America Is Not a Christian Nation

Tonight, it was brought to my attention that a Christian blogger made some pretty wild claims.  The claims are that atheists, secularists, etc. change or ignore historical fact to suit our needs, and that the USA was founded on Christianity, and we should apply its laws to our country's laws.  I'm here to defend the position that this country was not founded on Christian ideals, but was rather designed to protect it from Christian ideals.

The author points to the fact that the Puritans are the ones who founded the Colonies, and they wanted the Christian bible to be the law.  Not only did they not enforce their own ideals, but they're laws are completely irrelevant to today.  Their laws, while some might seem Christian, are not remarkably different than any other country's laws.

He then points to the fact that some of our Founding Fathers were Christian, and may have espoused the idea that Christianity was the best moral code.  This, too, is not relevant, because the Constitution that they wrote and signed has exactly one reference to a higher power, and it's the date.  Back then, dates were considered "In the Year of Our Lord."  Thankfully, that's no longer used.  Other than this one reference to any deity, the Constitution only refers to religion one time, which prohibits the government and religion from intermingling.  Moreover, in the Treaty of Tripoli, it is explicitly stated that the United States is not founded on Christian principles.

Furthermore, the author says near the end:

"The morality legislated in the United States of America has been decidedly Christian. Though many people throughout the history of this great nation have not been Christians, the morality that has been legislated from its very beginning has been Christian morality. It is ridiculous to say that Christian morality cannot be legislated, because it already has been."

I'm not entirely sure which laws he thinks are Christian.  We have plenty of laws that are found in Christianity, but they aren't exclusive to that religion.  Do not steal?  That's a common law everywhere.  Do not kill?  Same thing.  Do not rape?  Wait, no.  The Christian bible condones rape. What about when Jesus commands us to pluck out our eyes for looking at someone with lust?  That's not in our laws.

What the author has done is shown that, yes, the United States and Christianity do have laws in common.  The United States also has laws in common with the Koran.  The argument against that would be that the people who founded the colonies and country weren't Muslim so of course we aren't an Islamic country!  Again, their beliefs are not relevant.  The United States is not perfect, but if we were to base our laws strictly on Christianity, which I've shown is immoral by itself here, we would have a country not unlike Iran.

Furthermore, let's entertain the idea that the USA was designed to be a theocracy.  So, what?  We already know that the bible has some good things, but it has plenty of immoral atrocities that are commanded or performed by your god himself.  Christianity is not a good source of morals, nor is it a good thing to base a country on.  America is over 200 years older and wiser.  It no longer needs the morals of an angry, vengeful, sadist father figure.  America grew up.

Why Is Sex Talk Awkward?

This post is obviously about sex.  Lately, my Facebook feed has been full of pseudo-inspiring pictures talking about what real men and real women act like in a real relationship.  I've done a post already on why we should stop the slut shaming and double standard, but this one is about both genders.  In this post, I'm going to try not to bash religion too much, but its hard to talk about sex without talking about how much religion distorts sexuality.

I know that people like to talk about how special sex is, but it's not very often we ask why we think that.  It's been ingrained in us since before puberty.  Between abstinence-only education and no comprehensive sex education, we heard a lot about why we should wait until marriage to have sex, but it's been shown that between 90 and 95% of people don't wait.  Maybe they waited until they found someone special to do it with, but I remember back to my seventh and eighth grade abstinence classes (yes, I had two classes that told me not to have sex).  I also remember them giving surveys out before and after the class that asked, among other things, when we planned to have sex.  I very distinctly remember people around me afterwards talking about how they lied and said, on the survey, they planned to wait until they were either married or found someone special.  I know that I'm usually pretty against anecdotal arguments, so I want to be clear that I'm not using this as an argument or premise, but rather it's where my questioning began.

What was it that made these kids lie?  Why did they think it was necessary to lie on an anonymous survey?  Obviously, if you've read any of my other blog entries, you'll be able to guess where my first guess will be place:  Religion.  I participated in a research project in my senior undergraduate class that found that as people become more conservative or fundamental with religion, their level of support for offering birth control and comprehensive sex education to teenagers decreases.  It's also already known that the more conservative the religion is, the more guilt is present.  I'll let you draw your own conclusion for why you think that is.

