The Gaytheist Agenda

You may recall that I previously wrote about the ongoing problem in the US military with persistent Christian evangelism and bigotry toward those of other faiths, or of no faith. Recent news indicates that the trend continues, sadly. Spc. Jeremy Hall, the atheist who filed a religious discrimination lawsuit, has recently alleged that he has been threatened as a result.

Spc. Jeremy Hall filed a formal statement Wednesday with the Army. He says he overheard a conversation between two sergeants in his platoon and one wanted to “bust Hall in the mouth.”
Hall says he faces the animosity because he is an atheist and is suing the Department of Defense. He alleges it permits a culture that pushes fundamentalist Christianity.

He says he does not feel safe his unit.

Apparently Freedom of Religion, particularly in the military only applies to Evangelical Christians. Woe to non-conformists.

Now, from Newsweek:

The little book, with the camouflage cover, is everywhere. There are more than 50,000 copies with the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s on military bases across America. It’s in the homes of military families, who are praying their dear ones come home. It’s circulating at the Pentagon. Even the president has allegedly read it. “An aide to President Bush called me and said, ‘Henry, I think you’d like to know that the president is on his face before God every morning, and he’s using your [book]’,” its author told NEWSWEEK. The author is Henry Blackaby, a 72-year-old Canadian minister who is largely unknown outside Christian circles and who wrote the book together with his son Richard more than a decade ago. The book is the ever popular guide to prayer called “Experiencing God Day by Day.”

The Blackabys had already written and published the devotional when Henry was invited to speak in 2005 before a group of U.S. military chaplains. The chaplains were so inspired by Blackaby’s talk, the story goes, that they asked for copies of “Experiencing God Day by Day” to give to the men and women in the Army. Blackaby took the request to heart: he tapped some of his friends in the business world, received $176,000 in donations, redesigned the cover to match the Army’s camouflage uniforms and, with the help of his publisher, printed 100,000 copies to be distributed to the Army free of charge. …..

Military bases are flooded with religious literature, Christian literature in particular, and “Experiencing God Day by Day” is notable mostly for its serious tone and its orthodox approach to evangelical Christian theology. The book presents a daily verse from Scripture and a commentary on that verse; its intention is to help readers keep God ever present in their minds……The devotional is also a deeply evangelical text, and as such holds Christianity above other religions. “If you did not grow up in a Christian home,” reads the entry for June 10, “you can decide, as Joshua did, to reject your heritage of unbelief and begin a generation that serves the Lord.”

There would not seem, on the face of it, to be much of a problem with a group of private citizens sending a Christian prayer book abroad to lonely and spiritually hungry men and women who are, for the most part, Christian. But if you look closely at the “Experiencing God” phenomenon, says Jeff Sharlet, there is. Sharlet is a journalist who has been covering the Christian right for many years and is author of “The Family,” a forthcoming book about fundamentalist elites in America. “The military stands for our democratic nation, not for any religion,” he says. The ubiquity of this devotional “creates the appearance that this is an approved religion, that it’s favored by the state.” Not only is such an appearance isolating for military men and women who happen to not be evangelical—even mainline Protestants on military bases say they can feel marginalized, Sharlet says—but it also continues to create the impression abroad that the United States is engaged in a holy war. One man’s comfort is another man’s crusade, and such is the sad state of the world.

I find it disgusting, particularly considering the evangelical slant of the book. It’s obviously designed to recruit new Christians in addition to offering reading material to existing ones. Would the military allow books intended to proselytize for other religions, for atheism, etc? If not, then why are they allowing books evangelizing for Christianity and for one form in particular? This is wrong on so many levels.

Now from TheReporter.com :

What do the U.S. military and Christianity have in common? Nothing, if Mikey Weinstein has his way.

Weinstein is the founder of Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit organization that seeks to resurrect what he believes is the crumbling wall between church and state in the military.

Specifically, Weinstein believes that a minority Christian viewpoint - one that seeks to turn the military into a Christian force - is infiltrating the ranks at all levels. If they succeed, he says, their beliefs could be forced onto people around the world and here at home.

As Weinstein says it: “We’re a Tiger Woods’ putt away from becoming the United Fundamentalist Christian States of America, brought to you by the faith-based Department of Defense and its Pentacostalagon.”

…..

It’s a cause that came to him four years ago, in the form of a conversation with his younger son, who at the time was a sophomore at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado. His son complained about being unduly pressured by other cadets and academy leaders to give up his Jewish faith and become a Christian.

Weinstein, a 1977 Air Force academy graduate who served in Judge Advocate General Corps for 10 years and also did a stint in the Reagan White House, said he’d look into it. He thought it could be resolved with a few phone calls.

But as he probed, he began to see evidence of what seemed to be U.S.-sanctioned proseltyzation not only at the academy, but throughout the Air Force and in all branches of the military. Locally, he said he’s event received complaints from Travis Air Force Base, though he would not detail them.

Now the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has been in contact with more than 7,500 active-duty military members with similar complaints. Weinstein estimates that “96 percent” of those complaints come from other Christians.

“We’re at war, with the fundamentalist Christians pitted against the nonfundamentalist Christian brothers and sisters,” he says. “This is a national security threat internally every bit as much as that which is now challenging our country externally by a resurgent Taliban and al Qaida.”

The threat isn’t just to individual service members’ ability to practice their chosen faith - or nonfaith, as in the case of an avowed atheist whose opportunity for a promotional interview was rescinded, allegedly because he declined to participate in Christian prayers, according to a lawsuit recently filed by the foundation.

