It's that time of year again. The winter cold is settling in, the decorations are up, and the holiday season is setting in. It's an annual tradition that impacts nearly everyone in the Western and Non-Western world. It is the time of the Christmas holiday, a holiday which is deeply steeped in modern culture. It is a festive time when people celebrate the season through family, faith, and gift-giving.

Now this time of year is special to me personally. As a non-believer who does not believe in the Christian god or the miracles of the bible any more than any other claim in mythology, many assume I'm left conflicted. This isn't necessarily the truth. Growing up I always loved Christmas, even before I was a devout Christian and before I became a non-believer. Some of my fondest memories are of Christmas. My family has always made an extra effort to make Christmas special and I've carried on with that tradition.

While I understand that Christmas is strongly tied to the story of Jesus's birth and is deeply steeped in Christian tradition, I never associated the holiday exclusively with religion. To me religion was a part of it, but it wasn't the only part. I always focused on the charity, good-will, and humanity aspects that Christmas evoked. To me these were and still are strongly associated with the teachings of Jesus Christ. He more than anyone embodied the spirit of Christmas in his teachings. Even a non-believer can respect those teachings and appreciate the holiday traditions.

Now that I am a non-believer, Christmas has taken on a slightly different context. But the meaning has never changed. I still put up a tree. I still wrap presents. I still decorate my house and spend time with my family. There just isn't a religious subtext to it anymore. I do it out of tradition and culture and I still enjoy every bit as much as I did when I was a devout Christian. Even my friends who are religious appreciate this and I wish them good will regardless of my non-belief. Even though Christmas has always been special to me, this time of year routinely evokes the usual War on Christmas in the media.

A lot of people think that because I'm a non-believer I'm on the side of the politically correct crowd when it comes to Christmas. They're dead wrong. I'm against pretty much everything the politically correct crowd stands for and that includes Christmas. I don't believe "Happy Holidays" should be mandated to be sensitive to other faiths. I don't believe nativity scenes should be banned or Christmas carols should be censored. This is a free country and these things are part of free expression. Nobody has a right NOT to be offended and if they don't like seeing this sort of thing that's their problem. They can move to a place with less freedom if that'll make them happier. It certainly wouldn't be in the spirit of the season.

Some of the more extreme atheists go so far as to twist Christmas into this secular holiday with none of the traditions that make it special. This is where I disagree. Christmas, like it or not, DOES have religious undertones. It always has even before Christianity. To take that out of it in the name of secularism is to miss the point of the free society. Christmas is not something the far left crowd should regulate. This is a tradition steeped in culture and in free societies cultures are free to express their traditions so long as they don't impose on anybody else with force. I find it embarressing for rational and reasonably minded non-believers when some atheist spokesperson tries to make a bold statement about Christmas in the media and utterly misses the point. They may claim that Christmas needs to be overhauled, but they cannot do that without infringing on the rights and traditions of others. Regardless of what anybody does or doesn't believe, that's just plain wrong.

The War on Christmas has become a joke. On one side there is fear that some crusading atheists will destroy the holiday and on the other side there is fear that some crusading Christians will use the holiday to impose their beliefs. Both are foolish and do the holiday a great disservice by politicizing it into this struggle between one group of people and another. That isn't what the spirit of the holiday is about. Even the most dogmatic crusader of either side can understand how ridiculous it is to use the holiday as a means to push an agenda.

What's important about this time of year is that humans have been celebrating it in good spirit for a long time. Even before the birth of Christ, this time of year evoked many celebrations. The Winter Solstice when Christmas occurs has long been a special time of year in many cultures. It stems from mankind's obsession with predicting and understanding the seasons, winter being one of the most important. It is when the days stop getting shorter and the nights stop getting longer that mankind feels a sort of kinship with nature and celebrations will inevitably follow. Every culture from pre-Christian pagans to Native Americans to Buddhists have some holiday associated with this time of year. It is only fitting that everyone has a chance to enjoy it without politics making an agenda out of it.

The Holidays of the Winter Solstice

So this year as every year, I look forward to celebrating the holidays as I always have. I still say Merry Christmas and not Happy Holidays. I still give gifts, spend time with loved ones, and reflect on the past year. It is a wonderful time of year and I have no desire to see it politicized. So for the sake of humanity and in the spirit of the season, I call for a treaty to end the War on Christmas so we can all celebrate peacefully.

With this in mind I wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and a wonderful holiday.

Regards,
Godless Patriot

It is an age-old debate in philosophy. Is mankind naturally good or naturally bad? Philosophers and theologians have made their respective cases throughout history. Some traditions such as ancient Chinese philosophies in Confucianism and Taoism assert that man is naturally good. They use the example of a child drowning in a well and how man is naturally inclined to help that child. Other traditions, like the Judeo-Christian philosophy, argues that mankind is naturally bad. If given the opportunity to be greedy, malicious, or spiteful most people will give in and do what is bad before doing what is right. It is not an easy debate to resolve because there are so many cases throughout history that favor both. There are cases of tremendous altruism, the most famous being the soldier who dives on a grenade to save the lives of his squad. There are also cases of tremendous atrocity, most notably the bloody reign of tyrants like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Caligula. It's hard to assert which state is dominant because everybody is different and there are personality and environmental factors to consider. But the question remains. Is man in his basic essance inclined to altruism or selfishness?

Philosophy can debate this, but science is shedding new light on the subject. Since the study of evolution began, it has been popular to assert that it is a selfish process highlighted by the mantra of 'survival of the fittest.' Creationists and religious zealots have condemned this method for decades. However, that mantra may be wrong and a new concept known as 'survival of the kindest' is taking hold.

