State of Protest

Haven’t you heard it? If you’ve ever visited an atheist or skeptic forum, it’s quite likely that you have. It’s the “why won’t you leave us alone?” retort from believers. “Why do you hate us?” “Why do you hate God?” The more profound and underlying question we’ve been asked, and the question we should be asking ourselves, is, “How far should my activism reach, and why?”

You can scale the relative level of activism in most atheists similarly. Starting off as a believer, or at least a follower, we are quite often sure of ourselves. Perhaps we haven’t encountered any opposing points of view. Perhaps we’re stubborn. Perhaps we’re overwhelmed by the religious beliefs and practices of our families. Whatever the case, many of us start off on the theist end of the spectrum, and are quite often advocates of that way of life and belief.

Then we’re hit with some sort of doubt. Bart Erhman, for instance, was awstruck by the fact that the icon of his belief system, the Holy Bible, was severely flawed with contradictions, rewrites, and surreptitiously inserted new passages. How could the bible be inerrant, how could a real god endorse such a mishmash of not only contradictory but also violent and cruel edicts? Doubting is the catalyst that causes us to self-reflect, and to analyze all that we know about what we’ve been told. It’s required for the next stage of development - agnosticism.

Perhaps I’ve intentionally skipped a few minor middle steps, but the phase between doubt and disbelief encompasses a variety of positions, depending on the individual, from confusion to agnosticism to denial to relapse. I like to call this phase the “I don’t know” phase, which is why I associate it with agnosticism.

Eventually, hopefully, we reach a point at which we question why we’re even bothering with the question of “is there a god?” We realize that, since there’s no empirical evidence of the existence of, at minimum, the divine beings alluded to in every god myth, we narrow our scope of world view to two main areas:

First, the area of spirituality. This isn’t to say that spirituality exists or it doesn’t. It’s a concept, and there comes a time where most of us in some way address whether it has meaning to us. When a loved one dies, do you think he or she “goes to a better place?” How do you fit that into your world view? Do you think there is something invisible that is greater than you? Do you think there is destiny, fate, karma? These are things that even agnostics question, even after having rejected their former god of choice, and it’s something that, until all our questions are satisfactorily answered by science, we will be inclined to address.

What matters about that area of interest is that it may help determine your level of acceptance of certain types of activism, because even without a god or doctrine to guide you morally, you may reach for a more metaphysical state of moral choice based on your concepts of spirituality. Hardline skeptics and atheists tend to eschew this point of view, but they cannot deny that people are habitually, if not naturally, sentimental toward the supernatural and spiritual potential in the world.

Second, the area of society. This is not what you think, but how you deal with what others think, and how they deal with what you think, and the acts based upon such thought. This is your relationship with, essentially, the rest of the world. More specifically, it’s what’s mutually tangible. What kinds of laws, regulations, taboos, etc., affect you, and what kind of effect you can have. On our scale of development, this is often a stopping point (or sometimes a starting point for those who were never theists to begin with). It’s a plateau representing a static world view, with no inclination to have that world view affect society.

Beyond that plateau, there is a minority of skeptics, rationals, atheists who attempt to influence society in a variety of ways. The extent to which one is active is often based on the extent to which one has rejected religion. So, there are varying degrees of activism (degrees of intensity) and varying methods of activism. And there’s at least one person or group of people out there in the world opposed to every single type. Surprisingly, many are from the set of non-believers.

The degrees of intensity can be described in another abridged scale: start with the “closet” atheists, who, although in their own minds are atheists, either deny that fact to others, or try to hide it, lest they be reprimanded, punished, or shunned by family, work, friends, or others. Sometimes these closet atheists end up creating alternate identities for use on the Internet, a place in which they can freely express opinions without coming under personal attack. The next level is the avowed atheist — someone who isn’t afraid to tell others, but who doesn’t necessarily seek out others in order to tell them. Next is the conversational atheist — someone who actively tells others, perhaps seeking them out, in order to tell them about non-belief. That category can be split between those who seek just to converse and share ideas, and those who are on the fringes of being active deconverters.

Proactive deconversion is the next level, and it shares its spot with proactive lobbying — efforts either to convert believers into non-believers, or efforts to create a society where law, the government, and public places are secular. My opinion is that this is where most non-believers choose to draw the line. Beyond that line lies anti-religious activism. This is an activist state that actively attempts to purge society of all (or most) things religious. This category can be split between targeting only religious activities that cause specific harm, and targeting all religious activities, regardless of perceived harm (with the idea that all aspects of religion are harmful, because they’re religious).

An example of the latter point of view is where, recently, the Swedish government is making it illegal for any school, public or private, to teach religion as if it were true.¹

There are two more primary levels of activism. Next is targeting everyone, treating religion as a disease, in a sense, and trying to disinfect everyone, even parents who want to teach their children about religion. In 2001, Richard Dawkins wrote a letter to the British secretary of state, asking that the faith status of existing schools be removed, allowing children to choose for themselves what to believe, in a non-religious school environment.² Essentially, wipe away religious schooling institutions, and eliminate faith-based labeling for children, despite parental wishes. This is a step further in the direction of activism because, unlike Sweden’s attempt to eliminate teaching of religion “as if it were true,” Dawkins (at least then) advocates eliminating religion as a label of any sort — no religious institutions at all, no parental force-feeding of religion, and especially no state-based advocacy of religious belief.

Christopher Hitchens is even a more ardent supporter of this “no religion” point of view. Even from the title of his best selling book “God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything,” one can infer that Hitchens decries all things religious, and would probably, if in a position to do so, wipe the world clean of religious practice (but for the sake of scholarship, not religious history, I’m sure). Some would call this “militant atheism.” My view is that that term is misused, and should apply only to the final niche in the spectrum of activism.