And it’s not just that “combat troops refusing to accept their commanders’ biblical world view are sent on more dangerous assignments,” or that “commanders are censoring movies,” so that troops are having trouble obtaining “Lord of the Rings” or Harry Potter DVDs, as Weinstein has been told by service members.

So much for the claim that atheists and other religious minorities aren’t actually put in harm’s way by the discrimination they experience.

The threat to national security comes when American Humvees are “driven through Iraqi cities playing, in Arabic, Rick Warren’s “The Purpose Driven Life,” or when company commanders are allowed to hand out tracts in Iraq depicting Christians going to heaven and Muslims going to hell, as alleged by a soldier who contacted Weinstein. Such actions serve to fuel the belief in Muslim countries that they are engaged in another holy war, and that this time, the Christian crusade is being led by the U.S. military.

But I thought they hated us for our freedoms. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the hostile religious behavior of the occupying forces. (Of course when Christian missionaries behave in similar ways and face violent backlash they call it “persecution” rather than face the reality that antagonistic behavior has repercussions.)

Needless to say, the US Military has far to go in bringing its Evangelical strain under control and making the environment safe and equal for people of all beliefs and non-beliefs. Fortunately the MRFF seems to be launching a formidable counterattack on the religious bullies. It will be worth keeping an eye on the situation to see how it pans out.

 

People speak of Freedom of Religion quite a bit in our society, but when they do they’re usually speaking about their religion, and most often Christianity. Let’s face it, if you’re not Christian in America you really don’t count, nor do your rights as far as many are concerned. That’s where our current story comes in.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide whether a religious group must be allowed to put its monument in a city park near a similar Ten Commandments display.

The justices agreed to hear an appeal by the city, Pleasant Grove in Utah, arguing that a lower-court ruling for the religious group could affect whether cities around the nation must display privately donated monuments on public property.

The Summun religious group, founded in Salt Lake City in 1975, sought to erect a monument to the tenets of its faith, called the “Seven Aphorisms,” in a park where there are other monuments, including one dedicated to the Ten Commandments.

Pleasant Grove rejected the request, citing its requirement that park displays be related to city history or donated by groups with longtime community ties, like the Fraternal Order of Eagles that gave the Ten Commandments monument in 1971.

Interesting how they set up all of these rules and regulations for the park displays that aren’t Christian based. I’ll bet that if I were to go in as an atheist who has never lived in Utah they’d accept my donation of a 10-Commandments monument right now. But everything else must pass all sorts of arbitrary tests or they’re rejected.

“If government creates an open forum, it can’t pick and choose among religions,” said Barry Lynn, executive director of the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

But attorneys for the city argued that the appeals court’s ruling will require cities and states to remove longstanding monuments or permit groups to display any monument in public places.

Well, fancy that concept. All groups are represented in public places or none are. Some can’t fathom the concept of equal access or think that it is a bad thing, but that’s just too darn bad. They either have to accept it or deal with no representation. Still some simply refuse to understand that. From the AP:

Pleasant Grove City Mayor Michael W. Daniels said the city’s objection is not with the content or placing of the monument, but with the precedent it could set.

“It’s about not letting just anyone walk in and say, ‘Because you have this, we have a right to put this up,’” Daniels said. “Summum was pretty much demanding — and by law, trying to sue us — to allow their particular monument to come into our park.”

Mr. Daniels, like many others, just doesn’t get it. Once one religious monument is put on public property it gives reign for others to be put there. Otherwise government is condoning and advocating one religion, which is simply unacceptable. Of course there are those who prefer to predict the worst.

In a dissent, Judge Michael McConnell warned of dire consequences if the appeals court decision was not overturned. “Every park in the country that has accepted a VFW memorial is now a public forum for the erection of permanent fixed monuments; they must either remove the war memorials or brace themselves for an influx of clutter,” he wrote.

Judge McConnell’s warning continued: “A city that accepted the donation of a statue honoring a local hero could be forced under the panel’s rulings, to allow a local religious society to erect a Ten Commandments monument – or for that matter, a cross, a nativity scene, a statue of Zeus, or a Confederate flag.”

Yes, all that plurality would just be horrific. We simply couldn’t find a way to deal with that so it’s best to go with the status quo, which is the Christian monuments and statues of war heroes. People who want monuments to other religions and other ideas can just suffer because, well, we just don’t have the room or the tolerance to deal with what you want.

Addendum. A comment has arrived. Ebon said:

I actually think this would be great. Let’s have a little “faith garden”: A 10 Commandments monument, a plaque of the Wiccan Rede, a statue of Buddha, a few verses from the Bhagavid Gita and so on. Not sure what you’d include for athiests (which I know isn’t a faith but I’m having fun with this one), a statue of Einstein perhaps?

I’m fine with that idea. Some claim that atheists are intolerant of religion/faith but I’m just intolerant of intolerance and inequality. If people want to put up a little equal-opportunity spirituality garden (so long as it isn’t supported by tax dollars) I certainly wouldn’t object to it. Atheists might put up the 10 Commandments offered by Ethical Atheist or Positive Atheism.

You know, the whole multi-faith/spirituality garden idea might help people realize that other belief systems aren’t as scary as they’ve been led to believe, but that they’re often more similar than they are strange. For example, The Golden Rule, aka The Ethic of Reciprocity, is very much universal, yet many people think it is found solely in Christianity/the Bible. It could be helpful for them to discover otherwise about that and other things.

 

Ebon also provided me a link to the following video which applies to the theme of this post. Enjoy!

