One century, you’ve got Bach, another century, you’ve got Li’l Markie. Christianity has really gone downhill from its prior status as the font of funding for culture and art and intellectual endeavor to being the being the bottom of the barrel source for kitsch and crap. Case in point: Denyse O’Leary’s hideous, horrible, talentless hackery has been nominated for a Canadian Christian Writing Award. Even setting aside the fact that I disagreed vehemently with the content of the book, if you judge it on the quality of the writing, it doesn’t deserve recognition, it warrants condemnation — it’s probably the worst-written bit of tripe to cross my desk all year long, and that’s saying a lot. I’ve got a few people trying to persuade me to review their Christian apocalyptic fantasy novels, and O’Leary’s book is more incoherent than those.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Lil Markie’s no match for Eurovision, which is actually fun to watch.
Oh, it is rewarding all right!
But what do you expect from people who rely on an old text both for literary qualities (it uncritically contains both high quality low poems as well as kitsch war stories and crap morality texts) and as oracle on facts? That O’Leary’s book is listed isn’t a sign of an impending apocalypse, it is religious business as usual.
Nice find, it will definitely make a good reply next time “the font of funding for culture and art and intellectual endeavor” argument makes the rounds. But you remind me that I haven’t seen it lately. How about that.
I’ve been wondering the same thing for years. All I can think is that what the Christianity Cops consider safe & Christian enough is tasteless, tacky tripe: therefore, that’s what’s considered Christian art. It’s like they go out of their way to select only the most insipid, incoherent artists imaginable.
Strangely enough, for people who believe passionately in an invisible magic man, they have no imagination at all.
Yes, and occasionally Eurovision has bands that are actually good — like Finland’s Lordi, which won in 2006. (Yes, typical Finns look like that.)
But, to not drift off-topic, I guess no-one is surprised that Lordi’s participation raised shrill, incoherent and ineffectual cries of protest from various Christian organizations, mainly by the use of the logical shortcut “Looks different => Is evil”.
Ah well.
When did “Christian” become a synonym for “crap”?
When Darwin published “On the Origin of Species…”.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed woman is queen.
They obviously don’t have many “popular” writers to choose from.
The fat guy & Li’l Markie seem to figure that their god-thing’s got their lives planned out. How so how do they explain how it screwed up big-time on their personalized diet & exercise plan?.
Anyone who hasn’t been following the Slacktivist’s reviews of the Left Behind books has been missing out. I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to see the rare and elusive left-wing Christian (he used to be a fundie) in great form – his criticisms are insightful and belie a true knowledge of the writing form and how to turn a phrase. He points out not only the literary but also the theological problems with the books, and it’s been enormous fun following him through the psyche of LeHaye, Jenkins and their crappy troupe of completely unbelievable characters in their terribly written glory.
It all started around Oct 2003, and the first entry is around the middle of this page:
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/left_behind/page/20/
New entries every Friday (or approximately so). Highly recommended.
To Fred’s credit, he’s made me realize that there ARE intelligent, (truly) caring Christians who realize the ludicrous nature of the current crop of fundies and are striving to show that belief is truly personal and nothing to be afraid of – that may be anathema to some atheists, but it taught me that I should have respect for him, and others like him. They are good people, even if I don’t agree with them.
I have no examples. but I presume that in addition to Bach and other christainity-inspired greats, there was an even larger number of christainity-inspired drecks. Some of whom, I also presume, were considered greats in their own time; just as some people we now consider greats were very probably considered drecks in their own time.
Of course it’s not a binary great/dreck division, nor does everyone have the same opinion. It’s a continuum with great at one end and dreck at the other; and there is some sort of a distribution of opinions along that continuum. The most popular opinion (the concensus, if you will) can and does shift over time.
I assume that o’leary will slide, over time, further and further towards dreck and eventually fall off the edge of world.
As for the decline in the quality of music – One century, you’ve got Bach, another century, you’ve got Li’l Markie. – it’s a consequence of who commissions it. It used to be the intellectuals, now it’s the masses. I don’t think that we can blame that on Xians. It’s just one of the downsides of capitalism.
Say what you will about C.S. Lewis’s beliefs (and in some ways they were quite unorthodox even by the standards of the Christianity he was trying to defend) and the themes of his books, he was a great writer (and a fine scholar, in his field), so as recently as the 1950s there was quality Christian cultural output. I guess Tolkien too, now I think about it.
There is a good Christian humor writer in Britain named Adrian Plass.
I suspect that the commercialization of Christian pop culture has a great deal to do with its poor quality. Often Christian music ends up being a weird copy of secular musical movements except with the words shifted to a Christian theme, which in turn means that key themes of the original music are lost. The worst of Christian culture is thus so much worse in quality than the average secular equivalent, but it receives lots of attention (the truly appallingly bad Left Behind books/films being examples) from conservative Protestant circles because it is seen as being godly, and thus good.
Thanks for acknowledging that Christianity was at least, at one point, a source of both funding and inspiration for the arts. I won’t get into the debate here, but it’s probably one of the few defensible arguments for the extravagance of the church. I also agree completely that “Christian” as a descriptor for any form of media is now synonymous with “awful.”
As a side note. Don’t get to worked up about Obama’s religiousness. You’re never going to get a perfect candidate and his actual policies don’t reflect religious idiocy but moral thought. If he has to pander he has to pander, but at least he isn’t shaking hands with Moral Majority members.
Lewis!? He wrote a few passable stories of which my favorite is The Screwtape Letters but a literary giant, he was not.
To borrow from the Bible, man can’t serve two masters. Something gets put higher than quality of music. For Christian Contemporary, it’s “godliness”, for Britney Spears, it’s (originally) sex appeal or (currently) that can’t-look-away train wreck appeal. But the music is crap because it’s ancillary to some other purpose.
I’m convinced that there must be good music being made right now with overtly Christian themes. But it’s not what gets on the radio.
In classical music there are Arvo Pärt and John Taverner who are certainly not “awful”.
And for the converse…
OK, a bit later than Bach, but Caleb Simper might be an example. I guess the dreck tends to get forgotten – I’m sure there were many awful composers in Bach’s time.
Did PDQ Bach look to Christianity as a source of both funding and inspiration?
Sadly, the Pärts, Taveners, Lewises, Eliots, Bachs etc. are the exception rather than the rule. More generally, the Christian shift from the edge to its current lazy status might have come, as R. Harris suggested, when The Origin of Species was published (and back as far as the Renaissance)–when people covered their ears rather than allow any compatibility at all between faith and reality.
Because with a group of hypocrites like these:…minister from a Dallas-area Baptist megachurch was caught in an Internet sex sting and charged with online solicitation of a minor… You need to have someone tell you how wonderful you, and your religion, is at all times. Since any self-respecting individual wouldn’t have any part of it, the field is open for liars, frauds and hacks.
Honestly, I believe that anyone with any self-respect, half a set of morals and any cognitive skills would just shy completely away from all those horrible people. But those that are in it, not only are they amoral, ignorant fools, but actually consider ignorance a virtue and cannot see their amoral behaviors hidden by their brutal, self-serving religion.
His biography at http://www.schickele.com/pdqbio.htm says his inspiration was mostly due to vision, memory, and plagiarism:
And as for the funding:
I wonder if Orac has ever featured P.D.Q.’s Patent Medicines in his Weekly Wacky Woo series?
We spend a lot of time on the bad news here, and there is a surfeit of stupidity that needs exposing. However, from this week’s Swift on James Randi’s site, http://www.randi.org, a reader points out the the Smithsonian Natural History Museum in Washington DC is fully supportive of evolution. Go to the description of the Kenneth E. Behring Family Hall of Mammals at http://www.mnh.si.edu/mammals/ and meet your relatives.
Ciao
When the west was synonymous with Christendom, then everything done in the west was Christian, both the great and the crap. Naturally, we remember the great more than the crap.
Thanks alot for the Lil Markie link. My morning sickness is bad enough as it is, but I now i feel really ill.
It’s fourth-rate, at best perhaps third,
This New Christian Music I’ve heard;
It’s crap, through and through,
And you already knew
Even Jesus can’t polish a turd.
I thought Amanda Marcotte had a good post on this recently when she argued that mega-church Christianity plays into the same kind of mass cultural appeal as mainstream pop music. I don’t quite agree with her position as an Insufferable Music Snob (TM), but I think there’s merit to the idea that the music is targetted towards a particular mass audience, and the way to appeal to that audience is to be bland and inoffensive.
Poor Christianity has been dispossessed for a couple of centuries of its traditional role as the leading authority in society. Even most Christians recognize that, although many do so with an intense kind of fear and loathing. They recognize that the age of reason and science has trumped their ideology. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” By that Biblical standard, science wins and religion loses.
Those who just can’t accept that God-thinking is now second best have hunkered down in the blasted choirs of their churches. They are reduced to playing a losing game of defense. Since they’re playing on God’s divinely inspired team (and certain to win — the Bible says so!), their fierce faith causes them to cling to each other and to accept each other and to praise each other — no matter what. They can spew bilge at each other and have praise showered upon them for their efforts. Intention becomes everything. If you’re well-intentioned, then whatever you do must be great. That is, nothing God-inspired can be awful, so you can write pathetic poetry and have others tell you it’s brilliant:
So never quit when you find you’re not fit
And don’t fall apart, just open your heart.
Get into the right story that’s filled with mercy and glory
For you, for me, for all.
That one verse is from a “wonderful” poem that was broadcast on a Catholic radio program. There’s more, but perhaps that was enough to give you the flavor. (Gag!)
The losers are spending all their time telling each other they’re winners.
Once again. Two words: Gospel Gangstas.
@Zeno#23–
If nothing God-inspired can be awful… do we have any musicians around here?
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-do-i-love-thee.html
I could use a piece of that pie. Or is it pieces of silver? I can never remember.
Or maybe, just maybe, something God-inspired truly can be truly awful.
I think what’s “Christian” has changed mostly due to marketing. Unless it’s a ridiculously simplistic propping-up of faith, it not Christian. My sister’s a Christian and she buys a lot of “Christian” literature, and most of it is self-help and bible verses thrown into a blender. The music she listens to is worse.
Godly, not good — as many other people pointed out.
Here I am, Cuttlefish!
speaking as a music technology major, I can’t stand christian music. It’s designed to have all the right chord progressions and melodic turns that make people get kind of hypnotized, but I’ve heard 200 christian songs and they all wash into being the 1 christian song.
Xianity being synonymous with crap is the least of its worries.
Thanks to the fundie cultists, Xian is also now getting to be synonymous with “liar”, “stupid”, “crazy”, “ignorant”, and occasionally “murderer.”
There is a backlash right now against the wingnut faction. Fundie and creo are now insults and, if you call a fundie creo, a “fundie creo”, they usually deny it. Hard to say if the backlash is serious and long term, or if we will end up in the ruins of our civilization saying, “I told you they were crazy morons.”
I’m rather pleased that Denyse O’Dreary is the best Christian writer Canada can offer.
Think how depressing it would be if there were a crowd of lucid, articulate Canadians actively writing and persuading Canadian youth to give up reason in favour of Bensteinery.
I think as atheist media blog may have pointed out at some time, canada’s big problem is islam right now.
this is an entirely shameless plug, but who says atheists can’t also do pubic service announcements? Perhaps my flaw though is being too experimental, though.
http://www.myspace.com/drifterchameleon
just one song.
The best artists and musicians used to have to bow down before Church authority. Now that they no longer have to (thanks to the Enlightenment, the rise of Capitalism, increased contact with other cultures, etc), they don’t. Those that remain and do so voluntarily are the mediocre dregs almost by definition.
“You people don’t make Christianity better, you just make rock music worse!” — Hank Hill
Beauregardian woo:
“…I was lying in bed. I was very weak at the time because I was suffering from a particularly severe form of what is now called chronic fatigue syndrome. The experience began with a sensation of heat and tingling in the spine and the chest areas. Suddenly, I merged with the infinitely loving Cosmic Intelligence (or Ultimate Reality) and became united with everything in the cosmos. This unitary state of being, which transcends the subject/object duality, was timeless and accompanied by intense bliss and ecstasy. In this state, I experienced the basic interconnectedness of all things in the cosmos, this infinite ocean of life. I also realized that everything arises from and is part of this cosmic intelligence.”
Move along. Nothing to see here. Just another Deepak wannabee.
Well, I’m Christian. That being said and done, I have to agree with what you have said. All Christianity is now is a farce; a pathetic attempt to make everyone feel great about Christianity and the way things are. Blech. I don’t go to church because I don’t want to listen to a bunch of quacks talking to me about how to worship my God. Or see the old women and old men (with a few screaming toddlers in tow, of course) glare at me because I am apparently not as “religious as them”. The music is a whiny sort of complaining, a kind of “make the bleeding in my ears stop” kind of sound. The “Christian Novels” are almost always a joke; I don’t need some old person telling me what to think about my life/thought/emotions. If I wanted that, I’d watch Dr. Phil; and I don’t watch Dr. Phil. And Denyse O’Leary’s book? *shudder*
Quacks like that make me sick. Don’t let their horrible writing abilities, coupled with their complete misunderstanding of the neurological composition of the brain, make you think that all Christians are completely idiotic primates who just learned how to make fire. I believe in evolution; you cannot possibly say that all of these different species that have been proven not to have been around since the beginning of time have not evolved from some other species of creature. I believe that the brain is the brain, and that no “spirits” or “higher entities” are included; it’s biological. That being said: we’re not even close to figuring out how the brain actually functions as a whole. We have neurotransmitters, neurons, and a “map” of the brain. I’m not going to say that the “supernatural powers” of nuns are not feasible (Comic books – a man has to dream). But I know that someday Science will have an answer.
The maddened Droves of Christians seem to attack science at every turn. Every song, every book, almost everything Christian in present times seems to try to counter Science in some way. You cannot deny Science. As soon as the Christians get past “Creationism” (which is sprung from the book of Genesis, the first half of which is PURELY SYMBOLISM and not meant to be taken in a strictly literal sense) we shouldn’t have a problem. As for myself, I already made my peace with Creationism; maybe a higher being (God) did “create” the primordial ball of lava about six billion years ago, but that being hasn’t shown up since. I just want peace. It seems like the Christians are too busy fighting facts that are irrefutable to actually be Christians.
Sorry about that. My long-winded talk is over.
Atheists make the best music now.
Proof: http://youtube.com/watch?v=mp1TmPo35yM and http://youtube.com/watch?v=SIRUzqHTNh8
I’ve already copped to liking some Christian metal bands, now I’ll admit that I appreciate the Christian art of Thomas Blackshear, whose work was skewered as softcore kitsch in a Harpers article on megachurches. Blackshear’s ‘The Vessel’ and ‘The Watcher’ adorns New Life Church of Ted Haggard fame. If Blackshear is kitsch it’s terrific kitsch. Plus, the angels and holy men and women depicted in his paintings are ethnically diverse. Blackshear is African-American.
Some might be familiar with Blackshear’s work through Toni Morrison’s book Song of Solomon; some editions use a Blackshear painting as cover art.
As a Canadian I’m proud to see that our Christians are so wholly out of touch with decency and taste that they have inadvertently relegated themselves to a fringe group in our culture. With this kind of garbage getting nominated for awards, it’ll be a cold day in hell before we even get close to producing a Bach here in the Great White North.
I’d pay good money to see a fight between Lil’ Markie and Biz Markie.
What is it with biology writers and Bach? Gould was always banging on about Bach, and he was a misery. The recitatives in the cantatas make you want to slam your hand in a car door, though some of the chorales are pretty good. You want some joyous, bonkers religious music Mozart is your man – his early masses are just fantastic.
The Gloria from the Coronation Mass or the Credo from the Credo Mass are just terrific pieces of music that must have cheered up many a suffering Catholic in Vienna.
About O’Leary: Perhaps her intended readers don’t see the lack of quality because when you’re defending goddiness, it doesn’t matter about the quality. All that matters is that someone wrote something. The fortress is safe again, buy a copy and give it as a gift.
Hugh Nibley served the same function for Mormons; even when his methods were appalling, no one seemed to mind. The readership was impressed by the appearance of scholarship.
Doesn’t O’Leary call herself a science writer and a Journalist ? I’ve followed her blog for a while and was absolutely amazed at her lack of objectivity and her systematic biases in favour of her religion.
There’s only one thing she’s mastered, it’s setting up stawmen on non believers.
And this is the person who says that scientists should have an “open mind” ? I’m certainly willing to admit that NDEs are phenomenae worthy of further investigation from which we might learn interesting aspects of the human mind, but to conclude that these are evidences of an immaterial soul, and that this conclusion is what warrants the distinction of open mindendness according to this archi-biased bigot queen, my trust in her is at 0.0000 %.
How can people even fall into this ?
I think Marcotte is onto something about the relationship between Christian pop culture and the mainstream, but makes a major fallacy in her dismissal of “mediocrity.”
It’s tempting to think that one’s own aesthetic sensibilities are the most authentic, tasteful, and sophisticated, but kitsch and mediocrity are relative things. The valuation of anything changes with demographic, subculture, and time.
Are John Waters movies, The Ramones, and Francis Bacon crap or gold? I think they’re the latter, but others disagree, and the tastes of not only the masses but cultural gatekeepers (critics, art academics, and not least of all, investors and patrons) changes. Avant-garde undergrounds can turn into mainstream convention and then into hokey kitsch, the same formal properties through the eyes of different observers (or even the same ones with changed tastes).
Heraclitus said that you can never step into the same river twice. I would add that nor can you see the same painting or listen to the same piece of music twice, because the associative network involved in appreciating the work – that is to say, you – has changed (and one way that it has changed is that it has already experienced that work).
Posted by: JJR | May 17, 2008 10:42 AM
Amen – the only reason the Church ever was the leader in commissioning works of culture and art was solely because they were the ones with the most money. These artists had to do their best – and most expensive – works for the church.
Not only has this led to the misconceptions about many of the artists’ faiths, but on the other hand it also led to many of the artists subverting their patron unknowingly by inserting innuendo and suggestion into those very same works. Also, it was the Catholic Church that was commissioning most of this art, and they were not only the one with the deepest pockets, but they held a monopoly on salvation and heaven and still had enough societal weight to ostracize whomever they wanted, non-compliant artists included.
