2005 Blog
[ Up ] [ Why I am not a Christian ] [ Reading Room ] [ Links ] [ Secular Homeschool ] [ Astrology, Bleep Crap, Etc. ]

December 26,

Well. We survived the War on Christmas. My disappointed brother said they won. His beloved Walmart was filled with glad tidings of Merry Christmas instead of (what he said was the usual) Happy Holidays. But did they win, dear brother? Did they really?

I've decided it doesn't matter what you call it. Christmas is now a national holiday. It is, therefore, and must be, secular. We can all feel free to celebrate the secular holiday (yes, yes, came from holy day, but now it means vacation). Santa Claus is secular. As hubby pointed out, just because some dude is named Jesus doesn't make him the son of god. So, just because Claus' name is Santa doesn't make him a saint.

And we know all the other stuff is totally secular. The tree. The presents. The wreaths and yule logs (they're made of cake after all). It's all secular stuff. Bacchanalia, if you will. Saturnalia. Orgy of feasting and debauchery. Walmart says it all! So, if Walmart is saying Merry Christmas, the Christians have won nothing.

So, yes, Merry Christmas to you all!

December 17,

The Christians sure do put on a good show. For years they were whining about the commercialization of Christmas; and now, they're bothered when stores don't push Christmas in their quest for your dollars. I heard an ad on the radio the other morning from Hooters. Have a Hooters Christmas! Chicken wings and beer!

You get what you ask for, I guess.

December 6,

I've been out Christmas shopping. Yes, that's right, Christmas shopping. Christmas is everywhere. There are Christmas cards among the holiday and season's greeting cards. There are Christmas carols being sung along with holiday songs. There are even signs in stores with the word Christmas on them!

This supposed "war on Christmas" is nothing more than propaganda put out by the extreme right-wing religious lunatics. If a store doesn't have a sign with Christmas on it, but one with "Happy Holidays," and if a store's employees wish you a "Happy Holiday," BIG F*&^%ing deal.

Everybody in this country is NOT obligated to wish you a Merry Christmas. Everybody in this religiously diverse population does not owe you observance of your religious holiday.

Millions of us celebrate a completely secular Christmas without any hint of religion in it whatsoever. Hey, you were the ones so fanatic about making Christmas a national holiday and now you've got what you asked for: a secular Christmas all over the country.

So, get off our backs and worship the way you want. Nobody's stopping you.

November 13,

I spent this weekend with the Freedom From Religion Foundation. They gave Jennifer Musgrove their student activist award and she talked about her experiences with church-state issues while at Palm Bay High School. Afterward, I talked a little bit about Musgrove vs. Brevard County School Board and they surprised me with a "Friend of the First Amendment" award. It was very exciting. There were lots of great speakers at the convention including Dr. Oliver Sacks, Sen. Ernie Chambers, Robin Morgan and David Corn. The most impressive for me was David Habecker, the Estes Park, Colorado resident who was recalled from his position on the Board of Trustees because he refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

This next week, I'll be working on a page about the Life Choices program offered to our public school students; the page will include my email discussion with County Commissioner Helen Voltz. Her statements to me were highly offensive. Watch for it soon.

I still haven't heard from AU regarding the settlement in Musgrove vs. Brevard County School Board, but as soon as I get the word, I'll upload all the dirt on that page.

November 8,

I watched the most disgusting and irritating display on the altar at Calvary Chapel of Melbourne last night. District 5 Commissioner Jackie Colon gushed all over the proceedings and lent Brevard County's endorsement and support for what turned out to be a church service for Christian teenagers.

Life Choices Ministries presents their program at their website as a "fast-paced, motivational, multi-media event." It turned out to be one boring preaching session in which John Phillips tried desperately to relate to the kids with stupid antics and Debbie Phillips sang a song to girls telling them not to let boys take their treasure. Give me a break.

This program was sold to the students in area public middle and high schools with a bribe donated by Andretti Thrill Park. On the "morning news" at Stone Middle School today, the program was advertised as a "message of hope." And if you want your tickets to Andretti Thrill Park, you better go!

The message turns out to be that if you engage in smoking, drinking, drugs, pornography and/or sex...you will die. At one point, John Phillips acted out a scene as a mouse enticed by the chunk of cheese in a mousetrap. His little play was complete with a squeak and the twitching death of the mouse. The mouse is the teenager, see, he explained; and the cheese is sex. Ted Bundy was also allowed to speak to the children via his final video interview from jail. Pornography kills is the message.

At no time during the service were the kids offered or taught any kind of life skill that would help them cope with these behaviors or their causes. But it was made very clear that turning one's life over to the lordship of Jesus Christ would do the trick.

Rachel Joy Scott was turned into a female Jesus who died for what she believed in. "What will you die for today?" her mother asks. Drugs, alcohol and sex are not noble things to die for, Debbie Phillips said. "What is a noble reason to die?" Well, faith, apparently.

This program was sponsored by the Palm Bay Police, according to the flyer. And from the sound of the opening ceremony, it was sponsored by, endorsed and encouraged by, Brevard County, the Sheriff's office, and all our local representatives.

It was a shameful display.

October 31

It's Halloween. I've just spent a few hours at my youngest's school for the Fall Festival, as they're calling it now. Tit for tat: no calling Christmas, Christmas and Easter, Easter. It's all fine with me. There was a letter to an editor in one of the Florida newspapers today that said Christians should stop whining about Halloween because the purpose of the scary costumes is to scare away the devil. So shut up and let the kids go about their business protecting us. I'm still not sure if it was a joke or not. Probably not.

Much going on here. PBHS is at it again. This time I received a notice on the parent email network about a program called Life Choices being hosted for PBHS by Calvary Chapel. It's very hard to see any religion in their website. But they are a Christian ministry. Life Choices is run by the aunt and uncle of Rachel Joy Scott. If you look on the links page at Rachel's legacy website, you'll see Life Choices Ministries listed under Christian Resources.

According to the host of the parent email network, PBHS put flyers in the classrooms about this event. They may be announcing it over the intercom. The problem with this is two-fold. One, they're inviting kids and their parents to what will be a religious event, as evidenced by complaints made in the past. Two, they're not telling the kids and parents that it is religious. It's not that they could invite them if they did say it was religious, but the fact that they're sneaking the religion in is just vile.

SCFA sent a letter to the principal of PBHS and copied it to the superintendent and the school board. I wish I could see Thomas' face when he reads it. The ink hasn't even dried on the graduation case settlement. SCFA has decided it's time to put the school board on notice: they need to get the schools in line on the guidelines for religious freedom or we're going to be making a lot of noise.

And a new development in our complaints against the city of PB. In January we cried foul at the inclusion of the phrase "God Bless America" on the city-owned website and were ignored. They've decided to rub it in by adding a a picture of a flag with a cross on it. This time I contacted Americans United.

October 11

Some days are really bad days...when everything I read is insulting and stupid. But this week there have been bright spots.

Sam Harris has offered and excerpt of his upcoming An Atheist Manifesto in his blog at the Huffington Post. It's a fresh statement on atheism as a reality-based viewpoint. He says, "It is terrible that we all die and lose everything we love; it is doubly terrible that so many human beings suffer needlessly while alive. That so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religion -- to religious hatreds, religious wars, religious delusions, and religious diversions of scarce resources -- is what makes atheism a moral and intellectual necessity. It is a necessity, however, that places the atheist at the margins of society. The atheist, by merely being in touch with reality, appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors."

An Atheist Manifesto will be published in December at a new site called Truth Dig.

Kurt Anderson shows us where he draws his line in the sand with Backward, Christian Soldiers! I agree with him. The astonishment overwhelms me when I realize that rationalism is the fringe movement. We are the freaks. We live in Bizarro world where hatred is love, death is life, and punishment is mercy, for those who believe it. Those who deny it and take everything at face value are heretics.

October 4

Check out George Colburn's LTE in Florida Today, published on October 1: [that hyperlink won't be good forever...darn Florida Today]

Washington saw nation as being 'under God' [I can't fault him for the title; we LTE ranters don't get to make those up.]

"In regards to all the controversy over our Pledge of Allegiance having the phrase 'under God,' and therefore being unconstitutional for recitation in public schools, as some courts have claimed, I would point to the words of George Washington as suitable precedent from on of our Founding Fathers.
In July 1776, the leader of the Continental Army fighting for our independence wrote, 'The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army.'
Let us never give in to the atheists. We always have been a God-loving country."

Don't you just love bigots? They make things really easy for smart people...but stupidity sure does spread quickly among them. Where to start.....?

First, IF the quote by Washington was accurate, which it is not, it would mean nothing. Washington, in Colburn's mangled rendition, appears to be saying that the FATE of unborn millions is under God. What the hell does that mean? It's a good thing that's not what Washington said.

