Happy Darwin Day

by folkbum

Prediction: The creationist right will be furious that Google's doodle is honoring Darwin's 200th but snubbing "Reagan Day" earlier this month. Discuss.

LUNCHTIME UPDATE: Apparently, Kevin Binversie, determined to drive me some traffic today ([JOKE REDACTED BY YOUR HOST TO SATISFY THE HUMORLESS GOOGLE MACHINE) has taken offense that Google is not choosing to honor Abraham Lincoln on a day other than the one that by law we actually honor Lincoln on.

Lunchtime Aside: Should we atheists petition to get the Friday before Presidents' Day declared a holiday, too, in Darwin's honor? Would people start liking us if we gave them a four-day weekend?

Romney, Quotas, Atheists

by folkbum

Via Kevin Drum, I see that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney may well believe in quotas:

I asked Mr. Romney whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters, given his position that "jihadism" is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today. He answered, "…based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration."

Kevin Drum adds,

What's really telling about this is that you can almost see the gears turning in his brain when he came up with this answer. Obviously he had to say "no," because he knows that the Republican base would go nuts over the idea of a Muslim in his cabinet. But he can't just say that, can he? So his Bain-trained analytic mind went searching for a plausible excuse and the first thing that popped out of the wetware was a numerical explanation: (a) minorities deserve cabinet positions in proportion to their population, (b) one cabinet position is 5% of all cabinet positions, (c) therefore only groups with at least 15 million members are "justified" in getting one, (d) Muslims aren't even close to that, so (e) no dice. However, since they do make up about 2% of the population, they certainly qualify for 2% of all the lower level positions.

This naturally led me to wonder about Romney myself. There are between 20 million and 30 million people who identify as atheist, agnostic, or otherwise unaffiliated with any faith in this country, depending on whose estimates you believe. That means Mitt Romney, with his apparent religious quota system, ought to appoint one or two cabinet officials who claim no faith.

Do you think that would ever happen? Of course not--Romney is probably less likely to put an atheist in the cabinet than he is to appoint a Muslim. And that's not just because Romney is who he is--the same is likely true for pretty much all the Republicans, and, for that matter, most of the Democrats. Remember, atheist was at the very, very bottom of a presidential preference poll--people would be more likely to vote for a 72-year-old black gay Jewish woman than they would an atheist. (Note: That Gallup survey seems to have not included Muslims. Why is that?)

Which brings me back around the inevitable question raised every time this subject comes up. What is it with people of no or indeterminate faith that kills our chances with the American people? I could never win an election not because I'm a fat, bald liberal, but because I won't end every speech with "God bless America" or take my oath of office on a Bible.

So how about it, readers: Would it take a quota system for you to put an atheist in your cabinet? And be honest: Would you vote atheist over Christian (Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc.)? And please explain your answers. Complete sentences preferred.

The Continuing War on Atheism

by folkbum

Almost two years ago, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published a column by "community columnist" Dale Reich who said, essentially, that he didn't understand why atheists weren't hedonistically indulging every bacchanalian impulse all the time. If we're just animals, he reckoned, it shouldn't matter if we're moral or not.

A the time, I wrote that Reich was full of crap:

By writing that "God is the basis for good and evil," [Reich] dismisses any notion that there may be a source of morality and ethics derived from the non-divine. This is one of the most common fallacies presented by those who, for example, do not want evolution taught in schools. Somehow, they believe, knowing that life's development was due to a fortuitous confluence of physics, chemistry, and biology--rather than due to divine intervention--somehow makes life meaningless. It does not. The prisons are not stocked full of the irreligious (despite Reich's clumsy attempt to equate atheists and sociopaths); the atheists are not the ones committing suicide en masse; the non-believers did not fly the planes into the World Trade Center.

What do I see over the weekend? Another, new "community columnist" making the same stupid argument (technically, he's writing about evolution, not atheism, but the subtext is clear).

So to you, Philip Bramblet, I say, go back and read what I wrote two years ago. Just because you don't have a far-enough evolved frontal lobe to understand that morality does not only come from religion does not mean you can impugn the conscience and decency of atheists and those who believe in evolution. To claim, as you do, that atheists ought not condemn rape or murder, is outrageous and insulting.

Non-Theists in the news

by folkbum

We were teased last week about the possibility that a member of Congress would "come out" this week as an atheist. Turns out to be California Representative Pete Stark:

Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), a member of Congress since 1973, acknowledged his nontheism in response to an inquiry by the Secular Coalition for America (www.secular.org ). Rep. Stark is a senior member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee and is Chair of the Health Subcommittee.

Although the Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office, the Coalition's research reveals that Rep. Stark is the first open nontheist in the history of the Congress. Recent polls show that Americans without a god-belief are, as a group, more distrusted than any other minority in America. Surveys show that the majority of Americans would not vote for an atheist for president even if he or she were the most qualified for the office.

