Carl Sagan's Understanding Of The Afterlife Is Both Delicate And Inspiring

Forcing a religion on your children is as bad as child abuse, claims atheist professor Richard Dawkins

Professor Richard Dawkins has claimed that forcing a religion on children without questioning its merits is as bad as 'child abuse'.

In typically incendiary style, the leading atheist said he was against the 'indoctrination of religion' and teaching it as fact.

The evolutionary scientist, speaking at the Chipping Norton Literary Festival yesterday, was repeating claims he made last year which were roundly condemned by charities and politicians.

Professor Dawkins said at the festival that children should be taught religion but scorn should be poured on its claims.

'What a child should be taught is that religion exists; that some people believe this and some people believe that,' the Daily Telegraph reported he had said.

'What a child should never be taught is that you are a Catholic or Muslim child, therefore that is what you believe. That's child abuse.'

He added that teaching children religion would help them understand literature.

Professor Dawkins, a biologist who revolutionised the theory of evolution with his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, added that he thought it was still important to teach children about different faiths.

Religion critic: Prof Dawkins' bestseller The God Delusion

'There is a value in teaching children about religion. You cannot really appreciate a lot of literature without knowing about religion. But we must not indoctrinate our children,' he said.

The former Oxford professor - who has been condemned as attention-seeking and unhelpful by critics - said last December that the mental torment inflicted by the religion’s teachings is worse in the long-term than any sexual abuse carried out by priests.

Prof Dawkins' best-selling book The God Delusion argues that belief in a supernatural creator is irrational and harmful to society.

In the earlier interview, he claimed he had been told by a woman that while being abused by a priest was a ‘yucky’ experience, being told as a child that a Protestant friend who died would ‘roast in Hell’ was more distressing.

In remarks to Qatar-based TV network Al Jazeera, he said: ‘Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.’

Interviewer Mehdi Hasan asked: ‘You believe that being bought up as a Catholic is worse than being abused by a priest?’.

Professor Dawkins replied: ‘There are shades of being abused by a priest, and I quoted an example of a woman in America who wrote to me saying that when she was seven years old she was sexually abused by a priest in his car.

‘At the same time a friend of hers, also seven, who was of a Protestant family, died, and she was told that because her friend was Protestant she had gone to Hell and will be roasting in Hell forever.

‘She told me of those two abuses, she got over the physical abuse; it was yucky but she got over it.

‘But the mental abuse of being told about Hell, she took years to get over.’

Religion...

Archbishop John Nienstedt Accused Of "Inappropriate Sexual Relations" With Priests And Other Men

Virulently anti-gay Minneapolis Archbishop John Nienstedt isbeing investigated for having had "inappropriate sexual relations" with priests, seminarians, and other men.

The archdiocese confirmed the investigation, which was first reported by Commonweal, a Catholic magazine based in New York. Nienstedt, 67, said in a separate statement that the allegations “are absolutely and entirely false” and he said he himself authorized the internal investigation, which he called “independent, thorough.” “The allegations do not involve minors or lay members of the faithful, and they do not implicate any kind of illegal or criminal behavior,” Nienstedt said. “The allegations involve events alleged to have occurred at least a decade ago, before I began serving in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.” Commonweal’s story cites Jennifer Haselberger, former top canon lawyer for Nienstedt, as saying she learned of the investigation when she was questioned by attorneys from the firm that the archdiocese hired, Greene Espel.

Nienstadt said today that the Vatican has been made aware of the investigation. More from Commonweal:

“I have never engaged in sexual misconduct and certainly have not made any sexual advances toward anyone,” Nienstedt told me. “The allegations are a decade old or more, prior to my service as archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis,” he continued, emphasizing that “none of the allegations involve minors or illegal or criminal behavior.” The “only accusation,” Nienstedt explained, is of “improper touching (of the person’s neck),” and was made by a former priest. The archbishop has been under intense scrutiny since September 2013, when Haselberger went public with damning accounts of the way the archdiocese had dealt with clerics accused of sexual misconduct. One of those priests was Curtis Wehmeyer, a man with a history of inappropriate sexual behavior who was nevertheless promoted by Nienstedt to become pastor of two parishes. Wehmeyer went on to molest children at one of those parishes. One of the questions investigators have been asking is whether the archbishop had an unprofessional relationship with Wehmeyer.