Charles Darwin himself once stated that sympathy is mankind's strongest instinct. In an evolutionary context, it makes sense for man to be both selfish and altruistic. To be selfish is to ensure one's own survival, which is paramount to any species. To be altruistic is to foster cooperation, communication, and group cohesion that is equally important in an constantly changing environment. Mankind is not like other species in that an individual is strong enough to evade any predator and capture any prey, but as a group mankind functions in a way that favors the survival of not just the individual but the entire species.

A good way to picture this is to go back to the hunger/gatherer days. If an individual was selfish and malicious, he would not get much help from his peers. He would have to fend for himself, finding his own food and fight to procure his own mate. If at any point he should face danger or be unable to secure food for himself, there would be no one to help him and he would not survive. If this individual worked in a team, sacrificing selfishness in favor of group harmony he is better able to get the resources he needs to survive. If he faces those same dangers, there are mechanisms to help him. This makes getting food and securing mates much easier and these traits would be favored by natural selection. So in the grand scheme of evolution, mankind has been bred to be altruistic.

Contrast this with religious subversions that assert mankind needs a deity of some kind to watch over him and threaten him with divine retribution in order for them to be good. Some even argue there must be a threat of damnation, a hell or an underworld where the spirit suffers for their transgressions, and if there wasn't then man would naturally indulge in greed, violence, and lust. Whether it's through a deity or a threat of suffering after death, one of religion's most powerful recruiting tools is creating a supernatural judge to keep people in line. But is that judge really necessary? Aren't mankind's collective instincts enough? There appears to be evidence that no deity is needed.

Below is an article highlighting a study that shows this and sheds new light on human altruism without any need for gods and spirits of any kind.

ScienceDaily: New Studies Into Human Altruism

ScienceDaily (Dec. 9, 2009) — Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, are challenging long-held beliefs that human beings are wired to be selfish. In a wide range of studies, social scientists are amassing a growing body of evidence to show we are evolving to become more compassionate and collaborative in our quest to survive and thrive.

In contrast to "every man for himself" interpretations of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Dacher Keltner, a UC Berkeley psychologist and author of "Born to be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life," and his fellow social scientists are building the case that humans are successful as a species precisely because of our nurturing, altruistic and compassionate traits.

They call it "survival of the kindest."

"Because of our very vulnerable offspring, the fundamental task for human survival and gene replication is to take care of others," said Keltner, co-director of UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center. "Human beings have survived as a species because we have evolved the capacities to care for those in need and to cooperate. As Darwin long ago surmised, sympathy is our strongest instinct."

Empathy in our genes

Keltner's team is looking into how the human capacity to care and cooperate is wired into particular regions of the brain and nervous system. One recent study found compelling evidence that many of us are genetically predisposed to be empathetic.

The study, led by UC Berkeley graduate student Laura Saslow and Sarina Rodrigues of Oregon State University, found that people with a particular variation of the oxytocin gene receptor are more adept at reading the emotional state of others, and get less stressed out under tense circumstances.

Informally known as the "cuddle hormone," oxytocin is secreted into the bloodstream and the brain, where it promotes social interaction, nurturing and romantic love, among other functions.

"The tendency to be more empathetic may be influenced by a single gene," Rodrigues said.

The more you give, the more respect you get

While studies show that bonding and making social connections can make for a healthier, more meaningful life, the larger question some UC Berkeley researchers are asking is, "How do these traits ensure our survival and raise our status among our peers?"

One answer, according to UC Berkeley social psychologist and sociologist Robb Willer is that the more generous we are, the more respect and influence we wield. In one recent study, Willer and his team gave participants each a modest amount of cash and directed them to play games of varying complexity that would benefit the "public good." The results, published in the journal American Sociological Review, showed that participants who acted more generously received more gifts, respect and cooperation from their peers and wielded more influence over them.

"The findings suggest that anyone who acts only in his or her narrow self-interest will be shunned, disrespected, even hated," Willer said. "But those who behave generously with others are held in high esteem by their peers and thus rise in status."

"Given how much is to be gained through generosity, social scientists increasingly wonder less why people are ever generous and more why they are ever selfish," he added.

Cultivating the greater good

Such results validate the findings of such "positive psychology" pioneers as Martin Seligman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania whose research in the early 1990s shifted away from mental illness and dysfunction, delving instead into the mysteries of human resilience and optimism.

While much of the positive psychology being studied around the nation is focused on personal fulfillment and happiness, UC Berkeley researchers have narrowed their investigation into how it contributes to the greater societal good.

One outcome is the campus's Greater Good Science Center, a West Coast magnet for research on gratitude, compassion, altruism, awe and positive parenting, whose benefactors include the Metanexus Institute, Tom and Ruth Ann Hornaday and the Quality of Life Foundation.

Christine Carter, executive director of the Greater Good Science Center, is creator of the "Science for Raising Happy Kids" Web site, whose goal, among other things, is to assist in and promote the rearing of "emotionally literate" children. Carter translates rigorous research into practical parenting advice. She says many parents are turning away from materialistic or competitive activities, and rethinking what will bring their families true happiness and well-being.

"I've found that parents who start consciously cultivating gratitude and generosity in their children quickly see how much happier and more resilient their children become," said Carter, author of "Raising Happiness: 10 Simple Steps for More Joyful Kids and Happier Parents" which will be in bookstores in February 2010. "What is often surprising to parents is how much happier they themselves also become."

