Recently in Humanism Category

That's the title of this press release which caught my eye earlier today:

LAS VEGAS, Dec. 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- "I came to the United States seven years ago because of religious discrimination in Switzerland," said Raelian Guide Thomas Kaenzig, who heads the Raelian religion in Nevada. "Now I'm standing up for religious freedom here -- for my right to omit all religious references in becoming a U.S. citizen. After lots of red tape, I was granted a God-free citizenship oath-taking ceremony on December 7 here in Las Vegas."

Kaenzig said he lost his job in Switzerland because of his beliefs.

"As a Raelian spokesperson, I bashed the Vatican in an interview with Switzerland's major newspaper, Blick. I wasn't wanted on company projects after that. I was jobless."

Well, so much for assimilation. But the story as he tells it doesn't sound like religious discrimination to me. He didn't have to "bash the Vatican" in a major paper as a condition of his own religion. No, he wasn't discriminated against because of his beliefs, he was shunned because he trashed the beliefs of others.

So he comes here and spends years trying to expurgate the subject of his hatred from the customary rituals of citizenship of our country. If this has a familiar, um, smell to it...

Kaenzig said because the Raelian Movement is an atheistic religion, Rael had made attorney Michael Newdow an Honorary Guide for his commitment to remove all mentions of God from U.S. public affairs. Newdow, who assisted Kaenzig in his naturalization case, pleaded an argument this week at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to omit the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and U.S. currency.

That would be the same Michael Newdow who has made it his life's work to assert his rights by taking away the rights of others. And Kaenzig appears to be a kindred spirit, as his goal wasn't just to have a "godless" ceremony for himself, it was to force it on everyone. And he wasn't completely happy with the judge's compromise, which gave him a private ceremony:

Was the citizenship oath compromise satisfactory to Kaenzig?

"For my own situation, yes," he replied. "But it doesn't prevent religious references in future public ceremonies. Still, it's a significant first step."

If you are curious about the Raelians, they don't believe in a God. They believe we were put here by aliens. I'm guessing that's where much of Dennis Kucinich's support is coming from.

Oh, and here's something from the "I learned something new" category. Did you know that new citizens can ask to have the references to defending their newly chosen country removed from the oath?

"As a Raelian, I objected to three things in the standard naturalization procedure," Kaenzig said. "I object to an oath saying I'll bear arms to defend the country; to an oath ending in 'so help me God,' and to a public ceremony violating separation of church and state. The judge, a public official, typically pronounces 'so help me God' at the end."

So to sum up, we now have a new American who hates God and expects to be treated with respect when he tramples on the rights of those who don't agree with him, and would never defend his chosen country.

Nice to know we have such a loyal citizen in Mr. Kaenzig, isn't it?

It's not just illegal immigration that needs work from Washington. When we allow folks in legally who not only despise what we as a nation stand for, but proudly declare their disloyalty to their new country, we have a real problem.

I hope that getting it right becomes a trend:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to review a ruling that the inscription "In God We Trust" on the front of a government building in North Carolina does not violate church-state separation.

In other words, Lexington, NC, doesn't have to spend tax dollars to remove a sign above their government center's front door.

A U.S. appeals court ruled that the lawsuit failed to show that the display had no legitimate secular purpose, that it has the effect of endorsing religion or that it has resulted in an excessive entanglement of government and religion.

The appeals court said Congress first authorized the phrase "In God We Trust" on coins in 1865, and Congress made it the national motto in 1956. It is inscribed above the speaker's chair in the U.S. House of Representatives and above the main door of the U.S. Senate chamber.

Way to go, guys!

A couple of days ago, I posted about the Atheists in Foxholes parade. A commenter today let me know that he blogged on the same subject. So, being in a curious mood, I checked it out, and found(emphasis added):

"Another absurd slogan is "There are no Atheists in Foxholes." Supposedly, in the heat of battle, with death imminent, a soldier will cry out to a god even if he or she was not previously a believer. This is simply untrue, and frankly, insulting to our non-believing soldiers. In contrast to believers, atheists put their country before any god. Moreover, the notion that when one is near death -- vulnerable, helpless, scared, and weak -- one will desperately cry out to a supernatural being underscores that strong and empowered people don't need divine intervention. So isn't the crux of this slogan that belief in a god is based on fear and helpless desperation?"

