Tim Tebow, not God, Throws the Ball

What does it take to be a quarterback for an NFL team? It starts with a kid who is willing to put in thousands of hours in high school and all through college then into the big leagues. It takes inborn athleticism combined with a fast-thinking intelligence and relentless determination.

That's just to be on the team. To be a first-string quarterback, you have to be the best of the best.

Tim Tebow is such a man. He worked extraordinarily hard to get where he is ... which is why Tim Tebow's religion is a real shame. Christianity has stolen Tebow's pride. Instead of taking pride in his accomplishments, he gives the credit away to God. The simple fact is that it's Tebow throwing the ball, not God.

In less than a second or two, Tebow's mind absorbs the receiver's position, speed and direction, and on top of that he includes the position and momentum of each opposing player. Tebow instantly calculates how the receiver can elude the opponents to arrive at an open position, then hurtles the pigskin ball down the field with incredible accuracy of direction, altitude and velocity. And it's not just that one receiver; he simultaneously has to choose between several receivers, runners, running it himself, or throwing the ball away.

That is talent. Tebow deserves to take pride in his skill. But instead, Tebow gives his accomplishment away. Tebow believes there's a god out there who alters the laws of physics of the universe because this god, who created the unimaginably vast universe, cares whether the NFL team called the "Denver Broncos" wins or loses. And the reason this god cares is because Tebow presumably prays more earnestly than the opposing quarterback.

What's wrong with pride in one's accomplishments? Christians, Jews and Muslims count pride as one of the big sins. Why? Having pride in one's work is admirable. Pride makes us do our best and then lets us take pleasure in a job well done.

That is what Tebow should be doing rather than thanking God.

Several years back I wrote a blog about this same topic (except that it was about friends and family) that is still one of my favorites. I closed it with this:

Religion lets people avoid personal responsibility by asking, and getting, God's forgiveness. Never mind whether the victims agree with God. I suppose that's a pretty good bargain – "Believe in me, and you're off the hook for your sins." But the flip side of the deal is that God also steals all the glory. Everything good is God's doing. Humans get all the blame, and God gets all the credit.

So Sorry Your Dad Died – Too Bad He's Burning in Hell

Death is always sad, but it can bring out kind and comforting words from family and friends. These good wishes really do help us feel better. Whether it's a simple expression of sorrow, some shared tears, or an enlightening story, our friends' kind words help us accept death, cherish the memories, and get life going again.

Now it happens that most of my relatives and close friends aren't Christian. We're a broad assortment of Deists, pantheists, paganists, agnostics and atheists. There's hardly a Christian among us.

So what do Christians write in their condolences? "The peace of the Lord is on your father." Or, "Your mother is resting in Jesus' arms now."

I know they mean well. But if these Christians were true to their faith, they'd say, "So sorry that your loved one is now being tortured with indescribable pain that is perpetually searing the flesh from her bones. I'm saddened that she will be screaming in agony for the rest of eternity. She seemed like such a nice lady. Too bad she didn't believe in Jesus."

Eternal cruel, sadistic, horrifying torture – that's true Christianity. Never mind that my loved ones are, to the last one, kind and moral people. I can't think of one family member or close friend who isn't a decent human being, and an asset to family, friends, community and humanity. They're good mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, friends and neighbors. They work hard and support themselves and their families. They vote in elections (mostly). They give back far more than they take in life.

But none of that matters. Most of my close friends and family don't accept the two-thousand-year-old myth that a woman was impregnated by God and had a son, who was actually God himself, who then arranged to have himself tortured to death, but he didn't really die and came back to life for a few more days, and then he died, except that he still didn't die because God pulled his son (who was really himself) up to heaven. And if you believe this story, all your sins are forgiven, no matter how horrible, but if you don't, all your good deeds are for nothing.

So it's pretty offensive when, in our grief over the death of a loved one, some well-meaning Christian writes about how the dearly departed is now in Jesus' arms or basking in God's glory. It's dishonest.

Christians who are offering kind thoughts to grieving friends should stick to a secular message. "I'm so sorry for your loss" would be just fine.

Santa Gets It and Jesus Doesn't ...

Santa has a cool live-and-let-live philosophy: my head can be full of all sorts of naughty thoughts as long as I only act on the nice thoughts. I've had plenty of nasty fantasies in my lifetime about what I'd like to do to certain people ... but I didn't carry them out and never would. I've also had lots of nice thoughts and actually done many nice things for lots of people.

