The author got off to a very bad start when she wrote,

Do Christians think praying can help a dead person get into heaven?

Not exactly. All Christians believe that only God can determine whether a person belongs in heaven or in hell.

BZZZZZZZ! The only belief I’ve ever found Christians agreeing about is that their god exists.* Some Christians hold the traditional Heaven-As-Bliss and Hell-As-Torment beliefs with which we’re familiar. Some Christians don’t believe in hell at all, although they hold out hope that, by hook or by crook, or god’s grace, they’ll end up in heaven. Other Christians believe that everyone will go to heaven. Other Christians believe that hell is a state of annihilation rather than a place. Given these varied beliefs about hell (and I’ve probably missed some), it’s silly to state that “all” Christians believe anything about it.

The author digs herself a deeper hole with this bit:

Entreaties on behalf of the deceased can’t sway God from what’s right, but post-mortem praying does have other uses. For one, Catholics, who unlike Protestants believe in purgatory, think prayer helps speed the transition from this celestial waiting room to heaven.* Furthermore, Christian doctrine teaches that all human beings, living and dead, are so closely connected that we can be described as “one body.” (Catholics refer to this idea as the “Communion of the Saints.” Protestant churches also subscribe to this concept, though in slightly varied form.) Under that logic, when a Christian prays for someone who has died, he is also praying for himself. He therefore brings himself closer to God and closer to salvation.

Apparently, if one is fortunate enough to be a dead Catholic, one’s sentence in purgatory can be reduced – not on account of one’s own good behavior – but because of the good behavior of the super-prayers whom one left behind. If one is unfortunate enough to be a dead Protestant, however, then it seems that one must serve one’s full purgatorial term before proceeding to Paradise. What I find hilarious, however, is the blunt statement that the real reason people pray for others is that they expect to derive some benefit from it for themselves – their own salvation.

How do Christians know whether a dearly beloved departed soul actually requires their prayers? How do they know whether Aunt Gladys is stuck in Purgatory for a period of time, or was whisked straight through the Pearly Gates of the Heavenly City? It seems like it would be a waste of time to pray for the soul of someone who has already arrived at the ultimate destination. That time would be better spent praying for those who need it – the poor sods stuck in Purgatory. If only one could know for sure who they are. Of course, if the real aim of prayers for the dead is to secure one’s own room in Heaven’s Hilton Hotel, then all of these prayers may be equally useful.

After assuring her readers that the prayers of all believers carry equal weight with god, the author warns that “even a selfless, saintly pope can’t persuade God to let a sinner out of hell.” Well, god damn. That sucks. Unless…if the Universalists are right, no one has anything to worry about.

The author continues digging her hole (she must have dug nearly to China by now) by adding Mormon beliefs to the mix:

Mormons teach that prayer can’t move God to change his mind about a dead person, but they endorse one very controversial post-mortem tactic. Living Mormons who have already been baptized can undergo the procedure again on behalf of someone who was not baptized into the Mormon religion during his lifetime. This practice does not automatically get a person into paradise, but it’s considered a prerequisite.

Prayer – which, it must be admitted, is a pretty passive activity – doesn’t prompt god to change his mind. But, voluntarily undergoing the rigors of surrogate baptism – a more active activity than prayer – may persuade him to release a sinner from Hell and, a bonus for god, perhaps piss off Satan too. Is there a limit to the number of surrogate baptisms one can undergo? Perhaps someone who desperately needs a job right now can consider becoming a professional baptism surrogate. It may be a good enough gig to tie one over until the economy improves.

Seemingly having nowhere else to go from this point, the author concludes her piece with a reference to some scientific prayer studies. Well, she mentions several, but only discusses one:

Christians, of course, don’t limit their prayers to the deceased—they also pray for the sick, and several recent studies have tested whether this practice contributes to recovery. The answer appears to be no. As part of a study published in the American Heart Journal in 2006, researchers asked Christian congregations to pray for two groups of cardiac patients—the first group knew the Christians were praying on their behalf, and the second thought they might be. As a control, researchers told a third group that Christians might pray for them, but the Christians did not do so. Mortality rates were comparable across the three groups, but the unprayed-for group experienced the fewest complications.

These studies have been the subject of much debate around the Internet. If anyone wants to plunge into those waters again, be my guest. I haven’t read any of the studies myself, so I can’t comment on their methodologies or conclusions. To be honest, though, I’m not particularly interested in them anyway; discussing the purported effects of prayers offered to deities whose existence has yet to be determined is as pointless as, well, praying.

* UPDATE: A reader over at Reddit.com pointed out that there are some Christians who don’t believe in god; they call themselves Christian Atheists. Learn something new every day…

the chaplain

My interest in this topic was initially sparked two years ago when the deacon and I drove our camper into a state park in Pennsylvania and were greeted by a huge, in-your-face sign declaring that alcohol is prohibited in the park. Smaller, but similar, signs were scattered throughout the park. Clearly, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was not kidding. This interest was re-ignited on Memorial Day weekend when we attended a family gathering at a county park in Virginia and spotted a sign prohibiting alcohol consumption in that park. A few weeks later, we pulled into a Maryland state park and saw yet another sign announcing the same policy. As in Pennsylvania, similar signs were scattered throughout the park to ensure that errant campers and day-trippers would have no excuses for not being aware of the policy. If you’re a day-tripper enjoying a barbecue at a state park beach or county park pavilion, forget about having a beer with your hot dog and potato salad. If you’re a camper grilling a steak over a fire in a Maryland or Virginia or Pennsylvania state park (and many others – more states prohibit alcohol consumption in their parks than allow it), don’t even think about whether to pair it with Cabernet or Merlot. If you’re caught drinking booze, you’ll be thrown out of the park and fined.

In contrast to these outright bans on alcohol consumption, the Ontario Provincial Park we visited last week simply restricted alcohol consumption to camp sites. Campers could consume alcohol at their sites, but could not carry open containers between camp sites. We didn’t have to hide inside our camper to sneak a few sips of wine, but, if we wanted to share our bounty with the campers in the next site, we had to bring them pristine, unopened bottles, corks intact. Weird, but certainly preferable to an outright ban. Day-trippers using the beach or other facilities were not allowed to carry or consume alcohol in the park at all. Interestingly, this park (along with many other provincial parks across Canada) had a full ban on alcohol in mid-May, during the period immediately prior to and including Victoria Day (the Canadian “first weekend of summer,” similar to the USA’s Memorial Day). Similar bans are sometimes in effect for other long weekends, such as Labor Day, too. Presumably, the purpose of these bans is to curb excessive drunken partying as Canadians emerge from their long, cold winter into summer, and again as they prepare to re-enter another long, cold winter. Apparently, once the initial excitement of summer’s arrival dissipates, Canadian provincial park campers (but not day-trippers) can be trusted to moderate their drinking, at least until they are on the verge of re-entering winter hibernation season. Is it coincidental that publicly funded campgrounds across Canada are often full or nearly so, while many similar American campgrounds are not? How much of this disparity is due to cultural differences between the two countries, and how much is due to policy differences? Perhaps most intriguing of all, what are the relationships between the policy differences and the cultural differences within and between the two countries? I don’t know, but I think these questions merit investigation.

One may argue that banning alcohol consumption by day-trippers is a good policy. After all, no one wants people to imbibe excessively at the park, then drive home and endanger themselves, their passengers, and other travelers on the roads. One may argue that. But then, one would also have to argue that alcohol should not be served in most public venues. Restaurants? People often drive to and from those establishments. Sporting events? Again, people often drive to and from those venues. Are the people who frequent privately owned and operated establishments more responsible consumers than those who frequent public parks? I doubt it. So, my question is, why are governments, particularly throughout the USA, banning or restricting alcohol consumption in public spaces that are paid for by funds collected from the public?

Another rationale that might be put forward is that alcohol bans and restrictions reduce the need for park rangers and other personnel to deal with alcohol-fueled crises – fights, boat crashes, etc. This applies to day-trippers as well as overnight campers. My response to this is, since most people who imbibe do so responsibly, and do not create crises for park rangers or anyone else, this seems to be a case of punishing the whole class in order to discipline a few class clowns. Beer is not banned in baseball stadiums because stadium security guards have to escort a handful of rowdy drinkers from the park during any given game. Most people at ballgames drink responsibly (admittedly, people sitting in the vicinity of a drunken loudmouth may find this hard to believe). Similarly, most people who frequent government parks do not create problems for anyone. They should not be inconvenienced because a few troublemakers may be in their midst.

Yet another rationale that might be proffered is that parks should be family-friendly – alcohol-free places are more appropriate for families than those in which alcohol is being consumed. My response to this rationale is, many restaurants that serve alcohol are family-friendly: they have high chairs, booster seats, crayons and coloring sheets, and special kids’ menus available for those who require such amenities. Similarly, sports teams market to families all the time: celebrate Junior’s birthday at the ballpark – bring a glove to catch a foul ball or two, buy him a cap (although, if you come on Cap Day, we’ll give him one for free) – and don’t forget to have Junior’s name emblazoned on our state-of-the-art Jumbotron! That doesn’t stop them from selling alcohol to adults through the seventh inning. Hell, even amusement parks – the quintessential American family-friendly venues – serve alcohol. Clearly, the presence, visibility and consumption of alcohol do not, in themselves, render places or events inappropriate for minors.

And yet another rationale that some put forward is that drinking is immoral and/or unhealthy and restricting or banning it is good for individuals (even if they don’t know it) and society. Some of these people would ban alcohol entirely, if they could. In fact, they tried that last century, and the results were less than spectacular, to say the least.

So, why do publicly funded parks in a secular society ban or restrict alcohol consumption? Are such bans knee-jerk reactions of elected officials in a country in which religious conservatives have disproportionate influence? Are they vestiges of a bygone Prohibitionist era (which was largely fueled by religion)? I honestly don’t know. What I do know is that campgrounds in many publicly funded American parks are underutilized. Is this due, in part, to oppressive alcohol policies? Again, I don’t know. But, I think these questions and policies should be examined – preferably while not under the influences of either alcohol or religion.

– the chaplain

While I was admiring Algonquin artwork, someone else discovered a long lost bit of scripture that even Bart Ehrman hasn’t seen yet. That’s right! We have a world exclusive scoop right here at The Chapel. So, without any further ado, I proudly present to you a newly discovered, recently translated passage from The Chronicles of Eve, Part Two (chapter 3, verses 12-21):

12 And it came to pass that, one summer evening as Adam and I strolled hand-in-hand through the Garden, THE LORD came by to have a chat and some lemonade.
13 After I poured the lemonade and everyone was comfortably seated, THE LORD said, “My children, I have two gifts for you. Adam, I’ll let you choose which one you want, and Eve shall have the other.”
14 And Adam, always impatient, said, “What are the gifts, my LORD?”
15 THE LORD answered, “The first gift is the ability to pee standing up.”
16 And Adam immediately shouted, “Oooohhhhhh! Yes! I want that one! I want that one!”
17 THE LORD looked sternly at Adam and said, “Are you sure, my son? I haven’t yet told you what the second gift is.”
18 And Adam answered, “I don’t care! I’m sure it won’t be any better than this one. I want to pee standing up. I want to, I want to, I want to!”
19 And THE LORD answered, “Very well, my son. From this day forward, you shall pee standing up.”
20 Then I looked at THE LORD and said, “Adam got a good gift, as usual, and I’ll be getting his leftovers again. Anyway, what gift do you have for me, LORD?”
21 And verily, THE LORD grinned slyly at me and answered,

“Multiple orgasms.”

– the chaplain

If you want to sing along, here are the lyrics:

I was lyin’ in the gutter, all covered up with beer!
Pretzels in my eyebrow, I feared the end was near,
When along come The Salvation Army
and they saved me from the hearse.
Everybody bust a gut, sing the second verse:

Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Throw a nickel on the drum, save another drunken bum!
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Throw a nickel on the drum and you’ll be saved!
Oh, G-L-O-R-Y, I’m S-A-V-E-D!
I’m so H-A-P-P-Y to be F-R-double-E (hee-hee!)!
F-R-double-E from the ways of S-I-N!
Glory, glory, hallelujah, tra-la-la-l’-amen!

Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Throw a nickel on the drum, save another drunken bum!
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Throw a nickel on the drum and you’ll be saved!

If you enjoyed that one, be on the lookout for Champagne Charlie.

– the chaplain

a) some/many Christian songwriters don’t think their audiences can learn anything complicated,
b) some/many Christian songwriters are incapable of writing anything complicated, or
c) both of the above?

Take, for example, this Sunday School chorus (which includes motions/choreography):

First Stanza:
Read your Bible, pray every day,
Pray every day,
Pray every day;
Read your Bible, pray every day
And you’ll grow, grow, grow.

And you’ll grow, grow, grow;
And you’ll grow, grow, grow.
Read your Bible, pray every day
And you’ll grow, grow, grow.

Second Stanza:
Neglect your Bible, forget to pray,
Forget to pray,
Forget to pray;
Neglect your Bible, forget to pray,
And you’ll shrink, shrink, shrink.

And you’ll shrink, shrink, shrink.
And you’ll shrink, shrink, shrink.
Neglect your Bible, forget to pray
And you’ll shrink, shrink, shrink.

Another one to the same tune (also with motions/choreography):

I will make you fishers of men,
Fishers of men,
Fishers of men;
I will make you fishers of men
If you follow me.

If you follow me,
If you follow me.
I will make you fishers of men
If you follow me.

One more Sunday School oldie (you guessed it: this one has motions/choreography too):

Stanza One:
Peter, James and John in a sailboat,
Peter, James and John in a sailboat,
Peter, James and John in a sailboat
Out on the deep, blue sea.

Stanza Two:
Jesus came, walking on the water,
Jesus came, walking on the water,
Jesus came, walking on the water
Out on the deep, blue sea….

I’ll spare you from the half dozen or so verses that follow.

Perhaps someone will argue, “Well, those are kids’ choruses. They’re simple because that makes them easy for kids to remember.”

Fair enough. If that’s the case, then what’s the rationale for these choruses – typically sung by adults?

Lord, how I love you,
You have done so much for me.
Lord, how I love you,
You have done so much,
So very, very much,
So very, very much for me.

Or this one:

God is so good,
God is so good;
God is so good,
He’s so good to me.

I love him so,
I love him so,
I love him so,
He’s so good to me.

He answers prayer,
He answers prayer,
He answers prayer,
He’s so good to me.

There’s more to this one, too, but I think you get my drift. Here’s another “adult” worship chorus:

Move, Holy Spirit, move in my life;
Move, Holy Spirit, make me like Christ.
Move, move, move in my life;
Move, move to make me like Christ.
Move, Holy Spirit, move in my life;
Move, Holy Spirit, make me like Christ.

Some of you may remember this one from the Gaithers (who else?), which was a hit in the 70s (I’m not exaggerating – this song was very popular in evangelical circles; it was even the title song in a cantata):

Alleluia,
Alleluia,
Alleluia,
Alleluia.

Alleluia,
Alleluia,
Alleluia,
Alleluia.

The genius (if one wants to call it that) of this song was that any four syllable slogans/mantras could be tacked onto it and sung as additional verses. So, people made up all sorts of verses to go with it:

I love Jesus…

He’s my Savior…

Clever song leaders would make up four-syllable mantras (or draw from a stock of mantras they knew) and keep this one going through half-a-dozen, a dozen, or even more repetitions. Then, when the song leader was ready to wrap up the song, the instruction would be called out, “Alleluia,” and people would sing the original chorus again. Really clever song leaders would stretch out the ending by calling out, at the end of the repeated “Alleluia” verse, “Once again, a capella.” Instrumentalists would create variety alleviate boredom by changing keys every now and then. Not-so-good instrumentalists were just stuck playing in the same key, over and over. Poor musicians were stuck playing the same exact arrangement, note-for-note, over and over and over….

I could go on, but you’ve gotten the point: a lot of Christian music is little more than repetitious drivel. At the beginning of the post, I asked whether simple songs like these indicate simple mindedness on the parts of the songwriters and/or the people who sing them. After I typed a few of the lyrics, another thought occurred to me: perhaps the purpose of the trance-inducing monotony of such songs is to lull people’s minds to sleep and make them receptive to the nonsense that will follow in the forms of scripture lessons, dogmatic sermons and biblical homilies. Or, even if mind-numbing is not the intention of such songs, it may well be the effect.

What do you think? Is the monotonous, mind-numbing simplicity of much Christian music a sign of simple mindedness, a sinister plot, or an unintended (but beneficial, to the church) consequence?

– the chaplain

In contrast to his experience, I just spoke with a representative of NARAL, who didn’t argue with me at all. She opened by thanking me for my past support of the organization, told me about some recent anti-choice legislation that has been passed in Nebraska andOklahoma, then asked me for money.

I gave her my second standard response to phone solicitations: I don’t make financial commitments over the phone, please send me something in the mail. (My first standard response is to hang up as soon as the caller identifies the group he or she is representing.)

Most phone solicitors balk at this request. They give me a song and dance about how expensive it is to print and mail stuff, people are slow to respond, or don’t respond at all, and it really is very safe to give my credit card number to a stranger claiming to be Jean from NARAL. This caller didn’t do any of that.