Religious guilt aside, and there's a lot of guilt tied up in the pews, my generation grew up in an environment that didn't talk about sex.  There was no formal education in schools, and in Arkansas at least, adults didn't really talk about sex with kids.  There was always this catch-22 where parents didn't want to talk to their kids about the birds and bees, but they didn't want the schools interfering.  I remember a King of the Hill episode about this exact topic.  You might remember it as this episode.  Do click the link, it's hilarious.  Now, I do want to point out that when practicing saying the names of organs, Peggy includes the uvula, which is not a sex organ.  For those of you who don't know, that's the little dangly thing that's in the back of your throat.  What I think is really interesting in that clip is that she's the one teaching sex ed.  I don't know if it was an intentional thing or if the producers or whoever honestly did not know that the uvula is very, very above the waist, but I think my point is still made.  Adults, whether fictional or not, don't know basic human anatomy.

I've talked to a good amount of my friends about what kind of sex education they got from their schools and parents.  Most of them said it was pretty awkward to hear it from their parents.  I, too, almost had an awkward sex talk, but luckily (or unluckily, I guess) I already knew most of the basics, so I got to duck out early.  It was awkward while it lasted, though.  Why, though, is it we feel uncomfortable discussing sex?  Why are those of us who attempt to openly talk about this topic called perverts?  I think the answer to the second question there is answered by the first one.  The first one can be answered by what I've been saying this whole time, I think.

First, we aren't knowledgeable enough about our own anatomy and physiology.  People are scared of what we don't understand.  I'm an example of this.  I used to fear certain sounds in the dark, but then I learned what made them!  Poof.  Fear gone.  I think sex is the same.  A lot of people don't understand that sex isn't something inherently evil.  It has dangers, yes.  Most things do, but sex is also natural.  The desires and urges?  Natural.  The awkward, random erections we guys get?  However unpleasant they may be when they happen in class right before you're asked to solve a math problem on the board, (am I right, guys?) they happen, and they're normal.

Second, we've been taught not to talk about sex.  The only thing my generation needed to know about sex was not to do it, talk about it, or think about it.  This one is the most egregious things about the entire topic.  Don't think about sex?  Don't think about a biological urge I have!?  Oh, no, Mr. Politician and Preacher, I'll think about sex when I do.  I'll also think about being hungry when I am.  You see a sign that says "Wet Paint, Don't Touch."  What do you do?  You touch it, because you're curious.  In hindsight, I just realized that's a perfect analogy for the topic, but moving on.  Thought crime legislation is one of the most grotesque ideas I've ever heard, and it's being applied to our children.

Not Atypical

It's time to stop this.  Telling someone what to think is wrong.  It's not really possible to enforce, but that doesn't stop us from trying.  My Facebook feed is full of a second kind of picture:  The children of people I went to high school with.  The people who were in junior high while I was in high school.  Unplanned pregnancies followed by engagements followed by marriage (sometimes) followed by breaking up or divorcing.  We like to talk a big game, it seems, about how sacred and holy marriage is, but how many of us actually think that?

Sex, we were told, is something for a married couple.  Marriage, we were told, is supposed to be a lifelong commitment.    How's that working out for my age group?  With these definitions, and the statistic I put up earlier, we can determine that roughly 90% of us aren't monogamous in that since.  We say we're serial monogamists when we talk to people, but even still, many people aren't.

I think it's high time we left this nonsense behind.  It's time to start educating people about the human body and it's natural urges.  You know what this silence on sex has given us?  We have a teen pregnancy rate that is four times the rate in The Netherlands.  It's three times the rate of France's and Germany's.  The difference is that in those other countries, sex is talked about openly.  It's not something to shy away from.  Sex is understood there, and taught to everyone so they can make an informed decision.

I beg you to imitate Europe here.  Please, everyone.  Teach your children about their bodies.  Do not shame them.  You see what America has become.  Let's stop this.

Why Do Atheists Care About Religion?

A question that comes up from time to time in debates I participate is why we atheists care so much about religion.  Why do we fight so hard against a god that we don't think exists?  Why don't we just be content in our non-belief instead of trying to convince others that Christianity, Islam, or what have you is wrong?  Why would we want to take away something that gives hope to 95% of Americans?  I'm not arrogant enough, as I've said before, to speak for all atheists out there, so I'll explain to you why I fight faith.  I am not going to be polite in this.  I'm not going to sugar coat it.  Within this post, I'll explain the things I've observed in my experiences with religion, things I've seen religion do, and some of it I've read research on.