Washington said, "The fate of unborn millions will now depend on God, on the courage and conduct of this army."

Second, if the Founding Fathers words and actions are precedent...we'd still be owning slaves and denying women the right to vote. Sheesh, Colburn, get a clue.

And third, thanks for making it very clear to everyone that you don't think atheists deserve the same rights you have. At least you're not pretending to grant us equality out of one side of your face while denying it out of the other like so many of your friends.

September 19

Round two has begun. A federal judge in California has ruled that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. Christian fascists are taking a stand, claiming that not being able to use the government of our religiously diverse nation to acknowledge and promote their deity abridges their religious freedom. What excrement.

Judge Roberts is cagey. We don't really know for sure where he'll stand on religious freedom, but it's a fairly safe bet it won't be for it. Next comes the vacancy of O'Connor which will no doubt be filled with another Rehnquist clone.

I'm very angry right now with all those people who voted for George Bush because they're Republicans and they couldn't stand the thought of a Democrat at the helm. I hope they're happy with their new theocracy.

September 2

Dear Mr. Swank,

Thank you for adding to the vitriol with your inappropriately named missive: the truth about separation of church and state. We're all so happy to have been twisted about to fit your pretzel, I'm sure. I have to say, you had me in agreement with paragraphs two through six. (I wasn't sure what the first line was all about.) I'm not a liberal, so if you want to lash out at them for something you feel they did wrong, go for it. But, as I continued on with paragraph seven, I began to understand that not only do you not understand the separation problem (dare I say, "per usual"), but you even fail to target your opponent.

Let me help you out. It'll make me feel better. After all, as evidenced by the entry for September 1, you'll realize I've been in a bad mood of late.

First. All secularists aren't liberals. And all liberals are not secularists. Secularists are those people who understand the importance of freedom of conscience and who demand that government recognize that freedom in its dealings with the citizenry. So, you see, many people who are not secularists, are not so because they do not understand it. And many people are not secularists because they're bigots. After you read this, you can tell me of which sort you are.

Beginning with paragraph seven of the 'truth' <ahem>, you say that liberals want to redefine the phrase 'separation of church and state' to "exclude Judeo-Christian religious expression in America." Naturally I balked at such an absurd idea. I wanted some specifics...and you valiantly attempted to offer evidence for your accusation.

You failed, however, first to link secularism with those nasty liberals. [You know, there are a lot of Christian liberals. A lot, a lot.] Then you failed to adequately prove such a notion. [I notice you like to use the word "prostituted" a lot. I'm wondering if there's anything Freudian in that.] Your evidence involves the idea that the prostitution-oriented, liberal secularists are trying to oust religion from America by the strange method of replacing it with Islam. [I'm confused, here.] The specifics are as follows.

One: School districts [unnamed] are hiring Muslims [unnamed] to speak to teachers [unnamed, of course] about giving Muslim students honor and space. This is very bad, you seem to think. "No such invitation, of course, has been extended to Judeo-Christian specialists speaking to public school educators on how to give Judeo-Christian adherents honor and space." Well, my first question would be, do we NEED Judeo-Christian specialists to do that? Are Jewish and Christian students having a problem? Are they a minority that is being left out somehow? If that were true, I am sure people like you would see to it that Christian specialists, at least, were hired to talk to the apparently non-Christian teachers about how to honor and "space" the Christian students among the non-Christian majority. Funny, I'm not seeing the world that way at all. Didn't you, after all, just spend a few paragraphs telling us about our Judeo-Christian heritage and how we "tolerate" other religions? And now you're complaining that the majority Christian student population needs help with honor and space? Something's not right here.

Two: In a nearby [where?] high school [unnamed], a prayer room has been set aside for Muslim students. This is very bad, you say. "No such prayer room or any other respect has been presented those of the Judeo-Christian heritage." Well, let's see...do Christians have to pray at certain times during the day to keep a commandment? I didn't think so. So, why would they need a prayer room? What other "respect" do they need? I may be with you on this one, anyway, Mr. Swank. We might need to take it to court and get a clear <cough> judgment on it. It seems to me that if you're going to attend a government, secular school, you'll have to do your praying in silence somewhere...like the rest of the students. But I'll have to think about it some more.

So that's it. That's your evidence that "liberals will do whatever it takes to obliterate America of its rightful Judeo-Christian heritage." That's sort of silly, really. Again, if you didn't get it the first time: a lot of liberals are Christians. And secularists...well, you don't understand secularists at all, do you? I wonder why that is? Before I explain secularism to you, let's take a look at something really funny.

You said, "This is accented every year particularly during the Christmas season. Any other so-called 'religious expression' can come to the fore but the Christian particulars must be silenced at all costs."

I have to giggle there. I'm wondering what sorts of "other" religious expressions you might find at the "Christmas" season. As if...Christians own the season! Ah, well. You are wrong again, of course. The concern is not to get rid of the Christmas symbols and replace them with other religious symbols. If you really think that's what it's about, I have to wonder where you've been.

Now, here's your call to arms: "What those of the Judeo-Christian heritage must do — and far more concertedly than they have ever done in the past — is to make clear to the public what 'separation of church and state' really means."

So, I must ask you, Mr. Swank, what exactly DOES separation of church and state REALLY mean?

Of course it does not mean to wipe religious expression out of America. And it doesn't mean to wipe Christianity and its expression out. No one [except those who don't understand it] thinks it does. Not the liberals, and not the secularists. No one wants to stop you, or any American, from expressing his religion at any time, at any place. Americans should be free to worship, to gather, to build churches, to collect money, to spread the word, to debate and disagree. That's freedom of religion. We're supposed to have that here.

Americans should also be able to be free from religion, if they choose. They should be free from any coercion by the government to support, acknowledge, or endorse any god or religion. That's freedom of religion. We should have that in America.

To separate church and state means to allow freedom of religion in the only way possible: by keeping religion and government separate. When government endorses religion over non-religion, it infringes upon the freedom of conscience of the nonreligious. When it endorses a particular god, it infringes upon the freedom of conscience of millions of citizens. When government acknowledges one religion, we have no true freedom of religion.

Anyone who would use the government of a religiously diverse population to acknowledge, support, or endorse his god and/or his religion, is immoral.

Now, you have accused "liberals" of misunderstanding and misapplying separation of church and state. I have to wonder how well you understand it. Do you acknowledge the rights of non-Christians and atheists to be free from government endorsement of your god through the motto (changed in 1956), the Pledge (changed in 1954), money (added beginning in 1864), and religious displays on government property?

Or are you just as bad as those nonexistent, prostituting, liberals you attack in warping the meaning of the phrase so as to allow government to endorse only your god and your religion?

[Figures.]

September 1

Here's an unbelievable blog: I wish I could say I'm making this up, but I'm not. So appropriately titled. It would be hilariously--rolling on the floor laughing--funny...if it weren't true. I apologize here, people, but...come on! When will this idiocy end? I don't care if there are stupid morons like these in the world, but too many of you believe what they say! And then you have the gall to act all bitchy when we call you stupid! Stupid is as stupid believes, morons.

Can you tell I'm in a very bad mood today? I'm sorry. But I spend my week reading stuff like this: The wall of separation actually never existed. This <ahem...be nice> author, Kevin M. Roeten, asks, "Why do so many assume that a wall of separation must exist between religion and government?"

Hello! How about because it's the only moral way to govern? How about because freedom of conscience is the most important freedom you can possess? How dare people like this assume that it's okay, that it's fair and just and good, that Christianity's god be preferred, endorsed, sponsored and worshiped by the government of a religiously diverse population? Even if we were all Christians...all of the same denomination, the same church, it would still be immoral to assume that all citizens would continue in that conformity.

The powers of government are, and ought to be, granted by the people--by those governed. Government has no business offering any opinion on religious matters. Even Mr. Roeten understands diversity; he let's it slip when he says, "The existence of a god is preordained--at least for most." Well, what about that minority, Mr. Roeten? Are they not entitled to a secular government that would not make second-class citizens out of them? Are they not entitled to walk into a courthouse free of religious symbols with which they do not agree? How can you say no? How can you, in good conscience, deny all humans the right to be free from your religion?

Now I'm not asking Mr. Roeten to stop worshiping in his home or church. I'm not telling him he can't put up symbols on private property. But the courthouse belongs to ALL of us. That's what people like him don't get. I own that courthouse too and I don't have a religion. How dare he think it's okay to endorse his religious beliefs on shared property. The arrogance boggles my mind.

