PR Pope admits divisiveness and contradictions (inadvertantly)

It has been roughly a week and a half since I read the Catholic News Agency piece "Let go of 'false lights' that lead down the wrong path, Pope says." No one seems to have followed up or comment on it that I can find. This is interesting since if you think about its contents critically for more than a few minutes it reveals that the Pope inadvertently admitted that Christianity is divisive and that the Pope routinely conveys contradictory messages. Consider:

“If now I were to ask you, do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God? Do you believe that he can change your heart? Do you think you can see reality as he sees it, not as we do? Do you believe that he is light, that he gives us the true light?...abandoning false lights...cold and fatuous light of prejudice against others, because prejudice distorts reality and builds hate against those who we judge without mercy and condemn without an appeal.”

If Jesus is the "true light" doesn't that at least imply that all other religions and beliefs are "false lights"? How is this compatible with previous appeals to treating all faiths equally? How does this not contradict to some degree the last part of the quotation. If you are compelled by faith to assume all other religions and beliefs are false how can you not become prejudiced against them? Logically, this notion seems to lead to and even demand prejudice and divisiveness.

3 out of 4

Andy Gill does a decent job with three of his "Four Thing You Should Know Before Reading the Bible." Out of the following four can you spot which isn't like the others;

"1. The Bible, it’s an ever changing and never finished set of manuscripts....
2. In fact, according to many textual critics, there are more variances than there are words in the New Testament....
3. The Bible, it’s not a history book; it’s a collection of various texts over an unknown amount of time....
4. There’s a difference between tradition and divine revelation.?..."

Number four just doesn't work. Gill never seems to notice that religious "tradition" and "divine revelation" can't really be separated. Both are equally subjective and unfounded. Both are refuted by basic logic and critical thinking. Both are dependent on each other. Gill also never seems to realize that the first three undermine the whole premise of divine revelation. Logically, divine revelation should be as unchanging as it is infallible. Scriptures, and not just Judeo-Christian ones, are neither. It may seem somewhat ironic that scripture is not divine in any way but that has more to do with cultural bias than anything else. All scriptures are human fabrications. It would be nice if some day the majority of humanity finally accepts such scriptures for the anachronistic childish nonsense they've always been.

I'm not anti-semitic, Salkin is arrogant

Quite a few of Jeffrey Salkin's blog posts have been loaded with all sorts of ridiculous self-serving crap. His recent post, "Say it ain’t so, Bernie!", was particularly irritating. All too often when someone points out how full of shit pieces like this are they get accused of being anti-semitic. Why? Why isn't this viewed the other way around. Salkin seems annoyed that Bernie is not being a good representative of Judaism despite the fact that Sanders has never identified himself as religious. He has identified himself as culturally Jewish, which I'll come back to later. Sanders is running for President, a secular leader. What his religion may or may not be should be irrelevant. Not to Salkin. He seems to think it's perfectly fine to impose his religious standards on someone else. That the religion in question happens to be Judaism is also irrelevant. If a candidate was born to Baptist parents does that mean they should be hounded by another Baptist if they choose not to practice that specific denomination, or any sect/denomination at all? Why should that be seen as a factor in any profession they choose?

Personally I find the "culturally ____ (fill in your faith of choice)" nonsensical. So what if you grew up in a culture saturated by Christianity, Judaism, or whatever? Do you believe it now? Are you practicing it now? It's a cop out. It loans respectability to something that hasn't really earned it. After all, if it was actually worthwhile you wouldn't need the adjective "culturally" before the term itself. You would simply be X. Bernie Sanders is not practicing Judaism. So whatever he may think about Judaism, I see no reason to assume he owes that faith anything. More importantly, as a candidate for the highest elected office he should be expected to serve all US citizens equally. So, no, Jeffrey Salkin, you do not merit any special attention or treatment despite your insistence on it. You are not better than the rest of us. The very notion that Sanders owes you or any others who are practicing Judaism is arrogant, hypocritical, selfish, tribalistic, bigoted, and despicable.

Your deceit isn't their hypocrisy

America is not the only country where a subset of theist find the need to lie and whine in defense of their beliefs. After fact checking a piece I found on the Christian Concern website it was blatantly obvious how incredibly unethical and vicious the assholes who work there really are. Virtually nothing in "Humanists' hypocrisy after sending atheist manuals to every Scottish secondary following Christian book ban" turned out to be true.The Humanist Society of Scotland did not seek to "ban" the so-called "guide book" entitled It's Your Move.

