Dirty Earth Baby, Part 2

Part Two: A Flying Fat Man with Three Ho’s

An unreceptive attitude toward religion continues for a long time in childhood, because kids have more productive things to do than talk about God, such as involuntary urination. My young life had no need for a heightened understanding of the Ultimate Reality. For what purpose did I need God? I had a real father who not only would occasionally take me fishing but also never said Thou and hardly ever demanded a goat sacrifice.

I had little time for guilt, repentance, and tips on life-direction from adults who claimed to be in connection with the supernatural. The most important part of the day was spent in deep academic study, researching synonyms of lesser-tanned body parts, learning how to combine them with the last names of teachers or hurling dirt clods at moving objects and perfecting audio re-enactments of major gastrointestinal malfunctions. Such was life.

Generally in childhood, life is as it is. Kids are curious and investigative. At that age, we see mystery all around in nature (admittedly, because we’re stupid), but more importantly we still have a sense of wonder without having much need for any kind of emotional salvation. Those italicized qualities of mind seem to be what Einstein was going on about when someone asked him if he believed in God years ago (later in life he reportedly grumbled something to his wife at breakfast about how he never should have brought it up dammit, and pass the toast).

Changing a kid into a believer is about as difficult as molding play-dough into a ball. At that age, I would have believed just about anything anyone told me about my birth. If a reliable adult had told me so, I would have believed that babies emerge suddenly like flies from a steak by spontaneous generation, or arrive as rays from the Sun as it orbited around a 4,000 year-old Earth. My fetus might have crawled its way out of a musky pool of the four humors (black bile, yellow bile, phlegm and blood, according to ancient scholars) or sailed down the rainbow into a stork’s beak who dropped it into Santa’s holly-jolly ass crack while he huffed and puffed his way down the chimney to fulfill his cocaine-like addiction to cookies.

Of course these are all ridiculous and disproved theories. Luckily a module in our brains causes us to laugh at anyone who maintains such ancient and false notions. Life is a process of fading out silly ideas and juggling with newer (less silly) ideas, as science and discovery takes its course. The bad ones should be destroyed; we should revel in the destruction of bad ideas. We discuss scientific ideas so they can be analyzed, changed, updated. Spontaneous generation? Hilarious! Four humors? Ridiculous! And Santa Clause?

What are parents thinking, by feeding us Santa Clause all through childhood? They let kids discover on their own that the flying fat man with his abominable radioactive mutant animals and captured slave elves are nothing but figments of the festive imagination. Like most, I may have been an official believer in Santa Clause for a few years. I had to play nice to get presents and wasn’t ever allowed to see him in person – but on the upside he didn’t need to collect a check every month.

All good fun for the parents at least. I suppose the magic is meant to enrich and enliven young days with stories of flying reindeer and even the rarely-mentioned Mrs. Clause herself (who is so unpopular because she was a little heavy on the eggnog, if you know what I mean – Clausian theologists claim that she’d chase Santa up the North Pole every Saturday Night with a sharpened candy cane when he refused to cuddle). But what is the purpose of such a tale? Why not tell children the truth?

“Children, your toys were made in a giant factory in a distant land using materials mined from deep in the earth, powered by energy from burning petroleum, the liquid ancient fossilized carcasses of plants and giant walking lizards who lived millions of years ago. They were delivered by boat or plane thousands of miles and dispersed by hand by millions of people just like us…”

I’m no parenting authority, but if Moms and Dads told such a strictly rational and reality-based story with the right emphasis, wouldn’t little Billy get a glimpse at a more magical world view than just chocking it up to a fat guy in a sled with three ho’s?

Santa died to me, as he does to all children eventually. Reality rears its dripping demonic head, tramples the fairy-trail, smashes the cookie factory, squat-thrusts the elves and has its way with Mrs. Clause (who has finished her eighteenth gallon of eggnog, and is not entirely disagreeable about it). There’s simply no point in believing in such a character as Santa when you reach a certain age – hopefully before your 40′s. After you’ve matured enough to see the Wal Mart, and buy your own stuff, you bitterly realize your parents’ shenanigans. The idea of Santa Clause becomes less and less acceptable, and its intentions are clarified. Older kids in school will laugh at you and take your lunch money if you still believe in Santa (especially among graduate students – who, in their defense, might actually need the money).

