It Ain't Necessarily So....

Sometimes They're Amusing

noreply@blogger.com (Sportin' Life) — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:36:59 PST

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Sportin' Life) — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:34:23 PST

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

noreply@blogger.com (Sportin' Life) — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:44:35 PST

*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

noreply@blogger.com (Sportin' Life) — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:20:28 PST

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"

noreply@blogger.com (Sportin' Life) — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:13:05 PST

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

noreply@blogger.com (Sportin' Life) — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:29:03 PST

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

noreply@blogger.com (Sportin' Life) — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:09:19 PDT

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

noreply@blogger.com (Sportin' Life) — Sun, 10 Sep 2006 11:22:46 PDT

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

noreply@blogger.com (Sportin' Life) — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 12:43:26 PDT

"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?

noreply@blogger.com (Sportin' Life) — Mon, 04 Sep 2006 22:39:29 PDT

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.

FSM Appears to the Faithful!

noreply@blogger.com (Sportin' Life) — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:58:37 PDT

In the sky off the coast of South Carolina....

Repent, ye worshipers of false gods, lest ye be smitten by His noodly appendage!

(Via PZ Meyers)

Ann Coulter's Bible Selections

noreply@blogger.com (Sportin' Life) — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 20:02:20 PDT

For real.

I guess it's not a surprise that she chose nothing from the beautitudes or from the parable of the good Samaritan. Here's a famous one that more or less sums up her favorites:

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34)

In short, Ann's a big fan of Revelation and the genocidal Jesus found therein. Her hatred and paranoia are on full display.

If you click through, note the "related article" link to the right:

One Mean Christian: Even though I agree with her sometimes, people like Ann Coulter are bad for America.

Hahaha! Talk about understatement! Who would have imagined that someone could have such a successful career leading the ruling party's brain dead, bible thumping followers in the daily two-minute hate? Here in the United States of America? It's a sad sign of the times.

(Via Pam Spaulding)

Recent Godless Media

noreply@blogger.com (Sportin' Life) — Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:52:44 PDT

I want to highlight a couple of items of interest to nonbelievers:

***

First, an interview with Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, in Salon. Non-subscribers are subjected to a forced ad-view by the site, but it's not too painful.

The interview highlights and covers the major thesis of his book, which, in the crude formulation of the interviewer is said to be, "Religious moderates are worse than fundamentalists." (I don't think I'd put it that way, but I suppose wild overstatement is the only way of discussing important issues these days, isn't it?)

The questions put to Harris are pretty good overall at getting to the heart of what he's trying to say. Some of them definitely seem to come from the point of view of someone who finds it difficult, or at least odd, to think of religion as a bad thing. Hopefully, he'll be reaching a few new people with his answers.

Toward the end of the interview, the discussion turns to "spirituality," "mysticism," "transcendent reality," and the "sacred dimension of life"--things of which Harris apparently partakes in controlled doses. The interviewer wonders how much this seperates him from other atheists, and suggests that some "can't stomach it."

I'll confess that for me, such stuff does raise an eyebrow, though I'm perfectly capable of "stomaching it." I did snicker out loud when I read the book and came across Harris's claim that there may be scientific evidence of reincarnation. (p. 232) But that's an irrelevant quibble, considering the importance of his basic arguments and the clarity with which he lays them out.

Click through the link to see what Harris has to say for himself on the topic of his search for mystical experience.

***

Second, the two part series Root of All Evil? made for British television and featuring Richard Dawkins. Someone has put both full-length episodes on Google Video. Part 1: The God Delusion. Part 2: The Virus of Faith. Sometimes these things disappear when the copyright holder speaks up, so take advantage of them while you can, when you have the time.

They're good. Dawkins doesn't really engage with religious argumentation much. He mostly just lets believers speak for themselves--and stands back somewhat horrified as they do. In that sense he's preaching to the choir, but I think this approach may reach a lot of people who have already rejected religion but who don't yet think there's anything harmful or dangerous about it. (That's probably a sizable fraction of the British population.)

