Print
When Congress Interferes With Science, Who You Gonna Call? (Hint: It's not Ghostbusters)
by Lori Lipman Brown
In 2007, Richard Dawkins' scarlet "A" campaign is making coming out as a nontheist easier for so many people than it had been just a few years ago. I like to hope that the existence of the Secular Coalition for America (http://www.secular.org) has also helped during the two years that the SCA has been lobbying Congress explicitly representing nontheists (atheists, humanists, naturalists, brights, rationalists, agnostics, and people claiming dozens of other personal identifiers with one thing in common – they do not rely on the existence of any god or gods.) I know it feels easier for me to talk about my godless beliefs now, than it did on my first day as the Director of the Secular Coalition for America, September 19, 2005, when I "outed" myself to a few million people on Fox's Big Story.
Two events convinced a diverse mix of nontheists to set aside their semantic divisions on what to call themselves to form an advocacy coalition to develop their political clout: 9/11 and the Terri Schiavo case. First, the attacks of September 11, 2001, which could have been used as a lesson in the danger of religious extremism, was instead used to claim that Christian extremism was the antidote. The second tipping point centers around a concerted effort to suppress decisions based on sound science in favor of narrow religious beliefs. This attack saw its way into the halls of Congress in its most offensive incarnation – the interference with Terri Schiavo's end of life medical decisions.
At the end of 2002, four organizations came together to form the Secular Coalition for America: Atheist Alliance International (http://www.atheistalliance.org), the Institute for Humanist Studies (http://www.humaniststudies.org), Internet Infidels (http://www.infidels.org), and the Secular Student Alliance (http://www.secularstudents.org). Prior to my hire date as the organization's first paid staff, the American Humanist Association ( http://www.americanhumanist.org) joined the coalition. In the past two years, the addition of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (http://www.ffrf.org), the Society for Humanistic Judaism (http://www.shj.org), and the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (http://www.maaf.info) resulted in a doubling of its member organizations since the Secular Coalition for America's formation.
While even the SCA's founders wondered how the first Congressional lobbyist explicitly representing nontheists would be received by Congress members, their staffers, and theistic allies, the success of the organization has been tremendous. The SCA was welcomed into larger coalitions of church/state separation groups from day one. That is, both secular and religious church/state separation organizations, education groups, lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender rights organizations, and others, welcomed our inclusion in those areas in which we overlap. It is extremely powerful when we walk in together to a lobby visit and hand a staffer business cards from the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, the Interfaith Alliance, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Secular Coalition for America (a business card which reads across the middle, "Atheists. Humanists. Freethinkers. Americans."), all speaking in support of protecting our secular government by maintaining separation of church and state.
I have made hundreds of lobby visits and met half of the United States Senators face-to-face. No member of Congress or Congressional staff member has ever treated me with anything other than respect. Whether they are with us on the issues or not, they understand that I am a professional representing a constituency which deserves as much representation as any other.
Perhaps it is this success working in the spirit of cooperation across our own semantic divides as well as with theistic allies who respect our rights, that has led some of the most highly regarded scientists, authors, and activists to become members of the Secular Coalition for America's advisory board. The most recent addition to that body is author Salman Rushdie. I would say on this website, that the most prominent of our advisory board members is Richard Dawkins … but were I writing for a State University of New York website, I might instead list Massimo Pigliucci, or were I writing for an arts website, I might mention Julia Sweeney, or for legal scholars, I'd note Ellery Schempp… you get my drift; I encourage you to take a look at the extraordinary lineup of outstanding women and men who lend their advisory skills to the Secular Coalition for America.
Many of the church/state issues that the Secular Coalition for America lobbies on, do not revolve around science. These include the federal marriage amendment (which sought to impose a theological definition on the civil marriage contract), opposition to government funding of jamborees for the Boy Scouts of America (an organization which discriminates against nontheists), opposing religious discrimination in the hiring of Head Start teachers, and supporting Michael Newdow's attempt to require public schools to go back to the original language of the Pledge of Allegiance (before our "one nation indivisible" was divided, in 1954, along religious lines.)
Some of our lobbying touches tangentially on science. When we lobby against federal money supporting religious education, we combat the subsidizing of inaccurate science instruction.
Some of the issues we tackle are specifically defending science. We were pleased to be among eminent research, university, and medical organizations when we signed on to a letter to Congress seeking elimination of the limitations on stem cell lines which may be used in research by the National Institutes of Health. We work with numerous other organizations in supporting fact-based (rather than theology driven) curriculum in federally funded sex education programs.
The one issue that I thought would not appear before the U.S. Congress, was the push to teach creationism in public schools. These battles are constantly fought out in local school boards throughout the United States, not at the federal level. But earlier this month, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) included an earmark in a spending bill to fund a creationist group to help craft public school science curriculum. After much lobbying and activation of grassroots resources, Vitter withdrew the earmark. And that's where YOU come in.
When I walk into a Congress member's office, he or she often asks how many people I represent. If that member has already heard from a few hundred of our supporters regarding the issue at hand, it gives me tremendous credibility when I respond that there are approximately 30 million nontheists in the United States, and the SCA's member organizations boast a combined membership of over 25,000 individuals. When you sign up for our action alerts at http://www.secular.org/subscribe you will receive information and an easy-to-send sample e-mail regarding bills on which we need your voice. The SCA will not inundate you with e-mails. We spend most of our time working in committees to quietly transform legislation to prevent the need to activate our constituency on a floor vote.
And of course, we always appreciate financial support. Our work depends entirely on the financial support of our community. Given all that the Secular Coalition for America has accomplished with a staff of two people (a 100% increase since I was hired), imagine what we could do were our budget equal to that of the religious right.
