So, one of the results of the Oklahoma tornado (what, a week plus ago now, I suppose) is a snippet of an interview that's gone viral. You know the one - with Wolf Blitzer speaking to a young mother, Rebecca Vitsmun, and her child, saying she must feel so blessed how she has to just thank the lord - and her reply of "Actually, I'm an atheist."
But it's more than that. It's not just "I'm an atheist." It's the very kind way she says it - looking almost embarrassed, not for herself but for the question - and the followup statement "And I don't blame anybody for thanking the lord."
So why is this such a big deal?
Oh, how I wish it weren't in the first place. It wouldn't be a big deal at all other than a small chuckle at Mr. Blitzer's goof if it were "I guess you'll be going to mass Sunday" "Oops, no, I'm a baptist, but we'll be at church singing!" I well and truly wish that Atheists weren't demonized or hated from pure ignorance (and preaching from the pulpet - I remember hearing it very well, and see it still today.) I wish we could be accepting of everyone's faith (or lack of it.)
Instead we hear things like "Atheists are the most hated group in America," that people would rather leave their children with (if I'm remembering it right) known rapists than atheists and the like. Now, of course, I have to question those polls and their sample sizes, but still - how would you feel to be part of that group?
And when it comes to the attitude of atheists toward "coming out" - and yes, we do use that phrase, and do acknowledge it can be as hard as "coming out" for the gay and lesbian community, that we can put everything at risk by doing so, and that people have lost jobs, family ties, and marriages over the three simple words "I'm an Atheist" - this young woman is seen, in many respects, as brave. She's in Oklahoma, which, to many Atheists... well, for the most part, the most hostile region is felt to be the Bible Belt, or "The South and environs." I lived in Florida for a few years, and kept my mouth SHUT about being Atheist. "Coming out" on national TV, in that region... I have to see this young woman as being very brave, on top of just being simply honest. (At the same time, one popular podcast by an *ex Christian broadcaster,* Seth Andrews, called "the Thinking Atheist," is based out of Oklahoma, and Matt Dillahunty and AronRa, two big proponents of atheism and reason, are out of Texas and very vocal.)
But really, I have to wonder just how that snippet of interview hit Christians. I know most are just everyday people, and they'll probably just chuckle at it and shake their heads at Wolf Blitzer. But so many I run into online, even just reading comments, go from what may well be nice, rational people to severely hostile when it comes to their religion.
And yes, some atheists will get hostile right back when faced with it - it's a natural reaction to feeling under attack, so to a point, I can understand it from both sides (and it is something I try to avoid, honestly. I don't say I always succeed. I'm human.)
But with being the "most hated group" and everything, what a lightning bolt this had to be. A young woman - not just young woman, but young mother, standing there with her 18 year old, a little shy, very sweet seeming and personable, and (it has to be said) cute, just quietly stating "I'm an atheist." And that she doesn't mind people who want to thank their god doing so. They can see a person, not a screaming, horned demon who eats babies and hates any mention of god. They see someone being gracious about others beliefs. They see someone who could be their coworker or neighbor.
I hope that the Christians in her community are reasonable, that they come together as a community and keep accepting her as part of the community. That they come down on any - like you know will happen - who try doing things like blaming the tornadoes on "God's judgement for her unbelief" or something equally sick. That, I've seen before, many times. Pat Robertson blaming storms on America's "lack of faith" instead of weather, or tornadoes in Florida being blamed on Disney granting benefits to same sex couples several years ago.
Honestly, I have to go about four pages in searching on her name before I start running into the "She still needs god!" nonsense. I'll be curious what crops up this sunday as preachers get their teeth into this - and where that falls in another two weeks as the news about the humanist community sending her money to assist goes down from being a current story.
I do have to take some of our community to task, as well, as I saw a few "CNN/Wolf Blitzer promotes religious worldview" stories, as well. No, guys (and gals,) take a step back. Yes, he made an assumption - and one which, in a (roughly) 75% Christian nation, is about as pushy as assuming the person you see is breathing air. But there's a difference between what he said and "pushing/promoting a religious worldview." He assumed. And he made what, for many, would be a simple closing statement in a human interest story. Other than saying she had to thank god specifically, to me, it's no different than saying "Days like this you have to be happy to just be alive." So let's not blame him or CNN for a simple statement and read more into it than what's there.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Scouting the future
So the Boy Scouts will now let gay scouts stay - but not lead.
Well, it's a step.
What does this have to do with atheism? Simple, really. This came up for discussion by one of our news stations, asking for comments on "Should they let gay scouts in?" There was overwhelming "Yes, it's about time!"
The ones that said no? Other than one or two that said just factually wrong things (like "gays are mentally ill,") and the occasional unexplained one (just "no" basically,) the majority of them said "God said no."
And many of them didn't seem to know anything about what was actually in the bible. One person went so far as to say "It's against the sixth commandment!" Well... go back a few posts and you can read it. Thou shalt not murder (your fellow tribesman.) Nothing there about homosexuality. And of course the same person protested they lived the way god said - but refused to answer questions on if they ate shellfish, kept slaves or the like.
Do we need any greater example of the tie between bigotry and ignorance to religion? "God said so." Well, where does it say scouts need to be Christian? There are atheist scouts. And even on their own pages, they show endorsement and links to Jain, Muslem, Jewish, Buddhist, Eastern Orthodox ("christian" but historically split) and other religions. Imposing the view of one religion on everyone in there is arrogant and wrong.
Not to mention it goes against their own anti-bullying stance, quite bluntly.
It's past time to get religion out of these decisions and organizations, quite frankly. Teach tolerance.
Well, it's a step.
What does this have to do with atheism? Simple, really. This came up for discussion by one of our news stations, asking for comments on "Should they let gay scouts in?" There was overwhelming "Yes, it's about time!"
The ones that said no? Other than one or two that said just factually wrong things (like "gays are mentally ill,") and the occasional unexplained one (just "no" basically,) the majority of them said "God said no."
And many of them didn't seem to know anything about what was actually in the bible. One person went so far as to say "It's against the sixth commandment!" Well... go back a few posts and you can read it. Thou shalt not murder (your fellow tribesman.) Nothing there about homosexuality. And of course the same person protested they lived the way god said - but refused to answer questions on if they ate shellfish, kept slaves or the like.
Do we need any greater example of the tie between bigotry and ignorance to religion? "God said so." Well, where does it say scouts need to be Christian? There are atheist scouts. And even on their own pages, they show endorsement and links to Jain, Muslem, Jewish, Buddhist, Eastern Orthodox ("christian" but historically split) and other religions. Imposing the view of one religion on everyone in there is arrogant and wrong.
Not to mention it goes against their own anti-bullying stance, quite bluntly.
It's past time to get religion out of these decisions and organizations, quite frankly. Teach tolerance.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Christian nation 3: The Final Chapter
Or, as I said before, "turning a bunch of commandments into one."
