Given the topic introduced in yesterday's blog entry, this new article regarding Rudy Giuliani is a perfect compliment and gives example of the use of fear psychology to persuade people toward an instinctive and conservative slant in their decision making, politically or otherwise.
Drumming up the horrific events of 9/11 while threatening that another attack of equivalent proportion is bound to follow, should we the American people vote in a Democrat, is exactly the sort of thing people need to slow down and thoroughly analyze rather than let their gut direct them. It also bares naked the state of American (and particularly Republican) politics and just how low it has stooped. We, the people, are under attack by not only terrorists but by our own politicians who work to inspire fear in us as well! And none with even a hint of admitted disgrace as they go.
All I can think to myself is, "When will the people begin to appreciate reasoned leaders rather than demagogues who ceaselessly browbeat us with their fear mongering and sharpened partisan politics? And where are our reasoned philosopher kings when we need them? For how long can this people and their country continue to endure this? How long will we?"
And Rudy? Shame on you. Shame!
read more | digg story
4.24.2007
Liberals: Energetic and Resilient -- Conservatives: Rigid and Inhibited?
Psychology Today is currently featuring an article called The Ideological Animal. If you have a couple minutes on hand, spend them reading it. I think you'll agree that it proves to be interesting and insightful.
The earlier part of the article discusses a study, initiated in 1969 by two Berkeley professors, that uncovered an empirical correlation between childhood personality and political preference. Conservatives found the results stunning and less than flattering. Not a surprising response considering that the personality traits indicating later conservatism included "easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3." Liberalism, to the contrary, was marked in adults who, as children, were denoted as "self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient." I'm forced to wonder what this means for libertarians, like myself, who weren't highlighted in article. Perhaps we're exceptionally well balanced or a horrific mess; I feel in no position to measure.
Several points in the article reflect that conservatism, in some sense, is a reaction to ambiguity and reliance on authority to resolve or alleviate this ambiguity. Particularly when faced with fearful and uncertain situations, even traditionally liberal people will suddenly--sometimes even drastically--become like their conservative counterparts, even if only temporarily. The article hovers on the study of this effect at some length, analyzing how psychological terror and fear can cause this transition to occur.
In summary, this leaning toward conservatism reverberates a native irrationality stationed in each of us. A sort of irrationality and failure to rely on forethought that can be triggered, literally, by presenting a person with overwhelming and helpless feeling situations and stimuli. It makes sense to become conservative in the face of danger and peril, immediate or otherwise. After all, open-mindedness can bring its own sort of risk into any equation, and can be less than desirable when the equation might decide your own fate.
Still, the article concludes with an antidote to this resulting fear-born conservatism:
That is something to remember the next time you find yourself debating with a Christian, Creationist, or anyone else who may be leaning on gut-instinct rather than logical analysis and reasoning to decide their position. Ask them to go slowly, to use their head and really pause to think about the topic of concern. Maybe people will begin to rely more on their faculty of reason if we'd just gently yet consistently remind them to do so and, better yet, try to always lead by example.
The earlier part of the article discusses a study, initiated in 1969 by two Berkeley professors, that uncovered an empirical correlation between childhood personality and political preference. Conservatives found the results stunning and less than flattering. Not a surprising response considering that the personality traits indicating later conservatism included "easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3." Liberalism, to the contrary, was marked in adults who, as children, were denoted as "self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient." I'm forced to wonder what this means for libertarians, like myself, who weren't highlighted in article. Perhaps we're exceptionally well balanced or a horrific mess; I feel in no position to measure.
Several points in the article reflect that conservatism, in some sense, is a reaction to ambiguity and reliance on authority to resolve or alleviate this ambiguity. Particularly when faced with fearful and uncertain situations, even traditionally liberal people will suddenly--sometimes even drastically--become like their conservative counterparts, even if only temporarily. The article hovers on the study of this effect at some length, analyzing how psychological terror and fear can cause this transition to occur.
In summary, this leaning toward conservatism reverberates a native irrationality stationed in each of us. A sort of irrationality and failure to rely on forethought that can be triggered, literally, by presenting a person with overwhelming and helpless feeling situations and stimuli. It makes sense to become conservative in the face of danger and peril, immediate or otherwise. After all, open-mindedness can bring its own sort of risk into any equation, and can be less than desirable when the equation might decide your own fate.
Still, the article concludes with an antidote to this resulting fear-born conservatism:
"People have two modes of thought," concludes Solomon. "There's the intuitive gut-level mode, which is what most of us are in most of the time. And then there's a rational analytic mode, which takes effort and attention."
The solution, then is remarkably simple. The effects of psychological terror on political decision making can be eliminated just by asking people to think rationally. Simply reminding us to use our heads, it turns out, can be enough to make us do it.
That is something to remember the next time you find yourself debating with a Christian, Creationist, or anyone else who may be leaning on gut-instinct rather than logical analysis and reasoning to decide their position. Ask them to go slowly, to use their head and really pause to think about the topic of concern. Maybe people will begin to rely more on their faculty of reason if we'd just gently yet consistently remind them to do so and, better yet, try to always lead by example.
4.22.2007
The Secret Theism of Atheists
It never ceases to amaze me that so many theists are convinced that atheism somehow precludes a person from morality, or makes them incapable of comprehending and even validating concepts such as justice or ethics without somehow invoking a god. Usually their god, naturally. An example of this sort of thinking springs forth from an article written by Douglas Wilson, entitled Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Virginia Tech. A core argument he tries to make is summarized in this statement:
Earlier in the article he poses his view that atheists are stuck with this detached position, except that "something" else permits us to escape our terminal apathy. He hints:
Well golly, Wilson! You're nearly onto something there!
What Wilson fails to recognize is that many atheists do derive their disapproval and abhorrence of events like Virginia Tech as a logical conclusion of their atheism. And this is where our disapproval comes from; an unmitigated necessity to determine moral and ethical views based on the use of reason and logic. Those are the tools, the very best tools, we have to work with. We have neither religious fiction nor god-given dogma to provide those answers. We cannot disregard the tools of logic or the facts of reality because, well, we have no faith. If we did, we would have nothing at all.
This necessary approach is also what describes a tragedy like the one at Virginia Tech in even more abhorrent terms for the atheist, than for a theist such as Wilson. How so? For precisely the reason he cites in his article; Cho Seung-Hui and many of his victims are dead. We can never rectify nor bring about justice to resolve that permanent condition.
I can and do accept that, and I acknowledge that no one can change or lend justice to that fact. Dawkins and Harris do as well. We are doubly offended, saddened, and troubled because we recognize the permanence of the horror unleashed. Wilson simply can't understand how we manage. We must have a dark secret.
