Back to Basics

The question posed by the clergy to religious believers "Where will you spend eternity" is of course a reminder to them that when they die, there is a  heaven and hell where God will send their souls forever. In which of the two destinations they will wind up is based on their faith in and adherence to biblical scripture.

As an atheist I find such a doctrine utterly absurd on so many levels. For one thing there's no evidence of  either a God; nor is there any proof of an afterlife, let alone one in the sky populated by harp-playing angels and streets of gold or alternatively, the other at the center of the earth filled with souls writhing in fire and brimstone. Then there are those who project "the next life" as a continuation of our current existence.  I know a woman who every year wishes her deceased mother a happy birthday in heaven. Then there are those who think that they will be reunited with their departed loved ones.

These are the images of eternity with which Americans and other Western world people (especially Christians) are most familiar and in which they are likely to believe.  However, this set of  fables is just one of many myths of life after death which are equal to the number of religions throughout  the world. They can't all be right, but most of their respective adherents claim that their particular version is the only real one.

I have considered another and more sublime scenario that awaits us when we die and one that sounds reasonable:  We know of course  that our bodies decompose and our minds cease to function.  But beyond that we disintegrate into the scattered atoms that constitute the elements of the universe from which we were formed individually and to which we will return. From there they may combine with other animate and inanimate substances alike. Further, this process will continue as long as the universe exists—most likely at least several billion more years—which is as close to immortality as we can hope to achieve.  As Carl Sagan put it: "The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made from interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff."

On a personal level, IMO there is no reason to worry about death.  In the words of Mark Twain:  “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”  Nor do we have reason to believe that we will do so after we're gone.

Change The Channel

The annual televised Chabad Telethon will air  in thr U.S. this month. Chabad is a branch of  the Jewish ultra-orthodox Hasidic movement. Chabad in turn is divided  into various sects that have  a history of intense and violent rivalry with each other.  However, they all have some common traditions such as perpetrating  obscurantism by allowing only a  minimal secular education for their followers and by fostering a belief within each sect that its founder is the Messiah. The men wear black suits and the women wear headscarves and long dresses. Followers also have large families which is the result of official opposition and enforced ignorance for its members about birth control, along with a patriarchal social structure resulting in limitation of women's roles and rights. The latter not only includes their  expected function as serial child bearers but also the prohibition of their participation in Torah study and ordination as rabbis (Note the striking doctrinal similarities in this regard with Catholicism and Mormonism).

Of course this is not the image that Chabad and its ilk present to the public, especially when seeking contributions.   The logo of the program is a symbol or silhouette of a Chabad "rebbe" (rabbi)  dancing in spiritual joy.(Of course this avatar doesn't include his perpetually pregnant wife.)

But one would have to be practically living in a cave not to know that there's more to the story behind that facade. So why do many non-Orthodox and even non-observant Jews give undue deference and in the case of the telethon, donations  to the Ultra-Orthodox and its leaders?  Could it be due to feelings of inferiority and / or guilt about not being "observant enough", e.g. not keeping kosher, such that members of  devout sects are looked up to as "real Jews"?   And considering that this respect for these "holy" men is not reciprocal , it's stranger still.

One rationale for elevated status of Chabad is the supposed "good works" that it does not just for Jews but for the community at large. So the telethon includes non-Jewish celebrities as well in order to appeal to a wider audience and so to appear ecumenical.

Yet there are many other charitable sectarian and  nonsectarian organizations who likewise perform diverse and extensive services to the public without imposing the baggage of unenlightenment and oppressively strict  behavior codes on their congregants on one hand while displaying a deceitfully benign mask to the outside world with the other.  In short, the  mere visibility of its representatives on TV does not compensate for Chabad's lack of  transparency about the medieval culture and stifling lifestyle to which its members are expected to devote their lives.


Articles for further reading:

A Life Apart: Hasidism in America

Jewish Outreach: What You're Rabbi Isn't Telling You

Reform Reflections: The Good and Bad of Chabad 

Out of Enclaves, a Pressure to Accommodate Traditions 

A Response to Intrusive Evangelical Christianity

One of the more troubling doctrines of Christianity is its tenet of evangelism which is an often invasive and downright obnoxious means of  trying to gain new followers. One such Christian organization,  the Israel Restoration Ministries  has been targeting Jews in St Louis, MO  with solicitation phone calls promoting  the "good news"about Jesus,  and urging them to convert. The recipients of these annoying calls BTW were selected from the phone book based on Jewish sounding names. On a larger scale, Christian extremist Pat Robertson, through an organization called the Brazilian Center for Law and Justice, has made inroads in Brazil using religion as a front for right wing political activity in that country.

Why can't these fundamentalists get it through their arrogant skulls that there are billions of people in the world who have never heard of Christianity or who know about it but want no connection (Think China and Japan for example) and who are doing just fine with their own beliefs.  Do Christians think that they're going to be able to reach and "save" each and everyone of these "heathens" when they have no business trying to convert even one? Moreover, if the Christian deity is a god and Jesus a savior whom everyone must accept or otherwise be condemned to hell, why did he and his son supposedly reveal themselves  to only a very small portion of humankind, and only for a brief era centuries ago? If there's no way that those who have never heard or never will hear about this dynamic duo, then they are damned for eternity through no fault of their own? How can anyone in their right minds be persuaded into worshiping such extortionists?

And the upshot is that there is of course no more proof for the existence of the biblical God and  of Jesus as a divine messiah than there is of the numerous other ancient deities of legend such a Zeus and Woden, just to name a few.  Nor is there any  physical evidence of any of the miraculous events narrated in the scriptures. Furthermore,  the theme of a man-god rising from the dead is not even a Christian original. It occurs in pre-Christian religions too,

So in order  to counter  the sectarianism that Christians try to force on others in American society, including public elementary and high schools where they try to impose prayer and creationism,  I propose that colleges and universities—especially the secular ones— in the U.S.form and offer courses in Christianity as mythology just as they do for the religions of ancient Greece and Rome. By doing this,  these institutions of higher learning would be officially placing the story of Jesus into the category of  fiction which it really is anyway.  And despite the firestorm of protest they would likely encounter from believers, scholars would be taking an academic step that's long overdue. And hopefully, this  reassessment of Christianity would catch on in other countries as well. 

Importantly, this relegation might prompt enlightened Christians to reconsider their beliefs. Who knows, it might also well take some of the wind out of the sales of Christian evangelism if it is officially categorized at least by some authorities as a relic. In any event, there's no reason for believers of this religion and its practices to continue receiving the privileges and deference that they have been afforded for entirely too long.

