Is Jeffrey Salkin Mormon?

It may seem an idiotic question if you are familiar with Jeffrey Salkin's blog Martini Judaism. After all, Judaism is right in the title. However, if you use the same logic of a few of the posts he's put out  over the past week or so it makes sense. It seems that any individual he happens to like the work of can be proclaimed Jewish. His short piece "Woody Allen, Jewish despite himself" at least has some superficial merit. Woody was raised in a Jewish family. He himself is actually an atheist. He is not a practicing Jew and can only be called a Jew in a flimsy cultural sense of the term. His more recent piece, "Was Sinatra Jewish?", is just nonsensical crap. Sinatra never had even a vague affiliation with Jews beyond those that anyone else with friends or acquaintances who happened to be Jewish would have.

In both instances Salkin does a lot of cherry-picking to force the careers of these two men into a mold of his own warped logic's devising. It's as sad as it is pathetic. With both pieces he could have used a few of the vague associations to discuss and examine the whole idea of Jewish identity. There's always been a bit of debate over whether Jewishness is a matter of faith, ethnicity, culture, or a mixture. Just as there have always been questions about to what extent the previous question matters. It is a very interesting topic well worth thinking about. It's too bad Salkin's writing more closely resembles that asinine Mormon practice of "baptizing" individuals as Mormon after they are dead whether they expressed any interest in Mormon faith while alive. It's stupid, dishonest, arrogant, and disrespectful.

Did she really "Convert"? Does it Matter?

Some seem to be both surprised and disturbed by Leah Libresco's "conversion" to Christianity. I don't really see it as that big of a surprise or even remotely significant. I have nothing against her but I never really cared for her Patheos Blog. I always wonder if she really was an atheist. Leah nearly admits to such without really being aware of it. In "This is my last post for the Patheos Atheist Portal" she acknowledges something I had noticed despite having only previously read a handful of her posts. She routinely referenced "soul" and "sin" as if they were real. It is possible, though highly unlikely, that an atheist could have some supernatural based beliefs. However, those two would be difficult to take seriously without a belief in God. Personally, I don't think she was ever really an atheist. I think she found it hard to accept organized religion's rigidity and intolerance.

In either case, I wish her well. If identifying with atheists was not working for her then it makes sense for her to stop doing so.

When expressions are seen as appeals....

... and subtitles trump substance, intelligent public discourse is in serious jeopardy!

"Oh,God!", "Jesus H. Christ!", "Holy Shit!",...
Does making such exclamations automatically make one religious? Does this mean that shit is holy whether I stub my toe or not?

Apparently, Giles Fraser, BBC Radio 4, and the Huffington Post think so. It also seems that forgetting the subtitle to a book indicates a lack of knowledge of what that book contains. Like most theistic critics of outspoken atheists Fraser wields a variety of long debunked myths and stereotypes as if they are some type of talisman. The Origin of the Species is an important book but not for the reasons he and other such ignorant fools think. It helped establish a new field of science, evolutionary biology, but is not the field in and of itself.

Giles can't help but call Dawkins "the high pope of Darwinism" thus exposing himself as a stupid bigot and an asshole as well. Atheism is not nor does it resemble a religion. Dawkins is not even a spokesman let alone a holy man for atheism. He is an outspoken atheist, period. While we are at it, Darwinism is not a synonym for evolution. There is no Darwinism except in the minds of those who can't quite figure out that the theory of evolution has progressed far beyond what Darwin was capable of in his time. He laid the early groundwork and deserves respect for what he did accomplish but evolution has evolved.

Dawkins momentary memory lapse over something as trivial as a subtitle probably would never have been noted if theists like Giles could actually construct a decent argument or provide anything resembling proof. He can't. Instead, he lashes out like a spoiled child. The feeble attempt to equate it with the questions of the survey that was suppose to be the point of the radio exchange fails miserably. You don't have to actually know what is in Origins of the Species to learn about the contemporary version of Evolutionary Theory. On the other hand, most major religions insist you must not only know but practice specific doctrines to be part of that faith. Giles insistence that it is "not fair to ask people these questions" is preposterous.

It is not those posing the questions who came up with the defining tenets of Christianity. They are simply noting that many self-described Christians don't live up to the standards set up by the doctrines and leadership of that religion. Don't blame us for your delusions, hypocrisies, and double standards. As I have stated in previous posts I am fine with people self-identifying with whatever they want so long as they accept responsibility for that identity. I do find it odd that people continue to identify with a system of beliefs they clearly do not believe.

So far as I can tell the survey is not about telling people they cannot self identify. It does expose the foolishness of linking oneself to group you tend to disagree with on a fundamental level. It also seems intend on taking away some of the authority religious leaders like to claim based on the number of their followers. I fail see anything wrong with such an approach.