Here’s something that will make you smile. A professor is claiming he can prove the existence of God using what he calls ‘hard core science’. Yea, I know you’re all impressed with his nomenclature, but there’s more. He also claims quantum physics can prove the birth of Jesus, and the resurrection story. It seems like everyone under the sun loves to use quantum mechanics to justify their crackpot ideas.
The only person in the entire story who made any sense was Bishop Eddie Long, who stated, quite correctly, that science cannot prove the existence of God since the whole thing is supposed to be about faith. But don’t tell Franky boy that; he’s already working on a book about it. I’m sure it’ll be a page turner…
A few weeks ago, I wrote an article calling for Catholics to abandon the church in light of the recent news Pope Benedict XVI was behind the cover up of child abuse scandals. Obviously, I didn’t actually think any Catholics would hear me out. I mean, I am a filthy heathen after all. I’m finding it difficult, however, to stay silent for long about the general attitude some Catholics have about the revelation that corruption runs at such high levels. Here is a journalist who claims some things are best if they stay hidden (the article itself is called How much truth is too much truth).
Rob Dreher is an ex-Catholic, but after studying the facts, it was too difficult for him to go on. It’s why he states he is intentionally ignoring any bad news that might come his way about his new church, The Orthodox Church in America. He had to – the church came under investigation in the autumn of 2005 for embezzlement of church funds.
Rob believes society needs powerful institutions in order to function properly, and the most important thing is to not allow cynicism and mistrust erode people’s faith in those institutions. His call for ‘selective blindness’ not only baffles me; I find it personally insulting to be told human beings are simply unable to make decisions for themselves, favoring instead the guidance of corrupt church leaders.
Rob chose to remain blind because he knows exactly what happens when you start probing deeper into organized religion; you find nothing but unscrupulous individuals who abuse their authority for personal or financial gain. What a surprise! Well, I believe human beings need transparency in their lives. Why should religion benefit from the veil of secrecy? This abuse of power has gone on far too long.
I’ve got a bit of advice for Mr. Dreher: I know as a Catholic, the concept of truth isn’t exactly something you worry about too much. After all, you have other people to tell you what the truth should be. But do you honestly think keeping the dark secrets of the Church is the only way to save it? If your institution was so fundamentally good, is it not your responsibility to ensure it remains that way? Are you so afraid of the truth you would rather innocent children suffer for the continuation of an otherwise corrupt and morally bankrupt organization? I find it tragic you choose to deny reality so adamantly to the point where you would fail to investigate and prosecute the offenders. It’s even sadder when people try to defend this cowardly view.
Here’s a disturbing story for you: a pastor who operated a small church in my hometown of Montreal was arrested for having married and engaged in sexual relations with a 10 year old. The now 57 year old Father Daniel Cormier insisted he was in love with the victim, who rightfully told the court she had no real understanding of what was happening at the time, apart from the physical abuse. He has now been convicted and will be spending a meager 5 years in jail.
His congregation was small, but many remember him as a father figure who was there to help people. I have to believe all his motives weren’t simply to abuse others. He must have convinced himself the relationship was something other than traumatic abuse. Only the most twisted logic could still convince the man there was anything consensual about this most egregious behavior.
This priest was given far too much power, and it is obvious he allowed his status in the community to completely cloud his judgment. It is becoming more and more obvious the status of priest is too great a responsibility to most men. The cloth is really actually a shield, and it protects people who should never benefit from such reverence. A priest is just as fallible and corruptible as any other, and the automatic respect and servility his congregants give him create a dangerous combination that make these kinds of tragedies often inevitable.
This one is from Atheist Media Blog. Considering how terrible rap is these days, I’m sure if there was hell, this is what would be playing. Is it just me or did the good old days of rap end when it started involving lots of money?
