Author Archive for the chaplainPage 3 of 4

Fundies ♥ Herman Cain

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

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

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

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…

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:

20111015-115700.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

One Atheist’s Suggestions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jillette’s counter to faith is this:

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

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

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

– the chaplain


Filed under: atheism, literature

Trust?

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

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

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

Caring Communities: Nudists v. Churches

You may not be surprised to learn that the deacon and I have spent the past week camping at a nudist club campground. This is our second venture into the world of nudism. Our first similar experience was at a clothing optional resort in Jamaica this past spring.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– the chaplain


Filed under: humanism, life, religion, society

Manifestations of Misogyny

The wizarding world of Harry Potter was touched by misogyny when Afshan Azad, a Muslim cast member who played the role of Padma Patil, was beaten severely for dating a Hindu. According to court records, Azad’s brother “left his younger sister bruised and swollen after grabbing her by the hair, throwing her across a room and punching her in the head and back as she cowered on the floor….” When Azad’s father learned of the situation, he told her brother to kill her. The brother, a good Muslim who had been drinking, then tried to strangle her.

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

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

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

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

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

– the chaplain


Filed under: abortion, atheism, indoctrination, legal, politics, rationalism, religion, sex, society, spiritual abuse, women's rights

Shrink Wrapped Son of Man

Having thoroughly enjoyed Robert M. Price’s response to Rick Warren, The Reason Driven Life, several years ago, I eagerly looked forward to reading his more recent book, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man. Price’s aim in the latter book was to set aside theological interpretations of Christian scriptures and see if there are any passages, particularly in the four gospels, that provide hard, historical data about Jesus Christ. His conclusion, not surprisingly, is that there is no such data to be found anywhere in the Bible.

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

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

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

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

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

– the chaplain


Filed under: literature, rationalism, religion

Maher Hits His Target

I’m a lukewarm fan of Bill Maher. When his aim is true, as it often is on religious issues, he hits his target squarely. But, when his aim is misplaced (think: anti-vaccination hysteria), the ricochets are wild, if not downright dangerous. Maher recently took aim at Texas Governor Rick Perry, another of several wingnuts running for president on the Jesus ticket. This time, Maher’s aim was true.

I’ll count that commentary as a bullseye.

– the chaplain


Filed under: humor, politics, rationalism

A New Choir Member

I know I’ve been remiss on posting lately. All I can say is that, like you, I’ve been extraordinarily busy. And I’m about to get busier. The deacon and I welcomed a new choir member to the chapel today. Her name is Hypatia. She’s seven weeks old, adorable, sweet and feisty. She wouldn’t settle into her crate at all to ride home, so I put her on my lap, where she settled down very nicely.

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

Hypatia Playing With Her Tug Toy

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

– the chaplain


Filed under: pets