Don Ardell's Wellness Perspectives on Sex, Religion & Politics

A Contest For Your Consideration

If you were intimidated, would you resent it?  Would you do something about it, if you could?  Do you think people should have the freedom to speak their minds, even if some might take offense?  Or, are certain topics, like religion, off limits - protected from even sincere questioning and criticism? 

You probably have a pretty good idea where I stand on such matters.  I ask these questions in the context of news from Copenhagen about an Islamic assassin who attacked a Danish cartoonist in his home because of drawings he published years ago depicting the Muslim prophet, Muhammad. It seems devout (or fanatical) Muslims don't approve of that nor do they think the rest of us have any right to express our views on their religious practices or beliefs, regardless of where we live because, well, because they don't like it. It's a tenet of their religion, and some of them, like this failed assassin, want to take revenge against those who offend their beliefs.  Such unwelcome speech critical of their beliefs is deemed to be blasphemy. 

Free people in Western societies, with few exceptions (mostly among the devoutly religious) do not believe there is or should be any place for a concept like that of blasphemy.

With that little introduction, I would like to pose two questions for your consideration.  If you answer "yes" to both questions, I will have a suggestion of how you might be able to gain a little fame AND win a little bit of money. 

Here are the two questions:

1. Can you draw?

2. Are you a free thinker?

Simple questions, really. If you answered "yes" to both questions, I suggest you enter a drawing contest sponsored by Free Inquiry Magazine.  Even if you don't win, coming up with and executing a drawing should be good fun and, win or not, you will be working with a freedom from religion type of organization to demonstrate that free people will not be intimidated by Islamic or other fanatical thugs who seek to impose their beliefs and rules on the rest of us.

Here is the deal.  The Center for Free Inquiry is sponsoring the drawing contest.  Three prizes will be awarded in two categories: One for professional cartoonists, the other for ordinary folks who can draw well enough and use their imagination to communicate an idea with a drawing (caption too, if needed).

No, no need to be a professional cartoonist or artist to qualify for what I have in mind - just enough talent to express an idea with an image you create that poses a serious question about religious belief or disbelief and prods viewers to think. No, no need to be a best-selling author of secular books or an expert critic of any religion. Just entertain or enlighten us. The contest was sparked by the revolting attack on Danish editorial cartoonist Kurt Westergaard. A murder attempt was launched against him and his grandchild by a Somali assailant who was, fortunately, shot by police. Westergaard is the artist best known for his 2005 "Muhammad" cartoons that appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. This enraged radical Muslim anger worldwide. One cartoon depicted a freaked- out Muslim wearing a turban bomb with a lighted fuse.

The good folks at the Center believe that this event simply underscores the necessity for secular humanist activists and organizations to stand foursquare in defense of free expression...in defense of the right to criticize religion through argument and art...and even in defense of the right to blaspheme.



Thus, the Free Expression Cartoon Contest. The Council invites professional and amateur artists to submit their sharpest, cleverest, and most ingenious creations touching on that most sensitive subject: religion.

The prizes for amateur cartoonist entrants are $300 (grand prize), $125 (second prize) and $75 (third prize). The winning entries will be published in Free Inquiry Magazine and two freethought websites. Professional cartoonist entrants win a $2500 (grand prize), a $1250 (second prize) or a $750 (third prize).

Entries are due no later than Friday, January 15, 2010. Winners will be announced on Monday, March 29, 2010 -- just in time for Easter! Send your cartoon entry to
 
Cartoon Contest

 P.O. Box 664

 Amherst, NY 14226-0664

Or enter online at cartooncontest@secularhumanism.org 

If you are like me and simply cannot draw, not to worry. You can comment right here. Tell me what you think of the idea of blasphemy, the attempt on the life of the Danish cartoonist or anything at all related to this commentary. All the best.

