the priesthood in greater numbers because they believe the training and celibate life will help them repress their urges. It apparently does not do much in that respect, but it does place them in a highly trusted position with easy access to many young children–not a good place for a pedophile to be.

The cardinal did not address that issue. Apparently, it’s just easier to blame gays.

From that perpetual font of balanced goodness, Fox News:

The 6-year-old son of a Colorado nursing student who ran off to Europe to join a terrorist murder cell was brainwashed into a hate-filled Islamic fundamentalist zombie…

Ever see Jesus Camp? Funny how if the parent is a Christian Fundamentalist, we don’t hear about their kids being “brainwashed” in mass media reports, not to mention turned into zombies. Not to mention the parent as well. This being in line with the paradigm which says that if they’re Christians, or right-wingers, then they’re not terrorists when they crash planes into buildings or shoot people to death as part of a larger campaign.

You have undoubtedly heard the expression, “there’s no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole,” used to the point of cliché. It has been proffered by many in the outwardly religious set to flaunt what they perceive as the true ubiquity of faith–that, when it comes down to it, everybody believes in god, and atheists are just fooling themselves when they say otherwise.

Me, I find that a terrible argument, and a conceit which is as flawed as it is condescending. When you consider it, what it really means is that religious faith for many is primarily a reaction to the fear of death. The natural concept of death is that we cease to exist and it would be as if we never were, and that scares the crap out of people. Offered an alternative, people will want to believe that they continue to exist after death, so instead of hanging on to that itching, near-crippling fear, many accept a worldview that instead allows them to feel reassured. Many resist this fear by simply denying it, by avoiding thinking of death–but when confronted in a way that the idea of death cannot be avoided, as one might be in a foxhole under enemy fire, they undergo the transformation then and there.

I see this as a cop-out. If you believe in god simply because you fear oblivion, then you believe for the wrong reasons. Something is not true simply because you want it to be true. If someone doesn’t like you, but then claims to be your best friend only because you won the lottery, how much would you trust and respect that brand of friendship? Faith for self-serving reasons is not faith at all, it is empty of meaning. Any religion that thrives because people will grasp at any alternative to confronting the end of their existence is a sham.

The same thing happens with “deathbed conversions,” or with people who become religious after a near-fatal illness or accident–or even just from dealing with fears of their own mortality. I can fully respect someone who takes a broad, objective look at religion, considers deeply what it is, and concludes that it is something which they feel is true. I can respect someone who has a revelatory experience not associated with fear and sees this as a sign to pursue religious beliefs. But I cannot respect faith born of fear, and cannot imagine how anyone else can, either.

So in my view, to tout one’s religion by saying that people believe it for that reason is hardly a good argument. The next time someone uses the “atheist in a foxhole” saying as a way of supporting religious beliefs, bring the argument to them. “So, you’re saying that religion is just a reaction to the fear of death? Isn’t that shallow?”

Besides which, it just simply ain’t true. Not only are there many, many atheists who have dwelt in foxholes without converting, there are some people who became atheists while in foxholes. At least that is what happened in the case of Milton Christian, celebrated and decorated WWII veteran, who earned a veritable collection of honors: Purple Heart, Good Conduct Medal, European-African Middle Eastern Campaign medal, Victory Medal, Combat Infantryman Badge 1st Award, Honorable Service Lapel Button, and a Marskman Badge. Christian received, belatedly (better than posthumously!), the Bronze Star which he earned more than 60 years earlier. After the ceremony, he said this:

They say there are no atheists in foxholes. But as we sat in those holes, praying that God would save us, I thought about the fact that the other side was doing the same thing. And then I wondered if God is just playing some kind of game with us. Pretty much I decided at that point there was no God.

Now, that’s something I can respect–the formation of a belief, through reason, in spite of the fear of death. He noted that in order to believe in god, however comforting it may be, there were contradictions that he simply could not accept. Courage is to do what you know is right even though it scares you more than you can say; Christian was courageous. Those who went the opposite way were, well, not.

Sully didn’t look at this story closely enough. He initially reported on an article outlining how a father accused a school of discrimination when they sent the child home and made him undergo a psychological evaluation because he drew a picture of Christ on the crucifix, commenting that the outrage was “understandable.” I expect that kind of shallow knee-jerk reaction from less thoughtful types.

The fact is, the story was not was the story seemed to be. The child did not draw Jesus on a crucifix, he drew himself dead on the cross; the teacher was concerned that this might be a cry for help. Instead of being a suggestion that Christianity is a sign of insanity, it was a teacher rightly concerned for the well-being of a child who drew a heavily loaded image that could suggest suicidal or other troubling psychological issues, referring that child to a counselor to make sure they were all right.

