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.

Recently, a movie came out entitled "Milk." It told the story of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected to a public office. He was a tireless advocate for gay rights and worked effortlessly to promote his cause even though many at the time were even less open to gay rights than they are today. During the 50s, 60s, and 70s it wasn't unusual for police to randomly break into gay bars and randomly arrest people and it wasn't unusual for crimes against gays to go unpunished. Just like the legal lynching of blacks in the post Civil War south, gays were the victims of unparalleled prejudice and hatred.

Hatred against homosexuality is nothing new. Up until the late 20th century, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder. And a lot of hate stems from religious and cultural traditions. In the time of the Puritains gay men were castrated while gay women had their noses cut off. Some were just executed. There are several passages in the bible, most notably in Leviticus, that condemn homosexuality as an abomination and one worthy of great sin. And even today in a country where secular law, not the bible, is the law of the land, people use this 2,000 year old book as an excuse to hate, persecute, and undermine and entire group of people.

In the movie "Milk" many old broadcasts of religious figures at the time were shown decrying homosexuality, calling it a threat to the American family and a threat to morality in general. But homosexuality has been around since the beginning of civilization and will continue to be for a long time. The family has never been destroyed and seems to continue despite the presence of gays and lesbians. Yet they keep lamenting and stoking fear into the masses, saying god will kill them all and it is up to them to inflict his wrath. Such arrogance, conceit, and hatred is only paralleled by that of the Nazi's, who executed homosexuals just as they did the jews.

The message of Harvey Milk is simple. If you can take away the rights of one group of people you can take away the rights of any group of people. You cease to live in a free society and are at the mercy of the tyranny of the majority. Recently, a right was taken away from homosexuals in California. Prop 8 banned them from being able to form marital unions, a right that heterosexual couples have. It wasn't imposing the union on anybody, it was just giving the gay community a basic right that other groups have. But in a decision that can only be described as a crime against human rights, that right was stripped away. And it's not just California. In Arkansas, a measure passed banning unwed couples from adopting children. But even the makers of the bill flat out admitted it was just a measure to keep gays from adopting. That's another basic right taken away from a group of people.

There is no excuse. Taking away the rights of a group of people is a violation of the very principles of the American Republic. The free society guarentees that all citizens have equal rights and protections under the law. And yet gays are being denied those rights. It is tyranny, plain and simple, motivated by bigotry and prejudice. If you can do this to gays, you can do this to anybody. Today it's gays, but one day it may be another groups. Jews and muslims might start getting marginalized. Or maybe atheists, a group I belong to, will start getting denied basic rights. Or maybe another group will emerge that the majority decides they don't like and start oppressing. And history shows that whenever a group is oppressed, it creates conflict and hurts all sides.

Some say opposing gay rights is a moral imperitive. But the greatest atrocities in the history of mankind all started off as moral imperatives. The holocaust was seen by the Nazi's as a moral imperative. Genocide in Amenia and Sudan was seen as a moral imperative by the instigators. Any atrocity can start off as good intentions, but when one steps back to look at just what is being done it should be clear. Atrocities are never moral and the atrocities committed against the gay community are without justification.

On a personal matter, after having seen the movie "Milk" I was so disgusted with the hatred displayed in that movie that I was sickened. As an atheist, it did affect me because I have been condemned for my beliefs, sometimes by my own family. I have always maintained a respect for people of faith, but for those devout Christians who simply decry homosexuality because the bible says so I have no respect. Tolerance should not tolerate such intolerance. If someone doesn't like something, that's okay. But when they start actively working to take away the rights of an entire group of people, they become tyrants and they have no place in a free society.

The American Republic was founded on the principles of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness guarenteed to all men and women. Harvey Milk spent his life trying to convey a message that all people deserve to be protected from having these rights stripped away. And he lost his life in the process. Nobody, conservative or liberal, can justify taking away someone else's rights. It is a front to the free society and everybody, regardless of religious or political affiliations, has an obligation to defend the principles of freedom.

Recently, a group of youtube enthusiasts who specialize in making videos that counter bogus claims made by creationists and religious fundementalists banded together to stop what has been a disturbing trend from the side of religious groups. In the last year groups like Answers in Genesis, Illustria Media, Eternal Media, ande Creation Science Evangilism have been harassing users who make videos that counter their bogus claims about creationism, science, and religion in general. Their main tool is to use the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, a law passed in 1998 meant to protect copyrighted material on the internet. Youtube enforces this law by banning users who wrongly post copyrighted material without permission and do not adhere to the fair use policies. And they were making false claims that video makers, many of whom were just individuals who did these videos in their spare time, were illegally using their material. But in reality they weren't. They were only using clips and parodies, which are perfectly acceptable for fair use. But to them it wasn't about saving copyrighted material. It was about silencing those who disagreed with them.

