This past year, the comedy world lost one of it's most prolific and influential figures: George Carlin. He spent nearly half a century in show business. His comedy specials and television appearances are some of the most memorable and funny skits in pop culture. Many comedy experts rank him among the elite with the likes of Richard Pryor and Rodney Dangerfield. His death this year was a true loss.

George Carlin gave us many memorable routines. Most notably was the "seven words you can't say." This famous routine prompted a Supreme Court case known as FCC vs. Pacifica, which laid the foundation for the censorship powers that the FCC uses to control broadcast media. Carlin, and many like him, spent many years decrying this act as being unconstitutional. And a strict interpretation of the first amendment confirms this. "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." And yet an unelected body in the FCC is given power to regulate and control speech they consider 'indecent' or 'obscene.' It is censorship, plain and simple. It was unconstitutional when Carlin fought it and it's still unconstitutional now. It comes down to politicians and beauracrats banning something just because they and a select few don't like it.

In addition to Carlin's rants on free speech. He was also famously a non-believer. Some of his most memorable skits were about god and the irrational nature of religion. Even before I became a non-believer, I felt he made many astute observations that were not done out of malice, but out of criticism. And some are valid. Many people of faith often don't think critically about it and don't approach it from different points of view. So that when they try to engange in discourse with others, it is often hampered because they are unwilling to think differently.

One of my personal favorite rants was about Easter and the life of Jesus. When I was a Christian, I may have found this troubling. But as a non-believer, I think it's very thought provoking and worthy of inquiry. Below is an excerpt from that rant, courtesy of Carlin's book "When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops." It details what he considers a description of Easter if it were reported by an objective, outside media source.

"Today is Good Friday, observed worldwide by Jesus buffs on a day in which the popular, bearded cultural figure, sometimes referred to as 'The Messiah' was allegedly crucified and - according to legend - died for mankind's so-called sins. Today kicks off a 'holy' weekend that culminates on Easter Sunday when, it is widely believed, this dead 'savoir' - who also, by the way, claimed to be the son of a sky-dwelling, invisible being known as God - mysteriously 'rose from the dead.'

According to legend, by volunteering to be killed and actually going through with it, Jesus has saved every person that has ever lived - and every person who will live - from an eternity of suffering in a region popularly known as Hell, providing - so the story goes - that the person be 'saved' firmly believes this rather fanciful tale."

It's interesting to consider how those who believe would look at this compared to those who don't believe. Many people believe in many different things. And even for the beliefs shared by a vast majority of the population, it is important to look at them from an outside perspective. George Carlin was a master at painting things in a differet, if not bawdy, sort of light. He could do it in a way that was entertaining, insightful, and very funny.

Geroge Carlin will sorely be missed. He lived a long, eventful life and had a very successful career. And his jokes, and insight, will live on for generations to come.

In the 1920s, religious and political ideologues were convinced that alcohol was the cause of everything wicked in society and that banning it's sale and distribution would make for a better society. They were so convinced they muscled through a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. Distilleries were closed, bars and saloons went out of business, and entire communities were changed. But while the idea may have seemed sound, none of the people behind the movement could have foreseen the unintended consequences. Their cause, as noble as it may have sounded, did more harm then good. They banned something they considered immoral, but it didn't go away. Instead, something worse came about.

Throughout the 20s, crime soared as continued demand for alcohol created a new black market. Gangsters like Al Capone came to power, creating networks of illegal businesses that were not governed by free markets or rule of law. Force was the only way to carry out business. It lead to bloody battles between rival gangs and authorities that resulted in the deaths of many. But even more damage was done as a result of poorly made and dangerously formulated products like Moonshine. The cost of enforcing this ban on alcohol was immense and even when major crime figures were apprehended, new figures always took their place and the trade continued.

The 1920s prohibition on alcohol failed. In the span of a decade another constitutional amendment made alcohol legal again. But the era of  prohibition offers an important lesson to modern social activists who seek to ban certain vices. Banning something doesn't make it go away. And banning something often leads to unintended consequences that can only make the problem worse. Yet this is lost on people. Even when they know what they do won't stop something, they do it anyway just because it makes them feel good. And that level of conceit and selfishness is reprehensible on all levels.

While the battle against alcohol is long over, other battles continue. One is the ever popular War on Drugs. Up until the 1920s and 30s, there were no drug laws because it was thought to be unconstitutional to dictate what people could and could not consume (and it still is). But that didn't stop Nixon from flat out banning substances like marijuana and cocaine. And the result of his policies were the same as the policies on prohibition. Black markets have thrived and crime has surged with prisons overflowing with non-violent drug offenders. And like Moonshine, new drugs like Crystal Meth and Crack emerge as potent new synthetics that are far more harmful than anything naturally occurring. But it doesn't stop people from selling them because in the world of black markets, there are no rules or standards.

