In 2006, Bush’s admin created the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands. In the face of severe objections by commercial interests, they banned fishing in about 362,600 square kilometers of the sea. This is an area larger than all the national parks of the States combined.

Ocean fishing has a much larger effect on the seas than was once imagined. Our consumption (and waste) of all food including that from the sea is so high that a conspicuous difference is created in the world’s waters. Needless to say, almost every ecosystem living in the upper 40 meters of water is affected in one way or another by our fishing industry alone. In the non-deep areas of the sea, practices such as bottom-trawling do not even spare life at the sea bed. In the most destructive form of this method, two trawler ships lay out a large net across the sea floor one end being held by each, and then literally sweep the floor clean. Everything that lies in the path of their nets (and that means everything - whether plant, animal or mineral) is captured in the net and pulled out. Of course over 80% of whats collected is junk to the fishermen, and is tossed back into the sea. On the one hand this seems like a good thing, that at least we return the dead plants and fish back to be decomposed, but undoutedly this must greatly imbalance the local ecosystem.

In its latest achievement, the Bush admin created another national monument around some of the American Islands in the Western Pacific Ocean. Covering the Marianas trench, the volcanic arc of the Pacific, and several islands and atolls, a total area of about 500,000 sq. km is now protected. Apparently some of the islands here hold U.S. naval bases and so “unhindered” access will be allowed to their vessels, but without fishing and mineral mining, the local life is bound to excel. Some recent studies have shown that due to increased temperatures and higher carbon density in the waters, the global growth rate of corals has decreased in the past few years. Previously a coral system could revive itself in as short as 10 years, but now at least 4 times that time is expected. So whatever damage has been done in this area as of recent will at least have a chance to recover, no matter how slowly.

The very fact that the area involved is half a million sq. kms. should be reason enough to rejoice. Richard Leakey has expressed concerns over the effectiveness of “national parks” (though he was referring to terrestrial ones). He suggests that isolating already decreased populations to a yet smaller area like in African national parks, creates more competition between its creatures, especially for those that have to re-adjust to slightly modified conditions. This leads to a higher rate of natural extinction than the norm. The concept can be stretched to water national parks also. But in this case, I think the very magnitude of the size concerned lifts most of the dangers that might come with traditional national parks. For reference, consider that the entire island of New Guinea is 786,000 sq. km in total area. Imagine about 3/4ths of that being something like a national park. Certainly this is a positive.

This is not something I’ve said ever before, or I think I’m going to say ever again, but for setting on a true ‘blue’ legacy, thank you Mr. Bush.

There is a BBC article covering the story here and a PEW press release covering the event here. Bush is set to make his public announcement of this on Tuesday evening.

Consider this recent comment from perhaps my favourite Chris Ray post. This is Comment #25, from BluffingtonBoast:

In all, the murders, genocides, starvation and killing brought about by atheists either trying to excise religion from the populace by sheer force, or by their own lack of moral compass easily approach the billion mark. And you call yourselves ‘humanists?’ Try putting the pre-fix IN when having the gall to breath the word. In fact, the Mickey Mouse poll you run at the top of this blog dispells [sic] any doubt. The great majority of your responders would prefer a world without religion at the same time they express they would pursue that goal actively. Which means exactly what…???

Not only is this insulting, saying we have “no moral compass”, it is also patently bizarre.

As many know, I find the term “atheist” unhelpful. We are all atheists but specifically Bluffington has focused on the god of the old testament as somehow more special than other gods. As if the god of the Bible is more reasonable or believable than Thor. I would speculate that Bluffington does not believe in Thor or Filli Mukullu, so he or she is also an atheist. His or her lack of belief in Thor is also responsible for the deaths and so on that the apologist sides love to bring up, in some sick blood-thirsty satisfaction. Yet somehow the nonbelievers in one particular group’s god is er more responsible than the nonbelievers in the other gods… IF you’re confused, then welcome to my club. It makes no sense to say atheist caused this or that, because we are all atheists.