We've already gone through the first five of the "ten commandments" - and let me remind you that not only are they not actually numbered in the original, or the only set, but they're not even called that. (A later set are, dealing with religious laws - things like how not to boil a goat.)
The point of them not being numbered is going to be important to remember here, and you'll see why in a moment. First, the list:
6.Thou shalt not kill. (Murder.)
7.Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8.Thou shalt not steal.
9.Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10.Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Yes, the last five all at once.
Now, these are pretty straightforward (at first.) But tell me, do you really think there needs to be divine inspiration to say "Don't murder, don't screw your neighbor's wife, don't steal things?" Regardless of location, time or the like, every civilization comes up with these - they're fairly commonsense, basic laws on keeping a society intact. These existing is not proof either of a god or of Christianity being a basis for American laws - and frankly I think most Jews, or anyone else, would find the notion that they couldn't figure out "murder = bad" without heavenly declaration insulting.
However, in context these... are odd. Especially given what comes after (Exodus 21, for instance, goes on about how to buy and treat a slave, how to sell your daughter and the like - again, hardly moral - and a number of things that lead to "you will kill him." Then a big pile of stuff about oxen, and if someone rapes a woman, he can buy her - basically bribe her father to marry her. And by Exodus 23, God's saying he'll help out in genocide and in stealing land. Forgetful, I suppose.)
But if we look at these as just "your fellow tribesman," which means we have to combine them - and again, lack of punctuation in the original - they fall together better. The word "neighbour" here does mean, basically, "your fellow jew." Caananites were not "neighbors" in context. So we have:
"You shall not murder, commit adultery, steal or bear false witness against your fellow tribesman. You won't want their house, wife, slave or livestock." (Note, ladies, the wife put there with the possessions.) Which, if we're talking morality... is a lot less "moral." (Don't kill your tribesman, but hey, those guys over there, go nuts.)
Again, I don't think I need to go into American law here - as these, once more, are just common sense. And as put in secular law, there's no limitation. No, you're not allowed to murder or steal from your fellow American. Nor are you allowed to from a non-American. You just aren't allowed to steal, murder, etc.
As far as the tenth - it's ridiculous, as it's forbidding a thought crime. "Don't even think these things!" Well, guess what.. you just thought them by considering and naming them, by some interpretations. Regardless, no legislation has been passed to forbid you from thinking things - that would be illogical and just plain silly, not to mention unenforceable.
Besides, we're generally capitalist here in the US. Wanting things is seen as good. If your neighbor has a really nice car, you'll want one - and maybe work a bit harder and save to afford it.
In the end, though, I think it's fairly evident that there's zero support for the ten commandments having anything to do with our founding documents - and that anyone arguing otherwise has probably read neither.
We've already gone through the first five of the "ten commandments" - and let me remind you that not only are they not actually numbered in the original, or the only set, but they're not even called that. (A later set are, dealing with religious laws - things like how not to boil a goat.)
The point of them not being numbered is going to be important to remember here, and you'll see why in a moment. First, the list:
6.Thou shalt not kill. (Murder.)
7.Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8.Thou shalt not steal.
9.Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10.Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Yes, the last five all at once.
Now, these are pretty straightforward (at first.) But tell me, do you really think there needs to be divine inspiration to say "Don't murder, don't screw your neighbor's wife, don't steal things?" Regardless of location, time or the like, every civilization comes up with these - they're fairly commonsense, basic laws on keeping a society intact. These existing is not proof either of a god or of Christianity being a basis for American laws - and frankly I think most Jews, or anyone else, would find the notion that they couldn't figure out "murder = bad" without heavenly declaration insulting.
However, in context these... are odd. Especially given what comes after (Exodus 21, for instance, goes on about how to buy and treat a slave, how to sell your daughter and the like - again, hardly moral - and a number of things that lead to "you will kill him." Then a big pile of stuff about oxen, and if someone rapes a woman, he can buy her - basically bribe her father to marry her. And by Exodus 23, God's saying he'll help out in genocide and in stealing land. Forgetful, I suppose.)
But if we look at these as just "your fellow tribesman," which means we have to combine them - and again, lack of punctuation in the original - they fall together better. The word "neighbour" here does mean, basically, "your fellow jew." Caananites were not "neighbors" in context. So we have:
"You shall not murder, commit adultery, steal or bear false witness against your fellow tribesman. You won't want their house, wife, slave or livestock." (Note, ladies, the wife put there with the possessions.) Which, if we're talking morality... is a lot less "moral." (Don't kill your tribesman, but hey, those guys over there, go nuts.)
Again, I don't think I need to go into American law here - as these, once more, are just common sense. And as put in secular law, there's no limitation. No, you're not allowed to murder or steal from your fellow American. Nor are you allowed to from a non-American. You just aren't allowed to steal, murder, etc.
As far as the tenth - it's ridiculous, as it's forbidding a thought crime. "Don't even think these things!" Well, guess what.. you just thought them by considering and naming them, by some interpretations. Regardless, no legislation has been passed to forbid you from thinking things - that would be illogical and just plain silly, not to mention unenforceable.
Besides, we're generally capitalist here in the US. Wanting things is seen as good. If your neighbor has a really nice car, you'll want one - and maybe work a bit harder and save to afford it.
In the end, though, I think it's fairly evident that there's zero support for the ten commandments having anything to do with our founding documents - and that anyone arguing otherwise has probably read neither.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
"They've taken God out of...."
You know what really kind of irks me?
Christians - really, any religion, but we're dealing with Christianity here in the US - claim to be honest and moral people. And I'll be honest, I'm sure the majority of you are, or at least make an honest effort to be. I have zero doubts about that at all.
But when it comes to certain issues, we hear the most bald-faced lies coming from the side of religion.
What has me going is this commercial by some Christian kids, and they pull out the same tired and generally untrue (or lacking the full story) tropes we've heard for a long time now, and I want to deal with them.
First, though, let me state this plainly. Yes, Atheists want God out of public schools. By that we mean nothing done by, in the name of, or publicly funded and dealing with, that school should have anything to do with religion. That means no pictures of Jesus, administration/teacher led prayer, displays of the Ten Commandments and the like. This also means no Judaic, Muslem or neo-pagan prayer, as well, by the way.
What does this not mean? Well, if you use the Bible to illustrate creation myths, alongside the various other stories, and you're using it to compare - it's being used educationally.
If you're a student and want to carry a bible, pray before you eat, etc. - go for it. And if anyone says you can't - barring being instructed not to because you're actually harassing others, but I'd give it a good, long look before supporting THAT - then believe it or not, this Atheist (and most others) would call them wrong.
If you're a teacher, you've got kind of a fine line to dance on. I, for one, don't care if you wear a cross pendant or tie-tack - tastefully - and don't draw attention to it. Generally, though, I'd say keep it in the lounge or somewhere private. And no, you can't suggest the students pray. And if you use material from Answers in Genesis as actual teaching material, you're not doing your job - barring using it to show how ill informed some people can be.