Real militant atheism is literally taking up a weapon and fighting those who support religion, and in some cases those who merely don’t support real militant atheism. Consider the Crusades. Real militant atheism is similar. It’s a purge of religion, similar to what Hitchens seems to desire, but instead of doing so through legal means, it’s doing so with violence. Have we seen much of this? Hardly. Perhaps none at all, at least in what’s commonly displayed on the news. There are countries, though, that will torture and kill some believers.³ There are also, assuredly, individuals and factions worldwide who, like their religious counterparts, would take up arms in order to fight for what they consider to be freedom from religion (especially if they think that a purported secular government has overly mingled its affairs with religion, effectively creating a theocracy).

Inevitably, those who fall somewhere on the active side of the scale will be directly or indirectly criticized for such activism by those who believe they are the targets. Here’s a fine, succinct, example of what I mean, thanks to Atheist Eve:

To be an activist at any level, one must expect some criticism. My analysis here isn’t about criticism, however, it’s more about ethics. Obviously, the more advanced on the activism scale, the more criticism, but is there a point on the scale that clearly goes too far?

One potential way to analyze what’s an appropriate level of activism is to consider what “the other side” is doing or has done to promote religion. Religious groups have been spending centuries sending missionaries all over the world, establishing churches, shrines, meeting places. They’ve been creating supposed charitable organizations and activities, hospitals, (and in Mother Theresa’s case, places to go suffer and die), youth organizations, private schools, camps, heavily funded lobbying groups, and more. They’ve started and perpetuated military campaigns, sometimes backed by governments, sometimes by radical militants outside of the government. Entire nations currently sway with the religious breezes blown by zealots on both sides. What hasn’t been done in the name of religion? If we are to take the religious as examples of anything, it’s that they have overwhelmingly dotted the landscape of history and the world with religious activism spanning the entire scale. Therefore, citing what the religious are doing or have done is not a good way to measure the ethicalness of our own activist behavior.

Another way to think about where we should fall on the scale is from the consequentialist point of view. Let’s not think too much about what we’re doing on the small scale (whether it be handing out atheist pamphlets or assassinating religious zealot leaders), but what we’re trying to accomplish for the sake of humanity. This point of view may require the activist not only to believe that religion is wrong, but also that religion is so harmful that it must be eliminated by any means necessary. However, that is not the only side one can take as a consequentialist. It could be believed that a well-balanced world is, in the long run, more beneficial for humanity, and that the actions that must be taken should be limited to those which would ultimately treat religion and non-religion as essentially equal. There are those who already think this is the case, and there are those who think that we have a long way to go to accomplish something even close to a balance. Consequentialism, is, then, too ambiguous and subjective to use as a guideline. The same could probably be said of any utilitarian theory — they’re all quite subjective, and goal-oriented.

Let’s just say that I carried on with an analysis of every ethical theory that I could come up with. I don’t think I would find a satisfactory answer to my query. The reason? I don’t know all there is to know. I don’t know and I cannot know what’s in store for humanity. I only know what I’ve seen, what’s occurring right now, and what has apparently occurred in the past, with regard to the rife between secularism and religion, and the firm grasp that religious groups have on so many aspects of the world today. I’m not advocating violence or war on behalf of non-religion. What I’m saying is that I’m not quite sure that it’s unethical, depending on the situation, and from whose point of view it is making the decision.

Most assuredly, though, if the religious zealots of my nation stood up in arms and attempted to create a theocracy by force, I would retaliate in kind. I think that’s essentially happening in some parts of the world today. What’s happening here is that the religious have infused themselves into the government and essential positions in society in order to perpetuate that hold on power and control, and we, as rationals, as skeptics, as atheists, need to do at least the minimum of what it takes to reverse that trend and keep it reversed, regardless of any criticism from any source. I just can’t tell you exactly how that’s to be done, and how far we need to go in order to get it done.

1. God’s Honest Truth, Andrew Brown, Guardian.co.uk. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/18/godshonesttruth [↩]
2. Children must choose their own beliefs, Richard Dawkins, Guardian.co.uk. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2001/dec/30/schools.religion [↩]
3. China, among others, has had a blemished history of military-backed opposition to religion. [↩]

Dear Procrustes,

You are a moron, with your liberal anti-Christian views, and you’d better shut your site down, or I’m going to find you and your family and I’m going to crack your skull with a baseball bat and mutilate your family.

Signed,
Hypothetical

Yes, fortunately this is still a hypothetical situation for me, but it’s certainly real enough for a number of rational activists out there, including, fairly recently, PZ Myers, a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris, who blogs at Pharyngula.¹ On July 13, PZ Myers received an email with the subject line: “your short life.” The sender went on to state that if PZ Myers did not cease and desist his job (for the sake of his children), the PZ Myers would get his “brains beat in.”²

I’m not going to bother addressing the fact that someone who purports to follow a higher spiritual code is threatening the life of someone (and his kids) who follows a code of reason. Instead, I’d like to cite a few more examples, and then ask the readers if anyone else has had similar experiences, what have they done in those situations, and what can be done if we ever find ourselves in such a situation.

Before I jump into other examples, I’ll give some closure to the PZ Myers issue. First of all, PZ Myers made it quite clear that he reserved the right to post any emails (in full, with metadata) that contain threats of violence. What, pray tell, must have someone endured to require such a disclaimer! Word got around, and AIGBusted, from Answers in Genesis Busted, sent an email to the threatener’s employer³ (since the email threat was sent from a work address). It turns out that the threatener, Melanie Kroll, who, ironically, worked for 1-800-Flowers, was fired over the matter.⁴ Although it’s unknown how many readers possibly sent similar emails, AIGBusted appropriately feels no guilt over the firing. “I don’t feel guilty about reporting her. I think it is important for atheists to realize that large numbers of us wield a fair amount of power in these situations.”⁵

Apparently that is true. We have shown that we have the ability to do more than just sit idly by, wondering how valid a threat is. But how many of us (and by us, I mean anyone in the non-believing, rational, atheist, etc., community) are actually being threatened, how consistently, and, most importantly, how viable are these threats?

Where to begin? Of course, with the blog post that prompted Melanie Kroll’s threat.

