Hemant Mehta's Blog, page 1889

Duck Dynasty‘s Phil Robertson Tapes “Bibles and Guns” Ad for Congressional Candidate (and Nephew) Zach Dasher

I don’t know what scariest about this new campaign ad for Zach Dasher, running for Congress from Louisiana’s 5th Congressional District: The fact that it features his relative, Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson; that it mentions Bibles; that it mentions guns; or that it combines all of that in less than five seconds:

Hey, Louisiana: Bibles and guns brought us here, and Bibles and guns will keep us here. Zach Dasher believes in both. That’s why I’m voting for him.

Subtext: If you’re not the right kind of Christian, Zach Dasher doesn’t give a rat’s ass about you.

It’s only a slight step up from when Dasher said the Sandy Hook massacre was the result of atheism.

In case you’re wondering, Dasher doesn’t appear to have much of a chance of winning the race. The incumbent, Rep. Vance McAllister (who is hardly the Christian Values guy he claims to be), has a healthy lead going into next week’s election.

Afghan Mullah Mercilessly Raped a 10-Year-Old Girl in His Mosque; Court, in a Surprise, Sentences Him To 20 Years

Bravery under fire:

A mullah who raped a 10-year-old girl in his mosque was sentenced to 20 years in prison after a dramatic trial here in Kabul on Saturday during which his accuser, weeping and shaking, summoned the courage to confront him.

The girl’s injuries, the court heard, were horrific (upsetting description, fair warning):

The rape had been so violent that it caused a break in the wall between the vagina and rectum, a fistula, which had to be repaired surgically.

Chances are that if the victim had been of the age of consent, the judge would’ve treated the rape as mere adultery, just as the mullah’s defense lawyers argued he should do in this case; a conviction for adultery would result in both the rapist and the girl undergoing a whipping.

“She cannot commit adultery; she is a child,” [the judge] said. “This is rape.”

Women’s activists attending the packed proceedings hailed the sentence as a victory because the mullah was successfully prosecuted under a 2009 law meant to fight violence against women in a country where rape had long been treated as adultery, implicitly placing partial blame on the victim. The judge in this case dismissed the mullah’s Shariah law defense.

This part, at least, cheered me:

The prosecutor did not call the girl as a witness, but she insisted on being heard. “You shamed me, liar, you destroyed my life, you brought shame to my father,” she called out. Addressing the judge, she said, “Please, director, hang him.”

And turning again to her rapist:

“Hey liar, hey liar,” she said. “God hate you, you are dirt, you are dirt, you are a vampire.”

The New York Times says that the girl’s name is being withheld withheld “for her safety outside her village,” referencing what some Islamists would still like to do to her for her “adultery.”

And the danger to her life is, or was, impossibly close.

After the rape occurred last May, family members of the girl had been overheard plotting to kill her out of shame at what had happened, according to the police and women’s activists in Kunduz. Such “honor killings” of rape victims are common in Afghanistan.

Her father says that the family never planned to murder the girl. An uncle, Mohammad Rasoul, commented:

“She was raped and is a child, and if we killed her, how would we answer to God on the day of judgment?”

God, God, God. How about your own conscience, you detestable creep?

During the court proceedings,

The victim’s father neither looked at nor spoke to his daughter…, and when they were over, he turned his back on her and walked out. She followed him at a respectful distance.

Into a lifetime of reproach, oppression, and misogyny – if she’s lucky and manages to stay alive.

(Image via Shutterstock)

If You’re Looking for Something Scary to Give Away This Halloween…

Mrs. Betty Bowers reminds us that, this Halloween, there’s nothing scarier than the Bible:

By the way, you can see my own Halloween video from last year right here!

Some More Atheist Street Evangelism… With Analysis

Once again, Anthony Magnabosco has made a video in which he speaks to a stranger about his or her religious beliefs for just five minutes — and then deconstructs the whole conversation afterwards.

This one’s much shorter than his previous attempts:

The impetus for this series on street epistemology comes from Peter Boghossian‘s book.

If any parts stand out, please leave the timestamps/summaries in the comments!

Georgia Sheriff’s Office Called Out for Having an Official Chaplain and Religious Poems on Its Website

If you check out the website for the Laurens County Sheriff’s Office (in Georgia), you might notice this religious poem that has no business being there:

When the Lord was creating peace officers, he was into his sixth day of overtime when an angel appeared and said, “You’re doing a lot of fiddling around on this one.”

