Thinking Unenslaved

This week, I’ve planned a “solo” show, which is actually designed to elicit callers-in. Yeah, I’m sneaky like that! You’re stuck with me, in other words, but you’re not really just stuck with me. Luckily, though, thanks to the not-so-mysterious workings of my brain, my famously notorious co-hosts will probably be dialing in anyway. That’s because I’m focusing the show recent articles by some of my favorite bloggers, a couple of whom are, guess what….Paul and Kile!

As I set up the show, I have selected recent contributions from Paul Fidalgo ( http://bit.ly/fpRvbO ), Martin Pribble ( http://bit.ly/gGE4Va ), and Kile Jones ( http://gawd.us/hEl7Lx ). I’ve asked these contributors to dial in while I’m discussing their content. Martin may not be able to join us since he’s in Australia, though.

A good portion of the show will be a follow-up to the end of last week’s show, which we didn’t get enough time to spend on. I’m working on cleaning up the “management” portion of what I do, but in the mean-time, I felt the combined topics of Raising Hellions and Atheist Evangelism (under the general umbrella of Teaching Atheism) were worthy of more formative discussion. The articles I’ve selected play heavily into this topic.

Please join me at 10pm EST this Wednesday for a healthy discussion of these topics!

This week, I’ve planned a “solo” show, which is actually designed to elicit callers-in. Yeah, I’m sneaky like that! You’re stuck with me, in other words, but you’re not really just stuck with me.

Thinking Unenslaved: Blog Talking

Luckily, though, thanks to the not-so-mysterious workings of my brain, my famously notorious co-hosts will probably be dialing in anyway. That’s because I’m focusing the show recent articles by some of my favorite bloggers, a couple of whom are, guess what….Paul and Kile!

As I set up the show, I have selected recent contributions from Paul Fidalgo, Martin Pribble, and Kile Jones, plus a recent YouTube video from Antitheist Angie. I’ve asked these contributors to dial in while I’m discussing their content. Martin may not be able to join us since he’s in Australia, though.

(I’m at work right now and can’t get to the locations of all the links I need to put into here. I’ll edit this post this evening with the links ~ sorry! ~ dg)

A good portion of the show will be a follow-up to the end of last week’s show, which we didn’t get enough time to spend on. I’m working on cleaning up the “management” portion of what I do, but in the mean-time, I felt the combined topics of Raising Hellions and Atheist Evangelism (under the general umbrella of Teaching Atheism) were worthy of more formative discussion. The articles I’ve selected play heavily into this topic.

Please join me at 10pm EST this Wednesday for a healthy discussion of these topics!

Tonight, we’ll have our first round-table discussion! Three topics have been suggested, so the format will be as follows:

Kile will start with “secularism and religion in a liberal democracy” and how that works within the framework of the Establishment Clause and Free Enterprise. This should lead to some lively discussion between the panelists, and segue’s nicely into an anecdotal discussion on the “theification” of American and British politics at all levels of government (and its accompanying deification of conservative politicians), presented by yours truly. From there, we’ll get into Paul’s topic of “teaching atheism” from the parental perspective, which will probably naturally transition on its own into any of several directions.

The expected format is for each of us to present our thoughts on our chosen topics for 5-10 minutes, followed by a round-table discussion between the panelists for another 15-20 minutes, and then take callers before moving on to the next topic. If we have no callers on a particular subject, we’ll simply move on.

I’m really excited about tonight’s show and the subjects we’ll be covering. This is a great opportunity to talk to all the co-hosts together (I *think* Zach will be there, too, I just didn’t get a topic from him and there’s plenty here to work with), so I’m hoping we’ll have some good callers with differing opinions on the subject matter.

Please join us at 10pm Eastern for a lively discussion!

yes, i felt i should put out the first post of the new year with terribly bad grammar in the title. that’s probably because, just like every year, i resolved to make no resolutions this year.

of course, that doesn’t mean that i plan on doing nothing.

so, after a long struggle with two different condenser microphones, i have determined that i live in an area where AM radio frequencies are amplified to a degree that i can’t use a condenser microphone here in my condominium. i’m rather disappointed about that, as i was truly looking forward to making sure my voice was represented more realistically and not as amateurish as before. my gaming headset is pretty decent, but isn’t capable of modulating well enough to accommodate my range. several of my twitter friends have recommended that i “shield the microphone” without supplying any information on how to surround a microphone with shielding and still leave it viable for recording, and my online searches have been just as fruitless. i’m hoping that as this community which i live in grows, there will be push-back from fellow residents that the folks who run the repeater towers near here will make the necessary adjustments.