July 12, 2008:
PZ Myers wrote, in a blog entry: “Christian Lunatics Issue Death Threats Over a Cracker… Unlike those nutty Muslims who are always taking offense over cartoons, these people have serious grievances.” And went on to describe and criticize the overreaction by the Catholics, media, and others, to Webster Cook’s forcible removal of The Body of Christ from a church.⁶ Accused of having “kidnapped” the equivalent of Jesus Christ, Cook began receiving death threats shortly after the media exploded the issue beyond repair, and PZ Myers, in turn, received a death threat for reporting about it. (Yes, I’m anxiously anticipating my day in the sniper scope.)

July 17, 2007:

Professors in Colorado Receive Death Threats for Teaching Evolution
Letters from a Christian extremist last week threatened the lives of evolution biology professors at the University of Colorado at Boulder. The letters claimed to be on behalf of a group, but newspapers and at least one blog have reported that an individual, Michael Korn, a Jew-turned-Christian extremist, is likely behind the threats (an image from his web site is at right). CU police spokesman Brad Wiesley told me they haven’t officially named a suspect but the Colorado Daily wrote that others “close to the case” named Korn.⁷

July 7, 2007:
J.K. Rowling announces the end of her beloved Harry Potter series of books, indicating that although it was a wonderful experience for her, there was a darker side to writing something Christians didn’t agree with: “Rowling says her success has been “the experience of a lifetime.” But it also has brought an intense level of pressure, scrutiny and criticism. In the United States, her book tours have attracted thousands of screaming children, but also death threats. Some Christians have called for the books to be banned, claiming they promote witchcraft.”⁸

March 28, 2008:
“Popular video site LiveLeak have been forced to remove the controversial film critical of Islam FITNA [by Geert Wilders⁹] after it received death threats from primitive, violent intolerant muslims.”¹⁰ Both Geert Wilders and some LiveLeak staff received a variety of threats of death and violence.

July, 2008:
Army Spc. Jeremy Hall’s “sudden lack of faith, he said, cost him his military career and put his life at risk. Hall said his life was threatened by other troops and the military assigned a full-time bodyguard to protect him out of fear for his safety.”¹¹

June, 2002:
Michael Newdow, a TIME Person of the Week, received multiple death threats for his attempt to challenge the constitutionality of the “under God” phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, which was recited every morning at his daughter’s public school. ¹² (As a side note, I met Mr. Newdow during that time period, and heard him discuss his various issues. He has also advocated for the removal of “In God We Trust” from U.S. currency,¹³ and he has won the Freethought Hero Award.¹⁴ )

October, 2006:
Robert Redeker is “a writer and high school philosophy teacher who has been under police protection and in hiding with his family since the newspaper Le Figaro published his op-ed piece about Islam on Sept.19. Entitled “Faced with Islamist intimidations, what should the free world do?”" “Redeker writes that he and his family are being forced to move every two days. “I’m a homeless person,” he complains. “I exercised a constitutional right, and I’m being punished for it right here on the territory of the Republic.” Redeker is only the latest in a lengthening list of Europeans who have been subjected to death threats from Muslims outraged by criticism of their faith and prophet.”¹⁵

1988:
Salman Rushdie had a fatwa issued against him for his publication of The Satanic Verses.¹⁶

November, 2004:
Mohammed Bouyeri shot Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film director and critic of Islam, eight times, killing him, and then nearly decapitated him by cutting his throat. Then Bouyeri stabbed van Gogh in the chest. A few weeks prior to the murder, Imam Fawaz of the as-Sunnah Mosque in The Hague gave a sermon, calling van Gogh a “criminal bastard” and beseeching Allah to inflict an incurable disease upon him. ¹⁷

These examples are frightening and real, and they can all be Googled rather easily. But are the numbers of threats against the rational much higher? Have you ever received a threat of violence, death, or other retaliatory act for something you’ve done or that you’ve believed in? Please share!

If you’ve received a threat, did you take it seriously? How did you react to it? (did you reply, post the message, contact the authorities?) Regardless of whether you’ve received a threat, do you have any advice or suggestions for those who do?

Is this a trend we should be worried about?

1. Pharyngula, “Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal.” http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ [↩]
2. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/mail_dump.php [↩]
3. Did I Get a Woman Fired? Answers in Genesis Busted. http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2008/07/did-i-get-woman-fired.html [↩]
4. http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html [↩]
5. http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2008/07/did-i-get-woman-fired.html [↩]
6. Christian Lunatics Issue Death Threats Over a Cracker, AlterNet. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/91269/ [↩]
7. Professors in Colorado Receive Death Threats for Teaching Evolution, Wired.com. http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/professors-in-c.html [↩]
8. Rowling bids her boy wizard goodbye, USATODAY.com. http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2007-07-19-rowling-potter_N.htm [↩]
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders [↩]
10. LiveLeak Remove “Fitna” After Death Threats, GBG Atheist News. http://godbegone.blogspot.com/2008/03/liveleak-remove-fitna-after-death.html [↩]
11. Atheist soldier sues Army for ‘unconstitutional’ discrimination, CNN.com. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/atheist.soldier/index.html [↩]
12. Person of the Week: Michael Newdow. http://www.time.com/time/pow/article/0,8599,266658,00.html [↩]
13. Michael Newdow’s “In God We Trust” Lawsuit Dismissed, Austin’s Atheism Blog. http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/06/13/michael-newdows-in-god-we-trust-lawsuit-dismissed.htm [↩]
14. Freethought Hero Award, Freedom From Religion Foundation. http://ffrf.org/awards/special/2004_newdow.php [↩]
15. Did a Critic of Islam Go Too Far?, TIME.com. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1541776,00.html?cnn=yes [↩]
16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie [↩]
17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29 [↩]

According to Jerry Bergman, at Answers in Genesis, we should be teaching Creationism in public schools.

Here’s his reasoning:

Fifty studies were reviewed that surveyed opinions on teaching origins in public schools. The vast majority found about 90 % of the public desired that both creation and evolution or creation only be taught in the public schools. About 90 % of Americans consider themselves creationists of some form, and about half believe that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years. In America, about 15 % of high school teachers teach both evolution and creation, and close to 20 % of high school science teachers and about 10,000 scientists (including more than 4,000 life scientists) reject both macroevolution and theistic evolution. Although the vast majority of Americans desire both creation and evolution taught in school, the evolutionary naturalism worldview dominates, revealing a major disparity between the population and the ruling élite.