…

The angel circled the model of the peace officer very slowly, “Can it think?” she asked.

“You bet,” said the Lord. “It can tell you the elements of a hundred crimes; recite Miranda warnings in its sleep; detain, investigate, search, and arrest a gang member on the street in less time than it takes five learned judges to debate the legality of the stop… and still it keeps its sense of humor.

Turns out that’s not the only problem. The Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter to the Sheriff’s Office recently documenting another religious poem as well as an even more egregious constitutional violation: They have an official Chaplain who “may be called upon to lead in prayer for such activities as graduations, meeting, banquets, etc.” and is available “to conduct training for department personnel and their families in such areas as stress management, ethics, dealing with death, personality profiles, etc.”

FFRF attorney Sam Grover writes:

… it is unconstitutional for a public sheriff’s office to indicate a preference for Christianity and religion by quoting the Christian bible and posting religious stories on its official website. This proselytizing message gives the appearance of government endorsement of Christianity. It also conflicts with personal religious and nonreligious views of many area residents and employees.

…

We ask that you discontinue all coordination with the chaplain program. The best approach by the LCSO is to provide secular support services and trainers and leave determinations on religious matters to individuals. In addition, the LCSO must remove all inappropriate religious material from its website.

The Sheriff’s Office is being especially sneaky about this, because both the chaplain and the religious poems aren’t directly accessible from the main website. Which I assume means they either are trying to hide the pages or once linked to them more directly than they do now.

In any case, it all sends the wrong message: That the people tasked with protecting all the people in the community care more about Christians than everyone else.

Christian Bale, Who Plays Moses in Exodus: Gods and Kings, Calls His Character “Barbaric” and “Schizophrenic”

Actor Christian Bale (below), who plays Moses in the upcoming Exodus: Gods and Kings movie, seems to have ruffled some feathers with his comments about the Biblical figure he’s portraying.

And no wonder, as he’s refreshingly blunt:

In an interview with reporters on Friday, Bale shared his insight into Moses’ character, saying:

“I think the man was likely schizophrenic and was one of the most barbaric individuals that I ever read about in my life. He’s a very troubled and tumultuous man who fought greatly against God, against his calling.”

Of note is that Bale describes his knowledge, prior to taking on the role, as “below Sunday school.” In preparation for the part, then, he read from the applicable texts of the three Abrahamic faiths, as well as Jonathan Kirsch‘s Moses: A Life. Reading these sources, he came to the conclusion that the characters portrayed — not only Moses, but also God — were “very mercurial.”

At this juncture, one can’t help but recall Isaac Asimov‘s famous musing: “Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” This seems a more limited realization of that potency, but certainly in keeping with the sentiment — when approached without significant prior indoctrination, the appalling nature of the story, and its primary characters, cannot but impress a degree of mortification on the reader.

Needless to say, plenty of religious people are less than thrilled at reports of Bale’s comments. The Blaze, for instance, compares the fact that “there will be no consequences” for Bale to the reactions of radical Muslims who kill or incite killing against those who insult Muhammad.

Author Sharona Schwartz doesn’t explicitly state what her intent is with that comparison — Muslims are scary? There should be “consequences” for criticizing religious figures? — but, much like the “you atheists wouldn’t be able to get away with that in Saudi Arabia!” line, you’re left with the feeling that she wants to suggest a little of both: be very afraid of Muslim extremists… and why can’t we have some of that extremism in our own faith?

At any rate, I’m actually quite curious to see how the film tells this story. It’s probably too much to hope that it will unflinchingly depict the mortifying scenarios religion claims as just, but Bale’s comments seem to indicate that we can at least hope for more than abject recitation of Christian myths.

(Image via Featureflash / Shutterstock.com)

My Mormon Mission Made Me an Atheist

This is an article by Greg Hawkins. It appears in the current issue of American Atheist magazine. American Atheist magazine is available at Barnes & Noble and Book World bookstores in the U.S. and at Chapters/Indigo bookstores in Canada. Go to Atheists.org to subscribe or to join American Atheists. Members receive free digital subscription. It’s also available from iTunes.

