My thoughts exactly...

Note: Obviously not all religious people blamed hurricane Sandy on the gays.

The Morality Argument Part II: Bible says attach shock collar to thy daughter, make her live in chicken coop

I have written about this before, saying: "We often hear the argument from religious individuals that without religion there would be no guide for our morality. It is an absurd argument, that likely says something about that individual's lack of real morality."

Those who look down on atheism seem perplexed at the notion that one could have a set of morals that are not handed down by a book that is claimed to be infallible (even if those same folks often ignore the lessons therein which are no longer deemed socially acceptable).

Then we get a news report like this one. A Georgia couple is accused of attaching a shock collar to their daughter and forcing her to live in a chicken coop as punishment because they believed they were "doing what the bible says."

When you forfeit your sense of morals to a book, judgement goes out the window. As I said before, when one bases his or her "entire sense of morality on the teachings of that book, anything not directly forbidden is on the table. Slavery was not only not forbidden, this so-called holy book wrote out rules for how to beat your slaves. Hence the many deeply religious people who participated, supported, and ultimately fought a war over slavery."

The real war is on atheism, not religion

This picture says it all.

If that isn't the definition of "an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" I don't know what is.

We Can Quote The Bible Too

Every so often, someone has the nerve to quote the Bible during an argument over a political issue. Cue state Representative Andy Gipson:

In a May 10 Facebook post, Gipson called homosexuality a "sin," citing Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1:26-28:

Leviticus 20:13 reads: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Shall we indulge him? Shall we see what else the Bible says about marriage?

The Morality Argument

We often hear the argument from religious individuals that without religion there would be no guide for our morality. It is an absurd argument, that likely says something about that individual's lack of real morality. Take this story out of North Carolina:

"So your little son starts to act a little girlish when he is four years old and instead of squashing that like a cockroach and saying, 'Man up, son, get that dress off you and get outside and dig a ditch, because that is what boys do,' you get out the camera and you start taking pictures of Johnny acting like a female and then you upload it to YouTube and everybody laughs about it and the next thing you know, this dude, this kid is acting out childhood fantasies that should have been squashed. 

Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch. Ok? You are not going to act like that. You were made by God to be a male and you are going to be a male. And when your daughter starts acting too butch, you reign her in. And you say, 'Oh, no, sweetheart. You can play sports. Play them to the glory of God. But sometimes you are going to act like a girl and walk like a girl and talk like a girl and smell like a girl and that means you are going to be beautiful. You are going to be attractive. You are going to dress yourself up.'"

The simple reality here is that his "holy book" says nothing against a father beating his son for being gay. And because he bases his entire sense of morality on the teachings of that book, anything not directly forbidden is on the table. Slavery was not only not forbidden, this so-called holy book wrote out rules for how to beat your slaves. Hence the many deeply religious people who participated, supported, and ultimately fought a war over slavery.

So what, you may ask, do atheists derive their moral codes from? Well, I am sure that nearly all atheists will give you a different answer, but I personally would direct you to a presentation from Matt Dillahunty:

 

On the fence

So... I saw a headline that grabbed my eye. Arizona Bible Course Bill To Teach Elective In Public Schools Becomes Law, at the Huffington Post.

Arizona becomes the sixth state to allow districts to offer a high school elective Bible course. Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and South Carolina are currently the only ones with laws permitting these courses. Other states like Kentucky have introduced similar proposals, but the bills have failed to be come law.

The Arizona course must follow state and federal laws in maintaining religious neutrality, and credits from the course would count toward student graduation. Students are also not to be required to use a specific version of the Bible. Republican state Rep. Terri Proud, who sponsored the bill, said the proposals are written in a way that make it clear that teachers can teach the Bible "in a very restricted way."

Proud says students would benefit from learning about the Bible as foundational, basic knowledge. Arizona state law doesn't ban the use of the Bible or other religious texts in the classroom as long as it is being used for academic purposes without intent on religious indoctrination.

Now, this is a tricky subject. On one hand, the Bible exists and has had a profound effect on the course of western culture. Therefore, I think people should learn about it. I learned about it in school in a way that I felt was entirely appropriate.

That being said, something tells me that anything short of preaching and indoctrination will be seen as a war on religion by the extremely conservative Republicans in Arizona. And I wonder why they don't simply have a religion class that teachers are more rounded version of religions and their effects on the cultures of their times and today?

So, I don't oppose the teaching of a Bible course, if done right, but I will withhold any judgement on this legislation until I learn more and I question the need to exclude other religions.

Robertson Blames "Kind of Gay" People for Earthquake

As if on cue, Pat Robertson is here to blame all of life's problems on teh gay:

VIRGINIA BEACH (The Borowitz Report) – Evangelist Pat Robertson sparked controversy in today’s broadcast of his 700 Club program by saying that yesterday’s mild East Coast earthquake was God’s revenge on people “who act kind of gay.”

“All across the Eastern seaboard, there are men who get manicures, wear designer eyewear and know about thread counts,” Rev. Robertson. “God finds this somewhat gay-like behavior confusing, and He responded by getting mildly peeved.”

The televangelist warned that if Americans persist in their “seemingly sort-of-gay behavior,” the country should brace itself for additional ambiguous acts of retaliation from the Almighty.

Let us start by giving him the benefit of the doubt and acknowledging that the earthquake was some form of punishment handed down by his imaginary friend in the clouds. One has to ask the question: why was it centered in Eric Cantor's district? One could argue that it is punishment for Cantor's, and his supporters', complete and utter intransigence on the negotiations over raising the debt ceiling? The great thing about arguing over magic, basically any argument is just as valid as the next.

Or maybe we could just accept that earthquakes happen and to date we have absolutely zero evidence to suggest there is a motive behind them. Although if we do find out some individual is causing these, I would hope that person would be brought to justice for the damages and injuries.