The New Orleans Secular Humanist Assoc. Blog

Want to present at the AHA Conference in New Orleans, June 2012?

2012-01-04T13:11:00.006-06:00

Or do you know of someone local who might be an excellent candidate?

The AHA is proud to hold its 71st Annual Conference in the great city of New Orleans, hosted by the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association (NOSHA).

Call for Speakers Now Open

If you are interested in leading a breakout session, speaking on a panel, of if you are an entertainer, send a proposal, outline, complete text, audio, video or web link to Brian Magee at bmagee@americanhumanist.org (Please include your name and complete contact information with your material. Also indicate your audio visual needs, if any.)

We are particularly interested in sessions that cover gay rights, women’s rights, minority outreach, political issues, human rights, the right-to-die movement, the environment, community issues, humanist activism, international issues, science, and critical thinking.

All program suggestions must be received by January 27, 2012 to provide the planning committee adequate time to review submissions, allot space, and prepare a final agenda.

Conference speakers are volunteers who will receive complimentary conference registration (banquet meals not included). If, however, there are special financial requirements that come with your proposal, such as travel or lodging expenses, please indicate.

It's Important, So Let's Not Talk About It

2011-12-05T10:45:00.000-06:00

This article is too important not to pass on to anyone and everyone who can read above a 3rd grade level. And because the original link to the article is botched, I wanted to make sure that everything came through with ease. If I find a llink that works, I'll repost it.

Because death with dignity is a hallmark of most secular creeds that I'm familiar with, we are constantly fighting the interference of religious people who feel they have the answer about death and that all other philosophies should merely let them have their way in political policy.

Hence the hysterical and misguided information that was spewed about by conservatives during the consideration of the Affordable Health Care Act. There were patently false statements made about end of life issues and this hysteria was perpetuated by people who use religiously motivated opinions to distract and distort this important topic. Talking about the end of life and how we will deal with it is a major key to a more successfully lived life (IMHO).

This physician gives us a brief look into one perspective that is probably a majority of the attitudes held by healthcare workers in general. It's a breath of fresh air that we should embrace and discuss in detail.

********************************************************

How Doctors Die

It’s Not Like the Rest of Us, But It Should Be

by Ken Murray

Years ago, Charlie, a highly respected orthopedist and a mentor of mine, found a lump in his stomach. He had a surgeon explore the area, and the diagnosis was pancreatic cancer. This surgeon was one of the best in the country. He had even invented a new procedure for this exact cancer that could triple a patient’s five-year-survival odds—from 5 percent to 15 percent—albeit with a poor quality of life. Charlie was uninterested. He went home the next day, closed his practice, and never set foot in a hospital again. He focused on spending time with family and feeling as good as possible. Several months later, he died at home.

He got no chemotherapy, radiation, or surgical treatment. Medicare didn’t spend much on him.

It’s not a frequent topic of discussion, but doctors die, too. And they don’t die like the rest of us. What’s unusual about them is not how much treatment they get compared to most Americans, but how little. For all the time they spend fending off the deaths of others, they tend to be fairly serene when faced with death themselves. They know exactly what is going to happen, they know the choices, and they generally have access to any sort of medical care they could want. But they go gently.

Of course, doctors don’t want to die; they want to live. But they know enough about modern medicine to know its limits. And they know enough about death to know what all people fear most: dying in pain, and dying alone. They’ve talked about this with their families. They want to be sure, when the time comes, that no heroic measures will happen—that they will never experience, during their last moments on earth, someone breaking their ribs in an attempt to resuscitate them with CPR (that’s what happens if CPR is done right).

Almost all medical professionals have seen what we call “futile care” being performed on people. That’s when doctors bring the cutting edge of technology to bear on a grievously ill person near the end of life. The patient will get cut open, perforated with tubes, hooked up to machines, and assaulted with drugs. All of this occurs in the Intensive Care Unit at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars a day. What it buys is misery we would not inflict on a terrorist. I cannot count the number of times fellow physicians have told me, in words that vary only slightly, “Promise me if you find me like this that you’ll kill me.” They mean it. Some medical personnel wear medallions stamped “NO CODE” to tell physicians not to perform CPR on them. I have even seen it as a tattoo.

To administer medical care that makes people suffer is anguishing. Physicians are trained to gather information without revealing any of their own feelings, but in private, among fellow doctors, they’ll vent. “How can anyone do that to their family members?” they’ll ask. I suspect it’s one reason physicians have higher rates of alcohol abuse and depression than professionals in most other fields. I know it’s one reason I stopped participating in hospital care for the last 10 years of my practice.

How has it come to this—that doctors administer so much care that they wouldn’t want for themselves? The simple, or not-so-simple, answer is this: patients, doctors, and the system.

To see how patients play a role, imagine a scenario in which someone has lost consciousness and been admitted to an emergency room. As is so often the case, no one has made a plan for this situation, and shocked and scared family members find themselves caught up in a maze of choices. They’re overwhelmed. When doctors ask if they want “everything” done, they answer yes. Then the nightmare begins. Sometimes, a family really means “do everything,” but often they just mean “do everything that’s reasonable.” The problem is that they may not know what’s reasonable, nor, in their confusion and sorrow, will they ask about it or hear what a physician may be telling them. For their part, doctors told to do “everything” will do it, whether it is reasonable or not.

The above scenario is a common one. Feeding into the problem are unrealistic expectations of what doctors can accomplish. Many people think of CPR as a reliable lifesaver when, in fact, the results are usually poor. I’ve had hundreds of people brought to me in the emergency room after getting CPR. Exactly one, a healthy man who’d had no heart troubles (for those who want specifics, he had a “tension pneumothorax”), walked out of the hospital. If a patient suffers from severe illness, old age, or a terminal disease, the odds of a good outcome from CPR are infinitesimal, while the odds of suffering are overwhelming. Poor knowledge and misguided expectations lead to a lot of bad decisions.

But of course it’s not just patients making these things happen. Doctors play an enabling role, too. The trouble is that even doctors who hate to administer futile care must find a way to address the wishes of patients and families. Imagine, once again, the emergency room with those grieving, possibly hysterical, family members. They do not know the doctor. Establishing trust and confidence under such circumstances is a very delicate thing. People are prepared to think the doctor is acting out of base motives, trying to save time, or money, or effort, especially if the doctor is advising against further treatment.

Some doctors are stronger communicators than others, and some doctors are more adamant, but the pressures they all face are similar. When I faced circumstances involving end-of-life choices, I adopted the approach of laying out only the options that I thought were reasonable (as I would in any situation) as early in the process as possible. When patients or families brought up unreasonable choices, I would discuss the issue in layman’s terms that portrayed the downsides clearly. If patients or families still insisted on treatments I considered pointless or harmful, I would offer to transfer their care to another doctor or hospital.

Should I have been more forceful at times? I know that some of those transfers still haunt me. One of the patients of whom I was most fond was an attorney from a famous political family. She had severe diabetes and terrible circulation, and, at one point, she developed a painful sore on her foot. Knowing the hazards of hospitals, I did everything I could to keep her from resorting to surgery. Still, she sought out outside experts with whom I had no relationship. Not knowing as much about her as I did, they decided to perform bypass surgery on her chronically clogged blood vessels in both legs. This didn’t restore her circulation, and the surgical wounds wouldn’t heal. Her feet became gangrenous, and she endured bilateral leg amputations. Two weeks later, in the famous medical center in which all this had occurred, she died.

It’s easy to find fault with both doctors and patients in such stories, but in many ways all the parties are simply victims of a larger system that encourages excessive treatment. In some unfortunate cases, doctors use the fee-for-service model to do everything they can, no matter how pointless, to make money. More commonly, though, doctors are fearful of litigation and do whatever they’re asked, with little feedback, to avoid getting in trouble.

Even when the right preparations have been made, the system can still swallow people up. One of my patients was a man named Jack, a 78-year-old who had been ill for years and undergone about 15 major surgical procedures. He explained to me that he never, under any circumstances, wanted to be placed on life support machines again. One Saturday, however, Jack suffered a massive stroke and got admitted to the emergency room unconscious, without his wife. Doctors did everything possible to resuscitate him and put him on life support in the ICU. This was Jack’s worst nightmare. When I arrived at the hospital and took over Jack’s care, I spoke to his wife and to hospital staff, bringing in my office notes with his care preferences. Then I turned off the life support machines and sat with him. He died two hours later.

Even with all his wishes documented, Jack hadn’t died as he’d hoped. The system had intervened. One of the nurses, I later found out, even reported my unplugging of Jack to the authorities as a possible homicide. Nothing came of it, of course; Jack’s wishes had been spelled out explicitly, and he’d left the paperwork to prove it. But the prospect of a police investigation is terrifying for any physician. I could far more easily have left Jack on life support against his stated wishes, prolonging his life, and his suffering, a few more weeks. I would even have made a little more money, and Medicare would have ended up with an additional $500,000 bill. It’s no wonder many doctors err on the side of overtreatment.

But doctors still don’t over-treat themselves. They see the consequences of this constantly. Almost anyone can find a way to die in peace at home, and pain can be managed better than ever. Hospice care, which focuses on providing terminally ill patients with comfort and dignity rather than on futile cures, provides most people with much better final days. Amazingly, studies have found that people placed in hospice care often live longer than people with the same disease who are seeking active cures. I was struck to hear on the radio recently that the famous reporter Tom Wicker had “died peacefully at home, surrounded by his family.” Such stories are, thankfully, increasingly common.

Several years ago, my older cousin Torch (born at home by the light of a flashlight—or torch) had a seizure that turned out to be the result of lung cancer that had gone to his brain. I arranged for him to see various specialists, and we learned that with aggressive treatment of his condition, including three to five hospital visits a week for chemotherapy, he would live perhaps four months. Ultimately, Torch decided against any treatment and simply took pills for brain swelling. He moved in with me.

We spent the next eight months doing a bunch of things that he enjoyed, having fun together like we hadn’t had in decades. We went to Disneyland, his first time. We’d hang out at home. Torch was a sports nut, and he was very happy to watch sports and eat my cooking. He even gained a bit of weight, eating his favorite foods rather than hospital foods. He had no serious pain, and he remained high-spirited. One day, he didn’t wake up. He spent the next three days in a coma-like sleep and then died. The cost of his medical care for those eight months, for the one drug he was taking, was about $20.

Torch was no doctor, but he knew he wanted a life of quality, not just quantity. Don’t most of us? If there is a state of the art of end-of-life care, it is this: death with dignity. As for me, my physician has my choices. They were easy to make, as they are for most physicians. There will be no heroics, and I will go gentle into that good night. Like my mentor Charlie. Like my cousin Torch. Like my fellow doctors.

Ken Murray, MD, is Clinical Assistant Professor of Family Medicine at USC.

Fun With Words

2011-11-01T12:30:00.001-05:00

Below is the American Family Association's Statement of Faith, which was mentioned in an article on Rick Perry's prayer rally a few months back. My friend, Will, made some changes to it which are worth passing along.

AFA STATEMENT OF FAITH

1. We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.

2. We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

3. We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.

4. We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.

5. We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.

6. We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.

7. We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.

AFA STATEMENT OF FAITH (with modifications)

1. If we strain credulity and countlessly repeat it to ourselves, we can come to believe the Bible (replete with absurdities) to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.

2. We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in at least three persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, forever at loggerheads as they vie for top billing and adoration among their sycophants. We also unashamedly believe in the Easter Bunny, wood nymphs and wee elves. We believe such things realizing, as we do, that the more outlandish whatever we can get ourselves to believe, the more praiseworthy it makes us out to be in His eyes. For example, any schmuck can believe that 2 + 2 = 4, but it requires saintliness of the highest order to marshall the faith required to believe 2 + 2 equals 4.3. We say, "Let those who are able go for it!"

3. We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth*, in His sinless life, in His magic tricks, in His vicarious and atoning death through His slowly, thickly-oozing (but eventually coagulating) blood, in His sensational, much-talked-about expulsion from the grave with a loud POP, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, in his iridescent acne, and in His personal return in power and glow ree.

4. We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential, for we are lowly turds who can do nary a thing on our own.

5. We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a god-like life, even to where he/she learns to transmute water into wine, although this last could require some practice.

