Good Reason

It's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to stay wrong.

Page 94 of 126

Open Thread for family members re: Daniel’s atheism

2 March 2007 / / 4 Comments

Since I’ve already come out as an atheist to my family members, you wouldn’t think the contents of Good Reason would be much of a surprise to them. However, at least one has reacted with dismay as the extent of my rejection of theism has become apparent.

So this is an open thread where family members who have recently found the blog can chat, discuss, fulminate, or cajole. Other readers are also invited to share their experiences (from either side) of family and faith or non-faith.

I’ll start.

When people identify closely with a religion that emphasises family, the rejection of the shared values of the religion seems to entail a rejection of family. Allow me to assure you that this is not the case. I love you guys, and I’m grateful to have the family I do. My decision to follow the evidence instead of feelings has not been an easy one. However, as I’ve come to understand the frailty of human perception and the workings of reason, I’m convinced that the evidence as we have it points overwhelmingly to a lack of gods. I’m aware that this view has caused some pain to my Mormon family members, who view religion as the way to return to God and live together as a family forever. But I’m confident in saying that, on the pain scale, no one has been more affected than myself, as I have abandoned a belief system that I had faithfully followed and invested heavily in all my life. At the same time, being an ethical atheist is a noble thing, and part of a long and honourable tradition. I can explain things I couldn’t before. The candle of reason is small, but it shines brightly, and illuminates warmly.

Feel free to share your thoughts and feelings by clicking on the ‘number of comments’ link.

Swearing class observations

1 March 2007 / / 11 Comments

The swearing class has wrapped. I have to say, it was a lot of fun to teach. Part linguistic dissection, and part rowdy storytelling.

The students made a lot of interesting observations. One student, a mother, related her children’s reaction when she told a salacious joke over dinner. From anyone else, the kids would have enjoyed it, but from Mom it was an absolute clanger. It made me reflect on the social aspect of language. To other people, we seem to be these bundles of expectations. When we step outside the expectations of others, social incongruity is sure to follow.

Most of the words we consider ‘dirty’ were once matter-of-fact terms, with no inherently obscene connotations. These words wouldn’t become taboo until the Puritan crackdown of the 1600s. Insults are an exception. One gentleman researched the epithet ‘raghead’, and found that it dated from British involvement in India, recently dusted off and used for Muslims. In many ways, the class was a chance to see the sad history of how we torment each other with our words.

Even more sobering for me was a discussion of how blasphemy was punished in Colonial America.

2. If any pson wthin ye Province professing ye true God shall wittingly and willingly presume to blaspheme the wholly name of God, Father, Son or Holy Ghost, wth direct, express, presumptions or high-handed blasphemy, either by willful or obstinate denying ye true God or his creation or Governmt of ye world, or shall curse God, Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, such pson shall be put to death. Levit. 24: 15 and 16.

Now imagine that. A capital offense, and you didn’t even have to swear. All you had to do was, in essence, be an atheist.

I hope this is enough to disperse the lie that America was established as a land of religious liberty. America was established by Puritans, a bunch of religious froot-loopers so fanatical that no one else could stand them. They happily bored awls through people’s tongues, branded their foreheads with a B, and killed them for using certain God-words outside of a religious context. How many people were tortured and killed for their words and opinions in order to assuage the Biblical god?

America wouldn’t become a land of religious liberty until a bunch of free-thinkers, deists, agnostics, and atheists established the Constitution and dragged the nation out of the muck of Puritanism.

Finally, to my Christian readers: when you hear people arguing that America is a Christian nation (as they seem to), ask yourself if this is the kind of Christianity you want. There are many types, and you may not get to select your favourite flavour. In view of the punishments mentoned above, the wall of separation between church and state starts to look better and better.

People of faith

21 February 2007 / / 6 Comments

Part one:

A Pakistani minister and woman’s activist has been shot dead by an Islamic extremist for refusing to wear the veil.

Zilla Huma Usman, the minister for social welfare in Punjab province and an ally of President Pervez Musharraf, was killed as she was about to deliver a speech to dozens of party activists, by a “fanatic”, who believed that she was dressed inappropriately and that women should not be involved in politics, officials said.
…
The gunman, Mohammad Sarwar, was overpowered by the minister’s driver and arrested by police. A stone mason in his mid 40s, he is not thought to belong to any radical group but is known for his fanaticism. He was previously held in 2002 in connection with the killing and mutilation of four prostitutes, but was never convicted due to lack of evidence.

Mr Sarwar appeared relaxed and calm when he told a television channel that he had carried out God’s order to kill women who sinned. “I have no regrets. I just obeyed Allah’s commandment,” he said, adding that Islam did not allow women to hold positions of leadership. “I will kill all those women who do not follow the right path, if I am freed again,” he said.

