No, seriously – holy pajamas.

So why make children’s pajamas modeled after the Armor of God? Indoctrination, of course.

Although we are a new company, our desire is to grow into a well-known Christian Organization whose main goal is to reach as many children as possible by providing the Word of God, offering top quality products and excellent customer service along with offering parents the means and support to help their children grow in the knowledge of Jesus Christ.

What was it that Dawkins said about religion as child abuse? And maybe it’s just me but if my parents strongly encouraged me to wear armor — complete with helmet! — to bed that would only serve to reinforce the belief that there are, in fact, monsters under the bed or in the closet.

And there there is the bible passage that inspired them:

6:10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
6:14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
6:18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

“Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day”? That doesn’t seem like the proper inspiration for pajamas;unless, i guess, you are home-schooled and can wear your PJs all day.

Overcoming addiction is no easy feat; it can be both physically and mentally taxing on a person. Fortunately there are rehab programs out there, organizations like Alcoholics Anonymous and other twelve step programs exist to help recovering addicts battle their past.

Unless, of course, you’re an atheist.

In most of these programs, god is a required part of many of the twelve steps; religion is completely intertwined in the process. For example, amongst AA’s twelve steps are:

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

Obviously, an atheist would have difficulty completing such a program as several of the steps would rely entirely on a being the atheist has no belief in; they would have to seek out less-well-known, secular rehabilitation programs if and where possible.

Sometimes, however, that is not possible; this is a problem in its own right but it is excaberated when a recovering addict is compelled to attend a rehabilitation program. It would be a violation of the First Amendment to force someone into such an organization as it would certainly prohibit their ability to practice (or not practice) religion as they see fit.

In 1996, the New York Supreme Court ruled that an inmate could not be compelled to participate in a twelve step program as “[a]dherence to the A.A. fellowship entails engagement in religious activity and religious proselytization.”

Enter Barry A. Hazle, Jr., 40 of Redding, CA. As part of his probation for a drug-possession charge, Hazle was required to participate in a 90 day rehab program in California but found that all such available programs, statewide, were based on the religious-themed twelve step model. He filed an appeal stating as much but, three days later, was arrested and thrown back in jail.

He is now suing the Department of Corrections and claiming that his First Amendment rights were violated; as per the NY judgment, he is correct in claiming so.

What might be the most disturbing element of the case, to me at least, is that it seems that Hazle was complying with the court order to the best of his ability; he was thrown back in jail for violation of his parole but note the details here:

Three days later [after submitting his appeal], “I was taken out of class and taken back to prison,” Hazle said. He had already served a year and a half in prison, a sentence that later was overturned on appeal.

Hazle said as Crofoot [his parole officer] was leading him out of class, he told Hazle he was going to make an example of him.

Hazle was removed from one of the program’s classes and thrown back in prison; he was attending the program despite the fact that it was in direct opposition to his religious beliefs.

So what was the arrestable offense? The fact that he complained and appealed the mandatory rehabilitation program in light of the lack of secular options?

In suing, he seeks both damages and the creation of secular rehabilitation programs for non-theist addicts.

The recent US Religious Landscape Survey featured some fascinating data about the religious make-up of the American populace, but the biggest number to come out of the survey was the infamous “21% of atheists believe in God” that stirred up quite a bit of discussion on the internet and in the media. Everyone had something to say about this stat; many found humor in the fact. 

Some posited that this indicated atheism was becoming more of a cultural designation as opposed to a theological statement; others thought atheists must simply be confused about what atheism really means. But everyone mentioned that same seemingly absurd phrase — “21% of atheists believe in God.”

Most people, however, simply repeated the quote as they found it in the media; few took the time to actually examine the poll question itself being referenced. As someone who previously worked for a firm that did considerable amounts of political polling, I was curious; when forming a poll, the particular phrasing of a question can easily sway or alter the poll results and it seemed odd to me that self-identified atheists, when asked “Do you believe in god?” would answer in the affirmative.

So imagine my surprise when I found that the actual question was:

Do you believe in God or a universal spirit? [IF YES, ASK:] How certain are you about this belief? Are you absolutely certain, fairly certain, not too certain, or not at all certain?

That wording shows that the oft-quoted phrase should actually be “21% of atheists believe in God or a universal spirit” — a statement with a potentially different meaning, especially depending on one’s personal interpretation of what a “universal spirit” is. Baruch Spinoza might have argued that he believed in a “universal spirit” despite not believing in any sense of personal or self-aware god; Albert Einstein might identify himself as an atheist and yet make the same claim,

In fact, there is a whole movement of “spiritual atheists” — those that do not believe in any god or gods but do believe in the possibility of either individual spirits or a universal one.

Yet still, the 21% number is bandied about further reinforcing ill-informed public opinion on the nature of atheism and providing those that already view atheists so negatively with another piece of faulty evidence they can use to support their theistic worldview. 

Atheists hate faulty evidence.