…

“Hello! My name is Elder Hawkins, and this is my companion, Elder Thompson. We are missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and we would love to share the true words of Christ with you today. May we share our message of Christ’s atonement with you?”

I can’t count how many times I uttered that phrase. Over and over again. Of course, as a Mormon missionary in the Philippines, I was required to speak the language of the people, so it sounded something closer to:

Kumusta! Ako si Elder Hawkins, at ito si Elder Thompson, ang aking kasama. Mga misyonero kami sa Simbahan ni Jesucristo ng mga Banal sa mga Huling Araw. Gusto naming magbahagi ng totoong salita ni Cristo sa inyo ngayon araw. Puwede ba kaming magbahagi ng mensahe namin sa pagbabayad-sala ni Cristo sa inyo?

It’s quite the mouthful, isn’t it? Good thing I learned how to speak the language on the fly during my stay. Gift of tongues.

As an active member and missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I first spent nine weeks at the Missionary Training Center in Provo, Utah. Although I was raised Mormon, most of my friends and family aren’t, which means that they are merely being deceived by the wiles of Satan, who is always getting good, god-fearing, non-Mormon Christians to follow him to hell.

Greg Hawkins

The Missionary Training Center, or MTC, was a splendid place. I was blessed with the opportunity to wake up at 6:30 every morning to quickly shower and shave with all of the other wonderful young men on my floor. At 7:00 a.m. sharp, my companion and I (Mormon missionaries always travel in pairs) would be sitting in the classroom of an adjacent building, ready to do our daily planning. This was followed by breakfast and then language and gospel study for the rest of the day until 10:30 pm, when we went to bed and restarted the entire beautiful sequence the next day.

Oh, by the way, family visits were not allowed. Neither were visits from friends. Or phone calls. Snail mail was acceptable and so was email to family once a week. It’s important to stay focused on the Lord’s work, and silly things like families and relationships just got in the way, especially with most of my family not being Mormon. It simply wouldn’t do to have them interfering with the building of God’s kingdom.

I think it was around my seventh week of training that I had my first doubt. I was sitting in my classroom, just like every other day, studying the Doctrine and Covenants, one of the canonized Mormon scriptures, when I came to Section 132:

And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.

Now, basically, what this scripture is saying is that you have to be a Mormon who married another Mormon in a Mormon temple in order to receive eternal life. If you don’t meet all three criteria, not only will you not get to be with your spouse in heaven, you will be “destroyed in the flesh” and your wife will be given to a more worthy man. (Sorry, ladies. It’s just the Lord’s will.)

This entire section is especially fun to read if you don’t believe in the Mormon scriptures. It’s also fun to read what it says about mandated polygamy and unforgivable sins.

But I did believe in the Mormon scriptures. I believed in all of them. And I couldn’t comprehend what I was reading. My extended family, my birth family, the families of my best friends—none of them would get to be united for eternity in heaven? I recall marking these pages up quite heavily and asking my leaders about the meaning of the verses. Perhaps I had simply misunderstood.

Nope, I hadn’t. It was clear as day. Instead of illuminating relief, my greatest fears were confirmed. To add insult to injury, they chastised me and wrote on my record that my “political views regarding gay marriage and abortion were disgraceful” and that “I had trouble waking up in the morning.” They didn’t care about my depression or insomnia or any of those excuses. The Lord demands exact obedience, Elder, and so you must be exactly obedient. Remember, obedience brings blessings, but exact obedience brings miracles.

I shoved these trivial nuisances to the back of my head for the rest of my training before heading out to “serve” in the Philippines for the next 23 months. By the way, a Mormon missionary’s family — not the Church — pays for all travel and living expenses during a mission, and the missionary doesn’t get as much as a stipend.

The “field” is very different than the training center because it is a complete and total language and culture immersion. If you are assigned to a foreign country, like I was, your only extra preparation is basic language instruction. From day one, I lived like a native and learned the nuances of the language on my feet.

The culture shock was extreme. I cried every night of my first week. I just wanted a toilet that flushed. And to not have to wash my clothes by hand. And perhaps have a house that wasn’t infested with rodents and cockroaches. And to not get shot at. Or pick-pocketed. Or yelled at by all the passers-by. Or molested. And to perhaps to be paid for my 24/7 efforts instead of paying the Church for the privilege to do this whole thing.

