The Atheist Mama

Today in the Gahanna News, I found this LTE:

Books fail to recognize true nature of Jesus

To the Editor:

We want to write a few lines in response to two hughly public books. The Da Vinci Code and The Gospel of Judas.
These books speak of Jesus but not rightly.
They recognize His goodnes, but not His holiness.
They propound His manhood, but not His uniqueness.
One suggests he fathered a child which is absurd to a Christian who knows Him as Prince (or Originator) of life.
The other presents Judas as a “model” disciple, who used his discipleship to betray his Lord. Really.
These books are profane and their effect pernicious.
The truth is that Jesus came into the world uniquely lived uniquely, died uniquely, and was raised uniquely.]
That He became Man is a blessed, glorious fact and endears Him to me yet His perfect, Divine holy nature has always been the same. His value is infinite and His work, eternal. His love’s without limit - time is all that runs out.

[Authors name]

[sic]

UGH.
The response that I just emailed in:

To the Editor:

In a letter published in The Gahanna News on June 28th, [Authors name] wrote of two books: The Da Vinci Code and The Gospel of Judas. [Authors name] claimed that these books were “profane and had a pernicious effect [on Christianity].”

I’d like to suggest that [Authors name], and others, have an open mind. So what if Judas was not the “traitor” that the Bible made him out to be? Why is the possibility that Jesus fathered a child so harmful to your faith?

That Christianity is threatened by the mere contents of a book is amazing to me, and should be embarrassing to you (Christians). You claim that your faith is strong, and that “He is the way,” yet you become defensive when a different theory is suggested. Some of the books that were chosen for the Bible, thousands of years ago, contradict each other. Isn’t it at all possible that some of what was written about Jesus is wrong?

The fact is this: no one knows the truth for sure. The assumptions made about Jesus in [Authors name] letter are no more a fact than are the stories written in the two books he spoke of in his letter.

Cassandra Cox

My Letter to the Editor was published in the Sunday Edition of The Columbus Dispatch!

[Link]

Sunday, January 15, 2006

I am disappointed in the State Board of Education and its decision to keep the “critical analysis of evolution” lesson plan (or the promotion of intelligent design) in our science classrooms.

How can we expect our 10 th-grade students (typically 15 or 16 years old) to make a separation between critical analysis of evolution and intelligent design, and between intelligent design and creationism? How can students be expected to critically analyze the theory of evolution without God being discussed?

Bringing ID into our science classrooms puts teachers on that slippery slope of God being brought into the classroom. It increases the likelihood that students, classrooms and high schools will be divided – where will it end?

The bottom line is that intelligent design is not science. ID involves a “maker.” Science is about nature, not the supernatural.

As a mother, I worry about our children and the quality of education here in Ohio. Time in science class is best spent on academics, not mythology. The money that will be spent in court as a result of this decision would be better spent on keeping schools in Columbus open.

CASSANDRA COX

Gahanna

Tags:
atheism, atheist, Christian, intelligent design, Creationism, evolution, darwinism, columbusblogger, ohio

To the Editor:

I am disappointed in the Ohio State Board of Education and their decision to keep Critical Analysis of Evolution (or the promotion of Intelligent Design) in our science classrooms. How can we expect our 10th grade students (on average, 14 years old) to make a separation between Critical Analysis of Evolution and Intelligent Design, and between Intelligent Design and Creationism? How can students be expected to critically analyze the Theory of Evolution without God being discussed?
Bringing ID into our science classrooms puts teachers on that slippery slope of God being brought into the classroom, it increases the likely hood of the division of students, classrooms, high schools… Where will it end? The bottom line is that Intelligent Design is not science. ID involves a “maker.” Science is about nature, not the supernatural.
As a mother, I worry about our children and the quality of education here in Ohio. Time in science class is best spent on ACADEMICS, not mythology. The money that will be spent in court as a result of this decision would be better spent on keeping schools in Columbus open.

Cassandra Cox

I have a feeling they’re going to toss this letter right out, but hey, I tried (and not all that hard, I might add). I’m sure that someone will write something similar that will be published for sure.

I got a call from the editor of the Gahanna News, which BTW is a teeny, tiny local paper, and they are going to publish my letter in next weeks issue! Yay! Ok, not really that big of a deal, but it is the *first* thing that I’ll have published. Yay for me! Now, hopefully it’s in there.

