Happy 4/20!

“Thousands of years ago — in times we are fond of calling ‘primitive’ (since this renders us ‘modern’ without having to exert ourselves further to earn this qualification) — religion and medicine were united in an undifferentiated enterprise; and both were closely allied with government and politics — all being concerned with maintaining the integrity of the community and of the individuals who were its members. How did ancient societies and their priest-physicians protect people from plagues and famines, from the perils of impending military encounters, and from all the other calamities that threaten persons and peoples? They did so, in general by performing certain religious ceremonies.”

Thomas Szasz, “The Scapegoat as Drug and the Drug as Scapegoat, in Milton Friedman and Thomas Szasz, On Liberty and Drugs: Essays on the Free Market and Prohibition

I can only enjoy but cannot add much to the hoopla in the marijuana community about this date, a secular holiday, a date and time of day with meaning only to the stoner in-group. For reasons that are still hazy, 4:20 is the tokers’ tea-time. Perhaps that’s as much of one day of modern life as you can take without your weed. And on the date 4/20, the legalization movement, after 70+ years of pointless prohibition based on lies (among the early ones: pot supposedly made “Negroes” want to rape white women), re-energizes itself once again, with all kinds of optimism about decriminalization, though the Feds continue to fight on. Continue Reading »

“Imagine the religious principles which have, in fact, prevailed in the world. You will scarcely be persuaded that they are anything but sick men’s dreams.”

David Hume

Psrt I: The Non-Event

Another Passover is upon us. I’ve said just about all I can say about this holiday when Jews celebrate their founding myth, the central reason for their identity, the source of their bond with their deity (who delivered them but gave them plenty of hell along the way; he killed Aaron’s two sons because they didn’t do a ritual properly).

General comments are at

Note that in the Torah, Passover was not about slavery and freedom. That’s all modern, add-on hype. God did it all for his own glory – it says so, right there in the Holy Book. Continue Reading »

Happy Easter, bloody Easter

“In your Easter bonnet, with all the frills upon it,
You’ll be the grandest lady in the Easter Parade…

On the Avenue, Fifth Avenue, photographers will snap us
And you’ll find that you’re in the rotogravure…”

Irving Berlin

“They tried to nail him down, but he got away.”

Marquee outside church in Massachusetts

Well, it’s that day again, and our Greek Orthodox friends, as well as our Roman Catholic brethren and sistren, are celebrating the most bizarre and barbaric events, the darkest, ghastliest nook of their religion: Easter.

Easter, dating back to a 3,000-year-old pagan spring ritual, is now about blood, suffering, sacrifice, more blood and suffering, and — what people come to church for: religion’s heroin and cocaine — the defiance of death.

It is perhaps the most excruciating of ironies that “Easter Parade” was written by a Russian Jew. Berlin’s lyrics describe Happy Easter – smiling kids, new clothes, chocolate bunnies, egg hunts, everything at Walgreens is pink, white, purple, or yellow. My neighbor has a giant inflatable pink bunny on his front lawn. Continue Reading »

There is nothing that is too obvious of an absurdity to be firmly planted in the human head as long as you begin to instill before the age of five by constantly repeating it with an air of great seriousness.

– Arthur Schopenhauer

Followers of the riveting “Zachary’s Brain” series of posts will know that the narrative is not a Gothic horror tale…but something that is just as disturbing: resisting the religious programming of a child.

His step-mother, belonging to a vanilla-Jesus sect, got Dad involved, of course, because he wants to be on the right side of her, though while married to my wife, he was a lapsed Catholic, a confirmed skeptic/deist who refused communion and mocked the Pope.

So now there’s a lot of church in Zachary’s life – church activities, services, quite a bit of Christian BS. My wife weeps over the cruelty of making a child believe lies. And she acts. There is no WAY this boy is going to grow up into a Christian.