Let's Organize Now To Secularize Town Squares Next Christmas

I have had it with the perennial baby Jesus. When's that kid going to grow up? I have put up with unsightly manager scenes for 71 years and, like xmas songs, they're getting old. At least let's organize (and I'm speaking to my fellow infidels here) so that next year we can inspire local officials throughout the land to include a multi-ideological, rational quality to town squares. If they're going to offer the baby Jesus and other religious images and symbols, add our celebratory displays - and those of other cults that desire to offer a message for or claim on the season. For non-believers, how about something simple, like this:

Of course, an alternative, should the god folks find this offensive, might be no displays at all. I'd be ok with that, too.

The main goal should be to end flagrant discrimination against non-believers in such offensive xian concepts as superstition, creationism, a god who does favors for those who pray, eternal damnation and a multitude of other horrors found in their "holy" bibles. Another is to become more active in building upon the first line of defense against creeping theocracy, namely, a wall of separation between church and state. Yet another is to diminish the presence of religion as the inferred norm in our society - and the idea that "in your face" Christian ritual and dogma are alone entitled to public places.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on enough xmas displays that the rules are pretty clear.  If a town council wants to allow xians not satisfied with promoting their faith on their own property to place their totems on public property, then other symbols must be allowed, opening the way for non-believers to make a statement of one kind or another that at least 20 percent of citizens have different holiday preferences than baby Jesus, or whatever.  

So, walk around the square this holiday season and take note. If you find little or nothing to suggest that not everyone is all that agaga over this alleged 2000 year-old tot, well, start plotting for next year. Three great sources for ensuring success at gaining a more diverse range of public square displays are the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) and, of course, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Phony Baloney Balloon-Boy Deja Vu - Be Skeptical of Belgian Tall Tale

The infamous Terri Schiavo case is in the news again, brought back into the media with the alleged recovery of consciousness of a man in a vegetative state for 23 years - all the while utterly motionless. 

The recovery, however, is something less than what you might consider a "recovery."  In fact, it is probably nothing whatsoever.  No recovery and no genuine communication.  The communicating by the patient is, in fact, what is called facilitated communication.  A third party is doing it FOR the patient. 

Can you believe this is a major news item?

If you really do believe that, I want to offer you a special deal on the Golden Gate Bridge. 

Facilitated Communication or FC is the sleigh of hand junk science fad being sold to the media to explain an alleged ability of a young Belgian youth 23 years in a vegetative state to communicate.  Naturally, the parents want to believe in a miracle or a scientific breakthrough.  Parents want to embrace any kind of hope, even if not religious extremists like the Schiavo family in Florida.  The claim in this case started with the use of a new CAT scan technology.  Unfortunately, dig a little deeper and the tale is almost certainly a weird combination of fraud, voodoo and wishful thinking.  In the Belgian case, the only one doing any communicating is the nurse who guides the finger of the comotose patient.  She should be arrested, prosecuted and sentenced - and her trickery widely exposed as soon as possible. 

Let an independent third party, or several forms of non-biased experiments be run and there is little doubt but that tests will show fraud at work that has so far bamboozled the media.  On the other hand, a cynical view is that media managers know it's all a scam (a book is in the works along with TV specials - and no doubt T-shirt sales).  The only reason the FC ruse is tolerated for a moment is for ratings purposes. 

What do YOU think? 

House Concurrent Resolution 131 (H. Con. Res.131) directs the Architect of the Capitol to engrave the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the national motto of "In God We Trust" in the Capitol Visitor Center. This is estimated to cost the taxpayers around $100,000.

According to its Web site, the current mission of the Visitor Center at the U.S. Capitol is to provide "a welcoming and educational environment for visitors to learn about the unique characteristics of the House and the Senate and the legislative process as well as the history and development of the architecture and art of the U.S. Capitol. Like the words carved in marble in the Visitor Center's Exhibition Hall, 'Out of Many, One,' the visitor experience will be an intellectual and emotional encounter . . . that will inform and inspire those who come to see the U.S. Capitol." H. Con. Res. 131 would pollute that experience with a divisive agenda having nothing to do with the values enshrined by our Founders in the Constitution.