This phenomenon epitomized the dangers of religious dogma and why it is a threat to the free society. Groups like Answers in Genesis and Eternal Media are so ridged in their beliefs that they don't wish to counter or debate them, they want to silence any criticism that may threaten them. And they're willing to go so far as to use dishonest tactics to do it. Time and again, they show a blatant disregard for free speech and criticism. Many of these groups censor their comments on youtube so people cannot comment or point out mistakes. They also rarely respond to any counter claim. In contrast those who dedicate themselves to debunking these claims do not censor the comments. They freely allow people to criticize and ask questions about their claims and they do their best to respond them. And when they don't know, they're honest about it.

It is the value of free speech and free inquery that allows people to question dogma. As religious a country as this is, dogmatic claims often fall apart in the face of valid criticism that is allowed to present evidence and debate the merits of any claim. Many radical religious officials fear this and actively work to silence any criticism. They go so far as to try and get the government on their side to legislate their beliefs so they will have political protection, which helps immunize them from inquery. It is something the founding fathers, many of who were religoius themselves, understood. They knew that if one brand of religion was favored or endorsed by the state, it could threaten the merits of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People had to be free to believe or not believe whatever they wanted. But when some radical gropus (and it is a minority) actively try to subvert free speech to promote their own agenda it crosses a fundemental line.

In a free society, people are free to believe and worship however they please. But when one group tries to subvert another, that is just plain tyranny and regardless of anyone's religious convictions they have no place in a free society.

Please see the video below for more information on this issue:

Liberals and conservatives alike have made a big deal over Barack Obama's recent decision to have Pastor Rick Warren deliver the invocation at his inauguration. On the surface it is peculiar that Obama is turning to a man whose beliefs are very different from his. Rick Warren epitomizes many views of the Christian Right. He is vigorously pro-life, he is against stem cell research, he is anti-gay rights to an extreme degree, and he is a creationist who thinks evolution influenced Pol Pot and Stalin (which it didn't). And yet, Obama reached out to him. It would be like John McCain reaching out to Revernd Wright had he been elected. It is an impressive attempt at trying to bridge gaps with people who do not necessarily agree with certain views. And yet both sides seem to hate it.

On the left, gay rights activists despise Rick Warren and for good reason. He is a man who has fought with the likes of James Dobson to restrict the rights of homosexuals. He has been quoted as saying that gay rights are not civil rights. They were a major supporter of Obama and to have him do this is a slap in the face to them. Yet as usual, the left fails to see the bigger picture. Just because they supported Obama doesn't mean he has to pandor to them. Pandoring to interest groups was something Obama consistantly condemned throughout his campagin. The activists knew this and yet they thought it didn't apply to them. It is typical arrogance on the part of the far left and self-centered in many ways because they think they're entitled to set the agenda just because Obama shares their views.

On the right, many conservatives seem to be rolling their eyes at Obama's decision. They don't see it as reaching across the isle. They see it as a stunt and have had no nice words to say about it. It's ironic and hypocritical too because part of the knock on Obama during the election was that he wasn't the kind of person who would reach across the isle. He sided with his party on nearly every issue and now that he's been elected, he's by default the enemy and they should shun every attempt of his at trying to bring people together. This is self-defeating. They're proving themselves right by being arrogant and conceited and blaming Obama. It is hypocracy in the highest degree and just as reprehensible as the condemnation by the left.

Rick Warren is a controversial figure and many of his views are completely incompatible with a free society. But he is still an American and he has a right to have these views just as much as anybody else. For Barack Obama to see past that and reach out to him is admirable. I don't agree with a lot of his policies and views, but I applaud him for trying to reach out to people who don't think or belief as he does. It shows that he can be a uniting force as president. And both conservatives and liberals should take notice.

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.

When I was a devout believer in Christianity, I never questioned where religion came from. It wasn't that I was curious. I just didn't see it as pertinent. But as I began to doubt my faith and the supernatural in general, I began to look into what religion is and where it came from. And in my search I have found many interesting revelations, but none of them point to anything supernatural or godly.

Most people will say religion is something innate. They claim that it is human nature to believe in something greater than themselves. And that sounds pretty intuitive because so many people turn to religion or something supernatural when they can't explain something in logical terms. But just because a lot of people turn to it doesn't make it true. A brief insight into human psychology and social dynamics reveals that religion does play off human beings' natural tendencies. But it's not in the way many believers think.