Ideas disappear in this way, much like spontaneous generation, alchemy, the four humors, disco music, Al Gore – and, believe it or not, gods. Their purpose is done, their time is over. Somehow without the daily worship of Zeus and Apollo the Universe manages to go on working magnificently. Admittedly, while bad ideas are alive, they’re almost always a big hit.

What happened to the ancient all-powerful gods of Mesopotamia? Ancient Greece? The god who applauded when the Mayans lopped off people’s heads and rolled them down the big staircase? Is he out of work? Is he stuck in time in a space basement somewhere, wearing pink cutoff jeans and rollerblades, balancing a beer on his belly and watching Thundercats reruns from his space chair? Many gods are dead because ideas change; they come and go. Like many other things we take for granted, gods really are only ideas, no matter how many heads we chop off or babies’ genitals we mutilate.

So the main process of growing up, whether for one person or all of humanity, is sharing and connecting among a wide selection between good and bad ideas. If, for example, someone remains in their basement watching marathons of Bonanza reruns for 36 years, rather than going outside and exchanging information with others, they’ll either end up a slobbering social wreck or a speechwriter for Herman Cain. So the search for good ideas goes on, cuddled betwixt the scientists, the theologians and the philosophers.

Proverbial “Santa Clauses” are still everywhere. To survive against such bad ideas as adults in a controversial society, most of us hone that precious part of the brain which professional neurologists have anatomically labeled the “Bullshiterus Detectorus.” We know from experience that sometimes people tell us things that just aren’t true, or we see things that aren’t there, or we feel emotions that are unrealistic. Logic comes into play and provides a weapon against false claims.

For instance, we know now that the earth is not orbited by the Sun, though the guy who figured it out was told by a roomful of pious peers, “Get out of our country or die.” We know, through the fine lens of biological science, that as we scour the depths of the refrigerator searching for leftovers, when a green bubbling mold covering a lumpy hot pocket from 1994 mutters, “Kill me,” it’s probably a bad sign. Thanks to the elimination of bad ideas by the curiosity and investigative power of science, life keeps changing. Like a growing boy, our ideas must update with the times.

Among Americans, an overwhelming chunk of the population believe in such things as UFO abductions, haunted houses and ESP. The majority of U.S. Citizens think the Earth is only 4,000 years old, and that evolution is “just a theory – how dare you.”

What should be considered the rantings of a beer-bellied hillbilly’s cousin-uncle-daughter with a low tooth count and a Draino addiction has become commonplace in the most powerful nation in the world. Why are some great ideas, like evolution, being held back? It brings me to my next point.

It takes balls of steel to even bring the subject up.

(Coming soon! Part 3: Balls of Steel and Clammy Cleavage)


Dirty Earth Baby

Part One: Gentle Gentile’s Genitals

I’ll tell you the truth. According to priests, my birth wasn’t really anything special. I have to confess, my mother wasn’t even a virgin.

Like most babies, I had no visible halo. I wasn’t born in a manger, but in a hospital in Salt Lake City with a bunch of other burbling infants. I didn’t look anything like a little angel, unless little angels are cross-eyed hams who can’t control the release time of various body fluids when held above the facial area.

It seemed from the start that I was just another human being. I brought no great ideas about God to share with the universe, and I still don’t have any. In fact, in the beginning I had no ideas at all. I greeted strangers not with salvation, but with salivation.

I exhibited no signs of Divine origin, though I would frequently discover exciting new bodily sounds and scents, and would attempt to point them out victoriously to Mom. Though I found these feats to be magical, she was rarely impressed, and never even once considered my astonishing performances to be Miracles. To my disappointment I was never brought any gold, myrrh or frankincense (though someone may have lit some incense).

