Hemant Mehta's Blog, page 1897

Dirty Little Secret: Plenty of Jehovah’s Witnesses Hate Their Door-to-Door Proselytizing As Much As You Do

The City of Melbourne enjoyed suffered experienced an invasion of some 70,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses this past weekend, all there for their international convention. Graeme Hammond used to be one of them – door-to-door haranguing and all – and explains what drives the Witnesses to keep going in the face of understandable exasperation, even hostility.

[The] leaders require that all Witnesses, from children to the frail-aged, devote their lives to proselytizing in the hope of gathering millions more into their fold before the divine hammer blow of Armageddon. But the command is not only to “preach” (usually a forlorn offer of a magazine or leaflet); they must also hand in monthly reports detailing the hours they spent “in the field” and how many calls they made. The message at their meetings is relentless and laden with guilt and fear: keep on preaching or you, too, will die at Armageddon.

Back then when my heart was in it, my Saturday mornings were often all about perfecting the soft knock, half-hoping no one would hear me. And I was not alone. For most of those I paired up with on Saturdays, an unopened door was a good door. When it did swing open, revealing a clearly irritated resident, I felt like saying, “Hey, I hate this as much as you do!”

Nevertheless,

We were instructed to call at every home and return later if they were out. If they weren’t warned about the coming cataclysm, their blood would be on our hands… I plodded on, did my service to God and man. Everything was about counting hours. Not the hours to the Apocalypse, but the hours I wrote on my monthly report. Clever JWs would “do a door” on the way to the meetings where witnessing territory was assigned, just to start the clock and take them closer to their quota… We’d linger at doors when there was clearly no one home before dawdling out to the street again.

Hammond’s story has a happy ending, of sorts.

When my family and I finally quit, our eyes opened and feeling foolish about having stayed so long, family and former “friends” cut us off. What the hell. We were just glad to get our lives back.

(Cartoon via videobash. If you know who the artist is… we’d like to give credit and a linkback)

Friendly Atheist Podcast Episode 25: Elizabeth Cavell, Freedom From Religion Foundation

Our latest podcast guest is Elizabeth Cavell, an attorney with the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Cavell graduated from Tulane University Law School in 2009 and worked for a while as a deputy public defender in southern Colorado before becoming an FFRF staff attorney.

We spoke with her about which kind of complaints are the most numerous at FFRF, how the Christian claim of “persecution” has become a way to protect privilege, and whether she ever speaks with her cultural counterparts.

This episode is sponsored by Be Secular. Readers of this site can get a 10% discount on products by using the promo code “Friendly”!

We’d love to hear your thoughts on the podcast. If you have any suggestions for people we should chat with, please leave them in the comments, too.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes, get the MP3 directly, check it out on Stitcher, or just listen to the whole thing below.

And if you like what you’re hearing, please consider supporting this site on Patreon and leaving us a positive rating!

Alternet Removes CJ Werleman’s Articles from Site Following Plagiarism Accusations

In response to the multiple accusations of plagiarism against atheist CJ Werleman (below), his editors at Alternet released a brief statement this afternoon:

Dear Reader, it is with regret that we announce that frequent AlterNet author CJ Werleman was discovered to have failed to attribute text taken directly from other news and information sources. AlterNet takes allegations of plagiarism seriously, and has removed Werleman’s articles from our archives. Our apologies to the various sources and writers whose work was misappropriated in Werleman’s articles published on AlterNet.

Now, will Salon do the same?

…

Werleman, on his way down, also accused Sam Harris of plagiarism, though Harris has pretty thoroughly debunked that on his site.

Maryland Delegate Spreads Story of Anti-Christian Discrimination at Sheriff’s Office… Turns Out It’s All Wrong

Michael Smigiel (below) is a Delegate to the Maryland state House and a Tea Party activist. Yesterday, on his website, he posted a damning story about the supposedly unethical hiring practices of the Harford County Sheriff’s Office:

I received a call recently from a very well respected Pastor whose son had applied to be a Harford County Sheriff’s Deputy and passed all the physical and mental tests he was given. The final thing he was asked to do was supply his high school diploma. The Pastor’s son provided his Maryland high school diploma from a high school certified by the Maryland State Board of Education but was told the Harford County Sheriff’s Office does not accept the high school diplomas from Christian Schools!

…

Believing there had to be some mistake in what was happening in this instance I called the Harford County Sheriff’s Office to inquire about the policy. The Sheriff was not available to speak with me but I was able to speak with a knowledgeable staff member who confirmed for me that this was a policy of the Harford County Sheriff’s Office but she explained this was an interpretation of a regulation of the Maryland Police Correctional Training Commission, (MPCT).