However, the way its portrayed by some groups is a far, far different picture - and a gross distortion and misrepresentation of fact. You'll hear that kids can't pray or bring a bible to school. If there's an actual public school that forbids this, they're wrong. Kids are absolutely allowed to bring whatever religious text they want, and perform their private religious rites (well, within reason, if you're supposed to sacrifice a goat you may be asked to do so off school grounds...) such as prayer whenever they want to, before lunch, tests, asking that other person out, whatever. No atheist really wants to prevent that. We may think it's silly to mutter at the air, but if it makes you feel good and doesn't bother anyone else, go for it.
Typically these Christians paint themselves as being persecuted. Now, think of that. Christians make up over 70% of the country - I believe the more recent number I'd heard was 74%, but don't (if you'll pardon the phrase) take that as gospel. If we were in an Arab country where they made up, oh, five percent, I could take this seriously. But the majority? Persecuted? Seriously? The idea is laughable.
What they usually mean by "persecuted" is that they're not allowed to bully others with their views and tell them they're wrong for being jewish, or atheist, or wiccan, or the "wrong kind" of Christian. There's this interesting disconnect in that they think they should be allowed to do so, which is basically persecuting others - but if they get told to stop, well, that's persecution.
Sometimes this will have a historic tone added to it with how the Pilgrims came to "escape persecution." What those mentioning this don't realize is that the reason the Pilgrims came here - not all colonists, as many colonies were business ventures - was because they weren't allowed to impose their far more rigid observances on the rest of the nation. Now, yes, England at the time still imposed fines on those not visiting the Church of England, had larger fines for independent services and the like - this is persecution. So what did the Pilgrims do when they came here? Tight religious control and insertion in everyday life... basically, they wanted the freedom, as it were, to persecute others.
Some of the kids in the commercial I saw also mention being "bullied for being Christian." To which all I can say is, if they're the same insufferable twats they act like in the video, they're not being bullied for being Christian, but for being insufferable twats. If you make life miserable for others, they're going to turn around and do it to you. If you try to shove your religion (or anything else) onto others who aren't interested, and keep doing it, you're going to be unpopular. It's that simple. The solution isn't to stop being Christian. It's to stop being an ass about it.
And of course, they bring up sex education, with one kid calling it being forced to see pornography. First off, it's fairly obvious the kid has never seen pornography if he thinks fairly tame diagrams of "this is what makes up a reproductive system" - the internals, mind - are porn. A playboy centerfold would probably make his head explode. And second, there's a reason for sex education versus what these sort want - "abstinence only" education. In the areas that push abstinence? The kids don't know what's going on or have any information. And they invariably have the highest, not lowest, teen pregnancy (and, by the way, abortion...) rates. Kids go by what they hear from other kids (things like "you can't get pregnant if it's your first time," or "just pull out" - which... yeah, I don't see a teen really doing this successfully, and even then, all it takes is one sperm.) They need the actual facts and understanding of what's going on - thus, sex education. Really, we're trying to help you avoid attempting to sell your girlfriend's parents on her pregnancy being a 'virgin birth' after you fumble around.
What it ends up boiling down to is the same old lies and misrepresentations from the Christians - who, after doing this, should really not call themselves that.
Christians - really, any religion, but we're dealing with Christianity here in the US - claim to be honest and moral people. And I'll be honest, I'm sure the majority of you are, or at least make an honest effort to be. I have zero doubts about that at all.
But when it comes to certain issues, we hear the most bald-faced lies coming from the side of religion.
What has me going is this commercial by some Christian kids, and they pull out the same tired and generally untrue (or lacking the full story) tropes we've heard for a long time now, and I want to deal with them.
First, though, let me state this plainly. Yes, Atheists want God out of public schools. By that we mean nothing done by, in the name of, or publicly funded and dealing with, that school should have anything to do with religion. That means no pictures of Jesus, administration/teacher led prayer, displays of the Ten Commandments and the like. This also means no Judaic, Muslem or neo-pagan prayer, as well, by the way.
What does this not mean? Well, if you use the Bible to illustrate creation myths, alongside the various other stories, and you're using it to compare - it's being used educationally.
If you're a student and want to carry a bible, pray before you eat, etc. - go for it. And if anyone says you can't - barring being instructed not to because you're actually harassing others, but I'd give it a good, long look before supporting THAT - then believe it or not, this Atheist (and most others) would call them wrong.
If you're a teacher, you've got kind of a fine line to dance on. I, for one, don't care if you wear a cross pendant or tie-tack - tastefully - and don't draw attention to it. Generally, though, I'd say keep it in the lounge or somewhere private. And no, you can't suggest the students pray. And if you use material from Answers in Genesis as actual teaching material, you're not doing your job - barring using it to show how ill informed some people can be.
However, the way its portrayed by some groups is a far, far different picture - and a gross distortion and misrepresentation of fact. You'll hear that kids can't pray or bring a bible to school. If there's an actual public school that forbids this, they're wrong. Kids are absolutely allowed to bring whatever religious text they want, and perform their private religious rites (well, within reason, if you're supposed to sacrifice a goat you may be asked to do so off school grounds...) such as prayer whenever they want to, before lunch, tests, asking that other person out, whatever. No atheist really wants to prevent that. We may think it's silly to mutter at the air, but if it makes you feel good and doesn't bother anyone else, go for it.
Typically these Christians paint themselves as being persecuted. Now, think of that. Christians make up over 70% of the country - I believe the more recent number I'd heard was 74%, but don't (if you'll pardon the phrase) take that as gospel. If we were in an Arab country where they made up, oh, five percent, I could take this seriously. But the majority? Persecuted? Seriously? The idea is laughable.
What they usually mean by "persecuted" is that they're not allowed to bully others with their views and tell them they're wrong for being jewish, or atheist, or wiccan, or the "wrong kind" of Christian. There's this interesting disconnect in that they think they should be allowed to do so, which is basically persecuting others - but if they get told to stop, well, that's persecution.
Sometimes this will have a historic tone added to it with how the Pilgrims came to "escape persecution." What those mentioning this don't realize is that the reason the Pilgrims came here - not all colonists, as many colonies were business ventures - was because they weren't allowed to impose their far more rigid observances on the rest of the nation. Now, yes, England at the time still imposed fines on those not visiting the Church of England, had larger fines for independent services and the like - this is persecution. So what did the Pilgrims do when they came here? Tight religious control and insertion in everyday life... basically, they wanted the freedom, as it were, to persecute others.
Some of the kids in the commercial I saw also mention being "bullied for being Christian." To which all I can say is, if they're the same insufferable twats they act like in the video, they're not being bullied for being Christian, but for being insufferable twats. If you make life miserable for others, they're going to turn around and do it to you. If you try to shove your religion (or anything else) onto others who aren't interested, and keep doing it, you're going to be unpopular. It's that simple. The solution isn't to stop being Christian. It's to stop being an ass about it.
