Oh joy, a lump of paper survived. It’s a miracle!

I wish religious nuts could get a little perspective when they talk about “miracles”. The latest “miracle” is a piece of Ilan Ramon’s diary that is going on display in Israel; Ramon was one of the astronauts on the space shuttle Columbia.

“It’s almost a miracle that it survived — it’s incredible,” Zalmona said. There is “no rational explanation” for how it was recovered when most of the shuttle was not, he said.

The diary was fragmentary, charred, and soaked, and it required months of restoration to be rendered partially readable. The human being Ilan Ramon was similarly fragmentary, charred, and soaked, and no amount of work will ever bring him back. There was no miracle here, only tragedy, and that some piece of a prayer Ramon wrote in his diary survived is an awfully tawdry relic to celebrate the existence of a beneficent deity. It seems to me that it is actually a testament to the refutation of what they believe — not that they will see that, not when every scrap of pain and sorrow in the world is twisted into a prop for their faith.

Religulous opens tonight

And it’s not showing anywhere near me. In fact, I will be very surprised if it opens anywhere in this rural, religious area…I’ll probably have to wait for it to come out on DVD. Religulous is the new movie by Bill Maher, an agnostic who thinks religion is a “load of nonsense”, which by all reports is going to mock religion mercilessly — if this hysterical review by a devout fundamentalist is any indication, it’s going to be great. Maher, though, isn’t exactly an unblemished source with a deep dedication to reason, since he’s fallen for some embarrassingly silly altie medicine nonsense before. I’ll have to wait to see it before I can judge, which may be a while.

Any of you out there who get a chance will have to leave a comment. Go ahead, you can gloat that you live in a civilized part of the world burgeoning with readily available material goodies that are obtainable with a snap of the fingers (…and an agonizing ride through heavy traffic to park on a monstrous sheet of asphalt and pay exorbitant sums for admission…)

Still, I can have the fun of criticizing the critics. Andrew O’Hehir interviews Maher, and although it’s largely a sympathetic review, there’s a big chunk in the middle that is the usual aggravating deference to religion that everyone makes without thinking about it.

But as I gently tried to suggest to Maher during our recent phone call, his scattershot and ad hominem attacks against many different forms of religious hypocrisy don’t add up to a coherent critique, and he’s not qualified to provide one.

“Scattershot” is grossly unfair, since he is attacking religion. Go ahead, stack up Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Scientology, Hinduism, etc. next to each other: it seems to me that the fact that there is no possible rubric for judging the validity of any of them, that they typically contradict each other, and that religious belief is so diverse and so inescapably weird means that it is ridiculous to demand a simple, coherent narrative that addresses the flaws in all of them. There they are, the existence of multiple god-beliefs is sufficient in itself to refute them, and it’s perfectly reasonable to expose their various absurdities in brief snippets.

Any serious theologian from the mainstream Christian or Jewish traditions would have eaten his lunch for him, and that’s why we don’t see anybody like that in this film for more than a second or two.

No, I think it more likely that it is because serious theologians are a) dead boring, b) irrelevant to an extreme degree to most varieties of religious beliefs, and c) are just as silly when their ideas are examined. Except for all those serious theologians who have ended up as atheists, of course.

During their brief appearances, for instance, Vatican Latinist Reginald Foster and astronomer George Coyne, who are both Roman Catholic priests, make it clear that contemporary Catholic theology resists literal readings of Scripture and is not in the least antiscientific. You can find liberal Christians who will argue that the resurrection of Jesus was somewhere between a con game and a dream sequence, and numerous Jews who treat the Torah as legendary material and God as a distant hypothesis.

Yes? And this refutes the contention that religion is absurd how? The only way most religious beliefs can be rationally justified is by running away from them very fast, and then making a delicate and distant wave of appreciation, acknowledging their past role in the intellectual tradition, while denying the substance of their arguments. Fine with me, probably fine with Maher.

It’s perfectly legitimate to argue that all such people are putting lipstick on a pig, to coin a phrase — that they’re apologizing for a ruinous and ridiculous body of mythological literature whose influence on human history has been overwhelmingly negative. But Maher’s idiots-of-all-nations anthology in “Religulous” doesn’t even try to make that case; it’s as if he doesn’t even know that religion has centuries’ worth of high-powered intellection on its side, whether you buy any of it or not.

Now there’s a valid criticism of the movie, and until I’ve seen it, I won’t know if the show makes a poor case or not. O’Hehir may be right, but I’m immediately rendered dubious by this justification that “religion has centuries’ worth of high-powered intellection on its side”. I don’t see that at all. I mainly see that religion has had centuries of cultural monopoly, where intellectuals had no choice (and no alternative) but to work within the framework of religion. All the intellectual circle-jerking over religion? Pfft. Nothing useful came of it. Progress came only when smart people started breaking free of the straitjacket.