The best example I ever came across was a discussion I had in my old sociology class on the origin of stereotypes. People have a lot of false believes about groups they don't know about. There are stereotypes about black people, white people, Asians, muslims, Christians, and atheists and many are prevalent, but many are still wrong. So why do they persist? Well it has to do with a phenomenon psychologists often refer to attribution bias. When people don't know all the workings of a situation, they instinctively go to pre-set assumptions that they have been conditioned to turn to. Many of those assumptions are learned through environmental and social influences so if someone is taught that all atheists are wicked, that's what they'll assume when they look at an atheist. It's a mental shortcut of sorts because it saves people the time of investigating and looking into every given situation about a person.

In an evolutionary context it makes perfect sense. These assumptions and stereotypes allow people to devout more mental energy into other more important matters such as survival. Just think of it in the hunger gatherer sense. A normal hunter doesn't have time to investigate and understand every possible event that they come across. They have to have certain stereotypes and assumptions like "blue berries are poisonous" and "those people that attacked my tribe are evil." It saves them energy and mental resources to devout to survival.

So what does this have to do with religion? Well religion acts in many ways as a mental shortcut. Many who use the 'god of the gaps' arguments point it out. Since we can't know everything about something like where the world came from, what happens when we die, or how do the heavens work we take a short cut and say "god/gods did it." That's much easier than having to investigate all the complex and in many cases unknown forces that go into the natural world. It's hard enough for people to wrap their heads around one facet of science so they assume the rest on faith.

Just think of it in terms of creationism. Creationists simplify the whole proces of how the world came to be by saying it's all written down in this one story in this one book and it all boils down to "god did it." It plays off the natural tendancy to seek the easier, less complicated answer instead of investigating the complicated and complex forces of evolution that include other complex forces like chemistry, physics, biology, geology, climate, etc. People devout their entire lives to just one of these fields and still can't wrap their head around it, let alone all of them in general. So for the average joe, religion is a convenient and comforting short cut that cuts down on uncertainty. Because like the hunter in the woods, uncertainty is detrimental to survival and nobody likes to be uncertain.

This basic psychological phenomenon puts religion into a more rational perspective. It doesn't say believing in god is wrong. It doesn't even prove that god doesn't exist. Perhaps this is just how god set things up, but there's no way to prove that so that is why faith is necessary. As a non believer, I don't assume any supernatural forces in any gaps in my knowledge. I honestly admit that I don't know and in some cases I can't know. But the problem is religion does more than play off this basic psychological trait. It grows and expands in a way that creates all these other complex social forces, some of them good and some of them bad. It's all a matter of understanding what is at the core of these beliefs that allows us to deal with the bad and reinforce the good.

There are many other facets of the origin of religion and I could spend several blogs discussing it. But I recently came across an article that offers a good, fairly objective insight into where religion came from. You can view it at the following link:

The Origin of Religion

In a free society people are free to believe (or not believe) whatever they want. It is when some beliefs are imposed or endorced by the state that problems arise. You don't have to like what one person believes or doesn't believe. You just have to respect that their belief is different and keep it all in context.

In a previous post I discussed the various instances of cruelty, violence, and intolerance listed in the bible. I wanted to show how some of the morals and ethics of the bible are not compatible with the standards of a free society. But in the spirit of equality, I feel it is worth pointing out that Islam has the same inconsistencies and they are much more visible. Since the attacks on 9/11 there has been a lot of debate on whether or not Islam is a religion of peace or violence. Some conservatives claim it is a religion that preaches violence and fuels intolerance. Liberals say it's more about economics and geopolitics. But the truth is they are both right. Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, is a religion of peace and violence. Now it's worth saying that the vast majority of muslims are peaceful. The terrorist minorities are a very small subset of radicals that just happen to get more news coverage. But these minorities, which are present in other religions, are spurred on by the many instances of violence and cruelty preached in their sacred texts.