The Pledge of Allegiance and the original national motto, E Pluribus Unum ("out of many, one") were unnecessarily altered during the 1950s in an ill-conceived effort to make religious minorities feel like outsiders to the national community. "Do we really need to spend another $100,000 to present a distorted image of America’s secular heritage?” All Americans, including the non-religious, have a right and obligation to participate fully in our nation’s politics. Both phrases represent an unmistakable attempt to confuse religious belief with patriotism, and exclude the non-religious from public life.

This bill is a distraction from the important agenda facing Congress and the American people. Instead of devoting time to divisive and unnecessary political posturing, Congress ought to focus its energy on the myriad pressing issues facing the nation, from health care to global warming.

Please urge your representatives in Congress to vote no on H. Con. Res. 131.

REAL wellness flourishes best, in my view, in a secular democracy, not a theocracy. Thus, when the pious cross the church/state lines of separation, it's the duty of all citizens to speak out in support of protect one from the other.

Speculating On The Future Of Religion - Animated By A Bit Of Wishful Thinking

Recently, Daniel C. Dennett and I have been pondering the future of religion. Will the influence of organized religion grow or will it die off, at long last, as wishful thinkers in the free-thinking communities have hoped for ages?  Or, might some other scenarios come to pass. Dr. Dennett's musings have been, of course, more creative, profound, thorough and deservedly attended than mine, so I'll summarize a few of his observations on the topic for your consideration.  All of the ideas noted in this summary are taken from his acceptance speech at the annual Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) awards dinner held in Chicago on October 10, 2008. 

Dr. Dennett sketched five possibilities: 

1. A religious fervor will sweep the planet.  When this happens, say goodbye to Enlightenment values, especially if one religion gains sway over all the others.  I wonder what would be worse - universal Christianity, or the Caliphate dream come to pass for Islamists?  That's like asking what's worse - being shot in the butt or hung by metal hooks - upside down?  I'd prefer a few additional, gentler choices (e.g., left alone).

2. The end of religions.  Dennett suggested St. Peter’s Square and the Vatican could be transformed into the European Museum of Roman Catholicism.  He mentioned Mecca becoming the Magic Kingdom of Allah.

3. Religions transformed as harmless sports teams.  The teams would have no dogmas, creeds or claims to know anything - but they would have cheerful songs, colors, symbols and pageantry.

4. Religions as cults - basically bad habits of an underclass, something like the way smoking is viewed today. As Dennett noted, "it will be considered bad form to draw attention to the fact that somebody is religious."

5. Judgment Day appears out of nowhere!  The fundamentalist crazies were right - here comes the Rapture.  All is lost - we're all toast.

Dennett termed three of the scenarios quite benign. The fifth he called "a nonstarter. We don’t have to worry about that."
The worry related to this preposterous scenario is, in reality, the behavior of those who want to make Armageddon happen.

Naturally, nobody knows what will happen, though change for better or worse is likely.  However, it's always wise to encourage everyone "to look under the hood of religion to see what makes it tick, so we can better think about what steps we might take to get the outcome we most want."

What does Dennet want?  He favors the study of religion to be taken as seriously as the study of other real and present dangers to the future of the planets inhabitants, such as global warming, the global economy, water and energy problems and all the rest.  

Key issues related to the future of religion that Dennett addressed included:

*  The very great need to persuade those who study religion and write about it to stop doing so with a "hyper-diplomacy, hyper-reverence, hyper-respect..." We don't do that with any other industry.  The deference must end. There should not be a free ride for religions. They should be scrutinized firmly and calmly - and honesly.

*  More research is needed.  For starters, how about a theory of religion?  What is it, how did it arise, how has it evolved, what it is today, what are the parts and how do they work?  Such questions have not been objectively answered by dispassionate investigators using modern tools of analyses. 

*  Introducing into the educational system a 4th “R.”  He wants compulsory religion, that is, compulsory education about world religions for children in public and private schools and in home schooling. This will inoculate our children to brainwashing into any one religion and lead children to critical thinking, since it will be clear that all religions can't be true and lead to doubt, skepticism and open inquiry.

