The Secular Community Blog

Divine Tragedy In an age of times unrecorded, unthinkably remote and arcane, A conclave of gods indescribable, adrift in a cosmic domain. Non-physical, non-temporal, in eternal ennui they mire, Godlike yet flawed, a celestial middle management’s choir. In a realm devoid of matter, where existence was but a jest, They’d languish, ponder, dally, trapped in this celestial quest. Yet amidst the silence of the cosmos, where no sound dared to creep, Stirred a god of senior standing, rousing his brethren from sleep. “Wake,” he bade, “from your lethargy, let us conquer this celestial blight, In place of the nothingness that pervades here, let us see if we can create light! Let’s birth a universe, vast and grand, by making the elements transmute, To dispel our ennui, our cosmic fatigue and this cosmological boredom dilute.”  And so, in the fashion of executive wisdom, the eldest god invoked, A segregation of duties, amongst the divine, bespoke. A harmony, he hoped, might be achieved in this grand cosmic scheme, In the diversity of thought, he hoped, lay the essence of the dream. And thus, in that great heavenly boardroom, sprang ideas unending, Each god’s vision of a universe, a cosmic PowerPoint contending. A cacophony of celestial voices, each pitch perfect, each word astute, Their egos, however, unwilling to consider each other’s route. Yet chaos ensued, a divine mess unraveled, a universe in disarray, For each god’s slice of creation was another’s total dismay. Intersecting realms, dimensions colliding, the perfect universe a mirage, A competition of multidimensional Jenga, the gods’ cosmic collage. Tensions flared, alliances frayed, two factions emerged from the fray, Their grand cosmic visions in conflict, their harmony kept at bay. A war ignited, of magnitude unmatched, unseen in myth or lore, A conflict so vast, yet void of sense, an absurd celestial uproar. From one faction, hellbent on destruction, a superweapon was deployed, An idea born, from a Star Wars marathon’s, the other faction to be destroyed. Yet, in their haste, a miscalculation occurred, and in their folly, the universe bade, Not a weapon of destruction, but of creation, the foundation of all things laid. From the aftermath of that grand explosion, a cosmos emerged forthwith, The heavenly squabbles and celestial beings reduced to no more than myth. Yet, the eldest god, wise and foreseeing, had embedded a universal law, A theory of everything developed, bringing order to the cosmic maw. From the celestial ineptitudes’ detritus, a universe began to form, Guided by physics fundamental, a cosmos beautifully norm. We humans emerged, alone, a product of a cosmic fight, No divine intervention, no heavenly decree, just a universe to delight. In a twist of cosmic irony, we find resonance with old religious creeds, Gods once existed, a universe designed, yet no divine decree impedes. We’re alone, with no scriptures, no prophets, no underworlds to befall, The universe, our playground, the answer to our soul’s call. Religions claiming monopoly on truth peddle expired cosmic lore, The real story, a hilarious irony, of creation’s unexpected uproar. A cosmic comedy, a divine error, led to our birth, our place, Merging science and creation, in a tale of cosmic grace. Thus, dear friend of a friend, the mother of all explanations be told, This grand cosmic satire, a legacy of divine miscalculations of old. We are not divine purpose’s children, but a cosmic battle’s aftermath, In the vast expanse of the universe, we’re alone, the grapes of wrath. For our destiny, our morality, rests solely upon ourselves, Survivors of a cosmic blunder, in our hands the universe delves. Let us raise a toast to our cosmic lineage, to an omnipotent god’s caprice, Here’s to us, children of chaos, in the grand cosmic masterpiece.   Roger Chao is a writer based in the beautiful Dandenong Ranges of Australia, where the forest and local community inspire his writings. Passionate about social justice, Roger strives to use his writing to engage audiences to think critically about the role they can play in making a difference.

By Doutimiye Owonaro

Chinese folks and other Asians look alike. Africans look alike. Caucasians look alike. Members of the same ethnic group usually share a lot of similar features, all hinting at a common ancestor.

Taking it a step further, humans share 98.8% of our DNA with chimpanzees, 98.4% with gorillas, 96.9% with orangutans, and 93% with monkeys.

