The Atheist Blogger

So a Times Online article, written by religion correspondent Ruth Gledhill, broke the ‘news’ over the weekend that the children featured in the new BHA billboards are ‘evangelicals’. This article has so many falsehoods and misrepresentations (not to mention completely missing the point of the adverts) that I’m afraid I’m going to have to go through it a paragraph at a time.

The two children chosen to front Richard Dawkins’s latest assault on God could not look more free of the misery he associates with religious baggage. With the slogan “Please don’t label me. Let me grow up and choose for myself”, the youngsters with broad grins seem to be the perfect advertisement for the new atheism being promoted by Professor Dawkins and the British Humanist Association.

It boggles the mind as to how Gledhill managed to come to the conclusion that this is the “perfect advertisement for the new atheism being promoted”. Come on Ruth! In the same sentence you describe the adverts as “new atheism”, you wrote the slogan of the campaign: “Please don’t label me. Let me grow up and choose for myself”. Tell me, how on earth does that slogan have anything to do with belief or disbelief in God?

Except that they are about as far from atheism as it is possible to be. The Times can reveal that Charlotte, 8, and Ollie, 7, are from one of the country’s most devout Christian families.

So? Like I said before, this isn’t an advert about atheism, this is an advert about calling children “Christian child” or “Muslim child” when they are clearly too young to understand and make a rational decision for themselves on what they believe. When I was Charlotte’s age, I could too be described as a “Christian child”, except I really wasn’t. I believed in God and Jesus not because I had considered the subject, but because my parents told me that’s what we believed. Indeed, it wasn’t until later that I started considering the issue for myself, and first described myself as an atheist.

My personal story aside, there isn’t anything wrong with featuring children of religious parents in this advert. In fact, the whole point of the advert is to show that all children are equal, free, and shouldn’t be called by the religion of their parents. A religious couple’s children would be perfect for such an advert.

Their father, Brad Mason, is something of a celebrity within evangelical circles as the drummer for the popular Christian musician Noel Richards. Now a web designer and photographer, Mr Mason has been supplementing his income for years by providing photographs to agencies who sell them on to newspapers and advertising campaigns.

I say ‘perfect’ a bit more timidly now. Evangelicals are a different kind of religious believer, more intent on proselyting that having an active discussion about anything concerning their beliefs. Still, the fact that the children in the photo are the children of an evangelical Christian has nothing to do with the advert itself, which is, afterall, asking parents not to label their children.

He said: “It is quite funny, because obviously they were searching for images of children that looked happy and free. They happened to choose children who are Christian. It is ironic. The humanists obviously did not know the background of these children.”

Yes, I suppose it’s kind of ironic that the children chosen for an advert about not labeling children were in fact, children who have been labeled by their father. The again, it adds a little humour to the advert from a humanist perspective; these children are now ‘asking’ their father not to label them, and to let them decide for themselves. I wonder if he’ll listen?

He said that the children’s Christianity had shone through. “Obviously there is something in their faces which is different. So they judged that they were happy and free without knowing that they are Christians. That is quite a compliment. I reckon it shows we have brought up our children in a good way and that they are happy.

I reckon it does show that the children have been brought up in a good way, and they do look very happy. Nobody has said that being brought up by Christian parents (or any religious parents for that matter) means that you will be unhappy. I was perfectly happy as a child of religious parents, and I’m sure many are. The only thing shining through here is the happiness of the child, which has more to do with their upbringing than the religion they most likely do not understand.

Gerald Coates, the leader of the Pioneer network of churches, which Mr Mason and his family used to attend before they moved to Dorset, said: “I think it is hilarious that the happy and liberated children on the atheist poster are in fact Christian.”

The only thing ‘hilarious’ about this is that it has revealed how needed the advert is. Both the journalist who wrote this piece, the father, and the church leader quoted above have referred to these children as ‘Christian’ when they are not. They are children of Christian parents, they come from a Christian family, but you cannot expect an 8 year old and a 7 year old to understand the complexity of the Christian belief system. These are children who in all likelihood still believe in Santa Claus (if their evangelical parents do that sort of thing that is), and the Easter bunny. You can tell a child of this age anything and they will believe it; they have not yet developed the reasoning skills or the understanding that adults can be wrong.