That’s what happened to me, more or less. I posted this ten days ago and personally invited people to reply. Then I prepared myself for a barrage of comments and got only one, from a Satanist no less. So either not that many Christians are reading or none were able to rise to the challenge. Nonetheless, here is Ebon’s reply to the original post:

I’m a person of faith (Satanist, as it happens, but still faith). For all the atheists I’ve met (and I work for Beliefnet so that’s a lot), I’ve only ever met two I would classify as fundamentalist and both of those wanted (or said they wanted) to make religion illegal. That would be my classification of a fundamentalist, the desire to control another’s faith.

That said, i also recognise that those two were very much the lunatic fringe.

A Satanist working for Beliefnet, you certainly are brave. I’ve been a member of Beliefnet off and on and given up out of frustration after fighting with some of the more rabid RRRW types who think they and their religion run the world. They just can’t understand why “The Bible says…” doesn’t make everybody just stop in their tracks and obey. Like most places, Beliefnet is not particularly friendly to anybody not of the “dominant religion”.

 
That being said, I myself don’t care about what religion anybody is so long as they don’t push it on me, don’t harm anybody with it and don’t infringe upon the rights of others with it. It’s also a quirk of mine that I feel a bit of an affinity for people who practice the less-mainstream religions (yours included) simply because they have to put up with so much discrimination and bigotry–mostly RRRW Christians–which is something I certainly know about.

 

Now, technically there is no such thing as a “Fundamentalist Atheist”, at least not in the strict sense of the term. For example, Fundamentalist Christianity generally is typified by belief in the following “five fundamentals”:

* Inerrancy of the Scriptures
* The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14)
* The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God’s grace and human faith (Hebrews 9)
* The bodily resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 28)
* The authenticity of Christ’s miracles (or, alternatively, his pre-millennial second coming)

Atheism is, simply put, non-belief in deities (weak/implicit atheism) or belief that deities don’t exist (strong/explicit atheism). There are no scriptures or doctrines, and therefore it’s not possible for atheists to be Fundamentalists in the way that Christians (or even Muslims) are Fundamentalists. (Go here for a more comprehensive explanation.) That doesn’t mean that atheists can’t be dogmatic or intolerant, however, and that’s where your thoughts come in.

 
There are, of course, some atheists who see any form of belief and religion, however moderate, as harmful and potentially dangerous, and therefore something to be eradicated. While I agree that religion has definitely been behind many hideous acts historically and currently, I don’t advocate active attempts to rid the world of it. (I wouldn’t, however, mourn its natural demise should people simply cease practicing it.) A number of the more prominent of these atheists are very vocal, have written best-selling books. From them and their supporters sprang the term “New Atheists”, and it’s also likely where the concept of “Fundamentalist Atheists” developed.

 
Ironically I just stumbled across this comic that depicts a fictional “Atheist Apocalypse”. If you follow any of the high-profile atheist authors you might recognize the Four Horsemen in the comic. While I find it amusing and somewhat intriguing, it’s also rather overreaching (as are most things of its nature). Yes, world without religion–particularly certain forms of religion–would go a long way in eradicating many of the ills of society. But we wouldn’t have the Utopia envisioned in the comic, for atheism is not a panacea. There are no panaceas. (And that, of course, is just my humble opinion.)

 
Of course I’ve rambled all over the place, as I’m sometimes wont to do. And the wine hasn’t even kicked in yet…

 
Life under “Fundamentalist Atheists” (or dogmatic/intolerant Atheists), if they became numerous and powerful enough, could potentially result in religion being outlawed. To me that’s as inappropriate as religion being forced upon people by law or other coercive means. If there’s no opportunity for choice then it’s wrong, plain and simple. There are others (on both sides of the spectrum) who disagree, however. And that is very sad indeed.

 

The Hotel Preston, located near the Nashville Airport, has decided to do away with the traditional nightstand Bibles. Instead guests will be offered a variety of different texts they can request from a “Spiritual Menu” and have delivered to their rooms.

Oregon-based Provenance Hotels, which owns the Hotel Preston, is breaking away from a longstanding tradition of placing Bibles from Gideons International in its rooms. The goal is to offer variety to travelers who aren’t Christians or to visitors looking to learn about a different faith, Nishioka said.

“Our guests come from different places and they definitely come from different cultures, backgrounds, ethnicities, so we want everyone to feel welcomed and comfortable,” Nishioka said.

Brian Ruf, president of the Travel and Tourism Research Association, said the idea of a spiritual menu is so “leading edge” that the international organization has not done research that would show whether Hotel Preston is on the cusp of a trend. Ruf said he thinks the switch might be politically controversial but said travelers with a more international perspective might appreciate it.

…..

The laminated spiritual menus will be rolled out in the next three to four weeks.

Gideons International spokesman Steve Smith said the Nashville-based organization had not heard of the change at Hotel Preston, and would not comment on “issues regarding Scripture distributions.” The Gideons organization has been distributing Bibles since 1908.

A team of Provenance managers came up with the spiritual menu’s lineup, Nishioka said, which will feature the King James Version of the Bible and the New American Bible, the Torah, the Quran, the Tao Te Ching, The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism, the Book of Mormon, books on Scientology and Bhagavad Gita, a sacred Hindu text.

“We’ve only had positive feedback because we’ve included the Bible and we’ve actually added on to it to have two versions. I think we’ve made everybody happy,” she said.

Joe McInerney, president and CEO of the American Hotel and Lodging Association, said this is the first time he has heard of a spiritual menu, but he thinks Hotel Preston’s managers made a good business decision.

