Please stop with the persecution complex!

Do you really think that Christians in the USA are persecuted?  Is your opinion of your religion that inflated that you think that Christians need more rights and respect at the cost of American citizens of different beliefs?  Do you really think that given a Christians receive less respect then those with other beliefs?

The USA has a majority of people that identify as Christian.  73% at the latest count.  Almost 20% of American self identify as non religious.  Yet Congress is about 90% Christian and 9% Jewish. Hmmm seems we have about 20% of our country not represented yet if you listen to Fox News it is Christians that are the powerless ones.

It isn't Christians that are looked down upon by the majority of the country.  There are polls and studies that show that the majority of Americans would trust an atheist LESS then they would trust a rapist. As scared as many American's are of Muslims they are more likely to vote for a Muslim for president then an atheist.

You have government officials that instead of giving equal treatment to a secular organisation they prevented a Christian organisation from doing the same thing just to spite the secular organisation.  So here you have two organisations that want to help people. One is Christian and the other is run by an atheist.  The Christian politician decided that he would pull support from the Christian organisation rather then affording the secular group the same privileges.  Who is the one that is being persecuted and who is doing the persecuting?

 How many times do I have to see memes like this?

Let us look at the logical fallacies here.

First off  America is NOT a Christian Nation.  From the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

America is a nation for people of ALL faiths and religious beliefs.  Not just the thousands of Christian denominations that can't even agree on the interpretation of most of their holy book.

Second, who exactly says that YOU can't say "Merry Christmas"?
When has someone bitched you out for saying "Merry Christmas"?

Many people and organisations say "Happy Holidays" because there are other people in the USA that celebrate different holidays around this time of year, including pagans from which the Christmas Holiday was co-opted from the holiday of Saturnalia.

So if you are offended that other people and organisations are not paying your religion enough attention that is your problem.  There is no war on Christmas or Christians.  There are just people of other faiths that would like to pay and receive respect to people of all faiths and the rights our constitution guarantees. Every time someone claims the USA is a "Christian Nation" they marginalize all American's that don't self identify as Christians.  I didn't serve my country for 6 years just for Christians. I served my country for the benefit of ALL its citizens.

So for once I'd like to see Christians actually act as suggested in Ephesians 4:1-3 "I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace"

If you want to say "Merry Christmas" then go for it but don't EVER tell someone else that they must express a greeting in the manner which you demand.  Are you going to bitch me out if someone sneezes and I say "Gesundheit" instead of "God bless you"? Do you even want a blessing from a heathen like me?  Sure, with 80% of America worshiping the Abrahamic god I'd probably be fine with that response.  I'm sure most of the other 20% wouldn't care that I said "God bless you either".  I may get a few people say something like "Actually I don't believe in God but thank you" and I know this because I have at times said this and heard other atheists say it.  So isn't saying something like "Health" a more inclusive response?  You won't hear a Swede yell at me because I didn't say "prosit".  They wouldn't go away and start a meme implying they where discriminated against because someone didn't greet them in the way they normally greet others.  They'd probably say thank you and move on grateful that they were acknowledged

Stop with the persecution complex because when minorities, that are really persecuted, see/ hear you complain then it just leaves them with a bad feeling about your self righteousness.

The History of Christmas

  Happy Holidays everyone and for those that feel offended about me not saying "Merry Christmas" read on and tell me at the end if you think of Christmas in the same way.  Nothing I am about to write about is under any doubt with biblical scholars including Christian biblical scholars.  It is simply the history of Christmas much of which you may find shocking.

  First many Christians believe Jesus was born on December 25th but this is most likely not true.  First there is no date specified anywhere in the bible's New Testament of Jesus's birth year forget its day.  The year can be deduced from 2 passages, but like many things in the bible are not consistent. The first is Luke 3:1-23 which reads

1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,
2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; ...

the bible goes on to say

21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Now this means he was born 15 years before Tiberius was in power or Augustus's 28th year of power.  This equates to 754 Anno Urbis Conditae which was the calendar in use at that time.  So 754= 1AD.  The problem is that Luke 1:1-26 puts Jesus's birth in the time of King Herod and King Herod died in 750 AUC or for you that are good at maths, 4BC. Even if you deal with the length of the pregnancy of Elisabeth and some change you are still 2+ years short of 1AD. There are many other scholars that put Jesus's birth as far back as 9 B.C.  One thing we do know, and have very good records of, is that the Romans where very good at having very detailed records of governmental actions and they show no evidence of the census Luke speaks of in Luke2:1-52

