I don’t know why we dwell on bad things, but we do. We just do. Maybe because they’re interesting. Maybe because we want to make sure they never happen again. As much as I’ve read on the tragedy (I haven’t written much about it), one thing I always think is: we were stupid.
According to an airport employee who checked in a couple of the terrorists, he said that they looked “like terrorists.” In the interest of not alienating passengers, he didn’t do anything about it.
The pilots in flight school didn’t seem interested in learning how to land, and we didn’t catch on.
All the terrorists, based on what I read, paid for their tickets in cash, and bought one-way tickets. These were warning signs and we still didn’t catch on.
It shouldn’t have helped that these men were clearly Muslim. Percentage-wise, many terrorists are/were Muslim (not all. I’m alert enough to know that). I’m just saying that put all those things together and alarm bells should have gone off.
Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but we were stupid.
Every year on my blog, I reference All European Life Died in Auschwitz, from a Spanish journalist, which was one of the factors that pushed me into thinking that, yes, Islam itself is a problem. (Not to say all Muslims are “bad,” but it’s the whole gestalt.) Every year, the article moves me, even though I know not all my friends agree with the sentiment, and I keep repeating the last line to myself: “What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.”
Peace, Sarah

Let’s not forget that the point of Not My God is that in the US, atheists are hated and persecuted. As Stephen Colbert said about distrusted people according to polls, “I wouldn’t trust a Muslim any more than I could throw him at an atheist.”
Do a search on Google or YouTube for “hate atheists” or some such and you’ll come up with a lot of hatred for (not so much of) atheists. People don’t like us, or at least not yet. If and when we become a larger group to contend with, perhaps the hatred will abate into reluctant tolerance. If we become a majority, Darwin willing, we can’t bloody well hate ourselves, can we?
Let’s not forget.

He’s walking in the middle of the sidewalk, completely clogging it so that you can’t get around him. No, he’s not five feet wide. He’s just a dad.
The double-wide stroller, the scaled-down SUV of parents who have a case of conspicuous consumption, didn’t exist when I was a kid. Is it because people spaced their pregnancies more, or did they have fewer twins due to today’s fertility treatments, or did they make kids who knew how to walk do so? Those were the days.
Parents with double-wide strollers tend to not obey pedestrian traffic rules. Clogging the middle of the sidewalk, rather than on the right– or worse yet, on the left, strolling against you– they are oblivious of the annoyance they cause the rest of us. Sometimes they are trailing small children, exacerbating the problem. And guess what: they assume that you will get out of their way to accommodate their parenthood. That’s just rude on their behalf.
There have been a couple of times when I’ve politely reminded such folks (as well as old people, but that’s a different story) to walk on the right. I shouldn’t have to remind them.
And it doesn’t stop on the sidewalk. It occurred to me once while in a small sushi bar that if a parent were to bring in a double-wide stroller (as opposed to a standard one), it would completely block traffic in the restaurant, forcing diners and staff to do some heavy side-stepping in the obstacle course. Now, a restaurant need not be tiny for this to be a problem. but wait staff really do need to walk around quite a bit, with loaded trays, and a big obstacle and tripping hazard, they don’t need.
I can make a concession. I realize that there are harried parents doing eight things at once and maybe they are oblivious to pedestrian traffic. It would help, though, if they needed a stroller to carry two kids, to simply use the in-line model. They don’t have to impose on us if they don’t want to.
Tangentially, I find the trend of parents putting children in strollers who are much too big to be in a stroller a little disturbing. I’ve seen such kids who are so big that their feet scraped the ground in the stroller. Parents, these kids are old enough to walk. Don’t treat them like cripples.
Try mentioning the double-wide annoyance to an enthusiast and you will probably get the business. They may refuse to address the fact that they walk in the wrong part of the sidewalk, but will probably act like their owning the monstrosity of a vehicle is in the Bill of Rights. “If I want to bring a stroller into a restaurant, that’s my right as a parent!” They will likely say that society should bend the rules to accommodate parents– which it often does– at the expense of other people. Entitled, entitled, entitled.
Double-wide stroller parents usually take such criticism as an attack on parents and on children. Yep, I sure hate children, all right. That’s not true. I love children. I’m just annoyed (or in more serious cases, fucking scared) at the way parents choose their parenting decisions.
“How dare you question my double-wide stroller! You’re not a parent! You can’t understand! You hate children!”
Take a bite out of a reality sandwich, parents.
If you have two babies or young toddlers, you can put them in an in-line stroller. If you must have a double-wide, obey the rules of traffic. Not that hard, right? You don’t have to annoy. You choose to.