Corporate Fraud As a Weapon Against Workers

I recently saw a program  about Andrew Carnegie on the History Channel Series, "The Innovators: The Men Who Built America". Carnegie is usually portrayed as one of the great philanthropists of America of the 19th Century.  But he had a dark side: his feckless dealings with the American labor movement. Rather than face  the likely prospect of labor unrest in one of his own factories—Homestead Steel—himself, Carnegie shoved off the job of dealing with disgruntled workers onto the Homestead's chairman Henry Clay Frick while Carnegie ran off on a visit to Scotland.  In the name of reducing company expenses,  Frick, at the behest of Carnegie's implied directive and his own antipathy toward the working man cut wages and increased the work day to 12 hours, 6 days per week. Under such conditions, accidents and casualties on the production floor of course mounted until, in 1892, the workers finally rebelled. went on strike, and barricaded themselves in the plant.  Frick responded by bringing in the Pinkerton Agency whose agents shot and killed  9 workers and wounded many more. In the end, the strikers were forced to surrender. Carnegie's reputation suffered for this incident, but the struggle for workers'  rights and unions would continue for many decades.

This was just one of many incidents of physical volence in American history against workers in their attempts to organize and fight for their rights. But there have been other methods utilized as well by employers to render them and their unions powerless, some of which were—and are incredibly brazen.  One example is Peabody Energy Corp. This company, in a deliberate attempt to evade its retiree benefits obligations created a separate entity called Patriot Coal Corp. and transferred those liabilites to that corporation. Subsequently, Patriot filed bankruptcy in order to get out from under these expenses, leaving Peabody indemnified. So apparently, Patriot was really a shell organization all along set up by Peabody for the very purpose of reneging on its contract with the United Mine Workers to which the affected retirees belong. Yet the court approved the bankruptcy.

Union members are protesting this decision and are hoping for legislation or a successful appeal that will overturn this verdict Meantime,  the UMW is continuing negotiations with Patriot. But the very fact that this company and its parent organization would resort to such underhanded tactics in the first place demonstrates bad faith and a lack of trustworthiness that will likely make such bargaining futile and will once again leave the pensioners holding the bag. 

For Exploited Workers Everywhere, All Roads Lead to Bangladesh

Over the past several days I've come across several articles, such as "All talk about job creation" by columnist Boo Chanco that discuss programs and incentives to attract more foreign investments to third world countries like the Philippines (where, as an American expatriate, I happen to reside) and how bringing in such capital and employment opportunities will improve the economy of these nations.

One matter of concern that all these commentaries mention is the cost of doing business  including labor expenses in these locales, and how supposedly inflexible minimum wage policies for example can discourage foreign companies that are seeking to expand their international horizons from setting up shop in places that have this kind of  worker protection law. The Philippines is one such country. 

One proposed solution is to create special economic zones here for foreign companies that would be exempt from these salary restrictions, the logic being that a  minimum wage reduces the number of people that a foreign prospective employer is willing to hire, thus leaving many unemployed Filipinos out in the cold who would otherwise be in the labor force. And furthermore, according to this line of reasoning, isn't it better for the unemployed seeking jobs to work for less than minimum wage than for them to have no income at all?  However this proposal places the outcome of bidding down labor costs on the backs of the working people who even when paid minimum wage—which itself is a pittance—can barely afford the basics. And under such a plan, nowhere have I seen a suggestion for the government to subsidize the difference between the substandard pay of the "special zone" employer and the minimum wage in that locale. Yet the government has no problem  about offering revenue-draining tax holidays to foreign companies to open plants here, but it can't offer a measly subsidy to their workers too? 

Moreover, is labor cost the real or even a major reason that more companies from abroad are discouraged from opening their doors or staying in the countries like the Philippines?  Actually, there are more onerous factors that drive up the cost of doing business in this country  such as expensive electricity, poor infrastructure, and corruption.  Yet if the Philippines managed to overcome all these problems, and as a result workers were to become more efficient and to expect higher wages, international businesses here would likely do what they always do when faced with having to pay their workers more: Pick up their operations and chase the lowest wages possible across the globe in a race to the bottom . American workers experienced this phenomenon with the textile industry. Years ago, apparel and linen manufacturers were originally located  mainly in New England  but then relocated to the Deep South, then to Mexico, and finally, along with major American and European retailers, outsourced their labor needs to contractors and subcontractors in Asia, including the Philippines—and Bangladesh   

The garment business in Bangladesh and the recent collapse of a shoddily built factory there that killed hundreds of employees are a logical outcome of this practice. They are a stark reminder of what happens when labor costs are slashed and worker safety standards are ignored with impunity. According to a CNN report, government officials themselves including members of parliament there often own such businesses and as such have no interest in enforcing regulations intended to protect the health and safety of employees or pay them decent salaries. The wage of  a garment worker in Bangladesh is $38.00 per month. If the Philippines were to become a major manufacturing  hub bolstered by companies from abroad, will this country which already has labor law enforcement issues turn into another Bangladesh for its factory workers?

And finally, I would like to add a word about the current plight of American workers, who have seen jobs, wages, rights and working conditions spiral downward since the Reagan era (which I personally witnessed and experienced prior my retirement), and especially since the Great Recession.  The latest assault  by the Republicans who have been mainly responsible for this decades-long attack is an attempt to end required overtime pay for employees  who labor beyond an  8-hour day or a 40-hour week and require them to take "comp time" instead. The joker in the deck is that it will be the employer, not the worker who decides if and when such time off will be scheduled—if ever.

In short workers who have to put off with inequitable pay, unsafe working conditions leading to death and injury, and deprivation of their labor and human rights when there's less excuse than ever in this supposed modern, progressive era for these conditions to exist in the first place are really no better off than their counterparts of the past who toiled under similar circumstances in less enlightened times. For these people the only thing that's changed after all this time is the calendar.     

Why "Immigration Reform" Is Such a Joke

Of all the socioeconomic and political issues with which America is faced, the least contentious should be immigration, or at least the appropriate response to those who intentionally  enter and stay in the country without  obtaining legal clearance to do so.  As of 2011,  there were approximately 11.5 million illegal aliens in the U.S. Yet they and their advocates respond to those who want them deported with the excuse that many of them have been in the country a long time and have established roots in their community  and / or that they want a better life for their children  

The fact remains that these people are gate crashers regardless of how long they've been in the U.S. Want a better future for their children? Well, why we don't just throw open the borders and let every would be immigrant and all their children in too. American citizens and legal residents are already struggling to find and keep jobs. Let's make it even harder on them by having an unregulated tidal wave of aliens who will also compete for these jobs and resources and depress wages even further than the present swarm of illegals already in the U.S. have already done.