6. We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life, and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation (wherein those unfortunates will be flame-roasted unto the point of emitting polychromatic hues--in perpetuam).

7. We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ. And remember, the more we can persuade to believe these impossible things the more secure we'll feel, since there's comfort in numbers, and it's hardly likely so many people could be wrong.

___________________

* Yahweh impregnated Mary, who of course, gave birth to Jesus; however, Jesus and Yahweh are indisputably one. Therefore, in truth, Jesus impregnated his own mother. Although we regretfully realize what this logically makes him (a crude street term that will go unmentioned) we must nevertheless somehow learn to look past this unsavory conclusion and accept The Mystery. Amen.

Taking A Leap Of Faith

2011-09-26T16:27:00.001-05:00

Some movies are never meant to go very far or make much of a splash, but that doesn’t mean that they won’t make you think about their message long after you leave the theatre. I have a soft spot for films that can do that in spite of any lack of critical support.

I must admit I felt some trepidation about seeing The Ledge because I didn’t want it to be a movie that I regretted seeing and sharing with friends. I’ve chosen a few of those gems in the past year (“Skyline” comes to mind and, boy, was that a stinker.) When it happens, all you can hope is that it’s so horrible that you will giggle time and again when someone reminds you of your awful pick.

“The Ledge” did seem like a gamble and, in fact, I suspect a few friends didn’t go because they anticipated it would be as bad as the reviews seemed to imply. “If it had been a great movie, wouldn’t it have been given a lot more coverage?” queried a close friend. That’s a logical assumption to make. But in my case, at least, the gamble paid off and it’s worth explaining why.

On the way to the theater, I read a very hopeful review by atheist blogger, Greta Christina, and she laid out a reasonable and decent summary that made me aware of the expected faults and how the story still offered something for non-believers and believers alike. Christina felt this would open a door for discussion of the myths that society has about atheism in general and might lead to our own cultural acceptance, much like what has happened over the years in films dealing with the LGBT movement. It’s a start no less.

What intrigued me most is how scathingly dismissive many of the reviews have been. It’s almost as if the film we saw, and really liked for the most part, is not the same one seen by the majority of reviewers. My honest experience was this movie is not nearly as dreadful as we’ve been led to believe. Yes, there were moments of clunky dialogue. Yes, there were some contrived plot points. But many movies with what I would consider to be heftier amounts of clumsiness and contrivance have gotten less withering reviews than “The Ledge.”

What resonated for me was that everything about this film felt authentic in many small ways and that was fascinating when so much of the reviews frothed at the mouth about how overly “dramatic” or overly “stale” the production was (on and on and on the negativity flowed.) I even found the sex scenes to be quite compelling, which at my age is quite an achievement for any Hollywood movie. The audience does have to accept a few clichéd storylines in order to let the story flow, but then movies in general have that in common, even good ones sometimes.

First, the actors were sincere in their performances, and I was prepared to do a lot of eye rolling. I’m not even a lukewarm fan of any of the actors in fact, but I have seen most of them in excellent films, so I assumed they would be more than sufficient for a small film like this.

The protagonist, Gavin, portrayed by Charlie Hunnam (“Sons of Anarchy”), could pass for a younger, blonder-locked brother of Heath Ledger. He provided some of the most laughable dialogue early on, but he redeemed the character by the end, thankfully. His good looks and long hair may also not be as believable as a mid-level manager of a hotel (in Baton Rouge), but what he lacks in a perfect fit professionally, he more than makes up for as one of us when he’s on the prophetic ledge. And Liv Tyler was at her best as the vulnerable, pale and unsophisticated neighbor wife, Shanna. In fact, I can’t imagine Tyler playing any role other than a female lead who oozes helplessness and compassion. Her voice and demeanor was simply spot on for this kind of woman. Somehow, they tap into her plainness which makes her that much more real. (Is that another miracle?)

Patrick Wilson was the real shocker for me. Wilson has always played the everyman, the good guy, and has been somewhat forgettable only because he is the never the main course, always the supporting friend or lover. And I can understand if the filmmakers are criticized a little for making him slightly one dimensional with the predictable Christian hang ups. However, his Joe hits a major home run in a confrontational scene with Gavin. You can’t help but feel for him deeply and his pain is heartfelt. Several of us commented on how moving his scenes were and we’re all major non-believers. Needless to say, no one was phoning it in and it shows.

The central idea I took from this film was that atheism wasn’t necessary for the story to challenge the audience. In fact, not being religious isn’t necessary to drive home the point in this story. The question our hero must answer is what would you do for another human being? What would you be willing to sacrifice? It is what disturbed me the most and stuck with me well into a sleepless night.

I simply can’t imagine facing that question in the way that Gavin does. And perhaps that may derail it for someone not in the mood for this film. I always do that in a movie like this: solve the problem magically in a different way than the protagonist. Then it would have been much shorter and more mundane, which may be how the reviewers saw it and that’s a real shame. So, it figures that if you don’t allow yourself to be swept up in the story, you may indeed miss the central message.

Do I think there were a few of the reviewers who may have allowed their dislike of the A-word or their religious beliefs to color their potential appreciation of the film? Possibly, because it follows that we can’t expunge our fundamental viewpoints from our personalities (and anyone who tells differently is usually the worst offender). But I don’t think it was a theistic conspiracy either. Perhaps, atheists simply find the questions in this film more gripping than a typical movie reviewer, so we had a totally different frame of reference than judging the merits alone.

Do I think some of the reviews were overly harsh? Most definitely, which is why I pushed myself to compose these thoughts so you just might give it a chance.

In the end, sometimes you have to go out on a ledge and trust yourself.

*************************************

"The Ledge" was directed by Matthew Chapman, the great, great grandson of Charles Darwin. It was filmed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and released in the summer of 2011.

You can see The Ledge right now through Video on Demand (your cable service), through the iTunes Store, or on the Internet at Sundance Now

The Freethinker In The Mirror

2011-09-11T13:22:00.000-05:00

Rusty, a friend of mine from our secular humanist group, wrote an interesting piece that several people think is a pretty good challenge to non-believers:

"Are you a Freethinker?

A Freethinker is a person who thinks free from delusion, deception, misperception, fantasy, fiction and religious, political, cultural and even familial bias. For the sake of this discussion we will simplify it to freedom from religious philosophy.

There are two primary Christian philosophical concepts:

1. The obsessive and debilitating fear of Yahweh and Hell.

2. The unrelenting, defensive and blind obedience to the church that created Yahweh and Hell.

The church recruits and controls its members by brainwashing, lying, deception, guilt, shame, and fear. In order to maintain the loyalty of its followers in a world filled with intelligent, rational, secular minded people, the church has to instill in the believers these philosophical and behavioral mandates: arrogance, self righteousness, closed mindedness, argumentative, anger, divisiveness and unfair judgment, name calling, disregard for logic, reason and even facts over fiction and myth.

There are probably several more destructive human vices that haven't come to mind that have been incorporated into social philosophy for thousands of years in service of the church and undermining the progress and development of society; and many of the so-called freethinking atheists I have come to know over the past 20 months are controlled by at least some or many of these Christian-mandated self and socially destructive philosophical beliefs.

Rejecting God and religious dogma is the beginning of free thinking; recognizing this in yourself and eliminating these destructive, mind-crippling habits is the path to true freethinking, happiness and prosperity."

I think what inspired him was some of the recent posts at our NOSHA Facebook page (and maybe some other experiences as well), but he makes some very good points. Freethinkers who accept evolution and who are skeptical of belief in a supreme being aren't immune to other ideas that are a little on the less scientific side. I've met some non-believers who still believe in astrology and some who believe in fate and karma. Add to that people who support national conspiracies and you have a similar mindset who will argue for their own nonsensical flavor of the month.

I even find myself falling into the habit occasionally of thinking how some things happen "for a reason." When I catch this thought welling up, I feel silly for a minute, but I try to analyze why it happened and what would make me consider it. I usually think this to console myself after something disappointing happens, so I think it is reasonable that we try to make life less rough on ourselves. If things happen for a reason that is beyond our control, then it's even better that we figured that it was "meant to happen" that way. If shit just happens, however, it can happen again. And again. And we need a reason that doesn't make us feel so damn unlucky.

So, Rusty makes a good point that we as freethinkers and non-believers need to examine our own biases and be willing to look at what we hold dear and tear it down if need be. It isn't enough that we demand this of the religious, but we should be willing to do it ourselves.

How Will You Cope With Being Left Behind?

2011-07-19T09:52:00.000-05:00

That was the essay question posed by NOSHA at our "Left Behind" party in May. You know the day the world was supposed to end? We even awarded prizes for some of the best submissions written that wacky evening.

Here's the winning entry submitted by Betty of New Orleans:

1ST PLACE

How will I cope? What will I do?

In a word: very dry martinis. Wait! That's three words. How irrelevant. But then, when it's all over - everything is irrelevant. So right now, here and now, you want to Laissez Les Bon Temp Roulez!!! Yeah, baby, let the good times roll-l-l-l. (Make those very dry, Bombay Sapphire on the rocks martinis).

But while we're on the subject, why on earth (pun intended) would anyone fear a god they've never seen - much less trust to "beam 'em up, Scottie" to an unknown place, at an unknown time, in an unknown - what- spaceship?

Think about this SERIOUSLY. It makes no sense. It's (more) religious fantasy.

Be good to people, hope they'll be good to you - and - make mine a double, two Cajun olives and three cocktail onions and Sinatra on the CD player. Shit, do you really need anything more?

2ND PLACE
Thomas of New Orleans

Being left behind for a while is like being half-ass in heaven and half-ass in hell. I guess my right behind is in heaven and my left behind is stuck here until the end of days.

So as I see it, my left behind is just behind my right behind on that narrow road to heaven or hell. By being non-committal, I am actually covering my ass pretty well.

Of course, I don't want my left behind to fall behind my right behind too much as it may cause a crack in the fabric of the universe, in the neighborhood of Uranus.

Now, if I want my left behind to join my right behind, I must probably follow the Lord's way and turn the other cheek in order to be chic, worship the Lord more than my Ford, leave my neighbor's ass alone and not kill the valuable time I have left until the end of time.

3RD PLACE
Laura of Slidell

First, I would thank god for finally saving me from his followers. Afterwards, I would do the most heinous acts, since I'm doomed anyway:

Red beans and rice on TUESDAY
Mimosas on THURSDAY
Put tomatoes in gumbo and all sorts of villainy!

I would then grab a group of followers and proclaim myself the NEW messiah and force non-believers to sing karaoke. And, of course, my headquarters would be that nice yellow mansion on St. Charles Ave. I'd probably do some reading and learn to garden....just because. And practice for hell by standing in front of fires in August.

I'm very excited and hope to be in one of the upper circles of hell. The one with the celebrities.

Just What This Town Needs....More Skeptics

2011-07-14T13:54:00.001-05:00

Right?

We do a pretty good job here at NOSHA pushing for observation and rational discourse, but goodness knows, we coud do with a touch more. And we'll have it after all of the hinting and hoping we've been doing since Katrina to get a meeting in town "put on" by one of our national organizations.

The end of October 2011, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry in collaboration with Skeptical Inquiry Magazine and the Center for Inquiry will host CSICon 2011 in New Orleans. CSICon, the conference dedicated to scientific inquiry and critical thinking, should be a huge success and (pun intended) that shouldn't be a mystery. It's a fantastic conference town, the weather should be wonderful and there's plenty to do within walking distance if you skip a session or two (not many cities can really say that.)

So, I'm spreading the word here: (from a recent email blast)

New Orleans, October 27-30, 2011

For more information or to register, visit csiconference.org.

CSIcon 2011 will be held in the heart of the French Quarter of New Orleans. From the vintage architecture to the authentic Cajun/Creole food, there will be something for everyone in The Big Easy. With so much culture, history and entertainment, you’ll find a unique and exciting experience around every corner. Separate history from legend and science from voodoo by joining the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) for four days of a skeptically good time full of mystery and reason.

There's plenty to do at CSIcon 2011, incorporating a schedule chock-full of speakers into four days of events. Leaders in their respective fields, from around the globe, will gather to discuss the latest in skepticism, science and news.