What did the Humanist Society of Scotland actually have an interest in accomplishing? They sought to remove from public school curriculums a clearly Christian centric book and bar those public schools from paying for the books out of school funds. Got that? They did not ask that children be prevented from receiving the books. They just found it inappropriate for public schools to pay for and actively push a sectarian book on children. Christian Concern and the Free Church of Scotland both routinely misrepresented the facts and sought to demonize a group of individuals who actually applied basic civil rights and human decency to an incredibly bigoted set of circumstances.

This gang of assholes also left out a number of details along the way. They didn't bother to mention how well connected the Free Church of Scotland already is with various public schools around the country. They certainly didn't mention that the book the Humanist Society of Scotland has offered for distribution would be a small token in an attempt to deal with centuries of bias towards theism or that they have donated all the books. It definitely slipped their minds that these books from the beginning are only being offered as an option. They are not being forced on kids like the Christian guide book had been. The publisher, Scripture Union, of the It's Your Move book even brags about directly connecting churches to schools through it's books and curriculum in it's introduction video.

Anyone who even skims through the "Resource Booklet" that accompanies the Christian guide book can't help but realize that this really is a set of Sunday School lessons being passed off as public school curriculum.

The very notion that the humanists are the ones being hypocritical is absurd to the point of being laughable. Christian Concern, The Free Church of Scotland, and other supporters of this guide book being force fed to other people's children are being deceitful tyrannical assholes. Their whining about responsible adults opposing them is hypocritical not to mention despicable.

Religious Freedom already exists

The Indiana legislatures ploy to legally discriminate has publicly stirred up more of the religious rights ongoing bullshit. Unfortunately both the mainstream and some of the alternative media have fallen into line by accepting a variety of assumptions and distortions. CNN Belief blog has a piece, "How to fix religious freedom laws", that falls for the all too common notion that somehow we need more legislation and interference in this area. Actually, we don't. The Constitution and virtually every State Constitution already includes provision design to uphold an individuals freedom of conscience/religion. What we need to do is stop religious zealots from perverting those principles and ramming their beliefs down our throats.

An excellent example of hos stupid people can be once religion is interjected into politics can be read in Debra Haffner's HuffPo piece "Discrimination Is Never a Religious Value." She clearly has no memory span or ability to think beyond her preferred beliefs. History makes it pretty clear that Religion have and continue to discriminate. I am not talking about individuals who happen to be religious being discriminatory. Religions as a whole by doctrine and policy have a tendency to discriminate. Even a cursory reading of history should be enough for anyone not blinded by their chosen faith to see that is the case.

Anyone interested in religious freedom should be supporting one of the most basic principles of the Constitution: Separation of Church and State.

An exercise in confirmation bias

A recent study by Timothy O'Brien and Shiri Noy purports to have found a thrid way in the longstanding Science v. Religion debate. Their claim very quickly falls apart. The group they end up labeling, foolishly, "post-seculars" are not a new group at all. The only differences I can see with this batch of ignorant asses and previous ones is that they are willing to publicly acknowledge, at least to some degree, that there are bits and pieces of modern science and medicine they actually like.

Religious News Service had a decent summary of their "findings" that can be read if you do not wish to wade through the 20+ pages of bullshit that constitute O'brien-Noys study published in the American Sociological Review. I recommend reading the actual study first and then the RNS review. It makes an otherwise tedious and irritating read somewhat entertaining since Cathy Grossman's ("Science vs. religion? There’s actually more of a three-way split") take on it is unintentionally humorous in its own lack of insight and critical thinking.

An excellent example is:
"Post-Seculars pick and choose among science and religion views to create their own “personally compelling way of understanding the world,” said O’Brien, assistant professor at the University of Evansville in Indiana"
It never occurs to her that the pick and choose part of science isn't actually science at all. Whether a scientific theory fits your personal views has absolutely no connection to its validity. Cherry-picking which conclusions work for your preconceived notions and personal preferences is actually the opposite of respecting and accepting science. Both the original report and the summary make clear that that is precisely what is happening among these "post seculars."

"But when it comes to three main areas where science and Christian-centric religious views conflict — on human evolution, the Big Bang origin of the universe and the age of the Earth — Post-Seculars break away from the pack with significantly different views from Traditionals and Moderns." Did you catch that? Again, this is not new. The object to those theories on religious grounds alone. There is no scientific legitimacy to their opposing views. How is this a third way rather than just more of the same old conservative religious bullshit? Even the label the two use is biased. Why not "post-scriptural" since the views they do accept from science don't bother them on religious grounds?