As for why today’s “Christian” culture is so comparatively terrible, I think it has something to do with variety. The greats of the last few generations, one example being Lennon, had a variety to not only their rhythm, words, and method, but also in their message. They seized upon the issues that were important to them, but they didn’t beat them into the ground, song after song, without mixing it up a bit. Grab a contemporary Christian CD and take a look at its tracklist. Their titles and messages are so monochrome that they tend to make most of us non-Christians put them right back down – I usually get a gag-reflex action when confronted with contrived preachiness on that kind of scale. (Like when those television commercials for the Christian CD’s come on, showing a crowd of thousands with their arms up and eyes closed, I can’t get to the remote fast enough.)
Christian culture and art today is simply playing toward its existing fan base, and isn’t even remotely appealing to those outside that base. The Christian bands that have had some mainstream success, such as Creed, have had to tone down their religiosity in their songs – the preachy, call to worship stuff that makes most Christian music unpalatable to most – in order to get on the charts, but lasting success for a Christian band in the pop culture mainstream today just doesn’t seem possible.
It’s not the Christians, it’s the Canadians. These people watch curling for Christ’s sake.
What’s bad about Christian music?
It’s joyous! It’s free of all those troubling minor chords and self centered, ungodly key signatures that the devil wants us to crave. This frees the music! It allows it to express only that which is true and eternal and inspires one to feel joy, joy in Christ! Jesus in a cloud of glory! Praise God!
And the best part is…it doesn’t evolve. If anything, the opposite!
An interesting piece on this topic hit slate a while back:
http://www.slate.com/id/2190482/
Posted by: RamblinDude | May 17, 2008 12:16 PM
And there I was, trying to figure out what it was exactly that they liked about it…
I just read your review of that horrifyingly terrible book by “neuroscientists”. I love how they claim the “molecules of the neuron are replaced 10,000 times”. First, to begin with, this sounds like the “facts” that anti-toxicity quacks in medicine spew. Second, of COURSE the molecules of a neuron are replaced! The ions within the membrane diffuse into/out of and are pumped into/out of the cell cytoplasm to generate an electric current. (And being a biomedical engineering student I have the unfortunate task of deriving the equations to describe this, then representing the neuron as an electrical circuit :P). That argument is just silly. To go with your metaphor Dr. Myers, it’s not like re-doing the drywall on your house – it’s more like the air is moving into and out of your house. Their argument is just bullshit.
I’d pay good money to see a fight between Lil’ Markie and Biz Markie.
Markie Post could wipe the floor with both of them.
#38: I’m inclined to say — you call that music? But … de gustibus non disputandum, I suppose.
#42: ditto — though I love both Bach and Mozart.
#34, 46: Bach didn’t write because he had to kowtow to his Christian masters. He wrote for the glory of God. Some artists were actually Christians back then, you know.
As for Christian contemporary music I’ve never liked much of it, but I do have a soft spot for Jennifer Knapp:
As a punk/new wave fan who is also a folk nerd, I have to confess my love for early American country and gospel. The Carter Family. Hank Williams, Sr. Johnny Cash. Shape note. It’s such powerful, raw music, even my atheist self can be moved by it. When I used to get dragged to my fundie relatives’ church, I would have given anything to hear some of that instead of the schmaltzy modern christian dreck they insisted on playing.
Oddly, when I lobbied successfully to have “Will the Circle Be Unbroken” played at my grandfather’s funeral, they all thought it was very weird and quaint. They don’t seem to know down in Mississippi that San Francisco hipsters are all into that stuff now.
Oh, and, uh, Matt? (#33) Please do tell us more about those “pubic” service announcements…
Wow! Lil’ Markie’s mullet is fearfully and wonderfully made! I think the main reason why this Christopop is so bad is that Sturgeon’s law comes into play. The people this music is marketed to have consumed a steady diet of soulless (HA!) commercial garbage out of Nashville and the Orlando boy-band mill, the Christian artists are merely the ones who couldn’t make it on the straight crap-pop circuit so they use religious content to lower the bar, and move product. It’s just like their “science”, in that regard, sub-standard hooey.
Oh, and Mr Kremer, I have a hard spot for Jennifer Knapp.
Why are there Canadian Christian Writing Awards in the first place ? Why would people even pay attention to them ?
Never heard of French Christian Writing Awards, nor Spanish, nor British… Tried to google for it but couldn’t find anything of the sort.
What a mindbuggingly stupid idea. So what are the criterias to enter the competition ?
I always thought Canadians were more rational than their southern neighbour, were I mistaken ?
Brokensoldier writes:
Amen – the only reason the Church ever was the leader in commissioning works of culture and art was solely because they were the ones with the most money.
Also – the church controlled the “whip hand” if you will regarding what work might get you in trouble. I’m sure there was plenty of pornography in the middle ages; it was just carefully hidden – or it manifested itself in the pornographic torture “hell” scenes above church doors. When I was a kid, I had a minor epiphany about that particular topic – I visited the church at Conques, in the south of France, shortly after I’d first encountered the works of the Marquis De Sade. And, there, right over the church door – nude women being tortured: grilled and burned on racks, inside the church – “saints” with breasts cut off, eyes burned out.
Christian hack-work. The damned have all the fun in the lower right:
(NSFW)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Conques_JPG03.jpg
You can find the award guidlines HERE.
All you need to do is to submit 40-50 bucks for the entry fee and you too may potentially win dozens of dollars ($200 for top prize) and other great rewards.
Oh, and you have to affirm the Apostle’s Creed.
In brightest day, in blackest night,
No evil shall escape my sight.
Let those who worship evil’s might,
Beware my power…Green Lantern’s light!
Or words to that effect.
Oh, and you have to affirm the Apostle’s Creed.
Idiots. Ivan Drago killed Apostle Creed in Rocky IV way back in ’85.
“Christianity has really gone downhill from its prior status as the font of funding for culture and art and intellectual endeavor to being the being the bottom of the barrel source for kitsch and crap.”
Hear, hear! I can still get goosebumps over Handel’s Hallelujah Chorus, even though I don’t share its sentiments anymore.
But then, most (not all) music nowadays doesn’t hold a candle to that of the old masters.
“I always thought Canadians were more rational than their southern neighbour, were I mistaken ?” – negentropyeater
Yes. Never underestimate the ability of Canadians to be different from Americans for the sake of being different from Americans. Obviously, this would instantly lead one to appear more rational. (how many people can I insult at the same time?)
The central question is: what makes for great art?
Come out of your corners swinging!
At least those days, artists tried to come up with “convincing arguments”;
The most concrete description of heaven and hell I’ve seen is still that of Hieronymus Bosch;
http://www.museodelprado.es/pagina-principal/coleccion/galeria-on-line/galeria-on-line/zoom/1/obra/el-jardin-de-las-delicias-o-la-pintura-del-madrono/oimg/0/
(at the museo del prado in Madrid, one of my favourite paintings)
assuming this is not some send up (i didnt watch it all), thats a testament to his audiences general intellectuual and aesthetic capacity.
Anybody who can sit and watch such a grotesque display from such a badly presented person (hes morbidly obese, has a really bad hair cut and dress sense and sounds and talks shit)must be in a severe state of neoteny, most normal kids at age 10 would find that somewhat disquieting, a 3 year old wouldnt know any better.
the audience is pathetic, i dont care what they do for jobs or how ‘nice ‘ they are. Thats one lousy lot of unspohisticated imbeciles.
I haven’t gotten to the other links, yet. I’m stuck on Li’l Markie.
What in the… wow. What the hell was that??
‘When did “Christian” become a synonym for “crap”?’
The answer, of course, is when certain groups of Christians decided to pull back from mainstream society and form their own book clubs. The main Christian base — the average people who walk past you on the street, as good a person as your average atheist — that continued to contribute to the mainstream had their best works embraced by mainstream society. Case in point, the works of C.S. Lewis, and Madeleine L’Engle — two obviously Christian writers who sometimes have their books challenged in certain schools because of “unchristian” themes (C.S. Lewis has a witch in “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe”, you know, and “A Wrinkle in Time” mentions Jesus and Buddha in the same sentence, favourably).
I had to watch a lot of this stuff in an evangelical-dominated high school I went to for three years. I didn’t realize it at the time, but this was the kind of things fundies actually watch. The moment of clarity came when they showed a movie (or maybe it was a TV series) about a youth pastor that included a scene where he hit it off with some girl (somewhere younger than him but older than his charges). In any normal movie, the parting scene between them would feature — nay, DEMAND — a kiss between the two. What actually happened is that she just smiled awkwardly and walked off. Cheese factor aside, the contrived chastity was what broke the whole genre for me — even more offensive IMHO than a gratuitous sex scene.
Slate recently published an article about the crappiness of Chrisian pop culture. Here it is from RD.net: http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2593,Pop-Goes-Christianity,Slate
I’ll second Dave’s recommendation of the Slacktivist’s series on the “Left Behind” books (search for link above). I really look forward to the L.B. posts on Friday — snark about the worst books ever written — delicious.
Posted by: James Bow | May 17, 2008 2:29 PM
Christians – since the days of Peter – have always had their “own clubs” for everything, including books. In days past, if you didn’t conform to the style of art advocated by these “clubs,” you’d be excommunicated or otherwise ostracized. Instead of Christian authors pulling away from the mainstream, it has actually been mainstream society pulling away from the overtly Christian market, and society has been doing so for the last few hundred years.
And no one championing C.S. Lewis for his religion would “challenge” his texts as non-Christian. Actually, it is quite the opposite. He is touted – in Christian literary circles – as a master of symbol and allegory, while J.K. Rowling and her Harry Potter series is maligned as satanic and unholy. And when you read critics who are not beholden to the Good Book, you find that most consider Rowling’s stories to be the ones that use such symbolism and allegory more effectively and come across as more entertaining. While Lewis and Narnia are literary household names, as an allegory, the series is a bit elementary. In the four year course of getting a degree in Lit, I had to read a lot of Lewis, and aside from The Screwtape Letters, I didn’t really read anything that was all that distinguished on its own merits.
The difference in the entire situation has a direct relationship to the decline of the power of the Church to make society conform to what it believes is valuable as art. A millennia ago, religion controlled mainstream culture. These days, it has been replaced as arbiter of all things art by those who have actually studied the individual forms they critique – in a word, experts. And now that they do not control the list, they have withdrawn into the demographic where there works get the reverence they seek, which is of course themselves.
@#42
Speaking of Canadians, Gould, and Bach…
So You Want to Write a Fugue
And no one championing C.S. Lewis for his religion would “challenge” his texts as non-Christian.
Not so. The book, and “A Wrinkle in Time” have both been challenged by so-called Christians because of what they saw as “un-Christian” elements. Which just shows you how loony those individuals were. The rest of us average Christians were quite happy to read those books alongside J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series.
Christians – since the days of Peter – have always had their “own clubs” for everything, including books.
Not all Christians. Certainly not this Christian. Yes, I probably don’t think the way the evangelical fundamentalists want me to think, and it’s possible that they’d shun or excommunicate me if I gave a damn about it, but for my circle of friends, family and acquaintances, which include Christians, atheists, Buddhists and Wiccans, it’s the isolationists’ loss, not ours.
“The answer, of course, is when certain groups of Christians decided to pull back from mainstream society and form their own book clubs.” – James Bow
I agree. Good art struggles to get out of ghettos, not to get into them. Christian art suffers all the pitfalls of genre art in general. Didn’t we just have a conversation about vampire novels?
I always wanted to write a fugue, but, whenever I did write a fugue, I’d have a fugue, and then totally forget what it was I was writing in the first place.
James Bow @ # 71:
It certainly is refreshing to hear you say that you read Rowling “alongside” Lewis’s works happily (though the two definitely don’t stand shoulder-to-shoulder concerning their literary merit by any means), but that doesn’t change the fact that the majority of Christian critics belittled Rowling for depicting magic and wizardry, and classified her works as unfit for Christians to let their children experience. And these same critics take the Narnia Chronicles and look at them through rosy colored glasses, calling his stories uplifting and symbolic, even despite their comparative medicority in the way he delivers his story. But the fact that you used the word “loony” to describe anyone doubting the Christian merits of Lewis in his works simply proves that the statement of mine you quoted is accurate.
Again with the No True Scotsman argument… It is a plain fact that religion dominated culture and art for well over a thousand years, so the fact that you’re more conciliatory than the mainstream church does nothing to change the truth of the fact that the leaders of Christianity kept a firm hold on society’s expression, whether that expression be political, economic, or cultural. It’s nice that you don’t do the evil things that those who represent and lead your faith do, but that doesn’t mean they don’t happen anyway, because they certainly do.
I’ve got a few people trying to persuade me to review their Christian apocalyptic fantasy novels
That’s… interesting. Why would an author of such fiction approach a prominent atheist for a review? I’m sure you’d write fairly, acknowledging any positive qualities of the work, but since Christian end-times fiction is inevitably demented and cruel, it’s unlikely to be a good review overall. Is this a reverse psychology thing: “this godless evilutionist hated the book, therefore it must be good”?
I always wanted to write a fugue, to write a fugue I wanted
………..I always wanted to write a fugue, to write a fugue I wanted
…………………I always wanted to write a fugue, to write a fugue I wanted
A fugue…a fugue…a fugue a fugue a fugue…
…….A fugue…a fugue…a fugue a fugue a fugue…
…………..A fugue…a fugue…a fugue a fugue a fugue…
…………………A fugue…a fugue…a fugue a fugue a fugue…
But then I thought, nah…
PZ, how in the bloody fucking hell can you even read that shit? I can get through maybe 2 pages before my head starts spinning uncontrollably. (Can’t stand to listen to it either. It took me 4 days to get 2/3 of the way through the Infidel Guy’s “debate” with Kent Hovind, after which I gave up and deleted it from my iTunes.)
=hugs the stuffing out of Dave @#8 and Cuttlefish @#23= and I’m not a hugger……..
I’ve never made any bones here about the fact that I’m a Baptist. But my kind of Baptists dig real science, vote for Obama, welcome and affirm GLBT folks as full partners (including celebrating same-sex unions and ordaining gay/lesbian clergy), acknowledge separation of church and state as one of our denomination’s founding principles (something the Southern Baptists have conveniently forgotten), and serve as escorts for women’s health clinics – because of faith. So I suppose I have a warped view of things. I’m even proud to call myself a heretic (even more so because I tend to run agnostic at least half the time……. I never said I was consistent!).
But then I guess come by it honestly. I spent my adolescence living on a seminary campus that was a hotbed of progressive/liberal theology (which is anything but wishy-washy where I come from, trust me!) and social action while my dad was a student there in the mid-60s, and he worked in community organization after his ordination until he got run out of two jobs in three years for being too good at what he did. (Funny how those upstanding corporate sponsors who pledge matching grants for money raised from outside sources get a little irritated when they’re called on to put their money where their mouth is…… and when they serve on your board of directors, your ass is grass. Throw in a death threat or two……. it’s all good =NOT!!!!!!!!!!=)
As for CCM………. iz teh pleh x 666. Where I come from, it’s referred to as “Jezak.” It gives me a headache and a stomach ache. (Shitty pseudomusic, fucked-up theology – what’s not to like?)
I sang in professional choirs for over 10 years until I had to move out to the boonies and the opportunities dried up. I’ve sung every kind of sacred music from Medieval chant (including some solo Hildegard of Bingen in a cathedral or two, no brag, just fact) to Pärt and Tavener (they’re DRUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!), but I find CCM almost unsingable from a purely physical standpoint. Even with decent lyrics it would still give me a sore throat.
OTOH, my brother the Fundy Mental Case is totally into that crap. He plays guitar and sings lead in a praise band and even writes the stuff. He and my sister-in-law got all huffy and didn’t speak to my mom for months after she happened to mention casually that she liked “my” kind of sacred music better than “theirs.”
My money’s on Marky Maypo.
“but that doesn’t change the fact that the majority of Christian critics belittled Rowling for depicting magic and wizardry”
No, that’s not accurate. What’s accurate is that the majority of Christian critics that you heard of belittled Rowling. Most Christians just happily read the books and enjoyed them on their merits.
The silent majority of Christians are no different from your average mainstream individual. I understand why, given how loud the fundamentalist and evangelical streams of my religion can be, why you’d define me using them. But I really wish you weren’t. They embarrass me, they don’t speak for me, and they don’t speak for most Christians.
(XQs me – I decided to play it safe by not including 3 links in my previous post, lest it go down the Black Hole of Moderation.)
Marky Maypo is da shiznit. I mean, how can anyone beat this action?
James:
The funny thing is that logically, the two statements you’ve just made are not mutually exclusive — both can be true at the same time. And just because there might be Christian critics that I’ve never heard of does not discount the fact that the majority that I have heard of made their opinions quite clear, and were agreed with by their colleagues in the cloth. The “ones that I have heard of” are the ones that made these criticisms I’ve listed, which were parroted by many of those you’d seemingly not consider Christians. But you statement above is disingenuous at best, and completely false at worst. Unless you have information going beyond the scope of your daily life, you have no idea what the “silent majority” of any group though or did, except for those you interact with.
If you go back and read carefully, you’l find absolutely no reference to you in either post as far as accusing you of doing anything. But your actions don’t excuse the “loud” fundies and their distortions of discourse.
When did “Christian” become a synonym for “crap”?
When the first idiot followers of Jesus first used the term.
british christian rock is worse, because on top of pretending to be rock musicians, they’re all pretending to be american too.
If you go back and read carefully, you’l find absolutely no reference to you in either post as far as accusing you of doing anything.
But I am seeing some blanket definitions of what Christians are, without acknowledging the diversity of the religion. Now, unfortunately, it is hard to disassociate myself from the Jerry Falwells of my religion, because they proclaim themselves loudly _as_ Christians, even though they engage in acts and make statements that I find to be patently _un_Christian, but I would still appreciate it if more people would acknowledge that mainstream Christians aren’t like that.
“Unless you have information going beyond the scope of your daily life, you have no idea what the “silent majority” of any group though or did, except for those you interact with.”
There is room to extrapolate, though. In the latest census, most Canadians identified themselves as belonging to some sort of religion. A fair chunk of those defined themselves as Catholic. But most did not attend Church religiously, so to speak. And many cheerfully ignore the various Papal edicts against birth control (ask my wife, for one). Mainstream Christians know that the Bible isn’t supposed to be taken literally, and doesn’t have all of the answers. Ultimately, we are supposed to think for ourselves.
