Faith and...uh...charity?

On last Sunday's show, Matt and I got into it with one caller where we ended up pointing out, repeatedly, that religion is no less selfish than any other human activity. Certainly there is altruism in the things many people do. But altruism is usually understood as doing good for others without expectation of reward or personal benefit. And you don't find this activity in religious environments, with few exceptions. People pretty much practice whatever religion they subscribe to because they want something. You hear this admitted plainly by Christians who try to argue that God is necessary for morality. "If there were no God," they say, "I'd just go out and do whatever, kill people, who cares?" In other words, if there's no reward awaiting them for good behavior, why be good? Selfishness in its most childish form.

In the case of religion as an institution, it always wants something. And that something is more converts.

We see this no more plainly than in the case of religious charities. These little exercises are certainly undertaken due to the self-interest of the sponsors, regardless of what they may say. They're eager to be picking up brownie points with God, racking up a good Heavenly credit rating. And they get to show off how pious they are for the public, which, hopefully, will be good for business. I suppose that's a small kind of selfishness, and not in and of itself worthy of criticism.

Thing is, some churches take it a little too far. Case in point: the First Reformed Church of Hackensack, NJ. I'm not sure what they're claiming to be "reformed" from, but after this little embarrassment, some reform will surely be necessary.

Seems this church was litting a charity not directly affiliated with them, the FAITH Foundation, use their facilities for a Christmas dinner for about 100 homeless people. The church laid down a rule that homeless attendees first had to be subjected to prayers and a sermon — in short, a full scale church service — prior to being fed. In short: sales pitch first, then food.

The shelter's own director, Robin Reilly, realizing most of the attendees hadn't eaten a thing in more than 24 hours, went ahead and served dinner without the required god-bothering. Result: the church kicked her out. No Jesus, no food, is the rule at the First Reformed Church, evidently. Perhaps what they've been "reformed" from is basic human decency.

Robin Reilly did the right thing, and she's clearly one of the rare exceptions in an entire religious "charity" industry that's really all about targeting the most vulnerable people in our culture as easy converts. She's apparently had trouble before, failing to get the right permits and that sort of thing. But overall she's clearly a person who wants to help those who need help. Apparently the True Christians at the First Reformed Church have a difference of opinion concerning the idea that the Christmas season is all about the spirit of giving, the milk of human kindness, and all that hippie crap. Nope, Jesus is the reason for the season, and you better drop to your miserable knees now and realize that fact, you homeless piece of shit. Hell, you're practically falling down from starvation already, so it ought to be easy for you, right? And if not, well, hell, why don't you just get a job?

Today's "Duh!" moment

From the WaPo:

Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do, according to a study released today.

The new analysis of data from a large federal survey found that more than half of youths became sexually active before marriage regardless of whether they had taken a "virginity pledge," but that the percentage who took precautions against pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases was 10 points lower for pledgers than for non-pledgers

Abstinence-only sex education is an exemplar of the neocon/religious right way of handling problems: wishful thinking. But it's no substitute for education. Teach students about the actual consequences of irresponsible and careless sexual behavior, teach them the benefits of protecting yourself and realizing that you're the one who makes the decisions about your body and no one else, and they'll be much better off. Basic human urges simply can't be swept under the rug with ritualized denialism. But they can be properly controlled and channelled if you have a good idea what can happen to you if you don't exercise a little common sense in knowing when to act, and when not to act, upon those urges.

Today on the show: Atheist evangelism

Today I'm cohost, and I'll be talking briefly about some recent efforts at atheist evangelism, specifically some highly publicized signs, billboards and bus ads, and I'll give my opinion on what I think are effective versus ineffective approaches to promoting atheism in the public square. This will basically be following up on recent posts here on the matter.

---

In other news, a T-shirt update: 32 still available for reservation out of the original 100.

---

Well, I didn't get to discuss my topic much, but that's because the calls were roaring in from the get-go and talking to callers is infinitely more interesting than anything I'd find to prattle on about. The chat room accompanying the online stream was on fire, too. Fun show today, overall.

Bloggy slowness?

Had a commenter or two mention the blog seems to load a bit slowly. I've noticed on both Mac Safari and Windows Firefox, the main body of the blog loads normally, but there appears to be something in the sidebar causing a traffic jam. I suspect it could be that scrolling blogroll, but I'm not sure. Can't be the Paypal button; that's very simple code and I've never known a Paypal button to slow down any other page they're on.

Anyone else experiencing this?

---

Just sat here counting in my head, and by golly, the blog took a full 17 seconds before it fully loaded (that is to say, it was 17 seconds before the cursor stopped being an hourglass and I had full mouse control over the page). In Internet terms, 17 seconds is a small eternity. Hmm, what to do? Kazim?

Have we mentioned lately that Islamic culture is evil?

Well then, let's take up the slack, shall we? From Saudi Arabia, that oasis of egalitarian, progressive civilization at its apex [/snark], comes word that a court has ruled that the 8-year-old child bride of a 47-year old man, married off to him by her father as a way of paying off the father's debts to the man, will not be able to have the marriage annulled. But hey, at least the court is doing its best to let everyone know how fair they're being about all this. After all, they've gotten the groom to agree not to consummate the marriage until the girl reaches puberty, which means, lucky thing, that she's got until about age 11 or 12 before she gets raped. And once she hits puberty, she'll be allowed to file for divorce with the court. I'm sure they'll just as fair to her then as they're being now!

There are human rights organizations, apparently, even within Saudi Arabia, who are vehemently opposed to these arranged child marriages. How these organizations manage to exist without being regularly raided and their members dragged into the street and shot (oh, I forgot, "beheaded" is more Saudi style) is a question for another time. All we need to remember now is how this is just another indicator of how sick a society can get when fundamentalist religion — especially one as barbaric and misogynist as Islam — runs the show, and how, even a full decade into the 21st century, there are still victims of pre-medieval injustices living and suffering around the world today.

It would be nice if the US were willing to take a principled stand on this sort of thing. But you see, a little bit of oil is enough to lubricate a conscience rusty with such built-up gunk as "integrity" and "principle". And Saudi Arabia has much more than a little bit of oil to go around. Let's see, they force pre-pubescent kids into marriage, their radicalized young men crash planes into our buildings...but they'll always be our "allies". As long as the pumps are going.

Ray probably exists, I think...

Ray has asked for evidence that Darwin existed and, as expected, has decided to imitate his strawman view of atheists by declaring every piece of evidence unacceptable because we can't be absolutely certain.

Here's my response:

"Ray's right, we can't be absolutely certain that Darwin existed. We can't be absolutely certain about any historical event.

But absolute certainty is a red herring, the only issue is one of reasonable certainty - that a claim has been verified as 'most probably true', to the best of our ability to do so. Some claims have more supporting evidence than others. Additionally, some claims require more evidence than others before they become 'reasonable'.

The only answer anyone needed to give, and the only answer that is correct is this:

We have sufficient evidence to claim that Darwin most probably existed and that the events attributed to his life (the voyage on the Beagle, his writings, articles about him by contemporaries - favorable and unfavorable, his family line, etc) are most probably accurate.

The same is true for George Washington, though the "I cannot tell a lie" story is most likely false, and there may be other romanticized, mytho-heroic tales attributed to him which aren't very accurate.

The same cannot be said for Paul Bunyan or King Arthur... or Jesus.

When we try to determine whether a particular historical figure existed, we have to collect the stories about them to define the personage we're trying to verify. If the preponderance of evidence confirms a significant portion of those stories, it's very probable that the individual existed.

If the stories are supported by nothing more than anecdotal evidence or hearsay, they're unreliable. If they also include claims of supernatural/magical abilities, they're better relegated to the "tall tales" bin.

Ray has mistakenly tried to represent the case for Jesus as being of a similar nature to the question of Darwin's existence. They're not remotely comparable - and if we find out tomorrow that Darwin never existed, that he was a fictitious invention, it doesn't change a single thing about the science of evolution or the value of the discoveries attributed to him. The same isn't true for Jesus.

Ray is comparing apples and motorcycles and making a childish appeal to absolute certainty where no such appeal is required or justified."

Though that will come as no surprise to anyone.

Merry Christmas (to those celebrating it for any reason). Happy Holidays, or not, to those who celebrate something else, or nothing at all. :)

'Tis the season for naked commerce!

See that sexay Atheist Experience blog logo to the right there? It's currently being silk-screened on T-shirts. Admit it, you're too stylish not to wear one. I'm printing up a hundred (real screen printing, not the transfer stuff you get using online p.o.d. services), but it's easy enough to place a phone call if more are needed, so don't worry about size availability.

For those of you of a green bent, I'm considering totes too. What think you?

Matt Dillahunty has also been asked by some of the TV show viewers about offering a wider variety of ACA or AE TV show merch — stuff like shirts, mousepads, more mugs, whatever. He replied that he's thinking about that. If he or the organization ever decide to offer such stuff, assuming there's an interest, he'll offer it here as well as the regular TV show site if he wishes. What might you like to see, specifically?

And now, a rant: Christians can't be happy unless they're making gays unhappy. That's mean. Mean people suck.

What a sickening cesspool of hate and fear Christianity has become. How can so many of its adherents live with themselves, when they actively take steps to bully, victimize, and bring misery to the lives of a group of people for the sole crime of being different? Word comes from California that it isn't enough for the supporters of Proposition H8 that they've banned gay marriage. Now they want to nullify the thousands of marriages that were performed in the few brief weeks that gays and lesbians actually got to see what having a basic human right was like.

