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.

First, the phrase “even the atheists” rubs me the wrong way.  It’s as if the Catholic church, an organization that recently protected and enabled child rapists, is lowering itself in order to speak to us.  The fancy clothes don’t actually make you better than anybody – actions do that, and the actions of the Catholic Church have taken them into the ravine beside the moral high ground.  The Catholic Church has a long climb before it finds itself on the same level as non-believers like me who, given knowledge about a man raping children (much less hordes of such men), would immediately call the police.

If we are to meet on the common ground of our goodness, that’s very difficult in the light of the Church’s recent (and historic) transgressions.  However, if the pope means he wants to meet on our mutual desire to do good then, to an extent, I can acquiesce.

However, were I sitting face-to-face with the pope, I’d ask him to clarify what he meant by the word “good”.  Does he mean that we must do what creates the most happiness in the world and also what alleviates the most suffering?  Or does he mean goodness as doing whatever the Catholic Church commands?  The former I’m on board with.  However, since the latter often contradicts the former, I must say that if “good” means abiding by the decrees of the Catholic Church, even when they foster misery and inequality, then I am most certainly not on board.

The Church’s position on condoms, for instance, is a decree that causes death and strife the world over.  The Church’s pronouncements on equality for gays (including Bergoglio’s personal comments) are wicked and I oppose them with every breath.  The Church doesn’t even attempt to hide the fact that it seeks to control children still young enough to believe in the Easter Bunny with fear of eternal torture if they do not give the appropriate reverence and obedience to this particular group of men claiming to speak for god.

I realize that many Catholics are attempting to do good with these values and just not thinking it through.  It is for such people that the phrase “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” was coined.  Even the parents who neglect their sick children unto death by praying for them rather than taking them to the doctor are attempting to do good, but I would never acknowledge that they were good people.  Failing to act reasonably when actual suffering is taking place is not a sin that is washed clean by good intentions.  That is why I can give a nod to the Catholic Church with regard to our mutual desire to do good.  However, if the Catholic Church wants me to concede that it is actually doing good on the whole, then we are at an impasse.  I don’t believe it.  I’m unwilling to lie in order to build inroads and I simply won’t begin here.

I will not be granting surreptitious endorsement to the actions of the Catholic Church by acting in a way that lends credibility to their goodness.  However, if they’d like to discuss how to use their influence in better ways, ways that augment human happiness rather than infringing upon it, I’m happy to contribute to the conversation.

Republican Rep. Steve Smith on Wednesday said the prayer offered by Democratic Rep. Juan Mendez of Tempe at the beginning of the previous day’s floor session wasn’t a prayer at all. So he asked other members to join him in a second daily prayer in “repentance,” and about half the 60-member body did so. Both the Arizona House and Senate begin their sessions with a prayer and a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

It’s kind of like how they look at marriage equality: people don’t want to get married the way *I* want to get married and that just won’t do.  Except now it’s that the atheist didn’t pray the way Steve Smith would pray, and so we need a do over.

“When there’s a time set aside to pray and to pledge, if you are a non-believer, don’t ask for time to pray,” said Smith, of Maricopa. “If you don’t love this nation and want to pledge to it, don’t say I want to lead this body in the pledge, and stand up there and say, `you know what, instead of pledging, I love England’ and (sit) down.

Sorry chum, it’s not the obligation of every member of the legislature to pledge allegiance to god.  They signed up to serve America, not an invisible guy who can’t be bothered to show up, so spare us the comparison suggesting that someone’s allegiance isn’t to the United States if they don’t verbally kiss god’s feet to your satisfaction.  If you want prayer time, it must be available to everybody (see the first amendment of the document you’re sworn to uphold).  If you don’t like that people who don’t think like you are allowed to use that time then introduce a measure getting rid of prayer during legislative sessions altogether.

Thankfully, one of the Republicans actually got it right.

Arizona House Speaker Andy Tobin and Senate President Andy Biggs filed a legal brief agreeing with the town’s position.

On Wednesday, Tobin said he had no problem with Mendez’s prayer.

“From my perspective I didn’t see an issue with Mr. Mendez yesterday,” said Tobin, R-Paulden. “I can appreciate what Mr. Smith was saying, but I think all members are responsible for their own prayerful lives and I think the demonstration that we take moments for prayer we all do collectively and in our own hearts.”