Another battle is abortion. Some radical pro-lifers seek a constitutional amendment defining personhood as beginning at conception. This would in effect, make all abortion illegal. But would it make abortion go away? No, it would only lead to the deaths of countless women. When abortion is legal it can be regulated and scrutinized for safety so that the risks are low. But where it is illegal, like in much of the developing world, women still seek them and often resort to the black market to get them. These are called 'back alley abortions' and they have no standards and regulations guiding them. According to the World Health Organization, around 68,000 women die every year because of unsafe abortions. Is such a price in human life worth it?

Another battle that emerged around the time of prohibition is prostitution. Up until the 1920s, prostitution was legal throughout most of the United States. But the same idealogues who banned alcohol sought to ban prostitution as well. But once again, banning it didn't make it go away. Instead, it sent it to the black market where the ugly forces of pimps and human traffickers control the trade. Like the drug war there is no order and there are no standards. Criminals will abduct children and take advantage of runaway women to force them into prostitution. And there's nothing they can do about it because if they go to the police, they get thrown in jail. Then there are the women choose prostitution of their free will (yes it does happen). Should they be thrown in jail too even though they're not hurting anybody?

Then there are the other smaller battles like banning pornography, violent video games, and profanity. Idealogues think that by removing these from society people will be better off, but banning them will only create more black markets and more illegal trades that will clog courts and put non-violent people in jail. Some states like Texas and Alabama have laws banning the sale of erotic toys. But people are still able to get them through the internet so it doesn't go away and it risks putting the people that sell them in jail. How is that justice?

These social ideologues are usually not driven by anything rational. They are usually people seeking political power through scapegoating certain aspects of society or religious leaders who believe they have a god given right to take away the freedoms of others and impose their standards on society. They don't care that doing so only makes things worse. They only care about doing something that makes them feel good about themselves. Because at the end of the day that's all these battles do. They make the idealists feel good about themselves while the rest of society suffers.

But in a truly free society, people have the freedom to live their lives as they see fit so long as they do not harm other people. That means they have a right to take drugs if they want or eat junk food if they want. That means they have a right to engage in prostitution so long as it is not coerced. That means they have a right to watch whatever violent or erotic media they want so long as they aren't harming people. This is what freedom truly is. You don't have to like these things or participate in them. But you don't have a right to tell other people they can't. That is the essance of a free society.

For nearly 30 years, being a conservative has meant being a supporter of the Christian Right. You can't get ahead in the Republican Party or any conservative circles unless you declare that you are a deep person of faith who believes of the dogma of Judeo-Christian mythology and promises to use that as a base to make decisions. This idea that being a conservative means governing with religion as a guide is completely contrary to the original ideas of conservatism. Groups like the Christian Coalition, the Moral Majority, the Family Research Council, and Focus on the family have hijacked a party that once stood for true American values and the religious part of it was only secondary.

Being a conservative has nothing to do with being a good Christian. True conservatives follow several basic tenants: they are for smaller government, they are for individual liberty, and they strongly believe in using the constitution as the model for governance (not a 2,000 year old book of myths and fables). These are the principles that I latched onto as I grew up and became more politically active. But I was always turned off by how so much of it had been corrupted by the Christian Right. It is difficult for me especially because I am a non-believer and I don't believe god should have any part in government. And so even though I believe in many conservative principles, I can't call myself one without seperating myself from the Christian Right.

It wasn't always like this. Before the 1980s there was no Religious Right influencing either party. Religion still played a part, but it was secondary to the economic and social principles of conservatism. Then men like Pat Robertson and Jerry Farwell came along and proclaimed America was a rotting cesspool of immorality and used the same old fire-and-brimstone tactics that religion has been using for centuries to scare people into adhering. They gained power because of an ongoing backlash of society from the excessive liberalism that arose from the late sixties. It really didn't have anything to do with immorality. Society in the sixties (while far more deviant than society today) was still relatively law biding compared to other times in history (namely the prohibition years of the 1920s). But by projecting the idea that America was no longer a godly nation, the Christian Right gained support and snaked their way into Conservatism. And since that time, they have ruined it.

Conservatism is no longer the party of small government. Ronald Regan didn't shrink government, he merely slowed its growth. Neither Bush was very conservative in that regard. Despite claims by liberals, there was no major deregulation under George W Bush. Remember, this man didn't veto a single spending bill until a bill on stem cell research came to him (which was rejected largely on morals dicated by the Religious Right). But they still get to call themselves conservative because they adhere to the Christian Right's beliefs on society. They believe that homosexuals are sinners and don't deserve equal rights under the law, that any kind of sexuality outside of marriage is immoral, that prayer and teaching creationism in public schools isn't a huge violation of the seperation of church and state (even though the courts rule that it is), and that women should not have the right to choose whether or not they want to be mothers. None of these have anything to do with real conservatism. None of them would even be issues were it not for the Christian Right. Yet because they have become so strongly associated with Conservatism, it is hard to declare yourself a conservative without declaring that you are anti-gay, anti-choice, and anti-personal freedom.