“If they want to be ecumenical, that’s a great way to do it,” McInerney said. “It’s taking a positive look at a thing that has been commonplace. What could be wrong with it if they’re providing an opportunity for all religions to read their scripture?”

I like this idea and I hope it catches on. Diversity and choices are a wonderful idea. Hopefully in the future they may even decide to offer some reading options for non-believers. In the meantime I applaud them for simply recognizing that not all of their guests are Christians, and that they might like a spiritual text other than the Bible.

So sayeth the RRRW anyway. They’re up in arms over the recent threats by “Islamic Activists” to sue a Dutch newspaper over Muhammad cartoons.

Robert Spencer, a leading critic of Islam, believes a group of Islamic activists may successfully shut down freespeech in Denmark if they follow through on their threat to sue nearly 20 Danish newspapers and magazines for republishing pictures of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

In February Denmark’s leading newspapers reprinted one of the 12 original cartoons of Muhammad that were printed in 2005. The papers said the reprint, which occurred after Danish police uncovered a plot to kill the cartoonist, was meant to promote free speech. Now Islamic activists plan to file lawsuits in Jordanian courts because the country’s penal code says publicly slandering religious figures is an offense that carries up to three years in prison.

Robert Spencer is director of Jihad Watch, a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He does not believe the Jordanian courts can enforce the lawsuits’ penalties, but he thinks they could serve to intimidate some in the West who do not understand what is at stake.

“[T]he effect they want is to chill free speech in the West,” Spencer notes. He believes it could happen because “Western officials in general don’t understand what is at stake here.”…

That’s a mighty interesting perspective Spencer has. The lawsuit against the papers is an assault on free speech? I wonder what Mr. Spencer would think of the following, then.

Man sued library for $20K after sons found book on lesbian sex. Claimed, “God was speaking to my heart that day and helped me find the words that proved successful in removing this book from the shelf.”…

“Any effort to reinstate the book will be met with legal action and protests from the Christian community,” Adams wrote in the e-mail.

…..

The book, by Felice Newman, is a sex guide deemed suitable for all public libraries, according to the Library Journal, which the Bentonville library uses to decide what to place on its shelves.

Christian parent groups in eight states have lobbied to remove “Harry Potter” from classroom readings and warned other parents about the books’ occult themes and fantastic, often gruesome imagery.

In a form dated May 28, 2007, Sherrie Sawyer, who is a teaching assistant at Sugarland Elementary, wrote in a complaint to her principal: “I object to the homosexual theme of this book (”And Tango Makes Three”). The two male penguins are described as acting like a male and female penguin. The zookeeper says, ‘They must be in love.’” It isn’t clear whether Sawyer’s children attend Sugarland, and a call to Sawyer, of Leesburg, seeking comment about the case Monday afternoon hasn’t been returned.

A few weeks later on June 6, the initial review committee consisting of a school parent, a Horizon Elementary librarian, and a Sugarland Elementary teacher unanimously decided that “And Tango Makes Three” should remain in general circulation at the school.

On June 12, Angela Robinson, principal of Sugarland Elementary, wrote a letter to Sawyer stating her agreement with the committee’s recommendation.

Sawyer –- who signed her letter “concerned parent and assistant teacher” — appealed the committee’s decision in a letter to Superintendent Hatrick on Sept. 18, 2007. She wrote: “I believe the intent of the book is to implant the homosexual idea into the minds of children as an acceptable lifestyle to all.”

The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, which most recently protested a picture of Britney Spears sitting provocatively in a priest’s lap — the image appears in her new album, Blackout — takes this issue a little more seriously. The anti-defamation group accuses the film of “selling atheism to kids” and has produced its own booklet in response, “The Golden Compass: Agenda Unmasked,” which it’s been distributing to churches and other Christian groups.

The evangelical-activist group Focus on the Family, which plans to release a statement about the film early next week, says it’s in agreement with Christian leaders and organizations on the issue. Adam Holz, associate editor of Focus on the Family’s Plugged In magazine, told MTV News he fears the movie would “plant seeds” to “ultimately encourage some fans to reject God.”

American Family Association (AFA) has launched a boycott of Ford Motor Company because of Ford’s support for the homosexual marriage movement. Donald E. Wildmon, chairman of AFA, said that the organization has emailed an announcement of the boycott to their more than 2.2 million online supporters.

“From redefining family to include homosexual marriage, to giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to support homosexual groups and their agenda, to forcing managers to attend diversity training on how to promote the acceptance of homosexuality, to sponsoring a ‘commitment (marriage) ceremony,’ to sponsoring Gay Pride Parades, Ford leads the way,” Wildmon said.

AFA asks for boycott because of Target’s anti-Christmas stance

In an effort to get Target to include “Christmas” in their in-store promotions and retail advertising for next year’s (2006) season, we wrote Chairman Robert Ulrich. We told Chairman Ulrich that we knew it was too late to change his in-store promotions and retail advertising for this year. We asked him if Target would assure us that the company would make Christmas an integral part of their promotions and advertising next year.

We told Chairman Ulrich that if Target would honor our request, we would encourage our supporters and others to shop at Target. But we also said that if he refused, or did not respond, we would ask our supporters to boycott Target.

How did Chairman Ulrich respond to our request? He did not respond at all! Chairman Ulrich sent a clear message—Target will continue to ban “Christmas.”

Would you join us in a boycott of Target, and forward this to friends and family asking them to do the same? Yes, there are other companies which refuse to use Christmas. But if Target gets the message and their sales go down—every other national retailer will also get the message! Then we can expect some big changes in their promotion and advertising next year.

