Path of Reason

Interview with Brian Keith Dalton, creator of Mr. Deity

2011-03-04T04:23:00.000-05:00

by Adam C. LaMonica

Path of Reason: What inspired Mr.Deity (other than divinity)?

Brian Keith Dalton: The Indonesian tsunami of December 2004 inspired the first episode of Mr. Deity. I wrote a little skit which was essentially the first Mr. Deity episode (Mr. Deity and the Evil). I sent it around and everyone loved it. Almost two years later, Jimbo and I were driving home from a job and he convinced me to shoot the first episode with myself in the lead role (we had put it out to every actor we knew, and no one was interested). We shot the first episode three times because I had a really hard time directing and acting. In fact, it was the first time I'd acted in anything.

Philosophically, my love of science, philosophy, and critical thinking are the inspirations. I do believe that the great evils of this world are ideology and dogmatism. They make people unreasonable. And the most frightening words in any language (I'll do it here in English) are, "It cannot be reasoned with."

POR: It's clear from watching a few webisodes of Mr. Deity that you have a solid understanding of religion and it's dogma. Do you have any religious background or have you always taken the side of the skeptic?

BKD: I have a pretty extensive religious background. I was raised Mormon, and really got into it in my late teens and early twenties. I also became pretty obsessed with Christianity (some of my Mormon friends were worried) and Christian history. In my early twenties I studied informally with a Jewish theologian for nearly two years and have a really good grasp of Judaism (he used to say that I knew more about Judaism than 99% of Jews).

I became a Formon (my term for a former Mormon) in 1993 when, after a lot of investigating, I came to the conclusion that the empirical claims of Mormonism were untrue and could be proved false to a near certainty. After that, I wandered a bit. I tried to become Catholic but they wouldn't let me. At that point, I wasn't sure if I believed in God, and I was looking mostly for my young daughter (still under the illusion that religion was necessary to raise good children). I tried Judaism for a short time but couldn't get past the ethnic factor ---- I felt like I'd never be a true Jew. I also just hated anything that smacked of nationalism or group-think ---- the American ideal of the melting pot really speaks to me.

I finally realized that there were other people like me and that they called themselves skeptics. At the time, Dr. Laura was one of these people (crazy, huh?). She was on the board of The Skeptic Society and her article in Skeptic magazine on "False Memory Syndrome" lead me to Michael Shermer and The Skeptic Society. I love Michael and his organization. He and I have very similar stories (he was a born-again Christian), and we both "get" the whole religion "thing." Neither of us are bitter about our experiences, and we generally respect people of faith who can discuss religion rationally.

POR: The sardonic commentary of Mr.Deity undoubtedly offends some religious people out there despite it's honesty regarding particular doctrines. What kind of responses have you received from viewers?

BKD: I began doing Mr. Deity believing that Christians (and other religious folks) in America had not been given a fair shake in the media and that they were nowhere near as close-minded and unable to laugh at themselves as people thought. I am happy to report that I have been able to maintain that opinion. Perhaps that will change as the Mr. Deity audience grows. I hope not.

I have a lot of religious people write to me who love the show ---- and not because they're too dense to get it (as some have suggested). I hope that trend continues, and I hope I can continue to walk that very narrow line where (apparently) I'm not being horribly offensive to those who are religiously minded.

I think anyone with a deep and abiding faith knows that there are problems with theology, the Bible, religion in general, and with how religion is practiced by some. I think it shows a profound intellectual honesty to be able to laugh at yourself when someone is really poking at you ---- and we hit pretty hard sometimes. Kudos to them!

POR: Is there any particular reason why Mr. Deity tends to satirize Christianity? Why not other religions as well?

BKD: Well, I live in a "Christian Nation." Of course, I say that tongue-in-cheek, but Christianity is the dominant religion. It's also the religion that I and most people in this country know best. I just don't think the show would have a broad audience if we were poking fun at Jainism.

POR: What does it take to produce a webisode? Do you really do everything yourself? Writing, directing, filming, etc?

BKD: Right now, it's taking every waking moment of my life to do Mr. Deity every other week, Larry/Deity once a week, and Words ever other week. I do way too much. I write all the shows, produce them, direct them, act in them, shoot them (as cinematographer), edit them, sound mix them, and do the music. I even compress the shows and get them ready for YouTube. Thankfully, Jimbo does the podcast feed. And all the cast members are extremely supportive. Most supportive is my lovely wife who plays Lucy on the show. I can't begin to tell you what this woman endures ---- particularly having her home torn apart most of the time now. She is my best friend and I could not be a luckier guy.

POR: What are your plans for the future of Mr. Deity? TV? Movie? Action figure?

BKD: An action figure is our top priority right now. But we'd love to do this as a half-hour, one-camera, sitcom on some really, really gutsy network. We have a pilot and several episodes written, but companies are afraid of the content. We're looking into hitting up the BBC ---- Europe is a much better venue for this show, I think. We also have a feature film idea, and it looks like (at this point) Mr. Deity will be showing in a film sometime in the next year --- though not a Mr. Deity film. I'll have more details when that deal gets inked.

POR: The "behind the scenes" webisode, "Words" is a more recent creation that "follows the lives of the Deity crew." It has great comedic "reality" in the vain of shows like Curb Your Enthusiasm. Who are some influences on your style?

BKD: I have been one of the biggest Woody Allen fans in the world since I was 14. I'm also a huge fan of Bob Newhart. You can see a lot of these two guys in my delivery, timing, and writing. The other influence is Bob Hope (directly and vicariously ---- as he was a big influence on Woody). I can say it more succinctly ---- a Woody and two Bobs. Other than that, I just love good writing ---- particularly conversational writing. When we're rehearsing, the stuff that sounds "written" gets cut very quickly. I think the hardest thing for an actor is to play a scene that doesn't feel real. Acting is hard enough, so having good, conversational writing is a must. I hope that doesn't sound like I'm patting myself on the back, but I am.

POR: Is anyone in the "Deity crew" involved in other projects or have previous things they've done in tv, film, or on the web?

BKD: Amy was on a Star Trek episode, and is one of the few people on the planet to have appeared in a live-action segment of South Park. She's done a lot of stuff over the years. She's also my full-time wife which is really time-consuming.

Sean has been in all kinds of stuff --- you can look him up on imdb.com. He's the real actor among us ---- great training, great instincts ---- he's been in everything I've done, and he just knocks me out. We're going to be shooting a pilot for another show I've been writing called "Estranged." We did some preliminary shooting a while back and we've just been looking at it. Sean is so good, it's frightening.

Jimbo has a theater and film background (I think a degree?). He made a feature years ago (I think he's still paying down that loan), and has great comic timing/instincts. He's my best friend --- which is pretty much a full-time job. So, he can't be in anything else.

POR: What's your take on the advent of "webisodes" and do you plan on continuing making them for different projects?

BKD: I love the web, and I love YouTube. We couldn't have done this five or six years ago. I think it's a great venue to get seen. It's so great to be able to put something up, have people watch it and get their feedback. More than anything else, we love the YouTube comments. They really do motivate us to keep coming up with great stuff.

POR: On July 29th, you'll be visiting the Center For Inquiry in Amherst, NY. Do you think it's appropriate that Mr. Deity will be going to address a group of atheists, agnostics, and other skeptics? Do you plan on converting them?

BKD: Mr. Deity doesn't have a problem with Atheists --- they're his loyal opposition. He is sadly aware of what his people do (did) when they get (had) power. So, he has great respect for those on the other side. He too, hates the ideologues!

:END:

God's Sacrifice - Overlooking the Implications

2011-03-04T04:17:00.000-05:00

by A. C. LaMonica

I was recently forwarded an email with "Powerful (get the Kleenex ready)" in the subject line. In the email was a link to a short film called "The Bridge." The film is described on the site as "a cinematic story of a father's love...faced with an unfathomable circumstance and choice." I ask that you watch the film (5 min) before proceeding to my *article below.

I must admit that I found "The Bridge" (now called "Most") a moving film despite its obvious metaphoric representation of God sacrificing Jesus for the sins of the world. Religious or not, the film beautifully shows the importance of self-sacrifice, to consider the greater good before oneself. It is a timeless lesson promoting the selfless altruistic qualities that allow us to thrive as a species. In that sense, everyone can benefit from seeing this film. However, when the Christian doctrine is woven into the story, it loses a lot but also brings to light some glaring theological problems.

The phrase, "Jesus died for your sins.” is one that most human beings cannot go a lifetime without hearing at least once. In America, you can hardly get through the week without your friendly Christian neighbor reminding you that your sins killed Jesus. Even the often referenced and memorized Bible verse, John 3:16, has risen to pop culture status.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

This belief is a necessity of the Christian faith and without it the religion itself begins to crumble. It is a tenet of faith known by all Christians and recited daily in their prayers but is it really understood?

Christians presuppose that God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and that Jesus is not only the son of God but God himself as part of the triune God (the remaining parts being God the father and the Holy Spirit.) Already this apparently simple belief of God's sacrifice begins to reveal the theological quagmire it is.

The simple explanation frequently given is that God loves you so much that he sacrificed his son, Jesus, so that your sins can be forgiven. When viewed through the scope of the aforementioned Christian doctrines, “Jesus dying for your sins” translates into:

God made it necessary to sacrifice himself, to himself, in order to appease himself.

That brief statement should be enough to demonstrate the intrinsic irrationality of the belief but I will continue with other examples for the steadfast Christian. Let's begin by breaking down my translated statement above.

God, being omnipotent, made it necessary to kill his son/himself because it was the only way for sins to be eternally forgiven. Sounds like an unusual line of reasoning for a being of infinite wisdom. I would even go so far as to say that it would have been better (albeit unnecessary and pointless) if God (Jesus) had given his life only to demonstrate how much he loved us. But that wasn't the only reason. The sins of humanity were so great (according to his celestial barometer) that God insisted the only way he could redeem us was through the torture and murder of his son.

How exactly does God's logic here show that he loves us? Was it impossible for him to simply forgive us BECAUSE he loves us? Shouldn’t God love and forgive us for the people he created us as? Apparently that was too much for God. He instead sacrificed his son to show his "love" for the world and as a result cast a shadow of guilt over every Christian generation to come.

The big question is why did God insist on expressing his love for us through the intentional killing of his son? Anyone with common sense could easily come up with other nicer, more effective ways for an omnipotent deity to express love to its creatures. For starters, why not perform some miracles? Re-grow the limbs of a quadruple amputee, cure a child of Autism, get rid of AIDS, save the US economy, etc. etc.

With all of this in mind, we see less and less parallels between God sacrificing Jesus, and the father character in "The Bridge" sacrificing his son to save the people on the train. Here are some points to consider when comparing the story of "The Bridge" with God's sacrifice using Christian theology to interpret:

- The "bridge" father makes a mistake by not putting the bridge down for the train to cross. Did God have to sacrifice his son because of a mistake he made?

- The "bridge" father is forced into a circumstance that results in him giving up the life of his little boy to save the people on the train. God is in control and has the advantage of foresight. God creates the circumstance of killing his son to show how "good" and "loving" he is. Now what if the "bridge" father set up a situation in which he purposely killed his son to show how he "saved" the people on the train? When applied to an all-powerful God, this quickly turns from an act of love to an act of twisted, murderous self-glorification.

- The "bridge" father loses his young son to a terrible crushing death in order to do the noble good of saving strangers from death. God knowingly sacrifices his adult son/self so that he feels better about forgiving our sins. Mind you, God knows that after his son is sacrificed, he will come back to life in 3 days right as rain. Which is the greater sacrifice here?

A more reasonable person might agree that the man in "The Bridge" is more honorable and worthy of worship than the God of Christianity.