The Christian Right has ruined the Republican party and conservatism in general. They have distracted people from true conservative values and injected their own agenda into the fray. They believe that this shouldn't be a nation of freedom, but a nation of Christian principles and all those who don't agree with that are subject to ridicule and scorn. This is completely contrary to the principles of a free society and what conservatism is. There's a reason why the founding fathers set up a free exercise clause in the constitution and why they were for freedom of religion. They saw the need to keep the church from influencing policy and today America has completely forgotten that.

It's okay to be religious. It's okay to be Christian. This nation is full of good, upstanding Christians, but in a free society it is wrong for any one religous group to gain power and favor over another. The Christian Right has destroyed conservatism and until true conservatives who reject these notions start standing up and making their voices heard, the conservative philosophy will be at the mercy of ignorant religious zealots.

Religion has always been a base for morality. Many will object to something they consider immoral on religious terms. Some of the things religious people may object to include pornography, abortion, illicit drugs, alcohol, pre-marital sex, and homosexuality. These things are not like other morals such as war, killing, and theft. Many cultures, religious or not, consider those immoral already. But religion takes it a step further by finding something they don't like and using it as a rallying cry to get more converts, generate solidarity, and gain influence. There's nothing practical about wanting to abolish abortion, drugs, etc. It's purely symbolic. Even though banning it makes the problem worse (as it did with alcohol prohibition) they still rally behind it. And as passionate as religous people are about these morals, they have no right to impose them in a free society.

Take for instance the war on pornography and sex. Many in the Christian Right seek to ban it along with some femanists. They claim it leads men to see women as objects and will make them prone to rape and sexual violence. But this claim is not backed up by evidence. According to the Department of Justice, the rape rate since the 1970s has declined significantly (see chart here). Even though the prevalance and availability of pornography has gone up since the 1990s, it has no correlation with rape rates. Yet despite this evidence, groups like the Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council try to push their agenda in banning it. And that just isn't reasonable in a free society. You can't just ban something because you don't like it.

So why do they do it? It goes back to the idea of a symbolic gesture in the name of morality. There's nothing practical about banning porn or drugs or anything else of that nature. It won't make it go away. It'll just push it underground, clog the courts, and clog prisons (as the war on drugs has done). These are things that have always been a part of society going all the way back to ancient times. No society in the history of civilization has managed to eradicate these things no matter how strict or authortative. But despite this they keep trying for that symbolic gesture that generates solidarity and rallies people to a cause.

Recently, the issue of gay marriage has been a big rallying cry. Religous figures claim that to allow gays to get married would degrade marriage and insult their faith. But practically speaking, it wouldn't do either. On a purely bureaucratic level it would allow gay couples to establish themselves as legitmate partners in the eyes of the state and entile them to the same benefits. That in no way affects other marriages. It just adds something different. It's a change and many, religious or otherwise, do not embrace change easily. But like with other issues, in a free society just not liking it isn't enough to ban it.

At the end of the day, symbolic gestures in the name of religion are only as effective as people think they are. It requires people to ignore facts and not think about the practical aspects of what they're doing. And in the long run it could cause more harm than good, but that doesn't bother them in the slightest because they actually believe what they're doing is right in the name of their diety. This has prevailed a great deal over the years, but in a free society it has no place. People are free to talk about these issues and rant about them. People like Ann Coulter and the Westboro Baptist Church (the god hates fags crowd) have a right to say whatever they want no matter how hateful or absurd it may be. But when they start trying to legislate their beliefs, that crosses a line. It's okay to not like something, but just because you believe your god says it's wrong doesn't give you the right to impose it. That's what freedom truly is.

As an atheist, I often come into conflict with the beliefs and values many people have. I respect and admire those beliefs, but on certain subjects that respect is lost in the sheer disparity of how extreme some beliefs are. One belief about religion that has long troubled and fascinated me is belief in creationism. As someone who strives to be rational with everyday things, I find it strange when I hear how people so fervently reject reason and logic in favor of mythological psuedo-science. I've looked into groups like the Institution for Creation Research and Creation Science and tried to understand their beliefs and how they justify them. And every time I hit a brick wall because they are all so completely and utterly convinced by their faith that what they believe is true that no amount of evidence, no matter how overwhelming it may be, will get them to believe otherwise. There are so many reasons why creationism is wrong, but that doesn't matter to them. All that matters is believing in their favorite myths and fables.

