by mr dan
Watch the vlog:

Last Monday was the observation of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr’s birthday, the day when we pretend to honor the great civil rights leader but really we just want a three-day weekend.  It was also inauguration day for Alabama’s new governor, Robert J. Bentley.  It took Governor Bentley less than an hour in office to show the state and the world what kind of leader he intends to be.

Addressing an audience at Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church in Montgomery, Bentley said, “Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother.” He continued, ”There may be some people here today who do not have living within them the Holy Spirit.  But if you have been adopted in God’s family like I have, and like you have if you’re a Christian and if you’re saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister.”

Well, Governor, I suppose that means “you and me” ain’t brothers.  Clearly Bentley’s grasp of civil rights, as well as Dr. King’s vision for a unified, peaceful nation, is as shaky as his grasp of the English language.

American Atheists’ communications director Blair Scott responded, “Alabama is entirely too religiously pluralistic and diverse to insult non-Christians by insinuating, even if unintentionally, that they are not viewed as equal. The irony of making such a statement on the day we celebrate the fight for civil rights in this country does not escape me.”

But he doesn’t believe in God so he doesn’t count. Rabbi Jonathan Miller, who represents a portion of the constituency one-sixth the size of atheism, wrote a letter to the governor, saying, “Our great nation, by law and tradition, provides us with religious freedom. And even though we do not believe exactly alike, we ought to see each other with brotherly affection, and as equals in conscience and human worth.”

Many other religious leaders from a variety of faiths vocalized their displeasure as well.  Even some Christians took issue with Bentley’s exclusionary position.  And even Fox News refused to whitewash it, stating on its website that his comments “condemned the beliefs of non-Christians.”

So what happens in politics when you anger enough people that Fox News can’t even find a way to make you look innocent?  You issue, through your communications director, a cookie-cutter apology two days later.

“If anyone from other religions felt disenfranchised by the language,” the statement said, “I want to say I am sorry. I am sorry if I offended anyone in any way.”

First of all, Bentley apologized to “other religions” but not to people of no religion.  Not really a surprise, and I doubt it was an accidental omission.  Secondly, this is the standard political apology.  “I’m sorry I offended anyone” is not the same as “What I said was insensitive and, more importantly, inaccurate.”  Bentley still believes that only Christians are his brothers and sisters, he’s just sorry that people got mad at him for saying it out loud.  It’s kind of like punching you in the face and then saying I’m sorry that you’re in pain.  It’s not a sincere apology.

Listen, Bob, I’m okay with the fact that I’m not your brother.  Do you know why?  Because I know a lot about you. I know your positions on various issues, and I know how I feel about them.  And to tell you the truth, I don’t like you, and not being your brother gives me a degree of pride you couldn’t possibly comprehend.

But the difference is that you don’t know anything about me.  I mean, I realize you don’t know me personally, and that I’m not your constituent, but you’ve stated that I’m not a person you care about just because I don’t share your specific beliefs on talking snakes and preaching zombies.

Like racists, homophobes, sexists and other bigots, you think you know all you need to know about me just because I’m not a Christian.  You’ve dismissed me without knowing anything about my views on any political issues, any social issues, whether I care about education or public service, whether I give money to charities or volunteer my time, whether I’ve served in the military or the Peace Corps, how I treat my friends and family, how I treat strangers, whether I’ll hold the door for someone or leave a penny in that little tray at the gas station.  These are among the many things that can make someone a good person.  Believing one particular myth out of the thousands that the human race has invented has nothing to do with it.

And yes, I realize that you’re a good, believing Christian who is only doing what the Bible tells you.  It’s true.  All these liberal Christians want to rewrite scripture and ignore the parts that they don’t like, including the part that’s obviously your favorite.  The part that says you should turn away all non-Christians because they are the anti-Christ.

“…many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.”  (2 John 1:7-8, NIV)

“If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.” (2 John 1:10-11, NIV)

So, you are without question a better Christian than someone who thinks the saved and the unsaved can be brothers and sisters. But you’re not a better person.  In fact, you’re a very bad person.  And being a good person is infinitely more important than being a good Christian.  And the Christians who strive to be good people even when it means ignoring the unwholesome passages of the new and old testaments are better people for it, even though they’re doing Christianity all wrong.  But you, Bob? Your ignorant position that faith is the only criterion by which to judge a person’s character is an embarrassment to this country.

