First, I welcomed Olsson’s insights into the residential system whereby the Canadian government decreed that First Nations children would be forcibly removed from their homes and families so that they could be properly educated (read: Westernized, at best, or more correctly, brutalized and brainwashed).  Churches often provided residential and educational services for these programs, and the Anglican Church of Canada was a major player in this process. This system ended fairly recently, in the mid-1990s (1996, if my memory is correct), so I’m not talking about ancient history here. Three of the issues that prompted Olsson to reconsider his beliefs were a) the extent of the guilt of Anglican priests in abusing the children in their care (abuses were physical, emotional, sexual – the whole gamut of possibilities was exhausted), b) the callous indifference of Church leaders for the damage they caused to several thousand children and families, and c) the Church’s overriding concern to evade fiscal, civil, or criminal consequences for the actions of its representatives.

Second, I appreciated Olsson’s discussion of the Canadian Anglican Church’s struggles to deal with homosexuality in a wholesome way. He provides a detailed chronicle of how the issue was handled within his former Church from the 1970s through the mid-2000s (the book was published in 2009). The issue stands at a stalemate now – no action is being taken so that neither liberal nor conservative wings of the church will have cause to leave the broader Anglican fellowship. Olsson also has some great insights into why remaining within the broader fellowship is so important to many believers.

Third, Olsson’s chapter about his childhood sense of wonder with the world around him, the loss of that wonder as a believer, and his regaining of it as a nonbeliever resonated powerfully with me. He described his childhood love of the Encyclopedias Americana, Canadiana, and Britannica, and how he nearly always found answers to his questions in those tomes. Then, as he became more immersed in his biblical studies, the encyclopedias gathered dust (as my Bibles do now). Finally, he recounts an outing with his nephew, in which they watched two groups of ants struggling with some caterpillars about some territory near a tree. During their discussion, he is struck by his nephew’s curiosity and wonder, which mirrored what his own had been like and prompted him to think deeply about how and why they had been lost. He’s since recovered both the curiosity and the wonder and revels in his newfound love of the world around him.

As I noted in this post’s opening paragraph, this book is not a riveting deconversion story. Many other more engaging, better written accounts are available. On the other hand, the Kindle edition of this book was only a couple of dollars, so I don’t feel like I wasted my money. People interested in glimpsing some of the history the Anglican Church of Canada may find it a worthwhile read.

– the chaplain

When I was a kid, I thought Jim Bakker looked creepy. Now I know enough to judge people by their deeds rather than their looks. My mature verdict: he’s a creep.

The second item is from The Washington Post.

Some may be relieved that the world isn’t going to end on December 21. Others may be disappointed that they won’t be able to have amazing End-of-The-World parties. Still others who were thinking about buying Jim Bakker’s End-of-the-World survival gear may be pleased that they can hang onto their cash a little bit longer. They can spend it on Christmas gifts instead. But I’m pretty sure that most people don’t give a damn about any of it. Except, perhaps, the Christmas gifts.

– the chaplain

Christianity in some form will continue in the USA for quite awhile yet – at least as long as people want or need to

a) avoid thinking about their own mortality,
b) avoid taking complete responsibility for their lives, and
c) exploit the people in categories a and b.

The church in the USA is declining, but it’s not going to disappear. Over time, however, it may become more like the church in Europe: there for those who want or need it, yet letting the rest of society get on with life. I could live with a church like that in the USA.

I wonder how Machiavellian progressive American Methodists are willing to be to get their way? The bottom line is that the conservatives in Africa depend heavily on progressive Americans with money to pay their bills. Will the people with the money use their economic influence to persuade the conservatives to loosen up? Will the progressives say, go along with us on this or lose us and our money?

I doubt it, although I could be wrong. Instead, I think the progressives will continue caving in to the conservatives for the foreseeable future for at least two reasons.

1. A conviction that extorting cooperation would be unethical.
2. Perceived guilt over past colonialism, exploitation, etc.

As it happens, I agree that extortion is unethical. I also know that it happens all the time. Sometimes it’s called persuasion. When it’s more overt, it’s called manipulation. I don’t think, however, that splitting off from conservatives with whom they disagree strongly would necessarily be extortion. Progressives shouldn’t overtly threaten to take the conservatives’ money away, but, if they’re serious about treating gays fairly, they have to come to a conclusion about their priorities. If they truly believe that gay rights matter, they will have to deal with the question of what matters more – solidarity with their denominational cohorts, or doing what they believe is right with regard to gays. As long as they continue choosing denominational solidarity, they will also continue marginalizing gays. They have, in short, an ethical dilemma. If progressive Methodists are serious about treating gays fairly, they may have to split from the conservative branch of their denomination. An unintended consequence of that action would be that their money would go with them.

Another possibility is that some would cite the ethical objection to a split, but the unspoken reason for retaining the status quo would be guilt. Some may recognize this, but others may never look deeply enough into their own minds and motivations to see it. And there may be some who would openly cite guilt as their reason for staying with the status quo. I don’t think there would be many of these, but there may be some.

The irony I see is this: had the progressives won the debate, I’d bet my next month’s salary that at least some conservative churches would be splitting away within a few months. Here’s another irony I see: the progressives at the conference, and as a whole, may not split away from the denomination, but individual progressives may split from their local churches. They may join another church in another denomination, or they may just join the ever-growing ranks of the unchurched. As that happens, the UM church in the USA may grow more conservative, but it will also grow smaller. I hope the same would also hold true for the rest of the conservative church in the USA. All of us would benefit if their influence on American foreign policy, education policy, science policy, etc., diminished in accordance with their numbers.

– the chaplain

I’m sure Mitt Romney is relieved that Charles Manson has decided to stay right where he is. The only question that remains for him now is this: what will it take to get Newt Gingrich to drop out of the race?

– the chaplain

So, I saw.

And I learned that the author of the tutorial hasn’t actually raised anyone from the dead. But she knows enough about it to teach others how to do it, or at least exhort them to go out and try it themselves. Here’s how she described her failed attempt to raise the dead:

So, we all dug deep and held some non-stop vigil prayer, asking God to raise him from the dead as a witness to His power in the community where we worked. As we announced our plans, every crazy intercessor with a shofar came out of the woodwork and we started to worship and to pray–mostly all the scriptures where people were raised from the dead.

We tried to raise our game and also leave room for the will of God. A tricky business–expecting the miraculous and leaving room for God. We put his name down to preach at his own “life celebration” we were planning–which would have been the coolest preach ever. But after four days of non-stop prayer and a lot of shofar blowing and prayer walking the morgue seven times, our friend never got up. He was as dead as dead is.

Maybe I misunderstood the title of the piece. Maybe I was mistaken to think that a piece entitled Raising Dead People: A Tutorial would actually be about successfully raising people from the dead, not about trying to do it and failing. However, since the author couldn’t report a successful attempt at dead raising, she ended up writing a tutorial about some other religious/spiritual nonsense and giving it a catchy, if slightly misleading, title (I say slightly because she did come back to the idea that people can be raised from the dead by other than medical means; besides, for this one time only, I’ll err on the side of generosity ). I should have known this would happen when she inserted this little bit into the paragraph that preceded the excerpt cited above:

Anyway, years ago, a bunch of our community started watching these DVDs of a guy who taught people how to raise the dead…. In our community at the time, there was a man who was diagnosed with a terminal illness. We were praying hard for his healing, but he succumbed to his disease. Because he was part of the group of people who had watched these videos and prayed that God would help us to at least try to raise our expectations of what He could do…

Did you catch the last bit? Notice how the goalposts were moved. We’re no longer talking about positively raising people from the dead. Now we’re talking about merely raising expectations that god could empower believers to raise the dead. If he chose to do so.

The author excused her failure with this caveat: The good news is that the guy who teaches the videos said that it wasn’t until he prayed for the seventh dead guy, that it worked. It took perseverance and a whole lot of humility.

Oh. man! I’ve got to hand it to the author of the videos! He scammed this lady and her friends beautifully. His schtick was basically, if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. And again. And yet again. That’s the perseverance part and it can actually be measured. One can count the number of attempts one makes to do something until one either succeeds or gives up. If one never succeeds, maybe one should have tried just one more time and he or she would have hit pay dirt. But, the person quit too early, so now we’ll never know. Even more cleverly, the formula for successful dead raising doesn’t end with a quantitative measure. Oh, no. It’s accompanied by something that can’t be measured, but can always be dredged up as the real reason for continued failure – lack of humility. Presumably, one may fail to raise the dead once, twice, seven times, seventy times seven times, whatever, and never succeed and believers will never know if the problem is that he or she hasn’t made a sufficient number of attempts, or that the person just isn’t humble enough to succeed. It’s a given that believers won’t consider the possibility probability that prayer and religious rituals will never work because no gods are paying attention to them.

I wish I could watch the DVDs myself and see this con artist in action, but I can’t. The author of the tutorial didn’t provide any information about them. No link to a website. No DVD titles. Not even a name for this miracle working “guy who taught people how to raise the dead.” So, if you want to check her sources, you’ll have to do some digging on your own. If you find them, let me know. While you search, I’ll be walking the dogs (or washing my hair or something. Honestly, if I had seen videos like these, I sure as hell would have noted the titles, or at least the name of the guy! That’s more than a minor oversight, if you ask me.).

If you’re interested in reading the rest of what the tutorial author wrote, go right to her piece. She wrote some more interesting stuff, including an admission that she’s crazy for trying to raise dead people. What you won’t find is a surefire recipe for raising dead people to life. She doesn’t have it. My guess is, she never will.

– the chaplain

Having taken the step of getting a basic cell phone that sent and received phone calls, I insisted for years that I didn’t need a phone with any other bells and whistles. I didn’t want a phone for sending and receiving emails – I had computers for that. Nor did I want a phone that told me the weather forecast, or anything else that traditional phones had never done. I wanted a phone that was just a phone.

Then, a little over a year ago, I decided I wanted to access the Internet from my cell phone. And maybe check my email sometimes. I have no idea why I suddenly wanted to do those things. I just did. Unexpectedly. Without any warning. As I checked into upgrading my phone, I discovered that it would cost just a tad more to upgrade to an iPhone than it would to add those features to my existing phone. So, I got an iPhone.

Ah, the iPhone. I use it to make and receive phone calls. Sometimes. More often, I use it to send text messages to family and friends. Even more often, I use it to read the news, usually in the morning as I eat oatmeal and sip tea. And check the weather forecast. And upload recipes. And make shopping lists and keep my calendar and read e-books and write blog posts (like this one) and take photos and track my nutrition and exercise and follow maps and read blogs and look up information on google and wikipedia and listen to music and watch videos… In short, I use my cell phone to do a whole lot more than make and receive phone calls. It’s probably the most indispensable tool I own. I’ve evolved 180 degrees from a cell phone Luddite to a cell phone junkie. My dependence on my phone has gotten so complete that I probably should classify it as an addiction. If I do that, the inevitable next step will be joining a support group: iPhones Anonymous…

I bet there’s an app for that.

– the chaplain

Does anyone besides me find this embarrassing?

– the chaplain

That good old time religion – still using the same old carrot-and-stick to lure people into its clutches.

