by mr dan
Watch this as a vlog.

Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages.

Thomas Alva Edison

Of the many ethical positions my disbelief in theology has led me to, the one I live most presently is my vegetarianism.  I’m aware that I’m among a small minority of atheists, or even the general population, who take this position.  For this reason many would expect me to keep silent on the issue.  But atheists should know too well that majority status within the whole does not necessarily indicate that one’s thinking is sound, and that unpopular opinions should not be dismissed without first being fairly considered.

There are countless reasons for a vegetarian lifestyle, and I haven’t the time to get into them all here.  Ethics always seemed to me the best impetus, and I never needed any further convincing.  And since atheism leaves us with the default that ethics must be logical, I ask you: From where does the atheist get the right to eat meat, and how can we justify speciesism in the absence of god?

Though I say it proudly, the word vegetarian is itself a slight misnomer.  It defines me by what I eat, and by omission, what I don’t eat — the flesh of animals.  Archaic adages aside, it is better to define someone not by what they eat but by what they do or don’t do.  I am a person who does not kill.  By which I mean, of course, that killing of any kind should be avoided at all costs. Obviously there are times when killing is unavoidable.  Lunch is certainly not one of those times.

There is no debating this statement:  Since almost nobody in our modern, civilized society needs to kill animals in order to live, killing animals is therefore unnecessary, inessential — one could even say a luxury.  From this fact I conclude that it is cruel to kill animals for luxury.

The most common reaction I get to this announcement is the profoundly ignorant decree, “That’s what animals are for.  It’s their purpose in life.  It’s their destiny.” The trouble with that reasoning is that animals, like humans, are not here for anything.  Anyone asserting that there is any particular reason why Man deserves a place at the top of the food chain is espousing a distinctly theological view. If humans are of a special class of animals, better than the other mammals, better than even our closest relatives, the primates, what made us so special?  God?  Does it make any sense to think that we evolved to be the diners, while the other creatures evolved to be our dinner? The idea that animals are meant for our consumption is entirely dependent on a sentient and cruel creator god.

In many ways, we are indeed unique, some might even say better.  But that does not make us more deserving of rights, and the fact that man has clawed his way to the top of the food chain by superior strength, intelligence, and avoidance of his own natural predators does not justify his continued oppression of the lower links.  Now that we have evolved into creatures whose heads are filled with wonderful thinking machines, shouldn’t we use them to their full potential, rather than just saying, “We’ve always eaten meat, therefore it’s okay”?  Tradition is the poorest excuse to do anything.  If the actions of less civilized men in recent centuries would not be permissible today, why should we look to the behavior of our morally ignorant ancestors as justification for repeating their actions?

How can we, as atheists, believe ourselves to have evolved with an entitlement to take life at our own discretion for nonessential reasons? Survival instinct cannot be blamed; we don’t slaughter chickens in self defense, and we wouldn’t starve if we stopped. How can we criticize and mock the bloodshed inherent in nearly all the world’s religions, with their holy books and leaders insisting upon the murder, enslavement, torture, segregation and subjugation of other humans, and say nothing of the disregard those books hold for animal life?  They all preach that animals were made for us, to be worked to death, eaten, or burnt to please God, and of all the silly lies to disgrace those pages, this is the one that seems most easily ignored.

Meat-eaters will point to their incisors and ask me why we have special teeth for cutting meat.  The teeth are indeed useful in cutting and tearing tough meat or vegetation, but like the bodies in which they reside they are not for anything.  The teeth of our evolutionary ancestors gradually changed shape, like all parts of all organisms do, as useful mutations were passed on to the next generation.  We’re left with a mouth that looks like it was meant to process all kinds of foods, but this is really only a dietary version of the Argument from Design.  And, if I may quote Dan Barker, “People who are impressed with the design argument are like the guy who is amazed at all the rivers that were made to flow along state borders.”

