Atheists vs. repugs - Round One . . . .

Let the battle begin.

It's actually not much $$ involved.

It's the principle of the thing.

Per McClatchey today:

Atheists sue to keep 'In God We Trust' off Capitol Visitor Center
Rob Hotakainen | McClatchy Newspapers Posted: July 18, 2009

WASHINGTON — A California Republican congressman wants to do a little writing on the walls of Washington's newest federal building. If Rep. Dan Lungren gets his way, Congress will spend nearly $100,000 to engrave the words "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegiance in prominent spots at the Capitol Visitor Center.

Lungren's proposal drew only a whimper of opposition last week when the House of Representatives voted 410-8 to approve it. Now, however, Lungren finds himself tussling with a national atheists and agnostics group.

The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc. sued this week to stop the engraving, accusing Lungren of trying to force his religious beliefs on as many as 15 percent of all U.S. adults. That comprises "atheists, agnostics, skeptics and freethinkers, none of whom possess a belief in a god," according to the lawsuit.

"It really is a Judeo-Christian endorsement by our government, and so Lungren is wrong," said Dan Barker of Madison, Wis., a co-president of the foundation. "Lungren and others are pro-religious, and they want to actually use the machinery of government to promote their particular private religious views. That is unconstitutional, and that's what we're asking the court to decide."

_______________


The Freedom From Religion Foundation, which has 13,500 members, sued in U.S. District Court in Wisconsin. It alleges that Congress is trying to make belief in God synonymous with citizenship and "discouraging nonbelief" among Americans, a contention that Lungren rejects.

Lungren said that the phrase "In God We Trust" had a long history and was consistent with the beliefs of America's founding fathers. He also said that the Declaration of Independence referred to rights given by a creator.

_______________


Barker said the foundation had been waiting for the right case to challenge "In God We Trust." He said government actions could be challenged on state-church grounds if they had specific religious agendas. In this case, he said, backers of Lungren's plan have provided "the smoking guns" by giving specific, overt religious reasons for doing the engraving.

Barker said that atheists regarded the phrase "In God We Trust" as rude, uncivil and un-American.

"Tens of millions of really good Americans don't believe in God," he said. "In fact, there's many more nonbelievers than there are Jews, and we wouldn't think of offending Jews on our national monuments. . . . Why is it wrong to offend a Jewish minority but it's not wrong to offend those of us who serve in the military and sit on juries but we don't believe in God?"

This Freedom From Religion Foundation sounds like my kind of people.

Makes me proud to be a "Dairy Queen" originally from Wisconsin . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

Does God Hate Women?

A directory of divine misogyny

From a book review by Johann Hari at New Statesman :

"After all the arguments for subordinating women have been shown to be self-serving lies, what are misogynists left with? They have only one feeble argument that is still deferred to and shown undeserving respect across the world, even by people who should know better: "God told me to. I have to treat women as lesser beings, because it is inscribed in my Holy Book.”

Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom are the editors of Butterflies and Wheels, the best atheist site on the web. In Does God Hate Women? they forensically dismantle the last respectable misogyny. They argue: "What would otherwise look like stark bullying is very often made respectable and holy by a putative religious law or aphorism or scriptural quotation . . . They worship a God who is a male who gangs up with other males against women.
They worship a thug."

Ok, but what about cultural differences? Isn't it racist or imperialist to oppose the practices of other cultures?

Hari :

"This merrily ignores how women within these cultures protest against their treatment – very loudly. They aren’t objecting to being imprisoned in their homes, or having their genitalia cut, or being stoned for having sex, because a white person told them to.
Benson and Stangroom put it well: "Multiculturalism by definition makes a fetish of cultures, and it is almost impossible to do that without treating them as monolithic. As soon as you admit that all cultures have internal dissent and nonconformity, the whole idea of protecting or deferring to particular cultures breaks down into incoherence."

h/t Co-blogger Ed

Public conveyances. Public is the key word.

Personally, I never believed that an advertisement was necessary. I'm happy to let people believe in whatever they wish as long as they don't try to foist that belief on me without my seeking it out.

And that would be the problem. There isn't a month goes by where there isn't some outfit employing whatever means available to persuade me to give up my life (And money. Don't forget the money. Salvation ain't free, y'know) to whatever religious ponzi scheme they happen to be promoting.

And I suppose if the ad on the side of a bus was offensive... like if it was calling everyone who subscribed to religion or superstition a bunch of weak minded dorks, there would be cause for concern.

But it doesn't attack anyone nor does it single out any one group. It simply states a view and it states it quite weakly to boot.

So, when some city mandarin does this:

The ad, which says “There’s Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life,” was rejected based on a clause in OC Transpo’s advertising policy that states, “Religious advertising which promotes a specific ethic, point of view or action that might be offensive to users of the transit system is not permitted,” said John Donaldson, the city’s program manager of transit, marketing and customer service.

You can expect the paper to start moving and the courts to get involved.

What makes it easy for a plaintiff is when the mandarin exposes the defence of his actions by adding this:

“Just because of the advanced publicity on this campaign, we already know that people will be offended,” Donaldson said.

That's prejudicial, pure and simple. And if he can get away with that, well, do we have news for you bus ad managers.