– the chaplain

My first entry comes from the Department of Woo:

Just. Gag. Me. Now. With. Lots. Of. Saccharine.

My second entry comes from another desk at the Department of Woo (it’s a very large department):

The only sound thing about theology is that theologians are often good at making noise. Loud, rude noise.

And my final entry comes from the Department of Prudish Busybodies (which is nearly as large as the woo department):

Prudence’s response was much more temperate and prudent than mine would have been. That’s probably why she’s Prudence and I’m not.

That’s enough freakiness for one day. I’m going to enjoy my weekend now.

– the chaplain

The bit that caught my attention was this:

The photo has surfaced on several Mayan doomsday discussion forums. But was the light beam a sign from the gods — a warning about Dec. 21, 2012, the date that marks the end of the Mayan calendar cycle, and when some people fear the world will end? Or is it simply the result of an iPhone glitch?

According to Jonathon Hill, a research technician and mission planner at the Mars Space Flight Facility at Arizona State University, which operates many of the cameras used during NASA’s Mars missions, it is almost definitely the latter.

“Almost definitely?” Seriously? An ASU big shot thinks there’s room for doubt on this “question?” The explanation of the physics behind the image doesn’t leave much room for doubt. But, in the United States of Jesustan, neither reporters nor scientists dare hint, let alone say outright, that goddidit is not a good answer to any question. Nope. Fair and balanced reporting in the USA requires that religion almost always gets a free pass. In this case, rather than calling out the religious interpretation for the bullshit it is, the reporter just ignored it politely. Thus, religion wasn’t promoted, but it wasn’t criticized either. That’ not good reporting. It’s not even “fair and balanced” reporting. It’s simply allowing people to read the story and retain unchallenged the assumptions with which they began. News reports like this allow Americans to remain only marginally better informed than illiterate peasants. They are a large part of the reason our society is on a fast track to cultural and economic irrelevance.

Welcome to Jesustan. It’s a hell of a place.

The second approach illustrates a pragmatic approach. This is better than the first one, and it’s tempting sometimes, but it can render one vulnerable to hucksterism and manipulation (see first illustration):

The third approach is the one I recommend – read carefully and widely, and think critically about everything you read:

Thus endeth today’s illustrated sermon.

P.S. – the sermon applies to politics too.

– the chaplain

And I’ve busted another Irony Meter.

– the chaplain

A co-worker (a conservative, evangelical Christian) was praising the mechanic who recently serviced his car. After reciting a fairly lengthy list of  services rendered and the incredibly low prices he was charged for those services, he paused for a second or two, looked astonished, and said in a voice full of wonder, “And he was a Muslim!”

I immediately said, “What does that have to do with anything?”

He responded, “Of all people, you think they’d be the least likely to be like that.”

I said, with astonishment, “There are something like a billion Muslims in the world and most of them are not terrorists. The vast majority of them are good, honest people.”

When he looked at me like I’d grown a second nose, I said, “Imagine a group of Muslims sitting together at lunch – like we are – talking about a business transaction similar to yours. Now imagine the speaker ending his story by saying, “And he was a Christian!”

The guy sitting next to the conservative Christian chuckled and said, “Touche.”

The conservative Christian grinned sheepishly and said, “Yeah, I see your point.”

Will the conservative Christian change his mind about Muslims? Probably not very much. He’ll continue believing they’re all going to hell because they don’t worship the right deity. But maybe the next time he does business with a Muslim he won’t be so astonished when his religious, cultural and ethnic prejudices are disconfirmed.

– the chaplain

First, Bill Maher will present his point of view.

Next, George Carlin will give us another perspective.

Now, it’s time for you to decide. Which do you prefer, football or baseball?

– the chaplain

If some religious believers think the world would be better off with no religion, shouldn’t they just quit and do their bit to make the world a better place?

– the chaplain

The article goes on to state:

Since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973, opponents have questioned the safety of medical procedures used to terminate pregnancy. Now, a new study contends that having a legal abortion is safer than carrying a baby to term.

The risk of death associated with a full-term pregnancy and delivery is 8.8 deaths per 100,000, while the risk of death linked to legal abortion is 0.6 deaths per 100,000 women, according to the study. That means a woman carrying a baby to term is 14 times more likely to die than a woman who chooses to have a legal abortion, the study finds.

- snip -

Grimes and his colleagues had several reasons for undertaking the study, published in the February issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology. One is that medical abortion, in which a woman can take a pill early in pregnancy, instead of surgical abortion, “has changed the landscape of abortion, and the mortality information needed to be updated.”

Another reason is that in many states, women are given information before getting an abortion. “There’s been a proliferation of these women’s-right-to-know pamphlets, and some of them are misleading, if not downright incorrect or patently wrong,” Grimes said.

- snip -

Dr. Donna Harrison, director of research and public policy at the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, disagreed with the authors’ conclusions.

- snip -

Dr. Mitchell Creinin, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said that pregnant women considering their options “are often scared by the rhetoric.”

“If a state is going to feel a responsibility to be involved in this private matter, we need to ensure that the material is factual,” said Creinin, who wrote an accompanying editorial in the same issue of the journal. “If it comes from the state or the government, people assume it’s true,” he added.

It’s no secret that I support women’s rights to choose what’s best for themselves reproductively, socially and economically. Neither you, nor I, nor any government officials or agencies have any business regulating and interfering in the intimate details of people’s lives. The decision to have – or not have – an abortion is one of the most serious decisions a woman may ever make. And I honestly don’t know if I could have made that choice myself. Fortunately for me, I never had to find out. But, many women are not as fortunate as I. They must make this decision and they need accurate information to do so. They also need emotional and practical support before, during and after the decision – either to abort or carry to term – has been made and carried through. What they don’t need is self-righteous busybodies calling them criminals or sinners or sluts or any other foul names. What they don’t need is people telling them they can’t decide for themselves because busybodies with their own agendas (religious or otherwise) have already made the decision for them. The age of paternalism passed a long time ago in most developed countries. It’s time for the USA to catch up with its peers and start showing equal respect for all of its citizens too.

– the chaplain

In any other civilized country in the world, this policy wouldn’t be the least bit newsworthy. In the conservative-Christianity-soaked USA, it’s not only newsworthy, it’s controversial. What a pathetic commentary on the current state of American affairs.

– the chaplain

H/Ts to Moe and Talking Points Memo.

– the chaplain

Okay – that gives us 343 more days to party on.

Except for one thing: the Mayans set the date too late. According to the Church of God – PKG, the world will actually end on May 27, 2012.

Uh oh. That only gives us 206 days to party. We’d better break out the hats and noisemakers now.

The bad news: if either of these predictions pans out, I won’t get to complete some of the items on my bucket list.

The goods news: if neither of these predictions pan out, I’ll get to enjoy two extra rockin’ parties this year.

I’ll bring the chips and salsa. Who’s bringing the beer?

– the chaplain

I strongly encourage Americans who would ask this question of themselves to consider and weigh thoughtfully our nation’s constitutional traditions….

In fashioning this remarkably enduring document, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia made it absolutely clear that no religious test should ever be imposed to hold office.

As I read on, I found this:

According to the American political tradition, there are essential questions by which all office seekers are qualified, regardless of their faith journey or history. The first is: Does the candidate subscribe completely to our constitutional structure, including freedom of conscience for persons of all faiths — or no faith? A second question for the thoughtful voter is related to and flows from the first: Will the candidate subscribe, without any “mental hesitation or purpose of evasion,” to the oath to protect and defend America’s Constitution? If the answers to those closely connected questions are yes, then voters should proceed to cast their ballot on the basis of the candidate’s qualifications, platform and policy positions — not the candidate’s membership (or lack thereof) in a particular faith community.

Did you catch that last bit? A candidate’s membership – or lack thereof – in a faith community is not nearly as important a qualification for public office as that candidate’s willingness to uphold the Constitution and respect citizens’ rights to freedom of conscience.

And then I read a bit further and found this:

In fact, a number of great presidents have come to the White House without membership in any faith community. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist and was vigorously attacked for his religious views (or lack thereof). Abraham Lincoln, as a matter of conscience, refused to join any church….

More recently, the great cultural chasm between Catholics and Protestants was politically overcome with the election of John F. Kennedy. Similarly, then-Vice President Al Gore’s choice of Sen. Joe Lieberman, a practicing Jew, as his running mate in 2000 signaled the welcoming openness of America’s democratic experience to individuals who did not share the Christian faith….

…the litmus for our elected leaders must not be the church they attend but the Constitution they defend.

Shortly after this passage, Starr concluded his article with this advice:

Life experience, personal qualities and policy views are the pivotal points to guide Americans as they go to the polls in 2012.

While there’s much I like about Starr’s article, I have a significant problem with it. Starr’s approach would work well in an open-minded marketplace of political ideas. Sad to say, it’s been a very long time since the USA provided such a marketplace (if it ever did).  The fact that Starr felt compelled to answer the question posed in his title is testament to that sad reality. The fact is, in today’s American political climate, many candidates explicitly connect their policies to their religious beliefs. When someone like Rick Santorum, to take just one example, promotes policy positions on such issues as contraception, abortion and gay rights, and supports those beliefs by citing his religious beliefs, I have little choice but to consider how incompatible his beliefs, as well as his policies, are with my policy positions and nonbelief. It is the candidates themselves who compel me to apply religious litmus tests to both their policies and their beliefs. As long as they keep wearing their religions on their sleeves and using their beliefs to try to score votes, I’ll have no choice but to take their religious professions, as well as their policy statements, into consideration when I cast my votes. And I assure you, religiously extreme candidates will have great difficulty gaining any support from me.

– the chaplain

Santorum is an extremely conservative candidate in what is largely an extremely conservative field of candidates. Since Rick Perry has proven overwhelmingly to be the Dumber than a Pile of Dog Shit candidate, Rick Santorum, with his surprisingly strong finish in the Iowa caucuses, may have an opportunity to gain some ground. Then again, the fact that his religious zealotry doesn’t appeal to New Hampshire voters as strongly as it did to Iowans could halt Santorum’s momentum quick and in a hurry. The odds are that the good old southern boy Rick Perry, despite his multitudinous intellectual shortcomings, will fare better than Rick the easterner in the grand old state of South Carolina. So, Santorum’s standing as a viable option to Mitt Romney, the GOP’s Rodney Dangerfield candidate, is by no means secure.

Make yourselves a big bowl of popcorn and grab a six-pack. The Republican primary season is now underway and the entertainment value promises to be priceless. At least, it would be if the stakes weren’t so damned high. The reality is, if any one of these jokers actually gets into the White House next year, we could soon be looking back fondly at the George W. Bush era.

That’s a thought that doesn’t bear thinking.

– the chaplain

What’s that you say? The storyline is too far-fetched? No one will buy it as remotely plausible? You may be right.

Besides, that’s story’s already been written by someone else:

The next step will be for Ted and Gary to hook up. Gayle and Steffanie will do likewise and then all of them will move to a state where they can be civilly united and live happily ever after.

– the chaplain

Slate.com has the lowdown on God’s most recent revelations to Pat Robertson:

No need to follow any more campaign news. The winner of the presidential campaign in 2012 has been decided.

