Sometimes They're Amusing

Our Lady of the Greasy Cookie Sheet

Sometimes the godbotherers are amusing:

They kneeled. They cried. They asked for healing.

Before them, on an altar of roses and prayer candles, was a metal baking sheet, stained with what hundreds of Houston Catholics now believe is an image of the Virgin Mary.

Guadalupe Rodriguez, a Pugh Elementary School cafeteria worker, discovered the possible miracle on Ash Wednesday, while scrubbing away the last crumbs from the pizza lunch.

By Friday, a steady stream of people were filing through the southeast Houston front yard of Sylvia Calderon, a PTA member who took in the sheet pan after school leaders decided they couldn't accommodate the curious crowds....

Sometimes they're not so amusing:

A Pakistani minister and women's activist has been shot dead by an Islamic extremist for refusing to wear the full veil.

Zilla Huma Usman, the Minister for Social Welfare in Punjab province and an ally of President Pervez Musharraf, was shot in the head as she was about to deliver a political speech.

Ms Usman's killer was described as a fanatic, who believed she was dressed inappropriately and women should not be involved in politics, the Times reported yesterday....

The gunman, Mohammad Sarwar, was overpowered by the minister's driver and arrested.

A stonemason in his mid-40s, he is not thought to belong to any radical group but is known for his fanaticism, the Times reported.

Sarwar was previously held in 2002 in connection with the killing and mutilation of four prostitutes, but was never convicted due to lack of evidence.

He appeared relaxed and calm when he told a television channel he had carried out God's order to kill women who sinned.

"I have no regrets. I just obeyed Allah's commandment," Sarwar said, adding that Islam did not allow women to hold positions of leadership.

"I will kill all those women who do not follow the right path, if I am freed again."

Heliocentrism: Yet Another Jewish Conspiracy?

Just when you feel like you're starting to get a handle on the range of, er, worldview diversity in America today, along comes something that completely blows your mind all over again.

The following is an excerpt of a memo written by Republican State Representative Ben Bridges of Georgia to fellow GOP legislator Warren Chisum of Texas--who subsequently copied the memo and distributed it to every member of the Texas House House of Representatives with an approving cover letter:

Indisputable evidence--long hidden but now available to everyone--demonstrates conclusively that so-called "secular evolution science" is the Big-Bang 15-billion-year alternate "creation scenario" of the Pharisee religion. This scenario is derived concept-for-concept from Rabbinic writings in the mystic "holy book" Kabbala dating back at least two millennia. Evidence in the URLs below shows conclusively that "evolution science" has a very specific religious agenda and (as with "creation science") cannot legally be taught in taxpayer supported schools, according to the Constitution.

[Overheated emphasis in original.]

State Rep. Bridges

There follow several links to a web site, www.fixedearth.com, which lays out (in headache inducing typefaces, font effects, and colors) the case that "Copernicanism and Darwinism" are modern manifestations of a 2000 year-old plot to slander and suppress the infallible truth of the bible. Yikes! Be sure not to miss the cutting edge discussion of "Kabbalist Superstring Physics".

It seems to me it's time for us all to admit and accept that the religious right has crossed the point of no return in these past few years--has gone speeding past it at about a million miles an hour, actually--and that there's simply nothing that can be done to bring some of these people back to reality. The whole wave of superstitious absurdity is going to continue feeding its own extremism and pushing itself to ever greater heights (or depths) until it burns itself out of its own accord. The main problem for thinking and caring people is how to minimize the hurt done to innocents in the meantime.

(Via Burnt Orange Report)

Christian Bigotry: It's Your Fault

*weeping* *wailing*

*gnashing of teeth*

Why does Richard Dawkins have to be so mean?

...

Giles Fraser argues that atheists bolster the fundamentalist worldview by taking the claims of the various religions at face value.

Media atheists are fast becoming the new best friends of fundamentalist Christians. For every time they write about religion they are doing very effective PR for a fundamentalist worldview. Many of the propositions that fundamentalists are keen to sell the public are oft-repeated corner-stones of the media atheist's philosophy of religion.