It is debatable how many instances of cruelty there are in the Quran, but there are plenty to list. Here is just a few notables (paraphrased for convenience with citations so you can see for yourself):

1. Don't bother to warn the disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom. 2:6
2. Allah has sickened their hearts. A painful doom is theirs because they lie. 2:10
3. A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. 2:24
4. Disbelievers will be burned with fire. 2:39, 90
5. "Guard yourselves against a day when no soul will in aught avail another, nor will intercession be accepted from it, nor will compensation be received from it, nor will they be helped."
   There will come a day when Allah will refuse all prayers and help no one. 2:48
6. Allah brags about drowning the Egyptian army. 2:50
7. "Whosoever hath done evil and his sin surroundeth him; such are rightful owners of the Fire." 2:81
8. If you believe in only part of the Scripture, you will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next. 2:85
9. Jews are the greediest of all humankind. They'd like to live 1000 years. But they are going to hell. 2:96
10. For disbelievers is a painful doom. 2:104
11. For unbelievers: ignominy in this world, an awful doom in the next. 2:114
12. "And thou wilt not be asked about the owners of hell-fire." (They are the non-muslims.) 2:119
13. Allah will leave the disbelievers alone for a while, but then he will compel them to the doom of Fire. 2:126
14. The doom of the disbelievers will not be lightened. 2:162
15. Allah is severe punishment! 2:165-6
16. They will not emerge from the Fire. 2:167
17. Those who hide the Scripture will have their bellies eaten with fire. Theirs will be a painful doom. 2:174
18. How constant are they in their strife to reach the Fire! 2:175
19. "Fight in the way of Allah." 2:190, 2:244
20. Believers must retaliate. Those who transgress will have a painful doom. 2:178
21. Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2
22. "Guard us from the doom of Fire." 2:201
23. Those who fail in their duty to Allah are proud and sinful. They will all go to hell. 2:206
24. War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216
25. Those who die in their disbelief will burn forever in the Fire. 2:217
26. Those who marry unbelievers will burn in the Fire. 2:221
27. Disbelievers worship false gods. The will burn forever in the Fire. 2:257
28. "Those who swallow usury ... are rightful owners of the Fire." 2:275
29. Those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom. 3:4
30. Those who disbelieve will be fuel for the Fire. 3:10
31. Those who disbelieve shall be overcome and gathered unto Hell. 3:12
32. "Guard us from the punishment of Fire." 3:16
33. Non-muslims will be punished by Allah for their nonbelief. 3:19
34. Those who disbelieve, promise them a painful doom. 3:21
35. "They [Christians and Jews] say: The Fire will not touch us save for a certain number of days. That which they used to invent hath deceived them regarding their religion." (The Fire will burn them forever.) 3:24
36. Theirs will be a painful doom. 3:77
37. All non-Muslims will be rejected by Allah after they die. 3:85
38. Apostates will be cursed by Allah, angels, and men. They will have a painful doom. 3:86-88

And these are just the first chapters of the Quran. There are 114 in all and there is cruelty and violence littered throughout. So if any muslim wants to justify an act of terrorism, they have more than enough citations in their book. And that's a dangerous tool because it suspends real world morality for a supernatural mission. It dehumanizes other people who many not believe the same way and makes them much easier to kill. Because if Allah commands it, all is well. And it doesn't stop with violence. There are even more instances of intolerance. Here are just a few (cited and paraphrased):

1. "Show us the straight path, The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray."
   Muslims generally interpret "those whom Allah has favored," "those who earn Allah's anger," and "those who go astray" as Muslims, Jews, and Christians, respectively. 1:6-7
2. Don't bother to warn the disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom. 2:6
3. Allah has sickened their hearts. A painful doom is theirs because they lie. 2:10
4. Allah has blinded the disbelievers. 2:17-18
5. A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. 2:24
6. Disbelievers will be burned with fire. 2:39, 2:90
7. Allah stamped wretchedness upon the Jews because they killed the prophets and disbelieved Allah's revelations. 2:61
8. Allah turned the Sabbath-breaking Jews into apes. 2:65-66
9. If you believe in only part of the Scripture, you will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next. 2:85
10. Allah has cursed them for their unbelief. 2:88
11. The curse of Allah is on disbelievers. 2:89
12. Jews are the greediest of all humankind. They'd like to live 1000 years. But they are going to hell. 2:96
13. Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers. 2:98
14. Only evil people are disbelievers. 2:99
15. For disbelievers is a painful doom. 2:104
16. Don't question anything Muhammed says or choose disbelief over faith. 2:108
17. "But those who keep their duty to Allah will be above them [non-muslims] on the Day of Resurrection." 2:212
18. For unbelievers: ignominy in this world, an awful doom in the next. 2:114
19. "And thou wilt not be asked about the owners of hell-fire." (They are the non-muslims.) 2:119
20. Disbelievers are losers. 2:121
21. Allah will leave the disbelievers alone for a while, but then he will compel them to the doom of Fire. 2:126
22. "Who forsaketh the religion of Abraham save him who befooleth himself?"
    Cited in the Hamas Charter (Article 27) to condemn the idea of a secular state. 2:130
23. Those who reject the proofs, are accursed of Allah. 2:159
24. Those who die disbelievers, are cursed by Allah, angels, and men. 2:161
25. The doom of the disbelievers will not be lightened. 2:162
26. They will not emerge from the Fire. 2:167
27. Disbelievers will be deaf, dumb, and blind. 2:171
28. Those who hide the Scripture will have their bellies eaten with fire. Theirs will be a painful doom. 2:174
29. How constant are they in their strife to reach the Fire! 2:175
30. Believers must retaliate. Those who transgress will have a painful doom. 2:178
31. Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2
32. Fight them until "religion is for Allah." 2:193
33. Those who fail in their duty to Allah are proud and sinful. They will all go to hell. 2:206
34. War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216
35. Those who die in their disbelief will burn forever in the Fire. 2:217
36. Intermarriage is forbidden. 2:221
37. The disbelievers, they are the wrong-doers. 2:254
38. Disbelievers worship false gods. The will burn forever in the Fire. 2:257
39. Allah does not guide disbelievers. 2:264
40. "Give us victory over the disbelieving folk." 2:286

