Daily Atheist

Better sex without religion, survey shows

2011-10-28T10:32:00.002+02:00

"Uh oh. Sex. As America's "war on sex" once again heats up as the country slides toward another presidential election, a new Sex and Secularism study conducted by Kansas University undergraduate Amanda Brown and Dr. Darrel W. Ray is bound to raise some hackles among the religiously faithful. Controversy abounds.

After surveying over 14,500 secularists about their sex lives the study's key findings were as follows:

    Sex improves dramatically after leaving religion.
    Sexual guilt has little staying power after leaving religion.
    Those raised most religious show no difference from those raised least religious in their sexual behavior.
    Those raised most religious experience far more guilt but have just as much sex.
    Religious parents are far worse at educating their children on matters of sex.
    Religious guilt differs in measurable amounts according to denomination.

The authors admit the study was not perfect. It was conducted online, with respondents self-reporting their responses to questions posed, and all of the participants self-identified as currently secular, which could imply a certain motivation on their part to paint a rosy picture of post-religion sexual bliss. The authors feel the sheer number of respondents goes a long way to make up for its methodological weaknesses, and the authors freely admit the purpose of the study was to test six specific hypotheses that can be found on the link bottom of this piece.

[...]

The study's authors state:

"Most religions preach strongly against pornography so it is reasonable to think that porn use would be less among the more religious. This survey found that porn use is quite high in all groups and is a key source of sex education for religious teens. The most religious teens said they got their sex education from porn 33% of the time, the less religious 25.2% of the time. The survey found that 90% of men were using pornography by age 21 with no significant difference between those most and least religious. For women, over 50% were using porn by age 21 and 70% at age 30, with little difference between most and least religious.""

Medicalnewstoday.com, 25 May 2011

Intuitive people are more likely to believe in God, study shows

2011-10-28T10:01:00.001+02:00

"In a series of studies, researchers at Harvard University found that people with a more intuitive thinking style tend to have stronger beliefs in God than those with a more reflective style. Intuitive thinking means going with one's first instinct and reaching decisions quickly based on automatic cognitive processes. Reflective thinking involves the questioning of first instinct and consideration of other possibilities, thus allowing for counterintuitive decisions.

[...]

Participants who gave intuitive answers to all three problems were 1 ½ times as likely to report they were convinced of God's existence as those who answered all of the questions correctly. That pattern was found regardless of other demographic factors, such as the participants' political beliefs, education or income. "How people think - or fail to think - about the prices of bats and balls is reflected in their thinking, and ultimately their convictions, about the metaphysical order of the universe," the journal article stated.

Participants with an intuitive thinking style also were more likely to have become more confident believers in God over their lifetimes, regardless of whether they had a religious upbringing. Individuals with a reflective style tended to become less confident in their belief in God. The study also found that this pronounced link between differing thinking styles and levels of faith could not be explained by differences in the participants' thinking ability or IQ. "Basic ways of thinking about problem solving in your everyday life are predictive of how much you believe in God," Rand said."

Medicalnewstoday.com, 23 Sep 2011

I'm tempted to say: "So, they really are more stupid, then?".But that's just my intution which could be wrong.

In U.S., Increasing Number Have No Religious Identity

2011-10-27T13:45:00.000+02:00

"Americans have become increasingly less tied to formal religion in recent decades, with the percentage saying they do not have a specific religious identity growing from near zero in the 1950s to 16% this year and last.

[...]

An additional measure Gallup has tracked over time asks Americans if they believe that religion can answer all or most of today's problems, or if they believe religion is largely old-fashioned and out of date.

[...]

Bottom Line
Gallup surveys confirm a downward drift in religious identity among Americans, as well as a slight increase in the number of Americans who view religion as old-fashioned and out of date."

Gallup.com, May 21, 2010

In U.S., 3 in 10 Say They Take the Bible Literally

2011-10-27T13:26:00.003+02:00

"Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God. That is similar to what Gallup has measured over the last two decades, but down from the 1970s and 1980s. A 49% plurality of Americans say the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it should not be taken literally, consistently the most common view in Gallup's nearly 40-year history of this question. Another 17% consider the Bible an ancient book of stories recorded by man."

Gallup.com, July 8, 2011

Odd fluctuation in recent years.
See the article for lots of other numbers on this issue.

Why do Americans still dislike atheists?

2011-10-27T13:05:00.000+02:00

"A growing body of social science research reveals that atheists, and non-religious people in general, are far from the unsavory beings many assume them to be. On basic questions of morality and human decency — issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious.

Consider that at the societal level, murder rates are far lower in secularized nations such as Japan or Sweden than they are in the much more religious United States, which also has a much greater portion of its population in prison. Even within this country, those states with the highest levels of church attendance, such as Louisiana and Mississippi, have significantly higher murder rates than far less religious states such as Vermont and Oregon."

Washington Post, Gregory Paul and Phil Zuckerman, April 30

Is religion good for society? See how God's own country compare.

2011-10-27T11:36:00.000+02:00

"Take homicide, which is way higher in the United States than in any other advanced country. Same with incarceration – we have more people in prison than China does, and China is four times our size. In no other first world state do so many die as children. Life spans are notably shorter than in other nations. Abortion rates are higher. Also high are gonorrhea and syphilis infections, which are dozens of times lower in parts of Europe. Out of wedlock teen pregnancy? We’re #1. Divorce? Only the Swedes beat us out. Illicit drug use is exceptionally high. As is mental illness. The U.S.is not a total societal basket case, we are typical in suicide rates and alcohol consumption, and score high on marriage rates and income. But when I tallied up the factors used in my Evolutionary Psychology paper on a zero-10 scale American scored a meager three, while the most atheistic democracies scored up to a remarkable eight (none reached 10, there being no utopias.

[...]

So the line that societies cannot help but go to hell in a handcart if they do not follow the dictates of a God is nothing more than a great big lie. Instead, it is the most atheistic democracies, where few ask what Jesus would do, that enjoy the best overall lifestyle conditions. The same trends hold up within the U.S, too: The Northeast is already as secular as parts of Europe and enjoys less dysfunction than the Southeast which is the most conservative Christian; life spans are actually decreasing in the Bible belt. "

Washington Post, Gregory Paul, 10/17/2011

See the full report here: The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psychosociological Conditions

70 percent of scientists believe religion and science are sometimes in conflict

2011-10-22T11:28:00.000+02:00

"They interviewed a scientifically selected sample of 275 participants, pulled from a survey of 2,198 tenured and tenure-track faculty in the natural and social sciences at 21 elite U.S. research universities. Only 15 percent of those surveyed said they view religion and science as always in conflict. Another 15 percent said the two are never in conflict, while 70 percent said they believe religion and science are only sometimes in conflict.

[...]

The study was supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation with additional funding from Rice University.

[...]

Many of those surveyed cited issues in the public realm (teaching of creationism versus evolution, stem cell research) as reasons for believing there is conflict between the two. The study showed that these individuals generally have a particular kind of religion in mind (and religious people and institutions) when they say that religion and science are in conflict.

Other findings in the study:

    Scientists as a whole are substantially different from the American public in how they view teaching “intelligent design” in public schools. Nearly all of the scientists – religious and nonreligious alike – have a negative impression of the theory of intelligent design.

    Sixty-eight percent of scientists surveyed consider themselves spiritual to some degree.

    Scientists who view themselves as spiritual/religious are less likely to see religion and science in conflict."

Beliefnet, September 23, 2011

I've seen this survey cited in a number of places and nearly all of them has a headline indicating that science and religion are not in conflict, while the numbers clearly state that 70 per cent thinks religion and science are sometimes in conflict. Only 15 per cent thinks religion and science are never in conflict.

Youths are less religious

2011-10-22T10:48:00.002+02:00

"In a survey released last year, it was found that 72 percent of millennials were "more spiritual than religious." According to Thom Rainer, president of LifeWay Christian Resources, the group that conducted the study. Rainer explained to USA Today that young adults today do not pray, worship, or read the Bible.

In studying the data of 1,200 18-29 year olds, Rainer found that among the 65 percent who described themselves as Christians, "many are either mushy Christians or Christians in name only; most are just indifferent," said Rainer. "The more precisely you try to measure their Christianity, the fewer you find committed to the faith," he added.

The study found that 65 percent rarely or never pray with others, and 38 percent almost never pray by themselves. In addition, 65 percent rarely or never attend worship services, while 67 percent don not read the Bible or sacred texts."

The Christian Post, Sep. 22 2011

I really can't stand the word "spiritual" but I guess in this case it's better than being religious.

Religion may become extinct in nine nations, study says

2011-10-20T13:03:00.001+02:00

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

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

BBC News, 22 March 2011

Even in Ireland!

Religious people has higher blood pressure

2011-10-20T12:19:00.000+02:00

"Religiosity appears to have little affect on preventing hypertension, or high blood pressure, and those study participants proclaiming to be the most religious were actually the most likely to have hypertension. The study was conducted by medical students at the Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine and presented on April 30 at the meeting of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine in New Orleans.

Although a small study presented at a small meeting, it is yet one more report that chisels away at the notion that prayer and belief alone offer significant health benefits.

Many studies indeed have shown that those who attend weekly religious services or participate in church activities have at least marginally better health than non-participants. Yet these studies have focused primarily on physical participation: getting out of the house to a weekly service and being part of a community.

[...]

Marginally significant results aside, these earlier studies could not tease apart what it was about religion — the spiritual act of believing or the physical acts of participating and interacting with neighbors — that provided the purported benefit.
[...]

The Loyola study focused more on the spiritual, not whether a person merely attends church but whether they "carry [their] religion over into all other dealings in life," as cited in the study. Those who were most religious in this regard were the least healthy in terms of high blood pressure.

Other recent studies have focused on spirituality, too, to see if that alone could lower blood pressure, perhaps through mechanisms such as stress reduction. Yet prayer and spirituality were associated with higher blood pressure in a study of more than 3,000 adults published in January 2009 in Social Science Medicine; and they offered no benefit for preventing hypertension for approximately 1,600 women in a study published in June 2009 in Annals of Behavioral Medicine.

Even a life of the cloth seems to provide little protection. The obesity rate among United Methodist clergy is 40 percent, about 10 percent higher than the national rate, as reported in the September 2010 issue of Obesity.

Meanwhile, just about anything that gets someone out of the house can be helpful. Playing bingo, for example, even in a non-religious setting, is associated with a 40-percent reduction in death risk and 65-percent reduction in disability among the elderly, according to a study published in June 2009 in the Archives of Internal Medicine."

LiveScience, Christopher Wanjek, 05 May 2011

I quote this article at length, because it points to a very important effect of religion, the social aspect. So there aren't any metaphysical effects or effects from belief itself, only the effect that getting out of the house provides. Maybe atheists should gather once a week too.

On a personal note, not long ago I actually had fairly high blood pressure. I could hear the blood pumping when I was laying on my bed with the ear to the pillow. Then I started to excercise once a week, and that helped. Now I can't hear the blood pumping anymore. No need for spirituality, just common sense.

If you believe in a loving god you're more likely to cheat

2011-10-20T11:19:00.000+02:00

"Belief in God doesn't deter a person from cheating on a test, unless that God is seen as a mean, punishing one, researchers say.
On the flip side, psychology researchers Azim F. Shariff at the University of Oregon and Ara Norenzayan at the University of British Columbia found that undergraduate college students who believe in a caring, forgiving God are more likely to cheat.

[...]

No differences in cheating were found between self-described believers in God and non-believers."

ScienceDaily Apr. 20, 2011

Fairly interesting. As the saying goes: "We're not perfect, we're forgiven". It must be noted, however, that people who believe in a vengeful god may cause a lot of other problems.

Irreligious countries are happier

2011-10-20T10:49:00.000+02:00

"Circumstances predict religiousness," he said. "Difficult circumstances lead more strongly to people being religious. And in religious societies and in difficult circumstances, religious people are happier than nonreligious people. But in nonreligious societies or more benign societies where many people's needs are met, religious people aren't happier -- everyone's happier."

ScienceDaily Aug. 8, 2011

This should settle the discussion on religiousness and happiness. Irreligious people has a harder time in religious countries, but if irreligious people are the majority, then everyone's better off. The map in this post (which I think is from the Gallup poll this study is based on) is also pretty self-explanatory.

More divorces in the Bible belt

2011-10-15T19:09:00.001+02:00

"A recent U.S. Census report shows the Northeast - and New Jersey in particular - has the lowest divorce rate in America, trailed closely by New York.

The Bible Belt, meanwhile, home to Southern hospitality, church telethons and country music, has more "shotgun" weddings and the most divorces.

"People assume that people in the Northeast divorce easily because they're less religious, but that's not the case," said Deborah Carr, a professor of sociology at Rutgers University.

In the Northeast, 7.2 per 1,000 men and 7.5 per 1,000 women got divorced. In the South, the rates were 10.2 for men and 11.1 for women.

New Jersey's rates were 6.1 for men and 6 for women, according to the 2009 American Community Survey, which released the data in August.

[...]

The South sees more divorce for several reasons, Carr said:

First, Southerners tend to marry young.

Second, couples don't usually move in together while unwed, a trend tied to religious beliefs. They often frown upon birth control, and are "more likely to have nonmarital pregnancies, which ... then trigger 'shotgun' marriages."

Third, there are simply more marriages in the South. New Jersey had the second-lowest marriage rates, just above Maine. The Census survey reported New Jersey's marriage rate is 14.8 for men and 13.3 for women."

Chron.com, September 29, 2011

If you're not married you can't get divorced.

A rough decade for American congregations

2011-10-15T17:55:00.000+02:00

"A new decade-long survey of American congregations shows religious health and vitality are weaker than they were 10 years ago.

[...]

Congregations are also having hard times financially, the survey found. In 2000, 31% of survey participants reported excellent financial health. In 2010, that number plummeted to just 14%.

[...]

Roozen writes that a variety of factors led to the decline, but overall, there are fewer Americans in the pews, and "... more than 1 in 4 American congregations had fewer than 50 in worship in 2010, and just under half had fewer than 100. Overall, median weekend worship attendance of your typical congregation dropped from 130 to 108 during the decade, according to the FACT surveys."

[...]

The decline hit across religious and denominational lines, sparing no one, Roozen wrote. He said that "no single category or kind of congregation ... was exempt from the decadal downsizing of worship attendance."

The data came from Faith Communities Today surveys and represents 11,077 congregations and 120 denominations of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim traditions, the institute said."

CNN Belief Blog, September 20th, 2011

Religion in retreat in Britain

2011-10-15T13:11:00.000+02:00

"A large-scale survey of British attitudes has been carried out by YouGov–Cambridge (a collaboration between pollsters YouGov and the University of Cambridge’s Department of Politics and International Studies) has some revealing statistics on religion. A representative sample of 64,303 adult Britons aged 18 and over responded.

78% (82% of the over-55s) agreed and 12% disagreed that religion should be a private matter and had no place in politics

In response to the question “What is your religion?” 40% of adults professed no religion, 55% were Christian and 5% of other faiths – age made a major difference, with only 38% of the 18–34s being Christian and 53% having no religion, whereas for the over-55s the figures were 70% and 26% respectively

35% described themselves as very or fairly religious and 63% as not very or not at all religious – there were no big variations by demographics (even by age), but Londoners (41%) did stand out as being disproportionately religious, doubtless reflecting the concentration of ethnic minorities in the capital

79% agreed and 11% disagreed that religion is a cause of much misery and conflict in the world today

72% agreed and 15% disagreed that religion is used as an excuse for bigotry and intolerance, with a high of 81% inScotlandwhere sectarianism has often been rife

35% agreed and 45% disagreed that religion is a force for good in the world, dissenters being more numerous among men (50%) than women (41%)

[...]

Full tables can be seen here."

National Secular Society, 23 Sep 2011

Lots more numbers in the article.

Hygiene more important than religion to mothers survey shows

2011-10-15T12:55:00.000+02:00

I came across this international survey via NSS:

It shows that religion has the lowest priority among mothers and fathers whereas hygiene has the top priority.
Here's the full report (page 22). (See also Sca.com for more information about who produced the survey).

Doing good is not the preserve of the religious

2011-10-12T11:39:00.001+02:00

"This point was demonstrated yet again last week by the latest figures from the government's citizenship survey. In terms of civic engagement and formal volunteering, the figures show no significant difference between those with a religion and those with no religion (57% and 56% respectively). There is scarcely any difference in participation between those with no religion and self-described Christians (56% and 58%). At 44%, the proportion of Hindus and Muslims participating in civic engagement and formal volunteering is actually lower than the proportion of non-religious people doing so, and the lowest of all groups. This is no flash in the pan – it is a continuing feature of the figures over a number of years.

The figures supplement other data that makes the same point, not only from previous years' citizenship surveys. In 2007, Faith and Voluntary Action, from the National Council of Voluntary Organisations found that "religious affiliation makes little difference in terms of volunteering", and as a matter of simple numbers, the overwhelming majority of the voluntary, community and charity sector in the UK are secular."

Guardian.co.uk, Andrew Copson, 26 September 2011

Just as I've been thinking but it's really nice to have the statistics now.

The shrinking [Christian] majority

2011-10-12T11:16:00.000+02:00

"Britain is still a Christian country but the drift towards secularism continues.

[...]

