The Catholic Church: Sowing grim joylessness wherever they go

The Catholic church has announced a few requirements for the papal visit to the UK:

The 100,000 Roman Catholics expected to attend the pope’s open-air “great mass” in Glasgow have been urged by their cardinal to endure the “sacrifices” the event will involve. Tens of thousands of pilgrims in Glasgow will have to get to next Thursday’s event at Bellahouston Park on public transport after their private coaches were cancelled.

Umbrellas have been banned, there will be no seating provided, and pilgrims will have to stay in the park for at least five hours on security grounds.

…

“At the great mass at Bellahouston, you’re there for a serious purpose, to join in the celebration of mass, to listen to the word of God, to listen to the teaching of the church being proclaimed by Pope Benedict XVI, and that is a serious business,” he said.

“You’re not sitting back at the beach relaxing: it’s something serious and obviously there’s something penitential. There is penance involved in it, just sacrifice; sacrificing of time, sacrificing of comfort, sacrificing of your energy and so on, to be involved in all that’s going on. And I see great benefit from that as well.”

Well, that sounds like great jolly good fun. I think they’re going for the Woodstock vibe, only without the talent, the weed, and the free love.

So get this: not only do you have to be very serious when you’re alive, but the Australian Catholic church wants to suck all the fun out of death, too.

Footy club songs and popular music have been banned from Catholic funerals under strict guidelines sent to priests and funeral directors.

The guidelines for Catholic funerals, sent by Archbishop of Melbourne Denis Hart, also declare that a funeral should not be a “celebration” of the deceased’s life.

“Secular items are never to be sung or played at a Catholic funeral, such as romantic ballads, pop or rock music, political songs, football club songs,” the guidelines say.

…

The new guidelines say a Catholic funeral should never be “a celebration of the life”.

Jebus, what a bunch of dour old grannies those priests are.

Oh, yeah, there’s a poll:

Has the Catholic Church gone too far by banning footy club songs at funerals?

Yes 87.85%
No 12.15%

I’m surprised there are 12% of Australians who think this isn’t an unreasonable ban.

Setting the Koran on fire, vs. setting personal liberties on fire

You know, I’m something of an expert in the public desecration of sacred objects, and I’m seeing the same madness going on right now with Terry Jones and his plan to burn copies of the Koran that I saw in the response to throwing a cracker in the trash — only amplified to a ludicrous degree. People just aren’t getting it; they’re so blinded by an inappropriate attachment to magic relics that they’re missing the real issues.

I publicly destroyed a communion wafer once (OK, a few times). There was a simple reason for it: a few Catholics had responded hysterically to a student who didn’t swallow a wafer with harrassment and threats, and I was demonstrating that that was not acceptable — religious believers may not demand that non-believers grant the same reverence to their rituals and beliefs that they have. Jones’s motivation seems to be more of a fundie head-butt to Moslems while expecting a greater respect for his Bible, but he’s still right — Moslems cannot demand that Christians love their doctrines (and vice versa).

Now what I expected in the wake of my cracker-killing was that Catholics would be annoyed, but that it would be easily rationalized — I’m an unbeliever, their rituals have no meaning to me, Jesus can’t be harmed by some stunt with bread…what I expected was a combination of “tut, tut” and “so what?” and the cleverer Catholics announcing that their faith was too strong to be shaken by a raspberry from an atheist. That’s what I expected; it would have put the poor student’s actions in context and made people step back from the screaming that was going on.

It didn’t work out that way.

The lesson of that incident wasn’t that you can find some jerk somewhere who will disrespect what some group finds holy — that was trivial and uninteresting, and I actually had to ignore many of the elaborate suggestions for cracker disposal sent my way to emphasize the absolute triviality of tossing a cracker/piece of Jesus in the trash. No, the real lesson was that mobs of people will react with irrational freakish hysteria to the idea that other people don’t believe as they do.

