Catholic League President and Vatican shill Bill Donohue has a tendency to overreact at the best of times. When he was on the morning show Fox and Friends promoting his new book with the bombastic title - Secular Sabotage: How Liberals are Destroying Religion and Culture in America - Donohue was true to form.

With paranoid conviction he warned that "militant, dogmatic" atheists are "out to get" Catholics and dismantle American society.

There is little room for nuance in Donohue's RC-centric universe. The boiler room where he churns out his diatribes is so far removed from the diverse and changing face of America that his brand of Catholic zealotry comes across as badly out-of-touch. With typical overstatement he refers to 'militant, dogmatic fundamentalist atheism' in an effort to conjure something cultlike and menacing.

While he's at it Donohue should look in his own backyard. Militancy includes dogmatic and unreasonable Catholic positions on matters such as birth control, abortion, stem-cell research, gay marriage. Scandalous positions include the concerted effort of high ranking Catholic clerics to cover up the sex abuse of children by priests who routinely got shuttled from parish to parish.

Donohue's persecution complex knows no bounds.

A recent episode of the Showtime series Penn & Teller: Bullshit! took aim at the Catholic Church. The show was characterized by Donohue as "a Nazi-like assault." He is seeing Nazis in all the wrong places. During WW2 it was the Catholic Church that turned a blind eye to fascist crimes when it suited them to do so and in the case of certain clerics acted as enablers.

With the reactionary climate created by Pope Benedict the church has been regressing. It has lost both its authority and relevance for many people.

Penn Jillette put it this way: “If your morality is governed by anything personal, ethical, rational or humanitarian, then the Vatican is bullshit.”

Game shows can great pretty weird, but nothing quite matches a new Turkish game show called Penitents Compete (Tovbekarlar Yarısıyorfor in Turkish) for unusual content.

The show will feature local leaders of four religions and a group of ten atheists. The religious proponents will compete on live TV in an effort win the atheists over to their faith. Atheists who are convinced by the proselytizing efforts get a free trip to the sacred site associated with their religion-of-choice... Mecca for Muslims, Jerusalem for Jews, Tibet for Buddhists and the Vatican for Christians.

The creators of the program say they want to promote religious faith while also educating Turks about different religious beliefs.

The atheists recruited for the show will be closely vetted, in case some turn out to be atheists-of-convenience more interested in winning a free trip. Those who claim to have converted in the course of the show will be monitored to ensure that their religious transformation is genuine.

The deputy-director of Kanal T station, Ahmet Ozdemir, said: "They can't see this trip as a getaway, but as a religious experience."

Atheists are no less convicted about their beliefs than the religious. Having religious leaders vying to win over alleged atheists on a TV game show sounds more like comedy than a spectacle anyone is liable to take seriously. You also have to wonder why any self-respecting religious leader would actually volunteer to go on TV and 'perform' under these conditions.


Turkey has a secular tradition, however an absence of religion in one's life doesn't necessarily make a person a capital 'A' atheist. Obviously someone who is secular because he or she was brought up that way may be more easily influenced by religious appeals of this sort.

With free trips on offer it is difficult to believe that conversions in the course of the show will be entirely legit. A game show isn't the best forum for this type of debate. So it isn't surprising that there have been complaints from both believers and non-believers.

Mustafa Cagrici, head of the state-run religious affairs directorate said: "I don't find it right to discuss religion in such environments."

Others have been put off by what they see as the rise of an intolerant attitude toward atheism.

A more novel approach might have been atheists trying to convince a group of religious that there is no God. Free trips for newly-minted atheists could include an all-expenses trip to the Natural History Museum.

Tovbekarlar Yarısıyorfor will air on Turkey's Kanal T this September

Global Post story - here.

Bishop of Augsburg, Walter Mixa, is alarmed by the rise of atheism in Germany. He chose to raise the threat level to red by delivering an Easter sermon that linked atheism to mass murder and oppression.