His mission is greatly helped by his choice of interviewees. You think you know crazy? You don't know crazy until you've met Yousef al-Khattab, the radical Islamicist formerly known as Joseph Cohen--a Brooklyn Jew who emigrated to Israel specifically to exercise the chosen people's claim to the Gaza strip, but then converted. Yikes.

Islam: Religion of Peace

noreply@blogger.com (Sportin' Life) — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 18:38:17 PDT

From the UK Times:

A speech by an extremist Muslim cleric praising the London bombers and mocking victims of suicide attacks has been broadcast on the internet to coincide with the anniversary of the July 7 attacks.

The audience laughs as Omar Brooks, a British Muslim convert who also uses the name Abu Izzadeen, makes fun of non-Muslims as “animals” and “cowards”.

Brooks — who has previously described the London bombers as “completely praiseworthy” — identifies with the views of Mohammad Sidique Khan, the ringleader of the London attacks.

He contrasts the supposed bravery of Khan’s suicide to the “kuffar” (non-Muslims) who are characterised as debauched binge-drinkers who vomit and urinate in the street.

The speech is peppered with jokes that bring laughter from his audience at the Small Heath youth and community centre in Birmingham, where it was filmed last Sunday.

At one point he announces dramatically that the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center “changed many people’s lives”. After a pause, he brings the house down by adding: “Especially those inside.”

Lovely. So much for the theory that godbelief correlates with moral sense. It's frightening and sad to hear that filth such as this draws any audience at all, much less an appreciative one.

The video of last Sunday’s speech was posted on the Al-Ghurabaa website ahead of Friday’s memorial service for the 52 people who were killed by the four suicide bombers.

Brooks is dismissive of calls for reconciliation. “I know as Friday approaches there will be many epitaphs and speeches and sermons, and maybe the archbishop of somewhere or other is going to come out and say, you know, we’ll call for peace around the world blah, blah, blah.

“But if we took the time to read Mohammad Sidique Khan’s will [the video confession broadcast after the attacks], we will see the answer for our problems.”

Khan, whose bomb killed six people on a Tube at Edgware Road, is held up as an example by Brooks because he didn’t fear death. “We’re talking about people who want to die the way you like to live,” he said.

It's pretty clear that the world is in real trouble. I don't know what else to say.

Happy Independence Day!

noreply@blogger.com (Sportin' Life) — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 20:31:29 PDT

Construction is finishing on World Overcomers' "Statue of Liberation"

Judging from The Ridger's report on what the christians of Memphis are up to, American liberty is rather seriously misunderstood by the bible-beating set.

A church in Memphis Tennessee - with the attractive name of World Overcomers Outreach Ministries Church - has turned the Lady into a Jesus freak.

Into a travesty.

She holds, not a torch to light the darkness, but a cross. Her crown is emblazoned with the name Jehovah. She carries the Ten Commandments, and beneath her there they are again.

And she's crying.

Well she might be, poor Liberty, dragooned into the service of a religiosity that no longer knows what it means, that confuses patriotism with religion, and seeks to show that America belongs to Jesus. This evil twin of Liberty doesn't want to welcome, but to dominate. And although Jesus echoed some of her concerns, it's clear that many of his followers don't.

Sigh. I can't even summon up the energy for anger this time. Just sadness.

Please do click through and read The Ridger's entire post. It's a good one.

Unable to Capture Bin Laden

noreply@blogger.com (Sportin' Life) — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:53:00 PDT

It seems the Bush administration has been reduced to issuing mean press releases:

The White House has shot back at Osama bin Laden's warning of retaliation against Shiites in Iraq by condemning the Al Qaeda leader as a man of dark vision who offers only chaos, war and misery....

"If authentic, the tape demonstrates yet again that bin Laden and Al Qaeda continue to use the media to justify their dark vision and war against humanity," the White House official said.

