04.16.09
Posted in General, Trina Hoaks at 1:00 pm by Trina Hoaks
Hello, everyone, Trina here.
As many of you know by now, I am the National Atheism Examiner (columnist) for Examiner.com. I want to share with you briefly how it is that I ended up with that gig before I get to my main point.
A while back, as a result of the recession, I lost my job. I was 43 at the time. I am one of those people who is skilled in a variety of areas so I typically am able to find a job rather quickly. Not this time. My area has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation.
I decided to take stock of my life, my skills, and my passions before moving forward. A few things ocurred to me. I have always loved to write. In fact, when I started college, back in the day, I did so with the intent of majoring in journalism. I changed my mind somewhat quickly after realizing that I would have to write about crap I didn’t care about.
The other thing that I took note of was that I was a relatively new atheist who spent her spare time devouring books, debates, and articles on the topic. (Do I know how to party or what? Woo Hoo!) In my quest to soak it all up, I realized that media outlets, in general, rarely give atheists a voice. To be sure, many of them, if not most of them, had religion sections. They employed religious writers. And too often, when the topic of atheism was written about it was done so by religious writers. We all know that many of those writers do not typically look on us favorably and some of them go out of their way to spin any atheism story negatively.
I had a mission. I wanted to work toward getting atheists’ voices heard, starting with mine. Of course, there are atheist blogs and the like, but I wanted our voices to be given equal time in the main stream news media. So, I approached about 20 media outlets, print as well as internet, about letting me write an atheism column. I waited… and waited… and waited….
About 2 months went by. I was beginning to think that it just wasn’t going to happen. And just when I was on the verge of giving up, I was contacted by Examiner. Initially, I was slated to write as a local writer — Miami area, I believe. But within a couple of days, my column was so popular that the Examiner powers that be decided to make me national.
I don’t mind telling you all that my column catapulted to the top of the Religion and Spirituality channel. With rare exception, my column stays in that top spot. Tee hee.
Since bringing me on board, Examiner has brought on other atheist writers. They write for the local online editions. There is one writer, Paul Fidalgo, who is the DC Secular Examiner. We also have Atheism Examiners in Milwaukee, Atlanta, and Manchester.
But, I want more! I want there to be so many atheist columnists that they have to give us our own category, which I am currently working on. Hopefully, very soon, there will be a “Freethinkers” category for secular writers, atheist writers, skepticism writer, and the like.
Yes, I do get paid for doing what I do. However, what is at the heart of what I am trying to accomplish remains the same. I want the atheist voice to be given equal time. I want atheists to be represented by atheists. I want atheists to determine their worth rather than letting certain religious folk do it. And I want atheists, rather than relgious haters, to define what the word “atheist” means.
So, on to the main point. I invite all you atheist writers out there to get on board. Join me at Examiner. If you have something to say, a voice, follow this link. Once the page loads, read all about it. If it intrigues you, click on the link to “join now.” Once the page loads, click on the Religion & Spirituality category. When the new page loads, scroll down passed the available positions and choose “or pick a topic we have not covered above.” Once you have done that, you are on your way. If we all rally together, we can become a force to be reckoned with, and we can make a difference.
Permalink ~
02.22.09
Posted in General, Trina Hoaks at 11:30 am by Trina Hoaks
Hello everyone. Trina here.
I just ran across an article that I wanted to share with you. It grabbed my attention because it is about “Blue Laws.” I can remember when I first moved to Texas several years ago (I don’t live there now) that I was floored to learn that I couldn’t go shopping on Sundays. I was a teenager at the time and I wanted to shop! I was speechless when I learned why I couldn’t – “Blue Law.” It seemed so absurd to me. Ever since then, I have had a certain contempt for “Blue Laws.”
Now, on to the article…
There are several states that still have “Blue Laws” that place restrictions on the sale of alcohol on Sundays. It seems that the majority (if not all) of the proponents of these restrictions are religious folk.
There are even some counties within states that are “dry” counties that do not allow for the sale of alcohol – ever.
What some states are now becoming painfully aware of (in light of our economic crisis), is what those dry counties have known for some time – people take their business elsewhere. If they want alcohol on Sunday, they will get it (whenever feasible).
There are states now that are setting out to repeal “Blue Law” restrictions on alcohol sales. Those states are Georgia, Connecticut, Texas, Alabama and Minnesota. Connecticut, in particular, has lost money to neighboring states because of their laws. Even if people don’t go elsewhere, some state officials feel that the restrictions are costing them big bucks in tax revenues.
