Good Reason

It's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to stay wrong.

Category: religion (page 25 of 36)

Forced into deception, poor things

11 December 2008 / / Comments Off on Forced into deception, poor things

This article is rather odd.

A call to give religion full voice in the public square

Because, as we all know, theocrats have had such a hard time getting any representation at all these days.


Major presidential candidates shunning evangelical Christian leader


Christians in Washington state protesting atheists putting up one sign in a public place

The article centers on the remarks of one Eddie S. Glaude Jr., a professor of religion at Princeton, which apparently is a real job.

The professor says Obama’s ode to the power of faith “as an active, palpable agent in the world and in my own life” reached a conclusion that actually cuts people out of public political expression or forces them to disguise their true religious motivation. Obama said,

I believe that democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal values.

Right. If you’re (say) against abortion, your religious reasons aren’t going to cut it with people who aren’t members of your church. You need to put it in (as Obama says) ‘universal values’. So what’s the problem?

Glaude said this would mean only those who argue from reason, i.e. facts or science, not from revelation, can make their case in the public square.

Oh, that we lived in such a world. People should be embarrassed to claim that the voices in your head should trump facts and science, but here is Mr Glaude unabashedly claiming exactly this.

He rejects this attempt to “tidy up” the mess of democratic conversation, saying it leads to an “unchristian result – people won’t speak the truth and will be forced to mislead to make their voices heard.”

Shorter Glaude: accept what we say without criticism or analysis — or we’ll be forced to lie to you.

Except this isn’t an un-Christian result at all. Christians routinely and habitually lie in order to get their agenda passed. Look at Proposition 8, fronted by the LDS Church, who staked the election on false and misleading claims.

[A]dvertisements for the “Yes” campaign also used hypothetical consequences of same-sex marriage, painting the specter of churches’ losing tax exempt status or people “sued for personal beliefs” or objections to same-sex marriage, claims that were made with little explanation.

Another of the advertisements used video of an elementary school field trip to a teacher’s same-sex wedding in San Francisco to reinforce the idea that same-sex marriage would be taught to young children.

“We bet the campaign on education,” Mr. Schubert said.

Or the deception of creationists, notably those involved in the famous Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. Judge Jones said in his decision:

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

And, of course, the way Christians seem to routinely portray atheists as a pack of amoral hedonists in need of salvation instead of, well, regular people.

These examples of dishonesty aren’t anomalous. Shading the facts is necessary when the facts don’t support your deeply-held worldview. But as someone who strives for reality-based living, I resent this view that we need to treat superstitious ignorance with the same regard as science and reason. It’s insulting for Glaude to say that he shouldn’t even have to try and convince non-believers. Forced to lie? No. Forced to reason.

GM’s new ad campaign a little heavy-handed

9 December 2008 / / Comments Off on GM’s new ad campaign a little heavy-handed

funny pictures

Story

Terrorism has no religion?

1 December 2008 / / 4 Comments

Here’s a meme to watch, and it’s been popping up pretty frequently lately: “Terrorism has no religion.” People mean different things by it, so let’s scan some news stories.

Meaning one: People in religions should not be persecuted for the actions of their most violent minorities.

This article is from 2002, and the quote is from Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain, talking about 9/11.

For me and many of my colleagues in the MCB, there is no such thing as family life any more; we are under so much pressure. It cannot be right that an entire civilisation is tarnished because of the actions of a few. Terrorism has no religion. We must not fall into the trap of responding with anger and hate. Our emphasis should be on justice, not vengeance.

Okay, scapegoating sucks. And in many of the news stories that contain this phrase, they’re trying to tamp down religiously-motivated violence between Hindus and Muslims. A real nightmare scenario. I get that.

But here’s the other reading, and it’s this one I object to:

Meaning two: Extremists are not members of any religion.

Senior Congress leader B. Janardhan Poojary has said the terrorism has no religion and this has been revealed in the arrests of alleged Hindu extremists in connection with the Malegaon blast case.

Mr. Poojary condemned the Malegaon blasts by the Hindu community and said the “People who commit acts of aggression in the name of Hinduism are not Hindus. People who take to violence in the name of Islam are not Muslim.”

Does he mean they’re not good Hindus or Muslims? No, he’s saying they’re simply not Hindus or Muslims at all, which is untrue.


About one instant before 5 guys stopped being Muslims, protecting Islam from criticism.

Here’s another recent article on the same theme.

Bollywood star Aamir Khan wrote on his blog on Friday that politicians may try to use the Mumbai terror attack to their own advantage and stressed that terrorists have no religion.

