Rationality Now Rotating Header Image

obama

More Christian Nation Controversy

Apr 22nd, 2010
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

This topic of the United States as a “Christian Nation” is abused so often by the religious right that it’s gotten beyond tedious, but Sarah Palin managed to stir it up again with her ignorant ramblings at the Women of Joy conference in Louisville, Kentucky.

According to an ABC News story, Palin thinks it’s “mind boggling” to suggest that the United States is not a Christian nation.

From the article:

“God truly has shed his grace on thee — on this country,” Palin told the Women of Joy conference. “He’s blessed us, and we better not blow it.”

[…]

“And then, hearing any leader declare that America isn’t a Christian nation and poking an ally like Israel in the eye, it’s mind-boggling to see some of our nation’s actions recently, but politics truly is a topic for another day.”

[…]

“Lest anyone try to convince you that God should be separated from the state, our founding fathers, they were believers,” said Palin. “And George Washington, he saw faith in God as basic to life.”

Needless to say, her comments ruffled a few feathers and sparked a lot of commentary… mostly because she’s factually incorrect on multiple points, something that isn’t surprising based on her track record.

First, Obama didn’t say we are not a Christian nation, as is often mis-quoted. What he said was…

Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

(src)

Note the prepared remarks stated “we are no longer just a Christian nation” but he stumbled over it a bit during his speech. The key word, which tends to be omitted by the religious right when going off on a rant about how persecuted they are, is “just.” Factually speaking, we are not just a nation of Christians. There are many other religions practiced in our country and, as Obama stated, people who practice no religion (even if they’re not explicitly atheists).

So if the definition of “Christian Nation” is a nation populated by those of the Christian faith, then yes, we are a Christian nation. However, that same definition means that we are a Jewish nation… a Buddhist nation… a Hindu nation… a Scientologist nation… an Islamic nation… a Wiccan nation… and the list could go on and on and on.

However, I doubt the religious right goes with that definition. Their definition is probably more likely that we are a nation founded and based on Judeo-Christian principles, blessed and ordained by the Judeo-Christian god, and protected by Divine Providence. Of course, that’s nonsense and has no factual basis whatsoever.

Those who promote the idea that we’re a Christian nation frequently note the reference to “Nature’s God” and “their Creator” in the Declaration of Independence as bits of evidence in their favor. They also harp on the religious beliefs of our founding fathers. It’s true that many of the founding fathers were religious men. That argument is largely irrelevant, but if taken seriously, gives them no real support. Not all the founding fathers were religious men. Some had no affiliation and some were deists. Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence was a deist… so presumably, when he refers to “Nature’s God” or “their Creator,” he is referring to a god who created the universe and then walked away, never to be heard from again. He certainly was not referring to the Christian notion of a God who listens to and answers prayers or is otherwise involved in the daily workings of the world.

That aside, the Declaration of Independence is not a governing document. The Constitution is our governing document… and the only mention of anything godly in our Constitution is “In the Year of our Lord” when referring to the date… hardly an indication of Christian divine providence. There is nothing… nothing… in the Constitution that mentions God, Jesus, or anything else in the Christian faith. It is a decidedly secular document, regardless of the personal beliefs of the founding fathers.

Actually, the fact that many of the founders were religious men, yet chose to omit any kind of religious references in the Constitution, is a huge indication that they specifically did not want the country to be a “Christian nation.” So quoting a founder’s view on religious faith is mostly irrelevant because the document is what governs our country… not the personal views of select founders.

It’s disingenuous for Palin (and the religious right) to claim that this is a nation based on the Christian faith… disingenuous and dishonest. Based on the actual facts, it’s blatantly untrue. There isn’t really a valid debate to be had.

The religious right, however, is a group that considers faith without evidence to be a virtue, so I’m sure the issue, much to the dismay of those who know better, will continue to come up.

No doubt Sarah Palin will make sure of that.

Pure Dobsonian ignorance

Apr 16th, 2010
by dlgilbert.
2 comments

On April 15th, a district court in Wisconsin ruled that the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional. It’s a decision that was a long time coming.