Look, I know there are many decent and tolerant Christians out there who were (and are) opposed to Prop H8, and supportive of gay rights and marriage equality. I'd suggest that if those people are intelligent enough to support those things, then they're intelligent enough to know that all of Christianity's superstitions about God and Satan and Heaven and Hell and choirs of angels and talking donkeys are bullshit, too. And the moral character they possess that, in addition to their intelligence, allows them to support equality and tolerance is something they possess despite, not because of, their Christianity. You can't get morals from an immoral religion. If you're progressive, tolerant, humane, decent, and Christian, well, one of those things is a fifth wheel. Pop it off. You don't need it.

After all, it's that fifth wheel that allows these confused people to set up websites called ProtectMarriage.com whose stated agenda is to destroy marriages by the thousands. See, a person who really was both intelligent and moral would see the oxymoron there, and say, "Hey, I'm being conned!"

Honestly, why is it that conservative Christians (who would be likely, actually, to agree with my assessment that tolerant progressives shouldn't be Christian either, as everyone knows they are the only True Christians) can't be happy unless they're making gays and lesbians unhappy at every opportunity? Because, you know. That's mean. Mean people suck. But then, so does Christianity. So it makes sense, I guess.

I get the impression that these are the family "values" True Christians enthusiastically favor, eh?

Obama's first big screwup

Everyone is bitching about Barack Obama's ill-advised choice to ask pop-pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. I agree. Bad move, bad choice, total pandering. Warren talks a moderate game, but his views are not basically less conservative than the more blustery evangelicals out there. Warren's support of Proposition 8 (aka Proposition H8) in California last month sends a message to the gay community that this supposedly liberal new president may not necessarily be as friendly to their concerns as one might think.

I know that Obama and Warren likely don't see eye to eye on every single issue, and gay rights may be one of those issues. But you know, the company you keep says a lot about you. You'd think Obama might have learned a lesson about dubious religious affiliations earlier this year, what with all the flap about Wright. But maybe not. This could just be show business and not an indicator of how Obama's first term will play out in the big picture. But...it does seem as if Obama will bear watching. We shouldn't take him for granted, as many of his supporters have done, as some great progressive "messiah" who will usher in a new golden age in America, not just yet.

Dec 14th Atheist Experience Topic

In a recent AE list dialogue, I was referred to as a Conspiracy Theorist on two counts. The first count was that I stated that while I would not say Jesus never existed, I also could not say that I am certain that he did. The second count was that I stated that the church drove the "official" doctrine by creating an environment where the more powerful and popular positions simply eliminated opposition--sometimes by execution, exile or destroying dissident books.

So, the intended topic for today will be a bit about Christian history, the shaping of doctrine and the historical response to "heresy." Assuming we get to it, we'll cover the idea that there were, in fact, divisions from the time the foundations of the church were being laid. Arguments between the apostles themselves and problems between apostles and the churches are clearly recorded in the New Testament texts.

The idea, that seems to be widespread in modern Christianity, that there was a time of doctrinal unity in the early Christian church, to which they should also adhere, is simply incorrect. There has never been a unified Christian doctrine, but Constantine (Roman Emperor, 272-337 CE) attempted to remedy that when he made Christianity the official religion of Rome. If Christianity was to be endorsed and promoted by the government, it had to be defined--and that proved to be quite a task. He appointed Eusebius to work on producing a collection of texts while he called for a series of meetings (Nicea) to try and determine what would become the official church doctrine moving forward. The manuscripts Eusebius would collect would be used in conjunction with the doctrines determined in these debates. And his anthology would eventually (some centuries later) become the Bibles (there are still multiple "official" versions that contain different books) we recognize today as authoritative--meant to reflect and support a doctrine determined not by Jesus and his apostles, but rather by processes put in place much later by the Roman government. The Bible is, then, the result of an attempt to unify the Christian schisms in Rome under a legal Christian doctrine endorsed by Constantine, and to put an end to dissension, by force if necessary. Despite well documented history, the idea that the book is a message from god to Christians today has somehow sprung up and entrenched itself with modern fundamentalist Christians--many of whom are sometimes completely unaware of the basic facts surrounding the production of what today they labeled as "God's Word."

Some names and events to bone up on: Arius, Montanus, Priscillian of Avila, Nestorius, Library of Serapeum in Alexandria, Peter Abelard, Cathars of Languedoc / Albigensian Crusade.

Baby-eaters of the world, unite!

Just an amusing bit of edible art...nothing more.

Edit: I wasn't skeptical enough and didn't check this out - evidently they're made of clay and not marzipan. Still - if someone could make them out of marzipan, you might have a market! ;)

Ray's idea of justice...

Ray wrote:

"...would you want Dahmer to go to Hell? Or are you quite happy (assuming that you are an atheist) for him simply to be dead."

Since he's censoring many of my responses, here it is:

I'm not Alex, but I'll answer.

I'm satisfied that Dahmer was imprisoned for the remainder of his life and, unlike some of my liberal friends, I'd have been content to see him put to death by the state (a position that Dahmer is reported to have shared), though I generally oppose capital punishment on the grounds that the legal system isn't structured in such a way that we can satisfactorily prevent unjust executions.

I also wouldn't want to see him tortured, and certainly not forever. I don't think that's justice, it's revenge. He was beaten to death by a fellow inmate and some might consider that justice, but that's a very simplified view of justice that I don't share.

Interestingly, Dahmer is reported to have repented and accepted Christ as his savior. I have no idea if this is true, and neither do you, but it does raise two points:

1. If it is true (and if your religion is true) then any decent Christian should oppose the death penalty and, instead, prefer to give convicts as much time to repent and avoid hell as possible.

2. If it is true (and if your religion is true) then Jeffrey Dahmer is in heaven, right now.

Do you think that's just? Clearly not, as you just used him as an example of someone that you feel most people should want to see sent to Hell.

You also mentioned Hitler. Hitler was, according to his public and private statements a devout Catholic and whether or not you accept that, you must accept that you don't know his 'heart' and aren't his judge, and that it's at least possible that he, too, could have been saved - even if only during his dying breath.

Your religious views have nothing to do with justice because they aren't based on punishing the wicked and rewarding the virtuous. There is no system of merit associated with salvation by grace. To you, salvation is a matter of capriciousness. A death-bed conversion is more valuable to your God than a life spent as a good person.

So, your dichotomy is false on several grounds. As an atheist, I don't have to simply be "quite happy" with the death of a murderer - I can be satisfied with a proper implementation of justice that denies the murderer liberty and, on occasion, life. Also, as an atheist, I never have to rationalize blood lust as justice or be dissatisfied that justice might be overturned by the whim of a divine dictator. I can, instead come to a proper understanding of justice that isn't bound by bronze-age myths.

The unofficial Atheist Experience response to Zeitgeist

So many people email us asking if we have seen the online movie "Zeitgeist" that we've had to come up with a stock response to people so that we don't have to keep explaining why it sucks so much.

Matt has been sending this response to emailers, and I have gotten his permission to repost it here on the blog.

Thanks for writing! Most of us have seen Zeitgeist and we've commented about it numerous times on both shows. I've actually watched it several times, and if others hadn't already done a brilliant job of debunking the nonsense in that film, I'd probably devote more time to doing exactly that.

The first third of the film is an unscholarly, sophomoric, horribly flawed, over-simplification that tries to portray Christianity as nothing more than the next incarnation of the astrologically themed religions that preceded it. Like all conspiracy theories, they combine a few facts, focus on correlations and build an intriguing story that seems to fit the pieces together nicely - provided you don't actually dig below the surface to find out where they might have gone wrong.

The second third of the film is full-on conspiracy theory nonsense that is a virtual cut-and-paste from the "Loose Change" 9/11 conspiracy video. The flaws in this portion have been expertly addressed on numerous websites, video responses and investigated not just by responsible publications like Scientific American but also thoroughly debunked by peer-reviewed science. There is no reliable evidence to support the fascinating fairy-tale they weave. Again, like all conspiracy theories, a few facts a compelling story and as long as you don't look behind the curtain, it can be fairly convincing.

The final third of the film is complete bullshit. The claims that taxes are illegal and that one doesn't have to pay taxes have been bandied about for years - and they've been tested in the courts. Anyone willing to actually refuse to pay their taxes based on the information in this film is likely to find themselves in a court room appearing very foolish as mountains of case law and precedent demonstrate the absurdity of their claim.

Zeitgeist is perhaps one of the most damaging films I've ever seen, because people who don't exercise proper skepticism buy into a flawed story and then repeat it. They may convince other folks, and what we'll end up with are a bunch of people who reject Christianity, for example, for very bad reasons - and the minute they come face to face with someone who can defend Christianity from these easily dismissed claims, they're likely to not simply be convinced they were wrong but also convinced that Christianity is therefore true (after all, we're talking about folks who weren't bothered to investigate the truth in the first place).

There are some facts in the film, but it's not particularly difficult to take a few facts, spin a clever story and make a very convincing case for something, despite having no rational, evidence-based justification for their beliefs.

I'd highly recommend you spend time looking around for websites and videos that offer rebuttals to the information in Zeitgeist. You might find that it's far less impressive than you originally thought.

To Matt's very thorough answer, I will add some links of my own.

• This is an episode of the TV show that Matt and I did on conspiracy theories. While it is not about Zeitgeist in particular or even any 9/11 conspiracy, we touch on similar issues that are obviously intended to apply.
• This is a blog post I wrote earlier describing my general reaction to the so-called "9/11 truth" movement.
• This web site is a very thorough response to most of the various claims of the "9/11 truth" movement.
• Everything you could possibly want to know about the ridiculous notion that you don't have to pay taxes is here. And here. And also here.
• Updated, 6/24/09: A full critical analysis of the movie as a whole is here.

Future questions about Zeitgeist or any individual component of the claims in Zeitgeist will be directed to this post.

