Religious Bullshit

Al Gore, Let's Talk About Denial

I read Al Gore's new essay in the June 22nd issue of Rolling Stone--Climate of Denial: Can science and truth withstand the merchants of poison?- with great interest and appreciation. I then found myself immediately wondering, does Al Gore pray for the world to come to its senses when it comes to climate change?

To be clear, I have no quarrel per se with the former vice president. In fact, I admire his decision these last several years to eschew elected office and devote himself to a worthy and critical cause about which he is clearly profoundly passionate. I accept the data and the consensus of the world scientific community that climate change is real, and exacerbated by man. Further, I agree with Gore's assertions that:

When the distinction between truth and falsehood is systematically attacked without shame or consequence — when a great nation makes crucially important decisions on the basis of completely false information that is no longer adequately filtered through the fact-checking function of a healthy and honest public discussion — the public interest is severely damaged.

But I feel compelled to ask the question--is it foolhardy, or at least unrealistic, to expect rationality from a society (any society), that makes faith an unassailable virtue?

Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry is in the news for wanting to hold a prayer fest because the U.S. "has not honored God in our successes or humbly called on Him in our struggles." Elected officials of every party and stripe regularly invoke God (some sincerely, some no-doubt not) as a fail-safe solution to our problems. And who can blame them? The odds of an avowed agnostic or atheist being elected to public office in this country is about as likely as, I don't know, a camel fitting through the eye of--oh, never mind.

My point is simply that, for those who claim science and religion are not at odds ("nonoverlapping magisteria," as the late Stephen Jay Gould called it), I will simply end by quoting Gore once more:

It is time to face reality. We ignored reality in the marketplace and nearly destroyed the world economic system. We are likewise ignoring reality in the environment, and the consequences could be several orders of magnitude worse. Determining what is real can be a challenge in our culture, but in order to make wise choices in the presence of such grave risks, we must use common sense and the rule of reason in coming to an agreement on what is true.

Science and religion are, inarguably, at odds. And until we are willing to put aside all foolish, non-supportable beliefs, and live our lives through compassionate reason, we will continue to ignore and deny all of the inconvenient truths that threaten future happiness and prosperity.

God Smites Bible Belt

In his infinite yet impenetrable wisdom, God smote southern Bible Belt states that voted overwhelmingly for Southern Baptist minister Mike Huckabee in last night's elections.  It's too early to tell whether God inflicted his wrath on evangelicals themselves, or his usual target: innocents.

Indeed, the Lord works in mysterious ways. 

'Tis the Season to Celebrate Offensive Speech

As reported in the New York Times today, a group called the Connecticut Valley Atheists has caused quite a stir by exercising its first amendment rights.   

Specifically, members petitioned and won the right to put up a sign in the town's central park--yes, where the annual baby Jesus diorama goes up--suggesting (outrageously!) that religion maybe had something to do with 9/11.

"Imagine No Religion" surrounds an image of the World Trade Center towers.  (Political effectiveness: 8.  Originality: 0.  Can atheists please come up with something less cliched than quoting John's song?)

Predictably, the people who believe in virgin births, raising rotting corpses from the dead and a god who insists on human sacrifice in order to forgive, are offended by the sign.  Yet unpredictably--at least from what I've read thus far--most acknowledge the free speech rights of the group.  And, the christians are answering back with more speech of their own: namely, by putting up large Christmas trees around the sign.  Now the atheists are quibbling about the location of the trees.

Quibbling that--atheist though I be--is wrong-headed.  To my knowledge, no one has threatened (yet, anyway) to kill the atheists or burn down their headquarters.  They are answering political discourse with speech of their own.  That's as it should be. 

So they put up a few trees that obscure your sign.  Quit whining and put up more signs.

One True Church Will Pay $660 Million

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles--part of the "One True Church" and the only real path to salvation, as declared by the Pope a few weeks ago--will pay $660 million to the more than 500 people (presumably all children at the time) who were sodomized, fondled, sucked and otherwise sexually assaulted by the One True Church's holy men.

As reported by CNN, since 1950 the U.S. part of the Roman Catholic Church, alone, has paid more than $2 billion to the victims of the One True Church.

