Godless Croats!

They exist, which is very good news in a country that is 85% Catholic…and the reality of a Croatian atheist community was acknowledged in a major newspaper (google translation, for those of us who don’t know the language).

The Enlightenment is busting out all over, it’s good to see.

Never mind the horrible Google translation, here’s a cleaner translation by Nives Skunca:

When they see us, maybe others will want to ‘come out of the closet’ — joked Neven Barković, journalist and managing editor of T-portal [Croatian news portal] while our photographer took shots of him in front of the Tesla monument in Zagreb, in the company of the actress and author Jelena Veljača and the painter Bane Milenković .

The three of them belong to a new generation of Croatian atheist who, together with the philosopher Dr. Pavel Gregorić, molecular biologist Dr. Boris Lenhard, and physicist Dr. Dejan Vinković, agreed to speak publicly about their atheism.

It is not popular to declare oneself as an atheist (person who does not believe in God) in Croatia, and people who do often get labeled as ìcommunistsî and “persecutors of all things Croatian and Catholic”. According to the last census in 2001, about five percent of Croatian citizens identified themselves as atheists or agnostics (people who think that God’s existence can be neither proved nor disproved), and 95 percent considered themselves as believers. We asked our interlocutors whether it is undesirable to be an atheist in Croatia today.

– Yes, it is undesirable to be an atheist in a country where religious groups are financed from the state budget, not from the donations of the followers. It is undesirable to be an atheist if you are a parent of a school-child, torn between the wish to spare your child of religious indoctrination and the wish to spare them of social rejection and wandering the hallways because suitable alternative classes are not offered – said Pavel Gregorić (38), who recognized he was an atheist in high school, when he understood the meaning of the word. – I’ve never had a religious phase in my life and never had the need to flirt with faith — pointed out Gregorić.

Boris Lenhard (38) also never had a serious religious stage in his life, nor did he attend catechism classes. – Out of self-educational interest, in one period of my life I started to study world religions, their doctrines and historical development.

It was then that I was forced to realize that any theology, which I naively considered a philosophical discipline, is in fact an attorney-style defense of irrational ideas for which, as in any other defenses of that kind, the goal is not to find out the truth, but to defend their ‘clients’, often in the face of facts — Lenhard said, stressing that theology is no stranger to prevarication, obscurantism and dishonest manipulation. – When you realize that the doctrines and interpretations of each religion are utterly arbitrary and that they were modified throughout history to preserve the authority of their umbrella organization, the most plausible explanation is that they were created and maintained by people, for the goals that are not nearly as noble as they want to make them look – said Lenhard.

Unlike Lenhard and Gregorić, Neven Barković (32) went through a five-year long religious phase. – It was during high school, but my religious phase was neither Christian nor Catholic, but some kind of a semi-eastern mixture. After letting go of this belief, I never returned to religion. In fact, I realized that I definitely do not need the ‘God hypothesis’ as I have no good reason to believe that he really exists – said Barković.

Bane Milenković (47) liked going to church in his early childhood.

– My great-grandmother took me to church regularly. For me as a small boy, the neighborhood church looked fantastic, surreal. However, growing up led me in another direction from the church and then I realized that I do not need it, with respect to my inner code – recalled Milenković. Dejan Vinković (38) admitted that in the eighties, during the entire primary school, he attended the church catechism classes. — But, obviously, it did not have too much of an influence on me – said Vinković.

Jelena Veljača (29) was raised in the atheistic spirit, but in early puberty went through inner examination of the faith issue.

– When I was 12, it was wartime and the Croats were returning to the Church, as the Church was returning among the Croats. The school was dominated by the atmosphere in which we were divided into those who attend the catechism class and those ‘poor ones’ who do not, with whom there is something clearly wrong. I had questioned myself then whether something was wrong with me – Jelena remembered, referring also to the widespread view that the children of communists are atheists, and the children of the faithful are believers. – My parents are middle class and apolitical. Both are engineers and ‘naturalists’ and it shaped my atheist upbringing – said Jelena Veljača.

