The atheist's fight for survival: Can't let them define us out of existence

I can't believe that 'A' week has come back around so quickly. It seems like just the other day that I was tentatively putting my little 'A' on my facebook profile to tell the world that I no longer believe. There were many other events that went along with that which you can read about here. One year later and things have changed quite a bit. Definitely, I am more settled in my own skin but there are still times where there are remnants of guilt that I feel for speaking up against a worldview I once readily embraced. However, with every passing day things get easier.

I have to say that as much as I had anxiety when I made the decision to 'out' myself last year, I have never for one moment regretted it. I had put myself out in the open having heard many different stories of difficulties, particularly with close friends and family members. I braced myself for what I imagined would have been an onslaught of emails, messages and phone calls from friends, families and acquaintances of people expressing shock, horror, disappointment or dismay. I had practiced in front of the mirror, how I would react to the different types of responses, what I would say and how I would say it. Incredibly, no such responses ever came. No one telling me the friendship is over, no one even telling me I am going to hell. The most widespread response has been 'no response.'

It's strange, I wasn't really prepared for the silence. It's eerie, rather unsettling, because you are not quite sure what it means. Maybe, they don't care. Perhaps they are too shocked to talk. They might even agree but are too afraid to be seen doing that. Who knows? I sometimes wish they would just come right out and say something. It is interesting to me that those theists who have been engaging with me are in the main, people who I have met recently. Those for whom, I  have always been an atheist. They disagree of course but are happy to challenge and that is what I want. That is one of the big differences between living based on faith and living based on evidence. When you post something for God, you don't do it with any intention of starting a debate or discussion. You are quite happy if people just read and move on without comment. A 'click' of the 'like' button or an 'Amen' along the way and you are happy. As an evidence based person you put things up hoping that it will spark interest and you want comments, particularly dissenting comments. You want  people to disagree with you. That is how you know whether your views and arguments are sound and you help others who are on the opposite side see flaws in their argument (at least that's what's supposed to happen). However, I think our culture in the Caribbean takes over and people feel they don't want to 'rock the boat.' It's a pity.

When I look back at it, I feel as if I should have known this would happen. I blame my lack of foresight  on  spending too much time listening to religious discussions. When you immerse yourself in these, it's easy to think that everybody out there is keen to represent their beliefs and show why they think as they do. However, in reality the type of theist who will call in to 'Atheist Experience' or go out and study William Lane Craig style apologetics is rare. It's a bit of a shame. I had done all my background research, listened to online debates  with all types of theists; from the raging fundamentalists, to the mildest of agnostics. I was ready for the cosmological, ontological, teleological and other 'logical' arguments that I was sure I would have to be handling. It was like I completely over prepared for my exam. Staying up all night to study for something and then getting a super basic 15 minute multiple choice quiz in the morning. If I could understand not having a 'big deal' response here in Canada, the Caribbean was supposed to be so different, but not really. Perhaps I wasn't in Barbados long enough but the people I talked to about it, apart from this big exception here, haven't had much to say. When you think about it, it is somewhat strange. You have people strong in their convictions about their Lord and saviour, adamant that following him is crucial to the salvation of every individual on the planet. You tell them that you think they are fundamentally mistaken in this belief and that none of this stuff is true and their reply is the equivalent of, "Whatever."

When considering my  family, I have to pay special tribute to my parents. My mother in particular has come around remarkably since I first told her I was an atheist and I wrote this. While I was in Barbados I got a lot of time to explain to her how my beliefs had changed and why I made the switch. She was happy to engage in discussions and has actually now become one of my biggest fans on this blog. Dad has also enjoyed the writing  and thinks my approach to religion is healthy and is happy that I don't come across as too angry. I am glad to hear that, I want that theists can read what I write here without fear. Dad and I  share a lot in terms of our skepticism of religion, even though he remains very involved in the church. We had some very long into the night debates while I was in Barbados which I wish I had taped and could share to a wider audience. Dad tries to keep me to high standards, never afraid to point out the occasional grammatical error that may crop up in my writing here and their. I suppose dads will always be dads. I always promise him I will aim to do better with every effort and as he always tells me, when I write he is more in my corner than against me.

An atheist to us is not an atheist to them

Perhaps more than anything during the last year, I have learnt that there is quite a difference between how people define the word 'atheist.' Those who identify as agnostics I find especially interesting. Often when I get down to the nitty gritty of what they and I believe or disbelieve there is little difference if any at all. It has become quite clear to me that there is a major difference between what an atheist thinks an atheist is and what people who are not atheists think an atheist is. Essentially, it seems we atheists are defining our word in a way that nobody else in the world does.

"How can you be so sure?"
" I don't see how you can know that there isn't a God, so I call myself an agnostic."
" I can't become an atheist like you, the universe is too vast for me not to hold on to the slight possibility that there might be a God."

The first few times I got these types of  responses, I just treated them as one of those textbook atheist 'strawman' fallacies. I simply explained the usual; atheism is not a position of certainty it is just a lack of belief due to insufficient evidence, I am an agnostic as well, bla-bla-bla. I never thought it was anything major pointing this out. After all, any definition in a dictionary would tell you this. Not only that, but it is trivial to point out that  everyday in life we say that we 'know' something when in fact we don't have absolute certainty. I say that my car is parked in my garage now, because I left it there. But I really don't know that, it could have been towed, stolen or moved without my knowledge. Still, in spite of all this I don't think that people draw the parallel from this analogy  to how we define  'atheist.' They will nod and give us an " Oh I see what you mean," then go on their merry way.

You see, I don't think it matters what we say and how we explain it and how many dictionaries we show them. Theists have determined their own definition of what an atheist is and they will go with that. I have found people who have told me they are not atheists because they have no problem with religion and think that we all should be able to believe what we like and no one should be forcing belief on others. Again this is a curious response, atheism has nothing to do with attitude to religion.  I have said on numerous occasions, I still have a great fondness for many of the cultural artefacts relating to religion. The music, the art, the poetry and architecture, I still have an appreciation for those things. I find people still sometimes don't get this. They will go to great lengths to point out churches to me, hoping to rile me up. It's as if  they expect steam will start coming out of  my ears from the sight of a spire on a  tower or a cross on top off a roof. They are so disappointed when I say, " Yes, I see it and it's very beautiful."

It is clear that we have a long way to go to make atheism palatable and there are many things that need to be addressed. The first one is  this definition issue. I have heard lots of people in the secular/atheist movement claim that too much time is spent quibbling over names and what people choose to call themselves. Why do we have to make such a big deal about calling ourselves atheists? I think it is very important that we do, we have to claim the term and  more than that, define it on our own terms. It strikes me that we as atheists can become complacent in this definition game. Once the official dictionary term is in agreement with how we look at it, we feel that the battle is won, the evidence is on our side and we are on intellectually solid ground. No! Usage is what ultimately determines what words mean. Psychiatrists cringe, when people talk about schizophrenics in terms of people with a split personality. The medical books will say something quite different. It doesn't matter, meanings of words depend on  how people use them. That's why the ' just a theory' argument works so well against evolution when creationists are speaking to lay audiences. Doesn't matter what textbooks might say, it's the definition in the mind that matters. Definitions of the word 'atheist' are no different. In the minds of much of  the general public, an atheist is someone who is certain that no Gods exist.