Overall, according to Skeptic's Annotated Quran there are an estimated 526 instances of intolerance in the Quran and roughly 520 instances of cruelty and violence (see full list here). A large part of the Quran is dedicated to assaulting non-believers and dehumanizing them to the point where it creates a very cruel 'us vs them' worldview. It is in essance a reflection of the group dynamics of religion. It creates a circle of believers who believe in their heart of hearts that they are right, they are god's chosen, and everybody else is wrong. It creates great solidarity and can rally people to do unspeakable acts of violence and hatred. And it is hard to counter them because they are justified with supernatural forces.

So is Islam a religion of violence? To some extent yes. It incites the same violence as Christianity and Judaism, but the difference with Islam is the media highlights it much more often. And it is worth stating that these holy texts are still believed to be the inerrant word of god. If anybody takes that to its logical extreme then they will find many justifications for murder, violence, and hatred. And that has no place in a free society

In the never-ending search for truth its easy for people with no expertise in certain matters to fall prey to oversimplified, overzealous beliefs. They are spurred on the the age-old addage that seeing is believing and believing is seeing. While that may be true on some levels, many fail to understand that to believe in something isn't the same as knowing it. In the realm of emperical reasoning beliefs and eyewitness testimony are among the least relyable means of proving any claim. Only evidence can prove a claim, but many dogmatic believers shun the idea of providing anything tangible to prove their beliefs. They go so far as to claim they don't just believe it, they know it. This is where religion runs into problems.

In every debate I've had with religious believers, they all make the same claim. They say that their beliefs are the turth and to reject their beliefs is to reject the truth. Many take it a step further and claim that their beliefs are not beliefs at all and that they are "revealed truths" from some supernatural entity or spirit. They'll claim the Bible, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, or the Bagahavita is truth revealed by divinity. But there's no evidence of that they're true. There is nothing tangible they can provide to prove that any of these texts or messages came from any divine source. That is why faith is necessary. But that is where it ends. Faith and belief do not equal truth. They are just beliefs.

It is among the most frustrating parts of being an atheist. I do not believe in the mythological claims of religion for the same reason I do not believe in fairies, unicorns, or elves. Many religious people will scoff at the notion of their existance as well, and yet using the same faulty reasoning they claim their brand of supernatural dogma is right and true. And every time I try and point this out to them they thumb their nose at me, claiming I am shunning their diety by rejecting the revealed truth (which is really just boils down to personal belief). But I am not shunning just their diety. I'm just rejecting every supernatural diety on a purely reasonable stance. If there is no evidence then there is no proof.

Some will counter that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of abscense.' And this is true to some extent. Many things may be possible that we can never prove, but it's necessary to seperate that which is possible from that which is probable.  Is it probable that there are other forms of life outside our planet? Taking into account what we know about life, physics, and the cosmos then yes. It is probable, even though we don't have any evidence of it yet. It does fit into our understanding of the natural world that we can measure and observe. So is it probable that there is some all-seeing, all-knowing supernatural sky god lurking in some spiritual realm watching over and observing our every move and judging us for everything we do? The answer is simply no. There is nothing outside the realm of baseless speculation that such a being could exist. It is by the very nature of the supernatrual to be unprovable and untestable. That is why faith is required, otherwise nobody would believe it.

