It is with great grief that I report to you that I, Randall Terry, along with Brian Sherwood and Joseph Landry, were arrested on Respect Life Sunday, October 5, at St. Thomas More Cathedral in Arlington, Virginia. We were charged with trespass, held by the police for four hours, then released.

We were arrested for handing out a pro-life brochure on the church parking lot entitled, Faithful Catholic Citizenship.  Faithful Catholic Citizenship is based upon quotes from John Paul II from Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life.) Read it at www.humbleplea.com. (See link for Faithful Catholic Citizenship.)

The reason certain bishops find this literature alarming, is because it actually names Obama as a die hard supporter of child-killing. The argument is simple: since Obama would extend the murder of the innocent, a Catholic cannot vote for him with a clear conscience in this election. Certain bishops are hamstrung with the fear of losing their "tax-exempt status" if they name a candidate in an election cycle. So the name "Obama" is off limits, and so is any literature that names him.

The great irony is that we were arrested at St. Thomas More Cathedral.

St. Thomas More was arrested, tried, and beheaded because he believed that the authority of the Church is not subject to the state.

A greater irony still is that St. Thomas More refused to follow the English bishops in their servitude to Henry VIII. Those bishops betrayed God and the successor of St. Peter by their silence and obedience in the matter of Henry VIII's divorce, remarriage, and his hellish proclamation that he was the Supreme Head of the Church.

The parallels between those English bishops and American bishops today are disturbing and glaring to any student of theology and history.

In exchange for silence and obedience, English bishops saved their lives. In exchange for silence and obedience, American bishops save their tax exempt status.

But oh! Behold the horrifying fruit of cowardice in English bishops!  Millions of the faithful were led astray, and the Church of England is now reprobate - embracing a multitude of heresies and abominations.

And oh!  Behold the horrifying fruit of the silence of American bishops! Millions of the faithful are so poorly formed in conscience that they believe it is no sin against God or innocent babies to vote for a man committed to slay millions of children. The bishops keep their tax exempt status, while the faithful lose their way, and the innocent lose their very lives. 

One can at least sympathize with -- though never honor -- the fear of English bishops.  To speak against Henry's marriage and his claim to supremacy over the Church would have cost them their lives -- as it did St. John Fisher -- the only English bishop to oppose Henry VIII.

By contrast, American bishops face no prison, no torture, and no execution.  It is the lives of others they forfeit, not their own.

If American bishops had a portion of the courage of St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher - and followed the church's history and pattern of naming the names of heretics, scandalous evildoers, and tyrants - what would it cost? 

Bishops would face a few rocky years of bad press and annoying litigation. (See Matt 5:10-12) But in the end, with a little nerve, and a united front with Catholics and evangelicals that groan under this unholy yoke, the IRS bit and bridal would be stripped from the mouths of prelates and preachers alike. This gag would be thrown to the ground and trampled into the earth. And no - the Church would not go broke.

Some well-meaning souls believe that we can submit to the IRS -- and not name Obama's name -- and yet remain faithful to God and the Church.

They are mistaken.

It boils down to this: who is Lord of the church?  Our Lord Jesus Christ, or Uncle Sam? Who is the supreme head of the Church on earth?  The successor of St. Peter, or the IRS?

If Moses, Elijah, Jeremiah, St. John the Baptist, St. Justin Martyr, St. Catherine of Siena, St. John Fisher, and a host of others would have simply held their tongue and not named names, none of them would have been hunted, or scorned, or martyred. And the tyrants of their day would have prevailed.

I close with the words of St. Thomas More recorded in a "Man for all Seasons." Their echo fits our current crisis:

"The indictment is grounded in an act of Parliament which is directly repugnant to the law of God and his holy Church - the supreme government of which no temporal person may by any law presume to take upon him.

"This was granted by the mouth of our Savior, Christ himself, to St. Peter and the bishops of Rome, whilst he lived and was personally present here on earth.  It is therefore insufficient in law to charge any Christian to obey it....Nevertheless it is not for the supremacy that you have sought my blood but because I would not bend to the marriage!"

Our "crime" is that we will not join our Bishops in their silence; we will not abandon the babies for money; and we will not "bend to the marriage" between U.S. Bishops and the IRS. We will uphold the authority and freedom of the Church, we will defend the lives of the innocent, and we will resist the slayers of mankind by name - even if they won't.

Randall Terry

Founder, Operation Rescue  www.humbleplea.com

You pray and pray and pray, and what does it get you?  Bubkas!

Professor PZ Myers was the first guest speaker Metro State Atheists arranged to bring to our campus and our first Center For Inquiry co-sponsored event. Although we started this group some 3 years ago, we had never before taken the steps to bring an event like this from speculation to reality. Despite short notice, technical difficulties, and our lack of experience, everything came together and Professor Myers's presentation turned out to be entertaining, informative, and enlightening. Although the weeks leading up to the event were stressful, new friendships were developed and the things we learned were well worth the hardship.

Preparations for the presentation began about three weeks prior. We spent the first week creating a proposal for funding from Metropolitan State College of Denver, which was subsequently approved, and advertising the event. During the second week of preparations, though, our campus was closed completely for a week due to the Democratic National Convention being held in the Pepsi Center across the street from our campus. This completely hindered our ability to take care of any preparations that required the school's involvement; however, because of help from CFI with organizing and funding the event, and from various local groups in promoting the event, the week was not a complete loss.

Once campus reopened we resumed work and managed to get just about every loose end tied up. All we had to do now was wait for Myers to arrive and hope that nothing unraveled. We greeted Professor Myers several hours before the presentation and finished off some last-minute paperwork, then socialized at a nearby café until it was time to head over the lecture hall for the event. Once at the venue we worked with Marvin Voelker of Freespeech TV, who filmed the event, to work the kinks out of the video and audio equipment. Finally, our guests arrived and we were ready to begin.

Joel Guttormson, President of Metro State Atheists, gave a brief introduction and then invited Professor Myers to the podium. Myers discussed the state of science education today and introduced us to a multitude of characters whose religious agenda has influenced the current state of science education. After the lecture concluded, we received a great deal of positive feedback and gratitude for hosting the event. It was uplifting to hear that the weeks of turmoil we incurred led to the production of something our audience could enjoy and appreciate.

We owe a great deal of thanks to the numerous secular groups and activists who helped us organize and plan this event including CFI field organizer Debbie Goddard, The Colorado Coalition for Reason, Denver Atheists, Denver Atheists and Free Thinkers, and especially PZ Myers himself. It was an honor to work with and host as our first guest speaker someone with such a prominent and respected voice in the field of science and the practice of reason.

Chalmer Wren is Vice President and co-founder of Metro State Atheists and an undergraduate in chemistry at the Metropolitan State College of Denver.

It's time to update the CFI campus affiliate database for 2008-2009! If you are a campus group leader, go to the new CFI Campus Group Affiliation Form and fill it out as completely as you can. This information will be used to update the CFI Campus Groups Listing in the coming weeks. New groups also receive a New Affiliate Group box with complimentary issues of Free Inquiry and Skeptical Inquirer magazines, stickers, brochures and pamphlets, videos, and other educational and promotional materials.

Even if you have registered a campus group before August 2008, please fill out the new form if your group will be active in 2008-2009.

With about 200 active CFI-affiliated campus groups around the world, it's difficult to keep track of current group contact info. Filling out the form is quick, it's easy, and you'll help CFI to best provide resources and speakers where needed. Thank you for helping us to keep our records up to date!

This conference is the inaugural meeting of The Jesus Project, launched in 2007 by the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion. The first conference will answer the challenge laid down by CSER Fellow and Jesus Seminar cofounder John Dominic Crossan to decide what counts as "evidence" of the Jesus tradition.

Speakers include:

• Paul Kurtz
• R. Joseph Hoffmann
• Ronald A. Lindsay
• Dennis R. MacDonald
• Justin Meggitt
• Robert M. Price
• James Tabor
• and many others!

Section topics include:

• The "substratum" of the earliest gospel
• The legitimate use of noncanonical sources in reconstructing the Jesus story
• Argumentum ad analogium in Christ-myth theories
• Historical, theological, and value-driven approaches to the gospels
• Rules of exclusion and evidence: what counts as "data"?

To register for the conference, or for more information, call 1-800-458-1366.

As a new school year gets underway for many of us, now is a great time to become a Friend of the Center! Your membership entitles you to many benefits including discounted or free admission to CFI events, and it helps to support the continued development of the programs and services offered by the Center for Inquiry.