The lineup includes:

Bill Nye • Eugenie C. Scott • James Randi • Indre Viskontas • Phil Plait • Barbara Forrest • Joe Nickell • Rebecca Watson • Steve Novella • Harriet Hall • And many more!

Thou Shalt Ignore Stupidity

2011-06-10T16:38:00.000-05:00

If we only could, right?

The Louisiana legislature passed a bill this month that will allow a monument of the Ten Commandments to be placed on the capitol grounds in Baton Rouge.

This falls under the guise that such a "serious" presentation will be in reference to the historical significance of this per the First Amendment or other such nonsense. You see, there are people who believe that without the Ten Commandments we may not have been able to come up with the laws we have today. Somehow civility would have been lacking without the influence of this particular set of religious rules. Bless their hearts.

So the very first hominids, when faced with a violent member of their clan, didn't figure out fairly fast that this kind of thing (murder) wasn't all that good for their survival? Really? Most everything today that we hold as common sense laws came from our experience over the thousands and thousands of years of trying to get along in groups. At some point, someone said, "...hey, we gotta get rid of that guy who is going around killing everyone. I need a quorum for the hunt next week, man." Ta da! There's a law.

I'm told by friends there are several versions of "ten commandments" that have been passed down through history from various religious groups that claimed their version as "the" version, so to speak. It stands to reason that the first question these State House morons should ask themselves is this: just exactly which set are you referring to?!? Only time will tell if this will be challenged in court and if it will pass constitutional muster, but the word is that it's a huge invitation to spend millions of dollars in litigation arguing about this insanity.

There's been talk that "they" (the people who will handle the selection and design of the monument) will allow submissions to be considered. Well, my friend, Jim, has a suggestion for a list of commandments that is very clever and I'm passing along for your consideration:

Separation of Church and State: An American Tradition

“No [one] shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever….”

--Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1777

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

--Thomas Jefferson, 3^rd President of the U.S., 1782

III

“No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

--Article VI, U.S. Constitution, 1787

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

--Amendment I, U.S. Constitution, 1789

“The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

--Treaty of Tripoli, 1797

“Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion.”

--John Adams, 2^nd President of the U.S., 1812

VII

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

--Thomas Jefferson, 3^rd President of the U.S., 1814

VIII

“I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State.”

--Theodore Roosevelt, 26^th President of the U.S., 1915

“Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.”

--U.S. Supreme Court, Emerson v. Board, 1947

“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”

--John F. Kennedy, 35^th President of the US, 1960

Do you think these have a chance? Maybe if we adopt them as our own and chisel them into a marble slab?

The Whole Enchilada

2011-05-30T15:30:00.000-05:00

It's pretty clear that secular, progressive citizens of Louisiana will not have any "wins" this year. What am I talking about, you ask? Here's the big four bruises, so far, for this year:

CREATIONISM: The repeal of the Louisiana Science Education Act did not make it out of committee despite Baton Rouge high school graduate Zach Kopplin's most valiant efforts and the support he generated from forty Nobel Laureates. Here's one example of the blow back our state can expect:

“The lawmakers of Louisiana are a laughing stock as far as the scientific community is concerned,” Harold Kroto, a Florida State University scientist who won the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1996, said in an email to The Associated Press. He added, “The present situation should be likened to requiring Louisiana school texts to include the claim that the Sun goes round the Earth.”

WOMEN'S RIGHTS: Rep. John Labruzzo of Metairie continues his hateful assault on women's reproductive rights and may just succeed in banning abortion, even in cases of rape and incest and to save the life of the mother. This is so bizarrely evil that I'm unsure how he and his followers can face the public. But as I always say, the wives, mistresses and daughters of men like this probably aren't too worried about their medical needs, so the rest of us can be ignored with impunity.

TEN COMMANDMENTS: Who would have thought that someone in the 21st century would propose to place the Ten Commandments as a monument on the State Capitol grounds, but they are and it most likely will succeed. Who in this overtly religious legislature can vote against it without fear of political repercussions?

PRAYER IN SCHOOLS: And the cherry on top of this bloated sundae is Bastrop High School administration who thumbed their noses at the Establishment Clause of the Constitution during their recent graduation. This despite the embarrassment of making national headlines for ostracizing and threatening the student who made the complaint. Not to mention that they are in violation of the law.

It's enough to make you cry, cuss or laugh. Is there anything we can do to push this religious zealotry back even just a tad? That's the question I think everyone who calls themselves a humanist, atheist, freethinker or any other category of a church/state champion should ask themselves.

One suggestion I'd like to put out there is that where prayer in school is concerned (and has a high potential come graduation season) would be for every major public high school in the state to be petitioned by their local Muslim, Buddhist, Mormon, Jewish and Humanist "congregations" for the opportunity to make a similar statement alongside the Christian version, especially if there has been prior notice given that they will include a prayer in the ceremony. This no doubt would create quite the problem for a public institution to deny a local student (representing these groups) the opportunity to speak. It might even invite a legal challenge that would be costly and shameful on a national scale.

I call this making them "eat the whole enchilada." If they absolutely must flaunt the law, then they must accept the consequences of allowing other prayers. It would provide very teachable moments to people who aren't as concerned about it and who adopt the "....well, why can't they say their little prayer, it's not hurting anyone?" attitude. It might also educate students that there are other families in their community who feel as passionately about their religions and philosophies. Now getting the students and religious groups to agree to this is the hard part. No one wants to be singled out and bullied for standing up for their civil rights.

But, honestly, if we don't start standing up now, we might find we don't have the guts, balls or other body parts to fight back. And that's a reality I and others simply can't swallow. So serve up parity, hot and steaming, with a side of salsa and remind them of how good it will taste.

To Mock or Not to Mock...

2011-05-21T09:00:00.003-05:00

That is the question. And it seems to be a question of the minds of people who were concerned that our "Left Behind" activities would send the wrong message to the public about NOSHA and what we stand for. Are we mocking people and how does that promote respect and harmony? It's a valid question even if you don't feel we are doing anything to be ashamed of. (Which we aren't IMHO.)

A friend of mine, Jim, wrote a very thougtful piece that is worth sharing because it does a very admirable job of explaining what mockery is and how it is an important part of a society that is open and vibrant.

On Mockery:

I’m not surprised that some have reacted negatively here to what they see as ridicule of a particular religion, or of religion in general. I point out that the real objective of this party is to celebrate our own freedom from fear and superstition. Since it is impossible to celebrate freedom from fear and superstition without labeling something “fear and superstition,” that might come across to some as ridicule.

That being said, I would amplify Susan G’s quite cogent remarks made earlier in these posts: those who ascribe to the philosophy of Secular Humanism have at least a right, and probably an obligation, to mock religious beliefs of this type. This party is being organized in reaction to a particular group who loudly proclaim that on May 21st true believers will be Raptured into heaven, an earthquake will shake the whole world, and the dead will rise from their opened graves. Such ideas deserve mockery at several levels:

* Most self-identified Christians reject ideas of a literal and physical rapture, bodily resurrection, and Second Coming. This is not to say it is OK to mock an idea just because it is held by a minority, but to say that even most Christians think this is nonsense. How much more ridiculous must this seem to outsiders?

* It is ridiculous to believe that one modern-day person, without any special training in ancient cultures or languages can rummage through the Bible, connect disparate passages as he sees fit, choose an obscure and unsupported dating scheme, throw in a dash of numerology, and on that basis come up with the one true date for the beginning of the End. Yet this is exactly what Harold Camping and his supporters claim.

* It is ridiculous to believe that this particular date proclaimed for the End is any different from the vast array of failed predictions that precede it. History is littered with Great Disappointments, and to believe that this prediction is any different from hundreds of other abject failures is gullibility beyond measure.

This is not about anybody’s privately held religious beliefs. This is about a small but well-funded group who have vigorously sought publicity for their monster-under-the-bed stories, both nation-wide and right here in New Orleans.

Agnostics, atheists, and Secular Humanists have wide and varied opinions on such matters. But a key point of Secular Humanism, at least for those who ascribe to that philosophy, is that if we want to have better society now and in the future, then we must leave the supernatural and superstitious behind so we can apply human logic and human reason to solving our shared problems. That principle is in direct conflict with the kind of deference to religion a few on this blog think we ought to show. It is perfectly fair that religious believers had the right to proclaim their ideas to the public. But it is neither fair nor reasonable for the religious to demand that nobody point out their irrationalities, once they’ve made a public issue of their beliefs.

Share The Good and The Bad

2011-04-18T15:41:00.000-05:00

Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. Most of us chalk it up to chance and luck.

But one of the annoying comments that will come up every once in a while is the charge that because non-believers, atheists, secular humanists and others "of our ilk" don't believe in magic, we must not know what it means to have traditions and share in the community at large.

I know it's part of psychology to distance ourselves from those who we think are different by branding them as "lesser than" in order to protect the group, but folks, this is the 21st century and that attitude needs to be kicked to the curb. We've all enjoyed the milestones in life: the birth of a child, a marriage, a death and we all most likely have family or neighborhood events that form around these big moments. Not to mention the seasonal parties that we grew up with and then indoctrinated the children and the friends who came along.

NOSHA is a community of people who count each other as friends, acquaintances, cohorts and, sometimes, as family, blood or not. And we would like to know about these major events in the lives of NOSHA friends and supporters.

* Major birthdays
* Weddings
* New babies
* Graduations
* Promotions
* Deaths
* "Once in a Lifetime" Trips
* Major anniversaries

No matter your age, sharing this with your secular buddies brings us closer together as, yes, a real community. Non-believers experience joy and sadness and since we have systematic way to acknowledge these interesting and important moments via NOSHA News, take advantage of it.

Send your newsletter items to: charlotte@nosha.info

Saying Goodbye To Our NOSHA Friends

2011-02-15T14:18:00.001-06:00

In the past month, two members of our community died only a few weeks apart and we should take a moment to remember them fondly.

First, there was Tina Lovine Missildine from Marrero, age 48, who died on January 21. Tina had attended our first NOSHA banquet in 2009 with Percy Prestenbach and had been a long time member. Next there was Scott Major who died on February 3 after a brief illness. Many of you met Scott (who also attended our first NOSHA banquet with his girlfriend, Renee Gunnells) when he could make it to our monthly meetings over the past year. He was a regular on our Google Group generally stirring up passions and keeping the conversation lively. Both Scott and Tina were parents, had interests they enjoyed and were one of our many non-believing friends.

It's been several years since one of our closely tethered group passed away. Serena Bodellini passed away in October 2009 and was a member of the NOSHA board of directors. One thing that all three of these lovely people have in common is that they each had events celebrating their lives with no mention of worshipping a deity or other overly religious element involved. This is a refreshing trend in the 21st century and one that all of us should consider in depth - how we see the end of our lives unfolding for our friends and family. I always say to myself that I will get my will written and write a few ideas down "officially" for my "end of life" ceremony, but since I don't have kids or a major desire to deal with my death realistically, it's on the list where it stays.

Scott Major's untimely death forced me to accept that the luxury of waiting may not always be there for me or anyone I hold dear in my life. Like all of us, one day he was walking down the street enjoying his morning and the next thing he knew, he's being taken into emergency surgery to repair his dissected aorta, the defective organ that he never knew he had. From that moment on, his life, had he been able to recover slowly, would have consisted of caution and concern. And the awareness that things can change for you in a minute, just like my mother always told me they could. Unfortunately, bad things happen to good people and that's happened here.

At times like this, I'm very sensitive to why having a religious belief is a comfort to people who haven't explored the possibility that it may be a fairy tale. I wanted to pray for Scott, to talk to a god about how this time he needs to step in, make this right and save our friend. What could possibly be fair about striking down this 40-something man? I wanted to pray for Scott the way I wanted to pray for my brother and mother who've died in the past few years, but, you know, I couldn't. Not believing in a god is a very lonely place to be when you realize that all of us may simply just be lucky: to not get that disease, to not be strolling down that street, to not find ourselves in that ill body.