An atheist sign was placed beside a nativity scene in the Legislative building in Olympia, Washington by the Freedom from Religion Foundation. On Friday it was stolen. It turned up a short time later in a ditch.

The atheist nativity sign might be provocative but it reflects a point-of-view that is gaining more exposure in the public square. In Washington, 25% of state residents say they aren't affiliated with any religion or don't believe in God.

A campaign in the UK backed by the British Humanist Association (BHA) and Professor Richard Dawkins, is going to place a slogan on London buses that reads "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

The BBC reports:

The BHA campaign brings a secular voice into a public square where religious symbols and messages have long gone unchallenged. The slogan isn't particularly hard hitting, but it will certainly grab attention and provoke a debate.

Belief in the monotheistic God of organized religion is akin to belief in Santa Claus - just much less healthy. There is no other belief that has such a massive following worldwide without so much as a shred of hard evidence.

Pope Benedict XVl, has issued a document in his second encyclical attacking Atheism. He claims Atheism is responsible for some of the "greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice" ever known.

He conveniently avoids mentioning the atrocity and abuse that has marked the progress of the Roman Catholic Church. The Inquisition and the witch hunts are sometimes cited as the main examples of Roman Catholic excess, but really those events were little more than a footnote in the catalog of violence perpetrated by the Church and its supporters.

The Church has acted like a temporal power, allying itself with political entities throughout its history. It gave its blessings to the Crusades and the barbarities carried out beneath the sign of the red cross. It looked the other way when Jews in the German cities of Mainz and Worms were rounded up and slaughtered.

Whether we are speaking of attacks against Huguenots, Cathars, Anabaptists, Jews, Muslims or any who were deemed a threat by the Church of Rome - atrocity was the name of the game in order to bring the pagans and apostates to heel. This was followed up with the predictable "laundering" of the facts by the spin doctors of the Vatican.

The statement by St Bernard - "The Christian glories in the death of the pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified", describes a prevailing attitude that existed at the time.

When the Conquistadors murdered, raped and plundered in the Americas, they did so as storm troopers bearing the cross of Christendom. In more recent times the Croatian holocaust has left a dark stain that the Church has had difficulty excising. Roman Catholic involvement with fascist regimes during the WW2 era was far more extensive than the Church is willing to acknowledge. Franciscans aided and abetted the notorious Ustashi. A one-time friar, Miroslav Filipovic, presided over the nightmarish Jesenovac camp where he tortured and murdered at will. The attempts by the Church to whitewash the true role of Cardinal Stepinac during this period is one of the more shameful acts of recent decades.

Unfortunately there were very few heroes of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's stature in Roman Catholic ranks. Photographs speaks louder than words. Here are just a few of the photos still in existence that would certainly suggest Roman Catholic collusion with the fascist regimes of the time ... 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10

Roman Catholic spokespersons have been venting a lot recently over works of fiction they view as threatening in one way or another. The Da Vinci Code came in for Catholic criticism, as did the Harry Potter series. Now there is a new reason for them to get hot under the collar.

In Ontario recently the Halton Catholic District School Board pulled an award winning childrens' book off the shelves of its libraries in response to complaints. The Golden Compass is part of a trilogy by British author Philip Pullman.

A movie based on the book is due to be released next month, starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig. New Line Cinema is behind the production. They have departed somewhat from the text to avoid offending Catholics. Not that the Pullman books are explicitly anti-Catholic, but they could certainly be interpreted that way, especially in the light of key references to what appears to be Catholic-like institutions, and statements Pullman has made that are unfriendly to "God".

Pullman is an atheist. Predictably he's been the target of attacks coming from Roman Catholic organizations, in particular the Catholic League in the US.

The head of the Catholic League, Bill O'Donohue, a sort of wacky latter-day inquisitor without a writ, likens Pullman's work to an Atheist manifesto - or more succinctly - "Atheism for kids". As anyone knows who has actually read the books with any degree of comprehension, this is a deliberate distortion. The arrogance implicit in O'Donohue's comments is borne out by other Catholic opinion.

