by mr dan
Watch the vlog and see many more examples of hilarious pareidolia.

Last week my ever-astute local media brought to my attention a notable elm tree in the town of Wallingford, CT, which some believers claim bears the face of Jesus.

The tree, in front of David Doolittle‘s North Main Street home, had a limb cut a few years ago, and what looks like the face of the Nazarene appears in its place.

Wallingford is about an hour from me and I‘d never been there before, but as coincidence would have it, my band was due to play a show there only a few days later, less than 2 miles from the tree. Naturally, I had to make a pilgrimage.

I have to admit, the image is pretty obvious. Unlike some supposed miracles where you have to squint and turn your head the right way, this one very strongly resembles a somewhat goofy image of the traditional Western depiction of Jesus. Or at least a long-haired, bearded man. I can see how one might be tempted to take this as irrefutable proof that Jesus was actually a cartoon character.

Seeing funny images in random stuff is kind of a passion of mine. It’s what intelligent, or “not crazy,” people like to call pareidolia—the psychological phenomenon of attatching a special significance to a random stimulus. If you’re a word nerd, you’ve already noticed the word “idol” in there—both words come from the greek eidōlon, image or form (para- means beside).

Pareidolia can be a lot of fun. It can make a soap dispenser look terrified or a kayak look angry. It’s what makes people see a person in the clouds, or that face on Mars, or constellations in the night sky. It‘s how we know Mickey Mouse is a mouse, even though he looks nothing like one. It gives us the ability to see and interpret emoticons, Rorschach tests, and Georgia O’Keefe paintings.

Pareidolia gets a little scary, though, when the faithful not only see images of their religious icons everywhere they look, but also insist that the occurrences serve as proof of their God‘s magic and influence over this world. There‘s no end to the number of random smudges, smears, burns and growths that some faithful fools will call a miracle. The Virgin Mary on grilled cheese sandwich. Mother Theresa on a cinnamon bun. Jesus in a fish fillet. The name of Allah on the side of a goat. One of my favorites is a photo of a bonfire in Poland which some Catholics say shares a silhouette with Pope John Paul II.

Of course, because pareidolia is all in the eye of the beholder, each of us can interpret the image any way we wish.

Some believers say it was God‘s divine magic that brought the cartoonish image to Wallingford. More likely explanations include sap oozing from the tree, or the result of any number of diseases that trees can get. Though the limb was cut “three or four years ago,” Mr Doolittle only saw the image recently when someone pointed it out to him. Maybe the image just appeared (which is not so improbable if sap or disease is really the cause), or perhaps it‘s been there since the limb was cut, and Doolittle never noticed it until someone pointed it out.

Carl Sagan attributes the phenomenon of pareidolia to early humans’ need to easily recognize human faces with few details (for example, from a distance or in poor light). It also occurs in audio, giving rise to Elecronic Voice Phenomenon (EVP) and backwards masking. We see or hear a few details, and our brain does its job of trying to interpret them to the best of its ability, fitting it in to what it knows.  And if our intent is to see Jesus on a tree, or hear a Satanic message in a heavy metal song, or see male and female genitalia just about everywhere, it’s very easy for our brain to pull that off.

Why is it always the Muslims who see the name of Allah, and Catholics who see the Virgin Mary? Why do religious images only appear to members of that particular faith? Because when atheists see Jesus on a tortilla chip, they dip it in salsa and eat it. The tiny blurs have no significance to someone who isn’t looking for an idol to worship. People who are inclined to think that Jesus is always with them are going to see him everywhere.

Jesus has as many faces as the artists who have depicted him throughout the last two millennia. All the paintings, drawings, mosaics, film and theatrical interpretations and sculptures have tended to portray him in the image of the artist. If he ever existed at all, no one knows what he looked like, but it’s quite clear he didn‘t look anything like the traditional Western Jesus. Though he was supposedly a Jew, he has never been portrayed on film by a Jewish actor, and appears to be a white, Northern-European in most artistic images. And since the Apostle Paul wrote that “if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him” (1 Corinthians 11:14, NIV), it can be safely assumed that he did not have the flowing locks he wears on the walls of churches and museums — or the trees in Connecticut.