And I think that's why I'm not too puzzled by my anger. I'm very angry about what happened to Scott. That he didn't have more time to stabelize and get back to his life, to visit with friends and family a little longer, to eat some favorite food, to go on one last trip, maybe. To do all of the things we take for granted. I'm sure he, Tina and Serena would tell me that this is the one thing about dying that none of us can prepare for easily. Serena said to me that one disappointment for her was just when NOSHA seemed to have more activities and was starting take off since Katrina, she simply couldn't depend on her body to let her participate. She was always fighting a serious condition that made her extremely tired. Truly, the spirit was willing but the flesh was weak.

When my father found out he had lung cancer, he was home recovering from surgery one December many years ago while I was on holiday from college. I remember sitting with him and he still seemed vibrant and healthy to me, even if neither of us realized he was at the beginning of a slow decline. That I could be with him daily pretending that somehow this was going to turn out differently were some of my fondest memories, because if it hadn't been for his illness, he would have been at work and I wouldn't have had a chance for this time with him. Ironic. But still being able to process how lucky we felt, if only for the moment, gave me the time to start understanding what was to come.

Some of us don't get the chance to pretend that life will be different, to pretend that maybe we'll be lucky this time. I will always wish that Scott Major did.

The Next Thirty Years?

2011-01-27T13:10:00.008-06:00

In October 2010, I attended my first ever major non-believers conference, “Setting the Agenda: Secular Humanism’s Next 30 Years,” which was sponsored as a subscribers’ conference for the magazine, Free Inquiry. Since I’ve been a subscriber for at least 15 years, this seemed like a good fit for me. I was eager because there was a remarkable list of secular celebrities on the program and it was touted as a definitive event.

To give you one humorous glimpse into the conference, Mark Oppenheimer with The New York Times observed, “The largely white and male crowd—imagine a Star Trek convention, but older…” My main goal here is to report every unique moment from my trip.

Depending on who you ask, it was a complete “sell out” with anywhere from 325 to 370 people at the Millennium Biltmore Hotel in attendance. It seemed that since the CFI (Center for Inquiry) had to schedule this conference back in Fall 2008, at the beginning of the recession, they were forced to organize for a smaller number rather than risk not having enough people to fill the next level of hotel space. I think they could have easily had 100 or even 200 more attendees, but the economy dictated a more prudent choice back then. Amazingly enough, I found a friendly face in the crowd, Douglas King, a NOSHA member who resides in Baton Rouge and who attended our banquet featuring Ellen Johnson in August. The weekend was looking up!

The first plenary I attended on Friday was appropriately called “The First 30 Years” and boasted some of the heavier hitters in the secular movement: James “The Amazing” Randi, whose book Flim-Flam is regarded as a skeptical classic; Tom Flynn, current editor of Free Inquiry; Ed Buckner, past president of American Atheists; and Paul Kurtz, founder of Free Inquiry, the Council for Secular Humanism and CFI.

Randi was predictably charming and entertaining with his story of appearing on “The Johnny Carson Show” to debunk the faith healing preacher, Peter Popoff, back in the 1980’s. Randi’s technical investigation revealed that “…God is a woman and she sounds remarkably like Popoff’s wife, Elizabeth!” He told us that later that he got a delightful note from someone watching that night who said “I’m so glad that you exposed Rev. Popoff. Now I’m giving all of my money to Rev. So and So.” He found that very sweet and offered this thought to the audience that “…we are part of the remedy for ignorance. No one wants to come forward to say how stupid they are!” I discovered first hand how very spry and delightful Randi is when he chatted with me while I was buying books prior to this panel starting, before it hit me just exactly who this old man was. My luck.

However, sweetness gave way to more acerbic matters when the case was made by Kurtz that atheists are “bad” if they don’t support humanism out right. Clearly, there was a mentality of “us vs. them” being sown by the adherents for both points of view that continued throughout the weekend. Kurtz related an “untapped sentiment in society” back in 1980 that precipitated his pursuit and creation of CFI; there is something more that “mere atheism simply cannot address.” An example of the division at the national level was Flynn’s explanation of his push for promoting National Blasphemy Day, a move that Kurtz adamantly opposed, but nonetheless couldn’t prevent. A few resolute atheists challenged Kurtz that they are no less moral or good than a person who self identifies as a secularist.

In fact, one woman felt that Kurtz was not taking the “cultural wars” as seriously as he should that some of us must wage in parts of the country (where it is not as conciliatory for non-believers). His most memorable statement to me was his describing why he feels so strongly: “It is not enough to destroy, we must provide alternatives.” I happen to agree with this even as I feel we must not shrink from confrontations when they are necessary. The New York Times probably hit upon the best explanation of this divisiveness: “The disagreement was not, then, between atheism and humanism. It was about making the atheist/humanist case in America. A central question was, “How publicly scornful of religion should we be?’”

The next major panel was “Science and Religion: Confrontation or Accommodation?” which was by far the most lively in forcing the issue of how differently each perspective views the conflicts of science and religion in society. Science writer Chris Mooney (and the son of former NOSHA board member, Sally Mooney) admitted that his viewpoint falls more in line with accommodating the potential allies of non-believers, moderate or liberal Christians, and he bases his choice on the latest research into the attitudes of belief. Christians “are rejecting science because of a perceived conflict with moral values.” Like Kurtz, who believes that “the core of humanism is ethics and values” that are relevant to our lives, Mooney argued that “atheists should be mindful of this perception.”

Since believers resist science and the teaching of evolution in public schools because they fear that it will lead to a rejection of morals, this is a huge piece of evidence that cannot be totally dismissed out of hand. He suggests that atheists “should reassure Christians that their faith is compatible with modern science.” As conciliatory as Mooney was (considering that he has been taken to task this past year by the second speaker), noted biologist and well-known combative blogger, P.Z. Myers, wasn’t pulling any punches and is a “confrontationalist” with a capital “C.”

I found it especially refreshing to hear someone suggest that anger is a valid emotion when dealing with the way religion attempts to thwart scientific and social progress in our modern society and one that he feels shouldn’t be denigrated by our more passive supporters. Myers understands why “the new atheists are fed up with fighting the symptoms and want to take on the disease—religion.” Truth is the new atheist’s real value, he said.

Eugenie Scott, also a panelist and the executive director of the National Center for Science Education, was a disappointment for me simply because she seemed like she had so little to offer on this topic when her professional position should obviously demand otherwise. Clearly, she didn’t want to take a side and by that, I assumed, she is a deliberate “accommodationist.” That was a bit of surprise and left me concerned that she is in charge of the very organization that is so often fighting for science education in our schools. How can someone with such a decidedly unmotivated stance defend science against more aggressive and louder opponents? As likeable as she is, she didn’t care to express her opinion either for or against anything Mooney and Myers proposed. And isn’t that why she was invited to this conference? Strange.

Victor Stenger, celebrated professor of particle physics and distinguished author whose latest book, The New Atheism, brought him as a speaker to NOSHA in October 2009, provided more support for people voicing their atheism instead of “sucking up” to Christians, Muslims, Jews and Hindus “and any others who claim they have some sacred right to decide what kind of society the rest of us must live in—what a human being can do with her own body.”

He feels encouraged that younger generations are less likely to be accommodationists because they are moving away from organized religion and that the United States is on its way to joining the developed world in rejecting religion’s control over our progress. He supports the idea that in order to see change in our society, it takes both approaches ultimately. “If you look at the history of every great social movement, you will see both components. There are people who work within the system to make changes. They often succeed, but usually at a snail’s pace—too slow to satisfy the millions who are impatient to have their inherent rights recognized by the power structure.” This outlook must be how confrontationists get their wings.

Friday evening culminated in a gala banquet where Richard Dawkins, author of numerous books—perhaps most well known is The God Delusion which has sold over two million copies in English and has been published in more than 30 other languages, was presented with the Robert Craggs Prize and over $45,000 to his foundation. Dawkins, who was present for the day’s sessions, spoke briefly and pointedly to the need for non-believers to be insistent that we reject efforts to coddle religion and made it clear that he didn’t share the same opinions as his esteemed dinner companions, Kurtz and Mooney, who flanked him at the head table. He was respectful, but it was clear to me he was “bitch slapping” everyone who fell more in line with the acommodationists’ arguments from earlier that day.

On the Saturday panel for “What can philosophy, ethics, aesthetics and the sciences contribute to our pursuit of the good life in this life?” author Jennifer Michael Hecht offered an interesting observation that there are two kinds of atheists: “…those who attack the silly stuff and those who attack the subtle beliefs” of Christians and others. This may be the source for the concern over how stridently we promote non-belief. Ron Lindsay, who is the president and CEO of CFI, spoke about the perception of humanist ethics and that the method by which we approach deciding many issues has a lot to do with content. People want to make decisions where moral certainty is not always possible, such as the right-to-die for the terminally ill. He gave a nice presentation about the Oregon law and what it means for current efforts. Rev. Barry Lynn with Americans United, delivered a rip-roaring speech on a panel about the separation of church and state and made me truly sad for anyone who had to follow his presentation.

The highlight of Saturday evening (maybe the entire weekend) was the debate between Sam Harris, author of New York Times bestsellers, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation and Robert Wright, who has been named one of the “Top 100 Global Thinkers” by Foreign Policy magazine and is also a New York Times bestselling author of The Evolution of God. They were to speak on the subject of where “secular humanists stand today and tomorrow on questions of religion and belief,” but instead Wright baited Harris about his obvious disdain and public derision of Islam and we never made it back to the topic at hand. It didn’t help that Harris’ entourage of body guards put the throngs of attendees through a security detail (because he’s received death threats from both Christians and Muslims), which only hyped the paranoia of the evening!

Wright started off by stating that what bothered him most about the “new atheism” is the claim of being new. He’s also concerned that the new atheists think that religion is a major problem, and that the tendency to over emphasize religion means that “we take our eye off the ball.” I was never sure what the ball actually was to which he was referring.

What provoked Harris was Wright’s comment that new atheists are adding to the anti-Islamic sentiment in the United States. Once Islam was on the table, they never quite gave any time to the original topic, which was very disappointing. I made a note of one fascinating question he posed to Wright: “What would it be like if Dawkins came out as a Muslim?” It is easy to assume that Dawkins declaring he is any religion would cause a colossal stir simply because it would invalidate everything he stands for. So, Harris is concerned that we’ll wake up in a world “where the only people we can trust are our own religious people.” So for him, that is why what people believe matters; beliefs are the “engines of our behaviors” and that is why he is steadfast that Islam as a religion should be scrutinized.

There wasn’t enough time to even scratch the surface of the neuroscience surrounding morality, nor am I completely convinced that Harris does that well at presenting this in person yet. Even though I did and do enjoy listening to him in general. He is one of the “rock stars” for non-believers, after all. (He does have a new book out titled The Moral Landscape where he explores neuroscience in much greater detail). Nevertheless, he makes the compelling and evolutionarily sound proposal that “morality is a product of neuroscience” and that our pursuit of happiness, and that which is good for society, depends on brain chemistry. I do agree with that personally. I just wish he could have talked more about our people and what brain science can tell us about how we can make progress as a movement. That was the “send off” I had hoped for with this conference and, unfortunately, we have many rather large egos to stroke while we search for the answers.

Would a Secular Majority Make a Better America?

2010-12-09T19:18:00.001-06:00

NOSHA's president, Harry Greenberger, made this presentation to the Lakeview Community Unitarian Church here in New Orleans in November and we wanted to let everyone who couldn't be there that day read what he had to say on this important topic.

******************************

Would a Secular Majority Make a Better America?

By Harry Greenberger

All recent

U. S.

surveys have shown that non-believers and non-church-goers are rapidly increasing in numbers, yet are still below 20% of our adult population. When I made an outline for this talk, the last listed item was “conclusion” and I thought I knew what that conclusion would be. And I suspect you also think you know where this talk will end. But, as I present material assembled for this talk, you will hear many questions casting doubt as to where it would ultimately take me.

Where are we today vis-à-vis religion versus secularity?

Here are some descriptions of contemporary conditions.

At a recent conference of Free Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism, Victor Stenger said “We are now probably only about a generation or two away from the catastrophic problems that are anticipated from global warming, pollution, and overpopulation. Such disasters are predicted to generate worldwide conflict on a scale that could exceed that of the great twentieth-century wars.”

