Surely the Rev. Charles Ellis at Detroit’s Greater Grace Temple will believe that his actions yesterday were directly responsible for it as the congregation at one of Detroit’s largest choices gathered to ask God to have Congress deliver such a bailout. They actually had SUVs at the alter, as described in the Reuters article “SUVs at altar, Detroit church prays for a bailout” –

Local car dealerships donated three hybrid SUVs to be displayed during the service, one from each of the Big Three. A Ford Escape, Chevy Tahoe from GM and a Chrysler Aspen were parked just in front of the choir and behind the pulpit.

Ellis said he and other Detroit ministers would pray and fast until Congress voted on a bailout for Detroit’s embattled automakers. He urged his congregation to do the same.

How would praying and fasting accomplish help turn a Congressional vote, you might wonder? Well, apparently:

“It’s all about hope. You can’t dictate how people will think, how they will respond, how they will vote,” Ellis said after the service. “But you can look to God. We believe he can change the minds and hearts of men and women in power, and that’s what we tried to do today.”

I’m sure that, were there a God, he’d have better things to do than to monitor the United States’ Congressional decisions on the state of the automotive industry. Just a guess.

It amazes me sometimes what people think prayer can accomplish and the role they figure God will play directly in their lives.

UPDATE: The New York Times has an article as well, complete with photographs of the SUVs, adding this quote:

“We have done all that we can do in this union, so I turn it over to the Lord,” General Holiefield, a U.A.W. vice president for Chrysler, told the crowd. A vice president for the parts suppliers, James Settles Jr., asked those present “to continue your prayers, so we can see a miracle next week.”

Obviously we are a Christian nation if our Congress can create miracles! I wonder how Pete Stark feels about that?

In modern days it’s not uncommon to evaluate those recent changes in a person’s life, specifically those changes that we do or did not approve of, and assign blame to them. Publicly, this has included things like heavy metal music or roleplaying games like Dungeons and Dragons, both of which were linked by loved ones and the press to suicides.

In these cases, friends and family find an immediate causal relationship between the perceived “negative” activities and the suicide; they do not necessarily recognize that correlation does not imply causation.

The story of Jesse Kilgore is a tragic one, for sure; but it is very representative of this phenomenon. As per the World Net Daily article:

Jesse Kilgore committed suicide in October by walking into the woods near his New York home and shooting himself. Keith Kilgore said he was shocked because he believed his son was grounded in Christianity, had blogged against abortion and for family values, and boasted he’d been debating for years.

While I understand that a father would be shocked by his own son’s suicide, I don’t quite know what Jesse’s views on abortion or the fact that he’d been “debating for years” have to do with anything. So what drove Jesse to suicide? His father believes he’s found the answer:

“This professor either assigned him to read or challenged him to read a book, ‘The God Delusion,’ by Richard Dawkins,” he said.

…

“I’m all for academic freedom,” Keith Kilgore said. “What I do have a problem with is if there’s going to be academic freedom, there has to be academic balance.

“They were undermining every moral and spiritual value for my [son],” he said. “They ought to be held accountable.”

Yes, Keith Kilgore believes The God Delusion killed his son and that, furthermore, that the public school system is at fault. He bases this on the fact that a college professor either suggested or challenged Jesse to read The God Delusion and that several friends and an unnamed relative describe Jesse in the days before his sucide as “pretty much an atheist, with no belief in the existence of God (in any form) or an afterlife or even in the concept of right or wrong.”

The quoted source also states that Jesse “thought that murder wasn’t wrong per se, but he would never do it because of the social consequences – that was all there was – just social consequences” — showcasing the common bias and misunderstanding about atheists and morality.

Jesse’s father, his friends, his relatives — all blame the suicide on the loss of faith created by his reading of the book. They see a direct causation there.

Suicide is rarely a quick and spontaneous decision, and the decision to take one’s own life is usually predicated on a number of reasons. I cannot speak to Jesse’s intentions, and know only what the WND articles tells me of him, but I would guess that there were other circumstances leading to his action.

Perhaps he did find himself disbelieving and, fearful of the response from his religious family, could not cope? Perhaps, as a military veteran, he was suffering from other duress?