as previously discussed, i’m still planning on doing an audio-only weekly podcast, in the three formats (solo, co-hosted, round-table), and i’m working on interstitial segments for separating the various parts of these shows (primarily just so i can get a better handle on editing). i anticipate that i’ll kick off a show within the next couple of weeks. in that regard, i have an IMPORTANT QUESTION for you:

WHAT DAY/TIME SHOULD I RUN THE LIVE SHOW? (i know you can listen to it any time, but the live show should be its own form of fun, and having live participants is always better than trolling the graveyards, right? so, please reply in the comments with a day of the week and general time-frame that works for you!)

DAY OF THE WEEK (these are the days when i am predictably available for a show, in order of my preference) ~

D1. WEDNESDAY
D2. SUNDAY
D3. THURSDAY

TIME OF THE DAY (these are loose times, in no particular order. the show won’t be 3 hours long) ~

T1. AFTERNOON (6-9pm Central)
T2. EVENING (8-11pm Central)
T3. NIGHT (10pm-1am Central)

Please let me know in the comments. Thanks much!

Reminder: ThinkAtheist.com Weekend Podcast on September 6, 10p Eastern. This Sunday’s general topic is Traditionalism. We’ll discuss several forms of traditionalism that are pervasive in our lives, especially these minor forms of religious traditionalism that are quite transparently fixed in our secular lives. There’s a possibility that Dr. Frink will be with us, so keep your fingers crossed! ThinkAtheist.com members: Please RSVP on the event page linked above!

---

NEXT: Un:Enslaved contributor and fellow twitter-whore, @MovingToMontana, has designed something that every card-carrying atheist needs: the card to actually carry. Download yours today, tonight, or at some other convenient time for you. I’ll eventually get that link into the sidebar, too.

---

and lastly….what i actually came here to do today….

Look. I’m fine if you want toworship a non-existent “God”, even if your only real reason for doing so is the gross combination of “that’s what you’ve been told to do” and “that’s the emotional crutch you need to have.” Really, it’s okay.

But. Each and every abrahamic religion is premised upon one common concept: FAITH. Without faith, your religion has no meaning, no purpose, no relevance whatsoever. And, functionally speaking, faith is the opposite of fact. So when you start spouting elements of your faith as fact, you have ceased contributing to the formative discussion. And worse, when you spout the “God is Love” stuff, you actively undermine the entire premise of your own faith.

Think about that for a minute. This isn’t a new argument from the atheist standpoint, but this is the exact problem with every abrahamic religion: your God is NOT “Love”. Your God is not even nice. Your God, according to your own Holy Books, is an insensitive, insecure, vituperative ass, wholly and exclusively interested in exactly one thing: the undying devotion and ego-massaging of vast numbers of human beings.

And what’s REALLY ironic about that is the fact (the proven, irrefutable fact), that the God described in your Holy Books is actually just a construct of human thinking. The irony is nearly overwhelming. You ultimately choose to believe in an imaginary God because certain persons from the Bronze Age who sought a slightly more insidious way to control the population (as opposed to simple, direct militarism) made up some quaint fairy tales for you to believe in. And worse than that, a lot of those stories are far from “quaint”. According to your Holy Books, your God is responsible for the deaths of millions, directly ordered the rape and murder of hundreds of thousands of women and children, and even struck down his own people for being as gullible as he supposedly made them.

Yeah, I know, you’ll cast that all aside and argue at me with the other self-contradictory stories from your book of fairy tales. And that’s okay. Just understand that when that’s all you do, when that’s the sum and total of your apparent ability to form cohesive thought, it becomes increasingly difficult for me to swallow the condescension. And yes, when you willfully confuse the concepts of faith and fact, I don’t even try.

Earlier today, I tweeted: “they protest in the streets, on rooftops. chanting their devotion to the very faith that enslaves them and from which they beg deliverance.”

This is a thought that has been coming upon me for several days. Even with all the Twitter support for new elections in Iran, or at least a full recount of the vote, we are forgetting, if not simply outright ignoring, that the populace, in large part (even if proven not to be a technical majority), does not seek emancipation from its theocratic republic. All this outcry is, instead, the expression of a desire for a slightly more emotionally digestible form of theocratic rule.

Another way of saying that is: The protesters in Iran don’t want freedom. They are simply demanding that the shackles be loosened slightly so that they can scratch a philosophical itch or two.

And that, really, is it.

