Ultimately, this is exactly why I am “up in the air” on this issue. Let me begin with this analogy. If a morbidly obese woman who swallows Big Macs like Tic Tacs shovels food down the throat of her kids at the same rate she heaves food into her own fat mouth, the kid is going to have a few problems. Weighing 140 pounds in the first grade is a reality for some children. They are already unhealthy, but must also endure agonizing torture at the hands of their peers. Obviously, these kids are going to be rejected from day one and will probably suffer from long-term lack of self-esteem as well. I believe it is the duty of teachers and parents to report this problem to Child Protective Services. These enormoparents are endangering their children and subjecting them to misery. In several cases, the government steps in and forces these irresponsible parents to correct the problem. This happened just a few months ago in Ohio when a 200+ pound 8-year-old was taken from his mother and placed in foster care.

Now, let’s look at an issue closer to our interests here. As you probably know, I live in the great, backward state of Texas. As a parent of three and a lover of science, I want my children to receive a great education. This is difficult. I live in a small town. Our schools are failing. The pass rate of the state standardized test is 27%. I want my children in private school. The dilemma here is that every private school in the area is owned by a church or is a private Christian academy. Every day, parents drop their kids off at these schools in order to protect their minds from the evils of true education. At the Alpha Omega Academy, children are taught that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Reasonable standards of education do not apply here.

Granted, they are doing better than the public schools. Students at these schools are still given standardized tests to measure their abilities. Please spare me the “teaching to the test” comments. That is not the point. These students, however, are not required to know what evolution is, they don’t have to understand how the world truly works, and thanks to recent legislation, they are free to ignore those founding fathers whose views do not measure up. For example, Thomas Jefferson now receives two brief mentions in textbooks—one for writing the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, and one for being president.

But fat kids are taken from their mothers. It’s possible that I am blowing this entire thing out of proportion. Hell, obesity is clearly a health issue. But am I wrong for believing that a solid education is a necessary part of a healthy mind? Once again, I do not like the idea of the government being able to tell parents how to raise their children, but when parents decide that their children should ignore verifiable and proven information in order to maintain a presence of ignorance, should it be the responsibility of the government to say, “No! Just because you are an idiot doesn’t mean you can force your kid to be that way.” They may be succeeding in teaching a child to read above their grade level, but if this advanced reading level is used to learn mythology in place of fact, it is useless.  At what point does the government go into these private schools and force them to teach real information? And when does the government tell parents the same thing?

I don’t identify with any party, and for the foreseeable future, I won’t be registering with one. It is interesting how sensitive people are about these things. Concerning the upcoming presidential election, I will not be voting. I didn’t vote in the last one either. And don’t say I can’t complain because I didn’t vote; I can and I will. Although I won’t be looking for a ballot any time soon, there is one thing for certain if I were to be: I most certainly would not vote for a Republican candidate.

Sometimes it is hard to say what exactly the things I agree with Republicans on are. But the root of vexation with the party is based on a series of political issues that put them and me at odds. And it isn’t necessarily a general thing. Some of the positions on issues I look for, that are important so as to gain my vote, are the willingness to uphold the separation of church and state, the legality of embryonic stem cell research, and gay rights, among others. Basically, all of the GOP candidates fail miserably in these categories. And what’s worse is that these matters, and others, go even deeper into subsets of their own.

I can only sit, incredulous, while watching people campaigning to be the President of the United States look a debate moderator, and the whole country and world for that matter, in the face and flat out say that they plan to deny some Americans the rights that most others have should they be elected. Just as bad are the “justifications” they give in interviews and speeches. And when they do so in debates, they receive applause.

Imagine that; people cheering because a presidential candidate says he will overturn the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Or because they bragged about how much they’ve approved the murder of people in the form of the death penalty. Or because they support the idea that some people shouldn’t be allowed to get married, adopt children, and a litany of other things simply because of who they are attracted to.

Well, no need to imagine these instances. They have happened and are happening all the time. It’s a disgusting occurrence to be sure, but too large a number of people are engaging and encouraging this activity.

It just seems that these people and their supporters are trying too hard to stay conservative as a lifestyle. Young generations have already realized we aren’t in an age in which oppression is an option. Old generations seem proud to be raised in a time when they were taught that the way things are now is wrong, that change is bad. They still want women with their shirts buttoned up to their chin and people not able to say something as plain as “shit” on television shows. These boring complaints of theirs come from the want of 1) oppression of human nature, 2) oppression of human desire, and 3) oppression of human expression. Have tattoos? You must have been in a gang or prison. Have long hair? You must be a drug user. Use profanity? You must have been raised by a gang member/drug user. Sometimes stereotypes are funny, but a lot times, they are lame, predictable, and so far away from reality.

