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. [↩]

What tolerance is and what it should be are two vastly different things in the world today. Tolerance is currently perceived as giving someone a free pass to act unethically if that person’s religion in any way supports that activity. Britain, for example, has made itself a prime target for this misinterpretation. By establishing such an obsequious policy, it has set a precedent that will make it more difficult to reverse the trend. For example, Sharia law has been becoming increasingly popular as an alternative to British criminal law,¹ and Britain’s top judge has recently been slammed for remarking that Sharia law in the UK is unavoidable.² Women in Britain have increasingly been wearing the traditional Muslim niqab, creating a disturbance to some (which shouldn’t really be a problem in itself) and a hindrance to others. For instance, an attorney who was wearing a niqab was told by a judge that she could not represent her client because the judge could not hear her through the veil.³ Even prominent atheist author Richard Dawkins asserts that teachers in British schools are afraid not to teach religious points of view, lest they be seen as racist.⁴

British citizens have raised a ruckus over the idea that the Muslim women who wear veils are segregating themselves and causing strife, while the Muslim women defend their right to wear the garments on the basis of faith and solidarity. Some argue that Britain has been too tolerant. Others argue it has not done enough to establish tolerance and multiculturalism. The problem is not whether Britain has been tolerant enough. The problem is that Britain and others have mangled the idea of what the concepts of tolerance and multiculturalism ought to mean, and in doing so, have sacrificed freedoms in the name of a god in whom they do not believe, and have established a dangerous precedent that threatens to mingle Islamic law with British law, creating an acceptance of cultural and religious customs that demean women and hold religious ideals higher than anything else.

If a third of British Muslims believe it is justified to kill in the name of religion, in order to defend that religion,⁵ what does that say about the Muslim respect for secular law?

Tolerance is not blind acceptance of all the characteristics of others. Tolerance is, or should be, accepting the cultural characteristics that do not create a material harm or potential harm to others. I don’t include “being offended” as a harm. If you’re an attorney, and you cannot do your job because your religious-based garb is getting in your way, it’s perfectly justifiable for a judge to tell you that you cannot continue in that state. If a raging drunk attorney tried to practice law, and had an honest and fervent belief that Dionysus was his personal god, would it be tolerable for a judge to allow him to continue?

Tolerance should be based on observable evidence of this potential to cause harm. In the blind acceptance of the acts and desires of the religious, there is a tacit acceptance that the unsupported claims of the religious are true and that anything that their deities “approve” of should be considered “good.”

However, on the flip side, we should not reject others for their choice of outerwear if it doesn’t have an actual, tangible, negative effect. Certainly, people will speculate and gossip about how the wearing of the burqa is an affront to our western way of life. But that’s pretty much how, fifty years ago, the dissenters in America saw Elvis, and in Britain saw The Beatles. Now those rockers are icons. Instead of just accepting what can be accepted, and rejecting what should be rejected (e.g., any form of law that is established based on a belief that a higher power created and imposed such law, or any inhumane treatment of women or others based on that law or culture), Britain is accepting everything, lest it appear intolerant, and establishing a state of paranoia and a culture of fear.

One might argue that it is the nature of our society to mingle religious and secular law, so why specifically target Islam as an undesirable influence? Although it is arguable that some Abrahamic religious ideals have been infused into western law by zealous religious lawmakers, that does not justify further deviation from secular government in the name of tolerance. We are slowly uprooting those “blue” laws, and the benefits of doing so reach across multiple beliefs as well as non-belief (because those laws tend to favor one narrow-minded point of view). We cannot blindly accept all religious opinions, lest we create impossible situations when two claims of “divine rightness” clash. Which “belief” will prevail? Tossing more religious-based law into the pot is counter-intuitive. We should, instead, worry about filtering out religion from our existing laws.

