When: 2/12/2012

RSVP at: http://www.meetup.com/Pittsburgh-Secular-Freethinkers/events/51193802/

Welcome to Ladies Meetup Part Two! :)

We had such a great time at our first ladies meetup, we’re going to do it monthly.  Also, one of our members suggested we try a different restaurant each month–a great idea!  This location has metered parking in the lot under the Squirrel Hill library and on-street parking for many blocks around.  I have probably been here about 6 times since they opened earlier this year, they have a delicious assortment of tasty menu items: drinks, desserts, and hot pots if you want a full meal.  My favorites are the snow ice, fresh squeezed fruit juices, and a new kind of tapioca tea.  The owner is a lovely lady from Taiwan who is excited to host us!

Read more about Cool Ice Taipei.

See you there!

Sunday, February 12 at 2:00 PM

Details: http://www.meetup.com/Pittsburgh-Secular-Freethinkers/events/51193802/

A new report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute shows public school science standards in Pennsylvania are given a “D”, as compared to Ohio, Maryland,  New York, Virginia and Massachusetts, which were in the “A-” to “B” range.  The top scorer in the US was California.

Why only “D” for Pennsylvania?  The full report details how Pennsylvania is full of vague standards with little sense of scientific rigor or a coherent ordering through the grades.

The Pennsylvania science standards are generally poor. If a bright spot exists, it’s in the earlier grades, where the coverage does occasionally earn reasonable marks for rigor. In high school, however, the material generally descends into flabbiness and disorder. By no means could these standards serve as the foundation for a sound science curriculum for students in the Keystone State.

Throughout the standards for science, there was little in terms of expectations.  The reviewers wrote:

In addition, much of the high school content simply demands too little of students. For instance, biology standards scattered among the tenth-grade expectations are pitched at such a low level that they do not merit discussion.

But, what really hurt the ratings was the lack of clarity:

[T]he standards are written in such vague language as to be incomprehensible, as in the glossary definition of the rock cycle: “The process by which rocks are formed, altered, destroyed, and reformed by geological processes and which is recurrent, returning to a starting point.” It is a “process” made up of “processes” and returns to a starting point?

No wonder the kids are confused.   The drafters of the standards have no idea of how to describe basic concepts.

Finally, the standards fail to support any basic science that might conflict with theology.  For example, human evolution, which as in the 2002 standards, was dropped from the 2009 standards! A the same time there was support of pseudoscience that has been creeping into science classes throughout the US:

Other standards foster the insinuation of pseudoscience into science content by inviting teachers to “teach the controversy” about evolution and global warming, when delineating the specific scientific content they should learn would obviously be preferable.

As written here and elsewhere, Governor Corbett’s plan to improve education is to slash budgets and while providing state vouchers to religious schools.

It is time real standards for real science are adopted statewide.  Let’s hope this report will be a wake up call for legislators to get to work on the real issues of day.  Unfortunately, I doubt that will happen any time soon.

When: 12PM TODAY

RSVP at: http://www.meetup.com/Steel-City-Skeptics/events/50641952/

I know it is Super Bowl Sunday, but we will try our old haunt, the Double Wide Grill, one more time.   Good conversation and good food.  We might try mixing it up with new locations in the Spring. Come with suggestions, if you have any.

Sunday, February 5 at 12:00 PM

Details: http://www.meetup.com/Steel-City-Skeptics/events/50641952/

Rick Saccone is the principle architect of the recent unconstitutional resolution passed in the Pennsylvania Legislature entitled 2012 – The Year of the Bible. So it was with great interest that I listened to the hour long debate between Saccone and Dan Barker where he attempted to justify this resolution. The hour-long debate can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgPBxWAvhto.

As I listened to Saccone’s convoluted (and false) reasoning, and Dan’s patient explanation of some of the finer points of Constitutional law and the difference between private free speech and government speech, I kept waiting for Dan to point out what I think is the most compelling argument, the wording of the resolution itself. Doing so would have pointed out the total disingenuousness of Saccone’s rationale. But I guess it would have been rude to point out that he was flat out lying, and anybody who has ever met Dan knows just how polite and gentle he is.

But I’m neither polite nor gentle, so I am going to point out the lie in his rationale. Saccone claims that the resolution is merely an acknowledgment of the importance of the Bible in our country’s history. I might be able to buy that argument if the resolution said something like: “Whereas the Bible has had a significant impact on all of Western civilization and has thus had a significant influence on the founding and culture of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States of America”. But it doesn’t. The resolution is a blatantly obvious Christian document, making unproven theological claims that are part of the Christian religion, using language unique to Christianity, and even making the statement that the U. S. was founded on the Bible, which is demonstrably false. So that being the case, Saccone is either lying, or is incredibly ignorant and ill-informed.

So which is it? Well, let’s consider his background. From his website:

“When America went to war with Iraq, Rick volunteered for an assignment to the U.S. Army as a civilian. He served in Baghdad and in the hotspot of Mosul as a Senior Counterintelligence Agent responsible for identifying, capturing and interrogating insurgents.”

