Choosing not to sing carols

When I was in fifth or sixth grade, I opted out of participating in a school holiday program of singing carols. While most students were in rehearsal for the program, the three or four of us who opted out were sent to one classroom to read or study.

The principal, Mrs. Glover, came by to try to talk us into joining. After briefly addressing us as a group, she turned to me and said, "What about you, Rodney? I know your parents wouldn't mind."

Although I only shook my head, I was deeply offended. I had three simultaneous thoughts: This is my own decision. Why do you think you know what my parents would say? Why do you think you know anything about my parents and me regarding religion that I don't know? (As Jews in an overwhelmingly Christian society, we had talked a lot about such things.) 

Prior to this, I had no strong feelings about Mrs. Glover, but now I despised her. I never forgot the incident, and I never forgave her.

An apparently religious boy

Chip Levine Memorial Award (CLMA) 

Rodney Hoffman

for Devotion to Jewish Studies, 1964

To all appearances, I was quite a religious boy. I'll say why, and then talk about what happened.

We didn't go to services every week, but we did go on major holidays and some other occasions. 

I started kindergarten at the synagogue, learning to read before I entered first grade. 

I went to Sunday School through confirmation at age 16. I won the Jewish Community Center's Bible Bowl (named and modeled after TV's College Bowl). 

I went to Hebrew School twice a week. Almost everyone stopped going to Hebrew School after Bar Mitzvah, but because my Bar Mitzvah was in October, and I had already begun the new academic year, I finished out that year, almost a full extra year of Hebrew School. Because of that, in May, I won the gold watch pictured above. 

I was in SAFTY, the San Antonio chapter of the the North American Federation of Temple Youth, and went to SAFTY and TOFTY (Texas) events. I won one of the Temple's four camperships to NFTY's Hagigah, a two-week arts camp in Warwick, NY. 

In college, I went to quite a few Hillel events. In grad school, I still went to a few.

But starting years earlier, I found the number of religions, each claiming The Revealed Truth, baffling and impossible and the very idea of God dubious. Conflicts between religion and science, historical and current, pushed me away from religion. Coming to terms with being gay was the final breaking point.

I have now been an atheist for decades. My hatred of religion has only grown over the years. I think raising children to be religious is child abuse. (See all my blog posts tagged 'religion.')

I reluctantly attend religious weddings and funerals, but otherwise I don't even step into churches, temples, or cathedrals. I respond negatively to anyone pushing their religion in my face, including fish on cars and crosses on homes, saying, if only silently, "Keep it to yourself!"

Irrationality about gay marriage

In 2008, the Mormon church and the Catholic church poured time, effort, and tons of money into stopping same-sex marriage in California. Irrationally, they feared that the mere existence of same-sex marriage in the state would greatly harm them.

Now, equally irrationally, I devoutly (!) wish their fears were true.

Churches, taxes and politics

I sent the following letter to the Los Angeles Times (not published):

Churches, taxes and politics 

Trump vows to "totally destroy the Johnson Amendment," which bans tax-exempt nonprofits such as churches from participating in any political candidate’s campaign. 

Better yet: Tax the churches. Then they can politick all they want.

The weakness of radical Islam

I sent the following letter to the Los Angeles Times (not published):

Islamic fundamentalists in Bangladesh continue to circulate a "hit list" of secular writers, five of whom have been murdered since 2015.

Their actions prove the weakness of radical Islam.

The fundamentalists themselves must not believe their version of Islam is very enticing, since they fear adherents would drop away with mere exposure to secular ideas.

If a belief system is so fragile that it cannot survive free speech, it deserves to wither away.

Faith and reason are not compatible

In response to this op-ed column by a Catholic bishop, I sent a letter to the L.A. Times this week (not published):

I cannot agree with Barron that "faith and reason are complementary and compatible paths toward the knowledge of truth."

Faith accepts supernatural answers, discouraging people from even considering scientific investigation.

Faith precludes doubt; it's impossible to argue with someone who believes they've talked to God.