I could go on and on about this faux sacrifice of God's (e.g. Why did God kill everyone, including innocent children of “evil sinners”, with a flood when he knew he would just have to save humankind with Jesus anyways?) but I fear further intellectual entanglement in attempting to follow nonsensical reasoning. At the very least, I hope I have opened the Christian reader up to the obvious faults in this cornerstone of their faith. We ask that Christians, in particular, give us your feedback on this article. Whether you feel that you can explain away the problems brought up here or if you agree with us, we are interested to hear what you have to say.

*Please note that much of my language in this article referencing "God, the Father" "Jesus, the Son of God" and "sin" etc. is used to demonstrate a point. I am not acknowledging personal belief in any of these things but rather see them as tools for deconstructing the dogma itself.

The HUMANIST Interview with EBOO PATEL

2011-03-04T03:54:00.001-05:00

by Adam C. LaMonica
Published in the May/June 2009 Humanist

Eboo Patel is the founder and executive director of the Interfaith Youth Core, a Chicago-based international nonprofit working to build mutual respect and pluralism among religiously diverse young people. He received his doctorate in the sociology of religion from Oxford University, where he studied on a Rhodes scholarship. Patel is the author of Acts of Faith: The Story of an American Muslim, the Struggle for the Soul of a Generation and regularly appears on Chicago Public Radio and the Washington Post/Newsweek “On Faith” blog. Additionally, he has been featured on CNN Sunday Morning, NPR’s Morning Edition, and other mainstream media outlets. He serves on boards of the National YMCA and Duke University’s Islamic Studies Center, and is also an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations’ Religious Advisory Committee and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs’ task force on Muslims and American Foreign Policy. He has spoken at the Clinton Global Initiative, the Nobel Peace Prize Forum, and at universities around the world. Patel was recently appointed by President Barack Obama to the advisory council of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

The Humanist: As an American Muslim, did you have any experiences that influenced your decision to become an advocate of interfaith? What led you to start an organization like the Interfaith Youth Core?

Eboo Patel: When I was a young Muslim growing up in the Western suburbs of Chicago, I had friends from all different backgrounds sitting at my lunch table. There was a Nigerian Evangelical, a Cuban Jew, a South Indian Hindu, a Lutheran, a Mormon, and a Catholic. This experience contrasted with the news I saw throughout the 1990s, which was full of religious violence. I didn’t understand why, though we all got along at the lunch table, I saw a different story in the media―the story of religious violence, in which young people are often at the front lines. I also recognized that so many of my heroes, like Mahatma Gandhi, Dorothy Day, and Thich Nah Han, were young people of faith who started movements for interfaith cooperation. I asked myself: What would it take to start a movement that would make the kind of positive relationships at my lunch table and these great chapters in world history a reality in the twenty-first century? The inspiration for the Interfaith Youth Core was born of this question.

The Humanist: What sort of activities do you pursue at the IFYC?

Patel: We have three main goals: To spread the message of religious pluralism in the public square; to train, nurture, and provide resources for young people to engage in interfaith service and dialogue; and to help these young leaders to build the movement. The IFYC is what we consider its hub, and we work to catalyze interfaith youth action, as well as introduce the idea into the policy and government worlds. All sectors of society can play a role in this movement, and it is one of our tasks to find a way for everyone to contribute.

The Humanist: Do IFYC members share and discuss their religious beliefs and is there any focus on religious education through the IFYC?

Patel: At the Interfaith Youth Core, we focus on storytelling. We think that everyone is the scholar of their own experience and that the best way to relate to one another is through our personal narratives. In this sense, we encourage individuals to share and discuss their faith story with one another to improve understanding across lines of faith.

The Humanist: What is your opinion of the current state of religious tolerance and pluralism in the United States today?

Patel: The United States is the most religiously diverse country in history and the most religiously devout nation in the West. It is ripe with potential for realizing a true state of religious pluralism. However, we haven’t yet achieved this reality. It’s clear from the backlash against Muslim-Americans during the 2008 presidential campaign that we have to keep working to create a religiously tolerant nation. I have a young son and I don’t want his big American dreams to feel confined because he prays in Arabic.

The Humanist: President Barack Obama has said, “The difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize.” Being that those involved in interfaith groups are essentially brought together by the diversity of their religious (or nonreligious) beliefs, do you encounter any problems with proselytizing amongst members? If so, how do you address them?

Patel: We understand that the call to evangelize is a part of many people’s religious tradition. While respecting this, we make the distinction that an interfaith dialogue is neither the time nor the place to follow this call. Therefore, we set a safe space where participants acknowledge that we might have different ideas of heaven and how to get there, but that on earth we can work together, and to do so we must respect each other’s religious traditions.

The Humanist: Some commentators on your blog feel that secular humanists and other nontheists don’t have a place in interfaith groups or discussions. I know of some humanists being excluded outright from their local interfaith groups. What is your perspective on the involvement of secular humanists in the interfaith movement?

Patel: My friend Greg Epstein is the secular humanist chaplain at Harvard University, and a huge supporter of interfaith. We welcome humanists as advocates and allies in the interfaith movement, and believe that there is a place for all. Last fall on my Washington Post blog I wrote a call to include the nonreligious in our work.

The Humanist: Respect for a person’s religious beliefs is an integral part of the interfaith movement. However, do you think there is a point at which criticism of particular religious beliefs or practices is necessary when protecting the freedom and rights of individuals?

Patel: Our definition of pluralism has three parts: respect for religious identity, relationships between diverse groups, and common action for the common good. Respect for religious identity is the first component of religious pluralism, and is necessary to build meaningful relationships with people who have diverse beliefs. In part, this means finding the positive commonalities between traditions. These shared values serve as inspiration for those who do have differences in belief to come together and work towards bettering the world.

The Humanist: Often in your interviews, you passionately encourage tolerance, pluralism, religious freedom, and even secularism much in the same way many humanists do. Advocating this moderate outlook as a Muslim, are you criticized by other Muslims and, if so, how do you deal with that?

Patel: Too often, the voices of extremism drown out the voices of moderation. I speak in order to empower the vast majority of Americans who are drawn to the moderate middle, but have no outlet in the public square. We have to encourage these moderate voices, which include individuals of all faiths and no faith at all, to break through. I speak as an American who wants to put forth a different vision of religion, one of cooperation instead of conflict.

The Humanist: Through your involvement in the interfaith movement, what are some successes you have seen as a result? What are some challenges?
Patel: IFYC has seen some major successes. We currently run a Fellows Alliance with twenty fellows on different college campuses around the country doing interfaith organizing. In 2008 we reached 23,000 people, conducted recruitment and training at seventy-five college and university campuses, reached thirty new faith communities, and conducted 270 presentations, trainings, and workshops. The interfaith youth movement is also expanding internationally through our partnership with the Tony Blair Faith Foundation and exchange and training initiatives throughout Western Europe.

The challenge for the interfaith youth movement is countering the messages constantly shown through the media. The television constantly shows religious people killing each other to the soundtrack of prayer, and movies like Religulous contribute to the depiction of very devout individuals as unreasonable. Our challenge is to counter this “clash of civilizations” narrative with our own story of religious cooperation.

The Humanist: Congratulations on your appointment to the advisory council of President Obama’s Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. How did you come to be involved in this new council?

Patel: In my work I have the privilege of encountering visionary leaders of religious communities, civic organizations, and policy-making institutions, and I’m honored to have been selected alongside some of these leaders for this White House council. I especially look forward to making interfaith action a priority. The fifteen of the twenty-five members of the advisory council selected thus far convened at the beginning of February with the president, and he made the point that this isn’t the time to argue between faith-based and secular, or Muslim and Christian. This is the time to find the common ground of compassion in all faiths and traditions, and put it into action where it is needed most.
The Humanist: Concerns have been raised regarding protecting church-state separation while federally funding religious groups. What are your thoughts on this issue and how should it be addressed?

Patel: Protecting the separation of church and state is a core commitment of the Obama administration. The Executive Director of the faith-based office, Joshua DuBois, has said: “This is not a religious office or a religious administration. We are going to try to find ways to work with faith-based and community organizations that are secular in nature, and don’t cross the boundaries between church and state. We understand it is a fine line. But it’s a line we’re comfortable walking.”

My question is, how can we have mosques and synagogues, secular humanist groups and atheists work together to make sure that in an economic crisis, people are getting what they need? Religious communities do seek to bring others into their fold, but the purpose of this council is not to advance those parochial religious interests. It is to advance the common good, and to advance religious institutions, as well as secular ones, that are often the first and best rooted responders. I know that careful attention will be paid to maintaining appropriate boundaries between church and state.

The Humanist: In what ways do you think the addition of the advisory council will help to serve faith-based initiatives?

Patel: The council includes prominent pastor Joel Hunter, faith-based social justice giant Rev. Jim Wallis, and the influential Rabbi David Saperstein. But it also includes people from secular service organizations, like Judith Vredenburgh of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. President Obama is sending a message with the membership: this council is about how faith and other inspirations make a difference in the world, not about how people worship in their church, or whether they worship at all. This group is bound to create fruitful partnerships that will bring communities together that have never before been united.

Adam C. LaMonica is a member of the American Humanist Association and the co-founder of Path of Reason (www.pathofreason.com).

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/09_may_jun/LaMonica.html

Same-Sex Marriage: Equality vs Bigotry

2011-03-04T03:39:00.001-05:00

by A. C. LaMonica

The ongoing debate over same-sex marriage has had a resurgence in the public square after Iowa and Vermont recently legalized gay marriage. The D.C. Council also voted to recognize gay marriages in other states further fueling the controversy. As these events unfolded, I watched the slew of opinions and commentary pour out while choking back my immediate urge to rant from the rooftops.

As a person who believes in equal rights on all fronts, my position here will be obvious. However, out of my frustrated curiosity I decided to take an honest look at the readily available input from the opponents of gay marriage. If so many are against denying certain rights to a group of people, there must be some remotely valid reason, right? Not so, unsurprisingly.

THE "DEBATE"

At the core of this argument is religion. There is no way around it and it's embarrassing when gay marriage opponents attempt to explain their point using less religiously-charged terms like "unnatural" or "anti-family." Other than the obvious reasons for religious motivation against gay rights, the Pew Research Center also shows the majority of people say they are opposed to same-sex marriage for the following reasons:

- It's morally wrong

- It's a sin

- The Bible says

- Against my religious beliefs

My question is, how can we actually allow discrimination under the threat of encroaching on the "religious liberty" of those whom are primarily Christian? Would we have the democracy we have now had we restricted the rights of people because of the religious reasons of others?

People like Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, rage against the "redefinition" of marriage and claim that it would "affect the rights of those of us who believe there is something special and unique about a union of one man and one woman." And what is that "something" Mr. Brown, other than your personal opinion of marriage? We are all aching to know what reason you have that is not based on religion or tradition. Yes, religious liberty is an important right we share as Americans. But where would you draw the line and why? When one's religious beliefs deny the rights of others based on sexual-orientation, perhaps? If it were one's religious belief that only whites have the right to marry, should that also be enforced and protected by government? That is the ground of the argument you tread on.

When confronted as being discriminatory because of his religious beliefs, Mr. Brown claims that, "People of different faiths and no faith at all, across wide spectrums of time, culture, and place have accepted the fundamental reality of marriage. It is rooted in biology not bigotry. Only a man and a woman can come together and naturally create and raise the next generation."

