Hemant Mehta's Blog, page 1852

Win a Secular-Themed Art Print for the Holiday Season

If you’re still looking for a gift to get that special heathen this holiday season, these art prints featuring the quotations of people like Carl Sagan, Sam Harris, and Neil deGrasse Tyson are pretty sweet:

If you’d like to purchase anything, readers can get a 10% discount by using the coupon code FRIENDLYATHEIST. And, for everyone, if you buy three, you get one for free!

But wait! There’s more! We’re giving away one free print to a random reader. All you have to do is leave your favorite skeptic/atheist-themed quotation in the comments and include the hashtag #Whisker at the end of your comment. I’ll pick a random winner next week!

(via WhiskerPrints)

Minnesota Public School Finally Agrees to Stop Sending Students on a Field Trip to Church

Earlier this year, we learned that the School of Engineering and Arts in Golden Valley, Minnesota had sent children on a field to a local Christian church (Calvary Lutheran Church) in order to package food for the hungry for a separate Christian non-profit group (Feed My Starving Children). Both the church and the non-profit were interested in spreading the Gospel.

A glimpse inside Calvary Lutheran Church

According to a letter from the American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center:

… we fully understand that at least one purpose of this field trip was to have the children participate in charity work intended to assist poverty-stricken people. Such good intentions, however, can be pursued in innumerable other ways that do not involve immersing the unsuspecting children into a theologically-charged environment. We are not opposed to educating children about poverty around the world, nor do we object to their participating in a nonreligious program to provide assistance.

Here, however, both the church and the Christian charity involved have an interest in propagating a specific religious message that is contrary to the views of many of the students and their families. The school has no right to select one Christian church and one Christian charity as a landing ground for public school students, just as it would have no right to direct students to a mosque, a temple, or an atheist group for similar purposes. Indeed, the religious mission underlying the charity work in question was out in the open in this situation, but your school embraced the event anyway. The packages involved were called “manna” packages, after the edible substance that, according to the Bible, God provided for the Israelites; and the venue involved included extensive religious imagery and symbolism.

Yesterday, the AHA reported that the school had *finally* agreed to work with a secular charity:

Officials at the Appignani Humanist Legal Center have been contacted by a reporter with the Sun Post, who informed them that the school will be supporting a different charity this year.

Well, it took a while, but the school finally did the right thing — without compromising their ultimate goal of helping those less fortunate. It’s a win-win for both sides.

(Portions of this article were published earlier)

Kentucky Will Deny Creationists $18,000,000 in Tax Rebates Because of Their Discriminatory Hiring Practices

Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham‘s ministry, is a religious non-profit. That’s why the Creation Museum can require you to sign a “statement of faith” if you want to work there.

Ark Encounter, the Noah’s Ark theme park that’s eligible for millions of dollars in tax rebates, is a for-profit business. They cannot discriminate in hiring.

Sounds simple enough.

But if you looked at the job listings at AiG’s website (since taken down), the requirements for some jobs made no sense at all:

That’s a position that requires you to be a Christian… despite working on Ark Encounter.

When my colleague Dan Arel asked Ken Ham about this directly, Ham was adamant that it was a position for Answers in Genesis:

But, as Dan wrote, the conflict was clear:

What it appears is happening here is that AiG is hiring employees for their non-profit and having them work on the Ark Encounter project, a for-profit business. By doing so, they are able to use religious discrimination in the hiring process and claim that the Ark Encounter itself is not hiring or discriminating. If this sounds shady to you, that’s because it is.

Today, Kentucky officials announced that Answers in Genesis would not be eligible for the incentives — a move that will cost the Creationists up to $18,000,000 in future rebates:

The state Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet said in a letter Wednesday that the Ark Encounter project has evolved from a tourist attraction into a ministry that intends to discriminate in hiring based on religion.