Bingo!  That’s the freedom of religion.  It’s not up to Steve Smith to say that the state should not approve of how someone else elects to pray.  I really wish that tomorrow Mendez would get up and say “I’m sorry, yesterday’s do-over prayer placed far too much responsibility on god and not enough praise on humanity, so I’m going to do a do-over today.”  The Christians would see it as an affront, but would likely not connect the dots.

We will also investigate physical reality and the boundaries of science for any hidden wisdom within this reality which may illuminate the central questions of the purpose of our existence and the meaning of life. This course is designed to allow students to take a more in-depth look at the beauty and complexity of the universe and life and to give food for thought about deeper questions which remain central to human existence.

Because “I’m going to either say, or strongly imply, that science points to the conclusion that god exists, even though this is represented nowhere in scientific peer-reviewed literature” would have been rejected out of hand.  So in order to worm your evangelism into the classroom you have to be sneaky.  And, since Christianity doesn’t make anybody better, you were willing to be sneaky.

Anne already pointed out the fact that science doesn’t tackle the issues of purpose of our existence or the meaning of life.  The mere introduction of those questions reveals that this is not a course that will be based on science – which is bullshit because, as of right now, the credits fulfill a science requirement for students.  What caught me was the idea that students may be treated to “hidden wisdom”.  Is there a more obvious synonym for “shit we have no reason to believe” than “hidden wisdom”?  First: college courses at the undergrad level teach what we know.  If the wisdom is “hidden” then we don’t know it.  You simply cannot teach what isn’t known – it’s an absurd concept.  I suspect that “hidden wisdom” in this case is a euphemism for “pretensions to evidence for god’s existence that have long been shot down in peer-review or elsewhere”.

Second, I’m all for encouraging students to take a more in-depth look at the beauty and complexity of the universe.  But, as Anne pointed out, the teacher of this course is a Christian who likes to interject religion into his teaching, and this course is clearly an attempt to give him free reign to do just that.  Once you accept science as the best method to knowledge available to us, you quickly realize that someone rising from the dead or walking on water is not, and never was, part of the beauty and complexity of the universe.  You must choose between biology/physics or stories of someone rising from the dead/walking on water.  If one is true, the other must be false.  Might I suggest that the way to take a more in-depth look at the complexity of the universe is by learning and relying upon all the scientific principles that make up the universe, and that a teacher who muddles the two perhaps shouldn’t be trusted to teach reliable science in this class?

I’m also all for students learning how science and religion have interacted over the years.  They should start by learning that everything we’ve ever explained has been found to be the product of natural forces acting upon inanimate objects.  Literally every single time.  Many of these discoveries were quite embarrassing to religions, particularly Christianity, which were telling people different stories.  Turns out sickness isn’t the result of demonic possession.  Who knew?  Not god, obviously.

Students should also learn that acquiring knowledge if a very different, and much more arduous road than simply claiming to have (hidden/revealed) knowledge (that, wouldn’t you know, is not subject to scientific inquiry).  The former is the path of the scientist, and the latter is the path of the faithful.  If human history has shown us anything, it’s that looking at something we don’t understand and claiming god must have done it is as sure a method as the laws of physics allow to reach a swift, but gravely unreliable conclusion. If you want knowledge that actually affects the world, if you want to make airplanes fly and if you want to make telephones that work, the quick and easy path is not for you.  Seeking knowledge is a journey of hard work and actual deep thought, where “I don’t know” is the placeholder until we figure it out instead of “god did it”.  That’s what students should be taught in science classes.  To search for wisdom, beauty, and complexity in the same vein that gave us every conclusion that science later fixed (and validates those conclusions even in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary) is like taking an in-depth look at the complexities of the ocean by looking at a fucking puddle.