For just $60 a year, or $20 if you're currently a student, you get:

• Free or discounted admission to CFI events
• 10% discount on national events sponsored by CFI and its affiliates (CSH, CSI, and CSMMH), including the upcoming CFI World Congress 2009 in Washington, D.C.
• 15% discount on selected Prometheus Books titles
• A colorful CFI vinyl decal

...And you get to feel good knowing you've made a contribution towards science and reason!

With your membership you will receive a membership packet, but please allow up to 6 weeks for processing. If you have any questions, please contact our Community Development Assistant Whitney Kemp at 1-800-818-7071 ext. 428.

Now that the fall semester is here, there are lots of great events being planned on campuses and at Centers and Communities for Inquiry across North America. Check out the new CFI On Campus Events Calendar for more information about these, and other, upcoming events of interest to campus freethinkers and skeptics.

Thursday, October 9, 7:00 p.m.
Dinner with Toni Van Pelt
CFI Community of Fort Lauderdale
Mythos Taverna, 2864 N. University Drive, Coral Springs, FL

Friday, October 10, 6:30 p.m.
Toni Van Pelt: "The Dangers of Freethinking Women"
CFI Community of Fort Lauderdale, FL

Friday, October 10, 7:00 p.m.
D.J. Grothe: "A Nation of Suckers: Getting Duped in American Today"
CFI Austin
3418 N. Lamar Boulevard, Austin, TX

Saturday, October 11
Toni Van Pelt: "The Dangers of Freethinking Women"
CFI Community of Miami, FL

Saturday, October 11, 7:00 p.m.
PZ Myers and Richard Carrier
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster at Missouri State University
Plaster Student Union Theater, 901 S. National, Springfield, MO

Sunday, October 12, 12:30 p.m.
Voices of Reason: MAAF Founder Kathleen Johnson
CFI DC, 621 Pennsylvania Ave. SE (Eastern Market metro), Washington, DC

Sunday, October 12, 1:00 p.m.
On Global Warming and Climate Change with Geophysicist David Archer
CFI Chicago
UIC Room 613, University Center East building, 750 S. Halsted, Chicago, IL

Tuesday, October 14
Toni Van Pelt: "The Dangers of Freethinking Women"
CFI Community of Naples, FL

Tuesday, October 14, 7:00 p.m.
CFI Community of Portland Kickoff
Featuring Lawrence Krauss: "Science, Non-Science, and Nonsense: From the Classroom to the Capitol"
Oregon Museum of Science and Industry, Portland, OR

Thursday, October 16, 12:00 p.m.
Toni Van Pelt: "The Dangers of Freethinking Women"
CFI Community of Daytona Beach, FL

Thursday, October 16, 7:00 p.m.
Toni Van Pelt: "The Dangers of Freethinking Women"
Campus Freethought Alliance - Rollins College
Reeves Lodge, Rollins College Campus, Winter Park, FL

Friday, October 17, 4:00 p.m.
Toni Van Pelt: "The Dangers of Freethinking Women"
Campus Freethought Alliance at UCF
University of Central Florida, Math and Science Building, Room 405

Saturday, October 18, 11:00 a.m.
Toni Van Pelt: "The Dangers of Freethinking Women"
CFI Tampa, FL

Saturday, October 18, 2:00 p.m.
Ronald Aronson: "Living without God"
CFI DC, 621 Pennsylvania Ave. SE (Eastern Market metro), Washington, DC

Sunday, October 19
Eddie Tabash: "America at the Crossroads: The Threat of the Religious Right to Our Most Basic Freedoms"
11:00 a.m. at CFI LA, Hollywood, CA
4:30 p.m. in Costa Mesa, CA

Sunday, October 19, 1:30 p.m.
D.J. Grothe: "A Nation of Suckers: Getting Duped in America Today"
CFI Community of Southern Arizona

Sunday, October 19, 7:00 p.m.
Roy Zimmerman
CFI Indiana, Indianapolis, IN

Tuesday, October 21
Toni Van Pelt: "The Dangers of Freethinking Women"
CFI Community of Tallahassee, FL

Wednesday, October 22, 7:00 p.m.
Ron Lindsay: "Future Bioethics"
CFI Michigan
Women's City Club, 254 E. Fulton, Grand Rapids, MI

Wednesday, October 22, 7:00 p.m.
Toni Van Pelt: "Religion and Politics"
Gator Freethought Alliance
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL

Thursday, October 23, 3:00 p.m.
Astrobiologist David Grinspoon: "Why Denver Doesn't Need an ET Commission"
Metro State Atheists at the Metropolitan State College of Denver
Auraria Campus, North Classroom Building, 9000 Auraria Parkway, Denver, CO

Friday, October 24, 5:00 p.m.
Toni Van Pelt: "The Dangers of Freethinking Women"
Freethinkers at USF
University of South Florida, Marshal Student Center, Tampa, FL

Friday, October 24, 6:30 p.m.
Dale McGowan: "Parenting Beyond Belief"
CFI San Francisco
World Affairs Council Auditorium, 312 Sutter Street, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA

Sunday, October 26, 11:00 a.m.
Texas Freethought Conference
CFI Austin
Saengerrunde Hall (Scholz Garten), Austin, TX

Sunday, October 26, 2:00 p.m.
Richard Carrier
CFI Indiana, Indianapolis, IN

Monday, October 27
Toni Van Pelt: "Promoting Science and Secularism"
CFI Community of Pittsburgh
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA

Tuesday, October 28
Toni Van Pelt: "The Dangers of Freethinking Women"
Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH

Wednesday, October 29, 7:00 p.m.
Toni Van Pelt: "How Do We Do It? Promoting Science and Reason in Public Policy Today"
CFI Community of NE Ohio
Case Western Reserve University, Strosacker Auditorium, Case Quad, 2125 Adelbert Road, Cleveland, OH

Friday, October 31, 7:30 p.m.
PZ Myers: "Caught in the Middle of the War Between Science and Religion"
CFI Ontario
University of Toronto, MacLeod Auditorium, 2158-1 King's College Circle, Room 2158, Toronto, ON

Saturday, November 1
Jamy Ian Swiss: "Heavy Mental"
CFI Community of Pittsburgh
Carnegie Science Center, Pittsburgh, PA

Monday, November 10, 1:00 p.m.
Victor Stenger: "God: The Failed Hypothesis"
Metro State Atheists at the Metropolitan State College of Denver
Auraria Campus, North Classroom Building, 9000 Auraria Parkway, Denver, CO

Wednesday, November 12, 7:00 p.m.
Barbara Oakley: "Evil Genes"
Case Center for Inquiry
Case Western Reserve University, Strosacker Auditorium, Case Quad, 2125 Adelbert Road, Cleveland, OH

Friday, November 21, 7:00 p.m.
Monthly Forum with CFI founder Paul Kurtz
CFI Community of Long Island
Plainview - Old Bethpage Public Library, 999 Old Country Rd., Plainview, NY

News items featuring the Center for Inquiry and affiliated campus groups:

• "Flying Spaghetti Monster" Religious Group Turning Heads at MSU, OzarksFirst.com
• Atheists read religious texts for charity: Penn State Atheist and Agnostic Association raises funds creatively, The Daily Collegian Online
• University of Alberty Atheists and Agnostics banner vandalized with religious message
• Student of "gay Jesus" fame aims at Islam, The Chronicle-Telegram
• Religion and politics in election campaigns: Justin Trottier, Executive Director of CFI Ontario, weighs in, The Globe and Mail
• In X We Trust: a look at the growing number of nonreligious Americans, LoHud.com

Articles of Note:

• Atheists 'Evangelize' on College Campuses, The Christian Post
• Study: Religious people more generous -- on 2 conditions, USA Today
• Mormons renew calls for Calif. gay marriage ban, The Washington Times
• New Bible has a 'green' theme, USA Today

First, if 90-odd percent of Americans say they believe in God, it's unhelpful to dismiss them as silly. Second, when they check that "believe in God" box, a great many people are not talking about the God the atheists rail against—a supernatural being who intervenes in human affairs, who lays down inexplicable laws about sex and diet, punishes violators with the stinking fires of hell and raises the fleshly bodies of the dead.