Sadly, reality eventually hits us normal babies hard. I look back on my infant-hood as being unimpressive in comparison with the multicolored glass pictures of divine offspring, filtering through rays of warm dawn light, where the baby glows blissfully and everything’s soft and perfect. Honestly, it’s not really fair to babies to have that kind of standard to live up to. You can only be so cute without glowing. You can imagine the disappointment of nice old ladies who see a normal baby like me and sigh, “He’s cute, but he’s just not glowy enough.”

If you think about it the story of Christmas really bums out the rest of us. We’re just not that precious; one kid gets to be the child of God and the rest of us are just dirty earth babies, completely and non-metaphorically full of shit.

* * * * *

It’s not all tidings of good will and joy to the world in reality. I had an especially hard time impressing the clergy. They stared at me intensely, like aborigines would stare at a Prius. The bravest one might duck in and poke me lightly, but then they’d all jump back, yammering cautiously in tongues and splish-splashing sacrament water all over everything just to be safe. Was it too soon for the Brethren to baptize this lump of unholy flesh?

I have a theory that a slimy, chubby little being with a glazed gaze actually scares priests a little. In the same way that Mom had trouble communicating important information to me, such as “Stop gnawing on the cat’s face,” pious men of all stripes were unable to convey their important holy messages either.

None of it had any effect. I still to this day take pride in my bodily functions, and still occasionally feel the need to point them out to Mom (she rarely answers the phone anymore). I assume that as an infant I was equally unimpressed by them, which I think is the reason institutional priests should have a natural fear of babies. Considering that very young children are basically mindless suckling blobs, the spiritual toolkit of the church that has the effectiveness of a wet moth. Unless the priest’s hat is shiny and pointy enough (really grabbing the baby’s attention) he’s just another incoherent geometric shape. Dangle a silver jeweled pendant of Christ above them and babies just see something shiny and probably digestible. You can recite reams of holy gibberish to a baby or threaten it with hellfire and damnation, and it just burbles back at you adorably.

Babies can’t tell the difference between Jesus and Chips Ahoy. We are a sort of inherent evil in the world, since we’re all born without any proper ideas about religion or anything else: little heathens, little Atheists. So it’s important for the Authorities to get right to it and rescue us from our slobbery state. As it happened, the conversation the priests had while gathering around me went something like this:

“That child,” the bishop said, taking a deep breath and getting out of the way what everyone was secretly thinking, “is too fat.”

The priests nodded their heads solemnly. The bishop reiterated, “Oh yea Lord, bless Your little contribution to the obesity epidemic.” The rest of the holy heads mumbled in agreement, bobbed up and down. But then, having the obvious out of the way, they got down to the Lord’s business. The bishop’s voice donned the wise resonance of an ancient, echoing throughout the hospital with Divine authority. He spoke slowly and prayerfully.

“Dear Lord in Heaven, please bless this fat little bastard. Oh Christ, how I can smell the Sin upon him.”

Or something like that. Truth be told, I wasn’t listening, as much as I was burbling. Indeed I was creating many a smell in those days, but I don’t think Sin was one of them. The clergy disagreed, and promptly declared that this bubbling lump was in a critical Alpha-and-Omega-level need of further blessings (and possibly just a smidgen of genital reconstruction so that I really got the message).

In the early days, it is crucial to eliminate the Sin from the infant, and not just me. I was not among a specific bunch of babies that had been prideful, murderous, coveting each others’ asses, committing mass adultery, kidnapping Elizabeth Smart and working the Sabbath that weekend. My hospital did not have some especially evil room of rowdy devil-horned mistakes appearing exactly nine months after a Satanist biker gang collided with an all-female Iron Maiden cover band during a red full moon at the Halloween omelet bar of a Motel Six in Salem, Massachusetts. Not even close—actually, as every good Christian knows, all babies in the entire world are born sinners. And not even for enjoying a good tit now and then.