On a related note, I will direct you, as I so often do, to digby's blog, but not a post by digby. Poputonian notes Stark's announcement, and reminds us of the history behind the "no religious test" portion of the Constitution. It was put there deliberately, and the founders knew what they were doing when they added it. So the next time you hear a Mitt Romney demand that this country needs to be led by a "person of faith," ask him where, exactly, he thinks the authority for that comes from.

Oh, My Dog! Non-theism in the news

I suppose it's been a big week for the people of my (non)faith. After suffering through a long stretch of fights over just how Christian a candidate for president has to be to get elected, it's nice to get some more uplifting news.

For example, I hear the mint is finally making coins just for us:

An unknown number of new George Washington dollar coins were mistakenly struck without their edge inscriptions, including "In God We Trust," and are fetching around $50 apiece online. [. . .]

Bailey said it was unknown how many coins lacked the inscriptions. Ron Guth, president of Professional Coin Grading Service, one of the world's largest coin authentication companies, said he believes that at least 50,000 error coins were put in circulation.

"The first one sold for $600 before everyone knew how common they actually were," he said. "They're going for around $40 to $60 on eBay now, and they'll probably settle in the $50 range."

Although once again we're being discriminated against: We have to pay fifty bucks for a coin worth one that we can't even put in a vending machine. But at least they're trying, eh?

Then there's also the big Supreme Court case this week, brought by Wisconsin's own Freedom from Religion Foundation:

This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by a group of atheists who claim the Bush administration's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives violates the separation of church and state.

It's just one example of how atheists are becoming increasingly assertive — arguing not only that religion is false, but also a threat to civilization.

Outside the court, atheists and people of faith squared off. Inside, the Freedom From Religion Foundation made its case against the president's pet program.

The foundation's co-president, Dan Barker, was a fundamentalist preacher for 19 years. Now, he's preaching from a different text — specifically, "separation of church and state, and reason and kindness in place of superstition and ideologies."

But Barker and his wife, Annie Laurie Gaylor, who is also the foundation's co-president, said the problem is bigger than the Bush administration and its faith-based initiatives. They see a world being torn apart by religious fundamentalists of all stripes.

"[Religion is] the source of the greatest violence in the world," Gaylor said. "More people have been killed in the world for religion over any other reason."

This is why the FfRF is not our best spokesgroup (I prefer Americans United for the Separation of Church and State). But I do commend them for taking on the faith-based initiatives office. It's not that I oppose tax dollars being spent by rligious groups--as long as the work they do with that money is secular in nature, i.e., feeding the hungry and housing the homeless--but rather I feel those groups should be treated no differently than non-religious organizations that do the same things. Establishing an office explicitly to solicit proposals from and grant money to faith groups crosses a line.

But the most interesting news of the week may well be this:

On Monday, March 12, the Secular Coalition for America, a national lobbying group representing Americans who do not hold a god-belief, will make history by announcing the name of the first open nontheist member of Congress.

We make a big show of not requiring a religious test for office (what with that being in the Constitution and all), but in practice you just can't get elected in this country without outward demonstrations of faith, particularly Christian. I mean, good for Keith Ellison and everything, but how many thousands of members of Congress have served in the last two centuries before we elected a single Muslim?

The comment thread at that post is also interesting with plenty of speculation about which member of Congress will "come out" as non-theist, including a couple of Wisconsin's Congresscritters. Barney Frank is the favorite, though. I guess we'll find out Monday.

Monday Miscellaney

by folkbum

• Unsolicited plug: Guido G's Pizza, 13th and Morgan, 383-7776. Best. Pizza. Ever. Blows the chains out of the water.
  
  
• See why Ken Mobile is fast becoming one of the best new local bloggers.
  
  
• Speaking of Jessica McBride, one thing has confused me for some time about her WTMJ blog: When you click on this header----you get redirected to . . . Charlie Sykes's blog. There's probably something to that.
  
  
• Get your hands off me, you damn, dirty ape! (Or, more elliptically:

  McArthur Parker: Have you ever heard of "Planet of the Apes"?
  Troy McClure: The movie or the planet?
  McArthur Parker: The brand new multi-million dollar musical! And they want you to play . . . the human!
  Troy McClure: That's the part I was born to play, baby!)

  
  
• All snarkery aside, this seems to be a tremendous misapplication of justice:

  Julie Amero was a substitute teacher who found herself in a pickle while teaching a class of 12-year-old boys.
  
  The school computer in her classroom, which she had been told not to turn off under any circumstances, and which had no virus protection, spyware protection, and was running a 9-year-old operating system, started popping up porn ads. Not just one or two, but loads.
  
  When Julie tried to click them off by hitting the little X on the top corner, more popped up. And more.
  
  With the kids clamoring for a look, Julie tried to block the screen from them, but there were too many, so she ran out to the teachers' lounge and asked for help.

  And for being a victim of Windows 98, she could get 40 years in prison. There's plenty more to get you angry at the link. And it's not a joke.
  