The headline figures suggest that the United Kingdom remains a predominantly religious and mostly Christian country. Almost seven in ten (68.5 per cent) identify themselves to researchers as Christians -- far more than the 15 per cent who regularly attend church. Less than a quarter (23 per cent) profess no religion at all (although in Wales, the figure is considerable higher, at close to one in three. Of the population as a whole, 4.4% is Muslim -- more than all other minority faiths put together -- but still less than one person in 20. (The full IHS figures can be found here.)
This picture of stability may be something an illusion, however. The last time this survey was conducted, in 2009-2010, the figure for Christian affiliation was 71.4 per cent and for no religion was just 20 per cent. A movement of 3 per cent from a Christian identity to a non-religious one in a single year is potentially a dramatic one. The annual population survey, which has included a religion question since 2004, records what looks like a consistent pattern. In 2004-2005, the figures stood at around 78 per cent Christians and less than 16 per cent having no belief. "

New Statesman, Nelson Jones, 29 September 2011

America's secular revival

2011-10-12T11:03:00.000+02:00

"Five signs that, despite the GOP's efforts, religion's impact on U.S. politics will soon decline

1. American religious belief is becoming more fractured

[...]

2. Non-belief — and acceptance of non-belief — on the rise
Last month was the first time atheists were knocked from the top of America’s most hated list, an honor that now belongs to the Tea Party. While this development may have more to do with the fact that the mainstream media’s love affair with the Tea Party is not shared by most Americans, it also dovetails with increased visibility and acceptance of atheism.

[...]

3. Growing numbers of young people who do not identify as religious
As recently as 1990, all but 7 percent of Americans claimed a religious affiliation, a figure that had held constant for decades. Today, 17 percent of Americans say they have no religion, and these new “nones” are very heavily concentrated among Americans who have come of age since 1990. Between 25 percent and 30 percent of twentysomethings today say they have no religious affiliation — roughly four times higher than in any previous generation.

[...]

4. Hate group that exploited religion to bash gays hemorrhaging funds
In 2008, Focus on the Family had to cut its staff by 18 percent. Last week, FOTF had to do another round of cuts, again citing a drop in donations (though it claims the lower funding is a result of tough economic times).

[...]

5. Getting married by friends
A study last year by TheKnot.com and WeddingChannel.com showed that 31 percent of their users who married in 2010 used a family member or friend as the officiant, up from 29 percent in 2009, the first year of the survey."

Salon Mag/Alternet Sep 29, 2011

Rising atheism in America puts 'religious right on the defensive'

2011-10-09T16:26:00.000+02:00

"The exact number of faithless is unclear. One study by the Pew Research Centre puts them at about 12% of the population, but another by the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture at Trinity College in Hartford puts that figure at around 20%.Most experts agree that the number of secular Americans has probably doubled in the past three decades – growing especially fast among the young. It is thought to be the fastest-growing major "religious" demographic in the country.

[...]

There are other indications, too. For a long time studies have shown that about 40% of US adults attend a church service weekly. However, other studies that actually counted those at church – rather than just asking people if they went – have shown the true number to be about half to two-thirds of that figure."

Guardian.co.uk, Saturday 1 October 2011

Feelgood article in The Guardian.

Why Atheism Will Replace Religion: New Evidence

2011-08-08T17:35:00.003+02:00

"Atheists are heavily concentrated in economically developed countries, particularly the social democracies of Europe. In underdeveloped countries, there are virtually no atheists. Atheism is a peculiarly modern phenomenon. Why do modern conditions produce atheism? In a new study to be published in August, I provide compelling evidence that atheism increases along with the quality of life (1).

[...]

The reasons that churches lose ground in developed countries can be summarized in market terms. First, with better science, and with government safety nets, and smaller families, there is less fear and uncertainty in people's daily lives and hence less of a market for religion. At the same time many alternative products are being offered, such as psychotropic medicines and electronic entertainment that have fewer strings attached and that do not require slavish conformity to unscientific beliefs."

Psychologytoday.com, Nigel Barber, Ph.D, July 14, 2011

Good news!

Science vs religion

2011-02-01T09:04:00.001+01:00

Here's a new picture I made.
Comes as a T-shirt too: http://www.cafepress.com/strappado

I Can't Believe It's Not Religion

2010-11-20T18:41:00.002+01:00

As every atheist knows, it can often be an exasperating task to explain that atheism is not a religion, and well, I guess this picture won't be of any help.

Religion and wellbeing paradox

2010-10-30T07:36:00.009+02:00

"A new analysis of more than 550,000 Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index interviews conducted over the last year and a half finds that Americans who are the most religious also have the highest levels of wellbeing. The statistically significant relationship between religiousness and wellbeing holds up after controlling for numerous demographic variables. Higher levels of healthy behaviors, life evaluation, work environment perceptions, and emotional health affect religious Americans' high wellbeing.

Gallup.com October 28, 2010

As you can see below, this may very well be true:

Note that non-religious generally fare better than the moderately religious.

But here's from an earlier Gallup survey that I blogged about which shows which countries are most religious:

I am thinking that while religion may have positive effects on health, because there's less partying etc., the effects on society at large are not good. Of course, one can't attribute all problems in the south to religion, but it's a matter of fact that religion has lots of negative side effects ranging from terrorism to witch hunting.

Another paradoxical survey:

"People who see themselves as active participants in their faith are less susceptible to depression. But for those who feel alienated from their religion, it makes them more likely to be clinically depressed.
Jack Jensen, director of UVU’s mental health services, and Cameron John, associate professor of behavioral sciences, decided to survey UVU students after Mental Health America ranked Utah in 2007 as the most depressed state in the nation."

The Salt Lake Tribune, Oct 25, 2010

If religion helps against depression, then surely Utah should have been better off. But if you read the article it seems that the religious in-group, dedicated mormons, has better mental health at the expense of others.

So I'll stick to Atheism for now.

Half of American Christians can't say what Christianity has contributed to Society

2010-10-29T17:57:00.005+02:00

"The people who seemed least aware of either the positive or negative contributions of Christians were the largest segment of Christians: Notionals. Along with the unchurched, Notional Christians were the segment most likely to not be able to identify either a positive or negative contribution of American Christians. Notionals currently represent about half of all Christians in the U.S.
Most of the non-Christian segments of the population cited serving the poor and underprivileged as the best thing that Christians have done.
Overall, there was a more extensive and diverse list of complaints about Christians and their churches than there was of examples of the benefits they have provided to society."

Barna.org October 25, 2010

For a list of complaints and grievances, scroll down to "Negative Contributions". Notably, Evangelicals are hard critics of American Christianity.

"When asked to identify what they thought were the negative contributions of Christians to American society in recent years, the most frequent response was violence or hatred incited in the name of Jesus Christ. One out of five Americans mentioned such vitriolic attitudes. This was most likely to be mentioned by people associated with non-Christian faiths (35%) and by evangelicals (31%)."

Why Young Adults Are Leaving the Faith

2010-10-27T10:09:00.003+02:00

"Postmodern leavers reject Christianity because of its exclusive truth claims and moral absolutes. For them, Christian faith is just too narrow. "Recoilers" leave because they were hurt in the church. They suffered some form of abuse at the hands of someone they saw as a spiritual authority. God was guilty by association. "Modernists" completely reject supernatural claims. God is a delusion. Any truth beyond science is dismissed as superstition. "Neo-pagans" refers to those who left for earth-based religions such as Wicca. Not all actually cast spells or participate in pagan rituals, but they deny a transcendent God, and see earth as the locus of true spirituality. "Spiritual Rebels" flee the faith to indulge in behavior that conflicted with their faith. They also value autonomy and don't want anyone -- especially a superintending deity -- telling them what to do. "Drifters" do not suffer intellectual crises or consciously leave the faith; they simply drift away. Over time God becomes less and less important until one day he's no longer part of their lives."

Birmingham News, October 23, 2010

Some interesting categories there. Interview with Drew Dyck who has written "Generation Ex-Christian: Why Young Adults Are Leaving the Faith ... and How to Bring Them Back".

World Atheism

2010-10-19T12:14:00.001+02:00

New piece on Deviantart

Religion is the opium of the people

2010-10-10T14:20:00.001+02:00

Just made this one recently.

Charitable Atheist

2010-08-22T15:34:00.007+02:00

Pakistan is going through some rough times, and if there is a time to donate money to Pakistan, then it's now.

"Every cent and penny of money donated via Non-Believers Giving Aid will be forwarded to Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders"

Losing Wealth but not Finding God

2009-03-22T10:31:00.004+01:00

"Contrary to recent media reports suggesting that the country's economic troubles have led to higher levels of church attendance, a Pew Forum analysis of polls by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press finds that while the Dow Jones Industrial Average has shed over half its value since October 2007, there has been no increase in weekly worship service attendance during the same time period."

Pew Research, March 13, 2009

I just had to laugh at this graph, because I know all to well the joy some believers have that when finally the economy goes to hell, then perhaps the ungrateful will turn to the Lord. "No Atheists in an economic foxhole" and so on. But it's apparently not happening.
(In fact, if you look closely, the latter half of the church attendance graph is more below the 40 line than the first half.)

Most and least religious countries in the world

2009-02-14T10:27:00.006+01:00

Here's an interesting Gallup survey listing up which countries are most and least religious, and comparison to US states. Always nice to keep around when there are discussions about how important religion is for your well-being. (The poll data is based upon interviews from 2006, 2007 and 2008, the article seems to be brand new: February 9, 2009.)

See also this post about religion and social issues.

Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment

2008-08-25T17:20:00.003+02:00

"Sociologist Zuckerman spent a year in Scandinavia seeking to understand how Denmark and Sweden became “probably the least religious countries in the world, and possibly in the history of the world.” While many people, especially Christian conservatives, argue that godless societies devolve into lawlessness and immorality, Denmark and Sweden enjoy strong economies, low crime rates, high standards of living and social equality. Zuckerman interviewed 150 Danes and Swedes, and extended transcripts from some of those interviews provide the book's most interesting and revealing moments."

Publishers Weekly, 8/11/2008

Considering the sheer amount of American Christians who refer to the Soviet Union as a prime example of what an irreligious society can be like, this should provide some food for thought.

Christianity 'could die out within a century'

2008-06-20T12:52:00.005+02:00

"Research by the Orthodox Jewish organisation Aish found that just over a third of people thought religions like Christianity and Judaism would still be practiced in Britain in 100 years' time.
Although four in 10 people said they would choose to be a member of the Christian religion, almost the same number said they would rather practice no religion at all.
Buddhism however, proved more attractive than both Islam and Judaism, and was chosen by nine per cent of those questioned.
Aish UK's executive director Rabbi Naftali Schiff said the results of the YouGov poll of 2,000 people were alarming.
"It clearly demonstrates that religion, including Judaism, is becoming unattractive to the British public."

[...]

Research published earlier this year suggested that church attendance is declining so fast that the number of regular churchgoers will be fewer than those attending mosques within a generation.
According to Religious Trends, an analysis of religious practice in Britain, the huge drop off in attendance means that the Church of England, Catholicism and other denominations will become financially unviable.
In contrast, the number of actively religious Muslims is predicted to increase from about one million today to 1.96 million in 2035.
Telegraph.co.uk, 20/06/2008
No cause for alarm!
And for the panic mongers, this will definitely affect Islam too. Practising Muslims prefer to live in religious countries, even if they are Christian, and probably for good reasons.

Research Suggests Militant Jihadists Are Inspired By Night Dreams

2008-06-19T20:32:00.003+02:00

"This is the conclusion of a study of the reported dreams of many of the best-known al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders carried out by Dr Iain Edgar a social anthropologist at Durham University.
Edgar identified four key themes from his research:

* Militant jihadists are inspired by night dreams
* Militant jihadists legitimize their actions partly on the basis of night dreams
* The inspirational night dream can be more 'real' than reality, connecting the individual to a mythical past
* Militant Jihadism can be directly authorized by dream content"

Medical News Today, 09 Jun 2008

Interesting, and slightly worrying, but after a quick search in the hadith it doesn't seem like such a big surprise after all.
Check out this link to the USC-MSA hadith collection and do a search for "Dream" in all four hadith collections, and you will get approximately 170 hits.

Here's one from the Bukhari collection:

"Volume 1, Book 5, Number 260: Narrated Maimuna:
The Prophet took the bath of Janaba. (sexual relation or wet dream). He first cleaned his private parts with his hand, and then rubbed it(that hand) on the wall (earth) and washed it. Then he performed ablution like that for the prayer, and after the bath he washed his feet. "

Øystein Elgarøy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

2008-06-18T23:15:00.003+02:00

I came across an interesting deconversion story in the Norwegian Fri Tanke magazine( for Norwegian humanists). I briefly translated a short quote from it and posted it at the Richard Dawkins-forum, and then I was asked to do a full translation for the frontpage, and happy to be at service I did so. So now I'll post it here as well.
It seemed to have struck a chord with people. I mean, we all like deconversion stories, but Øystein Elgarøy, professor of astrophysics, isn't the average ex-christian, so the reasoning here is definitely more intellectual than emotional.
The interview was done, and well done at that, by Even Gran.

A short while ago professor of astrophysics Øystein Elgarøy was a profiled liberal Christian who defended his faith in articles and at debates. But then he discovered that he actually agreed more with his opponents.
The first time the undersigned got acquainted with Øystein Elgarøy was at a debate about faith and science at a pub in Oslo, autumn 2005.
Elgarøy sat there with all his ballast as a professor of astrophysics and assured the audience that there are no conflicts between his field of research and God's existence. On the contrary, what we know of the cosmos points to there in fact being a god, he thought. The arguments from the Atheists in the panel, among others professor of biology, Dag Hessen, bounced off.
A little later, in 2006, the book "Tro og vitenskap – sammenheng eller sammenstøt"("Faith and science – connection or conflict") was released by the Christian publisher Lunde Forlag. Elgarøy contributed here too, and there was no doubt that his answer to the title was "connection".
– There is a beautiful symmetry and simple laws that govern nature. [...] Where I see God's hand clearest is in the beauty of these laws of nature, said Elgarøy in the interview he gave together with the nun and astrophysicist Katrina Pajchel in the beginning of the book.
But all this happened before he one Sunday in January this year heard a debate between the Atheist Christopher Hitchens and the theologian Alister McGrath.
Most in agreement with the opponent
– Suddenly I realized that it was much easier to agree with Hitchens than with McGrath. To put it short, I agreed more with the person I should disagree with. I then realised that I had to take the consequence of this. I could no longer live on an illusion. You might say that this Sunday became a turning point of sorts, Elgarøy says to Fritanke.no
He says that this of course had matured within him for quite a while. The disappointment over the book "The Dawkins Delusion" by the same McGrath was one of the factors. In this book McGrath tries to rebut the Atheist Richard Dawkins' attack on faith in the book "The God Delusion".
– I read McGrath's book hoping to find some good answers to the challenges from Dawkins, but the book was a genuine disappointment. While reading it struck me that "is this really the best answer a theologian can come up with?" I don't think he came up with any good arguments. It was a surprisingly weak answer in many ways, says Elgarøy.
Irrational to believe without reason
He adds that even if both Dawkins and Hitchens are imprecise and may not come up with the most sophisticated arguments against religious faith, it's hard for Christians to come up with good answers to the main accusation that there's no empirical evidence for Christianity, or any other religion, being true.
– And that's not enough for me. As a scientist and astrophysicist I am used to rejecting hypotheses that don't cut it. That's what after a while made it hard for me to hold on to the hypothesis about God. I could not support it rationally, and realised in the end that I could not live with that there should be an exception for just this question. That's probably what I realised that Sunday in January, he says.
– So you're not an adherent to the widespread idea that religion and science are "two non-overlapping spheres"?
– I used to think so. But I can't really see any reason to believe that there's anything more than one reality. Religious allegations then becomes allegations about this one reality, and then they will also have to accept critical examination, as well as being rejected if they don't measure up.
– You say that you could not support the faith in God rationally. Are you saying that it is irrational to believe in God?
– Yes, I think so. It is irrational to hold on to something that simply is not the best explanation, and which has no empirical support. When one is examining the Christian notion of God, it just ends up as a fanciful idea, he says.
Elgarøy points out that there are so many other strange things too, that you're forced to accept if you want to be a Christian. A lot of stuff goes with it that makes it even harder to believe.
– Healing and miracles for example. As a scientist I can't believe that things like this happens now, and then it becomes difficult to believe that it might have happened 2000 years ago as well. Another problem is why one isn't instead a Muslim or Hindu. How can Christians say that they are right and the others are wrong, when they don't have any empirical evidence to build upon? When I was a Christian I could not come up with any good answers to this, he says.
The existence of evil was also something that bothered Elgarøy.
– There's so much going on in the world that is inconsistent with the existence of a benevolent and almighty god, and I think the Christian attempts to answer this are far-fetched and hapless, he says.

