I can't count the number of times of seen a variation of the meme below:

Even setting aside that the basic premise is an affront to one of the founding principles of our nation, Separation of Church and State, this is an incredibly self serving and idiotic view. All it really does is confirm that many Christians are willfully ignorant and/or self deluded. Christ, and therefore Christianity, is not a good source of comparison. At least not for for any self-respecting decent human being. If you have doubts about this characterization you really need to read/reread the Gospels and pay attention to what's actually there.

For example:

In Matthew 10:22-28 Jesus is a complete asshole to the non-Jews around him which he follows up latter in the same chapter 10:34-35 with an outright endorsement of divisiveness and intolerance.

Then there are some cute passages in Mark where he does in fact make a statement that I fail to see any other interpretation other than a big-ol Fuck-the Poor (Mark 14:3-7) which he also follows up with yet another endorsement of hate (Mark 14:26).

This, of course, pales in comparison to his Luke 19:27 command to his followers to round up all non-followers and commit mass murder.

Basically, criticizing Republicans on the gounds of not being "true" Christians is utter bullshit. Depending on your preferred interpretation you could argue that they are being good Christians by being utter bastards. Then again, if you need a horrendous work of fiction like the Bible to guide your behavior I have to assume you are a completely unethical moron.

Connor gets "Secularism" wrong

Once again Connor Wood demonstrates his lack of critical thinking and poor understanding of science. Right from the start of "Is a secular America a worse America?" he makes a number of idiotic conflations. He writes as if there is only one possible definition of secularism. Wrong. In the context of political science secularism has far more to do with the system of governance than the individual preferences of the citizens under that government. Generally, the two are fairly closely aligned but do not have to be. For a government to be "secular" it must make an effort to separate religion from government. Historically speaking, a non-secular America would not be America at all. Separation of Church and State is a basic principle of our Constitution. Anyone who tries debating that is a wilfully ignorant fool.

Connor also conflates organized religion with religion in general. This is equally foolish and ignorant.  Not belonging to an identifiable religious group does not make an individual non-religious. The more individuals move away from organized religions the more, not less, important secularism becomes. In theory, if a religious group is large enough or influential enough it can provide a certain level of protection to its members in the form of social or economic power. If the group is small or there are many different groups (like in our country) this is not effective. Having codified protections from government has been the best and most effective way to ensure everyone can worship or not how they see fit. Basically, regardless of an individuals religious preference the only way to ensure religious freedom/freedom of conscience is through secularism, through Separation of Church and State.

Not surprisingly,Wood shows once again how much of a misnomer his blog's title is. This piece is just another example of his writing from an entirely religious perspective with religious motives and predetermined conclusions. It is the antithesis of science.

Cheapening Patriotism

A patriot should never fail to respect and uphold the ideals of his/her country. That's what patriotism is supposed to be about. Very few right-wingers have ever understood that. Symbols are important as are the individual's person beliefs but they do not automatically translate into patriotism. In a rather superficial and wish-washy way Tobin Grant questions this approach in his post, "Real Americans are Christians?", on the most recent General Social Survey.

Personally, I think the "Two-thirds of evangelicals say that true Americans are Christian" are among the worst examples of Americans. Though, it is an opinion it can at least be backed up. These dumb-ass self-righteous prick defy one of the basic principles of our constitution; Separation of Church and State. As I've pointed out numerous times there are only two references to religion in general between the Constitution proper and the Bill of Right. Both are framed in the negative. Separation was clearly intended despite claims to the contrary. These ignorant fools certainly do not live up to our nation's first and best motto, "e pluribus unum" (out of many one). And, yet, it's this same subset that often claims atheists and non-Christians are the troublemakers.

Elections are Civic not Religious

A couple of recent posts on Patheos does a pretty good job summarizing and exemplifying a number of all too common ignorance laced misconceptions. The two major assumptions that pervade both "The Perfect Religious President" and "7 Ways to Prepare Spiritually to Vote" are:
1. Mixing religion and politics is a good thing;
2. Religion and Spirituality mean the same thing to every one.