The sympathetic touch

As for college-goers, UC Berkeley psychologist Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton has found that cross-racial and cross-ethnic friendships can improve the social and academic experience on campuses. In one set of findings, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, he found that the cortisol levels of both white and Latino students dropped as they got to know each over a series of one-on-one get-togethers. Cortisol is a hormone triggered by stress and anxiety.

Meanwhile, in their investigation of the neurobiological roots of positive emotions, Keltner and his team are zeroing in on the aforementioned oxytocin as well as the vagus nerve, a uniquely mammalian system that connects to all the body's organs and regulates heart rate and breathing.

Both the vagus nerve and oxytocin play a role in communicating and calming. In one UC Berkeley study, for example, two people separated by a barrier took turns trying to communicate emotions to one another by touching one other through a hole in the barrier. For the most part, participants were able to successfully communicate sympathy, love and gratitude and even assuage major anxiety.

Researchers were able to see from activity in the threat response region of the brain that many of the female participants grew anxious as they waited to be touched. However, as soon as they felt a sympathetic touch, the vagus nerve was activated and oxytocin was released, calming them immediately.

"Sympathy is indeed wired into our brains and bodies; and it spreads from one person to another through touch," Keltner said.

The same goes for smaller mammals. UC Berkeley psychologist Darlene Francis and Michael Meaney, a professor of biological psychiatry and neurology at McGill University, found that rat pups whose mothers licked, groomed and generally nurtured them showed reduced levels of stress hormones, including cortisol, and had generally more robust immune systems.

Overall, these and other findings at UC Berkeley challenge the assumption that nice guys finish last, and instead support the hypothesis that humans, if adequately nurtured and supported, tend to err on the side of compassion.

"This new science of altruism and the physiological underpinnings of compassion is finally catching up with Darwin's observations nearly 130 years ago, that sympathy is our strongest instinct," Keltner said.

Is it harder to believe or not to believe? The intuitive response is to assume that belief is more difficult. It seems logical on the surface. To believe in something in the absence of evidence is a great challenge. It’s easy to assume how hard someone would have to push themselves to accept it. It’s one of the reasons people of strong convictions are so admired on most societies. It seems as though they’re stronger in their ability to accept a premise that some may deem impossible.

But is that really the case? Is believing in something really as hard as people make it out to be? Most modern psychological studies are remarkably consistent. Belief is much easier than non-belief. To blindly accept something, whether it involves religion or politics or government, is far more preferable than to question or to reason.

It starts at a young age. It has been will documented that children in their infancy are highly impressionable. It is their tendency to adopt and accept the wishes of elders and authority figures. In a strictly survival context, it makes sense. If children always questioned authority figures, it would be distracting and dangerous for both the parents the child. By having the child blindly believe, it helps humans be more social and coordinated. That leads to advantageous survival functions that evolution has favored since the days of hunter gatherers.

It isn’t just children’s impressionability that makes belief easier. Even as rational adults, people are subject to peer pressure. A classic example is the Asch Conformity Experiment where three test subjects, one of which was a random volunteer, were asked to decide which line out of three was longer. Two controls voted on one that was obviously shorter, thus pressuring the volunteer to make a decision. Should they conform to what they know is wrong or act on their own? Most would assume a rational person would do what was right, but that was not the case. Nearly 75 percent of participants went with the group, doing what was clearly wrong for the sake of conformity.

The Psychology of Conformity

Religion and government hijack these two deeply held traits. For religion, belief in a supernatural deity is easy. Nobody has to know anything about anything to believe. They don’t have to have any special knowledge or special skills. They don’t have to do anything other than blindly believe and in return they get acceptance from other believers and hope that they will be rewarded when they die, even though there’s no evidence that they do. It’s a cheap, easy way to feel good about one’s self and it is often abused, fostering irrational superstition, bigotry, corruption, greed, and sometimes murder. The hijackers of 9/11 truly believed that their invisible god that they never saw or experienced was real and that this god would grant them 72 virgins in the afterlife for murdering innocent people. It’s an appealing belief and one that is much easier to accept than question when it is preached with the fiery rhetoric of dogmatic clerics.

Psychology of Religious Belief

Every religion is guilty of abusing humanity’s susceptibility to belief. Government is just as bad as religion. They play off that same childhood tendency to believe in one’s parents and authority figures even when what they’re doing is obviously wrong. It came full circle in the build-up to the Iraq war. Everybody was drunk with patriotism, blindly believing in the government’s assertion that Iraq posed a danger. Anybody that questioned this was deemed unpatriotic and cast aside, a clear show of the power of peer pressure.

In every state, democratic and authoritarian, leaders use their status against people. From the communist states of China and Russia to the ancient powers of Rome and Egypt, authority figures have used and abused the capacity to believe. Free societies are supposed to open these figures to questioning, but it is rare that people do so because it is so much easier and so much more convenient to just believe.

Disbelief, it turns out, is much harder. It creates a lot of discomfort in people because rejecting something is often looked down upon. Rejecting the government or rejecting religion just doesn’t seem as noble to people. Some dare to call it heretical. It’s also hard to reject the appeal of some beliefs. For many, it is very nice to believe that there is a just and loving god who will reward those that die after living a righteous life. But no matter how much someone believes in something, that doesn’t make it true. There’s no proof that there’s anything after death. There’s no proof that there’s a god of any kind or that supernatural forces exist. Not believing in them is hard because it means rejecting some mystery from the world.

In many ways, it is those that believe the strongest that are the most dangerous. The religious fanatics and authoritarian bureaucrats are so convinced they will not even consider questioning themselves. It takes a great deal of hubris, arrogance, and narcissism. To not question is not only irrational, it is cowardice. From the priests to the kings, they may have the power of influence. But at their very core, they are cowards of the highest degree.