And of course, they bring up sex education, with one kid calling it being forced to see pornography. First off, it's fairly obvious the kid has never seen pornography if he thinks fairly tame diagrams of "this is what makes up a reproductive system" - the internals, mind - are porn. A playboy centerfold would probably make his head explode. And second, there's a reason for sex education versus what these sort want - "abstinence only" education. In the areas that push abstinence? The kids don't know what's going on or have any information. And they invariably have the highest, not lowest, teen pregnancy (and, by the way, abortion...) rates. Kids go by what they hear from other kids (things like "you can't get pregnant if it's your first time," or "just pull out" - which... yeah, I don't see a teen really doing this successfully, and even then, all it takes is one sperm.) They need the actual facts and understanding of what's going on - thus, sex education. Really, we're trying to help you avoid attempting to sell your girlfriend's parents on her pregnancy being a 'virgin birth' after you fumble around.
What it ends up boiling down to is the same old lies and misrepresentations from the Christians - who, after doing this, should really not call themselves that.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Christian nation 2: Continued.
We start this with a fairly vague commandment.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
What, exactly, does that mean? Most people would say hitting your thumb with a hammer and saying "God Damnit!" counts. Some go so far as any swearing, but that's a bit extreme. Does finishing something difficult and saying "Thank God" count? How about seeing, for instance, a bad car crash and going "Jesus?" You're not praying. You're not really swearing then, either. But many people would put all of the above into "taking in vain."
Here's the kicker, though. There are two meanings here. One is what many would call blasphemy, as mentioned above. The other meaning seems like just the opposite - taking it *as vanity.*
The example that immediately comes to mind is a politician pushing their Christianity as they try to get reelected. "I'm a Godly man, I'm christian!" Guess what... just broke the commandment, dude. Or those that use their "righteousness" to drive others down (hi, Westboro.)
Can you name one person who hasn't done this? Ever? So according to God, guess what, everyone's broken this and is guilty. (Unless, of course, they're non-christian. I don't think he'd be all that upset over someone yelling "Zeus damnit!" after all.)
There are a couple of problems with this, though.
First, is "God" God's name? I'd say no, really. It's a description or, if you want, rank. Even "Lord." When's the last time you heard someone say "YHWH damn!" Probably not too often... bit of a mouthful. How about "Jesus?" That really depends on how you see that interrelationship.
Second, and getting to the constitution - If the founders wanted to outlaw this out of respect for a supreme being, they could very well have put in anti-blasphemy laws. You'll note there are none. None in the constitution. None in the bill of rights (or any other amendment.) They do exist in other nations, after all. It would be a fairly obvious way to show fealty to a deity.
Third, it goes against the first amendment. Believe it or not, I'm not talking separation of church and state - though the lack of blasphemy laws seems to indicate that's covered. I'm talking free speech. Just like I can insult the president (or any past president,) barring libel/slander or threats against his life, I can say things like "If intelligent design is your proof for god, that design is my proof that your god is an incompetent engineer if not a flat out idiot." I could not do that with blasphemy laws without being punished.
I'd say it's safe to say that there's no support for the third commandment in our founding documents, and that the lack of inclusion of what would be an obvious bit of support (blasphemy laws, much less establishing a national church) contradicts, again, the ten commandments - or Christianity - as a basis for our nation.
Now for the fourth.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Once more, we hit what could be an obvious bit of support - putting in a national law to observe Saturday (yes, Saturday, the Jewish sabbath, not Sunday - but either way) as a labor-free day.
Again, though, that would require establishment of a national church - or at least support it - and that, of course, is against the first amendment. Not only does this commandment impose a certain belief system on YOU, but insists that YOU impose it on your family, your employees (and, let's be honest, slaves, given the time it was written,) and even anyone happening to stay with you. And your cows. Can't forget the cows...
The flip side of this, of course, is that there's also nothing preventing you from observing *either* day as your chosen belief system, if you have one that has said observance, dictates.
Again - no foundational document supports or even refers to this commandment. Not looking good for any support of the US being founded on the ten commandments.
The fifth, our halfway point in the commandments and a good stopping point for this post:
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
Remember what I said earlier about people stopping early when they recite these? This, fortunately, is on ethey remember - and the first part, while not earth-shattering, is quite good. Honor your father and mother. (There's also, believe it or not, an implied contract the other way. Behave properly towards your children.)
... And then we get the second part. Don't do it because it's the right thing to do. Do it to live a long life. Yes, God is bribing you.
Obviously, getting to the point of this series of posts, nobody can legislate getting a longer life. Or, really, how to "honor" your parents. Yes, we have laws and departments (which seem to be the target of budget cuts...) to help pay for medical care for seniors, and give them pensions and the like. But these were not created by the founding fathers, and certainly aren't in our founding documents.
Five down, five to go... and zero support for the assertion that the US's founding documents bear any relation to the ten commandments.
Next up: Turning a bunch of commandments into one...
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
What, exactly, does that mean? Most people would say hitting your thumb with a hammer and saying "God Damnit!" counts. Some go so far as any swearing, but that's a bit extreme. Does finishing something difficult and saying "Thank God" count? How about seeing, for instance, a bad car crash and going "Jesus?" You're not praying. You're not really swearing then, either. But many people would put all of the above into "taking in vain."
Here's the kicker, though. There are two meanings here. One is what many would call blasphemy, as mentioned above. The other meaning seems like just the opposite - taking it *as vanity.*
The example that immediately comes to mind is a politician pushing their Christianity as they try to get reelected. "I'm a Godly man, I'm christian!" Guess what... just broke the commandment, dude. Or those that use their "righteousness" to drive others down (hi, Westboro.)
Can you name one person who hasn't done this? Ever? So according to God, guess what, everyone's broken this and is guilty. (Unless, of course, they're non-christian. I don't think he'd be all that upset over someone yelling "Zeus damnit!" after all.)
There are a couple of problems with this, though.
First, is "God" God's name? I'd say no, really. It's a description or, if you want, rank. Even "Lord." When's the last time you heard someone say "YHWH damn!" Probably not too often... bit of a mouthful. How about "Jesus?" That really depends on how you see that interrelationship.
Second, and getting to the constitution - If the founders wanted to outlaw this out of respect for a supreme being, they could very well have put in anti-blasphemy laws. You'll note there are none. None in the constitution. None in the bill of rights (or any other amendment.) They do exist in other nations, after all. It would be a fairly obvious way to show fealty to a deity.
Third, it goes against the first amendment. Believe it or not, I'm not talking separation of church and state - though the lack of blasphemy laws seems to indicate that's covered. I'm talking free speech. Just like I can insult the president (or any past president,) barring libel/slander or threats against his life, I can say things like "If intelligent design is your proof for god, that design is my proof that your god is an incompetent engineer if not a flat out idiot." I could not do that with blasphemy laws without being punished.
I'd say it's safe to say that there's no support for the third commandment in our founding documents, and that the lack of inclusion of what would be an obvious bit of support (blasphemy laws, much less establishing a national church) contradicts, again, the ten commandments - or Christianity - as a basis for our nation.