Part two:

We need to have a person of faith lead the country.

Mitt Romney, 17 February 2007

Was there ever a man of more unshakable faith, of greater moral certainty than Mohammad Sarwar?

Would you vote for an atheist?

20 February 2007 / / 5 Comments

Dead last. This must not stand.


Muslims aren’t listed because they actually went into negative territory. Which actually can happen; someone says ‘no’ with such vehemence that it negates other people’s ‘yes’ votes and then some. Happened in Ohio, too.

But how come there’s no category: alcoholic with a criminal record? What would they score? Obviously between 49-51 percent.

A few reasons, perhaps. Atheists have been the Scary Monsters of the American political scene for fifty years. Everyone can dump on them with impunity. And why not? No one knows any atheists. Or if you do, they just tell you that your beliefs are made up, and who likes that? They have no morals, except for the ones they catch by osmosis from Christians. Plus they’re angry. Angry! Grrrrrr.

Wow, I’d scarcely vote for myself! Too scary!

UPDATE: I realised that ‘alcoholic with a criminal record’ doesn’t really cover Bush because the question said ‘generally well-qualified’. My bad.

You think your job sucks.

19 February 2007 / / 1 Comment

Just be glad you’re not a Republican running for U.S. President.

First of all, you’re horrendously unpopular, with self-reported Republican identification the lowest in years. Then you have to Defend the Indefensible and argue for escalation of the war in Iraq/Iran/Syria. I mean, maybe you’re a sensible person and maybe you can even count, and you’d like to take some positions that Americans actually agree with, so already you’re a little edgy.

Then you have to take a position like this:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, looking to improve his standing with the party’s conservative voters, said Sunday the court decision that legalized abortion should be overturned.

“I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned,” the Arizona senator told about 800 people in South Carolina, one of the early voting states.

Suicide! I seem to remember that Roe vs. Wade is immmensely popular, and has been for, oh, about 30 years.

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Jan. 19-21, 2007. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its 1973 Roe versus Wade decision concerning abortion, or not?”

Would: 29
Would Not: 62
Unsure: 9

Yes, that’s about right. So why run against that? Oh.

McCain is trying to build support among conservatives after a recent rebuke from Christian leader James Dobson, who said he wouldn’t back McCain’s presidential bid.

Tsk.

So after kissing Dobson’s shiny white ass, followed by Robertson’s, Swaggart’s, and probably Haggard’s (but that one’s on your own time), you’re still not done. You have to cap off the evening by doing something really Christian, like attending a purity ball, or…

McCain later attended an evening rally promoting an abstinence program.

Yeah, something like that.

He told the crowd of more than 1,000 teens and parents that young people have pressures far different from the ones he faced while growing up. “Sometimes I’ve made the wrong choice,” McCain said.

So, that’s a ‘no’ on abstinence? I think I need a less ambiguous comment on that.

I wonder what it must be like for the Republican candidates. To ignore the vast majority of Americans so you can court the vote of the most freaked-out minority just seems nuts. It would drive me crazy. But then, I’m not masochistic enough to be a Republican.

And another thing: Whose (the fuck) business is it anyway that you took a tumble in the hay with Mary Lou in 1955? Imagine having to flagellate yourself publicly over it at an abstinence rally in 2007. Unbelievable!

Here’s me at the rally: Kids, we got it on! And it was great! I don’t regret it for a second! We were young and gorgeous, and our skin was soft yet firm. I’ll never boink an eighteen-year-old woman again, and it’s one of my choicest memories.

No wonder they don’t vote for atheists. Mom and Dad and Grandma wouldn’t have liked that part of my speech.

Impeachment for Bush and Cheney

18 February 2007 / / 8 Comments

Most of the impeachment talk that was swirling around last November after the elections has died down, sadly. There was quite a bit of hand-wringing from liberals. ‘But is impeachment the right thing to do?’ they would ask.

Well, if the president has committed a crime, which wiretapping is (but that’s just one example), and if he’s admitted to committing these crimes, which he has, then yes, charging him with a crime is the right thing to do and not a partisan thing at all. The only reasons not to impeach the president is that you lack the gumption to stick it to Bush/Cheney (sadly true for most of the Democrats in Congress), or you are sufficiently not committed to the rule of law (sadly true for most of the Republicans), or you are trying to see if that’s the best way to ‘play it’. Which is so cynical I can hardly believe it.

Lots of people have argued against impeachment, among them Kos. The argument is that Democrats can try for an unsuccessful impeachment bid, or Democrats can show American voters that they can run the country in preparation for 2008. Hey, why not both?