Even animals very different from us share a lot of similar genes e.g., the zebrafish that shares 70% of genes with humans.

These all point to a common ancestor.

The evolution theory has been proven without reasonable doubt and is widely accepted in the scientific community as valid.

The only reason the evolution theory hasn’t been accepted by the rest of the world is because it debunks the claims of an all-powerful God who created man and the world in 7 days.

It makes more sense to say because of biological mutations and adaptations, some humans are born perfect and others imperfect with diseases, than to say they were created flawed by a perfect creator e.g., humans born with sickle cell, blind, lame, or with incomplete or extra digits and other abnormalities.

The evolution theory however points to a source of life, something that flipped the switch, giving rise to the first living thing and sparking the process of evolution.

This source of life may or may not have been a living thing. It might have been a celestial body like the sun, moon and stars or a simple one celled organism like diatoms.

One thing is for sure though, the source of life, if it was a living thing, couldn’t have been a sentient being with thinking capacities because of the many flaws in creation and would have been long dead by now, like the extinct dinosaurs and mammoths.

By Joe Simonetta

A July 2022 religious-related incident that got much publicity occurred in the state of Wisconsin in a Walgreen’s store.

A Walgreens cashier refused to sell a man and his wife condoms and cited his faith as the reason why.

Beyond this being yet another of countless examples of religious overreach, it raises fundamental questions about religion and its claimed authority.

What is it that gives religions authority to make rules for their faithful followers?

In fact, what are the origin of these pervasive belief systems we term “religions” and what gives them the right to any authority at all?

While there is no broad consensus regarding the origin of religion, its beginnings are not that complicated to understand.

We, Homo Sapiens, have existed for about 300,000 years since our origins in south and east Africa.

About 100,000 years ago, we began our migration north into Asia.

From there, we spread west into Europe (35,000-40,000 years ago), east and south to Australia (40,000 year ago), further east in Asia, across the Bering Strait (12,000-15,000 years ago), and reached the Americas about 12,000 years ago.

With survival, knowledge began to accumulate and pyramided upon itself, always growing and accelerating and leading to today’s Age of Information and Communication that allows us to disseminate information almost anywhere instantaneously.

As one can imagine easily, early humans endeavored – as we still do today – to understand the cause, purpose, and nature of life (and the universe/multiverse).

That probing was the beginning of “religion.”

Evidence of religion, art, and recorded events goes back 30,000 to 40,000 years ago into the Stone Age.

However, there was relatively very little knowledge.

There was no science; the Scientific Revolution occurred in the 16^th to 18^th centuries, just 300 to 500  years ago.

Early Homo Sapiens generated countless forms of religious dogma, i.e., arrogant assertions that one’s ideas and opinions were factual with no supporting evidence.

Dogma originated typically from supernatural sources and something referred to as “divine revelation,” meaning claims to have communicated with gods and other supernatural entities.

Essentially, priests and priestesses, who claimed to have special knowledge derived from “divine revelation,” invented themselves.

Today, one could never get away with such preposterous claims.

But keep in mind that was thousands of years ago when little knowledge existed and long before the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment (also known as the Age of Reason).

So, to explain life with little or no knowledge – and zero science – what were these priests and priestesses to do but to claim divine revelation as their source of inspiration, knowledge, and authority.

It is critical to be clear that their proclaimed source of knowledge and authority was their communication with supernatural sources.

They created gods and goddesses, fabricated creation stories, wrote books, and formed into fiercely tribal religions with rules and theatrical rituals, costumes, and music.

It still goes on today.

And it’s totally fraudulent.

Those who claimed authority have no authority or credibility.

Their claims are based, not on knowledge, but on contrived ideas originating from their uninformed imaginations.

From this absurd backdrop and foundation flowed a stream of “religious” nonsense that institutional inertia has carried forward to our present time.

Many people, who now see religion for what it is, are liberating themselves by abandoning these religions and relegating them to the dustbin of history where they belong.

Nevertheless, a percentage of people still cling to these religions and attempt, in any manner in which they are able, to impose them on as many people as they can.

These religions continue to exist and are responsible for much of the discord and conflict in our world.