[Article written by Procrustes and Velkyn]

1. Sharia law is spreading as authority wanes, Telegraph.co.uk. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1535478/ Sharia-law-is-spreading-as-authority-wanes.html [↩]
2. Sharia law in UK is ‘unavoidable’, BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm [↩]
3. Muslims’ Veils Test Limits of Britain’s Tolerance, The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/world/europe/22veil.html [↩]
4. Atheist Richard Dawkins blames Muslims for ‘importing creationism’ into classrooms, Fiona Macrae, Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041089/Atheist-Richard-Dawkins-blames-Muslims-importing-creationism-classrooms.html [↩]
5. One third of British Muslim Students: Killing in the name of Islam is acceptable, Religion News Blog. http://www.religionnewsblog.com/21867/one-third-of -british-muslim-students-killing-in-the-name-of-islam-is-acceptable [↩]

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 [↩]

Look up rational activism in the encyclopedia, and you should find Sean Tevis. If not, slip his bio in there.

Last week (on or about July 16), Sean created a web page with some stick-figure action figures resembling Frank Miller’s “300.” These stick figures were yelling something about how the Internet could change the face of political history. Well, it did, and it’s still going strong.

Arlen Siegfreid is a Kansas state representative, a right-wing conservative who is anti-abortion, pro-censorship, anti-same-sex marriage, pro-surveillance, and pro-creationism (in public schools). Although Representative Siegfreid seems a shoe-in for the next election, Sean, a non-politician “Information Architect,” wants to run against him.

With a common sense platform, mostly designed to oppose Siegfreid, Sean readied himself to play the political race game, until he stumbled upon a hurdle that would seem insurmountable for most would-be activists: he needed name recognition cash. According to Sean’s entertaining stick-figured explanation of the situation, 93.4% of the time it’s the candidate with the most advertising money who wins an election. It’s mid-July, and Sean asks, “How much do I need?” The verdict: $26,000. By July 28.

Game over, man! Game over!

No, not for Sean! See, Sean is an educated man. Sean knew that it would require 52 donors, donating $500 each, to meet his goal. However, having spent some time learning basic math in school, Sean figured that he could reduce the amount of individual donations required by increasing the number of donors. Brilliant! Reminds me of the idea I had as a child to send a letter to every resident of the U.S., asking for them to send me a dollar each. I’d have been a millionaire for sure! Except that I wasn’t so great at math, and I didn’t account for the fact that it would actually cost me money to send those letters, and I would have to offset any earnings made by the cost of those letters, and I wasn’t guaranteed to get any money. Even if half of the U.S. sent me a dollar, I’d still end up with a negative return. But, as Sean says, This is the Internet!

Instead of trying to find a handful of very generous donors, Sean would seek out great gobs of very slightly generous donors, via the Internet, which is practically free.

His goal was to acquire 3000 donors, donating $8.34 each.

He drew his stick-figure story, and posted his request website page, with a little button link to donate via PayPal. He even listed the basic campaign finance rules and a list of perks for higher than requested donations (campaign t-shirts, coffee mugs, and Kansas flags, among them).

And then he waited. (I’m sure the waiting involved a bit of “alerting the press”)

BoingBoing (one of my favorite must-visit-daily websites), and a few others got the word. I got the word from BB, and spread it to the Atheist Think Tank forum. I monitored Sean’s website, watching the donors increase slowly. I was getting worried. When I first started watching, he had only acquired a hundred or so. But, probably because of all the latency created by the flood of visitors to his website, I was likely not seeing what was really happening. My forum friends informed me that they had either donated or that the website was sluggish. We started passing out Sean’s direct email so that we could donate via PayPal without going through his website. We sat and watched and cheered and rallied. And, apparently, so did a hell of a lot of others.

And today, July 21, the number of donors is 5,298.

That’s five-thousand, two hundred and ninety-eight donors.

Screw 3000, make 6000!

Apparently no state representative in Kansas history has ever had more than 644 donors.