…

As of today, I do not know how extensive this practice is among the various Sheriff’s offices. I don’t know how many years the Harford County Sheriff’s Office has been discriminating against Christian applicants.

Wow… if students who attended a Christian school were banned from working in the Sheriff’s Office, even I’d be against that.

But it can’t be true, right? It sounds more like a Todd Starnes wet dream, pure fiction in the guise of Christian discrimination.

Smigiel may not have been able to chat with Harford County Sheriff L. Jesse Bane… but I got through pretty quickly.

In fact, we just had a lengthy conversation about everything Smigiel got wrong.

Here’s the deal: Sheriff Bane wants to make sure everyone has the opportunity to work for him regardless of religious background. Today, he had someone from Human Resources go through the personnel files of all current employees to see where they went to high school.

When I called him, they were at last names beginning with “P” and had already found 51 graduates of Christian high schools. That includes two commanders and a Chief Deputy.

Clearly, going to a Christian school isn’t a barrier for entry.

Bane added that the only “requirement” in this area is that the high school must be accredited by the state — but most religious schools usually are. Furthermore, Bane added, if a student went to a school that wasn’t accredited, he’d encourage those applicants to just send him a transcript and letter of intent; if he felt the student was qualified, he’d gladly sign a waiver.

Because he’s been inundated with calls over the past 24 hours stemming from Smigiel’s posting, and because there’s so much misinformation out there now (and more to come, I’m sure), Bane visited Harford Christian School this morning to send the message to students that he welcomes their applications. He plans to visit The John Carroll School (a Catholic institution) later today to do the same thing.

Simply put, Smigiel’s story is bullshit on stilts. He’s willfully ignorant regarding the Sheriff’s Office’s practices and he has yet to issue any corrections.

If people don’t get hired, it’s not because they’re Christians. It’s because they’re not qualified.

By the way, Sheriff Bane has been doing this job for eight years and this is the first time anyone’s ever suggested religious discrimination in his office.

That’s probably because there’s no religious discrimination at play.

(Thanks to Steve for the link)

An Interview with Robert Wilson (a.k.a. rwlawoffice), the Commenter Who Always Seems to Disagree With What I Write

For more than a year now, it feels like a day hasn’t gone by without a comment thread involving “rwlawoffice,” a Christian lawyer who seems to disagree with everything I write. Even on what I believe are air-tight church/state separation cases, I can always count on Robert Wilson to tell me I’m completely wrong — albeit politely, without CAPITAL LETTERS, Bible verses, or snide/sarcastic jabs. It’s gotten to the point where, if he doesn’t chime in, other commenters wonder where he is, which is especially evident on posts about Christians behaving badly, where commenters openly wonder how he’ll spin the story when he finally speaks up.

It made me wonder: Is this guy just another Christian troll on an atheist site, trying (poorly) to convert us all? Or is it more complicated than that?

So I asked him.

I asked him several questions, actually, over the course of a few emails. Our (edited) conversation is below:

Robert Wilson in Liberia with students who attend school on scholarships from the organization that his church and foundation support

…

Are you really a lawyer…? What kind of law do you practice?

Yes I really am a lawyer. I graduated from Baylor University School of Law in 1986. I have been practicing in Texas since that time. I have had my own law firm since 1990. My practice is mainly commercial litigation trial law that involves business disputes, real estate, employment law, civil rights law, and some family law. I practice in state and federal court. I also do pro bono work for non-profits and churches that includes issues related to religious liberty and pro life issues.

With all of that, how does your faith play out in your everyday life?

My faith is a large part of my life. I try to live my faith daily in the decisions i make and how I treat others. I pray daily and read my Bible. I try to follow Christ’s teaching of grace, love and forgiveness. I’m not perfect and I make mistakes.

I am in seminary currently obtaining my masters degree in Biblical Studies. I don’t think that I will become a pastor, but I do know that these studies will help me in the mission work that I do through our family foundation. This is mainly conducted in Africa — Liberia and Uganda. It includes church planting, supporting an orphanage and school, and providing health care through equipment, supplies, medicine, training, and medical team visits.

What’s your religious background?

I am a religious mutt. My parents were Lutheran and Baptist. I was born while they were deciding where to attend church and so I was baptized Methodist. I was raised in a Lutheran church and went to a Baptist university. As an adult, I was confirmed as a Catholic and went to a Catholic church for a number of years. I now attend a nondenominational church. This church and the seminary I am in follows free grace theology which I believe is the correct interpretation of the Bible and of Christ’s teachings.

Why bother commenting on an atheist blog in the first place?