In the end there is no third group in this debate. It only emerges from there study because they choose to interpret it that way. They fail to notice that there has not been any religious objections, except among a tiny fringe, to such modern developments as cars, computers, and antibiotics. The majority of conservative theists have always accept large portions of science and medicine. Like then, they only object when it interferes with the unfounded superstitious non-sense they wish to cling to.

Champion Cherry-pickers

Atheists and even some more liberal theists frequently get accused of cherry-picking the Bible for the sole purpose of being contrarian jerks (often described in far worse terms). But that is complete bullshit for a variety of reasons. All theists cherry pick their favored sacred text(s). They have to, since they are all rather contradictory nonsensical crap. Not long ago Peter Enns gave an excellent example of how liberal Christians cherry pick and interpret the Bible to make it seem far more palatable then it really is. Rather than doing it to bash the Bible he does it in an attempt to justify his affection for it.

"10 Old Testament passages that shape how I think about God" demonstrates just how shallow his thinking is right from the start. Theist also love to claim that non-religious and religious critics of scripture take things out of context. Enns shows otherwise. None of his are given much context and the few that are are grossly inaccurate. Essentially he interprets the passage itself and then, when he bothers at all, makes up an excuse for anything around it that doesn't quite mesh. The very first selection is so skewed it's rather amusing.

"1. …for the Lord does not see as people see; they look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).
God is not impressed with what we call successOT Hebrew but with what is deep within us, perhaps even deeper than we ourselves can see."

Here's some context. Virtually all of 1 Samuel is about Saul. God uses and then rather brutally discards Saul. Why does God dispose of Saul? Because the previously despicable asshole grows a conscience. Saul refuses to obey God when commanded to assassinate another king and then proceed to slaughter said king's entire people and livestock. That's right, another incident where God goes all out blood-thirsty psychopath. Saul wants none of it so God gets rid of him. My interpretation, which has just as much if not more basis, is that the kind of "heart" God favors is sadistic and sycophantic. Not really what Enns was trying to establish.

Nearly every single passage is similarly spun to seem the way Enns prefers to think of them. Most can not only be interpeted differently, they have to be if you make any effort to pay attention to the actual wording and look at the passages the precede and/or follow them. I'll give just one more example since going through all 10 would be tedious and pointless.

"4. The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace (Numbers 6:24-26).
More than once, at times of joy and sadness, when I didn’t know what to pray, this came out of my mouth. It’s good to have God’s face shine on us now and then."

Actually, God (of the scriptures) is both very demanding and very unforgiving. What Enns completely ignores are all the conditions that lead up to this brief passage. That "bless you and keep you" part would be nice if it were not so conditional. All the passages leading to this make it clear that you can only somewhat count on being blessed (never guaranteed or promised) if you meet all Gods rules and make all the prefered sacrifices. In other words, you pay a heavy price just to get a little acknowledgment from a being who doesn't actually need let alone deserve such devotion. Metaphorically, it is like a neglected and abused child making all sorts of excuses and going out of their way to pamper and flatter their egomaniacal volatile dead-beat dad. It isn't even an example of conditional love. The relationship outline in Numbers is more like that of a master and slave.

Though I won't bother going through all 10 of Peter Enns' favored passages there is no reason others can't take a closer look. It doesn't really take that much effort. Read the passages he quotes and then read at least a handful of the passages that surround it. So long as you actually pay attention to the wording it becomes blatantly obvious that Enns, like so many other theist, is the one doing the cherry picking and making up all kinds of nonsense.

An odd sense of "facts"

Once again Catholic Online firmly demonstrates why no one should look to a Catholic run media outlet for anything resembling accurate information. Either they are incredibly willfully ignorant, mind bogglingly delusional, blatantly deceitful, plain stupid, or a combination of all of these. A recent piece, "Here are 10 Very Interesting Facts About the Catholic Church You Probably Didn't Know!", contains a handful of false claims as well as a number of rather dubious ones. Two of the ten immediately jumped out because they were so clearly wrong.

