Archive
Episode 3 Partial Transcript
Episode 3: The Valentine’s Edition:
SPONSOR:
“Today’s episode of the Scathing Atheist is brought to you by the new national restaurant chain for Christian cheapskates and penny-pinching pastors. If you’ve got a party of 12 rowdy jack-offs who’ve managed to forget Christianity’s central tenant on the drive from the sermon to brunch, bring them down to your neighborhood Papal-bee’s. Our friendly wait staff will be happy to accept a snarky message on the receipt and a Jesus-pamphlet in lieu of a living wage. So come on out to Papal-bee’s and enjoy the Last Supper… you’ll ever tip for.
And now, the SCATHING ATHEIST!
INTRO:
It’s Thursday, it’s February 14th and it turns out Catholics get really pissed when you lick your thumb and wipe the schmutz off their forehead. I’m your host Noah Lugeons and THIS is the Scathing Atheist.
On this fortnight’s episode…
Some ex-Nazi who ran the inquisition is looking for work,
We’ll toss all the legislators in the Bible Belt into the ring and see who can out-stupid who
And apparently I’ll sound like a more smug, more scripted Dennis Miller,
But first, the Diatribe…
DIATRIBE:
This diatribe can be considered a companion piece to an incomprehensibly stupid Op-Ed I found on the Huffington Post the other day. It’s by one Dr. Peggy Drexler and it’s titled, “Why Kids and Religion Mix”. If you’d like to get your bearings before I disembowel her argument and strangle it with its own intestines, you can pause the podcast and find the link on the shownotes for this episode at Scathing Atheist (dot) com.
Or better yet, don’t bother because it’s so engorged with stupidity that even a casual encounter with it might actually lower your overall capacity for intelligent thought.
Dr. Drexler, a Research Psychologist, Gender Scholar and bona fide horse’s rectum has decided that even people who don’t believe in God should still get their kids some good church-learnin’ and she makes the case for it in the circuitous way one has to if one intends to justify such a brainless proposition.
We start by meeting Sam, a child of two Catholic apostates who were surprised one night when their son decided to start a meal off by thanking Jesus for providing everything. They shouldn’t have been too surprised, of course, as we all know that Christians aren’t above proselytizing to children without their parent’s permission. But regardless, we now find Sam’s parent on the horns of a dilemma. They don’t want to force their kid to adopt their take on religion (after all, that’s what they’re parents probably tried to do to them) but they also don’t want their kid being indoctrinated by some morally-dubious charlatan either.
Personally, I’m a firm believer that this shouldn’t be a dilemma. On the one hand you have a group of people actively pushing unverifiable claims about the very nature of the universe and on the other hand you have reality. You wouldn’t want your kids muddying their minds with alternative forms of mathematics or biology. You wouldn’t leave it to them to decide if scientific or homeopathic medicines work better, so why would you feel any differently about religion? Sure, eventually you want your kid to go out into the world and make up their own mind, but shouldn’t you start them with a firm grounding in reality the way you would with every other subject known to humanity?
But as you might have guessed, Dr. Drexler would have you believe otherwise. She goes to great lengths to list all the perceived virtues of church-attendance, largely by vaguely referencing studies that she fails to cite.
But a lack of data doesn’t stop her from making rock-solid claims like “Participation in a religious community may help kids develop a strong moral core”, “religion seems to be somewhat comforting to kids” and “…[Religion] can provide a certain stability that children welcome in a world that’s full of change”. Well it’s hard to argue with facts like those. No, seriously… it’s hard to argue with. What the fuck does any of it even mean?
Later she says, “In the wake of Newtown and all the other tragedies worldwide, more and more we’ve had to rely on some kind of a God to get us through” and I assume she typed that with a straight face. I can’t speak for a theist, of course, but as an atheist I find it profoundly comforting that an intelligent, omnipotent god didn’t knowing allow the massacre at Newtown to take place. I would imagine that thinking otherwise would be a source of stark terror more than comfort, but then again, maybe that’s why I’m an atheist.
But the Op-Ed gets more asinine still. At one point she launches into a series of sentences that seem to be competing for the title of the stupidest assemblage of words ever accomplished in English:
“News-making men like Lance Armstrong, who cheated and lied over many years …give us reason to increase children’s exposure to people and ideas that will help them develop a strong moral code.” And with this, cue the pedophilia jokes.
Really Peggy? You’re really going to put the fucking CLERGY up as your standard for strong, moral behavior? You’re going to take the only profession in the country that is synonymous with child rape and suggest that they are the moral alternative to Lance Armstrong?
Okay, okay, so maybe I’m being too Vatican-centric here. Maybe Peggy and her flock would hear that and say, “not all priests are pedophiles”. This is true, but the very fact that you have to point it out is certainly ammo for me, but for the sake of argument, let’s set all of that aside. Let’s instead think of all the Baptists and Pentecostals and Evangelicals who manage to keep their dicks to themselves and instead simply instill good, Christian values like hating gay people and women who exercise biological autonomy.
Not good enough? Alright, let’s even set aside those assholes and consider the most liberal, open-minded, Six-Flags over Jesus church you can possibly imagine with a watered down message, a full time rock band and a fucking Starbucks. Let’s say that you found a church where the transgendered, pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-sunshine and puppy tails priest is a fucking Nobel laureate and gives 94% of his income to charity. What happens to the strong moral code when your kid starts reading up on Jesus and finds out that he’s a pro-slavery misogynistic bigoted liar that promised to return 2000 years ago and still hasn’t made good? In other words, what happens to an edifice built on bullshit when the shit starts to rot?
But wait, Dr. Drexler’s not through being stupid. Immediately after suggesting that the group of people that brought us the Inquisition, the largest pedophilia scandal in human history and Monsignor Meth are somehow better than a one-testicled cyclist on steroids, she throws out an assertion you couldn’t justify to a retarded sea-monkey:
“…in a world where evil often trumps good, religion can’t hurt.”
She makes no attempt to justify it at all. She just leaves it standing on the page their like a nerd who was just thrown naked into the girl’s locker room. RELIGION CAN’T HURT!? I’m quite certain I heard something about religion being used to start wars, subjugate minorities, justify slavery, inhibit science, oppress women, tyrannize nations, roll back social evolution, rationalize suicide bombings and otherwise validate every morally repugnant institution in the history of human civilization. In fact, if I’m not mistaken AS I SPEAK someone if being murdered because of it.
No, sorry Peggy, but you’re putting your stuffing your lunch up your ass again. It’s ATHEISM that can’t hurt. At its best religion is naïve and arrogant. At its worst it’s fatal.