"These terrorists offer nothing in their ideology and messages beyond further fighting, conflict and misery."

Wow, that's a hell of a bold stroke in the War on Terra, isn't it? "Dark vision." Yikes.

It's not exactly "dead or alive", but I'm sure Osama, wherever he is, is quaking and shaking at the harsh language. Here's an idea: why doesn't Bush put on the flightsuit again and strut around while reading statements like this?

If You're Feeling Cruel...

noreply@blogger.com (Sportin' Life) — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:34:44 PDT

Next time you attend a funeral, approach a surviving family member with absolute sincerity and heartfelt sympathy, clasp their hand, look deep into their eyes for a moment, and say, "(so-and-so) is with Cap'n Crunch now in a better place." Then wander away.*

*Thought-experiment only. (Please don't actually try this and then say I told you to do it.)

***

I came across (about three weeks after the fact) a really excellent blog post addressing the question of political consciousness among the godless, which turned into, in part, a discussion of what should be atheism's and atheists' role in liberal politics. Topics near and dear, and ones which most of us have discussed ad nauseum in various forums. This thread is a cut above average, though, and worth reading for the quality writing from the author and most of her commenters.

Jake Squid gets credit for the Cap'n Crunch quip--just an ornamental detail in one of his many insightful comments.

Here's another great point, from R. Mildred, suggesting what the religious left might better focus on, instead of making enemies of their political allies who don't believe in gods:

If the dems attacked the repugs’ many other aberrant social and economic policies with scripture and verse, a handy side benefit of being a nation filled with believers in a socialist savior, they’d be hitting a very true nerve. The repugs’ religious arguements have even bigger logical and scriptual holes in them than their scientific arguements do.

I can't say I agree with this commenter's broader views, but I like that "socialist savior" line. And this is an example of why I found the thread worth going back to--even some of the people who want atheists to stay quiet and hide for "strategic" reasons make excellent contributions to the discussion.

Chris Clarke (who doesn't identify as an atheist) represented this atheist's view forthrightly and well. Coming across a discussion like this way too late to add anything to it is sort of disappointing, but I couldn't have done better, or even as well, as this guy:

Maybe if there were ANY systemic organized opposition to the right coming from the religious community, other than the (admirable) usual suspects, then PZ’s opinion wouldn’t matter as much.

I don’t think of myself as an atheist. But threads like this tempt me to. PZ expresses his opinion, and the response from the religious is to (regretfully, sympathetically) suggest that he Shut The F*ck Up.

Need one point out that this is the traditional Church response? I mean, don’t get me wrong. Kudos to y’all for using whining condescension instead of thumbscrews. But have you ever considered, I dunno… providing an example of an activist progressive religious community? I don’t mean citing one. I mean making one.

I wish religious people in the US spent half the time publicly condemning the religious right that they do trying to shush those of us who criticize the religious right from non-religious perspectives. But it’s easier to slam PZ for speaking his mind. That way you’ve got someone to blame for your failure to act.

That was just the first of many spot-on entries from Chris.

And Nancy ably handled the role of godless provocateur, having as much patience for theistic nonsense as it deserves--and not an iota more. Quizznoxx, the invisible space alien and Supreme Authority on Nutrition, was a nice touch.

All in all, I have to say thank you to Amanda and her commenters for a good read. And of course, thanks to PZ for his ongoing high-profile defense of disbelief in the first place.

New Rules for Holy C*cksuckers

noreply@blogger.com (Sportin' Life) — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 19:52:34 PDT

What would you say to someone who sucked on the penises of several very young boys and transmitted to them a strain of herpes virus that caused, in one case, permanent brain damage and, in another, death?

(Well, if you're a Catholic bishop and the offender is a priest you would say, "No one can ever find out about this. It would bring scandal on the church. I'm transfering you to a new parish." Har-de-har. But that's not what this story is about.)

If you're the state government of New York, you would say, "Please use Listerine."

