Prayer in School

School prayer is a controversial subject which gets people’s blood boiling on both sides.  Some religious leaders believe that their rights are being violated by not at least having a designated “silent” time which all students, regardless of religion, must observe at the beginning of each day.  They lament over the fact that it is illegal for children to pray in school while atheism is championed in the school system.  They claim that by not teaching their religion in the schools we are actively promoting an atheist agenda.  Some even go so far as to say that the children are being indoctrinated into atheism.  It was, after all, those godless atheists that got prayer removed from schools, right?  If you know a damned thing about the school system then you know full well how full of shit they are.

First, it is JUST AS ILLEGAL to promote atheism in the school system as it is to promote a religion.  The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly made it clear that atheism is afforded the same rights as religion under the First Amendment (note that people often mistake the Supreme Court rulings as saying atheism actually is a religion, which is not the case).  Any halfway intelligent person could easily argue against the best lawyers that this also means it has the same legal restrictions, though it has never come up in court to my knowledge because atheists tend to have more respect for their fellow man and thus have never tried to push their religious beliefs into the school system and onto children against the wills of their parents.

I understand the thought process which leads to this conclusion, but really, you’d have to be a moron to believe it valid.  The idea is that since atheism is the lack of religion having no religious teachings in school is teaching atheism.  It’s astounding the mental acrobatics many Christians go through to keep irrational and moronic beliefs.  Think about it.  They are insisting that we are actively teaching atheism in the schools, which is a violation of their rights and completely unfair to them.  And what is the only way to fix this unfair discrimination?  The solution is that we actively teach Christian values in our schools, which will not in any way discriminate against or be unfair to anyone…somehow.  The utter absurdity is mind boggling.  They’ve invented this black and white world view where the only two possibilities are they are getting their way and everything is fine for everyone or they are being discriminated against; “with us” or “against us”.  Compromise is impossible with this mind set because there are only two possible choices.  If you don’t teach X then you are teaching Y, EVEN IF you talk about neither X nor Y.  Unfortunately for the retards who see the world this way, most Supreme Court justices tend to be a little too intelligent to be fooled by their pathetically ignorant false dichotomy.  The idea that if you don’t teach one thing you are, by default, teaching another is beyond ludicrous.  It’s like they are claiming that atheism is the default position one takes, an idea most of them would argue against for eternity if you claimed that babies were born atheist.

Next, by no stretch of the imagination is it illegal for students to pray in school.  It is only illegal for the staff at the school to be involved or for students to make a public display of it, just as it is illegal for the staff at the school to be involved with a student atheist group or for students to publicly proclaim that anyone who believes a giant fairy in space made everything is stupid.  Students are not arrested or expelled for praying in school.  They can organize prayer groups in schools.  School officials may make them take it to a private area rather than allow them to make a public display of it, but prayer in schools is not illegal and never has been.

Some religious leaders actually believe that they are compromising when they suggest a moment of silence at the beginning of the school day.  They believe that forcing children who do not or do not wish to pray to sit quietly while others do is somehow being fair to everyone.  To hear them talk you would believe that the school is the only place in the world their kids can pray and then only if it’s silent as a tomb and during normal school hours.  Their kids can’t go to school 5 minutes early and find a quiet spot where they won’t bother other students who don’t wish to pray.  Instead they have to wait until every student is there and force the entire school to sit quietly.  Only under these circumstances will God hear the prayers of their children.  God can’t be everywhere, right?  He can’t hear them in their homes, he can’t hear them on the bus and he certainly can’t hear them in a quiet room if kids on the other side of the school building aren’t sitting quietly while they pray.  The “compromise” is that students don’t have to pray if they don’t want to.  They often try to pass it off as something else entirely.  They call it “secular” and say the students can use the time for whatever they want.  They claim that it will allow students to “prepare themselves” for the upcoming school day.  Unfortunately this lame excuse has passed legal muster in some places.  It’s quite obvious these are excuses to set aside time specifically for Christian school prayer.  In fact, in Chicago when a “moment of silence” bill came up for a vote several legislators began singing, "hello school prayer, our old friend" to Simon and Garfunkel's, "The Sounds of Silence."  As blatantly obvious as it was that this was NOT secular and was, in fact, a thinly veiled school prayer bill, the court still upheld it…for now.

