I wish there were more celebrities were open and honest about their atheism or agnosticism.Did you lose your faith or never have any?I used to believe in God. The Christian one, that is. (There are a few thousand to choose from. But I was born in a country where the dominant religion was Christianity so I believed in that one. Isn't it weird how that always happens?) Luckily I was also interested in science and nature. And reason and logic. And honesty and truth. And equality and fairness. By the age of eight I was an atheist. (That word shouldn’t even exist. It shouldn’t be needed. But it does. And it is.)You studied philosophy at university – which philosophical idea has turned out to be most useful?A few spring to mind. Bertrand Russell said, “No one gossips about other people’s secret virtues.” That became more profound once I’d become famous. Ha Ha. And I love “There is no god higher than truth” – Mahatma Gandhi.
Born in Portsmouth, England, in 1949, Hitchens studied at Oxford before launching his journalism career in the 1970s with the magazines International Socialism and the New Statesman. In the early 1980s, he emigrated to the United States, where he was a regular columnist at The Nation for two decades before parting ways with the liberal magazine after proudly disagreeing with its editors about the Iraq war.Hitchens won the National Magazine Award for commentary in 2007, the same year that he became an American citizen on his 58th birthday. Foreign Policy named him to its list of the top 100 public intellectuals the following year, and Forbes magazine labeled him one of the 25 most influential liberals in the U.S. media in 2009, a distinction that took some by surprise given Hitchens's vocal support of George W. Bush's war on terror.He was a frequent guest on news programs and at public debates, and rarely passed up the opportunity to defend his positions when given the opportunity to do so. He was the author of nearly 20 books, including God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, The Trial of Henry Kissinger, Hitch-22: A Memoir, and Arguably, a collection of his more recent essays that was published earlier this year.Hitchens remained steadfast in his criticism of religion even in the face of his grim prognosis. In an August 2010 interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, his colleague at The Atlantic, Hitchens made it known that even if he were to somehow recant his devout atheism on his deathbed, any apparent conversion would be a hollow gesture. "The entity making such a remark might be a raving, terrified person whose cancer has spread to the brain," he said. "I can't guarantee that such an entity wouldn't make such a ridiculous remark. But no one recognizable as myself would ever make such a ridiculous remark."
Jonathan Saenz, the Director of Legislative Affairs for the Liberty Institute, a Texas-based group which fights to 'limit government and promote Judeo-Christian values,' said critics of the religious plate are "Christian bashing."
He said there are already several specialty license plates which feature Christian crosses. In 2007, the Texas Legislature agreed to insert the phrase "One State Under God," the same phrase that is on the plate, into the Pledge to the Texas Flag which is said by school students every day, he said.
"This is a matter of individual free speech, freedom of choice," Saenz said, adding that he would not oppose a state license plate which bore those words and featured a Jewish Star of David, the Islamic Crescent, or other non-Christian symbols.
"There is no requirement that you agree with every specialty license plate there is. There are people who don't like the Boy Scouts, they have a plate. There are people who don't like the Knights of Columbus (Catholic men's organization), they have a plate."Fasconating. I'm sure that Mr. Saenz will support the application of an Atheist organization to promote their view that God not exist? Or how about a Texas state license plate that has a rainbow flag and the word: "Pride" on it?
Do these people really believe that, before their holy book was written down and people heard about their god's laws, that people simply went around killing, raping, stealing and abusing children and it didn't occur to anyone that it was wrong in any way? Do they really believe that suddenly people heard of these new laws and thought, "Ah! In that case I had better stop this killing, raping, stealing and child abuse, or a god will punish me."? Is it realistic to assume that, before the Bible or the Qur'an were taken outside the Middle East to Europe and Asia, society consisted of people raping, murdering and stealing and that no child was safe?
And what does it say of the person who is implicitly, and sometimes explicitly telling you that THEY see no reason not to murder, rape, steal and molest children other than the fear that a god will punish them?
Who exactly has the morals here? The person who does right and avoids wrong because they know right from wrong, or more precisely, can work out what's right and what's wrong in a given situation because they can empathise with others and understand what it would be like to have a wrong done to them, or the person who is only hoping for a reward or avoiding punishment and needs to try to remember what an old book says and try to apply it to the situation at hand?This is often known as the "Good Without God" argument and is also well articulated and illustrated by the cartoon at the top of this post.
 |
| Openly gay Minister of Water Penny Wong is expected to play a crucial role in passing marriage equality in Australia next year |
The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, had called for a conscience vote and personally moved the amendment backing this.Had this been defeated, Ms Gillard’s leadership would have suffered a serious blow. She dodged a bullet when the conscience vote was endorsed by 208 votes to 184.Support to change the platform to one of explicit support for gay marriage was much stronger and some see this as a defeat for the Prime Minister.She has not publicly opposed a platform change but she does oppose changes to the Marriage Act which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.The platform change endorsed today says ‘‘Labor will amend the Marriage Act to ensure equal access to marriage under statute for all adult couples irrespective of sex who have a mutual commitment to a shared life’’.The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, is an unmarried atheist who is the first female head of the Australian government. She has been getting much flak from the Australian LGBT community for her position,, which most liken to Barack Obama;'s in its political expediency.