Sometimes it is fine to let words, meanings and usages evolve naturally, but we have to be careful. In the case of atheism, I see a clear strategy at play in defining atheists as persons who are certain about the non existence of God. That categorisation virtually makes every atheist not REALLY an atheist. And that's the whole point, to wipe atheists off the map, not by some kind of coup or military operation but on a technicality, simply by defining  us out of existence. It is a subtle ploy but very effective. So successful, that even many in the secular world play into it. Non believers will regularly reject the atheist title because they are accepting the theist's definition of the word. This confusion of definitions even within our ranks creates a wedge between us, and theists often pick up our fragments that break off. It's the old adage of divide and conquer.We need to push against this, explain not only what the word means to us and what the dictionary meaning us but why the definition that they commonly use marginalises us and therefore why our definition is better. Their belief is that if they find a way to make the group called  'Atheists' an empty set, they can create the illusion that there really is no one that  believes there is no God. It creates the impression that we are all just different shades of theists with some more agnostic than others. We have to show them that to ask for certainty in order to justify the statement ' I don't believe' in a God context is an unfair double standard.  The bar is miles lower than that  for all other non beliefs in the universe. There is a song popular in Caribbean churches called " Cast your burden onto Jesus, for he cares for you." Jesus apparently cares so much that he performed a miracle on the rules of logic on behalf of his followers. He has made it permissible for believers to cast their burdens of proof unto atheists. We can't let them do it.

Not surprisingly, the faithful smile when we talk about putting away the demonic 'atheist' label and identify ourselves as humanists, freethinkers, secularists, brights, rationalists, skeptics or some other nebulous title. This is great, they would always support that.Their message is that you are free to not believe in God just as long as you don't tell us that. This allows the people in the faith world to continue living in their bubbles, convincing themselves that there is no opposing worldview. Once they can keep atheism as a fringe movement,  with the perception that we are a few angry voices yelling on the church step spitting on little old ladies as they walk in the door, their job is done.

Of course, what we hear also is that it is the word 'atheist' that is the problem. It's a harsh word that grates on the ear. It brings thoughts of communism, socialism and massacres by Hitler and Stalin. Even if we have the best intentions in our use of the word, better  for the sake of strategy to avoid it. This is an argument that I take seriously. From a personal perspective I like the word and find it empowering, however I recognise the importance of employing strategies that work and if atheist is a boulder in the road towards a secular world, I am all for tossing the 'A' word aside. This week in the US a bus ad was rejected as 'too controversial' for simply having the word " Atheists"on it. Still, I am not convinced that it is the word  itself that is the problem.

The problem I believe is the " I don't believe in God." Any word that means that is going to be rejected by the religious. So, it doesn't matter if we drop 'atheist' tomorrow and start calling ourselves 'pineapples' to show we don't believe in God. In a few years time, it would be almost impossible to get a picture of the tropical fruit on to the side of  a bus without  the vehicle being vandalised. The truth is that when people want us to change the word they mean they want a new word with a different definition. They want that there be no word in the english language that means ' a person who doesn't believe in gods.'   If  that happens, the God opposition  movement will disappear from the public square, there will be nothing left to hold the Almighty at bay. With no weapon of resistance against faith, we will be rendered impotent in the theistic battle and the Holy train will continue to steam-roll us.

If we want to have any chance of achieving the utopia of a world where people need to justify their beliefs, attitudes and decisions with evidence, logic and reasoning we have to keep fighting. Fighting for the survival of our group and OUR word.  People have told me that this is not necessary. God and evidence based living can coexist and reason can flow from faith. Some even argue that reason could not exist unless a God made it. Sorry, I can't see it. How can a foundational unchangeable belief in an entity which has no evidence to justify it give rise to a society where the need for evidence to justify ones position is at the core of all decision making? The house that results is bound to collapse on itself sooner or later.

So,  that's why I will continue to support efforts like 'A' Week. For me this year it's not an individual desire to 'come out'  to society, it's a desire to get a specific societal outcome. One where religion gets to be challenged rationally  like everything else. It seems fitting this year that 'A' Week will morph right into the Reason Rally in Washington DC on March 24th. It's almost like belonging to a church, going through Advent waiting for the big Christmas morning or reflecting during Lent in anticipation of that glorious Easter morn.

It makes me chuckle, I am right in the thick of it again. It's so great to know that this time reason is the reason for the season.

No Religion Know Jesus?: You can't get to heaven without a ladder

Last week I got involved in one of those facebook debates. It started with a comment I got from one of  my Christian friends, who remarked that that my promotion of  'No Religion' in my blog's title was a good one. She told me that she doesn't believe in religion either, that religion is something that separates us from God and the emphasis that churches put on ceremony and doctrine distracts people from what really matters which is knowing and accepting Jesus as their saviour. So, her clever retort to me was,"No Religion, Know Jesus!"

This type of thinking is one that I have heard often from Christians, especially those with an evangelical bent. It is most frequently framed as ' Christianity is not about a religion it is about a relationship.' I just can't believe that the persons who utter these statements think about what they are saying. Religion is defined in the Oxford dictionary as


 ' the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.'

So, the belief that you have a  personal relationship with an invisible supernatural being is exactly what religion is!  Every religion I know of, encompasses some relationship between human beings and someone or something in the supernatural.  In the past I have viewed 'I don't believe in religion' as a tactic, it makes it easy for believers to separate themselves from aspects of their faith that they find repulsive, absurd or simply meaningless. They could take the good things  and call them ' things that God REALLY wants' and not be called to account for leaving out the 'religious' things they don't like.

Really! How can we come to know Jesus without religion? The story that we hear about Jesus comes from our bible, the central text of Christianity. If there was no Christianity how would anybody  know Jesus? That would be like expecting someone to come to know Luke Skywalker without ever watching anything about  'Star Wars'.

For a long time I did think that this argument that people of faith bring was not worth responding to.  It seemed that there was no way that you could realistically separate your God from the mythical story that brought him forth. However, these days I am realising just how widespread this view of religion without religion is. So, I thought I needed to address it. Having  looked closely at the arguments that I have heard from many regarding this 'not about religion' argument, this is how I  see it.

The Ladder of  Religion

Religion is like a ladder. A ladder perhaps not dissimilar to the one Jacob dreamt about. Impactful on the mind, stirring to the emotions but just as close to reality as the images that fill your brain when you nod off at night. We who grow up in religious cultures, get taught how to climb this ladder from the time we are in kindergarten.. Once we are old enough to walk, we are mature enough to start having climbing lessons. Each rung we reach out to teaches us a little bit more about the God of our culture. First it is how he created everything in the world including us. The next step is how he rewards and punishes us. Then we reach up to learn the stories that surround great men and women who have shown us what God is like. It is a lovely ascent for many people. We learn his songs along the way, then come to understand complicated rituals that pay homage to him, we learn how to worship him, we read the books he wrote and act out some of the things he experienced. All the while, we literally feel we are reaching up to God, getting ever closer to the prize in heaven. Then, along the way, something happens. Something that you just can't explain or put into words. It happens differently for every individual and it is commonly referred to as an 'experience.'