When I approached a more experienced missionary about my constant misery, his stern reply was, “Watch your pride, Elder.”

So I relied even more on my faith in Jesus. I read the scriptures. I prayed my heart out.

And the contradictions kept coming. The cognitive dissonance kept getting louder.

In the field, I remember that this was in part due to an investigator of our church. An investigator is someone who allows missionaries into their home and has also allowed a lesson to be taught. His name was Ed, and he had trouble with the Law of Tithing. In order to be baptized a Mormon, you must commit to tithing. To Mormons, tithing means giving the Church ten percent of your gross income for the rest of your life. Ed had a wife and four children. And he made the equivalent of $177 a month — working 84 hours a week.

My missionary companion just couldn’t understand Ed’s reluctance and was convinced that we needed to work on Ed’s faith. He needed faith to see that if he just gave $18 of that income to the Church every month, the Lord would provide him with blessings. And blessings would help see him through these troubled times. After all, Jesus told the parable of the widow’s mite. “How selfish could Ed possibly be?” he asked me one night while we were having dinner at McDonald’s.

When the problems kept coming, I finally decided to put the Book of Mormon down and actually give the Bible a good, thorough study. Once I did, I realized for the first time that it not only mentions but advocates for genocide, rape, genital mutilation, slavery, polygamy, incest, and the subjugation of women. And it forbids wearing clothing made of two kinds of material. In other words, no cotton-poly blends. Surely there must be something in the Book of Mormon that corrects this. I had to find out.

Bad decision. The number of contradictions between the Book of Mormon (a.k.a. the “most perfect book ever”) and the Bible (“we need to have this one because all the other Christian people do”) were staggering. And none of them made any sense.

For example, Acts 11:6 talks about the first Christians being in Antioch. But the Book of Mormon says in Alma 46:15 that there were Christians as early as 73 BC. In another passage, Micah 5:2, Jesus is born in Bethlehem, but Alma 7:10 of the Book of Mormon says that Jesus will be born in Jerusalem.

The contradictions began to pile up, and I carried these with me like a heavy backpack every single day. When I returned to the United States, completely fluent in Tagalog and the Gospel — and full of doubts and contradictions as a result — I ran across a YouTube video of David Fitzgerald giving his talk “The Heretic’s Guide to Mormonism.” I recall reeling in my chair after watching the video. He must have been lying. Surely the things he said weren’t true. I had to research this. Against the council of my church leaders, I took my studies to the internet to prove him wrong. He wasn’t.

The devil then proceeded to speedily drag me down to hell. Fitzgerald led me to Reza Aslan’s Zealot. Aslan led me to Christopher Hitchens, who led me to Sam Harris. And from there, it was history. As the dissonance slowly evaporated, it felt liberating to be welcomed when making inquiries. I was no longer living under “shut up and humble yourself.” I was living with the knowledge that I could question anything — anything — and I could also go and find out.

Of course, this didn’t come easily. My immediate family and Mormon extended family and friends are still very upset with my decision to leave. The fallout is very real and still quite difficult. My family refuses to talk about me. I’m almost nothing more than a failure to them. I remember clearly my mother crying on the sofa after I told her of my deconversion. She didn’t want a son who was “going to hell.” I’m still trying to find ways of coping with the stress and heartache.

But it is worth it. As Hitchens said, “Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.”

…

Greg Hawkins was born in 1993 and was raised in Salt Lake City. He officially renounced his faith in 2013. He is now studying political science and philosophy at the University of Utah and plans to be an attorney.

Jenny McCarthy, Who Still Spreads Misinformation About Vaccines, Says “I Am Not Anti-Vaccine”

True story: A friend of mine, who happens to be a journalist, had an interview with Jenny McCarthy (below) a while back. When I found out, I sent her a message that was along the lines of, “Ask her all about the anti-vaccine craziness or our friendship is over.”

Her response: She couldn’t do it because the “rules” of the interview said that topic was off-limits.

Turns out something similar was in place for The Daily Beast‘s Lloyd Grove, but he tried, anyway:

As soon as I raise the subject [of vaccines], McCarthy’s personal publicist — who is listening in on the interview from a few feet away — pounces. “Can we actually not go into this?” the publicist instructs, offering instead to provide a newspaper op-ed in which her client explains herself.