The reality is that it is just passive indoctrination.  As an atheist I teach my children that talking to imagined deities is silly and only silly people would do such a thing.  It is my right as a parent to instill in my children the reality that talking to one’s self and pretending some spirit being is listening is the definition of idiocy.  Having a moment of silence in school where my children are force not only to observe, but to participate in this idiotic superstitious ritual, even by sitting quietly to allow it to take place uninterrupted, would teach my children that this nonsense is normal.  It would indoctrinate them into the belief that this is normal behavior for rational people, which is the purpose of the moment of silence.  If they can’t force my children to learn about their god they at least want to force my children to observer their superstitious rituals to soften their minds so that ideas of magic and space fairies can be more easily inserted at any given opportunity.  Of course there are also the Christian parents who fear that if they don’t specifically create a time for their children when they are forced to sit quietly with nothing else to do, they won’t pray at all.  They are well aware that if you don’t regularly cement the stupid in their kids’ heads with prayer, church services and various fantastic claims of magic and zombies it may come loose and fall out.

Finally we come to my favorite part, how prayer got removed from schools.  You get to find out just how we evil atheists managed to do it!  The case which did it was Engel v. Vitale.  The atheist in this case was…um…wait…there wasn’t one!  The petitioner in the case was a group of Jewish organizations.  Not a single atheist was represented.  People often confuse this with Abington School District v. Schempp, which got Bible reading removed from schools.  In that case an atheist, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, was one of the petitioners.  The case’s namesake, however, was Edward Schempp, a Unitarian Universalist, not an atheist.  Two separate cases were combined and only a single atheist was represented.  The outcome would have been the same if there were no atheists involved.  Or you could look at the 2,000 case which held that student lead prayer over the public address system was a violation of the establishment clause.  That case is Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe.  That case was brought by two students, one Mormon, one Catholic.  No atheists there either.  So it would seem Jews, Mormons and Catholics got prayer removed from the schools.  A SINGLE atheist played a small part in getting Bible reading removed, but religious views were represented even in that.

Going back a little further to 1948, however, we can see the very beginnings of the death of religion in our schools.  The case was McCollum v. Board of Education.  The case had nothing to do with Bible reading or school prayer, but actual “voluntary” religious classes during the school day.  After reluctantly allowing her child to attend the classes for a year, mother Vashti McCollum removed her child from the classes the next year.  Her then 9 year old son, James, was the only student not to attend the classes, having to sit quietly in the hallway while they were given.  This singled him out as being “different” from the other students, making him the subject of ridicule.  James McCollum was then pressured by teachers and his parents by school officials to permit him to attend the classes to help him “get along”.  A liberties violation doesn’t get any more blatant than that.  A 9 year old kid was singled out, ostracized from his class, forced to sit quietly alone in the hallway, teased by the other kids and pressured by teachers to conform.  Finally his parents were pressured to get him to conform under the veiled threat that he would continue to suffer if he did not.

Non-Christians and Christians alike have had to fight every step of the way to separate Christianity from the public school system, and there is good reason for us both to want the two separated.  The fight has been going on for more than 60 years and it will likely continue for at least a few more decades, but we will win in the end.  In fact, we’re making great strides today.  My 14 year old son has a friend in middle school who came from a Catholic grade school, but still finds it difficult to believe there’s a magic ghost watching us poop to make sure we don’t touch ourselves.  Atheism is on the rise and Christianity is falling, losing more power with each passing decade.  Atheism now has its own “rock stars” with the likes of Richard Dawkins, Ricky Gervais and Stephen Hawking.  The battle rages on, but the war is all but over already.

The Reason for Reason

The title of this blog is Reasoning Atheist.  Atheists like to use the word “reason” and theists often take offense to that.  They assume that we are claiming that we are “reasonable” and they are not.  Yes, there are many atheists who think that, but that has nothing to do with using the word “reason”.