When over fifty percent of Americans believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, what are we atheists supposed to think? If we include all Christians worldwide, particularly the ones in poorer Catholic and Eastern Orthodox nations, the percentage is probably much higher. This doesn't take into account the non-democratic Islamic nations, where Western ideas are spat upon, and where basic education is limited to males, and where people are threatened into believing in the all-powerful Allah. So, the actual number of believers in an angry, vengeful, and intervening god is probably much much higher than even Lisa Miller cares to imagine.

Apologetics is a form of faith; it's faith in faith. Miller finishes her paper-thin argument by hauling in the invisible sacred cow.

Submitting faith to proof is absurd. Reason defines one kind of reality (what we know); faith defines another (what we don't know). Reasonable believers can live with both at once.

Reasonable believers? Can reason and faith coexist? And how can faith define the unknown? Isn't the unknown, by its very definition, indefinable? Here, Miller's mental gymnastics are Olympic quality. And most believers would likely take great offense to her reducing their unshakable faith to an algebraic X. Personally, I prefer to think of all faith simply as a Y.

The original author of this series, whose name I cannot remember (because I don't care to), is desperately clinging to life.  I have apparently told him that viewing The O'Reilly Factor can cause various types of medical something and whatever.  I can't remember because I didn't actually say it, and he is just lazy.  The point is, he told me to say that he spent too much time watching and listening to people being dumb and it nearly killed him.  So now I'm in charge.

So you might be wondering, "God you're a dick, and why is my religion so gay?" I can answer your question simply by referencing my aforementioned huge sexy brain.  It is huge and sexy.  What about that don't you get?  So sit back, shut up, and keep reading because we'll get there.

As a doctor, I rely on real world sciencey stuff to save lives, not mystical nonsense about floods, and plagues, and zombies, and VeggieTales.  Knowledge of those topics seldom provide any material benefit in the field of medicine.  Few people know this, but we don't restart people's hearts through the power of prayer.  We electrocute it back to life with 1.21 Gigawatts of up your ass and out your eyeballs motherfucking lightning!  That's right, wrath of the almighty Zeus.  I wield that power, daily.  So the next time you are in a hospital because your fat fucking uncle just had a solid pound of cholesterol lodge itself up his aorta, don't be such a dick.  Stop praying to god, and start praying to me.  I'm the one who keeps him alive.  With a little help from my friend, legitimate science.

Anyways, I sort of got a little sidetracked there.  I'm sorry.  It's just that it's sort of annoying when I'm up to my elbows in some guys chest cavity and people don't even seem to notice.

My remarkably understated disdain for dubious beliefs notwithstanding, I would actually consider mine a fairly objective assessment.  And as an unbiased scienceman, I will actually be talking about your ridiculously gay beliefs today.  Particularly as they relate to the following:

To: All

most of these I have looked up myself to verifiy or else i wouldnt be posting it as a bullitin and i watched the interview with Bill O’riley weather your a Christian or not trust me we dont want a Muslium in the white house just as a reminder thats who we are at war with

Oh man, I don't know how the guy I'm writing this for feels about spelling, but I can't fucking stand it when people are too lazy to learn to spell at a fourth grade level, I mean come on.  I'm going to go through this real quick:

Whether you're a Christian or not, trust me, we don't want a Muslim in the White House; just as a reminder, that's who we are at war with.

Blam! Fixed! That took me one whole minute to rewrite properly.  Granted, I didn't fix the last sentence ending with a preposition, but I don't fucking care, it's not my job.  Who am I, Doctor Spelling?  No.  No I'm not.  My name is Doctor Shetlar, and it is a pleasure to meet you.  My job is to save lives.  Also, what the hell is a Musilium?

So I'm going to dissect this statement because there are a number of things wrong with it, and it is representative of a larger problem.  A simple inability that some people have to understand people who disagree with them.  And I'll just stop you before you start in with all that, "Oh, but isn't that what you are doing right now?"  No it's not.  Now zip it.  I understand why people like the MySpace girl are this dumb, but that isn't an excuse.  They are dumb because they are lazy and close minded.  I understand what she is saying and why.  But facts are facts, and they don't care if you are scared that Barack Obama might be a secret Muslim because they very much disagree, and they are the constructs of real reality...really.  So they are what I tend to listen to.  Even with the compelling argument MySpace Girl might have presented opposing them.

Now for some statistics.  Roughly Eighty eight point three percent of the US population identify themselves as Christians.  The other 12 percent comprises Buddhists, Muslims (Musiliums), Hindus, Unitarians, Jews, and several other religions that are small enough to effectively be considered cults.  It also includes atheists and agnostics.  Guess which one I am.

So let's assume that our MySpace idiot sent her dumb "bullitin" to one hundred friends.  Let's also assume that her friends are as spiritually diverse as the population of the United States (they aren't, but we'll talk about why in a little bit.)  Statistically, that means that eighty eight of those people, plus or minus a severed foot or two, are Christians, and the rest aren't.  Guess how many of the remaining eleven whole people and one footless person don't believe in a god at all, or see no reason to believe the tenets of Christianity any more than any other religion.  Eight people.  It's also reasonable to assume that the limbless torso (0.3%) identifying itself  as a Muslim would likely not see a problem with a Muslim being in the White House.  More than that, it would probably be a little offended at the notion that its own country had declared war on it because of what it believed.  The eight atheists would probably be pissed that their friend was such an idiot and that they had been lumped together with such stupidity in the first place.  So there you go, this MySpace girl just pissed off eight people out of a hundred simply because she didn't take two minutes to think about what she was saying.  Also, I bet that the torso isn't even friends with her anymore.

We are not at war with the Muslims!  Or, for that matter, the Musiliums!  Anyone who knows anything knows that we are at war with Terror.  Not terrorists, because that would be silly, they aren't an organized state or recognized government, how could we possibly declare war on terrorists?  We couldn't.  We might as well declare war on criminals.  The point is we are at war with Terror.  That's "Terror" with a T, one notch above "Frigtht" with an F, and two notches below "I just shit my pants!" with a ZOMG!

I am dangerously close to straying from the topic here so let's get back to business.  Don't be so fucking stupid all the time.  We are not at war with the Muslims.  You are not at war with the Muslims.  As far as I know, no one has been at war with the Muslims for about eight hundred years.  Are there Muslims who are assholes?  Yes, you may have heard of some, from time to time they blow up buildings, and boats, and embassies.  But being Muslim is not what made those people assholes any more than being Christian is what made these people unscrupulous, degenerate homophobes.  In answer to the questions those of you who clicked that link may have; Yes, the sign in the background says "FAG USA".  No, I don't think they're trying to be ironic.  Yes, I think that each and every one of them is a closet homosexual (or lesbian if applicable, PS check the title of the post! Booyah!) And yes, I think there should be laws to limit the number of children people like that should be allowed to give birth to.

Let's here it for mandatory abortions everyone!  Am I right?

And while I'm on the subject of everyday idiots hindering successful medicine.  How about if all of you crazy NRA fuckwads stop draping yourselves in the second amendment and start using it to bandage the numerous gunshot wounds I am sick and tired of having to fix every single fucking day.

I suppose I wouldn't expect any less from a bunch of backward hicks that think our only set of morals come courtesy of a kindly, gray bearded gentleman ambling amongst the clouds, passing out guidelines in the form of a two thousand year old, cobbled together series of vague, unmistakably intolerant dictates written by lunatics, psychopaths, mass murderers, and other weirdos that were, surprisingly, only marginally dumber than the people who read them.

Alright, having had a chance to read this post, I have to say that I do not endorse this man or anything he has to say, and I am skeptical that he is a doctor of any kind.  He gave me a prescription for shoes and lobster, and I'm reasonably certain that he stole that stethoscope.

I promise to get to the meat of this series next week. In the meantime I'm going to try to catch up with a few more relevant issues.

quote:
"Stop using media—whether it be digital or stick-on—to try to convict people of sin. Start using media to tell people about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Start using media to tell people—regardless of their spotless or despicable sexual history—how much God loves them and desires a relationship with them."