Wilson also can't seem to understand how we atheists don't merely fall into utter apathy about horrible tragedies, or why we don't listlessly shuffle away, left with the unsatisfactory consolation that the universe is simply cruel and uncaring to the plight of humanity. He feels compelled to suspect that we atheists secretly harbor attention with his deity to try and answer away a reality that, to him, rational atheism simply must be incapable of dealing with.
Meanwhile, Wilson and other theists openly grasp at a fictional form of justice that remains wholly unproven and is, in all probability, no more than mere fantasy and wish fulfillment on their part. Still, this hollow form of justice permits them to view tragedy in a notably different tone, no matter if it is true or not. For Wilson, Cho is already facing an eternity of hellfire and torment and as far as he is concerned, justice is being served even as I write this.
Wilson completely ignores the fact that atheists are not apathetic or uncaring, even if the universe itself is. That we atheists, unlike the universe, have a vested interest in the lives of ourselves and our fellow man. A moral, ethical, justice driven interest, even. What an incredible thought! Wilson thinks it an illusion.
Curiously, all these things that we can claim, as rational human beings and as rational atheists, is a position that Wilson cannot demonstrate as a native part of his own theology. This is due to his theology's insistence on faith, rather than reason, as the measure of confidence that indicates whether the theology is valid at all. The result is that, if the theist feels as the atheist does, that sense must come from something other than theology.
And indeed it does. Christians quite frequently use the faculty of reason to derive moral codes and positions that are not provided, or frequently run counter, to those expressed in the book they claim as their moral anchor--the bible.
For example, I don't know of any Christian who thinks that we should stone to death unruly and disrespectful children, even though the bible expresses just such a penalty. Nor do most of the Christians I know believe that we should take a homosexual out and stone them to death, yet another "moral code" and penalty clearly outlined, even familiar to many Christians. This, a blatant admission, indirect as it may be, that the bible is not in fact as rational as they can be. The primary difference is that atheists rely on this tool, on rationality, full-time and by way of necessity, continuing to do so even when religious insensibility overtakes our theistic neighbors.
This explanation is likely not enough for Wilson, however. He has already provided his own, backwards and as erroneous as it may be, professing:
You just keep telling yourself that, Wilson, and maybe you can convince yourself it is true.
"The [ Virginia Tech ] rampage is an atrocity which Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens all believe will never be put right. Justice will never be applied to it. And this lack of justice is just the way it is. So what is wrong with this lack of justice now? Given atheism, nothing is wrong with it."
Earlier in the article he poses his view that atheists are stuck with this detached position, except that "something" else permits us to escape our terminal apathy. He hints:
"My point is that atheists disapprove of this kind of thing [ of the Virginia Tech shooting ], but their disapproval cannot be derived from the premises of their atheism. It must therefore come from somewhere else."
Well golly, Wilson! You're nearly onto something there!
What Wilson fails to recognize is that many atheists do derive their disapproval and abhorrence of events like Virginia Tech as a logical conclusion of their atheism. And this is where our disapproval comes from; an unmitigated necessity to determine moral and ethical views based on the use of reason and logic. Those are the tools, the very best tools, we have to work with. We have neither religious fiction nor god-given dogma to provide those answers. We cannot disregard the tools of logic or the facts of reality because, well, we have no faith. If we did, we would have nothing at all.
This necessary approach is also what describes a tragedy like the one at Virginia Tech in even more abhorrent terms for the atheist, than for a theist such as Wilson. How so? For precisely the reason he cites in his article; Cho Seung-Hui and many of his victims are dead. We can never rectify nor bring about justice to resolve that permanent condition.
I can and do accept that, and I acknowledge that no one can change or lend justice to that fact. Dawkins and Harris do as well. We are doubly offended, saddened, and troubled because we recognize the permanence of the horror unleashed. Wilson simply can't understand how we manage. We must have a dark secret.
Wilson also can't seem to understand how we atheists don't merely fall into utter apathy about horrible tragedies, or why we don't listlessly shuffle away, left with the unsatisfactory consolation that the universe is simply cruel and uncaring to the plight of humanity. He feels compelled to suspect that we atheists secretly harbor attention with his deity to try and answer away a reality that, to him, rational atheism simply must be incapable of dealing with.
Meanwhile, Wilson and other theists openly grasp at a fictional form of justice that remains wholly unproven and is, in all probability, no more than mere fantasy and wish fulfillment on their part. Still, this hollow form of justice permits them to view tragedy in a notably different tone, no matter if it is true or not. For Wilson, Cho is already facing an eternity of hellfire and torment and as far as he is concerned, justice is being served even as I write this.
Wilson completely ignores the fact that atheists are not apathetic or uncaring, even if the universe itself is. That we atheists, unlike the universe, have a vested interest in the lives of ourselves and our fellow man. A moral, ethical, justice driven interest, even. What an incredible thought! Wilson thinks it an illusion.
Curiously, all these things that we can claim, as rational human beings and as rational atheists, is a position that Wilson cannot demonstrate as a native part of his own theology. This is due to his theology's insistence on faith, rather than reason, as the measure of confidence that indicates whether the theology is valid at all. The result is that, if the theist feels as the atheist does, that sense must come from something other than theology.
And indeed it does. Christians quite frequently use the faculty of reason to derive moral codes and positions that are not provided, or frequently run counter, to those expressed in the book they claim as their moral anchor--the bible.
For example, I don't know of any Christian who thinks that we should stone to death unruly and disrespectful children, even though the bible expresses just such a penalty. Nor do most of the Christians I know believe that we should take a homosexual out and stone them to death, yet another "moral code" and penalty clearly outlined, even familiar to many Christians. This, a blatant admission, indirect as it may be, that the bible is not in fact as rational as they can be. The primary difference is that atheists rely on this tool, on rationality, full-time and by way of necessity, continuing to do so even when religious insensibility overtakes our theistic neighbors.
This explanation is likely not enough for Wilson, however. He has already provided his own, backwards and as erroneous as it may be, professing:
"But even the new atheists cannot bring themselves to acknowledge this. This is because they are created in the image of God, and they know better."
You just keep telling yourself that, Wilson, and maybe you can convince yourself it is true.
4.21.2007
Who is afraid of the big, bad Dawkins?
Jonathan Luxmoore, author of Rethinking Christendom: Europe's Struggle for Christianity, sounds like a man filled with fear. At nearly every turn in his recent article, The Dawkins Delusion (a title giving parody to Richard Dawkin's popular new book, The God Delusion), Luxmoore informs readers about their soon to be overlords--atheist invaders--led by their staunch and patronizing leader, none other than Dawkins himself.