Ray's threat of hell...

In today's post at Ray Comfort's blog,

Ray wrote:

"...but I don’t think that people should become Christians because of a fear of Hell. Rather, they should come to Christ out of a fear of the God that can cast them into Hell.."

I've submitted the following response and I don't care if it gets posted there or not, it's worth adapting for our blog as well.

Ray, you cited Luke 12:4-5 to justify your position that we should fear God. While I'd normally point out that this is still an absurd doctrine of fear that isn't something I'd expect Christians to be proud of (and I will), you've attempted to avoid that response by claiming that there are two types of fear.

It's curious that you quoted 1 John 4:17, yet you didn't bother to note that it's verse 18 from which you draw the idea of fear as torment.

The text of verse 18 reads:

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love."

So, the question, Ray, is this:

What is your authority for claiming there are two different types of fear referenced in the passage in Luke?

The same word (English and Greek) for fear is used in both references (in Luke and 1 John). The passage you quoted from Luke also appears in Matthew (10:28) and relies on the same Greek word in that instance as well.

The 1 John passage doesn't say 'fear (phobos) can also mean torment (kolasis)' it says 'fear (phobos) involves torment (kolasis)'.

The author of 1 John isn't giving an alternate definition of fear, he's explaining that fear has/contains (a more accurate translation of the Greek 'echo') torment, intrinsically.

Or, more accurately, 'fear (phobos) does (instead of 'can also') mean torment (kolasis)'.

This is a subtle but significant point that will be important in a moment.

Now, I'm well aware that this word (fear/phobos) has several meanings, that's not my point. My point is that you're claiming that it means one thing in the first sentence and a different thing in the second sentence and you've provide no justification for that - nor have you offered a valid alternate definition (you appealed to some sort of 'common sense' fear).

Let's re-write Luke 12:4-5 substituting your definitions (or with the most valid definition to replace your 'common sense' pseudo-definition):

“And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid (tormented) of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear (be in awe of): Fear (be in awe of) Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear (be in awe of) Him!"

It's worth noting that this passage is attributed to Jesus and one would presume that you consider it to be an accurate Greek representation of what he originally said.

I find it patently absurd for you to claim that this passage, is referencing two different types of fear.

Firstly, there is no indication from 1 John 4:18 that there are two different types of fear, as you claim - that's simply an explanation that fear includes torment.

Secondly, you're implying that Jesus was such a poor thinker that he would construct a 'not this - but this' comparison with predicates that have entirely different meanings and, as if that wasn't enough, you're implying that he was so careless with his words that translators were forced to use the same word to mean two different things (despite other words being available), even though he surely must have realized that this would lead to centuries of confusion over what he meant.

The verse is clear - 'Don't fear those who can simply kill you, but fear Him who can kill you and punish you forever.'

This is a clear threat of hell.

It's clear in the Greek and in the English. Your appeal is a sophomoric apologetic that simply rationalizes your preferred softening with sophistry.

What's worse is that even with your softened re-rendering, the text is still simply a threat of hell - because that's the power that determines which personage one should fear.

There are only two reasons that I've been able to come up with for why you didn't simply say "Yes, we're supposed to fear God because he can send us to hell." (A position that, while I despise it, would have at least earned you some respect for honesty.)

1. You really don't have any firm understanding of what you're talking about.

2. You were afraid of facing the contradiction that arises when one verse tells you to love god, another tells you to fear god and a third says that there is no fear in love.

-----

Now, as a quick end-of-post comment:

The simple truth is that the fire-and-brimstone preachers used to use this precise passage to support their message. After all, we have Jesus directly telling you to fear God because of what he can do to you after you're dead. Ray, I believe, knows this and he knows the distaste the general public has for fire-and-brimstone preachers, so he's twisting and turning like a twisty-turny-thing in order to convince someone - anyone - that he's not like those guys.

He doesn't think we should fear Hell, just the guy who can send us there - because he can send us there - but not really fear, in the sense of being terrified, but fear in the common-sense, 'healthy respect for'-fashion.

Hogwash.

I therefore request that Fred Phelps of Shirley Phelps-Roper take a few minutes and call Ray to explain why his particular brand of exegesis isn't Biblical. It may be more pleasant to Ray, but that's only because he's desperately trying to soften the message.

Ya hear me, Shirley? I'm tired of beating on Ray, it's your turn!

Can't we kick Cynthia Dunbar to the curb yet?

Good grief. If it weren't bad enough that this woman is a far-right wing space muffin who actually thinks Barack Obama is in league with terrorists, now we find out that this person who sits on the Texas State Board of Education, for fuck's sake, has actually written a book (I hope she got a lot of use out of her Speak & Spell) excoriating the very concept of public schools as "unconstitutional," "tyrannical," and "a subtly deceptive tool of perversion."

If this isn't putting the fox in charge of the henhouse, I don't know what is!

I've always been both amused and bemused by the way in which right-wing Christian fundagelicals not only actively resist knowledge and education, but take bizarre pride in their own intellectual and educational deficits. Fine, let them live out their lives as clueless idiots. But when they have the power to influence the educations of an entire generation of students, potentially derailing the future of the entire country as a consequence, that's going just the teensiest bit too far, is it not?

Please, write the governor. This cannot stand.

The FFRF Christmas sign, and why it's a bad atheist message

When you have an unpopular message, however confident you are that it is factual, it is important to know how best to deliver that message so that your audience, however predisposed they may be to agree or disagree with you, is receptive, willing to give you a fair hearing at the very least.

Some atheists make the argument that Christians will never give us a fair hearing at all, so there's no reason not to be as rude and abrasive as possible. But this simply isn't true. The God Delusion sat pretty on the New York Times bestseller list for a solid year. And while Dawkins is certainly vilified out of all proportion to what he says and does by indignant believers, the point is, the book has sold over a million and a half copies. They didn't all go to atheists, obviously. Otherwise, every book about atheism would be as monstrous a seller. Whether they like it or not, believers are getting the message — via books like TGD and blogs and what have you — that there are a lot of atheists out there, and that we're prepared to defend our views with a great deal of intellectual rigor.

And yet there are effective and appropriate means to deliver those views. I'm not a Malcolm X, "by any means necessary" atheist, because not all means work. And while it's a good thing many times to be provocative, provocative isn't necessarily the way to go at all times. Which leads us to the Christmas sign.

To recap events of the last week: the Freedom from Religion Foundation had a sign placed next to a nativity scene in front of the Washington State Capitol building in Olympia. (Let us, for the moment, blow off any tangential arguments about the church/state separation issues that may be involved there.) At some point on Friday it was ripped from the ground and found some miles away tossed in a ditch. "Ah ha," sayeth the atheist blogosphere, "does this not prove how petty and small-minded and censorious those Christian thugs are? How thin skinned they are about allowing any belief contrary to their own in the public sphere?" Well, maybe, but then, let's look at what the sign — which has been used by FFRF before — actually said, and remember that it was placed next to a traditional Christmas decoration.

At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no angels, no devils, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

That last sentence is an example of what is commonly called "overplaying your hand."

Look, you won't get any arguments from me about the truth content of the sign as a whole. But, mindful of the whole "time and place" concept, as well as the general mindset of the people (Christians) whom you intend to reach with the message...well, what they read when they read the last sentence is not necessarily what might have been intended by the FFRF. You see, they aren't going to read that last sentence and think, "By golly, they're right. How gullible and foolish I've been to shackle my mind to these ancient superstitions." No, what the last sentence of the sign says to them is this.

Hey, Christian fucknuts. You know this Christmas thing you're all into right about now? You know, that time of year where you gather together with your family, decorate the tree, put lights up around the house, sing carols, stuff yourself silly with yummy turkey and cranberry sauce, wrap presents while eagerly imagining the looks on your childrens' faces when they unwrap them, then snuggle with your loved one under a comfy blanket before a roaring fire while sipping eggnog and reminiscing about Christmases past and how big the kids are getting? Yeah, you know, all that insect-brain three-hanky horsepuckey? Well, the reason you like all that is because you're a gullible, hard-hearted, uneducated, dimwit FUCKTARD! So come on over to our side, where we don't have any of that sentimental shit we just listed, but we do have the thin and feeble pseudo-satisfaction of looking down our noses at everyone we pretend to be better than.

Pretty much something like that, anyway.

Given that's what the message says to them, is it any wonder it was ripped from the ground? Is it any wonder they nurture their persecution complexes? Is it any wonder they never lack for ammunition in their bleating about a "War on Christmas"?

In short, the sign is provocative when an atheist message delivered this time of year ought to be nothing but fluffy bunnies. That doesn't mean watering down your atheism. It means putting it in a positive, humanitarian and humanist context. You know, that thing we mean when we refer on the TV show to "promoting positive atheism."

The irony here is that the FFRF has gotten it right before, with their billboards that simply read "Imagine No Religion." That is a message that simply seeks, in Dawkins' words, to raise the consciousness of the reader. All it asks is, imagine a world without religion. The believer may do so and see nothing but a bleak, nightmare void. But that's where the discussion can start and the consciousness-raising can begin in earnest. You see, signs need only the pithy consciousness-raising message. They should not try to encapsulate a detailed atheist worldview — the whole "religion is superstition and, really, isn't it kind of silly for grown adults to believe in invisible magic men in the sky" thing — in a nutshell. Especially not in a venue where the received message will be, "What, you like Christmas? What kind of shithead are you anyway?"

"But Martin," you say, "the FFRF is suing because the city had their harmless, inoffensive, 'consciousness-raising' billboard pulled down after two days! So positive atheist messages are no better, obviously!"