It tends to be only the craziest theists who think God works miracles through tortilla chips or soap scum or cinnamon buns.  But they are out there, trying to make miracles out of molehills–or claiming to see Jesus when the rest of us just see some sap in a tree.

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

by mr dan
Watch the Vlog.

Last week an article from CNN.com about spirituality got a bit of attention.  “Are there dangers in being ’spiritual but not religious’?” by CNN’s John Blake covers myriad angles of the supposedly “new” fad, including its trendy new acronym — SBNR — because young people won’t touch anything that can’t be abbreviated, and, what else, its Facebook page, because how else would young people know it existed?

The article has an obvious spin against the movement.  Right at the top he quotes a Jesuit priest named James Martin who believes the SBNR phenomenon “can lead to complacency and self-centeredness. If … a religious community makes no demands on you, why help the poor?”

It’s a good question, the implication of which is that people only help the poor because the church tells them to.  Which would seem to be a statement about the heartlessness of church members; that they are not altruistic but subservient, literally meeting the demands of the church rather than the interests of themselves and other human beings.

While there may be a good many who are like this, I tend to think that most people who are religious and charitable would have been charitable even if they were not religious.

In my experience, most atheists I know are more charitable than theists, and the charitable theists I’ve known who have drifted away from their churches tend to become more giving, not less.  But that’s just anecdotal evidence, so I ask you, James Martin, can you show me any data that indicates that as church attendance drops, so does charitable activity? Are there more homeless going hungry? Is less money going to cancer research?  Are fewer 5Ks being run?

It’s no surprise to me that a man who makes his living from the church would lash out at anyone who isn’t buying what he sells. After all, Martin’s tragic realization is much like that of the owner of a restaurant that serves only peanut butter and jelly.  It may work for a while, maybe even fifteen hundred, two thousand or five thousand years, but sooner or later everyone’s going to catch on that they’ve got that stuff in the pantry at home.  It’s so much easier and cheaper when you realize that you can just make it yourself, with almost limitless varieties of bread, jelly and peanut butter.

I’m not saying anything shocking by suggesting that religion has consistently been out of touch with the needs and desires of its followers since it began to organize itself into a scroll-based pyramid scheme thousands of years ago.  When my father was a kid, mass was still delivered in Latin, even though no one I know went to mass in Ancient Rome. If it took them so long to figure out that maybe we can communicate with people better if we speak their language, it doesn’t surprise me that the church today has difficulty reaching young people, who are too busy tending to their Farmville crops to care about the Eucharist.

So to answer the article’s question: Are there dangers in being “spiritual but not religious”?  Well, if CNN is to be believed, it might turn you into a chubby Adam Duritz-lookalike praying on a polluted beach in your underwear.  Other than that, it really depends on how far you take it.  Spirituality is just as delusional as religious dogma, so the acronym might as well stand for Satisfying, But Not Real. Most of religion’s major dangers in the modern world involve car-bombs, gaybashing and misappropriation of tax revenue.  I don’t see the SBNR movement carrying that flag.  But then there are other side-effects of religion, such as opting for prayer rather than medical treatment or deciding which bits of science and history are too ugly to teach to kids, and these are pitfalls into which the SBNRs may just as easily step.

The rise of SBNR does not mean that society is shifting toward atheism.  On the contrary, it means that people are seeing that the walls of their church are practically made of baloney, but that they still need a spiritual sky-daddy (or perhaps sky-mommy). That can lead to a lot of meaningless infighting about which sky-parent is better, but that’s basically what goes on in the world now, so I can’t imagine anything changing.  Without any unified leaders, the SBNR movement seems unable to make any large-scale impact on the world, even if they do have a Facebook page.

To me the most annoying thing about SBNRs is that they tend to assume that all of the world’s religions are true, and then pick the bits of dogma they find most interesting or easy, and pretend that that is the one true way.  This is what the article calls “Burger King Spirituality,” as in, Have it Your Way.  You can do this with philosophy, but you can’t do it with fact.  There are millions of philosophies. To live your life based on a blend of whichever make the most sense to you is logical, and whether we admit it or not it’s what we all do.  It doesn’t really matter whether a philosophical precept was originally uttered by Jesus or Muhammed or Karl Marx or Gandhi or Dr Seuss.  I’m fine with life being a philosophical salad bar.  But no salad bar is complete without a good sneeze guard, and in all cases, logic should deflect any wayward projectiles that religion will try to sneeze back in.  Let’s hope the SBNR’s keep theirs clean.