So I’m quite pleased to see that my home state of Washington is starting (and I see that New Mexico has already passed) an impeachment resolution of its own.

Washington State is one of several states racing to see which will be first to send the U.S. House of Representatives a petition to impeach Bush and Cheney.

State Senator Eric Oemig, on February 14, 2007, introduced a resolution (PDF) calling on the Washington State Legislature to petition the U.S. House. Please thank him: oemig.eric@leg.wa.gov

Having this come at the state level is great: it costs Congressional Democrats nothing, and keeps the heat on Bush/Cheney. With these psychos, anything that can keep them off-balance and not invading Iran is good.

This is the way the right wing has done it for years. People like Limbaugh and Coulter say outrageous things, and listeners say, “Oh, that’s far too extreme,” and maybe the blowhards even cop some heat for saying it (but more likely they make money). But in the process, they push the dialogue over to the right. Then ‘moderate (by comparison)’ Republicans get to split the difference:

Interviewer: Right-wing Pundit, do you agree with these statements that liberals should be killed?
Right-wing Pundit: No, I’m advocating the rather more sensible step of imprisonment for treason.

And this is how American discourse has gotten to this sorry state. So I’m happy to see some pushback toward the left at the state level. Hey, aren’t conservatives the ones who are so big on states’ rights? Here it is in action.

Hero of the week: Bill Purcell

14 February 2007 / / 2 Comments

Nashville mayor Bill Purcell has put the smack down on an ugly and unnecessary piece of legislation that would have made English the official language of Nashville. And along the way, he makes some points I wish everyone could hear:

English is our language. It has been so since before the city existed more than 200 years ago.

It is the language we use to conduct the city’s business. In order to get ahead in Nashville a person needs to be able to speak English.

This has been the case for more than 200 years. It is not going to change.

We don’t need a law to tell us what language we are already speaking.
…
This is not who we are. At the heart of this ordinance is the issue of immigration. We are dealing with that issue by supporting the deportation of illegal aliens who commit crimes. But this ordinance goes beyond illegal immigration to put at risk our community and its ability to welcome and work with those people who come to our city legally and want to be a part of our city.

These English-only bills pop up once in a while because they tap into resentment of ‘furriners’. But it’s a bit harder to legislate prejudice so overtly these days, so try to accomplish the same thing by pulling support for other languages. Once again, right-wingers try and hit the people who have it the hardest, just so insecure Anglos can feel safe and superior.

It would have been easy for Purcell to go along with this, reasoning that it’s a meaningless symbolic gesture that wouldn’t have any real impact. Instead, he chose to fight the hatred, xenophobia, and small-mindedness represented by the English-only movement. And so I’m naming Mayor Bill Purcell my Hero of the Week.

The false gatekeeper

11 February 2007 / / 4 Comments

There’s this argument out there that atheists aren’t moral. Maybe you’re one of those rare atheists who can manage to restrain yourself from looting and pillaging despite your lack of belief in divine retribution. Maybe you’re even kind and good, and return library books on time. Are you then a moral person?

Not according to the author of this essay: ‘The Lie of Moral Atheism’. See, you’ve rejected God, the source of all goodness and morality. How could anything you do be ethical? What you’re doing must be something else besides ethics.

When secular humanists, agnostics, nontheists, and atheists reject God and yet claim to be moral and ethical, they are first lying to themselves. If they reject the origin of truth, morality and ethics, their version of truth and morality can only be a subjective counterfeit. Trouble is, this brand of moral relativism is being taught wholesale throughout the country. And the atheists are organizing to get more of it. Proverbs 22:6 says, “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” All the more reason the Bible should be used as a textbook in every school.

Buh. Duh. Guh. Must… fight… non sequitur

I’m fine now. They tried to hit me with a Confusion Attack. Good thing I had 20 health and rolled a six, or that could have been serious.


Dear God, please let them not see through the faulty reasoning, at least not until the checks are cashed.

I’ve noticed a strategy that religious belief systems use to survive. They piggyback onto life milestones, and act like they own them. These are:

  • birth, which religions co-opt with ceremonies like baptism or blessing
  • adulthood (or young adulthood), commemorated in bar mitzvahs and first communions. In LDS culture, this finds expression in priesthood (for boys) and missions (a later adulthood ritual)
  • marriage, which serves as a symbol for the beginning of long-term relationships
  • death, with its funerals and last rites

And then basic moral goodness, as in our example above.

The ceremonies are usually nice, and people like them. But because religions have set up shop around these basic parts of human life, it becomes difficult for believers to imagine the event occurring (or being done properly) in the absence of the ceremony. Yet parts of the life cycle, like birth, death, mating and the like have been around for as long as there have been organisms. It’s unnecessary for religions to come and claim them with ceremonies. It’s like if I tried to set up a booth at the public library and charge admission.