We know what they’re telling Zachary. It’s all there, in the Holy Babble. So we’ve adopted two strategies for what we call “counter-church” (”anti-” sounded too anti-), since we have him every other Sunday: one is reframing; the other is anticipatory information and argumentation. We told him of the cruelty and insanity of the Noah and Binding of Isaac stories. We’ve told him that one day, when there’s been lots of warm, fuzzy Baby Jesus, they will tell him about hell. And this is exactly what they did.

Because of our efforts, he already knew there was no such place. And even now we’ve been able to tell him that religious people’s preoccupation with death leads them to do all sorts of nutty things. He gets that, even at 8.

He notes that he gets in trouble by asking questions at church, whereas he learns by asking questions in school. Big difference.

Atheist Bible studies

We also read the Bible to him: passages that describe how the earth swallowed people up or a mountain belched fire – and how these poor, ignorant shepherds thought it was God.

But there’s more: grownups STILL believe it! We give him examples of what they are required to believe.

We read him Deuteronomy 25:11, which says that a woman interfering in a fight and touching the other man’s genitals is to have her hand cut off. “Show no mercy.”

We told him about the Torah’s death penalties for adultery, homosexuality, practicing other religions, and disrespecting your parents.

We showed him the agreement between God and Abraham, in Genesis 17: loyalty in exchange for foreskins, including slaves. Owch!

God and penises

We asked him what a nutjob God would want with so many foreskins. And why he was so obsessed with penises. Why not mandate the amputation of a little toe? Because God wants to show you who’s really in charge of procreative power around here. And it’s not you. (On several occasions, God punishes women with infertility – closes their wombs, as the text puts it.)

This week, for some reason, the counter-church Bible reading was Jonah. Maybe he was getting it at church. Almost any excursion into the Holy Babble is a time-trip into another world. So it is with Jonah. Take a few minutes and reacquaint yourself with the stories people are required to believe — and to find meaningful and relevant! We read him an atheist version, which asked how Jonah could have avoided being dissolved by the fish’s gastric juices.

We warned him about the go-to argument he’s likely to hear: if God can make the laws of physics, he can change them. This is a shrewd way to fill in the gaps in stories with more stories. Zach should then ask, if he has the balls, “Well, why doesn’t God do any of that stuff anymore? [And later:] Is that his whole bag of tricks? Or maybe it’s just a story. [And still later:] Why doesn’t God punish Las Vegas?” Now that would get him in trouble — and it would show religion’s true colors. Zach will learn that when you are seriously invested in a story, you will go to great lengths to defend it.

The Jonah story is sort of Job-like. The poor guy suffers, then God forgives Nineveh anyway, after they even put sackcloth on their animals (3:8)…it’s all really stupid, as is the pissing contest between God and Jonah at the end (God wins). Oh, yeah, and Jonah actually prays to God while in the fish’s belly.

Dawkins’ question about whether religious programming is a form of child abuse deserves constant reconsideration. Growing up is complicated enough. Zach shouldn’t have to struggle through all of this.

“Examine the religious principles which have, in fact prevailed in the world. You will scarecely be persuaded that they are anything buy sick men’s dreams.”

David Hume

Another snake worshiper dies of snakebite. He refuses medical treatment. It’s against his religion.


How do you react, as a rational atheist skeptic? I turn to the comics, but not without a nagging feeling that something is grievously wrong with these people’s minds. A primitive obsession with snakes lingers in their neurology, just as we have vestiges of organs we no longer need. Do these people need to be locked up and medicated for their own good?

But as a libertarian, I believe in religious freedom, even if that freedom involves the ability to commit suicide by the object of your religion…and have it be OK with your religion.

I guess I side with libertarian psychiatrist Thomas Szasz. who believes that psychiatrists should definitely not be in the business of deciding who gets medicated and/or incarcerated. The crazy are entitled to be crazy, as long as they don’t harm anyone against his/her will. By this logic, as long as they don’t proselytize, and as long as they allow people to opt out, the harm is limited to a few lunatics acting according to their free will and taking the consequences.

