What About Darla?

In a thread on my previous post, A. mentioned his fiancee. He said: She finds the atheist blogging thing difficult enough to understand as it is. PhillyChief responded: One thing us guys here have in common at least is having women who don't get why we care enough to blog about this stuff.

Now, this exchange reminded me a little too much of Alfalfa and Spanky extolling the He-Man Woman Haters Club. So I'm going to respond. But first, I'm going to make a few observations, and weave in a short personal story.

The comment threads on most blogs that have an open policy – as I do – tend to go astray. My regular readers and I usually try to find a way to re-introduce the topic at hand, but there’s also a lot of good-natured, unrelated banter and teasing between us. Often, we refer to one another’s previous posts, not necessarily with full explanations for casual commenters who may not know exactly what we’re talking about.

I think our comment threads point out one of the main differences between publishing an ezine and a blog. When actually posting, we’re putting our ideas out there for the world. If we refer to someone else’s take on the same subject, we include a link for everyone to see, and, often, a brief summary of what the other person had to say. Our articles are styled to be accessible to everyone, with no prior background necessary.

But when commenting, we’re more freewheeling. We’re continuing a dialogue that has been going on for some time. Often, we twit one another over previous disagreements we’ve had, or support one another’s ideas without having to restate them in their fullest form. I like that. The Atheosphere is not a group of strangers; it’s a community. Some of us have gotten to know one another, at least in our blog personae, pretty well; we’re friends. When you get together with friends of long standing, you sometimes shorthand your mutual references.

I’m always happy when a new reader decides to plunge in and join the group. We’re most definitely not exclusive. Newcomers are welcome to join in the ribbing and the general tone. Folks who comment here have pretty thick skins I like to think; if they don’t, they’ve probably come to the wrong place.

So last night, my wife, who’s far more sensitive to mockery than I am, was looking over one of the threads here, and she said, “It’s like a men’s club. Just a bunch of guys getting together to trade ideas and rag on each other.” Now, my wife knows me very well, and has gotten used to my “style” of using humor to try to make important points. When she says “joking around,” she’s doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re being frivolous. In fact, she immediately qualified what she said: “I’m talking about the tone, not the content. It’s like old male buddies hanging out in a bar.”

However, what I objected to in her comment – aside from the word “old,” which I’ll let pass – was the idea that my blog is a men’s club, a bunch of guys. First of all, I believe that the Atheosphere is gender-neutral. The sharpest writers in it come from both sexes. Secondly, if it were a “men’s club,” how dull would that be?

So, in response to A., Philly and my wife, I’m going to take this opportunity to celebrate – through some links – the women who sometimes hang out in this particular godless nay-borhood. I’ve already mentioned a few of these recently, but I’m going to list here, in alphabetical order, some women whose blogs I read regularly. If you haven’t checked them out, I encourage you to do so. And I defy anyone to show how, in any way, these women are less thought-provoking, profound, skeptical, aggressive, nasty, witty, companionable, and universally relevant than their male counterparts.

I’ve limited this list to only those women who comment here, whose blogs are active, and who write well. Here it is:

Babs
C.L. Hanson
Enonomi
heather
Lynet
ordinary girl
sacred slut
tina
yinyang

All in the “club,” as far as I’m concerned – and not a he-man among them.

Another Triumph for the Atheist Logo

Hold onto your hats (which aren't yarmulkes, I hope). You're about to see something that ought to get Gary Bauer's pious panties in a twist. And James Dobson will certainly not want any families focusing on this. I suppose Michael Medved will have something to say about subliminal messages coming out of Hollywood.

We nonbelievers should be proud of ourselves for spreading a meme through the culture so quickly. Our beloved Atheist "A" is showing up all over the place. The fact that it's yellow in the following pic doesn't diminish its impact at all. Notice how cleverly the godless artists have utilized the red motif in the shirt!

If the "A" isn't sufficient to clue you that the chipmunk's a colleague in not-Christ, you can definitely tell he's an atheist by that smug smirk on his face. After all, that expression is another one of our symbols. Just ask any fundie.

You might also be interested to learn that both chipmunk and human atheists share some of the same natural enemies: weasels and snakes.


Next thing you know, he'll be campaigning to remove "In God We Trust" from all acorns and berries. And watch soon for Alvin's new book, The God Nuttiness: How Religion Poisons Rodents.

Richard Dawkins and the "Jewish Lobby"

Well, Richard Dawkins turns out not to be a god after all, since he said a very stupid thing. (Hey, maybe he is a god). This is what it was, as quoted in The Guardian:

When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told — religious Jews anyway — than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.

Dawkins, I suspect, will be painted as an anti-Semite, which isn’t necessarily true based on what he said. He is, however, misinformed, and jumps to an erroneous conclusion.

Yes, Dawkins qualifies his statement by saying “as far as many people can see,” but those are just weasel words. He would not have made the claim were he not one of those people. So let’s not let him off the skyhook just because of a phrase he throws into his assertion to give him a retreat position.

Is There a Religious Jewish Lobby in America?
It should be clear that Dawkins’s “American foreign policy” is a reference to U.S. support of Israel, and all the ramifications of that support. And, indeed, there are a number of lobbying groups — most members of which are Jews — that do urge support for Israel. But those groups do not represent all religious Jews. Many of the ultra-orthodox , including the numerous Satmar Hasidim, are anti-Zionists, because they believe that the state of Israel should not have been formed until the arrival of the Messiah. There are also plenty of less fanatic religious Jews who deplore the theocratic flavor of Israel’s government.

One religious group that is gung-ho about American support for Israel is the collective of fundamentalist Christians. Fundies make all kinds of noise about the “Holy Land,” but they’re not really tolerant of religious Jews (or any Jews, for that matter). So Dawkins can’t have it both ways; either religious Jews “monopolise” American foreign policy or they don’t.

Look, the world’s anti-Semites love to spout nonsense about the Jews’ desire for global domination, an idiotic conspiracy theory, rooted in fear of "the other," that has been tossed around for centuries. It took serious hold in America when Henry Ford paid to have The Protocols of the Elders of Zion published in the United States. References to a fictitious, super-powerful “Jewish Lobby” are variations on that theme. But the ultra-rationalist Dawkins ought to know that the book was a propagandistic hoax. Perhaps his hunger for evidence doesn’t extend beyond science.