Methinks Dr. Tyson doth protest too much, don't you? Anyway, it's cool that there are blogs like Godless and Black and Words of Wrath as well as organizations like African Americans for Humanism and facebook pages like Black Atheists of America. Hopefully MadProfessah's Godless Wednesday will join this list of Black Atheist resources.RONNELLE ADAMS came out to his mother twice, first about his homosexuality, then about his atheism.“My mother is very devout,” said Mr. Adams, 30, a Washington resident who has published an atheist children’s book, “Aching and Praying,” but who in high school considered becoming a Baptist preacher. “She started telling me her issues with homosexuality, which were, of course, Biblical,” he said. “ ‘I just don’t care what the Bible says about that,’ I told her, and she asked why. ‘I don’t believe that stuff anymore.’ It got silent. She was distraught. She told me she was more bothered by that than the revelation I was gay.”[...]African-Americans are remarkably religious even for a country known for its faithfulness, as the United States is. According to the Pew Forum 2008 United States Religious Landscape Survey, 88 percent of African-Americans believe in God with absolute certainty, compared with 71 percent of the total population, with more than half attending religious services at least once a week.[...]According to Pew, the vast majority of atheists and agnostics are white, including the authors Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens.Seeking a public intellectual of their own, some black atheists have claimed the astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, interpreting his arguments against teaching intelligent design in the classroom to be an endorsement of atheism. But Dr. deGrasse Tyson is loath to be associated with any part of the movement. When contacted last week by e-mail, he noted a Twitter exchange he had in August, in which he told a follower, “Am I an Atheist, you ask? Labels are mentally lazy ways by which people assert they know you without knowing you.”
Since March, state officials have been investigating whether religious agencies that receive public funds to license foster care parents are breaking anti-discrimination laws if they turn away openly gay parents.
After the civil union bill went into effect in June, Catholic Charities told the state that accommodating prospective foster parents in civil unions would violate Catholic Church teaching that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Catholic Charities said it would instead refer gay couples elsewhere and only license married couples and single parents living alone.
The agency has pointed to a clause in the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act that they believe protects religious institutions that don't recognize civil unions.
But lawyers for the Illinois attorney general said that exemption only shields religious clergy who don't want to officiate at civil unions. The policy of Catholic Charities violates state anti-discrimination laws that demand couples in civil unions be treated the same as married couples, they said.Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. Thankfully, there are plenty of secular foster care agencies who care more about helping children then promoting religious-based homophobic ideology.
67% of all voters would feel somewhat or very uncomfortable with an atheist president.80% of all Republicans, 70% of Democrats, and 56% of all Independents feel the same.So Democrats would be more uncomfortable with an atheist president than a Muslim president.
Republicans — not surprisingly, a higher proportion of them than Democrats — would be equally uncomfortable with both an atheist president and a Muslim president.
Overall, though, a non-theistic presidential candidate has a bigger hurdle to overcome than a person of any faith at all. It’s unbelievable that in this day and age, America still has this much of a hangup over a leader who would put more weight in evidence and logical thinking than in an imaginary god and ancient books.
VOTING NO
Ackerman
Amash
Chu
Cleaver
Honda
Johnson (GA)
NadlerScott (VA)
Stark
VOTING "PRESENT"
Ellison
WattIt should also be noted that Mike Honda the co-sponsor of an immigration bill that would produce immigration equality for same-sex binational couples also voted against the meaningless theocratic measure. Keith Ellison is noteworthy because he is the only acknowledged Muslim member of Congress.
There is nothing unusual about Governor Rick Perry. Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.It should be noted that, in February 2009, on the bicentennial of Darwin's birth (same day as President Abraham Lincoln, February 12, 1809), Gallup released a poll which showed that a mere 39% of Americans believe in evolution. (25% says they do not believe in evolution and 36% have no opinion.) Hopefully someone will re-do that poll again (particular to minimize the no opinion category) as Rick Perry grows more prominent in the public eye, and perhaps Mr. Perry will recognize (and be asked about) the separation of church and state that American's founding fathers believed in.
[...]
A politician’s attitude to evolution is perhaps not directly important in itself. It can have unfortunate consequences on education and science policy but, compared to Perry’s and the Tea Party’s pronouncements on other topics such as economics, taxation, history and sexual politics, their ignorance of evolutionary science might be overlooked. Except that a politician’s attitude to evolution, however peripheral it might seem, is a surprisingly apposite litmus test of more general inadequacy. This is because unlike, say, string theory where scientific opinion is genuinely divided, there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all. Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which likely extends to other fields as well. Evolution is not some recondite backwater of science, ignorance of which would be pardonable. It is the stunningly simple but elegant explanation of our very existence and the existence of every living creature on the planet. Thanks to Darwin, we now understand why we are here and why we are the way we are. You cannot be ignorant of evolution and be a cultivated and adequate citizen of today.