What do you think?

NOTE: I post this every Groundhog Day. I have since learned that the movie has been the subject of many philosophical discussions, in journals, in classes, on the Net, and elsewhere. There have even been different estimates of the number of “days” Phil spends in Pennsylvania. But different minds can approach the same subject differently. I don’t know how many, if any, others have the same approach as I. So please read on.

Now that I’ve shed my skin completely,
One true reality alone exists.”

Zen saying

Zen monk: “How should I escape birth and death?”
Zen Master Shih-kung: “What is the use of escaping it?”

“In this world, we eat, shit, sleep and wake up. After that all we have to do is die.”


Once again it’s Groundhog Day, which was nothing more than a rather witless locally-oriented celebration (and an American example of the widespread, traditional pre-scientific practice of using animals’ behavior to forecast the weather)…until Harold Ramis’ brilliant movie of the same name. It became — and still is — my all-time favorite message film.

Groundhog Day explores the everydayness of life with an ingenious premise worthy of Kafka, Camus, or Ray Bradbury: an arrogant newsman from Pittsburgh (Bill Murray, named Phil, as in “Puxsatawny Phil,” the groundhog) finds himself trapped in Puxsatawny, PA, where, over and over, he wakes up at 6:00 a.m. to Sonny and Cher singing “I Got You, Babe,” and he and his producer (Andie MacDowell) and cameraman have to do the same local-color Groundhog Day story, day after day after day.

At first he can’t believe what’s going on. When he does catch on, he uses his newfound “power” to learn more and more about an attractive local woman (who’s always meeting him for the first time) and get laid. Of course, that’s what any guy would do.

Coping strategies

He then decides: what the hell? He becomes a libertine, a freedom-abuser. He consumes large quantities of sugar; he smokes. He even tosses a live toaster into his bathtub.

He realizes he can do anything – even kill himself — and still wake up to Sonny and Cher the next morning. There’s no way out.

So bit by bit, his coping strategies turn positive. He starts to acquire wisdom. His Groundhog Day broadcasts become more thoughtful and philosophical. He starts to take piano lessons (every lesson is the “first” one for the teacher) and gets better and better. He rescues people from predicaments that he knows are going to happen.

He makes many attempts to bed his beautiful producer Rita (Andie MacDowell) and, after many slaps in the face, sheds his arrogance and snarkiness, becomes a real person…and one day awakes to Sonny and Cher – with Andie in bed beside him. Something has changed!

Existential message

Think of it: you will awaken tomorrow morning, with the same fundamentals all in place: the same mind in the same body with the same partner (or no partner) beside you, in the same house, with the same job and relatives. The people around you will continue to be who they are. If your boss was a demented tyrant yesterday, he/she will still be one today.

The macro environment changes a little, but it doesn’t affect many of us directly. Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, politicians will preen and spar, insane religions and political doctrines will still have the same powerful grip on the human mind. Muslims will still be killing each other, Christians will still be trying to take over the US, and people of all “faiths” will continue to believe literally in their holy texts.

Ancient superstitions and rivalries will be as strong and destructive as they were yesterday. The battle between scientific truth and religious fantasy will continue unresolved. At least a dozen Muslims will blow themselves up, and Americans will continue to die in foreign wars. A maniac with an automatic weapon will slaughter a dozen or more defenseless people.

People will continue to blather about saving the planet even as they destroy it. Politicians will promise change, but the only change will be that government will get bigger, and there will be more war.

Reactions to life

Marvelously predictable, isn’t it? And we react just like Phil – we can’t believe it (SURELY my wife/kid/boss/situation can change; it MUST!). We can’t believe there’s no way out.

We try all kinds of things to get away from it. We go to bars, football games, churches, and casinos. We run away to addictions of all kinds. Anything to “get away.” We even try to kill ourselves, quickly (suicide) or slowly (drugs, alcohol, work).