In 2012 Nienstedt supported NOM in the failed campaign to place a ban on same-sex marriage into the Minnesota state constitution. The Minneapolis Archdiocese reportedly committed $650,000 to the referendum.

Consider yourself Reminded - Hijack away!!!!

"The second annual March for Marriage is less than a week away and we are on the clock to get as many marriage supporters to Washington, D.C. as possible. On June 19th, thousands of Americans from all across the country will rally in and take to the streets of our nation's capital with the simple and beautiful message: marriage between one man and one woman is unique and critical for our society because children deserve the love and care of both a mother and a father. In order to show the nation the success of your efforts, NOM has set up a special email address that you can use to send pictures and video of the Rally and March as they happen. The email address is: pics@marriagemarch.org. Feel free to take pictures of the day's events, or even video, and send them to this email address so we can post them on the March for Marriage website. Together we'll demonstrate that across the nation the American people stand for marriage as one man and one woman." - Hate group leader Brian Brown, via email.

Next Thursday would be great time to hijack NOM's #MarriageMarch and #March4Marriage hashtags on Twitter with several thousand gay pride and gay wedding photos.

NOM: Send Us Your Hate March Photos

"The second annual March for Marriage is less than a week away and we are on the clock to get as many marriage supporters to Washington, D.C. as possible. On June 19th, thousands of Americans from all across the country will rally in and take to the streets of our nation's capital with the simple and beautiful message: marriage between one man and one woman is unique and critical for our society because children deserve the love and care of both a mother and a father. In order to show the nation the success of your efforts, NOM has set up a special email address that you can use to send pictures and video of the Rally and March as they happen. The email address is: pics@marriagemarch.org. Feel free to take pictures of the day's events, or even video, and send them to this email address so we can post them on the March for Marriage website. Together we'll demonstrate that across the nation the American people stand for marriage as one man and one woman." - Hate group leader Brian Brown, via email.

Next Thursday would be great time to hijack NOM's #MarriageMarch hashtag on Twitter with several thousand gay pride and gay wedding photos. I'll remind you.

Tony Perkins Has The Oregon Sadz

"This is another lawless decision that the Supreme Court has not provided any precedent for. The Supreme Court has said nothing that would give a federal judge the right to redefine marriage. In fact, the Supreme Court has granted stays in comparable cases which this judge failed to do. The judge's disregard for the rule of law and for the voters of Oregon is breathtaking. The state's failure to defend its own constitution, and the failure of an openly homosexual judge to recuse himself, demonstrate that this decision is without basis.

"If the courts believe they are going to resolve this issue once and for all by forcing a redefinition of marriage on the American people, they are wrong. The far reaching decision inRoe v. Wade was intended to resolve the issue of abortion, which 41 years later we know conclusively it did not. The definition of marriage, like the sanctity of human life, is seen in the natural or moral law. The decisions of courts can ignore it, they can even attempt to suppress it, but they will never eradicate it." - KKK affiliated hate group leader Tony Perkins, via press release.

Claiming My Religious Right

In the days of my youth, I knew little of the meanings of terms such as the "religious right" and the "liberal left." I was taught to believe in a loving God, and I have begun to understand that this is the greatest fortune of my birth.

I was raised by parents who believed in a loving God. The religious right that is the subject of this blog is not the religious right that comes to mind to classify a particular brand of faith—what I am speaking of is my right to believe in a loving God.

It is a right that was stolen from me, but it is a right I have claimed once again.

I don't believe that is in my prerogative to force my religious beliefs on another, nor is it a requirement for anyone to embrace the spiritual nature of the universe. I also do not believe that the Creator of the universe would require someone to believe before they are worthy of unconditional love—adding the requirement of believing in God in order to qualify for unconditional love kind of negates the unconditional part. It is my right to believe in unconditional love.

Yet why is it that we are so eager to put conditions on God's unconditional love? You have to be straight. You can't be transgender. You have to be Christian. You have to believe. No, none of these things.

All that is required to receive God's love is to be, and if God loves you as you are, so should I.

During the first 30 years of my adult life, I came to believe in a God with whom I found no favor because I was transgender. "Just don't be that way"—this is the message of a dark religiousness, as though that idea never occurred to me. There is the reality of the tens of thousands of prayers I sent to God, asking to be fixed. Begging to be made right. Praying to be made whole.