Luxmoore, for his part, holds little hesitation in acquainting us with Dawkins' brilliance as a biologist and, alongside, his equally hideous ability in what Luxmoore describes as "moral speculation." According to him, Dawkins' views of morality are in fact despotic in tone, well beyond merely being uncivilized. He explains:
Atheist invaders, indeed. As I read his article, an atheist myself mind you, I could hardly determine if I should gleefully cheer for the advances of atheism in popular and political culture, or cringe in fear at the bloodcurdling monster which has been unleashed in the form of the famous and Orwellian sounding Dawkins that Luxmoore describes.
The feeling was but a momentary one, and once I shook off the notion that Luxmoore might actually be onto something, I instead realized that he was a horribly paranoid and exceptionally bright fellow, not to mention notably religious in some fashion; a dangerous concoction if there ever were one. While he manages to be infectious through his writing, his summary of the atheist invasion remains unconvincing and difficult to digest as terrifying.
Let's be clear here; Dawkins and his ideas, his atheism, much of it is a threat to the religious status quo. Of course it is intimidating, even threatening. Yet, the real source of Luxmoore's fear and anxiety rest with the fact that the Dawkins and the atheist arguments he makes may be both more convincing and sensible than his own. It must be troubling to realize this, especially if you are suspicious about atheist invaders to begin.
Hence, we find Luxmoore characterizing Dawkins in a way that some might describe Iran's President Ahmadinejad, should he somehow be running rampant in the streets of Oxford as a famous biologist in the place of Dawkins. And we find a lurid, even terrifying atmosphere, seeping through Luxmoore's descriptions and synopsis; Dawkins' atheist campaign holds a "chilling eugenic undertone"; Dawkins' influential friends and formidable resources; the atheist crusaders who have risen and "set to fight" as Dawkins sounds the horn against religious fanaticism. Luxmoore paints quite a vivid picture, but a picture designed in the broad strokes of insecurity and tinted with an overriding sense of false, even mildly apocalyptic, religious persecution.
Despite all this, I have to say that his article was still a thought provoking one. It caused me to pause and reflect that we, as atheists, have a duty to ourselves and our fellow man--of any religious persuasion--to ensure that we do not somehow overstep the boundaries of equality, of rational morality, and of liberty as qualities endeared by the vast majority of reasonable human beings that we know. For that much, at least, I sincerely thank Luxmoore for his article.
Luxmoore, for his part, holds little hesitation in acquainting us with Dawkins' brilliance as a biologist and, alongside, his equally hideous ability in what Luxmoore describes as "moral speculation." According to him, Dawkins' views of morality are in fact despotic in tone, well beyond merely being uncivilized. He explains:
"Language like this would sound familiar to those who remember the campaign against religious faith in Eastern Europe, where claims about religion's social divisiveness were used by totalitarian regimes to justify savage repression...The utilitarian morality favored by Dawkins was given free reign."
Atheist invaders, indeed. As I read his article, an atheist myself mind you, I could hardly determine if I should gleefully cheer for the advances of atheism in popular and political culture, or cringe in fear at the bloodcurdling monster which has been unleashed in the form of the famous and Orwellian sounding Dawkins that Luxmoore describes.
The feeling was but a momentary one, and once I shook off the notion that Luxmoore might actually be onto something, I instead realized that he was a horribly paranoid and exceptionally bright fellow, not to mention notably religious in some fashion; a dangerous concoction if there ever were one. While he manages to be infectious through his writing, his summary of the atheist invasion remains unconvincing and difficult to digest as terrifying.
Let's be clear here; Dawkins and his ideas, his atheism, much of it is a threat to the religious status quo. Of course it is intimidating, even threatening. Yet, the real source of Luxmoore's fear and anxiety rest with the fact that the Dawkins and the atheist arguments he makes may be both more convincing and sensible than his own. It must be troubling to realize this, especially if you are suspicious about atheist invaders to begin.
Hence, we find Luxmoore characterizing Dawkins in a way that some might describe Iran's President Ahmadinejad, should he somehow be running rampant in the streets of Oxford as a famous biologist in the place of Dawkins. And we find a lurid, even terrifying atmosphere, seeping through Luxmoore's descriptions and synopsis; Dawkins' atheist campaign holds a "chilling eugenic undertone"; Dawkins' influential friends and formidable resources; the atheist crusaders who have risen and "set to fight" as Dawkins sounds the horn against religious fanaticism. Luxmoore paints quite a vivid picture, but a picture designed in the broad strokes of insecurity and tinted with an overriding sense of false, even mildly apocalyptic, religious persecution.
Despite all this, I have to say that his article was still a thought provoking one. It caused me to pause and reflect that we, as atheists, have a duty to ourselves and our fellow man--of any religious persuasion--to ensure that we do not somehow overstep the boundaries of equality, of rational morality, and of liberty as qualities endeared by the vast majority of reasonable human beings that we know. For that much, at least, I sincerely thank Luxmoore for his article.
"What Atheism Offers" series
Earlier today I stumbled across a series of articles, "A Better Life Without God: What Atheism Offers," tendering a look at atheism and what it can offer to the resulting non-believer. In due course, it provides a fairly solid if not brief overview of some of the major misconceptions and core positions related to atheism, as well as the "how and why" atheism is a valuable starting point for a rational person to approach his or her philosophy in life.
Some of the series highlights are common fare, such as the statement, "The atheist, on the other hand, sees this life, the one each of us is currently living, as all we get. Death is final." In fact, the author readily admits that, "This series is written not for convinced atheists...but for those sitting on the fence..."
With this as a goal, the series does seem to provide a cursory yet informative look at atheism--including comments to ensure the reader understands the wide range of possible beliefs and philosophy that can be found in any particular atheist--while not drenching the reader with the heavier and more philosophical arguments for atheism that can be offered.
Even if you are already an atheist, the site looks as though they are attempting to inspire and instigate debate and conversation among visitors, so it may hold some future wealth for interaction and introspection. Perhaps something akin, though less visual, to the recent and often amusing YouTube video-dialogues between the self-described "Amazing Atheist" and other video-atheists and video-Christians alike.
read more | digg story
Some of the series highlights are common fare, such as the statement, "The atheist, on the other hand, sees this life, the one each of us is currently living, as all we get. Death is final." In fact, the author readily admits that, "This series is written not for convinced atheists...but for those sitting on the fence..."
With this as a goal, the series does seem to provide a cursory yet informative look at atheism--including comments to ensure the reader understands the wide range of possible beliefs and philosophy that can be found in any particular atheist--while not drenching the reader with the heavier and more philosophical arguments for atheism that can be offered.
Even if you are already an atheist, the site looks as though they are attempting to inspire and instigate debate and conversation among visitors, so it may hold some future wealth for interaction and introspection. Perhaps something akin, though less visual, to the recent and often amusing YouTube video-dialogues between the self-described "Amazing Atheist" and other video-atheists and video-Christians alike.
read more | digg story
Bigots assail Christians on Supreme Court (or so says Bill Donohue)
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, is practically foaming at the mouth about "bigots"--atheist and abortion activists, this time--who have cried foul about the five Supreme Court Justices who, more than coincidently, happen to be Catholic.