What Is a Jew?
Not clear. The word “Jew,” as commonly used, has two meanings. One, of course, is “a person who practices Judaism.” People who dislike those "Jews" should be labeled as “Anti-Judaists,” not “Anti-Semites.”

The other meaning is “anyone descended from a distinctive ethnic group called ‘Jews’ who were never fully assimilated, for one reason or another, in any country.” In this sense, a Jew is someone whose mother, father, or both referred to family ancestors as “Jews.” A Jew, therefore, could be an atheist, a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Muslim, a Wiccan or a believer in fairies at the bottom of the garden, or even a practicing fundamentalist Christian. People who dislike these "Jews" should be labeled as “Anti-Semites.” Anti-semitism is about genetics; anti-Judaism isn't.

Is Supporting Israel the Same as Supporting Jews?
Many people believe, erroneously I think, that support for Israel is somehow support for “Jews,” under whichever definition you like. But let’s look closely at Israel. There’s no denying that it often seems to be controlled by ultra-nationalists, and that it’s a quasi-theocratic state. However, there’s another fact that is frequently ignored. Regardless of its location, Israel is a Western nation. The founders of modern Israel were Europeans, who brought their interpretations of Western Civilization to the Middle East. A large part of the anti-Zionist mentality in the area has to do with the hatred of Western ideas. If Israel were a state of mixed religions, or no religion, it would still be loathed by its neighbors. It’s easy to pin on “Jews” the entire phenomenon of Israel’s conflict with the Muslim world. But that’s a tunnel-vision approach. Lots of folks who are highly critical of Israel’s sometimes thuggish policies nevertheless favor the spread of 21st-century knowledge over the retention of 12th-century ignorance. It’s not difficult to find the Israelis’ basic acknowledgement of democracy and rationalism preferable to the region’s glorification of feudalism (our allies) and/or enforced superstition (all others). This preference is certainly not unique to a nonexistent "Jewish Lobby."

The Nightmare Upshot of Dawkins’s Comments
I strongly suspect that Richard Dawkins is not an anti-Semite, although he has apparently bought into the delusion that there's a "Jewish Lobby." But in the next few days, weeks, and months, he will definitely be given that label by a media hungry for sensationalism. Since Dawkins is perceived by many religionists as a major spokesperson for atheism, we nonbelievers may all have to fend off similar charges of bigotry.

I think Dawkins deserves credit for using his high-profile persona to warn the world of the god delusion. But he has hurt the atheist “movement” by his ill-considered statement. By suggesting that atheists emulate the mythological Jewish Lobby, he has given propagandistic fodder to the theistic masses. Those who know that there is no Jewish Lobby will dismiss Dawkins as a fool; and, people being what they are, will then feel free to reject everything he has ever said or written as equally unfounded in reason. On the other hand, those who believe that there is an international Jewish conspiracy for world domination, as manifested in the Jewish Lobby, will be delighted to demonize atheists whose “leader” clearly wishes to set up a similar cabal.

(H/T Atheist Revolution)

Stand Up for Your Rights: Remain Seated

A story out of Exeter, England shows the difference between the courage of at least one British politician and our own collection of American wusses.

At a civic meeting — the American equivalent of which I assume to be a city council meeting — an Exeter councillor named Paul Pettinger refused to stand for a convocational prayer. The Lord Mayor, Hazel Slack, tightened up at this lack of “respect.” Whereupon the Conservative Party leader, Yolanda Henson, according to the Exeter Express & Echo, “said she would work for a new rule requiring anyone who does not want to stand at council meeting prayers to leave the chamber.” Here's Henson’s comment defending her theocratic reaction: “It doesn't matter what religion you are, the Lord Mayor is the representative in Exeter of the Queen.”

Pettinger, an atheist, was not allowed to state why he chose not to take part in the silliness; he was even told by the Lord Mayor that he’d have to leave the room right there and then if he continued to try to explain his position.

Here’s what Pettinger later told the newspaper:

I'm elected to do a job for my residents and the people of Exeter and faith has nothing to do with it. I am a secularist and believe in the complete separation of personal faith and state. I'm an atheist and don't wish to take part in Christian worship. It's highly inappropriate to put pressure on people to act in this way when there are people of so many faiths in this country.

Great Britain, I remind my fellow Americans, has no First Amendment, or even any equivalent prohibiting the establishment by government of religion. We do. And yet a Brit has the balls to stand up and say “screw this nonsense,” while our elected representatives, from the highest to the lowest, give religion unquestioning “respect,” in our townships, our cities, our counties, our states, and, indeed, in the halls of the federal Congress, itself— where it is expressly forbidden. Who among our governmental officials has ever dared to utter the opinion that convocational prayer is “highly inappropriate”? No one. Instead, they strive to outdo each other in speaking of their deep belief in god and in preaching (there’s no other honest word for standing in front of a religious congregation and electioneering) to the ignorati in churches, synagogues, and mosques. Not one voice rises up to say, in plain English, as Pettinger’s did: “I believe in the complete separation of personal faith and state.”

Some news reporter looking to make a name for him- or herself ought to ask the current pious crop of presidential contenders what they think of Pettinger’s words. But, of course, the U.S. media is just as craven before the power of Big Religion as the politicos are.

Anyway, the candidates would probably just answer that they’re representatives of the Queen. Or words to that effect.

Danger! Not Suitable for Children!

Uh-oh.



Following the lead of a few other atheist blogs, I decided to submit my own shit for a fucking rating. There are plenty of godless bloggers out there who, as it turns out, don't really write for adults only. This fact surprised me, because if we were really attracting youngsters, you'd think there would be at least one atheist figurine included in a MacDonald's Happy Meal.

But, for example, look at these blogs I visit regularly. What's with the PG-13, you inquisitional wimp? That's only slightly more risque than Teletubbies. And who does this near-nun think she is, calling herself a hussy? A rating like that wouldn't get her banned from a Catholic junior-high dance! If you really want a shock, check out arch-fiend P.Z. Myers, whose heathen rants are squeaky clean enough to be read to the Barney set as bedtime stories.

Only my nasty fellow conspirator, vjack, received the grown-up rating most of us atheists would seem to deserve. I make it a point to read his scurrilous writing often, but I must admit that now I'll be sure to cover my ears when I do.

Mingle², the online dating Web site (!?) that provided the algorithm for the scoring, listed only a few criteria for its judgments. In my case, according to the folks over there, during my approximately eight months of blogging, I've used "bitch" three times, "hell" two times, "corpse" and "kill" once each. (That's not counting this post, which gives the minglers four more chances to wag their fingers at me.) Needless to say, I, myself, am horrified by such fucking bad language, goddamn blasphemy, and bloodthirsty violence.