Recently, I came across some videos on youtube by a user known as Aron Ra. He's made a series out of the absurdities of creationism and I find his critique both enlightening, coherent, and entertaining. He is able to explain far more than I can so I thought I would share a clip and an excerpt from one of his videos. Please note: these are his words, not mine and only he can take credit for this skillfully assembled work.

So for those who believe in God, the question really is how God created, and whether it was by one of many inextricably integrated natural systems he seemingly designed, or whether he simply blinked, wiggled his nose, wished upon a star and said "abra-cadabera".

Last year there was a study done by the Barna Group, a religious polling firm, that estimated there were around 5 million atheists living in the United States. That number swells to 20 million if agnostics or people who do not identify with any religion are included. So in a country where Christianity dominates, there are 20 million people who do not believe in a god or deity. Even in a country of 300 million that is a significant number and many believe it's higher than that because there are those who will not identify themselves as non-religious out of fear of scrutiny or discrimination. This is difficult to prove, but even if it isn't true it does reflect the unreasonable power religion is given in this country.

When the American republic was first established, America was the most secular nation in the world. It was rare for a country of that time not to have an official religion or a state sponsored church. The founding fathers saw it fit to ensure there was a clause in the constitution that stated explicitly that no official religion would be established and there could be no litmus test for public officials that could deny them office based on their religious beliefs or lack thereof. And yet few politicians or officials can survive these days without professing their faith in a higher power. All presidential candidates, even the fringe candidates, are careful to express their faith in god so as not to alienate voters. They believe that faith in god is a value. But that is entirely false.

There is no value or moral superiority in those who believe in god. It is a belief and nothing more. There is even evidence that non-religious societies may be less deviant. A study done by the Journal of Religion and Society in 2005 studies religious groups in America and other industrialized nations and found consistently that "data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular
democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and anti-evolution
America performs poorly."

That's not to say that there religion by default is bad for society. Other studies show that on a small community level, religion can reduce deviance and encourage people to make charitable contributions to society. But again, this can be coupled with more prevelance in bigotry, racism, and intolerance.

Atheism is a minority in America, but it is a significant minority. Few atheists wish to force people to abandon their religious beliefs, but the kind of power and influence sought by groups within the Christian Right are highly detrimental to a free society. Groups like the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and the Christian Coalition would have it so homosexuality is illegal, pornography is illegal, all pre-marital sex is illegal, and all public officials must adhere to so called Judeo-Christian values. This completely defeats the purpose that the Founding Father's intended. This is actively flying in the face of the establishment clause and favoring one religious doctrine over many others.

As an atheist, I am often disturbed by how many Christian groups pursue agendas to impose their worldview on others. I have no problem with them believing in something, but when they try to legislate their beliefs that is when they cross the line. I believe in the constitution and I believe in the fundemental principles our founding fathers set up when they formed this nation and I have no desire to see it become corrupted by religious groups of any kind. Atheists are no less American than devout Christians and it's time people understood that.

Earlier today, I went to see Bill Maher's movie, Religulous. The movie hat takes a cynical look at organized religion pulls many punches. It is not done in a malicious or hateful manner, but it will definitely rub people the wrong way if they have deeply held religious convictions. But for the most part, it was not meant to insult, only to entertain and criticize. And as harsh as Bill Maher can be sometimes and as much as I disagree with his politics, I felt that many of his points were valid.

It starts with Bill standing in the ruins of Meggido in the middle of the holy land. This is the area that many devout Christians believe the world as we know it will come to an end and Jesus will return to slay the anti-christ as described in the Book of Revelations. From there, Maher goes into his past a bit, detailing his own religious history. He explains he did go to church and was raised catholic in a family that was half jewish. He talked about his stand-up and how his light-hearted criticisms of religion turned to doubt. He admits that even into his 40s he held some spiritual beliefs. But then he took it a step further and began to doubt. And when he doubted, that's when he took the final step.

That becomes the main point of the movie: doubt. He admits it at one point that this is what he is selling. People should doubt things that cannot be proven or things that someone claims to be true without any evidence or through some divine process. He visits faith healers, creationists, and even a cult leader named Jesus who claims that he is indeed a descendant of Jesus Christ. Now it's worth noting that much of his punches are directed at the big three: Christianity, Judism, and Islam. He does not touch on New Age or eastern faiths as Maher keeps the movie in an American context. But much of his points can just as easily be applied to all religions.

As an atheist, it did not preach anything radical to me. It only reinforced many of my views that all supernatural beliefs are erroneous. But it did paint believers in a pretty bleak way. At one point Maher brought in a neurologist who studied mental disorder and talked about studies done on people while they were praying. He said that some of the readings are similar to those experiencing delusions or hallucinations. So it implies that all people who experience such feelings are mentally incoherent. There may or may not be some truth to that, but I think he paints all beliefs in general in an inaccurate light. Beliefs are basic. They're natural. Everybody has them and to cast all beliefs into doubt is not normal for the human condition. So that is one part about Maher's rant that I do not agree with.