Both are horribly misguided. The good that religion may or may not represent is highly debatable. Mixing religion into politics is less debatable but still tends to provoke arguments. There is far more to support the position that mixing religion into politics is a terrible idea. There is absolutely no legitimate debate that religion and spirituality are as amorphous as they are subjective. No one agrees on even a basic definition let alone a specific set of traits or characteristics.

By its very nature religion is divisive and riddled with all sorts of problems that tend to only unnecessarily complicate everything it touches. We are all best served when religion is kept away from public policy and governance. Religion should only be tolerated when it is kept to be a personal matter. Individuals should vote their conscience but I also hope that they examine their motivations before casting their vote. Everyone should ask themselves why they are voting and what they are voting for. I have yet to get the impression that "religious voters" ever do any such thing.

It may not be that difficult

The recent Religious News Service analysis piece "Non-religious voters present a puzzle for political parties" makes a few decent point but does overlook a few key points. I won't pretend to speak for all atheists let alone all of the "nones" but there does seem to be one political element that many of us can agree on; Separation of Church and State.

Markoe writes:
"The nones are also a difficult group for politicians to define and woo, said Dan Cox, research director at the Public Religion Research Institute. They’re not cohesive, in that they include atheists and agnostics but also believers unattached to religious institutions. And unlike the pursuit of an actual religious group, it’s not so clear how to connect with the millions of people defined by their lack of religious connections."

It is true that we are one of the most diverse demographics around. However, I have yet to come across any that fall under the "nones" label that particularly like being told by others what and how we should think. Most also seem to distrust or dislike religion being foisted on the rest of us. Seems to me that if a politician wants to court us as a group they would have to make it clear they will not use their own or accept others attempts at imposing religious views on the rest of us. That would mean clearly and consistently supporting the Separation of Church and State. That doesn't seem too "difficult" to figure to me.

Conflating Religion With Morality

David Gushee seems to have trouble following the train of thought he himself initiates. In "Do the Democrats have a moral agenda for 2016?" he does note how superficial politicians can be when talking about religion. Sadly, that's about the only thing Gushee gets right. Throughout the piece he tacitly accepts the all to prevalent view that religion automatically translates into morality. It doesn't. He never seems to realize that his conflation of the two only serves to reinforce a blatantly false and dangerous myth. It should also occur to anyone with any sense of history, reason, and decency that mixing religion into politics has almost always made things worse.

"5 Things Christians Should Remember This Election Cycle"

I'm pretty sure that Benjamin Corey means well in his September 17th blog post. A few of his points have some merit, though in a superficial and somewhat self-serving manner. However, he fails to note the most important point for any theist to remember during any election cycle.

The United States of America is NOT a theocracy! We live in a democracy. Religion should not be imposed on anyone. All Americans are free to worship or not as they see fit. Religion has no place in public policy. Period. So all his nonsense about Christian standards and criteria is misguided, even arrogant. He seems to think, like far too many Christians, that he really knows the true Jesus and the essence of Christianity.That there even was/is a Jesus or an essential Christianity is in itself a myth.

I'm not anti-semitic, Salkin is arrogant

Quite a few of Jeffrey Salkin's blog posts have been loaded with all sorts of ridiculous self-serving crap. His recent post, "Say it ain’t so, Bernie!", was particularly irritating. All too often when someone points out how full of shit pieces like this are they get accused of being anti-semitic. Why? Why isn't this viewed the other way around. Salkin seems annoyed that Bernie is not being a good representative of Judaism despite the fact that Sanders has never identified himself as religious. He has identified himself as culturally Jewish, which I'll come back to later. Sanders is running for President, a secular leader. What his religion may or may not be should be irrelevant. Not to Salkin. He seems to think it's perfectly fine to impose his religious standards on someone else. That the religion in question happens to be Judaism is also irrelevant. If a candidate was born to Baptist parents does that mean they should be hounded by another Baptist if they choose not to practice that specific denomination, or any sect/denomination at all? Why should that be seen as a factor in any profession they choose?