As mojoey points out:

How about this instead: Jesse Kilgore killed himself because of, mental illness, depression, drugs, girls or maybe boys, guilt, poor grades, or… maybe  because he just woke up one day without faith and realized he could not confront his overbearing father. Perhaps the environment in which he was raised was not welcoming to rational thought…

Instead of considering these options, however, Keith Kilgore has instead assumed that it must be a political enemy, an attack on his faith, and a representation of how our country is straying from the so-called Christian ideals. Again, from the WND article:

Keith Kilgore told WND he feels, by allowing his son to move into the atmosphere of a secular school, like “I put a toddler in the front of my car.”

“My son is the Adam Walsh of the culture war. That’s who my son is,” he said, referring to the child abduction victim whose case was used to create a wide range of amber alert and other programs to protect children.

He said he has a wake-up call over the anti-Christian agenda of public education. And he has some goals.

“I want to hold schools accountable for what they’re teaching our kids. This was malpractice,” he said.

Giving his son the opportunity to have a secular education was akin to putting a toddler in front of a car?  Adam Walsh?

Seriously?

Jesse Kilgore’s death is, obviously, a tragedy and the young man was clearly battling a number of metaphorical demons. He was not a martyr. He was not a victim of the secular, “anti-Christian” atheists. He was just a trouble young man.

Keith Kilgore seeks justification, understandably. But as I mentioned before – correlation does not imply causation and rather than angrily accuse his own perceived enemies of taking his son he should grieve for the loss and find the support he needs to continue on with his life.

[Edit to add the following]

Scarily, some Christians, apparently, don’t think Keith Kilgore’s views are quite extreme enough:

A time may come for that but I think there is a better solution:  transform the public schools.  This will require some ‘get tough’ action by concerned individuals in this country by people who generally aren’t ‘activists.’  They generally try to mind their own business, unlike the other side, which is filled with rabid ideologues who, literally, take to the street if they don’t get their way- or worse.   A story like this one helps illustrate the stakes involved.

Just. Wow.

Granted, it is a product of the American Family Association, and organization known for sharing in the idyllic love and peace of Christianity; an organization that is known for its peaceful and loving embrace of all people.

In this year’s annual return of the “War on Christmas” I’m sure that the AFA will gladly send out free Christmas Crosses to those that make its annual “Naughty or Nice?” retailer list!

(via Gizmodo)

For example, I found this recent piece providing irrefutable arguments against atheism:

Well, that surely convinced me to disavow myself of the “atheistic worldview” and “atheistic system” I’ve long been adhering to! Such fine, proper logic. Bulletproof arguments one might even say.

Or, maybe not.

First, he trots out the age old “First Cause” argument, though he attempts to put a clever little sophisticand semantic spin on it to avoid the typical refutation of the “then what caused God?” retort: he operates under the assumption that god is immaterial and thus not subject to the causation principles. If you prefer, he defines god as “personal” and matter (or, simply, “dirt” as he argues) as impersonal. His argument requires the assumption of dualistic worldview. 

By begging the question of god’s form he believes himself to be solidifying his argument when, in fact, he’s simply creating a logical fallacy and undermining his whole argument.

The second argument our young street minister provides is even more fallacious; first, it relies on the straw man argument that atheists state “There is no god.” While it’s certainly true that there are some atheists willing to state such an argument it is not, by definition, what atheism means. Still, it is a fairly common connotation of atheism so we’ll let is slide; besides, as we’ll see his argument doesn’t hold up anyway.

Let’s presuppose, he argues, that an individual atheist hold half of all potential knowledge; that is, half of anything knowable resides within the mind of a single person. Our friend from JTTN  argues that such an atheist simply cannot argue that there is no god as there is potential knowledge in the other half of all knowledge.

This is another common argument from theists; atheists, they believe, have the burden of proof when it comes to the non-existence of god. This, too, is illogical as seen in examples like Bertrand Russell’s teapot to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. 

Faulty logic and arguments such as these are all too common as apologists seek to justify their belief and attempts to impose logical structure on said belief almost always fail. Rational logic and atheism often come hand in hand, so seeing such an improper application of logic is bound to evoke anger — especially when the arguments are presented again and again despite a bounty of evidence to their fallacious nature. 

BONUS VIDEO: A YouTube video refuting the First Cause argument:

This post is part of a semi-regular series of posts called Things Atheists Hate focusing on things atheists face each and every day that frustrate them, that anger them, and that cause them all sorts of annoyance.

But what about for Atheists? As is common knowledge, Atheists Eat Babies. It must be true, even the obviously reputable Debunking Atheists speaks to the point.