Keep in mind, Donohue is the same rabid mouth who exclaimed that a plan by Cosimo Cavallaro, a New York artist (who like Donohue is Catholic), to build a 6-foot tall naked Jesus made of chocolate was "an all-out war on Christianity" and was "one of the worse assaults on Christian sensibilities ever." Perhaps a white chocolate Jesus would've been far more acceptable, we might infer.
Donohue has also received flack for various comments he has made on television and radio appearances, including a reference to Hollywood in which he stated:
Frankly, Donohue has shown a particular venom for all things anal--his own comments being the exception. A person frequently leaves his appearances with the distinct impression that they have just had a brush a particularly strong case of paranoid homophobia.
Could it be an indicator that Donohue is the Catholic equivalent of Ted Haggard? You know, viciously glib about gays and the gay lifestyle when the spotlights are on, but secretly harboring a muscular boy-toy and meth-addiction to fritter his away his free time?
read more | digg story
"The only thing Julianne Malveaux likes better than abortion is Catholic bashing...We need more, not fewer, Catholics on the Supreme Court. But not of the Ted Kennedy kind. We need more loyal sons and daughters."Umm-hmm. I'm sure Julianne, an American Atheist blogger, I'm sure she runs out to have recreational abortions at every opportunity, she just loves them so much.
Keep in mind, Donohue is the same rabid mouth who exclaimed that a plan by Cosimo Cavallaro, a New York artist (who like Donohue is Catholic), to build a 6-foot tall naked Jesus made of chocolate was "an all-out war on Christianity" and was "one of the worse assaults on Christian sensibilities ever." Perhaps a white chocolate Jesus would've been far more acceptable, we might infer.
Donohue has also received flack for various comments he has made on television and radio appearances, including a reference to Hollywood in which he stated:
"Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, okay? And I'm not afraid to say it...Hollywood likes anal sex."Is he...is he insinuating that Hollywood Jews have a particular taste for anal sex? When confronted about his inane anti-Semitism, well, let's just say it contained a solid entertainment value.
Frankly, Donohue has shown a particular venom for all things anal--his own comments being the exception. A person frequently leaves his appearances with the distinct impression that they have just had a brush a particularly strong case of paranoid homophobia.
Could it be an indicator that Donohue is the Catholic equivalent of Ted Haggard? You know, viciously glib about gays and the gay lifestyle when the spotlights are on, but secretly harboring a muscular boy-toy and meth-addiction to fritter his away his free time?
read more | digg story
4.20.2007
MSNBC Blasts Jack Thompson's Blame of Video Games for VT Shootings
An article, by Winda Benedetti of MSNBC, provides some needed smack-down to religious anti-gaming Jack Thompson's insistence on video gaming as a center piece of blame for the Virginia Tech shootings.
I highly recommend giving the article a good once over, but feel justified in providing a couple highlights for those who want the skinny in brief. Referring to Thompson's claim that Cho Seung-Hui was undoubtedly a gamer, we have since learned:
In all, it needs to be repeated that Jack Thompson is a complete jackass. More importantly, it should be stated that Jack Thompson is a jackass for this reason, if none other; His accusations trivialize and ignore the real and underlying causes which exist for this and other tragedies. His nonsense defers attention and muddies the sensibilities of the uniformed who may subscribe to his baseless and irrational claims, diverting needed focus from the aspects of these tragedies that we do need to acknowledge. Namely among those are the issues of depression, delusion, anti-social and violent behavior (in this case expressed through Cho's writing and plays), and of course, how our society and it's officials may have failed to counter-act events which can lead to tragic situations like those at Virginia Tech.
Clearly, Jack Thompson does more harm than he has ever helped. His lies and grandstanding in the name of a cause having absolutely no foundation in reality is wholly reflective of his ongoing and counter-productive irrationality. The public needs to recognize him for what he is, and then move on, forever ignoring his wasteful ranting.
Sadly, he is just the first of many that this holds true for.
read more | digg story
I highly recommend giving the article a good once over, but feel justified in providing a couple highlights for those who want the skinny in brief. Referring to Thompson's claim that Cho Seung-Hui was undoubtedly a gamer, we have since learned:
"Meanwhile, authorities released a search warrant listing the items found in Cho's dorm room. Not a single video game, console, or gaming gadget was on the list, though a computer was confiscated. And in an interview with Chris Matthews of "Hardball," Cho's university suite-mate said he had never seen Cho play video games.The article goes on to mention the ridiculous letter Thompson sent to Bill Gates and Thompson's various failed lawsuits against video game companies along the way. The article picks up again with:
None of this seems to matter to Thompson."
"And for all of Thompson's claims that violent video games are the cause of school shottings, Sternheimer points out that before this week's Virginia Tech massacre, the most deadly school shooting in history took place at the University of Texas in Austin...in 1966. Not even "Pong" had been invented at that time."
In all, it needs to be repeated that Jack Thompson is a complete jackass. More importantly, it should be stated that Jack Thompson is a jackass for this reason, if none other; His accusations trivialize and ignore the real and underlying causes which exist for this and other tragedies. His nonsense defers attention and muddies the sensibilities of the uniformed who may subscribe to his baseless and irrational claims, diverting needed focus from the aspects of these tragedies that we do need to acknowledge. Namely among those are the issues of depression, delusion, anti-social and violent behavior (in this case expressed through Cho's writing and plays), and of course, how our society and it's officials may have failed to counter-act events which can lead to tragic situations like those at Virginia Tech.
Clearly, Jack Thompson does more harm than he has ever helped. His lies and grandstanding in the name of a cause having absolutely no foundation in reality is wholly reflective of his ongoing and counter-productive irrationality. The public needs to recognize him for what he is, and then move on, forever ignoring his wasteful ranting.
Sadly, he is just the first of many that this holds true for.
read more | digg story
Cho Diagnosed with Autism?
While watching clips of Cho Seung-Hui as they had first begun to flit across the internet, I mentioned to my wife that something seemed peculiar about Cho's speech. I didn't mean the content but rather his delivery and mannerism. It seemed to me that he may have had some sort of mental handicap, a suggestion my wife wasn't as certain about, yet now appears to have some basis.
Alongside my tenuous observation, an article appearing in the Mirror.co.uk now provides a possible yet critical insight into Cho, as his grandfather's sister, Kim Yang-San, relays to us in the interview:
It would also seem to reveal a gross negligence on the part of his parents, and a potentially yet equally gross oversight or ignorance on the part of school and mental health officials--in both earlier and later years of his life--all of which may have significantly contributed to Cho's eventual progression toward the horrible events he has now carried out.