I also find the word “humanist” unhelpful and do not call myself that (now at least). Regardless, let us question this fact further: Do BluffingtonBoast and others honestly believe that The Edger readers are going to murder, pillage and destroy churches, mosques and temples? And what of the excellent writers at Edger, who constantly talk about equality, liberty, justice and beauty - without the usurpation of religious bigotry to underpin such ideas to the blackboard of dogmatic truth. Whilst promoting such important (not even good) ideas, how is it that with a second blink they would destroy, hurt or promote destruction?

BluffintonBoast has set up a false dichotomy: either there is religion, with people tolerating it and being respectful or there is no religion which is brought about through destruction and pillaging. But that’s not true. Chemistry “eradicated” alchemy, astronomy “replaced” astrology - yet, were chemists grabbing their bottles of acid and tossing them into the homes of alchemists? Were astronomers taking their telescopes and bashing the heads of “seers” and their crystal balls? Of course not. That is patently absurd and an insult to human sensibility if one considers it as such.

The growth of ideas is simply the coming to fruition of budding knowledge. Old ideas and world-views, like astrology and religion, once shaded our eyes as we gazed into the beautiful, mad world around us. But soon, from the same roots as astrology and religion, arose better and more lucid ideas. The ideas we call astronomy and humanism. These grew higher and we could climb and see more of the world. But religion and astrology, blocked by the growing forms of these better ideas, should wither and fade back into the soil of the human past. But there are those who vilify and feed these old plants, keeping them alive, turning them into weeds. They crawl along the bark of these new ideas, trying to gain the light and pulling these better ideas down.

So when those of us who selected from the Mickey Mouse poll to “actively pursue this”, what do we mean? Our words are the length of our armory. Religion can be replaced by promoting better ideas and not respecting the ideas - forget the people, the ideas are what we are dealing with - of religion. We do not have to. So if we mock, chide and dismiss foggy notions of talking burning bushes and blood thirsty gods, it is not a precursor to destroying churches. I love churches, I love mosques and temples. I remove my shoes when I enter, I pray at friends houses when they ask me to. I respect the people but not the ideas.

Not only is it insulting to suggest we desire blood, it is a complete misunderstanding. As chemistry replaced alchemy, so will the wonder of the present moment, the beauty of science, and the love of fellow humans replace religion. It will eradicate faith. I doubt it will ever happen, but yes, Bluffington and others, I do plan on actively seeking that goal.

Many are the forms of “love”, all petals from the same poison plant. We must choose our poison and not dim our sights when disappointment looms. Signing up for life, says AC Grayling, is signing up for disappointment. Things, people and activities will wither and die; transformation will grab hold of our reality and shake it till everything in our tiny box of “truth” is upset, dishevelled and chaotic; and yet we must grab onto something. Love, or eros, is said by Freudians to be part of the driving force for all activities. In a sense this is true, but still the classification of love is important.

At the highest is what we maintain with life-long companions, who change and grow with us like a tree’s refection in a pond. At its lowest and most parochial is the romantic love. It is no secret that Greeks viewed love with women as lower to that of loving a pretty, young boy: who you schooled, taught and so on, to be a good citizen. The rational is what mattered to them and the constant flow of ideas in the agora (the market place of ideas and discussions) laid open the path to a better life (of course it is now irrational to think of the “better” sex as unequal to men).  It was not the purely quivering emotional repository of barbarism - latent, it is true, within all of us - mixing with the poison of emotional love, which opened up doorways of reason. It was logic, rationality and knowledge. True - this is not a time we wish for, not an Atlantis of good thought, but certainly one we openly learn from. And what we learnt - but somehow forgot - is that romantic love is not necessarily “good” love.

I have the weight of literature, art and music standing before me. But truly I see no reason why romantic love is upheld or seen as “good”. It baffles us social scientists how love continues. In biological terms, it makes sense: We have short lives, raising a child is difficult. If two people try the best they can, with each other, investing time and money, a good healthy child can be produced. Both parties invest and because of this people like Robert Frank have looked at love in economic terms.

