Sexism is okay when you're a Baptist

From baptistboard.com - "I believe women in politics have done a great disservice to the sovereignty and resolve of a our great Republic. Many issues that face our nation, from without and within, need to be decided from a place of strength instead of weakness. Women are gifted from God with a lot of skills that are good in the home, but not in the Government. They tend to base their decisions from a security standpoint and believe that they have the ability to rehabilitate and nurse others to mental and social health. Men are more pragmatic and can make the tough calls that have to be made in matters of war, also in domestic and international policy. Maybe I should have said men used to be able to make the tough calls. Women in politics have been in position so long now that men are not the men they once were. They have to take into account how their decisions and policies will be viewed by the ladies. Being weak, pathetic, and a bunch of pansies being entrusted with positions of power are all the result of this great error."

I despise sexism, especially when it's dressed up as being noble and just in the eyes of a god.

The art of taking an otherwise intelligent person and stripping them of their reason - religion or conservatism?

Or both?

I received a variation of this message in my email as the result of a forward. This isn't the exact message - the exact message was so horribly formatted that I didn't want to inflict it upon any of you - but it's nearly word-for-word the same.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps there are SOME out there who are beginning to get 'the picture'. The
following is a narrative taken from Sunday Morning's televised 'Meet The
Press,' and the author is employed none other than the Washington Post!!
Yeah......the Washington Post of New York and Los Angeles Times fame!!
Must say that I'm duly impressed.................. From Sunday's Televised
'Meet the Press' Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American
Flag. Obama Explains National Anthem Stance Sun, 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04
EST, General Bill Ginn' USAF (ret.) asked Obama
to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is
played.
The General also stated to the Senator that according to the United States
Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171... During rendition of the national
anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are
expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the
heart. At the very least, 'Stand and face it.'
Senator Obama Live on Sunday states,
'As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking
sides, Obama said. 'There are a lot of people in the world to whom the
American flag is a symbol of oppression.
And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs
bursting in air and all.
It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like
the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing.' If that were our anthem,
then I might salute it. 'We should consider to reinvent our National Anthem
as well as to redesign our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love.
It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance
to our Middle East Brethren. If we as a Nation of warring people, should
conduct ourselves as the nations of Islam, whereas peace prevails. Perhaps
a state or period of mutual concord between our governments. When I become
President, I will seek a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those
who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting
oppressive thoughts.
We as a Nation have placed upon the nations of Islam an unfair injustice. My
wife disrespects the Flag for many personal reasons. Together she and I have
attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past, many years ago. She
has her views and I have mine'. Of course now, I have found myself about to
become the President of the United States and I have put aside my hatred. I
will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new
path of hope. My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country's First
Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America.


WHAAAAAAAT the Hell !!!
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you heard it right.
This could possibly be our next President. I, for one, am speechless.
Dale Lindsborg, Washington Post
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now, apparently this has been around since the 2008. How is it JUST NOW being forwarded to me??? It's funny, the people who think this is true... did they ever ONCE bother doing a simple Google search? All I had to Google was the name "Dale Lindsborg" and I immediately got the information I needed. The premise behind the message was stolen from a John Semmons, who is a satirist. Other than that, there are a number of things wrong with this.

1. There is no "Dale Lindsborg" that works for the Washington Post
2. Obama was not on "Meet the Press" on Sept. 07, 2008
3. General Ginn, while not a fan of Obama, had never spoken to him.

I believe that there is a deeper problem at work here. Conservatism and religiosity undeniably go hand in hand. How many batshit crazy fundamentalists do you know who support universal healthcare and gay rights? The question is - is it religiosity that causes people to become conservative, or is it conservatism that makes people religious?

Speaking as a former religious person and a former conservative, I can say that - for me at least - it was my religious tendencies that kept me conservative. Hell, in 2004, the only 2 issues that brought me to the polls were abortion and gay marriage! Isn't that sad? I was one of the duped, brainwashed peons that helped secure Georgie boy another term. Yes, I still feel guilty for that one today - even though it wouldn't have mattered either way in Oklahoma, one of the reddest states in the union.