After some considerable consideration (pardon the redundancy), I changed my twitter avatar from a green one (Green is, as you might remember, the official color of Islam anyway), to a regular one a few days ago. In retrospect, I don’t support this Free Iran charade at all. Because it’s a charade. It’s pompous blowhardiness. Sure, if the elections were rigged, that’s wrong. Undoubtedly, if votes were ignored or uncounted, that’s wrong. But the desired end result is far too closely related to the status quo to be worthy of this much angst and bloodshed. How incredibly, unfortunately, disappointingly…

…ignorant.

“Save us from our self-imposed delusion with a slightly different form of self-imposed delusion” is precisely what this is all about. That ain’t freedom, friends and neighbors. That’s self-perpetuated willful enslavement. Iran will only begin to be “free” when the majority requires the government to remove the yolk of religious oppression. And it’ll still be a long way from there for them to go as a country.

And it’s this faulty, delusional presumption that makes the senseless, needless deaths, injuries, and property damage all the more depressing.

Humanity: the perpetually incessant bane of human progress.

The following was originally titled “Because Theocracy Leads to Permissible Extremism, THAT’s Why!” and posted at the otherwhirled and Mock, Paper, Scissors on March 23, 2008 in support of the Blogswarm Against Theocracy. This short series of posts is still pertinent today, I believe.

---

I cannot recall how many people I’ve spoken with, either via blogs or in-person, who reacted with the word “But nobody wants a theocracy in America” whenever I bring the subject up. And indeed, until recently, there wasn’t really a specific push to alter our Constitution in any formative way, and the only reason the American public has come to recognize that there are some minority movements in that direction is because of the thankfully-failed presidential campaign of Mike Huckabee. Thanks to his “charming” southern style and disarming smile, however, even given the suddenness of the our coming to understand that conservative fundamentalists DO want to turn this nation into a Christian Nation, many still don’t realize the true threat that impetus represents. And since nobody in that campaign ever used the term “theocracy”, these very same people who were “a bit put off” by Huckabee’s stance on altering the Constitution still don’t believe that anyone is creating, or has ever made any attempt to create, a theocratic state.

Head in the sands, their worldview is written on the backs of their eyelids, and its name is sciolism. But I’ve already spoken enough about that.

When the Buddha was destroyed in Bamyan by the Taliban back in 2001, everyone here in America seemed taken aback. But at least on the part of some of us, that incredulity was largely feigned. After all, we already live in a society which unapologetically and unabashedly forces galleries and museums not to display works of art that are uncomplimentary to the Christian Deity and Its Holy Progeny. We already live in a society which disallows admittance to certain schools to those who are openly homosexual, refuses military service to the same and withholds benefits to service men and women whose homosexuality becomes known. We already live in a society where religious-sponsored abstinence-only education is taught in public schools, where religious-sponsored “alternatives” to centuries-established science are required to be taught alongside the scientific curriculum, and where educators must mark as correct responses from students whose religious doctrine define the Universe as a 6,000-year-old mechanism created and overseen by the Christian Deity. We already live in a society in which the government sets up programs exclusively available to religious organizations, and subjectively requires candidates for political office to publicly hold at least some form of religious belief that is not Muslim, Wiccan, Satanist, or Pagan.

In many ways, America is already not very far removed from being a theocratic state. Hence this blogswarm and the absolute important it holds to those of us who recognize the potential impact of the things I detailed in the paragraph above. And of other things, I’m sure. One of the things that frightens me the most about the permissiveness with which religious bigotry is handled in our society is the impact it has on our children. Even in what has become a largely progressive society on many levels, these children still grow up thinking that only members of their religious denominations will share the “Kingdom of Heaven”—in some cases, only members of their particular congregation. Children are being home-schooled in higher numbers, and this only produces more insularity, more misunderstanding, and a greater sense of that misplaced entitlement that is already so pervasive in our world today. I do honestly look upon this treatment of our children as a form of child abuse. They are not prepared for the world at large whenever they do leave home, and that is the gravest error any parent can make: worse even than the rote teachings of intolerance, bigotry, self-righteousness, and duplicity they are given before they leave the house. And as adults, these children live in a society in which their intolerance and bigotry is tolerated, even encouraged, by the news media, by politicians, and of course by the company they keep in their insular segments of the society. In turn, those who do not eventually see the silliness (or perhaps the abject cruelty) of their ways, will start the cycle all over again with their own children.

