For the next time somebody asks you.

It's really such a simple sign of respect, and yet there are those who feel that by using it they are surrendering to an attack on their religion.

Muslim woman posts about daughter's fear that Donald Trump will "kick" them out of the country. Former and current military members respond with #IWillProtectYou.

That simple statement from a mother trying to comfort her child attracted the attention of hundreds of people.

One of those people was Army vet Kerri Peek:

Her request to veterans and active duty military members received quite a number of responses:

No one should be scared to live in a country because of their faith. #Sofia #iwillprotectyou pic.twitter.com/KjiBKrhh0D

— Bryan™ (@bryanchasebrown) December 22, 2015

After hearing a story of a Muslim child fearing she'd be taken from her home I was heart broken #iwillprotectyou pic.twitter.com/s83jt1kj4S

— Shannon (@shannon_cregan) December 22, 2015

Sofia, fear not. Good will always protect the innocent. Father of two daughters, Veteran. #iwillprotectyou pic.twitter.com/xhWJQI6mqm

— Simon Salt (@simonsalt) December 22, 2015

And there were more.

You see THAT is the country that we live in.

People like Donald Trump don't understand that.  Which is why they can NEVER be its leader.

H/T to Addicting Info and THV 11.

America's best Christian, Betty Bowers, explains religious freedom.

Well Betty's not pulling any punches with that one is she?

Fox's Eric Bolling pushes for holy war with ISIS. Well this isn't helping.

Courtesy of Mediaite:

He said, “There’s a common denominator with these murderous thugs: they’re Islamic, they’re radical, they’re extremist, and they’re purely intolerant. It’s time to wake up.” And as far as Bolling’s concerned, the persecution of Christians and the call by one terrorist for the flag of Allah to fly at the White House just go too far: “You want a holy war? We’ll give you one. It just may be time to unleash hell on radical Islam. Don’t worry, Islamic jihadists, your 72 virgins await.”

If you listen to Bolling the only two groups he mentions by name are the Christians and the Jews. Every other group that is being terrorized, including many that are Muslim is of no real consequence.

After all if you are going to promote a holy war, it helps to have each side clearly defined by their different religious affiliations.

As I said yesterday, this situation needs to be addressed in terms of humanitarian needs, NOT religious intolerance.

It does not matter that ISIS, or any other group, wants to draw America into a holy war. We are a secular nation, despite Christian revisionists attempting to paint us otherwise, and we need to move forward as a country that cares for ALL people without regard to their skin color, country of origin, or religious beliefs.

And seriously just when is Fox News finally going to be identified as a hate group?

Diner stops giving 15% discounts to customers who pray before meals. In other words, there was a diner that gave 15% discounts to people that prayed!

Courtesy of CBS: 

A North Carolina diner has stopped giving discounts to customers who pray in public after an atheist organization threatened to sue. 

The Freedom From Religion Foundation wrote a letter to Mary Haglund, owner of Mary’s Gourmet Diner, threatening legal action if the diner did not drop the 15 percent discount for praying because it violated the Civil Rights Act. 

The “promotional practice favors religious customers, and denies customers who do not pray and nonbelievers the right to ‘full and equal’ enjoyment of Mary’s Gourmet Diner,” attorney Elizabeth Cavell wrote in the letter. 

Following the letter, Haglund posted a note on the diner door informing customers that the 15 percent discount will no longer be allowed.

Okay look I know that sometimes religious people have a hard time understanding that not everybody sees the world as they do, but seriously how hard wast to realize that this was incredibly discriminatory? 

It would be like a Jewish butcher offering 15% off if their customers would drop trou to prove they were circumcised.

Kind of like 15% off for proving you had 5% off.

It kind of makes me wonder how many Atheists went into Mary's Diner, bowed their heads, and muttered under their breath "Hail Satan, Lord of Darkness, thank you for this meal, and for helping us to get 15% off on the check?"

Virginia official admits that protecting religious freedom is really only about protecting the religious freedom of Christians.

Al Bedrosian, all for religious tolerance. If you worship the right religion that is.

Courtesy of Raw Story:

“The freedom of religion doesn’t mean that every religion has to be heard,” said Al Bedrosian, who sits on the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. “If we allow everything, where do you draw the line?” 

The Republican said Monday, after the high court ruled 5-4 that legislative prayer did not violate the constitutional prohibition on government establishment of religion, that he would not vote to allow non-Christians to deliver invocations. 

“I think America, pretty much from Founding Fathers on, I think we have to say more or less that we’re a Christian nation with Christian ideology,” Bedrosian said. “If we’re a Christian nation, then I would say that we need to move toward our Christian heritage.” 

