Christianity

A Crisis of Our Own Making

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

We face a multi-pronged existential crisis in this country.

A perfect storm of anti-science dumbing down of critical thinking, a growing intolerance for those who may be different than the majority, and an increasingly dangerous march toward an imbalance of power in government.

These phenomena are further inflamed by co-opting normally benign religious faith by Christian Nationalists which is merely a mask worn by those seeking to oppress any other belief system to further their own agenda and is most unchristian in practice.

It is nationalist in the worst sense of seeking domination over all others, is intolerant of any dissension, and is Christian for convenience not doctrinal integrity.

Whatever your faith may be, no true religion seeks to turn their god into a bullet and shoot it into another human’s heart. Claiming that any God has chosen one people over all others is a manmade fallacy whose only purpose is to justify dominance over and oppression of others.

The fact that in the 21st century, the most powerful nation in the world would seek to justify their policies based on primitive beliefs from an age dominated by illiteracy is frightening. That it even enters into the discussion is inexplicable.

The danger of such a course for government policy should be self-evident.

A significant number of Americans firmly believe that God can suspend the immutable laws of physics to perform miracles absent one iota of evidence. They then interpret their success in light of this faith as proof of the dominance of the Christian god.

This religious façade then fuels the most unchristian treatment of their fellow humans, reckless disregard for the sanctity of life of those of different cultures and faiths, and justifies their embracing a philosophy more characteristic of the bloody religious crusades then a pursuit of justice and peace.

“…no true religion seeks to turn their god into a bullet
and shoot it into another human’s heart.”
Joe Broadmeadow

We are engulfed in a battle for the soul of this country. The hobgoblins representing the worst of what humans can do to their fellow humans are guiding many of our actions. They have attacked the very foundation of this nation. Laws are tools wielded by those in power and ignored when they are inconvenient.

When a sitting President can exhibit callous disregard for the Constitution, and Americans who should know better remain silent because it feeds their prejudice, it is a sign of dangerous times.

There are indications of a growing resistance to this corruption of country. There is still the framework for the balance of government to reassert itself. But we are in a tenuous position.

The dangerous mix of twisting sincere religious beliefs into something that supports intolerance and ignores the Constitution underscores the danger and reinforces the brilliance of the founding fathers in explicitly separating church and state.

If we don’t resist this march into anarchy, we may find ourselves at the point of a gun loaded with bullets under the patina of religious commandments and aimed at our hearts. And they will squeeze the trigger with a smile on their face, certain they are acting as God wants them to.

…For Goodness Sake

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.”
James Madison, Letter to William Bradford 1774

One of the most troubling aspects of religion, in particular Evangelical Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam, is their insistence that everything that exists, everything that is good, everything humans need to lead a fulfilling life arise from God. They also claim the Bible or the Quran are the inerrant word of God and questioning such doctrine is an evil act.

That both cannot be true simultaneously, and the more likely scenario is that neither are, is lost in the fog of blind devotion.

Religion contends there is no morality, decency, or altruism unless one is committed to faith in God to the exclusion of all others.

In reading the book, The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I am struck by the theme that actions such as his—beyond heroic by any measure in the face of the Nazi terror he opposed to the moment of his execution—were, in his own view, insufficient.

From the introduction to the book by the late Bishop of Chichester, G.K.A. Bell,

“But it was not enough for him to seek justice, truth, honesty and goodness for their own sake and patiently to suffer for them. No, according to Bonhoeffer, we have to do so in loyal obedience to Him who is the source and spring of all goodness, justice and truth and on whom he felt absolutely dependent.”

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship, Kindle Edition. (From the section Memoir by G. Leibholz, quoting G. K. A. Bell, late Bishop of Chichester)

In more pedestrian terms, being good, or opposing evil, because it is the right thing to do, is not enough in Bonhoeffer’s view; good must be done because it shows our devotion to and dependency on God for all things.

This, in a nutshell, is my argument with religion in general and the Abrahamic religions in particular. Like a virus subverting cellular processes and churning out cancerous cells, religion co-opts the innate goodness of human nature and convinces people it must be from God. It diverts resources and time to meaningless acts of worship, ceremony, and sacrifice focused on a false premise.

Even worse, religion does not just contend that good cannot exist without God; theologians like Bonhoeffer claim it is secondary to devotion to God. This disregards the clear evidence for human evolution and social development. To borrow the title Richard Dawkins gave to one of his books, it is The God Delusion.

Think about this for a moment. Acting altruistically, doing the right thing, is secondary to demonstrating devotion to God? How does one explain altruism in people who have never experienced Christianity? This doctrine’s purpose is transparent and singular: to preserve the continuity of the faith.

God created man; man devoted to God is good, so God is the only way for man to be good. If a man acts malevolently, that is the influence of evil or a lack of faith, not a failure of God.

Evolution would argue otherwise. Behaviors dominated by cooperation and mutual support are more successful at avoiding extinction (adaptation) than those dominated by competition. Inherent goodness and moral behavior—in the sense of being based on the principles of proper conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or customs—is more likely to survive “natural selection,” which undeniably drives the process of species survival or death in the world and the universe.

People who went to the memorial service in England after Bonhoffer’s execution by the S.S Black Guards believed.

“…that, on April 9th, 1945, when Dietrich Bonhoeffer met his death at the hands of the S.S. Black Guards, something had happened in Germany that could not be measured by human standards. They felt that God himself had intervened in the most terrible struggle the world has witnessed so far by sacrificing one of his most faithful and courageous sons to expiate the crimes of a diabolical regime and to revive the spirit in which the civilization of Europe has to be rebuilt.” Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship. Kindle Edition.

The quote is most troubling since it illustrates how this Christian God sees innocent human sacrifice of his choosing as a valid expiation of sins committed by others against the word of this same God. This God believes that the designated human sacrifice of one of his faithful is the most expedient way to address evil.

This bears repeating.

