About

Showing posts with label my published articles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label my published articles. Show all posts

I'm the Scranton Atheism Examiner!


View my Examiner.com page here!


Recently, I was hired by Examiner.com and now have the position of 'Scranton Atheism Examiner.' I'll be doing some of what I'm already doing in my blog, but the position at Examiner.com is not one of blogging. Blogging, unfortunately, gets a 'bad rap' because virtually anyone can write a blog and needs no credentials to do so. Over time, perhaps, readers of blog will 'self-police' and judge the content of posts, but many blogs that are not well-researched, full of misrepresentations and outright lies, and are havens for conspiracy theorists, still get many views.

Positions at Examiner.com are more exclusive and much unlike blogging. The recruiting staff requires applicants to submit writing samples, credentials, and other materials. Examiner.com also reviews articles and has many guidelines for their writers. Examiner.com is not a blog.

On my blog/website, I post some very long articles and articles written in the first person. Not all of my blog posts deal with local issues or have a local angle, but all of my Examiner.com posts will. My Examiner.com articles will also be much shorter than my average blog posts and focus specifically on issues relevant to atheists. I also do not want to 'double down' and reproduce/rehash my blog posts as Examiner.com articles.

My Examiner.com position, then, will offer something different than my regular blog posts and will allow for my local readership to 'get a better take' on the articles. I'll be writing about local people, organizations, churches, and generally adding local angles to every Examiner.com story I write.

I'm really happy to have the Examiner.com position as 'Scranton Atheism Examiner' and hope that my readers continue to view my blog/website and will now also view my Examiner.com page. Two mediums should interest my readers and attract a new audience. Thanks for the support thus far! My blog has been very popular, of course, thanks to my readers. I will continue submitting content on my blog/website. I also might be a guest blogger on another website soon, too...but I'll keep that secret for now. I've added another tab on my website for my Examiner.com posts for easy access. I won't post single articles here, but rather will link to the article on my Examiner.com page in very short linked blog posts.

Times Leader Letter to Editor 12/4/10

I submitted the following letter to the editor that was published [without my serial commas].


Reader believes Haiti needs money, not pews


A recent article, “Passing on spirit,” featured members of an area church shipping religious-themed items such as stained-glass windows, chandeliers, an organ and pews to a church in Haiti.

As the article mentions, members think this is a wonderful way to help Haitians. Youths said this action is a “good deed.” I disagree.

Haiti has been plagued with earthquakes, a great deal of civil and political unrest, poverty and a recent cholera outbreak. It is one of the worst places to live at the moment.

In times of great peril and the need for humanitarian efforts, religious items shouldn’t be a first concern or even a concern at all. If you’re going to help the Haitians, you should send monetary donations to the American Red Cross efforts in Haiti, Doctors Without Borders or another charitable organization.

Readers might think, “Well, what are you doing to help Haiti?” But if you do so, you’re missing my point and committing an ad hominem fallacy. My argument here is that this church community’s moral priorities are out of whack.

Instead of shipping these religious items, they should have sold the items and donated the money to charity. They could have even sent money to build a modest church (without stained glass and chandeliers) and given the rest to a charity to help Haitians.


Justin Vacula Co-organizer and spokesperson NEPA Freethought Society Wilkes-Barre


-----


For more detail on this story, please view my previous post.

Psychic LTE Published [Times Leader]

http://www.timesleader.com/opinion/letters/MAIL_BAG__ensp_LETTERS_FROM_READERS_04-28-2010.html

I’m not against people who present psychic services with the very clear purpose of entertainment.

I’m not against parents who want help to find their children.

I’m not against people who seek psychic services and who understand that the services aren’t “real.”

What I am against, though, is people who say that they have supernatural powers and don’t offer their services as entertainment. Self-proclaimed psychics offer false hope and can exploit people who often are in very desperate need of assurance, are very afraid and are desperate to find missing persons.

Pauline Bailey, a resident of Pittston, recently contacted psychic Carla Baron with sincere hopes of finding her missing daughter. According to Baron’s website, phone sessions range from $155 to $310. I’m not sure whether the Pittston resident was charged for the services of Baron, but there is little doubt that other individuals have been charged.

There is no compelling evidence that people have supernatural powers. If psychics such as Baron do have powers, they should submit themselves to experimental testing and prove their abilities. Until this is done, everyone should be very skeptical.

I have challenged Baron to a test of her psychic abilities and also have referred her to James Randi’s “The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.” As of this writing, she has not responded to my message.