"2. The ONLY Christian church in existence for the first 1,000 years of Christian history was the Roman Catholic Church. All other Christian churches which exist today can trace their linage back to the Roman Catholic Church. Most non-Catholic churches which exist today are less than a century or two old by comparison."
Wow! To claim pride in your faith and not have a fucking clue about it's history takes some serious balls. This is, of course, complete bullshit. The Roman Catholic church isn't even the oldest identifiable Christian group. The Copts (Egypt) do not trace their linage to Roman Catholicism. They emerged as a church by the end of the 1st century/beginning of the second century. Even the most basic math skills should help these dumb asses figure out they are wrong by at least 800 years. That's just one example of how truly bogus the above statement is. Any one interested in Christian history should at least have a vague familiarity with the various Synods that shaped the early Christian communities. The Council of Chalcedon, for instance, took place in 451. Representatives of the Roman Catholic Church were not the only participants. There were also individuals from the various Eastern Orthodox churches as well as the Assyrian/Syriac Church. Some of, though not all, the Eastern churches did break off of the Roman Catholic Church. The Assyrians developed independent.
So #2 is completely false.

"5. The Catholic Church is entirely responsible for the composition of the Bible, which books are included, as well as the breakup of the chapters and verses."
What the fuck!? Who in their right mind would believe this statement? How can any one be that fucking stupid? The "Bible" as it is generally known contains the Old Testament which is not Christian in origin. Yes, the Catholic church has produced it's own versions of the what we call the Old Testament but they are far from "responsible for the composition." Unless the Vatican has a time machine stashed away somewhere there isn't even the slightest possibility of this statement being true. The Old Testament was produced by the Jews. In Judaism it is actually known as the Tanakh. Later in this section CO seems to denigrate Protestants for making alterations to the Bible but that's rather hypocritical since the Catholic Church did the same thing to the Tanakh (ex. the order of the books is different).
#5 also completely false and even hypocritical and bigoted.

Most of the other points do not contain such blatantly false statement but there isn't a single one that could be said to be completely factual either. Many rely on assumptions and very specific interpretations of terms. All are quite dubious and serve no purpose beyond trying to make the Catholic Church look good while implying that others look bad in some way.

Congratulations Catholic Online for denigrating your own history while making yourself look like petty whiny self-centered assholes.

More dishonest theistic cheerleading

The factually impaired "news consortium" Catholic Online has once again resorted to what is commonly referred to as a lie-by-omission. In their short piece entitled "Holy Bible edges out Darwin's 'Origin of Species' as most valuable book to humanity'" they imply and even outright state that the British people have chosen the Bible as the most valuable book ever written. Slight problem with this characterization: it's false. If you read various other sources the intent of the survey conducted by the Folio Society is made quite clear. They did not ask about the actual content of the 30 books they asked individuals to rank. They actually wanted to know what books people thought have been the most influential on society as a whole. That is a huge difference. The directions make it clear that they were not being asked to evaluate the books on their merits. Two examples of reporting that did a far better job include:
The BBC's "The Bible tops 'most influential' book survey"
and The Independent's "The Bible voted more valuable to humanity than Darwin's Origin of Species in Folio Society poll

As a side note: I found it rather entertaining that conservative Catholics tend to be the loudest whiners when it comes to the perception that the society has become far too materialistic. Their short piece was very difficult to read but not because it was so poorly written, though it was that as well. It was difficult getting through because of the massive number of ads inserted throughout the page. Seems the revenue stream definitely trumped the message they were trying to peddle.

A shroud of stupidity

At least a small percentage of theists are just plain stupid. Maybe that is harsh and judgmental but I don't see any other way to put it. There is yet another conference on the Shroud of Turin. This fraud has been so thoroughly debunked from a variety of angles that it is just mind-numbingly dumb to think it has any merit. The cloth has been dated to the middle ages. The pigmentation has been shown to be ink NOT blood. Applying basic geometry has proven that the individual pictured would be grossly misproportioned and excessively tall for the era.

So unless these dip-shits think that Jesus was a time traveling mutant giant with mismatched limbs and huge head that bled ink, I fail to see what they could possibly have to talk about at such a conference. Blind faith really can make some people stupid.

Confusing bias for substance

The folks over at Teaching Nonviolent Atonement definitely have problems with reality. I'm all for nonviolence but I take issue with delusions, willful ignorance, double standards, and plain old deceit. Yet another of their Patheos blog posts is chock full of all of the above. The title,"How Christians Reject Jesus: On Trying to Outsmart God", implies a number of things that Adam Erickson not only never establishes but also has no objective way to establish.

When he writes "reject" what he really means is that there are Christians who do not accept his preferred version of the Jesus figure, which is true. It is also true that his views of Jesus are highly subjective, debatable, and unproven. Virtually every paragraph of the piece shows that he is writing solely from his own biased views without any substantive thought. In the very first paragraph he insists, "We take seriously the words of Jesus that we should love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us." No, they do not. The selectively choose which bits of scripture favor their own preferences. There are plenty of passages where Jesus acts in a hostile and violent manner.