To the Editor:

According to The Harris Poll (conducted online by Harris Interactive between September 16 and 23, 2003), 82 percent of adults in the United States believe in God. According to Adherents.com, 84 percent of adults believe in God and according to Nationwide Opinion polls, only 79 percent claim to believe in God. Also, the American Religion Identification Survey states that over 30 million Americans profess “no religion.” Two weeks ago, Ms. Chiero stated that 92 percent of Americans celebrate the birth of Christ. That information is incorrect and misleading.

Christ is not the “Reason for the Season.” The Winter Solstice (the shortest day of the year) has been the celebrated by humans all over the planet since the ancient times, long before the birth of Christ. This is the original “Reason for the Season.” Christmas was not actually celebrated as the “birth of Christ” until sometime during the fourth century and it is unlikely that Jesus was even born in December, according to historians. So what actually happened is that someone took the Solstice out of Winter!

Mr. Yanni is right, the word “holiday” does come from “holy day” (as stated in his letter last week). But the Christmas celebration actually came from the Solstice celebration! How easily this is forgotten.

A simple “happy holidays” is all inclusive, pleasant, and is a polite greeting. There are several days being included in the phrase “happy holidays”: the Solstice, Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanza, and even the New Year. How is this offensive? What makes Christmas superior to the rest of the holidays celebrated in December?

It is my opinion that those who are most upset about the lack of “merry Christmas” greetings are intolerant, and excluding the minorities that live and work around them. This is the true cause of the “war on Christmas.”

Cassandra Cox, mother

We’ll see if it gets published! :-)

Thanks to The Un-Apologetic Atheist and NoGodBlog.

Tags:
atheist, atheism, christmas, solstice, war on christmas, holidays, Religion, columbusblogger

Mr. Reilly,

I’m writing you to express my concern, as well as my disgust in some of the decisions made by Lamar Outdoor Advertising.
I’ve have recently learned that Lamar Outdoor Advertising has refused or discontinued ads for several organizations and businesses around the country.

These include:
- Georgia Equality in Georgia (an ad that states, “We are Gay and We are your Neighbors”)
- Environment2004 in Wisconsin (an ad stating, “Mercury. It’s what’s for dinner. Served up by the Bush Administration.”)
- Planned Parenthood (ads supporting emergency contraception)
- Working Assets (an ad in Texas supporting troop withdrawal from Iraq)
- DNC (ads criticizing state legislative leaders for voting to give themselves raises)

I respect your right to refuse certain ads. What I don’t understand is how you can allow an ad that is so disturbing and hateful, paid for by Reverend Everett Francis Briggs, to stand in West Virginia.

“Attention Lunatic Atheists & their Lawyers
Anti-God is Anti-American
Anti-American is Treason
Traitors lead to Civil War”

Not only is this completely offensive and disgusting, it is simply NOT true.

Let me reiterate, I do respect your right to choose your advertisers, even though censorship is “anti-American.” But how can Lamar Outdoor Advertising allow such a hateful ad to stand and be so inconsistent?

I am a frequent traveler and depend on outdoor ads just as many other travelers on the interstates do. However, I will not give my business to the companies advertised by Lamar Outdoor Advertising if your company supports censorship.

I respectfully demand that this ad is taken down, or the other ads be allowed to stand as long as they meet all of your requirements.
Thank you for your time. I hope that you give my concerns some thought.

Sincerely,
Cassandra Cox
Gahanna, Ohio

cc: Sean Reilly
Gerald H. Marchand
Robert B. Switzer

Unfortunately, the address listed for Gerald H. Marchand is incorrect or has been taken down. It bounced.

Tags:
atheism, atheist, american family association, lamar advertising, billboards, columbusblogger, ohio, dnc, Democrats

I found this site while researching the laws regarding teaching ID in Ohio - www.idnetohio.com

So for the last few days I’ve been going over the site and writing up my submission to the Dissenter’s Corner.

http://ohio.intelligentdesignnetwork.us/pages/dissenters-post-dec.-8.php

From the emails, I can say that the director is a really nice guy, is very respectful and seems very open to the opinions of others. I’m thrilled that I was able to get my opinion out there.

December 8, 2005 — Submission from Cassandra Cox in Gahanna

Intelligent Design Network of Ohio,

I’m glad to see that you are accepting and publishing opposing views; I respect and appreciate that.

I am a mother of two in Columbus, Ohio and I’d like to share my thoughts on this subject. I didn’t read all of the submissions completely, so I apologize if I am being redundant.

My overall opinion is that teaching “intelligent design” in public schools’ science classrooms is irresponsible and dangerous. While some think that ID is a scientific theory, the fact is that it is not. I see the push for ID in the science room as a part of a bigger political agenda.