HEADLINES:
Our top news item today, John Ratzinger is fallible again. As I’m sure you’ve heard by now, the Pope has decided to hang up his Mitre and his Zuchetto and call it quits. When asked why he has chosen to be the first Pope to resign since the death of Joan of Arc, the Pope responded “I’m 85 years old, which is pretty much dead.”
While the Vatican sites his advanced age, the blogosphere is abuzz with speculation that there might be more to it than that. Some suggest that he’s trying to avoid the fallout from the ever widening child rape and torture scandal; others propose that he’s trying to avoid the fallout from the looming money-laundering scandal; still others submit that he’s trying to avoid the fallout from being indicted by the International Criminal Court; still other suggest that all those atheists on Twitter finally got to him.
In domestic news, the Obama Administration recently proposed updated guidelines for the Affordable Care Act, designed to further placate Christian opposition to the requirement that employers provide insurance coverage for birth control. Arguing that they shouldn’t be mandated to pay for something they morally oppose, Christian leaders have managed to wring compromise after compromise out of the president.
The latest round of capitulations expanded the definition of “religious based organizations” to include religious hospitals, universities and charities. While employees of these organizations would still be able to receive contraception through their insurance, the employer would not be burdened by the cost or the unbearable encumbrance of guilt that paying for birth-control pills might incur.
Christian leaders aren’t satisfied with the compromise, of course, and vow to continue to fight the good fight until the exemption includes any-damn-body who wants it including Religious Institutions like Hobby Lobby and Chick-Fil-A.
Common sense, of course, would kindly ask these religious institutions to go fuck themselves as a law that was passed by a democratically elected majority is supposed to trump the prophetic dictates of an infanticidal space-phantom.
We’ll be keeping you abreast of further compromises as they occur.
In other Christians-thinking-they-should-have-special-privileges-and-getting-them news, the Southern California Christian School has filed suit against two former teachers who refused to provide proof of their faith. The teachers were asked to take their son, whom they love, and go to the land of Moriah and offer him there as a burnt offering or, failing that, provide a statement of faith and a reference from a pastor.
Two teachers refused and were fired. When they threatened litigation, the school pre-sued, igniting a case that will challenge a landmark religious ruling by the Supreme Court last year. The Hosanna-Tabor (Tay-ber) ruling essentially exempted religious institutions from the laws all other employers have to follow with regards to religious discrimination. But by failing to specify what constituted a “religious worker”, the court left the status of teachers uncertain.
The school is seeking an injunction to prevent the teachers from suing for $150,000 each. Regardless of the outcome of the case, one can only hope that the discharged educators can go on to find employers willing to pay for their contraceptive insurance.
Amish defectors can sleep a little easier tonight knowing that the notorious drive-by stylist Samuel Mullet, Sr. will behind bars for at least a decade. Mullet, the leader of a splinter group considered stringent even by the standards of the Amish, was found guilty of forcibly shaving and barbering at least five Amish people. He and his fellow maverick Mennonites were sentenced to between 3 and 15 years in prison.
The team of criminal coiffeurs was convicted of conspiracy to violate a federal hate-crime law, which is probably the most sinister way you can possibly describe aggravated hairdressing. US Attorney Steven M. Dettelbach should be commended for not only procuring the conviction, but also thinking of something poignant to say afterwards to make the case seem way less bizarre and stupid than it actually was.
And in the ceaseless competition for the most pro-Christian, anti-Constitution piece of legislation in the bible belt, we have three worthy contenders this week:
Taking the Bronze medal is Virginia where the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections recently voted to endorse an amendment to the State’s Constitution that would allow prayer at graduation and allow students to opt out of assignments if the assignment “violates their faith”.
Senator William M. Stanley, a sponsor of the bill argues unconvincingly that this amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. He points out that it would allow, for example, a Muslim student to be excused from dissecting a fetal pig in biology class.
This line of argument would be far more compelling if anybody believed for a second that there had ever been a case of a Muslim student being forced to dissect a pig or if we were all spontaneously generated yesterday with no memory or intellect.
Taking the silver is perennial contender Alabama where legislators are pushing for a law that would allow the 10 commandments to be displayed on any building in the state. The bill, which sports the Orwellian title: “The Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment”, would offer legal protection for a practice that is already pervasive in the state.
Despite the brazenly unconstitutional nature of the law, Alabama tax-payers needn’t worry about the state wasting any money defending it if it’s passed, as third party groups have already stepped up to offer funding when the inevitable lawsuit occurs.
But the gold medal goes to the reigning champion of stupidity, Mississippi, where we find a seemingly innocuous bill that makes it legal to pray before public school groups. The bill, which passed unanimously through the House Education Committee, would ban teachers from penalizing students for expressing religious views in schoolwork, it would require allowing students to organize prayer groups and religious clubs and it would force schools to allow religious groups to use school facilities in the same way as nonreligious groups.
So what does the law do other than legalize a bunch of shit that’s already legal and force schools to do things they’re already doing? It also allows for prayers before “limited public forums” in school, which doesn’t sound that bad until they define “limited public forums” as things like football games and the morning announcements. Apparently, by limited they also mean “all-encompassing and mandatory”.
And while they failed to reach the podium this time around, I thought I should still toss out an honorable mention for Arkansas where the state legislature recently passed a bill with overwhelming majorities in both the house and senate that would allow the carrying of a concealed weapon in church.
While this law is probably every bit as stupid as the other ones, I don’t think it qualifies as pro-Christian or anti-Constitution, but I’m sure Arkansas will try harder next time.
And, lest I get all the way through the headlines only fucking with the Catholics once, German Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Muller has come under fire for saying that recent criticism of the church leaves [quote] “an artificially created fury… which sometimes reminds one of a pogrom sentiment”.
This statement was quickly condemned by virtually every sentient being on earth; who collectively pointed out that legitimate denunciation of the anti-gay, anti-woman, pro-child rape platform of the Vatican is not really very much like inciting a population to genocide at all.
In Muller’s defense, I’m sure people inciting pogroms probably did occasionally make accusations along the lines of “those Jews are a bunch of conspiratorial child-rapists”, but of course when they were saying it, it wasn’t true.
In other news, the Freedom From Religion Foundation sued florist Marina Plowman on January 25th in Rhode Island.
Atheists who follow the blogs will recall the case of one Jessica Ahlquist, who won a legal battle to remove a prayer banner at her high school and consequently became a target for religious blowhards throughout her community and the nation. In a show of solidarity with the young woman who was notoriously called an “evil little thing” by Rhode Island State Representative Peter Palumbo, a Madison, Wisconsin based secular group attempted to send the evil little thing some flowers.
Evil bigger thing Plowman refused to deliver to Ahlquist citing “fuck you, that’s why”.