By the way: This is good reading and this is even better.

The equality of gods. Absent, silent and unproven

I would normally leave this kind of thing for the weekend. You know, a sort of a Sunday Sermonette™.
In any case, The TimesOnline was discussing the fact that more than a third of Britons describe themselves as secular humanists and only 10 percent of the population actually goes to church at all.

I found none of that terribly surprizing. What I did find interesting, however, was a reader comment to the article itself.

Atheists are *not* people who claim to be sure there definitely is no god. The word atheist comes from Greek: it breaks down like this: a - meaning 'not', and 'theist' - one who believes in god(s). We don't believe in gods in the same way we don't believe in unicorns, fairies at the bottom of the garden, Santa Claus or an invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage. We don't believe in them because there isn't sufficient evidence to make these things plausible (and the evidence required to make them plausible would have to be pretty extensive, based on how far outside our everyday understanding of the world they lie), but we don't go round with placards saying, 'unicorns don't exist'. That would be silly. As silly as the people who go round, one way or another, with placards saying, 'unicorns do exist' ... without sufficient evidence. Your 'two extremes' frame is a false one: and thoughtful politeness doesn't mean always accepting some 'middle' path.

Well, I wouldn't be too sure about the fire-breathing dragon in the garage.

But what about sock elves?

The proof is not in the book.

Dan Gardner has written an absolutely brilliant article in which he dispatches those who would call atheists "fanatical".

Yesterday was one major religion's holy day. Today is another's. Tomorrow is a third's. So I thought this is an opportune moment to say I think all three of these faiths -- these mighty institutions, these esteemed philosophies, these ancient and honoured traditions -- are ridiculous quackery. Parted seas. Walking corpses. Nocturnal visits to Heaven. For goodness sake, people, the talking wolf in Little Red Riding Hood is more plausible.

As P.Z. Myers says, "Preach it, brother". I might even add a "Yea! Verily!" to that.

Less Olympian thinkers have portrayed strident atheists as hacking away at the bonds of morality, which must inevitably lead to various forms of depravity ranging from the sexual to the genocidal.

Don't you know Stalin was an atheist? That's the way it goes. First you read Richard Dawkins. Then you have an abortion. Then you're putting a fresh coat of paint on the Gulag.

This frames the debate in a pleasingly symmetrical way. Over on that side are the insane religious fanatics who fly jets into skyscrapers and march around with signs saying "God Hates Fags." Over there are fanatical atheists. Between the two extremes are sensible moderates who take the Goldilocks approach to faith and reason. Not too hot. Not too cold. Lukewarm, please, keep it lukewarm.

But what constitutes a strident atheist? Apparently, this:

... among the atheists such as Richard Dawkins who have been labelled "fanatics." Now, it is absolutely true that Dawkins' tone is often as charming as fingernails dragged slowly down a chalkboard. But just what is the core of Dawkins' radical message?

Well, it goes something like this: If you claim that something is true, I will examine the evidence which supports your claim; if you have no evidence, I will not accept that what you say is true and I will think you a foolish and gullible person for believing it so.

That's it. That's the whole, crazy, fanatical package.

I don't really examine the claims of the religious. Dawkins does a pretty good job of it and I'm lazy. That doesn't mean I intend to restrict the rights of the religious. Not at all.

Knock yourself out, I say. And that's where it ends. Keep it to yourself or within whatever mythology you want to buy into. I'll let you. The freedom to pursue whatever zero-sum, death-centric, mumbo jumbo you want is a right in dozens of democracies. It's my right to ignore it. The problem arises when I say, "I'm not buying", somebody always, always tells me I'm persecuting them.

When the Pope says that a few words and some hand-waving causes a cracker to transform into the flesh of a 2,000-year-old man, Dawkins and his fellow travellers say, well, prove it. It should be simple. Swab the Host and do a DNA analysis. If you don't, we will give your claim no more respect than we give to those who say they see the future in crystal balls or bend spoons with their minds or become werewolves at each full moon.

And for this, it is Dawkins, not the Pope, who is labelled the unreasonable fanatic on par with faith-saturated madmen who sacrifice children to an invisible spirit.

This is completely contrary to how we live the rest of our lives. We demand proof of even trivial claims ("John was the main creative force behind Sergeant Pepper") and we dismiss those who make such claims without proof. We are still more demanding when claims are made on matters that are at least temporarily important ("Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction" being a notorious example).

So isn't it odd that when claims are made about matters as important as the nature of existence and our place in it we suddenly drop all expectation of proof and we respect those who make and believe claims without the slightest evidence? Why is it perfectly reasonable to roll my eyes when someone makes the bald assertion that Ringo was the greatest Beatle but it is "fundamentalist" and "fanatical" to say that, absent evidence, it is absurd to believe Muhammad was not lying or hallucinating when he claimed to have long chats with God?

I strongly urge everyone to read Gardner's column. And take a look at PZ Myers' take on it. If you emerge with your faith intact, good for you. That's not permission to weave ridiculous poppycock into government.

And speaking of PZ Myers, here's a present. I know it's not a beer drinking octopus, but it's the best I can do on short notice.