Leave Faith Behind

Muzzling of federal scientists targeted by campaign

2012-02-18T09:17:00.001-08:00

Federal scientists must get approvals from many levels, up to the Privy Council Office, before they can speak to the media and sometimes the approvals are not granted in time for journalists' deadlines. (iStock)Canadian government scientists are still being hampered from talking to the media about their taxpayer-funded research and that's bad news for the public, say groups representing both journalists and federal scientists.The groups appealed to delegates at an international meeting of scientists in Vancouver on Friday, arguing that democracy depends on citizens having access to research so they can make informed decisions about government policy."If we're talking about policy that's informed by fact, if we're asking people to be critical thinkers, if we're asking people to engage in democratic process and to engage in democracy, it's incumbent of all of us that we make sure the process is transparent," said Kathryn O'Hara, a Carleton University journalism professor.O'Hara was the moderator of a panel called "Unmuzzling government scientists: How to re-open the discourse" at the annual meeting of the American Association of the Advancement of Science."I don't think it's sustainable, I don't think it's tenable to continue … the way we have so far."The panel discussion was part of a campaign for more open media access to federal scientists launched this week by the Association des communicateurs scientifiques du Québec, the Association science et bien commun, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, the Canadian Science Writers' Association, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada and the World Federation of Science Journalists.The government has maintained that its scientists are not being muzzled and journalists have timely access to its researchers.While introducing the panel, O'Hara expressed disappointment that Gary Goodyear, the minister of state for science and technology, didn't respond to a request to participate in the panel, and that all other federal government officials invited to participate said they were not available.Government taking control to 'quite incredible extremes'However, the audience did hear from Postmedia's veteran science journalist Margaret Munro and University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver, along with Francesca Grifo, a representative of the Union of Concerned Scientists who has worked to improve media access to government scientists in the U.S.Munro said that during much of her career, it was easy to reach federal scientists to talk about their published research, but in recent years that has changed dramatically. Now, the government is taking control to "quite incredible extremes," she said, citing her own recent experiences and the information she obtained by filing access to information requests about the problem.Munro said federal scientists face many layers of approval before they can speak to the media, going all the way up to the Privy Council Office."It would be sort of like asking the White House," she said.Approved interviews are taped, but often scientists can't get approval in time for journalists' deadlines or at all. In those cases, journalists instead receive written lines approved by the government, said Munro. She discovered that it's the result of a new government policy that says a single department should speak with one voice."Science sort of depends on debate and discussion," she said. "If you only have one voice, you don't have skeptical voice and you don't have proper debate. So I have a bit of a problem with that."Weaver said most scientists are frustrated with the policies and their inability to speak about their research — some so much so that they are looking for jobs outside the government.But Grifo offered some hope that things could change. The situation for U.S. government scientists was similar under George W. Bush's administration several years ago, she said. But the Union of Concerned Scientists took a systematic approach to changing things. It studied and scored the scientific integrity policies of different agencies, then used them to create best practice guidelines and encouraged agencies to seek public comments on their draft policies.Just this week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a new policy that encourages scientists to speak freely and allows them to express their opinions, provided they specify that those opinions are personal and not held by the government."That's quite wonderful," she said.Both Grifo and Munro encouraged Canadians to document cases where scientists and journalists aren't allowed to speak with one another."There's been a lot of controversy and I think it's helping," Munro said, noting that there have been recent cases where journalists were surprised to find they were granted access to scientists.

The Encyclopedias - an excerpt from my book

2012-02-10T05:40:00.001-08:00

I will never forget the day that our first set of encyclopedias arrived at our home. I was only about 7 years old. They arrived in compact, heavy boxes that needed careful unpacking. My father took each book out and examined it front and back to ensure that it was not damaged. He wiped away the packing dust with his big hands as he placed the books neatly into a pile on the hardwood floor. Once satisfied that each book had arrived undamaged, he carefully placed each book on our book shelf.

It was obvious that these books were important to my father. I was cautioned to “be careful” many times when reading them. A genuine sense of awe overcame me whenever I read about far off lands or planets or different cultures. The encyclopedias Americana, Canadiana and Britannica, seemed like the sum total of all human knowledge to me at the time. Our bookshelf was 10 feet wide and these encyclopedias took up much of it leaving only a small amount of room for my mother’s knick knacks.

Our family lived in a remote village named Gillam, about 650 kilometers north of the American border by air. The population of Gillam was about 1500 at the time, and there was no road connecting it to any other villages. The only way in or out of Gillam was by train, or by aircraft. The school went up to grade ten, and if you wanted more education you had to move to the Thompson, the nearest city that was 300 kilometers away.

Such was my life! I lived in a small town where my world view was shaped by what I learned in school, what I watched on CBC and a wonderfully large set of encyclopedias. (CBC was the only TV channel that was broadcast in Gillam at the time)

I loved those books, they had answers to questions about everything I could possibly imagine. I would walk in the forest and when a question arose about a bug or a tree, or a frog, I would run home and look it up in those books. Very seldom did they fail me. We did not attend any church and my parents never talked about God unless I asked a specific question about religion. My life was basically a-theistic, I lived without God.

Five years later, after some marital turmoil and a visit by the local Anglican priest our family started attending church. My father, mother and I had deeply religious experiences which came out of our participation in the charismatic renewal movement and we became quite sure that we had found God in a very genuine way. In grade eleven I was enrolled in a private Christian school in Selkirk, near Winnipeg.

During one of his trips to Winnipeg to visit me at school, my father took me to Hull’s book store to buy me my very own leather bound copy of the Bible. He said, “this book has everything in it that a person needs to get through life.” He told me it was “the owner's manual for the human body.”

It was a lot smaller than the encyclopedias.

Something had changed inside of us and the encyclopedias began to gather dust.

In the years that followed I met and married my wonderful wife Leslie and I began to attended ministry training to prepare for the priesthood. I was eventually ordained and appointed rector of the same small parish my family had had its conversion experience in. Life was good for me then, I felt I had the answers I needed.

Years later when I began to doubt and raise questions about the Christian faith I faced dogmatic thinking head on. I was appalled at the manner in which homosexuals were dismissed by Church leaders and parishioners alike. I was also amazed by the believers’ ability to ignore the pain of others who had been so seriously damaged by the residential school system, a system administered in large part by the Anglican Church.

Since I was now the one who raised questions about the validity of Christian thinking on these matters I was admonished for it by some of the parishioners. Dogmatism was rampant, bible verses were quoted ‘ad nauseum’ by those who needed justification to discriminate against others. What’s worse, much of the scripture that they quoted was used within its correct context, theologically speaking

Different Views of God May Influence Academic Cheating

2012-01-24T12:08:00.001-08:00

According to Science Daily, Azim F. Shariff at the University of Oregon and Ara Norenzayan at the University of British Columbia found that undergraduate college students who believe in a caring, forgiving God are more likely to cheat. Overall, no differences in cheating were found between self-described believers in God and non-believers. However, students who specifically perceived God as punitive, angry and vengeful showed significantly lower levels of cheating. In both scenarios, the "punitive God" and "loving God" significantly predicted cheating in opposite directions.

"According to the psychological literature, people who believe in God don't appear to act any more morally than people who don't believe in God," he said. "We wanted to look deeper at particular beliefs. One idea is the supernatural punishment hypothesis: Punishing counter-normative behavior -- immoral behavior -- has been an important part of living in societies. Societies don't get far without regulating moral behavior."

Read more in Science Daily: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110420112334.htm

Vatican encourages a recovery of 'apologetics'

2012-01-16T06:14:00.001-08:00

From the National Catholic Reporter.

Jan. 13, 2012

By Cindy Wooden, Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY -- In the Catholic Church, it's true that everything old can be new again, and the Vatican wants one of those things to be the art of "apologetics" -- dusted off and updated to respond to new challenges, including those posed by militant atheists.

The term "apologetics" literally means "to answer, account for or defend," and through the 1950s even Catholic high school students were given specific training in responding to questions about Catholicism and challenges to church teaching.

At least in Northern Europe and North America, the effort mainly was a response to Protestantism. Today, while sects and fundamentalist groups challenge Catholics in many parts of the world, almost all Catholics face objections to the idea of belief in general, said Legionary of Christ Father Thomas D. Williams, a professor at Rome's Pontifical Regina Apostolorum University.

Father Williams is author of "Greater Than You Think: A Theologian Answers the Atheists About God," written in response to the late Christopher Hitchens' book, "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything," and similar works.

Over the past 50 years, apologetics lost its general appeal because "it was considered proselytism," an aggressive attempt to win converts that was replaced by ecumenical dialogue, he said. It didn't help that many Catholics started seeing all religions as equally valid paths to salvation, so they thought it was best to encourage people to live their own faith as best they could without trying to encourage them to consider Christianity.

A response by Jeff:

Here is the problem that I see. Atheists have pretty much always existed in one form or another. We know for sure that non-belief in certain gods has always existed, especially by those from other faith "camps". Why is it now a problem that people do not believe? Because we can now communicate with each other so easily, even across national boundaries.

The only real difference today is that mass media and the internet have made it possible for the ideas presented by non-believers to be transmitted quickly and efficiently and for non-believers to control a small portion of the media for those who choose to follow their teachings. Face book, blogs, YouTube, vimeo, and many other "media" have been very successfully used to communicate the message of atheism. Also, mass media advertising can now be bought with relatively small amounts of money.

The church, in its many forms, used to control most of the media only 200 years ago via it's faithful followers. It was unthinkable to publish an atheist manifesto 300 years ago, and if one attempted there would be consequences for the publisher and the writer.

And yet, I do not get the impression that there are that many more atheists like me today than there were back then.

Bringing back apologetics literally means that the church leaders would have to relearn the old arguments and attempt to create channels of communication similar to those held by atheist groups worldwide. This is problematic because getting online to communicate means that the faithful would also be exposed to the internet media presented by atheists, agnostics, nonbelievers of any sort, people of other faiths and certainly the "militant atheists".

In my humble opinion, the church now lacks the societal control to dominate the conversation.

Jeff Olsson, President, Humanist Association of Manitoba

Twas the Night Before Christmas - When All Through The Press

2011-12-25T06:27:00.000-08:00

Yesterday a friend told me to open up the Winnipeg Free Press and take a look at a dark poem summarizing the events of the last year, where the author states that Christopher Hitchens is dining in hell with Osama Bin Laden. Written by one of the Free Press staff writers, it was published as an editorial. The part that offended so many in our community is this statement:

Twas the night before Christmas

And all across Earth

Despots departed

Sometimes in a hearse

Ben Ali left Tunisia

Mubarak's stuck in bed

No more rants from Gadhafi

Who was shot in the head

And in the Koreas

Where the North inspires dread

In the South, they are singing

"Kim Jong, Witch is Dead!"

Poor Christopher Hitchens

Who believed not of gods

Now shares post-life martinis

With the worst of these sods

Sadly, the poem continues, and you can read the rest of it using the link here.

Here was my response to the Winnipeg Free Press:

I am not sure what's more offensive, that so many people earnestly believe that an atheist like Christopher Hitchens, one of the western worlds most brilliant journalists and thinkers, deserves to dine with the evil likes of Osama Bin Laden in hell. Or that a few days after his tragic death, his name is being used in a sarcastic poem summarizing the years events using ill written prose. This poem wreaks of shadenfreud, as the author tap dances on the graves of those who inhabited our headlines this year. The deep bias of religious belief is the only force I know of that can make non belief in a god a crime equivalent to terrorism. I get it, the poem is sarcastic, and uses dark humor. The author likely does not believe Hitchens is dining with Bin Laden tonight. What I don't get is how the editor doesn't understand that joking about Hitchens going to hell means that every nonbeliever who reads this poem is also being indicted and incited by those same words. Merry Christmas indeed! Jeffrey Olsson, President, Humanist Association of Manitoba

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/merry-christmas-136178538.html?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey%3A8f1282d9-f0e8-4167-8f7d-c324abb85488

A response to my Top Ten Reasons Skepticism is Fulfilling

2011-12-22T20:02:00.001-08:00

I am posting the respose to my previous blog posting, "Top Ten Reasons...". Below is a paragraph from the Winnipeg Skeptic Blog that tells the whole story.

Here, Jeff responds to some criticism that his last post received from David Driedger. Before you read on, I recommend reading Jeff’s previous post, Top Ten Reasons Why Being a Skeptic is Fulfilling, and Mr. Driedger’s response to it, A skeptical rant.

Jeff wrote: Why should it surprise anyone that a skeptic can be happy and fulfilled, let alone that there would be more than ten reasons why skeptics are happy? Hell, I only chose the top ten reasons because I didn’t want to bore anyone by blathering on with the zillions of others. It should also come as no surprise to anyone that people of any different belief set or culture can be fulfilled and happy, well adjusted and socially connected. After all, Skeptics are real people, not the simple caricature that others would demand we are. We have hopes and dreams, families and friends. All of which are totally common to most of mankind. Why would you find it a surprise that skeptics would talk about this? Why would you call it “unhealthy”?

The blog post was not meant to be prescriptive, and it is not. Skeptics do not operate by edict as you apparently do. We think things through and decide if we disagree or not. The post merely recognizes what modern skeptics all over the world are saying. The top ten blog post was written by a skeptic for skeptics. The only surprise to me was that a liberal Christian popped in for a chat. So let’s chat.Anyone can criticize the modern skeptical movement, we make mistakes and are open to correction, but I highly suggest any critic attend a conference, seminar or venue where skeptics meet. Sit and listen to the rhetoric, logic, values (hopes and dreams) and you will quickly see that we are indeed a happy group of people. If you lack evidence that skeptics are fulfilled by their endeavor look to the size of the recent national and regional conferences in Europe, Canada, USA and Australia and ask yourself “Why do they return in increasing numbers year after year?” The answer is obvious, “Because it’s fun!” (Can I get a skeptical AMEN!)

Now, let me directly answer a few of your concerns.

You wrote: “Okay I will grant the how we got here but who we are and how to improve our lot, really?”

What we are: We are an evolved species. An overwhelming accumulation of evidence shows how we got here; right from the big bang through to evolution, (as you seem to agree) but it also shows who we are in the context of what we are.

I’ll explain further.There is no tangible evidence for dualism, so answering who we are must be possible by looking to the empirical evidence that comes from the sciences of neuropsychology, sociology, evolutionary psychology, biology and anthropology, to name a few. There is no need for supernatural claims to answer that question. For example, we already know that various human cultures differ greatly but further evidence shows us there are many common factors that make us who we are, including our all too human abilities/traits such as, moral reasoning, empathy, logic, extraversion/introversion, sociability, disposition and neuroticism, humour, and anger. I assert that “who we are” must be definable in the context of a material existence. To define who humans are using a supernatural framework is to exceed the evidence available at this time. J. Anderson Thomson defined this well when he said “We are risen apes, not fallen angels.” If you doubt science has already defined who we are you need only look to the reams of evidence available at any secular university in the western world.

To improve our lot: Skepticism, and in particular, applied and theoretical scientific skepticism, has done more to improve our lot in this world than any other undertaking known to man, including all religions combined. Next time you have an infectious disease I suggest you drop the pretense and admit that you already know to visit a doctor who practices western medicine. If you car won’t start you already know to have it towed to a shop that uses modern diagnostic tools and methods. (neither rolling the bones nor prayer will make it start). All of this scientific knowledge comes from those giants who stood before us and dared to dream about better ways of doing things and better ways of living.

Here are just a few of the greatest scientific advances that have made it possible to live as long and as well as we now do: The germ theory of disease transmission, disease vector epidemiology, nutrition, potable water, penicillin, x-rays, rocket science, evolution and much more. Studies show that when asked, parents display an overwhelming consensus, and will tell you that they hope their children have a safe healthy and long life. Science has shown it is uniquely qualified to achieve that goal. Therefore hope is a term that now has a secular meaning. For many people, skeptics included, we cannot imagine a better world without science and technology in it. Four centuries of the enlightenment through skeptical inquiry have paid off big time.

You also asked, “How does a willingness to change make anyone better? There is simply no relationship here.” I know many skeptics who have renounced their former dislike/hatred of homosexuals because they now find it possible to doubt the writings of Saint Paul and because of the overwhelming scientific evidence that shows homosexuals are just like the rest of us, and not like criminals and murderers as St. Paul says. I also know many non skeptics who change their diet when evidence is presented showing that they should be getting more of this or that in their diet. Willingness to change ones beliefs (and habits) when presented with contrary evidence is a virtue. Yes, I said it is a virtue. Nowhere in religion have I found an edict that states, “question everything” or “learn and adapt” or “plan, do, check, act”.

With regard to my “laughable” description of a skeptic cheering when the truth is discovered. I remember working with a team of colleagues performing tests on a synchronous governing system for many long nights while we were trying to restore it to service. We were confounded by its inability to control the speed of the machine it was connected to. When we went back to the office we looked at our drawings and each of us developed a hypothesis of why it would not work and then defined the tests we would use determine the fault. When one of my colleagues finally took her turn to run a test she removed and replaced a linkage that transmitted a signal from a compensating dashpot that we later discovered had been installed upside down. The unit immediately began to do its job. Everyone cheered. The only comments made by ALL of those whose hypotheses were proven wrong were, “Mark the lever so we will never have this problem again”, “Update the manuals”. No one else cared that their hypotheses were wrong, they only cared that they now knew the truth. (A one degree difference on the angle of the linkage would upset the whole machine.) We made sure we documented both the symptoms and the solution and moved on to solve other issues with that system.And so it is with most skeptics who are applying the scientific method in a whole variety of ways. These are people who are trying to make a difference in some way. When someone comes along and finds a solution we all cheer, because we are often working towards a common solution with a group of others.Please, laugh at that if it pleases you. Go ahead.

Regarding your reference to “strands of Pentecostalism” I consider such a silly statement ill tempered.Perhaps you were having a bad day when you wrote your response.

cross post of my interview with the christian post

2011-12-16T22:12:00.000-08:00

This article written by Gem Newman Founder of Winnipeg Skeptics. In it you get to see our entire commentary and find a link to the Christian Post article.

Jeff Olsson and I were interviewed yesterday by Michael Gryboski of the Christian Post (the most Christian of posts) for a piece he was writing on the subject of the Youth for Christ recreational centre that is preparing to open in downtown Winnipeg.

The article, entitled “Humanists, Skeptics Criticize New Youth For Christ Rec Center”, has now gone live. This is what Jeff and I had to say:

Youth For Christ will soon be opening up a rec center in Winnipeg, Manitoba, which has stirred attacks from residents via the Winnipeg Free Press. Complaints ranged from a preference for a secular facility directed towards helping disadvantaged youth to concerns over it being built via government assistance.

“I agree with the numerous criticisms being leveled at Mayor Sam Katz and Youth For Christ,” said Jeffrey Olsson of the Humanist Association of Manitoba to CP. “This Youth for Christ center is yet another example of government intrusion into private citizens religious lives because they have no other recreation center to use.”

Olsson compared the YFC facility to that of past efforts by Canadian Christian organizations to evangelize aboriginal children, which he said resulted in thousands of disaffected youth.

Meanwhile, Gem Newman of Winnipeg Skeptics said that while he did not oppose YFC establishing their center, he was concerned about the government involvement.

“Instead of providing the youth in the area with a place they can feel comfortable, whatever their religious or philosophical inclination, the mayor has instead effectively given Youth For Christ a megaphone for their religious message,” said Newman.

Notwithstanding the fact that the author decided to characterise legitimate criticism as an “attack”, I think that the article was fairly balanced; certainly more than I expected. Jeff and I were asked to respond to criticisms levelled against the centre in this Winnipeg Free Press article. Although we were only given a few sentences, I don’t think that our positions were misrepresented in any way. All the same, some of our more cogent criticisms were not included in the final article. For that reason, I’ll include the text of the interview here.

Do you agree with the concerns and criticisms published in the Winnipeg paper?

Jeff: I agree with the numerous criticisms being leveled at Mayor Sam Katz and Youth For Christ. I will explain below in detail.

Gem: I do. I’m always wary when a sectarian religious organisation is given government funds, because this results in undue entanglement between the religious goals of the organisation and the (presumably) secular goals of the government. It can result in the appearance of government endorsement of the religious or philosophical perspective of the organisation.

Do you know of any connections the rec center has to the state? That is to say, was it built with tax dollars, jointly operated by city council, etc.?

Jeff: The Youth for Christ center was built with federal and city money … and was partially backed by private donations directly to the religious organization. It is completely controlled by YFC, with no city or federal direction being given for day to day operations.

Gem: To my knowledge, YFC has received [much] of its roughly $13.5 million budget from the government.

During the interview Jeff and I ballparked the amount of government funds that YFC received, but as we were on a very tight schedule I didn’t have the opportunity to look it up until afterward. While it’s tough to get an exact number, it appears that the centre received $3.2 million in federal funds and between $3.2 and $4.2 million in municipal funds, for a total of $6.2–7.2 million. The total cost of the project has been variously quoted as $9.6 million, $11.7 million, and $13.2 million. (Source, source, source. If any readers have access to more precise information on this subject, feel free to leave links in the comments.)

Specific details aside, it seems that the project is majority funded by federal and municipal tax dollars.

Do you believe that groups like Youth for Christ have good intentions? Do you believe they do much good for the communities they serve in?

Jeff: Of course YFC has good intentions. The central premise of their mission is that by bringing christ into the lives of youth, they will help to mentor and apostle youth and help them, to become better members of society. There is simply no evidence that this is true. There is evidence that drawing children further away from their parents, and removing them for their traditional cultural beliefs does damage as it divides the house hold on religious lines. Canadians have plenty of experience with this after the tragic residential schools program that forced 150,000 aboriginal youth into christian residential schools. This resulted in thousands of disaffected citizens, thousands of broken homes and a federal class action law suit against the Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and United churches, and the federal government costing taxpayers billions of dollars. The law suit was won and payments are currently being made to tens of thousands of former students. Point Douglas residents have politely raised this issue at public hearings for the YFC center, only to be dismissed. Government intrusion into the religious lives of Canadians is just not unacceptable. This Youth for Christ center is yet another example of government intrusion into private citizens religious lives because they have no other recreation center to use. They could have built and funded a small recreation center and everyone would have been ecstatic.

Gem: The youth in this area are at serious risk. While I find the idea of preaching to those who are vulnerable in this way to be distasteful, I recognise the rights of a religious institution to attempt to sway those to whom it gives aid toward its philosophical perspective. What I find most troubling, however, is that the government is effectively amplifying Youth for Christ’s message. If the government had spent its [money] to build its own recreational centre, youth in the area would have two places they could go: a small sectarian centre and a large secular one. Instead, they have only a large sectarian centre, funded mostly by the government. Instead of providing the youth in the area with a place they can feel comfortable, whatever their religious or philosophical inclination, the mayor has instead effectively given Youth for Christ a megaphone for their religious message.