The British Humanist Association said that it did not matter whether the children were Christians. “That’s one of the points of our campaign,” said Andrew Copson, the association’s education director. “People who criticise us for saying that children raised in religious families won’t be happy, or that no child should have any contact with religion, should take the time to read the adverts.

“The message is that the labelling of children by their parents’ religion fails to respect the rights of the child and their autonomy. We are saying that religions and philosophies — and ‘humanist’ is one of the labels we use on our poster — should not be foisted on or assumed of young children.”

Finally, the voice of reason appears in the form of Andrew Copson. It’s a shame that it took the entire length of the article before reaching some actually truthful comment, but I guess you don’t sell newspapers any other way. Luckily, in only two paragraphs, Andrew dispels all previous misinterpretation, ignorance, and blatant lying that the previous six contained.

So, are the children in the advert ‘Christian’? No.

Are they children of Christian parents? Yes.

Does it matter that such children are appearing in an advert? Not really, no.

Problem solved, crisis over. Let’s see who can misinterpret the billboard next! I can’t wait, but to fill the void, here’s a lovely quote from writer Philip Pullman, who supports the billboards and actually bothered to read them.

It is absolutely right that we shouldn’t label children until they are old enough to decide for themselves.

Religious bigots and enemies of free speech can all relax, the Atheist Bus Campaign is over! Now all you’ve got to put up with are some MASSIVE BILLBOARDS! Mwahahahahaha!

Ok, but seriously, the next stop on the Atheist Bus Campaign (which should really just be called the “Atheist Advertising Campaign” now) is a bunch of billboards set up in strategic locations across the UK; in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff, and Belfast respectively. The billboards display an important message concerning the religious labeling of children:

The new advert (and similar variations of it) makes the rightful comparison between calling a child of Marxist parents a “Marxist child” and calling a child of Christian parents a “Christian child”. We shouldn’t be labeling children with the faiths or political views of their parents; we shouldn’t label kids at all. The billboard background is made up of a combination of political and religion labels for children, all the way from “Libertarian Child” in the top left, to “Liberal Child” in the bottom right.

Of course, like the buses, these adverts don’t have an agenda (although the religious will surely interpret one anyway). We aren’t telling people they can’t bring children up in their faith; we aren’t even telling them to stop labeling their children! What we’re asking is that parents let the child decide what they want to be called, and whether that happens early or later on in life is ultimately irrelevant, just as long as the child gets the final decision.

It’s a powerful message, and one worthy of more discussion. If you want to learn more about the campaign, or support it through donations, please visit the British Humanist Association campaign page.

Reader Ryan Latham has created an informative presentation on the origins and history of the Pledge of Allegiance, and a brief introduction to the constitutional issues it faces. I’m not an American citizen, but it is hard to be a secularist online and not know about the 1954 inclusion of the words “under God” into the Pledge to counter “godless communism” at the time.

Ryan’s presentation fills you in on the court cases involving the Pledge, and how the addition of “under God” would fare if tested by the courts today.

Prayer request sites… I’m sure this sort of thing has been around for a while. But I had no idea just how many sites there are out there that allow one to post to their prayer requests to the electronic world at large, for the purpose of having other people Retweet their petitions up at God.

(Let me make the disclaimer, of course, that I’m not going to rag on the good intentions of so many people that will take the time to try to help a complete stranger with their problems. The motivation for setting up a site to help people in need obviously comes from a good place. The problem, of course, is that petitionary prayer doesn’t actually do anything, beyond a placebo effect at best; and that if you want to help someone in need, they will quite obviously be better off if you actually take action of some kind.)

You’d think that if God was going to respond to a prayer, he’d just do it, without factoring in if there was a massive effort on the part of many people. If the person praying has great needs, the last thing he or she needs is to have to find others that will echo the prayer around. Is there some kind of threshold criteria God uses to determine how he answers, or if he answers? For example, suppose I want divine help in looking for a new job. Is twenty other co-supplicants twice as good as ten? Why would it matter?

These are the kinds of questions I asked myself as I perused a bunch of prayer sites. I found many to be dull, but a few were interesting or funny for one reason or another. What follows is my top ten list.