Joe Simonetta is a member of The Secular Community’s Board of Directors – https://joesimonetta.com/

By Steven Darian

Who was there to see it? Who was there to report it?  Or to record it? Actually, they didn’t even have written language at the time (whatever “the time” means). Written language doesn’t even begin until around 3000BC, with Egyptian hieroglyphics.

It must have been a human being; except that human beings weren’t created yet. And yet, most of that story consists of a human being––quoting those words, and describing the act of creation––as it was happening. There are 11 God ‘saids’ and 7 God ‘saws’ in just the first book (Genesis), and any number of God ‘calleds’ (Genesis: 1.1-31). Not even Adam says a word about Act 1. Of course, he does arrive on the scene a bit after Act 1.

We have the same problem throughout the Hebrew Bible: We read everywhere––that God thought this or thought that; that the Lord felt this or felt that; that the Lord decided this or decided that? How could any human being possibly know…what god thought, or felt, or what troubled him?

One more example? Sure: Take Moses on Mt. Sinai. Who is reporting the story? There’s someone there, recording it. But we don’t have the slightest clue of who they are, or how they just happened to be on top of a 7000-foot mountain in the middle of a desert; though we have heard the following story:

In those days (at least 3000 years ago), there was no easy path up the mountain. And Moses was completely exhausted by the time he reached the top, His limbs were weary and his head was pounding.

“Forgive me, Oh Lord, I’m not sure I can do it. This headache is killing me.”

The Voice boomed out in return: “Take two tablets and get down off my mountain.”

God is not male. God is not white. God is not American. (Alexis Record)

Still, it’s good to known that while he was a god, and was able to fly through the sky without wings, the Hebrew deity still had at least some human qualities. If God made man in His image (Genesis 1:26), that must mean God had a human body, despite the warning in Deuteronomy, not to make “an image of any shape, whether like a man or a woman, or any animal that walks upon the earth or flies in the air… (4:15-17).

In Genesis 3:8-9 Adam and Eve “heard the Lord God walking in the garden.” So He must have feet. He also asks the man where he is, so he must have a tongue and ears, and vocal chords. He smells the sacrifice that Noah offers him (Gen. 8:21), so he must have a nose.

Later on (1 Samuel 15-20), His heart is saddened by the moral depravity of the human race, so He must have a heart and all the plumbing goes with it: ventricles and atriums––the works. In Jeremiah (12: 7-13), he is found weeping (so he must have eyes and tear ducts).

Then there’s the example of Jesus: Whatever else he was, he must have been part human. If He was not part human, He could not have died. And if He didn’t die, He could not have been resurrected.

                                    —————–

We should also give some thought to the tools that god used, to communicate to his creation. The most famous was his voice coming to Moses, out of a burning bush on top of the mountain (Exodus 3:2), with no details about the kind of a bush it was, or how words could come out of a burning bush. Another was god speaking to Balaam (a local prophet) through his (Balaam’s) donkey.

And the star of the show, The Writing on the Wall, from the Book of Daniel, that was written in the 6^th century BC: It seems there was a Babylonian king, Belshazzar, who was having a feast in his palace; using gold & silver vessels that were stolen from the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. Suddenly, there appeared on the wall a phrase that said, basically: ”Your time is up.”  And not long after, Belshazzar was killed (Daniel 5:1-31).

Today of, course it’s much easier. Most major religions allow for their followers to pray online. Jews who can’t visit the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem––can send a letter to Aish.com, and it will be placed between the stones. If you are Muslim, a group of imams is available (e-fatwas) to advise you.

If you are Catholic, there is an app (approved by the Vatican) that helps prepare you for the confession box, and another one that helps you keep track of your sins. And finally, the Vishvanath temple in India––has a website that allows people to do their prayers online; with an interactive animation program that allows them to perform their proper body movements.

__________________________________________________________

Steven Darian is a retired professor (Rutgers U.). He has also taught & studied in 9-10 countries, & has written a dozen books. His latest is The Heretic’s Book of Death & Laughter, that provides greater detail about the topics in the article.

by Rajendra Kumar Ojha

As science is proving its effectiveness globally in fighting Covid and natural calamities – even leading to places of worship being shut during the pandemic – I feel this is the time for a new social initiative. The time is ripe for us to collectively work towards a religion-free world. The Covid virus may well prove to be a blessing in disguise, forbidding gatherings at places of worship and the performance of rituals that have been followed by humans for millennia.