“I dread to think of how various political parties are now going to try and use this tragedy to further their political careers. At least now they should learn to not divide people and instead become responsible leaders,” wrote Aamir on his blog.

“When will these politicians realise and admit that terrorists have no religion. Terrorists are not Hindu or Muslim or Christian. They are not people of religion or god. They are people who have gone totally sick in their head and have to be dealt with in that manner,” he added.

Does he mean that terrorism is not confined to one religion? No, he’s saying that a religious person in the midst of committing a terrorist act ceases to be a member of that religion.

This seems like an attempt to shield religions from criticism by performing ad hoc disavowals of anyone who commits a terrorist act. But this is irresponsible. You can’t raise someone in a faith, tell them the doctrines are literally true and must be obeyed, tell them that they must always be true to their faith, teach that they must sacrifice for the cause, and then cut them loose when they sacrifice their lives in a mistaken effort to promote their religious ends. Religions are responsible for the consequences of their doctrines.

I wish people in religions could honestly confront the possibility that they enable terrorism by promoting unquestioning faith as a virtue and holding out the hope of an eternal future of happiness if followers obey the commands of a god. But I suppose that’s too much to ask.

God shoots, rescues man

24 November 2008 / / Comments Off on God shoots, rescues man

In the news:

COVINGTON, La. (AP) — R.J. Richard says he doesn’t normally put his cell phone in his chest pocket. But he says it saved his life the one time he did.

The 68-year-old man from Covington, La., was mowing the lawn on his 5-acre property when a stray bullet from nearby woods struck that cell phone. He figured a rock kicked up by his tractor hit him. That is, until he took out the phone and a .45-caliber bullet fell from its case.

Richard told The Times-Picayune of New Orleans he doesn’t think it was a coincidence, either.

“I look at this as God telling me to put my cell phone in that pocket, and I’m grateful and humbled,” he said.

He may not think it’s a coincidence, but with so many people getting shot, it’d be unusual if someone didn’t escape once in a while.

But why give the credit to a god? That’s who allowed someone to shoot him in the first place. You could use this story as evidence of a perfectly evil god. “God tried to make someone kill me, but I managed to thwart his malevolent intentions with my phone.”

Meanwhile, God’s been killing people left and right. We can’t hear their stories about how God didn’t save them because they’re no longer around to tell us. We only hear from the survivors.

Would they rather win elections or go to heaven?

19 November 2008 / / 1 Comment

Can you throw God under a bus so big that he can’t lift it?

Giving Up on God

By Kathleen Parker

Wednesday, November 19, 2008; 12:00 AM

As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit.

Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D.

I’m bathing in holy water as I type.

To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn’t soon cometh.

Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. And, the truth — as long as we’re setting ourselves free — is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that.

I think she’s figured it out. I don’t envy her email inbox though. It will soon be scorched with the rantings of the True Believers, who really seem to think that overreach is impossible if it’s in the service of the Sky Fairy.

Since the 80s, the GOP has angled for the votes of the Christian Right, and now they’re having trouble separating themselves from the delusion-prone. It’s a lose-lose for them.

Option 1: Continue to play to the Christianist right, and alienate even more moderate voters and intellectual conservatives until the Republican Party really is a tiny regional faction, or

Option 2: Cut the Christianists loose in an effort to move center-ward. They won’t be happy about that, and they don’t have to stay with the GOP. Watch as some of them move ever farther into extremist country. The Constitution Party (or worse) will experience an influx, and the Republican Party will shrink.

Too bad for them that the trouble centers around an all-powerful being whose will must be guessed at. That makes this conflict both high-stakes and unresolvable. An explosive combination.

Religion in the news: Gayness edition

18 November 2008 / / Comments Off on Religion in the news: Gayness edition

The divine will can be so inscrutable sometimes.

Got wildfires? Must be teh gays.

Today, people are running for their lives as 800 California homes have burned down and the firestorm is spreading like a nuclear holocaust. Yet, the radical homosexual anarchists rampage upon the streets of this state demanding the destruction of marriage and family, and the establishment of their socialistic dark vision for society.

You see, the problem is this: God has plans for California in the near days ahead. Thus, these attempts to force an ungodly tyranny on this state are being met blow with blow by God. God is saying, “California shall be a refuge for America when the catastrophes come. California belongs to Me, not the advocates of sexual anarchy.”

Blow with blow by God. Heh.

Actually, it’s my fault. I haven’t been marking exams fast enough, and God is displeased. Sorry about that, everyone.

In other news, Focus on the Family is laying off people.