Instead, she said, “Okay. Since you don’t give money over the phone, we’ll remove your name from our call list and send a pledge card in the mail.” She then confirmed my mailing address and asked me to return my donation within 2-3 weeks.

No hard sell. No, “give us the money now, we can’t wait two weeks and besides, we know you’ll forget to mail the money later.” No guilt (police and firefighters excel at guilt; well, they try to excel at guilt, but what they actually excel at is pissing me off). Just a pleasant thank you for your support and we’ll honor your preferences. That, my friends, is how telephone solicitation should be done.

– the chaplain

BONUS MATERIAL

I have to tell the story of a special solicitation the deacon got at about 2:00 a.m. one Saturday night/Sunday morning. When the phone rang, the first thing we both thought was “I hope nothing’s wrong with anyone in the family.” He ran to the kitchen to answer the phone, then crawled back into bed a minute or two later without saying a word.

After a few seconds of silence, I said, “So, who was on the phone? Is everyone okay?”

He chuckled and said, “It was just Priscilla the Prostitute.”

I answered, “Who?”

He explained, “When I answered the phone, she said, ‘Hi! I’m Priscilla the Prostitute. Is there anything I can do for you tonight?’ I told her, ‘No, but thank you for your generosity’ then hung up.”

I stared at him for a few seconds (with some difficulty, as it was dark) , then said, “You must be telling the truth; there’s no way you could make up a story like that off the top of your head at this time of night.”

Then we both rolled over and went back to sleep. To my knowledge, Priscilla never called again.

Q. Are you at all superstitious?
A. No Monsieur, I am a practicing Catholic!

Am I the only one around here who finds the implication that religious belief does not entail superstition hilarious?

– the chaplain

Stay tuned for Venetian Romance in a few days.

– the chaplain

– the chaplain

Sinister Sign

Man is the religious animal. He is the only religious animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion –- several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat, if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven.

With that in mind, I was amused by this look at how bugs, if they had religion, might worship their savior:

Everyone Worships the Same God

God: New & Improved, Armed & Dangerous

That explains why so many Christians are gun nuts.

(sung to the tune of “Gimme that Old Time Religion”):
Gimme that AK-47,
Gimme that AK-47,
Gimme that AK-47,
It’s good enough for me.

If it’s good enough for YHWH,
If it’s good enough for YHWH
If it’s good enough for YHWH
It’s good enough for me.

– the chaplain

Every so often we get sent to ‘person behaving strangely,’ sometimes this is an adult and sometimes it is a child. When we reach the patient we are told, with a straight face nonetheless, that the patient is possessed by ancestors/spirits/demons.

Despite being an evangelical atheist, I have to take this sort of thing seriously. There is however a problem – our training guidelines pull us in two directions.

Direction one: we should respect the culture and traditions of our patients.

Direction two: we should never collude with, or reinforce the delusions, of someone who is psychotic.

(Psychosis is defined as ‘irrational beliefs not shared by the patient’s traditions or culture’.)

You can see the problem that we have….

I’ve been to a teenage girl who was ‘protected’ from demons by some wall hangings, but they might have found a way through and this was what was making her sick.

I’ve been to a mother who was channelling spirits in order to drive out the evil ancestors plaguing her daughter (who, unsurprisingly perhaps, had mental health issues).

I’ve been to members of an evangelical Christian cult who were trying to drive evil spirits out of their elderly relative by throwing salt at them [sic]….

So where do I stand? Do I respect the culture and agree that ‘yes, it might be demons’, or do I not reinforce their delusions by reminding them that a urine infection can cause similar symptoms? More importantly, where does madness end and religion begin?

Some questions to think about:

• What do you think about the notion of evangelical atheism?
• How does the behavior Reynolds described here compare with such practices as deliverance and witch hunting?
• What is your opinion of the definition of “psychosis” Reynolds provides?

If you don’t like any of those questions, just do what you always do and comment about whatever strikes your fancy.

– the chaplain

Ever wonder what would happen if we treated our Bible like we treat our cell phone?
What if we carried it around in our purses or pockets?
What if we flipped through it several times a day?
What if we turned back to go get it if we forgot it?
What if we used it to receive messages from the text?
What if we treated it like we couldn’t live without it?
What if we gave it to Kids as gifts?
What if we used it when we traveled?
What if we used it in case of emergency?
This is something to make you go….hmm…where is my Bible?
Oh, and one more thing.
Unlike our cell phone, we don’t have to worry about our Bible being disconnected because Jesus already paid the bill.
Makes you stop and think ‘where are my priorities? And no dropped calls!
When Jesus died on the cross, he was thinking of you!
If you are one of the 7% who will stand up for Him, forward this.
93% of the people won’t forward this.

At least the sender knows basic arithmetic. Should I count myself as one of the 7% who forwarded it? Ahhh!  I bask in the glow of having made Baby Jesus smile. Look at it this way: at least the sniveling little brat won’t be crying today!

– the chaplain

First, as Sarah Palin so helpfully tweeted, Louisiana’s state legislature designated today as a day of prayer for divine intervention in the Gulf of Mexico.

“Thus far efforts made by mortals to try to solve the crisis have been to no avail,” state Sen. Robert Adley said in a statement released after last week’s unanimous vote for the day of prayer. “It is clearly time for a miracle for us.”

I know that BP hasn’t handled the crisis very well, but really… I assure you that the Imaginary Friend in the Sky will not do any better. I can only hope that some of the people whose prayers go unanswered will think about why that happened and draw the right conclusion. I also hope they do their thinking in the very near future, and I’ll even give them some help. I suggest that they start by memorizing this list:

• God is not punishing Louisiana, the Gulf states, the Deep South, or the USA for neglecting him, turning away from him or otherwise offending him.
• God is not punishing gays for being gay.
• God is not punishing atheists for being atheists.
• God is not refusing to respond because an insufficient number of people prayed for his intervention.
• God is not refusing to respond because of sin in the church or because of sin in the lives of individual believers.

God is not refusing to respond at all, nor will he be responding in the future. Get those ideas out of your heads right now and replace them with this one: The reason God isn’t responding is because he/she/it is not there. What this means is that, like it or not, there isn’t going to be a miracle in the Gulf. The only way the Gulf will be cleaned up is by the continuing efforts of humankind: God is not going to step in and save us from ourselves.

Now that I’ve cleared that up, I’ll move to the second item on my agenda. The Louisiana state legislature will allow people to carry guns in church. Yes, you read that correctly, and no, I didn’t make it up. It may give “being slain in the spirit” a whole new meaning.

“Supporters of the bill said it can be a deterrent against criminal activity in church….”

If people are that scared of their priests and pastors, why are they still going to church?

– the chaplain

As other bloggers have pointed out, this event puts Christians who interpret natural events as signs of a supernatural being’s approval or displeasure in an awkward position. Was the lightning strike an act of god’s judgment, his seal of disapproval? The church affected doesn’t seem to think so, as the congregation intends to rebuild the statue. This time it will be fireproof.

Another, seemingly unrelated, story occurred just a few days before lightning struck: a federal court upheld a ban on ten commandments displays in two Kentucky courthouses.

Ho-hum. Another ten commandments case. That’s hardly news.

Unless one finds a connection between Touchdown Jesus and the ten commandments:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

If that’s the case, then it should be obvious to Christians that Touchdown Jesus had to go and he has to stay down. No rising from the dead ashes for this Jesus.

On the other hand, maybe the lightning strike was just an example of, as the Good Book says, god sending rain on the just and the unjust. Shit happens, and it can happen to anyone, because god pisses on (and electrocutes) everyone equally.

Or, maybe it was just a random natural event.

– the chaplain

A joy of the believer is in the process and possibility of looking to connect to others. There’s a thrill when we connect with believers and a challenge when we connect with pre-believers.

“Wrong” believers, apparently, are actually pre-believers who simply need a belief adjustment. And unbelievers and post-believers just don’t exist.

– the chaplain

Where and how, exactly, do Spiritual Warfare and Deliverance education take place? Is such education available via correspondence or online courses, or is on-campus class participation required? Are such courses offered by Pentecostal Bible colleges? At all of them, or just a select few? Or – here’s another possibility – are courses in Spiritual Warfare and/or Deliverance offered in weekend seminars held in church basements? When a candidate completes the training course (can it be done in one course, or are multiple courses required?), does he or she receive a certificate or degree? Can one get certified in Deliverance only, or must one be certified in the field of Spiritual Warfare in general?

How does one become a Spiritual Warfare and/or Deliverance educator? Are instructors certified? Do they hold collegiate or advanced degrees in these fields? Are there entire degree programs devoted to the field of Spiritual Warfare? Is Deliverance a sub-field of Spiritual Warfare, or a discipline in its own right? Can you imagine attending college and enrolling in the Deliverance program because what you want to do for the rest of your life, more than anything else, is exorcise Homosexual-Causing Demons from gay people? My God, is that the stuff dreams are made of or what? Quick, show me where to sign my name!

This deliverance stuff would be hilarious if people weren’t being hurt by it. Unfortunately, some lunatics who take these ideas and rituals very seriously are tormenting others. Consider Kevin Robinson’s story:

The prophet placed her hands on Kevin and began to pray over him. “Come out, come out!” she shouted. “In the name of Jesus, I command you to come out! You gonna free him right now!”

Kevin closed his eyes, thinking to himself, “There’s something wrong with me; I need to change.” A part of him believed this prophet could do what no one else had been able to do during previous deliverance attempts—make him heterosexual. But the prophet was loud and she looked at him with disgust and contempt as her chants became more and more belligerent. Even now Kevin can’t bring himself to repeat the most hurtful things she said. He soon began to cry. And then, with the prophet still exhorting the demons in him to depart, he blacked out and collapsed. When he regained consciousness, he stood up and returned to his seat. His shame was turning to rage. He searched his mind and thoughts and found he was unchanged—he was still attracted to men. In the past it had been family members—his mother, his aunt, or his uncle, the church’s pastor—who performed deliverance on him. This time it was a stranger, and she had pushed him beyond the breaking point. Never again, he decided, would he allow himself to be treated this way.

It was, by Kevin’s count, at least the 10th time since he was 16 that he’d subjected himself to gay exorcism.

Every time I read that passage, I can’t decide whether I want to cry or cuss out the stupid “prophets” who tortured Kevin. If you have a queasy stomach, you may want to skip Peterson Toscano’s account:

Peterson Toscano, a gay Christian activist, underwent three exorcisms before coming to terms with his sexuality. One took place in the Greenpoint section of Brooklyn, another in an apartment on the West Side of Manhattan owned by Joanne Highley, who runs L.I.F.E. Ministry. During the latter exorcism, Highley had him lie down on her bed, then she sat beside him and began to press on his body, commanding the demons to exit through his mouth and rectum. Before the rite was complete, Toscano, who says he felt increasingly violated by Highley’s actions, stopped the ritual and left her apartment. Highley did not respond to requests to be interviewed, but she has previously stated that her process is to “cleanse and bind demonic powers . . . out of genitals, of course out of anal canals, out of intestines, out of throats and mouths if there’s been ungodly deposit of semen in those areas—we cleanse with the blood of Jesus, and we cast out the demonic powers.” Some practitioners of deliverance believe that a demon has a physical as well as a spiritual form and can be purged through the orifices—thus an exorcism can be judged successful if the subject vomits, coughs up sputum, or, in rare cases, evacuates his bowels.

These are rituals that require specialized training? How does this work? Does one complete supervised professional internships in verbally berating and physically assaulting people in order to be acknowledged and/or certified as a Deliverer or Spiritual Warrior? Can one who is especially skilled at this continue on to post-graduate studies? The mind boggles.

Is behavior like this any more civilized than that of African witch-hunters? I think not. Is it coincidental that many of the Africans labeled as witches and many of the Americans undergoing deliverance are minors? I think not. Minors are emotionally, psychologically and intellectually vulnerable, often physically weaker than their tormentors, and easily victimized; they’re easy pickings for bullies. American exorcists may wear silk instead of cotton, but they’re just as deluded as their witch-hunting counterparts in Africa. All of them are equally willing and eager to take out their fears on those who are least able to resist them.

Defenders and practitioners of deliverance insist that the ritual is an act of “love and care” aimed at delivering gays “from the clutches of the Devil.” But some people, including some Pentecostals, wonder if deliverance rituals cross the line into abusive behavior. Duh! Gee, ya think? There haven’t been any cases “challenging gay exorcism in the United States to date, nor, apparently, has there been any research into the psychological impact of the practice, without which prosecution remains unlikely.” All that’s a convoluted way of saying that, until someone formally studies Deliverance and issues a scholarly declaration that it may be problematic, religious nuts will continue getting free passes on activities that would be deemed unacceptable, and probably illegal, in non-religious circumstances. Given the USA’s traditional kowtowing stance toward Christianity, authorities won’t pay any attention to this stuff unless people start dying during or shortly after deliverance rituals. Even then, it would probably take multiple deaths to spur any action; one death would simply be dismissed as a tragic anomaly. In the meantime, people like Kevin Robinson and Peterson Toscano will continue suffering at the hands of those who are supposed to love them the most.

– the chaplain

First, I’ve added another bookshelf in my Reading Room. If you’ve got some time on your hands and are looking for something to read, check out some of the stuff that keeps me occupied when I’m not blogging, working, cooking, eating…

Second, I should have posted this last week, but here it is now: the 143rd Carnival of the Godless is available. My piece, Gawd Said Let There Be Irony – And It Was Good, is included, along with several other good posts. If you haven’t read this latest carnival installment yet, do yourself a favor and correct that shortcoming today.

Third, my Masters of Disaster & Irony post has been included in Sunday in Outer Blogness. If you’ve never read this blog carnival, you’re in for a treat. Most of the posts here deal with issues pertinent to ex-Mormons. These posts give readers a peek at some facets of faith and life that are unique to Mormonism. Nevertheless, as I read posts written by Ex-Mos, I often see similarities between their deconversion experiences and mine. That’s not surprising, really. Regardless of where one begins the process, outgrowing childish fantasies and entering intellectual adulthood requires working through similar phases of belief, doubt, searching, disillusion and resolution. As the inclusion of my non-religious post indicates, the host likes to include material that reaches beyond religious interests and is pertinent to humanity as a whole. My post is one of four BP-themed posts featured in this week’s carnival. I’ve been included in this carnival before, and I’m always gratified by that acknowledgment.

Fourth and finally, the most recent Humanist Symposium (#55) is up. I don’t have any pieces in that carnival this week, but there are several posts that you may want to read if you haven’t seen them yet.

– the chaplain

I didn’t know anyone was still buying gas from BP. I guess someone will have to do it, though, if we want BP to pay for cleaning up its mess. For some truly awful looks at the disaster that continues to unfold in the gulf, check out this photo essay. Some samples of what they have:

Americans missed an opportunity to start weaning ourselves from oil during the energy crises of the 1970s. Nearly 40 years ago. It sickens me to think about how far we could have come in the nearly half century that has passed if we would have made some efforts to change our ways then. I wish I could say that this disaster will be a wake-up call. But, I doubt that it will be. We’ll muddle through this, then continue doing the same irresponsible, wasteful shit we always do. What a confounding species we humans are; we can investigate the outer reaches of the universe, the depths of the sea and the structure of DNA, yet we don’t have enough sense to avoid fouling our own nest.

H/T to Think Progress and Boston.com.

– the chaplain

My opinion is that fundy heaven would be hellish. So, maybe fundy guy didn’t make a typo – maybe Jesus really does reside in Hell!

– the chaplain

The author, Steven Waldman, a co-founder of Belief.Net, took a fairly evenhanded approach in his examination of

• the role of religion in the lives of several American Founding Fathers (Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison),
• the role of religion in the American Revolution and the formation of the USA, and
• the role of politics in shaping the USA’s fundamental legal documents, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Waldman’s evidence led him to conclude:

• The five men underwent religious transformations throughout their lives. They didn’t receive their youthful catechisms and tuck them away to be drawn upon as needed for future reference; they questioned religious precepts all of their lives and, in some cases, ended at positions strikingly different from those they’d held as young men.
• All five of them felt that some religion was necessary to protect the common folks from moral corruption and equip them to be good citizens; enlightened people could handle the truth about religious fables and live responsibly, but the common folks couldn’t be trusted to do the same. Yes, the founding fathers were elitists (but you already knew that).
• All of them accepted the premise that the universe was created; this is not surprising when one remembers that their lifespans pre-dated the discoveries of Darwin and later scientists.
• None of them held beliefs that conservative Christians today would consider suitably Christian; today’s Christian Right would excoriate the lot of them as heretics.
• None of them ever intended that the USA would be a theocratic Christian Nation. They were thoroughly committed to religious pluralism, equality and complete freedom of conscience.

Waldman, reminding us that these five men did not found the country alone, provides some fascinating insights into the negotiating processes that went into shaping the nation’s founding documents, particularly the First Amendment. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were hammered out – word by word – by representatives from thirteen disparate states, and then sent to those states for ratification by hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people. Not only was it the will of most Founding Fathers that the USA be a religiously neutral, pluralistic nation, it was the will of many ordinary Americans.