What is the most basic skill set needed in this kind of work? First of all, believable dishonesty. The whole idea of counterintelligence is to ingratiate yourself into people’s confidence for the purpose of destroying them. Lying to them. Constantly acting under false pretenses. Secondly, a lack of ethics is essential, especially when using torture to interrogate prisoners. So it would seem to me that when he makes provably untrue claims about the purpose of this resolution that, considering his background, he is being dishonest rather than misguided.

The next question is: what could be the possible motivation for this resolution other than a devout belief in his religion? Could there be an underlying motivation that made it so important to thumb his nose at the Constitution after taking a vow to defend it? What could possibly be so urgent?

Before his stint as a private contractor, he had a career in counterintelligence in the Air Force. Now it should be noted that it unequivocably proven that there is a very large and pervasive cabal of Christian Dominionists throughout the milirtary, but especially in the Air Force; a cabal so pervasive that new cadets at the Air Force Academy have been told that if they want to have any kind of career in the Air Force, it was necessary to be an Evangelical Christian. (This has been well documented – in fact it was so blatant that it led to a forced change of leadership at the Academy.) So it is highly likely that Saccone was exposed to (if not a participant in) this subversive network that subscribes to the notion that the government of the United States needs to be taken over by devout Christians in order to use our nation’s power to forcibly impose Christianity on the rest of the world.

But fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view), the Constitution stands in the way of such a religious take-over of the government. So it is therefore necessary to subvert it, to effectively overthrow it. This can be done by chipping away at it bit by bit, something that the Dominionists have been working at for years. One way to do that is to fabricate a body of “evidence” that contradicts the abundant and generally accepted evidence of the intent of the Founders and the written words of the Constitution. (David Barton of Texas is one of the better known practitioners of this.) Creating this resolution is just such an example, as well.

First, you create a document that states what you would like people to believe and accept as fact, and then, once you stealthily sneak it through the legislative body and get it passed, it now has the imprimatur of the government. This is a tactic used very effectively by masters of manipulating public opinion. Once you have fabricated this “evidence” you can then point to it and say “See – this (lie) is enshrined in the public record so it must be true”. Sort of like a crooked cop who plants drugs on someone to arrest them for being a drug dealer. And of course, getting it passed is not really difficult – in this day of extreme religiosity, what politician with any thoughts of being re-elected would dare vote against a resolution favoring the bible?

So I ask you, how else would you explain someone who swears an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution (several times when you consider his military service in addition to his oath of office in the legislature) and then turns around and thumbs his nose at the Constitution?

And that brings me to my conclusion; consider: Saccone appears to be quite cunning and devious and devoid of any ethical integrity. On top of that, he appears to have an extremely zealous delusion about his sadistic imaginary friend in the sky, along with the arrogant sense that he has a divine obligation to promote this delusion by any means available regardless of any ethical considerations. Combine these and you have a perfect storm, so to speak. This deadly combination makes him a truly dangerous man, just like the 9/11 hijackers.

Unfortunately, I live in the 39thDistrict. The fact that he is my Representative is both frightening and embarrassing. Equally upsetting is the fear that, after having said my piece, I will become a living example of how the constitution isn’t valued by our lawmakers: if something untoward happens to me in the near future, friends, you’ll be able to guess why.

If this doesn’t crack you up, quick, rush yourself to the morgue ’cause you’re dead.

h/t to RDF for this link.

On February 2nd, Sam Harris posted a short but excellent piece at his blog entitled, The Fireplace Delusion.   In it, he used a simple but compelling analogy to elucidate the enormous difficulty we face when we attempt to convince another to surrender his entrenched (and illogical) beliefs in favor of an obviously more enlightened and rational understanding of ourselves and the world in which we live.  Here’s his opening words:

“It seems to me that many nonbelievers have forgotten—or never knew—what it is like to suffer an unhappy collision with scientific rationality.  We are open to good evidence and sound argument as a matter of principle, and are generally willing to follow wherever they may lead.  Certain of us have made careers out of bemoaning the failure of religious people to adopt this same attitude.

However, I recently stumbled upon an example of secular intransigence that may give readers a sense of how religious people feel when their beliefs are criticized.  It’s not a perfect analogy, as you will see, but the rigorous research I’ve conducted at dinner parties suggests that it is worth thinking about.  We can call the phenomenon “the fireplace delusion.”

On a cold night, most people consider a well-tended fire to be one of the more wholesome pleasures that humanity has produced.  A fire, burning safely within the confines of a fireplace or a woodstove, is a visible and tangible source of comfort to us.  We love everything about it: the warmth, the beauty of its flames, and—unless one is allergic to smoke—the smell that it imparts to the surrounding air.

I am sorry to say that if you feel this way about a wood fire, you are not only wrong but dangerously misguided.  I mean to seriously convince you of this—so you can consider it in part a public service announcement—but please keep in mind that I am drawing an analogy.  I want you to be sensitive to how you feel, and to notice the resistance you begin to muster as you consider what I have to say.”