Jeff: A bit of history: Until YFC arrived, there was no recreation complex in Point Douglas, the poorest area of Winnipeg and this YFC center was put forth as an alternative by our Mayor, Sam Katz and federal officials. Area residents had asked government for funding for a small a recreation/sports centre with paid staff and they instead got the YFC center. Community leaders had also asked for more money for youth programs to be directed to aboriginal youth and monies for those programs are being diverted for the YFC center. The youth drop in centers I refer to were not religious in nature, anyone would feel comfortable there.

A large number of the residents in this area are aboriginal and follow traditional aboriginal teachings rather than Christianity. Winnipeg has a population of 675,000 people of which 72,000 are aboriginal. Point Douglas has the highest percentage of aboriginal people in all of Winnipeg and is one of the largest urban gatherings of aboriginal people in North America. Aboriginal religious leaders for the areas are very concerned that this center will have an undue religious influence on their youth, leading them away from traditional beliefs. Parents are worried that YFC’s large multimedia stage will be used to send an overtly Christian message to any child who would attend a function at the center.

Meanwhile funding for aboriginal youth drop in centers has been dropped to at least two small organizations since the announcement for the new YFC center was made causing the, to close. Concerns have also been raised at other YFC locations in Winnipeg because the organization evangelizes aggressively, stopping sports events for a paid volunteer to lead “prayer time” and deliver a Christian message. Some youth who are not christian are pressured to participate in the ritual or be ostracized, where they have to leave while the message is being delivered. There is no simple way to opt out of the religious instruction. As president of the Humanist Association of Manitoba I have heard these complaints personally and I take such matters very seriously, especially when tax dollars are being used as a basis for funding.

Finally, there is the issue of tax dollars being used to Fund an evangelistic religious organization. This is a concern from a civil liberties perspective. Canada, is by definition multicultural we are not a “melting pot” as you are in the US.

Gem: I’m glad that the youth in the area have some place to go, but I think that government money is best spent on secular approaches to problems to avoid undue entanglement between religion and government. When I donate money to a charitable organisation, I want to know that it is going toward helping people in empirically demonstrable ways, rather than toward indoctrination. Canada already has a troubled history when it comes to religiously motivated mistreatment of aboriginal youth, and I’d hate to think that we haven’t learned from our mistakes.

So, what do you think? Were Jeff and I totally off base? We’re interested in hearing your thoughts about the article, what we had to say, and about the youth centre itself.

Edit: I amended the second paragraph above to include the title of the CP article, as several commenters had assumed (because of the title of this post) that the title of the CP article was “Humanists, Skeptics Attack New Youth For Christ Rec Center”. I used the word “attack” in scare quotes here because it had been used in the CP article to describe legitimate criticism of the youth centre. Sorry for the confusion!

‘A great loss to humanism’: BHA mourns Christopher Hitchens

2011-12-16T08:18:00.001-08:00

Repost From BHA Website

This is a sad day.

16 Dec, 2011 15:37 CET

The British Humanist Association (BHA) is today mourning the death of Christopher Hitchens, a great loss to Humanism, who brought some of the clearest, most eloquent arguments for reason, political secularism, and humanist ethics to a worldwide audience.

A prolific writer and inspiring orator, Hitchens brought his own brand of unbelief to mass audiences, becoming part of the 'new atheist' publishing phenomenon with his 2007 work 'God Is Not Great', but had for many years been an activist for secularism and many of the other causes dear to humanists.

BHA Chief Executive Andrew Copson said:

'The life and contribution of Christopher Hitchens will be celebrated not only by humanists but all those who prize freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of belief were all things valued and defended by him. Hitch was fearless in his challenges to authority, orthodoxy and conformity and his death brings the loss of a great cheerleader for liberal as well as secular causes.

'His attitude to death and his resolute maintenance of the non-existence of a god or afterlife became an extra inspiration for non-religious people in his final months, bringing to mind words of Bertrand Russell which he himself quoted with approval:

"Religion, since it has its source in terror, has dignified certain sorts of fear and made people think them not disgraceful. In this it has done mankind a great disservice – all fear is bad. I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive. I am not young and I love life. But I should scorn to shiver with terror at the thought of annihilation… Many a man has borne himself proudly on the scaffold; surely the same pride should teach us to think truly about our place in the world."

'Christopher Hitchens helped millions to think more truly about our place in the world and he will be missed.'

Naomi Phillips, Head of Public Affairs, British Humanist Association. Email: press@humanism.org.uk Telephone: 0044 207 079 3585 Mobile: 0044 7540 257101

British Humanist Association (BHA)

Updated: 1 in 5 Children Suffered Catholic School Abuses in Netherlands

2011-12-16T07:11:00.001-08:00

One in five children have been reported to have been abused in Catholic schools in the Netherlands. I cannot imagine why any country would allow a religious entity to take over the schools in this manner. This is worse than what has happened in Ireland where they are considering taking the schools away from the Catholic authorities controlling them. The worst part about this is that people continue to defend the Catholic way of life as being “holy” and say that being a Christian means that you become a better person. I do not believe that anymore. Anyone who tells me this will quickly be shown this news article.

CBC news reports: “Thousands of children suffered sexual abuse in Dutch Catholic institutions, and church officials failed to adequately address the abuse or help the victims, according to a long-awaited investigation released Friday.

The report by the an independent commission said Catholic officials failed to tackle the widespread abuse "to prevent scandals." The suspected number of abuse victims who spent some of their youth in church institutions likely lies somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000, according to a summary of the report.

Based on a survey among more than 34,000 people, the commission estimated that one in 10 Dutch children suffered some form of abuse. The number doubled to 20 per cent of children who spent part of their youth in an institution — whether Catholic or not.”

Read the English version of the “end report” summary: http://www.onderzoekrk.nl/fileadmin/commissiedeetman/data/downloads/eindrapport/20111216/Samenvatting_eindrapport_Engelstalig.pdf

Risk of sexual abuse twice as great in institutions for minors: http://www.onderzoekrk.nl/fileadmin/commissiedeetman/data/downloads/eindrapport/20111216/Engelstalig_persbericht_10a_omvang.pdf

Problem of sexual abuse was known within orders and the church http://www.onderzoekrk.nl/fileadmin/commissiedeetman/data/downloads/eindrapport/20111216/Engeltalig_persbericht_10b_bestuurlijke_verantwoordelijkheid.pdf

Requirement of celibacy: not a crucial factor, does create risk of sexual abuse http://www.onderzoekrk.nl/fileadmin/commissiedeetman/data/downloads/eindrapport/20111216/Engelstalig_persbericht_10c_Plegers_en_celibaat.pdf

Deetman Commission: central direction required for tackling abuse of and violence against children http://www.onderzoekrk.nl/fileadmin/commissiedeetman/data/downloads/eindrapport/20111216/Engelstalig_persbericht_10d_Slachtoffers_hulpverlening_oproep_aan_overheid.pdf

Deetman calls upon perpetrators to report to the commission of inquiry http://www.onderzoekrk.nl/english-summery/press.html#c335

Centre of expertise on help for victims of sexual abuse http://www.onderzoekrk.nl/english-summery/press.html#c333

Deetman commission of inquiry encounters a number of deaths that raise questions in former Roman Catholic institution in Heel http://www.onderzoekrk.nl/english-summery/press.html#c332

From my IPad

Jeff Olsson

Catholic Abuses in Netherlands

2011-12-16T05:37:00.001-08:00

One in five children have been reported to have been abused in Catholic schools in the Netherlands. I cannot imagine why any country would allow a religious entity to take over the schools in this manner. This is worse than what has happened in Ireland where they are considering taking the schools away from the Catholic authorities. The worst part about this is that people continue to defend the Catholic way of life as being “holy” and that being a Christian means that you become a better person for it. I do not believe that anymore. Anyone who tells me this will quickly be shown this news article.

From my IPad

Jeff Olsson

Comparative Religion, and The Jesus Myth

2011-12-11T21:36:00.001-08:00

Comparative Religion, and The Jesus Myth

While recently reading up on comparative religion I stumbled across the Christ Myth Theory. As it turned out I have already seen some of the concepts within this theory before, even though I had not yet seen the whole academic case that explains how the life and historicity of Jesus Christ has recently come into question.

You probably agree, it's easy to imagine a "doubter" coming up with a conspiracy theory in an attempt to disprove that Jesus was a god. What I didn't expect to find was a well thought out, and documented history of other gods who share the same attributes held by the Jewish carpenter turned son of god. It's the level of documentation that is staggering. You don't need much more than the other stories to see the connection.

There are Christian apologists who have taken the time to defend the biblical story of Jesus Christ, and in all fairness we should read their analyses in order to get a fair and balanced perspective on the subject. The problem that I have with every single defense of the biblical Christ is that we are expected to make supernatural assumptions and jump to heavenly conclusions on the matter of Christ's godliness. You need only to invoke Occam's razor to see that the simpler answer is; the authors of the stories in the new testament have copied some of the major aspects of the life of Jesus from works produced by authors that predate his existence. After all they are good stories! Saying that the devil inspired them in other cultures to disprove the real son of god is just crazy.

I am of the opinion that a man named Jesus actually existed, and that along with other men who claimed to be the christ about two thousand years ago, lived in or near Nazareth and Jerusalem. I do not believe that he said everything that the biblical texts claim. Nor do I believe he was a god. As you will see below, there are well documented stories that hold great similarity to the biblical texts. Consider also that scholars agree that the gospel texts were not written until 40-125 years after the death of Christ.

Here is a quick break down of the stories told about some of the Gods that predate Christ.

Horus: story dates to 3100 BCE. Born of a virgin depending on the version of the story you read, slept in a manger, baptized at age 30, the man who baptized him was beheaded, walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind, descended to hell, rose again three days later.

Attis of Phyrga: 1200 BCE. Born to a virgin on December 25th, considered saviour of the world by his followers, his body was eaten by his worshippers (as bread), was crucified on a tree and descended to the nether world. Three days later he rose again.

Dionysus: 1500 BCE. Born of a mortal virgin named Semele on December 25th. Was the son of a God named Zeus. Was placed in a manger, was worshipped in a eucharistic ritual. Was called King of Kings, God of Gods, saviour, redeemer, alpha and omega and only begotten son of god.

Zoroaster: wikipedia states,"There is no consensus among scholars about the period of life, with the estimated dates of his birth range from 6000 BC to 400 BC. The majority of his life is known through the Avestan texts." He was born by immaculate conception, baptized in a river, was tempted in the wilderness by the devil. He started his ministry after being baptized at the age of 30. When he baptized others he baptized with with water, fire and the holy wind. He spoke of the resurrection, judgement and apocalypse. His followers worshipped him in a eucharistic manner and referred to him as the "word made flesh". Casting out demons and restoring sight to the blind were just two of the miracles he performed. His greatest struggle was against the ruling class of priests, and the "ill will" they heaped upon his ideas.

I'll stop there, even though there are a number of other ancient gods whom I could write about including, Krishna, Buddha, Glycon, Heracles, Odysseus and Romulus. Perhaps next week. Besides, I think you get the point the stories in the bible are hardly original.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

http://www.holyblasphemy.net/2-a-response-to-critics/christmyththeory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/grecoromanmyth1/p/Dionysus.htm

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/d/dionysus.html

http://www.duke.edu/~jds17/zoroast.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster

Sent from my iPad

Jeff

List of Cognitive Biases

2011-12-10T14:10:00.000-08:00

Wikipedia does it again! I just discovered another favorite wiki page that I am sure I will go to it over and over again. The list of cognitive biases includes decision-making and behavioral biases, biases in probability and belief, social biases, memory errors and biases, common theoretical causes of some cognitive biases, and methods for dealing with cognitive biases.

The funny thing is that I found this page by reading an article about it in Science Daily, an online science news magazine/website.

Hey, if Science Daily can recommend the wiki page, I know it must be good!

Have a great day, and don't be biased!

From my iPad,

Jeffrey Olsson

Annual Report 2010

2011-12-07T03:46:00.001-08:00

Annual Report 2010

This has been a remarkable year for Humanists in Manitoba. As our membership slowly grows we find fresh new faces attending our meetings and asking interesting questions about what humanism is, and how it can make a difference in the world. I enjoy listening to other peoples responses, as there are so many different perspectives about why being a humanist is fulfilling, helpful, interesting or meaningful.

Some like to count the number of people who attend each meeting, while some focus more on each (excellent) speaker of the month and discuss the science or social issues presented by that speaker. Others simply enjoy the camaraderie that occurs at each meeting. No matter which part you enjoy, we are glad to have you in our midst, and glad you take the time to come out and be a part of things.

The upcoming year will present a challenge for all of us: Christians in southern Manitoba have flagrantly disregarded the laws protecting the human rights and dignity of those children who do not have religion in Manitoba public schools by instituting mandatory prayer. Meanwhile the minister of education has washed her hands of the issue stating that those whose rights have been trampled can 'simply' issue a complaint with the human rights commission.

As humanists we know all too well that children don't fare well when issuing human rights complaints against adults. Intimidating adults. This is clearly a case where the government has lost the will to enforce it own laws. Laws written after the the disgusting events that caused abuse and injury to an entire family after their teenaged son refused to stand up for school prayers in southern Manitoba.

It seems like a step backwards to have to fight this battle again, but this issue is the one that will make HAM stand up and speak its mind.

In the upcoming year I encourage you to attend those key meetings where we will endeavor to have speakers address these issues. Be a part of the fight for human rights in Manitoba.

Respectfully submitted,

Jeffrey Olsson, President

Top Ten Humanist Ideas Explained

2011-12-03T07:01:00.001-08:00

Top Ten Humanist Ideas Explained

Secular Humanism is a dynamic life stance that allows those that call themselves humanists to hold a wide variety of views and beliefs. The central focus on human values is expressed in the ethics and politics of humanist organizations around the world. There are a number of ideas that are generally accepted and talked about in humanist circles that seem to resonate with virtually every humanist I have ever met. Here are the top ten:

1. No need for gods. Humans can understand nature and the universe around us without the need invoke mythologies about gods. As a secular humanist you seem to agree that old creation myths have a certain appeal, and can even help us to learn lessons about ourselves and human nature. As entertaining as they may be that is where their utility ends. The idea that the world can be explained without the need for gods was expressed by Greek philosopher Thales of Miletus (624 - 526 BCE). Thales studied the sun and planets and took the time to measure their size with crude instruments and by developing new methods within Euclidean geometry to finalize his observations. The rejection of the need for a god to explain who we are and how we got here means that for all secular humanists the scientific method is seen as one of the best ways to know ourselves and the world around us.

2.Reason over faith. Secular Humanists prefer reason over faith. As a secular humanists you don't accept faith as a valid way 'knowing' the truth about anything. You agree that it is better to admit we do not know the answer to a question rather than to use faith to jump to a conclusion. There are numerous philosophers who have stated this over the centuries , some as early as 600 BCE, but none said it better than Baruch Spinoza (1632 - 1637) who said, "Philosophy has no end in view save truth; faith looks for nothing but obedience and piety." It is for this reason that secular Humanists reject beliefs in the absence of verifiable evidence such as those beliefs based on dogma, revelation, mysticism, or appeals to the supernatural.

3.Democracy and free speech. As a humanist you uphold the need for democratic principles in all human relationships. Along with many other philosophies, the concepts of democracy and free speech come from ancient Athens and other Greek cities where people used the democratic process to directly rule themselves. The word democracy comes for the word demos, which means "the people" and the word kratein which means "to rule". When joined together the two words mean "the people rule". With the rise of Christianity and later Islam, democracy died out completely until the scientific enlightenment began in europe in the late 1600's. To be a humanist is to prefer democracy over religious rule and engage the right to free speech and dissent.

4. Equality and dignity. As a Humanist you assert that in order for democracy to work as a system, each and every citizen must be seen as equal, having autonomy to determine their own actions without infringing on the rights of others, and an equal say along with all other citizens to determine the activities undertaken by of their community or government. Equality and dignity are the pillars of any democratic society and are both necessary to ensure that all citizens are treated fairly, with kindness and respect. It is for these reasons that humanists feel The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) is one of the greatest achievements in the history of mankind. Written by humanists from all over the world, this document sets the standard for human interaction like never before.

5. Fair society, including freedom of religious belief and freedom from religion. As a Humanist you look for the improvement of society so that no one would be deprived of the basic necessities of life. Institutions and societal conditions should be improved to provide every person with opportunities that allow them to develop to their fullest potential. It is for this reason that humanists are often advocates of those who are underprivileged or downtrodden. While you pay little heed to various religious ideologies you recognize that if you are to have the freedom not to believe, others must also have the freedom to choose for themselves. Any fair society will allow the basic freedoms and you know that we must collectively protect that right.

6. Reason is Superior. Social and personal problems can best be solved by means of human reason, intelligent effort and critical thinking joined with compassion and a spirit of empathy for all living beings. This seeds of this idea idea were put forth by Democritus ( 460 - 351 BCE) who also asserted that it is unnecessary to invoke imaginary or mystical sanctions to solve our problems. Secular humanists do not feel it is necessary to petition a god, spirit, or any other supernatural entity when problems arise. Humans have what it takes to solve their own problems.

7. We are inseparable from nature. As a secular humanist you agree that we are all completely a part of nature and that our survival depends on a healthy planet that gives us (and all other life forms) the life supporting environment that we need. You also affirm that the process of evolution is the process that has caused us to be who and what we are.

8. Human interdependence. In the same way we are inseparable from nature, we are also inseparable for each other. Humanist (Maslow) and evolutionary psychologists (Hamilton) explain the fact that we are a social, animals, and that human interdependence is absolutely necessary for happiness and fulfillment. Good human relationships and friendships are the hallmarks of good mental health. Why? Because we have evolved to be this way.

9. A sense of responsibility to others. In the same vein as human interdependence, the idea that we are responsible to one another is rooted in evolutionary and humanist psychology. You cannot be a happy and fully functioning human unless you take care of your relationships with others. Healthy humans display empathy and socially responsible behavior. As a result, human nature is not seen in a negative light by humanists, but instead is seen as something to be developed by each individual.

10. No moral absolutes. The idea that any one person, or god can determine what pleasures humans can or cannot enjoy is simply not acceptable. Each person is responsible to determine what life style and what pleasures fit best for them within the framework of equal rights and a respect for the basic rights of others. Sin has nothing to do with our choices, instead, its a matter making choices that are considerate of those around you. As Epicurus said, "No pleasure is a bad thing in itself, but the things which produce certain pleasures entail disturbances many times greater than the pleasures themselves". The challenge is to live a full life while respecting others basic human rights as well as their right to live according to their own needs and desires.

http://www.humanism.org.uk/home

http://humanistcanada.ca/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_of_Miletus

Russell, Bertrand (1945). The History of Western Philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster.

http://atheism.about.com/od/weeklyquotes/a/spinoza02.htm

http://library.thinkquest.org/26466/history_of_democracy.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

http://www.flightsimhq.org/godfree2/Twelve-Principles-of-Humanism-bcards10-v1.pdf

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democritus/

http://www.progressivehumanism.com/progressive-humanism/in-defence-of-darwinism/

http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/hist_humanistic.htm

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolutionary-psychology/

http://www.epicurus.net/

Sent from my iPad

Jeff

Top Ten Ways Epicurus Made Atheism Respectable.

2011-11-27T20:07:00.001-08:00

Top Ten Ways Epicurus Made Atheism Respectable.

Epicurus (341 BCE – 270 BCE) believed that the main purpose of philosophy was to attain a happy, and peaceful life unfettered by fear and insecurity. When he faced an idea that caused fear or confusion he did not retreat from it, instead he analyzed it, looked to his senses and reduced the idea to its natural causes before he came to a logical conclusion. He insisted that ideas be tested through the five senses via direct observation and through logic before they were worthy of being believed. This is why many consider him one of the primary founders of the scientific method.

In my opinion Epicurus made atheism (having no god) intellectually respectable at a time when virtually everyone believed in demons, gods, ghosts and spirits. Here are my top ten choices from many of his ideas.

1. Regarding those who believe in mythology.
"It is impossible for someone to dispel his fears if he gives credence to myths and has no understanding of the nature of the universe. Therefore, without the study of nature there is no pleasure in life."

2.Regarding the myths about angry gods controlling human affairs.
"A being that is blessed and indestructible has no troubles and should bring no trouble for any other being; therefore that being should be free from anger and partiality. Partiality and anger imply weakness."

3. Regarding the after life, and the idea that man has a soul.
"Death is nothing to us; that which has been dissolved into it's elements experiences no sensation, and that which has no sensation is nothing to us.

4. Regarding a life of reason. Leave nothing to chance.
"Chance seldom interferes with the wise man; his greatest and highest interests have been, are, and will be directed by reason throughout his whole life."

5. Regarding the need for evidence and an understanding of nature when forming an opinion.
"We must consider the ultimate end prescribed by nature and all clear sensory evidence, to which we refer our opinions; otherwise everything will remain uncertain."

6. Regarding following the evidence.
"If you do not, on every occasion, refer each of your actions to the ultimate end prescribed by nature, but instead, either by choice or avoidance turn to some other end, your actions will not be consistent with your theories."

7. Regarding the need for a standard of reference in making decisions.
"If you fight against all of your sensations, you will have no standard by which to refer, and thus no means of judging even those sensations which you claim are false."

8. Regarding the need for temperance and a rejection of moral absolutes.
"No pleasure is a bad thing in itself, but the things which produce certain pleasures entail disturbances many times greater than the pleasures themselves."

9. Regarding the value of understanding nature.
"If we had never been troubled by celestial and atmospheric phenomena, nor by fears of death, nor by our ignorance of the limits of pain and desire, we should have had no need for the natural sciences."

10. Regarding the value of friendship as a means to happiness.
"Of all the means which wisdom acquires to ensure happiness throughout the whole of life, by far the most important is friendship."

I hope you can see why I think Epicurus rocks.

Resources:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=epicurus+40

http://www.thebigview.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1432

http://www.epicurus.net/en/principal.html

Sent from my iPad

Jeff

Top Ten Reasons Why Being a Humanist is Fulfilling.

2011-11-26T06:08:00.000-08:00

Top Ten Reasons Why Being a Humanist is Fulfilling.

1. You find yourself living in a world where there is no compelling evidence for a god of any type. As humans we have a natural place in this world and we are responsible for creating our own security. Security is necessary for hope, love and happiness to flourish. There is no god that has ever, or will ever do this for us. This is our collective responsibility.

