Marcel Guarnizo is a sterling example of the priesthood

Guarnizo was asked to officiate at the funeral of a woman in Maryland. They should have got a humanist celebrant, because a humanist wouldn’t do what Guarnizo did next.

My friend Barbara, the daughter of the deceased woman, was denied communion at her mother’s funeral. She was the first in line and Fr. Guarnizo covered the bowl containing the host and said to her, “I cannot give you communion because you live with a woman and that is a sin according to the church.” To add insult to injury, Fr. Guarnizo left the altar when she delivered her eulogy to her mother. When the funeral was finished he informed the funeral director that he could not go to the gravesite to deliver the final blessing because he was sick.

A funeral is an important event: it marks the end of a life, and is a moment when those who loved the deceased gather to share their pain and their good memories. It’s a huge responsibility to stand up and lead one. Guarnizo did not meet the responsibility he owed to that family. He is a disgraceful human being, or if I care to repeat myself, a priest.

He’s also a fanatical anti-choice activist who pretends to care so much about little babies, but when a living, conscious woman stands before him, grieving for her mother, all pretext of compassion abandons him and all he cares about is policing her sexual behavior.

Like I said, a priest.

I read the Regal Standard so you don’t have to

Dennis Prince is one of those humble Christians who, like the evangelicals who plan to evangelize at the Reason Rally, is determined to intrude on the Global Atheist Convention. His method: he has produced a rag of a paper called the Regal Standard which he’s asking people to buy and distribute as testimony to the godless heathens who will be gathering in Melbourne.

I feel special because Prince has personally mailed a copy of the paper direct to me before the convention, and I have it right here in front of me. All 8 pages of tripe. There’s not much to it — it’s all the familiar nonsense. But here’s what Prince has to say about it:

“It surprised me when I got all the articles together how compelling was the case for God and his greatness. I was delighted and humbled by that. But I know that atheists will raise hard questions — some are insurmountable.”

Oh. There’s a “compelling” case for God here? Let’s go through it, page by page.

Page 1.

The Antony Flew story. Well-known atheist philosopher’s faculties begin to erode in his old age, and under the influence of an evangelical Christian, changes his mind…therefore, God.

The Colton Burpo story. Four year old boy almost dies in a medical emergency, and afterwards begins telling his fundamentalist Christian father stories about meeting a blue-eyed Jesus in heaven, which self-serving fairy tales Dad gathers into a book and sells to credulous Christians…therefore, God.

Page 2.

Continuation of previous stories, and DNA means “Definitely No Atheism. DNA is really complex…therefore God.

Page 3.

The Matthew Parris story. Conservative UK MP and atheist thinks Africans need Christian influence to bring them out of their primitive barbarism…therefore, God.

Page 4.

The Bible argument. The Bible is the top-selling book of all time…therefore, God.

An unsourced survey. Most people go to church because it helps in their relationship with god…therefore, God.

The Lady Hope story. Unfortunately, the story of Darwin’s deathbed conversion are false. He did not convert before he died, but after he died (yes, it really says that)…therefore, God.

Page 5.

The argument from distorted data. 2.5% of the world’s population were Christians in 1900, now it’s 12.5%…therefore, God.

The persecution argument. The Chinese have not been able to exterminate Christianity, and some Muslims have had dreams that led them to convert to Christianity…therefore, God.

Page 6.

The problem of evil. Sure, Christians have tortured, raped, and murdered in the name of God, but so have the Muslims, and besides, they’ve also built hospitals…therefore, God.

The problems of suffering. Why doesn’t God stop all the suffering in the world, if he’s so powerful? He did, by sending Jesus…therefore, God.

Page 7.

God & Sex. God says sex is OK, as long as it is between one man and woman within the bonds of holy matrimony…therefore, God.

Page 8.

Atheist authority. British politician and atheist Roy Hattersley wrote a book about the Salvation Army and was impressed with their dedication…therefore, God.

The promise of salvation. Kneel and pray to God right now and you will go to heaven…therefore, God.

That’s it. I’ve only given the gist of each story in the paper, but really, I think you can see that it is a lot of fluff, and there’s absolutely nothing compelling about any of it.