So, even though the majority of people here in Canada at least believe in some sort of religion, they don’t follow the various fundamentalist political views that tend to be associated with the negatives of Christianity. There are Christians out there who support same sex marriages, who see no sin in homosexuality, and who ultimately do not believe that we are damned randomly, or damned for worshipping God in a different way, or even damned for believing that no God exists.
If that isn’t a silent majority, I don’t know what is.
I don’t think Bach needed to call his work “Christian music” for it to be heard and loved/hated/ignored – it existed and could stand on its own merits. Christian pop is sold as Christian because those selling hope that those who agree with its beliefs will subsidize it at level incommensurate with its merits (Christian writing and art can be regarded similarly). The “Christian” = crap may thus only work for self-identified Christian works – those that require an external boost in valuation that their substance can’t support.
The only mitigation that I can see is in the music industry (likely a den of vipers in itself) – since they have been reported (King’s X article in Trouser Press Guide to Rock, for example) to have excluded bands for havng black members, they might have chosen other stupid reasons to exclude artists. The excluded might band together, so that their target audiences might recognize them and support them in the absence of music industry support. At some point, the presence of an exploitable market would attract the attention of the music industry and with a little money, coopting would occur. Once coopted, the segment is flooded with bands of zombies or Tin Men, with the appearance of but no actual substance. Everybody wins! . What this says about the ability of the audience to separate real from false is not particularly complementary, although it would at least appear to be consistent with music industry practice.
Negentropyeater @ #62
Thanks sincerely for the link. I followed it and was stunned by the art. I’ve just spent the last hour learning about Hieronymous Bosch ( who, I’m ashamed, I’d never heard of before) and I’m hooked. I’m constantly amazed at the wealth of knowledge and what you can learn about on this blog. I’m definately off to learn more about this artist– now if I can only get to Spain to see the real thing!…hhhmmmm never been to Spain, always wanted to…tapas bars, yum.
I’ve always wondered about why there is so little (as in none) decent art/music/architecture in the Christian world today. I think a lot of it has to do with what it takes to be a great artist. It seems to me (a non-artist !) that there has to be some kind of original spark or insight, and the courage and discipline to pursue this spark to fruition.
Centuries ago, in Europe, Christianity was a big boat. It’s something you were born into, and there wasn’t much in the way of compelling alternatives. So why wouldn’t a great artist be Christian ? Apart having more access to funding and avoiding unpleasantries like suppression, ostracism, torture, and death, there was within Christianity an atmosphere of great appreciation for art.
But today, why would anyone with the makings of a great artist head over to the Jeezus Barn:
Nope, Nope, Nope, Nope.
The main goal of the religious right today seems to be to anesthetize people and turn them into sheep who will obediently live a bland existence in the suburbs and homeschool their children to shield them from any ideas or people who might be slightly “different”.
Is there any wonder they don’t don’t produce great art ?
Re brokenSoldier and JJR, Blame the Catholics for decent Christian art;
That was my thinking. I don’t know much about the religious background behind the history of art, but it had always been my impression that the Catholics were the ones patronising the arts, what with their deep coffers and love of ornamentation and ceremony.
Modern Christian Rock, on the other hand, seems to be the product of middle class white teens who aren’t talented enough to leverage their music into getting laid. (caricature for effect)
I’m surprised there are only a couple of posts in this thread which make a distinction between Catholicism and Protestantism, it’s always seemed like a major distinction to me. I don’t often see the distinction made in the media either. This makes it easy to appeal to ‘Christians’ without bothering with the tricky question of what their particular sect believes. I may elaborate on this thought at some point.
You neglected to mention, or overlooked, that DO’L is nominated for the award in Vogon Poetry.
Also, you should have mentioned that pResident Shrub is the odds on favorite for extemporariousity speech.
Concerning “The Spatula Brain”,I am reminded of a quote:
Some christian music that doesn’t suck, or even sound vaguely like a parody of secular pop.
I am actually surprised, because I didn’t notice any such protest. Are our media too librul?
One phenomenon, two phenomena. Like mitochondria.
Posted by: James Bow | May 17, 2008 6:01 PM
And none of that has anything to do with what has been said and done in Christianity’s name, by self-proclaimed (and often widely respected) Christians, about culture in our society, which is what this whole thread is about. I’m glad you think you have a pulse on what the silent majority of Christians think and do, but none of that matters compared to the things that are said – and supported – by the leaders of the faiths when it comes to specific positions and opinions on specific issues. They speak for that which they have been chosen to represent.
If this tolerant, progressive “silent” majority is so prevalent, why do the statements and opinions of those respected within their faith defy their own values by making criticisms that normal Christians like yourself seem to reject? Either they allow these things to be said on their faith’s behalf, or they make it clear what they will and will not stand for their spiritual leaders to express. Most people have this sort of reaction when their views are misrepresented by someone else speaking for them.
In that case, the silence of the majority is a bit deafening.
Posted by: Hematite | May 17, 2008 6:53 PM
Marketing at its finest – celebrate the similarities and ignore the differences in order to get more business. If they could only apply the same principles of economics to their worldview, we’d all be a bit better off.
I suspect a lot of it is that with the relaxation of the church’s stranglehold on society, many of the more talented composers who pretty much had to work with it by default now have the opportunity to express themselves in other venues. I don’t doubt that Tuomas Holopainen, Michael Romeo, Jon Oliva, and Hansi Kursch would have found themselves strong-armed into working with the church, for instance…
“by self-proclaimed (and often widely respected) Christians”
Self proclaimed, yes. _Widely_ respected? Not necessarily.
Yes, the Jerry Falwells and the evangelicals can claim audiences in the millions. They’ve certainly had more than their fair share of political clout, thanks to the Republican Party’s deal with the devil. But that’s still a minority against the nearly half of the voters who voted Democrat, and an even smaller fraction compared to those who don’t vote.
“If this tolerant, progressive “silent” majority is so prevalent, why do the statements and opinions of those respected within their faith defy their own values by making criticisms that normal Christians like yourself seem to reject?”
Well, we do. You just haven’t been looking, and the media hasn’t been helping you. The media likes to keep the stories simple, and the narrative they’ve constructed is one of a religious conservative movement versus a secular progressive movement. Ignoring the religious influence on the secular movement. Ignoring the religious groups that still campaign on left-leaning issues. Here’s an example of a progressive Christian blog. Here’s another.
Trust me, it’s frustrating for us that we’ve not been able to _be_ heard.
James:
If a spiritual leader counts his followers in the millions, there is no better definition of widely respected. Just because you may not agree with the wide swath of the population that supports him or her doesn’t change that fact.
This has nothing to do with political party – which thread are you reading? This has everything to do with what people say on behalf of a group of their peers, and whether or not those peers support them or not.
The media definitely has its motives in shaping the stories, but you won’t convince anyone that there is no conflict between religious conservatives and secular progressives in today’s society. I don’t doubt you and those of like mind have made great efforts to sway opinions, but the fact still remains that these leaders you would classify as somehow non-Christian have a huge base of support in both thought and means.
A faith – just like any other type of group – is inexorably linked to those who represent it. And the fact that religion is an area in which many groups are not free to choose their own representation belies a basic flaw in structure. Until that flaw is overcome, the consequences of the actions and expressions of spiritual leaders will continue to reflect upon their faiths as representative, willingly or not.
“A faith – just like any other type of group – is inexorably linked to those who represent it.”
I can see how the temptation is there, but it is not accurate. These fundamentalist leaders do not speak for me. They certainly do not speak for the majority of Christians, if the actions of the majority of Christians (supporting progressive policies, accepting homosexuality and birth control — in other words, mixing in and accepting the diversity of society) are any indication. And I would further point out that those leaders that I think we’re talking about: the Jerry Falwells, the various Reverends that bend the ear of Republican politicians, are committing a fairly unChristian act. There is the passage in the Bible exorting _against_ wearing one’s faith on one’s sleeve, and praying on the street corners at the top of your lungs. I’m sure that many of the people you are working with on whatever progressive initiatives you are pushing forward, are Christian. They just don’t advertise the fact.
“This has nothing to do with political party – which thread are you reading? This has everything to do with what people say on behalf of a group of their peers, and whether or not those peers support them or not.”
Actually, the thread as I read it was initially about the poorer quality of explicitly “Christian” music and literature. To which I agree with the individual who noted that the stuff that has to advertise itself as Christian is isolating itself and rendering it a genre rather than rising to the top as art that transcends these self-imposed boundaries.
My point is that Christianity is too diverse a group to label everyone a participant and assign responsibility to all for the faults of a minority of loudmouths. Over and above the dozens, if not hundreds, of sects within the Church, many of which will have nothing to do with each other, there is the average Christian who isn’t beholden to any particular Church, and is observing his faith as an individual.
When all the scientists that used to be Christian decided reason was much better?
There’s a reason most of the NAS is atheist or agnostic.
I’m still baffled by how so many people, even if they’re liberal and support science, don’t extend the train of methodological naturalism to the rest of their life. Logical rigor is necessary for a reasonable populace.
Posted by: James Bow | May 17, 2008 8:32 PM
Tell this to the millions of people who still support these types. Until their clout, both cultural and financial, wanes, they remain as figures of leadership, and thus representation. I have no doubt that many Christians are rational and somewhat progressive, but until the majority of the faith exhibits opinions like your own and renounces people of Falwell and Buchanan’s ilk, the faith will remain vulnerable to their expressions.
This would be a valid argument if the faith did not have such an extensive history of this kind of conduct concerning culture and society. These people are not fringe loudmouths who want to pervert the faith’s intentions, they are the leftovers from the time when their ideology was still able to impose their values on society. It is a positive development that progressive opinions have sprouted from within the faith, but those views are by no means representative of the millions who still fund those fundies.
Some people choose to do this for logic’s and reason’s sake, and some people choose not to do this, and still have both their logic and reason function just fine.
If it (their logic and reason) is not broken, why get so pushy about wanting to fix it? A lot of people do not appreciate “helpful suggestions” concerning spirituality, or lack thereof, from either side of the fence.
“I have no doubt that many Christians are rational and somewhat progressive, but until the majority of the faith exhibits opinions like your own and renounces people of Falwell and Buchanan’s ilk”
But the majority of Christians do. Most Americans don’t watch these individuals, most Americans don’t send money to them, most Americans don’t follow their edicts. Unfortunately, in a society as large as the United States, it doesn’t take all that large a portion of the population to build a base that’s loud. I mean, what’s normal and what isn’t? If we assume that 99% of the population think one way and 1% is abnormal, in the United States, that 1% still amounts to 3 million individuals.
There are plenty of groups out there speaking out against the unChristian attitudes taken by these individuals. There are plenty of Catholics who disagree with the edicts of the Papacy. Haven’t you heard about the Committee for the Ordination of Women? Haven’t you heard about Catholics for Choice? Haven’t you heard about the Christian Alliance for Progress (“because Christianity is not always Right”)?
No? Well, I’m not surprised. Given how this culture war has been framed as _just_ two opposites. But there are plenty of progressive Christians out there, just as there are plenty of rational scientists who maintain a faith, while eschewing Intelligent Design. I put it to you that real Christianity is different from the face that you and the Falwells and Buchanans are all painting.
People are suffering as a direct outcome of policies and laws in this nation that have been pushed through in the last couple of decades by Christians such as Falwell, Buchanan, and their ilk.
That’s plenty real enough for me.
Yeah, if Falwell and Buchanan aren’t the face of Christianity, then how come they get laws passed?
Either they are indeed representative of the Christian majority, or you have posed a no true scotsman fallacy.
In my experience, Christians who aren’t assholes kinda just shrug and say “well they don’t represent me” and that’s it. And thus they do indeed represent you because you don’t even try to stop them from doing it. you just ignore them.
Imagine what would happen if biologists did the same about intelligent design?
On the otherhand it is always nice to hear someone denounce Falwell and co whenever they come up. It’s all to easy to forget that there are Christians out there that are willing to live and let live.
Whether you agree with her or not, I’ve always considered Denyse O’Leary to be a very intelligent person.
brokenSoldier: “It is a positive development that progressive opinions have sprouted from within the faith, but those views are by no means representative of the millions who still fund those fundies.”
How discouraging that “progressive opinions” appear to you, brokenSoldier, as something new. Jesus himself was notably progressive, as were the abolitionists, suffragists, and civil rights leaders who followed him faithfully.
I have written on other threads . . . many, here and elsewhere, of the frustration we mainline Christians feel when our faith is co-opted and misrepresented by Jerry Falwell and his ilk. The fundies are crazy and mean, which makes for wonderful soundbites. We mainline Christians are generally not crazy and mean. Making nicey-nice doesn’t get much airtime.
As I’ve said before, we moderates will never be able to counter the fundies in the public sphere until we begin to denounce them with the same well-crafted vicious soundbites they use. But it’s hard for us to bring on the kind of crazy that can compete with them.
The vicious crazy is fairly well confined to a very few denominations (the Southern Baptists are by far the biggest). The rest of us . . . and we are indeed the majority . . . are too quiet and by far too nice to make the news. We take Jesus’s prohibition against parading our faith on the streetcorner seriously, unlike those with whom we’re unwilling co-religionists.
“Yeah, if Falwell and Buchanan aren’t the face of Christianity, then how come they get laws passed?”
Probably the same way any other well-funded group pulls the wool over the political process. We also have corporate executives making terrible laws in this country, after all. They certainly don’t speak for working Americans.
There are plenty of Christians working for progressive causes. They’re in the food banks. They’re trying to get laws changed. We have a democratic socialist party here in Canada called the New Democrats. Several of their MPs have been members of the clergy. Indeed, one of their founders, Tommy Douglas, was motivated by his Baptist faith to campaign for a universal health care system for Canadians, and he is seen as the father of Canadian medicare.
The NDP is still a very progressive party on social issues as well, being pro-choice, pro same-sex marriage, and so on. And yet these members of the clergy are still members.
So, as you can see, it is possible for Christians to be progressives, and plenty of progressive Christians have been working hard to bring the country forward, rather than pull it backward.
Posted by: James Bow | May 17, 2008 9:18 PM
Just as I put it to you that until the policies of this government, and by proxy our society, continue to be so greatly influenced by these sorts of people, then the majority still confirms that the change you are talking about – from the old style of Falwell to this new, progressive Christianity you speak of – has not happened yet.
Just as they lobby and muscle your progressive voice out of the religious discussion in this country, these people use their great influence over their supporters to lobby in the same manner the government of this country and support the rejection of progressive social programs and policies that have been proven efficient for our society, such as comprehensive sex education versus abstinence only education, that belie the lack of progressivism in the majority you speak of, and to this point have been quite successful. So until such things change, the majority can only be determined by what opinions people act upon, rather than the ones they silently confess to.
None of which still has anything to do with the fact that religious authority has lonce since ceased to be able to control culture and society, and is now relegated to a niche industry – y’know, the original topic. It seems as though the more the religious influence over society decreases the smaller that niche gets, but then again that’s only common sense, now that I think about it.
not really a very clever use of freedom of speech, M. Myers.
By the way, you might be interested in knowing that there still are great contemporary music writers who are christian and write fine music inspired by christian religion, the contemporary Bach being simply Olivier Messian. In a hundred years from now, his work will certainly be still around. What about this blog, Sir?
Re # 76:
“So You Want to Write a Fugue
I always wanted to write a fugue, to write a fugue I wanted
………..I always wanted to write a fugue, to write a fugue I wanted
…………………I always wanted to write a fugue, to write a fugue I wanted
A fugue…a fugue…a fugue a fugue a fugue…
…….A fugue…a fugue…a fugue a fugue a fugue…
…………..A fugue…a fugue…a fugue a fugue a fugue…
…………………A fugue…a fugue…a fugue a fugue a fugue…
But then I thought, nah…”
Some years ago (OK, it was more than 20) when I was in grad school at Indiana, my composition teacher invited Douglas Hofstader (of Gödel, Escher, Bach fame) to the composition seminar. He presented what he called “visual fugues.” These were written with colored markers on long sheets of adding machine paper. They followed the norms of fugal form, with subjects, countersubjects, expositions and episodes represented by different colors and line shapes. It was interesting (for a while) to see how someone who knew a lot about music but wasn’t a pro thought through something as technical as a fugue and tried to represent it in a different medium.
Posted by: vincent fleury | May 17, 2008 10:54 PM
What an idiot – commenting that a genre of media is collectively crap has no correlation to objecting to their right to freedom of speech in creating said media. They can make all the crap they want, but then again someone can – correctly, in this specific case – call it crap all they want, too.
Just as I put it to you that until the policies of this government, and by proxy our society, continue to be so greatly influenced by these sorts of people, then the majority still confirms that the change you are talking about – from the old style of Falwell to this new, progressive Christianity you speak of – has not happened yet.
Progressive Christianity is not a new phenomenon. Tommy Douglas, the father of Canadian medicare, launched his political career in the 1940s, after all.
I believe you are ascribing a disproportionate amount of responsibility for the United States’ political swing to the right on strictly these loud Christian churches. But as you know, this swing came about from the heavy lobbying of a loud, well-funded, minority group. The majority didn’t have the strength of voice, the interest, or the resources to counter it easily. That’s unfortunate, but look at the numbers game: how many of these so-called Christians did it take, really, to move this country politically to the right? A million? Ten million?
But from 1980 onward, less than 30% of Americans voted for presidents Reagan, Bush and so-on. More than 75% of Americans did not vote for this current president. That’s a lot of people. Are you sure that so few of these individuals are atheists such as yourself? Or are there Christians among this group, as frustrated with what has happened to this country as you are?
Sad to say, the overwhelming majority of Americans are simply not politically active. They have a lot on their plates already getting their families fed and just living their lives. That’s where you’ll find most Christians. Indeed, that’s probably where you’ll find most atheists as well, not to mention Buddhists, Wiccans. You get the picture.
There have been plenty of other interests that have pulled the United States to the right against its will. Corporate executives, for instance. There are atheists like Christopher Hitchens who support the policies of George W. Bush. And yet you don’t have them down as the speakers for whatever group they happen to belong to. This sort of outgroup homogeneity is surprising, given that’s the sort of rhetoric we sometimes find on the right that’s so frustrating to encounter.