Atheists are using that word a lot lately.  Just recently we had the Reason Rally.  Theistic attacks against the Reason Rally immediately picked up on the word reason and began attacking atheists in general for insinuating they were unreasonable.  But that is not at all what atheists are doing when they use the word reason.  A good definition for reason in the context we use it is this: Think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.  The definition for reasonable is this: Having sound judgment; fair and sensible.  The word “reason” describes a logical thought process where the word “reasonable” describes a person’s judgment.  Though the two words sound a lot alike, they are two completely different words with two completely different meanings.  Ironically, this means that charges by theists that atheists were calling them unreasonable were themselves unreasonable.

By claiming to be reasoning or to use reason we are not claiming our position is reasonable and theirs is not.  We are only claiming that we have come to our position through logical analysis.  It has been my experience that some theists will take offense at just about everything I say and this type may now say, “So you’re calling my beliefs illogical?”  No, I wasn’t.  I am not claiming that no theist has ever put deep thought into their beliefs.  I am claiming that no theist has ever used reason or logic to come to their beliefs.  There are many reasonable theists who will openly admit that their position is not one of logic, and I can respect that.  There are many others, however, who will insist that they have, in fact, used reason and logic to come to their position.  These people are wrong.  Don’t get angry at me about it.  I’m not the one who set the definitions for reason and logic.  To reason is to form judgments by a process of logic.  You cannot logically conclude that something supernatural is true without some real evidence to support the conclusion and, let’s face it, you have to have REALLY low standards for “evidence” to claim there is any real evidence for any supernatural claim given that every single supernatural claim ever tested scientifically has been falsified or, at best, inconclusive.  NEVER has there been a SINGLE instance of magic, miracles, psychic powers, ghosts, fairies, angels, demons, leprechauns, telekinesis or any other supernatural claim EVER proven scientifically.

I have found that many vocal theists really, really want to use certain words to describe their beliefs, often words grounded in science with meanings not compatible with any beliefs in the supernatural or beliefs in things for which there is no physical evidence.  Intelligent design proponents really want to use the words “scientific” and “theory”, for instance.  But intelligent design is not scientific, nor is it scientific theory.  Scientific method is well established and proven to produce results.  Intelligent design does not follow several components of scientific method.  Only “natural explanations” are acceptable, for instance.  Invoking a creator or designer is a supernatural explanation.  Another example is that before you can call something a theory it must make accurate predictions.  Electrical theory, for instance, allows us to design a circuit on paper and know exactly how it will work when it’s built.  This means a theory must be scientifically useful.  Intelligent design makes no predictions and is not scientifically useful.  Finally, a theory must be testable.  There must be a way to allow you to test a theory for it to be called “theory”, even if the tests can only disprove the theory.  Intelligent design fails on this front as well.  Intelligent design is a theistic claim, nothing more.  It is not theory and it is not scientific.  It is, in fact, creationism in a shiny new package, as was proven in the Dover trial.

Science, by its nature, is not compatible with religion, but neither is it incompatible.  Science, as I said, can only give natural explanations.  This means it has nothing whatsoever to say about the supernatural, either for or against.  Science can no more be used to disprove the existence of any gods than it can be used to prove the existence of any gods.  Theists who believe science has something against their particular god are either ignorant of what science is or upset that science disproves some of the particulars of their religious beliefs.  Science can disprove some religious beliefs and has disproved young earth creationism, for instance.  The earth IS billions of years old.  In no way does that mean that it has disproved a particular god, as many theists believe.  Their god may still exist, but their religious beliefs ARE wrong in this case.  It can be difficult to accept that a founding principle of ones religion is wrong, but the facts are what they are.  Science has proven the earth is far more than the 6,000 to 10,000 years old young earth creationists believe it to be.  Anyone who thinks they can use science or logic to prove that is wrong is only fooling themselves.  They could still claim that it is possible God created the earth 6,000 to 10,000 years ago in its current form to make it look as if it was more than 4,000,000,000 years old.  Science cannot disprove this.  But the claim is not scientific.  It doesn’t have to be scientific to be possible, but neither can you call it scientific when it is not to try to give it more credibility.