Consider: if you settle for the best you can get, (rationally) you should leave your partner as soon as Mr or Mrs Right is spotted. He or she should not expect to be permanent in your life, unless he or she is - in your eyes - 10 out of 10. However, since we are fallible, this is not possible. So, according to Frank, this paradoxically means we should never allow ourselves to think we are going to remain with anyone. The statistics show that you are almost guaranteed to meet someone who is “better” looking, better catered to your personality, and so on, whilst you are involved in a relationship.

People like Helen Fisher and others have also tried to understand love. Steven Pinker provides the answer: “Don’t accept a partner who wanted you for rational reasons to begin with: look for a partner who is willing to stay with you because you are you.” He goes on to quote Douglas Yates, who no doubt is voicing most readers opinions about me: “People who are sensible about love are incapable of it.”

But that’s just romantic love! And that’s my problem. I do not see why we need romantic love because I think we still need to defend our own existence. If the answer to being romantic and so on is that we must procreate - a crass and unhelpful answer - we must answer what gives us the right to breed? What gives us the arrogant notion that we should foster offspring on to an already tired world? If, however, the answer is that it leads to a fulfilled life, I would tentatively agree. However, my problem is not with romantic love as a whole but the continual search, media-hype and glamorising of love; the horrible genre of “romance” in film and books (I refuse to call it literature); the investment and intense emotions felt by friends and others who give themselves wholly to the search or capture of The One.

Truly, experiencing romantic love one, twice or thrice is important. But why continue? Why should we foster the notion that romantic love is somehow a good thing? In what sense is it more fulfilling than other important endeavours? I will not accept that romantic love is emotional and therefore defeats my rationalist approach - that’s a defeatist and avoidant response. And I also respect the private actions of sensible human beings: I do not plan on stopping people holding hands, kissing and so on (as much as it personally disgusts me). That is not my point. I am merely attempting to understand why romantic love has gone under the radar, has become accepted as somehow “good”, and beyond the rationalist approach.

I am not speaking, of course, of the love for friends, family and perhaps ideas and opinions. It is only the people I would die for, of course. I would die for them because of my “love” for them. But that is the “good” love, which is the love we should be celebrating. The romantic love is frail, pathetic and rather mundane compared to the beauty and fulfilment derived from life-long companions and family. I think the corollary is true: Those who love purely because of emotions must be avoided. We can usually say exactly why we love someone and for that reason it is better. But for ideals or ideas or nations or religions: Dying for them, or justifying them emotionally, is pure idiocy. Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori - “sweet and fitting it is to die for one’s country” - wrote Horace. I do not think so. My love for my country does not extend to my life, or encompass that short, frail thing in a grip of power.

I am not denying my own emotions: Indeed, I know about love and have fallen in love numerous times. Yet, the reciprocity is the key and is hardly ever turned to open the door of companionship. So, I fight off the emotions because the puerile, pestilential notion of romantic love is an insult to human sensibilities. The genre of romance is quite weak, using only two or three or four people’s smitten emotions with each other to drive the story. I am not a fan of movies but I have noticed the same trend with romance movies. Why is romance a good thing? What on earth is convincing people of this awful “fact” when in truth, love is so much more grand than the insult called “romance”.

My life as a skeptic, a secular humanist and an atheist has been short. As a young child, I was raised a moderate Catholic, but I’ve never found that it had much of a direct impact of my life. I was swayed from it by one of my best friends a few years ago. But it’s only been over the course of the past year that I can really say that my beliefs have been defined. I was introduced to Richard Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene by said friend in early 2008, and it is that which I have to thank for a great deal of where I’m at right now.

I fell in love with biology from that book, but more importantly, I learned about logic.

This year I realized that logic is a skill that takes practice just like any other. At least, I certainly wasn’t born with it. This has been an important thing for me to understand. Between the time when I stopped going to church for the better (I was eleven or so) and the point where I finally began to grasp what it meant to be an atheist (beginning of 2008), there was a void. Although I was glad to be free of the church, I didn’t understand anything any better. I was confused, and I tried searching for answers in alternative religions (Wicca, Buddhism, Scientology) but I couldn’t ever make up my mind. I wanted to make my own decisions about what I thought, but at eleven I was terribly helpless about how to do it.