Also apparent is that these people also either know nothing of stem cell research or just ignore important facts about it. You can find news stories all the time about how donated stem cells have helped cure or cure symptoms of people with all sorts of afflictions, from diabetes and strokes, to spinal cord injuries and cancers. Yet, the study and use of stem cells when attained via an embryo is off limits for many of these candidates. At this time, it is quite obvious to point out that a lot of these issues, including this one, have their basis in their religious beliefs. And this is why basing political opinions and issues on faith is a dangerous idea. Just with this issue alone, we are losing a massive amount of possibilities and one of the most important new developments of medical science of the last century.

The simplest break down I’ve seen of this kind of research, as it pertains to its morality, comes from Sam Harris. And no, this isn’t some spin job done by a liberal zealot. This is as plain as the truth gets; from his book Letter to a Christian Nation, p.29-30:

“A three-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. The human embryos that are destroyed in stem-cell research do not have brains, or even neurons. Consequently, there is no reason to believe they can suffer their destruction in any way at all. It is worth remembered, in this context, that when a person’s brain has died, we currently deem it acceptable to harvest his organs (provided he has donated them for this purpose) and bury him in the ground. If it is acceptable to treat a person whose brain has died as something less than a human being, it should be acceptable to treat a blastocyst as such. If you are concerned about suffering in this universe, killing a fly should present you with greater moral difficulties than killing a human blastocyst.

Perhaps you think that the crucial difference between a fly and a human blastocyst is to be found in the latter’s potential to become a fully developed human being. But almost every cell in your body is a potential human being, given our recent advances in genetic engineering. Every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a Holocaust of potential human beings.”

If you have a problem with this research knowing this, you have more problems than you realize. And Sam might know what he’s talking about, considering his B.A. in philosophy from Stanford and PhD in neuroscience from UCLA.

Each of the candidates also poses a major threat to the separation of church and state, be it in the form of mandatory prayers in public schools, tax breaks for faith based governmental organizations (we can just call those “surreptitious subsidies”), the exclusion and intolerance of non-Christian faiths in the public arena, etc. I’m pretty sure everyone can continue to fill in the blanks.

Mitt Romney, via Mormonism, believes in just plain silly things. Rick Santorum is on a homophobic crusade and hates abortion, despite his wife having had one. Newt Gingrich’s hypocrisy in the form of “sanctity of marriage” rhetoric, although I don’t know which of his wives he has preached it to most. Unfortunately, and nauseatingly, the list goes on. The amount of moral inadequacies with these candidates is appalling, and yet these people (a few) are serious candidates for the job. I can do no less than consider it morally irresponsible to vote for anyone in this lot, and I’m sorry more people don’t.

Quick update. I am working toward an M.A. while being a T.A. Add the whole single dad thing to that, and I have quite the load. Brian has been pretty busy himself. Recently, he opened his own business–one which will go nameless until I know if he is comfortable saying what it is on this site.

Atheism, however, is alive and well. Every day, I am still amazed at the ridiculous frame of mind in the Bible Belt. I’m not sure how many of you are from the South, but it is quite a place. I was talking to my sister yesterday about the almost uniform personalities down here in Texas. This is known as the “Solid South.” Everyone votes the same. There is also widespread courtesy. If I can say anything about this hellhole, it’s that the people are nice. But think about it. The massive majority of people in this area are connected by similar views on religion and politics. These are the two things Mom says not to discuss at the dinner table. More than anything else, these two belief structures will create combatants ready to go at the throat of anyone who holds a different view.

If the people here are connected by a Christian Conservative ideology, then courtesy is going to be easy. My dad is a Christian Conservative. He is respectful of other people and respected by people as well. I see him once every six months or so. He becomes vicious when I visit. That’s the trade off. Courtesy lasts so long as the comfort zone isn’t breached. Pops is well aware that I am an atheist. He also knows that my views become increasingly liberal with each passing day. When these two ideas are brought up, he turns into a monster. He will curse, scream, and insult. He is not a stranger in this behavior. I have been insulted by many people who do not like my views. I don’t talk about them that often. All it really takes is for someone to find out that I am an atheist. When that happens, they are on alert. Always distrusting. Always on the defensive. Southern courtesy is only skin deep.