Mr. Roeten lamely attempts to defend his bigotry by saying that government "CANNOT be religion neutral" because religion is defined as a "system of beliefs" and government has to operate under some kind of system or set of beliefs, therefore, it's religious. (see paragraph 3) Mr. Roeten, please! Religion isn't just any set of beliefs and YOU KNOW IT! You KNOW it. But you don't say it here because to say it will strip your argument to nothing more than religious bigotry.

On the contrary to your illogic and feeble attempt at rationalizing your intolerance, government MUST be religion neutral or freedom of conscience is denied to some segment of the population. That is immoral, Mr. Roeten. You are immoral.

Then he goes on to rationalize his argument further by quoting presidents, founders, decisions, judgments, etc. Anything to make it okay for him to force his religion on other people through their own government. Shame, Mr. Roeten. Shame.

August 28

What is going on? Has the world gone crazy? When did it happen?

Pat Robertson issued a Christian fatwa against the president of a foreign country! Then he apologized and claimed he was misquoted [give me a break]. I wonder if we'll get a lot of letters to editors calling for Christians to speak out against Robertson like all those I've been reading demanding Muslims speak out against the terrorist elements in Islam. [I won't hold my breath]. Why is this guy still on the air? Why are people like him allowed to spew such crap tax free? Boggles the mind.

The Pope [what is wrong with this guy?] spoke out against growing secularism and DIY religion. It's bad, he said, when people just make up their own religions. [Sure, it's bad NOW...but two-thousand years ago doesn't count.] And he said that the growing secularization of Europe is a very bad thing. Then he had the audacity to say that Iraq must guarantee religious freedom in its constitution. Gee, I wonder...if Iraq was actually called, say, Jeezusarcana, and its new constitution was leaning toward Catholic domination, would he say anything about religious freedom? I'm thinking...no.

And then we have a U.S. Federal Court deciding that atheism is a religion. Of all the stupid, moronic, unbelievably ridiculous notions. Is there no one left in charge who possesses a brain? Do we have any brain cells at all at work in government? All this time I've been arguing with religious zealots who try to tell me atheism is a religion and now I get a court backing up their stupidity.

Some days I just don't want to go to the computer.

August 19

DH and I were recently discussing the basic human motivators. He's got them down to just a few: greed, lust, anger, power and fear. I think that's his list. When I look at them, I wonder if we can't just boil them all down to fear--fear of loss, inadequacy, and the unknown.

Abraham Maslow, the psychologist, created what he considered the hierarchy of human needs. First are the survival needs, then safety, social, self-esteem and finally, self-actualization needs. It was his opinion that the lower-order needs must be fulfilled before higher needs can be met. His hierarchy looks like this:

Physiological
        hunger, thirst, shelter, clothing, sex
Security
        physical, emotional, financial
Affiliation
        love, affection, companionship, acceptance
Self-esteem
        achievement, recognition, attention, respect
Self-actualization
        reaching our full potential

Like philosophers, psychologists spend much time ruminating about things and making up answers to perceived problems, more often than not muddying things up rather than clarifying. I think too often we try to make humans into something more than what we are to explain our behavior in anything but evolutionary terms. A better description of human needs, I think, is Alderfer's ERG which looks like this:

Existence
Relatedness
Growth

But I'd toss out growth. Humans grow. I don't see growth as a motivator...or a need. Existence is a very big motivator; though as modern humans we may not feel it so much. Relatedness, I think, is the key. We fear exclusion, abandonment, rejection, and death so deeply that we act not only to avoid them, but to deny our own fear of them--to admit the fear is to admit the possibility. Greed, lust, envy, pride, gluttony, anger, and sloth are all methods we use to avoid and/or deny the fear of abandonment, rejection, and death.

Greed: If we have more, we will be loved more. If we are god-like, we won't die.
Lust: If we have more sex, we are loved more. If we reproduce a lot, we won't die.
Envy: If we had what they had, we'd be loved more.
Gluttony: If we fill ourselves up with more food, sex, whatever, we'll forget how little we feel loved.
Anger: We are so afraid of losing our place in our community [family, tribe, life], we explode.
Sloth: If we stop trying, that we are unloved is not our fault.

Oddly enough, or not, those are the seven deadly sins.

Why would modern religion tell us to consider these motivators of human behavior sinful? They'll say, I suppose, because those behaviors lead to evil. I would disagree. It is true, I think, that unchecked [and more importantly, unacknowledged], these behaviors can lead to problems with our interpersonal relationships, which then only exacerbate the origin of the behaviors and increase them. But, if we stopped labeling these motivators as sinful, and accepted them as natural human reactions to fear, wouldn't we then be more capable of conquering said fear and living fulfilled and happy lives?

One would think. And yet, modern religions are eager to make natural human behavior into something vile and distasteful, if not outright deadly. We ought to turn away from anything that reminds us that we are fearful animals and instead concentrate on the lie that we are immortal divine beings, or immortal children of a divine being [same difference, if you ask me]. Why?

What is it about religion that it calls us to deny our humanity and our fear, when doing so only leads to neuroses? Religion can't survive unless it denies reality. It creates that denial in us, agitates it with threats of torture and abandonment (by the divine parent), and then increases our anxiety by not allowing us to act on the confusion it has created in us. We must trust, with faith, that we are vile/divine, worthless/worthy.

Political machines control the people through agitation and fear. So do religions.

August 11

Here's another interesting letter. In the Pensacola News Journal today, Don Dippel Sr., a regular letter writer like myself, said that letters claiming God was unfair to cause "hurricanes, accidents, cancer and other calamities" were nothing more than "self-righteous drivel." He was pretty upset about it. He said that we don't know even 1% of everything there is to know. Then he went on to say stuff like: God knows 100% of what can be known; those who disdain God's rules are the ones breaking them; those same people think they can judge God; "the truth is we are all sinners;" we deserve punishment for breaking God's law; God was perfectly justified to leave us in that sin state; God sent his only son to pay the penalty for us; God only asks that we accept this gift; After accepting said gift, we will experience the joy of living in fellowship with God.

So, for someone who admits he knows less than 1% of all there is to know, Mr. Dippel sure claims to know a lot about this character he calls God.

His final words are priceless. He says, "Stop being so self-righteous!"

Right back at ya, Dippel, you funny guy.

August 3

One of my LTEs got a response--that's always exciting. My letter was titled Prayer doesn't work and was published in the Pensacola News Journal on July 22nd. I was responding to a guest column by Reginald Dogan who claimed that he prayed about hurricane Dennis and his god saw fit to lessen its strength and spare Pensacola. He claimed this was a scientifically observable phenomenon. Well, naturally, I said that he was mistaken. I said that what he was saying, basically, was that his prayers were answered while the prayers of thousands during the season of 2004 were not. What made his prayers worthy? I also mentioned that people pray all the time when children go missing; but usually those prayers aren't answered. I said that Christians make up excuses for why their prayers aren't answered the way they hoped. One of those excuses is that the will of their god takes precedent over what they want. So, why bother praying?

Bob Ward of Myrtle Grove answered that question with is letter, published August 2. Here is his profound explanation:

Sometimes say no [I find this title intriguing--I wonder what the editor was thinking]
In response to Dianna Narciso's letter appearing in the July 22 News Journal (''Prayer doesn't work''), it is my experience that God always answers prayers. Sometimes he says no.

So, that's it. Sometimes, God says no. Please God, save my child from the pedophile/murderer. No. Please God, save my children from starving to death. Nope. Sorry. Please God, save me from this rapist/murderer. No. Ain't gonna do it. And yet, if an athlete prays to god for a win, God often says, sure. God took the time and energy to put George W. Bush in the oval office, but he wouldn't save three boys who'd accidentally locked themselves in the trunk of a car in New Jersey.

What kind of god do these people worship? And, why?

July 28

New tactic by Christians: Get atheists' attention by insulting them, then spread the love of Christ! Maybe it's not new, but I was recently the unwilling victim of such an assault. Well, not just me.

I get lots of articles from Useless Knowledge in my google alerts. Recently I found this one: Perhaps I Should Reconsider Atheism by Michael John McCrae. When someone apologizes up front for his use of sarcasm, you know that his intention is to insult you without bearing any responsibility for doing so. Sarcasm, you see, is not what is employed in Mr. McCrae's article...he just hopes you won't notice. And at the end of it all, he gets to say, "I warned you." When you respond to his insult with anger and a bit of insult yourself, he gets to pull the moral high ground because, after all, he warned you.

And I don't think Mr. McCrae understands the meaning of the word modicum.

Always be wary of people who put your label in quotes. "If you're a sensitive 'free thinker' (right, right, you claim to be a 'free' thinker, but I know better)..." See how it looks when I do it...now remember, I'm about to spill out insults..."If you're a sensitive 'Christian,' you may want to avoid this column..." See? You can call yourself a Christian all you want, but I know you know, deep down, there ain't no god, honey. Of course, I would never say that...anymore.