Not a single mention, though, of all the damnable bible-bashing coming from any of us. Which only goes to prove: You can call Jesus any name you want, as long as it's not "bitch."

Click on the sticker above to find out your blog's rating.

An Anniversary to Celebrate

It’s not my usual practice on this blog to include extended quotes. But today, I’m going to deviate. That’s because June 17 is the 44th anniversay of the Supreme Court decision covering The School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (referred to below as 142, and please try not to picture the Three Stooges) and Murray v. Curlett (referred to below as 119). The Schempp family, Unitarians, won in a lower court, which is why Abington Township is mentioned first in the name of their case. (Abington asked the Supreme Court to reconsider the lower court’s finding.) Similarly, Madalyn Murray (the “infamous” atheist) and her son, William, lost in a lower court.

While these two cases were by no means the first or only ones to deal with prayer in public schools, they were extremely important. In both, the state (Pennsylvania in Abington and Maryland in Murray), had passed laws requiring students to listen to a reading from the bible and the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of the school day. Each state allowed students to be excused if parents wrote letters voicing their objections.

But both states claimed that hearing portions from the bible did not constitute a religious exercise. It was good for the kids’ morals; it helped them understand our nation’s heritage, and it promoted good literature. In addition, some attorneys for the states argued that not allowing the reading infringed on students’ rights to freely exercise their religion. These are familiar songs of the theocrats, weasel excuses to ram their supernatural beliefs down the throats of schoolchildren too young to say “bullshit.”

The opinion, jointly deciding both cases, is most commonly referred to as Abington v. Schempp. (Don't get in an uproar; the common designation is not because of a philosophical preference for Unitarians over atheists. It's because of an alphabetizing preference for A over M.) It was written by Tom Clark; he and seven other justices made up the majority. There was only one dissension. Clark began by reciting the facts in each case and tracing its progress through the court system. He then quoted and explained various precedents. The portion here included is the final section of the opinion; I’ve edited out footnote references and specific citations of other cases discussed earlier. I've also added a few extra paragraph breaks, just to make the reading easier on computer-focused eyes. Otherwise, it’s all Clark’s.

The wholesome "neutrality" of which this Court's cases speak thus stems from a recognition of the teachings of history that powerful sects or groups might bring about a fusion of governmental and religious functions or a concert or dependency of one upon the other to the end that official support of the State or Federal Government would be placed behind the tenets of one or of all orthodoxies. This the Establishment Clause prohibits.

And a further reason for neutrality is found in the Free Exercise Clause, which recognizes the value of religious training, teaching and observance and, more particularly, the right of every person to freely choose his own course with reference thereto, free of any compulsion from the state. This the Free Exercise Clause guarantees.

Thus, as we have seen, the two clauses may overlap.

As we have indicated, the Establishment Clause has been directly considered by this Court eight times in the past score of years and, with only one Justice dissenting on the point, it has consistently held that the clause withdrew all legislative power respecting religious belief or the expression thereof. The test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution. That is to say that to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.

... The Free Exercise Clause, likewise considered many times here, withdraws from legislative power, state and federal, the exertion of any restraint on the free exercise of religion. Its purpose is to secure religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions thereof by civil authority. Hence it is necessary in a free exercise case for one to show the coercive effect of the enactment as it operates against him in the practice of his religion. The distinction between the two clauses is apparent - a violation of the Free Exercise Clause is predicated on coercion while the Establishment Clause violation need not be so attended.

Applying the Establishment Clause principles to the cases at bar we find that the States are requiring the selection and reading at the opening of the school day of verses from the Holy Bible and the recitation of the Lord's Prayer by the students in unison. These exercises are prescribed as part of the curricular activities of students who are required by law to attend school. They are held in the school buildings under the supervision and with the participation of teachers employed in those schools. ... The trial court in No. 142 has found that such an opening exercise is a religious ceremony and was intended by the State to be so. We agree with the trial court's finding as to the religious character of the exercises. Given that finding, the exercises and the law requiring them are in violation of the Establishment Clause.

There is no such specific finding as to the religious character of the exercises in No. 119, and the State contends (as does the State in No. 142) that the program is an effort to extend its benefits to all public school children without regard to their religious belief. Included within its secular purposes, it says, are the promotion of moral values, the contradiction to the materialistic trends of our times, the perpetuation of our institutions and the teaching of literature. ... But even if its purpose is not strictly religious, it is sought to be accomplished through readings, without comment, from the Bible. Surely the place of the Bible as an instrument of religion cannot be gainsaid, and the State's recognition of the pervading religious character of the ceremony is evident from the rule's specific permission of the alternative use of the Catholic Douay version as well as the recent amendment permitting nonattendance at the exercises. None of these factors is consistent with the contention that the Bible is here used either as an instrument for nonreligious moral inspiration or as a reference for the teaching of secular subjects.

The conclusion follows that in both cases the laws require religious exercises and such exercises are being conducted in direct violation of the rights of the appellees and petitioners. Nor are these required exercises mitigated by the fact that individual students may absent themselves upon parental request, for that fact furnishes no defense to a claim of unconstitutionality under the Establishment Clause. ...

Further, it is no defense to urge that the religious practices here may be relatively minor encroachments on the First Amendment. The breach of neutrality that is today a trickling stream may all too soon become a raging torrent and, in the words of [founder James] Madison, "it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties." ...

It is insisted that unless these religious exercises are permitted a "religion of secularism" is established in the schools. We agree of course that the State may not establish a "religion of secularism" in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus "preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." ... We do not agree, however, that this decision in any sense has that effect. In addition, it might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment. But the exercises here do not fall into those categories. They are religious exercises, required by the States in violation of the command of the First Amendment that the Government maintain strict neutrality, neither aiding nor opposing religion.

Finally, we cannot accept that the concept of neutrality, which does not permit a State to require a religious exercise even with the consent of the majority of those affected, collides with the majority's right to free exercise of religion. While the Free Exercise Clause clearly prohibits the use of state action to deny the rights of free exercise to anyone, it has never meant that a majority could use the machinery of the State to practice its beliefs. Such a contention was effectively answered by Mr. Justice Jackson for the Court in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, (1943):

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to . . . freedom of worship . . . and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through a long tradition of reliance on the home, the church and the inviolable citadel of the individual heart and mind. We have come to recognize through bitter experience that it is not within the power of government to invade that citadel, whether its purpose or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality. Though the application of that rule requires interpretation of a delicate sort, the rule itself is clearly and concisely stated in the words of the First Amendment. Applying that rule to the facts of these cases, we affirm the judgment in No. 142.