I want to send out a clear message today about the Catholic Church. I know many Catholics are feeling persecuted, brow beaten, and tired of all of the bad press they’ve been getting recently. It doesn’t help matters when your Pope quotes a Byzantine Emperor who claimed that Islam was spread by holy war. If you think that’s bad, you need to sit down to hear this staggeringly horrible piece of news: Pope Benedict XVI was one of the masterminds behind the effort to cover up sex abuse scandals from priests. The BBC is airing a documentary tonight which clarifies this damning allegation, by pointing to an ultra secret document composed by Ratzinger calling for an abuse case to be buried, and for witnesses, victims, and any one else involved to be threatened with excommunication if they talked about it.
I want to make something very clear to Catholics at this moment: your institution is corrupt, evil, broken, and unworthy of affiliation. There is no reason to trust what the Pope does is guided by God; that such a despicable human being should hold the most holy office demonstrates just how vile your institution really is. Every single Catholic needs to abandon this system, stop going to church, and most definitely stop giving these fuckheads any money. I am not saying this in a glib way. If you want to know what a fatal blow to any institution looks like, this is it.
Imagine you are a fan of the store “Bed, Bath and Beyond”. You love the selection of home furnishings, and you’ve been a customer for years. One day, you are told that a significant proportion of store employees were secretly molesting your kids, and store managers were covering up these scandals and transferring these offenders to different locations throughout the country. Worse still, the president of the company had written a super secretive memo that stated all of these abuses needed to be silenced and that all victims had to be threatened in order to ensure they did not go to authorities. Would you continue to give this store your money? Would you tell your friends about how wonderful this store was, and recommend it to your family?
If this was happening in any other powerful institution, then trust in the organization would be shattered, and everyone would abandon it. However, because this is religion, we’re giving this one a “get out of jail free card”. Well, I say enough. I accuse any individual who still swears allegiance to Catholicism of being part of the mechanism that has led to child abuse. If you’ve ever given the Church even one dime, that is some of the money they have been using to continue to abuse little kids. Each person that trusts this institution needs to take a hard look at themselves. Is it really worth even one child suffering? Can you honestly tell me this vile, corrupt, and sick institution is worthy of being saved? The corruption and stink of evil can never be cleaned. There will always remain a secret fraternity of corrupt men with power who do as they please, content in their belief their actions are divinely ordained, and therefore acceptable. Ratzinger did what he did because he believes the Institution is more important than the countless children who have been raped over the centuries (don’t suddenly think child abuse is anything new for the church).
I don’t care if people believe in Jesus; I honestly don’t. But this is a belief that does not require a gigantic, sick, twisted organization like the Roman Catholic Church to exist. You can have Jesus in your heart and mind without the need for Bishops, Cardinals, and Popes. So long as you abandon your allegiance to this institution, I have no beef with you. Any minute you give these people money, you are allowing this to go on. No amount of ‘cleanup’ will ever expose the people involved, nor will it ever completely stop the abuse that is happening, and that will happen in the future. This institution needs to go the way of the dodo bird, and with this final revelation of just how high the corruption extends, you now have final proof of just how rotten the Catholic Church truly is. I personally feel sick to my stomach, and any mild amount of tolerance or even respect that I may have had is eroded. These monsters have declared war on our children, our laws, and our morality with impunity. We should not let this go unpunished.
This video, from Crooks and Liars, sums up nicely what kind of man Rick Warren is. At first you might be outraged that he is inspired by Nazi Germany to get his followers to be as dedicated as they were. He defends this statement only by saying Hitler is the personification of evil, and to him, it’s enough. No further discussion needed.
What Rick doesn’t realize, and what most people seem to forget, is the people they call monsters were as fanatically devoted to their ideals as most Evangelicals are. This devotion felt no doubt as important, special, and as good as Warren’s feelings about Christianity. You cannot measure the moral superiority of something by the level of devotion with which it is followed. It is in fact this very devotion that allows murderous ideologies to take such a powerful hold of people. We tend to have the foolish idea that our love for something is always pure and good. It has never occurred to most of us this feeling is just as corruptible as anything else. Men like Hitler and Stalin were deeply in love with the vision of the world they had pictured. Totalitarianism is what results from men and women wanting the whole world to live their own private visions.