A relief to be spared from defending the faith
After a while Elgarøy realised that things fall better into place if the starting point is that there's no god, and that everything is created by humans.
– Reality and theory cohere better this way. If humans have created God and religions, and not the other way round, then it explains most of the paradoxes that Christians are struggling with today. As an example, it's not a problem that evil exists if everything around us is a result from natural processes that don't separate between good and evil. All the variations within and between religions, are no mystery either if your starting point is that only humans have created religions. But for a person with a Christian view of life, all of this is a great problem, he says.
– How did you react personally to the loss of faith?
– It was no sad experience. Absolutely not. It felt liberating. Suddenly I was free to use my energy on better things than defending self-contradictory religious dogmas and justify that I still called myself "Christian". It was a relief to let go of this, he says.
He adds that he never really had any strong religious experiences as many other believers report they've had. Therefore, this has not been a loss for him either.
Article in "Kirke og kultur" started the process
Øystein Elgarøy grew up in a family that was active in "Den evangelisk-lutherske frikirke", and during his teens he was a rather conservative Christian.
– In the beginning I found all the answers I needed in the Bible, but as I grew older, and started to study, I realised that conservative Christianity did not measure up. I became more and more liberal, and in the end there wasn't much left other than that I "believed that there perhaps exists a god". And then it starts wearing a little thin, he says.
However, it's only a few years ago that he really got interested in the relationship between faith and science.
– Around 2004-2005 I was asked to write an article for the periodical "Kirke og kultur" ("Church and culture") about the relationship between Christian faith and my field of research, cosmology. Before this I merely separated faith and science into two spheres, and didn't think much more about it. But through the work with this article, I was forced to think about the borders for my field of research and my own faith. The work made me more aware of what one can really know. You might say that this article in Kirke og Kultur was the beginning of my departure from Christian faith, Elgarøy says.

Liberal Christian relativism becomes meaningless
Elgarøy doesn't fancy the liberal Christianity with an abstract concept of God and which says that whether God "exists in reality" really isn't that important.
– That's not enough for me. This relativism that the liberal Christians are up to is just nonsense. Whether or not there's a god, is an important question. That God exists "in the eye", "in the language" and "as a concept" there's no doubt about. But that's after all not what Christianity is about. The question is whether or not there exists a personal god that that has created everything we know. If one can't make oneself to believe in this concrete personal image of God, then one is not Christian, as I see it.
He can't do other than see this as an either/or question.
– Either one believes in this god, or one doesn't. Either Christianity is true, or it's untrue. There's nothing between, Elgarøy says.
– Do you think that liberal Christians' relativisation and abstraction of God is an attempt to make their own faith easier to defend?
– Yes, I think that's true for many of them. It was like this for me at least. I resorted to this strategy to escape from the notion of God that I after a while found more and more difficult to defend rationally, that is the belief in the really existing, personal, creation and conscious god. But one can't get around that this personal notion of God is of vital importance for the Christian faith, he says.
– Mankind is the only source of moral and ethics.On the way out the astrophysicist is asked if he wants the latest paper version of Fri Tanke, that just arrived from the printers. But it's not needed, we learn.
– I probably get it in the mail. You see I just joined Human-Etisk Forbund, he says.
– What made you do it?
– It felt natural. It's very important for me that it's possible to have morality and ethics without God. Not even when I considered myself a Christian I based my morality and ethics in the Bible and the word of God. As I see it, it's only the ethics that starts with humans and human reason that holds water, he says.
Facts
Øystein Elgarøy (born 1972) is a professor in Astrophysics. He was only 27 years old when he did his Ph.D. a work he received H.M. the King's gold medal for. Elgarøy had by then published eleven scientific works. In 2004 he received Fridtjof Nansen's award for younger scientists.
In the 1990s Elgarøy was active in Norges Kristelige student– og skoleungdomslag, and has during the 2000s made a word for himself in the public as a defender of Christian faith.
Now he has abandoned the faith and joined Human-Etisk Forbund.(The Norwegian Humanist association) "
Fri Tanke, 16.06.2008

Religion is ‘the new social evil’

2008-04-20T19:25:00.005+02:00

"A CHARITY set up by an ardent Christian to fight slavery and the opium trade has identified a new social evil of the 21st century - religion. A poll by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation uncovered a widespread belief that faith - not just in its extreme form - was intolerant, irrational and used to justify persecution. Pollsters asked 3,500 people what they considered to be the worst blights on modern society, updating a list drawn up by Rowntree, a Quaker, 104 years ago. The responses may well have dismayed him. The researchers found that the “dominant opinion” was that religion was a “social evil”. Many participants said religion divided society, fuelled intolerance and spawned “irrational” educational and other policies. One said: “Faith in supernatural phenomena inspires hatred and prejudice throughout the world, and is commonly used as justification for persecution of women, gays and people who do not have faith.”
Many respondents called for state funding of church schools to be ended."

The Sunday Times, April 20, 2008

An excerpt from the report:

"There was disagreement among participants around the issue of religion. Some identified the decline of religion in society as a social evil. [...]
A more dominant opinion, however, stood in stark contrast to this: some people identified religion itself as a social evil. This group generally focused on one of three issues: the “erosion of secularism”; religion as cause of intolerance and conflict; and religion as a source of irrationality."

What are today’s social evils? The results of a web consultation (Pages 30-31) (PDF, 418KB)

Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

2008-04-18T09:50:00.002+02:00

"Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

[...]

Shared misconceptions:

Everything is an adaptation produced by natural selection

Natural selection is the only means of evolution

Natural selection leads to ever-greater complexity

Evolution produces creatures perfectly adapted to their environment

Evolution always promotes the survival of species

It doesn't matter if people do not understand evolution

"Survival of the fittest" justifies "everyone for themselves"

Evolution is limitlessly creative

Evolution cannot explain traits such as homosexuality

Creationism provides a coherent alternative to evolution

Creationist myths:

Evolution must be wrong because the Bible is inerrant

Accepting evolution undermines morality

Evolutionary theory leads to racism and genocide

Religion and evolution are incompatible

Half a wing is no use to anyone

Evolutionary science is not predictive

Evolution cannot be disproved so is not science

Evolution is just so unlikely to produce complex life forms

Evolution is an entirely random process

Mutations can only destroy information, not create it

Darwin is the ultimate authority on evolution

The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex

Yet more creationist misconceptions

Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics."

New Scientist, 16 April 2008

Have a look at the article to check out each myth!

The necessity of combating relativism

2008-04-14T05:56:00.008+02:00

"In saying this, we must note that atheists are not immune from unreasoned dogma. Religion is not the only place where one can go to find doctrines that promote death and human suffering.
Europe, though being more 'atheist' than America, also suffers from the influence of atheist dogmas that are as anti-science as any religion. The list of popular philosophies in Europe include post-modernism and cultural relativism, both of which condemn the idea that we can have actual knowledge of the real world. These dogmas have been as effective at holding the European culture back scientifically and economically as creationism has been in America. Focusing on religious dogmas and their harmful effects is just a part of the problem.

In fact, the philosophies of post-modernism and cultural relativism point to an important case of atheist scapegoating. Many 'new atheists' have accused religious moderates of shielding religious extremists by preventing criticism against the harshest forms of their religion. However, they did not mention the fact that these non-religious philosophies are an even greater obstacle to criticizing fundamentalist religions. It's from these philosophies, not from religious moderates, that we get the idea that no culture may criticize another. Religious moderates, in contrast, still held to the possibility of moral and objective truths."

Atheistethicist.blogspot.com, Mar 6, 2008

This is a very important point being raised.

I don't agree with all sentiments. Relativism is not as retarded as creationism after all, and it's nowhere as widespread in Europe as creationism/ID is in USA. The problem is that relativism is more popular among the elite, instead of among the unedumecated. That makes it dangerous, because these are decision makers.

Further, I need to point out that New Atheists do spend some time criticizing relativism. So it's not true that it's not mentioned. For instance, I'll quote some examples from the the New Atheist books:

"The general retort to relativism is simple, because most relativists contradict their thesis in the very act of stating it. Take the case of relativism with respect to morality: moral relativists generally believe that all cultural practices should be respected on their own terms, that the practitioners of the various barbarisms that persist around the globe cannot be judged by the standards of the West, nor can the people of the past be judged by the standards of the present. And yet, implicit in this approach to morality lurks a claim that is not relative but absolute. Most moral relativists believe that tolerance of cultural diversity is better, in some important sense, than outright bigotry. This may be perfectly reasonable, of course, but it amounts to an overarching claim about how all human beings should live. Moral relativism, when used as a rationale for tolerance of diversity, is self-contradictory."

Sam Harris, The End of Faith (Page 179, The Demon of Relativism)

"It is the source of squirming internal conflict in the minds of nice liberal people who, on the one hand, cannot bear suffering and cruelty, but on the other hand have been trained by postmodernists and relativists to respect other cultures no less than their own. Female circumcision is undoubtedly hideously painful, it sabotages sexual pleasure in women (indeed, this is probably its underlying purpose), and one half of the decent liberal mind wants to abolish the practice. The other half, however, 'respects' ethnic cultures and feels that we should not interfere if 'they' want to mutilate 'their' girls."

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Pages 328-9, Childhood Abuse and Religion)

"The more one learns of the different passionately held convictions of peoples around the world, the more tempting it becomes to decide that there really couldn't be a standpoint from which truly universal moral judgments could be constructed and defended. So it is not surprising that cultural anthropologists tend to take one variety of moral relativism or another as one of their enabling assumptions. Moral relativism is also rampant in other groves of academia, but not all. It is decidedly a minority position among ethicists and other philosophers, for example, and it is by no means a necessary presupposition of scientific open-mindedness.
We don't have to assume that there are no moral truths in order to study other cultures fairly and objectively; we just have to set aside, for the time being, the assumption that we already know what they are."

Daniel C. Dennett, Breaking The Spell (Pages 375-6, Some More Questions About Science)

Also Hitchens briefly calls it the "morally lazy practice of relativism" in "God is not Great". He's hardly one to bend over for relativists anyway. And generally, you'll notice when you read Atheist blogs, and in Atheist forums, that most Atheists are firmly rooted in a mixture of common sense and scientific thinking. The Black Sun Journal has made a number of posts on this issue.
Anyway, with relativism this whole New Atheist thing would be meaningless, and no-one would care.

The question is of course: is it enough?

No, I don't think so.

Consider these facts:

1. The Pope in particular, and a lot of other religious conservatives constantly raise the point about relativism, as a disease of modern society. The underlying (or overt) message is that without God, there's not point in being moral, and that secularism will lead to relativism. Their major gripe with modernity is that morality has become a matter of opinion.

(I subscribe to a Google News feed that gives me a note in the Google Reader whenever there's a news item with the word "relativism" mentioned. The Pope crops up regularly, and most of the others tend to be religious conservatives attacking secularism.)

2. Most of the non-religious criticism levelled at the New Atheists come from relativists. We're angry, militant, while there are "other truths", there should be tolerance, dialogue and so on and so on. They may not identify as relativists, or use that word at all, but they usually have that kind of understanding.

New Atheists then are unfairly attacked for leading everyone into relativism while being attacked by relativists at the same time. Also, relativists are the same people who will appease fundamentalists and Islamic conservatives in general.

It's a triple problem and that's why it must be combated. When the Pope attacks secularism for leading us into relativism, we can't simply deny this. Those of us who aren't relativists will shout straw man!, and while that is true - for most of us - there is still some people who are attracted by it. We can't simply dismiss relativism as a non-problem.

In Sweden, Christer Sturmark of the Humanisterna organisation actually joined forces with an Evangelical called Stefan Swärd. Together they wrote a piece in the Expressen paper against cultural relativism in February, stating among other things that cultural relativism undermines the Human Rights. That's a very good move.

This won't make Atheism seem like a viable option for Evangelicals, but it shows that not all Atheists have the intention of lapsing into Barbary. Constantly criticizing relativists from an Atheist perspective, can show that those fears are not warranted and we can invalidate criticism. Some will continue to claim that without God, there's no point in being moral, but it won't seem to stick as well.

While I believe firmly that we must criticize both the fundamentalists and the moderates (and the liberals) on their respective issues, we must not merely dismiss accusations of relativism. It must be tackled head-on, because right now it is a legitimate complaint when there are other Atheists who keep spreading the idea (along with many religious liberals it must be noted).

There is one more thing I want to add. Conservative and fundamentalist believers are of course making a false dichotomy where you have to chose between their absolutism or relativism. And also defenders of relativism have been using the same logic.

"Since such relativism is intolerable, in their eyes, imperialist universalism must be endorsed. Either we're right and they're wrong, or "right" and "wrong" have no meaning!" Dennett

So make no mistake, there are things in other cultures that are perfectly fine. It's just that the proponents of relativism seem not to separate between FGM and spicy food.

And also, Christian and Muslims all dabble in relativism:
"God's mysterious ways" = "God's culture" in relativist language.

Churches crumble in France

2008-04-13T04:18:00.004+02:00

"Some communities have dynamited churches deemed too expensive to maintain. Others have taken a less radical approach, selling them as housing.

In traditionally Roman Catholic France, fewer than 5 percent of the nation's 62 million people attend Mass every week, down from 27 percent a half-century ago, according to a survey of more than 29,000 people published by the Ifop polling agency in 2006."

Star Tribune, April 11, 2008

Most U.S. Christians Back Israel Out of 'Biblical Obligation'

2008-04-13T04:04:00.003+02:00

"Though figures released this week by the Joshua Fund differed among Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals and non-Evangelicals, the new figures confirmed that American Christians as a whole believed that a "biblical obligation" exists behind their support for the State of Israel.

According to the survey, evangelical Christians were the most supportive of Israeli causes; nearly 90 percent said they felt a "moral and biblical obligation" to back Israel, and 62 percent said that Israel alone should posses control of Jerusalem.

Evangelical Christians also had the largest number of respondents who said they opposed a Palestinian state, believing it would give rise to terrorism.

Non-evangelical Protestants and Catholics were also revealed to be very pro-Israel, though their support was slightly lower.

Eighty-four percent of Protestants and 76 percent of Catholics said they felt a "biblical obligation" to support Israel, the survey results revealed.

A majority of Protestants also said they agreed that Jerusalem should remain Israel's undisputed capitol, while a lower but still high number of Catholics agreed.

Compared to Evangelicals, a plurality of non-Evangelical Protestants said they were not opposed to an independent Palestine, believing that it would be a moderate state, with half of Catholics agreeing."

Christian Post, Apr. 12 2008

How religion poisons everything #1298

Whatever you think about Israel/Palestine, using the bible to defend your position is utterly ridiculous. The problem would probably have been solved ages ago if there hadn't been so strong religious ties to the place.

Canadian Muslims condemn UN defamation of religion decision

2008-04-11T23:32:00.004+02:00

"The Muslim Canadian Congress has expressed shock and disappointment at the move by Islamic countries to bulldoze the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) into approving a resolution curtailing freedom of speech under the guise of protecting religion.

The resolution approved at the UNHRC and initiated by the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) is disingenuously titled "Combating Defamation of Religion." However, the fact is that the OIC resolution is nothing more than a cover to silence opponents of Islamist oppression inside Muslim countries, as well as in the West."

Muslim Canadian Congress, April 7, 2008

This is good news!

Have a look at their charter. They should get more coverage.

Only 38% of Britons believe in God

2008-04-11T23:25:00.003+02:00

"To start with, we discover that only 38% of British respondents to a Eurobarometer Survey said they believed in God.

Other figures then give an indication of just how confused the nation is about religion. In reply to the question "Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion?" 45.8% said they didn't. The most astonishing figure of all is that those belonging to the CofE/Anglicans have dropped from 29.3% to 22.2% in just a decade. That this has not been national news can only be because it is no surprise and/or people want to keep it quiet. Obviously some of the drop can be attributed to deaths, but not when the drop is so massive. So where have the rest of them migrated to? The figures suggest that it is to "Christian no denomination" and no religion, both of which showed 3% 5% increases. It seems plausible that "Christian no denomination" is a half way house for the cultural Christians who bolstered the 72% figure in the 2001 Census before they join those of "no religion".

With the exception of the Roman Catholics, presumably because of Eastern European immigration, all other Christian denominations are much reduced, as are Buddhists. There are large proportional increases for Hindus and (surprisingly) Jews and above all Muslims (from 1.8% to 3.3%), and in some communities they may well be in the majority.

Incredibly, 13% of men and 15% of women claimed that they attended a religious service once a week or more. Even the churches own figures don't support that."

Terry Sanderson, National Secular Society, 11 April 2008

Muslim sex offenders may opt out of treatment

2008-04-10T19:46:00.003+02:00

"Muslim sex offenders may be allowed to opt out of a prison treatment programme because it is against their religion, it has emerged. The Prison Service's Muslim advisor has said there is a "legitimate Islamic position" that criminals should not discuss their crimes with others. Under the Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP), which treats more than 600 prisoners including rapists and sexual killers each year, offenders must discuss their crime, sometimes in groups."

Telegraph.co.uk, 09/04/2008

This is fucking ridiculous.
If they're going to serve longer sentences instead, that's one thing, but if the programme works, then that is the most important aspect. They can not wave their stupid religion for everything :

"Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Rome, 4.XI.1950"

It's fairly obvious that if they deny to take part in the programme, and end up raping again, then they have use their religion to infringe upon others' rights.

Bible Tops America's 10 Favorite Books of All Time

2008-04-10T16:58:00.007+02:00

"The results may come as no surprise considering statistics that reflect how plentiful Bibles are in the nation. An estimated 92 percent of Americans own a Bible and the average household owns three, a 1993 Barna Research study found. More recent research puts Bible ownership at an average of four per household, which suggest that Bible publishers sell twenty-five million copies a year, according to The New Yorker. But the revered book, a testament to God's enduring love toward mankind, is read by just 45 percent of Americans in a typical week, the Barna Research Group reported two years ago.

