Atheism - Misnomers

It turns our atheists are not well liked by the general public. In a recent poll we were found to rank below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” I'm at a loss as to why this would be the case. Atheists have never harmed another person in the name of atheism. There are not atheist terrorists. We've never killed in the name of atheism. We've never invaded or even judged people in the name of atheism. Atheists would never commit genocide in the name of atheism. So, what is everyone's beef with us?

So, what is it we do that makes us so distrustful? I've heard some ridiculous claims such as, "atheists are unhappy, depraved people who only reject God so they might commit sin. "Why would rejecting God allow us to commit sin? Aren't we all sinners already? Don't Christians sin? Also, am I doing my atheistic world view an injustice when I fail to sin? Finally, is it not completely foolish to claim that a rationalist would avoid something that is actually, so he doesn't have to face the consequences of its existence? What sense is that?

"Hey, that piano is going to land on your head!" "Well, I'd rather it didn't, so I refuse to accept it's existence so I'll survive when it lands on me."

No, these are nonsensical arguments. Personally, I don't drink, smoke, do drugs, commit adultery or steal. I give money and time to charitable organizations and am a lowly paid teacher who spent several years teaching in an inner city school district. Should my atheist friends reject me? What am I doing wrong? I don't seek to commit lewd sexual acts or harm others. I work not to hate or judge others and try to fight for the rights of all people. I'm not sexist, racist or generally grumpy. I suppose I'm an embarrassment to my calling. If I'm so hated, shouldn't I be more hate-able? I'm sure there are those who are not too terribly fond of me, but I commit only one sin repeatedly and without remorse. I reject the holy spirit. Actually, that's not accurate, I fail to recognize the holy spirit. I've never seen, felt, heard or witnessed his/her/its existence.

Now, I cannot address this topic without pointing out one key part of this whole poll. Atheists are specifically accused of not sharing the vision of American society. Let's take a look at what one George Herbert Walker Bush had to say about the issue of Atheists and patriotism, shall we? Please, remember as you read this that this man presided over this beloved country, with the sworn duty to uphold our constitution.

"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots."

Now, it just so happens that the First Amendment to our founding document happens to say that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", Justice David Souter along with the majority of the court in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), stated in his opinion that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." Did you catch that last part? The part about "irreligion." That part would include atheists. Granting Bush that this decision came seven years following his quote, I still see no reason why someone's citizenship or patriotism should be called into question. However by allowing the former president the chance to finish, we might get some insight as to his reasoning. His very next sentence stated:

"This is one nation under God."

Hmmm. Is it? Is it, really? Oddly, our founding fathers failed to include God in any part of our founding document. Perhaps the President wasn't aware that his personal opinions don't supercede this document. Or perhaps he was unaware that the phrase 'under God' was not even added to the Pledge of Allegience until 167 years after our Constitution was adopted and more than a half century after the United States began reciting the pledge in public schools. Perhaps he was simply not a history buff. Or perhaps he wasn't quite clear on the fact that he swore on his creator's book to uphold the document. Which begs the question, was his statement a defiance of his God, his country, his oath or all three? And to return to the original point, are we as a society to hold a vision of this country that is in contrast to this most glorious and patriotic of all documents? Who exactly is it that is failing to hold the correct 'vision of American society'?

Okay, so if you'll accept for the short term that I'm an okay fellow who wouldn't harm anyone and at the very least, strives to live by the golden rule, then I see only one reason why I might not be liked.
If we're right, then 1 of 3 things is true:

1. There is no heaven and people must face their mortality.
   
2. The religious are wrong.
3. The religious would feel quite foolish -- and lost as they'd have lost their presumed reason for existence.

These may seem simple to some at the outset, but they are huge. This is a lot bigger than simply learning the truth about Santa (to which some are deeply hurt). This is the definition of the meaning of life. Its answer puts to rest questions so great and fundamental as to shake a person to their foundation. So, I ask you, who wants to face that and what would people think of someone who's views could force you to face that?

Ann Coulter's New Book: "The Pot Calling the Kettle Black"

As we all know, even those who call themselves fans, Ann Coulter is a harsh person. A friend and mother of three children proudly grinned and nearly cackled that she reads Ann Coulter exactly because she's "so mean". Well, isn't that a sweet and enlightened view.

First off let me say I haven't and won't read Ann Coulter's new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism". However, you'll have to instruct my being correct or incorrect about it when it hits bookstore shelves. Below I've taken her press release about the book and listed her comment (red), how/why it's inaccurate (Misconstruence) and the relative 'Parallel' held by the religious right.

Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, argues Coulter, it bears all the attributes of a religion itself.

Misconstruence: Liberals support the idea of freedom of religion. All religions not only Christianity.

Parallel: Conservativism "rejects the idea of" any god except their own. Conservatives revile people of the Muslim faith, argues me, "it bears all the attributes of a religion itself."

In Godless, she throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us:

• its sacraments (abortion)
  

Misconstruence: Believing in rights other than those of the Christian Church
(who also ignores the fact that it's own God committed abortion)

Parallel: War. Bigotry (racial, religious, gender, sexuality, poverty, --take your pick)

• its holy writ (Roe v. Wade)

Misconstruence: We're no longer to utilize precedent?

Parallel: Patriot Act

• its clergy (public school teachers)

Misconstruence: Those damn well educated public servants. We should all be bitter, starved, cruel bigots instead?

Parallel: O'reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh (oh, how they give of themselves)

• its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free)

Misconstruence: Oh, those lousy constitutionally protected rights!

Parallel: The Presidential Pulpit, Patriot Act, Faith Based Initiative

• its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland)

Misconstruence: Not choosing to consider the personal lives of people,
but in the cause for which they stand should be saluted.

Parallel: God. Bush.

• and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)

Misconstruence: If someone believes that God said 1+1 equalled 11,
does 1+1 no longer equal 2?

Parallel: Faith based initiative.

Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

Misconstruence: The liberal creation 'myth'? Science is a myth,
but an unsupported book is fact. Hmmm...

Parallel: Then, of course, there's the conservative creation myth:
Intelligent Design, literally drawn directly from the
mythology in which Christianity is based.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted. But Coulter neatly reverses the pretense that liberals are rationalists guided by the ideals of free inquiry and the scientific method. She exposes the essential truth about Darwinian evolution that liberals refuse to confront: it is bogus science.

Writing with a keen appreciation for genuine science, Coulter reveals that the so-called "gaps" in the theory of evolution are all there is -- Darwinism is nothing but a gap. After 150 years of dedicated searching into the fossil record, evolution's proponents have failed utterly to substantiate its claims.

Here is one of my absolutely favorite links. This shows how creationists have used their 'expertise' to point out which skulls in the fossil record show a human skull and which show an ape since, as we know, they say there is no link, they were created completely independent of one another. The funniest part is that creation scientists all disagree on where the human starts and the apes end. They can't tell which are human and which are ape skulls! Hilarious and poignant.

...And these are the people who say they want to keep faith out of the classroom?

...and this is a point because the Bible is 'genuine science', I presume?

Lack of knowledge and logic. Nice.

Liberals' absolute devotion to Darwinism, Coulter shows, has nothing to do with evolution's scientific validity and everything to do with its refusal to admit the possibility of God as a guiding force.

Darwin is 'bogus science', but God is legitimate science? Interesting how it can be scientifically proven without, um, evidence and the scientific method, yet not be bogus science, isn't it?

Liberals are not necessarily godless, but do support something called the Constitution. I wonder when Coulter will come out with her book, "Godless, the Constitution of America". As our founding document is, just as she purports liberals to be, Godless.

Explaining the war to my son...

My son asked me about the 'war' in Iraq. Ever since he was small and could understand stories he defined the world as right or wrong. There is a good guy and a bad guy in every story. Certainly, there are stories where good guys make mistakes, but they correct these mistakes and make amends. It's generally the point of the story. The lesson. The theme or moral.

"Lots of people have died in the war, haven't they?"

"Yes, a whole lot."

"Iraqi people?"

"Well, yes, mostly Iraqi's, but a lot of American soldiers too."

"Why did they start the war with us?"

"Well, they didn't. We did."

"Why did we start the war?"

"Because we were told that they had a weapon that could hurt us."

"We started the war because they had a weapon to hurt us?"

"They didn't actually have a weapon to hurt us."

"Then why did we start the war?"

"Because our president lied to us."

"But they were bad people."

"No, they were mostly people just like us. Their leader was a bad man."

"We started the war to stop him."

"No, but that would be a possible reason for starting a war. We started the war because of the weapons."

"But you said there weren't weapons."

"That's right, there were no weapons."

"But President Bush said there were."

"Yes, he did."

"Lying is bad."

"Yes it is."

"Will someone attack us because our President is a bad man?"

So, you tell me. What do you suppose might be the general point of this story? The lesson? The theme or moral?