Those remarks echoed statements he made several years ago in an editorial published in the Roanoke Times, where he described freedom of religion as a “hoax” and claimed “the global warming crowd worships the environment as god, the abortionist has the death of unborn babies as their god, and the homosexuals have sexual freedom as their god.” 

“The real battle is keeping the name of Jesus as Lord,” Bedrosian wrote in 2007. “The name Jesus is what makes us a Christian people and a Christian nation. This is why we must continue our heritage as a Christian nation and remove all other gods.” 

That’s what Bedrosian intends to do in his position as county supervisor, saying he would reject any request by any non-Christian adherent to deliver a religious or secular invocation. 

“I would say no,” Bedrosian said. “That does not infringe on their freedom of religion. The truth is you’re trying to infringe on my right, because I don’t believe that.”

I have said for many years that if  the fundamentalist Christians in this country could figure out how to protect THEIR religion while criminalizing all others, they would do it in a heartbeat.

However the founding fathers, despite what the Evangelicals will tell you, were actually interested in protecting the religious rights of all, rather than to proclaim the country a Christian nation and vilify all of those who refused to worship in the dictated by the majority.

That is why the recent Supreme Court decision that Christian prayers recited before town council meetings were not unconstitutional is bad news for those who embrace true religious freedom.

After all look what happened when the U.S. Senate allowed a Hindu holy man to provide the opening prayer.

Yep, you can almost feel the religious tolerance, can't you?

Louisiana District Court judge delivers smackdown against teacher who pushed Creationism in classroom while ridiculing other religions, and the school district who defended him.

Judge Elizabeth Foote

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

The parents of a Buddhist student in Louisiana ridiculed by a creationist teacher won their lawsuit against the school district, the American Civil Liberties Union revealed Friday. 

The student, known as C.C., was asked by sixth-grade teacher Rita Roark to answer the following question on a test: “ISN’T IT AMAZING WHAT THE _____________ HAS MADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” 

When C.C. failed to respond “Lord,” Roark responded “you’re stupid if you don’t believe in God.” She also frequently denigrated his Buddhist faith, as well as the Hindu faith, referring to both as “stupid.” When his parents complained to Sabine Parish Superintendent Sara Ebarb, they were told that “this is the Bible belt,” so they should expect to find the Christian God in the classroom. Ebarb advised them that if they wanted an ungodly classroom, they should transfer C.C. to a school where “there are more Asians.” 

Judge Elizabeth Foote of the U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana sided with C.C. and his parents, citing that Roark’s behavior — and the school’s decision to defend it — clearly violated “the Free Exercise and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.” 

With regard to the specific behavior of Roark, Judge Foot wrote that “[t]he District and School Board are permanently enjoined from permitting School Officials at any school within the School District to promote their personal religious beliefs to students in class or during or in conjunction with a School Event.” Furthermore, “School Officials shall not denigrate any particular faith, or lack thereof, or single out any student for disfavor or criticism because of his or her particular faith or religious belief, or lack thereof.” 

The judge also ordered all the members of the school board to undergo training to make them more sensitive to their responsibilities with respect to the First Amendment.

And remember THIS happened in Louisiana, home of Bobby Jindal who has been pushing Creationism into the public school system for some time now. 

This is a huge reality check for them, and hopefully for others in the religious right that they can no longer force their belief system onto others with impunity.

Christian militias chase tens of thousands of African Muslims out of their homelands.

Courtesy of the Washington Post:  

Tens of thousands of Muslims are fleeing to neighboring countries by plane and truck as Christian militias stage brutal attacks, shattering the social fabric of this war-ravaged nation. 

In towns and villages as well as here in the capital, Christian vigilantes wielding machetes have killed scores of Muslims, who are a minority here, and burned and looted their houses and mosques in recent days, according to witnesses, aid agencies and peacekeepers. Tens of thousands of Muslims have fled their homes. 

The cycle of chaos is fast becoming one of the worst outbreaks of violence along Muslim-Christian fault lines in recent memory in sub- Saharan Africa, tensions that have also plagued countries such as Nigeria and Sudan. 

“Civilians remain in constant fear for their lives and have been largely left to fend for themselves,” Martine Flokstra, emergency coordinator for the aid agency Doctors Without Borders, said in a statement Friday, adding that the violence had reached “extreme and unprecedented” levels. 

On Friday, thousands of Muslims hopped aboard trucks packed with their possessions, protected by soldiers from Chad, and drove out of Bangui, as Christians cheered their departures or tried to loot the trucks as they drove through Christian areas. At least one Muslim man, who fell from a truck, was killed by a mob. Meanwhile, thousands more Muslims huddled at the airport in a crowded hangar, waiting to be evacuated. 