“I’ll hear the question, and then I’ll let you know,” McCarthy says gamely, adding with a confidential smile, “She’s worried about me being ‘vilified.’”

…

“I am not anti-vaccine,” McCarthy insists. “I’m in this gray zone of, I think everyone should be aware and educate yourself and ask questions. And if your kid is having a problem, ask your doctor for an alternative way of doing the shots” — for example, fewer vaccination doses at the same time.

“The ironic thing is my position has always remained the same. People just never listened to it,” she says. “Literally, throughout the years, I have said the same thing over and over again. But people will only read headlines instead of looking back and seeing what I’ve been saying.”

There’s no gray area. And we’ve all looked at what McCarthy has said. That’s the problem. (Maybe if McCarthy did as much research into vaccines as she’s asking everyone else to do of her, she wouldn’t be so vilified.)

This isn’t the first time she’s tried to defend herself against charges of spreading dangerous misinformation. There’s a litany of ignorant, harmful statements she’s made (in context) and you can read those for yourself.

But just to offer a few examples, she once claimed there was something wrong with children getting multiple shots in a single doctor visit, a statement she reiterated with Grove:

For my child, I asked for a schedule that would allow one shot per visit instead of the multiple shots they were and still are giving infants.

But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put that myth to rest a while ago:

The available scientific data show that simultaneous vaccination with multiple vaccines has no adverse effect on the normal childhood immune system. A number of studies have been conducted to examine the effects of giving various combinations of vaccines simultaneously. These studies have shown that the recommended vaccines are as effective in combination as they are individually, and that such combinations carry no greater risk for adverse side effects.

McCarthy also claimed:

I’ve never told anyone to not vaccinate.

Maybe not directly, no. But by spreading false information and implanting doubts about vaccines into the minds of gullible parents for years, she bears some responsibility for the spread of many preventable diseases.

She also thinks there’s something wrong with “toxins”:

We are demanding safe vaccines. We want to reduce the schedule and reduce the toxins

Phil Plait beautifully explained the problem with that logic (not to mention the hypocrisy) earlier this year:

… The amount of, say, formaldehyde in a typical vaccination is much less than you’d get eating an apple. The same can be shown for the other ingredients claimed to be toxins in vaccines as well. The truth is vaccines contain far too small a dose of any of these things to cause any of the problems McCarthy and other anti-vaxxers claim exist.

Also, botulinum is the single most lethal toxin known to humans. Yet McCarthy has enthusiastically praised injecting this toxin into her face. How can anyone possibly say that and also say vaccines have dangerous levels of toxins in them with a straight face?

The most damning statement she made was to Time magazine’s science editor Jeffrey Kluger in 2009. McCarthy explained it this way:

“People have the misconception that we want to eliminate vaccines,” I told Time Magazine science editor Jeffrey Kluger in 2009. “Please understand that we are not an anti-vaccine group. We are demanding safe vaccines. We want to reduce the schedule and reduce the toxins.”

Kluger, in his own impassioned open letter to McCarthy showed that she left out the last line of that statement:

People have the misconception that we want to eliminate vaccines. Please understand that we are not an antivaccine group. We are demanding safe vaccines. We want to reduce the schedule and reduce the toxins. If you ask a parent of an autistic child if they want the measles or the autism, we will stand in line for the [fucking] measles.

As if it’s an either/or choice. Can’t imagine why McCarthy left that line out…

Ultimately, McCarthy’s views have not changed and her critics are not wrong. We call her an anti-vaxxer not because she opposes all vaccines at all times, but because she has been the biggest promoter of discredited theories about them. Whether it’s her goal or not, her actions have encouraged parents to put their children — and other people’s children — in harm’s way because they’re not giving their kids the protection they need.

McCarthy thinks she’s in a superior “gray zone” between the “black and white” thinking of giving children all the vaccines when the doctors say so and being labeled a wingnut:

God help us all if gray is no longer an option.

Guess what? It’s not an option. Much like evolution and Creationism, it makes no sense to be on the fence. Either you accept the science or you reject it.

McCarthy rejects the science — and thinks she deserves credit for just asking questions. Even though those questions were answered a long time ago and she just wasn’t happy with the responses. If Jenny McCarthy is not “anti-vaccine,” then Ken Ham must be the greatest advocate of evolution we’ve ever seen.