Pavel Gregorić said that his paternal grandfather was a founding member of the Croatian Communist Party and the mother’s father the Secretary of the Local Party Committee and the Mayor of Zagreb. – But there were no Marx’s images in the house, no quotations of Lenin, no partisan songs. I do not remember any kind of ideological indoctrination in the house, but interest in sciences and arts was fostered – Gregorić said, adding that the thesis “of the children of believers and Communists” has certain foundation.

– As a rule, children of Roman Catholics are Roman Catholics, of Muslims are Muslim, and of Hinduists are Hindu, and atheists are generally children who come from families of secular values. This just shows the extent to which being religious is a matter of mere coincidence, depending on the kind of family you were born into and the environmental influences you were exposed to early on – said Gregorić.

Our respondents reacted to the statement of Pope Benedict XVI on atheism as “the mystery of evil.”

– I do not understand how someone who advocates tolerance can have such a myopic attitude towards atheism, because it inevitably leads to confrontation with the atheists who must defend themselves against such charges – said Vinković. Lenhard is of similar opinion – These statements only show what kind of intolerant public figures we are expected to tolerate. A person who thinks of atheism as evil has seriously disturbed criteria and priorities for someone who allegedly brings people peace and goodwill – said Lenhard.

Neven Barković was even harsher. – The Pope is the last one with a moral right to talk about atheism as evil. Based on judicial bodies around the world, it is already very well known that the Catholic Church participated in the organized protection of hundreds of pedophiles from the rule of law. On the other hand, many atheists are often humanitarians. The fact that we do not have some magical beliefs does not mean that we do not have firm moral and humanistic convictions – said Braković.

Jelena Veljača feels similarly.

– Why does the Church think that atheists cannot be moral, honest and spiritual people? On the other hand, horrible things like child rape and the Crusades occurred under the aegis of religion. And what exactly does it mean to be a believer? Is it being a member of a parish, or someone living by the principles of Jesus or Mohammed? – asked Veljača.

Bane Milenković, however, believes that the Church should not view atheists and believers as “black and white.”

– I think that being a believer and living in harmony with the faith is an extremely honest, generous and spiritual act. Also, the ultimate spiritual person may be a non-believer not going to church, but in many situations, behaving better, and be more tolerant and humane in accordance with their own code. This code does not have to be instilled by the priests. Religious freedom includes the liberty to state that you are an atheist. Religious freedom must exist, just like the freedom from religion – said Milenković.

Our respondents agree with the view that catechism classes do not belong in state schools, but in the Church. — The state is not in the Church, but the Church is in the state – considers Milenković. Barković, however, points out that Croatia is a secular state. – Our Constitution states that the Church is separate from the state. The Constitution is our most important document, more important than the Bible – stated Barković. Gregorić agrees and adds that religious education is not the type of content suitable for schools. – What is taught in catechism is largely contrary to what is taught in history, geography and biology, and the method of teaching in catechism is in its very nature opposite to the way other subjects should be taught, encouraging students to question and think independently – explained Gregorić.

Jelena Veljača believes that instead of religious instruction, schools should teach religious culture. – If someone wants to educate a child in a religious direction, they should do it in the church where it belongs — said Veljača.

Lenhard believes that children of parents who are not believers are under pressure to attend religious class, as not to differ from the others. – In the secular, civil state this should not happen – said Lenhard. Dejan Vinković, however, thinks that religious education is a legal issue and a political hot potato. – There is a definite problem in adjusting the current way of conducting catechism classes in schools and secular ideas, but it is an issue that will ultimately have to be resolved in the Constitutional Court. The issue of funding religious classes will have to be settled, because it makes no sense for all citizens to pay taxes for that purpose, instead of just those that are officially declared as believers – said Vinković.

Is atheism a new religion?

It is often heard in the discussions that atheism is a new religion.

– It’s similar to claiming that I am an addict because I do not do drugs. Atheism simply means that you do not need to introduce God into the description of the world you live in. I have no need to introduce the elves and dragons, does that mean that I am a believer in characters from fairy tales? – said Vinković.

