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.

by mr dan
Watch the vlog:

So you survived Christmas.  If not, I celebrate your ability to enjoy this blog from beyond the grave.  You might want to creep on over to the nearest university science department and announce your amazing discovery.

But for those of you with pulses, Christmas came once again like it always does. Like it always will.  Nothing can stop it.  Not even Bill O’Really and the American Family Association’s imagined “War on Christmas.”

In the past the Ice Cold War has focused mainly advertisers not saying “Merry Christmas,” and Christians insisting that they have a first amendment right to walk into any department store from Halloween to New Year’s and see a gargantuan sign telling them that they were born into the right religion.  This year much of the attention was focused on American Atheists’ controversial billboard claiming that the story of Jesus’ birth is a myth.

But some kept their eyes on the prize: never tiring in their struggle to make America’s one true church — the shopping mall — a place for Christians only.

The American Family Association, one of those despicable “Jews and Queers control the media” organizations, puts out a Naughty and Nice list every year, keeping good Christians up to date on which stores it’s okay to shop at, and which ones they have to cross themselves as they walk past.  If you can think of a company, AFA has probably organized a boycott against it, either because the company themselves is scandalously non-Christian, or because they’ve run an advertisement during a television program the with a gay character or something.

Basically, you get on the naughty list by not saying “Christmas” enough.  This year, the Nice list — which includes Target, Walmart, Sears and Rite Aid — is more than three times longer than the Naughty list — featuring Barnes & Noble, Foot Locker and Victoria’s Secret.  The AFA regards this ratio as a victory, but truthfully there is mixed information about whether their boycotts actually work.

A few things pop out at me when I look at these lists.  For one thing, who the hell does their Christmas shopping at Rite Aid?  And what about Victoria’s Secret?  According to the AFA, good proper virtuous Christians aren’t permitted to browse the aisles at America’s most popular lingerie shop because they don’t honor Jesus by constantly mentioning that it’s his birthday.  I mean, what Christian was planning to buy a pair of tiger-print Bare Ultimate Hiphugger panties from the Body by Victoria collection for his wife?  Or his mistress….or himself — okay, bad example.

Clothing retailer Gap was back on the naughty list this year after being tagged last year as not Christmas-friendly.  Let’s take a look at one of last year’s television spots, part of the campaign known as “Go Ho Ho.”  Like most Gap ads, this one features dancers dressed in tacky clothes performing some rather impressive moves.  And it features a cheer, which by definition makes it a little annoying.  But if you listen to what they’re saying, it actually makes a lot of sense.

Two, four, six, eight
‘Tis the time to liberate.

Go Christmas, go Hanukkah
Go Kwanzaa, go Solstice
Go classic tree, go plastic tree
Go plant a tree, go without a tree

You eighty-six the rules
You do what just feels right
Happy Dowhateveryouwannukkah
And to all a cheery night.

Yes, the AFA boycotted the company for being inclusive.  Gap later released an Old Navy ad featuring those awful mannequins that used both “Happy Holidays” and “Merry Christmas,” and so they were taken off the list, but made it on again this year.

To tell you the truth, I rather like the “Go Ho Ho” ad.  It recognizes the fact that many people are celebrating one holiday or another this time of year, one that often includes gift exchange, and also the freedom we all have to do whatever we want.  Not like other retailers who insist that the only way to be a good person is to stuff so many presents under the tree that it actually lifts it off the ground, and when you open them the tree falls on your aunt Mildred.  And how many women fall prey to the jewelers’ ads saying that if your boyfriend doesn’t propose to you this Christmas then he doesn’t really love you?

Advertisers are almost as devious as religions, and they use almost the same tactics.  Don’t fall for their manipulation that promises you love and group acceptance in exchange for your money and you passing on their trendy artificial-feel-good messages to others.  Just think for yourself.