[...]
America's Top 10 Favorite Books
1. The Bible
2. Gone with the Wind, by Margaret Mitchell
3. Lord of the Rings (series), by J.R.R. Tolkien
4. Harry Potter (series), by J.K. Rowling
5. The Stand, by Stephen King
6. The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown
7. To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee
8. Angels and Demons, by Dan Brown
9. Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand
10. Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger

The Christian Post, Apr. 09 2008 (See also: The Harris Poll.)

Unfortunately, there was no percentages mentioned regarding each book. It's worth noting that Atlas Shrugged by the militant Atheist Ayn Rand is #9, but I also think it's interesting to see that while a lot of people think highly of the bible, and apparently read in it, they don't learn a lot from reading it. I guess they keep re-reading John 3:16.
I'll combine some surveys in a graph here:

Sources:
"Only half of American adults can name even one of the four Gospels. Most Americans cannot name the first book of the Bible. Only one-third know that Jesus (no, not Billy Graham) delivered the Sermon on the Mount. A majority of Americans wrongly believe that the Bible says that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. When asked whether the New Testament book of Acts is in the Old Testament, one quarter of Americans say yes. More than a third say that they don’t know. Most Americans don’t know that Jonah is a book in the Bible. Ten percent of Americans believed that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife."

Stephen Prothero, "Religious Literacy" (page 30)
More Americans Familiar with Big Mac Ingredients than 10 Commandments

(Pics by AndrewMark and abcdz2000 at SXC.hu)

German Church used Nazi forced labor during WW2

2008-04-10T16:38:00.002+02:00

"The German bishops' conference has released an exhaustive study of the use of forced labor by Catholic institutions under the Nazi regime.
Nearly 6,000 people, including conscripted laborers and prisoners of war, were put to work at Church-administered institutions during the Nazi era. Their work is detailed in a study commissioned by the bishops' conference, entitled "Forced Labor and the Catholic Church: 1939- 1945."
Cardinal Karl Lehman of Mainz, the former president of the German bishops' conference, said that the 700-page study is "an important step along the way to constructing future unity." The cardinal said that the use of forced labor is "a burden of history that our Church will keep facing up to in the future."
The study shows that the 5,904 people were put to work at Catholic institutions, on orders from the Nazi labor office. In most cases they worked in hospitals, orphanages, cemeteries or other institutions run by Church, rather than in parishes. In some instances the laborers worked on monastery farms or on cleaning crews."

CWNews.com, Apr. 9, 2008

American Atheists and Agnostics divorce rate below average

2008-04-07T23:37:00.007+02:00

"In addition to finding that four out of every five adults (78%) have been married at least once, the Barna study revealed that an even higher proportion of born again Christians (84%) tie the knot. That eclipses the proportion among people aligned with non-Christian faiths (74%) and among atheists and agnostics (65%).

Barna Group, March 31, 2008

Not such a big surprise, but I post it so you can all see that Atheists and Agnostics fare pretty well in their marriages. One could argue that since these infidels are less inclined to marry, they ought to have a higher success rate anyway. On the other hand one could argue that religious people seem to marry for less than good reasons.
I see Asians have a low divorce rate, no thanks to Muslims who (depending on their denomination) can have four wives and marry and divorce for a night. I mean, I wonder what the divorce rate in Iran is where one-night-stands, I mean marriages, are accepted.

"Malaysian man gets divorced twice in one day
It is not unusual for the many wives of a Muslim man to put up with each other for the good of the household, but two Malaysian women got along so well they decided to leave their husband at the same time."

Guardian, April 2 2008

That also reminds me:

"The extravagant side of Mohammed bin Laden's nature made itself evident when it came to women. Islam permits a man four wives at a time, and divorce is a simple matter, at least for a man, who only needs to declare, "I divorce you." Before his death, Mohammed bin Laden officially had fathered fifty-four children from twenty-two wives. The total number of wives he procured is impossible to determine, since he would often "marry" in the afternoon and divorce that night. An assistant followed behind to take care of any children he might have left in his wake. He also had a number of concubines, who stayed in the bin Laden compound if they bore him children. "My father used to say that he had fathered twenty-five sons for the jihad," his seventeenth son, Osama, later remembered."

Lawrence Wright - The Looming Tower (p71)

So there you see, Osama bin Laden shows what will happen when parents divorce!
That doesn't bode well for USA, which is the country with the highest divorce rate (despite being such a God-fearing country).

Lastly, a bit cheesy video with different, and lower divorce rates:

62% Long Island Catholics without religious moral guidance

2008-04-07T17:16:00.008+02:00

"As Pope Benedict XVI's visit to New York and Washington, D.C., approaches, a Newsday poll has found that Long Island Catholics view religion and prayer as critical parts of their lives, though they may dissent from church stances on major issues such as allowing priests to marry or the ordination of women.

[...]

The survey found Benedict XVI's visit -- his first to the United States since his election to the papacy three years ago -- is sparking excitement, but not as much as Pope John Paul II's visit in 1995, according to a poll conducted then by Newsday. Some 58 percent of respondents were "very interested" or "mildly interested" in the April 15-20 visit, compared with 66 percent for John Paul II's visit.

[...]

The poll also found Long Island Catholics still consider "moral guidance" the most meaningful aspect of their faith, though it declined from 48 percent in 1995 to 38 percent. It was followed by the sacraments, which 33 percent said was the most meaningful aspect, up from 27 percent in 1995. Other areas lagged far behind: church teachings on social issues (5 percent), closeness with other parishioners (7 percent) and spiritual example of priest and nuns (5 percent).

[...]

Bonner of Molloy College said the relatively high rankings of moral guidance and the sacraments showed that "we must be doing something right." He added, "If people don't get moral guidance from their spiritual leaders where are they going to get it?"

Newsday.com, April 5, 2008

Having heard countless accusations against Atheists that we have no moral guidance, it is with some amusement I see that 62% of Long Island Catholics do not look for moral guidance in their faith. I guess (most) Long Island Catholics and Atheists aren't that different after all - when it comes to morals.

Anglo-Saxon attitudes

2008-04-06T15:50:00.009+02:00

The March 29th issue of The Economist had some interesting charts showing how Britons and Americans differ on several issues:

It's not surprising how many believes in God and Hell and attitudes to Atheist presidents, but I thought it was interesting to see the differences on Creationism and Intelligent Design in USA. That 20 per cent of Americans believe in Intelligent Design while 40 per cent of them believe in "The Bible" is in a sense good news, because it just shows that the problem is a lack of basic education. Intelligent Design is in many ways more insidious, while the bible version is much more primitive. I think good education stand a better chance with Creationism than with Intelligent Design, because ID is stupidity on a much more abstract level disguising itself as science. You also see that in Britain, there's slightly more people who believe in ID than Creationism.

As for values, the only place they seem to concur is about death penalty.

This chart is a bit difficult to read, but I think it's a summary of how they responded in the other charts after party lines. Notice how even English Conservatives are much more liberal with regards to religion and values than American democrats.

A review of the Organisation of Islamic Countries report on Islamophobia

2008-04-03T14:17:00.004+02:00

"Islamophobia exists but the OIC report is the wrong way of going about it. A phobia is a strong irrational or powerful fear and dislikes of something, in this case, the religion of Islam.

[...]

Looking at the document, I would conclude that this was done by some under-graduates from a 3rd grade university hidden in a country-side somewhere, who have no idea about modern life and have suddenly stumbled upon the internet with their first lesson being Google search. As a result, this document starts off with the best of intentions and ends up rather fanning Islamophobia instead of helping to reduce it. It suffers from the following major defects:

* Total misunderstanding of the basic principle of Freedom of Speech. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to irritate and upset others. Freedom of speech does not include the right to discriminate against others though. For example, I can take the mickey out of suicide bombers wanting virgins and ending up with raisins. Or you can call me an infidel and say your religion is better than mine. These are completely acceptable, I have no issues. But you cannot tell others to kill me nor can I tell others to kill you. That is incitement to violence. The author seems to have deep intellectual issues in understanding this basic matter.
* Confusing racism with Islamophobia. Race belongs to a genetic category generally exhibited on the basis of a physical appearance. Islamophobia is a fear of Islam. Two totally different things. While in certain cases (such as black Muslims), they might blow over into being the same, but to confuse both of them as one shows muddled thinking. Muslims are not a race, and they do include a variety of different races and ethnic groups.
* Methodological and terminological confusion, which emerges from seriously flawed selection of incidents and coverage of incidents. Almost 50% of the incidents noted in the Appendix are not Islamophobic in nature, but belong to the category of freedom of speech or simple crime category. Islamophobia exists already without trying to add to it.
* A totally wrong emphasis on legal protections. They try to go deep into legal aspects of various conventions and institutions. But you see, those are already established, anti-discrimination laws exist, anti-violence laws exist anti-incitement laws exist and they are sufficient. For example, they are talking about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and completely forget that they themselves have repudiated it and have come up with a Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. Here’s an idea! How about the OIC signing up to and transcribing to domestic law, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as most of the rest of the world has done?
* Be very careful about complaining about being a victim, because it only stands up when you yourself have not victimised someone else. Now if you look at the OIC minorities, one can come up with many examples of victimisation that they themselves have done. And we are talking about Muslims victimising Muslims here, forget about non-Muslims. Ranging from Shia, Sunni, Ahmadi, Baha’i, Ismaili, Darfurians and then all the way to the other side like Jews, Christians, Hindus Buddhists, etc. have been victimised in OIC countries. Now, consider the reaction if such a report on anti-Baha'i or anti-Shia or anti-Semitic discrimination is presented at the OIC? How about considering the fact that many if not most current anti-Semitic attacks in Europe are carried out by European Muslims?
* A totally imbalanced view of history. This entire report was so imbalanced in terms of its historical coverage that one does not even know where to start. What about the entry of Islam into the Caucasian world? Or the Chinese area? How about how it managed the entry and existence in South Asia and Africa? Islam has perhaps victimised more in many countries and regions than had been victimised against. Perhaps this is why their geographical scope of the report is so muddled (to avoid any facts which destroy their argument?)
* Significant challenges in the identification of the causes of Islamophobia. First of all, there is not one form of Islam; it is not a single view, sect or a monolith. More importantly it is not the role of the state to define it. So if you are an Ahmadi or a Shia or a Sunni or what have you, we simply do not care! If you have religious differences, then by all means, discuss them, but do not kill for those differences. For example, the list of seven points raised by the Runnymede Trust defining Islamophobia can, unfortunately be equally applied to anti-Semitism, Anti-Hinduism, Anti-Shia… in OIC countries, where they will be totally applicable. Consequently, ALL root causes of Islamophobia as identified in section 1.4.1 are completely wrong and misallocated.
* A clear misunderstanding of the role of the media and the level of control people can actually exert over them. Most - if not all - of the OIC have no or very little press freedom. On top of that, the Arab League, a subset of the OIC, has decided to take fuller control over their TV Media since February 2008. That is not how the media works in other countries. Do check out independent organisations such as Reporters without Borders.
* Israel – Palestine conflict. This is something that I can never understand. Curiously, more than 3/4th of all dead Palestinians have been killed by their fellow Arabs compared to the numbers killed by Israelis, but besides that breathtaking hypocrisy, I still cannot understand why they would include it in here. Or exclude say something like Bangladesh and Sudan? Pretty bizarre and intellectually vacuous."

Bhaskar Dasgupta, The Cheers, 3. April 2008

The report(PDF).

Fundamentalists of all stripes want to turn back the clock

2008-04-03T13:02:00.005+02:00

"Despite all their theological and cultural differences, fundamentalists of every faith share at least one common characteristic: resistance to modernity. That’s the assessment of scholars and firsthand observers who have evaluated the varieties of religious expression. “Fundamentalism worldwide is religious anti-modernism,” noted Roger Olson, professor of theology at Baylor University’s George W. Truett Theological Seminary. “Fundamentalism reacts against various types of modernity,” echoed Bill Leonard, a church historian and dean of the Wake Forest University Divinity School. Whether it’s Baptist preachers J. Frank Norris and Jerry Falwell calling America to return to pre-scientific Christianity or Ayatollah Khomeini and Muqtada al-Sadr calling Muslims to resist the intrusion of Western decadence, fundamentalism finds a home in most major faith groups."

Associated Baptist Press, April 1, 2008

It's a long article crammed with points. Apart from being against modernity there were four other subjects discussed: Dogmatic Faith, Identity, Fear and Politics.
It's the first in a series on Fundamentalism at Associated Baptist Press.

Conservative Protestants' Religious Beliefs Contribute to Their Low Wealth, Duke Study Shows

2008-03-31T14:00:00.003+02:00

"Duke Sociology Professor Lisa A. Keister examines how religion affects the wealth of believers [...]
The study examines why conservative Protestants are dramatically overrepresented at the bottom of the U.S. wealth distribution and concludes that the cultural understandings that accompany conservative Protestant beliefs influence wealth ownership directly and indirectly.

[...]

Religious beliefs affect conservative Protestants’ wealth in a number of ways. They influence wealth ownership directly by shaping the values that people use to make work and financial decisions. In particular, Biblical references to God’s exclusive ownership of worldly goods lead to practices which are likely to reduce saving and asset accumulation.
Using the Economic Values Survey and the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, the study found that conservative Protestants tend to hold the following beliefs:
-- Divine advice, advice from clergy and other religious advice about money and work have merit. More conservative Protestants than other people surveyed are likely to pray about financial decisions, for example.
-- Excess accumulation of wealth is undesirable. More conservative Protestants said money prevents one from knowing God than other people surveyed.
Religious belief also can influence net worth indirectly through behavior that impedes the accumulation of wealth. This behavior includes:
-- Low educational attainment. Education is one of the strongest predictors of wealth, and conservative Protestants have significantly less education than members of other faiths.
-- Conservative Protestants tend to have children relatively early and to have large families, both of which make saving difficult. Also, conservative Protestant women tend not to work outside the family, which also reduces the ability to save. Saving and the resulting growth of assets “are perhaps the single biggest predictors of total adult wealth,” the study says.

[...]

Keister notes that the results could be influenced by the conservative Protestants’ socioeconomic class, but she found that religion had a significant effect after controlling for class background, adult class and other indicators such as parents’ education and income.
Nor does race appear to be responsible for the effect of conservative Protestantism on wealth. She found that the effect was stronger among black conservative Protestants, but was significant among whites as well."

Dukenews, March 24, 2008

See also the report: “Conservative Protestants and Wealth: How Religion Perpetuates Asset Poverty”

This is very interesting, and I have to say, sad. It just goes to show how religion contributes to their poverty, thereby dragging them further down into ignorance. I'm not one to say that getting rich is the only good thing in the world, but being poor is hardly desirable either. Especially not when you live in a country where ending up in a hospital can be very expensive.
The Conservative Protestant fear of wealth is also an interesting reminder of the old ties between Christianity and Communism.

Also, that Blacks are poorer can therefore in part be explained by their widespread religiosity. As Norm Allen said in a Point of Inquiry Podcast, in the old days, the Church was the only free space they had. Here's two podcasts with him that I highly recommend March 14. 2008 and November 24. 2006.

The things that offend armchair critics

2008-03-31T12:10:00.005+02:00

"Fellow bloggers,

The writer at the Armchair Critic blog says that I should be shot for compiling the list of things that offend Muslims, and goes on to compare me to a terrorist.

Here's the Link.

Here's a short sample,
This guy is a real muppet. I couldn't care to dig up his background or where he came from for that matter. Anyone who stirs shit like that deserved to be shot really. This is simply a case of asking for it. Don't even mention terrorists, this chap could be in real trouble even if he bumped into his Muslim neighbour, if he has any.

Please spread the word about this guy.

Regards,
Kevin, The Amboy Times"

I see that the Armchair Critic has rewritten that post now, and there appears to have been quite a discussion which I haven't followed. But the right honourable Armchair Critic need to realize that merely compiling a list is not the same as contributing to its contents. I'm not one to ask for people to be shot, but if the Armchair Critic wants to point his gun, I mean finger, somewhere, how about pointing it in the right direction? Say, I contributed to that list with the story about this employee at Marks & Spencer who refused to sell the book First Bible Stories to an old grandmother. The real shit stirrer here is not me, Kevin or the Christian grandmother - it's the holier than thou employee. Episodes like this that have made me rethink freedom of religion because I realize that shit stirrers like this will use their religion for anything, so it needs clear limits.

It has to be said though, that there should perhaps have been made a list of "The things that do not offend Muslims", because while there's always a very large majority of Muslims who say nothing, thereby not making a difference(that's the real problem), there will often be a few individuals that champion common sense when faced with silly demands from fundamentalists.
Maybe they should get their own list?

The Intolerant Tolerance

2008-03-29T21:50:00.004+01:00

The headline refers to a particular Norwegian debate, but it is fairly relevant to the Atheist movement. I wrote a blog post about in Norwegian, but here's one for the international market!

A common criticism levelled at conservative Christians have been that they are intolerant, especially towards gays. This type of criticism generally comes from liberals, and it's not concerned with scripture. It doesn't really care about religion at all, just tolerance.