[...]
There are many reasons to vote against Rick Perry. His fatuous stance on the teaching of evolution in schools is perhaps not the first reason that springs to mind. But maybe it is the most telling litmus test of the other reasons, and it seems to apply not just to him but, lamentably, to all the likely contenders for the Republican nomination. The ‘evolution question’ deserves a prominent place in the list of questions put to candidates in interviews and public debates during the course of the coming election.
Please don't think that Gov. Perry just wrote these comments in a book nobody read and is now distancing himself from these extreme positions. In an interview with The Daily Beast last week, Perry repeated many of these extreme positions unapologetically.— 10. Social Security Is Evil: According to Perry Social Security is “by far the best example” of a program “violently tossing aside any respect for our founding principles.” (page 48)— 9. Private Enterprise Blossomed Under Conscription and Wartime Price Controls: Not only does he argue that the New Deal failed to end the Great Depression, but he asserts “recovery did not come until World War II, when FDR was finally persuaded to unleash private enterprise.” (page 48)— 8. Medicare Is Too Expensive But Must Never Be Cut: Both establishing Medicare in 1965 and expanding it to include prescription drugs in 2003 are examples of “an irresponsible culture of spending in Washington” (page 63), but establishing “‘councils of experts’ and panels of various sorts” to assess the cost effectiveness of different Medicare-eligible treatments is a “frightening” “scheme” that “undermines freedom” and can be fairly labeled “death panels” (page 81).— 7. All Bank Regulation Is Unconstitutional: Criticizing the Security and Exchange Commission’s rulemaking process under the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill, Perry asserts that “if the Constitution were shown the appropriate respect, Washington regulation writers wouldn’t have to worry about underrepresented views, because they wouldn’t have control over them in the first place” (page 94).— 6. Consumer Financial Protection Is Unconstitutional: Further reiterates his view that all federal financial regulation is illegitimate, listing the SEC on page 44 as part of a “federal alphabet soup” in which “undemocratic unelected Washington bureaucrats” are “now (dubiously) empowered to dictate their own preferences to the American people.”— 5. Almost Everything Is Unconstitutional: Regrets the existence of jurisprudence construing the Commerce Clause to permit “federal laws regulating the environment, regulating guns, protecting civil rights, establishing the massive programs and Medicare and Medicaid, creating national minimum wage laws, [and] establishing national labor laws.” Perry makes a partial exception for laws barring racial discrimination which he says fulfill “the intent behind the passage of the Reconstruction Era amendments.” (page 51)— 4. Federal Education Policy Is Unconstitutional: Cites the willingness of Republicans to vote for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as a “perfect example” of “losing sight of the fact that perfectly laudable policy choices at the local level are not appropriate (much less constitutional) at the federal level.” (page 87)— 3. Al Gore Is Part Of A Conspiracy To Deny The Existence Of Global Cooling:Jokes that the Social Security Trust Fund “must be somewhere in Al Gore’s lockbox, right next to his notes from inventing the Internet and that global cooling data he doesn’t want anyone to see” (page 60). Argues that moderates oppose curbing greenhouse gas emissions because “they know that we have been experiencing a cooling trend” (page 92).— 2. Not Only Is Everything Unconstitutional, Activist Judges Are A Problem:Having called the majority of the duly enacted modern welfare state and federal regulatory apparatus unconstitutional, Perry pivots to the complaint that “the [Supreme] court too often chooses to take it upon itself to govern and to develop policy” (page 114).— 1. The Civil War Was Caused By Slaveowners Trampling On Northern States’ Rights: Rather than simply citing chattel slavery as an exemption to his “states’ rights are good” principle, Perry argues that slaveholder activism in the 1850s was an example of big government federal overreach. “In many ways it was was the northern states whose sovereignty was violated in the run-up to the Civil War,” he argues, citing the Fugitive Slave Act and completely ignoring the human rights of the enslaved African-Americans of the south. He says “we can never know what would have happened in the absence of federal involvement,” ignoring again the fact that federalism would have bought peace at the price of continued slavery.
laodicean
PRONUNCIATION:
(lay-ah-duh-SEE-uhn)
MEANING:adjective: Lukewarm or indifferent, especially regarding religion.ETYMOLOGY:After Laodicea, a city in Asia Minor, whose Christians were rebuked for their indifference to religion in Revelation 3:16 in the New Testament. Earliest documented use: 1633.USAGE:"How can we expect such vital realism from our pathologically Laodicean political class?"
Kevin Myers; An Irishman's Diary; Irish Times (Dublin); Jul 19, 2005.