I agree!

I think we should be teaching alternate theories of existence in public schools. And here is how I propose we set up the curriculum:

Monday

1st Period: The Earth was nothing but water and darkness, ruled over by Mbombo, the white giant. One day, he felt a terrible pain in his stomach, and vomited the sun, the moon, and the stars. The sun shone fiercely and water steamed up in clouds. Gradually, the dry hills appeared. Mbombo vomited again, this time the trees came out of his stomach, and animals, and people, and many other things: the first woman, the leopard, the eagle, the anvil, monkey Fumu, the first man, the firmament, medicine, and lighting. Nchienge, the woman of the waters, lived in the East. She had a son, Woto, and a daughter, Labama. Woto was the first king of the Bakuba.¹

2nd Period: The Creator split a tree into three pieces. He gave a piece to each tribe, one being a spear, the other a hoe, and the third a bow, and these recipients became the three tribes of people, the beginning of humanity.

3rd Period: Mangala was an entity made up of four divisions, and two sets of dual gendered twins. Being tired of keeping it all inside, Mangala compiled all the matter into a seed, which was the world. And the seed exploded, disappointing Mangala, who destroyed it. Then Mangala tried again with two sets of twin seeds, which, after having been planted in an egg-like womb, along with other sets of seeds, emerged as fish, representing fertility. One of the male twins tried to escape from the egg. This trickster, Pemba, stole a piece of the womb’s placenta and threw it down, creating the earth. He then tried to refertilize the remainder of the womb. Mangala castrated and killed Farro, Pemba’s brother, to save creation, and then Mangala raised Farro from the dead. Mangala then took the remainder of the placenta and transformed it into the sun, leaving Pemba for the darkness and night. Mangala transformed Ferro into a human, and was taught the language of creation. Farro’s newly created twins came and joined him on the earth, and they all propagated humanity.

4th Period: Lunch

5th Period: Damballah created all the waters of the earth. In the form of a serpent, the movement of his 7,000 coils formed hills and valleys on earth and brought forth stars and planets in the cosmos. He forged metals from heat and sent forth lightning bolts to form the sacred rocks and stones. When he shed his skin in the sun, releasing all the waters over the land, the sun shone in the water and created the rainbow. Damballah loved the rainbow’s beauty and made her his wife, Aida-Wedo. The revelations of the loa (deity) descended upon the first faithful in Ifé, a legendary city located in Nigeria. Therefore, everything in life and all spiritual strength comes from Ifé. In death, the higher soul will return to Ginen (the world of the dead, said to be under the water below the earth) to reside with the loa and the ancestral spirits.

6th Period: In the beginning, there was only water and chaos. The supreme being sent Obatala or Orishanla down from the sky to create some land out of the chaos. He descended on a long chain (umbilical cord) and brought with him a rooster, some iron, and a palm kernel. First, he put the metal on the earth and the rooster on top of that. The rooster scratched the metal and spread it out to create land. Then he planted the palm seed and from it grew the earth’s vegetation. Olurun named earth “Ife” and the first city “Ile-Ife.” Orshilana created humans out of the earth and got Olurun to blow life into them.

Tuesday

1st Period: Physical reality (space, matter and/or energy) is eternal, and therefore does not have an absolute origin. The Creator is an architect and organizer of pre-mortal matter and energy, who constructed the present universe out of the raw material (demiurge). There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

2nd Period: Xenu was the dictator of the “Galactic Confederacy” who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of his people to Earth in spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs. Their essences remained, and that they form around people in modern times, causing them spiritual harm.

3rd Period: Auditing practice.

4th Period: Lunch

5th Period: Everything begins in a state of chaos where nothing exists but two gods named Tiamat and Apsu, who give birth to the first generation of gods, which one is Ea. Apsu cannot sleep because of these god children so he plans to kill them. Ea finds out and kills Apsu and Tiamat plans to avenge her husband. Ea has a son named Marduk. Tiamat assembles a huge army to avenge her husband and names Qingu the commander. Marduk is named as commander of the younger gods as long as he kills Tiamat; which he does through an arrow to the throat. Marduk splits her body in half and uses the back half to make the sky (which holds back the cosmic ocean) and the front half to make the earth (which holds the subterranean ocean). Marduk takes out Tiamat’s eyes and allows some of the subterranean ocean to flow out into two streams that become the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Finally, Marduk and Ea (and other gods) decide to create human beings to bear the burden of the gods, so that they can rest and not have to do all the hard work. Marduk creates people by killing Qingu and mixing Qingu’s blood with clay.

6th Period: The Ground of Being is the First Cause.

Wednesday

et cetera.

I think this would be an excellent way to introduce much needed mythological and spiritual awakenings in students, letting them know that plenty of other people around the world actually believe this stuff, AND, since they do believe this stuff, that makes this stuff VALID as alternate theories to evolution, and that no “theory” is better than any other belief in creation. I mean, it only makes sense that we give everyone a fair shot, right? I’m all for that. I’ll have to get my kid an afterschool tutor so he can learn to do some basic math, but it’s worth it for all the myriad wonders of creationism he will learn! Now that’s tolerance!

So, now that that point has been conceded and taken care of, I propose we move to the next item on the agenda, regarding tolerance, fairness, and whatnot: required programs for every religious institution.

All religious institutions shall, with their own funding, thoroughly and objectively instruct their staff, members, and guests, with government oversight, in the following areas:

-Heredity
-Variation
-Mutation
-Sex and recombination
-Population genetics
-Mechanisms
-Natural selection
-Genetic drift
-Gene flow
-Outcomes
-Adaptation
-Co-evolution
-Co-operation
-Speciation
-Extinction
-Evolutionary history of life
-Abiogenesis
-Common descent
-Evolution of life

-The scientific method
-Basic and intermediate mathematics
-Logic
-Philosophy
-Classic literature
-Civil rights
-Constitutional law
-World history
-Domestic history

Religious institutions will be required to hire experts in these fields who are unaffiliated with any religion (lest there be an unfair bias in favor of one “theory” or religion over another), and will be subject to strict scrutiny with regard to the curriculum and teaching standards. Standardized exams will be given, and religious institutions will have adjustments in funding and tax exemption based on the scores.