For the sake of our cultural legacy, we have maintained religion as a pillar of ancestral memory for generations, but the last few decades have shown that religion hasn’t even been able to maintain its basic moral values, character and primary objectives.

Let us understand how religion was created. Before the dawn of human civilization as we know it, there was virtually no system to maintain peace and harmony among humans, who fought with one another, living like wild animals. The few wise ones among those early human communities invented “God” and “religion” to create a moral and ethical value system that everyone would follow and thus prevented society from falling apart.

Over hundreds of years, customs, rituals, literature and more in support of religion were created that gave religion a solid foundation of belief among followers. Humans have always suffered from a “Fear Factor” which had to be exploited to create the belief in an unknown protector. This was “God”. The communal and shared belief in “God” proved to be a great success and many prophets emerged, who also vouched for religion. They firmly proclaimed that “God” was the only one who could save humanity from the unknown, which essentially meant the aftermath of death, the biggest unknown that we can think of.

Many philosophies and opinions were also convincingly propagated, enabling religion to gain more and more popularity and to get acceptance among communities all over the world. Thus, the fear of the unknown was fought with a belief in an unknown force, which is “God”. But different communities have different ways of looking at this unknown force (“God”) and this created different religions and divided people further.

We never like to think that something beneficial for us today may turn harmful for future generations. This is exactly what happened with religion. It was a guided path to reach a common destination of peace, harmony, love and happiness. But we got lost midway and now can’t reach that destination.

Religion hasn’t been able to exploit the best of human qualities. On the contrary, it is turning humans into their worst selves. I will never say that religion wasn’t necessarily useful for a length of time, but at present it is proving damaging and disastrous in human life.

I, therefore, would like to suggest that for the betterment of humanity, it has become mandatory to publicize the idea of a “Religion-Free World” rather than propagating and making people understand the meaning of secularism.

If we find ourselves and the human race properly evolved, civilized, educated and logical, then we have to break the myths and mythologies that are the basis of all religions. Let us all dream of a future world full of love, peace, brotherhood, harmony and compassion for the generations to come.

by Robert Clark

I just wonder how many Christians actually understand what they read in the bible or know the history behind it and the way it was transformed over the generations?

That also engenders the question of what is secular humanism and why it is superior to fundamental religious doctrine? To that I have profound opinions, as well as factual evidence showing the primary reasons why it is.

Humanism does not concern itself with the fairy tale type mythical hyperbole that is the foundation of all the fundamental religions of this world. All of them rely on stories of antiquity that can never be factually verified. Most, however, can be eliminated on the grounds of logical deduction. Like the story of Muhammad being taken up to heaven on a winged horse and his chest cracked open by God and purified with snow. In fact, a great majority of these stories have been proven to be falsified or altered to the point of irreconciliation, or just so fantastic as to be ridiculous, eliminating them from historical relevance.

A great majority of the Christian bible has, in fact, been plagiarized. A book claiming to be authored by one person when actually authored by a totally different person altogether, at a very different time for a very different audience and for very different reasons.

The bible claims that Mary, the mother of Jesus and the so-called immaculate conception, was accosted by the holy spirit and was then, against her will, impregnated by said spirit, (a scene that sounds totally fictional, not to mention disgusting as all hell), subsequently bearing the Jesus child. Bearing him in Bethlehem in the year Anno Domini.

In history, the exact date of Jesus’ birth is not known but was not on the year 0 Anno Domini. In fact, the closest we can ascertain as to when Jesus might have been born is between 4 B.C.E. and before 7 C.E. His birthday is not the 25th of December. We know that for sure. He had to have been born before King Herod died, in 4 B.C.E. or the story in the Gospel of slaughtering the infants is falsified. Neither of these dates can be reconciled with Anno Domini, even if you mathematically deduce the time accounting for the change from the Gregorian calendar. It just doesn’t work. Therefore, Anno Domini essentially becomes irrelevant.