Now for the fourth.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Once more, we hit what could be an obvious bit of support - putting in a national law to observe Saturday (yes, Saturday, the Jewish sabbath, not Sunday - but either way) as a labor-free day.
Again, though, that would require establishment of a national church - or at least support it - and that, of course, is against the first amendment. Not only does this commandment impose a certain belief system on YOU, but insists that YOU impose it on your family, your employees (and, let's be honest, slaves, given the time it was written,) and even anyone happening to stay with you. And your cows. Can't forget the cows...
The flip side of this, of course, is that there's also nothing preventing you from observing *either* day as your chosen belief system, if you have one that has said observance, dictates.
Again - no foundational document supports or even refers to this commandment. Not looking good for any support of the US being founded on the ten commandments.
The fifth, our halfway point in the commandments and a good stopping point for this post:
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
Remember what I said earlier about people stopping early when they recite these? This, fortunately, is on ethey remember - and the first part, while not earth-shattering, is quite good. Honor your father and mother. (There's also, believe it or not, an implied contract the other way. Behave properly towards your children.)
... And then we get the second part. Don't do it because it's the right thing to do. Do it to live a long life. Yes, God is bribing you.
Obviously, getting to the point of this series of posts, nobody can legislate getting a longer life. Or, really, how to "honor" your parents. Yes, we have laws and departments (which seem to be the target of budget cuts...) to help pay for medical care for seniors, and give them pensions and the like. But these were not created by the founding fathers, and certainly aren't in our founding documents.
Five down, five to go... and zero support for the assertion that the US's founding documents bear any relation to the ten commandments.
Next up: Turning a bunch of commandments into one...
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Assymetrical Warfare
Oy.
OK, this is going to come off as more of a rant. I've recently gotten into a discussion... wait, no, let me restart that. I've recently been trying to talk to a theist-shaped brick wall. The matter of discussion? Why belief that the possibility of extraterrestrial life is more rational than the belief in god.
Now, let me be clear - I'm not talking UFOs coming to kidnap Elvis. I mean extraterrestrial life - bacteria, simple organisms. Yes, I find the possibility of more complex life (plants/animals) likely, even that of sentience, but harder and harder to find the higher up that chain we go. (And certainly not *touching* the whole flying saucers somehow bypassing the incredible distances and happening to find us, etc.)
My point was not even that of proving life - I know there are meteorites from Mars that seem to have fossilized microscopic life or proto-life in them, but from my understanding, scientists are still cautious about calling it "life." My whole point was to show how weight of evidence makes a hypothesis (life exists elsewhere) more credible.
And I thought I had done fairly well. I can't say I did full justice to the subject - I'm not an astrophysicist, chemist or biologist. I have a somewhat-better-than-layperson understanding of the subjects, I think, though not the level of someone actively studying them.
Maybe I was too cautious, but I felt that was the most intellectually honest way to approach it... of course, I'm being intellectually honest, which when trying to get someone to see around their faith, well... they're not.
For instance, I point out that we've explored a very small section of the sky and found many planets - and that the ones we find are getting smaller, meaning we can detect more. That we can figure out what the habitable zone of a star would be and if a detected planet is in it. That we are made from primarily four of the five most common elements in the universe (the fifth being nonreactive,) and that we understand the chemistry and processes of life. (Medicine, for one, wouldn't work if we didn't!) That (in reaction to one of his horribly wrong points, where there's no liquid water elsewhere) we've seen flows on mars (which he calls erosion - no, not the ones with a decided liquid character,) that the Phoenix rover saw drops of liquid water, that Europa gets fresh ice deposited from within (so we've got flowing ice at the least, it seems, and it's suspected of having water) - that water itself is fairly common.
As I'm throwing all these arguments out, I'm getting... I believe the scientific term is crazy shit back. That "God created life only on Earth." Which is utterly illogical - I pointed out that it's like looking at the tree outside your window and concluding it's the only tree on Earth. Not likely. Could it be true? Sure. It's a non-zero possibility... but given the size just of the galaxy, not to mention thinking of the local group or the universe as a whole, I'd have to say excessively unlikely.
In addition, aside from his "proof" being "God did it," nothing I put out there as far as reason why I hold the views I do is good enough.
And as I'm arguing, I'm realizing he's trying, consciously or not, to keep me on the defensive to keep from having to come up with anything to prove his belief in the existance of any deity.
So, if he answers... yeah, I'm going to bring that up. He's already thrown the "I don't have to give any proof!" once. I'm curious if he'll do it again. I just have to wonder if it's a sign of something inside that just doesn't WANT to face the fact that this belief is really untenable once you start looking at it.
Or if he's really just batshit crazy...
OK, this is going to come off as more of a rant. I've recently gotten into a discussion... wait, no, let me restart that. I've recently been trying to talk to a theist-shaped brick wall. The matter of discussion? Why belief that the possibility of extraterrestrial life is more rational than the belief in god.
Now, let me be clear - I'm not talking UFOs coming to kidnap Elvis. I mean extraterrestrial life - bacteria, simple organisms. Yes, I find the possibility of more complex life (plants/animals) likely, even that of sentience, but harder and harder to find the higher up that chain we go. (And certainly not *touching* the whole flying saucers somehow bypassing the incredible distances and happening to find us, etc.)
My point was not even that of proving life - I know there are meteorites from Mars that seem to have fossilized microscopic life or proto-life in them, but from my understanding, scientists are still cautious about calling it "life." My whole point was to show how weight of evidence makes a hypothesis (life exists elsewhere) more credible.
And I thought I had done fairly well. I can't say I did full justice to the subject - I'm not an astrophysicist, chemist or biologist. I have a somewhat-better-than-layperson understanding of the subjects, I think, though not the level of someone actively studying them.
Maybe I was too cautious, but I felt that was the most intellectually honest way to approach it... of course, I'm being intellectually honest, which when trying to get someone to see around their faith, well... they're not.
For instance, I point out that we've explored a very small section of the sky and found many planets - and that the ones we find are getting smaller, meaning we can detect more. That we can figure out what the habitable zone of a star would be and if a detected planet is in it. That we are made from primarily four of the five most common elements in the universe (the fifth being nonreactive,) and that we understand the chemistry and processes of life. (Medicine, for one, wouldn't work if we didn't!) That (in reaction to one of his horribly wrong points, where there's no liquid water elsewhere) we've seen flows on mars (which he calls erosion - no, not the ones with a decided liquid character,) that the Phoenix rover saw drops of liquid water, that Europa gets fresh ice deposited from within (so we've got flowing ice at the least, it seems, and it's suspected of having water) - that water itself is fairly common.
As I'm throwing all these arguments out, I'm getting... I believe the scientific term is crazy shit back. That "God created life only on Earth." Which is utterly illogical - I pointed out that it's like looking at the tree outside your window and concluding it's the only tree on Earth. Not likely. Could it be true? Sure. It's a non-zero possibility... but given the size just of the galaxy, not to mention thinking of the local group or the universe as a whole, I'd have to say excessively unlikely.
