The Atheist News Podcast

First the good news. Last Tuesday the Washington DC city council for the second time voted in favor of a measure that would legalize and recognize same sex marriage in the District of Columbia. All that stands before this becoming law is the signature of Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (he has affirmed that he will sign) and a 30 day legislative review period. By next Spring, Washington DC will legalize same-sex marriage, and the peasants rejoiced.

Now the bad: This has sparked the ire of the local Catholic archdiocese. They have threatened to halt all social services in the city including drug treatment, homeless shelters and foster care if the bill passes and becomes law. This would leave around 68,000 of the city’s residents even needier. The archdiocese claims that it’s main contention with the bill is that charities doing business in the city would have to extend spousal benefits to same-sex partners.

Apparently cutting off services to tens of thousands is preferable to the Catholic Church loving their neighbors as they love themselves (why does that phrase sound somehow familiar?). This sort of “WAH! I’m taking my toys and going home” mentality is by no means a new M.O. for Catholic organizations. When Massachusetts stopped barring same-sex couples from adopting, the Catholic Church halted all operations that facilitate any adoptions. Specific operations in other states that have legalized gay marriage have also been halted, but should the archdiocese make good on their threats, this will dwarf these in scale.

So it’s getting to that time of year where we start seeing the spaces in stores previously occupied by pumpkins and turkeys being filled with holly leaves and all sorts of trinkets that hearken the year’s end. No one can be bothered by the fact the health care bill limped out of the house as a crippled shell of itself or that tens of thousands of additional troops will be shipping to try to stabilize a part of the world to which the Mongols, Soviets, the Greeks, and the British have all at some point said “fuck that”. But no one can be bothered by that. There’s too much stress and consumption involved in the time of year that’s been perfectly crafted so that no matter what religion one ascribes to, there’s and excuse to bust out that credit card, crank up those lights, and compromise every value you hold and shop at Wal-Mart. It’s that time of year that always made me feel isolated in my cynicism and surrounded by a huddled mass willing to ignore all the problems of the world and suckle eagerly from the teat of over consumption.

And this was when I was in high school and still believed in God.

In case it isn’t blatantly obvious yet, the end year holidays are an institution I feel jaded about on a level equal to marriage and professional sports. This however is the first Christmas I’ll go through as a realized atheist. So what this brings to me is an important question that all non-theists must answer at sometime or another: How do you deal with the religious holidays as an atheist? Although there are religious holidays throughout the year, this question comes up particularly in December, since during this month so many different faiths find some excuse to buy shi… I mean celebrate their faith it’s become ingrained into our economy and culture at large and is thus unavoidable. So what obstacles and challenges, if any, are you faced with? Do you go through the motions to satisfy your family? Do you take a defiant stand against any and all festivities?

Personally, I think Christmas lost almost all of it’s religious significance ages ago (if it ever really had any). This makes it easy to regard any family gatherings as nothing more than what they are on the surface. An excuse to see relatives I don’t see often enough and give away books of mine that I’ve already read several times.

Religious or not, this can be a stressful, depressing, and hectic time of year. I wish you all the best in confronting it.

As an atheist in America, there are a lot of religious ideas my country communicates that I disagree with. Ideally, the constitutional separation of church and state should make this a non-issue, but in a similar fashion to Iggy Pop not being recognized as the true king of rock and roll, there is often a large disparity between what should be, and what is. How this impacts us at home is important, but what fascinates me more is how religion in America informs the perception of our nation abroad.

The image America projects is not nearly as God-centric as it used to be in the days when the government worked tirelessly to differentiate us from the “godless communists”, and with such recent developments as President Obama declaring that America is “not a christian nation” to the world, our image is continuing to shift in the right direction. There are still several aspects of our country though that falsely perpetuate the notion of our rights and freedoms as being the effect, not the cause, of religious practice in America. The facet of this I will explore here is religion in the U.S. military.

It would be naive to say that there is no religious pressure put on young men and women serving in the military. Several of us working on the blog and podcast are no strangers to the presence of religion in the armed forces and can attest to it personally. Assertions that there is no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole (there is actually) help to make religion, rather than freedom from it, the social norm.