Others suggest that the pain of animals is not as real or as significant as that of humans.  The idea that animals do not feel pain because they lack consciousness is an invention of Rene Descartes.  He advocated vivisection, the dissection of live animals, because he claimed only humans have souls and can feel pain, and that the writhing, screaming and kicking of a wounded or tortured animal was merely an autonomic response, a clever imitation of humanity.  Today this Cartesian lie has migrated from the land to the sea.  Few would argue that a dog or a chicken cannot feel pain, but there are many who seem to believe that a fish feels nothing, despite its obvious display of pain when its mouth is punctured by a hook and it flops violently about on the deck of a boat, suffocating out of its natural watery habitat.  Recent studies have found that fish do indeed feel pain and use their very-existent memories to avoid danger and seek food or shelter.

Another, and perhaps the weakest argument, is that animals don’t deserve life in the same way we do because they are stupid.  I don’t know where they get the idea that the capacity for knowledge and understanding is in any way relative to the freedom to not be eaten, but furthermore they are themselves profoundly ignorant of the wealth of intellect that was eradicated to satisfy their selfish appetites.  Pigs, for instance, are much smarter than dogs, which are usually considered by Westerners to be far too intelligent and loyal to be eaten (pigs are also far cleaner).  If they could define exactly where that cut-off point is, would it not logically follow that the slower humans who did not make the cut should prepare themselves for our forks and knives?  Would this include newborn babies, whose intelligence has not yet developed?  No, you say, because they have the potential for greater intellect.  Fair enough — but what about the mentally handicapped, or those in a vegetative state?  As Jeremy Bentham famously wrote, “The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”

A similar but more concise argument comes from the pages of Animal Liberation by Dr. Peter Singer.  “If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for disregarding that suffering, or for refusing to count it equally with the suffering of any other being.”

Often I am asked, “But don’t you miss the taste of steak or pork chops?”  The answer is no, I don’t, but more to the point: even if I did, what would that prove?  That meat is tasty?  The insipidness of flesh has never been my argument for abstaining from it, though it pales in comparison to the foul taste of the argument from deliciousness.  How vile to suggest that a sentient creature doesn’t have as much right to live as you do simply because you find its flesh mouthwatering.

If you just can’t be moved by the slaughter of animals, then perhaps you’ll consider the people hurt by animal production.  Commercial farming of animals creates environmental disasters.  Forests, wetlands and plains have been eliminated to make grazing room for animals, including 70% of the Amazon Forests. Their waste piles up and pollutes the rivers and lakes to which the runoff leads.  When farm animals are given feed that is drastically different from their natural diet, such as corn or other cows, their bodies can react in ways that pollute the meat they produce, causing widespread sickness and death.  Those animals are also pumped full of antibiotics and hormones which have been linked to a plethora of diseases and health conditions. The workers on the farms and in the slaughterhouses are underpaid and work in deplorable conditions. And industrial livestock agriculture has been estimated to account for up to 18% of greenhouse gas emmisions — that’s almost half of human-caused emissions.  So much for the meek having a whole lot to inherit.

Some ask me how I can advocate abstaining from such an abundant food source when so many in this world are hungry.  Actually, due to the remarkable inefficiencies in raising animals for food, there would be more food available if we ended the practice (for instance, it takes seven pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef, and seven is significantly greater than one).  The same is true of clean water and farming land.  Meat is tremendously uneconomical.

So with all the demonstrable fallout from the consumption of meat, how can we, in the absence of a deity, justify so much unnecessary killing?  If atheism can lead us directly to humanism, to egalitarianism and the eradication of racism, sexism, classism and all the other isms that don’t make any sense, to the idea that no human was created with more of a right to life and happiness than any other, why is it so irrational to disregard speciesism and feast on the abundant nonviolent sources of food?  Unless someone can present me with a rational, universal justification for killing animals, I will continue to feel it should be avoided.  So far, no one has even come close.

mr dan is the vice president of Connecticut Valley Atheists.  The views expressed in this posting are his own and do not necessarily represent those of Connecticut Valley Atheists or its individual members.

by Johanna
Watch this as a vlog.

“Today, America is losing its religious freedom.”