What Mr.Brown has described is sex. I can certainly see how that is related to marriage but the ability to procreate is not a requirement of marriage. Obviously, those heterosexual couples that are not able to have kids are still able to marry as they wish. His "biology" argument is another frequently used tactic in the marriage debate. What opponents fail or refuse, to realize is that biology and nature show us many examples of homosexuality, even amongst animals. According to the National Geographic, explicit evidence of homosexual and bisexual behavior is seen throughout many species. For example, there are "pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks." It would appear that those who are anti-gay marriage would do best to stop using "nature" as one of their arguments.

This point, however, is irrelevant because what we are dealing with are two consenting adults wanting to marry and share the same benefits granted to every heterosexual couple.

Brian Brown has also expressed concerns regarding the threat of religious organizations having their tax-exempt status revoked in relation to the topic of same-sex marriage. Perhaps this explains the particular passion with which those in the pulpit express their disapproval of homosexuality in general. For example, Boston Catholic Charities adoptions was shut down in MA after the passage of same-sex marriage and allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children. That is, Boston Catholic Charities chose to shut down or else lose their tax-exempt status. Mr. Brown brings up an excellent point that works against him. Should tax-exempt status be provided to organizations that openly discriminate? Of course not. Let them discriminate at their own cost.

Many proponents of gay marriage are using the comparison of the fight for gay rights to that of our country's slow acceptance of things such as inter-racial marriage, women's rights, and the abolishment of slavery. Some opposing Christians scoff at this point each time and I don't understand why. The Bible goes as far as to tell people how to treat their slaves and yet now, almost every Christian is in agreement that slavery is one of the highest violations of human rights. How are the verses on slavery excused as not being relevant today but the verses against homosexuality are? All bibles aside, this debate comes down to equality, whether it's for abolishing slavery, women's suffrage, or same-sex marriage.

The welfare and education of children is another matter brought into the discussion. Those against gay marriage claim that legalizing gay marriage will lead to the deterioration and collapse of the family and that the best upbringing for a child is with a mother and father. The simple response to this is to suggest a glimpse at the current divorce rates of heterosexual marriages. Certainly this can not be the family stability "best for a child." Furthermore, empirical evidence presented by organizations like the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics shows that children do just as well with same-sex parents.

Another major point expressed by opponents of gay marriage is that it is not in line with the will of "the people." Here, America shows its true homophobic colors. Sadly, this is the one argument that holds true, for now. According to the Pew Research Center, polls show that while opposition to same-sex marriage is in the majority, it is also in decline. For example, there was a decrease from 63% in 2004 to 51% in 2006 for those against legalizing gay marriage.

This may be in part due to the influence of America's younger, more progressive generation. Polls also show that the majority of young people into their early thirties tend to favor legalizing gay marriage. This point was recently made when Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal, formerly against gay marriage, quoted his daughter's response to the conservative view on this issue. She said, "You guys don't understand. You've already lost. My generation doesn't care."

And I think that is true because this generation sees through the archaic racism, misogyny, homophobia and ignorance of "tradition". We are a generation more exposed to the diversity of humanity than ever before in history. The internet, for example, has allowed people from all walks of life to mingle and eventually realize that we really aren't that different; that we all deserve the same rights as human beings; and that includes the right to marry.

While the same-sex marriage opponents can currently claim majority as an argument, what I have yet to ever understand since the beginning of this debate, is how it is even up for debate. Shouldn't it be obvious that to base the rights of gays and lesbians on a vote, is a gross perversion and abuse of democracy? When in our country's history has putting to vote the rights granted to a particular group of people been looked upon favorably in hindsight? The simple fact that must be admitted is that there is no reason why two people should not be able to marry, in a democracy or otherwise. Fairness and equality are things meant to exist above "the will of the people". The nature of this debate should disturb Christians and religious alike because if rights can be denied gays and lesbians, what is to stop a majority from taking their rights in the future?

The recession of bigotry can be notoriously slow in hypocritical societies such as our own but we will not let down in our fight for marriage equality. And there will be equality. Whether it happens today or years from now, it is inevitable. Just as inevitable as the dying ideas of a generation dying with them.

Interview with Eric Maisel, author of The Atheist's Way: Living Well Without Gods

2011-03-04T03:35:00.000-05:00

by A. C. LaMonica

Eric Maisel, PhD, is the author of more than thirty works of fiction and nonfiction, including Coaching the Artist Within, The Van Gogh Blues and A Writer’s San Francisco. Maisel is a creativity coach and creativity coach trainer who presents keynote addresses and workshops nationally and internationally. He holds undergraduate degrees in philosophy and psychology, master’s degrees in counseling and creative writing, and a doctorate in counseling psychology. He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area. His website is www.ericmaisel.com.

Path of Reason: Throughout The Atheist's Way, you emphasize use of the term atheist. Why do you think it's best to define ourselves on religious terms when the ideas you express encompass so much more than that?

Eric Maisel: I am framing my ideas around atheism and not around some less charged word like secularism, humanism, rationalism, skepticism, naturalism, existentialism, or freethinking because I think that it would be a shame to miss what may be an opportunity, as we are perhaps finally ready to face an indifferent universe with new views and to live purposefully and well without gods. Second, rallying around atheism underscores the heightened threat that religious belief poses to the survival of the species. It was one thing for human beings of another age to use god-talk to justify inquisitions. Now they have or are getting nuclear weapons. We need atheism to grow as a movement because we need to remove the god card from the hands of the selfishly self-interested. This is not all that is needed to save our species but it would be an enormous help.

POR: As atheists, we believe religion to be a human invention. If an atheist ultimately invents his/her own meaning in life, what's the difference and why is the atheistic one better?

EM: Atheists are more forthright about accepting personal responsibility for their values and their actions. When you’re an atheist, you’re obliged to figure out how to live as an atheist. It isn’t just that you’re convinced that god-talk is a human contrivance and a human weakness. That’s only a small part of it. It’s a complete vision about the finiteness of your time on earth, your intimate relationship to nature, the sources of your values, and all things human. If you’re addicted and intend to recover, you recover as an atheist. That’s how an atheist recovers— without god-talk. If you’re an artist and intend to create, you sit down and create—you don’t wait for divine inspiration. That’s how an atheist creates—by doing it. Atheism supports and demands a completely atheistic lifestyle, a way of life free of supernatural enthusiasms, full of personal effort and responsibility, and beautiful in its clarity and honesty.

POR: One difficult thing some former believers experience as new atheists (as referenced in Marcia's story in Chapter 2) is the loss of their church community. Many find the social interaction of church attendance a very fulfilling part of life. What comparable alternatives are there for atheists who crave that sense of fellowship?

EM: There is a great debate among atheists on this score. Some atheists argue that they go to concerts with people who go to concerts, play sports with people who play sports, sing with people who sing, and so on—that they do social things of all sorts without needing any designated atheist society. Other atheists feel exactly the opposite, that they want and need to join with like-minded people who are like-minded in this most important sphere—and they want these gatherings to be warm and personal events and not just places to make intellectual points against religion. Minnesota Atheists, for example, provide lots of opportunities of this sort by sponsoring happy hours, movie outings, and so on. I am inclined to fall into the latter camp, that atheists in fact would benefit from atheist-oriented gatherings. But I suspect that there is a steep learning curve involved in figuring out how to make such gathering feel genuinely warm.

Many former believers indeed lament that the hardest loss they experience when they give up gods is the loss of their home church and the fellowship of believers. They have not only lost the potlucks, music, ceremonies, rituals, and human contact but some central warmth necessary for mental health and wellbeing. Life is colder without their home church and their brothers and sisters. The atheist lifestyle has, so far at least, no comparative warmth to provide. That costs us billions of potential converts who naturally prefer warmth to truth. We atheists must work on creating warmth as well as light if we want believers to leave their churches.

POR: The title, The Atheist’s Way, appears to suggest that there is a certain way atheists should be. Many people such as Professor Richard Dawkins for example, have likened unifying atheists to that of “herding cats.” Do you think it’s important to bring atheists together under a certain cause and/or philosophy and if so why?

EM: The title of this book does perhaps suggest that there is (or ought to be) one and only one atheist’s way. Of course that isn’t true. Each atheist’s path will differ and must differ, in part because of differences in our nature, in part because of differences in our nurture. What I would like to communicate is that there can exist a coherent, comprehensive, righteous and beautiful way to live without gods … one that you will have to construct. The atheist’s way is your way. You will take your journey and it will not be identical to my journey.

I do think that we want to rally around this banner because there is real harm in believing in god. The harm is that it makes a person more stupid than he or she would otherwise be, more authoritarian, and more antagonistic to solving our shared human problems. It amounts to a complete betrayal of our common humanity. The instant a person gives in to the urge to answer difficult questions about the facts of existence with false, slogan-sized supernatural answers, he makes himself a smaller, more frightened, less democratic person, lowers the critical thinking bar, and endangers our freedom. Just imagine that

I started mouthing the made-up belief, “God says that blue is bad.” Wouldn’t you immediately begin to fear that your blue rug puts you in some undeserved danger? People should not do that to other people.

POR: The main idea discussed throughout the book is that atheists should decide what is meaningful to them and live up to that. How is meaning “the problem and also the answer"?

EM: When our younger daughter came home from college one year she presented me with a coffee mug. The motto on the coffee mug read: “Life isn’t about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself.” “Isn’t that your philosophy in a nutshell?” she laughed. She was exactly right. E. W. Wilcox, to whom the quote is attributed, had captured the essence of thousands of years of existential thought: that life is as much a responsibility as a gift and that each of us is honor-bound to create ourselves in our own best image.

I make my meaning—or else I don’t. All that exists until I actively and mindfully make personal meaning is the possibility of meaning and, while I wait to get started, the experience of emptiness. There is the possibility that I will experience the next hour as meaningful, a possibility that turns into a reality only if I make a certain kind of decision and a certain kind of investment. If I don’t make that decision and that investment, I experience myself as going through the motions and wasting my precious time. We’ve all had that experience—for many of us, for far too much of the time.

Meaning is private, personal, individual, and subjective. Whether you find it more meaningful to sit for an hour by a pond watching ducks paddle or more meaningful to hop up after two minutes and rush home to work on your screenplay is entirely your decision—and one that you might change tomorrow. Who else but you could decide how you intend to order your values, manifest your ethics, and construe meaning? That is the awesome proposition facing every modern person. As limited as we may be in a biological and a psychological sense, we are exactly that free in an existential sense. If we do not live that way, honoring that existential freedom, we get sad and depressed and wish that we had decided to matter.

How do you make meaning? By letting go of wondering what the universe wants of you, by letting go of the fear that nothing matters, and by announcing that you will make life mean exactly what you intend it to mean. This is an amazing, glorious, and triumphant announcement. The instant that you realize that meaning is not provided, as traditional belief systems teach, and that it is not absent, as nihilists feel, a new world of potential opens up for you. You have aimed yourself in a brilliant direction: in the direction of your own creation.

POR: You talk about society’s aversion to discussing or encouraging any sort of meaning in private or public life. Our culture is notorious for pushing our existential struggles to the side while focusing far more on things such as wealth, fame, power, etc. How are we to even begin addressing the daunting task of switching this culture-wide attitude amongst atheists and theists alike?

EM: A vital step is acquiring a useful vocabulary of meaning that allows you to communicate with yourself and others about the realities of your life. If something disturbing is happening in your life and you can’t identify it as a meaning crisis, how will you handle it? You may misidentify it as “depression” or a “work problem” or a “relationship issue” and head yourself in the wrong direction. If, on the other hand, you possess the language to call it a meaning crisis, then you know what you are obliged to do: make new meaning.