So, McCrae gets everybody pissed at him and then plays the righteous card with And Now for Something a Little Less Explosive?

He "expected" an upsurge in emails after insulting atheists (who according to him make up the majority at Useless Knowledge), and got what he expected. He never responds to emails that are abusive, vulgar, or [get this] especially arrogant. Can dish it out, but can't take it. I'll give him the vulgar, though. When the Christians start getting vulgar (telling me I need a good f----, for instance, which happened recently), I go silent.

Then he pulls the excuse: he was merely being thought provoking. Uh, sorry, thought provoking he wasn't. When a writer (a good one, anyway) wants be thought provoking, he explores a subject or theory; he doesn't accuse and/or assault innocent people. Thought provoking need not be gentle, but it is neither arrogant. So, the excuse doesn't wash.

And the reason for it is the real kicker. All along McCrae merely intended to share the love of Jesus Christ with atheists! Very poorly done, Mr. McCrae--poorly done.

The reason for having to share the love of Jesus with us is equally fascinating. McCrae does not do it out of a sense of care for our very souls; he does not do it because the love of Christ is so intoxicating that he wants us all to take part in it; he does not do it because he mourns our lives without the spiritual orgasm he himself has found. He does it to save himself. He does it because he is a afraid for his own soul. He does not want our blood on his hands.

Amazing how his loving Jesus has managed to transfer his divine responsibility onto poor (horrid human) creatures like McCrae. Oh, well. Jolly good job. At least he's not running for Congress.

July 15

So, let me get this straight...if the city calls on volunteer groups to help with a clean up and the KKK and the First Baptist Church both show up, the city can give a certificate of appreciation to the church, but not the KKK?

In Cadillac, Michigan, a local branch of the National Socialist Movement, self-proclaimed neo-Nazis, showed up to help the city clean up its parks and got its certificate. But the anti-defamation league cried foul. City officials claim the offering of the certificate was a simple mistake. What? Did the city give out certificates to the other groups who volunteered? If so, they have to give one to the Nazis, too.

I was glad when the anti-defamation league stood up for religious freedom and denounced the Ten Commandments indecisions by the Supreme Court thus allowing a religious monument on government property. But now I'm wondering if the anti-defamation league is truly interested in freedom and equality.

I think the National Socialist Movement is totally whacked, sure. And I think neo-Nazis are troubled people. I think the same about the KKK. But, they have every right to volunteer in the community and receive their certificate just as much as the Jews or the atheists. That's the problem right there. If you can say it was a mistake to give the Nazis a certificate, you can say it's a mistake to give one to the atheists.

I get that one is about racism and the other is about religion; but I don't see enough difference to make that point relevant. Atheism is just as abhorrent to many people as racism; and many will claim that both lead to the ruin of society. So what's to stop some group from denouncing a certificate for the atheists?

Hey, if the Nazis are willing to get out there and mingle with those they'd like to oppress, let 'em do it and give them their certificate.

July 14

Harry Potter's out on Saturday and all should be right with the world--but it's not. First we hear that the Vatican may be backtracking on evolution. It's all good and well, says the Archbishop of Vienna, to say that life evolved--but this business about it being unguided and purposeless has got to go. Well, naturally. You've got to get the deity in there somewhere. The Cardinal says he's been angry about the misinterpretation of the Vatican's acceptance of evolution. People seem to have been confused into thinking the Catholic Church endorsed it as a random process. He also said that in Catholic schools, evolution should be taught as one of many theories. You mean, like, along with the theory of gravity? Probably not.

And now we find out the Pope's been dissing the Potter. The new guy apparently liked Gabriele Kuby's book, Harry Potter--good or evil? in which Kuby claims Rowling's books "corrupt the hearts of the young, preventing them from developing a properly ordered sense of good and evil, thus harming their relationship with God while that relationship is still in its infancy."

True. We all know how important it is to shield children from their imaginations while their pretend relationship with the mythical deity hasn't yet developed into blind belief. I can sympathize. A "properly ordered sense of good and evil" means what they think is good and what they think is evil. You can't let children figure all that out on their own using, say, their reason, observation and experience. Why, you're talking subjective morals!

Christians want their children to believe that witches and potions are evil things, not good things. So they can't read books about good witches. Never mind that witches and witchcraft, as portrayed in the Potter books and as commonly known, do not exist.

It's true. Many Christians do believe, not only in gods and devils and demons, but in human witches who can cast spells. If you let your children read Harry Potter, they'll be learning about witchcraft.

Do these people even have imaginations?

June 30

I just finished reading Godless in America: Conversations with an Atheist, by George Ricker (as yet, unpublished). In his book, Mr. Ricker describes coming face-to-face with his own mortality--that moment during which evangelical Christians claim we atheists will backslide faster than Jimmy Swaggart in a strip club. But, as Mr. Ricker describes it, he never considered gods or the hereafter when he thought he was going to die...instead, he thought of his family and friends, the people he loved.

That reminded me of something that happened to me about thirteen years ago. I developed a lump on my neck. Naturally I imagined all sorts of horrors, most notably, cancer. My first doctor's visit did nothing to allay those fears, and in fact, made them worse when I told her that it didn't hurt. She seemed to think that was not a good sign. From that point I was passed along from specialist to specialist and had some very interesting tests and procedures that finally pinpointed the problem. It was a my thyroid and not life-threatening.

But in those couple of weeks of waiting and wondering, and being probed and photographed, I went about wavering between numbness and constant tears. There I was with a brand-new baby and a toddler under two. I was going to die soon and they were going to be without a mother! How would that affect them? Would they be wounded badly? I decided to tell my husband to please marry someone else as quickly as possible so the children would think they had a mother all along. That thought only sent me into more spasms of tears. How could I expect my husband to just marry someone else so quickly? But he HAD to! I even thought about finding him a new spouse before I died.

I didn't tell him any of that, of course.

Well, as you see, I didn't die. And now that I recall it, I realize I never once thought about gods or the afterlife. I was never afraid of a hell; I didn't even think about a heaven. I was concerned only with my husband and children and their welfare. I recall also spending a good amount of time imagining all the things in their lives I would miss. I planned letters I would write to them to be opened on those important occasions. But I spent no time concerned with my actual death.

Now, I don't know what that says about me personally. But I think it says one very clear thing about Christians who are so quick to presume what other people will think or feel in frightening situations. They obviously have so little confidence in their faith and so much fear of death that they can not imagine someone else not also being so neurotic.

June 27

Our religious liberty is in peril. Today the United States Supreme Court showed the citizenry that ideology and the majority rule in place of the Constitution and a thoughtful consideration of minority rights in this country.

How can the Court say that two framed copies of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky courthouses, surrounded by unrelated historical paraphernalia, go too far in endorsing religion because their religious content is overemphasized, and yet, claim that a six-foot by three-foot monument standing alone inscribed with the Decalogue on public property does not? It is ridiculous for our nation's highest court to take these religious displays case by case, nitpicking about when it is proper to endorse the Protestant Christian religion and when it is not.

Justice O'Conner, during the hearings, said, "It's so hard to draw that line," wondering how legislative prayer can be allowed and the Ten Commandments not. With all due respect, it is not hard to draw that line. Draw the line at government endorsement of religion. Stop legislative prayers. Return our original motto and Pledge (if you must have one). Get religious displays off of public property.

Is private religious expression not enough for the Christian majority in this country? Apparently not. They are creating a new history of our founding, spreading lies, shouting down reasoned debate, and forcing the government of a religiously diverse population to endorse their particular faith. If they had any rationality and real morality, they would not be doing this. But their leaders are deceitful and the followers easily led. Their education in critical thinking skills is lacking and their understanding of history much worse.

That Justice Anthony Kennedy could say, "If the atheist walks by this monument, he can just avert his eyes," is a deplorable bigotry shown by someone who holds the rights of that atheist in his hands. Atheists are, it seems, a good and proper target for the prejudice of American citizens.

It appears that at least one Supreme Court Justice has a fairly good understanding of religious freedom. Justice Stevens dissented in the case of the Texas monument saying, "The message transmitted by Texas' chosen display is quite plain: The state endorses the divine code of the Judeo-Christian God."

The abhorrent part in all of this is that Justices like William Rehnquist understand the religious message also, but find nothing wrong with government promotion of the Protestant Christian religion. "Of course the Ten Commandments are religious," he said. "The monument therefore has religious significance." But that isn't enough, in his opinion, to find the display in violation of the establishment clause.