Television evangelist Pat Robertson says he spent a week praying and God told him who the next president would be. But Robertson would only say this on his Christian Broadcasting Network:

“I’m not supposed to talk about that so I’ll leave you in the dark—probably just as well—I think I know who it’s gonna be.”

- – snip – -

WTF? Did you catch Pat’s inconsistency? He began by claiming that god “told him” who the next president will be. Then he downgraded his claim to a mere “I think I know who it’s gonna be.”

Which is it, Pat? Did god tell you? Or are you just guessing? Or hoping for a particular outcome? If god actually “told” you something, you shouldn’t have to “think” it may be so, you should “know” it to be the case. I mean, we’re talking about the supreme creator and governor of all that exists now, has ever existed, and ever will exist, right? This is the god who knew before “creation” that his son would have to die a brutal death to fix his father’s fuck up (and just how does a “perfect” god fuck up, anyway?). Supposedly, if god says something is so, that’s the final word. End of story. No alternate endings.

Well, that’s a pretty Calvinistic view of god (which is okay for my purpose in this post, because that’s the god Robertson believes in). Other believers say that people have the power, through exercise of their “free will,” to write alternate endings to the story god began several millenia ago. The story is still being developed and the end hasn’t been determined yet. It’s likely that few such believers would consider claiming that their god “told” them a particular outcome to a process that’s just getting underway and will continue for nearly another year. Only those who believe in a god like Robertson’s would have the balls to make such a claim. And even Pat can’t sustain the claim for very long before backpedaling.

So, since Pat Robertson won’t even stand by his claim, and more importantly, since his claim is total bullshit, I’ll keep following the campaigns. And when the campaigns are all over, I’ll do my part to write the ending to the American Election 2012 story. It’s a story that does not involve god; the outcome is entirely in the hands of the voters.

– the chaplain

Perry’s anti-gay marriage position is not new. Nor is the the fact that he goes beyond opposing gay marriage, specifically, and believes that homosexuality, generally, is a “sin” and that homosexuals are “sinners.” But the beneficent Governor Perry loves them anyway.

As long as they’ll shut up, stay in their closets, and continue being treated as second-class citizens.

Perry’s statement that he supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman contradicts his stated position that gay marriage is a decision that should be left up to states. That’s no surprise; coherence is not Perry’s strong suit.

Also unsurprising is the old canard that the USA was founded on “Judeo-Christian” values. As a good religious-right-winger pandering to other good religious-right-wingers, Perry can’t possibly acknowledge that the founding fathers stressed Enlightenment principles at least as much as (and probably more than) Judeo-Christian ones. Oh, no. Such honesty doesn’t fit into wingnut Christian Nation ideology. Furthermore, does anyone other than me find it infuriating to hear wingnuts cite “Judeo-Christian” values when what they really want to say is “Christian” – or better yet, “conservative Christian” or “fundogelical Christian” – values? The only times fundogelicals give lip service to solidarity with Judaism are

a) when they’re spouting their Christian Nation nonsense, and

b) when they’re working to realize their sick eschatological visions.

If I were Jewish, I’d want to hit someone – preferably a fundy – every time I heard anyone utter the phrase “Judeo-Christian.”

Honestly, when I look at the field of Republican presidential candidates in this race, I want to scream, cry, or vomit. Or maybe do all three in no particular order, or even simultaneously. I sincerely hope that Iowa caucus voters will reject Perry soundly on January 3 and send him back to Texas with his good old right-wing Judeo-Christian tail tucked securely between his legs.

– the chaplain

I think it would be fun if some of us joined the “conversation” over there. Since it’s likely that many of our comments won’t see the light of day, cross-post your comments or screenshots here. I promise not to delete them. Of course, you can still play here even if you don’t play over there. All I ask is that you play with someone, somewhere and let us know how it turns out.

– the chaplain

Too bad Fox didn’t wait a few months before showing this graphic; it would have made a great April Fool’s prank.

– the chaplain

If you want to get into the early show, you can still make reservations by phone or take your chances on getting a ticket at the door. You’ll probably be able to walk up to the door for the late show.

– the chaplain

Enter Newt Gingrich. Yes, Newt has his own baggage fidelity-wise, but his is old, familiar, faded baggage – a circumstance that has enabled Republicans to throw more than a few casual glances his way. Actually, their eye contact has progressed beyond casual, blown right by flirtatious, and is now flat out lustful. (My understanding is that the longing is mutual.) I suppose if enough time passes, it’s easy for members of the Family Values/Defense of Marriage Party to dismiss the tacky timing of Gingrich’s various divorces, affairs and marriages. Perhaps “for better or worse, in sickness and in health” means something different in Republican-speak than it means to the plainspoken. Or maybe Newt’s behavior just doesn’t look very callous to Republicans since much of it happened a long time ago…

Meanwhile, many Republicans steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the candidacy of a man who has only been married once and, as far as anyone can determine, remained faithful to his one and only wife. It seems that adultery isn’t a big deal politically if one belongs to a mainstream Christian sect. In Republicanistan, belonging to the right religion – or, at the very least, being able to give lip-service to the right religion – trumps remaining eternally faithful to one’s spouse. This leads me to question Mitt Romney’s newest campaign strategy:

Poor Mittens. He’s still getting it wrong. The pathway to the White House isn’t paved on the stones of marital infidelity. No, sir. Everyone knows that the road to the White House – as far as Republi-Jesustanis are concerned – is paved on the stones of religious fidelity. Specifically, fidelity to Christianity. Preferably, Protestantism, but Catholicism will do in a pinch. My advice to Mitt Romney is simple: if you really want to be a Republican president, all you have to do is trade your goofy religion for their goofy religion.

And keep the wife.

– the chaplain

– the chaplain

Publisher: Simon & Schuster

Chapter One

1 And lo, YHWH aka Allah, having checked in on the third rock from the sun (aka Earth) and realized that it had been 1,400 years since his last written communication with humankind, decided recently that the time had come to reveal himself anew,

2 And to set the record straight on a few misunderstandings that some of his fervent followers have about him.

3 And so, YHWH aka Allah met with an agent at Simon & Schuster with whom he was pleased to arrive at mutually agreeable terms for the publication of a memoir.  He was also pleased to retain the services of an outstanding amanuensis, David Javerbaum, former head writer and executive producer of The Daily Show,

4 For lo, YHWH aka Allah believes Jon Stewart is one of the funniest comics working today, and wanted to include similarly humorous material in his memoir.

5 Having previously written prolifically in the Hebrew, Catholic, Protestant and Muslim scriptures, YHWH aka Allah limited his memoir to a brief (for him) 383 pages. Or, more likely, he is aware of the short attention spans of many 21st century readers.

6 Early in the book, YHWH aka Allah reveals that a) the first two human inhabitants in Eden were, in fact, Adam and Steve, and b) he planted all of the evidence supporting evolution. He asks, “Canst thou grasp the scope of my hoax, humanity? Can thy mortal minds absorb even a drop of the immense ocean constituting the thoroughness of thy punking?”

7 Verily, I say, woe to readers who expected YHWH aka Allah to reveal that he hates gays, and that the earth is 13.7 billion years old. Woe, indeed, to believers and nonbelievers alike, for YHWH aka Allah (if he exists) is more mysterious than even his followers imagined.

8 And he admits he has anger-management issues. As well as a sadistic streak.

9 Notwithstanding his sadism and anger-management issues, YHWH aka Allah has a sense of humor. In reviewing the Noahic Deluge, YHWH reveals his surprise at the following:

10 The flood took longer than he expected it would take,

11 Many people were better swimmers than he had reckoned they’d be, and

12 Human corpses are effective flotation devices.

13 These revelations underscore one of YHWH aka Allah’s most shocking confessions – he does not know everything.

14 YHWH aka Allah also reveals that he gets angry when Americans sing (incessantly, it seems), “God bless America.”  As he says, “Americans asking me for more blessings is like Tahitians asking me for sunnier days.” And lo, he has a valid point.

15 Behold: YHWH aka Allah loves sports, and even has favorite teams (the Cubs are not among them).  He nonetheless insists that he has never influenced the outcome of any game to determine a winner. His exact words are, “I do not intervene in sporting events . . . because … I care so deeply about the integrity of the game.”

 Chapter Two

1 In his most poignant revelation of all, YHWH aka Allah reveals that Jesus’ sacrificial life and death were Jesus’ ideas, not his.  Before Jesus completed his self-appointed mission to rescue humankind from damnation, YHWH aka Allah considered Jesus to be the weaker of his two sons (Holy Ghost being the other one).

2 But lo, by the time Jesus ascended to heaven, YHWH aka Allah gained a new respect for the son he’d previously deemed too soft to be an effective deity. Yea, YHWH aka Allah admits without shame that he, like much of western civilization, is now Jesus-whipped.

3 YHWH aka Allah wrote briefly about Islam. He hesitated to say too much for, by his own admission, he “felt great apprehension concerning the writing of this section.”

4 Nevertheless, he dares to reveal the real reason Muhammad forbade anyone to make a likeness of his image.  Verily, in the interests of promoting book sales, I encourage thee to read the book for thyself if thou wantest to know the reason for that seemingly absurd prohibition.

5 Moving through the centuries, YHWH aka Allah reveals which of Martin Luther’s 95 theses are his favorites (sort of a Billboard Top 40) and which religions he admires (spoiler: Buddhism did not make the list).  I bid thee beware, atheists, agnostics and nonbelievers, for YHWH aka Allah warns thee to “start thinking about what thou mightest say to me on the infinitesimally off-chance that thou findest thyself standing before me. Yea, start thinking about it now, for if it ever does happen, I can promise thee this: it will be a short meeting.”

6 Thou hast been warned.

7 Suitably enough, YHWH aka Allah concludes his memoir with a day-by-day revelation of the End of the World,

8 Which is currently scheduled to occur on December 21, 2012. However, YHWH aka Allah emphasizes that Armageddon’s date is open for negotiation should his memoirs sell as many copies as his previous publications.

9 Thou hast been warned.

10 Lo, with The Last Testament in hand, readers will be able to follow along each day as YHWH aka Allah brings brings about Armageddon.

11 Let’s just say St. John the Divine had no clue what he wrotest about.

12 But thou wilt – if thou buyest The Last Testament now. And if thou art looking for the perfect gift for the special people in thy life – consider buying copies for them too.

13 For lo, the world thou savest may be thine own.

14 Thou hast been warned.

Chapter Three

The Last Testament is a light-hearted romp through many of the religious beliefs that are current today, particularly in the USA.  Believers of a conservative bent will likely find the book too irreverent for their tastes, but more liberal believers may enjoy it.  Nonbelievers will likely find it humorous, overall, but may find its length excessive.  I found the book dragged near the end, as I dutifully made my way through nearly twelve months (355 days) worth of end-times revelations.  In my view, the end-time predictions motif was not cohesive enough to sustain 355 disjointed one-liners. Generally speaking, though, the book was enjoyable. Readers who enjoy light, irreverent fare will like this book.  Readers who prefer deeper, more reflective discussions of religion and irreligion are less likely to find this book satisfying.