Society encourages people to give undeserved deference to religious beliefs.

Faith is inimical to scientific inquiry.

Keep your religion to yourself

In the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling on prayer before government meetings, I sent the following letter to the Los Angeles Times (not published):

Keep your religion to yourself.

Why is that so hard?

Let me elaborate here:

• If you're not with co-religionists, keep your religion to yourself.
• Pray anytime and anywhere you like, but silently.
• If you shove your religion in my face, I may not react sweetly.
• Don't expect me to respect your religion. I probably respect it less than I do the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
• I don't want your imaginary god's blessing when I sneeze. Try “Good health to you” or, shorter, “Gesundheit” or “Salud”.

(I wrote much the same a couple of years ago.)
(See also Why I am an angry atheist.)

"Repelled, held by the Church" (March, 2013)

I sent the following letter to the Los Angeles Times (not published).

Gale Holland ("Repelled, held by the Church", March 1, 2013) asks herself why she remains a Catholic. She implies, but avoids confronting the biggest answer: brainwashing since birth. Religion drilled into children amounts to one more type of child abuse.

Keep religion behind closed doors ('12)

I sent this letter to the Los Angeles Times in August 2012 (not published):

Re: "An eruv in the Hamptons? Why not?" (Opinion, Aug. 15)

Helfand writes, "Even the most adamant belief in the separation of church and state should not spill over into the notion that religion belongs only behind closed doors."

He's wrong. That's precisely where I believe religion belongs. Keep it to yourself and out of my face. What's wrong with that?

Harris: "The Case Against Faith" ('06)

Newsweek Nov. 13, 2006 The Case Against Faith by Sam Harris

 

[excerpted; full text at the link above] 

... 44 percent of Americans are confident that Jesus will return to Earth sometime in the next 50 years... nearly half the American population is eagerly anticipating the end of the world.... this faith-based nihilism provides its adherents with absolutely no incentive to build a sustainable civilization—economically, environmentally or geopolitically.... 

Much of what people believe in the name of religion is intrinsically divisive, unreasonable and incompatible with genuine morality... Religious people will devote immense energy to so-called moral problems—such as gay marriage—where no real suffering is at issue, and they will happily contribute to the surplus of human misery if it serves their religious beliefs.... [stopping stem cell research] 

We have elected a president who seems to imagine that whenever he closes his eyes in the Oval Office—wondering whether to go to war or not to go to war, for instance—his intuitions have been vetted by the Creator of the universe. Speaking to a small group of supporters in 1999, Bush reportedly said, "I believe God wants me to be president." Believing that God has delivered you unto the presidency really seems to entail the belief that you cannot make any catastrophic mistakes while in office. One question we might want to collectively ponder in the future: do we really want to hand the tiller of civilization to a person who thinks this way?... [Sadly, yes, "we" apparently do! Grrrr. -- RH] 

We are living in a world in which millions of Muslims believe that there is nothing better than to be killed in defense of Islam. We are living in a world in which millions of Christians hope to soon be raptured into the stratosphere by Jesus so that they can safely enjoy a sacred genocide that will inaugurate the end of human history. 

In a world brimming with increasingly destructive technology, our infatuation with religious myths now poses a tremendous danger. And it is not a danger for which more religious faith is a remedy.

The cowardly APA on religion ('09)

In August 2009, the American Psychological Association issued a 138-page report on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.

The press release said that the APA resolves that "mental health professionals should avoid telling clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments." About time!

But at the same time, task force chair Dr.Judith Glassgold told the Wall Street Journal, "[W]e have to acknowledge that, for some people, religious identity is such an important part of their lives, it may transcend everything else." That's a cop-out. See below.

The WSJ framed the message this way:

[T]he American Psychological Association said Wednesday that it is ethical -- and can be beneficial -- for counselors to help some clients reject gay or lesbian attractions....

[T]he therapist must make clear that homosexuality doesn't signal a mental or emotional disorder. The counselor must advise clients that gay men and women can lead happy and healthy lives, and emphasize that there is no evidence therapy can change sexual orientation.