WIN!¹

But you know what has gotten me really excited about all this? It’s not Sean Tevis specifically, although I think he’s established himself as a hero. It’s that this has given us an example of how we can use our resources to make progressive change, to rally against the incumbents who want to tell us that the way to live our lives must conform to their twisted ideologies. It shows us that there are people out there who give a shit, and although they might not all individually be able to stand up and fight, they sure can click a button and send a real representative a few bucks to help do something about this strangulation we’re enduring. And that representative can do what needs to be done without worrying about not being related to an oil tycoon. If you want to phrase that in popular terminology (that, in its spiritual sense, doesn’t necessarily correspond to my rational belief system, but is a close enough word), it gives us rationals some hope.

Sean Tevis needed 3000 of us to help him kick some ass.

What we need is 3000 Sean Tevises.

First, go visit Sean Tevis by clicking these words, and see what he’s done, and maybe donate a little.

Second, do something about something. I can’t tell you exactly what to do. All I know is that if we even had ten, twenty more people like Sean Tevis, we could start reversing this trend of government-sponsored, taxpayer funded perniciousness. Donate to a Sean Tevis, run your own campaign, start a local paper or a blog, get active.

1. or “PWN!” if that suits you [↩]

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 [↩]

The 23rd World Youth Day celebrations are currently being hosted in Sydney, Australia from the 15th to the 20th of July. The official World Youth Day (WYD) 2008 site describes it as “the largest youth event in the world… attended by the Pope and hundreds of thousands of young people from all over the globe… to celebrate and learn about their faith on a more regular basis”.¹ It is the religious equivalent of a week-long music festival, complete with services, entertainment acts, a welcome from the Prime Minister, and Pope Benedict XVI’s first official public appearance in Australia ever to an anticipated crowd of 500,000.²

The estimate of the taxpayer cost for this event is currently at AU$160 million with AU$86 million coming from the NSW state government, well beyond the proportion of funds contributed by past host cities. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church is putting forward only AU$115 million, with AU$75 million expected to be recouped from attendance fees.³ The number of people converging on the CBD is expected to go well beyond that experienced in the 2000 Olympics.⁴ Road closures and disruptions are expected to exceed the inconveniences caused during the 2007 APEC summit,⁵ and the lead-up to the event was beset by anxieties over the ability of Sydney’s underfunded infrastructure to cope with the load of so much human traffic.^{6 7}

While this all might suggest that Australia is quite fond of organised religion, particularly Roman Catholicism, the statistical data evinces a different scenario. Though Catholicism is the largest denomination in Sydney, it is still only a minority of less than 30%.⁸ This year, an international study revealed many striking features of religion in Australia, including the significantly high rate of nominalism in Catholics. 31% of Australians said they lacked a belief in any god, making Australia the fourth least religious nation out of 21 in the study. General interest in religion and religious issues also recorded significantly low. Unsurprisingly, youth were found to be the least religious of all. ⁹

In such an unsuitable environment for an event promoting religion to the masses, the clandestine introduction of special police powers for World Youth Day has proved to be widely unpopular. Using a cleverly arranged legal loop-hole that bypassed parliamentary scrutiny, the deputy Premier gazetted new regulations on June 25, that allowed for a AU$5,500 fine to anyone who “causes annoyance or inconvenience to participants in a World Youth Day event”.¹⁰ The word “annoyance” was vague enough to endanger people’s right to demonstrate and campaign during the event. Members of Broken Rites, a support group for church sex abuse victims, reported being approached by police to have their banners and placards pre-approved for their intended demonstration. The NoToPope coalition expressed concern that they would not be allowed to hand out condoms and protest papal doctrines on sexuality. The consequence of this law that was most widely publicised was that merely wearing a shirt with an anti-catholic or anti-WYD slogan could result in fine or arrest.¹¹ In response to this, the NoToPope coalition staged a “fashion show” in front of State Parliament, displaying a range of potentially offensive shirts.¹²