Thou hast been advised.

– the chaplain

As the deacon said later, that turned out to be an expensive harness.

How, you may ask, did we end up adopting a second dog?

Pour yourself a cup of coffee and I’ll tell you.

As we pulled into PetSmart’s parking lot, we saw a van from the Lost Cat & Dog Rescue Foundation, a sign advertising an adoption event, and a lot of dogs milling around outside the store. As we walked into the store, I pointed out one pretty dog (not a Beagle) to the deacon, who responded by saying, “I want another Beagle.” The three of us went into the store, found the harness and puppy treats, paid for our purchases and left the store. As we crossed the sidewalk toward the parking lot, we were greeted by a beautiful 2 year old Beagle named Opal. I greeted her and she responded to me happily. I hesitated to adopt her, though, because I’d read that, if one is introducing a second dog into the family, it’s often best to adopt one of the opposite sex from the first. Apparently, two dogs of the same sex sometimes have difficulty adjusting to each other, whereas opposite sex dogs usually get along quite well together. So, I said “Goodbye” to Opal and kept walking. About three dogs over, I saw a tiny male Beagle. Since he was smaller than Hypatia, I estimated he was 4-5 months old. I walked over to him and said hello, and he promptly jumped onto my lap and smothered my face with kisses. And stole my heart.

I called out to the deacon, “Look at this little guy. What do you think of him?” The deacon and Hypatia came over and he said, “Yes, he’s cute.” We spoke with his handler and discovered that his age is actually 8 months or so. As we walked to the car, we talked about whether we should adopt him. By the time we finished loading the harness and puppy treats into the trunk, we had talked ourselves into it. So, we turned around and headed back to the dog formerly known as Tommy and adopted him. While I filled out the paperwork, the deacon texted our son and told him to come to the pet store after work so he could meet our new dog.

As we shopped, the deacon suggested that we rename the dog formerly known as Tommy. I said, “Do you want to call him Darwin? That’s a great name for a male Beagle – I love the wordplay involved.” The deacon agreed, and our son noted that it follows the trend of naming our dogs after scientists. Darwin is a smart boy and he already knows his new name. I think it’s much more dignified than Tommy (which is a cute name, but not very dignified).

Darwin had a rough life before his adoption. He’s very undersized and was probably the runt of his litter. He was found as a stray about two months ago in Spotsylvania Couny, Virginia (a rural county located about an hour south of Washington, DC). We don’t know if he escaped an enclosure and got lost or was deliberately abandoned. One of the guys from the rescue foundation said it’s not unusual for hunters to abandon hounds who won’t hunt. Can you imagine such heartlessness? It makes my blood boil!

Anyway, Darwin and Hypatia are adjusting to each other pretty well and they love playing together. When the deacon and I take them for walks, they make sure the whole pack is close together. If either dog is in the lead and decides the other pair is lagging too far behind, he or she will stop walking and wait for the other pair to catch up. We’re quickly becoming a cohesive unit.

And now, I’ll close the post with a couple of photos.

Here’s an updated photo of Hypatia. She’s just over 6 months old and weighs 25 pounds. She’s about fully grown now and beautiful.

And here’s Darwin. He only weighs 15.6 pounds. He’s small but spunky and holds his own very well when he plays tug-of-war with Hypatia.

So, there you have it, the saga of Darwin’s Rescue. Stay tuned for more adventures of two hounds in suburbia. In the meantime, my next post will be a review of a newly released book. You’ll have to come back soon to find out which book it is.

– the chaplain

a) chiding the House for wasting the people’s time (my preference), or
b) ignoring their resolution completely.

Instead, he tried outsmarting them at their own game – easily the stupidest choice available to him. When the president invoked god as a supporter of his specific policy he moved away from making a policy statement to making a theological pronouncement. Such a pronouncement rolling off the lips of a secular leader is, to say the least, highly inappropriate.

Unfortunately, Mr. Obama’s staff made the situation even worse; the president’s error was compounded by his press secretary (who, if he is not an idiot, had a really bad day). If Jay Carney wants to appeal to biblical authority (he shouldn’t want to do so in the performance of his duties, but he obviously did yesterday), he should begin by checking his source to make sure the citation actually exists. All he managed to do was display his ignorance. My advice to Mr. Carney is simple: don’t try to play the game if you don’t know the playing field.

Here’s my evaluation of how the president and his staff handled this situation:

– the chaplain

I’m not sure they’ve found their candidate yet, but some of them are taking a close look at Herman Cain. Will he prove himself worthy of their anointing seal?

This clip of Cain crooning at the National Press Club gives me an idea The fundies should host a Gospel Sing-Off between all the Republican candidates. They could call it The Xmas Factor. The best singer would win the fundie endorsement. In case of a tie, the winner would be the candidate who knows the most gospel songs, hymns and worship choruses by memory. Since the only policy positions that fundies care about are

a) anti-abortion,
b) anti-evolution, and
c) pro-Holy War

a sing-off would allow them to focus on finding their really, truly perfect candidate. After all, they’re not actually looking for someone to be the nation’s president. No, indeed. What they’re really looking for is someone to be the nation’s pastor. The best candidate for that position would be the person who could

a) lead the nation in stirring prayers, and
b) lead the nation in rousing sing-alongs.

Herman Cain has sung his opening number. Now it’s time for Mitt to step up to the mic and belt out a tune.

– the chaplain

I came across a related story this morning and decided to share it with you, as you’re not likely to come across it yourself unless you’re

a) dieting, and
b) using Sparkpeople to track your diet, fitness and general health.

As it happens, I’ve been doing both of those things for the past year. But, that’s not the point of this post. The point of this post is to encourage you to read an inspiring story of someone who has survived – twice! – breast cancer and is living life to its fullest. After you’ve read it, go do something you love and get some pure joy out of life today.

– the chaplain

Who knew that Jesus Christ had not just one, or two, or even three missions to complete during his alleged tenure on earth?  Who isn’t inspired by a man-god (or is it god-man?) who completed a whopping 27 missions, every one of which was impossible, in a mere 33 years?

Take that, Tom Cruise!

Move over, Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Daniel Craig!

Wham! Bam! Pow! Adam West, Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer and Christian Bale!

Hang up your capes, Christopher Reeve and Brandon Routh!

Steven K. Scott thinks Jesus Christ Superstar Superagent Superhero puts your characters to shame.

What do you think? Let me know by voting in the poll and leaving a comment.

– the chaplain

I love critiquing religion as much as the next atheist and probably more than many. Regular readers here know that I’ve got more than a handful of bones to pick with it. Nevertheless, we should aim to identify and express our criticisms precisely and avoid using cute catchphrases that skirt rather than pinpoint our issues. Even though this poster is cute and made me chuckle, it’s not actually useful as a critique, or even a starting point for a critique, of religion. We atheists can and should do better than mimic the antics of sloppy thinkers. Let’s not sink to their level in either our thoughts or our words.

– the chaplain

Is that sappy or what? That box should come with a health warning:

WARNING!

Overindulgence in Milk-Bone moments has been scientifically correlated with insulin shock. Use product at your own risk.

Now – please excuse me while I ignore that warning and help myself to another Milk-Bone Moment with the dogs.

– the chaplain

Obviously, both churches are wrong, since non-existent beings are unable to bestow gifts, blessings, curses or anything else upon anyone. That being the case, the conflict can’t really be about whether a god approves or disapproves of homosexuality. What it’s really about is whether particular people approve or disapprove of homosexuality. Some people see nothing wrong with homosexuality, and others view it as more disgusting than vomit. But all of them believe their god has something to say about it. At least, that’s what they say. But what if some of them are just using their god as the scapegoat upon which to pin their own preferences? I find both of these possibilities plausible and wouldn’t be surprised if both mindsets are actually at play in the politics of religion and homosexuality.

The email closes with a link to a poll. If you’ve ever checked out a One News Now poll, you’ll know that the options tend to be skewed toward a “correct” point of view. This poll is no different:

Anyone who doesn’t agree with any of these options is unable to vote. Of course not. Fundies don’t need input or feedback from anyone who doesn’t live inside their little bubble. After all, what could they possibly learn from the likes of me? So, I’m not upset that there’s no room for opinions like mine in their poll. My exclusion reminds me of why billboard battles like these are fun: it’s immensely amusing to sit back and watch the godbots eat their own.

– the chaplain

The first sign said,

Jesus Christ is the Answer…

Now what is your question?

Okay. I’ll play along. My first question is:

What is the sum of 2 + 2?

I say it’s 4. You say it’s Jesus Christ. I don’t need to call for help, Howie, or ask the audience for a hint. I’ll stick with my answer.

Let’s try another one.

Why did an 11-year-old Virginia boy get killed by a tree limb that crashed through his house during yesterday’s hurricane?

You say Jesus Christ. Maybe you’ll expand on it a bit and say “God’s will.” Or “God’s ways are mysterious.” Or “Sin.” I say shit happens. It happens randomly to anyone at anytime. My answer sucks, but it’s a lot more palatable than thinking that some puppet master is jerking people around for his own amusement.

Here are my points. First, it’s presumptuous to assume that one has the answer to someone else’s question before one has even heard the question. Second, it’s beyond presumptuous to assume that one answer fits all questions. You’d think at least one fundie would be bothered by at least one of those facts.

Here’s the second sign I saw, which is even stupider than the first one:

God is All
All is Well

Seriously. I saw that sign in a Washington DC suburb two days before the region got hit by its biggest earthquake in recorded history (of course, it was a modest quake by Pacific Rim standards). If all is well and the past week is typical of the Christian god’s handiwork, he’s a piss-poor specimen of a deity. As far as theology goes, orthodox Christian doctrine is neither pantheistic nor panentheistic. It does not hold that “God is All.” Honestly. Don’t these people ever think about what they say?

Signs can be great advertising tools. They can also be wonderful instruments for exposing idiocy. These two signs accomplished the latter end with resounding success.

– the chaplain

Penn Jillette may be best known to the world at large as a world-class magician, the larger (and louder) half of the magical duo, Penn & Teller. In atheist circles he is also known as an outspoken advocate of atheism. And he may be known to some as the author or co-author of five previous books. In his latest book, God, No! Jillette offers his atheistic take on the Ten Commandments of cinematic and biblical fame. The book’s introduction opens with these words:

You don’t have to be brave, or a saint, a martyr, or even very smart to be an atheist. All you have to be able to say is, “I don’t know.”

Jillette moves from that statement to contrast atheism as a position of humility with theism, which he describes as an arrogant stance that purports to know, not merely believe, what a god or gods expect of humankind. As an example of theistic arrogance, Jillette discusses prayer:

Some think that god will answer prayers. They think that their prayer can influence the behavior of an omnipotent, omniscient power….

The idea that someone can claim that they know there’s a god because they feel it, because they trust a book that they were raised with, because they had an epiphany, and then ask this god to change its mind about its plan for the universe is arrogant.

Jillette also provides as clear an explanation of atheism as one will find anywhere:

Being an atheist means you don’t believe in god. When someone asks if god exists and you humbly say, “I don’t know,” you’ve answered honestly.