It would be my honor to assist in implementing this fair and balanced program. I hope it gets kicked off right away!

What a great day for tolerance!

1. This, and the following excerpts, quoted and paraphrased from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth [↩]

TSA and the Feds, fighting your freedom every step of the way!

If you haven’t been paying any attention:

10 airports install body scanners — Devices can peer under passengers’ clothes

and

Shock bracelet for airlines?

Part II of the Post Hoc and the Finicky Chickens video is up!

State of Protest is excited to announce that it is now a contributor to the wild world known as YouTube.

You can find us at:  http://www.youtube.com/StateOfProtest

Our first video is Part I of Post Hoc and the Finicky Chickens.  Check it out, and we’ll be posting the subsequent parts as they’re created (by our videographer elves).

The father of a co-worker on a different floor died the other day, and another co-worker got a card and started a collection for flowers for the funeral. No big deal. Passed the card around. I was one of the later persons to receive the card to jot down something. We do this all the time for birthdays, and it’s fairly easy to come up with something to say for a birthday. “Happy Birthday!” “Best Wishes!” “Hope you get laid!” You know, something like that. Cheery or morose, doesn’t matter for a birthday card. “Hey, at least you still have your hair! Most of it, anyway!”

Well, for a “Your father died. I didn’t know him. I barely know you. I’m sorry he’s dead, but only in that faintly ‘we’re all humans here and share some sort of emotional bond’ sort of way” card, it’s not so easy. I was the 16th or 17th signer on the card. I glanced casually at the other notes, just to get an idea of what others were saying. And what I saw kinda shocked me, although perhaps it shouldn’t have.

Out of 16 notes, 12 used the word “prayer” or “prayers” and 1 used “God.” Yes, I know that for most people, “you’re in my prayers” really only means that “you’re in my thoughts.” Which, of course, makes the use of both redundant but perhaps more encouraging? “You’re in my thoughts and prayers.” What’s that really mean? I’m thinking of you, and, oh, by the way, I’m thinking of you. It’s worse when it even remotely means actual prayer. What, seriously, is prayer going to accomplish in that situation? What, exactly, are these people praying for? “I pray your daddy comes back from the grave so you can say your final farewells.” “I pray that you die soon so that you can see your dad in heaven.” “I pray that you understand that God really loves you and your dad, and death is just His way of showing it. Really.”

Many State of Protest readers are former Christians. Here are some questions for you. When you told someone that they were in your prayers, what did you really mean? And then what did you do? Did you ever actually pray for someone after you said you would? Did you clasp your hands together and close your eyes and start praying with that person in mind? And, if you did, what did you say? For what did you pray?

And why does it so utterly disturb me that so many of my co-workers are praying for someone who just lost a father?

If, say, a member of my immediate family were to die, would I take the assertions of prayer by others as insults or just innocent ways of expressing their attempt at shared mourning? In other words, is someone who knows that I’m atheist intentionally infringing upon my beliefs by stating that they will pray for me, for my family member?

It reminds me of a classic dead-end conversation:

Theist: “It was nice talking to you. God bless!”

Atheist: “I don’t believe in God.”

Theist: “But He believes in you, and He wants you to know that He loves you!”

Why do we dislike salespeople who knock on our doors on Saturday morning, or who pester us in stores while we’re trying to look at something? Because they won’t take “no” for an answer. They’re rude, imposing, and have absolutely no care about your feelings, your thoughts, your beliefs. Same reason we don’t like evangelicals. Now, these 13 or so co-workers who felt the need to indicate (out of piety or self-righteousness) that they were praying for the card’s recipient probably wouldn’t consider themselves evangelical. However, aren’t they?

Are prayers useful? Apparently some prominent people would like to continue to encourage that belief. Some frighteningly prominent people.

In 2000:

At the White House, President Clinton said he was “saddened by the terrible loss of life” in Georgia, and asked Americans to pray for the victims.¹

The vice president [Gore] told tornado victims they could count on the prayers and resources of the nation.²

In 2003:

I express my sincerest condolences to the victims of the tornadoes that ripped through Arkansas and Kansas and Missouri, Tennessee, Nebraska and South Dakota. Our prayers and I hope your prayers are with those who — the loved ones who lost life or those who lost their home. The federal government, the local state and local authorities need to know the federal government will be moving as quickly as we possibly can to provide help where help is needed, and where help is justified. Nature is awfully tough at times. And the best thing to do right now is to pray for those who have suffered.³

In 2007:

I bring the prayers and concerns of the people of this country to this town.⁴

Today:

US President George W. Bush on Wednesday offered prayers and disaster relief to the victims of dozens of tornadoes that killed at least 48 people and injured hundreds more in southern US states.

“Prayers can help, and so can the government,” Bush said. “I do want the people in those states that the American people are standing with them.”

Twenty-four people were killed in Tennessee, 13 in Arkansas, and seven in Kentucky, officials in the three states said.

US media reported hundreds injured, and CNN said four people were killed in Alabama. Local authorities were not immediately available to confirm that death toll.

“I’ve just called the governors of the affected states,” said Bush. “I wanted them to know that this government will help them, but more importantly I wanted them to be able to tell the people in their states that the American people hold those who suffer up in prayer.”⁵

I’m stymied. Does Bush, does anyone really, honestly think that it’s more important that victims of natural disasters are “receiving”⁶ prayers from fellow Americans than it is for the government to help?⁷ I suppose knowing how the government “helped” after Hurricane Katrina, people might be somewhat distrustful of such intervention. Also, from the look of the trend — these tornadoes aren’t stopping — it would seem, from a rational point of view, that not only do the requested and given prayers not work, but from a corollary perspective, might even be the actual cause of the perpetuation of these wretched storms. Well, it’s just as realistic as the conjecture that AIDS is God’s punishment for homosexuality.⁸

I find prayers devoid of usefulness. Ten million Americans can go home tonight after work, hold hands with their loved ones, and utter a solemn, moving prayer. They can go to church this evening, if they’re Catholic they can receive an ash cross, they can mass pray for the victims. They can close their eyes, and ask God in the most imploring inner voice they have to help the victims. All this accomplishes is the exact same thing it accomplished in 2007, 2003, 2000, and all the years between and since — absolutely nothing but the smug satisfaction of those praying that they somehow advocated on behalf of the victims. That they’ve done something useful. Heck, if the president says it’s more important, it must be.