The problem isn’t the desecrators. The problem is the people who have an unwarranted sense of privilege, that their beliefs will not be questioned or criticized, ever, by anyone. What I was saying was that it was crazy to believe a cracker turns into Jesus, and what all the outraged Catholics were doing is confirming to an awesome degree just how mad their beliefs were, with their prolonged and excessive outrage.

So I’m looking at this recent episode with Terry Jones — a fellow I don’t like at all, and I think he’s a fanatical goofball — and I see that the serious problem here isn’t Jones at all…it’s all the lunatics who are insisting that burning the Koran is a major international catastrophe.

It’s just a frackin’ book, people.

I am simply astounded at the catalog of high-ranking personages who are contributing to this new frenzy of foolishness.

US President Barack Obama says plans by a small church to burn copies of the Koran on the anniversary of 9/11 are a “recruitment bonanza” for al-Qaeda.

Mr Obama said that if the Florida burning went ahead, it could endanger US military personnel serving in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

…

Malaysia called it a heinous crime, while Indonesia said it would damage relations between Islam and the West.

In the UK, Downing Street said it would not condone the burning of any book.

“We would strongly oppose any attempt to offend any member of any religious or ethnic group. We are committed to religious tolerance,” said a spokesman for Prime Minister David Cameron.

The plan has also sparked condemnation from Iran, the Vatican, Nato and the top US Afghan commander.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called it “disgraceful”.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki warned that the burning could “provoke the reaction of all Muslims as well as that of the faithful of other religions”.

“American statesmen should carry out their obligations in providing the basic and fundamental rights of American Muslims and should prevent the promotion of such obscene and indecent plans,” the official Irna news agency quoted him as saying.

On Monday General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Afghanistan, had warned troops’ lives would be in danger if the church went ahead with its bonfire.

President Obama, you’re a damned fool.

What are you going to do, send in the national guard to prevent Terry Jones’ congregation from destroying their own private property? Will there be new legislation to list items that may not be treated disrespectfully? Shall we surrender a few more liberties because religious zealots are threatening us? Obama can do nothing and should do nothing; he accomplishes nothing by complaining about it, other than being part of the mob confirming the madness of the defenders of faith.

And to suggest that some guy burning a book in a remote land will incite more anti-American sentiment is absurd. We’ve got drones buzzing over Iraq and Afghanistan killing people with a push of a button; we’ve got an armed force occupying those countries; we have bombed their infrastructure into rubble. We’ve killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims. And now we’re to believe that their love of the West will be suddenly devastated by a video of paper burning on youtube? Get a grip, man.

The United States does have an obligation to protect the basic and fundamental rights of all Americans, and that includes allowing them to burn their own property, in addition to allowing them to practice the religion of their choice.

Here’s a hint for appropriate responses. When someone tells you it’s an outrage to burn a bible or a Koran, shrug your shoulders and say, “So what? It’s their own book.” When someone announces that they are going to riot and murder because they are offended, look at them like they’re insane, and explain that offending someone is not a capital crime.

The problem isn’t a few books being burned; that’s not a crime, and it doesn’t diminish anyone else’s personal freedoms. The problem is a whole fleet of deranged wackaloons, including the president of the USA in addition to raving fundamentalist fanatics, who think open, public criticism and disagreement ought to be forbidden, somehow.

And seriously, this whole silly contretemps would have evaporated if a few people learned to shrug their shoulders and react rationally instead of feeding the fury with Serious Pronouncements and Reprovals.

Now we’re leading an onslaught!

It has become quite amusing to watch the Defenders of the Faith reach for increasingly more hysterical phrasing to describe what the Gnu Atheists are doing. I thought we were writing and talking, but according to William Oddie, we’re carrying out a distressing onslaught.

The atheists’ utter loathing, all the same, is at times a little frightening in its sheer vicious irrationality. These people are in the grip of a barely restrained hysteria. Take the current issue of the New Humanist, subtitle: “Ideas for godless people”; this issue gives a good idea of what it must be like being godless, and at least it makes you grateful not to be godless yourself. “If you were invited to address Benedict XVI during his UK visit,” the New Humanist introduces its special issue, “what would you say to him? Richard Dawkins, Philip Pullman, Claire Rayner, Ben Goldacre and many more take part in our Pope quiz.”

