Image via Wikipedia

KATY Perry says she left her strict religious upbringing behind after her evangelical minister parents left her without a childhood.

The pop singer is on the cover of the June issue of Vanity Fair magazine, where she revealed the differences between hers and her parents’ way of thinking in an interview.

“I didn’t have a childhood,” she told the magazine. She said she was not allowed to use terms like “deviled eggs” or “Dirt Devil,” to listen to secular music or to read any books but the Bible.

In March, Perry’s mother revealed that she was shopping a book about the impact of her daughter’s career on her ministry. She said she was proud of Katy but disagreed with “a lot of choices she makes.”

“I think sometimes when children grow up, their parents grow up,” Katy Perry told Vanity Fair.

“Mine grew up with me. We co-exist. I don’t try to change them anymore, and I don’t think they try to change me. We agree to disagree. They’re excited about [my success]. They’re happy that things are going well for their three children and that they’re not on drugs. Or in prison.”

Perry credited her husband, actor Russell Brand, with opening her mind even more.

“I come from a very non-accepting family, but I’m very accepting,” Perry said of her current religious beliefs.

“Russell is into Hinduism, and I’m not [really] involved in it. He meditates in the morning and the evening; I’m starting to do it more because it really centres me. [But] I just let him be him, and he lets me be me.”

Related articles

• Katy Perry: “My Career Is Like An Artichoke” (wlte.radio.com)
• Katy Perry On Strict Christian Upbringing: ‘I Didn’t Have A Childhood’ (huffingtonpost.com)
• Katy Perry Covers Vanity Fair June 2011 (bittenandbound.com)
• Katy Perry: Yes, I really kissed a girl (via The Marquee Blog) (thespiritportal.wordpress.com)

Related posts:

1. How powerful is childhood religious indoctrination? Mormonism would cease to exist in just a few generations...

Image via Wikipedia

Throughout history organized religion has been co-opted by truly warped power mad men who left destruction and horror in their wake. Osama Bin Laden and his crazed Islamic followers were such men. In a way we have him to thank for the remarkable strides Humanists, atheists and anti-theists have made in the last 10 years. He made millions of people think hard about the danger of consciously and deliberately releasing their grip on reality. Worse yet, foisting their madness on vulnerable children.

The attacks on 9/11 roused me from complacency and turned me into a dedicated foe of organized religion, for life. Whatever positive elements people find believing in fantasy are far outweighed by the danger such unquestioned belief imposes. Like Christopher Hitchens has written, religion poisons everything.

How many times must humans learn this lesson? Over and over we have had to put religion back in chains, only for this curse to break out again and be commandeered by madmen. The problem is faith and let us vow that the end of Osama Bin Laden will be the final chapter.

End the unethical practice of forcing faith on vulnerable children. End the betrayal of children by their misguided parents and guardians.

Related articles

• Do we cheer the death of Osama Bin Laden? (quixoticutopia.wordpress.com)

No related posts.

“Eric Maisel is clearly the atheist’s Wizard of Oz to have created a book with such brains, so much heart, and a lion’s share of real courage.”
— Dale McGowan, PhD, editor of Parenting Beyond Belief and 2008 Harvard Humanist of the Year

“Millions of people lead happy, moral, loving, meaningful lives without believing in a god, and Eric Maisel explains in exquisite rational and compassionate detail how we do it.”
— Dan Barker, author of Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist and copresident of the Freedom from Religion Foundation

“I find Maisel’s writings more witty than Hitchens, more polished and articulate than Harris, and more informative and entertaining than Dawkins. A 5-star read from cover to cover!”
— David Mills, author of Atheist Universe

“The Atheist’s Way offers a meaningful approach to life that is sublime, eloquent, and inspiring. This book is a true breath of fresh air.”
— Phil Zuckerman, PhD, author of Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us about Contentment

“Maisel provides a foundation for making meaning and living purposefully without supernatural intervention. A book to be relished by atheists, skeptics, humanists, freethinkers, and unbelievers everywhere.”
— Donna Druchunas, writer on Skepchick.org

“How do you bravely face the world as it is and create meaning for yourself without the crutch of a divine benefactor? Eric Maisel’s wise suggestions, musings, and insights are a wonderful resource for your quest.”
— John Allen Paulos, author of Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up

“Eric Maisel has given us a lovely, thoughtful book about belief outside of the narrow confines of organized religion. The Atheist’s Way offers an uplifting positive answer for anyone interested in how to live life without gods, superstitions or fairytales.”
— Nica Lalli, author of Nothing: Something to Believe In

“With this book, Eric Maisel does what none of the New Atheists have succeeded at doing: elaborating what atheists do believe.”
— Hemant Mehta, author of I Sold My Soul on eBay

Product Description

In The Atheist’s Way, Eric Maisel teaches you how to make rich personal meaning despite the absence of beneficent gods and the indifference of the universe to human concerns. Exploding the myth that there is any meaning to find or to seek, Dr. Maisel explains why the paradigm shift from seeking meaning to making meaning is this century’s most pressing intellectual goal.

