Pastor Wants Atheist Registry

Those who do not think that atheists are a persecuted minority in America should really take a look at the recent stunt pulled by an American pastor. Florida pastor Michael Stahl has proposed that a registry be set up to name known atheists and name their place of work or business. The purpose, he says, is to let Christians know where they can preach to them and also to boycott their businesses. Interestingly, it would not include their addresses; more than likely a move to avoid being held responsible for any violence committed against them.

This Christian bigot has compared atheists to the Ku Klux Klan and radical Islamists - groups which more often than not have a religious element to their abhorrent actions. He probably doesn't mean any serious action here, and just wants to cause a stir to feed his narcissistic desires. But it is clear that he sees atheists as the scum of America, and wishes to whip up hatred against them.

Many support this kind of nonsense in America because of the general attitudes towards atheists. While tolerance for minority religious and ethnic groups has generally increased, atheists are still regarded as being separate from what is generally seen as the ideal America. Ironically, Christian America's increased tolerance of other religious groups and an increased solidarity between these groups has strengthened opposition to those who do not believe.

Fundamentalists such as the attention seeking Stahl of course also fiercely oppose competing religions, so it is not the likes of his intolerance that is mainly to blame for the increased discrimination against atheists. Funnily enough, it is the religious moderates and their preaching of tolerance that is mainly to blame. In their rainbow view of the world, it does not matter what you believe, just so long as you do believe. As Sam Harris has pointed out, it is religious moderates who promote faith as a virtue and unquestioned tolerance of it. For those who believe in the supernatural, no matter how ridiculous their claims, they are to be respected and are not to be questioned. It is this poisonous political correctness that binds religious groups of all stripes together and unites them in their opposition to those who see the concept of faith (believing in something for which there is no evidence) as ridiculous.

Faith is not a virtue, and tolerance should only extend to the point where we accept practices that are not harmful. Of course we should not tolerate the bigoted views of Stahl, but it is also about time we stopped tolerating the idiotic and damaging concept of faith. Where evidence is lacking, we should demand it, and not simply let a person off the hook because he or she believes in an imaginary friend whom you need faith in to understand.

Lesbian Couple Forced Apart in Indonesia

Apologists for Islam often point to Indonesia as an example of Islam being compatible with democracy. Granted, Indonesia has a representative parliamentary system, but it is seldom pointed out that the country never had a direct presidential election until 2004, and that two of the 20th century's most ruthless dictators - Surkano and Suharto - ruled over the country collectively for 53 years. The country has also acted as a breeding ground for terrorist groups (such as Jemaah Islamiah) and has an Islamic police force in Acheh.

This very police force has recently separated a lesbian couple and placed them under close surveillance. Although homosexuality is legal in the country, the province of Acheh has been granted a degree of autonomy that has allowed for the passing of brutal Islamic laws and the establishment of a religious police force. The police have warned the couple that they may face beheading.

The apologists will certainly have a hard time in explaining how this is not an example of Islam eroding democratic politics, but they will still point to Indonesia as a beacon of light for the Muslim world. Indonesia is of course much more moderate than a country like Saudi Arabia that adheres strictly to Sharia, but this level of democracy has nothing at all to do with Islam. Without condoning colonialism, it should be recognised that Indonesia inherited secular and liberal institutions from the Dutch. The Netherlands were of course often exploitative of the indigenous peoples, but their rule did bring open commerce as well as a legal system that rejected Sharia. I am not for a second saying that the forceful rule was justified, but it must be noted that Dutch secularism played a big role in quelling the potential dangers of political Islam.

Much of the same can be said of Malaysia; another country often touted as an example of Islamic democracy. It is still a country of corruption and religious thuggery, and its wealth and degrees of individual freedom are much to do with its geo-political position and its history of open trade and secularism which were facilitated by the British.

That leaves us with just one more country to pick on: Turkey. Again, the level of democracy and freedom in the majority-Muslim nation has next to nothing to do with Islam. The Ottoman empire was a formidable opposition to European powers in the 1600s, and much of this was to do with their acceptance of science over religion as the best way of discovering knowledge. But how did they come to that conclusion? It was certainly not from consulting the Koran; it was from observing the amazing progress of European nations that had allowed their scientists to freely advance their ideas and findings. Islamic forces were eventually defeated, but Turkey chose to embrace science and reason as a way to compete with the rest of Europe. I recommend this documentary for a greater account of Ottoman history.

Islam is not democratic, and any majority-Muslim country which is democratic is simply not exercising political Islam. It is yet another reason to keep religion private and to prevent religious thugs from taking office.