The government attempted to justify these laws as nothing out of the ordinary, comparing them to the sort of controls used at sporting events, but as Stephen Blanks of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties has pointed out, normally such laws would apply to all sports spectators, not just those supporting the visiting team. It seems that the state government is eager to avoid a repeat of last year’s embarrassment during APEC, where a comedy team made it through two police checkpoints in a fake motorcade, carrying one of their members dressed as Osama bin Laden. They were let off on all charges due to the role that police complacency played in the incident.¹³

Finally, on Tuesday this week, a court ruling deemed the term “annoyance” to be invalid, due to its propensity to outlaw almost behaviour as trivial as tying a shoelace. However, it did not remove the term “inconvenience” from the law, which the Premier claimed was good enough to embue police with the power to suppress undesirable behaviour. ¹⁴

With growing mass dissent and a lack of religious zealotry, it is puzzling to many why Sydney was made to bear this burden at all. Premier Iemma’s main incentive to the public is a promised boost of AU$200 million to the local economy.¹⁵ Retailers don’t seem convinced, however, including the CEO of Myer who predicts losses around $20 million dollars due to their business.¹⁶ NSW Trainers Association says that the AU$41 million compensation deal that had to be struck in order to re-locate 700 horses from Randwick Racecourse will not cover all costs, nor will it justify the risk of a new outbreak of equine influenza which saw last year’s Spring Carnival cancelled.¹⁷ There have been reports that the sex industry can expect a surge in business thanks to non-catholic visitors accompanying World Youth Day, but even that prospect seems to be unsupported speculation.¹⁸

Another proposed justification is as a sort of reciprocation for the contribution the Catholic Church makes to the community through hospitals and schools. State-funded hospitals contracted to the Catholic church often do not refer rape victims to rape counseling (because such services offer emergency contraception to victims), will not perform procedures such as vasectomies and abortions, and will often refuse to host IVF facilities. ¹⁹ Like these hospitals, Catholic schools also receive significant amounts of public money- the government gives Catholic school students 73% as much funding as public schools²⁰ - and really only provide education opportunities to children whose parents are willing to subject them to doctrines of the Catholic church from as young as 5 years old. Considering how few people in NSW subscribe strongly to the particulars of Catholic morality and superstition, it is more plausible to say that these services are being co-opted by the Catholic church for its own agenda, than to say the church has invested its own funding into meeting the interests of the broader community.

However, there is a positive side to all this controversy. Threats of strike action during WYD08 forced the government to settle a long running pay dispute with the transport union.²¹ The gazetting of anti-free speech “annoyance” laws has revived the debate over whether Australia needs a Bill of Rights, and the succesful challenge of these laws has been a blow for the government’s attempts to subvert democratic processes. The inconveniences and injustices of World Youth Day have united businesses, unions and the general public in a way that is rarely seen in politically moderate Australia. As much as the church expects to boost its numbers from this event, many activist groups can expect an increase in support flowing on from the publicity they’ve received. Most of all, many previously complacent citizens have been forced to recognise the importance of vigilance over the powers entrusted to political leaders.

It is clear that rational activists and civil libertarians will not let this mass mobilisation of youth in the name of superstitious dogma go unanswered.

Editorial note: Bishop Anthony Fisher, a World Youth Day coordinator, has lately been criticized for his remarks regarding Catholic victims of sex abuse. “Happily, I think most of Australia was enjoying [and] delighting in the beauty and goodness of these young people and the hope for us doing these sorts of things better in the future, as we saw last night, rather than dwelling crankily - as a few people are doing - on old wounds.”²²