But besides that, religion does something else other than simply make people conservative. I believe it robs otherwise intelligent individuals of their common sense and reason. Think about it. They devote their life to believing the unbelievable, putting their unfounded trust in something that is patently absurd. Why would they bother invoking critical thought for a smear piece that received in their inbox? Most of the people who buy into this are also the people who believe that Obama is a Muslim, born in Kenya, and out to destroy their God-lovin' Uh-mur-i-ca. And they believe these claims because it helps to prop up their preconceived notions. Sure, it's unbelievable, and flies in the face of everything we know about reality, but hey, they already believe a bunch of crazy stuff, and surely that has to be true, right???

I'm not trying to sound conceited when I say this. I have spent a couple of years now honing and refining my critical thinking skills. I have developed a healthy skepticism when it comes to ridiculous claims. So I don't think I'm more intelligent than people who fell for this. Rational skepticism is something that requires practice, and I've had a lot of practice. It just makes me sad that people can be this gullible... and I do not think it bodes well for our society to have a segment of the population so completely devoid of the ability to use critical thought that they'll believe anything as long as it fits their ideology.

Logic and critical thinking classes should be mandatory in High School. Actually, Junior High would be better. We need to start teaching good thinking skills early, before they start forwarding email about Obama being a terrorist, or a Muslim, or a flag-hater.

Religulous

I recently watched the film Religulous, in which Bill Maher goes around talking to people about what they believe. It's a fairly entertaining documentary, though certainly not the best ever made. I don't have too many complaints to put forward about it; I know Bill isn't a philosophy buff or a theologian, so when he would get things a little wrong I couldn't hold it against him.

What I like most about the movie is that even a lay person who is indifferent towards religion, science, or philosophy can still get the questions being asked and the message that's being given. Lay people of all walks of life can still understand what Bill's trying to say, whether they agree with him or not. This is exactly the kind of talk we need to be put forth. So many people want to relegate religious questions to the clergy, and say that reason and logic have no place to answer them. We need to be talking about how our leaders believe things that our not supported by or in spite of evidence. We need to discuss the affects religion has on people. It should be open to public discourse, not something that is put away because someone's sincere beliefs might get trampled on.

I was very happy that the movie called upon reason and rational discourse to solve problems instead of relying on hocus pocus and bronze age theology. However, if you're looking for a concise, serious, academic discussion about religion, I'd suggest looking elsewhere, like a Richard Dawkins interview. Bill Maher is an entertainer, and while he brings up good questions, he's not necessarily doing it for the sake of learning. He likes to make jabs at religion, and does it in comedian fashion. If you're looking for an entertaining look at religion through a heathen's point of view, then I'd say Religulous is worth your time.

Dear "agnostics": please stop perpetuating your label

In my first post, "The Default Position," I discussed the meanings and uses of labels of theism and gnosticism. I just got done reading a post where several self-proclaimed agnostics claimed they weren't atheists. Now, I normally don't care about labels people choose to put on themselves. In fact, I would prefer that we didn't need labels at all. The only reason why this label irks me is because it is an unnecessary segregation of two groups of people who have far more in common with each other than they even realize.

First of all, consider this question: do you believe in a god or gods? If the answer is yes, then you are a theist. Any other answer (including "I don't know") makes you an atheist. That's right, agnostics, most (if not all) of you are actually atheists. Remember, atheism is no belief in a god, not belief there is no god. Sure, some atheists take a stronger stance than others on the existence of a god, but the label of atheist still applies to those that take the less certain stance.

Agnosticism is not a step down to a nicer, easier-to-digest form of atheism. No, it is an entirely separate category that identifies something different than belief in a god: knowledge. In fact, someone who was truly "agnostic" to the existence of gods would have to believe that all claims were equally viable. Zeus is just as likely to exist as Yahweh, or Neptune is just as likely to exist as Anubis. It is clear that not all claims are equal.

Perhaps someday we will live in a world where these labels are no longer necessary. After all, atheism is only a necessary label because of theism. It is a response position to theistic claims, and the term would not be necessary if there was no theism. Because theists exist, people who do not support the claim of the existence of a god must therefore be atheists. My message to people who call themselves to agnostics: remember, the label of atheist most likely applies to you, too. I understand that the term atheist can provoke stronger feelings in the minds of certain people - images of evil devil worshippers conspiring against God - and that using the label atheist for yourself can be frightening. But the sooner we vanquish this old misunderstanding of what atheism is, the sooner we can start working together for our common goals.