Warren wants an expanded Kingdom of God, and for his congregation to do “Whatever it takes”. How frightening is this statement? This Orwellian slogan exemplifies everything that is wrong about religious belief. No, please do not do everything in your power to expand your Christianity in the world. Do not subjugate others, do not try forced conversions, do not deny men and women in Africa access to condoms, and keep your own insane ideas to yourself.
It may seem impossible for you to believe Rick, but it is your love for God that scares me. Love is not a ubiquitous good. Simply because you have love in your heart does not mean you do not have hate there too. In fact, it is this unquestioning love and devotion that often makes your actions so despicable and evil, Mr. Warren. I do not doubt your conviction sir; I am scared to death of it.
The controversial thing here is you may not fully realize it, but it is love that makes men do atrocious things. Love for God will convince a man to strap a bomb to himself and jump in front of a bus full of kids, just as love for an ideology will make people force innocent men, women, and children into gas chambers. Love itself can be a good thing, but it is no guarantee that what we love is itself good. We must abandon the idea of using love as a universal good, and begin to realize it can be manipulated for all kinds of nefarious purposes.
Well, it turns out a biblical scholar wrote a book trying to answer this pointless question, and concluded the diet expounded in the Bible isn’t a very healthy one. He argues that although the Israelites did not consume much meat, they didn’t eat a lot of vegetables and fruit either, and their diet lacked essential vitamins and minerals.
It seems silly to us anyone should really care about this, but his book, What Did the Ancient Israelites Eat? was partially written as a response to some fad diets using the Bible as their primary reference. Those are for the special Christians who really want to believe the ‘Good Book’ gives them a complete guide for every aspect of their lives. So far, it looks like it also fails miserably at educating you about the right foods to eat. What a great guide, eh?
Here’s an interesting article in the New York Times about how religion seems to help people have more self control. Normally, I would try and tear apart these kinds of articles, but in this case I don’t necessarily disagree with the findings. Intuitively, it seems right to me; I don’t know many people who could fight off the impulse of sex in favor of a relationship with God (I’m talking about Nuns and Catholic priests of course).
I’m curious as to how most people view these studies anyways. Do religious people feel uplifted by the results? Do atheists generally care? I would describe myself as having moderate self control (at least when it comes to matters of pleasure), and I don’t see any reason why I would need more. It certainly doesn’t seem to stop kids from having premature sex, or even experiment with drugs, unless of course their level of devotion is slavish. Even then, it’s fairly suspect.
Imagine I gave you a pill to help you with your impulse control. The side effects included occasional hallucinations, close mindedness, bigotry, intolerance and had a tendency in some patients to cause massive psychotic breakdowns. Would it be worth it?
Sure, when you don’t have a strict guidebook to live your life, you are more susceptible to some of life’s temptations. But so what? I don’t want to spend my life in a coma, content with thinking all the mysteries of the universe are solved, or it’s impossible to attain any higher morality than what we have now. Self control is exactly what I WANT to avoid. It’s the same impulse that make us complacent and sheepish in the face of so many of life’s important challenges. Keep your damn pill. I want to see life through sober eyes.
I hate articles that regurgitate news anyone with half a brain already knows. Is it surprising study after study of teen sex always comes up with statistics showing there is no difference in premarital found between kids who are taught sex ed and those who are taught abstinence? No, of course not. Is it shocking kids without sex-ed are less likely to use any form of birth control or protection? Nope. And yet, they still ‘teach’ this garbage in schools hoping somehow kids will abstain from having sexual relations, completely ignoring the fact these raging bags of hormones find it difficult to avoid the temptation to play with themselves several times a day, let alone invite anyone to the fun.
