Real family values in the 21st century!

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

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!

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

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....

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

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!

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.