I understand that some of you out there may think I’m being way too harsh on the governor.  And now that I think about it, I want to apologize to him.  Earlier in this blog I said something that seemed to imply that Governor Bentley has a poor grasp of the English language.  And I’m sorry if that comment offended anyone.

He’s still not my brother, though.

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

by mr dan
Watch the Vlog:

If you’re on Facebook ― you are on Facebook, right? Even your mom is on Facebook ― then you’ve probably witnessed a decent chunk of your friends and acquaintances absolutely flipping out over the recent news that the Zodiac signs have changed.

There’s a lot to sift through here, and sorting it all out is like trying to prove to you all the scientific reasons that I know Narnia doesn’t exist.  A board member of the Minnesota Planetarium Society with the fantastic name of Parke Kunkle recently claimed that the earth’s alignment with certain constellations has changed in the 2,000 years or so since astrology was invented by the Babylonians. This means that the astrological sign whose horoscope you’ve been insisting applies to you is probably not your true astrological sign.

Others say this is not news at all, and that there are two zodiacs, the sidereal and tropical zodiacs.  Kunkle is using the sidereal zodiac, which is based on when the earth is lined up with certain constellations, whereas most astrologers today use the tropical zodiac, which is based on when the sun appears to pass through certain constellations.

If that didn’t make sense to you, don’t worry.  In any case it certainly isn’t new news. Here, for example, is an article in Live Science that says exactly the same thing.  It was written in 2007.

New or not, real or not, people are freaking out.  Mr Kunkle didn’t just report the Zodiac-altering earth-wobble, he took the liberty of correcting it.  Not only did he overhaul the dates for each sign but he added a 13th one.

Sagittarius: Dec. 17-Jan. 20.
Capricorn: Jan. 20-Feb. 16.
Aquarius: Feb. 16-March 11.
Pisces: March 11-April 18.
Aries: April 18-May 13.
Taurus: May 13-June 21.
Gemini: June 21-July 20.
Cancer: July 20-Aug. 10.
Leo: Aug. 10-Sept. 16.
Virgo: Sept. 16-Oct. 30.
Libra: Oct. 30-Nov. 23.
Scorpio: Nov. 23-29.
Ophiuchus: Nov. 29-Dec. 17.

Ophiuchus has repeatedly been proposed as the thirteenth zodiac sign, a notion that has been getting additional attention for about the last 15 years.

Though nothing’s actually changed, for convenience sake I’ll be referring to the “old” system and the “new” system, even though they’re both “crappy” systems.  It doesn’t matter whether you embrace the new or the old because they’re both works of fiction.

Under the “old” system, I was a Leo, though people have always told me that I don’t act like a Leo.  I always assumed it was because no one ever told me what a Leo is supposed to act like.  Now under the “new” system, I am a Cancer, which, a quick survey of my friends says also doesn’t describe me well.  Which doesn’t bother me in the slightest, since I am aware that it’s all new-age hokum.  On the bright side, at least my symbol has changed from a sperm to a non-procreative sexual position.

I think what’s funniest to me is the desperate rationalization.  Somehow, somewhere, somebody invented a loophole to this “new” astrology.  Apparently, according to rumors spread on Facebook, the new signs only apply to those born after 2000. Or 2005.  Or 2007, or 2009, or 2010.  When “news” of the new astrology broke, I read about a dozen articles on it from different sources, and none of them included anything about it only affecting people born in a certain year.  Yet my friends and their friends came up with at least 5 different calendar years before which you don’t have to get your tramp stamp altered.  This is what is commonly known in the scientific community as making stuff up.

If astrology were real, and alignment of our chunk of rock floating in space with made-up patterns of other things floating in space actually had an effect on our lives, then the only way that a wobble in the earth’s rotation would affect only those born between 1 and 10 years ago is if it wasn’t a wobble but a major and sudden shift.  I think we would have noticed that.