But if the client still believes that affirming his same-sex attractions would be sinful or destructive to his faith, psychologists can help him construct an identity that rejects the power of those attractions, the APA says. That might require living celibately, learning to deflect sexual impulses or framing a life of struggle as an opportunity to grow closer to God.

In response, I wrote the following letter to the Wall Street Journal. It was not published.

Dr. Glassgold says there has been little research about the long-term effects of rejecting a gay identity, but there is "no clear evidence of harm" and "some people seem to be content with that path."

Bull. The APA are cowards. They refuse to make the obvious recommendation: [Some] religions are the problem here, brain-washing children with scientifically false crap, crippling their sexual and psychological well-being for life. If parents want all children to be able to live full and satisfying lives, they must spurn gay-bashing religions.

And if you agree with the APA that, "Oh, no, we couldn't say anything against someone's religion!" then you, too, are part of the problem. Stop giving religion undue deference. Religion is a choice. The APA and everyone should tell people which choices demonstrably help lives and which hurt lives.

Religion as Corrosive (July '09)

Link: Religion as Corrosive
From Andrew Sullivan's The Daily Dish

An unnamed reader writes:

I think the unfortunate thing about [your coverage] on this issue is that you've failed to represent Dennett's (or other "grating" atheists') full arguments justifying their combative approach to religion. Personally, I'm a "grating" atheist because of two deep concerns about the influence of religion in general (i.e., religion as a concept).

First, the vast majority of religious people inculcate (or to put it another way, brainwash) their intellectually defenseless children with their own beliefs, demanding that the little ones believe these often ridiculous things to be true with no logical or empirical evidence, which I am convinced undermines children's development of logic and critical thinking.

Secondly, and more concretely, religion is the most pernicious cudgel influencing policy. Because religious beliefs (e.g., homosexuality is bad) are not held on account of logic or evidence (and perhaps also because of the way religion has influenced adherents' critical thinking skills), it is impossible for us to argue against them, yet their consequences affect us all.

Religion warps the policy sphere by determining how people vote and shaping the media dialogue, since a great number if not the majority of sincerely religious people seem openly unwilling to concede that their own supernatural beliefs should not be imposed upon the electorate in general.

The marriage equality debate is a perfect example of this, since all non-religious arguments (i.e., the ones not revolving around the word "sacred,") that I have heard against it are thoroughly specious. We can also reference the nakedly religion-based support for the Bush administration displayed by huge numbers of the Republican base, and ongoing local school board revolutions intended to place ill-disguised creationist dogma into the public school science curriculum.

Meanwhile, pandering to the religious crowd in policy debate merely reinforces their own biases (and reasserts their entitlement to a national audience) and hence does not usually result in any constructive compromise.

Thus, it is not merely that we atheists disapprove of people being religious because we like to chide them for not yet discarding that "crutch"... it's that we feel the violent political force of religion shaping our laws and leadership on a daily basis, while a new legion of young zealots is being indoctrinated with every generation.

[emphasis added]

Russell's Teapot

Link: Russell's Teapot (From Wikipedia)

Russell's teapot was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, to refute the idea that the onus lies somehow upon the sceptic to disprove the unfalsifiable claims of religion. In an article entitled Is There a God?, commissioned (but never published) by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell said the following:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

In his book A Devil's Chaplain (2003), Richard Dawkins developed the teapot theme a little further:

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.

See also the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

And, of course, my own note Why I am an angry atheist

(For more, click on the "Religion" label below.)

Rushkoff: Faith = Illness (April '06)

Link: Faith = Illness. Why I’ve had it with religious tolerance
by Douglas Rushkoff

[excerpted]

I think it's time to ... let everyone in on the bad news: God doesn't exist, never did, and the closest thing we'll ever see to God will emerge from our own collective efforts at making meaning.