10. Requestprayers.com

Pretty vanilla site, this is run by the Baha’i organization. Seems odd that they’d give it a commercial rather than organizational extension, but that was true for most of these places. They have one page that purports to have the most powerful prayer ever devised. Testimonitals include:

The Baha’is have some of the most beautiful and powerful prayers in the world. Add that power to a million souls across the globe praying on your behalf from all the religions, and the Light is dumbfounding. Need immediate help? You were guided to this site, and nothing happens by accident!

9. Liveprayer.com

The extremely conservative minister behind this site claims to have started the entire business of online prayer requests, apparently. He also claims to have personally received and re-prayed 60 million prayer requests. Wow! If that was not impressive enough, the main page devotes much attention to President Obama, naming him “God’s Enemy”; plus, they feature a tasteful, if amateurishly photoshopped, portrait of him next to Hiter. There is also extensive advertising for something called The Jonah Project, an effort to better Christianize the U.S. (and the world).

8. CarmelTemple.org

Not just your typical prayer submission site where your request is simply posted to a page for others to dutifully recite. No, this is the Home of the Crystal Prayer Bowl! (Yes, they have pictures of it, too.) Here is what they do with it:

The Crystal Prayer Bowl is used to collect prayer requests sent to Carmel Temple. It is placed under the Blue-White Healing Light at the beginning of healing sessions in the Sanctuary. The prayer requests then receive the energy and prayers of those present. We encourage you to place into the bowl the name (even the initials will do) of the person, persons, or situations that need prayer or healing energy. This procedure has been very effective and that bowl has an excellent reputation!

7. Donjuddministries.org

You can send them your prayer requests, which they will compile with all the others that they receive. Then they will print the entire list out. Why? So that they can “lay hands on the list” as they pray over it. Why not just lay hands on the hard drive and save time, paper, and ink?

6. Prayerblaster.com

I had high expectations for this page, and I was disappointed. I was hoping it would be a bit like Pingmyblog.com. Instead it is just a pedestrian list of links. Not much of a blaster at all, as you’d have to manually go through the list and submit your prayer to each site individually. This page might have been made in 1992.

5. Prayer.la

The folks running this site seem proud to offer an exhausting 218 pages of prayer requests that are all less than one month old. Apparently they expire after that. No stale prayers! Would take hours to go through them all and pray for each one, I’d imagine.

4. Prayerrequestweb.com

Much like prayer.la, in terms of sheer volume, but at least you won’t have to click through 218 pages of prayers. They are all on one very long page that you can just scroll down.

Here is an excerpt that I found particularly pathetic and sad, yet somehow representative of what you’ll find posted. There is a compulsory tone to it at the end… as if the author meant to finish with “Or else!”

Please pray GOD gives me all the desires of my heart that are righteous in GODs eyes.Pray GOD sends me on the mission He has for me now,Pray GOD raises me a mile above those used by Satan to glorify GOD,Pray GOD Blesses me financially now and always.Pray GOD heals my body completely now.Pray GOD brings me my soulmate now,the loneliness is tormenting me. In JESUS Name Pray.

3. Holylandprayer.com

Now this is a “dot com” that truly deserve that extension. Also fitting is the image of the glowing gold Jesus hanging on a cross that adorns their home page.

Here is what they offer, for some nominal fees: If you send them a prayer, they’ll have it prayed in Jerusalem, “steps from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the spot where Jesus was crucified, buried and resurrected.”

Or, they’ll light a candle for you there. Or do both together and get a discount!

Why would God care where the prayer originated from? Does it get more power coming from Jerusalem? Does that make it more bona fide, somehow? Or is God impressed that you are in dire enough straights that you’d send these people money? (Back in Dante’s time, accepting money for ecclessiastical favors was called Simony and earned one a very hot reward in the Eight Circle of Hell.)

Costs: $10 for a candle, $15 for a prayer. $20 for both.

2. Healinglifecoach.com Looking for something a little different from the same old prayer site? Then this is the place for you.

These folks offer special stones imbued with power because they are not merely prayed over, but “programmed.” Specifically, they tell us:

Programmed Stones can be effective and powerful tools for anything from Prayer, Freedom from Worry and Creative Visualization to Healing, Forgiveness, Gratitude and much more!