The Catholic Education Resource Center site offers this piece of outrage :

"Christians should be offended ... Pullman’s plot is a blasphemy worthy of Screwtape himself ... Pullman’s books are a direct attack upon God and the Christian faith."

Given their mixed track record in providing moral guidance for the young, Catholics aren't exactly in a strong position to attack a book that has received wide acclaim from parents around the world for both its moral vision and inspirational power.

Pullman's books aren't so much an attack on spirituality, as an attack on sinister authority. The dark power - the "Magisterium" - appears to reference, however obliquely, the Catholic Church and its hierarchy.

Far from being morally ambivalent, Pullman's trilogy celebrates the virtues of hope and love. The books demonstrate the merits of such admirable human qualities as justice, honor and courage. There are even those readers who find Christian values alive and well in the books, so this criticism on the part of Roman Catholic organizations is really about narrow self-interest. They are prepared to censor a superb work of childrens' fiction because it offends their hidebound criteria of what it means to be a Christian.

A recent Detroit Free Press column by Mitch Albom addressed the Asa Coon shooting. It merits a brief response if only because of Albom's misguided attempt to link the incident with the decline of religion in America.

In covering the school shooting by a troubled 14 year old boy, Albom states that the youth in question, Asa Coon, was "reportedly" into a Goth lifestyle and Atheism. The manner in which it is presented makes "Goth" and "Atheism" code for 'a bad thing' ... even 'an evil thing'. In case the reader didn't get it, Albom includes a reference to Coon's fondness for shock rocker Marliyn Manson and includes a few lines of the the most loaded Manson lyrics he can find.

When would you ever hear a reporter saying of a school shooter and suicide victim "he claimed to be Methodist"?

Even in N. Ireland where prior to the peace agreement Christians were long engaged in internecine tit-for-tat murders, you never heard a reporter saying of a bomber - "he claimed to be a Presbyterian". But maybe they should have because then I could provide reams of quotations for Mitch to demonstrate that Christians are more likely to be the shooter than an Atheist ... as any review of crimes in the US will also confirm.

The smearing of Atheists by some in the media reflects flawed thinking. There simply aren't the stats to back up the negative spin. Run a poll of the inmates of American jails and see what percentage claim to be Atheist. You are looking at a very tiny percentage indeed.

Most Atheists tend to be critical thinkers. That comes with the territory because when you're born into a nation obsessed with God and organized religion, it takes a good deal of personal courage and conviction to reach the conclusion you don't buy into it.

The assumption is also made by some that since an Atheist is 'Godless', he or she is therefore bereft of any type of moral code. Christian opinion pieces go so far as to link Atheism with perversion and drug addiction. In fact ethical concerns are important to Atheists as any who take the trouble to check out Atheist writings will find to be the case.

Albom's smear comes on the heels of the attack on Atheists launched by Dinesh D'Souza in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre. D'Souza blamed modern science, specifically Richard Dawkins, for reducing humans to "agglomerations of molecules" - among other nonsensical accusations that bore little or no relation to the causal factors that lay behind the tragedy.

These commentators are misinformed. They should take the time to actually read Atheist writers on the subject of ethics before pointing the finger.

A while ago Richard Dawkins and other prominent atheists agreed to appear in a documentary named “Crossroads - The Intersection of Science and Religion”. It was their understanding that “Crossroads” would focus on the debate between creationism and Darwinism.

Dawkins discovered that name of the film had been changed to “Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed”. Quite a difference in emphasis from the original. More troubling was the change in the content itself. Far from being an even handed debate, “Expelled” goes to bat for creationists, arguing that scientists who support intelligent design theory are being denied academic posts at some universities.

Needless to say Dawkins wasn’t thrilled. He had this to say ... "At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front.”