The theory of evolution and science itself has been attacked by the religion since the days of the Spanish Inquisition. Throughout history religious zealots have harassed, hindered, or outright suppressed the likes of Galieo, Copernicus, and Charles Darwin. It's never on the merits of the work itself. It always has to do with certain groups just not liking that the stories in their favorite religous texts being disproved in the real world. It's not about their claims being valid. It's about vindicating thier own beliefs and rallying around something that seems so counter-intuitive to their illogical thinking.

Sadly enough, the assault on science continues to this day. The church has long since lost it's power, but the attack can come from a myriad of sources. Some even come from former teenage idols. Kirk Cameron, a former child star from the sitcom Growing Pains, has taken up the mantle of overzealous religious dogma. In a recent interview with People, he discussed plans to distribute 'edited' versions of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" on November 19th across college campuses.

Kirk Cameron Defends attacks on Darwin

By edited, of course, that means mixed with irrational creationist dogma that has long since been disproved and has no merit in modern science. Yet he makes no apologies. He describes the edited text as a "balanced view of Creationism with information from scientists who actually believe God created the universe." But this is a complete oxymoron.

When it comes to the debate between creationism and science, there is no balance. Science uses reason, evidence, and logic. Creationism uses belief, superstition, and dogma. To people like Cameron, a firm belief in his particular supernatural deity is all it takes to disprove a theory that is accepted by over 95 percent of scientists and has mountains of evidence across varying fields like palentology, zoology, biology, chemistry, psychology, sociology, chemistry, comparative morphology, and taxonomy. Creationism isn't supported by anything other than dogmatic believers who know next to nothing about science, what it is or how it works. They don't even understand what the word 'theory' means. To people like Cameron, it means a guess. But if he just opened any legitimate dictionary, he would see that's completely wrong. Yet this doesn't bother him. He and his partner in crime, Ray Comfort, continue to state and restate the same false statements again and again, never changing their message or the merits that support it. They either aren't that concerned with the truth or simply do not care.

What Kirk is doing has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with promoting his agenda and that of his creationist buddies. By disturbing these perverse texts across college campuses, he hopes to gain followers. In his mind he's saving their souls, but in reality he's dooming them to ignorance. Creationism is one of the most perverted flaws of religion. It makes people mix belief with truth, causing them to abandon any semblance of reason or questioning in any objective manner. It's all about propagating the faith. Anything that gets the believer to think in any way that deviates from accepted dogma must somehow be bad, even if it is backed up by evidence and logic. This isn't just immoral. It's downright inhumane, attempting to rob people of their natrual capacity for reason and knowledge.

On November 21st, 2009, it will mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's landmark "On the Origins of Species." It is sad that after all this time, there are still people like Kirk Cameron who spew their Bronze Age worldviews and call it moral. People like them would have society march backwards into the dark ages, negating all the progress that religion and zealous preachers have fought tirelessly to hinder. To them, saving souls is worth all the countless lives that would be lost by abandoning this powerful tool for human progress.

That in essence is the ultimate tragedy. What if centuries ago there was an Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawkings who had insight into the world that could have advanced mankind out of the Dark Ages faster? Yet they were never able to contribute because zealous religious officials felt threatened by their work and had them silenced or even killed? There's no telling how many lives could have been spared, but that doesn't matter to these people. Any amount of death is worth it if it gains them favor of their invisible god. That, in every sense, is evil in it's purest form.

For a rebuttal of Kirk Cameron's many erroneous views, please check out the video below.

It has often been said that it is impossible for a society to have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. Therefore, it is the responsibility of a free secular state to actively avoid religious discourse in public places. This seems contrary to the notion of free speech, another pillar of the free society that the free secular state is responsible for protecting. So at which point does one intersect with the other? Where do the lines form?

The answer is simple. There are no lines.

Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are the same thing. They are two sides of the same coin. The freedom to express one's religion in any way they see fit is no different than the freedom of one's right to speak out. The same rights and responsibilities apply. So long as it is peaceful, not obstructing the life, liberty, and property of another individual, it is entirely protected by the free society. But some do not make this distinction. Some consider religious expression to be it's own category of expression and thus the state needs special powers to police it. This has led to an erosion of the ideals of freedom espoused by the founding fathers.

Take for instances the famous court cases McCollum vs. Board of Education Dist. 71 that banned religious instruction in public schools or the Engel v. Vitale case that banned prayer in public schools. These cases all used the same reasoning to ban religious displays. It violated the establishment clause of the constitution which states that the government cannot support any one religion over the other no matter how dominant it may be. It's a good principle for a secular state, but in these cases it was pushed beyond the limits into the realm of censorship. There's no way around it. By banning discussion of religion in schools, that is censorship. It may offend atheists at times, but in this country there is no right not to be offended.

Take a step back from these cases and approach them reasonably. Was the government acting through force? Did beauracrats on local, state, or federal levels impose the teaching of religion or prayer in the schools directly? Or was it something that was decided by the school itself or the local parents? If it is the case that the government is directly forcing schools to teach or condone specific religious themes over another, then that is unconstitutional. But in many of these cases, it was the schools themselves and the communities that wanted these religious themes in their schools. And why shouldn't they be allowed? So long as nobody is forcing them and it is done peacefully, what right do the courts have to force them to stop? In the strictest constitutional sense, they don't.

So what about the atheists or the non-believers like myself that go to these schools? Well so long as the schools do not force prayer and teaching on the students, there should not be a problem. If school officials were doing this to atheists as a form of harassment, that would be a violation of rights and the courts do have a right to punish those who do this. But to make a vast, broad judgment that bans these practices across the board is an abuse of power and an affront to the free society.