The FFRF seeks a bouquet and an apology in the lawsuit, but they’ve indicated that they might be willing to settle out of court for fifty cents and some envelopes.
And finally today, a new Church in London called “The Sunday Assembly” has quickly garnered a large and enthusiastic congregation. The brainchild of standup comedians Pippa Evans and Sanderson Jones, this church offers what one attendant described as “a bit of community spirit but without the religion aspect.”
While its creators are careful not to call it an “Atheist Church”, seeming to prefer the term “Cultural Humanism”, it offers a clear and welcome alternative to religious ceremonies in the Western World’s least religious nation.
Services include singing, comedy, readings from books way better than the bible and discussions of science. While the service is meant to entertain, it also offers inspirational moments designed to invoke the wonders of life and the cosmos without placing any of its authorship in an imaginary being.
That’s it for headlines, when we return I’ll be joined by Lucinda Lugeons and Heath Enwright for a special Valentine’s Day panel discussion.
SKIT:
CARL
“Hi, I’m Carl, I’m the Assistant Manager here at the East 14th Street McDonalds. Thanks for coming in for the interview.”
POPE
“Yes, Yes.”
CARL
“Here, have a seat. Would you like something to drink? A Coke maybe?”
POPE
“No.”
CARL
“Alright, Mr… Rater…”
POPE
“Ratzinger.”
CARL
“Rat… in… zer?”
POPE
“Ratzinger.”
CARL
“Ratzenburger?”
POPE
“No. That is mailman from Cheers. I am Ratzinger… like, you sing to mouse, no? Rat-Singer?”
CARL
“Oh, Ratzinger, got it… now… I’m detecting a little bit of an accent there. Is English your first language?”
POPE
“No. German”
CARL
“Okay. Do you speak any Spanish? Because a lot of our guys only speak Spanish.”
POPE
“I speak 7 languages.”
CARL
“Wow… that’s pretty impressive…”
POPE
“9 if you count Ancient Greek and Biblical Hebrew”
CARL
“Okay, well… we don’t. There’s not a lot of ancient Greeks or biblical Hebrews here in Sheboygan, but still… you never know. Anyway, I’ve gotta say, this is a pretty impressive application. It says here that you used to be pope?”
POPE
“Yes. Was Pope.”
CARL
“Awesome. Did they do the whole colored smoke thing?”
POPE
“Yes… was colored smoke.”
CARL
“Awesome. And what would you say was your favorite part about that job?”
POPE
“Job come with… infallibility.”
CARL
“Well that’s a nifty perk. What would you say was your least favorite part about being pope?”
POPE
“…hm… The Hat.”
CARL
“They made you wear a hat?”
POPE
“A silly hat.”
CARL
“Ssss…. Now, you will have to wear a hat to work here. Would that be a problem for you?”
POPE
“No… I wear normal hat.”
CARL
“Yeah, a hat like mine.”
POPE
“I wear that hat, sure.”
CARL
“Okay. Cool.”
POPE
“So I have job?”
CARL
“Well…”
POPE
“What ‘Well’?”
CARL
“Well… to be perfectly honest, your application had a few ‘Red Flags’”
POPE
“What is Red Flag?”
CARL
“Well, for example, it says here that you’re a former Nazi. Is that true?”
POPE
“Hitler Youth.”
Carl
“I’m Sorry?”
POPE
“Hitler Youth. Was member of Hitler Youth.”
CARL
“Wow… See, McDonalds is kind of against the whole Nazi thing I think.”
POPE
“Was mandatory.”
CARL
“Oh… Okay. Well in that case it might be okay. I mean, we can’t hold it against you if it was mandatory… I think.”
POPE
“So I have job?”
CARL
“Well, there is one other thing… it says hear that you’re currently under indictment from the International Criminal Court. Is that true?”
POPE
“You know… is silly. They are silly.”
CARL
“Sssss…. Can you tell me what you’re under indictment for?”
POPE
(mumble mumble)
CARL
“I’m sorry?”
POPE
“I help cover up with the fondling of thousands of children. You know… is little stuff like that. Other charges are even sillier.”
CARL
“Other charges?”
POPE
“You know… inhibiting humanitarian efforts in developing world by opposing use of contraception in AIDS ravaged nations and places plagued by overpopulation. And parking tickets.”
CARL
“Ssss… See, I think that might really be a problem.”
POPE
“No, I make fry.”
CARL
“Yeah, I’m sure you make great French fries and all… but McDonalds corporate has kind of a policy against hiring people that are under international indictment for crimes against humanity… It’s an image thing, I think.”
POPE
“I… make… fry.”
CARL
“Sorry.”
POPE
“I am good enough to serve as head of world’s largest religion, but not to make fries in your crappy restaurant?”
CARL
“I’m sorry… but at East 14th Street McDonalds, we just have higher standards than the Vatican.”
CALENDAR:
Keeping you abreast of all the major happenings in the world of Atheist meet-ups and conventions, it’s time for the Atheist Calendar portion of the show. We’ll be skipping ahead a couple of weeks and focusing on some events around the country coming up in the first half of March as we build toward the big one in Austin on March 28th.
We’ll start in the Windy City where the Chicago Skeptics will be hosting a Skepticamp event on March 2nd. It’ll be held at the Irish American Heritage Center in Shy-Town from 11 am to 6 pm. If you’re going to be in the Chicago area and would like to meet up with some awesome skeptics, I hear they’ll have a few.
Skipping a week ahead and 150 miles Northwest, we’ve got Freethought Festival 2 in Madison, Wisconsin. The lineup offers a powerhouse of heavy hitters including Debbie Goddard, Darrel Ray, Dan Barker, Greta Christina, the Friendly Atheist Hemant Mehta, Andrew Seidel and more. If you’re like me and thinking this sounds way better than your plans for the weekend of March 8th, there’s still time to register.
Hell and gone from Madison? Perhaps you can attend the National Atheist Party’s first convention in San Francisco on the 9th of March where they’ll feature virtually every prominent atheist speaker that won’t be in Madison that weekend: Aron Ra, Jessica Ahlquist and Jerry DeWitt to name a few. Should be a good time for a good cause and tickets are available as of this recording.
On the Ides of March the Wichita Coalition of Reason will be hosting an event with the irresistible title, “The Skeptics of OZ” featuring speakers such as JT Eberhard, DJ Grothe and Darrel Ray, who is seems to really be racking up those frequent flyer miles. It’s an all weekend event and no offense to Kansas, but what the hell else are you going to do in that god-forsaken wasteland?
Finally, don’t forget Pi Day coming up on March 14th. Almost certainly my favorite math-inspired holiday, the holiday is typically celebrated by telling people that it’s Pi Day and then trying to explain what that means and then trying to explain why you give a shit.