Yes they are, my little sprogs. Because while few people will blame Christians for tearing down a provocative atheist sign next to a nativity scene — and I'm sure the FFRF has been dismissed in a number of media outlets for simply pulling a publicity stunt — when they try to suppress truly inoffensive messages such as that on the billboard (or the even-less-offensive one that simply read "Don't believe in God? You're not alone.") then they do look like reactionary, thin-skinned bullies, and it's easier for atheists to claim the moral high ground and come across, even to some in theistic camps, as more sinned against than sinning.

So while it's all fine for us to throw punches at religion in most of the forums available to us — our blogs and books and TV shows — when atheists make the choice to take the atheist message out to the general public on their turf (and yes yes, you can say "the Capitol grounds is everybody's turf," but I'm dealing with the way things are in this country, not the way they should be), then that message needs to be 100%, undiluted, positive atheism.

If I were to place a sign next to a creche, I'd have it say something like this.

During this holiday season, and at all times of the year, let us remember our shared humanity and come together in love and mutual support, striving towards a better future for us all. A person's goodness comes, not from what they believe or don't believe, but from who they are inside and what they do to better the world around them.

And then, when people look at the small print and see it's from an atheist organization, will they think the sign is attacking them in the way a sign telling them they have hardened hearts and enslaved minds seems to be? Would they still want to pull it out of the ground? Or would they be less inclined to think of atheists as petty, mean-spirited pricks who are just bitter because they don't have Baby Jesus and eggnog and crackling fireplaces in their lives? Would they have their consciousness raised? Maybe only some. But I bet that's more than the FFRF's present sign has won over.

So happy holidays, bountiful Solstice, and merry Christmas. Everybody.

---

Addendum: Well, predictably enough, not only have a number of readers completely misunderstood my point in this post, but some of them seem to have gone out of their way to make a special effort to do so, with one idiot even accusing me of "Uncle Tom" atheism. Another commenter wrote, "What you are saying boils down to, 'If you're not saying what I want you to say in the manner that I want you to say it, then shut the fuck up.'" Which is, of course, not what this post boils down to at all, period, not even a little bit. I've responded in detail in the comments myself.

For those of you still dubious about Ebert...

...he has just delivered unto Ben Stein pwnage for the ages. Some choice tidbits.

Hilariously, [Expelled] argues that evolutionists cannot tolerate dissent. If you were to stand up at a "Catholic and mainstream Protestant" debate and express your support of Creationism, you would in most cases be politely listened to. There are few places as liberal as Boulder, Colo., where I twice debated a Creationist at the Conference on World Affairs, and yet his views were heard politely there. If you were to stand up at an evangelical meeting to defend evolution, I doubt if you would be made to feel as welcome, or that your dissent would be quite as cheerfully tolerated.

And there is worse, much worse. Toward the end of the film, we find that Stein actually did want to title it "From Darwin to Hitler." He finds a Creationist who informs him, "Darwinism inspired and advanced Nazism." He refers to advocates of eugenics as liberal. I would not call Hitler liberal. Arbitrary forced sterilization in our country has been promoted mostly by racists, who curiously found many times more blacks than whites suitable for such treatment.

Ben Stein is only getting warmed up. He takes a field trip to visit one "result" of Darwinism: Nazi concentration camps. "As a Jew," he says, "I wanted to see for myself." We see footage of gaunt, skeletal prisoners. Pathetic children. A mound of naked Jewish corpses. "It's difficult to describe how it felt to walk through such a haunting place," he says. Oh, go ahead, Ben Stein. Describe. It filled you with hatred for Charles Darwin and his followers, who represent the overwhelming majority of educated people in every nation on earth. It is not difficult for me to describe how you made me feel by exploiting the deaths of millions of Jews in support of your argument for a peripheral Christian belief. It fills me with contempt.

And my own favorite:

Why are [creationists] always trying to push evolutionists over the edge, when they're the ones clinging by their fingernails?

Bask, people, bask.

Proud dad

Yesterday my son Ben, age 6, brought me Dan Barker's "Maybe Right, Maybe Wrong" and told me he had read it. I hadn't asked him to. He just found it in his bookcase and started reading, and apparently finished the thing on his own.

I was a bit skeptical since I've never yet known him to read anything that long, so I asked him some questions about it. He remembered the part where the girl had to decide whether to put her cat to sleep. I asked him why she decided to do it. He thought for a few seconds and said "Because of her principles. But it's not like the principal in school."

Then he wanted to read the book to me, and I noticed that he does voices like I do when I read. It's subtle, but in a cartoon scene where a kid and an adult are talking, the kid definitely has a higher voice.

That book, by the way, is signed by Dan Barker: "For Russell and Ben, Freethinking Friends."

Kirk Cameron, ACTOR!

I want to give a shout out to this great post on Slacktivist. Fred has been doing a long critique of the "Left Behind" series of books, and he's recently turned to the first movie as a break from reading.

I thoroughly enjoyed his merciless critique of Kirk Cameron as an actor. Here's just a taste:

This is where Cameron confesses that he doesn't believe or understand that virtue is a craft and craft is a virtue. Cameron describes his life before his conversion:

"There was this aching, empty feeling that left me very disillusioned with the business I was working in," he says. "What else was there? What else did I have to shoot for? I'd basically reached the top of the ladder, and I was 18."

He had "reached the top of the ladder," Cameron said. And he still seems to believe that this is true.

That's an astonishing thing for him to believe when you realize that at this same time he was being introduced to the newest member of Growing Pains' cast: Leonardo DiCaprio.

Now certainly DiCaprio's work as Luke Brower-Seaver, the show's Cousin Oliver, wasn't on the same level as the quality of work he would later go on to do, but he was already clearly a talented and committed actor. Just one year after Growing Pains was canceled he was astonishingly good in What's Eating Gilbert Grape, so I think it's safe to assume that he was already an obviously better actor than Cameron at the time they worked together.

So for at least one year of his professional life, then, Kirk Cameron was confronted, regularly, by an example of what a real actor his own age should look like. And yet he spent all that time on the same set with and in the same scenes as DiCaprio without apparently learning anything -- without even seeming to realize that he needed to learn anything.

I really have to admire how much this post hit the nail on the head in terms of what bothers me about many Christian testimonials -- often they are simply incredibly arrogant about how successful they supposedly were before their conversion. The whole thing about how "I had everything, and I felt so empty." Come on, seriously. There's always more you can do. You never have everything. Especially if "everything" to you is being an actor with the talent level of Kirk freaking CAMERON. (I neither endorse nor reject Fred's opinion about Leonardo, however.)

I'm not your damn scapegoat

I know, I know, I shouldn't even pay attention to what's going on at WorldNutDaily, but a listener forwarded this to us and it pisses me off.

A New York man is linking the suicide of his 22-year-old son, a military veteran who had bright prospects in college, to the anti-Christian book "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins after a college professor challenged the son to read it.

"Three people told us he had taken a biology class and was doing well in it, but other students and the professor were really challenging my son, his faith. They didn't like him as a Republican, as a Christian, and as a conservative who believed in intelligent design," the grief-stricken father, Keith Kilgore, told WND about his son, Jesse.

A few things about this story. First of all, no persuasive case has been made that his son killed himself because he read "The God Delusion." His dad says he did, sure, but as I once pointed out in a post titled "Anatomy of a propaganda attack," the fact of these stories tend to be extremely malleable and gradually change as more information is discovered. As far as I can tell, there hasn't even been a suicide note yet, and there are all kinds of things that could have contributed to the suicide, starting with the volatile dad.

Which is my other point -- second of all, there are a lot of ways one can "frame" this story, even if the stated motivation is true. NATURALLY the minister dad and the evangelical leaning WND want to make it sound like the horrible atheist book killed the good Christian son by killing his faith. On the other hand, I've been an atheist all my life and haven't killed myself. My son hasn't killed himself. Why not, instead, say that being raised in a fundamentalist household makes you especially prone to suicide when you are exposed to competing points of view?

I'm not trying to dogpile on the dad, who is obviously going through a great deal of pain and loss right now. I do, however, take exception to the dad using his legitimate pain as an excuse to lash out against a minority target that he probably presumes will not fight back. That crosses the line.

I don't know all the facts about the case at this point, so I can't say whether reading "The God Delusion" did or did not push Jesse Kilgore over the edge and drive him to suicide. I think the responsible thing would be to wait a bit and see if any more information comes out (so I'll probably put it on Google Alert). Regardless, the dad is acting like an opportunistic and bigoted ass.

Keith Kilgore weighed in on the Digg page about the story. Posting as chk555, Kilgore takes the opportunity to recite his extremely confused take on the book ("Also, Richard Dawkins admitted on DVD that he believes in intelligent design to Ben Stein in the movie Expelled. Instead of crediting the Creator, he credits 'space aliens.'" Uh?) The guy is clearly using his son's death to further a crusade that he had already been after all along. I'm sorry for his loss, but... seriously.

A reason to celebrate Thanksgiving!

Word is making the rounds that the reactionary right's own personal Ilsa and card-carrying Joe McCarthy fangirl— yes yes, I'm talking about Ann Coulter — has somehow broken her jaw, requiring that it be wired shut.

Really!

I wonder how much her doctors would ask for to leave it that way...

Shall we enjoy a little schadenfreude pie along with our pumpkin tomorrow?

Siren song

I had a whole lot of fun hosting the show yesterday, and I'm glad I get to do it more, but there's one new thing that's really dangerous for me.

It's the chat room.

Now that we are streaming live and have an associated chat, first of all we're going out live to an international audience and getting instant feedback as well. This may be very bad indeed.