"Yeah we did some foolish things. I can't quite imagine putting a bomb in a building today, but the way things are in the world, I can't imagine entirely dismissing the possibility either. What if the government is killing a bunch of innocent people and just won't listen? And knowing now that trying to make a better life can lead to the guillotine, and the gulag, I still can't imagine a fully human world without utopian dreams." William Ayers

The Relationship Between Barack Obama And Bill Ayers Is Much More Extensive Than Obama's Campaign Is Willing To Admit 

Obama's Top Campaign Staff Have Attempted To Downplay The Relationship Between Obama And Bill Ayers:

Obama Spokesman Robert Gibbs Said That Obama And Ayers Weren't Close And That Obama Was Only 8 Years Old When Ayers Was Bombing Buildings. Robert Gibbs: "If you read the article ... it says these two men weren't close, this man isn't involved in our campaign. Bill Ayers is somebody that Barack Obama said his actions were despicable and these happened when Barack Obama was 8 years old." (FOX News' "FOX & Friends," 10/6/08)

Gibbs Has Also Limited The Relationship Between Obama And Ayers To Serving On Two Boards Together. John Roberts:  "Barack Obama knew Bill Ayers and had contact with him between 1995 and 2005. Exactly what was the nature of the relationship?" Robert Gibbs: "Well, John, as The New York Times reported this weekend, they served on two boards together during that time period." (CNN's "American Morning," 10/6/08)

Even Obama Has Previously Referred To Ayers As "A Guy Who Lives In My Neighborhood" And Not Someone He Exchanges Ideas With "On A Regular Basis." Obama: "George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George." (Sen. Barack Obama, ABC Democrat Candidates Presidential Debate, Philadelphia, PA, 4/16/08)

But Obama's Connections With Bill Ayers Are Much More Extensive Than He Or His Campaign Staff Is Willing To Admit:

In 1995, During Obama's First State Senate Campaign, William Ayers And Wife Bernadine Dohrn Hosted A Meeting Of Chicago Liberals At Their Home For Obama, Which One Attendee Said Was Aimed At "Launching Him." "In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district's influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they're better known nationally as two of the most notorious -- and unrepentant -- figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement. ... 'I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers' house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,' said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the info rmal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. '[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.' ... Dr. Young and another guest, Maria Warren, described it similarly: as an introduction to Hyde Park liberals of the handpicked successor to Palmer, a well-regarded figure on the left. 'When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn,' Warren wrote on her blog in 2005. 'They were launching him -- introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.'" (Ben Smith, "Obama Once Visited '60s Radicals," The Politico, 1/22/08)

From March Of 1995 Until September Of 1997, Obama And Ayers Attended At Least Seven Meetings Together Relating To The Chicago Annenberg Challenge. (Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Board Of Directors Meeting, Minutes Of The Board, 3/15/95, 3/31/95, 4/13/95, 6/5/95, 9/30/97; National Annenberg Challenge Evaluation Meeting, List Of Participants, 5/24/95; Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Chicago School Reform Collaborative Meeting, Minutes, 10/23/96)

• NOTE: Bill Ayers Was Asked To Help Obama Formulate The Chicago Annenberg Challenge By-Laws. (Chicago Annenberg Challenge Board Of Directors Minutes, 3/15/95)

In 1997, Obama Praised Ayers' Book On The Juvenile Justice System. "The two men were involved in efforts to reform the city's education system. They appeared together on academic panels, including one organized by Michelle Obama to discuss the juvenile justice system, an area of mutual concern. Mr. Ayers's book on the subject won a rave review in The Chicago Tribune by Mr. Obama, who called it 'a searing and timely account.'" (Jo Becker and Christopher Drew, "Pragmatic Politics, Forged On The South Side," The New York Times, 5/11/08)

• Obama On William Ayers' "A Kind And Just Parent: The Children Of Juvenile Court": "A searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair." (Chicago Tribune, 12/21/97)

"[Obama And Ayers] Have Also Appeared Jointly On Two Academic Panels, One In 1997 And Another In 2001." (Russell Berman, "Obama's Ties To Left Come Under Scrutiny," The New York Sun, 2/19/08)

From 1999 To 2002, Obama Served With Ayers On The Board Of Directors For Woods Fund Of Chicago. "[Ayers] served with [Obama] from 1999 to 2002 on the board of the Woods Fund, an anti-poverty group." (Timothy J. Burger, "Obama's Chicago Ties Might Fuel 'Republican Attack Machine'," Bloomberg, 2/15/08)

• During The Time Obama And Ayers Served Together On The Woods Fund, Ayers Was Quoted Saying "I Don't Regret Setting Bombs ... I Feel We Didn't Do Enough." "'I don't regret setting bombs,' Bill Ayers said. 'I feel we didn't do enough.' Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970's as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago." (Dinitia Smith, "No Regrets For A Love Of Explosives," The New York Times, 9/11/01)

• NOTE: Obama, Born August 14th, 1961, Was 40 Years Old When Ayers Was Quoted. (Obama For America Website, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 10/6/08; Dinitia Smith, "No Regrets For A Love Of Explosives," The New York Times, 9/11/01)

• While Obama And Ayers Were Serving On The Woods Fund Together, Ayers Posed Standing On An American Flag For An Article In Chicago Magazine Entitled "No Regrets." (Marcia Froelke Coburn, "No Regrets," Chicago Magazine, 8/01)

Obama And Ayers Are Neighbors In Chicago's Hyde Park Neighborhood. "Twenty-six years later, at a lunchtime meeting about school reform in a Chicago skyscraper, Barack Obama met Mr. Ayers, by then an education professor. Their paths have crossed sporadically since then, at a coffee Mr. Ayers hosted for Mr. Obama's first run for office, on the schools project and a charitable board, and in casual encounters as Hyde Park neighbors." (Scott Shane, "Obama And '60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths," The New York Times, 10/4/08)

• Obama Spokesman Ben LaBolt Told The New York Times That Last Year Obama And Ayers "Bumped Into Each Other On The Street In Hyde Park." "[Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt] said they have not spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Mr. Obama began serving in the United States Senate in January 2005 and last met more than a year ago when they bumped into each other on the street in Hyde Park." (Scott Shane, "Obama And '60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths," The New York Times, 10/4/08)

• Neighbors Have Said "It's Only Natural" That Obama Would Know Ayers, Who Often Opens His Home For Gatherings, As Obama And His Wife "Are A Part Of Our Neighborhood And Part Of Our Social Circle." "Since coming out of hiding in 1980, the couple have raised three boys in Chicago and become part of the fabric of their liberal South Side neighborhood. Neighbors said it's only natural that Obama would know Ayers and Dohrn, who often open their homes for gatherings filled with lively discussions about politics, arts and social issues. Obama and his wife 'are part of our neighborhood and part of our social circle,' said Elizabeth Chandler, a neighbor of Ayers'." (Trevor Jensen, Robert Mitchum and Mary Owen, "Bill Ayers' Turbulent Past Contrasts With Quiet Academ ic Life," Chicago Tribune, 4/17/08)

Ayers' Organization, The Weather Underground, Was A "Violent Left-Wing Activist Group":

"William Ayers ... [Was] A Founding Member Of The Group That Bombed The U.S. Capitol And The Pentagon During The 1970s." (Russell Berman, "Obama's Ties To Left Come Under Scrutiny," The New York Sun, 2/19/08)

• Ayers' Group, The Weather Underground, Is A "Violent Left-Wing Activist Group." "Senator Obama's ties to a former leader of the violent left-wing activist group the Weather Underground are drawing new scrutiny as he battles Senator Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination." (Russell Berman, "Obama's Ties To Left Come Under Scrutiny," The New York Sun, 2/19/08)

The Weather Underground Produced A Manual Which Begins, "We Are A Guerrilla Organization. We Are Communist Women And Men, Underground In The United States For More Than Four Years." "The coalition was said to be a violence-prone faction inspired by the Weather Underground's ''Prairie Fire,'' a guerrilla warfare manual published in 1974. The manual begins, 'We are a guerrilla organization. We are Communist women and men, underground in the United States for more than four years.'" (Paul L. Montgomery, "2 Women In Brink's Case Identified With Weathermen From Start In '69," The New York Times, 10/ 22/81)

The Catholic Campaign for Human Development is responsible for that.

It is also responsible, in some part, for the fact that forty years later, we have a virulently pro-abortion, pro-homosexual presidential candidate whose principle political training has been in Alinskyian organizing. While he - Barak Obama - was lead organizer in Chicago for the Developing Communities Project, it received a $40,000 Catholic Campaign for Human Development grant in 1985 and a $33,000 grant in 1986.

While he was in Chicago Obama was trained by the top Alinskyian organizers. One mentor was the ex-Jesuit, Greg Galuzzo, lead organizer for Gamaliel. The Developing Communities Project operated under the Gamaliel Foundation, a network of Alinskyian organizations that receive 4-5% of all Catholic Campaign for Human Development grants each year.