Throughout the post Erickson makes similar comments. Among them, "Excuse me for stating the obvious, but Christians are not Biblians. We are Christians. As Christians, we should be putting Jesus first...And Jesus calls us to nonviolence." Problem is that it is not obvious. It in fact is false. If you strip away scripture Jesus literally disappears. As I have on numerous occassions pionted out, Christians to some extant have to take scripture literally if they want to preserve belief in their messiah. I have also on numerous occssions challenged any Christian to come up with a plausible way to reconcile Luke 19:27, ""But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.", with the notion of a peace-loving Jesus. Last I knew dividing people up with a an Us-vs.-Them mentality and then oredering mass murder is the opposite of "nonviolent"

The writing never gets any better. However, it does become a bit more entertaining towards the middle. His observations about wisdom gave me a pretty good chuckle.
"Notice the distinction being made between God’s wisdom and human wisdom. The wisdom of God is the way of nonviolent love in the face of violence that often leads to the cross...Human wisdom, on the other hand, is the wisdom of retributive violence."
There are so many things wrong with this that I can't possibly write about all of them. I'll stick with just a few of the more blatant flaws with Erickson's line of thinking.

It seems to me that even the most devoted theists would have to realize that the only way a flawed human being could perceive "God's wisdom" is through the filter of "human wisdom." So how can you possibly make any "distinction"? And how can you know you aren't completely fucking it up? Then there's that gem about God being non-violent. What?! Even if you discount the whole of the Bible how do you account for human violence. Isn't God suppose to be source of everything? Isn't everything suppose to play out by God's grand design? I also have to marvel at the implication that all human wisdom supposedly leads to "retributive violence." Did Erickson just inadvertently admit that he and everyone else at Teaching Nonviolent Atonement are a bunch of dumb-asses?

Believing in the proto-hippy Jesus is better than the tight-ass obey me or go to hell version but that is still no excuse for blathering on in such a blatantly error laden ignorant way.

Another piece of assumptions and biases

From start to finish the Atlantic's "Is Evangelical Morality Still Acceptable in America?" comes across as being rather superficial and idiotic. After reading through it a couple times I still fail see much of a point. Alan Noble does a pathetic job of defining or explaining what he really means by either "Evangelical Morality" or "Acceptable." Theists of all stripes whether Christian or specifically "evangelical" are free to worship any way they choose.

He never gets beyond any of the rather large assumptions he makes right from the start. Why he assumes that there can even be said to be an "evangelical morality" is beyond me. I am in no way implying that Christians of any type are automatically immoral. In fact, that is part of the problem with the whole piece. He writes as if there is something innately moral in theism and that each variation of theism somehow has produced its own unique moral structures. I don't buy it. Human beings are capable of being moral or immoral. Groups, though they can be influential, are not innately moral or immoral.

I also seem to have missed the part where being "acceptable" really matters to theistic claims and beliefs. Even if he ever got around to what defines being acceptable, which he doesn't do a very good job, what impact would it really have on evangelicals or any other group. Why the special treatment? Haven't there always been minority beliefs/groups? I'm unaware of there being an active campaign to marginalize or strip the rights of evangelicals. Assuming such a campaign could actually get anywhere given the power and influence evangelicals still wield.

The piece is just silly and ultimately pointless.

Whiny Ignorance or Pandering Cowardice?

A recent CNN Belief blog post took a rather idiotic pot shot at the humor site Funny or Die by posing the question "Sharp satire or offensive stereotyping?" The blurb, "'Cosmos': the creationist version", is only a few lines but does managed to imply a great deal in such a short space. CNN's standards are rather low. Even for a blog this jab is as self-serving and stupid as it is short. I fail to see how such satire, it is satire, can be deemed a stereotype when there are entire denominations/sects whose doctrines and leadership clearly spell out a belief in the type of creationism being lampooned in the video.

I'm going to have to conclude that it both whiny ignorance and pandering cowardice.

The video can be found at: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/fa1a1c8fb7/creationist-cosmos

Is that "hope" I just stepped in?

Call me crazy but I don't find the whiny petty ramblings of an ignorant self-righteous asshole to be a good example of hope. Reverend Richard L. Shaw could let an atheist express their views on personal beliefs without going on the offensive. It doesn't matter that all his assertions are completely unsupported. Not once does he actually explain how "Christianity promises hope; atheism has empty message" is any thing other than a pathetic rehashed bout of mudslinging. It really is just a series of schoolyard style taunts.