The Non-Prophets chat room has always been something I wished I could pay more attention to, but even during peak times I've never noticed more than, say, 50 people in there during a show. Yesterday I'm told that there were more than 200 people at one point, the control room tells me. Since I had my laptop with me on the set, I tried to just occasionally glance in the chat room and measure the mood in there. You may notice from the video that the chat became more and more interesting to me later, and it was hard to tear my eyes away from it.

At one point I mentioned what was being said in chat, and the room went nuts. Text started scrolling by at a dizzying pace. I think I got humorously propositioned at least three times during the show, and that was only during the few minutes when I was watching. Then I saw a chatter remark that Jen was looking at me for feedback and I had my head buried in my computer. So I stopped, reluctantly.

You see, I freely acknowledge that I have an enormous ego. I love attention. So it's a lot of fun to get instant reactions as it happens, and this may be to the enormous detriment of the show. So as much as I wish I could, I think I'd better not pay much attention to the chat in future episodes.

You asked for it

Here's a distant shot of Clare Wuellner of CFI-Austin in The Dress, giving testimony at Wednesday's SBOE hearings. This comes from Steve Schafersman's own blog. If you'd prefer a more journalistic, detailed, play-by-play account of the day's events — you know, who spoke and what they said — and not just my indignant ranting, Steve's got it. Tons of photos, too. He stayed all day, like a true battle-hardened veteran.

I'll see if Clare can't send along an even better picture of herself.

Crippled dogs and one-trick ponies

I've just returned from the Texas SBOE hearings on Science TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) standards, and I'm so full of disgust and dismay that I'm at a loss for words to express it with enough rancor. You can, however, expect me to go on at length anyway. The whole thing was such a goddamn farce from the outset that I'd had more than enough after only one hour, at which point I could only roll my eyes and walk out the door. If you haven't encountered the gall and dishonesty of creationists on their own turf before, and even if you have many times, it's always the kind of experience that leaves you feeling worse about humanity in general.

As I write this, people are still speaking, and will be for a few hours yet. I saw no point in sticking around, but for all I know there could be, at any time, a real first-rate speaker who could get across the points that needed to be gotten across, and who would call out the creos on the disingenuous rhetoric they repeatedly spewed. As it is, I left the whole charade with two key observations: 1) That the big pitch the creationists are using isn't merely the weasel phrase "strengths and weaknesses," but their defense of that phrase as an expression of support for "academic freedom" that the scientific community apparently opposes; and 2) that the pro-science side, at least as I saw it today, is singly unaware of how to respond to that rhetoric properly and forcefully.

This cannot be understated: Just as the anti-gay contingent of the Christian right sells its opposition to gay marriage as a "defense" of "traditional" marriage that can in no way be compared to opposition to interracial marriage or anything of that sort, so too are the creationists now abandoning the overt, lawsuit-bait language of "intelligent design" for "academic freedom" language that makes them seem like the ones encouraging students to use their minds to think about and evaluate ideas that are presented to them in class on their merits. Conversely, the pro-science side wants to shut this kind of inquiry down, and just require students to be obedient little sponges soaking up whatever the textbooks say.

Why this is a misrepresentation and gross misunderstanding of the opposition to such terms as "strengths and weaknesses" was, to his credit, appropriately explained by Texas Citizens for Science spokesman Steve Schafersman. But he didn't make the point forcefully enough, and even he seemed taken aback when challenged by one of the creationist board members after giving his alloted three-minute address. I'll discuss that last, because it was after Schafersman spoke that I ducked out. After all, if a veteran front-line soldier in the science education wars like Schafersman falters when some creationist puts him in the hot seat, it's clearly time for the pro-science side to step back and understand just how dishonest the rhetoric is, and how it has to be addressed in a no-nonsense manner, calling bullshit bullshit, and stating the pro-science position with sufficient force and clarity that no sleazy creationist ideologue can sit there lying about it and sounding smug and reasonable while doing so. I don't see that the pro-science speakers today fully appreciated the ideological scrimmage line they were going up against, nor the fact that the game plan was going to be offense all the way.

A quick rundown of some of the speakers I did see.

As I had a number of errands to run early in the day, I was worried that I may have missed a lot of the good stuff. I didn't end up getting downtown to the Travis State Office Building until about 3:30. But as the TFN announced that the hearing itself wouldn't start until likely after lunch, and as I recall the last set of hearings I attended in the same building five years ago went on until well into the night, I figured I hadn't missed too much.

Turned out my timing was excellent. The hearings on the science standards started right around 3:55. That must have been some sheer pain for those folks who'd been there since 9:00 AM.

As the title of the post indicates, what ensued was the kind of dog-and-pony show where the dog has only three legs and all the pony knows how to do is turn in a circle. The first speaker was a dignified and well spoken older gentleman named Dr. Joe Bernal, who was himself an SBOE member in the 1990's, and who spoke eloquently on the need to keep science scientific and avoid the pitfalls of allowing room for non-scientific ideas. He stated that it was the duty of parents, not schools, to determine a student's religious instruction. He also reiterated the support among the scientific community for evolutionary theory.

Now, after a speaker has done his three minutes, board members can ask questions of that speaker if they wish. I saw it coming even before it started. The instant the bell chimed on Dr. Bernal's address, creationist board member Terri Leo leapt out of the phone booth with her Supergirl costume on and hit the ground faster than a speeding bullet.

Her first agenda: discredit the recent survey, cited by Dr. Bernal, that showed 98% of biologists and science educators in Texas support evolution. "Who funded that study? Wasn't that study funded by the Texas Freedom Network?" Dr. Bernal admitted it was, but stated calmly that whoever funded the study was beside the point. He actually got in a good comeback to Leo, noting that even the science teachers selected by the SBOE to review the science standards voted in the majority. But Leo wasn't finished. "I always thought that taking polls wasn't how you do science." Well, of course not, and the poll wasn't an exercise in doing science. The science is already done. The point of the poll was simply to get a show of hands among professionals in the relevant fields as to what theory is appropriate to teach in classrooms. But this is the kind of dishonest rhetoric that creationists will throw out there to get the pro-science side on the defensive.

The thing about Terri Leo is, she's so dumb and sleazy that she cannot resist overplaying her hand. And she did it right away by using shameless creationist language while simultaneously denying any creationist agenda on her or the SBOE's part. Note that Dr. Bernal only brought up religion in passing in his speech, pointing out that it's a private family matter and not fit for science class. Leo leapt on this like a hungry tiger, railing that the phrase "strengths and weaknesses" was not religious language, and that the only people making a big deal about religion supposedly being shoehorned into science curricula are "militant Darwinists."

I am not shitting you. She actually used that term, out loud, in front of a packed room, in her questioning of the very first speaker of the day.

I couldn't stop myself. I laughed out loud, loud enough for her to hear. ("Hey...sorry, but...") That was when I knew that the whole day was going to be a complete joke.

Dr. Bernal responded quite impressively by bringing up — and I'm so glad he was the first speaker, which is when it needed to be brought up — that the SBOE had themselves enlisted known anti-evolutionists affiliated with the Discovery Institute, who have not exactly been secretive about their own religious and creationist agendas, to be among those assigned to review science standards. Specifically he asked (to the delight of the crowd), "Why is someone from an institute in Seattle being asked to review Texas science education standards?"

And here we saw, for the first time, the depth of the SBOE's egregious dishonesty they were going to display today. The presence of the DI's Stephen Meyer, and creationist textbook writers Charles Garner and Ralph Seelke was brought up many time by many speakers, and no one on the board would defend or even address it. They simply were not going to justify their actions in this regard to the public, or at least, they didn't in the hour I was there. If anyone reading this stayed through to the end, and heard anything from Dan McLeroy or Terri Leo about why these men, with their overt ID affiliations, were asked to review the Science TEKS standards for Texas, do let us all know in the comments.

Unlike 2003, when Terri Leo (working hand in hand with the Discotute) front-loaded that day's speakers with creationists, I only heard one creationist speak today, some idiot who sleazily brought up the DI's long-ridiculed "list of 700 dissenting scientists" as if it represented some kind of major controversy within science over Darwinian evolution. (As Ken Miller pointed out hilariously in his talk back in the spring at UT, this number represents barely a single-digit percentage of the total number of professionals in the relevant fields, and the list includes a number of names of non-biologists and similarly unqualified people who happen to have Ph.D.'s.) This guy then shamelessly rushed headlong into Godwin's Law while the audience groaned, averring (after supposedly having watched Expelled too many times) that by refusing to allow ideas to be questioned in class, we were doomed to be heading down the same path those poor misguided Germans went down.

This inspired such derision from the crowd that Terri Leo — shocked, shocked at just how "rude" people were being in response to the entirely reasonable comparison that had just been drawn between themselves and Nazis — exhorted everyone to be more "respectful" of this poor man, who had taken valuable time out of his day to come down here to call everyone Nazis, and would the board please be more diligent about controlling such inconsiderate and shocking outbursts.

I can't really put into words the atmosphere of disbelief that circulated around the room at this point. People were being calm, but among the audience and people waiting for their turn to speak (and I saw a very reassuring majority wearing "Stand Up for Science" stickers on their lapels), there was a definite vibe of "Just how much bullshit are we expected to endure?" Well, people, that's what we all have to remember about creationists and religious ideologues: they are a Perpetual Motion Machine and Bullshit Factory all rolled into one, unleashing an unstoppable deluge of bovine feces that would even make Noah throw up his hands and say, "Fuck it, no ark is gonna save us from this one."

Finally I come to Steven Shafersman, a man I admire and whose work in battling creationism over the years and fronting Texas Citizens for Science is unimpeachable. I had already made up my mind to disembark this ship of fools, but when I heard Shafersman's name announced I stuck around, deciding he'd be the last guy I'd hear.