A quick request before I close out this section: Apparently this podcast is getting quite a few downloads down under, so if you’re aware of a good online calendar of atheist and secular events in Australia or if you’re involved with a conference in need of a free plug, email me or send me a tweet. You’ll find all the contact info on the “Contact Us” page at Scathing Atheist (dot) com.
OUTRO:
Just a quick note before we close out the show. If you noticed a bit of inconsistency in the sound quality during the program, I apologize for that. We’re in the process of upgrading our equipment so some segments were recorded on one rig and others on a much better one. By our next episode everything should be smooth and steady and I thank you for bearing with us through these growing pains.
I also want to thank everyone who took the time to leave us a review on iTunes and everyone who sent us an email. I couldn’t be more stoked with the response we’ve gotten so far. I also want to thank everyone who’s listening. I appreciate you giving me 30 minutes of your life and I’ll work really hard to earn another 30 minutes.
And if you enjoyed the show and you haven’t done it yet, please take a couple minutes to hop on to iTunes and give us a review. It really helps us spread the word and, if you need a more personal benefit, 8 people left reviews and I bought a new mixer and two dynamic headset mics. So basically, leave reviews and the sound quality gets better.
Finally, I want to throw out a big thanks to Heath Enwright and Lucinda Lugeons for joining me tonight. We’ll be back in two weeks with a special farewell in the “Pope-ulation Zero” edition. Until then, if you can’t get enough of us, check out the blog at Scathing Atheist (dot) com or follow us on Twitter @Noah (underscore) Lugeons. If you have questions, comments or death threats, you’ll find all the contact info on the Contact Us page of the website. All the music used in this episode was written and performed by yours truly and yes, I did have my permission.
My Least Favorite Meme
by Noah Lugeons
I find it disheartening the way that Christians (and those affiliated with other brands of idiocy) think that a perfectly acceptable answer to the debate is:
I am ignorant of your side of the argument and refuse to learn.
While the atheists I know tend to me more knowledgeable about religion than the religious, the Jebus-lovers love to flaunt there nescience by making points like:
If we descended from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?
Not only does this reveal them to be feeble-minded dolts, it also betrays an utter refusal to actually understand what they’re arguing about. And if they haven’t betrayed it yet, they certainly will when you try to explain the notion of a common ancestor.
Which brings us to one of the most ubiquitous and ridiculous of Christian memes, which I have answered in a way that I have to imagine many have answered before:
Podcast Reboot
It worked for Batman, James Bond and Star Trek so we figured we’d give it a try ourselves. The podcast has been revitalized and reissued with a brand new episode one. It will be available on all the major platforms within a few days, but if you’d like to beat the crowds, you can subscribe by pointing your pod-catching software here.
The format is new, with 30 minute biweekly shows and, depending on the response, we’ll keep ourselves open to upping it to weekly shows.
Of course, if you just can’t wait, you can listen to the podcast here:
Oppressed Christians
by Noah Lugeons
I go to church once every two years. That’s a painful admission to make, so don’t go telling anyone.
We swap out years, visiting my wife’s family one Christmas and my family the next. On my wife’s family’s years I’m spared the ordeal, but when I visit my family it’s either spend the whole week arguing about invisible space zombies or just go to fucking church. My dad will be in the play, my cousin will play in the band, my nephews will be forced to embarrass themselves in little blue suits while they stumble through some idiotic praise to Santa Christ.
It’s one of those “95% pseudo-tainment, 5% sermon” kind of churches so it’s not as bad as it could be. The morning’s service lasts about 81 hours, but only about 4 hours of it pisses me off to the point where I feel I should be allowed a rebuttal. I sit there and suffer quietly, leafing through the bible and sketching little flip books where Jesus fights ninjas (it’s their bible, so I always let Jesus win).
I never close my eyes when they ask me to pray. This isn’t some little silent protest. It’s not like I’m crossing my fingers as I say amen or anything, but I can’t imagine closing my eyes for an extended period during a church service and trusting myself to wake back up later.
Afterwards, I rode back to my parent’s house with my dad and my wife and half-listened to my dad’s plea that I give up on the whole rational thinking thing and get involved with a church. I managed the obligatory shrugs and non-committal noises, but I spent the ride pondering the echoing voice of my dad’s pastor.
The parting message from the sermon was stuck in my craw. After three hours of the least spiritual inanity one could possibly schedule under the pretense of a church service, we’re treated to a 20 minute lecture about how Christians need to stand up to the secular world. It was a tirade about how religious people shouldn’t let the government encroach upon their rights. The pastor manages to get there after starting off with a waitress wearing a button that says “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” or “Fuck the Jews”.
As my dear old dad rambled on about how “not that bad” the service was, I found myself reflecting on that peculiar notion that Christians have in which oppression equals having the same rights as everyone else. I wonder sometimes if part of the initiation to be a Christian is being able to pretend you’re being oppressed with a straight face. The group that counts amongst its ranks every president ever elected, the vast majority of every elected body in this country and the heads of the majority of influential businesses in the country says it’s being oppressed and people cover it on the news without then laughing until they cry.
So what is this “Christian oppression” of which they speak? I’ll start where the preacher man started.
Christians are being oppressed when businesses ask their employees to say “happy holidays” instead of “merry Christmas”. This basic attempt to recognize that an enormous number of people in this country don’t celebrate the same religious holidays as them is seen as a slight against their basic rights. They have the right to impose their beliefs on you.
Christians are being oppressed when their religious beliefs aren’t plastered all over public property. The 10 Commandments should go on every courthouse wall (all 4 in each room) and they can say that without the slightest hint of irony. They can also explain why the tenets of Sharia Law should not be equally displayed. It’s not enough that they have their goddamned holy book profaning the court proceedings to begin with, they also reserve the right to impose their prehistoric top ten list of ethics on everyone else.
Christians are being oppressed when they aren’t permitted to lead classrooms in prayer. It’s not enough that no municipality in the country bans praying, they also have the right to force you or your children to sit through it as well. They have the right to impose their mythological praise on the world.
Christians are also being oppressed if any other group should be given any right like the ones they demand for themselves. If you want to put atheist messages in places that are actually reserved for private displays, you are violating their rights. They have the right to impose silence on every competing viewpoint.
Everything short of total Christian hegemony and immunity from all the laws that other groups have to follow is a violation of their Christian rights.
I have a solution to this, but I fear it might be extreme. Perhaps we should hold a lottery and randomly feed a few of these spittle spewing pastors to lions. We could stick the videos up on You-Tube and stick in a tagline like “Christians be warned”. I’ll admit that it might be overkill, but it seems like the easiest way to remind them what the word “oppression” means.