Me hugging Richard Dawkins at The Amazing Meeting

David was kind enough to write a guest post for me. Cheers!

Atheism as Personal Choice

I became an atheist at the age of 8. I think I chose not to believe because I never really thought the supernatural was special in any way. Don’t get me wrong, I had and still have an active imagination and I loved reading comic books about the exploits of Superman and his ilk. But religion and god belief never seemed to make sense to me from a practical point of view.

In the end, as I look back on my choice, I think that I’ve always been a person without religious faith. However, I do have faith in humanity and I remain optimistic even though there is plenty of evidence for great sadness in our world. I believe at its root, this sadness is caused by some form of religious philosophy, sectarian violence or god worship.

But let’s get back to my atheist journey. When I was a pre-teen, I became ill with rheumatic fever. The infection left me with both a damaged mitral and aortic valve. I thought if there was a god and if he was a kind and loving deity, why would he hurt me so? After all, as a child, I never did anything to hurt him or anyone. Why if god controls all, do I have to suffer or for that matter why does anyone have to suffer. If god is so powerful, why not just fix everything. Then I realized in my own words, what Woody Allen said years after, “It ‘s not that god isn’t all powerful it’s just that he is an underachiever.” As a fellow Jew from Brooklyn, I get the joke and the pathos of Allen’s comment.

So in 1979 at the age of 17, I underwent open-heart surgery to replace my aortic valve. They put in a porcine valve (a fancy way of saying “pig”) and so while I was no longer Kosher (not that I ever was) at least my short life was extended a little longer. That was, up until 1987, when the porcine valve calcified and a new non-organic value was put in its place. Both times I was told that my family and friends prayed for my survival. Each time I went under the knife I neither prayed nor pleaded with “god” to spare me. Frankly, I was more concerned with the job experience of the heart surgeon than I was hoping for divine salvation.

I guess you can say that my heart surgeries were a form of battle, and in that case I can assure you that there are atheists in foxholes, because I am and will always be a non-believer. I choose atheism because I have never seen evidence to contradict my belief that there is a god. So if there isn’t a god, it follows that there is no need for a religious or spiritual life. It also follows that one can and will act morally and with kindness to others even without the threat or reliance on god or a theistic philosophy.

The great Carl Sagan is quoted as saying, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Without evidence, humans backslide into a Paleolithic set of beliefs which existed way before science could show us that the natural world and the mechanics of the universe are knowable. But the physical world can and is testable, it can be understood through human invention and inquiry. New discoveries in all scientific disciplines are being made daily.

Frankly, what I knew as a little boy I know as an adult man. There is no need for god. We have science and the scientific method to fill in the gaps of our understanding and more importantly to explore what we don’t know. So long as we can test the mechanics of the universe we can ensure that what we do know is valid while at the same time question and continue to make discoveries to enliven our world.

I have a confession to make: I’ve never read the Koran. Nor have I read the Old Testament cover to cover. I’ve never read the New Testament. What I know about Christian myth I’ve mostly gotten through Osmosis and the Charlie Brown Christmas Special.