PZ Myers, a biology professor at the University of Minnesota, also agreed to appear in the original documentary “Crossroads”. The letter he received from Mark Mathis, a producer at Rampant Films, gives no hint that the project would morph into a film with creationist sympathies.

Here is part of what Mathis said in his letter to Myers ...

Madeleine Bunting has a column in the Guardian this week that's worth a read.

She claims that the "new" atheism may have taken on some of the narrow minded and bigoted characteristics of the fundamentalist religion it so despises.

"But I also raise the concern that his (Dawkins) form of atheism is mimicking the kind of intolerant bigotry we've seen in the past from the religious. As one person put it, it's payback time - atheists are simply giving back what religions have handed out for centuries. Well, exactly. And what's the point of that?"

For the most part, she goes along with the atheist position that Christian fundamentalism needs to be challenged and agrees that intelligent design is "hocus pocus". Where she claims to differ however, is on tactics. What her tactics precisely are, she doesn't outline in any great length.

Ms Bunting comes across as a down-to-earth and civil human being, so I presume her preferred tactics have to do with polite reasoning and other discursive strategies. None of which of course are likely to work. Well, perhaps with some rare fundamentalist who also happens to be both intellectually curious and open to an atheist or even agnostic line of reasoning, to the point of reconsidering his/her position. On a scale of probability an unlikely scenario.

Point is though, this face-off with fundamentalists isn't simply about ideas. How do you debate people who think you're evil, wrong, hell bound and deserving of stigma? Well you don't. But that doesn't mean you walk away.

Part of this confusion may be cultural. Christian fundamentalism in the US is a very different animal from the UK version of same - something the writer acknowledges. Appeals to reason don't work with people who tend to be non-rational and in a minority of cases unreasonable to the point of putting bombs in clinics.

Characterizing the radical edge of atheist activism as the "yelling (of) scornful insults" at "benighted believers" evokes a caricature that has little bearing on the reality. I'm sure there is the occasional atheist who seeks confrontation for its own sake. For the most part though atheists are well informed and insults, when they do occur, are usually in response to verbal attacks from fundies and their ilk who can reliably be depended upon to go on the attack as soon as they hear the "atheist" word - particularly in online forums where they can be anonymous.

This reflects the larger problem of prejudice and even abuse directed at the atheist community. The people doing the stigmatizing of atheists certainly don't view themselves as "benighted" - in the dictionary sense of "intellectually or morally ignorant". Quite the contrary. They view themselves as both morally superior and recipients of higher knowledge which they identify as "revelatory" or "biblical".

For an example of how pervasive and deep seated the prejudice toward atheists can be, one only has to take a look at the stats. One survey of Americans found that some 70% would oppose atheists having access to civic auditoriums. Only around 50% in the same survey said they would oppose gays making use of civic auditoriums.

Atheists are engaged in a fight for rights and recognition that is long overdue. A belief in the debating club approach presupposes that evangelicals are open to rational discourse. It fails to take into account evidence that suggests the contrary. For example the brainwashing tactics used on kids in "Jesus camps" and the polarizing influence fundie ideology has had on education, culture and basic freedoms in many parts of the USA.

Atheism does not in fact "encourage what it disavows". Religious bigotry and 'bible-based' thinking on everything from morality to creationism, can't be compared with an approach that is both rational and scientific, given moreover to skepticism. Sure, atheism attracts a few fanatics who form cliques in order to believer-bash along tit-for-tat lines. What movement doesn't attract a minority of extremists. But this approach is not representative of a movement, that is nothing if not well informed and savvy when it comes to engaging the opposition.

Not long after the shooting at Virginia Tech, Dinesh D'Souza posted some sweeping generalizations about atheists on News Blogger, accusing them of everything from culpability to negligence. This anti-atheist harangue is more-of-the-same from D'Souza whose caricatured views of atheism and atheists has become a sort of idee fixe. This time though, rather than sparing us all by restricting his remarks to the pages of Christian Science Monitor, he attempted to improve his ratings by posting over the dead bodies of young students.