Upon reading through your site, I want to respond to some of the comments made in your “Criticisms of ID Answered” section.

Criticism No. 3: Intelligent design is religious belief masquerading as a secular idea (http://ohio.intelligentdesignnetwork.us/pages/criticism-3.php)

In response to Response #1 - Perhaps Richard Dawkins did say that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” I honestly doubt that he’d appreciate being quoted to back theists up in their claim that ID is not creationism in disguise.

In response to Response #2 - I noticed that atheism is described as a religion several times. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is not a belief. So to say that Darwinism is “a religious belief masquerading as a secular idea.” about atheism is incorrect. Atheism is inherently secular.

“Nearly every dictionary will define religion as ‘belief’ in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe. The definition of all other terms linked to religion employ much the same language - church, monastery, priest. They are all part of a religious-language universe or ‘game’ that has little to do with Atheism. There cannot be an Atheist ‘Church’, or an Atheist ‘priest’ anymore than there could be an Atheist ‘God.’” ~American Atheists (http://www.atheists.org/faqs/atheism.html#not.religion)

Criticism No. 4: Intelligent design is no different than belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://ohio.intelligentdesignnetwork.us/pages/criticism-4.php)
In your response to Frank Wylie regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you say that “if the Church of the Spaghetti Monster has any evidence to support its claims, then, in the interest of objective science IDnet Ohio will be in full support of their evidence-based science.” I don’t remember seeing any evidence here to support the claim of ID. If in fact you do have evidence to support your claims, please place a link directly to it in your navigation. It would make it much easier for people trying to understand how ID is a scientific theory.

Criticism No. 6: Most scientists do not support the position of intelligent design (http://ohio.intelligentdesignnetwork.us/pages/criticism-6.php)

I think that the response to this criticism scares me the most.

“You cannot expect ‘educated people’ to know anything on a topic for which they received no education, much less exposure.”

You can also not expect high school science teachers to teach on a subject that they have received no education, much less exposure to.

“The solution is to fix science education.”

Do you expect all science educators to be re-educated on the subject of ID? At whose expense? Who will be paying for the new textbooks that will have to include ID? Me? The tax paying atheist?

“…and teachers should encourage students to ask the right questions.”

Here are a couple of questions -

Who determines what the “right questions” are?

How can the subject of God not come up while discussing ID?

Is the teacher to guide the discussion away from specific topics?

How can a teacher answer all questions fairly and accurately without influencing her answers with her own beliefs?

What happens when the inevitable debate comes up: Evolution vs. Creationism?

No matter what you call it, ID and creationism go hand in hand. How can you expect high school students to make a separation between the two?

I think that the science classroom will become nothing more than a debate session that will include religion and more specifically, Christianity. I don’t see how it can be avoided.

“Most scientists do not support the position of intelligent design” (a claim that you agreed is 100% true).

If ID is not supported by scientists, who will be doing the research and how?

It seems that a lot of the answers to the criticisms are not answers at all. For example, instead of an answer to the criticism saying that ID isn’t science because it is not testable, the statement that is made is that “…the ‘untestability’ criticism of intelligent design needs to be turned back around on Darwinism.”

I visited the FAQ’s at discover.org (a link that you provided), and I’d like to comment on a few things I read there. First, after reading the claim that ID is not the same as creationism, I can honestly say that I see how that was once the case.

“Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text.”

I can accept this. However, like I stated above, I don’t feel that this has much to do with actually teaching ID anymore. I think that this has “evolvedâ€Â? into a political, religious agenda at our children’s expense.

I also wanted to comment on number one under Questions about Criticism of Darwinian Evolution. It states that “The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause…”

In your response to Criticism No 1, you simplified the definition of science: “science is simply the human activity of seeking explanations for natural phenomena, the explanations being based on observable data.â€�

How can something that is “best explained by an intelligent causeâ€� be natural? It sounds to me like something that is supernatural.

su·per·nat·u·ral adj. (http://www.answers.com)

1.Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

2.Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

3.Of or relating to a deity.

4.Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.

5.Of or relating to the miraculous.

It’s truly amazing to me that this is even an issue in 2005. I feel as if we are going backwards. I don’t understand how anyone can support teaching myths in the science classroom. I think that teaching ID is just the beginning to possibly dividing classrooms, schools, communities… The country? Why not leave ID/creationism to the church and let schools focus on what is really important - academics.

Thank you,

Cassandra Cox

Gahanna, Ohio

Tags:
atheism, atheist, Christian, intelligent design, Creationism, evolution, darwinism, columbusblogger, ohio