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 mr dan
Watch this as a vlog.

For the past three years, both of the public high schools in the town of Enfield, CT, Enrico Fermi High and Enfield High, have held their graduation ceremonies at the First Cathedral Baptist Church, a megachurch in Bloomfield, CT. Several other towns have done so as well. While it seems to me and others that incorporating such icons and ideology into the ceremonies of public schools constitutes a government endorsement of religion, and violates the students‘ and parents‘ rights to a secular education and graduation, efforts to move the ceremonies to a more appropriate location have been ineffective.  This is partly because each time both the school districts and the church have promised to secularize the facilities by covering or removing all of the religious iconography. But each time they have failed to do anything as simple as taking down a non-permanent banner displaying Christian Bible verses.

This year the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State filed a lawsuit against the district on behalf of 5 anonymous Enfield residents– two high school seniors and three of their parents. Atheists are getting the blame for this, and while we‘d love to take the credit, none of the five is a self-described atheist. Which doesn‘t matter at all; this isn‘t an issue of the existence or nonexistence of gods, or of religion versus irreligion. This is about freedom of religion–something that every decent person of any belief ought to stand behind–versus religious indoctrination — something that every thinking person ought to abhor. Nonetheless, the media has done its job of painting this as a Christians vs Atheists battle.

Throughout the winter and spring of this year the clash went back and forth. All other public school districts eventually announced they would find secular venues.  Enfield persisted in their fight to have the graduation in a Christian Church, until Judge Janet Hall ruled that they must find a secular alternative.  She wrote that the plaintiffs “clearly demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm … on the merits that holding the graduation ceremonies at First Cathedral violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Enfield appealed the ruling, even as they agreed to hold the ceremonies at the schools. The town insists that their graduation, despite being held in a religious facility, was to be a secular event. They also insist that students will be “harmed irreparably” if this secular event is not held in a religious facility. You can‘t have it both ways. The fact that you think it is crucial to hold the ceremony there proves that it shouldn‘t be there.

Those who argue that the relatively small number of plaintiffs should render the case absurd need a strong lesson in the US Constitution, a document which exists to protect the rights of all Americans, including unpopular minorities. A court has found that some students may be harmed if the graduation is held in the megachurch; no students will be harmed by holding the event in a secular facility. If you think harming some is better than harming none, then your religion failed to teach you morality as well.

The First Cathedral is an inappropriate venue not because of what goes on there on sunday mornings but because of what students, faculty and their families will be tacitly endorsing when they enter. The church, as should be expected, is replete with Christian imagery.

A very large cross rises above a stained glass cupola on top of the Cathedral’s roof. This cross is visible from all angles of the Cathedral’s surroundings.

Above the main entrance doors, there is a large cross (approximately 25 feet high and 10 feet wide) embedded within the window panes.

…a large fountain that could be perceived to be a representational shape of a tomb.  The jets that supply the water in the fountain are arranged in the shape of a cross…

…numerous pictures depicting biblical scenes, such as the birth of Jesus Christ.  On the first floor, there is a framed poster of the Lord’s Prayer.

These are just a few details from Judge Hall’s decision.  In short, the only people capable of covering all the religious paraphernalia inside and outside the megachurch are Christo and Jeanne-Claude.

All of this will undoubtedly serve to make any non-Christian attendees feel excluded.  Christians pretend to have a hard time understanding how religious imagery can alienate people of other beliefs, yet many seem to be thoroughly disgusted with any attempt to include other beliefs, philosophies, languages and lifestyles, and act as if their rights are being violated by not being permitted to spread their ideas. Vincent McCarthy, lead counsel for Enfield’s defense team, claimed that “graduating students … will be harmed irreparably, as they will needlessly forfeit their graduation ceremonies at First Cathedral.” He makes it sound as if having a religious graduation is a right that is being stripped from the students, but I’ve perused the Constitution and can find no support for such a right.