Why would D'Souza be so fixated on the atheist response or lack of, mere days after the worst atrocity of its kind in the USA? His accusation that atheists are callous is more than a little ironical. Clearly he wasn't focused on the grieving process since he was able to find both time and leisure to launch a broadside of this sort. He wasn't on campus extending a hand to the bereaved because he was seated behind his computer.

Here is part of what he had to say ...

"Notice something interesting about the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings? Atheists are nowhere to be found ... for scientific atheists like Dawkins, Cho's shooting of all those people can be understood in this way--molecules acting upon molecules."

D'Souza's post was answered by Mapantsula, a professor at Virgina Tech who happens to be an atheist:

"We atheists do not believe in gods, or angels, or demons ... (but) We believe in human rights and dignity, and we know what it is for those to be trampled on by brutes and vandals. We may believe that the universe is pitilessly indifferent but we know that friends and strangers alike most certainly are not. We despise atrocity, not because a god tells us that it is wrong, but because if not massacre then nothing could be wrong."

Mojoey who heads up the the Atheist Blogroll made these observations on a post following the tragedy ...

"Personally, I held back tears as I heard the account of a young man who did not understand why he was still alive. I grieved over the tragic loss of a heroic professor. I spoke with a Korean friend who did not want to relive the hate that filled his life after the LA Riots. In general - I did what everybody else in America did. I did what I could. Only- I did not pray."

There is a marked contrast between the heartfelt commentary of Mapantsula and Mojoey and the exercise in cynicism offered up by D'Souza. His descent into finger pointing and political point scoring so soon after this appalling atrocity, was too quick off-the-mark. It comes across as a good deal less respectful than an atheist who stays home and does his/her grieving in the company of cable news.

Born-again Christian lobbyists have been at the forefront of the fight against gay marriage and atheism. Some have been seen on TV news holding signs that declare marriage to be a union between a man and a woman only. These advocates of heterosexual unions believe marriage to be blessed by God. Marriage according to their tenets is designed to glorify God in order to reveal his love to the world. In this sense marriage is nothing more nor less than a sacred covenant and testament to their religion.

Interesting then that proportionately born-again Christian divorce rates stand at 27% in the US, as compared to 21% for Atheists? Moreover, taken in the context of the Christian demographic alone, the born-again divorce rate, at 29%, is higher than the mainline Protestant, Mormon, Catholic and Lutheran rates.

These statistics are drawn from a recent poll conducted by the Barna Research Group. The president, George Barna, had this comment - "While it may be alarming to discover that born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time."

Atheists are often the target of attacks from the born-again constituency, who accuse them of being everything from unpatriotic to deviant. Former President, George H. W. Bush, is even on record stating that Atheists should not be considered citizens of the United States. Given this widespread prejudice and moral censure from Christians, the fact remains that Atheist marriages hold together better than marriages of born-again believers, even with the assistance the latter claim to have from on high.

Gallup polls repeatedly demonstrate that Atheism is the target of widespread prejudice. For example, a recent Gallup poll that explored Americans' willingness to tolerate a president based on his/her personal beliefs - showed that 4% would oppose electing a Catholic, 7% would oppose electing a Jew, 24% would oppose electing a Mormon, 43% would oppose electing a homosexual - but a whopping 53% would be against having an Atheist for President.

Another poll found that 71% believed that Atheists with an anti-God message should banned from access to civic auditoriums. The same poll showed that just 59% believed gay liberation groups should be banned from auditoriums for promoting a pro-gay message.

The implicit belief of many evangelicals that the man is "the head of the house", places the female spouse in a subservient role by default. Husbands who see their authority as God-given may be more prone to being authoritarian, even abusive, as a way of imposing control on the domestic environment. In many cases this feeds into the type of tensions that eventually lead to a parting of the ways.