Related articles

• Martin Pribble’s Interview With Dan Barker (camelswithhammers.com)
• Dan Barker Interview – Prominent People Project (martinspribble.com)
• The Purpose-Driven Atheist (friendlyatheist.com)
• Book Review: Godless (spaninquis.wordpress.com)
• Robert Ingersoll: Prince of Atheists (new.exchristian.net)
• Hemant Mehta on Identifying Oneself as an Atheist (theperplexedobserver.blogspot.com)
• “Atheist v. Theist” – A Humanist’s Response (thehumanistchallenge.wordpress.com)
• The deity by any other name: Army resilience program gets a thumbs down from atheistsa (scientificamerican.com)

No related posts.

Image via Wikipedia

MEDIA COVERAGE OF AND COMMENTARY ON GSP RESEARCH

ANALYSIS –

Gregory Paul on Religion
Domain-of-Darwin at Deviant Art blog 12/29/09

Are We Better Off Without Religion?
Susan Blackmore The Guardian 12/8/09

Who Needs God When We’ve Got Mammon?
David Villano Miller-McCune 11/24/09
[alternet.org article Is Religion Hurting America?]

Why Evolution is True
Jerry Coyne (University of Chicago) at Atheist Alliance International conference 10/3/09

[Minutes 41:00-48:00 & 54:00-57:00 are a practical demonstation of how GSP's research is beginning
to radically transform the evolution versus creation debate from the long static discussion about
science and education to the new, dynamic issue of scientifically and socioeconomically reforming the
U.S. to produce a better nation.)

Greg Paul Elaborates On Healthcare and Religion
Dorene Braun  Examiner 10/19/09

What Healthcare Reform Really Means For the U.S.
Dorene Braun  Examiner 9/23/09

Does Prosperity Entail the End of God?
Ronald Bailey  Reason 9/18/09

Science, Religion Debated As Evangelical Takes Top NIH Post
Dan Vergano  USA Today 9/11/09

Is Religiosity Beneficial in Affluent First World Nations? (press release)
Evolutionary Psychology Journal 8/31/09

Religion in the United States and Other Nations
Art Hobson NWA Times 8/29/09

(Un)wired for God
Sharon Begley Newsweek 8/13/09 print 8/24-31/09: 30 09

An Atheist Asks, 'Does Religion Cause Immorality?'
Hugh Kramer Examiner 8/7/09

America, Land of the Free Thinkers
Tom Flynn Washington Post - On Faith 3/11/09

Disbelief About Belief
Tom Flynn Washington Post - On Faith 2/8/09

Evolution: Unfinished Business
The Economist 2/5/09

Baylor Religion Survey Under Dispute
Sommer Ingram The Lariat 2/4/09

Humanist Group Claims Baylor Religion Survey Flawed
Katherine Phan Christian Post 2/4/09

Council for Secular Humanism Rips Baylor Survey on U.S. and Religion
Sam Hodges  Dallas Morning News 2/3/09

Faith Hurts
PZ Meyers Pharyngula 11/22/08

Does Religion Make You Nice? Does Atheism Make You Mean?
Paul Bloom Slate 11/7/08

What Good is God?
Helen Phillips New Scientist 9/1/07

God and Good Behavior
Gwynne Dyer The Jerusalem Post 3/21/07

The Big Religion Questions Solved!
Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia videotaped lecture (82 mins) 12/2/08

Evolution vs. Creationism Debate
Marc Steiner Show, WJHU/NPR (Baltimore), Aug. 2000, rebroadcast Dec. 2000.

Related articles

• Book Review: The Princeton Field Guide To Dinosaurs, Edited by Gregory S. Paul (blogcritics.org)
• More Secular Morality videos: the follow-up panel (atheistexperience.blogspot.com)
• Great Moments in Pedantry: How “Jurassic Park” got Velociraptors wrong (boingboing.net)

No related posts.