*  A review of evidence that religion is not so much strong today as it is desperate. The leaders can no longer control education and access to information, as in the past.  Cell phones, transistor radios and the Internet have breached the natural barriers. Around the world, people and cultures are being flooded with western ideas, with American ideas, with American technology and all the ideas that come with them. To us, its all harmless but to the control agents of religion, its toxic - the new communication technologies are wreaking havoc. In this fashion, they are starting to overturn ancient cultures.

*  "People are not ready to have their religion subjected to careful, calm, objective analysis and scrutiny. But we should change that, one step at a time."

It was a great speech, in which the above and a lot of other ideas were fully developed.  The entire talk is available at the FFRF website. 

Be well.

A Wellness Perspective On Religion & Government - Mr. President, Raise Up This Wall Of Separation

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, with more than 13,000 members, is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists and agnostics) in the United States. FFRF has been working since 1978 to promote freethought and to keep state and church separate.

The Foundation promotes freedom from religion with a weekly national radio show, a newspaper, a freethought billboard campaign and other educational endeavors, including scholarships for freethinking students. The Foundation acts on countless violations of the separation of state and church, and has taken and won many significant complaints and important lawsuits to end state/church entanglements and challenge the "faith-based initiative."

The FFRF offers a quiz entitled What Do You Know About The Separation of State and Church?  The quiz consists of 21 questions to test your knowledge of America's vital principle that protects those who choose religion and those who prefer none.  

Here are the questions, reproduced with permission.  Most are multiple choice; some invite true/false selections.  After perusing the questions, go to http://www.ffrf.org/quiz/ffrfquiz.php for a score, assessment and background on each of the questions.  

The average score (correct answers) is 12!  Since October 12, 2000. 28,090th people have taken the test.

Do well.  Think of the test as a learning experience, also, that will boost your awareness of this wonderful constitutional safeguard against creeping theocracy.

1. The U.S. Constitution says that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, based on the sovereign authority of God

2. How many times does the word "God" appear in the U.S. Constitution?

3. How many times does the Declaration of Independence refer to Christianity or Jesus?

4. The US Constitution guarantees religious liberty for

5. Where did the separation of church and state originate?

6. What does the First Amendment say about religion?

7. The phrase "wall of separation between church and state" originated with

8. Which early colonies practiced freedom of religion?

9. The Puritans escaped religious persecution and, in their own colony, allowed religious freedom for

10. ". . . the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"  Where does this phrase appear?

11. By an Act of Congress, U.S. currency has carried the motto "In God We Trust" since

12. The Pledge of Allegiance, first published in 1892, has included the words "under God" since

13. Who made the following statement?  "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . We need believing people."

14. In 1890, bible reading was outlawed from Wisconsin schools. Who was responsible?

15. The U.S. Supreme Court outlawed student-initiated prayers at high-school football games in 2000. Who were the plaintiffs in that lawsuit?

16. According to the "Lemon test," in order to be constitutional, a law or public act must:

17. All American Presidents have been practicing Christians

18. The U.S. Constitution says there shall be no religious test for public office

19. John Adams declared Christmas to be a national holiday

20. A president, being sworn in, is required to place a hand on the Holy Bible and say "so help me, God."

21. Since the First Amendment deals with "Congress," states are free to advance religion if they wish.

Go to http://www.ffrf.org/quiz/scripts/ffrfquiz_results.php for results.  Be well.

No Religion? A More Accurate Description Might Be That More Americans Than Ever Prefer Beliefs Supported By Science, Reason And Evidence

A new poll puts the number of "godless Americans" at 15%.  Those of us so grouped are said to be "without faith," "unchurched" or "lacking any religion."  While these descriptors are accurate enough, the terms are a bit like the word "atheist" - instructive enough in identifying what we DON'T believe, but of no value in indicating what does define or even describe us.  It would be desirable, I believe, to have a term for the 15% that is positive, not negative.

I suggest that a more positive and possibly more accurate way to express the latest poll data would be to note that 15% percent of Americans prefer reason, science and rationality to "faith" in that which cannot be shown to be true or false.  That includes all religions. 

Most of those who chose "none of the above" to the pollsters asking about which religion they embraced might agree that they do not LACK something (faith, etc.) - they possess something the others lack - a commitment to evidence.