An old history professor wrote a book pertaining to some documents found by an historical scholar who received permission to scrounge through the Vatican archives. These documents site Mary as being a mistress of King Herod’s son Antipater, King Herod’s first son by Dora, his first wife.

Mary, supposedly the daughter of the Chief High Priest of Herod’s court, was by then pregnant by Antipater. Unfortunately, she was caught up in a whirlwind of intrigue and conspiracy, as well as King Herod having lost his mind. This being the case, Mary was squirreled away from the royal grounds by a court official, a man named Joseph and sheltered in the area of Galilee. Antipater, under suspicion, was later charged with supposedly attempting to murder his father and was executed (according to records he was boiled to death), giving credence to the idea that Jesus was, in fact, a king or the son of a king.

Unfortunately, the word messiah, in the ancient Aramaic of Jesus’ time, had no connection to the meaning it has today. The Messiah, a Jewish or Hebrew term, was chosen or anointed by God to lead Israel, not the connotation of saving the world from sin. That was added by Paul. The Messiah was, at that time, supposed to bring in the Kingdom of God, overthrowing the oppressor (meaning the Roman occupation), and becoming the new David of Israel. That is the extent of his political role in that timeframe.

by James A. Haught

Several research studies find that skeptics are brighter than religious believers. More than 60 scientific reports were analyzed in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Review, which said the results “showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity.”

Newsweek (May 18, 2017) summed up the article:

“Atheists tend to be more intelligent than religious people because they are able to rise above the natural instinct to believe in a god or gods. Having a higher intelligence…allows people to override these instincts and engage in more rational, and therefore enhanced, problem-solving behavior.”

A report titled “Why Atheists are More Intelligent than the Religious” in Psychology Today (April 12, 2010) commented:

“More intelligent individuals are more likely to be atheistic than less intelligent individuals. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as ‘not at all religious’ in early adulthood have a mean childhood I.Q. of 103.09, whereas those who identify themselves as ‘very religious’ in early adulthood have a mean childhood I.Q. of 97.14.”

Similarly, a 2016 study by the Pew Research Center found that doubters are better-educated than believers are. Chief researcher Conrad Hackett told The New York Times:

“The higher the level of education in a country, the larger the share of people with no religion tends to be. Atheists and agnostics, or people with no religion in particular, have higher education levels than the religiously affiliated do in the United States.”

Frankly, I’m surprised that the I.Q. gap is only six points. I would expect it to be larger, because most of the world’s brightest people—outstanding thinkers, scientists, writers, reformers and others who left their marks on history—have been religious skeptics. Here are some, and their views:

Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to John Adams:

“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

Albert Einstein wrote in The New York Times:

“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own—a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism.”

Mark Twain wrote in his journal:

“I cannot see how a man of any large degree of humorous perception can ever be religious – unless he purposely shut the eyes of his mind & keep them shut by force.”

Emily Bronte wrote:

“Vain are the thousand creeds that move men’s hearts, unutterably vain, worthless as wither’d weeds.”

Sigmund Freud wrote in a letter:

“Neither in my private life nor in my writings have I ever made a secret of being an out-and-out unbeliever.”

Thomas Paine wrote:

“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

Thomas Edison told The New York Times:

“I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul…. No, all this talk of an existence for us, as individuals, beyond the grave is wrong. It is born of our tenacity of life—our desire to go on living—our dread of coming to an end.” (Edison also said “Religion is all bunk.”)

Voltaire wrote in a letter:

“Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd, and bloody religion that has ever infected the world.”

Clarence Darrow said in a speech:

“I don’t believe in god because I don’t believe in Mother Goose.”

President William Howard Taft said in a letter declining the presidency of Yale University:

“I do not believe in the divinity of Christ, and there are many other of the postulates of the orthodox creed to which I cannot subscribe.”

Luther Burbank told a newspaper:

“As a scientist, I cannot help feeling that all religions are on a tottering foundation…I am an infidel today. I do not believe what has been served to me to believe. I am a doubter, a questioner, a skeptic. When it can be proved to me that there is immortality, that there is resurrection beyond the gates of death, then I will believe. Until then, no.”

Bertrand Russell wrote:

“My own view of religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race.”

George Bernard Shaw said:

“At present there is not a single credible established religion in the world.”