I have heard of many different 'experiences', and even had some of my own. An 'experience' is  something that you think cannot be explained in terms of  what you understand from physical and material reality. Something that resonates with the non natural world you have been discovering on your religious climb.At that moment it feels like God himself has reached down to you from heaven and raised you up off the ladder, pulling you to himself. That 'experience' tells you that you have found God and that is the point in the process where the ladder of religion becomes irrelevant. No need for ladders anymore when God is giving you the elevation. Or as one of my friends put it, 'no need to keep the scaffolding once the house is complete.' I think this is exactly what Christians mean when they say that 'Religion is man reaching out to God while Christianity is God reaching out to man.

Yes, 'experiences' of God reaching out can be very emotionally powerful. The sort of thing you never forget for the rest of your life. It could be a feeling of peace in the middle of a stressful situation. The relief of a long lost  friend coming through to help you with finances when you thought all hope was lost. The diagnosis of an 'all is normal' when the doctor told you a week earlier that your child was going to be born with a deformity. A voice that seems to come from inside you telling you to 'give it up' when you find yourself in the midst of gang life dealing with drugs, alcohol and prostitution.

These are just a few examples of 'experiences' I have heard about. There are millions more of these ranging from the trivial to the life transforming. As varied as they are, they all have one thing in common. When they come along they render the religious ladder redundant. In these moments we come to 'know' God, the God that confirms all we were learning about as we were climbing the ladder.  We believe at these points that God has taken us into his hands, he can take care of the heavy lifting now and there is no need to rely on our puny footsteps on a wobbly  little ladder to get us to the top. When God takes us in his arm he pushes the ladder away, just like how Benny Hinn pushes away the crutches of the 'healed' crippled people in those revival services.

So, as God pushes away the ladder,  he pushes away  religion. Now, the doctrines, the hymns, the recited passages, the creeds, the communion, the sacraments,  even the bible don't really matter in the overall scheme of things. You have now got a taste of the 'true' God. Understanding this process, is something that I think is vital for atheists, for me it explains a lot of the mystery. You see, in trying to convince believers in all faiths that their belief in their scriptures is misplaced, we point to things like absurdities in bible passages, contradictions within the texts, religious explanations about the world that flatly fly in the face of what the natural sciences teach us. We write blogs, produce you tube videos and  recommend books that speak to these things, but none of this makes a difference to the believer that has had an 'experience.' Pointing out the rotting wood or showing them all the loose rungs that are about to fall to the ground mean nothing  after they have left the ladder behind.

They will humour us by indulging in debates and discussions on aspects of philosophy, logical fallacies, hermeneutics and the scientific method but it's just a 'what if' game for them. They 'know' God already, so what if you can use logic to prove he isn't there? It's all a bit of a joke. It's like someone bringing a watertight argument to me, that proves that I don't exist. That's what I think they mean when they say it's not about religion, they mean it's not about that ladder, those initial steps they took to try to find God, it is about the God that found  them, the one they have experienced first hand. The one they truly have a relationship with.

The interesting thing is that even though the religion ladder is pushed aside, it's not as if it's thrown away.  It is maintained as a relic, a heirloom that represents that relationship they now have. The ladder becomes sacred more for what it stood for than for the level of support it gave.  That is why so many Christians display their bibles proudly on book cases without ever cracking them open to read a verse. It's the book that's holy, not necessarily the stuff inside it. It's no longer a simple story collection with talking animals, global floods and ritual killings. With your revealed saviour, you can leave the old stories in the Garden of Eden and start out on  your 'cherry picking' walk with Jesus. You have met a God that's loving so you can discard anything people tell you about a vengeful, wrathful tyrant described in the bible. Direct experience must always win over second hand  accounts. You are left in a bit of a conundrum because you still think what that book says is true and was written by God, because the God you ultimately found was recognisable because his characteristics squared with the descriptions you found within the book he wrote. But, the thing to remember is that you have a direct relationship with the one who understands all. Surely he can explain it and  will one day if he feels its necessary. If he never does, it's not a big problem, these little annoying things that detractors bring up are mere religious quibbles, like workmen arguing over who has the strongest ladder.

Still, I would advise my christian friends that try to down play the importance of the religious ladder to think again. They would never have been able to identify their saviour unless their religion had told them who to look for,  the ladder had to be there, leaning them in the right direction. There is just no way to know Jesus unless you know about his religion first. Strangely enough, nobody finds Jesus who has never heard of him. It's true, no God can find you unless you are some point on the ladder that reaches up to him.  While climbing, you may have stopped due to fatigue or even  have turned to scurry  back down thinking its not worth it, but once you have stepped out on to a  rung of a religion, its God is liable to swoop down at some point and pick you up. Of course, for every God in history, there is a ladder made by humans to reach him. It appears most of these man made ladders lead to man made Gods. Some say, all except one. I see no reason not to kick down the last one standing, but that is a topic for a different day.

So, I am sticking to my guns. " No Religion, Know Reason!" and  "No Religion, No Jesus.!"

Also, now I have given it more thought, I have to apologise to Jacob. He may have been a dreamer but he was absolutely right. You do need a ladder to get  to heaven.

Celebrating the legacy of Whitney Houston: One Moment in Time that meant so much

It happens so frequently these days it seems. We lose an icon and the chorus of responses says ' gone too soon.' The latest balladeer to have left us is Whitney Houston. A lady whose legacy is as great as they come. For anyone who grew up in the 80s or 90s, Whitney was the lady that every girl that could 'carry a tune' wanted to be. In Barbados back in those days, it was an eye opener when the female pop singer you were hearing on the radio was not Whitney. Over the last few weeks when the press has been recapping the many hits she had in that period, I found myself saying many times, " Oh yeah, she sang that one too!"

In those years I am sure many people can tell you of first dates, school dances, modelling shows, and Miss 'Whatever' pageants where Whitney held centre stage. I am sure all over the world that the experiences were the same.That is why it makes me  sad when people concentrate on highlighting the personal problems that Whitney Houston had, and the way in which her own behaviour led ultimately to her self destruction. For many this is a serious blot on what was a stellar copy book.

I have to add that there is a tinge of irony when such comments come from people who are Christians or describe themselves as spiritual in some way. These are the same people who claim that we who are atheists are just materialists who don't understand the value of the transcendent. They say that it is the soul not the body that really matters. They emphasise that the eternal is more critical than the temporal and things that speak to heart far more powerful than those which speak purely to mind. Well, if they really believe what they say, then the triumph outruns the tragedy in Whitney's life by miles.