As a fervent believer - science, reason and evidence, I consider myself a secular rationalist.  I think there are a lot of us.

Why Skeptics, Doubters And Infidels Should Come Out Of The Closet To Express Secular Perspectives On Current Events

Some believers in a personal god want everyone, including non-believers, to be reverent and deferential regarding the deity they adore, the almighty one possessed of supernatural, unimaginable omnipotence. They want us to be respectful of their beliefs in a deity who rules over everything while exuding boundless love for all creatures.

Well, if I could wrap my brain around that idea, I could probably manage a mighty kowtow to the Glorious One. But, perhaps due to a gene deficiency, I find it impossible to generate much enthusiasm for the Grand Creator business.

Therefore, I don't empathize with Muslims who get all worked up about cartoons that depict their prophet in ways not of their liking, which includes any depiction at all. Likewise, I have zero concern for the sensibilities of those who chose to be offended by cartoons featuring the Pope, or any religious figure, real or imagined, living or dead.

To his credit, Denmark's prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen responded to demands for an official apology by Islamic religious officials after a local newspaper published cartoons that offended some Muslims as follows: "The government refuses to apologize because the government does not control the media or a newspaper outlet; that would be in violation of the freedom of speech." Just so. Let us all marshal our energies in the months to come to see that things stay this way, in our own societies. Let's come out and declare our unwavering support for keeping separate church and state while ensuring that citizens enjoy freedom of speech and all that goes with it.

I saw the movie "Milk" the other day and heard Barry Lynn speak in Pinellas Park a few days thereafter. Both were inspirational, informative and fun. Both offered many important lessons, one of which is the value in being public about non-beliefs. In this fashion, the devout are more likely to realize that doubters or unbelievers are folks just like themselves, in most ways. They are just regular friends and neighbors, co-workers and even relatives.

In the life of Harvey Milk, the issue was discrimination against gays; in the present case, the group that needs to make its presence and ideas familiar is non-believers in any versions of god creatures.

In the UN, a sub-organization organization comprised of representatives of Islamic countries is demanding that the larger body adopt a speech code. The code would apply in all societies (not just Islamic countries) and give special protection to believer sensibilities, particularly Islam. It would make "off-limits" the "holy truths" of other religions, and identify offenses as "blasphemous."

Hopefully, the USA and other countries that prize freedom of speech as much as the Danes will defeat such a constraint on liberty sought by leaders of the very nations that have so little or none of it.

I had a personal experience along these lines just yesterday. A friend became quite ill all of a sudden and was hospitalized. To deal with the large number of friends calling for updates and in order to provide an opportunity for friends to express support, she created a website. At the site, she placed a description of her illness and treatment. The latter was highlighted by a condemnation of the medical system. She wondered how anyone rich could obtain medications she was given that cost over $1,000. She wrote, "Please say a special prayer for anyone without adequate health insurance."

As a non-believer, I wanted to enter a comment at the site that a person without insurance will surely need more than a prayer, special or otherwise. My dear wife, more diplomatic than me perhaps, put the kibosh on such a comment. She feared I would upset the patient, who did not need a reminder that maybe a Grand Wahoo of some kind was not "up there" answering prayers, whether for the uninsured or anyone else.

My wife is usually right about such things (I suppose nine out of ten is "usually") so I grumbled a bit and refrained from writing anything "blasphemous" at the site. I lit a candle and did a rain dance instead. Did I do the right thing? I don't think so - but I have caved before. I allowed my first-born to be baptized in order to keep the relatives happy. Another sell-out. Have I no shame? (Not enough, I can hear you saying.)

Which leads me to the suggestion that non-believers of all stripes do better than I did (above) and emerge from proverbial closets of polite silence on religious perspectives to do what Harvey Milk asked of gays - let everyone recognize that many of their friends do not buy into, share or positively regard supernatural beliefs. It would, I believe, lead to clearer communications and understandings and thus better relationships based upon genuine respect for varied perspectives.

And it might help you avoid acting diplomatically to a fault.