In the meantime, the Jenny McCarthy Body Count will continue to rise until she comes to her senses and rejects the harmful beliefs that she still holds.

(Image via DFree / Shutterstock.com. Large portions of this article were published earlier)

Apparently, No One Understands That Catholics Are Generally Accepting of Evolution…

Every time Pope Francis says something, it seems to make worldwide news… even when his statements aren’t all that interesting. His latest speech, about the compatibility of religion and science, is no exception.

In a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope Francis explained how he, like pretty much all Catholics, believed in God-guided evolution:

I don’t know why this is a story, either…

“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said.

“He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment.”

…

“God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” the pope said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

To be clear, he’s still wrong. There’s just no evidence that God poofed the starting blocks for evolution into existence. But, again, this shouldn’t be a story. This isn’t at odds with modern Catholic teaching, which supports evolution.

So why are we hearing about it everywhere?

Because there’s a strong desire to show how Pope Francis is different from traditional Catholics, even though this statement isn’t a contrast at all.

Because anything about Pope Francis tends to draw eyeballs and pageviews.

Because Catholics are desperate to distance themselves from evangelical Christians who are even further removed from reality on this issue.

Because any publicity for the Church that doesn’t involve a scandal is welcome.

This isn’t news. But maybe it’ll remind people that the process of evolution isn’t doubted by any thinking person. Which means the Pope’s comments will make Ken Ham mad. It’s a win-win!

(Image via giulio napolitano / Shutterstock.com)

Kirpan Controversy: Why Jerry Coyne Is Right and Hemant Is Wrong — Sikh Daggers Have No Place in Public Schools

Hemant wrote an eye-popping post yesterday in response to an article by Jerry Coyne about Sikh pupils habitually carrying ceremonial daggers called kirpans into U.S. public schools. My friend/colleague/boss argued that Coyne was wrong to object. Since kirpans are part of Sikhs’ religious requirements, Hemant thinks that we should accommodate Sikhs and their stabbing implements on religious-freedom grounds.

I respectfully disagree — completely. Below, I explain why in six points of rebuttal.

1.

Hemant: “How quickly religious rights go out the window when we’re talking about people who aren’t in the majority.”

Me: Majority or minority status has nothing to do with it. Why would it? Let’s argue this on the merits, irrespective of whose superstitions are most popular.

So, to battle. Religious rights, you say? I call what you propose religious accommodationism. I’m only in favor of that when whatever is being accommodated extends to all pupils. If a school allows head coverings, the right to wear a hat should shouldn’t only be given to Jews wearing yarmulkes. It should also apply to Muslim students who want to wear the hijab … and to atheist students who feel like showing off their Flying Spaghetti Monster beanies.

And if the school forbids hats in class, then that should apply across the board too, for everyone. That’s what “equal rights” is all about.

How many times have you written against carving out exceptions for one religious group or another, Hemant? Hundreds, surely. What’s so different about Sikhs?

2.

Hemant: “If [kirpans] were to be banned, that would likely mean an end to all religious symbols (including cross necklaces).”

Me: I don’t see why. The kirpan is much bigger, heavier, and fiercer-looking than a Star of David pendant or a cross necklace. (OK, not this guy‘s cross necklace.)

A kirpan also happens to be an actual weapon, unlike those other religious symbols.

For the record, if a Saudi Muslim exchange student wanted to carry a sword to school because it’s a sacred religious symbol depicted on his country’s flag and coat of arms, yeah, I’d have a problem with that, too.

And if, hypothetically, a Thor worshipper wanted to schlep a sledgehammer through his public school the live-long day… same deal.

3.

Hemant: “The Kirpan is never to be used as a weapon. In fact, it’s offensive to Sikhs to refer to it as such… Outsiders see the Kirpan as a weapon while the Sikh faithful see it as a symbol of their faith.”

Me: In that case, I’m happy to be an outsider, because it allows me see things for what they are, rather than what the faithful insist I should see.

You’re one of the most level-headed people I know, Hemant, but I think you slipped up here. Not a weapon? Let’s say you’d never heard of Sikhism and its customs, and you saw this picture of a kirpan:

Would you call that a weapon or a mere “symbol”? If the latter, what do you think the outcome would be if you asked 100 reasonable people to answer the same question?