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I no longer see the real value in being tolerant of other people's beliefs. Sure, when beliefs are relegated to the realm of pure entertainment, they pose no real danger. ... When religions are practiced, as they are by a majority of those in developed nations, today, as a kind of nostalgic little ritual - a community event or an excuse to get together and not work - it doesn't really screw anything up too badly.

But when they radically alter our ability to contend with reality, cope with difference, or implement the most basic ethical provisions, they must be stopped.

Like any other public health crisis, the belief in religion must now be treated as a sickness. It is an epidemic, paralyzing our nation's ability to behave in a rational way, and - given our weapons capabilities - posing an increasingly grave threat to the rest of the world.

Believing in Miracles ('04)

Link: "Believing in Miracles"

by Hal Crowther
Dec. 2004

[excerpted; full text at the link above]

...The United States of America, technologically advanced, technically literate and nominally civilized, now stands in the dock of world opinion with little choice but to plead guilty to pernicious, pandemic, pre-Enlightenment, near-medieval gullibility....

The great abyss of difference that now yawns between Europe and America is the average American's eagerness to believe damn near anything....

Creationism, the kind of thing that leaves Europeans speechless, is the pièce de résistance of imbecile fundamentalist rubbish. When the Darwin-bashers crawl out and try to flex their muscle, bookburners and witchburners are never far behind....

The United States was founded by post-Enlightenment intellectuals, many of them agnostic, who pursued the science of liberty with the support of austere Anglicans, Congregationalists and Quakers. If you could poll the shades of the Founding Fathers, you'd be hard pressed to find one who believed in the Virgin Birth. What they all believed in passionately, and believed to be the cornerstone of democracy, was the strictest separation of church and state.

"What have been its fruits?" asked James Madison of state-supported Christianity. "More or less in most places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

In the USA ... the Dark Ages seem to loom ahead of us. What nation's intellectual history ever ran in reverse? ...


[emphasis added]

Unitarian Jihad ('05)

Link: "Unitarian Jihad"
by Jon Carroll
San Francisco Chronicle
April 8, 2005

[excerpted; full text at the link above.]

... Greetings to the Imprisoned Citizens of the United States. We are Unitarian Jihad. There is only God, unless there is more than one God. The vote of our God subcommittee is 10-8 in favor of one God, with two abstentions. Brother Flaming Sword of Moderation noted the possibility of there being no God at all, and his objection was noted with love by the secretary....

Greetings to the Imprisoned Citizens of the United States! Too long has your attention been waylaid by the bright baubles of extremist thought. Too long have fundamentalist yahoos of all religions (except Buddhism -- 14-5 vote, no abstentions, fundamentalism subcommittee) made your head hurt. Too long have you been buffeted by angry people who think that God talks to them. You have a right to your moderation! You have the power to be calm! We will use the IED of truth to explode the SUV of dogmatic expression!...

Why is the news dominated by nutballs saying that the Ten Commandments have to be tattooed inside the eyelids of every American, or that Allah has told them to kill Americans in order to rid the world of Satan, or that Yahweh has instructed them to go live wherever they feel like, or that Shiva thinks bombing mosques is a great idea?...

We are Unitarian Jihad. We are everywhere. We have not been born again, nor have we sworn a blood oath. We do not think that God cares what we read, what we eat or whom we sleep with. Brother Neutron Bomb of Serenity notes for the record that he does not have a moral code but is nevertheless a good person, and Unexalted Leader Garrote of Forgiveness stipulates that Brother Neutron Bomb of Serenity is a good person, and this is to be reflected in the minutes.

Beware! Unless you people shut up and begin acting like grown-ups with brains enough to understand the difference between political belief and personal faith, the Unitarian Jihad will begin a series of terrorist-like actions. We will take over television studios, kidnap so-called commentators and broadcast calm, well-reasoned discussions of the issues of the day. We will not try for "balance" by hiring fruitcakes; we will try for balance by hiring non-ideologues who have carefully thought through the issues.