“State tourism tax incentives cannot be used to fund religious indoctrination or otherwise be used to advance religion,” Tourism Secretary Bob Stewart wrote in the letter. “The use of state incentives in this way violates the separation of church and state provisions of the Constitution and is therefore impermissible.”

AiG’s lawyers have argued that they have the right to hire whomever they want… which is true, as long as they don’t expect any government subsidies. But you can’t say “Jews need not apply” and expect to be rewarded for it, which is precisely what Ken Ham’s group wanted.

Even the Governor is on board with this:

Gov. Steve Beshear said Tuesday that he supported Stewart’s decision.

“We expect any entity that accepts state incentives not to discriminate on any basis in hiring,” Beshear said in a statement. “While the leaders of Ark Encounter had previously agreed not to discriminate in hiring based on religion, they now refuse to make that commitment and it has become apparent that they do intend to use religious beliefs as a litmus test for hiring decisions. For that reason, we cannot proceed with the tourism incentive application for the Ark Encounter project.”

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which led the charge against these tax breaks, were thrilled with the state’s decision:

“This project was never a good candidate for public funding,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Its purpose is to promote fundamentalist Christianity, and it should be funded with private contributions from believers.”

Hey, Ken: Your ark is sinking.

(Thanks to Ed for the link. Large portions of this article were posted earlier)

Once Again, a Public School is Told Not to Bring in a Catholic Chastity Speaker Who Can’t Help but Proselytize

If you were to visit the website of the Catholic-based Chastity Project website (and I’m not sure why anyone would), here’s the explanation you would find for why gay marriage isn’t really marriage:

Because members of the same sex have bodies that are not created to receive one another, they physically cannot express the vows of marriage. This inability of the bodies to become one expresses the deeper reality that they were not meant to give themselves to each other in marriage. Therefore, the Church has no authority to marry a couple who cannot speak their wedding vows through their bodies. A nonmarital relationship cannot be declared a marriage.

…

According to the Church, these would not be real marriages, even if the couples had legal marriage certificates. Similarly, if two people cannot have the kind of sexual relations that are designed to give life, they are incapable of marriage.

… realize that the Church is not singling out same-sex couples. In fact, the Church also believes that heterosexual couples are incapable of marriage if they are impotent. Not to be confused with sterility (a condition in which a couple is able to have intercourse but unable to have children), impotency means that a person is incapable of having intercourse.

There’s a lot of this faith-based bullshit all throughout the website and other resources, which is why it’s especially disturbing to learn that founders Jason and Crystalina Evert give presentations at public schools:

Chastity Project exists to promote the virtue of chastity so that individuals can see God, and be free to love (Matt. 5:8).

So you can imagine how concerned a parent might be to learn that Jason Evert recently gave a presentation at the Luverne Public Schools in Luverne, Minnesota. The American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center just sent the district a letter warning them about the consequences if they try anything like this again:

The purpose of this letter is to advise you that said actions are unconstitutional and must not be permitted to occur again. If we are informed that any similar actions are attempted by your school system, we will not hesitate to bring an action in federal court to remedy the situation, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages and attorneys fees. This was egregious conduct by your school and school district, and we demand an assurance from your office that it will not be repeated.

Hopefully, the pressure will do the trick. However, I still can’t believe district officials okayed this presentation in the first place. How hard is it to Google this guy?! Even if he promised a secular presentation, everything he does points to the fact that he can’t help but promote his faith through everything he does. He’s welcome to do that, of course, but not at a public school.

Jason Evert only knows how to give faith-filled speeches. His talks belong inside of a church, not a place where young people deserve to hear evidence-based presentations.

(Portions of this article were published earlier)

Christian Software Engineer Has a Scientific Explanation for How Moses “Parted” the Sea

Religion takes a lot of flak for the science-denial it inspires in those believers who try to re-frame reality in order to fit their particular religious text’s claims. Young Earth Creationists are a perfect example: they’ll discount mountains of evidence in order to cling to the narrow interpretation they’ve embraced. However, we tend to spend less time paying attention to the equally futile efforts of believers who reshape and rework those texts to sort-of, kind-of slip in-between the cracks of reality.