The state Health Department has issued guidelines for the safe practice of oral-suction circumcision following cases involving the alleged transmission of herpes to newborn children by a Monsey-based mohel.

The state and an organization of several Orthodox Jewish rabbis from New York signed the agreement June 12.

What's this about an "agreement"? Apparently, laws are optional unless the religious authorities "agree". How nice.

The guidelines — rules that are binding upon the rabbis and that govern hygiene and other practices relating to the ritual — followed months of meetings and consultations between the state and the rabbinical group, Dr. Antonia Novello, the state's commissioner of health, said by telephone yesterday.

"To my amazement, I never thought I would be in a situation where the division with state and religion would come to the forefront as it did," she said, adding that the document was drafted to balance public health concerns with religious sensitivity. "The state can do what is right and still respect something that was being done before we were born."

Gee whiz! Before we were born, huh? Obviously, anything that old must be thoroughly respectable--and require a special exemption from regulations governing medical hygiene and public safety.

The centuries-old practice, called metzizah bi peh or metzitzah b'peh, involves a mohel using his mouth to suction blood from the wound after the foreskin is removed. The ritual is performed by Hasidic and ultra-Orthodox Jews.

Most other Jewish mohels wear surgical gloves and use sterilized instruments to perform the circumcision rite. Many other mohels who perform the oral part of the ritual use a medical tube to suction the blood, several rabbis have said.

Okay, everyone, try this at home. Do something totally outrageous, then stamp your foot and wail, "But it's my religion!" Let me know how that works out for you.

Anglican Sexual Anxieties

noreply@blogger.com (Sportin' Life) — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:27:20 PDT

Andrew Brown on the Guardian website ponders the conservative reaction to the newly chosen pro-gay woman leader for the US Episcopal Church:

Colin Haycraft, the atheist publisher husband of the very devout and very rightwing Catholic novelist Alice Thomas Ellis, used to dismiss questions about his wife's religious fervour, which led her to say some very lunatic things, by saying: "Religion is for women and queers."

Haycraft obviously meant that to be an insult to religion. (I see it as more of an insult to women and queers.) But Brown takes the idea seriously enough to explore and makes a persuasive case that the insistence of certain Anglicans on patriarchal supremacy is motivated by very personal psychological forces.

It is very difficult, doctrinally, to say what turns a liberal into an evangelical: you can dress it up in all sorts of talk about the authority of the Bible, but, in the end, what puts the hatred into the relationship between the two sides is precisely the belief of the liberals that Haycraft's thesis ought to be true, and the fear of the conservatives that it may indeed be true, and that if they do not fight, everyone will realise this.

...

The Bible is not a notably feminist or gay-friendly document. But it is not, of course, the Bible that turns people into Christians, but some kind of personal relationship with the stories inside it and the people they reveal - or, as a vicar friend told me once: "That man Jesus got me by the balls."

There is something about the appeal to the outcast and the underdog that renders Christianity attractive to both groups. But at the same time it has always been attractive to men who want to be neither outcasts nor underdogs, and who see in the church a way to escape both fates. This type of Christian does not, on any account, want to be confused with the other type.

It's a short and amusing commentary, but I think Brown is basically correct.

***

Update (6/21/06): Oops, it seems religion is not for queers, after all. Episcopalians must be Democrats. You can tell by the way they adopt a principle--and then drop it and run away as soon as some bigot squawks.

VA Says No to Pagans

noreply@blogger.com (Sportin' Life) — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:35:37 PDT

I find it sad that dead United States soldiers need to be officially classified by which flavor of superstition they subscribed to when they were alive. Or, in a few cases, by their particular style of non-superstition: the atomic A popularized by American Atheists and the exuberant anthropomorhpic H of humanism are among the logos available on government-issued grave markers, according to ReligiousTolerance.org. Markers are also available without any engraved symbol.

Overall, there's quite a wide menu of choices available. The government is clearly making an honest attempt at freedom of religion. But alas, Wiccans are unhappy that their pentacle is not one of the "approved emblems of belief permitted on Government-furnished headstones."