Indoctrination

Sometimes it's easy to forget how impressionable children are. We are, apparently, evolved to listen to adults and do as they say. The child who listens to a grown-up when they say not to jump into the crocodile-infested waters has a far greater chance of surviving than the child who does not listen, and becomes some reptile's dinner.

But this very mechanism that keeps us out of harm's way - this nearly devout respect towards the advice of our elders - has another different, entirely unintended affect. In my mind, it is one of the chief reasons that religious thought and superstition are still so pervasive, even in a time where human understanding is greater than ever before. An adult tells a child that there's a god watching over all of them, the god of their clan, who empowers them to defeat their tribal enemies. The adult warns that the child should never, ever doubt this god or blaspheme against him, because he is wrathful and will bring harm on the child and the child's family. What is the child to do, except to take the advice as truth? When the child grows up, the ideas that he or she was raised with becomes inseparable from truth, and so the new adult teaches the children all the advice that was given all those years ago: stay away from the crocodile-infested water, don't jump from a high tree, and don't forget to pay homage to the clan's god, or great horrors will be visited upon them all.

The longer a mind is enslaved to dogma, the harder it becomes to remove the shackles. Eventually, you come to love the chains, make excuses for them, and despise anyone who does not wear them. As history tells us, all too often, dogma (religious and secular) has always led to harm. Moral absolutists will tell you that right and wrong are predetermined and never-changing (strangely enough, they seem to forget that at one time, slavery, the subjugation of women, racism, and genocide were all at one point deemed to be "right" if done in a certain manner. Sadly enough, the subjugation of women still exists in the modern world, yet not even the women being subjugated seem to want to put an end to it).

Religion is not going away any time soon. Its backwardness will be with us for a long time, slowing down progress in education, critical thinking, science, medicine, human rights, and the abolition of the various vice laws that put harmless people into the prison system, costing us vast amounts of taxpayer money. Our best bet in deterring this malevolent (though well-meaning) force is by continuing to battle on behalf of reason and rationality. We must protect education at all costs; after all, those impressionable youth that will one day be adults are listening to what we say, intently, with wide and curious eyes. We could fill their heads with superstition and they would believe every word of it. Or we could teach them about reality and how the world works. I think the latter would ensure a safer and more enlightened society.

The Default Position

Welcome to "The Default Position." I hope you enjoy your time here and find that, at the very least, this blog is informative.

In this blog, I will attempt to analyze beliefs and the claims of the religious, and whether or not they hold any merit. One thing I will attempt to point out in many of my arguments geared towards religious claims is that it is proper to withhold belief in a proposition until it is proven reasonable. In short, it is the "default position" to lack a belief in a claim until there is reasonable proof to show the claim is viable.

I will begin my first post by defining some words I will be frequently using. First, I will refute the commonly held misconceptions between "agnosticism" and "atheism." It should be pointed out that gnosticism refers to knowledge and theism refers to belief. Being an "agnostic" is not a milder form of being an "atheist." These terms are not mutually exclusive, and I will elaborate on this.

To be agnostic is to "not know," and to be an atheist is to "not believe." Please note, that atheism does not mean "belief there is no god," but rather "no belief in a god." You can use gnosticism and theism terms together. You can be a gnostic theist, meaning you believe there is a god, and you "know" this as a fact; an agnostic theist, meaning you believe there is a god but you don't know for certain, or think that such knowledge is unknowable; a gnostic atheist, meaning that you do not believe in a god and "know" that there is no god; or an agnostic atheist, where you do not believe in a god but you do not know for certain there is no god, or believe that a god would unknowable.

I, as many atheists, am an agnostic atheist. I do not believe in a god, but at the same time I do not claim to know that there is no god. Now, does agnosticism towards the existence of gods mean that every claim about a god is equally feasible? Of course not. As Richard Dawkins has said, I am agnostic to the existence of gods just as I am agnostic to the teapot that might be orbiting Mars, or the fairies that live at the bottom of the garden. I don't know for certain that they aren't there, but I know that it's fairly likely that they are not.

I hope I have effectively explained my position on the existence of a god or gods. In the future, I will tackle subjects on religion, theology, spirituality, and the supernatural. I hope to show that, just like in all other fields of knowledge, the default position should always be to withhold belief until it is shown that the proposition is viable.