Maher and Charles’ film also doesn’t engage the value of religious narrative in moral or existential terms, nor does it even try to address the ubiquitous nature of supernatural and spiritual experience in human life.

I do wish people would knock it off with the automatic bestowal of moral authority on religion. It was the only game in town for millennia, and it didn’t make people better — deeply religious cultures have always been as nasty and brutish, if not more so, than more secular cultures, and religious individuals had as much capacity for evil as atheists. Religion gets no edge here.

But OK, I suspect the movie doesn’t ask the question of why so many people are religious. So what? It’s a comedy-documentary. It’s not supposed to answer all questions, especially not tragic-serious ones about the universal human affliction of faith.

But of course this is actually an interview with Maher, and he does answer those questions — so read the whole thing.

Aaargh — I have to disagree with Harry Kroto

And it doesn’t feel good. Kroto is a Nobel-winning chemist, and I’ve had dinner with him — he’s a good guy, a very outspoken atheist, strongly on the side of science education, and all around smart and personable. So I hate to say it, but this opinion piece on the Michael Reiss affair is just too exclusionist for even me. Reiss, you may recall, was the education director for the Royal Society who resigned after making some conciliatory (or reported as conciliatory) remarks about creationism.

I do not have a particularly big problem with scientists who may have some personal mystical beliefs – for all I know the President of the Royal Society may be religious. However, I, and many of my Royal Society colleagues, do have a problem with an ordained minister as Director of Science Education – this is a totally different matter. An ordained minister must have accepted that there was a creator (presumably more intelligent than he is?) thus many of us (maybe 90% of FRSs) cannot see how such a person can pontificate on how to tackle this fundamentally unresolvable conflict at the science/religion interface. Reiss cannot have his religious cake in church and eat the scientific one in the classroom. This is where the intellectual integrity issue arises – and it is the crucial issue in the Reiss affair.

This is too close to blacklisting people for their personal affiliations, and it should not be acceptable. I agree that being an ordained minister implies that the guy is fairly deeply into weird old woo, but surprise: people are really good, for the most part, at holding a lot of disparate ideas in their heads, and people trained as scientists are especially good, for the most part, at keeping the spiritual blather out of their science. Keep in mind that generic religiosity can be rationalized to avoid conflict with specific issues in science (in ways that are deplorably vague and pointless, of course); this isn’t like discovering that Reiss was a card-carrying creationist with an a priori commitment to anti-science. If we’re going to start kicking scientists out of organizations because they have some bit of irrationality in their lives, we’re all going to be in trouble. Do I need to start expunging the space operas from my bookshelves and the old cheesy horror movies from my DVD collection?

I say that qualified scientists should be awarded positions like Director of Science Education solely on the basis of their record as science educators. Give them the benefit of the doubt that they understand the difference between science and their private hobbies, and aren’t going to mix the two up. And, of course, if they do mix them up, go after them for the specific infraction, and not for their private interests.

This is also difficult for me to say because I do think religion is a taint that corrupts the thinking of otherwise intelligent persons, and I do find it personally suspicious when an ordained minister is given authority in a scientific organization…but no one is perfect, it’s a rational principle to judge by only appropriate criteria, and it’s simply an injustice to shut people out with such an unyielding criterion.

I am a very naughty boy

I’ve barred the doors — I’m sure that any moment now, a squadron of goose-stepping nuns will come marching up the street to wag their fingers at me and rebuke me for what I’ve started. It seems the Youth of Today are going on YouTube and…flaunting their disrespect for crackers!

People can find a video of almost anything on YouTube: babies’ first steps, Saturday Night Live skits, news clips, concerts and now – to the shock of Catholics everywhere – desecration of the Eucharist.

YouTube has long been a destination for Catholics seeking video clips of Masses, apologetics lectures or devotions, but now Catholic outrage is growing as the site has become home to a string of videos depicting acts of Eucharistic desecration, including flushing a host down the toilet, putting one in a blender, feeding one to animals, shooting one with a nail gun and more.

They don’t provide links, perhaps fearing that this could become even more popular. Here you go, somebody is having lots of fun with his crackers. Gosh, maybe more people will be publicly committing heresy now!

You can guess what the response is.

“I don’t know what to say,” said a stunned Msgr. C. Eugene Morris, professor of sacramental theology at Kenrick Glennon Seminary in St. Louis, when told about the videos. “I am outraged that YouTube is tacitly supporting this and giving this behavior an audience.”

Hey, Eugene! It’s just a cracker! Get over it — as long as people aren’t disrupting your services or pilfering chalices, there has been no interference with your religious freedom, and no harm done.