Fast forward a bit to the time right before I first opened The Selfish Gene. I was still just as lost, but I had long given up attempting to fix it. Really, I think that looking back on my eleven-year old state, all I needed was more education. By the time I started reading the book, I already had a small interest in science and far more knowledge on the subject (and in general). So I was just able to get through it, and what I read amazed me. For those who haven’t read the book, it really has little to do with logic (directly). It’s about biology and natural selection. But the thing was, I’d never really understood evolution. My memories of science class lessons about the subject include picking up camouflaged colorful confetti on a multicolor piece of paper, which is an accurate demonstration but astonishingly uninformative.

And then there was Richard Dawkins, in a book obviously written for adults, explaining to me in perfect, clear language what I had always struggled to grasp in middle school. I understood him so astoundingly well… and in an unexplainable way, I saw what it was to be logical.  If there’s any time in my life where I’ve ever experienced a eureka moment, that would be it.

Basically, this experience ultimately threw me into atheism and skepticism. Attending the Center for Inquiry student leadership conference this past summer was the second event that changed me. I had just turned fifteen when I went. I met all kinds of people. Fascinating, incredibly marvelous people. It was worlds apart from my high school biology class, and the discussions that we had during that conference were far beyond anything that happened in the little debates in my freshman English class with twenty other kids. Everyone I talked to was someone new, and it was so refreshing. I don’t think I can ever forget that weekend with those people. I learned and grew so much. That was the weekend I really fell in love with inquiry, and skepticism and the universe. Biology had only been the beginning. I’m even more passionate about those things now, and it sincerely overwhelms me beyond anything else I can imagine.

The reactions I get from people about it are pretty predictable and they usually have to do with my age. But surprisingly, most of them are from the people I go to school with, who are about the same age I am. When I mention things like Edger and what it means to me, I’m met with confusion a lot of the time. It really forces me to consider how lucky I am. I’m incredibly grateful to have people I can go to who think like I do. They’re not only my friends, but something else, even though I’m not really sure what to call them. I owe so much to them either way.

Speaking of Edger, it’s really been a gift to me. Everyone who works on it is seriously talented and fantastic, and even though I have no idea how I ended up in the middle of it all, I’m so glad I did. And as the new year comes in, I think about where I’d be without it. Because despite the differences in age I have with everyone else, at the end of the day we are all thinking about the same thing in like-minded ways.

So after all, I guess this turned out to be a thank you letter to everything and everyone who helped me get where I am this year, especially the folks at the Center for Inquiry and especially especially everyone at Edger.

I feel like I belong here, with secularism and skepticism and science. I really wouldn’t trade it for anything else in the world, and it’s the most comfortable feeling.

Thanks for 2008,

Cheers

Atheists Should Be Treated Like Trolls - FOX NEWS

Wow. Just wow.

I shouldn’t even look at anything from Fox News because this is so typical. But it’s been a while since I’ve seen a news story with logic this flawed. As the video explains, there was an atheist sign near a nativity scene that was stolen, and the owners of the sign now want to replace the old one with a “thou shall not steal sign”. Fox makes it sound like that by doing this, the atheists are hypocrites. It’s definitely ironic, that’s for sure, but apparently not for reasons anyone at Fox realizes.

Michelle Malkin goes on to complain about atheists a little bit. She suggests that atheists are just being attention whores with all these “christmas wars”, “outbursts”, and “tantrums” (apparently a sign qualifies waging war on Christmas.) 

She then says that atheists are so radical, soon they’ll be saying they’re indispensable.

I don’t know about you, but I find atheists pretty useful. A good majority of the world’s most influential and intelligent scientists are atheists. I’ve never thought about it before, but I realized that, yeah, if every atheist in the world were to just suddnely disappear, there would be problems, especially because so many intellectuals are atheists. Malkin suggests, however, that if every atheist alive just suddenly died… well, it would be no skin off her back.