So there is some doubt to the year Jesus was born.  The day also has no evidence of even being in December.  Clement of Alexandria estimated the birth of Jesus to be in April or May 4-2B.C. (750-752 AUC).  Joseph Fitzmyer, professor emeritus at The Catholic University of America, estimates Jesus was born in September 11, 3 B.C.  It was also a common Jewish belief in those early years that great men, like Jesus, died on the day of their birth putting Jesus's birthday at March 25th.

So if December 25th isn't Jesus's Birthday then "what is going on with Christmas?" you might ask.  Well it is very clear that early Christianity co-opted the Festival of Saturnalia which was celebrated from Dec 17^th to the 25^th. This was a brutal holiday in the Roman Empire that concluded with the festival of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti or for you that don't speak latin it is the birthday of the unconquered sun.  Saturnalia included such practices as going from house to house singing, modern day caroling, they just did it nude back in those days, eating cookies that are in the shape of people, giving of gifts between people and a few others.  The Roman Empire, in those days, was a large group of "cults".  Before you get up in arms there are plenty of Christian cults too.  The "Christmas tree" is an adoption of the Asherah symbol.  In early years of Christianity Asherah was worshiped as also the consort of Yahweh.  Hey look ... "God" had a wife!.

Santa Claus has a very interesting history.  First let me point out that despite what Fox News will have you believe Saint Nicholas was not white. He was born it what is now Turkey.  So instead of looking like this

rather he probably looked like this

Not very "white" but very indicative of the region he was born.  He was also part of the Council of Nicaea that was responsible for the creation of the New Testament in 325.  Centuries after his death his remains where brought to Italy where there used to be a belief that an ancient female deity would put gifts in stockings.  This seems to be a merger of a fable of Saint Nicholas placing gold coins in he stockings of 3 poor girls. The cult of Nicholas promoted the change of gift giving from Dec 6th, the day he died, to December 25.  Another part to incorporate pagans of the time into the Christian faith.  In the early 1800's Dr C. Moore published "Twas the night before Christmas".  Later in the 1800's Thomas Nast illustrated a more jolly Santa and assigned him a home in the North Pole.  In 1931 Coca-Cola finished the transformation of Saint Nicholas into the modern image we have of Santa.

The practice of forcing Jewish people to run, nearly naked, through the streets of Rome, a throw back to the early Saturnalia festival, was only stopped by Pope Clement IX in 1668.  A practice that lasted just over 2 centuries after Pope Paul II revived the practice in 1466.  This practice was again altered in the 1700s to force rabbis in Rome to walk through the streets while dressed in degrading costumes and having items thrown at them by on lookers.  A petition sent to Pope Gregory XVI to stop the practice received the reply of "It is not opportune to make any innovation"

It is because of the pagan origins of Christmas that the Puritans banned Christmas in Massachusetts for over 20 years in the mid 1600s. They didn't accept the holiday since the primary purpose of its creation was to appease pagans and fold them into the Christian faith.  Today this type of practice would be similar to "lying for Jesus" a practice where some Christians justify lying to others if it serves what they believe to be the greater good of Christianity.

Today's holiday's roots do run very deep but today's version is very recent.  Many Christians believe it has been a wonderful holiday for the last 2,000 years but the reality is for 90% of that time it was a very cruel holiday that used old pagan traditions to persecute the Jewish people.

Should you not celebrate Christmas because of this?  I wouldn't say that. I would say you should know were your holiday came from.  Know its good parts and its bad parts.  Celebrate your savior if you so wish but understand it is not his birthday.   Know that Saint Nicholas was  middle eastern and not anglo-saxon just like Jesus was not blond hair and blue eyed but also was of middle eastern descent.  Next time you hear someone say Jesus or Santa was white...point out that you don't like when they lie for Jesus and if they aren't lying then they should learn the truth about their religious figures and embrace their heritage. Hopefully their heads won't explode when you explain that they are middle eastern and not white.

