If you'd like to add comments about your beliefs or about this site, email them to me and I will add them here.  My person comments are at my blog at backyardskeptics.com/blog

12/5/08

I had a great triumph this week: For 20 years I've had a post office box in Brea, and every xmas season the Salvation Army stands at the doors, ringing their bells for donations, and shouting Merry xmas at people. I have built up quite a resentment for this practice, and I've tried yelling Happy Chanukah back, but that does nothing. The last straw was when I noticed that they brought a big stack of magazines with mary and baby jesus on the cover. So I e-mailed the City Council, and they said they'd look into it but didn't. So I complained to someone in charge at the Post Office, and she said she'd look into it but didn't. Finally I called the main number for the Post Office in Sacramento, and they gave me a number for consumer complaints against the post office in Brea (I guess there's a separate number for every region), and the woman was very sympathetic about my issue about separation of church and state and how a government agency is allowing the representation of a religious holiday on their grounds and how I feel discriminated against as a Jew, etc. She said she'd make a phone call and call me back, which she did, and she said I'd never have to worry about this again, and sure enough the Salvation Army has disappeared from the Post Office!

10-27-08   Why not Vouchers?

                The idea of school vouchers is not new. Thomas Paine proposed a voucher-like plan for England in 1792, but popular and legislative support in the United States did not begin until the early 1950s, when states in the Deep South and Virginia established tuition grants to counter anticipated school desegregation. In 1955, economist Milton Friedman proposed vouchers as free-market education to promote competition and improve schools.  Since then, vouchers seem to disappear for a while, but then reappear every ten years or so via alliances of free-market conservatives, local activists, and private school supporters responding to inadequate academic achievement. Today, on the eve of the presidential election school vouchers are again in the news and voters are just as divided as ever over the issue.  So, are vouchers a good idea?  I think they are not for the following reasons.

                First, vouchers cover only a fraction of the cost of most private schools.  According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (IES) and other reputable sites, the average tuition for a nonsectarian private school is around $13,000-$14,000.  Some elite schools are much higher.  The University of Chicago Laboratory School, where presidential candidate Obama’s daughters attend costs between $18,000-$20,000, depending on the web site. This leaves a large portion of the tuition for families to pay.  This is elitist, since most families cannot afford these costs and thus every family does not have the same choices.  Tuition for parochial or religious schools is much less, costing around $3,000-$4,000 and your voucher may cover their tuition costs.  I believe that parents have the right to send their children to any school of their choice.   However, I am a strong believer in the separation of church and state, and government funding of religious schools is in direct violation of the first amendment.  I do not want my tax dollars funding religion in education. 

                Second, there is no evidence that promoting competition in education will make schools better.  Voucher programs that have been in use in Milwaukee and Cleveland since the late 1990’s show no significant difference in test scores between public and private voucher schools.  Private schools are selective. They can reject any student and only allow students who meet their academic criteria. Public schools must accept all students, regardless of their academic ability, disabilities, or family background. Studies show that when these factors are taken into consideration, students do not perform better in private schools.

                Finally, I need to address the impression that the public school system has many “bad” teachers.  This does not make sense.  Private schools are free to hire anyone they want, even those without a college degree.  Their teachers do not have to be accredited, while public school teachers receive a rigorous education.  After completion of a college degree, teachers must have a fifth year of training and student teaching, followed by two more years of classes, observations, and self-reflection while actually teaching, before receiving a teaching credential.  I agree that there are a few ineffective teachers in our public schools.  But, it just doesn’t follow that private school teachers are somehow better and more capable.

                So, why not vouchers?  Because they simply don’t work.  We all want our children to have access to the best education possible and parents have the right to choose a school that they believe best supports their needs.  However, there is no evidence to support that a voucher school necessarily provides a better education. So, what should you do?  If you are concerned about the schools in your community, get involved.  Vote in school board elections.  Find out who’s running and what their goals are.  If you are a parent, volunteer in your child’s school, and be involved in your child’s education.

“We all have a vested interest in maintaining a strong public school system to make certain that our children are educated. They are, after all, our future”. (From the Americans United for Separation of Church and State website).

Posted by Deborah Garriga October 28, 2008

10-18-08 

Dear Friends,

Most of you who are getting this newsletter e-mailed me some kind words after my story in the Los Angeles Times ran last year under the headline, "Religion Beat Became a Test of Faith," which chronicled my spiritual journey from devout Christian to reluctant atheist (there's a link to it on the left to refresh your memory).

For whatever reason, my essay hit a nerve -- I think because serious religious doubt isn't talked about with a great deal of honesty these days. At any rate, the story generated thousands of e-mails and many new friendships. Last fall, HarperCollins asked me to expand the material into a memoir.

"Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America" is finished and will hit the bookshelves in February. This newsletter is designed to keep you up to date on the book, the book tour, appearances and signings. You can pre-order the book from Amazon (at a 34% discount!) by clicking on the link on the left.