Sacrificing one of his own faithful to expiate the sins of evil committed by others is a respectable philosophy. Worthy of praise and devotion.

Who did they commit this sin against in the first place? The same God killing one of his own as penance for the sin.

First, God sends his son, who is himself, to die a horrible death to expiate the sins of man committed against this god, beginning with the original sin of eating from the tree of knowledge, quite telling right there, then raises the dead son (again, himself, who died yet is confusingly immortal) to show his love for man.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3-16 (and you thought it was just the score of the game with all the signs on TV.)

Then, when the Nazis come along, he causes Bonhoeffer, because of his devotion and discipleship, to act in a way opposing the Nazis, knowing (he is omniscient after all) how they would react. Then this God allows the Nazis to imprison, torture, and execute Bonhoeffer to expiate the sins of the Nazis.

You will understand my confusion. And “it is a mystery” is woefully inadequate, if not morally reprehensible. I suppose the thought of a second son was never a consideration.

This begs the obvious question. Why does God intervene by directing the actions of Dietrich Bonhoeffer in heroic opposition to the Nazi terror rather than preventing the rise of the Nazis in the first place?

If you would expiate the sins of the Nazis by executing someone, why not direct one of the millions of munitions we dropped on Germany to hit the Führer’s bunker and expiate him all over the walls?

Or, if it would make you feel better, crash one of the B-17s being flown by a Christian into the bunker. You get a twofer, killing evil and a devotee sacrifice. Wouldn’t that be more in sync with the doctrine?

Why let innocent Germans, especially babies and children, die for the sins of the Third Reich? Is it because they weren’t good enough to expiate the sins of their fathers? Or is that “visiting the sins of the father unto the third and fourth generation” mandatory?

The conundrum of God either being unable or unwilling to prevent evil is a stubbornly persistent flaw in the arguments for God’s existence, omniscience, and omnipotence. If God is omniscient, he knew the Nazis would rise to power and develop the Final Solution. One might argue he was just a spectator at the events. Yet, even being omnipotent, he decided to cause a Lutheran priest alone to take a moral stand against it?

Seems more inconsiderate, or impotent, than omnipotent.

But I still cannot wrap my head around the contention that Bonhoeffer himself argued his actions were meaningful only if he acted as a faithful servant and believer in God. Taking a stand, fraught with risk against the power of the Nazis because they were evil was not enough, no matter how honorable.

And, of course, there are Biblical passages offering instruction in such matters.

And as he passed by he saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting at the place of toil, and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him. (Mark 2.14)

“… It is Jesus who calls, and because it is Jesus, Levi follows at once. This encounter is a testimony to the absolute, direct, and unaccountable authority of Jesus. There is no need of any preliminaries, and no other consequence but obedience to the call. Because Jesus is the Christ, he has the authority to call and to demand obedience to his word. Jesus summons men to follow him not as a teacher or a pattern of the good life, but as the Christ, the Son of God.” Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship (pp. 15-16). Kindle Edition.

This quote illustrates my point. Levi, according to Scripture, follows Jesus without question or hesitation, not because he tries to do good, but because “Jesus summons men to follow him not as a teacher or a pattern of the good life, but as the Christ.”

And he said unto another. Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But he said unto him. Leave the dead to bury their dead, but go thou and publish abroad the kingdom of God.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship (p. 17). Kindle Edition.

The point is to follow him not to do good in the world—righting wrongs, challenging evil—but because Jesus is calling. Nothing else matters.

Blind faith. Great name for a rock band, poor life philosophy. Blind faith gave us the Inquisition, the Crusades, Indian Schools (our own final solution), slavery, and Nazi Germany. It continues to plague us today.

Why? What makes this calling more consequential than the altruistic acts themselves? Simple. The propagation of faith for faith itself.

Evolution postulates that natural selection—not, as it is often misinterpreted, the survival of the fittest but the survival of those who can best reproduce and adapt—promotes beneficial mutations and practices. Thus, there may have been an “evolutionary” benefit to religion.

Community, sharing of resources, commonality against enemies (there is a great deal of smiting of enemies and seizure of the spoils of war, in particular the ever so desirable virgins, with no limit of seventy-two thus trumping the Muslims, in the Old Testament) which may foster high rates of survivability and by passing on the “faith” gene, insuring continuity and spreading of the faith.

While evolution is clearest over geological time scales, there are examples of rapid change within several rather than hundreds of generations. Religion may have offered a better chance of survival in prehistoric humans until the Enlightenment.

One sign of this could be lifespan. From the time of the first homo sapiens until the Enlightenment, humans lived a precarious existence, surviving, on average, 30-35 years. Over fifty percent of humans never made it past their early thirties.

As a side note, remember they ate only organic meat, fish, and pesticide-free vegetables, yet died at thirty years of age.

With the advent of the Enlightenment—the rise of science—human lifespan began to expand worldwide, with people living well into their eighties.

Religion may have had an initial, beneficial effect on survival, but science has improved on it exponentially. And yet, a significant majority (although declining worldwide, correlating to rising educational levels) still embrace some form of religion.

Perhaps evolution is mutating the religion gene to the science gene.

 Evolution might even explain how religiosity declines as educational level increases.

Yet we still lack an explanation for Bonhoeffer’s contention that being good is not enough absent a “discipleship” committed to God. This is troubling because articulate and intelligent theologians like Bonhoeffer influence modern religions, which try to impose their doctrines in secular matters.

“Any belief system that explains the suffering of children instead of rejecting it has already abandoned morality” Betrand Russell

Bonhoeffer himself sees this as not only desirable but necessary. His opposition to Nazi Germany and their corruption of the Church was a sign that a government not molded by Christianity was threatening, ineffective, and contrary to the supremacy of the faith.

I see this as dangerous. Bonhoeffer’s heroic actions opposing the Nazis aside, understanding his motivations—acting because it is an elemental part of his discipleship with Christ—is essential to prevent this philosophy from gaining control of secular government.