Waldman also notes the importance of remembering that the founding generation could not imagine the ways in which their visions would be realized. For example, since most states did not develop public school systems until the middle and late 19th century, the founders would never have imagined wrangling over school prayer. I suggest that, rather than trying to imagine what Washington or Jefferson would think about such issues, contemporary Americans could better spend our time pondering how Constitutional principles, such as pluralism, to take one example, can best be expressed in our contemporary context. The fact is, the USA is no longer the founders’ country, it’s ours. We need to respect the founders and be grateful for what they gave us, but it’s now up to us to use the tools in our hands. Fortunately, for us, the founders gave us good ones, so let’s use them wisely.

Near the end of the book, Waldman discusses what he sees as fallacies that contemporary Americans commit when discussing church-state issues. These are:

Conservative Fallacy 1: Most Founding Fathers were serious Christians
Conservative Fallacy 2: Separation of church and state is a 20th century invention of the courts
Conservative Fallacy 3: Advocates of separation are anti-religious

Liberal Fallacy 1: Most founding fathers were Deists or secular
Liberal Fallacy 2: The Constitution demanded strict separation of church and state throughout the land
Liberal Fallacy 3: Separation of church and state was designed mostly to protect religious minorities

Common Fallacy 4: The founders figured this all out.

In closing, I’ll say that I enjoyed Waldman’s book. I appreciated the care he took in delineating the theological evolutions of the five founders he examined. I also enjoyed his discussion of the political contexts of the revolution and formation of a new nation based on what were, at the time, radical beliefs and principles. His bias toward religious belief is evident at times, such as when he frames the thinking of the founders as “spiritual journeys,” but this doesn’t prevent him from reaching the right conclusion regarding the Christian Nation verbiage that today’s religious right keeps hurling at our heads: it’s all bullshit (my paraphrase). I can’t help wondering, though, if his religious bias led him to downplay the influences of Deism and Enlightenment philosophy on the founders. His discussions of the religious and political contexts of the founders were thorough, but he did not discuss Enlightenment philosophy at all. While I’ll concede that secularists may be prone to over-emphasizing the philosophical trends of that era and downplaying the theology, that shortcoming is not best countered by emphasizing the theological contexts at the expense of the philosophy. The theological and philosophical contexts both need to be examined critically and thoroughly if we are to have any hope of understanding the ideas and ideals that motivated America’s founders. Notwithstanding this weakness, if you’re interested in reading about the religious and political contexts of the American Revolution and early republic, you’ll probably enjoy this book.

– the chaplain

NB: H/T to Atheist Cartoons for the leeches comic!

Lawyer Caught Red-Handed

I Walked in on my boss pleasuring himself at work. Should I Complain?

I suspect that many people besides me would have great difficulty resisting that bait. So, I read the post, which opened with a letter to “Prudie:”

Dear Prudie,
I am a young female attorney working in a small law office. Recently, I arrived at the office much earlier than usual. The partner for whom I work was the only other person there. His door was wide open, and when I went by to let him know I was in, I caught him with his pants down, so to speak. He was behind his desk, but I am 95 percent sure of what was going on from the waist down, considering his reaction when I appeared. If I report anything, it would be the word of a young, new attorney versus an experienced and valuable partner. I also cannot imagine even having the conversation with the middle-aged men in my office. For the sake of my career, should I just pretend it did not happen, even though I am totally grossed out and uncomfortable? Unfortunately, he’s not even the person who makes the pay decisions, so it is not as though I can leverage this in any lucrative way. What do I do?

—Yuck

Prudie’s prudent(?) answer follows:

Dear Yuck,
If the partner, thinking the office was deserted, decided it was a propitious time to squeeze in a wank, he should instead stick to double-espressos if he needs a morning lift. I assume when you came upon the scene, you beat a hasty retreat. I understand you’re grossed out, and rightly so. But let’s put this in perspective. It’s not as if the partner, hearing you patter around, called out and asked you to take a look at his briefs. As out of line as his behavior was, he was surely as shocked and mortified as you were. If you pursue this with the other partners, given the absence of evidence of his transgression, he would have a substantial incentive to say you are deluded. If you were grilled about what you saw, your 95 percent certainty might wilt to the level of reasonable doubt. I’ll take as a joke your musing that this presents a blackmail opportunity for you—an attitude that may work at the Glenn Close law firm in Damages but probably won’t go over at yours. So, since there was some ambiguity to the encounter, your best course is to act as if nothing happened and put it out of your mind. However, as Eve, Pandora, and Prometheus all discovered, sometimes knowledge results in unpleasant consequences. So, in case this partner decides to take retribution against you, immediately write up everything that happened and put it in a memo to file on your home and office computers—and keep a hard copy. That way, you’ll have your own record of why you may have suddenly fallen out of favor.

—Prudie

Here are some questions for you to consider:

1. What would you do if you walked in on your boss in a similar situation?
2. What would you do if you were the boss and your employee caught you in a similar situation?
3. How do you think the respective genders of the employee and boss affect the dynamics of the situation? Would the situation differ if the genders were reversed? How? Would the situation differ if both people were males, or both females? How?
4. Do you agree or disagree with Prudie’s advice? Why or why not?

– the chaplain

Children Shouldn’t Be Protected From Truth

I agree with that statement. There’s not much more in this story with which I agree, so I figure I’ll start positively and work from there.

A California bill opposing Christian ideals in social studies textbooks has passed a 6-2 vote and is making its way into the Senate.

The Senate Appropriations Committee voted last week in favor of S.B. 1451, a measure that will combat the religious revisions to textbooks launched in Texas earlier this year. The bill now heads to the full Senate.

This is great news and gives me hope that there are at least a few sane people governing the USA.

Introduced by California Democratic Senator Leland Yee, the bill would require any information about Texas’ revisions to be reported to the legislature and the secretary of education. S.B. 1451 also calls the modifications “a threat to the apolitical nature of public school governance and academic content standards in California” and would expect the California Board of Education to review social studies textbooks.

Anyone who thinks that public schooling in the USA has ever been apolitical has never gone to public school in this county. Or they’ve drunk deeply of the Kool-Aid and are still functioning under its influence. Public school education in the USA, as in other countries, has always been about grooming children to be good citizens, an aim that is inherently political. In the American context, partisanship between accepted alternatives, i.e., Democratic and Republican parties, has been minimized, but it would be foolhardy to think that some partisanship doesn’t exist. When I was in public school, I was taught that everything about the Soviet Union was inferior to everything about the USA, that Soviets were the Bad Guys and Americans were the Good Guys – all the time. We were always right, and we always did the right thing in the right way, while the Soviets were always wrong and they always did the wrong thing in the wrong way. Having said all that, I agree that the recent curriculum changes that have been mandated in Texas are bad for any students who will be unfortunate enough to be exposed to indoctrinated into them. Apparently, enough state legislators in California agree with me to have taken action to address the situation:

The measure states that the revisions to Texas’ textbooks were propelled by an “inappropriate ideological desire to influence academic content standards for children in public schools” and that they were a departure from accepted history.

Yes! Someone had the guts to call a spade a spade. The changes in Texas are about a specific religious ideology, not fact or truth; they are about revising and re-writing history and, consequently, can’t be anything but “a departure from accepted history.”

Randy Thomasson, a conservative activist and president of SaveCalifornia.com, believes the regulation is unnecessary. Although he is advocating changes in California’s schools, he contends that the state “doesn’t need to ‘protect’ children from the truthful lessons of history.”

“History classes need a makeover so that students are accurately taught about the history, values, and persons that made America great,” Thomasson adds. “Who can be against this but those who despise the moral values that founded this country?”

Oh, Gawd, the irony is killing me! I agree with Thomasson that no one, especially children, should be “protected from” or otherwise denied access to the truth.  I agree that children need to be “accurately taught about the history, values, and persons” that shaped the USA. But, Thomasson and I are light-years apart regarding the substance of those lessons. What he is calling truth is bullshit, lies and the vile emissions of conservative Christian wet dreams. And please, for the love of truth, don’t overlook the way he substitutes the phrase “moral values” for “religious dogma.” Don’t ever let wingnuts like Thomasson get away with using such duplicitous terminology. Make them spell out clearly that they are speaking about specific religious values espoused by specific sects of the Christian church. Liberals, progressives and all others interested in speaking clearly must stop letting the wingnuts select and define the terminology of political debate; their deliberately obfuscating terminology masks more than it reveals. Also, Thomasson’s assertion notwithstanding, it was secular, Enlightenment values that made this country great (though flawed), not Christian values. Again, liberals, progressives and other clear thinkers can’t let wingnuts get away with misrepresenting their values and our history with their fuzzy, misleading terminology.

The state of Texas received criticism earlier this year for seeking to introduce Christian ideals into social studies textbooks. The revisions included the fact that the Founding Fathers established the country on Christianity.

The criticism leveled at the state of Texas was completely warranted – explicitly sectarian Christian ideals have no place in any textbooks used in publicly funded schools in a secular society.  Moreover, it is by no means a “fact” that “the Founding Fathers established the country on Christianity.” That is precisely the issue under dispute – although it is only disputatious to religious right wingnuts; most historians do not agree with the state of Texas, Randy Thomasson, or any other wingnuts. Slapping the “fact” label on an idea doesn’t magically or miraculously transform it  from “disputed idea” to “fact.” Obviously, the American Founding Fathers could not help being influenced by Christianity; it pervaded their culture more than any other religion of the time. It’s also not disputed that some of the Founding Fathers were  Christians. But, those few who wanted to establish trends that fuel the fantasies of today’s religious right lost the fight, and secularists won. I view the result of that struggle today and say, “And it was good.”

– the chaplain

The entertainment began when the preacher spoke approvingly of Rockin’ Rollen Stewart (also known as Rainbow Man, because of his rainbow-colored wig), he of the ubiquitous John 3:16 signs fame. Those of you who have watched televised sports on American TV will be familiar with Rockin’ Rollen’s signs, as he made it a point to sit well within camera range at hundreds of televised sporting events in the 70s and 80s. Now, I’ll give the preacher a little wee bit of credit for mentioning, later in the sermon, that Rainbow Man is currently in prison. But, I’ll take that credit back because his bogus explanation for that fact was that Rollen had let his success go to his head and strayed from the straight and narrow path of salvation. The take-away lessons were

a) Rollen Stewart, under the influence of the holy spirit, had spread the gospel and was to be admired for that, and
b) Rollen Stewart, having strayed from the holy spirit, had gotten into trouble – the cautionary part of the tale.

I stifled my guffaws and managed to make do with a smirk and some eyerolls. The preacher didn’t raise any questions about the efficacy of Stewart’s methodology. If Stewart was sincere and wanted to spread the gospel of Jesus, one has to wonder why he chose to do it this way. How many people outside of church circles have a clue what John 3:16 means? It’s a reference that’s known to insiders, much as the term ripieno is known to people familiar with Baroque music, but meaningless to all others. Posting signs with that reference is not evangelism, it’s nonsense. The people who are supposed to get the message haven’t got a clue what the message is, nor may they realize that the message is addressed to them. If the preacher seriously wanted to challenge people to be effective witnesses of their faith, he should have either examined this question or picked a better exemplar. His choice of Stewart was especially ironic because Pentecost is the occasion on which the holy spirit allegedly gave the Church the gift of tongues – the apostles preached in their native language, and the listeners heard the words in their particular, varied languages. In Rainbow Man’s case, he displayed signs in christ-speak, and the only people who understood the signs were those who already knew christ-speak. Epic Pentecostal FAIL!

As if the cryptic nature of Rollen’s message weren’t enough to question his selection as an evangelistic role model, the rest of Rollen’s story really makes me wonder why the preacher didn’t find someone else. Since the 1980s, Stewart has served prison sentences for offenses ranging from stink bombing to kidnapping and is currently serving three consecutive life sentences. Some of Stewart’s bizarre and illegal behavior occurred during the period when he was wearing his wig and wielding his famous signs – not that wearing the wig and wielding the signs weren’t bizarre, but they appear to be about as close to normal as Stewart got. The only things the preacher said about Stewart were that he did the sign thing – and it was good, and he’s now in jail – that’s bad. Pretty slim biography for a role model. Maybe the preacher didn’t want to go too deeply into the bio because doing so would have raised questions about Stewart’s psychological stability. And those questions might lead questioners to conclude that maybe it’s okay not to be too much like Rainbow Man after all. If Rainbow Man’s the best hero the preacher could come up with, I think there may be a serious paucity of worthy role models in the christosphere these days.

Partway through the sermon, my skepticism kicked in and I thought, “Damn! What a great scam! If I wanted to attend hundreds of sporting events around the country without paying a dime, I could go to churches, talk about my conversion to Christianity and subsequent ministry, swindle them out of enough money to pay for gas and tickets, and have all the hot dogs and beer I want at any sports venue I choose! Too bad Rollen beat me to it.” All I could do at that thought was grin and say to myself, “Rockin’ Rollen may be crazy, but he’s crazy like a fox.”

– the chaplain

Happy Draw Muhammad and Promote Freedom of Speech Day!

– the chaplain

If you haven’t read the AOL post, you may be wondering who these successful capitalists are. I, being an incredibly nice person, will save you the bother of scrolling through AOL’s slideshow. Here, for your viewing pleasure, is a composite of AOL’s photos:

Religious CEOs

Were you surprised by any of these? The only ones I knew about previously were Neil Clark Warren and Tom Monaghan. Given Paris Hilton’s notoriety, I was amused by Conrad Hilton’s appearance on the list. My guess is that her apple fell quite a long way from her tree. Also, given Wal-Mart’s reputation for treating its employees like shit, I couldn’t help being amused by Sam Walton’s inclusion. Yes, indeed, he’s a fine example of an upright Christian businessman if ever there was such a thing.

Okay. Now that I’ve seen AOL’s Religious CEOs presentation, I’m looking forward to a feature about Irreligious CEOs. How long do you suppose I’ll have to wait for that one?

– the chaplain

There. I’ve given you all the clues you need to figure out where this is going. Like many of his fellow conservative Christians, Republicans and politicians, Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) is a vocal proponent of “family values” and abstinence-only sex education for teens, and an equally vocal opponent of homosexual marriage. Given all of those credentials, I must say that I’m shocked, shocked I tell you (and I know you’ll be too), that Rep. Souder’s “family values” don’t include monogamy. Well, he says they do now, but that must not have been the case for quite some time.  How else can one explain the fact that the married Rep. Souder had a lengthy affair with a staffer who joined his team in 2004? Surely an upright “family values,” “marriage is between one man and one woman” conservative Christian wouldn’t have been *gasp* a hypocrite!

How many of these stories have to emerge before conservative Christians and politicians who espouse conservative Christian talking points will lose all credibility with the American public? My skepticism about outspoken Christians, and outspoken politicians who profess to be Christians, has grown to the point that, the next time I hear someone remotely like Souder say the words “family values,” I’m going to hire a PI to dig up the dirt. Is there a Republican currently in Congress who has not had, or is not having, an extramarital affair? I know Democrats are far from saintly, but hypocrisy of this sort seems to be a particular specialty of conservative Christian Republicans. Why does anyone believe a word any of them say? I’m at the point where I’ll demand to see unexpired government-issued photo ID before believing them when they tell me their names.

Whenever news like this breaks, one of the first things people want to know is exactly who was involved. I can do better than tell you (her name is Tracy Jackson). I can show you: ——————>

Even better than names and photos, Talking Points Memo has video! If you’d like to see Mr. Souder and Ms. Jackson in action, click on the video below.

Uh, I guess I should warn you – the video is not pornographic (that’s probably a blessing). It’s not even romantic or titillating. It is ironic, though. In this video, Souder’s paramour interviews him – I know you’re waiting breathlessly – about his position on abstinence-only sex education. I suppose they didn’t dare to venture too closely to other “family values,” such as monogamous marriage between a man and a woman. That would have taken brass balls of a size and strength seldom seen among mere humans.

Given recent revelations about George Rekers, it’s probably safe to say that there is one bright light here for Souder’s fellow “family values” Republicans and conservative Christian homophobes: they can take solace in the fact that, unlike Dr. Rekers, Mr. Souder had an affair with a female.

– the chaplain

- – the chaplain

You may have noticed that I haven’t picked at the low-hanging fruit over at Army Barmy for quite a while. I hardly ever check out the place anymore, since I’m no longer interested in what religionists of any persuasion have to say. After all, I haven’t read or heard anything new from them yet; even the sex scandals are re-runs. However, I am mildly interested in the fact that Major (he was promoted recently) Army Barmy will be leaving Australia and returning to Canada this summer. Since he and his family will be living near some people I know very well, I wouldn’t be surprised if I start hearing first-hand, eyewitness tales about the major’s misadventures. So, with all that in mind, I checked out today’s barmy post and discovered this hilarious little gem:

One of the great warriors of The Salvation Army today calls everyone by their rank…. [H]e is a warrior in a war…. These are not courtesy titles for him. It’s real. As Anthony Castle has made famous, “We are not a metaphor.”