The National Center for Atmospheric Research’s Carl Drews is a good example of what I mean. Drews is a software engineer with a Masters Degree in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, who has spent a good deal of time trying to prove that Moses’ parting of the Red Sea actually happened.

Drews is not a science-denier; he accepts evolution, has done research on climate change, etc. But Drews believes that the Exodus was real, and so, for his master’s thesis, he set about trying to prove that it could have happened without supernatural intervention.

He has since written a book on the topic. Chris Mooney quotes him in an article for the Washington Post:

“I’m arguing that the historical event happened in 1250 B.C., and the memories of it have been recorded in Exodus,” says Drews. “The people of the time gloried in God and gave God credit.”

How Drews explains the Red Sea parting is quite interesting. For starters, he argues that it wasn’t the Red Sea at all, but the Lake of Tanis. The original Hebrew specifies a “Sea of Reeds”; while it is unclear what body of water this refers to,

Drews and his co-author Weiqing Han provide [a] map, which basically amounts to their hypothesis for what a particular portion of the Eastern Nile Delta looked like, circa 1250 B.C.

This map has the crossing at the Lake of Tanis, where a lot of reeds do indeed grow. This, then, becomes the Sea of Reeds. Notes Mooney:

… this is where one large potential objection to the idea comes in — all this depends heavily on the accuracy of these attempts to reconstruct the landscape of Exodus. That’s a task laden with uncertainty — and also one where the desire to “prove” the accuracy of the Bible may color interpretations.

While these are valid objections, the landscape is crucial to the idea, as Drews’ belief is that the Sea of Reeds crossing was facilitated by something known as “wind setdown,” which is when

… strong winds — a little over 60 miles per hour — create a “push” on coastal water which, in one location, creates a storm surge. But in the location from which the wind pushes — in this case, the east — the water moves away.

Drews’ map creates a location where wind setdown could happen. He even created a computer model to illustrate how this would all play out, provided the fleeing Israelites were stopped at the shores of the Lake of Tanis (rather than the Red Sea), and provided that such a storm happened at precisely the right moment.

“In my model, Moses has 4 hours to get across,” says Drews. The area of land that becomes available for crossing in Drews’ computer model is 3 to 4 kilometers long, and 5 km wide.

Presumably, Pharaoh decided to give them a four hour head start to be sporting. Regardless, Drews sees past these objections, to find purpose to his model.

“Faith and science can be compatible if you are willing to consider other interpretations of the text, other ideas of how this could have happened,” he says.

And, to be fair, when your “interpretations” involve such lengths as Drews has gone to, you are bound to avoid a lot of the problems more fundamentalist believers encounter. Indeed, with enough effort, you could probably make a belief in Santa Claus compatible with science. But, really, when you have to throw in more story revisions, plot twists, and lucky coincidences than your average daytime soap opera, it’s probably time to be honest with yourself: what you’re doing is less “science” and more “wishful thinking without magic.”

A Bible-Thumping High School Football Coach Allegedly Threw a Student Off the Team for Not Praying With Everyone

Back in April, we found out that Middletown High School football coach Chris Wells didn’t know how to separate his preaching from his job. The Freedom From Religion Foundation ended up sending a letter to administrators at the Ohio school district:

Chris Wells (via Facebook)

In the letter from [Freedom From Religion Foundation] staff attorney Rebecca S. Markert, that was obtained by the Journal-News, she wrote the group with 20,000 members, including 550 in Ohio, was contacted by a concerned parent of a football player. She said the group was told Wells tells his players to bow their heads and “leads” them in prayer before team meals. She wrote that Wells also has encouraged his players to attend his church, invited them to church events and offered them rides.

Markert said the group was informed Wells told his players they would be “saved” if they attended the church events.

At the time, it seemed like that was enough.