Here are some more cheery statistics on the sexual deviance of the One True Church, from the 5-year-old document, A Report on the Crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States:

US clerics accused of abuse from 1950-2002: 4,392.
About 4% of the 109,694 serving during those 52 years.

Individuals making accusations: 10,667.

Victims' ages: 5.8% under 7; 16% ages 8-10; 50.9% ages 11-14; 27.3% ages 15-17.

Victims' gender: 81% male, 19% female

Duration of abuse: Among victims, 38.4% said all incidents occurred within one year; 21.8% said one to two years; 28%, two to four years; 11.8% longer.

Victims per priest: 55.7% with one victim; 26.9% with two or three; 13.9% with four to nine; 3.5% with 10 or more (these 149 priests caused 27% of allegations).

Abuse locations: 40.9% at priest's residence; 16.3% in church; 42.8% elsewhere.

Of course, this is U.S. only, and the numbers are no doubt low.  The mind boggles when considering the likely numbers worldwide, where bastions of the One True Church (think Ireland, Italy, Brazil) place even greater trust in the Church and its pedophile priests.

Did I mention this is the One True Church, and the only path to salvation?

The verdict and money are something.  If only we could execute a more appropriate sentence. 

Like, say: Burn in Hell. 

(Thank you priestofdarkness.com, for the statistics and the illustration--the latter drawn by a 12-year-old victim of abuse.)

Religious Bullshit versus Religious Bullshit

While I wasn't looking, a relentlessly cheerful (and awfully toothy--those choppers are downright rodent-like) preacher man from Texas became the biggest, baddest televangelist in the world.  Joel Osteen ministers to 16,000 hicks in a converted basketball stadium in Houston every Sunday, broadcasts himself to millions more, and is actually so big right now he's on a tour in Godless Europe, taking his God-loves-you (and-wants-you-to-lose weight, and-wants-you-to-be-successful, and wants-you-to-blah-blah) message to Belfast, London and Birmingham. 

The Osteen phenomenon is interesting both for its delightful conformance to many of the cliches of televangelism (e.g., he's slick, he's rich, he's married to a scaryass southern "beauty queen" wife with an official record of egregious bitchiness who you know lays there inert during marital relations) but even more so for its downright flouting of some of the more offensive cliches.  There's no fire and brimstone in reverend Joel's message.  It's all feel-good preachin', designed to sell, sell, sell. 

Matter of fact, it's so feel-good, that Joel's not ready to condemn non-believers to Hell.  On Larry King, when pressed, he said he'd leave the judgin' up to the Almighty.

The fundamentalists of course go apeshit over this heresy.  The comments on this clip alone go on and on ("Joel Osteen is a false prophet and does not know the Bible. He never teaches about sin or the fact that Jesus is the ONLY way to Heaven.").  There are other clips that take Joel sermons and superimpose snarky comments about how he's got it all wrong and is fucking things up for real believers.

I can't help but be riveted.  It's like cockfighting without all the messiness and animal rights complications. 

Joel's completely and totally full of shit, yes.  But he's just out to make people feel good and score a few bucks in the process.  The other side is demented and hateful, and that's a far more insidious combination. 

But if there's a silver lining to any of this, there's every indication that Joel's "kinder and gentler" bullshit is drowning out the vengeful God types, who have all the TV appeal of a Nixon compared to Joel's Kennedy-esque charisma. 

After all, if we have to be subjected to fairy tales--and let's face it, we do--they may as well have a happy ending. 

The Satanic Knight

The Queen will knight author Salman Rushdie and Islamic radicals worldwide are marking the pronouncement, predictably, with protests, suicide bombings and renewed calls for Rushdie's murder.

The acclaimed author is best-known (sadly) for the death sentence imposed upon him by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989 for Rushdie's novel, The Satanic Verses, which many radical muslims consider blasphemous.

Pakistan's parliament today passed a resolution condemning the knighthood, saying it would encourage "contempt" for the Prophet Mohammed.  Meanwhile an Iranian group known by the catchy name, "the Headquarters for Honoring the Martyrs of Islam World Movement,"upped Pakistan's ante by offering a $150,000 bounty for Rushdie's execution.