Kids like sex. They want it. They crave it. Everything about their biology is inclined to try and get it. Yet somehow, a religiously motivated cretin thinks a promise and a shitty ring is enough to keep their hands off each other. It’s time we stopped living in fantasy land and take a pragmatic approach to the issue. There is nothing anyone can do to prevent teens from having sex. Most of the Western World has already acknowledged this. But the US is a special place; they fight wars against windmills, believing prohibitionism in all forms is the only way of curbing the natural vices of people. The problem is, of course, that morality is a private thing, and cannot be policed.
Guys, get real about teaching sex-ed in high school. Abstinence is nothing more than religiously mandated classes, and any country that takes the separation of church and state seriously would make mincemeat out of it. The US has a shamefully high rate of teen pregnancies and drop out rates shared only by developing nations. Let’s get real here, shall we?
This week, I have a very special guest to fill in for Ryan, who is enjoying much finer weather than we have here in Canada. Jeffrey Jones is a good friend of mine, and agreed to come on the show if I pimped out his new site, www.downandout.ca
There’s been a lot of debate concerning the definition of marriage. I know many conservatives are offended guys like me call them on the fact that the real reason they dislike gays marrying is because they are homophobic. I’m accused of making blanket statements about conservatives, and of labeling people.
Now, I want to make it clear to everyone that I’m not trying to make a person feel inferior for being a homophobe. Homosexuality is only now becoming more accepted, and I know of many friends and family members who have a certain degree of prejudice against them. But that’s the thing; it’s a controllable degree, and the trick is to try and rise above your upbringing to overcome some of our less noble emotions.
Even so, there’s still a large segment of the religious right who will tell you they want the definition to stay the same for religious reasons, not because of any real homophobia. Fine. If you want it that way, however, you’re going to have to follow it to the letter and stop choosing only the stuff you like. Here are some of the rules courtesy of Daily Kos:
Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in
addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
Marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a
virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.
(Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)
There was a comment that appeared in one of my articles which I felt needed to be personally addressed, due mostly to the fact I’ve been asked similar questions before. These questions usually devolve into simply “why do you have to pick on MY religion”, and I thought it might be fair to answer it as candidly as I can, to avoid looking as though I may be unfairly picking on one specific religion. Here is the quote:
Why do you insist on bashing Christians? If you don’t believe in God that’s fine, but why insult those who believe? I don’t believe in insulting you for your belief, don’t insult mine. Christmas is a Christian holiday because we celebrate the birth of Christ! If you don’t believe in it why do you take off work for Christmas, all of you who don’t believe should work! We as a Country have compromised on so much that we have lost focus! A company named Tyson has dropped celebrating Labor day and recognized a Muslim holiday. Why is no one complaining about that? Labor day is a day to recognize the CHRISTIAN men and woman who built this Country, who LABORED hard for all of us. And one more thing, are you gay? Yes, it is unnatural to be with the same sex, take religion out of it if you want, but it’s still not right! I care about you as much as any one else and I hope the best for you! I pray you find truth in your journey here on earth! God bless
The anatomy of such questions is usually identical. They boil down to two propositions: 1) that Christianity (or any other religion) is being maliciously attacked without provocation, and 2) that I should be thankful they exist. From the perspective of a Christian, I can understand how it might seem as though I unfairly single them out. The fact I do is due is not to any specific prejudice, but because it is the dominant religion which exerts the most influence on my life and culture. It would be like asking a cheetah why he pursues the gazelle; there is no malice in his actions. The cheetah is driven by instinct, and also by the fact the gazelle is one of the few plentiful sources of food, and even the seemingly savage way in which he attacks his prey is only due to his need to survive.
Christians may occasionally feel as though they are being singled out, but in actuality, the cultural and political dominance they have secured makes any small assault bounce off their seemingly invincible armor coating. They seem frightened these attacks are personal, but pointing out the hypocrisy, cruelty, and sheer impossibility of the claims made by religion serves not to damage the individual believer, but the belief itself. It isn’t Christians I have a problem with; it’s Christianity. If that sounds a little weird, you’ve obviously never been vacationing in foreign country as an American. The hostility they encounter in foreign nations is not directed at them, but rather at the institution they represent. Much of the world hates America, but still love Americans.