Lori Lipman Brown, a lawyer, educator, and former Nevada State Senator, is currently the Director of the Secular Coalition for America whose mission is to increase the visibility and respectability of nontheistic viewpoints in the United States, and to protect and strengthen the secular character of our government as the best guarantee of freedom for all. (http://www.secular.org)
Two events convinced a diverse mix of nontheists to set aside their semantic divisions on what to call themselves to form an advocacy coalition to develop their political clout: 9/11 and the Terri Schiavo case. First, the attacks of September 11, 2001, which could have been used as a lesson in the danger of religious extremism, was instead used to claim that Christian extremism was the antidote. The second tipping point centers around a concerted effort to suppress decisions based on sound science in favor of narrow religious beliefs. This attack saw its way into the halls of Congress in its most offensive incarnation – the interference with Terri Schiavo's end of life medical decisions.
At the end of 2002, four organizations came together to form the Secular Coalition for America: Atheist Alliance International (http://www.atheistalliance.org), the Institute for Humanist Studies (http://www.humaniststudies.org), Internet Infidels (http://www.infidels.org), and the Secular Student Alliance (http://www.secularstudents.org). Prior to my hire date as the organization's first paid staff, the American Humanist Association ( http://www.americanhumanist.org) joined the coalition. In the past two years, the addition of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (http://www.ffrf.org), the Society for Humanistic Judaism (http://www.shj.org), and the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (http://www.maaf.info) resulted in a doubling of its member organizations since the Secular Coalition for America's formation.
While even the SCA's founders wondered how the first Congressional lobbyist explicitly representing nontheists would be received by Congress members, their staffers, and theistic allies, the success of the organization has been tremendous. The SCA was welcomed into larger coalitions of church/state separation groups from day one. That is, both secular and religious church/state separation organizations, education groups, lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender rights organizations, and others, welcomed our inclusion in those areas in which we overlap. It is extremely powerful when we walk in together to a lobby visit and hand a staffer business cards from the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, the Interfaith Alliance, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Secular Coalition for America (a business card which reads across the middle, "Atheists. Humanists. Freethinkers. Americans."), all speaking in support of protecting our secular government by maintaining separation of church and state.
I have made hundreds of lobby visits and met half of the United States Senators face-to-face. No member of Congress or Congressional staff member has ever treated me with anything other than respect. Whether they are with us on the issues or not, they understand that I am a professional representing a constituency which deserves as much representation as any other.
Perhaps it is this success working in the spirit of cooperation across our own semantic divides as well as with theistic allies who respect our rights, that has led some of the most highly regarded scientists, authors, and activists to become members of the Secular Coalition for America's advisory board. The most recent addition to that body is author Salman Rushdie. I would say on this website, that the most prominent of our advisory board members is Richard Dawkins … but were I writing for a State University of New York website, I might instead list Massimo Pigliucci, or were I writing for an arts website, I might mention Julia Sweeney, or for legal scholars, I'd note Ellery Schempp… you get my drift; I encourage you to take a look at the extraordinary lineup of outstanding women and men who lend their advisory skills to the Secular Coalition for America.
Many of the church/state issues that the Secular Coalition for America lobbies on, do not revolve around science. These include the federal marriage amendment (which sought to impose a theological definition on the civil marriage contract), opposition to government funding of jamborees for the Boy Scouts of America (an organization which discriminates against nontheists), opposing religious discrimination in the hiring of Head Start teachers, and supporting Michael Newdow's attempt to require public schools to go back to the original language of the Pledge of Allegiance (before our "one nation indivisible" was divided, in 1954, along religious lines.)
Some of our lobbying touches tangentially on science. When we lobby against federal money supporting religious education, we combat the subsidizing of inaccurate science instruction.
Some of the issues we tackle are specifically defending science. We were pleased to be among eminent research, university, and medical organizations when we signed on to a letter to Congress seeking elimination of the limitations on stem cell lines which may be used in research by the National Institutes of Health. We work with numerous other organizations in supporting fact-based (rather than theology driven) curriculum in federally funded sex education programs.
The one issue that I thought would not appear before the U.S. Congress, was the push to teach creationism in public schools. These battles are constantly fought out in local school boards throughout the United States, not at the federal level. But earlier this month, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) included an earmark in a spending bill to fund a creationist group to help craft public school science curriculum. After much lobbying and activation of grassroots resources, Vitter withdrew the earmark. And that's where YOU come in.
When I walk into a Congress member's office, he or she often asks how many people I represent. If that member has already heard from a few hundred of our supporters regarding the issue at hand, it gives me tremendous credibility when I respond that there are approximately 30 million nontheists in the United States, and the SCA's member organizations boast a combined membership of over 25,000 individuals. When you sign up for our action alerts at http://www.secular.org/subscribe you will receive information and an easy-to-send sample e-mail regarding bills on which we need your voice. The SCA will not inundate you with e-mails. We spend most of our time working in committees to quietly transform legislation to prevent the need to activate our constituency on a floor vote.
And of course, we always appreciate financial support. Our work depends entirely on the financial support of our community. Given all that the Secular Coalition for America has accomplished with a staff of two people (a 100% increase since I was hired), imagine what we could do were our budget equal to that of the religious right.
Lori Lipman Brown, a lawyer, educator, and former Nevada State Senator, is currently the Director of the Secular Coalition for America whose mission is to increase the visibility and respectability of nontheistic viewpoints in the United States, and to protect and strengthen the secular character of our government as the best guarantee of freedom for all. (http://www.secular.org)
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Wednesday, November 7, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 52 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #85822 by Fire1974 on November 7, 2007 at 9:20 am
I'm a member. ARE YOU???I have not been bombarded with email nearly enough by them. I love to get emails where a simple forward can help the voice of reason be heard in public policy.
"(before our "one nation indivisible" was divided, in 1954, along religious lines.)"
Excellent! I'll be stashing that one in my quote arsenal.