Phrases like meaning threat, meaning spark, meaning leak, and meaning adventure help you think more clearly about meaning. Without such a vocabulary in place, you are stuck with our cultural vernacular that is keen to dub ordinary activities as “spiritual.” With a vocabulary of meaning in place, you inoculate yourself against using supernatural language. Your cousin says, “I had a spiritual experience.” You reply, “Oh, you had a meaningful experience. How nice for you!” Your co-worker says, “I’ve never had a more spiritual time than visiting the gardens of England!” You reply, “Really? What was meaningful about that experience?” By persisting in using a vocabulary of meaning you keep yourself supernatural-free and help others move in the direction of rationality.

POR: As an atheist, reason is the standard by which I consider my opportunities, make decisions, and take action in life. Despite the common sense of reason, religious people continue to encourage living on faith. Why do you think faith is harmful and how are we to express this to the those who advocate it?

EM: People have the right to smoke cigarettes—but they shouldn’t. It’s harmful to them, their loved ones, and innocent strangers. We are so clear about this that we do not allow them to smoke where their smoking can harm others. For exactly the same reasons, we keep religions out of our public schools. People have the right to believe in gods, but they shouldn’t. Just as fewer and fewer Americans smoke cigarettes, because the truth about its harmfulness has penetrated our shared consciousness, my hope is that fewer and fewer Americans will betray their neighbors with dangerous god-talk. They have the right to their beliefs; but I hope that they will shed them.

A belief in gods is not an innocent thing. It is a position vis-à-vis the world and vis-à-vis one’s neighbors. It is a refuge for scoundrels who want their views to count more than the next person’s, it is way to enslave the minds and hearts of children, it provides cover for bigotry and prejudice, it causes sharp divisions among people, and it makes the world a less rational and a more dangerous place. Therefore it should be the hope of every thoughtful person that beliefs in gods wither way and the practice of every thoughtful person to indict god-talk as a betrayal of our common humanity.

POR: Atheists are commonly looked upon as “evil” or at the very least, an untrustworthy group of people. How do ethics arise from an atheistic worldview?

EM: You and you alone decide what you want to value. The universe does not care about fairness; nevertheless you may decide that, despite the universe’s complete indifference, you would like to advocate for fairness. You do exactly what any serious ethicist does, what someone like the framers of the Constitution did: you decide what you want to value—fairness, justice, equity, and freedom spring to my mind—and then you manifest those values by making ethics and by becoming a moral instrument. The planets do not care about your next right action—but you must. Ethical believers and ethical atheists do exactly the same thing: they identify their cherished values and then they live them. There is no other way to be ethical except by being ethical.

POR: Do you think atheists as a group struggle to find meaning in life more than others? Why?

EM: I think they do, because for them meaning is a problem and not a given. They do not swallow dogma about what to believe and so they are stuck having to figure out what to believe, which can be challenging. Believers, by virtue of their belief system, are almost certainly less inclined to suffer from existential depression, as existential matters are “wrapped up” for them and “made easy” for them by virtue of their belief system. Of course, the less they believe their own beliefs (or, to put it differently, the more they doubt), the more likely it is that they open themselves up to the threat of existential depression. But on balance, if they “really do” believe, then they are substantially inoculated against existential depression

By contrast, atheists are obliged to continually make sense both of “what matters” and “why anything matters,” thus making them ripe for existential crises (when nothing seems to matter) and existential depression. While there are robust ways to deal with these existential crises, and, in turn, with existential depression, it is nevertheless the case that, on balance, atheists are probably more prone to existential depression than are believers.

Conversely, though, it is entirely likely that belief involves a believer in the kinds of intrapsychic conflicts and defensive gymnastics (like repression) that breed depression, so believers may well be more prone to psychological depression than are atheists. It requires some profound repressive tactics to hide the truth from oneself that one’s religion is primarily an accident of birth, that there are no gods choosing to down airplanes or subject cities to hurricanes, that virtually all of the thousands of posited gods are immature, vindictive, squabbling creatures not worth valuing, and so on. A tremendous amount of obvious data must be ignored and repressed to continue believing, especially if you are basically bright and humane, and all that repressing must translate into psychological depression. Therefore it is fair to guess that, all other psychological causes being equal, believers must suffer more often and more intensely from psychological depression than do atheists.

So the need to make meaning can get atheists down and the desire to avoid making meaning can get believers down. Who gets more down? We don’t know yet.

POR: What do you ultimately hope to accomplish with The Atheist's Way?

EM: Many things; but a central one is to warm up the word “atheism.” The word “atheist” is a larger, friendlier, and more glorious word than most people currently imagine. It stands for a conviction about the non-existence of gods but it also vibrates at other wavelengths. It is about a solidarity with nature and with the universe: we are not afraid of this universe in which we live, we do not create dragons and devils with which to scare ourselves, we are not frightened that a vacuum is empty or that we begin dying as soon as we are born. We are exactly, precisely, and wholly natural. We are human beings, with enough fascinating attributes to make even the most incurious among us stand up and take notice. To say “human being” is to say plenty: it is all of that plenty that the word “atheist” connotes. I would like the word to resonate with some of that beauty and majesty.

:END:

Anthems for Atheists

2011-03-04T03:18:00.001-05:00

By A. C. LaMonica

Here is a top 10 list (in no particular order) of inspirational music for the atheist. Feel free to share your favorite anthems for atheists in the comments!

1. NINE INCH NAILS - Heresy

If ever an anthem there was for atheists, this may be it. The harshness of the raw industrial style matches the brutal reality contained within the lyrics as well.

2. EXTREME - There is no God

Better known for their rock ballad, More Than Words, Extreme is by far one of the most underrated rock bands of their time. This song is from their album, Waiting For the Punchline, and demonstrates their heavy, bluesy, hard rock style with raw and provocative lyrics to match.

3. A PERFECT CIRCLE - Judith

This song rocks in a way that only Maynard James Keenan can. It's lyrics focus on Christianity in a blunt but sobering sense. The catchy lyrics manage to bring up deeper questions that confront the believer.

4. JOHN LENNON - God

Although less familiar to most people, John Lennon's song God was quite controversial. It is basically comprised of a list of the things that he does not believe in or has given up on. People still dispute the precise meaning of the song.

5. CARNIVORE - God is Dead

Peter Steele of Type O Negative was originally in the band, Carnivore. They managed to make an interesting mix of thrash, classic rock, and metal. Steele's lyrics were often exaggerations and at times had a humorous spin. This song is about how mankind killed God.

6. ATHEIST - No Truth

Atheist are considered one of the pioneers of the progressive death metal genre and are thought of as being ahead of their time, musically. With a name like Atheist it's not surprising that they are considered the "thinking man's metal".

7. GENESIS - Jesus He Knows Me

Legendary prog-rockers, Genesis, take a stab at the hypocrisy of Christianity with a focus on the money-hungry televangelists. This is a catchy tune that everyone has heard at some point.

8. DEAD KENNEDYS - Moral Majority

Blunt, simple, and to-the-point, just like punk should be.

9. DEICIDE - F**k Your God

deicide - definition - 1 : the act of killing a divine being or a symbolic substitute of such a being 2 : the killer or destroyer of a god

The name of the band speaks for itself. Death metal to the bone!

10. FRANK ZAPPA - Dumb All Over

Has Zappa influenced Sam Harris? Religious fanatics plus fatal technology equals bad news for the rest of the sane world!

For lyrics to the songs check out the follow links:

1. Nine Inch Nails - Heresy -

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/nineinchnails/heresy.html

2. Extreme - There is no God -

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/extreme/thereisnogod.html

3. A Perfect Circle - Judith -

http://www.stormpages.com/lyrics/text/mer.html#4

4. John Lennon - God -

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/john_lennon/god.html

5. Carnivore - God is Dead -

http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/carnivore/carnivore.html#6

6. Atheist - No Truth -

http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/atheist/pieceoftime.html#9

7. Genesis - Jesus He Knows Me -

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/genesis/jesus_he_knows_me.html

8. Dead Kennedys - Moral Majority -

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/deadkennedys/moralmajority.html

9. Deicide - F**k Your God -

http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/deicide/scarsofthecrucifix.html#4

10. Frank Zappa - Dumb All Over -

http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Frank-Zappa/Dumb-All-Over.html

Interview with Dr. Penny Higgins, Paleontologist

2011-03-04T03:12:00.000-05:00

by D. Jones and A. C. LaMonica

Dr. Pennilyn (Penny) Higgins is a Research Associate in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Rochester. Penny's research interests include: Stable isotope geochemistry of biogenic apatite and of carbonate minerals; annual-scale studies of ancient climate and dietary sources of fossil vertebrates using stable isotopes of tooth and bone apatite; atmospheric CO2 concentration and effects on plant metabolism through geologic time; uranium geochemistry and its relation to uranium ore deposition and fossil preservation; vertebrate taphonomy; and application of GIS to problems in paleontology.

Path of Reason: So what exactly does being a Paleontologist entail?

Penny Higgins: Paleontology is a lot of things. Most often, folks think of dinosaurs when they think of paleontology. Next most often, people think of Indiana Jones (which annoys paleontologists endlessly because Indiana Jones is an archaeologist, not a paleontologist). And then there’s the matter of Ross on “Friends.” Ugh.

Paleontology is in the midst of a revolutionary change in focus. Classical paleontology involves going out to the rock outcrop, finding fossils, carefully recovering the fossils, describing the fossils, and publishing what was learned. Paleontologists used the fossils, and the behavior of the extinct animals inferred from the fossils, to understand ancient environments and to put the rocks that the fossils came from into a general chronological order.

Today, a person can be a paleontologist and very rarely go out to the field to look for fossils. So much fossil material has been collected and not yet described that a paleontologist could make a career of publishing fossils that were collected and hidden away in a collection 100 years ago. Classical ‘descriptions’ of fossils are also becoming more and more rare. Journals prefer papers that use computer algorithms to calculate hypothetical evolutionary relationships among various fossil groups. Or, papers that apply engineering methods, like Finite Elemental Analysis, to understand biomechanical problems in extinct animals (like, did saber tooth cats slash or bite with their huge canines?).

Another common direction for paleontologists to go is toward the study of climate. This is, in part, because this is where the money is. This is where I have wound up. Lots of folks are studying the chemistry of fossils, and the rocks the fossils come from, to infer things like the mean annual temperature at the time the animal lived, how much rain fell at what time of the year, at what elevation were the animals living, or did the animals stay in one place year-round, or did they migrate? We know of several cataclysmic events that have occurred during Earth’s history. We can look at how climate changed during those events, and how the Earth’s biota responded, in order to better understand what may happen if Global Warming continues as it has.

POR: And how did you get started?

PH: This is a good question. It started when I realized I liked to draw horses, at the ripe old age of four. I had a strong bent for the sciences and for art and decided in high school that the best career for me would involve reconstructing dinosaurs from their bones. Ironically, I’ve never spent a single day doing paleontology on dinosaurs. I did my doctoral work in 60 million year old rocks in Wyoming. These rocks were deposited about five million years after the dinosaurs went extinct and were just teeming with mammal fossils. I discovered as a graduate student that I had as much, if not more, passion for geochemistry as I did for paleontology and started studying the isotope geochemistry of fossil mammals. I find it amusing that I have come full circle in a way. At four, I wanted to draw horses. Now, I do a lot of work with the geochemistry of teeth of modern and fossil horses. It’s all about the horses.

POR: What are your views on Intelligent Design?

PH: Intelligent Design is a slap in the face to real science. Proponents of ID start with their conclusions (that God created the world) and work backwards to try to prove it. Everything that IDists (and so-called creation scientists, too, for that matter) is based upon the assumption that God exists and he created the world like it is. Science intentionally leaves out any assumptions of the supernatural. For us, if we can’t find the answer to a problem, then we need to rephrase our question and ask again. We need, perhaps, to understand some more basic information before we can delve into the details. IDists and creation scientists essentially stop when the answer to a question seems unknowable. They claim that this unknowable answer is the work of God.