Once you’ve answered “I don’t know” to the existence of a god, the answer to whether you believe in god pretty much has to be no. That doesn’t mean you’re saying it’s impossible for there to be a god, or that we couldn’t have evidence of a god in the future. It just means that right now you don’t know. And if you don’t know, you can’t believe.

After a strong start in the introduction, Jillette organizes the heart of his book into ten chapters, one for each biblical commandment, which Jillette offsets with “one atheist’s suggestions:”

The Bible’s Commandments

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol…for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God….
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy god in vain….
4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days thou shalt labor and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the lord thy god…For in six days the lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother….
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not lie.
10. Thou shalt not covet….

One Atheist’s Suggestions

1. The highest ideals are human intelligence, creativity, and love. Respect these above all.
2. Do not put things or even ideas above other human beings.
3. Say what you mean, even when talking to yourself.
4. Put aside some time to think and rest.
5. Be there for your family. Love your parents, your partner, and your children.
6. Respect and protect all human life.
7. Keep your promises.
8. Don’t steal.
9. Don’t lie.
10. Don’t waste too much time wishing, hoping, and being envious; it’ll  make you bugnutty.

Even though God, No! is well-written and very well-edited, the quality of the book’s content is uneven. Fortunately, the good outweighs the bad. The part that I found least amusing, enlightening or moving was the section in the fourth chapter in which Jillette describes his experiences of having sex while scuba diving. Yes, I get how this account fits into a chapter dedicated to the ideal of taking time to rest, relax and enjoy life, but this section left me feeling like Jillette was working way too hard at being funny and ended up being tedious instead. Another part of the book that I found uninteresting was the sixth chapter, throughout which Jillette strives, with an astonishing lack of clarity and precision compared to the rest of the book, to explain his libertarian political views. I found it ironic that, in the section entitled Penn’s Bacon and a Kiss Airlines, Jillette blatantly disregards his own second suggestion, as he appears to have put his libertarian ideals above the humanity of Muslims. Here’s an illustrative sample:

So at my airline, there would be no embarrassing time-wasting scans and put-downs. No profiling. But before you get on the plane, our lovely host and hostess would offer you a piece of bacon. Nice, fresh, piping-hot, crisp, glorious bacon. If you don’t want to eat the bacon, you don’t get on the airplane without a full strip-search. Eat the swine, or bend over and take the glove.

Now, I realize that this paragraph (and most of what follows in this section of the book) should be read as comedy and not taken literally. And maybe others will find this section sidesplittingly funny. But, I don’t. I just find it tasteless and boring. I find it especially confounding as it comes from the same man who, in the book’s first chapter, writes with striking compassion about the struggles of Hasidic Jews who no longer believe the dogma held by their families and peers in very tight-knit, nearly closed communities. He also writes compassionately about Muslims in the book’s afterword. Given these facts, I’ll just identify this section of the book as a bit of black humor that, in my opinion, misfired.

Having said enough about what I didn’t like about the book, I’ll highlight some bits that struck me as particularly insightful, enlightening, or touching.

In the third chapter (which explores the idea of saying what one means), Jillette takes a position that may surprise some atheist readers: he endorses proselytization. Even though he finds religious proselytization personally annoying, he understands the moral imperative that drives religious zealots to convert others to their ways of living and thinking. Jillette views religious proselytization as one segment of the marketplace of ideas, a segment that he counters by proselytizing for atheism. Later in the same chapter, Jillette takes agnostics to task for being, as he sees it, unwilling to acknowledge their lack of god-belief, i.e., their atheism. In doing so, he puts forward a nice discussion of the differences between questions of ontology (what a state of affairs actually is, i.e., whether a god exists) and epistemology (what one actually knows or believes one knows). He says:

If I ask you, “Do you believe in god?” the question is…specific. It’s asking you to report on your thoughts…. It doesn’t matter how sure you are of your belief…. None of us can really know for sure if there’s a god, but belief is, if not an action, then at least a state of mind you can report on in real time….

“Is there a god?” can be answered, “I don’t know.” “Do you believe in god?” needs to be answered yes or no, even though you haven’t made up your mind for sure. None of us has made up our mind for sure….

Jillette follows this exhortation by challenging agnostics to state their belief positions honestly, and closes by proudly, forthrightly declaring, “I am an atheist.”

The part of the book that I found the most moving and enlightening was the fifth chapter, in which Jillette revealed much about his personal and family life. This chapter offers a deep view into Jillette’s heart and mind. For example, in discussing his mother’s terminal illness and death, Jillette wrote,

Understanding [her] suffering as random was hard for me, but I could never have understood it as part of an all-powerful god’s “plan.” If a god had planned that for my mom, I would have turned to Satan. There’s no plan I’ll get behind that includes that much suffering for anyone.

Jillette makes it clear that, in his view, an atheistic understanding of suffering is far more compassionate than any theistic proposition put forward thus far. If you read nothing else in this book, this chapter alone is worth the purchase price. Jillette demonstrates powerfully throughout the chapter that people don’t need divine directives to teach them how to care for each other. Read it to get a good taste of atheist family values (as expressed by one atheist speaking solely for himself, but in a way that will undoubtedly resonate with many atheists). Jillette makes it refreshingly clear that religious believers do not have a monopoly on affection, respect, loyalty, compassion and love.

Jillette closes the book with an afterword entitled, Atheism is the Only Real Hope Against Terrorism. In his opinion, faith is the enemy that rational people must overcome. He says,

Being religious means being okay with believing in things without evidence…. Once you’ve condoned faith in general, you’ve condoned any crazy shit done because of faith.

Jillette’s counter to faith is this:

The only real argument against religious terrorism is to try to share the reality of the world. The world is plenty We have each other. We have love. We have family. We have art. We have time. We have an impossible universe full of awe and wonder. We have an infinite number of questions we can work on. We have all the glory that is real and is us. We must stop glorifying faith.

I have no doubt that many atheists will agree wholeheartedly with that thought.

Readers looking for profound insights into atheism or killer arguments against theism and other forms of woo and superstition won’t find them here. What they will find is one atheist’s unapologetic point of view. God, No! is not a classic of atheist literature, but it is entertaining and, at times, thought-provoking. Readers who enjoy light fare that strikes a nice balance between chuckles and tears will find plenty to satisfy them in this book.

– the chaplain

Umm, okay…

What, exactly, has a god entrusted to humankind? Any thoughts?

–the chaplain

Is that amazing or what? A priest was asked to perform a funeral service, and he took the opportunity to trash the deceased! I thought the point of funerals was to a) comfort the living, and b) commemorate the life of the deceased. I believe in being honest, but there are some occasions (and I think funerals are among them) on which the adage, “if you can’t say anything good, then don’t say anything at all,” applies. If the priest couldn’t comfort the bereaved, then he should have refused to do the service. I doubt that the family could have been any more offended by his refusal than they were by the way he actually discharged his duty.

And, no surprise here, Major Army Barmy praises the priest’s behavior. Oh, he posted a disclaimer about the “vomit” statement (marked the priest down for poor taste on that one), but was tickled pink that the priest announced his belief – and it is merely a personally held belief, mind you, not an ascertained fact – that the deceased was “going straight to hell.” Think about this a minute. The “vomit” statement is inappropriate (presumably because it raises a graphic image of an unpleasant bodily function), but the “hell” statement – which references eternal torment of unimaginable, unspeakable proportions – passes muster. And Christians think my priorities are fucked up!

Also, notice how the “warning” to preachers plays into the evangelical Christian persecution complex. Golly gee, Major – you don’t think some people may classify the statement “liars and fornicators are going to hell” as hate speech because it’s actually, you know, hateful? At least, it would be if hell were any kind of real threat. Still, if people hearing such a remark actually believe in hell, it’s easy to see how it would be received poorly. I won’t give Major Army Barmy the satisfaction of labeling his hell-remark hateful, since a) the threat is empty, and b) I don’t want to feed his persecution complex (he feeds it just fine on his own). Nor will I insult him by labeling it as ignorant. No. I’ll just call it what it is: the nasty raving of a religiously deluded zealot.

– the chaplain

God saw he was getting tired and a cure was not to be
So He put His arms around him and whispered, “Come with Me.”
With tearful eyes we watched him suffer and saw him fade away.
Although we loved him dearly we could not make him stay.
A golden heart stopped beating, hard working hands to rest,
God broke our hearts to prove to us He only takes the best.

YIKES! That’s supposed to make people feel better?

What’s this business about God “seeing” that “a cure was not to be?” I thought the big guy was in control of illnesses, cures and such. A god that merely “sees” an inevitable conclusion to a course of events and doesn’t do anything about those events either doesn’t exercise any more control over those events than we mere mortals do, or he/she/it doesn’t give a damn one way or another about our fates. I don’t buy the stock Christian answer that god doesn’t perform tricks, cures and miracles on demand. Of course he does, if he exists; that’s why people pray. If god doesn’t perform on demand, then Gov. Rick Perry and his friends should cancel their prayer rally. Christians can’t have it both ways (although that certainly doesn’t stop them from trying) – their god either answers their prayers and intervenes in their affairs, or he doesn’t. This nonsense of “sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn’t” is ludicrous. It drove me nuts when I was a believer and it drives me nuts now when I see others struggling to make sense of it. The simplest, most elegant answer to questions about why god doesn’t ease suffering, cure illnesses, etc., is that no gods exist to do such things. Personally, I’m more comfortable living in a universe with no gods than one in which gods are capricious at the best of times and downright cruel at others.

And what’s this stuff about breaking hearts to prove something? The god guy could only “see” that a cure wasn’t going to happen – couldn’t do anything useful about it – but he had the power to “break hearts” just so he could “prove” something esoteric about his preferences? It’s interesting that god couldn’t do anything that could be seen and measured, like a physical cure of an illness, but he could do something that necessarily remains unseen and immeasurable, like manipulating people’s emotions. If my boss can expect me to produce measurable results when I work, why shouldn’t people expect at least as much from their gods? Seriously, does any of this make any sense to anyone? It only makes sense to me as a slick marketing package that dupes a) the gullible, and b) the vulnerable. Otherwise, no, it makes no sense to me and certainly is not the least bit comforting.

It escapes me how anyone who attended that funeral found any solace in that doggerel. All I can find is a simple (perhaps even simple-minded) testament to confusion, credulity and grief.

– the chaplain

When we were in Jamaica, we were struck by the non-judgmental, accepting attitudes of the people at the resort. The people at the resort came in all ages, shapes and sizes. Some could have been featured on magazine covers, but most did not come anywhere close to that ideal. It didn’t matter. We quickly discovered that, when everyone is naked, people soon stop paying attention to bodies. Another thing we noticed was that nobody at the resort cared whether people were straight, lesbian, gay, bi- or whatever. We simply ate, drank, swam, chatted and enjoyed life without judging each other. Many of us were thrown together by happenstance. Odds are, none of us will ever meet again, unless we happen to return to the same place at the same time next year. A good number of others traveled together as members of formal clubs. They deliberately planned their trips to coincide, and even arranged to have adjoining rooms for their members. They were explicit communities within the looser short-term community of the resort.