Focus on the Family announced this afternoon that 202 jobs will be cut companywide, bringing the total number of employees to around 950.

Focus on the Family is poised to announce major layoffs to its Colorado Springs-based ministry and media empire today. The cutbacks come just weeks after the group pumped more than half a million dollars into the successful effort to pass a gay-marriage ban in California.

It can’t be that God is displeased, because James ‘Spanky‘ Dobson is fighting gays, which is always good, infinity, no touchbacks. Wonder what he thinks God’s trying to tell him.

But here’s a guy who knows what God’s all about.

When asked about his perspective on social issues—gay marriage, abortion—Prince tapped his Bible and said, “God came to earth and saw people sticking it wherever and doing it with whatever, and he just cleared it all out. He was, like, ‘Enough.’ ”

The comments were made by this man:

Meme war: religion and family

13 November 2008 / / 4 Comments

Memeplexes are groups of memes (or ideas). They do the same kinds of things that organisms do: they survive when people believe them, they reproduce when people spread them around, and they die when people stop believing them. Religions are memeplexes (though there are others), and we can learn a lot about them when we examine the memes (sort of like genes) that help them survive.

One good strategy for a successful memeplex would be to have some way to fight off rival memeplexes — an immune system, if you will. A religion that has a ‘we’re the only true church’ meme is using this kind of strategy. But the struggle isn’t just between rival religions. Another formidable rival memeplex is family. To pass on their genes, people spend lots of time and energy raising families; time that won’t go to supporting and propagating the religion memeplex. Accordingly, many religions have evolved memes that serve to reduce the influence of family.

Here’s one from that peaceful fellow Jesus:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

In other words, if you have to choose between supporting the religion memeplex and the family memeplex, the religion says (surprise!) choose the religion memeplex. Well, it wouldn’t be a very robust memeplex if it didn’t assert its superiority. People who draw a distinction between cults and religions say that cults attempt to isolate the believer from family. This meme is a rather primitive attempt, probably a holdover from when Christianity was a Jewish ‘cult’. The memeplex has gotten more sophisticated now; this meme’s something of an embarrassment.

Another strategy: Religions can set themselves up as substitute families. In the LDS Church, it’s not uncommon to hear people speak about the ‘ward family’. Many religions borrow kinship terms, such as calling a priest ‘father’, or (going LDS again) calling fellow congregants ‘Brother’ or ‘Sister So-and-So’. In my mission field, elders would sometimes jokingly refer to their first companion and trainer as their ‘dad’.

But if religions are trying to subvert the family, how do we explain the rise of ‘family-friendly’ religions, like the Mormons, who elevate the family to primary importance, seemingly at the expense of the religion memeplex?

Well, outright suppression is only one way to compete. Another is to be a parasite, and feed off the energy of the host. By attaching itself inextricably to family rituals like birth, death, and marriage, the religions effectively run off the power of the family. If the two are sufficiently tightly connected, it becomes difficult to imagine having a ‘proper family’ without the religion. With all the rituals under its purview, as well as, say, Christian parenting tips, religion harnesses the power of family, and uses it for its own ends. And so now we see religion trying to claim the family for themselves, with names like ‘Focus on the Family’ or ‘Family First’.

This explains why religions resist any attempts to redefine rituals that (they imagine) belong to them: placing ‘marriage’ or ‘family’ outside of their control separates this parasite from its host. It also explains why religions that already carry anti-gay memes need to oppose gay marriage. It would sanction marriages the church doesn’t approve of, driving a wedge between the religious memeplex and its source of power.

Note also that you can’t get a sensible answer out of a religious believer when you ask why they oppose gay marriage. They quickly dwindle down to twaddle about ‘definitions’ or ‘slippery slopes’, and they can never ever say how exactly this will be bad for ‘the family’. They’ve likely never considered the issue from a memetic perspective, and so they only have shadowy feelings that this must be bad for the religion somehow. And they’re right about that.

The Fundy Club

8 November 2008 / / 1 Comment

Alarik from comments raised an issue I’ve been thinking about quite a bit.

The cynic in me thinks that this was less about the Church defending its principles and more about convincing the rest of the religious right that we’re on their team.

I’ve been hearing this from quite a number of people, both members and non. Also frequently heard: “Evangelical Christians can’t stand the Mormons, so why are the Mormons knocking themselves out for their approval?”

I must admit, this is the way it comes off. But on reflection, I’m taking an ever-so-slightly different view. I don’t think the LDS Church is itching to get into the Fundy Club. I think they’re going to the wall on the gay thing mostly because they want to, and less because they think the Talebangelicals want them to.