2. You prefer reason over faith. You ignore the philosophies or politics that are are based on irrational or supernatural beliefs and focus on making mankind better by getting involved in your community and promoting reason.

3. You find great meaning in helping others, and enjoy the interaction that occurs when simple human comforts are shared with those who are less fortunate than yourself. You also understand that other species struggle and you do your best to include them in your efforts to make the world a kinder place to live.

4. You understand that being a humanist means that you will have to struggle (sometimes quietly) against those who make grandiose claims about their own particular belief in a god. This is especially true when those supernatural beliefs are used as a weapon against personal freedoms, democracy or science.

5. You prefer to take the world as it comes. Evidence shows that our universe appears to be 13.7 billion years old, so it is. Evidence shows that's Humans are risen primates, not fallen angels, so that's who we are. You are at peace with our humble beginnings.

6. You see yourself as a part of the natural world. This means that you understand that we are interconnected (in a very complicated way) with every species of animal and plant on this planet. This universe is our home because we evolved to fit in it, not because we have dominion over it. You see this as a beautiful idea, worthy of evangelism.

7. You understand that reason, experience and science have made it possible for mankind to flourish. This belief runs counter to the claims of faith, superstition or supernatural revelation. The result is that you have a dynamic and flexible understanding of humanity that cuts cleanly through the bullshit that plagues our society. As a result, you promote those ideas that will help to make the world a kinder place for every species that lives on it.

8. You have developed a robust understanding of who and what humans are and you celebrate human diversity. As you reflect on these diverse aspects of our humanity, your thinking runs counter to those who ostracize parts of our society or try to control others through ideological policies or laws. You appreciate the under dog, and that gives you a sense of purpose. It pushes you to stand united with those who are most diverse in our society when they need your help.

9. You understand that humans are pattern (and meaning) seeking animals. With this understanding you see how dangerous faith can be when it leads humans to irrational beliefs about themselves and each other. Collectively, we are the most powerful species on earth, and yet, we easily give up our minds to errant religious or ideological beliefs. We easily learn to hate. As humanists our challenge is to constantly learn and be vigilant against beliefs unsupported by evidence.

10. You have explored religion and religious belief to the point that you are satisfied that there is a better way. Your challenge is to create that better way for yourself. This is a deeply meaningful process to be shared with your friends and loved ones.

Good luck, your journey begins here!

With thanks to Andy Thomson , I love the idea that we "are risen apes, not fallen angels".

Sent from my iPad

Jeffrey Olsson

Top Ten Reasons Why Being a Skeptic is Fulfilling

2011-11-18T03:27:00.001-08:00

Top Ten Reasons Why Being a Skeptic is Fulfilling

1. As a skeptic you love science and know that the scientific method is the best method mankind has ever invented to understand who we are, how we got here, and how we can improve our lot in this universe. You know that if we refrain from asking the hard questions we give up making a better life for mankind.

2. You know that reality is a puzzle and that it will take a lot of effort to understand it. At times truth goes against what seems to be common sense. You have discovered that the struggle to understand reality reveals truths that are, at times, deeply profound. That knowledge will keep you searching the for the truth for the rest of your life.

3. Your drive to discover the truth about who we are and what is real has revealed contradictions to your prized personal beliefs and your most deeply held prejudices. Your belief in a God (or Gods) is probably already gone. You have learned to adjust your beliefs to match reality rather than remain prejudiced. You possess a willingness to learn accompanied by a willingness to change, that's why your skepticism makes you a better person.

4. I have only ever met one group of people who cheer when they have been proven wrong. Skeptics. Especially those who employ scientific skepticism. You may be bold when you ask those annoyingly tough questions, but underneath it all you are humble enough to know when you have discovered the truth. After all, evidence is evidence and that's good enough for you.

5. You understand that being skeptical on it's own just doesn't cut it. You temper the need to be skeptical with an openness to new ideas and a willingness to let others prove themselves. This means that the road to understanding is long, complicated, potentially confusing, and sometimes frustrating. But that's ok, real joy comes when you finally untangle the truth.

6. You understand the need to question authority. This may be the most uncomfortable part of being a skeptic, but you know that anyone who claims to know best for everyone else must themselves be subject to scrutiny. It is at this point that many skeptics realize who their real friends are. Go ahead and ask those tough questions when a politician puts forth a seemingly crazy idea using public money, or when a sunday school teacher tells your children they risk going to hell. Pull out the test equipment when someone claims there is a ghost. We'll stand with you. We may even applaud.

7. You are willing to admit it when you don't know and you are big enough person to handle ambiguous concepts. What came before the Big Bang? You don't know. Is there life after death? You don't know and you are ok with that. Which leads me to my next point...

8. Your willingness to admit you don't know all of the answers to the many mysteries we face is your greatest asset. Why? Because it leads you to ask the questions that others miss. One day humankind may eventually tease out the answers to questions like the ones above, but you know that day will never come until some one willing to admit they do not know dares to speculate about how we can figure out the real answers. When you see others ask those questions it makes you feel like cheering.

9. You understand what it is to "stand on the shoulders of giants" and you enjoy the education it entails. Learning is fun and you are first to dig in to the books. By learning what those before you have discovered, you unfold the tapestry of knowledge that has brought so many of the advances that our society enjoys. You work to advance the knowledge of those giants who went before you.

10. Through your skeptical endeavors you have found your social conscience, a sense of camaraderie and have made friends for a lifetime. To spend your life working in the sciences is to live a life of privilege, discovery and enlightenment. Prior to the last century, only a select few of us could ever have dreamed of living such a life of discovery.

Congratulations, you have learned to think!

Sent from my iPad

Jeff

Top Ten Reasons Why Being an Atheist is Fulfilling

2011-11-12T22:18:00.001-08:00

1. There are so many gods that you could believe in but you don't. Think about it, there are thousands of gods, and you (an atheist) have probably heard or read about most of them. Demeter, Zeus, Apollo, Horus, Mithra, Yahweh, Tammuz, Ganesha, Jesus and Allah are only a few of the famous ones. It's not that you know too little about religion, it's that you know too much about too many religions.

2. You don't need to trouble yourself with great feats of philosophical wrangling to explain how your simple belief system is valid. It really is beautifully simple. When a friend tells you that her God can walk on water, or can save you from hell, you need only reply, "prove it", then sit back and enjoy the show that follows. It's truly entertaining. When the show is over you need only reply, "I don't believe you" to get it started all over again. The sweetest part is that as an atheist you are not obligated to disprove her god. The only obligation is on your friend to prove her claim in a satisfactory way since she is making such a grandiose claim.

3. The books. Some of the best books ever written were written by atheists. Not only do we get best selling titles like god is not Great and The God Delusion we also get books like The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, everything written by Isaac Asimov, Kurt Vonnegut and more. If you are curious, check out Wikipedia's list of atheist authors. (link below) There is enough material listed there to keep you reading for years. One of the biggest benefits about reading an atheist writer is the readability of the books. They just make sense, no leaps of faith necessary.

4. The films. You probably think I am kidding, but once you look at the list of atheist film makers and actors listed in Wikipedia you will quickly realize that you have been watching films made by atheists all your life.(link below). The humanity expressed in many of these films is tangible, accessible and real. There is no need to cloud their stories with campy church or family prayer scenes like television shows have recently started doing. These are some of the best films you have ever seen.

5. The babies. All you can eat. I just had to put that one in there. ; )

6. You can relax in the knowledge that it is not up to you to prove anything to anyone. Imagine that yesterday a new study was published that disproved the Big Bang theory completely. You do not need to get all bent out of shape because you do not hold to the big bang theory as if it were dogma. Your belief in the theory is based on evidence only.

7. As an atheist it's not up to you to have the answers to every question about our existence. Atheism is merely an absence of belief in systems of religion and god. I have found that one of the best parts of being an atheist is to humbly admit to myself that I don't have (or need) all of the answers that religion claims to have. The funny thing about this is that I do know that there is good evidence for the things I do believe. Which brings me to the next topic.

8. Science. There is something magical about witnessing scientific progress as it is being made. And, there is nothing more satisfying than finding out that a new scientific discovery has invalidated an old one. It's called progress and it's downright addictive. As an atheist you understand the necessity of good evidence in making any claim. You are also willing to wait for evidence before coming to a conclusion about anything important. The scientific process enables you to understand the world better than any system of faith ever has or could.

9. Humanity. One of the best parts of being an atheist is the connection you make with the rest of humanity when you look past the gods and look directly to the people around you. Simple observation shows you that every person has a unique way of making meaning for themselves. People search out information, look for opinions, talk, laugh, love, enjoy each others companionship and find meaning in the relationships they have with each other.

10. Time. Friday after sundown, Saturdays, and Sunday mornings are all free from the religious exercises and the mandatory prayers that are expected were you to have joined one of the big three religions. Congratulations my fellow atheist, you have more time to enjoy your families, friends, to think, and to discover the world than any life of faith would ever have allowed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheist_authors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_film,_radio,_television_and_theater

A message to any politician who will listen.

2011-11-05T15:41:00.001-07:00

I admit it, I am a news hawk. I have been watching the "Occupy" Movements spread across North America for weeks and was not surprised to see it move into Canada as it did a few weeks ago.

No one I know seemed to understand the Canadian arm of the movement, nor could they describe what it is that these people want, believe or need. The movement has "secret" hand signals that they use to enable the democratic process in large crowds, and it seems as if they are kind of disconnected from society. All of this adds to the mystery that seems to surround the movement. Many Canadian media sources have treated the movement as if it holds some kind of great mystery or that their beliefs cannot be quantified. We have watched various Canadian police forces react in polite and not so polite ways towards them.

So what the hell is their protest about?

Yesterday I decided I had to find out for myself. The simplest way that I could do this was to walk down to Memorial Park in downtown Winnipeg and listen to what they had to say. I made a promise to myself to listen only. I was not there to debate.

I listened for three hours in total. I didn't agree with everything they said, nor did I sympathize with some of the emotional stories that were told in support of their ideologies. But I listened.

After 2 hours one of the youngest people there, I still don't know her name, looked at me and said, "Why couldn't the Prime Minister just come here and listen?" she paused and then added, "or the Premier, or the Mayor". It was then that I asked my first question, I surprised myself because it was with the deepest of curiosity that I asked it, before I realized that I had broken the promise I made to myself to listen only. "If they, the politicians, would just come down here and listen to you, even if they didn't completely agree, would you be satisfied enough to go home?" Her eyes opened wide and she stopped for a second and stared off into space. Then she looked me straight in the eye and said, "I have been here so long that I had given up on that prospect. Of course I would go home." We all laughed when she said that. The ease with which that answer passed through her lips astounded me.

I stand behind what I have said to my friends, "Any politician who is not willing to come to Memorial park, sit down and listen to these people is a fool." And yet, not one of them has. no one I asked had seen even one political leader.

The funny thing about all of this is that I simply do not agree with some of the ideas put forth by the Occupy movement. But I don't disagree with all of the ideas and there are a couple of ideas that I am down right excited about. Whatever the case, I can now say with certainty what it is that they believe in and want.

Can you?

After I listened to them, I quietly went about asking people if they were willing to put their ideas onto a sheet of paper and if they would let me take a picture of them. Many agreed and I have posted their pictures below. Click on any of the pictures to see them full size. I have also added "detail pictures" so that you can see what their writing actually says and what pamphlets they were handing out.

Please look at the pictures. I could not post them all. I highly recommend that you go down there and listen. You might be surprised.

What would really surprise me is to see any of our politicians go to Memorial Park.

The belief that god has blessed you can turn you into an ass.

2011-11-05T04:49:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading a news article about Robert Schuller, the California pastor of the now defunct Crystal Cathedral and his wife Arvella. I have come to the realization that people who genuinely believe god has blessed them with a special position in society can do things that hurt others, simply because they see themselves as privileged and better and everyone else. Some people call this "prosperity theology". Prosperity theology teaches that the greater your faith, the greater the blessings from God. It also teach that God will give you financial prosperity as a result of your faith.

Imagine that you are the pastor of a mega church and a multi millionaire. I know for many of us that's a stretch, but play along with this idea for a moment. Imagine that your church hits the rocks financially and that you feel that God is "testing" you when your wife gets sick with pneumonia.

How would you react? Would you just keep of living the life of a privileged person trusting that God will give you what you need? Or, would you trim the fat in your life and realize that you are really no different than anyone else?

In the most recent debacle the Schullers have asked the followers of their flock to send them food to help nurse Arvella back to good health. All the congregants have to do is to drop the food off at a convenient location where the Schullers' chauffeur will pick it up and deliver it directly to Arvella in one of their many limos.

I can't imagine owning a number of limos, employing chauffeurs, and still having to ask people for food. Truly, this is one of those WTF? moments.

The Lookout reports, ""They've completely depleted the church's funds," one member, Bob Canfield, told the Orange County Register. "But they have shown that they have absolutely no remorse for what they've done. They're still being chauffeured around in limos. We, the congregants, have nothing."

The examiner.com reports, "There have been revelations about profligate spending practices and sky-high benefit packages paid to founder Dr. Robert H. Schuller, his family and friends (Dr. Schuller, for example, received $257,000 in tax-free housing allowances in 2009 alone and court documents suggest that the Schullers took nearly $10 million from the church endowment funds), the anti-gay covenant choir members were asked to sign, and more, but who could foresee a controversy over a request for food-delivery to the ill.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/bankrupt-church-wants-donations-pastor-sick-wife-ferried-182015520.html

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-los-angeles/parishioners-outraged-by-crystal-cathedral-request-for-food

http://www.reviewatlas.com/news/x669412637/Living-the-blessed-life-we-have-been-given

http://www.ocregister.com/news/schuller-320176-church-milner.html

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-los-angeles/anti-gay-covenant-provokes-controversy-at-crystal-cathedral

Justfiable Homicide for Abortion Doctors - New Bill

2011-11-01T16:16:00.000-07:00

A new bill that due to be voted on by the South Dakota Legislative Assembly was written with the intention extending the definition of justifiable homicide to include Abortion Doctors. I know that this sounds unbelievable, surreal, eerie and draconian but please, read it for your self. (click here).
Bill HB 1171 was introduced by representative Phil Jensen, Republican incumbent for Meade County.

The bill states "Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished."

Just imagine this scenario; A father who is opposed to his daughter having an abortion bursts into a clinic and kills the doctor providing the service, only to be later found "not guilty" of murder.

It is also important to consider that of the 70 seats held in the House, 50 are held by Republicans, 19 by Democrats with one independent seat.

I really do wonder if it is possible that this bill could pass? Well, 27 of the republican names were listed as sponsors of the bill. There are only 19 democrats in the house. To defeat the bill they would require all of the democrats and at least 17 other house members to vote against the republican bill. The odds are good that it will pass.

In truth we will never know the mind of the remaining republicans whose names are not listed on the bill, until after the vote occurs. The only good news here is that the bill has been deferred three times (this year) with a vote of 61Yays to 4 nays to table the bill until the next session of the house which occurs in January of 2012.

It will be very dark time for women's rights in South Dakota if the bill does pass. I guess we'll see what happens when the house sits next year.

References:
http://wonkette.com/438217/south-dakota-legalizing-abortion-doctor-murder

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/BillStatus.pdf

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Hoghouse.aspx

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011s/Roster.aspx?Body=H

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bill.aspx?File=HB1171HJU.htm

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/02/17/south-dakota-moves-to-legalize-killing-abortion-doctors/

More Than 20 Percent of Atheist Scientists Are 'Spiritual', Study Finds

2011-10-27T06:05:00.001-07:00

I thought that this is a perfect article for the blog after reading the statement “meaning-making without faith”. There is no question about the fact that each of us finds meaning in what we do and in what happens in the world around us by thinking. The difference between an atheist and a person of faith is that atheists don’t include “faith” as a part of the thought process. Let the facts fall where they fall, I say.

ScienceDaily (May 5, 2011) — More than 20 percent of atheist scientists are spiritual, according to new research from Rice University. Though the general public marries spirituality and religion, the study found that spirituality is a separate idea -- one that more closely aligns with scientific discovery -- for "spiritual atheist" scientists.

The research will be published in the June issue of Sociology of Religion.

Through in-depth interviews with 275 natural and social scientists at elite universities, the Rice researchers found that 72 of the scientists said they have a spirituality that is consistent with science, although they are not formally religious.

"Our results show that scientists hold religion and spirituality as being qualitatively different kinds of constructs," said Elaine Howard Ecklund, assistant professor of sociology at Rice and lead author of the study. "These spiritual atheist scientists are seeking a core sense of truth through spirituality -- one that is generated by and consistent with the work they do as scientists."

For example, these scientists see both science and spirituality as "meaning-making without faith" and as an individual quest for meaning that can never be final. According to the research, they find spirituality congruent with science and separate from religion, because of that quest; where spirituality is open to a scientific journey, religion requires buying into an absolute "absence of empirical evidence."

"There's spirituality among even the most secular scientists," Ecklund said. "Spirituality pervades both the religious and atheist thought. It's not an either/or. This challenges the idea that scientists, and other groups we typically deem as secular, are devoid of those big 'Why am I here?' questions. They too have these basic human questions and a desire to find meaning."

Ecklund co-authored the study with Elizabeth Long, professor and chair of the Department of Sociology at Rice. In their analysis of the 275 interviews, they discovered that the terms scientists most used to describe religion included "organized, communal, unified and collective." The set of terms used to describe spirituality include "individual, personal and personally constructed." All of the respondents who used collective or individual terms attributed the collective terms to religion and the individual terms to spirituality.

"While the data indicate that spirituality is mainly an individual pursuit for academic scientists, it is not individualistic in the classic sense of making them more focused on themselves," said Ecklund, director of the Religion and Public Life Program at Rice. "In their sense of things, being spiritual motivates them to provide help for others, and it redirects the ways in which they think about and do their work as scientists."

Ecklund and Long noted that the spiritual scientists saw boundaries between themselves and their nonspiritual colleagues because their spirituality facilitated engagement with the world around them. Such engagement, according to the spiritual scientists, generated a different approach to research and teaching: While nonspiritual colleagues might focus on their own research at the expense of student interaction, spiritual scientists' sense of spirituality provides nonnegotiable reasons for making sure that they help struggling students succeed.

Rice University (2011, May 5). More than 20 percent of atheist scientists are 'spiritual', study finds. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 27, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2011/05/110505124039.htm

Catholic grade school students given credit for going to abortion prayer vigil

2011-10-12T08:38:00.001-07:00

From the National Post HOLY POST website

By Nick Martin

WINNIPEG — Children at a private Catholic school in Winnipeg who attend anti-abortion vigils outside the city’s Health Sciences Centre are receiving community service credits for their participation.

Principal Dave Hood of Christ the King School said Tuesday that joining the vigils is a voluntary and family decision. But he’s considering it as an official school activity as early as next year.

It’s a prayer vigil, Hood said. “We’re not there to block anyone.”

Hood has talked to the teacher responsible for the students’ community service activities, and they’ve agreed that if any kids take part in the vigils, that the time would count toward a student’s community service.

Christ the King School has about 200 students in kindergarten to Grade 8.

Hood said he advised parents in a recent newsletter that the Campaign Life Coalition organizes daily vigils outside HSC.

“I have to tread carefully,” said Hood of the possibility of making attendance at the vigils a formal school activity. “It could happen in years to come.”

“It would be good for some community service for the kids, but I have to feel out the community first.”

The Vatican Ignores Our Laws, Prefers it's Own

2011-10-05T14:36:00.000-07:00

Anyone who has read the Cloyne report knows how bad the priestly abuse of children has become in Ireland since 2001. The Vatican, even after working with law enforcement and prosecutors for over a decade have chosen not to follow civil laws. Instead, they see Canon Laws (their own Vatican laws) as superior to civil laws (our laws) and they simply ignored the need to report thousands of cases of sexual abuse, silence victims and denied them compensation for the abuses they suffered. Documented cases of this have occurred in North America, Ireland and in a number of other nations.

Ignoring our democratically defined legal systems and holding back cooperation with state legal authorities can be seen as nothing more than interference in the running of our countries. While the Vatican response to the Cloyne report explains how it intends to cooperate with various state authorities, the Vatican continues to shield numerous offenders and hide numerous cases of abuse from civil authorities.

If the Vatican is really intent on cooperating with authorities, they should open up their vaults and allow access to all information with regard to abuses that have occurred. Show who was abused, who did the abusing and allow prosecutors from around the world to clean house.

Last week the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) addressed the United Nations Human Rights Council and insisted that "...the Human Rights Council to make it clear that Canon law is not, nor should it ever be treated as, an alternative to the civil law in any sovereign state."

There is no question about it, it is an abuse of human rights, bordering on contempt for the Vatican to continue to consider Canon Law as superior to our own laws.

I suggest that the Vatican should follow the lead of Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops by issuing a guideline similar the the one defined in Canada over 20 years ago which states, "Together with all other responsible citizens, the Bishops respect the civil laws and fully collaborate with civil authorities in sexual abuse inquiries. The Church follows the same laws as any other social institution."

It is true that the Irish Prime Minister spoke for every nation plagued by sexual abuses by catholic clergy when he said "“... the Cloyne report excavates the dysfunction, disconnection, elitism... the narcissism that dominate the culture of the Vatican to this day”

References:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4U.HTM

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/taoiseach-v-vatican-kenny-accuses-rome-of-interference-2868350.html

http://press.catholica.va/news_services/bulletin/news/27974.php?index=27974

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2003_09_25_First_Philadelphia_Grand_Jury_Report.pdf

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0722/1224301127607.html

http://www.cccb.ca/site/eng/media-room/files/1476-diocesan-resources-from-the-cccb-concerning-sexual-abuse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

http://www.iheu.org/iheu-condemns-holy-see-undermining-democracy-and-human-rights

Christians Contribute More? Don't think so!

2011-10-04T17:55:00.001-07:00

Non religious people are just as likely to contribute to society, says a recent study completed by the British Government. According to the IHEU, "These statistics clearly demonstrate that having no religion is no barrier to civic participation and volunteering, exploding myths that religious people contribute more to civil society than others," said Andrew Copson, BHA chief executive and IHEU vice president. "Many aspects of the Government’s ‘Big Society’ agenda are geared specifically towards including and praising the contribution of religious people and institutions. It would far better be properly secular, inclusive and aimed to recognize the real contribution of people regardless of belief."

The International Humanist and Ethical Union reports, "In terms of civic engagement and formal volunteering in 2010-2011, the figures show no statistically significant difference in participation between those with no religion (56%) and Christians (58%) – a continuing trend since 2007. The proportion of Hindus and Muslims participating in civic engagement and formal volunteering is the lowest of all religion or belief groups, at 44% respectively. Overall, there seems to be no significant difference between participation by the religious and the non-religious.