But it isn't just non-believers who abuse these privlidges. Religous groups are just as guilty. The best case has to do with creationism. Take cases like Edwards v. Aguillard that overruled a law in Louisiana forcing schools to teach creationism alongside evolution. The key aspect of the law was force. Schools had to push creationism by law. And not just any creationism like that of Native American or Hindu stories. They had to push the strict interpretation of Genesis in a science classroom. This was a clear case of the government using force to favor one religous group over another. As such, it is unconstitutional because it abuses the powers of the state. It was later verified again in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case in 2003 that banned the teaching of intelligent design for the same reasons.

Now how is this not censorship? It's simple when one takes context into account. Creationism was being pushed in science classes as an alternative viewpoint of the truth. But in a free society, certain ideas cannot be propped up by the government just because certain groups really believe in them. Creationism and Intelligent Design failed in the marketplace of idea. They were proven to be false by science and as such, they were dropped from science classrooms. But certain religous groups didn't like that. So to make up for the fact that their dogma was not verified by science, they got the government to force it upon the people. That use of force is a clear violation of liberty, religous and non-religious alike. Now if creation stories were taught in a religious class or in literature, that's a different story because that's a different context. So long as the state doesn't force this upon students as truth, then it is perfectly fine in a school.

The Founding Fathers were for freedom and religous liberty equally. The idea of a free society harkoning back to the enlightenment was that free expression and the free exchange of ideas allows ideas and beliefs to stand on their own merits. So if certain ideas like creationism do not stand enough on their merits, they are rejected. As such, the government cannot prop certain ideas up over others. When it comes to religious, the key is for the state to stay out of the affairs of the chruch and allow religious groups to thrive on their own merits. If one is more dominant than others, let them be dominent so long as they can persuade their people that they are a good group to be a part of. And if they wish to leave that group, let them. So long as force is not involved, the freedom to practice any religious or no religion at all is warrented in a free society.

As an atheist, most assume I am for eliminating religion from society. I'm not. I am an ardent believer in allowing people to follow their own spiritual path. If some wish to be Christians, that's okay. If some wish to be Muslim, that's okay too. If some wish to worship Satan, that's just as valid. So long as none of these groups harass me or force me to take part in their customs, I'm okay with it. The free society comes before my own spiritual beliefs or lack thereof. I am and always have been for a free society where the state does not interfere with the church and people and communities are allowed to follow their own path.

Before the founding of the American Republic, it was unheard of for a country not to have an official religion. The founding fathers sought to set themselves apart from the tyranny and autocracy of European powers at the time by leaving their new country open for any religion, regardless of how great a majority it may be in the populace, to thrive and benefit from equal protection under the law. It is one of the reasons why so religious groups like muslims, jews, catholics, and buddhists have been able to come to America and enjoy the success wrought by freedom and liberty.

But in the era of political correctness, religious liberty is being continually contorted in ways that go against the very principles of freedom. Recently, Townhall columnist Chuck Norris reported on a situation that would have been laughable if it weren't true:

Got your permit to study the Bible?

The event was a real headscratcher. David and Mary Jones were visited by a county code enforcement officer on April 10 (Good Friday) after receiving a complaint about their Christian gatherings, which included only around 15 people. After hearing they did things such as pray, read scripture, and discuss spiritual matters they were given a cease and desist order. That's worth repeating. An official of law enforcement told two people with the same legal rights as everyone else to cease and desist their religious gatherings.

That's not the only incident of it's kind. On June 3rd the Associated Press reported that a Pennsylvania court ruled 2-1 that a Kindergartner's mother cannot read the bible for show-and-tell, even if it is her favorite book.

In the age of the internet, it's possible to get information from a wide variety of sources. Unfortunately, in an environment of free speech and open dialogue, it's easy for bias, skewed, and irrational sources to propagate and spread irrational messages to gullible minds. In a previous post, I highlighted the importance of objectivity and the issues surrounding bias. The internet is ripe with instances of irrational bias that spew propaganda as if it were objective. One of the most egregious and overt examples is the website Conservapedia.

Conservapedia was founded in 2006 by Andy Schlafy, son of famed conservative activist Phyllis Schlafy. He modeled his site after Wikipedia, the most well-known online encyclopedia of it's kind, only he structured it with a clear conservative bias. They make the bold claim in their about page that all other sources have been corrupted by liberal bias. It is even overtly stated:

"No other encyclopedia resource on the internet is free of corruption by liberal untruths."

Immediately, the message is clear. Conservapedia is bias and appeals to conspiracy to convince vistors of it's message. It unapologetically denounces atheism, homosexuality, evolution, and champions Christianity as if it has any more authority than other faiths. It does so in a way that is so laughably and reprehensibly arrogant that it destroys any credibility it may have to real conservatism. Real conservatism is founded on individual freedom and liberty. But that seems to be lost on conservapedia as every entry is not only heavily edited, they're also completely frozen to prevent further tampering. This means that if an entry is every disproved, it can't be corrected. Wikipedia and reason aren't like that. And it shows in various areas.

Take for instance their atheism page. As of June 7 2008 they changed the page a total of 115 times, but after that date the page was locked to prevent further editing. On this page they make a huge link between atheism and evolution, which if anybody had done even the most basic of research would have found to be bogtus. Evolution isn't linked to atheism anymore than it's linked to Christianity. Evolution is a scientific theory, meaning it makes absolutely no statement on the supernatural, including god. It can neither prove nor disprove any religion. Then there's the section that links atheism and mass murder. They will gladly point out the mass murders of Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot as instances of atheism, but they don't even acknowledge that Christianity is also responsible for mass murder (which is completely untrue). The crusades, the inquisition, and the witch hunts have caused millions upon millions of deaths both directly and indirectly over the centuries. But do they mention this? Of course not.