My sincere wish for you and yours during the Christmakwanzukkah season is the same that is for you and yours every day of the year.  I hope you did exactly what you wanted to do.  I hope you didn’t hurt anyone, or go out of your way to offend people, or focus on how much better you are than people who believe different things.  I hope you met your responsibilities and found the time to enjoy yourself too.  I hope that, if you wanted to, you got to see your family and friends, and they all got along.  I hope there was good food, but I hope you didn’t eat too much, and I especially hope you didn’t drink too much, and if you did, for the love of godzilla I hope you didn’t drive anywhere.    I hope you were happy and safe and that you continue to be.  I wish this for you on December 25th, and on March 3rd, and August 19th and Septober 39th.

Happy Dowhateveryouwannukkah.  I wish I’d come up with that.

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:

Atheists don’t have a lot of holidays.  Sure, Darwin’s birthday — but there’s not really a whole lot on the atheist calendar.  So it’s especially frustrating when people tell us that we shouldn’t stop to recognize the Winter Solstice.  Doing so is a crime for which atheists are routinely excoriated, due to the colossal ignorance the public has about atheists and the solstice.

People like holidays.  It’s one of the reasons religion is so popular.  Sprinkled throughout the calendar are random days on which you can eat a feast, share presents, sing songs, play games, and be with the people you love.  Sometimes these festivals also include not eating, or eating really disgusting things because it’s a tradition, giving up stuff you like, reading boring and ignorant books, singing outside in stupidly cold temperatures, and praying to nonexistent magical people in the sky.

So, given this obvious fact that holidays are, well, fun but fictitious, why would atheists mark the winter solstice?

Well, there are a few reasons.  The first is that Christmas is a gift-giving holiday, and in my experience, “Sorry, I don’t believe in the magical sky daddy” never seems to placate anybody — they still want their presents. Some atheists feel pressured to participate in holiday gift-giving by their friends and families, while others genuinely enjoy sharing presents and spending time with people we care about.  I fall into both categories, and it’s just a lot more rewarding to me to buy a Solstice card or present rather than have my gift be a tacit endorsement of Magic Baby Day.

But the second reason has to do with history and science, and the modern world’s proud ignorance of each.  For all people will point out to me — incessantly — that the Solstice is a Pagan holiday, I have to constantly remind them that it isn’t. That’s right, the solstice is not a Pagan holiday.  It isn’t even a religious holiday.  It isn’t even a holiday.  It isn’t even a day.  It’s an astronomical event that lasts only an instant around which Greeks, Romans, Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Druids, Norse, Wiccans and many others have fixed their religious holidays.

People noticed that the sun was going away, and they wanted it to come back.  They made an observation, which is the basis of science.  But the primitive cultures who made this first step didn’t know how to take the next —  to figure out why the sun was going away.  So they did the same thing any lousy parent does when their child asks a question to which they don’t know the answer — they just made stuff up.

People commonly believed that for the last half a year, dark forces had been conquering light, and the winter Solstice was the day that light began to kick the dark’s ass.

To the Slavs, the solstice is the day that the sun god Hors is resurrected as Koleda after being defeated by the evil Black God.  Though this happens every year at the same time, Hors for some reason never hears the Black God coming.

Norse pagans recognize the longest night as the time when Frigg gave birth to the Light, also known as her sun Baldr.  He would later become invincible to everything except mistletoe, a tradition that continues with nerds at holiday parties to this day.

To the early Germans, the solstice symbolized the coming of Hertha, the goddess of light and domesticity, who would slit your belly open if you ate anything but fish and gruel that night. How very domestic.

The Shinto of Japan thought that the sun goddess Amaterasu had been hiding in a cave, and brought light back to the world when the other gods lured her out with loud noises and a mirror.

The Inca believed that Inti, the sun god, was running away, and so they built a huge stone column in Machu Picchu to tie him to, which every solstice they pretended to do.

The Maori of New Zealand believe that the winter solstice was the day that the sun got sick of living with his wife in the north, and left to go stay with his other wife in the south.  Imagine how different our weather would be if his northern wife just had a pull-out sofa he could sleep on when they fought.