Superintendent Sam Ison said the district took the letter “seriously and acted upon it promptly” Wednesday afternoon by having MHS Principal Carmela Cotter and Athletic Director Gary Lebo discuss the situation with Wells. Ison said while the district wants its players to maintain “high morale values,” Wells needs to respect others’ religious beliefs.

Wells, 41, was told to quit talking to his players about religion and he agreed to follow the district’s rules, Ison said on Thursday morning.

Turns out it wasn’t enough. This September, Wells was right back to his old ways:

Wells apparently insisted on prayer after the team’s Sept. 19 game, which the team lost. He reportedly told the players they needed to re-dedicate themselves to God and put their faith in God, telling the players to take a knee and pray. When one player refused, the coach allegedly threw the student off the team.

It resulted in another letter from FFRF to the district:

These allegations are incredibly alarming and upsetting. There is no way Coach Wells can continue to serve as varsity football coach when it is clear his intentions are to proselytize [to] a captive group of high school students and punish those who do not comply with his religious demands… we are gravely concerned that students’ rights are being grossly and egregiously violated.

And, once again, district officials responded by saying they wouldn’t allow it to happen again… again (emphasis theirs):

An attorney for the district responded in November, saying administrators reiterated to Coach Wells that he could not “involve religion in any way in either his coaching or in his involvement with students,” and making restrictions on his conduct as a public employee clear. The attorney said the athletic director was assigned to be more active in practices and games to ensure no additional issues.

“Should you receive any more complaints, please let me know, so that the District can investigate and take further action,” said the district response.

For some reason, their promise doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence in me…

(Portions of this article were published earlier)

Palestinian Blogger Who Spent 10 Months in Prison for Writing About Atheism Tells His Story

Palestinian blogger Waleed al-Husseini (below) was arrested in 2010 for his website and Facebook page, both of which were critical of Islam. He spent 10 months in prison for his thought crimes. Now, in a piece at The Daily Beast, he tells his story and makes a plea to the international community:

I was beaten by prison guards who demanded to know who had made me write against Islam. In their minds, I could only say these things as the result of some plot, some conspiracy. The idea that I might simply want to express my independent thoughts was alien to them.

…

I still do not feel safe. If I cannot stay here, and if I am not protected, then there’s a chance the Palestinian Authority will arrest me again. That is my fear. I want to be active, but safety is my priority.

My hope is that the international community cares for those like me who are persecuted simply for speaking their minds, to stand against the laws in any country which limits basic freedoms of thought and expression. We are human, and freedom means living our lives without hurting others. Sadly, laws throughout the Middle East — from North Africa to the Gulf — limit the rights of religious minorities and non-believers.

I wish there was something more tangible we could do for him, but for now, just sharing his story — and those of people like him — will make a big difference. al-Husseini currently lives in Paris, where he can write about religion without direct fear of being labeled a criminal for it, but he hasn’t been granted asylum yet. That means his safety is still in flux.

The Daily Show Will Air a Segment This Week About FFRF’s Challenge of a Restaurant’s Prayer Discount

You may remember from this past August how Mary’s Gourmet Diner in Winston-Salem, North Carolina gave customers a 15% discount if they were seen praying before a meal:

Even though the discount was supposedly open to people of all faiths, it was clearly geared toward Christians and offered no alternatives for atheists.

Freedom From Religion Foundation attorney Liz Cavell wrote a letter to the diner’s owner Mary Haglund warning her of the legal repercussions of her actions:

It does not matter that the promotion is available to customers regardless of which god they pray to. Your restaurant’s restrictive 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. Any promotions must be available to all customers regardless of religious preference or practice on a non-discriminatory basis.

We urge you to discontinue this discriminatory discount. If you truly wish to reward gratitude in customers regardless of religion, you must do so in a way that does not single out customers who pray for favorable treatment.