In No. 119, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the Maryland Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

The writing is legalistic and unpoetic. But it’s so moving to me that I get tears in my eyes when I read it.

Kickin' It with Christ

After refusing to grant IDer Guillermo Gonzalez tenure as an astronomy professor, Iowa State University is back in the religion news again this weekend.

It seems that the school’s football coach, Gene Chizik, thinks his boys need divine inspiration, and he’s willing to solicit private donations to hire an official team chaplain. ISU’s athletic director, Jamie Pollard, thinks the coach’s idea is heavenly. According to an AP story on May 31, Pollard claims that his “student-athletes are under a lot of pressure and need access to spiritual guidance.” Neither Chizik nor Pollard specify why the players couldn’t receive such guidance in a church, but it’s obvious. The coach will order some heavy-duty praying done precisely at a moment when his team needs supernatural help to score a touchdown, or, if the deity is feeling stingy about points that day, at least a field goal. Christ, apparently, gets his kicks on the football field.

What a tawdry little godlet sports figures seem to have. The character they pray to gives a shit whether or not they make a first down on the next play. That’s why Chizik’s Jesus died on the cross, so the Cyclones can out-score their opponents. “Forgive them, Father, for they’ve got fifty bucks on the game.”

But the world of reason has not yet succumbed to the outrageous. Well, at least not in Ames, Iowa. A large number of faculty and staff — reports differ as to whether it’s 100 or 126 — have the audacity to believe that there actually is a separation of church and state in this country, and that such separation should be operative on the football field at a public institution. That’s why they’ve signed a petition to present to Iowa State’s Athletics Council.

One of the prime movers of the petition was atheist Hector Avalos, a professor of religion studies at ISU. The fundies already have their pious panties in a twist over him. According to the Discovery Institute (and no, I’m not going to link to them), Avalos “led the charge against Gonzalez and intelligent design on ISU's campus, helping to draft a 2005 petition denouncing intelligent design that ultimately was signed by more than 120 ISU faculty.” Interestingly, Avalos was promoted to a full professorship at the very same time that Gonzalez was denied tenure.

So far, the tally is Avalos 1, Theocrats 0. The Theocrats’ offense is tough, though, and they’ll be fighting hard in this next contest to even up the score. We Avalos fans probably won’t need to paint our faces, but let’s do what we can to show our support. Gimme an A! Gimme a V! ....

Getting the Door to Open

Believe it or not, this is a post about Charles Darwin and also about Ken Ham. I’m going to begin, though, with a story of how I spent my day. Please bear with me.

Today being Memorial Day, I expected to kick back with a few beers and a couple of hot dogs, and laze away the afternoon idly thinking deep, enjoyable atheistic thoughts. My wife had other ideas.

“It’s a perfect time for you to fix the door on the screened-in porch,” she said.

Now, the word “fix” is laughable when used in a sentence that also contains a reference to me. To say that I’m “unhandy” doesn’t even make a dent in describing my general ineptitude with gadgets and gizmos. I’m basically my own light bulb joke. How many Exterminators does it take to change a light bulb? One, but only if he can persuade someone else to do it. Hell, I sometimes have trouble putting new toilet paper on the roller.

What was wrong with the screen door was: its locking handles didn’t work. The inside lever was permanently stuck into the locked position, so that we couldn’t really open the door properly. If we forced it open and went into the yard, it locked behind us so that we couldn’t get back in. On the other hand, if we artificially propped it open, our cats would try to make a break for it. On top of everything else, the old handles were about twenty years old, installed long before my wife and I became the owners of the house, and they were weather-worn ugly.

But the awesome world of nature has made a small, beautiful niche in our yard. Taking the indirect approach, out the front door of the house, through the gate, and around to the porch side, is ridiculous. My wife was determined to enjoy nature’s wonders through the most direct route, and had planned ahead. She’d already purchased a brand new, pure white handle set. “Just take off the old ones, and substitute the new ones,” she explained.

Well, it wouldn't be quite that easy. The new mechanism was an entirely different size, and worked differently than the old one. Peeking through the impervious plastic packaging, I saw that it contained nearly twenty pieces, most of which looked unrelated to anything that was already on the door. I was sure I didn’t have most of the tools I’d need in order to fit those parts where they belonged. The directions, badly translated from the Chinese, were Greek — or one of the many other languages I don’t understand — to me. This was most definitely not going to be a mere substitution job. It was going to involve measuring and hand-eye coordination on a level far above my normal capabilities, or the limits of my patience.

But I noticed something right away, and tested it. The old, grey outside handle still seemed to operate fine. If I could make the new inside lever fit, I might have a workable door. I ripped open the plastic with my teeth, took out the replacement, and held it up for comparison with the broken part. It looked to me as if a substitution might be viable, but I couldn’t be sure. The only way to tell was to remove the unusable lever and replace it with the new one, ignoring all the other purchased parts. I even recycled the original screws. Voila! It fit.

There was a problem, though. The rusty old strikeplate — the contraption over which the tongue attached to the lever snaps into place — was the wrong shape and size to accommodate the new lever, and it wasn’t even in the right spot. Crap! I have to admit I was really reluctant to remove that piece of the puzzle. Changing the strikeplate seemed like a major step. I was going to have to remove the old one, measure for the new one, drill holes, screw the new bastard into place, and hope that the door held.

But OK. I’d committed myself, hadn’t I? So I carefully removed the old strikeplate, trying to make as little of a mess as possible in case I had to reverse my whole procedure. I held up the new one, gauged it with my eyes, asked my wife to make the appropriate marks because I have trouble working a pencil, and got out the drill. After spending an hour trying to decide which bit was appropriate, I just finally said “fuck it,” and gouged out two holes. Since the original screws were the wrong size for the new metal piece, I raided the plastic kit for the pair of screws that was intended to fit. They did, perfectly. Five minutes later, a new strikeplate was in place, and my door was once again able to open properly.