As for the second point, I will go on record and state I am not grateful for Christianity. Part of me still resents when works of ancient philosophers and thinkers were almost entirely destroyed by the early Christian church, which chose to erase everything in the past which conflicted with their world view. Archimedes is said to have discovered the principles of calculus almost 2000 years before Newton, but his writings were erased and rebound as prayer books. The fact remains Christianity robbed the world of progress for almost 1700 years, and has been adamantly fighting progress ever since. Think of all the great minds through time that were extinguished in the hot flames of heretical punishment. Today, the fact stem cell research is still illegal is only a small demonstration of the Church’s increased insistence that progress and discovery are bad.
So why pick on Christians? Sure, the Muslim world may be a terrifying place for many people. It does not change the fact the Western world still has the religious leash of Christianity around its neck. If Islam became the dominant religion of the North America, you can bet I would be ‘picking’ on them more.
I do offer a question in response to your question, dear sir: If the conviction in your religion is so strong, why do you care what I say? If you are in the right and I am in the wrong, why should you feel oppressed by my apparent babbling? A part of you might be thinking the reason you care is your wish to have my soul saved, but surely that isn’t the only reason. Like most religious people, you seek a homogony of thought. You may secretly doubt even the least fantastic claims of your religion, and find comfort in the fact a vast majority of others feel as you do. It may appear shocking to you, but my belief is strong enough I would not change my mind even if every single human being thought differently than I. The conviction there is no God does not stem from the beliefs of my parents, friends, or neighbors. They are my own. Once a person comes to realize the universe is not controlled by a ‘parent’ in the sky but rather by simple natural laws, any other proposition to the contrary seems both childish and mundane. It would be akin to believing once more Santa is real.
I offer to you the idea it is the homogony of your beliefs that makes you secure, and not the inalienable truth of your religion. If you did believe Christianity was undeniably true, then there would be no need to worry about the likes of me. You will see with time, however, more and more human beings will come to doubt the incredible claims made by your holy book. It’s only a matter of time.
It has been my view that the steady secularizing and insistent effort at [sic] de-religioning America has been dangerous. That danger flashed red in the fall into subprime personal behavior by borrowers and bankers, who after all are just people. Northerners and atheists who vilify Southern evangelicals are throwing out nurturers of useful virtue with the bathwater of obnoxious political opinions.
The point for a healthy society of commerce and politics is not that religion saves, but that it keeps most of the players inside the chalk lines. We are erasing the chalk lines.
This is a fellow who would equate the supposed “War on Christmas” with the complete economic meltdown of his country. Blaming atheists on a crisis that was a direct consequence of the deregulation of very sensitive markets makes about as much sense as crediting the alignment of certain planets for the characteristics of human beings (more on that another day). This whole argument is baseless, ignorant, and shows a complete lack of any fundamental understanding of the economy. No, evangelical parishes having more power to influence people would not have saved America, sir.
I have a bit of a message to all the Christians getting up at arms and worried about their precious holiday losing ground in America: A lucky thing called the 1st amendment protects people from having YOUR religion shoved down their throats. That people choose to use Holidays instead of Christmas just demonstrates people are respectful of other cultures and traditions. Some of these same ‘oppressed’ Christians are the same people who vote to disallow gays from marrying or adopting kids. Yeah, not being able to say Merry Christmas really sucks compared to that, doesn’t it?
I came across this website, Charter for Compassion, which is the latest attempt by religious moderates to extend an olive branch to other religions in the hope of curbing fundamentalism. The site asks people to discuss stories of compassion that they have experienced in their lives. I believe it is their hope to communicate through these stories the idea all people share the need for acts of kindness regardless of their religious creed. It is also, in my opinion, entirely futile.
Religious fundamentalism isn’t something you can combat by showing more unity across the spectrum of religious belief. In fact, this act of reconciling differences is one of the main forces that actually DRIVES fundamentalism. The rejection of modern values, and the isolationism in the face of a rising global community are powerful forces in the foundation of today’s religious fundamentalism.