Whitney Houston's physical body is no longer here but her'spirit' lives on in the hearts of millions and will do for years, decades, maybe even centuries to come. In the course of her struggles, she suffered personally and that was a shame, but she did not for the most part bring harm to anyone but herself. Her immediate family and friends will feel the pain, but for the wider world it is the gain of the music that will have the greater impact. In spite of her celebrity, we have come to learn how lonely  and depressed she was prone to feel after the lights faded at the end of a show of glitz and glamour. We've heard of how the pressure of maintaining her place at the top often told on her mentally, emotionally and physically. Yet, she battled through to give the world some of the most memorable performances of all time. In many ways Whitney Houston sacrificed her own life for the benefit of us all.

Of course, at this time of the year, we are often told of another sacrifice made in a different context which the faithful call the greatest love of all. That saviour being referenced is one who gave up his life after 33  years, 15 less than the number that Whitney shared with us. I know that it wasn't that our saviour wilfully went out there and destroyed his own body to cause his own death. Nonetheless, he certainly had the power to prevent his own demise. We can recognise that Whitney was a flawed human being, who was eventually unable to defeat her own inner demons. But our saviour, we are told,  was God in flesh. Surely there was no demon that could prevail against him. Yet, he chose to grace us for such a fleeting moment. One would think that after going through the trouble of travelling all the way down here, he would have hung around at least long enough to make the trip worth it.

Jesus if he wanted to, could have lived much longer. I understand that for the Christian his death and resurrection are important, but I fail to see why a more mature man hanging on the crucifix would have made the story less meaningful. James Sisnett in  Barbados just reached 112, couldn't Jesus have at least managed half that? We may not want to be greedy enough to ask for a 969 score like Methuselah in the Old Testament, but if you think about it, there is no reason why he should not have granted us that. Indeed, Jesus could still be living among us in the flesh. All he had to do was raise himself from the dead but delay the ascension. Just think of the things we could have learnt from the master if millions more had walked beside him.We could have had millennia of miracles.Well, that was not the plan. In fact we are told that we should actually love him more because he gave up his life for us, we are to adore him for what was effectively a suicide mission.While Whitney  tended to sing about miracles rather than perform them, there is no doubt  that her music had its own special brand of magic that could empower the listener. If we blame Whitney for leaving us in body too early, we should have some words of admonition for our Lord and saviour too. Fair is fair!

One Moment in Time: My personal experience

I know that some people would think saying that Whitney Houston's music could empower in a way similar to how their saviour does is nothing short of sacrilegious. Well, I will take a leaf out of their book and do exactly what they do. I will speak from my personal experience. In the wake of Whitney's death there have been people  reminiscing on songs like 'I'll Always Love You' ' The Greatest Love of All,' and 'Where do Broken Hearts Go?'  Many have recalled  the performance of the US anthem back in 1991. All of these were noteworthy, but my favourite Whitney Houston song, by some distance is  'One Moment in Time.'

 In 1988,when I was active in my church in Barbados, I got together with a few friends and we formed an instrumental ensemble with the aim of performing during services and other social activities. As teenagers we were all relatively 'green' on our instruments but we just felt we could combine our talents and do something positive for our church. I took on the role of leader, having no experience whatsoever in managing anything. I had no idea how far we could take the group, but the team gelled, we were having fun and that was all that mattered. 1988  was the year of the Olympics in Seoul and there was a lot of excitement in the air particularly surrounding the huge 100m clash between Ben Johnson and Carl Lewis and the sudden emergence of Florence Griffith Joyner (Flo Jo). It seemed everyone was catching the fever. In the midst of it all was the release of this stunning piece of music by Whitney Houston which just seemed to capture everything about the Olympic spirit. " Give me one moment in time when I am more than I thought I could be."

I just felt that this was a song we could adapt and make our own. Looking back, I think we ourselves were hoping that one day we too would find our 'moment.' I remember distinctly sitting down and arranging that song for the instruments that we had. It was far from the full orchestra that Ms. Houston had at her disposal. We had two violins, two flutes, a clarinet, a saxophone and a guitar, but we had to make it work. I smile today when I remember putting together the music for the climax with the Pam-pam a namp, pam-a namp, pamanamanama, pam-pam a namp, pam-a namp, pamanamanama.and then the notes to, " I will be, I will be free!"

Well, the piece went down splendidly with the congregation the first time we came out with it and whenever we did it after that it just 'hit.' It quickly became the signature piece in our repertoire. So successful was the group in our church setting that we quickly started getting invitations to play at churches all over the country. By the next year we truly got our moment in time when we were invited to play at a national service at the historic Kensington Oval in front of about three thousand people and live on television for thousands more at home to see. We didn't perform " One Moment in Time" on that day but I felt that tune had brought us there. It was a thrilling day and a moment that none of us could have imagined one year earlier.

Over the years, I just took 'One Moment in Time' with me. I often had the notes of the song playing in my head, as I took off my track suit at the starting line when competing at inter house or inter school sports. I hoped that one day my own personal 'moment' would come. One day it did, in 10.77 seconds on March 1st, 1990. I had set the Under 20 Boys record for the 100 metres at my school. I was ecstatic. For that moment I was definitely  'more than I thought I could be.' Many highlights in life have come since but that moment still remains right up there with my greatest.

Praying tribute to Whitney Houston

With such good memories associated with Whitney Houston I was looking forward to paying tribute in my little way. Of course my theological perspective is far different now than it was in the days when her songs were popular. That change proved to be significant. My Christian friends  were thrown into ecstacy with the nature of the funeral on Saturday; thrilled at the reach their gospel got in just a few hours. For me, the few genuine touches of emotion, were interspersed with far too many 'facepalm' moments. 

From start to finish it was all about Jesus. Every person who took to the stage to perform or speak paid homage to the divine. From Kevin Costner to Stevie Wonder to Clyde Davis to Alicia Keys it was all the same refrain. So much so, that when Marvin Winans got up to give the sermon and said he was NOW ready to start the preaching, I wondered what church he had been sitting in for the preceding three hours.Everyone wanted to jump on to the Baptist bandwagon, many saying with a great degree of assurance that Whitney was in heaven warming up her voice to lead the 'Angel Chorus' before the Lord. I can't see a person's heart, but I have to think that some of the speakers were at least agnostic; simply feeling it necessary to play to the church gallery in order to score points with the faithful sitting directly in front of them. 

It made me recognise one more reason why so many people who agree with our 'no God' position intellectually, don't want to go all the way and declare themselves as atheists. We atheists would be hypocrites if we said we don't believe in God and then went to a funeral to talk about grandma upstairs  playing a harp. Indeed, we would not want to do that anyway,  because we would not be being true to ourselves. That's why in general I like people who self identify as atheists. We in most cases stick to our stated principles. We don't waver into belief when it suits us. It is unfortunate that people feel they need to be dishonest in order to comfort. However, I am convinced that's what much of the world thinks. 