We are losing our secular republic. The Christian majority has been whittling away at the wall of separation from the very beginning. They are tenacious; they won't be satisfied until this country is declared Christian and they can get back to persecuting not only non-Christians but those sects in their own religion with whom they disagree.

But wait, I'm not allowed to say such things am I? It's anti-Christian bigotry to not let them have their way.

June 3

The Indianapolis Star ran an editorial yesterday in which they claimed the Indiana Civil Liberties Union was on the wrong side of religious freedom. I'd just like to say, I agree. The case in question involves regular prayers in the Indiana Statehouse. The ICLU has filed a lawsuit asking that Christian ministers refrain from using the words "Jesus Christ" when leading Indiana legislators in prayers before they begin their governmental duties.

Says the editorial: "Admittedly, an April 5 incident in which a Baptist pastor from Bedford encouraged lawmakers to stand and clap as he sang 'Just a Little Walk with Jesus'--

Let us pause here to picture this bizarre little ritual......there now, get yourself under control so that we may continue--

"--crossed the boundaries of appropriateness and sound judgment. Yet, while the song was out of place, it would be far better for House leaders to correct such matters internally than for the courts to dictate which prayers will receive the federal government's blessing."

I have to agree, in part. It is ridiculous for the courts to decide which prayers will receive government blessing, because the government has no business blessing any prayers. Prayer is an individual right. Groups may elect to be religious, and may elect to have their members led in prayer. But the government represents the people. All of the people of Indiana are not Christians. They're not all religious at all. There are, I assure you, atheists in Indiana. Why would the government bodies of that state consider it necessary to pray before conducting the state's business? And why do the religious find it so imperative that they be allowed to pray over a religiously diverse group of people...a captive audience no less?

Indiana Star editors go on to say, "Defenders of free speech often argue, correctly, that an open marketplace of ideas is the best incubator for democracy. The same is true with religious matters, even -- and perhaps especially -- in the halls of government, where no name should be banned, no words suppressed."

That's a grand idea, but absurd when looked at rationally. Yes, an open marketplace of ideas is the champion of democracy. But an open marketplace of ideas is anathema to religion. Religions are not open to new ideas; they are not bastions of tolerance, acceptance and freedom of conscience. It is not in their make-up to be so. What the editors are proposing is an "open marketplace of religion" in the halls of government, an absolutely ridiculous idea. Will the Indiana Statehouse allow Satanists a place at the podium? Wiccans? Atheists and Humanists as well? To what purpose?

Why is it so necessary to entreat the deity in the halls of government? I'll tell you why. The Christians involved in the founding of this country could not tolerate its secular Constitution. They did everything they could to push their religion into legislative houses, determined that Christianity would prevail as the nation's religion. Religious freedom won out and this country is now wonderfully diverse in matters of religion. And Christians can't stand it. They continue to force their views on others, not just individuals, worse, government. Why should a government that represents all citizens endorse any particular faith? Why bother?

As usual, Christians are so insecure in their beliefs that they must seek the government's endorsement and support to bolster it.

So, yes, the ICLU is on the wrong side of religious freedom. If the ICLU was truly concerned about religious freedom in Indiana, it would insist that government bodies refrain from religious practices completely. Government has no business endorsing religion over non-religion and it certainly should not be acknowledging one group's god over no god. Only a secular government, neutral in matters of religion can fairly represent a religiously diverse population.

May 19

It's been an interesting couple of days, to say the least. I've learned quite a bit. One thing I learned is that reporters are pretty sloppy. I've been in the news quite a bit and too many times the facts were just wrong. And when certain people get hold of a wrong fact, they really don't want to let it go. I've also learned that people make connections in their own heads that shouldn't necessarily be made. That's due to a horrible lack of critical thinking skills, if you ask me. Still, all in all, the press wasn't too bad.

I'd like to share with you some of the hate mail I've received. (It's always fun to irritate people.) Virtually everyone who wrote me, did so through the Space Coast Freethought Association's website, because, for some odd reason, they thought SCFA was a plaintiff in a court case instead of me. Silly people. So, some of the mail is directed at all of SCFA.

As is the usual practice in sharing hate mail, I'll leave all the spelling errors as they were when we received them.

From Mark W. we have this lovely comment:
"You and your group are a complete waste of oxygen, the repercussions of your graduation debacle will come back to haunt you. Ceratinly you can dedicate your cause to something worthwhile but no, you feel you can impose your will on the majority who want the graduation at Calvery. I suppose it's OK to vote at a church since I don't hear a peep out of you at election time. Hippocrites!"

Well, Mark, what can I say? I guess we're not allowed to complain about one case unless we've first complained about the cases you think we ought to be complaining about. But then, you really have no idea what we've complained about and what we haven't. You also have no idea what thought and work go into deciding what you're going to fight and how and what you're going to wait and see on. But then, deep consideration of the issues is probably not your strong point.

Jarred L. had this to say:
"To Whom It May Concern,  Your recent actions against the Brevard County School board are utterly rediculous. Thousands of graduating high school seniors and families are looking to celebrate a significant milestone in their lives. For this organization to support and try to keep graduation ceremonies from occuring because of the building in which they take place, is to put it simply, absurd. It doesn't matter what building the commencements take place in, no one is celebrating religion or even acknoledging a higher power. If one feels they can not accept the place of graduation, they're always welcomed to not participate, but to try and ruin a clebration of education is proposterous ! This organization should be ashamed of itself for trying to upset thousands of graduation seniors and their families."

I just have to wonder if Jarred would feel the same way if the ceremony was held at the American Atheists headquarters...or a mosque, or maybe a druid circle out in the woods.

Roger G. wrote this:
"Well, maybe you're getting some of the 'press' you must desparately need because I saw your organization's name alongside the idiocy one of your members is displaying in protest over the location of his child's graduation. Too bad a child has to be submitted to such forms of parental abuse, that is, growing up with the prejudices foisted upon the child by such a parent. The 'hall' in which a graduation is held is pretty irrelevant, given the excitement of such an event for the kids. Y'all ought to find a worthy endeavor or two. Be Well Stay Fit *-R-*"

What prejudices are the parents in question foisting upon their children? I don't get it. And it's not a "hall," it's a church sanctuary. But thanks for the thought on fitness...I guess.

May 10

Yesterday, in the Herald Today out of Bradenton, Nancy L. Davis, in a letter to the editor, had this to say:

First, note how Mrs. Davis makes a point of emphasizing my atheism. That is very important to her. As an atheist, in her mind, my view is suspect. Next, look at her assertion that our country was founded by believers. She doesn't mention what our founders believed in; I think we're supposed to take it on faith that it was whatever Mrs. Davis believes in. She, naturally, completely misses the point that whatever our founders believed or didn't, they created a secular constitution, free of any mention of her God, Jesus or Christianity. That the majority of people in this country are Christian "and want it that way" is a very telling statement, indeed. What Mrs. Davis is saying is that she and theocrats like her want to remain the majority in this country and they are willing to infringe upon other people's freedom of conscience to do it.

Mrs. Davis then claims that it is the millions of American atheists who are the problem. We're trying to take "all semblance of God out of our nation" and that is causing dissent. Zealots excel at twisting their opponents' arguments into extreme nonsense. Sometimes it feels that trying to set the record straight is a wasted effort. Nonetheless, here I go again: Secularists do not want to limit the freedoms of believers; we want all people to enjoy freedom of conscience and we're intelligent enough to know that when government acknowledges gods and supports one faith over others or over no faith, we are not all free.

I am aghast at Mrs. Davis' insinuation that fighting against oppression and theocracy is divisive and somehow bad. All Mrs. Davis needs to do, if it's possible for her, which I doubt, is to imagine being on the other side of the issue. She should imagine herself, a Christian, living in a country filled with atheists. Now imagine they want her to say a Pledge of Allegiance that states our country is "under no gods." Is she trying to tell me that she wouldn't balk at such an infringement on her right to believe? Of course she would.

Lucky for Mrs. Davis, no one wants the Pledge of Allegiance to say any such thing. We'd just like it to stay silent on the issue of gods. Somehow, for theocrats, if the government doesn't support their god outright, it's somehow forcing atheism on them. That's such an absurd idea; I am at a loss as to how to explain the very reasonable idea of separation of religion and government to such persons.

And finally, Mrs. Davis tosses in the typical rallying cry of the bigot. If you don't like it here, leave. I should consider living in a country that doesn't believe in her God. But again, because she has so skewed my argument, her offer is ridiculous. I'm not interested in living in a country in which no one believes in her God. I'd like to live in a country that recognizes everyone's rights to conscience in a secular government. The best example of such a country was the United States of America at its founding. But from the very beginning, theocrats and zealots have fought against secular government. They are anxious to instill in all our lives, their god, their morality, their righteous indignation at not being allowed to control all of us.