Later he concludes, “So, the time has come to rise up against the unthinking, immoral acts that are brought about by religious views—to state the case for science, reason, and honest compassion. We need to demonstrate that a nation no longer dominated by religion will be a better nation and that we must work to achieve that goal no matter how long it takes.”

Atheists for Human Rights includes this paragraph in their list of principles: “Traditional religious morality is notorious for the astounding number of ways it hurts people. On a short list are: human sacrifice, slavery, subjugation and reproductive control of women, persecution of homosexuals, religious wars, cruelty to children, torture and execution of heretics, denial of end-of-life self-determination, and opposing every advance in science and medicine…”

In Michael Parenti's book God and His Demons the author writes, “Backed by moneyed interests, the right-wing Christianist media propagate free-market corporatism, militarism, and super-patriotism.” And he makes the accusation “…emotional extortion of money from the gullible for personal enrichment has been the hallmark of fundamentalist Christian leaders.”

Countering those negative views, we know of religious heroes—civil rights leaders, founders of universities and hospitals, Catholic Charities, etc. The comfort and solace that faith provides to believers in times of loss and sorrow can’t be denied. But zealous spokespeople warn against secularism. Televangelist Pat Roberson asserts that when a society is without religion “the result will be tyranny.” Ann Coulter says that societies which fail to accept God’s significance are headed toward slavery, genocide and bestiality. Bill O’Reilly advises that a society that fails to live “under God” will be a society of “anarchy and crime.”

Where will the recent “New Atheism” movement lead us?

The Freedom From Religion Foundation recently sponsored a billboard at Canal and Rampart Streets with the message "Imagine No Religion.” It might have added words from The Richard Dawkins Foundation: Imagine no “superstition, astrology, fortune telling, pseudo-science, voodoo, alternative medicine, or other …grandiose promises that are never fulfilled…Imagine a world where everyone has access to education, health care, and the freedom to explore and discover their world.”

Recent proposals for achieving this secularly improved society have developed a “rift” between confrontationists and accommodationists regarding the best strategies for advancing the secular, scientific worldview. Best selling atheist authors in the last few years, Richard Dawkins, Christoher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Victor Stenger aggressively promote activism for the public adoption of the non-theistic life stance, at the risk of offending large portions of the American society. The Council of Secular Humanism even promotes celebration of “Blasphemy day,” much to the chagrin of its founder, Paul Kurtz, who feels that the new angry atheists will set the movement back—not unlike the abrasive style of American Atheists founder, Madelyn Murray O’Hare

Greg Epstein, secular Chaplain at Harvard University and author of Good Without God, writes: “Atheism alone, as the rejection of gods and the supernatural, cannot meet our deepest human needs for connection and inspiration.” And, he adds, “Maybe if we allow the more aggressive ideas to gain a little speed we will see secularism being a stronger force in the community.”

On the other hand, where will today’s right-wing Christian movement, which now dominates the Republican Party, lead us?

While much of what is considered positive religious morality is adopted from much older classical ethics, it has been distorted from time to time. Newt Gingrich formed “American Solutions for Winning the Future” with the position that the Democrats are promoting a secular socialist America that violates what he deems to be the Christian or Judeo-Christian foundation of the Republic.

This reflects the promulgated erroneous view that this country was founded on Christian principles, including the Ten Commandments. The Tea Party groups are seen to be primarily highly religious and anti-big government, women’s right to choose, gay marriage and adoptions, and church/state separation; and in favor of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and Christian prayers and teaching of “creationism” in public schools. Many see their ultimate goal as a conversion of our republic into a theocracy.

So which is best course for America—the present status, where atheists will take us or where the Christian activists are leading?

Take a look at recent surveys of different countries

In an essay in the August/September 2009 issue of Perspectives entitled “Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment” sociologist Phil Zuckerman reported that “countries with the highest rates of happiness, life expectancy, literacy, income, gender equality, and education are relatively secular. So are the countries with the lowest rates of homicide, infant mortality, AIDS, and teen pregnancy.” Also covered in that issue is a David G. Myers article that cites a Gallop survey from 152 countries. “Countries, where most people say that religion is not an important part of their daily life and where most people have not attended religious services in the last week, tend to be countries where people report high quality of life. Folks in highly religious countries (think Pakistan, Uganda, the

Philippines

) mostly rate their lives well below the best possible life.”

Myers wrote further, “I extended this association between secularity and the good life by comparing

U.S.

states. The Southern states all have higher religious-adherence rates than do the West Coast states. They also have slightly higher divorce rates, and much higher crime, teen pregnancy and smoking rates.” However, the results regarding individuals provide a different picture. He writes: “National Opinion Research Center’s General Social Survey of 47,909 Americans since 1972, (reports) very happy people ranged from 27 percent of those who never attended a religious service up to 48 percent of those attending more than once a week.” “Although religion comes in both healthy and toxic forms, religiously engaged individuals, on balance, tend to be happier, healthier, more generous, less crime-prone, and less often involved with premature sexuality and pregnancy.”

Reported in the November 20 edition of Times Picayune, a Gallup survey of over 500,000 Americans regarding their physical and emotional health and their work environment showed that the very religious scored 68.7% on the well-being index while the moderately religious and non-religious scored at 64.2%. Not much difference.

What measures of “good,” “better” and “best” can we justify?

Is it likely that the form of government might determine the level of individual wellbeing as documented for countries under communism, socialism, republic, democracy, dictatorship? But each of these can be either religious or non-religious, so what role does the government play? Are the ones allowing the most individual freedoms most inclined to produce general life satisfaction? How important is the concept of “Give me liberty or give me death?”

How about Standard of living as it is generally measured to include necessities and luxuries.

Should we measure by the opportunity for individuals to achieve a high living standard or alternatively reach for “the greatest good for the greatest numbers”—e.g. Communism’s “from each according to his ability and to each according to his need.” If this requires a totalitarian government is that an acceptable cost?

Lastly, consider the quality of life, level of happiness (as reported in some of my prior cited surveys)

My inclination is for the “happiness” scales which are applicable in any of the forms of government, at various standards of living, and at a variety of levels of religiosity. Our Declaration of Independence proclaims the pursuit of happiness to be an inalienable right. But what is “happiness?” “America,” the national catholic weekly, reports, “The new study of happiness, or subjective well-being, is a growing interdisciplinary field…Any monopoly that religion or political philosophy once held as the preferred guides to Eden is over.” “Policy makers in developed and undeveloped countries are drawing on happiness research to increase the ‘gross national happiness’ of their populations.” However, there is a caveat to be considered before relying on these surveys, as that article further reports, “Current secular critics will doubt whether happiness researchers have been able to avoid the problems of self-report, self-deception, response bias and social framing effects. Are the results and experimental interventions of happiness research reliable or valid by standard scientific norms.”

And one sobering thought about the role of happiness, is reflected in the final verse of a familiar poem by Thomas Gray published in 1923:

To each his sufferings: all are men,

Condemn’d alike to groan—

The tender for another’s pain

Th’ unfeeling for his own.

Yet, ah! Why should they know their fate,

Since sorrow never comes too late,

And happiness too swiftly flies

Thought would destroy their Paradise.

No more;--where ignorance is bliss,

‘Tis folly to be wise.

Should this one concept invalidate an advocacy on behalf of reason and science?

And now for my Conclusion

I recognize that those with Ph.D’s, especially in study of philosophy, and others more learned than I will find my analysis of this question to be superficial and possibly naïve, but I am trying.

I’ve lost the source of the following pertinent quotation: “We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”

The article I previously referred to in the National Catholic Weekly concluded with this: “And here we come to the theological crux of the matter. Is it possible to become positively transformed and virtuously happy without being empowered by God’s Holy Spirit given in, with and through Christ? Happiness and joy are promised to the virtuous followers of God’s precepts and to those who become Christ’s disciples through faith.”

(I am still quoting the National Catholic Weekly) “But does happiness seen as our loving relationship with God make other ways of happiness impossible, invalid or incomplete?” A Nathan Murillo article entitled “Why Religion?” opines, “The forces that propel and propagate religion are powerful indeed and are not likely to diminish in and of themselves. Perhaps there is only one force equal or greater than these and which offers the most likely challenge to religion: the truth of reality”

The previously quoted Myers article in the journal Perspectives equating frequent church attendance with “very happy” people, further wrote: “…the data help us appreciate a spirituality that gives meaning to our lives, connects us in supportive communities, motivates morality and altruism, and offers hope in the face of adversity and death.”

But he adds: “I hasten to remind people: these data do not validate theism. The benefits of faith are irrelevant to its truth claim. And truth is ultimately what matters. (If theism’s central claim is untrue, though comforting, what honest person would choose to believe? If true, though discomfiting, what honest person would disbelieve?”

Now here is my moot conclusion: A secular society, armed with the conviction that theism is untrue will be a better America because that awareness shall set generations free for their constitutionally provided “pursuit of happiness.”

Carl Sagan Felt Our Pain

2010-11-26T17:21:00.002-06:00

Humanist groups nationwide celebrated the life and work of Carl Sagan this month. Sagan (1934-1996) an astronomer, educator and secular humanist, was probably best known for his PBS series “Cosmos.” It has now been 30 years since “Cosmos” first aired.

This is a wonderful story he wrote that you can use when dealing with people who try your patience. You'll see what I mean.

The Dragon In My Garage by Carl Sagan

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help.

At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons.

Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

The Phantom Life

2010-11-16T15:26:00.001-06:00

Since Hereafter, the latest movie by Clint Eastwood, prompted the media to go bonkers over the contemplation of an afterlife, non-believers should take a moment to reflect on this frightening reality. You don't think it's a little scary? That one day, each of us will die and we will cease to be? No? Well, it is one of the peskier concepts where even we non-religious types don't have the answers. And we're pretty sure the others don't either, but they are willing to go out of their way to make money by duping people with the aftterlife nonsense and promises they peddle.

Ponder this for a moment. Ceasing to be. Can you do it?

In this case, there isn't any question about whether to be or not. Because one day, you won't...and that is one of the major moments we all wrestle with from time to time. This is where fear for believers takes hold and never offers relief from the relentless worry of what will happen after they die. So death is a major reason so many people we know, who were never given to spiritual concerns before, all of sudden start going to church and talking about what they expect to find on the other side.

The thought of not being is very daunting and certainly not pleasant, because humans are not easily able to think of what "not" is. We know that the people in the family photographs lived before we were a twinkle in someone's eye. We know that many beings and creatures came before us and that eons of time passed before now. And yet when you consider we were "not" then, dealing with "not" at some time in the future is a tad more difficult.

I had the chance to consider what that curious moment of unconsciousness must be like because of surgery this past summer. I use the phrase "must be like" because you don't really appreciate consciousness until you are pulling out of the fog from a chemically induced coma-like stupor; there is this single moment when your brain is aware that you were not dreaming and not thinking just then. (Yes, the brain is aware that nothing is going on. Which is kind of cool.)

It is quiet, painless and still and I like to think that moment is what death is probably like, only soon after that very moment, we no longer realize that we were ever even alive. Which is a tremendous thought all on its own. Nor do we have any means to worry about what just happened, so we're spared regrets and faulty reasoning. People who die in fiery crashes and from painful wounds should know some immediate relief and this is what I think it is. Likewise, dying peacefully in your sleep at a ripe old age should also be as relaxing and calm. Maybe more so!

For the other perspective, however I believe that what religious folks must handle is far worse. Because they do fret over the next life. Who will be there? Will they be forced to be with peoople they didn't really like? Or maybe even hated? Which cannot be a fun worry to have! And what of the people who are sure they will end up in a hell, as they understand it? How awful to carry that fear with you your entire life only to die and realize something far worse. That's why I call this blog "The Phantom Life" because believers must be burdened with existence that is possibly not pleasant or even tolerable by our standards. Not to mention the longing and the sadness brought on by the memories of the previous life

It's this optional phantom existence that must torment most religious people because it is more than unknown, it is eternal speculation. And it is a waste of time. The most we can hope for is to do and feel as much as we can in the time we'll be here. Because if I'm correct, we won't be lingering. We simply won't be...whcih is very much a strangling thought in its own right. But it might make us more passionate about the life we have now since it is all we'll ever know.