Oh. Good. Grief. If I were religious, I’d have to do years of penance for laughing at the daft. In fact, I’d have to do so much penance that eternity would expire before I earned my release from purgatory. In greater fact, I’d likely be judged as thoroughly irredeemable, denied the option of penance, and parachuted past purgatory straight into hell. Clearly, it’s a good thing I’m not religious.

The strange thing is, Anthony Castle is right – he and Major Army Barmy and the rest of their colleagues are not metaphors. But, he’s right for the wrong reason. He thinks he’s right because he takes seriously the notion that he and his colleagues are engaged in a cosmic battle between Good and Evil, God and Satan, the Kingdoms of Heaven and Hell. That’s a mistaken belief. The real reason he’s right is because he and his colleagues are not warriors, either literal or metaphorical, at all. They’re just deluded.

Period.

I know that sounds strong and judgmental and unkind and all sorts of other nasty things. All I can say is, sometimes the truth hurts.

Mr. Castle, Major Army Barmy, and all of their delusional friends are are not real soldiers, and their uniforms, ranks and other props are not real. The only battles that religious fanatics fight are the battles they themselves create. They see Satan and his demon legions everywhere, so they don their armor and uniforms, sound the battle cry and commence the warfare. All of them are participating in a huge fantasy that makes D&D look like child’s play. (Oops. My bad. D&D is child’s play). Their fantasy is particularly harmful because their characters participate in the real world all the time. That wouldn’t be bad in itself. What’s bad is that they are incapable of distinguishing their fantasy from everyone else’s reality. They interpret the world as if it’s part of their fantasy, and, even worse, they seek to impose their fantasy on everyone in the world. As far as they’re concerned, every person on Earth is a player in their game. And, as far as they’re concerned, the only way to quit the game is to die. Literally.

The fantasy world that William Booth created is relatively congenial. That doesn’t change the fact that Booth was a religious fanatic. Many who have followed in Booth’s footsteps are also religious fanatics, albeit relatively harmless ones (usually). The difficulty for fanatics of different faiths, and holders of no faiths, is that it’s often impossible to distinguish benign fanatics from malicious ones; the group boundaries are fuzzy, at best, and constantly shifting. Conflicts grounded in contradictory religious doctrines make life dangerous for enthusiastic players and unwilling conscripts alike. Life all over the world would be far more peaceful if religious believers regarded their beliefs as helpful metaphors rather than actual facts of the matter. Since that often is not the case, however, all of us are stuck in a world where some fanatics’ fantasies are the stuff of other people’s nightmares.

– the chaplain

Did any of those get you thinking, grinning, laughing, crying…? Leave a comment or three and let me know. Multiple submissions will be accepted.

– the chaplain

In addition to these inevitable physical encounters with religions, the deacon and I had some interesting personal interactions and observations during our (far too) brief Italian sojourn. Three of these had to do with the way our tour guides discussed the sites we saw.

Two of the guides, the one who showed us around Piazza San Marco and the Doge’s Palace in Venice, and the one who showed us the Roman Forum, spoke of religious legends in rather neutral tones. They repeatedly referred to the “traditions” associated with the sites we toured. The lady in Venice, especially, often looked a bit sheepish as she told a tale, then finished by grinning and saying, “that’s the tradition.”

St. Mark's Basilica - detail

Temple of the Vestal Virgins

In contrast, the lady who guided us through the Vatican Museum, the Sistine Chapel, the tombs of the popes and St. Peter’s Basilica, spoke like a true believer. She didn’t come right out and say, “I believe this.” But, she gave her spiels with a slant that implied that she held the things she was saying as precious truths. The most striking example was when she discussed scientific tests that had been performed on what many believe are the remains of St. Peter. She concluded her presentation by saying, “Are these really the bones of St. Peter?” Then, she answered her question by smiling broadly and enthusiastically nodding her head, yes.

Vatican - a view from Vatican City

The final encounter I want to discuss is not about Italian attitudes toward religion, but about the religion that dominates the Italian landscape: Roman Catholicism. One of the tours the deacon and I took in Rome was a Rome By Night bus tour. The tour began at about 8:00 p.m. and concluded with dinner in a little off-the-beaten-path restaurant. Dinner began at about 10:15 p.m. and concluded around 12:00 a.m., give or take a few minutes. (Italians take their time eating; meals are social events, not mere means of physical sustenance for them. That’s an attitude I like and am determined to adopt more regularly). On this occasion, the deacon and I shared a table, and a sizable carafe of wine, with a fellow we’d never met before and probably never will see again. Since a stop by St. Peter’s Basilica – to see the exterior in its evening illumination – was one of the last stops before dinner, I shouldn’t have been surprised (although I was, a little bit) when Carlo began talking about religion.

St. Peter's Basilica at Night

Carlo, having been born and raised in Puerto Rico, had grown up in the Catholic Church. When he was about 16, Carlo got a job and began spending less time at his local church. The local priest was concerned and visited Carlo’s home to encourage him to make sure that he didn’t get too busy to save room in his life for God. Since priests had always visited his home, Carlo didn’t think too much about the priest’s interest in him at that point. What spooked him was the night that he left work and found the priest waiting for him outside. Apparently, the priest had called someone (not Carlo himself) to find out where Carlo worked and what time he’d be finished. Carlo thought this was more than a bit creepy, so, from that time forward, he minimized his contacts with the priest. And, he found out later that his antenna had been in good working order. It came out, not too long after these events, that the priest had molested some boys in the parish. That was when Carlo realized just how close he had come to being another victim. Needless to say, Carlo has little use for Mother Church these days.

Not surprisingly, the artifacts of religious traditions and history are obvious in Italy. What’s less obvious is whether many Italians, while proudly acknowledging their history, continue to take those traditions seriously. It’s a question I find interesting ground for further investigation.

– the chaplain

First – the loose end. Several readers cracked last week’s Papal Postcard code. For those of you who didn’t crack the code, here’s the solution:

Wanted for aiding, abetting and conspiring to conceal crimes against children. Their trust was betrayed by men who insisted on being called, “Father,” and women whom they were compelled to call, “Sister.” If you see this man, or anyone dressed like him, run away as quickly as you can.

Next – my impressions of navigating around Rome. One of the first things I noticed, and you may notice it in the photos below, is that there are very few large vehicles in Rome. The many small cars we saw (in the photos below, you’ll spot a few of the many Smart cars we saw) were accompanied by numerous motorcycles/scooters. Another thing I noticed was that dividing lines on the road, when they exist at all, are treated as suggestions rather than requirements. I think it was Rick Steves who cited the interesting statistic that Rome has about 2 million cars and 300,000 public parking spaces. In short, I discovered that Rome is a city where

PARKING…

IS A CHALLENGE,

DRIVING…

IS AN ADVENTURE,

AND CROSSING THE STREET…

IS AN EXTREME SPORT!

The deacon and I did the majority of our navigating on foot. At busy intersections, the keys to survival were

• getting embedded in groups with locals who knew how to cross the street, and
• crossing quickly; dawdling was dangerous, or even deadly.

When we didn’t walk, we rode buses and quickly developed immense respect for drivers who deftly maneuvered large, unwieldy vehicles through crowded Roman streets. I tip my hat to them.

Finally – If (or should I say when?) you visit Rome, take care to avoid men wearing embroidered gowns and silk shoes, and either walk or take the bus. Whatever you do, don’t drive unless you have a greater taste for adventure than I do.

– the chaplain

We all know what we mean by a ‘good’ man. The ideally good man does not drink or smoke, avoids bad language, converses in the presence of men only exactly as he would if there were ladies present, attends church regularly, and holds the correct opinions on all subjects. He has a wholesome horror of wrongdoing, and realises that it is our painful duty to castigate Sin. He has a still greater horror of wrong thinking, and considers it the business of the authorities to safeguard the young against those who question the wisdom of the views generally accepted by middle-aged successful citizens. Apart from his professional duties, at which he is assiduous, he spends much time in good works: he may encourage patriotism and military training; he may promote industry, sobriety, and virtue among wage-earners and their children by seeing to it that failures in these respects receive due punishment; he may be a trustee of a university and prevent an ill-judged respect for learning from allowing the employment of professors with subversive ideas. Above all, of course, his ‘morals’, in the narrow sense, must be irreproachable.

It may be doubted whether a ‘good’ man, in the above sense, does, on the average, any more good than a ‘bad’ man. I mean by a ‘bad’ man the contrary of what we have been describing. A ‘bad’ man is one who is known to smoke and to drink occasionally, and even to say a bad word when someone treads on his toe. His conversation is not always such as could be printed, and he sometimes spends fine Sundays out-of-doors instead of at church. Some of his opinions are subversive; for instance, he may think that if you desire peace you should prepare for peace, not for war. Towards wrongdoing he takes a scientific attitude, such as he would take towards his motorcar if it misbehaved; he argues that sermons and prison will no more cure vice than mend a broken tyre. In the matter of wrong thinking he is even more perverse. He maintains that what is called ‘wrong thinking’ is simply thinking, and what is called ‘right thinking’ is repeating words like a parrot; this gives him a sympathy with all sorts of undesirable cranks. His activities outside his working hours may consist merely in enjoyment, or, worse still, in stirring up discontent with preventable evils which do not interfere with the comfort of the men in power. And it is even possible that in the matter of ‘morals’ he may not conceal his lapses as carefully as a truly virtuous man would do, defending himself by the perverse contention that it is better to be honest than to pretend to set a good example. A man who fails in any or several of these respects will be thought ill of by the average respectable citizen, and will not be allowed to hold any position conferring authority, such as that of a judge, a magistrate, or a schoolmaster. Such positions are open only to ‘good’ men….

Apparently, public perceptions of personal “goodness” and “badness” have not advanced much in the past 84 years. American morality police are still expending tremendous amounts of energy examining stained dresses and ignoring the rapes of nations, the deceptions of the masses by their leaders and the enrichment of the wealthy at the expense of those who are less well-endowed financially. I wonder sometimes whether the average American cares whether people actually hold the beliefs they profess to hold, as long as they are willing to say and do the “right” things publicly. It often seems that form matters more than substance. This creates a climate in which social and political prizes aren’t awarded to the meritorious as often as they are awarded to those who play the game well.

We all know that Galileo and Darwin were bad men; Spinoza was thought dreadfully wicked until a hundred years after his death; Descartes went abroad for fear of persecution. Almost all the Renaissance artists were bad men….

Galileo’s stock has risen in recent years, but Darwin is still in the fundamentalists’ doghouse. Average Americans don’t give much (if any) thought to the ideas of Spinoza and Descartes. In fact, average Americans these days would be hard pressed to recognize either of those last two names. In today’s political climate, Ronald Reagan is considered by many as a great patriotic hero, and Barack Obama is viewed as an interloper, fraud or anti-Christ. Our descendants likely will be better equipped than we are presently to determine whether either of these men were good, bad, indifferent, great, tragic or evil.

Consider, again, such a matter as venereal disease: it is known that this can be almost entirely prevented by suitable precautions taken in advance, but owing to the activities of good men this knowledge is disseminated as little as possible, and all kinds of obstacles are placed in the way of its utilisation. Consequently sin still secures its ‘natural’ punishment, and the children are still punished for the sins of the fathers, in accordance with Biblical precept. How dreadful it would be if this were otherwise, for, if sin were no longer punished, there might be people so abandoned as to pretend that it was no longer sin, and if the punishment did not fall also upon the innocent, it would not seem so dreadful. How grateful we ought to be, therefore, to those good men who ensure that the stern laws of retribution decreed by Nature during our days of ignorance can still be made to operate in spite of the impious knowledge rashly acquired by scientists. All right-thinking people know that a bad act is bad quite regardless of the question whether it causes any suffering or not, but since men are not all capable of being guided by the pure moral law, it is highly desirable that suffering should follow from sin in order to secure virtue….

I wouldn’t be surprised if, as you read, you connected the beginning of that paragraph to the terrible consequences of the Church’s intervention in the AIDS/HIV epidemic in Africa, as I did. And the final sentence could remain unaltered and be said of the fundogelicals’ rabid opposition to civil and human rights for the GLBT population. The more things change…

To speak seriously: the standards of ‘goodness’ which are generally recognised by public opinion are not those which are calculated to make the world a happier place….

Those who defend traditional morality will sometimes admit that it is not perfect, but contend that any criticism will make all morality crumble. This will not be the case if the criticism is based upon something positive and constructive, but only if it is conducted with a view to nothing more than momentary pleasure…. Bentham…advocated, as the basis of morals, ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number’. A man who acts upon this principle will have a much more arduous life than a man who merely obeys conventional precepts. He will necessarily make himself the champion of the oppressed, and so incur the enmity of the great. He will proclaim facts which the powers that be wish to conceal; he will deny falsehoods designed to alienate sympathy from those who need it. Such a mode of life does not lead to a collapse of genuine morality. Official morality has always been oppressive and negative: it has said ‘thou shalt not’, and has not troubled to investigate the effect of activities not forbidden by the code….

More is to be hoped, I think, from the progress of reason and science. Gradually men will come to realise that a world whose institutions are based upon hatred and injustice is not the one most likely to produce happiness…. A man should be regarded as ‘good’ if he is happy, expansive, generous and glad when others are happy; if so, a few peccadilloes should be regarded as of little importance. But a man who acquires a fortune by cruelty and exploitation should be regarded as at present we regard what is called an ‘immoral’ man; and he should be so regarded even if he goes to church regularly and gives a portion of his ill-gotten gains to public objects. To bring this about, it is only necessary to instill a rational attitude towards ethical questions, instead of the mixture of superstition and oppression which still passes muster as ‘virtue’ among important personages. The power of reason is thought small in these days, but I remain an unrepentant rationalist. Reason may be a small force, but it is constant, and works always in one direction, while the forces of unreason destroy one another in futile strife. Therefore every orgy of unreason in the end strengthens the friends of reason, and shows afresh that they are the only true friends of humanity.

Russell’s liberal political leanings are evident in his description of what he sees as some obvious applications of utilitarian ethics to social and political life. The attitudes and actions he outlines are admirable. Obviously, they are rarely, if ever, pursued consistently, but they are worthy goals at which individuals and societies could (and, in my view, should) aim. I also agree with his assessment of the potential benefits to be derived from scientific and rational inquiries. The facts that I’ve written this post in this medium, and you have read it, are testaments to the powers of human thought, experimentation and invention to change the way we interact with each other and to change the world itself. Those powers can be used, as history has shown, for both good and ill. Notwithstanding that fact, and acknowledging the significant risks involved in trusting humanity’s fate to our own powers, I remain, like Russell, an “unrepentant rationalist.” The fact is, I have no choice in the matter. The raw materials of nature and human ingenuity are the only tools we have available to us. The best we can do with them is use them wisely.

– the chaplain
　

Ycpvgf hqt ckfkpi, cdgvvkpi, cpf eqpurktkpi vq eqpegcn, etkogu cickpuv ejknftgp. Vjgkt vtwuv ycu dgvtcagf da ogp yjq kpukuvgf qp dgkpi ecnngf, “Hcvjgt,” cpf yqogp yjqo vjga ygtg eqorgnngf vq ecnn, “Ukuvgt.” Kh aqw ugg vjku ocp, qt cpaqpg ftguugf nkmg jko, twp cyca cu swkemna cu aqw ecp.

When you decode the message, send me an email with your answer. I’ll post the answer here eventually, along with the names of all who successfully decoded the message.

– the chaplain

Successful decoders (they’re far better at decoding than I am at coding!): Larry, Holly, mutzali, Lorena, Gdeb, Ian (and NAL’s web tool)

a) catching up on stuff from last week,
b) keeping up with stuff from this week, and
c) getting ahead on stuff for next week.

The last item is necessary because I will be heading out of town for a business conference this weekend. Here are some pics I captured in Venice and Murano. There will be plenty more in the future.

Gondola details:

Carnival masks:

Murano glass blower:

I’ll be back in a week or so…

– the chaplain

– the chaplain

Post your captions in the comments.

– the chaplain

New Zealand’s advertising authorities determined that the billboard was “controversial, but not obscene.” They also said that, “because there were no naked people or sexual acts depicted on the billboard, while children could see it, they likely wouldn’t understand it.” That’s probably true for very young children, but I suspect that most children in New Zealand are not as naive as the adults around them believe they are wish they were.

I’m glad the New Zealand authorities decided to allow the billboard to be displayed. For one thing, their position that controversy does not equal obscenity is correct. For another, I think the billboard is hilarious. It shows personality and humor that are sadly lacking from many of the atheist billboards and slogans that have been posted in recent years. Of course, co-believers have more leeway in publicly poking fun at their beliefs than nonbelievers do. When co-believers do it, they can be chastised by fellow believers as shallow, immature, mistaken, or something similar; when nonbelievers do it, we invariably are castigated as arrogant and mean. I think I would get along pretty well with the people who conceived and posted that billboard; they may be believers, but they’re obviously willing to think outside of the orthodox Christian box.