One of the funniest things about this place is how quick people are to assume that you are a Christian. Until you state otherwise, you will be asked to pray, guess god’s opinion on topics not mentioned in the Bible, and yes–pray. More often than not, I have kept my mouth shut and gone along with the crowd, all the while feeling very awkward and doing all I could to hide my disgust. Many would not do the same if they were in my shoes. I avoid conflict when possible. Hell, that’s why I am writing this from behind a computer screen right now. I don’t invite Christians over to watch what I write. The simple fact is arguing the same thing over and over again gets exhausting.

Atheists seem angry for one very simple reason. We hear the same ridiculous arguments over and over again. We give the same logical and reasonable answers over and over again; only to have it dismissed by the simpletons we are speaking to. It’s much easier to speak to like-minded people. That is why AtheistConnect exists. We could spend our time finding Christians and going after them, but hell, isn’t it more fun to make fun of them behind their backs?

So here is the real question:

Recently, my sister was at dinner with some people she had just met. A man, obviously assuming that everyone was a Christian, asked what everyone
“believed” God thought about suicide.

What would you say?

Previously posted on Project-Reason.org and Truthsaves.com
Re-posted with author’s permission

Joe (www.truth-saves.com administrator) recently posted a blog featuring Adam Corolla talking about his atheism, and it got me to listening to some of his other comments on the subject. On one of his radio shows, Adam stated that he is often asked “What made you an atheist?” I have also been asked this question many times over the years, and Adam’s response really got me thinking.

As America is the most religious industrialized nation in the world, it seems that most Atheists in this country have a “story” regarding how they transitioned from religiosity, or at least the tacit support of religion, to deciding to declare their rationality. Every time I told my “story” to a person who believed in the supernatural, they would declare triumphantly how I had a “bad experience with religion” and that it was those events that made me an atheist. I have never been comfortable with that analysis of my experience, as it minimized the role of critical thinking and reason, and emphasized a specific event that occurred. Yes, events occurred that got me to thinking, but that does not mean that those events caused me to be vengeful against religion. When the apple fell and hit Isaac Newton on the head, did the blow cause him to start thinking critically about physics? Or did the pain cause him to go on a tree killing rampage? Clearly it is possible for one to suffer through a traumatic experience and become a better person because of it.

First of all, nothing makes someone an atheist, and I mean literally nothing. Simply NOT having religious dogma forced upon you as a child, is all it takes. Christopher Hitchens often points out that every child in Sunday school can see right through the preposterous claims of the religious, as is evident by the astonished looks on their faces, and they only succumb to these irrational beliefs after being threatened and intimidated by their elders. Every child is born an atheist; they become religious when their parents teach dogma as fact. If you want atheist children, all it takes is to simply protect children from people who pretend to know about the existence of supernatural creatures and the divine authorship of certain books.

Some people become atheists after being religious. This takes a high degree of critical thinking, rationality, and understanding the difference between right/wrong and true/false (note that this is the definition of Morality). The ability to work through the various dogmatic teachings one has been raised with and to identify the errors, really does take a lot of introspection and self-reflection. Anyone who claims that changing your life-long beliefs is easy has never done so. While it is certainly possible that folks have become atheists due to a willful blind choice against religion, many of us are simply taking responsibility for our beliefs. This is something that the religious do not do, the responsibility for their beliefs, right or wrong, lies with their imagined supernatural creature.

I am an atheist, not because of an experience or event in my life; I am an atheist because I strive to know the difference between right and wrong, true and false, accurate and inaccurate. I am an atheist because I can think critically about new information, ideas and concepts, and am willing to go through the difficult process of changing my beliefs when they are proven in error or incomplete. I am an atheist, because there is no more evidence to support the biblical Hebrew gods, than there is to support Zeus and Thor. I am an atheist, because I do not believe in the supernatural. I am an atheist because I was born one, just like everyone else.

David Stockin

Jeremiah 10 (KJV)

1. Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:
2. Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
3. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
4. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
5. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

Yes, you read it correctly; the Bible strictly forbids Christmas trees!

Please don’t think that this is taken out of context, the chapter itself is actually entitled “God and Idols” (by Christians in the NIV) and all 25 versus of it go on about how horrible people are that would decorate trees for celebratory events. We could go into detail on each of the versus, but needless to say the entire chapter says that the heathens that practice the decoration of tree’s for celebratory reasons are vain, brutish, and foolish. Of course, it then backs up these claims with threats of violence and eventually calls upon God to “pour out thy fury upon the heathen”.

Keep in mind, that when the book of Jeremiah was written, there was no Christmas; it merely bans God’s followers from practicing this heathen ritual. Merry Christmas everyone!