 I had to think on this for several hours to come to a decision about where to start.  I couldn't decide if I wanted to talk about how faith stops the pursuit of knowledge, how religion is exceedingly immoral while pretending to be ethical, or how faith is the most utterly arrogant position that exists today.  After considering these things I realized I first want to share a quote from the late Christopher Hitchens:

"I've said repeatedly that this stuff cannot be taken away from people.  It is their favorite toy, and it will remain so...as long as we're afraid of death...I hope I've made it clear that I'm perfectly happy for people to have these toys and to play with them at home and hug them to themselves and share them with other people who come around and play with the toys.  That's absolutely fine.  They are not to make me play with these toys.  I will not play with the toys.  Don't bring the toys to my house.  Don't say my children must play with the toys."

I want to make myself as clear as Hitchens.  I am fairly content for people to have faith and religions provided they keep it where it belongs:  Church and home.  I am not bothered in the slightest by those religious people who keep their faith to themselves, but when it spills into our colleges, high schools, middle schools, and, most disgustingly, elementary schools, I become angry.  I'm sure some of you are aware that Louisiana has a state-funded school who used the Loch Ness Monster as a way to claim that evolution is false.  The argument, to sum it up, is that if the Monster is real, that means there is evidence for a world-wide flood, and Nessie managed to get herself trapped in the lake when the flood waters receded.  Now, I've already discussed here how utterly ridiculous the notion of a world-wide flood is, but that's not the issue.  The issue is that faith has stopped the teachers and administrators who made these textbooks available stop their pursuit of knowledge.  It has made them so very blind to reality that they sincerely believe that vast majority of scientists are wrong about how we came into being, but, again, that's not the main problem.

Certainly, I pity these people, but what I actually take issue with is that it is being taught to children.  Children who have brains that are hardwired to trust adults are being lied to.  This is what I take issue with, ladies and gentlemen.  There is a fundamental difference in science and faith, that cannot be reconciled.  I understand there are scientists who have faith.  There are Christian scientists, Muslim scientists, and Hindu scientists, but the vast majority of these people do not let the two mingle.  Scientists do not appeal to their faith to help them get their results, nor do Christians apply science to their faith, obviously.  The classroom is no place for creation myths.  People are yammering for equality in the classroom with "Teach the Controversy," and the most obvious response is, "Which one?"  Why not teach the Stork alongside anatomical reproduction?  Why not teach flat earth ideas alongside modern day geography?

I know, I know.  Evolution is only a theory, right?  Hopefully, anyone reading this knows what a theory is in the science world, but if not, please stop reading.  Go look it up.  Please, do not come back until you understand how much evidence and verification it takes for a hypothesis to become a theory.

It is because of all the evidence that we call evolution a theory; it is not really something that can be disputed.  Science classes need to be science-based.  Creation is faith-based.  And false, but that's the problem.  Most faiths have orders against lying, so by definition, they're committing an immoral act by teaching Creation in schools.  I'll give the benefit of the doubt to those who believe in the young-earth creation stories out of ignorance, but only a small benefit.  The scientific evidence for evolution is easily accessible, so their misinformation should be quickly stamped out.

Once the evidence is seen, it will be apparent that there are some competing ideas about how long anatomically modern humans have existed, but the least amount of time agreed upon is 100,000 years.  This means that humans were being born and often dying, or killing the mother during birth, for all that time, with a life-expectancy of around 20 to 30 years.  During their lifetime, our ancestors also had to deal with problems like wisdom teeth.  Imagine, if you will, what it would be like to be forced to endure the last few years of your life with too many teeth in your mouth.  The pain must have been incredible!  Additionally, we had to deal with starving to death, lacking of shelter, killing each other, dying from predatory animals, and microorganisms.  Furthermore, our ancestors perished from natural disasters like volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, and tornadoes.  I can only imagine the fear our ancestors felt the first time they encountered one of these things, but I'd guess if they had to encounter two in a lifetime, they'd be even more terrified.  These events seem supernatural to some of us even today, when we know they aren't. It seems reasonable that early humans would find things to worship; bears, volcanoes, the sun, other humans, and even wind can all seem worthy of worship, after all.