Ball State University is a publicly funded institution of higher learning in Muncie, Indiana. A possible violation of the separation of church and state has raised the eyebrows of students in a certain  science class, “The Boundaries of Science,” taught by physics and astronomy professor Eric Hedin.  The course fulfills a science requirement in the core curriculum – in other words, it is science for non-scientists.  The syllabus for the class is clear that to some extent the role of religion in defining the world will be addressed, because it says,

We will also investigate physical reality and the boundaries of science for any hidden wisdom within this reality which may illuminate the central questions of the purpose of our existence and the meaning of life. This course is designed to allow students to take a more in-depth look at the beauty and complexity of the universe and life and to give food for thought about deeper questions which remain central to human existence.

This description should give anyone a heads-up that this is not a hard science class. Science cannot and should not answer questions about the “meaning” of life or the “purpose of our existence.” Those questions belong in philosophy classes, not physics classes.

Dr. Jerry Coyne, who teaches in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago and is an honorary board member at FFRF, is not pleased. In strong verbiage, he has condemned the class as an has written several blog posts recently about the fact that since 2006 several students have complained that Hedin’s approach to the intersection of science and religion has a distinctly Christian flavor, and that they are not happy about it. Comments by several students on RateMyProfessors.com confirm this.

Because the course reading list is weighted with Christian apologists, old-earth creationists, and supporters of intelligent design, but fails to include readings from reputable scientists refuting intelligent design and creationism, Dr. Coyne is understandably concerned that the course is slanted in favor of religion. He wrote the dean of the Physics Department at Ball State, but the school stood by its decision to allow the course. Naturally, FFRF got involved.

Andrew Seidel, an FFRF staff attorney, wrote a detailed letter explaining the concerns and the law. He has asked the president of the university to investigate the matter further.

A class that actually does investigate the intersection between science and religion, especially with respect to the deistic “Prime Mover” principle, would indeed be an interesting topic to explore in the safety of a classroom, where the common questions about it could be fielded, answered, and studied in a scientific manner. If the topic is to be examined only from a religious point of view, though, it should not be in a class that not only awards a credit for natural science, but misinforms non-science students about the nature and process of scientific inquiry.

Ball State is a reputable institution and has a history of taking academic standards very seriously. To the dismay of the Discovery Institute and other Christian apologists and science-deniers, on Tuesday Ball State issued a statement assuring the public that it will investigate the matter.

Academic freedom is important. The syllabus, reading list, and the complaints by students raise a red flag, but perhaps with investigation it will be determined that the class really is a science class, not a Christian apologist’s platform for proselytizing under the guise of scientific authority. If is is a philosophy class, hopefully it will be reclassified so as to remove it from the science curriculum. Perhaps it would be a good freshman seminar – but, again, only if the views are balanced. In fact, if I were designing this course, I’d probably suggest it be team-taught by both the philosophy and science departments. That might make it worthwhile, indeed.

I’m not an academician, so my view on this is necessarily from the outside looking in. As a parent currently paying college tuition, though, I will say that I don’t want to pay for my college-age kid to take a science course only to find out the professor is promoting anti-science. I would consider it the most ignoble sort of bait-and-switch for my Humanities-oriented offspring to fulfill his science core requirement with pseudoscience. Knowing my offspring as I do, he’d be pretty upset about it, too. I’d want my money back, and he’d want his time back. Rather than learning made-up stuff like this, he could be playing Mass Effect or running a World of Darkness game. Those are intelligently-designed worlds worth spending a certain amount of quality time in. Or he could be watching the original Battlestar Galactica on Netflix. Or, I don’t know, writing a history paper.

Just, please, if a college is going to offer this course, don’t call it science. To do so is misleading at best. It strikes me as downright fraudulent, not to mention academically dishonest and irresponsible. And while academic freedom should certainly be encouraged, dishonesty, fraud, and anti-science should definitely not be.

Watch live video from jteberhard on www.twitch.tv

There are around 50,000 children being held in churches in the Democratic Republic of Congo accused of witchcraft, a BBC film team has discovered.

Branded a Witch shows Kevani Kanda exploring the secretive world of faith-based child abuse, where children are physically assaulted because a church leader believes they possess “kindoki” or magic powers.

The documentary explores the increase in the number of children abused and murdered by relatives in the name of driving out demons.

Kanda, who was born in the DRC, looks to establish how ancient traditions have resulted in children being singled out for abuse.

