Yesterday, I posted about something interesting Pope Francis said in a recent homily — namely, that even atheists could be “redeemed” if they were good people:

“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

Many atheists thought it was pretty damn nice of the Pope to say that… even if the idea of being “saved” or “redeemed” thanks to Christ’s death is all made up.

We all knew that sense of one-ness and actions-speak-louder-than-prayers wasn’t going to last very long. As the Pope’s words made their way around the world, a Vatican spokesman had to do some damage control and remind everybody that atheists, in fact, are going to hell unless they accept Jesus:

Rev. Thomas Rosica

On Thursday, the Vatican issued an “explanatory note on the meaning to ‘salvation.’”

The Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, said that people who know about the Catholic church “cannot be saved” if they “refuse to enter her or remain in her.”

(That’s what she said.)

Okay, okay, so that’s what we were expecting all along. Atheists, according to Christians, are going to hell unless we accept Christ’s divinity. We already knew that. It was still an unusual and welcome gesture from the Pope to recognize that everyone, regardless of beliefs, can do good and “be saved” — at least it was a step up from what we’re used to hearing.

Earlier tonight, MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell spoke about atheists popping up in the least expected places — in Oklahoma, in a talk by the Pope, and in the Arizona House of Representatives:

Okay, so he called Rep. Juan Mendez “Rep. Menendez” at one point… but I’ll let it slide

Here’s some advice to politicians out there: If you’re going to say something stupid, don’t do it in writing where all of us can see it.

Mike Wilson, a Republican state senator from Kentucky, not only ignored that wisdom, he doubled down on his ignorance in an op-ed for the (Louisville) Courier-Journal in which he railed against recently-released “Next Generation Science Standards” for promoting human activity as a factor in climate change and — wait for it — evolution:

The standards place substantial emphasis on teaching climate change and there is considerable discussion describing human activities as major factors in global warming…

…

The National Research Council appears to be carving out positions and expressing the beliefs of U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

There are those in the scientific field who question the beliefs of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A statement signed by 16 scientists listed several stubborn scientific facts contradicting the Intergovernmental Panel’s beliefs…

16?! That’s how many scientists he’s basing this judgment on? Not the tens of thousands who have said otherwise?!

It makes no sense to ignore the overwhelming majority of experts in this field who say human activity is an important factor in climate change in favor of the fringe minority. What an idiotic way to settle the issue — you can find dissenters for anything; it doesn’t mean they have anything legitimate to say. That’s why you don’t hand over sex education to a group of abstinence-only ideologues and why you don’t let pseudo-historian David Barton write your history textbooks. You have to learn how to separate the bullshitters with loud voices from the people who actually understand the issues at hand. Wilson obviously hasn’t figured that out yet.

He’s even more out of sync with reality when it comes to evolution, which he doesn’t understand and categorically denies:

The standards make it clear that evolution is fundamental to understanding the life sciences. Generally, the standards focus on changes in gene pools, genetic mutations and effects of the environment on changes within species. The controversy arises with the statement that “Students can evaluate evidence of the conditions that may result in new species and understand the role of genetic variation in natural selection.” This is supposition and implies that one species may evolve into a different species. There is no factual evidence that this has ever occurred and to suppose that it happens is counter to the beliefs of many Kentuckians.

No factual evidence… except for the fossil record and DNA evidence and the tens of thousands of peer-reviewed published papers.

And the fact that accepting evolution “is counter to the beliefs of many Kentuckians” says more about the state of science education in Kentucky (and the people who get elected) than it does about evolution.

That many people don’t understand evolution is exactly why we must make sure teachers are educating students about what it is and why it’s central to all of biology.

Oh. By the way. Wilson chairs the state’s Senate Education Committee. And he’s the also the General Manager of WCVK Christian Family Radio. So that should make you feel better… or give you nightmares.

The best part of his op-ed piece, though. has to be this:

Standards should encourage teachers to create and foster an environment that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of multiple theories.

Wilson is lecturing us on the importance of critical thinking. Let that sink in.

At least he’s right on this point — we should discuss multiple theories… when warranted. If there are different, credible, evidence-based theories in major scientific areas, we should discuss them with students. But those kinds of debates are not happening when it comes to the subjects discussed in high-school-level textbooks. There’s no debate when it comes to the basics of photosynthesis or the structure of DNA or how evolution works. Those issues have been settled for a long time.

The science standards Wilson is opposing here were written by people who know what they’re talking about:

Writing and review teams will consist of K–12 teachers, state science and policy staff, higher education faculty, scientists, engineers, cognitive scientists, and business leaders.

Wilson believes his collection of 16 fringe scientists and, I assume, a cohort of evangelical Christian pastors know more about science than the people who study and work with it on a regular basis.

He doesn’t deserve his seat on the Senate Education Committee. And when an opponent runs against him, I hope that person uses this op-ed as Exhibit 1 as to why he has no business in a position of power.