And unfortunately, this gives new meaning to the old cliche "Life is hard and then you die." Because it is, you know. It's up to you to give your life meaning and let death take care of itself.

Don't know much about First Corinthians?

2010-10-20T17:08:00.001-05:00

Or maybe you do?

A letter to the editor from a local NOSHA member, Timothy Ruppert, deserves our applause. It's imporant when someone takes up our cause and lets the public know more about non-believers and that we are paying attention. Even better when it's in New Orleans.

Why atheists have the answers (Published: Sunday, October 10, 2010)

(Re: "Most Americans flunk basic religion," Page 1, Oct. 3.)

The Times-Picayune's coverage of the Pew Research Center report glossed over the major finding.

If you have a question about religion, the best person in America to ask is an atheist or agnostic.

Bruce Nolan's coverage leaves one with the impression that non-believers were merely among the highest-scoring in the test of general religious traditions and beliefs. In fact, atheists and agnostics came out on top, scoring above everyone else including Catholics, Protestants, Mormons and Jews.

On questions specifically about the Bible and Christianity, atheists and agnostics ranked third, behind only Mormons and white evangelical Christians. Non-believers knew more about Christianity and the bible than Christians of every other stripe and flavor.

I am not surprised.

Atheists and agnostics are often well-educated people. They are open to inquiry and learning beyond the religion of their childhoods.

My experience has been that religious believers typically wall themselves off from information and learning about other religions and any topics they deem threatening to their belief systems.

The Pew study confirms this. They found an inverse relationship between educational level and religious belief.

So the headline, "Most Americans flunk basic religion," might more appropriately have been, "Atheists have correct answers to religious questions."

Timothy M. Ruppert
New Orleans

###

If you'd like to take the quiz yourself, check it out.

Finally,,,,Some Sanity for Anne!

2010-08-10T17:08:00.000-05:00

Recently vampire author and spiritually "determined" Anne Rice revealed that she is giving up on Christianity:

"For those who care, and I understand if you don't: Today I quit being a Christian ... It's simply impossible for me to 'belong' to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I've tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else."

Thankfully, for those of us who have really liked her books (before her transformation), seductive characters and that she has paid a lovely homage to New Orleans, she decided that she refuses to be "anti-gay," "anti-feminist," "anti-science" and "anti-Democrat." Just like that. Cold turkey!

Which, in essence, does mean that you really can't be a Christian the way they way some people define it these days!

But there's more: the Los Angeles Times is declaring in an opinion piece by William Lobdell (the Times staff writer and author of Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America — and Found Unexpected Peace) that it might just be the beginning of the "slip sliding away" for the Christian movement in the United States.

I think many of us would agree this is a tad Chicken Little more than a reflection on religious reality. However, evangelical pollster George Barna says "...they can find little measurable difference between the moral behavior of churchgoers and the rest of American society. Barna has found that born-again Christians are more likely to divorce (an act strongly condemned by Jesus) than atheists and agnostics, and are more likely to be racist than other Americans."

Huh? You mean Christians act like the human animals they really are? That they have physical desires, emotional weaknesses and intellectual proclivities that they must reconcile with a civilized society? But that is what makes it a crises for the religious among us. In the 21st century, they must acknowledge that they are not divine or special, except that they have the brain capacity to weigh the consequences of their behavior. Until they accept that fact, they will continue to wallow in the simplicity they call their doctrine and faith.

That Rice is shedding these spiritually dishonest shackles is refreshing and perhaps a testament to her growth as a person. Afterall, she's on a soul searching mission, you know. But welcome back, Anne. It's nice to have you back among the (somewhat) rational, where you belong.

The F Word

2010-06-29T00:37:00.001-05:00

It seems that we should keep this list tucked back in our memory. Don't know much about fascism...well, let's help you out a little.

The 14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism
(From Free Inquiry, Spring 2003)
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found fourteen defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

While the United States is certainly not fascist by the standards of the countries in Britt's study, there are moments when these abhorrent little tendencies float to the top like oil on water. Maybe we should set up a test, "...if you answered 'yes' to 7 or more, then you're in need of assistance..."?

Certainly, some people have fascist thoughts and even try to impose fascist ideas. Are there enough of them to worry about? Let's check back after the next elections

Real family values in the 21st century!

2010-06-13T15:34:00.004-05:00

I'm very surprised that more progressive people like you aren't talking about this. It is a huge chink in the armor of the religious right and it's fallen into our laps with little fanfare. Let's shout it from the rooftops!

The recent article by Jonathan Rauch published in the National Journal magazine ("The Leading Weekly on Politics and Policy") highlights research in the new book, "Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture," written by two family law professors from George Washington University and the University of Missouri. What they have discovered is a monumental leap in the argument against the right's hold on the that thorn in our non-religious sides, family values.

The paradox is this: Cultural conservatives revel in condemning the loose moral values and louche lifestyles of "San Francisco liberals." But if you want to find two-parent families with stable marriages and coddled kids, your best bet is to bypass Sarah Palin country and go to Nancy Pelosi territory: the liberal, bicoastal, predominantly Democratic places that cultural conservatives love to hate.

Isn't this an important piece of amunition against the junk that the "family values" crowd spreads whenever they want to silence someone about improving sex education, teaching evolution in the public schools or recognizing diversity in the community? What would they do if they learned that their side is failing the very tests they hold up to belittle the progressive crowd?

Parenthood and sexual activity are extremely important in our human development and it's unreasonable that we are allowed to forget how hard it is to resist the one that leads to the other. And if you recognize that we can physically engage in sexual activity long before we realize how important the consequence is, then you have a leg up on helping to keep parenthood from derailing adulthood. This is where Red America fails, doesn't see the folly of their dogma and hurts young people in the process.

Older parents make better parents....wiser, smarter and with better finances....everything you need to have a more stable parenting where children are involved. And Red America makes it a rule to put as many obstacles in the way of delaying parenthood. They would prefer no sex education while preventing access to abortion, which contributes to early marriages for people who lack emotional maturity and who are likely to fail under the pressures of taking care of a newborn. Not to mention the young people who miss going to college for more advanced education which could make their lives more stable and successful. It's almost as if the Religious Right is designing an outcome so their children will fail. (And perpetuate the dependency on an outmoded religious doctrine.)

Cahn and Carbone find an asymmetry. Blue norms are well adapted to the Information Age. They encourage late family formation and advanced education. They produce prosperous parents with graduate degrees, low divorce rates, and one or two over-protected children.

Red norms, on the other hand, create a quandary. They shun abortion (which is blue America's ultimate weapon against premature parenthood) and emphasize abstinence over contraception. But deferring sex in today's cultural environment, with its wide acceptance of premarital sex, is hard. Deferring sex and marriage until you get a college or graduate degree -- until age 23 or 25 or beyond -- is harder still. "Even the most devout overwhelmingly do not abstain until marriage," Cahn and Carbone write.

So why isn't the mainstream and even the not-so-mainstream media talking about this? Why aren't we all hammering this point home everytime we encounter the neanderthal-like arguments that teenagers (especially the females) must be "punished" for engaging in behavior that their religion detests....while offering nothing practical to improve their chances of avoiding pregnancy?

Our society has suffered enough from this nonsense and we must stand up against these cruel and backward arguments. Let us all step into the 21st century and demand that we stop adhering to dangerous religious practices that no longer have a place in a modern society. Buy the book or better yet, send a copy to the political leaders where you live.

Ways to support the goals of NOSHA and secular humanism in our community

2010-05-12T14:15:00.006-05:00

Ways to Support the Goals of NOSHA!

1) Be a good person that you are and also be open about your atheism to others.

* When appropriate, wear symbols that identify your beliefs. For example, the atheist “A,” or other images from the Freethought movement are available. You can also buy items with the NOSHA logo.

* If someone asks you which church you attend, don't become defensive or shy. Just matter-of-factly say that you don't go to church, because you don't believe in god.

* If someone publishes a letter or article in the Times-Picayune that unfairly denigrates non-believers, write a letter to the editor explaining rationally why you disagree.

2) Help out as a volunteer when we organize events that will make us visible in the community.

* Also, find charitable projects that NOSHA can get involved in and volunteer to be the leader of the project. For example, sponsoring a team on a walk-a-thon, or a road clean-up campaign are two easy ways to do something that would get people involved and active.

3) Help us get an "In Reason We Trust" Louisiana license plate for our state.

4) Start a freethought/atheist/agnostic group at your workplace, if appropriate, especially if there are religious groups already in place.

5) Read freethought books and educate yourself about diverse religions so you are well informed and can make well-reasoned arguments. Here are some you might add to your library: (when possible, support local bookstores by letting them order a copy for you)

+ The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
+ Godless by Dan Barker
+ Why I am not a Christian (an essay) by Bertrand Russell
+ The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine
+ Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris
+ Freethinkers - A History of American Secularism by Susan Jacoby
+ End of Faith by Sam Harris
+ God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens
+ Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett

6) Join us at NOSHA social functions! This may seem like too much fun to be helpful, but remember that there are many non-religious people in the New Orleans area who feel isolated by their lack of belief.

Going to a potluck party, picnic, monthly meeting, happy hour or other social event would not just be fun for you, but it would be your way of offering support to others who need to see that they are not alone.

7) Participate in discussions at our Google Group and offer to contribute articles to the NOSHA newsletter. Contact newsletter editor Connie Gordon if you would like to submit a suggestion. Also, write a guest review of any book, film, website, article or other item that might be of interest to and they will be posted at the NOSHA website

8) Join NOSHA (pay your annual dues faithfully) and other organizations with related objectives (Americans United, ACLU, FFRF, Secular Coalition, etc.)

Celebrate National Day of Reason 2010!

2010-05-05T19:09:00.002-05:00

We'll have a special happy hour in May to commemorate "National Day of Reason." Instead of our regular Wednesday gathering, we're moving it one day to Thursday this month so we can recognize one of our major secular days of the year.

The purpose of the National Day of Reason is to celebrate reason—a concept all Americans can support—and to raise public awareness about the persistent threat to religious liberty posed by government intrusion into the private sphere of worship.

The Day of Reason also exists to inspire the secular community to be visible and active on this day to set the right example for how to effect positive change. Local organizations might use "Day of Reason" to label their events, or they might choose labels such as Day of Action, Day of Service, or Rational Day of Care. The important message is to provide a positive, useful, constitutional alternative to the exclusionary National Day of Prayer.

As always, you will find friendly people and good conversation!

Thursday, May 6
6pm
Monkey Hill Bar
6100 Magazine St.(70118)

Located in historic uptown New Orleans, just three blocks from Audubon Zoo and Park, Monkey Hill Bar offers a wide selection of martinis, wines and beers. They have large couches to relax on and a free pool table as well as a shuffleboard table. Also, this area of Magazine Street has a lot of unique restaurants in the vicinity, so it makes for easy dining if you wish to grab a bite after a quick drink with your secular friends.

Cultivate Your Garden....by Michael Shermer

2010-04-21T17:24:00.001-05:00

Cultivate Your Garden
How a lack of control leads to superstition and what can be done about it
(published February 2010 in Scientific American)

Imagine a time in your life when you felt out of control—anything from getting lost to losing a job. Now look at the Figure 1 on this page. What do you see? Such a scenario was presented to subjects in a 2008 experiment by Jennifer Whitson of the University of Texas at Austin and her colleague Adam Galinsky of Northwestern University . Their study, entitled “Lacking Control Increases Illusory Pattern Perception,” was published in Science.

Defining “illusory pattern perception” (what I call “patternicity”) as “the identification of a coherent and meaningful interrelationship among a set of random or unrelated stimuli … (such as the tendency to perceive false correlations, see imaginary figures, form superstitious rituals, and embrace conspiracy beliefs, among others),” the researchers’ thesis was that “when individuals are unable to gain a sense of control objectively, they will try to gain it perceptually.”

As Whitson explained the psychology to me, “Feelings of control are essential for our well-being—we think clearer and make better decisions when we feel we are in control. Lacking control is highly aversive, so we instinctively seek out patterns to regain control—even if those patterns are illusory.”

Whitson and Galinsky sat subjects before a computer screen, telling them that they would be presented with a series of images for which they were to determine the underlying concept. For example, they might see a capital A and a lowercase a, one or both of which could be colored, underlined, or surrounded by a circle or square.