Should Buddhism Get a Pass?
by Noah Lugeons
I’ve never been one for ranking the relative inanity of religions. Some will point to the beliefs of the Mormons or the Scientologists with a mocking finger, but neglect to point the same finger at the myriad of other equally untenable religious systems that surround them. But is magic underwear really any more ridiculous than transubstantiation? Are engrams any sillier than original sin?
I’ve always been of the mind that any belief that is presented without evidence is equally invalid. Whether it is a belief steeped in millenia old traditions or the improvised ramblings of a street-prophet, neither brand of nonsense is any more or less deserving of my scorn.
In many ways, this is the crux of the gnu atheist vs. accomodationist debate. Where the accomodationist is focused on the impact religion has on society, the gnu atheist is more often motivated by idealism; the simple notion that lies should be called lies. While I certainly count myself in the unapologetic ranks, I make no value judgement on either approach. In truth, the two groups need one another. The uncompromising position of the gnu atheist would be all but useless were it not tempered by the accomodationist and the position of the accomodationist would be all but impotent without the vitriol of the gnus.
So like it or not, the accomodationists are stuck with us and we with them. The only way to move forward is to work our varied approaches toward the same goal. Two groups hunting the same prey will hinder one another, but two groups herding the same prey can be a benefit to all. The latter tactic doesn’t even take much coordination. We need only agree on the prey and the goal and then we can work in as contradictory of manners as we choose and still get the job done.
By and large, we all agree on both subjects. The prey is gullibility and untruth and the goal is a more secular and less superstitious society. And thus we work in chaotic tandem, each arm of the atheist movement herding the gullible closer and closer to the promised land. Sure, we occasionally question each other’s methods. The accomodationists have their carrots and we our sticks but ultimately we both keep the flock moving the right way.
It’s an uneasy but productive marriage as is evidenced by the swelling popularity of atheist conferences, blogs, meet-ups and books. But that’s not to say things don’t go wrong. When you define a problem as broadly as “gullibility”, there will be some questions. There will be a few animals in the flock that may or may not be sheep. And there will invariably be some disagreement from the shepherds about what does and does not constitute prey.
The most common example in my mind is Buddhism. Most atheists direct their vigor toward Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Hinduism but very often Buddhism and many of the new age psuedo-eastern faiths of the west get a “get out of reason free” card from the community of nonbelievers.
In a sense, it’s easy for me to see why. Buddhism very rarely presents the type of threat to secular society that the Judaic faiths do. We are far less often confronted by militant Buddhism and don’t see many Buddhist terrorists on the news each night. We aren’t harassed by Buddhists in shopping center parking lots or in front of movie theaters and we rarely hear about Buddhists trying to dumb down public education.
What’s more, the dogma of Buddhism, at least as much as is known by the average Western atheist, does not conflict with our secular ideals in the way that Christianity or Islam does. The focus on deeds and nonviolence is hard to fault and that is as familiar as most people in this country get with the religion.
But is it true?
Buddhism still fails my litmus test of acceptability: It is bullshit. It doesn’t matter much to me that it is bullshit of a more benign smell, bullshit is still bullshit. It would be intellectually dishonest for me to say that I can overlook this one form of lying to the masses because it does less harm than this other set of lies. Reincarnation and karma are basic tenants of Buddhism that stretch back the Buddha himself. They are no more or less observable or evident than heaven, hell or god caring about your foreskin.
Neither are they harmless. The 2006 documentary “Blindsight” highlights some of the horrible abuses and mistreatment of blind children in Tibet. Because of the rural belief in karma, most people assume that children born blind are paying a karmic debt for some horrible deed in a previous life. This attitude that the disabled deserve their disability can attenuate one’s natural compassion to such a degree that many of these children spend their lives chained to beds.
The notion of reincarnation is no less harmful. Like the crippling effects of the notions of eternal bliss, believing that one will be given another (or even infinite other) chances to get it right could easily dampen the desire to get it right this time around. Is it fair to lie to somebody about something that important?
We also largely make the mistake of assuming that Buddhism is not prone to the types of abuse that other religions are. We forget that Buddhist monasteries have had abuse scandals just like the Vatican. We forget that Buddhism has been used to justify acts of violence just like Islam. We forget that Buddhism is every bit as sexist as all the other major world religions.
So in what way is Buddhism less harmful than the other faiths? We can no more judge Buddhism by the teachings of Buddha than we can judge Christianity by the teachings of Christ. Following the words of either man would lead one to an ethical and selfless life. But we’re not talking about philosophy, we’re talking about religion. As soon as a philosophy becomes applied, it turns into a dogmatic faith. It grows institutions of power, it empowers some human beings over others, it insulates a lie.
All that being said, I will still spend remarkably little of my time on this blog trashing Buddhism. But make no mistake, my enemy is religion and no religion is safe from my scathing ire. I will largely leave Buddhism alone because it largely leaves me alone, but that is not an endorsement. It’s a necessary byproduct of prioritizing.
What is an Agnostic?
by Noah Lugeons
First, let me get the easy part out of the way. The dictionary definition of the word “agnostic” goes like this:
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
But when you try to pin the meaning down by observing the actions of those who call themselves agnostics, you arrive at a less flattering and more cynical definition:
A person who recognizes the inherent vapidity in the concept of revealed religion but lacks the conviction to assert such a belief.
I was recently sent a graphic that sought to dispel the misconceptions about the meaning of “agnostic” and in so doing managed to further muddy the waters with a definition that lacks internal logic. The first image shows the common “misconception” about agnostics. It presents a line of belief with theist on one side and atheist on the other and a space in the middle that is marked “agnostic”. This chart seemed acceptable to me, but for the words “Not This” branded below it.
That intrigued me, as I see little way to deny the utility of such a chart, so I continued. The second image showed a Venn diagram with atheist and theist overlapping and “agnostic” in the common field. This also included a “Not This” disclaimer, which I was happy to see. My first reaction to the chart was that it represented more of a misunderstanding of Venn diagrams than agnosticism.
And finally, the third graphic, the one that earned the artist’s seal of approval, showed four boxes in a grid. The upper left read “gnostic atheist”. Below that was “gnostic theist”. To the right of these boxes “agnostic atheist” and “agnostic theist” were stacked one on top of the other. And this was supposed to be the graphic that made sense.
The whole point of the exercise was to assert that agnostics are not the “undecided middle”, but rather a method of examining thoughts on metaphysics. They attempt to create a dichotomy that has the gnostic believers as certain of their beliefs and agnostics leaning one way or the other while conceding that nothing can truly be known about the nature of the metaphysical.
This is not a new concept. Many self-professed agnostics would agree whole-heartedly with this description. But those of us in their “gnostic atheist” category would beg to differ.