I remember my first day at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot where we were stripped of everything that made us individuals and given new clothes, titles, routines, and a shiny new pocket sized bible and a rosary for any catholics. This didn’t irk me significantly. It’s not as if anyone had much down time to ever read it. On Sundays we were offered to go to one of several different religious services offered for recruits. These are enticing to recruits both religious and otherwise as a means to escape the drill instructors for an hour.

In the fleet, religion is still always present. Each unit at the battalion level has a commissioned officer who is ordained in a religious faith serving as the unit chaplain. In the entire four years I served, only twice did I see one of these that wasn’t a Christian (one Jewish and one Muslim). Besides counseling services that would be much better handled by a mental health professional, performing religious services, and the occasional charity function, they serve little practical purpose.

This does have several unintended consequences as well ranging from indirect discrimination against atheists in the military to emboldening hostile forces who perceive conflicts with America as being religious in nature. The image of the American Crusader (a term invoked both by Bush and Bin Laden) has damaged relations with other nations and emboldened our enemies.

What do you think? Do you perceive the US military as having an overly religious element? What do you think should be done about this?

To quote the sage wisdom of Dr. Gregory House, everybody lies. It’s generally understood in civilized society that lying is usually wrong and frowned upon, but everyone does it. Distinguishing fact from fiction is a fundamental (IMHO the fundamental) conflict that every person must confront on a day to day basis.

When kids are thrown into the equation though, a whole new mess of circumstances apply. Children usually lack the critical thinking skills to see through most deceptions and they also usually intrinsically trust their parents word since, for lack of a better way to say it, they haven’t been here long enough to figure out what the hell is going on. This makes lying to them much easier. It is my understanding that lying to one’s kids, whether blatantly or through omission, is a common. The reasons for doing so range from parents saving face when they don’t know something, protecting the childrens’ supposed interests and innocence, incentivizing morality and/or obedience, or outright impatience and laziness.

The big three that most children in western societies are exposed to (outside of religion as a whole of course. For the sake of this article I’m focusing on lies that parents themselves know aren’t true) are the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus. My parents broke the mold a bit. They were themselves very religious, but they spared me the deception of St. Nick, even to telling me to just play along when my uncle would call every December pretending to be Santa. Easter and Christmas were always about religion, not marketing symbols (wait a minute…). Granted while the religion behind the holidays is false, I still credit them at least telling me lies that they themselves believed rather than subbing in quick, easy, and socially accepted explanations.

So what I’m asking is this: Did your parents clue you in to the big three or did they string you along for whatever reason such as social cohesion with your peers or whathaveyou? Additionally, if any of our readers themselves have children (or plan to), how are you going to address these?

The Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski, in a speech at the Brookings Institute this morning, said that the FCC would be taking a greater interest in enforcing net neutrality in the US in light of developments both recent and longstanding. “I am convinced that there are few goals more essential in the communications landscape than preserving and maintaining an open and robust Internet.”

The idea of net neutrality is anything but new. It is essentially what we enjoy now in that broadband internet service providers must give equal access to all content. In recent years, the internet has exploded in terms of usage and versatility. Several people, like myself, have abandoned television entirely because of this. For these reasons, major providers such as AT&T and Comcast have shown interest in new business models wherein other companies can purchase from providers the capability for their websites to be favored in terms of accessibility and bandwidth. This development would put a strain not only on small businesses operating online, but it would absolutely strangle any non-profit that couldn’t pony up the costs (any non profit that doesn’t take massive weekly collections from it’s members that is). Free speech becomes much more expensive.

Genachowski proposed regulations that stress “nondiscrimination and transparency” in broadband providers network management practices meaning that providers cannot discriminate against, block, or favor any content and that they must clearly demonstrate this. Although taking a stance on this issue shows prescience for what will inevitably become a bitter conflict, caution must be exercised. If the case for net neutrality is defeated here, then it will open the doors for an internet where independent media outlets and small businesses have to subsist on the scraps of bandwith left over from the major media conglomerates expensive feast.