Ah, yes, the fellow who believes in angels and miracles and magic crackers finds it irrational that people look at his beliefs and point out how silly they are, and even worse, looks at the faith-based bloody-minded malfunctioning policies promulgated by the Pope and criticize them as nonsensical and counter-productive and damaging to humanity. He’s upset now because the New Humanist was insufficiently reverent and loving towards the Pope; in the Catholic World Order, after all, we must ignore the real effects of his ideas and instead adore him and kiss his ring.

This is all horrible for anyone who regards Pope Benedict with the admiration and love most Catholics feel for him; and I find myself almost wishing that the decision had been taken to beatify Cardinal Newman in St Peter’s Square and not a muddy field, and for the Pope to be spared this dreadful business of a state visit.

Someday, they’ll explain to us what there is to admire and love about an old conservative dogmatist who clawed his way up the rigid hierarchy of an ancient institution like the church. I get the impression we’re supposed to love the guy simply for the fact that he is a pope.

And oh, yes, that dreadful business — he’s getting millions thrown away on the pomp of his visit, will be treated like a king, and only simpering lackeys will be allowed anywhere near him, while his critics are held off…and for that, his critics are deranged monsters because they don’t love the narrow-minded old man enough.

Another reason you shouldn’t attend a religiously-affiliated university

Universities are supposed to be places where students are free to think and argue…but too often, if a student says something that contradicts the religious dogma of the institution, it’s an excuse to be censored. Here’s an example: a Mormon student at BYU wrote a letter for the school newspaper criticizing the LDS position on gay rights while still supporting Mormonism as a religious belief.

It is time for LDS supporters of Prop 8 to be honest about their reasons for supporting the amendment. It’s not about adoption rights, or the first amendment, or tradition. These arguments were not found worthy of the standards for finding facts set up by our judicial system. The real reason is that a man who most of us believe is a prophet of God told us to support the amendment. [This is a privately held religious belief that we are using to support legislation that takes away a right from a minority group. If our government were to enact legislation based solely on such beliefs, it would set a dangerous precedent, possibly even more so than allowing a homosexual to marry the person he or she loves.] We must be honest about our motivation, and consider what it means to the delicate balance between our relationship with God and with His children here on earth. Maybe then we will stop thoughtlessly spouting arguments that are offensive to gays and lesbians and indefensible to those not of our faith.

It got pulled. Why? I don’t know. It’s still crazy pro-mormon gushy baloney, but it is simply saying that everyone should be honest about their motivations.

Oh, wait. I forgot. Honesty is one of those sins in these goofy cults.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses redefine irony

You can now download the latest issue of Awake, the Jehovah’s Witness’s strange little magazine. The theme of this issue is those marching militant atheists, so it’s a little bit personal.

i-cdbb98f5930a3b416d9878ae1347169a-onthemarch.jpeg

Unfortunately, I was only able to read as far as the second sentence before I was blinded by the irony.

A new group of atheists has arisen in society. Called the new atheists, they are not content to keep their views to themselves.

That’s right. The door-knockin’, rabidly proselytizing cult is rebuking atheists for not keeping their views to themselves.

I guess that’s fair. Twice now I’ve watched in anticipation as the local JWs do their thing, working their way up the street, only to see them look at my house, check a piece of paper they carried with them, and turn around to leave. There was also a third time when a couple actually knocked on my door, started their little spiel, and I interrupted them to tell them I was an atheist, would they like to come in and talk about freedom from religion? And they ran away.

So it’s true, I suppose, that they do have limits on the expression of their views.

Amateurs!

No, no, no. This is doing it all wrong. A young man in Valencia received a communion wafer at Mass, took it out of his mouth, and broke it in front of the priest (google translation), and then a scene from the Three Stooges erupted, with slapping and kicking and random cartoon violence in which no one was hurt, except for their dignity.