Let me start with the easy part. Obviously, no statement but a tautology can assert something with absolute certainty. At best, we’re leaving off the “all the evidence I have at hand leads me to believe…” whenever you make a statement for the sake of brevity. When I say that my favorite show is about to come on, I’m simply saving myself the trouble of saying “assuming that it hasn’t been preempted by an unforeseen news story and that the TV works correctly and that the cable isn’t out and that no unpredictable variable intercedes and renders it otherwise, my favorite TV show is about to come on.”
If one wished, one could claim that they were agnostic about my favorite show coming on. They could point to chaos theory and point out that nothing can truly be known about my favorite show and that at best we can only whittle down the likelihood that it will fail to come on to an infinitesimal fraction and move on accordingly under the assumption that it will come on. You could do that, but you would only do so if you were a douche.
The same is obviously true of the division of “agnostic atheist” and “gnostic atheist”. There are no “gnostic” atheists if that term implies that no amount of new evidence could convince that person that they were mistaken in their beliefs. I’m atheistic enough that if god appeared before me and jumped my ass for not capitalizing his name, I would assume first that I was delusional, but given a long enough stream of corroborating evidence, I would eventually begrudgingly cede the argument and accept the existence of god.
But that is a damn long way from being “agnostic” about the deal. I agree with the definition that Webster provides. I agree that nothing definitive can ever be known about the nature or existence (or lack of nature or non-existence) of god. I would, of course, make the same concession if pressed on the question of invisible fairies that remind the flowers to open every morning. I can never know anything at all about their nature and I can never prove with absolute certainty that they do not exist. In a technical, english-majory kind of way, I’m agnostic about fairies and I’m agnostic about god.
So strike one against the “agnostic atheist” is that it’s ultimately a meaningless term unless you actually are 100% on the fence about the issue. When someone claims to be an “agnostic atheist”, they are creating a straw man of the rest of the atheist movement, painting us as though our beliefs are received on the same faith-based level as those of the theist.
Another strike against it is the simple lack of internal logic. If by agnostic one means that nothing can be known about the nature or existence of god, an afterlife or a universal spirit, it is quite meaningless to use it as a modifier for atheist or theist. If nothing can be known for certain then no evidence can exist on either side of the argument and thus no preference can be reached except by relying on information known to be insufficient to draw a conclusion. To then stake your agnostic flag on one side or the other of the issue is an admission that at least something can be known about the issue, as you have clearly been influenced by one data set or the other.
But the final nail in the coffin of this fictional division is the fact that many people refer to themselves as “passionate” or “strong” agnostics. How can one be passionate about not knowing? How can one have a strong lack of opinion?
Agnosticism is the middle ground. It is the “undecided” vote. It is the removal of oneself from the argument.
To be clear, I have no issue whatsoever with true agnostics. If nothing else, they are intellectually honest. My issue is with the atheists that mistakenly take the title to avoid being called atheists. But if you believe that there is no god and operate your life as though there is no god, you are an atheist. If there is no active doubt in your mind, you are no more agnostic about god than you are about Count Chocula.
Before I get accused of being a bitter jerk about this (though I’m sure I’ll still be called a bitter jerk and worse by a few agnostics), I should point out that there is an important and unintended consequence of atheists in agnostic’s clothing. If you call yourself an agnostic, you’re actively placing religion in a special category, as though nonsensical claims about this single field of study are more valid than the nonsensical claims about any other.
Not to belabor the point, but consider holocaust deniers. Before you flinch, I’m not comparing agnostics to holocaust deniers. In this analogy, the holocaust deniers will represent religious people. Okay… now you can flinch.
Let’s say we did a poll. We asked the country if they believe that the holocaust occurred. A small group of people would say “no”, they did not believe it and a large group would say “yes”. But suppose that we worded the question a bit different. Let’s say we asked “Are you certain that the holocaust occurred?” The small group of holocaust deniers would still say no and the vast majority of people would still say yes.
But could you really say yes to that question? What direct, tangible evidence do you have that could not possibly have been counterfeit? You weren’t there (I’m assuming) and even if you talked directly with someone who was there, there’s no way to say with absolute certainty that they’re not lying. Even if you managed to speak with every surviving witness of the atrocities you still couldn’t rule out large-scale deceit with unquestionable certitude.
So what if we approached this question with the same ineffectual, vacillating manner of the “agnostic atheist”? We know nothing for certain and thus we must answer this question “I don’t know”, regardless of our level of conviction. We still hold on to the possibility, however remote, that our assumptions can be overturned. We must answer all binary questions with an “IDK”, of course, short of questions like “Do you believe that cats are felines?”
But imagine the actual result if a significant number of people did choose to be “agnostic but damn near sure” about the holocaust. The numbers in these surveys would suddenly skew and leave the impression that people are far less certain about the holocaust than they actually are. The results, once published, would lead the fringe deniers to mistaken believe that their point of view was more widely expected. It would empower them.
So please, when they offer both “atheist” and “agnostic”, check the box that’s more intellectually honest. I can’t say which box that is for you, but know that the theists are seizing on that “agnostic” number the way that politicians hone in on the undecided voters. It’s not because they misunderstand the term, it’s because too many “agnostics” do.
God’s brother Mikey
by Noah Lugeons
Not many people know the story of Mikey. The less ambitious of the two brothers, Mikey was gifted with the same omnipotence as Jehovah but found himself less inclined to direct it in any meaningful way.
On the first day, Mikey was playing a video game. His omniscience had already seen all the video game consoles that the future had to offer and despite the vastly superior graphics of later systems, he still preferred the old school gameplay of the Nintendo Entertainment System. At the time that God interrupted, he was playing Ghosts and Goblins, a game that required omnipotence to beat.
“What the fuck is that?!” Mikey asked, shielding his eyes as the door swung open.
“I call it light,” Jehovah said excitedly, “I’ve got a whole plan… heavens, seas, animals… it’s gonna be crazy.”
Mikey reluctantly paused his game and followed his brother outside. A pair of sunglasses (the first pair, to be exact) phenomenized in his hands and he donned them as he glanced up at God’s creation. “Whatever,” he said dismissively, “I’m going to bed.”
On the following morning, Mikey awoke violently as water splashed onto his face. “Now what?!” he grumbled as he stormed outside through knee-deep liquid. “What the fuck are you doing?” he called out as he swung open the door.
“I call it water. Don’t worry,” God said with a passive wave, “I’m going to create solid ground next.”
“Well can you hurry the hell up? It’s kinda hard to sleep with all this churning and rolling.”
“Yeah, I should be done with the ground tomorrow sometime.”
“Tomorrow! Why tomorrow?”