Sounds dire, doesn’t it? After all, religious freedom is really important. I don’t want to live in a country where the government controls religion any more than anyone else. The freedom to hold whatever religious beliefs you wish−or no religious beliefs at all−is vital. There are other “freedoms” that religion currently enjoys in America that I take issue with.

The word “freedom” is a tricky one. It has largely positive connotations−having freedom is good; losing freedom is bad. Unfortunately, society doesn’t work if every person is free to do anything and everything they want. To ensure maximum freedom for all citizens, certain actions must be restricted by law. For example, if I have the right to live and you have the right to murder with impunity, one of these rights must supersede the other. Society functions better if everyone has the right to live and nobody has the right to kill; otherwise, things descend into chaos pretty darn quickly. The right to live can be applied as close to universally as is humanly possible. Even this example isn’t as clear-cut as it appears on first glance; if it were, there would be no debate over the death penalty or abortion. Still, most rational people can agree that, for the most part, the freedom to live should be universal while the freedom to kill should be restricted. For one freedom to exist at all, the other must be taken away. The same can be said for most of what we consider to be basic rights. If people want the right to own things, they must give up the right to steal. “Freedom” is a nice ideal, but it requires compromise.

Freedom also requires a decent understanding of what the word really means.

free·dom |’frēdəm| –noun

1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.

2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.

3. the power to determine action without restraint.

4. political or national independence.

5. personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.

6. exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually fol. by from ): freedom from fear.

7. the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.

8. ease or facility of movement or action: to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.

9. frankness of manner or speech.

10. general exemption or immunity: freedom from taxation.

11. the absence of ceremony or reserve.

12. a liberty taken.

13. a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation: freedom to levy taxes.

14. civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.

15. the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.

16. the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will: to have the freedom of a friend’s library.

There’s a difference between exemption from outside control and being that outside control. Losing the latter isn’t losing freedom, its losing authority, and it’s an authority that religion shouldn’t have any claim to in a society with a secular government.

So when Evangelical Christians (or anyone else, for that matter) say that America is losing its religious freedom, it strikes me as a little disingenuous. Sometimes, it strikes me as the absolute most vile kind of hypocrisy, but we’ll get to that in a minute. What religion in America is losing right now is power, and even that they still have too much of. The recent court decision declaring the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional caused an uproar among Christians. The things is, they aren’t losing the freedom to celebrate the holiday. They’re just losing the privilege of organized government participation. They’re losing the power to impose their religious practice on the nation as a whole. Even if you could call that a right, rather than a privilege, it would be one that can’t possibly be applied universally. Can you imagine if all religious groups had equal right to impose their own beliefs and practices on others? Giving that right to select groups doesn’t work, either. After all, how do you choose which group gets the right to boss the others around? The biggest one? That’s not freedom, that’s being a bully, and that only works until a bigger bully comes along.

If you’re truly concerned about your own rights and freedoms, the best way to ensure them is to fight for human rights as a whole. The more universal a right, the more difficult it is to take away. When the right to vote in America was extended to women and blacks, that worked in favor of men’s right to vote. If it’s something that only select groups or people are allowed to do, it’s not difficult to refine the definition of exactly who those “select people” are. If everyone is allowed to vote, then removing that right from certain people requires a hell of a lot more justification. The more evenly applied a freedom, the easier it is to hold on to.

Now, back to the quote from the beginning. I’d like to take a moment to put it into perspective. Here’s the full quote:

Today, America is losing its religious freedom. We are trying to restrain an agenda that is sweeping through the education system. Uganda has become ground zero.

Lou Engle, an Evangelical Christian, said it in regard to his support for a bill currently pending in Ugandan Parliament. He’s actually gone to Uganda in order to speak publicly in favor of this bill.