I think they’ve seen what American evangelical Christians have been able to do in American politics, and they’d like a little of that action themselves. (The priest class always wants to expand their power, remember.) I think they’re willing to engage in temporary ad hoc alliances toward that end. But I think they’d be just as happy to have the power without having to deal with other Christian groups at all.

Fundies have no love for the Mormons? That’s true, but then again that feeling is mutual. Doctrinally the LDS Church couldn’t care less about impressing them. The Mormons view themselves as the embodiment of the Lord’s will in (these) the latter-days, and they’re equally certain that the evangelical Christians are Not. However, the Religious Right has really shown the Mormons the way — emboldened them, you could say. The Mormons are happy to pull techniques from their playbook, but they’re not looking for a long-term political merger.

So I’m thinking this is less about joining the Fundy Club, and more about getting political power on their own terms, plus making the kinds of changes they want to have happen. If they have to deal with other Christians, they will, but I don’t see it as a priority.

This is just my opinion from way over here. I’m only basing it on my subjective impressions of Mormon ideas about the other Christian churches. Anybody got better instincts than I do?

Proposition 8: Just getting started

7 November 2008 / / 7 Comments

Before the elections, a group called the Courage Campaign Issues Committee ran this ad against California’s Proposition 8.

It copped a bit of flack. Some god-soaked loon jumped up and down, said it was an example of ‘religious bigotry and intolerance’, and so on. I don’t know — I liked the ad, maybe a bit over the top.

But now, after the passage of Prop 8, can anyone tell me that that isn’t exactly what happened? A religion pumped money into an effort to strip rights from a group of people, and it worked. Why wouldn’t they try it? It was a win-win for the LDS Church. Prop 8 passes, they get what they want. Prop 8 loses, they get to pretend it’s the end of days, the world’s getting wickeder, and the fambly’s under attack, which brings in the easily frightened.

Now I think it’s fine for a religion to require or prohibit certain behaviours for its membership — that is, for adults who have chosen to belong to that religion, and I do not include children in this group. But when they try to force non-members to live by their rules, they’ve overstepped. And that’s what’s happened in California.

The argument from the religious right — not that they ever had a coherent argument against gay marriage — was that gay marriage would affect straight marriage. Make it worth less, devalue it somehow. That argument was a furphy, of course, but strange to say, the converse actually seems true. I heard a saying once: When one is not free, I am not free. I don’t know about that, but today it feels like: if someone’s relationship is devalued, mine is devalued. It’s strange, but it feels like my relationship with Ms Perfect is somehow the lesser for Prop 8’s passage. Maybe someday we’ll get married, but that’s only an option because we’re straight. Then again, maybe some religious group will intervene to stop us and enough voters will agree. That’s the world we live in now.

That’s why I think the last line of the ad is the most telling: “What shall we ban next?” Anything that conflicts with their delicate sensibilities, that’s what. Abortions? Why not go all the way and make it birth control? Or alcohol? Hey, what about Asian restaurants? You never did like Asian food, did you, Elder?

Nathan Phelps interview

4 November 2008 / / Comments Off on Nathan Phelps interview

Nathan Phelps, son of Fred Phelps and erstwhile member of the odious Westboro Baptist Church, has managed to break free of the brainwashing inflicted upon him as a child, and is now an atheist. An interview with Nate appears in the Ubyssey.

[Nate and his wife] joined a church, where they met many other families, five of which they became close with.

“Every Sunday, I was listening closely and trying desperately to find something in the preaching or in the words that would convince me that this was right. Even while I was doing that, I was always skeptical…but I never voiced it. I was very good at playing the apologist for the Christian faith. In fact, I had quite a reputation for writing and talking in defence of Christianity.”

The turning point was one Christmas, when Nate decided to teach his children about God. In the end, his son Tyler began crying in the backseat of the car, saying that he didn’t want to go to hell.

“He wanted to believe because he didn’t want to go to hell,” Nate said. “I was just stunned because I didn’t know what I had said or how I had left him with that fear. I thought I was doing a good job of presenting it without the fear.

“Thinking about it after the fact, I realized you can’t do that. With a young mind it doesn’t matter. You can try as much as you want to talk about how good God is, but the bottom line is there’s this intolerably frightening punishment if you don’t accept it. And how does a young mind deal with that?”

It’s worth reading for Nate’s story alone, but as a bonus, Shirley Phelps-Roper herself appears in comments to tell us why Nate is going to Hell, as indeed are all the rest of us.

Remember: God hates figs.

Older posts Newer posts

Meta

© 2024 Good Reason

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