Then there's the evolution page, which coincidently has a section on mass murder as well. Again, Conservapedia tries to link Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot to evolution as it does atheism. But again, they present no direct evidence to it. They even ignore the fact that Hitler was a Catholic and a creationist. All these despots despised evolution. They prefered the ideas of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, a pre-cursor to Darwin who believed in the concept of acquired traits (ie a blacksmith developing a small arm in his lifetime passing that trait along to his son). They found this far more favorable because it supported their ideas of creating a new race to dominate those they deemed inferior, which has everything to do with racism and nothing to do with evolution. But Conservapedia doens't make this distinction. Why would they? It doesn't support their agenda to stand against liberals, atheists, and anybody who doesn't believe as they do. If anybody even did the most basic of fact checking, they would see how wrong their positions are.

Then there's the way they try to refute evolution. First they say it's a controversial theory in science. That's wrong. Over 95 percent of scientists accept it. Only about half the population in America accepts it, but that has no bearing on its validity. Nearly all those who reject evolution do so because they do not understand it or the scientific method. They do what Conservapedia does and accept pre-assumed conclusions. That cannot be done in science. Evidence must be followed to a conclusion. Then they say no clear transitional forms have been found. This is completely false. There have been countless transitional forms found documenting dinosaurs to bird evolution, primate to human evolution, and fish to tetrapod evolution. But Conservapedia doesn't give this any creedence. They brush it off only as 'microevolution' and not 'macroevolution,' two terms which are utterly arbitrary. They basically say it's possible to walk 20 feet, but not 20 miles.

Other sections involving abortion, homosexuality, liberalism, science, the enlightenment, the bible, history, Islam, poltics, feminism, media, and pretty much any other hot-button issue all share the same story. They are utterly skewed to push a conservative Christian viewpoint. They offer no counter arguments. They accept no criticism. Pages have been locked to disallow people from correcting mistakes or updating information. It is completley contrarian to true conservatism, which advocates free speech and individual liberty. But to them the only liberty that matters is the liberty they take to make their point.

What makes Conservapedia so egregeous is the overt nature in which it presents itself. The site is clear. It presents only information from the conservative Christian perspective. Yet it still presents itself as the 'true source' unbiased by liberalism. But it is propoganda, pure and simple. People who get their information there will only get a bias perspective and the danger of this is that it will only reinforce the views of like-minded people and make them even more closed off from dissenting opinions. It is a dangerous tactic in any society, skewing information to further reinforce stereotypes and bigotry.

In the end Conserapedia is not an expression of true conservatism. It is a perversion.

Anybody who would make the claim that the less intelligent people are the more religious they are will draw condemnation and ire from religious people everywhere. They will point out that some of the smartest men in history were devoutly religious such as Netwon and Keppler. While it's true there are some very smart men in history that were religious, that alone doesn't disprove the notion that the less educated and intelligent someone is the more religeous they tend to be.

In 2008 a study was conducted by Helmuth Nyborg at the University of Aarhus in Denmark to identify possible correlations between religious devotion and intelligence. While not definitive, the study did yield some interesting results. The following is an excerpt of the abstract:

The present study examined whether IQ relates systematically to denomination and income within the framework of the g nexus, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY97). Atheists score 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. Denominations differ significantly in IQ and income. Religiosity declines between ages 12 to 17. It is suggested that IQ makes an individual likely to gravitate toward a denomination and level of achievement that best fit his or hers particular level of cognitive complexity. Ontogenetically speaking this means that contemporary denominations are rank ordered by largely hereditary variations in brain efficiency (i.e. IQ). In terms of evolution, modern Atheists are reacting rationally to cognitive and emotional challenges, whereas Liberals and, in particular Dogmatics, still rely on ancient, pre-rational, supernatural and wishful thinking.

In order to view the full article you can check it out at the following link:

The intelligence–religiosity nexus: A representative study of white adolescent Americans

Believers can make of this what they will. There will surely be those who condemn and assail anyone who even hints at the notion that atheists may be smarter than believers just as surely there are athesits who would condemn any notion that believers are more moral. But science does offer some valuable insight into the nature of human psychology and social dynamics. It does make sense that someone who strongly adheres to irrational or supernatural beliefs that they would be less likely to think and understand issues in a more reasonable context. This does not mean the value of religious people are any less or more than that of non-believers. But it is a telling notion that irrational beliefs can affect the psychology of a society.

During every holiday season the media usually jumps on a story about some radical atheist trying to ban Christmas displays. These stories, which the Christian Right loves to point out, represent only a small minority of atheists who are radicals and are just as wrong as the Christians who want to ban non-believers from gaining any kind of status or influence. Most atheists still celebrate Christmas. Even though I have been a non-believer for years, I still celebrate the season by decorating my house, buying presents for loved ones, and enjoying the festivities. But to me, there is nothing supernatural about the holiday. I do not associate it with the birth of Jesus Christ or any miracles. I associate it with the messages of peace, giving, and good will towards all. And it is my favorite holiday and has been for years.

But it is also worth pointing out that Christmas, like any other religious holiday, has a context to it. Most Christians do not question it or look into the matter. Most are content to believe whatever their parents or pastor tells them. But if anybody tries to do the research, they'll come up with some unexpected and in some ways disturbing answers. Because when the history of Christmas is put into a real-world, non-supernatural context it takes on a different meaning to believers.