We are Unitarian Jihad. We will appear in public places and require people to shake hands with each other.... Televangelists will be forced to take jobs as Xerox repair specialists. Demagogues of all stripes will be required to read Proust out loud in prisons.

We are Unitarian Jihad, and our motto is: "Sincerity is not enough." We have heard from enough sincere people to last a lifetime already. Just because you believe it's true doesn't make it true. Just because your motives are pure doesn't mean you are not doing harm. Get a dog, or comfort someone in a nursing home, or just feed the birds in the park. Play basketball. Lighten up. The world is not out to get you, except in the sense that the world is out to get everyone....

People of the United States! We are Unitarian Jihad! We can strike without warning. Pockets of reasonableness and harmony will appear as if from nowhere! Nice people will run the government again!...

This startling new underground group spreads lack of panic! Citizens declare themselves "relatively unafraid" of threats of undeclared rationality. People can still go to France, terrorist leader says....

- - - - - -

Find your Unitarian Jihad name at the Unitarian Jihad Name Generator.

Civil Marriage ('00)

I sent this letter to the Los Angeles Times in Feb. 2000 (not published):

Donielle Flot (Letters, Feb. 21) is misinformed about Proposition 22, the "Limitation on Marriage" initiative. There is an excellent reason why opponents do not address the heartfelt religious beliefs of many Prop. 22 supporters.

Pass or fail, the proposition will have no effect whatsoever on the religious sacrament of marriage. That remains solely in the hands of each religion. Prop. 22 speaks only to civil marriage law. No law, now or in the future, can ever force Flot and her co-religionists to marry same-sex couples against their beliefs.

Gay ministries ('99)

In mid-1999, the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said:

Sister Jeannine Gramick, SSND, and Father Robert
Nugent, SDS, have been engaged in pastoral activities
directed toward homosexual persons for more than
twenty years. In 1977, they founded the organisation
New Ways Ministry within territory of the Archdiocese
of Washington in order to promote "justice and
reconciliation between lesbian and gay Catholics and
the wider Catholic community". They are the authors
of the book Building Bridges: Gay and Lesbian Reality
and the Catholic Church (Mystic: Twenty-Third
Publications, 1992) and editors of the volume Voices
of Hope: A Collection of Positive Catholic Writings on
Gay and Lesbian Issues (New York: Center for Homophobia
Education, 1995).

From the beginning, in presenting the Church's teaching
on homosexuality, Father Nugent and Sister Gramick have
continually called central elements of that teaching into
question....

The ambiguities and errors of the approach of Father
Nugent and Sister Gramick have caused confusion among
the Catholic people and have harmed the community of
the Church. For these reasons, Sister Jeannine Gramick,
SSND, and Father Robert Nugent, SDS, are permanently
prohibited from any pastoral work involving homosexual
persons and are ineligible, for an undetermined period,
for any office in their respective religious institutes....

Link: Notification Regarding Fr. Nugent and Sr. Gramick

I sent the following short letter to the New York Times in July 1999 (not published):

I guess Gramick and Nugent did lie about the Catholic Church after all: whenever they led people to believe the Church might change.

Boycotts that backfire ('97)

This letter of mine was published in the Los Angeles Times June 1997:

So the Southern Baptists have decided to boycott Disney. Not just the corporate pieces they're unhappy with, but all of it. Of course, Disney also produces plenty of entertainment that even Baptists could agree is kid- and family-friendly. They're just asking for trouble for their denomination. 

Many Catholics ignore the pope's pronouncements on sexual matters. Others, taking dogma more seriously, leave the church altogether. 

I suspect the end result of the Southern Baptists' declared boycott may be the same: members ignoring the church leadership, or deciding to leave.

Hate TV ('87)

This letter of mine was published in the LATimes Dec. 1987:

Why does Aryan Nations get so much attention for buying air time to broadcast their offensive racist propaganda? When it comes to gays and lesbians, many self-styled "religious" broadcasters spew equally ugly, pernicious, hate-filled, violence-provoking lies. They've been doing it for years, and they make money at it, partly from tax exemptions we all pay for!