So here is a brief history of the Christmas tree for you:

• The shortest day of the year in the Northern hemisphere falls on December 21 or December 22 and is called the winter solstice. Too many ancient peoples the sun was a god and the winter solstice signified that the sun had become sick and died. Evergreen’s reminded them of all the green plants that would grow again when the sun god would be “reborn” and summer would return. The winter solstice celebrations, which we now call Christmas, were and still are a celebration of re-birth, and are almost certainly the single oldest celebration in human history.
• The sun god Amen-Ra was worshipped by the ancient Egyptians, he had the head of a hawk and wore the sun as his crown. In keeping with tradition, Amen-Ra was considered to be sick and week leading up to the solstice, and would begin to recover 3-days later (when the sun began to move in the sky again). To celebrate, the Egyptians would fill their homes with green palms which symbolized rebirth and the triumph of life over death. To this day, Jew’s, Christian’s, and Muslim’s end their prayers in honor of this Egyptian god, with the word “Amen”.
• The Roman celebratory feast called the Saturnalia marked the solstice in honor of Saturn, the god of agriculture. They decorated their homes and temples with evergreen boughs to celebrate the coming spring when farms and orchards would again be green and fruitful.
• The sun god Balder was celebrated in Northern Europe at the winter solstice by the Druids, the Celts, and the Vikings. They would decorate their homes and temples with evergreen boughs as a symbol of everlasting life.
• In the 16th century, Germany is credited with starting the modern Christmas tree tradition by bringing decorated trees into their homes. There was even a tradition of building pyramids of wood and decorated them with evergreens. It is said that Martin Luther himself, added the very first candle to a tree.

To conclude, I would just like to say that no matter what you may believe or don’t believe as it were, having a celebration at the winter solstice is a very ancient human tradition. For me, weather you call it Christmas, Saturnalia, Festivus, Dongzhi, Hogamanay, Hanukah, Inti Raymi, Cuanza, etc., they are all just words representing a damn good reason to have party!

So weather you are celebrating the winter solstice in honor of Jesus, Horus, Amen-Ra, Zothar, Mithra, Balder, Saturn, Bacchus, Amaterasu, Bona Dea, Callieach Bheur, Demeter, Dionysus, Frau Holle, Grigga, the Holly King, Odin, the Spider Woman of the Hopi, etc., or you are just glad that the cosmic forces of the universe allowed our rock to make one more revolution around our sun; then I say to you, happy holidays from all of us at Atheist Connect!

David Stockin
December 24, 2011

In 1981, Hitchens emigrated to the United States. He wrote for The Nation, where his liberal ideals and penmanship were used to attack the Reagan administration. In 1989, he met Carol Blue, whom he married and later gave birth to a daughter, Antonia. In 1992, he became a contributor for Vanity Fair. In 2006, Hitchens published god is not Great–his greatest work. In this book, he attacked religion using historical references, personal stories, and analysis of religious texts. He contended that religion was violent and harmful. god is not Great received mixed reviews, but was a huge success.

Hitchens’ death is a tragedy–a shocking blow to all of us even though we knew it was coming. With so much fight left in him and so much more to give, he slipped through our fingers, leaving behind powerful words through which he will gain immortality. His words and passion will remain with us. His battle will be picked up by another, but it will certainly be a long time before someone with the same zeal and thirst for knowledge is able to rise to the challenge. Not since Carl Sagan has a leader in the atheist community been so genuine and spoken with such brutal honesty. Farewell, Mr. Hitchens. You will be missed. You will be remembered.

Fortunately, we have lots and lots of data regarding the factors that relate to societal health at the level of nations. It should come as no surprise to anyone, that once again, the claims of the religious are flat out wrong. In virtually every single category one can imagine, the most atheistic nations on the planet are better off than those nations that are religious. Here is a list of the Top 10 Reasons you should want your nation to be secular:

#10 – Lower Crime Rates
That’s right, secular countries have the lowest crime rates and are the safest places on the planet. Sweden, Finland, Norway, Japan, etc., are all secular countries that have incredibly low rates of crime. Inversely the more religious a country is, the more the population suffers from thefts, rapes, assaults, etc. Clearly being a religious country does not mean that your fellow citizens will be better behaved.

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/cri-crime

#9 – Lower Homicide Rate
While homicide is certainly a crime and could be categorized accordingly, almost every country on the planet separates homicides out from other types of crime, which tends to make since as the crime of homicide is certainly more heinous than a robbery. Now why religious countries tend to have higher homicide rates is open for debate. Some believe that the moral center of the religious has been corrupted by the fairy-tale that life after death is more important than actual life; others believe that it is the religious concepts of punishment and damnation that result in the increased homicide rates. Whatever it is, clearly religious countries have higher homicide rates than secular countries. So, if you prefer not to be murdered, you should also prefer your society to be secular.