I've yet to see any comments from Rushdie himself on these latest threats to his life.  But I did run across a 2002 interview with Rushdie, where he speaks with relative equanimity about his situation. 

What’s a life? That's not much, you know. A book’s much more important.

He goes on to comment on the reasonableness of the vast majority of Muslims (whom he says have been supportive of him and his work), and in speaking about Muslims in the West, he encourages them to use their freedom.  It's a good reminder to all of us:

And if you have the great privilege of living in one of the relatively few free societies in the world, use the freedom. The point about freedom is to use it. It’s not to say, ‘Oh well, it’s nice to have the freedom but let’s not bother to use it because that would be a bit scary.’ Freedom is scary, and it’s not peaceful either. It's turbulent. 'Speak' is what I would say.

I'd like to ask everyone who opposes religious bullshit to consider doing a few things in support of Rushdie.  First, buy his books.  Second, voice your support for Rushdie--in every blog, email and conversation that you can.  And lastly, I suggest we start a movement for Sainthood.  "Sir" does not do this man justice.

Home is Where the Eruv Is

Ever since reading in this morning's New York Times about the extension of a Manhattan eruv, I can't stop researching eruvin.  And not because I'm endlessly fascinated by religious bullshit--which I am, and which eruvin most assuredly are--but rather because I find them so darn cool.

An eruv is a symbolic re-definition of a space.  Orthodox Jews use them to create "private spaces" that allow for certain activities that are generally banned on the Sabbath (or Shabbat).  Typically, these fantasy-lands are created in neighborhoods or across large swaths of a town or city to allow Jews to carry stuff.  That's because "carrying stuff"--diaper bags, small children, semi-automatic weapons--is not allowed on Shabbat except in "private spaces" (usually defined as a home.)

So they make a new private space, declaring natural building facades as one border, railroad tracks as another, and when necessary, extending wires from telephone poles to stop signs or actually erecting new poles and the like.  If any part of the border is violated--a wire snaps or someone spray paints a wall that's part of the border--the eruv is no longer "kosher," and you're in some deep shit with the Big Guy if you go carrying stuff then.  That's why local synagogues send out a few "eruv checkers" (I'm not making this up) every Thursday to check the eruv before Shabbat.  Then everyone checks their local synagogue's web site or eruv hotline to make sure the "eruv is up." 

There is a fascinating history to this particular type of religious bullshit, going all the way back to the origins of Jews as desert nomads.  Even when they finally got settled, somewhere between AD70 and AD135 Rome razed the Temple in Jerusalem and told the Jews to get the fuck out.  So this whole idea of "creating your own space," "taking your temple with you" kinda thing goes back to all of that.

Even though it's bullshit, I like it.  It reminds me of magical places like the wardrobe in the Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, or

Diagon Alley in in Harry Potter.

It's also not unlike a philosophy my uncles and dad taught me about drinking.  We have this rule about not drinking before noon.  But when the mood strikes, someone will say, "It's noon somewhere!" and bottlecaps start popping.

Why be tied down by confining tenets of your religion (or social mores on alcohol) when you can so easily "extend your private space" and remain faithful?

So let's all raise a glass--whatever the time--to eruvin everywhere! 

Fighting for Their Faith

Just as I was about to write of crumbling minarets in Iraq, Gaza erupted anew.

Hamas has taken over the Gaza Strip, and it's enough to make this agnostic fearful of Armageddon.

If only I could believe hell awaited Hamas.  Certainly, they believe in heaven and hell, and are willing to do anything to hasten us all on the way.  As reported by Time:

For months, Abbas, urged on by U.S. advisers, had been strengthening his security forces in Gaza. But Hamas was not idle during that interlude. The well-disciplined Islamists were busy plotting for this final assault, stockpiling ammunition, mortars and tons of explosives. They drew up lists and established the whereabouts of senior Fatah officers to be executed, positioned snipers on tall buildings around rival outposts and even tunneled under Fatah security headquarters in Khan Younis, where on Tuesday Hamas blew up a one-ton charge of explosives, killing 13 people. "We are fighting for our faith," one Hamas spokesman explained to a radio interviewer, "and Fatah are fighting for their salaries. That is why we will win."