Thomas Serafin is president of the International Crusade for Holy Relics, an internet watchdog group of Catholic laymen. His group has been fighting online affronts to the Catholic Church, including the sale of the Eucharist and of relics of the saints online, for more than a decade.

“YouTube has to be held accountable and stopped,” Serafin said from Los Angeles. “If Catholics don’t take a stand right now, they can expect such outrages to continue.”

Serafin added: “The internet is, in many ways, a new world, and it is our duty to evangelize this world, but we have to speak up and be heard to do that.”

Thomas and his organization are more than a little creepy — death cultists oblivious to their own bizarrely morbid obsessions. They have a right to evangelize if they want, but others have a right to mock and laugh at them, too. These wackos are organizing now, though, to get YouTube to censor and blacklist anyone who visibly makes fun of religious beliefs. YouTube has not cave in yet, though, and I hope they hold out — it is absurd to say that Catholic videos of blood and bones are not offensive, while videos of demolished bits of bread are outrages that must be yanked.

Serafin said people should call or write YouTube to demand that the videos be taken down. YouTube’s public relations email address is [email protected]

People who think YouTube should not be in the business of prosecuting blasphemy should also write and let them know that you are pleased they are not the religion police.

Now whose fault is all this? Mine. I am so proud.

One name still making the rounds in YouTube and bloggers’ discussions on Eucharistic desecration is Paul Z. Myers, the University of Minnesota professor who asked his blog readers in July to “score” him “some consecrated communion wafers.”

“If any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare,” Myers wrote in response to the case of a University of Central Florida student who stole a consecrated host the previous month.

Myers later posted a picture of a host – which he claimed was consecrated and sent to him via mail – as well as pages from the Koran and atheist Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” in a trash can, underneath coffee grounds and a banana peel.

As for the current YouTube videos, Dominique cited Myers as inspiration for the video series.

This is great! Everyone should join in! It makes me so pleased to see growing, vocal opposition to the fundamental absurdity of religion, do keep it up.

Of course, the price we pay is a lot of complaints back at us, which is fine — annoying, but it’s their right. Since I just got back from a long weekend, I thought I’d peek into the eucharist auto-trash folder and see what’s dribbled into my email lately, and you’ll find a sample below the fold. I just grabbed the top 15, so it’s also fairly representative of the content.

[Read more…]

You are all godless heathens…

…and this site is fertile ground for those seeking to spread the word of Jesus Christ. The readership here is far more in need of the word than Egypt, Colombia, Iraq, Solomon Islands, Malaysia, Zambia, Togo, Austria, Pakistan or Iran. So, please, get a bible. They’re free, and if you don’t take them, they’ll be sent off to some poor innocent in some nice country like Egypt, Colombia, Iraq, Solomon Islands, Malaysia, Zambia, Togo, Austria, Pakistan or Iran, where they aren’t needed as much.

Shoulda gone to church today

Today is Pulpit Freedom Sunday, that day when the wingnut churches were all planning to preach endorsements of political candidates in defiance of the restrictions imposed on them by their tax-exampt status. I hope the IRS harvests a windfall here — it’s simply absurd that they can demand freedom from taxation because they are religious organizations caring for the spiritual needs of their flocks, and then turn around and demand that they also be given the right to be a political organization. It’s one or the other. Let the preachers preach for McCain/Palin, but not on the government’s dime.

The organizers of Pulpit Freedom Sunday are convinced that the protest will result in a court challenge to the law. Mr. Stanley said the law was so unclear that, “I anticipate getting to federal court, certainly the appeals court.” But Robert W. Tuttle, a professor of law and religion at the George Washington University Law School, found that unlikely.

“It’s settled law,” Professor Tuttle said. “People can unsettle law that’s settled, but I think that it is very, very unlikely that a lower federal court would reach any other conclusion except that religious organizations have no constitutional right to engage in political speech while accepting deductible contributions.”

Speaking of settled law, wouldn’t it be nice to really shake things up and strip all churches of their tax exemptions? I know there’d be an immediate roar of protest from all churches everywhere that would have some political cost, but after 9/10ths of the churches fold, and after cities enjoy the sudden filling of the voids in their municipal tax base, and after the financial crisis is resolved, we’d be better off.

An Islamic assault on human rights

Sixty years ago, the UN composed a document setting out a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It lists a set of basic principles, such as that everyone should be treated equally, torture and slavery are forbidden, and everyone has the right to life, liberty and security. It’s a lovely set of ideals, but it also has a set of enemies. To name just one: fundamentalists hate it. And, unfortunately, fundamentalists, especially Islamic fundamentalists, are quietly working behind the scenes to undermine it.

A commission from Islamic nations composed a new Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, which they claim to be complementary, but looks more like a competing declaration. It is, of course, full of religious language, but also does sneaky things like change the declaration of equality of rights for all people to equality of dignity and obligations, and limit rights to those given within the shari’ah. This isn’t a declaration of human rights at all, but a devious demand for the imposition of religious tyranny.