To those of us more or less in touch with reality, astrology resembles nothing like the science we know.  But if you accept astrology then you accept that it is a science, which means you should approach it with the same scientific method with which the rest of us approach biology or chemistry or physics.  In the legitimate sciences, when you discover information that contradicts the views you previously held, you can’t simply dismiss it on the grounds that you don’t like it.

But as a consolation to those of you struggling to come to terms with your new astrological identity, I’ve taken the liberty of preparing your horoscope for today.  Plan your life around it.

• Sagittarius ― You’ve always thought your big toe was in charge of your foot, but the middle one is a born leader waiting for opportunity.  Let it lead, let it lead.
• Capricorn ― You look really great in leopard-print spandex.  No one has ever told you because they are jealous.
• Aquarius ― Take a chance this week.  Invite the Secretary of the Interior to your house for tea.  But don’t give him any sugar.  Then you’ll have him right where you want him.
• Pisces ― Let your heart make the calls today, but beware of roaming charges.  Your couch isn’t that comfortable.
• Aries ― Big changes are coming today.  Spoiler alert: you’re getting fired.
• Taurus ― An enticing pop-up add will offer you four more inches in four weeks.  Do not be tempted.  No one needs earlobes that big.
• Gemini ― You are the master of your own density.  But try to cut down on your mass.
• Cancer ― Now is not a good time to audition for Broadway musicals based on Marvel comics.  Your vibrato still needs a lot of work.
• Leo ― Employees must wash hands before returning to work.  If you’re not an employee, wash your hands before going back to your mom’s basement.
• Virgo ― Never take sex advice from anyone whose favorite position is missionary.
• Libra ― The back seat is the safest place for children under 12.  Children under forty pounds should be fed.
• Scorpio ― A much-needed change will bring good fortune, but only if you let go of your most cherished beliefs.  Honestly, the front doesn’t look like business and the back certainly isn’t any party I want to go to.
• Ophiuchus ― The stars all say that now is a good time to subscribe to my vlog, and leave a comment about how awesome it is, and post it on your Facebook and your Twitter and maybe get a tramp stamp of my face.

by mr dan
Watch the vlog:

Last week, when the 112th Congress took power, they did something I can respect: they read the Constitution aloud in its entirety. This is probably something that should be done every time a Congress is sworn in, perhaps even more frequently. But it brings to mind what so many say so often with so little to back it up. America, they say, is a Christian nation, established on Christian values, and that‘s why our founding fathers infused religion into the founding documents. Of course, like most silly arguments, it is easily dismissed by reading the documents in question.

If we are to count generously, the Constitution contains exactly eight references to religion. Four of these — Article One, Section Three, Clause 6; Article Two, Section 1, Clause 7; Article 6, Clause Three; and Amendment Four — refer to providing an “oath or affirmation” in order to take office or give testimony.  Even though, by definition, the word “oath” does not necessarily have a religious connotation, the writers of the Constitution chose to insert an additional secular safeguard: the right to opt for affirmation instead.   These four passages make it clear that religious faith is not necessary in order to enjoy civic freedoms.

Interestingly, Amendment Fourteen, Section Three refers again to oath but not affirmation. This section states that anyone who took an oath to be a federal or state officer and then engaged in rebellion, insurrection or treason cannot hold office again. But this has no bearing on the argument for three important reasons. Firstly, though it makes no mention of affirmation, one has the previously-mentioned right to affirm when entering those offices in the first place. Secondly, Congress removed this limitation in 1898. And thirdly, Congress did not ratify this amendment until 1868, which means it tells us nothing of the attitudes or intents of this country‘s founders between 1776 and 1787.

The Preamble states that the Constitution serves to, among other things, “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Like “oath,” the word “blessing” does not necessarily imply a deity. It can simply mean something for which one is grateful, and the term is probably a mere rhetorical flourish.

The first actual mention of religion comes in Article Six, Clause Three, which says that officials must make an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Wow, that‘s kind of the opposite of this being a Christian nation. In England — you know, that country we‘d just revolted against — there were many Test Acts, ranging from disavowing the Pope to denying transubstantiation, which restricted government office and other positions to members of the Church of England. Those who refused such oaths were often executed for treason. That‘s what a religious nation looks like, and it‘s something the founders of this country wanted nothing to do with. So, much to the vexation of some of my contemporaries, they made such discrimination unconstitutional. Even though eight states ignore this clause and require religious tests, the Constitution supersedes them.