The oddest thing about Mrs. Davis' final statement is that she can make it without thinking too deeply about it. If she did, she might think about, perhaps, researching the history of countries with theocratic forms of government. But I have a feeling that Mrs. Davis isn't really all that interested in history, and I doubt she'd recognize the warning signs as having anything at all to do with her theocratic tendencies. That's the problem with dullards--they talk a lot without thinking, and they offer a good deal advice without empathy.

May 2

On the back window of a car: on one side, a Calvary Chapel sticker; on the other, a sticker with a crown that reads: Princess, daughter of the king.

My son is having theological discussions with his Christian friends at school. They're in third grade. I wish he wouldn't try to debate them. He keeps asking them to prove God exists. They say things to him like, "The Bible is proof," to which he says, "Men wrote the Bible." Or they say, "Jesus died on the cross" and he says, "he's still dead." One kid said, "There are these books called Left Behind." My son said, "Well, there's also a book called You Can Kiss my Left Behind." I have to wonder if they got the joke. Apparently it's true that your kids listen to everything you say.

He tried to explain evolution to them. He said something like, "There was a one-celled creature and it evolved into a fish and the fish eventually walked onto land and evolved into a reptile." Right away I told him to be very careful with how he phrases things. It wasn't "a" creature, but a population of creatures. He went on to agree and tell me that one of his friends made fun of him by saying, "J believes a fish crawled out of the water and turned into a reptile."

While I think it's a good thing for these Christian children to be exposed to someone who doesn't believe the way they do, I am worried for my son. I've told him he doesn't have to talk to them if he doesn't want to. He's too young and none of them have enough knowledge at this point to really debate these issues. He says that he never starts the God talk; they do. That may or may not be true; I just hope they don't end up disliking one another. Everyone seems to get along great so far.

The best thing in the world that could happen would be for the subject of evolution to come up in the science curriculum. My son's school is a charter school based on the Core Knowledge curriculum which includes evolution. I've considered asking if evolution will be taught in the upper grades but I'm afraid to stir things up unnecessarily. If they do teach evolutionary theory as they are supposed to do, my son's viewpoint will be validated...just like those Christian boys get validation every time the class stands and recites the Pledge of Allegiance.

April 14

Our city has a new nut. For a while there was an old couple who carried a HUGE cross on top of their car from south PB, up Babcock St., to PB Rd., across from the Walmart. They'd stand in the median with it and the old man, wrinkled and deeply tanned, would hold out his hand in something of a "heil Hitler" position and...wave. It wasn't really a wave. It was a trembling. If you thought about it, you might imagine he was casting spells of some sort. But his huge cross and his signs all about the return of Jesus would lead you to believe such a thing would be forbidden in his mind...deranged as it no doubt was. The thing I found odd was that he and his wife were never out there in bad weather, only sunshine.

I haven't seen him in a long time.

Yesterday, though, I found a new nut. He was standing on the SW corner of the intersection of PB Rd. and Babcock St. wearing a huge, yellow, A-frame sign that read: Believe on Jesus, Repent or Burn. He was wearing a fishing hat. Here's a blurry picture of him. A friend suggested we stand with him with a sign of our own: Wear Sunscreen or Burn!

April 8

I'm Catholic, you know. I converted to Catholicism when I was planning to marry my husband. He was born and raised Catholic. At the time, I was just kooky--believing whatever sounded nice. I remember telling my husband early in our courtship (such and old-fashioned sounding word) that there was no way I was going to become a Catholic, so his dear old grandmother would just have to suffer. But as I thought about it, the idea began to appeal to me.

It's a beautiful religion, in all its trappings. If you don't dig too deeply, it's all about beauty and tradition and community. Behind the surface, of course, it's about the torture and death of someone innocent to supposedly pay for something you yourself did. That's an unseemly justice system. In the church we attended Jesus hung on the cross behind the altar as a reminder of what he supposedly did for each of us. It was a celebration of blood, death, and inhumanity.

In one way, Catholicism can be said to be liberating for a woman because of the way Catholics adore Mary, the supposed "mother of god." Of course, everything about Catholicism turns that adulation into subjugation. The Church preaches against the use of birth control, especially in third world countries where it is most needed. Strangely enough, when we attended pre-Cana, my husband and I were told that what we were to do about birth control was pray. Know and understand the Church's position, then pray about it and do what you think is best. Good Catholics will continue to return to the question and continue prayer, never forgetting, I suppose, that they are probably going against church doctrine. Once they're past child-bearing years, I guess the praying can stop. I wonder if that's what the Church recommends regarding all behaviors that would oppose church teaching? Somehow I doubt it.

When I had my third child I was visited in the hospital by a woman who wanted to know if I'd like to take part in communion. I'd been atheist by that time for about two years so I was not in a position to speak up and tell her to get out of my room. I quietly and respectfully said no, thank you. Later I heard that my name was mentioned in church during that part where you pray for people who are sick. That was an unsettling feeling.

I suppose I could write a letter to the church asking that they take me off their list. But you know, I don't think they'd do that. I think the Catholic church keeps you on its list of members unless you get ex-communicated. So when they talk about how many Catholics there are in the U.S. or in the world, don't believe it. I wonder...if I send the new pope a copy of my book, will he ex-communicate me?

April 6

I appreciate that the Pope is an important man. He's supposed to be, for Catholics, God's representative on Earth. For other Christians he runs the gamut from "great man" to "anti-Christ." I hear he finagled the end of communist Russia, and led the world in morality. Naturally, now that he's deceased, you don't hear anything bad about him, or his church and its policies. I can understand that, too, I suppose. Once someone dies, you're supposed to focus on their good points, not their bad.

What I'm trying to understand is CNN's and other station's coverage of this event. When he died, they went on for hours, maybe all day for all I know, with the story. And now I can't turn on any news station without being greeted by a reporter marveling at the crowds in Vatican Square. I'm wondering how stations like CNN ever managed to fill the day with news stories before this happened. Don't they have all the regular news to offer? Did life cease with the pontiff's heart?

And I'm wondering about all the flags flying at half-staff. Now, I really don't care about the flags on private property, even businesses. But why is the flag at the White House at half-mast? Our president isn't dead...a former president isn't dead; we haven't been attacked and lost hundreds or thousands of lives. What gives? Why on Earth would our government lower its flag for a religious leader? Will we do the same for Jerry Falwell? For Billy Graham?

I'm so tired of the pictures of people praying and saying their rosaries. Once, okay. And maybe once again on Friday. But every single day! Speaking of Friday, I suppose there will be no soap operas on the air that day! Maybe I should be grateful for that; I can spend the day here with you, instead.

So, let's have a look at the balance sheet:

I guess it balances out. He was an average guy who did some good and some bad. Hardly deserving of such adoration, except by Catholics, of course.

March 30

Whoa! Wait a minute! I thought this country was going to Hell in a hand basket. I thought because we'd thrown God out of schools, the Ten Commandments out of courthouses, and Jesus and his Holy Mother of God off county property at Christmas that we were witnessing the wrath of Jehovah. But what's this?

According to a report by the Associated Press, the Child Well-Being Index indicates that today's young people are "engaging in less risky behavior." The adolescent and teen birth rate has dropped, binge drinking among high school seniors has fallen, and the number of youth offenders and victims has plummeted. No doubt (and I mean NO DOUBT) the religionists will claim this phenomena is due to the conservative religious influence in our government. They get to have it both ways. They get to pick anything bad they think is indicative of an evil society and blame it on the push for separation of religion and government; and they get to take credit for any good news that comes along as well, ignoring that the push is still on.

What irrational, thoughtless hypocrites.

March 23

I took part in the Inauguration Day protest on January 20th at City Hall. Before I arrived, my co-conspirators (oooh!) walked a funeral procession from Front Street Park. Some of them were dressed in black and many carried replicas of tombstones upon which they'd written freedoms that we are losing under the current administration. I took part in this demonstration because I am acutely aware of the crumbling of the wall of separation between religion and government. It's been under attack from our country's founding, but at no time, in my opinion, has it come under more vicious assault than it has in the last four years.

During the protest, we were under constant surveillance by the police, one of whom stood across the street videotaping our every move. We later learned that close-ups were shot of each of us and at least one license plate was filmed. A friend of mine who biked to the event was followed home 'for her protection.' We tried to make light of these eerily suppressive actions. We joked. We waved to the officer and posed for him. But there remained something sinister in the air.