Other Comments by Fire1974
3. Comment #85862 by John P on November 7, 2007 at 10:52 am
I see that she uses a 30 million figure for the number of non-theists in America. I assume she's using a rough 10% of the population calculation.From a lobbying point of view, I wonder if she could emphasize that since non-theism is more of a conscious choice than that of theism (with many, many children included in the 90% balance) a 30 million figure includes proportionately far more adults, and hence voters, than it's size indicates.
Other Comments by John P
4. Comment #85865 by annabanana on November 7, 2007 at 11:09 am
I have made hundreds of lobby visits and met half of the United States Senators face-to-face. No member of Congress or Congressional staff member has ever treated me with anything other than respect. Whether they are with us on the issues or not, they understand that I am a professional representing a constituency which deserves as much representation as any other.
She must not have met Jim DeMint.
At any rate, I'm certainly glad that they prevented this earmark from moving forward as the teaching of creationism in public schools is one of the things I feel most afraid of and am passionately opposed to as an American.
I hope that more people will join so that this kind of lobbying can be more effective.
Other Comments by annabanana
5. Comment #85926 by mumbles on November 7, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Comment #85862 by John P on November 7, 2007 at 10:52 amI see that she uses a 30 million figure for the number of non-theists in America. I assume she's using a rough 10% of the population calculation.
From a lobbying point of view, I wonder if she could emphasize that since non-theism is more of a conscious choice than that of theism (with many, many children included in the 90% balance) a 30 million figure includes proportionately far more adults, and hence voters, than it's size indicates.
--------------------------------------
Excellent point. Atheists do not call their children atheists, and these children cannot be considered of any other faith. Anyone feel like crunching the numbers and finding out how high 30 mil stacks up to our adult population?
Other Comments by mumbles
6. Comment #85966 by kurzweilfreak on November 7, 2007 at 4:02 pm
I do think that 'atheist' can put many people off because it has militant and aggressive connotations
I just don't understand how people can equate not being willing to lie down and suffer the moronicity of the religious nutjobs as being militant and aggressive. These are connotations coined by a religious opposition who can't see things outside of their own worldview in which any group with as much passion and fervor as their own must be as militant and aggressive as they are, especially one that opposes their theocratic aims.
To them, I say: fuck that. When we start bombing abortion clinics and running planes into buildings, until then, shut the hell up and keep it in the church. And pay some damn taxes.
Other Comments by kurzweilfreak
7. Comment #85972 by JonH on November 7, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Amen to that!Other Comments by JonH
8. Comment #85975 by HappyPrimate on November 7, 2007 at 4:31 pm
I'm a member and heartily recommend signing up to all non-theist as well as theist who support separation of church and state. I am proud I played my part by emailing Sen. Vitter (I live in Louisiana) about that earmark. He called us hysterical, but it was taken out. I was alerted by the SCA emailing me the information. Great job! Other Comments by HappyPrimate
9. Comment #85980 by Logicel on November 7, 2007 at 4:49 pm
This is focused action and will achieve results.Kudos, Ms Brown!
Other Comments by Logicel
10. Comment #85996 by maton100 on November 7, 2007 at 6:28 pm
We need all the help we can get in the wake of Ben Stein. Other Comments by maton100
11. Comment #86003 by kurzweilfreak on November 7, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Happy Primate:I'm from Louisiana too, Kenner.
Other Comments by kurzweilfreak
12. Comment #86021 by Prieten on November 7, 2007 at 9:42 pm
I signed up! How about you?Other Comments by Prieten
13. Comment #86025 by MuNky82 on November 7, 2007 at 10:41 pm
I am not an American, but I would have signed up if I was, because, you know, accident of birth :).Anyway, I think that in the 2004 election there were about 120 million voters. So if a non-theism is a adult choice, and non-theist are traditionally clear thinkers (and thus voters). That would make the scale at most a quarter of the voting population.
I know it is not a clear argument with many assumptions but it's a start...
Other Comments by MuNky82
14. Comment #86031 by BT Murtagh on November 7, 2007 at 11:32 pm
annabanana quoth:She must not have met Jim DeMint.
I'm glad of that; she seems like a nice lady.
Other Comments by BT Murtagh
15. Comment #86032 by JamesDB on November 7, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Sounds like something I would definitely sign up for if i was american but i just so happen to be a close neighbor so can only watch and hope intently.(Im a canadian who lives about 20km from the washington state border)
All I get to do is sit back and hope we make progress down there so the yahoos don't turn the world against them which affects me and my quiet country to the north directly.
You can do it guys, go team.
Other Comments by JamesDB
16. Comment #86050 by dbunker on November 8, 2007 at 1:25 am
Having spent some time lobbying members of congress on Capitol Hill, I can tell you it's not easy work. Thanks to Lori Lipman Brown and the Secular Coalition for America for making sure the voice of millions of atheists is heard in DC.Other Comments by dbunker
17. Comment #86053 by Silent.Bomber on November 8, 2007 at 2:25 am
To them, I say: fuck that. When we start bombing abortion clinics and running planes into buildings, until then, shut the hell up and keep it in the church. And pay some damn taxes. That's a perfectly fair point and I would sign up if I was in America, but if atheists become over-zealous and militant, they are in danger of becoming dogmatists just as much as religious fundamentalists. It is always important to see things from the other point of view.
Other Comments by Silent.Bomber
18. Comment #86055 by scooternyc on November 8, 2007 at 2:43 am
There's a silent danger in politics that isn't being mentioned with regard to the church/state separation issue that is of the Democrats who are endorsing religion. If the stats regarding those who believe in a god here in the U.S. are correct, some 85% +, then it must be gleaned that a great deal of them are Democrats, as well. These people are not supporting the church/state separation nor gay marriage/civil unions, do not be fooled by these people. As a citizen here in NY I can tell you that a great many people who identify as liberal dems are indeed, highly religious and these people are dangerous to the separation issue.
ANY POLITICIAN who speaks religion of ANY LEVEL is disenfranchising AMERICANS across the board - either those who don't espouse the same religious belief or those who are faithless.