How the FCC plans to do this exactly hasn’t been spelled out yet, but the idea is already drawing opposition from the right. Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas said “The case has simply not been made for what amounts to a significant regulatory intervention into a vibrant marketplace,” as he introduced an appropriations bill amendment to deny FCC funding for exploring ways to regulate broadband providers in a way to enforce net neutrality.

Net neutrality is in the balance and broadband providers are biting their nails. Let’s all hope for the best.

For more information:

Openinternet.gov
NPR report

Welcome all to the first of what may or may not become the first in a series. In each of these I’ll be taking a look at a prolific religious zealot, fundamentalist, or whathaveyou and give a brief look at who they are, some of their more extreme stances, and (this is the really fun part) any extreme displays of stupidity and/or hypocrisy. I’ll start off with an obvious and easy target: Glenn Beck.

Glenn Lee Beck was raised as a Roman Catholic and after the age of 30 converted to Mormonism. He began his broadcast career as a top 40 DJ in Florida. After a stint on CNN, Fox News scooped him up in 2008 and he’s been steadily growing more arrogant and divisive since. He currently hosts a television and radio news show and also works on the as a political activist, author, and current holder of the Grand Master Smug Crown at the Fox News channel (he inherited it from Sean Hannity last year.) His most recent endeavors include the 9/12 project and the book Glenn Beck’s Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine.

This book is once case of Beck relying on his audience’s lack of familiarity with history and blind nationalism to make a quick buck. In Thomas Paine’s pamphlet, he argues for the necessity of independence by citing examples of mercantilism, malicious rule, and entanglement in unnecessary wars. Several of Paine’s stances go radically against what Beck supports such as abolition of private property, rejection of religion, and support for social equality.

The 9/12 project was a stew he left on the pot for six months to ferment support for his viewpoints based on nine principles and twelve values. The basic idea was to bring the country back to the place it was the day after the September 11th attacks. In his mind, the country was at it’s most unified and powerful state during this time. The mindless fear and violence against innocent muslims that marked this period must have slipped his mind.

His programming typically consists of rapid fire streams of ad hominem attacks, conservative talking points, logical fallacies, and scare tactics. He typically borrows from Bill O’reilly’s playbook, only instead of the occasional temper tantrum he’ll have spontaneous fits of crying from being overwhelmed by love for his country. His enemies, particularly liberals (whom Jesus commands him to love), can apparently go fuck themselves though. On his show in 2005, he said that he would choke the life out of Micheal Moore for $50 million dollars. In 2006 he referred to Jimmy Carter as a “waste of skin”.

Recently, he caused an uproar when he said he thinks that President Barack Obama is a racist who has a “deep seated hatred” of white people. After this, ColorofChange.org started a campaign to bring attention to this. To date, over 30 companies have pulled their advertising from his show as a response. Some of these companies include Sprint, UPS, and Wal-Mart. When you’re so conservative to the point that even Wal-Mart tries to distance itself from you, that’s impressive.

The influence of religion (or at least what passes for Christianity these days) on his editorializing is not subtle. The second of the nine principles for his 9/12 project is a belief in God and it’s centrality to one’s life. He has repeatedly attributed religion as the only thing that keeps him moral and was able to give up drugs and alcohol. He adheres to religious political stances like Jesus to a cross. He said on April 14th, 2009 that he thinks that gay marriage is a conspiracy to attack the church. On several occasions he’s had guests on for the sole purpose of promoting intelligent design.

Truth be told though, I’m actually in a way grateful for people like Beck. He’s a brilliant demonstration of Christian Fundamentalism and if he’s brought up in any discussion I’m having, the context can be an excellent barometer for how the conversation will go and if it’ll even be worth it. His platform of anti-intellectualism and fear mongering will continue to garner large audience’s for him though even as he continues to bleed advertisers. He’s sticking to his guns though, refusing to distance himself from his comments. There has to be some threshold for cockiness and he’s bound to reach it at some point. It should be either hilariously entertaining or horrifically tragic when he does.