But overall, I enjoyed the movie. I think he makes some good points. Religion and the irrational beliefs it fosters can be dangerous. Religion can lead to war, violence, bigotry, murder, and just flat out hate (as was shown with clips from the Westboro Baptist Church). Religion can justify erroneous beliefs about the world and about policy. This is where I draw the line. When religion starts to affect policy, such as foreign policy in the Middle East as Maher explores, that becomes a big issue. And as an atheist it concerns me.

I would encourage anybody who is just uncertain about their faith to see this movie. But if you are a deeply religious person, you will probably be too offended. It was still an enjoyable movie and one of my new favorite documentaries.

Best line of the movie: "You do not need to pass an IQ test to be a senator."

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, states on his organization's website that "This ministry is therefore based upon six guiding philosophies that are apparent at every level throughout the organization. These "pillars" are drawn from the wisdom of the Bible and the Judeo-Christian ethic, rather than from the humanistic notions of today's theorists." Throughout his site, he evokes passages of the bible as justification for the morals that he and his organization promote that include opposing gay marriage, teaching creationism along with evolution, and banning abortion. He, like many Christians, believe that the bible is the ultimate authority for morality because it is inspired by god and if the bible says it than it must be true.

But like so many religious organizations before them, they pick and choose what parts of the bible they want to believe because it supports their agenda. The way they see it, if their beliefs are justified by scripture then they are inherently right and immune from moral scrutiny. This way of thinking is dangerous because it opens the door to promoting all sorts of morally questionable ideas and in the past it has been used to justify many that modern society would find atrocious today. It is equally troubling when the bible itself states that it is infallible and that includes both the Old and New Testament. One such passages is 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 which states as follows:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

So even though both testaments were assembled at different times and different eras by different people they were still divinely inspired. This paints a clear and ominous picture. If everything in the bible is right, then ALL of it must be followed and not just the parts that people like. And some of the morals of their time are entirely incompatible with the morals of the free society. One clear example is the concept of genocide. In all civilized society, genocide is regarded as the most immoral and dispicable acts imaginable yet in several instances god himself carries out or condones acts of genocide.

In several instances god himself carries out acts of genocide. The most glaring and well-known is in Genesis 6:5-9 where it clearly states as follows:

"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."

But there are plenty others. The following list documents and justifies just a few acts of genocide:

Deuteronomy 7:1-2:

"... the seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them."

Joshua 6:21:

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and donkey, with the edge of the sword."

Joshua 10:40-41:

"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon."

But it doesn't stop at genocide. The bible promotes a wide range of morally questionable acts that are but not limited to the following:

Animal cruelty - Joshua 11:6, 2 Samuel 8:4

Incest - Genesis 4; 9:1; 19:30-38; 20:11-12, 2 Samuel 13:1-15

Slavery - Numbers 31:31-35, Leviticus 25:44-45, Exodus 21:2-7, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2

Abuse of Slaves - Exodus 21:7, Luke 12:47-48

Spousal Abuse - Numbers 5:5-31, Deuteronomy 22:13-21, 28-29

Child Abuse - Genesis 22, Deuteronomy 21:18-21; 23:2, Proverbs 13:10; 20:30; 22:15; 23:13-14, Psalm 137:9

Abortion - Amos 1:13, 2 Kings 15:16, Hosea 9:11-16; 13:16, Numbers 5:5-31

Pillage - Genesis 34:13-29, Deuteronomy 20:13-14, Numbers 31:7-12

Murder - Exodus 2:12, Judges 9:5; 11:29-39; 14:19, 2 Samuel 18:15, 1 Kings 2:24-25, 29-34, 46, 9:27, 10:7, 2 Chronicles 21:4, Ezekiel 20:26

Cannibalism - Leviticus 26:29, Deuteronomy 28:53, Isaiah 49:26, Jeremiah 19:9, Ezekiel 5:8-10, 2 Kings 6:29

The bible also promotes extreme prejudice against groups such as:

Race - Exodus 23:23; 28, Numbers 21:35, Deuteronomy 3:6; 7:1, Matthew 15:22-28

Nationality - Leviticus 25:46, Joshua 6:21-27, Matthew 11:21-24,

Religion - 2 Kings 10:19-27 (although it is throughout the bible, this passage is especially glaring)

Sex - Genesis 38:16-24, Judges 9:53-59; 19:22-29; 21:10-12, Deuteronomy 21:10-14; 22:23-24; 28-29; 25:11-12, Zechariah 14:1-2, Leviticus 12:1-8; 14; 15:19-30; 18:19; 19:20; 21:9; 27:3-7, Numbers 1:2; 20:13-15; 30:3-16; 31:14-18