And finally we come to what is perhaps my favorite sentence in the English language: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” The first two clauses of the first Amendment are known as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise clause. They declare that the Federal Government, and, in conjunction with the Fourteenth Amendment, the state governments, cannot make a state religion, and cannot tell people how to practice their religion. This doesn‘t apply to illegal or unsafe behaviors — it doesn‘t protect the right to practice polygamy, keep slaves or commit statutory rape, even if your faith condones it — but it does mean that the government cannot tell you what you have to believe or how you can express it.

So that‘s it. The only direct references to religion are those prohibiting the government from mingling with it. It never uses the words God or Creator, or mentions Christianity or Jesus, or any other religion.

But wait, you say — isn’t the first sentence of the Constitution that bit about how  “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”? Well, no. Firstly, that‘s in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. And it‘s actually the second sentence.

Still, it’s obvious from this statement that the Founders were making a Christian nation, right? Wrong. Like the Constitution itself, the number of references to Jesus Christ, the Abrahamic God, the Holy Bible, the Ten Commandments, the Holy Trinity, Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster are exactly zero. The Declaration has three vague and lame references to anything theological.

• All men are created equal: This is a statement that no man or woman is born inherently superior to any other. While some are smarter, stronger, better-looking or more talented than others, none of this changes how rights or laws affect them. Ultimately it stands in contradiction to the Holy Bible, which asserts that some tribes of the Earth are superior to others by God‘s choosing and through decent from Kings or powerful families, an idea quite antithetical to American values at the time of the Revolution.
  
• They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights: This is a rather Deistic statement. Most of the founders were Deists, who believed, in the absence of scientific evidence to the contrary, that a God had made this world, but does not have a hand in shaping day-to-day events, and that it was up to us to make our own laws. Deism is not atheism, but it is a stark contrast to Christianity and provides for no option but a secular government.
  
• The separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them: This too is hardly an atheistic statement but resembles nothing in Judeo-Christian philosophy. Nature‘s God may be a reference to the Deistic Creator or may again just be rhetorical, but either way the implication is that a nation ought to be free to make its own laws, not follow laws imposed on them by another nation or by a man in the sky. There‘s nothing in the story of Moses bringing down Commandments from a mountaintop or Paul writing that governments must be obeyed because all authority comes from God that implies that self-goverenence is God‘s will.

Some will point to other documents, such as the Mayflower Compact, as proof of the religious roots of this country. The Compact is replete with references to God and Christianity, but it‘s not actually a founding document of this country, and there‘s a deliberate reason that the authors of our founding documents took no inspiration from it and never quoted it.

No one denies that some of the founders were devout Christians who longed to live in a Christian nation. But those were the guys who lost all the arguments. This being a nation established by relatively sane people for their time, secularism won out. When throwing off the chains of monarchal tyranny, the founders decided it would be stupid to chain themselves up again in the tyranny that religion has a tendency to provide.

What good does it do to read a document if you don‘t understand it, or just make up things and pretend that they‘re in there? Whether it‘s the Constitution, the Bible, the Origin of Species or the Kama Sutra, if what you‘re saying is good or bad about a document isn‘t actually in there, then you are simply lying. Anyone can do that.

Of course, I‘m not so brainwashed with patriotism that I think America is the greatest country on earth or that it has no problems. But it‘s a really good country, and most of its problems have to do with failure to heed the founding documents, not the fact that Jesus doesn‘t get a shout-out in them. My crazy liberal secular progressive humanist bias leads me to think that a secular nation is better and freer than one with a state religion, and infinitely greater than one that favors religion over non-religion.

Now if we could just get the 112th Congress to see it that way.