What really makes the public ruckus surrounding this case clear is the following:

“It hurts me that they did this to my kid,” Chester Johnson, the boy’s father, told the Globe. “They can’t mess with our religion; they owe us a small lump sum for this.”

At which point the motivation for the father splattering this in the media becomes apparent.

Sarah Palin, and not a comedic parody:

Noting that there had been a lot of “change” of late, Palin recalled a recent conversation with a friend about how the phrase “In God We Trust” had been moved to the edge of the new coins.

“Who calls a shot like that?” she demanded. “Who makes a decision like that?”

She added: “It’s a disturbing trend.”

As it happens, the Republican Congress and George W. Bush were the ones who made that call. But that’s not the really disturbing thing here. Let me again pull out my soapbox.

There is a very specific and intentional movement to allow a merging of church and state in this country, and the “In God We Trust” motto is a big part of it. The motto is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights, and should never have been approved. The same goes for what is now a de facto religious test that politicians must add “So help me god” at the end of their oaths of office (if they did not, they would be accused of heresy–today called “being anti-Christian”–and would never win another election), despite this being 100% unconstitutional. Nor is the injected “under god” phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance constitutional, where government employees force children to mindlessly repeat it day after day.

None of these were part of the original plan for the United States, and despite right-wing claims, none would have been approved by founders like Jefferson. They chose they motto “E Pluribus Unum,” for example; that was replaced as the national motto in 1956; it was on coins since 1795, discarded when Congress assumed the power to appoint mottoes on coinage, and “In God We Trust” was imposed in 1873. The religious reference in the Pledge was tacked on in 1954.

At a few times in our history, pro-religious sentiment became so high that any protest on the grounds of constitutionality were simply not heard, and unconstitutional acts were made more or less official. And if anyone dared to challenge these illegal incursions, the two-pronged response was the same: first, the claim was made that the objections were an attack on religion, and second, the claims were belittled as frivolous, because these were not serious things. Just a few words in the pledge! Just a voluntary tack-on to an oath! What harm do a few words on a coin do?

The answer is: a lot. It is the proverbial camel’s nose.

Think I’m being paranoid? Then let me share with you words from a ruling written by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

Presidents continue to conclude the Presidential oath with the words “so help me God.” … Our coinage bears the motto “IN GOD WE TRUST.” And our Pledge of Allegiance contains the acknowledgment that we are a Nation “under God.” …

With all of this reality (and much more) staring it in the face, how can the Court possibly assert that “ ‘the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between . . . religion and nonreligion,’” … and that “[m]anifesting a purpose to favor . . . adherence to religion generally,” … is unconstitutional?

Scalia wanted to make government endorsement of religion–of a specific denomination of religion, no less–constitutional. That was the minority opinion in McCreary v. ACLU (PDF)–but is was a minority by one vote only. Had Sandra Day O’Connor not voted the way she did, that opinion would now have force of law. Had that case been heard after she was replaced by Alito, it almost certainly would be the force of law. And it could become the force of law very soon.

These incursions are NOT minor, are NOT harmless; as is clearly shown in the above dissent that came so close to being law, it is precisely these incursions which would allow corrupt Supreme Court justices like Scalia to use them as a legal wedge and inject their own religious views into the highest laws of the land.

Which is precisely why Sarah Palin is so rattled by the fact that the words were moved from the main body of the coin to the edge–she, and others like her, fear that these illegal incursions, which could make America into a theocracy, are being marginalized–literally, in this case–and see any attempt to modify them in any way as a threat.

Tell me, if “In God We Trust” on the coin is not serious, then why do people like Palin rant and rage and rend their hair when it’s even moved from one part of coin to the other?

There should be a movement to remove that motto from all coinage and currency; to forbid the words “under god” from oaths as they constitute a de facto religious test; and to restore the Pledge of Allegiance to what it was before the Red Scare made it possible to inject it daily into the minds of millions of schoolchildren. (A dozen kids singing about Obama twice is indoctrination, but tens of millions chanting “under god” every day for decades isn’t? Please.)

And before we forget, this is not some atheistic coup. It is about the restoration of the founding principal: if religion and state become too close, then all religions, all beliefs, and all people fall under peril.

Does the first amendment only protect belief in a god, gods, or positive spiritual beliefs in general, or does it protect any belief regarding the ultimate make-up of the universe? Is a belief that there is no god just as much a qualification here? Is only worship protected, or just what you believe in general? Could atheists build a place where they gather to discuss atheism, and have it be protected and granted special status just like churches are?

It’s a common enough theme. The Pope is doing it now, blaming atheists for the world’s environmental problems:

Is it not true that inconsiderate use of creation begins where God is marginalized or also where is existence is denied? If the human creature’s relationship with the Creator weakens, matter is reduced to egoistic possession, man becomes the “final authority,” and the objective of existence is reduced to a feverish race to possess the most possible.