How are the stones programmed? They are cleaned and set in the Healing Sanctuary with your individualized and special requests with daily prayers being said over them for a minimum of 30 days. Then they are sent to you!

1. Ipraytoday.com

This was my favorite site because, beneath the name and prayer entry fields, it has a “capcha” device, so that you can prove you are a human being! To be fair, I suppose this is more to save the devout from being asked to repeat bogus prayers, but it struck me as hilarious to think of it as a spam filter for The Lord God Himself. I can only imagine Jehovah’s fury at realizing he was tricked into granting the request of a bot.

-S.A. Alenthony

www.blackburnianpress.com

Greetings, I’m S.A. Alenthony, and as Adrian was kind enough to give me a bit of blogging time, I’ll do my best to write a few interesting (I hope) bits here and there, interspersed with Samantha’s Odyssey into the Heart of Creationism.

There have been several moderately publicized court cases this summer that involve religious parents being tried for the deaths of their own children. Below I’ll explain why I feel a strong resonance with these stories, and what they motivate me to do in turn; but first, I’ll summarize the details for anyone that isn’t familiar with the cases.

In the first case, the AP reported on July 31 that an Oregon man convicted of criminal mistreatment in the “faith-healing” death of his young daughter was sentenced to a whopping 60 days in jail. (Two months?! That’s it?)

A jury convicted Carl Worthington of a misdemeanor charge of criminal mistreatment after acquitting him and his wife of felony manslaughter in the March 2008 death of their 15-month-old daughter, Ava, from illnesses that could have been treated with antibiotics.

The pair belong to the Followers of Christ Church, which avoids doctors in favor of “spiritual healing.”

As for the second case, the AP reported on the following day that a Wisconsin man, Dale Neumann, that was accused of killing his 11-year-old daughter by praying instead of seeking medical care, had been found guilty of second-degree reckless homicide.

Neumann was convicted in the death of his daughter, Madeline, from undiagnosed diabetes. Prosecutors contended he should have taken her to a hospital when she couldn’t walk, talk, eat or drink. Instead, she died on the floor of the family’s home as people prayed.

Sentencing will be in October for both parents, who face up to 25 years in prison. (Which sounds far more fitting than 60 days.)

Neumann, who had studied to be a minister, testified Thursday that he believed God would heal the child, and that he never expected her to die. “If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God,” Neumann testified. “I am not believing what He said He would do.“  (Some might wonder, as I did, what this fellow must be thinking about his God now, given that he followed directions but the girl still died… Certainly I’m sure he’s rationalized something.)

The capability that religion has for inducing this sort of mindless, death-affirming behavior is, of course, just one of its many problems. I hardly need to point out, as a guest writer on an atheist blog, what an indictment of faith-based thinking these examples are. (Mainstream and liberal Christians will protest that such behavior is a fringe occurrence and not representative of them – and they are right. But that isn’t because of anything religion per se has done, but because of the steady progress of secular enlightenment over the centuries.)

These stories are troubling, exasperating and revolting, of course, but occasionally they don’t have bleak endings; it turns out my life provides one rare example. For I had the very bad luck of not only being born to a family of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but to also have developed a condition at birth requiring medical intervention.

If you are familiar with the cult that is the Witnesses, you’ll know that they have odd interpretations of certain biblical passages. There are several that they read as injunctions against blood-transfusions, regardless of the medical emergency at hand. So when I was diagnosed with Hemolytic Disease of the Newborn, a condition where the red blood cells are slowly destroyed by the immune system (another example of that intelligent human body design, eh?) my father told the hospital staff that the fact that I could die was not sufficient reason to perform the abominable transfusion. Luckily for me, the state of New York issued a court order for the procedure. (I learned about this well into my adult life from my mother, who was horrified at the time that my father had actually proposed trying to remove me from the hospital.)

Afforded a chance at a life that religion would have taken, I’ve tended to direct my energies in the direction most opposite to those of the Witnesses and other godly fanatics: I pursued a science career and married an atheist biologist. We’re raising two freethinking kids, and more recently, we’ve become active in volunteering with our state Academy of Science in order to try to motivate more young people to study in our fields. And I have bigger plans as well.

