British Petroleum, the company that is responsible for what may be the most catastrophic man-made ecological disaster in human history, has spent nearly two months trying to persuade the world that it bears little or no responsibility for the devastation that is currently going on in the Gulf of Mexico. That’s why people find notices like these, posted at BP gas stations around the USA, ironic.

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

Filed under: environment, photography, society

You may recall that a commenter, Joel Wheeler, recommended a book to me recently. I will share my thoughts about the book, Founding Faith: How Our Founding Fathers Forged a Radical New Approach to Religious Liberty, in this post.

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!

Filed under: history, literature, religion, secularism, society

The gallons of irony contained in a recent story from One News Now is so astonishing it nearly took my breath away. The astonishment and irony begin as soon as one reads the story’s title:

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

Filed under: censorship, history, language, politics, religion, secularism, society

How could I possibly resist an opportunity to a) promote freedom of speech, and b) poke a stick in religion’s eye?

Happy Draw Muhammad and Promote Freedom of Speech Day!

– the chaplain

Filed under: censorship, politics, religion, secularism

A conservative Christian Republican politician starred in several news items at The Washington Post and Talking Points Memo today.

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

Filed under: politics, religion, sex

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

Filed under: indoctrination, religion

None of you, particularly those who have visited Italy, will be surprised by my observation that there are churches everywhere in Venice and Rome. It may be going too far to say that there are churches on every corner, but it is fair to say that one need not walk more than a few blocks to get from one church to another. Some churches are small and easily overlooked. Others are fair-to-middling sized, and others can only be missed if one is blind. Rome is also littered with the remains of its pre-Christian, pagan past. There’s simply no escaping religion and its symbols in Italy.

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.”

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.

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.

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

Filed under: photography, religion, travel

Bertrand Russell, who professed agnosticism rather than atheism, was one of the 20th century’s most influential philosophers. He wrote prolifically throughout his 97 years of life, rendering it impossible to present his ideas in more than a superficial way in a blog post. For this post, I’ve chosen to present excerpts from his 1926 essay, “The Harm that Good Men Do.” As you read, I suspect that you’ll be struck, as I was, by how his ideas resonate with contemporary conditions.

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
　

Filed under: atheist inspiration, ethics, literature

I’m just popping in to say hello. Work has been crazy busy hectic this week because I’ve been

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

Filed under: announcements/news, photography