The main reasons I visit and comment on the blog is to show a different perspective, to correct misconceptions about Christianity, and to explain my faith including the theology of free grace. I believe it is worthwhile to engage in these discussions because the issues involved are important to our culture and to the Church. I have learned a lot from your posts and the comments. Frankly I have had little exposure to outspoken atheists and it is helpful to get your point of view.

My experience on the blog shows that the majority of those that comment have had very negatives experiences with the Church a lot of times arising from a hurtful or harmful experience. This is understandable and very unfortunate. I know that happens and don’t discount it. I also know however that most of this hurt is caused by a warped view of Christianity and that if some of these misunderstandings can be corrected I will try to correct them. Please don’t take this as a “no true Scotsman” argument. I am not saying a true Christian would not behave this way. I am saying that Christian theology can be distorted and often is.

What is your philosophy when it comes to church/state separation? When, if ever, do you support it? Where do you think atheists get it wrong?

I do believe in the separation of church and state. In no way do I think that we have a theocracy nor would I want one. I think that atheists get this issue wrong because they ignore the reason why there is a separation. It is not to protect the government from the church, it is to protect the church from the government. In other words, the protection is to allow people to freely practice their faith unless the state can show there is a reason for the limitation that cannot be handled in a less intrusive manner.

This also means of course that government cannot establish a religion because it would preclude the free exercise by those that are of a different religion or affect those that have no religion. Atheists, however, take this to mean that any mention of religion or faith equals establishment of religion and the reaction is to complain. They ignore that we do have a history of religion in our country, even in public life, involving our government. So if the government acknowledges this heritage and recognizes that the vast majority of people in this country are people of faith, they view this as the establishment of religion when it is not in most cases.

Atheists also go too far in trying to prevent individuals from expressing their own faith in the public arena, including those who are public officials. When atheists complain about faith being mentioned in the public sphere, the reaction of people of faith is that atheists are attempting to silence any reference to religion outside of the four walls of the church and to limit religious liberty to the right to belief and worship. The constitutional protection of religious liberty goes beyond merely freedom to worship and freedom to believe. It allows people to express their faith in public, including in how they operate their businesses. This of course does have limitations so I am not saying it is absolute.

Do you know when you make a comment that it’ll get a ton of pushback? The comment threads you begin tend to be the longest ones on many posts…

I know that there are some issues that people are very passionate about and that when I raise a different point of view it will get a reaction. I do not comment on these simply to get a reaction. These are the same issues that I am passionate about so I want to engage in the discussion, not simply say something to make people angry.

Do you think you’ve convinced any commenters to come around to your way of thinking?

I am not naïve enough to think that I have convinced any of the commentators to become Christians (at least from those that comment regularly), and I do not think many of them will be accepting Christ (though I truly and sincerely pray for them to) or will now vote conservative based upon my arguments. But what I do hope is that I have shown them a different way to view Christians, that I have corrected some misconceptions about the faith, and that I’ve made them think more about their positions.

Have I ever written anything that made you think, “Okay, you win this round…”? Have I shaken your faith at all?

I cannot say that I have read anything that has caused me to question my faith. You and the commentators have however raised issues that forced me to conduct research and I view this as very helpful. I will say I appreciate the posts about Christians behaving badly. I love my faith and I love the universal Christian church, and I hate to see people’s behavior distracting from its message.

Which famous Christians do you see your faith lining up with?

My theology is in line with Charles Swindoll, Tony Evans, and Max Lucado.

Do you ever comment on any other atheist blogs?

I rarely comment on other blogs.

Are there any well-known atheists you respect despite your disagreement with them?

I respected the wit, intellect, and speaking ability of Christopher Hitchens even though he took some positions that I strongly disagreed with. I respect Bill Gates and Richard Branson for their philanthropic work. I am not just saying this because I am talking with you, but I also respect your work in trying to bridge the relationship gap between people of faith and atheists and for raising funds for good causes even if those that are receiving the funds disagree with you on this issue.

…

So there you have it. rwlawoffice isn’t just a troll. He’s a real guy… who just happens to be wrong about many, many things

But he’s not a drive-by Christian commenter spouting Bible verses and then closing the tab. He, like many of you, is interested in a broader debate on these subjects. Coming from a polar opposite worldview (in many ways), I hope you all continue to treat him with respect as you chip away at his beliefs.

Pakistani Court Upholds Death Penalty for Christian Woman Accused of Blasphemy; Muslim Extremists Rejoice

In 2009, a Christian woman named Aasiya Noreen (a.k.a. Asia Bibi, below) got in a fight with Muslim co-workers over shared water — they said it was unclean because Noreen was Christian. A fight began, during which Noreen said she would not covert to Islam, a statement her co-workers took as an insult to their faith and the Prophet Muhammad, and the bizarre argument led to incredibly serious consequences: A Pakistani judge sentenced her to death.