During our week in Jamaica, the deacon and I became friends with a couple who had been to several nudist resorts and campgrounds in the Caribbean, Mexico and the United States. They shared stories of their experiences and piqued our interest in exploring the world of nudism some more. Shortly after we returned home from that trip, the deacon began looking online for places where we could enjoy similar experiences this summer. After deciding how far we wanted to travel, we decided to try out a nudist club campground in a neighboring state.

As we’ve met people throughout this past week, I couldn’t help making mental comparisons between this club and churches I experienced throughout my life. I think it’s fair to say that most churches want to see themselves as close-knit communities that are

a) composed of people who are committed to the group’s ideals and members, and
b) open to welcoming new members into their midst.

The people at this campground share those two similarities with church members. The campground is a private facility owned and operated by a member-owned non-profit organization. Consequently, many of the people we’ve met this week have been camping here for many years. Several of them serve on the club’s board of directors, and many of them share in the campground’s operation and upkeep. The club members are committed to providing a place where members and guests (the deacon and I are visiting as guests this week) can enjoy the nudist lifestyle. In addition to being committed to the ideal of providing a safe, secure place for nudists, the members of the club are committed to each other as friends.

On criterion (a), I’ll give both churches and nudists equal points, even though I could discuss, at length if I wanted to do so, church cliques, hierarchies and politics. I’ve enjoyed wonderful friendships with church people, and I’ve witnessed the way some church people support each other in times of trouble and grief. I’ve been both the recipient and the giver of such support, so I know how deep those bonds can be. I’ve seen similar dynamics at play among the members of the nudist club this past week. These people are watching or have watched each others’ families grow up. They know each others’ dogs by name (and there are nearly as many dogs here as people). They eat dinner, cut grass, walk their dogs, do water aerobics, and play tennis, paddle ball and petanque together. They are a community.

The place where nudists seem to out-perform churches is criterion (b). I’ve already described our Jamaican experience, which differs from both the club and church experiences in important ways. But a comparison between clubs and churches is not unreasonable. What I’ve experienced this week is an abundance of warmth and welcome that far exceeds anything I’ve ever experienced in churches. Bear in mind, I’ve attended churches in 9 Canadian provinces and at least 20 US states as either a member or visitor. Now, I realize that the nudist club has a pecuniary interest in welcoming the deacon and me into their midst. I’m pretty sure our membership fees would not be refused if we asked to join. So, some of what we’ve experienced is undoubtedly tied to a sales pitch. But churches also have pecuniary interests have in attracting and keeping new members. That being the case, it’s amazing how often visitors can slip in and out of church meetings without saying a word to anyone in the congregation. I’ll go one farther. It’s amazing how often church members can slip in and out of church meetings without saying a word to anyone in the congregation.

Having vast experience of churches, and admittedly limited experience of nudist communities, I have to say that I’m more impressed with nudists than churches. Nudists aren’t perfect. Individual nudists are undoubtedly as capable of backstabbing, cheating and other nasty behaviors as individual religionists or anyone else. Nevertheless, my impression of the nudists I’ve met here and in Jamaica is that they basically just want to enjoy life and allow others to do the same. In contrast, most religionists I’ve known, either personally or by reputation and media, thrive on depriving themselves and others of life’s pleasures. Given those premises, if you had to choose between these two options, which community would you join?

– the chaplain

The Manchester Evening News report of this event is harrowing reading. Ultimately, Azad (somehow) lived through three hours of hell before escaping through her bedroom window and reporting the beating to the police the next morning. I was disappointed, but not surprised, to read that Azad “wrote a letter to Judge Roger Thomas QC asking for her brother not to be locked up and saying that she had forgiven him. The court heard that Ms. Azad has never supported the prosecution despite giving police an initial statement.” One of the most nefarious aspects of religious and cultural misogyny is the way women internalize it. Azad’s plea to the judge is but one example of this phenomenon. It’s one thing to forgive her brother, but quite another to aid him in evading the just consequences of his behavior. Another example of internalized misogyny in this story is the response of Azad’s mother, who called Azad a whore and told her that “she would have to be sent to Bangladesh to marry” a Muslim man. Wow. Talk about blaming the victim! It’s obviously Azad’s fault that her brother beat her because she’d had the audacity to fall in love with a non-Muslim. That rendered her a whore who deserved either banishment from her home and family or death. I’m glad that Azad a) survived this encounter, and b) did not move to Bangladesh per her family’s dictates. Instead, she left her home in Manchester and now lives in London. This gives me hope that she’ll break the religious and cultural shackles that led to her horrific experience.

Now, before we non-Muslims get smug about our superiority, we’d better take a look at events happening right here in the USA. The great state of Kansas recently enacted abortion regulations that will effectively shut down abortion providers until they can satisfy stringent new licensing requirements. The providers were given a generous ten days notice of the changes, which include substantial physical plant modifications that will take weeks or months to complete, and which providers claim are medically unnecessary. Kansas used to have three abortion clinics. One of these was forced to close recently and the remaining two will likely be closed by the end of this week unless a temporary injunction against immediate implementation of the law is granted. This is very bad news for the people of Kansas. Especially the women.

Let’s cut out all bullshit and face an ugly fact: laws like these are designed solely to control the sexuality, reproduction and overall health of American women. They are nothing less than institutionalized misogyny – misogyny that is embedded in American culture, its dominant religion, and, when states can get away with it, its laws. The fact that many women support such measures is testament to the power of internalized oppression. Thousands, perhaps millions, of people have been really pissed off since the passage of Roe v. Wade, and they’ve made numerous attempts to overturn it, or, failing that, to sidestep it. This latest move by the state of Kansas is an example of the latter. The state has not outlawed abortion. It can’t do that. Therefore, it’s done the next best thing: it’s made abortion within its borders inaccessible. For awhile anyway.

Both Islamic and Christian cultures and religions have long, infamous histories of misogyny. In Christianity (but not Islam), women have been blamed for Original Sin. In both traditions, women have been cast as wicked temptresses of men (which is why many Muslim women are required to hide themselves under layers of cloth). In both traditions, women have been cast as inferior to men (a position that has been systematically reinforced through religious and social customs, as well as law). Misogyny is not unique to Islam; it’s just extraordinarily blatant in that milieu. Islamic misogyny is akin to the Old South’s Jim Crow laws – easy to oppose because it’s so damned obvious. Christian misogyny is more akin to the Northern racism I witnessed during the Civil Rights era – subtler than Jim Crow, and consequently more difficult to identify and destroy. Subtlety doesn’t make it any less real, and it certainly doesn’t make it any less dangerous, even deadly, than Islamic misogyny. It simply makes it harder to fight.

It’s only fair to note that many Christians and Muslims reject the misogynistic mores of their religions. And many of them have joined nontheists in opposing those who want to sustain those shameful traditions. As the accounts discussed above make clear, believers and nonbelievers alike have a long struggle ahead of us if we hope to rectify our society’s wrongs. But we will overcome.

– the chaplain

Did Jesus rise from the dead? The Gospels give us no reason to think so. Every single story bears the marks of fiction, with earlier versions ruling out later ones, with extrabiblical parallels providing abundant nonhistorical analogies, while current experience provides no historical parallel. The Gospels certainly do not put us in touch with the faith (whatever it may have been) of the earliest Christians. They do not tell us whether the resurrection of Jesus was even part of the first Christian faith(s). Everywhere we have looked, we have found naught but legend and myth, fiction and redaction. What we have found is a kind of empty tomb. What we can never tell is whether anyone was ever buried there.

Throughout his examination of numerous passages from the four gospels, the book of Acts and purportedly historical excerpts from the Pauline epistles, Price explains carefully – and, more importantly, applies – his analytical methods. Readers unfamiliar with scholarly methods of New Testament analysis will find Price’s book a good introduction to this subject.

Non-Christians who have spent any time studying Christianity are aware that many of the New Testament stories and teachings have numerous parallels in the legends and literature of other religions. Some of these religions pre-dated Judaism and Christianity and others were contemporaneous with the early Christian era. One thing I didn’t realize was how many of the New Testament stories were actually based on Old Testament legends. I was aware of some stories that are said to have “pre-figured” Jesus’ ministry, but not of others in which Old Testament healings, etc., appear to have been simply re-written with reinvented/renamed characters, much as formula fiction is written today. Throughout the book, Price carefully dissects numerous passages from the Old Testament and other ancient writings alongside their New Testament parallels and demonstrates that many biblical themes – betrayal, atonement, salvation, redemption, resurrection, etc. – are universal. Neither the themes nor their resolutions are unique to Christianity. Price shows that, far from being unique, all of the Christian Jesus-legends are either derived from or based on the literary forms of pre-existing stories of gods and heroes.

One of the things that most fascinated me was Price’s re-interpretation of the Jesus stories as competing, rather than complementary or cumulative, accounts. Price reminds the reader that the early Church was not monolithic. Dozens of Christian factions and communities believed divergent, often contradictory, bodies of “Christian” dogma and myths. When one keeps this in mind and reads the New Testament as literature produced by pro-James, or pro-Peter, or pro-John, or pro-Paul factions, the need to harmonize obviously discordant accounts disappears. Price demonstrates, to put it bluntly, that it makes more sense to read the New Testament as political propaganda produced by competing candidates/parties for church leadership than as a coherent body of god-inspired dogma.

If one accepts Price’s analyses and conclusions, one cannot accept the miracle-working, crucified-resurrected-and-ascended Bible-Jesus as an historic figure. Price leaves open the question of whether the Bible-Jesus character was loosely based on an actual itinerant preacher or a completely fabricated legend. At this point, we’ll probably never know which is the case. What we do know is, thanks to Price and many other scholars, the legend of Jesus Christ is no longer God-sized. It’s time to bring out the shrink wrap.

– the chaplain

I’ll count that commentary as a bullseye.

– the chaplain

When she got home, she didn’t lose any time making the place her own.

I look forward to Hypatia adding her distinctive beagle voice and face to the chapel choir for many years to come.

– the chaplain

You’ve probably already read this bit of news at Greta Christina’s blog, or at Jen’s place, or maybe even at PZ Myers’ small corner of the atheosphere. But, just in case you haven’t read it at any of those places, I’ll post it here too.

You may recall that, in late April, several atheists took on the challenge of raising money for Camp Quest. To refresh your memories, PZ Myers formed a team all by himself, and Team Awesome formed another team. The competition opened with an effort to raise $5,000.00. Since PZ Myers managed to do this within a few hours, Team Awesome decided to move the goalposts. We extended the contest to June 1 and left the final tally open-ended – a challenge that PZ graciously accepted.

Since today is June 1, it’s time to announce the results of this fierce-yet-friendly competition.

Team PZ raised $14,616.01.

Team Awesome raised $15,418.79.

Yes, you read that correctly. Team Awesome defeated Team PZ. More importantly, the combined totals for both teams was an impressive $30,034.80. This means that, thanks to everyone who donated (it doesn’t matter to which team you contributed, what matters is that you gave), a lot of kids will have some wonderful experiences at Camp Quest this summer. That thought really warms the cockles of this hard-headed, cold-blooded atheist’s heart.