Funny how it’s all so different when it’s Christians engaging in the bullying and censorship. Then it’s not a tragedy. Then it’s not an assault on free speech. They’re protecting their delicate children from knowing that gay people exist. They’re preventing the possibility that even one Christian mind might be lost to the horrors of atheism. They’re ensuring that their deeply held religious beliefs will be respected by others.

RRRW Christians, Hypocrisy is thy name.

When it comes to laws designed to protect certain groups of people, laws that protect religious people are good, while laws that protect LGBT people are bad. At least in the eyes of religious people. The worst thing is that they don’t see the inherent disconnect and bigotry in fighting against laws that protect us while supporting similar laws that protect them. Take this, for example.

ACLU Urges House Committee to Fix Flawed Workplace Religious Freedom Act (2/12/2008)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: (202) 675-2312, media@dcaclu.org

Washington, DC – The American Civil Liberties Union today called on the Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions subcommittee of the House Education & Labor Committee to fix the flawed Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA). As written in the 110th Congress, the legislation threatens the personal and civil rights of religious and racial minorities, women, LGBT individuals, and persons seeking reproductive health care.

The stated goal of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act is to revise and strengthen existing requirements on employers to accommodate the religious practices of their employees. However, the current language may have a much broader impact than intended, permitting employees to claim that they do not have to comply with state or local civil rights laws.

The current WRFA would strengthen the hand of police officers who want to pick and choose who they will protect, as well as emergency health care workers and mental health counselors who could abandon patients because their care conflicts with the worker’s religious beliefs. This legislation would make it significantly harder to get health or safety information or services. Employees would be even more likely to claim that their religion prohibits them from providing contraceptive care or HIV prevention counseling – even if the employer has no one else to provide those services. In most cases, the courts have correctly rejected these claims. The current WRFA language, however, is designed to protect these individual’s dangerous actions.

Said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel with the ACLU Washington Legislative Office: “The Workplace Religious Freedom Act would allow employees, for the first time since the Civil Rights Act of 1967, to use civil rights as a weapon against others. Passing this bill without the needed fixes will jeopardize not only our rights, but also our public safety and access to health care. Civil rights protections are meant to be a shield, not a sword.

“Congress can, and should, pass legislation tightly focused on strengthening federal requirements that employers accommodate workplace scheduling changes so employees can observe religious holidays, or permit them to wear religious clothing, beards or hairstyles. These two areas account for nearly three-fourths of all the religious accommodation claims rejected by federal courts in the past 25 years. A narrowly tailored bill could address these issues without any of the completely avoidable harm the WRFA could cause if passed as written.”

It seems that legislation that is vague and allows for personal bigotries to cause discrimination and harm to others, such as LGBTs, atheists and people who are not of the same faith of the practitioner, is acceptable to some. Yet many people are fighting against ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, claiming that it would violate their “deeply held religious beliefs” and force them to hire LGBT people against the tenets of their religion. Strange they continue to think their rights (to arbitrarily discriminate in the name of their chosen religion) are so much more important than ours (to have equal Human and Civil Rights) .

I don’t by any means support discrimination against people who are religious. At the same time people cannot think they can use their religious beliefs to discriminate against others. Rights must be provided equally and fairly, or else our nation is a failure.

For most of us the horrors of The Holocaust are something we experience in history classes, movies and television shows. For one young Pennsylvania man it was much more than that. His grandfather, who had been imprisoned in Auschwitz, gave him a first-hand account of the events. Now anti-Semitic hatred has been visited on the young man himself, in the form of a violent attack.

“He told me stories about the Holocaust, but I thought I’d never have to live through a hate crime,” said the student, who suffered a broken nose and a fractured orbital bone in the attack. “I never thought I’d have to deal with a hate crime.”

…..

Four Temple students were suspended by the university last week and the attack was strongly condemned by school president Ann Weaver Hart, who wrote: “Hate crimes will not be tolerated by Temple University.”

The four suspects - Michael Walsh, 20, of Florham Park, N.J.; David Scott, 20, and Steven Scott, 19, two brothers from Willow Grove, Montgomery County; and Bryan Pediero, 19, of East Brunswick, N.J. - turned themselves into Philadelphia police on Wednesday and yesterday to face the music, police said.

The four were charged with aggravated assault, simple assault, reckless endangerment of another person, ethnic intimidation and criminal conspiracy, police spokeswoman Officer Christine O’Brien said.

…..

Temple police have video of the incident in front of Alpha Epsilon Pi house on North Broad Street near Norris, cops said.

The 23-year-old victim and his 22-year-old friend had emerged from the Owl’s Nest Pizza shop around 1:30 a.m. and were swarmed by a group of young men, police said.

The victim remembers that seven males walked up to him and his friend, who is not a Temple student.

“You f—ing Jews! You f—ing [Jewish epithet]!” are the chants he remembers from that early Friday morning.

“Are you part of this f—ing Jewish fraternity?” at least one asked.

They punched him in the face, he remembers.

When his grandfather heard about the attack, “he cried,” the young man said.

Since the beating, the victim said he walks around in fear - scared that he’ll be a victim of a hate crime again. *

It is my fervent hope that the perpetrators get the maximum possible sentences for what they have done. The notion that dislike of another person allows one to cause harm to them is one that I find particularly abhorrent.

To the victim and his grandfather I offer my deepest condolences. This should never have happened, and if I had my way it never would have.

Granted, the religion the woman in question was practicing, that of giant teapot worship, is definitely unusual. But she was jailed for it–which qualifies as genuine persecution. American RRRW Christians have nothing on this woman.