In 2004, a Norwegian political commentator and editor, Harald Stanghelle, then warned that this tolerance (that the liberals advocated) was getting increasingly intolerant towards believers, and writing a piece about this, he used the phrase "the intolerant tolerance". The case in question was about how politicians wanted to force a Norwegian missionary organisation called Misjonsforbundet to allow gays and unwed couples into their organisation. Stanghelle is by no means a religious conservative, so it was not a right-wing backlash or anything. He was merely preaching tolerance towards the intolerant.

Late in February, this year, a whole shit storm was kicked up because Aftenposten, the paper that Stanghelle works for(and where he's the political editor), awarded a local Islamist, Mohammed Usman Rana, 10 000 NOK for an op-ed called "The secular extremism" where he criticized that Norwegians are intolerant towards religion. (Rana had earlier said this "I disapprove of the death penalty for homosexuality, but I am not a theologian or an Islam scholar and so I will not answer to what they do in other countries.",(English) so you know the type.). And in a comment a few days after Rana's op-ed was published, and all Hell broke loose, Stanghelle wrote a piece to defend the decision. It was called "Triumph of the godless?" and again he wrote about "the intolerant tolerance", three times.

Stanghelle is, however, missing the point. Not everyone who puts on their shiny armour is out to fight for tolerance, but justice - for instance. For what is right, not for what is tolerant. I don't think it was tolerance that was on the minds of those politicians who wanted also religious organisations to abide by Norwegian law, I think it was a sense of justice, and a feeling that they were fighting for the rights of a minority.

Justice can mean that you instead of handing out tolerance in all directions, be it towards Nazis or EMOs, you actively support the group that is most deserving.

Justice is not a simple concept. Those who believe they know what is right and wrong can be seriously mistaken, and will occasionally walk straight into fanaticism. The road to Hell is truly paved with good intentions. However, tolerance is also a good intention. It is in fact quite rare to hear people not advocating something with some or another good intention.

The difference between the two types of arguments(justice vs. tolerance), is that the ones who are concerned with justice, and what is right and wrong make an ethical judgement, while the tolerant doesn't have to. This is not to say that tolerant people do not think ethically, but an argument based on tolerance alone does not need to be founded on any other foundation than "Who cares?"

When I tolerate something, it's because I don't care. I tolerate bad music and art, and I tolerate traffic up to a certain point but if I say that I tolerate violent crime and exploitation, then my tolerance looses its charm. Then it's merely laissez faire.

In Stanghelle's comment from 2004, he wrote about Misjonsforbundet denying openly gays and unwed couples to get membership. He wrote that their opinion is hardly original, that it's shared by religious organisations throughout the world. But that "it doesn't fit the Norwegian zeitgeist in 2004".

He may think that his argumentum ad populum works to his advance, but it's quite to the contrary. Yes, Misjonsforbundet does not represent a minority. Strong forces in Russia, USA, the Middle East, Africa and probably lots of other places, are pressuring to force the homos back into the closet once and for all. It means that Misjonsforbundet is merely a part of a larger international tendency, and we have an obligation to do our job here.

So then the question is: do we want justice or tolerance? If we choose tolerance, we will have to expect to be criticized for not being tolerant enough to those we disagree with. It's a sort of Catch 22. You may perfectly well be tolerant if you like, but once you work against intolerance, you're not any better yourself. In the 90s, in Norway, anti-racists made the error that they used "tolerance" as a slogan, even if they were not particularly tolerant when they met a racist on the street. Instead of saying that they somehow promoted tolerance, which they weren't, they should have said that they were against racism because its unfair. That would do it. I'm against racism. It's not because I'm tolerant. I'm against it because it's unscientific, it's unfair, and it's bad for society. I don't need to resort to "tolerance".

And when I defend gays against religion, it's not because I'm tolerant towards the gays, but because I think it's the only right thing to do and the antipathy against gays is hardly scientific. I don't do it unconditionally. I know my bible, and I know that it does not favour homosexuality. And if there are good scientific arguments against, say adoption for gays, I would be listening (so far there's only been religious ad hoc-noise). The point is: gays have the best case. Not necessarily to become members of a religious organisation, but by being a minority that religious people throughout the world are violently picking on.
I only have to chose between defending people who are the way they are because of biology and between defending people who are as bigoted as they are because of theology. I rank biology over religious bigotry any day.

Intolerant tolerance becomes a problem to Stanghelle as well, because he's tolerant to Islamists and he prefer that we are too. So it's another Catch 22: he is intolerant to our intolerance towards their intolerance. Might it not have been be better if he had merely said he was for or against gays in Misjonsforbundet, or if he was for or against what Mohammed Usman Rana wrote?

The problem with tolerance as an ideal is that it does not inform us, because all roads are just as valid. But if one point of view is reasonable and the other is hair-raising, it doesn't mean that a compromise between the two is the best option.

It is also far more interesting to hear religious criticism against Atheism than smartass "Everything is all right stop this arguing right now" from other Atheists or liberal religious people.

One argument is an argument you can answer, and maybe even agree upon. The other one is authoritarian, merely inviting you to shut up.

I'm by no means against tolerance. A liberal society is after all the best kind of society, and intolerance is a negative thing to me too. But tolerance and intolerance are simply very vague terms that don't mean anything. I mean, Stanghelle would never have said that it was unfair that Misjonforbundet could not bar gay and unwed couples from becoming members. It's not unfair at all, that they have to abide by Norwegian law. He just picked the buzz word of all modern democracies, tolerance, and pretended it meant anything at all, but even a liberal society has to be protected by the law.

Tolerance can also be self-exterminating when you're up against forces that are generally more intolerant than average, like Islamists. Tolerance can therefore not be absolute. You can be against violence, even if you retain your right to self defence.

"We have the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should tolerate even them whenever we can do so without running a great risk; but the risk may become so great that we cannot allow ourselves the luxury. Karl Popper, paraphrase by Richard Robinson, An Atheist's Values (page 215)

In Norway, there's a Neo-Nazi/Neo-Pagan group called Vigrid. I tolerate them. It's because there are not one or two billions of these morons in the world. But if Vigrid is awarded 10 000NOK for writing their opinions in Aftenposten, then I will have to protest.

Arabs campaign for women to "Take off the Veil"

2008-03-25T20:26:00.003+01:00

"A group of Arabic websites and blogs have launched an international campaign against the Muslim headscarf (hijab), arguing the move is a response to what they see as “intellectual terrorism” practiced by strict Islamic groups and individuals.
The campaign is called "Take Off The Veil”, and was launched March 8, 2008 to coincide with International Women's Day.

[...]

Manea, a professor of Yemeni descent and who works in Switzerland, said she believes the headscarf was never part of Islam and chose International Women's Day for the campaign as she views the headscarf as a symbol of women's oppression and to warn women deceived by Islamists into putting "this rag on their heads."[more]"

Al Arabiya, 10 March 2008

Not bad at all!

Gorbachev Dispels 'Closet Christian' Rumors; Says He is Atheist

2008-03-25T19:28:00.005+01:00

"Gorbachev, the last communist leader of the Soviet Union, confronted speculations that he had been a closeted Christian during an interview with the Russian news agency Interfax. "Over the last few days some media have been disseminating fantasies – I can't use any other word – about my secret Catholicism, citing my visit to the Sacro Convento friary, where the remains of St. Francis of Assisi lie," Gorbachev said, according to an Interfax article posted Friday. "To sum up and avoid any misunderstandings, let me say that I have been and remain an atheist,” he stated."

Christian Post/Interfax, Mar. 24 2008

Good for Gorbie!

Don't worry, plenty of other Communists were Christians.
Christian proletars of the world, unite with this shirt today!

EU concerned by growing use of religious defamation laws worldwide

2008-03-24T22:34:00.001+01:00

"The European Union wants to stop the growing worldwide trend of using religious defamation laws to limit free speech. EU diplomats in Geneva are asking United Nations human rights experts Wednesday to suggest ways to protect freedom of expression better in the face increasing legal threats. Slovenia, which holds the rotating EU presidency, says journalists around the world face harsh penalties ranging from indirect censorship to heavy fines. Germany says it is particularly worried about a recently signed Arab charter that limits broadcasters' rights. Islamic countries are pushing for stricter international laws against religious defamation in the wake of Muslim anger over cartoons of their prophet Muhammad."

International Herald Tribune, March 12, 2008

Christian think tank doesn’t know the difference between atheism and secularism

2008-03-24T17:20:00.003+01:00

"A new survey by the Christian “think tank” Theos shows that there are more people in Britain who describe themselves as atheists and doubters than there are self-described Christians. Theos manages to interpret this as a failure of secularism.
Theos describes itself as a “public theology think tank”. Well, it had better get its thinking cap on and reconsider the honesty of its approach.
The poll, conducted for Theos by ComRes, questioned 1100 people about what they believed, and although it was presented by Theos as proof of Britain’s continued “spirituality”, it was actually very bad news for the churches.
When asked “How would you describe your beliefs?” A total of 48% of respondents said either “I am a doubter” or “I am an atheist”. Only 38% said they were “a Christian who doesn’t go to Church regularly” and 8% said they were Christians who “regularly attends church”. This rather dramatically contradicts the finding of the 2001 census, which showed 72% of people describing themselves as Christians.
When asked about their opinions on Jesus, a total of 41% of the ComRes respondents said they thought he never existed or they didn’t know whether he existed or not. Only 40% definitely thought he was “the son of God”. 26% thought that the Easter story had no real meaning today. Only 31% disagreed with the statement that “death marks the end of human existence”. Only 9% believed in “physical resurrection”.
These results were launched by Theos with the claim: “The new Theos Easter research makes uncomfortable reading for those who would claim Britain is, in any meaningful sense, secular.”

National Secular Society, 20 March 2008

Read the poll results in full
Read the Theos analysis of the results

Faith in figures

2008-03-24T16:50:00.002+01:00

"I enjoy the occasional dose of fire and brimstone from the Reverend David Robertson (Letters, 18 March), but he should be careful of bearing false witness by selectively quoting statistics.
In chapter seven of the 2005 Scottish Household Survey, tables for religious affiliation by age show that 33 per cent of Scots profess no religious belief, not the 19 per cent he quotes, while 46 per cent in the 16-24 age group and 48 per cent in the 25-34 age group profess no belief."

Alistair McBay, National Secular Society, Scotsman (letters) 19 March 2008

Challenges facing the women’s liberation movement

2008-03-18T21:27:00.003+01:00

"But stop, I am told. Saying so ‘just supports Western propaganda’ - something by the way that the Islamic regime of Iran often tells women and men it is hauling off to prison and execution.
How absurd. It is like Iranian women’s rights activists telling one to stop opposing US-led militarism because it supports the ‘Islamic regime of Iran’s propaganda!’
The religious-nationalist anti-imperialist left always ready to act as prefect when women’s rights under Islamic laws are concerned has an affinity towards Islam, which it views as an ‘oppressed religion’ bullied by the USA.
It is an anti-colonial movement whose perspectives coincide with that of the ruling classes in the so-called Third World.
This grouping is on the side of the ‘colonies’ no matter what goes on there.
And their understanding of the ‘colonies’ is Eurocentric, patronising and even racist.
In the world according to them, the people in these countries are one and the same with the regimes they are struggling against.
So at Stop the War Coalition demonstrations here in Britain, they carry banners saying ‘We are all Hezbollah;’ at meetings they segregate men and women and urge unveiled women to veil out of ‘solidarity’ and ‘respect’.
But even their anti-imperialism - their badge of honour - is pathetically half-baked; it does not even scratch beneath the surface to see how political Islam is an integral part of the US’ militarism and new world order.
Their historical amnesia of even the past 30-40 years ignores that the political Islamic movement was encouraged and brought to centre stage by Western governments as a green belt against the former Soviet Union during the Cold War.

[...]

Whilst the anti-imperialist left defends and justifies political Islam on the one hand, the virulently racist and right-wing defends US militarism and the brutal Israeli occupation of Palestine on the other.

[...]

They are ‘concerned’ about the ‘rights’ of women and apostates so they can ban the Koran and ‘Muslim immigration.’ So they can stop the sub-human teeming hordes destroying the Christian nature of Europe and the West.
They are quite happy to defend Christian religious morality, restrict the benefits due single mothers, demand exemptions from the Sexual Orientation Regulations, bar funds for AIDS- related and contraception-related health services abroad if they provide abortions and consider the women’s rights movement’s fight for equality ‘the destruction of the nuclear family and of the power structures of society in general.’
According to their warped worldview, ‘the West has skyrocketing divorce rates and plummeting birth rates, leading to a cultural and demographic vacuum that makes [it] vulnerable to a take-over.’"

Maryam Namazie, speech at a seminar entitled ‘Sexual apartheid, political Islam and women's rights. (maryamnamazie.blogspot.com Tuesday, March 11, 2008)

She takes on two sides that are a problem. The appeasers and the demonizers.
I think it's a good point that as the Islamists got a real boost thanks to American funding, the Left is supporting an old American strategy.
Also, what she says about the Christian Right is right. They aren't against fundamentalism, they just don't want competition. They may be less dangerous for the moment, and so was Stalin during WW2.
And I mean, it's crazy to hear people talk about "plummeting birthrates" when the world is overpopulated. We should make the whole world a place with plummeting birthrates, but no doubt the Catholics have other plans.

Australians to take the emphasis off religion in a new attempt to integrate Muslims

2008-03-18T12:31:00.003+01:00

"The new Australian Government, led by Kevin Rudd, has decided that it will try to engage with a wider Muslim community in the country rather than allowing the dialogue to be always mediated through religious leaders.
This is a departure from the approach of the previous Howard government, which had created a Muslim Advisory Board consisting of the usual imams and clerics who were more interested in promoting religion than bringing Muslims into the mainstream.
Now a new attempt will be made to recast the image of Muslims in Australia as overly-religious. The Government wants to recruit sporting figures, academics, business people and others who represent a broader face of the communities.

[...]

Mr Ferguson said a broader body would be considered. "We would always seek to have the broadest representation in any national committees established," he said. "There's a belief that, per se, Muslims are always more religious than other groups. But I know a lot of Muslim youth in my electorate that are totally irreligious, or it's marginal to their existence and they don't spend a lot of time thinking about the Koran.""

National Secular Society, 14 March 2008

This should be noted. In Norway a year ago, or something, the Police announced that they wanted more Muslims to join the Police, and their solution was to go recruiting in the mosques. Only.
But as you can see from the chart below, that is hardly a representative part of the immigrant population. (Church/Mosque attendance to the left)

Denmark: Headscarf a woman's choice

2008-03-15T20:02:00.004+01:00

"Many Danes think that Muslim women who wear a headscarf do so because their father or husband forces them to, but that is completely wrong, according to a new study by analysis institute Catinét. 391 women and 321 men of non-Danish background were asked about their attitude towards the headscarf.
42% of the women said it was 'important' or 'very important'. Just 29% of the men answered the same. Especially women who didn't feel integrated and didn't have Danish friends thought that the headscarf was important.
The study concludes that wearing a headscarf appears to be a high degree to be a woman's own choice.
Camilla Elg of Aalborg University wrote a PhD on immigrant women and their clothing. She says she didn't hear women say they're doing it because their husband or father told them to. It's a big prejudice that this is the common reason. Then are many other reasons but it's often a personal act.
She says many women choose the headscarf to express resistance. They feel they're worth less in our society. They think: if I'm going to be foreign, I'll choose how. They show they have their own identity. The headscarf can be a way to show that you're standing up for your background and religious orientation."

Translated by Islamineurope.blogspot.com, Danish source Nyhedsavisen 10. March 2008

I've tried to find the actual numbers, but that was difficult. The analysis institute Catinét has not yet listed this among their own news. Maybe they will. But if 42% think it's important or very important, we may conclude that 58% don't. However, it's fairly clear that the newest or least integrated women are the ones who stick closest to traditions.
Another interesting thing is the gender gap. Muslim men (it doesn't say that, but I sure hope they didn't ask Swedes and Argentinians) tend to be demonized, while the women are portrayed only as victims. But this is a fairly good example showing that women have a choice, and that women themselves are often upholders of patriarchal cultures.
Although here, another thing is important: Muslim women tend to stay more at home than other women, and get less contact with the rest of society, so they're not going to be as integrated as men.

The seed of Communism was a Christian seed

2008-03-14T06:44:00.002+01:00

In the, admittedly, futile discussions on Atheism and Communism it seems a lot of people have problems seeing that Communism is an ideology where Atheism is only a detail. I have earlier written a post called Lenin warns against "bald Atheist propaganda" where I show that Lenin was much more concerned with economic issues, rather than "bourgeois materialism".
However, having just taken a look at Vox Day's flea called "The Irrational Atheist", I see he is propagating the communist strawman as usual. (I was going to go through his points here, but I'll leave that to some other time, because this is already too long and I want to hit the publish button.)

At this point I have to make it clear what is a valid argument against Atheism with respect to Communism. Communism shows that even without religion, shit can happen. So far, I have no problem with this argument.

What is an outright lie is that Communism could not have happened without Atheism, or that Atheism somehow resulted in communism since everything was allowed without Christians morals. And further: to imply that "New Atheism" leads directly back to Communism or something similar.