Personally I find the "culturally ____ (fill in your faith of choice)" nonsensical. So what if you grew up in a culture saturated by Christianity, Judaism, or whatever? Do you believe it now? Are you practicing it now? It's a cop out. It loans respectability to something that hasn't really earned it. After all, if it was actually worthwhile you wouldn't need the adjective "culturally" before the term itself. You would simply be X. Bernie Sanders is not practicing Judaism. So whatever he may think about Judaism, I see no reason to assume he owes that faith anything. More importantly, as a candidate for the highest elected office he should be expected to serve all US citizens equally. So, no, Jeffrey Salkin, you do not merit any special attention or treatment despite your insistence on it. You are not better than the rest of us. The very notion that Sanders owes you or any others who are practicing Judaism is arrogant, hypocritical, selfish, tribalistic, bigoted, and despicable.

Yup, he's a leech

No doubt you've seen all sorts of fluff pieces about Pope Francis' pending visit to the United States. Have you seen even one that mentions the fact that we tax payers are going to being footing a large chunk of bill? I have not. Instead you occasionally come across pieces like this one: "Secret Service director: No credible threats against Pope Francis." Of course, we will not be passing on that expense to the Catholic Church. Instead of letting one of the wealthiest organizations on the face of the planet pay for it's own propaganda campaigns we get to do it.

As much of an affront to our Constitution as this is (think Separation of Church and State) it is also rather revealing in terms of religious philosophy. What threats can civil authorities protect the "Vicar of god" from? The Pope is supposedly God's representative on Earth. Shouldn't God be protecting him? I want to be clear on the next point, I do not want to see the Pope hurt or killed. That said, why would it be such a big deal to anyone who happens to be religious if the Pope is assassinated? Wouldn't such an occurrence by it's very nature be the will of God? And, being such a holy figure wouldn't he be getting an express ticket to Heaven? Doesn't sound like such a horrible consequence if you really believe in that sort of thing.

Basically, we all get to pay for a representative of one specific church to further spread it's lies and bullshit. The media won't talk about that. They will, however, continue to give the overprivileged pompous bishops and cardinals a venue to pretend their religious liberties are being violated when they can't force their views and opinions on the rest of us even more than they currently get away with. Francis and the rest of the Catholic Hierarchy are hypocritical, dishonest, social and economic leeches.

Your deceit isn't their hypocrisy

America is not the only country where a subset of theist find the need to lie and whine in defense of their beliefs. After fact checking a piece I found on the Christian Concern website it was blatantly obvious how incredibly unethical and vicious the assholes who work there really are. Virtually nothing in "Humanists' hypocrisy after sending atheist manuals to every Scottish secondary following Christian book ban" turned out to be true.The Humanist Society of Scotland did not seek to "ban" the so-called "guide book" entitled It's Your Move.

What did the Humanist Society of Scotland actually have an interest in accomplishing? They sought to remove from public school curriculums a clearly Christian centric book and bar those public schools from paying for the books out of school funds. Got that? They did not ask that children be prevented from receiving the books. They just found it inappropriate for public schools to pay for and actively push a sectarian book on children. Christian Concern and the Free Church of Scotland both routinely misrepresented the facts and sought to demonize a group of individuals who actually applied basic civil rights and human decency to an incredibly bigoted set of circumstances.

This gang of assholes also left out a number of details along the way. They didn't bother to mention how well connected the Free Church of Scotland already is with various public schools around the country. They certainly didn't mention that the book the Humanist Society of Scotland has offered for distribution would be a small token in an attempt to deal with centuries of bias towards theism or that they have donated all the books. It definitely slipped their minds that these books from the beginning are only being offered as an option. They are not being forced on kids like the Christian guide book had been. The publisher, Scripture Union, of the It's Your Move book even brags about directly connecting churches to schools through it's books and curriculum in it's introduction video.