Now I should add that if God does exist and is capable of creating the world, then he could. He could have created the universe ten minutes ago and planted us all into it complete with memories and histories if he cared to. But to make such a claim is unscientific and it cannot be supported by scientific methods. Science offers plausible explanations for the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the diversity of life on our planet that do not need to call on a supernatural being to make it happen. That is why Intelligent Design is not science, and why it should be kept out of biology classes in public schools.

POR: And how do you feel when people think evolution is fake?

PH: It frustrates me. It makes me want to cry. I wish I could mind-meld with people, ala Spock, to share my knowledge and understanding of biology, chemistry, and geology so they could see how foolish their thinking is. For the most part, I’ve found that folks that think evolution is bunk probably aren’t going to change their minds based upon anything I say. So I just try to be nice and offer my perspective if they care to hear it. That’s all I can do.

POR: What would you say are the most significant discoveries that support evolution (Ex. Transitional fossils.)?

PH: Of course, transitional fossils are among the best evidence that supports evolution. We have the classical horse evolution as one example. Other examples include transitional forms from land-dwelling dog-like carnivores to modern whales, transitional forms from hippopotamus-like herbivores to modern manatees, and the recently described transitional form between fish and amphibians (Tiktaalik). This isn’t the only evidence out there, this is just the neat evidence that hits the popular press. Transitional series between different species of diatoms (unicellular aquatic organisms) have been found, as well as transitional series between different species of mammal. These are continuous series, where the change from one species to the next is so gradual that it can’t really be marked.

Evidence to support evolution has come from several different sciences, as well. Biologists observe changes in gene frequency in populations of organisms due to environmental strain. Microbiologists observe new strains of unicellular organisms that arise because of their resistance to certain antibiotics. Molecular Biologists note that all organisms carry genetic information in the same molecule, RNA.

POR: It's apparent that many creationists are misinformed about evolution in general. There is plenty of creationist propaganda spreading false science amongst the masses to reassure them of such an understanding. How do we approach this issue and what can be done to ensure that people are properly educated about this matter?

PH: I wish I had a good answer for this. The most important thing that we, as scientists, can do is actually express our opinion. We need to be more willing to engage people who doubt evolution. The problem is twofold, however. 1) Academic-types are usually doing well to keep their research programs funded and their classes taught with a 50-hour work week. They seldom are willing to give up their free time to explain their views of science, especially knowing that such a discussion is often very like yelling at a brick wall. 2) Academic-types also have a tendency to forget how to speak plain English. We get so used to talking with other colleagues and students in the usual scientific jargon that it becomes impossible to even remember what Joe Public on the street may or may not know. We’re also used to dealing with people who will stop you and ask questions if they don’t understand you. Joe Public won’t do that because they either fear that you’ll think they’re stupid, or because they think you’re just being a jerk. (And frankly, sometimes scientists do this intentionally to get someone to go away.) Scientists get a bad rap for “sitting in our ivory towers” and looking down upon the general public. Really, the problem is a communications breakdown. More scientists need to be willing to engage the problem and more institutions need to value this work as much as they value teaching classes or writing grant proposals. Right now, defending science won’t get you tenure – writing grant proposals will.

POR: Can you explain Isotope Geochemistry and what it entails?

PH: There’s no quick way to explain isotope geochemistry, but here’s a quick primer on isotopes. I wrote this, in part, a few years ago when a high school student asked me essentially the same question:

You are probably already familiar with chemical elements: Carbon (C), Oxygen (O), Hydrogen (H), Nitrogen (N), and a zillion others. They make up molecules that make up all the materials around us: water (H2O), sugar (C6H12O6).

What you probably don’t know is that most elements come in different forms. There are three kinds of Carbon: Carbon-12, Carbon-13, and Carbon-14. These are called Isotopes. They occur naturally, and are present in specific, known abundances. About 98.9 % of all carbon in the world is Carbon-12. Most of the rest is Carbon-13. However, there is just the teensiest amount of Carbon-14 around as well. All these types of carbon act the same chemically and will be found in the same kinds of molecules. It is similar for all the other elements: 3 isotopes of Oxygen, 3 for Hydrogen, 2 for Nitrogen.

The only difference is their weight – Carbon-12 is the lightest and Carbon-14 is the heaviest.Because they have different weights, they behave just the tiniest bit different when chemical reactions occur. Because Carbon-14 is slightly heavier, it reacts slightly more slowly. The result is that as reactions occur, the different isotopes may be concentrated in new molecules formed during the reactions. This is called fractionation. We have a good sense of how this happens and can even calculate a number to predict what the fractionation is.

OK, I hope we’re doing well so far.

Now, there are two kinds of isotopes – stable and radioactive. Radioactive isotopes are unstable and will break down into smaller elements. Uranium is a good example of an element with radioactive isotopes. In fact, all isotopes of uranium are radioactive and decay (fall apart) until they turn into a stable isotope of Lead. Stable isotopes remain unchanged – they never decay.

All three isotopes of Oxygen (O-16, O-17, and O-18) are stable. Two of the three isotope of Hydrogen (H-1, and H-2 (or D)) are stable while the third (H-3 or T) is radioactive. Both isotopes of Nitrogen are stable (N-14 and N-15). Two isotopes of Carbon (C-12 and C-13) are stable, while C-14 is radioactive. Measurements of C-14 are used to date ancient fossils and artifacts (Carbon-dating). Carbon dating only works for materials 50000 years old or younger.

My research involves the use of stable isotopes from fossils and from rocks. I measure the ratio of Carbon-12 to Carbon-13 to make determinations about what kinds of plants were living at a particular time and or what plants an herbivorous animal chose to eat. I measure the ratio of Oxygen-16 to Oxygen-18 to determine climatic conditions. Here’s how it works (in a nutshell).

Different plants have different initial ratios of C-12 to C-13, and we know which plants have which value. For example, grasses in a desert have a typical ratio (called d13C “delta 13-C”) of –14‰ (said “14 per mil”); deep rainforest plants have a d13C value of –30‰. This ratio is reflected in tooth enamel of fossil mammals, organic carbon in rock, and in carbonate nodules found in rocks that formed as part of an ancient soil.

Variation in oxygen isotopes is mostly dictated by climatic variables such as temperature, humidity, and precipitation. d18O (delta 18-O) values of surface water go up (become more positive) when temperatures are warm. d18O values go down when temperatures are cool. But just to make things more difficult, d18O will also go down if temperatures are above 20C (about 68F) and it rains a lot. So from this we can get a general idea of climate – how warm it was and when (and whether) it rained. Elevation also has an effect on oxygen isotopes.

POR: Also, what is carbon dating and how accurate do you feel it is?

PH: As I mentioned above, carbon dating is great when you deal with relatively young materials (less than 50,000 years). Carbon dating is also difficult to use for really young things because all that nuclear testing that was done in the 50’s added lots of extra C-14 to the atmosphere.

POR: Are their any other ways to date fossils?

PH: There are numerous other ways to date fossils. Several other radiometric techniques exist, like K/Ar dating, Ar/Ar dating, U/Pb dating, Pb/Pb dating, and Nd dating. In these cases, you are generally dating the rock in which the fossil was found and not the fossil directly. Other non-radiometric techniques also exist, like fission-track or thermoluminescence. Techniques like paleomagnetism or dating according to what fossils are present (biostratigraphy) can also be used. Creationists like to argue that these last techniques are circular, but they fail to understand that the magnetic and biostratigraphic time scales are calibrated using radiometric or other chemical methods.

POR: What are you currently working on? What is your current focus in your field of study?

PH: I do a little of everything. My current projects in paleontology/geochemistry (some of which are collaborative with other scientists and some are on my own):

A) Diets and tooth growth in extinct South American hoofed mammals. These huge, rhino-sized, mammals have no modern relatives. They are fascinating because in many cases their teeth grew continuously. I want to know how fast the teeth grew and what they were eating that necessitated having ever-growing teeth.

B) Climate change and uplift of the Andes Mountains in the last 25 million years. The Andes rose over three kilometers during this span of time. We can use geochemistry to constrain the timing of this uplift as well as to understand the effect that the new mountains had on the climate of South America.

C) Climate change at the Paleocene/Eocene boundary about 55 million years ago. This boundary is characterized by a huge global warming event and associated turnover of animal and plant species. I’m going to use isotopes from fossil freshwater clam and snail shells to determine what effect this warming had on the seasonal variability of precipitation and humidity in Wyoming.

D) The nature of climate change since the last glacial maximum ~15000 years ago. We are using isotopes from horse and bison teeth to look at climate changes over the last few thousand years.

E) The geochemistry of uranium ore deposition and how this affects the preservation of vertebrate fossils. Who knew there was a relationship?! But this is important, as many of the best fossil localities in the Rocky Mountains are in basins also known for uranium ore deposits.

And then there are the other things I do, like:

F) I’m preparing a tutorial and implementation guide for using a computer program specifically designed for data from stable isotopes. I’m teaching a one-day class on this in about two weeks.

G) I’ve developed a new method for analyzing the hydrogen isotopes of water that I need to publish.

H) And, of course, anything I can do to promote science and debunk pseudoscience like intelligent design.

And in my spare time:

I) I have a 3-year old son who likes trains.

J) I have a much older husband that likes music.

K) My husband and I have a collection of over 600 antique or archaic cameras.

L) I love to garden and am an officer in the local garden club.

:END:

ABORTION - A Search for Certainty

2011-03-04T02:58:00.001-05:00

by A. C. LaMonica

edited by Rhonda Hill

When I was a Christian, my decision regarding the abortion debate was simple and clear-cut. "Abortion is wrong and I am pro-life." End of story. As the basis for my beliefs shifted towards atheism, I remained inclined to my pro-life position. The idea of abortion still seemed wrong to me. I felt like I was missing something being that so many atheists appear to be pro-choice and tend to have more liberal opinions on such matters.

As a Humanist, I strongly believe in the protection of individual rights, freedom, tolerance, and equality among all people. This stance leads me to make an honest attempt to start from scratch in my perspective of the ongoing abortion debate using reason and rationality as my guide. The following is what I found and my opinionated interpretation. Again, I tried to remain as objective as possible. That being said, I happily invite your opinions and input on this incredibly complex issue.

SOME BACKGROUND

The first question I asked myself was, "At what stage in prenatal development are human beings considered protected by the constitutional rights of an individual and why?" Ultimately, this is the question at the root of the abortion debate and will likely continue to be so. To begin, here is a bit of background information on where the law currently stands regarding abortion.

Based on the Roe v. Wade decision, the state can choose to restrict or prohibit abortion at it's discretion during the third trimester (weeks 27-42 of the pregnancy) when the fetus is viable. Exceptions can be made in order to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Viability is the term used to describe the point at which the fetus is able to survive outside of the mother's womb; albeit with the aid of medical intervention. There is certainly no clear-cut point at which all fetuses suddenly become viable. Currently, the lower limit of viability is five months, however, viability usually occurs later. According to The Developing Human it is even difficult for fetuses between six and seven months to survive "because the respiratory system and the central nervous system are not completely differentiated..."

Already we begin to see one of the many gray areas that color the complicated dispute over abortion. Even without the aid of medical science, viability is difficult to pinpoint. It is clear that the age of viability will continue to recede towards conception as advances are made in medical science in order to increase the survival of premature babies.