In the years from 2007 to 2011, Christians were much less likely than any other religion or belief group to mix with people from different ethnic or religious backgrounds. Far fewer Christians (49%) than other respondents ‘mixed regularly’ with others in work, school or college."

In recent years one of the big questions debated by atheists humanists and skeptics has been "Can we be good without God?".

The answer is an empirical, "yes".

Brad Trost - Call him what he is

2011-10-03T14:55:00.000-07:00

Brad Trost, MP for Saskatoon Humboldt, has stated publicly that he is ready for a fight. On his personal webpage he states, "Pro-Life politicians have been taught a lesson. The government only responds to Pro-Life issues and concerns when we take an aggressive stance. We will apply this lesson."

He makes this comment in reference to his wish to have Canada's Federal Government stop funding for International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). Trost also makes that claim that "...promoting abortion internationally is central to the identity of IPPF"

Sadly, what he fails to understand is that where ever the IPPF goes the number of abortions drops dramatically. How can an agency accused of "promoting abortion" cause a drop in the abortion rate?

Columnist Ruth Farquar, writing for the Sudbury Star explains this anomally. "... Paul Bell, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood, pointed to a study released Sept. 27 by a research centre at Stanford University that looked at data from 260,000 women in Sub-Sahara Africa from 1994-2008. From 2001-2008 the United States government eliminated funding for groups like Planned Parenthood that offered abortion, along with women's contraception and other health issues that forced them to close clinics. The research found that the number of abortions rose in those years over the previous seven years, as much as 2.5 times in some countries.

So, obviously when Planned Parenthood is allowed to do its job by providing education on reproductive health, allowing access to contraceptives, the result is the number of abortions goes down."

Farquar asked all of the right questions as far as I am concerned. Has this issue been studied? what did it find? Is the IPPF really bad for women?

And the answer clearly is that the IPPF is tremendously good for women. It educates them about how to prevent pregnancy, how to protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases, and helps them to plan their families in a sustainable way, rather than succumb to pregnancy after pregnancy in an environment that cannot support all of their children. Clearly the IPPF is not only good for women, it is good for families too. Isn't that what Trost is concerned about?

Apparently Trost is ideologically driven and fails to understand the subtle arguments for and against planned parenthood. What Trost needs to do is to take the time to listen to women who have needed an abortion. By listening to women who have had to face that harsh reality, who have made one of the toughest decisions anyone would ever had to make, Trost should be able to see that what he is saying affects everyday people, families and yes, women.

Sadly, Trost's personal beliefs are more important to him than listening to those who elected him. There is a name for that, and I'd rather not repeat it here.

2011-10-01T14:38:00.000-07:00

HI everyone,
I recently participated in SkeptiCamp Winnipeg, and talked about "Denialism".

There are more video from other speaker available here: http://winnipegskeptics.com/

Yay Diana! Great letter to the editor.

2011-09-28T08:34:00.001-07:00

A personal friend and fellow humanist recently sent a wonderful letter to the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press. Here it is:

Letter of the day: Same old fundamentalism

Bill Redekop's article on the success of the Southland Community Church (Religious revival, Sept. 24) paints a rosy picture of the wonderful role this church plays in Steinbach.

As almost all of these evangelical mega-churches do, it uses charismatic leaders, modern marketing techniques and emotional manipulation to sell its product. And what is that product? Well, I visited their website to find out.

When perusing their list of core values, I found the same old fundamentalist doctrines that can be found in any of today's mega-churches -- for example, denial of the fact of evolution and condemnation of homosexuality, premarital sex, abortion and divorce.

Of course, they are also believers in a literal hell and separating humanity into the saved and unsaved. I have to wonder how it is that the members of this church, and many more like it, manage to accept that they worship a god who sends unbelievers to eternal torture and punishment for the thought crime of disbelief. For according to this doctrine, our actions are completely irrelevant to where we end up.

I suppose they must be OK with the idea that people such as Gandhi, Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Christopher Reeve and Helen Keller are already writhing in hell, to be followed at some point by Lance Armstrong, Bill Gates, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Brad Pitt and many more.

Perhaps it is people's need for black-and-white answers to life's difficult problems or the comfort of a community that sends people flocking to these churches. I myself am more satisfied to be a part of the growing community of atheists and secular humanists. We may not have huge buildings, coffee shops or splashy new technology, but I'll take reason, empathy, kindness, inclusiveness and intellectual honesty any day.

DIANA GOODS

Winnipeg

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/same-old-fundamentalism-130688098.html

Sheriff investigates Obama's Birth Certificate

2011-09-19T20:20:00.000-07:00

TPMuckraler News published a new story today that involves a Sheriff investigating the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. It seems to me that the Tea Party has really got to learn that THEY LOST THE ELECTION.

The article states, "Infamous Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio does -- which is why he announced a five-person "Cold Case Posse" that will delve into the issue of President Obama's birth certificate.

The posse follows a request by the Surprise, Arizona Tea Party, who Arpaio met with on August 17. The Surprise Tea Party believes that the long-form birth certificate released by President Obama in April -- which put the issue to rest for pretty much everyone -- could be a forgery.

"The Surprise Tea Party is concerned," they wrote, "that no law enforcement agency or other duly constituted government agency has conducted an investigation into the Obama birth certificate to determine if it is in fact an authentic copy of 1961 birth records on file for Barack Obama at the Hawaii Department of Health in Honolulu, or whether it, or they are forgeries.""

The part that makes me laugh the most is the closing paragraph that states "Arpaio's latest crusade has gotten him on the cover of The Globe, but he told the Arizona Republic that he doesn't mind being featured in tabloids. "In fact, those are the magazines that do the best journalistic stories," Arpaio said. "More accurate than anybody else. You laugh at that, but I've dealt with the National Enquirer and their stories are always right down the line, believe it or not.""

Hee Hee Hee!

Should Creationism be Taught in Schools?

2011-09-17T08:10:00.001-07:00

An interesting video from The Big Question TV show in the UK.

Stop The Spying

2011-09-15T16:30:00.001-07:00

If you agree with what the video says please visit this site and sign the petition. http://openmedia.ca/educate

Thanks
Jeff

ARK MAN - Tour of The UK

2011-09-11T07:00:00.000-07:00

I would love to run into this guy and ask some really good questions. Unfortunately I suspect his "denialism" is well rounded and enables him to ignore the evidence for evolution. Ark Man Rod, aka ‘the Ark Man’, will speak at venues in England and Wales from Friday 9–Sunday 18 September 2011

Rod and his wife Nancy have spent many years touring and displaying his fascinating model arks. His displays draw crowds wherever he goes. Rod and Nancy normally travel round Australia in the ‘Ark Van’, which is specially designed to carry the models as well as be a mobile home for them. This enables them, as authorised CMI representatives, to take the message of ‘Noah’s Ark’ to even the most far flung parts of Australia. Click here to read more about Rod & Nancy Walsh and the Ark Van ministry.

Rod is an excellent communicator who can answer your questions about Noah’s Ark and the Flood and is able to speak with authority in defending the Bible’s history from the very first verse.

Apparently he will answer questions like:

– How big was the Ark and how did all the animals fit?
– Were dinosaurs on the Ark?
– Where did all the water come from?
– Where did all the water go?
– What evidence do we see today for a global Flood?
– How could the world have been populated in just 4,500 years since the Flood?

Of course you could also check out these websites for information that dis-confirm the "creation" story and explains the evidence for evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html - talkorigins.org discusses the topic thoroughly

and if you're not much of a reader:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rX_WH1bq5HQ

http://youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8

Perry's Folly - Cancel Fire Fighters and Pray

2011-09-06T16:38:00.000-07:00

This is another good example of incompetence linked to a willingness to believe in the supernatural, rather than face reality.

Read the whole story here: http://www.examiner.com/democrat-in-national/perry-s-folly-texas-burns-despite-prayers

Perry’s folly: Texas burns despite prayers

Michael Stone

Democrat Examiner

September 6, 2011

Texas is burning, and Governor Rick Perry is coming under fire for what many perceive as incompetence, poor judgement, and a profound failure to lead.

Earlier this year, facing extreme drought, Texas Governor Rick Perry issued a proclamation declaring a three-day period in April as Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas. Around the same time, however, Perry cut volunteer fire department spending by 75%, the same volunteer fire departments that Texans depend upon to fight the kind of wildfires that are currently raging through Texas, destroying homes and ruining lives.

Perry’s choice to decimate the system of volunteer fire departments Texans depend upon, offering up days of prayer instead, has proven disastrous. Perry’s prayers went unanswered: no rain fell; the inevitable fires came with predictable results, and incalculable human tragedy.

In the middle of what has become one of the worst Texas droughts on record, Perry slashed volunteer fire department spending by 75%, a funding cut from $30 million to $7 million, despite the fact that Texas volunteer fire departments were already facing serious financial strain, despite the fact that for many Texans, a volunteer fire department was and is all that stands between them and calamity .

Raw Story reports:

The majority of Texas is protected by volunteer fire departments. There are 879 volunteer fire departments in Texas and only 114 paid fire departments. Another 187 departments are a combination of volunteer and paid.

Perry’s short sighted, penny wise - pound foolish, decision to neuter volunteer fire departments across Texas has been an unmitigated disaster, leaving Texans across the state helpless and vulnerable in the face of raging wildfires. Many both inside and outside of Texas are beginning to question Perry’s competence as an administrator and a leader.

Catholics: dead pope’s blood will stop Mexican crime

2011-09-06T05:23:00.001-07:00

Catholics: dead pope's blood will stop Mexican crime

By JERRY COYNE

One of the more loony episodes (and there are many) in the annals of the Catholic Church is this report from The Freethinker, "Catholics pin hopes on dead Pope's blood to stem gang crime in Mexico." Yes, that's right: a vial of the late Pope John Paul II's blood is, with Vatican permission, going on a tour of Mexico in an attempt to stem unrest in that country:

An episcopal conference in Mexico has requested that the relic be sent over and, according to Vatican Radio, the "relic"will arrive in the country on August 17 before being taken to the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City.

A week later the vial of blood from the "blessed" Pope John Paul, a title he acquired posthumously after his successor Benedict XVI beatified him in May, will be taken on a pilgrimage to other Catholic dioceses around the country.

The relic will be accompanied by a statue of the late Polish pope, born Karol Wojtyla, with the intended message one of reconciliation.

Killings in parts of Mexico have shot up in recent years amid a military crackdown on organized crime and drug cartels which has sent soldiers onto the streets.

Mexican bishops, in a statement broadcast on Vatican Radio, said:

The reminder of John Paul II and the love he had for our country should push us to reinforce the faith of the Mexican people, at a time when our nation is undergoing profound social change.

Here is the grisly relic that will make Mexicans put down their guns:

2011-09-01T04:23:00.000-07:00

Gosh I just Love James Randi!

From CBC News:

"While high-profile medium James Van Praagh has yet to take the bait, a self-proclaimed Toronto psychic says she's considering taking up a $1-million challenge to prove her abilities.

"I would say yes, I would take [the] challenge because I have enough faith in my own abilities if I was available," Toronto-based psychic Nikki told CBC News.

"I am the real thing so I don't have to worry about this stuff."

The challenge is being made by the Florida-based James Randi Educational Foundation, founded by magician and skeptic James Randi to educate the public and media on the dangers of accepting unproven claims, and to support research into paranormal claims in controlled scientific conditions.

Although the $1-million US challenge has been around for years, Randi recently reissued the challenge, directing it at celebrity psychics including Van Praagh and Allison DuBois, after their appearance on ABC's Nightline show."

Read More Here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/offbeat/story/2011/08/30/psychic-challenge-randi-nikk.html

Catholic Church Hides Sex Abuse and Fails to Cooperate in Investigation

2011-08-28T14:22:00.000-07:00

The Cloyne Report, being spoken about by the Irish Prime Minister below, exposes efforts by the Vatican to interfere with investigations into the sexual abuse of children in Ireland. These efforts to interfere occurred within the last three years.

The Irish Justice Minister stated, "This is not some report that was done about some terrible wrong that was done long ago, instead the report look at how complaints of sexual abuse against children were handled in the Diocese of Cloyne in 1996 to early 2009."

Having reviewed the Cloyne Report, numerous news agencies describe it as "stark", "depressing" and "disturbing."

The report was not intended to review if sexual abuse had actually taken place, it was intended to review how the Catholic Church handled the numerous cases of abuse that were reported between 1996 and 2009, a period that directly follows the implementation of the church's new policies to protect children. The report clearly states that the Holy See (Vatican, Pope) interfered by referring to the new requirement to report abuse as a "Study document" when it was in fact intended to be used as policy by the church.

The lash back by Catholic clergymen across the country resulted in numerous sermons calling the report unjust. One priest even send out pamphlets to his parishioners comparing the Irish PM to Hitler. A deed for which he was later compelled to apologize. It is important to note that clergy control the majority of the schools in Ireland.

The reality is that the report was fair and balanced. It reported the dastardly actions of the Holy See, the deeds of abusive clergy and included detailed accounts of the depressing reality faced by numerous families who had to see their abusers go unpunished. It also notes that many of the abusers still hold positions of authority within the church and are the same men ones who approve and conduct marriages, funerals, baptisms for the individuals they abused as children.

Watch the uncut reaction of the PM in the video below this paragraph followed by a news piece from Irish TV where the Archbishop of Ireland refers to the Cloyne report writers as a "cabal" intent on ignoring the current state of affairs within the church. Notice how the Archbishop turns this issue around and makes it seem that he and his clerics are victims.

UPDATE: See the Justice Minister Speak about the report: (Last Video on this list)

Reaction by Archbishop, outraged that the Cloyne report could say such things.

A frank(Irish Television)discussion about the issues surrounding how and why the Catholic Church tried to hide the abuses.

The Justice Minister Speaks about the Cloyne Report. (below)

Penn Jillette talks about his new book, God, No.

2011-08-16T20:07:00.000-07:00

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44153441#44153441

the Non Believers Beliefs

2011-08-15T14:21:00.001-07:00

A wonderful new short film by Scott Carnegie and Gem Newman was completed a week ago and was featured in the MASH Film Festival at the Park Theatre in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

In this film they explore non believers beliefs and answer the question, "Can we good even though we do not beleive in God?"

Look for me when you watch it.

Irish PM responds to Cloyne report - blames Vatican

2011-08-08T20:06:00.001-07:00

In an amazing and unprecedented statement the Irish PM responds to the Cloyne report which shows that attempts to hide the abuse of children occurred only three years ago in Ireland. See the response for yourself here: http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dmo5MXrqbDeA%26eurl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.samharris.org%252F%26feature%3Dplayer_embedded&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.samharris.org%2F&feature=player_embedded&v=mo5MXrqbDeA&gl=CA

M.A.S.H. FILM FEST

2011-08-04T14:17:00.000-07:00

Manitoba Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists (MASH)
FILM Festival.

August 14th, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Location: Park Theatre, 698 Osborne Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Come prepared to laugh, think, have fun and make friends!

eBook - Leaving Faith Behind Now Available!

2011-07-26T09:24:00.001-07:00

My book Leaving Faith Behind is now available at BarnesandNoble.com (as a Nook eBook for $7.99) and at Amazon.com in Kindle format for $9.99 . You can also buy the hard or soft cover versions of the book from many other outlets.

About the Author

Jeff Olsson was an Anglican priest for ten years before he left the ministry. He loves to write about topics that examine the fringes between science and religion. He is father to two beautiful daughters, a husband who loves his wife and an educator who thinks life long learning is the key to happiness. Jeff tells it like he sees it and loves to hear the opinion of others. He is currently the president of the Humanist Association of Manitoba and calls himself an atheist.

· Paperback: 126 pages

· Publisher: Xlibris (March 17, 2009)

· Language: English

· ISBN-10: 1441506802

· ISBN-13: 978-1441506801

· Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 0.3 inches

· Shipping Weight: 5.6 ounces

Blaming Muslims for Utoeya is Not Correct

2011-07-24T07:36:00.000-07:00

I have taken the time to read many of the news stories about the Bombing and Massacre coming out of Oslo over the last 24 hours and I find it quite disconcerting that a large majority of the comments from other readers blame Muslims for what has happened. One Newspaper reported that an arm of Al Quaeda had taken responsibility for the event before investigations showed who was actually to blame. The man who is accused, named Anders Behring Breivik, 32 years old, has not denied his responsibility and he has claimed there is a reason why he did what he did. He said he wanted a revolution and will tell the Norwegian courts exactly why he did it tomorrow.(Monday, the 24th of July 2011). It will be interesting to hear his story, although I cannot imagine it making much sense.

Regarding the many news story comments made by people who seemed all to willing to blame the Muslims: What is most sad is how the European discontent with Muslims has come about. The large majority of Muslim Immigrants to Europe over the last 15 years have come there because of unrest or poverty in their home lands. It is unfortunate that those Muslim people whose families were most effected by the problems in their homelands were also the poorest and many are quite uneducated. (certainly not all fit this category)

These are the people who are least able to make the cultural adaptations that would allow them to integrate fully into European society. As a result, cities like Malmö Sweden seem to have been overtaken by Muslims. Check their newspapers for the numerous debates and stories about this issue if you wish. Rather than adapt fully Muslims have chosen to bring as much of their culture with them as they can.

What we (and the Europeans) fail to see is that they have already come a long way in choosing the best of what Europe has to offer while hanging on to the things that bring them the most comfort.

This means that Swedish public schools (as one example) are being forced to let go of the religious traditions they were used to in order to become a pluralistic society. Some Swedes see this as a direct and unwanted change to their society as a result of the Muslim influx. Norway is no different, this is exactly what the "Muslim" problem is there too.

Only time will tell if the Gunman was concerned at all about this issue. What was the revolution that he wanted? Was it linked to this issue at all?

Creating a pluralistic society is not easy, it means compromise on many fronts, and Norway is just beginning down this road. Hopefully this craziness will result in open debate about the issues without more violence or backlashes against innocent people.

I've No God and I'm Proud Of It.

2011-07-23T09:58:00.000-07:00

Just found an excellent article about Humanists in Singapore who have banded together and formed a new Humanist association. Good for them I say. I recommend reading this article in the Jakarta Globe. My favorite part of the article is as follows below. It just makes me smile from the inside out!

"The humanists here include artists, government officials, students and entrepreneurs. The youngest member is 19 and the oldest, 65.

Most describe themselves as atheists or agnostics, though some eschew labels. Others are adamantly definitive. Take Nanyang Technological University student Eugene Tay, 24, who declares: 'I'm an atheist-agnostic secular humanist.'

Statistically, the proportion of people here with no religion has climbed steadily in the last 30 years - from 13 per cent in 1980 to 17 per cent last year"... "Land surveyor Loh Kwek Leong, 58, who learnt of the society through this newspaper last year, said he grew up in a typical Chinese household - one that was 'a bit Taoist, a bit Buddhist, a lot superstitious'.

As an adult, he found putting his faith in science better. He said: 'The questions I had about the world, about life and death - I found my answers in science, not religion.'"

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE HERE:

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/seasia/ive-no-god---and-am-proud-of-it/454750

We are all Africans

2011-07-09T07:07:00.000-07:00

During my recent visit to Uganda I was amazed at how many different languages exist in one relatively small country. During conversations with people I met at work or while out socializing I was told about four distinct Ugandan languages in the area around Jinja.

In Uganda the main language of commerce is English. I later discovered that there are over 40 languages spoken in Uganda. What an amazing culture!

I found that Mozambique was also quite diverse but due to my work arrangement I did not have the opportunity to meet as many indigenous people as I would have liked. Adding to this barrier was the fact that in Mozambique the main language of commerce is Portuguese. I have had no exposure to Portuguese and that made it very difficult for me to walk about meeting people like I had done in Uganda. I resigned myself to smiling and taking pictures, wherever I could.

This morning a friend sent me a link to a video where Richard Dawkins explains how it is that we all come from Africa. I find it kind of amazing to think about our heritage this way, especially since we are accustomed to thinking about ourselves as being so diverse. While our cultures may vary, our genetic heritage varies only a small amount. I hope you enjoy this short video where Professor Dawkins explains how it is that we know this. We are all African! All Photos © Jeffrey Olsson, 2010

Christian Bully in a Uniform

2011-07-02T15:52:00.000-07:00

Apparently complaining about the Sheriff in Polk County is not a good idea. When EllenBeth Wach complained about a separation of church and state issue involving the donation of a basketball hoop and net paid for by police department funds to a church. She mistakenly signed her name with "esquire" as a suffix. Sheriff Grady Judd seized this opportunity noting that Wach is not a lawyer and not entitled to use esquire after her name, to obtain a search warrant for her house. The police found a small amount of Marijuana during the search, the first of two felony charges. Wach was also arrested and charged with lewd and lascivious behavior after a child playing basketball next door heard her moaning through a bedroom window. Wachs was inside her own house.

Both charges are felonies and came about as a result of her initial complaint about separation of church and state.

Is it just me or is this Sheriff a complete ass?

Manitoba Schools Break Prayer Rules

2011-06-25T09:40:00.000-07:00

In Manitoba, it is not acceptable to turn a public school into a sectarian school by forcing all students to pray. And yet that is what seems to be happening.

I can only imaging how a Muslim, Jew, Atheist or Humanist student would feel if they were forced to bow before the christian god on a daily basis. The Winnipeg Free Press has run a wonderful article about this recently. It is posted below.

http://stage.www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/schools-ignore-prayer-rules-124478269.html?device=mobile

Children pray in public-school classrooms during school hours throughout Manitoba -- apparently in violation of provincial rules that the department of education says it will not enforce.

The Lord's Prayer is being read over the intercom by the principal or in classrooms by teachers.

Schools allow parent councils to organize petitions for religious exercises through the schools, and in a few cases, directly help organize them.

Parents receive yes-or-no ballots and are told they must fill in and sign forms if they do not want their children to pray in a supposedly secular school.

And there are even schools in which non-praying students are expected to stand quietly in their classrooms while their classmates recite the Lord's Prayer all around them.

Every one of these actions violates Manitoba's guidelines on religious exercises in secular public schools, says Dauphin lawyer and atheist Chris Tait.

But the province says its only recourse is to remind school divisions about guidelines -- after that, it's up to individuals to take their complaints to the Manitoba Human Rights Commission or the courts.

It was back in 1986 that Tait was suspended several times for refusing to stand during the reciting of the Lord's Prayer in his MacGregor Collegiate classroom. That led to a historic 1992 court case in which the Court of Queen's Bench struck down mandatory school prayer in Manitoba.