Endorsing a candidate just because they're a dem or a rep thinking they are supporting church/state separation is a mistake. They are drenched in religion and caution must be taken before just throwing your support behind a candidate.
Other Comments by scooternyc
19. Comment #86056 by scooternyc on November 8, 2007 at 2:48 am
On a short personal note: thank you to the many people on this site that offered their condolences on the passing of my father last Friday. Your ability to separate our healthy debates from life situations was encouraging and appreciated. Those that chose to use it as an opportunity to make a passive-aggressive remark to me only revealed themselves as the low functioning individuals that I suspected they were already. It didn't offend me, it just revealed who you are to the core of your own humanity.
Other Comments by scooternyc
20. Comment #86058 by evolvingalways on November 8, 2007 at 3:11 am
I think calling ourselves non-theist is a cop out after all you don't think christians will change there name to something like imaginary sky god believers. I will stick to the wonderful word Atheist so the imaginary sky believers won't get more confused than they already are. Other Comments by evolvingalways
21. Comment #86085 by sgr79 on November 8, 2007 at 5:10 am
You DON'T have to be a U.S. Citizen to sign up -- they even bother to ask for your country -- so there's no excuse!!!!Go sign up!
:')
Other Comments by sgr79
22. Comment #86145 by Silent.Bomber on November 8, 2007 at 9:01 am
Ha, I think hoping that Christians would start calling themselves imaginary sky-god believers would be too much to ask for.The main problem I have with the word 'atheist' is that it is so easily misconstrued as a faith position by people like McGrath ie. 'I don't have enough faith to be an atheist, because you have the faith to think that the Cosmos was not made by a creator'.
Many people genuinely think that this is how atheists operate, for example: I am looking at a religious studies worksheet right now which tells me that Bertrand Russell was an 'agnostic philosopher' when I know quite clearly that he was an atheist. Because he says that he is agnostic about the position of God during a debate, whoever wrote the sheet seems to think that means he is an actual agnostic.
Believers in God are under the illusion that they know all the answers or that they know the source that can give them the answers, an atheist does not say 'God definitely does not exist' because we admit that we don't know all the answers, but we live our lives on the assumption that there is no supernatural being and there is not concrete evidence to say there is one. Atheism isn't about faith, as is so easy to suppose, it's about rationality and questioning what you have been told to believe.
scooternyc, I'm sorry for your loss, a friend of mine died fairly recently in an accident, I can only say that I know something of what you are experiencing.
Other Comments by Silent.Bomber
23. Comment #86256 by Bizarro Dawkins on November 8, 2007 at 9:01 pm
"First, the attacks of September 11, 2001, which could have been used as a lesson in the danger of religious extremism, was instead used to claim that Christian extremism was the antidote."Eh, not quite. Respectfully, it is apparent that very little thought went into making this statement. It makes no difference whether a person justifies his or her actions based on alleged theistic precepts or atheistic ones. The end result is exactly the same: evil. Hitler was compelled by his twisted understanding of natural selection. Charlemagne was driven by his warped view of theology. The end results were the same, except that one used gas and the other used a sword.
Also, I imagine the author would be hard pressed to provide examples to support her rather naked assertion. Sure it's clever, but I can't even begin to think of examples where Christians have reacted in kind to those who decided to use passenger planes as deadly weapons. It just hasn't happened. On the contrary, right after this tragedy occurred I personally witnessed my friends (I was in high school at the time) circle up and pray for the terrorists. There are numerous "Facebook" groups that encourage Christians to remember to pray for terrorists, as it is written the Bible to pray for our enemies. Sure, there are certainly some nut-jobs who claim to be Christians (the Phelps clan for instance) that may bomb the occasional abortion clinic, but I totally fail how anyone can construe this as a wide-spread Christian response to militant Islam.
"We work with numerous other organizations in supporting fact-based (rather than theology driven) curriculum in federally funded sex education programs."
And this despite the fact that abstinence is hands down the best way to avoid teen pregnancies and STD's (for obvious reasons). As a college student, I find sex education in America repugnant. Students are given condoms and told that, since they are merely animals with no control over their bodies, they may as well have sex safely. It is degrading to society as a whole.
As for the percentage of atheists in America, I have seen some figures putting it at about 8% and other as low as 3%, but nowhere did I find 10%. I was actually surprised it wasn't higher, although I imagine that being a college student I am probably exposed to a biased sample seeing as how many college students tend to identify with atheism (something that I hope to change—drastically—upon graduating;-).
On a lighter note, when I Wiki'd Fred Phelps a couple weeks ago for a paper I was writing, I found this hilarious statement:
"The church at Westboro which he leads has 71 confirmed members, 60 of whom are related to Phelps through blood or marriage or both."
Anyone see the problem?
Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins
24. Comment #86258 by BAEOZ on November 8, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Students are given condoms and told that, since they are merely animals with no control over their bodies, they may as well have sex safely.
It's apparent little thought went into this statement. If humans were just animals (we are animals, but you use it like it's a put down) without the ability to reason, we'd have sex whenever it was breeding season, or the woman was ovulating. That's how nature works. Few species engage in sex for pleasure as far as we know (Binobos, dolphins perhaps). That obviously doesn't happen, we can use our brains and decide when and where to do it. And many will do it when it may not be in their best interests, either because they like someone or don't know that someone has a disease. Or just because they exercise their right to do what they want with their body. It's far better for them to use protection than not.