Several members of Team Awesome have devised interesting ways of celebrating both the team’s victory and everyone’s accomplishment. Since PZ helpfully listed these celebratory acts, I’ll just copy and paste his summary here:

Greta Christina will regale us in karaoke, Jen will have pratfalls while learning to bicycle, JT will be going hairless, and Matt will be appearing on the Atheist Experience in drag. While I [PZ] will be leaning back in my easy chair, sipping an iced tea, and laughing.

Thank you, PZ, for participating in this competition and for not being too ungracious in defeat. Thank you, members of Team Awesome. Several of you worked really hard promoting this charity and your efforts paid off handsomely. Most of all, thank you to everyone who donated to a great cause. Many families will be happier this summer because of you.

– the chaplain

I’d like to think so. Maybe a few of them will. But, I suspect that an awful lot of people are so committed to living their lives for some world other than the one they’ve got that they’ll continue following either Camping or someone like him. What a pathetic state of mind in which to live.

My life isn’t ideal, nor is it easy. But it’s mine. And I’m committed to making it the best life I can with the tools I’ve got. Some people think religious delusions are useful tools for building lives. I’m not one of them. I hope that a few (many) of the people whose dreams of rapture failed yesterday will lock their religious tools in their tool sheds, set fire to them, and join the reality-based community. There’s too much to enjoy in this life to squander it preparing for another one. I hope at least a few more people are ready to try life the faith-free way now.

– the chaplain

Below is a slightly edited reconstruction of an email I got from one of my least favorite playmates in my bureaucratic sandbox.

TO: the chaplain
CC: the neighborhood horse’s ass’s boss; the boss of the neighborhood horse’s ass’s boss;
the corporate office department head; the chaplain’s boss; the chaplain’s boss’s boss
FROM: the neighborhood horse’s ass

RE: criminal background check for John Doe

Criminal background checks are not required for cooks. Unless you want to run a check on John Doe anyway.

The photos on the documents you faxed are illegible. Please scan and email them.

Thank you,
the neighborhood horse’s ass

Attachment: scanned copies of illegible faxed documents

It probably did not escape your notice that the neighborhood horse’s ass decided he had to copy nearly every bureaucrat in two states on this matter. My guess is that he was trying to impress them with how seriously he takes his job, how fearlessly he puts morons in their places and reminds them of procedural norms, and how moronic are the people he struggles with on a daily basis. Oh, yes. The horse’s ass is a smart cookie, alright. He dots his i’s and crosses his t’s without fail, and he always minds his p’s and q’s.

There’s just one small problem with his little missive.

He sent it to the wrong moron.

Upon checking the attached documents and ascertaining that

a) I had not hired John Doe to cook or perform any other tasks in my workplace,
b) I had never, to my knowledge, met John Doe, and
c) John Doe had been hired by the Virginia Beach office,

I responded to the horse’s ass. Naturally, since he had sent copies of his reprimand to a multitude, I hit the “reply to all” button and composed my response:

TO: the neighborhood horse’s ass
CC: the neighborhood horse’s ass’s boss; the boss of the neighborhood horse’s ass’s boss;
the corporate office department head; the chaplain’s boss; the chaplain’s boss’s boss
FROM: the chaplain

RE: criminal background check for John Doe

John Doe is not employed here. Try Virginia Beach.

Here’s his response:

TO: the chaplain
CC:
FROM: the neighborhood horse’s ass

RE: criminal background check for John Doe

Oops. My mistake. I sent that email to the wrong person.

Duh, ya think?

I’m sure you noticed that his response was not copied to anyone. When he was the big man showing up the little peon in a local office, he made sure to let everyone above him (and me) know it. When he got his ass handed to him on a golden platter, he did the right thing by apologizing. He also did the wrong thing by not stating his apology as publicly as he stated his reprimand. I shouldn’t have been surprised. What else should one expect from the neighborhood horse’s ass?

– the chaplain

The downside to my camp experiences was that they were saturated with god-talk. Campers, counselors and other staff members were obligated to sing grace at every meal:

We thank you, Lord, for the world so sweet;
We thank you, Lord, for the food we eat.
We thank you, Lord, for the birds that sing,
We thank you, Lord, for everything.

We attended daily Bible lessons, held cabin devotions every night and attended full-blown church services on Sunday mornings. Camp in my childhood was designed to be a godly affair.

Not all children’s camps are venues of intense indoctrination. A coalition of secularists has organized a camping network called Camp Quest.

The purpose of Camp Quest is to provide children of freethinking parents a residential summer camp dedicated to improving the human condition through rational inquiry, critical and creative thinking, scientific method, self-respect, ethics, competency, democracy, free speech, and the separation of religion and government.

By now, you’re probably saying things like, “Cool!” Or, “I wish I’d had that when I was a kid.” And even, “How can I help?” I’ve got the answer to that question. You can help by donating to Camp Quest via this link. Several atheist bloggers are having a friendly competition to raise money for Camp Quest. PZ Meyers is one team. He and his supporters have already raised more than $5,000.00. The other team is an informal association of bloggers – Greta Christina, Hemant, the Friendly Atheist, Jen at Blag Hag, JT Eberhard, Adam Lee. And me.

I’m honored to have been invited to join Team Underdog Awesome in its two-fold challenge to

a) beat PZ Meyers’ ass and force him to shave his beard, and
b) raise money for a great cause.

I can’t wait to see what PZ’s hiding under all that hair. And I want to help rationalist families. If you want to help too, all you have to do is click here. It’s a great way to start the summer.

– the chaplain

UPDATE! Digital Cuttlefish, master poet of nonbelief, has joined our team! Yea, Team Underdog Awesome!

Secular Americans Praise Rep. Pete Stark’s National Day of Reason Proclamation

Millions Celebrate National Day of Reason Today
To Recognize the Value of Reason in American Life

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Secular groups praised a proclamation Representative Pete Stark (D-CA) entered into the congressional record today recognizing May 5 as the National Day of Reason. The proclamation resulted from collaboration between Representative Stark and the Secular Coalition for America, the leading national lobby for secular Americans.

“Reason and rational thinking have made our country great,” Rep. Stark’s proclamation stated. “The Constitution of the United States of America is based upon the philosophies developed during the historical Age of Reason and the idea that citizens engaging in rational discourse and decision-making can govern themselves. The Constitution also contains a strong separation of church and state, making it clear that government should continue to be built on reason.”

The National Day of Reason has been celebrated since 2003 as a more inclusive alternative to the divisive and congressionally mandated National Day of Prayer. The National Day of Reason, according to Stark’s resolution, “is also about taking time to improve our communities – whether that means holding a blood drive or collecting items for the local food bank. It is also about ensuring that our government represents citizens of all beliefs and backgrounds.”

The entire proclamation can be found here.

“The Secular Coalition for America has a great appreciation for the continued work Representative Stark has done to promote reason and secular values on Capitol Hill,” said Sean Faircloth, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America, who spoke today at a National Day of Reason event on the North Carolina State Capitol grounds in Raleigh. “By encouraging Americans to employ reason and perform good deeds in their community, this proclamation embodies values that all Americans can rally behind – not simply those who pray or believe in a god.”

A listing of National Day of Reason events, as well as more information and statistics, can be found here.

“The National Day of Reason has truly taken off,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, an SCA member organization. “Through National Day of Reason activities such as volunteer work, charity events, and open-forum discussions, it’s self-evident that you don’t have to believe in God to be a good person, and you don’t have to adhere to a divisive tradition such as the National Day of Prayer.”

The Secular Coalition for America is a 501(c)4 organization that serves as the national lobby for atheists, humanists, freethinkers, and other nontheistic Americans. Composed of 10 diverse member organizations, SCA works to protect and strengthen the secular character of our government as the best guarantee of freedom for all. For more information, please visit www.secular.org.

I heartily applaud Rep. Stark for poking the Religious Right in the eye on yet another day on which they seek to

a) shove their religion down everyone’s throats, and
b) promulgate their silly Christian Nation myth.

I say, ignore them completely and double the insult them by combining your Day of Reason festivities with some Cinco de Mayo celebrations.

Salute!

– the chaplain

By bringing weapons to church.

Here are some excerpts from the article:

Parishioners carried Bibles in embroidered cases, babies with ribbons in their hair, and flutes, violins and sheet music into Immanuel Bible Church for Palm Sunday services.

And a few carried guns, tucked into waistbands, hidden under suit jackets.

- snip –

Philip Van Cleave, of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, said people have been carrying concealed weapons to church for years because of the threat of terrorism and church shootings across the country.

“Al-Qaeda has been our reason, as well as many of the recent church shootings around the country,” he said. “Think of it this way: If saving your own life isn’t a ‘good and sufficient reason’ to carry a gun, then what else could possibly qualify?”

- snip -

“Guns in a church? Why?” said Samy Youssef, a member from Alexandria. “God is our protector. He is our savior.”

- snip -

“The real sad thing for all of us in this is it’s an indication of where our culture is — that public meeting areas, churches, schools, town halls, malls are threats for terrorism,” Holley said. Two years ago, he said, a preacher in Illinois was gunned down in the pulpit.

The Rev. Tom Joyce, a fellow Immanuel pastor, said there was a case in Colorado in which a gunman began spraying bullets in a church but was shot and killed by someone in attendance.

“We rely 100 percent, before any weapon, in the power of the Holy Spirit to protect us,” he said. “It’s also good to have some people here on campus” who are trained and armed.

It seems to me that, if the Holy Spirit’s protection needs to be supplemented by firearms, then faith in him is not 100%, as claimed. Samy Youssef (quoted above) agrees with me. Apparently, the gun-toting Bible-thumpers who disagree with Samy and me are more inclined to believe that their god helps those who help themselves than to believe that he looks after his own.

– the chaplain

This is a variation on Italian amatriciana sauce – I substituted bacon for the pancetta and added some fresh veggies. Authentic amatriciana is pretty hot and is simpler than this as it leaves out the veggies and some of the non-pepper seasonings. Be forewarned – the recipe below is a bit hot. The seasonings can be varied according to taste, and 1/3 cup of wine can be substituted for some of the water (if you use cooking wine, omit the salt). Also, fresh Roma tomatoes could be chopped and substituted for the canned tomato sauce to cut down the sodium.

We’ll start with the ingredients:

Hunt’s Tomato Sauce – 1 15-oz. can
Hunt’s Tomato Paste – 1 8-oz. can
Onion – 1/2 cup, chopped
Celery – 1/2 cup, chopped
Garlic – 4 cloves, chopped
Carrots – 1/2 cup chopped
Water – 1 cup, or 2/3 cup water + 1/3 cup wine
Sugar – 2 tsp.
Bacon – 4 slices, chopped
Pepper – 1/2 tsp.
Salt – 1 tsp.
Red Pepper – 2 tsp. (may substitute Tony Chachere’s seasoning)
Oregano – 1 tsp.
Rosemary – 1 tbsp.
Thyme – 1 tsp.

Next, the procedure:

Add tomato sauce, paste, liquid and seasonings to crock pot and begin cooking on high.