A further complication to the use of the church is the fact that taxpayer money will be used to pay for the services of an organization whose only purpose it promote a religious agenda, and this too is an unacceptable violation of our rights.

It has been falsely reported that the church is charging the school $5,000 or $8,000 to use the facility.  According to Judge Hall’s decision, the First Cathedral is charging $8,500 for the use of the church for the evening, an additional $1,000 for the rental of a temporary handicapped access ramp (because for some reason the church is not adequately accessable), and $1,160 for an afternoon reception — for each of the two schools.  That’s a total of $21,320 going directly into the pocket of a Baptist church. This comes at a time when the Hartford Courant is reporting that “About 25 teachers may be laid off, and more than 40 other staff positions may be cut” due to budget restraints in the town.

And because it is a fact that there were many alternative venues available, at a lower cost and closer to the schools, it must be concluded that the decision to hold the graduations in the megachurch was based on nothing more than the town’s desire for the ceremonies to be at least partly Christian.

I don’t think I need to descend into cliche by asking you to imagine the scene if graduation were held in a mosque, or if behind the students marching toward their hard-earned diplomas was a large banner that read “Darwin was right!” or  “Oh, the places you’ll go if global warming doesn’t kill you first.” Or why not hold it in a strip club or a gay bar? What’s the big deal — we’ll just throw a sheet over the dancers and stock the bar with Fresca. Presto–perfectly secular.

We send our kids to public schools so that they can learn facts, problem solving and the scientific method. We teach them about the famous political leaders and philosophers, secular and religious, and what they believed.  But we shouldn‘t force them to adopt any of those beliefs, and we can‘t exclude them from any school events because they don‘t share them. It seems to me that one of the most important goals of public education is to teach students about our nation’s history and its founding documents, especially the Constitution, and the rights they provide, including the separation of church and state.  Capping off 13 years of secular public education with a religious ceremony is a bit like closing an AA meeting with a game of beer pong.  But thanks to Judge Hall, this time, students won’t be forced to drink the Kool-Aid.

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.

Now that we’ve grown used to (and weary of) the debate over what should be taught in science class, Texas has apparently decided to take things in a new and exciting direction. The latest attempt at converting public schools into factories designed to spit out Christian conservatives is aimed at a different subject: history. The Texas State Board of Education has decided to “remove the liberal bias” from the classroom, which apparently requires no small amount of revisionist history.

Funnily enough, I don’t completely disagree with them. The current curriculum is biased. I don’t think it’s nearly as liberal as they seem to believe, but then again, I’m biased. And of course I am; I’m only human. Bias is an intrinsic part of who we are. We’re only capable of interpreting the world through our own unique perspective. Who I am and what I’ve experienced directly informs my opinions and priorities. The same can be said of those who assembled the current history curriculum in Texas and elsewhere. Their decisions about which historical events and figures are important enough to be included in the lesson plan are colored by their own personal histories. A pacifist would naturally tend toward creating a curriculum that helps illustrate their belief that peace is better than war, while a religious scholar would tend to downplay events and people that challenge or contradict the supremacy of his or her own specific religion. They may not even be aware of this bias, but it does exist. History lessons also tend toward a strong patriotic bias. It’s unavoidable.

Because it’s impossible to please everyone, there’s still a lot of controversy over what is and isn’t taught in schools. As I’m sure you’re aware, a lot of parents would rather their precious babies never even heard the word evolution, while my dad still thinks it’s a travesty that I don’t know how to use a slide rule.

The problem here is that Texas is trying to fight bias with bias. This is a ridiculous proposition. It’s not like fighting fire with fire; it’s like fighting the rain with sprinklers.

The new curriculum being put forth by the board is a blatant attempt at skewing the bias as far to the right as possible under the guise of “restoring the balance”. In doing so, they’re removing Thomas Jefferson from the picture, marginalizing the separation of church and state, and emphasizing the supposed Judeo-Christian influences of the founding fathers, all in spite of the historical evidence to the contrary. Then there’s my personal favorite: Joe McCarthy is to be touted as a national hero. That’s right, the man who ruined countless lives in the 50’s in the name of his fruitless witch hunt was a good guy. Apparently.