Personhood is understood as the recognition of status as a person or individual human being. Most pro-lifers feel that personhood begins at conception whereas pro-choicers believe that personhood begins later in pregnancy or at birth. The fundamental issue here is a conflict of definitions and interpretation. There are what seem like endless angles supporting pro-life and pro-choice views with surprisingly convincing reasoning. I will take a moment to describe only a couple of these perspectives to give an idea of the varying and compelling abortion arguments.

DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES

Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D. describes the human zygote as a human being and not just a "potential" human being. She goes on by saying, "It's an actual human being-with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities." To be scientifically accurate with terms like "human being" Irving says that a separate and unique human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote) is present after fertilization. I would agree with this statement; however, I question whether or not the zygote is a human being, and what differences exist between a human being as a zygote and a human being as a baby and if they should have the same rights.

When beginning research for this article I had the idea that it would make sense to base viability on the presence of consciousness and self-awareness. I felt that this would demonstrate the separation between a zygote and a fetus based on my concept of what it means to be a person: the ability to think and feel. In this sense, one might say that I am pro-fetus. I wasn't to keep this line of thinking for long.

Dianne N. Irving goes on to address my idea described above and why it does not work logically. Although brain waves are detectable beginning at 20 weeks of pregnancy the human brain is not completely developed until young adulthood. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that the developing fetus has all of the mental faculties for thinking and sentience. And if this standard of personhood is used, what does this say for the mentally handicapped, the comatose, or Alzheimer’s patients? Are they not considered human persons because of their diminished rational attributes? When considering this point I dropped my essentially philosophical conception of when a human being becomes a human person.

So what if we are to consider the zygote a person with the same right to life that all born people have?

Eileen L. McDonagh, Ph. D., Harvard University presents an interesting interpretation of granting personhood to the human zygote/fetus. As explained by McDonagh, "to the extent that the law protects the fetus as human life, the law must hold the fetus accountable for what it does." In other words, if the unborn fetus is to have the same rights as born individuals they are to be held to the same laws as well. With that said, it follows that no person (born or unborn) has the right to intrude into another's body without his or her explicit consent. McDonagh explains that the pregnancy caused by the fetus has an immense impact on a woman's body and therefore women should have the right to resist the denied intrusion by a fetus and do so with the assistance of the state.

If one thinks there should be a legal exception for the unborn, it implies that the unborn should have more rights than the born.

Another possible issue of granting personhood to the unborn is described by Laura R. Woliver, Department of Government and International Studies, University of South Carolina. Woliver states that if a woman does consent to a pregnancy and the fetus is protected under the rights of personhood "would that woman's tobacco, alcohol, or drug (legal and illegal) use be legitimately monitored by the state, and her behavior sanctioned and controlled through the state's interest in protecting the health of the fetus/person?" This is a valid question which makes one wonder how such a thing would be legally enforced and if it would even be possible.

RELIGIOUS AND NON-RELIGIOUS VIEWS

It is commonly understood that most religious people are of the pro-life stance. What I've come to find out is that although this may explain the majority, it certainly does not represent the whole. There are religious pro-choicers and atheist pro-lifers.

Whether you believe it or not, there is Biblical support for abortion. There are Jews and Christians that reference Genesis 2:7 when defining personhood. In this verse, Adam "became a living soul" only after God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." This appears to imply that the personhood of Adam begins with his first breath. Using this interpretation, a newborn would only become human after it starts breathing on its own. There are also numerous references throughout the Old Testament that can give some more information regarding the value of the born and unborn human. For an informative list of the various passages please go to http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_biblh.htm

In doing my research I came across the website at http://www.godlessprolifers.org. This is the Atheist & Agnostic Pro-Life League and in order to become a member one must "oppose abortion and desire it's abolition (with or without exceptions)." After reviewing the list of members it appears that the majority is against abortion but with exceptions. One atheist pro-lifer, Randall M. Jones, says, "Every one knows that sex will result in a pregnancy, so sexually active people (and everyone else) should be responsible for their own actions unless they are not free. Freedom carries with it a requirement that you must accept responsibility for your own actions."

When considering this point, it is understandable to postulate that the human zygote/fetus is only present as a result of the actions of other human individuals. That human zygote/fetus never chooses to exist and yet after successful fertilization has no choice but to exist. In light of this consideration is it conceivable to see why even some atheists are also pro-life advocates?

Regardless, the only way that abortion should have further restrictions or become illegal is if it is based on secular grounds. Any other reason should immediately be dismissed in a democracy such as our own.

It's also interesting to note that according to sources at The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood's Family Planning Perspectives, the majority of women who have abortions are Christian (Protestant or Catholic). They constitute for 68.7% of the abortions performed. It would appear that pro-life advocates are their own worst enemy.

WHAT IF?

The Partial-Birth Abortion Act was passed in 2003 and was seen as a triumph for pro-life advocates. While this does place restrictions on abortion, it is only a restriction on a method of abortion. Ultimately, this does not do away with late-term abortions but rather lessens the number of options for late-term abortions. For those pro-lifers against partial-birth abortion I recommend the story of a Christian woman who had a partial-birth abortion to save her life and save her severely sick twins from suffering (http://www.barryyeoman.com/articles/gina.html).

Say, for example, our government were to make abortion illegal and allow only for exceptions of incest, rape, and when the mother's and/or fetus' health is in danger. How would such a law be enforced? If the state is to require an appropriate reason for the abortion, is that not a violation of the woman's privacy? What is to stop the woman or the doctor performing the abortion from simply lying? How would the government verify this? These are loaded questions which I pose to demonstrate how difficult and non-Constitutional such laws could potentially be.

This and many other circumstances regarding abortion are not always as black and white as everyone would want them to be. It is for this reason that the laws and regulations for abortion must be based on and applicable to the varying gray areas of this matter.

According to the National Abortion Federation, when abortion was illegal in the United States during the late 1800's until 1973, "more pregnant women died from complications from self-induced abortions or abortions performed by untrained practitioners than from any other cause." This is yet another situation to consider when pushing for outlawing abortion.

FOCUSING ON A SOLUTION

It is clear that it is virtually impossible for advocates of pro-life and pro-choice to compromise when it comes to abortion. For this reason, it is important to focus on what leads to abortion and how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I think that both sides of the abortion debate will (or should) agree that it is in everyone's best interest to find effective ways to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

When considering methods of preventing pregnancy, some Christians receiving millions of dollars in government funding are presenting abstinence-only sex education to our youth. According to Columbia University researchers, 88% of teenagers who take "virginity pledges" may wait longer to initiate sexual activity but eventually have premarital sex. When these misinformed teenagers do have sex, it is more likely to be unprotected and will have a higher chance of resulting in pregnancy.

According to the American Humanist Association, comprehensive sex education programs (which does not exclude abstinence) have been shown to encourage teens to delay sexual activity and to use protection, whereas "abstinence-only sex education does little to lower pregnancy rates and has been shown to lead to greater exposure to sexually transmitted diseases."

With this in mind, would these abstinence-only sex educators rather teach our youth about comprehensive sex education to perhaps lower the need for abortion, or would they rather continue deceiving our youth and increase the rate of teen pregnancy and abortion? It is difficult to understand why the conservative right of the government would be against comprehensive sex education, especially when presented in this light.

I believe this is an area in which a reasonable compromise could be reached that would inevitably decrease the need for abortions.

CONCLUSION

After months of research regarding the issue of abortion, I feel as though I have only scratched the surface of this immensely complicated and layered debate. It is truly overwhelming when presented with the varying arguments of which some are ignorant and others surprisingly convincing but most are conveyed passionately. Many of us can't help but look for absolute answers to questions that are ambiguous at best. The question of whether abortion is right or wrong is one of those questions.

My own personal stance on abortion has changed to say the least. Although I am more knowledgeable than before, the ethical and moral questions of abortion remain abstract to me. It is for that reason that I am comfortably pro-choice. The particular reasons for an abortion may seem wrong to me in some cases but that is no grounds for imposing my own philosophical understanding on every other individual. There are far too many nuances in the circumstances surrounding abortion and to apply black and white distinctions and regulations is inappropriate.

With that I leave you the following quote from Paul Campos, professor of law at the University of Colorado (2002) :

"Whether or not abortion should be legal turns on the answer to the question of whether and at what point a fetus is a person. This is a question that cannot be answered logically or empirically. The concept of personhood is neither logical nor empirical: It is essentially a religious, or quasi-religious idea, based on one's fundamental (and therefore unverifiable) assumptions about the nature of the world."

:END:

References:

http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm

http://tigtogblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/fetal-brain-development-myths-and.html

http://pregnancy.about.com/od/trimesterguide/f/3trimesters.htm

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/ThomasClark.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

http://www.l4l.org/library/cathchoi.html

http://www.barryyeoman.com/articles/gina.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus#Viability

http://www.morningafterpill.org/whendoes.htm

http://prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/medical_abortion.html

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/mcdonagh.htm

http://www.flathatnews.com/opinions/141/pro-choice-not-pro-abortion

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/genpsyfetaldev.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus#_note-Singer

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

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when2.htm

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1_2.html

http://www.americanhumanist.org/press/actionalerts/aaSexEd.html

Interview with Jeff Swenson, Cartoonist, Freethunk.net

2011-03-04T02:41:00.002-05:00

by D. Jones and A. C. LaMonica

Path of Reason: Besides online publishing, have you gotten your comics published in print? What are some magazines and newspapers that have printed your work?

Jeff Swenson: Yeah over the years I've gotten quite a couple of pieces printed. It's not hard to be printed, it's just hard to get paid to do it. I liked the Bounce Collection that came out of Australia which had my work in it along with several other creators. I've been published in The Door Magazine several times. Early on I was published in Atheist Magazine but for some reason they messed with my lettering and made one of my cartoons look "godawful" (if you'll forgive the expression). I emailed them about it and said I'd continue to submit if they promised not to do that again--never heard back.

I've been published in 3 books, one of which while entertaining is full of errors because it seems there was no editor and I believe a lawsuit was on its way. The other two are pretty good: "Darwin Day Collection One" and a book on religion called "Reluctant Prophets and Clueless Disciples" by Robert Darden (editor of The Door).

POR: It's obvious that it takes courage to create this type of art in a society that is hypersensitive when it comes to religion. How often do you receive hate-mail and does it ever make you question whether you should publish something or not?

JS: Early on I received hatemail (I started in 2000), but then I received hatemail for other stuff I did too. The early anonymity of the web somehow made people extremely rude and their Hyde side would always come out. I guess it's that way still to some extent but I just don't get the kind of emails I used to. I think many online Christian folk are more open to having a dialogue/debate or starting their own sites instead of always sending the blasphemous a stern warning. They may have realized that while atheists are in the minority, many of our points are valid ones and are often picked up by those who are "undecided."

Drawing Freethunk certainly hasn't done anything for my career as a cartoonist but then I don't take myself too seriously as an artist these days with the web comics explosion that is going on. I'm trying to reqroup my finances this year and then see if there's a better way to do my cartooning so that I can enjoy it more. Unfortunately, running your art as a business can often suck the joy out of it unless everything goes just right--and it never does.

POR: Since you started Freethunk.net how much has the community of artists grown?

JS: Better than I thought. I drew Freethunk under a different title starting in 2000 and there really wasn't too many cartoonists I knew of that regularly did religious humor with a critical edge. Honestly, when I first started the Freethunk site around 2003 it just sat there with a request for people to send in material. I think at one point I was even willing to pay for material but no one answered the call. So about 2 years later artists would pop up here and there like Buck Cash and the guy who does Jesus and Mo' (I'd mention his name but he chooses to remain nameless) and then I'd approach them or they'd approach me. Once I was able to get some actual comics on the site then more artists got in touch.