The purpose of the bill? To strengthen the legal punishments for homosexuality. If it passes into law, so-called “aggressive homosexuality” will be punishable by death. I’ll say it again: Lou Engle supports a bill to kill homosexuals because America is supposedly losing religious freedom. And speaking of losing freedom, the bill also criminalizes supporting gay rights. If it becomes law, it will be illegal to criticize it. It’ll also be illegal to fail to report another’s homosexuality. This means that the mere act of confessing one’s homosexuality to another endangers not only the confessor, but the confidant. One will be faced with a fine and possible prison sentence for simply knowing that another person is gay and not reporting them to the authorities. This bill will literally leave no recourse for gay men and women in the entire country of Uganda. It’s a blatant attempt at systematically eradicating an entire group of people.

For the record, that’s what it looks like to lose freedoms. That’s oppression. For people like Lou Engle to bemoan the loss of what they call religious freedom in America only to turn around and spit in the face of human rights like that is disgusting. Yes, religious freedom is important. It’s as important for atheists as it is for theists, and I’ll stand up for religious rights every bit as enthusiastically as I do any other basic human right. What I won’t do is stand around and listen while anyone who doesn’t support human gripes about the loss of religious “freedom” just because they aren’t receiving quite as much government favoritism as they used to. What I absolutely refuse to stomach is the blatantly manipulative dishonesty that supporters of the Ugandan anti-homosexuality bill are spewing. If they’re so damn concerned about losing rights, then they need to fight for people’s rights. It’s that simple.

Johanna is a member of CVA. The views expressed in this posting are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of Connecticut Valley Atheists or its individual members.

by Paul Gobell

Watch the Vlog, parts 1 and 2.

The United States differs greatly from the tribal society of ancient Israel. The world has changed greatly in two-and-a-half thousand years.  Democracies strive to provide freedom and tolerance for all citizens. Women vote and struggle for equal rights, and slavery has been abolished.  The Ten Commandments are still viewed by many as relevant in our lives today.  Some even believe that these commandments are the bedrock of our culture. How relevant are they really?  Do these commandments actually provide a clear and pure path to a wholesome life?

The First Commandment reads:

“And God spoke all these words: ‘I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.  You shall have no other gods before me.’” (Exodus 20:1-3).

After Christianity became the dominant religion in the West,  there has hardly been any thought given by Christians of worshiping any other actual gods. Consequently many Christians interpret this commandment as a prohibition against treating anything such as money, success, beauty, status, etc. as god-like.

During the time of the old and new testaments no such metaphorical interpretation would be possible.  Polytheism was the norm.

What is a law without a prescribed punishment for those who break the law?  The penalty for worshiping any other god is found in Exodus 22:20.

“Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed.”

Ah, death is the penalty for worshiping any other god.  Are those who want to base American culture upon the Ten Commandments suggesting that we kill all the Hindus?

The Second Commandment reads:

“You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.”  (Exodus 20:4-6)

Okay, the second commandment is no idols and more.

“I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.”

This part of the Second Commandment is often ignored.  The concept of inter-generational guilt and punishment is not a concept that the American culture can readily grasp.  Inter-generational guilt makes sense within a tribal culture. In a tribal culture the worth of an individual is comprised of their place within the group.

In the book of Joshua, Chapter 7, Achan was executed with his sons and daughters after he was caught stealing.  His children were not the thieves, Achan was.  In the United States we do not punish children for the crimes of their parents.  Yet the religious claim that the Ten Commandments should be the bedrock of our nation.  Many of the convicts upon death row have children. Do the religious approve of us executing children for the crimes of their fathers?

The penalty for making idols is seen in Exodus chapter 32.  Moses had all the people killed who had built an altar to other gods while he was on that mountain getting these Ten Commandments.

To base American law upon the Ten Commandments would definitely fill death row with a Hell of a lot more people.  The Roman Catholics better run for their lives.  They sure do have a lot of statues: the Virgin Mary, Saint Augustine, Saint Michael, Saint Bernard….

The Third Commandment reads:

“You shall not take the Lord’s name in vain; for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses His name.” (Exodus 20:7)

The Third Commandment is consistently interpreted as a prohibition against  using the words “God” or “Jesus” in a swear.  A more believable interpretation is that the Third Commandment prohibits breaking a contract that was sworn upon in the name of God.  If you were in ancient Israel and you hired someone to groom your camel the business agreement would be entered into in God’s name.