Being a virgin may work for you Biz, but you've no right to impose your warped morality on anybody else. Live and let live.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
25. Comment #86287 by Davybuoy on November 8, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Is there a group performing a similar function to the Secular Coalition for America in the UK and Ireland?(Apologies to the longer term members of this site who probably know already)
Other Comments by Davybuoy
26. Comment #86377 by Silent.Bomber on November 9, 2007 at 5:37 am
Bizarro, I always imagine Bertrand Russell turning in his grave when people say things like that about the subject of sex. Sex is an urge like any other, and repressing it needlessly has been shown to cause profound psychological problems. I worry that such a repugnant attitude to sex which is becoming increasingly common among the religious does in itself suggest sexual frustration. Other Comments by Silent.Bomber
27. Comment #86409 by cry4turtles on November 9, 2007 at 7:01 am
I find it pathetically hilarious that most of the people I've known in my life who preach abstinence did not abstain themselves, and those who did, are miserable in their musings of what a good sexual relationship consists of (hint: this revelation rarely, if ever, comes from the first lover). Every single one of the successful abstinence-before-marriage practitioners that I've known (including my very own sister) committed adultery in an attempt to find out.Perhaps Biz could enlighten us as to which causes society the most harm: experimentation before marriage, or experimentation during?
Other Comments by cry4turtles
28. Comment #86440 by Lara Avara on November 9, 2007 at 8:23 am
Biz's comments on the supposed repugnancy of American sex education is ironic given the recent report that affirmed AGAIN that abstinence only education does not work. A comprehensive sex education program that includes abstinence, and scientific information on sexuality and contraceptives does work in terms of delaying sexual activity and preventing unwanted pregnancy. What's repugnant to me is that Bush's gag rule results in US sponsored abstinence only education in AIDS ravaged Africa and a cocommitant decline in distribution of condoms. The cost of this religously inspired sex is sinful nonsense is catastrophic human misery. That's far more repugnant than using a condom.
Other Comments by Lara Avara
29. Comment #86441 by annabanana on November 9, 2007 at 8:25 am
Bizarro,Such a prudish attitude towards sex does nothing to help the masses and as Silent.Bomber and cry4turtles have suggested, it is quite unhealthy on a personal level.
First of all, people are going to have sex no matter how many times you tell them that abstinence is the best practice. So why would you withhold valuable information about sex that could potentially save lives, prevent the spread of diseases (deadly and not), and prevent abortions? Nearly a quarter of all pregnancies end in abortion, maybe if people are taught how to prevent the pregnancies properly in the first place, that figure can be substantially lowered.
Second of all, a point I think is worth repeating, as BAEOZ suggested, we ARE "merely animals" and so what? We just happen to be a bit more evolved than other species, but there is no reason to feel smug about this. It's not like we evolved ourselves on purpose...it doesn't work that way. But since we have evolved and become excellent at using "tools" we should take full advantage of that by using the many birth control and disease prevention "tools" we have invented so as to exercise some sort of "control" over our "repugnant animal instincts" to have sex, whether for reproductive or pleasure purposes.
At any rate, whether or not you think it is degrading to you is not necessarily relative or applicable to society as a whole because while you may be able to suppress those horrible animal instincts you implicate, others will not, and this will be the majority of the population. So once again, please explain to me why you would want to withhold the information that could potentially save lives, prevent the spread of disease, and prevent abortions?
Incidentally, being that I am a product of the American public school system where I received sex education, I don't ever recall being "given condoms and told that, since they are merely animals with no control over their bodies, they may as well have sex safely" I think that the most you can assert is that those may be the implications of the sex education system.
Also, I wonder what you mean by this?
I imagine that being a college student I am probably exposed to a biased sample seeing as how many college students tend to identify with atheism (something that I hope to change—drastically—upon graduating;-).
What do you intend to drastically change upon your graduation?
Other Comments by annabanana
30. Comment #86443 by gr8hands on November 9, 2007 at 8:27 am
I hope that Bizarro Dawkins prays for forgiveness for writing statements he knows are lies. Unless his brand of Christianity doesn't follow the "Thou shalt not bear false witness" commandment, or allow reading/watching the news.Of course, from his profile, "Showing the world that one can be an intellectually fulfilled Christian" -- but not an intellectually honest one. But then, how would he learn that, being involved with the biology department at Liberty University, where the first sentence in their program description is:
The biology faculty at Liberty University are committed to academic excellence and to training students to represent Christ in the fields of medicine, scientific research, and teaching.I apologize if that sounds snarky, but I don't recall jesus doing any scientific research, studying medicine, or actually going to school to qualify him for teaching -- but perhaps being god incarnate means all that is unnecessary...
Because the examples supporting Lori Lipman Brown's 'naked assertion' are legion, on the front pages of daily newspapers and television, I am forced to treat his request as seriously as someone asking for examples of gravity.
Perhaps Bizarro Dawkins can look at http://jcnot4me.com/Items/Misc%20Topics/atheists_in_america.htm and see some new data.
I give him failing marks in research for the conclusion "nowhere did I find 10%."
Bizarro Dawkins is wrong about the "best way to avoid teen pregnancies and STD's" -- it would be to proactively kill the teenagers, which would absolutely prevent the possibility of them having premarital sex. Or castration/hysterectomy. Of course, that would be silly, but then so are abstinence programs which are considerably less effective than condom programs.
However, I do demand that Bizarro Dawkins supply the proof (a pdf of pamphlets, documentation, course materials, etc. or a link to their website) that ANY official, federally funded sex education program ANYWHERE gives out documentation that says, as he claims:
since they are merely animals with no control over their bodies, they may as well have sex safely.That is yet another lie he will have to get forgiveness for from his imaginary omnipotent omniscient omnipresent yet amazingly unable to raise money by himself so his followers constantly have to beg for donations sky friend.
If that concept were true or thought to be true, there could not be any laws against copulation in public, in front of children, anywhere, because if everyone can't control it (like sneezing), you can't make it a crime. But that's obviously silly.
As for the 'lighter side' comment:
"The church at Westboro which he leads has 71 confirmed members, 60 of whom are related to Phelps through blood or marriage or both."No, if 2nd cousins, or various combinations of in-laws or other relatives get married there is no incest problem here. You don't seem very capable of making a family tree to figure this out -- which is strange for someone studying biology... Maybe you're not getting the highest quality education at your current institution. Perhaps less focus on jesus and more on science would steer you towards a better understanding of your subjects...