From the article:

Crabb wrote that her ruling was not a judgment on the value of prayer. She noted government involvement in prayer may be constitutional if the conduct serves a “significant secular purpose” and doesn’t amount to a call for religious action. But the National Day of Prayer crosses that line, she wrote.

“It goes beyond mere ‘acknowledgment’ of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context,” she wrote. “In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience.”

No doubt the decision will be appealed because it seems the religious right can’t stand to lose an opportunity to have the government endorse their religion. They’ll claim, over and over, that religion belief and practice is a personal thing and that it’s an issue of freedom, but they don’t really seem to grasp the concept that the freedom should apply to everyone. They seem to feel that it only applies to those who share their faith.

Shirley Dobson, wife of Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, seems to take her ignorance a step further. She is quoted as saying (emphasis mine)…

“Since the days of our Founding Fathers, the government has protected and encouraged public prayer and other expressions of dependence on the Almighty,” Dobson said. “This is a concerted effort by a small but determined number of people who have tried to prohibit all references to the Creator in the public square, whether it be the Ten Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance, or the simple act of corporate prayer – this is unconscionable for a free society.”

The highlighted statement is blatantly and unequivocally false. The people who oppose government-sponsored religious displays are not trying to prohibit religious references in the public square. In truth, most of them (if not all) would fully support the rights of anyone to display their religious beliefs in the public square. That is evidenced by the sheer numbers of churches found all across the country. It’s not uncommon to see three or four churches in a two-block radius of some towns. Religious billboards abound. “Jesus fishes” adorn cars. Crosses hang around necks and decorate roadsides. …and nobody is trying to stop it. It’s freedom.

What they are trying to stop is the promotion of religion by government institutions, including nativity scenes on government property, prayer during government meetings and publicly funded schools, government funding for religious organizations that discriminate based on religion, and any other government support, promotion, or favoritism of any type of religious practices.

So Shirley Dobson has it all wrong, but the sad thing is, the religious right will believe her and they will shake their fists in fury over their perceived persecution… because little by little, their ability to use government to push their superstitious beliefs on the rest of the country is being whittled away. They can’t understand that they are not the ones who are being persecuted. They are the persecutors.

Why do they need to display their nativity scenes on government steps when their are literally thousands of churches where the display would be far more relevant. Why do they need to force all children to pray in schools when children can pray at home, in school, on the playground, and anywhere and any time they want already? Why do they need to demand preferential treatment by the government in support of their religion when their god is supposedly all-powerful?

Their outrage and anger is absurd. It’s ignorant. It’s overbearing. It’s self-righteous and arrogant. It’s hypocritical. It’s intellectually crippling.

…all because of their grandiose superstitions.

Sean Hannity… smug and ignorant

Mar 1st, 2010
by dlgilbert.
2 comments

Not much time to comment on this story from the American Humanist Association other than to say that Sean Hannity, with his recent comments about the Obama administration meeting with a group of non-theists, continues to display an amazing amount of smugness, ignorance, and outright idiocy.

Here’s the article from the AHA.

International Darwin Day Petition

Jan 28th, 2010
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

I’m not a big fan of web-based petitions. They’re generally pretty worthless when it comes to actually getting things done, but they also make participation really, really easy. So, in the spirit of supporting the federal recognition of Darwin Day in the United States, I signed this petition put forth by the International Darwin Day Foundation.

In part, it says…

Dear President Obama,

As an American who values scientific inquiry and integrity, I urge you to issue a presidential proclamation recognizing Darwin Day on February 12. Darwin Day is celebrated every year on the anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birthday in 1809, and is a day in which people gather together to commemorate his life and work. Charles Darwin was the first to propose the groundbreaking scientific theory of evolution by natural selection—a theory that has done more to unify and bring understanding to the life sciences than any other—and Darwin Day is a celebration of this discovery and of scientific progress.

I believe that issuing this proclamation will send a powerful message that scientific discovery and integrity in our society are top priorities—priorities that are needed now more than ever as extremists with narrow ideological agendas are attempting to undermine science in our schools.