Both partners in this unholy alliance agree that fundamentalist religion is the real thing and that more reflective and socially progressive versions of faith are pale imitations, counterfeits even. This endorsement is of enormous help to fundamentalists. What they are really threatened by is not aggressive atheism - indeed that helps secure a sense of persecution that is essential to group solidarity - but the sort of robustly self-critical faith that knows the Bible and the church's traditions, and can challenge bad religion on its own terms. Fundamentalists hate what they see as the enemy within. And by refusing to acknowledge any variegation in Christian thought, media atheists play right into their hands.

Well, it's true that many fundamentalists and many atheists show contempt for sentiment wrapped in nonsense. And quite often, let's be honest, that's all liberal religion is. Some of us rather like the sentiment, even--it's the nonsense we could do without.

The problem seems to be that some of us take religion too seriously and feel too strongly that other people should take it seriously too. By "take seriously" I mean that a religion's claims should be subject to scrutiny and then accepted or rejected according to standards of reason, just like any other ingredient of our public discourse. Fundamentalists, as much as I disagree with them and marvel at the strange notions they insist upon, do at least take their beliefs seriously.

Liberal religionists, on the other hand, like to keep things as nebulous and ill-defined as possible. Karen Armstrong, for one example, has written several books dedicated specifically to the idea that we shouldn't use our logical brains at all when considering religion, but rather sit back, accept all the contradictions in scripture and doctrine as mystical paradox, and--if I read her correctly--simply float across the universe on a wave of godlove.

So Fraser actually has a point. It is helpful to remember what religion means to the people we're debating. Fundamentalists see atheists as spreaders of Satan's lies--dangerously evil people who must be either converted or cast out of society, lest we lead holy souls to their doom. To religious liberals, though, we represent something different: buzzkill. Godstuff makes them feel good, and atheists are the churlish know-it-alls who want to take their candy away.

That's what drives the whole "atheists are rude" meme, of which Fraser's column is a variation. It's not about belief, really, because belief is not the point for most people of the non-fundamentalist variety. It's about feeling. When atheists are openly contemptuous of religion, it hurts some people's feelings. If you read Fraser, you'll see that it's specifically "media atheists" he has a problem with. It's a typical stance; society is for the most part perfectly happy to be generously tolerant of atheism--as long as no atheist opens his or her mouth.

...

It's interesting to read all the feedback Fraser's column has received on the site. His audience is mostly made up of people who are 1) British and 2) Guardian readers--so there are plenty of godless responses!

I think if I were to leave one, I would challenge the notion that "robust self-criticism" is characteristic of liberal religious movements, at least of modern ones. They certainly show a willingness to evolve and change--and good for them for that--but they do so in response to general societal trends, don't they, rather than under the motivation of their own distinct intellectual traditions? I sort of see "Go with the flow" as the liberal religious motto. Or maybe "I'm okay, you're okay." (And I don't necessarily mean either of those as a criticism. :-) )

War Profiteers

Beliefnet has the story:

For Conservative Christan groups, this year's hot gift is a weapon for fighting back in the "War on Christmas," be it a button, a bumper sticker or a memo with advice to the troops.

The Mississippi-based American Family Association says it has sold more than 500,000 buttons and 125,000 bumper stickers bearing the slogan "Merry Christmas: It's Worth Saying."

The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal aid group that boasts a network of some 900 lawyers standing ready to "defend Christmas," says it has moved about 20,000 "Christmas packs." The packs, available for a suggested $29 donation, include a three-page legal memo and two lapel pins.

And Liberty Counsel, a conservative law firm affiliated with the Rev. Jerry Falwell, says it has sold 12,500 legal memos on celebrating Christmas and 8,000 of its own buttons and bumper stickers.

"Legal memos on celebrating christmas"? Oh, brother.... We all know what that translates to: "How to make a complete pest of yourself with no consideration for anyone around you, while still staying within the bounds of the law."

The War on "Season's Greetings"

The War on Christmas isn't quite as much fun this year. The joke's a bit stale; and the cast is bored, having settled into their roles quite a while ago now. Still, a few diehards are as enthusiastically bitter as ever.

