Everyone wants their opinions to be heard. But should there be a limit to public displays of what people think?

Obviously if a local government allows a Christmas display at city hall, they must allow the Tree of Knowledge as well. If a school allows a Christian group to form on campus, they must also allow groups for people of other faiths or no faith.

Which is why the best thing to do (in some situations) might be to remain neutral and not favor any one group over another.

When you don’t, everyone wants a piece of the action.

Like in two recent cases.

First, this: Raymond Zbylut, a resident of Omaha, Nebraska, has applied to name a street in the city after Madalyn Murray O’Hair, founder of American Atheists and the woman who helped end mandatory prayers in public schools.

Zbylut said that he believes O’Hair is a hero to those who don’t believe in God.

“Hero” might be a stretch. Her work is certainly admirable but her style and attitude may have ultimately done more harm for atheism than good.

In any case, what happens if this application gets through? Will it open the door for others to do the same with religious figures? Will someone in Omaha soon be living on Jesus Street or Dobson Drive?

While you think about that, this about this story, courtesy of Rant & Reason.

James Pursley wanted to put the words “Joshua 24:15” on a brick he purchased on the school’s Alumni Walk.

His application was rejected. The (conservative Christian) Alliance Defense Fund sued the school and won.

As Maggie at R&R writes:

I’m finding it difficult to disagree with the ADF, despite my utter distaste for their mission (”a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth”). Sure, every student should have a right to include a message that holds dear to their hearts. But not everything can [pass] muster. What will Penn State do when a student wants to write “Atheists are going to hell” or “Proud KKK member”? Fellow blogger Lori Lipman Brown commented that this case sets a precedent for bricks that say “Glory to Allah” or “Satan rules!” Would the ADF have a problem with that? (I’d really love to see them representing a Satanist on the basis of religious freedom!)

Once you open the can of worms, everyone is allowed to have their say, and that might not always work out the way you hope.


[tags]atheist, atheism[/tags]

The Chaser’s War on Everything asks people on the street a series of questions about Jesus:

• When do you think Jesus will return to Earth?
• Who should get to speak to Jesus first?
• How much would you pay to hear Jesus speak?
• Would you vote for Jesus in the upcoming elections?

Note the shirt on the girl who says she would give Jesus all the money she has…

I’m also trying to get over how someone could not know the difference between a Democrat and a Republican. Oy.

(via Heathen.tv)


[tags]atheist, atheism, Jesus, Christian[/tags]

The current #1 book on Amazon (in Germany) is Wo bitte geht’s zu Gott?, fragte das kleine Ferkel, written by Michael Schmidt-Salomon and illustrated by Helge Nyncke.

That title roughly translates to “How Do I Get to God, Asked the Small Piglet.”

A quick summary of the book:

The book tells the story of a piglet and a hedgehog, who discover a poster attached to their house that says: “If you do not know God, you are missing something!”

This frightens them because they had never suspected at all that anything was missing in their lives. Thus they set out to look for “God.” Along the way they encounter a rabbi, a bishop and a mufti who are portrayed as insane, violent and continually at each other’s throats.

After visiting the religious figures, piglet and hedgehog come to a realization:

… nothing of any importance has been missing from their lives.

“I think that God doesn’t even exist,” the hedgehog says at the end of the book. “And if He does, than he definitely doesn’t live in [a synagogue, cathedral or mosque].”

The descriptions of the religious authorities are extremely exaggerated and suggest only the worst that each faith has to offer. The leaders are depicted as fundamentalist, hell-bent against everyone not in their “club,” and desirous to do anything — anything — to please their God:

The rabbi is drawn in the same way as the caricatures from the propaganda of 1930′s Germany; corkscrew curls, fanatical lights in his eyes, a set of predator’s flashing teeth and hands like claws. He reacts to the animals by flying into a rage, yelling at them that God had set out to destroy all life on Earth at the time of Noah and chases them away.

The mufti fares little better. While he greets both animals at first as a quiet man and invites them into his mosque, he soon changes into a ranting fanatic. He assembles a baying Islamic mob and holds the animals up in a clenched fist while condemning them to everlasting damnation through bared teeth and an unruly-looking beard.

The insinuation here is that all visitors to mosques are extremists and every imam who appears reasonable is, in truth, nevertheless, a preacher of hate.

…

The bishop, a pale fat man with a clearly insinuated predilection for child abuse, makes up the unholy trinity…

Check out a couple images from the book:

The author explains why he wrote the book:

Author Schmidt-Salomon said the book was “desperately needed considering the enormous mass of religious children’s stories.” He added that he the book offers children and their parents the opportunity to read about agnostic beliefs if they choose.

“Children also have a right to enlightenment,” he wrote on a Web site set up dedicated to the book. “They should not be left defenseless to the scientifically untenable and ethically problematic stories of religion.”

Now, if a book like that appeared in America, what would happen?

Immediately, Religious Right groups would be in a tizzy. They’d be calling for the banning of the book.

What are groups in Germany doing?

The German Family Ministry is pushing for the children’s book… to be included on a list of literature considered dangerous for young people.