The first and most glaring discrepancy has to do with the date itself. Most people never question whether or not Jesus was born on December 25th. But a brief glimpse into history shows how that may not be the case. Research among scholars has shown that the actual birthday of Jesus Christ was forgotten in the early Christian church. Differing groups celebrated his birth on days ranging from January 5th and May 4th. It wasn't until the 4th century, after Christianity had become the official church of Rome, that December 25th was chosen as the date of Jesus's birth. History does document this and there is a reason why this date was chosen.

Among nearly all civilizations and cultures within the Middle East and Europe dating back to well before the time of Christ, one of the most important parts of the year was the Winter Solstice. On December 21st, the days are shortest and the nights are longest. And on December 25th, the days start getting longer again in a noticeable manner. This was important because it helped cultures measure time and seasons, which aided them in farming. So it was only natural that this date would take on more meaningful significance in the eyes of spirituality.

Even during the time of Christ, many pagans celebrated December 25th as a major holiday. The Babylonians celebrated 25th as the "Victory of the Sun" festival. The Romans celebrated December 17th through 23rd as Saturnalia, the festival of Saturn. In addition, December 25th was the alleged birth date of many other savior gods who had stories similar to that of Christ. Attis, son of the virgin Nana, was a Roman pagan icon who was said to have been born on December 25th. Dionysis was a Greek savior god who was worshiped around a century before Christ and his birthday was celebrated on December 25th. But probably the most well known and well documented savior god born on that date besides Christ was Mithra. Mithra was a Persian god whose worship was a chief rival to Christianity in the early days of the faith. And like the other savior gods before him, there were many of the same stories built around his life such as his birth being witnessed by shepards, performing miracles in his life like healing the sick and casting out devils. He was also said to have had 12 disciples and was crucified around the Spring equinox, at the same time as Easter, and ascended into heaven.

So Jesus's story was not unique. But was his life a myth? Probably not. Most scholars agree that there probably was a flesh and blood man named Jesus who walked Palestine around the first century. But there is no evidence that the miracles of his life occured anywhere outside the bible. Most agree that his life was later mythologized and embellished as many great leaders often are after their deaths. And Jesus did live at a time when many of these savior gods were very popular so it is only natural that later followers would attach such attributes as the virgin birth on December 25th in order to become more acceptable to pagans and other faiths. And history documents this shift with the emergance of Jesus's divinity through scriptures and gospels that started with the letters of Paul and were later cannonized with the gospels. But it is also worth noting that even Paul's letters, which are the oldest documentation of Christian beliefs, still were not written down until after Christ's death. And of the 40 secular historians living at the time, only about 4 or 5 give mention to Jesus and none of them document any of the events the bible discribes.

So why did Jesus become so universally accepted? Part of that has to do with the appealing message. Other faiths like Mithrism were very exclusive and secretive. The average person was not allowed to partake in the festivals. Christianity was unique in that it offered salvation to everybody, not just elites and their contemporaries. That open message was part of why Christinaity became so popular so fast and why the Romans were threatened by it because it threatened to upset the ridged hierarchy of their society. Another major reason had to do with the emporer Constantine, who made Christinaity the official religion of the empire. This big endorsement gave Christinaity support that no other faith could boast so it propsered while others eventually died out. It was after this big endorsement that the bible was canonized and December 25th was decided as the date of Jesus's birth.

So Christmas in context is not necessarily about the birth of Jesus. It is part of the evolution of a holiday that has its roots in the earliest parts of civilization. Other aspects such as Christmas trees, gift giving, and Santa Clause came later. But the message is still the same, preaching peace on Earth and good will towards all. And that is a good message for anybody to celebrate no matter what their faith.

For more information on Christmas and the non-biblical life of Jesus, please consult the following link, which has a great deal of other well-researched articles on religion in general:

The History of Jesus Christ

Regardless of whether or not Jesus was a holy figure as he said he was, the message of Christmas still remains and it is a message I celebrate every year. Even as an atheist, I have a strong appreciation for what Christmas brings and I will continue to celebrate it. So from the Godless Patriot, I wish everybody regardless of their religion or lack thereof a Merry Christmas and a Happy Holidays.

Last year there was a study done by the Barna Group, a religious polling firm, that estimated there were around 5 million atheists living in the United States. That number swells to 20 million if agnostics or people who do not identify with any religion are included. So in a country where Christianity dominates, there are 20 million people who do not believe in a god or deity. Even in a country of 300 million that is a significant number and many believe it's higher than that because there are those who will not identify themselves as non-religious out of fear of scrutiny or discrimination. This is difficult to prove, but even if it isn't true it does reflect the unreasonable power religion is given in this country.

When the American republic was first established, America was the most secular nation in the world. It was rare for a country of that time not to have an official religion or a state sponsored church. The founding fathers saw it fit to ensure there was a clause in the constitution that stated explicitly that no official religion would be established and there could be no litmus test for public officials that could deny them office based on their religious beliefs or lack thereof. And yet few politicians or officials can survive these days without professing their faith in a higher power. All presidential candidates, even the fringe candidates, are careful to express their faith in god so as not to alienate voters. They believe that faith in god is a value. But that is entirely false.

There is no value or moral superiority in those who believe in god. It is a belief and nothing more. There is even evidence that non-religious societies may be less deviant. A study done by the Journal of Religion and Society in 2005 studies religious groups in America and other industrialized nations and found consistently that "data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular
democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and anti-evolution
America performs poorly."

That's not to say that there religion by default is bad for society. Other studies show that on a small community level, religion can reduce deviance and encourage people to make charitable contributions to society. But again, this can be coupled with more prevelance in bigotry, racism, and intolerance.