There was an interesting item circulating in the bible thumper media just a few days ago, crowing about the fact that Americans still overwhelmingly love Christmas, by golly--and still hate the grinch. Big box stores are supposed to take note: pretending to be pious is good for business.

Last year's decision by many retailers - including retail giant Wal-Mart - to curtail the use of "Merry Christmas" for fear of offending those who don't celebrate the holiday caused a backlash from conservative Christian groups as well as consumers. Wal-Mart's change of heart this season could help bring more people into their stores - 35% of respondents said hearing "Merry Christmas" makes them more likely to shop there this season. For weekly Wal-Mart shoppers, that figure jumps to 54%. This year's poll showed opinions on holiday greetings have changed little from last year.

Zogby polling shows an overwhelming majority (95%) say they are not offended by being greeted with a "Merry Christmas" while shopping, including 98% for weekly Wal-Mart shoppers. But greet them with a "Happy Holidays," and 46% say they take offense. The Zogby Interactive poll surveyed 12,806 adults between Nov. 21-29 and has a margin of error of +/- 0.9 percentage points.

Okay, it's pretty easy to believe that 95% of people are not offended when someone wishes them "Merry Christmas". That sounds about right. What's a little suspicious, though, is this 35% (or 54% of the Wal-Mart set) who claim that hearing "Merry Christmas" from a cashier makes them more likely to patronize a particular store when they're on the hunt for their flat screen teevees. If the alternative is sullen grunting, no eye contact, and wordless gesticulation toward the credit card swiping machine, well maybe, but Wal-Mart shoppers in particular have shown that they have few concerns in the world other than low, low prices.

It seems to me more likely that the 35% figure is a "sheeple quotient" which measures the susceptibility of people to having ludicrous ideas planted in their heads by Bill O'Reilly. It also makes me wonder when Zogby--which I used to think was a respectable polling outfit--decided to participate wholesale in the production of right-wing talking-point propaganda. The purpose, of course, is simply to remind everyone that there are more tightly strung evangelical christians in this country than there are atheists, Jews, pagans, and other non-christians. (As if we would ever be allowed to forget.)

The really frightening (and even less believable) number is the huge fraction (46%) of people who claim to actually be offended when someone wishes them "Happy Holidays". Good grief, I'd like to see how they worded those survey questions. ("Some people--such as Satan worshipers, communists, and secular humanists--hate Christmas because they hate the baby Jesus. Would you say you feel A) pleased, B) neutral, or C) offended when one of them wishes you 'Happy Holidays'?") Otherwise, 46% can't possibly be right, can it?

Maybe I'm completely wrong, though, and the War on Christmas really does resonate with the fragile inner child of a huge proportion of our citizenry. A bit of another fascinating column, this one lamenting how sinful the greeting card industry has gotten lately, struck me, and makes me wonder:

Writing in the Telegraph, editor-at-large Jeff Randall... announces that any Christmas card he receives that doesn't at least mention the word "Christmas" goes straight into the trash. "Jettisoning Christmas-less cards is my tiny, almost certainly futile, gesture against the dark forces of political correctness," he writes. "It's a swipe at those who would prefer to abolish Christmas altogether, in case it offends 'minorities.'

Wow, tidings of comfort and joy are washing over me. Look, Jeff, if someone sends you a holiday card, it's because they are thinking of you and your family, hoping the past year has been good for you, hoping the next one will be too, and in general--as they say--wishing you the best. And they don't care which gods, goddesses, or other supernatural entities you worship because that doesn't have anything to do with their affection for you.

Am I going to be punched in the mouth for saying "Have a nice afternoon!" when "Praise Jesus!" is expected?

The Enemies of Liberty

Equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples in Massachusetts stand, for now.