…

The German department responsible for reviewing children’s literature is scheduled to discuss whether the book presents a danger to children’s upbringing in a March meeting.

I haven’t read the book, so I can’t attest to how badly distorted the caricatures of the religious figures may or may not be.

That said, I’d understand if people were upset with the portrayals of the leaders. That would be an argument worth listening to. Obviously, not all religious leaders think or act the way the ones in the book do.

Still, the book teaches a number of important lessons to children:

• Respect should be earned, not assumed.
• Children should see religions as a whole instead of one little segment of it.
• They should be critical of everything they see.
• It’s true they wouldn’t be missing out on anything worthwhile if they chose to live a life without religion and God.

There’s no reason to think this knowledge poses a “danger to children.”

(via MediaWatchWatch.org.uk)


[tags]atheist, atheism[/tags]

Thanks to everyone for their comments and emails regarding the message board. I’ll look them over as soon as I can and see what we can do!

This just in from Bryan Pesta:

Myspace just restored the group!

The regulars are still banned, but I am happy, and owe many people thanks…

More later.

Bryan

More later, but I’m certain all of you spreading the message had something to do with it.


[tags]atheist, atheism[/tags]

Edward Current created a video that calculates your “God Delusion Index”:

Where do you fall on a spectrum that ranges from “normal” to… well, you’ll see…

(Thanks to Maria for the link!)


[tags]atheist, atheism, Christian, religion[/tags]

Anatoly is vice-president of a campus atheist group that meets at Wilfrid Laurier University, a public school in Ontario, Canada. The goal of the “Laurier Freethought Alliance” (LFA) is: “to promote science, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life without the need for superstition or religious belief.”

Sounds reasonable, no?

For whatever reason, it has taken nine months for a school representative to get back to the leaders about the LFA becoming an “officially recognized” campus group. Groups that are “officially recognized” get perks that include free meeting space, potential grant money for events and activities, etc.

The school’s response to the request: “No.”

They can’t be an officially recognized campus group.

Why not? Here’s the email from the school representative (emphases mine):

While the Campus Clubs department understands the goals and visions of your organization, they are not compatible with the guidelines of what may be approved and incorporated into our department. While the promotion of reason, science and freedom of inquiry are perfectly legitimate goals, what is most in question in regards to your club’s vision is the promotion of “a fulfilling life without religion and superstition“. While this university is indeed technically a secular institution, secular does not denote taking an active stance in opposition to the principles and status of religious beliefs and practices. To be clear, this is not meant to say that the promotion of science and reason are illegitimate goals. But due to the need to respect and tolerate the views of others, the Campus Clubs department is unable to approve a club of this nature at this time. If you wish to adjust and rethink your club’s application and vision, you may resubmit a revised proposal at any time.

You’ve got to be &%*$ing kidding me.

This means that religious groups (like Campus Crusade for Christ) get recognition from the campus, but the atheist group will get none. It also implies that religious groups are tolerant of each other while the atheist group is not. (“If you don’t believe what we do, you’re going to Hell for eternity” is apparently the epitome of tolerance.)

Sounds like a clear case of discrimination against atheists.

Anatoly adds this:

We suggested both a revision and a meeting with them. We’ll see how this turns out but I wanted to let the freethought blogging community in on it and ask those who had previous experience founding freethought groups if they had any such problems and how they can be resolved.

I don’t see what needs to be revised… but the bigger concern is just getting approved by the school. Hopefully, this was just ignorance on the part of one school representative that can be quickly corrected.

If not, though, I’m sure there are plenty of atheist lawyers who can offer Anatoly some good advice…

***Update***: Anatoly provides some more details here.


[tags]atheist, atheism[/tags]

All I have to do to entice you to read John’s piece is excerpt this sentence:

Mmmmm, baby…

Ok, so maybe the rumor that atheists eat babies is accurate after all…

The piece humorously responds to some common straw man misconceptions about atheism.

(via Mind on Fire)


[tags]atheist, atheism[/tags]

What are they going to do to visitors…?

As Pastor Shawn Lovejoy (Reverend Lovejoy?!) writes:

This picture got me thinking: What are the things our church is doing that says: “Church Members ONLY” or “Outsiders Unwelcome?”

(via Floating Axhead)


[tags]atheist, atheism, church signs[/tags]

Have you ever wondered what Fox News Channel would look like if it didn’t have to hide behind the pretense of being non-partisan?

OneNewsNow.com answers that question.

ONN is a division of the American Family Association, a Christian Right group.

Check out this sample article:

Pro-life advocate Judie Brown says many politicians — including the two leading Democratic presidential contenders — claim to be Christian, while supporting things that are clearly contrary to Christian beliefs.

…

“It is one thing to profess to be a believing Christian, and another to, by your actions, either confirm that you are indeed a believing Christian, or that you are using your so-called Christianity for the purpose of political gain,” says Brown.

Because as we all know, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both raging atheists.

(It’s also good to know that Republicans have never used faith to their advantage…)

(via NoGodBlog)


[tags]atheist, atheism[/tags]