A friend of mine I haven’t seen in years texted me out of the blue asking if I would ever want to get married and have kids. I figured I had two options at this point: turn the question back on her and find out what she was worried about or give a knee jerk answer without any tact. I opted for the latter, saying that I had no desire to ever get married or have kids and this sentiment was borne of a combination of cynicism, atheism, and pragmatism.

This seemed to answer her question sufficiently, but it got me thinking. Why is it exactly that I see no reason to adhere to these social norms. In just about any organized faith, pairing with a mate for the purpose of procreation is viewed as the end all be all of living a virtuous life. A lot of fundamentalist dogma is informed by this. Discrimination against homosexuals, restriction of birth control, pro-life (which in my mind equals anti-woman); all of these human rights non-issues are being politicized by religious organizations who want their vision of right and wrong compulsory for everyone. In the eyes of God (which one seldom matters) you are not a complete person unless your ideal life is getting married to someone of the opposite gender and steadily producing children.

So in the absence of any spiritual or religious requirements, what case remains for marriage and procreation. Since the former is often seen merely as a means to the latter, I’ll be focusing child rearing. The first argument is the oldest: propagation of the species. This one can pretty easily be discounted since it doesn’t look like humanity is going to die off any time soon. A lot of environmental and social problems stem from the fact that there just doesn’t seem to be enough resources to go around. Some have and some go without as a result. Of course there is the old Judeo-Christian ideology that how many kids you have is a sign of divine favor that goes hand in hand with the acquisition of wealth (curious since Jesus clearly had neither.)

After this last argument, some of the others seem downright selfish. Carrying on the family name is one I hear often. This plays off the fear that after one is dead and buried the world will go on as if they didn’t exist. It will be as if nothing they did mattered and no one will remember them. Well I’ve got bad news for them. It’s probably going to turn out that way anyways. Unless you’ve invented, discovered, written, or done something else that has shaken the world, there’s probably no one who will know (or really care) who you were one hundred years from now. It’s cold, it’s scary, but it’s the truth. How many people do you know who continuously extol the virtues of their great-grandparents, and honestly, don’t you find them kind of annoying? Having kids won’t make you famous.

I can’t even go on about the other reasons without starting to seethe with resentment at those who consider them valid. You want to pass on what you’ve learned in this life? Write a book rather than spawn a captive audience. Maybe it’s because you think it’s the natural next step after getting married. Fuck that. Start a charity; do volunteer work; get politically active; find SOME way to improve the state of humanity in some way besides its sum total. I’m sorry if it isn’t as instantly gratifying and intuitive, but that should make it that much more rewarding. You say you want to take care of and nurture something? Then adopt. There’s nothing as lost and in need of nurturing in this world than an orphan with nothing in the world and no one who cares for them. There are fewer things that would be as noble and charitable as such an act. This isn’t enough for some people though. They feel the need to have a little them staring back up at them assuring them that they’re influence and ideology will survive them.

Comic courtesy of xkcd
Other images courtesy of the internets

The justice department has begun investigating and reviewing cases of “enhanced interrogation techniques” for any evidence of illegal activity. Naturally this has roused the ire of modern torture’s greatest advocate, former Vice President Dick Cheney. “It’s clearly a political move. There’s no other rationale for why they’re doing this.” Statements like this give the impression that it’s beyond Cheney’s comprehension that anyone could honestly believe torture to be ineffective in producing actionable intelligence. I bet Mr. Cheney is a big fan of 24.

Mr Cheney, like many defenders of this practice, seem to operate under the idea that those they see as “evil” can be consistently and methodically made to confess their “sins” after they experience enough pain. It doesn’t take that much research to find vaguely relevant scripture (a fundamentalist’s go-to tactic when faced with disagreement) and even historical examples of this mentality.

Of course rather than defend his side of the issue with anything but the vaguest of rationalizations, he instead prefers (and has preferred) to consider any dissent against torture or accountability for those who practice it as partisan whining by those who have no idea how to protect America. It’s inconsequential to him that torture galvanizes radical opposition, results in false information, encourages enemy use of torture, and every once in a while it will inevitably be used on innocent people.