Vox Day spend some time trying to rebut Sam Harris' point that Communism was in many ways a religion. I think Harris is right, not because he slanders religion by doing so, but because the Communists had a fairly religious and outright puritanical zeal.
But that's besides the point. We can turn it around and say that Christianity is a spiritual ideology. By this I mean that there's metaphysics (which Communism lacks) and there's explanations of how to live (which Communism has). The common trait between Communism and Christianity is first and foremost that they try to tell us how to do things and they have ideals.

So, how does Christianity fit in with Communism? Can you be a Christian Communist? Sure you can, although if you're a Christian Libertarian writing for a Dominionist paper like World Nut Daily, then this has probably never crossed your mind. In the Lenin post mentioned earlier, Lenin advocated that Atheists should not be a divisive force, by turning away Christians.
But perhaps more interesting is that the origin of Communism as an ideology can be traced right back to the reformation:

"Germany had her Social Reformers as early as the Reformation. Soon after Luther had begun to proclaim church reform and to agitate the people against spiritual authority, the peasantry of Southern and Middle Germany rose in a general insurrection against their temporal lords. Luther always stated his object to be, to return to original Christianity in doctrine and practice; the peasantry took exactly the same standing, and demanded, therefore, not only the ecclesiastical, but also the social practice of primitive Christianity. They conceived a state of villainy and servitude, such as they lived under, to be inconsistent with the doctrines of the Bible; they were oppressed by a set of haughty barons and earls, robbed and treated like their cattle every day, they had no law to protect them, and if they had, they found nobody to enforce it. Such a state contrasted very much with the communities of early Christians and the doctrines of Christ, as laid down in the Bible. Therefore they arose and began a war against their lords, which could only be a war of extermination. Thomas Münzer, a preacher, whom they placed at their head, issued a proclamation, [162] full, of course, of the religious and superstitious nonsense of the age, but containing also among others, principles like these: That according to the Bible, no Christian is entitled to hold any property whatever exclusively for himself; that community of property is the only proper state for a society of Christians; that it is not allowed to any good Christian to have any authority or command over other Christians, nor to hold any office of government or hereditary power, but on the contrary, that, as all men are equal before God, so they ought to be on earth also. These doctrines were nothing but conclusions drawn from the Bible and from Luther’s own writings; but the Reformer [Martin Luther] was not prepared to go as far as the people did; notwithstanding the courage he displayed against the spiritual authorities, he had not freed himself from the political and social prejudices of his age; he believed as firmly in the right divine of princes and landlords to trample upon the people, as he did in the Bible. [...]“Kill them like dogs!” he exclaimed. The whole tract is written with such an animosity, nay, fury and fanaticism against the people, that it will ever form a blot upon Luther’s character; it shows that, if he began his career as a man of the people, he was now entirely in the service of their oppressors. The insurrection, after a most bloody civil war, was suppressed, and the peasants reduced to their former servitude.
If we except some solitary instances, of which no notice was taken by the public, there has been no party of Social Reformers in Germany, since the peasants’ war, up to a very recent date."

Frederick Engels: Progress of Social Reform On the Continent

Martin Luther may not have been amused, but the seed of Communism was sown, and it was a Christian seed.
Engels also write about more recent times:

"It is, however, curious, that whilst the English Socialists are generally opposed to Christianity, and have to suffer all the religious prejudices of a really Christian people, the French Communists, being a part of a nation celebrated for its infidelity, are themselves Christians. One of their favourite axioms is, that Christianity is Communism, “le Christianisme c'est le Communisme”. This they try to prove by the bible, the state of community in which the first Christians are said to have lived, etc. But all this shows only, that these good people are not the best Christians, although they style themselves so; because if they were, they would know the bible better, and find that, if some few passages of the bible may be favourable to Communism, the general spirit of its doctrines is, nevertheless, totally opposed to it, as well as to every rational measure."

Engels, being an Atheist can hardly conceal his scorn for Christian Communists. One is tempted to agree, but in this day and age, where Christianity has become fairly adaptive, when you can be both gay and Christian it's not difficult to realize that Christian Communists were more than capable of using their religion as an argument for social change. What is important here is this: Their theological interpretations were different from those of Vox Day, but nevertheless rooted in religion. (Vox Day is probably no less on the fringes than the Christian Communists were.)

Now, let's introduce a man who was of importance to both Engels and Marx. Wilhelm Wetling:

"One of these men, William Weitling, a native of Magdeburg in Prussia, and a simple journeyman-tailor, resolved to establish communities in his own country. This man, who is to be considered as the founder of German Communism[...]"

The founder of German Communism, no less! Franz Mehring may continue:

[Weitling and Proudhon] were the first members of the modern proletariat to provide historical proof of the intellect and vigour of the proletariat, proof that it could free itself, and they were the first to break down the vicious circle in which the working-class movement and socialism revolved. To this extent therefore they opened up a new epoch, and their work and their activity were exemplary and exercised a fruitful influence on the development of scientific socialism. No one has praised the beginnings of Weitling and Proudhon more generously than Marx. That which the critical analysis of Hegelian philosophy had given him as the result of speculative thought, he now saw confirmed in real life chiefly by Weitling and Proudhon.

Franz Mehring, Karl Marx: The Story of His Life (Marxists.org)

Weitling was clearly important, but what kind of character was he?

"Other members of the League of the Just fled to Switzerland, the most influential among them being Wilhelm Weitling (1809-1864). A tailor by trade, one of the first German revolutionists from among the artisan proletariat, Weitling, like many other German artisans of the time, peregrinated from town to town. In 1835 he found himself in Paris, but it was in 1837 that he settled there for long. In Paris he became a member of the League of the Just and familiarized himself with the teachings of Hugues Lamennais, the protagonist of Christian socialism, of Saint-Simon and Fourier. There he also met Blanqui and his followers. Towards the end of 1838 he wrote, at the request of his comrades, a pamphlet called Mankind As It Is and As It Ought To Be, in which he championed the ideas of communism.
In Switzerland Weitling and some friends, after an unsuccessful attempt to propagandise the Swiss, began to organise circles among the German workers and the emigrants. In 1842 he published his chief work, Guarantees of Harmony and Freedom. In this book he developed in greater detail the views he had expressed in 1838.
Influenced by Blanqui, Weitling's ideas differed from those of other contemporary utopians, in that he did not believe in a peaceful transition into communism. The new society, a very detailed plan of which was worked out by him, could only be realised through the use of force. The sooner existing society is abolished, the sooner will the people be freed. The best method is to bring the existing social disorder to the last extreme. The worse, the better! The most trustworthy revolutionary element which could be relied upon to wreck present society was, according to Weitling, the lowest grade proletariat, the lumpenproletariat, including even the robbers.

[...]

He was still trumpeting his idea that robbers and bandits were the most reliable elements in the war against the existing order. He did not attach much weight to propaganda. He visualised the future in the form of a communist society directed by a small group of wise men. To attract the masses, he deemed it indispensable to resort to the aid of religion. He made Christ the forerunner of communism, picturing communism as Christianity minus its later accretions.

[...]

In 1844 Weitling was one of the most popular and renowned men, not only among German workers but also among the German intelligentsia."

David Riazanov: "Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, An Introduction to Their Lives and Work" (Marxists.org)

Notice that Wilhelm Weitling's Christian beliefs in no way hindered him in advocating a most brutal revolution, utilizing criminal elements. And despite Weitling later falling out of the good company, it's clear that Marx and Engels had much to learn from the Christian Weitling, or they would not have continued to throw praise on him.

Marx and Engels, were Atheists to the core, however. There's no doubt about that. But you can at the same time see that the inspiration for Communism as ideology was prior to them in many ways driven by religious arguments. Communism never came about because of Atheism. Communism merely assumed Atheism, but Atheism was not a priority.
I must again refer to Lenin:

"At the same time Engels [...] condemned [...] an explicit proclamation of atheism, in the sense of declaring war on religion. [...] Engels called their vociferous proclamation of war on religion a piece of stupidity, and stated that such a declaration of war was the best way to revive interest in religion and to prevent it from really dying out.

[...]

Why does religion retain its hold on the backward sections of the town proletariat, on broad sections of the semi-proletariat, and on the mass of the peasantry? Because of the ignorance of the people, replies the bourgeois progressist, the radical or the bourgeois materialist. And so: “Down with religion and long live atheism; the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!” The Marxist says that this is not true, that it is a superficial view, the view of narrow bourgeois uplifters."

V. I. Lenin, The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion, 1900

Some other writings:

"The term [Communism] spread rapidly, so that Karl Marx could entitle one of his first political articles of 16 October 1842 Der Kommunismus und die Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung. He noted that ‘communism’ was already an international movement, manifesting itself in Britain and Germany besides France, and traced its origin to Plato. He could have mentioned ancient Jewish sects and early Christian monasteries too. [...]The first attempts to arrive at a communist society (leaving aside early, medieval and more modern christian communities)[...]"

Ernest Mandel, Communism (The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics), (1990)

"The history of early Christianity has notable points of resemblance with the modern working-class movement. Like the latter, Christianity was originally a movement of oppressed people: it first appeared as the religion of slaves and emancipated slaves, of poor people deprived of all rights, of peoples subjugated or dispersed by Rome. Both Christianity and the workers' socialism preach forthcoming salvation from bondage and misery; Christianity places this salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism places it in this world, in a transformation of society. Both are persecuted and baited, their adherents are despised and made the objects of exclusive laws, the former as enemies of the human race, the latter as enemies of the state, enemies of religion, the family, social order. And in spite of all persecution, nay, even spurred on by it, they forge victoriously, irresistibly ahead. Three hundred years after its appearance Christianity was the recognized state religion in the Roman World Empire, and in barely sixty years socialism has won itself a position which makes its victory absolutely certain."

On The History Of Early Christianity By Frederick Engels, From Die Neue Zeit, Vol. 1, 1894-95 (PDF)

OK, so now I've shown that Communism as an ideology had its root in Christianity, in the Reformation to be more precise, and that Communists in the 1800s could perfectly well be Christians, that the immediate "forefather" of Marx and Engels was a Christian with a taste for violent revolutions, and that Lenin didn't mind Christian support for a higher goal and that Millitant Atheists were persona non grata in the struggle for world communism.

What I'm not trying to do is to shift all the blame back onto Christianity. It's not what it is about. This is about putting Communism were it belongs: with the workers' rights and all those things that most of us learnt at school. But it's also important to see that the ideals of Communism did indeed have their root in Christianity. However, Atheism became a tenet of Communism as we know it today, and it was a bit more important than mustaches, but as Lenin pointed out, Bourgeois atheism existed long before (modern) Communism and it continued to exist independently from Communism in the West during the Cold War.
And Atheism is still on the rise while Communism is dead.

I for one will continue my narrow Bourgeois Atheist uplifting.

I would have liked to dig more, and throw more evidence on the table(there is more), but to go through all sorts of Communist writings is time consuming. Marxists.org has an excellent archive. Browse it or use Google to search like this "site:marxists.org Weitling Christian". There is also an article at Wikipedia called Christian Communism.

Blasphemy is dead! Long live blasphemy!

2008-03-14T02:54:00.003+01:00

"England’s dusty, archaic and unpopular blasphemy laws look set to be abolished, but Ofcom and others are keeping their censorious spirit alive.

[...]

These recent bizarre events show that censorship is not being eradicated in Britain. Instead it’s having a bit of spit-and-polish applied and being rehabilitated as Brand New, Gleaming, Glistening, PC Censorship! Old forms of punishment and censure for people who ‘cross the line’ are being replaced with new forms of wrist-slapping for those who dare to speak, write or think offensively. Indeed, the blasphemy laws, very rarely used, have been abolished in practice for 20 years or more. Yet as secularists, and even the Lords (not previously known for their commitment to liberty or democracy), ‘bravely’ shadow-box with the ghost of blasphemy, they seem not to have noticed that new censorious protections for easily offended religionists – and non-religionists – are being institutionalised. Maybe it’s all that celebratory champagne they’ve prematurely been quaffing.

[...]

The new censorship makes everything into a potential blasphemy – a blasphemy against the sacred self-esteem of fragile individuals. The ASA, Ofcom and others, with their elevation of subjective feelings of offence to the moral highground of public debate, have given rise to an entire nation of little Jesus Christs, all of whom can stake a claim to protection from contumely comments, or scoffing and ridicule against their being and personal providence. They have made tyrannical gods of us all.
Also, as its name suggests, the blasphemy laws were based in law. Any bishop, Bible-basher or blue-permed lady-who-lunches who wanted something banned would have to go through the courts and try to convince a judge and jury of their case. At the very least, this meant that a jury of 12 men and women – who so often are an oasis of reason in irrational times – would have the opportunity to do some scoffing of their own and potentially throw the case into the gutter where it belonged. Not so with the new censorship."

Brendan O'Neill, Spiked Online, 13 March 2008

Read it in its entirety. It's spot on.

Plenty of the neo-censorship happens because people shit their pants over possibly offending someone. And, as O'Neill here says, 3 or 23 people whining is enough for something to be "offensive" . There's a Norwegian organisation called "Familie og Medier" which is a Christian media bitch dog, and they enthusiastically write this:

"10 to 20 inquiries are considered a "viewer storm"! The editorial boards of radio channles and TV channels are not used to a lot of responses on their programmes. You will be heard and have the opportunity influence if you use your voice"

Unoffocial Ibn Warraq site

2008-03-11T19:32:00.002+01:00

"Ibn Warraq has no website
That is why I decided to group everything that Ibn Warraq has ever written together. Given his status as the most intelligent critic of Islam in the world, I can certainly understand why he stays anonymous. He has been a bit more visible in public in recent times. He is always extremely thorough on everything. I do not want his works to be ignored, so I collated all his online works here."

The Unofficial Ibn Warraq Site

Go have a look!

Dr. Faysal Al-Qassem: You can't Criticize Christ in the West

2008-03-11T14:43:00.011+01:00

"Dr. Faysal Al-Qassem, Moderator: "How come freedom of expression in the West is sacred only when it comes to degrading the Muslims? Are they allowed to talk about the Holocaust? Are they allowed to talk about Christianity? That is the question. Cinemas were burned down in the West when they talked about Christ."
Wafa Sultan: "I live in America, and I never heard of a single cinema that was burned down here. Where do you get your information from? It sounds as if you are living in America, not me."
Moderator: "In France."
Wafa Sultan: "This is completely baseless. You should criticize your own beliefs just as Christians criticize their beliefs.""

MemriTV.org, Al-Jazeera on March 4, 2008., Arab-American Psychiatrist Wafa Sultan Clashes with Egyptian Islamist Tal'at Rmeih and Dr. Faysal Al-Qassem (Moderator) (Transcript)

Wafa Sultan was great as always, and it's worth watching it. Unfortunately, her Islamist opponent, Tal'at Rmeih, is both ignorant and probably lying too because he can't possibly be that ignorant.
I was however surprised to hear this talk from the moderator, Dr. Faysal Al-Qassem, about cinemas in the west having been burnt down because of criticism against Christ or Christianity. He didn't cite any sources so I'm not sure if he's lying, or if he's picked up a rumour or if there really was a fire by Christian fanatics. (Anyone?)

What I am certain of, however, is that criticizing Christ, or blasphemy against Christ, for that matter, is a stroll in the park in Western Europe. How do I know this? Well, because I've been listening to the Anti Christian music style Black Metal for about 20 years. Other music styles have been criticizing Christianity too(Punk, Hardcore, Goth, Death Metal, Thrash Metal, Heavy Metal etc. etc.), but Black Metal has been the most explicit Anti Christian music style. Both visually (covers, logos etc.) and lyrically, the bands have been Anti Christian.
And in the early 90s, more extreme things happened: Church burnings. First and foremost in Norway(approximately 50 burnings), but it spread to other countries, so I'm not sure how many churches in the west were burnt thanks to this blasphemous music style. 200 would not be far from the truth.
At the time (92, 93) the amount of people who were into this music style were young, relatively few and extreme and impressionable teens were later a part of the picture.
Today the music style is much more popular and also less extreme. Well, the music itself is still often extreme but the people are more average. Everything has been calmed down. Plenty of the arsonists were imprisoned, churches were rebuilt, and the music style has been commercialized.
And that's just as well.

But my point is, to the European Christians' credit I heard of no attempts to get even. If the Christians had been Muslims, one might have expected attempts to blow up concert halls while Black Metal bands were playing, assassination of the band members or even killing fans displaying inverted crosses and pentagrams on their jackets.

What the Christians did (at least in Norway) was to write letters to the papers, guard their churches, and state emphatically that "Our faith just grows stronger".
Ironically, in 1997 youths in Egypt were arrested for listening to metal:

Part1. Part1

(From the Swedish fanzine "Pure Passion" #2.)

So in the vain hope that Dr. Faysal Al-Qassem is googling himself, I want to say: Yes, you can criticize Christ in Europe. The church burnings (and other things) were crimes, and were dealt with as crimes. The music style, however, as blasphemous as it was, has been given practically a free ride, even to the extent that many Christians not only can listen to it, but have even made their own Christian variety where they play music that sounds similar, but with Christian lyrics.

I don't think that Dr. Faysal Al-Qassem wishes that Middle Eastern youths try to do the same thing. But I also think that teenage "Black Metal terrorism" was fairly innocent compared to what's been going on in the Middle East between god-fearing men, women and children, for a while now.