What the Taliban did to Buddha in March of 2001 in one brazen act is no different than what conservative fundamentalists in America do each day to our nation as a whole through a measured, implacable series of legislation. The reason why we blog against these acts is to make people more aware that they even exist. Since ours is a society largely defined by convenience, attempting to recognize the patterns left behind by the religious fundamentalists takes work, and work is awful inconvenient. Even those who recognize these issues largely feel that anything they could do about them would be too limited, too small of a scale, to have any impact. That’s not true.

This is just the third blogswarm on the topic of theocracy, and if I’m not mistaken, sometime during yesterday, we surpassed the number of posts from the last one. We blog, people read, people begin to understand. We are not helpless in our fight against theocracy, for our readers begin to recognize that the theocratic movement has many faces, many subtle nuances, and the most recent public expression of that desire was probably communicated out of sheer ignorance on behalf of Huckabee. The fundamentalists like to work in the dark, behind closed doors, sending hand-picked groups out into the open to whine and complain and argue and fight, knowing that they cannot be trusted to reveal the true mission, couching it instead in the simple terms of “Freedom of Expression”—the very same Freedom, in fact, they would hope to deny so many others.

So, over this weekend we have blogged again. But we are reaching a point where blogging, helpful as it is, is by no means enough. I believe it is time to do more than blog. I believe it is time to actively, even proactively, fight the elements of theocracy in our courts, our schools, our universities, and yes, even our churches, synagogues, and mosques. Religion has no formative place in our government. We can be proud of the fact that many religious people fought and died to earn this country its independence without having to hold every election under a cross. We can celebrate this country’s Judeo-Christian roots without turning every courtroom into a prayer service. And we can remind our friends and neighbors who have no problem with the efforts to make this a Christian Nation exactly where such ideas got the people of Afghanistan. Help them envision what life would be like without the Freedom of choice, the Freedom of expression, the Freedom of Art.

Here are some helpful questions you can ask those who don’t think this is a real issue:

1. Would you love your God if the Law said you had no other choice but to do so?
2. Would you want your children to attend a public school where Baptism was the first pre-requisite?
3. Would you be excited to go to Church on Sunday if you were required to sing praises at work each day?
4. Would you uphold the Law and stone your child to death for disobedience?
5. Would you want to live in a Democracy where all the candidates were ministers? or priests? or rabbis?
6. Would you want to live in a society where “choice” amounted to whether you go to mass on Saturday or Sunday?

Our freedom is at stake. Let’s not just leave it to a collection of postings once or twice a year.

---

Technorati Tags:
1. blog against theocracy
2. anti-theocracy
3. religious hegemony
4. separation of church and state

cross-posted to Mock, Paper, Scissors

The following was originally posted at the otherwhirled and Mock, Paper, Scissors on April 8, 2007 in support of the original Blogswarm Against Theocracy. This short series of posts is still pertinent today, I believe.

---

Ah, you came back. Thanks for that. This won’t be so long, because the thing that makes a group of people tend towards the dismissive is fairly easily identified.

Neoconservatives are very quick to dismiss the “Blogging Against Theocracy” endeavor as one born of fear. We are apparently so afraid of Christianity, that even allowing a piffle—a tish, a skosh, a teeny bit—of it in our lives is too much to bear. Yes, yes, I know. It’d be a wonderful life if everything were so obvious! But of course, despite its inherent untruth, this argument is the most commonly chosen because it is the one stance with which they can readily identify.

One of the things which continually strikes me as I discuss “faith” with my religious friends, is that they tend to forget the entire premise of faith: that that in which they believe might well not be true. For if it was inherently true, there would be no need to have “faith” in its truth. If all the elements of a religious belief were known, scientific fact, faith would cease to exist, replaced by knowledge. And yet repeatedly, evangelicals speak about their “faith” in terms of what they know. They know the Word of their God is Inspired. They know He died for their sins. They know He rose from the grave. And yet, somehow, they wrap it all up and refer to this supposed knowledge as faith, implying that their knowledge may well be unfounded!

Yeah, have a sip of that wine or beer or whatever. This stuff makes my head hurt, too.

This happens because so very many of them practice their one true universal talent of sciolism on themselves. Oh certainly, there are many believers who understand what their faith is about, and who appreciate the inherent risk of believing in something that others don’t believe in. But there are many more whose faith amounts to the steadfast belief that what they think they know is right and true and pure and immutable and holy and…and…and…well, it’s just right! Because they’ve been taught that it is right in Sunday School, told that it is right in their households, and instructed that nonbelievers (and oftentimes those who practice the same religion in different ways) are simply wrong and going to Hell. I can’t even count the number of times during my own childhood when I was frustrated with my friends for not believing in our own cultish practice of Christianity, that I was told something to the effect, “Oh, don’t worry about them. They’re not going to share the Kingdom of Heaven with you.”