If you consider your self religious then please learn about your religion and where it came from!

  Does the average Christian out there find it embarrassing that the average atheist knows more about the Christian religion then most Christians do?  Christians shouldn't feel alone though.  Atheist on average know more about all religions then any other group based on belief.  Mormons and evangelicals can feel good that they know slightly more about the bible and Christianity then the average atheist but not much.
  This quick rant was triggered by reading a bunch of ignorant Christians bitch about how they would not thank Allah because Allah is a false god or something similar.  Allah is the same God as Yahweh and Jehovah.  All three religions are Abrahamic religions.  They all have the same roots.  They all worship the same "God".  Sure there are differences in the religions but that doesn't change the fact that you worship the same "God".  Within Christianity there are over 40,000 different denominations and some very radical differences between them too.  There is a joke about how there are as many different denominations of Christianity as there are Christians.
  So please before you bag another religion actually learn about it and while you are at it learn about your own religion at the same time.  If you just want to believe as you do now without learning more then keep you mouth shut about other religions.  In fact take some advice from Saint Augustine.
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."
In short if you don't know about a topic keep your mouth closed in discussions about that topic in relationship to your religious beliefs.  Because you just weaken your religious position in the eyes of others.  Why should I give any credit to your religious beliefs if you make stupid statements trying to defend your religion that are easily shown to be false?

Pat Robertson "jokes" about beating a non subservient wife.

This is ridiculous.  In today's age there are still people that think wives should be subservient to the husband in a house hold. Here Pat Robertson keep saying things like "He can't let her get away with this stuff", "I don't think we condone wife beating these days, but somethings got to be done to make her."

This is what the husband has wrote in

"My wife has become a real problem.  She has no respect for me as the head of the house.  She insults me and she even went as far as stretching her hand to beat me.  I've lost my self confidence. Her words hurt so much and she refuses to talk through our problems.  Please tell me what I can do. - Michael"


Now I don't condone abuse from either side.  The woman in question apparently is psychologically abusive to her husband.  But isn't her husband psychologically abusive to her if he demands respect as "the head of the house."?  Respect is earned not claimed and just because a bunch of stories, written and modified over a few hundred years and which are at least 2,000 years old, says shit like.
Ephesians 5:22 "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord."
Corinthians 7:4 "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife."
Note that here it isn't strict submission but a partnership but both ways this is bad to think your partner can demand sex when ever they want regardless of your feelings.
One Timothy 2:12 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

Does not mean we should keep this 2,000+ year old "morality"

In an age where the GOP don't want women to have equal pay where all but 1 republican senators blocked the the bill from going forward and the one outlier didn't vote.  In an age where the GOP thinks that an employer should be able to deny a woman reproductive health care.  You can see how the GOP not only wants wives to be submissive to their husbands but they want women to be subservient to men.

The woman talking to Pat Robertson suggested counselling for the couple but he did little more then nod in agreement before going back to ranting how the woman must be mentally ill and suggesting that the husband move to Saudi Arabia.

There are plenty of good religious people but it is idiots like Pat Robertson and those that follow him blindly that make religious people look like cave men.  If you are religious get out from under a big tent if you are under it and voice your opinion.  Show that most religious people are not bigots and backwards.  Show that a husband and wife are an equal partnership not this crazy ass relationship that many vocal religious nut jobs want.

Religion and Atheism on ABC Q&A: Part 1

Dawkins & Pell on ABC's Q&A

Richard Dawkins vs
Cardinal George Pell 

ABC's Q&A : Religion and Atheism  

This will be a multi part blog as if I do all of it at once it will take days.

This was a very interesting talk found here.  I heard a talk between Dawkins and Krauss about this talk before I heard the Dawkins/Pell talk.  I have to say I think Dawkins and Krauss are overly critical of Cardinal Pell.  It is understandable as they are often faced with people who distort the facts or don't understand the science all the time but I think Cardinal Pell was much better then the average individuals that engage in these types of talks.  But then he should be.  He is a highly educated person.