Shafersman did well, but unfortunately his talk left an opening for one of the creationist board members (a portly man whose name I didn't catch, but who's been identified by a commenter as Ken Mercer) to pounce on. See, Shafersman's main point was that the reason it was inappropriate to have language like "evaluate strengths and weaknesses" in scholastic standards is that it requires activity on the part of the students they haven't got the expertise for. Mercer tried to obfuscate this by making it seem as if Shafersman and the pro-science side didn't even want students to be allowed to raise their hands and ask questions in class. This is emphatically not the case, of course, and Schafersman explained that, going on to say that in science, theories are critically evaluated in the field by working professionals, not by students hearing the theories for the first time and lacking the proper expertise and frame of reference to do a "critical evaluation" in the first place.

But Mercer kept hammering the false point repeatedly. What about errors and hoaxes in the past? What about Piltdown Man? What about Haeckel's inaccurate embryo drawings, that were in textbooks for years? If people weren't allowed to question these things, wouldn't these errors and hoaxes have gone unexposed, and wouldn't students be learning misinformation today? Why try to stifle the sort of open inquiry that led to these very necessary corrections?

Here is where Shafersman fumbled the ball, because there was such an easy and obvious response to this that it was all I could do to hold my tongue and not blurt it out as loudly as I could shout. I just wanted Shafersman to say one simple thing, and he never said it, because I think he was so flummoxed by the aggressiveness of Mercer's questioning that he allowed himself to fall into the trap that had been set for him, forcing him to go on the defensive. ("Why, as a matter of fact I was one of the scientists instrumental in getting Haeckel's drawings out of textbooks!" To which Mercer simply replied, "Right! So why then...")

Here's what I think Shafersman should have said in reply to Mercer:

"Sir, your examples support my point. The Piltdown Man hoax and Haeckel's drawings were both shown to be false by working scientists, not students. It wasn't as if some 14 year old in 9th grade biology class pointed to those drawings and said, 'I don't know, teacher, those just don't look right to me.' Because that student could not have done that. He would not have had the knowledge and expertise. And that is why requiring the analysis of 'strengths and weaknesses' is inappropriate language, as it requires students to do something they're not equipped to do. Imagine a history class where you're teaching about Alexander the Great. Then you say to your students, 'Okay, kids, write a critical analysis of Alexander's battle plans against the Thracians.' How can they do this? They aren't generals, they're teenagers. They aren't qualified. First, you have to teach them the facts. Then, later on, if they pursue this field as a vocation they may gain the expertise to critique 'strengths and weaknesses.' But for now, they just need facts. And that's why we're opposed to this language in the TEKS. Our opposition is not a synonym for stifling all academic inquiry or even simple questions, and to claim that it is is an extremely dishonest red herring."

That's how he should have shut Mercer down. And to his credit, he did make some of these points. But Shafersman was never as forceful as Mercer was. The best Shafersman could do, it seemed, was feebly try to regain control of the questioning with very weak-sounding responses (to the effect of "We don't really need to go into the details of Haeckel right now...", which embarrassingly sounds like an attempt at dodging the issue).

I simply could not handle any more. I bolted.

It was clear that the creationist contingent knew that the pro-science side was going to show up in force at these hearings, and they came loaded for bear with every bit of disingenuous rhetoric in their how-to-play-dirty playbook. You'll recall in Kazim's recent critique of the "rumble in Sydney," in which Alan Conradi debated a minister, that Kazim made a very important point: ultimately, public debates are a matter of the performance, not the content. While these hearings were not a debate in the formal, forensic sense, they were an informal public "debate" not unlike that which goes on in The Atheist Experience and similar live venues, where topics are argued, often skillfully and often not, in an off-the-cuff manner with minimal prep.

The hearings today were that kind of thing, just an extremely farcicial parody of it. In one corner, a sincere collection of educators and science activists simply trying to ensure that the state's educational standards aren't diluted by trojan-horse language that, while non-inflammatory on its face, still leaves room for religious teaching to be slipped into classrooms by unscrupulous teachers (like, oh, John Freshwater); in the other, a board dominated by ideologues who aren't the least bit interested in understanding the views presented to them (all the while hypocritically claiming to promote freedom of inquiry), and who made every effort to obfuscate, misrepresent, and lie about those views.

In other words, a joke. A complete and utter joke.

And they wonder why people say Texas is a laughingstock.

Two more observations before I sign off (and remember, this whole epic-length post was simply my report on viewing one hour of this rubbish today):

1. I would have liked to have stuck around to hear the woman speak who showed up dressed (quite attractively) as if she'd stepped off the set of Little House on the Prairie. I imagine she was going to make some point about 19th century education being unsuited for a 21st century world, but there's no way I could have endured more of Terri Leo and Ken Mercer's verbal diarrhea while waiting. If any of you did hear her, tell us what she said, please.
2. The pro-science side does seem to have one solid ally on the SBOE, in the person of Mary Helen Berlanga. Ms. Berlanga was very polite and thanked all of the pro-science speakers, including Steve Shafersman, for their hard work and efforts. But that just made me want to hear more from her. Why not be as aggressive with the questioning in the way Bradley and Leo were? Why not be the one to answer the repeated queries about why known ID-supporters and anti-evolutionists were allowed to review the Science TEKS this year?

---

Addendum: Made corrections once Ken Mercer was identified in the comments.

Wednesday is coming up fast

That will be the day of the Texas SBOE hearings, people. If you haven't signed up to speak, it's too late now, unfortunately. But you can still attend, if that's a free day for you. The Texas Freedom Network has a FAQ page up with information for those planning to show up. Check it out.

I'll be going and will blog voluminously that evening.

The usual whiny hypocrisy

Welcome to Amerika. Where this, I am told, is offensive...

...but this isn't.

Let's see. The top billboard is simply a message from a group of unbelievers reaching out to other unbelievers who may feel they're alone, isolated in a hostile religious culture. The bottom billboard, on the other hand, is making very curt and rather bullying demands on me. It asserts the existence of this being, God, then it quotes him as claiming to have some entitlement over me, because he supposedly gave his son, and so, like, aren't I just some ungrateful so-and-so if I don't acknowledge this fantastic deal (which I never asked for in the first place) and decide it's in my best interests to "have" this God guy as part of my life.

And yet...well, apparently it's the top billboard that's aggressive and militant. It really has the panties of Denver area pastor Willard Johnson in a twist. He says, "We denounce what they are doing. But we do it with love, with gentleness, with decency and with compassion." Well, that's mighty white of you, Will, the whole love and compassion thing and all. I bet only a Christian would think that denunciations are a form of love and compassion. But be that as it may, why denounce this? What's offensive about it? "Don't believe in God? You are not alone." Is that such a threatening sentiment to your fragile widdle beliefs that you have to denounce it right away? What a sad thing for you.

And here's what else is odd to me. (Well, not odd. Perfectly normal, really, for a "Christian" nation.) Christians put up billboards all the time. Everywhere. Seriously. Some of them are wonderfully silly, some are harmless, some are plain insulting. And yet, it never makes the news when they put up billboards. Only when atheists do it. Why? Why should it be newsworthy, other than as an excuse to give some bozo pastor a little bit of ink to spout his loving, compassionate intolerance.

So, Christians, when you ask why we don't respect you enough, think of this. That there is nothing atheists can say, no message so innocent and innocuous in expression of our disbelief in your invisible magic friend in the sky, that you won't take it as some sort of horrible attack. Just like the time earlier this year, when the FFRF put up their "Imagine No Religion" billboards (which basically just ask you to, you know, imagine no religion), and Christians everywhere went berserk over this "militant" atheist assault on mom and apple pie. Why, one bold and courageous Christian group vowed to fight the FFRF's "hateful" billboards with their own, asking "Why Do Atheists Hate America?" Because, you know, that's not a hateful statement at all.

So you know what? Go ahead, be offended, Christians. That's one of the things you have to deal with when living in a free, pluralistic society. There will be people who think differently than you do, who believe in different things, and who will express those differing views. I know most of you want the place all to yourselves, but you have to share it, just like you have to share it with people of different races and sexual preferences and tastes in music. And if the simplest and mildest expression of a view different from your own makes you go into red alert mode, and wail about the evil militant whomevers who obviously hate the whole country because they aren't just like you, then perhaps you need to step back a bit, take a big fat chill pill, and think quite seriously about who's really got the problem here.

Now...ACA...how about getting a billboard up in Austin? It's time we had one, don't you think? Something like the AHA's bus ad campaign.

Ted, somehow I'm dubious

Oh, Ted. Ted Ted Ted. (Haggard, I mean, for those of you just tuning in.) So you've come out today with your latest excuse for, after years of hypocritically posing as a greal moral religious leader, finally being revealed as a drug-abusing, adulterous, whoremongering sodomite. And it's that old standby, "I was abused as a child."

Sure, I suppose this could have happened. After all, so many children, especially those in extremely rigid religious environments, are horribly abused, sexually and otherwise. But here's the problem. Or problems.

One: You are, or were, a high-profile public figure whose fame and influence was tied to maintaining and cultivating a carefully manicured image of righteousness. That wasn't merely tarnished, it took a direct hit from a nuke. So it's natural you would be highly motivated to repair and restore that image any way you can. How better to do this than by...

Two: ...playing the victim. See, religionists have a really bad habit of doing this when they have, in fact, been shown to be in the wrong. Why, we've experienced it here firsthand. (coughYomincough) Playing upon emotions is what you, as a preacher, have spent your entire career doing. It's become such a part of your personal lexicon you probably do it reflexively, without having to rehearse or even give the act much thought at all. Guilt, fear, anxiety...all the ingredients of the religion-toolkit all designed to lead the poor sinner back to that coveted moment of redemption. Come on, Ted, the whole schtick is your stock in trade! Who wouldn't expect you to claim something like this as an excuse for your acts? The only surprise is you didn't do it sooner.