Please stand with me and countless others who value science and discovery by issuing the following or a similar proclamation on Darwin Day.

Feel free to jump on that bandwagon.

Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize

Oct 10th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
2 comments

President Barack Obama - Nobel Peace Prize Winner(I don’t usually get all politicky on this site, but this was something I felt very strongly about and since a huge percentage of Obama’s critics seem to be irrational, right-wing fundamentalists, it’s somewhat (though not entirely) relevant to this blog.)

Since President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, there’s been a firestorm of criticism with some people even implying that Obama himself somehow used subversive tactics to gain the award… that he used manipulative tricks that somehow succeeded in conning the Nobel committee into giving him the prize.

I’ve yet to hear someone from the right give any sort of acknowledgement that it’s rather nice that the president of our country won the award. Not only will they not even show a snippet of national pride in the matter, but they rail against Obama, crying that he’s done nothing to deserve it… that he’s accomplished nothing noteworthy in his term as president (or in his life)… that the award is now cheapened.

Despite explanations by the Nobel prize committee as to the reasons for their selection, Obama’s opponents continue to see nothing but their own imaginary country-destroying conspiracies, socialist takeovers, irresponsible policies, and egomaniacal rantings of our president and of anyone who happens to come down one step to the left of nut jobs like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. It’s as though they’re so blinded by their frothing hatred for our president, they can’t even acknowledge that the man has some good points… that he does want this country to succeed and to be safer and to be respected around the world… and that he’s working to accomplish that goal.

I can’t say that I agree with everything Obama has done (or rather that the Congress has done), but I do see some glaring goodness from the man. When I voted for him, there were checks in both the pro and con columns, but the things in the “pro” column outweighed the others. National security was in the “pro” column. After the Bush era, I feel that our country was far less safe than before, but in one year in office, I feel that Obama has changed that. Even as early as July, international opinions of the United States were almost back to their pre-Bush levels. Friday, I read an international poll showing the numbers even higher than in July, exceptionally so among Western European nations.

The right-wing of this country will poo-poo those statistics and complain that the country is much less safe and say that Obama has done nothing but lie and collect an unwarranted paycheck. The not-so-thin veil of partisan hatred obscures their vision so much that they refuse to acknowledge, or even see, even small positives about our president.

Obama’s winning the Nobel Peace Prize should be a cause for celebration… an inspiration… a reason to be proud. The Nobel committee explained their position well and an award of this nature is not unprecedented as some would claim. But instead of savoring the pride, the honor, and the inspiration that should come from a Nobel prize, Obama’s opponents, not Obama, cheapen the award. Their wild spewing of vitriolic anger tarnishes the luster of a prestigious, honorable prize that was awarded to a man chosen by the Nobel committee for both his accomplishments and for the promise of what he, and the rest of us, can yet accomplish toward global peace.

Rachel Maddow has more to say.

(thanks to my friend Rob Kent for the link to Rachel’s video)

Mogahed says Sharia Law is misunderstood

Oct 9th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
1 comment

Dalia Mogahed, President Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs, seems to think that the West misunderstands Sharia law… and the reason that so many women do support Sharia is because…

The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance.

The portrayal of Sharia has been oversimplified in many cases.

Okay… I know this woman’s job is to be a sort of arbiter between the Muslim world and the United States, so she can’t just come out and say (to their faces) that Sharia law is a horribly primitive, misogynous, brutal, absurd, and unethical legal framework. But to simply say that its been oversimplified and misunderstood and imply that it has anything even remotely like “justice for women” is patently absurd.

I do understand that perhaps there’s an underlying strategy here. Making peace with Muslims isn’t going to come from telling them that their rules for living are barbarous. Some “calming down” will, perhaps, be helpful in beginning the process of enlightenment. In addition, the London show was hosted by a group called Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party, according to this article from the Telegraph. According to the article…

The group believes in the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of an Islamic state under Sharia Law across the world.