If God created any of us, then God created me too. If God created me as a transgender human being, who is anyone to tell me that God didn’t do that? The question of dark religiousness is “Do you think God made a mistake?” My response is, "No, I don’t. Do you?"

Are Millennials Leaving Religion Over LGBT Issues?

The American religious landscape is evolving rapidly. During the last decade, the proportion of religiously unaffiliated Americans has more than doubled—21 percent identify as unaffiliated today, compared to eight percent in 2003. Millennials are three times more likely than the oldest generation to identify as religiously unaffiliated (32 percent vs. 10 percent).

The fact that most Millennials who are now religiously unaffiliated were raised in a religious tradition raises important questions about the forces responsible for this recent shift. PRRI’s latest survey finds one reason for high rates of disaffiliation among Millennials is their perception about how religious institutions treat gay and lesbian people. Among Millennials who no longer identify with their childhood religion, nearly one-third say negative teachings about, or treatment of, gay and lesbian people was either a somewhat important (17 percent) or very important (14 percent) factor in their disaffiliation from religion. In contrast, fewer than 1-in-5 Baby Boomers (19 percent) and Silent Generation Americans (17 percent) who have disaffiliated report that this was a somewhat or very important reason for their leaving.

Moreover, the implications of religious institutions’ ideologies about, and treatment of, gay and lesbian people are viewed similarly by Millennials and Americans overall. Most Americans agree that religious groups are alienating young people by being too judgmental about gay and lesbian issues. Nearly 6-in-10 (58 percent) Americans agree that religious groups are alienating young people, while roughly one-third (35 percent) disagree. Millennials remain most likely to believe that religious groups are alienating young people. Seven-in-ten (70 percent) Millennials believe that religious groups are alienating young adults by being too judgmental about gay and lesbian issues. In contrast, only roughly 4-in-10 (43 percent) members of the Silent Generation believe that religious groups are alienating young people, while nearly as many (44 percent) disagree.

For the Bible Tells Me So

This wonderful documentary premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in 2007 the same time as the movie Save Me. We tried to get tickets to a screening but were unable to. I did get to attend a panel discussion with the creators of both movies. It was very interesting.

The separation of religion and hate: Attacking the protection of freedom

Almost since the days of Stonewall and the decriminalization of homosexuality between consenting adults, I have been amongst those who have warned that historically, countries which accepted or tolerated same-sex relationships have, with rare exception, eventually introduced or reintroduced anti-gay laws.
This is one of the main reasons why recognition of same-sex marriage is so important. If the state recognizes the right of those couples to consent to marrying each other, they attract all the social recognition and benefits of marriage, and it becomes extremely difficult to deny their equality in the secular state.
However, there is a real threat from those forces who disapprove of human rights equality, because of their beliefs, religious or otherwise.
That threat is not solely aimed at the LGBTQ community, it has much larger number of targets and a wider agenda.
The very core of the foundation of the U.S. Constitution is under attack, and it seems that the attackers relate very favorably to those who have encouraged Uganda and Nigeria, to mention just two nations, in their terrifying anti-gay legislation.
The real concern, additional to the anti-gay intolerance, is a call to amend the Constitution; even to rewrite it, amounting to little more than a theocracy under which any religion could claim supremacy.
Think for a moment of the lurch to right-wing extremist conservatism, observable in so many nations, including Australia, and Russia, as well as the Bible Belt in the U.S.
Reports of calls for a rewrite of the Constitution are very worrying, and if you think they could not succeed then you probably thought that the Tea Party-Republicans wouldn’t obstruct the Democrats or the President as they have done since President Obama took office.
Whatever its flaws, whatever its failures to realize legislation that reflects its ideals, the U.S. Constitution is the world’s safeguard for individual freedom from religious persecution, whilst maintaining the right to individual opinion. Removing the freedom of, and from, religion is very dangerous, but so too, is the assumption that such freedom favors one religion over others.
For the sake of whatever belief or non-belief has taken your fancy, we need to encourage a massive turnout at the forthcoming midterm elections to quell the ability of those who would rewrite one of the few documents that stops the world from plunging into another horrifying dark age of ignorance and primitive stupidity.
It may not be the separation of Church and State, in the current analysis, that is as important as the separation of Religion and hate.