I bring all this up because, as important as it is for we secularists to speak out against ongoing outrages such as those demonstrated by “faith-healing” parents, it is equally important to try to be inspirational and motivational about what we are for. Too often, atheism appears as a viewpoint that only opposes something. A religious friend of mine says that many Americans view atheists negatively because they see us as being something like The Grinch That Stole Christmas. While we know this isn’t the case, the perception is out there, and it works against us.

If my experience has any motivational power to it at all, I hope I can use it to plant a seed in the minds of other freethinkers to get more involved, if they are not already: to sign up to judge a science fair competition at a nearby school; to support a local museum; or to spoil their own kids with telescopes and chemistry sets.

And may they help find the world its next Carl Sagan. And help put the Doctor before god.

Christians have recently begun putting billboards up claiming that the separation of church and state is not what the Founding Fathers wanted for America. This is actually quite true, since it is a well established fact in the Church of the Smashing Orangey Bit that both George Washington & Thomas Jefferson were devout Jaffalots. Far from wanting a separation of church and state, the Founding Fathers wanted a joining of the “state and cake” to honour McVities forever.

However, fundamentalist Christians stormed the proceedings, rewriting the constitution, and sending back all the Jaffa Cakes to England. This event is now known as the Boston Tea Party, because it was yet again covered up by Christian fundamentalists. By telling the population that the boxes contained tea, they tricked everyone into a riot, until no Jaffa Cakes remained and the snack was forgotten.

In retribution for this terrible event, the Church of the Smashing Orangey Bit has decided to put up our own billboards to counter the atheist and Christian versions. People may have forgotten the joining of state and cake, they may have forgotten Jaffa Cakes, but they will not forget McVities!

Follow church updates on Twitter, and help stop this oppression of history!

The popular web-comic “Indexed” has a somewhat controversial Venn diagram out today, listing Osama Bin Laden (and Santa) as a “symbol of a popular religion”.

Now Santa is hardly a symbol of a popular religion, a symbol of a certain holiday usually associated with a popular religion maybe, but not of actual Christianity itself. However, is Bin Laden a symbol of Islam? The first thing that comes to mind when I hear the name Bin Laden is “terrorist”, or “9/11″, but it was Islamic terrorists who committed that atrocity (as well as many others). It seems almost too easy to associate terrorists with Islam, and vice-versa; the religion certainly encourages followers to kill unbelievers, even if the “moderates” deny it.

Proponents of Islam will often refer to it as the “religion of peace”, and yet you have to take a step back and look at what this so called peace has brought. I have to admit, every time I hear Islam described in such a way, I just stare in disbelief. It all boils down to a couple of things; namely, whether it is right to judge a religion by its extremists, and whether the religious beliefs of the terrorists were the influencing factor in their decision to carry out their plans.

Religion being an influencing factor is, in my opinion, undeniable. The hijackers died as martyrs for Islam, and we all know what their last words were, so the factor that remains is whether religious extremism is a good indicator of the actual religion. There are extremists in all religions; many simply twist the words of prophets to force their own agenda, but others are quite the opposite. Islam rewards those who kill infidels in battle, whilst Christianity makes no such promise. When considering the religion of Islam purely from scripture, I’d say it is more of a religion of hate than of peace.

As a religion of hate, Bin Laden is a good a symbol as any, although he is one of many, including the hijab (symbol of the Islamic oppression of women), and the scores of young Islamic girls who know all too well the religion’s position on child molestation.

I noticed we haven’t had a poll recently, so this is a good point to have one. Simple yes or no question: Do you think of Osama Bin Laden as a symbol of Islam? Leave a comment on why you voted, or if you think I’m talking complete nonsense.

Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.

The Alpha course is a 10 week introduction to Christianity, run here in the UK by various churches and Christian groups. It is organized by Nicky Gumbel, an evangelical Christian (surprised?) as an attempt to convert as many non-believers as possible to Christianity. The previous version of the Alpha course was aimed solely at Christians, teaching them more about their faith, but through Nicky Gumbel’s leadership, the course claims to have converted “many” people to the Christian religion.