The Developing Communities Project, which hired Obama as lead organizer, was an offshoot of Jerry Kellman's Calumet Community Religious Conference. Kellman, another of Obama's mentors, was himself trained by Alinsky. The network of community organizations Alinsky founded, the Industrial Areas Foundation, receives about 16% of all Catholic Campaign for Human Development grants annually.

After Obama went to Harvard Law School, he returned to Chicago and taught Alinskyian organizing to ACORN staff. Although ACORN has a different structure than other Alinskyian networks, its tactical philosophy and world view are formed by men who were trained by Alinsky, in a sort of diabolical apostolic succession. Obama ran ACORN's 1992 voter-registration drive, Project Vote, and in turn received ACORN's endorsement for Illinois senator. ACORN annually receives about 5% of Catholic Campaign for Human Development grants.

This translates into millions of dollars of Catholic money over the last four decades going into Alinskyian community organizing. Catholics generously gave their money to the Catholic Campaign for Human Development collection because they were told it would "help the poor."

Relatively little from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development collection goes to "help the poor." Alinskyian networks are political. They work closely with politicians - such as Obama - and other organizations that are fighting for abortion and homosexual "rights." ACORN's "People's Platform" has nothing in common with Catholic social justice teaching and everything in common with socialism. Gamaliel and the Industrial Areas Foundation teach liberationism, a form of "Christianized" socialism, among their members.

This has serious ramifications for Catholics. The Alinskyian networks operate ecumenically and include numerous Catholic parishes. The Catholics involved in the extensive trainings these networks offer are not catechized in Catholic principles of social activism or political analysis but in Marxist analysis and praxis. Their worldview is marred by visions of class struggle and perpetual revolution. They are systematically trained to renounce moral truth in favor of consensus-based "values."

Catholics trained in Alinskyian thought become confused about the comparative moral weight of the issues they encounter in the public arena. They also become confused about the legitimate authority of the Church, frequently imagining they can apply consensus-building strategies to doctrines and moral truth. They are the same Catholics who people the dissident Call to Action chapters around the country.

Ironically, they learned these confused ideas in their parishes, through Church-sponsored "educational" programs such as the Catholic Campaign for Human Development's liberationist "Poverty and Faithjustice". Because of this confusion, Catholics, who ought to be a powerful, consistent voice for moral values in society, are fragmented and ineffective. The Catholic Campaign for Human Development bears much of the responsibility.

A few bishops understand exactly what the Catholic Campaign for Human Development is and approve what it funds. Most, however, swallow the concept of its "helping the poor" and have probed no deeper. Busy about the Lord's work of minding their dioceses, they've trusted others to run the "social justice" offices.

In this sense, the nomination of Barak Obama has been a great blessing. Even the politically naïve are fascinated by the pejorative dismissal of Obama as a "community organizer" and his campaign's rebuttal that to disrespect community organizers is to disrespect Catholic Action. Obama isn't Catholic. Catholic thought hasn't subtly filtered into this ecumenical movement. Amoral Alinskyian thought, on the other hand, has clearly filtered into Catholic circles - to such a degree that some people confuse one for the other.

Obama's nomination is a window of opportunity to explain - starting with the bishops - the difference between Alinskyian principles and Catholic Action. They and other Catholics should find materials about Obama's Alinskyian roots quite interesting. We need to be sharing those materials.

After 40 years of funding the bad guys, it's time to stop.

#####

For a summary of Archdiocese of Chicago CCHD 2008 Grants, go to

http://www.archchicago.org/departments/peace_and_justice/pdf/cchd/FundedGroups_08.pdf

Elena Segura is the CCHD director for the Archdiocese. If you have other questions after looking at the materials on the web, please feel free to email her at esegura@archchicago.org

In this regard I would like to speak about a hero of mine: Michael Cardinal von Faulhaber, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Munich from 1917 to his death in 1952. (As an interesting side note, the last man Faulhaber was to ordain to the priesthood was one Joseph Ratzinger, our present Holy Father.)

As you might imagine, the years between 1933 and 1945, marked by the reign of Hitler, were especially difficult for Faulhaber. However, rather than choose to remain quiet out of fear of the Nazis, Faulhaber instead chose courage. At every opportunity, he spoke out against the crimes of the Nazis, on occasion risking his own life to do so.

His Advent sermons of 1933, delivered in the vast Munich Cathedral, the Frauenkirche, drew thousands of Munich citizens-standing room only-who came to listen to the Cardinal fearlessly challenge National Socialism, to assert the rights and freedoms of the Catholic Church, and to call for the protection of the Jewish People.

By the 1940s when Hitler's final solution became clear to all, Faulhaber ordered yellow armbands with the Star of David to be placed on the statues of Christ and Mary throughout his archdiocese, in specific response to the Nazi treatment of Jews. Faulhaber's courage made the Nazis cower. No one in the Gestapo dare take these yellow arm bands down. So, Munich, the birthplace of the Nazi movement, became the center of Nazi resistance. And although Dachau was located just ten miles outside Munich's city limits, within Munich, Hitler and his policies were weakened severely by the courage of a single man.

It remains one of the perplexing questions of history, how it could be that a great people such as the Germans could have been fooled by a man with such a diabolical political agenda. Especially Germany, the country of the Frederick the Great the philosopher-king, which was arguably the most enlightened and free nation in Europe. Because of reparations which Germany had to repay as a result of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany's economy was in freefall. (If you think the current crisis in the Unites States is a problem, what we are enduing is nothing by comparison.). The German currency of the time, the Reichsmark which was introduced in 1924, was worth less than the paper it was printed on. Hyperinflation was so pronounced that it became cheaper to burn money than firewood.

So when Hitler came to power he fulfilled much of his agenda. He did revive the German economy, almost miraculously. Hitler also reestablished the order to a society falling into disarray, and he grave Germans a new sense of pride. So, in a sense, Hitler "saved" Germany-or so it seemed to many in 1934.

But Hitler's plan to "save" Germany was founded upon of principles of utmost evil: The killing of the innocent; genocide of neighboring peoples and the plundering of nations; eugenic activity on handicapped, the infirm and the aged, all in the name of progress toward a "master race"-a utopian ideal to create a society which would last not for 1000 but for 10,000 years.

Hitler wanted the Church to remain quiet in the face of all this, and to ultimately replace the Church with what amounted to a new religion based on German identity. Hitler's desire for the Church was a cry many of us hear today: "The Church should not interfere with policies of the state."

History has not looked with any kindness on members of the Catholic clergy or hierarchy who, during the Nazi era, did little or nothing to help the plight of the Jewish people. History has condemned them, and rightly so.

We as members of the Church are the hands of Jesus, our mouths are the instruments of his voice. Jesus, who always spoke out against injustice and oppression, asks and requires of us to be agents of change in the world, to bring about policies in our own nation and in the world that will defend human life-for the innocent and weak especially, for these have no one to speak for them.

But questions remain. How could so many German Christians at the time have supported Hitler? How could they have viewed their economic prosperity, the strengthening of their public institutions and army, and the pride of their own nation as being of greater value than the killing of the innocent? Is there any way to defend that? Is economic prosperity more important that life? Is the right to the quality of life more important than the right to life itself? Is mass murder allowable if the state is feeding the hungry?

But then I ask you: When we go to the polls on November 4, why will so many Catholics not support the overturn of Roe vs. Wade? Yes, there are many issues facing our country, many of them serious. War is serious, and so is the matter of immigration, economic reform, taxation, the need for health care, and so on. But we must keep in mind that since 1973 when the Supreme Court decided that a human being in the womb was not protected because of property and privacy rights implied in the 14th amendment, we have as a nation aborted nearly 50 million people.

Let us also not forget the 30-40 million women whose lives have been scarred because they were told that this procedure would be good for them and help them, and who day after day have to convince themselves somehow that they are forgiven.

Before I conclude this long homily-and I thank you for your attention today-I want to say to anyone here affected by abortion that Jesus has the power to make all things new: It is Jesus' job to forgive sinners. God understands the pain of loss and human frailty, which is why his forgiveness and mercy towards those who have suffered through abortion is so abundant. The Father forgives as soon as you ask. But emotional healing takes many, many years, and it hurts terribly. Thank God that today, the pro-life movement has greatest love and sympathy for women and those who have gone through abortion. Project Rachel here in St. Louis is a place of tremendous comfort and peace. Thank God also that the pro-life movement and the Catholic Church has in place real programs to help women who choose not to have an abortion, so that they can survive financially and medically through such difficult times. We must never forget that our goal to stop abortion, while necessary, is only the first part of our call. The second part is for us to support with love and financial assistance the women and families who will struggle to raise their children in the face of seemingly insurmountable struggles. It takes strength to choose life in our world today, and for us to be effective ministers of the love of Jesus, not only must we protect life; we must be present and willing to help nurture that new life into adulthood; we must be there especially for the poor and for single mothers.