The color of the handle inside no longer matched the one outside, the jamb bore a few unimportant but unsightly holes left over from the previous strikeplate, and I still had about fifteen new pieces that I hadn’t used. I wasn’t even sure if the new parts would hold for long, but I couldn’t find any obvious flaws in what I’d figured out. I knew my friends and neighbors would make fun of my efforts, and doubt whether they’d pay off in the long run. But the damn door worked.

And suddenly, in the smallest, smallest, smallest (have I emphasized “smallest” enough?) way, I empathized with Charles Darwin. Before Origin of the Species, there was no direct route to nature’s wonders. The door was locked. The outside handle, all the observable effects of birth and death, didn’t need to be replaced. No one could deny that there were myriads of species, that some individual plants and animals survived to propagate while others did not, and that it was possible for various characteristics to be changed through generations by breeding selectively.

The inside lever was stuck, though. It was jammed up with supernatural ideas that kept it from opening the door. Even worse, it was held firmly in place by a strikeplate — the bible — that couldn’t coexist with a new lever. Reluctantly, Darwin measured, gauged, marked, and gouged. Finally, he removed the old strikeplate, and replaced it with a new one: science.

There were tons of leftover parts, which Darwin lacked the tools and understanding to include. The whole field of genetics, the “unraveling” of DNA, the ability to study microorganisms, and the vast expansion of the fossil record, these were just some of the tools that were unavailable to him. His new theory was not pretty, and anyone who looked closely could find a few holes in it. Many of his friends and neighbors made fun of his efforts, and doubted whether they’d pay off in the long run. But the damn door worked.

For a few days now, we rationalists of America have been wrapped up in decrying and deriding the well-publicized opening of Ken Ham’s inane Creation Museum. But another event that happened this May has gone underreported: In mid-month, the Darwin Correspondence Project successfully launched an online archive. Within a few clicks of a mouse, anyone with a computer can access this invaluable collection of over 14,500 letters that Darwin exchanged with more than 2,000 people during his lifetime. So while Ken Ham and his ignorant followers remain stuck, locked behind the rusty old bible strikeplate, the rest of us can relive Darwin’s experiences as he opened the door to nature.

Dozens of Great Rides at This Carnival!

In a stunning achievement, PZ Myers at Pharyngula has produced a mammoth carnival about the Creation Museum. I counted 73 links, none of them "missing," organized thematically. Maybe Myers is that intelligent designer some people are talking about.

Every link is well worth clicking on and reading, even if it takes you 6,000 years (roughly the age of the Earth, according to the Museum) to finish.

Any Comments?

Because the Atheosphere is relatively small compared to, say, the tens of thousands of blogs about people’s cute pussies (in both senses of the word), many of us feel that we’re part of a community. I think that most of us read one another fairly regularly, if not by directly visiting a site, then through checking out the latest buzz on one of the atheist aggregators.

Some of us try to leave comments, when appropriate, on the blogs we’re fondest of. I, myself, do so whenever I have something smart — or smart-ass — to say. Most of us, I venture to guess, really appreciate getting these notes from one another. When someone takes the time to add his or her thoughts to mine, I know I'm not just some nut talking to himself. Maybe Descartes could have been satisfied thinking Bloggito ergo sum, but I'm not as fascinated with contemplating my own navel as he was.

The commenter also reaps a benefit. An interesting observation might draw readers’ attention to a new blog they haven’t visited before.

Well, I’d like to increase the odds that my commenters will get noticed. About a month ago, KC at Bligbi had a great idea. As part of a new look for her site, she began a blogroll of people who frequently leave their footprints. She included even those folks to whose blogs she already had a link elsewhere on her page. I’ve decided to follow her lead.

Unlike KC, however, I’ll list the commenters' names, rather than their Web sites. When a frequent commenter has a blog, clicking on his or her name will link to it. If the commenter has more than one blog, I’ll link to the one that I think is most relevant for my readers. In those cases of commenters who don’t have a blog, or who haven’t revealed their blogs’ URLs to me, the linkless name will be listed anyway. I’ll include the names of all frequent commenters, even those who regularly disagree with me — as long as they’re not blatant trolls with absolutely nothing to say. When warranted, I'll add new names. Of course, anyone who wants to be removed from this list, or feels that he or she should be added, or wants an entry changed, can contact me.

Think of this new blogroll as my equivalent of “Fan Appreciation Day.” If your name is on the list, I thank you.

Bertrand Russell, Atheist

May 18 is Bertrand Russell’s birthday. As most of my readers know, Russell was a mathematician, philosopher, witty writer, and outspoken atheist. In his honor, I’ve created the following test to see if you can follow directions. Start with the words Bertrand Russell, Atheist. Line up the letters, closing the spaces between words and eliminating the comma. Then perform each step. When you arrive at the end, if you’ve followed all directions correctly, you’ll find an appropriate phrase.

01. Start here: BERTRANDRUSSELLATHEIST

02. reverse the order of the 6th and 7th letters from the right

03. change all L’s to C’s

04. move the 3rd consonant from the right to make it the second letter from the left

05. reverse the order of the 4th and 7th letters from the left

06. move the 5th letter from the left to the right end

07. move the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th letters from the left, in that order, to the right end

08. change all E’s to Y’s

09. insert MN in place of U

10. change the 4th letter from the left to a W

11. wherever a letter appears twice in a row, remove one

12. reverse the order of the 2nd and 3rd letters from the right

13. double the 2nd letter from the left

14. change all B’s to A’s

15. move the 3rd letter from the left to the right end

16. replace all R’s with I’s

17. replace the 2nd S from the right with O, and drop the letter after it

18. not counting Y as a vowel, reverse the order of the 1st two vowels from the left

19. reverse the order of the 10th and 11th letters from the right

20. move the last letter at the right to the left of the 1st Y from the right

21. reverse the order of the 1st and 4th letters from the left

22. reverse the order of all C’s and the letters just to the right of them

23. replace the 7th letter from the right with an R

Julie Andrews!

The original 1967 version of Bedazzled, starring Peter Cook & Dudley Moore, was released on DVD earlier this month. Although the movie is not atheistic, per se, it does take quite a few nice pokes at religion. If you’re up for a few hearty chuckles at god’s expense, I recommend it highly.

Background: Peter Cook & Dudley Moore were two of the four performers in Beyond the Fringe, a British comedy revue that tickled audiences in both the U.K. and America in the early ‘60s. (Note: The other two men in the cast were author/playwright/actor Alan Bennett and multi-talented polymath Jonathan Miller, the writer/presenter of the BBC series Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief.)