Just because these people lead or claim to lead movements that are a couple-million strong doesn’t mean that they have any sort of leadership role for the hundreds of millions of Christians that are on this planet. While some religions may be organizations (although “Christianity” as a whole would have to be a very loosely organized one, broken up into dozens of sects varying from progressive to mainstream to conservative, to fanatical reactionary), faith is a personal issue. What I choose to believe or not believe is my own responsibility. My general belief system can be called Christian, but that doesn’t mean that I am the same as every Christian, or that I can be painted with the offenses and hypocrises perpetrated by bad Christians.
As Leigh noted above, for mainstream Christians to get noticed, we’d have to be as crazy kooky in our soundbites as the Falwells and the Buchanans. But that’s not easy to do, since that sort of crazy kookyness isn’t good Christian behaviour. But then, I would say that Buchanan is a bad Christian.
“Are you sure that so few of these individuals are atheists such as yourself?” should read “Are you sure that most of these individuals…” Sorry.
Going all the way back:
My money’s on Marky Mark.
You all want to know what’s really creepy? This guy looks almost exactly like my wife’s aunt who’s hardcore Mormon, but never married and almost everyone is positive she’s a lesbian. Even the hairdo and fashion sense are the exact same. I will not sleep well tonight.
Starbix
“Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams
Broken Soldier, #74
How did you get “no true Christian” out of “not all Christians”? When exactly did James in #71 so much as vaguely wave in the general direction of True Christians?
Alan @ 115:
I got it out of the fact that he is attributing behavior that is societally unpalatable from Christian leaders as “un-Christian,” when they are actually well respected among their followers, and their behaviors and opinions are unquestionably based in religious conservatism. And I didn’t say “no true christian” – what I actually said was No True Scotsman, the name of the fallacy that is so aptly explained by the above instance. These men are undeniably Christian, just Christians whose policies I have serious disagreements with concerning society.
Posted by: James Bow | May 17, 2008 11:16 PM
Completely false. Let’s correct your statistics. (These are from the FEC.)
1980:
Reagan – 43,903,230 (50.7%)
Carter – 35,480,115 (41.0%)
1984:
Reagan – 54,455,472 (58.8%)
Mondale – 37,577,352 (40.6%)
Again false – here we go:
2000:
Bush – 50,456,002 (47.9%)
Gore – 50,999,897 (48.4%)
2004:
Bush – 62,040,610 (50.7%)
Kerry – 59,028,444 (48.3%)
Please check your stats before trying to base an argument on them. It helps in the credibility department.
I most certainly do hold them accountable for what they say, especially if speaking for a group. And as far as Christopher Hitchens and his endorsement of George W. Bush, you should know enough about both parties to know it isn’t an endorsement of much praise, but instead one of advocating the overt intervention of the US in theocatic areas of the world in order to bring liberty to people under the thumb of religious opression. Hardly a personal endorsement, and Hitchens has been openly critical of the President on many prior occasions, as well.
All organized religions, which includes every major Christian faith, take in and distribute money and strive to expand in both membership and finance, which makes them the perfect examples of organizations. (Not to mention the rigid hierarchichal structure of authority and all those tax shelters they get for being religious…”organizations.”)
And I am well aware that faith is a personal issue, which is why it is an issue of relevance in our society. It isn’t a personal issue in the sense that you used the word – as an issue most people leave out of social discourse. Instead, it is an issue intensely personal and important to many people, and as such it frames a large portion of their worldview. This includes both things in the home, but also – due to its extreme personal importance – public issues as well. So to state that it is a personal issue is to both be quite correct, while at the same time missing the point completely.
Bingo – I agree with you there. He is definitely a bad Christian, in the sense that he believes in returning to the days when religion – specifically his and his followers’ version of Christianity – held sway over society. If that is your definition of a bad Christian, then there are more bad ones out there trying to affect public policy than good ones. But just because he espouses things you don’t believe are reconcilable with good Christian faith doesn’t mean he isn’t a Christian. That’s exactly like saying that a soldier who commits a war crime is not a soldier. He most certainly is a soldier, just a bad one.
Not necessarily false – it depends on what the commenter meant. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume he meant what he wrote. Re-parse the first sentence. It doesn’t say that 75% of Americans voted against Bush.
Analyze the 2000 election results in very round figures:
That means 250 million, or 83%, did not vote for Bush. Assuming only 200 million were of voting age, then only 25% of potential voters voted for Bush in 2000 – leaving 150 million, or 75%, who did not.
But even if we allow the ball-park accuracy of the 75% figure, and thereby allow that the claim is inarguably true – is the claim meaningful? Even if no more than 30% of voting-age Americans voted for the Republican presidents of the past quarter century, is that fact meaningful? After all, even fewer came out for Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry.
Ah, Eurovision. The land of my immediate ancestors, the Ukraine, came up with a Eurovision winner in 2004: Ruslana! I’m kind of a fan.
Didn’t follow this Moderate Xian versus Fundie Death Cultist thread very closely.
It is interesting that a recent poll finds that Evangelical Xians aren’t any happier than the rest of us.
Dobson and Kennedy Coral Ridge have been losing members and contributions lately. It is possible that the influence of humanoid toads like Falwell, Dobson, Hagee, and Robertson is waning.
brokenSoldier, James did indeed say that Buchanan is a bad Christian. That’s true (by their fruits ye shall know them); he’s a bad man, as well.
Fundigelicals have political power because they’re authoritarian personalities; they LIKE being told what to do. And because they’re also irrational, they’re amazingly easy to mislead. They’re called sheeple for a reason; they’re stupid and they’re easy to herd.
Liberal Christians, on the other hand, are much like atheists in re: herding. Like cats, in other words.
So we’ll probably never have as much political power as the fundigelicals have had in the last twenty years or so. All we can hope is that Raven is right, and the worm(s) are finally turning.
well, Kennedy and Falwell are dead, so maybe that is also have some positive influence?
Hovind was in jail for being the fraud he is, Ted Haggard was “demoted” for being a crack-smoking whore, the justic dept. scandals related to Pat Roberston’s law school…
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/08/scandal_puts_spotlight_on_christian_law_school/
there were many stories revealing these people for the horrid asswipes they really are this year.
all of that helps.
these people love to shoot themselves in the head. Probably some Freudian thing related to the guilt they repress over the lies they tell on a daily basis.
@#86 jeff —
Yep…and not just the far-right fundies, either. This is a fairly popular Xian kid’s song. Sing it enough times with enough people and you stop noticing the bizarrity of its message (groupthink being what it is and all).
Kseniya:
True, I did take his statement to imply that, but I still think the point he made with the statement is specious. Besides being OT, too.
True, I did take his statement to imply that, but I still think the point he made with the statement is specious.
considering that the implication is that one can take those that didn’t vote as meaning “voted against”, yes, it’s entirely specious.
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 18, 2008 2:23 AM
That was the sound of someone hitting the nail right on the head.
Man, she’s got a knack for that…
Gallup poll statistics on religion. 41% said they would self-identify as an evangelical or born-again Christian, compared with 54% no. This is a difficult statistic to interpret since “evangelical” and “born again” have different meanings for different groups, though. 32% said they believed the bible was the literal word of god, 45% that it was inspired, and a surprising 21% that it was “an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man.”
On the interaction of religion and political life, it’s a bit more discouraging…when asked “Would you like to see organized religion have more influence in this nation, less influence, or keep its influence as it is now?”, 24% wanted more influence, 34% less influence, and 40% answered “keep its influence as it is now.” This in January 2008….
I blame CS Lewis. He wrote that he was trying to do the opposite, but by their fruits ye shall know them.
I grant the Xian rock is shit. But how about gospel? Now, there’s some really great 20th century religious music. And +1 on Arvo Pårt and Tavener and other modern classical composers.
@ vincent fleury:
Messiaen is DRUUUUUGGGGGZZZZZ too. His “O Sacrum Convivium” is one of the most incredible pieces of music I’ve ever sung (and one of the most fiendishly difficult to sing well!). French 20th century choral music is so fabulous……. Duruflé’s Requiem and motets….. Poulenc’s Gloria and motets…… Fauré’s Requiem……… =swoon= =eyes roll up in head=
@#129 cath —
The key to gospel music’s success is the judicious use of tritones. You might think it’s a minor detail, but as they say, the devil’s in the details.
“christian” is a synonym for “cretin”. The etymology:
[French crétin, from French dialectal, deformed and mentally retarded person found in certain Alpine valleys, from Vulgar Latin *christiānus, Christian, human being, poor fellow, from Latin Chrīstiānus, Christian. See Christian.]
It’s a lot older than that. In fact, it’s decades older than Fundamentalism (which is an early 20th century development). Its recognizable form goes back at least to the late 1800s, when the Social Gospel movement developed in response to the excesses of “Social Darwinist” robber-baron capitalism. The movement’s first major theological and philosophical figure was Baptist theologian Walter Rauschenbusch, but its activist roots go back at least to the abolitionist and temperance movements.
More later. It’s almost 6 am. Bleepin’ caffeine. I should never have had that Pepsi with dinner.
brokenSoldier, #116
More specifically you referred to James in #71 using the “no true Scotsman” fallacy whereto Christians, thus making your meaning clear. In your response to me you clearly state that James said those Christians he disagrees with are not true Christians, when he pretty much stated that not all Christians believe as they do. I’m not even talking about a hidden meaning, just meaning that becomes apparent when you put things into context.
Yes, context matters. Always has, always shall. Copernican astronomy failed because Copernicus and his disciples chose to disregard actual orbits in favor of theological mysticism. The orbits had to be circles, because God would not allow anything imperfect in his heavens. The bodies could be imperfect, for they are material things, but as they orbit in God’s heavens, those orbits must be perfect.
James never so much as hinted that Christians never do certain things. Being human, of course they do things that are most unchristian. Often they will find things in the Bible that they can modify to rationalize their actions. You chose to misapply the “no true Scotsman” fallacy to imply that James had said “no true Christian” when he had not. And now you are trying to use a reducto absurdum argumentation to claim you never said what you plainly said. Spin it all you want, when a shark swallows you whole you’re not dying in the desert.
OK, one more. I just couldn’t resist this one from our Rookie of the Year:
Tritones! The Devil’s Interval! Seriously, for all you nonmusicians out there: the tritone used to be called the Devil of music.
They’re incredibly cool. So are Medieval double leading tones. (More later on those too. I just hope I can find a reference that’s not overly technical.)
I was about to say
but then I noticed Gospel had already been mentioned. And tritones, which reminds us of the fine christian group Black Sabbath.
I have been trying to start a meme where “christian” is used in a perjorative sense, meaning more or less “devoid of one or more of what are usually considered the essential defining features of the genre” or “ill-suited to its claimed purpose”. (As in christian rock music, the most obvious example I can think of fitting this definition.)
Example: “The DOS version of FDISK is really christian — it won’t even let you delete a partition of a type it doesn’t recognise”.
What voters want are ethical politicians who won’t take bribes. In the US, morality has been strongly branded by Christianity, much like facial tissues have been branded by Kleenex, so it’s no surpise that voters might say they want more religion in politics.
The branding problem is a tough nut to crack. The parade of Christian politicians caught with their pants down seems to have had no impact upon the association of morality with Christianity. In contrast, the Stalin-Hitler association with atheism really does resonate with people, and that seems to reinforce the link between morality and religion.
We need more media representations of compassionate, honest atheists doing heroic things. Dr. House, although heroic, is too much of a prick.
@ themadlolscientist
what I do not understand is M. Myers brain
if he starts a post by “when did christian become a synonym for crap”, not only it is of an extreme vulgarity and stupidity, but in addition, he shows that he is completely ignorant of some of the most beautiful pieces of art of the xxeth century. Does this person have any serious audience anywhere? Is there a phrase in english for “faire la part des choses”
Is it allowed in the US to publicly state that “christian has become a synonym for crap”, and have a professor’s position anywhere? why not change the word christian for “muslim” “jew” “gay” “chemistry” or whatever, see what I mean? I am not defending this Markie person who I do not know, but it seems to me that this website is a depository of human hatred and limited IQ brains, mainly. I would not like my children to have this M. Myers as professor. Do they support him in his Uni?
Vincent, perhaps you’ve never listened to CCM aka “Contemporary Christian Music.”
@139 vincent fleury
Saying, here are some other nouns, imagine them in that heading, “see what I mean”? …means absolutely nothing. I’m sure you have something to say, but you’re going to have to actually articulate it if you want anyone else to understand it.
indeed, I have not, but is it a fair reason that some bad music exists somewhere to bluntly state that “christian has become a synonym for crap”.
There are sad and ugly things in lots of human actions, why stick only always to what is filthy and uninteresting? It seems that people like this M. Myers actually need the crap somewhere outside, as foundation for their very existence, as if they were looking at their own reflexion in a mirror. Or maybe some sort of intellectual farting, like this “de la tourette” syndrom.
Somebody mentionned Faure’s requiem, it was for the death of his mother. It is probably the most moving piece of music one can ever sing, or listen to. Who cares for all the sh… M. Myers likes to chew. (not even metinoning a number of scientific errors, but well)
I stop here, and do not want myself to fall in the same twist, by going too far into M. Myer’s criticism,
miserere
Fauré also wrote the Opera “Prométhée”, so what is your point vincent fleury? Do you object to his paganism?
oh, very simple : my point is that it is stupid to state that “christian has become a synonym for crap”, even if you refer to this or that bad music specifically. Even Messian wrote non religious music. The Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, was built with a religious motivation, but Gaudi also built schools and houses. The point is that the wording of M. Myers clearly shows that this person is not somebody one might have as friend, neighbour, teacher or whatever. Or maybe there is something I do not understand. Seen from France, you do a click and read “when did christian become a synonym of crap”, and that suffices to tell that who who wrote this, what is his name : Myers, has let’s say, become a synonym for bad.
If I were dean of his university I would kindly ask him to be more moderate, to try to focus on interesting things.
And it has nothing to do with faith.
Shorter Vincent. PZ Myers should be sent to Guantanomo and tortured until he dies. Then god will torture him forever after.
Sorry Vincent, despite you evil Death Cultists the USA is still a democracy. And you are why fundie Xian has become synonymous with “moron”, “liar”, “evil”, “ignorant”, and sometimes “killer”.
If you don’t want people to call you a lying, stupid, vicious, murderous, Death Cultist, the solution is obvious. Don’t act like one!
Hey Vincent, there are disadvantages to living in a cave for the last 20 years somewhere in the Pyrenees. You obviously have no idea what happened in the USA.
The Death Cultists hijacked the Xian religion to some extent and made a good start to destroying the American civilization. For five years we have been bogged down in a pointless war in Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of mostly civilians, many Americans are dead or maimed, and two of my friends are dead.
While there is little one person can do to stop the slide into religiously inspired barbarianism with piles of bodies here and there…..I don’t have to like it and personally, am both angry and dismayed.
And Xian rock is pathetically bad popular culture. I don’t know why you even bother to defend these cultists. According to them, Catholics are the church of the Antichrist and you are going to hell with all the atheists and scientists.
Vincent,
although I agree partly with what you are saying, it is also true that even in Europe, the examples of cultural or intellectual endeavors that find their inspiration in Christianity are becoming extremely rare. Be it Faure’s requiem (composed in 1888) or the Sagrada Familia (of which the construction began in 1882, even if it isn’t yet terminated), these can hardly qualify as recent examples of Christian cultural endeavors.
I’m French myself, live in Barcelona, and wasn’t shocked at all with what PZ wrote, in what I interpreted was his usual provocative style…
So, please, let’s list the recent (last decade) good examples of Christian cultural and intellectual works and compare with the thousands of debilitating ones. I agree with you, I’m sure there are a few…
vincent fleury, I didn’t need PZ to tell me that xianity is crap. I have known that decades ago, long before I read this blog. As I mention above, for me, xian = cretin.
You seem to draw some reference out of the air, like Fauré, and you assume that no one else will know about him. Well, I do and I doubt if you know much about him.
If you wanted to make a point, you would have done better to talk about gospel music. But no, you want to play the intellectual.
I’m not following any more of these “check out how insane this Xian asshole is” links. Now I’m trying to cook breakfast with Li’l Markie in my head, and it’s totally fucking up my morning.
I am sorry, I do not know Gospel music
please accept my apologies for the disturbance
have a nice day
vincent fleury, atheists can enjoy gregorian chants too.
I don’t agree with Vincent Fleury’s position, especially his asking if such criticism of Christian culture is even “allowed” and his suggestion that PZ Myers be reprimanded by his university’s dean. But let’s consider where it comes from. In his native France and much of Europe, there are ‘hate speech’ laws negatively sanctioning criticism – not incitement to violence, criticism – of gays, Jews, Muslims etc. Some of these stem from the post-WWII era and were designed to curtail the reemergence of Nazism. In addition, laws prohibiting defamation of the majority religion are also on the books in the some countries. So Fleury thinking that “synonym for “crap”” is sanctionable hate speech may not be a individual eccentricity but a reflection of a larger cultural ethos.
NY Times on European suppression of criticism of religion and religious communities
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/international/europe/27france.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
AKI, 5/12/08:
“An Italian activist and TV personality has been sentenced to five months in jail for calling the late Pope John Paul II ‘gay’ and offending state religion.
In 2005 Gabriele Paolini positioned himself behind a live TV broadcast in Rome and yelled ‘offensive’ words against the Pope, calling him gay, as the state television channel RAI was updating its viewers about the pontiff’s delicate health.
Italian law forbids the interruption of a public service and any offenders can be punished with up to one year in jail. Anyone found guilty of offending Christianity, Italy’s state religion, can be punished with up to two years in prison.”
Vincent, maybe the simple answer to the question posed by Dr. Myers is simply this:
“Since when? Since the death of Olivier Messian in 1992.”
(I would also hesitate to offer Fauré’s Requiem as a counter-example, given than it was written in the late 19th century.)
Consider the evidence presented in the OP:
So far, we have these data points:
It is necessary to come up with a great composer of the 21st Century in order to counter Dr. Myers’ claim. Surely this is not impossible.
Of course, a musical counter-argument does nothing to address the problem of O’Leary’s dreck being recognized as award-worthy Christian writing, or any of the other obvious examples of dreck in pop culture.
This may be where PZ has been short-sighted: he’s focusing on pop culture, on the 90% crap rather than on the 10% that may endure. Also, in comparing Bach to Li’l Markie, he may be committing a musical category error (“serious” vs. “pop”) – but even if so, offering Messian as a counter-example to Markie also commits a category error (living 21st century musician vs. dead 20th century musician).