God waved his arms in a sweeping gesture, as though to convey the enormity of the project at hand. “I promise… I’ll get to it as soon as I can. I’m still separating all these seas.”
Mikey rolled his eyes and a canoe (the first canoe, to be exact) phenomenized before him as he made his way back to his bed. He tried creating a stable platform on which to sleep, but it churned with the waters and he was ripped back to consciousness each time a splash of the cold liquid splattered onto his skin. He tried a few more constructs before eventually settling on a large enclosed space that would roll comfortably amongst the new waves.
He slept through the day and awoke on the following morning with his enclosed structure blissfully beached on steady ground. He stretched and a cup of coffee appeared in his throat. He considered seeing how Jehovah was doing, but he almost feared whatever monstrosity might await him outside so he remained inside his boat and played a few games of Mario Kart. Later he phenomenized a pizza and a bong and before he knew it, he was asleep again.
On the fourth day he finally came forth from his protective encapsulation. He stepped on to the upper deck of his refuge and glanced down. “Yo, Joey!” he said, calling to his brother.
“My name’s Jehovah,” he muttered.
“Digging that big orange ball of flame… it’s nice. I’d have put it a little higher up, but hey, that’s just me.”
“It actually rises and falls back over on that side. It moves kind of slow. I’m trying to get it to exactly 24 hours but it’s a pain in the ass.”
“How close are you?”
“I’m within a minute.”
Mikey shrugged. “Close enough.”
That was often Mikey’s solution to a conundrum, but God decided that in this instance he was probably right. “I like your ark,” he remarked as he took in his brother’s improvised shelter. “I’ll have to keep that in mind.”
“Loving what you did with the sky, little bro,” he said as he climbed down from his perch. By the time he reached the sandy shores a beer had appeared in his hand. “Little white patches floating by… nice touch.”
“Clouds, I call ’em. You should see it at night. I did stars and everything.”
“Nice,” he said as he cracked open the beer. “So what are you planning with this whole thing?”
God smiled and Mikey could tell by his expression that his brother had been dying to lay the plan out since this whole thing started. It had taken a few days for Mikey to take the bait and he could tell immediately he was in for a long story. He phenomenized a chair and sat back as he drank.
“Well… I still gotta finish the moon, but then the next couple days I’m working on animals.”
“What the fuck are animals?”
“Little living, sentient things that’ll eat each other and compete for limited resources. It’ll be fun to watch.”
Mikey wrinkled his nose. “Sounds like a pain in the ass. Are you gonna take care of all those things? You know… take ’em for walks and stuff?”
“Nope. They’re on their own in a cruel world, bro. But hold on, I haven’t told you the…”
“Wait… a cruel world? Why would you create a cruel world?”
“Cruelty will act as a lesson about the vastness of my power. I’ll creating suffering so that they can enjoy bounty in its absence.”
“That doesn’t make a lick of sense.”
“No… it does. See, you can’t have good without evil.”
“Yes you can,” Mikey said, finishing the last swallow from his beer, “You’re omnipotent, remember? You can have anything you want.”
“Anyway, don’t worry about it. That’s not even the best part. I haven’t told you about ‘man’ yet.”
Mikey caused his sunglasses to reappear just so that he could slide them down his nose and glance skeptically from behind them. “What are mans?”
“Men.”
“Okay, what are mens?”
“No, man, but when you pluralize it, you say ‘men’.”
“See, that doesn’t make any sense either.”
“I work in mysterious ways, Mikey.”
“Whatever… fine. So what are ‘men’?” he asked, forcing an overly sarcastic emphasis onto the word.
“Okay… this is so cool… They’ll be like little versions of us. My own image and everything. And I’ll give them free will and I’ll stick them in a garden paradise…”
“Well that’s nice of you…” Mikey started, but Jehovah wasn’t finished and simply spoke over him.
“… but I’ll put a tree in there with really delicious fruit on it and I’ll tell them not to eat it and when they do… and you know they will… anyway, when they do, I’ll curse them for all of eternity.”
Mikey offered only a glacial blink.
“And then I’ll fuck with ’em for a few centuries and totally remove myself from their world. And if they don’t believe I exist after that, I’ll condemn them to spend eternity burning in a fiery pit.”
“What’s a fiery pit?”
“It’s something I’m going to create just to be a miserable ass place to spend eternity in.”
A long moment passed as Mikey tried to absorb all this information. Several times he started to speak and then realized he lacked sufficient words to express his disbelief. He looked into his brother’s eyes and saw the hint of madness he’d always suspected was there.
Finally, he responded with a single syllable, the only syllable that seemed remotely appropriate under the circumstances: “Why?”
“Because I want them to see how awesome I am,” he answered with a straight face. “They’ll love me or they’ll burn in hell in an unending orgy of tragic pain for all of time. It’ll be great!”
“Dude… you’ve lost your fucking mind. I’m sorry to just lay it out there like that, but you’re fucking crazy. That’s the weirdest shit I’ve ever heard. Seriously… I should create mental asylums just so I could lock you in one.”
“Go ahead. See if you ever figure out how the tides work, dick.”
God turned his back on his brother and Mikey retreated to his ark to play some more video games. It would be centuries before he came out again and by then, his brother had so irrevocably fucked up his experiment that he’d simply given up on it and moved on to a new project.
Mikey shrugged and went back inside to play some Gears of War.
Thus ends the gospel of Mikey.
…But I’m Not That Crazy…
by Noah Lugeons
It never fails to amaze me the way one religious person can look at the beliefs of an alternate faith and say, “well, that’s just silly” without realizing that the same is true of their own sacred cow.
I’m reminded of my freshman anthropology class. The professor was talking about the early signs of religion in human history and he spoke at length about the tribal magic of ancient cultures. A girl who was in the process of learning that college was for smart people looked puzzled and asked, “how could they believe in magic if it didn’t work?”
I glanced back at the crucifix hanging around her neck and then back to the prof to see how he would handle the question. I could see him biting the words “why do you pray?” back as they tried to escape. He was nicer than me. So I said it.
“People still believe in prayer and that doesn’t work,” I offered, much to the disgust of the inquisitor.
But somehow people can switch to a different set of eyes when they are looking at what is considered holy by the other guy. They can see how untenable and silly any religion is but their own. Even within their faith they can point to one belief of another and say, “well, I don’t believe in that, but I believe in this”. They offer it up as though clearly believing that a talking snake is silly, but a man sacrificing himself to himself to appease himself is quite defensible.
Poor Mitt Romney is finding this out the hard way. As he desperately seeks the republican presidential nomination he finds himself constantly butting up against the common prejudice that Christians have against other Christians. Of course, his liberal history as Massachusetts governor isn’t helping him either, but a number of reports overlook his support of jesus-ish policies like universal healthcare and go straight for his faith.