In other words, he knows when you've been bad or good. Not when you've thought bad thoughts or thought good thoughts. It's what you do that counts.

So Santa Claus has always been good to me. It's our actions that make us truly moral or immoral citizens of this crazy world, and Santa rewards the people who are good.

What about Jesus Christ? According to Amy Henry's blog, The Flawed Theology of Naughty and Nice Lists, it doesn't much matter what you do. It's what you believe that matters. You can be angry, vengeful, hurtful, even murderous as long as you're truly sorry and ask Jesus for forgiveness.

Amy believes we should beware of Santa's naughty-or-nice philosophy. She thinks it sends kids the wrong message. What really matters, according to Amy, is what's in our hearts. What you actually do is far less important than what you believe.

"... thank God that He doesn’t separate us out into naughty and nice, but places us in one big category called ‘forgiven.’

And Amy isn't alone in this strange theory. It's what Christianity is all about, from the Pope himself down to the meekest shepherd tending goats. Christian morality isn't about what you do, it's about what you believe. If you fail to live up to Christian standards and hurt someone else, Jesus will forgive you. (Never mind that your victim might not feel that you deserve forgiveness.) No matter how awful your sin, and how many you hurt, you can be forgiven if you're truly sorry and believe that Jesus Christ is your savior.

In my book, Christian morality is fundamentally flawed. I'll take Santa Claus morality any day.

Newt Declares War on Judges who Favor Atheists and Liberals

Newt Gingrich is known for outrageous outbursts and wild ideas, but he's putting out some really scary stuff this week.

His latest attack is on the independence of the judiciary. Any time a judge issues a ruling that Gingrich doesn't like, he wants to send U.S. Marshals out with congressional subpoenas to haul the judge in front of Congress, where the judge would be grilled by every angry member of Congress who didn't agree with the judge's ruling.

Does that sound like a good way to ensure an independent judiciary?

Next, Newt will simply ignore the law if he becomes president. Under his leadership, the Executive Branch of government will simply ignore the Judicial Branch whenever Newt doesn't like the law.

Yeah, I think I'll do that too – just ignore any laws I don't like. If Newt can do it, why can't I?

And if that isn't enough to destroy the careful balance of powers enshrined in our Constitution, Gingrich wants to simply fire judges and close down courts that consistently issue anti-religious rulings. He'd start with the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals (those well-known liberals!) and a federal judge in Texas who upheld the separation of church and state by banning school-sanctioned prayer in Texas.

Really. He actually said that.

And Gingrich isn't just all talk. For example, he provided $200,000 seed money for a witch hunt that ousted three of the judges who ruled that same-sex marriage is legal.

This may just be Gingrich pandering to Iowa, where conservative Christians reign. But I don't think so. I think this man, if elected president, would embark on a massive campaign to trample civil rights for non-Christians, the LGBT community, and anyone else who he doesn't think is a proper American.

It was bad enough when Gingrich was House Speaker, but this man could theoretically become president.

Georgia License Plates Require 'In God We Trust' - Why this is Great!

Secular News Daily is reporting a new Georgia law that will require "In God We Trust" on all car license plates. Georgians who don't like it will have to pay extra to get a state-approved sticker to cover it up!

Atheists are naturally up in arms about this glaring violation of the First Amendment. But I sort of like it. I believe this could be one of the best things that happened to secularism in America in the last ten years – if they're foolish enough to go through with it.

Why? Because it could force the Supreme Court to take "In God We Trust" off of our money.

Atheists have objected to "In God We Trust" on currency and as the national motto for decades, but the courts have been unsympathetic. The Supreme Court stated that "In God We Trust" and similar slogans are "protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content."

But having a dollar in your pocket is quite different than being required to drive around with "In God We Trust" on your car for everyone to see. Imagine what Christians would do if they had to drive around in cars that said, "Trust Reason, Because There Is No God." They would be quite within their rights to refuse.

It's hard to imagine that the Supreme Court will be able to sidestep this one. It will reach their doorstep. And once it's there, it's hard to imagine that they would force non-religious citizens to drive around advertising religious beliefs. Maybe I'm naïve, but I don't think so.

Now think about what happens next ... if it's unconstitutional for Georgia to force atheists to have "In God We Trust" on every car, how can you simultaneously allow the slogan on our money? Banning it on license plates while allowing it on money would require a lot of legal sleight-of-hand tricks.