Answers like that, and the rebuttals you see to this endeavor from the evangelicals, are easy. I don’t think they’re malicious by any means—and let’s do keep in mind that most of these people merely do what they believe is the right thing to do!—but such responses are a form of fear-mongering. And fear is the root of sciolism. After all, the most formative periods of growth in any religion are during those times when it’s being persecuted. It’s a human nature thing: we perform more efficiently, and often more effectively, under duress. And goodness knows that with the ease of making a few Moslem extremists look like an entire religious society (a theocracy, no less) is set against “America” (which to fundamentalists means “Christians”), the neoconservatives are under a lot of duress. Even acknowledging that there is at least one religion in the world that is practiced by more people than those who subscribe to the tenets of their own faith must have been difficult.

One last sip. We’re almost done.

So now, they claim their religion is being attacked on all sides. All they want to do is have a little prayer, and we “unfairly” want to keep them from doing so. Read Bob’s interpretation of the tenets of this endeavor that I shared with you yesterday. It is written from fear. We’re out to get them. We’re out to force them to change their ways. We’re out to undo all the good they’re doing. We’re out to redefine their definition of “good” and “right”. And it’s oh-so-easy, and ever so disingenuous, to describe us in this manner, because Bob and people like him honestly fear the fact that responsible members of society might hold a faith that differs from their presumption of knowledge. That’s a by-product of sciolism, for they have failed to understand what we’re talking about, just as they fail to understand the true intent behind the actions of church leaders on the national level. People like Bob may not intentionally be wanting a theocratic state (and for what it’s worth, I believe his assertion in this regard), but I do not believe the same is true for those for whom neoconservatism is a business.

But what is most striking—and of most concern—to me is the depth to which these fundamentalists fear themselves. If they truly had faith in their religion and their ability to teach and enforce its tenets, then what would they have to fear by not infusing public education, political discourse, and state and federal legislation with their religious beliefs, practices, and interpretations? If their God is truly all-powerful, what risk is there in leaving the religious education of their children to home and church? Let us not forget, that no matter what happens in the world at large or in their private lives, they will say that it was God’s Will that whatever-it-was came to pass. And if that’s really true, what is the harm in leaving science to scientists, literature to academics, and religion to the priests and ministers?

If they truly have faith in their chosen way of life, then people like myself would simply be targets for that “Go Ye Therefore” doctrine, right? We wouldn’t be “the enemy”, and neither would anyone else. Instead, due to their sciolistic review of their own religion, “preach the gospel” has become “make up a new ‘science’ and try to teach it” and “attempt to pass anti-abortion legislation instead of trying to extend the definition of ‘life’”. Because those things are easier to do, dismissively treating dissenting views as reactionary.

It’s easier, you see, because that way, proponents of their “faith” will band together and work harder for their “cause” under this manufactured duress, as opposed to having faith, even in themselves. Fear has become the new faith for them, and Fear is a much more demanding god than what they had before.

A pity, that.

{published on Mock, Paper, Scissors as well}

<Technorati Tag: blog against theocracy>

greetings.

i am Synthaetica. i have blogged in many places, under at least a few names, to the point where i felt enslaved by the practice of blogging. my participation in such places was sporadic at best, and those places largely just served to piss me off about how much i didn’t get done.

as well, the reason why i tended to fail at those endeavors was because their focus was never quite solidified. sure, i love photography, but not with the same frenzied passion that so many do, so i’d wander off on other tangents. and i also love being a smartass, but at 40-something the constant acerbity sets my own teeth on edge. not to mention that the one-trick-pony approach was pretty lame when the trick was essentially photo-caption snark. well before the last elections, i managed to burn myself out on that.

so from the outset, this site is something a little different. you’ll find that my being a smartass is a little difficult to avoid, but it won’t consume what i do here. the intent of this site is to address my true passions, which are, summarily:

• working against the establishment, especially the indirect enforcement of supporting legislation, of a theocratic state
• fighting against all forms of religious involvement, entanglement, and decision-making in the realm of public education
• offering insight to those people who want to receive it, regarding the process of disassociating oneself from delusional thinking in terms of religious beliefs, spirituality, and emotional dependency.

so, that’s what this is about. this takes up from where i only briefly touched upon in the written form, on a few occasions, at the otherwhirled. i hope you enjoy it as much as i believe i will.