Above you see a wide variety of blasphemy against Jesus Christ.
No cinemas were harmed.

It also has to be asked: What is it that separates BM covers (and many other Anti Christian blasphemies) from the infamous Muhammed cartoons? For the most of it, it was blasphemy for blasphemy's sake. This is definitely not true for all bands, because they're all different and some (like Darkthrone) has made very good lyrics, but it's true for many. Some just want to make a kind of horror music, others have a nihilistic attitude, others again were just keeping BM traditions alive while playing music they liked. And plenty of people have been able to compartmentalize between being extreme on stage but being law abiding citizens privately. Must of them have also grown up.

Anyway, the criticism against Christianity has, by and large, consisted of "Christianity is a stupid belief for weak and gullible people"(at a time in Western Europe when Christianity is no longer more than an annoyance) while the criticism, made by cartoonists and others against Islam is that "There is a connection between terror and Islam, and Muslims threaten our freedom of speech.". The blasphemy against Christ, then, serves only to mock a stupid belief. But the Muhammed cartoons had a more important message.
Black Metal was always a teenage riot that came for no apparent reason, while the Muhammed cartoons was a result from Islamic terrorism.

I have to mention that American Christianity is not at all as meek and mild as Western European Christianity, and you can say the same about a couple of Eastern European countries, especially Poland. And then of course, there's the Pope.
Also Western European Christianity is still irrational, and deserving of serious criticism, but I think we can agree that burning down churches was uncalled for and that probably some of the blasphemies were a tad childish.

Black Metal Nerd Alert: This has by no means meant to be a perfect report on the history of Black Metal, merely to show that criticizing Christ in the West is easier than criticizing Muhammed. For those who are interested in this subject, please read a book.

Faith propaganda: "Forgiveness has God on its side"

2008-03-06T20:46:00.003+01:00

"People who believe in God or a new-age spiritual force are less likely to hold a grudge, a study of Australians has found.

A survey of almost 500 people has confirmed what many always suspected - faith helps believers forgive where secular people continue to hold onto their blame."

[...]

"The results showed that it doesn't matter what you believe in, but if you believe in something, have faith in something, it means you're more likely to forgive," said researcher Adam Fox, who led the study overseen by professor of psychology Trang Thomas.

"That indicates that there's something in the system of thought connected to spirituality that helps people to accept others and their actions."
The researchers were unable to compare individual religions due to "ethical considerations", but said there was only "slight differences" between each."

The Age, Australia, February 12, 2008

Now, this isn't surprising at all when you see what kind of moral dilemmas the participants were presented with. (Scroll down to Transgression Narrative Test of Forgiveness (TNTF))

The five moral dilemmas were "secular" dilemmas, that is, dilemmas were people from all sorts of backgrounds would feel pretty much the same, like being betrayed. And apparently, the religious were able to forgive the transgressions better than their secular counterparts. Bummer.

But if they're going to measure whether or not religious people are more forgiving overall, then why not ask about moral dilemmas with a religious touch too?

Say, dilemmas like this:

6. "Your daughter leaves your family to live with an Atheist with a pierced nose. They do not marry."

7. "You ask your son if he won't marry soon, and he avoids the question. The next day, you see him kissing a male friend in the park."

8. "After countless episodes of violence, a Danish cartoonist decides to measure your tolerance by mocking something you hold very dear. He draws the Prophet Muhammed with a bomb."

9. "Being an Orthodox Jew, you have a servant to take care of things on the Sabbath, since you're too holy to even make yourself dinner. However, on this particular Sabbath, the servant does not show up, so you can't eat until the Sabbath is over."
10. "Are you still mad about the Jews who killed Jesus 2000 years ago?"
11. "You're tricked into drinking alcohol, and get rather tipsy and are tricked into eating pork or non-kosher food as well."

OK, I could go on forever. But the point is: what is being betrayed by someone compared to breaking a religious taboo? A taboo that for an Atheist is not even worth considering? Atheists have preferences as anyone else, and we don't necessarily believe in forgiveness at any cost. But the taboos are few and far between, and that means that there's very little chance that you offend an Atheist ∞. Atheists have less toes that can be stepped on, and if you do step on an Atheist's toes, you don't simultaneously step on God's toes thereby damning you both to Hell.

Now, I could be forgiving, thinking that it's the reporter who didn't get it right(it happens all the time), but notice that they couldn't compare individual religions because of "ethical considerations". But they could use a survey to lie about how forgiving religious people are compared to infidels?
It has to be said, that this survey's goal seems to have been to learn about various religious groups, while the secular group was merely a control group. But I guess once the results were in showing how unforgiving the secular group were, they were too good not to be published, despite not being true.

Whom should I contact if I have any questions?
Please contact Professor Trang Thomas in the first instance on -. If your require support for any issue that may have resulted from your participation, you may approach any one of the following contacts below that can assist you in finding a support service appropriate to addressing your needs:

* Islamic Council of Victoria: Rowan Gould (Chief Executive Officer), -
* Kollel Menachem Lubavitch: Rabbi Groner (Rabbi), -
* Swanston Street Church of Christ: Alan Baker (Associate Pastor), -
* City Life Church: Ask for ‘Pastor on duty', -
* Crossway Baptist Church: Ask for ‘Pastor on duty', -
[* Surprise, no Godless infidel on duty]

Yours sincerely

Adam Fox B. App. Sci. Hon. (Psychology)
Trang Thomas Professor of Psychology

Virtual Museum of Offensive Art

2008-03-06T18:57:00.003+01:00

In these times, when blasphemy is all the rage, the Virtual Museum of Offensive Art is a welcome resource website. You'll find a lot of controversial works of art here, that prudes of all types have wanted to ban. Plenty of blasphemy, but also plenty of sex and a little politics.

(Found at the NewHumanist blog.)

Young Iraqis are losing their faith in religion

2008-03-06T12:10:00.003+01:00

"After almost five years of war, many young Iraqis, exhausted by constant firsthand exposure to the violence of religious extremism, say they have grown disillusioned with religious leaders and skeptical of the faith that they preach.
In two months of interviews with 40 young people in five Iraqi cities, a pattern of disenchantment emerged, in which young Iraqis, both poor and middle class, blamed clerics for the violence and the restrictions that have narrowed their lives.
"I hate Islam and all the clerics because they limit our freedom every day and their instruction became heavy over us," said Sara Sami, a high school student in Basra. "Most of the girls in my high school hate that Islamic people control the authority because they don't deserve to be rulers."

[...]

"In the beginning, they gave their eyes and minds to the clerics, they trusted them," said Abu Mahmoud, a moderate Sunni cleric in Baghdad, who now works deprogramming religious extremists in American detention. "It's painful to admit, but it's changed. People have lost too much. They say to the clerics and the parties: You cost us this."
"When they behead someone, they say 'Allah Akbar,' they read Koranic verse," said a moderate Shiite sheik from Baghdad. "The young people, they think that is Islam. So Islam is a failure, not only in the students' minds, but also in the community."
A professor at Baghdad University's School of Law, who would identify herself only as Bushra, said of her students: "They have changed their views about religion. They started to hate religious men. They make jokes about them because they feel disgusted by them.""

International Herald Tribune, March 3, 2008

Hopefully this leads somewhere.

IHEU: Petition for defence of individual rights at the UN Human Rights Council

2008-03-05T12:15:00.005+01:00

"[…] The [Human Rights Council] has become an ideological war machine against its founding principles[The Universal Declaration of Human Rights]. Ignored by the mainstream media, day after day, session after session, resolution after resolution, a political rhetoric is forged to legitimize tomorrow’s violence. A "triple alliance" of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) represented so far by Pakistan, the Non-Aligned Movement where Cuba, Venezuela and Iran have a central role, and China -- with the cynical complacency of Russia – are working together to establish of a genuine revolution in the guise of "multiculturalism". Thus, the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, Doudou Diène has said that criticism of the Burqa is a racist aggression, that secularism is rooted in a culture of slavery and colonialism and that the French law against the wearing of religious symbols in schools is part of anti-Muslim racism, renamed "Western Islamophobia ". The confusion of minds is at its peak when any criticism of religion is denounced as a racist attitude. This is a radical threat against freedom of thought which is being condoned by the United Nations. By equating with racism any criticism of the excesses of those who speak in the name of Islam, because supposedly such criticism belongs to neo-colonialist attitudes, the spokespersons of this new alliance tighten a little the noose they have put on the neck of their own peoples and undermine the foundations of a civility hard-won in Europe since the wars of religion."

[...]

If by misfortune, the United Nations should sanction the imposition of such criteria, if blasphemy should be equated with racism, the right to criticism of religion outlawed, religious law become the international norm, it would be a regression with disastrous consequences, and a radical perversion of our entire tradition of struggle against racism, which has developed and can only develop in the most absolute freedom of conscience.

[...]

To sign this petition, please send an email to licra@licra.org"

Please sign.
I've also made a new logo for the Human Rights Council:

Fervor and Frustration

2008-03-04T13:03:00.002+01:00

"In Egypt, where the people have always been religious and conservative, young people are now far more observant and strict in their interpretation of their faith. A generation ago, for example, few young women covered their heads, and few Egyptian men made it a practice to go to the mosque for the five daily prayers.
In 1986, there was one mosque for every 6,031 Egyptians, according to government statistics. By 2005, there was one mosque for every 745 people - and the population has nearly doubled.
Egypt has historically fought a harsh battle against religious extremism. But at the same time, its leaders have tried to use religion for their own political gains. The government of President Hosni Mubarak - whose wife, Suzanne, remains unveiled - has put more preachers on state television.
"The whole country is taken by an extreme conservative attitude," said Mohamed Sayed Said, deputy director of the government-financed Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. "The government cannot escape it and cannot loosen it."

TheLedger.com, March 1, 2008

What’s Missing from the Unsurprising Pew Study

2008-03-04T12:41:00.004+01:00

"There are a couple of explanations for the Catholic situation that produces a high percentage of the non-religious. For one, their disaffection for the religion of their youth does not lead them to Protestantism, but to “no-religion.” This is in contrast with Methodists or Presbyterians who often blend in with generic Protestantism. Secondly, since the pontificate of John Paul II, Catholicism has been trying to eliminate “cultural Catholicism.” In practical terms, this means that you can’t baptize your child as a Catholic without going to classes and attending services. There is a denial of communion to people remarried outside the church. Politicians who uphold the law that allows birth control or abortion have been punished. And so it goes. You reap what you sow: by arguing that persons whose attachment is only cultural are no longer Catholic, the Church has created a new category of Catholic believers who no longer profess to belong to any religion. They have been told they are no longer Catholic, but they can’t bring themselves to become Protestant."

Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo, OnFaith, 4. March 2008

Of course, branding everyone as a Catholic, whatever their convictions were, was never a good idea in the first place.

44% of Americans shop for religion

2008-03-02T15:00:00.004+01:00

Thought you might want to know.

Spanking Kids Increases Risk Of Sexual Problems As Adults

2008-03-02T12:20:00.007+01:00

"Children who are spanked or victims of other corporal punishment are more likely to have sexual problems as a teen or adult, according to new research presented today by Murray Straus, co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire.

[...]

Straus analyzed the results of four studies and found that spanking and other corporal punishment by parents is associated with an increased probability of three sexual problems as a teen or adult:

* Verbally and physically coercing a dating partner to have sex.
* Risky sex such as premarital sex without a condom.
* Masochistic sex such as being aroused by being spanked when having sex.

“These results, together with the results of more than 100 other studies, suggest that spanking is one of the roots of relationship violence and mental health problems. Because there is 93 percent agreement between studies that investigated harmful side effects of spanking, and because over 90 percent of U.S. parents spank toddlers, the potential benefits for prevention of sexual and relationship violence is large,” Straus says."

ScienceDaily, Mar. 2, 2008

And the reason why I post this here is that corporal punishment is favoured among religious conservatives.
The most grave aspect (after they grow up) is verbal and physical coercion. Can you say rape? It has to be said though, that calling sado-masochism a sexual problem is stretching it a bit far if it's consenting, and not of the extreme variety.(No, it's not my thing)

Now, a little bible reading will do:

Hebrews 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

I looked this up earlier, because at least in Norway, there has been discussions among theologians whether or not this just meant teaching your children to behave. To liberal Christians, this is no doubt a preferable interpretation, (and to society too I must admit).
But after looking it up at Scripturetext.com (hit the Lexicon tab) I think it is safe to say that this is not just about teaching:

As you can see, the word mastigoo is used, meaning to flog, scourge. To put things into perspective, we can have a look at Matthew 20:19: "And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.". And yes, it's the word mastigoo that is used.

You can also see the other places it has been used.

Still, there's another thing that complicates this. Hebrews 12:6 refers to Psalms 94:12: "Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest him out of thy law;"

"Chasteneth" can be physical, but notice that there's no mention of outright flogging. The reason is that the writer of Hebrews only had access to the Septuagint, the less than perfect Greek translation of the Old Testament. However, from what I can see, mastigoo does not appear in the Septuagint version of Psalms 94:12

Maybe the write of Hebrews was a sadist, but I'll leave it there, because I realize I'm on fairly deep water now. But I think it's safe to say that the verse in Hebrews has caused a lot of grief, and that it's not necessarily the correct reference to Psalms 94:12.
In any case, you don't flog your children like the Romans flogged Jesus.

Reaping the benefits of a good Christian upbringing:

Why religion is the cause of religious terrorism

2008-03-01T16:18:00.006+01:00

"[According to former CIA officer Marc Sageman. ] the first wave of Al-Qaeda leaders, who joined Osama bin Laden in the 1980s, is now down to a few dozen people on the run in the tribal areas of northwest Pakistan. The second wave of terrorists, who trained in Al-Qaeda's camps in Afghanistan during the 1990s, has also been devastated, with about 100 hiding out on the Pakistani frontier. These people are genuinely dangerous, says Sageman, and they must be captured or killed. But they do not pose an existential threat to America, much less have the power to provoke a "clash of civilizations."

It's the third wave of terrorism that is growing, but what is it? By Sageman's account, it's a leaderless hodgepodge of thousands of what he calls "terrorist wannabes." Unlike the first two waves, who were well-educated and intensely religious, the new jihadists are a weird species of the Internet culture. Outraged by video images of Americans killing Muslims in Iraq, they gather in password-protected chat rooms and dare each other to take action. Like young people across time and religious boundaries, they are bored and looking for action.

"It's more about hero worship than about religion," Sageman said in a presentation of his research last week at the New America Foundation, a liberal think tank in Washington. Many of this third wave don't speak Arabic or read the Koran. Very few (13 percent of Sageman's samples) have attended radical religious schools. Nearly all join the movement because they know or are related to someone who's already in it. Those detained on terrorism charges are getting younger: In Sageman's 2003 sample, the average age was 26; among those arrested after 2006, it was down to about 20. They are disaffected, homicidal kids - closer to urban gang members than to motivated Muslim fanatics."

David Ignatius, Daily Star (Lebanon), February 28, 2008

Ever since 9. September 2001, there has been people from all sorts of backgrounds who have tried to state again and again and again that religion has nothing to do with terror. For a large part, this is pure revisionism based upon unwillingness to face the truth that religions carry a lot of unhealthy ideas.

With the same logic, WW2 didn't happen because of Nazi ideology, but because of the Versailles treaty. No-one would doubt that the Versailles treaty had an effect, but you would have to be retarded to say that National-Socialism had nothing to do with it. But let's move from WW2 to present day neo-nazism. It is of course a bleak shadow of the heyday of NS-DAP. Hitler is their hero, and that's about it. A lot of the racist attacks on immigrants etc. happen because the racist is an uneducated, unemployed drunkard. But he is also a fan of Hitler, and Nazi ideology offer the framework where attacking immigrants on the street is OK. The SA would have done it like they do, and the SS would have been more thorough.

That's what the afore mentioned revisionists don't see, that while the jihadi theology may be a poor excuse, it is still a theology. They have simply distilled certain values from traditional Islam. (And if Islam was a really peaceful religion, as is often claimed, then this would be impossible.) The fact that the majority of Muslims may have a different view doesn't matter, because the majority of Christians had a different view than Martin Luther when he begun his work too. All religious reformers start off at the fringes.

I think Marc Sageman is onto something when using three categories of terrorists, like above. The London bombings was a copycat crime by fans. No doubt about that. And they're probably not very well edumecated in Islam either. But their faith provided a framework for the act, and Islam provided a framework for jihadi interpretation.

The Untruth movement

2008-03-01T11:11:00.003+01:00

"If the Truth movement's only job is to uncover discrepancies, it's dooming itself to forever pulling facts apart. It's kind of a Zeno's arrow of illogic: Truthers will never come to a reasonable conclusion because there's never going to be an absence of doubt. It's time for them to put up or shut up, in other wordsit's been six years since 9/11 and they've yet to produce anything coherent."

"Towers of Babble", Utne Reader, January-February 2008 (Reprinted from the Stranger Sept. 6, 2007)

I don't usually do 911 stuff, but this is an interesting article and the excerpt above shows what the real problem is. They can never be satisfied. It's a bit like creationists who are never satisfied with transitional fossils, because between two transitional fossils, there's always room for one more - "and it can't be found".