What's particularly galling is that under  the  proposed "path to citizenship", illegals will in effect be REWARDED for cutting ahead of LEGAL immigrants (many of whom also wanted a better life for their children) who played by the rules by applying for visas while still in their native countries and waiting years before being approved, then on arrival in America abiding by the laws of the land and waiting still more years for citizenship. Were they fools for going through all this when all they had to do was sneak into the country, bide their time, and eventually be granted naturalization?

BTW this is not the first time illegals (not "undocumented aliens") have been given a free pass aka "amnesty".  It was also done in 1986.  That act sent a message and set a bad precedent such that the U.S. is now flooded with more of these people who've been waiting for the dice to come up seven again. It looks as though their lucky day is at hand.

When will we ever learn?

Left Out

As many others may have also experienced I find that one of the most frustrating hazards of identifying with a particular ideology is to see its extremists hijack and sell out ideals for which this particular belief system stands and turn them on their heads.  This is what has happened with the  American political left.  And as a moderate social and economic progressive and humanist who advocates a secular society, respect for human rights,  and gender equality, and as one  who vehemently opposes repression by religious interests—values  which the American left wing have also long upheld—I am alarmed and saddened to see a faction of its members sympathize with adherents of Islamofascism, which is an attempt by its Muslim adherents to force their virulently hateful and repressive religion and way of life on the rest of the world (See my post "Europe's Islamic Experience And its Implications for America".) 

Actually, I knew something was amiss but wasn't able to put my finger on and clearly identify this link between the  extreme left and the Islamic radical right especially in the Middle East until  I read a column written by a secular Muslim, Tarek Fatah, who spelled out the connection in "Social media Is the new public space" which appeared in the blog site "Lilley's Pad" wherein he discusses the plight of liberal Muslims who are not only persecuted  by other Islamists but who also experience discrimination by Facebook in getting their message across.  

Sure, strange bedfellow associations happen all the time but are usually temporary pacts of convenience between two enemies that obtain until their common objective has been achieved. Then they resume mutual hostilities. However, the ties between the American (and European) far left and extremist Islamic governments seem to go deeper than mere expedience.  One basis for this unholy alliance is their common hatred not only of Jews and  Zionism, but also of Israel and its very right to exist, not to mention Israel's perceived undue influence on American foreign policy.

The latter perspective itself held by these anti-Semites who often use the excuse of anti-Zionism  also serves as an excuse to use the American government as a  punching bag by the far left. Yet I never see or hear a word of organized protest by  these people against other ethnic groups who also have a strong influence in American politics such as the predominantly right wing Cuban-Americans who have held  the American government in thrall for over 50 years against normalizing relations with Cuba.  Some of the members of this community have resorted to murder against other Cuban Americans who disagree with that position. Then there is the Irish-American lobby and the collective and individual support of Irish Americans for the IRA and the Catholics against the Protestants and English rule  in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. Again, the American left was silent about such interference.

I have had some bruising online encounters and have been frequently flamed by far leftists over my dissenting comments on some of the posts that have been published in such  progressive newsletters as "Truthout" and "RSN"   These attacks on my positions (and often me personally as a Jew) are not  from the writers of these columns, but rather by other responders. In contrast, the publication such as "Free Inquiry" which is published by the moderately left leaning organization Committee for Inquiry has unabashedly criticized Islam and its irrational tenets. And at least one leftist organization the Marxist-Humanist Institute opposes both the Iranian and U.S. government leaders.

To be sure,  in the Middle East both Israel and the U.S. do have a lot to answer for, regarding some of their past and present policies including the Palestinian issue and the use of drones respectively.  Yet  the far left's support of Islamic countries such as Iran is blatantly hypocritical. Iran of course is a  totalitarian Islamic theocracy whose government hates the U.S. and Israel.

Then in the matter of the Syrian civil war, just  because the U.S. government has endorsed the rebels, many U.S. leftists back President al-Assad (who is not a radical Muslim but still a ruthless dictator nonetheless)  and his regime as the legitimate Syrian government despite the atrocities he has committed against has own people. Yet as author Nikolas Kozloff points out there is a double standard at work here in that if as many Palestinians  died at the hands of the Israeli government as the thousands of Syrians who have been massacred at the hands of their own leader, the American Left would be outraged over such an atrocity.

* * *

How did American Jews become involved with the political left in the first place? At the risk of oversimplification here' the story. For centuries Jewish tradition has emphasized the doctrine of tikkun olam (repairing the world) and social justice. These principles dovetailed with the leftist movement and its emphasis of the very principle of making the world a better place not just for the wealthy and powerful individuals but for humanity as a whole especially the underdogs and the persecuted, a position in which Jews historically often also found themselves.  In the 20th Century, it was the left that led the labor, civil rights, anti-war,  and feminist movements and reached its zenith as the New Left in the  civil rights movement and its opposition to the Vietnam War.  But  partly due to the excesses of some of its radical groups such as the Weather Underground and some factions of the Black Panthers, which itself became anti-Semitic  the legitimacy of the the leftist movement as a political force came under questions, and many of its disillusioned members, Jewish and non-Jewish  alike,  fell away. Some of them even joined and became prominent in the right wing political  organizations. 

But beginning with the George W. Bush presidency in 2000 (the election for which itself was hijacked by the Republican Right) culminating with  Great Recession in 2008, it became clear in the U.S. how powerful the American Right via the Republican party really is. Even with a Democrat in the White House, this political /economic right wing still gets its way. Corporate profits are extremely high and wages for the working people are extremely low. Millions of home owners are still under water on their mortgages. And these are just a few of the woes facing the American. The country  needs a resurgence of a strong left as it had in the 1930's, but one that whose members will not discredit the movement by cozying up to the enemies of freedom. 

Reasoning It Out—a Deliberation

A close friend of mine,  a Reform Jew  whom I mentioned in a previous post, ("An Argument Against Theistic Based Humanism") and I recently carried on a discussion via email regarding God (in which he believes), atheism, scripture, and the universe. The exchange was very worthwhile because it made us both reflect deeply about what we believe. In turn this enabled—no,make that required—us to present our best arguments about our respective positions on these issues.  Following is the dialogue from this email string. I have changed my friend's name to protect his privacy. 