That’s a tough position for Mogahed. She was placed in the middle of the group which promotes horrid, horrid things, yet she’s supposed to be leading the charge for harmony between religions.

Again from the article…

During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular “man-made law” and the West’s “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism”.

They called for Sharia Law to be “the source of legislation” and said that women should not be “permitted to hold a position of leadership in government”.

This is not an acceptable position in a civilized world. Whether it’s a common view among moderate Muslims, I can’t say, but the fact that it’s proposed by any faction of Muslims is abhorrent.

Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that “promiscuity” and the “breakdown of traditional values” were what Muslims admired least about the West.

Though I can somewhat sympathize with Mogahed not taking them to task for their primitive views, I don’t sympathize with the ignorance of using the phrase “breakdown of traditional values” in reference to shortcomings of the United States. It’s notoriously vague and can bet twisted to mean just about anything, but frequently is seized upon by the somewhat similarly archaic religious right to mean same-sex marriage and abortion. Perhaps Mogahed wanted to be vague, however, in order to leave herself some wiggle room in future discussions. I’m giving her a huge benefit of the doubt by saying that.

Christians really have no room to complain in this scenario, in my opinion, without giving equal time to criticizing their own religion. Both Christianity and Islam promote some savage, inhuman ideas and actions. I would agree that Islam generally takes a harder line against women and is less tolerant of opposing views, but that’s not any kind of exoneration of Christianity. It’s not okay to do bad things just because someone else does worse things. The recent defense of Catholic sexual scandals by the Vatican saying that Protestents do it, too, is a perfect example.

Islam needs to be illuminated by the bright light of skepticism and reason… and a secular sense of ethics and morality. The positions it takes on women alone are enough to condemn it to the ideological junk heap, but of course that won’t happen because it’s “protected” under the grand umbrella of “religious tolerance” that protects so many abhorrent religious ideas. I fully support religious freedom, but there’s a line that needs to be drawn when it comes to the poor treatment of fellow human beings and the promotion of superstitious nonsense.

Islam crosses that line by leaps and bounds.

Why take them seriously?

Sep 22nd, 2009
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

Here’s why it’s really hard to take the religious right seriously.

“I don’t believe in global warming,” said conservative activist Kim Simac, a horse trainer and mother of nine from Wisconsin who also believes that the teaching of creationism and prayer need to be brought back to public schools.

(via)

…and…

One delegate, Sue Phelps, drew comparisons between Barack Obama, Fidel Castro and Adolf Hitler – “they were good orators too” – and said the president’s nationality and religion were “unanswered questions”.

(via)

…and…

“Today in America, far too many young people enter adulthood unprepared for college, career, and life,” said Allan Golston, president of The Gates Foundation’s U.S. Program. [Drew] Dickens agrees and believes that “part of the problem is that we have removed prayer and the Ten Commandments from our schools and curriculum.”

(via)

I could go on. When people are that vocal, yet that oblivious to facts, that ignorant of the Constitution, and that eager to force their religious beliefs on others, they’ve really got no room to complain when they are ignored or mocked.

Tea Party Rally a Scattershot Rage-fest

Sep 16th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

So Obama is like Hitler? From Bay of Fundie comes a slideshow of some of the signs from this past weekend’s “tea party” protest in Washington, DC. I’ve seen a lot of pictures from the event and have even seen a number of signs I do agree with (mostly related to bailouts and government spending), but the number of signs that portray true ignorance is just too great to ignore.

As I posted on my personal blog, protests are more about signs with clever slogans than addressing issues in any detail, but when those signs comprise an incoherent, inconsistent, scattershot collection of complaints with an underlying ignorance of the associated issues, there’s nothing productive about it.

In this slideshow, there are accusations of death panels, mandated abortions, liberal fascism, and communism. There are comparisons of Obama to Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Castro. There are complaints about Planned Parenthood, health care, ACORN, child trafficking in prostitation [sic], smallpox vaccinations (!!!), and the word “czar.” Even the tired old “Where’s the birth certificate?” nonsense is rolled out for show and tell.

Glenn Beck 2012? Please, no. There was even a sign with the words “Glenn Beck 2012.”