He’s a Mormon, of course, and those people are just weird. They believe that a magical space man came to America to teach people the ways of heaven. Of course, all the thinking folks understand that magical space men only go to the Middle East to reveal such things. Mormons think that God lives on some planet out in space when all the critical minds know that he lives in a different dimension paved in streets of gold. Mormons believe that special underwear can protect them from harm when smart people know that it takes water blessed by an ancient incantation to truly keep you safe.
It always strikes me odd that we atheists are often the only defense that small religions have against big ones. The general rule is that everyone is in favor of separation of church and state except the nation’s largest church. When the “ground zero mosque” was in the news it was largely the secular institutions (and, at the very least the secular community) that stood up and said, “hey, their stupidity is no more stupid than your stupidity.”
Evangelical journalist and general fucktard Warren Cole Smith was recently quoted as saying:
“You can’t say that his religious beliefs don’t matter but his ‘values’ do. If beliefs are false, then behavior will eventually–but inevitably–be warped.”
Smith, of course, would not tolerate this type of blatant and inexcusable bigotry if it was directed at his sacred cow. Interestingly enough, he accidentally pinpoints the source of his hypocrisy within that brief statements. His beliefs are false and his behavior is warped.
Mississippi’s “Conceived in Rape” Tour
by Noah Lugeons
Since my childhood, abortion has been the very definition of a “hot button” topic. Throughout my memory it has been the singular issue which has spurned the most disagreement and has been debated with the most ferocity. Religion ran a close second, of course, but too few atheists bring the subject up for it to be a true contender.
But through it all there was at least some sense of civility. Even in the most vehement disputes some exception was made for the more extreme circumstances. Even most ardent opposers of abortion rights would agree to exceptions in cases of rape or incest or in instances when the health of the mother was in danger.
No more. The “personhood” movement that is sweeping through the bible belt seeks to do away with that last vestige of civility by offering up amendments to state constitutions that would give full legal rights to zygotes. To put to rest and lingering doubts that they might have any sliver of compassion, the group “Mississippi Personhood” is sponsoring a “Conceived in Rape” tour.
The tour will feature one Rebecca Kiessling who was, predictably, conceived in rape.
Despite having never met her and having very little familiarity with her work, I feel confident in saying that Kiessling is a revolting bitch. If you doubt my assessment, a quick trip to her website should convince you. She is a dedicated anti-abortion activist and her whole shtick seems to be cashing in on the traumatic circumstance of her conception.
On her home page she announces:
Have you ever considered how really insulting it is to say to someone, “I think your mother should have been able to abort you.”? It’s like saying, “If I had my way, you’d be dead right now.”
Yes. Of course that is what they’re saying. Thus, those of us who believe that every woman should have the right to get an abortion are clearly saying “If I had my way, everyone would be dead right now”, which laudably sums up the goals of the pro-choice lobby.
But again, Kiessling is a rampaging bitch. I suppose that when people say they wish her mother had been able to abort her it is truly because they wish she had personally been aborted. I shouldn’t be so quick to label her conclusion as bullshit.
She continues:
And that is the reality with which I live every time someone says they are pro-choice or pro-life “except in cases of rape” because I absolutely would have been aborted if it had been legal in Michigan when I was an unborn child, and I can tell you that it hurts.
I’m not sure how many people I’ve met that are “Pro-Choice” except in cases of rape, but let’s continue on as though that part of her statement made sense.
Note that she says she “absolutely” would have been aborted if it had been legal in Michigan at the time. Her mother was raped and did not want to carry the child to term. Of course, with an over-inflated sense of self-worth, Kiessling assumes that her inherent worth makes it clear that the world is better off with her than it would be without her. She assumes that earth was one babbling Christian extremist shy of perfection at the time.
But there’s also a pretty deep insult to logic in this whole notion. We can’t go back in time and replay how the world might have gone if Kiessling’s mother had been allowed to abort her unborn child. Of course, I don’t know the first thing about the situation, but we’re not really talking about this one situation. She says herself that she wants to “put a face” on this phenomenon. So realistically, we shouldn’t be weighing a world with or without Rebecca Kiessling, but rather we should explore a world with or without baby X, conceived in rape.
Perhaps a mother who was otherwise destined to finish school, get a degree and cure some disease was thrown off the path to success when a brutal assault left her with a child she did not want and could not care for. Little matter in Kiessling’s world. Perhaps a mother who was raped at a young age might have been a great mother at an older age but because of the financial difficulties of her first (forced) child, she was unwilling to have another.
I could break out a thousand more examples and the opposition could break out a thousand theoreticals in the other direction. In the end we would be no closer to solving anything. The very exercise is insane. Rebecca Kiessling believes that people who believe a woman should be able to abort a child in cases of rape would change their mind if we only put a face on the “victim”.
I propose she take a dose of her own medicine. How about if and when Mississippi ever enacts their medieval law, she can have the job telling all the underage rape victims that they can’t have abortions. Perhaps she should meet the real victims before trying to cash in on her mother’s personal tragedy.
If you’re in Mississippi and you’d like to remind this abortion that should have happened what a foul and despicable person she is, you might be able to get tickets to one of her stops. But get your tickets quick. Events at the Trinity Baptist Church in Southhaven (on Swinnea just north of Goodman) tend to sell out fast.
Chirstian Couple Neglect Medical Treatment for Their Child
by Noah Lugeons
If you follow these things closely, you’ve probably heard of the “Followers of Christ”. This extreme sect of medicine-denying faith healers has made news several times in the past few years over their policy of neglecting the medical needs of their children up to the point of death.
As far back as 98, authorities were citing statistics that suggested as many as 21 children within their sect had died from treatable and easily-survivable diseases. Laws were passed in Oregon to combat the clear danger that such a group presented, but apparently the laws weren’t enough to stop them.
Timothy and Rebecca Wyland were recently charged with criminal neglect and child abuse for choosing to treat their infant daughter’s tumor with prayers and the laying on of hands instead of genuine medicine. By the time authorities became aware of the situation, the six month old child had a tumor the size of a baseball on her face. It had grown to the point that it threatened her eyesight by dislodging one of her eyeballs.
Like many of the stories that we cover on this blog, this is a tragedy that does not remotely reflect the average religious believer. No doubt I will be accused of needlessly dredging up the worst examples of religion and ignoring the best. But that misses the point altogether.
Altruism can be obtained through simple observation. Charity is, ultimately, in one’s own best interest. The “good” side effects of religion can easily come from secular sources. But only faith can convince you to ignore a tumor that threatens the life of your child.
The Scathing Atheist 