Rape victim sentenced 200 lashes by Saudi court

"The victim's sentence was increased because her lawyer had spoken out..."

When the defense attorney for a raped Saudi Arabian woman appealed a Sharia Court decision that the 90-lash sentence against his client was unjust, all that was succeeded was the more than doubling of the punishment meted out to the woman who was raped and beaten by seven men, as reported by the women’s rights-centered news portal The Clarion Project on Sept. 22, 2013.

A yet to be publiclly identified female gang rape victim was initially found guilty and sentenced to 90 lashes for violating the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's (KSA) rigid Islamic law on segregation of the sexes.

The Kingdom’s General Court determined the woman sat in an automobile with an old school chum to whom she was no blood relation, hence, she violated Islamic Sharia Law of gender segregation.

The victim’s lawyer Abdul Rahman al-Lahem had plead to the international community for help in freeing his client or at least pressuring the Saudi government to grant an appeal.

From Bad To Worse…

And an appeal he got -- along with an increase in sentence from 90 lashes to 200 along with a six month prison sentence tacked on for good measure.

The KSA Ministry of Justice implied the victim's sentence was increased because her lawyer had spoken out to the world’s news outlets.

As carried by the government’s official Saudi Press Agency:

For whoever has an objection on verdicts issued, the system allows to appeal without resorting to the media.

The statement also said that the "charges were proven" against the woman for having been in a car with a strange male, and repeated criticism of her lawyer for talking "defiantly" about the judicial system, saying "it has shown ignorance."

The Lead Up…

The victim was attacked in 2006 while she was attempting to retrieve a photograph from a male high school student she knew.

While in her acquaintance’s vehicle, two other men got in the car and drove the woman and her friend to a secluded area where five other men met them.

It was in this remote area where all seven men raped the woman.

The Clarion Project also cited that the woman’s friend was in turn “attacked” by the assailants, but it is unclear if he was beaten, raped or both.

The Price of Questioning Saudi Law...

Abdul Rahman al-Lahem has since banned him from further defending the woman, the KSA has confiscated his law license and summoning him to a disciplinary hearing later this month.

Same thing with Mega Churches in America! Which is it?

WOMAN BEING DENIED CITIZENSHIP BECAUSE HER MORALITY DOESN’T COME FROM RELIGION

Margaret Doughty, a 64-year old woman from the UK who has spent the past 30+ years in the U.S., is in the process of applying for United States Citizenship and happens to be an atheist. She is currently a permanent resident running non-profit adult literacy organizations, doing her part to enrich the lives of American citizens. In the process of applying for citizenship, all candidates are asked if they’d be willing to take up arms in defense of the United States of America.  Ms. Doughty responded,

“I am sure the law would never require a 64 year-old woman like myself to bear arms, but if I am required to answer this question, I cannot lie. I must be honest. The truth is that I would not be willing to bear arms. Since my youth I have had a firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or in the bearing of arms.  I deeply and sincerely believe that it is not moral or ethical to take another person’s life, and my lifelong spiritual/religious beliefs impose on me a duty of conscience not to contribute to warfare by taking up arms…my beliefs are as strong and deeply held as those who possess traditional religious beliefs and who believe in God…I want to make clear, however, that I am willing to perform work of national importance under civilian direction or to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States if and when required by the law to do so.”

Rick Perry Signs ‘Merry Christmas’ Bill, Says ‘Religious Freedom Does Not Mean Freedom From Religion’

Texas Governor Rick Perry has just signed the “Merry Christmas” bill, which protects schools from being sued for educating “students about the history of traditional winter celebrations,” and allows “students and district staff to offer traditional greetings regarding the celebrations, including ‘Merry Christmas’; ‘Happy Hanukkah’; and ‘happy holidays.’”

“Surrounded by sleigh bell-ringing Santa Claus impersonators, Gov. Rick Perry on Thursday signed a law protecting Christmas and other holiday celebrations in Texas public schools from legal challenges — but also stressed that freedom of religion is not the same thing as freedom from religion,” the StarTribune reports:

It was a serious tone for an otherwise fun bill-signing and should bolster the governor’s Christian conservative credentials before he travels to Washington for the Faith & Freedom Coalition’s “Road to Majority” conference with the likes of tea party darlings and U.S. Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Kentucky’s Rand Paul and fellow Texan Ted Cruz.
Dubbed the “Merry Christmas” bill, the bipartisan measure sailed through the state House and Senate to reach Perry’s desk.
It removes legal risks of saying “Merry Christmas” in schools while also protecting traditional holiday symbols, such as a menorah or nativity scene, as long as more than one religion and a secular symbol are also reflected.
“I realize it’s only June. But it’s a good June and the holidays are coming early this year,” Perry said. “It’s a shame that a bill like this one I’m signing today is even required, but I’m glad that we’re standing up for religious freedom in this state. Religious freedom does not mean freedom from religion.”