I want to emphasize that such discussions don't have to be acrimonious and can be carried on in a spirit of fellowship especially when each side really listens to what the other has to say. As you will see,  our debate ended on a rather upbeat note.   The first entry below is from my friend, "Isaac".

Rick, 
Personal question(s). 

I know we have talked about it a lot over wine. But what were the psychological repercussions when you finally became an atheist? 

Isaac

 

Isaac,
For me the change from belief to atheism was rather gradual, so there wasn't much psych. impact along the way.  But when I completed my journey, I felt a sense of freedom and relief. Also certain matters became much simpler to deal with and address such as the issue of why bad things happen to good people (and vice versa) and whether things happen for a reason (they don't; they may have a cause, but not a reason--big difference). All this took a load off my mind.

Rick

Rick, 
What do you think of this: ("Theology: How Jews Picture God") 

Isaac

Isaac,

As an atheist, I find the described exercise  of picturing God meaningless (surprise). I was really amazed at those who felt that God is not all powerful  for not having prevented Auschwitz? How can God not be all powerful and still be God? Anyway this ties in with your question yesterday about the psychological impact of becoming an atheist. Not having to deal any longer with such philosophical gymnastics or alternatively copping out by shrugging those things off as "God's mysteries has taken a big load off my mind. 

Rick

Rick, 
Before the Big Bang there either was a God who created the universe -- or -- the universe created itself. I cannot comprehend an infinite regression. Which ever option is chosen, it's hard to argue that the Torah was written by God. For those who believe, according to the survey, God is felt most in nature. So if there is Creator, then he speaks most through his creation (nature). The laws of nature is the word of God? Shades of Spinoza.

Isaac

Isaac,

"Before the Big Bang there either was a God who created the universe -- or -- the universe created itself.". Well, the universe could be one of many multiverses, part of a multi dimensional  megaverse, or the last BB may not have been the first time. There could have been a cycle  of infinite of BB's  and then Big Crunches when the universe collapsed back in on itself. The latter may not be the best explanation because cosmologists no longer theorize that the universe will in fact recede inward as once thought.  They have discovered that the force of gravity for that scenario is not strong enough to offset the outward flight of stars and galaxies being repulsed from each other. since the BB. Over the next several billion years the stars will die out, and the universe will become a place of cold dead matter.

What would be God 's purpose in creating a universe that will one day be like that?  Also, if God created the universe at a discernible point in time, about 13 billion years ago, what was he doing before then? And why did he wait for that particular point in time to set off the Big Bang? What's so special about that instant that then and only then did he get the party started?  And of course, as for infinite regress, who created God, and who created that creator, etc?

The Torah is a composite work of several different authors who had very vivid imaginations. As I skim through it, I can't believe how mind boggling the stories are and how people still believe them  for anything but fables and myths that are no more true than the Greek myths.

Rick

Rick, 
That's why. I simply cannot comprehend an infinite regress. So instead of a first cause, there must have been an eternal cause.

Isaac 

Isaac,

But again, assuming God is that eternal cause, why did he wait until 13 billion years ago to create the universe, and one that along with all life will eventually  flicker out and die? 

Rick

Rick, 
Duh. I don't know. I'm just choosing what seems the least unreasonable to me. When confronted with the question of suffering, I've got 2 choices: to believe that there is a God but that I can't explain why there is suffering -- or -- since I can't explain, conclude that there is no God. As I said before, both are valid but mutually exclusive conclusions.

Isaac

Isaac,
Here's another angle from Stephen Hawking my query about God and the concept of time that I should have remembered. {"Atheists: If you believe the universe was created by the big bang, what do you think happened before it?"

Rick

Rick, 
I can only go to ideas that I can comprehend. I renounced the Christian Trinity because I couldn't comprehend how there could be 3 persons in One God. I also renounced the idea of a Mother of God, because if God has no beginning and no end, then he cannot have a mother. As for Stephen Hawking's ideas, he may be too intelligent for me to comprehend him. "Time did not exist before the Big Bang, so there was no time for God to make the universe in." I can't even begin to fathom that. 


Isaac

Isaac,
Don't sell yourself short. When it comes to intelligence, you're one of the smartest guys I know. I agree that physics and cosmology can be difficult to fathom sometimes., The theories of Hawkins et al are based on precise mathematical models, not guesswork. Since I was a kid I've loved astronomy /cosmology, and if it weren't for my deficient math abilities, I might well have gone into that field.

Rick

Rick, 
I can try to understand Hawking's idea below by guessing that space and time are related.

 
That's right. They're interconnected.

Since there was no space before the Big Bang, then there was no Time. 

Bingo! See? You've grasped it.

It was before Space and Time. But that's precisely what boggles my mind. A reality before Time and Space. 

Well if no space and time, then I'm guessing no reality either They were all born with the Big Bang. 

Maybe Greek mythology was on to something. In the beginning was Chaos. 

Isaac

Rick, 
Let's just drink a good bottle of wine. And celebrate your atheism and my belief in one God. And rock to the Chaos! 

Isaac

Isaac,

I'll drink to that.

Rick

(Not) Born This Way

How often have we heard the expression and maybe even used it ourselves: "I'm proud to have been born a ('Jew', .'American', etc.)"  But if we stop and think about it, that's a baseless perspective. For example (setting aside the complex issue of ethnic Jewry and discounting the maternal lineage tradition) in the case of adherents of the Jewish religion, no one is "born" a Jew, or for that matter as a member of any particular faith. We come into this world as natural atheists  but are indoctrinated by our families and culture into a set of theistic beliefs and values—usually beginning in the most impressionable period of our lives: early childhood. In other words, the religious identity that we come to accept for ourselves is the result of an accident of birth.

Another problem with having pride in one's religious beliefs or background, nationality, race, etc. is that this mindset can lead to feelings of superiority over other people who we deem as inferior because they are not "one of us". On the other hand, feelings of shame or inadequacy over one's birth status are likewise unproductive. Again, no one asked to be born into his or her particular demographic setting. But those who are particularly unhappy with their lot, see no chance of improvement in their futures, and have the opportunity to make a change (conversion,immigration, etc.) then they should seriously consider taking that step and act accordingly, which of course many such people do.

On the other hand for those who are content with whatever group that they happen to have been part of since birth, there's nothing wrong with being happy that things turned out this way. However, pride itself should come as the result of an accomplishment or achievement, not from a random act of fortune.      