This event would threaten freedom and democracy and challenge the continuity of a moral and ethical society based on rationality not fear of the afterlife promulgated by an invisible being.

The evidence of this goal of trying to impose religion on secular government is everywhere. The rallying cry of the false contention that we are a Judeo-Christian nation is no less frightening than black-booted brown shirts ( we have those, too) screaming about racial supremacy of the white man.

When politicians embrace this philosophy for political advantage, even those who may hold sincere Christian beliefs, they betray the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.

When some within this country clamor and cry that we are a Christian nation, yet act opposite to the words and actions of the man the seek to hoist on others, they reveal the danger of such a political, rather than a genuine, act of faith.

They pose the greatest threat to this country since our founding, bar none.

Go back

Your message has been sent

Rating(Please take a moment to rate this article)

Rating: 1 out of 5.

Faith-Based Disruptions in Academia: A Challenging Trend

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

“It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you’re sincere,” is one of those sayings that, on its face, seems harmless but carries a hidden danger, as many recent incidents have demonstrated.

Belief alone, no matter how sincere, can be dangerous without context, or evidence. If faith can convince you to believe in absurdities, it can convince you to commit atrocities.

I came upon a recent story that illustrates a troubling trend. The evangelical Christians among us would force a different version of this saying on all aspects of life, most concerning being in academia.

These Christians would have the motto changed to, “It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as it comes from the Bible.” This is now their desired philosophy for educational standards in the United States.

And they would add the demand, “…and cannot be challenged or questioned but must be respected by everyone.”

The story concerns Samantha Fulnecky (see link here),  a junior at Oklahoma State University who was assigned an essay on gender stereotypes for a psychology class.

Here’s the background on the story with links to the original assignment and the article upon which the essay was to be based.

The assignment called for students to write a clear and thoughtful 650-word response to a scholarly article about gender expectations in society. According to screenshots shared by Turning Point USA’s local chapter, Fulnecky wrote in her essay that the article irritated her and described how God created men and women differently. “Society pushing the lie that there are multiple genders and everyone should be whatever they want to be is demonic and severely harms American youth,” she wrote.

Mel Curth, a graduate teaching assistant, wrote as part of the grading process that she had deducted points because Fulnecky submitted a “paper that does not answer the questions for this assignment, contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence in a scientific class, and is at times offensive,” according to the screenshots of her messages.

Megan Waldron, a second graduate student who teaches the course alongside Curth, agreed with the grade. “Everyone has different ways in which they see the world, but in an academic course such as this, you are being asked to support your ideas with empirical evidence and higher-level reasoning,” she wrote to Fulnecky, according to the screenshots.

(see link here)

Those of you who read the assignment understand that this wasn’t an endorsement of any particular agenda. It was a discussion about gender stereotypes in society. It was not a rallying cry for societal endorsement for transgenderism.

It would seem, in the conservative Christian view, boys play with trains and planes, girls play with dolls and have tea parties. Men are rugged and virile; women are caring and docile. Men go to work, women care for children. To quote Ms. Fulnecky, God created women with “womanly desires in our hearts…to be helpers.” She offers her faith that the way God intended it to be as stated in the Bible is evidence and settled. No discussion necessary. (Satire alert!, I have to post this because you’d be amazed at the number of people who miss it.)

Now, had this been a Bible Study or a comparative religion class challenging these secular contentions, perhaps Ms. Fulnecky’s (or should I say Miss, in keeping with the dark ages philosophy) essay would have been acceptable.

This was a research assignment in an educational environment, with an expectation of academic standards, i.e., citations of sources, presenting evidence, and applicable documentation to support the position. The Bible does not meet the criteria of a peer-reviewed study.

Ms. (Miss) Fulnecky was free to argue her point of the sole existence of two genders and challenging, or concurring with, societal expectations as long as she submitted supporting evidence. She did not. She submitted biblical beliefs absent any proof. She wrote an op-ed when the assignment called for something entirely different.

The problem arose when she was challenged on her material. She did what all religious do and immediately complained she was being persecuted for her beliefs.

Nonsense.

None of the remarks on her paper suggested she abandon her faith; they simply pointed out that she had misunderstood, or more likely ignored, the simple instructions because she saw it as challenging her faith. FYI, that is what education is all about, challenging concepts and beliefs in pursuit of truth.

I would hope that, since she was in a Pre-med program, she would realize that, once she got to medical school, if she suggested prayer as a form of therapy or treatment in a medical school class on infectious diseases or fractured bones, she would be expected to present clinical evidence of its efficacy.

If she didn’t, and was given a poor grade because of this, it wouldn’t be persecution of her faith; it would be saving the lives of patients from ineffectual treatment. Emergency rooms may be the site of many prayers, but they are not part of any treatment protocols.

Want to know the best proof that prayer is an ineffectual form of treatment? If there were even the slightest clinical evidence of the efficacy of prayer, insurance companies would be telling their clients to pray rather seeking payment for medical care.

They might even consent to offer priest, minister, or rabbi services if needed depending on what plan you had. They’d have clever marketing slogans, We Pray so you Don’t Pay. Prayer it’s not just for Sports Teams Anymore. A Prayer a Day Keeps the Doctor Away. Pray and the Pain goes away.

Ms. Fulnecky is free to hold any belief she likes, but her belief is not evidence. However, if she argued her point, contending that it is, she must expect this contention to be challenged.

This story, which began as just a local disagreement between a student and a teacher, took on national prominence with the entrance of Ryan Walters, former Superintendent of the Oklahoma School System, famous for insisting on posting the Ten Commandments in schools and imposing other Christian doctrines on the academic environment.

He thankfully resigned and now works for the Teacher Freedom Alliance (https://www.teacherfreedomalliance.com/). This group opposes teachers’ unions and touts itself as dedicated to developing “Free, Moral, and Upright Americans.”

He also sought the assistance of Turning Point America, which published a post on X (racking up, according to them, 47 million views) claiming one of the instructors was transgender, as if that in and of itself were sufficient grounds to remove this individual from teaching.