Just because an atheist had the nerve to write in a newspaper that they find positive messages/purpose within their own beliefs the good reverend found the need to pen such ridiculous complaints as; "Thinking it a virtue that atheists don’t leave copies of Madalyn Murray O’Hair’s book in hotel and motel rooms, and that atheists don’t proselytize door to door, actually underscores the emptiness of that position. Of course they don’t!"
Or, maybe we don't find the need to peddle our views door-to-door or otherwise hound people when they want to be left alone. Not finding the need to get in peoples faces when it isn't necessary does not say anything about a persons beliefs/belief system. Oh, wait, it does. It says we are not the rude arrogant assholes that some theists like to project.

Shaw keeps going in the same direction with other little gems including;
"Whoever was saved from a contemplated suicide by reading O’Hair’s book, or was freed from a life of addiction, or whose marriage was rescued from failure, or at last found a life of meaning and purpose after wandering in ennui for years?"
and
"It’s not surprising that atheists don’t proselytize — or leave empty books for others to read. That itself speaks volumes for an inane philosophy, compared to the irrefutable proof for Christianity."

Umm, I wasn't aware that implied anecdotes were so easily converted into proof? This dipshit can't even take the time to jot down a few specific anecdotes. Perhaps deep down he realizes that he is full of crap. he certainly wouldn't be able to explain why suicide rates are far higher among theists than non-theists or why it is that atheists and the "nones" have the lowest rates of domestic abuse and divorce. I haven't met any atheists who lack meaning or purpose. Not yet anyway. As for Christianity being irrefutable, I pretty sure there are little over 5 billion people who would dispute that claim. You know, all those non-Christians currently drawing breath all over the world.

All of this spewed nonsense because an atheist wanted to share their views the same way countless theists do on a regular basis. What a fucking dick.

It's Not Always About Legality

Mark Osler's March 31st HuffPo piece fails to live up to its title, "Bigotry or Belief? A Test", in a few rather obvious ways. The first mistake he makes is in conflating whether something is legal or not with whether it amounts to bigotry. This is somewhat understandable since he is a law professor and therefore may think primarily in legalistic terms. However, his "test" only determines whether an individual or group can legally get away with a specific set of behaviors/actions. It says nothing about whether those behaviors are biased and/or bigoted. It is quite possible to be an upright law-abiding citizen and still be a narrow minded bigot.

The other blatant flaw is his reliance on scripture. The manner in which he uses it does not come close to determining whether a belief is bigotry. The best his "test" can do is come up with a relative sense of how sincerely an individual holds a specific belief and whether they attempt to apply that belief universally. In one sense that may mean they do not apply their beliefs in a hypocritical manner but that does not justify the belief itself and does not mean that the belief itself is by its nature not biased. It is also rather problematic to come to a conclusion at all based on scripture. As I have often pointed out, scripture tends to alternate between incoherent and contradictory.

Be an Asshole for (organized) Religion

Apparently, the Acton Institute doesn't think being a decent human being should count for anything. They don't even seem to think simply being a believer matters all that much either. You must belong to a specific faith and blindly follow that organized religion or else you are scum. That is main message in Elise Hilton's Power Blog post "'As Long As I’m A Good Person'"

She opens with:
“'It doesn’t matter what I believe…as long as I’m a good person.'
How many times have you heard that? As our society trends more and more to the secular, this type of thing becomes more common. We’ve gone from a society that, at the very least, paid lip-service to communal worship and having moral standards set by a higher authority, to 'I can worship God on my own; I don’t need a church to do that' to 'It doesn’t matter what I believe, as long as I’m a good person.'
Is that right? Can a person believe “whatever” and still be good."

Her answers end up being, big surprise, NO. You must be a blindly obedient ignorant sycophant to be a good person. It never crosses her mind that if a person ends up behaving decently then perhaps their beliefs are positive. It certainly never occurs to her that beliefs do not always translate into actions. Perhaps we should look at a balance between what a person believes and what they actually do with those beliefs?

Nope. Religious Right assholes cannot accept such a reasonable approach no matter how positive the outcome. They are as interested in controlling people as they are anything else. At least the blog's name is honest.