Cook & Moore worked well together in Fringe, and decided to team up. For the next fifteen years or so, in their radio skits, TV appearances, and theatrical performances, they poked fun at many sacred cows — including the most sanctified bovine of them all, Jesus Christ.

To give you a taste of their work, without infringing copyright, I reproduce below just a few brief excerpts from two skits written by Cook. These are printed in Tragically I Was an Only Twin: The Complete Peter Cook, edited by the unrelated William Cook. This title is misleading; the book is nowhere near complete. For one thing, it doesn’t include any excerpts from the script of the flick I’m touting here. Still, whatever page I open to, I find something that makes me laugh out loud, even if I’ve already read it dozens of times.

from "Religion:
(Pete and Dud are ruminating on our favorite bugaboo.)
Pete: I often wish [God would] manifest himself a bit more, you know, in the sky.
Dud: Yeah, it’d be nice if every now and again He parted the clouds and in a golden burst of sunshine gave you a wave. “Hello down there, you can believe in me.”
Pete: I asked the Reverend Stephens about this, and he said, “Much as God would like to keep manifesting Himself, He daren’t, you see, because it debases the currency.” He can’t go round all the football matches and fetes and everything, so He limits himself to once in a million years if we’re lucky.
Dud: Well, you’ve got to be careful about over-exposure.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Pete: St. Paul’s got a bloody lot to answer for.
Dud: He started it didn’t he — all those letters he wrote.
Pete: To the Ephiscans.
Dud: You know, “Dear Ephiscans, Stop enjoying yourselves, God’s about the place. Signed Paul.”

from "Gospel Truth"
(Peter is a shepherd who was present when Christ’s birth was announced. Dudley is a reporter interviewing him for The Bethlehem Star.)
Peter: [The angel] said “Unto ye a Child is born. Unto ye a Son is given.”
Dudley: Yes. What was your reaction?
Peter: Total shock. I mean I wasn’t even married at the time. And I thought, you know, “Blimey! What was I doing this time last year?”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Peter: When he said “Ye shall find the Child all meanly wrapped in swaddling clothers,” I thought to myself, “Fair enough. He’ll be fairly meanly wrapped. Nothing flashy, nothing gaudy.”
Dudley: Yes.
Peter: But when I arrived, it was diabolical. It was the meanest bit of wrapping I’ve ever seen. What’s more, that kid was barely swaddled. I’d say, it was the worst job of wrapping and swaddling I have ever seen in my life.

You need be neither wrapped nor swaddled to enjoy Bedazzled. But you might like watching it on a wide-screen TV, if you have one in your manger, since the direction by Stanley Donen is a visually witty accompaniment to the clever screenplay.

By the way, if you’re wondering why this post bears the title that it does, you can find the answer in the film.

The Course of Human Events, 2001-2007

Today is Thomas Jefferson’s birthday. As a reminder of how prescient he was, I offer the following collection of Jeffersonian quotes on issues confronting contemporary America.

on Our Declaration of War Against Iraq
It is much easier to avoid errors by having good information at first, than to unravel and correct them after they are committed.

on the Troop “Surge”
Peace is our most important interest, and a recovery from debt.

on Congress’s Continued Funding of the Iraq War
The privilege of giving or withholding moneys is an important barrier against the undue exertion of prerogative which if left altogether without control may be exercised to our great oppression.

on Treatment of “Enemy Combatants”
The General Assembly shall not have power to ... prescribe torture in any case whatever.

on Abortion
Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions.

on Faith-Based Initiatives
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

on Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
Read the bible then, as you would read Livy or Tacitus. The facts which are within the ordinary course of nature you will believe on the authority of the writer, as you do those of the same kind in Livy and Tacitus. The testimony of the writer weighs in their favor in one scale, and their not being against the laws of nature does not weigh against them. But those facts in the bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces. Here you must recur to the pretensions of the writer to inspiration from god. Examine upon what evidence his pretensions are founded, and whether that evidence is so strong as that its falsehood would be more improbable than a change of the laws of nature in the case he relates.

on Prayer in Public Schools
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

on “No Child Left Behind”
They pretended to praise and encourage education, but it was to be the education of our ancestors. We were to look backwards, not forwards, for improvement.

on the Scandal in the Justice Department
The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest.

on the Self-Destructiveness of the Right-Wing's War on Science
Science is important to the preservation of our republican government.

on Stem Cell Research
The priests of the different religious sects ... dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live.

on Human Responsibility for Global Warming
We want [a theory of climate] indeed for all the States, and the work should be repeated once or twice in a century, to show the effect of clearing and culture towards changes of climate.

on the White House’s Lack of Bipartisanship
The denunciation of the Democratic Societies is one of the extraordinary acts of boldness of which we have seen so many from the faction of monocrats. It is wonderful, indeed, that the President should have permitted himself to be the organ of such an attack on the freedom of discussion.

on the Proper Role of Religious Leaders
Preach a crusade against ignorance.

on Media Concern with the Personal Lives of Presidential Contenders
I shall... return with joy to that state of things, when the only questions concerning a candidate shall be, is he honest? Is he capable? Is he faithful to the Constitution?

on the Inefficiency of the Current Administration
Ignorance and bigotry, like other insanities, are incapable of self-government.

on Bush and the 2000 Election
To retain the office, when it is probable the majority was against him is dishonorable.

on the President’s Mangling of English
What has no meaning admits no explanation.

ADDENDUM:
GEORGE W. BUSH PREDICTED IN JEFFERSON’S
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

on the Presidential Veto of Funding for Embryonic Stem-Cell Research
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.

on the Bush EPA’s Conflict with California's Proposal to Reduce Carbon Emissions
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

on the Patriot Act
He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation.

on the Executive’s Office of Faith-Based Initiatives
He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.

Open Letter to Mojoey

You wrote in your most recent post:

Despite the assertions of the New Atheist movement ...

I think you're buying into a myth created by the media anxious to stir an empty pot. I've been an atheist all my life, and have many friends who share my irreligious views. None of us are aware of any "atheist movement," new or otherwise. I'll bet you're not aware of one, either.

Thanks to your blogroll and various other atheist clearing-houses on the Web, we may be described as a loose community of freethinkers. But the main thing we have in common — maybe, in some cases, the only thing — is that we're a-theists, that is, we don't believe in any gods.

If there are any card-carrying atheists pushing a "movement," I haven't been invited to join. Nor would I. Like you, I champion the cause of religious freedom. People should have the liberty to believe whatever trips their trigger, just as long as they don't impose their silly belief-systems on me.