Christians don’t really have a theological/climatological reason why winter is different from summer, but they do roughly fix the solstice as the day their Messiah was born fatherless in a barn and visited by a trio of wise guys in celebration of the fact that he would later grow up to be the world’s most successful illusionist and salesman-of-the-month at Slippery Gabe’s Snake Oil Emporium before being betrayed, pleading the fifth, and suffering the gruesome but utterly unspectacular death of a common enemy of the state all so that we could be forgiven for slightly exceeding the speed limit and masturbating.

It’s no coincidence that December 25th, which Christians decided about three hundred years after he died would be Jesus’ birthday, falls only a few days after the Solstice.  All other religions were busy this time of year celebrating rebirth and the return of light, so it made sense to celebrate the resurrected “way and the light” at this time.

These stories are myths, invented to explain what was unexplainable in the absence of a scientific understanding of astronomy.  The winter solstice is an important time in all religions solely because of the scientific ignorance that created and perpetuated those beliefs.  What better time, then, to celebrate the scientific advancements and understanding that freed us from those theological bonds?

On the winter solstice, we celebrate not the apparent movement of the sun, but our ability to understand the way the sun appears to move across our sky each day.  This year, on December 21st at 11:38 pm UTC (or whenever you get around to reading this), take a moment to remember all the primitive ignorant cultures who got it so wrong, some of whom persist in their ignorance to this day, and the heroic men and women of science who dared to say to the various churches and governments that oppressed the people with nonsense, “No, you are wrong! The earth goes around the sun, it is angled at 23.44 degrees, and rabbits, no matter how giant or anthropomorphic, do not lay colored eggs.”

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:

All the Christians in Christ-town found Christmas quite fair,
But the non-Christians, who made up two-thirds of the world’s population, didn’t care.
Now they didn’t hate Christmas at all — au contraire
They just wanted the Christians to stay out of their hair.

They wanted to know if there was any sane reason
Why Christians got mad at the words “holiday season,”
And why, outside Christ-town, every town square and green
Was besmirched with the birth of the old Nazarene.

So the non-Christian leaders asked the Christians politely
Whether Christian contraband could be stationed more rightly
In their houses, their yards, their churches and ministries,
Rather than tax-payer funded vicinities.

Instead of a reasoned and left-brained response
Their reaction was angry and mad all at once.
“They don’t celebrate Christmas!” they cried with a sneer
“They have no joviality, no pep, and no cheer!

Perhaps they’re just cold, or they worship false idols!
Or weren’t beaten severely enough with their Bibles!
But we know that the most likely reason of all
Must be that their hearts are two sizes too small!”

Now the non-Christians heard this and stifled a snigger.
For their hearts, and all parts, were as big if not bigger.
Most were prone to charity and kindness and love,
A few even without fear of fire from above.

But the Christians tried hard to make everyone join in
Their boisterous festivities and unbounded toiling.
Christmas could not be a season for some
If the Christians were ever to have any fun.

They set out to desecularize what once had been free
and make this land a Noel-ocracy,
To make sure the government supported their cause
And chose Santa instead of the Establishment Clause.

No one could be seen not enjoying the holiday
or not watching a poorly-acted Dickensian teleplay.
Every store was required to play Christmas songs
Which were musically vapid and ran far too long.

The tintinnabulation of bells was ceaseless,
And you couldn’t have a parade without a shout-out to Jesus.
Some Christmas fanatics were even so ambitious
That they’d kick you in the chestnuts if you didn’t say, “Merry Christmas.”

And outside their homes they competed collectively
To see who could use up the most electricity,
With flashers and beepers and blinkers and strobes
To inculcate Christmas in our frontal lobes.

And once it was established that this time of year
Owed everything to Jesus and Santa’s reindeer,
and not, for example, to axial tilt,
Then came the time to pour on the guilt.