Then there are those who equate believing in something equats to values. Many religous social conservatives call themselves 'value voters,' but this is another faulty assumption. Just believing in something doesn't make any one person more righteous than anyone else. If you believe that Jesus Christ is your lord and savior, that's fine. But it doesn't make you any more upstanding than an atheist, muslim, or hindu. It is a grossly self-centered, narcisistic view to think that a single set of beliefs are the right set of beliefs while all others are either wrong. Yet this is the view of many religons (and I'm not just referring to Christianity). It creates a dangerous precedent by claiming their side is right and the other side is wrong. So that gives them permission to demonize, persecute, and sometimes even harm those who believe differently. And there are no values in such despicable self-righteousness.

In a free society people are free to believe whatever they want to believe. You can believe in all the stories of the Bible and you can believe that crystals have special healing properties. But the line is drawn when those beliefs are imposed on others or endorsed by the state. Beliefs are not knowledge and they never will be. You can believe in something all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Having faith and believing in something greater than yourself is a noble thing, but it's necessary to keep things in perspective and understand that it is a belief and not the truth.

The following is link to an interesting video I found on youtube that also explains this concept in a much better way than I ever could.

Beliving isn't Knowing

With the recent controversy over Prop 8 in California, which passed by a decent margin, the subject of homosexuality has once again become another hot-button topic. Over two dozen states have constitutional amendments that ban homosexuals from entering into a legal, martial contract. And it's worth noting that this measure is technically unconstitutional under the 14th amendment that grants equal rights to all citizens, but that's another matter. Much of the social upheaval against homosexuality comes largely from social conservatives who, under the justification of religiously motivated morality, decry it as unnatural and sinful. They believe that since homosexuality is unnatural and thus against their deity's plan, they are justified in denying an entire group of people their constitutional rights. But there's a problem with that argument.

The idea of arguing immorality on the basis of it being unnatural is not new. Many religious conservatives claim that because homosexuality does not lead to the fostering of children. And because of this it's okay to make laws against it. But by that logic they should also make laws against World of Warcraft, which has also been known to hinder the production of children. And just because its unnatural doesn't by default make it wrong. That's a common fallacy known as an argument by nature. If we were to start making laws against anything unnatural that would mean banning selective breeding of livestock, banning the genetic modification of food crops which save millions from starvation, and banning the removal of tumors because tumors are natural too.

And homosexuality, it turns out, may be more natural than most people realized. A few years ago, a study by Cambridge discovered that over 1,500 species practice some form of homosexuality. Many of our closest ancestors like Chimpanzees and Gorillas practice homosexuality. But other species that are far more distant do it as well such as penguins and killer whales. So to say that it's unnatural is to grossly ignore hard scientific fact.

You can read more of the article at the following link:

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

The arguments against homosexuality are heated, but no matter how many social demigods rally against it homosexuality will continue in some form or another as it has since the beginning of civilization. And in a free society it is irrational, arrogant, and unlawful to subjugate an entire class of people based on behavior that is entirely natural.

This past year, the comedy world lost one of it's most prolific and influential figures: George Carlin. He spent nearly half a century in show business. His comedy specials and television appearances are some of the most memorable and funny skits in pop culture. Many comedy experts rank him among the elite with the likes of Richard Pryor and Rodney Dangerfield. His death this year was a true loss.

George Carlin gave us many memorable routines. Most notably was the "seven words you can't say." This famous routine prompted a Supreme Court case known as FCC vs. Pacifica, which laid the foundation for the censorship powers that the FCC uses to control broadcast media. Carlin, and many like him, spent many years decrying this act as being unconstitutional. And a strict interpretation of the first amendment confirms this. "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." And yet an unelected body in the FCC is given power to regulate and control speech they consider 'indecent' or 'obscene.' It is censorship, plain and simple. It was unconstitutional when Carlin fought it and it's still unconstitutional now. It comes down to politicians and beauracrats banning something just because they and a select few don't like it.

In addition to Carlin's rants on free speech. He was also famously a non-believer. Some of his most memorable skits were about god and the irrational nature of religion. Even before I became a non-believer, I felt he made many astute observations that were not done out of malice, but out of criticism. And some are valid. Many people of faith often don't think critically about it and don't approach it from different points of view. So that when they try to engange in discourse with others, it is often hampered because they are unwilling to think differently.

One of my personal favorite rants was about Easter and the life of Jesus. When I was a Christian, I may have found this troubling. But as a non-believer, I think it's very thought provoking and worthy of inquiry. Below is an excerpt from that rant, courtesy of Carlin's book "When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops." It details what he considers a description of Easter if it were reported by an objective, outside media source.