Free, moral, and upright indeed. Let’s hope Mr. Ryan never becomes a CEO of a major medical insurance company or, in light of some of the other unusual Cabinet appointments, the Director of the CDC or HHS.

The case also led to two instructors being placed on leave and one being removed from teaching when the conservative-majority legislature threatened to cut funding for the school.

All because a student, so mesmerized by religious faith, chose to ignore the plain language of the assignment, offered her religious doctrine as evidence, then was surprised and “persecuted” when the instructor pointed out the lack of evidence, the failure to follow the instructions, and graded the paper appropriately.

No one demanded the student renounce her beliefs. No one burned her at the stake. No one excommunicated her from the school. No one made her wear a scarlet letter.

She got a poor grade because she deserved it.

She was certainly free to submit evidence to support her contention. She had access to the library’s academic literature on gender and to online sources. She chose to argue on religious grounds in an educational environment where challenging the validity of any contention is integral to the process.

It was never about seeking the truth when Walters and Turning Point got involved; it was about demanding their faith be accepted on face value and threatening those who would challenge it.

The faithful opposes the disease of curiosity and resist the squandering of ignorance. They do not seek acceptance, they seek unquestioning surrender to their form of faith and seek to eliminate others.

Any resistance is seen as persecution.

Nothing could be more dangerous to education than blind acceptance of any statement or contention. That is not teaching; it is indoctrination. Religions indoctrinate the young and try to suppress any questioning of the faith, usually by instilling fear of everlasting punishment in the afterlife.

Education teaches people to challenge and question everything. It encourages curiosity, provides skills to examine the factual basis of things, and teaches people to see the value of evidence and proof.

This is an anathema to religions.

I bet the language the organizations supporting Ms. Fulnecky find most offensive (or recognize as most problematic) was the “expectation of empirical evidence and higher-level reasoning,” knowing full well that it is an impossibility concerning religious doctrines.

One can be admired for holding sincere beliefs in their faith. The truly sincere realize some aspects of faith are not subject to academic inquiry. They accept this and do not demand this doctrine be accepted as anything else but a belief absent evidence. This country offers protection for engaging in such practices and protection from these practices being imposed on others.

“But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” – Matthew 6:6

Satire is an Underappreciated Art

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment

I published a tongue-in-cheek piece about the December 25th celebration of the birthday of a great human with an enormous impact on society (Sir Isaac Newton) and was met by the exact response I expected. https://joebroadmeadowblog.com/2025/12/24/for-unto-you-is-born-a-savior/

Many were quick to point out the Newton was a Christian or that his birthday is more commonly recognized as January 6, 1643. The discrepancy stems from the use (at the time) of the Julian Calendar which had the birthdate as December 25, 1642.

Which, of course, is a key element of the satirical nature. I’d never mentioned anyone else, but Christians seem to be fixated on a perception of persecution. This contention, in a majority Christian country like the United States, is a bit of a stretch.

The hyper-religious responded with the usual avalanche of biblical tracts and outrage. Why, you might ask? I have no idea. Because, even if we agree to the calendar change, on December 25, 0000, I am certain Jesus was not the only birth worldwide nor the only consequential one. Nor is there any consensus on that date except it conveniently co-opted a much older Pagan celebration. And we know how the church does not like competition.

When this was all shouted at me with the vigorous use of all capital letters and the usual accusation of my being a disciple of Satan, mixed in, I will admit, with the good intentions of praying for my soul that I may see the light and come to Jesus, I said I would stick with Newton and Galileo.

This caused another round of claims that Newton AND Galileo were Christian. When I pointed out the rather threatening treatment of Galileo by the Church, i.e., house arrest and forced recantation at the threat of immolation, I was sent a slew of “authoritative” postings about the “myth” of Galileo’s treatment by the Church.

This consisted of claims that; it wasn’t so bad, his house arrest was benign, many in the church agreed with him but the bureaucracy was responsible, as if that would have somehow cooled the flames. Then, I pointed out, there is Giordano Bruno who was not afforded the “luxury” of house arrest but was put to the flame.

This is a fine example of history being interpreted by those with an agenda. And these differences arise regarding events from just a few hundred years ago for which we have fairly substantial records. Yet, they express no concern about the accuracy of their claims regarding events two thousand years ago for which we have few contemporaneous records.

What these sincere but misled individuals fail to see is their argument supports my contention. The Bible is not the inerrant word of God, but the sometimes inspirational and beautiful, sometimes banal and pedestrian, yet more often horrific words of men trying to understand a complex world, give meaning to their short, violent, and plague-filled lives, and, more troubling, exert control over the lives of others masked by the claim of doing God’s work.

The Church first resists with deadly vigor any challenges to doctrine, be it heliocentrism, genetics, or evolution. Then, after the evidence becomes overwhelming, it attempts to rewrite history with claims that Galileo was punished for his attitude toward the church and his house arrest was evidence of the church’s true goal and good intention.

Then, back to the parables and passages to reinterpret them as supporting the science all along.

Galileo, Newton, and many of the most influential pioneers of science were Christian at a time when not to be was fraught with both economic and physical challenges. It is also true that many within the Church understood the Biblical explanations were merely placeholders until discoveries based on evidence came along.

Before we understood geology and plate tectonics, a 6,000 year old earth sounded ancient.

Before we understood planetary mechanics, we believed our eyes and the sun rose in the east and set in the west.

Before we understood the symptoms and pathways of epilepsy, demonic possession made sense.

Before we turned the first telescopes on the “heavens,” we believed our planet to be unique in the universe.

Whether or not Newton was born on December 25, 1642 or January 6, 1643 is irrelevant. Whether he proclaimed himself a Christian at the time is also irrelevant. His Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica changed the world in ways even more startling than the legend of a savior born centuries beforehand whose story was manipulated by those with an agenda to make it fit prophecies affirming their particular faith.