Prayer Is Not the Answer to American Gun Lobby Terrorism

In the Dec. 17 Yahoo! news site there was a video of President Obama attending a religious service for the children and staff who died in the Sandy Hook School shooting. Obama had also publicly offered a Christian biblical quotation  in response to  the tragedy.   This itself is government endorsement of a particular religion and therefore a violation of separation and state, but that's another matter for another time.

More to the point, the time has come  for the country to act not by indulging in the passivity of worship every time there's a mass murder. Prayer is useless under any conditions, and especially at a time like this. The victims are dead and there's no supreme being who will bring them back to life any more than there was one to protect them from being murdered in the first place. Instead it's time for America to take action and once and for all face down the rabidly extremist National Rifle Association by finally instituting meaningful gun control legislation at the federal level.

So far  Obama has made the usual presidential noises about this horrific tragedy, but has not specifically committed to advocating gun control. On the other hand,  Senator Diane Feinstein has promised to propose such a bill, but it remains to be seen how much support she will get, especially from Obama and how far she will pursue the measure.  BTW note that the NRA which thrives on intimidation against its opponents showed its cowardly stripes following the massacre by shutting down its Facebook page due to its being on the receiving end widespread criticism.

Also note that the more civilized countries in the Western world have stricter gun laws, much less gun violence, and at the same time a much larger percentage of atheists among their citizenry than in the U.S. As long as America's answer to mass murders like at Sandy Hook is God and more assault weapons (a ban on which expired in 2004 and  thanks to the  NRA-gun nuts  was never reinstated), you can bet the carnage will never stop. It will only get worse.

Walking a Fine Line

One of the objectionable customs of many religions especially most theistic ones  is proselytization. I consider this practice rude and condescending because of its implication that the adherent's beliefs are superior to those of other people's and thus they need to be saved from the error of their ways.

Atheists on the other hand as a whole don't knock on doors or buttonhole people on the street to spread our message. But in order to get our ideas across to others, defend our rights to non-belief, and counter our image as baby-eaters, we must do so in a manner that doesn't impose on religionists' privacy.

So what is the difference then between proselytizing on one hand and being assertive—or even aggressive—on the other in presenting what we stand for to the community at large?  I think that it comes down to whom we approach in order to deliver our point of view. This means that atheists should not badger individuals who have not initiated an exchange about religion by "starting it". But we have every right to put in our two cents in the market of ideas and public debate. This means disseminating the atheist perspective via the media, Internet, speakers, and billboards just to name a few venues. Richard Dawkins comes to mind as an example  a non-believer who has no qualms about standing up to religious interests and through the use of logic and biting wit does so in an effective manner.

I would like to think that on a personal level, the foregoing won't be construed as supporting "don't ask don't tell".  If anything, it should be clear that on a one-on-one basis I favor telling others plenty, but only if they ask.  For example I have a devoutly religious family member who recently underwent a cancer related amputation. I would  not go up to her and tell her that, prior confirmation of the malignancy her prayers that all she had was a benign cyst were a waste of time and didn't make a dime's worth of difference in the outcome of her illness. I think that would be crass and unfeeling. Yet, I don't hesitate to state my atheist's opinions which she might see in social media about the inefficacy of prayer. It is this type of distinction in handling public and private matters that I submit might be a useful guide in dealing with believers.

Hooray! I Was Wrong

I'm glad to acknowledge that my worry was exaggerated about the possibility of Superstorm Sandy—as serious as it was—disrupting  the 2012 elections. But beyond that, I'm also extremely relieved by the results of the race itself. To be sure, I'm disappointed by the failings of President Obama's first administration, but considering the alternative of  having Romney in the White House, there's no question that it's well worth taking another chance with Obama. I think that there's a possibility that his determination to get the job done may improve this time around, especially inasmuch as he's not up for further re-election and can thus concentrate on meeting his stated goals without the distraction and the need to compromise his agenda that would come with running for another term.  

My concern now however is that the Republicans, who couldn't defeat Obama with obstructionism and were frustrated in their aim to make him a one-term president, will now resort  to impeachment on some flimsy pretext or other, which is the wrecking ball strategy that they used against President Clinton who at the time was also a second-term Democrat. And even though the attempt failed, it was an ugly hate fest put up by the extreme Right  that served no useful purpose for the country and wound up costing the public millions of dollars.

As spiteful as many of the Republicans were in the 1990's, just about the entire party has gone completely over to the dark side since then. It's true that based on the election results, the Democrats now control the Senate. However, the Republicans control the House of Representatives; This is the chamber that initiates the articles of impeachment.  So it's no great leap of the imagination to conceive how GOP  members from this branch of Congress could attempt to remove another despised Democrat from office.

In short, Obama owes the Republicans nothing, least of the same attempt at bipartisanship  with which he went overboard in his first term. They will likely once again try to sabotage his efforts no matter what he does. I'd like to think that he realizes this and will proceed  to push his programs forward this time, rabid opponents and detractors be damned.

Will Sandy Cause Election Day Chaos?

I was appalled to learn of the damage inflicted at this point (early morning Eastern time, Oct. 30) on a large section of America  by Hurricane Sandy and the "frankenstorm" into which it has morphed.  At this writing the worst may be yet to come in some areas either from the storm itself or the aftermath. This weather front is a stark reminder of the raw power of nature and that even the most modern and advanced architectural and technological achievements of man are no match for this awesome force. (I shudder to think what would happen if such an overwhelming natural event were ever to strike here in Metro-Manila or some other other third world city.)

And what a time for this disaster to hit the U.S—one week before the 2012 presidential election.  How this storm will affect the outcome, not to mention the process itself, is a wild card. At this time President Obama faces a set of  circumstances similar to those experienced by then President Bush during and after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Bush's incompetence in handling the aftermath of that devastating storm was the beginning of the end of his popularity.  But unlike Obama, Bush was not up for re-election.

So the election, as close as it is in imminence and in the race itself could well be decided on Obama's  and the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) ) restoring some degree of order and normalcy in the wake of Sandy. But even if he handles it successfully to the extent that any degree of recovery can be achieved in such as short time before next Tuesday, it wouldn't be surprising if the Republicans find a way to play politics and try to stymie Obama's efforts (just as they were involved in voter suppression attempts  in Ohio before Sandy).  At this point it should be noted that Mitt Romney is opposed to federal aid in such disasters and if elected would dismantle the FEMA, leaving the individual states to fend for themselves.