"Today is Good Friday, observed worldwide by Jesus buffs on a day in which the popular, bearded cultural figure, sometimes referred to as 'The Messiah' was allegedly crucified and - according to legend - died for mankind's so-called sins. Today kicks off a 'holy' weekend that culminates on Easter Sunday when, it is widely believed, this dead 'savoir' - who also, by the way, claimed to be the son of a sky-dwelling, invisible being known as God - mysteriously 'rose from the dead.'

According to legend, by volunteering to be killed and actually going through with it, Jesus has saved every person that has ever lived - and every person who will live - from an eternity of suffering in a region popularly known as Hell, providing - so the story goes - that the person be 'saved' firmly believes this rather fanciful tale."

It's interesting to consider how those who believe would look at this compared to those who don't believe. Many people believe in many different things. And even for the beliefs shared by a vast majority of the population, it is important to look at them from an outside perspective. George Carlin was a master at painting things in a differet, if not bawdy, sort of light. He could do it in a way that was entertaining, insightful, and very funny.

Geroge Carlin will sorely be missed. He lived a long, eventful life and had a very successful career. And his jokes, and insight, will live on for generations to come.

In the 1920s, religious and political ideologues were convinced that alcohol was the cause of everything wicked in society and that banning it's sale and distribution would make for a better society. They were so convinced they muscled through a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. Distilleries were closed, bars and saloons went out of business, and entire communities were changed. But while the idea may have seemed sound, none of the people behind the movement could have foreseen the unintended consequences. Their cause, as noble as it may have sounded, did more harm then good. They banned something they considered immoral, but it didn't go away. Instead, something worse came about.

Throughout the 20s, crime soared as continued demand for alcohol created a new black market. Gangsters like Al Capone came to power, creating networks of illegal businesses that were not governed by free markets or rule of law. Force was the only way to carry out business. It lead to bloody battles between rival gangs and authorities that resulted in the deaths of many. But even more damage was done as a result of poorly made and dangerously formulated products like Moonshine. The cost of enforcing this ban on alcohol was immense and even when major crime figures were apprehended, new figures always took their place and the trade continued.

The 1920s prohibition on alcohol failed. In the span of a decade another constitutional amendment made alcohol legal again. But the era of  prohibition offers an important lesson to modern social activists who seek to ban certain vices. Banning something doesn't make it go away. And banning something often leads to unintended consequences that can only make the problem worse. Yet this is lost on people. Even when they know what they do won't stop something, they do it anyway just because it makes them feel good. And that level of conceit and selfishness is reprehensible on all levels.

While the battle against alcohol is long over, other battles continue. One is the ever popular War on Drugs. Up until the 1920s and 30s, there were no drug laws because it was thought to be unconstitutional to dictate what people could and could not consume (and it still is). But that didn't stop Nixon from flat out banning substances like marijuana and cocaine. And the result of his policies were the same as the policies on prohibition. Black markets have thrived and crime has surged with prisons overflowing with non-violent drug offenders. And like Moonshine, new drugs like Crystal Meth and Crack emerge as potent new synthetics that are far more harmful than anything naturally occurring. But it doesn't stop people from selling them because in the world of black markets, there are no rules or standards.

Another battle is abortion. Some radical pro-lifers seek a constitutional amendment defining personhood as beginning at conception. This would in effect, make all abortion illegal. But would it make abortion go away? No, it would only lead to the deaths of countless women. When abortion is legal it can be regulated and scrutinized for safety so that the risks are low. But where it is illegal, like in much of the developing world, women still seek them and often resort to the black market to get them. These are called 'back alley abortions' and they have no standards and regulations guiding them. According to the World Health Organization, around 68,000 women die every year because of unsafe abortions. Is such a price in human life worth it?

Another battle that emerged around the time of prohibition is prostitution. Up until the 1920s, prostitution was legal throughout most of the United States. But the same idealogues who banned alcohol sought to ban prostitution as well. But once again, banning it didn't make it go away. Instead, it sent it to the black market where the ugly forces of pimps and human traffickers control the trade. Like the drug war there is no order and there are no standards. Criminals will abduct children and take advantage of runaway women to force them into prostitution. And there's nothing they can do about it because if they go to the police, they get thrown in jail. Then there are the women choose prostitution of their free will (yes it does happen). Should they be thrown in jail too even though they're not hurting anybody?