I also have ambitious plans for my website, www.williamlobdell, where I think an open and honest discussion about religion and doubt can emerge. More on that later.

If you don't want to receive this monthly e-mail, thanks for reading this far and simply click on the "Unsubscribe" button at the bottom of this page.

But if you do like what you see, please forward this to friends and associates and encourage them to get on the e-mail list. I'm very proud of how the book turned out (I think it's much richer and more compelling than the article that spawned it), and I think you'll enjoy it. It's already getting some very nice endorsements from believers and nonbelievers alike.

William Lobdell
E-MAIL OF THE MONTH

'We were naïve to believe in the
Sunday School version of a deity ...'

Your column ... resonated with me because I find myself at the same spiritual crossroad. Having been raised to believe in a just God, my faith was shaken when my husband and I lost our ten-year-old child to Cystic Fibrosis, a congenital disease for which there is no cure.

We felt betrayed that a loving God could bring such pain to parents who lived by the Golden Rule and followed the Ten Commandments. As we coped with our grief, we couldn't help but wonder why our love for our child wasn't enough to keep her alive and why our faith wasn't bringing us any comfort.

After losing another child to the same illness, we came to the conclusion that we were naïve to believe in the Sunday School version of a deity that sits in a place called heaven and doles out rewards for good behavior and punishment for bad. We have only to look at world events and know this isn't true.
So, who to pray to? An impersonal deity who lets bad things happen to good people? We still haven't figured that out. But it is difficult to abandon a life-long belief. As spiritual beings our souls cry out for something to fill the vacuum. I've even considered going back to church in the hope of recapturing that leap of faith, but, as you so eloquently stated, "there's no faking your faith if you're honest about the state of your soul."

'LOSING MY RELIGION' EXCERPT OF THE MONTH

______________________________________________________________

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/05/13/einstein-religion.html

______________________________________________________________

5/7/08

From Joe the Christian (unedited)

This is my first response to each of the platforms presented on the website, Backyard Skeptics. 

Arguments for Atheism

Some Christians think us atheists are wrong and maybe a bit crazy.  [atheists have flawed reasoning/biased worldview, but not crazy].  But I would argue that they also think that other religions such as Scientology or Wican are way off base from their truth [flawed reasoning, "their truth"  Their truth is an irrational statement.  Truth: a statement that corresponds to fact or reality.  Something true is true even if humans don't know its true, it is true by fact and reality.  The truth may have yet to be discovered by the scientific method or other means.   Therefore, it is illogical to believe that there is more than one true religion because all religions of the world construct "gods,'" yet there cannot be more than one God because by being a God is all powerful, unlimited in ability, without any limitation except that which God imposes on himself. It is illogical to state or in reality be two gods. ] Christians think the other religions are just as ridiculous the same way which atheists think Christianity is ridiculous.  [It does not matter what Christians think of religions or atheists or any other person.  It only matters what one true God believes.  So the rational person would search for the truth, not start with an assumption that God does or does not exist, rather with the question, Is there a God?   I am speaking without connection to any religion, simply by evaluating the Universe, the systems that make it up and the systemic interdependence of the Cosmos, energy, matter, and life from single cell organism to intelligent life.  

Only a fool would oppose all scientific evidence and state: matter has always existed; order comes out of randomness; over extremely long periods of time matter becomes more complex and increases energy; that natural laws developed; etc.  But these are the exact positions everyone who says there is no God takes.  So it is not a matter of religion that a God exists; God is a reality because: all matter had to have a beginning (out of nothing); Universe is not only designed but designed to such an infinitesimal degree that the slightest permutations from the design causes major problems (sicknesses/environmental damage/spiritual darkness/etc); natural laws are just that, they always produce the desired effect and do not change with time (gravity is still gravity, not developing into supergravity, etc); entropy, the entire Universe is decaying (going from a highly ordered and level of existence to a lower and dead state of existence); over long periods of time everything decays and dies; etc.  So the next rational questions is, Who is God?  Next time...
 

__________________________________________________________________

5/1/08  from Niki

Being a recovering Mormon (LDS) and not a FLDS(ed. the FLDS is the mormon-like polygomous cult in Texas recently in the news) , I don't know much about FLDS except what I gleaned from reading Krakauer's book "Under the Banner of Heaven:  A Story of Violent Faith".   I can tell you that every one of those women from the ranch (and the children who are old enough to understand) knows … not believes – knows … that their eternal salvation is at stake.  Polygamy is a celestial law and they won't be going to heaven without it.  While the practice of polygamy is outlawed nowadays by the LDS church here on earth, it is still very much an eternal law.   You may go through this life with one husband (at a time), but when you get to heaven you'll have sister wives to share him with.  Depending on how much of an ass your husband is on this earth, this may be a joyful prospect.  Btw - if you happen to be unlucky enough to be born female, you will not be entering the highest degree of glory (the celestial kingdom) without a man to take you there.  That alone should be enough to make any and all females run screaming from those nice young men riding in pairs on bicycles in white shirts and ties.  I'm surprised the ranch women aren't wearing burqas … which may actually be a bit more attractive than the prairie dresses.  And the burqas have the addition benefit of covering the face and hair.  Those poor women . . .