Subjects would then generate an underlying concept, such as that all capital As are red or surrounded by a circle. There was no actual underlying concept—the computer randomly combined characteristics and was programmed to tell the subjects that they were frequently either “correct” or “incorrect.” Consequently, the ones hearing that they were often wrong developed a sense of lacking control.

In the second part of the experiment subjects were shown 24 “snowy” photographs, half of which contained hidden images such as a hand, horses, a chair or the planet Saturn [see Figure 2], whereas the other half just consisted of grainy random dots. Although nearly everyone saw the hidden figures, subjects in the lack-of-control group saw more figures in the photographs that had no embedded images.

In another experiment Whitson and Galinsky had subjects vividly recall an experience in which they either had full control or lacked control over a situation. The subjects then read scenarios in which the characters’ success or failure was preceded by unconnected and superstitious behaviors, such as foot stomping before a meeting where the character wanted to have ideas approved. The subjects were then asked whether they thought the characters’ behavior was related to the outcome.

Those who had recalled an experience in which they lacked control were significantly more likely to perceive a greater connection between the two unrelated events than were those who recalled a controlling situation. Interestingly, the low control subjects who read a story about an employee who failed to receive a promotion tended to believe that a behind-the-scenes conspiracy was the cause.

In their final experiment Whitson and Galinsky gave one group of subjects a sense of control by asking them to contemplate and affirm their most important values in life—a proven technique for reducing learned helplessness. The researchers then presented those same snowy pictures, finding that a comparison group of subjects in a lack-of-control condition with no opportunity for self-affirmation saw more nonexistent patterns than did those in the self-affirmation condition.

In 1976 Harvard psychologist Ellen J. Langer and Judith Rodin, now president of the Rockefeller Foundation, conducted a study in a New England nursing home in which the residents were given plants, but only some had the opportunity to water them. Those residents who were in charge of watering the plants lived longer and healthier lives than the others, even those given plants watered by the staff. The sense of control had the apparent effect on physical health and well-being.

Perhaps this is what Voltaire meant at the end of Candide, in the title character’s rejoinder to Dr. Pangloss’s proclamation that “all events are linked up in this best of all possible worlds”: “’Tis well said,” replied Candide, “but we must cultivate our gardens.”

Learning more about Easter....

2010-04-08T12:23:00.002-05:00

Active NOSHA member, Robert Carver, got his letter published in the Houma newspaper and it has caused a stir IF you are NOSHA Google Group member. Decide for yourself!

Easter practices based in paganism

I read the stories in the paper about Good Friday with interest especially the one about the reenactment in Dulac. The faithful in these reenactments are fascinating since they are commemorating a mythical event as if it were a historical fact. Easter was celebrated long before Christianity co-opted the holiday. Many modern Christians are ignorant of the Pagan origins of their faith. They act as if the story of Jesus becoming the resurrected Christ was unique in history which leads them to conclude this myth must be the literal historical truth. Their belief is misguided as even a cursory examination of history clearly shows how the early Church created and evolved this myth.

The word Easter itself is likely derived from Eostre, the Saxon mother goddess, whose name in turn was adapted from Eastre, an ancient word for spring. The Norse equivalent of Eostre was the goddess Ostara, whose symbols were an egg and a hare, both denoting fertility. Festivals honoring these goddesses were celebrated on or around the vernal equinox, and even today, when Easter has supposedly been Christianized, the date of the holiday falls according to rather pagan reckonings, i.e. on the Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox.

Throughout recorded history the focus of spring religious festivals was a god whose own death and rebirth symbolized the death and rebirth of life during this time of the year. Many pagan religions had gods who were depicted as dying and being reborn. In some legends this god even descends into the underworld to challenge the forces there. Attis, consort of the Phrygian fertility goddess Cybele, was more popular than most.

Attis was simply the latest manifestation of earlier resurrection myths, like those of Osiris, Orpheus, Tammuz and Dionysus, who were likewise said to have been born of virgins and resurrected three days after their deaths. In areas where Christian beliefs later took hold, these already existing tales were grafted onto the story of Christ, and continue to be retold to this day as evidenced by those who “recreate” this myth this Easter in our region. They have every right to practice their faith thanks to the Separation Between Church and State enshrined in the Bill of Rights even if said faith has no basis in reality.

Robert Carver
Jefferson

The Great Divide

2010-02-02T09:28:00.006-06:00

There seems to be a real schism in the ranks of atheist activists these days. As usual, we seem to be missing the "ingroup loyalty" thing about one for all and all for one. Ingroup loyalty is touted as one of the hallmarks of the religious movement, as is extreme passion and dedication (epitomized by the Tea Party movement that has sprung up so viciously this week), so it seems we have much to learn.

Why do we keep eating our own? Pretty boy physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson bad mouthed Richard Dawkins as "obnoxious" and "completely ineffective" in the September/October 2009 issue of The Humanist Magazine. Dawkins brings something to the table that makes Tyson's work easier as a frontman for science, so what is gained by this pissing contest?

In the book, "Good Without God" by Greg Epstein suggests that atheists too often reject the ceremony and emotional community that many seek out when they join groups.

From the book:

“Atheism alone, as the rejection of gods and the supernatural, cannot meet our deepest human needs for connection and inspiration.”

Most of us do want a connection to others in some form. Maybe that comes in the form of a poetry reading at a secular meeting or hosting social events that are designed for fellowship as much as debate. We have enjoyed this kind of interaction since we lived in caves and it brings some of our humanity to our otherwise mundane lives.

Maybe if we allow the more aggressive ideas to gain a little speed, we will see secularism being a stronger force in the community? I'd like to think that the guy who challenges religious people makes my life a little easier. Let’s stop this “us or them” mentality and realize that we are on the same side and it takes all kinds of philosphies to propel secularism in our society.

Robertson should be hospitalized!

2010-01-14T08:28:00.006-06:00

Why does this man get any media coverage at all?

His latest pronouncement that the Haitians brought this devastating earthquake on themselves because of some purported agreement with Satan in the 18th century is beyond insanity. It's certifiably nuts!

And yet, there he is in the Times-Picayune getting valuable news space complete with explanations and public respect, if that's what it's called. What kind of modern person can spout this crap and not be carted away by the white coats? Oh, that's right. A religious person. But not only a religious person, but a leader who makes his living lying to the public and getting paid handsomely to do it.

Any average person would be stared at and shunned (we hope). But no, not Pat Robertson! He is given a voice in our public media to say whatever he feels no matter how ridiculous and harmful. And we allow it by letting the media get away with treating this as being "fair and balanced" to religious views.

Learn the five moral foundations

2009-12-23T14:06:00.004-06:00

There is a very enlightened theory circulating that morality has several central themes that cross all cultures and explain the differences worldwide in how liberal and conservative thinking individuals interpret morals in society. But what is extremely interesting is that understanding conservative interpretations of morality will help you identify the reason why a person believes the way they do which is a very powerful thing to know.

Does that then make their belief acceptable? Not at all, but it will make more sense in the context of the moral foundation why someone takes a particular stance.

Five Moral Foundations

Moral Foundations Theory was created to understand why morality varies so much across cultures yet still shows so many similarities and recurrent themes. In brief, the theory proposes that five innate and universally available psychological systems are the foundations of “intuitive ethics.” Each culture then constructs virtues, narratives, and institutions on top of these foundations, thereby creating the unique moralities we see around the world, and conflicting within nations, too. The foundations are:

1)Harm/care, related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. This foundation underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.

2) Fairness/reciprocity, related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. This foundation generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy.

3) Ingroup/loyalty, related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. This foundation underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."

4) Authority/respect, shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. This foundation underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.

5) Purity/sanctity, shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. This foundation underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

Liberal and conservatives usually support number 1 and 2 alike, and that is where liberals tend to focus their attentions in modern society. Conservatives go on to incorporate numbers 3-5 in their regular belief systems and. it could be argued, that they do so to the detriment of logic, science and basic reason.

Liberal thinkers can utilize 3-5 also, but chances are they consider proof to the contrary before blindly following along...which is what trips up conservative thinkers. Perhaps having a religious mindset means that you can't go against the ingrained priniciples of "group think" that is necessary to these tenets.

And then there's sex! Number 5 seems to be a huge issue for many religions and uptight pious people. In fact, some of them seem to abandon 1 and 2 altogether as long as they are controlling the sexual behaviors of society. But that's another blog for another day.

But think about it and see if this theory helps you to better understand why a conservative thinker you know has a certain opinion. It just might make you better able to argue to their concern and point out contradictions in terms they can grasp. At least it's worth a shot.

Happy Human Light, Winter Solstice and Holidays!

Health care...do you feel lucky?

2009-12-11T08:12:00.003-06:00

Okay, here's something that I think we need to talk about in our country:

We're all going to die someday.

What? Should I say it again? Did you think you heard me wrong?

We're all going to die someday.

I wish I had better news, but it's a fact of life. Some Americans pretend it only happens to other people AND the unluckier ones at that. But if luck does have anything to do with it, you and everyone you know and love will die in their sleep peacefully at a very old age after a very rewarding and interesting life. Not of a terrble illness or in terrible pain.

But I have news for most of the people who seem to rally against basic health care in this country. That scenario doesn't usually happen. Along the way some of us will have accidents, illnesses and especially not after we've retired. Because that's how life is.

Car crashes, freak illnesses, falling off ladders, you name it....that's part of the human condition. Statistically speaking, it's a crap shoot that any of us avoid these things (knock on wood, right?) And yet the people who rail against a "public option" seem to to think that basic health care by itself is something that we can't improve upon or even treat as an element of a decent life. No one should go bankrupt because they couldn't avoid the accident or illness. It could be anyone of us, including these tea party idiots and their families.

But there's one thing no one wants to talk about and it's that IF we muddle through and come up with something better for our nation's health care system, someone, namely millionaire physicians and insurance executives, will have to make a little less money.

Will they have to sell their homes and country club memberships? No. (Okay, maybe the third home in the Caribbean.)

Will their kids have to do without private educations or go hungry? Probably not.

But they will have to settle for a little less. And that less still looks pretty damn wonderful compared to the average American's income and expectations. But it will take some sacrifice and alter the obscene excesses some Americans have been fortunate enough to think that what is the norm for them is the same for the rest of us. Uncovering that falsehood scares the hell out of them. (And their real estate agents and decorators, too, of course.)

So when your neighbor or cubicle mate says we just can't help the average people simply because they were unlucky enough to be in a car accident or to get sick, remind them that what is good enough for the unlucky among us is good enough for them.

Therapy group forming for secular humanists...

2009-11-18T10:42:00.003-06:00

Taking the idea from New York City Atheists, addressing the question as to counseling help for nonbelievers, NOSHA is proposing the formation of a therapy group for its members with psychological, emotional or other personal problems.

New York calls its group “Living Without Religion,” led by a psychotherapist. Their group “will meet once a month, with the goal of helping each other resolve our personal problems through reason, scientific knowledge, empathy, logic and understanding. There will be no charge for this cutting-edge support group, but you must be a member to participate.”

NOSHA member Lisa Suarez, a Humanist and a Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist, has agreed to help to put together a group of our members "who would like to grow their values and strengthen personal positions in life." Like the NYC group, there will be no charge for participation.

Anyone interested in becoming a part of this program should contact Harry Greenberger at (504) 282-5459 or hpgreenx@yahoo.com

Is Science Compatible with Religion?

2009-11-16T14:55:00.001-06:00

Even if you think you know the answer, it never hurts to hear from some "experts."

******************************

SELU Forum: Is Science Compatible with Religion? This will be a panel discussion consisting of representatives from the two sides:

•Dr. Barbara Forrest
•Adam Hicks
•Dr. David Norwood
•Dr. Matt Rossano
•Doug Stewart
•Dr. James Walter
•Dr. Frank Tipler

The dialog will conclude with an audience question & answer session.

Tuesday, November 17
7:00 PM

Southeastern Louisiana University
Student Union Theatre
303 Texas Ave.
Hammond, LA 70402

You can park in the lot on the corner of Tennessee Drive and SGA Drive and then
ask directions to the Student Union Theatre or even the Starbucks and then ask
directions again from there. (Starbucks is about 100 ft from the building.)