In addition, aside from his "proof" being "God did it," nothing I put out there as far as reason why I hold the views I do is good enough.
And as I'm arguing, I'm realizing he's trying, consciously or not, to keep me on the defensive to keep from having to come up with anything to prove his belief in the existance of any deity.
So, if he answers... yeah, I'm going to bring that up. He's already thrown the "I don't have to give any proof!" once. I'm curious if he'll do it again. I just have to wonder if it's a sign of something inside that just doesn't WANT to face the fact that this belief is really untenable once you start looking at it.
Or if he's really just batshit crazy...
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Christian Nation 1 - The Constitution and Bill of Rights vs the First Commandment
I'm going to split and join some of these - the next few Thursdays will look at why the Bill of Rights and the Constitution counter the assertion that the US was founded as a Christian nation, and how our founding laws contradict that, and other posts will look at other things.
I'm going to start with combining the "preamble" and the first two of the usual Ten Commandments. Remember, most of the time when you hear someone rattle these off, they get perhaps the first sentence.
And God spake all these words, saying,
I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
1.Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2.Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Now, really, the "preamble" is just establishing who is supposedly speaking - Yahweh, one of (eventually "the") Jewish gods, later the Judeo-Christian god. Yes, the Israelites were polytheists, worshiping not just YHWH, but (depending on tribe, as this was split between Northern and Southern kingdoms) El, Asherah (who was his wife - yes, god was married) and Ba'al, among others. And this was perfectly normal! All the stuff you read about being angry at a bull being created, about Beelzebub (which is a perversion of one of Ba'al's titles) and the like - guess what. It's ancient Israelite politics.
Don't take my word for it. Look it up. Use nonbiased (IE, not coming from "God's been this way always, let's find proof" - or 'christian' - sources.)
Still, we have an obvious and a not so obvious problem with these commandments and the US constitution and bill of rights.
The obvious one, of course, is the first amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The God mentioned int he first two commandments says, quite frankly, I am the only god, you can have no others, you can't make idols to anything else and worship them. This command does two things:
An argument, though rather tangent, could also be made that it goes against freedom of speech in its forbidding of making images of other things to worship, or for that matter questioning this deity in and of itself.
The other, less obvious conflict - and this is something that the bible contradicts itself in several times, but we're looking at these commandments as being "founding" documents, after all - is that of generational sin or generational guilt. Re-read this part:
for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me
Yes, this carries on the whole "everyone's a sinner" thanks to Adam and Eve and piles more on, carrying the father's guilt on for three or four generations. (Which begs the question, is the son of someone who doesn't believe or worships differently, who believes the same way, twice as guilty?)
Yet, article V:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
"Sin" and "Crime" being roughly analogous (sin being defined as a "crime against god,) again we have conflict. This deity would hold four generations accountable - and let's not forget that "original sin." Meanwhile, article V has each person tried for their own crimes. (Due process is also reinforced in the Fourteenth amendment - which would, again, prevent someone from being held accountable for a crime they didn't commit - but as the Bill of Rights is only the first ten, I'm only bringing it up as a note here.)
So, two commandments down.
Secular nation, 2, Christian nation, 0.
I'm going to start with combining the "preamble" and the first two of the usual Ten Commandments. Remember, most of the time when you hear someone rattle these off, they get perhaps the first sentence.
And God spake all these words, saying,
I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
1.Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2.Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Now, really, the "preamble" is just establishing who is supposedly speaking - Yahweh, one of (eventually "the") Jewish gods, later the Judeo-Christian god. Yes, the Israelites were polytheists, worshiping not just YHWH, but (depending on tribe, as this was split between Northern and Southern kingdoms) El, Asherah (who was his wife - yes, god was married) and Ba'al, among others. And this was perfectly normal! All the stuff you read about being angry at a bull being created, about Beelzebub (which is a perversion of one of Ba'al's titles) and the like - guess what. It's ancient Israelite politics.
Don't take my word for it. Look it up. Use nonbiased (IE, not coming from "God's been this way always, let's find proof" - or 'christian' - sources.)
Still, we have an obvious and a not so obvious problem with these commandments and the US constitution and bill of rights.
The obvious one, of course, is the first amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The God mentioned int he first two commandments says, quite frankly, I am the only god, you can have no others, you can't make idols to anything else and worship them. This command does two things:
- It establishes a sole religion - Yahwist, for lack of a better term (and because it's shorter than typing Judeo-Christian,) and
- It forbids the worship of anything else.
An argument, though rather tangent, could also be made that it goes against freedom of speech in its forbidding of making images of other things to worship, or for that matter questioning this deity in and of itself.
The other, less obvious conflict - and this is something that the bible contradicts itself in several times, but we're looking at these commandments as being "founding" documents, after all - is that of generational sin or generational guilt. Re-read this part:
for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me
Yes, this carries on the whole "everyone's a sinner" thanks to Adam and Eve and piles more on, carrying the father's guilt on for three or four generations. (Which begs the question, is the son of someone who doesn't believe or worships differently, who believes the same way, twice as guilty?)
Yet, article V:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
"Sin" and "Crime" being roughly analogous (sin being defined as a "crime against god,) again we have conflict. This deity would hold four generations accountable - and let's not forget that "original sin." Meanwhile, article V has each person tried for their own crimes. (Due process is also reinforced in the Fourteenth amendment - which would, again, prevent someone from being held accountable for a crime they didn't commit - but as the Bill of Rights is only the first ten, I'm only bringing it up as a note here.)
So, two commandments down.
Secular nation, 2, Christian nation, 0.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
When your assertion fails on the first example
... then perhaps it's time to rethink it.
Yes, this is going to be the start of me looking at some of the claims some Christians make - about evolution, for instance, or the US being a "christian nation." It's amazing how some people just don't seem willing to rethink things that are shown to contradict what they say - even when that contradiction is blatant.
Then again, that's kind of the point of "faith," isn't it. "Just believe," faith tells you. "God has a reason!" OK, fine, but when it seems your god is flat out lying to you? "Oh, he put fossils in the ground to test us!" is always a fun one, though not an argument I've heard much lately (heard it more growing up.)
Since this is post number one on this, let's start with a list. The big list - the ten commandments.
First, there are a few sets of "ten commandments." Not to mention differences due to translation. I'm going to ignore the "ritual ten" you'll hear brought up - things like prohibitions about boiling baby goats in their mothers' milk and the like - because for the argument, they're nonsensical. What I'll be doing is looking at these, then (since I'll be tackling both the arguments they're a basis for morality as well as a basis for the country's founding and laws, with forays into deity-inspiration,) looking at the Constitution and Bill of Rights - two documents I don't think many people would argue against considering the actual foundational documents of the country.
I know some people might think, "Why are Atheists so hung up on this?" Simple, really. It's an argument thrown at us so often it's just flat out expected. So the atheist should know their material - and remember, it's been shown on numerous occasions that Atheists know their dominant religious document (in my case the bible) better than many believers. For some, it's part of what turned us Atheist in the first place!