Leo Tolstoy wrote, in response to his excommunication by the Russian Orthodox Church:

“To regard Christ as God, and to pray to him, are to my mind the greatest possible sacrilege.”

Charles Darwin said:

“The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us, and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic.”

Kurt Vonnegut said:

“Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile.”

Gloria Steinem said:

“By the year 2000, we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God.”

Michel de Montaigne, creator of the essay, wrote:

“Man is certainly stark mad: he cannot make a worm, yet he will make gods by the dozen.”

Baruch Spinoza said:

“Popular religion may be summed up as a respect for ecclesiastics.”

Further, Beethoven shunned religion and scorned the clergy. Abraham Lincoln never joined a church, and once wrote a skeptical treatise which friends burned in a stove to save him from wrecking his political career. And the motto of Margaret Sanger’s birth-control newsletter was: “No gods, no masters.”

Bright minds throughout history have doubted supernatural gods, devils, heavens, hells, miracles and the rest of church dogmas. Today’s freethinkers can be proud to share this fine heritage, which sparkles with higher intelligence.

About James A. Haught

Haught is editor of West Virginia’s largest newspaper, The Charleston Gazette, and a senior editor of Free Inquiry magazine.

by Gary M. Linscott

I doubt you need to be reminded: We are living through extremely troubling times. Threats to the very survival of humankind abound.

Unless quarreling nations can work in harmony to rapidly bring global warming under control, it seems inevitable that catastrophic climate change will occur in our lifetimes. Now a pandemic threatens to kill hundreds of thousands – perhaps even millions – of our fellow human beings. Authoritarianism, too, is once again raising its ugly head in multiple locations around the world. Hyper-capitalism has exacerbated tensions between the haves and the have-nots. And uncontrolled population growth not only endangers our food supplies and sources of drinking water, but imperils the survival of the planet’s flora and fauna.

Secular progressives place their trust in science and reason to come up with solutions to these formidable challenges. Yet many of our peers prefer to depend upon their beliefs in invisible gods, prayer, karma, positive thinking, or lucky charms to save them. If ever there was a need for the acceptance of a secular ideology and the implementation of progressive policies, these are the times. Yet most political leaders to whom we look for guidance seem ensnared in a tangle of outdated traditional beliefs and behaviors.

We ask ourselves: What can we do?

As secular progressives we need to wake up, read up, stand up, and, where we can, put our money where our heart is. That is, live up to our values and put them into practice.

By “wake up” I mean we need to realize that there are still ways we can change the course of human history for the better. We must overcome what often tends to be our complacency and our sometimes fatalistic conviction that there is nothing we can do that will really matter. People – especially in democracies – do matter. And change can happen from the ground up. So we need to familiarize ourselves with other like-minded folk who are endeavoring to effect secular and progressive change. The Secular Progressive Outreach (www.spoutlink.org) “Charities & Advocacy Groups” page is a good source to discover potential contacts and opportunities to participate in progressive causes.

Then “read up.” Bone up. Many believe they already have all the answers they need, even when they have not expended the effort to properly study the pertinent issues. It’s a manifestation of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, the psychological discovery that one’s ignorance often results in over-confidence. I recommend we take the time to read thought-provoking articles and books. Become familiar with secular and progressive authors. It may change your own thinking on crucial points, and even help address the doubts of friends, relatives, and associates. People CAN change their minds. I know. I was an evangelical preacher for 32 years, but eventually “saw the light” of reason. By visiting the Secular Progressive Outreach website and clicking on the “Books and Articles” page, you’ll find a wealth of reading material worth your while.

By “stand up” I mean become an active political participant – at least, to the degree that your circumstances will allow. For some secular progressives, that may mean writing to your elected officials or local newspapers; for others it may mean marching or demonstrating in public. And for everyone, it means making sure to vote and encouraging others to vote.

“Putting your money where your heart is” (or where your mouth is) means realizing that small contributions can turn political tides. Of course, we can expect wealthy and corporate donors to fund political campaigns to try and guarantee their own privileges. Besides being willing to contribute to political candidates to thwart them, however, we need to recognize that there are scores of worthy progressive charities and advocacy groups who depend on our financial support as well.