1. ”WYD08″. World Youth Day 2008. Accessed 8th June, 2008 http://www.wyd2008.org [↩]
2. Kuczynski, Marcus. “500,000 set to converge on Sydney Harbour to see Pope”. June 17, 2008. The Courier Mail: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24030868-953,00.html [↩]
3. Powell, Sian. “World Youth Day to cost taxpayers $160m”. April 22, 2008. The Australian: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23578255-5013404,00.html [↩]
4. ”WYD08″. World Youth Day 2008. Accessed 8th June, 2008 http://www.wyd2008.org [↩]
5. ”Road Closures for World Youth Day 2008″, Roads and Traffic Authority NSW. Accessed 8th June 2008 http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/newsevents/2008_03_wyd.html [↩]
6. Hildebrand, Joe. “World Youth Day staff crisis to force free travel”. 3rd June 2008. The Daily Telegraph: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23960027-5013605,00.html [↩]
7. ”Traffic Warnings ahead of Youth Day”. June 14, 2008. AAP: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24015484-5016937,00.html [↩]
8. ”2006 Census QuickStats: Sydney {Urban Centre/Locality}”, Australian Bureau of Statistics. Accessed 8th June 2008 http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ [↩]
9. ”High level of religious identity paired with low level of belief”, Bertelsmann foundation. Accessed 8th June 2008 http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/ [↩]
10. ”World Youth Day Amendment Regulation 2008 - Clause 7″, NSW Bar Association, Accessed 8th June 2008 http://www.nswbar.asn.au/circulars/july/wyd_reg2.pdf [↩]
11. Joel Gibson, Jano Gibson and Linda Morris, “Protests need our blessing, say police”. 2nd June 2008 http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/protests-need-our-blessing-say-police/2008/07/01/1214678038215.html [↩]
12. ”‘Annoying’ proteters hold spoof fashion show”. Australian Broadcasting Corporation News. 9th June 2008 http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/09/2298949.htm [↩]
13. Daniel Emerson and Arjun Ramachandran, “Chaser’s APEC stunt charges dropped”. 28th April 2008 http://www.smh.com.au/news/tv–radio/chasers-apec-stunt-charges-dropped/2008/04/28/1209234710155.html [↩]
14. “RACHEL EVANS and AMBER PIKE v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES”. Australasian Legal Information Institute. 17th June 2008, http://www.austlii.edu.au/ [↩]
15. ”WYD ‘will have its benefits’”. SBS World News Australia. 24th June 2008 http://news.sbs.com.au/worldnewsaustralia/wyd_39will_have_its_benefits39_550098 [↩]
16. ”Myer boss says World Youth Day will be ‘catastrophic’ for sales”. smartcompany.com.au 7th July 2008 http://www.smartcompany.com.au/Free-Articles/The-Briefing/20080707-Myer-boss-says-World-Youth-Day-will-be-catastrophic-for-sales.html [↩]
17. Morris, Linda. “Taxpayers’ $95m bill for World Youth Day”. Sydney Morning Herald. 16th November 2007 http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/taxpayers-95m-bill-for-world-youth-day/2007/11/15/1194766868787.html [↩]
18. Plambeck, Sean. “World Youth Day ‘will be a boost for sex industry’. news.com.au 3rd June 2008 http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23804107-5016937,00.html [↩]
19. Franklin, Matthew. “Doctors want Catholic beliefs out of state hospitals”. The Australian. 12th January 2007 http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21045678-421,00.html [↩]
20. ”Catholic systemic school funding”. Catholic Education Office Sydney. Accessed 8th June 2008 http://www.ceosyd.catholic.edu.au/cms/Jahia/pid/3330 [↩]
21. ”World Youth Day strike called off”. TVNZ News. 9th July 2008 http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/1896758 [↩]
22. ”Catholic Bishop says abuse victims are ‘dwelling on old wounds’”. July 18, 2008. http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/07/16/Stop_dwelling_on_the_old_wounds_Bishop_Fisher_tells_sex_abuse_victims [↩]

There seems to be a free pass for all politicians when it comes to matters not directly related to their rhetoric. While this has applied to all politicians, and therefore this could easily be about John McCain or Hillary Clinton, I would like to point it out about Mr. Barack Obama.¹ Mr. Obama has been given a free pass concerning his Church and his various friendships with people of extreme viewpoints. I believe that this should not be the case. Even though they are not directly related to his specific rhetoric, they do become an issue by the very nature of what you consider worth being around ends up affecting you.