As you know, or likely know, I'm an American.  Islam doesn't affect me as much as, say, those in the UK or Middle East.  Christianity is the one that affects other religions and those people who have no faith.  So, here is something to consider:  According to this faith system, God watched with folded arms for roughly 98,000 years, (if you accept that the Noah's Ark story happened, you can take away a few thousand years, but my point will still be made) and then decides that it's time to intervene.  He decides the best way to do this is a human sacrifice in primitive Palestine, where the news would take so long to spread that even today, 2,000 years later, there are parts of the world who are unfamiliar.  That would be our redemption.  Two major implications can be drawn from this belief:

The designer, according to the three big faiths, would have to be horribly lazy and inept, or it would be incredibly indifferent, cruel and callous.  Now, it might be argued that God's divine plan was too important or perfect to allow any change.  That makes it a bad plan, by default.  To allow one's creations to suffer for that long, while having unlimited power and knowledge is absolutely ludicrous!  It might also be argued that Christ's dying for us to save our immortal souls is the ultimate repayment, if you will, for all the suffering.  I've heard people say that Christ endured all the suffering of all the people while on the cross, and that's how he washed away our sins.  Take a second to consider that.  The being with supposedly unlimited power,  knowledge, and compassion chose his method of saving us.  God could have, by a simple act of will, redeemed us.  He could have used its incredible foresight to warn us about lions, tigers, and poisonous plants.  God could have stepped in and said, "Woah, hey, bro.  Don't worry about the earth shaking.  I designed the world so the tectonic plates would crash together and cause your houses to fall.  It's not supernatural, and you don't need to pray to the volcano, either!  That's just the earth's core spewing ash and lava on your town."  It may sound like I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not.  For nearly 100,000 years, God sat back and did nothing.

This, of course, leads to the final point of this post.  Not only does faith hinder progress, not only is its deity fundamentally flawed and immoral, but the vast majority of faiths appeal to our own self-centeredness.  Men, according to Genesis, you're a hunk of dirt.  Women, you're a rib.  Well, according to one of the two Creation myths.  Men, we're lucky to be alive, we might be dirt, but, dammit, God fashioned us in his own image.  He loves us.  Us.  The creator of the universe took special interest in us.  Women, though, remember, the creator is all-powerful and could have created something or someone else.  He took Adam's rib (which mysteriously isn't missing from my body) and fashioned you out of it.  The creator takes a special interest in us, since the books claim that we have dominion over the animals, answers our prayers on a personal level, and sent prophets to share his visions of the future.

At the same time though, religions appeal to our insecurities.  We were born in filth and sin, and a good portion of Christianity and Islam is built on the idea that we should be disgusted by ourselves and our desires, whether sexual or otherwise.  Particularly women.  Very few modern religions have any kind of sex-positivism. Most play on the fact that, without the particular religion, we're disgusting and worthless, while made in the image of the creator.  Research does show that sexual happiness and satisfaction increase quite a bit after one leaves faith behind.  Further research by the same team found that roughly 38% of those from the least religious homes received sex education from their parents, while just 13% of those in religious homes got their sex education from parents.  As religiosity increases, research done by myself found that support of real sex education (you know, not abstinence-only education) decreases substantially.  I can post the research, if needed.  Modern religion tells us that our bodies are something to be feared.  They're dangerous and a source of all our sins.  With these things in mind, I wish to end you with another quote from Hitchens that sums this up:

"You're lucky to be here, originally sinful, and covered in shame and fith as you are.  You're a wretched creature. But! Take heart.  The universe is designed with you in mind, and heaven has a plan for you."

I began this post by saying that I am content to allow people to believe these things.  If they are happy, or have spun faith into something tolerable, fine.  So be it.  I am not content with this being taught in schools.  I am not content with it being taught to children at all, but I have no control over what parents do behind closed doors.  The fact remains that, at present, faith is not content to stay out of schools and laws.  Teachers have to fight to teach evolution without teaching myths.  It took until 1961 for atheists to be guaranteed the right to testify in court, serve on juries, or hold public office in the United States.  Barely 50% of Americans say they would vote for an atheistic presidential candidate on his or her atheism alone.  They didn't say they wouldn't vote for atheists who hold similar values.  No atheists.  None.  I fight faith because of this.  Because faith masquerades as being a source of perfect morality, while being immoral from the start, I fight it.  I fight against faith, because it teaches people that they are worthless without a higher power.  They aren't.  No one is worthless.  No one deserves to be lied to.  No one deserves to be told they're worthless on the basis of their humanity.

Religion does all of this.