Anyone who even skims through the "Resource Booklet" that accompanies the Christian guide book can't help but realize that this really is a set of Sunday School lessons being passed off as public school curriculum.

The very notion that the humanists are the ones being hypocritical is absurd to the point of being laughable. Christian Concern, The Free Church of Scotland, and other supporters of this guide book being force fed to other people's children are being deceitful tyrannical assholes. Their whining about responsible adults opposing them is hypocritical not to mention despicable.

Ignorance may not be bliss but....

Even if ignorance really isn't bliss it certainly provides comfort and cover for many individuals, especially theists. I came across a letter to the editor last week that I found somewhat interesting. The first read through of Miss Fogg's "Defense of Christians doesn’t mean ‘special rights’(Letter)" seems relatively naive and harmless but if you reread it you may notice it is an example of an attitude that is highly corrosive. She finds the need to defend an individual who quite frankly doesn't need defending. He isn't actually being attacked. i couldn't even find any examples of people who are supposedly attacking "the April 23 opinion of columnist, Don Roberts." 

Miss Fogg seems to have drank the cool-aid that willfully ignorant self-righteous assholes like Roberts have been doling out for years. Yes, that would be an attack on Roberts opinions and his character. Unlike Roberts I can point out why he deserves both criticism and derision. He represents a variety of mean spirited myths and stereotypes. He also is a very dishonest self centered individual who does wish to see the right of others stripped away. Despite lying to herself about Roberts not claiming "special rights" for Christians, Fogg fails to see all the propagandist bullshit Roberts' "In defense of Christianity - Maine legislators should take note: Christians have rights, too" contains. Just start with the title. Who is challenging the actual rights of Christians? Why would Maine's legislators, who are predominantly Christian, fail to protect their own rights?

Roberts sets the tone of his opinion piece very clearly in the first paragraph:
"The world is experiencing a war against Christianity. Our nation, founded on Judeo-Christian principles, faces the greatest challenge to our existence in modern times. Amazingly, our enemy, the radical Islamic terrorist movement, is underestimated at the highest levels of American government."
The religious right loves to use the symbols and language of warfare. I'd also point out that he is pushing the conservative, and false, notion that the US was founded to be a "Christian Nation." I have previously commented on this bogus premise.* Roberts is the one being belligerent and is most certainly trying to claim "special" status for Christianity. The sad truth is that any group you can identify has been, and in many instance are still being, abused, persecuted, and even killed somewhere in the world. It isn't right. It should be stopped. That is not what he's trying to bring attention to. He doesn't give a shit about all the other groups. I seriously doubt he is all that concerned about all Christians either. I don't get the impression from his writings that he has any problem persecuting "Christians" who don't conform to his favored version of the faith.

Sorry, Miss Fogg but you are blinded by your own biases. Roberts is not the champion you seem to think he is.

*Conflation Nation (4-12-15)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2015/04/conflation-nation.html

Religious Freedom already exists

The Indiana legislatures ploy to legally discriminate has publicly stirred up more of the religious rights ongoing bullshit. Unfortunately both the mainstream and some of the alternative media have fallen into line by accepting a variety of assumptions and distortions. CNN Belief blog has a piece, "How to fix religious freedom laws", that falls for the all too common notion that somehow we need more legislation and interference in this area. Actually, we don't. The Constitution and virtually every State Constitution already includes provision design to uphold an individuals freedom of conscience/religion. What we need to do is stop religious zealots from perverting those principles and ramming their beliefs down our throats.

An excellent example of hos stupid people can be once religion is interjected into politics can be read in Debra Haffner's HuffPo piece "Discrimination Is Never a Religious Value." She clearly has no memory span or ability to think beyond her preferred beliefs. History makes it pretty clear that Religion have and continue to discriminate. I am not talking about individuals who happen to be religious being discriminatory. Religions as a whole by doctrine and policy have a tendency to discriminate. Even a cursory reading of history should be enough for anyone not blinded by their chosen faith to see that is the case.