Human beings need to understand the world.  It’s how we live effectively within it.  When people are sick, we need to know why.  In the absence of knowledge, religion capitalizes on that need to slither into our mind.  Before we know about depression or schizophrenia, the child is possessed by demons.  When we are ignorant, that’s when we begin lashing out inappropriately because we are afraid.  And nothing empowers our ignorance, often convincing us that our ignorance is really knowledge, like religion.

Wipe religion from the mind of every person in the Congo and ask yourself if this still happens.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/469216/20130520/branded-witch-bbc-democratic-republic-congo-kindoki.htm

Jackson, a virtual unknown who has never held public office, has grabbed headlines in recent days as Democrats immediately seized on his past comments on abortion, race and homosexuality. He suggested that Planned Parenthood has done more to hurt blacks than the Ku Klux Klan and called gays and lesbians “perverted” and “very sick people.”

When you say shit like that, the GOP can overlook the fact that you’re black.

When talking about who has done damage to black people, it’s ironic to hear those assessments coming from someone in the Republican Party.  I mean, this is the party that busts its ass to suppress the minority vote and which constantly denies government aid to traditionally black neighborhoods.  Planned Parenthood is in many of those neighborhoods providing care and procedures for free or at a vastly reduced rate.  I’d be curious to hear, exactly, how that compares to lynching black people.  That comparison is perverted and very sick.

And while every reliable collection of medical minds, from organizations of doctors to psychiatrists, who say gay people are not sick.  What’s more, you just compared a group that constantly helps minorities to a group that spent much of its existence conceiving of, and executing, ways to cause minorities physical harm.  So I’m going to go with the people who know shit on this one.

But worry not!  Jackson has a reason you should listen to his seemingly ill-formed opinions: Jesus!

“I say the things that I say because I’m a Christian, not because I hate anybody, but because I have religious values that matter to me,” Jackson told reporters at a campaign stop in Fredericksburg. “Attacking me because I hold to those principles is attacking every church-going person, every family that’s living a traditional family life, everybody who believes that we all deserve the right to live. So I don’t have anything to rephrase or apologize for. I would just say people should not paint me as one-dimensional.”

He acts like being a Christian makes him incapable of hate.  Hate can also be a religious value, and it often is.  It doesn’t matter if you try to rebrand it as “love” in the same way General Mills tries to pass off Lucky Charms as “packed with vitamins”.

And if every church-going person and every family that’s living a “traditional family life” believes the same hateful things as Jackson, yup, I’m criticizing them too.  Of course, they don’t.  And “traditional” is not a word that magically makes one’s beliefs not hateful.  Hate can be a matter of tradition, and in the case of fundamentalists like Jackson it frequently is.

But the kicker is Jackson telling people not to paint him as one-dimensional.  Sorry, dude.  When you’re running around saying “Jesus informs everything I do” you’re one dimensional, just like how running around trying to relegate people who don’t want to live like you to the ranks of second class citizens makes you hateful, no matter how much you say you don’t hate them.

Have fun with this jackass, Virginia.

An atheist state lawmaker tasked with delivering the opening prayer for this afternoon’s session of the House of Representatives asked that people not bow their heads.

Democratic Representative Juan Mendez, of Tempe, instead spoke about his “secular humanist tradition” and even quoted author Carl Sagan.

For a guy who makes his living based on the approval of the citizenry, that took some serious brass.  But Mendez wasn’t done.

Mendez, in addition to his God-free invocation, also introduced members of the Secular Coalition for Arizona, sitting in the House gallery. One of the members said she was “witnessing history.”

After the invocation, Mendez called himself one of just one of 1.3 million Arizonans not affiliated with a religious tradition or organization.

“I hope today marks the beginning of a new era in which Arizona’s non believers can feel as welcome and valued here as believers,” he said.

Give that man a fucking trophy.

A federal court in San Francisco Tuesday struck down Arizona’s ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law violates a string of U.S. Supreme Court rulings starting with Roe v. Wade that guarantees a woman’s right to an abortion before a fetus is able to survive outside the womb. That’s generally considered to be about 24 weeks. Normal pregnancies run about 40 weeks.

Idaho will be covered by district court’s ruling, but there are 8 other states that passed similar measures that won’t be.  Still, this will give ammunition to the pro-choice side when those cases find their way to court.