From their video, I extracted a few quotes to specifically comment on, mainly because I find them to be somewhat naïve and at times, dishonest.
“As a Muslim, You have to submit to the will of God, and submitting to the will of God means that you have to be compassionate and kind to your fellow human beings”
It’s true Islam does translate into submission, but there are passages in the Qur’an that are definitely not about being compassionate towards your fellow man. There are countless passages making reference to how unbelievers are doomed to hell, and in some versions of the Qur’an, there are distinct passages meant to entice followers to violence. “Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme.” (Surah 8:36-)” These are not encouraging words, and it is naïve to assume the interpretation of God’s will is compassion towards non believers.
“Every Religion has a history of intolerance, and every religion has principles for overcoming intolerance”
Religion does not have any internal mechanisms for overcoming intolerance, specifically because it rejects any principles that are not part of its accepted dogma. This statement is entirely false; today’s Christian moderates are motivated towards universal acceptance in spite of their religion, not because of it.
“We need a charter for our own souls, for our own sake, but also for the sake of our world, our perilously divided world”
If I said religion was entirely responsible for dividing the world, I would come out as both foolish and ignorant, but there’s no denying it has been a big part of the problem, especially as the world becomes smaller. Nationalism is making way for a stronger global community, but religious exclusion has thrown roadblocks in this effort. There will never be a charter that is accepted by all religions, and even if there were, it would not discourage fundamentalism. Everything seems to indicate it would only be encouraged.
“The Golden Rule is a Golden rule is so many different world religions”
The Golden Rule isn’t limited to religion, and there’s no reason to credit it with it. Social species recognize the survival advantage of “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”. The rule applies not only to humans, but also to chimpanzees, lions, dolphins, and countless other species. It appears to be an instinct rather than a dogma, and I see no reason to think this rule would not apply if religion was to disappear.
It’s a nice attempt to create a synchronicity within the religious community, but for all intents and purposes, it’s also entirely useless. Religious moderates, as Sam Harris has argued, form the theological foundation for fundamentalists. To properly denounce them, you have to be ready to criticizes your own dogma.
Question: The Old Testament quite clearly states the Israelites were ordered by God to kill the Canaanites. Every man, woman, and child was to be slaughtered. If this story is historical truth, and God really did issue this command, is he not then admonishing genocide?
This is the very same question asked of Dr. Willian Craig, a research professor of Philosophy and the proud owner of ReasonableFaith.org. If you’re unfamiliar with what Christian apologists do, think of it as an entire field of theology intended to try and explain away some of the most troubling aspects of the Bible. It’s not an easy job, but some feel compelled to try.
Dr. Craig’s answer is long winded, so I thought I’d boil it down to the fundamental quotes:
God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses. God is under no obligation whatsoever to extend my life for another second. If He wanted to strike me dead right now, that’s His prerogative.
What that implies is that God has the right to take the lives of the Canaanites when He sees fit. How long they live and when they die is up to Him.
So the problem isn’t that God ended the Canaanites’ lives. The problem is that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them. Isn’t that like commanding someone to commit murder? No, it’s not. Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder. The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong.
If you think this sounds dangerously like admonishing the acts of delusional people who think God is commanding them to commit genocide, it’s not the end of the argument.
Now how does all this relate to Islamic jihad? Islam sees violence as a means of propagating the Muslim faith. By contrast, the conquest of Canaan represented God’s just [sic] judgement upon those peoples. The purpose was not at all to get them to convert to Judaism! War was not being used as an instrument of propagating the Jewish faith. The problem with Islam, then, is not that it has got the wrong moral theory; it’s that it has got the wrong God.
Now isn’t that convenient? Islamic fundamentalists were only wrong for flying planes into the World Trade Center because they had the wrong God. Silly me; here I had the delusion acts of murder and genocide were universally bad.