But get ready, because she’s about to say the most horrible, meaningless, overdone remark you can imagine. Ugh. I hate this, hate this, HATE this line. I hear it in discussions, debates, you name it. People think it’s a valid thing to say. They think that it gives them extra points and automatic credibility. And I’m sure you guys know what I’m talking about.

Immediately following her last comment, Michelle Malkin says:

“Now, some of my best friends are atheists.”

What?! Does she hear the things she’s saying about “some of her best friends”? 

A minute later she says atheists “just can’t leave well enough alone and let people enjoy the season.”

So someone who had their property vandalized should just let it go because it’s Christmas? I mean really. She relates the sign to “making a nusence in the town square.” 

And THEN… oh boy, this is good… that blonde news anchor from the beginning of the video says that if this kind of thing doesn’t stop… Christianity will DISAPPEAR. 

And now for the biggest joke of all.

The solution? Treat atheists like trolls.  Mock them. They’re just attention seekers anyway.

Now I’m not personally one to promote lawsuits for every minute little thing, but how schools let this kind of thing happen is still beyond me. From experience, I know that Colorado is not a particularly religious state. My brief time in the Cherry Creek School District when I was younger was pleasant and looking back on it, I would say the experience was fairly secular. So when a friend told me about this case I was pretty surprised. I’m not sure that a lawsuit is the right solution to this problem, exactly, but that’s not really for me to decide. However I would say that this problem is kind of major, considering that the district is saying that religion is an asset to a child’s development. 

On that note, if you know a child or a parent of a child who attends a school in the Cherry Creek School district, the FFRF urges you to pass this official statement on:

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has a very important challenge regarding the separation of church and state in the Cherry Creek School District in Denver. The lawsuit challenges the District adoption of the “40 Developmental Assets,” of which number 19 is a recommendation of a “religious community” for children. The school district is recommending that children spend at least an hour a week in a church or other religious setting.

In a document specifically written for children, the endorsement reads: “I spend time with my religion.” A poster of a praying child next to this wording is displayed in various ways. The asset appears on a master calendar at the District website and various District documents.

FFRF has uncovered a religious agenda of the “40 Developmental Assets” program (in which the Lutheran Brotherhood, which developed it, cites bible verses which inspire each “asset,” even the secular-sounding assets).

Due to a child of a plaintiff graduating, FFRF is down to a single plaintiff. We are requesting anyone having a child in the school system who supports the separation of church and state to join the suit.

If you have a child in the Cherry Creek School system (or sympathetic friends or relatives with children in the District) and you might be interested in joining our action against this establishment of religion by the school district, then please let me know. Plaintiffs must have children who use the Cherry Creek public schools.

If we are to add additional plaintiffs, they need to be added before 2009. There is no cost involved and very little time required, and you would be helping to ensure we can challenge a violation that is occurring nationwide. The Court has a protective order which keeps parent (and child) names out of the court documents and newspapers. If interested contact me ASAP

Tim Bailey 303.921.0641
Tcsgrv@mindspring.com
Humanists of Colorado

Cheers

Warren sucks. He is a homophobic, fundamentalist, who believes that the purpose of life is to have the magic voice of Jesus inside your head tell you what to do.

This is, no doubt, frustrating.

I am of the school of thought that religion is usually harmful, and that evangelical Christians are a dangerous political force in the U.S.

I am of the opinion that Christianity, in its mainstream practice, should be resisted and that we must write and make creative and artistic efforts to decrease its influence and popularity.

But I am 100% calm about Obama and Rick Warren.

When Obama came into politics in Illinois in the 90s he identified as an agnostic.

When he realized that the political deal making in his district happened in the black churches he conveniently converted to Christianity. These details were reported in the July, 2008 issue of The New Yorker.

Now, I know some of you are appalled at this.

I would argue that Obama is merely performing a political necessity that has been true for thousands of years. Most Americans are Christian, and believe Christianity is essential to good leadership. It is the easiest of things to appease.