It’s a bit of a scam. I’m sure some well-meaning Christians will send Dennis Prince some money and get copies of this crap to hand out at the conference, but all the atheists who get it will find it pathetic and laughable, so it’ll be money wasted.

I’m mainly astounded that the two best arguments for the existence of god that this guy could find, judging by their placement in his newspaper, are the ridiculous Heaven is for Real book and an anecdote about an elderly atheist who get wobbly about his unbelief. If that’s the best they can do for evidence, it’s clear that Christianity is dying.

Jesus heals cancer in New Zealand

There is a church in New Zealand that has a genuinely repulsive billboard: it boldly claims that “JESUS HEALS CANCER“. It’s a lie, of course: they have no evidence of such a power. In an interview with the smiling, cheerful, blithely fuckwitted pastor, he openly admits that the congregants who were “healed” were receiving modern cancer therapy, and that he tells them to stay on it while receiving their magical pretend healing, and not to get off it until the doctors actually verify that they are in remission — so it’s another case of doctors doing the real work, while Jesus just steals the credit.

Do watch the whole video. The television announcer is actually good and critical, which is such a surprise to see for those of us accustomed to the glib gladhanders of American TV. He brings on someone from an organization called Consumer NZ, though, who is a bit slimy and evasive and keeps making excuses for the church.

Oh, man, and at the end of the video, the idjit pastor is doubling down and adding a tally of cures to his billboard.

That anti-intellectual Santorum

Rick Santorum really hates universities.

On the president’s efforts to boost college attendance, Santorum said, "I understand why Barack Obama wants to send every kid to college, because of their indoctrination mills, absolutely … The indoctrination that is going on at the university level is a harm to our country."

He claimed that "62 percent of kids who go into college with a faith commitment leave without it," but declined to cite a source for the figure. And he floated the idea of requiring universities that receive public funds have "intellectual diversity" on campus.

Universities are places where one goes to experience diversity and learn about reality, so we already have opportunities to experience "intellectual diversity" — the problem is that they are places where diverse views are questioned and criticized. What he wants is not diversity, but that his fundamentalist/evangelical Christian views can be presented in a protected environment on campus, where they won’t wither under the scathing light of reality-based scrutiny.

Oh, and I don’t know where his 62% figure came from specifically, but it’s in the ballpark of numbers often thrown around by conservative Christians. It’s total nonsense. 62% of our students don’t graduate as atheists (I wish!); what it means is that large numbers of students come to the university and change their minds. They arrive with a very narrow, very specific version of evangelical Christianity which the antique purists insist they must hang on to, or go to hell…and they leave, usually still entirely Christian and even mostly church-going Christian, but they tend to soften and have more inclusive, liberal views. That constitutes apostasy to these culture warriors like Santorum.

Ken Ham is big on beating his breast over all the defections from literalist Christianity that go on in the colleges. He’s even got a book on it called Already Gone in which he blames it all on “millions of years” and the abandonment of a strict interpretation of Genesis.

(By the way, you can tell an evangelical Christian has a book when they plug it by telling you you can order them in “cartons of 48”.)

Imagine no heaven

It’s been a long day — classes and lots of grading. I was ready to sit back and switch off my brain and take it easy, and then Mr Deity dives into the tangled twisty logic of paradise, and suddenly I’ve got a brain-ache.

I don’t even like Disneyland, why would I want immortality of any kind, let alone one where I’m supposed to be happy for eternity? I think the only afterlife I’d like would be the kind where I get to storm the gates of heaven and end the whole tyrannical empire.

Nasty little man snipes at the brave

I am the father of a non-religious soldier. I take it personally when a cretinous wackjob priest declares that my son is a coward lacking in commitment, damned, evil, and weak. Fuck you, Bryan Griem.

There’s an adage I expect will be repeated by other ministers responding to this question. It goes, “there are no atheists in foxholes.” Meaning, when bombs burst, everyone hedges their bets and prays, “God, save me!” There’s a joke about one combat vet who prayed “Lord, if you’re there, I’ll serve you and attend church every Sunday; just get me through.” The Air Force immediately comes and blasts everything, answering the man’s prayer. He then looks up to heaven and says “never mind….”