Oops, didn’t refresh before posting. Negentropyeater beat me to the punch, there.
Ah. This is what we have to guard against here in the USA – the whole concept of “state religion”. This is where the Christianization of public institutions and the false declarations that America is (and was created as) A Christian Nation will lead.
Yeah, I’m preaching to the choir here (so to speak), but still. It cannot be stated too often.
AKI, thank you for the NYT article. I in France and I know the problem well. There are only a few politicians and intellectuals who strongly oppose these laws. This is a growing problem.
I have mentioned before this Christopher Hitchens’s talk on free speech.
http://onegoodmovemedia.org/movies/0703/hitchensfreespeech.mov
“It is not just the right of the speaker to be heard, it is the right of you in the audience to listen.”
The all-time best quote on the state of music with a religious agenda from the modern era:
“All the best bands are affiliated with Satan.” — Bart Simpson
I laugh every time I think about it…because it’s true. :-)
Yeah, but that’s true for other genres. You could be describing the vast majority of pop ballads released over the past few decades. The current EPIC (Epicenter of Predictable, Insipid Crap) is Nashville.
Sorry, it seems I should have thanked Colugo.
Bernarda (#132): I don’t know what dictionary you are using, but the OED makes clear what is already implicit in the etymology that you cite, namely that in the usage in which “cretin” derives from “Christian,” “Christian” is used as a term for “human being.”
Here is the etymology from the OED, italics added:
“[a. F. crétin (in Encycl. 1754), ad. Swiss patois crestin, creitin:{em}L. Christi{amac}num CHRISTIAN, which in the mod. Romanic langs. (as sometimes dialCHRISTI. in Eng.) means ‘human creature’ as distinguished from the brutes; the sense being here that these beings are really human, though so deformed physically and mentally. (Cf. natural.) So, according to Hatzfeld and Darmesteter, the Cagots are called in Béarn crestiaas.]”
So… by your same etymological reasoning, one could infer that you are both a cretin and a Christian, since cretin = Christian = human being.
The experience began with a sensation of heat and tingling in the spine and the chest areas. Suddenly, I merged with the infinitely loving Cosmic Intelligence (or Ultimate Reality) and became united with everything in the cosmos. This unitary state of being, which transcends the subject/object duality, was timeless and accompanied by intense bliss and ecstasy.
I think we just found the pubic service announcement.
The problem is, and I think I can speak for many of my French and European compatriots, many simply do not know, how bad the situation is in the USA.
Even in (would be) intellectual circles which I tend to frequent, many have not heard of the latest pseudo-scientific writing of the Disinfomation Isnstitute, the latest opening of the biblical Dino museum, Sally Kern’s homosexuals are America’s worst terrorists, Lil’Markie and other paragons of modern American Christian culture.
Having said this, one postive outcome of the presidency of the hon.rev.creationist G.W.B. has been to make many more people aware of the general situation, without knowing all the more truculent details.
(And thank goodness there’s Pharyngula !)
For us, Europeans, this is very good, because I think it works a bit like a vaccine. We can block it before it starts spreading.
AJS @ 137 :
Concerning “christian” as a pejorative meme, I don’t know how well it would catch on – most would run out and try to buy a copy of this wondrous FDISK of which you speak. But in a similar vein I’ve been thinking of “lies like a christian” which would fit in with “cusses like a sailor” or “fdisks like a rabbit”
“Ah, Eurovision. The land of my immediate ancestors, the Ukraine, came up with a Eurovision winner in 2004: Ruslana! I’m kind of a fan.”
In the UK there is a tradition of holding Eurovision parties where you are asked to go dressed in the tradition of one of the competing nations, as well as take food and drink from that nation. That is fine if you get France, Spain, Italy, Germany etc. But try getting Norway.
@So Fleury thinking that “synonym for “crap”” is sanctionable hate speech may not be a individual eccentricity but a reflection of a larger cultural ethos.
yes,
I would add, I would never let my children have as professor such a man as PZ Myers, this kind of rude statement is not what you expect from somebody who has to teach young people. It looks more like some kind of mental masturbation, which is anyway totally useless in terms of the objective, if there is any apart from giving his opinion, which would be to reduce the influence of religious fanatism or the propagation of bad art
somebody above stated that US is still a democracy, I hope that being a democracy does not mean that a colleague or a dean cannot gently ask to a professor to feed the students with more interesting stuff, and on a more peaceful tone. I never claimed that Myers should be burnt, nor that he should be reprimanded, just kindly asked
these blogs are also useless, and I would find it weird that a university feels happy with having teachers putting so much effort in useless things. That is not what I would expect from a teacher. But well maybe it is also part of the overall problem.
@#164 vincent fleury —
You do realize that blog ≠ classroom, right?
Time seems to be a great filter of what is good and what is not.
We still have Chaucer, Shakespeare, Bach and Beethoven but I am sure a good number of their contemporaries have vanished into the mists of time.
It also seems to be true that really great artists transcend their genre. Hence Bob Marley is consider a great musician even though he had his his roots in the non-mainstream genre of reggae. Johnny Cash is likewise loved be many who otherwise have no time for country music. Raymond Chandler transcends the crime genre in fiction, as does Karl Jenkins in the contemporary classical music genre. Some of the best gospel music transcends its genre as well.
But is there really a Christian rock group that transcends the genre of Christian rock ?
The current EPIC (Epicenter of Predictable, Insipid Crap) is Nashville.
Complete, total agreement.
Interestingly, though, I’ve often found bluegrass to be not only listenable, but enjoyable. Who woulda thunk?
Like this guy, Roger Hardin on MySpace. He’s a very intelligent guitar player and musician. Yee haw!
“I would add, I would never let my children have as professor such a man as PZ Myers, this kind of rude statement is not what you expect from somebody who has to teach young people.”
Given that PZ teaches at a university, where his students will be adults, I have to ask what right would you have to stop him ? It seems you are admitting to be a rather overbearing father who cannot abide the concept of allowing your adult children to be exposed to ideas of which you disapprove. In short the rather typical fundamentalist religious father.
You do realize that blog ≠ classroom, right?
I would neither like my children to have as teacher somebody who is a gentleman in the classroom and a boar outside
“I would neither like my children to have as teacher somebody who is a gentleman in the classroom and a boar outside”
Assuming you mean bore, as in an uninteresting person, rather than boar as a male pig, I can assure you that PZ could fairly be accused of being many things, but boring is not one of them.
@It seems you are admitting to be a rather overbearing father who cannot abide the concept of allowing your adult children to be exposed to ideas of which you disapprove. In short the rather typical fundamentalist religious father.
that was a truly funny one. Again I apologize, in France you are not yet an adult at university, and parents do care about their children’s studies, even later, especially when you are not a fundamentalist, and do care about what they might read on web sites. But well I understand that anything I write upsets a few people here.
Good bye.
Does free speech really render fair game what would otherwise be a crime if directed at an individual? There may be a practical argument, but I don’t think there’s much of an ethical one. I don’t think the problem of hate speech is at all well handled by a romantic deference to free speech – all due respect to Christopher Hitchens. From slander to uttering threats, free speech is often and reasonably limited. And, not too unlike the problem of talking about religion, not all hate legislation is the same.
In the case here, PZ was criticizing “Christian Music”, not “Christians”, so the accusation of hate speech is really dead before it even began. For the sake of argument though, what happens ethically when one accuses all Christians of possessing a negative trait, or of committing some sort of crime? Often, attention is drawn to the diversity within Christianity as an argument against generalization. Is generalization a crime then? No one seems to mind if Christians are generally attributed positive traits. Certainly, one could make the argument that the accusation of negative traits can inspire all sorts of bad behaviour against Christians, but couldn’t one also argue that attributing Christians positive traits similarly inspires cover for their bad behaviour (Sam Harris does a good job of arguing just this)?
So really, is criticism against Christianity necessarily any worse than compliments for Christianity? Are either any more or less guilty of painting with an unfairly wide brush?
Of course, much hate legislation is really incitement law with special consideration for slander and libel directed at groups of people. I think this kind of law is badly served by the word “hate”. It tends to cloud what’s actually going on, and add an inappropriately emotional element that suggests political posturing more than actual law.
Vincent,
I am sure most parents care about what their kids learn at university. The difference between the decent ones and the overbearing ones is that the decent ones accept their kids may well be exposed to ideas and concepts they personally do not agree with, but regard that as being part of their children’s education. The bad parents insist on stopping their kids even hearing about those ideas and concept.
Hell, well I was in the 6th form at school (A UK thing, between the ages of 16-18) we would have discussions with our teachers over issues such a politics and religion. I did not always agree with what my teachers said, but I found nothing wrong with them saying it. It was not until I was a little older that I realised they were doing so in order to develop our critical thinking skills.
PZ has made it clear that he does not push his views on religion in his classes. Indeed he specifically states to this students that it does not matter what their religious views are, it will not affect the way he treats them and he will not mark them down in anyway. All he is concerned about is how well they understand the material he teaches them. If a student, after all they have learnt, still hands in an essay stating evolution is false then they will fail. Unless they really have come up with evidence to disprove the theory. Unlikely in an undergrad though.
The religious obsession with children continues
Excuse me, but even me, as a Frenchman, I don’t understand what you mean with this…
In what sense is France different than any other country ?
Re: #170 – Perhaps he meant a boringly boorish boar?
jeff:
More succinctly: hypochristian
Colugo:
How did he find out about PZ’s boar thing? Was it the tusks?
References to Europe above seem to be generalisiing – well beyond what the facts would support.
After several screw-ups UK legislators came up with this ….
“PROTECTION OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”
Racial & Religious Hatred Act 2006 (29J)
So there you are, Vincent, the right to ridicule specifically protected in law. In Europe. I don’t imagine that PZ is in immediate danger in Morris but if the situation worsens then he’d find gainful employment as a biology professor in much of Europe – perhaps avoiding Italy and Poland for the moment.
vincent fleury, “Again I apologize, in France you are not yet an adult at university”
That does not make any sense.
vincent fleury, “Again I apologize, in France you are not yet an adult at university”
That does not make any sense.
In addition, the only way someone in France one cannot know about gospel music is if they live in some isolated rural community or in a monastery or some such thing.
M. Fleury,
It should be pointed out to you that the post title was a question, and a facetious one at that. Nowhere did PZ state that Christian=crap. I realize our English may be somewhat opaque to you, but I’m quite certain question marks mean the same thing in both languages.
Moreover, instead of worrying about your children reading or hearing certain things, I would suggest you try teaching them to think critically and thus interpret. I assume at some point in France people cease being children, and at that point, they’re going to need that skill.
I’ve been trying to spread: “Lie like a Fundie>”
michael kremer, your etymology makes no sense. “Christ” comes from the Greek meaning “anointed one”. Cretins were detested in Ancient Rome. It is hardly likely that they would be the “human beings” and the Romans not.
From Merriam Webster.
“Etymology:
French crétin, from French dialect cretin, literally, wretch, innocent victim, from Latin christianus Christian”
“How did he find out about PZ’s boar thing? Was it the tusks?”
PZ does not have tusks! He, like any self-respecting Cephalopod has a beak.
No, it isn’t. Shared etymology, even a traceable descent of one word from another, in no way implies “synonymousness.” It only means that the two words share a common ancestry.
There are a number of proposed derivations for “cretin,” most having nothing to do with one another:
(Yeah, I know, I just quoted Wikipedia. So sue me. =grin=)
Linguistics is far from an exact science. Language is sometimes said to be a living thing; it follows its own “laws of evolution,” constantly adapting to its cultural environment. (I for one am as fascinated by the evolution of language as by biological evolution. Sometimes I think that if I had to do it all over again, I’d become a linguist.)
Richard Nordquist says in Word Stories: An Introduction to Etymology:
(OK, OK, I quoted about.com too. But the man does know whereof he speaks. =another grin=)
In any event, if we do accept the derivation of “cretin” from “Christian,” the derogatory meaning of the word came later and was never designed to be a reflection on its parent word. Similar evolutions of meaning occurred with the words vulgar (having to do with “the common people”), pagan (a person “of the countryside” i.e. a non-city dweller), and heathen (also a non-city dweller, one who lived “on the heath”).
Another example would be the “Wicked Witch,” both words originally derived from an Old English root meaning “knowledge” (wic-, originally Germanic, root of wissen, “to know”) and related to the words wise and wizard.
On the flip side, atheist started out as a “fightin’ word.” In societies where religion is bound up with culture (i.e. most of ’em), refusal to honor the deity/deities, or worshiping the “wrong” deity/ies, is seen as a rejection of the entire social fabric; an “atheist” is therefore a criminal, a traitor. (Hence the execution of Socrates and the persecution of the early Christians, who preached against the many gods of the prevailing culture. Atheism has only begun to become a more neutral term since the Enlightenment. (But I suspect I’m preaching to the choir on this one.)
Enough linguistic pedantry for now. Here goes a post with three links; let’s see if it goes down the rabbit hole into Moderation Limbo. I think I’ll upshut and go take a nap. YMMV; AWYSB; XYZPDQ; LSMFT. :-)
I was looking up cretinism on wikipedia, and they have the following preface at the beginning of the article (emphasis mine):
Okay, so it’s just spelling, and there’s absolutely no way cretinism/creationism are etymologically linked…but it’s still kind of funny to read on wiki.
“When did “Christian” become a synonym for ‘crap’?”
At precisely the same moment the term “Christianity” was coined. It’s only gotten worse, but it’s always been shit.
themadlolscientist is Which Tyler (leader of the Pedants’ Revolt). Speaking earlier of good Xtian music, this stuff never fails to put a shiver down my spine. Gaelic Free Presbyterian psalms. So strict that there’s no instruments (or hymns) allowed in the kirk, and strict Sabbatinarians. Weird, weird music. http://www.gaelicpsalmsinging.com/audio/
Let’s go on to “crap”. From Answers, which doesn’t say the dictionary,
The pertinent definitions are probably,
3 Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.
4 Cheap or shoddy material.
WIKI gives,
“When not used literally it also may connote that something is inaccurate, of little factual substance, a lie, hype, or quackery.”
Those things describe xianity pretty well.
In #171, Vincent Fleury confused us all by writing:
I think what he means here is that in France, university students are still legal minors, and are thus still their parents’ responsibilities. (Unlike here in America, where parents stop giving a crap about their children once they turn 18.) Not being familiar with the French educational system, I have no idea whether the factual content of this statement is true, though.
How is Islam Canada’s big problem right now?
Could you be more specific as to where the strictly literal sense kicks in?
*french majority is at 18, and end of highschool at 17
*there is no need to write something like
“when did christian become synonym of crap”,
when you can write : “when did christian music become synonym of bad music”
in the first writing you are a bad person, bad teacher probably
it is precisely because such phrase would not be allowed in france, that we have fewer problems with these religious issues.
Etha: Vincent likely meant “psychologically” adult. In France, we are legally “adult” (“majeur”, in French) at 18, like you.
But vincent, the point of a title for a blog post is to be intriguing enough to get people to read the post. If the title was “When did christian music become bad music”, well, that’s a really boring title. His title is interesting enough to make you read further, at which point you realize what it means. Besides, that title could also spawn its own series, since there are a lot of things that could also fall under the same concept (see: Christian romance novels, Christian apocalyptic novels, Christian ‘science’ books, Christian-themed t-shirts, etc., etc.)
it is precisely because such phrase would not be allowed in france, that we have fewer problems with these religious issues.
That’s the reason? Precisely? You mean all we have to do here in America is wait for Christians to institute theocratic law, and then we’ll then have fewer problems with them making really bad music and spreading harmful superstition and trying to destroy science and blow up the world in Armageddon? McCain for president!
@#194 vincent fleury —
While controlling what people are allowed to say may superficially alleviate some of the political conflicts caused by religious issues, the abridgment of free speech is not the answer. As James Madison said in Federalist Paper #10:
Once again, Etha scores.
vincent fleury, “it is precisely because such phrase would not be allowed in france, that we have fewer problems with these religious issues.”
That is total nonsense. As far as I can tell, you must have been raised in some fundamentalist catholic family and had the equivalent of “home schooling”.
“Etha: Vincent likely meant “psychologically” adult. In France, we are legally “adult” (“majeur”, in French) at 18, like you.”
Of course in America some places have this crazy idea that you should not drink alcohol until you are 21.
Clearly the people behind such thinking have never been university students, since as best I can remember, excessive consumption of alcohol was a major part of the whole experience.
Then again perhaps the reasoning is one of protecting young adults from what passes for beet in much of America. If the only beer I could get hold of was the US Budweiser I would be tee-total myself. Apart from my liking wine and vodka to much that is.
America can be said to have a lot going for it, except when it comes to beer(*), chocolate and cheese.
(*). I am well aware that the US has some excellent breweries . I have not tried all that many of the brews they produce, but I will admit to rather liking Sierra Nevada Pale Ale. Tastes just how a real pale ale should. Only problem for me is that by the time it has been imported to the UK the cost is quite a bit other local brews that are on a par.
And for all I know the US may make excellent cheese, but as I understand it US rules do not allow the use of unpasteurised milk in cheese making, which whilst not making it impossible to make good cheese does make it much much harder.
Vincent is the first Frenchmen I’ve met who didn’t have a use for le mot “merde.”
sorry, guys, you do not understand, it is precisely because it is not allowed to bluntly put in print a phrase like christian is synonym of crap, that it is so easy to ban creationism anti darwinism etc. from school. You respect this, we respect that, that’s the deal. No religion at school, no hatred downtown. This is how it works here.
I am certainly not a fundamentalist, I wonder how you can even guess what could be my personnal belief from anything I have written above.
Certainly in France, NEVER, would a teacher put in print such a sentence which would truly jeopardize its reputation.
I would certainly not let somebody who can put in print “when did christian become synonym of crap” have any educational interference with my children.
they have plenty of better opportunities to develop a sense of criticism. That form is useless and bad.
@#203 vincent fleury –
Yes, it’s an easy solution to factionalism, but that doesn’t make it the right solution. See the Madison quote in my #198. While defending the integrity of science education against the faction of creationism using constitutional law (1st Amendment) may not be as easy as simply banning the speech outright, it’s a much more politically and intellectually healthy form of government.