Red Hot Catholic Hypocrisy

The Pope has just wrapped up his visit to Spain, and what an event it was. Millions flocked to see him (to both praise and protest his extravagant tour), including nearly 2 million participants in World Youth Day. During his four day tour of the country, he has told Spain's youth to reject secularism and establish themselves as moral citizens. It ties in nicely with his messages in the UK last year, where he urged secularists to be tolerant of people of faith and for people to resist "aggressive secularism".

Perhaps the Pope does have a point; maybe secularists should be more tolerant. Like the Vatican, perhaps we should tolerate child molestation, Holocaust denial, homophobia, prevention of condom use and the spread of STDs, misogyny, cover-ups, holy wars, forced conversions, slavery and torture.

If this is tolerance, then I am proud to be a bigot. The sheer hypocrisy of the Pope is breathtaking, but of course it is not surprising. The Pontiff, who claims infallibility and to be the Vicar of Christ on earth, has also blamed the horrors of Nazism on secularism (despite the connection between the Vatican and Nazi Germany) and has himself been involved in the cover-up of the sexual enslavement of children, all while claiming the moral high ground. And to be promoting morality whilst gorging millions of Euros from a country on the verge of economic collapse is just a slap in the collective face of Spain.

Everywhere he goes, the Pope seems to single out secularism for special attention. He blames it for the totalitarianisms of the 20th century, and warns of its modern "aggression" leading to a repeat of the past. But why pick on the secularists so much? What has the Pope got to fear?

Secularism has no overarching ideology (in fact, it is not an ideology at all), but it does have one core principle: the separation of Church and State. This does not mean restriction on the private practice of religion, or banning politicians from letting their faith guide them in public office. It is about removing the levers of government from religious institutions. This principle is captured beautifully in The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which the United States is lucky enough to have. Archbishop Charles Chaput chooses to see this as "a kind of unofficial state atheism", even though it is simply about keeping religion out of politics.

As Sam Harris has pointed out, secular countries tend to be the most successful. Countries like Norway, Iceland and Australia are among the least religious nations, and are shown by the United Nations' Health Report (2005) to lead the world in life expectancy, adult literacy, education and gender equality. They also allow their citizens to practice their religion freely.

Going by this information, some may wonder why the Pope continues to pick on secularism. Well, it is certainly not because of its benefits, but rather, the core principle of secularism - the separation of Church and State - is directly at odds with the bureaucratic make up of the Vatican.

The Vatican has established itself as a sovereign State (recognised by the United Nations), has an estimated wealth to be between $US10 billion and $US15 billion, and has established diplomatic relations with 179 countries (a figure higher than the United States). Its head of State is the Pope, who exercises political power along with his subordinates. It is, by any definition, a theocracy, and is completely at odds with the notion of secular democracy.

The Pope knows all too well that secularism is no threat to the well-being of society. Rather, it is a threat to the influence of Catholicism and the political organs of the Vatican. Secularism is not aggressive, but it is certainly not tolerant of theocratic bullying from a bronze age institution that acts as a factory for paedophiles. If anything is aggressive, it is exploiting an obscene amount of money and power to force countries to adopt the damaging and barbaric doctrines of the Catholic Church. Perhaps secularists should exercise a bit of aggression against the world's most destructive bureaucracy.

Having a Wank is Sinful

Republican and Tea Part favourite Christine O'Donnell has just taken part in a rather awkward and fiery interview with CCN's Piers Morgan. In her new book,  Troublemaker: Let's do what it takes to make America great again, she gives her views, among other things, on just what constitutes sexual misconduct. Masturbation and fornication make the list.

O'Donnell, who chose to live a chaste life, views masturbation as committing adultery within one's heart and promotes sexual abstinence. She is now open to the idea of marriage and children, although Morgan could not get her to say whether or not she has given into lust whilst alone.

She is the perfect example of a person who will let religion completely cloud his or her reason. Despite what the science tells us, people of this religious stripe will cling onto their views on sexuality simply because they believe God might get angry with them, and will ignore all of the potential consequences here on Earth.

Teenagers who take the abstinence pledge in high school are less likely to engage in vaginal intercourse, but are more likely to engage in oral and anal sex. They are also less likely to use protection and are therefore at an increased risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Masturbation has been found to relieve sexual tension and aggression, relax muscles, assist sleeping patterns, enhance physical and mental well-being, reduce stress, enhance self-esteem and reduce the chance of prostate cancer in men.

Although she addresses sexuality in her book, O'Donnell ended up getting so frustrated with Morgan's questions that she prematurely ended the interview. She probably just needs a good shag, or at least some intimate alone-time.

Psychics Exposed

American television has just aired part one in a series about psychics and the paranormal. It features professional cold readers such as James Van Praagh, and skeptics such as Banachek who expose "mediums" for the crooked frauds that they are. It is well worth watching and can be seen here.