So what beliefs, specifically, drive them?  Here are a few to consider, from the Hamas Charter:

The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).

Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur'an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief.

I swear by that who holds in His Hands the Soul of Muhammad! I indeed wish to go to war for the sake of Allah! I will assault and kill, assault and kill, assault and kill (told by Bukhari and Muslim).

Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.

And my favorite (and we'll just conclude the post on this one):

Hamas is a humane movement, which cares for human rights and is committed to the tolerance inherent in Islam as regards attitudes towards other religions.

Getting Really Excited About Giselle

Giselle got a lot of people really excited in the last 24 hours.

Arriving in Brazil--the world's largest Roman Catholic country--for Rio de Janeiro's Fashion Week, she modeled a few controversial viewpoints.  Namely:

• Contraceptives (what with STDs killing millions and all) are good.  People should use them more
• People are having pre-marital sex
• Abortion is sometimes the better option

It's been a bit of a blog swarm, to be sure.  My favorite so far is from conservative misogynist  Dinesh  D'Souza (a man who first achieved notoriety when he ruined a college girl's life because she had sex with her boyfriend.)

Dinesh's incisive and original perspective was summarized in the first sentence of his blog on AOL News: Models, like small children at adult dinner parties, should be seen but not heard.

It's a derivative of the "shut up sing," "shut up and act," etc. arguments used against all manner of artists and entertainers who use their celebrity as an amplifier for their opinions.   And those arguments always seem to come from staunch conservative defenders of the Constitution, who for some reason don't believe the right to free speech applies to this particular group.

The more astounding thing is, Dinesh is not even trying to mask his misogyny.  Women shouldn't speak up.  Pretty women in particular shouldn't speak up.  Especially when their views are so vapid.  (I mean, people really should fuck without condoms and spawn an even bigger population boom to consume the earth's unlimited natural resources.)

All of that said, I want to be a Uniter, not a Divider.  And so I've come up with a proposal that could bring Giselle's views, and the official doctrine of the Catholic Church, closer together.

I understand that change is slow and evolutionary.  In that vein, I'm not proposing the Church change its views on premarital sex, abortion, or even contraceptives.  That said, I think positive incremental change could be made on Catechism 2352 (Part three, section two, chapter two, article VI, II).  It currently reads:

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."¹³⁷ "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."¹³⁸

My proposal is as follows:

2352 Masturbation is to be understood as the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure.  Do it--a lot.  Look at Giselle Bundchen when you do it, and do it instead of pre-marital fornication.  Imagine that you are God impregnating the Virgin Mary (who, mother of Christ though she be, is not nearly as hot as Giselle)  You will be pleased, God will be pleased, and Giselle will be really flattered.

You see what can be solved with a little compromise?  Let's not get so excited about Giselle's comments (as Dinesh says, who cares what she says?) when we can get really excited about Giselle.  Future generations--which we have hereby reduced in number--will thank us.

A Voice of Reason Passes

I'd never heard of John Macquarrie until I read his obit in this morning's New York Times.  I've since spent a few hours reading about his life and work, and I'd like to explore his theology further.  It's hard for an agnostic to not appreciate such ideas as:

• - Jesus was human
• - Religions other than Christianity can and do reveal ultimate truth
• - The Bible--and any other "divine texts"--are not meant to be taken literally, but are symbolic.

Needless to say, theology like Macquarrie's--that is, theology based on reason, tolerance and modern interpretations of Biblical mythology--are the definition of heresy to evangelicals.  I found a few sadly amusing "scholarly articles" attempting to refute such "Liberal Hermeneutics."  The author of that one hides behind a lot of strained prose and big words to rest ultimately on an argument about how if you don't believe literally in the story of Jonah, "then there is no end to what can be denied in the biblical record. The seriousness of this cannot be denied."

It's unfortunate that the passing of an evangelical bigot like Jerry Falwell makes front-page news everywhere, while Macquarrie's obit is but a blip on our multi-media screens.  Like Macquarrie himself, I'm not one for believing in human divinity or raising the dead--but the world would be a better place if some of Macquarrie's ideas were resurrected.