Seattle Atheists

We recently received a comment from Elaine B., which may be interesting to some Seattle Atheists members.

You do not, under any kind of decent moral standing have the right to target children with your ads. The idea of using a child fantasy such as Santa Claus to attract their attention is just as moral as Camel cigarettes using Joe the Camel to sell their garbage.

I am all for your free rights of speech. You have a right to push your ideas. Just as I have a right to push what I believe in. But, SHOVING your NON beliefs down the throats of children that have other cultures is unacceptable.

I just read your news release. Using the founding fathers as you are, if you have legitimate proof of their religious standings is one thing. But having a giant Santa Claus to get little childrens attention is very immoral. What were you thinking?

Then again, religion is often the foundation of teaching morals, so maybe that is what has happened with your decision making ability?

How would you like me to stand somewhere your child/grand childre, or someone in your organizations young people, and tell them you are a liar? Just as your ad says to our children? Would you like your child to pass such contradiction of what you teach? Maybe I should put some ads out there with, I don’t know, a super hero,with a big ad as ignorant as yours, stating, “I got all my powers from God”

Everyone in this world has a right to believe what they do, and to raise their families the way they find to be the truest in their hearts.
What this ad is trying to accomplish is the very thing you are supposedly fighting!

You attempt to brainwash people! Leave MY children alone.

Any serious problems with the content of the comment will be left as an exercise for the reader. However, I would like to point out a couple of things which might be important to people:

1. The Santa Claus bus signs on the outside were contracted by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and are completely independent of our signs on the inside of the bus.
2. That whole part about “How would you like me to stand somewhere your child/grand childre, or someone in your organizations young people, and tell them you are a liar”? That happens. A lot.
3. Atheism is apparently as bad as smoking.
4. I’m also pretty sure that the whole super hero thing she’s talking about already exists. Just sayin’.

sam Blog Atheism in the news, Bus signs

We applaud President Obama in trying to move our government and our people away from use of religion as a divisive political tool.  A good deed is a good deed, whether the motivation is secular or faith-based.  Religious organizations might reasonably make use of government funds to help them carry out good deeds in a secular manner, if they keep finances transparent and if they help people and communities without proselytizing and without discriminating against those who do not share their beliefs. We urge the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships to specifically include non-believers and humanist organizations on their Council and ensure that equal opportunity is provided to non-faith groups to work with this office. We feel that extending a welcome to secular humanists will help yield further positive change toward supporting practical compassionate work in our neighborhoods, communities, and country.

Case Blog Education, News, State/Church Separation

Review by Jeff Kidd

The Year of Living Biblically by A. J. Jacobs is exactly what it claims to be. I mean this statement in a way that goes beyond the simple aptness of the title. Say what you will about the merits of the project, but this is an excellent proposal for a book, and it is aptly executed by Jacobs. The seemingly simple concept is stretched for over 300 pages. After the first chapter or so, the reader pretty much gets the idea–but the book does remain interesting and entertaining for its entirety.

This journal of Jacobs’s experiences and thoughts are relayed in a blog-like format. Each chapter, which corresponds to a month, consists of multiple sections (“posts”), corresponding to the events and reactions of the day. To ensure a complete experience, Jacobs will often set himself specific rules or behaviors to focus on for a set time. I was a big fan of the Blogging the Bible sereis by David Plotz, but there were several aspects of Old Testament law I was completely unaware (for example: I’d somehow managed to remain unaware of both shofar blowing and various bird egg rituals). Jacobs frequency admits his obsessions with his Amazon.com rankings, and the placement of his previous book at airport stores. There is very clearly defined target audience for this work. Jacobs consistently hits the target dead center, leading to the unsurprising popular success of the novel.

I feel a little odd about this. It is generally advisable to review the book you actually read, not the book you wish the author had written. And like I mentioned, Jacobs succeeded in writing an interesting and readable book. But it is clearly aimed at the airplane-reading/book-of-the-month level. But I am an inherently selfish reader, and this book often was not what I wanted it to be. Whenever there is the opportunity to expand in some detail on the historical basis or philosophical implications of some topic, Jacobs consistently demurs. Instead, a witty declaration is offered, and the narrative amiably advances onward. Two examples stand out, but there are many others.