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

#8 – Lower Rates of Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Almost all secular nations have sex education programs for children, confidential public health-care programs to treat sexually transmitted diseases for free, publicly advertised programs to educate the masses about sexually transmitted diseases, and free condoms for any and all. In opposition to the secular nations, the religious nations tend to treat sex as sin, resist teaching children about the topic, and even discourage condom use. Religious countries want to rely on abstinence as the only protection from disease. Is it any surprise that secular countries have the lowest rates of sexually transmitted disease?

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html
http://www.avert.org/

#7 – Lower Rates of Infant Mortality
Infant mortality is a measure of the survival rate of new-born babies within a country. Typically it is tracked by how many infant deaths occur per 1000 full-term pregnancies. You would think that technologically advanced countries would have a distinct advantage over the less technological in their ability to save the lives on newborn infants… but according to the data, secular beliefs are far more beneficial to newborns than technology.

Why do religious countries have higher rates of infant mortality? It is probably because of the demonization of unwed mothers by religious societies. Combine this demonization with an inability to receive an abortion, and you will have a large group of mothers having children that they don’t want and/or can’t economically afford. Whether it is a conscious or an unconscious decision by the mothers to inadequately care for themselves during pregnancy, or it is the societies themselves that are not willing to provide the needed care, is not important. The point is that societies that demonize certain classes of individuals due to religious rules of acceptance are going to cause increased rates of infant mortality.

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

#6 – Lower Rates of Teen Pregnancy
As should be clear by now, secular nations tend to encourage sex education and have a far more honest understanding of human sexuality than religious nations. As such, the policies of secular countries have resulted in lower rates of teen pregnancy. This is not because teens from secular nations are having abortions at higher rates; they simply don’t get pregnant to start with. By providing education, free contraceptives, and treating human sexuality like a normal human function, secular nations have reduced the rates of teen pregnancy to levels that religious countries can only dream of.

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy

#5 – Lower Abortion Rates
This is one of the hardest and most bitter pills that religious nations have to swallow, their policies of restricting the ability of women to receive an abortion, actually results in increased rates of abortion. Secular countries tend to provide free no-questions-asked abortions to any woman that wants one, and yet these countries have rates of abortions as much as 10-times lower than religious countries. Clearly, the religious desire to control the bodies of women and forcing them into having children, does not work in reducing abortion rates.

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.html

#4 – Healthier Citizens
The citizens of secular countries are healthier than the citizens of religious countries. The reasons for this difference are almost certainly due to a combination of factors involving public education, health-care policies, access to care, etc. How religion affects these policies is open to debate, however it is clear that religious belief is a major factor. The citizens of nations that are religious and technologically advanced are no better off than countries that are less technologically advanced. In fact, the link between technology and improved health is questionable; the link between secular beliefs and improved health is not.

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/hea-health

#3 – Citizens have Better Personal Relationships
The citizens of secular nations have better interpersonal relationships (and are more happy!) than the citizens of religious nations. Religious nations tend to demonize life-styles that don’t conform to their expectations, and tend to place women at a lower social status than men. This has resulted in higher rates of infidelity and higher divorce rates in religious countries, than in secular countries. Other mental-health factors related to relationships, also demonstrate that secular countries have policies that are beneficial to improving the relationships of its citizens.

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/peo-people

#2 – Citizens Have Higher Education Rates
Secular nations such as Norway, Finland, etc., not only have citizens with an average education that is higher than religious countries, but the children of secular nations outperform religious children in math, science, and reading. Consider the level of education that your grand children will need to have in order to succeed in the future, and you can quickly see that doubting basic scientific principles such as evolution will get them nowhere.

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/edu-education

#1 – Higher Per Capita Income
Possibly the single most important reason why you should want to live in a secular nation instead of a religious nation, is that the citizens of secular nations make more money than the citizens of religious nations! And it’s not that the citizens of secular nations simply make more money, they actually have more discretionary income!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/socind/inc-eco.htm

This list only shows ten factors of societal health, it could have quite easily been much longer and would have continued to show that secular nations are better for their citizens than religious ones. While the links above primarily reference a single well-referenced document, there are many other references that could have been included, and for some of the items on the list, there are literally hundreds of references supporting the same conclusions. However, the study that has been primarily listed is probably the best documented scientific analysis on the difference between religious nations and secular nations done to date. In the words of the study’s author:

“The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular factors. No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health.” – Gregory S. Paul http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html

In conclusion, if you want to improve your country and make it as good as it can be for yourself, your children, and your fellow citizens, the single best thing you can do is to support secular policies.

David Stockin
November 23, 2011