Honestly, I could do without the judgment statements from history teachers and textbooks. I think teaching history in terms of “good guys” and “bad guys” is a terrible idea. Wars aren’t battles of good against evil, they’re complicated conflicts in which all involved tend to commit atrocities in the name of what they believe to be the greater good, or at the very least the greater personal benefit.  We can explore the motivations of different factions and their leaders, but labeling one side “good” and the other “bad” is not only biased; it lays the foundation for the very same type of “us vs. them” thinking that leads to wars and atrocities in the first place. History isn’t full of heroes and villains, it’s full of three dimensional people doing good, bad, and (most of all) morally ambiguous things.  There’s nothing wrong with a history teacher pointing out when certain actions or beliefs led to pain and suffering, but labels like “good” and “evil” actively discourage rational thought. Of course, none of this is about encouraging rational thought.

It’s pretty obvious that the Texas SBOE isn’t trying to cut down on the bias. It’s a political agenda, plain and simple; even they aren’t arguing that. Representative David Bradley said it quite clearly:

“We’re an elected body, this is a political process. Outside that, go find yourself a benevolent dictator.”

This is about politicizing basic childhood education, and unfortunately, Texas has the clout to influence curriculum around the nation. Textbook publishers look to Texas for their guidelines for the simple reason that Texas is their largest customer. It’s clear that however they might feel about others messing with Texas, Texas doesn’t mind messing with us.

Representative Mike Villarreal from San Antonio said it best:

“They fail to understand that we don’t want liberal textbooks or conservative textbooks. We want excellent textbooks, written by historians instead of activists.”

I wholeheartedly agree. We don’t need Bradley’s “benevolent dictator,” we just need qualified people assisting us in ensuring that our children get a decent and accurate education. The only way to alleviate any of the bias in classrooms, political or otherwise, is to present as much factual information as possible and teach the students to come to their own conclusions.

Of course, rational thinking is just as frightening to religious conservative parents as liberalism, if not more so. At least if teachers are telling kids what to think, the parents can counter it by telling their children that it’s all lies. If the children learn to analyze evidence and come to their own conclusions… well, that’s how I became an atheist. How about you?

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

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.

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

Check out the NEW Vlog.

When it comes to grabbing desperately at every conceivable modicum of power, religion can get pretty creative. Most religions have methods of control and manipulation that have been passed down and improved upon for centuries. Using little more than a precise mixture of threats and promises administered early and often, they can convince people to sign their entire lives away. They have the use of fear down to an art form. What’s more, it’s all done under the guise of altruism.

One particularly effective method is that of uniting people against a common enemy. It’s a simple concept. Give people an enemy to fight, and they’ll band together. This phenomenon has all kinds of benefits to those in power. The more afraid people are, the stronger their sense of unity. The more they’re looking to an external enemy, the less they look within the group. The more dire the potential consequences, the more willing people are to listen to authority. All of these are survival traits that have arisen through hundreds of thousands of years of tribal living, twisted to fit the needs of those who wish to remain in power.

Christians are lucky enough to have permanent enemy: Satan. Unfortunately for the church, Satan is a little difficult to pin down. I suspect this has something to do with his imaginary nature. At any rate, the fact that Satan isn’t an entity that can be directly battled makes him an inconvenient villain. To get people to really come together to rally against a common enemy, it has to be someone or something that they can see. It has to be something that poses an immediate threat, and it helps if it’s something that people can envision themselves defeating. Seeing as how the Devil is apparently going to be bound to a lake of fire by Christ or God at some indeterminate future time, it’s hard to use him as the unifying force that the church so desperately needs.

Which leaves… well, everyone else. “They”, unlike Satan, make for the perfect enemy of all god-fearing people everywhere. “They” are everywhere! “They” are your neighbors, your coworkers, that nephew that the family doesn’t talk about anymore. Satan’s still in the picture, of course: he influences “them” in some vague, indefinable way. Nevertheless, “they” are a group of people that pose a tangible and immediate threat to all good Christians everywhere. And, of course, the more nebulously defined your categories of “us” and “them”, the more effective these categories are. After all, if the line between “us” and “them” is a fuzzy one, then people will have to steer well clear of it to avoid being mistaken for the other side. The church takes full advantage of this fact, and they do it well. After all, they’ve had several millennia worth of practice.