Anyway, here's another lengthy quote showing that this unreasonable way of doubting leads to a fragmentation of religious proportions:

"There are almost as many notions about what happened on September 11 as there are members of 9/11 Truth organizations. To add to the confusion, the movement is home to not a few eccentrics. After the coffee shop meeting with We Are Change Seattle, I got the first in a series of e-mails from a woman named Rebecca. Rebecca was angry that she wasn't allowed to take part in the group interview, a decision that Konrad justified as a way to present a "more united front" to the media.

Rebecca and three other original members of 9/11 Truth Seattle the umbrella entity that makes communication between various Truth groups in Seattle possiblehad decided to abandon We Are Change Seattle anyway after a disagreement. Most recently, Rebecca has decided to stop being part of any 9/11 Truth organization. In her words: "I have instead decided to give priority to my creative work with political satire and performance poetry."

This tiny schism is emblematic of larger rifts within the Truth movement. Its first few years have seen a number of organizations come and go in a flurry of arguments and personality clashes. For instance, last year, after a prolonged argument about whether the towers were felled by miniature nuclear weapons, some members of a group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth voted to disband and reform as the new, improved Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. Many Truthers rejected a man named Webster Tarpley as a major public face of the movement because of his previous work for the LaRouche Connection, a news service funded by the LaRouche organization. "Many of us felt like he took some credibility from the movement," a Truther who wanted to be anonymous told me. Tarpley is rumored to be considering a run for president on a 9/11 Truth ticket, which could draw some of the Truth votes from both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, who seem to be running neck-and-neck in popularity with the primarily Libertarian-leaning members of 9/11 Truth groups."

I said religious proportions quite deliberately, because just as various religious branches within the same religion will disagree on infalsifiable things that a priori can never be settled, so the truthers' constant doubt can never be satisfied.

If there really was a conspiracy (and not just a stupid government) then it should be possible to put pieces together, but that's not what the truthers are here for. Their mission in life is to take things apart, and their hyper-scepticism runs rampant, like a Sceptic-Midas who has to doubt everything he touches. They're looking for untruths, not truths. And they find them, just like any paranoid can discover that he is indeed followed.

And so they doubt each other as much as George W. Bush.

Increasing defection rate among Catholic entrants

2008-02-29T20:43:00.003+01:00

"According to official church statistics, from 1978 to 2005 the number of religious priests worldwide declined from 158,000 to 137,000, while religious brothers decreased from about 75,000 to 55,000. The sharpest drop was in the number of women religious, which went from 985,000 to 783,000.

The situation is clearly going to get worse in coming years, mainly because of the aging population of the largest religious orders.

There are other problems, too, including the increasing defection rate of new entrants; in many places, 40 percent to 60 percent of those entering religious order formation programs leave before making their final commitment.

[...]

For example, [Father Lewandowski] said, many orders formed over the last 200 years were based on the secular principle of being useful to society in educational, health care or other social roles, which have now been largely taken over by government organizations or by lay Catholics.

"All of these orders are now in significant crisis," he said.""

Catholic News, Feb-22-2008

The last paragraph shows that it is of the utmost importance with a proper state welfare system.

18.9% of all US Hate Crimes Related to Religion

2008-02-29T17:06:00.003+01:00

"A fall FBI report on hate crimes lets people know that the problem is trending in the wrong direction. Bias-related criminal incidents jumped 7.8 percent from 2005 to 2006.

Race remains the biggest problem. The report said 51.8 percent of the 7,720 single incident cases were racial bias; 18.9 percent, religion; 15.5 percent, sexual orientation bias; 12.7 percent, ethnicity/national origin; and 1 percent was against people with disabilities.

The report found that being black in America continues to be a lightning rod for hate. Of the 4,737 single-bias hate crimes, 66.2 percent were anti-black. But hate crimes don't all go in one direction. The report said 21.3 percent were anti-white; 6.1 percent were against people in a multiple-race group; 4.9 percent were anti-Asian/Pacific Islander; and 1.5 percent were anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native."

Kansas City Star, Feb. 26, 2008

Indonesia: Mass trances are in vogue

2008-02-29T16:44:00.002+01:00

"Religion, education and development have done little to budge widespread acceptance of the supernatural among Indonesia's diverse ethnic and religious groups. "In Indonesia, trance is tied up with culture," said Lidia Laksana Hidajat, research coordinator in the psychology faculty of Jakarta's Atma Jaya University.

[...]

"They were working in silence. That's one of the requirements of a trance to happen - it's usually quiet and when they are engaged in monotonous activity."

Suddenly, one of the workers started screaming and her body went stiff. The one next to her started crying and went stiff too. Others tried to help but soon they started too in a kind of domino effect.

A local Muslim leader was summoned, but his prayers had no effect. Eventually, the exhausted women fell asleep and upon awakening they remembered nothing.

Hidajat concluded that the mass trance had more to do with exhaustion and stress than evil spirits.

[...]

"Often they are people who are very religious or under pressure. They were also from low socio-economic backgrounds and many said they didn't have happy childhoods," she said.

"All the trance dancers I met in Bali had similar vulnerable personalities."

iol.co.za, February 25 2008

Ireland is running out of priests

2008-02-28T17:38:00.002+01:00

"One-hundred and sixty priests died last year but only nine were ordained. Figures for nuns were even more dramatic, with the deaths of 228 nuns and only two taking final vows for service in religious life.
Based upon these figures The Irish Catholic newspaper predicts that the number of priests will drop from the current 4,752 to about 1,500 by 2028.
The decline in vocations is attributed to the loss of the Church’s authority after a string of sex-abuse scandals. In 1994 the Government collapsed over the mishandling of the case of a paedophile priest Brendan Smyth.

[...]

Ireland is now the vocations blackspot of the world."

The Times, February 27, 2008

In other news:
Pope not Catholic anymore

Understanding Islam

2008-02-28T15:25:00.005+01:00

"[Professor John Kelsay who teaches at Florida State University] explained there are three types of Muslims.
Militants, like al-Qaida members, want to restore God’s law. Because they believe all human beings are born Muslim, they think their actions are for the good of mankind, Kelsay said.
The second group, which is the vast majority of Muslims, supports an Islamic state but objects to how groups like al-Qaida try to establish it. They believe the problems that plague the West are based on too much freedom and a lack of a moral compass; the fruit of not having a religious establishment, Kelsay said.
The third group, which is the smallest, is Muslim democrats."

Nwfdailynews.com, February 27th, 2008

Of course, the problem here is that the so-called moderates (i.e. the middle group) still seem to long for a caliphate of sorts. As of now, they seem to be fence-sitters, but they need to realize that there are many more problems plaguing the East than the West and that it is they who should fix their own dysfunctional moral compasses. Incidentally, if they do so, I think the West will have less problems too.
The Muslim democrats need all the support they can get, of course.

Here's a video of the professor speaking too:

How Superstition Impacts Consumer Choice

2008-02-28T10:54:00.003+01:00

"Between $800 and $900 million is lost in business in the United States every Friday the 13th. A businessman in Guangzhou, China, recently bid 54,000 yuan (almost seven times the country's per capita annual income) for a lucky license plate containing the sequence 888. Continental Airlines recently advertised an $888 flight to Beijing with the slogan "Lucky You," and the Beijing Olympics are scheduled to open on August 8, 2008 at 8 p.m.

[...]

In another study of American college students at an East Coast university, the researchers found that having participants think about Friday the 13th made them significantly more risk averse. Participants were told they were participating in two unrelated studies. After thinking about Friday the 13th or a neutral day (Tuesday the 19th), participants were then asked to make a choice in betting situations, for example a guaranteed $18 or a 20 percent chance to win $240. Those who had thought about Friday the 13th chose the safe option 49 percent of the time, versus only 35 percent of those who had thought about a neutral day."

Medical News Today, 16 Feb 2008

Of course 900 million dollars is a small price to pay for a little innocent superstition.
It would be interesting to know what religion itself costs.

How to successfully convert a true Atheist

2008-02-28T09:26:00.004+01:00

A blog post by BGH at The Information Paradox dealt with the blogger's exasperation over former atheists:

"Well if you are a believer now, then you weren't an atheist for the right reasons, because the claims of theism still lack empirical evidence."

On the surface, this is a No True Scotsman fallacy, that they were never true Atheists to begin with (it is ironic of course that the originator of the No True Scotsman, Anthony Flew, himself is an ex-atheist). Being an Atheist doesn't in itself really require any thinking, so you can be an Atheist with a poor understanding of why you are an Atheist. Whether such an Atheist can be defined as true is difficult to asses, since the only requirement of being an Atheist is not to believe in God.
However, in most people's view it is quite true that being an Atheist without knowing why means that you are not an Atheist for the right reasons, and it is furthermore true that unless there is any evidence for god on the table, then your reasons for caving in to religion are quite poor(so I agree wholeheartedly with BGH). So, there's no reason to be smug about your conversion and "former atheism" when it just shows you were in it for the wrong reasons.

So anyway, I decided to make a flow chart to educate people on this issue:

Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts

2008-02-26T18:39:00.003+01:00

"Turkey is preparing to publish a document that represents a revolutionary reinterpretation of Islam - and a controversial and radical modernisation of the religion.

[...]

Significantly, the "Ankara School" of theologians working on the new Hadith have been using Western critical techniques and philosophy.
They have also taken an even bolder step - rejecting a long-established rule of Muslim scholars that later (and often more conservative) texts override earlier ones."

BBC News, 26 February 2008

Best news to come out of Turkey lately. We keep hearing from Muslims how Islam has always been changing, yet, the last hundred years it has generally been for the worse. But a move like this is real progress.

Catholic Church blamed for high abortion rate

2008-02-26T15:51:00.003+01:00

"Who carries the greatest responsibility for the deaths of unborn children in this country? I accuse the leader of the Catholic church in England and Wales, His Eminence Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor. I charge that he is partly to blame for our abnormally high abortion rate.

[...]

A study published in the Lancet shows that between 1995 and 2003, the global rate of induced abortions fell from 35 per 1,000 women each year to 29. This period coincides with the rise of the "globalised secular culture" the Pope laments. When the figures are broken down, it becomes clear that, apart from the former Soviet Union, abortion is highest in conservative and religious societies. In largely secular western Europe, the average rate is 12 abortions per 1,000 women. In the more religious southern European countries, the average rate is 18. In the US, where church attendance is still higher, there are 23 abortions for every 1,000 women, the highest level in the rich world. In central and South America, where the Catholic church holds greatest sway, the rates are 25 and 33 respectively. In the very conservative societies of east Africa, it's 39. One abnormal outlier is the UK: our rate is six points higher than that of our western European neighbours.

[...]

When the Pope tells bishops in Kenya - the global centre of this crisis - that they should defend traditional family values "at all costs" against agencies offering safe abortions, or when he travels to Brazil to denounce its contraceptive programme, he condemns women to death."

George Monbiot, Guardian, February 26 2008

The List of Things That Offend Muslims

2008-02-26T04:48:00.003+01:00

The Amboy Times has a year old blogpost called "The List of Things That Offend Muslims". It is a post that keeps growing, as readers submit new stories about some complaint from some Muslim about some aspect of society the rest of us may take for granted. (I submitted the story about a grandmother who was refused service by Muslim staff when she tried to buy a book on bible stories for children.)
A lot of comments, both at Amboy times and at The Friendly Atheist say that it is unfair to use these loonies as examples of what Muslims in general do. I don't really think anyone does that(and most of us are quite happy to cheer at reasonable Muslims), but the fact remains: these complaints keep coming and they drag all Muslims with them down into the mud.
Of course, Christians have been complaining too, for 2000 years. Being persecuted is part of but their image. But complaints have weakened over time, though perhaps less so in USA.

It is all these complaints, whether they come from Muslims or anyone else(they are not alone), that made me think differently about Freedom of Religion. There should be a freedom to believe, express yourself and gather. But these outlandish demands must be curtailed. In the post "Freedom of religion has become a mockery and must be abolished" I mentioned that the beliefs, expressions and being able to gather is guaranteed even without Freedom of Religion:

However, I could have done more than that. I know there are some reasonable demands that goes outside the strictly intellectual frame. I then checked out the "European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms"

As you see, here are some limitations:

Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

I think it is time that the devout community stop thinking of religious freedom as being able to do what they like in the name of their own religion. There are very real limitations, and they are here for very good reasons.
This is not just in the interest for Atheists to focus on. The example with the grandmother and the bible stories show as much. Not to mention that medical students disobeying hygiene rules because they are so much holier than the rest of us end up putting us all at risk.

The worst thing about many of these demands is that they're easy to see through as modern fundamentalism, and not rooted in a traditional interpretation of religion.

A note on Walkers Crisps and alcohol:
Before:

[The isolation of alcohol] as a relatively pure compound was first achieved by Muslim chemists who developed the art of distillation during the Abbasid caliphate, the most notable of whom were Jabir ibn Hayyan (Geber), Al-Kindi (Alkindus) and al-Razi (Rhazes). The writings attributed to Jabir ibn Hayyan (721-815) mention the flammable vapors of boiled wine. Al-Kindi (801-873) unambiguously described the distillation of wine.[2]

Today:

Furious Muslims have heavily criticised Walkers crisps after it emerged that certain varieties of the manufacturer's products contain trace elements of alcohol.

How the mighty have fallen. These Walkers whiners are not only a nuisance to modern secular society, they are a disgrace to their own heritage.

I'll end with a recent Memri clip of a reasonable Muslim:
Shiite Saudi Scholar Hassan Al-Saffar Laments the State of the Sciences in the Arab and Islamic World

Holy places of Jerusalem are popular with mentally deranged people.

2008-02-26T04:18:00.002+01:00

"This exotic disease is labeled by professionals as the Jerusalem syndrome, reports Wednesday Argumenty i Fakty weekly.

[...]

After fighting down policemen who tried to interfere, "Samson" was taken to the Kfar Shaul Psychiatric Hospital in Jerusalem. After therapy treatment he returned back to the USA by himself.
The Hospital diagnoses about a hundred patients obsessed with the syndrome, and about forty of them require hospitalization.
Most of them had been mentally affected in their home countries, and only few opened to the world as "Jesus", "The Virgin Mary", "John the Baptist", "Mohammed" or "Isaiah" in Jerusalem, the weekly reports."

Interfax, Russia, February 13 2008

Why religion is in decline or changing for the better all over the world

2008-02-26T03:44:00.004+01:00

"Yet breathless warnings about rising religious fervor and conflicts to come ignore two basic facts. First, many areas of the world are experiencing a decline in religious belief and practice. Second, where religions are flourishing, they are also generally evolving—very often in ways that allow them to fit more easily into secular societies, and that weaken them as politically disruptive forces.

[...]

We have seen how rapidly religion has spread in the past, claiming adherents from competing faiths before the competition knew what hit them. Both secularism and secularly inspired ways of being religious are spreading just as rapidly—maybe even more so. Historians may one day look back on the next few decades, not as yet another era when religious conflicts enveloped countries and blew apart established societies, but as the era when secularization took over the world. "

March 2008 Atlantic Monthly

A very thorough and uplifting article on the state of religion and secularism.

Also a good excuse to post this graph again:

Pew survey: Americans freely change, or drop, their religions

2008-02-26T02:26:00.005+01:00

"Nothing" matters: 12.1% say their religious identity is "nothing in particular," outranking every denomination and tradition except Catholics (23.9%) and all groups of Baptists (17.2%).[...] Nearly 20% of all men and 13% of all women say they are unaffiliated. So are 25% of adults under age 30.[...] All the major Christian denominations are losing numbers fast. Only non-denominational Christian churches showed growth outpacing losses. "Two in three people who say they grew up as Jehovah's Witnesses have left the faith. Any one of 10 people you meet is a former Catholic," Lugo says.[...] "It will become increasingly difficult to find people who share a love for a distinct doctrine. [...] Green says he can already foresee implications in the public square as "firm beliefs and firm organizations are increasingly a thing of the past. In political life, when candidates go out to mobilize voters, they face a much more complicated picture.[...] Lugo predicts that as world religions such as Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism continue to grow in the USA through immigration and conversion, workplaces, schools and eventually the courts will face increasing challenges over religious accommodation.

USAToday, 25. February

"To illustrate this point, one need only look at the biggest gainer in this religious competition - the unaffiliated group. People moving into the unaffiliated category outnumber those moving out of the unaffiliated group by more than a three-to-one margin."

Pew Forum on religion

I was first a little dismayed to see that the numbers still were so low, but what's notable about this survey is how much things are changing, and that the losers in this game are traditional beliefs(catholic decline is only slowed down because of immigration), while the gainers are the unaffiliated.
It is also interesting that it will become much more difficult to use religion in politics, since you only end up gaining some and losing even more.

Faith school boom 'creates division'

2008-02-25T18:48:00.001+01:00

"The rapid growth of faith-based schools under the previous federal government has threatened the social cohesion of the nation, according to Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard's most senior education adviser.

[...]

Professor McGaw's remarks reflect a profound shift in education in the past two decades, with more than 200,000 children — almost 40% of non-government school students — now attending a religious school outside the main Catholic, Anglican and Uniting systems.
The change has meant that, for instance, increasing numbers of children are taught creationism as part of their science classes."

The Age, Australia, February 25, 2008