It's been discussed in the local paper. The editor of Florida Today, John Glisch, and his staff have spoken out against this blatant attempt to silence protest through intimidation. Letters to the editor have not always been kind. One writer said, 'If you don't want to be videotaped, stay home.' You have to wonder if this person ever hears his own words when he speaks them. It is exactly in that result of keeping people home, quiet and subservient, that we recognize the abuse. Don't you get it?

Recently, I learned that our sheriff and his staff have monitored email groups and websites in connection with this event and several of the organizers' names are on lists of 'people of interest.'

Now, we who engage in this sort of egoism have our wild dreams of the millions of interested persons perusing our sites, gobbling up our wisdom, empathizing with our spilled gut-stuffs, and joining our email groups to commiserate; but we understand the reality that, in all likelihood, no one's listening. And lo, Sheriff Parker comes along to alleviate our fears of anonymity! Why, we're being read and watched after all. We probably even have our own regular reader right here at Atheist View. And the email list for Space Coast Freethought Association has no doubt been infiltrated. We must be vigilant in routing out terrorist (oooh!) sympathizers and agitators, after all.

It's all so stupid and childish. I rode behind a police car this afternoon on my way to pick up my children from their various schools and wondered at what glee an officer must enjoy in his status as 'keeper of the peace' and 'protector of citizens' rights.' How he must revel in his secret spy game. One can imagine it is so much more fascinating than writing tickets, stepping on heads, and tasering those who resist.

Now, where has my respect for our officers gone? Wasn't I always the do-gooder? Did I not, recently, walk around on Florida Ave. recovering all that important stuff that flew off the car of one of our brave men in blue? What a helpful citizen I am. What an upstanding, moral, law-abiding girl. Videotaped and spotted as an agitator and possible terrorist. Where has my respect gone? And will they ever earn it back?

March 20

So, there was this article in the newspaper the other day about a lost dog. His owners lived somewhere up north when they lost him and now they live here. Some guy found the dog and took him to his own state and then got arrested. While he was in jail, the dog was found by somebody else and they used his tag information to locate the owners here. It's been a few years, apparently, since they lost him. There's nothing truly remarkable about this story except that the guy who found the dog never replaced the tag (no, it's not remarkable at all that he never bothered to contact the owners).

However, the owners here attribute the dog's return to God. That's right folks, God does nothing while 9-year-old Jessica Marie Lunsford of Homosassa is abducted and murdered by a pedophile, but he returns these bozos' dog. This is the all-powerful and benevolent God of Christianity.

Even the criminal who had the dog attributes the coincidence to some spiritual shenanigans. He said that was the reason he was arrested and jailed! It was all so that the dog could find its original owners. Sheesh. The world has gone completely mad and I'm stuck here in the middle of it. No wonder I eat too much chocolate.

March 15

One of the parents' cars at my son's school has a bumper sticker and a window decal. They both say "on fire for God" with flames licking the words. Isn't that like...hell?
 

March 14

I feel like I'm living in a world gone mad. All around me are glassy-eyed zombies droning on and on about their god and his son Jesus. They always use the word "believe" but never seem to make the connection to its implication that what must be believed in has little or no evidence to back it up. Everywhere people extol the virtues of belief and Christianity but they never scratch the surface of what it is they accept as truth. They just want everyone else to believe in it too, so that they're comfortable. And putting up monuments to some ancient code of conduct that tells Americans they must believe in the Christian god will do it for them. It'll be another crack in the wall of separation anyway, and they'll just keep hacking away at it until we're living in a theocracy. Sometimes I can't breathe.

I have to be honest--I don't like the Schindlers. I understand that they love their daughter and want to keep her alive, but their attacks on her husband, Michael, alleging abuse, and the way strange ideas about his fitness as spouse have been tossed around in the media, lead me to believe they are desperate people. Desperate people don't think straight and when people's reasoning abilities go, bad things happen.

I personally would not want to continue living in a state such as Terri's. I've seen video; I don't care if she's herself in that body (and doctors having clearly stated that her brain is too damaged for that to be the case), I would not want to continue that way. I guess it would be even worse, in my opinion, if my brain were working but my body wouldn't obey. Still, she may not be consciously aware of her state, but I bet she feels physical pain and discomfort. It's just not worth it to me.

In the paper today, they had an article about all the religious fanatics protesting, trying to keep Terri Shiavo alive. Two things strike me as odd about that. First, they talk about the sanctity of marriage and how allowing gays to have the same rights heterosexuals have would somehow lower the property value of a marriage contract. Then they tell Terri's husband that he has no right to fulfill his wife's wishes--and let's get that one thing straight, we have no just cause to dispute what he says about his wife's wishes...that is, unless you want to put the parent's rights over the husband's.

Dog forbid! I left my parents nest long ago. I'm no longer so much their daughter as my husband's wife. He's the one I want making end of life decisions for me--not them. And judging by the behavior of the Schindler's I imagine Terri would have felt the same way.

And then, of course, there's the weird cognitive dissonance over death. Terri's supposed to want to be with God. It's, like, hello!, our eternal reward (well, not mine). Wouldn't all those people praying for God to save her life from her monster of a husband, and her parents especially--imagine having to see your once vibrant daughter living out years in that state--want her to go and be happy and healthy with God?

No. I think her parents are incredibly selfish. And I think the religious zealots out there with signs and on their knees begging favors from their god are just butting their noses in where they don't belong. That's their way, isn't it? They have to put their noses into everyone else's business and try to make us all act the way they think we ought to and believe what they want us to believe or else, sheesh, avert our eyes!

Having said all that...I think Michael Shiavo ought to give it up. I think that he's done what he can and he's paying a higher price than his wife would want him to pay. If I saw my husband vilified in the media that way, I'd want him to just let my parents have their way (the overprotective, selfish babies). When Terri's feeding tube is removed, he will suffer even greater attacks from the Schindlers (who will no doubt become rich after their talk show circuit and new books) and the religious wackos of this country. Terri would be the only winner, finally released from a life she never wanted to live.

That is his sacrifice, I guess. But I am not sure it will be worth it for him.

March 13

So, they re-cut the 'Passion' to take out some of the goriest parts. I apologize right off, because honestly, that's incredibly funny to me. I don't know...maybe it's the idea that theirs is supposed to be a religion all about the love, but at its core it's really all about torture. And of course, the torture doesn't really make any sense anyway...he's supposed to be the God, aka the one and only. So, while he's still up there in heaven, he's also down here on earth getting tortured to death, after which he joins himself in heaven again. Sorry, I'm just not that impressed.

And the thought of all those good Christian parents taking their children to the theater (on some church's buck most likely) to watch explicit violence is, while laughable, disgusting. I guess explicit violence is okay when it's the God getting it for your sins, Johnny, but not if it's the bad guys in an ordinary movie. Then they dare try to censor my television. Sheesh.

The headline in Florida Today read: Churches remain low-key on toned-down 'Passion'

Uh huh. Been there done that. I'm telling you, they're biting their own selves in the butts with all this. ID in science class, 10Cs on government property, In God We Trust in schools, Under God in the Pledge, and now the 'Passion' up on that unGodly big screen. They're secularizing their own religion for us. We really don't have to do anything but sit back and watch.

March 6, 2005

My letter to Mr. Federer in response to his column on "tolerance"
When tolerance backfires

Dear Mr. Federer,

What is tolerance anyway? You speak of it as if it is a granting of rights, especially the right of existence, when it is, in reality, the acceptance of rights. It is not in the power of monotheists to grant rights to polytheists, nor is it in the power of Christians to grant rights to non-Christians. We exist and we demand the rights we already have as humans be accepted and respected.

Your first error lies in your claim involving inscribing US coins with "In God we Trust," including "so help me God" in oaths of office, the chanting of "God save the United States and this honorable court," and worst of all, changing our brilliant motto to "In God we Trust." You brazenly assert that these actions were based on a tolerance of monotheism. I am aghast at the ridiculousness of such a statement coming from a man of your intelligence. These actions were blatant acts of intolerance against anyone not professing the Christian faith (while granting Christianity's patronizing tolerance of Jews).

No one has ever said that America’s children can not pray in schools. Individuals are free to worship and pray to their deities in complete freedom. But how dare people insist that the government of this religiously diverse population ought to endorse and promote the Christian faith with monuments and prayers.

I am constantly amazed at the inability of Christians to understand religious freedom. Only a secular government can fairly represent us all. In what manner is not allowing courthouses to put up monuments to the Christian god intolerance toward you?

Imagine a country in which the monuments in the courthouse are to Allah, children in schools are led in prayers to Allah, and the pledge reads, "one nation, under Allah." Christians would be crying persecution all over the country because then they’d understand the difference between individual freedoms and government endorsement.