I know that religious people have security that atheists don’t. If you believe in life after life, you fight harder, risk more, and serve better than a guy who thinks, “this is it!” If you believe you’re nothing but worm-food at death, you aren’t going to jump on a grenade to save the platoon, or charge a machine-gun nest expecting to meet Jesus. You’re going to be reserved, second-guessing, and probably be a big fat chicken.

Look, you just read the stats: “Researchers have found that spiritual people have decreased odds of attempting suicide, and that spiritual fitness has a positive impact on quality of life, on coping and on mental health.” Atheists be damned. They will be. So I really don’t care what they think regarding these tests. I’m tired of having their constant nagging, their constant opposition against God — their evil. They contribute nothing positive in the long run. Their very name, “a” theist, means they are “against,” with a big “no” regarding America’s “creator” and “Nature’s God” (the one mentioned in our Declaration of Independence). I’m frankly sick of them. Why they are here on the In Theory cast is beyond me. It’s like saying, “I have no spiritual input because I don’t believe in the spirit. So here’s my ignorance….”

I wonder what the military puts on gravestones of atheists, a thumbs-down? Listen, all religions are protected by our laws, but atheists don’t countenance America’s documents that mention God. They don’t actually deserve rights that even bizarre religionists have. If it could be shown that people who deny God create military weakness, however small, what should commanders do when choosing a winning military? I agree with you.

This is what we get when the Army decides to evaluate soldiers’ “spiritual fitness”: scumbags like Griem judging our troops by how superstitious and gullible they are.

You can let Griem know what you think of his attack on our troops. Be civil, but don’t pussyfoot around his douchebaggery.

Poll on a thoroughly sensible comment

Trevor Philips made a number of people very cranky in the UK. He was commenting on a recent legal struggle, in which Catholic adoption agencies fought for the right to discriminate and refuse to allow gay couples to adopt children. There has been a ruling that adoption agencies aren’t exempt from equality laws, which of course pisses off religious bigots no end — they want to claim their superstitions are special and must be propped up by the law.

So Phillips made a simple and obvious comparison.

“You can’t say because we decide we’re different then we need a different set of laws,” he said, in comments reported by The Tablet, the Catholic newspaper.

“To me there’s nothing different in principle with a Catholic adoption agency, or indeed Methodist adoption agency, saying the rules in our community are different and therefore the law shouldn’t apply to us.

Why not then say sharia can be applied to different parts of the country? It doesn’t work.”

He compared Catholics demanding special laws for them to Muslims demanding their special laws? Harumph! Ouch! That was a cruel blow.

“It’s a strange comparison,” says one CoE spokesman.

Lawyers call it “inflammatory!”

Former Archbishop says, “Ridiculous!”

“Looks like the truth hurts,” says I.

There’s a poll, so you get to have a say, too!

Should religion have a say over public law?

No, religion should ‘stop at the door of the temple’ and give way to public law 52.66%

Yes, but as a Christian country only the Christian faith should shape the law 42.33%

All religions should have a say over public law 5.01%

The anti-Ecklund

Ecklund, you may recall, is the sociologist with a fondness for counting anyone who expresses awe at the universe as belonging to the religious camp, artificially inflating the number of Christians around. Now the RDF has commissioned an analysis of the population of the UK to see how many people are really Christian in their beliefs, vs. nominally Christian by heritage. The results probably won’t surprise you.

Not only has the number of UK adults calling themselves Christian dropped dramatically since the 2001 Census – our research suggests that it is now only 54% – even those who still think of themselves as Christian show very low levels of religious commitment:

• Only about a third of what we shall call ‘Census-Christians’ cited religious beliefs as the reason they had ticked the Christian box in the 2011 Census

• 37% of them have never or almost never prayed outside a church service

• Asked where they seek most guidance in questions of right and wrong, only 10% of Census-Christians said it was from religious teachings or beliefs

• Just a third (32%) believe Jesus was physically resurrected; half (49%) do not think of him as the Son of God

• And when given 4 books of the Bible to select from and asked which was the first book of the New Testament, only 35% could identify Matthew as the correct answer.