Then there are the other smaller battles like banning pornography, violent video games, and profanity. Idealogues think that by removing these from society people will be better off, but banning them will only create more black markets and more illegal trades that will clog courts and put non-violent people in jail. Some states like Texas and Alabama have laws banning the sale of erotic toys. But people are still able to get them through the internet so it doesn't go away and it risks putting the people that sell them in jail. How is that justice?

These social ideologues are usually not driven by anything rational. They are usually people seeking political power through scapegoating certain aspects of society or religious leaders who believe they have a god given right to take away the freedoms of others and impose their standards on society. They don't care that doing so only makes things worse. They only care about doing something that makes them feel good about themselves. Because at the end of the day that's all these battles do. They make the idealists feel good about themselves while the rest of society suffers.

But in a truly free society, people have the freedom to live their lives as they see fit so long as they do not harm other people. That means they have a right to take drugs if they want or eat junk food if they want. That means they have a right to engage in prostitution so long as it is not coerced. That means they have a right to watch whatever violent or erotic media they want so long as they aren't harming people. This is what freedom truly is. You don't have to like these things or participate in them. But you don't have a right to tell other people they can't. That is the essance of a free society.

For nearly 30 years, being a conservative has meant being a supporter of the Christian Right. You can't get ahead in the Republican Party or any conservative circles unless you declare that you are a deep person of faith who believes of the dogma of Judeo-Christian mythology and promises to use that as a base to make decisions. This idea that being a conservative means governing with religion as a guide is completely contrary to the original ideas of conservatism. Groups like the Christian Coalition, the Moral Majority, the Family Research Council, and Focus on the family have hijacked a party that once stood for true American values and the religious part of it was only secondary.

Being a conservative has nothing to do with being a good Christian. True conservatives follow several basic tenants: they are for smaller government, they are for individual liberty, and they strongly believe in using the constitution as the model for governance (not a 2,000 year old book of myths and fables). These are the principles that I latched onto as I grew up and became more politically active. But I was always turned off by how so much of it had been corrupted by the Christian Right. It is difficult for me especially because I am a non-believer and I don't believe god should have any part in government. And so even though I believe in many conservative principles, I can't call myself one without seperating myself from the Christian Right.

It wasn't always like this. Before the 1980s there was no Religious Right influencing either party. Religion still played a part, but it was secondary to the economic and social principles of conservatism. Then men like Pat Robertson and Jerry Farwell came along and proclaimed America was a rotting cesspool of immorality and used the same old fire-and-brimstone tactics that religion has been using for centuries to scare people into adhering. They gained power because of an ongoing backlash of society from the excessive liberalism that arose from the late sixties. It really didn't have anything to do with immorality. Society in the sixties (while far more deviant than society today) was still relatively law biding compared to other times in history (namely the prohibition years of the 1920s). But by projecting the idea that America was no longer a godly nation, the Christian Right gained support and snaked their way into Conservatism. And since that time, they have ruined it.

Conservatism is no longer the party of small government. Ronald Regan didn't shrink government, he merely slowed its growth. Neither Bush was very conservative in that regard. Despite claims by liberals, there was no major deregulation under George W Bush. Remember, this man didn't veto a single spending bill until a bill on stem cell research came to him (which was rejected largely on morals dicated by the Religious Right). But they still get to call themselves conservative because they adhere to the Christian Right's beliefs on society. They believe that homosexuals are sinners and don't deserve equal rights under the law, that any kind of sexuality outside of marriage is immoral, that prayer and teaching creationism in public schools isn't a huge violation of the seperation of church and state (even though the courts rule that it is), and that women should not have the right to choose whether or not they want to be mothers. None of these have anything to do with real conservatism. None of them would even be issues were it not for the Christian Right. Yet because they have become so strongly associated with Conservatism, it is hard to declare yourself a conservative without declaring that you are anti-gay, anti-choice, and anti-personal freedom.

The Christian Right has ruined the Republican party and conservatism in general. They have distracted people from true conservative values and injected their own agenda into the fray. They believe that this shouldn't be a nation of freedom, but a nation of Christian principles and all those who don't agree with that are subject to ridicule and scorn. This is completely contrary to the principles of a free society and what conservatism is. There's a reason why the founding fathers set up a free exercise clause in the constitution and why they were for freedom of religion. They saw the need to keep the church from influencing policy and today America has completely forgotten that.

It's okay to be religious. It's okay to be Christian. This nation is full of good, upstanding Christians, but in a free society it is wrong for any one religous group to gain power and favor over another. The Christian Right has destroyed conservatism and until true conservatives who reject these notions start standing up and making their voices heard, the conservative philosophy will be at the mercy of ignorant religious zealots.