More "Spiritual" not "Religious" BS

I have pointed out previously that "spiritual" and "religious" are not necessarily synonyms but that they are inter-related to the point that they can be used in very similar ways. In effect if you are one then you are the other as well. Usually what is actually meant by those who say they are "spiritual but not religious" is that they do not belong to and/or identify with a specific organized religion. Generally, I am in favor of theists going the "spiritual" route if they find religion necessary. I do not, however, accept it as an excuse to further promote myths and stereotypes.

A recent post by Linda Mercadante on CNN's Belief Blog repeats a number willfully ignorant views. Unfortunately, her ignorance around two terms in particular are rather common. She has no clue what she is talking about when she refers to "scientism" or "secularism."  Scientism is a rather bogus term that is analogous to "social Darwinism." Like social social Darwinism, scientism has no real connection to the term it is supposedly predicated on. Scientism is a refutation of science not an off-shoot of it. Science is in essence a tool and a self-correcting process. Scientism is a rigid ideology held by those who lack even a basic understanding of science. Mercadante may be right in insisting that the "SBNRs" oppose "scientism." but that doesn't necessarily mean much since they have no clue what they are talking about. In many instances, scientism has been used by a sub-set of theists to attack science. It is the straw man fallacy writ large; convenient bullshit.

The author also seem to misunderstand/misrepresent secularism. For instance she states:
"They are tired of being confined by systems and structures. They are tired of having their unique identities reduced to bureaucratic codes. They are tired of having their spiritual natures squelched or denied."
What?! That's what secularism is designed to prevent. Secularism allows individuals and groups to freely believe whatever they want without others interfering with those beliefs. Secularism seeks to keep government and religion apart so that there is no coercion or infringement on people's beliefs. If the "SBNRs" are opposing secularism then they are defeating themselves. It is the absence of secularism that allows larger and/or more powerful religious groups to harass and coerce others. It is also the lack of secularism that allows government or other non-religious affiliated groups to dictate to theists what they can or cannot believe.

From start to finish "Good news about the ‘spiritual but not religious’" is laced with all sorts of ridiculous nonsense. Most of Mercadante's bullshit seem to stem from her complete lack of understanding. It is almost as if she took a slew of terms and their defintion along with various myths and stereotypes and threw them into a spin-art. Reading it was both amusing and painful.

"Forced to bake a cake"

A recent legal decision that was handed down in Colorado has caused some to throw a hissy fit. That a privately owned business does not have a right to discriminate is not a new idea. The precedent that Barry Fagin writes about in his ridiculously named "Forced to bake a cake" commentary was established quite some time ago. What is most disturbing about his writing is that he is not necessarily a far-right firebrand or a religious conservative. So why does he write: "To some, it's freedom of conscience. To me, it's freedom of bigotry. But we agree that someone's freedom was lost last Friday, at the hands of the Colorado judiciary."

His view of "freedom" seems to be a rather childish one. Throughout the piece he seems to imply that freedom is an absolute to the point that it comes across as a supernatural force rather than a human social construction. Even if we existed in a pure state of anarchy, which is also not possible, you still would not be able to do precisely whatever you wanted the moment you wanted. There are all sorts of practical reasons that this type of "freedom" does not and cannot exist. It does not take much thought to reach the conclusion that either Fagin is clueless or disingenuous. After all, would he argue that every American should have the right to kill anyone they choose to? By the same standards aren't government prohibitions against murder also limitations to our freedom?

It is not just his basic premise that is flawed. He continues:
"Does anyone seriously believe that forcing a private business to provide a product or service to a gay couple is even remotely progressive? That it will help promote tolerance and acceptance? And why would a gay couple choose to do business with someone under those circumstances? Are the political points scored really worth it?"

First, no one is "forcing" Jack Phillips to do anything. He still has a choice to make. He can continue to refuse to serve homosexuals and face fines, or he can comply with the law (which already exists and is simply being enforced). This passage makes me think that Fagin is both clueless and disingenuous. How do you simply gloss over things like the Civil Rights Movement? All you have to do to see this as utter bullshit is swap "gay" for "African American."  Should I or anyone have the right to refuse service to women just because they are women? When such discrimination is found the government has a duty to put a stop to it. We live in a civil society governed by law. Does enforcing the law always "promote tolerance and acceptance" among every individual and group in the country? How do you make progress without action?

Fagin may have reached the right conclusion that Phillips is a bigot but his route to that decision is dangerously flawed and loans credence to ideas and perceptions that do not deserve any respect.

Sex in the streets

Did the title of this post catch your attention? How about this for a statement, far-right stalwart Justice Antonin Scalia has now endorsed the right of every consenting adult to fuck anywhere they are comfortable doing so. That's right, if you apply even the most basic logic to his recent comments regarding public prayer that conclusion is perfectly reasonable.