So let's grab the TC. This is the King James Version:
And God spake all these words, saying,
I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
1.Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2.Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
3.Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
4.Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
5.Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
6.Thou shalt not kill.
7.Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8.Thou shalt not steal.
9.Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10.Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Now, a few things to consider before we even get started.
First, many people - and certainly every block of these anyone tries to put up in a courthouse - tends to just cover the first sentence, or even just part of it. ("You shall have no other gods before me" for instance, for the first, as opposed to the whole thing - and the whole thing makes it even more problematic for being a foundational document of the US!) We will be considering them in whole.
Second, you must remember these WERE NOT NUMBERED. In fact, these aren't referred to in the bible as the Ten Commandments. The later ritual ones are... but again, those aren't the ones most people refer to, so we'll be looking at these.
The third point refers to the second. There's a fairly solid argument that, as these were initially written in hebrew, there's no punctuation and commandments 6, 7, 8 and 9 there (kill, adultery, steal, false witness) are meant to be one commandment. It actually removes some of the contradiction in the bible (no killing/stealing/etc - now go steal the land of those people and kill them all.) If you look at it as "You will not murder, commit adultery, steal or bear false witness against your neighbor (meaning other Israelites,)" it makes more sense in the greater overall context.
Now, the Constitution is fairly long - certainly longer than the ten commandments. I'll give a link to it here. You'll probably notice a fairly solid lack of any real correlation between the two - and that's only sensible. A constitution is there to define a country's government and organize it internally.
I will point out one thing, done now out of habit, but which is not in the constitution. The Presidential oath of office often ends with something along the lines of "so help me God." This, I'm sure, reaffirms to some the "christian nation" - unless they look at the text in the Constitution. (Article 2, end of section 1.) The oath of office?
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
No mention of or appeals to any deity.
There's also something that rather makes it difficult to claim any religious grounding for office holders: Article VI, section 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Wouldn't a religiously founded nation have some sort of means of ensuring those meant to lead the nation agreed with said religion?
In fact, the only positive mention of deity at all is purely one of form, "In the year of our Lord one thousand seventeen hundred and eighty seven" at the end. And that is not an appeal to or endorsement of it - it's basically saying 1787 AD.
So I'd call it safe to say the Constitution is fairly useless as any evidence for the founding of the nation on Christian principles. We can then move on to the Bill of Rights:
I'll put a link to Wikipedia here, as it goes into more discussion on each.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And so we have our basis for government and the foundation of the nation... with no appeal to or reference to Christianity. These, folks, are secular documents.
Yes, this is going to be the start of me looking at some of the claims some Christians make - about evolution, for instance, or the US being a "christian nation." It's amazing how some people just don't seem willing to rethink things that are shown to contradict what they say - even when that contradiction is blatant.
Then again, that's kind of the point of "faith," isn't it. "Just believe," faith tells you. "God has a reason!" OK, fine, but when it seems your god is flat out lying to you? "Oh, he put fossils in the ground to test us!" is always a fun one, though not an argument I've heard much lately (heard it more growing up.)
Since this is post number one on this, let's start with a list. The big list - the ten commandments.
First, there are a few sets of "ten commandments." Not to mention differences due to translation. I'm going to ignore the "ritual ten" you'll hear brought up - things like prohibitions about boiling baby goats in their mothers' milk and the like - because for the argument, they're nonsensical. What I'll be doing is looking at these, then (since I'll be tackling both the arguments they're a basis for morality as well as a basis for the country's founding and laws, with forays into deity-inspiration,) looking at the Constitution and Bill of Rights - two documents I don't think many people would argue against considering the actual foundational documents of the country.
I know some people might think, "Why are Atheists so hung up on this?" Simple, really. It's an argument thrown at us so often it's just flat out expected. So the atheist should know their material - and remember, it's been shown on numerous occasions that Atheists know their dominant religious document (in my case the bible) better than many believers. For some, it's part of what turned us Atheist in the first place!
So let's grab the TC. This is the King James Version:
And God spake all these words, saying,
I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
1.Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2.Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
3.Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
4.Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
5.Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
6.Thou shalt not kill.
7.Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8.Thou shalt not steal.
9.Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10.Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Now, a few things to consider before we even get started.
First, many people - and certainly every block of these anyone tries to put up in a courthouse - tends to just cover the first sentence, or even just part of it. ("You shall have no other gods before me" for instance, for the first, as opposed to the whole thing - and the whole thing makes it even more problematic for being a foundational document of the US!) We will be considering them in whole.
Second, you must remember these WERE NOT NUMBERED. In fact, these aren't referred to in the bible as the Ten Commandments. The later ritual ones are... but again, those aren't the ones most people refer to, so we'll be looking at these.
The third point refers to the second. There's a fairly solid argument that, as these were initially written in hebrew, there's no punctuation and commandments 6, 7, 8 and 9 there (kill, adultery, steal, false witness) are meant to be one commandment. It actually removes some of the contradiction in the bible (no killing/stealing/etc - now go steal the land of those people and kill them all.) If you look at it as "You will not murder, commit adultery, steal or bear false witness against your neighbor (meaning other Israelites,)" it makes more sense in the greater overall context.
Now, the Constitution is fairly long - certainly longer than the ten commandments. I'll give a link to it here. You'll probably notice a fairly solid lack of any real correlation between the two - and that's only sensible. A constitution is there to define a country's government and organize it internally.
I will point out one thing, done now out of habit, but which is not in the constitution. The Presidential oath of office often ends with something along the lines of "so help me God." This, I'm sure, reaffirms to some the "christian nation" - unless they look at the text in the Constitution. (Article 2, end of section 1.) The oath of office?
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
No mention of or appeals to any deity.
There's also something that rather makes it difficult to claim any religious grounding for office holders: Article VI, section 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Wouldn't a religiously founded nation have some sort of means of ensuring those meant to lead the nation agreed with said religion?
In fact, the only positive mention of deity at all is purely one of form, "In the year of our Lord one thousand seventeen hundred and eighty seven" at the end. And that is not an appeal to or endorsement of it - it's basically saying 1787 AD.
So I'd call it safe to say the Constitution is fairly useless as any evidence for the founding of the nation on Christian principles. We can then move on to the Bill of Rights:
I'll put a link to Wikipedia here, as it goes into more discussion on each.
Preamble
- Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine
- THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
- RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And so we have our basis for government and the foundation of the nation... with no appeal to or reference to Christianity. These, folks, are secular documents.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Death and the Atheist
A bit over a year ago, my mother died. My father died a few years ago (2005) as well.
For one, I was "kinda-sorta" spiritual. For the other, I was an atheist.
Now, most religious people will understand how they deal with death. The idea of the passed one going on to "a better place," they're at peace or "with God" (or whatever deity they believe in.) I don't have to explain to them, I think, how they feel.
There is, typically, a community "by default" they can go to and rely on for support, even for those with no other family - namely, their church, mosque, temple or what have you. And, with few exceptions, I do actually find this to be a good thing for most religious people - generally without someone preaching at them, at least. It's another place to go for the emotional balm and healing needed at that time.