Cher Vincent,
tu dis bien n’importe quoi.
A surprising number of Frenchies or French residents among the
regulars, I should say.
Salut à tous!
maybe, I do not know, it is also a matter of history, a balance. You reach that state of equilibrium, eventually.
In France not being allowed to say “christian is synonym of crap”, has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It has to do with apology of hatred, which is illegal.
You can mock, or laugh or caricature, but that is not the same thing, and if you end in court you can still defend yourself. But it is so much easier to separate things: no religion at school,in any form, no religion in administration, in any form. At home do what you want.
Myers sentence is just stupid, from our point of view, it is not a clever way of teasing a reader towards an interesting article.
But maybe someday I will understand Americans, and find this title very smart, so smart, that I will love to send my students to his course. Sounds unlikely though.
Vincent,
There may well be such a law in France. However when it comes to the issue of the treatment of minorities that law does not seem to help much.
It is only a couple of years ago that there were serious disturbances in French cities arising from tee lack of opportunities given to French citizens of North African origin.
I do not see the point, sorry. Honest.
Certainly in France, NEVER, would a teacher put in print such a sentence which would truly jeopardize its reputation.
I can see that your shock is genuine, but as others have pointed out–this is not France.
You simply seem naïve about the problems we are facing over here in the states. PZ isn’t just throwing out insults gratuitously. He’s trying to raise awareness. He’s purposely trying to get people’s attention by being a thorn in the side of a bunch of dangerous kooks who have been given a free ride for far too long. He’s doing a very good job. He even has people in France responding to his blog!
The influence of religion here in the states has made a mess of things, and you should be concerned. These fanatics are (as I understand it) much more of a death cult than in Europe. They believe in, and anticipate, Armageddon. National best sellers are written about the “coming rapture.” We have preachers, with large followings, who want our president to nuke Iran in order to help give the Christian god a helping hand in with “The End of Times”.
This is not France. This is the dangerous side of America, and simply letting the kooks be, with a “live and let live” attitude, has only allowed them to gather strength. They are dangerous. They promote stupidity. They deserve ridicule. But make no mistake, you won’t find actual threats of violence being condoned here. Simply the promotion of critical thinking with a few well aimed barbs–PZ is a “thorn in the side” only figuratively.
Vincent,
First and foremost, you are not allowed this “our”. Vu?
Second, as you seem to have trouble understanding what’s just
a provocative and humorous title:
a) it’s a question;
b) it just says “how come Christian music and Christian literature are represented nowadays by those turds? There
once were great Christian artists.”
@Guli
If you want,
but please allow others to think otherwise. One can avoid insulting sentences.
What you describe in the US is far from happening in Europe.
I wish you a fair outcome of these issues
vf
Bernarda (#184) — it wasn’t “my” etymology — it came from the OED (Oxford English Dictionary, generally considered something of an authority on such matters). And it conformed with the first etymology you posted, which read (in part) “from Vulgar Latin *christiānus, Christian, human being, poor fellow.” Note that the claim is not that the *Romans* used the word “christian” for human beings in general, but that much later, in some places, the word “Christian” was applied to all human beings, and came especially to be applied to those most likely to be treated as subhuman. I don’t see how this “doesn’t make sense.”
Vincent,
Simply expressing opinion has never – and will never – be a violation of the citizen’s right to free speech. Apology of hatred simply is not a crime – even agreeing with hatred or hate-induced acts is not even a crime. The only crime that can be committed by an utterance is in the case that it incites others to commit crimes based upon the opinions such an utterance espouses. Then, and only then, the statement is criminal.
But since I doubt you’ll hear of many Pharyngulites out committing crimes against Christian artists, this statement you’ve gotten yourself all worked up about was nothing more than a perfectly legal – and again accurate – expression of opinion.
You are surely right.
It just does not work that way on the other side of the atlantic. I just do not quite understand what went wrong in the Us that there is so much concern now with these issues.
If Myers title is quite casual, or even humorous and sane, it ‘s all right, I can hear that. I will think about it.
Fleury’s experience is with the laicite, which is different from more freewheeling American-style secularism. It’s a religious version of a DMZ, a tense balance of mutual avoidance. To hell (or to heaven) with that. France’s tradition arises from the history of bloody mutual slaughter of Catholics and Protestants and the Cult of the Supreme Being’s suppression of Catholicism, restoration, counter-revolutions, Catholic fascists under Vichy, communists making deals with conservatives etc. (Just how many constitutions and regimes – not just administrations – has France had since we had our revolution?)
Let the minarets (height and more importantly, noise zoning permitted, of course) and baby Jesi pop up in public (though not on courthouse nor statehouse lawns), as well as the shrines and monuments to Wicca or Bahai atheism or whatever without too much hostile scrutiny by bureaucrats. Let the crucifixes – both right side-up and upside-down or Damien Thorn style – be worn by whoever wants to wear them. Head scarves, yarmulkes, wizard hats, and dreds in school: why not? Display the pink triangles, rainbow flags, pentagrams, fish of all kinds (Jesus, Darwin, Gefilte). May a thousand freak flags fly.
M. Fleury:
To better appreciate Myers sputtering outrage at this nomination, I suggest you refer back to his review of O’Leary’s book. The book, ostensibly an overview of the state of current knowledge of the human brain, contains appalling errors of fact such as a claim that a typical cell contains only 100,000 (i.e. 10^5) molecules altogether.
First Vincent, it is not true to say that one is not allowed to say such things in France. I agree that saying such a thing would be contrary to the “Loi de la Laicité” if a public servant said such a thing in the exercise of his functions, but PZ writing his blog is a private citizen and is not doing anything wrong, even in France.
Second, this kind of title could have very well been written on a liberal French atheist blog or a French liberal magazine or newzpaper type humanité, canard enchainé, or marianne.
Moreover, if today we can afford in France to be more relaxed on the religious debates it is because we do not have 30 to 40% religious fundamentalists like in the US but they are almost inexistant, we have close to 50% or 60% non believers, and this is thanks to people who generations ago started the kind of debate that PZ and others are trying to provoke in the United States.
Do you think that people like Camus and Sartre were trying to be nice guys with the religious folks those days ?
Si ce blog ne te plait vraiment pas, rien ne t’oblige d’y rester. Ce serait dommage car c’est un trés bon blog avec de nombreux commentateurs trés intéressants. Il vaudrait mieux que tu étudies un peu mieux la situation réélle de la problématique religieuse aux états-unis avant de comenter ici.
Colugo@215:
Where the hell do you get off escalating this discussion into a nationalistic p*ssing contest? Fleury was obviously responding to #209. Please direct your flamethrower at RamblinDude if you don’t agree with his assessment of U.S. society, not at someone who, if initially uncivil to Myers, does appear to be making an actual effort at understanding the situation.
Colugo #215,
by the way, I’m still not convinced that what you call “freewheeling American-style secularism” will ever work in producing the kind of secularism that you really asprire to.
If you want to allow complete freedom of expression, I don’t see how you are going to get out of the mess you’re in. For a very simple reason, Science and Critical thinking requires hard work, Religion and Superstitious belief is easy. You can’t have the cake and eat it. Just doesn’t work. You cannot control religion that way. It creeps back in all the time, it becomes a farce of secularism.
I think if accross Europe we decided to impose a certain number of limitations on certain practices or expressions is for good reasons, and it works.
So, please, American friends, before you misjudge our constitutional laws, let’s have a more openminded discussion.
“fearfully made?”
Can someone please explain what the hell that is?
It’s a long thread so if someone already has I missed it.
“You cannot control religion that way.”
“It creeps back in all the time”
Sure. So what?
I don’t care what people believe or what rituals they practice as long they obey the law, don’t harm others (including their own children), or try to rewrite the laws to impose or carve out a theocracy.
I don’t have a grand goal of converting the masses to rationalism or squelching religion and belief in the supernatural. Let there be an open marketplace of ideas and worldviews. We can avoid the Charybdis of Italy’s Papist protectionism and the Scylla of France’s laicite.
In the long run rationalism will (mostly) win globally. It will be a long and tough transition – the Muslim world and fundamentalist America aside, look at the irrationality of China: endangered species decimated by Traditional Chinese Medicine, the rising cult of Falun Gong, even residual Mao veneration.
And this time I believe that the champions of rationalism, science, and atheism will be a bit more rational in their advocacy than the failed past attempts (Objectivism, Dialectical Materialism, Monism, Fabianism, Ecological Ethics, Technocracy etc).
That’s my point with “it creeps back in”, in actual practice it has the tendency to do exactly the kind of things you don’t want it to do. Just looking at reality.
That you object to the high degree of privilege and influence that the Roman Catholic Church enjoys in Italy is one thing, Italy is certainly not the country that I’d put on the top of my list as a model of secularism, but I’d like to know what are the problems you see with the French concept of Laicité.
1. The headscarf ban in schools, a heavy-handed attempt to create a neutral environment, creates greater tensions than simply allowing students to wear emblems of religious identity. Determining which religious symbols can and cannot be worn leads to charges of arbitrariness and bias.
2. The bureaucratic roadblocks to church and mosque construction, the need for special permission for each one, makes each new house of worship effectively a creature of the state, including state funding. Is this separation of church and state?
3. Laws against defamation of religion suppress speech in the land of Voltaire and easily become appropriated as religio-political instruments to attack any critics of political organizations and movements that happen to also have a religious identity.
How many incidents of mass desecration of Muslim graves have there been in France since 2000? How many votes has Le Pen received? How many riots participated in, and cars burned, by young residents of Parisian “suburbs”? Yet 9/11 happened in the US, not France. Isn’t all of this indicative that perhaps something about French domestic policy – including its approach to religion – has failed?
Scott Atran diagnoses Islamic radicalization
page 47 is particularly relevant to US-European differences (though not the laicite issue)
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/Atran07/index.html
I remember a few years ago going to a performance of the Mozart C-minor Mass then coming home and doing a little channel surfing before going to bed and running across a Carman concert on the local 24-hour Christian channel. Hard to believe both were in praise of the same deity. Were I said deity I would do something drastic to shut up the latter lest he taint my reputation further.
Yes, but… why “interestingly”? Contemporary Nashville has very little to do with bluegrass or old-time country. It’s not really Country at all – it’s Southernized Pop/Rock. Bluegrass smokes. Country has soul. Much of Contemporary Country has as much soul as a Hallmark card. There are plenty of talented musicians involved, and some of the material is ok, but it’s highly formulaic and uniformly glossy – even the “gritty” stuff. Meh.
Check out the OST album from the Coen Bros film Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? It’s a treat.
Re: Crap or no crap, Li’l Marky is a phenomenon I’d hold up as an example of the infantilizing nature of the culture that spawned it.
Looking for “real” country music, soul and all? Check out Jim Lauderdale.
Hmmm. Make that “manifestation”, or perhaps “by-product”, rather than “example”.
apprently I do not master english enough to follow. I am sorry. I cannot make up a sincere opinion on what I read.
On the one hand some people say that M. Myers’ phrase carries a question mark and is a humorous sentence, fair enough, a triffle then. But on the other hand some people say that Myers is a very good warrior agains current stupidity, religious fanatism etc, and that his style and manners are ment to shock, shake and have people wake up etc, so the sentence should be some sort of a blow.
I just do not like this kind of ambiguity, when it pleases, it was serious, when it pleases not, it was a joke. It is typically the kind of ambiguous phrasing that creationnists would use.
Anyway, I do not master english enough to be able to judge the honnesty of all that.
In french putting a phrase like “when did christian become synonym of crap” means that you ask for the date, and assume that it has become crap.
It would only be a negative-to-understand sentence, if on the other side somebody was telling you “christian has become synonym of crap” then asking with a question mark would mean you think the opposite. In this sentence, as far as I can analyze, M. Myers actually means that christian has become synonym of crap. I am sorry, this is the impression it still gives me.
Now, M. Myers introduces itself in his blog as Professor Biologist etc. at Wisconsin University. In France, he would probably be fired or “mute” rapidly which means sent to some other appointment. It is pretty sure, I would give it a 75% chance. there would be a complaint filed by somebody, and after several appeals he might end on tv, etc, but finally be gently asked to do some paper work somewhere in the hide, before things calm down, or indeed asked to withdraw any mention of the uni from the said website.
Of course, the situation of religions is not the same in both countries, and it makes little sense to compare, or may be it does; but why M. Myers would be considered as a bad person, from this post, is four fold
1)being rude is useless and counterproductive, especially if you are a professor. Every educated person knows that.
2)putting such statements while you are a professor at a named university etc. is a professional fault, we do not expect our children to talk like that
3) If you hold a blog in which you put as “en tete” that you are professor at this or that university, it is expected that you keep the content at a genuine good level. Putting such a comment about such things, I believe, is not at the right level, there are better things to do.
4)even if he means what he means somewhat lightly, number of comments follow which are much more harsh and by no doubt, mean christian=crap. M. Myers is supposedly editor of this blog, and as such responsible for its content. it is not expected from a professor at university to be the open tap through which pours hatred. Even if some other comments are reasonable and “normal”
Somebody above suggests that if I disagree with M. Myers who is apprently such a nice fellow, I should just leave. All right, I will certainly leave eventually, but such suggestions might mean that on either side nobody accepts any criticism nor reasoning. As a frenchman, everything I stated so far, was stated in respect of french “laicite”, because I am myself a scientist in a university, and respectful of others, in the first place my students. I am pretty sure nobody can even guess what my own beliefs might be, if any. My students need not know, as I do not bother about theirs. Nevertheless, i was charged with being, let us see: moron, fundamentalist, idiot, caveman, and the cherry on the cake “intellectual” What a farce.
When did “intellectual” become an insult?
Vincent Fleury (actually in California, what a nice place)
Yes, but… why “interestingly”? Contemporary Nashville has very little to do with bluegrass or old-time country. I>
So I’m learning. My early exposure to bluegrass wasn’t good, so I just labeled it all Country Western and filed it under “annoying and pretty much useless.”
I still don’t care for most country music, but bluegrass can be energetic and exploratory, the exact opposite of formulaic mainstream country. It’s just within the past few years that I’ve discovered I could like it. For me it was a surprise. (It has to be done well, though, I’m rather particular.)
I had a friend once tell me that old time country, like Hank Williams, was best listened to on old scratchy records, like on a jukebox. I think he’s right. I still can’t really get into it but I do agree, it does have soul.
Vincent Fleury,
We are communicating across a cultural and language divide. All I can say is, “Welcome to America.”
As for this blog, you’d be surprised how mild mannered PZ is in an interview. Believe it or not, he’s a very decent and civilized, well spoken person. But in his blog he calls things like he sees them, and he doesn’t pull his punches. In fact, he’s becoming famous for doing just that. It’s expected of him!
You’re right, it is shocking at first, some of the things he posts, especially to those on the receiving end of his “observations”. But if you read for a while, you realize that’s the point. And here in America, there are no police to haul you off to jail for speaking you mind–even against religion. At least not yet.
Perhaps it’s the nature of the internet combined with American sensibilities. It tends to lessen the shock value of name calling and sarcasm. But you also have to keep in mind that the acerbic posting done here is also done with wit and humor. That’s one of the reason Pharyngula is so popular. And when the writing sparkles, it goes a long way toward diffusing animosity.
Not everybody can do what he does, and it’s true he does walk a fine line sometimes, but his sense of balance is good, and like I said before, he is getting people’s attention. That’s important.
I would suggest you read the blog for a couple of weeks to get an idea of what’s going on. Maybe you’ll see what I’m talking about, maybe not, but it does sound like you need some more exposure to our way of doing things. I suggest also that you watch some of the religious programming on TV and hear some of the things they have to say about, among other things, atheism.
Hope you enjoy California.
vincent fleury, “It has to do with apology of hatred, which is illegal.” The Laws Pleven and Gayssot have been used to punish negationists, those who deny the extent of crimes against humanity, but I don’t know of any case where someone has been punished for simply criticizing religion. There is now a later law which adds denial of slavery to the list. They also prohibit encouraging racial hatred or even discrimination.
Michel Onfray’s book “Athéology” all about calling xianity and other religions crap. He has no problem. As far as I know, the newspapers which published the Danish cartoons on Islam have won the cases brought against them.
There are contradictions in the application of such laws. The Protocols of Zion are prohibited in France because it is false and is thought to encourage anti-semitism. By the same reasoning, the bible and centuries of xian writing should be prohibited, Martin Luther for one.
I think these sort of laws are a mistake. There is always somewhere the line has to be drawn, and who is qualified to decide that? Since it concerns laws, it will be a judge. But are judges qualified to decide on matters of opinion?
To avoid problems for example, Google even withdrew a link to a site on google.fr because of a complaint. They didn’t want the hassle of going to court. I think Yahoo has also done so. There is no end in sight. Just the threat of legal action discourages free speech.
Colugo #223,
1. no religious symbols can be worn in public schools (unless they are sufficiently discrete that they can be hidden, like a necklace with a crescent, a cross, or a small buddha). The rule is the same for all religions, with no differentiations. Same for Jews, catholics, buddhists, etc…
2. the need for special permissions to build places of worship are the same for every religion. You seem to believe in this very naïve idea of separation of church and state where the two coexist completely independenlty like two “non overlaping magisterium” again. Of course there is still the need for setting rules and regulations, and I prefer it to be the state, because the state represents the people, not religions. That’s the problem in the USA, religions can do whatever they want, they are constitutionally protected for whatever they do, whatever monstuosity they build.
3. You are probably referring to the Loi gayssot,
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_Gayssot
(also available in english but the french article is more complete if you speak french, also includes comparisons with other countries)
Now this goes far beyond the loi de la laicité. It is still a very contovertial decision. There are obvious pros and cons. Please note that it goes against “any discrimination founded on the membership or non-membership to an ethnic group, a nation, a race or a religion is prohibited.”
Le Pen received far less votes than Bush did in America. The problems of integration of immigrants have far more to do with the failure of some of our socio-economic policies, high unemployment, than our religious framework.
Look, I’m not saying that our system is perfect. There are obvious give and takes. The only thing I would like to point out is that if Americans believe they can are going to be able to enjoy both secularism, a more rational society where religion is under control, and complete total freedom of expression, then they are just fooling themselves.
There are always compromises to be made, you just seem to never want to make some.