In other pictures, I’ve seen signs stating that the US is a Christian nation, that we’re “One Nation Under God,” that we need to pray more, and that Obama is a liar. There are plenty of other signs, but along with those signs come some interviews of some of the folks carrying them.

I will grant that the interviews are a small sample and may not be indicative of the ignorance level of the crowd in general, but based on the crazy signs I’ve seen, the interviews may not be too far off base.

What’s the common thread that runs through all the carriers of the more outrageous signs? Is it racism? Fundamentalist religion? Lack of education? Partisan hatred? I don’t really know, but I can make an educated guess at some of the causes. All of the above, perhaps?

Is this anti-Jesus or anti-liberty? The candle flames of racism, ignorance, and religious fundamentalism get fanned and fed by outrageous, hate-filled talk by the likes of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, and other right-wing talking heads. These commentators help create and instill irrational fear in these protestors with spin, exaggerations, lies, and incendiary rhetoric. What’s worse is that the right-wing politicians do the same… assisted by fundamentalist preachers… assisted by conspiracy-theory proponents.

While some of the protesters had serious signs that indicated rational policy disagreements, a huge number (perhaps a majority) of the signs were simply banners of ignorance… spiteful displays of unfocused rage. In some of the interviews, protesters couldn’t explain what their signs meant or why they held the positions they did. They were just there to vent their nebulous, right-wing, Glenn-Beck-inspired rage to the Washington, DC mall and to be surrounded by others who were just as rage-filled.

We can do that in the United States. Our Constitutional First Amendment guarantees us that right, which is a beautiful thing. It’s one of the things that’s great about our country. When I see people like this taking advantage of that right, especially in a relatively well-mannered and orderly way, it makes me proud of our Constitution.

…but it makes embarrassed about our citizens.

Conspiracy Theories and Other Muddled Thinking

Aug 3rd, 2009
by dlgilbert.
7 comments

Illuminati and Conspiracy Theories Almost everyone laughs at Flat-Earthers, people who actually believe that the Earth is flat despite all evidence to the contrary. Most people also laugh at the Moon-Hoaxers, the folks who think that we never landed on the moon and that it’s all just a conspiracy with elaborately faked footage, photos, and reports. Conspiracy theorists in general provide a good laugh for most rational people, whether it’s talk of alien abductions, secret government programs with captured spaceships, crop circles, the Illuminati taking control of the world, or government mind control drugs in public water.

There’s a long history of conspiracy theory and one would think that that history would be just that… history… a thing of the past. Barring a few fringe groups, we don’t expect to see people outright denying scientifically proven facts or making accusations of secret, intricate, tangled webs of clockwork precision government cover-ups.

Yet we have just that… and not just among small "fringe" groups. Here’s a short list (in addition to the ones already mentioned).

  • 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists  – claim that the US government caused the twin towers to collapse.
  • Lizard-People Conspiracy Theorists – claim that lizard-people are running the world (seriously).
  • AIDS Conspiracy Theorists – claim that AIDS is a man-made disease cooked up in a lab.
  • Obama Birthers – deny that Obama is a US citizen (or that it hasn’t been documented).
  • Global Warming Deniers – deny that global warming is occurring or is affected by human activity.
  • Creationism Proponents – deny that evolution by natural selection explains the diversity of life on Earth.
  • Holocaust Deniers – claim the Holocaust never happened.
  • Anti-Vaxxers – claim that vaccines cause autism.
  • 2012 Alarmists – claim that, since the Mayan calendar ends in December of 2012, the world will end.

I’m sure there are many more. Some of the ideas are absurd because of historical evidence, some because of scientific evidence, and some because of their sheer implausibility (backed up by no evidence). Some are combinations.

A common thread, however, is that each of them ignores or denies actual evidence contradictory to its premise. In some cases, their proponents will fabricate evidence, making scientific or historical claims that are patently false in an attempt to bolster their case. Using outdated, no-longer-relevant data is also a common tactic, whether through ignorance or malicious intent.