Three: Your whole "confession" here is an insult to gays, though as a self-denying homophobe, you probably don't care. See, Ted, it's a fact that people abused as children do sometimes grow up to commit violent criminal acts. But you weren't caught at that, dude! You weren't found doing the Catholic priest thing of diddling a choirboy, or smacking the hell out of your wife and family. You were just found to be a closeted homosexual carrying on an affair. Okay, granted, you somehow stupidly chose a male prostitute for your extracurricular dalliances instead of just, you know, picking some fellow up at a bar or online. And you also bought meth from him. And those two things are illegal acts, sure. But they aren't crimes of violence. And while violent crimes in adulthood can often be traced to an abusive childhood, plain old homosexuality cannot. (Then again, you aren't a normal gay man either, so your situation could be different.)

Four: finally, don't presume that any of us, apart from a few of the still-brainwashed rubes from your former church, gives a shit. Really, your situation may have been a life-demolishing trauma and disgrace for you. But for the rest of us, who have spent years watching the decline and fall of the Bakkers and Tiltons and Swaggarts and Popoffs and all the rest of you charlatan SOB's... well, to us, it was just another instance of "Oh look, another evangelist has been found to be a dishonest sleazebag." In other news, the sun rose in the east this morning.

So, yeah...ho hum, Ted. Maybe you were horribly abused as a poor little waif, or maybe you're just lying to save whatever tatters of your reputation are left. But who cares? Seriously, who cares? You're done.

The disgraceful cost of the Iraq War

In the news today is word from Afghanistan that those wacky pranksters in the Taliban thought it would be a hoot to spray some teenage girls walking to school in the face with acid. Now two of them are blind! Hooray for the religion of peace. (Because it is, of course, against their precious religion that women should be educated.)

Why is this part of the disgraceful cost of the Iraq War? Why, because if we hadn't pulled troops out of Afghanistan in order to invade Iraq, a country that had exactly two things — jack and shit — to do with 9/11, then we could have spent the last five years still in Afghanistan, killing every single living member of the Taliban we could find. Which is no less than they deserve. Oh, dear. Was that not sufficiently politically correct? Good, I'll say it again. Every single living member of the Taliban should be killed. Summarily. And left to rot in the street. Or a ditch. I'm not particular.

To those who think I'm wrong to claim that right-wingers' lives are ruled by fear...

...I present this headline.

---

Addendum: Factcheck.org exposes the falsehoods behind the NRA's fear campaign regarding Obama's views on guns. Still, you gotta admit the gun lobby's come up with a great con to boost sales, hasn't it? Take a page from religion's playbook: exploiting fear and uncertainty always sells.

Getting involved with the Texas SBOE

The Texas State Board of Education is reviewing its high school science curriculum standards this year. The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) are the embodiment of those standards. These standards are important because they have a profound influence on how science is taught in Texas, including impacting textbook content. Because many other states adopt Texas standards and textbooks, TEKS can have a big impact across the country for a number of years. The stakes are high. Fortunately, there are a number of ways that concerned citizens can participate in the review process.

A draft of the TEKS was released on September 22nd and I have reviewed the Biology TEKS. Although I’m not a biologist, I certainly am familiar with how the creationist culture warriors might try to sabotage the standard. While all science TEKS have the suspect phrase, "Science may not answer all questions," the standard looks pretty good with respect to evolution. There is no taint of the old "strengths and weaknesses" wording that they had slipped in in the past, opening the door for casting doubt on evolution and thus leaving the door ajar for “intelligent Design” pseudoscience that is just religion in a lab coat.

Unfortunately, the SBOE has been stacked with creationist members with a not-so-hidden agenda of sabotaging the teaching of evolution. More recently, the SBOE has appointed a creationist-friendly review committee to review the science TEKS. It’s not clear what mischief will come of these developments, but many science advocates are concerned and watching.

A number of groups have gotten involved by drafting reports, crating petitions, and marshaling concerned citizens. The National Center for Science Education is monitoring these culture war skirmishes from across the nation. The 21st Century Science Coalition is a group of scientists who have weighed in with a petition to the SBOE. The Texas Citizens for Science have monitored the board, specifically the political firing of Science Director Chris Comer. The Texas Freedom Network has done a great job of monitoring the SBOE and organizing citizen actions in response.

Concerned individuals can get involved in a number of ways. If you’re interested in monitoring the situation, signing a petition, or testifying in front of the SBOE on November 19th, TFN can help you. Consider doing all three. These things are serious grassroots activism for the cause of science education. Testifying may sound like a lot of work, but it’s a great experience that will allow you to express your perspective as a taxpayer and as a Texan. Usually testimonies are just a few minutes—just long enough to make a point or two. You’ll be doing it along side other concerned activists who will be there with you making a difference.
It is also possible to review the TEKS standards online and submit comments directly to the board. This is another great way to participate. To do this, go to the Science TEKS page and read the relevant portion of the "High School science" TEKS. You will then get the "High School Courses" form and fill in your comments. There are multiple ways of submitting the form. You will submit one form for each science course TEKS you would like to respond to. If you do this, please remember to follow the instructions and make your comments relate to specific sections of the TEKS. Be assertive, but polite.

The ACA would like to encourage all people interested in the quality of science education to participate in this important process for the betterment of our country and our futures or consider donating to these groups that are making a difference.

(See also Martin's earlier blog post on the hearing.)

The heat is on Dunbar

Cynthia Dunbar took a pounding today on the editorial pages of the usually staid Austin-American Statesman, in a blistering piece that rightfully excoriates her as "an embarrassment who has brought heaping amounts of ridicule to this state," and "a disgrace to public education and an embarrassment to Texas."

But on top of her utterly asinine remarks about President-elect Obama (which, to the surprise of no one, were published by Brannon Howse's home for wayward congenital idiots, the Christian Worldview Network), we've been concerned about her ilk for a long time. She is one of the fundamentalist faction on the State Board of Education, and is responsible for putting two fellow idiots from the Discovery Institute in positions of authority to "review" science education standards for the state. A purer example of putting foxes in charge of the henhouse you could not find.

Stephen Meyer's and Ralph Seelke's appointments also carry the taint of conflict of interest, as they are authors of the Discotute's new anti-evolution "textbook," Exploring Evolution. This is the book intended to replace Of Pandas and People. It has bleached its pages of anything that could be considered ID-promoting lawsuit bait, but still repeats the same bogus claims about evolution the DI has always been making. And Dunbar has been instrumental in machinating this latest assault on science education. As the Statesman editorial also notes, Dunbar "lists herself as an anatomy teacher but won't tell even the Texas Education Agency at which school she teaches." Is it any surprise that ideologues can get elected in a neoconservative political climate and freely lie about their own professional qualifications?

There has to be some way to oust this despicable fool from her position on a board she has no business serving coffee to, let alone serving on. I strongly encourage anyone who can to sign up to speak on the 19th. And send a polite but strongly worded letter (or fax or phone call) to Governor Perry demanding he condemn Dunbar for her anti-Obama remarks. (She will, of course, defend herself by waving the flag of free speech, but as so many neocons don't realize, free speech includes both your right to say stupid shit, and everyone else's right to nuke you for it.) Dunbar may be the kind of beyond-the-pale ideologue who blossoms rather than shrinks under the heat of scrutiny. But that doesn't mean she shouldn't feel the heat all the time. We all should make the loss of this woman's job our mission.

Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428, Austin, Texas 78711
Phone: (512) 463-2000
Fax: (512) 463-1849

Possummomma returns!

This week just keeps getting better.

Schadenfreude!

Yes, there was a blemish on last night, which is that Christian Hate gets to crow about at least one victory. I am a little baffled about the Californians this morning. After all, they managed to deliver the state pretty handily for Obama, giving him no less than 61% of the popular vote there. So how they could have folded to fundamentalist fear so completely on the same night is rather strange. Still, I hope that this is just the beginning of Supreme Court challenges. There's simply no room for this in an enlightened culture. And an enlightened culture is what I'm sincerely hoping America may start slouching towards during the next (being optimistic here) eight years of the Obama presidency.

But for now, I thought, for schadenfreude purposes, we'd take a look at a little of the morning-after whining from the fundie camp in response to the election. My oh my, I do believe it's time to call the waaaambulance!

From the American "Family" Association, Donald Wildmon's homophobic hate club, we get some advice for Christians: "Defend Life, Prepare for Persecution." Since there's nothing these people love more than to feel "persecuted," I expect this is, perversely, good news for them.

[Tony] Perkins says Christians should pray for and return to a biblical model of holiness and righteousness. And believers in America, he adds, should prepare for persecution.

"We are going to see, I think, unprecedented attacks against our faith through measures like the hate crimes [legislation] to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act," he says. "We're going to see attacks on innocent human life through the Freedom of Choice Act, trying to erase all the gains that have been made in the pro-life movement. And I think even our freedoms are going to come under attack."

Obama stated during the presidential campaign that one of his top priorities upon taking office would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. Perkins says Christians will have to be resolute in defense of what they know to be right.

Hate, fear, ignorance and bigotry, of course, being the top four items on that list of what they "know to be right." It's amazing how upset they get when they're told, by civilized, decent people, that it really isn't nice to hate those different from you and that you should try to be more compassionate and tolerant. Those are two concepts just not in their lexicon.

Over at that delightful nuthouse, the Christian Worldview Network, columnist Jan Markell reveals another problem they have with Obama: they worry that he's unfair competition for Jesus!