So, people are ruining the Earth because the don’t believe in god, which naturally means they will become materialistic and in so doing destroy the environment. Said the leader of a small city-state famous for accumulating massive amounts of wealth.

Even if you ignore the irony of the Pope blaming others for being materialistic (do you have any idea how good could be done if the Vatican sold off its assets and used it to help people?), you are still left with the highly questionable chain of logic which claims that atheism causes “egoistic possession” which in turn leads to the environment being destroyed.

Over the years, I have encountered several conservative Christians who argued against environmental causes, pointing to scripture as the reason: “fill the earth and subdue it,” said god to man. I have encountered several religious people who see this as free license to cut down the forests, exterminate species, decimate fish stocks, deplete resources: god gave these to us to do with as we please. Many see the physical Earth as something that will be used up when Armageddon comes, so not to worry. Not all, of course, but the people who deny that there’s anything wrong, or the people who say that nothing needs to be done, happen most often to be the faithful.

Atheists, on the other hand, tend to be environmentally aware; Daniel Florien points out that he cannot recall meeting an atheist who was not in favor of protecting the environment, and I have to admit to a similar impression. Hardly all non-believers are activists in this, but the tendency is toward recognition of scientific findings and a sense of responsibility. Since non-believers don’t see a land of milk and honey after this one, they tend to be more focused on keeping the world we have in better shape.

The thing is, what the Pope is now saying about non-believers has all too familiar a ring to it; where religion screws up, they quickly turn and accuse atheism of worse. Ask a religious person about the horrors of war caused by belief, and they will quickly bring up Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, claiming that their atheism was responsible for more deaths than all religious atrocities put together. Of course, it does not even matter that Hitler was not an atheist or that Stalin and Mao were; the important fact is that atheist beliefs did not lead to the deaths they caused, and therefore their beliefs were irrelevant. One might as well blame all of those deaths on the Eastern hemisphere, or tight collars. When religion is blamed for violence, it is the direct result of religious dogma causing that violence. The Crusades and the Inquisitions were excellent examples of this, albeit just a few of the countless historical slaughters carried out in the name of religion, spurred on by religious beliefs and animosities. When Stalin killed, he did not do so in the name of atheism, nor did he act that way because of any atheist precept or line of reasoning. None of that, of course, stops religious people from bringing up Stalin, Hitler, and Mao when the question is not even one of comparing belief systems, but of defending their own.

All of this stems from a feeling of righteousness–not earned, not reasoned, but simply bestowed–or so they imagine. Of being the chosen ones, and everyone else goes to hell. It’s not just that they feel they’re right, they feel that their being right is the only possible way that there is. That all good things come from god, and that if you don’t embrace god like they do, then these things are not possible for you. And they don’t seem to understand how offensive this is to others. They instead simply see wrongness elsewhere, and cast the blame in that direction.

Take environmental issues: one huge element of this is overpopulation, a great deal of which comes from Catholicism itself and its insistence that contraception cannot be used. Even if the Pope never rescinds this, if he were at least able to recognize it as part of what causes environmental problems, it would at least add credence to his views. But instead he dwells on imagined evil by people he does not at all understand, people who believe differently from him, and therefore can not be good. Rather than at least look dispassionately at the real causes, he instead takes the opportunity to apply his bias and blame those who disagree with him on the flimsiest of logical threads.

It is estimated that 78.4% of Americans are Christian, and about 80% of the prison population is Christian. Jews, similarly, are almost precisely represented in prisons (1.7% / 1.7%). Buddhists, at 0.7% / 1.18%, are somewhat over-represented. Most over-represented are Muslims (not Nation of Islam), who compromise 7.3% of the prison population despite making up only 0.6% of the general population; this most likely represents a disproportionately large African-American population in prisons, and is mirrored in other groups likely to be represented more in African-American groups (Rastafarian, Moorish, Nation of Islam).

Guess which group is vastly under-represented? Those without religion. They make up 16% of the general population, but only 0.2% of the prison population is non-religious, almost 1/100th of what you might expect it to be. One would think that this says something about atheists and morality–interesting, as Christians often seem to think that those without religion will be immoral by nature. Seems that’s not the case. Either that, or atheists are incredibly skilled at evading capture.

The fundamentalist Christian “Liberty” University sparked some controversy when they banned the College Democrats club based on the fact that the political party the club stated affiliation to supports freedom of choice in reproductive rights and other such unacceptable heresies. The Republicans were allowed to continue with their club. Well, now an agreement has been reached: the club can start up again, but none of the political clubs will be allowed to use college funds.

The irony here is that a major complaint of fundamentalist Christians is that they are not allowed nationwide to engage in religious activities which use public (often school) funds. Faced with a similar problem where they are the administration–using their own funds provided by a body which may disagree with how they are spent–they came up with exactly the solution they decry as discriminatory and unfair when applied against themselves.