The penalty for taking this god’s name in vain is found in Leviticus 24:16.

“Anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.”

Since we do not create contracts with reference to God, the third commandment is no longer relevant. And anyone who kills someone because they said “God damn” is a murderer.

The Fourth Commandment reads:

“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.  Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work… For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” (Exodus 20: 8-11)

This is the only ritualistic commandment in the Ten Commandments.  While most religions have some holy days, the Hebrews set aside an entire day each week for the worship of their God.

Christians greatly violate this commandment. The commandment clearly states that one is to work for six days and then rest on the seventh day.  See Saturday, being the seventh day, is the Sabbath, not Sunday.

For Orthodox Jews the Sabbath means abstaining from all work of any sort.   Christians drive to church, mow their lawns, go grocery shopping and open a beer while watching football. They do not observe the sabbath.

The Penalty for working on the Sabbath is found in Exodus 31:15.

“For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.”

Will the Christians kill each other for breaking this commandment?

The first four commandments deal with man’s relationship with the Judaic/Christian God: No other gods, no idols, no taking God’s name in vain, and keeping the Sabbath.

In the United States it is legal for people to worship any god they wish.  It is legal to have statues of gods or saints.  People can not be put to death for saying “God damn,” and we can work on Saturdays if we wish, and allow Christians to pretend that Sunday is the Sabbath.  Imagine if, instead of freedom, these commandments were the basis of our laws.  The bloodshed would be immense.

The last six Commandments focus on secular law.  The Fifth Commandment reads:

“Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.” (Exodus 20:12)

The book of Matthew repeats this commandment:

“For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ (Matthew 15:4)

The penalty for not honoring one’s parent is pretty obvious.

Children from relatively healthy homes should be respectful of their parents, but to expect abused children to have respect is silly.  Yet the Fifth Commandment  states clearly that children who do not respect their parents should be put to death.

Pat Robertson said, “It’s the Ten Commandments — not the 10 Suggestions…. When God says it, it has the moral authority of the creator of the Universe.”  I guess Pat Robertson thinks that disrespectful kids should be put to death.  Can’t you just feel God’s love?

The Sixth Commandment reads:

“You shall not murder”. (Exodus 20:13)

I like the New International Version of the Sixth Commandment because it correctly translates the Hebrew word ratsach, which means murder.  “You shall not murder”.  This commandment is simple, easily understood and straight to the point.  Now, the King James translation reads;  “Thou shalt not kill.”  Any normal, well balanced person would agree that murder is wrong, but saying that a person should never kill has a completely different connotation.  A person under attack has the right to defend himself.

A Fundamentalist could regard the mistranslation of the King James text immoral because it falsifies the word of God.

The punishment for murder is found in Numbers chapter 35:

“…the murderer shall surely be put to death.”

The Sixth Commandment certainly needs to be seen as “You shall not murder” because the penalty for breaking this commandment is to be put to death.  Executioners would be guilty of breaking the Sixth Commandment if the Sixth Commandment was “You shalt not kill.”

The Seventh Commandment reads:

“You shall not commit adultery.” (Exodus 20:14)

This commandment is generally interpreted as any act of sexual intercourse outside of marriage.  This interpretation is not historically accurate.  Adultery meant sexual intercourse with a person who was either married or engaged to someone else.  Understand that a married man was not guilty of “adultery” for having sex with an unmarried woman.  At this time, women were property and while they held a higher social status than slaves they were property all the same.  Having sex with a married or engaged woman was regarded as misuse of another man’s property.

The punishment is found in Leviticus 20:10:

“If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.”

So are those wishing for the United States to follow the Ten Commandments suggesting that we treat women as property and kill everyone who commits adultery?