Tangential to the topic perhaps, but did anyone else think Iron Maiden’s last album was…suspiciously gospel-like in its lyrics?
No, but the question sparked an idea for a new musical genre: Doomgrass.
vincent fleury, “discrimination” is not the same as “criticism”. There is no need to compromise on free speech. Free speech for jesus freaks, or anyone else, is not a problem, things like tax exemptions and political campaigning are.
In France, people on both the left and the right have protested the loi Gayssot and the loi Taubira. One letter was signed by 20 or so historians.
Vincent, is it the “crap” or the “Christian” or the professor part that is most objectionable?
If PZ said, “Since when did British pop music become synonymous with ‘crap’? would that have given equal offense?
Or what about, “Since when did rock music become synonymous with ‘crap’?”
Or, “Since when did Christian music become so dreadful?”
In the US, the stereotype of a Frenchman is a thin, edgy guy like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2ihlz_joKo
saying, “stupid Americans!” in a thick French accent between puffs on his cigarette.
In other words: we don’t imagine the French as particularly shy about calling things “crap.”
In the US, high school teachers must be careful about offending parents. University instructors when lecturing also limit the expression of personal opinion. However, there are forums where free expression of personal opinion is permitted. Scienceblogs is one of those forums.
Just to add to Dr Benway’s fine words, random evidence that us french don’t hesitate to use “crap” or “shit” in blog titles, even in such respectable blogs as the one from Le Monde :
http://berardjean.blog.lemonde.fr/2008/03/28/un-merdier-ingerable/
“un merdier ingérable”
“an unmanageable shit hole”, talking about the situation in Afghanistan : not exactly, “polite”
One word: “Hillsong”……followed by bleeding ears and not in a good way.
Hey Vincent,
The way I read this is why is it that when we label a type of writing or music “Christian fiction”, “Christian romance”, “Christian rock” does that usually mean that the quality of the material is very bad? I think that this is true, and there are multiple reasons for it.
1. It used to be that practically everyone in western societies followed one version of Christianity or another. In this case *everything* written would be “Christian” and Christian themes were common, so obviously the best material was quite likely to contain these themes.
2. Now that societies are tending to be more secular the market producing and consuming material with Christian themes has shrunk. There are very few really good artists, and the pool of artists that the Christian media market draws upon is rather small. This means less chance of a really good artist being in that pool, and a greater proportion of mediocre or worse artists.
3. A great many Christians do not require that their reading/viewing/listening material have Christian themes at all, and purchase media that is not explicitly Christian. That means that the Christian media market is driven by those who demand these themes. The people who demand Christian themes tend to be more interested in maintaining a Christian/secular divide. This means that they don’t want to read books that contain material they think is questionable, like characters who are homosexual or characters who have premarital sex (the handbook “Writing the Christian Romance” that I skimmed one day at the library gives strict guidelines for exactly what type of physical contact is and is not permissable–basically only chaste kisses allowed!) If these topics do crop up they are as off-stage sins that will be repented of before the end of the book. Christian fiction is not exploratory, and any conflict in moral or religious matters will be resolved decisively.
Of course real art is not anti-exploratory–that’s propaganda. There have been Christians who wrote non-explicitly Christian fiction, such as Dorothy Sayers. Her books have underlying Christian themes, but the characters are generally non-Christian and couldn’t make it into a modern Christian novel without just vague allusions to their histories and a prompt conversion. Per Wikipedia (:-D) Sayers actually responded to a reader who wanted Lord Peter Wimsey to become Christian by saying that would be out-of-character.
David responding to Masks of Eris:
The protests were the loudest in Greece and some even in their home country of Finland. Ironically, Lordi members are mostly good Christian boys and girls.
negentropyeater, I appreciate your candor and I can see your points, but I think we simply have mutually incompatible worldviews. I wish the best for France and hope that it can build a fully inclusive, pluralistic, and respectful society out of its diverse citizenry (and I hope the same for the USA). But I would rather risk the potential for the maintenance and growth of religious irrationalism in exchange for the free public expression of faith (or faithlessness) by private citizens and private groups.
‘Expelled’ illustrates a problem with the way America handles the free speech issue. Laying stress on the happy sexy meme “freedom” has resulted in general ignorance of the limits of that freedom in a range of contexts. And thus Ben Stein can get some traction with his argument that scientists ought to be free to say whatever they want to say.
Of course scientific assertions require more justification than the mere wish to state them.
If the world outside America also has difficulty appreciating the rules that limit free speech here, they might think us daft.
Colugo,
I guess we’ll have to respectfully agree to disagree…
I like this blog very much and the commenters, but it seems to me that many don’t realize that you are still very much in the defensive mode, ie most of the time spent is countering attacks from the religious right in trying to make things even worse than they are, but I still don’t see any concrete ways to diminish its influence.
That non believers now have a voice in America is great news, and for us in Europe it’s a great sign of hope. But beyond this, there’s no sign that on the other side, that of the religious loons and fundamentalists, things are slowing down. Quite the contrary. And that is the worrying part. Because that is exactly the perfect breeding ground for the kind of things that have caused so much destruction in the past. Add to this an economic crisis and you have the necessary historical ingredients for facism.
So we played with those a bit more than you, maybe that’s the reason why we are a bit more careful with freedom of expression.
Atheists do make the best music: http://www.last.fm/music/Streetlight+Manifesto/Somewhere+In+The+Between
What I find that’s so disheartening about Xian music/literature/movies/comedians is that they fundamentally misunderstand the greatest aspects of art: that is, its ability to make us confront ourselves, to make us imagine being another person in another time, to think deeply and truly about issues that affect us all. But these folks simply want “art” spoon-fed to them; they want to be reaffirmed in their worldview every step of the way. This is the exact opposite of what good art is supposed to do. Good Lord, two of the greatest writers who ever lived, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, were Xians, but would you ever find a fundie checking out one of their books? I guess it’s also part of the larger sense of anti-intellectualism that pervades this country, whether secular or religious.
What I find that’s so disheartening about Xian music/literature/movies/comedians is that they fundamentally misunderstand the greatest aspects of art: that is, its ability to make us confront ourselves, to make us imagine being another person in another time, to think deeply and truly about issues that affect us all. But these folks simply want “art” spoon-fed to them; they want to be reaffirmed in their worldview every step of the way. This is the exact opposite of what good art is supposed to do. Good Lord, two of the greatest writers who ever lived, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, were Xians, but would you ever find a fundie checking out one of their books? I guess it’s also part of the larger sense of anti-intellectualism that pervades this country, whether secular or religious.
What I find that’s so disheartening about Xian music/literature/movies/comedians is that they fundamentally misunderstand the greatest aspects of art: that is, its ability to make us confront ourselves, to make us imagine being another person in another time, to think deeply and truly about issues that affect us all. But these folks simply want “art” spoon-fed to them; they want to be reaffirmed in their worldview every step of the way. This is the exact opposite of what good art is supposed to do. Good Lord, two of the greatest writers who ever lived, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, were Xians, but would you ever find a fundie checking out one of their books? I guess it’s also part of the larger sense of anti-intellectualism that pervades this country, whether secular or religious.
What I find that’s so disheartening about Xian music/literature/movies/comedians is that they fundamentally misunderstand the greatest aspects of art: that is, its ability to make us confront ourselves, to make us imagine being another person in another time, to think deeply and truly about issues that affect us all. But these folks simply want “art” spoon-fed to them; they want to be reaffirmed in their worldview every step of the way. This is the exact opposite of what good art is supposed to do. Good Lord, two of the greatest writers who ever lived, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, were Xians, but would you ever find a fundie checking out one of their books? I guess it’s also part of the larger sense of anti-intellectualism that pervades this country, whether secular or religious.
Posted by: vincent fleury | May 18, 2008 6:18 PM
You’re either lying or missing the point completely. Freedom of speech or expression works the same way no matter what body of water is between the continents. I’d cite the multiple posts in this thread (Etha Williams and her citation of the Federalist Paper #10 is the best, IMHO) that show your absolute inaccuracy in stating that France somehow outlawed speech such as PZ’s title for this thread, but since I assume you can read them for yourself, it seems as though you’ve simply chosen to ignore them. Being in bad taste and being illegal are two quite different things, and you continue to argue that in France PZ’s title would be classified in the latter, even in the face of contrary evidence.
THAT, sir, is why some on this thread have likened you to a fundamentalist, and correctly so in that sense.
but it seems to me that many don’t realize that you are still very much in the defensive mode
that’s changing, and fairly quickly judging by the many successful efforts to turn back a lot of the creationist sponsored legislation.
the problem is, how does one “go on the offensive” with facts? most americans just don’t care. which leads to:
but I still don’t see any concrete ways to diminish its influence.
it takes time; there have been many successes over the last couple of years, and I’ve seen many offensively-oriented tactics that seem to work, like:
-ridicule (leading to inevitable marginalization)
-“false” NOMA (those who argue vehemently that science does not interfere with faith)
-ready access to evidence that creationists employ deceitful tactics and misinformation.
on the second I say “false”, because logically it is (NOMA is easily logically broken down), however it has been working as a tactical measure in many places, as we have seen with the rejection of creationist legislation in Ohio, for example. the Panda’s Thumb is full of proponents of this tactical strategy.
I have seen evidence many times that these things do in fact have a positive effect on diminishing the influence of religious extremism. Both on an individual (former creationists realizing their peers were lying to them) and political basis (think of what happened to the schoolboard after the Kitzmiller ruling).
the unfortunate thing, and the reason I didn’t list it, is that I have not seen actual evidence in support of good science (the mountains of evidence supporting the ToE, for example), really having as much of a tactical effect as one might hope.
that said, once any of the listed things take effect, THEN evidence supporting any particular scientific theory seems to play a larger role.
on a more practical note:
getting involved with your local schoolboard is one of the easiest and best ways to limit the influence of religious extremism in your local area, and really that is where one can always apply pressure when federal or state ears are deaf.
using a combination of the above when confronted with creationists at a schoolboard:
-show direct evidence of how creationists often lie, quotemine, and spew disinformation (not hard).
-ridicule them for doing so, along with ridiculing their more obviously egregious notions (again, not hard)
-argue to the moderate religious that science does not interfere with their faith (harder, especially if you’re an atheist, but this helps get them on your side).
once you have the majority on your side, you can then “seal the deal” with the positive evidences for evolution.
It might seem unseemly (especially the “NOMA” argument), but while I don’t proclaim fondness for tactics like this, I have seen it work.
for us in Europe it’s a great sign of hope
you are fighting the same battles, don’t kid yourself (that was the exact problem that lead US to being on the defensive).
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070626-attempts-to-introduce-intelligent-design-in-europe-spark-backlash.html
-ready access to evidence that creationists employ deceitful tactics and misinformation.
oh, almost forgot
@You’re either lying or missing the point completely
I do not know, maybe I am lying after all. Hu, hu. In France a teacher can certainly not state such a sentence. it is pretty sure that his university would immediately demand that he withdraws all mention of the university on his website. Immediately, with a high risk of troubles if he would not do so.
Freedom of speech is not a matter of being allowed to state any sequence of word anywhere, it is a matter of opinion.
PZ Myers sentence, which is not truly an opinion, is followed by a considerable list of insulting comments, which he endorses from a legal point of view, since it is his publication.
I am not a lawyer, a lawyer might tell us. Writing “christian is synonym of crap”, even in a question form is not an opinion, it is a statement which, at large, is wrong (refutable by the way), and insulting. It is only the context of the next lines (restricted to music) that softens it. Therefore the statement as such is probably prosecutable. I don’t know. it seems to me. Maybe a lawyer can tell is there one around?
But anyway, the maim point is that it is useless and counter productive, but it is probably that I do not understand American culture.
I would not expect such ferocious reactions. They are quite intriguing, and worrying.
n France a teacher can certainly not state such a sentence.
really?
citation of source, please.
or, yes, you’re lying.
PZ Myers sentence, which is not truly an opinion [needs citation], is followed by a considerable list of insulting comments, which he endorses from a legal point of view [needs citation], since it is his publication [define legally as opposed to blog].
I am not a lawyer
obviously.
I would not expect such ferocious reactions.
you would not expect someone to call you out for spewing gross misinformation at best, and purposeful lies at worst?
worrying.
indeed.
oh no, I am sorry, we civil servants in France do sign a contract which restricts our freedom of speech (“obligation de reserve”) considerably
it is absolutely common knowledge that in France religious matters are completely forbidden at school or universities to professors. It is absolutely the case. You do not understand. we can all waste our time saying words at each other, but the point is very simple, in France PZ Myers would absolutely not be allowed to put a heading “professor at this University”, and then write such statements.
Maybe I confuse apology of hatred and laicite, but beyond this potential error, all quotes above by others speaking on behalf of french law are, I think, wrong. I am a civil servant myself, I wonder whether any of the above are. Teachers do not have freedom of speech in France, not on all matters. But I am not myself a lawyer. I accept your desbelief anyway, I can live with it, although the tone is strange
I have found this one :
(sprry oit is in french)
L’obligation de réserve, qui contraint les agents publics à observer une retenue dans l’expression de leurs opinions, notamment politiques, sous peine de s’exposer à une sanction disciplinaire, ne figure pas explicitement dans les lois statutaires relatives à la fonction publique. Il s’agit d’une création jurisprudentielle, reprise dans certains statuts particuliers, tels les statuts des magistrats, des militaires, des policiers… Cette obligation ne connaît aucune dérogation, mais doit être conciliée avec la liberté d’opinion, et celle, corrélative à la première, de l’expression de ces opinions, reconnue aux fonctionnaires à l’article 6 de la loi n° 83-634 du 13 juillet 1983 portant droits et obligations des fonctionnaires.
L’appréciation du comportement d’un agent au regard de cette obligation varie selon plusieurs critères dégagés par la jurisprudence du Conseil d’Etat, parmi lesquels figurent la nature des fonctions et le rang dans la hiérarchie de l’agent, ainsi que les circonstances et le contexte dans lesquels l’agent s’est exprimé, notamment la publicité des propos. Il est à noter que la même jurisprudence étend l’obligation de réserve au comportement général des fonctionnaires, qu’ils agissent à l’intérieur ou en dehors du service.
Dans le cas particulier du web log, ou blog, qui peut être défini comme un journal personnel sur Internet, la publicité des propos ne fait aucun doute. Tout va dépendre alors du contenu du blog. Son auteur, fonctionnaire, doit en effet observer, y compris dans ses écrits, un comportement empreint de dignité, ce qui, a priori, n’est pas incompatible avec le respect de sa liberté d’expression. En tout état de cause, il appartient à l’autorité hiérarchique dont dépend l’agent d’apprécier si un manquement à l’obligation de réserve a été commis et, le cas échéant, d’engager une procédure disciplinaire.”
I also find the following one. It was a good opportunity for me to discover that actually, “the obligation de reserve” which restricts our freedom of speech actually extends to our entire life, at work and out of work. What a relief, I was not a lier, in the end.
Obligation des fonctionnaires, essentiellement définie par la jurisprudence, de s’abstenir de manifestations individuelles incompatibles avec la dignité, l’impartialité ou la sérénité de leurs fonctions. En tant que fonctionnaires au service de l’Etat ou des collectivités locales et de l’ensemble de la collectivité nationale, ils doivent s’abstenir de faire état de leurs opinions personnelles. Cette obligation leur incombe dans l’exercice de leurs fonctions et en dehors du service. Dans ce dernier cas, la liberté d’expression est reconnue aux fonctionnaires sous réserve que son usage ne soit ni excessif, ni insultant à l’égard des pouvoirs publics et de la hiérarchie administrative. Ce devoir de réserve est apprécié à la mesure des responsabilités que le fonctionnaire assume dans la vie sociale, en raison de son rang dans la hiérarchie et de la nature de ses fonctions. Il devient un devoir de loyauté pour ceux qui occupent un emploi supérieur à la discrétion du gouvernement ou sont en poste à l’étranger.
we civil servants in France do sign a contract which restricts our freedom of speech (“obligation de reserve”) considerably
it is absolutely common knowledge that in France religious matters are completely forbidden at school or universities to professors.
and that contract you signed, it applies to everything you say, everywhere you go?
…or does it only apply to executing your duties on campus, as a teacher.
in fact, you already answered the question:
completely forbidden at school or universities
look, I’m not sure why you are not getting this, but this is a BLOG, not a classroom. it is not funded nor sponsored by any american institution of education.
surely you’re not going to try and tell us that becoming a teacher in France means you can’t say what the hell you want OUTSIDE of the classroom, right?
Teachers do not have freedom of speech in all matters in the United States, in their capacity as teachers.
A public school teacher, at least below the university level, does not have the full right to free speech in the classroom that s/he would have on the street. That only applies to their capacity as a teacher in the public schools. I’m not sure about the university level, but I would think in public universities, professors would have to curtail their speech so as not to breach the separation of church and state.
I don’t really know about the responsibilities of a uni prof in the US re: separation stuff vs. a high school teacher. It is probably much more lax. Is there a line?
All that aside, this is PZ’s place. His associations with UMM are clear, but he speaks for himself here. Not as a professor in the course of his professorial duties. He can say whatever the hell he wants.
It’s a case of “individual” speech versus “agent of the state” speech.
Hive mind, did I get that approximately right?
Ichthyic,
I’m convinced of what you are saying, the only problem is that it’s a lot of hard work, and you need literally armies of goodwilled people to carry it out.
It’s a longhaul task which certainly needs to be done and will require constant monitoring (which is by the way conspicuously absent when we seem to ignore the exact precise yearly evolution of the different categories of believers, themselves not even having been defined : it’s like going for war completely blindfolded) in order to check what works and what doesn’t. This is simple basic strategic requirement.
I also think offensive actions need to be put into place, propositions to modify the legal framework which restrict religious privileges or enable a science teacher to openly crticize creationism in class, or the kind of proposition from the European council. Some lawyers should work on it. In otherwords, propositions which go in the opposite direction of the Sally Kern types of propositions. Let the religious right chew on them and call us loons and say they are unconstitutional. The problem is, why is it always them who come with the crazy ideas and try to pull on the overton window. We shouldn’t be afraid. Going for the offensive doesn’t mean that you expect to get everything you ask for, but in this what matters most is to create a national debate, because that is what gets you the most rapid evolution. This helps to accelerate the process thatyou describe in your post.