In any case, SikhiWiki, a kind of Wikipedia by and about Sikhs, states unabashedly that

The kirpan has both a physical function, as a defensive weapon, as well as a symbolic function.

That sounds good, but in practice there is nothing that distinguishes a defensive dagger from an offensive one; and were there such a difference, it still shouldn’t matter for purposes of this discussion, which I hope we’re having on the principle of the thing.

4.

Hemant: “There are plenty of potential weapons in schools that no one worries about because they expect them to be used properly — compasses, scissors, knives in art classes, etc. I don’t see why this would be any different.”

Me: Yeah, if you jab hard enough, you could even wound somebody with a stubby pencil. But a kirpan is a full-blade dagger with a solid handle. While I know that some are dull (on purpose), the thing is essentially made for stabbing and slashing. The blades have no prescribed length: Kirpans can be just a few inches in length, all the way up to three feet.

I don’t think three-foot kirpans, or even one-foot specimen, are typical, so we’re talking about weapons that are three to (let’s say) ten inches long. You could do far more damage (and far more quickly) with the average kirpan than with a compass or an art-class paper cutter.

If Sikh students would agree to carry miniature kirpans whose blades are no longer than that of X-acto knife (about half an inch?), that might be OK in my book. But in that case, in the interest of equal treatment, other pupils ought to be permitted to carry similar short blades, too…

5.

Hemant: “There are no instances, as far as I can tell, of school stabbings by Sikhs.”

I yield the floor to another atheist writer, James Kirk Wall:

Should a drunk driver not be arrested if he’s been driving drunk for years without incident?

6.

Hemant: “The problem with… saying the same rule [against knives in school] must apply to everyone is that wearing the Kirpan is an explicit requirement of the Sikh faith (as is the requirement not to use it to hurt people).”

Me: Honestly, I don’t know why religious “requirements” would be a valid argument for anything that gives one group special rights over another. And I must point out that you seem to be a lot more accommodating towards Sikhs than you would be (and typically are) towards Christians who claim special rights.

To some extent, I get that. Western racists and ignoramuses of various stripes have unfairly and violently targeted Sikhs over the mere fact that they wear turbans, often confusing them with Muslims and mistaking them for “terrorists.” It’s kind of you to feel protective toward this group of believers (if that’s what’s going on). But the double standard bugs me a little.

Look, Sikhs don’t make me nervous in the slightest. They seem to form a generally peace-loving community. I don’t view them with suspicion, and I truly wish them the best. You write that opposition to kirpans in schools is inspired by fear and “incredible ignorance,” but I don’t think that’s fair. Not to me, not to the always thoughtful Jerry Coyne, and not to all the other atheists and agnostics who aren’t motivated by base fears or lack of knowledge, but by the proposition that secular and religious people simply have the exact same rights and obligations.

As for Sikhs not using their sacred blades to inflict violence, I hear you, and I don’t foresee (m)any problems in that regard. Then again, someone forget to tell these Sikhs in Queens, NY, about their holy duty. And also, these Sikhs at the Golden Temple in India, who are seen furiously hacking and slashing at each other in yet another fine display of superior religious morality.

Now, given your accommodating stance, shall we also allow Sikhs, and only Sikhs, to carry daggers into courtrooms? Canada began allowing just that last year. And how about airport security? Do we permit passengers of the correct god persuasion to carry daggers or swords on board? Or is that the point where 300,000 U.S. Sikhs’ “deeply held beliefs” should yield to rules and regulations that truly apply to all of us?

Like you, I remain in favor of religious rights … but not religious privilege. To me, that means that if Sikh parents want their children to carry daggers in class, I’m all for it – as long as they do it in their own (private) schools. In public schools, and in places like airports and courtrooms, Sikhs will, I hope, continue to be 100% welcome … provided that they follow the same rules that others are required to. If they can learn to compromise (for instance, they could carry a blunt wooden kirpan, or an inch-long sealed kirpan worn as a pendant), so much the better.

U.S. Sikhs should seriously ponder leaving their sacred silverware at home when appropriate. With any luck, they’ll eventually come to appreciate the luxury of having a government that – what a concept! — is constitutionally obliged to decline playing favorites.

(Top image via Absence of Clothing)