According to an article in TIME, these states have strong voter support for repealing these laws, much to the dismay of certain religious groups. Jim Beck, president of the Georgia Christian Coalition said:
During times of economic stress, our families are under enough pressure. I don’t think we need to add even more pressure to those families by passing this law.
But it was pointed out in the article that:
…the President [FDR] recognized that legally procured cocktails were the way to keep spirits high when Americans were trying to get used to putting their trust into the nation’s crumbling banking system again.
Regardless of what your stance is on drinking alcohol, you have to see that this is just another lingering example of how the religiously motivated impose their beliefs on the people of the nation through the law. Hopefully, though, it will soon come to pass that “Blue Laws,” no matter what they regard, disappear from our law books.
And, for the record… I don’t drink alcohol.
Permalink ~
02.20.09
Posted in General, Trina Hoaks at 2:34 pm by Trina Hoaks
Hi, all… it’s me, Trina.
So, as I am sure many of you have heard, Ray Comfort has joned the Examiner as the “Creationism Examiner.”
Of course, I haven’t seen much along the lines of creationism in his articles so far, but we shall see.
Anyway, I am not here to talk about Ray’s new column… no, no. But I am here to talk about Ray.
It seems he has issued a challenge to Richard Dawkins. He is offereing him $10,000 to debate him.
Although that link won’t take you to Ray’s post about it on Examiner, I wanted to share a comment I saw there.
The poster, Kitty, said something like… “after hearing your debate with Dan Barker, I don’t think you’d know what a debate was if it bit you on the banana.”
I sincerely hope Richard doesn’t stoop to do it. Quite frankly, I don’t think Ray is worthy of Richard’s time. But that’s me. 
Permalink ~
02.07.09
Posted in General, Trina Hoaks at 12:10 pm by Trina Hoaks
At 9:55 this morning there was a knock on my door. I was kind of surprised because people don’t generally just drop by my house.
I went to answer the door, accompanied, of course, by the curious resident pit bull who would do nothing more to a stranger than sniff and lick him to death.
I was only able to open the door slightly (I am not very wide) so as to keep the dog from fleeing the house.
Who should be on my stoop on this lovely, chilly Saturday morning?
There were two nicely dressed men standing there, holding a plethra of literature. Immediately, I knew.
I said “Hello.” One man spoke up: “Hello. I wanted to share some stories with you from the Bible.”
Of course, me being me, I assume that I am more familiar with this man’s Bible than he is. But, again – me being me, I didn’t say that to him. Rather, I simply said, “I am an atheist and I am not interested.”
To this, he said, “Thank you,” and he and his companion turned to leave.
So, I was wondering… when was the last time religious folks knocked on your door and how did you handle it?
Permalink ~
01.10.09
Posted in General, Trina Hoaks at 10:37 am by Trina Hoaks
Did you know that there exists an organization called Christian Anti-Defamation Commission? Well, it’s true. They have some gems on their site including Seven Reasons Barack Obama is not a Christian. My immediate thought on this title was, “do they mean to say ‘proofs?’” Because really, there is a huge difference between a reason and a proof. After looking through the list, I determined that, yes they did mean “proofs.” But, I digress.
What led me to the Christian Anti-Defamatory Commission site was an article titled Top Ten Instances of Christian Bashing in America, 2008 written by Dr. Gary Cass. Interestingly, it seems that often times telling the truth is seen as bashing. They aren’t the same thing,
Anyway, as happens with me sometimes, my sarcasm gets the best of me, as it did when I was reading this list.
INSTANCE #10: Jack Black Musical Video
In a short video posted on FunnyorDie.com entitled, “Prop 8 The Musical,” an all star cast of Hollywood celebrities perform a low budget musical farce that defames Christ, mocks Christians and distorts the teaching of the Bible. Jack Black played the lead role of Jesus.
I loved this video. I thought it was brilliant. Silly me.
INSTANCE #9: Bill Maher Gratuitously Attacks Pope
Bill Maher, host of the HBO program Real Time, made light of the Pope during his recent visit and the tragic sexual abuse scandal. Maher said, “Now I know what you’re thinking, Bill. You can’t be saying that the Catholic Church is no better than this creepy (radical Mormon polygamist) Texas cult. For one thing, alter boys can’t even get pregnant. But really, what tripped up the little cult on the prairie was that they only abused hundreds of kids, not thousands all over the world. Cults get raided; religions get parades… If you have a few hundred followers and you let some of them molest children, they call you a cult leader. If you have a billion, they call you Pope.”
I can see why they would be bothered by this. But, really, the Pope didn’t need Bill Maher to bash him. I think his own actions (or lack thereof) did that well enough.