The constitution of the Commonwealth, bizarrely enough, can be amended with the approval of only 25% of the combined state legislature--if a petition proposing an amendment garners enough signatures and a bare majority of the population approves in a referendum. Through sustained electoral efforts over the past two cycles, fair-minded advocates of gay rights have won over two thirds of the seats in our State House. It's not the three-quarters supermajority required to vote down a recently introduced amendment intended to overturn our Supreme Judicial Court's Goodridge decision (which held that Equal Protection considerations require the granting of marriage licenses to same-sex couples), but it is enough to sustain a filibuster of the proceedings. The legislature's "constitutional convention" is currently "in recess" until January 2, shortly before the legislative session ends and new officeholders are sworn in.

This circumstance is fairly well-documented elsewhere. My intent with this post is to highlight a great sign that appeared in the crowd at the Beacon Hill rally on the day of the most recent meeting of the constitutional convention.



That nasty-looking guy trying to chloroform Liberty and drag her away is our local Catholic Archbigot, excuse me, Archbishop, Sean O'Malley--the replacement for power-mad child-abuse enabler Bernard Law, who was rewarded for his stonewalling with a sinecure in Rome. (You can see more photos and videos from the rally here at MassResistance Watch, if you're interested.)

I was pleased to see this plain, straightforward calling out of ecclesiastical authoritarianism be part of the demonstration. Gay advocacy groups have understandably not wanted to suggest that we on this side of this debate are enemies of religion--despite the fact the religious superstition is pretty clearly the primary source of opposition to fair treatment for gay people. (Reading the news, you have to wonder if christianity, for instance, stands for anything other than anti-gay hatred anymore.)

Putting the so-called "Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry" front and center in the movement has been a major part of their strategy here. And while I, as you might guess, think society desperately needs to reject theological politics of all sorts, the role of the RCFM has not by any means been all bad. The main point they've raised is one we can all get behind--that churches which try to impose religious definitions of "holy matrimony" onto the state are infringing upon all of us who don't subscribe to their faith.

They've been particularly effective at shutting down the absurd anti-gay whine that allowing an individual to form a civil marriage with someone of the same sex violates the religious freedom of those who choose not to do so. As the religious conservatives would have it--kinda like with the "War on Christmas"--you either agree to live under their rules and regulations without question, or you are the aggressor unfairly attacking them. Spokespeople for the RCFM have met this charge forcefully. If they are typical of the "religious left" that we wonder from time to time about working with, well, then bring on the religious left.

For all I know, a devout believer in deities and such might have made that sign. My atheist self would have loved to have been that clever and artistic. Whoever was carrying it, the message is the right one.

...

A personal note: Apologies to the loyal readers who have been coming by during this long interim--only to find disappointment. I've been crazily busy, volunteering on a political campaign and working on my thesis--the (near?) final draft of which I turned in last week! I've also got a part-time volunteer position now with a local godless organization, which is exciting. Maybe I'll fill you all in on that some more as things progress. In any case, I should be back to my regular irregular schedule now. Thanks for visiting!

Real Time on Religion

Bill Maher's horror at the new documentary Jesus Camp leads to an excellent, honest, but too brief discussion of religion. Well worth watching:

Secular Coalition Scorecard

Secular Coalition lobbyist Lori Lipman Brown

Godless Lori and the Secular Coalition have produced scorecards for the 109th Congress--rating incumbent Representatives and Senators on church/state separation votes and other items of interest to coalition members. The scorecards are available here.

The first thing I note is the rather dismal performance of Congress overall on our issues. Ten votes were used to evaluate House members. Of those, we lost eight. One of our two wins, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, was subsequently vetoed--and an override attempt failed. The other vote that went our way was on the Constitutional Amendment to Ban Same-Sex Marriage. In that case a majority of the House voted for passage, but not the two-thirds required.

For the Senate, ten votes were also scored. We won on the stem cell bill (but were vetoed, as I said) and on the marriage amendment. The other votes were all on judicial nominations, and we lost every single one. The judges thereby confirmed have all openly expressed contempt for longstanding First Amendment jurisprudence with regard to religion. One of them is new Chief Justice Samuel Alito.

So we've got our work cut out for us. Check to see how your reps did. Now is the time to volunteer for a election campaign.

The Truth Slips Out

"One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."
-- George W. Bush, in a CBS interview with Katie Couric, 9/6/2006.