What is the motivation for people to believe and perpetuate these absurd claims? Sometimes it’s politics. Sometimes it’s religion. Sometimes it’s an overactive imagination. There are plenty of other psychological reasons proposed.

sleestack01 Is this a big deal? Are conspiracy theories just good fun or are they harmful or dangerous? In some cases, like the lizard-people idea, they’re harmlessly silly and don’t gain enough traction in popular culture to cause anything other than snickering and pretend horror. In other cases, such as Holocaust deniers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists, they can cause emotional pain for those who are close to the event in question. In the worse cases, the conspiracy theories can gain enough traction to cause political turmoil, educational degradation, and even health risks. Global warming deniers, creationists, and anti-vaxxers are perfect examples of these.

Potentially dangerous effects aside, these conspiracy theories show a lack of critical thinking skills and/or a lack of understanding of science. Perhaps they demonstrate an innate distrust for any authority figure… to the point of automatically assuming that anything said by an authority figure is innately false or misleading (regardless of whether or not the figure in question has anything to gain by misleading the public). Perhaps they simply indicate a complete lack of curiosity, their proponents believing everything they hear without any skepticism at all. Politics and religion can also entrench someone firmly in a position that is rationally indefensible.

It’s the groups whose ideas have a tangible, negative effect on society that concern me the most. Folks who believe that lizard-people are controlling the Earth are relatively harmless and somewhat amusing. It’s the people who think that our activities don’t have an affect on our planet’s warming and who want to block any action we could take to limit that affect… or it’s those who feel that it’s okay to teach our children that our world was created by magic, corrupting science education, instead of teaching them the real science behind the wondrous way in which life evolved on our planet… or it’s the people who publicly mislead doting parents with bogus claims that childhood vaccines cause autism, leading those parents to forgo protecting their children which, in turn, leads to everyone else’s health being put in danger.

Those are the conspiracy theorists that I have a problem with. Those are the people who have a detrimental effect on society. Those are the people whose blindness to rationality, evidence, and critical thinking cause harm to the rest of the world. They cheapen our existence, mislead our children, endanger our health, corrupt our national discourse, and create hostile divisions where there should be none… and they will defend their absurd positions with a ferocious certainty that is completely unwarranted by evidence.

What’s the solution? In my opinion… education. Starting in grade school, children need to be taught how to think, not what to think. Critical thinking skills are… well… critical. The scientific method needs to be understood… not just science facts, but the why and how of the facts. And these skills need to be taught, not just to school children, but to adults.

As for those adults who refuse to accept evidence and continue to scream their absurdities from the rooftops, they need to be countered… loudly, frequently, and eloquently. We cannot silence them by removing their right to free speech, but we can do everything in our power to point out their muddled thinking, debunk their bogus conclusions, and reveal them for the charlatans they are. They should be embarrassed by their own silliness and we need to hold up a mirror to them, giving them a perfect view of their intellectual ugliness. They will complain, accuse, deny, quite possibly lie… and they will be loud.

We need to be louder.

Obama to meet with Benedict XVI

Jul 10th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

President Obama meets with Pope Benedict XVI President Obama is scheduled to meet with Pope Benedict XVI today. I don’t know if anything interesting will come of it, but it will probably be an intriguing meeting if you were a fly on the wall.

With the conservative vs. liberal views and the disagreements on abortion and stem cell research in particular, there could potentially be some uncomfortable moments, but I trust that Obama will handle it well.

It will be interesting to see if Obama gives another shout-out to non-believers, but I doubt that will happen. It’s probably not the appropriate venue for atheist talk. However, there might be some talk about Islam which could spice up the meeting.

I don’t have much confidence that the meeting will accomplish anything productive or beneficial other than, perhaps, some small modicum of camaraderie. When you meet with someone who thinks that condoms increase the spread of AIDS, wafers turn into flesh, dead men walk, and omnipotent beings communicate via burning shrubbery, it’s seriously tough to get a rational message to have any effect.

Maybe they’ll just talk about helping poor people.

← Earlier Posts