The Eighth Commandment reads:

“You shall not steal.” (Exodus 20:15)

This is another short commandment and most likely the simplest and most direct.  The Eighth Commandment is in sync with modern day laws, but the punishment is not. The punishment for stealing is found in Exodus chapter 22:

“If a man… lets his animal … graze(s) in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field….”

“For every matter of trespass, whether it be for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for clothing, or for any kind of lost thing, about which one says,’This is mine,’ the cause of both parties shall come before God. He whom God condemns shall pay double to his neighbor.”

While these punishments rightfully deal with providing restitution, they are demanded in ways that are not appropriate for our culture today.  Quite possibly our judicial system would be wise to reconsider giving jail terms and instead create programs through which convicted thieves work to pay back the victim.

Do the Religious Conservatives, who are for both stiff jail sentences and for basing our culture upon the Ten Commandments, realize that the Eighth Commandment calls for the thief to make restitution and not serve time?

The Ninth Commandment reads:

“You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.” (Exodus 20:16)

The punishment is found in Deuteronomy 19:16-21:

“If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime… The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother…  Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

This Commandment says that it is wrong to lie in court.  This verse does not address lying outside of court.   The ending, “against your neighbor” raises the question of who qualifies as one’s neighbor.  Does this mean that it is okay to give false testimony in court against someone who is not your neighbor?

In a tribal culture the moral code for how a fellow tribe mate is treated is different that the moral code for how someone for another tribe is treated.  Is America a melting pot?  Are we a land that welcomes those of many cultures?  Or is America tribal?  If we are tribal,  what exactly does it mean to be an American?  Is the true American only a Christian?

The Tenth Commandment reads:

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” (Exodus 20:17)

While coveting is unhealthy so is considering people as property.  The thought  that my neighbor actually owns his wife is despicable.  Furthermore “manservant” and “maidservant” actually refer to slaves.   The lexicon for “manservant” is ‘ebed, a servant in bondage.   The lexicon for “maidservant” is ‘amah, a female slave.

The tenth commandment says not to covet what your neighbor has including his slaves.  Nowhere does God say that owning slaves is wrong.  So according to God it is alright to own another human being but it is a sin to be jealous. At least the Bible doesn’t demand that a jealous person be put to death.

We live in a nation that claims to support the freedom of religion.  Americans are Agnostics, Atheists, Buddhists, Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Hindus, Humanists, Islamic, Jews, Protestants, Taoists, Unitarians, and Wiccans.  Of course the list goes on and on.  The Christian’s desire for the Ten Commandments to be the United State’s official moral law would promote the outlawing of all other religions and beliefs.  Hopefully more people than just Atheists use their minds and question the health of making religious law the foundation of our culture.

Paul is a member of Connecticut Valley Atheists. The views expressed in this posting are his own and do not necessarily represent those of Connecticut Valley Atheists or its individual members.

by mr dan

Check out the NEW vlog.

It’s all too easy to pick on the Catholics for allegations of child sexual abuse, and especially for their active role in attempting to cover up the allegations and protect those accused.  It’s very fashionable to rant about pedophile priests and make altar boy jokes.  And an especially simple way to get your YouTube hits up and start a comment war is by saying the Catholic Church is a protector of pederasts, corrupt cons who destroyed the lives of countless children and tried to toss the evidence in the trash along with last week’s uneaten communion wafers.

So let’s do that now.

The state of Connecticut currently has a statute of limitations on legal action in cases involving alleged abuse of children. It states that  “no action to recover damages for personal injury to a minor, including emotional distress, caused by sexual abuse, sexual exploitation or sexual assault may be brought by such person later than thirty years from the date such person attains the age of majority.” This means that no one over the age of 48 can ever file a lawsuit or bring a case to trial against someone who may have sexually abused them when they were children.  Early last month, House Bill 5473 was introduced, which would remove that statute.  The Archdiocese of Hartford  responded swiftly, first circulating fliers and bulletin inserts encouraging Catholics to denounce the bill, saying it unfairly targets the church and will cost them too much money.  Then the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property took out a full-page ad in the Hartford Courant calling the bill “persecution against Catholics” and a “sacking of the Catholic Church’s assets,” asking, “Is It Fair That the Innocent Pay for the Guilty?”  Perhaps most sickeningly, the ad blames any abuse that may have occurred on “the moral rot of our hypersexualized culture,” while also claiming that the problem has been effectively handled within the church and blaming things like “false-memory syndrome” for the prevalence of the accusations. Repeatedly, the focus has been that the accusers are just too nettlesome to the church, and that we shouldn’t give them more license to cause trouble.