More than 20 Manitoba school divisions are violating the province's guidelines on religious exercises, said Tait. He filed Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applications to school divisions and provided the results to the Free Press.

"I think it's very deliberate that they ignore (the guidelines)," Tait said. "They're on a project to push through a religious agenda. They're getting people to co-operate that aren't of the Christian faith."

Education Minister Nancy Allan declined a request to be interviewed. An aide to the minister bumped inquiries to David Yeo, director of the education administration services branch.

The province reminded school divisions of the guidelines in a meeting last fall, Yeo said.

"The issue whether prayer should exist in public schools is a controversial one. The Public Schools Act permits it," Yeo said. "Ultimately, school boards are legally autonomous entities."

When the province gets a complaint, it reminds the school division about the guidelines, but beyond that, it's up to individuals to pursue complaints with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission or with the courts, Yeo said.

"School boards have the responsibility to implement it appropriately. The recourse is to the commission," Yeo said. "At the end of the day, it's the finders of fact which can issue a remedy. That's the commission or the court."

Tait said the province has always taken a hands-off approach to public school prayer.

"The department has a policy of not following through. They wouldn't tolerate it in other areas -- it's poor leadership from the province," he said.

It defies Statistics Canada's data on religious beliefs to have 100 per cent participation in a community, said Tait, who suspects some parents are being forced by peer pressure to have their children pray.

Tait's freedom-of-information request showed that at R.F. Morrison School in Seven Oaks School Division, Manitoba's most diverse school division, the Lord's Prayer was read over the intercom each morning. Students not taking part went to the library or stood quietly in the classroom among praying classmates.

Superintendent Brian O'Leary said he hadn't been aware of the practice at R.F. Morrison School until he signed off on the division's response to Tait's request.

After O'Leary consulted the province, he decided that Seven Oaks was in violation and ordered the school to change the way it conducts religious exercises.

"We took Chris Tait's advice," said O'Leary. "We're changing the procedure."

Now prayer takes place in the school library well before the school day starts.

"It's a Ukrainian bilingual school, that's part of it. It's been part of the character of that school for quite a while," O'Leary said.

With the exceptions of Morris and Sanford collegiates, almost every school in Red River Valley School Division prays each morning, usually in classrooms and often with all students participating.

At Oak Bluff Community School just southwest of the city, all staff and all but one student pray each morning in class, the division told Tait.

Red River Valley superintendent Kelly Barkman said he has no idea why Oak Bluff has almost 100 per cent participation. "I don't know -- you start getting into the morality of a community and religious beliefs" if the division starts asking questions, he said.

"If it's 100 per cent, they do it in the classroom," Barkman said.

Barkman said Starbuck School has 100 per cent participation in prayer, and that includes the school's hockey academy, whose students pray after coming off the ice at 10:30 a.m.

Tait said he didn't file a FIPPA request with all divisions because some, such as Winnipeg School Division, have followed the guidelines explicitly for years.

He found that Steinbach-based Hanover School Division, as overwhelmingly Christian an area as you'll find in Manitoba, is following the guidelines to the letter.

Hanover superintendent Ken Klassen advised Tait that Hanover children pray in areas other than the classroom prior to starting the official school day, when students sing O Canada and listen to announcements. Any children not taking part in prayers go to their classrooms under teacher supervision.

And in Steinbach and area, churches organize the parent petitions for religious exercises with no involvement by the schools.

nick.martin@freepress.mb.ca

Prayer regulations

Excerpts from the provincial guidelines for conducting religious exercises in public schools:

-- The Public Schools Act states... that public schools shall be non-sectarian. Religious exercises may only be conducted where a petition asking for such exercises (signed by the parents/guardians of 75 per cent of the students when a school has fewer than 80 students, or by the parents/guardians of at least 60 students in schools that have an enrolment of 80 or more students) is presented to the board.

-- The guidelines may be shared with parents/guardians... to explain the process necessary for implementation of religious exercises.

-- School boards should not, however, take any action that would be seen as initiating or prompting implementation of religious exercises. The process must be grassroots-driven, with parents/guardians taking the initiative to have religious exercises implemented. Schools should play no role in the petition process, and act on a petition only when so advised by the school board.

-- Only those children whose parents/guardians have signed the petition may participate. It must be an opt-in process.

-- Schools should not send out ballots to parents/guardians to record whether or not they wish their children to participate in religious exercises.

-- Petitions respecting religious exercises must be received by the school board each school year, and be on a school-by-school basis.

-- The content of any religious exercise must be defined by those petitioning for it. It is conceivable that parents of a variety of faith groups could petition for their own religious exercises.

-- Teachers and other staff are not compelled to conduct or supervise religious exercises. School boards shall not, as part of the hiring or promotion process, inquire of applicants/candidates as to their willingness to participate in, conduct, or supervise religious exercises.

-- The exercises are not to be held during regular instructional time.

-- It is recommended that those participating in religious exercises congregate in a common area (gym, multi-purpose room, empty classroom, etc.) proceed with the exercises, and then rejoin their classmates prior to class.

---- Source: Manitoba Department of Education's administrative handbook for schools

Around Manitoba

Some ways in which school prayer is conducted in Manitoba public schools:

Turtle River School Division: Alonsa and Laurier schools hold prayer in classrooms.

River East Transcona S.D.: Donwood Elementary parent advisory council gets parent signatures at school events. Radisson and Salisbury Morse schools allow ballots to be dropped off at the school. Donwood allows volunteers leading prayers to be trained in the school. École Centrale has petitions at school functions. Parents are told: "Religious exercises will be based on the Christian faith and will consist of the following: the Lord's Prayer as it appears in Matthew 6:9-13 of the Holy Bible (New International Version).

Park West S.D.: Inglis School has all students pray in the gym.

Lakeshore S.D.: Churches and religion instructors organize petitions in Fisher Branch Early Years School. Ballots are distributed that tell parents they're required to give their child's name and indicate yes or no.

Prairie Spirit S.D.: École Somerset School listens to the Lord's Prayer over the intercom. At Ste. Marie School, the school gathers to pray in one classroom at 8:55 a.m., and religion is taught two Wednesday afternoons monthly for 45-minute sessions; the parent advisory council gives parents a ballot with a yes or no line. Westmount School Complex prays at 9 a.m., and says, "Students who do not participate stand quietly in the room among their peers. The vast majority of students participate."

Prairie Rose S.D.: Parents at Roland Elementary receive a yes or no ballot.

Pine Creek S.D.: at Plumas School, the student body says the Lord's Prayer in a classroom.

Swan Valley S.D.: At Minitonas Early Years School, religious exercises are held in the classroom. Parents must inform the division if they want their child to be elsewhere at that time. Sunrise S.D.: Beausejour Early Years School parent advisory council sends a form using the school's address and Sunrise email. At Hazelridge School, a letter on school letterhead says the parent advisory council wants prayer, and has yes or no checkoffs.

Red River Valley S.D.: the Domain School principal leads all staff and students in the Lord's Prayer in a classroom. At École St. Malo School, and Sanford's J.A. Cuddy School, all students pray in the classroom, led by teachers. All students and staff say the Lord's Prayer at Lowe Farm School and it is read over the intercom. At Rosenort School, all students and staff take part, and the prayer is read over the intercom.

---- Source: school divisions' responses to freedom of information requests from Dauphin atheist Chris Tait.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition June 24, 2011 B1

Anti Abortionists Target School Children.

2011-06-14T05:35:00.000-07:00

Some times it astounds me how ignorant people can really be. There is a group of anti-abortionists in Ontario who are targeting young school children with graphic pictures of what they call the "aftermath" of abortions. I don't know about you, but I do not want these people targeting my children or grandchildren. Frankly, they have found that no one at university campuses will listen to their grisly lies so they have chosen to take their campaign to grade school.

What is most pathetic about this group is the support that they have from many mainstream churches. While they mainly get their funding from conservative christians fundies, there are many in the mainstream who agree with them, that abortion is a sin.

Macleans reports, " Our philosophy is if someone is old enough to have an abortion, they’re old enough to see the aftermath of an abortion,” Stephanie Gray, executive director of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, told the National Post. “Many of these young people are having abortions because they haven’t seen what an abortion looks like.”

You can read more about the Canadian Centre fro Bio-Ethical Reform here:
http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/

If there is a better ethic to be found, with regard to abortion, I am sure they are not going to find it at a high school.

If you are interested in hearing the other side of the story, and if you believe in standing up for the rights of Canadian women, check out this website: http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/membership.html

Read the Macleans story here: http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2011/06/13/graphic-anti-abortion-displays-have-no-place-outside-high-schools/

Emboldened by Stockwell Day, social conservatives are on the march: http://www.familyaction.org/issues/emboldened-stockwell-day-social-conservatives-are-march

On Death and Dying

2011-06-05T08:06:00.001-07:00

On Death and Dying
I just read a really good article about death and the process of dying on the CBC website: http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/features/a-good-death/ There is also an excellent documentary about euthanasia called How To Die In Oregon: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1715802/

I have no particular reason to be interested in this topic except that I am a humanist and feel strongly that we need to be able to choose our own end of life. Hopefully that is a long way off for me. In Canada, being able to make this choice can be hit and miss depending on which doctor or hospital you get. You certainly cannot "openly" or legally obtain a final solution in a doctor supervised facility.

Canadian laws currently do not allow euthanasia as a choice for those who are terminally ill. If you require a lot of pain medicine as result of your condition and are eventually put on morphine to suppress the pain, there are doctors that will politely explain how the dose makes the poison and when the pain becomes intolerable some doctors will allow the patient to overdose on the morphine rather than suffer. A truly kind thing to do. But this option is generally not talked about openly except with the family right near the end.

There are cases in my recollection where family members asked me if it was a "sin" to overprescribe morphine. My response at the time was "she/he is definitely terminal, I cannot see why god would want them to suffer any longer", and I usually added, "if this illness had afflicted them a hundred years ago, your aunt/uncle/mom/dad would have died from this condition many months ago, why would God care if they die in peace now? Let them have the peace they need."

Today as an atheist I still think much the same way about euthanasia; we greatly extend human life using science and medicine and then chew our fingernails at the thought of shortening life by a few days or weeks in order to avoid terminal pain. It's time for Canada to step up and tackle this issue in a formal way, our citizens deserve better.

In my former life as an Anglican clergyman I was openly in favor letting people choose their own end of life exit strategy. I was vocal about this with other Anglican clergy and not one one twisted eyebrow or uneasy look occurred when I talked about this issue. To me it seems that most of protestant Christendom is not terribly concerned with fighting against end of life solutions so long as personal choice/consent and a terminal diagnosis are preconditions to a final decision. Outside of the mainstream, there are vocal groups, comprised of Catholic clergy and some ultraconservative Protestants. Sadly, they seem to have our Prime Ministers ear and have support within the conservative caucus.

In the province of Quebec, the College of Physicians has opened the debate over euthanasia and propose that it be included as part of the appropriate care in certain circumstances. Regardless of the course that Quebec takes, they face the fact that they cannot legally perform such procedures in Canada. To do so would be in direct contravention of The Criminal Code of Canada section 241(b) which states, “Every one who ….(b) aids or abets a person to commit suicide, whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years”

It seems that Canada has a long way to go in making progrevss on end of life care, I would love to hear your comments and concerns.

Christopher Hitchens Losing His voice

2011-05-11T08:57:00.000-07:00

Christopher Hitchens has lost the ability to speak due to esophageal cancer, news that makes many of us sad. I do not know him personally nor have I had the chance to meet him, but just the same I feel like I have lost a good friend. I sincerely hope that doctors can figure out a way to beat down the cancer that has silenced this wonderful man. I have read every book that Hitchens has published and have seen many videos of him giving lectures or winning debates. This is a man who took on the establishment with great vitality and clarity while enjoying every moment of the fight. Is it selfish of me to wish that "Hitch" will never stop writing?

Read his latest column in Vanity Fair here: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/06/christopher-hitchens-unspoken-truths-201106?currentPage=1

Read the news story in CBC Here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/things-that-go-pop-blog/2011/05/christopher-hitchens-a-fading-voice.html

Should there be atheist chaplains in the military?

2011-05-05T12:09:00.001-07:00

I am not in the military, but a series of articles caught my eye last week. So far I have read over 20 news articles and blogs reporting or questioning the need for a Humanist Chaplaincy in the US military but have yet to see one written by a secular humanist or an atheist. (Update, found one it's hyper linked below) This is why I thought it would be interesting to write something that tells why I would want a humanist chaplain.

Before I discuss the reasons why I would like a chaplain I would like to discuss (briefly) some of the problems I have seen with the arguments made for and against this issue, by popular writers. 1. As already mentioned the arguments for and against this issue are not being made by those who are requesting this service in new articles and blogs.

2. Virtually every article I have read treats atheism as 'just another' faith. There are many forms of atheism, many shades of grey. There are also many secular ways of looking at the world; explicit atheism, implicit atheism, humanism, secular humanism, agnosticism (and its variants), scientism and more quickly come to mind as I write this. I currently know of no Christian minister who is academically prepared to have a deep and meaningful conversation with someone who holds these beliefs.

3. Every article I have read has made the comment that atheists have "spiritual needs" along with emotional needs, an assumption that is quite annoying and misses the point completely. In The Washington Post, Hirschfield goes so far as to say "the presence of secular or atheist chaplains would also force secularists and atheists to be a bit more candid about the fact that theirs is every bit as much a faith, as are the belief systems of the believers with whom they serve." I find it amazing that the mere presence of a counselor who is not a believer in any faith based tradition proves the point that non belief is a faith itself. The logic is so contorted it makes my head hurt. Faith is faith. Non belief is not faith. I do not need faith to believe Jesus was only a man who died and is still buried somewhere. If you believe he rose again to save mankind you require faith to know it.

4. Having a person to counsel you in a time of need, or bring focus to a group of people at a time of celebration does not “give a voice” to atheists in the military, it merely serves them. Having a humanist chaplain does not make it a religious movement within the military. In The New York Times Dao states, “groups representing atheists and secular humanists are pushing for the appointment of one of their own to the chaplaincy, hoping to give voice to what they say is a large — and largely underground — population of nonbelievers in the military.” This comment misses the point completely. Having a military chaplain is not about conscripting humanists or atheists; it is about serving the needs of those who are humanistic or atheistic in their beliefs.

Why would I like a Humanist Chaplain?
1. Sometimes I need someone to talk to when I am lonely, someone who understands how I think, a friend and a confidant.
2. It can be really tough to open up to someone, even if they have good intentions when you know they are ‘struggling’ to understand what you believe or think.For me a humanist chaplain would solve this problem.

3. If I am sick or injured, I do not need or want to debate about God or my ‘lack of’ salvation from my hospital bed. (This is a common complaint from the many humanists I know and the main reason we have put humanist contacts on the Hospital chaplaincy lists at the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority.)

4. When I die, my family wants someone who will respect their humanistic beliefs when performing a memorial service. I have seen many examples where a well intentioned minister “assumes” everyone wants to hear a rousing sermon about “our hope in heaven” and he quickly forgets to focus on the deceased and the family. The humanist funeral service is one of the most beautiful services I have ever experienced, where the focus is on our memory of the deceased, their life experiences, our love for their family and sharing.

5. A Humanist Chaplain is someone who is usually well versed in psychology and comes armed with various strategies used to deal with life’s problems without being judgmental about my world view. This is where the biggest rub between believers and nonbelievers exists. How can I expect to get good counsel from a conservative or evangelical pastor who thinks I am going to hell because I don’t believe Jesus was a God or who thinks that acceptance and belief in a particular deity is the best remedy to a problem I may be experiencing?

6. When my children get married I know at least one of them wants a humanistic ceremony. There is no need to ask for a blessing from God in her view. She, and her husband to be, understands the beauty of two people pledging their lives to each other. If we ask a Christian minister to do the ceremony there is no opting out of the “God bits”. I used to be an Anglican Priest and can assure you I was not allowed any leeway for “god removal” modifications to the prayer book and the services within it.

7. I spent a good deal of time trying to decide if I should “come out” about my lack of faith before I left the priesthood. When I asked three different Anglican clergymen questions related to my own unbelief and how to deal with it, one of them prescribed “more bible study” another wanted me to “pray more” and the third warned me about hell and attempted to make me feel guilty. To this day I still think of them as friends but I know they were not prepared to talk about any ideas that passed the threshold of faith. Their own faith disabled them, biased them away from understanding any of the ideas presented by some of the greatest philosophers the world has ever known. It was not until I finally found a secular counselor that I was able to just plainly state that I just don’t believe any more. He passed no judgment but instead offered strategies (including keeping it a secret and staying in church if I wanted) so that I could get my life in order.

Perhaps now you can see why I do not refer to the humanist chaplaincy as "spiritual".

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/27atheists.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/for-gods-sake/post/should-atheist-chaplains-serve-the-military/2011/05/04/AF5L0jqF_blog.html

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/article/20110430/LIFESTYLE/104300303

http://www.christianpost.com/news/should-atheists-be-chaplains-in-military-nae-thinks-not-50013/

http://www.onislam.net/english/news/americas/452045-atheist-chaplains-for-us-troops.html

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/969-faith-and-morals/7289-military-atheists-want-chaplains

Denialism - How you can deny anything!

2011-04-27T14:26:00.000-07:00

I honestly do not care where President Barack Hussein Obama II was born. It's his political platform that is interesting to me, including his track record as a president. I am not an American and frankly I could care less if 'mericans were to elect a president born in another country regardless of their election laws. What does interest me is the manner in which people deny facts even when they are placed right in front of them.

Obama was most certainly born in the United States of America on August 4th 1961, at 7:24 PM. End of story.

Barack Obama has always claimed he is an American and states very clearly that he is a Christian. Born in Hawaii and educated in Indonesia, Hawaii, Los Angeles, New York and Cambridge (Harvard), he has a long, traceable history that includes where he has worked, his role as a politician, where he has lived and more. And still, he has been forced to prove that he is an authentic American over and over again to satisfy deniers. Anyone who cares (including me) has already seen his live birth record, his long form birth record, the birth notice that was originally published in an American newspaper announcing his birth, family photos of him growing up in Honolulu and more. Things we would never care (or expect) to see from any other president. All of this because of "Birthers", people who challenge where Obama was born and the legitimacy of President Obama's claim to the oval office.

But this little piece isn't about the veracity of the "Birthers" claims; it’s about denialism in general. It’s about the all too human ability to insulate oneself from reality in spite of mounds of evidence to the contrary.

Choose any particular belief that you may have; the earth is round, man has landed on the moon, evolution is a proven theory, climate is changing, the earth goes around the sun or that, the holocaust happened and you can easily find someone who will deny that it is/was true. Do a Google search for: “Flat earth society”, “Moon landing hoax”, “Evolution not true”, “Climate change Hoax”, “Heliocentric hoax” or “Holocaust Hoax” and you will get the point very quickly.

There are many forms of denialism, perhaps as many as there are things to deny, but denial does have patterns that are discernable, predictable and surprisingly consistent.

Wikipedia defines denialism as "choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth: "[it] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event"

What's even more interesting is how denialism works when employed in a systematic way. Yes, people actually have "how to deny something" down to an art. It's the art of the polemic. That’s what happens when you mix denialism with politics.

Here is how you can become a denier too:

1. First things first, you need to create a conspiracy theory. Some people come by this honestly, they don't necessarily do it on purpose. Someone must have been the first to come up with the idea that Barrack Obama isn't an American, or that he is a Muslim pretending to be a Christian. (There are numerous reasons why this conspiracy theory is important to the Birthers movement, foremost is the idea that Obama's Presidency is illegitimate.)

I do find it odd that his track record as a politician, which is readily accessible and can easily be debated, is not chosen as a point of attack instead. It seems that deniers assume the rest of their ideas about what a president should be will naturally fall into place once Obama has been thoroughly discredited. “Once people see that Obama is a Muslim, they are bound to agree with the rest of what we think.”

2. Cherry pick some data that supports your ideas even if it is out of context or based on an illogical assertion. The internet and the news are full of these ideas. Look for creative ideas like Obama visiting a mosque, or standing with "middle east looking" people in a photo (all of which have other rational explanations, since he IS a politician.) Create colorful stories around each of those pieces of evidence.

3) If you can find a false expert (or create one) that helps too! Don’t forget some people are perfectly willing to tell a boldface lie in order to score political points. Other potential candidates are those who are genuinely mislead or gullible and who just happen to be in a position of authority or respect in society. Rock stars and preachers work well as false experts because of the "glow effect”, thanks to the in group bias that comes from their fans or those who hold similar beliefs.

To date, those who have denied Barack Obama's legitimacy include, Richard Shelby, Roy Blunt, Jean Schmidt, Nathan Deal, Sarah Palin, Ken Buck, Tracey Mann, David Vitter, Newt Gingrich, Andy Martin, Mike Huckabee, Michelle Bachman and surprisingly, Donald Trump. When I heard Donald Trump was on board I knew it was going to get interesting, not because he has any expertise on this matter at all, but because people like him so much.

4) After the other party starts to provide evidence showing your conspiracy theory is false, you simply move the goal post. The objective of the moving goal post is to "Dismiss evidence presented in response to a specific claim by continually demanding some other (often unfulfillable) piece of evidence." First they asked for a live birth record, next was the long for record, but that was not enough, “they were all fakes” etc.

5) Use other logical fallacies to throw them completely off track:
-Use False Analogies - "He is an illegitimate president therefore he must also have an ulterior "Muslim" agenda.
-Appeal to consequences rather than the truth - This type of argument concludes that something is either true or false based on the consequences rather than on the reality of truthfulness. "If Barrack Obama is really a legitimate president, it means Al Qaeda is not trying to take over our country."

-Attack the Straw Man - First you build a false "caricature" of a person or concept and then attack it showing how the person or idea could never have worked in the first place. This approach has been used on everything from evolution to Obama.

-Use a “Red Herring” argument - wave a red flag, cause a distraction, just about anything will do, so long as it distracts listeners long enough to forget that you have no evidence what-so-ever.

-Use an ad hominem attack, yes, attack the person who says you are wrong. As soon as the other person tries to introduce new or reliable evidence, claim that they are biased. Or ask who funded their study and attack that group. Make the claim that they are biased, self serving or corrupt, but whatever you do, do not let the introduction of new and reliable evidence go unchallenged. Just by asking who funded a study you can create huge amounts of doubt in the minds of those who are not acquainted with the subject at hand.

6) Repeat your claims endlessly, through as many venues as possible.

And that’s just about it! You too can successfully become a denier!