But no matter how well or poorly the government assists people  in areas hard hit by the storm in digging out of the debris and in helping them put their lives back together, they may be too distracted to vote and / or the polling places and facilities may have been too damaged to be of service. For example, how will voters be able to cast their ballots on electronic voting machines if the power is still out in  as may be the case in some locales?  These are just a few possible scenarios that may materialize on election day.

So the period between now and Nov. 6 as well as that date itself will be extremely critical.  Thanks to Sandy It may well result in one  of the most contested and contentious elections on all levels—federal, state, and local—in American history. 

An Argument Against Theistic-Based Humanism

Is it possible for a theistic religion no matter how liberal its doctrines to be truly humanistic? I have a close friend who's an ardent Reform Jew and who strongly believes that the two thought systems are indeed compatible.  In fact  one reason for his dedication to  Reform Judaism is its enlightened concern with the human condition instead of on rigid observance and ritual as is the case with Orthodox Judaism.  Personally, I admire Reform Judaism for its historic attachment to progressive causes. 

But in the final analysis as long as Reform Judaism and other moderate forms of  religions have a theistic component, I don't see them as being fully humanistic.  Here's why. There's a conflict between humanism which by its nature is secular and traditional religion. Humanism of course  as the name implies is a perspective on life that's human centered, one that enables people to grow and unfold their powers to understand the world around them and be able to relate to their fellow humans. (BTW I credit my perspective on this point to the influence of humanistic psychoanalyst Erich Fromm)

Theism on the other hand is is god-centered.  As such it requires people to look to a supreme being, whose existence is unproven, for the answers  to life's questions. This limits their horizons of searching  and awareness to the confines of this deity's dictates.

As Richard Dawkins said "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world".  Inasmuch as theists tend to address human needs in terms of such archaic concepts as the soul and man's relationship with God, the same is true about religion's limited approach to humanity and humanism.

Moving On: Atheism's Role for Mankind's Advancement

It may seem too obvious at first glance to even bother stating that as the centuries have passed since the Bronze Age biblical era , humankind's knowledge and understanding of nature has grown at  a staggering rate and that current technology has surpassed even what the most advanced minds of 100 years ago could have imagined. What were once regarded as acts of a supreme being can be readily explained by science--or even simple logic.

Yet a consequence of this progress is that the more we have come to know  and understand about natural causes of events,  the less we have needed to depend on theistic explanation or look to scripture as a revelation about them and our place in the universe.  For that matter when we compare the universe itself based on scientific evidence on models with that as portrayed  in religious sources such as the Torah, the New Testament, and the Quran, we see that these books are shot full of errors about (as an example) the nature of the heavens, in particular the sequence of  cosmological creation, and the  placement of the Earth at the center of the universe.

The Earth is of course heliocentric, and the sun is just an average star in an ordinary galaxy among billions of other such star systems. In turn, there are more stars in the universe than grains of sands on all the beaches on Earth. Many if not most of these stars have planets. Odds are that some support life. That makes humans and our world infinitesimally minuscule in the greater scheme of things and the god of the bible as absolutely puny in light of the structure of the real universe.

However, even in this day and age,  a large number of people in the U.S. still have faith in scriptural explanations as inerrant about creation, whether they accept them literally or figuratively (It's almost comical to hear various sources resort to contorted explanations to justify acceptance of the latter as "symbolic" and to hear the literalists bend the facts to fit their religious beliefs, such as by rejecting the theory of evolution, asserting that the world is only 6,000 years old and that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, Flinstones style. Just to give a specific  example of the shocking rate of ignorance in the United States, 46% of Americans believe in creationism .

Probably every religion in the world has a creation myth. Most likely, these ancient stories were based on the attempts to make sense of and explain the world as people in ancient times understood it, which is a psychological need common to all humans.  They did the best they could with what limited knowledge they had. But that was then and this is now.  So there's no reason for modern man to continue looking at these myths other than interesting literature and a window on  the way people of that era thought and lived.    

To put it another way, if  the Old and New Testaments are true word of God  as the fundamentalists would have us believe, why is there no mention in these books to the discoveries and technology that humans have developed  (and will continue to develop) through the ages since the biblical era?  Why didn't God reveal the knowledge of science to man in ancient times instead of letting him wallow in ignorance about what we have since learned from those days?  As a matter of fact, "pagan" cultures such as the ancient Greeks and Romans made great scientific and mathematical discoveries  and expounded profound philosophies in those times.  Who knows how much further they might have gone if Christianity hadn't usurped the culture in that part of the world?

Christians might frame God's refusal to speed the progress of humankind in terms of "the fall of man"  and by invoking Genesis  3:17-20 wherein God condemned man to a life of toil for eating from the tree of knowledge. Yet as the centuries  have passed especially since the Enlightenment, as was previously mentioned humans overall are having to struggle less and less in order to survive through the powers of education, reason and science. As a result, as was previously mentioned our dependence and belief in a supernatural being have diminished accordingly.

Note that modern societies that have made the most socioeconomic and scientific progress are those that have largely secular, whose people are well educated and have outgrown belief in a supreme being. Not surprisingly, these countries are also the happiest ones in the world. One  examples is Denmark  which not only has a high rate of atheism, but also a long life expectancy and a  low rate of violence just to name a few favorable features. On the other hand, countries that have high rates of poverty, dishonesty in government, and violence are those whose people are the most religious. The Philippines, for example, has the highest rate of theism in the world and yet is beset with these problems.  Out of 183 countries, that country   is rated the 129th most corrupt.

In short the message is this: Humankind has made great strides since ancient times, but in order to reach a higher stage of maturity, we need to shed the baggage of belief in a phantom supreme being.  Until that happens, for all our progress, the burden of theism is holding back its adherents in a Dark Ages mentality.

I would like to close with a beautiful quotation from Thomas Jefferson who stated humanity's optimal goal  most succinctly:  "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear ... Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue on the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you."

Power Points: Confronting Christian Privilege

Among the Jewish population, which constitutes only a small demographic minority in the U.S., it seems that there are various group-based approaches in dealing with the predominantly Christian population. One is a deferential conformity or assimilation in which Jews will go out of their to maintain good relations with their non-Jewish associates in order not to upset or stir up latent (and not so latent as the case may be) anti-Semitic feelings that these people might harbor. This submissive behavior is usually found in locales where Jews constitute a relatively miniscule number such as in small towns and rural areas.