Lenhard shares his opinion. – When you do not tell a bedtime story to a child, is this a type of bedtime story? Or, to paraphrase A. Grayling, if atheism is a religion, than not collecting stamps is a hobby. The absence of belief is not belief, and religion cannot be based on it. My attitude is not to believe that there is no God but, on the basis of everything I know, that I do not believe that there is one, be it a Christian or any of the thousands of other deities that different people claim or used to claim to exist – said Lenhard.

Gregorić emphasizes that religion is based on a belief in one or more supernatural beings, on revelation, on the authority of the privileged interpreters of revelation, on rituals. – In atheism, there is none of that. However, one could mischievously say that atheism is based on the belief that there is no God, the revelation is Dawkinsís book The God Delusion, the privileged interpreters are Hitchens and Harris, and the rituals consist of attending atheis conventions and taking rides with atheist buses, so that atheism is a religion. But this is a caricature in which few atheists will recognize themselves – he explained.

Atheism would like to establish a belief on proof or hard evidence. Not only do we lack solid evidence that supernatural beings exist – Lord, Allah, Vishnu or the Tooth-Fairy – but we have pretty good evidence that they do not exist. There is no atheist who would not be ready to become a theist if presented with solid evidence that God exists – concluded Gregorić.

Darn, I knew I was missing something

Schools often block access to parts of the internet, which is fine, if only to focus students’ attention a little bit. It is not fine when they discriminate, like Indianapolis public schools, which block on religious views other than the Abrahamic religions. Their rules, though, mention something I did not know.

Sites that promote and provide information on religions such as Wicca, Witchcraft or Satanism. Occult Practices, atheistic views, voodoo rituals or other forms of mysticism, […] the use of spells, incantations, curses, and magic powers. This category includes sites which discuss or deal with paranormal or unexplained events.

Now I know I have this reputation as a big fat atheist, but I have to confess to not knowing something here. Can anyone tell me what the atheist spells, incantations, curses, and magic powers are? Please give me recipes in the comments. They might be handy, but, well, no one ever taught them to me. I blame it on being brought up in a Christian family — they didn’t know anything about atheist rituals or enchantments.

Oh, and if Indianapolis schools ban sites that talk about “paranormal or unexplained events”, why aren’t they blocking all of the Christian sites? Jesus was one paranormal dude with unexplained magic powers, you know.

A glimpse of a theocratic world

Nope, I’m going to call this story debunked. A commenter has pointed out that Jhelum has several established Christian communities and is not the monolithic Islamic city the story implies, so it looks like this is a complete fabrication by Compass Direct News, a Christian propaganda outfit. The only stories here are that Christians lie to feed their martyr complex, and sometimes I’m fooled.

Jamshed Masih is a police officer in Pakistan who also happens to be a Christian. He transferred to a town dominated by the local Muslim cleric, Maulana Mahfooz Khan. In a story that sounds like the beginning of a Western, Khan warned Masih that Jhelum was his place, and he wasn’t going to stand for any filthy Christian scum livin’ in this here town. Local businesses refused to serve his family, there was a lot of tension…if this were a movie, you’d expect the new sheriff in town to be cleaning up the intolerant boss.

This wasn’t a movie, though, and the real world never seems to resolve itself so neatly. Instead, while Masih was away, Khan accused his 11 year old son of blaspheming against Allah, roused up a mob of good devout Muslims, and murdered Masih’s wife and four young children. The only blasphemy described is that neighbors heard the children singing hymns at breakfast time.

Yes. They were slaughtered because they did not practice Khan’s religion of peace. And because children were singing songs Khan did not like.

Masih has filed a legal complaint. The police administrators have refused to accept it or do anything, because Khan is powerful in the area, and because, after all, the children were blaspheming against Islam.

No human being should ever have to live under a theocracy, the most barbarous and inhuman form of government anyone has ever developed.

Excellent analysis of the Creation “Museum”

People are still going to the ghastly Creation “Museum” in Kentucky — it’s actually doing a bang-up business. Fortunately, some of the people going are critics who can see its troubling flaws.