You’ve heard the story. Years ago, according to the unquestionable historical accuracy of theologians, a talking snake managed to swindle Eve into persuading Adam to take a big sin-ewy bite out of a magical apple (well, the Bible really only specifies “fruit,” and I personally believe that it may have been a banana) and that chewing this bite was the one thing that would really get you seriously chewed out. The metaphorical message from this story is that, when your land-Lord is omnipotent and suffers from frequent bouts of murderous rage, you should always obey the house rules.

So for that mistake, Adam and his soon-to-be-smokin’-hot wife were banished from the Garden of Eden. More gregariously, Adam’s progeny were to be stained with Sin from birth (as if hundreds of years of incestuous inbreeding, hunger, lack of dental insurance, the invention of free labor by force and severe sand-in-the-asscrack weren’t bad enough). However, on the upside, the evolution of Victoria’s secret was underway.

Of course, we need not question the morality behind such behavior on Old Testament God’s part. The Lord of the Old Testament is like one of those managers who has a sign that says: “File Complaints Here” and hangs it above the toilet. Like a drunken Irish-Catholic father, He’s an all-powerful, all-knowing being, and frankly He can do what He damn well pleases. And stay the hell away from His apples.

So if He wants to stain everybody’s kids with Sin, you better just sit down, shut up and behold the staining. But you can’t blame the Lord. Be honest: if you were all-powerful, admit it. Sometimes you’d probably pop the knuckles in the old lightning finger and get down to business too. I’m assuming you’ve seen as many 80′s action movies as I have (and God’s omnipotent, so He has watched them all upon his never-ending sofa) so the subconscious craving for random destruction and occasional ass-kickings-for-good-measure is there. There comes a time when fire and brimstone and baby sins are the most benevolent way of doing things. We can all agree that it’s much easier to heap blame for someone’s mistake on their great-great-great-great (etc) grandchildren, or to later sacrifice one of your own and just call the whole thing even.

Regardless, Lord knows we should not be fooled by the adorableness of the very young human. The infant’s main exports are the three S’s: Slime, Screaming and Sin. This is a logical procession, considering that most people who are ejecting high volumes of Slime at astonishing rates while Screaming are probably committing a Sin as well. The priests are prepared, and by “prepared,” I mean ready to rock. The very first precious divine experience in life some priests want you to have is watching someone withdraw a tiny pair of razor-sharp scissors and mutilate your reproductive organ. If you’re lucky enough to be Orthodox Jewish, old men may suck the blood off your infant genitals with their mouths.

Really. Would I make that up? It’s what the Talmud (ancient Jewish book of rules) says is the right way to go about things. The act, called Metzitzah b’peh, is performed over 2,000 times a year, and has been responsible not only for giving infants a divine welcome to the universe, but for giving them Herpes, brain damage and occasionally sending them directly back to Heaven (Newman, Andy. “City Questions Circumcision Ritual After Baby Dies” New York Times August 2005). In early times this bizarre religious ritual was considered a way of preventing surgical complications; but in these days, the only defense Orthodox Jews have is that it’s part of the covenant with their God. Of course, it is among the directions to Moses; who are we to argue with the guy who received the Ten Commandments and the book used to swear in American courtrooms in the same breath?

Now hold on a second. Take a deep breath, close your eyes, lay back and imagine a group of men surrounding you, piously fondling your privates as you cry helplessly and then, well—let’s just say it’s no bedtime lullaby.

If man could invent any greater terror than genital butchering enjoined with the diseased mouths of old men (without having been given a choice) I don’t even want to know about it. But this is real. It happens today, and it’s rarely challenged due to an iron wall of Religious Correctness (which I will discuss later). Among the majority of Americans, circumcision itself is amazingly acceptable (even admirable!) and widely taken for granted for its supernatural powers.

“Circumsize that baby! It’s good for you! Everyone’s doing it! Women love it!”

So we all go about butchering our babies’ penises just because—well, come to think of it, nobody at the hospital can really give you a full explanation anymore. But you Damn well better do it because God’s got his list of penises and he’s checking it twice (and stay the hell away from His apples too). The unbelievers really come off relieved on this one. Doctors are a bit more gentle to the genitals of Gentiles.