Next year, let’s celebrate the Dec. 25th birthday of Carlos Castenada, a writer of extraordinary mystical literature. Surely that won’t offend anyone.

Great to the nTH power Uncle Tiktaalik

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

In 2006, in the cold Arctic north, in an area on Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Canada, the fossilized remains of our great, great, great to the nth degree uncle Tiktaalik were discovered. The name, Tiktaalik, is a Inuktitut word meaning “large freshwater fish.” The fossil was estimated at 375 million years old.

What this fossil did was fill in one of the “missing links” in the fossil record between amphibians and the tetrapod (four-legged animals.) The skeleton of the fish bore the unmistakable evidence of early formation of shoulder and wrist structure.

One of the scientists involved in the discovery, Jennifer A. Clack, a Cambridge University expert on tetrapod evolution, said of Tiktaalik, “It’s one of those things you can point to and say, ‘I told you this would exist,’ and there it is.”

Just as evolution described it would exist, it did. Uncle Tiktaalik is just one example. It filled a gap previously occupied by the intelligent designer fallacy, the god of the gaps.

The (inane) argument against evolution, the promotion of the teleological argument for the existence of god, aka intelligent design, is gaining ground in public education. It is the opening round of the dumbing down of America.

Proponents assume both are on equal footing and should be “taught” in school. Nothing could be more detrimental to education than teaching students unquestioning acceptance of information without proof.

It is not teaching, it is indoctrination. Science admits it cannot explain everything, but continues to seek the answers. Religion claims you can’t explain it so it must be god and no further inquiry is necessary.

The contradiction arises in what one considers teaching. In teaching science, one details not just the result or most comprehensive theory (in the scientific sense) but the process and the emphasis on skepticism. Science is based on the ability of independent verification, or falsification, of the conclusions. Nothing more so than the unquestionable evidence for evolution.

Teaching Intelligent design, the teleological argument for the existence of god, is the educational equivalent of “Because I said so…” As are most religious instructions. No fundamental understanding of the process is necessary. Understanding is an anathema to faith. As a matter of fact, I would argue the teaching of Intelligent Design specifically prohibits and discourages any questioning of the logic (or lack thereof) behind the contention and demands it be accepted.

It is similar to the argument for the god of the gaps. where “god” fills the gaps in scientific knowledge. This argument fails, of course, with each new scientific advance. And, to demonstrate the inconsistency of these arguments for existence of a supreme being, whenever science fills in one of these gaps, a new interpretation of Biblical verse is proposed, i.e. the Bible knew this all along.

Here’s one example.

“The idea is that as scientific research progresses, and an increasing number of phenomena are explained naturalistically, the role of God diminishes accordingly. The major criticism commonly states that invoking supernatural explanations should decrease in plausibility over time, as the domain of knowledge previously explained by God is decreasing.
However, with modern advances in science and technology, the tables have been literally turned. With the advent of electron scanning microscopes, we have been able to observe the intricate workings of the cell for the first time. What had originally and simplistically been thought to be nothing more than a “blob” of protoplasm is now seen to be far more complex and information-packed than had ever been conceived of previously…
…In reality, a belief in God can be derived by means of an objective assessment, rather than the subjective conjecture that may have been the case millennia ago. But many people simply deny what is obvious to them. The Bible addresses those very people: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:18-20). The God-of-the-gaps argument is an example of “suppressing the truth” because it relegates God to a “backup” explanation for those things which cannot yet be explained by natural phenomena. This leads some to the faulty conclusion that God is not the omnipotent, omnipresent, absolute Being of whom Scripture testifies.
…There is much for which the natural sciences simply cannot provide an explanation, such as the origin of the time/space/matter continuum and the fine-tuning thereof; the origin and subsequent development of life itself; and the origin of the complex and specified information systems inherent in all living things, which cannot (nor ever will be) explained by natural means. Thus one cannot rationally divorce the supernatural from the observed universe, proving once again that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).” https://www.gotquestions.org/God-of-the-gaps.html

They apparently can’t even recognize the inconsistency in their own writing. “God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen.” Ah, if they are invisible how can they be seen? Or that the fine-tuning argument has long been overcome by evidence. Nor can they get past the “uncaused cause, the unmoved mover, or the who created god” issue.

Nothing could be more detrimental to education than teaching students unquestioning acceptance of information without proof.

Joe Broadmeadow

This invasion of public secular education by the religious evangelicals was foretold by one of the most preeminent conservative Republicans, Barry Goldwater, and called out for what it was, a usurping and diminishing of public education, secular government, and the separation of church and state.

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.” Barry Goldwater.

If evangelicals get full control of public education, we are in serious trouble. There would be blind acceptance of this type of nonsense, the devil in the smoke of 9/11. Another mythological creature “seen” by the hysterical faithful to justify their faith.

https://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anniversary/satans-face/

Something that can easily be explained by the behavior of heat and gasses and a powerful example of how our evolution made pattern recognition a key to survival. Better to think what you see is a danger, i.e. a lion, a snake, etc. than to ignore it because of uncertainty.

Given the opportunity, evangelicals would replace the periodic table with the decalogue, a map of the solar system with an earth-centered universe, and replace teachers who encourage students to question everything with parrots of the irrational who teach blind acceptance.

Religion: An Atheist’s Perspective

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

I write quite a bit about religion and the objections to it that I’ve developed over the years. My objections are not about religion itself, but the insistence on the dominance of one over any other.

When religion is defined “as an interest, cause, belief, or activity that is intensely or passionately held to,” or, “to turn to or adopt an enlightened course of action or point of view,” I have no quarrel.

Under this definition, embracing science as an enlightened course of action is a form of religion. There are distinct differences: science revises its texts when new evidence is uncovered, whereas most religions insist their holy texts are not to be refined or updated.