Yes, I get furious when I think about all the theocrats who strive to foist their nonsense — often dangerous — on society. Atheists like me don’t want ourselves or our school-age children being forced to mouth daily mumbo-jumbo to a magical being whose existence we highly doubt; we don’t want the advancement of humanity to be hindered because some primitive sand-laden book conflicts with the findings of science; we don’t want the alleged leader of our country claiming that he or she hears and obeys fascistic directives coming from the sky; and we don’t want to live in a world where other people’s deities encourage followers to appropriate land, blow up buildings, and kill fellow human beings on a whim.

But I also get furious at the thought of anyone trying to control what others think.

The press would have people believe that there's a dangerous movement of atheists who are determined to do that very thing. I'm not convinced, though, that there are any atheists in the so-called free world who would support a governmental ban on religion. If such atheocrats do exist, I'm sure that most members of the loose atheist community would be proud to stand together with you and me against them.

Goldwater on Godpushers

In 1981, Senator Barry Goldwater spoke these words from the Senate floor:

I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate.

These are the kinds of sentiments that John Edwards should have expressed about the Christian nutjobs who criticized some of his staffing choices. No matter. Yesterday, Amanda Marcotte resigned her position in his campaign. Her Pandagon site carries her announcement, as well as an enlightening update about the many enotes she received from the loving Christians who want to see her in hell and/or give her a "real good fucking" up the ass.

[BREAKING NEWS at 11:15 p.m.: Melissa McEwan just announced her resignation, as well. Read her explanation at Shakespeare's Sister.]

For more info and invective—and plenty of witty sarcasm—on the whole blogger/Edwards thing, you might want to read the latest posts by The Raving Atheist.

In the meantime, here’s my very brief summary of the most prominent 2008 candidates, vis a vis the theocrats:

Edwards: weasel

Obama: says he has a “personal relationship with Jesus”

Clinton: hired an “evangelical consultant” in December

McCain: has been puckering up big-time to the pulpiteers

Giuliani: is backpedaling as fast as he can on his pro-choice position

Romney: supports all the fundies' views—except their hatred of Mormons

If anyone can recommend a viable candidate who will get even half as incensed about the American ayatollahs as Goldwater did, feel free to leave a comment.

The Blasphemy Challenge: Dumb, but Endearing

The Blasphemy Challenge is, in essence, a sophomoric stunt, that has no more rationality to it than any other attention-grabbing ploy of the Internet Age.

However, it’s astounding how threatened the goddies feel. By targeting, to a certain extent, the world’s computer-savvy youth, the Rational Response Squad has gotten the priestly caste and their minions screaming holy hell. In a January 30 “Nightline” segment of its “Faith Matters”—get it?—series, the news program interviewed the Squad’s Brian “Sapient” and Kelly NoLastName, who presented themselves as martyrs for the godless. They revealed that they’ve received death e-threats and other faith-inducing messages. They were even menaced on camera by Paul de Vries, a divinity scholar (an oxymoron, if there ever was one), and president of the evangelical New York Divinity School, who wondered if they were not setting themselves up for “eternal trouble.” Sounds like a great name for an atheist rock band.

John Berman, the idiot who interviewed Brian and Kelly, asked no penetrating questions, and deservedly received no better than glib answers. Unfortunately, the quality of the give-and-take made the whole project look like nothing other than high-tech collegiate antics, only slightly more sophisticated than the toga party in “Animal House.” Still, in a brief summary of the piece, Cynthia McFadden, the host of “Nightline,” did mention that 9% of Americans openly identify themselves as atheists. She made no estimate of the numbers who are closeted unbelievers, but, as we all suspect, there must be plenty of them out there. Perhaps even someone associated with—gasp!—“Nightline.”

Last night, I spent about two hours watching YouTube videos of people denying god, and, while I still think the challenge seems like a fraternity prank, I did find myself chuckling in irreligious glee at the inventiveness of the “damned.” People sang, danced, created cartoons, and did little comedy routines while denouncing the ridiculous. In the course of my YouTubing, I stumbled across two satiric Netcoms, “God, Inc.” and "Mr. Deity,” both of which also brought joy to my non-soul.

In the unholy spirit of fun, I feel I must take part in the RRS’s endeavor. Although my world views are evolved far out of the stone age, my computer, alas, is not. So since I have access neither to video nor audio equipment, I’m limited to this blog in which to state:

I DENY THE EXISTENCE OF ALL GODS AND SUPERNATURAL BEINGS AND, OF COURSE, THE HOLY SPIRIT.

But you knew that about me already, didn't you?

Where Is H.L. Mencken When We Need Him?

Mojoey over at Deep Thoughts has created an Atheist Blogroll, listing over 100 sites of interest to us nonbelievers. I’m proud and pleased to be included.

I don’t disply his whole list here, however, because I don’t find every one of those blogs interesting. I’m particularly bored by two kinds of subject matter:

The Same Scientific Arguments for Evolution
Those of us who are gonna get it, already get it. There’s no point in repeating the same facts, over and over, ad nauseam, as if some fundamentalist from the blogosphere is going to stumble across one of our pages, smack him- or herself in the head, and say, “Oh, now I see!”

Most of us atheists have grabbed the mantle of science and wrapped ourselves in it. But, let’s face it: it’s not necessary to be an expert in biology, geology, paleontology, zoology, or any other kind of –ology to be reasonably certain that nature’s ways do not need the overlay of a higher power. Most of us are just not qualified to rattle off scientific evidence to academic poseurs. While I, for instance, love and admire books like The Selfish Gene and Darwin’s Dangerous Idea—to name just two of dozens I’ve read on the subject—and like to think that I’m fairly well-versed in neo-Darwinian studies, I’m not convinced that I’ve digested all the complex data to the point where I can speak persuasively on a theoretical level, a la Dawkins or Dennett. Nor am I interested in doing so. Why would I be, when they’ve already done the job so eloquently themselves? If a creationist hasn’t had an “aha” moment by now, I’m not likely to be the one who’ll open his or her non-created eyes. And, pssst. Neither are you.