Two years ago came a charismatic man named Barack Obama who was engulfed in a cult-like atmosphere. Some actually called him "the messiah." Shrines were built to him. A Web site said, "Obama is god." There has been a messianic fervor, adoration and a worship-like atmosphere surrounding him. At some rallies people fainted at the sight of him. Young children recorded on YouTube sang songs to him stating he would change the world...

Well, Jan, if you're actually worried that our president-elect is actually competition that the son of God has to worry about, sounds as if you aren't giving your God enough credit, eh? Anyway, the above is all followed up by the usual butt-ignorant whining about "socialism."

And of course, over at the WorldNutDaily, that repository of all things most ludicrous and histrionic that erupt from the crusty bowels of the extremist right, they couldn't resist this headline:

Hamas praises Obama win as 'historic victory for world'
Terrorists drafting letter of congrats to be sent directly to president-elect

I'm sure there's more of this hysteria out there, and if you want to dig it up, please be my guest. Meanwhile, I'm going to sit back, eat myself a heaping slice of schadenfreude pie (thanks for the recipe, Scalzi), with a side of schadenfreude cobbler and washed down with a big old extra-fattening schadenfreude milkshake. Yum!

One big victory

I can't really describe how I feel right now, my joy that the nation has taken, at long last, a whopping big fat sanity pill. No, I don't see Barack Obama as some messianic figure come to save us all. But I do see him not as simply the lesser of two evils, but as a truly engaged and intelligent statesman who does in fact care about this country; who is determined to get us on track to a workable plan for withdrawal from the quagmire of Vietnam II, aka Iraq; who isn't going to stack the Supreme Court with right-wing ideologues who would wipe away church-state separation as McCain most certainly would have done; who supports science instead of wanting to gut it. Who will restore to America the goodwill of the world, which we had disgracefully lost under the egregious and arrogant leadership of Bush and Cheney.

Cleaning up the last eight years of disaster is a tall order, and I truly hope he's up to it. Maybe tomorrow, I'll post more of my thoughts and reflections in greater detail. For now, I just want to rock out.

Oh yes. I understand that Liddy Dole, who ran that grotesque and sickening hate campaign in which atheists were her villains of choice against her opponent Kay Hagan has lost.

Bad news from California though. The forces of Christian Hate seem to be headed to victory. As of this writing, with 5% of precincts reporting in, the "yes" votes on Proposition 8 are ahead by 58.4%. Still, it's early days yet on that one. Fingers crossed.

Vote, for no-God's sake

In a blatant effort to throw around the weight of this blog's popularity, which is greater than that of my own blog, I'm going to repost something I wrote in February about why you, yes YOU, should vote today. In the spirit of bipartisanship I've decided to cut the more blatantly pro-Obama material that I wrote at the time, but you know I'm thinking it. :)

If you need to ask -- I voted Thursday, with my six year old son enthusiastically in tow.


It happens every four years at about this time: some people (and I won't name names here) start proudly announcing the fact that they don't see any point in voting. Why? Well, a variety of reasons, generally including several of these points:

1. No candidate has exactly what I'm looking for. I don't respect any of them, and I conscientiously refuse to vote for someone whom I don't respect.
2. The two candidates both suck. I won't vote for the lesser of two evils.
3. If I refuse to vote, then maybe politicians will get the message that they should offer better candidates, because there aren't any that I can get behind now.
   
4. One person's vote is so inconsequential that I have a greater chance of being struck by lightning on election day than I have of personally affecting the outcome of the election.

I'm going to hit each of these points in turn.

1. No candidate has exactly what I'm looking for. I don't respect any of them, and I conscientiously refuse to vote for someone whom I don't respect.

As Donald Rumsfeld might have said, "You go to the polls with the candidates you have, not the candidates you might want or wish to have." Let's say you've decided to sit out every election until you finally encounter the candidate who's a left-handed green-eyed atheist libertarian who will institute the flat tax and can sing classical opera. I can guarantee you that you, my friend, will be sitting out every election of your entire life.

But let's say a candidate finally comes along who's a right-handed green-eyed agnostic libertarian who will institute some kinds of tax reforms (not the exact ones you want) and plays the tuba. And let's say the other guy in the race is, hmmm, Fred Phelps. Are you really telling me that you're going to sit out on principle because you only like southpaws?

There are a lot of people in the world who could be running for president, but only a few of them are. The stronger you make your qualifications that are required to get your vote, the more you are guaranteed to be disenfranchised from the process. Which brings me to...

2. The two candidates both suck. I won't vote for the lesser of two evils.

Oh, I see. Then you won't mind if the greater of two evils wins. Suppose you've been kidnapped and imprisoned by a sadistic dictator, and he gives a choice between being punched once in the face or being slowly and painfully flayed alive for four hours. Would you say "Ah, who cares? Both things are evil, so either way I'll get hurt. Pick whichever one you want." I don't know about you, but in that situation I'd be saying "Punch me in the face, please!"

In the first place, I don't buy the fact that both candidates are evil. Like committing to a lifelong relationship with a person of the opposite sex (or same, if that's your thing), I guarantee that you will never find a person who is without flaws. When confronted with these flaws, you can either say "Sorry, imperfect match detected; no votes for you" or you can take the bad with the good and pick the person who is clearly the best available, warts and all.

In the second place, even if both candidates represent a net dislike for you, that still doesn't mean that your choice is irrelevant. Again, do you want to get punched once or flayed for hours? Easy choice: pick the outcome which is best for me.

3. If I refuse to vote, or write in "Mickey Mouse" on my ballot, then maybe politicians will get the message that they should offer better candidates, because there aren't any that I can get behind now.

Yes, of course they will. And then everybody will magically receive a million dollars and a pony from the sky.

Look, I hate to say this, but a vote is not a treatise on the state of our nation. If you want to send a message, start a blog. A friend of mine likes to say that voting has very low bandwidth: each person gets to transmit only one bit every four years. There's not a lot to resolve there about what your vote "means."

Most people in this country don't vote most of the time. There are countless reasons why somebody might not vote. Maybe all the candidates are too liberal. Maybe all the candidates are too conservative. Maybe the voter only supports left-handed green-eyed atheist libertarian candidates who will institute the flat tax and can sing classical opera. Or maybe the voters just couldn't muster the energy to get off their lazy asses and transmit their one bit this year.

When you're looking at election results, do you hear those messages? No. The ONLY information transmitted in the election is: "X voters voted, one candidate won by Y percentage points." That's it. Maybe you get more information out of news coverage and interviews, but that is true regardless of whether people vote or not.

If the greater of two evils wins, what's the strongest message that got sent? "Most people prefer this candidate to the other one. He must have done something right." Then, guess what happens four years later? Both candidates try to be more like the guy who won. Over time, the landscape drifts in the direction that people push it. Not voting, and even voting for somebody that you already know isn't going to win, rarely has an effect other than that of bolstering the person who wins.

4. One person's vote is so inconsequential that I have a greater chance of being struck by lightning on election day than I have of personally affecting the outcome of the election.

Sure. This one is true. But there's a significant fallacy involved.

Clearly there is little chance that the margin of victory will be a single vote, so the chance that YOUR vote is going to make the difference is very, very remote. Conceivably if you just stayed home on election day and didn't mention it, your influence on the election would be pretty much invisible.

But that's not all that people do when they announce "I'm not voting because my vote doesn't matter." They're not only choosing not to vote; they're also proclaiming that not voting is a better option. In doing so, they are, to some extent, influencing others who might agree with their own positions to do the same. And by convincing like minds to also not vote, this is spreading a "don't vote" meme across a broad population. The act of not voting may not influence the outcome, but the meme certainly does.

This isn't an academic issue; the use of memes that say "do vote" or "don't vote" has been used very effectively by special interest groups. For instance, one of the reasons that the religious right has been so successful at gaining disproportionate influence in government is that they have organized communication channels, mailing lists and church announcements and such, which mobilize their congregants to vote. This is a big message that DJ Groethe of the Center for Inquiry drove home for me once, showing materials such as Mind Siege, which end-times crackpot Tim LaHaye uses to frighten fundamentalists into voting (and also sending money). The basic message is that if YOU PERSONALLY don't take action IN THIS ELECTION, then the fags will make gay marriage mandatory for everyone and the evilutionists will jail all dissenters.

Strictly speaking, this isn't the truth. But the effect that this message has is very real. And likewise, sending the inverse message to people -- that voting is stupid and a waste of time -- ALSO has a genuine effect on overall turnout. Memes have a ripple effect. Maybe your vote won't sway the election, and maybe your message about not voting won't sway the election either. But people who are persuaded not to vote also have this tendency of replicating the meme and encouraging other people not to vote.

So, in fact, I choose to believe that my attitude about voting -- in addition to my vote -- makes a difference. It's a straight up Prisoner's Dilemma decision: "cooperate" and vote for the best alternative you can locate, even if it's inconvenient, or "defect" and stay home. Though your vote may not count, everyone who agrees with you and stays home will practically translate to one half of a vote for whoever they believe to be the worst candidate.

On the other hand, few things delight me more than hearing somebody whose position I disagree with say "I don't think I'm voting in this election." Sure, I'd prefer that they decide to vote for my candidate instead, but given that a complete reversal is a semi-rare event, I want to encourage them to continue "protesting" the opposing candidate by not voting for him. "Go, dude!" I say. "Keep registering that protest and not voting! Refuse to vote for your former party because because the candidate is not a crazy enough apocalyptic dominionist! That'll show those jerks who's boss! And if necessary, I hope you continue to not vote for as long as it takes, even if it's your whole life, until you get exactly what you want."

So in conclusion, don't just vote: convince those with whom you agree to vote. And make sure that the people with whom you disagree are good and surly about their candidates this year.