While I applaud the young man’s irreverence, by making it a scene in a church he was making a serious error, for two reasons.

  • People have a right to do whatever silly, harmless rituals they want. Start disrupting church services, and next thing you know, people will be shouting out of dialect at Renaissance Fairs or hiding your bag of Dungeons & Dragons dice or tossing stink bombs into the Halloween costume store. Don’t disturb the seance.

  • As we can see from this and other incidents, Christianity is a violent and vindictive faith. While it may be just a cracker, fanatics will respond with totally inappropriate physical viciousness, and it’s simply not worth getting hurt over a ‘magic’ cookie.

Get it? You may express yourselves freely, but you ought not interfere with other people’s right to also indulge their own silly beliefs.

Please, do this some more

There is a wonderful program in place at a bible camp in Massachusetts: the children get phone calls…from God. He tells the kids to proselytize for him, to be just like Jesus, and if they’re really, really good, that he’ll swoop in some day on his magic sleigh and harvest their souls to bring to heaven with him (OK, that last bit is an extrapolation). I like this plan, though. It sets the kids up with concrete expectations that will be shattered later, and then there’s always the wonderful day when Mommy and Daddy explain that that really wasn’t God, it was just Pastor Greg pretending to be the voice of God, just like he does every Sunday.

This program is so good that it has won Atheist Ireland’s really, truly True Believer™ of the month award.

Gird your loins, everyone

Oh, my. Tony Blair seems to have declared war against us.

“We face an aggressive secular attack from without. We face the threat of extremism from within.”

Arguing that there was “no hope” from atheists who scorn God, he said the best way to confront the secularist agenda was for all faiths to unite against it.

He said: “Those who scorn God and those who do violence in God’s name, both represent views of religion. But both offer no hope for faith in the twenty first century.”

The spectacle of these pious phonies flailing against the secular agenda could be worth a giggle. “Down with secular public education! More revelation, less science! Get reason and evidence out of our politics!”

How does that loin-girding work, anyway? I keep confusing it with tying a tie and end up with this long dangly bit in front, and it just doesn’t look very rampant, if you know what I mean. Not that it matters much, since we’re going to battle with forces that have spurned secular methods and plan to pray at us or cast magic spells or something, but I’d like to at least look natty.

What were they thinking?

Oh, no. Atheists are the arrogant ones, so how can this Irish Catholic write such pretentious nonsense?

Religion unleashes a boundless curiosity in us that elsewhere is afraid to reveal itself for fear of appearing naive.

Yeah, tell that to Galileo, Simplicio.

I guess freethinkers must lack that boundless curiosity — no godless questioners at the forefront of science, then. It’s also a strange sentiment to express in an article by a writer attending a Catholic meeting who asks no questions, reports no answers, and has nothing to offer except to cavil against all those non-believers who fail to see the world as awe-inspiring and mysterious. Oh, and that the answer to that feeling is to just “follow Christ”.

He also cites Flannery O’Connor:

Flannery O’Connor once said that if she had not been a Catholic, she would have had “no reason to write, no reason to see, no reason ever to feel horrified or even to enjoy anything”.

While she was a fascinating writer, I’d never hold up the fragile, sheltered, conservative O’Connor as an example of the liberating power of religion. And that quote, which is often made about her, is absurd — it’s the narrow-mindedness of a faith that can imagine no other, that shows a complete lack of empathy, which is peculiar in such a writer. Perhaps she’s personally limited, but I see no obstacle to non-Catholics having a reason to live.

This is another example of religious asymmetry. Atheists recognize intelligence, curiosity, generosity, charity, kindness, etc., as human traits, and find nothing odd in the fact that people everywhere, no matter what their faith, can express them. Far too many believers, however, ascribe virtues to their particular faith rather than to any universally human properties, which means they rather too easily manage to mentally strip people of other faiths or no faith at all of those virtues. We’re seeing it in action right now here in the US where teabagger-incited mobs are busily pretending that Muslims are all slavering hateful monsters who dream of killing their neighbors.