Sexual Orientation - Deuteronomy 22:5, Leviticus 18:22-23; 20:13

None of these morals have ANY place in a free society. Those that claim the bible is infallible and must be followed absolutely have no excuse. You can't claim everything in the bible is true and then just ignore the parts you don't like. That is being dishonest and groups like Focus on the Family, the Christian Coalition, and the Family Research Council are all guilty of it because they all claim to use the bible as a source and as justification for their beliefs. They pick and choose according to whatever promotes their social agenda and in a society that champions liberty and justice for all these morals should be kept within the books themselves and NEVER used as a moral guide for any moral decision let alone law.

Now I focus on the bible because I am a former Christian. I have nothing against other Christians or people of faith in general. I understand that there are plenty of good passages in the bible such as love thy neighbor and forgiving those who have done wrong, but I find it very disturbing when people who claim to have a superior moral sense because of their faith. They use scripture to justify their beliefs and sometimes their actions when acts of violence and prejudice are carried out in the name of their beliefs. Believing is one thing, but acting on them is crossing a major line and in a free society there is no justification for such acts. Whether it is lynching blacks or killing gay teenagers like Matthew Shepard, the morality of the bible should NOT be part of a modern, civilized society. It has a place, but not in the law or the government. Religion is religion and belief is belief. And it should not be used to impose morality or immorality on anybody in a free society.

As an atheist, I often get asked by Christians and other religious people where I get my morality. They claim that without a just and merciful god, mankind cannot be good because there is no reason for them to be good. I often say my morality comes from my experience and upbringing. My parents taught my sense of right and wrong and while not strict atheists, they didn't use gods to justify why something was wrong. When I was a boy my grandma often used Santa Clause as a reason for being good. She would tell me "Aww, Santa Clause won't be bringing you any presents this Christmas if you act like that." Looking back on it I see she could have easily replaced Santa Clause with a god and the message would be the same.

But morality is a tricky topic because it is so subjective. That is why science has usually ceded these concepts to philosophy and religion. However, modern science has made strides in recent decades and is beginning to unlock the roots of our morality. As it turns out it may not have been my personal experiences after all that gave me a sense of right and wrong. It may very well be that much of our moral sense is written in our genes and our biology.

Newsweek recently did a feature on the biological roots of human morality, citing research done by psychologists and biologists to give an insight into what gives us our sense of right and wrong. They used classical moral dilemmas to get a feel for how people judge a situation. They call it a moral sense test and they painted the following scenarios:

Would you drive your boat faster to save the lives of five drowning people knowing that a person in your boat will fall off and drown?

Would you fail to give a drug to a terminally ill patient knowing that he will die without it but his organs could be used to save three other patients?

Would you suffocate your screaming baby if it would prevent enemy soldiers from finding and killing you both, along with the eight others hiding out with you?

These situations have no clear cut answer, but when scientists gave these questions people responded with remarkable consistancy. The article stated"What is remarkable is that people with different backgrounds, including atheists and those of faith, respond in the same way. Moreover, when asked why they make their decisions, most people are clueless, but confident in their choices."

Further studies tried to see if emotions were tied into our sense of morality. And even studying patients with brains with damaged connections between the planning and emotion systems, their answers were consistant. This suggests that emotions are not linked to our morality. They do, however, play a role in our actions. Emotions may make us act in ways that we know are immoral, but that is where the concept of guilt comes in.

This leads to another point religious people often make when I debate them. How do you justify the lack of morality for atheists like Pol Pot and Stalin (Hitler doesn't count because he was a confessed Catholic and admitted creationist)? The article goes on to offer insight into that as well:

"New, preliminary studies suggest that clinically diagnosed psychopaths do recognize right from wrong, as evidenced by their responses to moral dilemmas. What is different is their behavior. While all of us can become angry and have violent thoughts, our emotions typically restrain our violent tendencies. In contrast, psychopaths are free of such emotional restraints. They act violently even though they know it is wrong because they are without remorse, guilt or shame."

In other words, they may know what they are doing is wrong, but they just don't feel guilty about it. Or they find some way to justify it in their twisted and skewwed psyche. Theists and atheists can agree that what these men did was vile and wrong. But that has nothing to do with whether or not they believed in gods or religion. By the same token, religous authorities have committed similar atrocities over the centuries that include genocides, wars, and prejudice. Millions have been put to death at the hands of religion through witch hunts, ethnic clensing, wars, human sacrifice, and inquisitions. Studies show that such blind faith in any ideology whether it be religon or personality cults like facism and communism may psychologically condition people to ignore the wrong they feel about taking a life. It's not about faith or lack thereof. It is about psychological pre-disposition.