I don’t believe that Mr. Obama thinks America is the evil that his Pastor (now former pastor) says it is, but at the same time, if you hear negative things about America for 20 years, how can it not affect your viewpoint? I don’t believe Mr. Obama shares the ideology of his more extreme friends (comrades?), but how many times can you hear their viewpoint, without at least letting some of it inside? Whether it is right or wrong may be a different issue, but the bottom line is the lack of judgment in these issues either shows a fairly obvious deficiency in the basic ability to discern “problematic things” or that he in some way is implicitly “endorsing” those views on some levels.

I think we all agree that Mr. Obama was playing the Politician role when he claimed he never heard his pastor say unkind things about America. We are expected to believe him when he says, “I did not hear such incendiary language myself, personally, either in conversations with him or when I was in the pew. He always preached the social gospel and was sometimes controversial in the same way that many people who‘d speak out on social issues are controversial.”²

Given that he did sit through these sermons, and I personally believe he must have over the course of a twenty year period, then he should absolutely be held accountable for that. How much “accountability,” or what should be done? In my opinion these things are not overly huge, and all other things being equal they are minor with respect to the “bigger fish to fry type issues” in and of themselves. The problem however is that it seems that we are used to giving people free passes when it comes to faith and that simply should not be.

“The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive.” –Sam Harris

Sam Harris describes how we give a free pass as long as the religion is close to home. Presidents (and people running for any office) should be held accountable for their beliefs. They should be asked something along the lines of “If you were praying to your God, and felt that his answer was to bomb (Insert any place here), would you do it? Why or why not?” This shows the idiocy of the situation. Because if they are truly getting the word form God, then who can fault them for blowing up a country based on what God says? And if they say they won’t, then it shows just how much their belief in God means.

Either Mr. Obama was in a church for 20 years and chose to ignore the appointed by God minister, or he believes what that minister says and ultimately will let it affect his decision. To be quite frank, I am not sure which of these is worse. If Mr. Obama does not believe his own God should be listened to (That he chose to spend his valuable time with in accordance to “God’s Word”), then how can we know what Mr. Obama will do to something less sacred, like for example the Constitution? And if he does accept the sermons as being sent from God via this minister, then to close with a slightly inappropriate phrase, God help us all.

Disclaimer: I am an active duty military member, but anything I write is simply my opinion and in no way is expected to be coming from the military. I am acting as a citizen in anything I write. Also to be clear, No matter who is elected president, I will gladly serve them with pride, as I have served both President Clinton and President Bush. I may or may not agree with any or all of their respective politics, but I will follow the orders they give. This specific article is to be absolutely clear, not designed to be an attack on Mr. Obama. If I were voting for him, this issue would give me pause, but would ultimately be minor. If I were not voting for him, this would not be why, as I have stated that all of the candidates in various ways are given free passes on most areas of Personal responsibility when it comes to “faith” specifically.

Post script: I would like everyone to think on the Bomb question.

“If you were praying to your God, and felt that his answer was to bomb (Insert any place here), would you do it? Why or why not?”

Let’s assume the place was Iran during a war with them, where they have aggressively attacked American soil. But keeping in mind, what made you decide yes, according to this scenario was “God”, not the prevailing logic behind it. Most people would not bat an eye if you admitted this.

However if for some reason, You decided as a result of prayer with “God” to bomb Washington D.C. for no reason other than God told you to in prayer, I think we can all agree that this would be unacceptable.