The rest can be read by clicking the photo or the link above.

h/t Fred M, HEMD
(High Exalted Mystic Deacon@WVCSR.org)

When: 2/9/2012

RSVP at: http://www.meetup.com/Steel-City-Skeptics/events/49152762/

In honor of Darwin Day 2012, the Center for Inquiry will be showing a brand new documentary called “No Dinosaurs in Heaven”. Not only is it a fascinating film, but it will be followed by a LIVE Q & A via Skype with the award-making filmmaker Greta Schiller, currently living in Europe. Suggested donation of $5 (and this really is optional). Parking at the Science Center is $3.

Watch the trailer at http://vimeo.com/1936….

No Dinosaurs in Heaven weaves together two strands: an examination of the problem posed by creationists who earn science education degrees only to advocate anti-scientific beliefs in the classroom; and a visually stunning raft trip down the Grand Canyon, led by Dr. Eugenie Scott, that debunks creationist explanations for its formation.

The film’s premiere at the NY Academy of Sciences in November 2011 was featured in the USA Today http://www.usatoday.c….

Thursday, February 9 at 7:00 PM

Details: http://www.meetup.com/Steel-City-Skeptics/events/49152762/

Many have asked why not provide a secular version of the same ideals in the new banner.  For example, Sally Quinn suggests “Let us each day desire to do our best, to grow mentally and morally as well as physically, to be kind and to be helpful.” In fact, this offer was made to the school board and they refused,  demanding that the original, religious language must remain.  Sarah Barringer Gordon, a Professor of History and Constitutional Law at the University of Pennsylvania, pointed out the hypocrisy, as the banner was first put up in 1963 by the administration as a way of thumbing their nose at the Supreme Court, whose 1962 ruling banned the recitation of religious prayers in public schools.

Now that the prayer has to come down, the floodgates of hate have opened up.  Rather than obey the law, there was name-calling, death-threats, and even the refusal to deliver flowers!  In light of the reaction, Kill By Fish recently came up with the perfect replacement for the Cranston West banner:

Now, that is a prayer that I can say amen to.

When: 7PM TODAY

RSVP at: http://www.meetup.com/Pittsburgh-Secular-Freethinkers/events/45674582/

Hi Everyone,

Our topic this month comes from Chris:  picking our battles.  As atheists and nonbelievers, we are a minority and an oft maligned group–how do we choose when to defend our rights and valuesand whento back down?  Which situations are worth your intervention, and which are not?  Some examples: debunking; opposing nativity scenes or prayers on public property; debating with individuals; legal actions.  How do you prioritize your personal battles, and how can we prioritize our actions as a movement?   

To get the discussion started, here is an recent example of a 16-year old girl who sued her school over a prayer hanging on the wall.  She won the suit, but has been discriminated against by businesses, individuals, and even legislators in her community: here’s a video of Jessica Ahlquist being booed at a school committee meeting.

See you there!

*Our monthly discussion group at the Quiet Storm Coffeehouse in the East End.  They have a great menu that’s veggie and vegan friendly if you get hungry. I post the discussion topic a few weeks in advance, so stay tuned for more information!

Please note:  The Quiet Storm continues to be a wonderful meetup site for us.  Out of respect for the servers and for everyone’s convenience, please approach the front counter to order and pay for your food or drink separately.  In this way we will avoid combined checks and interruptions to the group, and they can ensure we get the best service and individual attention.  Thanks! :)

Thursday, February 2 at 7:00 PM

Details: http://www.meetup.com/Pittsburgh-Secular-Freethinkers/events/45674582/

After the ruling, sparks flew.  Crazies came out the woodwork. Death threats were made and a RI State Rep. went so far as to call her “evil little thing.”

Back to Greta.  She asks:

What the hell is going on here?

Why has an entirely unsurprising court ruling — on a well-established point of law, based on one of the most fundamental rights established by our country’s Constitution, protecting everyone’s right to practice their religion without government pressure or interference — resulted in such grotesque, hateful, violently threatening rage aimed at a 16-year-old girl, simply for having the temerity to ask her public school to obey the law?

Some of it, of course, is Internet culture, and the anonymity that makes people feel comfortable saying horrible, cruel, threatening things they would probably never say in person. Some of it seems to stem from a grossly underfunded public education system, and the widespread piss-poor understanding of Civics 101 that apparently goes along with it. And some of it, of course, is just generic enforcement of conformity, and generic hostility aimed at anyone who steps outside social norms. (A tendency that’s especially prevalent in high school.)

But some of it seems to have to do with the unique nature of religion.

Religion, unlike any other belief system or social structure, is based on a belief in that which cannot be seen, felt, heard, touched, or otherwise detected by any normal or reliable means. It is based on ideas that have no good evidence to support them, and that by definition can’t have good evidence to support them.

And in a frustrating and exasperating paradox, when people hold beliefs we don’t have good evidence for, we have a strong tendency to defend them more vigorously, more vehemently, and in many cases more violently.  … So — paradoxically — the less good evidence we have for a belief, and the less defensible it is, the more vigorously we defend it.

It is interesting that this would not have gone so far, if it was not about religion.

Be sure to read the rest of Greta’s post. It is wonderful food for thought and worth the read.