Anyone see the problem?
Oops, sorry, got snarky again.
Other Comments by gr8hands
31. Comment #86460 by Lara Avara on November 9, 2007 at 9:40 am
imagine that being a college student I am probably exposed to a biased sample seeing as how many college students tend to identify with atheism (something that I hope to change—drastically—upon graduating;-).I thought Bizarro attended Liberty University. I would expect the opposite bias. Imagine being a rational thinker in the biology department of Liberty University. Doesn't LU adhere to the young earth model?
Other Comments by Lara Avara
32. Comment #86646 by Ben Jennings on November 9, 2007 at 8:15 pm
On the contrary, right after this tragedy occurred I personally witnessed my friends (I was in high school at the time) circle up and pray for the terrorists.
Yeah, um, why?
Care to explain this whole "love your enemy" thing? It's kinda baffling.
Other Comments by Ben Jennings
33. Comment #86671 by Bizarro Dawkins on November 9, 2007 at 11:50 pm
"First of all, people are going to have sex no matter how many times you tell them that abstinence is the best practice."I have never had sex. I have plenty of friends who have never had sex. It is a simple matter of self-control. To be honest, I believe that the problem transcends sex education. It is a general cultural attitude that we have in America: I WANT it and I WANT IT NOW. The whole self-obsessed attitude that was once confined to California (hehe, kidding) has pervaded the media and therefore our society. We have no self-control as a nation anymore. This attitude manifests itself not just in the rampant extra-marital sex, but also in Americans' obsession with spending wads of money on things they don't need, and the exploding problem of obesity. It is this underlying attitude that truly lies at the heart of the problem.
"I hope that Bizarro Dawkins prays for forgiveness for writing statements he knows are lies."
Very unnecessary, and quite nasty. You are merely hurling baseless accusations at me in order to detract from my credibility. It is a very shameful way of trying to win an argument.
"Because the examples supporting Lori Lipman Brown's 'naked assertion' are legion, on the front pages of daily newspapers and television, I am forced to treat his request as seriously as someone asking for examples of gravity.
Perhaps Bizarro Dawkins can look at http://jcnot4me.com/Items/Misc%20Topics/atheists_in_america.htm and see some new data."
This is a poorly written article obviously written by someone who has been exposed to a rather biased sampling of Christianity. The author seems very angry, and provides little evidence for his or her accusations. So in reality, you have merely supported baseless accusations by supplying an article that hurls more baseless accusations without providing any concrete evidence of a widespread Christian terrorist movement. It just isn't getting you anywhere.
I am not denying that nasty things have been said about atheists, but are atheists really self-centered and close-minded enough to think that they are the only group who has suffered verbal abuse? Also, I fail to see how a few nasty verbal remarks towards atheism can even be remotely compared to the kind of extremism that resulted in 9/11. Let's keep it real shall we?
As for the percentages given in your article, I noticed two issues. First of all, within statistics it is very easy (especially for groups with agendas) to apply statistical analyses of data that will result in numbers that tend to support a given organization's view. It is very possible that the agency collecting the data either knowingly or unknowingly collected it from a biased sample or used tests that maybe weren't the best types of tests for the data. Secondly, please notice that the 14% did NOT describe themselves as Atheists, but merely as non-religious. It would indeed be intellectually dishonest to claim that not being religious automatically qualifies one as an atheist. I have known plenty of people who believe in God but would not consider themselves to be religious.
"However, I do demand that Bizarro Dawkins supply the proof (a pdf of pamphlets, documentation, course materials, etc. or a link to their website) that ANY official, federally funded sex education program ANYWHERE gives out documentation that says, as he claims:
"…since they are merely animals with no control over their bodies, they may as well have sex safely.""
Cut it out with the boorish strawmen please. In the context it's obvious what I meant. I never said that that statement is part of the official curriculum. It is however the attitude behind the curriculum. My brother attended a secular school before coming to Liberty, and this school has major problems with STD's. He was given a package of condoms at freshman orientation (which he promptly threw away). We are told in our science classes that we are animals, not just in the biological context, but in every other context. And then in school, students get free condoms. In nearly every article I've read in support of free contraceptives for students, one of the main arguments is "kids are going to have sex anyways". So what do you think all that implies?
"You don't seem very capable of making a family tree to figure this out -- which is strange for someone studying biology... Maybe you're not getting the highest quality education at your current institution. Perhaps less focus on jesus and more on science would steer you towards a better understanding of your subjects...
Oops, sorry, got snarky again."
Hm, now see, this is where getting snarky can be a little dangerous, because then when it's proven that you've jumped to a host of assumptions to construct your strawman, it can be a little embarrassing;-) Nowhere did I say that the Phelps were incestuous. I only asked if people could "see the problem". Can't that mean a variety of things? Regardless of whether the situation involved straight-up incest or marriage between 2nd cousins, both are considered socially unacceptable and carry negative cultural stigmas. I think what I meant to say was obvious.
Hehe, not trying to be snarky, but I do appreciate a little more respect as I don't believe I have ever been as nasty to an atheist as you have been to me :-)
Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins
34. Comment #86677 by windweaver on November 10, 2007 at 12:00 am
Bizarro, I'm still waiting for you to answer the questions put to you on another post. Here they are again:What is the scientific theory of creationism and how can it be tested by the scientific method?
Precisely what are these straw men and oversimplifications in the Gould article?
Precisely what is the standing of Answers in Genesis in the scientific world?
What happened to its technical journal and why?
I have a couple of questions of my own as well if you don't mind.
You obviously regard the AiG site as a definitive source in arguing against the theory of evolution. I note that the site's authors state that the earth is approximately 6000 years old. Do you agree with their estimation of the earth's age? If not, how old do you estimate the earth to be?
The authors of the AiG site also state that humans lived contemporaneously with the dinosaurs. Do you agree with them about this? If so, how do you account for the fact that, among the thousands and thousands of examples of ancient rock art discovered around the world, not one example has been found of early humans hunting/interacting with dinosaurs.