First, the notion of the relationship between the first commandment and strict monotheism. Part of the goal of the project is for Jacobs to “get into the head” of the ancient Israelites. Here is the entire discussion of how many gods there really are (pg 183 of the paperback, Day 154):

Even more exasperating: If I do get to the bedrock, it may be such a strange bedrock that I won’t be able to process it. In Karen Armstrong’s terrific book A History of God, she says that the ancient Israelites weren’t really monotheists. They believed in the existence of many Gods. Hence, the command “You shall have no other Gods before me.” It doesn’t say “You shall have no other Gods at all.”

Could I ever hope to get into the skull of an ancient Israelite who beleved in several gods? Do I want to?

End chapter. End thought. That’s as deep as we go on this point.

A second example: just who are the Samaritans and what is their religion? Pg 219 (Day 204):

On the cab ride back to the hotel, my mind keeps coming back to the Samaritan Bible. So similar, but so different, too. What if history had taken a left turn? What if the Samaritan Torah had become the standard, and millions of Semitic faithful flooded to Mount Gerizim every year to sacrifice lams, except for a few hundred people called hte Jews, who worshiped at an obscure site known as the Western Wall?

On these points Jacobs does offer some more details in a the appendix. But I would have preferred some more elaboration on the importance of historical contingency in what we now think of as the sacred. That seems like a relevant discussion if one wants to really get a grasp on religion and society.

I would have enjoyed a more fleshed out discussion of points such as these. But, then, those are the types of issues I’d find myself grappling with in such a project. Perhaps Jacobs simply had different concerns. Or, maybe he simply (and probably correctly), had a keener sense for what the audience really wanted.

Jeff Blog, Essays Book Reviews

We’re in the middle of an economic crisis. People are suffering, losing their homes and their jobs. Meanwhile, Christian Faith Center, a tax-exempt mega-church with no apparent philanthropic goals or activities, has recently sought and received approval for a helipad at its Federal Way campus.

It’s bad taste for people to flaunt wealth in an economic downturn, whether they be CEOs of major US automakers, executives at AIG, or a church. It’s in even poorer taste to use perceived wealth, and the promise of wealth, to attract followers to a religion. Tax-exemption is best reserved to support non-profit organizations dedicated to the public good. Though there are organizations with religious affiliation that engage in charitable work, the propagation of a religious belief is not charitable in and of itself.

Since the definition of a tax exempt religious organization is very broad and there is little oversight of their activities, many churches continue to maintain tax-exempt status and huge incomes. While it is not the place of government to endorse or oppose religion, this obligation of neutrality does not logically extend to giving religious organizations a special exemption from taxes. Whether a community organization is educational, charitable, or social, its income should be reported and subjected to oversight if it wants to remain tax-free and accept tax-exempt donations—or it should pay taxes like any other private corporation. The Christian Faith Center is spending its money on a helipad, a luxury; other religious organizations have funneled ridiculous sums of money to provide personal luxury (and legal defense) to charismatic preachers or even to provide aid to terrorist organizations, all while remaining tax-free and largely un-scrutinized. Laws prohibit any private individual from benefiting from tax-exempt earnings, but these laws are unenforceable on religious organizations due to other laws limiting civil tax inquiries of churches.

While we don’t wish to interfere with the Christian Faith Center’s community building efforts, we think that their plan for a helicopter pad demonstrates poor taste given the current economic climate, is a misuse of their tax-exempt status, and wastes the hard-earned money of their donors. We would like to encourage the Christian Faith Center to scrap their plan of unneeded air transportation and instead donate the money to a local charitable organization that does not discriminate on the basis of religion, such as Seattle Atheists did when they raised nearly $1000 for Seattle Children’s Hospital by wrapping presents this holiday season.

— Lex Maxwell

admin Blog, Essays Essay, Media, News