One believer, displaying what many atheist bloggers have come to perceive as a typical fundogelical command of the English language, complained that it was “inappropriate for a child’s perceptive of Christmas to be distorted in a perverse and sexual manner.” A child’s “perceptive” of Christmas? The word should be either “perception” or “perspective.” What it should not be, is “perceptive.” Good Friday Grief! Is it too much to ask that fundogelicals purchase a second book – a dictionary – with which to adorn their homes? Surely there’s room for another book next to their Bibles.

As I continued reading, I was not at all surprised, and I’m sure you won’t be either, when I learned that some New Zealand fundogelicals abide by the same moral code as their American counterparts who vandalize and steal atheist holiday displays:

The billboard was put up in December, was vandalized, stolen and then put up again before being stolen yet again. The two billboards were up for a total of less than 12 hours before they were both taken…. Another two versions of the ad were later put up and also vandalized before being stolen….

Apparently, theft and vandalism are acceptable ways to defend the honor of a less-than-honorable deity. After all, we’re talking about a deity who allegedly – what, raped? seduced? is it a distinction without a difference in this case? – a teenager. We’re talking about a deity who allegedly demanded and accepted the death of an innocent man rather exacting punishment from those who had actually offended him. If such behaviors are typical of the moral standards to which fundogelicals aspire (they are, after all, exhorted to be like their god in thought, word and deed), nonbelievers should not be surprised when such believers pillage and steal. When they do such things, they’re following the example set by a god who stole a young woman’s virginity, and, years later, her son’s life. Compared to those acts, believers’ vandalism and theft of billboards is laughably childish, incompetent and impotent. As billboard-Joseph learned, their god is a hard (and disgustingly immoral) act to follow. That’s a good thing for the rest of us.

– the chaplain

I’ll begin by citing some of the runners-up. Hmm. The first observation I’ll make is that most of these passages are significantly longer than those that made the cut the previous year (2008). Be that as it may, I will go forward, as promised.

Rhyming Life and Death by Amos Oz (Chatto & Windus)

She holds him tight and squeezes her body to his, sending delightful sailing boats tacking to and fro across the ocean of his back. With her fingertips she sends foam-flecked waves scurrying over his skin…

Almost in an instant his desire rises to a level where the pressure to reach a climax stalls and gives way to a sort of sensitive physical alertness, pleased with its own sexual generosity, that gets a kick out of giving her thrill after thrill and postponing his own satisfaction, feeling to see how he can give her more and more pleasure, until she cannot take any more. And so, in complete self-denial – in every sense – with his fingers, now experienced and even inspired, he starts to steer her enjoyment like a ship towards its home port, to the deepest anchorage, right to the core of her pleasure.

Attentive to the very faintest of signals, like some piece of sonar equipment that can detect sounds in the deep imperceptible to the human ear, he registers the flow of tiny moans that rise from inside her as he continues to excite her, receiving and unconsciously classifying the fine nuances that differentiate one moan from another, in his skin rather than in his ears he feels the minute variations in her breathing, he feels the ripples in her skin, as though he has been transformed into a delicate seismograph that intercepts and instantly deciphers her body’s reactions, translating what he has discovered into skilful, precise navigation, anticipating and cautiously avoiding every sandbank, steering clear of each underwater reef, smoothing any roughness except that slow roughness that comes and goes and comes and turns and goes and comes and strokes and goes and makes her whole body quiver. Meanwhile her moaning has turned into little sobs and sighs and cries of surprise, and suddenly his lips tell him that her cheeks are covered in tears. Every sound, every breath or shudder, every wave passing over her skin, helps his fingers on their artful way to steer her home.

And the higher the waves of her pleasure, the more his own pride swells, and the more he enjoys postponing his own satisfaction, delaying it until her stifled sobs are all released – until the rising flood sweeps her like a paper boat over the rapids. (Despite his noble aspirations, and for all his devotion to duty, from time to time he does snatch a hasty earnest of pleasures to come by rubbing his tense body along her thigh with a friction that slakes and yet sharpens his lust – before focusing once more on his precise and self-imposed steering.)

Like a musician now, totally absorbed in the movement of his fingertips over the keys, he no longer recalls how just a few hours earlier he found this shy squirrel pleasant and almost pretty but not attractive. His hands are drawn to discover her breasts, the breasts of a twelve-year-old girl, under her night dress, and this time she does not stop him, immersed as she is in her own pleasure; and when he cups them in his hands he is filled with compassion and desire and brings his tongue to her nipples and takes each nipple in turn between his lips, delicately courting them with his tongue, while his fingers play on her labia and the secret petals around a bud so full and firm it almost resembles a third nipple. His lips and tongue follow his fingers’ lead. And she, like a baby, suddenly thrusts her thumb into her mouth and begins sucking on it loudly, until her back suddenly arches like a stretched bow, and a moment later, when she has sunk back onto the mattress, a long, soft cry bursts as though from the bottom of the sea, expressing not only pleasure but astonishment, as though it were the first time in her life she had reached that landing stage, as if even in her wildest dreams she never imagined what was waiting for her here.

It’s a shame that English teachers in American high schools will never be able to use that passage to illustrate the sin of mixed metaphors; they’d be hard-pressed to find another passage that would do the task as well. The sailing metaphor reminded me of a joke the deacon used to tell our preacher friends years ago:

One Saturday evening, as the preacher prepared his sermon for the next morning, his wife asked him what the sermon topic would be.

“Sailing,” he answered.

Surprised by his answer, she nevertheless held her tongue and continued with her evening chores.

On Sunday morning, the preacher looked out at his congregation and saw a sea of teenagers, more than he had seen in a long time. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, he decided, at the last moment, to change his sermon topic and preach about sex.

After the service, parents streamed downstairs to the church nursery to pick up their little ones who had been in the care of the preacher’s wife throughout the service. As they exited with their children, several of them made complimentary remarks about the wonderful sermon her husband had preached that morning. The pastor’s wife accepted the compliments graciously, but grew increasingly bewildered as the number of compliments grew. Finally, when one mother told her that her husband had preached like “he really knew what he was talking about,” the poor wife blurted:

“I’m really surprised. He’s only done it twice, and both times he fell off.”

I digress. To return to the matter at hand, let’s look at another passage – one of the short ones:

A Dead Hand by Paul Theroux (Hamish Hamilton)

‘Baby.’ She took my head in both hands and guided it downward, between her fragrant thighs. ‘Yoni puja – pray, pray at my portal.’

She was holding my head, murmuring ‘Pray,’ and I did so, beseeching her with my mouth and tongue, my licking a primitive form of language in a simple prayer. It had always worked before, a language she had taught me herself, the warm muffled tongue.

I don’t know about you, but prayer as a metaphor for cunnilingus does not inspire me at all. That was one of two passages from Theroux’s book that the reviewers recognized. Nick Cave did Theroux one better and had three passages from his book, The Death of Bunny Munroe, considered by the committee. Here’s a notable extract:

He puts his hands under her knees and manoeuvres her carefully so that her bottom rests on the edge of the settee. He slips his fingers underneath the worn elastic of her panties that are strung across the points of her hips, slips them to her ankles and softly draws apart her knees and feels again a watery ardour in his eyes as he negotiates a button and a zipper. It is exactly as he imagined it – the hair, the lips, the hole – and he slips his hands under her wasted buttocks and enters her like a fucking pile driver.

A fucking pile driver. That sounds more like an excerpt from Penthouse Letters than the work of a polished novelist.

Ten Storey Love Song by Richard Milward (Faber & Faber)

Let’s have sex, they think simultaneously, couples having strange mind-reading powers after months and months of trying to figure each other out. Panting, Georgie starts rubbing her hands round Bobby’s biological erogenous zones, turning his trousers into a tent with lots of rude organs camping underneath. Bobby sucks all the freckles and moles off her chest, pulling the GD bib wheeeeeeeeeee over her head and flicking Georgie’s turquoise bra off her shoulders then kissing her tits, and he’s got so much energy – plus he’s very impatient – Bobby tugs off his sweaty sweater himself and gives Georgie a helping hand with his zip. Then comes the enormous anticipation of someone putting their mitts on your cock and balls. Georgie smiles to herself and keeps him hanging on for a bit, which in a way is even better though it makes the Artist want to explode and after one or two tugs he moans ‘whoah’ then screams ‘whoah!’ and Georgie lets go giggling, then suddenly her face is all serious and Bobby pulls her polished pine legs apart and slithers a hand up her skirt where her fanny’s got a bit of five o’clock shadow like a pin cushion but her lips are nice and slippy, and he slides some lubricunt round and round, mixing clockwise with anticlockwise with figure 8 until Georgie’s shagging the air with pleasure bashing her feet about. Then, Bobby starts scrabbling frantically across the carpet for Mr Condom, sending five or six multicolour Durexes flying through the air, and he struggles getting the packet open and Georgie has to roll Mr Condom down Mr Penis for him and she has to help insert him into Mrs Vagina. They shag at double-speed…. Meanwhile, down in Vaginaland, Mr Condom’s beginning to feel a bit iffy. He’s overheating. For some reason, the shagging seems to be twice as fast this evening, and he grimaces as he gets flung willy-nilly in and out of the pink tunnel. He starts getting friction burns, hanging onto Bobby’s stiff penis for dear life, headbutting Georgie’s cervix at 180 beats per minute. ‘Help me!’ he yells in the darkness, feeling himself melting. The sex only seems to be getting faster though, and Mr Condom squeezes his eyes shut as Bobby groans and the friction starts getting unbearable and Mr Condom thinks he’s going to be sick and the searing pain the searing pain and Bobby groans again and suddenly squirts a gallon of white molten lava from his Jap’s eye, exploding through Mr Condom’s heavy reservoir end and Mr Condom screams and screams and vomits ice cream into Georgie’s vagina. Shivering and spasming, Bobby suddenly feels the endorphins kick in and he falls onto the carpet with a happy bump.

Well. That’s the first (and last) time I’ve read about sex from the perspective of a rubber named Mr. Condom who finds sex nauseating. Remember, that passage was not the winner. I can’t wait to see what’s in store for us with the winning passage. Give heed to Jonathan Littel’s award-winning passage from The Kindly Ones:

Her vulva was opposite my face. The small lips protruded slightly from the pale, domed flesh. This sex was watching at me, spying on me, like a Gorgon’s head, like a motionless Cyclops whose single eye never blinks. Little by little this silent gaze penetrated me to the marrow. My breath sped up and I stretched out my hand to hide it: I no longer saw it, but it still saw me and stripped me bare (whereas I was already naked). If only I could still get hard, I thought, I could use my prick like a stake hardened in the fire, and blind this Polyphemus who made me Nobody. But my cock remained inert, I seemed turned to stone. I stretched out my arm and buried my middle finger into this boundless eye. The hips moved slightly, but that was all. Far from piercing it, I had on the contrary opened it wide, freeing the gaze of the eye still hiding behind it. Then I had an idea: I took out my finger and, dragging myself forward on my forearms, I pushed my forehead against this vulva, pressing my scar against the hole. Now I was the one looking inside, searching the depths of this body with my radiant third eye, as her own single eye irradiated me and we blinded each other mutually: without moving, I came in an immense splash of white light, as she cried out: ‘What are you doing, what are you doing?’ and I laughed out loud, sperm still gushing in huge spurts from my penis, jubilant, I bit deep into her vulva to swallow it whole, and my eyes finally opened, cleared, and saw everything.

I’ve never been impressed with the one-eyed monster metaphor for a penis and that passage did nothing to change my mind. In my opinion, Cyclops stole the award from the more deserving Mr. Condom. Of course, being a mere practitioner of sex rather than a literary expert, my opinion doesn’t count for much.

And there you have it – the winner and some of the runners-up from the 2009 Bad Sex Writing awards. Stay tuned for the 2010 edition, which will be published later this year.

the chaplain

* I saw the text of #1 on a church lawn last weekend.
* A Tea Partier Bagger displayed sign #3 during a protest against Health Care Reform.
* Do you have a response to any of these signs?
* Have you seen any interesting signs lately?

– the chaplain

My first conscious, deliberate and willing engagement in this practice occurred when I was 17 years old. The summer I was 17 was one of three that I spent traveling with an evangelistic team (I’m embarrassed to admit that we had hugely inflated egos about our talent level). Our group’s leader suggested that our lead singer should sing Carole King’s gorgeous song, “You Light Up My Life” (from her Fantasy album). Since the song in its original key was pitched too low for our singer, I stayed up until 4:00 a.m. and wrote an arrangement suited to her range. Naturally, it featured a fun piano part for me to play. If you’re not familiar with the song, here are the lyrics:

You light up my life like sunrise in the morning;
You make me believe anything is possible.
I didn’t have a dream to my name,
Darkness was mine, it was such a shame,
But you came to light up my life,
You brought me faith and hope and love and light.

With your tender smile you brought me to the promise
Of life outside a world of 9-to-5 and Sunday.
I didn’t know how rich I could be
Until you gave your love to me.
Don’t you see, you light up my life,
You give me faith and hope and love and light.

You brought your sweet understanding
Like sun rays in my hazy skies.
If you hadn’t opened up my eyes
Love would have passed me by, right on by.

I never knew how good I could feel,
Loving you’s left me with nothing to conceal.
Yeah – you really light up my life,
You give me faith and hope and love and light.

If you’d like to hear Carole King sing it, sit back and listen:

Fast forward a few years. Since I’m part of a worship band at a weekend youth retreat, I spend much of Saturday jamming and rehearsing with the other band members. The leader, a big guy about 6′4″ who weighs at least 300 pounds, decides that the song before the sermon will be, “You Are So Beautiful,” his love song to Jesus. Instead of singing, though (which he does quite well), he’s going to play his trombone (which he does very well – he played trombone in a symphony orchestra before becoming a minister); his friend Marty is going to play the piano, and I’m going to provide a string bass line on my synthesizer. We don’t have an arrangement to work with; we just find a key to play in and follow the leader. Jump ahead to Sunday morning. Marty wakes up with a nauseating migraine and Bruce comes to me a few minutes before the service, saying, “Marty can’t make it today. I need you to play the piano for ‘You Are So Beautiful.’” So, I improvised an accompaniment while Bruce serenaded Jesus.

To complete the intended effect, picture Jesus sitting across from you in a candlelit room as you sing these words:

You are so beautiful to me.
You are so beautiful to me.
Can’t you see?
You’re everything I hoped for,
You’re everything I need.
You are so beautiful to me

Such joy and happiness you bring.
Such joy and happiness you bring.
Like a dream,
A guiding light that shines in the night,
Heaven’s gift to me.
You are so beautiful to me.

Now, watch and listen as Joe Cocker sings the song to you:

The final song that I’ll feature is not one that I’ve ever sung or played to Jesus, but it’s one that’s readily adapted to the Jesus Is My Boyfriend genre: “Have I Told You Lately,” by Rod Stewart. Can you see yourself singing this to Jesus? Some people can.

Have I told you lately that I love you?
Have I told you there’s no one else above you?
You fill my heart with gladness, take away all my sadness,
Ease my troubles, that’s what you do.

For the morning sun and all its glory
Meets the day with hope and comfort too.
You fill my life with laughter, somehow you make it better,
Ease my troubles, that’s what you do.

There’s a love that’s divine,
And it’s yours and it’s mine like the sun.
And at the end of the day
We should give thanks and pray to the one, to the one.

Have I told you lately that I love you?
Have I told you there’s no one else above you?
You fill my heart with gladness, take away all my sadness,
Ease my troubles, that’s what you do.

Now, let Rod woo you:

I think I’ve covered all the bases in the Jesus is My Boyfriend genre

a) songs written by Christians to, or about, Jesus, and
b) secular love songs co-opted by Christians and dedicated to their friend, savior, lord and lover.

If I’ve missed any possibilities, let me know. In the meantime, I’ll issue this warning: if you write a really nice love song, the odds are pretty high that some Christian will pick it up and sing it to Jesus.

– the chaplain

– the chaplain

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State posted a story today about a new practice that Catholic Charities (Washington, DC office) implemented immediately after announcing a major change to its health insurance benefit. In addition to being unable to add spouses to their health insurance plans, new employees at Catholic Charities (which receives about $22 million per year in government funds) are now required to sign a statement promising that they “will not ‘violate the principles or tenets’ of the church.”

According to a spokesperson for Catholic Charities,

“the new language ‘is more of an expectation than a condition. It’s letting people know this is the culture.’ Asked if that meant employees could speak or act against the church without being fired, Salmi said: ‘We can’t speculate on the hypothetical. It’s handled on a case-by-case basis.’”

A former vice president at Catholic Charities disagrees with this spin. According to him, “Putting it in a letter and requiring a signature, that’s a condition of employment. There’s no way to dance around that….”

Not having seen the actual statement myself, I can only report what others have said about it. According to Americans United,

It’s a sweeping statement – one that would allow Catholic Charities to dismiss employees for virtually any infraction of church rules, from failure to attend religious services and using artificial contraceptives to cohabitation and publicly criticizing church leaders.

While the better optimistic side of my nature hopes that the statement wouldn’t be used against employees in such a draconian manner, the reality-based side of me knows that it could happen. I don’t say this as a cynic, skeptic or anti-theist; I say it because I work in human resources and I know first-hand how even seemingly innocuous statements can be used against employees.