I actually hope Georgia goes through with this discriminatory plan. It will become a perfect opportunity to fight back against the erosion of our First Amendment rights.

Is Home Schooling a Form of Child Abuse?

When does freedom of religion turn into child abuse? When do parents' rights to raise a child according to their religious beliefs become a violation of the child's civil rights? When does the state's need to have an educated electorate override religious parents' belief in ignorance?

Atheists love to blog about child abuse when it's in the form of medical neglect that becomes manslaughter and Jesus-inspired whippings that kill children. These are horrible and deserve our condemnation.

But there's a much more insidious, widespread and far-reaching form of abuse going on across America: religion-fueled, anti-science, anti-homosexual, anti-truth home schooling. It's far more important than any one whipping or medical-abuse case, however horrifying, because the ignorance fostered by these home-school programs is the very foundation that allows whippings and faith-based medical neglect to continue.

Home schooling is an old tradition in America. In some cases home schooling is a good alternative to public schools. Kids with unusual talents can benefit from accelerated lessons. Child performers who have to travel can keep up with their public-school peers. Kids with exceptionally well-educated parents with a knack for teaching can get a better education than public schools can provide. And so on.

And while the word "abuse" is a very strong claim, I believe it's appropriate. Abuse in the broadest sense is an action that damages the child physically or emotionally and causes them ongoing suffering. Ultra-conservative Christians are doing exactly that. If they were merely teaching their Christian beliefs as an adjunct to a well-rounded education, I would have no objection. But they are deliberately and knowingly keeping their children ignorant. They are blocking their children's access to biology, chemistry, evolution, political science, American and world history, philosophy and critical thinking skills.

And on top of that, they are fostering paranoia. They're teaching their kids that the world is a giant conspiracy and everyone is out to get them.

The organization that inspired today's blog is the perfect example. Their web site has so much over-the-top rhetoric that it's easy to think it's just a ludicrous joke. But it's not ... they believe this stuff, and they have a lot of followers. They start with a deceptive name: RescueYourChild.com. It sounds wonderful, doesn't it? But what they're actually advocating is for parents to "rescue" their children from a modern education.

Their web site's SHOUTED HEADLINES sound like a joke:

"FACT: There are now at least 8 sexual indoctrination laws impacting children ... See these bad laws, then rescue your child."

"Homosexual 'education' in classrooms ... Don't believe it's happening? CLICK TO WATCH."

"There's a BATTLE for your child. Whoever fights harder will win."

"Shocking dads and moms into REALITY ... Watch the IndoctriNation movie trailer."

"Parental rights, decency out the window."

RescueYourChild.com is a perfect example of how these ultra-conservative Christians are abusing the home-schooling system and twisting our laws. They claim that parents have an absolute right to teach their children anything they want, regardless of their children's needs and rights. And they carry it out: they teach their religious dogma in place of real facts.

Parents should have enormous latitude in raising their children. The last thing we want is the state peering over our parental shoulders and imposing some idealistic politically inspired child-raising theory on families. But children have rights too. Every child has the right to a basic education that includes accurate history, science and social studies. And the state has a right to demand that children are literate and knowledgeable so that they can be responsible voters.

Parents have an absolute right to teach their children their own religion (or no religion). But they do not have a right to block all other education. Every child has a right to a good education. Ignorant children are economically, socially and politically handicapped for life. In my book, that's abusive.

Christian Apologist: Skepticism Caused by Hurt from Church

Christian apologists just can't stand the idea that we skeptics actually have good reasons to not believe their mythology. To them, Christian theology is so obviously true that anyone who doesn't believe must have some other reason. If someone is a non-believer, then they must have been beaten by a nun, molested by a priest, shunned for homosexuality, or hurt in some other dastardly fashion by a Christian or by the church.

It just can't be, they say, that someone actually rejects Christianity itself.

The latest salvo of this nature comes from Christian apologist and author Dr. Alex McFarland, whose new book, 10 Answers for Skeptics, purports to have statistics showing that most skeptics were driven away from their faith by bad experiences. In an interview with the Christian Post, McFarland said,

"Through nearly a year of research and numerous personal interviews, my goal was to really get 'inside the mind of the skeptic.' The most common type of skeptics I meet are wounded skeptics. They have been hurt by church, religion, or by another Christian."

