A clip from the ever hilarious Family Guy show, providing a glimpse into...well, you ought to see for yourself. (This is particularly and perhaps only funny if you a fan of Carl Sagan or have watched his long adored television series from the 1980, Cosmos.)
Showing posts with label Christian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian. Show all posts
5.10.2007
You're excommunicated! OK, maybe...not really...
Is the pope truly infallible? Sure, after his Secretariat of State "cleans" the transcript.
In this case, as MSNBC.com reports, Benedict had given a clear, "Yes...It is part of the (canon law) code," in answer to a reporter's question as to whether Mexican legislators who legalized abortion should be considered excommunicated. In a transcript released today, the "yes" was curiously missing after the Vatican fielded disgruntled reaction ever since the pope's response first hit the news. Apparently other changes were made as well, muting the response into...infallibility, we can only suppose.
Still, the best quote from the article, hands down, comes from Health Minister Jose Gomes Temporao (though somehow I don't believe he is the first to coin the phrase) who remarked, "If men got pregnant, I'm sure this question would have been resolved a long time ago."
In this case, as MSNBC.com reports, Benedict had given a clear, "Yes...It is part of the (canon law) code," in answer to a reporter's question as to whether Mexican legislators who legalized abortion should be considered excommunicated. In a transcript released today, the "yes" was curiously missing after the Vatican fielded disgruntled reaction ever since the pope's response first hit the news. Apparently other changes were made as well, muting the response into...infallibility, we can only suppose.
Still, the best quote from the article, hands down, comes from Health Minister Jose Gomes Temporao (though somehow I don't believe he is the first to coin the phrase) who remarked, "If men got pregnant, I'm sure this question would have been resolved a long time ago."
5.01.2007
Conservative Christians buck PBS for series on atheism
On May 4th, PBS will be showing a three part documentary on atheism that has raised the hackles of some within the Christian Right. Describing it as "demagogic and propagandistic" (sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it--browse the comment section of this blog's article Who is afraid of the Big, Bad Dawkins? if you don't know what I mean), it is amazing how threatening a documentary like this can apparently be to those of the firmly Right. Curiously, that seems to be the cue as to how they generate their own reaction, such as Janice Crouse who is quoted in a CBSNews.com article about the atheism series, and less than subtly threatens what is purportedly at stake by saying,"...airing the program gives credibility and cohesiveness to individuals who seek to undermine the beliefs and values on which democracy and the American dream are founded."
Right. That's the collective atheist goal. Not to mention, we're lacking credibility and so-called cohesiveness, even as Crouse is commenting on a documentary which details the long history of atheism and its pronounced intellectual and rational personalities. As though we just sprouted out of the ground with tin foil hats and all sort of wild and crazy ideas, bent on a (likely communist...can't you hear it under her breath?) goal of bringing down the American democracy.
I swear, Christians can be such simple-minded brutes who reflexively reject any sort of rational inspection or intellectual contemplation of anything that can be seen as threatening to their own world view and philosophy. Real open-minded folk, eh? I suppose, at least for those less-than-moderate Christians such as Crouse, the simple-minded sort of 'good vs. evil' and 'with us or against us' mentality is a powerful draw toward the conservative forms of Christianity they incessantly buzz about.
Right. That's the collective atheist goal. Not to mention, we're lacking credibility and so-called cohesiveness, even as Crouse is commenting on a documentary which details the long history of atheism and its pronounced intellectual and rational personalities. As though we just sprouted out of the ground with tin foil hats and all sort of wild and crazy ideas, bent on a (likely communist...can't you hear it under her breath?) goal of bringing down the American democracy.
I swear, Christians can be such simple-minded brutes who reflexively reject any sort of rational inspection or intellectual contemplation of anything that can be seen as threatening to their own world view and philosophy. Real open-minded folk, eh? I suppose, at least for those less-than-moderate Christians such as Crouse, the simple-minded sort of 'good vs. evil' and 'with us or against us' mentality is a powerful draw toward the conservative forms of Christianity they incessantly buzz about.
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
4.19.2007
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
4.16.2007
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)