Other Comments by windweaver
35. Comment #86753 by Silent.Bomber on November 10, 2007 at 4:30 am
''I have never had sex. I have plenty of friends who have never had sex. It is a simple matter of self-control''I am studying Freud in great detail at the moment, and it is certainly interesting when his theories on sex and religion are compared to what people like you say now. Sex is an urge (he said) and that urge if not satisfied (as it is not with many people, which is normal, maybe he would not agree) that urge has to be sublimated or neuroses will always develop (he said).
I think he is probably right, art and music are things which can sublimate this urge. One of the most important ways the urge can be dissipated is through religion and worship of a higher being(s), that seems to be comparable with celibacy in religion. Religion is a way of keeping away the urge to have sex and it is a way of keeping the balance of our psychological needs.
But religion is not needed for that balance any more than an imaginary friend and whether you think it is great to be celibate, to apply that ideology to children and sex education is, as Russell so rightly pointed out even during the 1940s, entirely reprehensible.
He was attacked by the pious for having such a modern view in the 40s, even now people like Bizarro are stuck in this pre - 1940s headset about sex, which is Victorian and completely incongruous with modern society.
You would like to think that it is as simple as people 'being handed condoms and encouraged to do it like animals', yet you are missing the central point, the whole fallacy that because you are a virgin and because you think that sex is wrong that this should be foisted on everyone. If you haven't read it before, I really recommend you pick up a copy of Bertrand Russell's Why I am not a Christian: there are some essays on the subject that you might find interesting.
Other Comments by Silent.Bomber
36. Comment #86774 by nothing on November 10, 2007 at 6:09 am
Bizzaro, I forgive you. Other Comments by nothing
37. Comment #86827 by Severus Snape on November 10, 2007 at 8:41 am
Is there any point to joining the SCA if you aren't an American? Other Comments by Severus Snape
38. Comment #86835 by Bizarro Dawkins on November 10, 2007 at 9:14 am
Windreaver,My apologies. I had my response saved in a word document but I never sent it. Here it is (you probably won't like it anyways!).
"Bizarro, you call Roger Stanyard a liar for accusing you of not answering questions put to you about evolution. I note that you have not answered any of the questions he put to you in his post."
Um, ok, does this change the fact that Mr. Stanyard was untruthful? I don't know what you're trying to prove here. Let's break it down:
1. In response to your first comment, I said that I have dealt with those questions many times over and did not feel like taking the time to go through them again.
2. Mr. Stanyard alleged that I had never answered ANY ONE of the points brought up in the article in all of my previous comments on this site.
3. I proved quite the opposite without a shadow of a doubt.
Now the fact that I didn't answer any of his other questions is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether Mr. Stanyard lied or not. It has no pertinence to the situation whatsoever. You cannot deny that he either lied about checking through the comments, or he lied about the content (or rather the alleged lack of content) within the comments.
And yes, I did not answer any of his other questions. I never said I did. His comment (and yours) amount to nothing more than a form of elephant hurling. You are asking multiple, argumentative, open-ended questions that I simply don't have the time to answer sufficiently. I do tend to ignore such conduct. If you want to bring up a couple different points in a post that's fine, but you can't just expect me to take the time to adequately answer every point you can think of to throw at me.
Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins
39. Comment #86836 by Bizarro Dawkins on November 10, 2007 at 9:21 am
"I am studying Freud in great detail at the moment, and it is certainly interesting when his theories on sex and religion are compared to what people like you say now."I am sure you are aware that the vast majority of Freud's theories have been outright rejected by modern psychology. He was certaintly a pioneer in a field that had suffered much neglect in the past, but he was nowhere close to right on most of his ideas.
Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins
40. Comment #86837 by Bizarro Dawkins on November 10, 2007 at 9:22 am
"Bizzaro, I forgive you."Hehe, thanks alot. I appreciate it. Spoken as a true Christian ;-)
Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins
41. Comment #86839 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 9:28 am
We are told in our science classes that we are animals, not just in the biological context, but in every other context. And then in school, students get free condoms. In nearly every article I've read in support of free contraceptives for students, one of the main arguments is "kids are going to have sex anyways". So what do you think all that implies?
That people want to actually do something useful to prevent kids getting diseases, rather than simply hope that kids are going to undergo some amazing transformation into people with total self-control?
Do you think kids should be punished for having sex by catching very unpleasant and potentially life-threatening diseases?
Other Comments by steve99
42. Comment #86884 by Bizarro Dawkins on November 10, 2007 at 11:15 am
"Do you think kids should be punished for having sex by catching very unpleasant and potentially life-threatening diseases?"What I think is irrelevant. The fact is that there are concequences for our actions, and when we try to mask or aviod them, our perceived solutions become problems in themselves.
Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins
43. Comment #86886 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 11:19 am
What I think is irrelevant. The fact is that there are concequences for our actions, and when we try to mask or aviod them, our perceived solutions become problems in themselves.
Precisely. When you try to mask or avoid the fact that some kids are going to have sex no matter what you say, this has the consequences of increasing life-threatening disease transmission.
Other Comments by steve99
44. Comment #86903 by Bizarro Dawkins on November 10, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Steve99,Have STD's increased or decreased since the widespread usage of condoms within the past decade?
Among teens and college students, condoms foster the idea that kids are safe when they use them. Therefore, they have more sex. However, condoms are not effective in a good percentage of cases. Therefore, although the act may have become somewhat safer, you have a disproportionally higher rate of sexual activity that negates the protection of a condom.
So in reality, condoms have simply made the problem worse as they project the illusion that people are safe as long as they use them.
Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins
45. Comment #86955 by ZT on November 10, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Bizarro comment 44If you look at the statistics in America where abstinence is preached, STDs such as chlamydia are acutally increasing as more american students participate in anal intercourse. Strange in a way if the reasons are basen on religious belief as this in itself is illegal in so many sated still.