At this point, I’ll say that I don’t care who religious organizations hire to perform tasks related to their religious functions. It’s a no-brainer that churches should be able to hire Christian education directors, music ministers and the like who agree with and uphold the tenets of their faith. Moreover, the salaries of people holding such positions are usually paid for by funds the churches and organizations raise through their own efforts, with no infusion of government funds. But, religious organizations that want to serve their communities through social service programs – and who accept funds from any government bodies to fulfill those particular commitments – should be required to adhere to the same hiring standards as anyone else when filling positions related to those programs. The next story provides an excellent example of what I mean.

A religious agency called World Relief, which got its start feeding and clothing people during World War II, refused to hire a Muslim man because he is not a Christian. World Relief is prohibited from proselytizing recipients of its services, but can discriminate on the basis of religion in its hiring practices. Fluent in both Arabic and English, Saad Mohammad Ali applied for a position as a caseworker whose primary task would have been helping Iraqi refugees re-settle in the United States. Ali, who came to the USA as an Iraqi refugee two years ago and served as a volunteer with World Relief, was probably as good a candidate for the position as anyone. There is no good reason why a Muslim, Arabic-speaking person familiar with both World Relief and Iraqi culture could not fill the position of World Relief’s caseworker to Arabic-speaking Iraqis. There are many lousy reasons, but no good ones. Here’s the kicker: this organization that prefers employing Christians rather than people of other backgrounds who are qualified to deliver its services receives 70% of its funds from government sources. Think about that as you consider this little gem, courtesy of a World Relief spokesperson:

“At times we feel a lot of hopelessness so we spend a lot of time in prayer,” she said. “So and so can’t get a job, we can’t find them one and we ask God to lift things up in prayer.”

Wonderful. That’s the kind of practical re-settlement service our tax dollars are paying for. If World Relief were entirely self-funded, I wouldn’t give a damn who they hired and why. But, they are far from self-funded and I resent like hell that any of my tax money is paying for them to fill their payroll with drones who believe that prayer is a useful strategy for helping people find work.

The Washington Post reminds us that

As a candidate, President Obama sided with those opposing such hiring limits and vowed to stop them. But since Obama took office, the issue has remained under study by the Justice Department.

Since I don’t expect the Obama administration to stop studying this matter and start addressing it any time soon, I think I’ll go ahead and print that 176-page report the president’s advisory council gave him last week. I figure all those pages are equivalent to approximately one roll of toilet paper.

– the chaplain

I’ve been remiss, in recent months, about announcing the times and locations of the Carnival of the Godless. I’ll correct that now by announcing that the Steak and a Blowjob Day edition of the carnival is now up at Melliferax’s blog. Head on over there for some good reading.

– the chaplain

Here’s the first item that caught my eye this morning:

INDIANAPOLIS – The top-ranked senior at a suburban Indianapolis high school is asking a federal judge to stop a graduation prayer that the class voted to approve.

The lawsuit by 18-year-old Eric Workman claims the prayer and the vote at Greenwood High School unconstitutionally subject religious practice to majority rule.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the lawsuit on Workman’s behalf. It says, “He does not believe that anyone should involuntarily be subjected to prayer and religious beliefs.”

But Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana, says, “Part of being an adult is learning to tolerate speech you don’t like.”

Eric Workman and the ACLU are right. The fact that the students voted on the issue does not render the results fair, right or Constitutional. Subjecting items to votes is sometimes a sneaky way to take on the appearance of behaving democratically while imposing the whims of the many upon the few. It’s also a way for leaders to abdicate their responsibility to make tough decisions, some of which undoubtedly will be unpopular. The United States is a republic in which minority rights are protected from the tyranny of majority rule. Moreover, the graduation ceremony of a secular public high school is not a religious event. The decision in this situation is a no-brainer: compulsory sectarian prayers are no more appropriate there than at the league championship game at the local bowling alley.

Micah Clark’s statement, while true, is priceless, coming as it does from the lips of an executive of the American Family Association. He should keep his advice in mind the next time atheists, or gays, or Wiccans, or women, say things he doesn’t like. Perhaps things like, gays have the same right to marry (and take their dates to the public, not sectarian, school prom) as straights. Or this: atheists are not ipso facto immoral just because we don’t accept any texts as sacred, or pay heed to gods, spirits, stars, crystals and other ethereal influences. Or even this: public high school graduations are not appropriate venues for prayers.

Then there’s this gem:

A move to add a personhood amendment to the state constitution is under way in Iowa.

The proposal calls for the state to recognize human eggs as persons deserving legal protection, and the drive in the House is spearheaded by Representative Dwayne Alons.

“We’ve found out so many things about life and development in the womb, about a person,” he comments. “And I believe it’s time that we really start recognizing that a person does begin at conception, and that right to life should be put intact and stay there for a person from the very beginning of the biological process.”

The problem in both houses of the Iowa legislature, according to Alons, is that they are controlled by liberals.

“They have resisted most of the bills for the most part — I’d say just about all the bills that relate to changing anything related to life and right to life,” the state lawmaker notes. “So it’s an uphill battle, but hopefully this will gain momentum.”

The bill would put an end to abortion in Iowa, but it would also bar research using human embryos. The measure must pass both houses before being placed on a state ballot.

Alons apparently holds that eggs are persons, and women are not. Neither are all of those already-born humans who could benefit from the results of research done with human embryos. I have some hope that this amendment will die in Alons’ lap, since the Iowa legislature is, according to Alons, “controlled by liberals” who have “resisted most of the bills” of this type. Of course, one need not even be particularly liberal to understand how nonsensical this bill is. Moreover, any state legislation that would render abortion illegal would be un-Constitutional. And – color me shocked! – we have another Christofascist trying to circumvent the Constitution by putting an initiative like this to a public vote. Repeat after me: the fact that something wins a majority of votes does not render it Constitutional, fair or right.

Christians have the right to pray in their homes and churches. They even have the right to pray in public. They do not have the right to compel their neighbors to pray with them, nor do they have the right to impose their prayers in secular ceremonies, a category to which public high school graduations belong. Christians also have the right not to have abortions; the fact that abortion is legal does not render it mandatory. They do not have the right to impose their preference on those who do not share their view. They cherish their freedom of religion, and rightly so. I cherish my freedom to reject their religious tenets. They cherish their right to participate in public life, and rightly so. I also cherish my right to participate in public life. Some Christians seem to think that the American form of governance establishes majority rule on all matters, that might (and/or numbers) makes right. Wrong. The American form of governance balances the rights of the majority with the rights of minorities. This means that Christians should confine their prayers to the places where they belong, and they should respect the rights of others to make reproductive choices with which they disagree. Prayers are not appropriate at public school graduations, and eggs are not persons. Tolerate that speech, Mr. Clark.

– the chaplain

– the chaplain

According to the White House press release (cited above), the final report, which is 176 pages long, made “more than 60 consensus recommendations.” Eboo Patel, who served on the committee, reported that the committee made “60-some” and “60-plus” recommendations. Jesus Howard Christ! Can’t anyone count above 60? Patel was there, for Thor’s sake! How difficult is it for him, or the White House press office, to say that the committee made 64 recommendations (yes, I counted every single one of them), several of which were also accompanied by sub-recommendations?

As I’ve already mentioned, the full report is long: 176 pages – many of which are filled, or nearly filled, with glossy feel-good photos.  Nevertheless, the report does actually have some textual content. Since I can’t copy and paste text from a .pdf document (if anyone knows how to do this, please enlighten me), I’ll share some screen captures with you.

I’ll start with the major areas that the six sub-committees studied:

The thirteen recommendations regarding economic recovery and domestic poverty are:

The nine recommendations regarding fatherhood and families are:

The committee also made nine recommendations regarding the environment and climate change:

The next section of the report addresses inter-religious cooperation:

The committee then looked outside of the USA’s borders and considered global poverty and development:

And, the final task force focused on reform of the faith-based and neighborhood partnerships office:

One of the sub-sections that may interest you dealt with abstinence-based sex education. The committee was supportive of separating religious abstinence sex education programs from government-funded sex education programs. One of the recommendations was:

I haven’t had a chance, yet, to digest the recommendations, let alone the entire report. I will read the report carefully in the next few days and may have more to say about it later. Regardless of whether nonbelievers like it (many of us don’t), faith-based initiatives (which originated in the Charitable Choice Act of 1996) will be with us for quite some time into the future. That being the case, it behooves nonbelievers to keep abreast of developments in this area. History has taught us (or should have taught us) that blurring the boundaries between church and the state does not, ultimately, serve either institution well (not that I particularly care about the interests of religion). To the contrary, history has shown – repeatedly – that such blurring is often detrimental to both church and state. Any partnerships between the two must be monitored and tweaked incessantly to ensure that the interests of both parties are respected until the relationship dissolves, either from lack of interest on the part of one or both partners, or, ideally, lack of need on the part of society.

– the chaplain

My sigh was just a little one, though, since the vote was awfully close: 50.4%-49.6%. Also, McLeroy will retain his position until the end of the year (academic rather than calendar year, I pray hope), so he’s still got time to do some damage. Still, I will allow myself to enjoy (for tonight only!) some hope that the futures of both Texas and the USA may not be entirely bleak, and that reason may yet prevail in the world sometime in the current millennium.

– the chaplain

Under the bill…religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

It didn’t take long for Catholic Charities to devise a solution to this dilemma (and keep government funds flowing their way): as of March 2, 2010, employees of Catholic Charities are not allowed to add spouses to their health insurance plans. This applies to the spouses of straight and gay employees alike. Since the organization can’t blatantly provide benefits to one group (straights) and deny said benefits to the other (gays), it will simply deny benefits to all of them. Equal opportunity exclusion. Because that’s what Jesus would do.

The policy applies to new employees enrolling for benefits after March 2; spouses covered before that date will retain their benefits. The group explained its decision in a memo:

We sincerely regret that we have to make this change, but it is necessary to allow Catholic Charities to continue to provide essential services to the clients we serve in partnership with the District of Columbia while remaining consistent with the tenets of our religious faith.

The tenets of their religious faith. Those tenets include sheltering priests who rape children and shuffling those predators from one traumatized diocese to another unsuspecting diocese to another, and another, and another ad infinitum. They include purchasing abuse victims’ silence, or, when that fails, paying them large sums of money in legal settlements. They include lying to millions of African AIDS victims about the efficacy of condoms in reducing the spread of that dreadful disease. They include opposing the rights of men and women to control their reproduction via contraception and abortion. And they include withholding basic employment benefits from people who marry spouses with matching rather than complementary genitalia. Do you look at those tenets and see anything worth preserving? I sure as hell don’t. If you agree with me and you want to donate some time or money to a charity, you may want to consider giving to a secular charitable group. Contrary to the myth that many fundogelicals are peddling, churches are not the only charitable organizations in town, and Christians are not the only people who give time and money to their communities.

For this atheist, charity must begin at home because religious charity often comes with strings attached. And if those strings can’t be attached, then some groups cut off both the strings and the gifts. Their thinking seems to be, ’tis far better that no one get anything at all than that the wrong people get something. That may be the Catholic Charities’ way; it certainly is not mine.

– the chaplain

Hxxxxx Wxxxxx will be having a special experimental treatment “dry run” on March 8th (Monday). Be in prayer that all that needs to fall into place for the treatment to move forward will go right where it needs to go to eliminate the cancer cells. It is a new treatment that has only existed exactly since Hxxxxx was diagnosed with cancer. A miracle!

A miracle, indeed! Gawd didn’t prevent HW from getting cancer, but at least he came up with a miracle treatment just in the nick of time. Too bad about all those other folks who got cancer before HW did and missed out on it.

Maybe Gawd’s next project should be a treatment for narcissism.

– the chaplain

Since one never knows when the next conclave will occur, you’ll want to get this game right away so that you’ll be prepared to take over the reins of the Roman Catholic Church when Pope Benny leaves terra firma. Behold, I present unto you, The Vatican!

Once you’ve reached the lofty heights of the Vatican, you may have to refresh your memory of some of those doctrines (papal infallibility, immaculate conception, etc.). I’ve got just what you need – Catechism of the Catholic Church!

What are you waiting for? Click on those links and add these games to your collection today.

– the chaplain

– the chaplain

Dawn Branchaeu is the third human being that Tilikum has killed in the past 19 years. Methinks that Tilikum may not be overly enamored with the species that has enslaved him and trained him to do cute tricks for our amusement. Now, the Sea World management doesn’t have a clue what to do with Tilikum. He doesn’t have the requisite skills to survive in the wild, so releasing him to the sea would be the equivalent of a death sentence. I don’t know whether capital punishment euthanasia is under consideration; if it is, the Sea World PR people are holding their tongues about it. One option the Sea World management is considering is transferring Tilikum to another diocese amusement park.

I don’t know how to resolve Sea World’s Tilikum dilemma. All I know is that this story has made me think, again, about the morality of keeping animals in zoos, aquariums and amusement parks so that human beings may be entertained for a few hours a day. In the past two years I’ve visited the San Diego Zoo and the Georgia Aquarium. On both occasions I was mildly uneasy about the fact that I was enjoying nature in starkly unnatural, artificial settings. That unease has prevented me from visiting the National Zoo just down the road from me in Washington, DC. Tilikum’s story has compelled me to take a position on this issue. As of this moment, I am putting a personal moratorium on visits to zoos, aquariums and the like. I don’t know if I’ll change my mind about this in the future. All I know is that, for the time being, I can’t justify holding other living beings captive for my amusement. I mourn both Dawn Brancheau’s lost life and Tilikum’s lost freedom. Both losses were senseless and unnecessary. That’s the real tragedy of this story.

UPDATE: The Los Angeles Times reports that “A SeaWorld official said Wednesday the animal would not be put down.”

– the chaplain

Some of you may have noticed that two of my recent posts have dealt with taboo words. In one of those threads, ildi mentioned Rick Steve, a travel writer and tour guide whose image is that of, as she put it, “a clean-cut middle-class American.”

As it happens, the deacon and I will be traveling to Italy this spring (a factoid that I mentioned here). In preparation for our trip, the deacon gave me Rick Steve’s guides to Venice and Rome as Christmas gifts. This past weekend, I ordered three Italian phrase books from Amazon, two of which arrived yesterday. One of these was Rick Steve’s Italian Phrase Book and Dictionary. Eager to start learning some rudimentary Italian (it may be useful to know, at the very least, how to ask where the bathroom is (Dov’e la toilette? – if you must know)), I perused both books last night. I’m sorry to report that I have not yet committed them to memory. Give me a few weeks and I’ll get back to you on that (ha! I wish!).

As I neared the end of Rick Steve’s book, I was amazed and, I must confess, delighted, to come across this entry:

As musical as these words and phrases sound as they roll off the tongue, I still like the four-letter Anglo-Saxon words to which I am accustomed. For example, “dannazione” is, on my tongue, much more cumbersome than “damn it!” And “vaffanculo” sounds too pleasant to mean “fuck you.” Nor do I think I’ll ever get the hang of saying “merda” when a simple “shit” will suffice. I will admit, though, that “balle” is growing on me, and may soon be nearly as useful a word to me as “bullshit” is. There’s also a strong possibility that “sei uno stronzo” may become a handy substitute for “you are an asshole.” Who knows? Even though I’ve forgotten most of my high school Spanish, I may yet end up getting the hang of this foreign language stuff. In the meantime, I’d better hit the books and learn some words that are more suitable for mixed company.

Uno, due, tre, quattro…

– the chaplain

* Hi. How are you? I am very well.

The TV camera zoomed to a closeup of a Norwegian player wiping blood from his forehead; his head had met the edge of another player’s hockey stick and suffered the predictable – in fact, familiar – consequence of such an encounter. As viewers and sportcasters watched the player’s blood transfer from his head to his handheld towel, a sportscaster reported another injury this same player had suffered in a previous season:

He took a stick to a very rough spot for a male, if you know what I mean. He missed a lot of games because of that injury, and doctors thought, for a while, that they might have to cut away some parts of that rough spot, if you know what I mean.

I shook my head in wonder at the juvenile idiocy of this commentary. The player’s “rough spot” has a name – either his penis or his testicles. I apologize for my lack of specificity, dear readers, but that’s the best I can do at parsing exactly what the commentator was talking about. I can’t help wondering whether talking about this injury, even in such a vague, circuitous fashion, made him blush profusely. What kind of juvenile, puritanical nation are we when adults can’t discuss body parts without resorting to nonsensical euphemisms? Why is it so difficult for so many of us to identify penises, vaginas, breasts, or testicles, as easily as we identify arms, legs, toes and the like? I understand, and expect, that broadcasters will not generally use common terminology (which is sometimes considered to be – and sometimes is, in fact – crude) when discussing medical issues and anatomy. But, can’t they please call body parts by their proper, grown up names? Doing anything less than that makes them sound like juveniles. Moreover, listening to such linguistic nonsense makes the rest of us appear to be similarly juvenile. Worst of all, accepting this nonsense in public discourse makes it easy for all of us to think, as well as speak, like juveniles. We really need to grow up and start talking – and thinking – like adults.