So persistent in his attempts, though.

What Have You Been Reading?

I've been slacking a bit with the blog, haven't I? Thanks very much to the loyal visitors who come by, given the slim pickings lately. Notorious Apostate recently gave me a prodding, so now I really have to get a post up.


1. One book that changed your life.

I can imagine people who know (but do not share) my basic political orientation rolling their eyes at this, but I'm going to answer with Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States. I read it during my senior year in high school, and it kind of catalyzed a fascination with history that has lasted for decades now. The book made me think for the first time of history as a record of conflict and struggle that needs to be considered from multiple viewpoints. The idea is pretty obvious, and I believe it informs the way history is taught in public schools these days--but it sure didn't back when I was attending.


2. One book you have read more than once.

I have shelves and shelves of books in my tiny little apartment--way too many--but I never really read them more than once. I'm just a pack rat, and I like knowing I could read them again, whenever I want to. At times I've tried to break the hoarding habit by giving away books that I particularly liked to particular friends who I think would also like them. But then I'm left only with books I know I'll never read again. I remember giving away a book of short stories by Raymond Carver, Where I'm Calling From, but I can't remember to whom. That one I did actually read more than once before I gave it away, and I'd like to have it back. Two stories I particularly remember and would like to reread: "Why Don't You Dance" and "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love."


3. One book you’d want on a desert island.

I'll take my compact Oxford English Dictionary. It's the full 21 volume OED microprinted and put in one volume--comes with a magnifying glass. Not a particularly convenient technology in these days of Google, true, but good for a desert island. It also has sentimental value as a gift from my parents for university graduation. And it's amazingly interesting to read the histories of word usages, in some cases going back hundreds of years and more. Should keep me busy until I'm rescued.


4. One book that made you giddy?

Quentin Crisp's memoir, The Naked Civil Servant. Back before homosexuality became as generally understood and tolerated as it is today, it took a rather, um, strong personality, to make one's gay way in the world. When dignity isn't a realistic possibility, you can still manage a sort of integrity through indignity--if you have a good sense of humor and a pathological lack of self-consciousness. Absolutely hilarious, and a great document of twentienth-century cultural history .


5. One book that you wish had been written.

Hmmm, I don't know. It'd be nice if there were genuinely useful self-help books. There are aspects of life I wish I had figured out quite a bit sooner. But it seems some things can't really be understood until you live through them. Doesn't that suck? Are there writers who are brilliant enough to overcome that problem and impart genuine wisdom to people young and malleable and still able to make good use of it?


6. One book that wracked you with sobs?

Well, I can't think of one. I'm a terrible weeper at movies, but not so much at books--more complex and subtle emotional stimulations from the printed word, I think. One book I finished recently that did put me through quite a wringer of all kinds of responses, though, is Thomas Carlyle's History of the French Revolution. Amazing, amazing book--a history of the French revolution in somewhat the same way that the Iliad is a history of the Trojan war. In other words, it's not about the facts of the matter so much as the raw human condition, with the particular events as the setting.


7. One book you wish had never been written.

The Institutes of Biblical Law by R. J. Rushdoony. I can only pick one?


8. One book you’re currently reading.

Oh, here's another reread, actually. This one might seem odd: French and Taylor's Introduction to Quantum Physics--an old textbook of mine. I knew this stuff back at one time long ago, and I had a recent urge to know it again. Whoa.... Fourier transforms....


9. One book you’ve been meaning to read.

I've got a paperback here by Patricia Highsmith, Deep Water. She's most well-known as the author of The Talented Mr. Ripley, and that's how I found out about her. She's a genre writer, pulp fiction, but way, way underrated as an author because of that. Here's a blurb I just pulled from Amazon.com. "An atmosphere of nameless dread, of unspeakable foreboding, permeates every page of Patricia Highsmith, and there's nothing quite like it." So true. I'm looking forward to this one.


10. Now tag five bloggers.

I'm going to cheat a bit and direct you to two entries that have already been done, by vjack and BeepBeep, and then pass onus to Stardust, Delta, and Drunken Tune.