Not that I’m disregarding the good arguments in the debate about the health benefits of circumcision; people at risk of HIV and various urinary diseases in third-world countries can use all the help they can get, and even Metzitzah b’peh may have had medical benefits thousands of years ago. But in modern America? If a fetus has the right to live, as is so frequently argued by the pious, I would point out that in this day of medical technology he certainly has the right to live in one piece.

It brings to mind the period of history when women in Asia would break the bones of their feet and strap them tightly in tiny shoes to look as if wearing high-heels, in order to impress male suitors (known as “Foot-Binding,” but also to some history scholars as “Bat-shit Crazy”). These types of bizarre rituals make us wonder at the magnificent powers that culture and myth can have over us. At some point, doesn’t someone stand up (or, if their feet are bound, attempt to stand up) and say, “Wait a minute. Is this kind of thing really necessary?”

Religion sometimes presents great cognitive dissonance in its particularities. If a grubby street-prophet clothed in nothing but a potato bag and a Burger King crown were to run out of an alleyway and inform you that God wants him to cut up your genitals, I doubt you’d delightedly rip off your pants, and say, “Okay! If God says so, let’s do it!” But when thousands of people have cemented such an idea as a cultural norm, thanks to subconscious historical mythology, it seems restricted from placement under the chop-saw of logical evaluation, which usually dictates important issues in our lives.

I’m not saying that there are no good arguments out there in favor of faith—in fact, there are brains much bulgier and juicier than mine that favor religion, and some of their philosophical arguments are exceedingly powerful. But consider this an irreverent investigation into the many levels on which I find supernatural beliefs, faith in an afterlife, and religious behavior wildly fascinating. Read on as I explain why I personally choose not to participate in any of it.

But back to my story. As a baby I didn’t understand what was going on, or what was planned for me. I hardly knew anything about Theology, Metaphysics or any Importantly Capitalized Arguments and had little defense against anyone with a blade. At that age, had my parents told me about why God and Jesus wanted the doctor to cut me up, they may as well have been speaking goo-goo gibberish and blowing bubbles—it all sounded the same.

And it still does.

Friendly Atheism

I consider myself an infant when it comes to my philosophical stature, but I continue to find it extremely fascinating. This semester I enrolled in a Philosophy of Religion class because it was obviously a topic that interested me and, to be honest, I wanted to refine my arguments so that I could shame my theistic friends for their beliefs. I felt that religious belief was totally irrational and unreasonable; you could say that I entered the class an unfriendly atheist. What I have taken from the class however has been surprising.

William L. Rowe is one of the authors of the textbook we are using in that class. He is a philosopher and atheist and is a professor emeritus at Purdue University. There is an article of his in the book that discusses a few forms of atheism. Rowe points out that there are three ways that an atheist may view the theist. First, “the atheist may believe that no one is rationally justified in believing that the theistic God exists.” This he calls “unfriendly atheism.” Second, “the atheist may hold no belief concerning whether any theist is or isn’t rationally justified in believing that the theistic God exists.” This he calls “indifferent atheism.” And last, “the atheist may believe that some theists are rationally justified in believing that the theistic God exists.” This he calls “friendly atheism.”

To clarify, it may be good to point out that Rowe does not say that the friendly atheist accepts the theistic belief as true, but merely that the theist is not irrational in his or her beliefs. It may also be good to point out that he is discussing the rationality of religious belief and not the reasonableness of theistic belief. A distinction can be seen in an example: an individual may rack up tons of debt because he/she is planning on winning the lottery to pay it off. Yes these thoughts may in the strictest sense of the word be rational, but they are certainly not reasonable.

But here is where it becomes a little tricky. For in this case, both parties are privy to the same information yet they come to different conclusions. Can both be rationally held? Or must one be irrational by necessity? Rowe believes the former. Another author in a separate article in the book uses an example in science. Can two researchers be studying the same scientific question and come to separate conclusions and both be rational in their decisions? It seems that they can.