Moreover, the Church does not condemn those who have suffered through the abortion experience. Rather, the Church stands by such people to offer them forgiveness, compassion to know their sins are forgiven, and that God loves them dearly. The Church, however, does condemn those who willfully have made abortion the law of the land, who support its spread, and who propagate this terrible lie-this "big lie"-that causes death and personal loss.

I pray that, when historians looks back at the late 20th and early 21st century and the Catholic Church, they will be able to say that it was our Church that stopped the brutal killing of the innocent; that it was our Church that was the true voice of women's rights; that it was our Church that never abandoned young mothers and young children; that it was our Church shone the light of Jesus' love our dark society.

You and I have the obligation, therefore, to speak out against the lie that abortion is not killing; the lie that abortion is good for women.

We do this primarily by praying to end abortion; we do this by supporting women who have endured abortions; we do this by assisting women who courageously choose to endure difficult pregnancies; we do this by refraining from investing in companies that promote abortion and human manipulation; we do this by abstaining and opposing anything in the entertainment industry that treats women as objects whose feelings and personal worth are disregarded; and, finally, we do this according to our votes.

I will close this long homily now with two questions. First: If every Catholic in Germany had opposed Hitler, would there have been a holocaust? The situation is difficult. So many Christians felt themselves trapped in the Nazi regime that they had to register for the party or else fear the loss of their livelihood not to mention the abduction and murder of family remembers. But, I think I can answer that for you in this way: If every diocese in Germany had a man as brave as Cardinal Faulhaber, I do not think the Holocaust could have happened. No tyrant, however brutal, can carry out any program without the consent of the governed; the power of a leader is proportionate to people's willingness to be led.

The second and final question, therefore, is this: If every Catholic in the United States showed the courage of Cardinal Faulhaber, and voted only pro-life, what do you think would happen?

Hat Tip: St. Louis Catholic/Father Noah Waldman

The strip below has been used with the author's permission, but unfortunately I have had to reduce the size to fit it into the space on this blog. If you can't read the strip below, have a look at it in all its glory by clicking on it and being taken to Neil's original page.

Beyond the humour, the comic addresses three very pertinent issues about believing in god that don't normally get discussed in churches.  These issues are psychological, logical, and historical.

Responsibility

In the first drawing an atheist wanting to lose weight accepts that exercising is likely to be more effective than praying to god.  The atheist is willing to accept responsibility rather than unrealistically depending on some magical higher power.

Religions often teach that independence is arrogant and delusional. However, it seems that the real arrogance and delusion is to invent the unseen magical power. When my own mortality hit me in the face (well the chest, actually - see The English Patient) I know that many Christians were convinced that this was god trying to humble me and bring me back to the flock. They were hoping that as I faced the possibility of death and traumatic medical procedures (see Room 101) that I would cry out to a divinity for aid.

At this time I wasn't arrogantly thinking that I alone could solve this. I was perfectly happy to depend on the support of family and friends. I was also very happy to depend on the skill (or otherwise) of the medical practitioners and trust their scientific knowledge and practical training. I also knew that I had to a big responsibility for my own continued recovery and had to seriously change my diet and exercise practice (i.e. start the latter). But at no time did I feel the need to cry out in the darkness to an imaginary friend.

Belief in a divinity infantalizes - it keeps intelligent, significant human beings in a state of childhood. People are stopped from thinking things through and making risky, intelligent decisions because they have to know what god thinks. They protect themselves from facing consequences because they tell themselves that whatever happens is god's will. Any parent will tell you that children grow into adults as they learn to take responsibility and face up to the consequences of their actions. Religion hinders this process and seriously stunts psychological growth.

Morality

In the second drawing the issue of reasons for being moral is addressed. It is a religious myth that people who have no faith have no morality - it is an insult, in fact. It is true that atheists may have a different morality, but that doesn't mean that they have no reasons for doing or not doing what they decide to do. It is a logical fallacy to presume that difference amounts to nothing.

Atheists again want to take responsibility and make decisions that make sense according to reason and the normal rules that we use to operate the rest of our life.  They decide because of consequences in the real world, not because of some imagined consequences in some imagined future life.

Let me put it like this. If McCain gets in and then dies would you want Sarah Palin to launch a nuclear war because she had thought it through and concluded that it was the best option from a range of other disastrous ones, or because she felt god had told her to do it and to disobey him would be immoral?  Of course, having to take responsibility and think things through is often messy and lacks the certainty of a divine edict, but it is much more reasonable to do that.  Doing something out of fear of an imagined torture for all eternity is seriously strange!

Murder

The third drawing looks at how so many wars have been caused by belief in the divine - in particular in relation to religious claims about territory.  Millions of people have beens slaughtered over thousands of years because of religious claims over land - and that slaughter and abuse is happening even as I write.

Throughout history peoples have conquered others and taken land, but sometimes, nations are able to put that aside and move on.  However, if religion is involved, the strife burns for thousands of years.  In Britain, the Celts took the land from the Barrow People, then the Anglo-Saxons took a lot of it from the Celts before eventually learning to live with them.  Then the Vikings reached an accommodation with the Anglo-Saxons.  Then the Norman French came, and then the peaceful invasion from the rest of the world.  But in Britain we don't have groups of Barrow People now saying, "God gave us this land and we have the right to kill to claim it back and to 'ethnically cleanse' the other nations who oppose our religion."  But such reasoning has happened historically and is still happening today in parts of the world.

I find it strange that some Westerners who have so recently been appalled at the attempted ethnic cleansing that has taken place in Europe in recent times can still comfortably sit in churches and worship a god who, according to her/his book, commanded and justified ethnic cleansing.  I can only conclude that they either don't know their bibles or they don't believe what it teaches.

The cartoon succeeds in opening up the box a bit.

I read with much enthusiasm a document that was supposed to make me a critical thinker. The document started with a fresh dose of analytical thinking skills and other intellectual goodies, much to the delight of my philosophical brain. The document was plainly about thinking, it is aimed at teaching people how to think and it starts off on a very promising note.

Being an IT professional I was drawn into the idea of looking at my brain as a computer and consider it programmable and all that. And that was the basic maxim of the document I was reading. Then I bumped into an interesting warning:

"If you cannot stomach any criticism of religion or I f you cannot see the influence that religion still exerts over all our thinking today (especially Big Religion like the Vatican) then you can skip Days 1 to 12 and start from Day 13. But there are two main reasons for keeping this material in this book and why you should read and think about it: Welfare and Security."

Note that this document was structured into content that one would have to read on a daily basis. This explains the day 1, 2 and all that in the above quote.

And believe me I can stomach religious criticism. As a liberal Christian, I have been able to question and argue against some of the contents of the bible and the practices of the Morden charismatic churches as well as the orthodox ones. I have been in constructive discourses with people of all religions including the native religions of the African people, which to many, are just mystics. I have engaged with Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and other people of various religious affiliations including the Church of Scientology. And thus to me, I am quite capable of containing any form of religious criticism; simply because I don’t consider anything perfect. But I found that the warning was hiding somewhat potential dangerous theory. Had I skipped the mentioned chapters I would have missed this serious misconception.

In Page 26 of the book I stumbled upon an interesting question and answers thereof. "Are you a bright?" that was the question. And my instinct was that when done reading the book one would eventually become a bright. And yes, I thought I am a bright and if not, I want to be a bright. But the definition of a bright was more shocking for me that I expected.

"Bights are not believers in gods and goddesses, angels, fairies, spirits, crossing over, ghosts, voodoo, snake-handling, astrology, faith-healing, indulgences, crystals, limbo, hell or purgatory...but they really do not believe in the Resurrection, the Assumption, the Pilgrimage, or the Sabbath."