Look at the sources for Sam Harris's book writted for people like you to understand how wrong you are.
Is it possible as well that having faith in an illusionary god will somehow protect you from nasty diseases?
As for condoms not being effective...
"However, condoms are not effective in a good percentage of cases."
What are you on about man?
The actual percentage of effectivity is close to 99.9%
You may say that abstinence is 100% effective, and you are right.
But we are alive and making love is a very large part of being alive and being able to love and reproduce. To take that away is to deny what you really are.
If you look around the word where condoms could and should be issued; I mean primarily Africa.
Religous nations such as America are refusing aid and vital medical supplies and information about Sexual Health on the basis of thier own religios beliefs. This will condem innumerable young people to an early grave through ignorance.
The only illusion is on your part in believing that abstinence is the cure.
The truth is that only knowledge and choice will ultimately solve these probelms.
Other Comments by ZT
46. Comment #86960 by steve99 on November 10, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Have STD's increased or decreased since the widespread usage of condoms within the past decade?
That is not a sensible question. The question should be 'Have STDs increased or decreased for those who use condoms'. They certainly have decreased.
Among teens and college students, condoms foster the idea that kids are safe when they use them.
They pretty much are.
Therefore, they have more sex.
That is very unlikely to be the case. Sex is an impulse thing, and kids rarely consider the disease aspect.
However, condoms are not effective in a good percentage of cases.
Nonsense. The failure rate is very small. Not a 'good percentage'.
Therefore, although the act may have become somewhat safer, you have a disproportionally higher rate of sexual activity that negates the protection of a condom.
Utter rubbish. People would have to be having vastly more sex to negate the protective effect of condoms.
So in reality, condoms have simply made the problem worse as they project the illusion that people are safe as long as they use them.
No, this is just religious wishful thinking.
Other Comments by steve99
47. Comment #87027 by scooternyc on November 11, 2007 at 3:14 am
Bizarro Dawkins – I agree with your statement about motivation when it comes to killing people by flying planes into buildings, you made a good point. The whole "prayer" thing after 9/11 was about as useful as writing a letter to Santa Claus. Unfortunately for these students who were not educated properly in an institution of higher learning, they were merely behaving in an act of futility seeing as how they didn't know what else to do. This is unfortunate, as we would hope our younger generation would not be so gullible to such nonsense and instead find ways to volunteer their time to support those who were injured, the families of those who died and other offshoots of the tragedy.
Your comments on sex education are rather sweeping and misrepresented, the very same argument you make about Ms. Lipman.
I taught sex ed to teens while working for the Office of Health Promotion and Education in Arizona. Teens might abstain from sex, not because they're frightened of it as religion would like them to be, but because they would see the value of being conservative with their bodies.
Additionally, while abstaining from sex is a great option for reducing pregnancy and a host of std's, the reality is that we live in a society that has promoted, encouraged and thrust upon our generations the seduction of sex as a enticer for relationships, a weapon against others, an act of vulnerability, an act of power through rape, an entertainment, a process of reproduction, a vice for satisfaction of drive and a few others I'm sure people can create in their minds. We all must be accountable for having participated in this; however, reality must not be abated by attempting to invoke fear and ignorance as a means to bringing this issue back to homeostasis.
Religion, in all its forms, is nothing more than a tool for manipulation. Religion adds nothing any longer to our civil society, but it does take away logic and reason, only to invoke wishful thinking.
If you're a responsible person, you're a responsible person. If you're a good person, you're a good person. Religion will not give you that which is not inherently from within.
One cannot be responsible if one is involved in religion.
Any reason you could attribute to god for having invoked a particular behavior, is, in and of itself, reason enough. We don't need god to further it along. If man has thought of it then that's enough.
Other Comments by scooternyc
48. Comment #87032 by scooternyc on November 11, 2007 at 3:53 am
"So in reality, condoms have simply made the problem worse as they project the illusion that people are safe as long as they use them.I don't disagree with this statement. It appears that magical thinking then isn't just relegated to the religious, it's the religious and those having sex with condoms.
So what are the percentages of teens having sex who have magical thinking about religion AND that condoms keep them safe?
If you're willing to submit, subjugate intelligence, logic and reason to one sub-set of ideas like religion, then it's bound to be applied through other ideas like Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and condoms keeping you safe.
More importantly, why are the religious so concerned about teens having sex?
At what age does the religious find it appropriate then?
Who gets to decide?
Who's on the panel?
How do we credential these people on the panel?
And how many of the religious, who are attempting to interfere with their religious dogma, had sex prior to a median age or position in life, themselves?
Other Comments by scooternyc
49. Comment #87114 by Silent.Bomber on November 11, 2007 at 8:26 am
''I am sure you are aware that the vast majority of Freud's theories have been outright rejected by modern psychology. He was certaintly a pioneer in a field that had suffered much neglect in the past, but he was nowhere close to right on most of his ideas.''Of course I know that, I should have said that I do not necessarily think everything he said was right or that most of his theories etc. have been discredited by a wider selection of evidence than he used. I was just pointing out that, whether it is to do with religion or not, sexual repression is never a good thing and many psychologists, not just Freud, have shown it is a bad thing.
Other Comments by Silent.Bomber
50. Comment #87323 by ghuckin on November 11, 2007 at 8:01 pm
As a Canadian, my support has to be of the moral variety, because any communication between myself and the US Congress would be consigned to a Washington trash compactor. You do have my most enthusiastic support, because I have many friends in the US who feel helpless in the face of the christian dogma that is subverting your nation. Other Comments by ghuckin
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"Like computer viruses, successful mind viruses will tend to be hard for their victims to detect. If you are the victim of one, the chances are that you won't know it, and may even vigorously deny it."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #85813 by Silent.Bomber on November 7, 2007 at 9:10 am
Other Comments by Silent.Bomber