INSTANCE #8: ESPN Anchor Dana Jacobson’s “F— Jesus” Remark
Speaking at an ESPN corporate event in Atlantic City, N.J., to honor ESPN Radio personalities Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic, Dana Jacobson let go with a steam of vulgar remarks; “F— Notre Dame,” “F— Touchdown Jesus” and finally “F— Jesus.” Jacobson was suspended for a few days for the incident.
Meh. How exactly is that bashing Christians?
INSTANCE #7: Minnesota University Professor Desecrates Communion
A Biology Professor from the University of Minnesota, Paul Zachary Myers, recently desecrated a consecrated communion wafer from a Catholic Mass. Meyer’s has also asked people to steal the Eucharist for him in order that he might desecrate it and display it on his blog.
Really? He desecrated a Jesus biscuit? Well, damn him. In all seriousness, though, stealing IS wrong.
INSTANCE #6: Religulous the Movie
Bill Maher released a very shallow, pseudo-intellectual documentary entitled Religulous. The movie did not cover any new intellectual ground. It simply raised the old attacks on the faith. Maher studiously avoided being fair and did not allow for legitimate Christian answers from any leading Christian intellectuals.
And to think… I wrote an article touting it the best movie of 2008. I don’t even want to know what that says about me.
INSTANCE #5: Chaplains Fired for Praying in Jesus’ Name
Chaplains for the State of Virginia are being denied their right to pray in Jesus’ name. Six chaplains were fired for continuing to pray in Jesus’ name. Earlier this year in Virginia, Rev. Hashmel Turner, a city councilman in Fredericksburg, was told by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that his prayers during city council meetings that ended in Jesus’ name will continue to be banned.
My question is why he was praying at all, never mind in whose name he was doing it. (Again, I don’t see the bashing here.) We have this nifty little thing called the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of The US Constitution that was put forth to build a wall of separation between church and state. Upholding the Constitution is not Christian bashing.
INSTANCE #4: Colorado Law Criminalizes the Bible
SB200, a Colorado state bill recently signed into law, criminalizes the Bible. Section 8 of the bill entitled “Publishing of discriminative matter forbidden” makes publishing the Bible illegal because it contains anti-homosexual passages. This is part of a larger effort to criminalize the expression of certain opinions and beliefs.
Okay… that is wrong. Censorship is never okay. Perhaps if it the Bible were dubbed “fiction” as it should be they could squeeze it through. Another thing to consider, if it is okay to publish religious literature that is full of hatred and bigotry, is it okay for other groups to do the same?
INSTANCE #3: Barack Obama Defames Christianity
According to research into President Elect Obama’s own statements about faith, and an examination of Obama’s position on moral issues, CADC has determined that by any biblical and historic Christian standard, Barack Obama is not a Christian, although he claims he is a “devout Christian.”
I think that “by any biblical sense and historic Christian standard,” no one claiming to be a Christian would really qualify.
INSTANCE #2: Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin Is Attacked
Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin, came under sharp attack by some in the mainstream media because she self-identifies as a Christian. The Washington Post published a cartoon by Pat Oliphant mocking Palin because she has a background as a Pentecostal/Charismatic Christian. A suspicious arson fire at Sarah Palin’s home church recently caused over $1,000,000 in damage.
The fire was definitely wrong. The cartoon on the other hand…
And finally, the #1 Christian Bashing Instance in America for 2008…
INSTANCE #1: Radical Homosexuals Assault Prop 8 Marriage Supporters in California
During and after the November campaign stories flooded in of pro-Prop 8 signs being taken, people verbally and physically assaulted, church property and private automobiles vandalized, and person’s jobs and pastor’s lives threatened simply for exercising their right to campaign and vote in support of traditional marriage.
Assault and vandalism are wrong, to be sure. I certainly would never condone such actions. But, to point a condemning finger at a group of people who are regularly defamed and otherwise bashed by religious folk seems a bit hypocritical to me.
BONUS INSTANCE: Senator Grassley’s Abuse of Power
US Senator Grassley, a member of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, has demanded the financial records of a number of very prominent conservative, evangelical broadcast ministries. The demand was based on Grassley’s concern that these ministries are not spending their contributions properly. Grassley has admitted his concerns were in part driven by media accounts.
Ummmmm, so? If they have nothing to hide, why would this be bothersome?
Permalink ~
01.07.09
Posted in General, Trina Hoaks at 1:45 pm by Trina Hoaks
The Bible Belt Blogger, Frank Lockwood, reported that the Indianapolis Star has decided to stop running its daily Christian prayer, a piece that has been included in the paper every day since 1963. The prayer held a prominent front page position from 1968 – 2000, after which it was positioned on page 2.