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13212230

Humbling and Beautiful

2011-04-11T18:09:00.000-07:00

This afternoon a friend dropped by my desk to show me a copy of a book he had just finished reading. It was a copy of "The Greatest Show On Earth" by Richard Dawkins. He seemed very pleased with the book and was excited that Dawkins had explained the evidence for evolution so well. Frankly so was I, having just finished reading it myself. When I arrived home I found myself flipping through the chapters again and looking at the all of the images.

That's when it dawned on me to search online for the "Hillis Plot" found on page 329 of the hardcover version of the book. The Hillis Plot truly is a thing of beauty, and when correctly understood it is truly humbling. To find "humans" on the plot is to realize how small and insignificant we are in number when compared to the huge amounts of life that has evolved on earth.

In his book Dawkins states:
"Detailed DNA comparisons will fill in all the gaps in our knowledge about the actual evolutionary relatedness of every species to every other: we shall know, with complete certainty, the entire family tree of all living creatures. Goodness knows how we’ll plot it; it won’t fit on any practical-sized sheet of paper.
The largest-scale attempt in that direction so far has been made by a group associated with David Hillis, brother of Danny Hillis who pioneered one of the first supercomputers. The Hillis plot makes the tree diagram more compact by wrapping it around in a circle. You can’t see the gap, where the two ends almost meet, but it lies between the ‘bacteria’ and the ‘archaea’. … The Hillis circular plot is the same, except that it has three thousand species. Their names appear around the outside edge of the circle above, far too small to read — though Homo sapiens is helpfully marked ‘You are here’. You can get an idea of how sparse a sampling of the tree even this huge plot is when I tell you that the closest relatives of humans that it can fit in the circle are rats and mice. The mammals had to be stripped down drastically, in order to fit in all the other branches of the tree to the same depth. Just imagine trying to plot a similar tree with ten million species in stead of the three thousand included here. And ten million is not the most extravagant estimate of the number of surviving species."

Download the PDF version of the Hillis Plot from the University of Texas but look out it is a big file! Here:http://www.zo.utexas.edu/faculty/antisense/downloadfilesToL.html

Here is another great Tree of Life tattoo! This one is courtesy of Monica Quast, who is a Ph.D. student at the University of Campinas, Brazil, working on bivalve phylogeography. The organisms depicted on this version are (going clockwise): a cyanobacterium, a foraminiferan, 3 diatoms, an oak leaf and acorn, a Spirogyra cell, a red cage fungus, a stauromedusa, a nautilus, a tardigrade, an ophiuroid, and a badger. Monica's tattoo is based on the Tree of Life we used in Life: The Science of Biology (Sinauer Associates and W. H. Freeman; see the last image, below for more information).

Sources: http://www.zo.utexas.edu/faculty/antisense/downloadfilesToL.html

Religious Schools Can Be Poisonous For Our Kids

2011-04-06T07:20:00.001-07:00

Mississauga Ontario seems like it should be a progressive enough town for people who are homosexual to be able to go about their lives without worrying to much about harassment and bullying. The problem is that in Ontario, Canada they have religious schooling that is tax payer funded. If one of my children were to come out of the closet, St Joseph Catholic Secondary School, is the last place I would want them to be.

According to Xtra.ca, a group of gay students attempted to form a Gay Straight Alliance club and were denied by school administrators. The response from the school board stated "students are welcome to form a club that promotes safety, inclusivity and diversity, as long as it's not gay-specific and doesn't have the word "gay" in its name".

I guess a "Gay Safety Club" is out of the question at a school where gay bullying is out of control. Students at the school have indicated that the recent problems with bullying is evidence that they need permission to form a club promoting awareness, safety and inclusiveness. By forming an alliance with other straight kids within the school system they can discuss and deal with issues like bullying, acceptance and inclusiveness in a safe, controlled atmosphere.

One of the main reasons why people send their children to a school for religious education is to instill values that are not generally available in the rest of the public school system. But what values are these children are being taught? According to the the Catholic Church "Pastoral Guidelines to Assist Students of Same-Sex Orientation" being gay is not a valid orientation. It is considered a "sin and immoral". Students are taught that they are somehow disordered if they are anything but straight.

How can any school expect to control the problem of bullying at the same time they are publishing false information about a minority group of students in their care.

Faith is the problem.

The only reason why these school systems accept that homosexuality is a sin, immoral, disordered, unhealthy and generally unacceptable as a viable lifestyle is because they have accepted, on faith, the writings of St. Paul and other old testament scriptures like Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

What's worse is that administrators and the Council of Bishops know that homosexuals are more likely to be bullied and cite this fact in their pastoral care guidelines on page 9. Sadly, they have not figured out that the solution to the problem of bullying is to deal with the bullies first. Merely informing bullies that bullying is unacceptable does not work. There is clearly a need for administrators and students to work together to show full and complete acceptance of these kids instead of hiding behind the defense that homosexuality is a mortal sin and deserving of an eternity in hell or a condition that needs correction. These kids do not deserve what they are getting from this taxpayer funded institution.

Faith has clearly steered this school in the wrong direction. Its to bad that they just won't listen to the rest of society and learn to be kind.

Read the Xtra.ca news article here: http://www.xtra.ca/public/Toronto/Mississauga_students_report_bullying_over_St_Joes_GSA_fight-9963.aspx

What Fear of Death Does for Me.

2011-03-31T13:42:00.001-07:00

A recent study completed by researchers at the University of British Columbia shows that when test subjects are asked to imagine their own death they are significantly more likely to agree with the concepts of intelligent design as opposed to evolution. One of the conclusions of the study is that fear of death or "Death Anxiety" prompts people to accept ideas like intelligent design (a concept associated with the idea of a creator and the afterlife) much more readily.

I find it interesting to note that the reverse effect happened during the fourth study, in which a new condition was introduced where people were given passages from Carl Sagan, a scientist and naturalist, to read after thinking about death, causing them to be significantly more likely to choose evolution. PHYSORG.com reports, "The researchers say these findings indicate a possible means of encouraging students to accept evolution and reject intelligent design. "Natural science students have been taught to view evolutionary theory as compatible with the desire to find a greater sense of meaning in life," says Tracy. "Presumably, they already attain a sense of existential meaning from evolution."

Personally, I find that I think about the meaning of life a lot. Every day. And I find the concept of evolution absolutely fascinating.

Knowledge of the process of evolution compels me to think about the meaning of life because we have all come to be who we are through it. Every aspect of being human is linked to the way in which atoms and molecules bind together, how those molecular bonds can replicate themselves, how the process of replication coupled with various selective processes can lead to amazingly complex ecosystems full of living creatures, including you and I.

We are so wonderfully complex and yet we are so fragile. We can't just remove ourselves from our ecosystem. Life on this planet is integral to us. We need each other and our ecosystem to survive. It would be a mistake to derive a meaning of life that is separate from every living thing around us. And yet that is exactly what we have tried to do so many times in the past as we have placed ourselves on a pedestal next to a god. We constantly make the claim that we have dominion over the earth when in reality we are still subject to microbes very similar to the ones that we evolved from.

We see death everywhere around us, can we learn from it? Can we make a purpose for ourselves that does not include the destruction of our own life support systems?

To me a "life full of meaning" is something I have to make for myself. I can't go out and buy it. Even though there may be people lined up to sell it to me in the form of religion or spirituality.

This is my spirituality: Learn, think, love, exist.

Read about the study here: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-death-anxiety-prompts-people-intelligent.html

Religion may become extinct in nine nations, study says

2011-03-22T06:14:00.001-07:00

By JASON PALMER - BBC NEWS WEBSITE

Tuesday, 22 March 2011 at 5:01 AM

A study using census data from nine countries shows that religion there is set for extinction, say researchers.

The study found a steady rise in those claiming no religious affiliation.

The team's mathematical model attempts to account for the interplay between the number of religious respondents and the social motives behind being one.

The result, reported at the American Physical Society meeting in Dallas, US, indicates that religion will all but die out altogether in those countries.

Nonlinear dynamics is invoked to explain a wide range of physical phenomena in which a number of factors play a part.

One of the team, Daniel Abrams of Northwestern University, put forth a similar model in 2003 to put a numerical basis behind the decline of lesser-spoken world languages.

At its heart is the competition between speakers of different languages, and the "utility" of speaking one instead of another.

"The idea is pretty simple," said Richard Wiener of the Research Corporation for Science Advancement.

"It posits that social groups that have more members are going to be more attractive to join, and it posits that social groups have a social status or utility.

"For example in languages, there can be greater utility or status in speaking Spanish instead of [the dying language] Quechuan in Peru, and similarly there's some kind of status or utility in being a member of a religion or not."

The team took census data stretching back as far as a century from countries in which the census queried religious affiliation: Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland.

"In a large number of modern secular democracies, there's been a trend that folk are identifying themselves as non-affiliated with religion; in the Netherlands the number was 40%, and the highest we saw was in the Czech Republic, where the number was 60%," Dr Wiener said.

The team then applied their nonlinear dynamics model, adjusting parameters for the relative social and utilitarian merits of membership of the "non-religious" category.

They found, in a study published online, that those parameters were similar across all the countries studied, suggesting that similar behaviour drives the mathematics in all of them.

And in all the countries, the indications were that religion was headed toward extinction.

Continue reading this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811197

What Would it Take for Me to Change My Mind

2011-03-17T07:36:00.000-07:00

Last Friday I received a phone call from a sweet lady who used to be one of my parishioners, asking me to reconsider my agnostic/atheistic views and return to Christianity. She told me she had been praying for me for over two weeks, "Jesus is crazy about you Jeffrey", she said. I was polite, thanked her for her concern, and wished her a nice day before we both said goodbye. Christians like her can make you think about what you believe; somehow I think it’s their earnest certainty that throws you for a loop. So I thought about what she said for a moment or two and the following is what came to mind:

The Problem of God:
If I were ever to consider that the historical Jesus was more than just another man who is "crazy for me", I would first have to work out if it is possible that there is a God at all. There are so many gods and these "revealed" entities are so varied that I cannot understand how anyone would be able to say, "most people believe in God" when none of them agree on any of the details. So what (or who) is God? There seems to be no consensus in this world. The idea that god has revealed himself "once and for all mankind" is patently absurd.

Supernatural?
If any god was to work in the world as we know it today we would have to assume that it would be through supernatural events (or else he isn't a god, right?). The problem is that it is physically impossible to prove a supernatural event has ever occurred. This well known problem was dealt with by David Hume who, in the 1750's, explained that any suspension of the laws of nature (i.e., physics, time, space) would need to be proven by those very same laws of nature to be seen as true. True "miracles" outside of the laws of nature are not provable for that reason.

If a new Volvo was to show up in my driveway on my birthday I would not ask how God did it, but would ask my wife where she got the money or wonder who stole the car and left it in front of my place. If I found my wallet floating in air above my desk I would feel compelled to ask where James Randi is long before I ever assumed it was God who was holding it up.

If you earnestly believe you have seen a miracle happen only your testimony remains after the event, and frankly it is far more likely that someone would lie to us or be incorrect about what they saw than it is for a true miracle to have occurred. Last year, during an interview on CJOB radio, I commented that if God were to poke his nose through the clouds to see us, I would be the first one up there "with a tape measure in hand, taking a look around". I meant it.

Revelation?
If God was to show up we should be suspicious of a trick. Why? We wouldn't be the first ones to have been tricked about the existence of any particular god. While I was thinking about this I took a look at the list of Gods on the internet and stopped reading at #2000 even though the list went on for pages more. If there is ONE god, everyone else who believes in the other gods has been tricked. Frankly I don’t believe in any of them for that reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities

Through out history people have been tricked, threatened, beaten, burned, jailed and shunned because they were caught earnestly believing in the wrong God. Where was the real God then? The only one who could have corrected each of those situations would be the real God. He could have gone on record, revealed himself and prevented those innocents from dyeing. Apparently he was either absent or didn't care or didn't know.

Faith?
There are many ways to "know". Experience, rationalism, empiricism, the scientific method, tenacious old beliefs, authority and faith are just a few of the ways we know what we know. If I were to choose a god off of that massive list how could I ever know which one is the right one? Miracles cannot be proven empirically, faith doesn't work, God cannot be measured, and God cannot be seen. It seems that if a God was to 'really' exist its first task would be to clean this mess up so we humble little humans could properly know who is in charge.

Finally, why is it so important that we believe? Seriously, what’s up with that? If God really is supernatural, and has purposely hidden himself away, why do we die and burn eternally if we don’t believe? The whole idea of heaven and hell is clearly made up by men whose only concern is to force the hand of those who entertain doubt.

A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. - Arthur C. Clarke

Why Are Atheists so Angry?

2011-03-11T06:52:00.000-08:00

I recently read WHY ARE ATHEISTS SO ANGRY, (The link is below) in the Huffington Post. I must say that Rabbi David Wolpe is an excellent writer, even if I do not agree with everything he says. Sadly, the Rabbi attempts to answer the question for all atheists without considering why WE feel we should be angry. He is a very smart man, but he has left so much out of his article. I feel must give him credit for points one and two (below), where he summarizes these ideas rather well. If you ever read this Rabbi Wolpe, know that you have my respect.

Rabbi Wolpe States:

"1. Atheists genuinely resent the evil that religion has done. No one can seriously deny that religion has been guilty of wickedness in this world and has provided cover for wickedness. I refer not only to abusers who hide under the cloak of clergy, but religious persecutions, the stifling of speech and dissent, the mistreatment of women -- the crimes are legion. While as a believer I think there is much more to be said about this topic, it is certainly reasonable for people to be angry at religion for its abuses, particularly people who have themselves been victims.

2. They are convinced that religion is a fairy tale made up of whole cloth that impedes science/progress/rational thought. No avalanche of counterexamples, from noted scientists who are believers to the way in which the scientific method has flourished in the monotheistic west (as opposed to say, the non-monotheistic eastern societies) will serve to dissuade. That which is understood to have happened to Galileo is all, apparently, one needs to know."

It is on point three that Rabbi Wolpe and I part ways and I fall into disagreement. He states: "There is an arrogant unwillingness to engage with religion's serious thinkers. Too many atheists assume that a couple of insults will substitute for argument. They suffer from the incredulity of those who cannot believe anyone would disagree."

In fact, atheists DO attempt to engage with religions most serious thinkers, they ask question like "How do you really know?", "How can I know?" or how do you reconcile what is happening in the world right now with the idea that there is (as you state) a loving and caring creator?" There is also a genuine sense of wonder within the atheist and agnostic communities that I have been a part of. These are wonderful people, humble people, just like everyone else. We are a minority and we do suffer various forms of discrimination at work and in our social lives and I think this may be where some of the anger the Rabbi speaks of may come from. .

How do I know atheists ask these question? Because I was in the clergy in the Anglican Church of Canada for over ten years, and atheists, agnostics, even people from other religious backgrounds asked me these questions. Never once did I feel that they came to me in an arrogant fashion. I mean think about it, an atheists walks into a church listens to the sermon and then asks the clergyman questions in the lobby. Do you think he would be loud, arrogant, condescending, or rude? That’s just not how it works in Canada. Sorry Rabbi.

And what did I give these inquisitive "seekers" for answers? "I just know.", "I just feel it.", "It comes from the gut.", or "God has a plan and his ways are mysterious to us, but he loves you." I also pointed them to the universe and everything in it to see "evidence" of God's manifest creative abilities or to arguments about the complexity of DNA or the human mind as evidence of a creator, I remember chatting with an atheist about the uniform laws of nature (at a curling rink of all places) and even how God pursues us through his holy spirit, if only we would pray. The first cause (who made the big bang) argument was also quite popular, with me. I thought hard about how we should know god is really there, but deep down I knew that without more than faith we would never really know. None of us would. And the use of faith as a means of knowledge is a flawed method, that leaves us open to manipulation. Just look at what those who are being manipulated via faith end up doing. There is ample evidence that faith just does not work for everyone's good.

The answers I gave those people were (seriously) some of the best answers that religion has to give when a person who is genuinely curious asks for proof. Why? Because real proof, the kind you can hang your hat on simply does not exist. Religion is a matter for personal opinion, that’s why none of the worlds religions can agree on who God is. If God really showed up today opinions would change upon sight of her, faith would not be necessary. We would all be converts and the world with a God in it would have to be a much different place than it is today.

My personal experience is this: To be an atheist is to also be an agnostic. I live my life atheistically. I can never really know if there was first "cause" that started everything 14 billion years ago. I am a person who just doesn't think the old bible or Koran stories are true. I don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead. (After all they found his tomb including his families bones and his sarcophagus didn't they? link below). This is not a strict denial of everything religion has to offer. Nor does it mean that atheists do not attend church, synagogue, temple, or the shrine. Keeping peace in our families is very important to us. I find that the answers that seem so assuring to others just don’t cut it for us. We even ask polite questions in the lobby, and smile politely when we hear the answers.

I am sorry Rabbi, there is nothing arrogant about that.

Read Rabbi Wolpe's full article in the Huffington post here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-david-wolpe/why-are-atheists-so-angry_b_833662.html?ref=email_share

Visit the Jesus Family Tomb Website here:
http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/

Anti Abortion Group Sues Carleton University Over Arrests

2011-03-07T13:14:00.000-08:00

An anti-abortion student group at Carleton University calling themselves Carleton Lifeline has decided to sue the University after they were removed from campus for protesting abortion. They carried large signs with pictures of aborted foetuses and other graphic images as they marched about in a high traffic square in the centre of campus. According to a number of newspapers, including the Ottawa Citizen, Vancouver Sun, and the National Post, the University had previously offered space to the student protesters in other locations on the campus and even let them set up a table in where they could reach out to students and direct them to their graphic displays of aborted foetuses that would have been set up in Porter Hall, not far away.

The National Post reports “There are two issues here,” said Albertos Polizogopoulos, the Ottawa lawyer representing the students. “This is clearly a case of censorship by suppressing freedom of expression. And the university is practising discrimination by taking sides on a political issue", “When a school takes sides like this, they are no longer providing education but practising indoctrination."

Frankly, it's quite odd to hear a group of religious zealots accuse a Canadian University of indoctrinating their students. Carleton University is a school that allows diverse opinion on any number of topics. The issue at hand is not whether the student group was allowed to state their opinion on campus, (they were), but that they did not use or stay in the space that was provided to them by the university. I have personally spent a number of days "tabling" at Universities in order to get the message about humanism out to students and have never felt stifled or discriminated against by any University. I remember one year where our table was at the very end of the line next to a credit card company display. It was not the best spot to be and we just had to make due. We got a much better table the next year. We could not simply move our table anywhere we wanted to, "willy nilly" as the University had clearly defined rules about where tabling could occur that respected fire codes, building licences, student traffic (which can be very heavy during period breaks) and more.

The lawyer representing the students has chosen to confuse the issue of free speech with the rights of the university to direct activities according to it's own business plan. Student groups and professors are, and have always been, allowed academic freedom at Carleton. They are expected understand that they share the university with others.

Imagine if one of the professors were to purposely hold his class in a lecture hall assigned to and scheduled for use by another department, thereby disrupting their classes. Would that professor then be justified to claim that academic freedom had been trampled when removed from that space? I would think that person should be removed, using force if necessary.

In retrospect, it seems like the goal of these anti abortionist trolls was to get themselves arrested, thereby raising their profile in the media. The lawsuit is just cream in their media coffee, it will keep them in the media for weeks to come.

The saddest part about this whole affair is the disruption they have caused in the lives of those who administer the university. After all they have had every opportunity to state their case that any group could possibly hope for.

The Real Cost of Religious Faith

2011-02-27T04:17:00.000-08:00

Imagine if I were to accept, on faith, that the following statements were absolutely true

1)That those who break the sabbath should be stoned. (Numbers 15:32-36)
2)That homosexuality truly is a sin and that all homosexuals will go to hell and deserve death.(1 Corinthians 9-10) That homosexuality is an abomination and is hated by God (Leviticus 18:22)
3)That Jews were knowingly responsible for the death of Jesus (Matthew 27:25) and that Jews who do not accept Christ as their lord and saviour will go to hell (John 3:16) and will burn in a fiery hell with all sinners (Isaiah 47:14).
4)That non believers, including atheists and agnostics are sinners and are deserving of eternal punishment and should be killed. (John 3:16)(Deuteronomy 13:6)
5)That my own children who no longer believe in the Abrahamic God and who advocate other beliefs should be stoned. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5) That my rebellious children who have been drunk and rebellious should be stoned. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
6) That my wife is not equal to me and should not be allowed to the same status in our society as any man would enjoy.(1 Corinthians 11:8-9)
7)Those who choose to have sex outside of marriage are sinners and should burn in hell. (Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7)
8)Disabled people are not allowed to play any role in the sanctuary lest the defile it. (Leviticus 21:17-23)

I'll stop there. I hope you are already getting the point. Only "faith" could have brought anyone to a position that would demand that they should discriminate against people as shown above. Of course most modern Christians or Jews don't practice all of the scenarios listed above. With the exception of discrimination against homosexuals most folks interpret the bible according to their own denominational theology and acceptance of diversity is fairly common in Canadian society. However, over the course of world wide history, every single one the the scenarios listed above have been practiced because "faith" had demanded it.

I know it seems like I have chosen extreme examples from scripture. After all I could have chosen all of the good things that can be done as a result of faith like feeding the poor, caring for widows and the homeless or the sick etc. I chose these issues to discuss because they are the ways faith has failed over the course of history. There has been a societal cost associated with "faith". Faith is not the virtue that everyone claims it is.

Take a look at our law books for evidence of how faith has been a corrupting force in society and has had to be reigned in. There once was a time in Canadian society where homosexuality was punishable by a prison sentence, where women (and aboriginals) were not allowed to vote or own property, aboriginals were considered 'savages' because of their religious beliefs resulting in their children being taken away and sent to residential schools with disastrous results and unmarried mothers were refused treatment at Canadian hospitals. There is much more that could be said.

Currently, Canadian human rights legislation protects those who would be discriminated against in our society based on race(3), national or ethnic origin(1,3), colour, religion(3,4,5), age, sex(6), marital status(7), family status (7), pardoned conviction, disability(8), and sexual orientation(2).

Can faith be good? Of course, I don't know anyone who would disagree that people of faith do good things in our society. However it is very important remember where our society has come from, and that faith has not always been a virtue everyone claims it is.

One of our friends south of the border once summed up this problem rather nicely when he said,
“In the experiences of a year of the Presidency, there has come to me no other such unwelcome impression as the manifest religious intolerance which exists among many of our citizens. I hold it to be a menace to the very liberties we boast and cherish.”-Warren G. Harding (1865-1923), in a presidential address (March 24, 1922)

Peace!