Also, even self-identified UK Christians do not think religion should have a special influence on public policy.

I think the issue is settled. The UK is a diverse and largely secular nation. All the fanatics who whimper about Europe being Christian need to adjust to reality: they are a minority.

Now I just wish the demographics of the United States had a similar arrangement…but I suspect that a majority here aren’t just Christian, but pig-ignorant evangelical/fundamentalist-leaning Christian. We need a few more years to catch up with European enlightenment.

Poll harder, so religion can reassure itself of its relevance

The Baroness Warsi is visiting the Vatican. Why, is not clear: it seems to be an occasion for two devout believers to get together and congratulate each other on the fervency with which each holds their dogma. And there’s just something weird and wrong about it all.

We will be celebrating the decision Margaret Thatcher took 30 years ago to restore full diplomatic relations between our countries. The relationship between the UK and the Holy See is our oldest diplomatic relationship, first established in 1479.

Right there…Catholicism is a country? Am I the only one who finds that disturbing and weird? It’s not something to envy or aspire to: it means that it’s a theocracy.

It’s also dishonest to blithely announce that the UK and Vatican have a long relationship: it hasn’t always been smooth. People of the country of England killed each other for belonging to the country of Catholicism, and vice versa, and much of that history of a relationship has been driven by the tension between an imperialist Vatican and an independent Britain.

I will be arguing for Europe to become more confident and more comfortable in its Christianity. The point is this: the societies we live in, the cultures we have created, the values we hold and the things we fight for all stem from centuries of discussion, dissent and belief in Christianity.

Also, disbelief in Christianity…although expressing that openly could have got you burnt at the stake, once upon a time. It’s not right to insist that the history of Europe is entirely Christian, when dissent from such views was rigidly suppressed. I’d also argue that the great virtues of European culture arose more from a humanist tradition than any dogma. Art and science, engineering and industry are not religious fiefdoms.

Religion is the diaper of humanity’s childhood; it’s OK to grow out of it.

My fear today is that a militant secularisation is taking hold of our societies. We see it in any number of things: when signs of religion cannot be displayed or worn in government buildings; when states won’t fund faith schools; and where religion is sidelined, marginalised and downgraded in the public sphere.

It seems astonishing to me that those who wrote the European Constitution made no mention of God or Christianity. When I denounced this tendency two days before the Holy Father’s State Visit in September 2010, saying that government should “do God”, I received countless messages of support. The overwhelming message was: “At last someone has said it”.

Yeah, it’s always easy to suck up to the teat of comfortable superstitions, and people will always applaud you for it. It doesn’t mean you’re right.

It’s good that the European Constitution ignores gods; the American Constitution does likewise. These are concepts that are totally irrelevant and often destructive to real world understanding. And it is not militant to suggest that a government of all should avoid endorsing sectarian religion, because we know exactly where that support of specific, untestable, and nonsensical myths leads: to pointless conflict over arbitrary bits of belief. It is also telling that she wants government to fund “faith schools”—what the hell can they teach, if it’s based on faith? Reason and evidence are universal values that everyone, believer and unbeliever, should learn and can use. Teach the core of truth and reality…and yes, push superstitious dogma off to the fringes and marginalize it.

Of course there is a poll, because foolishness loves company to reassure itself that it isn’t quite as dumb as it seems. Maybe you should go over there and marginalize religion some more.

Are you worried by the threat of militant secularism in Britain?

Marginalising religion is a form of intolerance seen in totalitarian regimes 22.04%
People should worship in private and not display religious symbols in public 15.97%
People should feel proud to worship in public and display their faith 15.84%
Secularisation is not a threat to this country 46.15%

What do creationists and other apologists for gods have in common?

Fundamental dishonesty. They both indulge in shameless quote-mining.

Also, I think the phrase “pulling an Ecklund” is going to be really useful. Use it whenever you see someone trying to rope an authority into the pro-religion, god-praising happy-clapping theist camp by pretending that awe and secular ‘spirituality’ are the same thing as going to church and loving Jesus or any other anthropomorphic deity.