And yes, there are many of the things listed in there that I simply don’t believe in. But right from this point I felt as if in simple terms the author was saying, a bright is someone who believes in nothing; Faithless that is. As if that was not so clear the author added:

"Brights may be: Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Humanists, Non-Religious, Non-Practicing, Objectivists or Sceptics"

I have long considered myself a free thinker  and an objectivist but I surely do not fit into the categories listed above. Simply because I am religious. I am a believer, to a certain extent. I believe in the existence of a GOD, without much care about his name and what people think he wants them to do, but I believe in the existence of a supreme being even if it’s not human in formation.

Then the author quotes a very clear definition of a bright.

“Bright is the word, the new noun for atheist."

 And yes, the author goes on to name a list of individuals he believes where brights. And the author even provides a website link to a special website dedicated to this "Brights concept".

In order to give the author a benefit of a doubt, I continued reading until the end of the document.

 Out of context

 My understanding of thinking is that it is by its very nature influenced by the environment in which the thinker exists. And it is either thinking in line with the norms of the environment or challenging these norms, but it has something to do with the environment.

Now I felt, and I stand to be corrected, that thinking as a trained activity shouldn't be about restraining thoughts to a specific island of thoughts. Rather, it should allow individuals the liberty to think freely about the environment and their encounters in the same. Now, from the document I quoted above, it seemed to me that the author was determined to have people who consider themselves as Brights relinquish their religious affiliations; simply because Brights are not supposed to believe.

Now, maybe to respond to the first quote, I am aware of the influence that religion has over people and lives in general. But I feel how the individual respond in thought and action to the influence is simply the responsibility of the individual. By forcing those who are aware of the influence of religion upon people to give up their religious conviction, the author is in fact doing what he criticises the BIG RELIGION of doing. He is trying to influence how people think about religion, which in fact jeopardise their objectivity towards the religious aspect of their lives.

Precisely, the author is trying to impose his personal experience with religion upon individuals who may want to be called Brights. Let me say, frankly that, an individual's experience of an object cannot justify a collective decision. I would expect a critical thinker to know that it is an individual's right to respond to an object as he or she deem fit. And that is why I have no objections to the personal preferences of the author as far as religion is concerned. But I have a problem when he wants to shape a universal concept based on a very narrow personal experience.

And all that made me think, what has that got to do with thinking? (As a trained skill). When the subject matter is thinking, the discourse must strictly be about thinking. Unless one is employing the psychological tactics used by self-help masters and doctors, of trying to impose one's belief in the audience. But if one is approaching this from a philosophical point of view, the aim is not to restrain but to allow individuals the freedom to think perhaps with more liberty but nor in a prescriptive manner.

On religion...

Religion, though collectively practised has always been a personal encounter between and individual and his or her God. Now I can tell, from the document, that the author had some rough experience with Christianity. He was told about hell and that was probably used to convince him to accept Christianity. But there is a vast majority of us, who are Christians and were not convinced into it because of hell or heaven. Actually we hardly encounter thoughts of hell. And when the author says Brights don't believe in faith-healing, he is actually asking people to believe in things that some of them have witness first hand. Now how do you ask me to not believe in something that I have experience? Had the author just expressed these thoughts as a matter of personal opinion, it wouldn’t have been an issue. But it is an issue when the author expresses them in an attempt to mould a universal school of thought. The author should have realised that his opinions, on which he wants to base a universal concept, are limited to his experience and exposures of life. Now, I think the author wouldn't want us to be limited to his limited experience. Rather, allow us to be free to explore and experience the depth of our religious exposures. Then we will be able to formulate an opinion based on our own experience of the religion of our choice.

It also seems to me that the author is using his experience with Christians who claim to have the absolute truth to refute Christianity. And he forgets that that was based on the limited experience of the people he interacted with. I am a Christian, I don’t even claim that my religion is flawless in practice; neither do I make any prescriptive argument on the truth based on my religion.  And I also feel the author is using the same tactic that he is fighting the religions for. He assumes that his idea that there is no need for belief in religions and any faith based concept is the Truth, and it is just an opinion which unfortunately is narrowly based on a limited experience.

I am firmly believe in the intellectual liberty of individuals and I feel it is up to the individual to decide what goes and what doesn't for him, and not some prescriptive document by an author who has not existed in our situations and circumstances.

From a cultural point of view....

When I was young, I bumped into a book on anthropology (One of my parents was studying related courses). That book, although not fully exhaustive, discussed the different cultures of this world. I saw a couple of hundreds of cultures that I was not aware of, even from my native African continent. One thing seemed common in all the cultures of the world, including sub-cultures at some cases, that there was a consistent belief throughout that there is an existence of a supreme being.

And in the words of Napoleon

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to create him."

Now, it seems to me that if one is rooted in a particular culture he or she will find there is a presence of a God. Any faithlessness is in actual sense, culture-less, especial in the context of religious faith. Culture is there to ensure the collective establishment of values system and the religious faith creates a regulatory context which prescribes what is acceptable to the particular community or society. Even Satanists, as a community of individuals with shared interest, has a god.

What of Atheism...

First of all, I think atheism is a denialist theory or philosophy. I stand to be educated in atheism but my understanding of it is that when one is an atheist he or she does not believe in God. Now the fact that there is a mention of God makes me think the whole call is quite a refusal to acknowledge the existence of God. Had there been no existence of a God, atheism would be natural simply because no one would be exposed to a concept of God. But unfortunately, we are exposed to the existence of a God, through religion and culture. And that is why there would need to be a formalized school of thought to render void our experience and our exposure to a God. If I am asked not to believe in the God of the Israelites, I still believe in the existence of Nwali, the God of the native Venda people. And to make me not believe in Nwali is to render my culture senseless and mystic.

What the atheists must understand is that one's perception about the existence of something does not affect the reality thereof.

Biko on talking about the native Africans said

 "We never doubted the existence of God".

And I think that’s the case with many people.

.........Got go now but I will definitely have a follow up post on this matter

There is only one member of Congress who is on record as not holding a god-belief.

Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), a member of Congress since 1973, acknowledged his nontheism in response to an inquiry by the Secular Coalition for America. Rep. Stark is a senior member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee and is Chair of the Health Subcommittee.

Although the Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office, the Coalition's research reveals that Rep. Stark is the first open nontheist in the history of the Congress. Recent polls show that Americans without a god-belief are, as a group, more distrusted than any other minority in America. Surveys show that the majority of Americans would not vote for an atheist for president even if he or she were the most qualified for the office.

Herb Silverman, president of the Secular Coalition for America, attributes these attitudes to the demonization of people who don't believe in God. "The truth is," says Silverman, "the vast majority of us follow the Golden Rule and are as likely to be good citizens, just like Rep. Stark with over 30 years of exemplary public service. The only way to counter the prejudice against nontheists is for more people to publicly identify as nontheists. Rep. Stark shows remarkable courage in being the first member of Congress to do so."

In October, 2006 the Secular Coalition for America, a national lobby representing the interests of atheists, humanists, freethinkers, and other nontheists, announced a contest. At the time, few if any elected officials, even at the lowest level, would self-identify as a nontheist. So the Coalition offered $1,000 to the person who could identify the highest level atheist, agnostic, humanist or any other kind of nontheist currently holding elected public office in the United States.

In addition to Rep. Stark only three other elected officials agreed to do so: Terry S. Doran, president of the School Board in Berkeley, Calif.; Nancy Glista on the School Committee in Franklin, Maine; and Michael Cerone, a Town Meeting Member from Arlington, Mass.

Surveys vary in the percentage of atheists, humanists, freethinkers and other nontheists in the U.S, with about 10% (30 million people) a fair middle point. "If the number of nontheists in Congress reflected the percentage of nontheists in the population," Lori Lipman Brown, director of the Secular Coalition, observes, "there would be 53-54 nontheistic Congress members instead of one."

http://www.secular.org/news/pete_stark_070312.html
It's about election time and I was pondering how many atheists are involved in politics. Then, I remembered Rep. Pete Stark of California.

Warning: Graphic picture of truth below.

Some questions to my priest before I make my confession: "Say I raised money so that a friend could procure the abortion of her child, is that manifest grave sin, and do I need to confess it before receiving Holy Communion?"

My Priest: "Ah...Yes and yes... But, don't confess now; return when your actually contrite of heart and have sure intentions of ending such sinful behavior in the future... After all, my friend, you've asked me these very same questions over 12,000 times this year..."

Kudos to Archbishop Vlazny.Let him know that I and millions of Catholics support him and his fellow Bishops in taking yet another scandalous pro-abort Catholic politician to task. May the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, continue to enlighten and guide his actions concerning this grave offense to life. Enough is enough--It's time for office hours, followed by no communion for the unrepentant who helps fund, promote and authorize this:

Here's the story from Associated Press: 

SALEM, Ore. -- Archbishop John Vlazny is criticizing Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski, a Catholic, for playing host to an abortion rights fundraiser Friday night in Portland.