Still, one doesn’t have to have read the Koran to know that suras (passages) are a plenty which order Muslims to do what I think of as terrible things, and which most people in free, democratic societies would detest. Many people deny that Muslim extremists are only doing what their holy books tell them to do. Then again, some Western apologists allow that we should let Muslims do whatever they want in the name of tolerance, no matter how awful. For example, female genital mutilation has no mention in the Koran, but many non-Muslims advocate that we should let people in Western nations do it in the name of “tolerance.” I ain’t much tolerant of so-called “tolerance.”

Point is, many people claim that the horrors of which Islam is capable aren’t true to Islam.
Back to the suras. Here are a few that, if Muslims do follow them because they are in the Koran, justify some horrible behavior.

From New World Encyclopedia:
Kill the pagans wherever you may find them…(Sura 8:58)
Remember your Lord inspired the angels with the message: “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: you smite them above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.” (Sura 8:58)

The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. (Sura 8:58).

From Howie Unveils God:
4:15 As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation).

24:2 The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment.

And so on.

If you take the Koran literally, and follow its rules and commandments, are you a monster? As they say in Minnesota, you betcha.

Jews and Christians who are alert must know that distasteful passages exist in their holy books that do not belong in the modern world. They either obey them selectively (cherry-pick), or say the passages don’t apply. I think we’ve all heard of some Christians who defend their homophobia by quoting Leviticus, but don’t stand by or know about not wearing mixed fibers, abstaining from shellfish, etc.

Just because suras are in the Koran doesn’t mean adherents have to follow them any more so than Jews shouldn’t wear mixed fibers. Muslims do awful things because it is written, but Christians and Jews, percentage-wise, don’t seem to not follow things to the letter.

A while back I wrote about How Religious Conservatives Want Their Daughters to Dress. I found a video on the Friendly Atheist blog that was so begging to be mocked, I decided I had to write a post mocking it.

Yes, folks, cleavage and showing some thigh are so tragic that Christians feel the need to play sad music and speak tearfully in this video. To their credit, they’re not telling girls and women what to do, so much as trying to convince them.

OK, I don’t know where to begin responding to this, but let’s start by saying that I can’t imagine, showing my stomach or not, that I’ve ever caused “a hundred and one men to devour me in their minds.” I’m not really judging my own appearance here, just the likelihood that men would “sin” (does that mean masturbation, or just lusting?) over such a trivial event. Showing “even a little bit of stomach”? C’mon.

It is interesting that Christian women and girls often wear provocative clothing because it is fashionable. Kevin Roose reported this in Unlikely Disciple. If Christian women wanted to dress modestly, wouldn’t they simply do so, regardless of fashion?

What can Christian men do about the “minefield” of girls and women who aren’t Xian/religious, and hence aren’t obligated to the request to not dress slutty (tongue in cheek)? All those Jewish gals who don’t need to listen to your sermon are still in your field of vision, fellahs!

Let me just say this about sexy clothes, whatever those may be. It’d be hard to find a boyfriend/partner if a woman looked frumpy. I can’t imagine wearing a potato sack and then wondering why I wasn’t meeting the right guy. Right or wrong, men do respond to the way women look, and hiding a womanly figure doesn’t help. I’m not advocating that we dress up like Playboy Bunnies, but there’s a healthy medium someplace. Besides, I feel better about myself when I look good (or in my case, more accurately, look presentable).

The pastor applauds the woman who elected to not buy a sexy shirt. She made the decision to not cripple men with lust. Yep, she spared the spiritual lives of perhaps thousands of men, or however many would see her wear it over the course of the shirt’s lifetime. At least she didn’t ask her dad to screen her wardrobe, as per the pastor’s advice (now there’s an awkward conversation. “Dad, does this show too much cleavage?”). Still, it seems egomaniacal to say, “I can’t wear this shirt. It’ll distract the men. I’m just that hot.” Even if it’s true in her case.

Should this video say it’s only aimed at attractive women? What about unattractive women? I can smell a lot of mean people saying, “This doesn’t apply to you unless you’re hot. Otherwise, we’re not looking, anyway.” I guess with homeliness comes freedom. Wouldn’t the pastor applaud women who are ugly, and encourage uglification, so as to deter men’s lust? By his logic, I don’t see why not.