Anyone interested in religious freedom should be supporting one of the most basic principles of the Constitution: Separation of Church and State.

The President is not a priest

There are two recent pieces that were quite irritating and disturbing. Both "Which U.S. Presidents were the most religious?" and "Does Obama's 'God Talk' Stand A Chance In A Polarized America?" convey a wide variety of assumptions, misconceptions, and implications. Though it is true that there is no way to completely separate religion and politics it does not mean that we should not make every effort to do so. Our government is by design secular. Religious conservatives are wrong in their claims that we are a "Christian Nation." In the entire US Constitution there are only two references to religion and both are in effect negative. We are not a theocracy. What an individual president personally believes and/or believed in regard to religion should not matter. It is the presidents job to govern the nation as a whole rather than cater to a specific group of people. He is the president not a member of the clergy.

Obama does some distorting

The right wing threw yet another Obama inspired hissy-fit this past week for doing something they tend to favor themselves. Obama channeled some of the religious right's favorite hypocritical ignorance laden bullshit. During his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast he commented that "As people of faith, we are summoned to push back against those who try to distort our religion — any religion — for their own nihilistic ends." This, of course, is what many theists have been deluding themselves about for ages. They never seem to notice that Religion as institution has no "true" version. All variations are completely subjective and unfounded. Even though prefer that theists follow a more liberal version that doesn't make it any more or less legitimate than the more conservative or violent forms of faith. This is also not the part of his address that got the right wings bent out of shape.

Obama quickly followed up with "Here at home and around the world we will constantly reaffirm that fundamental freedom: freedom of religion, the right to practice our faith how we choose, to change our faith if we choose, to practice no faith at all if we choose, and to do so free of persecution and fear and discrimination." The idea that he might be sympathetic to non-Christians and even atheists was not to their liking. Reactions to this part was way overblown given that the intent was all but erased the venue and manner of delivery. The fact that he attended the National Prayer Breakfast as the President rather than a private citizen basically provides a government endorsement of religion over non-belief. It is actually a distortion and an affront to one of the most basic principles of our Constitution: Separation of Church and State.

Then he really pissed them off by pointing out that Christianity isn't completely innocent when it come to persecuting other and committing acts of violence. Ironically, the comments he made in this area were among the few that had any accuracy and merit to them. It also demonstrated why government officials should not be endorsing faith of any sort. All variations of faith are subjective and tends toward authoritarian anti-democratic practices.

AU 2014

Unfortunately, the fight for basic rights is always necessary. Part of the problem is people fail to understand the basic premise of many of these rights. Secularism is, despite claims to the contrary, of great benefit to everyone. It is meant to maintain/guarantee everyone's freedom of conscience and thought. Anyone who wishes to worship the way they want in their personal lives or be free from being coerced into worshiping in any form should wholeheartedly support secularism. Americans United for Separation of Church and State* is just one organization committed to this basic freedom. If you are not familiar with their work I strongly encourage you to take a look at what they do and why.
Below is a brief graphic summary of some of AU's work over the past year.

*Full disclosure: I've been a member of AU since the 90s

Another pseudo-scandal?

To be honest I know very little about the details of Kendra Turner's expulsion. However, given the track record of such incidences it is relatively safe to assume that the media has once again fucked-up the story. I seriously doubt she was expelled for just saying "bless you" after a classmate sneezed. Considering how most of these stories play out I'd be willing to bet that either she has a track record of interrupting and causing disturbances in class that led to the teacher's actions or she has a record of attempting to proselytize during school. In the end the details once they finally come out won't really matter since the religious right will latch on to their preferred version of the story either way.