Another approach is assertiveness, wherein Jews are less concerned about what Christians think of them. As such, they are less inclined to "go along to get along." This outlook is more typically found where Jews are in larger numbers and are on more or less equal footing with non-Jews in terms of numbers as well as economic and political power such as in large metropolitan areas.

But what happens if one or a few members of a small Jewish community who are joined with outside allies stand up for principle on an issue that goes against the grain of the larger Christian population in that locale? That's what happened in Hawaii in 1985 a Jewish group protested against a large cross as a violation of church-state separation. The monument had been erected several years before on federal land—a marine base to be exact, and it had come to be considered a landmark of sorts by the non-Jewish locals. The challenge went to court, and in 1986 the U.S. District Court agreed that the cross indeed sent a religious message and should be removed.

As might be expected, this affair raised the ire of the Christians against the Jews there, and for fear of that very consequence, many of the latter had opposed undertaking the legal challenge in the first place. It's obvious as to which of the above group-based approaches this community was taking. And therein lies the heart of the matter.

First there is the cultural phenomenon of Christian privilege in the U.S.,  which is a a sense of entitlement that most Christians there take for granted and most other Americans accept without questioning. For example, no other religion in the U.S. gets its own national holiday (Christmas).  Followers of other religions in the U.S. generally don't assume that everyone else must accept public displays of their symbols of faith on public land—and then get upset when they don't get their way; or impose its dogma on science instruction in public schools (creationism); or use the power and notoriety of political offices to promote or endorse their religious views (think Governors Rick Perryand Mike Huckabee).  In short, no other religious group in the U.S.so blatantly defies  the separation of state and church which is a cornerstone of American democracy. 

Yet the justification for Christians to think that they ought to be so honored, namely that the U.S. was founded as a "Christian nation", is totally false.  America is not now and never has been owned by any religious entity.  There is not a single word in the United States Constitution about God or Jesus, or an endorsement of any particular faith. The only references in that document to religion regard  freedom of and from it (First Amendment and Article 6, Section 3).  Also Many of the Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christians. Finally, the Treaty of Tripoli which was signed in 1796, flatly states that America is not a Christian nation.       

Not surprisingly, this entitlement mentality has also has spilled over into the U.S. military as well, where Christian proselytizing especially since the Reagan era has become a serious issue.  To combat (no pun intended) this menace, in 2005 Mikey Weinstein founded the MRFF (Military Religious Freedom Foundation).

Mr. Weinstein is a Jewish graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy and retired officer whose son and other non-Christians endured religious discrimination and harassment at that institution. It turns out that the USAFA is not the only source of Christian bullying of religious minorities and atheists.  It's endemic throughout the Armed Forces. Yet despite the accomplishments of the MRFF, an acquaintance of mine who is also a Jewish retired military officer thinks that Weinstein is too militant and that he should try to work within the system to accomplish his goals. (In fact, this acquainance was the one who told me about the Hawaii incident).  However, Weinsteins's frustrationds are based on the very futility of his having going through proper channels to seek a solution  to Christian abuse of power only to be met with indifference. Morevoer, the MRFF has been nominated for the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize.   That doesn't sound very belligerent to me.
 
No doubt it's their numbers that have led so many of American Christian into this mindset of superiority and obliviousness to the rights of others. But thanks to the Constitution, the religious majority does not get to run the country. So it's time for diffident and indifferent non-Christians to take a lesson people like Mikey Weinstein and assert themselves in this issue, just as advocates of CP need to get put aside their delusions of grandeur and get over themselves.

Promoting Atheism Through Facebook

As one who was originally indifferent about social media, I joined Facebook a few years ago only at the behest of my wife's nephew who said that it's a more streamlined way than email to keep in touch with family and others in one's circle of interest, which turned out to be the case as far as it went.   This turned out to be correct.  However, since that time, I have also found FB to be a useful tool in sending and receiving communications about other matters in which I'm involved, including the atheist movement,  the struggle against religious fundamentalism, and my own thoughts and activities as a non-believer.

This is because Facebook is a great tool for sharing ideas,.  Why. for example, would I have any greater reservations about including atheist-oriented material on my page or profile than my theistic  counterparts do about their beliefs on their pages? In doing so I have connected  with other atheists and have received a wealth of information including various features and sites, some of  which I found to be not only very useful in gaining knowledge but fascinating reading as well.  In turn I have found similar Facebook-ready works of interest  to share with others from such various sources as progressive newsletters  

One use for Facebook for those atheists who haven't come out of the closet to their FB Friends (who often include family members) is to do so through that medium. Personally, I have made no secret on Facebook about  being godless and so far have had no negative reactions from those Friends (many of whom are believers) who were previously unaware of my position. But crypto-atheists who choose  Facebook as a venue to out themselves may learn whether or not their believer FB Friends are truly worthy of that description.

There are certainly other means of getting the word out about atheism, such as through forums and blog sites. But these are read mainly by those with an interest in that topic  On the other hand because of its  widespread and generalized following, Facebook may be better suited for non-believers to present ourselves and our narrative to others who as Friends, especially those theists to whom we have close ties, may well be willing to trust and accept us.

Are There Wrong Reasons for Becoming an Atheist?

Most atheists including those who were previously religious are nonbelievers because they have used reason and logic to reach the conclusion that there's no evidence  for the existence of god(s) and therefore theism makes no sense . Yet, there are others who lost their faith in a supreme being due to disappointment that their prayers went unanswered or because of some affliction that beset them or  their loved ones.  In other words, the motivation for their non-belief is based on emotion and projection (narcissism?): "God let me down; therefore he must not exist."

So the question is: how sincere and committed are such former believers to  atheism?  Not very, I would wager.  It seems to me that genuine atheism  is based on objective considerations, not subjective  feelings. In other words, those who arrived at their non-religious  perspective through discontent with a supreme being's "performance" may not really be atheists at all, but just mad at God and may be prone to regain their religious faith if he makes things right again in their eyes. (I also explored the "mad at God" concept in my post  "What's God Got To Do With It? Fallacies of Theistic Belief" )

Some atheists-by-reason  may assert that it doesn't matter how one became a non-believer or why (s)he rejects a supernatural explanation for the existence of the universe.  As a beleaguered and perhaps the most hated minority in America,  we need all the adherents we can get.  And besides, there's no membership  committee, vetting process, or test to determine one's dedication to atheism anyway. This is a tempting argument, but I personally I would rather have a "lean and mean" core of members in the atheist movement who arrived at their convictions of godlessness through due intellectual diligence. Those who claim to be non-believers merely as the result of  discouraging circumstances vis a vis the relationship with their god  may just be "foul weather" atheists who revert to theism when the sun shines again in their lives.