Psychic LTE Published [Citizens Voice]



Original Link is here:

http://citizensvoice.com/opinion/letters/psychics-good-for-entertainment-but-not-for-serious-matters-1.740314


I'm not against people who present psychic services with the very clear purpose of entertainment.

I'm not against parents who want to find help to find their children.

I'm not against people who seek psychic services who understand that the services aren't "real."

What I am against, though, is people who say that they have supernatural powers and don't offer their services as entertainment. Self-proclaimed psychics offer false hope and exploit people who often are in very desperate need of assurance, are very afraid, and are desperate to find missing persons.

Pauline Bailey, a resident of Pittston, recently contacted psychic Carla Baron with sincere hopes of finding her missing daughter. According to Clara Baron's Web site, phone sessions range from $155 to $310. I'm not sure whether or not the Pittston resident was charged for the services of Baron, but there is no doubt that countless other individuals have been charged.

There is no compelling evidence that any people have supernatural powers whatsoever. If psychics like Clara really do have powers, they should submit themselves to experimental testing and prove their abilities. Until this is done, everyone should not accept her claims and be very skeptical of her abilities.

I have publicly challenged Clara to a test of her psychic abilities and have also referred to James Randi's one million dollar supernatural challenge. She has not responded to my message and has blocked me on Facebook. What is she hiding?

Justin Vacula

NEPA Freethought Society

Third Year King's College Student

Religion and Government: Refuting Antonin Scalia




Religion, Government, and Antonin

* This article was published in the King's College Crown newspaper today *

Justin Vacula

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently had an interview with a newspaper named Hamodia in which he said, “Whatever the Establishment Clause means, it certainly does not mean that government cannot accommodate religion, and indeed favor religion. My court has a series of opinions that say that the Constitution requires neutrality on the part of the government, not just between denominations, not just between Protestants, Jews and Catholics, but neutrality between religion and non-religion. I do not believe that. That is not the American tradition.”

This statement by Scalia, in my opinion, is very alarming. I believe that he is misrepresenting the Establishment Clause that states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This has been interpreted to mean that the government will not establish an official religion or favor a specific religion.

Scalia, in 2005, also made comments regarding the Ten Commandments on government property, “ I think the message it sends is that law is—and our institutions come from God. And if you don't think it conveys that message, I just think you're kidding yourself." This is also more, if not equally alarming. Our government derives its authority from the people, not a religion or a deity.

Recent debacles have been occurring regularly in the news. Constant arguments regarding the legitimacy of the phrases, “In God We Trust” and the display of the Ten Commandments on government property will probably never end until they are, if ever, removed. We, as Americans, refer to the United States Constitution for political guidance... not religious symbols or beliefs like the Ten Commandments, the Wiccan Rede, or the Pillars of Islam.

Thomas Jefferson uttered this speech as a proclamation to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

In her book titled Freedom Under Seige, Madalyn Murray O'Hair cited Thomas Paine, George Mason, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, John Quincy Adams and, of course, Thomas Jefferson, as early American Deists, people who believe that a non-specific deity created the universe but is no longer active in human affairs.. A key idea of the United States government is that we are not a nation that supports a particular religion.

John Adams, in article eleven in the Treaty of Tripoli stated the following, “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

President Obama, in 2008 said the following... “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation, at least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers. […] Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concern into universal rather than religion specific values. […] It requires that their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason. […] To base our policy making on such [religious] commitments would be a dangerous thing.

I believe that Scalia ought to be careful with his remarks and stop misrepresenting the ideals and foundations of the United States. Similar to what President Obama said, we are a very diverse nation of diverse individuals. All United States citizens are free to worship whatever or whoever they would like: The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Thor, Poseidon, Jesus, Krishna, Allah, or nothing. Our freedoms from and of religion are very important and must be embraced in order to maintain our individual freedoms. If someone would like to follow precepts of a certain religion he/she may, but precepts or ideas ought not, in my opinion, be the basis of lawmaking decisions or be displayed on governmental property; there are private churches, private schools, and other private institutions for that. Religion has no place whatsoever in government. We would be enraged if any government official started to speak about The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and base policy decisions on this book; this is the way we should view the place of any religion in governmental affairs. Thomas Jefferson and our Founding Fathers were wonderful thinkers who were well ahead of their times.

According to The American Religious Identification of 2008, 15% of the American population do not identify with any religion, 76% identify as Christians, and the other 9% are comprised of other religious denominations. America may be, by population majority, a nation of Christians, but we are certainly not a “Christian Nation.” The government ought to continue its “neutrality policy” as Justice Scalia describes, but the government ought not be “One Nation Under the Beliefs of Scalia.”