An article in the December issue of Church & State, "Showdown At the Supreme Court", reviewed the hearings related to Town of Greece v. Galloway. According to the piece;
"Scalia asked questions along similar lines, saying that even when elected officials are acting in their official capacity, they’re still citizens with the right to invoke a deity.
'They are there as citizens…,' he opined. 'And these people perhaps invoke the deity at meals. They should not be able to invoke it before they undertake a serious governmental task such as enacting laws or ordinances?'”

See  how that works? If a government official can do something in the privacy of their home they should be able to do it in public as a government representative. Considering all the sex scandals surrounding even the most conservative figures it is clear that they most certainly do have plenty of sex. By Scalia's line of reasoning they should now feel empowered to screw right there in town hall. Yes, I realize this is a logical fallacy. Arumentum ad absurdum (aka Reductio ad absurdum) but that is actually my point.

Scalia's rationalization is absurd and has no bearing in reality. Government officials while fulfilling their functions as government representatives are by definition no longer acting as private citizens. That's the whole point. Government has no right to endorse or impose religion on anyone. It clearly states as much in the Constitution. Basically, Scalia and the rest of the right wing assholes who dominate the Supreme Court have once again revealed themselves to be ideological hacks who don't give a shit about the Constitution. I hope I am wrong but I am assuming that Galloway is going to lose.

Ignorance and Bigotry love Company

It never ceases to amaze me how truly ignorant people are when it comes to atheists/atheism. Unfortunately, many of these clueless individuals find the need to write/talk incessantly about atheists. Two recent, but by no means unique, examples annoyed me quite a bit. Both the Allergic Pagan's (Patheos) "Being an atheist just ain’t what it used to be" and HuffPo John Carlson's "Remembering Albert Camus and Longing for the Old Atheism" are chock-full of bullshit and bigotry.

John Halstead of Allergic Pagan is the more disturbing since the piece is largely about his own son coming out as an atheist and that he himself comments on sometimes identifying as an atheist. He clearly does not get it. Being an atheist is not like picking which outfit you want to wear that day. You believe or you don't. You are an atheist or you are not. Though, that is a minor point in comparison with some of the other ridiculous things he comes up with. Halstead is disturbed that his son will accept "...materialism that bleeds the world of beauty and meaning and everything that makes life an interesting adventure." Does this dipshit not ever pay attention to the news? Didn't we just go through this bullshit with that bitch Oprah? Big hint, moron, there is NO beauty or wonder without materialism. What are you marveling at if you can't sense it in any way. All those feelings and emotions are produced by the brain. The brain is a physical/material organ. His piece is loaded with all sorts of similarly ill-informed biased myths and stereotypes as well as a multitude of logical fallacies.

Carlson was not quite as annoying since the title made it pretty clear what I was in for. It is yet another piece that has picked up on a fairly recent tactic being used by critics of atheists/atheism. They want to seem reasonable and civil by "praising" or "respecting" the "Old Atheism" while denigrating or dismissing the "New Atheism." It is a crock of shit from start to finish. First it creates a blatantly false dichotomy. The ideas and arguments of atheists haven't really changed that much. The only verifiable distinction between the "old" and "new" has to do with media. The mainstream media, though still rather biased, is willing to talk/write about atheists more than they ever have in the past. It is also now possible for atheist to get published by large publishing houses. Not that long ago only small niche publishers would touch the works of an atheist. That is the only noticeable difference, assuming you actually pay attention to what atheist say and write rather than pretending you do. I have a sneaking suspicion that many who claim to have read the works of this or that atheist have not actually done so.

The second major problem with this contemporary canard of theists is that it is often grossly inaccurate. To be honest, I'm not that familiar with Camus so I do not know whether Carlson is misrepresenting him or not. I do know that other critics have used long-dead atheists to similar ends. One I am familiar with is Nietzche. Numerous critics have presented very opinionated and flimsy interpretations of Nietzche's work for the sole purpose of attacking contemporary atheists by contrast. It's an odd tactic but seems to be growing in popularity among certain circles. It is not an example of sound literary criticism or any intellectual endeavor. It is simply bigotry dressed up.

Why these assholes find the need to go on about things they clearly do not understand or have any interest in understanding is both confusing and annoying. If you want to engage in discussion and debate or just learn about an unfamiliar demographic that would be one thing. Doing that involves real inquiry not making up shit based on what you prefer to believe.