I have to remain skeptical that so many people could have been unaware of Cho's autism, if he was indeed diagnosed as such during his youth. How could the mental hospital he was admitted to not know or fail to recognize this? How could the schools and school officials be so flatly ignorant and unresponsive to this situation? Were there no records of this to notify them? Why did the parents fail to inform others? Or did they? Should he even have been at Virginia Tech?
If true, it seems that Cho may have been a tragic victim of his own sort, one who would only now find a truly terrible outlet for his inner delusions, frustrations, and inability to navigate situations the rest of us take for granted.
Alongside my tenuous observation, an article appearing in the Mirror.co.uk now provides a possible yet critical insight into Cho, as his grandfather's sister, Kim Yang-San, relays to us in the interview:
"He was very quiet and only followed his mother and father around and when others called his name he just answered yes or no but never showed any feelings or (e)motions...Soon after they got to America his mother was so worried about his inability to talk she took him to hospital and he was diagnosed as autistic."Such a diagnosis goes to explain an AWFUL lot about Cho and his failure or inability to engage in normal social interaction with teachers, college mates, and dorm members. A list of autism symptoms, found here, states:
"Prefers to be alone; aloof manner...Not responsive to verbal cues; acts as deaf...Speech and language absence or delays...Abnormal ways of relating to people, objects and events."If this is the case, and Cho was in fact autistic, it signals that he may long have been thrust into interaction and positions of social responsibility that he was simply incapable of handling or even comprehending how to negotiate.
It would also seem to reveal a gross negligence on the part of his parents, and a potentially yet equally gross oversight or ignorance on the part of school and mental health officials--in both earlier and later years of his life--all of which may have significantly contributed to Cho's eventual progression toward the horrible events he has now carried out.
I have to remain skeptical that so many people could have been unaware of Cho's autism, if he was indeed diagnosed as such during his youth. How could the mental hospital he was admitted to not know or fail to recognize this? How could the schools and school officials be so flatly ignorant and unresponsive to this situation? Were there no records of this to notify them? Why did the parents fail to inform others? Or did they? Should he even have been at Virginia Tech?
If true, it seems that Cho may have been a tragic victim of his own sort, one who would only now find a truly terrible outlet for his inner delusions, frustrations, and inability to navigate situations the rest of us take for granted.
4.19.2007
May you be cast onto a steaming dung-heap, thou armpit of Satan!
The next time you find yourself in heated debate with an irrational and immovable fundamentalist, rip out a cannon made of the ilk they will fear and respect; an Old Testament approved biblical curse, courtesy of the Biblical Curse Generator!
This also works great if you want to freak out your atheist buddies by making them think you have had an overnight conversion at the local mega-church. If you want a more Catholic feel to the prank, be sure to compliment it with splashes of holy water and in-your-face thrusts of a large but crudely made wooden cross as you deliver the generated curses.
It also generates a fantastic ice-breaker to use on a salesman while you make a major purchase, such as your next automobile. Few things will help you bargain them down to the rock-bottom price like a biblical curse or three!
Finally, if you are stuck in a long line--perhaps at the Department of Motor Vehicles or even a busy Taco Bell--this makes for a surefire method of speeding things up and convince fellow customers to give you front-of-the-line access. This method seems to work strongest if you show up wearing only a garbage bag.
read more | digg story
This also works great if you want to freak out your atheist buddies by making them think you have had an overnight conversion at the local mega-church. If you want a more Catholic feel to the prank, be sure to compliment it with splashes of holy water and in-your-face thrusts of a large but crudely made wooden cross as you deliver the generated curses.
It also generates a fantastic ice-breaker to use on a salesman while you make a major purchase, such as your next automobile. Few things will help you bargain them down to the rock-bottom price like a biblical curse or three!
Finally, if you are stuck in a long line--perhaps at the Department of Motor Vehicles or even a busy Taco Bell--this makes for a surefire method of speeding things up and convince fellow customers to give you front-of-the-line access. This method seems to work strongest if you show up wearing only a garbage bag.
read more | digg story
Cho possessed by the Devil?
Lauren Green, religious correspondent for Fox News, pathetically asks the question, "Could Cho have been possessed by the Devil? Could that explain the massacre at Virginia Tech?"
Interviewed for the article we learn from Oral Roberts that, "..,there's no doubt that this act was Satanic in origin." Sadly, Roberts informs us that we'll never know if "Cho was 'possessed' or 'oppressed'" by Satan because, well, Cho is dead now.
Fortunately, Roberts was able to determine all this based on "what I've seen and heard in the news." From that I think we can also clearly infer that a little hocus-pocus on the part of Christianity could have averted this absolute tragedy--you know, by casting out a few devils, all that sort of thing.
To be fair to Green, she at least made an effort to include multiple viewpoints regarding the possibility of Satan as an instigator for the massacre. Along the way she wryly informs us that "Atheists don't believe in the Devil or demonic possession," and even speaks briefly with Michael Shermer to learn more on a godless and skeptical opinion of the matter.
Personally, I'm considering an e-mail to Fox and Green to suggest that she expand her role from mere religious correspondent to also become the alien correspondent. It seems equally as viable to believe that malevolent aliens were using mind control techniques to force Cho to carry out the vile events at Virginia Tech, and that they are in fact the true villains behind the scenes. That and video games, of course.
read more | digg story
Interviewed for the article we learn from Oral Roberts that, "..,there's no doubt that this act was Satanic in origin." Sadly, Roberts informs us that we'll never know if "Cho was 'possessed' or 'oppressed'" by Satan because, well, Cho is dead now.
Fortunately, Roberts was able to determine all this based on "what I've seen and heard in the news." From that I think we can also clearly infer that a little hocus-pocus on the part of Christianity could have averted this absolute tragedy--you know, by casting out a few devils, all that sort of thing.
To be fair to Green, she at least made an effort to include multiple viewpoints regarding the possibility of Satan as an instigator for the massacre. Along the way she wryly informs us that "Atheists don't believe in the Devil or demonic possession," and even speaks briefly with Michael Shermer to learn more on a godless and skeptical opinion of the matter.
Personally, I'm considering an e-mail to Fox and Green to suggest that she expand her role from mere religious correspondent to also become the alien correspondent. It seems equally as viable to believe that malevolent aliens were using mind control techniques to force Cho to carry out the vile events at Virginia Tech, and that they are in fact the true villains behind the scenes. That and video games, of course.
read more | digg story
4.18.2007
Rush: Righteous Defender of Video Games?
As a follow up to yesterday's blog entry, I thought I might stun you with this revelation: Rush Limbaugh has slightly moved *down* on the jackass severity system.
Once you've picked yourself up from the floor, keep in mind that it is most likely a temporary situation--surely he'll say something to slide back up the chart. Before you think I've gone mad or have made some gross error, let me elaborate a bit as to how he managed this remarkable feat.