“They are killing Muslims with knives,” said Muhammed Salih Yahya, 38, a shopkeeper, making a slitting motion across his throat. He arrived at the airport Wednesday from the western town of Yaloke with his wife and five children. “I built my house over two years, but the Christians destroyed it in minutes. I want to leave.”

To be fair while this is a case of the Muslims being victimized by the Christians, the converse has been true many times in the region as well.

However it seems when the Christians are being persecuted by an Islamic government or it's people, American churches and others start demanding action from the government to intercede, but never a word when it is the Muslims being persecuted or executed by the Christians.

The fact is that people are tribal, and they always care more about those that are more like them, than those who are different.

And we have made great progress in accepting our similarities and coming together as a people. Especially in America where we have made impressive strides in racism, sexism, and overcoming cultural differences.

However when it comes to religious differences it seems we are moving further apart, rather than closer to together, and that our ability to tolerate other faiths is decreasing rather than increasing.

Perhaps it is because the world is steadily moving toward a less religious and more enlightened future, and those who are defined by their religious faith are starting to feel under attack and defensive. Or perhaps it is simply that with more knowledge about the culture and religion of others comes a recognition of how alien they are to how we think, live, and believe.

Whatever the cause I actually feel that even in America we are in danger of seeing a rise in violence driven by religious intolerance and a need for domination. Right now it is expressing itself as a grab for political power and an attempt to undermine secular public schools, but failing that I have no doubt that there are those willing to kill and die for their god right here in the good old USA.

Fox News panelists suggest that Satanists should be shot standing next to their proposed Oklahoma monument. Fox News refuses to apologize.

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

The Satanic Temple has issued a press release demanding that Fox Business News publicly apologize for the remarks made by one of its commentators. 

On January 9, 2014, one of the participants in Fox Business New’s “Mensa Meeting,” Bernard McGuirk, said that members of the Satanic Temple who want to erect a monument in Oklahoma City should be executed. 

“They should be able to put the statue up, and then they should be shot right next to it, and then we take it down,” McGuirk said. 

Lawyers for the Satanic Temple say that “[s]uch incitement to violence is reckless and possibly criminal. Advocacy of the murder of American citizens based on their religious beliefs is intolerable and sickening. For [Fox Business] to disseminate such a position as part of a televised debate on a national network strikes at the heart of this country’s founding principles and potentially places the Temple’s members in imminent danger.”

The "Mensa Meeting?" Seriously?

As I have mentioned before the Satanic Temple is really  a tongue in cheek organization that enjoys trolling Christians. However as irritating as that might be to said Christians it certainly does not justify killing them.

After all the members are really no more fake than say those who follow Scientology or Mormonism in my opinion.

Besides we have a history of people becoming agitated by those who appear on Fox News and then acting out in a violent manner.

Remember?

So yes Fox News should do the right thing and suspend this McGuirk fellow and send a message to others appearing on their network that such talk will not be tolerated.

Or do they really want to have even more innocent blood on their hands?

She has a point.

Right on the top of her crazy ass head.

You know I am starting to feel badly for the every day people in this country who think of themselves as Christians.  They are being represented nationally by the craziest people on the planet it seems.

I have to admit that virtually ALL of my relationships have been with self identified Christian women. Even though I have been out as an atheist since high school it was never really an issue.

I did have a very good friend whose super religious new wife would not let him hang out me anymore, but that was an unusual response to me.

But now days it seems that every time I turn around that a Christian group is trying to take Christmas away from everybody, screw up our public education, strip women of their human rights, hate on the gays, or get some wing nut elected whose goal it is to sabotage our government.

In all this time I don't feel like I'm the one who changed. I am just responding to the increased oppression, insanity, and aggression demonstrated by my Christian brothers and sisters.

I am all about harmony, but I would be a totally worthless human being if I let all this happen around me without doing my small part to help put a stop to it.

Don't you agree?

Two men attempt to light "Keep Saturn in Saturnalia" sign on fire. Well so much for religious diversity in this country.

Courtesy of South Jersey Times:

Someone tried to torch the “Saturnalia” billboard on the edge of town Tuesday night. 

An off-duty police officer from another municipality was in Carolina Blue with a number of friends when they looked across the intersection of Lambs Road and Holly Avenue at about 11:45 p.m. and spotted two men underneath the billboard, which proclaims “Keep Saturn in Saturnalia.” 

The billboard was erected by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the organization’s way of countering the “Keep Christ in Christmas” banner that hangs across Broadway, Pitman’s main thoroughfare. The Christmas banner is erected by the Knights of Columbus. 