No related posts.

In a short blog post today, biologist and blogger PZ Myers has made what I think is a genuinely profound observation, and I hope it doesn’t get lost in the shuffle.

In the recent controversy involving a nine year old Brazilian girl who was raped and impregnated, the Vatican itself has made a ruling:  Fetuses come before people.  While this should come as no surprise, I think we should not just brush this aside as one more example of religious nuttery.  The Vatican has clearly and emphatically given us proof against one of the most powerful emotional appeals used by apologists — Humans do not need religion to help provide comfort to people in need.

The utilitarian argument is often the last refuge of the defeated in an argument about religion.  There are many people who seem to believe more in belief in god than in god himself.  They think that religion is some kind of cement holding humanity together against its own nature.  This incident provides a stark rebuttal to the notion.

In case you missed it, a nine year old Brazilian girl was raped by her step father, and became pregnant.  Doctors, fearing for her life, performed an abortion.  In retaliation for this act of kindness, the Brazilian arm of the Catholic Church excommunicated the mother and the doctors involved in the procedure.  The Vatican has since upheld the decision.

The utilitarian argument doesn’t hold water.  Humans are empathetic without religion.  When you superimpose dogma onto an ethical dilemma, you subvert the process of normal human empathy and kindness.  Every sane person in the world knows that the responsible thing to do in this situation was save a nine year old girl from living her entire life as the caretaker for living proof of a heinous crime commited against her.  As empathetic, rational humans, we can instantly see that a nine year old victim of sexual abuse cannot hope to be a sufficient mother.  The step father is certainly not a suitable surrogate caretaker.

Let me make this abundantly clear:  The only reason there was any debate about this kindness is religious dogma.  Without the unscientific, irrational dogma held by the church, human kindness would have won the day unopposed.  Any religious dogma is — by definition — not rational and scientific.  If it was, we wouldn’t call it religious dogma.  It would be science (and not dogmatic, by definition).

Myers said it very eloquently:  ”The utilitarian argument that religion at least provides comfort to people in need ought to be extinct now.”

No related posts.

Right to life takes precedence over the right to religion
February 20 2009 at 06:13AM
By Kanina Foss

A 12-year-old Jehovah’s Witness girl has received a life-saving blood transfusion that she did not want after a Johannesburg High Court order gave doctors the go-ahead.

The girl, who suffers from leukaemia, was admitted to Chris Hani-Baragwanath Hospital on Tuesday. Despite being told that a blood transfusion was needed to save her life, the girl and her parents refused to consent to the procedure.

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that it’s against God’s will to take other people’s blood, or one’s own blood that has been stored, into one’s body.

The official website of Watchtower, a Jehovah’s Witness organisation to which The Star was referred by the Jehovah’s Witnesses of South Africa, says: “True Christians will not accept a blood transfusion. They want to live, but they will not try to save their life by breaking God’s laws.”

The Gauteng Department of Health said doctors consulted the girl’s parents and church elders to explain the need for the transfusion. When their explanations were rejected, they brought an urgent application before the High Court on Wednesday.

The court order was issued on the same day, and the girl was given a transfusion immediately.

According to Department of Health spokesperson Phumelele Kaunda, the parents respected the court’s decision.

The girl is doing well.

SA Human Rights Commission chairperson Jody Kollapen said that in such cases, the right to life took precedence over the right to religion.

He said adults were regarded as fit to make informed decisions about their own bodies, but in the case of a child, state intervention was sometimes necessary.

South Africa should indeed be praised for doing the right thing – saving an innocent child’s life rather than giving in to the unfounded religious beliefs of her parents. It is a sad state of affairs when a child can be brainwashed into believing that death is preferable to a simpe blood transfusion procedure. We must not allow superstition to claim the lives of such children, and South Africa got it exactly right: the right to life takes precedence over the right to religion.

No related posts.

We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies. We are believers, doubters, and unbelievers, brought together by a great struggle, not between the West and Islam, but between the free and the unfree.

We affirm the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience. We believe in the equality of all human persons.

We insist upon the separation of religion from state and the observance of universal human rights.

We find traditions of liberty, rationality, and tolerance in the rich histories of pre-Islamic and Islamic societies. These values do not belong to the West or the East; they are the common moral heritage of humankind.

We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called “Islamaphobia” in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights.