I can’t help but ask: Can men dress sexy and cripple Xian women with lust? I’m not sure how a man dresses “sexy,” exactly, beyond those outfits I see at Gay Pride parades. How about men’s sexy clothing turning on other men?

I brought up this question in my other Conservative Dress post: what do these folks mean by “modest dress”? I don’t think the pastor is advocating that women wear birkas, but what counts as “sexy” clothing? Does it mean little shirts, such as those Britney Spears popularized, and showing lots of skin, with stiletto heels? Or does it mean jeans and a t-shirt that somewhat reveal the shape of the body? Does he want to just cover more skin, or does he want us to wear shapeless muumuus that make us look dumpy? Is what I’m wearing now modest by his standards?

Christian men (and anyone else), your mind is not depraved if you have a sex drive and are turned on by women. Sex is a healthy, normal part of human life. It isn’t an aggressive monster trying to “lead men down to death,” in the pastor’s words. Sheesh.

The narrator says he doesn’t know why women dress provocatively because he’s never asked. Why not ask, buddy? Chances are she’d say it’s to impress other women and to get men’s attention. No mystery here. Women are humans. You can ask us questions.

Between Michael Shermer and Penn and Teller, libertarians are well-represented in the world of atheism. It must have to do with the bottom-up processes of both biological evolution and the free market that makes the atheist/libertarian thing so visible.

A month ago, I posted on FB a funny Colbert clip about how the government may pull incandescent light bulbs from the market.

I noted on my post that it was funny that conservatives clung to gas guzzlers and anything else they might feel it is their right as Americans to buy, regardless of any costs to society. Steve Mirsky wrote in Scientific American magazine, “Oklahoma senator Tom Coburn seemed near tears as he softly asked, ‘What if you want to drive a gas hog? You don’t have the right any longer in this country to spend your money to drive a gas hog?’” Cry me a river.

I am not sure if fluorescent bulbs will improve society by cutting down on energy costs and hence helping the environment. I haven’t researched if the mercury in the bulbs makes them not so environmentally-friendly after all, but assuming that they do make a huge positive difference, the government would be right in pulling energy-wasting incandescent bulbs off the shelves.

The free market and capitalism are great, but it’s important to remember that we don’t live in a 100% capitalistic system. If we did, we’d be living in an Orwellian dystopia in which we auctioned off the organs of third world kids. Even the most staunch “let the free market decide” folks must acknowledge that going all the way would be terrible for society.

It was the free market that allowed slavery to happen in the U.S. Just as with sweatshop labor today (which I regard as a step or two above slavery), proponents claimed the economy would collapse without slavery. I’d like to think that, ethics of slavery aside, we proved them wrong.

Life under pure capitalism would be one big auction. Everything would be sold to the highest bidder. The bottom line– the almighty dollar– would decide everything, regardless of who got hurt. The reason we have civilization in the first place, at least in theory, is to protect those who are smaller and weaker. Under a pure Free Market system, stronger people would crush the weak.

Let’s get back to the light bulbs, though.

There are times when the gov’t should and does interfere with the free market. My free market friends: do you object to Big Brother butting into the free market to do the following?

—-Making it illegal to sell liquor or cigarettes to minors.

—-Protecting the public from dangerous items, such as lead paint and swill milk, pulling them off the market. (I can only assume that swill milk aficionados stockpiled swill milk before the law was enacted.)

—-Establishing standards for health inspection in food service, fire codes, architectural safety, etc. I’m sure you’d rather go to Denny’s knowing that Big Brother made sure they didn’t have mice crawling all over the Grand Slams. Check out this video about health inspection.

—-Establishing the Food and Drug Administration to create and enforce rules on which drugs are allowed on the market, and food safety standards. The government limits how many insect parts are allowed in our cereal. To leave this up to the free market would allow the foxes to guard the chicken coop. Life before FDA was pretty disgusting, food-wise.