“We need a way,” thought the good Christian leaders,
“to slander those unAmerican unbelievers
Those scoundrels, those fools who hath said in their hearts
that there is no God, just science and the arts.

Something that will make them seem stupid and lit’ler
And, if possible, even link them with Hitler.
To smear these worshippers of Galapagan finches
We’ll brand them all as Scrooges and Grinches!

Yes, Grinches, my friends, for they hate Christmas cheer
They hate the most wonderful time of the year.
Taking literary characters out of context is what we’ll do,
Just like we did to Horton Hears a Who.”

“Wait just a minute,” said one kindly Protestant.
“Isn’t that drastic, deceptive and incompetent?
I mean, the Grinch wasn’t simply not a believer.
He waged war on all the good Christmas Eve-ers.

“His hatred of joy and singing and laughter
had nothing to do with his views on Hereafter.
He was just mean and nasty, his heart was too small.
That doesn’t describe these non-Christians at all.”

And that kindly old Protestant who’d never been hated
Found himself promptly defenestrated.
“Any other objections?” asked the good Christian leaders.
“Nah, we’re cool,” said the pious believers.

And so the tintinnabulators went forth
With slander and calumny from south to the north.
Now instead of just being different from the majority
Non-Christians had to deal with being thought of horribly.

But the so-called Grinches continued to be kind
And generous and loving as they were inclined,
For what could the non-Christians do in this crisis?
Just hope the Christians’ hearts would eventually grow fifteen sizes.

So remember, I’ve got no problem with your Christmas tree
(Even though it’s tacky) — I’m just glad we’re all free
To live in a land where we may worship, or not,
A magic baby, a stack of turtles or a floating tea pot.

And if I may just preempt those about to object:
To the great Dr Seuss I mean no disrespect.
But there’s one stand from which I will not budge one inch.
Whatever you do, don’t call me a Grinch.

by mr dan
Watch the Vlog:

Holy cow — the atheists are proselytizing!  Surely you’ve caught the kerfuffle over American Atheists’ billboard outside the Lincoln Tunnel proclaiming “You Know it’s a Myth — This Season, Celebrate Reason!” I’m glad to see that people are publicly challenging the privileged status Christianity receives in America, especially because we in Connecticut Valley Atheists are well familiar with this sort of battle.

For years, the town of Vernon, CT, has allowed a crèche — that is, a nativity scene depicting a notably old and considerably Aryan baby Jesus in a manger with his mother and, ahem, father — on the town green.

Vernon resident and State Director of American Atheists Dennis Paul Himes complained in 2007 that the presence of the nativity scene violated the Constitution.  The government essentially gives a thumbs-up to Christianity and its traditions, and uses tax money to advertise the religion, while disregarding all of Vernon’s non-Christian residents and stating that Vernon is a Christian city.  The mayor at the time, Ellen Marmer, reportedly agreed with Himes, but as one of the town’s non-Christian residents herself, she feared that her Republican opponents in the upcoming election would smear her as anti-Christian if she did not allow the crèche.  So she reached somewhat of a compromise; any group who applied and paid a $25 fee could erect an appropriate display in 10 foot by 10 foot square during the month of December.

This compromise was still unfair because it allowed further violations of the separation of church and state rather than putting a stop to the ones that already existed.  Any encroachment of religion into government or government into religion (except where the public good is concerned) threatens the everyone’s liberty.  So potentially allowing Jews, Muslims, Satanists, Scientologists and even atheists to violate the Constitution in the same way the Christians had been doing was far from ideal.  Government should never be in the business of endorsing religion or nonreligion. There really should be no religious displays at all on town, state or federal property, but if we could use the opportunity show people that such a violation is wrong, then it would be wise not to pass it up. Despite the compromise, Marmer lost her bid for reelection, and when Republican Jason McCoy took office, one of his first headaches was this: “Imagine No Religion,” erected by Connecticut Valley Atheists, a group that Himes had formed and become president of earlier in the year.