Sincerely,

Dianna Narciso

Mr. Federer proceeded to hint that the "origin of tolerance" rests with Christianity and I am therefore (can you say non sequitur?) intolerant of the creators of tolerance.
Will it never end?

March 4, 2005

My husband found some printouts in the airport on one of his recent business trips. They're printed, newsletter style, on 11 by 17 inch paper. The first one is called "Mass Suicide" by Tony Alamo. I'd never heard of Tony Alamo before. But, just in reading his sermon I can tell, he's a lunatic. But then, as a lot of lunatics do, he accepts the Bible for what it actually says, rather than trying to force it to say something it obviously does not. Our dear Tony knows a lot about the god, Yahweh, and he can quote the scripture to prove his points. Here are a few highlights from "Mass Suicide."

First, when "God once killed almost everyone in the entire world because of their depraved lusts for sin, and because they wouldn't repent of it," that was actually suicide. I think Tony doesn't know the meaning of the word suicide, because all through the document he tells us how God and Jesus are going to murder billions of people, but he keeps calling it mass suicide.

The end of the world will be "a horrible, God-sent, unparalleled nightmare." Huge earthquakes and two big meteorites will start the show. One of the meteorites is supposed to destroy a third of the ocean and the other will "barrel into and flatten a great part of an entire continent." Still, apparently enough people are left alive for "an estimated two billion..., one-third of the earth's population" to be "killed by fire, smoke and lava-like brimstone."  Tony says this will all be an "unspeakable nightmare" and he's very honest and upfront about it being God's doing. God is doing it, but it will be another mass suicide. God will kill us all, but really we're just committing suicide. (Whatever gets you through the night, Tony.)

"Then, to the woe and dismay of everyone in the world, Jesus, who is commonly and falsely today knows as 'sweet Jesus,' will abruptly, suddenly, without notice, in a moment turn the world upside down and literally tear it to pieces." (Sweet Jesus! Did you see all that redundancy?) And apparently there will be absolutely no doubt all over the world that these "terrible, horrifying, shocking plagues are from God." (But remember folks, you're doing it to yourself.)

More important, "these catastrophes can and will start happening any minute now."

Well, I have to wonder...why did he say "can and will?" Did he put the "can" in there as an out? So that, when someone like me comes along and points out that he wrote this sermon in 1994 and here it is eleven years later and zero, zip, zilch such nonsense has taken place he can say, "I said it can, not that it definitely will." Now, he does say that these horrible catastrophes will happen "within this very generation." He has a source for that so he must know what he's talking about. His source is Luke 21:32. Let's have a look, shall we?

Luke 21:32--Jesus speaking:
"Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place."

Hello! Tony! Is anybody home? That was Jesus talking some 2000 years ago. What a nut.

Here's what Tony thinks about the Christian God: "All the blasphemies and other retaliations to the pain God is inflicting on these miserable wretches...is futile. they only amuse God while they are raging. The Lord sits in the Heavens laughing at them." What a god, eh? "God will cause the wicked men of this present world to be tortured, and prolong their torture for some time because they, rather than follow Christ, have been belligerently and defiantly following Satan." Watch out for the "wrath of the Lamb [Jesus]." Baaa B'doosh!

Who are all these poor sinners? Well, it certainly includes "false prophets, preachers and teachers. They have profaned His Word by making Him look like He were some sort of wishy-washy, soft on Satan and sin type of God, or like some sort of effeminate, limp-wristed, double-minded God." No "God is love" for this wacko! All you "God-is-love" people are going to get it in the end by the real Lamb!

"When this worldquake and the other judgmental plagues are happening the last thing the people of the world will want to do is hold some false, plastic, religious ceremonial rite, run for their plastic or metal rosary beads or a statue, light candles, ring bells, or take the time to put on religious gowns, choir robes, or little hats and other nonsensical, futile things, which some religious people do thinking they are pleasing God, when in reality this nonsense will only enrage and infuriate God all the more because He doesn't like those sort of things." Picky, picky. Can you just imagine an entity powerful enough to create a universe but irrational enough to concern itself with such issues? What gall the likes of Tony Alamo have. They're so filled up with their self-importance; they remind me of toads.

And, why am I not surprised, it turns out Tony is a criminal. But you do have to give him credit. He figures the Bible actually means what it says. And why not? This is the God you people worship and praise and bow down to and pretend is wonderful and loving. Have you even read the book? At least Alamo is honest about his religion, if not anything else. But then, if you were honest enough about your religion, the only way you could keep it is to be as crazy and criminal as Tony.

Remember the Alamo!

Feb. 25, 2005

I found my crosses today. I have three (four if you count the silver one, but I don't). One is only half an inch long, it's flat and the gold looks like it's been pounded with a tiny mallet. It's like Ashley inline font, like a fat outline of a cross with a blank center. Okay, so it's like the opposite of Ashley Inline font. Then I have one that's about an inch long. Its gold is hammered so that it looks like it's a cross-shaped stick. And then there's the one with the rubies. It's only about an inch long also, but it's got five rubies set into it. I bought that one special to wear on my wedding day. (I don't know where I got the silver one--it has no meaning for me at all.)

I really loved my crosses. I still think they're pretty. I'd love to wear them again, but I don't think I can. I would feel self-conscious knowing I was wearing the symbol of a religion for which I find no evidence of validity or morality. The cross is, unfortunately, a symbol of tortuous death. As a form I find it attractive, but what it has come to represent is an enthusiastic obsession with morbidity and injustice. It's very confusing--a dichotomy not unlike the religion itself--that I find the crosses so beautiful and disgusting at the same time.

At first I thought I should give the crosses to someone who would appreciate them. I thought of a cousin who is very religious. But I wondered if wearing a gold cross wasn't against what she believes. You never can tell. And I didn't particularly want to ask her. We haven't spoken in quite some time and I have decided not to pursue that again. When I think about what happened with her, I am bothered. I know I came off badly and somehow I feel the pressure of being a representative of all atheists. We have such a bad name. People say we are rude and mean and pushy. They say we think we know everything and try to push our "beliefs" onto others.

I can see where I can be snotty at times. I do stand by what I think I know and I'll continue to stand by it until some evidence to the contrary can be given to show I'm wrong. But I wouldn't say I'm pushy, certainly not mean. Sure, I've done a rude thing or two in my life, but never on purpose. I'm not the most delicate person, I guess. I do tend to just say what I think. I'm not really sure that is or ought to be a bad thing.

I think we hold religion too sacred in this country. I think the religious think that they have some special truth that ought not be questioned and certainly not criticized. I think that's a very bad idea. But, I didn't really criticize my cousin's religion; I simply defended my own position of nonbelief. Somehow, though, after a year or so of going back and forth, she accused me of attacking her. That's when it dawned on me that I couldn't be myself with some people. I wasn't allowed to say anything remotely critical of religion without being labeled an attacker, a bully, or rude.

After that accusation, I wrote a long letter to my cousin, explaining myself, how I felt, why I felt unjustly accused, etc. Then I let it go, without mailing it. I haven't spoken to her since. Oh, I saw her at a family reunion and she was civil. I was civil. Her husband gave me quite a dirty look, though. Well, what are you going to do? Everyone isn't going to like us; there's really nothing more to be done.

So, why would I want to give her my crosses? I realized that over the last few years I've often felt moved to make another gesture toward her. I crocheted a beautiful afghan I thought to send her. I thought it might be a belated wedding gift. But I couldn't bring myself to put myself into that position again. Then there were the hurricanes; I thought I should call and offer my home. Then I should call to see if everyone was okay. But again, I thought better of it. Why open myself up like that?

It was always me, after all. I was always the one to initiate contact, to try to make a relationship where obviously none ever existed. Then I committed a blunder. I sent her mother a link to an article that exposed the Religious Right's agenda. You'd have thought I punched her. If that was an overture, I haven't got a clue, have I? But I guess that's the way I am. I think these things are extremely important. I think we should get them out in the open--they should be discussed and argued about. Nobody's beliefs are beyond reproach--they should all be examined, fair game. Especially in a family in which the members claim to be family.

I realized that being related doesn't make us a family. A family is a group of people who respect each other, tolerate one another's foibles and errors, love each other unconditionally. I don't have that with some of the people I'm related to. And if I continually try to start dialogue with them, I only hurt myself. If they want to talk to me, they know where to find me.

I guess I'll keep my crosses. They can remind me of a time when I thought less, and life wasn't quite as joyful as it is now; I turned to delicate, pretty things as if they meant something...in hopes that I meant something. But they're just pieces of gold. Cold. Pounded into an unnatural shape. Unlike reality which is what it is and always will be, despite what people believe, despite what they wish for, despite their misinterpretations and judgements. Reality is so much more forgiving than religion and its people.