Are women second class citizens?

2009-11-09T13:32:00.003-06:00

I'm curious....in light of the Stupak Amendment passing, does anyone else think that perhaps we really do live in a society that honestly thinks of women as second class citizens who don't warrant respect for our bodies or reproductive health needs?

(Or at least when certain religious viewpoints such as the "Bishops' Caucus" are given credence over medical decisions in our political system.)

And before you reject this comment out of hand, consider that when religious opinions are brought into the mix, even some women in positions of power who we think of as "on our side" will sacrifice women's issues and label us as expendable.

This potential setback of women's health care is extremely significant (if the current Health Care Plan is passed in the Senate) and seems to set a tone that women are not fully recognized in this society as worthy of respect or consideration of our health needs...at least not in the same way as males.

I hope I'm wrong.

To read more, check out this article by Jane Hamsher.

Best Halloween Costume of 2009?!!

2009-11-03T11:50:00.003-06:00

My good friend Pope Ratzi sent me this photo from his visit to the French Quarter on Halloween night. It's his submission to the Best Costume on Bourbon Street contest of 2009. What do you think?

I know. Tasteless! Assaulting! But you can't deny that it is absolutely funny as hell if you ignore the terrible truth behind it. But I don't know if we can or should ignore this.

It's what keeps atheists up at night. Think about it....a group of people who should be protecting children could cover up something that has probably plagued their members for centuries. It's an abomination of humanity and yet people still glorify what they represent (and we assume) ignore the horrible deeds that have since been revealed.

Veneration and the leg bone....

2009-11-02T15:02:00.003-06:00

I know many of you can't conceive of anything as bizarre as viewing a relic and expecting to take away something emotionally or spiritually important from it.

Well, that's what happened here here in New Orleans over Halloween weekend. Mary Magdalene's leg bone was on display at a Catholic church on Canal Street. How do they know it was her leg bone? I don't know, but perhaps it was authenticated in some way.

I don't see this as any different than viewing a bone in a museum. I will be the first to admit I always go to museums whenever I travel. I even paid extra to see the Dead Sea Scrolls in Chicago a few years ago, so I'm not without my appreciation of historical and religious artifacts.

And sometimes these items can "move" me, too. But I'm betting that it is quite different from someone who actually goes to pray over a bone they think has magical powers, because it may have been in the body of someone who might have known Jesus.

I just wish people could be so inspired when they look at the bones of a carnivorous creature that lived 65 million years ago. Now that is awe inspiring! But those same Magdalene people are probably just as baffled with me.

How do atheists reconcile the Home Depot button controversy?

2009-10-28T14:00:00.005-05:00

Don't know much about the Home Depot button controversy? Well, you should.

Trevor Keezer, the Home Depot employee at the heart of the situation is an interesting study in contradictions.

On the one hand, he says he doesn't make a habit of touting his religious beliefs, but on the other hand, he says that he couldn't take off the button because the issue as he saw it was "bigger" than he is.

"It never crossed my mind to take off the button because I'm standing for something that's bigger than I am. They kept telling me the severity of what you're doing and I just let God be in control and went with His plan," Keezer said.

Then Keezer says he was a model employee at Home Depot and he liked his job.

Okay. But does a "model" employee violate company policies simply because he doesn't agree with them?

And since when does a place of business become a platform for someone's private religious beliefs? It's usually a place to perform a function to the best of your ability and to get paid, NOT a church. That's what churches are for.

"I want to be a voice for the rest of the Christians and for the citizens of this country to stand up for the country. You know, quit being told to sit down. Say what you want to say and don't be afraid of the consequences," he said.

Well, then he wasn't afraid of the consequences. He was warned and he was finally fired for his behavior. It was his choice.

No. Wait a minute. It was God's plan.

And I guess God's plan was for Trevor Keezer to be unemployed.

Evangelical Philosophical Society to host Apologetics Conference

2009-10-27T15:59:00.003-05:00

The Evangelical Philosophical Society will be hosting the 7th Annual Apologetics Conference in New Orleans on the evenings of Thursday, November 19, Friday, November 20 and the morning of Saturday, November 21. This year's theme is "Come, Let Us Reason: Rooting Your Faith in Knowledge."

Some of the topics will include:

"New Atheists, Old Atheists and Old Apologists" Dr. Timothy McGrew

The arguments of contemporary atheists against Christianity are for the most part borrowed from atheists and freethinkers of centuries gone by. Those arguments were answered, sometimes brilliantly, by apologists and scholars whose work is now largely forgotten. The history of apologetics is more than a field for antiquarian study; it provides a rich array of arguments and insights of contemporary relevance.

"Can Atheists Be Good Without God? Yes and No" Dr. Paul Copan

Because humans have been made in God's image, our basic moral intuitions as well as our moral obligations and dignity/rights are best accounted for by the existence of a good God. Naturalistic attempts to ground objective morality fail to show how value could emerge from valuelessness, and naturalistic efforts to explain away objective morality (through evolution or cultural influences) prove to be inadequate and counter-intuitive.

"Apologetically Blonde: The Struggle of Women to Defend the Faith and What They Should Do About It" Ms. Toni Allen

She will be speaking on the struggle of women to defend the faith and the vital need women have to love God with their minds. She will provide practical examples of what women can do daily to increase their cerebral space and learn Christian apologetics.

This year's conference will be held at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary located at 3939 Gentilly Blvd.

To find out more or to purchase tickets: go to EPSApologetics

Does the Saints' game prove there is a god?

2009-10-26T12:30:00.004-05:00

And I'm not talking about a Catholic saints pick-up basketball game either?

No, I'm referring to the come-from-behind win against the Miami Dolphins that kept our mutual delirium going for at least another eight more days. For any of you who don't know what I'm talking about (or don't care much for Sunday football), please indulge the philosphy of this question.

I can't imagine that there isn't at least one real Saints fan somewhere out there (who also happens to be a devout atheist) who didn't, for a moment, say a silent prayer to will the Saints to make a game of it, much less win it. They may not have been praying to anything that even closely resembles the god of religious folks, but the "wish" was just the same.

And when this kind of thing happens, what are we supposed to do? Do we feel tremendously lucky? Do we wonder if all of our collective prayers to the universe or some god-like entity were actually answered?

Does god have the Saints best interests at heart this season or should we be thankful to the team coaches that they finally know what they are doing?

You tell me.

Rally for Equality at New Orleans City Hall

2009-10-23T12:36:00.004-05:00

For Immediate Release
October 23, 2009

New Orleans – The steps of New Orleans City Hall will be the site of a Rally for Equality, to be held on November 7, 2009 from noon to 1 p.m. This rally will signal support for equality and justice for all, and highlight the problems that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals face in Louisiana and across the nation.

Organized by the ACLU of Louisiana, Big Easy Metropolitan Community Church, Forum For Equality, the Human Rights Campaign, NO/AIDS Task Force, the National Organization for Women, PFLAG, TCC and other allies of the LGBT community, the event will feature the speakers, entertainment and provide information on services available to the LGBT community in the New Orleans area.

“This rally will provide information about issues affecting the LGBT community, such as the right to keep a job, family and adoption rights, and the need for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy that affects those in military service,” said Marjorie R. Esman, Executive Director of the ACLU of Louisiana. In addition, there will be information about AIDS awareness, help for those interested in “coming out,” and other supportive advice.

Mary Griggs, Managing Director of Forum For Equality, said: “It's been a year since our last LGBT rally in New Orleans, held in the aftermath of California's Proposition 8 election. It will be one month since the successful National Equality March held in Washington, D.C. It's important for the local community to show support and to gain a sense of pride and dignity while working to establish a society free from discrimination.”

For more information about the event, go to LA ACLU or Forum for Equality or contact Marjorie Esman at 504-522-0628 x 23 OR Mary Griggs at 504-569-9156

All Evidence to the Contrary (from Atlantic Monthly)

2009-10-21T14:13:00.003-05:00

by Lane Wallace

One hundred years ago this month, two intrepid explorers returned from the Arctic reaches and declared that they had reached the North Pole. Not together, but on competing expeditions to become the first person and team to the Pole. Robert E. Peary led one expedition, and Frederick A. Cook led the other. And each declared the other's claim to the Pole untrue.

Today, of course, that kind of controversy could be settled far more easily. At the very least, we would expect a GPS track record showing that the Pole had been reached, and airborne photographs or other corroborating evidence might be required, as well. Without that technology, however, the claims were a little harder to confirm. It's not like there was an exact marker at the spot, because nobody had been there before. And unlike the peak of Mt. Everest, the landscape at the precise location of the North Pole doesn't look distinctly different from the rest of the terrain--for hundreds of miles in any given direction.

So the controversy has raged for a full century. But here's the interesting part. As more data about the expeditions, and about the North Pole, have emerged, it seems more and more likely that neither man actually reached the Pole. As John Tierney wrote recently in the Science Times, Peary supposedly took no celestial navigation readings on his final push to the Pole, until one day he took a single reading, looked very disappointed, and then declared that the observation--which he showed to no one--confirmed that he'd arrived at the North Pole, exactly. Cook had neither a trained celestial navigator nor the skill to make the observations himself. Without that skill, how on earth (so to speak) could he have reached the Pole, or known precisely when he was there? The modern-day consensus, according to Tierney, is that Peary got closer than Cook, but that neither man got closer than perhaps 100 miles away.

Yet a full century and much more advanced data analysis and evidence later, Peary and Cook still have ardent supporters who adamantly believe that their hero told the truth. They suggest that it might have been possible for either explorer to have found the Pole without clear celestial sightings, by studying wind patterns in the snow, or observing shadows, or even by compass, even though a compass needle gets extremely erratic near the Earth's poles. Apparently, some of the Peary/Cook advocates are more comfortable with contorted logic than simply acknowledging that, given more data, it appears their initial impression of things was ... ummm ... wrong.

If you'd like to read more, go here.

NOSHA lost a great friend in Serena Bodellini

2009-10-21T13:27:00.002-05:00

A Very Special Lady

The freethinking community recently lost a very special lady in Serena Bodellini who passed away Thursday, October 15.

She was one of our most ardent and progressive supporters and we remember her lovely personality and feisty attitude with much fondness. She was a member of the NOSHA board of directors and an officer with the Greater New Orleans chapter of NOW and was very active online until the last few days of her life.

We send our heartfelt condolences to her son, Marco Bodellini, and her family in Italy. Friends are welcome to attend a non-denominational visitation ceremony that will be held on Saturday, October 24, 2009 at the Tharp-Sontheimer-Tharp Funeral Home, 1600 N. Causeway, Metairie, LA between the hours of 10:00AM and 2:00PM.

A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists (from NPR)

2009-10-21T13:09:00.004-05:00

by Barbara Bradley Hagerty
(October 19, 2009)

Last month, atheists marked Blasphemy Day at gatherings around the world, and celebrated the freedom to denigrate and insult religion.

Some offered to trade pornography for Bibles. Others de-baptized people with hair dryers. And in Washington, D.C., an art exhibit opened that shows, among other paintings, one entitled Divine Wine, where Jesus, on the cross, has blood flowing from his wound into a wine bottle.

Another, Jesus Paints His Nails, shows an effeminate Jesus after the crucifixion, applying polish to the nails that attach his hands to the cross.

"I wouldn't want this on my wall," says Stuart Jordan, an atheist who advises the evidence-based group Center for Inquiry on policy issues. The Center for Inquiry hosted the art show.

Jordan says the exhibit created a firestorm from offended believers, and he can understand why. But, he says, the controversy over this exhibit goes way beyond Blasphemy Day. It's about the future of the atheist movement — and whether to adopt the "new atheist" approach — a more aggressive, often belittling posture toward religious believers.

Some call it a schism.

If you'd like to read more, go here.

Welcome to the new NOSHA Blog!

2009-10-20T20:39:00.000-05:00

It's been a goal of ours to enter the blogosphere for some time. So here we are!

Soon we'll post more ideas, opinions and events to increase everyone's awareness of secular humanism and non-belief in New Orleans and the gulf coast area. We offer both community and activism for our members and we welcome your contribution to this endeavor.

To learn more about our organization, please check out our website.