Atheism is a minority in America, but it is a significant minority. Few atheists wish to force people to abandon their religious beliefs, but the kind of power and influence sought by groups within the Christian Right are highly detrimental to a free society. Groups like the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and the Christian Coalition would have it so homosexuality is illegal, pornography is illegal, all pre-marital sex is illegal, and all public officials must adhere to so called Judeo-Christian values. This completely defeats the purpose that the Founding Father's intended. This is actively flying in the face of the establishment clause and favoring one religious doctrine over many others.

As an atheist, I am often disturbed by how many Christian groups pursue agendas to impose their worldview on others. I have no problem with them believing in something, but when they try to legislate their beliefs that is when they cross the line. I believe in the constitution and I believe in the fundemental principles our founding fathers set up when they formed this nation and I have no desire to see it become corrupted by religious groups of any kind. Atheists are no less American than devout Christians and it's time people understood that.

As an atheist, I often get asked by Christians and other religious people where I get my morality. They claim that without a just and merciful god, mankind cannot be good because there is no reason for them to be good. I often say my morality comes from my experience and upbringing. My parents taught my sense of right and wrong and while not strict atheists, they didn't use gods to justify why something was wrong. When I was a boy my grandma often used Santa Clause as a reason for being good. She would tell me "Aww, Santa Clause won't be bringing you any presents this Christmas if you act like that." Looking back on it I see she could have easily replaced Santa Clause with a god and the message would be the same.

But morality is a tricky topic because it is so subjective. That is why science has usually ceded these concepts to philosophy and religion. However, modern science has made strides in recent decades and is beginning to unlock the roots of our morality. As it turns out it may not have been my personal experiences after all that gave me a sense of right and wrong. It may very well be that much of our moral sense is written in our genes and our biology.

Newsweek recently did a feature on the biological roots of human morality, citing research done by psychologists and biologists to give an insight into what gives us our sense of right and wrong. They used classical moral dilemmas to get a feel for how people judge a situation. They call it a moral sense test and they painted the following scenarios:

Would you drive your boat faster to save the lives of five drowning people knowing that a person in your boat will fall off and drown?

Would you fail to give a drug to a terminally ill patient knowing that he will die without it but his organs could be used to save three other patients?

Would you suffocate your screaming baby if it would prevent enemy soldiers from finding and killing you both, along with the eight others hiding out with you?

These situations have no clear cut answer, but when scientists gave these questions people responded with remarkable consistancy. The article stated"What is remarkable is that people with different backgrounds, including atheists and those of faith, respond in the same way. Moreover, when asked why they make their decisions, most people are clueless, but confident in their choices."

Further studies tried to see if emotions were tied into our sense of morality. And even studying patients with brains with damaged connections between the planning and emotion systems, their answers were consistant. This suggests that emotions are not linked to our morality. They do, however, play a role in our actions. Emotions may make us act in ways that we know are immoral, but that is where the concept of guilt comes in.

This leads to another point religious people often make when I debate them. How do you justify the lack of morality for atheists like Pol Pot and Stalin (Hitler doesn't count because he was a confessed Catholic and admitted creationist)? The article goes on to offer insight into that as well:

"New, preliminary studies suggest that clinically diagnosed psychopaths do recognize right from wrong, as evidenced by their responses to moral dilemmas. What is different is their behavior. While all of us can become angry and have violent thoughts, our emotions typically restrain our violent tendencies. In contrast, psychopaths are free of such emotional restraints. They act violently even though they know it is wrong because they are without remorse, guilt or shame."

In other words, they may know what they are doing is wrong, but they just don't feel guilty about it. Or they find some way to justify it in their twisted and skewwed psyche. Theists and atheists can agree that what these men did was vile and wrong. But that has nothing to do with whether or not they believed in gods or religion. By the same token, religous authorities have committed similar atrocities over the centuries that include genocides, wars, and prejudice. Millions have been put to death at the hands of religion through witch hunts, ethnic clensing, wars, human sacrifice, and inquisitions. Studies show that such blind faith in any ideology whether it be religon or personality cults like facism and communism may psychologically condition people to ignore the wrong they feel about taking a life. It's not about faith or lack thereof. It is about psychological pre-disposition.

But then why are those that are good continue being good? Well the article states that "studies suggest that nature handed us a moral grammar that fuels our intuitive judgments of right and wrong. Emotions play their strongest role in influencing our actions—reinforcing acts of virtue and punishing acts of vice. We generally do not commit wrong acts because we recognize that they are wrong and because we do not want to pay the emotional price of doing something we perceive as wrong." It is a simple matter of reinforcement. Good gets reinforced more than bad and that is why people do good. Most people get no pleasure out of hurting or killing people. We do get a sense of satisfaction when we do something good though. There's nothing supernatural about it. It is basic psychology.

So going back to the question I get asked of where do humans get their morals, I would now answer it is part of our individual and collective psychology. Cognitive and behavioral systems within and among us, coupled with aspects of our social nature, work within a biological grammar that instills an innate sense of right and wrong among human beings. Or more simply put, it is part of our nature.

I find it demeaning in a sense that some religions paint humans as naturally immoral or tained by sin or kharma and the only way to repent is to proclaim blind faith in an invisible, intangible force and make sacrifices in its name through religous authorities. That is just playing of our natural tendancy to avoid guilt. People can be good without gods. They can be good with religion too. One shouldn't place itself higher over the other. So using this research and my general understanding I have formulated two 'commandments' for morality among both religious and non-religious people. And they are as follows.

1. Try not to hurt anybody.
2. Try to be nice to people.

Link to Article