(Thanks to Joshua for the link)

Glenn Beck, the professional conspiracy theorist, said on his show last night that Wolf Blitzer‘s conversation with Oklahoman Rebecca Vitsmun was pre-planned by a producer clearly sympathetic to atheists:

Sure… and while we’re at it, the tornado was all part of the environmentalists’ plan to make God look evil, right?

The Boy Scouts of America just approved a resolution allowing gay youths to be part of the organization.

Yep, once you turn 18, gay scouts are kicked right back out. And if you’re an open atheist, you’re still never allowed to be a scout in the first place.

The American Humanist Association was quick to respond to the announcement:

“The Boy Scouts of America still supports an untenable, unreasonable and unnecessary discriminatory policy by excluding gay leaders and staff members,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. “If the Boy Scouts are truly a values-based organization, bigotry can’t be part of the program.”

Speckhardt added, “In addition to ending all anti-gay policies, the Boy Scouts should also open their doors to those without a religious affiliation. Their national policy of discrimination against humanists and atheists, like the anti-gay policy, needlessly shuts out millions of Americans.”

It’s really a bittersweet victory. What’s great is that gay scouts who have had to hide an important part of their identities in order to remain in their troops no longer have to pretend to be people they’re not. Unfortunately, this half-hearted attempt to modernize the organization by welcoming gay scouts — but only until they turn 18 — shows just how little progress has been made within the BSA.

Even now, in their moment of glory when they celebrate being inclusive and welcoming, the silent truth is that the BSA is just as bigoted as ever.

We must keep the pressure on them and let them know it’s unacceptable to treat atheists and gay adults like second-class citizens. This particular battle has been won, but we’re not done fighting yet.

If you saw the side of the water tower in Roberts, Idaho last week, you would’ve seen this cross (and two others):

But they’re not there anymore thanks to Joe Cohea, who lives in the small town. With the help of the ACLU, Joe got the city to replace the crosses with flags:

Joe Cohea lives right next door to the water tower. He sees it every day and says because it’s city-owned property, it should not have any religious symbols on it.

…

“My opinion is no kind of religious symbol belongs on city property, period,” said Cohea.

So, Joe took his concerns to City Hall and the American Civil Liberties Union and the crosses came down.

“Roberts has always welcomed religious and cultural expression if requested, but at this point, we haven’t changed any policies,” said Robert “BJ” Berlin, Mayor of Roberts.

One of Joe’s concerns was that the crosses gave the wrong message about Roberts. It’s not just full of Christians, and the city agrees.

“We have many different cultures and faiths, especially for a town our size,” said Berlin. “Joe mentioned Buddhists, Hindus, Native Americans, Jews… and he’s right.”

Bravo, Joe! This sort of Christians-marking-their-territory nonsense undoubtedly happens all over the country, especially in small towns, but it takes someone who understands the law and is willing to speak up to change the situation.

Cohea added that there’s usually a nativity scene on government property in December, too, and he’ll alert the ACLU if that happens again this year. You have to wonder why the Mayor wasn’t the one to say something first — he noted that “anyone can put religious or cultural symbols up on the water tower, as long as it’s not derogatory,” but you get the feeling that if atheists and Pagans and Hindus started sending him symbols, the policy would change in an instant.

The comments on the news sites, not surprisingly, are all focused on how Cohea was “offended” and how this is discrimination against Christians and the usual talking points. They’re all wrong, though. It’s all about keeping government neutral with respect to religion.

On a side note: I can’t look away from Mayor Berlin…

(Thanks to Amy for the link!)

The Illinois Family Institute’s David E. Smith and Andrew Willis have used their incredible wisdom and logic to poke a hole in the idea that gay and lesbian couples in Illinois really want to get married.

Here’s how their argument goes: According to the census, very few gay and lesbian couples in Illinois got “civil unionized” in 2012. Therefore, why would they fight so hard for marriage equality?!

In Illinois, only 0.45 percent of the homosexual population received a civil union in the first full year of availability, and only a fraction of a percent (0.0166 percent) of Illinois’ population got “civil unionized” in 2012. This is the response to all the enthusiasm and celebration that surrounded the passage of Illinois’ civil unions law?

The response to civil unions has been lackluster at best, and one should not expect these percentages to rise dramatically. The law came into effect June of 2011, so one would expect that homosexuals who had been committed to a partner would have formed a civil union by now, but the vast majority have not.

…

… Why the sudden political urgency for a same-sex “marriage” law in Illinois — when there seems to be so very little interest in forming civil unions? And there is absolutely zero evidence that same-sex “marriage” would be more popular in the long run than civil unions has proven to be in Illinois.

The short answers are these: Separate but equal is not equal. And for many gay and lesbian couples, they’re not settling for a watered-down version of marriage. They want to be treated the same as straight couples in the eyes of the government and that’s not going to happen until full marriage equality is achieved.