Someday, I will be brave -- maybe I should see the Wizard of Oz.

February 12, 1809 - An Extraordinary Day In Human History

As you might have noticed, Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln are being much celebrated these days on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of their births - which occurred on the SAME DAY in 1809. That is truly amazing. More amazing is the gap that exists in America between reverence for the one and either ignorance or opposition to the ideas of the other. In the rest of the western world, both are celebrated, as seems appropriate. Why the difference? One reason - the mind-numbing ignorance that some religions foster among their adherents. Nothing else could possibly explain anything less than awe of and admiration for Darwin's contributions to human understanding. Because of Darwin, we better sense how we developed, where we fit, in brief, our origins as a species.

Fifty years after his birth, Darwin published his great work, “On the Origin of Species." This unprecedented breakthrough in human understanding described evolution by natural selection, a theory recognized almost universally as the most important principle in biology. Jerry A. Coyne termed it "the most revolutionary scientific idea in history." ("Seeing And Believing," The New Republic, February 04, 2009.)

Science was the beneficiary of Darwin's life work, and science, unlike religion, continually tests its assumptions, discarding those that prove false.

Why the opposition to science in America? As noted above, because of religious teachings. Consider the findings of science relative to Darwin's work and the knowledge gained since. Then try to reconcile all this science with the religious beliefs Americans overwhelming embrace.

* No less than 74 percent of Americans believe in angels.

* Only 25 percent accept that we evolved from apelike ancestors. (Some of these bozos are members of the US Congress; three Republican candidates for president of the United States raised their hands during the last campaign when asked if anyone on stage did not believe in evolution.

* One in eight of us think that evolution should be taught in the biology classroom without including a creationist alternative.

* Among thirty-four Western countries surveyed for the acceptance of evolution, the United States ranked a dismal thirty-third, just above Turkey.

* Throughout our country, school boards are trying to water down the teaching of evolution or sneak creationism in beside it.

* "Most people in America have a neighbor who thinks the Earth is ten thousand years old." (Source: Karl Giberson in "Saving Darwin.")

I hope you will find occasion to indulge in one of the many "DarwinFests" taking place around the world, even here in Darwin-denying America. Perhaps we should find ways, in our modest circle of influence (e.g., family, friends, co-workers) to express support for President Obama's goal of "restoring science to its rightful place." Maybe putting in a few (lots would be better) words for Charles Darwin would be a good start, thereby joining with the likes of Paul Kurtz, Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, P.Z. Myers and so many other Darwin popularizers to fight against religious superstitions, supernaturalism and just plain cold stone ignorance.

This might be a nice alternative to singing "Happy Birthday, Dear Charlie." Darwin would like that, and I can't help thinking Abraham Lincoln would, too.

There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life

That's the message of posters now found on 800 buses in Great Britain, thanks to a comedy writer named Ariane Sherine who created an "Atheist Bus Campaign," with a little help from friends Richard Dawkins, A. C. Grayling and the British Humanist Association, among others.  Ms. Sherine got the idea after growing a little weary of in your face poster messages from Christian evangelists about sin, wickedness, damnation and hell fires.  England was ripe for a contrasting point of public view on one of life's eternal questions.

Late last year in our own nation's capital, the American Humanist Association sponsored a few posters on city buses that read, “Why believe in a god?” over a picture of a man in a Santa suit. “Just be good for goodness’ sake.”  The English Atheist Bus Campaign's next move will be 1,000 advertisements in the subway system, with irreligious, rational and humorous quotes from Emily Dickinson, Albert Einstein, Douglas Adams and Katharine Hepburn.  (What's that, you say?  "Humor from Emily Dickenson?")

I think this is a welcome trend.  I'm tired of the daily religiousity we secular types must endure in the daily news, in sports contests, in public events (such as presidential inaugurations) and everywhere one turns.  Humor is a wonderful device for conveying an alternative message that might remind the faithful that not everyone consents to the godtalk or the judgmental nonsense of the brimstone set.

Meanwhile, I'm going to stop worrying and enjoy my life, and suggest that everyone else try to do the same.  All the best.