—-While not completely necessary, I like that smoking isn’t allowed in bars and restaurants, and other public places such as libraries. Even if second-hand smoking weren’t dangerous (Penn and Teller denied that it posed a health risk, but science supports that it is), smoke smells bad and makes me cough.

—-Making seat-belts and other safety features standard on cars. I read that Ronald Reagan once said that making seat-belts standard on cars would “cost consumers their freedom.” Ralph Nader replied that it would indeed cost consumers their freedom– from going through the windshield. If Ralph Nader had not invented the issue of auto safety, in all likelihood, millions of FB users wouldn’t be alive due to auto-related deaths. (Note: there are some people who say that seat-belts kill more lives than they save. I think those people are ignoramuses. They need only ask an expert in the field to be set straight.)

I could go on, but you get the idea.
To reiterate: you wanna let the foxes guard the chicken coop?
Surely you think that these measures are worth sacrificing your freedom.

Only in the past few years have I met libertarians. I wonder where they came from? Out of the woodwork? At any rate, I can’t help but notice that they are all financially well-off men. As near as I can tell, they claim to support liberal values, such as keeping abortion legal, but then turn around and vote for conservatives. Voting with your wallet, guys, won’t maintain social progress. I call these folks “Republican lite.”

This “de-conversion” story comes from Scott Van Hoosen, who asked me to put it on this blog. Thanks, Scott:) I have an abridged version below. You can read the whole thing by following the link.

“I consider myself an Atheist, although I was not always that way. I was raised in a religious Christian home, and believed what I was taught, but had a lot of questions that I could not find answers to. As I got older, I discovered many more questions about what I was taught, particularly about the Bible. When I actually read the Bible for myself, I found many things that I had not been taught in Sunday School. I found contradictions, things that didn’t make any sense, things that were truly horrible, and a lot of stuff that sounded very much like fairy tales and mythology. In the New Testament, I read that God is love. In the Old Testament, I read that God commanded his people to destroy entire cities, and to put every man, woman and CHILD to death, which does not sound like love by any definition I have ever heard.

For example, in the Bible, the book of Joshua is the chronicle of Joshua leading the people of Israel, at the command of God, to make war on a string of cities. According to the Bible, God commanded them to go from city to city, invading and attacking each one. At God’s command, they invaded each city, and killed every man, woman and child. Think about that for a minute. They killed children, and babies, young mothers, old women and men, in the name of God. Is this the sort of god that you would want to worship? Is this a god of love? How could a perfect, sinless god say “Thou shall not kill,” then turn around and command his people to kill innocent children? That seems like a contradiction of one of the Ten Commandments.

This caused me to re-evaluate my beliefs. I was raised in a Christian home, and therefore I was raised to believe in Christianity. I have had many friends with vastly different beliefs, including Buddhists, Islamists, Jews, Wiccans, Atheists, Agnostics, Christians, Hindus, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Pagans and a few others. Most of us shared one thing in common: we all were raised to believe as our parents believed. That made me realize that my “chosen” religion was really just a factor of chance. If I had been born in the Buddhist, Islamist or Jewish home, I would have then been raised with that belief system. That pretty much nullified the “Faith” argument. If I am to simply have faith, then what religion should I put my faith in? I’ve never been much of a gambler, and I didn’t feel like taking a gamble that Christianity was the “correct” religion, when the odds were so poor, considering the thousands of possible religions on our planet. The consequences of choosing the wrong religion could be dire, so I considered this an important question to answer.

But why would so many people not come to the same conclusion as I did? Why do most people continue to believe the beliefs of their childhood? I thought about this for a while, and the conclusion was plain to see.

First, people continue the beliefs and rituals of their childhood because to do otherwise can cause alienation from family and friends. I have experienced this first hand. I have received coldness from family members, and rejection from long-time friends. Some religions even have solid rules that you must turn your back on family and friends who leave the church.