But then why are those that are good continue being good? Well the article states that "studies suggest that nature handed us a moral grammar that fuels our intuitive judgments of right and wrong. Emotions play their strongest role in influencing our actions—reinforcing acts of virtue and punishing acts of vice. We generally do not commit wrong acts because we recognize that they are wrong and because we do not want to pay the emotional price of doing something we perceive as wrong." It is a simple matter of reinforcement. Good gets reinforced more than bad and that is why people do good. Most people get no pleasure out of hurting or killing people. We do get a sense of satisfaction when we do something good though. There's nothing supernatural about it. It is basic psychology.

So going back to the question I get asked of where do humans get their morals, I would now answer it is part of our individual and collective psychology. Cognitive and behavioral systems within and among us, coupled with aspects of our social nature, work within a biological grammar that instills an innate sense of right and wrong among human beings. Or more simply put, it is part of our nature.

I find it demeaning in a sense that some religions paint humans as naturally immoral or tained by sin or kharma and the only way to repent is to proclaim blind faith in an invisible, intangible force and make sacrifices in its name through religous authorities. That is just playing of our natural tendancy to avoid guilt. People can be good without gods. They can be good with religion too. One shouldn't place itself higher over the other. So using this research and my general understanding I have formulated two 'commandments' for morality among both religious and non-religious people. And they are as follows.

1. Try not to hurt anybody.
2. Try to be nice to people.

Link to Article

A 2006 poll conducted by CBS revealed that 55 percent of Americans believe God created humans in their present form without any evolutionary processes while 27 percent said God guided the evolutionary process and just 13 percent said God was not involved at all. No other Western nation with the possible exception of Turkey has so many people believing in something that has been repeatedly proven time again to be dead wrong on every level. While the public may be split, over 95 percent of scientists agree that evolution is true and no god or goddess or spirit was involved. But that doesn't stop vocal fundementalist Christians from pushing their views on others as a way to promote their agenda and since science doesn't support creationism or its close relative intelligent design they lobby for state support in classrooms.

Thankfully, though, some church leaders are trying to move away from this pointless debate. Times Online, a UK news service, reported recently that leaders of the Church of England are planning to unveil a new website that promotes evolution over creationism. The launch of the site will culminate on the 150th anniversary of the day when Charles Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution by natural selection to the scientific community. It stands in stark contrast to established Christian conservatives who interpret the Bible literally and push a Christian centered agenda on politicians and communities. But Anglican leaders feel the creationist movement, which has much stronger roots in America, is having a negative impact on Christianity worldwide. Because of how vocal creationists like Ken Ham, Duane Gish, and the late Henry Morris are they paint an image of Christians that shows them as irrational, stubborn, ignorant, and intolerant. In the article Rev. Malcolm Brown summerized it best with his quote:

“Christian attitudes don't have to be either a complete swallowing of Darwin and everything that has been done in his name, on the one hand, and, on the other, the complete rejection of scientific method with a literal interpretation of the Bible."

Religion has always been a touchy subject and many are quick to defend their faith against what they percieve as attacks. But by defending creationism they do a disservice to their faith by promoting a narrow worldview that may alienate those of different beliefs and even those of the Christian faith. It makes dialogue between those of differing beliefs very difficult and causes people to reject ideas on the basis of holding onto their cherished beliefs because they simply cannot accept that they are just stories.

As an atheist, I've come across many who refuse to hear any arguments that may disprove their beliefs. They'll cite any number of unscientific references as proof, but they flat out reject all notions of inquery and investigation in favor of a set and defined worldview where there is no gray area and there is no uncertainty. I was once a Christian, but I didn't become an atheist because of a scientific theory. I became an atheist because through my experiences I learned that along with the idea that there is no Santa Claus, there is no Easter Bunny, and there are no unicorns, fairies, or dragons there is also no god. Evolution played no part in it.

There's nothing wrong with being a Christian. There's nothing wrong with being a pagan, a Raelien, or a Satanist. You're free to believe whatever you want to believe. But creationists go too far in trying to prove that their mythos is scientifically proven while others are all wrong even though no good science accepts their positions. They are no different than those who believed the Earth was the center of the universise and disease was caused by evil spirits. And the fact they try to use science to prove the existance of god, who is by default a supernatural being, violates the fundemntal philosophies of science which state it can make no statement on the supernatural. Science does not stop anybody from believing in whatever they want to believe and hopefully more church leaders will step up and fight to save their faith from creationist nonsense.