High Court Challenge to School Chaplaincy Program is a Noble Cause

Recently, a Queensland father named Ronald Williams has made a High Court challenge to the Commonwealth government's school chaplaincy program. Many have dismissed Williams as a grumbling atheist who is simply fighting religious influence (but what's wrong with that?!) and believe that parents will not appreciate the move. Perhaps many parents (and even atheists) see the challenge as going too far, but there are some things that they should consider.

It is indeed true that many parents have praised the program and the number of supportive messages have far outweighed the complaints. This isn't too surprising, considering the chaplains are sure to provide some degree of comfort to the students. But this does not mean that they could not be provided with better care or that an alternative system could not be a marked improvement. Right now, chaplains are all they have got.

Secularists such as Williams are not for a second suggesting that students should not be given support. They are simply saying that there should not be a religious test for giving such support, which is exactly what the program bases itself on. As I have pointed out, 75% of school chaplains are employed by the Queensland Scripture Union, a Christian training institution. Although they are not permitted to proselytise, the purpose of the program is to provide "pastoral care" and "spiritual guidance". Forgive me if I am mistaken to be seeing religious undertones there.

This religious test may very well be a violation of the constitution, hence the High Court challenge. I am certainly not going to point to the likelihood of the Court seeing it this way, but it is true that many have pointed to section 116 of the constitution potentially being violated, as the section forbids the government from establishing religious testing. Perhaps there is not a clear violation, but at least it would clarify exactly where church groups currently stand in regards to government funding, as they currently receive millions of tax-payer dollars each year.

As religious groups have become increasingly frustrated with their efforts to push their way back into the public sphere and indoctrinate children, the school chaplaincy program appears to be a desperate and devious attempt at infiltration of public schools. Theologian Scott Stephens has pointed out that as religious influence has declined, religious lobbying has risen dramatically and has resulted in an increase in government funding. Also, he describes the role of a promoter of Christianity as someone who presents themselves as an example of a follower of Jesus. This is not overt proselytising, but it is a very manipulative and covert way of preaching the doctrines of the bible. By presenting themselves as disciples of Christ, they may very well provide a level of comfort to students, and this helps explain the messages of support from parents. But parents should see past this short-term comfort as a devious attempt at conversion.

Anyway, chaplains are not always so covert. There have been a number of complaints about outright religious preaching, and just recently a Queensland chaplain organised a lecture by the Australian creationist John Mackay. The lecture was a "scientific" look at the biblical account of creation. Perhaps the chaplain and the fanatical scum bag Mackay saw this as a clever and stealth-like way of preaching to students, but our secular education leaves us to be smarter than that.

The religious influence of the school chaplaincy program is abundantly clear, and I for one hope the High Court deems it unconstitutional. I do not, however, wish for students to have no one to turn to in times of trouble. The government should therefore establish an alternative program that has no religious test and will not take the risk of preaching to students. It should also provide better training that goes beyond "pastoral care" and "spiritual guidance", so that students receive practical assistance for their problems.  

God Cures Cancer...Again

We again have a touching and inspirational healing story that could have been taken from Touched by an Angel. Jacob Boger of Indiana claims that God told him to give up his medical treatment as his battle would soon be over. He is now cancer free.

How uplifting and heart-warming, many would say. His prayers were answered and God spared a loving and kind soul. This seems to be the sentiment echoed from just about every network which has covered the story, as they have presented it as such and have let Boger go virtually unchallenged in every interview. Why isn't anyone seeing the problem here?

Despite Boger stating that he does not recommend others stopping their treatment, it would be quite hard for people to ignore the core of his story - that it was God who healed him, and not the medicine. By his own example, and by the senseless promotion by the media, he is promoting the idea to others that they too can give up earthly remedies and rely on a higher power. Perhaps by giving up medicine, some may think, they can show God just how much faith they have in his heavenly powers.

In any case, there is no good reason to believe that Boger was healed by means of divine intervention. Until someone grows back an amputated limb, we can almost be certain that such recoveries can be credited to medicine, natural workings of the body and efforts from the patient. Boger was told that he had about a 10% chance of survival, so it isn't really an enormous surprise that he pulled through. He underwent chemo- and radiotherapy which shrunk his tumour considerably, as well as other treatments. Sure, his chances were low, but there are plenty of others who survive similar conditions without any faith in God and plenty who die despite persistent praying. The media never reports on those stories though, of course.

It always seems that when someone beats the odds for the better, it is the work of a good God. But when bad things happen, it is God working in mysterious ways. Boger's parents and younger sister were all lost to cancer. This must be the work of a mysterious God. But now, armed with his survival story, Boger has become a preacher and businessman who earns a healthy income. This, surely, must be the work of a good God...right?