Because really, it’s almost 150 years since the publication of The Origin of Species. I don’t think it’s necessary to follow every single argument presented by the scientific community since then to accept the overwhelming evidence against Genesis, just as I don’t believe one needs to have studied meteorology to suspect that Zeus has nothing to do with thunderbolts. Although I’ve long forgotten Newton’s formulas and have only a dim understanding of Einstein’s improvements to them, I still know that if I trip at the top of a flight of stairs, I will wind up, somehow, at the bottom—and that the cause of my fall will be the attraction of gravity, not sin. But don’t ask me to prove this with well-articulated theory; my intelligence was not designed that way. That’s why I’m happy to leave the fine points of science to the scientists, particularly those rare few who write wittily and well.

This is not to say that we shouldn’t be vigilant in selecting our school boards and other educational leaders. We must fight the theocrats whenever necessary. But we don’t have to keep re-enacting the Scopes trial amongst ourselves, do we?

Philosophical Disputations with Believers
Give it up! It’s a waste of time! The Christian Nation is not reading your Letters to them with any intent to ponder your ideas. They know the Truth; it’s printed in their bibles and whatever-elses they use to spread the god meme from generation to generation. Most of us wouldn’t consider spending even five minutes explaining why we feel that “The Tale of Peter Rabbit” isn’t true. Yet, many of us atheists love nothing better than to score illusory intellectual points against the moronarchists.

But faith always trumps facts, because it’s shown to its best advantage when the facts contradict it. So while we may find it great fun to yammer on about the ontological, cosmological, teleological, and other arguments for the existence of god, and to try to blow them up in the believers’ smug faces—really, whom are we kidding? Most religious folk do not have a love of, or even a casual affection for, wisdom. They wouldn’t recognize a philosophical argument if it bit them in the metaphysical ass.

We all know (or we should) that our blogs are, for the most part, read by one another. Let’s try to entertain and enlighten ourselves, to call for political or legal action when it’s necessary, and to share the hilarious and/or frightening idiocy that greets us every day. Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that we can hawk our wares in the so-called free marketplace of ideas, when we’ve really just found ourselves stuck in the medieval bazaar of ignorance.

Brainwashed in the Blood of the Lamb

The Friendly Atheist has improved a chart from Newhouse News Service, showing the religious affiliations of the members of Congress. The list includes Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and Unaffiliateds, but it’s mostly made up—as you probably guessed—of followers separating themselves into umpteen Christian sects. I’ll wait here while you look over the FA's great work.

The question is: what criteria have our elected representatives used to choose their particular religious paths? The answer in most cases, I suspect, is the accident of birth.

But Richard Dawkins, the current darling of atheists, delights in pointing out that there’s clearly no such thing as a Christian child, or a Jewish child, or a Muslim child, etc.. Children are not competent to profess belief in a worldview that favors any particular system of religiosity. Hence, there are only children of Christian parents, Jewish parents, Muslim parents, and parents indoctrinating their offspring into any of the other myriad superstitions now plaguing the Earth.

In other words, chances are good that most of our congresspriests learned what their religious affiliations were well before they had the intellectual wherewithal—and, let’s face it, many of them will never have it—to think about their chosen beliefs. They were brainwashed, conditioned to salivate at the mere mention of certain magic words like “Jesus,” “Adonai,” or “Allah;” as adults, they continue to drool. Unfortunately, their slobber permeates the pages of the country’s law books.

It might be instructive—or at least fun—if someone could get our politicians to take a few minutes off from their pious dribbling to answer the following brief questionnaire:
1. What would you say is the central “message” that defines your specific religious sect?
2. Would you articulate two or three differences between your selected religion and some of the others listed on the chart?
3. What advantages do you think your colleagues reap by practicing their religions instead of yours?
4. Still, why do you think your religion is the best?
5. If you don’t think it’s the best, why don’t you convert?
6. If you don’t think it would make any difference whether you converted or not, why do you bother to list a religious affiliation at all?
7. Where do you find evidence in the Constitution that the government should prefer your particular sect to any of the others, or to none?

That last question is a ringer: it can’t be answered by any words other than “nowhere.”

My proposal: Only those elected officials who could respond spontaneously and publicly to the questionnaire, without prompting or preparation, should ever be allowed to mention religion, directly or circuitously, in Congress again.

The result would be far from perfect, but it might get some of the holy mouth-water off those law pages.

Person of the Year

The atheist limelight has been grabbed this year by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, and, to a slightly lesser extent, by Julia Sweeney. Clearly, there's no denying that these champions of rationality are all worthy of our secular adoration.

But as far as I’m concerned, the person who has done the most in 2006 to wake people up to the sins of the theocrats is a New York Times business reporter named Diana B. Henriques. Whether or not she’s an atheist herself is immaterial, although, god doesn’t know, I wish she were. In fact, her short bio on The Times’s Web site specifically references her lengthy religious history, stating that “throughout her life, she has been an active member of various Protestant congregations, serving for several years as an elder at a suburban Presbyterian church and currently serving as the senior warden at an urban Episcopal church in New Jersey.” The blurb makes her sound like she’s a sects addict, for heaven's sake. Since New York Times staff bios do not generally refer to a journalist’s church-going record, obviously this information is included about Henriques so that readers will not be able to dismiss her reportage as the work of some heathen crank.

Henriques’s crusade against holy thievery began with a five-part series, “In God’s Name,” that ran from October 8th through 11th, with its final entry on the 20th. These articles, as The Times says, “examine how American religious organizations benefit from an increasingly accommodating government.” The reporter has now coauthored another feature that appears in today's paper. After six such efforts, she might look over her accomplishments and rest contentedly, as a lazy deity would. But I’m prophesying that there’s more to come; perhaps a good book is in the works.

The titles of Henriques’s articles ought to be enough to get us heathen cranks weeping and gnashing our teeth:
* Religion Trumps Regulation as Legal Exemptions Grow
* Where Faith Abides, Employees Have Few Rights
* As Religious Programs Expand, Disputes Rise Over Tax Breaks
* Religion-Based Tax Breaks: Housing to Paychecks to Books
* Ministry’s Medical Program Is Not Regulated
* Religion for Captive Audience, with Taxpayers Footing the Bill
She’s not writing only about the recent faith-bait initiatives here. Some of the laws she cites have been on the books for more than a decade. The promulgators of superstition have been riding the gravy train for a long time, and the conductors have come from both major parties.

Here’s a link to the Dec. 10 article. The first five installments are also just a click away. There are some nifty graphics you ought to check out, as well.

The Times, unlike most of Henriques’s subjects, is not a tax-free charity; it doesn’t keep its stories online for free very long. If you’re interested, you’d better read or download these gems quickly.