See the full article at this link

When the philosopher John Locke wrote about the basis of the free society he cited life, liberty, and property as the natural rights imbued by all individuals. This idea played a large part with the founding fathers of America and lie at the basis of American ideals. We all have a right to live, a right to own property, and a right to express ourselves as we see fit so long as it does not intrude upon the natural rights of another individual. And even though the legal system tends to overly complicate it at times, that is the essence of a free society. In simpler terms, you can't just ban something because you don't like it. Even if a majority of people don't like something they have no right to forbid other people from doing it so long as it does not hurt anybody.

And yet here in America people still try to legislate their personal tastes into the law, intruding upon the natural rights of others to live as they see fit. Many special interests groups exist to promote their favorite view of the world, but one of the most well-known and extreme group is known as the Family Research Council. Founded by Tony Perkins, a product of the Christian Right, the FRC exists to promote the Judeo-Christian worldview as the standard and government sponsored lifestyle for America. They constantly lobby for legislation that opposes gay rights, gambling, abortion, sexual freedom, and prostitution. Their goal, intended or not, is to have their views as the only government approved views of America and that is absolutely, 100 percent wrong on every level.

The FRC, like most groups from the Christian Right, take their cues from Judeo-Christian ideology and there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but the fact they try to get the government to support them violates the basic principles of America and liberty. They resort to fearmongering and deciet to scare people into accepting their way and try to convince people that they must give up their liberties to support a narrow, superstitous view of the world.

One recent example of their deceit happened on 20/20 when one of the chief spokesman for the FRC, Peter Sprigg, sat down with John Stossel to talk about sex in the media. Sprigg painted a bleak picture, saying sex in the media was turning an entire generation of kids into sexual deviants. But emperical data didn't support that. John Stossel even showed him a chart that indicated rape and crime had gone down over the past decade even as TV continued to push the sexual envelope. You can see the entire piece at the link below:



But even in the face of this data Sprigg refused to buy it. He refused to buy anything that contradicted his views on the issue. It's a perfect reflection of the sheer absurdity of the Family Research Council and groups like it. They don't do research, they promote an agenda. They don't present the facts, they pick and choose the facts that support their agenda. They'll gladly parade out a report that paints abortion, homosexuality, and sexuality in general in a negative light while ignoring the vast amount of data that contradicts it or puts it in a different light. They do that the same way all extremists do. They ignore it, not caring about truth or freedom, but about promoting their own agenda and that has no place in a free society.

If you're going to do any kind of research for policy on matters of sexuality, check your facts. If the FRC did their research, they would have seen that contraceptives don't fail, most abortions have no long lasting side effects, and teen sexual activity has gone down even as sex becomes more accepted in our culture. If you want to see the research supporting this check the research presented by the Guttmacher Institute:

Guttmacher Institute

Tony Perkins and his Family Research Council do neither research nor do they promote families. They promote their own agenda. If they had their way America would be a vast Judeo-Christian authoritarian state where only Judeo-Christian morals are recognized and all other views are relegated to second class citizenship. It violates the first amendment and the very concept of what it means to be in a free society. It's perfectly fine to say you endorse certain morals like those presented by the Family Research Councel. But it is NOT okay to seek support form the law or the state. This is a free society and the day America favors one view over another is the day it is no longer free

When Thomas Jefferson wrote his famous "wall of separation" line in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut the United States was the most secular nation in the world. Jefferson along with the rest of the founding fathers, some of whom were Christian and others of whom were Deists, saw the importance of keeping faith out of politics. But beyond the political arena, they saw the importance of keeping faith from intruding upon reason and how it should not be used as a way to circumvent logical thinking. The Constitution gaurenteed freedom of speech and freedom of religion. You're free to believe whatever you want so long as that belief does not intrude upon the natural rights of others.

But I've found in my experience that sometimes beliefs are taken too seriously and used to justify dogmatic morals based on old dogma. These irrational, misguided, and oftentimes authoritarian beliefs can lead to bigotry, racism, sexism, and homophobia. It crosses the line from being just an opinion, which is perfectly fine in a free society, to being an agenda, which is not.

Back in October 2006 then governor Sarah Palin of Alaska publically stated in the Anchorage Daily News that creationism should be taught in science classrooms along with evolution. Even though the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that doing so violated the seperation of church and state, she and people like her won't give up even though evidence is not on their side. The whole concept of it being "just a theory" is a gross misue of the word theory in a scientfic context. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word theory as follows:

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Evolution has been tested exhaustively and creationism has not. Visit the site www.talkorigins.com to see just a small collection of that evidence and see for yourself just how irrational this policiy the now Vice Presidential candidate's views are.

So why does this matter? Why should it matter that Palin believes the theory of evolution is just as possible as being poofed into existance by an all powerful diety? Because beliefs are a reflection of character in that those who let their beliefs in religous dogma guide their decision-making process are more likely to abandon reason. And in a world as complex as ours, reason must come before faith especially in the highest levels of power.