Charges initiated against Pope for crimes against humanity

2011-02-25T06:34:00.000-08:00

Charges initiated against Pope for crimes against humanity

PATSY McGARRY, Religious Affairs Correspondent

TWO GERMAN lawyers have initiated charges against Pope Benedict XVI at the International Criminal Court, alleging crimes against humanity.

Christian Sailer and Gert-Joachim Hetzel, based at Marktheidenfeld in the Pope’s home state of Bavaria, last week submitted a 16,500-word document to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court at the Hague, Dr Luis Moreno Ocampo.

Their charges concern “three worldwide crimes which until now have not been denounced . . . (as) the traditional reverence toward ‘ecclesiastical authority’ has clouded the sense of right and wrong”.

They claim the Pope “is responsible for the preservation and leadership of a worldwide totalitarian regime of coercion which subjugates its members with terrifying and health-endangering threats”.

They allege he is also responsible for “the adherence to a fatal forbiddance of the use of condoms, even when the danger of HIV-Aids infection exists” and for “the establishment and maintenance of a worldwide system of cover-up of the sexual crimes committed by Catholic priests and their preferential treatment, which aids and abets ever new crimes”.

Read the rest of this story here:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0223/1224290630240.html

Vatican confirms report of sexual abuse and rape of nuns by priests in 23 countries

2011-02-25T06:08:00.000-08:00

Vatican confirms report of sexual abuse and rape of nuns by priests in 23 countries

By Frances Kennedy in Rome

Wednesday, 21 March 2001

The Catholic Church in Rome made the extraordinary admission yesterday that it is aware priests from at least 23 countries have been sexually abusing nuns.

Most of the abuse has occurred in Africa, where priests vowed to celibacy, who previously sought out prostitutes, have preyed on nuns to avoid contracting the Aids virus.

Confidential Vatican reports obtained by the National Catholic Reporter, a weekly magazine in the US, have revealed that members of the Catholic clergy have been exploiting their financial and spiritual authority to gain sexual favours from nuns, particularly those from the Third World who are more likely to be culturally conditioned to be subservient to men.

The reports, some of which are recent and some of which have been in circulation for at least seven years, said that such priests had demanded sex in exchange for favours, such as certification to work in a given diocese.

In extreme instances, the priests had made nuns pregnant and then encouraged them to have abortions.

The US article was based on five documents, which senior women from religious orders and priests have presented to the Vatican over the past decade. They describe a particularly bad situation in Africa. In a continent devastated by Aids, nuns, along with early adolescent girls, are perceived by some as safe sexual targets. The reports said that the church authorities had done little to tackle the problem.

The Vatican reports cited countless cases of nuns forced to have sex with priests. Some were obliged to take the pill, others became pregnant and were encouraged to have abortions. In one case in which an African sister was forced to have an abortion, she died during the operation and her aggressor led the funeral mass. Another case involved 29 sisters from the same congregation who all became pregnant to priests in the diocese.

The reports said that the cultures in some African countries made it almost impossible for a young woman to disobey an older man, especially one seen as spiritually superior. There were cases of novices who applied to their local priest or bishop for certificates of good Catholic practice that were required for them to pursue their vocation. In return they were made to have sex. Some incidents of sexual abuse allegedly took place almost within the Vatican walls.

Certain unscrupulous clerics took advantage of young nuns who were having trouble finding accommodation, writing their essays and funding their theological studies.

Read the rest of the story here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vatican-confirms-report-of-sexual-abuse-and-rape-of-nuns-by-priests-in-23-countries-688261.html

Anti-Euthanasia Strategy Imported From US?

2011-02-23T14:29:00.000-08:00

Baby Joseph Maraachli has been living his life on a life support system since his birth. He is suffering from a neuro-degenerative disease which has no known cure. His parents want to take him home to die peacefully with the family but are being prevented from doing so.

Canadians have been carefully considering matters of life and death, euthanasia and assisted suicide from a number of viewpoints for quite some time now. The churches have had their say, the doctors have had their say but Canadian folks, those of us who find ourselves regulated, brow beaten, told what our values should be, have not yet had our say. Hell, even the Americans are having their say on how Canadians should view assisted suicide and euthanasia by working through the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Check out this brochure for an event that is coming in Vancouver in June, 2011 where the keynote speaker is non other than Rita Marker of Euthanasia Task Force, USA. Now called the Patients Rights Council their goal is to "build and maintain strong networks with individuals and groups and to influence policy and news coverage". It is blatantly obvious, from links on their web page that they work with an international focus. Their intent is to export their values to other countries.

So why should we care? According to CBC news, all these parent want to do is to take the baby home and let nature run it's course. They want to spend the last few moments with their child, in the company of other family members, who will be there to lend comfort. They should have a say in how their child finally dies.

CBC reports, "...the Maraachlis said, they've been unable to visit their child alone due to unnecessary security presence.

Alex Schadenberg, a spokesman for the family who also heads the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, said security was noticeably tighter around the hospital.

"They now won't let the family be with the child alone, and it's like, 'Wait a second here. We have never showed signs of ever causing harm to our child. There's no way we could take our child out of here,'" Schadenberg said.

"This is actually getting ridiculous. How come a family can't spend some time with their child?""

And there is the rub, these parents have lost the right to make this most important decision for themselves, even when medical science supports their efforts. The child CAN live for a period of time without a ventilator, once a tracheotomy has been performed. So let them care for it as they wish. I personally cannot imagine having a security guard in the room if I were to visit my child. This is a classic example of how a medical boards stacked with folks who think they know better than the parents can stick their noses into the lives of others. The question I have is, how stacked is that medical board? How many of these religious euthanasia 'experts' have found their way into other Canadian Hospital boards?

Gay marriage to be allowed in UK

2011-02-13T17:28:00.000-08:00

It may seem like a small victory after living in Canada where Gay marriage has been allowed for the last 5 years. After all, Gay marriage has already been allowed in South Africa, the European Union, Sweden, the Netherlands and Spain.

So why is it news worthy to mention that the UK is finally coming on board?

Because the Church of England (C of E), yes, those modest Anglicans have been fighting a war against acceptance of Homosexual marriage for over a decade in the UK. The C of E House of Bishops threatened to excommunicate the entire Anglican Church of Canada, after Canadian bishops came close to endorsing same sex marriage. Of course Canadian bishops did not pass that motion, they only agreed to study the issue more as they have since the 1970's. You'd think that after 40 years they would have figured out what the Bible actually says by now.

According to PinkPaper.com, a spokesperson for the Cof E stated, “Given the Church’s view on the nature of marriage, the House of Bishops has consistently been clear that the Church of England should not provide services of blessing for those who register civil partnerships. The proposal as reported could lead to inconsistencies with civil marriage, have unexplored impacts, and lead to confusion."

Congratulations to all homosexuals in the UK, you have been set free to marry whomever you please. Even still, I doubt you'll be able to do it in a Church of England ceremony anytime soon. Just know that the Quakers will likely accept you, so will the Humanists, liberal Jews, atheists and you local government and municipal offices.

Polygamy, children and the courts

2011-01-27T15:09:00.000-08:00

It seems odd that any Canadian would want to dictate to others how to live their lives. Even still there are those who would tell others whom they should sleep with. This is exactly what seems to be happening with the recent court case in British Columbia where the crown will decide if polygamous marriage is to be allowed in Canada. The issue of polygamy raises more than a few eyebrows within the humanist community and in society in general.

Coffee shop discussions I have participated in include a wide variety of opinions on many of the issues surrounding polygamy including personal freedom, societal norms, the legality of multi-partner unions and courts deciding who Canadians invite into their beds.

Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada explicitly bans polygamy and offenders can be sentenced to a five-year prison term if convicted. Bigamy is also named as a serious crime in Section 290. If polygamists are going to get away with this crime, it will be due to the outcome of a decision that will weigh religious freedom, one of our many constitutional rights, against the criminal code of Canada.

But what about the freedoms of the women who are trafficked so freely across the Canada/U.S. Border and trapped into these marriages? Should religious freedom trump a criminal charge? Certainly not.

So long as it is acceptable to indoctrinate young girls into a misogynistic system of religious belief, society will never be completely free of abusive polygamy. Credulous young girls who are so easily convinced that they should get married to old men when the reach the age of 14 or 15 years. These kids are the ones who are at risk so long as this system of religion is prospered. Yesterday, one young lady told the court how she made the decision to get married to a man who already had a few wives and was in his forties. She describes what she was thinking when she was only 17 years old. "I felt like my marriage was a revelation from God because it happened to be the same person I had seen in that dream and I accepted that," the woman, whose identity is protected from publication, told the court as she answered questions in a slow, measured tone."

If my 17 year old daughter was convinced she should marry her 18 year old boyfriend I would certainly encourage her to wait a few years before jumping into a lifelong commitment. It is no surprise that a teenager can fall madly in love and throw reason to the wind. But that is not what is happening in Bountiful. American girls are being brought across the border, having never met their aged suitor. There was no former relationship to be spoken of, no dating, no first kiss, no romance. If my daughter was convinced that she should marry someone who is over forty years old I would immediately suspect manipulation of some sort. If my daughter was being shipped to another country I would call the police, quickly.

And that's why I don't agree with some of the folks who are satisfied when the girls involved admit they wanted a marriage to an old man. These girls have been groomed for this role from their earliest youth. Taken from a larger population where the cultish beliefs of this fundamentalist church are taught, these girls are the select few who were malleable enough to accept this kind of arrangement on faith alone.

How then can society protect children who has been brainwashed into accepting this type of arrangement?

I earnestly believe that religious freedoms that exploit children need to kept in check, made illegal, banned. Canadian standards for the age of majority need to be honored by all churches in Canada. Further more the government of Canada should ensure that the transport of any under aged children for the purpose of marriage is illegal, whether the marriage is in Canada, United States or the middle east. Pass a law that protects children from their churches and the church leaders who would abuse them.

After all, it wasn't the government who has told these young girls who they should marry, it was the leaders of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They are the ones who should stay out of peoples bedrooms.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/01/26/bc-bountiful-american.html#socialcomments

It was a great meeting of the minds

2011-01-24T08:22:00.000-08:00

It was a great meeting of the minds. Once again a Pan American panel of humanists have gotten together to discuss and solve the greatest problems of the world near Acapulco, Mexico. 5 years ago the panel started meeting yearly in a secret location hidden away in the resort area called Playa Luces, about ten kilometers from the village named Pie De La Questa, on the pacific coast. Access to the debate is by invitation only, and currently includes representatives from Canada, Mexico, South America and other states.

The agenda included politics, poverty, disease, pollution, economics and beer. There was a bottle of Disaronno followed by a bottle of Baileys Irish creme there too.

It is kind of funny, the real opinions didn't come out until the panel cracked the bottle of Baileys. Even with all of the social lubricant flowing through our veins all of the international representatives agreed that a warmer, more humanistic world was needed. Issues like global warming and ecology were also agreed upon and a motion was passed that will require all member states to recycle used liquor and pop bottles.

The main motion carried by the group was "we should meet again to discuss these problems, even though we seem to have solved them all".

Next year Tequila will appear prominently on the agenda.

Godless - An Atheist Renaissance

2011-01-09T05:26:00.000-08:00

I spent last evening with my eldest daughter and a pile of my humanist friends. We had a rowdy and laughter filled evening. There were many conversations about different religious beliefs, science, culture current events and atheism. Throughout the evening the term "atheist" kept on coming up, both as a personal label and as we referred to each other. It is truly remarkable to see where the conversation goes when the common denominator is a naturalistic world view.

That's why I thought it would be interesting to write (briefly) about the history of disbelief. We use the word atheist so casually in modern society, often forgetting the history behind that word.

There once was a time when no one was called an atheist. It wasn't until the ancient Greeks coined the term atheos, or "godless" that it was used as a pejorative term to describe someone else who did not believe in your gods. The funny thing was that the person being called godless usually still believed in his own god, just not your god. The Christians and the Hellenists called each other "atheos" during arguments about religion. Historical documents show that they used the term almost as often to denote impiety as they did to denote unbelief.

It wasn't until 1577 that, according to Meredith Hanmer, a historian writing about the first 600 years of Christianity, the term "Atheists" was used in it's completely modern form, where it denoted a lack of belief in any gods, or at the least the Abrahamic god. Hanmer stated, "The opinion which they conceaue of you, to be Atheists, or godlesse men". (Gotta love the old English spelling.)

But what about the periods before Christianity? Christianity was predated by Judaism which was predated by the Greek gods, which was predated by the Egyptian gods, which were predated by the Hindu gods. Hinduism is the oldest know religion in our world.

What I find hard to believe was that during that earliest periods of civilization, there was no one who saw the world in a completely naturalistic way. It is conceivable that there was someone who didn't buy any of the stories? Anyone?

Considering all of the other religious explanations that have existed, perhaps it is unlikely that there were many true "atheists", until a 5th century Greek philosopher named Diagoras came up with the idea of disbelief in all gods. According to Cicero, Diagoras and found himself to be highly critical of the Greek government of the day, where he argued that they used religion as a tool to cause fear and gain control of the population. The government saw that moral order was needed and Diagoras was seen to be interfering with it. Accordingly he was accused of impiety and was forced to flee Athens. He ended up dieing in Corinth, and is now recognized as the first "Atheist" to have existed.

Just the same, Diagoras started a slow revolution. Other ancient Philosophers who followed began looking for a better explanation of how the world could operate without any gods in it. Soon the key concepts of atomism were formed as an explanation. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "atomists" hypothesized that our natural world consisted of two fundamental principles, atoms which were indivisible bodies and space or a void. Atoms were thought to be indestructible and they were thought to exist in an infinite variety of shapes and sizes. Atoms were thought to move through space, bouncing off each other, sometimes becoming linked together with one or more others to form a cluster.

At last, there was an explanation for how the world operates that didn't invoke a deity. The problem was, of course, that no one could really prove any of this. Science had not yet developed sufficiently and these ideas became dormant, waiting quietly for science to be able to test, or at least use them.

In the 1500's there were a number of scientists, Galileo among them, who latched on to the ideas of atomism, without necessarily being atheists at all. This period of history is called the Atomic Renaissance period and it has lasted from 1585 until today. Today the core idea that atoms exist in a vacuum and can form molecules, dust, rocks, life, planets, stars, solar systems, the key components of our universe, underpins all of modern science. And it is an understanding of science that enables one to explain the world in a completely naturalistic way.

With the dawn of modern science, including atomism and evolution, atheism was finally beginning to become intellectually respectable when pitted against the tenacious ideas contained within religion. Not only could someone question the ideas within religion, one could form an alternate world view with having to fall back on any religious philosophy what so ever. Science had cleared the way for those who just don't believe in "gods".

In his book, letter to a christian nation Sam Harris wrote,

In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.

(Sam Harris, a neuroscientist and graduate of philosophy from Stanford University is an author of a number of atheistic books. My favorite of all of his books was a Letter to a Christian Nation.)

Today, only 10 percent of scientists in the National Academy of Sciences believe in a deity or in human immortality. Only 40 percent of scientists overall, believe in a god that they can pray to and expect and answer.

This truly is the beginning of an atheist renaissance.

Ideology Driving Change in Winnipeg and Canada

2011-01-03T05:23:00.000-08:00

Religious ideology is changing our city's landscape. The political clout of religious leaders in Winnipeg is unwarranted. There is massive government spending through religious organizations in Winnipeg and I don't like it.

Sound familiar?

These are all comments I have heard recently by people, most of whom who are quite religious and who are committed to their own religious enterprise. I have to admit that I was surprised to hear some of what they had to say. But as the president of an organization that is pointing the way towards a more secular society, I do occasionally hear from people when they are upset by what they see happening here in Winnipeg.

It's true, the federal, provincial and municipal governments fund a lot of religious charities in Winnipeg. To the tune of millions upon millions of dollars per year. What's worse, they are slowly dropping funding for some of the agencies that used to exist in their place. Read the papers and you will see stories of agencies that have run out of cash, forced to close their doors forever. Point Douglas seems to be the focal point of this change, where older and more liberal ministries are being "changed out", or cut, in order to make room for trendier neo-christian ministries like Youth For Christ (YFC).

Here are some more of the questions people have put forth:
Why don't we just build them a gymnasium or skating rink like the rest of the city gets? Why does the new facility have to be run by a pack of neo-christian evangelist volunteers? I have not yet heard ANY sufficient answer to these questions, except that it seems to be the political will of Sam Katz's government to have the religious right setting out the conditions of that change in Point Douglas. Oh, and it's Harper's will too.

It's as if society has forgotten it's secular roots. It's true that we often fail to see things that are static, and many Canadians are completely unaware of the "wall paper" adorning our collective lives. In Canada liberal democratic values are what that wall paper is printed on. Have we all forgotten how our democracy was formed, how the churches, once the old political system, were removed from their position of prestige and power in order to make a better way for everyone.

The truth is that all western liberal democracies (yes, all of them) were manufactured out of the enlightenment, a period of history where rational thinking was valued above religious ideologies and superstition. The key idea of the enlightenment movement was to use secular and rational thinking to guide society to the answers it needed. The truth is that western democracies have been largely successful in fighting disease, poverty, lack of education, intolerance, ignorance and more with the use of science. This was only possible through the enlightenment.

What we don't see happening here in Winnipeg, is the use of science and enlightenment to tackle the issues of poverty in Point Douglas. Deal with the issues of poverty and you'll hit at the core of the problem.

Poverty has only ever been been beaten by good education, the teaching of empathy and tolerance of those who differ from us and through the promotion of viable economic opportunity. The social sciences have proven this out this time and again. Instead we have put millions of dollars of funding into an organization that is going to teach children that they will go to hell if they don't accept Jesus Christ as their savior. Whats worse, it is going to do it with untrained volunteers, using a massive American Style multimedia approach.

We are witnessing a fight for the hearts and minds of children in Point Douglas, and your government is funding it.

The Jesuits are famous for saying "give me the child and I'll give you the man". The Spartans likened a child to a vase with a long slender neck, where if you pour ideas in slowly they would go down quite easily. These philosophies are not unfamiliar to YFC. They intend to change the "spiritual lives" and "transform" Winnipeg youth using neo-christian volunteers.

There are good evolutionary reasons why children are so credulous, and not able to defend themselves from people who tell them that there are monsters under their bed, or that there is a fiery hell waiting for them when they die, unless they beleive in Jesus Christ. And this is the vulnerability that YFC is planning to exploit, using your tax dollars.

Sadly, we have to pay for it.

Check out http://www.religiousrightalert.ca/2010/02/22/youth-for-christ-winnipeg-proselytizing-and-political-patronage/ for more information

Atheist Hypocrisy at Christmas?

2010-12-28T06:22:00.000-08:00

Is it hypocritical for an atheist to celebrate Christmas? In a recent Montreal Gazette article, Center for Inquiry staff members, both are atheists, debated the appropriateness of an atheist celebrating Christmas. The result of the debate was, well, a split, there was no clear winner with Trottier saying no and Fiddes saying yes, it is appropriate for her and her family. It really is a good read, and puts forth some interesting Canadian statistics, including the recent survey finding that 23 percent of Canadians don't believe in any Gods.

But I think that there was an important part left out of the story.

Atheists and agnostics have been celebrating Christmas every year, in church pews, for as long as Christmas has existed. Likewise, atheists and agnostics have also been celebrating Hanukkah, Ramadan, and just about every other holiday known to man for even longer.

Why? The answer to that question lies in our history, our atheist history. Atheists have had to hide their disbelief from their religious counterparts for as long as each of those beliefs has existed. We do it to get along, we do it to survive. Imagine how many dis-believers there were when Christianity was first formed as a religion. Of course the disbelievers were not all atheists, but believers in other religions like Judaism. Just the same, they did not consider Jesus to be a God. There have been many times throughout human history where that was enough to be a death sentence. So people kept it to themselves or at least to their immediate family and trusted friends.

It is wholly appropriate to protect yourself from religiously derived ridicule and abuse and to avoid religious persecution whenever necessary. Family relations can be particularly fragile when it's members have differences of opinion about religious belief. I have learned to suck it up and be quiet when grandpa starts to preach over dinner. Let him have his beliefs, to each his own. I still enjoy his company.

Canadian society is not evenly distributed. There are pockets of belief or disbelief all over our society. Each situation demands a different approach. Manitoba's southern "bible belt" is one example. Religious observance appears to be much higher south of Winnipeg, near the U.S. border, in communities like Morden, Winkler and Steinbach. The way an atheist worker must act when working for a large christian window manufacturing company in southern Manitoba, is completely different from the way an atheist student can act at the University of Manitoba. The worker will sit quietly through the work time prayers and dares not disagree, for fear of losing that upcoming promotion, while the student is free to join an atheist association and participate openly.

It is so very important for those of us who can, to stand up and say "I do not believe". We need to create a society where disbelief is seen as polite, reasoned and friendly. We need to do this to help those who find themselves in one of those religious pockets of Canadian society to know that they have friends and colleagues who are OK with them, regardless of what they believe.

So the end result of the debate is, and should be, "split", in my opinion. Do what you have to do to avoid persecution, but know that you are OK when you don't believe. Let those who can, slowly change society into a more humane place.

The War on Christmas

2010-12-26T04:57:00.001-08:00

Excuse me if I call it the solstice. Some people are finicky about the use of such a term during a holiday that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Christianity.

This year I had such a wonderful time with my family and we truly enjoyed every moment of our time together. Food was served, heaped up high on our plates. There were gifts for everyone and drinks and laughter -and I do mean belly holding, raucous laughter. It had nothing to do with Christ, and it had 'especially' nothing to do with his birthday. It's something we do every year as best we can, pushing aside our work and our other commitments. We get together and enjoy each others company and have fun. I guess we are all kind of guilty of co-opting a religious holiday for the sake of family.

After our great family day was over and midnight was getting near, I relaxed as I read CBC news online edition on my Ipad. In every corner of the reader comments section there was another person who is upset about the fact that CBC calls christmas "The Holidays". This morning I was tempted to post a comment about the meaning of the word HOLI - DAY but decided that explaining this to Christians only doubles the absurdity factor. Heavens forbid that Christmas would ever be called a holy day.

And so the war on Christmas rages on, ever so quietly, hidden away in the readers comments section of the CBC news service. Some Christians want it called "Christmas" by everyone, but most really don't care. They say the war on christmas is being led by Atheists, Humanists, secularists and the like. But in reality, we are too busy spending time with our families to care what the holiday is called. In fact, I think you should call it whatever you like, but please, please recognize that if people want to call it a holiday they will, and that they get to have their own opinions just like you.

Dear Atheists: Why the long face?