But what about the Atheist?
This is a legitimate question asked by the religion - what does the atheist do in times of hardship and loss? Now, some - not all, by any means - are going to basically say "who cares, they deserve it," and those people need to be brought down a few pegs by their fellow believers, quite honestly. An atheist doesn't, by definition, have a church or the community that goes with it.
And an atheist doesn't believe, of course, that the dead person has gone to heaven to play guitar with the angels or play a piano trio with Mozart and Liberace.
For the atheist, we have one life. There's no soul that's been proven or even given reason to suspect exists. There's no heaven. Of course, that also means there's no hell, which can be a source of worry for the religious ("He never accepted our beliefs, now he'll be tortured for eternity" doesn't help ease the pain of someone in mourning.) When we die, we die, and the elements that make up our bodies are returned to the environment.
So, sure, for the atheist, we can define the afterlife - After life, we are fertilizer. Which isn't a bad thing (I want to be buried with a tree nearby, preferably overlooking the lake.)
Still, how do we deal with death? Just like the religious person, it varies from person to person. For me, I missed my mom (my most recent loss,) but it was easy for me after a bit to accept she was gone. I can't say honestly that it WAS my atheism that helped with a - stopping point, I suppose - or if it was just having been through it before with my dad, or me being there helping her through her last years.
I do know that, for me, it helped me strip away all the religious trappings, the "she's getting her reward" (with the question, then, "if she was so good, why didn't she deserve better here?") and the like. I do also have a fairly good size family, three brothers, a sister, and all their kids, spouses and whatnot. Part of my energy went to comforting them. And part of it went to preparing the house for sale and moving.
But all that can also be called avoidance, too. Which isn't bad - you shouldn't focus, after all, on just "that person is gone, I miss them!" Nor should you feel guilty when, eventually, you realize you don't hurt like you did when they passed.
Still, rationality helped me. I couldn't say she died young - she lived to her mid 70s, so she'd had a good, long life. She set a wonderful example, for the most part, for our family. She was a loving mother, even when we argued. She had given to the community, she was willing to give of herself. And, of course, I had been there as she fought cancer - twice. And at the end, I saw her give herself over to the inevitable, prepare and accept what was coming, and knew she was not going to be frustrated by weakness, by what the cancer was doing to things like her memory and brain, and what she might feel she was losing.
In the end, it WAS an end - and a fast one, and the closing of the chapters of her life. And as I thought about her and her life, I couldn't help but feel good and satisfied for her. She probably had things left she wanted to do, sure. I know she did. But her loss wasn't early, and it wasn't sad, and I could take comfort in everything she had done and the legacy she had left for us.
That's the only end this Atheist can talk about. I haven't lost anyone to war or tragedy, and can only think it would make it harder. But even if I had - I could only talk about my own. The only advice I could give, which I hold true for both atheist and believer, is not to dwell. Put the energy into something else - if it's doing something for the sake of doing something, or doing something the loved one you've lost would have approved of, or doing something "in memory of" that person, the energy can be put to better use than reinforcing your mourning.
The other thing? In this Internet-connected age... you're never alone. You don't have to be. You can usually think of someone - a person or group - who means something to you. Don't be afraid to open up... it helps.
That's how this atheist deals with death.
For one, I was "kinda-sorta" spiritual. For the other, I was an atheist.
Now, most religious people will understand how they deal with death. The idea of the passed one going on to "a better place," they're at peace or "with God" (or whatever deity they believe in.) I don't have to explain to them, I think, how they feel.
There is, typically, a community "by default" they can go to and rely on for support, even for those with no other family - namely, their church, mosque, temple or what have you. And, with few exceptions, I do actually find this to be a good thing for most religious people - generally without someone preaching at them, at least. It's another place to go for the emotional balm and healing needed at that time.
But what about the Atheist?
This is a legitimate question asked by the religion - what does the atheist do in times of hardship and loss? Now, some - not all, by any means - are going to basically say "who cares, they deserve it," and those people need to be brought down a few pegs by their fellow believers, quite honestly. An atheist doesn't, by definition, have a church or the community that goes with it.
And an atheist doesn't believe, of course, that the dead person has gone to heaven to play guitar with the angels or play a piano trio with Mozart and Liberace.
For the atheist, we have one life. There's no soul that's been proven or even given reason to suspect exists. There's no heaven. Of course, that also means there's no hell, which can be a source of worry for the religious ("He never accepted our beliefs, now he'll be tortured for eternity" doesn't help ease the pain of someone in mourning.) When we die, we die, and the elements that make up our bodies are returned to the environment.
So, sure, for the atheist, we can define the afterlife - After life, we are fertilizer. Which isn't a bad thing (I want to be buried with a tree nearby, preferably overlooking the lake.)
Still, how do we deal with death? Just like the religious person, it varies from person to person. For me, I missed my mom (my most recent loss,) but it was easy for me after a bit to accept she was gone. I can't say honestly that it WAS my atheism that helped with a - stopping point, I suppose - or if it was just having been through it before with my dad, or me being there helping her through her last years.
I do know that, for me, it helped me strip away all the religious trappings, the "she's getting her reward" (with the question, then, "if she was so good, why didn't she deserve better here?") and the like. I do also have a fairly good size family, three brothers, a sister, and all their kids, spouses and whatnot. Part of my energy went to comforting them. And part of it went to preparing the house for sale and moving.
But all that can also be called avoidance, too. Which isn't bad - you shouldn't focus, after all, on just "that person is gone, I miss them!" Nor should you feel guilty when, eventually, you realize you don't hurt like you did when they passed.
Still, rationality helped me. I couldn't say she died young - she lived to her mid 70s, so she'd had a good, long life. She set a wonderful example, for the most part, for our family. She was a loving mother, even when we argued. She had given to the community, she was willing to give of herself. And, of course, I had been there as she fought cancer - twice. And at the end, I saw her give herself over to the inevitable, prepare and accept what was coming, and knew she was not going to be frustrated by weakness, by what the cancer was doing to things like her memory and brain, and what she might feel she was losing.
In the end, it WAS an end - and a fast one, and the closing of the chapters of her life. And as I thought about her and her life, I couldn't help but feel good and satisfied for her. She probably had things left she wanted to do, sure. I know she did. But her loss wasn't early, and it wasn't sad, and I could take comfort in everything she had done and the legacy she had left for us.
That's the only end this Atheist can talk about. I haven't lost anyone to war or tragedy, and can only think it would make it harder. But even if I had - I could only talk about my own. The only advice I could give, which I hold true for both atheist and believer, is not to dwell. Put the energy into something else - if it's doing something for the sake of doing something, or doing something the loved one you've lost would have approved of, or doing something "in memory of" that person, the energy can be put to better use than reinforcing your mourning.
The other thing? In this Internet-connected age... you're never alone. You don't have to be. You can usually think of someone - a person or group - who means something to you. Don't be afraid to open up... it helps.
That's how this atheist deals with death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)