On the other hand, ten million Americans can send a dollar each to a victims’ relief fund. Ten American entrepreneurs can send a thousand dollars each. Five American corporations can send a million dollars each. People nearby can send themselves. People at a distance can send canned food, fresh water, or organize relief donations that maximize what the victims actually receive.

I’m going to pray to President George W. Bush to explain why he thinks that prayer is more important than the myriad other ways these people and all other victims of disasters and war can be helped. I doubt, however, that such a prayer would ever be answered.

—————————–

Follow up!: Apparently “Prayer is among the increasingly creative ways that schools and the community are encouraging Central Florida students to excel on the annual FCAT….”

Perhaps the highest stakes, though, are at Evans High, where students hope to avert another failing school grade.
This week, FCAT prayers will be said at home. Next month, however, when students tackle the reading, math and science portions of the test, Kimbrough of Rising Sun Baptist plans to have church members walking, kneeling and joining hands in prayer on the sidewalks outside Evans and its ninth-grade center. The vigil is intended to last throughout test-taking.

There’s even a special FCAT prayer service March 2 at 3 p.m. at the Evans ninth-grade center that’s open to all. The faithful will pray for good grades but also that the students stay focused and confident.

“God could care less about the FCAT, but he cares about his people,” Kimbrough said. “He cares about what concerns his people.”⁹

If I were a kid failing a standardized test, would I want my parents and community to help tutor me or stand outside and pray for me? Perhaps they’re doing both. However, this is certainly violative of the First Amendment in addition to creating a form of intimidation for non-Christian students. Oh, and it’s “God couldn’t care less…” Apparently the praying hasn’t been working.

1. Death toll rises to 19 from Georgia tornadoes, CNN, February 14, 2000, http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WEATHER/02/14/storms.05/index.html [↩]
2. CNN, February 16, 2000, http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WEATHER/02/16/storms.04/ [↩]
3. Transcript of President George W. Bush, CNN, May 5, 2003, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/05/wbr.00.html [↩]
4. President George W. Bush, Bush visits Kansas town flattened by tornado, CNN, May 9, 2007, http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/09/kansas.bush/index.html [↩]
5. Bush offers prayers, government help for storm victims, Yahoo, February 6, 2008, http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080206/usa/us_weather_tornado_bush [↩]
6. What is the process by which someone receives a prayer? How would someone know a prayer has been made on that person’s behalf unless the pray-er informs the recipient? So, are prayers really just modern-day condolences, with no real supernatural affiliation? If so, why push prayer in school? [↩]
7. If I went to the site of the devastation from those tornadoes, and I walked around to each victim and asked them to choose: I would either give them $5,000 in cash for recovery or I would have 5000 affiliates pray for them, which option would the victims choose? Which would you choose? How is prayer effective again? How is it more important than government assistance? [↩]
8. 23% See AIDS as God’s Punishment for Immorality, Pew Research Center, http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=311; see also Jerry Falwell quotes, http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/jerry_falwell.html [↩]
9. Physical, emotional and spiritual support pumps up kids for FCAT, Orlando Sentinel, February 10, 2008, http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/consumer/orl-prayforgrades1008feb10,0,7753098.story [↩]

I had the misfortune of reading an article this morning from the St. Petersburg Times entitled “The evolution of a sensitive lesson: Educators find ways of handling The Theory. Some skip it. Others hunt for a balance point.”¹ The article states that many Florida public school teachers have been intentionally avoiding the teaching of evolution in their science classes, although Florida law requires it. What is their excuse? Backlash from offended parents. Parents who object to evolution being taught in schools.

Since “no one complains when a teacher does not teach evolution,” “There is not an outcry for, ‘Teach us Evolution.’” What a convenient excuse for using the public school system to misguide children. Evolution is a fundamental aspect of science, and the recurring attempts to overturn the success of the rational mind in 1925² evoke a sense of desperation combined with a pathetic waste of resources both monetary and mental. In what deteriorated state would the nation be if the holy book happened to state plainly that 2+2=5? Would teachers hesitate to teach correct math? Would their excuse be that there isn’t any outcry for “Teach us math”? Would they flinch and pander to parents who insisted that deviation from biblical pronouncement is offensive, regardless of any contrary evidence?

Here are some of the embarrassing statistics from the 2005 survey conducted by the National Science Teachers Association, as sited in the article:

31 percent said they felt pressured to include creationism or Intelligent Design in their science classroom. Most of the pressure came from students (22 percent) and parents (20 percent).

30 percent said they felt pressured to de-emphasize or omit evolution or evolution-related topics from their curriculum.

85 percent said they felt well-prepared to explain the reasons why it’s important for students to understand evolution; 11 percent said they did not.

19 percent said they de-emphasize or omit the term “evolution” in their lessons so as not to draw attention to it.

I say, let’s reverse this trend. If a teacher intentionally omits “evolution,” fire the teacher. If a parent tries to pressure the school or teachers not to teach evolution, or to add creationism, support the teachers who teach evolution. The state law states that evolution must be taught. The state, then, should stand behind teachers who do so.

The article throws in some definitions:

Darwin’s theory of evolution: Says species have changed over millions of years, driven by their ability to adapt and survive in changing environments.

Creationism: The belief that a god or gods created the Earth, the universe and life.

Intelligent design: The belief that some systems found in nature, such as the human eyeball, are too complex to have formed without the intervention of an unnamed designer.