Some degree of outrage ensued, with citizens, organizations and the media calling it “offensive,” “intolerant,” “insulting,” “hateful,” and a whole slew of other unwholesome adjectives. Some said that our message was too “political”, but Himes replied that “The original question was whether Vernon would have a nativity scene on church property or town property. The difference between those two is a political difference.”

The Christian crèche is political too because it seeks through government action to convert people and to imply that belief is more American than nonbelief, especially when Christians defend their use of public property to proselytize by saying that America is a Christian nation (it isn’t) built on Christian values (it really isn’t).

Others were supportive, and many atheists and believers alike wrote to us to say that we were right to fight the violation.  Many said they’d never known there were atheists in their town — a revelation that pleased some and angered others. Reportedly several people and groups sought legal action to have the display removed.  While we would have welcomed that irony and the legal battle to follow, none of these attempts apparently got off the ground.  However, the mayor reacted in a laughably immature fashion.  Even though there already was a town-decorated Christmas tree in the park as well as a nativity scene, he ordered a second tree to be placed on the green — right in front of our display — and apparently didn’t provide them with a ladder.  And when told by a reporter that it obscured our message, he replied, “Oh, really? That’s unfortunate.”

The outrage continued the next two years, even as our messages got even less offensive.  “May Reason Prevail — Support Separation of Church and State” is, I would say, fairly innocuous.  I mean, it’s only promoting the logical and legal application of the US Constitution, a document far more sacred and worthy than any holy book.  I guess it wouldn’t matter if we had said “Merry Christmas from Connecticut Valley Atheists” or “Christianity is Super but Atheism’s Rather Neat Too.”  The point isn’t what we say, it’s that we exist to say it.  Even the mayor himself was reportedly personally offended by last year’s sign: “30 Million Americans Are Good Without God. Are You?”  Merely the suggestion that you don’t need religion to be a good person is an attack on their faith.

Every year our message has served to promote something positive about atheism: that Humanist beliefs do not motivate people to fly planes into buildings, that secular societies are better and more free than theocracies, and that millions of Americans have no problem being moral without dogma.  I can’t wait to see the townspeople go absolutely bananas as we unveil this year’s design: “Be Good For Goodness’ Sake.”

The message is that you shouldn’t need religion to tell you how to be moral.  Goodness is itself a virtue.  It’s always struck me as odd that the Christmas classic “Santa Claus is Coming to Town” encourages children to behave themselves because they are constantly being watched, and yet contains the line “be good for goodness’ sake.”  Haven Gillespie, who wrote the lyrics to the song, most likely added it as an alliterative play on the expression “for goodness’ sake” without considering the mixed message it sends.  But if the children behave themselves just to get lots of presents from Santa, are they really being good?  Have they really learned the difference between right and wrong, morality and corruption? Or are they just trying not to annoy their parents and Santa simply to get fun toys?

If you want to read between the lines — something Christians are fantastic at when looking for something to be offended about — the statement also equates God with the myth of Santa Claus.  One is a magical bearded man who lives on top of the world, watches everybody at once, and uses his supernatural powers to reward the good and punish the bad, and the other is Santa Claus.   Think about it.

This season we hope you’re all being good because, well, because it’s good to be good.  I have my principles and my morals, arrived at through logical analysis, and I stick to them because I think I’ll be a better person if I do.  Of course we can never be completely selfless; I try to treat people with respect because I hope they’ll return the favor to me and to others, but that makes the world a more enjoyable place for everyone to live.  It has nothing to do with what’s written in an ancient book or what I’m afraid will happen to me when I die.  And if I do end up in Hell or with coal in my stocking, at least I’ll have the satisfaction of knowing that I tried to be a decent person, and that I never followed any arbitrary nonsensical codes just to earn a heavenly reward.  At this and all seasons, think about what you can do to be good and to make the world a better place, and ask yourself whether charitable acts, kindness, respect and support to those who need it will have more effect on the world than prayers, psalms, and statues of freakish Aryan babies on government property.