"Student Says She Was Punished At School For Saying 'Bless You'"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/kendra-turner-bless-you_n_5697629.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

Pondering Faux History and Whiny Assholes

Right from the start David Gibson's "Analysis" is full of ridiculous shit. As a title, "America’s Christian conservatives ponder a ‘Babylonian exile’ (ANALYSIS)" sets the tone quite well. Comparing the US's religious right to the Biblical "Babylonian exile" of the Jews is utter non-sense. No one is forcing these self-deluded hypocritical assholes to do anything. They also still wield influence and resources far beyond what you might expect from their numbers.

It isn't just the stupidly of the title that irritates me. The implications of the very first sentence should annoy anyone who knows the actual history rather than the elementary-school rendition of it.
"From the moment they set foot on North American soil, the Puritans who came to the continent viewed their “errand into the wilderness” through a biblical lens, seeing themselves as modern-day Israelites building a New Jerusalem in the New World."
The "Puritans" fled England for the Netherlands in order to gain religious freedom. They got it. The left the Netherlands for the "New World" for expressly economic reasons. They came to find better access to resources and develop their personal wealth. It may seem nit-picky but it is common myth that the willfully ignorant religious right insists on using to make all sorts of other baseless claims.

Even though Gibson does not completely buy into all the bullshit the individuals he wrote to and spoke with about this "exile" he does very little to set the record straight. He even seems somewhat sympathetic to what all their griping really boils down to: their ability to bully other without question or limitations. I just don't get it. I do not understand why comparatively (emphasis on comparative) reasonable theists keep giving these overprivileged jerks yet another soap box. I also find it rather telling that Gibson and company don't see the innate contradiction. The religious right whines about not being taken seriously enough yet every mainstream outlet bends over backwards to give them as much of megaphone as anyone can possibly have.

Condoning and codling these dip shits doesn't help anyone.

Irony of "In God we trust"

One of the aspects of the drive to defend and further push the phrase "In God we trust" that I have always found both irritating and amusing is the innate contradiction it embodies. The pin head subset of theists who so zealously advocate for it utterly fail to see the irony. They insist that it must be endorsed by government and non-government institutions and agencies alike. They never acknowledge that by it's nature their drives rely entirely on humans. If they really trusted in God they wouldn't lobby for the phrase so vigorously. After all, if it were god's will wouldn't it just be the way it is. There shouldn't be any need for government endorsement. There shouldn't even be any thoughts of seeking government endorsement. To co-opt another favorite phrase of these idiots, doesn't this approach at least imply that they are "playing God"? Are they not implying that God can't accomplish things without human intervention? Judging by their behavior God doesn't seem to be all that much of a supreme being.

Political, discriminatory, but still correct

Salam Al Marayati's CNN Belief blog piece "President Obama's Ramadan slap at Muslims" does seem to get a few things correct. I agree with his assessment that Obama has at times treated Muslims somewhat differently than other religious groups. I also do think that this not only politically motivated it is also discriminatory. I take issue with any government official behaving in such a way. Despite the horrible reason for it, it is still correct. It is correct in that no religious leaders, Muslim or otherwise, should be invited "into the Oval Office for substantive discussions on domestic and international policies." As I have frequently pointed out, it is grossly inappropriate to inject religion into public policy.

"Abortion: Whose Religious Beliefs Should Prevail?"

The answer to the question posed in Georgette Bennett's HuffPo piece, "Abortion: Whose Religious Beliefs Should Prevail?", seems both very clear and obvious to me; no one's. When it comes to medical questions, and she is talking about abortion in both a medical and religious context, no one's religion should be allowed to interfere in other people's care. If, as an adult, an individual wants to either confer or defer to religious doctrines when making medical decisions for themselves they have that right. However, they should never been allowed to enforce their highly subjective religious views on other people in any context and escpecially not in a medical one. It should also not be allowed to be the sole basis of any laws or public policies.

Most of what Bennnett writes about is completely irrelevant and relies almost entirely on the assumption that religious beliefs should automatically come into play when making medical decisions. In other words, it's laced with bullshit.