See watch, “I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior.” Pay no attention to the fingers crossed behind my back.

Machiavelli wrote, centuries ago, “in all matters appear to be religious, indeed be religious,” in The Prince.

The famous secularist legal scholar Eddie Tabash points out that Clinton pontificated on the virtues of school prayer when he was on the campaign trail, and convinced the electorate that school prayer was something he believed in strongly.

But when he was elected he appointed Judges that struck it down at every turn, and those same judges held up separation of church and state.

Tabash says we can be confident Obama will appoint secularist judges. Judges who uphold separation of church and state.

I would like to close with this:

It is our job, the job of secularists, to shift the zeitgeist so that religion is not so powerful that all American presidents have to pander to it, or sacrifice their ability to be re-elected.

But instead it seems to me that secularists get bent out of shape when a politician does pander to the religious, and at the same time finds the whole idea of us trying to promote secularism among the religious to be the most abhorrent strategy in the world.

We have a mentality that is destined to fail, and as long as we are so cowardly about our ideas we can expect more and more pandering from politicians to people like Rick Warren.

We should be grateful that politicians who have secularist sympathies, as Obama has expressed on several occasions, has the shrewdness to do what must be done.

The president appoints judges people, that is how separation of church and state is ultimately protected.

And its future is held within the palms of beings who could be bacteria: ourselves. Palms which have developed poor thumbs, bodies with over-sized adrenal glands and decaying eyesight. These are the creatures within this pale-blue beauty that will decide her future. Already fragile and temperate, it is us, her children, her keepers, her creatures who will decide her impact. In 6 billion years, that growling dog of a star will be let loose from its chain and devour the planet. Those same creatures, we with the poor digestive systems, will not be here. Those creature whose eyes will hold the exploding sun will be as different from us, as the first eukaryote from our evolutionary past. But our impact this century, in our lifetimes, can make our planet into an exclamation mark on the unending sentence, or the tapering off into ellipses…

The great philosopher AC Grayling poses a problem we all should contemplate. Suppose there is only one species in the whole universe which has advanced consciousness, to realise its presence, its future, its past. Suppose there is only one such advanced species: it would have to be us. This means, according to our view of happiness, we decide the happiness of this universe. We will decide how much happiness, fulfilment and liberty is accorded throughout the universe. The sentence is undeterred, the universe is indifferent and indifference is popularly known as the opposite of love. Even if the universe hated us - which, at times to our egotistical selves, seems to be the case - at least it means acknowledging us. Such is not the case. Therefore, we have the entire responsibility of the universe in our hands. How much happiness are we going to bring, how much of an exclamation mark can we make our existence into the quiet, cold universe? Are we to render our bride, our mother and our planet into a place of decay, madness and violence? Are we to view her as a necessary stepping-stone to “something better”, as many religious fanatics would have it?

Even if she is a stepping-stone, what a stone she is. A man himself is but paltry next to the unfathomable beauty on the earth upon which all men were born and all will die. King Henry the Fifth, in the Shakespeare play of the same name, says: “A good leg will fall, a straight back will stoop, a black beard will turn to white, a curled pate will grow bald, a fair face will wither, a full eye will wax hollow, but a good heart, Kate, is the sun … for it shines a bright and never changes, but keeps his course truly.” Even on this stepping-stone, which is to be our gravestone, nothing should detract us from loving our planet. Nothing should stop us from caring for it.

The maddening fact of life is that we are in it. The sobering fact of life is that we are on this great planet. Yet it takes a simple click of a button, or the turning of a page, to see her as no one before has. The simple fact is that we are part of the first group of humans to see the planet upon which we make our home. And what a home it is. If ever we feel ourselves consumed with rage, anger or absolute love or passion, we must simply remember: Spinning, slowly, calmly, held in a fist of darkness, surrounded by blinking eyes of stars, standing before a growling star, is a pale-blue dot we call home, veiled in white and awaiting the final placement by the actions of tiny creatures on its surface.