My main issue with what most people would consider religion—Christianity  or Judaism in this country, Islam in others—is the insistence that theirs is the only true religion and that there is a being who is the eternal overseer, has us under constant surveillance, and can intercede on our behalf if one engages in an appropriate level of worship, recites prayers seeking this intercession, and accepts the results, no matter what happens, as a “mystery.”

And in particular, when they insist on defining this country as a “Judeo-Christian” nation as if that is somehow both necessary and beneficial.

Now, to engage in one of my favorite practices, the Devil’s Advocate (which, under the title of Advocatus Diaboli, was once a position within the Catholic Church), I’d like to talk about some of the known benefits of embracing religion and misconceptions as well.

Study of the Benefit of a Religious Upbringing

In 2018, Harvard University published a study in the American Journal of Epidemiology that demonstrated that being raised with religious practices had a positive effect on early adulthood. (“Associations of Religious Upbringing With Subsequent Health and Well-Being From Adolescence to Young Adulthood: An Outcome-Wide Analysis,” Ying Chen and Tyler J. VanderWeele, American Journal of Epidemiology, online September 13, 2018, doi: 10.1093/aje/kwy142)

“Participating in spiritual practices during childhood and adolescence may be a protective factor for a range of health and well-being outcomes in early adulthood, according to a new study from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Researchers found that people who attended weekly religious services or practiced daily prayer or meditation in their youth reported greater life satisfaction and positivity in their 20s—and were less likely to subsequently have depressive symptoms, smoke, use illicit drugs, or have a sexually transmitted infection—than people raised with less regular spiritual habits.” https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/religious-upbringing-adult-health/

I would argue that these religious prohibitions on certain activities are a temporary measure, effective until one matures into a rational being. Religion then serves a diminished, or perhaps even an unnecessary, purpose.

Study of the Efficacy of Prayer

 1998. Herb Benson, a cardiologist at Harvard, led what became known as the “Great Prayer Experiment,” or technically the “Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP). (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16569567/)

The study consisted of three control groups.  A control group (no prayer) and two groups that received intercessory prayer from various Christian denominations. The two groups receiving prayer differed: one knew they were being prayed for, while the other did not.

“Complications did not vary as a function of prayer. But 59% of those who knew they were being prayed for experienced at least one complication compared with 52% who received no prayer, a statistically significant result. This might reflect the creation of unrealistic expectations from knowing one is the recipient of prayer and experiencing stress when those expectations are not met.” (https://www.templeton.org/news/what-can-science-say-about-the-study-of-prayer)

What does this mean? I suppose that would depend on one’s perspective. At a minimum, it challenges the belief that inexplicable things must be the work of an interested or faithfully petitioned god.

Perhaps it is the pageantry of religious ceremony in our formative years that provides a benefit. As I am writing this, I am listening to a mix of Gregorian Chant and Handel’s Messiah, works inspired by faith. No one can resist being inspired by the sounds of Plain Chant or the Alleluia Chorus from the Messiah echoing in a magnificent cathedral.

And I can still recite the Mass in Latin and remember the cue to ring the bell.

I think believing in something beyond one’s understanding isn’t necessarily bad, unless one insists, by persuasion or force, that others adhere to the same concept.

I have a good friend I’ve known since the 8th grade. Kent Harrop is a retired minister who fully embraces his faith. He and I once collaborated on a blog called the Heretic and the Holy Man, where we discussed our different perspectives on faith in a civil manner. I enjoyed it quite a bit. I’ll leave it to you to figure out which of us is the heretic.

Kent now coordinates a group called Pray and Paddle (https://www.facebook.com/prayandpaddle) and writes inspiring and intriguing articles for the Pray and Paddle blog (https://www.prayandpaddle.org/news)

I would encourage you to read Kent’s writing. He often turns me back from the brink of total dismissal of organized religion through his well-crafted words. Now that I am back in New England, I plan on attending one of these events. I hope Ken won’t mind if I go with the Fish and Paddle version.

Embrace your religion however you see fit, be fervent in whatever faith you embrace. But remember, no one path, not religion or science, has all the answers, and we are all seeking them in our own way.

A Presumption without Merit

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 2 Comments

One of the most striking differences between the United States and Britain is the level of religiosity paraded in the public square.

In England, which has an official church and a monarchy in which the King is the titular head of the church, religion is almost a sidenote in public discourse.

In the United States, which, by our Constitution, is a secular nation ostensibly devoid of any official religion, the faithful seem determined to infect and infiltrate every aspect of our public and private lives.

We are a Christian nation, they shout, apparently never having actually read the writings of the men who crafted the Constitution or noticed that, not once, is the word god in this founding document.

One would think that, if we are a “Christian” nation, god would at least merit an honorable mention. This fallacy of our founding causes unrelenting difficulties in our lives.

Government functionaries demand the right to refuse to perform their duties based on a faith-based objection to other lifestyles.

Companies demand to refuse health care coverage for their employees that provides contraception.

A significant majority of Republicans insist on the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal money to fund abortions, being included in any revision of the Affordable Care Act. An objection substantially based on religious grounds.

I believe the government has no business in religion. I would also argue that religion has no place in government. 

Joe Broadmeadow

School boards seek to post the Decalogue, a fundamentally Judeo/Christian set of proscriptions by their god, as a sound basis for improving the educational environment.

Those who support these actions see it as their moral duty and an exercise of their First Amendment right to free speech. When the Free Speech argument fails because their speech is tantamount to hate speech and bigotry (God Hates Fags is one example), they rely on the religious freedom argument.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

I believe the government has no business in religion. I would also argue that religion has no place in government. 

But what about morality, justice, fairness, the religious might argue? We need religion as a moral guide. I would argue the opposite.

Herein lies the problem.

Every act by the government in enacting laws, defining criminal acts, and ensuring the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should be based on open and frank discussions, empirical evidence, and a sound consideration of the benefits and costs of such legislation.

Yet when it comes to religious practices, we defer to the faithful simply because it is a religion. We offer a presumption of respect for the practice absent any offering of a basis in fact.