As mentioned yesterday, jackasses tend to prominently exhibit their jackass-ness within short proximity to most major calamities or tragedies. Rush surprisingly demonstrated a bit of restraint and--gasp--even logic, rather than simply throw banal rhetoric and blame to politicize the Virginia Tech shooting. Let me provide some brief excerpts from the conversation between Rush and a caller (or check out the full transcript for yourself here):
Okay...so it wasn't a perfect display of logic or a total failure to start loading his cannons in preparation for blaming something. What it wasn't, however, was some knee-jerk commentary that blamed someone or something external for the tragedy when, as he acknowledges, no one has the first inkling what influenced the killer, so far.
As an additional note unrelated to Limbaugh and in reference to the possibility of Scientology weighing in on the Virginia Tech shooting; I have so far been unable to dig up anything concrete establishing that they have, indeed, blamed psychiatric drugs (or psychiatry itself) as a factor. This is not to say that they haven't--I just don't know for certain--but so far I've not heard or seen anything beyond the source highlighted yesterday. One way or another, the jackass meter is going off, and the jackass may be the site acting as source for the claim rather than Scientology. Go figure!
I did, however, come across this amusing commentary--in the form of a comic strip--expressing how the media as a whole can set off our jackass detectors. This should be a given, as the mass media will happily insinuate and lay blame in any number of ways, before uncovering the true source or cause for an event such as the Virginia Tech shooting. Naturally, this means that virtually everyone in the mass media is a jackass, but you probably knew that already.
Once you've picked yourself up from the floor, keep in mind that it is most likely a temporary situation--surely he'll say something to slide back up the chart. Before you think I've gone mad or have made some gross error, let me elaborate a bit as to how he managed this remarkable feat.
As mentioned yesterday, jackasses tend to prominently exhibit their jackass-ness within short proximity to most major calamities or tragedies. Rush surprisingly demonstrated a bit of restraint and--gasp--even logic, rather than simply throw banal rhetoric and blame to politicize the Virginia Tech shooting. Let me provide some brief excerpts from the conversation between Rush and a caller (or check out the full transcript for yourself here):
Caller: "... What I really think is an issue is video violence, video gaming. I will guarantee you, I'll bet my last dollar in my pocket, that this shooter will be found to have been a compulsive video gamer, and when people are living that kind of lifestyle--and college students do this a lot."
Rush: "Not every video gamer goes out and murders 33 people on the college campus, though. There's more to this than that...In this case, let's not jump the gun on this guy and make him a video gamer. We'll find out soon enough everything we want to know about this guy, and I guarantee you that much of what we find out will be America's fault. Just be patient. This stuff will come out."
Rush, continuing a bit later: "How many millions of people play video games, and how many millions of people have guns? If you start blaming the video games, you may as well demand video game control because it's the same thing when you start trying to blame guns for this. You have here a sick individual, an evil individual who committed a random act. But if you want to start blaming the video games, this guy was this or that, weeeeell, then you've gotta maybe talk about banning them because that's the same tack that's taken with guns."
Okay...so it wasn't a perfect display of logic or a total failure to start loading his cannons in preparation for blaming something. What it wasn't, however, was some knee-jerk commentary that blamed someone or something external for the tragedy when, as he acknowledges, no one has the first inkling what influenced the killer, so far.
As an additional note unrelated to Limbaugh and in reference to the possibility of Scientology weighing in on the Virginia Tech shooting; I have so far been unable to dig up anything concrete establishing that they have, indeed, blamed psychiatric drugs (or psychiatry itself) as a factor. This is not to say that they haven't--I just don't know for certain--but so far I've not heard or seen anything beyond the source highlighted yesterday. One way or another, the jackass meter is going off, and the jackass may be the site acting as source for the claim rather than Scientology. Go figure!
I did, however, come across this amusing commentary--in the form of a comic strip--expressing how the media as a whole can set off our jackass detectors. This should be a given, as the mass media will happily insinuate and lay blame in any number of ways, before uncovering the true source or cause for an event such as the Virginia Tech shooting. Naturally, this means that virtually everyone in the mass media is a jackass, but you probably knew that already.
4.17.2007
Jackass Detector
You may have heard of Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. His 'kit' outlines methods we all can reliably use to detect...baloney...as Carl so gently describes it. If, at this very moment, you are scratching your head while saying, "Carl who? Baloney wha...?," you need to immediately go to your nearest bookstore and purchase a copy of Sagan's Demon Haunted World. The moment you arrive back home, sit down and read it from cover to cover. You will not regret it. You may even write to thank me.
After you settle down and stop gawking at Sagan's brilliant and provoking word-smithing, feel free to come back and finish reading today's blog entry. At that point I will no longer fear exposing you to the jackasses and the ridiculous ideas they have conjured up, all of which I'm about to discuss.
For those remaining (or those of you returning), let's get started! In this installment, I'd like to show you a surefire method to detect a jackass--defined as an individual who frequently disseminates...baloney...in a careless and idiotic manner. I'm trying to be Sagan-like-gentle, here.
Unfortunately, this method of jackass detection usually requires that a truly horrific event occur somewhere in the world. Well known tragedies include 9/11, the Asian-Tsunami, and currently, the tragic shooting at Virgina Tech.
During calamities such as these the primary rule for jackass detection is simple; jackasses will quickly proclaim that a group, lifestyle, activity, philosophy, or political persuasion is to blame for the tragedy. Take note that jackasses do not limit themselves to this cursory list and may blame a wide variety of people, places, or ideas beyond those mentioned here.
You can accurately calculate how severe of a jackass the individual is based on, a) how quickly after the tragic event the jackass makes their blame-announcement, and b) how much time passes between the jackass' blame-announcement and the point it becomes known who or what is the actual cause for the tragedy.
In the case of tragedies caused by natural events, such as hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, or tidal waves, the jackass making the blame-announcement should be considered a jackass of red-alert status automatically; be sure to place such individuals on the very top of your warning lists, and distribute those to friends, family, and complete strangers immediately.
Permit me to provide a few examples of red-alert status jackasses detected as a result of the Virgina Tech shooting:
The first to set off my personal jackass detector was Jack Thompson. By way of an appearance on Fox News (a mere five hours after the shooting) and later by press release, Thompson proceeded to blame video games and video game violence as an underlying and probable cause for the shooting. For those familiar with Thompson, this comes as little surprise, particularly since no information about the killer, his motivation, or his video game habits were known to any extent. So, clearly that means video games are to blame.
He was followed up by none other than Dr. Phil, a jackass of entirely different strain, but clearly capable of holding such a title without issue. He also blamed video games while speaking with Larry King on Larry King Live, stating, "We're going to have to start addressing those issues [ violence in video games ] and recognizing that the mass murderers of tomorrow are the children of today that are being programmed with this massive violence overdose."