Intelligent design is a modern-day reverse engineered, watered-down, “skeptic-friendly” version of creationism, as even a federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush noted in what should have been the end of this controversy, the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.³ In his decision, Judge John E. Jones III stated, “The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.” Teaching intelligent design in public schools violates the First Amendment. Teaching evolution does not.

If you live in the state of Florida, or the United States, or anywhere that the public, tax-funded school system is under either direct or surreptitious attack by those who would threaten the livelihood of teachers who teach actual science, then it is not only your duty to intervene, but it is also in your best interest. These kids are going to be running this planet in a few decades, and I don’t want to see what the world will look like if the vast majority of them insist that the planet is six thousand years old, created by sky-daddy, and anyone who says otherwise will burn in hell — after burning at the stake, of course. If you don’t think human beings are capable of such irrational behavior, then you might want to brush up on your history and current events.

Contact the Florida Department of Education⁴ and tell them that you want the government of Florida to protect teachers who follow Florida law, teachers who teach science in science class, not mythology.

If you’re not in Florida? Contact the U.S. Department of Education⁵.

Then contact the department of education in your own state.⁶ Call, write letters, protest, become amici to related court cases. There is so much we can all do, even if it seems minor. It’s that important.

1. http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/03/State/The_evolution_of_a_se.shtml [↩]
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial [↩]
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District [↩]
4. Florida Department of Education: http://www.fldoe.org/ [↩]
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education [↩]
6. Education Resource Organizations Directory: http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/Programs/EROD/org_list.cfm?category_ID=SEA [↩]

As humans, we’ve generally been taught that lying isn’t good. Now, sometimes it is used to spare feelings, or soften a blow, but in generally, to lie is to willfully ignore the truth for some reason, generally to the liar’s advantage. I personally don’t like lying because it tries to refuse reality which is pointless. Tim Mazur has a similar idea, though based on the Kantian idea that humans have intrinsic worth, something that I don’t particularly agree with wholeheartedly. “Lies are morally wrong, then, for two reasons. First, lying corrupts the most important quality of my being human: my ability to make free, rational choices. Each lie I tell contradicts the part of me that gives me moral worth. Second, my lies rob others of their freedom to choose rationally. When my lie leads people to decide other than they would had they known the truth, I have harmed their human dignity and autonomy.”¹ I don’t think morals have anything to do with it, but I do agree that lies are harmful. Now, I do agree that there are times when lies are necessary, e.g. to save one’s life if one has to promise something to a killer, to keep a confidence, etc. I still do not like them, but human nature, being what it is, does seem to require them.

Now, in my opinion, religion is a great lie. And I do appreciate the irony of finding Mr. Mazur’s quote on a Jesuit university’s website. None of them can demonstrate that they have any type of great ‘Truth’. The few similarities that exist between religions, oft pointed to by theists who want to think that their particular deity is the one behind all religions or all ‘good’, are simply from the fact that we are humans and humans function in similar ways and have similar societies. Religion promises proof but never provides it. I have found it amazing that people can pass around a story that no one knows the true provenance of, which promises much but provides nothing, and how they can keep believing in it. I believed Christianity for a while because I was taught to trust my elders. However, trust can be destroyed when reality raises its head.

Lies have become endemic in religion. Since they cannot rely on any truths, they must make up reasons for why something is or isn’t so. These ‘reasons’ change with society, not the other way around. These are no better than Rudyard Kipling’s Just-so stories and considerably less well-thought out. Since each religion depends on being the only ‘correct’ one, they all do what they can to keep their flocks in line.

This culture of lies also seems to influence the actions of their believers. I had the opportunity to see this first hand recently. I was responsible for the attendance at an invitation-only conference held by my employer. We had a limited budget for food and a limited space to fit people into. The rsvps went out to our invitees approximately 3 months in advance of the conference. Three days before the conference, I received an RSVP from an invited member of a Christian organization that had a note on it saying that they intended to also bring along 6 other people and that I was to call if this would be a problem. Being that we had long run out of space, I called and said that we would be unable to accommodate those invited and definitely no room for anyone else extra. I could tell by the woman’s voice that she was taken aback by my answer, especially when she asked me several times if what I said meant that no one of their group could come. Several days later, I was then contacted by another organization that these people, including a pastor, said that they had been invited by my organization’s president and that we had subsequently dis-invited them. This was a lie. The only people invited were three from their organization, contingent if they got their rsvps back in time just like everyone else, and that we had not told these people they could bring whomever they wanted. I was quite indignant about this. However, from my prior experience with Christians, I accepted it as business as usual. In my experience, Christianity does nothing to make a person any better than they would be without religion. It only seems to give excuses to those who are unpleasant people to begin with.

The day of the event rolled around and I was working registration with our hired event planner. Things were busy but I noticed a group of people well decorated with crosses approaching the registration table. By either chance or intent (I had a name tag on) none of them came to me to get their badges. However, I was familiar with enough names to know who they were. The ‘good Christians’ decided to come anyway. I reported this to my bosses but to no avail. No one had the nerve to tell them that they were unwelcome. I would have dearly liked to but I also wished to keep my job. By luck, it wasn’t the problem it could have been since a winter storm had been forecast and that few people came than we had thought. While not privy to their thoughts, I am reasonable sure, from prior experience, that these Christians were praising their God for allowing them to get in and that other people hadn’t come because of the storm. I’m reasonably sure that they also forgot that at least 7 people died because of this storm before it got to us and weakened. I had told other people that we had no more room and those people respected our decision. These people did not. They lied about the circumstances of their rsvps, they ignored my politely given denial of their request, and they could have caused a very unpleasant situation with their arrogance. They forced an occasion where they did not want to follow the rules. They wanted special rights, not equal rights.

I see on various forums that Christians are often aghast that anyone could possibly think bad of them. It is for reasons like my situation above, the circling of the wagons when televangelists are ignorant and intolerant, the simple words of the Bible, etc, that people often regard Christians as arrogant, willfully ignorant hypocrites who want nothing more than to force their will on others. Being a theist, whether you are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Zoroasterian, Wiccan, Hindu, etc., doesn’t automatically mean you are a good person.