Kamariah Ali, a 57 year old former teacher, was arrested in 2005 when the government of the Muslim majority country demolished the two storey high sacred tea pot and other infrastructure of the “heretical” Sky Kingdom cult.

For the eccentric sect, which emphasised ecumenical dialogue between religions, the tea pot symbolized the purity of water and “love pouring from heaven”.

But in Malaysia, despite constitutional guarantees of freedom of worship, born Muslims such as Mrs Ali are forbidden from converting to other religions.

Born Muslims? Nobody is born a Muslim. Nor or they born a Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. There’s a reason that Christian parents typically have Christian children, Muslim parents have Muslim children and so on, and so on. It’s because parents tend to indoctrinate their children into their own religion. It’s only if the parents choose not to have the child taught any religion, or to have the child be brought up in a different religion, that the results will vary.

Passing sentence, the Sharia judge Mohammed Abdullah said: “The court is not convinced that the accused has repented and is willing to abandon any teachings contrary to Islam. I pray God will open the doors of your heart, Kamariah.”

Mrs Ali has already been jailed once for apostasy, for 20 months in 1992.

…..

The population is divided between Hindus of Indian origin, Christian and Buddhist ethnic Chinese and a narrow majority of ethnic Malays who are legally deemed Muslim by birth and whose interests the government is sworn to protect.

It doesn’t seem that Mrs. Ali wishes to comply with the law, and I can’t say I blame her. The government obviously thinks it can force people to adhere to a particular religion via threats and punishments. No doubt in some cases they get people to comply, if not in their hearts and minds then at least through appearances. Mrs. Ali’s religion may be illogical but she’s standing up to thugs who want only to make her trade it for another illogical religion. I’ll give her credit for at least standing up for what she believes in, if for nothing else.

The RW Christians are engaging in yet another round of outrage against atheists with a new billboard campaign. It seems they didn’t like the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s billboards that read, simply, Imagine No Religion, a reference to Imagine by John Lennon. In response, InGodWeTrustUSA.org asks: Why Do Atheists Hate America?

The nation’s largest atheist group wants you to imagine a world without the Pledge of Allegiance, without faith, without patriotism, and without America as we know it.

Right off they hit us with the big lies that atheists are not and cannot be patriots, and that without faith/Christianity patriotism would not exist. Also without faith and Christianity “America as we know it” would cease to exist. Of course to an extent that second part is true. Just imagine how much bigotry and oppression we could dispense with by eradicating Christianity alone.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation has begun posting their “Imagine No Religion” billboards all across the country. So, In God We Trust has created our own billboard campaign asking “Why Do Atheists Hate America?”

Hmmmm, I wonder what would happen if we were to erect billboards asking Why do Christians Hate America? . I imagine the furor would set the country on fire from coast to coast. But it’s still acceptable for Christians to put up inflammatory billboards like Why do Atheists Hate America? . Maybe we should be discussing why that is rather than this phony “Christian persecution”.

Why does this particular atheist group seem to want to banish people of faith? Our sign doesn’t say, ‘Imagine No Atheists.’ All we want is a public debate. We want the atheists to defend some of the Anti-American statements they’ve made.

I’m not a member of the group myself and cannot, therefore, speak for them. However speaking as an independent atheist, I don’t want to banish people of faith and I know most atheists don’t. We just disapprove of the stranglehold faith/religion has on our nation and the way it is crammed down our throats constantly. We dislike the notion many people of faith have that they have the inherent right to impose their religion on everybody, whether those people like it or not. We want people of faith to use faith to guide their own lives, not use it as a weapon against others. We’re also quite willing to defend our statements so feel free to ask us, in a rational manner, about them.

Not only that, but we would like to know how ‘Imagine No Religion’ is different than ‘Imagine No Christians’ or ‘Imagine No Jews’?

Religion is a belief system, an ideology. It is not a person, animal or other living being. Therefore if it ceased to exist no harm would have been done to anybody. Saying Imagine no Religion is not the same as saying Imagine no Christians or Imagine no Jews because the latter two statements involve living beings who could come to harm.

Think about what these atheists are really saying. ‘Imagine No Mother Theresa?’ ‘Imagine No Martin Luther King, Jr.?’ I guess that’s the kind of world in which these atheists think we would all be better off living.

Christians are very fond of citing MLK and Mother Theresa as evidence of the good religion can bring to the world. However people such as Hitler, Jack Hyles, Earl Paulk, Angel Maturino Resendiz, and countless others commit heinous acts in the name of religion/God. Religion also causes a great deal of divisiveness, bigotry, war and even genocide. Accordingly it’s easy to claim that religion is a force of evil as well as good.

They then continue with a page titled The Atheists’ Opinion of America. It includes various quotes from FFRF, no doubt cherry-picked to get the best reactions from their RRRW audience.

Finally, Christianity is harmful. More people have been killed in the name of a god than for any other reason. The Church has a shameful, bloody history of Crusades, Inquisitions, witch-burnings, heresy trials, American colonial intolerance, disrespect of indigenous traditions (such as American Indians), support of slavery, and oppression of women.
– Dan Barker, Freedom From Religion Foundation Co-President in Losing Faith in Faith Page 217

In any event, the Colonists of the 1630s did not establish our country. The United States of America was founded a century and a half later. If we are going back one hundred and fifty years before our founding, why stop there? Native Americans were on this continent at least twelve thousand years before the American Revolution. These were the true discoverers of our land, and if we must return to the tradition of our founders, then all “true Americans” should adopt the pantheistic, polytheistic, natural system of Native American religions. The “Christian nation” argument is racist. (So is Columbus Day, for that matter.)
– Dan Barker, Freedom From Religion Foundation Co-President in Losing Faith in Faith Page 307

The Declaration of Independence had nothing to do with religious freedom . . .
– Dan Barker, Freedom From Religion Foundation Co-President in Losing Faith in Faith Page 307

All of those statements are true. They are not in any way hateful towards religion, Christians or America. Why should atheists or the FFRF apologize for stating the truth, even if it hurts the feelings of those who might find it uncomfortable?