So, those who stay in the agnostic or 'spiritual but not religious'  camp may  not be that open to the possibility of God. It might be more that that they want to be able to play the part of 'Christian' when circumstances demand it. They want to be able to live in both worlds. Sit with the atheists and make fun of irrational beliefs like talking snakes, virgin births and bodies ascending into clouds. Later, when tragedy strikes, they want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the faithful and declare that they KNOW the departed has floated up on a cloud to heaven and is singing in a heavenly choir before Jesus. This type of nimble theological footwork often leaves us atheists shaking our heads in disbelief. We who have declared our hand publicly as atheists know we have given up our chance to do this dance and therefore regularly get the doors slammed in our face when we want to come to their party or share in their wake. I know it may sound like an exaggeration but it's true. This feeling of not being able to take part on occasions that we desperately would love to is something that I am not sure that many people who are are not atheists understand. 

Message to my Christian Friends

Christians, with every invocation to the supernatural, you believe you are getting closer to God and doing his will to let us know about him. For you He is the one who provides all the inspiration, the joy, the comfort and the blessings. For us it is rather different. Every time you say 'Lord',  'Jesus' or 'Heavenly Father' you  push us further away. Sure we can listen through and politely smile when you start your testimonies. Of course we are not insecure egomaniacs that will throw a tantrum just because you use a prayer word. But we do feel a little bit hollow inside when you go all  'God ' on us. When you tell us that faith is all that really matters and God is the only one who can heal, you are effectively telling us atheists that there is nothing we can do to help. Because God is the one gift we can't bring you and you know that very well. We are convinced nonetheless that there is much we can offer  within our secular package. However, by just going on about God, you make us feel embarassed about our presents and  we sometimes just want to slink away unnoticed through the back door.

Often when I raise such objections in theist circles I get a patronising " Awwwh, so sorry that you feel left out, maybe you need a little atheist God  to make you feel happy." They just don't get it. Our displeasure with them also plays into the widely held view that atheists are basically sad people who would be much happier if we just accepted their God . In reality, the sadness is not caused by a rejection of Christ but rather by  the rejection of a Christian. What is often not realised is that when theists exclude us they are also hurting themselves. The truth is that they love us as friends and  family members and  want us to be with them in their hour of need or celebration. They just don't see a way to bring us into the circle unless we join them and their God on their terms. In those moments you want to say or do something to show them that their is a 'spirit' that soars above mere belief or disbelief in something. It is stronger than that which is contained in any faith tradition or secular ideology and it can unite us all as human beings.

This 'spirit' capable of transcending  the faith boundary is exactly what so many of Whitney Houston's greatest works tapped into.Songs like 'I'll Always Love You' 'The Greatest Love of All,' 'I am Every Woman' and my favourite  'One Moment in Time'  speak directly to that 'spirit'. The power of these songs comes from the fact that they can speak to people of faith or 'no faith.' For those that believe in God, they can relate to the sentiments and link them to the supernatural source they believe in. Persons more agnostic or atheistic can look towards the magnificence of the natural world, microscopic and macroscopic, and how when the right synergies are present the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts. For me, that is the true power of the songs that were Whitney Houston's greatest. 'Yes Jesus Loves Me' may have been her last performance, but it will not be the song of hers that  leaves the most lasting impression. Why? Because songs that speak to one special faith club will never beat the ones that can embrace all humanity.

Yes, the church is where Whitney got her start, but that's not what made her Whitney Houston. Whitney Houston was a star not because Christians loved her or because the black church loved her. Whitney was a star because the world loved her. It is a pity that we didn't let her speak a bit more to that world in her final moment in time.

Carols and more for Darwin Day!

Happy Darwin Day! 

It wasn't how I designed it, but things evolved in such a way as to make it a full Darwin weekend for me at the university. A day  of activities on Friday with the secular community included a discussion, video, 'carol singing' and a celebratory cake for the famous scientist. Even a "Happy Birthday Song" which included someone cheekily wishing Darwin ' many more.' So we can now say it is not just 'believers' that sing birthday songs to people who have passed from this life. I suppose we can argue that we have an advantage in that we actually know the birth date of him who we recognise. And no, in case you are wondering, we did not get down on our  knees and pray to an " Evolving Saviour." 

The planned talk by Daniel Dennett was to be Friday's highlight, but mechanical failure of a plane, meant a wait of  an extra 24 hours.So Saturday ended up being  'Dennett Day', as the well known atheist philosopher spoke to a packed auditorium at the university. Much food for thought was delivered in that presentation. It was certainly worth the wait.

And now today, Sunday, I can share with the online community in recognising the famous author of 'Origin of the Species.' It does strike me that even though Darwin has made an amazing contribution to the field of biology, it is far more than that which people celebrate today. It is a recognition of the importance of scientific enquiry as a whole. The beauty of movement from a hypothesis in the mind, to a journey, sometimes lasting a lifetime, to look for evidence in the natural world. The development of a model, framework and a theory to tie it all together, based on what the data shows.  It is a narrative to remind us all that for good science we must follow the data where it leads us, no matter the impact it may have for our previously held beliefs, traditions or embedded cultures. Reality is not something we can get close to discovering if we put loyalty to our home tribe, or desire for self satisfying answers as our goal. It is an important lesson for us all to remember, no matter where we fall on the theistic spectrum.

On this special day, I leave you with two carols we enjoyed singing for Darwin . Hope you enjoy them too.

Carols penned by Dr. Marcia Epstein, Humanist Liaison at the University of Calgary.

Charlie Darwin looked about

(To the tune of “Good King Wenceslas looked out”)

Charlie Darwin looked about

on the deck of Beagle;

thinking of the finch's beak,

and the wing of eagle.

Brightly gleamed the sea that day,

as the sun was shining:

Darwin paced the deck that day,

nature's laws divi--ning.

Studying geology, he

thought of ancient mountains,          

questioning theology, he

quested for  life's fountains:

pondering biology,

seeking a solution,

Darwin made a leap of faith

 into evolu--tion!

Though he knew not Mendel's Laws, nor

DNA's connection,

Darwin knew that time and clime shaped

natural selection.

'Origin of Species'  made

sense of  evolution,

So we know today that he

sparked a revolu—tion!

Twelve Eons of Evolution

(To the tune of “12 days of Christmas”: add each verse to the first one until all 12 are sung)

1. We know that evolution made  DNA the key ( to):

our human family!

2) the clever chimpanzee, and our human family.

3) primates in a tree, the clever chimpanzee, and our human family.

4) dolphins & whales,

5) Fe--males and Males! (note: the tune changes at this point)

6) predatory mammals

7)  little furry mammals

8) birds of a feather

9) flying pterodactyls

10) great leaping lizards

11) phylum chordata

12)  tiny protozoa

Principals and Principalities: Lessons in principle we can learn from Barbados

www.nationnews.com

So, finally we're back to school. It may seem a routine statement, but there was nothing routine about what transpired at the Alexandra School in Barbados during the first three weeks of the new term. If you look at the front page of local papers since the beginning of the year, there was virtually no other story. Thirty teachers from the school went on a strike led by the Barbados Secondary Teachers' Union (BSTU), as a result of a dispute with the principal of the school, Jeff Broomes. It seems the fracas was between Broomes and a teacher in the science department, where clearly there was a lack of chemistry. Nonetheless, given what had transpired behind the scenes and over the years it seemed reactions were bound to get out of hand sooner or later.