Austin Dacey and Colin Koproske have dissected the UIDHR, and it certainly looks like a slimy proposal from the mullahs. They also carry out devious tactics, like providing English translations that water down the religious restrictions imposed in the original Arabic. Here’s one example:

English: Every person has the right to express his thoughts and beliefs so long as he remains
within the limits prescribed by the Law. No one, however, is entitled to disseminate falsehood
or to circulate reports that may outrage public decency, or to indulge in slander, innuendo, or
to cast defamatory aspersions on other persons.

Arabic: Everyone may think, believe and express his ideas and beliefs without interference or
opposition from anyone as long as he obeys the limits [hudud] set by the shari’ah. It is not
permitted to spread falsehood [al-batil] or disseminate that which involves encouraging
abomination [al-fahisha] or forsaking the Islamic community [takhdhil li’l-umma].

Those are slightly different, I think; one is general and secular, the other is prioritizing a set of specific limits defined by discriminatory religious law. Note that many Islamic fundamentalists believe that one is justified in killing apostates, and the Arabic version permits that to continue.

Dacey and Koproske really tear into this dishonest attempt to reduce support for genuine human rights, and you really should read the whole thing. Here’s their conclusion:

It is clear that if the ideals of the Universal Declaration are to be realized, nations and
peoples committed to human rights must take it upon themselves to reverse the present
trends toward the compartmentalization of rights and censorship of free speech. Therefore,
we join with many civil society organizations around the world in opposing the Islamic human
rights movement and denouncing the unnecessary, unwise, and immoral developments at
the United Nations Human Rights Council and the restrictions on freedom of expression being
entertained by the General Assembly.

The noble purpose of the International Bill of Rights and the United Nations is not to close any
one matter off from discussion within society, but to open all societies to free, public
discussion of every matter. Liberal rights are not guaranteed; we must constantly defend
them against those who would trade our liberties for security, order, control, or conformity. A
common standard of achievement, and not special cultural or religion rights, is the best
guarantor of equal freedom and mutual respect.

This new version is really nothing but an open attempt to protect the privilege of religion to violate human rights in the name of imaginary gods.

Not at your local SBC bookstore

It’s not on my list of required reading, but if you tried to get a copy of the latest issue of Gospel Today at your local Southern Baptist bookstore, you might have a little difficulty: it’s been yanked from circulation. The reason: it features a cover story on female pastors.

“They basically treated it like pornography and put it behind the counter,” said Hairston, according to AP. “Unless a person goes into the store and asks for it, they won’t see it displayed.”

I’d suggest that perhaps it should be treated like pornography, as a literature that can warp impressionable minds in less than desirable ways, but not because it dares to show women in positions of authority. It actually is a little sad to see smart, ambitious women take a path into inanity like that to achieve success…but to silence their efforts? Shameful.

Like MST3K for fundagelifiction

Many of you already know that Slacktivist has been doing a detailed deconstruction of the first book of the Left Behind series. He has posted a long, painful, entertaining analysis of a few pages in order every Friday for over four years: it’s been like gawking at a major train wreck, since the book is terribly written and an incomprehensible edifice of illogic and anti-realism gussied up with the most appalling lack of imagination.

At long last, he has turned the last few pages of the last chapter. There about 11 more books in the series, I think, and some spin-off books and prequels (I saw one for kids about kids living through the End Times), and I kind of hope for his sanity’s sake that he doesn’t start plowing through them, but on the other hand, it has been an entertaining exercise in the schadenfreude of truly bad literature, and I don’t want it to stop. It seems a little unfair that the one enjoyable part of this series, the demolition of its tawdriness, has to come to an end, while the hacks who created these potboilers and milked millions of undiscriminating, credulous readers continue on, making megabucks on dreck.

A little Jewish lunacy…

Only religion seems to have the power to give deranged nutbags credibility and influence in government. Latest case in point: Israel, where the Kadima Party has to negotiate with Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef to form a coalition…and the rabbi is one of those insane ultra-orthodox wackaloons who, in a rational world, would be some old coot shaking his fist from his porch, avoided by others in his neighborhood, and with absolutely no influence at all.

But no, because he claims the voices in his head are a god talking to him, he gets to be consulted on affairs of state. A short taste of the wisdom of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef:

Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef has describ[ed] the Holocaust as God’s retribution against the reincarnated souls of Jewish sinners. He said Katrina was punishment for godlessness in New Orleans and U.S. support for the Gaza pullout. And he once said that “walking between two women is like walking between two donkeys or between two camels.”

For this kind of advice, he also gets to wear fancy robes and a special hat. I think that’s enough of a reward; let them wear elaborate ceremonial dresses, but keep them out of government.