We call on the governments of the world to

1. reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms; oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostasy, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights;
2. eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women;
3. protect sexual and gender minorities from persecution and violence;
4. reform sectarian education that teaches intolerance and bigotry towards non-Muslims;
5. and foster an open public sphere in which all matters may be discussed without coercion or intimidation.

We demand the release of Islam from its captivity to the totalitarian ambitions of power-hungry men and the rigid strictures of orthodoxy.

We enjoin academics and thinkers everywhere to embark on a fearless examination of the origins and sources of Islam, and to promulgate the ideals of free scientific and spiritual inquiry through cross-cultural translation, publishing, and the mass media.

We say to Muslim believers: there is a noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine;

to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Baha’is, and all members of non-Muslim faith communities: we stand with you as free and equal citizens;

and to nonbelievers: we defend your unqualified liberty to question and dissent.

Before any of us is a member of the Umma, the Body of Christ, or the Chosen People, we are all members of the community of conscience, the people who must choose for themselves.

Endorsed by:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Magdi Allam
Mithal Al-Alusi
Shaker Al-Nabulsi
Nonie Darwish
Afshin Ellian
Tawfik Hamid
Shahriar Kabir
Hasan Mahmud
Wafa Sultan
Amir Taheri
Ibn Warraq
Manda Zand Ervin
Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi

No related posts.

Last week, I wrote an article defending free speech for everyone – and in response there have been riots, death threats, and the arrest of an editor who published the article.

Related articles

* Editor arrested for ‘outraging Muslims’

* Johann Hari: Why should I respect these oppressive religions?

Here’s how it happened. My column reported on a startling development at the United Nations. The UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights has always had the job of investigating governments who forcibly take the fundamental human right to free speech from their citizens with violence. But in the past year, a coalition of religious fundamentalist states has successfully fought to change her job description. Now, she has to report on “abuses of free expression” including “defamation of religions and prophets.” Instead of defending free speech, she must now oppose it.

I argued this was a symbol of how religious fundamentalists – of all stripes – have been progressively stripping away the right to freely discuss their faiths. They claim religious ideas are unique and cannot be discussed freely; instead, they must be “respected” – by which they mean unchallenged. So now, whenever anyone on the UN Human Rights Council tries to discuss the stoning of “adulterous” women, the hanging of gay people, or the marrying off of ten year old girls to grandfathers, they are silenced by the chair on the grounds these are “religious” issues, and it is “offensive” to talk about them.

This trend is not confined to the UN. It has spread deep into democratic countries. Whenever I have reported on immoral acts by religious fanatics – Catholic, Jewish, Hindu or Muslim – I am accused of “prejudice”, and I am not alone. But my only “prejudice” is in favour of individuals being able to choose to live their lives, their way, without intimidation. That means choosing religion, or rejecting it, as they wish, after hearing an honest, open argument.

A religious idea is just an idea somebody had a long time ago, and claimed to have received from God. It does not have a different status to other ideas; it is not surrounded by an electric fence none of us can pass.

That’s why I wrote: “All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don’t respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don’t respect the idea that we should follow a “Prophet” who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn’t follow him. I don’t respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don’t respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. When you demand “respect”, you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.”

An Indian newspaper called The Statesman – one of the oldest and most venerable dailies in the country – thought this accorded with the rich Indian tradition of secularism, and reprinted the article. That night, four thousand Islamic fundamentalists began to riot outside their offices, calling for me, the editor, and the publisher to be arrested – or worse. They brought Central Calcutta to a standstill. A typical supporter of the riots, Abdus Subhan, said he was “prepared to lay down his life, if necessary, to protect the honour of the Prophet” and I should be sent “to hell if he chooses not to respect any religion or religious symbol? He has no liberty to vilify or blaspheme any religion or its icons on grounds of freedom of speech.”

Then, two days ago, the editor and publisher were indeed arrested. They have been charged – in the world’s largest democracy, with a constitution supposedly guaranteeing a right to free speech – with “deliberately acting with malicious intent to outrage religious feelings”. I am told I too will be arrested if I go to Calcutta.

What should an honest defender of free speech say in this position? Every word I wrote was true. I believe the right to openly discuss religion, and follow the facts wherever they lead us, is one of the most precious on earth – especially in a democracy of a billion people riven with streaks of fanaticism from a minority of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs. So I cannot and will not apologize.

via Johann Hari: Despite these riots, I stand by what I wrote – Johann Hari, Commentators – The Independent.

No related posts.