What was the most worrying thing to me, was that from the beginning, the court of public opinion painted the striking teachers as the villains in the piece. There were some who stood behind the teachers but they appeared to be relatively few. All this without a great deal of facts to go on in the public domain. This type of thing is not atypical for Barbados in such situations. Facts tend not to matter that much, it's all about personalities.You jump on the bandwagon of the one you like and paint those on the other side as devils incarnate. Your guy can do no wrong and theirs can do no right. You forget your own principles and just support the principal in your corner. And I don't mean only the principals that wield the authority in the school compound. By principals, I mean the 'main players' in society, those that hold leadership positions and tend to be the face of the organisations or groups they represent. The principals in governments,  businesses, social groups, churches, media, sports, music or culture. These are the principals that we are often eager to blindly follow.

When we throw our weight behind our principals, we commit ourselves to opposing whoever our principals find themselves in conflict with.These become like Satans to our Gods. We can say that we see them as principalities fighting against our principals.  According to the bible, principalities are evil demonic forces within the spirit world that need to be fought against at all costs. This is how the book of Ephesians puts it in the King James Version

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." (Ephesians 6:12)

Trinity of Principals: BSTU, Ministry of Education. Principal of Alexandra

In newer versions of the bible these principalities are described as 'evil rulers'. Principals within their own satanic domains. So one man's principal is the other man's principality. That's just the way it goes. It seems in the Alexandra School dispute the striking teachers were deemed to be those on the dark side. Mary Anne Redman, Presient of the BSTU, became seen as the principal principality in a demonic realm. Lest my friends who are not familiar with Barbados consider that I am just speaking metaphorically, let me put you straight. Demons have been identified as being present in Barbadian schools. I kid you not, some children in Barbados have been classified as  'demon possessed.' The claim is on record as having been said by a person of no less authority than the Minister of Education, Ronald Jones, another one of the key principals in this whole affair. We hear from Christians all the time that as a building needs a builder, and a painting needs a painter, every creation needs a creator. So, I suppose a demon in a child needs a child demoniser. Yes, as far as Barbados is concerned these supernatural forces are very real and need to be taken seriously. Who knows? We may one day have a class exorcise replacing a class exercise on the teachers' timetable.

Things did get rather ugly in this principal versus principality fight. Even as punches and counter punches were being thrown, people were shouting from the sidelines asking for a referee to come and stop the bout." Stop it for the children's sake!" was the cry. "It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, the teachers must get back to work immediately for the sake of the children!" This made me stop in my tracks. It didn't matter who is  right or wrong? Were these people implying that there is no circumstance in which industrial action is justified? If the idea is not to inconvenience those not involved, it would mean workers could never take action if they felt they were being unfairly treated. I mean, if the teachers were being beaten every morning before going to class, would it be right for them to grin, bear it and then go teach for the children's sake?

This is typical of how we deal with disputes in Barbados and perhaps even in the Caribbean on the whole. When controversy raises its head we want to quash it as quickly as possible. It's this type of attitude that makes  our cause as atheists such a challenge. Even those who identify with our position are quick to say, "Shhhh, you don't want to rock the boat!" But conflict need not be seen like that. It is not something that should be feared. In any social system, conflicts will come up from time to time. It doesn't mean that either of the persons involved is bad or even that the persons do not have the interest of all parties at heart. People have differences in management styles and personalities and may have objectives that will not always square with those around them. This means that there will be arguments and disputes from time to time. In fact, the disputes and differences are a sign that there is openness and freedom of expression and that people are at least not afraid to speak out. Recognising these differences and taking the time to thrash out the issues is worth it and will often lead to a far better scenario afterwards, but the thing to remember is that the process takes time. Sending children back to school in an environment filled with tension would be counterproductive to all. You just can't expect to coerce people into saying 'yes'.  .

It is also important to respect all of the parties, especially the party that considers that it has been hurt, whether you personally see that party as a principal or a principality. It was sad to see the teachers being looked at as demons. Telling them everyday in the press that they should be fired, or that they must come back to school immediately or else, is not the way to show a valued stakeholder respect. You are treating the teachers in a manner that you would not accept from those same people towards your own children. That is why I think the dispute was prolonged, the rhetoric just added fuel to the fire. Ironically, the attempt to wrap things up quickly, ultimately made the process much longer. The lack of respect has not ended yet either. The screaming headline,"Teachers Paid!"  in the Nation newspaper said a lot. The words appeared to be suggesting that this was some kind of national scandal, as if Allen Stanford  were coolly walking up to a commercial bank to collect his investment dividend cheque.

These educators were not on a beach somewhere, sipping martinis for the last two weeks. They were engaging in industrial action, to fight for what they consider was their right. I am not saying that their action was called for, maybe it was frivolous, but the important thing is that it was merited in their judgement. And in general, the judgement of teachers is something we consider to be reasonable. If we didn't feel that way we would not put our children in their hands for six hours a day, five days a week. So, we at least have to give some weight to the possibility that their judgement with respect to the evaluation of their own situation was also correct. In their opinion they were fighting for a principle, setting a precedent that could have long term implications. They did it through the channel of the BSTU which is an approved body set up to represent their interests. As far as I can tell, there were no laws broken here.Why the implication that they should now not get their due? It's as if paying the teachers what they are contractually due was like entering in to a pact with the devil. If we want our society to progress, we badly need to move away from the battles between principals and principalities and see ourselves as being a team. A team including parents, teachers, children and the wider society.Trying to slam your team mate is no way to get corporation.

No faith in negotiation

It is unfortunate that in times like these a society cannot turn to the faith on which it has built its foundation. Not that the parties involved were loathe to try to invoke it. At least twice pictures of groups in prayer circles were shown in the press. Parents or teachers holding hands aloft, asking God to lead them. But what does the Good Book have to tell us about negotiation? When it comes to dealing with conflict you either submit as Jesus advises in the New Testament and 'turn the other cheek,' 'or follow the Old Testament God's methods and look to subdue all that stand in your way. There really is not a lot in Christianity that prescribes a response that lies between the two testamental extremes. It would be great if we could go to the bible and read a passage that said something like this.

" Take heed of the teachings contained in thy holy texts but listen to thy brethren who may have ideas contrary to the revelation that thou believeth.  If the evidence and justification for thy neighbour's position is better than that of thine, adjust thy thinking, for logic and reason are of the Lord. It is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for an irrational man to enter the kingdom of heaven."

But no, unfortunately that verse did not make it into the Canon. Yes, when you use faith as your guide you tend to simply dig your heels in. Meanwhile you worship the overriding principal, God himself, who by definition is always on your side. He is the one whose word is the law, whose very nature dictates good and evil. With such a foundational belief it is easy to go into the world and look towards authority figures, seeing everything as good versus evil, black versus white, principal versus principality. Through all this we forget the principles.The principle that everyone deserves a chance to work, live and play in reasonable conditions. The principle that everyone deserves to be treated fairly. The principle of " Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Yes, that last one is a great principle. I know that  many people believe in this principally because Jesus said it. For me, a great principle is a great principle regardless of the mouth it emanates from. It is sad that the principal people in society that we would expect to uphold these principles do not. That is the principal reason why we have huge disputes which, in principle, should not be that difficult to resolve.