– the chaplain

PROS
There are several features I like very much about this e-reader. The most obvious of these is having hundreds of books right at hand in one compact, lightweight container. For someone whose work and living spaces have overflowed with books all of my life, this is a very attractive feature. Another feature I like is that many classic works are available at low cost, or even free (as I will point out in the next section, however, book prices are not an entirely consistent benefit). For example, I bought the complete works of Shakespeare, Dickens, Twain and some others, for under $5.00 apiece – some for only $2.00 – $3.00. I also like the fact that books can be purchased and delivered quickly, via the Kindle itself, or via computer (with no pesky sales taxes or shipping charges). Most deliveries take less than a minute via wireless connection (I believe Amazon uses the Sprint-Nextel network). Software upgrades are also delivered wirelessly. The Kindle’s text display is easy on the eyes – black type on a light gray background, and the font sizes are easily adjusted. If you prefer reading blogs, newspapers and magazines, rather than books, plenty of those are also available, with monthly subscription fees.

I’ll close this section with some logistical points. First, the Kindle 2’s battery life is pretty good (mine goes 6-7 days between charges), and one can continue reading while the machine re-charges. Also, backup copies of one’s library are stored at Amazon. So, if one deletes a book, then decides to reload it later, that’s easily done. A relatively new feature that I’ve not used much yet is a computer to Kindle synchronization feature. If one reads something on one’s Kindle, then, sometime later, wants to read the same book on the computer (or vice versa), both machines can be synchronized so that the book will open to exactly where one left off at the last reading. This bookmarking feature also works within the Kindle; one does not have to thumb through the pages to find one’s place – it is electronically bookmarked. One of my favorite features is the built-in New Oxford English dictionary. This is very easy to use; one simply places the cursor in front of the word one wants to look up and the definition appears at the bottom of the display. One can also navigate from that point to the dictionary for a more complete entry about the word. Another feature that is nice, but slightly awkward to use, is the search function. One can search the Kindle (or the Kindle store at Amazon) by typing the search term on the miniature keyboard located at the bottom of the machine.

Having covered some of the Kindle’s good features, I’ll discuss some of its weaknesses next. Please bear in mind that I am discussing only the Kindle 2 – not the Kindle 1 or the newer Kindle DX. Some of the features (good and bad) that I’m discussing here may not apply as readily to the other models.

CONS
Two weaknesses that I find with the Kindle 2 are its inability to display color graphics, and its iffy support for graphics generally, particularly tables, charts and the like. Some illustrations display adequately and others are useless – they’re entirely too small to read. This latter drawback is more serious, in my opinion, than the lack of color display. Nevertheless, upon learning that Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth had numerous color illustrations that I didn’t want to miss, I skipped the Kindle version and bought the hard-cover version instead.

I mentioned above that Kindle’s pricing is not a consistently attractive feature. Most recent publications sell for $9.99 (or, sometimes $7.00 and above), which is a lot considering the fact that electronic books don’t require paper, glue, covers, shipping boxes, etc. Also, scholarly works for the Kindle often don’t sell for much less than their paper & glue counterparts. Since overstock books are frequently at lower prices than the electronic books, I often buy whichever book is less expensive, which is not always the Kindle book. Another drawback to the Kindle 2 is its high price – currently $259.00 USD, not including the costs of literature (one can buy some books with the initial purchase, so that the Kindle will come out of the box with some pre-loaded literature all ready for one to read).

One good feature that is awkward to use is the “search” feature. This is a great idea, but the keyboard at the bottom of the machine is very small – even smaller than that on many cell phones, so typing errors are frequent and frustrating. I’ve also had two or three instances in which the machine has “frozen” to the point where I’ve had difficulty re-booting it. These have been breathtaking occasions when I’ve wondered whether I would be able to resuscitate the machine or would end up burying it someplace nasty. These are not pleasant experiences (I’ve endured too many computer crashes to take these events too lightly).

The final features that I’ll discuss here are the “highlighting” and “comments” features, which are supposed to allow one to mimic the underlining and margin notation practices in which many readers engage. The difficulty I find with these features is that there are only two ways to retrieve one’s notes. First, by physically going through the book again, or second, by going to an area called “My Clippings” where the notes are stored. I find it cumbersome to navigate through “My Clippings,” (and the books too – perhaps I just need to master the “search” function better) so I don’t do much highlighting or note-taking on the Kindle anymore. If I want to “clip” something, I just type it into a computer file and save it there. Another reason I don’t use the highlighting feature is my discovery that, if the battery is getting low, trying to highlight a passage is a good way to freeze the machine.

CONCLUSION
I like using my Kindle 2, but I haven’t abandoned paper & glue books yet. I’ve taken the Kindle on trips within the USA and have loved its lightweight, easy portability. Nevertheless, I will not be taking the Kindle to Italy this spring (although the deacon intends to take his). For that trip, I’m just more comfortable with the idea of buying some paperbacks to read on planes, trains, etc. If I leave a $7.99 paperback behind, I won’t miss it much. In fact, I may leave it behind intentionally once I’ve read it. I won’t feel the same way if I leave my Kindle behind.

I imagine that electronic books will be the norm in the future. Shortcomings of current readers will be corrected and improvements to the technology will continue to develop. One day, perhaps even within my lifetime, it is likely that paper & glue books will be antique pieces, much like vinyl records and record players are today. Until that time, I’ll keep straddling the fence between both types of books and taking advantage of the particular strengths of each medium.

– the chaplain

RULES:
Using the first letter of your last name, answer the questions listed below. You may do this in the comments on this thread, and/or on your blog. If you do it on your blog, leave a comment here. If you do it on your blog and want to tag ten people, go right ahead.  If you want to play along, consider yourself tagged.

1. Your last name
Sxxxx

2. 4 Letter Word
Shit

3. A Boy’s Name
Samuel

4. A Girl’s name
Samantha

5. An Occupation
Spy

6. A Color
Silver

7. Something you wear
Sweater

8. A Beverage
Screwdriver

9. A Food
Shrimp

10. Something Found in the Bathroom
Sink

11. A Place
Sydney

12. Something You Shout
(OH) SHIT!

Have fun and play nicely.

– the chaplain

In this provocatively titled book, Fairman discusses the word “fuck” in great detail. He discusses the power of the word, much of which derives from its status as a taboo word and the object of word fetish. He discusses the word’s etymology, linguistic and psycholinguistic contexts, its historical uses as a referent to sex and in other ways (as political speech, for example), and its inconsistent judicial status in American jurisprudence. His primary purpose in doing this is to encourage all who care about freedom of thought and speech to protect the use of all language in the formulation and transmission of ideas. Fairman says,

Whether you shout it in the street or whisper it in the bedroom, say it deliberately as a political protest or accidentally let it slip out, make a single fleeting reference or sing an expletive-laden rant, intend to be funny or downright foul, if you say “fuck,” someone wants to silence you. We shouldn’t passively watch as tiny coalitions with a webpage and a word fetish take some of our words away. When it’s the government trying to cleanse your language, you should really worry. We shouldn’t tolerate any part of our representative government mucking around in our words….

At issue isn’t just protection for some entertainer’s potty mouth. Words are ideas. If the government can control the words we say, it can also control what we think. Ultimately, my concern is for the preservation of our most basic liberty – a freedom of the mind (p.10).

Fairman’s historical discussion of “fuck” begins with the observation that the word has systematically been excluded from most English dictionaries. He calls this “a deliberate attempt to cleanse the language of this word” (p.37). He also alerts readers that some of the urban legends about the origin of the word as an acronym (For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge and Fornication Under Consent of the King) are false, and explains why this is so. Notwithstanding concerted attempts to wipe the word “fuck” clean out of the English language, the word has been resilient. He explains the reasons for this in a chapter devoted to linguistic and psycholinguistic analyses of the word. One reason for its longevity is its ability to be used in many ways – as a verb (in this case, often with a sexual meaning), an adverb or adjective (these uses are not usually sexual), as a noun (this could be a sexual meaning, but often is not), or simply as an interjection.

One of the evidences of the power of taboo, and the power of fuck as the object of both taboo and fetish, is the use of euphemisms (f-word, f*ck, etc.) in place of the word itself, a practice that Fairman derides as “silly” (p.57). “Fuck” as the object of taboo is in play when its use is avoided (by some) and when its use is deliberately intended (by others) to shock and/or offend; “fuck” as the object of fetish is in play when people have extremely negative emotional reactions to the term and seek to prohibit its use in all circumstances (pp. 59-60). Fairman discusses examples of the fuck taboos and fetishes in TV, music, workplaces, classrooms and even courtrooms.

Since Fairman is a lawyer and professor of law, it’s not surprising that much of his book deals with legal cases surrounding various uses of the word “fuck.” The body of work devoted to legal parsings of this humble little word is quite large, varied and interesting. Not surprisingly, given the seemingly schizophrenic character of American society, the legal status of the word “fuck” is inconsistent, and, consequently, unclear. Sometimes it’s obscenity, sometimes it’s not. Sometimes it’s protected speech, sometimes it’s not. Fairman contends that this state of uncertainty is not healthy for civic discourse. He bluntly concludes,

The future of fuck is clear. If we continue to allow the state to pick and choose the words we can use and the context in which we can use them, freedom is at stake…. Once that word is extinguished, gone are its literally hundreds of uses, hence hundreds of ideas…. Now you might think I’m an alarmist and that the First Amendment stands to prevent precisely what I foreshadow. But before you discount my fears, please remember: Fuck is being fucked in the shadow of the First Amendment. Neither a Commission nor a court nor a cop should have power over our ideas. To ensure freedom of the mind, fuck must be set free (p. 191).

Fairman’s book is well-written, easily grasped and a worthwhile read for anyone with any interest at all in freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of thought. As you’ve no doubt gathered by now, the book’s provocative title was chosen deliberately, precisely because the word “fuck” is tremendously evocative and powerful. It was also chosen deliberately because it is a marginalized (perhaps even endangered) word. When words are marginalized and endangered, the marginalization and endangerment of ideas is not far behind. Freethinkers and freedom lovers can never, in good conscience, allow the intolerance, marginalization and extinction of words and ideas to go unchallenged. I, for one, am indebted to Christopher Fairman for speaking out for my right to fuck.

– the chaplain

I couldn’t resist posting an oldie but goodie today:

– the chaplain

This weekend’s snowstorm is the fourth – count ‘em, four – major snowfall we’ve had in northern Virginia this winter. It’s also the third – count ‘em, three – snowfall we’ve had this week. This past Tuesday’s snowfall of 3 inches or so (which, in any normal winter in these parts would have been major news) pales in comparison to the two weekend storms that surrounded it. It has now been snowing for over 24 hours and it is supposed to keep snowing for several hours more.

I’ll start by offering you a comparison of last week’s view from my window with this week’s view, which is still in progress as I type.

You can see that there’s a considerable difference between what happened then and what is happening now.

As a bonus, I’m also going to show you a view from my front stoop.

You can see that the maintenance guy has cleared some pathways. As I type, the poor fellow is out there again, shoveling the snow from my stoop and plowing the path again. Just before I took this picture, I measured the snow on the pathway (which had been cleared two hours before I got out there) and found that it was about 4 inches deep. So, as you look at the photo, keep in mind that the low bit is four inches deep and see for yourself how much deeper the untouched snow is. You can also see that, if the guy hadn’t cleared away some of the snow from the fire hydrant (lower right hand edge), it would be buried. The accumulation thus far is at least two feet deep. It’s 95% (or more) fresh snow, because most of the stuff that fell on us last weekend and earlier this week had melted by midweek.

I’ll close this post with a photo I took after Tuesday’s snowfall. You know, the one that Phil predicted hours before it happened (maybe there is something to this groundhog prognostication thing!). This photo was taken the day after Groundhog Day (as was the one in the 50 Word Bible post) and, I must admit, the snow was gorgeous that morning.

That’s all for now. I think it’s about time to enjoy some hot Irish cocoa!

– the chaplain

A little feature called “50 Word Bible” was tucked away on the last page of a church newsletter. The photo is mine, but the text comes from God’s new editor. Where was this gal 2,000 years ago? (She has to be a gal; the guys who wrote all the earlier drafts didn’t write this concisely.)

How long do you think it will be before someone comes up with a Twitter version of holy writ?

– the chaplain

Punxsatawney Phil spoke. It was not good news for sun worshipers.

– the chaplain

Inspired by the second video clip in Mark’s recent post, I decided to share some Last Supper parodies with you. There dozens of these on the Internet. Dan Savage has a page of these that he’s updated several times. I don’t intend to do that (with one exception noted at the end of the post); just google “last supper parodies” if you want to see more of these.

We’ll begin with the one that I captured from Mark’s blog, Mel Brooks Last Supper:

Next up is the Fast Food Mascots Last Supper:

The next one should warm the hearts (or pierce the feet) of all parents whose children love(d) Lego blocks:

This one should bring back memories for readers of The Spanish Inquisitor’s blog:

Next, we have the armchair philosopher’s favorite TV cartoon philosopher:

I’ll close with two science fiction parodies. The first is the science fiction series that sparked my initial interest in the genre:

Finally, my favorite recent science fiction series, Battlestar Galactica:

I was surprised that I couldn’t find a Star Trek Last Supper parody. That’s a project one of you graphic gurus can undertake. This assignment, should you decide to accept it, will be the only update of this post.

– the chaplain

Saturday, January 30, 2010 – 3:17 p.m. EST:

– the chaplain

I came across this interesting quote from William Booth, founder and first general of The Salvation Army, this morning. I suspect that a standard apologetic for this quote is the idea that The Salvation Army intentionally ministers to those who are society’s outcasts and losers, the gravely impoverished, those with whom “decent” people hesitate to associate. Still, I couldn’t help wondering if this thought also reflects an impoverished view of humankind. After all, this is a religious organization that holds the following creed:

We believe that our first parents were created in a state of innocency, but by their disobedience they lost their purity and happiness, and that in consequence of their fall all men have become sinners, totally depraved, and as such are justly exposed to the wrath of God. (The Salvation Army, doctrine #5).

Now, I’m not a glassy-eyed idealist who believes that humankind is inherently inclined toward goodness. Nor am I a frothing-mouthed pessimist who believes that humankind is thoroughly wicked. My observations of humankind, plus readings of history, philosophy, sociology, etc., have led me to conclude that people have varied, often contradictory, personal, social and moral characteristics and dispositions. Given that, I’m thoroughly repulsed by the notion that all people are “totally depraved,” especially as a consequence of what two people may have done thousands or millions of years ago (a notion that is contingent, of course, on whether those people even existed).

If you ask me, a standard Christian notion of its so-called Good News (people suck, but god can fix them) isn’t encouraging. I’ll stick to my humanist view of humankind as a species that is imperfect, but has the potential to continue improving our moral and social lot. We also have the potential to blow ourselves to smithereens, but I’ll note that the Christian view doesn’t preclude that possibility; it just leaves humanity’s fate in the hands of its god. Thanks, but no thanks. I’ll take responsibility for my own fate; I trust my flawed hands more than I trust his invisible ones.

– the chaplain

A factor that many couples consider before getting married is religious compatibility. Couples who share similar religious beliefs often feel that those beliefs are among the most important bonds that will tie them together through life’s myriad challenges. It’s probably safe to say that many couples to whom religion is important never imagine that their beliefs will alter to such an extent that their marriages may be threatened. If anything, they imagine that their faith will continue to grow upward and outward, stronger and deeper, individually and communally, throughout their lives. Any other possibilities – one partner converts from Christianity to Judaism, or from Islam to Christianity, or from Hinduism to Buddhism, or from some religion to no religion – are unfathomable.

What got me thinking about this topic is a passage from the penultimate chapter of Leaving Islam. It was written by an apostate American Muslim woman who, as far as she knows, is married to a true believer:

A few weeks ago, my husband told me a story about a man who lived to a very old age and died twenty years ago. All his life this man preached Islam and was even the one who called the Adhan (Muslim call to prayer) in his little town every day until his final illness. On his deathbed, he asked for his family – he had had several sons and daughters who in turn had families of their own. After his family came to him, he asked for a copy of the Koran. He had tears in his eyes, so his family thought that he was going to recite a part of the Koran for one last time, as they had seen him do so many times in the past. But when they put it in his hands, he said, “I hereby renounce everything written in this book. It is a lie.” And then the man died.

I was speechless when I heard this. I could see myself in this man, hopelessly “trapped” in the role carved out for him, afraid to tell others that he had found out the truth. I also wondered when this happened, exactly. Did he find out at the end of his life? Or did he go through decades of torturous pretense?

- snip -

I am in the process of assessing my relationship with my husband. I know that I cannot tell him without divorcing him, and I need to consider not only myself by my children as well. My husband is not a malicious person, but who knows what he might do if he is provoked by the realization that I have apostated and do not wish to go back to Islam? I might gather up enough courage to run and build a life where I should not hide my belief. Or it may well be that I, too, will be like that old man, brave enough to tell the truth only on my deathbed.