Marine Lance Cpl. Eric Ballard says the Department of Veterans Affairs is denying him a right by not permitting him to have the pentacle -- his Wiccan faith's symbol -- engraved on his government-issued tombstone when he dies.

"I serve my country and I live my religion and both are very dear to me," said Ballard, the lay leader for Wiccans at Marine Corps Base in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. "I feel like I should be represented ... as an active duty military person and as a Wiccan."

Roberta Stewart is upset with the VA for not allowing a pentacle -- a circle with an inscribed five-pointed star -- to be used on a plaque for her husband, Nevada National Guard Sgt. Patrick Stewart, who was killed in Afghanistan last year.

She was told the symbol was not among the 38 emblems of faith recognized for use on VA headstones and memorials.

"Our pentacle represents our spirit and our soul," she said. "It's my eternal connection to my husband."

Wiccans have been fighting nine years for VA recognition of their nature-worshipping faith.

Here in Jesusland, you might reasonably suspect that the most popular Wiccan symbol is particularly problematic for our current crop of government officials.

The problem, Wiccans say, is misinformation accusing Wiccans of practicing witchcraft and worshipping Satan. Part of the problem: Satan-worshipers use an upside-down pentacle as one of their symbols.

...

"We're not those things that some of the evangelicals think we are," [Pierre Davis, archpriest of the Aquarian Tabernacle Church, a Wiccan church in Index, Wash.] said. "We don't boil babies down to make salve and we don't curse the cattle and all that nonsense. Gosh, it's the 21st Century. Grow up."

Hear, hear. It is the 21st century, and we should all grow up. I'm not sure I would agree that neo-pagan silliness is entirely compatible with a "grown up" outlook--no more so than is any other elaborate system of make-believe. But the legal issues here are straightforwardly clear, and Wiccans are being slighted out of sheer arbitrariness.

Personally, I find it appalling that the government maintains any kind of list of "approved religions" at all--even one that appears (usually, with the current case being a glaring exception) to strive for inclusiveness. I hate to be put in the position of First Amendment "extremism" (again) when there are so many bigger fish to fry in this world at the moment. But really, the VA has no business deciding that a christian cross is any more valid than a four-leaf clover or any other symbol someone wants to use on a monument.

Christian Throws Self to Lions

noreply@blogger.com (Sportin' Life) — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 08:43:24 PDT

From Reuters:

A man shouting that God would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lioness in Kiev zoo after he crept into the animal's enclosure, a zoo official said on Monday.

"The man shouted 'God will save me, if he exists', lowered himself by a rope into the enclosure, took his shoes off and went up to the lions," the official said.

"A lioness went straight for him, knocked him down and severed his carotid artery."

Well. I guess we have our answer, then.

When Christians Attack

noreply@blogger.com (Sportin' Life) — Mon, 29 May 2006 19:44:57 PDT

Just in case you need another reason not to get involved with sanctimonious bible-beating busybodies...

From the Dallas Morning News:

Leaders of the northeast Dallas [Watermark Community] Church said they recently became aware that "John Doe," who joined the church more than a year ago, was "having some struggles in his walk with Christ," Mr. Wagner said. [Other news sources make it clear that he was in fact having an affair with "Jane Roe".]

Church elders began the process of "care and correction" described in Matthew: Confront the person one to one, then with several others, then "tell it to the church." At every step, the person is asked to stop the offending behavior.

In this case, the man refused the private interventions and said he was quitting the church, church officials said. But Watermark's bylaws say a member "may not resign from membership in an attempt to avoid such care and correction."

Watermark's next step would have been to send more than a dozen letters to people who know "John Doe" – half to Watermark members and half to members of other churches who know and have worked with him.

And you thought they were pushy when trying to get you join! This is what happens when you try to leave.

"John" contacted a lawyer.