But perhaps on Groundhog Day, we can realize, as Phil eventually did, that through it all, the only thing that we can certainly change is our own mind and behavior. Like Phil, all we can do is keep at it until we get it right.


Alan M. Perlman is a secular humanist speaker and author — most recently, of An Atheist Reads the Torah: Secular Humanistic Perspectives on the Five Books of Moses. For information, go to

Remembering Bill Perlman

February 1 is the anniversary of the death of my father, Hyman William Perlman (1910-80). He was indirectly responsible for this blog – and in fact for all the secularism, skepticism, atheism, and humanism that have been the foundation of my intellectual life. He was the first skeptic I ever met, and the effect was lasting. Every time Mom would babble on about “God’s will,” he would snap back, “What’s God got to do with it?”

What indeed. Things may happen for some reason or for none at all. There is certainly no guiding intelligence, let alone the nutjob main character of the Abrahamic religions. Bill understood that. Continue Reading »

Happy Hanukkah – sort of

“If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.”


“Hanukkah celebrates the triumph of tribal Jewish backwardness.”

Christopher Hitchens

“Hanukkah is…the Feast of Lights.
Instead of one day, we got
Elight CRAZY nights!”

Adam Sandler

Hanukkah, which this year began incredibly early, on Thanksgiving, is one of those holidays that serious humanists could just as easily do without. But because of our Christian friends, it has perhaps a hundred times the importance it deserves. It is the ultimate “coattail” holiday. It thus merits brief consideration here.

Hanukkah actually got a boost from the Christians, first because it happens to be a winter festival of lights. Jewish kids needed something to celebrate in the lands of the diaspora in which Christianity predominates – otherwise, as I can attest from personal experience, Christmas feels like a gigantic party that you are not a part of. South Park’s Kyle spoke eloquently for many of us when he sang of how tough it is to be a Jew at Christmas. But Adam Sandler redeemed our respect with his Hanukkah Song (”don’t smoke marijuanica”), in three versions, yet. Indeed, Adam Sandler is our Hanukkah miracle!

The second boost came when the gift of gelt – i.e., cash, a tradition which still persists – morphed into actual gifts, again in imitation of the Christians. Now Jewish kids could get gifts on eight nights!

Return of the Taliban

Sigh. Hanukkah celebrates, in part, the rededication of the temple in the second century CE by a bunch of Jewish Taliban. It was the restoration of the old-time religion. Once again, the relatively primitive, tribal Jews were in (temporarily victorious) conflict with a secular, rational, cosmopolitan culture, this time the Greeks. (We were the hillbillies of the ancient world, but we caught up quickly once the Enlightenment opened up secular opportunities.)

The eight-night thing comes from a generally Jewish tradition of weeklong seasonal celebrations. The political triumph, then, was grafted upon the already existing Winter Lights Festival, and traditions were added along the way – the dreidel, the eight-night miracle, and many others.

Hanukkah’s OK

Hanukkah is OK, insamuch as I see nothing wrong with celebrating light in midwinter, as long as it is metaphorically taken as manifest in the humanistic virtues. Thus, we can rededicate ourselves to being better human beings and to improving the world (the traditional Jewish ideal of tikkun olam). This includes advancing the cause of reason, opposing the many offenses and excesses (and the tax-free status) of religion. As we near the darkest point of the year, let us resolve that the darkness of religious ignorance go no further, that it begin to yield to the light, starting with this very day.

You might dedicate each of the eight candles to one of the humanistic virtues: love, courage, compassion, tolerance, reason, dignity, generosity, charity, and whatever personal quality one is working on that year.

Happy Hanukkah to one and all. Time is passing way too fast.


Alan M. Perlman has a PhD in linguistics. He is a secular humanist speaker and author — most recently, of An Atheist Reads the Torah: Secular Humanistic Perspectives on the Five Books of Moses. For information, go to

“If we steal thoughts from the moderns, it will be cried down as plagiarism; if from the ancients, it will be cried up as erudition.”