How about that.

Randall Terry, head of Operation Rescue, has released this statement following the murder of an Ob-Gyn doctor who performed abortions:

George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller’s killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder.

Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches.

The problem here, of course, is that however strongly Terry and other Christians claim that abortion is murder, that is an opinion, not a fact. I could, just as legitimately, conclude that selling tobacco is murder; this would not make it moral or in any way acceptable to kill a tobacconist. You cannot decide on your own what constitutes murder, place your stamp of approval on killing the “murderers,” and then claim the moral high ground.

Note the callous wording of Terry’s opening statement: We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. Terry did not grieve the fact that Tiller was killed, but rather the manner of the killing. In short, Terry is saying, with a wink and a nod, that he fully approves of the killing, regretful only that the murder could not have been performed according to religious ritual. Of course, Terry is mostly likely being ironic: he probably does not actually regret that Tiller did not have time to prepare for death, but says that only to highlight the fact that Terry cares not a bit that Tiller was killed. Surely enough, Terry follows this with a tirade that damns the slain doctor in no uncertain terms. One gets the impression that Terry only regrets not being able to pull the trigger himself.

Finally, Terry’s statement ends with a chilling warning: We will continue to point out people we don’t like, call them murderers, and shine a light on their location so that people willing to go to jail for their murder have time to carry out the deed. Note Terry’s threatening final statement:

We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches.

Dr. George Tiller was murdered as he walked into his church. Terry could not be more plain: we will assist in getting you killed, just like we did with Tiller. Yes, even as you walk into your church, we will hunt you down and have you killed.

I see no reason why Terry should not be immediately arrested on charges of aiding and abetting murder, in addition to making threats of murder to an entire class of people. His statement is virtually a confession.

“Liberty” University has made it clear that the era of tolerating other views is long gone. It seems that a lot of religious organizations have made it clear: you’re either with us or you’re against us. No more of this “respecting others’ views” crap.

“Liberty” made it clear by shutting down the Democratic club, where many students in the school admitted to being, well, not Republicans. And that’s just too much. Democrats support killing babies. Partially born ones! I hear they eat them afterwards. Seriously, they shut down the students’ ability to openly be Democrats on school grounds because it “goes against the conservative Christian school’s moral principles.”

This follows a wide variety of Christians becoming apoplectic when a pro-choice president speaks at Notre Dame. Not because he was going to say or do anything incendiary, but simply because he’s pro-choice. A lot of people don’t want people like that even near the school grounds.

Remember back to the 2004 elections, when the church officially denied John Kerry communion because of his pro-choice positions? This is just getting stronger and stronger. I would not be too surprised if you started hearing of churches demanding parishioners sign pro-life oaths, and shunning them if they refused to. Or starting protests like they have outside abortion clinics, except outside the homes and offices of those who publicly state pro-choice views.

Of course, if a Christian woman kills her daughter by shunning newfangled medicine and instead depending on prayer alone to cure her daughter’s diabetes, well, that’s faith, and should be protected.

Apparently, the woman, her business partners, and a prayer group “ignored obvious symptoms such as her inability to walk or talk.” Her lawyer insists that she “didn’t realize her daughter was so ill.” Usually, being so ill that one is not able to walk or talk, that’s kind of hard to miss. Not to mention that they called in the prayer group–obviously they knew full well that she was seriously ill (unless they call in prayer groups for minor illnesses). Apparently, the whole bunch figured it was time to call 911 “when she suddenly stopped breathing.” You gotta give it to them, they were really on the ball there. Her lawyer said she takes “good care” of her children (aside from letting them die from easily-treated illnesses), and that “obviously, there will be an appeal.” Well, obviously.

In the meantime, religious groups are also rallying against atheists. It’s not enough just to shun them and hate them, they must be denied the same rights and freedoms as religious folk. If they wish to form groups who practice the same belief, they are not entitled to protection under the First Amendment. When they want to post ads on buses or billboards like Christian groups, the Christians go nuts and force the ads to be taken down.

And the attacks against them are ones that would never be tolerated if aimed at religious groups. What if someone published this in a national newspaper?

I can’t stand Jews — but it’s not because they don’t believe in the Christian God. It’s because they’re crashing bores. My problem with Jews is their tiresome — and way old — insistence that they are being oppressed. First off, there’s Jewish victimology: Boohoo, everybody hates us ‘cuz Jews killed Christ.

There would be hell to pay. And yet, such articles are freely published about atheists.

I think the question here is, how far can these people go in such open rejection of others’ beliefs before they start digging the same hole for themselves that Republicans are? Or am I misreading this, and most everyone thinks it’s okay that Christians are becoming increasingly intolerant and hostile to anyone who disagrees with them?