Once the base sauce has started cooking, chop vegetables and bacon, and brown in saucepan until tender. Start with the bacon, then add veggies when fat has started melting. You may add one tablespoon of olive oil, if needed, to keep veggies from burning. When veggies and bacon are nicely browned add them to the sauce in the crock pot. Sauce may be cooked in crock pot 2-4 hours without burning.

Prepare pasta – rigatoni and rotini go nicely with this sauce. One minute before pasta has finished cooking, remove 1-2 tablespoons of pasta water and reserve. Drain pasta, then add pasta and reserved cooking water to sauce. Cook pasta for one more minute in the sauce, then serve.

Finally, nutritional data for those who are interested in such things:

Note: the nutritional calculation does not include the pasta.

Servings Per Recipe: 4 (calculated at 1 cup per serving – this is quite a lot, so you may want to decrease the amount according to your taste)

Amount Per Serving

Calories: 166.9
Total Fat: 4.2 g
Cholesterol: 5.4 mg
Sodium: 1,869.2 mg
Total Carbs: 30.0 g
Dietary Fiber: 6.9 g
Protein: 7.3 g

If you like Italian food, you may enjoy playing with this recipe and adapting it to your tastes and needs.

Happy cooking!

– the chaplain

The principle reason Intervention disappointed me was that Cook took the curious position of indicting alternative medicine while allowing for the possibility of faith healing. Yes, you read that correctly. In Intervention, Robin Cook simultaneously offered compelling evidence against such practices as chiropractic spinal manipulation, acupuncture and homeopathy and completely ignored the dangers of faith healing. Cook achieved this by having his characters take the same route that most Western believers take: they sought both medical attention and divine intervention for their sick child. And when the child was healed, they claimed not to care which factors had been efficacious – they were just glad their child was well.

*sigh*

Okay. As a parent I get that. In a desperate situation, the pragmatic side of me – allowed to operate unchecked by my intellect – could easily conclude, “What the hell; whatever works.” I can even accept that agnostic parents – such as Cook’s principal characters – might, in desperation, seek divine intervention for their chronically ill child. But, as a reader, I cannot accept that Cook, an author who “strives to elucidate various medical/biotech ethical issues…” would allow – without offering one shred of evidence to support his position – this one exception to his general condemnation of alternative medical practices.

Cook didn’t take the extreme position of promoting divine intervention in lieu of standard medical intervention. Of course not. That position would mark him as a nut and jeopardize his standing with both the medical profession to which he belongs and his readers. And it’s probably a position he abhors. Instead, he took the safe middle way that many Westerners take: a dose of conventional medicine accompanied by a dose of religion. In short, Cook takes the following positions in this book:

1. Alternative medicine – standard medicine = not acceptable.
2. Prayer placebos/healing hands + standard medicine = acceptable.

Like many people, Cook seems to think something along the line of, as long as people don’t ignore real medicine, religious placebos won’t do any harm. Does Cook feel the same way about acupuncture? Is he comfortable if people seek pain relief from both acupuncturists and MDs? What about crystals? Are crystals combined with pills okay? Exactly how does one determine which woo is respectable and which is reprehensible? Why is religion respectable and reflexology flaky? Personal prejudice surely is not an acceptable criterion for making such determinations. The bottom line is, if conventional medicine is the only necessary ingredient, why make allowances for any woo at all? Cook never answers this question. And that really pisses me off, because he’s the one who raised it. I suspect that, had Cook addressed alternative medicine without once mentioning faith healing, few people would have noticed, or cared if they had noticed, the omission. But, Cook didn’t do that. Instead, he went out of his way to introduce the religious element into his story, presumably so that he could go out of his way to make an exception for it. Consequently, what should have been a fascinating, informative read about the dangers of alternative medicine ended up being a piss poor novel, a lame apologetic for religion and an intellectually unsatisfying waste of valuable beach time.

My advice to Dr. Cook is this: the next time you’re compelled to write a book that is both entertaining and educational, do a gut check on whether you’re willing to follow your evidence to its logical conclusion. If you’re not, then do us all a favor and write about something else. Whatever you do, please spare us another failed intervention.

– the chaplain

– the chaplain

I’ll be leaving this

for this

The only question that remains is whether I will be bronzed or burned when I return.

– the chaplain

I was about 12 when I first learned that there were people who didn’t believe in god. Until then, I’d had no idea that no-god-belief was even an option. As far as I knew, everyone believed in god, and everyone I knew personally believed in god, or said they did. The medium through which I learned about atheism and agnosticism was a TV show called All in the Family and the first “out” nonbeliever I encountered, via the boob tube, was Mike Stivic, Archie Bunker’s agnostic son-in-law. All I figured out at that time was that agnostics professed not to know whether god existed, and atheists did not believe in god. I didn’t know of any way to find out more about nonbelief, so I just tucked those little bits of information into some corner of my mind. I didn’t love god. I didn’t want to “do god’s will.” And I certainly didn’t want to go to church as often as I did, but I wasn’t in a position to change that circumstance anytime soon. So, I got on with my life as best I could.

I was about 14 when we studied Greek mythology in 9th grade English class. I was greatly amused by those randy gods who couldn’t resist having sex with all those beautiful mortal women. One day, I had a weird thought: What’s the difference between those gods and dolls, and god and Mary? Wow! Stunning idea! An idea I quickly dismissed by rationalizing that god didn’t actually have sex with Mary, so it wasn’t the same thing at all.

So I went on living my life.

But…that Virgin Birth thing never really sat well with me; I had a feeling there was more to that story than I was being told. I believed in god, Jesus, the whole evangelical schtick as far as I knew it, but I still didn’t love god or Jesus, and I still didn’t want to “do god’s will.” I just labeled myself a rebel and got on with my life.

I was in my mid-teens when I “got my heart right with god,” and, after graduating from high school, I attended a Christian college. Needless to say, the indoctrination process there was thorough, and I graduated completely convinced that Christianity was the True Religion, and evangelicalism was the right way to do it.

Fast forward to my mid-thirties. I’m the oldest person in my graduate school History of Education class. I’m also the only former minister. One day, as we’re examining Martin Luther’s writings on education, a student asks: What’s he talking about when he keeps saying that the devil is tempting him? I wait for the prof to field the question, then jump in when he shrugs his shoulders. I explain that all indications were that Luther believed that Satan was a real being – a spirit being, but a real entity nonetheless – who worked evil in the world and in people’s lives. She looks astonished that any adult would believe such a thing. The prof looks abashed, but doesn’t say anything. I just shrug my shoulders and think, “Yeah, it does sound pretty silly, doesn’t it.” That was the day I stopped believing in Satan.

There were other signposts along my de-conversion trail – points at which I stopped, caught my breath, and wondered whether the path I was following led anywhere at all. I’ve written about some of them before but there’s more to tell. In good cliffhanger fashion, I’ll save those stories for another day.

– the chaplain

Young people aren’t walking away from the church—they’re sprinting. According to a recent study by Ranier Research, 70 percent of youth leave church by the time they are 22 years old. Barna Group estimates that 80 percent of those reared in the church will be “disengaged” by the time they are 29 years old. Unlike earlier generations of church dropouts, these “leavers” are unlikely to seek out alternative forms of Christian community such as home churches and small groups. When they leave church, many leave the faith as well.

Thus opens the publicity blurb for a book entitled, Generation Ex-Christian: Why Young Adults are Leaving the Church and How to Bring Them Back. In an interview published by Christianity Today, author Drew Dyck made this observation:

No two “leavers” are exactly the same, but some patterns did emerge. “Postmodern” leavers reject Christianity because of its exclusive truth claims and moral absolutes. For them, Christian faith is just too narrow. “Recoilers” leave because they were hurt in the church. They suffered some form of abuse at the hands of someone they saw as a spiritual authority. God was guilty by association. “Modernists” completely reject supernatural claims. God is a delusion. Any truth beyond science is dismissed as superstition. “Neo-pagans” are those who left for earth-based religions such as Wicca. Not all of these actually cast spells or perform pagan rituals, but they deny a transcendent God, and see earth as the locus of true spirituality. Spiritual “Rebels” flee the faith to indulge in behavior that was incompatible with their faith. They also value autonomy and don’t want anyone—especially a superintending deity—telling them what to do. “Drifters” do not suffer intellectual crises or consciously leave the faith; they simply drift away. Over time God becomes less and less important until one day he’s no longer part of their lives.

These groupings were not meant to be scientifically precise; their value was diagnostic and utilitarian. I wanted to help people understand why young people abandon the faith and equip Christians to engage leavers in meaningful conversations about God.

I’ll list Dyck’s categories below to facilitate my consideration of them:

• Postmodern
• Recoilers
• Modernists
• Neo-Pagans
• Rebels
• Drifters

I don’t think much needs to be said about the “Postmodern” category, as Dyck appears to have described that mindset adequately. I am offended, however, by his glib dismissal of the “Recoilers:” people failed and God was blamed unfairly. Uh, no, Drew – people failed and God did not do what he was reasonably expected to do, either

a) protect the victims who were hurt, or
b) prevent the perpetrators from hurting them.

In other words, Drew, God reneged on two of his key responsibilities: delivering people from evil (which is doubly evil when it’s done at the hands of so-called “godly” people or, even worse, in the name, and on behalf, of a god), and enabling his followers to be good, kind and honest, rather than nasty, brutish and devious. I consider divine protection and divine prevention (or intervention) reasonable expectations because both of those functions are ascribed to the Christian god in the Bible and in church doctrine. Therefore, when a god does not perform as promised, it’s reasonable to wonder if he/she/it does anything at all, including merely existing, and to reject a god that doesn’t live up to its billing.

Dyck’s characterization of “Modernist” church-leavers renders that category as little more than a stick-figure. Since his book is an example of social scientific research, one would presume that his concept of “science” goes beyond the “hard,” physical sciences that often come to mind when the term “science” is used in casual conversation. Readers who understand Dyck’s use of the term in that narrow sense may miss the fact that many, if not most, Modernist atheists are informed by insights gained through the natural sciences, the social sciences, the humanities, and the arts. We are not geeks with our eyes glued to microscopes, and pens and calculators sagging in our shirt pockets. We are multi-faceted people with multi-faceted interests who think in multi-faceted ways, characteristics that Dyck’s categorization appears to miss, or dismiss, completely.

The author’s final two categories seem adequate. I went through a period of spiritual rebellion as a teen, and I’ll admit that his description captures quite accurately the attitude I had then. And many of us can probably think of people who are Drifters.

I briefly considered getting Dyck’s book, just for shits and giggles, but I’ve decided to keep my money in my wallet. The bottom line is, I’m not going to waste my time reading a book that

…equips and inspires parents, church leaders, and everyday Christians to reawaken the prodigal’s desire for God and set him or her back on the road to a dynamic faith…. identifies six different kinds of leavers…and offers practical advice for how to connect with each type. Shrewd tips also intersperse the chapters alerting readers to opportunities for engagement, and to hidden landmines they must sidestep to effectively reach leavers.

The reason I’m not interested in reading this book is that Dyck has misidentified the problem at hand. His view is that people who leave churches are problems. I don’t agree with him. In my view, the people who leave churches are not problems. Rather, churches themselves are problems. The problem is not that so many people are leaving the church. The problem is that too many of them are staying.

– the chaplain