Let me start off by saying I'm agnostic at best, from the view point of those that are religious, and atheistic in practice.  My beliefs are my own.  I have justifications for my beliefs but I do not care if others have differing views from mine as long as they don't feel the need to force their beliefs on others.  This doesn't mean I won't defend my beliefs if challenged but you should never hear me say someone is wrong for their spiritual beliefs unless those beliefs contradict reality.  But the existance of God is not contradictory to reality while something like the denile of evolution, no rainbows before 'Noah's Flood' or any global flood a few thousand years ago are contradictions of reality.

It isn't easy being an atheist.  A study preformed in Canada showed that religious believers distrusted atheist more then any other groups and on par with rapists.  This is a totally undeserved reaction by the many of various religious persuasion.   People have preconceptions about atheists that are often blatantly wrong like "atheist have no sense of morals" or "atheist hate Christians" or "atheist don't know anything about [insert religion here]".  While you'll be able to find individual atheists that one or more of those statements apply as as demographic those statements, and many more like them, are demonstrably false.  So keep in mind that while you may not have negative preconceptions about atheist, studies show that most people do and that can and does effect how many atheist may respond to certain situations.  The old verbiage 'If it walks like a duck..." may seem like an unreasonable prejudging of peoples motives but if you walk past 9 people and they all punch you is it really unreasonable to think that the 10th person is going to punch you too so it is ok to flinch even if offends that 10th person.

Back to the Dawkins/Pell talk.

Dawkins was on the defencive from the start.  He, wrongly, assumed the audience was very biased against him but watching the whole show it was clear that the mix of people there seemed very supportive of both views.  I think it was just the first few questions where targeted against Athiesm where many of the final questions where targeted or "loaded" questions against thiesm.

For those that don't know Dawkins he can come across very rough at times.  He's a hard core atheist but in this talk he was actually holding back a fair bit from his normal deminer. Over all, if you listen to the words and meanings, he is very clear about his beliefs and atheism in general.

I'll critique the questions and responses as I see them then put in my 2 cents worth.

Question #1: At Easter Australia's religious leaders invoke the name of God in order to preach peace, tolerance, political integrity, social and moral fortitude, all obviously positive and worthwhile values. My question is: in what way is the practice of these values dependent on an existing God? Is it possible for an atheist to be a peace loving socially responsible person?

Dawkins: He articulates the fact that you can, and most people do, have these values regardless of their beliefs and that it makes sense that Christianity would adopt the values and "they don't belong to Christianity".  But then he steps beyond the question and points out why defining the bible as your source of morality is a philosophically bad idea.

Cardinal Pell: Pell goes on the defensive right away and says this "First of all our tradition goes back about 4,000 years so whatever these values are that we’ve taken over, we’ve got to go back a little bit of a distance".  Seems a bit of a non argument if you are paying attention.  First Christianity is only half that age which shows that Dawkins statement is correct in that Christianity can't claim to be the source of these values.  To boot humans have been around for about 196,000 years longer then the people Cardinal Pell speaks of.   Pell then goes on to try to claim Christianity was responsible for women's rights, a bit ironic when you consider what is going on in the USA right now forget 2,000 years ago, and infanticide.  At this point he was pointed out that he wasn't answering the question asked.   Then quickly agrees that atheist can be good people but throws a spin that it helps to believe in God and it is to easy to be bad if you don't.



Me: These values are values of society and not the purview of any one group of people regardless of religious beliefs or lack their off.  They, values, evolve with society.  What people consider tolerant is based on the time.  Right now we are tackling the issue of tolerance toward the LGBT community.  We are still battling with tolerance toward various racial and (non)religious groups.  50 years ago interracial marriage was taboo and as  George Takei says "Growing up in California, it was illegal for Asians to marry whites. How times have changed. I married a white DUDE. And an adorable one, too!". Even so many in California would, and have, tried to not only deny him that right but actively seek to undo his marriage.  While I concede that the belief in god(s) doesn't necessarily itself hurt these values I point out that the doctrines and interpretations of many religions do.  Especially when it comes to tolerance of others.   To the second part it is out right a ridiculous question in one aspect and very sensible in another.  Since many people have a preconception that atheist can't be this I guess it needs to be answered.

Question #2: Religion is precisely often blamed for being the root of war and conflict but what about all the good it has done for society. God-centred religion has been the birth place of schools, universities, hospitals and countless developments in science. Richard, if you believe the human drive to seek the truth and to constantly improve ourselves is merely a mechanism for survival, then what’s the point and why should I bother?