– Charlkes Cleb colton, 1825

“Immature artists imitate;. Mature artists steal.”

–Lionel Trilling, Esquire, 1962

All of a sudden, it seems, the search term Plagiarism Rand Paul gets over 40 MILLION Google hits. But the charge is somewhat bogus.

Plagiarism, in my experience, is one of those charges that are meant to question someone’s basic integrity. Whether true or not (and it’s hard to decide; see below), the mere accusation brings stigma. I have more than once been consulted about a plagiarism charge, groundless upon investigation but meant to be part of a general moral attack. Let’s throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.

The gold-standard definition of plagiarism, as we all learned in high school, is the deliberate and dishonest appropriation of another’s words and ideas; it’s taking credit for yourself, failing to attribute originality to others.

The definition immediately breaks down when we try to apply it.

First, there’s the phenomenon of independent creation. Different people can indeed arrive at the same idea independently – and not just in art and science. How many times have you thought of an “original” idea, then read it in a magazine? More evidence: look through a book or online list of quotations on any subject. You will often find the same thing said by different people, the same idea “discovered” again and again down through the centuries.

Another source of plagiarism accusations is faulty attribution mechanics. How faulty? Nebulous quantitative judgments may come into play. A student who fails to attribute once or twice in a paper loaded with properly-attributed quotes is not necessarily guilty of plagiarism (unless what he/she fails to attribute is a truly – or even fairly – original idea). But when sources are not given for half of the quoted material…well, that’s a different matter.

The frequency and pervasiveness of unattributed quoting is what seems to be plaguing Rand Paul. And rightly so. There’s a cumulative effect of presenting others’ good ideas and articulate words as your own. You start to seem smarter or more compelling than you are.

Not that it’s necessary in this case. Paul has enough smarts and charisma – not to mention ex tempore speaking ability – that he can correct his mechanics and give others credit for their ideas. There are many ways to do this in a speech. There’s no excuse for failing to do it, in either an oral presentation or written work. Unless you consider…

The public domain – that’s where our shared language lives. The notion of “public domain” (roughly, “Yeah, everybody knows that – or could look it up.”) has been exploding since the printing press, accelerated a millionfold by the Internet. So when is something “common knowledge” that can be stated without attribution?

One of Paul’s examples that made the news was the unattributed quoting of Wikipedia material on the movie Gattica. There is nothing novel about this factual information. Any account of the movie would include it.

So Paul is allowed to use it in a speech – just don’t use the same words as Wikipedia (or anybody else), because that sets off people’s plagiarism alarms, even though the material itself isn’t novel.

Plagiarism is nothing new. It is our modern notions of intellectual property and copyright that are recent. Early English dictionaries grew mainly by incremental plagiarism of the previous author’s word list.

And it’s all around us: satires/parodies, songs that borrow from other songs, stories that copy older stories, and, of course, the rampant academic cheating made possible by the Internet. Guardians of academic originality constantly develop new software to search huge numbers of documents and root out the plagiarists.

But politicians should attribute carefully and not use too many quotes, lest they seem intellectually threadbare. And they need to be on constant guard against accusations of intellectual dishonesty. There’s already enough doubt about their integrity.

Get God out of Government!

“Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”

– Thomas Jefferson

Jesus H. Christ!! I cannot believe that the Supreme Court is AGAIN about to debate the legitimacy of the spouting of religious BS in governmental settings. WHY have we not got this resolved by now? It’s not as if several prominent Founders weren’t atheists - do you think they would have agreed to a religious state?

Anyway, here were are in 2013 arguing what should have been decided long ago, except that the weight of tradition is very heavy, and religious people, in smug possession of the truth, won’t quit. Inertia, ignorance and stubbornness — bad combination. Continue Reading »

- Next »

Best News: Best News:
Site Secured By: Website Guardian