Rowe then goes on, “What sort of grounds might a theist have for believing that God exists? Well, he might endeavor to justify his belief by appealing to one or more of the traditional arguments: Ontological, Cosmological, Teleological, Moral, etc. Second, he might appeal to certain aspects of religious experience… Third, he might try to justify theism as a plausible theory in terms of which we can account for a variety of phenomena.”

Again, it is irrelevant whether or not you believe these arguments to be true, when considering their rationality. Rowe believes that the arguments put forth by theists are false, but he also thinks the arguments can be rationally held by the believer. He would therefore consider himself a friendly atheist, and I am inclined to agree with him at this point. I am still an atheist, but I no longer look at all religious people as morons. Hopefully I didn’t slaughter Rowe’s argument too much in my interpretation. But anyway, I figured I would toss this out to all of you to see what your thoughts were on the matter.

How do you view religious belief? If you are atheist, are you friendly or unfriendly?

Taking the shine off, or putting it on?

This may well amount to blasphemy on the SHAFT blog, but I have never really found ‘New Atheism,’ as represented by Dawkins, Hitchens, etc., to be very convincing or appealing. To be fair, by many standards, I am a pretty lousy atheist: I have a soft spot for theology; I am skeptical of any attempt to enshrine science or pure rationality as the determiners of truth; and I have doubts about whether rationally proving God’s nonexistence is possible.

But for me, The God Delusion and similar books essentially present atheism as a negation. They leave me feeling like I did when I first abandoned theism: the feeling that something had been lost; that the numinous had been emptied out of the world; that, rather than a newfound freedom to create a new way of living, I now found myself having to conform my beliefs and actions to a strictly rational, materialist worldview, one which seemed little less stifling than the God I had left behind.

It is with that caveat that I mention Hubert Dreyfus’ and Sean Dorrance Kelly’s All Things Shining, published earlier this year. Its project is probably best described as ‘post-theism’: Dreyfus and Kelley attempt to create a secular practice of living—a religion, if you will—where the sacred erupts in moments as diverse as examining an artwork or watching a baseball game.

Part of what makes their argument fascinating is the way it reclaims much of western culture and even religious thinkers for secularism: from Homer to the Gospel of John to Martin Luther, Dreyfus and Kelly draw on theistic thought while giving it a secular, decidedly nontheistic spin—a method I think is preferable and richer than dismissing it all out of hand. The book, based on their popular undergraduate class at Berkeley, is intended for the general readership, and is somewhat cursory in its argument. Despite that limitation, and some quibbles about their interpretations of Nietzsche, I found the book exhilarating—for me, it was the most thought-provoking book I have read on atheism since Martin Hägglund’s.

It also left me wondering, however, if these two strands of atheism—with the ‘post-theism’ of Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Derrida on the one hand, and the ‘rational atheism’ of Hume, Russell, and the ‘New Atheists’ on the other—are starry-eyed apples and glowering oranges. Do they merely serving different purposes, or are they actually incommensurable?

What do you think, SHAFT-ers?

Victor Stenger lecture at the University of Utah

Today, from 4-6 PM at the University of Utah’s Orson Spencer Hall (OSH) Auditorium, Dr. Victor Stenger will be giving a talk partly based on his latest book, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning.

Stenger, a philosopher and physicist, is a among the foremost “new atheist” thinkers. He has written several books about atheism and science, including the bestseller God: The Failed Hypothesis and the critically-acclaimed The New Atheism.

The event, which is being organized by our sister group SHIFT, will be free and open to the public, with free parking available in the visitor parking lot just east of the Union building (just north of OSH). Seating will be first-come-first-served. The doors to the auditorium will be opened 30 minutes before the event.

Here is a campus map to help you find the event.

It promises to be fun and intellectually stimulating, so I hope to see you there!

Link bomb #23

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman details the Republican war against science.