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

by mr dan
Watch the vlog:

I’ve told you how Jesus of Nazareth was not necessarily the nicest guy all the time.  Personal flaws are something we tolerate in normal, mortal, imperfect humans, and can even add a great deal of charm to person’s character.  But when we deal with a demigod who is said to be the Messiah, flaws are not something one would expect to find, nor something we can tolerate.  Which may explain why the stories in the Bible which reveal Jesus to be a less-than-perfect moral leader are those with which Christians are so frequently unfamiliar.

Take for example the story of the Gadarene Swine.  Or the Gerasene Swine…or the Gergesene Swine.  The different Gospels, and the preceding manuscripts on which they are based, cannot agree on exactly where the story took place.  But they do agree on one thing: Jesus killed a whole bunch of pigs for no reason.

The story is told in Matthew 8:28-33, Mark 5:1-17, and Luke 8.26-37, and begins with Jesus and His band of merry men crossing the lake from Galillee.  It is on this journey that the Nazarene calms a raging storm which had terrified his disciples.  When they arrive on the other side, they find a man named Legion who is possessed with many demons.  Or, maybe they find two men, as Matthew asserts (but remember, there are NO inconsistencies in the Bible, and it NEVER contradicts itself).

The man/men ask(s) Jesus not to torment him/them (damn, these inconsistencies are a grammatical nightmare).  Then the demons beg Jesus not to banish them to Hell.  Fair enough; if I came from Hell I probably wouldn’t want to go back there.  So they ask Him to instead send them into a large herd of pigs which was grazing nearby.

Jesus agrees, and saying “Go,” allows the demons to leave the men and possess the pigs.  With this the whole herd — nearly two thousand, Mark tells us — rushes down the steep bank and drowns in the lake.

Now this may have been a kind thing to do to the man/men affected with the demons, but it gives no consideration to the hogs he just murdered.  Rather than a show of His power and mercy, this passage is an example of His cruelty and disregard for life.

And before you defend this slaughter of two thousand sinless porkers as a necessary evil to cure a man, or, um, two men, of some demons, simply turn back a page.  Just twelve verses earlier, Matthew tells us that “when evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to Him, and He drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick.”  (Matthew 8:16, NIV)  No mention of hogicide, just the sort of effortless demon-banishing we’d expect from the Son of Man.  If He can cast out demons with a word, then we have to assume that this elaborate brutality was either for show or for His own amusement.

And if you’re not as concerned with animal welfare as I am, surely you can recognize that those pigs belonged to someone.  There wasn’t just a prodigious pack of piglets lounging on the beach and playing volleyball.  Somebody was raising those swine, and had paid for them, and would now have to pay for new ones if they wanted to, you know, survive.

The Bible says that those tending the pigs ran to tell the townspeople what they had seen.  It doesn’t mention anything about them being utterly freaking furious about the fact that Jesus just killed all their hogs, but it doesn’t say that they weren’t, and I rather expect they were absolutely outraged.

There’s your Messiah, Christians: a hogicidal maniac, a sow-slaying sociopath, murdering defenseless animals and destroying the livelihood of farmers when He could just as easily have eradicated the demons by snapping his fingers.  This unnecessary and unforgivable hogocaust is just one more chapter in the long list of reasons why Jesus cannot be considered morally perfect.  Once again, personal flaws and immorality are forgivable, but if there are two central tenets of Christianity they are this: almost any sin can be forgiven if you confess and repent, and Jesus is absolutely freaking perfect.  I don’t recall Jesus ever asking forgiveness for this or any of His other misdeeds.  And Christians would never expect it of Him, partly because they don’t know these stories, and partly because they are raised with the Nixonian mindset that if Jesus did something it must be the right thing.

If you’re a Christian, I’m going to suggest that you do something that your priest, pastor, minister or deacon has probably never asked you to do.  Read the Bible.  And I don’t just mean John 3:16 or whichever chapter your Inspirational Verses app hand-picked for you to read this week.  Actually open it up and flip through it. You may be surprised that in many cases it says the opposite of what the church is telling you.

And whether you’re a Christian or not, remember that no one can be truly revered if we give them a pass for their actions, and redefine morality to fit their behavior.  Anyone can make mistakes have moral failings, but if you model your life after someone you think is incapable of wrongdoing, you will probably be wrong a lot more often than your peers.

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