"The basis of the lawsuit was the church wanted to go outside of the church and the community at large, including potentially even their employers," said Jeff Tillotson, attorney for the man and woman.

They obtained a temporary restraining order April 28, preventing the church from releasing information about them.

Can you guess what happened next? Yes, a huge shriek arose from the Jeebus worshipping set--"Freedom of religion!!"

"Basically, we're being sued because we're seeking to love 'John Doe' in accordance with the principles outlined by God's word," said the pastor, the Rev. Todd Wagner....

Church officials say they are only following a process of church discipline outlined in the Gospel of Matthew and written into the church's bylaws....

Their attorney says that the pair thought they had revealed their sins to Watermark's pastor confidentially and that their behavior should not be made public....

But the order was dismissed May 5 by Associate Judge Sheryl McFarlin after Watermark's lawyers argued that it violated the church's right to freely exercise its religion.

The case is winding its way through appeals.

I don't necessarily think the legal system is the best way to deal with this sort of obnoxious, invasive moralizing. This type of christian should instead simply be shunned by everyone decent.

It's interesting to remember, though, that in some cases those with "religious" credentials have the legal right to maintain silence about actual crimes that are reported to them by church members during a confessional moment.

KKK Endorses Musgrave (R-Colorado)

noreply@blogger.com (Sportin' Life) — Tue, 23 May 2006 19:54:20 PDT

Oh, the interesting things you find when you take a close look at the Republican base. "America's Largest, Oldest, and Most Professional White Rights Organization" has a special enthusiasm for GOP Congressmember Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado's Fourth District. Apparently they've been admiring Musgrave's upright whiteness for some time:

During her eight years in the Colorado Legislature, Musgrave, the mother of four and grandmother of five co sponsored a successful 2000 bill that defined a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. She has also pressed the legislature to pass laws expanding the right to carry concealed weapons, requiring doctors to provide brochures and a videotape to women seeking abortions, lowering the tax burden for families, more stringent immigration laws, making adoption of children by homosexuals illegal, upholding the rights of ranchers and farmers, and she opposes slave reparations. She now serves as a U.S. Representative.

More recently, they're quite pleased with her lead sponsorship of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, along with some of her other policy positions:

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., recently introduced a bill that would give home school students equal treatment under the law. Right now, many laws exist that either exclude home-schoolers altogether or don't put them on a par with their public school peers....

"I think there needs to be more acknowledgement and respect for the (home-schooling) movement," Musgrave said.... "This amends the child labor laws to allow these home-educated students to work during the day when they would normally be in school if they went to a public school," Musgrave said.

Hmmmm.... Well you might be able to bring me around on home-schooling in general, if you make appeal to my liberty-loving instincts (and if you agree to use more than one book--sorry, but the "Holy Baybul" doesn't actually have all the answers). But changing the child labor laws is probably going to be a tougher sell.

It's been a while since the KKK was the preeminent political organization of the christian right in the United States. Most angry white dead-enders have moved on from sheet wearing to more, shall we say, politically correct forms of angry white entitlement--like listening to talk radio. (Lately, I admit, it has been difficult to tell the difference, considering the things said about Mexican people as part of the right-wing immigration "debate".) But you know how some people love a lost cause. The Knights are determined to ride again, and quite honestly the political environment seem perfectly ripe for them to be involving themselves in the political process and choosing elected officials to support. Musgrave is certainly an excellent choice for honor as "the KKK's favorite Congressmember".

(Sorry, but I'm not going to link to the Klan's website. You can pretty quickly find it with Google if you're curious.)

Wait, This Is Too Easy

noreply@blogger.com (Sportin' Life) — Wed, 17 May 2006 23:05:33 PDT

A purse-lipped old biddy wards off evil at a protest in Paris

From the BBC:

Christian groups in many Asian nations have stepped up their protests against The Da Vinci Code film ahead of its planned global release this week....

In India, which is home to 18 million Catholics, the head of the Catholic Secular Forum has begun a "hunger strike until death".