So where’s our tasty air freshener? Fortunately, the search is over! I have discovered the air freshener specifically marketed to atheists:

I used to work down in the neighborhood, not far from Wall Street; it’s not uncommon to see people rubbing the Charging Bull for luck. In fact, so many people rub the bull that its testicles are quite burnished. Still, this seems like an unusually larger crowd than normal.

What could possible be going on? Oh.

It would seem that in January, God singled out one Cindy Jacobs and tasked her with this mission. Cindy, a “respected prophet who travels the world ministering not only to crowds of people, but to heads of nations’ of course had to adhere to the word of her Lord. So speaketh the prophet:

“We are going to intercede at the site of the statue of the bull on Wall Street to ask God to begin a shift from the bull and bear markets to what we feel will be the ‘Lion’s Market,’ or God’s control over the economic systems,” she said.  “While we do not have the full revelation of all this will entail, we do know that without intercession, economies will crumble.”

Wonkette provides some great coverage of this event (with additional photos and even a video) here and here.

Now, I’m not a regular reader of the Holy Bible but I sort of recall reading a similar tale within that tome; thankfully, PZ Myers has provided the tale for us, complete with picture!

The saddest part is that these folks seemingly do not even realize the irony in their actions; and while those who quote the bible are often not familiar with the work as a whole, cherry picking their quotes to support their arguments, the Golden Calf story is one tale I’d assume was fairly well known.

]]> http://www.pinponpun.com/blog/2008/10/31/american-idolatry/feed/ 0 http://www.pinponpun.com/blog/2008/10/15/things-atheists-hate-2-using-religion-to-justify-racism/ http://www.pinponpun.com/blog/2008/10/15/things-atheists-hate-2-using-religion-to-justify-racism/#comments Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:41:15 +0000 PinPonPun http://www.pinponpun.com/?p=37 I’m really at a loss of words, sometimes, when I read articles like this one on The New York Times website. Really, with quotes like this it’s difficult to believe that were are in the year 2008:

“He’s neither-nor,” said Ricky Thompson, a pipe fitter who works at a factory north of Mobile, while standing in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart store just north of here. “He’s other. It’s in the Bible. Come as one. Don’t create other breeds.”

Or this:

“I would think of him as I would of another of mixed race,” said Glenn Reynolds, 74, a retired textile worker in Martinsdale, Va., and a former supervisor at a Goodyear plant. “God taught the children of Israel not to intermarry. You should be proud of what you are, and not intermarry.”

Or even this:

“He’s going to tear up the rose bushes and plant a watermelon patch,” said James Halsey, chuckling, while standing in the Wal-Mart parking lot with fellow workers in the environmental cleanup business. “I just don’t think we’ll ever have a black president.”

Why does it not shock me that these people were all found in a Wal-Mart parking lot? At least I know now that my fears of that mega-goliath shopping mecca are well founded.

One of the troubles I’ve had with reconciling religion, specifically Christianity, are its inherent contradictions. The Christian bible tells us that Jesus preached to “Love Thy Neighbor” — are the quotes above truly indicative of the love Jesus told his followers to exhibit?

Or have we simply regressed to earlier part of the 19th Century where prejudice was the norm and not only expected, but encouraged and fostered by our Judeo-Christian moral belief system?

This post is part of a semi-regular series of posts called Things Atheists Hate focusing on things atheists face each and every day that frustrate them, that anger them, and that cause them all sorts of annoyance.

Hank Fox was a copy-editor for a newspaper; he left when the paper printed something that offended him:

Tonight an interesting story rolled across my desk. It was about a World War II pilot and his experience in the B-17 military plane, also called the Flying Fortress. The final anecdote of the article was about his plane getting shot down, and one quote the reporter used was him saying something like “My co-pilot was an atheist before, but he’s been a good Christian ever since.”

Why would this offend him? Partly because Fox is an atheist himself, but moreso it offended his journalistic integrity. Were the words “atheist” and “good Christian” replaced with any other demographic terms, he would still want the comment stricken from an article. Chance are that they would be.

Fox compares the discrimination of atheists to that faced by other minorities in this country; he notes:

Atheists today face discrimination so subtle, so pervasive, that it doesn’t even have a name.

And it’s true. Yet another thing atheists should be angry about. Atheists need to speak out against such nonsense, even if we get pegged as being “angry” or “stubborn” — if we don’t, it will simply continue.

Hank Fox worked at a place where the managing editors had something offensive brought to their attention; they chose to leave it, he chose to leave.

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.

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.