The current climate in the United States, which is in the throes of a theo-patriotic kneejerk response to 9/11, has had a very depressing and muzzling effect on the campaign for human rights. Progressive organizations have actually all grown a bit in membership, but the economic toll is going to be bad in the long run.
– Annie Laurie Gaylor, Freedom From Religion Foundation Co-President - Keynote speech to the International Humanist and Ethical Union, meeting at Conway Hall in London, England, Fall 2003

Bush’s proclamation of Friday, September 14, as a “National Day of Prayer and Remembrance” shows the pitfalls of the “God is on our side” mentality, and the dangers of religious patriotism. While it may be natural for religious persons to turn to religion or prayer for solace, it is not the role of the President of the United States, or his spokespersons, to urge citizens to pray, to go to church, to turn to faith, or to observe a National Day of Prayer with worship. Prayer had its chance on September 11, and it failed. Imagine the unanswered prayers of hundreds or thousands of the victims of these terrorists. Official prayer will not solve any problems. The “God is on our side” mentality was responsible for these tragic acts of terrorism. We must not compound the dangers by a “One Nation Under God” response.
– Freedom From Religion Foundation Press Release 9/13/07

Therein lies more of the “If you’re not with us you’re against us–and that’s bad” mentality that the RRRW harbors. Conformity at all costs, diversity is to be drummed out, naysayers are hunted down and denounced. What is wrong with somebody having a different opinion? Why does everybody have to believe exactly what you do? Why is your belief the only acceptable one? There are three colors on the American flag, not one. So why do you demand that every American fit into your narrow mold?

How does coercing my sixth-grader to endorse concepts that run counter to our family’s values promote unity? Whether my child remains seated for the Pledge or feels compelled to stand with the believers (the real Americans), a precious integrity has been sacrificed…
– Dan Barker, Freedom From Religion Foundation Co-President in Freethought Today November 2001

How would Christians feel if their children were compelled to state every day that God did not exist? How would they feel if their children were forced to say the Pledge every day, but instead of “under God” the phrase was “under Allah” or “under Thor”? It seems Christians never have a problem forcing others to comply with their beliefs, but have a very real issue when they’re forced to comply with others beliefs (or lack thereof).

Although I feel that churches should be directly taxed, the climate might not yet be ripe for such reform…Since only a tiny portion of church donations truly goes to charity, we should allow only a percentage of religious contributions to be deductible from personal income.
– Dan Barker, Freedom From Religion Foundation Co-President in Losing Faith in Faith Page 259

Religion also poses a danger to mental health, damaging self-respect, personal responsibility, and clarity of thought.
– Dan Barker, Freedom From Religion Foundation Co-President in Losing Faith in Faith Page 217

Christians have an unhealthy view of human nature, and they seem hell-bent on proving it. If they had a more natural view of self and sex, and if they were allowed to grow to a level of self confidence, they could become mature adults able to handle their own sexuality in a responsible and positive manner.
– Dan Barker, Freedom From Religion Foundation Co-President in Losing Faith in Faith Page 285

Once again, these are all true statements. Anybody who wishes to do so is free to dispute them but the fact that they make people experience cognitive dissonance doesn’t make atheists haters of America.

If Christianity were simply untrue I would not be too concerned. Santa is untrue, but it is a harmless myth which people outgrow. But Christianity, besides being false, is also abhorrent.
– Dan Barker, Freedom From Religion Foundation Co-President in Losing Faith in Faith Page 215

The vote by the House of Representatives on Dec. 11, 2007, to approve H. Res. 847, “Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith,” was both a meaningless exercise in pandering, and a meaningful gauge of how quickly politicians still roll over and play dead when confronted with a religious “gotcha” issue.
– Freedom From Religion Foundation Press Release 12/14/07

In our religion-drenched society, it is just assumed that if it’s religious, it’s good. We question whether basing decisions on faith, which basically means with no evidence, rather than on reality, can ever be good for people or for society. Since there is no proof for various religious claims, it creates divisiveness.
– Annie Laurie Gaylor, Freedom From Religion Foundation Co-President press release 12/5/07

See my comments above.

Maybe the question we should be asking is not Why do Atheists Hate America but Why do RRRW Christians Hate America and Everybody in it? Why do they feel compelled to shove their narrow minded views down the throats of everybody regardless of what anybody else wants or feels? Why do they think they are the moral authority of the nation and feel they have the right to speak for everybody? Why do they have the right to selectively interpret the Bible and use it as a weapon against others? I could go on and on but I’m sure I’ve made my point.

Atheists do not hate America. Atheists just want to be free to enjoy it along with everybody else, free from the iron fist of busybodies who think they have the right to impose their beliefs on others. Nothing more.

Addendum. A comment has been received (and I anticipate more as this post is on the Carnival of the Godless #86). Mike H. says:

Very well done, I am glad I found this post through the Carnival of the Godless.

Thank you, Mike. I’ve been a fan of COTG for a long while, and am thrilled to now be featured on it from time to time. I’m glad you enjoyed my post.