But back to the numbers. I’m trying to make sense of IFI’s statistics, but when they distort them this badly, it’s hard.

Like this idea that only 2,140 gay couples obtained civil unions in 2012. Since civil unions became legal midway through 2011, shouldn’t we count those couples, too? The Chicago Phoenix reported that the number of couples in civil unions was closer to 5,000 a year after it became legal in the state, midway through 2012. You would think, too, that couples who were most interested in getting a civil union got them as soon as they could in 2011 — they didn’t wait until 2012, the only year that IFI seems to care about.

IFI also claims that only 0.45% of gay people got civil unions in 2012. As far as I can tell, they obtained that number by dividing the number of gay couples who got civil unions in 2012 (2140) by the number of gay people in Illinois (466,460) which equals 0.00459 or 0.45% (poorly rounded). But that makes no sense. Why divide by all the gay people in Illinois, including teenagers and single people? They should be dividing the number of gay couples in civil unions by all the gay couples that could theoretically get them.

In any case, IFI claims what gay rights supporters really want is not equality, but power. Power and the destruction of society:

The ultimate goal is the eradication of conservative moral beliefs and the creation of a social and legal climate that promotes homosexuality as normal behavior. Redefining marriage in order to accommodate the unjustifiable demands of a tiny but politically powerful group will ultimately prove too costly.

There’s paranoid bigotry at its finest.

Over the weekend, California State Senator Roderick D. Wright (a Democrat) hosted a luncheon for high school honors students in his district. The invitation letter, sent out last month, was pretty straightforward and it sounded like a really nice gesture from a local politician:

Bob Smith (a pseudonym) was one of the attendees — his niece was being honored — but when the luncheon started, things got very quiet and very religious.

Beginning at the 0:48 mark in Smith’s video below, you can hear the person introducing Wright — Carson City Councilmember Mike Gipson — leading the crowd in a Christian prayer:

Senator Wright knew this was going to happen. He even mentioned it on his website:

LA Sheriff’s Lieutenant Scott Gage led the students, parents and teachers in the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by an invocation by Carson City Councilmember Mike Gipson.

Typically, government invocations are non-denominational, but I think it’s safe to say the line is crossed when you end the prayer with “Bless them now in Jesus Christ’s name. Amen.”

Smith notes:

There were noticeable Muslim students also at this event yet there was no mention of their faith.

There was obviously at least one atheist in the audience, too. Probably a lot more, though we don’t know for sure. But even if the entire audience comprised of Christians, it wouldn’t make this the appropriate venue for a religious prayer.

This wasn’t billed as a luncheon for Christian students only.

This was an event to honor the best and brightest students in Wright’s district, yet Wright and his colleagues used the time to make non-Christians feel excluded for the crime of not being in the majority faith.

Incidentally, Wright attended Pepperdine University, a private school affiliated with the Churches of Christ.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has been alerted.

The organizers of the FreeOK Oklahoma Freethought Convention are doing a nifty fundraiser to help out Rebecca Vitsmun, the atheist who told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer “I’m actually an atheist” in response to his question about whether she thanked God in the wake of the recent tornado.

To help out Vitsmun, who was referred to yesterday as the “only atheist in Oklahoma” by Rush Limbaugh, they’re selling t-shirts with Vitsmun’s phrase on it:

These shirts will be sold online and at the FreeOK Convention in June for a $25 donation to a relief fund designated to help our heroine and her son get through this very difficult time. All tees are black, 100% cotton with “I’m actually an atheist” screen printed in white with the scarlet letter A that has come to be associated with atheism. Ladies cuts are available. When ordering, you may choose to have your tee shipped or have it waiting for you at the convention on June 22nd. As always, your support is appreciated.

Awesome

If you’d like a shirt and the chance to help out Rebecca and her family, go here and place your order.

(Thanks to Aimee for the link)

During yesterday’s Mass in Rome, Pope Francis made some noteworthy remarks that go against the Protestant notion that only those who believe in Christ’s divinity can be saved. (Sure, he’s Catholic, and this belief is nothing new, but we’re still not used to hearing it from someone in his position.)

“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

Damn… this Pope’s making it really difficult to dislike him. Compared to the legacy the last one left behind, it’s like Francis is dragging Catholicism into the 19th century.

Of course, the underlying message — that were all “redeemed” because Christ died for us — is just fiction to atheists. You may also think it’s condescending to suggest that atheists need to be redeemed (from what, exactly?), but to have the Pope reiterate to Catholics that they’re not the only special ones is a big deal.

One commenter on Huffington Post put it perfectly: “I’m glad to know that an imaginary being has granted me imaginary forgiveness.”

Still, to have a religious leader of any sort tell his followers that people who aren’t part of the faith can be good and “saved” is a huge step forward. Usually, it’s the exact opposite.

Now if only he would come around on marriage equality and find a way to rein in the sexual abuse within the Church…