Coming out to one’s spouse as an apostate can be terrifying. The woman I quoted above may have good reasons for believing that her husband will divorce her if he learns her secret. Then again, if she can find the courage and means to come out to him, she may discover, as I did, that his thinking is much closer to her own than she realizes. I can’t help wondering why he told her the story. Was he feeling out her response in order to gauge how he should frame his own? Still, I understand her fear because I once felt it. So did the deacon. Some couples, like the deacon and me, discover that their beliefs have evolved on similar, parallel tracks. Other couples find that the beliefs they once shared are no longer common grounds for bonding. Some couples who unexpectedly find themselves on opposite different sides of the religious divide cannot salvage their marriages. Sadly, their religious differences create (or, sometimes perhaps, exacerbate) relational chasms that cannot be bridged. Other couples find ways to retain their connections, but doing so requires intense effort on the part of both partners. All marriages require intense commitments, obviously, but significant religious differences create tensions that many couples never anticipate confronting. Such differences force couples to think long and hard about what the phrase, “for better, or for worse” really means. They also force couples to assess their marriages in their entirety and discover exactly what bonds they share that keep them together despite holding strikingly different worldviews.

Religion doesn’t poison marriage any more than it poisons anything else. For religious people whose beliefs grow in similar ways over their lives, religion provides a strong bond. I know scores of people for whom this is true. For once-religious people whose views shift dramatically or reverse over time, those shifts and reversals can be a source of bonding and reflection – once they are openly acknowledged. The situation in which religion can poison a marriage is when partners’ views diverge, when one partner loses religion completely or converts to a different religion. Do philosophical differences between marriage partners have the same effects on their relationships? Would a Platonic idealist be able to marry, or remain married to, an Aristotelian empiricist? I honestly don’t know. Would a Marxist be unable to marry, or remain married to, a capitalist? In this case, it’s conceivable to me that the answer easily could be no. The problem I’ve been discussing throughout this post is ideology, not religion, per se. It just happens that religion is a prominent example of ideology that affects (infects?) many people deeply, so it’s one we commonly see at play.

The conclusion I draw from these thoughts is that people should be careful not to become so married to beliefs of any kind that their marriages to flesh-and-blood companions become secondary. At dinnertime, on long walks in the park or along the beach, and on winter nights, the deacon will always be much more satisfying company than The God Delusion.

– the chaplain

If you’ve looked at my sidebar recently, you may have noticed that I’ve been reading Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out. One of the book’s most compelling chapters was written by Ali Sina, founder of the Faith Freedom International website. This passage really caught my attention:

Doubt is the greatest gift we can give each other. It is the gift of enlightenment. Doubt will set us free, advance knowledge, and unravel the mysteries of the universe, but faith will keep us ignorant.

Doubt is what pushes us to ask questions and seek answers to them. But, we have to be careful to suss out the right answers, not just those answers that make us feel good, or are easy to find, or are popular. Faith enables us to settle for answers that merely appear to meet our needs, regardless of whether they are the right answers or are useful for any purposes other than making us feel good or helping us fit in with the crowd.

Doubt is where learning begins; faith is where it ends.

– the chaplain

Look at what the deacon got today!

If posting it here counts as forwarding it to ten at least ten people, we may have a decent shot at winning the lottery. If I don’t post anything next week, it’ll be because we’re in Rio!

– the chaplain

Anyone who has ever discussed gay rights with conservative religious believers, particularly Christians in the Western world, has heard that homosexuality is abominable, detestable, vile, sinful, unnatural and just plain icky. Two of the few Bible verses cited to support this position are Leviticus 18:22 and its partner, Leviticus 20:13 (I say “few” because the Bible doesn’t actually mention homosexuality very often, so a handful of verses have to do a lot of heavy lifting).

Leviticus 18:22 says, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” (NIV)

Leviticus 20:13 says, “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (NIV)

The latter is a real favorite among fundogelical homophobes, because it calls for the death penalty. Ah, Jehovah at his best – pissed off and vicious.

Contrary to the impression I may have given thus far, I’m not actually going to discuss homosexuality in this post. What I’m going to discuss is hypocrisy. You see, when some religious people want to use ancient texts to justify acting upon their prejudices, citing the book of Leviticus suits them just fine. On the other hand, when some religious people want to indulge in practices prohibited by those same ancient texts, ignoring the book of Leviticus suits them just fine. A case is point is the rising popularity of Christian body art, aka, tattoos. If we open our Bibles to the book of Leviticus, we will discover that, sandwiched smack dab in the middle of Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20, is Leviticus 19.

The 28th verse of Leviticus 19 says, “Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves.” (NIV)

I don’t know about you, but that verse appears, to me, to prohibit tattooing as clearly as the verses quoted from chapters 18 and 20 prohibit homosexuality. Tattooing doesn’t carry a death penalty, but it’s definitely a no-no in Jehovah’s eyes. Notwithstanding that fact, you can see for yourself some examples of how Christians are using body art to praise their god.

Our exhibit opens with the Touched By An Angel tattoo (truth be told, this angel looks pretty vengeful to me – I wouldn’t want it touching any part of me, especially that sword).

Next, we have the Live and Die With Jesus tattoo:

Moving on, we have one of many variations on The Old Rugged Cross:

Knowing that you’re just dying to see more, we’ll move on to one of many Rosary tattoos:

If you look closely at the Old Rugged Cross and Rosary tattoos, you’ll see that they’re two-fers: both of them have a cross and a set of rosary beads. Like anyone else, Christians can’t be blamed for trying to get maximum value for their money.

Next, we have The Salvation Army tattoo:

This image is based on The Salvation Army crest. The cross is self-explanatory. The “S” intertwined with the cross means “Salvation.” The swords represent fighting, warfare, etc., as Salvationists typically perceive themselves as being engaged in spiritual warfare of cosmic proportions with eternal repercussions. The words, “I’ll Fight,” are alleged to have been uttered by General William Booth in his farewell address, delivered at London’s Royal Albert Hall in 1912. The extended quote that has been passed down through several generations is wonderfully inspiring, even to a reprobate like me (minus the bit about “the light of God”). There’s only one problem: there’s some uncertainty regarding what Will Booth actually said that night.

Having finished our Salvation Army history lesson, we’ll close this exhibit with a panorama – the Michelangelo tattoo:

So, how do Christians justify this hypocrisy? Why, they do it by engaging in apologetics, of course. My question for them is, why do apologetic arguments like these apply to Leviticus 19:28, but not to Leviticus 18:20 and Leviticus 20:13? It couldn’t be because more Christians want to get tats than want to be involved in gay relationships, could it? Here’s a novel idea for Christians to consider: perhaps they should be free to do whatever they please with their bodies, and homosexuals should be free to do likewise.

– the chaplain

Mark Twain has always been one of my favorite authors; The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn were among my favorite books when I was a child. Tonight, I want to share some snippets from a work that I read just a couple of months ago, Letters From the Earth.

Satan, who was overheard making fun of the Creator and his projects, has been banished to Earth for a period of time. During his exile, he writes a series of letters to his angelic friends in which he describes his observations of humankind and the atrocious beliefs that they have concocted about God, life, heaven and hell. Twain wrote this book in 1909, but it was not published until 1962. The reason for the delay was Twain’s daughter concern that the book’s iconoclastic nature would damage her father’s reputation. What follows will give you just a small taste of the delightful treat in store if you choose to read the entire book (it’s quite short and can easily be read in one sitting).

This is a strange place, an extraordinary place, and interesting. There is nothing resembling it at home. The people are all insane, the other animals are all insane, the earth is insane, Nature itself is insane. Man is a marvelous curiosity. When he is at his very, very best he is a sort of low grade nickel-plated angel; at his worst he is unspeakable, unimaginable; and first and last and all the time he is a sarcasm. Yet he blandly and in all sincerity calls himself the “noblest work of God.” This is the truth I am telling you. And this is not a new idea with him, he has talked it through all the ages, and believed it. Believed it, and found nobody among all his race to laugh at it.

Moreover — if I may put another strain upon you — he thinks he is the Creator’s pet. He believes the Creator is proud of him; he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes, and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to Him, and thinks He listens. Isn’t it a quaint idea? Fills his prayers with crude and bald and florid flatteries of Him, and thinks He sits and purrs over these extravagancies and enjoys them. He prays for help, and favor, and protection, every day; and does it with hopefulness and confidence, too, although no prayer of his has ever been answered. The daily affront, the daily defeat, do not discourage him, he goes on praying just the same….

One of his principle religions is called the Christian. A sketch of it will interest you. It sets forth in detail in a book containing two million words, called the Old and New Testaments. Also it has another name — The Word of God….

It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.

This Bible is built mainly out of the fragments of older Bibles that had their day and crumbled to ruin. So it noticeably lacks in originality, necessarily. Its three or four most imposing and impressive events all happened in earlier Bibles; all its best precepts and rules of conduct came also from those Bibles….

That innocent Bible tells about the Creation. Of what — the universe? Yes, the universe. In six days!

God did it. He did not call it the universe — that name is modern. His whole attention was upon this world. He constructed it in five days — and then? It took him only one day to make twenty million suns and eighty million planets!

What were they for — according to this idea? To furnish light for this little toy-world. That was his whole purpose; he had no other….

The best minds will tell you that when a man has begotten a child he is morally bound to tenderly care for it, protect it from hurt, shield it from disease, clothe it, feed it, bear with its waywardness, lay no hand upon it save in kindness and for its own good, and never in any case inflict upon it a wanton cruelty. God’s treatment of his earthly children, every day and every night, is the exact opposite of all that, yet those best minds warmly justify these crimes, condone them, excuse them, and indignantly refuse to regard them as crimes at all, when he commits them….

God banished Adam and Eve from the Garden, and eventually assassinated them. All for disobeying a command which he had no right to utter. But he did not stop there, as you will see. He has one code of morals for himself, and quite another for his children. He requires his children to deal justly — and gently — with offenders, and forgive them seventy-and-seven times; whereas he deals neither justly nor gently with anyone, and he did not forgive the ignorant and thoughtless first pair of juveniles even their first small offense and say, “You may go free this time, and I will give you another chance.”

On the contrary! He elected to punish their children, all through the ages to the end of time, for a trifling offense committed by others before they were born. He is punishing them yet….

The rest of the book continues with Twain’s scathing indictment of Christianity and its god. He discusses the Noah’s Ark fable, the biblical basis for misogyny, the Old and New Testament gods (as Twain tells it, the OT god was cruel, but it was the NT’s gentle Jesus, meek and mild who really developed the idea of hell) and various other wonders of Christian belief. If you enjoy religious criticism that hits sharply, and frequently hits the funny bone, you’ll love Letters From the Earth.

– the chaplain

HEAVEN:
This past Sunday, a preacher exhorting Christians to be more aggressive in their evangelism in the coming year said:

Let’s drag as many people into heaven with us as we can.

WTF? If heaven’s such a great place, why would people have to be dragged there? And what about respecting free will? God supposedly does, can’t his followers do the same?

HELL:
I keep my office thermostat set at 68F during the winter. Upon entering the office of a colleague who keeps his thermostat at 74F, I said:

Man, it’s hot in here. (pause) Welcome to hell – you’d better get used to it.

It looks like the only way I’ll get to heaven is if someone drags me in by the hair.

I wonder if I should shave my head?

– the chaplain

The mystery has been solved:

– the chaplain

The On Faith editors at The Washington Post asked panelists to answer a simple question today. What you see below is the question and the opening paragraph of Herb Silverman’s response:

I love that quote, which is one reason why I’m disappointed with some of what Silverman said afterwords. Silverman followed a brief discussion of the ARIS report that was released in March 2009 with a description of two kinds of atheists:

Group A: Atheists who don’t suffer fools gladly. They point out that religious belief should be treated as any other kind of belief, open to criticism, and that unquestioned faith is a vice with inherent dangers, not a virtue to be respected.

Group B: Atheists who prefer identifying as humanists, who would rather look for ways to make this world a better place than talk about gods in which they don’t believe. They try to find common bonds between theists and nontheists, and seek issues on which to cooperate. Their focus is on being good without God.

Group A’s take pride in being intellectually honest, while Group B’s take pride in helping a movement grow. Quite a few, myself included, have a foot or toe in both groups.

Silverman doesn’t do atheists any service by dividing us into two camps. In fact, doing so feeds the idea – which many theists will be only too glad to exploit – that there is a significant rift among atheists. It seems to me that most atheists who think about their beliefs in a serious manner identify with both of Silverman’s groups, as Silverman himself does. Intellectual honesty does not preclude finding common ground with people whose beliefs differ from ours, nor does humanism preclude behaving in an intellectually honest fashion. I’m sick to death of people debating whether agnostics are closet atheists, whether atheists are militant or mushy, hard or soft, strong or weak, whether they inhabit foxholes, and, now, whether they’re Type A or Type B atheists. These distinctions don’t do anything to advance the causes of

a) using the best tools we have available – intellectual and technological – to build better societies, and

b) helping the world rid itself – voluntarily, not by force – of the tools (many of which are religious in nature) that impede human progress.

Having pointed out where I disagree with Silverman, I want to note something he said that I’ve thought for a long time:

The message that needs to get out is how many non-atheists live like atheists, for all practical purposes, without belief in a judging god involved in the workings of the world. This would include all deists, almost all Unitarians, and most liberal religionists of all stripes…. I expect this category of “functional atheists,” those who believe that their actions in this life have nothing to do with how or whether they are treated in an afterlife, is larger than just about any religious denomination.

I know people who live as functional atheists. They may believe in some sort of creator-deity, but they don’t live as if that belief makes any difference in their lives. They don’t go to church or are, at best, C&E Christians, they don’t pray or fast or tithe, they don’t read their Bibles and probably couldn’t even tell you, at any given moment, where their family Bibles are located. The question is, does it matter whether these people identify themselves as atheists? On the one hand, it does, because doing so would be intellectually honest. On the other hand, if their minuscule theism doesn’t negatively affect how they function in society – in other words, as long as they make political and social decisions based on facts rather than creeds – it may not matter whether they attach labels to themselves. Overall, though, if functional atheists would acknowledge themselves and accept their nonbelief in dogma and superstition, the causes of atheism and humanism could take significant steps forward in a hurry.

Silverman concluded his post with these words:

Whatever parents teach their children about God or Santa, I hope it will include a message to be good for goodness’ sake, a message to live by in all seasons.

I agree that being good for goodness’s sake is worthwhile and never untimely, but I think that, as long as adults continue teaching children about God, they will have difficulty teaching children to be good for goodness’ sake. I won’t go so far as to say the two messages are incompatible, but I think any marriage between the two will be stressful and plagued by contradictions. Thus, I would prefer to see people jettisoning their god-beliefs and embracing their humanity. Being good for goodness’ sake is the best we can strive for in a world in which the omni-absence of deities is, to say the least, conspicuous. Humankind can be good and should be good, not because doing so pleases gods, but because being good is the finest expression of our humanity.

– the chaplain

I’m a sucker for deep space photos. I’m sure the editors at the Telegraph had me in mind when they posted their selection of the Hubble Telescope’s Best Photos of 2009. The full gallery contains 28 photos. Before you click on the link to enjoy the full offering of eye candy, treat yourself to a small sample here.





– the chaplain

Tonight’s post is the first of what is intended to become a series (we’ll see how that actually works out). Since I currently have a crappy, small kitchen and don’t usually have enough time to actually enjoy cooking (I love to do it when I can relax and have fun with it), recipes will be offered on an occasional, rather than a regular, basis.

The inaugural recipe in this series may be familiar to my Canadian readers; it comes from Jean Pare’s wonderful cookbook series, Company’s Coming. Pare is a Canadian who has published several dozen cookbooks over the past twenty years or so. What I love about Pare’s recipes is that they are easy to execute, but taste like really fancy dishes. The centerpiece of today’s Christmas dinner was turkey, of course. The main side dish (aside from stuffing, to which I added about one cup of cranberries for a delicious twist – try it sometime), in lieu of ordinary mashed potatoes, was Potatoes Extraordinaire.

Here is the recipe:
**********

Ingredients
5 lbs potatoes
8 oz cream cheese
1 c sour cream
1/4 c butter or margarine
1 Tbsp onion salt
1 tsp salt
1/4 tsp pepper
Butter and paprika for garnish

Instructions
Peel and cook potatoes in salted water until tender. Drain. Mash well. Add cream cheese in pieces. Add next 5 ingredients. Beat until smooth and fluffy. Scrape into 2 quart casserole. Place dabs of butter here and there over top of potatoes. Sprinkle with paprika. Cover and heat in 350º F oven until heated through. Makes about 12 servings.

NB: Since the turkey was roasting at 325º, I just put the potatoes in alongside the bird for the about 1 hour – it worked out just fine.
**********

Unless you’re feeding an army, you’ll likely have some potatoes left over. That’s not a problem, because these potatoes reheat beautifully in the microwave. But, if you really don’t like leftovers, you can halve this recipe without any dire consequences. If you’ve never tried this recipe before, try it soon. You won’t be disappointed.

– the chaplain