Like it or not, (I personally love it) there is a separation of church and science and there always will be.  Though many theists would like to integrate with science, they want science to change to be compatible with their religion.  Simply put, it’s never going to happen.  Science is about finding the proven truths of the natural universe, religion is about accepting on faith what are claimed to be truths.  I don't have a problem with theists believing in intelligent design.  They could be right.  I don’t think so, but it’s possible.  I certainly can’t prove them wrong.  But if they believe intelligent design is scientific, then they are wrong.  If they believe intelligent design disproves evolution, they are also wrong.  Evolution is scientific and not subject to the whims of supernatural speculation, only other science.

Science, like atheism, is the result of reason.  Not “to be reasonable”, but the result of thinking logically on a subject.  I think this is the problem many theists have with science.  Atheists can use some of the same tools scientists use to come to their conclusions.  But even atheism is not “scientific”.  Atheism is to not believe in any gods, thus, the rejection of a supernatural claim.  As I said, science can neither prove nor disprove a supernatural claim.  So atheism is no more “scientific” than theism is.  But both science and atheism use logic to come to conclusions, which I think may give the impression that many theists seem to have that science is out to get their god.  But the separation of church and science goes both ways.  There is also a separation of non-church or anti-church and science and there always will be.  There are many religious scientists who believe in and worship the same God as the theists who think they’re working for the devil.  There are just none (or very few) of them in religions that make claims which have been scientifically proven to be untrue.  Science is not on the side of atheists, nor is it opposing theists.  Science is impartial.  If it proves some religious beliefs are false, it’s not because they’re out to get religion.  In fact, religious beliefs didn’t even come up in the discussions.  It’s only because it was the best explanation given the observations made and was able to make useful, accurate prediction which would allow scientists some idea what would happen in a given circumstance before they got into it, such as allowing them to design a circuit or a dam before they built it or allowing them to plan an archeological dig before they begin digging.  It’s nothing personal.  It’s all about what is and what is not useful in the natural world.

Neither theism nor atheism is based in science, putting us on common ground as far as science is concerned.  Science doesn’t care about either and neither has a foundation in science.  Reason, on the other hand, favors atheism.  You don’t have to have faith to reason something out and you don’t have to reason something out to have faith.  So, theistically speaking, faith and reason are opposites.  Why would you need faith if you could come to the same conclusion through reason?  And why would you need to reason it out if you already have faith that it’s true?  You are not truly using reason if you begin with the faith that you already know the outcome and there is no possible way you are wrong, which is an accurate description of faith.  So, like it or not, theists don’t have reason and atheists don’t have faith.  I’m sure many theists would disagree, but then, many theists believe a lot of things which have been scientifically proven to be wrong.

Introduction

Thank you for reading my blog.  I started this blog because I enjoy discussing religion and atheism and a couple of friends from a forum I frequent suggested I start a blog.  I've never had a blog before.  Frankly, I'd never even considered it.  But the more I thought about it the more I liked the idea of having a place to dump the myriad of thoughts I sometimes have on the subject, so here it is.

It is my hope that it will be read by both atheists and theists. There is normally a pretty big divide between the two, but really, there doesn't have to be.  Most atheists I know would gladly take up a "live and let live" attitude if religion weren't being pushed on us all the time.  It's on our money and in our Pledge of Allegiance.  And any time we complain that the Ten Commandments are in a courtroom or a prayer is posted in a school we are attacked like it is unreasonable that we don't want to be assaulted with religion constantly.  I don't know about you, the reader, but I don't think I've ever met a theist who would not be bothered by the Witch's Creed posted in the school their kids went to, or a quote from the Church of Satan in their court house.  We're not asking that atheism be introduced, as many theists pretend is the case.  But, yes, we ARE asking that God be removed from public places, the same as any theist would ask that Allah be removed from their schools or that Ganesh be removed from their court rooms.