Several groups, notably the National Academy of Sciences, are encouraging scientists to be more vocal politically and even run for office. Scientists have a lot to contribute to our political discourse, especially where it concerns issues like climate change and stem-cell research. But unfortunately, scientific literacy isn’t a perfect safeguard against believing in silly things.

The Standard-Examiner had an interesting history piece about Ernest L. Wilkinson’s ultra-conservative tenure as BYU president from 1951 to 1971. Wilkinson led a thuggish school spy ring that conducted witch hunts against suspected communists, atheists, homosexuals, and others.

Atheist writer Sam Harris spends another hour on YouTube to answer questions submitted by users of Reddit.com. Topics include science, morality, free will, and religion. Here is the first Q&A session he did back in June.

Dad’s Primal Scream poses some difficult questions to Mormons, many of which deal with the nature of progressive revelation and the role of prophets.

Steve Gershom explains how he’s “doing fine” as a gay, devout Catholic. His is an interesting perspective in that he maintains that homosexuality is a sin.

Fox News received over 8,000 death threats after Blair Scott of American Atheists discussed the group’s lawsuit to stop a cross from being erected at the WTC Memorial on the network’s “America Live”.

There is a growing rift within America’s evangelical Christian community, with an increasing number of conservative Bible scholars doubting the existence of Adam and Eve—something that is widely and uncritically accepted by the laity.

Secularism is gaining ground with every generation in the United States. Even reliably religious demographics like Hispanics, less-educated whites and women have seen a marked decrease in religiosity. That CFI has announced the first ever Women in Secularism conference reflects this trending.

A typo of Biblical proportions: A 1631 printing of the Bible read “Thou shalt commit adultery” instead of “Thou shalt not commit adultery”.

50 renowned (atheist/agnostic) academics speak about god. And another 50, for good measure.

Andrew S. of Irresistible (Dis)Grace explains why ex-Mormons appear to be so angry in an insightful two-part series (part 1, part 2). I addressed this subject in my post “Am I an anti-Mormon” as well.

4 good reasons not to read the Bible literally.

As the LDS Church became more racially sensitive, folklore about Cain and Bigfoot became less pervasive. I suppose the traditional image of Cain as a big black man became less palatable after members’ attitude and the church’s policies toward blacks changed.

A fun, instructional video on how to resign from the LDS Church.

Mormon blogger Joanna Brooks, writing for the Washington Post, debunks 5 myths about Mormonism.

NPR sparked a fury over its report last month on so-called “ex-gay conversion” therapies. Some felt the piece created a false balance and legitimized the discredited practice. Another shortcoming is that it failed to mention that the protagonist is LDS and that the ex-gay programs he attended also had Mormon ties.

A video on the strange powers of the placebo effect.

Doves & Serpents compiled a list of the worst LDS talks. Ezra Taft Benson, Dallin H. Oaks, and Boyd K. Packer are the most frequent repeat offenders.

Wikileaks accidentally released thousands of dangerous documents that revealed the identities of confidential agents and sources. Earlier this year, I wrote a post critical of Wikileaks for leaking similarly life-threatening information.

A US pastor calls for a national registry for atheists. His justification: “There are already national registries for convicted sex offenders, ex-convicts, terrorist cells, hate groups like the KKK, skinheads, radical Islamists, etc..” Here is The Thinking Atheist’s video response.

My friend Dan writes about his encounter with homophobia at a Logan physical therapy clinic.

New York Times editor Bill Keller asks us to “confront our scruples about the privacy of faith in public life—and to get over them.” He argues that we ought to ask tougher questions about candidates’ religions, and Joanna Brooks volunteers a few questions to ask Huntsman and Romney about their Mormon faith.

17 misconceptions about evolution and their responses.

Why we don’t need religion to be moral or have an objective moral worldview.

The Book of Morma is the feminine counterpart to the Book of Mormon. From the book’s site: “In this imaginary parallel universe, a female Goddess has established a plan of salvation and ordained her only borne Daughter to be the Savioress of the world.  Priestesses and prophetesses bring the heavenly messages to the people through a matriarchal order.” I love this project, because the real Book of Mormon has a curious dearth of women in it.