Once again, Ichthyic beats me to the punch. The laws in France and a few other states in Europe do curtail speech of citizens, whether in their official capacity or as private citizens, such as holocaust denial or “hate speech” that wasn’t intended to incite violence.
although the tone is strange
the tone is based on your continuing to conflate a blog with a classroom, combined with saying things like:
Z Myers sentence, which is not truly an opinion
again, who says it’s not an opinion?
you?
funny, I would rather think the person who stated it gets to decide if it’s their opinion.
…which he endorses from a legal point of view
which suggests you haven’t the slightest clue what legal responsibilities the owner of a public forum has wrt to comments made by participants.
trust me, comments made in public forum are in no way the legal responsibility of the person who created the forum, or the sponsors.
Are you saying that a newspaper in France is legally responsible for any appearance of libel or slander from the comments printed from the general public in an opinion section?
I would find that hard to believe, indeed.
Once again, Ichthyic beats me to the punch.
meh, sorry. go right on ahead. I can’t see much point in continuing anyway.
it’s either a case of gross misunderstanding on the part of Vincent, or deliberate misrepresentation.
I’m not sure I care which any more.
@surely you’re not going to try and tell us that becoming a teacher in France means you can’t say what the hell you want OUTSIDE of the classroom, right?
No, again you are wrong the “obligation de reserve” extends to our entire life, also outside the classroom, :
“ils doivent s’abstenir de faire état de leurs opinions personnelles. Cette obligation leur incombe dans l’exercice de leurs fonctions et en dehors du service.”
which translates into :
they have to refrain from telling their personal beliefs. This obligation extends to during duty and out of duty aswell
Vincent:
Your replies are utter garbage. See, that’s an opinion, and it is conceptually identical to PZ’s statement. Your definition of the word opinion seems to be way out there beside your definition of free speech, which is to say that neither approaches what society has defined them to be to this point.
No, just someone who didn’t have the base intellect required to use a translator to make sure the people you’re arguing with are on the same page. Refusing to speak on common terms with the rest of the group, you’ll find, is also a telltale mark of a fundamentalist. You didn’t even cite the sources of the articles. Elementary, I’d say.
I could go translate these articles myself, but I hardly see why I should. Right before the second one you celebrated the state’s restriction of a citizen’s freedom of speech for the purposes of conciliation between groups. Restriction of the freedom of expression for purposes of appeasing diverse groups within that society is not a justified restriction of rights. It doesn’t matter if it is across the Atlantic, in French, or any other qualifier you’ll come up with, your claim that PZ’s title would be illegal in France is simply wrong, false, incorrect, mistaken, or any other synonym you’d prefer for being on the wrong side of an argument.
As for the liar bit – keep claiming such speech is illegal and you’ll definitely be a liar. It has been proven otherwise, and yet you still plod on in your argument. Just because a professor might catch some heat for comments like this in France doesn’t make the comments illegal. Instead, it says a lot about the lack of freedom of expression in France, something that I’m sure exists right up there in your mind.
that obligation extends also explicitely to blogs:
Dans le cas particulier du web log, ou blog, qui peut être défini comme un journal personnel sur Internet, la publicité des propos ne fait aucun doute. Tout va dépendre alors du contenu du blog. Son auteur, fonctionnaire, doit en effet observer, y compris dans ses écrits, un comportement empreint de dignité, ce qui, a priori, n’est pas incompatible avec le respect de sa liberté d’expression. En tout état de cause, il appartient à l’autorité hiérarchique dont dépend l’agent d’apprécier si un manquement à l’obligation de réserve a été commis et, le cas échéant, d’engager une procédure disciplinaire.”
the only problem is that it’s a lot of hard work, and you need literally armies of goodwilled people to carry it out.
ayup.
in otherwords, propositions which go in the opposite direction of the Sally Kern types of propositions.
not exactly the same issue, but you mean like this:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/minnesota_does_the_right_thing.php
The problem is, why is it always them who come with the crazy ideas and try to pull on the overton window.
I’d say it’s a simple matter of numbers.
a fact that the neocons recognized about 40 years ago, and have been using as a political tool ever since.
seriously, there is a lot more behind religious extremism in the United States than just religion itself.
I’m starting to really agree with you. His last post @263 shows some of his position:
screwed up the tag. The last paragraph is mine.
MIkeG @ #268:
Yeah, I’m done with him. If he’s going to keep posting in French he can continue all he wants, but I won’t be bothering myself with it. Although, the ones in French are his only posts that might make sense, if only because they supposedly cite something published instead of being more tripe from his upstairs closet.
Vincent seems also to misinterpret “Christian” as noun, when PZ used it as an adjective:
about free speech in France:
source, which is an amusing counterpoint, btw:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0331/p09s03-coop.html
convention of human rights:
http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html
without citing the sources of his information, like the source for the contract limitations on free speech suggested by Vincent, I have to go with what is suggested by the general laws of France and the European union, which in no way suggest that teachers are specifically limited in their free speech rights outside of the classroom.
Moreover, there have been plenty of French educators that have contributed to the comments on Pharyngula before. One would think any one of them would have been eager to mention such limitations.
Ichthyic,
yes it’s a good example.
The other day, I was looking at the au.org site at the legislative action part,
http://action.au.org/au/issues/
and that’s where I realised that there was something crazy, most of the bills on that list they are actually having to fight against. As if religions don’t enjoy already enough privileges in this country ?
So, maybe I’m completely wrong but I think it is critical to make sure that list has at least as many propositions for which the AU might be fighting for.
So, maybe I’m completely wrong but I think it is critical to make sure that list has at least as many propositions for which the AU might be fighting for.
no, I think you have a good point, it’s just an issue of how to phrase it, for one, and secondly one of numbers, again.
I mean, everyone is for good education, and by far and away most in this country think the status quo preserves that, and see no reason to introduce legislation to further clarify the issue. Those that recognize the danger inherent in allowing creationists to dictate the definition of science itself are by far a minority.
that might change if people actually could travel back in time to see just what education based on biblical literalism would actually be like. Hopefully, it won’t be the case that passage of creationist legislation will act as a modern example to wake people up.
I just don’t quite think the issue has come to enough of a boil yet for legislation promoting good science education itself to be felt necessary by most constituents.
shorter:
between Edwards v. Aguillard and Kitzmiller v. Dover, I think most Americans feel that the status quo already set by the courts doesn’t require positive legislation in order to maintain it.
It’s long passed bed time for me.
Will get back to this tomorrow.
The most relevant quote was from the site of the french parliament
http://education.assemblee-nationale.fr/site-jeunes/laicite/activites/cas1/cas1_enseignant.pdf
It does not mean that civil servants are just allowed to shut up and say nothing, even outside their duty, it means that they have to respect some limits. The text does mention that they have also a right of expression outside their duty, but the laws are vague enough to allow judges to adapt their interpretation (juris prudentia). At any rate, civil servants can potentially be prosecuted for things said outside their duty.
I see I upset and bother with these concepts, ok. I need not troll with what happens in a country so foreign for the US, although it seems to me that there might be correlations between this and that.
farewell
“farewell”
Are you actually going to stop posting this time?
You have made this claim before.
The text does mention that they have also a right of expression outside their duty,
IOW, you were either mistaken or lying when you suggested they didn’t.
At any rate, civil servants can potentially be prosecuted for things said outside their duty.
and yet they aren’t. go figure. what do you think that means for your argument?
I see I upset and bother with these concepts, ok.
typical fundamentalist thinking: focus on the presentation instead of the substance.
I need not troll
which is what we said to you to start with.
farewell
toodleeoo.
btw, there was of course an english translation you could have linked to:
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/english/index.asp
Nicely done, Ichthyic. Especially since the tab to translate that site into English is only right there at the top of the home page. I mean really, can you expect the guy to go that far out of his way to make sense??
I mean really, can you expect the guy to go that far out of his way to make sense??
evidently not.
Contemporary Christian Music truly is pretty crappy, non?
Ichthyic, we are indeed all for good education, but our educational system on the primary and secondary level is made of FAIL.
Why? Jeez, I wish I knew. One very big reason, I think, is that in generations prior to mine, many teachers on this level were A-listers who happened to be women. Very, very bright women who were well-educated in the classical sense, were rationalists, and did a very good job of promoting Englightenment values. Now, that pool of captive talent has been drained off into other professions. Since many of my generation were not willing to accept “second-salary” jobs, we pursued careers other than teaching and nursing.
This is a crude generalization, but far too many of the teachers I know are willing to accept a salary that in Texas is definitely second-string because they’re very religious, firmly believe in women’s second-class status, and are married to husbands who make the “real” living. I do know some who teach for the love of learning, I should hasten to add, but by and large the very best students don’t choose to teach on the primary and secondary level anymore.
I thank God for those like Scott Hatfield and my own daughter, gifted individuals who teach with passion for their calling. We won’t have more like them until teachers are paid a competitive wage.
The problem of fundamentalism is solved by education. The reason we have such a problem with the right-wing loons is exactly the same reason our students do so poorly in comparison with those in other developed countries.
Ichthyic, we are indeed all for good education, but our educational system on the primary and secondary level is made of FAIL.
I don’t necessarily disagree (it really depends on where you go – my secondary level science education was pretty good, actually). My point wasn’t how the education of science is actually conducted, but rather about the public perception of the education of science, and how it keeps people from thinking that the passage of positive legislation supporting good science education is necessary.
We won’t have more like them until teachers are paid a competitive wage.
that’s part of the problem. I also think that administrations should be far more supportive of their teachers in the face of localized parental objections to the teaching of good science.
all too often, I hear stories of parents browbeating teachers and administrators into NOT teaching evolution. The school administrators should support the teachers to teach good science, and the state should provide better support for administrators to back their teachers.
I know from every job I’ve ever had that feeling that your boss “has your back” is almost as important as salary and benefits.
if you feel you can be undercut at a moments notice, even if you are doing what you were hired to do, you’re gonna burn out much more quickly.
I’ve seen hospitals starting to institute better support networks for their doctors and nurses.
It’s about time the schools followed suit.
then, there’s the issue of class sizes, of course. Class sizes have been steadily increasing over the last 30 years, with no real way to compensate for the reduction in teacher/student ratios. That, combined with ever more material to fit in, and ridiculous state requirements from the NCLB act make teaching quite a nightmare for many.
vincent fleury, what evidence do you have for “it is pretty sure that his university would immediately demand that he withdraws all mention of the university on his website.”?
I am in France, I have gone to French schools, and I have taught in French schools. I have never seen anything like what you maintain. A couple of years ago there was the case of a crackpot “philosopher” Robert Redeker. He wrote a screed in Le Figaro trashing Islam. “Whereas Judaism and Christianity are religions whose rites reject and delegitimize violence,” Redeker concluded, “Islam is a religion that, in its own sacred text, as well as in its everyday rites, exalts violence and hatred.”
He wasn’t criticized or reprimanded by the National Education. He did leave his job because of pretended “threats” from outside, which were never demonstrated.
Maybe he should have been fired for his complete misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the Torah and the Bible, which have as many calls to violence and hatred as the Koran. Actually more, because they are longer.
Of course, if he had attacked the Torah, he would have been accused of anti-semitism.
So, if you cannot demonstrate what you say, you should just stop talking about it.
Cher Monsieur
je n’ai pas l’intention de répondre à certains messages ici qui comme d’habitude, ne mènent nulle part. cependant, pour vous répondre à vous. Voici le texte de M. de dDecker
http://www.jerome-riviere.fr/spip.php?article283
qui contient des opinions, rédigées en bon français. A ma connaissance M. de Decker n’a pas proféré ces opinions depuis un blog où il se présenterait lui-même comme professeur au lycée untel, accompagnée de photos de pots de retraite etc. Dans l’en-tête en question, le rappel n’est pas de son fait.
je vous ai donné plus haut les liens vers les textes juridiques. ils existent. ils sont, comme souvent, ambigüs, leur rôle est d’éviter certains débordemens, préjudiciables à l’ordre public. A chacun de juger, si ce que je dis est absolument mensonger. les apprences vous trompent. Je peux me tromper, je ne suis pas avocat.
L’obligation de réserve existe, elle s’étend aux activités hors de l’école. Le texte de M. de Decker, dans sa formulation, est contestable, mais digne. Le principe de la liberté d’expression, c’est : je ne suis pas d’accord avec vos idées, mais je vous laisserai vous exprimer; il est limité, chez les fonctionnaires, par l’obligation de réserve. C’est un fait juridiquement établi. Je ne suis pas avocat, mais vous trouverez sur internet des exempels de blogs fermés pour cause de non respect de l’obligation de réserve, pas nécesairement pour des propos de naure religieuse.
je pense oui, que la phrase si j’ai bien compris, “quand le mot chrétien est-il devenu synonyme de merdique”, n’a pas d’équivalent dans le texte de Decker; le figaro n’aurait pas publié un texte contenant cette phrase, et si elle avait été sur un blog mentionnant à répétition le collège e M. De Decker, elle serait tombée sous le coup de manquement à l’obligatione réserve. Tout ce qui est excessif, est insignifiant.
M. Houellebecq a qualifié la religion Musulmane, je crois de “la plus con”. Pour ce propos, il a été poursuivi, et, je crois, relaxé. Mais M. Houellebecq n’est pas enseignant dans un lycée, et ne présentais pas comme tel.
Je peux me tromper, la France est un pays évidemment très tolérant, nous le svons. mais, ce que je dis, c’est que des textes existent, qui encadrent cette liberté d’expression, et peuvent être retournés contre certains propos. jene suis aps sûr que els propsde Houellebecq auraient seulmenet pu être attaqués aux US
par ailleurs, on me fait remarqué que les prpos sur les forums sont de la seule esponsabilité des auteurs et que M. Myers n’en porte pas la responsabilité juridique. je crois comprendre, c’est encore une conséquence de la liberté d’expression aux US. Il n’en va pas de même en France. En France, M; Myers serait évidemment responsable es propos tenu par les autres, qui ne font pas preuve d’une grande tolérance. C’est mn avis, il vous déplaît, c’est comme ça.
I thought you were leaving vincent.
vincent fleury, beside the point. Where does it say that Redeker was sanctioned by the law?
Just as I thought, your man is from the UMP-CNI. For Americans, the CNI – Centre National des Independants – is a party of the extreme right. He supports extreme rightwing catholic Philippe de Villiers.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_national_des_ind%C3%A9pendants_et_paysans
I see I had you pegged from the beginning. I was sure you were a catholic fundamentalist, in French “integriste”.
That’s Witch Tyler. And don’t you forget it – or your entire vocabulary will be reduced to “Ribbit. Ribbit.” :-)
Posted by: bernarda | May 20, 2008 10:08 AM
Ah, someone being called on their B.S. – that’s a sweet sound in any language.
Ichthyic: “Class sizes have been steadily increasing over the last 30 years, with no real way to compensate for the reduction in teacher/student ratios. That, combined with ever more material to fit in, and ridiculous state requirements from the NCLB act make teaching quite a nightmare for many.”
The NCLB is a whole series of nightmares. I’m in Texas, originator of this standardized testing foolishness, and our teachers name this as their #1 problem. I’ve been heavily involved in the PTA for years and have heard such horror stories and seen this bureaucratic stupidity in action . . . it takes the “learning” spark and beats it with a wet blanket. And, of course, it’s the very best teachers who are most frustrated with it . . . truly the domination of mediocrity over excellence.
Class size is another huge factor, as you say.
I believe that the crux of the message in PZ’s post and the Slate article entitled ‘Pop Goes Christianity’ which was referred to above, can be neatly summarised in this exerpt from the article:
“In his interview with Radosh, Powell pulled out an imitation of a 1982 New Wave pop song with the lyrics; “You’ll have to excuse us/ We’re in love with Jesus.” This, he explained, was the equivalent of a black-velvet painting of Elvis. Only it’s more offensive, because it’s asking the listener to base his whole life around an insipid message and terrible quality music. For faith, the results can be dangerous. A young Christian can get the idea that her religion is a tinny, desperate thing that can’t compete with the secular culture.
A Christian friend who’d grown up totally sheltered once wrote to me that the first time he heard a Top 40 station he was horrified, and not because of the racy lyrics: “Suddenly, my lifelong suspicions became crystal clear,” he wrote. “Christian subculture was nothing but a commercialized rip-off of the mainstream, done with wretched quality and an apocryphal insistence on the sanitization of reality.
Striking a balance between reverence and hip relevance can be a near-impossible feat. Christian comedians, for example, border on subversive, especially when making fun of themselves. In one episode of Prank 3:16, the pranksters fake the Rapture and throw their victim into a panic because she’s afraid she’s been left behind. With true comedic flair, they’re flirting with opposition and doubt, and even cruelty. But “the Christian is supposed to be secure in the loving hand of the almighty God,” one of them tells Radosh. So, even if they don’t sanitize, they’re afraid to step over into the brutal, dirty truth comedy thrives on…It’s always been a stretch to defend Christian pop culture as the path to eternal salvation. Now, they may have to face up to the fact that it’s more like an eternal oxymoron. ”
Just as creationism has been described as “creationism dressed up in a cheap tuxedo”, so the Christian pop phenomenon could be described (when viewed in the context of the art world), as “the Mona Lisa as painted by a 4 year old pre-school student”.
As Kseniya astutely observed in comment #225: “Crap or no crap, Li’l Marky is a phenomenon I’d hold up as a manifestation of the infantilizing nature of the culture that spawned it.”
Correction to comment#290:
Should read; Just as ‘INTELLIGENT DESIGN’ has been described as “creationism dressed up in a cheap tuxedo”…
(sorry. Don’t know how to edit comments after posting)
@ DingoDave: I don’t think there’s any way of editing a posted comment here, except maybe e-mailing PZ and asking him to correct something. Whether he’ll do it or not is another question; I get the impression that he limits his interference to deleting the Kennys of the world, and posting errata is perfectly OK.
A question for anyone: Wasn’t it Eugenie Scott who came up with the cheap-tuxedo analogy?
Okay, I see Fleury was a right wing nut. Never the less:
You like sweeping statements, but you aren’t “allowed” that no more than your “our” on France.
And, for example, in Sweden such hatelaws were (unfortunately) instated a few years back modeled on German laws. Yet they were found to be toothless in actuality. What PZ said would certainly pass both our society’s moral and the mentioned law.
And you couldn’t pull your child out of school or class for such negligible matters.