Okie dokie, Doc!
It doesn't stop there, however. Maybe your jackass detector picked up an alert on this next one; Ken Ham. You know Ken, right? Also known in some circles as "creationist jackass"?
Anyhow, he whipped up an article speaking on the tragedy, explaining, "We live in an era when public high schools and colleges have all but banned God from science classes. In these classrooms, students are taught that the whole universe, including plants and animals--and humans--arose by natural processes. Naturalism (in essence, atheism) has become the religion of the day and has become the foundation of the education system (and Western culture as a whole). The more such philosophy permeates the culture, the more we would expect to see a sense of purposelessness and hopelessness that pervades people's thinking."
Is it just me, or is he outright blaming atheism for this? Clearly, all atheists are purposeless and hopeless--utterly despondent about the pointless nature of reality and their equally pointless existence within it--so much so that Ken is betting that Cho Seung-Hui, the young man identified today as the shooter, is either an atheist or so influenced by godless science propagandized by schools such as Virginia Tech that he became irrevocably depressed, generating his inevitable urge to commit mass murder.
You know, the same thing that happens to all immoral and uncontrollable atheists. At least, he'd like you to think as much, even if he doesn't really believe such tripe himself. (Not that he doesn't believe it, mind you. Ken has demonstrated with a terrifying sense of frequency that he is capable of believing the ridiculous...and I don't just mean Jesus!)
To wash his hands from any insensibility that you may think you just heard, Ham continues, "I'm not at all saying the person who committed these murders at Virginia Tech was driven by a belief in millions of years or evolution. I don't know why this person did what he did, except the obvious: that it was a result of sin."
Riiiight. Let me just ... place ... your ... name ... there, top of the list.
P.S. My jackass detector went off again--just enough to give me notice to start looking deeper and I'm yet to confirm it fully--but it appears that the Church of Scientology may be blaming this incident on, you guessed it, "psychiatric drug connections."
After you settle down and stop gawking at Sagan's brilliant and provoking word-smithing, feel free to come back and finish reading today's blog entry. At that point I will no longer fear exposing you to the jackasses and the ridiculous ideas they have conjured up, all of which I'm about to discuss.
For those remaining (or those of you returning), let's get started! In this installment, I'd like to show you a surefire method to detect a jackass--defined as an individual who frequently disseminates...baloney...in a careless and idiotic manner. I'm trying to be Sagan-like-gentle, here.
Unfortunately, this method of jackass detection usually requires that a truly horrific event occur somewhere in the world. Well known tragedies include 9/11, the Asian-Tsunami, and currently, the tragic shooting at Virgina Tech.
During calamities such as these the primary rule for jackass detection is simple; jackasses will quickly proclaim that a group, lifestyle, activity, philosophy, or political persuasion is to blame for the tragedy. Take note that jackasses do not limit themselves to this cursory list and may blame a wide variety of people, places, or ideas beyond those mentioned here.
You can accurately calculate how severe of a jackass the individual is based on, a) how quickly after the tragic event the jackass makes their blame-announcement, and b) how much time passes between the jackass' blame-announcement and the point it becomes known who or what is the actual cause for the tragedy.
In the case of tragedies caused by natural events, such as hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, or tidal waves, the jackass making the blame-announcement should be considered a jackass of red-alert status automatically; be sure to place such individuals on the very top of your warning lists, and distribute those to friends, family, and complete strangers immediately.
Permit me to provide a few examples of red-alert status jackasses detected as a result of the Virgina Tech shooting:
The first to set off my personal jackass detector was Jack Thompson. By way of an appearance on Fox News (a mere five hours after the shooting) and later by press release, Thompson proceeded to blame video games and video game violence as an underlying and probable cause for the shooting. For those familiar with Thompson, this comes as little surprise, particularly since no information about the killer, his motivation, or his video game habits were known to any extent. So, clearly that means video games are to blame.
He was followed up by none other than Dr. Phil, a jackass of entirely different strain, but clearly capable of holding such a title without issue. He also blamed video games while speaking with Larry King on Larry King Live, stating, "We're going to have to start addressing those issues [ violence in video games ] and recognizing that the mass murderers of tomorrow are the children of today that are being programmed with this massive violence overdose."
Okie dokie, Doc!
It doesn't stop there, however. Maybe your jackass detector picked up an alert on this next one; Ken Ham. You know Ken, right? Also known in some circles as "creationist jackass"?
Anyhow, he whipped up an article speaking on the tragedy, explaining, "We live in an era when public high schools and colleges have all but banned God from science classes. In these classrooms, students are taught that the whole universe, including plants and animals--and humans--arose by natural processes. Naturalism (in essence, atheism) has become the religion of the day and has become the foundation of the education system (and Western culture as a whole). The more such philosophy permeates the culture, the more we would expect to see a sense of purposelessness and hopelessness that pervades people's thinking."
Is it just me, or is he outright blaming atheism for this? Clearly, all atheists are purposeless and hopeless--utterly despondent about the pointless nature of reality and their equally pointless existence within it--so much so that Ken is betting that Cho Seung-Hui, the young man identified today as the shooter, is either an atheist or so influenced by godless science propagandized by schools such as Virginia Tech that he became irrevocably depressed, generating his inevitable urge to commit mass murder.
You know, the same thing that happens to all immoral and uncontrollable atheists. At least, he'd like you to think as much, even if he doesn't really believe such tripe himself. (Not that he doesn't believe it, mind you. Ken has demonstrated with a terrifying sense of frequency that he is capable of believing the ridiculous...and I don't just mean Jesus!)
To wash his hands from any insensibility that you may think you just heard, Ham continues, "I'm not at all saying the person who committed these murders at Virginia Tech was driven by a belief in millions of years or evolution. I don't know why this person did what he did, except the obvious: that it was a result of sin."
Riiiight. Let me just ... place ... your ... name ... there, top of the list.
P.S. My jackass detector went off again--just enough to give me notice to start looking deeper and I'm yet to confirm it fully--but it appears that the Church of Scientology may be blaming this incident on, you guessed it, "psychiatric drug connections."
4.16.2007
Benedict the Liar
May 15th brings the release of Pope Benedict XVI's new book, Jesus of Nazareth; a title borne through his own personal search “for the face of the Lord.” Benedict admits, even stresses, that the book is not official Catholic Church doctrine and welcomes criticism as a result--a curious but inadvertent admission that criticism of official doctrine does not hold the same openness to analysis. But I digress.
Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, a long-time friend and ally of Benedict, put in his two cents regarding the presentation of Jesus from the Pope's upcoming book by remarking, “The innumerable fanciful images of Jesus as a revolutionary, as a moderate social reformer, as the secret lover of Mary Magdalene, etc ... can be calmly deposited in the ossuary of history.” Do us a favor and set them atop the Shroud of Turin and the ossuary of James while you tuck them away, Cardinal.