The Boston Globe gives a brief history of Mormons’ involvement in politics.

Salt Lake City ranks 3rd for same-sex couples among mid-sized US cities, behind Fort Lauderdale and Berkeley. The number of reported same-sex couples living together in Utah jumped 73 percent over the past decade, according to recently released Census data. And while Utah as a whole strongly opposes gay marriage, a majority of young Utahns support it.

Dr. Michael Coe, arguably the preeminent scholar in Mesomerican studies, talks to Mormon Stories about the ever-elusive Book of Mormon geography and archeology.

Mormon Stories also interviewed LDS scholar and apologist Daniel C. Peterson. I often disagree with Peterson on Mormonism, but I agree with much of his critical review of Christopher Hitchen’s book God is Not Great.

My friend Neal runs an amateur Mormon apologetics blog, and in his most recent post, he asks that Mormons abandon this popular but false argument for the Book of Mormon’s historicity.

Speaking of religious apologetics, philosopher William Lane Craig is among the foremost defenders of Christianity and a seasoned debater. Craig has requested a debate with Richard Dawkins, but Dawkins has not taken him up on the invitation.

Those atheists who have debated Craig have almost uniformly lost—including Hitchens, who is himself an experienced and spirited debater. Only Yale professor Shelly Kagan has soundly bested Craig, in my opinion.

FLDS leader Warren Jeffs was recently sentenced to life for child rape, and it seems he has been attempting suicide—perhaps hoping to be a martyr—while in jail. He is in serious condition, and is having to be force-fed to be kept alive.

With polygamy back in the news, some comparisons between Jeffs and Joseph Smith have been made. I don’t think the comparison is fair or apt, but then again, Smith had the benefit of not living in an age of video cameras and tape recorders.

An analysis of the LDS Church’s highly effective SEO practices. (SEO stands for “search engine optimization”; the church has been successful in dominating search results and driving traffic to its sites.)

100 facts every teen atheist must know. My list of must-know facts would’ve been different, but it’s an interesting and informative list all the same.

Girls locked up inside fundamentalist religious compounds. Kandahar? No, Missouri.

Michelle Bachmann recently hired Peter Waldron to her campaign staff. Waldron has been accused of and arrested for terrorism in Uganda. He was also a prominent proponent of Uganda’s internationally-decried “Kill the Gays” bill.

Contrary to many think, Muslim Americans are the staunchest opponents of military attacks on civilians compared with members of other major religious groups Gallup has studied in the United States.

Magician and atheist Penn Jillette has a new book out, God, No!. Something about practicing magic seems to lend itself to atheism.

Atheists generally have an aversion to the word “belief”, especially in the context of the evolution/creationism debate, because it has a religious connotation and is often confused to mean mere opinion. CFI blogger Michael De Dora argues that his fellow atheists needn’t harbor such reservations about “belief”.

Brandon Pearce shares his essay on why he left the LDS Church.

A concert event (“Rock Beyond Belief”) organized by atheist, agnostic and other non-theist soldiers has been cleared by the Army to take place next spring at Fort Bragg.

The Mormon blog Millennial Star compares apostasy to conspiracy thinking. The comparison may sound offensive or absurd at first blush, but the author’s discussion of the issue is thoughtful.

The New Yorker explains how a godless universe isn’t devoid of meaning and how secularism can be a positive affirmation of the here and now.

Arguably, an 800-page compilation of the best essays of Christopher Hitchens’ career, came out this weekend. It may well be his last book, as Hitchens was diagnosed with cancer last year.

My name is Jack, and I’m an ex-Mormon

My friend and fellow SHAFTer Jack was recently interviewed for the “I am an ex-Mormon” video series. In his interview, he discusses his experiences as a bisexual woman in the LDS Church and his life now as a transgender individual.

Jack, you’re an incredibly courageous person. Thanks for sharing your inspiring story! I regret not having gotten to know you better while at USU.