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

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.

Why Religion Is A Health Hazard

In recent months, I've read the best-seller books by Harris (2), Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens.  I also gave a presentation at the National Wellness Conference on secular parenting and wrote a chapter in a book entitled "Parenting Beyond Belief."  I listen to the podcasts at Freethought radio nearly every day and enjoy reading blogs, websites, newspaper stories and magazine articles that flog religion. 

This is not something new.  I was raised Catholic, and I even endured 12 years of such education, from first grade through high school.  I was not encouraged to question dogmas, to learn about other religions or to consider that there were possibilites or options other A) be a good Catholic or B) go to hell when you die. 

By the fifth or sixth grade, I had pretty much decided to go with plan B.  Or, better yet, explore the possibility of other options. 

Many wellness promoters believe that spirituality if not religion is an important part of wellness.  I agree.  Or, I disagree.  It depends on what they mean by spirituality.  I find most employ the term with little inclination to define or express what the hell they're talking about.  Frankly, I suspect most haven't any idea WHAT they're talking about, and don't even want to think about it. 

In any event, I think religion does more harm than good, for all the reasons described in brilliant detail and illustration by the authors mentioned in the first paragraph of this commentary. 

Maybe we can discuss the connections for better or worse between religion and wellness in the days and weeks to come.  I'm open for that and welcome hearing from you.

Cheers.

Religulous - Best Movie On Religion Since The Life Of Brian

Bill Maher has created an hour and a half show offering existential philosophy served with fast-paced comedy, music, historical images, movie excepts and worldwide "holy land" interviews. It's a roller coaster thrill ride up one preposterously silly belief hill and down another. It's all great fun, provided you don't take superstition, supernaturalism or super raw nonsense seriously or reverently. As one who does not, I found the show non-stop fun, but also horrifying in a deeper sense, given the realization that a vast majority of Americans DO believe the crazy stuff Maher skewers simply by asking good questions of true believers. 

"Religulous" offers a clear picture of the shallow foundations of much of the blind faith that people have in supernatural ideas based on claims for revelation.  The message is that we all need to come out of the closet as rational people who prefer science, reason, evidence and doubt to certainty based on little more than habit, tradition and custom.

Without cultural imprinting and constant reinforcement, the fables of faiths could not stand, not even as science fiction. Yet, the vast majority of the earth's inhabitants are besotted with dogmas that hold humanity in a grip of genuine madness.  A semblance of normalcy exits, in my view, because a modest percentage of the world's population, like Bill Maher, manage to overcome the faith of their heritage. Somehow, they come to value the integrity of their own thought processes. It's a very good thing that most believers do not act upon the tenants of the creeds and faiths to which they belong, and that they hold each other at bay, more or less, preventing any one cult from ruling over all the others. However, as "Religulous" effectively demonstrates, there are now, as in the past, ghastly consequences of fundamentalism taken to logical extremes by its most ardent enthusiasts and those who manipulate them for power and profit.

This film might reach an even wider audience than the books that offered the same doubts about religious faith but demanded so much more from their readers, books such as Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great), Sam Harris (The End of Faith) and Dale McGowan (Parenting Beyond Belief). The reason is that the film medium demands less - just sit back and be entertained, no need to read for hours.

I hope Maher wins an Oscar for "Religulous" - it deserves several.

Islamic Leaders Launch Global Campaign Against Free Speech

Not content with oppressing people in their own countries, a coalition of 57 Islamic states (the Organization of the Islamic Conference or OIC) wants the United Nations to restrict freedom of expression worldwide.  Secular groups in this country, led by the Center for Inquiry, are organizing a campaign "to defend our liberty to doubt, dissent and blaspheme," arguing that all people have an inherent right to "defame" religion, if they so choose.

The Islamic censors are, in effect, seeking to undermine the universality of human rights.  The Islamists contend that the traditions of their religious law conflict with Western conceptions of universal rights, which of course is true.  They seek explicit recognition for the right to continue to exclude free speech - they want to ensure that such expression is not recognized as a universal right in Islamic nations.  The OIC expressly opposes equality of persons, as well as freedom of expression and freedom of religion. They seek to legitimize their continued imposition of restrictions on nearly every human right, subordinated to Islamic Sharia law. Their UN proposals also seek a global prohibition against criticism of Islam.  To the totalitarian fundamentalists, "blasphemy" simply means criticism of their religious oppressions or, kindly put, "traditions." The term "blasphemy" in my view does not warrant any recognition whatsoever - religious opinions are not any more "off limits" to challenge than any other opinions.

Rights belong to individuals, not ideas," states a new Center for Inquiry report entitled "Islam and Human Rights: Defending Universality at the United Nations."  This report describes the efforts by the OIC and its political allies to create a parallel system of human rights in Islamic states.  Also, a few UN agencies are considering the integration of "defamation of religions" into international human rights law. Such an outcome would be "legally indefensible, morally objectionable, and politically disastrous," according to the CFI report.

The Report urges the following protections in all resolutions and UN declarations:

* Protection of free discussion of religious matters. No state should be granted immunity from criticism, regardless of sensitivities or cultural traditions,

* Restoration of the UN's Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Those charged by the UN with protecting free speech must not be allowed to limit it.

* Rejection of the entire concept of defamation of religions.  As CFI notes, "Believers deserve protection. Beliefs do not. Member states must move to stop these resolutions by the General Assembly and prevent the legal entrenchment of the concept of defamation of religions."

* Clarify the status of Islamic human rights.  At a minimum, concern should be expressed about the "Islamization" of rights and explain why all people deserve rights consistent with universal standards.

A copy of the CFI report can be viewed at www.centerforinquiry.net/UN Wellness promoters and enthusiasts should be at the forefront of defenders of human rights and liberties, including free speech. Embrace reason, pursue exuberance and promote freedom.  Be well.