Unfortunately, we are at a point where the ideas will dry up unless new cartoonists create atheist characters versus just criticizing religion. I've drawn hundreds of cartoons and covered many of the objections raised on Christianity or tried to find what was funny with The Bible. Sooner or later that is going to get tired. What we need is for artists to create stories based on the lives of atheists or humor based on the lives of freethinkers, etc. I'd like to do more of that, but it's a time issue and often a financial issue. Someone has to be willing to invest money and energy just as the Christian community did with their pop culture. I think that eventually may happen but I'm not seeing it yet with freethinking comics.

POR: Do you think a day will ever come when your type of artwork could be featured in a regular Sunday newspaper or do you feel that America will never be that open-minded?

JS: The way comic strips are being presented these days is completely different. The Sunday Newspaper is a dying concept unless online newspapers wake up and understand that they all can have their own exclusive web comic strips instead of going to a big media company to get them. There is a comic strip for almost every subject imaginable and my work is no different.

So no, you'll never see Freethunk next to reruns of The Far Side because while The Far Side pushed some buttons (like the panel that explained how creationism works) Freethunk usually doesn't hold back and will never be mainstream. I've always tried to keep Freethunk feeling a bit mainstream, trying to remember to go for the laugh instead of always doing criticisms so I'm hoping people get a kick out of it in much the same way, however, comic strips often celebrate Americana and part of Americana is favoring religion. I have to admit when I read old comics and religion or church comes up as part of the humor even I get a nostalgic twinge. My childhood--which was filled with religion--was not a bad childhood. The church activities we did were pleasant and I still remember them with fondness. When you come out with a comic that says your childhood was based on a lie, it doesn't make people feel good--which is why Freethunk won't ever be posted next to Dennis The Menace or Family Circle.

POR: What is your personal favorite subject to cover as far as your art goes? Politics? Religion?

JS: I honestly love character humor which is why I drew The Cynic at www.the-cynic.com for the last 7 years as a daily. Recently I've had to put a hold on that project due to time constraints. I like political humor but it can often be repetitive with so many cartoonists doing the same gag and it is something you would have to draw daily too. Also I've seen politics rip freethinking groups apart, it can be very divisive which is why I try to avoid much of it with Freethunk unless it's very specific to science or the battle between church and state.

Religion is fun to do but again there's only so much you can do with a panel series. Even Christians now are putting out funnies that have humor once considered profane, like gags about The Bible and even Jesus Caricatures. I'd like to see atheist and freethinking artists now concentrate on creating atheist characters. It's time we move in that direction.

POR: You mentioned to us that you once tried to join an Eastern Orthodox Church. What are your views on religion and what would you consider yourself as far as a belief system goes? Have you always been that way?

JS: I was raised "mainstream" Christian which means you adapt your faith to the times. I guess an offshoot of Protestantism would be the best description. Technically speaking I didn't embrace my faith or become born again until I was fifteen and it was because of the Christian metal scene (as corny as that was). I was pretty active in my youth group in high school. I wasn't one of those Sunday Only Christians and wore T-shirts to school that told everyone else they were going to hell, as well as inviting friends to small concerts (such as the one Barren Cross never showed up to making me look like an idiot). Pretty much I was a Jesus Freak Geek, which explains my lack of girlfriends at the time--and wouldn't you know it, all the cute Christian girls were dating nonChristian bad boys so they could change them for God.

When I got out of high school I went to Bible School to become a youth pastor, a really bad career move. I interned at my own church teaching the Junior High Group because no one else wanted to, it's a thankless job filled with criticism from parents and other church leaders. Bible School itself didn't work out very well because I was introduced to Theology, a complex way of saying that no one knows who God is and what he stands for. At that time I also joined a radical anti-abortionist group and that didn't help matters either with dating because even at Bible School I was considered to be extreme, even though I was always using Bible verses to back up my extreme views and no one could really give a good Biblical answer to what I was saying.

So finally I decided to take off for Art School because I couldn't understand church politics and figured doing something in the media would be more to my taste. That's when, after reading several books by Franky Schaeffer (the film director and famous philosopher's son) I tried to join the Eastern Orthodox Church because apparently it was the true church. While I appreciated the beauty of the iconography and maybe even some of the traditions, Eastern Orthodoxy was hard to join. They didn't seem to care about getting new members. It was kind of like an old men's club with secret handshakes. My best experience was hanging out one night with two nuns and two members of the Christian punk band MxPx (I'm still not sure how that happened).

It wasn't until my last quarter in art school, after reading several skeptical books, that my faith switched off and I had an epiphany: what if God didn't exist? I became an agnostic and then later I started calling myself an atheist or an agnostic-atheist.

POR: Who are some of your favorite artists? Do you have a specific genre you like best?

JS: Who comes to mind are the likes of Peter Bagge of Hate fame, Jeff Smith of Bone, Berkeley Breathed of Bloom County, several manga comedy artists like Ken Akamatsu, and the old diehard classics like EC Segar of Popeye fame and Charles Schulz (his older stuff before it became repetitive). Manga especially fascinates me because of how addictive those little books are. And I'm sure Christian Manga is coming if it isn't already in the stores.

POR: If new freethinking artists would like to submit their work, how would they go about doing that and is there any certain criteria to be met?

JS: Right now, there's no criteria except to be amusing or present something interesting. I've cut back on time for the site for now but hopefully will have some more time for it later when I reorganize. What I'd really like to see is more blatant atheist characters. Think sitcoms or action adventure. Science and humanism is always a good topic too. And while I personally never emphasize politics in my own work I do accept political work, even if it doesn't match my viewpoints. I also would encourage site creators to find ways to create freethinking pop culture--games, videos, creative writing, maybe even group efforts to come up with funds to pay an artist, etc. There are a ton of ideas waiting to explore. Don't wait until you're drowning in Christian pop culture and also Muslim pop culture. Help create the competing pop culture that says they're crazy, but we're not.

:END:

LETTER: Reason allows us to discern what is moral

2011-03-04T02:33:00.002-05:00

Reason allows us to discern what is moral

From the May 19, 2008, edition of the Observer-Dispatch:

A recent letter writer attributed the lack of morals and common sense in modern society to getting rid of the Ten Commandments, atheism and the teaching of evolution. Common sense should make it obvious that those things have nothing to do with immorality whatsoever.

Simply put, evolution explains the process through which life developed over time. Exactly how does accepting this make one immoral? Using this logic, one could assume that our children’s biology teachers are an unscrupulous lot.

Ironically, the Bible provides us with instances supporting a barbaric sense of morality, which most Christians have since outgrown. For example, would you consider stoning a woman to death for not being a virgin when married as ethical?

Despite what religious texts tell us, it is ultimately our reason and common sense which allows us to discern and fairly discuss what is moral.

A. C. LaMonica

LETTER: Safe abortions and sex education is way to go

2011-03-04T02:32:00.000-05:00

Safe abortions and sex education is way to go

From the November 3, 2008, edition of the Observer-Dispatch:

In response to a recent letter encouraging banning abortion, I disagree. Many people of the pro-life stance, particularly religious conservatives, cast the abortion debate as a black and white issue when it’s quite the opposite.

Apart from being a woman’s legal reproductive right, ethical support for abortion in instances of rape, incest and ensuring the mother’s health should at least be seen as arguable by any pro-life supporter.

Unfortunately, people of the religious right, such as Gov. Sarah Palin, are so absolute and intolerant in their views that they are even against abortion in cases of rape.

According to the National Abortion Federation, when abortion was illegal in the United States during the late 1800s until 1973, “more pregnant women died from complications from self-induced abortions or abortions performed by untrained practitioners than from any other cause.” This is one of many things to consider when pushing to outlaw abortion.

If our country is to progress in its future, it will certainly not do so by revoking a woman’s right to choose what happens to her own body. Providing access to safe abortions, contraception and comprehensive sex education will ensure the rights of individuals to ultimately control their lives free from the oppressive views of others.

A.C. LAMONICA

LETTER: No Umbrella Needed Here!

2011-03-04T02:29:00.002-05:00

No Umbrella Needed Here!

From the March/April 2008 issue of The Humanist:

While I like the idea of trying to be more inclusive and less “threatening” with an umbrella term like “post-theological,” (“The Post-Theological Umbrella,” January/February 2008) I wonder if it is a constructive step in the right direction. Should we continue to cloak ourselves in ambiguous terms in an effort to appeal to a prejudiced society?

Whether we are to act under the banner of humanists, skeptics, rationalists, freethinkers, or post-theologicals, people will see through to the core of what these titles truly lack: a god belief.

For example, I could easily hear the question asked as, “So are post-theologicals atheists?”

Some of us wish to mask our atheism in order to appease those afraid of the dreaded "a-word" and I can understand that. It is difficult to say if this attitude will do more harm than good in the long run. Regardless, all non-theists must cooperate, speak up when necessary, and get involved in putting a positive face on atheism.

Adam C. LaMonica

LETTER: 'Anti-Catholic' movie grossly exaggerated

2011-03-04T02:27:00.002-05:00

'Anti-Catholic' movie grossly exaggerated

From the November 18, 2007, edition of the Utica Observer-Dispatch:

The Catholic League recently called for a boycott of "The Golden Compass", a movie based on the first of three children’s fantasy books by Philip Pullman. The author, an open atheist, is accused of trying to “sell atheism to kids” and “bash Catholicism.”

This boycott is grossly exaggerated and severely misinformed.

The Catholic League says that atheism is “fueled by hate,” further spreading the prejudiced connotation. Sweeping statements like this are made throughout this campaign and reveal their intolerance of free thought and demonization of intellectual curiosity.

At the very least, the protesters must concede that the good and bad happen with and without the backing of religion. We should teach our children to embrace stories for the lessons they teach, not for who’s teaching them. I think that the Catholic League’s time would be better spent protesting the moral inadequacies within their own church.

A. C. LaMonica

Interview with Jamie Kilstein, Slam Poet, Comedian

2011-03-02T04:45:00.000-05:00

by Derek Jones

Path of Reason: What motivates you to go around the country speaking?

Jamie Kilstein: The non-artsy answer is I couldn't work a fucking job. People have settled for complacency. Ok with working a job they hate and I don't think that's fair. I think there are other options and people need to seek them. Don't be afraid to stray. That is where genius lies (I don't mean me, in general). You may be in the hole for a while but I would rather be poor and happy then rich and suicidal = )

The main reason is there are things that need to be said about right wingers and liberals. I'm trying to promote the art of conversation...and I don't want a job.

POR: When and how did it all start?

JK: Dropped out of high school started stand up in NYC after a dare.

POR: Do you think people are responding well to your message?

JK: Yeah man, the only people who have been dicks are other poets. Who would have thought? = )

POR: When did you start writing and why?

JK: Like most, I had a dysfunctional childhood.

POR: You have covered topics ranging from global warming to abortion to religion. Which issue concerns you most in America and what do you think needs to happen to bring about change?

JK: Well, all of those issues have to do with religion. Even global warming I have heard preachers preaching against it. Religion is so rough because you look at our world and the problems Abortion, Global Warming, Stem Cell research, Gay marriage, sectarian violence in Iraq, George Bush calling the war a crusade and so on. But people don't call folks on this shit because it is impolite to talk about people's faith. Well, if your faith is fucking killing people it needs to be talked about. So once again, conversation. Get rid of the extremes. People of different faiths, once they get talking, will find out they have a lot more in common then they think. That phrase "you can't talk about religion at the dinner table" is us working backwards. De-evolution. I think the phrase should be "you can't talk about American Idol at the dinner table."