Despite conflicting testimonies and a complete lack of evidence for what happened, Noreen remained in prison for five years until her case could be appealed to the Lahore High Court (similar to a U.S. Appeals Court). Late last week, a two-judge panel issued their ruling:

In spite of protests within Pakistan and abroad against the country’s blasphemy laws, the Lahore High Court today upheld the death sentence for a Christian mother accused of insulting Islam’s prophet.

You’ve got to be shitting me… how is that even possible?

One possible explanation is that even the judges were afraid of what Muslim extremists would do to them if they ruled in Noreen’s favor — and for good reason:

Pakistan’s judges have occasionally faced the wrath of countrymen upset with their decisions concerning blasphemy. Judge Pervez Ali Shah, who gave the death penalty to the guard who killed Salmaan Taseer, fled Pakistan after issuing his decision. Justice Arif Bhatti, who had acquitted two Christians in a 1995 blasphemy case, was killed in his office in 1997.

The reaction from religious extremists to Noreen’s ruling was also telling:

The courtroom was packed with clerics and members of Islamist extremist groups who supported the prosecution, and they erupted in celebration upon hearing the two-judge panel’s decision to dismiss Bibi’s appeal.

“Let us celebrate by distributing sweets!” said one cleric who recited verses from the Koran throughout the almost two-and-a-half-hour court proceeding.

“I am very happy,” said Salem, the complainant. “The judges have given a verdict on merit, and Asia Noreen deserved it.”

A Christian is going to be killed for no good reason! Who wants cake?!

It would be laughable if it weren’t so shocking. This is the awful power of blasphemy laws; the victimless crime becomes a weapon of abuse and it’s the religious minorities who suffer. (By the way: This, and not making wedding cakes, is what real Christian persecution looks like.)

Noreen’s lawyers say they will appeal to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, but there’s little hope that those justices, like all the others, will have the courage to do the right thing.

Groups like the Center For Inquiry are highlighting her case, and many others, and urging people to take action by writing letters to foreign leaders, contacting U.S. government officials, and just raising awareness of the problems.

Debunking the Viral Video of a Plane Landing on a Truck

There’s an old video on YouTube that could use a good debunking. You may have seen it before. It involves a plane with broken landing gear and a truck swooping in to save the day:

It’s very much not real, but I love how Captain Disillusion — who makes some of the best videos about skepticism you’ll ever see — explains both the pitfalls of the video and how we can spot these ads before they go viral.

I love this guy. He can do no wrong. Subscribe to him if you haven’t already.

God’s Not Dead 2 Will Be Out Next Year, Says Studio Head

The movie that featured a comical caricature of an atheist college professor will soon be resurrected:

Pure Flix CEO and managing partner Michael Scott said his studio has a number of projects in the works for next year including “God’s Not Dead 2.”

…

Scott said the experience taught him that there is a large untapped audience that is eager for faith and family-friendly entertainment.

“They’re hungry; they’re underserved,” he said.

It is unclear how Pure Flix plans to continue the first film’s plot. The movie portrayed a college student who accepts his atheist professor’s challenge to provide a defense for the existence of God and Christianity.

Financially, this makes perfect sense. God’s Not Dead, with a $2,000,000 budget, took in more than $62,000,000 worldwide.

But you have to wonder how bad a sequel will be. It’s not like the first was substantively good to begin with… Are they going to make Kevin Sorbo lose his faith again, only to reclaim it courtesy of a new student? Will the student from the first film go to grad school to work his magic there?

So let’s have a contest! In the comment section, leave your idea for what the plot of God’s Not Dead 2 will look like. I’ll pick a winner at random in a few days and you’ll receive a free shirt from Hypatia, Ltd., a new company started by an ex-Muslim. 10% of all sales from now through the end of the year will go to the Malala Fund.

Church Sign of the Day

Here’s some unsolicited advice for church leaders in southern Missouri, where this picture was taken:

Have some teenagers proofread your signs. It’s for the best.

(via Anna Nimity)

Amy Poehler’s Next Show May Be About an Agnostic Woman Who Inherits a Church

… and that headline’s pretty much all we know about it. Deadline has the bare-bones story:

… the untitled comedy centers on a young, agnostic woman who inherits a church and the crew of strong-willed characters who make up her new community.

So, basically, it’s Parks and Recreation inside of a church. Which may actually work since Parks and Rec was just The Office inside of city hall.

The show’s only in the development stage right now, but I’m all for it if it means more commentary on religion through a comedy show. Though I reserve the right to take that back if Poehler magically “discovers her faith” at the end of Season 1…

(Image via s_bukley / Shutterstock.com)