When I went, what leapt out at me was the intellectual dishonesty of the place; it mimics a museum, but it isn’t, and it pretends to understand evolution when it doesn’t. I walked through it with a little alarm bell in my head going “wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong” nonstop.

Ideas Man picks up on another aspect of the “museum”: it’s a temple to fear. Everywhere you go, it portrays violence and bloody conflict, not just as the legacy of our past, but something to prepare for right now. I pointed out the raving paranoia of Ken Ham earlier, and honestly, the museum is the product of a mind convinced that it is persecuted, that there shall be redemption in blood, and that mass murder really is justifiable if God says so.

i-3a0e85c2a197db4dcde6a49169f90b41-sinners_die-thumb-200x191-53026.jpeg

The whole flood exhibit is particularly appalling. Look at the loving detail in this diorama; those are the sinners suffering and dying in God’s global punishment. There was a very cold video being shown there, portraying children playing innocently in a small village when the awful wave of the coming deluge rises on the horizon…and all are killed. It’s very weird that on the one hand, they portray secular life as depravity and drugs and sex and crime, but on the other, their god is an unholy monster who slaughters children — and that’s OK!

What the “museum” actually is is an effective exhibit of intellectual terrorism — you will accept its worldview, or you will die horribly. And if you already accept that view, you can smugly wallow in the certainty that all those elitist jerks who think they’re smarter than you will suffer.

Let’s ask ourselves, once again, what the museum actually does. If it in fact does something very well and if the thing that it does it does as a function of its central narrative, we ought to assume that that is its primary ideological function. It is from this perspective that we’ll understand the Museum as a work of art, an ideological work of art, art for the sake of ideology or, perhaps, better, ideology for the sake of ideology.

What exactly did the museum do?

It scared. It scared us because it’s scary. And it’s scary because it’s supposed to be scary.

So why is it supposed to be scary? How does its fear function?
Let’s see if we can hear anything from the horse’s mouth:

One of the things that Ken Hamm told us when he was was giving his presentation was along the following lines: “you know, a lot of people ask me why we have such a realistic scene of Adam sacrificing an animal right when you walk into the Corruption room, but actually that’s one of my favorite exhibits because it shows the importance of sacrifice. It shows that we need to sacrifice to live after the Fall.”

Did you notice the weird shift that happened there?

Sacrifice is an important theme in Christianity, right? Well, of course. After the Fall, we are all mortal and our morality means suffering. Our suffering means loss. Loss means economy and sacrifice. On the traditional account, Christ “pays the infinite debt for us.” In other words on the traditional account, self-sacrifice is the redemption of suffering.

That’s not exactly how it works in the Creation Museum’s logic: there, sacrifice is demanded because the world is a bloody place. We don’t see Adam suffering: we see Adam sacrificing. Christ’s death isn’t taken to redeem the suffering of Adam, it’s a grotesque mimicry of the sacrifice we saw him doing. Suffering is passive. Sacrifice is active.

It’s a violent world. The message of the “museum” is to revel in that violence, because it is God’s will. And you can help!

God needs more blood

Molly Norris, the cartoonist who launched “Draw Mohammed Day” (and who later withdrew herself from the event, citing her fear of persecution) has just been put on a hit list, calling for Muslims to murder her.

i-3377edf59f0ec899cce2814b94b6dfb7-awlaki.jpeg

The man calling for her death is this Yemeni cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, a pleasant looking fellow who also cheerfully encouraged the Fort Hood massacre. You wouldn’t know it to look at him, but behind that smiling face is the mind of a hateful monster.

He’s from the US. He claims to have served as an imam in California, Colorado, and Virginia. And now he’s holed up in Yemen, advocating death for cartoons.

I can’t tell what’s going on here. Did Islam turn him into a psychopath? Or do psychopaths just find a happy home in Islam? Either way, Allah is an abomination that poisons people’s minds. It might reassure me of the good intentions and harmlessness of faith if I saw Muslims rioting in cities around the world, protesting the infamy that people like Awlaki bring down on Islam…but I won’t hold my breath waiting for it.

I just noticed — there’s a poll at that link.

A radical cleric has called for the execution of a U.S. cartoonist after she launched a project called “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.” Do you support the cartoonist’s lampoon?