“Us vs. Them” permeates every facet of religious life. It’s the wrong time of year to go off on the “War on Christmas”, but it’s a perfect example. Late December is a time when the world is, according to some, divided into those who celebrate Christmas and love Jesus and those who want to abolish Christianity and all that it stands for. It often seems like a mere lack of Christmas spirit is enough to get people up in arms.

Another thing that comes to mind is the movie “The Book of Eli”. Spoiler alert to those of you who’ve missed out on this  little gem: Denzel Washington is protecting the last King James Bible in the world. Apparently, there was an apocalyptic religious war, during which most of civilization was destroyed. People died, other people went blind, and America was laid to waste. Society collapsed. Yet, somehow, the few struggling survivors managed to find the time and energy to go about the country destroying every copy of the Bible except for one. Their drive to destroy Christianity was so great that they were able to visit every home, bookstore, library, and hotel room in the entire country, just to stomp out a religion that they blamed for the apocalypse. Now, I’m not saying people wouldn’t blame religion- I certainly would, if it played a significant part in the war. Blame is one thing. Systematically eradicating millions of copies of a book in preference of finding a dependable source of food, water, and shelter and rebuilding society, on the other hand… That’s crazy talk. The ragged remnants of humanity have better things to do than waste their time breaking the Guinness World Record for burning books. The fact that this idea seemed plausible not only to the people making the movie but a large portion of the audience is just further evidence of how successful the “us vs. them” strategy can be.

There is no singular, unified force acting to destroy or overthrow Christianity. It’s a myth. It’s nothing more than a very successful scare tactic to keep people in line. There are people who don’t like Christianity specifically, and there are people who don’t like religion in general. There are many people, myself included, who try to take steps to keep other people’s religious views from dictating how I live my own life. There are also a lot of people who don’t care. Christians who believe that all non-Christians are out to get them are seriously underestimating the power of apathy. None of this stops the church from crying persecution at every turn, but to my ears, it sounds an awful lot like crying wolf.

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

by Dennis Paul Himes

Earlier this month I attended the annual American Atheists National Convention. This year’s convention was in Elizabeth, New Jersey, across the river from New York City.  As a result, we had a bigger representation from Connecticut than any of the others I’ve attended.  I know of at least seven other Connecticut people besides myself who were there.

I arrived a day early, to attend the state directors’ meeting.  I drove this year, because it was so close, but unfortunately arrived about an hour later than I would have if I hadn’t gotten lost in New Jersey.

One difference between this year’s convention and previous ones was that a number of speakers were in split sessions.  In other words, two different speakers would speak at the same time in different rooms and you had to choose which one you wanted to hear.  At first I wasn’t sure I liked that, but I realize it’s a good thing, because the alternative wouldn’t be hearing all of those speakers at different times, it would be hearing the same number of speakers without any choice as to whom.

The first speaker on Friday, before the split sessions, was Paul Kurtz.  Kurtz is a longtime activist long associated with the Humanist movement.  In fact, increased cooperation between various freethought groups was kind of a theme of this conference.  There were several people there long associated with other organizations.  I have to confess, however, that I don’t remember much of Kurtz’s talk.

The second speaker, also in a unified session, was the philosopher Massimo Pigliucci.  He was probably my favorite speaker of the convention.  He disputed Richard Dawkins’ assertion that the God Hypothesis is a scientific question. Pigliucci insisted that it is a philosophical question and not a scientific one (even though he completely agrees with Dawkins’ conclusion that it’s false).  As someone who had been impressed by Dawkins’ argument and influenced by its implications I found Pigliucci’s counterargument fascinating.  It is an indication of how interesting the talk was that I am still undecided as to how much I still disagree with him.