Article VI, section 3 of the United States Constitution states that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Presumably this means that no federal employee, be they elected or appointed, can be required to adhere to any belief, doctrine or religion.

While that may be the true in the letter of the law, it’s often not the case in practice–particularly with the presidential elections.
Every four years we have a non-stop parade of candidates who try to out Christian one another. Who can be seen attending the most churches and speaking from the pulpits? Who has the strongest relationship with their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? Who can infuse their speeches with the greatest number of Christian references?

There is, of course, the more disturbing element to this. LGBT citizens are denigrated and candidates promise to restrict their rights or eradicate them completely. Those of faiths other than Christianity and the non-religious are made to feel like second (or even third) class citizens. More and more promises are made to the faithful while others are left in the dust lest the faithful be “offended”.

Not all of the candidates go unscathed. While some gladly throw people under the political bus for votes, others do it less willingly. They must jump through all the right hoops to please the voting public, much of which is Christian, and a minority of which is comprised of the vocal and demanding RRRW. It is a deep-rooted prejudice among many such individuals that non-Christians, and non-believers in particular, are untrustworthy. Accordingly the potential for any such candidate to win an election is next to impossible. Indeed, if you are not a Christian, and preferably the right type of Christian, you’d best not even consider running for the office of president. Just look at what Mitt Romney has gone through because he is a Mormon, for example.

It is a vicious circle. Certain voters force the candidates to behave as they do, and the candidates act in a way that is harmful to other voters. Cycle after cycle the dance goes on, and it only seems to be getting worse.

Take, for example, this page on Barack Obama’s Website.

Obama Has Never Been A Muslim, And Is a Committed Christian

….

Obama Spokesman Robert Gibbs Issued A Statement Explaining That “Senator Obama Has Never Been A Muslim, Was Not Raised As A Muslim, And Is A Committed Christian.” “Obama’s campaign aides have emphasized his strong Christian beliefs and downplayed any Islamic connection. The Illinois senator was raised ‘in a secular household in Indonesia by his stepfather and mother,’ his chief spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said in a statement in January after false reports began circulating that Obama had attended a radical madrasa, or Koranic school, as a child. ‘To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago,’ Gibbs’ Jan. 24 statement said.”

…..

Obama “Beckoning” Felt At Trinity United Church Of Christ, “Submitted Myself To His Will, And Dedicated Myself To Discovering His Truth And Carrying Out His Works.” Obama said, “So one Sunday, I put on one of the few clean jackets I had, and went over to Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street on the South Side of Chicago. And I heard Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright deliver a sermon called “The Audacity of Hope.” And during the course of that sermon, he introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, He would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in Him. And in time, I came to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world and in my own life. It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn’t fall out in church, as folks sometimes do. The questions I had didn’t magically disappear. The skeptical bent of my mind didn’t suddenly vanish. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth and carrying out His works.”

Barack Obama Is Not and Has Never Been a Muslim. Obama never prayed in a mosque. He has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ.

…..

OBAMA IS A PRACTICING CHRISTIAN

Obama Has Been A Member Of Trinity United Church Of Christ For Twenty Years. Monroe Anderson stands up for Reverend Wright’s ministry, “For the past two decades, Barack Obama has been a faithful member of the congregation at Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ.”

Obama Was Baptized And Attends Church Once a Week When He is Able. In the Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote, “I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized.” In 2004, he “attend[ed] the 11 a.m. Sunday service at Trinity in the Brainerd neighborhood every week — or at least as many weeks as he is able. His pastor, Wright, has become a close confidant.” When asked about his decision to be baptized, Obama said “Kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt I heard God’s spirit beckoning me,” he said of his walk down the aisle of the Trinity United Church of Christ. “I submitted myself to his will and dedicated myself to discovering his truth.”

Obama Reads The Bible, Finds Time to Pray On Campaign Trail. The Chicago Sun-Times wrote, “Obama says he reads the Bible, though not as regularly as he’d like, now that he’s on the campaign trail. But he does find time to pray. ‘It’s not formal, me getting on my knees,’ he says. ‘I think I have an ongoing conversation with God… I’m constantly asking myself questions about what I’m doing, why I am doing it.’”

How strong the denials that Obama is or ever has been a Muslim. They even go so far as to deny Obama has ever prayed in a mosque. It’s as if being a Muslim is something dirty, depraved and shameful. Now I’m a mere atheist, but I can only imagine how offensive that page might be to Muslims who might come across it.

Then, of course, we learn how very devout a Christian Obama is. Because in order to prove that he’s not a Muslim he must proclaim his Christian street cred in every manner possible. Hence the myriad sources documenting in minute detail his conversion to Christianity, his weekly church attendance, his swearing into office with his personal Bible, his campaign trail prayers, etc, etc.

Mitt Romney, as I noted before, came under fire because he is a Mormon rather than a Christian. His website makes no reference to his religion that I could find. Better not to mention it, of course, because anything but Christianity is a no-no. In fact competitor Mike Huckabee attacked him with the Jesus and Satan are brothers according to Mormon theology claim not so long ago. Romney found very early that the less he said about his faith the better, and went to great lengths to assure voters that he would not impose “any one faith” on people should he become president. (Funny how Christian candidates never make any such promise, nor do they feel compelled to.) He then turned around and proclaimed that freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom. Translation: I won’t impose my faith on people, but I will impose faith on them.

Constitutionally there is no religious test for public office, and that should be enforced both officially and unofficially. Religion should not be part of a candidates race for office in any way, shape or form. Only when candidates are judged solely on their platforms will the races be truly equitable.