So, where did the teacher resolution finally come? Of course it was through  a principal. None other than the Prime Minister of Barbados, Freundel Stuart, the principal principal in the land.  What principles did Stuart use to reach a resolution? We may never know. What we do know, is that when in comes to understanding the principles of negotiation, we in Barbados have much still to learn.

No one true New Year: But a lot to look forward to and reflect upon

It's 2012!

Yes, there is always something exciting about a new year. Although, I must admit, that a bit of the gloss of the midnight countdown has been removed for me in recent years. Now that I live in Calgary, I am among the later set of  people to get to the New Year. With satellite TV, online radio and family and friends living in different parts of the globe,  I have often 'seen in' the new year four or five times before it finally gets to me. It is hard to be excited when you know that in many parts of the world the champagne cork has long been popped, while a few to the west of you have it on ice waiting for their 'moment.' Not to mention our Chinese friends, who start the year at a totally different time.Still, this seems to be a completely irrelevant to those who wrap up in four layers of clothing, shivering head to toe, to countdown from 10 and kiss loved ones on the stroke of a Big Ben chime or a Big Ball drop. This reminds me so much of how it is with religion. It's like everybody in every part of the world believes that their New Year is the one true New Year. They celebrate the moment as if it is a universal cosmic event, setting off  fireworks as if there was no tomorrow. Yet, for most of the world that is NOT the New Year moment. Whichever time zone you live in, there are more people that don't share your midnight celebration than those who do. But it doesn't matter at that time. You don't hear people say , " Happy New Year Mountain Time People!" No, there is nothing said by the MC to suggest that the countdown only applies to a certain group.You hear, " It's 2012!" or an all embracing " Happy New Year!"  It feels as if the whole world is celebrating at that second. At least, that's what it used to feel like when I was celebrating as a kid in Barbados. Perhaps, that's why even today the Barbados New Year feels the most meaningful of all to me.

On New Year's morning I realised how similar time zones are to religions. When people get together to celebrate their God, they are well aware that there are many people from far flung places for whom that particular God is not real. But that doesn't stop them, they still pull out the music, the pomp,the ceremony and the parties as if there was no other faith in the world. Their friends from abroad who tell them about celebrations of their deities at different times and in different ways doesn't strike them as a contradiction to their own beliefs and it doesn't make their own celebrations any less true. It's almost like we human beings have some capacity to take our little community and make ourselves believe that the world is just US, even if it is for a few seconds before midnight or a couple of hours on a Saturday or Sunday morning.

The truth of the matter is that the New Year moment  is simply an illusion. It doesn't really exist. The year changes over a 24 hour period, and the whole thing is arbitrary, totally man made . This was illustrated clearly this year when the government of the island of Western Samoa decided to 'cross the dateline' and set their clocks to coincide with their neighbours in the Pacific and Oceania. Friday December 30th, was skipped as a date on their calendar as a result. I hear people are still wondering what Seventh Day Adventists and other Sabbath keepers will do about that one, but that's another story.Yes, it's clear that the way we designate time is of our own doing. But at the same time we know that time itself,  is something that exists. We can track earth's movement around the sun and recognise the axial tilt during this movement through seasons. We can see birth, growth and decay in nature that tells us that that time is passing, however we choose to measure it. The existence of time is not proven by the fact that we have New Year's parties, fireworks, hour glasses, sundials, clocks or watches. Nor from the fact that we have history books that tell us of events thousands of years past. We don't need to read and understand Stephen Hawking's , " A Brief History of Time" to let us know that time is real.

It so happens that just as we have many devices constructed to record and measure the passing of time , we have many inventions  that are designed to record, designate and even influence the activities of  gods. We have houses for them, books attributed to them, writings documenting their activities, statues of  them, incantations used to communicate with them, paintings of them, countries that claim to be guided by them and people that wear symbols to represent them. There are perhaps as many man made artifacts designed with God in mind as they are products designed to make sense of time.However, there's one huge difference. Unlike our evidence for the passage of time, no passages we have that speak of a god can be counted as evidence. Unfortunately, neither can statues, monuments, souvenirs or trinkets. Neither can we consider the elaborate yearly, monthly or weekly celebrations with music, costumes or pageantry that are undertaken in their name. To say that any of these count as evidence would be like saying that the tradition of having  a New Year's Eve Party every December 31st  is evidence that  the earth takes 365 and a quarter days  to orbit the sun. It would be like throwing a  party for someone every December 25th and saying it proves they were born on that day.

I think there is the feeling out there, that having a lot of  representations and activities devoted to something means that the 'something' is real. Even if  there is an admission that we human beings have made up many things about it.  Millions reason that the fact that an idea has captured the imagination of the masses, means some real thing must lie underneath. They concede that many humans may have mistaken the smoke signals, but the puffs billowing  all around just can't be a smokescreen. Surely, there must be fire somewhere beneath it all, even if only just a spark. Well, maybe there is, but we haven't found it yet and we have been looking for a long time. In my opinion, if we ever discover a god, it won't be through kneeling inside buildings that humans have built, reading books that humans have wrote or examining the art that humans have expertly crafted. It will be by looking out there in the nature which surrounds us. The external  universal laboratory in which we can all share, observe and experience things together in the same time and space.

Reflecting and Looking Ahead

I have to say, that even though I recognise there is no true New Year, I want to reflect on some things that happened during the most recent 360 degree journey that the earth made around the sun. It has been a great year for me as far as my own secular journey is concerned. I have been thrilled to share some of the highlights with you my readers, although there is no way that I could capture all the feelings. I  will always  remember that day when I  realised I was included on Greta Christina's blog as a 'prominent atheist of colour' that spurred me to push ahead as an activist and to make the decision to come out publicly as an atheist. I have not for a moment regretted either.The post ' Oh What A Week' that I wrote speaking of that experience was another memorable one in itself. It was great to see it highlighted on the 'A Week" Facebook group. The 500 hits, I  got on the day I posted it was overwhelming as were the stories I received  from people from various parts of the world who were going through the same journey I was. Indeed, I thank all of you who have read and supported this blog in 2011.

In 2011  we also saw  the growth of 'Caribbean Atheists'. Travelling through the Caribbean and meeting a few isolated atheist souls and being able to write about it was certainly a great part of my year. Since then, I have met many more online through Atheist Nexus and Facebook. The Facebook page has been a great refuge of reason, with  lively engagement in debate and sharing of resources and knowledge. I have been impressed at how well informed many of  the members there are and how skilled they are at putting forward arguments and critiquing others. When I was in church I was often dumbfounded at how few people could even explain the basic principles of their faith. People that come to 'Caribbean Atheists,' in contrast seem to have given much thought to their position and most have taken the initiative to educate themselves on various topics. So, the quality of debate is generally high. But don't take what I am saying on faith, I encourage you to go to the Caribbean Atheists Facebook page  and see for yourself. I am happy to report that the group reached 100 members just minutes before I started writing this post. It's very encouraging, but we need to keep building.We have started this year with a lot of interesting plans and have a small steering committee in place to try to get the ball rolling. Once again, I urge any of you out there from the Caribbean or with Caribbean roots to join us. We really need your support.