The next speaker, also in a unified session, ws Cecil Bothwell, who was elected to the Asheville North Carolina City Council in spite of being openly Atheist. Before running for office he had been an investigative reporter, and his stories which led to a corrupt sherrif going to jail impressed enough people to vote for him even though they might not agree with his views on religion.  He also has written a book about Billy Graham, which uncovered that the “spiritual advice” which Graham gave to presidents was often explicit political advice on matters such as which country to bomb.

After that were some split sessions.  First I heard Tom Flynn, who was the editor of Free Inquiry magazine when it became the first publication in the US to print the Danish cartoons of Mohammed (scooping American Atheist Magazine by a month or so).  He talked about the reaction and the sometimes inconsistent response by booksellers in the US and Canada.  The next speaker I heard was Keith Proteus Wood, who was an Englishman dealing with some of the same issues involving the Catholic Church and child abuse in the UK as we are dealing with here.  Next I heard Edwin Kagin, the National Legal Director of American Atheists (and Ky. State Director), who talked about blasphemy, a subject which gave him an opportunity to display his inimitable sense of humor.  This included a surprise visit by the Burka Babes singing “back in the burka again”.  After this we had a debaptism, which is becoming an annual event, presided over by Kagin.

That night at the dinner we had the awards ceremony.  Blair Scott, Affiliate Director and Alabama State Director, won the Atheist of the Year award.

I’m not sure if it was that night or some other time, but there was a slide show in rememberance of Helen Kagin, cofounder of Camp Quest (along with her husband Edwin) and longtime activist, who died earlier this year.

On Saturday for the first split session I saw Sean Faircloth, who is a former Maine state legislator who is now the lobbyist in Washington for the Secular Coalition for America, the umbrella organization for freethought organizations in America which American Atheists joined last year.  Next I listened to Indra Zuno, a Mexican interpreter who talked about Our Lady of Guadalupe, a supposed miracle in 16th Century Mexico.  She pointed out many problems with this myth, such as the fact that the bishop who supposedly witnessed the miracle left behind extensive writings, but never mentioned it.  For the final split session I heard Todd Stiefel, a man who made a ton of money when he was fairly young and is using it to advance the freethought movement.

As some point (I think Saturday) I, and several other members of Connecticut Valley Atheists, attended the affiliates’ meeting.  It was well attended and lively.  It included members of some very active affiliates.

After that we returned to unified sessions for the rest of the day.  First we heard psychologist Andy Thomson.  He had spoken last year in Atlanta, but I thought he was much better this year.  He talked about the effect of ritual, dance, and singing on practitioners, and how all (or most) religions use these to their advantage.  As an experiment, he had us all linking arms, swaying, and singing Amazing Grace, and observing the effect it had on us.

After that we heard Dan Barker, one of the leaders of the Freedom from Religion Foundation.  Barker is a former fundamentalist minister who finally couldn’t keep the cognitive dissonance at bay.  He talked about what you could say to fundamentalists to plant the seed of doubt.  Not that you’ll convince them on the spot, but for some of them (like the one Barker used to be) you can make them start to think.

Finally we heard Wendy Kaminer.  Kaminer has been active in the ACLU, and talked about situations where the rights of believers and nonbelivers come into conflict, especially cases where she thought that the positions we usually take are wrong.  I didn’t agree with her on much of what she said, but she did make intelligent arguments and I have to give credit to both her and the audience members for being able to disagree on so much without rancor.

That night while bar hopping in Greenwich Village I found myself as part of a group which included Margaret Downey, of Atheist Alliance fame, who, as it turns out, is an expert on Thomas Paine.  We ended up finding the site where Paine died, which is now a piano bar in the Village (although Downey thinks he really died across the street).  (That I even went bar hopping might surprise those of you who know me personally, but with the right company you don’t need to drink to enjoy being in a bar.)

There’s no word yet on where next year’s convention is going to be, although it will almost certainly be west of the Mississippi.

As always in these conventions, the biggest value of attending is the networking, information exchange, and friendships between activist all over the country, and beyond.  I was happy to see several members from Connecticut attend and glad to be able to introduce them to their fellow activists.  I hope some of you can make it to future conventions.

-

Dennis Paul Himes
Connecticut State Director, American Atheists
President, Connecticut Valley Atheists

Nisus ait, “Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?”
- P. Vergilius Maro