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.