Now there are a ton of reasons I could parade out about why torture is wrong, both religious and secular. For a minute though, let’s set aside any questions about the effectiveness, precise definition, and the long term implications. What it all comes down to after that hinges on one precept: We claim to be the good guys. The good guys don’t take the easy way out. The good guys don’t perpetuate fear and use it as a means to abandon the civility and humanity which they claim separates them from that which they fight.

This debate is nothing new, even to a relatively young nation such as America. The Salem witch trials, slavery, the Phoenix Program, police brutality against minorities and homosexuals; these all have common elements. They were rationalized during their respective times, but time has shown them to be distasteful, reprehensible, and regrettable. This trend has already begun. It’s only a matter of time before those who defend the use of torture this time around are seen for what they are: short sighted fools willing to take the easy way out rather than rise above. Hopefully this investigation by the Justice Department will illuminate this.

In the continuing saga of religious clothing in secular environments (such as this story) Michigan’s Supreme Court has passed an order that allows lower state courts “reasonable control over the appearance of parties and witnesses” so as to “ensure that the demeanor of such persons may be observed and assessed by the fact-finder and ensure the accurate identification of such person.”

The order was prompted by 2006 small claims case in which a judge ordered a female defendant to remove her niqab, a traditional Muslim garment covering the entire face except the eyes, in order to better ascertain the honesty of her testimony. She refused to remove it the presence of a male judge, leading to the case being dismissed.

The order is being opposed by both religious and secular organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relation and the American Civil Liberties Union.

The argument for this order is a practical one. Judges in lower courts have a large responsibility in determining truth from fiction. Anyone who’s ever played poker knows that facial cues are an important part of this.

In the interest of being thorough, let’s take a look at religious angle. The woman’s refusal was on the grounds that she was a practicing Muslim. However, according to several Muslim scholars on IslamOnline.net uncovering of the face and hands is permissible for a woman if the local country’s laws require it for practical purposes such as identification or medical treatment.

The purpose was practical and she still refused. Now with this court order, such refusals in the future would be a violation of both state, and her own religious laws. Ideally this should resolve such conflicts and allow small court judges in, in Michigan at least,  to better do their jobs.

For all of the logical fallacies and convenient assumptions of religion or any system of beliefs based on faith over reason, they have one advantage over a logical, scientific, and non-theist way of approaching the world.

This advantage is definition. Nearly any religion has a clearly defined sense of right and wrong, however archaic and misguided it may be, and from these definitions religious leaders can interpret how the world should be and what it is they are striving for. Atheist on the other hand are left to figure it out more or less for themselves, extrapolating from some sort of golden rule (such as “Don’t be an asshole”).

For example, ask twenty different atheists about capital punishment and they’ll probably give at least a dozen different answers for all sorts of different reasons. Go to the local pentecostal service or orthodox synagogue and the range of answers is likely to be a sight less diverse. Sure there’ll be a percentage among any congregation that disagrees with the organization on the finer points of policy, but that still doesn’t change the fact that they still give their time, their support, and most likely their money to that organization.

This single mindedness can be very unifying. This unity can be a potent social tool. Rallying around temples was one of the factors that led to the first cities being built in the fertile crescent. Since then, large groups of people united in purpose under the banner of religion operating with the absolute certainty that they are right have been a political and social force to be reckoned with.

My point is that religions by definition have a level of organization that atheism doesn’t come close to. While we can’t (and probably shouldn’t necessarily) be as homogenous in our values and philosophies, an important step towards greater unity is each and every one of us knowing what we believe, what we don’t, and why. Going further, how does this figure in to your picture of an ideal world? What is this world like? When do we win?

Unless these question can be answered, or are at least considered, any progress towards the truth, either on a social or personal level, can only go so far. It’s much harder to move forward without at least a vague idea of where one wants to go. Nearly all religions know where they’re going. They got off easy by getting the word from a higher power. We have a more troublesome, but ultimately more rewarding situation. We are left to pursue the truth borne not of faith, but of reason, science, and each other.