The title of this blog is Reasoning Atheist.  Atheists like to use the word “reason” and theists often take offense to that.  They assume that we are claiming that we are “reasonable” and they are not.  Yes, there are many atheists who think that, but that has nothing to do with using the word “reason”.  And really, when we do actually claim theists are "unreasonable", is it any wonder, the way they often act?  16 year old atheist Jessica Ahlquis has been "bombarded with rape and death threats" since successfully suing to get a prayer banner removed from her school.  And we're the bad guys?  You know, I cannot once remember ever threatening to rape a 16 year old girl because she pissed me off.  I cannot once remember threatening to rape anyone for any reason at all, actually.  Does this sound “reasonable” to you?  Because it apparently sounded reasonable enough to the theists making the threats that they went through with it.  And this is not an isolated case.  In almost every big story where atheists are a big part, death threats are mentioned.  Certainly few reading this would disagree that Muslim terrorists are quite unreasonable.  But really, what’s the difference between blowing up a checkpoint and blowing up an abortion clinic?  What’s the difference between threatening to kill a person who insulted your prophet and threatening to rape a 16 year old girl who only asked that she not that a blatant endorsement of religious values she didn’t hold not be displayed at her school?

So any time you hear a theist complain about being called “unreasonable”, ask yourself, who threatens to rape and kill a 16 year old girl over a 40 year old piece of paper?  Does a reasonable person do this?  Who threatens to kill a man who owns a billboard because they don’t like the message his paying customer put on the billboard?  Does a reasonable person do this?  Who tries to blow up a building or shoot a doctor because they don’t like the fact that abortions happen there?  Does a reasonable person commit murder or plant a bomb to solve a difference of opinion?  The answer, in every case, is “no”.  The person who would do these things is, in fact, “unreasonable”, not to mention insane as hell.  Now try to remember every instance in which an atheist threatened or attempted to harm someone because of differing religious or moral views.

Of course theists will always jump straight to Hitler, Stalin and the like because, quite frankly, they’re idiots.  Hitler was raised Roman Catholic.  He never professed atheism and calling him an atheist is conjecture not based on any known facts.  Regardless, neither Hitler nor Stalin nor any other supposed atheist EVER asked their victim’s religion before killing them.  They killed people, yes, but it had nothing to do with the religion of their victims.  Hitler killed people of Jewish decent, not the Jewish religion, which includes atheist Jews.  Staling killed an estimated 10-60 million people.  It would be impossible that there were no atheists in there.  People kill people, but throughout history only religious people have killed for religious reasons.  In other words yes, atheists have killed, but it had nothing to do with atheism.  In fact to claim otherwise is again being unreasonable.

Is it any wonder that atheists often see theists as being unreasonable when they so often are?  Not that we are when we are talking about “reason”, but any atheist who’s ever had a heated discussion with a theist, I’m sure, will feel quite justified in referring to theists as being generally unreasonable.  They demand that “equal rights” mean that you can talk about their God, only their God and say only good things about their God all the time.  They demand that their rights are violated if they are not allowed strip others of rights which in no way affect the theist.  They make death threats as well as any Muslim terrorist does.  They demand that science be redefined so that it doesn’t contradict the particulars of their religious beliefs, regardless what the evidence shows.  They make idiotic claims that if you’re not teaching about religion in schools that you are, by default, teaching atheism.  They insist that having their God mentioned on our money, in our pledge and in our public places in no way violates our rights, yet allowing two men they don’t know and will never meet to marry does violate their rights.

So this blog is about reasoning, logic and common sense, not about being reasonable.  It’s about addressing whatever misconceptions, idiotic claims or outright lies I come across.  It’s about rational thought and putting things into perspective.  It’s not about religion bashing, though I make no promises that I won’t do that from time to time.  The Westboro Baptist Church, for instance, can suck my balls.  It amazes me that faggots like the WBC still exist in America and I will bash that bunch of queers all day long.  But for the most part, if a religion earns respect, a religion will get respect, which is all a reasonable person would ask.