What struck me about Lockwood’s report was that he seems disturbed by the fact that the astrology column is allowed to remain in the paper. The first sentence of his article is:
Editors at the Indianapolis Star have decided to ditch Christian prayer but keeping pagan astrology.
He immediately followed that up with:
…Indiana’s largest daily announced today it is scrapping the decades-old tradition.
The horoscope column will be retained.
I take it that he thinks religion is somehow above astrology. I, for one, think that one is no better than the other as they are both steeped in superstition. Where they do differ and I do begin to see one as “better” than the other is when I consider that one has this nation in a stranglehold in many respects while the other one is relatively harmless.
The reasons cited for the decision to pull the Christian prayer piece are:
We appreciate that this has been a long tradition in The Star. But we are re-evaluating our mission and all that we do. I believe that prayer is a very personal thing and that offering prayers is something for individuals and their churches. We are a newspaper, not a church.
Also, we do live in a society in which there are many, many different beliefs. We respect all religions, and the prayer was written only from the Christian perspective.
Because of those issues, we have decided to drop the prayer. I’m confident that people will continue to offer their own prayers reflecting their own lives and faith needs.
Permalink ~
01.06.09
Posted in General, Trina Hoaks at 10:19 pm by Trina Hoaks
*cue sarcasm*
I had a great deal of fun on conservapedia.com today. And, I learned a lot! I discovered that what I have, this “atheism,” actually has several causes. To my dismay, though, there doesn’t seem to be a cure. Let’s go through the list, shall we?
The first noted cause is “Moral Depravity.” Although there is no cure for this, it seems I can blame Darwin, and others since him, who used deceit “in a major way to propagate atheism.” So, you see, it’s not my fault that I am “certainly the most despicable and the most miserable animal under the sun,” as some guy named Matthew Henry suggests. (A funny side note is that the person who wrote this bit went on to quote from the Bible. Apparently, I have been paying attention to the wrong deceit.)
Next, I want to point out that my atheism is due to “Superficiality.” After all, I have given in to the “peer” pressure of those who came before me spreading their lies, so it only makes sense that I would continue in the same way. I have no strongly held conviction, I cannot resist… I am just a lemming. (Wait, isn’t that what atheists say about theists? This is getting confusing.)
I would also like you to know that I am in “Error.” I either do not have the mental capacity or do not exercise my ability “to fairly and judiciously consider the facts.” It seems that the time I spent reading and studying the Bible (which, of course, is from whence fact comes) was a complete waste of time because I didn’t do so with fairness and judiciousness.
I lament that I had a “poor relationship with [my] father” because I am sure that is a huge contributor to why I am an atheist. (But, wait… I didn’t have a poor relationship with my father.)
I can also blame my affliction, you know … the atheism, on all of the “negative experiences with theists” I have had. There was this one time that… um, nope… wait… there was that…. I can’t think of anything now, but I will get back to you.
And finally, the pinnacle of reasons behind my atheism is, of course, “Scientism.” But wait… it is touted on the Conservapedia Web site as a “new God.” Wouldn’t that make science a deity? I don’t hold a belief in deities, yet I “believe” in science. Oh, my Science! That makes me a theist after all! (Now I’m really confused.)
Fortunately, I know several cures for theism.
*end sarcasm*
Permalink ~
01.05.09
Posted in General, Trina Hoaks at 11:00 am by Hemant Mehta
We now have a female voice on this site to add to our list of contributors!
Please welcome Trina Hoaks!
Trina is the author of the book 1 Atheist 1 Voice, a collection of her articles about atheism. She is also the National Atheism Examiner (columnist) for Examiner.com.
You can read more about her at the About the Contributors page.
Feel free to say hello!
Permalink ~
01.01.09
Posted in General, Trina Hoaks at 7:00 pm by Hemant Mehta
***Comments are now allowed on this post***
…
(This is a guest post by Trina Hoaks. Trina is the Atheist Examiner at Examiner.com.)
…
For some time I was convinced that it was important for our government to support the sciences by way of funding. Among other things, I had seen pleas from the likes of Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease, imploring people to support politicians who fight for government funding of science.
Admittedly, I didn’t give the issue much consideration and nonchalantly threw my hat in the ring of support. However, because I really had never explored the issue on my own, as it didn’t seem to touch my life directly, it was never anything about which I had any strong opinions. The extent of my concern was to say, “Yeah, it’s a good idea.” I really didn’t think it through much more than that because, on the surface, it made sense.
Then, I read something recently written by Frank Tipler (who, in general, I take with a grain of salt), which made me wonder if, perhaps, I had rushed my opinion without considering all sides of the issue.