Suppose someone believes, as part of their doctrine, that offering a prayer is necessary before engaging in a sports competition or beginning their school day, or that they cannot engage in some aspect of their job because their religion tells them they cannot. In that case, we just accept that without restriction.

Why?

Why is it that we cannot question the validity of a religious doctrine or practice simply because it is part of a religion?

Why is it that we must accept practices or behavior that impact secular existence simply because some religious doctrine demands it from its adherents?

Why is religion never subjected to the same rigorous analysis or dissection of its foundations or presumptions in the same manner as we would question a proposal for a change in the law, or medical treatment, or the tax code when it directly impacts the public?

Why is religion entitled to any respect simply because it is a religion?

Why is it that we cannot ask this question? Can you prove your religious doctrine is the inerrant word of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent immortal being?

It may well be impossible to offer such proof, which in and of itself should be enough to discount it, but I think this is still a valid question.

By this point, I know the Christians are up in arms, screaming about this as another example of the discrimination heaped upon them. They are joined by the Jews and Muslims in this outrage, although each group believes the others are worshipping a false version of god.

If someone came to a school board meeting and said their son or daughter needed to sacrifice a lamb before they could take to the football field or basketball court, no one would consider denying such a request as prohibiting the practice of religion.

We would consider it a prevention of animal cruelty and curbing insanity.

Or, even more dramatically, if an individual were seen brandishing a knife over their bound child on an altar, preparing to slit their throat because they were instructed to by an unseen voice, would we stand idly by and just say, it is a command from god?

I think not.

Why is praying to an invisible being, variously defined by myriads of sects and faiths in distinct and conflicting ways, any different?

Having traveled quite a bit, I’ve been exposed to a variety of religious practices. In Morocco and Turkey, whenever I saw someone laying out their prayer rug in response to the call for prayer, it seemed strange to me.

When I encountered Buddhist Monks in Thailand and Vietnam, their incantations and manner of dress seemed exotic.

Yet, if I were to encounter a nun or priest wearing the habit or the Roman collar, it would hardly raise a notice. This is just a matter of familiarity and the fortunes of geography, which is more determinative of religious upbringing than any special validity of the particular faith.

Since the Enlightenment, we have made steady, if inconsistent, progress toward a more rational existence. Science has become the sound basis for almost all human progress.

Most religions recognize this, even if a bit reluctantly. They stopped burning heretics for stating the Earth revolves around the Sun, for example. They also update their interpretations of their “holy” texts to accommodate the new information.

The scientific method works because it is based on skepticism, the ability to recreate or refute the contentions of a hypothesis, and the constant verification and validation of any developed theory.

 The three primary religious texts in our world, the Torah (or Pentateuch), the Bible, and the Quran (interestingly enough, all essentially plagiarized from earlier texts), are often used as the basis for arguments about the free exercise of religion and its applicability to secular matters.

Yet these works are rarely, if ever, subjected to thoughtful, thorough analysis of their origins or basis before acceptance. Instead, they are offered, with various levels of interpretation, as proof of the religious tenets.

Why?

If a school board wants to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms, shouldn’t we expect a demonstration that these were the word of god?

If a person wants to wear a T-shirt that says “There are Only Two Genders” because their faith demands it, shouldn’t they have to demonstrate the source of such commands?

The case above, L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, is an excellent example of how religion is a form of child abuse. While I admire the stand taken by the fourteen-year-old boy who wore the t-shirt to school, his indoctrination into the Christian faith began long before he was able to make any rational judgment or choice. This practice, taking innocent children and subjecting them to religious indoctrination before they reach the age of reason, is, in my view, an act of abuse.

What would happen to most religions if we let children grow to the age where they can intellectually choose to accept or reject their parents’ religious faith? I think everyone knows the answer to that.

The call to prayer sounds strange yet I often listen to Gregorian Chants, an artifact from my own indoctrination.

I think much of the fervor for these religious positions is the result of this early involuntary indoctrination. We should demand more than fervent belief before we accept something as a valid position.

Suppose a company wants to refuse health care coverage to employees because their faith opposes contraception. Shouldn’t there be something offered as proof for the origin and validity of the contention?

Where is the line in the sand where religious beliefs and practices cross from embracing a harmless philosophy into a dangerous practice capable of causing significant harm?

While sacrificing goats and one’s own child because you believe your god compels you to may be extreme examples, they are all well-detailed, and accepted as fact, in the very texts the religious would have us use as the basis for morality and practices in the public square.

Embrace your religion in any way you see fit. Argue, based on that faith, for the morality or immorality of laws and practices in public life. But if you choose to submit that faith or religious texts as the very foundation of the argument, you should be prepared to offer evidence of their validity, origin, and rational basis.

You may sincerely believe your god is well pleased by the aroma of burnt offerings. I think we need more than your faith before we accept, unchallenged, these practices in our secular world.

The “Gift” of a Life?

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 2 Comments

How do you gift a human life?  Someone’s interpretatBible Quranion of the Bible says you can. Read these stories,

Giving my child away because the Bible says I should

Six wives and counting

If there’s an urgency to destroying radical Islam, shouldn’t there be an equal or greater urgency to target fundamental Christians who “gift” a human? Why is it so easy to recognize a twisted interpretation of a Christian doctrine as contrary to most Christian beliefs, but not so when it is within Islam?

Why are we willing to act out of fear and destroy those we do not understand because we see them as broadly representative of an entire religious tradition, yet, when confronted with similar examples of a “Christian” atrocity, we argue it does not represent most Christians.

Where’s the outrage? Where’s the slobbering vitriol to “destroy” these enemies of all that is good?

My issue with religion is the certainty of adherents that their own theology is the correct one and all others are wrong. They hold this secret despite protestations to the contrary. As I am often reminded,

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Those who embrace the fundamental aspects of any religion are equally dangerous in my mind.

One lashes out with bombs strapped to brain-washed adherents who believe they’ve booked a trip to a “Virgin” nirvana.