  
• I know you've probably already seen the Conservapedia by now. If you haven't, you should take the time to get to know it before it is completely overrun with graffiti--it's hilarious enough now. (Here's some of the less funny parts.) But here's what gets me: On the main page, they claim to be at least in part a response to the "anti-conservative bias" on Wikipedia. Among their examples of Wikipedia's bias, they include things like "Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words" (particularly British spellings), and that biographical entries are often gossipy. Neither of those seem particularly biased against conservatives. I don't get it.
  
  
• Al Gore won an Oscar, unless things go wrong for him at the Supreme Court.
  
  
• Just a reminder: Atheists (if I may be so bold as to speak for all of us) are opposed to neither morality nor religion. The problem is forking over my tax dollars to pay for expressions of that religion. How is that hard to understand?
  
  
• Here's one for all you people who can't write three words in a row without slipping into some sort of "Democrats and al Qaeda share talking points" hoopdedoo.
  
  
• Stoller explains why the adulterating, drag-wearing, gay-rights-loving, pro-choice Rudy Giuliani might still win:

  Like a lot of us, [Josh Marshall] thinks that Republicans base their political judgment on issues, ie. gay rights, abortion, national defense, taxes, etc. He makes the same mistake that a lot of Democrats make, assuming that conservatives think the way that we do. They don't. They are authoritarians. Gay marriage, abortion, taxes, national security, none of it really matters to them. What they are looking for is an authoritarian to look like he's taking charge, and the way an authoritarian takes charge is to attack liberals and stomp on people who aren't like them. Giuliani did this in New York, so he's a rock star in Alabama.

The War on Atheism

A few weeks ago on this very blog, congressional candidate Bryan Kennedy created a bit of a stir with the line, "How is it that conservative religious zealots have seized my Savior and determined His values?" Critics jumped all over him, prompting defenses from me and from Bryan himself, with the furor even garnering notice in the inaugural moments of Spivak and Bice's SpiceBlog. The critics accused Bryan of slandering all religious conservatives, when he was really just talking about the unfortunate fringe who dominate the religious debate on the right.

So I checked in with the usual suspects--those quick to judge Bryan--and found nary a peep from them about the way Dale Reich slanders non-religious people in this morning's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. He writes:

Friends, if you're going to be atheists, start thinking and acting like it. Get rid of your own irrational beliefs and embrace the world as you say it is: a purely physical and random place where goodness and evil don't really exist and where the rules set down by organized religion and thousands of years of human history are no more meaningful than two rocks colliding at the bottom of a mountain after an avalanche.

What I learned from my foray into disbelief was that most atheists have it all wrong. They've merely substituted their own irrational belief system for the one I was given from 2,000 years ago. [. . .]

God is the basis for good and evil, and once you reject him and his rules, you're left with nothing but self-serving and self-preservation. In short, you're left with being your own god.

[. . . V]irtually all of my non-believing friends [have come] up with a set of beliefs on their own. They find them in tradition, in rational thought, in politics, in philosophy, in the moon and the stars, in Tarot cards and even in the cookies where they get their Chinese takeout. [. . .] It seems to me, as a rational man as well as a Christian, that those thoughts are irrational and should be discarded immediately by any right-thinking atheist. I'm puzzled why they cling to something so silly. For them, life should be merely an exercise in seeking personal pleasure, procreating and then dying.

I'm not going to pretend to understand everything there is to understand about the devoutly religious. I did, however, grow up among them; they are my people. I went to church three or more times a week until I was 18, and I think I have a pretty good handle on at least some of it all. What Reich has done here is not uncommon in my experience.

By writing that "God is the basis for good and evil," he dismisses any notion that there may be a source of morality and ethics derived from the non-divine. This is one of the most common fallacies presented by those who, for example, do not want evolution taught in schools. Somehow, they believe, knowing that life's development was due to a fortuitous confluence of physics, chemistry, and biology--rather than due to divine intervention--somehow makes life meaningless. It does not. The prisons are not stocked full of the irreligious (despite Reich's clumsy attempt to equate atheists and sociopaths); the atheists are not the ones committing suicide en masse; the non-believers did not fly the planes into the World Trade Center.

Reich wonders why we irreligious would bother to help stranded motorists, for example, since helping others is not "seeking personal pleasure, procreating [or] dying." He neglects that many of us find being nice, kind, generous, or charitable in itself a pleasurable activity, even if we believe the good works bring little more than temporary satisfaction. In fact, a key principal of evolutionary biology is the idea of altruism; helping other members of the species ultimately benefits our own chances of survival, and those of our offspring. I look at it more from the angle of Peter Parker's Uncle Ben: "With great power comes great responsibility." This giant frontal lobe of mine--and the attendant consciousness and reason--endows me and all of the rest of us with a responsibility to take care of each other and the world we live in. There's a reason why those noted non-Christians, Native Americans, practiced a "seventh-generation" philosophy; it's not that they wanted to do and be good to please God, but rather to ensure that their descendants would survive and inherit a society worth living in.

In fact, it is depressingly cynical to consider that, in Reich's worldview, the only reason to do good is to earn a better seat in the afterlife. One would think we've evolved beyond that by now.