Second, I think some people stay with their religion because it gives comfort and easy answers to life’s difficult questions. The promise of living forever after death in a place of paradise without sickness or unhappiness is a happy thought indeed. However, the belief that Santa Claus flies around on Christmas delivering presents to all the children of the world is also a happy thought. I cannot force myself to believe something that I have no evidence for, no matter how appealing the thought might be. Many people believe that their god heals the sick at the request of prayers, yet statistics show that people heal or do not heal, live or die, regardless of their beliefs. Good people suffer, innocent children die, while evil people live and prosper.

Third, religion gives power over others. Televangelists rake in millions of dollars from their congregations by convincing them that God wants them to send their money. Church membership usually encourages paying a large percentage of the member’s gross income to the church. Money is power. Politicians proclaim their belief in the popular god of their nation to get votes, again bringing power. Parents can control children by telling them, “God is watching you, and He says you must obey me.”"

Some years ago, I made the mistake of staying with a male friend so we could attend a Society for Creative Anachronism event. (In retrospect, he was a creepy guy and I made a mistake by staying at his place and ergo letting him think he’d score with me, but let’s put that aside.) When he was driving me during the event, this man (Let’s call him Tom) somehow got on the subject of his religion.
Tom didn’t know I was an atheist, but he knew I was (ethnically, culturally) Jewish. He told me about his Christian sect (cult?) and that to bring on the Rapture, he would fight in the “eternal army” in the holy land (Israel, where my mom lives) and kill my people (his words). I think he said a third of my people, actually.
I was between cell phones at the time and if I’d had a phone, may have called a friend at the event for help, although this might have been tricky to do without alienating Tom and perhaps exacerbating my situation. Instead, I relied on my counseling psychology background to draw him out. “Religion is very important to you. How did that happen?”
What I should’ve done had I been thinking was to ask to stop someplace, perhaps CVS under the pretense of picking something up, and called for help. Getting back to the event, though, I told another friend of mine, who was able to give me a ride home.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
One of the funny things about this episode is that when I remember it, I picture myself praying during his rant to protect me, protect my people, and so forth… although in real life, of course I didn’t. Why do you suppose I picture the praying? Am I wishing that I did have the comfort of prayer in that situation?

It’s telling how Israel’s enemies, by which here I really am targeting American liberals (of which I am one), charge Israel with racism. If they knew a bit more about the country, they would find it difficult to maintain this accusation.
First off, let me say that Islam is a religion, not a race. Also, most Arabs/Muslims are not “browner” than most Israelis. Many people have remarked on the irony that Israelis and Arabs look so much alike.
Not all Jews in Israel are blond-haired, blue-eyed Europeans. Like Muslims, Jews can be of any race. If you don’t believe me about Israel’s diversity, please go over and see for yourself.
(Tangentially, while we’re on the subject of racism, it’s worth noting that racism is serious in the Muslim world. Sadly, blacks would have no relief moving to the Muslim world and may be shooting themselves in the feet.)
If your real accusation is that Israel is unfair to Muslims, than “racism” is still not the correct charge and you’re only calling it “racism” out of ignorance. I need to repeat it because it keeps coming up: Islam is a religion, not a race.
Let’s look at how Israel behaves about race. One concrete episode comes to mind.
In the 1980s and 1990s, in the spirit of bringing Jews sanctuary in Israel (which is what I see as the purpose of Israel), Israel’s government, on its own dime and by its own initiation, airlifted Ethiopia’s Jews to come live there. We are talking about 120,000 blacks. In addition to footing the bill to bring these black Jews to give them a better life, the government paid for immigrant absorption centers to feed, shelter and find employment for Ethiopian olim (Hebrew for new immigrants to Israel).
On its own dime. By its own initiation. To 120,000 blacks to live with them.
Has any other country in the world done something like this? I’m asking non-rhetorically. I don’t know what the opposite of “racism” is, but that’s about as far from “racism” as you can get.
The purpose of Israel is to provide a sanctuary for Jews. Put bluntly, we needed a place to be safe from everyone else.