Blaming the victim is nothing new to a culture whose first question to an alleged rape victim is “What were you wearing?” or “What did you think happened at dorm parties?” or “Well, what were you doing in the produce aisle at that hour anyway?”  It is only the sheer volume and diversity of the allegations against the Catholic Church that have convinced the collective consciousness that, hm, perhaps there might be something to all of this.

Why would anyone need more than thirty years to get around to making such an accusation?  Well, threats may have been made against the victims and their families.  Memories of the incident may have been repressed.  The victim may not have been aware of their legal options until much later.  Sometimes when complaints are made, the victim is told to shut up and stop causing trouble, and now that so many other abuse cases are coming to light, he or she may think that it is finally possible to try their tormentor.  If the abuser is a family member or trusted friend, such an accusation can tear a family apart.  Or they may have wanted to wait until their kids were out of school or their parents had passed on to begin a legal action that could potentially turn their lives upside down.  Or sometimes, when you’ve suffered terrible trauma, it can just take many years before you are able to come to terms with it, and still many more to discuss it with others.

For whatever reason, thirty years may not be enough.  It is true that accusations that are forty years old or more can be difficult to defend against.  But without strong evidence, it is a difficult case for the accuser to win, and if the evidence is strong it doesn’t matter how good your defense is.

If this bill is so unfair, why is it only the Catholics who are fighting it?  Shouldn’t anyone who risks being charged with a crime be worried?  We haven’t seen hot, amorous teachers, trenchcoat-wearing playground-lurkers or creepy old men united against it…except the Catholics, of course.

Let’s just let anyone who needs to allege abuse have their day in court.  Does the Catholic Church not have faith in the judicial system to weed out that percentage that is being dishonest?  I can hardly think of anything worse than suffering sexual abuse, but a strong contender might be to be innocent and find yourself accused of committing such a heinous act.  For the sake of both plaintiff and defendant, the truth needs to be determined by a court of law. If I were the head of a large organization whose members were being accused of such despicable misdeeds, I would stop at nothing and spare no expense, even if it meant selling my solid gold mansion, to see that the claims were properly vetted.  Is money more important than justice, than reputation?  The guilty need to be punished, the innocent need to be exonerated, and the victims need peace and safety.  Obstructing justice helps no one.

But sadly, that day will not come any time soon.  The bill has been withdrawn by its authors, citing a lack of support.  Personally I would prefer a sure-to-fail vote to withdrawing the bill, because at least that way we get a precise list of who in the General Assembly is ignominious enough to oppose letting victims of sexual abuse seek justice.

I wish I could tell you that this insanity is coming only from the higher-ups in the church, that lay Catholics are responsible people who agree with me and, hopefully, you, that abusing a child in any way is unconditionally unacceptable, and anyone who violates our very simple and essential freedom to not be molested deserves swift and severe punishment.  But a letter to the editor of the Hartford Courant proves that is not universally true.

This bill will only benefit lawyers whose motivation is greed, and it will cause more financial hardship to the church. In the end, no amount of money can bring peace of mind to the victims; only God can, through the grace of forgiveness.

Helen Ryan, Enfield

A friend of mine asked me, “In what kind of bizarro universe do the victims need forgiveness and the predators do not?”  The only answer I could think of? Heaven.

There’s the Catholic Church for you.  Still blaming the victims.  Still fighting justice.  Still thinking only of money.

mr dan is the vice president of Connecticut Valley Atheists.  The views expressed in this posting are his own and do not necessarily represent those of Connecticut Valley Atheists or its individual members.