Seen this way, religious belief systems act as parasites on life’s great moments. Allowing religion to claim them gives it strength that it hasn’t earned. And the parasite will always want more. Let ’em have marriage, and they’ll be claiming honesty and decency, and probably punctuality besides. Let ’em have those, and they’ll be coming for gravity.

Friday Random Five shakes my paranoia

9 February 2007 / / 2 Comments

Here I thought Soul Whirling Somewhere defined the genre of ‘sadcore’ with their first album “Eating the Sea”. Now via the magic of eMusic, I realise that the honour goes to Red House Painters. Though ‘Mistress’ got all the airplay in 1993, I’m entranced by ‘Katy Song’. After a brooding song with lyrics that would make Brian Wilson say, “Geez, that guy’s a bit pathetic,” the painters launch into a wondrous four-minute outro that could have repeated for the rest of the album without being tiresome.

And now for the random five.

Late Show by Book of Love
Album: Book of Love
Even though they hadn’t found their sound yet, I still enjoy the first album of sugary pop band Book of Love. I first saw the cover in a lovely young lady’s dorm room, and have always associated the album with that place ever since. This instrumental number attempts to rock out a bit, but cinematically so. The stronger numbers are the hits like ‘I Touch Roses’ and ‘Modigliani’. Music for a good mood.

Autumn fires by Bill Nelson
Album: Chamber of Dreams (Music from the Invisibility Exhibition)
Another song from the Bill Nelson 4-CD box set (five, if you count ‘Sounding the Ritual Echo’, which I do). This track is very representative of the set; washed-out swirly guitars hum under a layer of twittery improvised birdsong. A staid parade comes through at the end.

Crossroads by Tracy Chapman
Album: Collection
Sometimes I wonder about what makes an album ‘work’. You could be a really good musician, write an album full of well-formed and well-played songs, and someone (like me) wouldn’t like it. And I can’t really say why. Maybe it’s the religious imagery that turns me off, or maybe it doesn’t ‘speak to my condition’. But why doesn’t it? What makes a piece of music click? and what would make you say, “I really like this artist. I could get behind this, and buy everything they’ve done and maybe even wear the t-shirt out in public”? I don’t know. I just don’t care about this music, even though I think it’s technically fine. Have you got any bands like that?

Stop the Rock by Apollo 440
Album: Gettin’ High on Your Own Supply
People may scoff that this song is in the collection, but I will defend it. I clearly remember the first time I heard it — it was the year that companies were fighting each other for the right to use pop songs in their commercials, and Mars won this one. You must admit that the chorus is a bit of an earworm. Also it shows how much can be accomplished with just one chord.

Beethoven: Minuet in G, WoO 10/2 by Budapest Strings
Album: Meditation – Classical Relaxation
Ah, so this one’s by Beethoven. I always think of him as fiery and all Sturm und Drang, but maybe it’s just that portrait. A lovely and familiar piece. Maybe after a lifetime of listening to these mp3’s, I’ll remember which composer did what.

Bonus sixth:
Mao Badge by Duffy
Album: 17 (Single 1)
Songs like this reminds me why Stephen Duffy is my musical hero. A pop masterpiece, with so much instrumentation and all in the right place. It’s a lazy day with his favourite girl. “Let’s just stay in, play old records, and watch TV — something you taped on video.” But relationships are uncertain: “I hope that you’ll be here for the good and the bad times.” And then a poignant aside: “I hope that there aren’t too many bad times.” It’s a really beautiful song.

‘Good Shepherd’: good design

7 February 2007 / / 2 Comments

I like to point out good typography and design when I see it, and I’ve developed a man-crush on the poster for the film ‘The Good Shepherd’. It’s been popping up on bus stations around Perth, and it’s a masterful piece of work.

I don’t mean this poster, which is running in the USA:


although it’s good too. Notice how dramatic whitespace can be.

Here’s the Australian one, flattened for landscape orientation.

The first thing is the typography. They’ve used Optima, designed in 1959 by the inimitable Hermann Zapf. It’s simple, clean, unassuming, and perfect for the time in which the film was set.

Second is the globe with the actors’ faces. This kind of international look was all over the place in the 60s and 70s. It’s very UN. For some reason it reminds me of the original cover on the box of the game ‘Mastermind’.


But back to the poster.

Again, the whitespace is easy on the eye, though the effect is more pronounced for the portrait version.

Overall, the poster looks global, sophisticated, and commands attention without being garish. It’s perfectly in keeping with the mood and time of its subject matter. Just a nice piece.

« Older posts Newer posts »

Meta

© 2026 Good Reason

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