I'm not so sure that many god-fearing soldiers would agree that atheists are more devoted to their country due to the virtue of not having a God in the way of their service. At least FreeThinker (that's his blog name) issued a thanks to the vets:

"Let's remember all our veterans, and the diversity of their religious beliefs -- or lack thereof."

When I remember our veterans, I just remember our veterans. I don't really care if they went to church or not. I believe that if you really appreciate the sacrifices of those who have served, religion is irrelevant. And poisoning appreciation to vets with irrelevancies and personal grievances simply overshadows the selfless with selfishness.

Update: I'm not into quoting someone's blog without credit. So I tried to trackback the post quoted above. My error log gave me:

Ping 'http://freethoughtguy.blogspot.com/2005/11/veterans-day.html' failed: HTTP error: 405 Method Not Allowed

If you have a desire to protest - after all, it's all the rage nowadays - but nothing that's, well, important to protest about, then try protesting old adages and cliches:

There Are Atheists in Foxholes, Says Institute for Humanist Studies; VeteransDay Event in Nation's Capital to Honor Military Atheists

Yes, Jason Torpy of Ohio is really upset over the antiquated phrase "There are no atheists in foxholes". Never mind that it's just an expression that refers more to fear than God, and it's hardly used anymore:

"There are atheists in foxholes," said atheist Jason Torpy of Ohio, a retired U.S. Army Captain. He now serves as president of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, an Internet-based support network for non-theistic service members.

On Nov. 10-11, Torpy will join other atheist veterans and active duty service members to participate in a Washington D.C. event honoring those who have served in the United States Armed Forces and who do not believe in God or gods. On Friday, Nov. 11, there will be a Veterans Day "Atheists in Foxholes" parade and rally on the National Mall, starting at 11 a.m.

U.S. Army Master Sgt. Kathleen Johnson, an atheist on active duty at Fort Hood, Texas, is unhappy about the uncommon phrase as well:

"I am personally insulted by the use of that phrase (There are no atheists in foxholes)"

And so is Duncan Creary:

"Religious bias and ignorance leads many journalists and editors to think it's OK to falsely report that there are no atheists in foxholes -- or, more recently, hurricane zones," said Duncan Crary, communications director of the Institute for Humanist Studies.

Although the phrase, widely used during the first two world wars, has all but disappeared from the language, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers apparently feels that its use hasn't disappeared fast enough. So they're having a protest march:

On Nov. 10-11, Torpy will join other atheist veterans and active duty service members to participate in a Washington D.C. event honoring those who have served in the United States Armed Forces and who do not believe in God or gods. On Friday, Nov. 11, there will be a Veterans Day "Atheists in Foxholes" parade and rally on the National Mall, starting at 11 a.m.

In other news, the British Astronomer's Association is holding a candlelight vigil in London this weekend to protest the antiquated phrase "The sun never sets on the British empire". Niles Blackthorn, director of the BAA, explains the rationale behind the group's activism:

"We find that phrase "The sun never sets on the British empire" insulting and completely false. Why, if it were true, we astronomers would never get any work done!"

The Times (UK) has an article today about the effects of religion entitled Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side':

RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

The study referenced in the article can be found here. The theme for the study runs along the lines of:

European countries are by and large more secular than the US.
European countries have lower rates of crime, STDs, teen pregnancy, etc.
High rates in the belief of a higher being, combined with low rates of acceptance for Darwinism causes our high rates of crime, STDs, teen pregnancy, etc.

I disagree completely with this premise, indeed I suggest that our rates of crime and other social ills are built on more complex foundations than "more bible thumpers = more murderers". If I graphed data on toy inventories at Wal-Mart or the rise in popularity of bowling leagues I might find a similar correlation. But I would be wrong to suggest that bowling causes murder and AIDS.

The author of the study is Gregory S. Paul, who the Times calls a "social scientist". I wonder if this is the same Mr. Paul who wrote this book, and this article for the Council for Secular Humanism's Free Inquiry magazine? If so, shouldn't the times have mentioned it?

On a side note, I would love to see a debate between this guy and Bill Bennett.

Update - My dyslexia is getting in the way. Son of Sam killed because his dog told him to. Sorry.