2010-12-21T03:35:00.000-08:00

In his latest National Post Blog article, Father Tim Moyle builds a great big straw man and then fails to knock it down. He states: "Why is it that so many in the atheist community cannot bring themselves to get past their anger whenever they engage in discussion about religion? The language of many of atheist contributions in public debate is laced with venom and dripping with sarcasm.

He then goes on to define that 'straw man' atheist in this fashion: "Atheists tend to see the state of their personal world as being limited to the best they can achieve. Life’s injustices will never ultimately be surmounted and they are limited to a ‘what you see is what you get’ assessment of life’s trials. Believers know that things will be better. They know that following the teachings of the church can bring them closer to that promised ideal in the here and now, and that any justice denied them by the events of their personal lives as a result of their fidelity to God will be theirs to enjoy in the life to come."

Perhaps Tim should try asking atheists if they are happy, and why they are happy, rather than listen to former members of his church. I say this because that is who many atheists are, literally. People who tried Christianity and didn't like it, or who were abused, confused or disheartened while trying to make it as Christians. They lost their faith and left.

Lets face it, there were 160,000 Canadian children who were forced (taken) to move away from their families into Indian residential schools over the last century and that certainty produced much more than a handful of angry atheists. I know many of them. Funny thing is, many of these atheists are well adjusted responsible, beautiful people, who were hurt quite badly by the church. To them, the church being defined as "the hands and feet of Jesus Christ" is not comforting. To them, Father Tim seems like a wolf in sheep's clothing as he attacks them for not believing the stories he tells about a man who walked on water.

Are they happy? They most certainly are, although many of them struggle to get past the abuses perpetrated by the Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran institutions in Canada. Do you think we could allow them just a little anger? I think so. I love them enough to see through the anger and hurt, and to see that they want justice in a world where the church has purposely hidden it away from them. All the way to Rome.

But what about those atheists who simply don't beleive in the story of a water walking man who rose from the grave. No abuse was necessary in their case. You have to give them credit for thinking about the stories in the bible. How do we expect them to react when they are told that according to "faith" condoms should not be used by married couples in Africa, because contraception is a sin. Meanwhile AIDS is rampant in countries like Uganda (26 % prevalence rate) as the clergy talk about faith, sin and contraception all in one breath. Do we allow them to get frustrated by those Christians who hold their ears and sing "la la la, I can't hear you because my faith won't allow your arguments to be heard".

Instead, with his mind firmly clamped shut, Father Tim Moyle simply whisks aside atheists as a group of grumpies who need to learn better manners.

I sincerely hope that your wishes and hopes for the after life carry you through this life father Tim, but I also wish you would stop the barrage of insults and condescension towards those who tried your faith and found it to be unsatisfactory.

I mean seriously, are you surprised that there are people angry at Christians or the Catholic church?

Read more: http://life.nationalpost.com/2010/12/20/dear-atheists-why-the-long-face/#ixzz18kHdJst3

Message from the President - Humanist Association of Manitoba

2010-12-19T07:02:00.000-08:00

Message from the President - Humanist Association of Manitoba

2010 was a wonderful year and it looks like 2011 will be an even better one. We have found a new home for our meetings at the CanadInns Polo Park, we had a successful Atheist Film Festival at the Park Theater in Winnipeg and a number of our members traveled to The Amazing Meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada. In January P.Z. Myers came to speak to our association drawing almost 300 people out for the evening. Throughout the rest of the year we had a number of great speakers who challenged our thinking, explained the wonders of science and helped us to see how it is that humans impact each other through our culture and through our religions.

This spring I traveled to the Atheist Alliance International conference in Copenhagen, Denmark where I met Richard Dawkins. I also chatted with P.Z.Myers, James Randi, Dan Barker and many more of the great thinkers of our movement at this meeting. We developed the Copenhagen Accord, a document that explains how we value democracy and basic human rights for all people in all societies, regardless of religious inclination. In Copenhagen it was readily apparent that we value freedom from religion as much as freedom of religious belief.

So where do we go from here?

In the upcoming year I plan to lead our executive as we continue to develop our community by building an informal alliance with the Winnipeg Skeptics, University of Winnipeg Atheists, the Unitarians and as many secular organizations as we can reach. We need to rekindle our alliance with Humanist Canada and the Center For Inquiry. The intent is not to evangelize humanism so much as it is to foster a diverse sense of community and develop a better understanding of our humanity. We need to be seen as a secularizing force within the fabric of Canada.

As it stands to day, we have a diverse and vibrant humanist community in Manitoba that reaches out to most parts of our society, including our universities. But have we gone far enough? In my opinion we need to redouble our efforts as we work to make a safe place for non-religious people to discuss their ideas and enjoy each others company. We have much work ahead of us!

I hope that you had a wonderful solstice season and wish you a happy new year!

Jeffrey Olsson,

President, Humanist Association of Manitoba

Atheist: 5 Factors that Cause Christians to Lose Faith

2010-12-13T03:48:00.000-08:00

John Loftus has done a great job on this little article. Here is a very brief summary, please check out his original, it's very good!

1) A crisis of some kind that cannot be reconciled with one’s faith.
2) An intense desire to know the truth objectively as possible.
3) A deeper study of one or more intractable issues that constantly haunts a believer. 4) Entering an occupation that leads Christians away from their faith like the ones listed here.
5) World travel, not as a missionary necessarily, but just world travel, lots of it.

Irshad Manji blows it.

2010-12-11T04:09:00.000-08:00

Here's an article from The Globe I thought you might like: Elevating the God discussion. (Sent via my iPad's Globe and Mail application. Visit the App Store to download or learn more).

In this article Manji misses the point, it is not an act of bigotry to attack any God.

Sent from my iPad

Jeff

Canada Marching Toward Secularization

2010-12-11T03:58:00.000-08:00

Here's an article from The Globe I thought you might like: Canada marching away from religion to secularization. (Sent via my iPad's Globe and Mail application. Visit the App Store to download or learn more).

Sent from my iPad

Jeff

Bill Maher - Glenn Beck is a Preacher

2010-12-05T18:39:00.000-08:00

Noah's Ark Theme Park a GO!

2010-12-05T18:20:00.000-08:00

The idea that the earth is only six thousands years old seems, to me, quite far from the truth. I find it staggering to think that those who beleive such silliness will build such monument to the idea. Whats worse is that it will be with tax dollars from the Kentucky Government. Of course they have some pretty big private backers, but it seems that Gov. Steven L. Beshear has no problems finding some money for such a venture in the pockets of the taxpayers of Kentucky. So much for the wall of separation between church and state.

The park will cost 150 million dollars and will employ 900 people. Sadly, it will be using money that could be spent on educational resources, schools, science labs, libraries or employment initiatives will go to this religious venture.

Read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/us/06ark.html

And here: http://arkencounter.com/

Why do people treat us with the same contempt we show homosexuals, ask Christians

2010-12-03T22:02:00.000-08:00

A funny spoof website entitled News Hump is running an article mocking Christians who treat homosexuals with contempt. Taken in the right spirit it is actually quit funny. "Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey is to launch a campaign that will encourage Christians to “wear their faith with pride” after many Christians expressed concerns that they are being treated with the same sort of contempt they normally reserve for homosexuals.

Lord Carey will launch a leaflet in which he says, “I am proud of our tradition of tolerance towards straight people and our historic commitment to welcoming perfectly heterosexual strangers.”

“Obviously it goes without saying that any strangers would have to complete a questionnaire to ascertain their sexual preference before we start rolling out the red carpet.”"

Read more here: http://newsthump.com/2010/12/01/why-do-people-treat-us-with-the-same-contempt-we-show-homosexuals-ask-christians/

Conference on Apostasy, Sharia Law and Human Rights - UK

2010-12-02T14:20:00.000-08:00

To mark International Human Rights Day, the International Humanist and Ethical Union is co-sponsoring an all day conference on “Apostasy, Sharia Law and Human Rights” at Conway Hall Humanist Centre, 25 Red Lion Square, London, UK. The conference will highlight urgent cases, including Pakistani Asia Bibi who has received a death sentence for blasphemy, Palestinian Waleed Al-Husseini who has been arrested for criticising Islam, and campaigners in Iran charged with ‘enmity against God’, and demand their unconditional and immediate release.

Conference registration begins at 10.00am for 11.00am start and ends at 19.00 hours, after which there will be a social gathering at a local pub.

Panel discussions include ‘International Apostasy and Religion,’ ‘Ex-Muslims in Britain and Europe’ and ‘Multiculturalism and Multifaithism versus Universal Human Rights.’

There will also be a play ‘Masculine Laws’ by Ghazi Rabihavi and a comedy act by Nick Doody.

Confirmed speakers are:

John Adams -- Emeritus Professor at the University of Hertfordshire
Mina Ahadi -- Spokesperson of the International Committee against Stoning and Council of Ex-Muslims of Germany
Roy Brown -- International Representative of International Humanist and Ethical Union
Goranka Gudelj -- Outreach Coordinator of One Law for All
Rumy Hassan -- Senior Lecturer at the Science Policy Research Unit of the University of Sussex and Author of Multiculturalism: Some Inconvenient Truths
Marieme Helie Lucas -- Algerian Sociologist and Founder of Women Living Under Muslims Laws and Secularism is a Women’s Issue
Maryam Namazie -- Spokesperson of One Law for All, Iran Solidarity and the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Hassan Radwan -- Teacher at an Islamia school for 15 years and presently Management Committee Member of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Gita Sahgal -- Women’s Rights Campaigner; former head of Amnesty International’s Gender Unit suspended for questioning AI’s relations with an Islamist organization
Hamed Abdol Samad -- German-Egyptian Political Scientist and Author of Farwell to Heaven and The Collapse of the Islamic World
Terry Sanderson -- President of the National Secular Society
Muriel Seltman -- Campaigner of One Law for All
Alom Shaha -- Science Teacher, Writer and Film Maker
Joan Smith -- Writer, Columnist and Women’s Rights Campaigner
Bahram Soroush -- Human Rights Campaigner
Peter Tatchell -- Human Rights Campaigner
Anne Marie Waters -- Spokesperson of One Law for All.

To book a place at the conference, please complete the booking form found here: http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/10-december-2010-conference-on-apostasy-sharia-law-and-human-rights-london/.

Tickets are £10 for individuals; £25 for organizations and statutory bodies. The conference is free for members of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and asylum seekers. Donations are welcome.

The conference is sponsored by Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, International Humanist and Ethical Union, Iran Solidarity, National Secular Society, One Law for All and South Place Ethical Society.

The event will be dedicated to the Iran stoning case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani.

For more information, please contact:
Maryam Namazie
Spokesperson
One Law for All
BM Box 2387
London WC1N 3XX
email: onelawforall@gmail.com
http://www.onelawforall.org.uk

Christ vs Bigfoot

2010-12-01T16:37:00.001-08:00

The Vancouver Sun reports that the same group who promoted the Atheist Bus Campaign is at it again this year. This time comparing Christ to Bigfoot.
The Vancouver Sun states: "The new posters bear the slogan: "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" with "Allah, Big Foot, UFOs, Homeopathy, Zeus, Psychics, Christ" listed below.

They will hit Toronto streetcars in January, pending final approval from the Toronto Transit Commission, said Justin Trottier, national executive director of the Centre for Inquiry, an atheist organization. After the Toronto debut, the organization plans to post the ads to buses in Calgary, Vancouver, Ottawa, Saskatoon and Montreal."

Billboard: Nativity a Myth, Folks are Upset

2010-11-28T17:53:00.000-08:00

The American Atheists have bought space on a billboard and put up a poster saying, "You KNOW it's a Myth This Season Celebrate Reason!

I agree with them, it's a myth!

The American Atheists website states:
"The American Atheists billboard is now up, on rt 495 @ Kennedy Bvd (on the NJ side of the Lincoln Tunnel). The purpose of the billboard is threefold:

1) To address those atheists who “go along to get along”, and to encourage them to come out of their closets
2) To attack the myth that Christianity owns the solstice season
3) To raise the awareness of the organization and the movement."

To me this is sort of like the "out" campaign started by Richard Dawkins a few years ago where he encouraged atheists to come out of the closet and let family members know what they beleive.

Read more about this interesting story and some of the reactions to it:

http://gothamist.com/2010/11/28/athiest_billboard_calls_nativity_a.php

http://www.examiner.com/essex-county-conservative-in-newark/atheist-group-raises-billboard-near-lincoln-tunnel

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/11/27/atheist-groups-billboard-targets-closet-non-believers/

Majority of Canadians Agree Religion Not a Force for Good

2010-11-27T07:38:00.000-08:00

CBC reports that a large majority of Canadians agree that "religious beliefs promote intolerance, exacerbate ethnic divisions and impede social progress."

This is according to Ipsos Reid, a polling Company that included over 18,000 participants in a world wide study of opinions.

What's more, there is a large difference of opinion between Canadians and Americans on this issue. Two thirds of Americans think "religion is a force for good", while 2/3 of Canadians disagree.

The country that thought the least of religion as a force for good was Sweden where only 19 percent of respondents agreed. The highest rate of agreement that religion was a force for good came from Saudi Arabia, with 92 percent agreement.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/26/religion-good-evil-poll-hitchens-blair.html#ixzz16UwJAmyV

Religious People Are More Likely to Punish

2010-11-25T08:09:00.001-08:00

A recent study from the University of Royal Holloway, London shows that people who donate to religions (religious donation being the indicator for "religiosity") are more likely to punish behaviour that they perceive to be selfish.

Science Daily reports, "When subconsciously exposed to religious ideas and concepts, religious people are far more likely to actively punish those they believe are acting selfishly and unfairly " One of the authors of the study named Wrath of God: religious primes and punishment states: "This particular subset of players may have punished those who acted unfairly because the religious concepts presented to them activated norms pertaining to fairness and its enforcement," says Dr McKay. "Another possibility, not mutually exclusive, is that the religious primes activated the notion that they are being watched by a supernatural agent. Religious participants may have punished unfair behaviours in order to maintain their standing in the eyes of this agent."

Of course it can be hard for the layman to draw meaningful conclusions from a study like this, except to say that religious people seem more likely to punish others in a given set of circumstances. In one sense it comes as no surprise to see scientific validation for some of the behaviour I have witnessed after decades of dealing with religious people. On the other hand I do know many kind and generous religious people who are not judgmental in the least. That is probably why the authors use the term "are more likely to punish".

The question this raises is: Is a person with a judgmental personality and who is more likely to act out by punishing others more likely to be drawn to organized religion, or, does religion produce these judgmental punishment giving people. Neither of these choices seems very desirable. At least we know where to find these people now.

United Nations: Motion to Stop Criticism of Religion Wins Again

2010-11-24T08:23:00.001-08:00

On Tuesday a United Nations General Assembly committee successfully voted to condemn the vilification or criticism of religion, for a third year in a row. The motion was put forward as a non binding resolution by Islamic nations who are concerned that religion is being blamed and "vilified" by governments and the public at large. According to Reuters News Service, "The resolution was amended from versions passed in previous years in an attempt to secure support from Western nations. Instead of defamation of religion, it speaks of "vilification." It also condemned acts of violence and intimidation due to "Islamophobia, Judeophobia and Christianophobia." Last year's resolution, as in previous years, focused on Islam and did not mention Judaism and Christianity.

The motion passed by 12 votes with 76 nations voting for the motion, 64 against it. 42 nations abstained from voting.

What is most interesting about this issue is that western nations have decreased their support for this motion each time it has been introduced. For instance, last year the motion passed with 81 nations supporting it and 55 against it, with 43 abstentions.

It seems that for western nations free speech is valued more highly, where the offense taken by religious leaders is not as highly valued. We have to decide if we are going to live in a society that allows us the ability to give and take criticism, or if we are going to live in a society that allows institutions (like those found in religion) to rule without anyone being allowed to question their authority.

Personally, I am glad to live in a society that values free speech over religious authority. It means that I can say what I need to say, when it needs to be said. It also means that we (I) have to be willing to accept criticism from others even when it does not seem completely fair or when we are certain that they are wrong. I for one am willing to stand up to any criticism that religious institutions would make of me or my lack of religious belief. In fact religious leaders have criticized me openly in the public forum a number of times, but I have always held my ground by simply stating that I am not obligated to believe what they teach. I often find their criticism impolite, and I definitely have found what they say offensive. But then again, who am I to think I can control the thinking of everyone else on the planet.

I will never forget the time that Michael Coren, a famous syndicated columnist, called me a "failure" on CJOB because I was not willing to give "faith" a chance. I had stated that I just don’t believe that Jesus is/was a God, nor did I believe that there is any God at all. I had left the clergy as a result. To this day I disagree completely with Coren's take on that issue. Instead I think I am a success because I stood up and refused to be one of the hypocrites who remains a member of the clergy but does not believe. Even still, it is hard to hear those words come from the mouth of another human being.

In the end I know I have grown as a person simply because I was willing to stand up and speak out. I had to face my own beliefs through the eyes of others. In the end that is a pretty good place to be, even if it may hurt when it happens.

Are you willing to be offended? I think it's worth it.

Could you imagine what it would be like if our government had voted against free speech? That’s not the country I would want to live in.

Great Web Site - Evolve Fish

2010-11-23T07:47:00.001-08:00

I am quite sure that some of you have seen the EVOLVE FISH web site before. Evolve Fish has been around for a while and I have one of their chrome fish symbols stuck on the back of my Honda. They even have a gefilte fish symbol for Jewish customers who want to get into the fish wars. My favorite of all time is the flying spaghetti monster symbol, I gotta get me one of those!

Stickers, Emblems, Shirts, Caps, Jewelry and more

Give them a try and let us know what you think!

http://evolvefish.com/

Polygamy On Trial

2010-11-22T07:12:00.001-08:00

Today the B.C Supreme court will begin to weigh the constitutionality of polygamy laws in Canada. Brought on by failed attempts to prosecute Bountiful, a break away Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints commune in B.C., the BC government has passed this concern on to the supreme court with the hope that the issue will be settled once and for all. There is no real question about the illegality of polygamy in Canada, the laws are clear about that, but gaining a prosecution has been quite problematic due to other technical issues. The manner in which prosecutors were chosen for the case against Bountiful was only the most recent stumbling block.

CTV News reports that, "After 120 years, this law that has only been used sparingly is going to be put to the test: Does it pass constitutional muster?" Skurka said in an interview Monday, noting that while polygamy is undeniably illegal in Canada, it is virtually never prosecuted.

Lawyers representing the attorneys-general of Canada and British Columbia will argue that the current law should nevertheless be upheld in the interest of protecting women, children and society, while a court-appointed lawyer will argue the law violates Charter rights and should be struck down. The case is also expected to see more than 30 witnesses including legal experts, sociologists, members of polygamist communities and people who practice polygamy outside of a religious context."

All legal considerations aside, it is tough to see how our society could completely preclude people from having a multiple marriage lifestyle. Keep in mind that we have a broader legal definition of marriage today than we had only a few years ago and that societal norms have changed. Also, there certainly are non-religious threesomes and foursomes that are living together for mutually beneficial reasons. Does the government regulator really belong in our bedrooms? If so, why?

Preventing the exploitation of women and children is one of the main reasons why our society should think very carefully whether or not to allow polygamy and caution should be exercised when deciding how polygamy laws should be written, whether in the end society decides to allow it or not. Balancing the fair and equal rights of the individual against the wishes of society has never been easy and this case against Bountiful is proving to be troublesome. Everyone seems to agree, even many of the polygamists, that we need to protect children from exploitation so certainly there needs to be a minimum age restriction for entry into any such marriage. There also needs to be an easy way out of such an arrangement, for any individual who needs it.

But what about consenting adults? Why should we care if they like living together in such a way? Why would we care to stop them? Shouldn't they be provided the same benefits as regular married couples? I think the next paragraph provides some insight.

How do you split a pension after a four way, or a ten way divorce? Frankly, I cannot imagine living in such a relationship with ten other people. And the idea that I would have my pension split 10 ways upon divorce seems patently absurd. That alone seems to be reason enough to avoid the situation. But frankly, if you want the benefits of a multiple marriage, you have to take responsibility for the commitment you have made, especially if children are involved. And there is the crux of the whole problem, there is no way out of a marriage to ten other individuals especially when there are children involved, its messy, messy, messy. Who gets custody of the children? Who pays for their support? The permutations are endless and the legal formula used to make these decisions would have to be very complicated and would likely be easily challenged and defeated.

Good Luck Mr. Blackmore, if you win this round and one of your gazillion wives divorces you (a prospect that seems all too likely) you will pay forever. And ever. And ever.

How Is Hitch Doing? See For Yourself

2010-11-21T05:41:00.000-08:00

Great Interview! Part one Above and Part 2 Below

Boys Night Out

2010-11-21T05:27:00.000-08:00

I have to admit I was skeptical about this being funny until the priest showed up in the story line. There is one scene with the cross in it that is laugh out loud hilarious (to me).

Pope Allows Condoms for Male Prostitutes

2010-11-20T17:30:00.001-08:00

I can't stop laughing.

Catholic male prostitutes the world over can now rejoice, because the pope has said that the use of condoms can be justified for them in order to prevent aids. CBC news, Reuters, The Guardian, and many other news sources report that excerpts from a new book entitled Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times, have the pontiff making a number of interesting and odd comments. For instance: the pontiff states that he was surprised by the scale of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Germany, thinks burqas should not be banned in France, and that any Pope who is psychologically unfit should resign.

Sadly, the Pope stands by his edict banning married couples from using condoms in African countries devastated by Aids.

Once again, congratulations to all Catholic male prostitutes on winning this important endorsement from the Pope.

Read more here:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/11/20/pope-condoms.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/21/pope-benedict-condoms-hiv-infection

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE6AK01Q20101121

Philippines: Catholic Church Fights Birth Control

2010-11-20T08:42:00.000-08:00

Catholic Priests and Bishops will take to the pulpits to inform their parishioners of the dangers of birth control, as they attempt to fight against a new bill before the Philippine Congress. The birth control bill is aptly named the Reproductive Health Bill and is expected to be Passed by a majority by June of 2011.

The Philippine Daily Inquirer reports,"Caloocan Bishop Deogracias Iñiguez said the priests would try to enlighten their parishioners through their homilies on the supposed dangers posed by the RH bill in time for the Feast of Christ the King on Sunday."

The Catholic Church has successfully fought and block this bill last year and expects that it can once again succeed.

Reproductive Health advocates say that in the Philippines more than 10 women die daily due topregnancy and childbirth related complications and unsafe abortions and over half (56 percent) of yearly maternal deaths are unreported.

For more information visit:

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20101120-304346/Church-to-fight-birth-control-bill-on-the-pulpit

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/nov/10111507.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_Health_Bill_%28Philippines%29