Yes. She was making a statement protected under the First Ammendment. That’s her job. 41%
No. She knew Islam forbids drawing the likeness of Mohammed. This is insulting, not fun. 51%
Not sure. 7%

Disillusion me some more, people. A majority thinks the problem here is with a cartoonist drawing a teacup?

Madness. Paranoia. Ken Ham.

At the AAI meeting in Copenhagen, the group formulated a Declaration on Religion in Public Life. It was a nice statement, a bit vague, the product of too little time and preparation, but still a useful expression of godless sentiment. To my amusement, Ken Ham read it and his head exploded. It’s the Atheist Agenda for World Conquest! If ever you want to see the Christian persecution complex on full boil, just poke Ken Ham.

For example, here’s the first statement in the Copenhagen declaration.

We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.

That’s a statement of tolerance. There will be no persecution of believers — everyone has the right to their own thoughts. You can criticize it for being too generous, perhaps, and failing to define limits on the practice of religion in anything but the most general terms, but it reflects the temperament of the group: the atheist police are not going to come pounding on the doors of the synagogue, church, or mosque and tell them to stop that; there will be no godless inquisition.

Not in the mind of Ken Ham, though. He takes that paragraph and rewrites it to say what he thinks it means. It says much more about the mind of Ham than anything at all about atheism.

We recognize the unlimited right (even though we have no objective basis for “rights” in our system) to freedom of conscience, religion, and belief—except for Christians—and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others (this is the golden rule: “do unto others . . . ” for which we have no logical basis in our way of thinking)—except for Christians, as we reject Christianity totally and must try to eliminate it.

Wow. That’s some paranoia at work. Atheist support freedom of religion, and poor Ham’s rebuttal is to magically insert “except for Christians!” everywhere. That, and he constantly harps on this strange claim that we have no objective reason to be good to our fellow human beings, since we don’t have Jesus telling us to do it with his prod of damnation.

The whole article is like that! He just takes each paragraph of the declaration, sticks in a couple of “except for Christians”, and pretends it is a plan to oppress everyone who believes in Jesus. Here’s another example:

We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.

It’s another reassuring generality: the government shouldn’t try to regulate beliefs. I can assure you that what the writers were mainly concerned about is attempts by governments to require adherence to a particular faith to be considered a good citizen, as well as patterns of persecution of minority religious groups. Look what Ken Ham does to it, though:

We assert that private conduct—except for Christians—which respects the rights of others—even though we have no basis for determining what “respect” means, nor any logical basis for why people (who are chance conglomerations of chemicals) ought to have “rights”—should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern—unless it involves Christians, as we have determined they should not be allowed freedom for their religion because they believe in absolutes and have a system of absolute morality.

The man is simply insane. He’s seeing godless boogeymen where there aren’t any, and inventing complete lies to justify paranoia about atheists coming to take their bibles away.

He misses the facts of the declaration. It’s saying that people like Ham will be allowed freedom of religion despite their odious absolutism. Ham wants to impose his tyranny of absolute morality on others; he’s apparently unable to comprehend that others are more tolerant than he is.

AVN gets spanked

The Australian Vaccination Network is an awful little organization that exists to spread fear and disinformation about vaccines, under the pretense of caring about children. They’re getting an official comeuppance, though: the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission has put together a report condemning AVN. They’re announcing that AVN’s claims are inaccurate and misleading, and further, that AVN harasses people. There’s a terrible story at that link of a couple whose child died miserably of whooping cough…and Meryl Dorey, head of AVN, responded by demanding medical records and insisting that the child couldn’t have died of a disease preventable by vaccination.

AVN is a couple of truly rotten people with an office. It’s a shame that the only punishment the HCCC report is doling out to them is a demand that they put a disclaimer on their web site.

An excellent report on ABC:

Oh, crap. This was the first time I’d heard Meryl Dorey — she’s an American! Australia, I have to forgive you for Ken Ham now. You gave us a moron who makes kids stupid; we gave you a moron who kills children. We got the better end of the exchange, sad to say.