The problem with Dr. McFarland's statement is that like so much of Christian apologetics, it uses flawed logic. McFarland makes the reader think that bad experiences caused the skepticism. More importantly, McFarland seems to think that if you can cure the hurt and heal the damage, the ex-Christian skeptics will all come flooding back to their former faith.

McFarland is implying that skeptics are really Christians in their hearts, and it's only the hurt and their pride that have separated them from God.

This is completely wrong.

These ex-Christian skeptics have had their eyes opened. The hurt they suffered gave them a wonderful opportunity to objectively question Christian dogma and mythology. At the same time, it allowed them to consider other philosophies and religions ... and even atheism. They looked at all the injustice, pain, starvation and disease around the world, and realized that the loving Christian God couldn't possibly be real. They looked afresh at the inconsistencies in the Bible, the immorality of a God who commits genocide, infanticide and many other crimes. The old adage, "God works in mysterious ways" suddenly seemed cheap and shallow. And they looked at their own lives and realized that bad stuff happens to good people all the time for no apparent reason. What sort of almighty, loving God would allow that?

McFarland is right that hurt by a fellow Christian or the church drives people away from Christianity. The key point he's missing is that once free of Christianity's bonds, people are drawn toward skepticism and atheism by the forces of reason, facts and morality. And once a person's eyes are opened to the wonders of reason and science, there's no going back.

The Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) rely on ignorance. They've even developed a pair of synergistic, powerful memes that are a defense against inquisitiveness and thought. I call them the Ignorance is Bliss and Anti-Rationalism memes. The Ignorance is Bliss meme tells believers that everything you need to know is in the Bible, the meek shall inherit the Earth, and that anything (like science) that contradicts the Bible is Satan's work. The Anti-Rationalism meme tells believers that faith is always more powerful than reason. This is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church: no matter what science and reason tell you, faith that you feel in your heart is more important.

I've met many skeptics in my life, particularly since the publication of The Religion Virus, and I can tell you that McFarland is simply wrong. Yes, it's true that many skeptics are former Christians. And many are "wounded" as McFarland says. But I've never met one who was being held back from Christianity by their "wounds." To the last one, they saw the hurtful experience as an opportunity.

They weren't driven from their faith. They were pulled by the truth of reason and science into skepticism and atheism.

And that is what McFarland should really be worried about. He should be looking at the mythology itself. He needs to see why it's so easy to leave Christianity behind once the chains of blind faith are broken.

Why Christianity is in Trouble: Halloween!

Christianity is in trouble, with church attendance falling and faith weakening across the nation. What are they going to do to save the faith? Well, some of the more clever conservative Christians figured out a solution: Piss off kids on Halloween! Drop Bibles and religious tracts into their candy bags! Tell them they're sinners! Halloween is devil worship!

Yeah, that's sure to pull those kids into church next Sunday.

Seriously, they're doing this. USA Today is reporting that the American Tract Society (ATS) published Peek-A-Boo, Jesus Loves You! (Yes, ATS really exists ... I always wondered where all those tracts came from.)

But up in Calgary, they're going one better. Those cheapskate ATS tracts are nothing compared to the Holy Bible that Calgary kids are going to get! And by the way, it's not Halloween, it's "Jesus-ween."

Seriously, people. Why not just take your religion out behind the barn and just bury it? It would be just as effective, and you wouldn't be annoying a bunch of innocent kids who just want to have some fun.

Cain: No Abortions Allowed ... At All

At least Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain can't be called indecisive on abortion. He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. In fact, he wants to outlaw abortion altogether.

"I believe in life from conception and I do not agree with abortion under any circumstances. Not for rape and incest ... Because if you look at rape and incest, the percentage of those instances is so miniscule [sic] that there are other options. If it’s the life of the mother that family is going to have to make that decision."

So, if a thirteen-year-old girl is raped by her stepfather, then neither she nor her mother can choose whether to carry that man's child? Even the very next day, when the egg hasn't even implanted itself in her uterus and has no spinal cord or brain cells?

Exactly. That fertilized cell, according to Cain, is a full human being with more rights than the girl and her family.

And why does Cain block abortions for rape and incest? Just because it's a rare crime. From what Cain says, it sounds like he might reconsider if rape and incest were more common. Does that make sense to you? Do you think it makes sense to rape and incest victims?