One of the members of the London Atheist Meetup group (John Rico) recently endured the Alpha course, even going so far as to attend the weekend away they provide. The following is taken from an email John sent to a group of us, so it is written informally, but here is what happened on that weekend…

Read more…

The John Lewis Partnership has a very clear policy on who to not give donations to:

The Partnership does not give money to individuals, religious, ethnic or political groups or third-party fundraising.^[1]

Yet when atheist Richard Green was shopping in the Salisbury branch of a Waitrose store (which is owned by the partnership), he noticed that local charity The Bridge was part of the “green token” scheme, where the customer is given a green token at the checkout to deposit in one of three charity boxes near the exit. At the end of the month, Waitrose donate an amount of money to these three charities based on the percentages of tokens they get.

The description of The Bridge that appeared on the box was as follows.

The Bridge is an organisation working in schools and the community of South Wiltshire. It offers a service to schools in providing lessons, small group work, clubs and help with children experiencing problems. The oasis programme helps those students who are finding it difficult to fit into school life and need a programme and mentoring back into school life.

The Bridge is run by a dedicated team of volunteers and paid staff who are chosen for their commitment and their ability to relate to young people. The Bridge is a registered charity and it takes around £12,000 per month to keep it running.

Unfortunately, this is not the whole truth, as The Bridge is a Christian charity. On their website they list their main aims:

We provide a service to all schools with input of an explicit Christian nature. We want to give students of all ages an opportunity to hear and respond to the Good News of Jesus Christ. Finally we want to follow up the student interest by finding appropriate Church groups and easing the transition into church life.

Of course, none of this was made clear on the donation box, and it is obvious that such a charity shouldn’t be able to even enter the scheme under the current donation policy. Richard Green felt that someone had been dishonest, so he wrote a letter to the manager of the store voicing his concerns. The charity was withdrawn from the scheme immediately.

I contacted The Bridge to get a response statement and received this from Director Andy Lund:

We have been entirely open in our submission to Waitrose and in the very first paragraph of our documentation described ourselves as a Christian Organisation.

It seems the blame lies on both sides. The Bridge seemed to have been dishonest by omitting the word Christian from the paragraphs they submitted for the description. On the other hand, if what Andy Lund says is true and they mentioned that they were a Christian organisation in the first paragraph of their submission, the people at Waitrose are guilty of either not reading the submission properly, or ignoring their own donation policy by allowing this to get further than a simple submission.

This is a question posed by the blog “the BEattitude“, which has recently gained over 1,000 well deserved comments on a post concerning losing religion. The author’s personal answer, he says, is very simple:

I expect God to do for me what he did for virtually every Bible character.

In other words, he wants God to show himself, which shouldn’t be a difficult task to fulfill for such a being. He also shows how the Apostle Paul is being hypocritical about telling believers that faith is all you need, as Paul only became a believer after Jesus appeared to him as a blinding light. Are we really expected to have faith in Jesus Christ, when the founder of the Christian church itself could not do the same?

Faith is the most important requirement of any religion, because with faith you cannot distinguish between what cannot be seen and what does not exist. Without faith, your eyes are finally opened to all possibilities, and reason ultimately prevails.

For me, the question has an equally simple answer. I would expect the Bible to be filled with unambiguous, literal, truth.

Any God that is worth worshiping should be able to make sure that their holy book was completely accurate, doesn’t contain contradictions (or ambiguity), and can be read and understood by anyone. It doesn’t take much effort (for an omnipotent being) to correct the scribe who makes a copying error, or to protect the books from damage as believers are persecuted, or to write everything as literal fact that cannot be observed in nature.

This is what any rational person would demand of any other claim, so why can’t it be done for religion? The pseudoscience of homeopathy is less ambiguous than current interpretations of the Bible, yet more people reject the former. It is clear to anyone that the Bible is not true, and yet instead of giving up on Christianity, the believers can do nothing but lie and make excuses about the mistakes.

In the scientific community, when you are reduced to this level of dishonesty, your reputation is destroyed. In the religious community, you are held as a warrior for faith. I don’t know about yourself, but my mother taught me to never trust people who lied or made excuses for their mistakes. It seems only the scientific community has taken this to heart.

How about you? What would it take for YOU to believe in God?

(via theBEattitude)