But in fact, religious freedom does also mean freedom from religion.

House Panel Adds Measure to Defense Bill That Would Protect Anti-Gay Harassment, Discrimination

An amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) offered by Rep. John Fleming (R-LA, pictured) was accepted by the House Armed Services Committee last night. Read it here. The amendment expands "conscience protections" in the NDAA, offering a 'license to bully' based on religious beliefs.
According to Outserve-SLDN:

If enacted, the Fleming amendment would protect inappropriate, defamatory, and discriminatory speech and actions – a significant expansion of current protections for beliefs – and would leave commanders with no recourse against such prejudicial conduct when it occurs in their units.

The group says the bill would also "compromise religious liberties of service members, erode the ability of military commanders to protect good order and discipline, and undermine the successful implementation of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal."
Raw Story adds:

“Basically, you can believe what you believe and not be punished for it, but if your actions based on those beliefs are counter to the Uniform Code of Military Justice or counter to what’s necessary, that can be held against you,” Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) explained last year, when the conscience protections were first added to the defense spending bill.

But Fleming’s amendment would require the Pentagon to accommodate religious “speech and actions” — not just beliefs.

Said Army veteran and OutServe-SLDN Executive Director Allyson Robinson, an ordained Baptist minister:

"Religious liberty is a core American value, and we support the accommodation of all beliefs. What we can never support is legislation that sanctions one belief at the expense of others and places unit cohesion, the safety of our troops, and their ability to accomplish the mission in jeopardy, and that’s exactly what this bill would do...The military already has in place policies that adequately protect a service member’s personal beliefs while also protecting unit cohesion and good order and discipline. This amendment is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to sabotage the climate of inclusion and respect for all that our Commander-in-Chief and Secretary of Defense have called for in our military, and would create a license to bully, harass, and discriminate against service members based on religion, gender, sexual orientation, or any number of other characteristics."

Corporations have religious liberty, my friend

Especially after the 2012 presidential race, we're pretty familiar with the assertion that corporations are people, so I suppose it's only natural for some corporate lawyers to argue that they have the same religious liberty rights as people, too.

In the most prominent challenge of its kind, Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. asked a federal appeals court Thursday for an exemption from part of the federal health care law that requires it to offer employees health coverage that includes access to the morning-after pill.

The Oklahoma City-based arts-and-crafts chain argued that businesses -- not just the currently exempted religious groups -- should be allowed to seek exception from that section of the health law if it violates their religious beliefs.

When it comes to the federal law that treats contraception as preventive care, available without copays, the Obama administration already exempts houses of worship. The White House also created a compromise for business owners so that they wouldn't have to cover contraception costs directly through their insurance plans.

But for Hobby Lobby, that's apparently not quite good enough. The company's lawyer, Kyle Duncan, said that if corporations have free-speech rights under Citizens United, then corporations have religious liberty, too.

"We don't say, well, a corporation can't exercise a right because it's in corporate form," Duncan said. "Is religion the kind of right can only be exercised by a natural person? Well, the question nearly answers itself. ... It's not a purely personal right."

And in this case, this "person" is so opposed to birth control, he/she/it doesn't want his/her/its employees to have subsidized access to contraception, the workers' preferences notwithstanding.
The Obama administration, not surprisingly, doesn't see it that way.

A lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice argued that allowing for-profit corporations to exempt themselves from requirements that violate their religious beliefs would be in effect allowing the business to impose its religious beliefs on employees.

"If you make an exemption for the employer, it comes at the expense of the employee," said Alisa Klein, who argued the government's case in a similar contraceptives mandate appeal heard Wednesday in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

So, do the religious-liberty claims of pseudo-people (corporations) trump the interests of real people (the business' employees)? I'll look forward to the ruling.

Four Great Religious Truths

We're Still Waiting!