The letter worked. Haglund announced shortly after that the diner would be putting an end to the prayer discount, courtesy of a hand-written note in the window:

We at Mary’s value the support of ALL our fellow Americans. While you may exercise your right of religious freedom at this restaurant by praying over your meal to any entity or non-entity, we must protect your freedom from religion in a public place. We are no longer issuing the 15% praying in public discount. It is illegal and we are being threatened by lawsuit. We apologize to our community for ANY offense this discount has incurred.

Someone at The Daily Show heard about the controversy and sent correspondent Jordan Klepper to cover it a few weeks ago. That involved visiting Haglund and interviewing FFRF’s Dan Barker.

They plan to air the segment sometime this week:

“Jon Stewart chooses all the stories,” Mary Haglund, the restaurant’s co-owner, said. “I asked the producer how and why this story. He said somebody from Charlotte pitched the story. Then I think they researched it and heard what I said and that the FFRF had come after me threatening a lawsuit.”

“They (the ‘Daily Show’ producers) told me they saw me as a nice lady trying to do something positive and pretty much got bullied by the FFRF. The ‘Daily Show’ folks see the FFRF people as being petty and that they should perhaps choose their battles better.”

I’m afraid she’s probably right. The point of the segment will be to mock atheists. It’s not the first time that’s happened on the show, and in fact, Barker was interviewed by correspondent Jason Jones in 2010 over FFRF’s opposition to the Mother Teresa stamp. (FFRF was the butt of the joke then, too.)

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

You can read Barker’s account of the interview here.

(Large portions of this article were published earlier. Thanks to Brian for the link)

Richard Dawkins’ Conversation at Kennesaw State University

A couple of weeks ago, Richard Dawkins spoke at Kennesaw State University in Georgia. Video of that conversation, including Q&A, is now online:

I haven’t had a chance to listen to the whole conversation, but if any moments stand out to you, please leave the timestamp/summary in the comments!

If You Don’t Believe in God, Does It Make Sense to Avoid the “Atheist” Label?

Neil deGrasse Tyson doesn’t believe in God. He’s said as much in interviews. However, he has also made a point of not using the term “atheist” to describe himself.

Tania Lombrozo at NPR wonders if that’s fair. If you fit the description, can you really ignore the label that comes with it?

Now, this is a strange response if being an atheist is strictly a matter of belief (or lack of belief, as the case may be). Consider a vegetarian making the opposite move — eschewing the label vegetarian based on her beliefs rather than on her behavior. “Sure,” she might say, “As an inviolable rule I never eat meat, but I don’t have the beliefs that one typically associates with being a vegetarian. For instance, I believe that making animals suffer is perfectly fine. I don’t eat any meat ever … but don’t label me a vegetarian.”

I would use slightly different examples: There are people who never eat meat, but don’t want to be associated with PETA, so maybe they avoid the term “vegetarian.” Or, as we know all too well, there are people who support all the goals of feminism but have a knee-jerk reaction when it comes to using the term “feminist.” There are also those who eschew the term “Christian” because of all the baggage and prefer something like “Follower of Jesus.”

You just don’t want to be associated with those people. (Julia Galef suggested to Tyson on the Think Rationally podcast that there’s value in taking on the label specifically because you don’t like those typically associated with it. You can help change how people perceive the word.)

On a personal level, when it comes to atheism, I normally don’t care what you call yourself. If you don’t believe in God and promote critical thinking in general, we’re on the same side.

On a practical level, though, there’s value to these labels. It makes a statement when we can say there were 20,000 atheists at the 2012 Reason Rally. Or that 10% of voters in a particular election were atheists. It means people are more likely to take our shared concerns, whatever they are, seriously. You can’t get that if you’re only loosely tied together based on behaviors.

I’ll admit I get frustrated when polls show that nearly 20% of Americans are “Nones”… but fewer than 3% call themselves atheists. How much more of an impact could we have on policy if legislators knew they had to appease a formidable non-theistic base?

(Image via Shutterstock)