Vlazny, head of the Archdiocese of Portland, said it's an embarrassment and a scandal for Catholics that Kulongoski is hosting the event two days before the church conducts its annual "Respect Life" mass in Portland to show opposition to abortion.

"For a Catholic governor to host an event of this sort seems a deliberate dissent from the teachings of the church," Vlazny said in a statement Tuesday.

Kulongoski is a longtime supporter of a woman's right to choose an abortion.

"The archbishop is the governor's pastor, and he has only respect and admiration for the archbishop," Kulongoski spokeswoman Anna Richter Taylor said. "They obviously disagree on the issue of choice."

Kulongoski and his wife, Mary Oberst, are the honorary hosts of Friday night's fund raising dinner for NARAL Pro Choice Oregon. U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., is among those scheduled to speak. The event is to be held at a Portland hotel.

Richter Taylor said Kulongoski has attended various fundraising events for the group over the years.

Vlazny, calling abortion a "grave evil," urged Catholics to contact Kulongoski's office "to remind him of the demands of personal integrity as a member of our faith community in the exercise of his office."

The governor's office hadn't gotten any phone calls as of mid-day Tuesday, Richter Taylor said.

Photo Credits:

Priests for Life (Child retrieved from dumpster) 

Joni Shimabukuro(2007 Naral Banquet)

Is it me or does Sarah Palin sound here like she could be George Bush's equally dumb sister? I don't know how to interpret her answer to Katie Couric's question. Does Palin not read newspapers or news magazines, or does she not remember any of the titles of her favorite periodicals? Either way, it doesn't look good on  camera. Her style is more appropriate for an unctuous saleswoman than a Washington politician. I can picture her now trying to sell me an insurance policy or a time-share in Miami Beach.

If I didn't already know her belief in creationism, then I would have guessed. It follows that Curious George, the monkey, must be a Democrat, or at least a libertarian, because ultra-conservative, Christian Republicans don't seem to give a rat's ass about the wide world outside their bubbles of ignorance.

P.S. Check out how defensive McCain gets when Palin's qualifications are questioned.

Apparently an artist has taken some aesthetic steps towards what a “religious science” might look like by erecting “a temple for scientific worship” called the Atheon. But can anything like worship or even awe and contemplation be justified from a scientific worldview that sees the material universe as entirely explainable in terms of itself, a self-contained, closed-system of physical cause and effect? The answer can be only Read More

By Father John Flynn, L.C.

ROME, JULY 22, 2007 (Zenit.org).- The attack against religion started by Richard Dawkins in his book "The God Delusion" shows no sign of letting up. In recent months a number of emulators have published books that continue the polemic. 

In "God: The Failed Hypothesis," Victor J. Stenger purports to provide a sort of scientific proof that God does not exist. Stenger, a retired professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii, alleges that scientific reasoning has now progressed to the point where it can offer "a definitive statement on the existence or nonexistence of a God having the attributes that are traditionally associated with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God." 

God, he contends, should be detectable by scientific means, because of the role he is supposed to play in the universe and human life. An examination which, he argues in the books' chapters, that God fails. 

Another contribution is from English philosopher A.C. Grayling. In a collection of brief essays titled "Against All Gods," he purports to provide an alternative to religion, based on the Western philosophical tradition. 

Grayling declares his objection to religion both in terms of a belief system and its institutional role. Moreover, he accuses apologists for faith as being "an evasive community, who seek to avoid or deflect criticism by slipping behind the abstractions of higher theology." 

In addition to his criticisms of faith, Grayling contends that religion is now in its death throes, soon to be replaced by a far more benign humanism. 

Further polemics against faith came in "God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" by Christopher Hitchens. The quality of the arguments in the book, however, was found severely wanting by many reviewers. For example, a review by Michael Skapinker, editor of the weekend edition of the Financial Times, described the work using terms such as "intellectual and moral shabbiness." 

That hasn't stopped the book from being successful. According to a June 22 report by the Wall Street Journal, the book had sold almost 300,000 in its first seven weeks. 

Christian letters 

The atheist attacks have not gone unanswered. In recent months two slim books by evangelical Christians were published in the United States in reply to the 2006 essay by Sam Harris, "Letter to a Christian Nation." 

The first is "Letter from a Christian Citizen," by Douglas Wilson, a minister and senior fellow of theology at New St Andrews College, Idaho. In the foreword Gary Demar echoes a common opinion among those who have reviewed the current spate of anti-religious books. "The same tired arguments that have been answered convincingly by any number of Christian writers over the centuries have been trotted out in the vain hope that atheism will find a new audience," he observed. 

Wilson accuses Harris of selectively quoting texts from the Bible in an effort to embarrass believers by highlighting outmoded cultural norms. A more unbiased study of the Bible, particularly the New Testament Wilson argues, shows the revolutionary nature of Christianity, which subverted many of the unjust pagan cultural practices. 

Wilson then notes that Harris reduces morality to a calculation involving happiness and pain. If human conduct is to be regulated on this basis it will easily be led into committing abuses against others. 

Among other criticisms Wilson also accuses Harris of a superficial interpretation of the problem that evil poses for a believer. According to Harris the mere existence of a single evil act is enough to cast doubt on the idea of a benevolent God. 

The second reply to Harris is "Letter to a Christian Nation: Counter Point," by R.C. Metcalf. Harris, he observes, makes a number of points based on arguments related to Old Testament laws, slavery and human sexuality in an attempt to discredit religion. Metcalf deals with each of these issues, in general by showing how Christianity has been a force for good in society. 

Moreover, Metcalf argues, Christianity provides the most secure foundation for morally upright behavior. By contrast an atheist has no such grounding. 

Religion's contribution 

Another recent defense of religion came from Canadian Archbishop Thomas Collins. Archbishop Collins received his pallium from Benedict XVI on June 29 after being installed as Toronto's archbishop in January. 

On May 31 he gave a speech to the Empire Club of Canada titled "The Contribution of Religion to Society." The archbishop introduced his talk by referring to the way in which religion enables us to perceive the meaning of both the material world and of human life. 

"We live in a web of relationships, and through faith see the pattern of connections that show the purpose of our brief journey through this world," he said. 

This is particularly relevant in today's world "in which we can so easily become lonely individuals, without purpose or direction, disconnected, rootless, and going nowhere faster and faster," the archbishop continued. 

The main part of his speech was then given over to presenting four contributions which religion makes to society. 

1. Religion enhances local communities in which human relationships can flourish. 

The Catholic Church, he explained, places great stress on subsidiarity which fortifies smaller communities. This helps people relate to one another in a more humane relationship, based on reverence for the personal dignity of each of the children of God. 

The ultimate community, said Archbishop Collins, is the family, today under great pressure. The Catholic Church celebrates marriage as the stable covenant of a man and a woman faithful in love and open to the gift of life, he explained. 

2. Religious communities make massive contributions to the common good of all society through deeds of charity and social action. 

Imagine what would happen, he asked his audience, if suddenly Toronto were deprived of the social assistance offered daily to the most vulnerable by the religious communities and organizations. Christians undertake such works of charity motivated by the words of Jesus: Whatever you do for the least of my brothers and sisters, you do for me. 

3. Religious communities bring to bear on current issues the wisdom of their heritage. 

Religious people do disagree on important issues of doctrine, explained Archbishop Collins, but they do share reverence for the human person, made in the image and likeness of God, and have in common a tradition of working together to address social issues. 

There is a wisdom in religious tradition, he added, composed not only of elements stemming from faith, but also made up of experience and the use of reason. 

"Whatever the irritation caused to those who profess a secularist faith -- and secularism is itself a kind of faith -- it is of great value to any healthy society that a strong religious voice speak out on all issues of public concern," the archbishop affirmed. 

He also referred to arguments against religion based on the misdeeds committed in the name of faith. It would be more just, however, to base our judgment on religion looking at those who strived to live fully the reality of their faith. "Fairness dictates that religion be judged by its saints, not by its sinners," the archbishop maintained. 

4. Religious communities endow society with beauty. 

Beauty, truth, and goodness are both signs of God's presence and of that which is greatest in humanity, Archbishop Collins explained. Religious communities endow society with beauty through art, works of music and