Another will use cruise missiles or perhaps nuclear weapons to blanketly target 1.5 billion adherents because of the actions of a few.

All in the name of God.

Where’s the “Christianity” in that?

 

Southwestern Thoughts: Pueblos and Rock Music

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Traveling through the Southwest, I was intrigued by the changing landscapes. From the flat desert of Phoenix we climbed into the mountains as we drove to Albuquerque.1668896_orig The mountains, steep and rocky, soon gave way to more gently rolling hills now covered with pine trees instead of cactus.

We were at elevations of six to eight thousand feet and the contrasts to the desert couldn’t be starker.

The beauty of this part of the country is breathtaking. The other obvious element of this area is the influence of Mexico. This is a land where the Spanish influenced language, mixed with the cultural heritage of the Mexican people, blended with the Native culture of the Pueblo people exemplifies the best of the multi-cultural melting part that is America.

It occurred to me that calling for a wall between the United States and Mexico would be an insult to the people of this area. These are people who take pride in their culture yet are more American in their attitude than some would admit.

These are a people who accept their differences as a benefit to the country, not something to be lost or blocked off.

There was a time not long ago when the policy of the government, following on the heels of the Spanish efforts, tried to wipe the native culture of the Pueblos from the face of the earth. They forced the children into Indian Schools where they were force-fed Christianity, English, and European history.

They were forbidden to practice their own religion and cultural traditions.

They were forbidden to speak their own language.

They were forced to abandon their history.

This is the land that gave us the “Wind Talkers” of Navajo fame. Whose exploits in the South Pacific against the Japanese are now legendary. Yet, for years it was concealed because to acknowledge it was to give credence to a culture we did not embrace.

The reason for our trip out here was to attend a Mumford and Sons concert. The music was great if a bit loud (I know, my age is showing.) I was struck by the power of the music to inspire the crowd to dance and sing along.

I have never been one for dancing, yet I was a bit envious of those who let themselves be carried away by the songs. Many let themselves just dance away. Many looked quite natural at it. Some, those who haven’t visited a gym or a salad bar in years, looked almost dangerous but hey, they were dancing.

After the concert, we journeyed to Albuquerque and will continue on to Taos and Santa Fe. Here in Albuquerque, we visited the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center. We watched a demonstration of several Native American dances performed by a new generation of Pueblos trying to maintain their cultural heritage.

Many of these dances are performed as part of the Pueblo peoples’ appreciation for the interrelationship of all to the Earth. The animals they hunt, crops they grow, the water they receive as rain are all given due thanks and gratitude.

To the Pueblo, this is their form of devotion to their concept of the creator. Their creation story is no more or less valid than any other. Yet, under the guise of the Christian tradition, we tried to destroy it as a false legend.

It struck me as I watched these young men and women dance, that if people spent less time praying and trying to convince others their beliefs are wrong and more time dancing, be it to a rhythmic chant of an ancient Puebloan rite of harvest or a Mumford and Sons ballad, we’d all be better off.

A Conversation of Differences

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 5 Comments

It is not often that I stimulate a spark of deep thought and inspiring words in others (and truth be told I must share credit with Philosopher Bertrand Russell for the original thought.) Yet a good friend of mine, Kent Harrop, recently penned a post on his blog I believe was inspired by a Russell quote I sometimes append to my email.

Russell (1872-1970) said, “Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines.” This caught Kent’s eye and he decided to put down some thoughts.

Kent wrote (https://greenpreacher.wordpress.com/2016/01/25/is-religion-irrational ),

There’s much that Mr. Russell and I agree upon. But where we part company, is his belief that ‘religion is something left over from the infancy of intelligence’. For me reason and critical thinking need not be contrary to religious life. Even Russell for all his strong views towards religion considered himself an agnostic, ‘in that I cannot disprove the Christian concept of a divine being, just as I cannot disprove the reality of the mythical gods on Mount Olympus.’ Perhaps Mr. Russell has cracked open the door for a conversation.

In this, the fact that it opens a door for a conversation, Kent and I agree.

I consider myself an atheist. I define my atheism as finding no basis for a belief in an anthropomorphic God, or gods, that show an interest in how we behave, what we do with our lives, what we choose to wear or eat, or how we prostrate or otherwise demonstrate our devotion to such a being.

Russell’s quote illustrates the fact that, over the time of our human existence, we have attributed almost all natural phenomena to a divine being at one time or another. Until science and reason took hold.

I think Russell’s quote is more in line with progressive thinkers like Kent than even Kent might realize. The difficult questions we all have beg for answers.

How did we come to be?

What is the meaning of life? (42 is a good start for you Douglas Adams fans)

How did this whole thing get started?

I agree with Russell in that almost all religion is a simplistic attempt to answer an infinitely complex question. I think it fails in this and causes more harm than good.

I think Viktor Frankl (1905-1997), a MD and psychiatrist who survived Auschwitz, found a better answer in his book, “Man’s Search for Ultimate Meaning.” Frankl’s research and life experiences showed him there is an innate essence within man for the religious. However, Frankl did not define religiousness as being in anyway associated with the common concept of religion.

Instead. Frankly believed, from his many years of research, that there was an unconscious religiosity within man. One that compels him to seek meaning in life. The many iterations of religion, from the many gods of early man to the monotheistic dominant sects today, are just stepping-stones to finding the true religiousness within us all.

It is not that we will someday become god. It is that we will someday no longer need a symbol, or a template of acceptable practices, or a script to follow to please god and lead an exemplary life. We will find that our innate, unconscious religiosity points us to a full, responsible, and meaningful life.

Let the conversation begin.

I encourage you all to read and follow Kent’s blog, The Green Preacher, (https://greenpreacher.wordpress.com/2016/01/25/is-religion-irrational. His writing is thoughtful, articulate, and compelling. I find his intelligent and persuasive pieces to be wonderful, if inexplicable, reading considering he is a Red Sox fan. Nevertheless, I suppose no one is perfect.