The FFRF has been objecting to the Christmas banner since at least 2011, insisting it is illegally hung, without receipt of proper permits. 

Despite the fact that the billboard features a depiction of the ringed planet Saturn, Saturnalia was an ancient Roman holiday named after Saturn, a Roman deity. The holiday took place near the Winter Solstice — which occurs on Dec. 21 this year — and featured public feasting and gift-giving.

That was not the first attempt to destroy or deface the sign either by the way: Also on Sunday, a man accompanied by a woman and child put an extension ladder against the billboard and prepared to climb up and paste a poster with a picture of a manger on it over top of the Saturnalia sign. Police intervened and the protesters left.

Sure the religious people are always talking about freedom of speech and diversity, but put up one billboard celebrating the TRUE reason for the season and what them lose their shit.

I gotta tell you this stuff is cracking me up this year.

"Festivus for the rest of us!"

Here is Chaz Stevens standing alongside his Festivus pole made out of Pabst Blue Ribbon beer cans at the Florida capital in Tallahassee. (The story is here.)

I don't know about anybody else but I simply cannot look at this picture without getting a case of the giggles. So brilliant.

Book seeks to explain why conservatives are more homophobic religious, and racist than liberals. Oh, this should be good.

Courtesy of Alternet:  

The following are excerpts from the new book Our Political Nature; The Evolutionary Origins of What Divides Us, by Avi Tuschman ( Prometheus Books, 2013): 

In relation to the political spectrum, tribalism breaks down into three components: (1) ethnocentricity, (2) religiosity, and (3) sexual (in)tolerance. High measures of ethnocentricity, religiosity, and sexual intolerance are commonly associated with one another. Individuals with this cluster of traits tend to have political views on the right. On the other end of the spectrum, attraction to out-groups (xenophilia), secularism, and higher sexual tolerance are well correlated with one another and with political views on the left. 

What, specifically, would be the objects of sexual intolerance? Any form of sexuality deemed less likely to contribute to normatively sanctioned reproduction, economic stability, and social harmony of a given in-group. Examples include nonreproductive sexuality (such as homosexuality), premarital sexual choices made by young people, and extramarital affairs. 

What is the logic between these three components of tribalism? The more ethnocentric, religious, and sexually intolerant people are, the more likely they are to reproduce with a mate from their own in-group. Moreover, conservatives are more likely to emphasize group values, such as prioritizing the reproduction and defense of their ethnic group, over other possible competing interests (e.g., personal pleasure, and education or career choices made at the expense of family). 

On the other hand, more xenophilic, secular, and sexually tolerant people are more likely to see equal (or even greater) value in out-groups, and to reproduce with them. Thus, liberals place relatively greater importance on individualism and less on in-group values.

Yep. makes perfect sense to me. 

Rand Paul does not want to strike Syria's President Assad because he has "protected Christians" and if the rebels win it might be a "bad idea for Christians." Yeah, no religious favoritism there!

Click image to hear interview

Courtesy of HuffPo: Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Sunday portrayed the current conflict in Syria as one between the government of President Bashar Al Assad, who Paul said "has protected Christians for a number of decades," and "Islamic rebels," who Paul said "have been attacking Christians" and are aligned with Al Qaeda. 

"I think the Islamic rebels winning is a bad idea for the Christians, and all of a sudden we'll have another Islamic state where Christians are persecuted," Paul said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

So to be clear in Rand Paul's eyes, the ONLY victims that we should be worried about are Christian victims, is that correct?

I mean fuck all of those Muslims who are dying by the hundreds of thousands right?

That is what they get for believing in the wrong religion.

Look I think Congress should have very deep concerned about our involvement over in Syria, however that concern cannot be based on the fact that if the balance of power shifts, Christians might die instead of Muslims.

People dying are people dying.

And I can pretty much guarantee that there will be far fewer Christian deaths than there have been Muslim deaths. Far fewer.

National Atheist Party changes its name seeking greater acceptance. Good luck with that. Update!

Courtesy of HuffPo:

In a vote last week, members of the political group -- which supports secular government and the reinforcement of the separation of church and state -- selected the "Secular Party of America" as their new name. The change had reportedly been in the works for months, and over 75 percent of the party's members voted in support of the rebrand. 

Vice President of Public Relations and Marketing Bernard “Flash” Kellish“ hailed the move in a statement. 

"We are certain that not only is the new name far more inclusive of a greater number of Americans that share our vision of true separation of church and state, but that it will open the door to those that may not have joined us if for no other reason than because 'Atheist' was in the name," he said. "We were created by atheists as a way to be a hereunto unrepresented voice in politics and have been very successful. We will miss the old name but now it is time to move forward and focus on being a viable and respected political party. We hope to make a worldwide network of secular organizations.”