Of course more pitiful than their appearance was the vapidity of the answers to any question they were asked – at least the ones I heard.  I do give them credit for having the temerity to appear on camera.  They have no idea how robot like their manor of speech and the content of it is.  

As Andrew said, it will be difficult to resolve - and his quote was extremely apropos.   The legal wrangling is one thing, the humanity of it quite another.  On the sheer human aspect of having the children taken away, my heart breaks for the women and the children, and to some degree even the men.  The children know nothing of life outside the ranch.  Foster homes will be completely foreign and extremely frightening to them.  As a mother, it hurts to think of how they lost and afraid they must feel, especially if they do not have a sibling or 96 to huddle with in a strange environment.  Depending on what age their mothers were when commencing ranch life, they – the mothers - don't have much, or any, knowledge of the outside world either.  Therein lies one of the problems … the mothers don't know any better.  They think they are raising their children according to God's commandments.   If marrying a daughter off at 14 to a 60 year old man with 7 other wives is what they are told to do, they are happy for their daughter – she's entering into her eternal salvation.   How can they see it any differently if that's all they know?  It's like describing the color blue to someone who's been blind since birth. 

I personally have no problem with polygamy … as long as it works both ways … and as long as the participants have the ability to think for themselves.  Those women and especially those children do not have that ability.  Most of the men don't either for that matter.  Seems to me ignorance is a key component of any religion.  You don't know that you don't know – and you've got a solid belief system in place, something that answers all your questions, even if the answer is just to "have faith".  In the LDS and FLDS church eternity is the goal.  It's a whole lot longer than this earth life – and all will be revealed there.  You'll be sitting on the right hand of God, and able to become a God (well, at least the men) and have your own world. So sit down and shut up.  Especially you women.

There's not, as usual, an easy answer . . . 

3-26-08

Compliments on your showdown with Ray Comfort. I'm very impressed. If only there were high profile evangelists in my area (Midwest) as there are in yours. You're sitting on a goldmine of counterevangelism. Mind you, not necessarily to "de-convert" others but simply to stop the spread of fundamentalist evangelical Christianity in our nation. Keep up the fantastic work.

Sincerely,
Former Follier   http://www.wotmwatchdog.org   Founder/Writer 

from Bruce:  If you'd like to see Ray and me debate at the HB pier, search for 'the good atheist" on youtube

(see the youtube video "Truth about Religion" Listed in my Other Links page

___________________________________________________________

3-19-08   by Jason - referring to the question - did religion come from astrology?

While the point is up for contention I do not believe that Christianity was directly formed in an astrologic context. However, I think you will find that there are large portions of the text that do reflect that view. I readily expect that this is likely due to the fact that Christianity is based on the “tasty bits” of earlier religions which were indeed formed with astrology in mind. For instance, when looking at Christian buildings we do not see the consistent astrological layout that would be premised by a religion of such founding. While we do indeed see examples of this sort of construction, upon closer examination you will find that most of the structures exhibiting a star alignment were built over, or from, the remains of earlier temples that also featured such an alignment. Though it is not of sound scientific value I also speculate that the “holy star” would be readily identifiable and deified in an astrological religion, instead of being a “here and gone” proposition.

As far as the conversion question; (what would it take to convert you to a religion? ed.)   I spoke with you about this at OC skeptics and upon further reflection I find it nearly impossible to identify a situation where some form of high tech trickery can be fully ruled out. Perhaps if God had continued his interaction with man as reported in the bible I would accept that. However, that time has long passed and it does not really escape the problem noted above. I think that the lack of gods influence over the centuries is the religions’ “key stone” and it has been pulled. Without this interaction and consistent record, God’s existence is improbable enough to make it a null. Either way, what can be said to be 100% certain is that the Christian God or for that matter any of the Gods of men are undoubtedly fictional, as can be clearly reasoned by the inconsistency between their supposed qualities and “documented” behavior. I suppose that at this point the only thing that will make me believe is life after death. Of course, once I cross over I will have to do some serious investigations of the other side! Though I would love to be surprised, I find it much more likely that I will cease to exist. Rather unfortunate that I will not be able to ponder this fact after my passing.

_______________________________________________________________

3/3/07  Devin

If God is omnipotent, then what does that imply concerning morality? What is morality based off of?

If God is omnipotent, then he can't be limited by anything, so that means his rules have to be based off of his own subjective whim. However, if there is an absolute morality, then God is subject to that morality, which implies that he's subjected to something more powerful and all knowing than God."