Author Archive for the chaplainPage 2 of 4

Fidelity Matters

Published

on December 8, 2011

You may recall a post I wrote a few weeks ago about what turned out to be the short-lived Republican love affair with Herman Cain. When it became impossible to overlook the inconvenient fact that Herman ~~serviced~~ forced himself on nearly as many women as the legendary King Solomon, Cain dropped out of the presidential race and Republicans began casting desperate looks toward another- umm- candidate.

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

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

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

And keep the wife.

– the chaplain

Filed under: humor, politics, rationalism, religion

Fall is Fading Fast

Published

the chaplain

on November 17, 2011

It’s been a busy fall for me, and I haven’t gotten out with my camera nearly enough. Temperatures are dropping and fall colors are quickly fading in the mid-Atlantic USA. Knowing that, I took a few minutes at the end of my lunch break to grab my iPhone and take it for a walk in the park:

– the chaplain

Filed under: photography

Book Review: The Last Testament – A Memoir by God

Published

the chaplain

on November 14, 2011

Authors: God & David Javerbaum

Publisher: Simon & Schuster

Chapter One

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 Human corpses are effective flotation devices.

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

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

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

Chapter Two

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

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

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

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

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

6 Thou hast been warned.

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

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

9 Thou hast been warned.

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

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

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

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

14 Thou hast been warned.

Chapter Three

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

Thou hast been advised.

– the chaplain

Filed under: atheism, literature, religion

Darwin’s Rescue

Published

the chaplain

on November 7, 2011

Yesterday afternoon, the deacon, Hypatia and I went to PetSmart to buy Hypatia a car harness. Two hours later, we left the store with a car harness, some puppy treats, a doggie toothbrush, two new leashes, two new dog crates – and a second dog.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– the chaplain

Filed under: life, pets, photography

White House FAIL!

Published

the chaplain

on November 3, 2011

President Obama and Jay Carney played the god card yesterday and botched it badly.

The leader of a secular nation has no business giving anyone in that nation directives from deities. Mr. Obama is the American President. He’s not America’s High Priest nor is he our Head Pastor. He has absolutely no business publicly invoking deities in support of his policies. Instead, the leader of a secular republic should have responded to the House of Representatives’ moronic resolution by either:

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

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

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

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

– the chaplain

Filed under: Constitution/First Amendment, humanism, politics, religion, secularism

Fundies ♥ Herman Cain

Published

the chaplain

on November 1, 2011

It’s been amusing to watch fundies flounder and fumble in search of a Republican presidential candidate they can endorse. Thor knows, they couldn’t possibly endorse a Democratic nominee, particularly not the man who currently occupies the office located at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Sarah Palin has been smart enough – so far – to stay out of the race and (as of today) has no intention of entering it. (She’s discovered that being a sideline critic is much easier than being a candidate). Michelle Bachmann is going down in flames, as her dementia becomes more obvious every day. (Am I the only one who finds her vacant stare more than a bit spooky?) And whenever Rick Perry and Mitt Romney share a stage, Mitt the Robot upstages Rick the Inarticulate. (Scary thought: Rick Perry makes George W. Bush look like a Rhodes Scholar (no offense intended to actual Rhodes Scholars (I’m looking at you, Bill Clinton))). At this point, Romney the Mormon is the party’s front-runner – a fact that is giving fundies a bad case of diarrhea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

– the chaplain

Filed under: humor, politics, religion

Breast Cancer Awareness Month

Published

the chaplain

on October 27, 2011

Anyone who watches NFL football has certainly noticed that the coaches and players have been wearing an awful lot of pink attire this month: shoes, wristbands, towels, caps… The pink gear is one way the NFL has been promoting Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Fans interested in participating can purchase pink NFL gear here.

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

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

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

– the chaplain

Filed under: humanism

My Mailbag Overfloweth

Published

the chaplain

on October 21, 2011

This arrived in my email bag today:

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

Take that, Tom Cruise!

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

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

Hang up your capes, Christopher Reeve and Brandon Routh!

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

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

View This Poll

– the chaplain

Filed under: atheism, humor, literature, religion

Morality Vs. Ideology

Published

the chaplain

on October 20, 2011

This poster is not entirely correct. The issue it should address is ideology generally, not just religion particularly. Religious ideology has been a source of much wrongdoing, one could even say evil, throughout history. And it is still, unfortunately, the source of much harm. But, other ideologies, such as the current American brand of neo-conservativism, also produce great harm. Rationalists and skeptics need to examine critically all sorts of group-thinking, woo and poor reasoning, whether religious, political, economic or something else. Religion is an easy target because it’s overflowing with all of those traits, but it’s not the only target we need to shoot down.

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

– the chaplain

Filed under: atheism, humanism, rationalism, religion

Cue the Violins…

Published

the chaplain

on October 15, 2011

I’ve been dogsitting my son’s Golden Retriever for the past week while my son and his bride have been honeymooning in the Caribbean. As I reached into the dog’s snack box to dig out a treat for her, I noticed the back of the box:

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

WARNING!

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

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

– the chaplain

Filed under: humor, pets, society

Battle of the Billboards

Published

the chaplain

on September 30, 2011

I just received an amusing email from One News Now regarding a billboard battle in Toledo, Ohio. Here it is in its entirety:

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

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

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

– the chaplain

Filed under: religion, sex, society

More Stupid Church Signs

Published

the chaplain

on August 28, 2011

Having emerged unscathed from a 5.8 earthquake and a category 1 hurricane within the past week, I’ll comment on a couple of stupid church signs I saw recently.

The first sign said,

Jesus Christ is the Answer…

Now what is your question?

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

What is the sum of 2 + 2?

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

Let’s try another one.

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

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

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

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

God is All
All is Well

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

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

– the chaplain

Filed under: atheism, rationalism, religion

God, No! A(nother) Book Review

Published

the chaplain

on August 17, 2011

Title: God, No! Signs You May Already Be and Atheist and Other Magical Tales
Author: Penn Jillette
Publisher: Simon & Schuster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bible’s Commandments

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

One Atheist’s Suggestions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jillette’s counter to faith is this:

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

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

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

– the chaplain

Filed under: atheism, literature

Trust?

Published

the chaplain

on August 3, 2011

I came across this tidbit and had to get your opinion:

Umm, okay…

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

–the chaplain

Filed under: religion

No Comfort

Published

the chaplain

on August 2, 2011

In my last post, I wrote about some drivel that was published in a Christian funeral bulletin. In my view, that doggerel was tasteless, but at least it was well-intended. I think the story re-posted below surpasses the previous one in tackiness, as it sets out the most egregious example I’ve ever seen of using a funeral as a bully pulpit to scare people into greater religiosity. Read it for yourself and see what you think.

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

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

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

– the chaplain

Filed under: indoctrination, language, religion, spiritual abuse

Cold Comfort

Published

the chaplain

on July 21, 2011

I got a peek at a Christian funeral program recently, and found this allegedly comforting bit of verse on the back page (author either unknown or unwilling to admit complicity):

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

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

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

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

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

– the chaplain

Filed under: atheism, indoctrination, religion