In response to a request from William Katz, of Urgent Agenda, to express his views on the global-warming controversy (more on that topic later), Tipler discussed what can be described as the perversion of science when government becomes involved financially.
He contended:
… We had better science, and a more rapid advance of science, in the early part of the 20th century when there was no centralized government funding for science…
He went on to say:
Science is an economic good like everything else, and it is very bad for production of high quality goods for the government to control the means of production…
So, here I am, exploring the aspects of the issue of government funding for scientific exploration. I absolutely believe that scientific research is important and necessary for a number of reasons, but as it stands now, I am stuck somewhere in the middle wondering which is worse: to have a government funded science initiative or to have science that has no government funding at all.
Any thoughts?
Permalink ~
12.31.08
Posted in Dating, General, Trina Hoaks at 4:00 pm by Hemant Mehta
(This is a guest post by Trina Hoaks. Trina is the Atheist Examiner at Examiner.com.)
…
In her article, Darwin shouldn’t be hijacked by New Atheists — he is an ethical inspiration, Madeleine Bunting accuses atheists of using Darwin as their poster boy, so to speak. With this in mind, it is not so hard to understand why she has such a bad reputation in certain circles. Her article, if nothing else, can be seen as controversial, as the original article has generated approximately 600 comments since it was posted yesterday. Add to that another 100+ comments to the same article on Richard Dawkins‘ site and it is obvious that people are outraged.
It is funny how she, who accused atheists of kidnapping Darwin and his work, used the upcoming 2009 dual Darwin anniversary as an excuse to point her condemning finger at atheists.
Pot, kettle — kettle, pot?
In her article, she pretends to know what Darwin’s reaction to atheists embracing his work would be. She said that “what would have baffled Darwin is his recruitment as standard bearer for atheism in the 21st century.”
I suppose now we can add the title “Psychic” to her professional repertoire.
She went on to say:
Yet bizarrely, the whole 19th-century collapse of faith is now pinned on Darwin. While he was poring over his pigeons, biblical scholars were hard at work radically revising the historical understanding of the Bible and arguably doing as much as he ever did to undermine the possibility of a literal reading of scripture. The work of the Victorian geologist Charles Lyell debunked the idea of seven days of creation in Genesis long before Darwin.
Does anyone else sense Bunting’s downplay of the significance of Darwin’s contribution to the understanding of life in her paragraph? Perhaps it was just poor wording choice on her part or faulty inference on my part. Speaking of “poor wording choice,” one can only hope that that is the reason she makes it seem that she thinks that Darwin was intentionally working to undermine the Bible. That is one of the greatest false contentions of religious anti-evolutionists — that scientists do their science to debunk religion.
When will these people realize not everything is about them? As I said in my own book, “[i]t is the misguided person who does not comprehend that when scientific evidence challenges religion it is, by and large, purely incidental.”
Bunting called out a couple of atheists who will be participating in celebratory events honoring Darwin in a less-than-favorable way. She said:
The fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the New Atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that Darwin pointedly never took up). Many of the prominent voices in the New Atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in God and accept Darwin’s theory of evolution; Richard Dawkins and the US philosopher Daniel Dennett are among those due to appear in Darwin200 events. It’s a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.
Dawkins wasted no time in posting a comment to Bunting’s article, included here, unedited, in its entirety.
A telling litmus test of an ignoramus on the subject of Darwin is their rendering of the title of his great book. The [diagnostic] solecism — remarkably common — is to stick a ‘the’ before ’species’. Sure enough, Madeleine Bunting falls right into it, exactly as you would expect. The correct title, of course, is On the Origin of Species.
It is true that Darwin declined to call himself an atheist. But his motive, clearly expressed to the atheist intellectual Edward Aveling (incidentally the common-law husband of Karl Marx’s daughter) was that Darwin didn’t want to upset people. Atheism, in Darwin’s view, was all well and good for the intelligentsia, but ordinary people were not yet “ripe” for atheism. So he called himself an agnostic, largely for diplomatic reasons..
In any case, what Darwin chose to call himself, as a pillar of his local parish in the nineteenth century, is of less interest than the cogency of the arguments themselves. Before Darwin came along, it was pretty difficult to be an atheist, at least to be an atheist free of nagging doubts. Darwin triumphantly made it EASY to be an intellectually fulfilled and satisfied atheist. That doesn’t mean that understanding Darwin drives you inevitably to atheism. But it certainly constitutes a giant step in that direction.
Richard Dawkins
So, what say you?
Are atheists “shoplifting the pootie” from Darwin? (Sorry for the Jerry McGuire reference. I couldn’t help myself.)
Permalink ~
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