1.  http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ … lying.html [↩]

It’s that season again where we indulge. And indulge. And indulge. And blame it on Jesus being born. Hey, probably not an entirely bad way to spend a cold, wet winter. I was recently endowed with a wonderful monetary gift from my mother-in-law, and tasked to go find myself something, as it’s the gift-receiving season. After days of morbid searching on various websites for common gift ideas, finding absolutely nothing that interested me except for possibly a chin-up bar (and how fun that sounds, eh?), I finally somehow recalled that as a teenager, I had always desired a radio controlled helicopter, but could never afford one. Thus, I started my search. Sifting through dozens of confusing sites dedicated to RC airplanes, helicopters, boats, cars, and the like, I found some helpful forum posts that guided me to a good beginner to intermediate RC helicopter that didn’t cost a fortune. Then, trying to be responsible with my expenditures, I began tapping retail websites in order to find the best price.

The price for this helicopter varied among sites significantly, and I quickly discovered that many retailers were located in China, which, with shipping, added quite a sum that would be comparable to U.S. retailers. Regardless of the small savings I might have with those retailers, I preferred a U.S. retailer because I might need to send something back for warranty or repair, and I might want to order parts later, and would rather stick with the same retailer if the prices were overall reasonable. So, I narrowed my scope to about three or four U.S. retailers, all with similar costs. One, though, was my pick from the very beginning (We’ll call it Site-X). It has a nicely designed website with very informative descriptions, ease of use, and good prices. I was about to click the magic “order” button, but I wanted to add some training landing gear (because I’m new at this), and I didn’t see it on Site-X. At the same time, I decided to do some minimal research on Site-X just to make sure that it didn’t have a bad reputation among the RC people. I plugged “Site-X” into Google, and I was somewhat surprised to see a Wikipedia page on the main company behind SiteX.

The description of SiteX started off positively, reassuring me that the company was, in fact, a U.S.-based company, and that the owner was its founder and was doing well as a business. Then something odd caught my attention. The Wikipedia article stated that SiteX created store continuity for its physical locations by playing satellite music, chosen specifically by the owner to be mostly continually looping instrumental adaptations of traditional Christian hymns. At first, I thought, “That’s not so bad. The owner is just trying to appeal to the widest audience.” Then, I kept reading.

Among the shocking details was that SiteX is connected to several Assemblies of God¹ and Dominionist² Christian groups, and to Bill Gothard³(a conservative Christian teacher who has held, among many other controversial beliefs, that “A couple who is contemplating a VBAC Vaginal Birth After Cesarean should ask the Lord to give them a specific portion of Scripture that they can claim for the birth. Both the father and the mother should memorize and meditate on this passage and use it to conquer any fear that may come during the pregnancy or delivery.” He also famously protested against Cabbage Patch Kids⁴ because, he claimed, they could lead to difficulties in conceiving or giving birth to a child.)⁵ SiteX also closes its doors on Sundays, out of respect to the founder’s Christian beliefs.

In 2007, the founder donated $70 million to Oral Roberts University⁶ after it was made known that Richard Roberts⁷(Oral’s⁸ son, and the current president of ORU) had misappropriated a tremendous amount of university funds over the course of years.

I thought to myself, what kind of hypocrite would I be if I purchased a product from this company? Aren’t I supposed to be actively protesting against companies like that, people like that? So, I found a reliable alternative company and paid a few more dollars, and avoided a conflict of interest. And I felt good about it. Smug, perhaps. Enough so that I started this article to show that rational activism can work on all scales. It doesn’t have to be about tearing down every church with force and vigor. It can be about making informed choices as to where you shop, where you vacation, to whom you give your money. Who knows where it’s really going if you don’t look?

Then, while researching SiteX for this article, I noticed something I hadn’t noticed earlier. On the Wikipedia site, it plainly states (at the very bottom) “”SiteX” is not related to “Site-X,” a chain of smaller stores specializing in radio controlled model aircraft.” Oops. Well, now it made much more sense. However, I learned something, and I was invigorated by seeing a new and effective way to respond to people who tell me, “Okay, I want to be a rational activist. What do I do?” I can say, “Research, and don’t buy from people who send their money as donations or payments to religious-affiliated organizations.” That’s a start, at least. Now I want to start making a comprehensive list, a web, to show relationships to religious organizations, and retailers to avoid.

The morals of this story:

1. Wikipedia needs to put that disclaimer on the top of the SiteX⁹ web page — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_Lobby — since, no doubt, I’m not the only person to have misread.
2. Sorry, Site-X,¹⁰ I think you’re being abused without your knowledge.
3. If you want an RC item, buy from Site-X (I haven’t found anything bad about them).
4. I need to pay better attention, but perhaps this was fate, eh?
5. Don’t buy anything from SiteX¹¹(the company the article spoke of).
6. Don’t buy anything (if you can help it) from religious organizations or organizations that donate or otherwise fund religious organizations or any organization you believe impedes rational thought and progression.

Buy From:
“Site-X” — Hobby-Lobby International, Inc., www.hobby-lobby.com, in Tennessee, which sells a bunch of cool RC stuff, and is not affiliated with the other similarly-named store.

Don’t Buy From:
“SiteX” — Hobby Lobby, www.hobbylobby.com, an arts & crafts (of sorts) store in Oklahoma, owned and founded by David Green,¹² who was listed as #133 on Forbes’ List of the 400 Richest Americans, and who also “lives to spread the Word of God.”¹³

-Procrustes¹⁴

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assemblies_of_god [↩]
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionist [↩]
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gothard [↩]
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabbage_Patch_Kids [↩]
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gothard [↩]
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Roberts_University [↩]
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Roberts_%28evangelist%29 [↩]
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Roberts [↩]
9. http://www.hobbylobby.com/ [↩]
10. http://www.hobby-lobby.com/ [↩]
11. http://www.hobbylobby.com/ [↩]
12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Green_%28entrepreneur%29 [↩]
13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Green_%28entrepreneur%29 [↩]
14. Look at those footnotes, and then tell me I shouldn’t have been confused! [↩]