First off I should point out that I do not belong to the NAP so I have no right to tell them how to move their agenda forward. As you know I'm not much of a joiner.

However I would like to point out that this smacks of the same kind of insecurity which inspired the Liberals to re-brand themselves as "progressives."  Personally I always thought that was a capitulation to the conservative forces which kept trying to vilify liberals.

My attitude was "Fuck them, they're not the boss of me!" And remains so to this day.

I have to say I feel much the same about this. I personally take great pains to point out that I am an Atheist and then, hopefully, give people the opportunity to see that I am not the evil, dangerous, immoral person that many religious people would have you believe that I am.

In fact I believe Atheists to be the moral superior of ANYBODY who claims to be a God fearing individual who lives a moral life due to their superstitious belief that by not doing so they risk being denied heaven and instead will be forced to suffer in agony for eternity.

In my personal view of Atheists I see us as intelligent individuals who have carefully investigated the claims made by the world's religion and found that none of them provided compelling evidence to support their claims, And who furthermore have made the choice to courageously advertise to a world filled with religious and superstitious people that we do not share your need to cling to unprovable dogmatic assertions about reality out of fear of being alone or death.

Caving to pressure from others is to deny who I am would be a betrayal of self, and an act of abject cowardice.

But hey, I wish the "Secular Party of America" great success.

Update: For those questioning my assertion that Atheists are the least trusted and most reviled group on the planet I suggest you educate yourselves by reading here, here, and here.

Just a reminder as to why ALL Americans, regardless of their party affiliations, should be proud of this President.

Simply put this is one of the most impressive things I have ever heard uttered by a political leader, made even more so by the intensity of the attacks that have come his way since even before he was elected.

Could any of us imagine Mitt Romney dealing with that kind of hate with such sophistication and class?

I am liking Hillary Clinton more and more lately.

Pat Robertson is a vocal advocate for the freedom to practice one's religion. Well freedom to practice HIS religion that is.

I have long believed that the ONLY reason that a number of Christian ministers are constantly on their soapboxes about freedom of religion is to make sure nobody screws with THEIR church.

If the day ever came where this country really DID establish Christianity as the country's religion, I would bet you any amount of money that the talk about religious freedom and religious diversity would come to a screeching halt overnight!

Pat Robertson is just getting too old and senile to effectively hide his disdain for those OTHER ridiculous religions anymore.

George Bernard Shaw nails it.

Have you ever wondered how the book that inspires people to love their fellow man and dedicate their lives to providing for the welfare of others is the same book that was used to defend slavery, oppress women, declare war on infidels, and now vilify homosexuals?

George Bernard Shaw knew exactly why.

Brits may be fired for wearing a crucifix around their neck at work. Oh, THAT is going to make a certain religious group very unhappy!

Courtesy of The Telegraph:  

In a highly significant move, ministers will fight a case at the European Court of Human Rights in which two British women will seek to establish their right to display the cross. 

It is the first time that the Government has been forced to state whether it backs the right of Christians to wear the symbol at work. 

A document seen by The Sunday Telegraph discloses that ministers will argue that because it is not a “requirement” of the Christian faith, employers can ban the wearing of the cross and sack workers who insist on doing so. 

The Government’s position received an angry response last night from prominent figures including Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury. 

He accused ministers and the courts of “dictating” to Christians and said it was another example of Christianity becoming sidelined in official life.

Some of you may be shocked, due to my identification as an Atheist, that I  am deeply troubled by ANY law which allows the firing of a person for displaying their religious faith through the wearing of ornaments or clothing.

While I may have a very different view of allowing proselytizing at work, and this COULD be categorized as a subtle form of that invasive practice, I do not see it in the same light at all.

However though this may seem a simple case of free speech or religious tolerance, it is a little more complicated.

The Strasbourg case hinges on whether human rights laws protect the right to wear a cross or crucifix at work under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

It states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.” 

The Christian women bringing the case, Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin, claim that they were discriminated against when their employers barred them from wearing the symbols. 

They want the European Court to rule that this breached their human right to manifest their religion. 

The Government’s official response states that wearing the cross is not a “requirement of the faith” and therefore does not fall under the remit of Article 9. 

Lawyers for the two women claim that the Government is setting the bar too high and that “manifesting” religion includes doing things that are not a “requirement of the faith”, and that they are therefore protected by human rights.

I actually read about this case several days ago, but there was so much going on that I was unable to address it back then. 

Still I think it is a rather fascinating topic and am interested in what all you have to say about it.