There is only one conclusion. Your God is not what makes things “right or “wrong”. It is the prevailing wisdom behind your decision. Point of fact, Your God is simply an excuse to shift personal responsibility from you to somewhere that can not be attacked. Accept responsibility for your actions. Demand that others accept responsibility for theirs. This will make the entire world better, one paradigm shift at a time.

1. This is not to imply he is or is not the best candidate. I am using him as the example, but keep in mind with different example this could apply to every candidate in the last 20 years at a minimum. [↩]
2. Found on the folling link taken NBC Keith Olbermann show. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23675485/ [↩]

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 New York Times recently had an op-ed about the Vatican and its new concern about how it appoints saints “Trials of the Saints.”¹ Saints, per the Roman Catholic Church, have magical powers to heal, etc. Most times, this healing happens after they are dead.

One would think that determining the actuator of a “miraculous” event, when very dead and at best now only “spirit” and therefore invisible, might be rather difficult. However, the RCC insists that it has very rigorous procedures to determine whether saint-caused miracles are “real.” In the article, Mr. Martin says that the Vatican uses “teams of doctors (not all of them Catholic) who assiduously rule out any other cause for a healing.” The Congregation for the Causes of Saints does not have the document mentioned in the article up at the time of this writing² However, an earlier document, New Laws for the Causes of Saints, states, “34. a) In the case of a cure from some disease, the Bishop or his delegate is to seek help from a physician, who is to propose questions to the witnesses in order to clarify matters according to necessity and circumstances. b) If the person healed is still alive, he is to be examined by experts so that the duration of the healing can be ascertained.³ It does not mention that any of the doctors need to be not Catholic, and I suspect, without corroborating evidence, that those non-Catholic physicians are few and far between. After this review by experts, the following occurs: “14) The Congregation examines cases of alleged miracles in the following way: 1. The Relator assigned to this task is to prepare a Position on alleged miracles. They are discussed in a meeting of experts (in the case of healings, in a meeting of physicians), whose votes and conclusions are set forth in an accurate report. 2. Then the miracles are to be discussed in the special meeting of the theologians and, finally, in that of the Cardinals and Bishops.”⁴ There is nothing that requires the Cardinals and Bishops to accept the findings of the physicians. I have yet to find any definitive information on what standards the bishops and cardinals use. I have also not found out how they determine a particular miracle can really be assigned to a particular candidate. It seems to be only determined by who the miracle-claimant said that they most recently prayed to for healing. Truly, I suppose that’s the only possible way to figure it out, without the use of a PKE meter.

We can see that there is a built in prejudice for the acceptance of saints. We see that Pope Benedict has stated that “The evidence for the causes is collected and studied with supreme care and with a diligent search for the historic truth through testimonies and documentary proof “omnino plenae,” for they have no other aim than the glory of God and the spiritual good of the Church and of all who are in search of the Gospel truth and perfection.”⁵ People with “no other aim” are indeed prejudiced in favor of the RCC. If they were perhaps claimed to have “no other aim” than the truth, perhaps one could more confidently accept what they aver.

I can agree with Mr. Martin in that the RCC must be very careful in how it presents its saints and should endeavor to be very meticulous in its examinations. However, since most “miracles” come from countries with poor health care and record keeping, how can a doctor, or any person really be assured that a miracle occurred? How many recipients of “miracles” have medical records that support their claims of imminent death? Why are there no “miracles” that have the regrowth of an amputated limb, surely not beyond the capabilities of saints who can supposedly cure horrific cancers? Why is the most stringent requirement of the beatification/canonization process the determination of witnesses to be “trustworthy” by members of the Church? If one could actually find any evidence that miracles were “serious scientific business” as Mr. Martin claims, if we could see the reports, etc., I’m sure it would be “more difficult for agnostics and atheists to disbelieve.” However, that has not happened for the last 2000+ years and I doubt it ever will.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/opini … ref=slogin [↩]
2. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr … s/csaints/ [↩]
3. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr … me_en.html [↩]
4. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_ … er_en.html [↩]