POR: In watching your videos on YouTube and listening to your recordings on MySpace, I feel very inspired to go out and try to make a difference. Who inspires and motivates you? Do you have favorite authors, musicians etc? Do you recommend any books, movies or other educational tools?

JK: Anybody who has a strong point of view. Honest people. But if you're looking for examples, Bill Hicks, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Richard Dawkins, Marc Maron, Doug Stanhope, the cute Asian from heroes and our lord and savior Jesus Christ (Just kidding)Oh and do it dude!

POR: What is your religious background? Do you have one? I know you are part of the Rational Response Squad but were you always an Atheist or did you become one over time? If so, what changed your mind?

JK: This is a real long answer. If you go to their site, there should be a backlogged audio interview they did with me where I go into it.

POR: Do you think Americans do enough to educate themselves or do you think the majority blindly believe what they are told?

JK: I think they believe what they are told because it is easier. If you don't know, then you're not a bad guy for not acting. Once I read Fast Food Nation I stopped eating meat. Once I heard what the Alcohol corporations were doing and how they were profiting off of our death, I stopped drinking. And these were tough things to do. People love there routines but you end up better for it. Check out democracynow.org listen everyday. = )

POR: What is your outlook for 2007? Do you have any hopes for the country/Government?

JK: Keep an eye on the Liberals. Make sure they don't fuck us too. = )

I do have hope. People are starting to get it. As long as there are voices of dissent we will be ok. Make more of them.

:END:

*Check out tracks, video, tour dates, etc. at http://jamiekilstein.com/

Interview with Congressman Gene Green, Texas

2011-03-02T04:28:00.003-05:00

by A. C. LaMonica

Voting: Does it Really Matter?

Imagine, America’s citizens wake up on Election Day, Tuesday, November 4th, 2008 and go about their daily activities; work, shop, etc. They go home as usual, have dinner, relax, and go to sleep. No one votes.

What would happen? Would this cause a huge catastrophe? Would it be governmental chaos? No doubt such an historic event would grab the world’s attention but more importantly, who would be the next president of the United States of America?

The brutal truth of the matter is that this would cause no strife amongst the ranks of the current system: the Electoral College. Put in the simplest terms, the popular vote (the one we are encouraged to participate in each election) has absolutely no legal significance in deciding an election. Ultimately, we make our vote but the Electors have the final say.

With the presidential election nearing, it is virtually impossible to go a day without hearing which candidate did or said what etc. Who got the gold? Who’s running out of campaign money? Huckabee said what?! Not surprisingly, most Americans overlook the more fundamental issue within the voting system itself. I’d like to believe that every vote counts but how could I?

In doing my own personal research on this subject, I was lucky to make it out without my head exploding. It truly is an unnecessarily complex system that technically defeats the purpose of a democracy!

I realize that simply getting rid of the Electoral College is far-fetched but the majority of reasonable Americans should agree that the system needs reform at the very least.

In order to avoid any possibility of spontaneous combustion, I will not go in to all the details surrounding this on-going debate. However, I do recommend everyone take some time to read up on the Electoral College and the arguments for and against. One helpful site can be found at http://people.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college.htm. Also, Joe Bialek wrote an interesting article called Refining the Electoral College in the November/December 2007 edition of The Humanist.

I would like to share a brief interview I was able to get with Congressman Gene Green of the 29th Congressional District of Texas. Congressman Green has been pushing to abolish the Electoral College because he feels that the popular vote is a more accurate measurement of the people’s will. What a crazy idea, right?

INTERVIEW

Path of Reason: We continue to hear the phrase "every vote counts" when election time nears. With our society stressing the importance of voting, does every vote count under the Electoral College system?

Rep. Green: No - Our presidential elections are winner-take-all, state by state.

POR: Some opponents of direct popular vote claim that abolishing the current system would result in an "urban power grab" and simply shift the focus to large cities. What is your take on this perspective?

Rep. Green: Presidential nominees do that now. Large urban media markets are where they spend most of their time.

POR: One issue in the Electoral College is the problem of "faithless Electors," or Electors who cast their vote for someone other than the person they pledge to elect. If the Electoral College is to exist, shouldn't it simply be illegal for an Elector to change his/her vote?

Rep. Green: Yes.

POR: As the debate for and against the current "winner-take-all" system rages on, is it more feasible to work towards a compromise? If so, are there any reasonable alternatives that reflect the current system but also, the will of the people?

Rep. Green: Yes, we could base electoral votes on congressional district with the remainder going to the winner of the state.

POR: Do you see any noticeable shift in support for or against the Electoral College?

Rep. Green: After 2000 and 2004, there was some shift toward supporting a change.

POR: How should Americans go about getting more support for abolishing or refining the Electoral College?

Rep. Green: Contact your members of Congress.

:END:

Thanks to Congressman Green and his assistant Jesse for taking the time to reply to our request!

REVIEW: Finding Faith: A Search for What Makes Sense by Brian D. McLaren

2011-03-02T04:19:00.000-05:00

by A. C. LaMonica

After hearing of my loss of faith, a family member recently sent me Finding Faith: A Search for What Makes Sense by Brian D. McLaren; no doubt out of a genuine concern for my spiritual well-being. I decided to sit down and read through it with an open-mind out of respect for my family whom I love.

Finding Faith begins with a foreword by Steve Chalke, founder of Oasis Global, Faithworks, and www.church.co.uk. This was a discouraging introduction to a book I hoped would give some interesting and unique insights into faith and belief in God. Wasting absolutely no time, Chalke mentions Jesus and how he never forced or manipulated anyone into believing him but rather “always left room for doubt…” Already I could see how reading this book would prove to be a difficult search for what makes sense in itself!

Based on the simple idea expressed here, does it make sense that Jesus, in his infinite wisdom, would take the most eternally important decision of belief and intentionally always leave room for doubt? As if the leap of faith wasn’t difficult enough, adding room for doubt makes it virtually impossible for a reasonable person. And how does providing proof of something force or manipulate anyone to believe something? The creationists prove this point perfectly. Despite the mountains of scientific evidence supporting the age of the earth, evolution, etc. they choose not to believe it. If there is evidence or proof of something, you accept it! There is no belief involved!

In the introduction, Why Is the Search for Faith So Hard?, McLaren says that the purpose of the book is to “help you replace the faith you lost, invigorate the faith you have, and develop the faith you desire but never had before.” I can only say that after reading this book it has simply reaffirmed my belief that most Christians are not being intellectually honest with themselves.

In chapter one, McLaren provides a definition of faith as a state of relative certainty and confesses that we do not have absolute certainty in life and “especially in matters of the spiritual life.” I couldn’t agree more. Brian goes on to describe his ideas of good faith vs. bad faith and to my surprise, includes creationists as an example of bad faith (albeit indirectly). One of this apologist’s saving graces is that he appears to be able to “entertain a thought without accepting it.” to quote Aristotle. He is more open to questions other Christians would see as a threat to their faith and avoid at all costs. However, how an educated man like McLaren retains his faith through the scope of reason is an amazing feat and sounds like quite the struggle for him at times (pgs.93-94).

Each chapter is titled with an intriguing and reasonable question regarding belief, religion and the existence of God. Unfortunately, the author never really answers the questions or makes such a feeble attempt to give an answer that you may as well not even read it. Instead he offers incredible assumptions and pseudo-reason to explain his arbitrary conclusions. For example, in chapter one, he says the following in describing “good faith”:

“Good faith is relational. If I believe there is a personal God behind (and with) the universe, shouldn’t my search for truth in God’s universe begin with an acknowledgment of my relationship with God? In other words, given my personal limitations and the limitations of human knowledge, wouldn’t it make sense to live in dependence on God to help me learn and search fruitfully—and more, to live with expectancy and hope that God will in some way be my teacher and guide? Wouldn’t my relationship with God thus become the basis or context for my search for truth? And shouldn’t I consider what loyalties and responsibilities are incumbent upon me as a party in this relationship with God?”

After reading this, my response was, “What?! I haven’t even made it past chapter one and he is saying this?!” McLaren asks these questions as if the answers should be obvious to the reader. This line of thinking and its presentation is common amongst apologetics. The author appears to follow some sort of logic and thus appeals to the eager reader seeking something that makes sense. Is it rational to begin with a belief and then try to prove it or is it rational to ask a question and seek the answer based on evidence? Obviously, Brian McLaren prefers the former.

In chapter two, the author explains how we all live by faith of some kind or another and that is inescapable. I agree but this does not excuse every faith-based belief from our faculties of reason. We have “faith” in gravity because we can observe it, experience it and verify its presence with objective evidence. Could we say that we have faith in God for those same reasons?

He then goes on to liken the search for God as to shouting out in the dark for someone. We need to act as if someone is there in order get our answer. With this in mind, if you called out for someone in the dark and received no answer, which of the following possible conclusions would you make?

A.) No one is there.

B.) Someone is there but they are invisible and choose not to use an audible voice to answer.

My guess is that most reasonable people would choose “A” but apply this same logic to God and suddenly “B” makes sense.

Chapter four brings us to McLaren’s explanation of the term atheism. At this point, I am not surprised when he completely misconstrues the concept. He says that atheism is a position of faith “because no one can prove conclusively that God doesn’t exist.” If McLaren actually understood atheism, he would realize that atheists would agree that no one can prove God doesn’t exist. They would also agree that no one can prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Zeus or unicorns do not exist. Even one of the most prominent atheists, Richard Dawkins says, “…there almost certainly is no god.” The difference between faith in atheism vs. faith in theism is that atheism is a belief based on evidence or lack thereof. Clearly, the “faith” of atheism is in no way like that of theism.

Again, Brian makes a faulty assumption about atheism and agnosticism (pg.123) in saying that people of these philosophies think the “whole spiritual side of life is not worth even thinking about.” Recently, Sam Harris addressed this common connotation at the 2007 Atheist Alliance Conference. I highly recommend Mr. McLaren watch or read that poignant speech and then tell me what he thinks.

Overall, Finding Faith was an interesting read if only just to get into the head of a Christian and see how they manage to believe what they believe (albeit irrationally). McLaren makes huge assumptions to get to his personal mindset in regards to God’s existence and religion. In his reasoning and questioning, I think he even manages to inadvertently make some good arguments for disbelief in God. Although I don’t agree with just about every assertion made by McLaren in this book, I do commend him for his acceptance of evolution, openness to change, and willingness to ask tough questions. If it must exist, I think Christianity would be better off with more believers like Brian D. McLaren.

REVIEW: Letting Go of God by Julia Sweeney

2011-03-02T04:08:00.001-05:00

by A. C. LaMonica

With the CD release of the one-woman show, "Letting Go of God," Julia Sweeney has managed to join the ranks of other prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, who refers to her performance in his best-seller, "The God Delusion."

Sweeney is best known for her comedic work as the character Pat on Saturday Night Live, however, with the popularity of her auto-biographical show, that could certainly change. "Letting Go of God" is Sweeney's thoughtful yet humorous account of her journey from Catholic to Atheist. Like other ex-Christians, I found many parallels between Sweeney's search for truth and my own. She describes her experience of growing up Catholic as well as the Bible study that allowed her to take a closer look at the faith she always thought she had. Needless to say, that was the beginning of her exploration of other religions and ideas from Buddhism to New Age pseudo-science.

Sweeney's outlook on the matters of faith and religion is refreshingly light-hearted and sincere. It is presented in a way that is easily accessible and relatable for anyone, religious or not. As a fellow freethinker, I was moved by her words and inspired by her perspective. I highly recommend this to people on their own intellectual journey. "Letting Go of God" has the potential to change the way many people look at their belief and non-belief.

Letting Go of God is a 2-CD package including photos and a transcript of the show.