Christian and Islamic Misogyny: Two Sides of the Same Coin

There is a campaign underway in Egypt headed by  a Muslim political party to restore the centuries-old practice of  female genital mutilation.  This custom which had been carried out for centuries was banned during the Mubarak administration. Yet unofficially, it's still a rite of passage for many girls in that and many other countries in Africa as well as in Muslim immigrant communities in Europe and America.  In Egypt alone, it's estimated that as many as 70--90% of the  women have been subjected to this brutal act at some time in their early lives.

Egyptian women's rights groups have voiced opposition to legal  reinstatement of  this tradition.  But the fact that the Parliament would even consider its revival indicates that legal protection for women from ever again having to face such an attack on their  freedom from such forced maiming  was never that secure in the first place.

Just how does the American extreme right wing political/ religious mentality regarding women's rights differ from its Middle Eastern counterpart? Not very much.   A Mississippi lawmaker  applauding that state's recent total ban on abortion in effect declared that he has no problem with desperate women resorting to coat hangers to end their pregnancies.  Although such self-induced abortions are obviously dangerous to the health and often the lives of these women, the legislator said, "...hey you have to have moral values.  You have to start somewhere, and that's what we've decided to do."

This callousness and contempt for woman is not an isolated incident. In March, another lawmaker, this time from Georgia, in support of that state's legislation to outlaw all abortions after the fifth month even if the fetus is unlikely to survive, compared women to farm livestock. He said that if cows and pigs can carry dead fetuses to term, women should be required to do likewise.  The law known as House Bill 954 passed the Georgia State Assembly with a vote of 102—65.    

One might expect such twisted and ignorant thinking from politicians and voters in the above bible belt states.. However, there is also a bill in Congress that would outlaw abortions  in Washington D.C.  under any circumstances  including rape, incest or protection of  the woman's health after the 20th week. A  woman who carries a dead or nonviable fetus to term, especially involuntarily, obviously faces both physical and mental hazards. Hence, if such legislation can be considered as a law for our nation's capital, is any part of America safe from anti-choice fanatics? 

So overall, women's personal freedom to decide  whether or not to continue  a pregnancy is probably at greatest risk since Roe vs. Wade. In that sense, if such rights of women in the U.S. can be abrogated just like in Egypt, then do their basic freedoms have any meaning at all in this country?  (The same question could be asked for the loss of rights for of all Americans since 9-11, and there there could be a relationship between the two issues.  But that's a topic for another post).    

And the sad thing is that women themselves have often played a role in this backwards march, both in the Middle East and the U.S.  In the former, many of the supporters of the proposed revival of female genital mutilation in Egypt are midwives who perform this procedure and whose livelihoods have been affected by the present prohibition.  Even victims themselves want their daughters and granddaughters to undergo FGM in the name of "purity".   As for America, one of the six sponsors of House Bill 954 in Georgia is Donna Sheldon. In  the Oklahoma House of Representatives,  the author of a bill in that confers personhood on a fertilized egg is Rep. Lisa Billy, who also also authored the Oklahoma law requiring ultrasounds for abortion seekers. (Fortunately, this legislation was struck down in court). Not surprisingly, these officials are Republicans, as are many other women at various levels of political participation.  Their affiliation with the GOP which no longer has a moderate wing and is mainly composed of conservative Christians points up that it's not just men who are to blame for carrying out  that party's war on women.

In short, Americans need to remember that when (rightfully) criticizing religion-based gender repression in other parts of the world, we should  keep in mind that the rights of women in the U.S.are no less at risk.  American freethinkers and other progressives may not be able to make changes in Egypt, but we don't have to put up with attacks by theistic groups on gender equality in our own country.

An Unconventional Atheists Convention

According to a poll, the Philippines leads the world in the number of God-believers. So it's ironic that as an American atheist, I would wind up residing here. Yet,  I've never felt uncomfortable as a freethinker in this overwhelmingly Roman Catholic country.  (In fact, I had more problems as a non-believer while living in the U.S.)  At any rate, I am fortunate that I managed to find and get involved with a local organization of non-believers called PATAS (Philippine Atheist and Agnostics Society).

On Apr. 21, PATAS held a convention for atheists and agnostics at the Bayview Park Hotel in Manila.  The event was billed as the first of its kind in Southeast Asia. I'm happy to say that seating was totally sold out and the affair itself was a great success.

I attended, and at first I felt a little out of place as a senior among mostly young people, a majority of whom appeared to be in their twenties. But then I realized what an asset their youth is to the future of the movement. These people have many productive years ahead as non-believers. And  those who have children will hopefully teach their kids to think independently, or at least that they don't need a god to be good.

Another thing that I noticed is that based on the percentage of women at the convention, there may be a greater proportion of Filipinas who actively support atheism and who hold positions of leadership in the movement than their gender counterparts in the U.S.  One such example is the Chairperson of PATAS, Marissa Torres Langseth.  BTW she and the other planners deserve a shout-out for the time and effort that they contributed in order to bring the convention to fruition.

There was an impressive array of renown speakers both local and from abroad who approached atheism from various perspectives. The latter group included Americans Dan Barker, Norm Allen, David Orenstein,and Jeremiah Camara.  Their presentations were lively and were followed by a discussion session with the audience after each speech. I chatted briefly with the speakers during lunch and found them all to be personable and dedicated to the cause of non-belief.

There seemed to be a consensus among the speakers and attendees, which numbered approximately 200, that there are many more atheists in this country than might be imagined. However, the majority of them are afraid to openly identify themselves as such for fear of negative reactions from their religionist families, friends, and employers. Filipinos tend to be very sensitive to the opinion of those in their circle of interest. And for most of them just the thought of rejection, especially by one's family (to which most people here are inordinately tied) is unbearable. Yet, if PATAS and other like-minded groups make their presence more widely known, closet atheists and agnostics might feel encouraged to take the giant step of outing themselves. The consequences may not be as dire as they fear. After all, many PATAS members themselves overcame the same hurdles and lived to tell the tale.

And who knows, maybe the hotel management who accepted the convention booking and the waitstaff saw for themselves that atheists are not the baby-eaters that they might have imagined us to be.

The theme of the conventions was "Godless Philippines. Are you ready for this?" For one day, a tiny number of the Philippine population  joined together in a public venue and celebrated their godlessness. They were not only ready but willing and able.