If you’re concerned about social justice, climate change, women’s reproductive rights, nature conservation, healthcare or immigration reform; if you want to oppose the religious zealots  who are determined to impose their views on all of humanity; or if you’re interested in any other secular or progressive issue – there are deserving and trustworthy groups striving to address them – https://www.spoutlink.org/charities-worthy-of-support.   Donate what you can. Together we can resist the forces allayed against us and make a significant difference.

Many people around the world, rightfully, are focused on the coronavirus (also referred to as COVID-19), its spread and impact.  This past week, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the coronavirus a pandemic.  WHO defines a pandemic as a disease for which people do not have an immunity and has spread across the globe.

Pandemics don’t occur often, but when they do, the results can be truly catastrophic.  One of the most devastating pandemics occurred during the 14^th century and was known at the Black Death.  That pandemic killed an estimated 75-200 million people, which at the time represented 20 percent or more of the world’s population.  Another major pandemic, occurring during World War I, came to be known as the Spanish flu, because it was first reported in Spain.  That pandemic was estimated to have killed at least 50 million people, more than were killed as a direct result of the war.

One of the reasons why those two pandemics were so destructive was that the science of medicine was still in its infancy compared to today.  Even in 1918, at the height of the Spanish flu, there were no laboratory tests to identify the disease and there were no antiviral or antibiotic drugs available to fight it.  Today, because of major advances in science and medicine, we are much better prepared to deal with a pandemic.

But what about religion and its role?  With the world facing a new major health crisis, with the coronavirus continuing to spread at an accelerated rate as of this writing, what does religion have to offer to counter its devastating effects?  Apparently, very little.  In fact, most major religious figures around the world are pointing to science, not faith, to combat the disease.  More and more, leaders of the major religious faiths are telling their members to stay away from their churches, mosques, temples and synagogues and practice social distancing, as medical experts advise. 

The same dependency on science can be said about the crisis we’re facing with climate change.  Again, any solutions to the problem will have to be based on science and reason, not religious superstition and dogma. 

When the world needs to come together and unite to solve these major problems, religion stands more as a division between people than as a unifying force needed to bring them together.  So, with religion having so little to offer during a time of major crisis, why have religion?  Good question!

by James A. Haught

Here in Appalachia’s Bible Belt, conservatives in the Legislature want to force all West Virginia public high schools to teach Bible classes, as occurs in several other Republican-controlled states.

I wonder how such classes handle Bible topics like these:

First, the Bible decrees that gay males must be killed. Leviticus 20:13 says:

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

Imagine classroom disputes that could erupt between Bible-believing students and others.  Could classes turn violent?  (Oddly, lesbians aren’t mentioned.)  Now that America allows same-sex marriage, would classes conclude that America violates the Bible?

Next, the Bible decrees that those who work on Sunday must be killed.  Exodus 31:15 decrees: “Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.” Exodus 35:2 is almost identical.

Would teachers apply this mandate to police, firefighters, doctors, nurses, hospital aides, paramedics, snowplow drivers, power repair crews, bus drivers, airline crews, radio and television staffs, store clerks and others who must work on Sundays? What about cooks and waitresses serving Sunday food? Come to think of it, ministers and church organists work on the Sabbath, don’t they?

The 22nd chapter of Deuteronomy commands that brides who aren’t virgins must be taken to their fathers’ doorsteps and stoned to death. (But non-virgin grooms aren’t mentioned.)  With millions of unwed American couples living together, will students debate whether the execution decree applies to females among them?

The Bible endorses slavery. Leviticus 25:44 says: “Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.”  Exodus 21:7 gives rules when “a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant.”

Would high school students discuss buying slaves from neighbor nations, and selling daughters into servitude?

In 1 Samuel 15, God commands Hebrew soldiers to attack a neighbor tribe “and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” Numbers 31 does likewise, with this exception: “But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” Would classes apply these decrees to U.S. soldiers today?

Many other Bible sections contain controversial commands that could provoke classroom disputes.  Before the Bible-in-schools plan reaches final passage, I hope sponsors offer a way to prevent turmoil.

James Haught is editor emeritus of West Virginia’s largest newspaper, The Charleston Gazette-Mail.