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:

A couple of years ago, I was a guest on a local radio program called Chaz and AJ in the Morning on WPLR, New Haven.  The show follows the format of pretty much every morning drive-time show, and Chaz and AJ are, we’re led to believe, rather ordinary people. Not doctors or political analysts or activists or fundamentalist preachers — just regular guys with microphones.  On this occasion they wanted somebody to talk to about why those cranky atheists get so upset about Christmas trees and people saying Merry Christmas.  Connecticut Valley Atheists was still a rather new group but we’d recently gotten some exposure for (legally) erecting a display critical of religion right next to the nativity scene on the town green in Vernon, CT.  WPLR invited a member of the group to do a phone interview for the program, and as vice president I accepted.

I knew that these guys were shock jocks whose goal was to make me look stupid, and that most of the listening audience would hate me before I opened my mouth, so I figured that as long as I spoke clearly and carefully and was never rude, I’d get through the interview in one piece without embarrassing myself and atheists everywhere.

Not surprisingly, they hardly let me finish a sentence, especially when I tried to explain that we had no problem with Christmas trees or vague holiday-themed imagery, as they kept insisting, but objected to explicit Christian imagery, such as nativity scenes or crosses, being endorsed by local, state and federal government.  This, I argued, constitutes a government endorsement of religion which restricts everybody’s first amendment right to free exercise of their faith and makes those who don’t agree with the majority feel like second-class citizens.

And so, I laid out what I thought was a pretty good and effective argument.  It went like this:

If you were to travel to a predominantly Muslim nation and saw Islamic iconography and imagery everywhere you turned, you would probably feel like you were in the wrong place.  You may be welcome as a guest, but the message would be clear that this is not your country.

Of course I anticipated them retorting with some real or imagined flaw in my argument, or suggesting that the analogy was false and had no relevance to the conversation we were having.  So it was completely unexpected when they enthusiastically agreed with me.

“That’s right,” they shouted, “it’s NOT your country! You don’t belong there!”

I was stunned for about a half a second.  Which, on the radio, is a long time.  I couldn’t believe that they accepted my premise.  They agreed that the ubiquitousness of Christian imagery serves as an intentional reminder that America is a Christian nation, and if you are not a Christian, then this is not your country.

Remember, this isn’t Alabama or Texas.  This was in New Haven, Connecticut, home of Yale University, in the heart of supposedly liberal New England.  The second largest city in the richest state in the country, where apparently you can spout off the idea that non-Christians don’t belong in America without causing even the slightest bit of controversy.

I always believed that America was everybody’s country, whether you believed in Jesus or not. But you don’t have to go very far to find someone who will tell you that if you don’t follow the majority’s faith, you are a second class citizen.  You certainly don’t need to go so far as the Bible Belt.

So, what do you think?  Do you think this is a Christian country and the rest of us don’t belong here?  Or do you think there’s room for everyone, and that American values include tolerance, if not acceptance, of any and all ideas which don’t explicitly infringe upon anyone else’s rights or beliefs? Do you feel, as I do, that freedom of religion, so long as your religion doesn’t oppress others, is the most important of our constitutional rights?  Or do you think that the separation of church and state is a liberal conspiracy that can’t be found anywhere in the constitution?  And, perhaps the most frightening prospect of all, is there even a bible belt anymore, or has it wrapped its way across the entire nation?  Whatever you think, I may disagree with you quietly, or I may passionately hate what you believe in, but you’ll never catch me saying that this country doesn’t belong to you.

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

This week, CVA president Dennis Paul Himes and I were guests on National Public Radio’s the Colin McEnroe Show, discussing atheism and agnosticism in America.  We found it to be quite an enjoyable experience, and hope you’ll listen to the program and tell us what you think, and perhaps pass it on.

A high point of the show for me was show announcer Chion Wolf’s editorial about her own atheism.

Oh, and, for those of you from Christmas-celebrating families, a donation to NPR makes an effective and irreverent Christmas gift.

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.