Ah, if only all christians were as committed to principle. I mean, why not? If they believe what they say they believe, hunger-striking for Jesus would seem to be the quickest and surest way to heaven. Everybody wins.

(P.S. How Orwellian is "Catholic Secular Forum"? Yikes.)

***

The whole mania over the Da Vinci Code is fascinating. I imagine that the attention given to the film and the associated controversy, in the press and on television, is at least partly due to marketing "synergy" in the media world. According to cliche, all publicity is good publicity. And so it is.

But this film really does seem to have struck a nerve among the christian religious authorities and among believers generally. ABC News describes the Vatican as "fuming" over the release. The UK Telegraph reports on a poll exposing the "dangerous" effects of Dan Brown's novel on christian faith. Meanwhile, in the Unites States, the evangelicals seem to have uncharacteristically overcome hysteria and carefully quantified the heresy effect with help from religion pollster George Barna. No doubt enjoying a bit of sectarian schadenfreude at the fact that Roman Papism is the novel's force of dark villainy, they're nonetheless concerned and urge that followers use the movie as (what else?) an opportunity for evangelism.

On and on and on it goes. Article after article.

I'll admit it. I find the uproar pretty enjoyable. It's great fun to see people who have spent their lives trafficking in b*llsh*t freak out when sexier b*llsh*t comes along. For those of us who are not indoctrinated, a statement like this one inspires a hearty and satisfying belly laugh:

Pittsburg Bishop Donald Wuerl, who has been chosen to replace Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, is advising Roman Catholics who want to see The Da Vinci Code to read the New Testament gospels first -- so they will know "what actually happened," he says.

Here's another howler:

The findings [of the UK poll] suggest that the book has significantly shifted attitudes towards traditional Christianity and fuel fears that people increasingly prefer to believe in conspiracy theories that taint the Church rather than historical evidence.

What's that about historical evidence? Sorry, but when gullibility is your stock in trade--and has been for thousands of years--you don't get to throw a fit just because gullibility is no longer going your way.

When your worldview is based on nothing but the purported authority of some old book (and/or on the purported authority of that book's self-proclaimed interpreters), yes, you can very easily run into trouble trying to justify and defend your beliefs. Obviously that's why the Holy Church has had to resort to the auto-da-fe and the rack at various times in its history. The christian "truth" is so precious, yet so elusive. It's a shame it can't be arrived at through any sort of objective, empirical process--only through the suspension of independent thought and the swallowing of outlandish claims made by someone who has already joined the cult.

Kingdom Coming

noreply@blogger.com (Sportin' Life) — Fri, 12 May 2006 11:26:30 PDT

Michelle Goldberg writes about her important new book, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, at Talk2Action.

I've just published a book called "Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism," and since it appeared, I've been asked several times what Christian nationalism is, and how it differs from Christian fundamentalism. It's an important concept to understand, because the threat to a pluralistic society does not come from those who simply believe in a very conservative interpretation of Christianity. It comes from those who adhere to a political ideology that posits a Christian right to rule.

Christian nationalists believe in a revisionist history, which holds that the founders were devout Christians who never intended to create a secular republic; separation of church and state, according to this history, is a fraud perpetrated by God-hating subversives. One of the foremost Christian revisionist historians is David Barton, who, in addition to running an organization called Wallbuilders that disseminates Christian nationalist books, tracts and videos, is also the vice-chairman of the Texas Republican Party. The goal of Christian nationalist politics is the restoration of the imagined Christian nation. As George Grant, former executive director of D. James Kennedy's influential Coral Ridge Ministries, wrote in his book "The Changing of the Guard:"

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.
It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after.
World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish."

Click through for the full horror.

And you can learn more from this interview with Goldberg on NPR, or from this site dedicated to the book. (Note the testimonial blurbs by Sam Harris and Susan Jacoby, among others.)

***

Update (5/12/2006): Salon features an excerpt from the book.