So, it is with his book that the basis for my presumptuous smear, 'Benedict the Liar', originates. His marketing jingle, the prima facie draw he offers to one and all, is that the reader will be exposed to the actual and historical Jesus. The real Jesus has finally stood up; thank you very much, Mr. Ratzinger.
While I have no intention of making an argument here regarding the question of Jesus' historicity—mountains of discussion and articles already exist at SecWeb and other forums detailing this very issue—it needs to be said that Jesus' historicity is anything but certain and, for that matter, anything but evidenced as factually true. We just don't know if the biblical Jesus existed. We can't even say it probable without cracking a wayward smile or feeling a ticklish flutter of uncertainty. Well, we atheists can't.
Quite the contrary, it is with ease that we find an army of theologians and well meaning believers who firmly and exuberantly uphold the notion of a historical Jesus as being nearly beyond question. Straight faces and all.
Benedict, for his part, is no slacker when it comes to confidently claiming the actuality of our friend, biblical Jesus. He boldly states, "Yes, it really happened. Jesus is not a myth. He is a man made of flesh and blood, a totally real presence in history."
With this it must be realized that Benedict is a stunning liar. He, more than perhaps any person on the planet, must be apprised to the fullest extent regarding the depths of our knowledge about the historicity of the man-god, Jesus. Who else might we suspect as more informed than Benedict, regarding the evidence? Yet, all this really means is that Benedict knows as much regarding the real Jesus as you or I. Nothing at all, in other words. Direct evidence upholding Jesus as an actual and once living person simply does not exist. Never mind the miracles. Never mind that no one can provide a definitive summary for what the real Jesus was like, what he did, or what he may have actually preached.
Two thousand years of myth, manipulation, distortion, politics, and fracturing of the Christian religion itself have led to innumerable layers of story telling about Jesus--and for all of that, there is no one alive who could feasibly decipher what is or is not true about historical Jesus, should he ever have existed in the first place. Modern Christians seem almost universally unaware that their earliest brethren engaged in heated debate and conflict as to this very same topic. From the get-go, the veracity of Jesus as an actual man was called into question, and this by early Christians themselves.
Benedict representing his version of Jesus as historically accurate is therefore less than honest. It is a downright lie, in fact. An understandable deception, perhaps, in light of the fact that Benedict is Grand Pooh-Bah to millions of Catholic Christians worldwide, but a lie nonetheless.
Meanwhile, we do know an awful lot about 'alleged' Jesus, a topic of keen interest to Benedict. He has spent years railing against proponents and versions of 'alleged' Jesus that he has found most reprehensible.
Still, a cornucopia of 'alleged' Jesus persist and flourish: Liberal Jesus. Reformer Jesus. Rebel Jesus. Not a Jew, Jesus. Black Jesus. White Jesus. Three-gods-in-one, Jesus. The not-a-god-at-all, Jesus. The wave-walker, wine-maker, and virgin-born, Jesus. Gentle Jesus. The love-me-or-burn-in-hellfire, Jesus. Jesus on toast, Jesus. Gay Jesus. Straight Jesus. Celibate Jesus. Beat to a pulp Mel Gibson, Jesus. The Jesus came to America I swear it, Jesus. Don't forget the controversial Westboro, Jesus hates fags, Jesus. Even the 'he never existed' but 'what a great story' Jesus manages to rear his ugly head, from time to time.
Yes, 'alleged' Jesus we know a substantial amount about; feel free to pick a variant with greatest personal appeal. Make up your own, if necessary. Whatever you come up with can hardly be less evidenced or more unbelievable than the many which already exist, including, I might add, Benedict's. Put him on toast, when you feel ready--that alone will knock your Jesus up on the evidence ladder.
Not surprisingly, 'alleged' Jesus seems a significant part of Benedict's frustrated and ongoing outspokenness as Pope, and presumably lay central to his motivation in searching for the “face of Jesus” in the first place.
Yet, when you really start thinking about Benedict's new book, the culminating point of his search, you have to consider that this actually sounds quite odd coming from a reigning Pope. Why search, after all, if not to uncover a previously hidden and unknown Jesus? Just what sort of tripe about Jesus have Christians been teaching to everyone in the meantime? The very premise of Benedict's offer, to reveal the “face of Jesus”, seems to be loaded with all sort of unsavory questions about the historicity of Jesus, and what the Pope won't be telling us in his book.
One unsavory thought that comes to mind is that we must assume Jesus to have been a befuddled mystery even to Benedict, at least until his search ended and his book completed. Fortunately for us all, his examination required a mere half decade to complete. Zillion's of Catholics around the world may now rest easy knowing that Jesus is no longer an enigma; nor to their Pope, more importantly. The search is finally over...right?
It also seems to be a stark repudiation, by Benedict, that the previous Pope had lingered too long and too carelessly on his watch over Jesus, having permitted the public to run rampant with views counter to the one Benedict holds in appreciation—the actual Jesus, if you haven't been following along.
Benedict's intention is not to raise discussion about the historicity of Jesus, but simply to confidently affirm it, lack of evidence be damned, while elevating his particular version for the masses to embrace. There may, as a result, be some tremendously good and new Christian fiction to be found within it's pages. Even we atheists have something to look forward too, in other words.
I must admit that it is a bit early to make such bold statements, considering that the book is yet to arrive on book stands. This also means that I also have to admit that it may be a bit early to call Benedict a liar. After all, he may offer the unexpected admission that his Jesus is really just another 'alleged Jesus', but that he'd prefer you to engage his version instead of those other more appealing but sinfully erroneous ones. For the sake of your misguided soul and all that.
It is also within the realm of possibility that Benedict will provide all this by way of popular comparative example--such as suggesting that the evidence for historical Jesus is roughly equivalent to that for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It could happen, you know. Besides, I bet Benedict would look spectacular with a pirate hat instead of that dumpy out of style miter Popes are forced to wear. Surely the same thought has crossed his mind at least once by now.
However, given that Benedict's buddy, the Cardinal, has had prior access to the book, and therefore was able to establish such confidence in Benedict's Jesus as being capable of putting all other alleged forms of Jesus to rest, it sadly seems to indicate that no mention of the Flying Spaghetti monster will be found inside. Such a shame, that being the case.
No, Benedict is in fact and instead making a clear claim to represent and reveal the historical Jesus better than his careless predecessors. Thanks to his keen research and insight alongside the--ahem--overwhelming preponderance of evidence, he will offer a comprehensibly believable, factually knowable, and once-and-for-all Jesus for our precarious salvation. Which is just another way of saying, Benedict is a liar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)