Dawkins: He again puts it in great terms.  Pointing out that Cardinal Pell tries to claim things like women's rights as a result of Christianity in stalk contrast to the reality that women's writes were gained from society in general and with little help from Christianity.  Atheist are willing to stand up and face the issues of society head on and in reality are more altruistic because what they do will always have a more limited benefit for them then those that believe that they'll be rewarded in the afterlife for 'good' deeds.

Me: The question is a bit misinformed.  Public schools came from ancient Greece.  The were a result of part of society having enough resources where it could spare the time to educate some of the population.  This is generally true of all societies.  When societies thrive you see a blossoming of culture.  Ancient Egypt had public medicine.  For me religion is not the root of war.  Humans seeking more power is the root of war.  These people may try to justify their grabs for power in the name of religion.  Hitler and Luther try to use religion as a justification for hatred against the Jews but it is simply a power issue where they viewed a different group of people doing well and wanted what they had and thought they should just be able to take it from them. Note: if you think Hitler was an atheist then you really need to learn the history better.

Question #3:  Okay, my question for you today is: without religion, where is the basis of our values and in time, will we perhaps revert back to Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest?

Dawkins: Points out that values come from within ourselves and our interaction with our society.  That he hopes we don't fall into some social Darwinism because, while survival of the fittest is part of the explanation of evolution and for the diversity of life, it is a very bad social model.

Cardinal Pell: Tries to twist, knowingly or unknowingly, Dawkins words by using the various definitions of "Why" and never really answers the question.

Me: Science can answer "why" we are here in that the "why" is the processes and mechanisms that led us to where we are today both physically, biologically and psychologically.  Every day we learn more and more, through science, about the universe and objects within it, including ourselves.  We learn more and more about psychology, culture, emotions, and the development of these areas.  We can give people a scientific reason for near death experiences.  We can give people scientific reasons for the tendency for religious beliefs.  We can give people scientific reasons why humans and chimpanzees, or humans and mushrooms for that matter, share common ancestors.  The Cardinal tries to flip the meaning of "Why" to a purpose, I.E. The question 'Why am I here? How does evolution explain the progression of life one cell creatures over 3 billion years ago to every living creature we see today?' verse 'Why am I here? What is my purpose in life?'  The former question is scientific.  The latter is philosophical and by its nature outside of the realm of science.  In my view  using a bait and switch tactic like this is the same as trying to get those ignorant of the scientific definition of "theory: a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence"  to think scientists are using the layman's definition of "I've got this idea" that often doesn't have any evidence.  The Cardinal at one point says "science tells us nothing about why there was the big bang".  This was caught by Dawkins and is a bad "god of the gaps" approach.  First because it is a "god of the gaps" claim and even worse it really isn't a gap.  Science is making good progress on why there was a big bang and the Cardinal should know this because he read Krauss's new book which provides some explanations.  Now the science of why there was a big bang is a very different question then "what is the purpose of the universe".  Science doesn't need a purpose to the universe just like science doesn't need a philosophical reason for gravity.

To be continued...

Until then I encourage you to watch the entire show yourself.

1. ABC Q&A : Religion and Atheism

Pot calling the Kettle black

We often hear Christians say that a prayer or religious symbol at a US government function is fine and that atheists shouldn't complain.  But is this the pot calling the kettle black?

How many of those Christians that complain that their religious freedoms are being stepped upon when it is asked that the separation between church and state be upheld would stand by if an adhan was done in their town?  Hell many Christians freak out if there is a proposal for a mosque to be built any where near by.

The separations of church and state is there for a reason.  So that no American feels undo pressure, about their religious beliefs or lack there of, from the government.

So if you are one of those people that think that atheists are the problem ask yourself  "would you mind at the same time as your "state sponsored prayer" that a Muslim call to prayer be held, then a Hindu mantras, then a Buddhist chant, then a Wiccan ceremony...."  The list goes on.  You don't have to join in.  Just look away when the high priestess and priest have sexual intercourse to invoke their gods powers.

To often people think it is ok because it is their world view but soon forget the "tolerance" they expect of others when it is someone else's world view that is asked to be publicly displayed.  Forget about being promoted by some government official in their official government capacity.