I cannot reflect on 2011 without mentioning my visit to New York and the brunch with the New York Atheists featuring Ayanna Watson of Black Atheists of America. On that day, in addition to hearing the great work Black Atheists of America is doing,  I had  my first experience of being in a room with a group of black atheists .Indeed, there were  more than 15 other black atheists present that day. It was an exciting moment for me, very difficult to put in to words. Just meeting so many like minds in one place, sharing many similar backgrounds and stories.  That was Perhaps my most memorable moment of the year as far as being an atheist is concerned. I am still to write about this experience on the blog. You can look out for more on that story in  2012.

Indeed the area of race and atheism has been one that has occupied my mind somewhat over the last year. It is a sensitive one, but I think it is one that needs to be tackled more. I have had the pleasure of reading two insightful books from Adebowale Ojowuro in 2011, " Crisis of Religion" and " Echoes of Common Sense." Ade is one of the leading voices out there speaking of the negative impact religion has had on the African continent and his material is well worth reading. It is interesting to compare these with my own Caribbean experience, there are quite a few parallels . Ade and I have had some interaction online and he has made reference to my work on occasion and graciously acknowledged my contribution to his writing. I have learnt a lot from him through our communication. In addition, I am in the process of reading Sikivu Hutchinson's "Moral Combat" which looks at black atheism and feminism as it plays out in the US. There is also a very interesting perspective of Guy P Harrison that I am reading in " Race and Reality." I have also looked at the writing of Norm Allen Jr. that speaks to some of these issues. So, there is definitely a lot of work to draw upon. I can't thank these people and many others enough for the work that they are doing in their various areas. I can only hope to follow them the best that I can.

So, as we start on another journey around the sun on the year we have designated as 2012, I wish all of you a happy ride. I look forward, from my part, to making it another atheist revolution.

My Christmas Pantomime: Handel and the 'Baby King'

It was interesting for me to read my First Atheist Christmas blogpost from last year while getting ready to celebrate Atheist Christmas number two.  One year ago I was tentative, not quite knowing the ropes. I almost wondered if I had any right to celebrate at all. Even as I listened to my old favourites then, I was wondering if I should be belting out 'O Come all Ye Faithful' or shyly withdrawing into a 'Silent Night.' This year was quite different, even though I can't by any means call myself a veteran. This Christmas I allowed myself to go back into the music I grew up on. I listened to the entire Handel's Messiah, one of my all time favourites. It was as pleasing to the ear as ever and I even found myself  singing out loud to "Worthy is the Lamb" as I listened to the triumphant trumpets blasting accompanied by the thundering timpanis.

Myth Music- 'The Baby King'

How did I do it? I allowed myself to embrace the music for what it is; myth music. It is a new category I have designated to place all of the religious music that is still beautiful but whose story, I have to admit these days, has nothing to do with reality. I fully embraced the story of the 'Baby King' on Christmas day including  the proclamation of the theme song in the video clip above," For unto us a child is born." In fact, as I listened to those lovely runs for which Handel is so famous and followed the story that is told in that iconic work, I thought of those pantomimes I used to enjoy as a child.  The ones where the evil witch, dressed in black, would come and create some kind of turmoil with some magic spell or portion. Then, when all seemed lost, in would come the good fairy to clean up the mess and make everything right.

Christmas Pantomime

For those not so familiar, Handel's 'Messiah' sets many passages from the bible that relate to Christ to music. From the initial 'Fall' in Genesis, through the prophecies of Isaiah, to the ' Coming' in the New Testament. Perhaps the best known excerpt of all is the timeless " Hallelujah Chorus." To listen to the unabridged  "Messiah" is to take yourself on a magical, dramatic journey. Indeed, this is what I pictured in my mind starting with the haunting melodic minor strains telling me how in "Adam all die" and " Behold Darkness Shall Cover the Earth." I could almost see the ' fade to black' on the stage with smoke emanating from a cauldron. Then, "Lo and Behold!" In the final act, emerges triumph from the midst of despair, in the person of ' The Baby King' , the prophesied one, the one who will one day free us from  sin through his death. I did think to myself that the wave of a magic wand to make sin disappear would be more elegant and certainly a more palatable ending for the children. Anyway, there is still enough there in the Christmas story to at least make you smile, with all the wisemen, shepherds and angels.  So, there I was on the morning of December 25th, enjoying my Christmas Pantomime just like in the days of my childhood.

oldham-chronicle.co.uk

Just like those days, I tried not to analyse the plot of the story too much. I could never understand, back in those pantomimes, why the witch in casting an evil spell, would always create some kind of loophole through which the spell could be broken. Why was there always some magic word, flower or wish upon a star that when discovered could just make the evil go away? Why leave the door open for your plan to be foiled? Now I understand. It was all part of the script to give you the desired ending.  The formula is simple; everyone's happy at the beginning then something goes terribly awry as we approach intermission. In the second half comes the wonderful denouement where everything just sorts itself out and all live happily ever after.

So, my 'Christmas with Handel' morning was every bit as sweet as a 'Gretel with  Hansel.' Yes, of course the holes in the plot were there. The difference here being that  it is the good saviour rather than the evil witch that seems to be giving the opposition a lifeline.The 'devil' in  Handel's masterpiece cannot  be faulted for making things too easy for our hero. The question is how the powerful God of Goodness allowed evil into the picture in the first place. In the pantomimes I have watched, good fairy godmothers may have special powers but certainly nothing like the omnipotence our God father has. Fairies going up against witches are relatively even contests. In contrast, in Handel's work, the protagonist has infinite power, yet inexplicably never uses it to eliminate bad for good. Well, it's all part of the  story mystery and it doesn't matter. The implausibility of  pantomime storylines is what makes them humorous and fun. Handel's 'Baby king' is no different. The absurdity is all part of the entertainment.Yet, undeniably you can still leave the performance with real feelings of love or disgust for the actors.  You may even see yourself in one or more of the characters and try to take away some lesson from their experience. However, when you leave the theater humming, laughing or contemplating what you have witnessed you know that the show is over.

Unfortunately for many of our friends, the pageantry does not end when the curtain is drawn for the last scene of 'Baby King.' They identify with the characters so much that they become part of an ongoing production with them and join  an ever expanding cast of 'extras.' They are  quick to  tell us  that the drama is not really over and that we have come back to see  the actors perform once more when  'The Cross' opens in March or April. They tell us that tickets  for 'The Cross'  are ridiculously expensive but some generous soul has paid the entrance fee for all of us already and that we would be both stupid and ungrateful not to take up this incredible offer. I am sorry, I am very familiar with the script of ' The Cross,' and I respectfully have to decline it.  Bloody pantomimes are just not my passion these days. I'd rather wait for December next year and enjoy my favourite  ' Baby King'  all over again.